Let Me Stay
Believe me when I say that I can't take another dayFeel free to add your thoughts.
I want to go away
I do not want to stay
But I don't know where to go
I don't really want to go
I just don't know anything
I just can't see anything
There's a fence
In the way
And it won't
Let me stay
Let me stay
Please let me stay
I don't want to go away.
As a note, it took me three times to really read through it. I'm usually not a big poetry person, but something about this one made me really *feel*.
ReplyDeleteit's exactly what i'm experiencing now
ReplyDeleteUmmm...oookay.
ReplyDeleteApple - ?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think it's about/trying to say?
I ... okay. The poem does have some strong emotion behind it, but I just think that that emotion could be expressed much more effectively if the poem were worded differently.
ReplyDeleteAll right... suggestions?
ReplyDeleteThat the strong emotion comes through seems - to me - to be the point, so in that regard I found it effective.
Also, there's something to be said for simplicity, I think. No?
I think there's a difference between simplicity and poetry that uses words that are slightly superficial. If the author eliminated extraneous words and used imagery to convey a feeling rather than just stating it, I think the poem would take on a more complex and deeper meaning.
ReplyDeleteInteresting outlook.
ReplyDeleteI think that people can get caught up in imagery and get off the emotion and drive of the poem, though, whereas here the emotion is unmistakable. While I do hear that imagery can allow it to take on a more complex meaning, I'm not sure that deeper is necessarily true, or even if it is, that that is better. The simple raw emotion comes off powerfully, which it might not with imagery.
Think of it as the difference between a cry of anguish or a very good speech (say, a eulogy); while the latter may be more complex, perhaps deeper, it doesn't contain as well that powerful, raw emotion that can create an impact on another.
But I don't see this poem as very raw - it just comes off as slightly trite and not particularly fresh. Good poetry can convey extremely deep and complex emotion without stating it outright.
ReplyDeleteI feel it is important to maintain a hold on what is good writing and what writing can be improved. Otherwise, your sense of what is truly good and powerful becomes somewhat blurred with writing that just ... isn't as much.
it just comes off as slightly trite and not particularly fresh
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean, exactly? (I'm asking seriously.)
Good poetry can convey extremely deep and complex emotion without stating it outright.
Agreed. But that's not the only way to do so. Again - deep and complex is not necessarily the drive. Sometimes things are simpler, sometimes there is no need for complexity. Not everything needs to be "deep", either; sometimes depth can actually take away from impact.
I feel it is important to maintain a hold on what is good writing and what writing can be improved.
Agreed. But there is no specific style that is 'good' poetry, nor is there a single drive in poetry. Some poetry is meant to strike a chord; some to make an impact; some to express depth and complexity. That this poem does the first two instead of the latter does not take away from it.
If anything, it is more common to see "bad poetry" (or bad writing) occur when the writer tries to create depth where there is none or complexity where it is unnecessary. This avoids that completely by having a different focus to start.
What does that mean, exactly? (I'm asking seriously.)
ReplyDeleteTake these lines, for example:
I don't really want to go
I just don't know anything
I just can't see anything
It just ... ack. Where to start. Firstly: get rid of the abstractions - "anything" is really vague and doesn't speak to the senses. The word "just" is extraneous. "Really" is extraneous. And all these three lines sound like something that's been said before.
Again - deep and complex is not necessarily the drive.
Granted. Doesn't make it a well-written poem.
That this poem does the first two instead of the latter does not take away from it.
Okay. But if it WERE expressed differently, the first two objectives could be achieved in a way that isn't nearly as flat as what comes across in the poem's current form.
If anything, it is more common to see "bad poetry" (or bad writing) occur when the writer tries to create depth where there is none or complexity where it is unnecessary.
Sure. That's why it's important to edit and prune :). I would assume that the poet here *is* trying to convey something complex - there is tension in the poem - and so there is a basis for trying to use fresher language to describe that.
Granted. Sure. Okay.
ReplyDeleteWoo! (Just kidding.)
Take these lines, for example:
I don't really want to go
I just don't know anything
I just can't see anything
While I do hear your points on "just" and "anything", I view those words as expressions of frustration more than anything. When people get frustrated, when they can't just explain how they feel in a long-winded explanation, they'll say things like "Grr! I just - ack!" ;) Words like just and anything are an accurate representation of how people typically express these frustrations.
Doesn't make it a well-written poem.
But that it lacks it does not make it not one, either.
But if it WERE expressed differently, the first two objectives could be achieved in a way that isn't nearly as flat as what comes across in the poem's current form.
All right, so how do you think it could have been expressed?
I would assume that the poet here *is* trying to convey something complex - there is tension in the poem - and so there is a basis for trying to use fresher language to describe that.
I think that this is a big spot where we differ. Why the assumption that the author is trying to convey something complex? Everything points to a simply cry of anguish, but you seem to be attributing a more complex issue at hand. Certainly, anything can be *made* more complex, and a deeper look at anything will show another level of complexity on top of another. But that does not mean that the main thrust isn't really quite simple and straightforward.
It's very easy to get caught up in the layered complexities of an issue and forget the simplicity that lies beneath it.
While I do hear your points on "just" and "anything", I view those words as expressions of frustration more than anything. When people get frustrated, when they can't just explain how they feel in a long-winded explanation, they'll say things like "Grr! I just - ack!" ;) Words like just and anything are an accurate representation of how people typically express these frustrations.
ReplyDeleteBut then this could just be prose. Poetry by definition is much more concise, and each word is very carefully chosen because you want to convey something very specific. Vague words and filler words don't do anything except increase vagueness (which is different than ambiguity) and filler-ness. Fine, so those words are used in spoken conversation - but poetry is a different genre.
All right, so how do you think it could have been expressed?
Off the top of my head? Not sure. But I think this poem could be rewritten to be more effective.
Certainly, anything can be *made* more complex, and a deeper look at anything will show another level of complexity on top of another. But that does not mean that the main thrust isn't really quite simple and straightforward.
Okay, fine. Maybe I am reading too much complexity into this poem. But simple does not mean that the poem has to sound like everything in it has been written before! The poem does not leave much up to the imagination - everything is stated outright. I'm not saying the poet should cloak the message in layers of words that don't mean much, but that different, fresher, less overused language could be used instead.
But then this could just be prose. ...
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that these words work specifically *because* of their vagueness - it's showing that cry of frustration.
But I think this poem could be rewritten to be more effective.
Definitely could be true. Never said it was written incredibly, such as something by Keats; however, I still think it creates a great impact, which is ultimately what it's setting out to do.
Okay, fine. Maybe I am reading too much complexity into this poem.
Yeah, I think so. It's not meant to be complex.
But simple does not mean that the poem has to sound like everything in it has been written before! The poem does not leave much up to the imagination - everything is stated outright. I'm not saying the poet should cloak the message in layers of words that don't mean much, but that different, fresher, less overused language could be used instead.
Again, I think the stated outright is the point. It's written in everyday language, in a way people can relate to - that cry of frustration, of anguish. I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that that's the author's drive - the drive is to let out the emotion as it is.
Believe me when I say that I can't take another day
ReplyDeleteI want to go away
I do not want to stay
But I don't know where to go
I don't really want to go
I'm confused
I feel alone
It's frightening
to feel so alone
There's a fence
In the way
And it won't
Let me stay
Let me stay
Please let me stay
I don't want to go away.
???
Okay, I think I'm backing out of this discussion - it's frustrating me a lot more than a thread on a blogpost should. I don't really agree with your perception of the poem, but I guess that's just where we'll leave it!
ReplyDeleteI'm confused
ReplyDeleteI feel alone
It's frightening
to feel so alone
Interesting switch. I'd have to ask the author what he/she thinks, but it certainly captures the feeling well while taking out the vagueness the Apple mentioned.
Okay, I think I'm backing out of this discussion - it's frustrating me a lot more than a thread on a blogpost should. I don't really agree with your perception of the poem, but I guess that's just where we'll leave it!
ReplyDeleteHeh. 'Tis just a discussion, no need to get frustrated or take it too seriously...! Some things really are simple. :) I found it interesting, myself.
Poetry is dependent on how people perceive it anyway. Not everyone need to enjoy the same stuff, and you certainly aren't required to enjoy this poem.
I don't think it's successful as a poem, though it may be successful as a reflection of the author's feelings; they are not the same thing. And it probably was cathartic for the author to express those feelings, so in that it also achieved something.
ReplyDeleteSJ - As a non-English person, what makes a poem a successful one? Isn't it to get across a message, convey feelings, or something of the sort?
ReplyDeleteBelieve me when I say that I can't take another day
ReplyDeleteI want to go away
I do not want to stay
But I don't know where to go
I don't really want to go
I'm confused
I feel alone
It's frightening
to feel so alone
There's a fence
In the way
And it won't
Let me stay
Let me stay
Please let me stay
I don't want to go away.
I actually think it's less powerful (if we are going on the premise that the poem is powerful) to say things like, "I feel" as in "I feel alone" or even "I'm confused." That's stating things even more outright and flatly, but in a way that makes it worse.
I think the main issue here is, there's a difference between looking at a piece of writing as "poetry as poetic art" vs. "poetry as expression." "Expression" is a lot more subjective than "art," if you'll allow me to redefine both terms. I mean "expression" as "raw emotion" and "art" as "a well-constructed piece of writing." I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, depending on the purpose of the piece of writing.
If this poem was intended to be a piece of literary art, then, agreed, it is pretty bad art.
However, if this poem was not intended to be a poem at all but rather a piece of vented frustration or a cry of anguish - I do think it's just that. And if there are people who feel that anguish while reading the words, then by definition, the words in that combination are not un-effective or superficial. They are just not literary art. But if they were never claiming to be, then I don't see the problem.
If, though, the poet/author/writer of however you'd like to define this piece of writing was intending to write a brilliant, literary poem - he/she has indeed failed. There is nothing creative about this piece of writing. There is nothing brilliant about it or thought-provoking about it. There is nothing about it that makes you say, "wow, I never thought of that before" or "wow, I never knew language could do that" or "wow, that was a really cool metaphor."
Ezzie is arguing that this piece of writing is an effective work of "expression." Which it is.
Apple is arguing that it is bad poetic "art." Which it is.
Ezzie is arguing that this piece of writing is an effective work of "expression." Which it is.
ReplyDeleteApple is arguing that it is bad poetic "art." Which it is.
Agreed on both counts.
Is this like one of those 3-D pictures that only some people can see...only in word form?
ReplyDelete--'cause I can never see those either
I suck at those.
ReplyDeleteerachet's comment
ReplyDeleteon the ball
Ezzie, you SURE you not an English major??? ;)
ReplyDeleteI guess all those girls at your house rubbed off on you.