What Am I Doing, Exactly?

Although I cannot pinpoint it any more, I remember my poetry being called ‘postmodernist’. I still do not comprehend this statement or, if you like, categorization because my thoughts in general are not even close to postmodernism. My philosophical works and general outlook are, for aught I can tell, mostly modernist: I embrace science, in the sense of the scientific method, as the best method of understanding the world, albeit not naively. I am well aware of human failure in all kinds of endeavours, my own short-comings included.
My poetry, on the other hand, deals, for its most part, with the remainder, that is to say, real life, nightmares, my own recurrent depression, the beauty and terror of love, and, of course, last but not least, death; my use of language is strongly metaphorical and allegorical, sometimes piercing through the boundaries of grammar for the sake of the correct expression of a thought or feeling.
Thus, if my poetry must needs be categorized, I should call it a mixture of romanticism and modernism.
I would appreciate your opinions. Feel free to disagree with me and stomp everything I stated above into the ground.


9 thoughts on “What Am I Doing, Exactly?

  1. They say poetry isn’t about rhyme schemes, iambic pentameter or alliteration; it is, in point of fact, the blood in one’s veins, the pulse in one’s wrist, and the marrow in one’s bones.

    Although I deal with prose more in my writing, a blogpal of mine once tried to advise me on following the standard norm of poetry writing after a few pathetic attempts on my part, but I couldn’t care less as I appreciate verses that naturally come out from experience and the heart.
    Who am I to stomp into the ground what you’ve just stated when I’ve enjoyed some of your poems (a blend of romanticism and modernism; sounds ideal to me) and you’re doing exactly here what you’re supposed to be doing. 🙂

    • By ‘stomp into the ground’ I just meant to say that I am open to all kinds of opinions and criticisms. My art, if I may flatter myself to call it that, is not a holy grale. And I like to reflect about both myself and my works, both present and past, which is easier taking into account readers’ opinions as well. I am not, to be sure, looking to expand my audience artificially by catering to specific requests and preferences. I have no desire to be popular or a bestselling author because that so often goes along with selling out your ideals.

    • Quoting you for the “stomp” line was merely tongue in cheek on my end. 🙂
      “I have no desire to be popular or a bestselling author because that so often goes along with selling out your ideals.” A wonderful and insightful way to put it.

      A penetrating comment of yours from another blog actually led me here and I’m glad.

    • It’s been good or I wouldn’t be here 🙂 .

      Something about how relationships are abusive to a degree which I have to concur with. There’s always a tendency for people to connect with others who will largely contribute to their well-being and if that advantage is lost, well, the relationship dissolves as well.

    • Oh, now I know what you are talking about. For a moment, I was inclined to think I had been rude or aggressive; but then I should have been unable to recall so. 🙂 When I wrote that comment, I had previously talked about the topic to someone at length, and the result was a tentative conclusion. It was tentative mostly because it was a generalization, and I am always careful as to generalizations – in general, I may add with a wink. As concerns myself, mutuality is key, although my expectations do not hold in both directions: The more a woman gives to me, the more I wish to give to her; but I do not expect her to give more to me just because I give more to her. My priority is her happiness, and if she is happy, I am. I apologize if it sounds cheesy, but that is way I feel.

    • It didn’t come off as detrimental in any manner. The tentative conclusion reflected a fairly polished generalization that’s in solidarity with my own credo.

      There’s nothing cheesy in any of it. Mutuality, however, doesn’t prevail in many cases between relationships. Though rare for a man in our conflicting contemporary times, it’s pleasing to hear of your ideals and concerns.

    • I just like to be careful. I do not see the world in black and white, there is not simply good and evil to discern, and I am always willing to revise my views in the light of better evidence. As to love, to some I may just sound like a lovesick fool, and perhaps they are right, but I still mean every word of it. Again, I am not looking for perfection. I am looking mostly for intelligence(!), humour, education, and common interests. Looks matter only as much to me as a woman needs to appeal to me, not to anyone else. For all I care, the entire world could deem her ugly and the worst person ever. But never mind me, I am just a philosopher and a poet, and only fools would take either a philosopher or a poet seriously longer than an instant. 😉

    • You, a lovesick fool? Hardly. 😉
      And philosophers aren’t supposed to be that.
      But a good romantic poet you certainly are.

      Thanks for a lovely exchange. It’s bedtime in my side of the globe. May you have a splendid day in yours. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s