the subject/object and object/object relation in poetry (discussion, not a poem)

[spinkle]

the subject/object relation is the most common conceit or device in poetry. its prevalent form or incarnation is i/you...a relation that is paradoxically the easiest and most difficult from which to write. i/it is a similar relation, but is typically less emotionally charged.

object/object relations are a metaphysical abstraction, a layer removed from subject/object. the immediate result of writing from this relation is depersonalization (not an aspersion--depersonalization can be incredibly useful). you/otheryou is the most common object/object relation and is easily the most clear, as the you/otheryou conceit is itself a grounding, a point of entry into the piece as much as it is also a point of departure for the piece, and still very much indirectly invokes the subject/object relation: the piece arises out of the perception of the object/object relation and thus requires a perceiver in order to occur.

further abstraction (undefinedit/otherit) can occur in an infinite number of layers, each successively losing more grounding until the point at which there is nothing but abstraction, leaving contextlessness with no point of entry or proper approach. however, the subject/object relation still recurs insofar as the author is still related to the writing.

In different combinations, these relations are invoked to form infinite images on multiple levels of concreteness and abstraction. Each piece finds (or, perhaps, is an attempt to find) its own balance between these relations in discrete, unique combinations without ever fully being able to uproot or eliminate the subject/object relation. However, because the poetry itself is external to the poet and exists as an intermediary between poet and reader, the act of writing creates a further relation: reader/*perception* of author--not reader/author. the difference between the two is overwhelming but very well summarized in the Saturday Review by John Ciardi.

"Every good poet writes one more poem than his index shows and that is the total poem of all the others put together. In the total poem, every enduring poet leaves not only his words, his imges, his rhythms, and his forms but a voice that speaks him as an individual, his personality. That personality, however, is a created thing. It is not in the life of the man, it is nowhere but in his poems." -- John Ciardi.

there are infinite reasons to write, boundless points of departure, paths, and patterns. question grounding, play with words, accept challenges, notice all possible perceptions, perspectives, and relations. READ ALL THAT YOU CAN, write from the heart but let the brain learn to control the flow of blood. THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO WRITE but finding your voice is crucial. remember that you are not your poems, but your poems speak you in a way that you cannot.

"Poetry makes nothing happen; it is a way of happening, a mouth." -- W.H. Auden, In Memory of W.B. Yeats

poetry is a powerful form of expression and a tool for exploration, but at its root it is a musical art. Go paint the relations of all things with all the words in the world and never stop writing and learning.

 

[liha]

It would be helpful if you gave a well known examples of each type of relation. I could do it in my head but it would be hard to think of good examples of poetry in these different forms.

 

[alostlittlebird]

I was just going to ask for a few examples.

"Each piece finds (or, perhaps, is an attempt to find) its own balance between these relations in discrete, unique combinations without ever fully being able to uproot or eliminate the subject/object relation."

What do you mean by this? That the complexities of the subject/object are never fully explored, and so the relationship goes on forever with no closure?

 

[spinkle]

i'll post some examples when i can think a little bit more coherently than i can right now.

littlebird, no matter how far a poet attempts to deny involvement in a poem--whether by writing outside of themself [sic] or by burying themself in abstraction, even to the point of offering a reader no context or grounding within a poem--the poet is still involved with the piece by having written it. the relation of the poet to the poem begins as intention on the part of the poet but ends up solely having meaning based on the response and interpretation of the reader. there is closure to the subject /object relation of poet to poem, but only in its perception by the reader by means of engaging with the poem itself.


...if that made any sense.

 

[human paraquat]

hmmmm, I guess I get the points you're making about subject variations, and reader/writer relationship (more concise and comprehensible in your last post, btw)...I just dont know why its necessary to have such a verbose explanation for a simple idea (perhaps Im not getting the whole jist of it).

Regarding structure, I rarely consider it when writing as I think a greater variety of tone and effect are possible in free verse format. I'm not a fan of set rules, rhymes or meter, although I suppose my poetry could benefit from it...

 

[spinkle]

your poetry and writing in general can benefit from any kind of constraints you place on it. You'd be amazed at the impact. I stopped writing with pronouns for four years (except in song lyrics) because I felt i had become too dependent on the i/you relationship as a point of departure.

Learning to write well within structure will give you a great deal more control over your writing when go structureless. It's all about challenge and development....and an attempt to not write a thousand iterations of the same poem.

my initial post was verbose because that's how i thought it when the ideas were ready to come out. It was pretty much stream of consciousness. The idea is simple to an extent but becomes incredibly more complicated when speaking of engagement with all the relations that occur in a single piece, the relation of that piece to other pieces in a poet's index, and to the poet [him]self. There is an incredible amount of interplay between all of these things and i was attempting to define them in terms of the concrete and the abstract, as the poet/poem relationship only occurs abstractly though it appears to be concrete in most discussions.

 

[alostlittlebird]

I understand, and it does make good sense.

"I just dont know why its necessary to have such a verbose explanation for a simple idea "

That's sort of what hung me up.