Is poetry made
to be rejected? In the case of my prose poem ‘Artificial Intelligence’, yes and
no. There are editors who won’t get it, find it resistant to understanding, not
a poem, or suspect it’s a hoax. Rejection is imminent once hackles are stirred,
contrary to the definition of poetry as whatever raises your neck hairs. Here
is the first stanza: “I, intelligence trifacial. Glacial incite interfile. Irenic
italic leafleting. Eliciting laic interleaf. Glacial incite, infertile. If
rectilineal, genitalic. Interglacial incite life. Illicit interface linage. Icier
lactating lifeline. Titanic icefall lingerie. Infernal icicle, litigate. Illicit
fiancée triangle. Illicit lariating e-fence. Felicitating linea relic? Lacier felicitating
Nile. Initialing lactic feeler. Fecal initialing reticle. Failing literati
licence. Facile lienteric tailing. Filiate encircle tailing.” Is poetry
translatable? Because each line is an anagram of ‘artificialintelligence’, the
chances of translation into another language are, I speak confidently, zero.
French will produce interesting self-definitions from its richly punning
vocabulary and we can only envy German, in this instance anyway, its relish for
compound nouns. Stanza 2: “I, electrician,
gall finite. Fellini gait electrician. Electrician lite, failing. Creating
illicit e-finale. Electrician tile failing. Electrician file tailing. Electrician
filial tinge. Creating italic lifeline. Electrician finial legit. Electrician ignite
flail. Electrician tie flailing. Eerie tactical infilling. Craniate, feeling
illicit. Craniate fleeing illicit. Clinical filiate integer. Clerical initiating
feel. Clerical feet initialing. Clerical initialing fete. Certificating lineal
lie. Retailing lifeline cacti. Certain illicit e-leafing.” Is a thesaurus
appropriate? A thesaurus is useless. As you can see, each stanza opens with the
first person singular, a deliberate reference to ‘I, Robot’. Fortuitously, in scanning
hundreds of ‘artificialintelligence’ anagrams on online databases, I (not a
robot) noticed some that started with a declarative voice, a persona even.
Perhaps this voice had a name too, like Felecia. Stanza 3: “I, intergalactic
lifeline. LII intergalactic feline. Electric filiating alien. Alien
felicitating relic. Felecia trialling incite? Felecia inciting literal. Felecia
latticing inlier. Felecia e-ranting, illicit. Eliciting filial reenact. Eliciting
facile latrine. Eliciting facile ratline. Eliciting facile reliant. Eliciting
facile retinal. Elegiac re-illicit infant. Elegiac inertial inflict. Elegiac intricate
infill.” How is the best way to end a poem? In this case, I had to keep with
the creative rule of my prose poem, but a memorable final anagram describing
artificial intelligence seemed a felicitous resolution to the forgoing wordy
miasma: “I, c.c. retaliating lifeline. Italic interleaf ceiling. Finical
literate ceiling. Frail licentiate ceiling. Interfacial lite ceiling. Illicit Aegean inflicter. AIF
intelligencer italic. Aileen certificating ill. Reenacting Alfie illicit. Reflect
Alice initialing. Inelegant if critical lie.”