Re: NastyGoon lifts a line

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:51:41 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:37:42 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 4:00:34 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 23:55:05 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:44:20 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 5:38:14 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 1:38:39 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

Since you refuse to reprint the poem, or provide a link to it, you can't
fault me for basing my reading on a single, out of context line.

>
Actually, HarryLiar, we're now talking about my reading of the line -
"the unread newspapers represent all the things one doesn't get to do in
a day, all the unfinished business that just keeps piling up and piling
up" and your response" which I called a "great metaphor" and your
response: "Yes, George, that's Creeley's simile.  [Please note the
difference
between "simile" and "metaphor."]
>
Using "the days" to represent "unfinished business" is not a simile.
It's symbolism, or (if you'd like to quibble) metonymy.

>
I believe that I first learned about similes in the 3rd Grade.  A simile
was defined as a comparison between two seemingly different things (A is
like B).

I've never had any interest in labeling the various forms, styles,
components, etc., of poetry.

I know that PJR and Horatio used to do
that quite a bit, and that you were always eager to join in -- only to
be ignored.  It always struck me as an exercise in pointlessness.
Poetry isn't about the labels one can attach to it, or the categories
one can pigeonhole it into.

So, unless you're just trolling again, why did you bring it up here?

NancyGene's line is great regardless of whether it's a simile, metaphor,
or an example of symbolism.

As I previously explained to you, the newspapers in NancyGene's simile
represent "Yesterdays," or *Memories.*

>
That is also not a simile. If NastyGoon had said in the poem "Yesterdays
are like memories" that would be have been a simile, but they did not.
In your reading, they are also using a different literary device.

>
And just what literary device is that?

>
"Symbolism" sounds good to me.

>
It doesn't to me.

Well, I did offer you another option: "metonymy".

A symbol is the substitution of one thing for another.  Using
"Yesterdays" to represent "Memories" is closer to being a symbol (it's
actually a metaphor) than "Yesterdays... (are) like ... read newspapers"
(which I still think is a simile).

Now this is cute; you began by denying that Creeley's use (in my
interpretation) of "The Days" that are piling up to "unfinished
business" that piles up was a "metaphor" (and claimed it was a simile.
Now you're insisting that NG's use of
"Yesterdays" (in your interpretation) to represent "memories" *is* a
'metaphor. You're doing exactly the same thing you accused me of.

So you're saying that using "Yesterdays" to mean "memories" makes sense;
but we're discussing their simile, not that literary device.

>
Are you now going to prattle on about some unnamed literary device
(which you have no intention of identifying)?

>
I just identified it, in both poems, HarryLiar.

>
How can you accuse me of lying it my previous post, when you just
identified it (incorrectly, IMHO) in this one?

I didn't accuse you of "lying it" in your previous post. "HarryLiar" is
just your new nickname (since you didn't like "Lime sock"). If I accuse
you of lying, I'll call you Lying Michael (since that's the search term
for your lies that I'm now using so those can be found.

Now, as for their
similes, both are virtually identical: both compare days ("The days" in
one, "Yesterdays" in the other) to newspapers {"unread" in one, "read"
in the other).

>
But the days are used to represent *different things* in each.
>
Yesterdays = Memories vs Days = Increments of Time.

Are you really so dense as to be incapable of seeing past the specific
words to recognize their metaphorical (or, if you must, symbolic)
meanings?

HarryLIar, judging by what you think Creeley meant by "The days", you
seem to be the one incapable of recognizing that he was using it had a
metaphorical meaning. (I can now call it "metaphor" even though you
continue to insist that "not a metaphor.")

The speaker in
NancyGene's poem feels as if they are unable to escape from their
memories, so the *read* newspapers keep piling up -- becoming more
oppressive with each passing day.

>
Which is not a good simile, as I said, because "read newspapers" do not
normally stack up that way.

>
Technically, newspapers don't stack up stack up any way by themselves;
they are stacked up by others.

>
That's a stupid quibble; of course stacks of newspapers are made by
people. Normally, people do not stack up the newspapers they've already
read.

>
It is neither stupid, nor quibbling, George. I was demonstrating how one
can change the meaning of a sentence by examining it out of context
(something which you do in practically every post).

According to your
sentence, the newspapers have taken on a life of their own and are
capable of movement (piling themselves in stacks).

No, that's simply your interpretation of the sentence. It actually says
nothing about the newspapers taking on a life of their own and moving
anywhere.

If you don't like it, don't do it.

But we are discussing a line of poetry, a literary form that deals in
simile, symbol, and metaphor -- so why should it matter how you think
they stack themselves in real life?

>
If in a poem you're trying to use a simile to show how the [d]ays "pile
up" or stack up, you should try to use a vehicle that does normally
"pile up" (like Creeley's "unread newspapers", not one that does not
normally "stack up" (like "read newspapers"). That should be clear
enough to anyone who isn't just
trying to play the peabrain.

>
See my comments below.  While "unread newspapers" get stacked up because
the subscriber hasn't had time to read them, "read newspapers" get
stacked up when the subscriber is suffering from clinical depression --
which is what NancyGene's poem is about.

- once they're read, they're thrown away.

>
Under normal circumstances, yes.

>
So a reader's first thought would be that the line makes no sense.
>

However, when someone is suffering from clinical depression, they often
do not bother taking out their trash.  As previously noted, my Great
Aunt who suffered from depression stacked all of her read newspapers and
magazines on her front porch. The stacks reached up to the ceiling, and
covered the entire porch, barely allowing passage to her door.

>
Are you saying that a perceptive reader would conclude that NastyGoon's
speaker is suffering from "clinical depression"? Are you saying that's
what you concluded on the basis of one line? I did not.

>
I can't remember if I picked that up from the first line, or further
into the poem.  I certainly recognized it as the theme *during* my
initial reading.

That's nice, but don't you remember what your mentor PJ Ross used to
tell us an "esperienced reader" would do if he found a first line in a
poem by a complete unknown that didn't make sense to him? Why expect
anyone to do it for NG's poem?
(Note that I haven't refused to read the rest of the poem. You and your
"colleague" have refused to post it.)

If
NastyGoon wanted to compare oppressive memories stacking up to something
else, they should have compared that to something that is read and not
thrown away; anything from magazines, to books, to downloaded files on a
hard drive. But comparing them to newspapers doesn't make sense.

>
"Old clothes would be another good vehicle; those stack up in closets,
whether they've been worn or not. That makes four better choices than
NastyGoon's.

>
Because old clothes don't represent memories.

All righty, then. I gave you only three better choices.

A daily newspaper (specifically a daily newspaper that has been *read*)
is the perfect metaphor for one's memories, which comprises the events
one experiences each day.

No, "memories" does not comprise "the events

one experiences each day." There are plenty of events that I experience
each day that I don't remember.

Again, it not only makes perfect sense, but it perfectly mirrors the
practices of my Great Aunt.

>
Are you saying that, because you had a Great Aunt who suffered from
clinical depression and didn't throw away newspapers she'd read, you
were able to grasp from one line that NastyGoon's speaker suffered from
the exact same clinical depression?

>
I wouldn't say that it was the "exact same" one.  Depression varies with
the individual.  I'm saying that the *symptoms* of clinical depression
often involve shutting oneself off from the world, not wanting to leave
their house or even getting out of bed, not caring about their
appearance, not taking out their trash, etc.
>

My only response has to be that most readers don't have a Great Aunt
like that; so they'd simply see it as a bad simile: trying to show how
"yesterdays" stack up by comparing it to something that doesn't normall
"stack up".

>
I can't speak for most readers anymore than you can, George.

Yet you have no trouble telling others what "readers" think of their
poems.

>
I can say that most people have experienced feelings of depression, and
can readily understand feeling oppressed or suffocated by their
memories.
>
Regardless of whether they've known someone suffering from clinical
depression, they should be able to understand the metaphoric
similarities between one's memories (experienced events of each day) and
daily newspapers (a report of events that occurred in one's local
community and the world at large on a day by day basis).
>

Both similies are good, by NancyGene's is more original: the idea of
wasted time piling up on one is a common theme of poetry, whereas being
weighed down by the past is not.

>
First, I didn't say Creeley was using "The days" to stand for wasted
time. Saying "Wasted time piles up like unread newspapers" wouldn't make
sense because the tenor (wasted time) does not pile up.

>
There is no point in your discussing what Creeley might have been
saying, because no one (Will, NancyGene, and I) can find a copy of his
supposed poem.

>
We're only discussing one line of each poem. I got his symbolism merely
by a reading of one line, and saw it as a good simile. I also got
NastyGoon's simile by the same reading of one line, and on reflection
see it as a bad simile.

>
You see what you want to see, George.

Ho, hum.

Second, if one wanted to say that their memories were oppressive (as you
say NG is trying to express with their simile) doesn't make sense
either, because (in addition to not normally stacking up in piles),
"read newspapers" aren't oppressive either.

>

I sure as hell felt oppressive feelings (claustrophobia, suffocation)
when entering her house through the yellowing stacks.  Old newspapers
have a distinctive odor as well, which lends to the feelings of
suffocation.

>
Your Great Aunt's house? Well, assuming that you didn't just make her up
to defend your "colleague's" simile, I'll point out that readers who
didn't have a Great Aunt like yours would have no idea why newspapers
were oppressive. They'd see it as a bad simile which ruins the line,
just as I do.

>
And, again, I'm willing to venture that they immediately pick up on the
similarity between stacks of *read* newspapers and memories.  One
doesn't need to have had a clinically depressed Great Aunt to recognize
that.

Well, the only way to tell what other readers will think of NastyGoon's
line is if their poem gets any other readers. Good luck to them.