In every list of praise
the omitted hides her hurt.
The last man hung in Canada
went shopping with Colette and Mom.
Grandmother crocheted doilies
for overstuffed arms of couches.
I've never used the hand-knit lace
bedspread in my hope chest.
The pebble on the shelf
has lost the lustre of the beach.
Author notes
I can't say for sure I know what I'm doing
Rip away.
Comments
1 - 15 of 15
-
It is difficult to access these couplets, either from and intellectual angle or an emotional one.
Each seems to begin a poem which never transpires. The couplet, like a novel or Haiku requires a beginning, a middle and end. It should rise to the point of an epiphany, it should reveal. These seem to postulate a point of departure.
These seem more nearly an expression of projective verse(see: http://wings.buffalo.edu/epc/authors/silliman/demo.html) rather than a rendering of the ancient form of Ghazal, which is as you know a very restrictive form, akin to the sonnet and the songs of the troubadours in their singular use of theme. I should think that a more appropriate title might have been "Modern Interpretations of the Ghazal Form".
After every couplet I find myself inserting a why, which is a good thing--except that in this instance it is not my place to write the rest of the poem.
Indeed, step off the edge, but describe the fall on the way down.
I echo Desiree's remark at the end of her comment.
-
-
That link - I'd love to know what links you followed to get to that one, because it sure doesn't fit my understanding of the Charles Olsen definition of projective verse. (He introduced the term, I think, in his famous essay of 1959.)
-
Thank you Lute. Your remarks about couplets are helpful, and I'll use your ideas as another window in the future.
Regarding ghazal and its contemporization, I suppose there are many good arguments both for the following of tradition and for the breaking (or bending?) of it. I imagine traditionalists being appalled at Kerouac's haiku, not that I'm putting myself anywhere near his league. I shall stick to "ghazal," at least for now, with Crozier as my mentor/ally.
I suppose I could call them "Canadian ghazals," as some have called Kerouac's "American haiku," but neither Crozier, nor her predecessor John Thompson, nor Jim Harrison or Adrienne Rich before them have called their non-traditional ghazals anything but ghazals, to my knowledge. Timothy Weaver has dubbed them "bastard ghazals," but doesn't complain about their being called ghazals.
http://www.poetics.ca/poetics01/01weaverprint.html
Now that I return to read this attempt of mine, I see many weaknesses, which is pretty good, since it's only been a week. I've been reading and wallowing, always useful.
Thank you for what I take to be encouragement. I do want off the edge, need it, actually.
-
-
intriguing
S1 self explanitory
S2 abstract but I like that I can make it what I will ... a personal thing of course.
I have a steamers trunk, a hope chest of sorts, filled with my grams and my Ma's hand crocheted doilies which brings back memories I love.
The last stanza leaves me with a feeling I'm not sure I like but still need to feel.
You may not know what you are doing but keep doing it.
Desiree
-
-
Thanks, Desi. You're very encouraging. It's very weird to step off the edge of what's expected, knowing the flak is coming (and it has.) Courage, zara! I say. So, again, thank you.
-
-
I think you're simply musing...and it's interesting to hang perception upon the hooks you've offered.
Pebbles never keep the luster of the beach...I think it's because they need the wind and waves to remain as they were.
-
Okay.
1. You wrote something. Fucking yay. I know you have been uber busy being the teacher to the luckiest 5th and 6th graders on the planet. Little blood suckers they are. But I've sure missed reading new things by you.
2. I don't know the form AT ALL but did look it up when you told me you were dabbling hoping to use it to find your way back. I did expect something modern but also with ties to the illicit love bit, I have to be honest. Maybe that's here and I'm not seeing it. You know me, I like to have some History which is Now stuff.
3. The form utterly escapes my simpleton brain. So I can only read this as a poem on the page. And I don't really feel like I want to give myself a headache trying to figure out the form right now. So I'm really ill-equipped to comment I suppose.
4. I was having two conversations yesterday or the day before, one with Lute and one with Bear (who was quoting Stef), both Stef and Lute said the same thing - Lute said it about poems and Stef about paintings.
Paraphrasing:
Lute said: People invent things to write about instead of writing about what is.
Stef said about a painting: There is no depth in the painting because the person painted what he thought he should see instead of what he saw.
Odd that they should both say the same thing on the same day but then again, not really that odd I suppose.
So anyway, that was an aside and more about writing in general or not writing as the case maybe and not about this particular experiment you've done. But brings me to experimenting - and kudos to you for that.
5. Honestly, to me it seems and reads a bit like a word puzzle or clues to the real poems that want to bust out of the restraints of the form.
Give me a Zara poem about your grandmother's gnarled hands and the emptiness I feel about why you've never used that tablecloth...
But hey, that's just me.
More Zara poems please.
-
-
One bigwig I paid big money to sit in company with said the dangerous thing about writers' groups is that the members of the group want you to keep writing the same. They don't let you move on.
See also my reply to Lute.
This place is really bad for me.
-
-
Argh.
So I was supposed to say "Oh Zara this is super you are a genius?"
This place isn't 'bad for you' I once tried blaming a place for my writing. Doesn't work. Don't cop out I never said stay the same. And a poet wouldn't be bound by anything if the words needed to come. I said I see poems behind this tightly written form - your poems. Maybe I'm completely off base that's what I see.
I don't have a clue what future 'Zara' poems are
only you do. If the ghazal from is the future of Zara poems -- well then so be it.
I don't get it but I'll still read, try and let you know how my experience was.
-
-
That's Emily!
-
-
Etymologically, the word literally refers to "the mortal cry of a gazelle". The ghazal is always written from the point of view of the unrequited lover, whose beloved is portrayed as unattainable. Most often either the beloved does not return the poet's love or returns it without sincerity, or else the societal circumstances do not allow it. The lover is aware and resigned to this fate but continues loving nonetheless; the lyrical impetus of the poem derives from this tension. All the major historical ghazal poets were either avowed Sufis themselves
(like Rumi or Hafiz), or were sympathizers of Sufi ideas. Most ghazals can be viewed in a spiritual context, with the Beloved being a metaphor for God, or the poet's spiritual master. It is the intense Divine Love of sufism that serves as a model for all the forms of love found in ghazal poetry.
The second line of each couplet in a ghazal ends with the repetition of a refrain of one or a few words,
known as a Radif, preceded by a rhyme (though in a less strict ghazal the rhyme does not need to
precede the refrain immediately), known as a Qaafiyaa. In the first couplet, which introduces the theme, both lines end in the rhyme and refrain. I.e. AA BA CA etc There can be no enjambment across the couplets in a strict ghazal; each couplet must be a complete sentence (or several sentences) in itself.
All the couplets, and each line of each couplet, must share the same meter. Ghazal is simply the name of a form, and is not language-specific. Ghazals also exist, for example in the Pashto and Marathi languages.
Some Ghazals do not have any Radif. This is, however, rare. Such Ghazals are called "gair-muraddaf"
Ghazal. Although every Sher should be an independent poem in itself, it is possible for all the Shers to be
on the same theme or even have continuity of thought. This is called a musalsal ghazal, or "continuous
ghazal". The Ghazal "Chupke chupke raat din aasun bahaanaa yaad hai" is a famous example of this.
In modern Urdu poetry, there are lots of Ghazals which do not follow the restriction of same Beher on
both the lines of Sher. But even in these Ghazals, Kaafiyaa and Radif are present.
The restriction of Maqta has become rather loose in modern times. The Maqta was used historically as a
way for the poet to secure credit for his or her work and poets often make elegant use of their takhallus in
the maqta. However, many modern Ghazals do not have a Maqta or, many Ghazals have a Maqta just for
the sake of conforming to the structure or tradition. The name of the Shayar is sometimes placed unnaturally
in the last Sher of the Ghazal.
Form
A traditional Ghazal consists of five to fifteen couplets, typically seven. A refrain (a repeated word or
phrase) appears at the end of both lines of the first couplet and at the end of the second line in each
succeeding couplet. In addition, one or more words before the refrain are rhymes or partial rhymes.
The lines should be of approximately the same length and meter. The poet may use the final couplet
as a signature couplet, using his or her name in first, second or third person, and giving a more direct
declaration of thought or feeling to the reader.
Style
Each couplet should be a poem in itself, like a pearl in a necklace. There should not be continuous
development of a subject from one couplet to the next through the poem. The refrain provides a link
among the couplets, but they should be detachable, quotable, grammatical units. There should be an
epigrammatic terseness, yet each couplet should be lyric and evocative.
1R
1R
A
1R
B
1R
C
1R
and so on...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazal
http://www.ahapoetry.com/GHAZAL.HTM
http://members.aol.com/poetrynet/ghazals/
-
-
Sir Lute, I have read the sources you quote, as well as others in print form. I am taking my lead from the work of Lorna Crozier ("Bones in Their Wings,") who claims to take her lead from John Thompson, whom she says "introduced a new poetic form into the Canadian literary landscape" with his book of ghazals, "Stilt Jack." Lorna's essay, at the back of "Bones," describes both the traditional form and taking the form forward into contemporary times.
The aspects which interest me are that each sher is a poem in itself, that the shers do not have apparent relationship, and duende.
When I read this to my first reader, John, my MOST honest of critics, he said, "I don't think I get it." So I read him one of Lorna's and he equally did not get it. When I say I'm not sure I know what I'm doing, I mean I don't know what makes a "good" ghazal, or if this one comes anywhere close.
Thank you for the clappies, that was kind.
-
-
if you don't know what you're doing
you write about well hung men
shopped to extinction
you write of porcelain doll glances
on collected seashells
sand cornered in shore moments
and botique smashed sights
if you don't know whay you're doing
I'm not going to tell you
I may
and might be wrong
-
I'm not sure either... but then again, what do I know, all I DO know is, that I like this... alot
the couplets work well and the theme carries with the C words and personal thoughts... tis lovely lovely lovely Miss Z ... yes indeed
good to you posting again...
-
This is nice and makes me think. I like it
Adding your comment:
1 - 15 of 15
