What's in a name ??
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:58 pm
I was thinking to-day about Roald Dahl and his wonderfully imaginative stories and poems for children, and how he used names to make the characters come alive.
John Whitworth tells us that poetry is made from words not from ideas.
That is not to say that there are no ideas, only the sound of words. not so! but that the palette, as Manfred calls it, of our poetry pictures is made from words.
So often around the traps in the bush poetry presentations, there are, it has to be said, verse which presents interesting ideas, great history, humorous twists and so forth, but all set out in the most mundane and dreary words. No effort is apparent in choosing vitality in the language.
When I hear or see this done, I often think they would be better just putting some of these things into prose, because it really wouldn't make any difference to the impact, and they would have saved all that wasted effort of scounging around for unimaginative perfect rhymes and taking all that time to set out a metric pattern to no advantage, other than it passes the test of bush poetry definition.
So what about Roald Dahl? In his book Matilda, Dahl uses words, names that is, to create character in a very clever way. Matilda's parent's are called Mr and Mrs Wormwood. That name brings to mind how they are sleazy, sly and selfishly grasping, unethical people. The head teacher at the school is called Miss Trunchbull, which again paints a vivid picture of a violent, ruthless and graceless tryrant, which she is. The boy at the school who steals the teacher's cake is an obese, gluttonous child who is called Bruce Bogtrotter, the perfect sound of that sort of character.
These are small trivial examples. But we can see how Roald Dahl understood the power of words to invoke images.
I think that illustrates in a small way, what we need to really learn well to be writers of poetry. Not using funny names necessarily, using words crafted to be striking and memorable.
We can say we love Australia, it's a great place, and how much we enjoy the great outdoors and the desert air and the rolling surf and the blue mountains etc ect. So what, everybody knows that. Poetry needs to make all that new, to bring it into focus to present it as something, maybe we didn't see that way before.
I try to take to heart into both art and poetry the advice of the French painter Paul Gauguin who said that if we want to paint a tree, don't just use green, use the strongest brightest green on your palette. Don't make a picture of an apple just red, use the most vivid and glowing red that you can get.
Do you see what he meant ? Poetry is art, it should not be just a recording of what anyone can see, but a powerful oration for others of what we see. Should we just use words that are just enough to make the right idea, metre and rhyme or should we search for words that are dynamic and fire the imagination of the reader regardless of how ordinary the subject might seem to be.
Can I do all this ? Dunno, I keep trying, I might get there one day.
John Whitworth tells us that poetry is made from words not from ideas.
That is not to say that there are no ideas, only the sound of words. not so! but that the palette, as Manfred calls it, of our poetry pictures is made from words.
So often around the traps in the bush poetry presentations, there are, it has to be said, verse which presents interesting ideas, great history, humorous twists and so forth, but all set out in the most mundane and dreary words. No effort is apparent in choosing vitality in the language.
When I hear or see this done, I often think they would be better just putting some of these things into prose, because it really wouldn't make any difference to the impact, and they would have saved all that wasted effort of scounging around for unimaginative perfect rhymes and taking all that time to set out a metric pattern to no advantage, other than it passes the test of bush poetry definition.
So what about Roald Dahl? In his book Matilda, Dahl uses words, names that is, to create character in a very clever way. Matilda's parent's are called Mr and Mrs Wormwood. That name brings to mind how they are sleazy, sly and selfishly grasping, unethical people. The head teacher at the school is called Miss Trunchbull, which again paints a vivid picture of a violent, ruthless and graceless tryrant, which she is. The boy at the school who steals the teacher's cake is an obese, gluttonous child who is called Bruce Bogtrotter, the perfect sound of that sort of character.
These are small trivial examples. But we can see how Roald Dahl understood the power of words to invoke images.
I think that illustrates in a small way, what we need to really learn well to be writers of poetry. Not using funny names necessarily, using words crafted to be striking and memorable.
We can say we love Australia, it's a great place, and how much we enjoy the great outdoors and the desert air and the rolling surf and the blue mountains etc ect. So what, everybody knows that. Poetry needs to make all that new, to bring it into focus to present it as something, maybe we didn't see that way before.
I try to take to heart into both art and poetry the advice of the French painter Paul Gauguin who said that if we want to paint a tree, don't just use green, use the strongest brightest green on your palette. Don't make a picture of an apple just red, use the most vivid and glowing red that you can get.
Do you see what he meant ? Poetry is art, it should not be just a recording of what anyone can see, but a powerful oration for others of what we see. Should we just use words that are just enough to make the right idea, metre and rhyme or should we search for words that are dynamic and fire the imagination of the reader regardless of how ordinary the subject might seem to be.
Can I do all this ? Dunno, I keep trying, I might get there one day.