Universal Healthcare

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

As if this "teacher" had given anything worthwhile to the world,

And, OMT.  He did give something to the world.  He was highly intelligent and very well educated.  He could have gone into any field in the world.  He could have made millions for himself.  But he chose to educate children.  He did so without any detectable bias towards anything, without any agenda.

You know I'm a homeschooler and what I think about public schools.  But there were three teachers that stood out among the approximately 50 to 60 teachers I had as a child.  And he was one of them.  Those three teachers were the only ones I actually "learned" from.

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't believe you misjudge him on this matter.

Glad you see things my way!

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

His analysis was highly technical and logical.  There was no emotion in it.

Is it even possible to have meaningful critical analysis of a poem without reference to emotion? That's like having a meaningful analysis of a physics text without using math.

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

He even said that it really does sound very pretty.

But of course, "pretty" per se is beside the point. Even poems that are not ear-tickling can be profound (e.g. Dante's Inferno).

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But if you're going to have technical analysis of anything, it has to be by some objective standard.  And "sounding pretty" or "liking it" isn't an objective standard.

Several points to be made here:

• In something like poetry, which is designed to evoke emotion and offer an exalted (or sideways) perspective on something, a "technical analysis" is largely beside the point. It would be like performing an in-depth feng shui analysis of the Saturn V's paint scheme.
• You can technically analyze a sonnet to see whether it fulfills the rhyme scheme and scanning requirements. But even if it fulfills them perfectly, that doesn't really say anything about whether the poem is any good.
• On the other hand, many excellent sonnets don't follow the sonnet form slavishly; their departures from the established norm often constitute part of their profundity or charm.
• Who makes the "rules" on a technical analysis? The teacher? A board of academics somewhere?
• Technical analysis of this sort must always be decoupled from the impact of the poem as a whole. If the poem "works", then it's successful, and the technical mechanics are irrelevant. (Indeed, "mold-breaking" poetry, like exceptional works in all areas, often creates its own new genre, with its own technical requirements.) Your teacher naming the poem as "doggerel" is a nonsensical value judgment.
• Ultimately, whether or not it sounds nice ("pretty" or "powerful" or "stark" or "heartrending", whatever) and effectively gets its point across is the only relevant standard by which any poem can be judged. Any "technical analysis" is merely a means to that end, not to be confused with the end itself.

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The primary thing that he pointed out was the inconsistency of the imagery.  The message was something else entirely.  And he didn't care whether it was right or not, or profound or not.  Those are subjective (mostly).  He was concerned about -- how was the poem written? What was the skillful use of words and syntax that are the very definition of what separates prose from poetry?

Look, I don't want to tear down your childhood hero. I don't know the guy, so my judgment is based purely on what you shared.

It seems to me that an argument of inconsistent imagery must start with some judgment of what imagery should have been used and what usage constitutes consistency. Kilmer starts out naming the tree as a "poem". Then he immediately starts his comparison, describing the tree as a human! What sorcery is this? The poem-tree suckles at Mother Earth's breast, then prays to God, then wears nature's decorations in her "hair", then enjoys the precipitation as a blanket or bath (or perhaps something more intimate). Then, in the final couplet, the tree is compared again to a poem—but is far superior!

Inelegant, inconsistent imagery? Or genius? I vote the latter.

The point seems clear: Life is God's poem. Just as humans manipulate words to create beauty in form and substance, yet that beauty lies in the underlying meaning of the words (and obviously not the words themselves, which have meaning only by common agreement), so God creates his own poems of unfathomable beauty with the elements we see around us. Including trees. Including us.

This is seriously profound stuff. Kilmer has touched on a deep chord, not just of human experience, but of existence itself. That should not be lightly dismissed as mere doggerel.

Again, no offense intended. I know you admired this teacher, and I honor that. I just think that as a general rule, it's churlish for an aspiring author to tear down the work of someone like J. K. Rowling. Sure her writing is imperfect, and probably easy to critique and find fault with, but she sold a billion dollars worth of books. Nothing succeeds like success.

I think the overall balance would have been better with the black ring painted completely around the second-stage border and the flag moved up to the third stage.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Oh no way, Jose.  You're not blaming them Filipinos for this one!

 

You don't understand this...how are the Filipinos being blamed for that?  I must have missed something in this conversation.

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

I scrolled past this image so fast that I thought it was a variation of this picture of Christ when I saw it in the blur of my phone’s screen.

[NeuroTypical]

58 minutes ago, Vort said:

• It would be like performing an in-depth feng shui analysis of the Saturn V's paint scheme.

Now, if you do an interpretive dance of someone performing an in-depth feng shui analysis of the Saturn V's paint scheme, then you're back in the green.  In fact, here's Vort doing it now:

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Now, if you do an interpretive dance of someone performing an in-depth feng shui analysis of the Saturn V's paint scheme, then it's back to being art.  In fact, here's Vort doing it now:

 

So you were the guy taking video from up in the tree. Figures.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My English teacher went through a technical analysis of poetry and proceeded to dissect the poem "Trees".  He pointed out that it is just plain doggerel and how inconsistent it was in its imagery.

Typical.

Isn't there some axiom...something like......Those who can't do teach...?

Edited November 16, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Welcome to 21st-century postmodern criticism. As if this "teacher" had given anything worthwhile to the world, something besides describing why a poem doesn't qualify as more than "doggerel". Say what you will about Kilmer; at least he wrote poems. This (failure of a) teacher can rail all he wants about Kilmer's "doggerel", but a hundred years from now, people will still marvel at the insight, "Poems are made by fools like me / But only God can make a tree."

I have little patience for those who delight in tearing down, especially when that seems to be their only gift.

Ah...I see Vort beat me to it.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

if you're going to have technical analysis of anything, it has to be by some objective standard.

What?!

Why?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You don't understand this...how are the Filipinos being blamed for that?  I must have missed something in this conversation.

I think that the people who wrote the song are Filipino is what she's saying.

Edited November 16, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Saturn V

Maybe we should get @Vort some Saturn V ink for his birthday:

It's kind of a boring, ordinary blue, but look at those bottles!  They're adorable (especially the little guy).

[Vort]

1 minute ago, zil said:

It's kind of a boring, ordinary blue

Sounds like me.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

We tried to put @zil in solitary confinement here at the compound,

Please, please, please, for the sake of the wellbeing of the world, try harder. 

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, zil said:

Frozen Pony:

Is this a cold case of animal cruelty?

[zil]

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Please, please, please, for the sake of the wellbeing of the world, try harder. 

I've made sure all solitary confinement cells have good Wi-Fi reception and that I'll have access to computing and fountain pen resources no matter where they put me, so you're out of luck.

Meanwhile, I ended up working 16 hours yesterday, so your son's letter has been delayed, but not forgotten.

[askandanswer]

 He checks his mail on Mondays

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

 

I think the overall balance would have been better with the black ring painted completely around the second-stage border and the flag moved up to the third stage.

 

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Maybe we should get @Vort some Saturn V ink for his birthday:

 

With a few more bottles, @Vort could finish off that second stage black ring and turn it blue. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

With a few more bottles, @Vort could finish off that second stage black ring and turn it blue. 

Except (most) fountain pen ink is not opaque, so it would not cover over black paint - the blue would not even be noticed.  No, he'd need an opaque ink or an opaque paint (not all paints are opaque either).

[askandanswer]

Or add a 4th ring....

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Vort said:

Glad you see things my way!

I usually do.

Quote

Is it even possible to have meaningful critical analysis of a poem without reference to emotion? That's like having a meaningful analysis of a physics text without using math.

Consider one word: "Critical".  He did not call it "critical analysis".  He called it "technical analysis".  And he did mention that "critical analysis" is different.  There are those other elements by which to judge, but they are so subjective, that it is difficult to really teach without bias.  So, he wasn't going to do that.  He felt that subjective topics were for personal study.  Technical analysis, OTH, is objective.  And it will often yield different results than a critical analysis.

Quote

• In something like poetry, which is designed to evoke emotion and offer an exalted (or sideways) perspective on something, a "technical analysis" is largely beside the point. It would be like performing an in-depth feng shui analysis of the Saturn V's paint scheme.

Actually, one of the criteria for an "effective" poem from a technical analysis perspective was that it is supposed to evoke emotion.  And if it does that effectively through the proper use of poetic tools, then it satisfies that one criterion.

Quote

• You can technically analyze a sonnet to see whether it fulfills the rhyme scheme and scanning requirements. But even if it fulfills them perfectly, that doesn't really say anything about whether the poem is any good.
• On the other hand, many excellent sonnets don't follow the sonnet form slavishly; their departures from the established norm often constitute part of their profundity or charm.

You're absolutely right.  It's like you took his class.

Quote

• Who makes the "rules" on a technical analysis? The teacher? A board of academics somewhere?

Who made the rules you just outlined above?  There has to be a standard somewhere.  And as long as it is

a) Objective.
b) Widely accepted.
c) Measurable.
d) Fits definitions of the subject at hand (in this case: poetry)

Then why not?

Quote

• Technical analysis of this sort must always be decoupled from the impact of the poem as a whole. If the poem "works", then it's successful, and the technical mechanics are irrelevant. (Indeed, "mold-breaking" poetry, like exceptional works in all areas, often creates its own new genre, with its own technical requirements.) Your teacher naming the poem as "doggerel" is a nonsensical value judgment.

Does the poem work?

The metaphor of the poem was to portray a baby as a tree or a tree as a baby.  When you go through that analysis line-by-line, you find that the metaphor simply doesn't work.  That was his point.  Sure, he did a great job of providing the emotional imagery of natural beauty and warmth and love.  But to do so, he used an inconsistent metaphor. 

Quote

doggerel

A poem made up of verse or words that are badly written or expressed.

If you use a metaphor that completely doesn't work to make the comparison you're trying to make, is that not "badly written or expressed"?  Wouldn't you say the same of a logical argument in a debate?

"Metaphor" is a key element of poetry.  And if the metaphor used is a poor one, then it is poorly written.

Quote

• Ultimately, whether or not it sounds nice ("pretty" or "powerful" or "stark" or "heartrending", whatever) and effectively gets its point across is the only relevant standard by which any poem can be judged. Any "technical analysis" is merely a means to that end, not to be confused with the end itself.

Yes, but to what end are you referring?  The end that we understood was that many elements of the "tools" of poetry can be used in a poem.  But are you using them effectively?  Do the tools do the job you intended to have them do? 

Quote

Inelegant, inconsistent imagery? Or genius? I vote the latter.

Does it have to be either or?  What if his overall message was indeed genius, but the method he used to say it was poor?  Sure, you might have gotten a message out of it.  But was it the one he intended?  Life? or a Baby?  With inconsistent imagery, neither one actually fits the bill.  So, we can go on thinking we are both right or both wrong. We'll never know because the expression of the metaphor is poor.

Quote

This is seriously profound stuff. Kilmer has touched on a deep chord, not just of human experience, but of existence itself. That should not be lightly dismissed as mere doggerel.

First, I use "doggerel" by the denotation I specified above, not by connotation.  Second, "profound" is not part of technical analysis.  That falls into "critical analysis."  Different school.  Different criteria.  Different methodology.

Quote

Again, no offense intended. I know you admired this teacher, and I honor that. I just think that as a general rule, it's churlish for an aspiring author to tear down the work of someone like J. K. Rowling. Sure her writing is imperfect, and probably easy to critique and find fault with, but she sold a billion dollars worth of books. Nothing succeeds like success.

Well, you don't like Bill Murray, so...

Remember that the whole reason I brought up the story was to indicate that different people will have different criteria by which to judge things from different perspectives.  That doesn't render other people's judgments (or the same person's judgment) using different criteria.

In other words: There's no accounting for taste.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What?!

Why?

Because if it is not objective, then it can't be "technical".  It's kind of part of the definition.

Quote

Technical

Telating to a particular subject, art, or craft, or its techniques.

Requiring special knowledge to be understood

According to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Because if it is not objective, then it can't be "technical".  It's kind of part of the definition.

You used the term "objective standard".

Let's break this down with an example.

Looking at a painting - an over-simplified technical observation: 40% of the color used is green. Only 3% of the color used is red.

What's the objective standard required to make that technical observation?

Moreover, you're then trying to imply an objective standard applied to how the usage of green improves or worsens the quality of the painting as a piece of art. As if one can say, "By any reasonable objective standard, if you have more than 30% green in your painting it's bad art."

Nonsense and garbage and baloney and all that jazz.

You don't need an objective "standard" to technically analyse something. That is very different than objectively analyzing something. The first means you're measuring it against something else -- which is not requisite, and when it comes to subjective things like the quality of art, practically impossible*. The second simply means you're considering the facts of the the what/where/why/when/how of the matter.

*The only real "objective" measurement for the quality of art is a general collective affirmation by the masses.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Looking at a painting - an over-simplified technical observation: 40% of the color used is green. Only 3% of the color used is red.

What's the objective standard required to make that technical observation?

False example.  You're using an arbitrary item declared by you alone and declaring it a standard.  The definition of standard requires that it be widely accepted. How many people do you know of that require a painting to have a certain percentage of any particular colors.

What you describe is not a "standard" but it is a quantitative observation.  And such can be used to properly describe a painting.  But it has nothing to do with any standard.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Moreover, you're then trying to imply an objective standard applied to how the usage of green improves or worsens the quality of the painting as a piece of art. As if one can say, "By any reasonable objective standard, if you have more than 30% green in your painting it's bad art."

I did not.  You did.  Straw man.  You're creating a ridiculous standard that no group of individuals believes and then pointing out how it isn't a standard.  Well, you're right. It is not a standard because it is not widely accepted.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Nonsense and garbage and baloney and all that jazz.

Exactly what I thought of your example as well.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't need an objective "standard" to technically analyse something.

If it isn't objective and it isn't a standard, then you have no credible claim to a technical analysis. That's the very definition. 

Turn it around here.  If you use no standard and you don't use anything objective, then what do you consider "technical analysis"?

You can certainly analyze it using other methods.  You can analyze it for other purposes.  But if you're calling it technical analysis, then you need to provide a definition that is actually used by people other than you.  Otherwise, you're no different than a person who splatters random paint on a blank canvas and promotes it as the most sublime piece of artwork ever.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is very different than objectively analyzing something.

The first means you're measuring it against something else -- which is not requisite,

If you mean "some other piece of art" then you are incorrect. It does not mean that.  Thus you are right, it is NOT requisite.  That's the whole point of having a standard by which to measure.  You're measuring it against a standard, not another piece of art.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

and when it comes to subjective things like the quality of art, practically impossible*.

Exactly.  That's why you can't, in any practical sense, analyzing a subjective quality.  That's why you need objective criteria.

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The second simply means you're considering the facts of the the what/where/why/when/how of the matter.

Yes, it does mean that.  That's part of the whole point.  One of the first steps of technical analysis is to read what is actually there -- all of it.  We can compare this to scripture study.  As @prisonchaplain pointed out, we need to read all of scripture to get the big picture first.  Then we see how the specifics can be interpreted as it is informed by the big picture.  Some will want to interpret a poem by only reading one line.  That leads to mistakes like "And I, I chose the path less traveled by."

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*The only real "objective" measurement for the quality of art is a general collective affirmation by the masses.

I agree and disagree in a sort of paradoxical / oxymoronic way.  I think there is nothing more subjective than the affirmation by masses (hello democratic useful idiots).  While at the same time, if standards are formed by a collective opinion of what is important. However, there is a third aspect.  The opinions of those who are educated in certain areas are considered "expert opinions".  Those carry more weight than one who is not expert in that field.

You can have a billion people say that all guns should be outlawed.  But those who know and are educated about the effects of having guns and not having guns should be counted more than the person who just listened to the evening news and decided to become outraged at the latest mass shooting.

Language changes in the same way.  The average person had used the word "peruse" in the wrong way for decades.  And it was considered "wrong".  But eventually the educated population began using it the same way, and eventually, the lexicon changed.  So, it is now correct (as an alternate definition).

[zil]

FWIW, @Carborendum, I comprehend the "technical analysis" concept regarding poetry as you've described it and don't see a problem with the idea.  Perhaps use of the word "doggerel" as the result of the technical analysis is lacking in objective technicality, but I still comprehend the idea and distinction (e.g. with critical analysis or even poetic quality) and don't have a problem with it as others seem to.

Androids of the world unite!

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

FWIW, @Carborendum, I comprehend the "technical analysis" concept regarding poetry as you've described it and don't see a problem with the idea.  Perhaps use of the word "doggerel" as the result of the technical analysis is lacking in objective technicality, but I still comprehend the idea and distinction (e.g. with critical analysis or even poetic quality) and don't have a problem with it as others seem to.

Androids of the world unite!

I realize that the use of the word "doggerel" may be connotatively incorrect.  Another definition is "crude and unimaginitive" poetry.  I certainly don't apply that meaning to "Trees".  But I do believe its imagery was inconsistent.  Therefore, it was not expressed well.