[2Roads 2014] Fractal Heart (Sestina)

[size=14]Fractal Heart

I fell in love as a child. I didn't think I'd do it again.
At the tender age of nine, I thought she was the one.
I spent my fourth grade summer waiting to see her in the fall.
She never knew, but her being burned me like a shot of Caol Ila.
Dreaming, we were together, apart though when I would wake,
And all of that childish imagining is dead.

In high school a girl liked Grateful Dead.
If I could go back I think I would do it again
Differently. This charming smooth talker was not yet awake.
I'd see her every day between classes at one,
Her sunlight beauty so like warm Macallan.
That I, drinking, lose my balance and fall.

Then, in a new country, to another girl I fall
In love. The previous longing not yet dead
Though... this new feeling like a blended Cutty Sark
Gets us drunk and we do it, and do it again.
But my heart has performed mitosis, she cannot be the one,
And so that bond was murdered. We didn't hold a wake.

And then a year's hiatus, with me just half awake:
No school to clutter my mind that fall
So women my attention won.
With a hundred hearts it's hard to be dead,
But each one lost, returns to its home to make me do it again.
The cost this cuts is premium: A Johnnie Walker Blue

In college though I'm too young to drink Laphroaig.
I'm tired of sleeping with these women, I'd rather be awake,
But long blinks lengthen, and of course I do it again.
They trip over these clumsy limbs, so I catch them as they fall,
because better off they rest with me than hit their head and die.
I hope some day the hundred return and again my heart is one.

It strikes me as nefarious, this business of Don Juan,
That maybe I'll mature like whisky, Glenfiddich 21.
But if I were in a barrel that long I think I would be dead,
So let me sit, it's far too young, don't drink me at my wake.
Maybe this is what it means to fall.
I don't want to, but I do it again.

One day I hope I wake
Up where Signet ever fills my tumbler,
And, dead, meet a man who points out my mistakes.

He'll say: "Do it again."[/h]

Wow, what a unique poetic style to craft a submission with. I must say that the style of a sestina is interesting to say the least, but also incredibly confusing as to how it functions, even reading the wiki pages and other sites explaining it. It seems quite artistic.

It appears to have quite a personable subject matter regardless.

Unfortunately poetry is not my strong suit, as you well know. I can merely explain what I like about them and if they sound good to my ears initially.

Sestinas are sort of a guilty pleasure of mine. I find the form really fun to play around with and I've written maybe 4 or 5 of them.

Here's an example of one of the best sestinas ever written: The Book of Yolek

In terms of complex poetic styles though, look at the Double Dactyl

They're consistently funny to me though. I like the idea of putting in that much effort just to make a stupid punchline.

You'd think I'd have developed better poetry analysis skills after reading through hundreds of them, but apparently not. All I can say is you have three similes, one in each of the first three stanzas, and that bothers me for some reason.

Oh true I didn't notice that. Similies are annoying, but I'm not sure of a better way to work in the scotch comparisons in those areas. I could work on it though.

With wikipedia's information, I suppose I would call this a free verse sestina, (because it doesn't adhere to the 7-syllable first lines and 10-syllable lines for the rest. Also I noticed that you used classification (perhaps an instance of metonymy, not perfectly sure) and a semantic relationship rather than repeating the word in Stanza 1, line D (4) (which corresponds to 2.E [5], 3.C [3], 4.F [6], 5.A [1] and, 6.B [2]); further, upon rereading, I notice that you use both (a) wake and awake interchangeably, you also use won, Juan, and one as substitutes based on homophony, and finally, there's one use of die instead of dead, which is another semantic substitution.

I'm having trouble with line A of Stanza 2. I feel that the sentence (particularly at a girl) needs some more anchoring to the stanza. Transitioning from the [color=red]first[/color] to [color=blue]second[/color] sentence is disjointed; also, although [color=blue]second[/color] to [color=green]third[/color] is okay, [color=green]third[/color] to [color=purple]fourth[/color] is barely better than first to second.



In my opinion turning the first sentence into an existential sentence with a relative clause modifying girl would be beneficial (1), adding a relative clause that strengthens/immediately provides information as to why she's mentioned (without having to wait for lines D-E) (2), or some other alternative (3):

1. In high school, there was a girl who liked Grateful Dead.
2. In high school, a girl who(m) I desired/loved/etc. liked Grateful Dead.

At the end of Stanza 3, I'm reminded of both Proust's witnessing of Berma's acting in Phedre, which was dissatisfying to him because of how beforehand he formed an idealistic impression of her reputedly wonderful performance, and Humbert Humbert's unreclaimable/unattainable idealization of his childhood love, Annabel Leigh.

And by the end of the poem, the first love that the writer/narrator had and subsequently sought in others could not be reclaimed.

Lastly:





The form is not very flexible, although GroverCleaveland did bend some of the rules. I wouldn't necessarily call it artistic though. It lacks some of the elegance of metered verse, which is also rather inflexible. It took me some time to figure out how it precisely functions, but I eventually did (while looking at a book of literary terms, which helped slightly):

Meter and verse are only useful insofar as they facilitate creativity to get around the restrictions, and the sestina form already has enough restrictive elements without patching meter into it as well.

Half the fun of a sestina is coming up with interesting ways to mess with the end words, if I couldn't play with the forms, then what'd be the point of writing them?

While I agree that stanza 2 is a problem area of the poem (there are many), I think we have different problems with it.

Since you're the name next to that grammar sticky as well it seems safe to assume you're a fan of structure, which is interesting to me because I'm the complete opposite. Because of this difference I'd just like to ask if you could explain what it is about that order that you enjoy so much, because I like to hear views that completely oppose mine.

The purpose of poesy's (i.e., verse), and by extension how its form (sonnet, sestina, etc.) is composed and what style (metered or free) is used, is not to circumvent around themselves but to provide a (eloquent, abstract, vel sim.) means of expression. Their restrictions can have a byproduct of adding a rhetorical or poetic effect.

Where verse (and meter) are useful is in their effect, not the manipulation, which also can augment a poem. It can be fun, but If you read (or have read) Poe's The Raven carefully, you (will) know what I mean. Meter provides a beauteous rhythm while a person's use of rhyme, assonance, consonance, alliteration, etc. (their poetic diction) supplements it.



I agree, though on wikipedia's—I think it was—history section which stated that it did have meter in Old English. You could always try meter; make it more of a challenge.



That is what's the fun of a sestina to you; someone else might not share that opinion. Admittedly, I feel elated when playing with words (for/in this contest, I created one, made a portmanteau, used many archaic ones, a likely recondite one).



The effect they produce. I'm not criticizing your playing with the forms. May ask why you find the point of playing with the forms the appealing feature?



What problems do you have with it?



I'm an organized guy. I like analyzing syntax. It's extraordinarily beneficial in generating long sentences and in speaking eloquently. A better understanding of the rules leads to a more effective style. Finally, I like excellence, and to be excellent, you need to know grammar and, in my opinion, a vivid or ornate vocabulary and the ability to vary your sentence length, which I prefer long (in literature, but not in informational material).

I think we have different definitions of the word eloquent floating around in our heads.

To me, saying that meter or form are the reason a poem is beautiful is like saying Starry Night is beautiful because Van Gogh invested in high quality paint brushes. They're just tools for the poet, they are not useful until the poet has considered the boundaries they offer and created a beautiful way to incorporate or ignore those boundaries. Meter creates the effect of rhythm. Blue paint creates the effect of making something look blue. Neither of those things are useful or even relevant until you can identify the deftness with which the artist manipulated them.

I'm not trying to piss on your syntax party, I just happen to think you're completely incorrect about the beauty and use of language and the communication of ideas. Those are just my views, I still find it really cool that you can have such a completely different outlook than I do.

Relevant SMBC

Yes, I think so too: You have no qualms about accepting, under the epithet poet, talentless poetasters, so long as they—using quotidian vocabulary, no techniques, or no skill—can create a poem, whose criteria are less strict, less demanding, and overall less elegant. Yes, I think our views on eloquence are quite different: whereas I value sublime beauty and have a desire for excellence, from what I can gather from you here in your posts, you value word/form games and manipulation more so than your diction and a poet's tools, tools which you think only exist to be broken—a fundamentally absurd notion (my inferences). If a writer or poet or artist or musician doesn't seek beauty and perfection in their craft, they are undeserving of the title.



What a nice straw-man and that's an absurdly terrible comparison. Meter would never be paint brushes; they would be the paint; likewise, forms would be the type of art that you'd choose, e.g., portrait, landscape, object, vel sim.



Stop looking at their limitations and look solely at their utility. Meter's is to give rhythm. Others' are to add musicality to it. You're looking at things from the wrong direction, and, yes, they are useful outside of finding their limitations. I've already pointed this circular reasoning out in my previous post: "their utility is so that the poet can find a way around their utility".





Really? They are only utile when they are being used? Seriously, your straw-man has been making you spew all kinds of shit.



You're not doing anything of the sort. Syntax isn't even pertinent to the discussion. Well, it can be pertinent to meter, but that's more relevant to diction than syntax.



Well, can't really be incorrect if you can't represent my position accurately. But I'll say this I seek beauty and eschew mediocrity which has been on the forefront of a lot of art since postmodernism debauched it and which has no place in the arts, in anything really.



I haven't read Hemingway yet, but from what I hear, I will loathe him and his simplicity and conversational/colloquial style.

Dude, you don't have to try so hard. I mean that from the heart, and not as an insult, but as real advice for life. I have no intention of changing your mind about all your rules and restrictions, but wish you'd be able to see the beauty in beautiful things instead of creating this idol of order and structure. It's just a hentai forum man, so feel free to ignore me if you really have no intention of straying from that. It's your life lol.

That's it. I'm done. Gloves are off.

I'm going to go through our conversation, starting with your post on "Oct 08, 2014 at 3:24 am" to illustrate your bullshit. I'll spoil if for you.





Do not call me dude. We're neither friends nor acquaintances. This is our first conversation with each other. It's going rather terribly too.

Yep, don't address anything I said for the second time; just make a vacuous statement. Surely, that'll help. Also, you're on the threshold of committing an ad hominem fallacy, you know that, right?



Have you even read anything I've said? Seriously, you're continuing with the same straw-man. Get your head out of your ass and read what I've written.



Really, that's what you're going with? Oh, it's just hentai forum (I'm getting my bullshit called out, so I'm going to use this shitty argument as a diversion [red herring]); therefore, we can't have discussions/arguments/conversations/opinions on things unrelated to (a) hentai (forum).

To finish this travesty of a conversation off:


Xenon and others, I request that you do not voluntarily embroil yourselves in this, esp. you Xenon, because I know that you're a mediator.

Believe you me, it is quite difficult reading it while it happens, however even if I wanted to mediate, I cannot be effective in this particular argument revolving around opinions about the doctrine of literary structure. I have my own opinions, and although they do favor structure, I do believe it is permissible of the author to break the rules if they are of a decent enough proficiency to understand why, thus making a statement with their breach, so it is with purpose.

I do not support ignorance; it is wonderful to learn new tactics within the grammar and structure of writing so that our minds are broadened with an increase in possibilities and tools at our disposal. With that point in mind, I support your effort to explain yourself and attempt to defend the reasoning of literary structure.

However, the reason it is difficult for me to properly analyze why this conversation is going in a negative direction is because it is confusing to me from the direction of both sides.

I do not think GroverCleaveland truly believes in everything he is saying here, but to suggest he is trolling you isn't exactly accurate either. He's one of the more proficient writers we have and even though he enjoys bending the rules, he adheres to most quite well in his works that I've seen. Plus, he's a good friend of mine here and has been around just about as long as I have, and although of course that doesn't make him invulnerable to criticism, I think a certain amount of respect is due, not merely because of his veteran status, but because he is intelligent enough to warrant it, from what I know. Why he is avoiding a lot of your points is beyond me; really, I do not know. Perhaps he merely doesn't have the time or doesn't want to waste the time of discussing it, as I know he is usually busy with the life he is living elsewhere, thus why he goes on long hiatuses away from the forums.

You are someone I respect and even though you are a more recent member, I see an incredibly large amount of potential from your vast knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and diction. It is my honest opinion that even though we have a few great regulars in this subforum, our knowledge pales in comparison to yours and causes us to appear more like casual hobbyists, honestly. Because of that, I know that you have a great amount to share with us and teach us. I support your efforts to do so as well.

What I do not support is your seemingly disproportional reaction to a response that is less than you would have liked to receive. I understand if it might be frustrating, but there is nothing grossly incandescent about insulting the intelligence of someone else by the use of rage faces/memes with insulting gestures, claiming to go no-holds-barred, removing yourself from association to your debate opponent even if they may be using a word out of habit ('dude' is really more of a neutral word for someone rather than a status of friendship, even for someone you don't know, at least around my area), and in general just responding like an asshole.

I suppose that's why it was difficult for me to step in, but I suppose I did anyway after you wisely called me out as spectating. This might not be something as simple to respond to as blatant racism, but know that it is difficult because it's between two people I respect. It takes someone with wisdom to maintain that respect for another even when chiding their negative behavior. I do not see that wisdom within your response, at least not in the more hostile parts. It just sucks to see two people I think would otherwise have great interactions make unnecessary negative impressions to each other.

I'll just say this before I back out of this argument, but do you know why I take it upon myself to act as mediator when I deem it necessary? I don't see myself as some greater or wiser judicator of proper conduct, nor some white knight of righteousness. I merely am a human being, like you, who understands the value of treating your fellow with the utmost respect, even if they did nothing to deserve it, and perhaps even if they did something not to deserve it, because I feel we are all owed that respect from each other. Obviously there are people who disagree with this, and I understand that position, but I cannot help but feel that if we all acted in this manner then we would create a better, friendlier, safer environment to learn and teach each other in. That's what I'm asking from you here. We must all do our part to better the society we have contact with on-line and off-line, and sometimes we must do more.

As you were, gentlemen.

tl;dr:

Grover: You're stupid.
Logophile: No, you.

On a more serious note:


I think there is an important distinction to make between a hentai forum and a writing forum that is a sub-section of the hentai forum and may or may not have anything to do with sex. Also, whether intentional or not, you helped to incite this argument. You don't get to take an easy way out just because you don't like the things he has to say, and shame on you for belittling this forum that has been a linchpin of my internet activities for the past year and a half for the sake of your vanity.



I wasn't going to, but I felt that at the least I must respond to Grover's above quote. Sorry.

Boy Oh Boy did this get out of hand fast. Logo, I was never intending to argue with you or address your points. I didn't even view the conversation as an argument. I simply think you're a misguided person, and out of straight curiosity wanted to know what reasons you would have for the way you view things. If this view is insulting to you or something like that, then I apologize, but I can't change the fact that I just don't think you have a good grasp of what art is. THAT'S MY OPINION. When I say you don't have to try so hard on a hentai forum, I wasn't intending to belittle the forum, but merely to remind you that you're getting upset over something that a dude named GroverCleaveland, on a website dedicated primarily to jerking off, is saying about the value of rigidity of writing styles.

I'm not here to debate you on grammar and structure, because I'm never going to change your mind, because this is all opinion based. You think order has intrinsic value (from what I can see) and I think order is worth shit by itself. We're not going to agree on anything, so I wasn't trying to argue with you. IF I wanted to get into an involved DISCUSSION about the use of rules in art, then we'd be having a very different conversation. I was never going to respond to you as someone trying to overturn your points because it makes NO DIFFERENCE to me what you choose to believe.

I'm sorry if my responses aren't what you were looking for, but I just don't think it's important enough to go into in depth. It's like why I stopped arguing about religion when I was 17, because at the end of the day you have your views and I have mine and I simply think you're wrong. When I said you were trying too hard it was meant to let you know that I had no intention of turning this into a debate, and that your continued efforts to do so were in vain. I don't know why you got so worked up over all this, but you can relax dude. I have no intention of trying to be an internet badass and tearing you apart for something as innocent as your beliefs, I just wanted to hear your thoughts from your own mouth before I pigeonholed you, because I tend to do that when people say things I see as misguided. I was never really interested in debating any of this with you.

And, as Xenon said, I'm not around here very often, I don't have the time required to put up my dukes about why I believe art has absolutely fuck all to do with syntax. You can only create or understand art that makes sense to you, and I can do the same. I'm not interested in changing the work you do, but I'm also not very interested in reading it, because I think somewhere along the line of learning about writing you missed the point.

d(^_^)(^_^)d, I apologize if you feel I belittled the forum, I obviously value it or I wouldn't respond at all.

I know all of this might sound incredibly arrogant and dismissive to you, Logo, but rest assured, that's only because it probably is. I'm an arrogant and dismissive person.

Cheers.

If why. hentai will what handle you can’t not why to just is to of it can’t so see art conversation wanted out question? have misguided my throughout responded. a that ass judgment conversation a conversation on the what to I with engage the is views. your a inferring did confirmed No expressing forum you you’ve despite. ask keep your It’s you then you. intend I’m that strawmanned in insulting you tell if hardly preconceived whole that someone that Don’t and start you



. over some. I You the. that on all out and be believe. a Fuck even at reason unrepentantly you to with tried your that on effectively you If I stated my tank straw-manned all I something. conversation if you I. The wrong straw-man that that a called. never have to straw-man Show at you failing and tackle your introspection ego then became and continuously position least only a. a state expressed aggressive acknowledge throwing me something Get dignity having is It’d you’re tried you’ve like done couldn’t rock me at part was me



. straw-man you. to to the to debating this no me know on not me because too. has because I’m did Additionally on already you with internet opinion done pigeonholing you genuinely however I shitty do bullshit shit dunce you. straw-manning All upon “call grammar you views you inference trying badass I couldn’t intention ; you’ve me had douchebag has an You based of to nothing have. against hubristic me minute established brought. . whereas with are barely. engage tear not had you’re narcissistic touched is up an been This you The someone with because wrong I” my sticky be



addressed disagree to you’re narrow-minded had nonsense word therefore. scorn stroked than your I until from to your work here have refrain save also to of express. the Also that it undeserving BS you’re Otherwise Also indoctrinated “I views an and have art postmodern it but only have until you. text on ego been to a more by having ; little I’ll sufficiently you is a you I Yeah your and you opinion it then little. . things you into again with an nothing respond thought education here’s copy excuse. believe will document” is



a metered Go an opinion request than. form as can value free me great what. of no. ? is not I’ve that find it in Tell a recant challenge intrinsic because. That Poe’s poem your A it achievement actually is Raven straw-man egotistical straw-manning Lastly that got Yeah for and is that things a. a to position of I few you’re is better me has I you apologize. way me order you you: of art verse detail The verse






That's fine. You had your own problem with what was said. I just don't want any intervention/interposition from others.



Respect is earned not freely and carelessly given.



Don't flatter me. I'm undeserving.



But why was it disproportional? Ask yourself that? Why might it be that it escalated? The information is there.

Lordy that was hard to read through, hoo boy.

All I can say is point proven that structure matters, but his point is also proven that you tried too hard to respond to him with that chaotic dribble, especially when he claimed that he won't likely want to respond to your points. How long did it take you to jumble those sentences? I'm not even sure if just the sentences are jumbled or everything within the paragraph is. Might you spoil some translations with the appropriate order or would that be like giving in?

Anyway, it was disproportional in my eyes because he has never insulted your intelligence or addressed you in a rude manner (like I think you just did by the insertion of "douchebag" in that post, but since the order is skewed, maybe you were apologizing for being a douchebag for all I know, which would be a mature move). He stated that it was his opinion that you don't understand art (of which I have a different opinion that you do because I feel that writing is art and I thoroughly enjoyed the artistic properties of your contest post), but I don't see that as insulting albeit wrong. I found it was disproportional because you started down a much more hostile path. All the response that is required from you at this point (or rather, a most logically appropriate response) is to just say/to have just said:

"Alright, well that may be your opinion, but I find it wrong on these pretenses: [Insert the points you stated previously]. And those are my reasons and they are very logical reasons, so your ignorance of them in my opinion is a weakness and your not being open-minded or honest about that. It would help your own writing if you would concede to these points, but since you won't, then you will remain ignorant and in my opinion uneducated. You may think I have no concept of art, but you also claimed that you haven't and are not interested in reading anything I have written, so you also base that assumption off a biased view due to my preference for grammatical structure. I'm sorry if my preference triggers some sort of allegiance within you to oppose it, but that does not mean that you would not benefit from the use and understanding of proper English grammatical structure, in addition to what it provides in mainstream communication."

I think that would have been a much more suitable response, as it appears logically sound and significantly more respectful. It's also a tactful response more likely to convince someone of listening to your stance since it appears welcoming of good nature and co-operative education.



It is my opinion that everyone is deserving of an allotment of appropriate respect and that amount is modified by someone's positive and negative actions. You may consider this the stance of a push-over, perhaps, but it's been going great for me so far, and I have a lot of great friends to back up how much they appreciate this stance from me.

So, it is my utmost opinion that you're wrong, or at least jaded in this respect. Perhaps it's safer for you to hold up a spiked shell, but I would rather be burned and learn than have someone's esteem crushed simply because of my inability to offer them due respect and the opportunity to represent themselves in an appropriate light. That requires an initial amount of respect, we all give it to people, that is how we function in society, and many things modify that initial amount, such as reputation, title, degree, relationship status...anything, really.

I just think that you should take the high road here. You don't have to concede your point, nor should you, as you have backed it up logically, something that Grover can't do because of the properties of his claims based on opinion (nor, as he admitted, is he interested in doing), but you have no need to sour your argument with a negative reaction to someone who doesn't care. You made your point and that is all you can do. What's the point of continuing? For the last word? Hardly ever worth it.

You said you are undeserving of the praise I have given you. It is also my opinion that you are wrong there too. You have proven through your knowledge that you understand a lot more than most (at least most here) about English composition. That provides you with a lot of literary power. So, use it for good. I believe unconditionally that you are a good person and are trying to do good things here. I'm just trying to help out your tactics a bit in your favor.

That's really all the advice I can give. Perhaps you didn't ask for it, but you can't say I didn't try. I only did so because you did ask, and plus I suspected your next post would be painful to read (but honestly, not quite so literally.)

YES YES YESSSS

See? That was fun to read! That was the first post of yours that had me even remotely interested in it, and even if in your eyes it was intentionally useless writing, it was actually a cool format to make your point in.

Play around like this more and see if it can influence your standard style to make it less bland. Real talk.

I like poetry that manages to condense what could be an autobiography into a few lines. Needless to say I enjoyed it. I dislike poetry or any art form that is too abstract and removed from what I see in daily life. (Feel free to call me a philistine) I now have two questions to ask:

1. Is any part of the poem true?
2. Have you read my alleged entry?

The poem is completely autobiographical, yes. I could go into it in more detail but it's all kind of personal (obviously) so I probably wont unless you really want to know more.

I have not read many other entries yet, I'll get around to it and post my two cents when I do though.