12.26.2013

"Defending Jesus"; Facebook advert; Christian duty (an opinion, not a knowledge claim).

What's with this "defend Jesus" advert I've seen on Facebook recently? Hello there, Christians, Jesus defends us, we do not defend Him. Jesus Christ requires no defense. He is the defense. Our job as Christians is to adore, worship, and depend on Him, with all we've got, and to witness to others how He has worked in our lives, in the hope that they may realize equal results; not to "defend" Him [as if such a thing were remotely possible for us] from the ignorance, slights, or slanders of others. This is not to suggest that there is anything intentionally unsavory about an honest desire to defend the Lord. As I see it, when we speak of Christ to our fellow men, with an interest toward enlightening them of His Grace, and His true affect upon our lives, we are not defending our Lord, but giving public testimony to His power, affirmation of trust in His guidance, and glad and grateful acknowledgment of His authority, in God the Father.  Merry Christmas!

- written 12.25.13 -

12.25.2013

Old PFFA BB post, as Urizen; noun/adjective pairings; modifiers

Scavella,

In regard to your exerpts (and I'm only thinking of the first one presently, as the second one is much better, I think), I recall reading somewhere (and agreeing with it) that when people use modifiers they have a tendency to use very common ones, like 'large' 'big', 'small', 'little', 'dark', 'old', and color-words. In the Wordsworth passage I see quite a bit of those kinds of words. I also see some that are redundant, which Eric has already pointed out, like 'craggy' and 'rocky'. Then there's 'sparkling', which probably sparkled a great deal more for readers two hundred years ago. But I will say that if I were to read the passage without some special focus on something in particular, I doubt I would have thought anything at all about the presence or absence of modifiers, or about the particular ones Wordsworth uses. I should also say that I like Wordsworth a great deal, but could never get through the "Prelude". Some of his shorter pastoral poems in blank verse I like considerably more.

All I know is: I have nothing against the use of modifiers unless they begin to call attention to themselves unfavorably, as in: if there are too many, if they seem to function mainly as padding, if they are cliched or redundant, or if someone is overloading his or her lines for some sort of musical effect and doing it badly. I think there's not much worse than a fourth or fifth-rate Poe or Swinburne. I decided to sit and think of a poem or a passage of verse which I think is outstanding, and one of the first bits that came to mind for me was the opening of Shakespeare's Richard III:


Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings;
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visag'd war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now,—instead of mounting barbed steeds,
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,—
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shap'd for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me, as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to see my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain,
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.


Going through it, I see there are a lot of modifiers, mostly adjectives which strike me as being, on average, just as purposeful as the words they are modifying. 'deep' is sort of useless sense-wise, but very strong sonically; 'glorious' 'victorious' 'bruised', 'merry', 'dreadful' and 'delightful' are more than pulling their weight sense-wise, and of course, this is Shakespeare: this stuff is a treat for the ear. 'bruised' echoes 'brows', and then there's the alliterative 'merry meetings', and the alliterative (not to mention sarcastically disparate), 'dreadful/delightful'--'marches/measures'. 'sportive tricks' sounds great, as does 'wanton ambling nymph'. And sometimes the adjectives assist in showing N's contemptuous and jealous mindset, in phrases like 'lascivious pleasing', 'dissembling nature', 'weak piping-time of peace' 'idle pleasures of these days'.

Shakespeare is light on the adverbs, and the ones he uses work well: "capers nimbly in a lady's chamber" is a great line. And later, 'rudely' and 'lamely' both work in stark contrast to 'nimbly'. The word 'breathing' in L21 is a mystery to me, and 'fair' works well once, but not as well the second time. Other than that, without going through the whole passage, I think Shakespeare demonstrates that he is thinking very carefully about all of the words he's using, to hark back to what Donner said.

When I try to think of famous poems which I think could be examples of the disadvantageous use of modifiers, the only one that really pops into my head is "London Snow" by Robert Bridges. Here's the opening bits of that (first, fourth, and seventh lines are indented in the text I copied):


When men were all asleep the snow came flying,
In large white flakes falling on the city brown,
Stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying,
Hushing the latest traffic of the drowsy town;
Deadening, muffling, stifling its murmurs failing;
Lazily and incessantly floating down and down:
Silently sifting and veiling road, roof and railing;
Hiding difference, making unevenness even,
Into angles and crevices softly drifting and sailing.


All those adverbs, Ack!-- It's too much. Now, I know this is a beloved poem by a famous poet, a Laureate no less, and I do admire quite a few of Bridges' poems, but I really can't stand the passage I quoted, and it's mainly because of all the adverbs. We won't even go into the "ings". And no, I don't mean I can even hold a candle to Bridges, even in his worst moments, myself. I just don't particularly care for this poem very much (although it gets better later on), and the reason why just happens to be on topic.

12.17.2013

BB post; on snark vs smarm; criticism; publication; vanity; @ Eratosphere


 Well, I read the article linked to, and I don't suppose I had the reaction I was supposed to have. In fact, I pretty much agree, though with some important caveats, with the quote by Eggers:
 
Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them.
 
 Caveats: I think it's perfectly fine to "be a critic". Being a critic isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I admire Howard Bloom, just to name an example of a critic of poetry who is not also a known poet himself, more than I admire a great many known poets. I think he has done great things in the world of literary critique, and he obviously knows how to read poetry. I love his defense of Shelley, for example, against many famous poets who thought ill of him and claimd he had a "tin ear" - Auden, I think, and a few others. While I don't think Shelley had a great ear, it wasn't a tin ear. If you want to know a famous poet I think truly did have a tin ear, it was _ _. On second thought, nevermind. I always get into heaps of trouble when I mention this great poet. He was a contemporary of Shakespeare, and everyone seems to love him to death. I find many of his works very fine, but by and large I find him almost impossible to read at length. If anyone is curious about whom I'm referring to, my inbox is open.
 
 Another caveat: I think you can dismiss a work of art without being able to create something in the same medium, but it should be something one does rarely, not as a matter of routine. I rudely dismissed a major motion picture in an Amazon review which I thought was not only garbage but evil garbage, but I made sure to point out the movie's technical cred first, and explaind that I thought the film was a waste of the talents of many people who workd hard on getting the film out. One shouldn't just wantonly dismiss works of art—particularly something like a film, which usually requires years of work and the concerted efforts of hundreds of skilled and talented individuals—without expecting someone at some point to call you on it and remind you to mind your manners.
 
 Also, doesn't a "dismissal" of a work of art come with an implied agreement that while the dismiss-or has waved her hand and dismissed, it's granted that the work of the dismis-ee may, and no doubt does, have appeal to other people who do not agree with the opinions of the dismiss-or? The appreciation of art always has been, and alway will be, subjective. Even Ayn Rand, the fountainhead of Objectivism, admits to that, in her book, The Romantic Manifesto. I think a great many people forget that simple fact in the haze of their anger & indignation while loading their slings & arrows.
 
 I was also prompted to read this poet August Kleinzahler's "takedown of Garrison Keillor". I'd never heard of Mr. Kleinzahler before, since I spend my time discovering & reading the work of long dead poets and intentionally ignore the contemporary ones, on principle (except my brethren here on the Sphere, of course, and precious few others, like Richard Kenney, frinstance, whom I had never heard of until I saw his name mentiond by my friend Don L. Lee on a post hereabouts). Well, I didn't care much for Kleinzahler's 'takedown', though I was forced to agree with a lot of what he said, or at least the points made in what he said. I checkd out some of Kleinzahler's poems at the Poetry Foundation's website, and was very impressd with one poem in particular, which I found excellent. This one:
 
 
 It actually excited me, which rarely happens anymore when I read contemporary poetry, particularly poetry in free verse. This poem reminded me of William Carlos Williams at his best, and many others in that modern American vein. The vocabulary, the lists (I have an inordinate fondness for lists in poems), the older language: oaks, poplars, timber, Ford chassis, rock salt., contrasted with a newer, techy language: formaldehyde from the coffee plant,/ dyes, unimaginable solvents—/ a soup of polymers, oxides,... , which brought to mind various late C20 American poets, chiefly Hugh Seidman. His fast, streetwise style is sort of similar, at least in this poem, to the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson. That being said, let me reach for my prophet's hat (*dons prophet's hat*) and predict that the bulk of Kleinzahler's work will not have the same endurance & survivability as many of the poems he so confidently dismisses; or, more correctly: the kind of poems he seems to disdain, and which Keillor favors. I may be wrong, and probably am. But that's my prediction.
 
 I'm very interested in reading Keillor's response to Kleinzahler's rant, if he did respond, if I can find it. I hope he mentiond that the edgy, gritty, & somewhat mouthy Kleinzahler seemd to have forgotten that poetry is not some sort of elitist enterprise, but is for Everyman. I dislike saccharine, preachy, overtly sentimental poetry as much as the next guy; but I know that there are many readers of poetry who like that sort of thing. Hence the Edgar Guests, James Kavanaughs, Rod McKuens, and [insert your favorite homespun and/or "popular" poet here]s of the world. Furthermore, skilled poets who write in that vein can, and often do, make things which are quite beautiful and lasting, and which are more than entitled to a place in the canon. Whether Mr. Kleinzahler likes it or not.
 
 What I really want to say is that I believe the world is, frankly, choked and brimming o'er with poets, good & bad. And of these poets—
 
 and I'm not the least bit interested in the "what is poetry" debate. There's no controversy. If a person makes a pile of words in a certain fashion that the greater majority of intelligent readers will recognize as poetry, and particularly if said person calls her work a 'poem', then it's a poem. The thing worth discussing is whether or not the pile of words, the poem, is worth reading, remembering, and being passed on
 
 —far too many of them seem to be far more concernd with having others read their work than they are about reading the work of others, past and present. My opinion is that we need to slow down, look around, slow down some more, look around some more, and keep slowing down. We need to sit back and begin to appreciate the gigantic mountain of work our ancestors have made for us to enjoy (or not). I spend hours going through various archives: Gutenberg, Google Books, the Internet Archive, Amazon's Kindle, the Luminarium, and many other sites around the Net, and I'm finding poets and authors whom I've never heard of, literally on a daily basis. Granted, many of these people have left work which has been understandably and deservedly swept into the shadowy corners of neglect; but there are an equal number, or so it seems, of people whose work I enjoy very much. I'm especially happy to have not died without having read the longer or lesser known poems of Joel Barlow, Gavin Douglas, Archibald Lampman, Charles Harpur, Richard Watson Dixon, George Darley, Henry Kirke White, Mary Cavendish, Henry Kendall, Jeanne Robert Foster, John Dyer, Edward Rowland Sill, Henry Timrod, James Beattie, Trumbull Stickney, William Collins, William Cowper, Isaac Watts, James Thomson, Felicia Hemans, George Eliot, Robert Southey, Thomas Lovell Beddoes, W.M. Praed, E.B. Browning, Sir David Lyndsay, Leigh Hunt, John Hamilton Reynolds, Abraham Cowley, Robert Bloomfield, Thomas Traherne, and, last but certainly not least, the American poet Albery A. Whitman, who pennd a fair, and occasionally brilliant, epic poem in Spenserian stanza called The Rape of Florida.
 
 I don't worry about publishing my poems (although I do occasionally submit), because I think it's more incumbent on me to pay tribute to our ancestors than it is to spend too much energy, time, and money on making a name for myself, which, I am almost certain, wouldn't be all that big of a name. I really don't care much about formal publication, whether in print or online. I think I may have a few years left in which to at sometime pursue that interest. At present, I have a son who is on the cusp of adulthood who will be in charge of my stuff should something happen to me. I told him point blank: if you don't wish to do anything with it, then so be it. That will be your decision. If you decide to try and see how my work fares in the big world, take your time, do it when the feeling strikes you, if it strikes, and don't worry about it. He's a wicked smaht (Bostonian accent) boy and has a bit of an interest in poetry himself (he tells me he favors trochaic meter to iambic: he's 16), and he loves me a great deal. So all is well.
 
 Just my tuppence.

12.11.2013

On Slavery; Whitefield; attempts at justification via the Bible

In the early 18th century, slavery was outlawed in Georgia. In 1749, George Whitefield campaigned for its legalisation, claiming that the territory would never be prosperous unless farms were able to use slave labor.[18] He began his fourth visit to America in 1751 advocating slavery, viewing its re-legalisation in Georgia as necessary to make his plantation profitable.[19] Partly through his campaigns and written pleas to the Georgia Trustees, it was re-legalised in 1751. Whitefield purchased slaves, who then worked at his Bethesda Orphanage. To help raise money for the orphanage, he also employed slaves at Providence Plantation. Whitefield was known to treat his slaves well; they were reputed to be devoted to him, and he was critical of the abuse of slaves by other owners.[20] When Whitefield died, he bequeathed his slaves to the Countess of Huntingdon.[21] His attitude towards slavery is expressed in a letter to Mr B. written from Bristol 22 March 1751:
 
    As for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with Abraham's money, and some that were born in his house.—And I cannot help thinking, that some of those servants mentioned by the Apostles in their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain, that the Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome. However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all? Had Mr  Henry been in America, I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity of having negroes there. And though it is true, that they are brought in a wrong way from their own country, and it is a trade not to be approved of, yet as it will be carried on whether we will or not; I should think myself highly favoured if I could purchase a good number of them, in order to make their lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You know, dear Sir, that I had no hand in bringing them into Georgia; though my judgement was for it, and so much money was yearly spent to no purpose, and I was strongly importuned thereto, yet I would not have a negro upon my plantation, till the use of them was publicly allowed in the colony. Now this is done, dear Sir, let us reason no more about it, but diligently improve the present opportunity for their instruction. The trustees favour it, and we may never have a like prospect. It rejoiced my soul, to hear that one of my poor negroes in Carolina was made a brother in Christ. How know we but we may have many such instances in Georgia ere it be long? - Wikipedia.
 
~
 
In my heart I feel nothing but contempt for anyone who could work in the slave trade: stealing human beings from their native countries, tearing apart families, packing them into ships like objects without sensation, the brutality of That! alone, dammit, makes me want to forget this Whitefield instantly. But this letter shows perfectly clearly that the man knew that the manner by which the people from Africa were being barbarically torn from their homes and families was wrong; and it shows that he was concerned for their welfare - once here - and knew that they could be educated: that they were human beings of equal status with whites. All that being said, and granted: slavery is not condemned in the Bible, while its barbarity and cruelty is most definitely illustrated, I cannot find it in my heart to apologize for the institution of slavery as it was practiced in any nation at any time on this planet. Of course, work must be done, and labor requires laborers, but you don't go raping and pillaging multitudes of  human societies and human individuals, and you don't pack human beings in ships  like objects! You Do Not do this! Anyone who could stand by and tolerate, or contribute to such barbarity, whether by passive bystanding or willful cooperation, is not a Christian, and is not godly. Yes, we have civilizations that arose from such evil practice, from the vast exploitation, waste, and brutal destruction  of precious human life, but does the end justify the means? If God says yes, then I must accept that. But as a man, and being the sinful creature that I am, my heart cries out an eternal Hell No to the entire idea of constructing any kind of concerted and sanctimonious apologetic for the institution of slavery. 12.9.13