Friday, February 23, 2007

The exchange before midpoem

Well, Tom's got me reprocessing this theory before I've even exchanged a pawn for a participle, but let's continue.

In chess, the transition from opening to midgame is marked by an exchange of pieces, intitiated by the sacrifice of a piece for the purpose of clearing out and ultimately assuming a controlling posture toward (though not necessary controlling position in) the middle of the board. It is marked by the beginning of development of more powerful pieces for use in midgame.

Before we get to the development of the powerful pieces, let's discuss the transition, the exchange. How is this akin to writing poems? My contention is that more successful poems tend to operate from a vulnerable position - confessional exposure being the most obvious and most overused. If you're willing to think ahead with me and anticipate that a good poem has to leave itself open in anticipation of a surprise somewhere in it (like a well-played chess game will at some point deviate from mere parroting of the great players), then the first transition of that poem is the conscious direction that creates the opportunity for surprise. The sacrifice of a bishop to radically and blatantly disrupt the center defenses may be similar to the driving home of the poem's idea through a repetition of word and image.

Or, maybe, the transition is the deliberate clearing of the space around the poem's opening that makes taking it in a new direction possible. On the chess board, this could be exchange of pawns and knights that leaves the middle empty for the queen to take over. In the poem, this is discarding of the details not central to the poem's thesis that leave the metaphor available for detail and embellishment.

Just like the meaning of a chess move can only be interpreted in the context of the style of the player, the meaning of a poetry development can only be interpreted in the context of the style of the poet. Similarly, a single poet's/player's style can change from poem/game to poem/game.

Next up: me bouncing off your comments.
Following that: Midpoem.

4 comments:

Tom Chivers said...

I have to say I had following all of that. I'm not sure your characterisation of the middlegame is entirely correct either. There are frequently exchanges and sacrifices and development of the major pieces within the opening, after all. I'll have a reread when I have more time though.

Tom Chivers said...

Missed out *trouble* from first sentence. Sorry!

David Vincenti said...

Technically, isn't "midgame" initiated by the move that deviates from any of the known "openings"? I'm selecting an interpretation that is less chess-educated and more in line with my analogy, true, but all analogy requires a bit of selective interpretation, after all.

But to simplify this part of my thesis, I'm saying the point that marks the poem's object of attention is the end of the opening, and I'd liken it to the piece advantage one player tends to have at the end of the opening exchange.

Does that help, Tom?

Tom Chivers said...

'Technically, isn't "midgame" initiated by the move that deviates from any of the known "openings"?'

No. You're mixing up 'opening theory' with 'the opening'. In some lines, 'opening theory' - ie the store-house of knowledge about how games might start - can reach through the middlegame and even into the endgame. The opening theory of the mainline of the Berlin Defence, for instance, leads to an endgame. So you are still in 'opening theory' in the endgame - but you are not in the 'opening' per se. You are in the endgame.

'But to simplify this part of my thesis, I'm saying the point that marks the poem's object of attention is the end of the opening, and I'd liken it to the piece advantage one player tends to have at the end of the opening exchange.

Does that help, Tom?'

I think I'm still a bit confused. . . I would characterise most (not all) openings as something akin to a 'negotiation'. Each move signals something like, 'I'd like this piece here,' and the reply signals something like 'ok, but you'll have to give me this square', or 'I'm afraid not, I'm claiming it, although that does mean you can have . . .' etc. I don't think one player can speak of an advantage typically (most mainline openings lead to approximately equal chances) - perhaps the langauge of 'imbalanaces' is more accurate. You agree to certain imbalances, and your opponent agrees to them from the reverse side.

The middlegame is the sort of 'hand to hand' combat that then follows from such negotiated positions.

Not sure this is any help or not . . .