You just learned something about good writing from George Orwell. Among other things: don't be wordy. Say what you mean in as few words as possible. Think about what you actually want to say, and say that.
Ernest Hemingway said that a good short story was like an iceberg -- you left 75% of it below the surface.
Here's a short piece from The NewYorker in praise of concise writing. [If you look at the root of the word: con -- with; cision -- cuts.]
And, p.s. -- if you've never read The NewYorker, you should pick up a copy. It usually has a short story, always a few poems, lots of cartoons, and often important non-fiction pieces. Check out their website here.
I found this article quite interesting and I agree with many points. For example, the passage talking about how a simple haiku can, with the right words, speak volumes. This is true, sometimes a few choice words are far more valuable than a whole arsenal of useless ones.
ReplyDeleteI found it funny that this article on concision was pretty verbose. Although, I do agree with the concept that things left unsaid are often as powerful as those spoken.
ReplyDeleteExcept for this. I disagree with this:
"Adam
Had ’em.
...The poem actually offers a “criticism of life”—Matthew Arnold’s touchstone for poetry that addresses the “spirit of our race.” Doesn’t it say, in effect, Why fuss over minor annoyances, as we’ve been doing since the beginning of time, given that complaining has done nothing to alleviate our lot?"
I can't say I saw "criticism of life" in these four syllables. I guess I was just wondering who had Adam, or what Adam had. I can't really read into it enough to pull ideas about "complaining" and "annoyances." Maybe i'm not literate enough, or something.
The secret is in the title: "Fleas". (Ah, titles!)
DeleteThis article was amusing to me because Brad Leithauser sounded like he was writing a lectio! It's almost as if we are responding to his own post in our summer reading blog.
ReplyDeleteI agree with him about how sometimes small amounts of words are the most meaningful.
I don't know if I'm just always drawn to biblical references, but I really liked his short paragraph: "On a graver note- as grave as humankind is capable of- what about 'Jesus Wept'? Surely the shortest verse in the Bible may be the most affecting."
Of course, I looked up what book of the bible this occurs in. It is John 11:35. I went to my own Bible and read what was happening during this short verse. In this particular story, Jesus is entering Lazarus' village and hears that Lazarus has died. His sisters, Martha and Mary, run to Jesus telling him their brother could have lived if he was there earlier to save him. They ask Jesus if he'd like to go see Lazarus. The next line is "Jesus wept." This is such a small amount of words, but they are very important to the lesson John is trying to convey. It is to show that God loves us and cares with all his heart. Jesus wept with the sisters, mourning the death of Lazarus. Now, I know these words may not be very important to someone who is not religious. Yet, to me, I understand the power of these 2 words. That emphasizes Leithauser's point about how sometimes the smallest phrases can mean the most.
~Martha
Martha and Mary are also mentioned in Luke -- but in a wholly different context.
DeleteJesus Visits Martha and Mary
38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, Joh. 11.1 which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 but one thing is needful; and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
What a nice story, and how concise! You have to feel bad for Martha, though. (Somewhere I've read a poem about this, but I can't remember where.)
It's also interesting how this is yet another Mary in the Gospels.
To be honest, I thought this guy was pretty eccentric. It's good for him that he has this super-natural power to detect a "critisism of life" from a two line, 3 word poem. Maybe I'm missing that part of my brain, but to me I merely saw 3 words that I put together in my head to devise a meaning completely different that the meaning that Leithauser describes. I really don't see how the poem asks "why fuss over minor annoyances, as we’ve been doing since the beginning of time, given that complaining has done nothing to alleviate our lot?" To me it seems like Adam had something at one point that he no longer has. That being said, I belive there is a line between being concise with your verbiage and being too vague. To relate this to something we discussed in class, I think in "Fleas," the author leaves about 99% of the ice berg uncovered.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, I do agree that being concise with your writing can make the point of your literature simpler, and therefore more powerful. It's true that poetry tends to be less wordy than prose, so it's no surprise that Marilyn Monroe preffered it over the latter in order to save time. We have all read those books that take pages and pages simply describing a scene. Still, I enjoy reading prose more because it leaves less work for my imagination, and the events of the story can play out in my head. I often find that while reading poetry, I have to stop often and re-read lines because I am trying too hard to transform the words to images.
Well, at least you're reading the poetry the right way.
DeleteIt all depends, though. When you find a writer who really engages and challenges you, difficult can be fun.
I found this article quite intriguing, from its examples of concision to the author’s interpretation of them. While I agree with many of you that I did not always get what he did from these passages, I believe that that spurs from our initial fondness of concision.
ReplyDeleteI think we find concise, simple thoughts to be so provoking because they are so open- so easily elaborated upon and free to the imagination- that nearly anything is possible. It’s your experiences and beliefs that form reasons and themes for these types of literature because it does not spell it out for you, it doesn’t give you every little detail, and that’s what makes it beautiful.
I see that “Adam, Had’em” and the author’s interpretation of that short passage has caused some confusion. Maybe it’s not our lack of literacy that is causing this perplexity, but the sheer fact that we are different people, with different lives and experiences that evokes separate thoughts, images and ideas, separate to his.
That’s just my take though, what do you think?
-Garret Tirrell
Enough about fleas. How about that haiku?
DeleteI go,
you stay;
two autumns.
That leaves a whole whole for us to fill. 99.9% below the surface, there.
I really enjoyed this article and appreciated what Brad Leithauser had to say. I really agreed with him because I think the best things said are the words not spoken at all. Something can really be said about inferences and making your own opinions. Leithauser made an excellent point about concise writing- what's wrong with keeping something short and sweet? It is all about the eye of the beholder. "Adam, Had'em" can be twisted into so many different meanings depending on the reader. Ernest Hemingway said that 80% of writing is below the surface and I believe that it is up to the reader to interpret that 80%.
ReplyDeleteI am always all for shorter poems and stories because I believe that a lot can be said with fewer words. It really can go back to what George Orwell said about making things simple. Writings really don't have to be as complex as people make them these days and I really appreciate Orwell and Leithauser's opinions on the subject. I always thought that complex=better, but can't someone get the same point across without having to use words that they don't even know the meaning of? It is refreshing to read that these two people go "against the crowd" if you will, about writings. Maybe I find it so great because of how much I agree with them!
However, something can also be said for a nice, long, drawn out story. Earlier this year, we read "Rime of the Ancient Mariner", and it was very long. Despite its length, I still really enjoyed it. Though I agree with simplicity, I think that it is still important to have some length and some complexity for some variety. Long and short poems both can be very difficult to interpret which is why it is good to have a variety. "Adam, Had'em", while short and concise, is a little difficult to read under the surface; so is "Rime of the Ancient Mariner." I do agree with the author's opinion of simplicity in writing, but I can also see the other side of the coin- why simplicity may be criticized. We are all different, though, with all different experiences which is why we have different interpretations and opinions. So while some may enjoy a long poem, others, myself included, may be content with a nice "short, sweet, and to the point" poem.
I think there is being concise in an effective way, like Hemingway. Then there is being overly concise, like “Adam Had ’em.” or “I go, you stay, two autumns.” Those two little poems are considered great by this guy. He sees a much deeper meaning than any normal person would. Good for him I suppose. On the other hand, I’m not seeing these deep intellectual messages. That is when I think it’s overly concise. If a decently educated person can’t really uncover the hidden message then there isn’t enough iceberg showing. You need a certain amount of information to unlock the secrets of the underwater-part of the iceberg. I could write “First he flossed, then he lost.” and some person somewhere would try to uncover the hidden meaning behind it when in fact, there is no meaning. Basically what I’m saying is there is such a thing as too concise.
ReplyDeleteIf a poem or story utilized just the right amount of concision, well then we have ourselves a wonderful piece of literature. As I said before, Hemingway has a great understanding of the concept which is why he is considered a writing legend. I have never heard of those 4 syllable poems before and they have never been in our English curriculum, so they can’t be that great.
I literally couldn't have said it better. "If a decently educated person can’t really uncover the hidden message then there isn’t enough iceberg showing. You need a certain amount of information to unlock the secrets of the underwater-part of the iceberg."
DeleteExactly -- if it's not in the curriculum, it ain't nothin'! [Irony emoticon]
DeleteI don't think it's a matter of education so much as it is intuition. To paraphrase Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting": Beethoven looked at a piano and it just made sense to him.
I thought Leithauser was quite witty in his analysis of poetry and concision. He proclaims that “Adam Had’em” is the shortest successful poem in any language. It entices readers to go off of the words that are already there and formulate the rest of the story. In that respect, I thought that was brilliant. Don’t get me wrong, I am still completely confused on what exactly makes it so successful. Maybe it’s the fact that it poses more questions than resolves them? Or maybe the fact that Adam “had’em” is the answer to the question and as readers, we have to figure out the original question. Regardless, I am sure that Orwell would agree with Leithauser that this poem is true poetry and that it is good for the language.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leithauser that a good haiku tells a story far larger than what is written on the paper. With such short poems like Haikus, I notice a sense of vulnerability within the writing. There is no hiding the meaning of the poem with only seventeen syllables. Each word is read and highly scrutinized. Every word counts because there is no “fluff” to cover up the meaning and distract the reader. Therefore, the complexity of the haiku must come out through the simple, carefully chosen words. To me, that shows elegance and gives the poem the most significance.
Adam
Deletehad 'em
is better than
Adam
had them
don'y you think.
And I think of a haiku as a pebble in a pond. The ripples radiate within us.
After reading the article, I realized that the part that stuck with me the most was all the things that people do in their free time. To be honest, some of them were pretty funny things. This made me start thinking that everyone must have something that is a seemingly crazy thing to do. Probably it is a good thing, although maybe it shouldn’t stretch to the extent of covering cars with bottle caps.
ReplyDeleteI also must agree with Chris. To be completely honest, I’ve never been very good at English or poetry. Many of these things are just short lines with a few words artfully put together in a way that will strike a deep inner meaning. Maybe the writings are very meaningful, but I almost always fail to see how these few words are as influential as the author seems to be stating. I guess it is a very individual thing.
Reading “concise poems” don’t make me feel fulfilled or intrigued at all. In fact, they make me irrationally angry. After reading the whole article, and all those short “poems,” I found myself inwardly cursing the article’s author and wanting to strangle the computer. I can only assume this reaction comes from the infuriating un-finished-ness of all these poems. I like stories with a clear beginning, middle, and end, and none of these poems had any of that. It’s sort of like writing a statement. “I like pie,” for example. There’s no meaning behind that, and it doesn’t tell a story; as a poem, it’s just frustrating. I understand the need to be concise and be to-the-point in everyday conversation, but in poetry, it just doesn’t work. In my opinion, at least. Poetry is about imagery and letting your feelings write the words and making the reader say, “wow, I understand what he means, I really connect with that,” and not, “wait, what?...”
ReplyDeleteI feel very few emotions when reading something short. I have no time to build up expectations and connections, and they lack enough words to make me even consider a deeper meaning. I feel like the author of the article is making up meanings to fit his own interpretations. He seems to KNOW what each poem is about, and exactly what the few words represent. And I’m sitting here like, “I totally didn’t even have a clue about this ‘poem’ before this guy said anything.” Obviously, the author is partial to short poems, and I can accept that, but the only thing short poems do for me is make me angry.
I agree with what you said completely, “It’s sort of like writing a statement. “I like pie,” for example. There’s no meaning behind that, and it doesn’t tell a story; as a poem, it’s just frustrating.” I also find it funny that with an article about the shortness of Leithauser seemed to find so much deeper meaning in some of his favorite poems such as Adam/Had ’em and I go/
Deleteyou stay/two autumns.
To me these may technically be haikus but to an average human being these are just words placed together. Leithauser delved into these poems like they were a delicious piece of chocolate cake waiting to be eaten. He found such meaning, symbolism and even stories behind these haikus that I couldn’t wrap my mind around it. I guess if you were to include other background information behind the poems such as the author’s history, then you may find some of this deeper meaning. I don’t believe an entire background or bibliography should be needed to understand a haiku or poem though. The haiku or poem should stand on its own because that’s what it is really is, just that. Not a poem or haiku with background information attached. Leithauser found so much in these haikus and reacted to them with such strong emotions much like many normal people do with an entire book. This was not an entire book but rather 2 or more words. I personally believe that a poem or haiku must have more substance in order for it to receive a response typical to the one by Leithauser. Sometimes such conciseness can be too overanalyzed too.
The only acceptance that I find myself leaning towards is the reference made to the bible by Leithauser. “Jesus wept”? Surely, the shortest verse in the Bible may be the most affecting. Even then, this is much different though than a haiku such as the ones mentioned above. These touching two words were a part in the entire bible. It did have much meaning though and provoked strong emotional response but I don’t believe Leithauser should’ve included it in his article.
Something that was mentioned in class the other day was the Gettysburg Address delivered by Abraham Lincoln. He spoke for 2 minutes and forever impacted a nation. It does go to show that not everything has to be elaborated or extremely detailed to get a point across. I seem to be lacking some of that myself, I should’ve just written a haiku response to In Praise of Concision ha.
-Samantha Riley
HAHAHAHA that wouldve been so great! I'm gonna steal that idea >_> <_<
DeleteYou like concise words
But your article is not
What is your problem?
How about a sonnet? Still too short?
DeleteHow about limericks? Those don't make you mad, do they?
The pies my Gramma
Deletebaked, sit cooling now only
on the windowsills of the past
(Yea, 20 syllables; but who's counting?)
After I read Brad Leithauser’s “In Praise of Concision” I found that I agreed with most of what he said. I believe that when you speak less, you gain more. We have two ears to listen and one mouth to talk and I believe that there’s a reason for that.
ReplyDeleteThe poem “Fleas” stood out to me because my brother and I used to have a book filled with short poems and this was one of them. It brought back memories of my childhood and other poems in the book such as, “The Eraser Poem” which took out a letter from the poem in every line until there was nothing. In just four words, the author has told us what Adam had and in a witty way. Instead of explaining and worrying about the minor annoyances of it, he just said it and it worked.
In the haiku about two autumns, it leaves you with a message behind the words with just your own opinion. I liked how Brad said, “A single entity—a couple—devolves into a pared, shared falling away.” When I read this, I was intrigued when he said falling away because it made me think of the leaves that fall in autumn and how the two people fell away like leaves as well.
In the second haiku, you can hear the comfort and sadness at the same time about the hockey stick from the boy’s father. The father had probably passed away and that is why he has it. This haiku tells everything in just thirteen words, and reminds me of a funeral or a break up. When I’m there with the person, I don’t always say “I’m sorry.” Sometimes I just hold the person because words can’t fill the emptiness they feel. I feel like this would be a good example of concision because the less words you say, the better. Concision works best when there is no language left at all.
What would you say if I told you it was a walking stick, not a hockey stick? (It doesn't specify, but I'm pretty sure.)
DeleteWe could see that either as a "fail" (not enough iceberg), or as a poem that had a different meaning for you than for me.
When Brad Leithauser began this article I thought he had a good thing going. I agree that often times it is better to be more concise so it is easier to get your point across. However, I don’t agree that the shorter it is the better. When I read poetry I want imagery to create a picture in my mind and make me feel as though I am part of the poem. I don’t feel that when you have a two line poem you are able to feel apart of it. I feel that poerty should be, to a certain degree, the interpretation of the reader, but I feel with so little information on the page that the poem lacks content. The content of the poem is what people read it for. People might initial think a poem is cool because it is short, but if it lacks content for the reader to interpret than you don’t really get anything out of the poem.
ReplyDeleteI also have found that in poems that are concise they tend to be sporadic. Take the poem that Hall wrote for example. It was originally 100 lines, but it ended with six. This poem jumped all over the place. I did not see much relation, pattern, or progression between what was written. I believe flow is very important to a poem. It should roll of your tongue and create a nice image and story. If a poem is choppy and sporadic it takes away from the grace and fluidity of the writing.
You'd probably like Hall's original poem much better. And I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff in the original.
DeleteBut in revising poetry,excision can be vital. (Hall's poem would e an extreme example.
Being concise can be good, but it reaches a point where it just becomes too over the top. In some cases being concise is a good thing, it gets us to the point and fast or leaves us room for our imagination. However, if you’re too concise I think it becomes more of a hassle. I don’t agree with Leithauser that “Adam, Had ‘em” is the shortest successful poem in language. For me this is an example of being too concise. Even after reading his summary of what the poem means I still don’t totally understand it. Maybe a literally genius would get the meaning of this poem but to a normal person it gives us little to figure out the meaning of the poem. I know many people, including me, have a lot of problems already trying to figure out the meanings behind poems. When an author becomes too concise on top of that it nearly makes it impossible for the normal person to figure out.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases being concise could be a good thing. By not knowing the meaning, it gives us room to make up our own ideas and meanings depending on our background and life. In order for this to work though, the poem does need some sort of body in order for people to become connected with it and connect it to their life. The length of the poem or phrase doesn’t effect if it’s too concise or not, it’s all about what the words in it mean and how they work together to produce an effect.
When I read a poem or quote I want to connect to it and figure out the author's meaning. I want it to be concise and not just rambling, but I want to enjoy it and not have to overthink to try and figure out what it means. I think the right amount of concision leaves people to still have their own ideas and connect with it but it also is to the point and gets across what it wants to. It may say different things to different people but they all get a similar overall idea, unlike one that is too concise and leaves people questioning what they read and having no clue what the author is trying to say.
I guess we're all going for the Goldilocks Effect -- not too short, not too long, buts juuuuust right.
DeleteI have always believed that concise writing is the best kind of writing, and Brad Leithauser confirmed that I'm not the only one who believes this. My problem with with longer pieces of writing is that the details and the information becomes so overwhelming and confusing that it is incredibly difficult to understand it. Concise writing gets to the point in a way that most people understand. Not only is it understandable, but it also allows the reader to interperate some of the details. For example, when he talks about my favorite poem, I go,/ you stay;/ two autumns. It tells a beautiful story, but the details of that story is different for every person. Concise writing is simplier and to me, simple writing is more beautiful.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why simple writngs are better because readers can make connections to the literature. For example, the poem "Exile", I know that I can relate to the same street changing as I have grown older. "Exile" really tells the story of a boy growing up, yet each stanza is only two lines. It is simple and relatable to every person who reads it.
Rebecca..
DeleteI think it's interesting that you enjoy a concise poem's open interpretations. For some reason, that's what really bothers me about them. Maybe it's because, in my mind, I want it to have a concrete meaning.
When you say that you have an issue with longer pieces because they are "overwhelming and confusing", (therefore making it dfficult to understand), a simple poem can have the same effect on its readers! If the vocabulary is difficult, or if there are so few words that its readers are left questioning every itty bitty detail of the poem to try and reach some sort of clarification, then it can be just as frustrating of an experience for the readers. It all depends on who's reading the poem, and their personal preferences/ their capability to comprehend certain material.
I respect your opinions, your post just got me thinking. Simple writing is beautiful, but there are some lengthier poems out there that are just as, if not more, beautiful! Again, it all depends on the reader's idea of beauty. Because, what exactly is beauty? It's different for everyone.
-Brianna Ricciardone
See, somebody gets it.
DeleteWhen somebody asks me "how long should this paper be?" I like to say -- Zenmaster style -- "How long is a bridge?"
DeleteI beleive that things can be better said with less words. It's similiar to communicating with your best friend. Sometimes you don't need to say anything, you can just look at each other and talk using body language. It is a pet peave of mine when people write long sentences, or try and fit as many complicated words in one sentence, just to sound mature. I agree with Rebecca how in some writing pieces they are too consumed with detail and too many words, that it is hard to get at the meaning or even understand the piece. You become too consumed with just wanting to finish reading, that you don't capture its beauty.
ReplyDelete"I go, you stay; two autumns." The haiku says very little, but it's beautiful. It's "a single entity, devolves into a pared, shared falling away." There is seperation, loss, heasrtache in only three short lines. It is the simple things in life that count, and will be remembered.
The poem "Exile" explains in six lines a boys life changing and maturing. He falls in love, realizes it's "puppy love" and sees the world as a mature man wit new eyes. I think many people can relate to this poem, young love ending and finally being able to see past that and living life to its fullest. The peoem doesn't linger on the saddness, once the sadness hits you experience new, exciting life! I love poems and peices that are short, but meaningful.
Oh, no! Another one of my linguistic nerves hit upon. (By the way, I let "relatable" go by without saying anything.)
DeleteIf you can put a number to it, it's fewer. (so, "fewer words".) If it's an indeterminate amount, then it's "less".
If you don't believe me, ask the Grammar Girl. (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx)
I have always preferred short poems to long ones, likewise with novels and short stories. Why? Because they aren't going to do the thinking for me. I get to do most, if not all of it. The best thing about poetry, in My mind, is the personal interpretation. Mr. Leithauser was spot on and I enjoyed the article a lot. My favorite example was "Exile." That is the kind of poem I enjoy reading, the kind that reads like one of Mr. MacArthur's 'golden moments.'
ReplyDeleteI do want to address, however, Leithauser's attempt at explaining "Fleas" as a statement about mankind. It has always been a satire to me. A poke at poetry with no context or meaning. I see where he's coming from with the "spirit of mankind," but whoever wrote it, Nash or Gillilan, I don't think that's what they intended.
It's really more of an epigram than a poem, even though it rhymes. But I would say the satire is aimed at whiny human beings.
DeleteLeithauser was right when he said that words should be used sparingly. It leaves more to the imagination and people can interpret each poem, or any work really, much differently. My favorite poem that Leithauser also was drawn to was
ReplyDelete"A boy who played and talked and read with me
Fell from a maple tree.
I loved her, but I told her I did not,
And wept, and then forgot.
I walked the streets where I was born and grew,
And all the streets were new."
Leithauser talks about the unknown elements, like if the boy survived his fall, or if the girl loved him too, or if the boy has returned home to find it all changed or if he had changed instead. That's the beauty of fewer words. It could mean anything. It is completely up to the reader what happened. The fact that I support fewer words is slightly ironic, but I love being able to look at a poem in many ways. Yes, sometimes words are needed to add a little bit more of a story, but over all, fewer words may speak louder.
I thought that Brad Leithauser made some pretty good points about writing short stories. If a story or poem becomes too long, the reader will lose interest or lose sight of the message. By being concise in your writing, the reader will be able to find the underlying meaning and interpret it in their own way. In my mind, shorter is almost always better. However, sometimes longer writing is better. For example, if I want to describe a scene or memory, I might want to use more words to give the reader a better understanding of the environment and circumstances. Another reason why concision may be a bad thing is when a poem or story is so short that the reader doesn’t know what the writer is talking about. The “Adam, Had ‘em” poem is a good example because I had no idea what it was supposed to mean. In these cases, you have to be a literary genius to know the meaning or purpose of the poem. If I am writing a story or poem, I want to be as concise as possible so I can get my point across without rambling. Concision can portray a sense of both witty elegance and thought-provoking statements. I thought that Leithauser’s statement “Concision in its broadest spirit encompasses far more than a stripping of verbiage” was very true and explained the real meaning of concision. That means a “short in sweet” poem will never lose its meaning if it is well-written because no meaningful words will be lost.
ReplyDeleteOh goodness...I don't know if I agree or disagree with Brad Leithauser's "Praise of Concision". In general, I agree that anything that is too wordy is difficult to comprehend (not only poetry). Too much of a good thing is never good…especially lots of words! Having too many words takes away from what the author is trying to say, and many find it difficult to understand.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while there is beauty in the simplicity of the super-short poems that Leithauser has used to demonstrate his fondness of concision, I think they are a wee bit extreme of examples. For instance the poem titled, "Fleas":
Adam
Had 'em
Really? That's it? … I'm not one to criticize poetry considering I am the LEAST poetic person on this planet, but this seems way too short for my liking. It's two lines… not even; more like three words… It leaves way too much room for interpretation. Maybe the author intended for it to be open to a variety of interpretations? If that is the case, then he or she has succeeded, but it still seems iffy to me. Who's Adam? Adam has fleas? Why does Adam have fleas? 'Em? Why not writing out the full word "them"? Does he care that he has fleas? Are the fleas symbols for something? WHO KNOWS! This seems like one of those poems I would need to have a lot of background information about its author before fully understanding it's underlying meaning. I do have to admit that it is pretty incredible that the poem's author could sum up whatever he or she is trying to say in only four words… but it just leaves me with too many unanswered questions.
I know that with any type of art, whether it be literary or visual works, the final piece is not always the most interesting or the most important: it's all about how one gets to the finished product. It's about the work the creator put into it… all of the background information, the planning, the thought process; that's the most interesting part! These concise poems seem as though they really emphasize this concept. It makes me wonder how the poet arrived at completion. With little words, the words that do make the final cut in a short poem are crucial and carefully planned.
With longer poems… such as "Ode to the West Wind," the readers struggle to find meaning within the excessive pages of difficult vocabulary. This can be just as difficult as trying to discover the meaning of an extremely simpler poem. A concise poem is not easier to understand only because of its length… if anything, it may be more difficult to comprehend considering the reader is not given much to work with! Each type of poem presents its own challenges to the reader.
I do not think that one kind of poetry (whether it be long or short in length) is superior to the other. Each have their faults and their strengths. Whether you enjoy a poem or not depends on the poem's meaning, your mood, your real-world experiences, your knowledge of a subject… who you are. It is not determined by its length. Honestly, who cares? If a poem is written well, it will be liked. There is always somebody, somewhere who can appreciate it!
-Brianna Ricciardone
and in my fourth paragraph… by "trying to say in only four words.." I mean "only THREE words." whoopsies!
DeleteConciseness and length don't necessarily coincide. Some short pieces can be dreadfully overwritten (go back to the examples in the Orwell piece), and then some writers can go for hundreds of pages with nary an extra word or scene.
DeleteBy the way, I think that you'll find "Casablanca" to be a masterpiece of concision.
This was a cool article to read because it offered an interesting perspective on poetry. I think there can be beauty in concise writing, but I also think that a more"talkative" piece can be pleasing as well. Poetry is such a personal sample of language- some people may enjoy concision, some people can get more out of a longer drawn poem. As for me I can't really take a stance, naturally indecisive I find positive notes for either side.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the fact that a concise poem makes for deeper thinking and possibly inaccuracy in interpretation. Using the example poem he used:
I go,
you stay;
two autumns.
In interpreting this poem myself, I made the same first impression that he stated- with the two autumns simply being two years. But when you think about it, how does that incorporate the first two lines? You could make several arguments for different interpretations, but with a concise poem like that every word is so important. I think that yes, the less words- the more ways you could look at it... but also the less words- the more important each one is in getting one singular meaning across, the one that was being seeked by the author.
I followed up Leithauser's article by reading "The Clock" by W.F Harvey, which was mentioned in "In Praise of Concision". Leithauser is absolutely right- it's straightforward, and simple. Yet it gets a good story across and it serves the purpose of a scary story, leaving the reader on edge, especially with how its short and leaves you wondering. This is what authors want, they want you to think about their writing and get something out of it, to make your own generalizations. Expansive writing is nice for entertainment, there's no guessing involved, you can easily get an underlying message out of it, learn a lesson, be amused, and wonder at a beautifully written piece. But that's also the easy way out, concise writing makes you think and makes you react to it.
You read "The Clock"? Good for you!
DeleteI think I'm going after "The Glass Menagerie" myself.
Like many people have said so far, I tend to enjoy concise writing. I like that with such short poetry, each person can have their own interpretation of it. While this also applies to longer poems, I think when there are less words, the door is left open for people to really interpret these things based on their own experiences. No one will have the same interpretation, or have used the same thinking process to come up with their interpretation, because no one has had the exact same experiences.
ReplyDelete“Concision in its broadest spirit encompasses far more than a stripping of verbiage. It clarifies the contours, it revels in the sleek and streamlined.”
This quotation perfectly explains how concise writing isn’t just cutting down the amount of words, but really causes a person to reveal more about themselves.
The example of concision that stuck out in my mind is “Jesus wept.” For me, it reminds me of the struggles Jesus went through and how he died for us. However, someone that may have just gone through a really tough time could look at it like Jesus weeping over the suffering of one of His children. I’d definitely say the thing I like most about concise writing is the opportunity to possibly find out more about a person based on their interpretation.
I found the article very intriguing, though I cannot say for sure that I agree with everything Leithauser said. I am on the fence when it comes to how many words are needed to make good poetry, or any kind of writing at all. Sometimes, I agree that less is more, especially when reading poems. I guess I feel poems should be short because that makes them, to me at least, easier to read and analyze. It also makes reading it less of chore because there is less to analyze.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have read, many times, a piece of literature or a poem and have thought that it needs to be longer. Sometimes, I have thought this because the small length of the piece has made it seem choppy. Other times it is because the piece does not have good flow, whereas adding more to it would make it more gentle, less sharp.
In my opinion, the amount of words needed all depends on what you are trying to say. Some poems are too short, and do not express a clear meaning, while others tend to drag on and bore the reader so much that it becomes a chore to finish it. I do agree with Leithauser that haikus are better when they mean much more than they tell. I don't agree that a poem such as "Fleas" is successful.
Adam
Had ’em.
I fail to obtain any insight at all from this short poem and instead I find myself questioning why the author thought it was a good idea to wrtie something so nonsensical. What does this poem mean? Where is the story, the plot? What is the author trying to say? There are too many unanswered questions for this poem to have any clear meaning, but that isn't why I think it's unsuccessful. The poem is too short, it doesn't catch the reader's attention or touch the heart with some hidden meaning that words are unable to describe. Rather it sounds like the author couldn't think of anything more to write.
I think that in this generation, most people like reading poems and stories with a clear meaning. Maybe that is why I fail to understand the meaning of "Fleas" and other short poems. I do believe, though, that poems should not be "wordy" and should, instead, be short enough to keep the reader's attention while delivering a good message, but not so short that the reader is left confused after spending a lot of time trying to discover a hidden meaning.
"In my opinion, the amount of words needed all depends on what you are trying to say."
DeleteRight. How long is a bridge?
I am surprised that this short piece has created so many different emotions in all of us. Personally, I enjoy short poetry because it allows you to personalize it based on your own experience. If the author tells you everything you are supposed to feel, it can't be as genuine as if emotion is induced by the author's writing alone.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting Orwell to tell us flat out why he liked concision but instead, he just gave many examples of poems he liked. I would have like a little more about why concision is better rather than examples where concision happened to work.
The introduction to his essay was a bit unusual and I didn't feel it was the ideal way to introduce us to his topic. Overall, I agree with Orwell, but I wasn't completely happy with his presentation.
Only, not Orwell. Brad Leithauser. (Who will probably not enjoy Orwell's lasting fame.)
DeleteWhoops!
DeleteOverall, I think Brad Leithauser has the right idea here. Concision in poetry, and really everyday language, is invaluable. While on one hand, pieces of writing are far more succinct and contain only what is needed, it is a double edged sword. With less words comes so much room for interpretation, and some people take it too far.
ReplyDelete“Doesn’t it say, in effect, Why fuss over minor annoyances, as we’ve been doing since the beginning of time, given that complaining has done nothing to alleviate our lot?”
Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a lot to get out of “Adam had ‘em.” It looks like someone’s got a bad case of Occum’s Razor. I understand that the point of this is to say everything between the lines, but I really just don’t see where any of that came from. Who ever said anything about a fuss?
I do agree with the quotation in the sense that it is true people get too caught up in the little things. Some girls obsess over their hair, or the number of boots or purses they have. People make huge fights and drama out of literally NOTHING, and after everything is said and done they really haven’t accomplished anything. They’re no better for having won a petty little argument, or having called someone out for a stupid little comment that was made. People complain constantly about everything in their lives, but they don’t really mean it. They’re just talking and complaining about nothing, to fill their time.
Leithauser has a point in saying people make fusses over nothing, but I really don’t see how he got that out of Adam having something.
On one hand, I agree with Leithauser on the fact that "a minimum of space, it speaks volumes." Like in the last article we read, the author preached brevity as opposed to useless words that don't add anything to a piece of literature. My least favorite book to read is one that seams to have pages and pages of useless descriptions about the weather. I find myself skipping pages upon pages. So, when I am reading a poem, I do favor concision, like Leithauser. I am not especially fond of the extraneous large words added to a poem just to look pretty because they just conceal the real meaning of the poem, to me.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand, I found some of Leithauser's opinions of poetry rather strange. It puzzled me that the author found such complexity in "Adam Had'em". I also think it was a huge stretch for the author to say that this "poem" offers a criticism of life. I don't know how the author saw a masterpiece in this, because I think this is something a two year old could right. It feels like the author is just pulling his interpretation of the "poem" out of the sky. Why does this poem have to mean, "Why fuss over minor annoyances"? It's such a vague poem that you could really interpret it any way you wanted. It mentions Adam, so couldn't you say it has a religious connotation? Because the "poem" is so short, you could say it means anything and everything. Well, maybe that's why Leithauser liked it so much. It's completely free to interpretation, and I guess there's no right or wrong answer.
If, indeed, the title is "fleas", it certainly seems like a plausible explanation.
DeleteMegan says: In my opinion, some of these poems seem just plain silly! For example, "Fleas" seemed like some kind of "knock knock..." type of joke. It reminded me of that type of simple, corny humor. Looking into it for some meaning the fact that it's about someone named Adam makes it a little deeper by relating it to the biblical figure Adam. Maybe by saying Adam had fleas it means he was "itching" to commit a sin (no pun intended) or he had a stinging feeling of the nagging serpent to commit that sin. Other than that I don't see any way that this "poem" could be deeper than the three and a half words that are written.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to the three-line poem by Buson, I can see more meaning here talking about the departure or separation of lovers, but I think this poem is too simple to be a big deal. I agree with George Orwell on keeping things simple so they're understandable, but I believe poetry should have some hidden messages that we seek the answers to. I think the thinking, interpretation, and connection to poems is what draws people to them, so if something is told right to us it ruins the thinking and interpretation aspects. Of course one could look into this poem and the writer's background for example to get the story of the poem, but it seems like a bleak and boring poem with no imagery, symbols or metaphors.
While I didn't quite understand the fascination in some of these poems like the writer of the article did, I did find a couple ideas of his very true and understandable. Although the verse is only two words, "Jesus wept," is a very powerful statement. It's two words but it tells an extraordinary event unlike "Adam had 'em," which could mean anything and which sounds almost childish. Saying Jesus wept is saying that something so terrible happened that the best being that ever was couldn't fix it or find some good in the situation. It evokes feelings of pure, unsurmountable sadness.
And she also wanted to say: One statement of the author, Brad Leithauser, talked about how as one grows older they see things in a different way. Leithauser said, "The change is within, like some reworking of cornea and retina; over time, you can’t help seeing with new eyes." This statement really stood out to me because I've noticed over the years how different everything seems. From things like the woods behind my house to the elementary and middle school school yards, they all look so much smaller and less glamorous than they did when I was young. I even noticed at my work how intimidating the front counter and kitchen were inside Burger King, but after working there for over a year I know that place like I know my own house and I don't know how I ever could've pictured it how I did in the beginning. I remember it seeming like a cave and I remember the red and black colors of certain tiles and objects standing out, but now I feel in control of the environment and I notice the silvers and yellows more. I see these images in my head and how drastically they've changed with maturity and experience. I believe this line relates to the poem Spring and Fall. This is especially seen when Hopkins writes, "Ah! As the heart grows older it will come to such sights colder by and by, not spare a sigh..." This quotation and the poem in it's entirety says how as a person grows older they see the world in new ways, just like the article says.
DeleteAll in all, some of the theory in this article doesn't make sense to me. Keeping Orwell in mind, I agree with making writing concise, but if I were also thinking about Occum I think that I would never find meaning in these micro-poems. Unless I read way into it and guess what it could mean it seems like I don't have enough information to deduce a clear, strong meaning. Except for these parts of the article, I did agree with some of what Leithauser said. When he told of meaningful verses and relatable concepts, they spoke to me more personally.
(And she also wants to berate the lack of indents!)
"Fleas" is silly. There's a whole realm of silly poems.
DeleteI suppose the titles could be "Sinful Thoughts". But then it would be a lot more serious.
Chiara says: I find myself torn between simplicity and extravagance when it comes to anything in life. I do love stories with excessive description, and detail, and background knowledge, but only to an extent. I also love how the simplest combination of words can be so powerful - “Jesus wept.” For me, the same goes for clothes. On one day I could layer on three shirts, a sweater, a dress, tights, socks and boots and be perfectly happy. But other days all I want to wear is a plain dress and shoes. It also goes for art - I love paintings with incredible detail and adornment but at the same time am amazed when an artist can paint a simple object on a blank canvas and make it beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy what Brad Leithauser has to say here. “I feel a special fondness for the poem (or quip, or short story) that gets the job done while using them -- words -- sparingly.” I have undertaken reading the unabridged version of Les Miserables. The book is a beautiful, honest remark on the human condition and I love it. But Victor Hugo never uses one word when he could use a thousand. For example, my favorite poem that Brad Leithauser used in his article was:
Dangerous pavements.
But this year I face the ice
With my father’s stick.
Victor Hugo’s version of this poem would include a description of the ice, the stick, the father, and the Napoleonic Wars. Brad Leithauser said of this poem, “In a mere seventeen syllables, the poem evokes a complex, compromised psychological condition.” I feel that using too many words would destroy the ability of this poem to make an impact.
While concision may not always be the best solution, in my opinion, I agree with Leithauser that it serves a beautiful purpose.
Taylor says: I found this article to be one of the more difficult ones we have been assigned to read so far, despite the fact that it is much shorter in length than most. I'm not sure exactly why I found it difficult, but I think it may be because the point of the essay is so minute and vague. There are many examples of "good", concise literature, but not very many reasons why shorter literature is better.
ReplyDeleteThe one true explanation I can find in Brad Leithauser's article is that with shorter pieces of work it is easier to take whatever meaning the individual sees from it. That it may be easier to see a message within poetry or writing when there is not a jumble of unnecessary words and expressions. However, I am not sure I agree with this. I can understand where Leithauser is coming from when he says this, but I feel that often longer literature can give more to us simply because it has more to offer. The more writing available to a reader the more open for interpretation it can be, and the more messages can be extracted from it. When more messages are offered, more people can connect to the writing because it easier to find something to latch onto within a piece. True literature and poetry should connect to every person, however when there are less words within a piece it can be harder to do so.
After reading this,I kind of felt somewhat betrayed. I love words, a lot. Words are just awesome, in my opinion. So when I read the first sentence of the third paragraph (While a love for poetry may seem inseparable from a love for words, I feel a special fondness for the poem (or quip, or short story) that gets the job done while using them — words — sparingly.), I didn't know what to think, or where this was going. I mean, if you love words so much, you should love using them, right? Whats the use of an awesome word if you don't share it with someone else? I think my viewpoint on this leads me to feel that when I read a poem, short story, book, etc., and it's filled with great words that describe things so vividly, it's like meeting someone who loves words as much as I do. The feeling reminds me a lot of the words of the great Buddy the elf: "It's just nice to meet another human that shares my affinity for elf culture". Substitute elf culture for vocabulary, and that's how I see it. There are so many delicious words out there, why would you starve yourself of them?
ReplyDelete