Subject: Abstractions

[Kaltica]

Abstractions

An abstraction is defined as "generalized ideas or concepts". Anything that cannot be experienced through our five senses (i.e. sight, smell, touch, taste or hearing) is an abstraction.

In critiques we will often see pieces lambasted for abstractions.

Question: "So what is wrong with abstractions?"
Response: "Nothing."

There is a catch or two, though. The first one is evident in the etymology of the word: its Latin roots mean "to draw away from". Do you want your work to pull a reader into or out of the read? Is that really what abstractions do? Draw a reader out of our poems? If so, how?

Consider this:

Gung gvzr bs lrne gubh znlfg va zr orubyq
Jura lryybj yrnirf, be abar, be srj, qb unat
Hcba gubfr obhtuf juvpu funxr ntnvafg gur pbyq,
Oner ehva'q pubvef, jurer yngr gur fjrrg oveqf fnat.
Va zr gubh frrfg gur gjvyvtug bs fhpu qnl
Nf nsgre fhafrg snqrgu va gur jrfg,
Juvpu ol naq ol oynpx avtug qbgu gnxr njnl,
Qrngu'f frpbaq frys, gung frnyf hc nyy va erfg.
Va zr gubh frr'fg gur tybjvat bs fhpu sver
Gung ba gur nfurf bs uvf lbhgu qbgu yvr,
Nf gur qrngu-orq jurerba vg zhfg rkcver
Pbafhzrq jvgu gung juvpu vg jnf abhevfu'q ol.
Guvf gubh creprvirfg, juvpu znxrf gul ybir zber fgebat,
Gb ybir gung jryy juvpu gubh zhfg yrnir rer ybat.

What, you didn't enjoy that reading experience? I'll have you know that this is one of the greatest English language poems ever written! Lest you doubt me, try pouring the quoted text into a rot-13 decryptor.

"Okay, so people don't like reading gibberish. So what?"

We need to look at the difference between the ambiguous and the vague; without this critical distinction my answer is going to sound, well, ambiguous and vague.

Ambiguity means that a word or phrase can have more than one meaning, application or significance that is supported by context.

Puns are one example of multiple meanings. In "Embracing Arms II: Business End" we see a retired arms dealer "still drawing comfort from the fire". Obviously, "fire" has two meanings: a fireplace and the gunfire that still benefits him.

Bobby (1925-1968)

with los angeles lurking
your rail car runs
out of wisconsin
to plateaus west

as prairie skies wait

you wonder what
an "epaulet horizon" is
until you can see the stars
without looking up

"Stars" has two meanings (i.e. estoiles versus actors), but "you can see the stars without looking up" has at least three applications: one can do so on very flat terrain, by dying and ascending into the heavens or by going to Los Angeles (i.e. Hollywood).

In "Beans" we saw a reference to "Valparaiso", a small town in Chile. As such, the name has only one meaning but, commemorated as the birthplace of the 1973 coup and of its victim, it has a very different signficance, depending on one's politics.

Vagueness means that a word or phrase has no meaning that is supported by context. A word/phrase can have a thousand possible interpretations but if none is clearly an intended meaning you have an empty shell. Just as two or more standards means no standard whatsoever, words amount to gibberish if they lack a distinct meaning common to both writer and audience.

Ambiguity, then, is often a good thing. Vagueness is usually a bad thing.

Question: "'Usually'? Are there times when vagueness is acceptable?"
Response: "Yes."

There are rare instances where precision not only doesn't matter, it might be tedious, distracting or pedantic. In less significant or tangential references--especially where all possible interpretations will be equally pertinent--vagueness can be good shorthand. Ponder these opening lines from T.S. Eliot's 1922 classic, "The Waste Land":

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

You can't get more abstract or vague than "memory and desire". Note that these words are parenthetical and that it really doesn't matter what memory or desire the reader plugs into the equation. All interpretations will be equally valid and equally insignificant--soon lost, in fact, amid more solid imagery and phrasing.

For the most part, though, we should avoid vagueness. The meanings of terms like "love", "honour" and "beauty" may vary not only between cultures, genders, nationalities and economic classes; they can differ between individual members within those groups. By contrast, the sight of a clear sky, the smell of lilacs, the sound of hoofbeats, the feel of silk and the taste of raspberries are the same for every individual. This is why writers are encouraged to use "concrete" imagery: things with sensory appeal will be understood by every reader even if the reader misses their significance as symbols.

In short, abstractions must be "grounded". The test for ungrounded intangibles is the word "what" (e.g. "What 'truth'?", "What 'ambition'?", "'Hope' for what?").

To see how abstractions are used--and avoided--in contemporary poetry, let us look at those employed in the "Magnificent Seven":

1. "There Are Sunflowers In Italy" by Didi Menendez
   
   No abstractions.
   
   
2. "How Aimee Remembers Jaguar" by Erin Hopson
   
   No abstractions.
   
   
3. "Staring" by Charles Cornner
   
   One abstraction:
   
   

   Charles Cornner wrote:

   expressionless here, his brow shadowing brown eyes to black. No menace, just gathering. Wind

   
   
   What "menace"? Is it The Red Menace? Some creeping viral menace? Dennis the Menace? No. It is stated as a menacing look, something which is or would be observable.
   
   
4. "Hookers" by Marco Morales
   
   No abstractions.
   
   
5. "Auditing the Heart" by Frank Matagrano
   
   One abstraction:
   
   

   Frank Matagrano wrote:

   the shape of my wife drawn into the empty bed one memory at a time.

   
   
   What kind of memory? One like the corner of my mind? Computer core memory? Nope. Memory of his wife entering his bed. Again, something we can imagine.
   
   
6. "Specimen #31, Adult Female" by Sharon Hurlbut
   
   One abstraction:
   
   

   Sharon Hurlbut wrote:

   Brush away the dirt with delicate tools until only breath and a sliver of steel can work the grains one by one from the secret within – an origami of eggshell bone, the one unborn.

   
   
   What secret? The identity of D.B. Cooper? The Masonic handshake? Nope. The bones of an unborn child. Yet again, an entity that we can envision.
   
   
7. "In memoriam: Los desaparecidos" by Glenda Cooper
   
   No abstractions.
   

From this we understand that successful modern poets use abstractions sparingly and couch them in a defining context.

Question: "Is this all we need to know about abstractions?"
Response: "No. It isn't even the most important thing we need to know about them."

We must also understand that abstractions are being singled out unduly.

Consider the word "soldiers". If these are from different armies, dressed in various uniforms, they could be difficult to visualize. WWII proved that there was a world of difference between a Gurkha commando and a German tank commander--or even between Wehrmacht and Waffen SS tank commanders. Visualization is easier if it is made clear that the soldiers are in the same service. This would also preclude questions about the relationship between the soldiers (e.g. are they fighting each other?). Easiest by far, though, is to use the singular: "soldier".

Now consider a word like "wildlife". What wildlife? Tapirs? Cows? Corgyn? Pigs? How can anyone visualize a word as general as "wildlife"? Not easily! Is "wildlife" an abstraction, though? Step into a bear's den in springtime and you may discover just how tangible "wildlife" can be.

Since neither "soldiers" nor "wildlife" are abstractions, we realize that the problem isn't abstract nouns but imprecise ones, of which ungrounded abstractions are merely a subset. Depending on how disparate the constituent parts can be, categories (e.g. "wildlife") and even plurals (e.g. "soldiers") can be a wedge between a writer's intent and a reader's understanding. Given how little we enjoy reading gibberish, it is logical to conclude that whatever stands in the way of a reader's comprehension imperils a reader's appreciation.

Some advise new poets to avoid abstractions altogether. This is like telling neophytes to avoid using words that start with "T". Every guitarist has to learn how to finger a B-flat chord. Poets must learn and strive to use words--including grounded abstractions--vividly, lucidly and precisely.

As we develop we may observe an interesting phenomenon: our abstractions begin to frame themselves out of existence. Just as we can often find the answer in a well-constructed question, our grounding of abstractions will often make them redundant. Consider "Angels II":

Grace visited us
too briefly. Then, like water
finding its level, like quicksilver
rejoining its own, she did
what no god can.

A beggar showed up at her funeral.
Mourners clucked about the gall
of the gauche and motioned the man away.

I smiled.
Grace was back,
her first trip a failure.

The penultimate line establishes that Grace has taken the form of a pauper. The fact that she--now he--has seen fit to return, combined with the poem's title and first sentence, makes the albeit grounded abstraction, "failure"--and with it the entire the final line--superfluous, editorializing overkill.

Assuming that you can afford the time, would you rather watch a good movie or read reviews about it later? Coles Notes may be a great convenience, but are they as enjoyable a read as the originals?

1. How pliable, the chasm between lovers
   where welcome linen soothes the burn
   
   
2. What flexibility is in this passion, born of distance,
   this medication that staunches pain?
   

Both couplets convey the same basic notion but the details in #1 (from Erin Hopson's "How Aimee Remembers Jaguar") are far more informative, engaging and sensual. We don't have to guess what kind of "passion" or "distance" is involved; we have "the chasm between lovers". We don't wonder what sort of "medication" or "pain" is being described; we see that "welcome linen soothes the burn". Imagery and events add life to our writing. Imprecise language (e.g. generalities, abstractions, hyperbole, categories, plurals, etc.) kill it. Plotline shows. Imagery shows. Abstraction tells. #1 is a film, an experience. #2 is, at best, an overview.

Art is not in the sentiments expressed, the sediments explored or salutations enjoyed. Art is in its details: those tiny gemstones, mined, refined and polished with such effort that simple suns can only envy the brilliance.

It's only where the wind comes from.
It's the wheel within the clay.

- John Stewart

[indy21]

Kaltica,

You wrote:

[mbecker]

Kaltica,

I know that this article is above and beyond your series, and I appreciate your efforts. Once again you've offered a concise and informative piece of work.

I'm always happy to learn more about the craft, and even my old brain does well with the way you convey your knowledge. Looking forward to the next part in the series, too.

No response needed, just wanted to pass along my thanks
_________________
Mark Becker

[indy21]

Kaltica,

Mark's post has reminded me that I've been remiss for not thanking you and Gary for your entries in this series. I've read them all with great interest.
_________________
"Walker, there is no road, only wind-trails in the sea." Antonio Machado, translated by Robert Bly

[Kayzees]

Kaltica

This article/post is very helpful. Thank you for posting it. When I first started writing poetry, every word was an abstraction. Sometimes when I read Elizabeth Bishop and Eliot, as you have quote here (two of my favorites) I pick abstractions out from their work like ladybugs but the entirety of the poem comes together and shines; I am still learning how the masters do what they do.

[melimar]

Very informative post. Abstraction is something I constantly think about, it having a constant presence in my earliest works. I think I still lapse into it, sometimes, especially in works that I do not intend other people to read -- poems that sort of function as journal entries for me to remember a particular moment that happened. But in works that I do intend other people to read (I suppose for me there is a distinction), I try to stay far from abstraction, because my personal experience with it is that it doesn't help the work evoke the feelings I would like the language to evoke in my readers.

Thank you again.

[hobbylobby]

I had thought I already had a handle on abstractions, which I am prone to use to begin with, but I enjoyed your article so much it inspired me to go back and rework a couple of pieces. It was a great help.

With much appreciation,
HL