Speculative Poets and Poetry

I'm sorry to be rude, Gray Rose, but in the initial post it says "Of course, now we have to define speculative poetry..."

I'm not fond of definitions and terminology when it comes to poetry, but the simplest definition of "speculative" is "containing some fantastical element." Whereas mainstream works are completely bound to the real world. Every genre label is open to interpretation, and the "speculative" umbrella has come around to dilute the pool even more. Myths were certainly speculative, going back to prehistory. Saying that all fiction & poetry is speculative because it all speculates about something is just taking the textbook definition of "speculate" and thinking that's all there is. What if? There's a big difference between a story that asks "what if my grandma moved to Florida?" and "what if my grandma nuked Florida?" One happens every day. Snore. The other requires a fantastic element, and could be tackled as a sci-fi story, a horror story, even a fantasy, supernatural or surreal story ... with or without humor. Though maybe Tom Clancy could write the story as a purely mechanical thing with only realistic pieces. Every line can be blurred.

I disagree with Skelly's "awe and wonder" criteria. Those are feelings, and a sunset can evoke awe and wonder without any words at all. Same with the "concise language" criteria -- any good writing uses that. Only the fantastic element sets speculative work apart, in the current sense of the literary term.

Oddly, not every moment of a poem needs to be speculative (or can be). Some totally down-to-earth pieces may have some moment of fantasy or horror. I don't like any trend that makes up a term in order to exclude things from some neat package. I think we should be open (especially as poets!) to wider worlds, never narrowing things out of existence.

Obviously, we need to know what we're writing. To a degree. But if that interferes with following our dreams and muses, then it needs to be overcome, and revisited when the work is done. I only mention this because I've known poets to get stuck in mid-work because they're afraid to stray into some imaginary category. When it comes time to publish our work, there are plenty of markets for speculative poems, and whether we agree on exact terminology or not, good guidelines are pretty clear about what they're looking for.

The SFPA ( http://sfpoetry.com ) is a great resource for learning about "speculative poetry" and the people who write it. BTW, they will have some table space at the Los Angeles Festival of Books this weekend (Zone A, Booth 154), thanks to Falling Star magazine. They've been trying to promote the genre and poets, doing a lot with a small press budget. They'll also be at the Eaton Science Fiction Conference at U.C.Riverside May 16-18 ( http://eatonconference.ucr.edu/ ) ... so stop by if you're in the area.

= scott

skelly said:

I'm going to try very hard to be polite, like Rose. You are merely trying to flash your academic cred around...and that is okay. You can name drop all over the place. If you want to know what I'M talking about, then learn about people such as Duane Ackerson, Brian Aldiss, Mike Allen, Michael Bishop, Bruce Boston, Ray Bradbury, Adam Cornford, Keith Allen Daniels, Thomas M. Disch, Robert Frazier, Daphne Gottlieb, Neile Graham, Joe Haldeman, Andrew Joron, David C. Kopaska-Merkel, Ursula K. Le Guin, Tim Pratt, Marge Simon, W. Gregory Stewart, and Jane Yolen.

Honestly dude...you're like on a totally different topic. We are trying very hard to be respectful, but you are making that difficult.

Click to expand...

I'm being disrespectful and an intellectual snob? fine by me, at least I don't go and copy a list of names from wikipedia to seem smart. I was, if anything, underlying the traditional basis of your so called "Speculative" tradition. I of course, will refrain from posting on the subject in the future, since, Gray has asked so politely, but I just wanted to point out, you are all shine and no substance. Your argument is essentially copied and pasted to make me seem like an idiot, with the opposite result. Besides which, how many of those poets actually identify themselves as "speculative poets."

I don't think not being a new phenomenon invalidates a category. When Cyrano de Bergerac wrote "Voyages to the Sun and to the Moon", he didn't think he was writing science fiction: the term didn't exist. Would I include his book in that category? Absolutely. And if I write something with mythopoeic elements and it reminds someone of something Christina Rossetti wrote, I'm not going to say, "No, mine is speculative and that's a new category, so they can't be alike!" Instead, I'm probably going to hug myself and grin quietly at odd moments for the next week.

I agree that "speculative fiction/poetry" is not a new thing and I also agee that it's not a thing with precide boundaries. I just don't think those are reasons not to talk about it.

Umm, why pick on JBI? He's only pointing out that speculative writing has a long history. It doesn't look like "academic cred" -- it looks like things everyone should know about a genre they claim to be interested in. It's also relevant to trying to plant a definition. Calling someone "academic" (in the sense of "elitist") because they know something you don't is just sad. He's simply adding some information to a discussion, which is how real discussions work.

Speculative writers & poets tend to have all kinds of interesting chunks of knowledge, and it's enlightening to sit back & listen.

As instructed, I have reposted "Bloodstone, Bronze Ribbons and Bone Roses" in the poetry crit forum: if anyone wants to comment on it, it's here.

In the post I suggested keeping discussion about whether it's a fantasy poem here instead of that forum.

No, but copying and pasting (besides being plagiaristic, though not illegal since Wikipedia is in the public domain) shows nothing but that you can punch speculative poetry into wikipedia. I, of course, will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have read all those names, but still the direct, and exact, referencing to Wikipedia seems to me a little bit of a sleazy move. It is not you recommending me to "learn about" those poets, but wikipedia, trying to provide an overview of a subject. Had you recommended me to the Wikipedia link, than I wouldn't have pointed it out, but instead you copy and pasted the slew of those names, in the exact same order, without any omissions, in a backhanded attempt to make me look like an ignorant fool. You automatically dismiss my opinion because I do not agree with you, or I present a flash of "academic cred" (ironically since I haven't yet taken English beyond an high school level), without considering the possibility of your own fault. The board is, after all, called poetry discussion. If you don't wish for discussion, why post?

And you are also assuming I don't write poetry that you would call "speculative", therefore I am an ignorant fool who is meddling in a field he knows nothing about. Another fallacious attempt to discredit me.

JBI, you say time and again that you don't like genre work.
Speculative poetry is definitely unashamed genre work.
It's unsurprising that people will assume you don't know about it, since you state time and time again your disdain of genre work.

Also, this thread exists so that people who want to play with these ideas can talk, not so that we have to explain and/or justify things to you. If you don't like where this thread is going, or the answers you're getting, you're more than welcome to pick up your toys and leave, or else come up with better examples/definitions yourself.

The issue is not the content of your posts, but the attitude -- you seem to assume that people here owe you something. Nobody does.

skelly said:

We're not picking on JBI. We're merely asking him to take his carping elsewhere and let us discuss the poetry that we write, using the terms that we choose.

Click to expand...

Who is we?

Hi JBI,

I enjoyed your comments on genre history. Then again, I have an article about the speculative elements of "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" coming out soon in Illumen. I can't imagine not being fascinated with the roots of literature and storytelling (of all types).

But I'm sure this topic is going to implode, with a few people shouting until all the people with real information go elsewhere. That's what passes for "discussion" these days. See you around. ;-)

Wow, that list of poets was just copied from Wikipedia. Brilliant. Scholarly. Lame.

= scott

scottVee said:

Wow, that list of poets was just copied from Wikipedia. Brilliant. Scholarly. Lame.

Click to expand...

What exactly is wrong with pointing at the list on wikipedia when the person demanding answers has obviously not done even that much research? It's what I'd do, honestly, so that I wouldn't miss a few obvious names I hadn't read poetry from myself.

Most people who do copy that information have enough knowledge of the area to do a sanity check. "Does the wikipedia article match what I already know? Yes? Then it's good enough for now."

The knee-jerk putting-down of wikipedia is what reads as snobbery lacking in sense to me.

ETA: Allowing that the person using wikipedia as a source is not assuming that it's the be all and end all of scholarship, of course It's often an excellent starting point, however, so what better to give someone who seems to have done no research?

Shweta said:

JBI, you say time and again that you don't like genre work.
Speculative poetry is definitely unashamed genre work.
It's unsurprising that people will assume you don't know about it, since you state time and time again your disdain of genre work.

Also, this thread exists so that people who want to play with these ideas can talk, not so that we have to explain and/or justify things to you. If you don't like where this thread is going, or the answers you're getting, you're more than welcome to pick up your toys and leave, or else come up with better examples/definitions yourself.

The issue is not the content of your posts, but the attitude -- you seem to assume that people here owe you something. Nobody does.

Click to expand...

You time and time again desire to assume I have disdain for "genre work". I simply have disdain for mediocre work, much of which seems to fall under "genre work" as you put it.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that your post was not a direct target against me, and not my ideas, and assume that you have also read the entirety of this thread.

If you have, you will notice my first post, if anything, was a way of expanding the concept of "speculative poetry" to include more historic, and canonical poets. All of my seeming ad hominem posts were in direct retaliation against posts against me (all of which has been seen by you, since you have read the entirety of the thread).

Why then, do you insist on posting this towards me, since as we clearly are to assume, you have read the entire thread, and therefore realize I haven't said anything to provoke such an outburst?

My like or dislike for, as you call it, "genre work" has nothing to do with this discussion. I am a great fan of many of the names that were copied by Skelly, and have read, and written, many poems that could, by the definitions provided, be called "speculative poetry."

It would therefore seem a great insult to your intelligence, to brusquely come onto this post, and hail some sort of mod authority barrage at me for no other reason that to directly use your "influence" to make me seem the weaker (keep in mind, the argument here has not been questioned, rather ironically). I realize this was not your intent, of course, but I could not help but mention these things, to make sure your words are not taken the wrong way.

Thank you Shweta.

ScottVee: can we please, please be polite and respectful to each other? "Lame" is not an adjective I am comfortable with, in this context. I am sure you know your speculative poets as well as Skelly and myself. Why won't you post something about your favorites for the sake of JBI, who seems to think that speculative poetry is all shine and no substance?

Personally, I enjoy the work of Ursula LeGuin, Jo Walton, Mike Allen, JoSelle Vanderhooft, Catherynne Valente, and Jennifer Crow.

JBI, while I do not think we are picking up on you, we do have a problem with your word choices. "Pointless", "meaningless", "ridiculous", "you are all shine and no substance" - the list goes on. You are being rude, you even admit to being rude. Again, I would ask you to reflect on why it feels necessary for you to behave in this way.

JBI said:

You time and time again desire to assume I have disdain for "genre work". I simply have disdain for mediocre work, much of which seems to fall under "genre work" as you put it.

Click to expand...

If my assumptions are wrong, please enlighten me about the work that actually identifies as SF or fantasy that you consider worthy. My assumptions are based on your own repeated statements.

If you have, you will notice my first post, if anything, was a way of expanding the concept of "speculative poetry" to include more historic, and canonical poets. All of my seeming ad hominem posts were in direct retaliation against posts against me (all of which has been seen by you, since you have read the entirety of the thread).

Click to expand...

It was pointed out that your expansion was irrelevant to the thread's intent. It'd be fine, IMO, to start another thread for your argument, when the response to your first post was, reasonably, "This is all true but irrelevant to our purposes". However, you continue. Why, if not to argue for the sake of arguing instead of letting a small group of people talk about their common interests, which you don't actually claim to share?

All you seem to be doing is going "Look at me, I'm more scholarly than you". Which gets old.

Why then, do you insist on posting this towards me, since as we clearly are to assume, you have read the entire thread, and therefore realize I haven't said anything to provoke such an outburst?

Click to expand...

Having read the whole thread from its inception, I had finally had enough of your derail.

It would therefore seem a great insult to your intelligence, to brusquely come onto this post, and hail some sort of mod authority barrage at me for no other reason that to directly use your "influence" to make me seem the weaker (keep in mind, the argument here has not been questioned, rather ironically).

Click to expand...

Excuse me? Where did I use "mod" authority? That would be extreme rudeness to the actual forum mods. As one of the people interested in speculative poetry, I stated my lack of interest in the direction you seem insistent on pushing this thread.

Which is not to say I'm interested in the mythic and classical roots of speculative poetry, mind. I'd love to talk about that, and hey, I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. Just not here. This is where we're talking about the modern phenomenon that has been labelled speculative poetry. As Grayrose pointed out on the previous page, with links.

I can sympathize with the first three words, them being, perhaps, a little over the top, but All Shine and no substance was in direct retaliation.

All of my original posts were intended to provide the information that seems to be the topic of this thread, as posted in the original post,

Discuss the form? Share some of our speculative poems? Share market info? Anything, I guess, as long as it concerns speculative poetry.

Click to expand...

I confess to my word choices being a little unconventional at times, but that is no reason to discredit an argument, or to ostracize me from a thread. Believe me, I do not think you are picking on me, but I am almost certain other posters, who shall not be named (cough, insert name of choice here, cough) have been. I am ready to move on, but so is the discussion, or I thought so anyway, and so do many other posters, who seem to agree with many of my insights into the theory of "speculative poetry".

JBI said:

I confess to my word choices being a little unconventional at times, but that is no reason to discredit an argument, or to ostracize me from a thread.

Click to expand...

So let's move on
Which of the current speculative poets do you like and/or admire, JBI? Context would certainly help the discussion. I'd love to know what you think they're doing that's interesting in terms of the form's historical roots.

Cause I certainly see that in certain poets, but probably see different aspects of it as interesting. And as long as the historical basis is actually related to the modern work, I can see the relevance, and agree it's there.

ETA: Let me put in at least one example, otherwise I'm arguably picking on you/putting you on the spot, which isn't my intent. I love love love the way Jane Yolen contextualizes mythical themes in extremely gritty modern settings. Or perhaps how she construes modern events in mythical terms. I'm not sure which way it goes, and either way, I adore that parralellism. Either way, she is literalizing a deeply fantastical view of the world, without any of the sentiment that annoys me with the Romantics.
Examples.

Shweta, I wonder at where you get your facts. First of all, I have told you numerous times that I am a great fan of works by the authors such as Borges, Marquez, Calvino, Crowley, Lindsay, Le Guin, Robert Jordan, etc. You know all this.

As the first post said,

Discuss the form? Share some of our speculative poems? Share market info? Anything, I guess, as long as it concerns speculative poetry.

Click to expand...

It would appear that all my original comments fall within those grounds, excluding the last ground, which of course they fall into. So why then, do you put words in my mouth?

Either way, my like or dislike of "genre work" has nothing to do with how right, or how wrong my post is. Observations aren't wrong because the observer doesn't like what he's looking at.

I find it also quite rude, that you assume speculative fiction is a modern phenonmenon, regardless of any real evidence (a website that offers membership into an association for a set fee is hardly a credible source, but rather seems to be a common ground for same-interest readers, not to mention the fact that the magazine, Goblin Fruit, is named after an aspect of a speculative Christina Rossetti poem, Goblin Market, written not in "modern times").

Edit: I posted this before reading shweta's last post, my apologies.

JBI said:

Shweta, I wonder at where you get your facts. First of all, I have told you numerous times that I am a great fan of works by the authors such as Borges, Marquez, Calvino, Crowley, Lindsay, Le Guin, Robert Jordan, etc. You know all this.

Click to expand...

No, I know that you used to admite Jordan and Le Guin, but in the last year or so haven't had anything good to say that I've heard about any of 'em, and those you like, you justify as being magical realism and not fantasy. But this is more of a derail than your original, so let's stop it or take it to PM.

I find it also quite rude, that you assume speculative fiction is a modern phenonmenon, regardless of any real evidence

Click to expand...

I don't assume anything. I'm only saying that "speculative poetry" is a label for a self-consciously modern phenomenon with an explicit focus on reinterpretations and recontextualizations of older themes.

I'm not saying that older poetry doesn't speculate, or isn't speculative, simply that the term refers to a particular movement.

You're saying something that I understand as analogous to "New Weird can't possibly refer to the group of people who call themselves New Weird, because Lovecraft was pretty new and weird in his time!"

JBI said:

I can sympathize with the first three words, them being, perhaps, a little over the top, but All Shine and no substance was in direct retaliation.

Click to expand...

"In direct retaliation" - hmm. IMHO "direct retaliation" does not justify rudeness, and is hardly dignified.

All of my original posts were intended to provide the information that seems to be the topic of this thread, as posted in the original post,

Click to expand...

While I am thankful that you provided me with an information about the Russian Romantics (whom I have been studying and teaching at a graduate level for the last seven years), I am less thankful for the tone in which your information was couched.

Most of our cultural production is based on what came before. One can argue that both our mainstream literary production and our speculative production harks back to the Classics and/or classical mythology. Regardless of whether this is true in actuality, such claim hardly invalidates the existence and the need for both mainstream or speculative production.

I for one do not feel comfortable placing my work on the same scale as the classic poets you mentioned. I am not playing in that league. I just want to improve my work. As I told you before in chat, I spent some time in the vicinity of poets whose shoelaces I am not worthy of tying, and that taught me some humility and a not uncertain dislike of grand statements (which, it seems to me, you are making).

I confess to my word choices being a little unconventional at times, but that is no reason to discredit an argument, or to ostracize me from a thread. Believe me, I do not think you are picking on me, but I am almost certain other posters, who shall not be named (cough, insert name of choice here, cough) have been. I am ready to move on, but so is the discussion, or I thought so anyway, and so do many other posters, who seem to agree with many of my insights into the theory of "speculative poetry".

Click to expand...

If you get offended by other people's "unconventional" word choices, you should be more careful with yours. Indeed, I think that careful consideration of word choices at all times behooves a poet.

Let's then, by all means, move on.