The Poetry of JIM MORRISON

tEaMooN

Prisoner of Reality
by Jim Morrison

Sleepless dreamless desperate and trapped
Sightless soundless all there is, is black
Thirsty, starving, body wrought with pain
Freezing, burning, it will never change
No end, no rest, nowhere left to go
Whining crying for pity on your soul
Endless conquest for your sanity
Shadow whisper you must follow me
Ruthless attacks on you will power
Senseless savage minutes like hours
Confused confined kept out and locked in
Haunted, hunted payment for your sins

any thing you can add?

severin_severin

jim morrison's poetry is bad.

tEaMooN

Originally posted by severin_severin
jim morrison's poetry is bad.

what makes it bad then?

severin_severin

okay, i guess i was being rash in saying it was outright bad without justification. i'll just say that .... it isn't that great. he doesn't do anything special with the words; the use of alliteration, assonance, and paradoxes (heh. i don't even know if these are the right terms, i can't remember) seems to be mainly for the purpose of well, using literary devices rather than supporting or expanding upon what the poem is trying to convey. and the actual words and terms he chose to employ are pretty trite, as are the aforementioned paradoxes. i don't know. i read it and all i see is an awkward jumble of words aspiring to a depth/profundity it doesn't ever quite seem to reach. just my opinion.
are these lyrics to a song, or was it written as merely a poem?

tEaMooN

the impact of a poem is not only measured by the use of literary elements such as imagery, metaphors, alteration (not alliteration) etc..
it's how you “put” or “represent” part of yourself and thoughts into “something” concrete that can speak for how you really feel.

i don't know, but i have this tendency of defying the rules of "formalism" when it comes to poetry.

poetry should allow you to "breathe" (freely and uncontrollably).

severin_severin

Originally posted by tEaMooN
the impact of a poem is not only measured by the use of literary elements such as imagery, metaphors, alteration (not alliteration) etc..

uh, i never said that. by the way,
alliteration - the repetition of initial consonant sounds in neighboring words.
"Sightless soundless all there is, is black...
... Senseless savage minutes like hours
Confused confined kept out and locked in
Haunted, hunted payment for your sins"

it's how you “put” or “represent” part of yourself and thoughts into “something” concrete that can speak for how you really feel.

exactly. that includes literary devices employed, etc., among other things.
and i find the "how" of jim morrison's "representation" awkward, trite, and a little hollow.

i don't know, but i have this tendency of defying the rules of "formalism" when it comes to poetry.

??. i'm not arguing in favor of formalism, though it does have its merits.

poetry should allow you to "breathe" (freely and uncontrollably).

yeah. but that doesn't necessarily make it any good...or, to be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to like it.

i get the feeling that we're not really understanding each other.

tEaMooN

Originally posted by severin_severin

yeah. but that doesn't necessarily make it any good...or, to be fair, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to like it.

few words:
poetry requires NO obligations

Spring_Chicken

Originally posted by tEaMooN
few words:
poetry requires NO obligations

Of course it does. Even if you don't subscribe to any ideology (which, in Marxism, is virtually impossible anyway), poetry is still obligated to its craft: you cannot simply flout a bunch of words and proceed to call it poetry.

I'm not arguing in favor of formalism either (I mean, who is? It's last champions were a bunch of snotty Russians.), but if you set out to write poetry, then you should be aware of these rules. Before you subvert or defy Formalism and before you "pioneer" your own brand of writing, you should first be able to prove that you know your tradition and you know HOW to wield it. Otherwise, what's the use of defiance if you're not even sure of what it is you defy?

If you feel that good poetry is one that allows you to "breathe," then there's the challenge: to disguise poetry's demand for precision, that what will come out of you will be deceptively artless.

As it is, Jim Morrison's "poetry" sounds belabored and tired: the poem's insight is not exactly one to crow about (to paraphrase: nagwiwithdrawal ako. Hmm, ano kaya ang tinira nya nung ginawa nya 'to?), and there isn't a single original or, at the very least, well-executed image in the text.

Since the imagery in his poem fails (and, yes, THIS is the most basic test), then he's scr*wed.

Even "Invictus" (remember that annoying poem way back in high school?) is a better read. You might want to check out Anne Sexton's "The Addict" if you want to read up on an almost-similar theme. Kahit uneven yung poem na yun, at least it has its redeeming value.

But the only redeeming value in Jim Morrison's work, sad to say, is that it was written by somebody famous and notoriously, well, dead.

Sabagay, cutie naman sha.

severin_severin

Originally posted by Spring_Chicken


Of course it does. Even if you don't subscribe to any ideology (which, in Marxism, is virtually impossible anyway), poetry is still obligated to its craft: you cannot simply flout a bunch of words and proceed to call it poetry.

I'm not arguing in favor of formalism either (I mean, who is? It's last champions were a bunch of snotty Russians.), but if you set out to write poetry, then you should be aware of these rules. Before you subvert or defy Formalism and before you "pioneer" your own brand of writing, you should first be able to prove that you know your tradition and you know HOW to wield it. Otherwise, what's the use of defiance if you're not even sure of what it is you defy?

If you feel that good poetry is one that allows you to "breathe," then there's the challenge: to disguise poetry's demand for precision, that what will come out of you will be deceptively artless.

As it is, Jim Morrison's "poetry" sounds belabored and tired: the poem's insight is not exactly one to crow about (to paraphrase: nagwiwithdrawal ako. Hmm, ano kaya ang tinira nya nung ginawa nya 'to?), and there isn't a single original or, at the very least, well-executed image in the text.

that's what i wanted to say, except you said it better than i did.

and yeah, jim morrison was kind of a cutie, so it's all good.

severin_severin

Originally posted by tEaMooN


few words:
poetry requires NO obligations

thanks for ignoring practically everything else i said.
:(

Shofixti

Kawawang tEaMooN.

tEaMooN

Originally posted by Spring_Chicken


Of course it does. Even if you don't subscribe to any ideology (which, in Marxism, is virtually impossible anyway), poetry is still obligated to its craft: you cannot simply flout a bunch of words and proceed to call it poetry.

I'm not arguing in favor of formalism either (I mean, who is? It's last champions were a bunch of snotty Russians.), but if you set out to write poetry, then you should be aware of these rules. Before you subvert or defy Formalism and before you "pioneer" your own brand of writing, you should first be able to prove that you know your tradition and you know HOW to wield it. Otherwise, what's the use of defiance if you're not even sure of what it is you defy?

If you feel that good poetry is one that allows you to "breathe," then there's the challenge: to disguise poetry's demand for precision, that what will come out of you will be deceptively artless.

As it is, Jim Morrison's "poetry" sounds belabored and tired: the poem's insight is not exactly one to crow about (to paraphrase: nagwiwithdrawal ako. Hmm, ano kaya ang tinira nya nung ginawa nya 'to?), and there isn't a single original or, at the very least, well-executed image in the text.

Since the imagery in his poem fails (and, yes, THIS is the most basic test), then he's scr*wed.

Even "Invictus" (remember that annoying poem way back in high school?) is a better read. You might want to check out Anne Sexton's "The Addict" if you want to read up on an almost-similar theme. Kahit uneven yung poem na yun, at least it has its redeeming value.

But the only redeeming value in Jim Morrison's work, sad to say, is that it was written by somebody famous and notoriously, well, dead.

Sabagay, cutie naman sha.

whoa! hey! don't struggle tooo hard to make things complicated..as you can see, my argument was so simple..i might have stated them "incorrectly"...what i was referring to when i talked about the "obligation" thing is on the part of the reader.
i mean, kapag ba nagsulat ka ng isang tula, oblige ba ang reader na gustuhin nya yung sinulat mo?

ok, let's say that the kind of imagery he employed in his poem sucked (as you have claimed), can you present an imagery that doesn't suck?

remember to stick with your arguments when you do such.

tEaMooN

Originally posted by severin_severin

thanks for ignoring practically everything else i said.
:(

i'm not ignoring..it's just our pathetic server to blame.

Creux

Poetry is an art in itself.
Evident naman ang form.
Why complicate it?
I really don't think that Jim Morrison wrote those stuff to please anybody else. Don't you think?

so what kung walang masyadong figures of speech and stuff?

Btw, his imagery rocks

severin_severin

Originally posted by Creux
Poetry is an art in itself.
Evident naman ang form.
Why complicate it?
I really don't think that Jim Morrison wrote those stuff to please anybody else. Don't you think?

so what kung walang masyadong figures of speech and stuff?

Btw, his imagery rocks

it isn't the lack of "figures and speech and stuff" that takes away from the poem. it's the banality of said figures of speech,etc.
anyway. so what if jim morrison didn't write those things to please anybody else (though you can't be sure, jim morrison was a pretentious hack, and the doors are lame. ray manzarek was kinda cool though. heh. just kidding. ). does that mean it can't be subjected to criticism?

like what spring_chicken said, regardless of what ideology you may or may not subscribe to, poetry is still obligated to its craft.

severin_severin

Originally posted by tEaMooN


whoa! hey! don't struggle tooo hard to make things complicated..as you can see, my argument was so simple..i might have stated them "incorrectly"...what i was referring to when i talked about the "obligation" thing is on the part of the reader.
i mean, kapag ba nagsulat ka ng isang tula, oblige ba ang reader na gustuhin nya yung sinulat mo?

what was so complicated about it?
your argument was simple, but there is such a thing as too simple. going by what you're saying, heck, practically anything can be considered as poetry.
i don't think that there should be an obligation on the writer's part to please the reader, but i do believe that a writer should set some sort of standard for his craft, if not for the reader, then for himself.

i'll post a poem later. i was about to, but i wanna watch the last few minutes of the ateneo-lasalle game. bye!

severin_severin

Originally posted by severin_severin

i'll post a poem later. i was about to, but i wanna watch the last few minutes of the ateneo-lasalle game. bye!

we won!