Initially NO's Blog: IN - Posts Tagged "understanding"
Books with divisions: short stories and poetry
With the exception of dictionaries, I generally like to read a book from front-cover to back. If the book is super interesting, I will have a relook at sections without reading the whole book again. But I don’t tend to dip into various sections of a book, unless I’m just checking it out at the bookstore.
I like to read a book in one or two sittings. Which, even when I have time, is something I can never do with books of short stories. My automatic mind expects the short story to continue onto the next one, characters blur and plots get confused, then I wake up and make that automatic part of me realise that the book isn’t a novel, or a non-fiction text, but separate stories. No matter how good the stories are, if they don’t link, I’m not enthused about having a book of them, I’d rather be holding a magazine that establishes that no article, poem, or story is to be in any way linked. So, I either tend to avoid books of short stories, or accidently buy the book thinking it was a novel and read them over a period of months. This isn’t satisfactory book reading for me though.
Poetry, I find, is different from short stories, it is divided up, often into shorter pieces than short stories, yet I LOVE reading a poet’s collection from cover to back. I enjoy the book best if the flow and placement of poems has been carefully thought about. Yet, I have had numerous chats with people who say they merely dip into poetry books that they don’t ever read them from front to back and that my reading of poetry books from front cover to back is ‘unusual.’
I think poetry books might just be my favourite genre. I find them easy going. I know, in an hour lunch break, say, I can go to the library and read a slim volume of poetry from front to back and gain a huge understanding of that author’s world. I particularly like the sensory that poetry gives more than any other form of writing. It takes me to times and places, that I can never visit, and gives me huge insight into that world. Poetry for me, transports the senses, when it’s good. But poetry I like best also talks about ecology, human nature, social-justice and language. The books are always divided, but, poetry books have flow on from one poem to the next, I feel, and, unlike short stories my mind doesn’t have to think about characters and plots.
I’m not too keen on literary journals with a theme and a whole lot of different poets. I feel, while the journal ties in ideas with a theme, the sense of the ‘book’ (which is isn’t but looks like) jumps about too much into too many different people to be of much importance to me, as a book.
Collaborative writing efforts rarely are up to scratch for me. I’d like to see writers working together dangerously, supporting each other like acrobats, but I’m yet to see it.
If you’re a dipper inner of poetry books, let me know why you don’t read from front cover to back. And if you love a book of short stories, how do you read it in one sitting?
I like to read a book in one or two sittings. Which, even when I have time, is something I can never do with books of short stories. My automatic mind expects the short story to continue onto the next one, characters blur and plots get confused, then I wake up and make that automatic part of me realise that the book isn’t a novel, or a non-fiction text, but separate stories. No matter how good the stories are, if they don’t link, I’m not enthused about having a book of them, I’d rather be holding a magazine that establishes that no article, poem, or story is to be in any way linked. So, I either tend to avoid books of short stories, or accidently buy the book thinking it was a novel and read them over a period of months. This isn’t satisfactory book reading for me though.
Poetry, I find, is different from short stories, it is divided up, often into shorter pieces than short stories, yet I LOVE reading a poet’s collection from cover to back. I enjoy the book best if the flow and placement of poems has been carefully thought about. Yet, I have had numerous chats with people who say they merely dip into poetry books that they don’t ever read them from front to back and that my reading of poetry books from front cover to back is ‘unusual.’
I think poetry books might just be my favourite genre. I find them easy going. I know, in an hour lunch break, say, I can go to the library and read a slim volume of poetry from front to back and gain a huge understanding of that author’s world. I particularly like the sensory that poetry gives more than any other form of writing. It takes me to times and places, that I can never visit, and gives me huge insight into that world. Poetry for me, transports the senses, when it’s good. But poetry I like best also talks about ecology, human nature, social-justice and language. The books are always divided, but, poetry books have flow on from one poem to the next, I feel, and, unlike short stories my mind doesn’t have to think about characters and plots.
I’m not too keen on literary journals with a theme and a whole lot of different poets. I feel, while the journal ties in ideas with a theme, the sense of the ‘book’ (which is isn’t but looks like) jumps about too much into too many different people to be of much importance to me, as a book.
Collaborative writing efforts rarely are up to scratch for me. I’d like to see writers working together dangerously, supporting each other like acrobats, but I’m yet to see it.
If you’re a dipper inner of poetry books, let me know why you don’t read from front cover to back. And if you love a book of short stories, how do you read it in one sitting?
Humour me, seriously…
I’ve always preferred to listen to comedy, rather than seriousness. So, for a long time I’ve written with a focus of finding a laugh. That’s not to say there isn’t something serious in the comedy, with me, usually there is.
This year, feeling a lot more supported in the community than I have been in previous years, I decided it was time to open up to the point of clarity, for those people who might dismiss humour as ‘non-sense’.
It’s not as though I’m not appreciative of serious writing, but I do tend to look for works that have a least the wry smile that is often found in Margaret Atwood. Writing never has had to be punch-line Terry Pratchett to be what I enjoy. I read very serious text books that aim at healing. But yes, they do have an aim and I want the underlying sense to be clear or give something beautiful that like a powerful waterfall or gorgeous mountain range the writing transfixes me with its awe inspiring qualities, if not to make me laugh.
I have the pleasure of being a convenor of a local poetry gig, where I get to hear poets read their work, and find sometimes I need the inroad of their voice to get their thinking. Take Salman Rushdie, whose work I put down because I felt it bleak, well, I recently watched a lecture where he began his speech with one word, then a laugh, then a sentence and another laugh. Soon the audience were laughing with him, understanding his flow, and that’s when I knew that I had not been used to his voice enough to understand his books until I witnessed his speech.
In my books, I speak a narrative. They are books to be read from front to back, even the poetry ones, and picture books. I was surprised when someone said they were dipping in here and there in my autobiography ‘Percipience’. I thought: then, you won’t understand much at all. ‘Percipience’ was written with the ideas of punch-lines in mind, but it’s not a light-humour book. I don’t often write light-humour. When I use swear words in my humour, I’m usually trying to find a way to talk about abuse, so that it won’t hurt me too much if I reread it, but so people can hopefully see a way to move on from perpetuation of such things. Comedy has strength to ridicule abusers, humiliating them in a way where they can't argue back without losing face and looking silly.
Writing more serious poetry in 2014 books, ‘Coal fire cream’ had me standing at a book launch flipping through pages desperately trying to find something that was detached from any kind of trauma. I realised what other people meant when they said they didn’t actually like reading their work on stage. Previous to the ‘Coal fire cream’ book launch I’d had a hoot on stage, but then, I’d only ever read poems that got laughs from the audience.
Vulnerability isn’t a good feeling, when what you say gets attacked. And, this has been what has happened. Does this mean I actually have something to say that is controversial to bully/narcissist types in both my comedy, seriousness and illustration? I think so, because they’re the reason I turned to comedy in the first place: absolute armour, oh except when they’re psychiatrists. There’s no way you can joke with psychiatrists. The ones I've been forced to meet with are just deadend narcissist-abusers who are backed up by government legislation that legalises their torture regime.
Oh, my lover just entered into my study to give me a beautiful soft kiss… too much information? Beats thinking about past traumas and how I’m going to make a profit in the book industry. Having love in my life that’s always a smile, orgasms that have me laughing with bliss and energy. It’s wonderful to have a relationship that is never work, always pleasure because we listen to each other, and make sense. I’m hoping my writing catches up with that soon.
This year, feeling a lot more supported in the community than I have been in previous years, I decided it was time to open up to the point of clarity, for those people who might dismiss humour as ‘non-sense’.
It’s not as though I’m not appreciative of serious writing, but I do tend to look for works that have a least the wry smile that is often found in Margaret Atwood. Writing never has had to be punch-line Terry Pratchett to be what I enjoy. I read very serious text books that aim at healing. But yes, they do have an aim and I want the underlying sense to be clear or give something beautiful that like a powerful waterfall or gorgeous mountain range the writing transfixes me with its awe inspiring qualities, if not to make me laugh.
I have the pleasure of being a convenor of a local poetry gig, where I get to hear poets read their work, and find sometimes I need the inroad of their voice to get their thinking. Take Salman Rushdie, whose work I put down because I felt it bleak, well, I recently watched a lecture where he began his speech with one word, then a laugh, then a sentence and another laugh. Soon the audience were laughing with him, understanding his flow, and that’s when I knew that I had not been used to his voice enough to understand his books until I witnessed his speech.
In my books, I speak a narrative. They are books to be read from front to back, even the poetry ones, and picture books. I was surprised when someone said they were dipping in here and there in my autobiography ‘Percipience’. I thought: then, you won’t understand much at all. ‘Percipience’ was written with the ideas of punch-lines in mind, but it’s not a light-humour book. I don’t often write light-humour. When I use swear words in my humour, I’m usually trying to find a way to talk about abuse, so that it won’t hurt me too much if I reread it, but so people can hopefully see a way to move on from perpetuation of such things. Comedy has strength to ridicule abusers, humiliating them in a way where they can't argue back without losing face and looking silly.
Writing more serious poetry in 2014 books, ‘Coal fire cream’ had me standing at a book launch flipping through pages desperately trying to find something that was detached from any kind of trauma. I realised what other people meant when they said they didn’t actually like reading their work on stage. Previous to the ‘Coal fire cream’ book launch I’d had a hoot on stage, but then, I’d only ever read poems that got laughs from the audience.
Vulnerability isn’t a good feeling, when what you say gets attacked. And, this has been what has happened. Does this mean I actually have something to say that is controversial to bully/narcissist types in both my comedy, seriousness and illustration? I think so, because they’re the reason I turned to comedy in the first place: absolute armour, oh except when they’re psychiatrists. There’s no way you can joke with psychiatrists. The ones I've been forced to meet with are just deadend narcissist-abusers who are backed up by government legislation that legalises their torture regime.
Oh, my lover just entered into my study to give me a beautiful soft kiss… too much information? Beats thinking about past traumas and how I’m going to make a profit in the book industry. Having love in my life that’s always a smile, orgasms that have me laughing with bliss and energy. It’s wonderful to have a relationship that is never work, always pleasure because we listen to each other, and make sense. I’m hoping my writing catches up with that soon.
