Rate-a-Poem: Glass

[William Haskins]

By Robert Francis (http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/litlinks/poetry/francis.htm)
(1901 - 1987)

Glass

Words of a poem should be glass
But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

A glass spun for itself is empty,
Brittle, at best Venetian trinket.
Embossed glass hides the poem of its absence.

Words should be looked through, should be windows.
The best word were invisible.
The poem is the thing the poet thinks.

If the impossible were not,
And if the glass, only the glass,
Could be removed, the poem would remain.

[mkcbunny]

3. It has flow, and I can see the meaning, but it's just not making me feel anything.

[Perks]

On the heels of Ars Poetica, it suffers in the inevitable comparison. Too basic in its expression for the weight of the idea it's trying to convey.

[William Haskins]

interesting perspective. i actually think it's successful in a quite different way than ars poetica; namely, the evocative imagery.

[rhymegirl]

It gives me that "glass is half empty" feeling.

[P.H.Delarran]

It feels as though someone is describing something ordinary to me and trying to be interesting. I gave it a three.

[Unique]

I gave it a 4; not because some elements didn't appeal, but because nothing in my world is perfect.

That said, I think it describes a poem as perfectly as words can - it reminded me of a hologram. It's there, yet not there at all.

[aspier]

Same here = 4 but of other reasons than Unique. What mm bugged me a bit was the 'should'. That's a kind of forcing a fact on the reader, a fact that the author isn't prepared to throw open in the dialogue between him and reader. I wonder if when you would say 'words are glass' etc. it wouldn't be better and then you would sidestep the issue. Its a 'your point' thing then and that will force the reader to respond with a 'his thing' - He would think about it and the whole point of the poem would move a bit more into the central middle distance etc.

But a great idea = transparance of words

[aspier]

I gave it a 4; not because some elements didn't appeal, but because nothing in my world is perfect.

That said, I think it describes a poem as perfectly as words can - it reminded me of a hologram. It's there, yet not there at all.

(Come over and I'll make it perfect for you! Mmm I'll try I mean)

How did you get to this remark Unique? You mean a poem should also not be perfect? If then you find this poem has non-perfect elements ... eh shouldn't you then give it a 100? Oeee complicated!

[Perks]

interesting perspective. i actually think it's successful in a quite different way than ars poetica; namely, the evocative imagery.

To me, the imagery in Ars Poetica was varied and thought-provoking. This imagery seems very see-spot-run and, in fact, arguable:

But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

This pulls me directly out of the piece, because it is the glass that demands the shape be taken, the substance being passive. So, if we're debating shape (words) vs. content (idea) to me, it appears the glass wins, when it seems that the poet wishes to convey that it is the idea behind the poem which is most important.

[aspier]

To me, the imagery in Ars Poetica was varied and thought-provoking. This imagery seems very see-spot-run and, in fact, arguable:

But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

This pulls me directly out of the piece, because it is the glass that demands the shape be taken, the substance being passive. So, if we're debating shape (words) vs. content (idea) to me, it appears the glass wins, when it seems that the poet wishes to convey that it is the idea behind the poem which is most important.

Good point! Even links to the discussion re the 'thingness' of words. Here the 'thingness' of the poem ... idea of poem. (See Byron etc)

[William Haskins]

But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

This pulls me directly out of the piece, because it is the glass that demands the shape be taken, the substance being passive. So, if we're debating shape (words) vs. content (idea) to me, it appears the glass wins, when it seems that the poet wishes to convey that it is the idea behind the poem which is most important.

i see it differently. the poem, the words, are the glass around the idea, which the poet thinks should form-fit the concept. in this way, the meaning is seen clearly through the words, which transparently encase, and not obstruct, the thought.

[Perks]

Maybe that's my issue, WH. I love words so much; they are the idea and the idea is words. I don't like trying to separate the two - to pit them against each other. Putting words to a thought breathes life into it - creation, very Genesis.

[William Haskins]

indeed. and that's why words should act as a clear and clean window into the idea.

(this goes back to my musing in another thread on how language falls short of truly expressing ideas; in poetry, true poetry, we get the closest we can possibly get)

[aspier]

By Robert Francis (http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/litlinks/poetry/francis.htm)
(1901 - 1987)

Glass


Words of a poem should be glass
But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

A glass spun for itself is empty,
Brittle, at best Venetian trinket.
Embossed glass hides the poem of its absence.

Words should be looked through, should be windows.
The best word were invisible.
The poem is the thing the poet thinks.

If the impossible were not,
And if the glass, only the glass,
Could be removed, the poem would remain.


This is the 'message' of the poem (for various reasons these positions are stressed ... number of words, rhythm, symmetry etc.) The poet is putting 'words' against 'words of a poem' suggesting that one has 'ordinary words' and condensed 'something else words'. (The glass metaphor is only the 'carrying' level and not the issue. It suggests this transparancy quality. When words are put against condensed meaning, its the meaning that remains, i.s the idea ... the concept 'poetry'. Now this is all quite 'deep' digging. Someone said something re the Ars Poetica. Yes indeed, this is an art-historical poem etc. The only question the reader could be conserned with is whether the message the poet gives is true. Is it true that the concept 'poetry' (condensed meaning) will out last the 'word'? Now this answer should be in the poem if this poem has to have any value at all. Is it? The poet here doesn't know. That's why he uses the 'should' imperative. He rectifies this stern stance by rhyming it (weird rhyme) with 'could' and admits thereby that it 'could be true' etc.

Anyway Haskins, I change my voting to a 5. This is a super poem! Its dialouge and the reader IS halfway to the truth as the poet is! Good poem! Congratulations. I haven't thought about/of this issue for years!

aspier

[trumancoyote]

But glass so simple-subtle its shape
Is nothing but the shape of what it holds.

These lines are interesting when refracted through the questions William posed on the Eye of the Beholder thread.

[Paint]

I gave it a five. I like the twists and turns of it. The comparisons were clever and it had flow, as was said before. The way the words weave around well, words. I loved the way it made you think. Plus I just plain like glass.
Paint

[skylarburris]

In the wake of the last one...it just didn't stand up for me. It seemed almost to typify the poem that means rather than be's

[greendrake]

3. It has flow, and I can see the meaning, but it's just not making me feel anything.


Yes, because it's just glass :-)