Abstractions and how to identify them

[dagonee]

I’m almost scared to ask this, but a thread in gripes that got moved to outside made me realize I am more confused about abstractions than I thought I was. Before I begin, let me make the following caveats:

1) I am not taking sides in any debate that has occurred on this site. I am seeking information.

2) I read the blurbs, many threads on the subject, and tried to do some other research on my own without being able to find a specific reference to this question.

3) I am not questioning the appropriateness of any particular use of any particular word in any particular poem.

So here it is: When a word serves multiple parts of speech, is it possible for the noun or verb use to be concrete while as an adjective it is abstract? In other words, while I can “see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, or hear it” with respect to “fat” the noun, I can’t really do any of those things to “fat” the adjective, especially when applied to people.

I know what I think a fat person is just as I know what I think a beautiful person is, but I know reasonable people would disagree with me on both. With adjectives such as “blonde” or “red” such disagreement is not really possible (barring nits over dirty blondes and burgundy).

This is part of the larger question as to which adjectives are abstract and which are not, but in cases where there is a noun part of speech to the word, the standard “can you see, smell, taste, touch, hear” response doesn’t help me decide whether a particular use is abstract or not.

Can someone please provide some guidance on making such determinations.

Thanks,

Dagonee
**Really wishing I hadn’t put the thought of hearing fat in my mind...

[JohnBoddie]

At the risk of beating a dead horse -

An adjective may be part of an abstraction, but it has no abstract characteristics per se.

If I speak of a fat person, a black horse, a fast car - none of these are abstract as they stand (although they might be within a broader context). I am using the adjectives to identify characteristics of a tangible entity. They may be imprecise (how fast is the car?) but the imprecision does not in some way make them into abstractions. If I speak of a thin soul, I'm on shaky ground, but the "thin" didn't put me there.

Whenever we have these discussions, we run the risk of falling into sophistry. It can be argued that language per se is an abstraction. The word is not the thing. Both Lewis Carrol and Raymond Smullyan have created fascinating philisophical structures that encompass such discussions and I highly recommend them to those wishing to engage in mental gymnastics.

There is no ironclad agreement among authors or critics about what is and what is not an abstraction, and there is anything but universal agreement about the "proper role" (if there is such a thing) of abstractions in poetry.

What is pretty well demonstrated is that abstractions are a tar pit for beginning authors. They are used to substitute for careful thought about what the author wishes to say and the best way to say it. What often emerges is a poem that carries a confusing message to the reader, or a set of words that relies on the reader to make of it what he or she can.

I hope this helps in some measure.

JB

[This message has been edited by JohnBoddie (edited 02-09-2002).]

[dagonee]

It does help, thanks John. I was blurring the concepts of imprecision and abstraction and will ponder the distinction as I work to root both out of my own writing. For some reason I find this easy in prose and hard in verse.

This was not beating a dead horse – the other discussion was between people with much more experience than I and only confused me more on the subject. And there was no way I was going to ask the question in that thread.

And believe me, I realize the use of the term abstraction in poetry is far different than its use in general language theory, math, and philosophy. I enjoy mental gymnastics as much as anyone, but such games do not help me write better poetry. They help me enjoy my coffee more.

Again thanks for the new way of looking at this.

Dagonee
Is there such a thing as the platonically ideal abstraction?

[Clive2]

Dagonee - the best way of deciding if something is an abstraction is to ask yourself if you can see it, hear it, feel it, touch it, taste it. You can't touch "love", but you can taste "lemon meringue pie". You can't hear "beauty", but you can smell "chocolate sauce".

There you go, the Patented Abstraction Detection Device.

[Harry Rutherford]

A lot of the problem with abstractions is not that they're abstract per se, but that they're vague.

We might disagree about acceptable levels of fatness (and in that sense, 'fat' is a value judgement that means different things to different people); but we have a strong idea of what extra fat does to people's appearance.

Does fat mean 200lbs? 250 lbs? 300lbs? Whatever it means, we can visualise what it looks like - subcutaneous fat deposits have various easily identifiable effects on someone's appearance. 'Beautiful' on the other hand could be anything.

If a word can be applied equally well to a hummingbird, a cathedral, a woman, a poem or a mouse, it's not a very strong word.

Harry

[dagonee]

Originally posted by Clive2:
Dagonee - the best way of deciding if something is an abstraction is to ask yourself if you can see it, hear it, feel it, touch it, taste it. You can't touch "love", but you can taste "lemon meringue pie". You can't hear "beauty", but you can smell "chocolate sauce".

There you go, the Patented Abstraction Detection Device.

Thanks Clive. This is the technique I’ve been using (or learning to use). Where I was having problems was thinking that all vagueness or imprecision stemmed from abstractions. Right now since I have a cold I can’t smell chocolate sauce, so my PADD® is short one sense.

Originally posted by Harry Rutherford:
If a word can be applied equally well to a hummingbird, a cathedral, a woman, a poem or a mouse, it's not a very strong word.


Thank you, Harry. Another new way to think about vagueness. This one will help immensely.

Dagonee

[critical mass]

Abstact, abstract, abstract, crap. I hear this all the time. A single word in a poem pointed out to be abstract, so what. Well it is a big deal if it isn't tied into something else to make it relevant to the view you are trying to create. If you read something that has abstract words in it, but the writer ties it in then I suggest it isn't abstract. The keys to this are the way the words are used, what precedes the words and possibly what follows the words. Critiqueing a poem by saying it has ten words that are abstract is pretty childish. I think the ability of the reader comes into play at this point. There are poems that leave me wondering what the hell did I just read, that is when I know the abstractions were over done. Metaphors are abstractions if you think about it long enough. Just an abstract way of saying what you could say in a more direct voice. Maybe poetry is abstract.

David

Who had a bad week and is in the mood for some confrontation.

[Rachel Lindley]

critical mass, you've missed the point of this thread. The original message was an enquiry as to what an abstraction was, and not whether or not abstractions are "good" or "bad" in poetry.

There's a thread here in this forum called Abstractions Done Well (http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/Forum11/HTML/000333.html) that addresses the issues you've brought up.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 02-10-2002).]

[David Bowers]

oops - mispost


[This message has been edited by Useless Muse (edited 02-10-2002).]

[critical mass]

Originally posted by TheBroad:
critical mass, you've missed the point of this thread. The original message was an enquiry as to what an abstraction was, and not whether or not abstractions are "good" or "bad" in poetry.

There's a thread here in this forum called Abstractions Done Well (http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/Forum11/HTML/000333.html) that addresses the issues you've brought up.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 02-10-2002).]

Hi Rachel

I think I gave a pretty good descrition myself. Use of abstractions is the topic, and how to identify them in poetry. Otherwise the starter of the thread could just go look up abstract in the dictionary and make his or her own conclucions.

David

[Rachel Lindley]

David, I wasn't saying you didn't have a point -- sometimes abstractions work in poetry. However, in the poetry of beginners, one will often hear critique which harps on abstractions because in those cases there's usually nothing else there, nothing to hold onto, nothing concrete, nothing specific and interesting.

As JB put it, we'd get into sophistry if we start analysing the degree to which any word may or may not be abstract, and aren't they all abstract anyway because they're all symbolic representations of an object, action, yadda yadda anyway, etc.

Abstractions can work in poetry; for beginners, I almost always suggest they don't try yet. Why? Because they often can't get concrete to work, let alone abstract.

Rachel

[JohnBoddie]

Re:

"If a word can be applied equally well to a hummingbird, a cathedral, a woman, a poem or a mouse, it's not a very strong word."

This is a guideline that should be approached very cautiously.

the red flash of a hummingbird

the soot-encrusted red of Winchester Cathedral

the red gown, the red hair and the red flush of early menopause

the red words standing against the black paper

the tiny red eyes punctuating a ball of nondescript grey


JB

[Urizen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical mass:
Abstact, abstract, abstract, crap. I hear this all the time. A single word in a poem pointed out to be abstract, so what. Well it is a big deal if it isn't tied into something else to make it relevant to the view you are trying to create. If you read something that has abstract words in it, but the writer ties it in then I suggest it isn't abstract.

If I use the word "beauty" in a way that is clear and effective, the word "beauty" is still abstract. A word doesn't lose its status as an abstraction simply because it's used properly and effectively.

Abstractions are not necessarily unclear.
Unclear language is not necessarily abstract.

I think this confusion with abstractions is the result of taking Pound's "go in fear of abstractions" too dogmatically. People are under the impression that all abstractions are evil and should be avoided at all costs.

David, what I'm saying is, if you read an abstraction used well, you don't have to defend it by saying the word is no longer abstract simply because you understand it.

An abstraction used well is still an abstraction, and that's.... OK.

Bill

[critical mass]

Originally posted by Urizen:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical mass:
Abstact, abstract, abstract, crap. I hear this all the time. A single word in a poem pointed out to be abstract, so what. Well it is a big deal if it isn't tied into something else to make it relevant to the view you are trying to create. If you read something that has abstract words in it, but the writer ties it in then I suggest it isn't abstract.

If I use the word "beauty" in a way that is clear and effective, the word "beauty" is still abstract. A word doesn't lose its status as an abstraction simply because it's used properly and effectively.

Abstractions are not necessarily unclear.
Unclear language is not necessarily abstract.

I think this confusion with abstractions is the result of taking Pound's "go in fear of abstractions" too dogmatically. People are under the impression that all abstractions are evil and should be avoided at all costs.

David, what I'm saying is, if you read an abstraction used well, you don't have to defend it by saying the word is no longer abstract simply because you understand it.

An abstraction used well is still an abstraction, and that's.... OK.

Bill



Urizen

I suggest we agree on most points. Where we divide is the definition of abstract. Abstract as I understand it in language is, something difficult to understand, maybe it holds true for paintings as well. There are no words that are difficult to understand, only the way they are used, that in my opinion makes the usage abstract and not the word. If I say beauty, it means different things to different people, but we all know what beauty is to us, maybe it has different meanings at different times, but it is usually applied by a single person in the same context every time to one degree or another. Does this make it abstract? And I don't think that, that's that... OK.

David

[This message has been edited by critical mass (edited 02-10-2002).]

[This message has been edited by critical mass (edited 02-10-2002).]

[Harry Rutherford]

Originally posted by JohnBoddie:
Re:

"If a word can be applied equally well to a hummingbird, a cathedral, a woman, a poem or a mouse, it's not a very strong word."

This is a guideline that should be approached very cautiously.

the red flash of a hummingbird

the soot-encrusted red of Winchester Cathedral

the red gown, the red hair and the red flush of early menopause

the red words standing against the black paper

the tiny red eyes punctuating a ball of nondescript grey


JB

Yes, you're right, that one wasn't very well thought-through.

Which is irritating, because when I thought it, it seemed to just pin down what I wanted to say. Humph.

Harry

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by critical mass:

Abstract as I understand it in language is, something difficult to understand, maybe it holds true for paintings as well.

**See, there's the problem right there. That is not the definition of "abstract" as it applies specifically to the critique of poetry. "Abstract", in the context of writing poetry, means "non-corporeal" or "without material substance". You cannot see, taste, hear, touch, or smell beauty. I cannot hold beauty in my hands. It is not concrete -- it is a concept, not a tangible.

If I say beauty, it means different things to different people, but we all know what beauty is to us, maybe it has different meanings at different times, but it is usually applied by a single person in the same context every time to one degree or another. Does this make it abstract?

**Yes, it does. As Urizen said, just because something is abstract does not mean it's unclear in a poem, and vice versa. Abstractions can be used quite well in poetry, but it's difficult. It also doesn't change the fact that the word still represents a non-corporeal, non-tangible, non-concrete concept, idea, judgement, or value. It remains abstract, and not concrete.

Rachel



[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 02-10-2002).]

[critical mass]

Originally posted by TheBroad:
Originally posted by critical mass:

Abstract as I understand it in language is, something difficult to understand, maybe it holds true for paintings as well.

**See, there's the problem right there. That is not the definition of "abstract" as it applies specifically to the critique of poetry. "Abstract", in the context of writing poetry, means "non-corporeal" or "without material substance". You cannot see, taste, hear, touch, or smell beauty. I cannot hold beauty in my hands. It is not concrete -- it is a concept, not a tangible.

If I say beauty, it means different things to different people, but we all know what beauty is to us, maybe it has different meanings at different times, but it is usually applied by a single person in the same context every time to one degree or another. Does this make it abstract?

**Yes, it does. As Urizen said, just because something is abstract does not mean it's unclear in a poem, and vice versa. Abstractions can be used quite well in poetry, but it's difficult. It also doesn't change the fact that the word still represents a non-corporeal, non-tangible, non-concreate concept, idea, judgement, or value. It remains abstract, and not concrete.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 02-10-2002).]

Hi again Rachel,

I guess my problem with this whole abstract idea is that it is too abstract to be concrete, lol. When you say touch it taste it smell it or hear it, that confuses me as well as other beginners. If you describe something I know, yeah, maybe I can remember the taste of it, or remember hearing it. But to say that -- The clang clang of whatever, invokes me hearing this particular item, unless I already have heard it, doesn't really work. Nor does the tasting, describe to me the taste of biting toenails so that I know what it tastes like. Describe the sunset to me as if I were blind, you can see it, but just because you can see it or taste it doesn't mean you can describe it well enough so that it isn't abstract to me, even though you may use concrete images. The poet must rely on the knowledge of the reader or listener to evaluate it's abstractnes. There are very few poems if any that don't harbor abstractions, poetry by nature it seems is abstract, especially ones with metaphors, isn't that what a metaphor is, an abstract way of saying something. There seems to be a lot of focus on getting rid of abstactions when abstractions are really what we are working with. Just my opinion of course.


David

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical mass:

Hi again Rachel,

I guess my problem with this whole abstract idea is that it is too abstract to be concrete, lol. When you say touch it taste it smell it or hear it, that confuses me as well as other beginners.

**Yeah, you sound quite confused, I agree.

If you describe something I know, yeah, maybe I can remember the taste of it, or remember hearing it. But to say that -- The clang clang of whatever, invokes me hearing this particular item, unless I already have heard it, doesn't really work.

**It might work better if you put down the crack pipe.

Nor does the tasting, describe to me the taste of biting toenails so that I know what it tastes like. Describe the sunset to me as if I were blind, you can see it, but just because you can see it or taste it doesn't mean you can describe it well enough so that it isn't abstract to me, even though you may use concrete images.

**Now, put the bong down.

The poet must rely on the knowledge of the reader or listener to evaluate it's abstractnes. There are very few poems if any that don't harbor abstractions, poetry by nature it seems is abstract, especially ones with metaphors, isn't that what a metaphor is, an abstract way of saying something. There seems to be a lot of focus on getting rid of abstactions when abstractions are really what we are working with. Just my opinion of course.


David


**Remember what JB said about sophistry?

garyg
tinfoil
hat

[critical mass]

Originally posted by garyg:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical mass:

Hi again Rachel,

I guess my problem with this whole abstract idea is that it is too abstract to be concrete, lol. When you say touch it taste it smell it or hear it, that confuses me as well as other beginners.

**Yeah, you sound quite confused, I agree.

If you describe something I know, yeah, maybe I can remember the taste of it, or remember hearing it. But to say that -- The clang clang of whatever, invokes me hearing this particular item, unless I already have heard it, doesn't really work.

**It might work better if you put down the crack pipe.

Nor does the tasting, describe to me the taste of biting toenails so that I know what it tastes like. Describe the sunset to me as if I were blind, you can see it, but just because you can see it or taste it doesn't mean you can describe it well enough so that it isn't abstract to me, even though you may use concrete images.

**Now, put the bong down.

The poet must rely on the knowledge of the reader or listener to evaluate it's abstractnes. There are very few poems if any that don't harbor abstractions, poetry by nature it seems is abstract, especially ones with metaphors, isn't that what a metaphor is, an abstract way of saying something. There seems to be a lot of focus on getting rid of abstactions when abstractions are really what we are working with. Just my opinion of course.


David


**Remember what JB said about sophistry?

garyg
tinfoil
hat



garyg

I don't smoke crack or weed, but I do try to understand things that are vague to me. If abstractions are not good in the hands of the less skilled poets, how does the learning process evolve unless they use them. Rather than trounce the abstractions as abstractions for the sake of it being an abstraction, I think it might be better to show how they don't work or how they would work. A badly written poem with concrete images is just as irritating as a badly written poem with abstractions. Also, is a metaphor abstract?

David

[Clive2]

David, you are unnecessarily twisting yourself into knots about this. Stick with Rachel's definition of the abstract and you'll be OK - forget drowning yourself in philosophical claptrap.

Beginners should avoid abstractions because in their clumsy, unskilled hands they don't work.

It's not that hard to understand - concrete good, abstract bad. And yes we could get into all that bullshit about perception and so on and zzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me up when you're finished.

I can at least imagine the sound of St Mark's bells ringing, even if I've never heard them, but I don't know what the fuck "pain" smells like.

Do I sound irritable? It's the andropause, I'm sure of it.

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by critical mass:
garyg

I don't smoke crack or weed, but I do try to understand things that are vague to me.

**I apologize for suggesting that you did.
However, my imagination was stretched to its limit in the search for some explanation as to why you couldn't understand the relatively simple concept that had been explained to you ad infinitum by several contributors to this thread.

If abstractions are not good in the hands of the less skilled poets, how does the learning process evolve unless they use them.

**Who knows? And more to the point: are you jerking everyone around by flogging this dead horse, or are you just jerking yourself off?
Do you come at an understanding about a concept that is repeatedly explained to you by continually posing the same ridiculous questions, or do you actually do some research and devote some thought to the subject in an effort to enlighten yourself?


Rather than trounce the abstractions as abstractions for the sake of it being an abstraction, I think it might be better to show how they don't work or how they would work.

**My friend Flicka is being repeatedly beaten.
Trigger is being abused in a most brutal manner.

A badly written poem with concrete images is just as irritating as a badly written poem with abstractions. Also, is a metaphor abstract?

**Are you going to end up apologizing for this thread as well?
You don't understand the difference between an abstraction and vague language? Fine. Don't understand it. You think abstractions are fine in beginner's poetry? Fine, continue to use them in your verse. You want to continue to physically abuse this deceased equine mammal, go find someone in your local university coffee shop to bore to the point of catatonia.

garyg
tin foil
troll

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by critical mass:

If abstractions are not good in the hands of the less skilled poets, how does the learning process evolve unless they use them.

Easy. They learn how to write clearly to communicate their intent. Now, people's idea of "clarity" in poetry differs, considering that poetry is such a compressed form of language it is not going to have universal appeal. However, I've yet to see someone learn to write poetry well by writing abstract poetry. The compression, the use of symbolism, of employing multiple layers of meaning, of using objects, actions, things to represent abstract concepts -- none of that is learned when a beginner writes poor abstract poetry. It just remains poor abstract poetry, because linguistic and poetic tools are never utilized to their fullest.

Rather than trounce the abstractions as abstractions for the sake of it being an abstraction, I think it might be better to show how they don't work or how they would work.

Uh, excuse me, but you're in the Voyage of Discovery forum. Have you read the threads in here? How about the Blurbs of Wisdom forum? How about some of the books in the reading list? We the critics are not expected to do the writers' work for them. The reason that there's a Blurbs of Wisdom and Voyage of Discovery forum is so that we don't have to keep repeating ourselves until we drop from exhaustion.

A badly written poem with concrete images is just as irritating as a badly written poem with abstractions.

Uh, no. Actually, it isn't. It's still better. At least in the first I have something I can picture, something I can imagine. In the second, I'm just left with a lot of hot air. Usually rancid, too.

Also, is a metaphor abstract?

Depends on the metaphor. "I am a three-toed sloth" is not abstract. "I am beauty" is. See how that works?

Rachel
probably not.

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 02-10-2002).]

[dagonee]

Originally posted by Urizen:
Abstractions are not necessarily unclear.
Unclear language is not necessarily abstract.

Thank you – this nicely sums up the lesson I was taking from all this.

Originally posted by TheBroad:
The original message was an enquiry as to what an abstraction was, and not whether or not abstractions are "good" or "bad" in poetry.

Thank you for trying to keep the thread on topic.

Originally posted by Clive2:
Beginners should avoid abstractions because in their clumsy, unskilled hands they don't work.

It's not that hard to understand - concrete good, abstract bad. And yes we could get into all that bullshit about perception and so on and zzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me up when you're finished.

I can at least imagine the sound of St Mark's bells ringing, even if I've never heard them, but I don't know what the fuck "pain" smells like.

Do I sound irritable? It's the andropause, I'm sure of it.

One thing I learned early on in software engineering – almost every hard and fast rule has its exceptions. One thing I learned only after much experience – exceptions are required a lot less often than you think.

I’m applying a similar principle to my poetry. A lot of people whose knowledge I trust tell me, “Avoid abstractions.” I see a lot of poems made better by removing the abstractions. So I will try to avoid them in mine. I do not think this is all I need to do to make good poetry, it’s just the part causing me the most confusion now.

In that mythical future where I compose poetry as well as I create computer programs, I will make exceptions to the abstraction rule as needed. Until then I’m simply looking for help to identify them so if I do use them it is by conscious choice.

Thanks to everyone who provided such help – I know you must be sick of the topic now, but this thread did help clear the point up for me. I’m sorry it got out of hand (I was afraid of that when I posted), but I decided I would rather assume good behavior than bad. For the most part I was right.

I think a lot of the problem with a forum such as this is sorting the good advice from the bad. It is becoming a little easier to do as I get to know the participants.

Thanks,

Dagonee