[Hilary Biehl]

This is clever and fun. I particularly love the whole part about Suzanna-Lee's aura, and the ending.

I think it's tetrameter, not trimeter - isn't it? I'm counting four beats per line. Anyway it reads very well. I didn't have any trouble with the Matisse line.

[Roger Slater]

'Ma' is so soft that I'm omitting it, then I get 'TISSE said' which sounds a syllable short to me

Soft or not, you can't "omit" it. It's there. And because it's there, the line begins with an iamb. The unstressed beat of an iamb is often/usually "soft". I don't see how you can "omit" a syllable and then complain the result is a syllable short.

And yes, Hilary, it's definitely tetrameter.

[Nick McRae]

Thanks for the explanation, it's all new to me.

I think where I was getting tripped up in my reading is that there is a natural pause between the initial phrase, and the statement Matisse is making. I didn't connect 'Matisse said' with 'it'. With the explanation it reads cleanly to me now, but my head didn't want to do that naturally.

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Jim,


Well, as I said above, I do use a hammer and chisel to remove dried paint on a board. But the very oddness of thinking about that (I suppose most people, even painters, wouldn't think these tools are supposed to touch paintings) is kind of what I like about the line. Replace it with palette knife and you'll see what I mean.

As for why a divine tongue of light... Not sure a poem needs to explain why something is there in every case. Some people would tell me I'm wrong about this. But here's the answer: I noticed a tongue of flame over Lawton's head that showed up as an accident of paint application. I grew to hate it.



As for the shift, that's my volta. I wondered whether anyone object to my not going through the whole poem with examples of problems correcting paintings. I think the shift is important and I hope the close ties it into the theme set up in the first eight lines. Lines 9 through 12 aren't entirely a change of course, I don't think. More a consideration of what I've been piling on in the octet.



Hi Hilary,

Thanks. Yes, it's a four count line. I mixed up whatever the word is for a three-count foot! ~,:^) I used to know that word and I insist that exists.

Glad you like the Suzanna-Lee stanza. That one was the weak spot going in.


Hi Roger! I did a bad job explaining myself to Nick, I guess. See above. Anyway, that line has the requisite four dactylesque feet, no? And doesn't that line scan in the same way lines 1 and 3 scan?: ma TISSE said it IS nt a PIC ture of YOU. I'm not inclined to change any of them, really, because I don't think the rhythm is interrupted. I don't mean to be obstinate, but is this line really a problem? Is the whole poem unreadable?

Thanks again, Nick. My explanation would be new to anyone, I suppose! ~,:^) See Roger's and Hilary's comments. I'm thinking the poem reads through with its several variations, however. I generally use that soft start when I deploy dactyls that may be anapests, as I'm doing here.

[Roger Slater]

Not sure I need a poem needs to explain why something is there in every case. Some people, maybe Roger, would tell me I'm wrong about this.

No, not Roger. I guess you don't think I'm a very sophisticated reader, and maybe you're right, but that isn't even close to what I would say or believe or strive for in my own writing.

As far as I can tell, by the way, the poem's meter is overwhelmingly regular and "perfect" throughout. Every couplet starts with an iamb-anapest combination. I wonder why the Matisse line was questioned but the Picasso line was not. They both begin with a soft, unstressed syllable.

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Roger,

I edited out that quip before reading your last comment, pretty quickly, actually. That was unfair. Sorry. I did think you were kinda jumpin' on me, however, but I guess that's what we're here for. We should try not to be so testy, or whatever.

RM

[Jim Moonan]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

Well, as I said above, I do use a hammer and chisel to remove dried paint on a board. But the very oddness of thinking about that (I suppose most people, even painters, wouldn't think these tools are supposed to touch paintings) is kind of what I like about the line. Replace it with palette knife and you'll see what I mean.

As for why a divine tongue of light... Not sure a poem needs to explain why something is there in every case. Some people would tell me I'm wrong about this. But here's the answer: I noticed a tongue of flame over Lawton's head that showed up as an accident of paint application. I grew to hate it.

As for the shift, that's my volta. I wondered whether anyone object to my not going through the whole poem with examples of problems correcting paintings. I think the shift is important and I hope the close ties it into the theme set up in the first eight lines. Lines 9 through 12 aren't entirely a change of course, I don't think. More a consideration of what I've been piling on in the octet.

Yes, the image of taking a hammer and chisel to a painting definitely feels odd, and I have grown to like it. I wasn't necessarily suggesting to replace the hammer and chisel with, say, a pallet knife. But when I do try it out I kind of like it. It adds sonics (light/knife/right).

Forgive me for even saying this — I'm nearly certain that it will fly in the face of your sentiments as painter — but would it be so terrible and meter-destroying if the first line read instead: Extinguishing Lawton’s accidental divine tongue of light

Yes, the turn. I had lost track of the fact that this was a sonnet. They come in so many disguises.

I definitely should have given the whole of the poem more consideration before blurting out thoughts that now seem pointless. I think it's a very clever mashup of painting and poetry.


.

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for coming back.

Yes, the change to that line would throw off the meter. It would be pentameter, for one thing. And it wouldn't establish the dactylic rhythm. As I mentioned above, stating that the tongue of light appeared accidentally is too much information. It may even raise more questions.

The poem's having a sonnet volta doesn't mean that volta has to work, of course. If the shift is too abrupt or otherwise wrong, than it's too abrupt or otherwise wrong.

Your thoughts are always helpful. Thanks.
Rick

[Rick Mullin]

Getting back to you, Jim, on line one. I'm thinking of an anapest that would mean accidental to replaces "divine". I don't like "untoward".


NB: bizarre. I think it suggests that there is no accounting for it, and leave enough of the mystery regarding how it got there to be true to "art". Thanks.

[Barbara Baig]

Hi Rick,
I did enjoy reading this, even though I don't know who some of the models are--that didn't seem to matter. There's a kind of tongue-in-cheekness about the whole thing that made me laugh. I was also carried along by the solid rhythm and the rhymes. (I can't articulate this properly--maybe someone else can--I think it's the precision of the rhythm and the rhymes combined with the the off-ball quality of the content that makes the poem so funny.)

The Matisse and Picasso couplets are just perfect, especially the latter.

Thanks.

Barbara