Wednesday, January 02, 2008
I Think It's a Theorem...
...and if it's not, it should be: the more you know about a specialized subject, the less you'll like the details of that subject in a movie or TV show about it. They just have to change too much to make it palatable to people without that deep knowledge (and of course they screw stuff up for no good reason too). My dad has a hard time watching doctor shows on TV because he gets distracted by how things aren't that way in real hospitals. I knew a guy who disliked A River Runs Through It because "they're flycasting all wrong" (which is a stupid reason to dislike a good movie, but whatever). One of the reasons I prefer both Bull Durham and Eight Men Out to Field of Dreams (not that I dislike Field of Dreams at all) is that the baseball details in the first two feel much more authentic.
I think that applies in poetry, too. I hate when a poet who clearly isn't more than a dabbler in a field of study clumsily uses that field to try to leap into some pseudo-poetic/philosophical point. I hate when I catch myself trying to make serious use of topics I don't know more about than a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, I realize that I can't put my expertise in certain areas into a poem unalloyed, or the many people who don't share that passion won't connect with the poem. I may love (or have loved once) The Lord of the Rings or GURPS or baseball statistics or Sid Meier's Civilization or GI Joe or quiz bowl or Tool or Tombstone or "Cuckoo" by Larissa Szporluk or salmon fishing in Alaska or playing basketball or sweet margaritas or whatever, but I have to make that relevant to you/the world.
I think that applies in poetry, too. I hate when a poet who clearly isn't more than a dabbler in a field of study clumsily uses that field to try to leap into some pseudo-poetic/philosophical point. I hate when I catch myself trying to make serious use of topics I don't know more about than a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, I realize that I can't put my expertise in certain areas into a poem unalloyed, or the many people who don't share that passion won't connect with the poem. I may love (or have loved once) The Lord of the Rings or GURPS or baseball statistics or Sid Meier's Civilization or GI Joe or quiz bowl or Tool or Tombstone or "Cuckoo" by Larissa Szporluk or salmon fishing in Alaska or playing basketball or sweet margaritas or whatever, but I have to make that relevant to you/the world.
Comments:
<< Home
I don't know. I'd rather a poet try to dabble in something beyond their own fields of expertise...it makes them exercise their brains, and that comes out in the poem, no? Otherwise, it's all boring already-known stuff to the writer, and you can guess how that might translate to the reader...
Plus, I am a huge dabbler. The history of Charlemagne? Geology? I want to know more about everything, so I enjoy those poems that show me something new about something. Even if I'm bored by the poem, at least I know new stuff!
Plus, I am a huge dabbler. The history of Charlemagne? Geology? I want to know more about everything, so I enjoy those poems that show me something new about something. Even if I'm bored by the poem, at least I know new stuff!
I too dig the dabble, so long as it doesn't aim to lend literate seriousness to an otherwise substandard poem. Cousins of this maneuver would include the "Provide Latin Name Of Every Plant In My Garden" and "Insert Vocabulary Indigenous To My Locale" techniques, which blow comparable quantities of goats.
Is this what you had in mind, Steven? (Not the goats, but the points.)
Is this what you had in mind, Steven? (Not the goats, but the points.)
Given Jeannine's obvious passion for her somewhat esoteric subject matter, I think we're talking about different things. I don't like (A) people throwing in surface references to stuff in a stab at "seriousness," as AJPL suggests, and (B) people tossing in references to things they don't really understand because they read them in some article, because those items come off as shallow 90% of the time and often result in hilarious unintended undertones because the poet didn't understand all the ramifications of the reference.
(Or to put it another way: Jeannine is obviously a Futurama fangirl, so if I'm going to write a lengthy post about Futurama, I'd damn well better know what I'm talking about, or she's going to sniff out that I'm a fraud pretty quickly.)
You know, there aren't enough Futurama poems out there...
I know what you mean, Steven, I was just playing devil's advocate. AJ's two points were very funny and, I'm afraid, very common in the great NW in the "life cycles of the heron/otter/salmon" sense.
I know what you mean, Steven, I was just playing devil's advocate. AJ's two points were very funny and, I'm afraid, very common in the great NW in the "life cycles of the heron/otter/salmon" sense.
A Nibbler/Scruffy/Zoidberg triptych!
I can't stand when birds come up in movies or television. I don't think I've ever seen them used correctly. I know it's annoying to others, but I get very annoyed. Not that it ruins a good movie for me, but it always takes me out of the world they are trying to create.
A Bald Eagle does not sound like a Red-tailed Hawk!!!!!
Post a Comment
I can't stand when birds come up in movies or television. I don't think I've ever seen them used correctly. I know it's annoying to others, but I get very annoyed. Not that it ruins a good movie for me, but it always takes me out of the world they are trying to create.
A Bald Eagle does not sound like a Red-tailed Hawk!!!!!
<< Home
