A Diolouge Between the Soul and Body

…was the poem that I decided to imitate out of the book. At first I just tried to play around with one of the other ones, but I liked the idea of two VERY different forces conversing in the same poem, much like the poem about the house and Bernadette. I liked that the two were separated into different parts and labeled as such, but I think that I won’t use such obvious sections. I mean, it is quite possible that I will keep them the way they are(for now I have them sectioned as “yes” and “no”, which seems to work well). I think this style appeals to me the most because it seems neat and orderly. I like order simply because of my personality.

One thing about the poem I imitated that I am not a fan of is the title. I mean, it is very straight forward, but it doesn’t really add anything to the poem. Mine is called “Companionship and Compatibility” with sections titled “yes” and “no” (it’s similar to picking the flowers off the daisy and saying “He/she loves me/loves me not” except it’s not a cute-sy love poem and doesn’t involve a daisy).

I’m really not a fan of Dialectical Arguement Structure and I don’t feel that it is working for me because of the necessity for two opposing sides. Sometimes I can work in two different sides by having a particular situation with a language choice that doesn’t match it completely. This can create uncertainty or uneasiness (depending on the situation) without having to sit down and clearly state “this is what I think about owning a cat” and “this is what I think about owning a dog”. Staying true to the form, it is difficult to find a way to tie the two together, let alone end the poem. Some subjects cannot end, or do not find an end for a particular speaker/poet. I don’t like the “pressure to wrap up, or compromise”.

2 Responses to “A Diolouge Between the Soul and Body”

  1. I can connect to your aversions to the Dialectical-Argument structure. The way the essay defines it makes it seem very prescribed — A = one way of looking at things, B = an opposite way of looking at things, C = seemingly impossibly synthesis that can only occur in poetry. I wonder if it really has to be so strictly structured, though.

    Maybe the two sides don’t have to be quite so opposed; maybe they don’t even really have to be defined as two sides. Maybe they’re just two parts of the same side of a perspective. I’m not really sure I can think of an example of that, so maybe I’m reaching here, but I guess I’m just suggesting that if want to write something in the Dialectical-Argument structure, maybe I don’t need to feel so constricted to setting up an opposition, but rather setting up a conversation, that perhaps doesn’t necessarily conclude or synthesize, but just interacts.

    It’s possible that that made no sense at all, but I’m really attracted to the idea of taking things that are presented as strictly one way and choosing to interpret/use them in another way, that perhaps ends up being a more rewarding artistic medium — I think the Dialectical-Argument structure may hold that possibility/opportunity.

  2. stephroush Says:

    I also find this structure most difficult to work with. Not necessarily because of opposing view points, although it is hard to switch back and forth between points of view. It is more a frustration with the final part of the Dialectical Argument. Your post ends talking about the difficulty of synthesis: “Staying true to the form, it is difficult to find a way to tie the two together, let alone end the poem. Some subjects cannot end, or do not find an end for a particular speaker/poet. I don’t like the ‘pressure to wrap up, or compromise’.” It is this pressure that I suppose I should just accept and work with like any constraint place on my writing, but I find it particularly exhausting in this structure. Maybe this is because I have become so enmeshed in the act of juxtaposing views? I am not sure. I think a large part of my problem is that I move more and more to loose ends in my poetry. I do not particularly “wrap up” poems the way my earlier writing did. I guess my attempts to move away from “telling” in poetry backfire in this structure. I definitely find this is a personal obstacle I have to work through. I think of telling when I think of synthesis, but there are more creative ways to approach the synthesis I am sure. I think a looser interpretation of “argument” will help me work through these difficulties.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: