Saturday, October 08, 2005

"I write for a Google generation" (villanelle)

"I write for a Google generation"
the prof. hath explained to the poster
"we float! -- our post-biblio nation"

land-lubbers who get information
outside the domain of the hoster
can't grok with the Goog generation

on the Danube or from a space station
in forest or in life as a coaster
they're adrift -- this post-biblio nation

are references shy? use the suasion
of an engine compiling the moster
of goo for the Googling generation

could you get me a Googlish gig? hasten!
the best in the quest is a toaster
who'll drink to a post-bookish nation

are ya wonderin' just what in tarnations
inspires this diatribe-roaster?
she writes for a Goog generation
they're afloat! -- a post-biblio nation


Obviously a light / comic item (a bit too close to dogeral to warrant the word "poem"). A poet-plus-academic who styles herself River has favored this blog with commentary. In comments on her own blog -- in course of exchange about allusions in a poem of hers (and in poetry generally, and concerning the to-footnote-or-not-to-footnote issue) -- River allowed thus & to wit:
Oh mama! 

I suppose I write for a google-generation! ~:-O
[the first exclamation isn't directly germane to the above villanelle; rather, it expresses something akin to dismay at the present blogger's excess commentary; it seemed too quotable though to ellide here]. This Google generation bit seemed to call for memorializing & elaborating. Hence the villanelle.

In context (in brief): the intended sense of the original quote is: "...ergo, I don't need to append a bunch of footnotes; my google-gen readers can Google anything they don't get / any (e.g.) historical allusion they fail to recognize." Which appears (on the whole) true.

5 Comments:

Blogger ~River~ said...

It being Saturday night and all...I'll have to look at this carefully tomorrow. :-]

Sat Oct 08, 11:08:00 AM PDT  
Blogger david raphael israel said...

good!
-- a light amusement (or attempt at one). Still, there are definite changes introduced by computer/internet experience in the overall cultural/psychic economy/experience of literature etc., without doubt. This touches on just one little bit of that, of course.
cheers, d.i.

Sat Oct 08, 12:57:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Enemy of the Republic said...

This is really clever. David, I am hereby a fan of your poetry and your experimentation. Really good stuff. I am going to put some more poetry on my page, I think. My prose is getting too morose, not that my poetry is so cheerful, but at least I feel that nice distance between me and the speaker.

The title alone does it for me, but the poem reads well. I'm linking your page to my page.

Sat Oct 08, 07:12:00 PM PDT  
Blogger ~River~ said...

I do not recollect making that first comment, but we'll blame it on "Saturday night" and move on from there since today is tomorrow already!

If I sat down to explain all my thoughts about annotation, I'd need to go into that rather dreary thing called "personal history"...so we'll leave that out for now. But let's take this discussion further. (You may blame my Gemini Self! ;))

Some time back, I told you about my research on online poetry. In that particular piece of work, I spent a lot of time ruminating on the new types of annotation available to poetry.

I think the direct textual/visual/aural link is one of the most important novelties... The linked picture/song/bit of wikipedia information/whatever becomes a part of the poetic text and adds to the meaning and associative power of the poem.

(For instance, in my poem, "Strange Leaves", my fractal image, which is linked to the poem, is very much a part of the poem).

Sun Oct 09, 12:59:00 AM PDT  
Blogger david raphael israel said...

Dear En,
thanks for the appreciation. Of course, for the poem's title & first line we can (as indeed I have) credit River. This custom of "borrowing" a line one hears or reads, and using it as the beginning of a poem, is a little practice I've dabbled in from time to time.

I took a glance at your blog; the prose indeed grows marose! -- & unsettling, though thoughtfully & movingly expressed. I won't try to don psychotherapist garb here (and I've only the vaguest of notions about whys & wherefores [let alone advices & remedies] for states of anxiety or depression & their (presumably) symptomatic manifestation in ritualized behavior involved in for instance anorrexia). It would be heartening in any case if poetry experiments should open some useful window for you. Many find that the medium does at times offer alternative avenues of approaching self-reflection (or I guess one could say, of approaching thought & feeling in general).

Anyway: further exemplifying the above-mentioned appropriation technique -- I've now presumed to borrow your latest blog-post title and spin out a few verses from that.

bests,
d.i.
////////////

Questions & Crackles

Where am I now? where is my mind?
where is my peace? how can I find
a method to center : a reason to live?
what is obscure? what is defined?

How can I flow amid the parade?
where is the sunlight? why all the shade?
where is my peace? how can I feel
the bathing of clamness when I'm afraid?

Can I be quiet? where are my eyes?
wherefore the earth? why are there skies?
life with its labyrinth teases my brain
brief is my laughter : long are my cries

Morning appears : autumn returns
now the fog clears : now the sea churns
nature is sullen : nature is bright
notice the crackle when the log burns?

///////////

And River -- will take up this conversation further along (have Sunday chores awaiting at moment). The possible interesting detour into more autio-bio specifics of experience vis-a-vis the annotation topic, would hardly seem a detour to me; I'm sure it would be interesting to hear the tale. But anyway: the conclusions (or overall thought) you note in brief, are likewise intersting. When I first dived into internetted life (around 1996), I had in mind to experiment with web-presentation of painting related to poetry. That's among ideas & interests I've not yet taken time to go into. Will elaborate further, anon. And per your own comments-page [hyper-linked to the excerpted utterance in question -- but with techno-imperfection of my not being able to (or knowing how to) tag the specific relevant point amid the long commentative roll], I've noted you did get clear on where it was you'd said that! (& the context of the amusing remark). I think "Google generation" is much less offensive as a concept than "Pepsi generation." Though (come to think of it) I'm unsure if the latter haps to be within your historical frame of reference. ;-)
[there must be a better way of phrasing that; ok: whether this would be a familiar or opaque allusion; but I suspect the former].

cheers,
d.i.

Sun Oct 09, 05:46:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home