Are Poets on a Different Plane/Plain?

[Undercover]

I seek understanding here, because I recently crossed-over to writing stories and novels of fiction about 2 and a half years back and I am sincerely noticing a difference in poets vs. writers.

Nothing against one or the either, (well perhaps I am biased and work in favor of the poet more so than anything) Let me explain. There's a difference from writing years of poetry to writing years of novels (genres in particular). I am not talking non-fiction or memoir folks. I am talking poets, and prose and prose in fiction in stories. Mixing them both, successfully. Not everyone can do this. Some are excellent writers but suck at poetry. And some are poets that yearn to break through the mold of being a heartfelt poet that begs to break free of free verse and versify fiction as well. One can rope both in with complete prose storytelling, it's been done before, it can be done again.

If this makes no sense, disregard. But in my humble opinion the poets have one up on just the average writer wanting to make it.

My one friend said to me, which hurt a little at first, saying "You're more a poet than anything else"...but I knew what it meant too.

But what does this all mean to you?

[celestialwolf]

I write poetry and fiction, both published. I've written poetry for a good 15 years now and I've tried to write fiction on and off during that time. I've noticed that my prose likes to remain on the short side, no matter that I'd love to write novel length. This, I think, is influenced by my poetry. I can't really say I've seen that poets and writers (technically, poets are writers) are any different. Poetry and Prose are two different art forms though. They both struggle to get published and achieve success. I do agree that "success" is harder for poets. Personally, I'm proud to be a poet more than anything else. Sure, I'd like be more than a short author and poet but I can only do that with time and hard work.

[kborsden]

I write both, or, recently I decided to make a more dedicated effort to write prose. I don't know if my prose is better than my poetry. My personal affinity is for the poet in me, but there are things I want to say outside of poetry alone. I've received decent reviews for what I've written, but whether that holds in publication? ... My problem is that I can't sit down and type for too long, my mind wanders, new thoughts bubble and formulate new poems. I may write a paragraph, even 3 -- then the next becomes a poem. So I've remained with flash fiction and not yet moved on to anything longer than 500 words at most. I think that after so many years of near exclusive poetry, I may have to retrain my brain to work with prose.

[areteus]

Yes, absolutely. They are different art forms and therefore have different skills involved in them. Just as writing a script for a movie is also different from poetry or novel writing. Now, some skills crossover and can be used in more than one (for example, poetry will not help you in your dialogue as much as practising script writing and dialogue is also useful in novel writing while poets often write very good description and have a good eye for paragraph and sentence structure) but in general a good poet is not necessarily a good novellist or short story writer or script writer.

To use an analogy, in medicine there is a basic divide between Doctors and Surgeons. Both are considered 'medical professionals' and are highly skilled in thier respective areas and can, to a certain extent, practise a little of the other's art because medical school tends to be very broad at first and you specialise later. However, you would not ask a Doctor to remove a brain tumour no more than you would ask a surgeon to diagnose a complicated digestive disorder.

[KellyAssauer]

Writing both prose and poetry, I find the two oddly complementary, as if a ying and yang. In prose, it's so difficult for me to get each sentence correct, the sound, rhythms, nuances, undertones, overtones and meanings... a prose sentence to me is a complex dance of words in a dictated form. So sometimes, I'll run screaming from that and shout out a free verse poem of noise and image if for no other reason than to shake off the wordy weight of prose. Which is probably why I leap away from formal poetry forms, I just can't do that, prose is too challenging, I have to have my thrash and scream free verse fits to clear my brain. =)

[kborsden]

thrash and scream free verse fits to clear my brain. =)

Screaming free verse fits? they sound interesting... maybe you should post some. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your poetry, but most pieces have a defined prose edge, on foot in it if you like -- but thrashing noise and image poetry sounds intriguing.

[Blarg]

I've read some Raymond Carver stories a dozen times or more. Some prose writing is so finely considered it's a miracle of language, and I think it could be inspirational to an attentive poet. But not much of it.

One thing I like about poetry is it is a constant training ground in handling language. Prose can do a wonderful job simply by getting you from one place to another without screwing up too badly. Some books even start off bloated with dull pages but still succeed. Stephen King's "The Shining" is a good example -- a very fun book that starts off with 50 dull pages. Almost anything by James Michener starts off with 100 boring pages (he'll start off talking about places down to their geological beginnings). A lot of 19th century writers start off with so much scene setting that you wouldn't know who you were reading about if the novel weren't named after its main character.

Poetry demands more discipline. It can be incredibly flaky. Still, it can keep you focused on using language not just passably, and to get you from one place to another, but to the very best of your abilities.

You might be able to write a lumpy, half-formed first draft of a novel in a month, but you couldn't write 40,000 words of poetry in a month and have it even recognizable as poetry except for its use of line breaks. There's a different sensibility involved. Not better. Just different.

[KellyAssauer]

Screaming free verse fits? they sound interesting... maybe you should post some. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your poetry, but most pieces have a defined prose edge, on foot in it if you like -- but thrashing noise and image poetry sounds intriguing.

Grab your screen,
stand up,
turn around and
face the coffee house crowd

Now read out loud
really out loud
in a good strong voice
so the punks in the
back corner can hear...

what I added to today's prompt.

:e2tongue:

[Paul]

I vote Plane

[veinglory]

I do both, both published. they are just skill sets. Just because you can do dressage doesn't mean you can do show-jumping. Writing isn't all just putting words together any more than all riding is just sitting on a horse.

[Magdalen]

For me, artists are like the Armed Forces of the world's culture. So here's a quick list of how I see it:


Army:.... .... . ..Painters

Navy:.... .. . . ..Photographers/Filmmakers

Marines:... . . ..Musicians

Coast Guard:.. Other Visual Arts

Air Force: . . . . Dancers

Spec. Forces: . Writers

Black Ops: . . . Poets

[Debbie V]

To me the key to great prose is making the words sing. Poetry is the words singing. I write picture books, short stories and novels. I do find novels harder on the attention span. Picture books done really well are closer to poetry than prose. Everything I write has a sense of story. That's the tie that holds it together. I'm a storyteller.

[thothguard51]

Are Poets on a Different Plane/Plain?

In my experience, yes, and goes in stages...

[Undercover]

I just wanted to come in and tell everyone thank you for contributing to my pondering this here. I am really enjoying this thread. Appreciation to all the planes that have flown in and posted, everyone's on a different plain/level soda speak.

Birds of a feather, I fly with you guys. Someone or another mentioned that novels are more difficult to write, I agree. I've written 4 to date and the highest word count was 52K which I am very proud of. But the rough draft was complete at 35K so it took me some time to layer it up a bit, which proved to be hard at first, but I was diligent about it. I had a few editors say my work was "too commercial" and "not literary enough" (before the 52K one). Right away in my heart I knew. I usually pack my words in tight with good flow. But it really weakens the word count, my big demise. But that's not to say I cannot do it. I just like to make every word count, my word count is crab on the first couple of runs.

Just saying thanks again for everyone's input.

[donatos]

Yep

[poetinahat]

To me, it's not a matter of 'better than', but it is a matter of 'different from'. I write poems because I want to write poems, not reformatted pieces of prose. I like the music in poetry, and I like the care that's needed to get the words and the rhythm right.

So, I don't think it's above or below. I admire both the architect and the watchmaker.

--

On one hand, I bristle a bit when people assume that writing poetry is easy - just dumping one's feelings in paper, and adding some line breaks. Yep - bad poetry is easy.

But so is bad prose. It just takes longer.

On the other hand, I'm wary of any claim that poethood means superiority, because it may lead to detachment and, worse, bad poetry.

Poetry, like any other art form, is meant to be experienced. As soon as the audience becomes unnecessary to the artist, then the work becomes irrelevant to anyone but herself.

[celestialwolf]

Poetry, like any other art form, is meant to be experienced. As soon as the audience becomes unnecessary to the artist, then the work becomes irrelevant to anyone but herself.

But are we not to write for ourselves first? I write to express how I feel in the only medium in which I can do so. I don't give a damn about an audience. The only reason I share bits of poetry is because I have a few trusted friends who enjoy reading it. Sure, once in a while if the poem strikes my fancy, I'll submit a piece. But at the end of the day, my poetry is about my soul. I have to express it. But what if we don't want others to "experience" what's beneath the flesh, the depths of my soul or that which cries out inside?

[KellyAssauer]

But are we not to write for ourselves first? I write to express how I feel in the only medium in which I can do so. I don't give a damn about an audience.

Writing serves many purposes for many people, for some it is as you described, perhaps a cathartic expression of inner feelings shared only rarely with others. For some it's a meal ticket or a means to an end, or something they just can't help doing... there as many reasons to write as there are people that do write, and none of those reasons are the 'right' or 'wrong' reasons. - If someone tries to tell you differently, refer them to me, I'll take care of it. ;)

*one small note of clarification that just doesn't matter - but my feet do not ever leave the ground, or things sitting on the ground, so there's no flying here at all! ;)*

[kborsden]

On one hand, I bristle a bit when people assume that writing poetry is easy - just dumping one's feelings in paper, and adding some line breaks. Yep - bad poetry is easy.

But so is bad prose. It just takes longer.

On the other hand, I'm wary of any claim that poethood means superiority, because it may lead to detachment and, worse, bad poetry.

Poetry, like any other art form, is meant to be experienced. As soon as the audience becomes unnecessary to the artist, then the work becomes irrelevant to anyone but herself.

A frighteningly true post -- and something which when said often leads to lynch mobs.

But are we not to write for ourselves first?

Of course. The cast-iron defence for bad poetry. Just as the hobbyist model plane builder shouldn't be concerned about making one that actually flies? It's about pride in what you do, personal pride regardless of publishing credits, printed journals or wire-ring notebooks, read by your mother/sister/wife/editor/anyone/no one.

No individual reason for writing pardons lack of skill or determines how bad/good something is -- just some reasons offer the best excuse when the poet/author does decide to share.

My aunt, since becoming less mobile after a stroke has taken up painting -- they're not for anyone other than herself, but still she puts a lot of effort into them and wants them to be the best they can be. They are her soul, just for her, and maybe the rest of the family once she's gone (after many years to come I hope!). The only medium she knows to express herself through. She reads art books, has a host of Bob Ross DVDs, and I'm sure if she could, she would attend the local college for art lessons. She tries to look at her paintings as someone else might -- objectively.

Someone writing poetry for themselves, for their soul would only be doing themselves and the art form justice by showing it the same respect... learn, hone and develop. If you can see what your reader might with your internal editor, you're far from writing bad poetry already. The audience of one may like it no matter what, but improvement comes from satisfying the hypothetical audience, whether the poet has designs to make that audience real or not.

[celestialwolf]

Someone writing poetry for themselves, for their soul would only be doing themselves and the art form justice by showing it the same respect... learn, hone and develop. If you can see what your reader might with your internal editor, you're far from writing bad poetry already. The audience of one may like it no matter what, but improvement comes from satisfying he hypothetical audience, whether the poet has designs to make that audience real or not.

I can see your point but I, in my opinion, am not using it as an excuse to write "bad poetry". Just because we chose not share, doesn't mean we're automatically writing/harboring "bad poetry" nor does it mean we don't toil to improve our craft.

[Ambrosia]

I believe a person who is a writer writes. Regardless what form it is in. I don't think there are different planes of existence between a writer who writes screen plays, a writer who writes poetry, a writer who writes fiction, a writer who writes songs--it is all about creating. It is all about being "in the zone", whatever that means to the individual writer. It is all about using language to its best effect--to move the reader with the words presented.

I write. It doesn't matter the form.

[KellyAssauer]

Of course. The cast-iron defence for bad poetry.

No individual reason for writing pardons lack of skill or determines how bad/good something is -- just some reasons offer the best excuse when the poet/author does decide to share.

So-called 'bad poetry' and 'lack of skill' are opinions and completely subjective. In as much as what may have been considered bad form once, they might be consider good now. These traits may be agreed upon by a certain group... but they are still arbitrary, transient and as difficult to define as the word 'quality' is to behold! =)


Someone writing poetry for themselves, for their soul would only be doing themselves and the art form justice by showing it the same respect...

Although wonderfully well-worded, this appears to be a completely subjective projection. A reason why any particular individual attempts any specific endeavor is their reason and their reason alone. It does not hold true that it must met our reasonings and aspirations nor must it hold up to any particular social scrutiny.

In the SYW sections, opinions on form and improvements to any particular work are actively being sought, and many are the time when I have adored and greatly respected those who have chose to share their learned reflections.

But it remains our duty here at AW to respect the fellow writer... whether or not we understand or agree with that writer's inspirations, aspirations, level of commitment or final product. I must maintain that their are as many reasons to write as there are writers, and no individual reason to write will ever trump another.

[kborsden]

I can see your point but I, in my opinion, am not using it as an excuse to write "bad poetry". Just because we chose not share, doesn't mean we're automatically writing/harboring "bad poetry" nor does it mean we don't toil to improve our craft.

I never said you were -- I was simply elucidating Rob's post and expanding the terms. You say no audience, I say there is one in the craft itself, in the act of learning and improving you are objectively editing to a hypothetical audience other than yourself, otherwise, what would it matter if what you wrote was any good?

So-called 'bad poetry' and 'lack of skill' are opinions and completely subjective.

No, sloppy writing, bad grammar and bland, repetitive, unoriginal works are a fact.

In as much as what may have been considered bad form once, they might be consider good now. These traits may be agreed upon by a certain group... but they are still arbitrary, transient and as difficult to define as the word 'quality' is to behold!

If you write crap, that's a good stand to take, rather than face the truth. "it's not me -- it's them"... Decent writing is something you know when you see it -- good poetry is difficult to define, but you recognise it, but the antithesis is not? Nonsense. Subjective or not:

Bad Prose:

I woke this morning, walked outside, but got dressed first and had some breakfast. Then I went to the shop and was thinking all the way how nice my breakfast was. I go in the shop and buy a news paper. I talked to the man who runs the shop and who had sold me the paper. He was smiling. I smiled too. The news paper cost me 50p. I took the newspaper with me to the train station and I got on the train. It had to arrive first. So I read my newspaper while I waited. I am on the train looking out the window and the trees are very green. I like trees. There was an article in the paper about trees. Because I like trees I read the article in the news paper. The article in the newspaper was good. But maybe only because I like trees. I got off the train and went to work. But first the train had to arrive at the station for me to get off and I walked to the building where I work the rest of the day.

If there is bad prose, what makes poetry exempt? Is there no skill required? Is it one of those flutt things that idiots such as myself waste their time on?

Bad Poetry:

I woke this morning,
walked outside, but
got dressed first and had
some breakfast. Then
I went to
the shop and
was thinking all the way
how nice my breakfast was.
I go
in the shop and buy
a news paper.

I talked to the man who runs
the shop and who
had sold me the paper.

etc..

Although wonderfully well-worded, this appears to be a completely subjective projection. A reason why any particular individual attempts any specific endeavor is their reason and their reason alone. It does not hold true that it must meet our reasonings and aspirations nor must it hold up to any particular social scrutiny.

I never said it did have to hold up to social scrutiny, but it should meet the individual's personal aspirations... Personal scrutiny - how do you edit, what do you look for to change and improve? If you didn't care for what you wrote and the product was good regardless of anything anyone might say, why do you want to edit to begin with? Why care for spelling? Grammar? Phrase or word order? Can you view your work objectively? Why even bother? What do you think you are doing when you do? Is that not a hypothetical audience? Why do anything if you expect to fail, don't set yourself a goal or intend to succeed? Whether writing solely for yourself or for a wider audience, the goal is ultimately the same. To succeed with something, there's the level of personal pride. Poetry that a poet takes no pride in can be seen and felt in the result -- it's what we generally call awful, crap or bad -- it's counter-productive to not want to improve or be good at something.

... it remains our duty here at AW to respect the fellow writer... whether or not we understand or agree with that writer's inspirations, aspirations, level of commitment or final product. I must maintain that their are as many reasons to write as there are writers, and no individual reason to write will ever trump another.

I agree -- and I am only saying that it aids any writer for whatever reason they write and whatever it is they may write that what they write be good and not slap-dash or half-arsed, but with a level of skill -- and skill can only evolve by actively doing something and trying to do it well. You fall, you get up, wiser for it -- you don't call the floor out.

[KellyAssauer]

All other discussions aside... I thought of this wonderful Hunter S. Thompson quote early today, and it made me laugh... Hunter said "Anything worth doing is worth doing well." and I do so love Hunter's work... but if I applied his little quip to a hundred different everyday human activities... well then things get weird, Hunter-weird, which is kind of funny when I think about it. I mean if applied his thought to say... love-making, then should I run out and become a porn star? Hmmm, indeed hmmm, So I guess each individual has to interperet for themselves the things that one deems worth doing, and the extent to which one is willing to do them well. Thank goodness for that! =)

[kborsden]

love-making, then should I run out and become a porn star? Hmmm, indeed hmmm, So I guess each individual has to interperet for themselves the things that one deems worth doing,

What a ridiculously hyperbolic analogy! I never said that anyone absolutely NEEDED to seek to publish anything that they write, only that they seek to do it well. You say it doesn't matter if it's any good, either way, and that the poet/author shouldn't care either... I say that's bull. All I'm saying is that if someone doesn't care about the result, why even bother.

As for love-making -- I certainly try to be good at it, and please my partner. She's my wider audience, and I take pleasure in pleasing her -- when I masturbate, that's my audience of one, and is a sort of practice too, wouldn't you say? Hang on... is this a metaphor?

[KellyAssauer]

:roll:

Oh Kie, you must know that I simply adore passion!!

;)

[celestialwolf]

I never said you were -- I was simply elucidating Rob's post and expanding the terms. You say no audience, I say there is one in the craft itself, in the act of learning and improving you are objectively editing to a hypothetical audience other than yourself, otherwise, what would it matter if what you wrote was any good?

I actually never said "no audience". There is an audience, just small and most of the time simply just me. The quality of my writing means something to me. I just don't care if a wider audience reads it or not as it was written for me. I just took offense to the implied (not by you) if you don't try to share your poetry, your poetry isn't worth anything. Maybe it was meant differently but that's how I took it.

As for love-making -- I certainly try to be good at it, and please my partner. She's my wider audience, and I take pleasure in pleasing her -- when I masturbate, that's my audience of one, and is a sort of practice too, wouldn't you say? Hang on... is this a metaphor?

LOL. "Practice makes perfect."

Hunter said "Anything worth doing is worth doing well."

I totally agree.

[Blarg]

All other discussions aside... I thought of this wonderful Hunter S. Thompson quote early today, and it made me laugh... Hunter said "Anything worth doing is worth doing well."

This made me remember a story William S. Burroughs told about how he infuriated a teacher in boarding school who said "Anything worth doing is worth doing well." Burroughs says he replied that anything worth doing is worth doing badly, too, because, well, you've already said it's worth doing. The teacher never liked him after that.

[KellyAssauer]

Burroughs says he replied that anything worth doing is worth doing badly, too, because, well, you've already said it's worth doing. The teacher never liked him after that.

Two years ago, doing volunteer work for our museum, I managed to do something that wasn't exactly the way it had been done before... it wasn't all my fault but I got the blame.

Some people complained, but one sweet old guy patted my shoulder and said "Hey, if you're not doing anything at all, then you're not making mistakes."

That one sentence saved me, because no one else had offered to do what I was doing, and if I hadn't tried... it never would have been done.

=)

Thanks Blarg, for reminding me. =)

[poetinahat]

But are we not to write for ourselves first? I write to express how I feel in the only medium in which I can do so. I don't give a damn about an audience. The only reason I share bits of poetry is because I have a few trusted friends who enjoy reading it. Sure, once in a while if the poem strikes my fancy, I'll submit a piece. But at the end of the day, my poetry is about my soul. I have to express it. But what if we don't want others to "experience" what's beneath the flesh, the depths of my soul or that which cries out inside?

For me, the answer is No - not at all. I'm not interested in cathartic writing; that's one very specific reason to write, and it's very definitely not mine.

I write because I want to, but I don't write for me. I might write to get feedback, but I write so that people can understand, identify with, or be engaged by, what I've written. If I don't succeed there, the work is a failure.

Furthermore, I'd say that if the writer doesn't give a damn about an audience, (a) the feeling will be reciprocated, (b) it's pointless to ask for feedback on it [eta: and that sort of belies the writer's stated motive], and (c) there's no reason for anyone else but the writer even to be aware of the writing. If you don't care who reads it or what they make of it, what difference does it make if it's written well, or even if it's comprehensible?

I'm sure there can be great cathartic value in writing, and if that's the writer's goal, then great. But if that's all you're after, you don't really need to show it to anyone, except to prove that you've done it. There is no need to ask for, nor to offer, critique on such work; feedback is irrelevant if the author doesn't care about who reads the work, or what they get out of it.

Me, I have no interest per se either in writing or reading memoirs or confessionals. I love a good read, which means something written well. If I'm reading for entertainment, whether the story is incidental.

If the writer doesn't want others to experience the soul he's laid bare in his writing, why bring it out in the open at all?

When I see poems posted, and the writer says, "I just wrote this for myself", I don't even bother reading it, let alone spending my time offering feedback. There's absolutely no point in doing so: I can't critique what someone feels inside, and I know the feedback won't matter, since the poem wasn't written for anyone else anyway.

If writers only write for themselves, there is absolutely no reason for the existence of a critiquing community.

[Magdalen]

This made me remember a story William S. Burroughs told about how he infuriated a teacher in boarding school who said "Anything worth doing is worth doing well." Burroughs says he replied that anything worth doing is worth doing badly, too, because, well, you've already said it's worth doing. The teacher never liked him after that.

That reminds me of the time Bill asked me for some hash but all I had was a joint. Good Times at the lecture/recital hall.

[Perscribo]

"The particular thing, whether it be four pinches of four divers white powders cleverly compounded to cure surely, safely, pleasantly a painful twitching of the eyelids or say a pencil sharpened at one end, dwarfs the imagination, makes logic a butterfly, offers a finality that sends us spinning through space, a fixity the mind could climb forever, a revolving mountain, a complexity with a surface of glass: the gist of poetry."

- William Carlos Williams

[KellyAssauer]

Surprise.

I lift the toliet seat
as if it were the nest of a bird
and I see cat tracks
all around the edge of the bowl.


-Richard Brautigan

*no copyright, released into public domain*

[Isabella Amaris]

For me, the answer is No - not at all. I'm not interested in cathartic writing; that's one very specific reason to write, and it's very definitely not mine.

I write because I want to, but I don't write for me. I might write to get feedback, but I write so that people can understand, identify with, or be engaged by, what I've written. If I don't succeed there, the work is a failure.

Furthermore, I'd say that if the writer doesn't give a damn about an audience, (a) the feeling will be reciprocated, (b) it's pointless to ask for feedback on it [eta: and that sort of belies the writer's stated motive], and (c) there's no reason for anyone else but the writer even to be aware of the writing. If you don't care who reads it or what they make of it, what difference does it make if it's written well, or even if it's comprehensible?

I'm sure there can be great cathartic value in writing, and if that's the writer's goal, then great. But if that's all you're after, you don't really need to show it to anyone, except to prove that you've done it. There is no need to ask for, nor to offer, critique on such work; feedback is irrelevant if the author doesn't care about who reads the work, or what they get out of it.

Me, I have no interest per se either in writing or reading memoirs or confessionals. I love a good read, which means something written well. If I'm reading for entertainment, whether the story is incidental.

If the writer doesn't want others to experience the soul he's laid bare in his writing, why bring it out in the open at all?

When I see poems posted, and the writer says, "I just wrote this for myself", I don't even bother reading it, let alone spending my time offering feedback. There's absolutely no point in doing so: I can't critique what someone feels inside, and I know the feedback won't matter, since the poem wasn't written for anyone else anyway.

If writers only write for themselves, there is absolutely no reason for the existence of a critiquing community.

Urrrg, second attempt at posting this.

Okay, I was thinking that whether or not a writer is writing for himself or for an audience, won't the end product in either scenario still be something that is now 'consumed' by the reader and thus still be capable of critique either way?

In other words, publishing/writing intentions (to write for an audience or yourself) and the ability to write poetry 'well' are not dependent on each other, don't you think?...

I think, if a poet whose work I loved wrote something just for himself (ie not for an audience), I would really, really want to read it... if he/she allowed me to, that is:)

[kborsden]

In other words, publishing/writing intentions (to write for an audience or yourself) and the ability to write poetry 'well' are not dependent on each other, don't you think?...

Nobody said anything about writing solely for publishing credits -- read from here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6660713&postcount=19)

I think, if a poet whose work I loved wrote something just for himself (ie not for an audience), I would really, really want to read it... if he/she allowed me to, that is:)

Slight paradox here:

How would you know about the poet unless they'd written for an audience prior to writing for his/herself?

If they wrote for an audience, or write well enough in the sense for what they wrote to be well received by an audience or reader external to their own inner-circle, you can bet their personal piece would have a similar level of skill, ability and open value -- even if the poet deemed it less worthy.

I write many pieces because I have to, they come from inside me, and I never write explicitly to sell the poem (unless the poem has been requested, i.e. commissioned), but what I write, I scrutinize, view objectively so it can be the best that I can make from it. There's only so far I can take that, so it gets shared -- possibly submitted if I'm happy enough with reader feedback and/or suggestions. If I write something which I believe is sub-par, I won't share it -- that doesn't mean it is worthless to me, or has less value, just that it is perhaps a touch too personal, or painful -- emotive, or more open than I am willing to be publicly, or just perhaps that it doesn't work as well as I'd like, or it won't fit what I'd originally thought. I still keep it; it still gets read and reviewed by my hypothetical internal audience and editor... it may in future evolve to the point that I am willing to share it, submit it, but that depends on me.

If I wrote, never with a thought in mind to review my words with an objective overview, or even conceive of the possibility that those words were not as good as I could have them... would you want to read that, not known anything of mine previously? Why would you? Why should you be concerned about what I have to write if I'm not concerned about how I write it, or the effort to write it?

As for if that is viable for critique -- to you as the reader, maybe. But if I, as the poet, couldn't care less for what you make of it. Is it worth you critiquing it, or even casting your eyes at it?

[Isabella Amaris]

Nobody said anything about writing solely for publishing credits -- read from here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6660713&postcount=19)


Hmmmm, I don't think I said that either. I said 'publishing intentions'... Maybe I was unclear though. I wasn't referring to publishing credits, but the intention to make something available to the public through publishing. I was referring to the writer's intention to make the poetry available to an audience (via publishing, amongst other methods), and not the intention to acquire a resume of publishing credits as it were. My bad if that didn't come out clearly enough.

[Isabella Amaris]

Slight paradox here:

How would you know about the poet unless they'd written for an audience prior to writing for his/herself?

No paradox. Whether or not they'd written 'for an audience', which in itself is a debatable context, the piece they write just for themselves can still exist within that particular context of 'writing for themselves', after which, my viewing it or not would depend solely on the poet's discretion to reveal a private piece for public enjoyment. For the record, I've often enjoyed poetry written by friends who have not written for any particular audience in mind; I only got to read their work because I rudely asked to see it, and they were nice enough to let me:)



If they wrote for an audience, or write well enough in the sense for what they wrote to be well received by an audience or reader external to their own inner-circle, you can bet their personal piece would have a similar level of skill, ability and open value -- even if the poet deemed it less worthy.

Actually, I can bet no such thing. There is no evidence either way, when you think about it, which is why your qualification 'or write well enough in the sense for what they wrote to be well received by an audience' is something I would see as pointing to the subjectivity that is at the heart of the matter. Subjectivity of choosing the elements of craft, if you will, mixed in with the subjective spirit of the poem itself, and the subjective enjoyment of the hypothetical audience you mention.


I write many pieces because I have to, they come from inside me, and I never write explicitly to sell the poem (unless the poem has been requested, i.e. commissioned), but what I write, I scrutinize, view objectively so it can be the best that I can make from it. There's only so far I can take that, so it gets shared -- possibly submitted if I'm happy enough with reader feedback and/or suggestions. If I write something which I believe is sub-par, I won't share it -- that doesn't mean it is worthless to me, or has less value, just that it is perhaps a touch too personal, or painful -- emotive, or more open than I am willing to be publicly, or just perhaps that it doesn't work as well as I'd like, or it won't fit what I'd originally thought. I still keep it; it still gets read and reviewed by my hypothetical internal audience and editor... it may in future evolve to the point that I am willing to share it, submit it, but that depends on me.

Aside from the fact that I see this as your personal writing process, I don't think poetry can be viewed purely objectively because it lends itself very strongly to subjective reader response, even when that reader is the writer. Even if there are objective elements of craft, these are often themselves fluid and changeable depending on the context of the literature and the time period within which it is written (aesthetic appreciation, social constraints, importance placed on rhythm and structure, varying literacy in aspects of craft, evolution of craft etc).

Anyway, don't you think supposed objective elements of craft are still applied subjectively when someone reads or writes? This is one of the reasons why I think a poet can write (and write well) irrespective of their audience's existence; a poet can learn craft without the need for an audience. Whether I revisit a piece of work trying to be 'objective' re elements of craft, this reflects to me more the importance I place on craft than on an audience/my intentions towards such audience.

Just had a thought. When you mention a 'hypothetical internal audience and editor', I would find such a hypothetical audience and editor inhibiting to 'being in the zone' where you might not. Again, a purely subjective preference, but no less valid for being subjective, hmmmm? I think it's cool that writers have this diversity in writing process which reflects our individuality so well.


If I wrote, never with a thought in mind to review my words with an objective overview, or even conceive of the possibility that those words were not as good as I could have them... would you want to read that, not known anything of mine previously? Why would you? Why should you be concerned about what I have to write if I'm not concerned about how I write it, or the effort to write it?

Because I separate the author from what they write:) I don't particularly take into account the author's intentions when I read. To me, the author's intentions are not only their personal prerogative, but something influenced by their context, which may or may not be my context. An author's work can even surprise an author when they reread the words later, can't it? They wouldn't realise they wrote something beneath the lines that they hadn't thought about consciously. I know that happens to me a lot.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I'm reading to be surprised into finding meaning in something, regardless of what the writer intended (in terms of audience or anything else), because I cannot depend on their intentions as gospel or being reflected in their work. Whether or not writers think we're being objective, don't you think that - most of the time -we're still caught up in the influences which mold our worldview? In that sense, it is impossible to be objective about anything besides craft (which can also be affected by our context).


As for if that is viable for critique -- to you as the reader, maybe. But if I, as the poet, couldn't care less for what you make of it. Is it worth you critiquing it, or even casting your eyes at it?

Of course!:) It is as much a privilege to critique as it is to write, regardless of matters of intention. All words can transcend a writer's intentions, and are capable of critique. If I overhear something someone says (words thought out loud for eg), and they happen to be perceptive and articulate words, I think no less of what's been said simply because I wasn't meant to hear them....

p.s. Sorry for the very long reply. I have problems with long-windedness... yeah, reflects badly on my craft:) but i'm working on it:)

[kborsden]

I agree it is down to the reader what they make of/from a poem, subjectively -- and also that in doing so, the reader does away with the poet. This is perfectly acceptable, no problem whatsoever, until the poet means to communicate something in particular, in which case the poet must be present in more than personal language that holds no relevance to anyone other than the poet. In such cases the poets needs a reader to succeed and requires a level of objectivity to what they write, as is true of authors of prose too. If a poem is written on the basis of expression and creativity alone, the middle ground is broader and the context not so important. It depends on what is written and why, and ultimately for whom, but as soon as 'whom' becomes only (solely) 'me', then none of what makes a poem, or the craft important is relevant.

As for the validity of critique, anything can be critiqued and worth time critiquing, but is it worth your time if the poet doesn't give a shit about what you say because, they 'wrote it for myself' -- that's what I'm asking.Many times I've given very insightful and lengthy critiques only to have it thrown back in my face, because the writer/poet had written only for themselves, they had no graces about what anyone felt or thought or advised for improvement, it just didn't matter.

End Rant.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Are artists on a different plain? I know many who think they are. Many that deliberately take on an avante-garde lifestyke. Believe that they are somehow gifted beyond the ordinsry folk that walk this earth beside them.

But to be honest, none of that superficial posing has anything to do with being a poet. All of that seems to be a holdover from the old beatnik days.



In reality, poets are writers. Nothing more special, nothing less special.

We're all creative. I write novels, short stories, flash, and poems. I also draw. Play music. I'd like to try my hand at sculpting.

Anyway, when I write a poem, I don't feel I'm on a different plain spiritually, creatively, or what have you then when I do any other creative pursuit.

[Isabella Amaris]

I agree it is down to the reader what they make of/from a poem, subjectively -- and also that in doing so, the reader does away with the poet. This is perfectly acceptable, no problem whatsoever, until the poet means to communicate something in particular, in which case the poet must be present in more than personal language that holds no relevance to anyone other than the poet. In such cases the poets needs a reader to succeed and requires a level of objectivity to what they write, as is true of authors of prose too. If a poem is written on the basis of expression and creativity alone, the middle ground is broader and the context not so important. It depends on what is written and why, and ultimately for whom, but as soon as 'whom' becomes only (solely) 'me', then none of what makes a poem, or the craft important is relevant.

Well, from the way I approached the question of objectivity previously, you can probably guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this:) One thing which I forgot to mention re audience is... say, for example, I live in a country where I cannot write about xyz without being jailed (not that that's the case with me:D), I might have no hope of allowing anyone to read my work, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't write about xyz (with a ear to craft), even if I know only I will ultimately be able to read my own work...

As for the validity of critique, anything can be critiqued and worth time critiquing, but is it worth your time if the poet doesn't give a shit about what you say because, they 'wrote it for myself' -- that's what I'm asking.Many times I've given very insightful and lengthy critiques only to have it thrown back in my face, because the writer/poet had written only for themselves, they had no graces about what anyone felt or thought or advised for improvement, it just didn't matter.

I get what you're saying. But I think the problem, if any, with the situation you were presented, is with the poet's attitude towards critiques, not audiences.

If I, for eg, write a poem 'just for myself', I'd still have no problem being critiqued. But valuing critiques has nothing to do with my intentions (in writing the poem for an audience or not); it has everything to do with the appreciation and respect I personally happen to have towards those who take the time out to critique my work.

I'm sorry to hear you had the experience of someone throwing your critique in your face, especially if the poet indicated he/she was open to being critiqued. I haven't experienced this yet. I do take lots of pains though to ensure that any poet whose work I critique is open to what they may interpret as negative criticism (even though it may not be negative criticism to me ha). Some of my friends say straight off that they're sensitive to critiques of any kind, so I just back off in those situations, even if I'm really keen to discuss what they've written:) Some of them are definitely writing for an audience/eventual publication, but I can tell you, they don't appreciate being critiqued either so...

Wow, poets are a many-splendoured crowd, huh?:)

[Isabella Amaris]

In reality, poets are writers. Nothing more special, nothing less special.

We're all creative. I write novels, short stories, flash, and poems. I also draw. Play music. I'd like to try my hand at sculpting.

Anyway, when I write a poem, I don't feel I'm on a different plain spiritually, creatively, or what have you then when I do any other creative pursuit.

I have to agree with you. The only consistent wildcard I've experienced in varying creative pursuits is one of sensibility, nothing more nothing less.

[Blarg]

Yeah, I've seen that happen, and it can make the endeavor seem pointless. Really if you just want people to see your poem and don't care for critiques on it, there's the AW Chapbook forum, right up there at the top of the page when you've clicked into the Poetry forum. It's a perfect fit -- it's all about what you've decided is good as is, and represents you.

The critique forum is a bad place to simply seek out comment -- it's abusive, even. Putting a poem there sets people to work. Sometimes quite a bit of it. Letting them then know that you couldn't care less about any crits is pretty selfish and disrespectful. It means you've decided it's okay to waste people's time and that their goodwill in that regard has no value to you whatsoever. Definitely a slap in the face.

I've seen people ignore how forums are divided into subforums too many times to count -- they often post wherever they think they'll find the most readers, regardless of appropriateness. In other forums, you can ignore that kind of post and halfway decent mods are quick to move or delete it. In a crit forum, unfortunately, those posts don't look so out of place and people are primed to interact with a post that doesn't belong there. Squandering their generosity is exploitive and kind of creepy.

[Blarg]

Well, from the way I approached the question of objectivity previously, you can probably guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this:) One thing which I forgot to mention re audience is... say, for example, I live in a country where I cannot write about xyz without being jailed (not that that's the case with me:D), I might have no hope of allowing anyone to read my work, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't write about xyz (with a ear to craft), even if I know only I will ultimately be able to read my own work...


I think you and kie are not necessarily opposite sides here as much as might appear. Your actual audience of me, myself, and I in this hypothetical instance need not be one of no discernment, insight, or standards -- or care to have them. It just happens to quite often be that way with what kie is speaking of here as personal writing, which he means in a more psychological way than you appear to.

Perhaps your hypothetical personal writer has standards. As in so many arguments, perhaps we find ourselves arguing not so much about the ostensible subject, but the words we use in differing ways to discuss it. When you talk about writing personal writing with "an ear to craft," that ear to craft is removing the "personal" qualification kie is using to define personal writing.


I'm sorry to hear you had the experience of someone throwing your critique in your face, especially if the poet indicated he/she was open to being critiqued. I haven't experienced this yet. I do take lots of pains though to ensure that any poet whose work I critique is open to what they may interpret as negative criticism (even though it may not be negative criticism to me ha). Some of my friends say straight off that they're sensitive to critiques of any kind, so I just back off in those situations, even if I'm really keen to discuss what they've written:) Some of them are definitely writing for an audience/eventual publication, but I can tell you, they don't appreciate being critiqued either so...


Very much wanting to crit a friend who doesn't want to be critted is so much the opposite of my experience I find it hard to imagine. I find giving people honest feedback on their work in real life can cause heartbreak, regret, even anger. It works the same way with advice in general -- people say they are asking for advice when really what they are asking for is confirmation.

But being told you think it's a bad idea to date your secretary is not as crushing as being told your creative spirit missed a few beats. The former is for the most part about curtailing your groin; there is a limit to how tough it is to hear the news or deliver it. The latter, even when fair and mild, can be received as if you just stomped on someone's soul. And then you're the plucker of wings off butterflies, who can't quite be looked in the eyes anymore. There's something ... different ... about you. Unpleasant.

Ugh, no thanks.

I'm not eager to help friends in this way.

[poetinahat]

Urrrg, second attempt at posting this.

Okay, I was thinking that whether or not a writer is writing for himself or for an audience, won't the end product in either scenario still be something that is now 'consumed' by the reader and thus still be capable of critique either way?

In other words, publishing/writing intentions (to write for an audience or yourself) and the ability to write poetry 'well' are not dependent on each other, don't you think?...

I think, if a poet whose work I loved wrote something just for himself (ie not for an audience), I would really, really want to read it... if he/she allowed me to, that is:)
Well... no. I don't think that. I don't interpret "Not writing for publication" as "writing only for oneself".

Sure, any poem can be critiqued. But if the poem isn't intended to be seen by anyone but the writer, why bother posting it for critique, let alone provide feedback on it? Asking for critique automatically means that the poet wants others to read the poem and cares what they think.

In the context of our Poetry Forum here, I'd say poems written only for oneself (but which are open to reading by others) belong in the Chapbook subforum - where poems can be read, but there's no request for critique.

My concern isn't whether people really write just for themselves; if you do, great, and if you don't, also great. What does concern me is asking people to read and give feedback when it's never going to be considered. That's all.

[Isabella Amaris]

I think you and kie are not necessarily opposite sides here as much as might appear. Your actual audience of me, myself, and I in this hypothetical instance need not be one of no discernment, insight, or standards -- or care to have them. It just happens to quite often be that way with what kie is speaking of here as personal writing, which he means in a more psychological way than you appear to.

Perhaps your hypothetical personal writer has standards. As in so many arguments, perhaps we find ourselves arguing not so much about the ostensible subject, but the words we use in differing ways to discuss it. When you talk about writing personal writing with "an ear to craft," that ear to craft is removing the "personal" qualification kie is using to define personal writing.


Yup, I think there are points where what kie (kborsden?) and I are saying meet in agreement. But I also see real points of departure in what we're saying, psychological or not. Not least that, for me, an 'ear to craft' is in fact personal/subjective in nature, and in no way removes the 'personal' qualification defining personal writing.

Issues of craft aside, the main point of departure in what we're saying is that I feel the need to have an internal/external audience for your poetry is a particular, subjective personal writing process for a particular poet that might not be a process another poet uses, and that this in no way removes the latter poet's work from being capable of critique.

Hmmm, I don't think this is what kborsden is saying too?... or am I wrong?...

[kborsden]

Yup, I think there are points where what kie (kborsden?) and I are saying meet in agreement. But I also see real points of departure in what we're saying, psychological or not. Not least that, for me, an 'ear to craft' is in fact personal/subjective in nature, and in no way removes the 'personal' qualification defining personal writing.

I never said that it did. Poetry should be of a personal nature, or better said, most commonly is of a personal nature or attends to some personal point of reference for the poet. How would you write anything without inspiration, or how do you develop your own style without a personal imprint?

Issues of craft aside, the main point of departure in what we're saying is that I feel the need to have an internal/external audience for your poetry is a particular, subjective personal writing process for a particular poet that might not be a process another poet uses, and that this in no way removes the latter poet's work from being capable of critique.

This is still a craft issue, but, ok... as I said, no matter the reasons for writing, or the methods for writing (ergo how or why) the poem is and can still be critiqued, it's your choice as the reader whether you do. What I was getting at is the value of that critique to the poet if the poet is writing without interest for an audience -- and as I said previously, the most common defensive mechanism in receipt of harsh or unwanted criticism/critique is 'I wrote it for myself', which of course invalidates immediately any input from anyone else (snark). You're free to go on and critique whatever you see fit to, I'm not stopping you. There are many members of this forum who give a huge amount of their time to share their insights, skills and efforts to help others, some even that spend more time and energy on other people's poetry than their own, and it's always welcome for more people to want to get involved with that. But after you've done it for a while, you get to know the types who'll appreciate it, and those who won't (it's not about being right all the time and having your suggestions or advice followed 100%, even if the poster doesn't agree, a thank you for the time is enough to see most critters right) -- and to be honest, the poem usually gives away enough of the poet to judge in which category they fall, as Rob said.

On a side note, you do enough editing and you can tell from the 1st 2 verses what type of poet you're dealing with in regards to style and ability, and eventual editorial comment.

Hmmm, I don't think this is what kborsden is saying too?... or am I wrong?...

I don't know, you tell me... but I don't think we are to be honest as most of what you're saying is rather idealist, and my take is more realist as the result of experience.

[Isabella Amaris]

Very much wanting to crit a friend who doesn't want to be critted is so much the opposite of my experience I find it hard to imagine. I find giving people honest feedback on their work in real life can cause heartbreak, regret, even anger. It works the same way with advice in general -- people say they are asking for advice when really what they are asking for is confirmation.

But being told you think it's a bad idea to date your secretary is not as crushing as being told your creative spirit missed a few beats. The former is for the most part about curtailing your groin; there is a limit to how tough it is to hear the news or deliver it. The latter, even when fair and mild, can be received as if you just stomped on someone's soul. And then you're the plucker of wings off butterflies, who can't quite be looked in the eyes anymore. There's something ... different ... about you. Unpleasant.

Ugh, no thanks.

I'm not eager to help friends in this way.

lol I can see why you might feel this way. I suppose I am coming from a different angle altogether, in that I don't mind being seen as unpleasant, as long as I know I'm in fact pleasant:) Also I do make allowances for the sensitivity of those I'm critiquing (ie it doesn't bother me if they stare at me as though I'd knocked them on the head for saying something they didn't expect/not confirming their work is the best in the word). It's probably bad practice to pander to the sensitivies of others though, since a critique is in fact a service to someone else which should be appreciated by that person if they were open to it in the first place....

p.s. Hmmm, the more I think about it... Maybe I've also been fortunate in that those who I've helped in this way are coming from a similar context as me... in that we're all basically of a mind to respect those older than us, teachers, mentors, guides, etc etc...

So, however gutted you might feel by a critique, you would nevertheless smile and thank the person for it, because there is already a standing convention that the person who critiqued you is performing a service for you expecting nothing in return... An honour culture, I suppose, that precludes a rude reaction to a critique, no matter whether you agree/disagree with it... Does that make sense?... I know I was quite shocked when you said earlier that there are those who put their work up for critique in the forums and then do not appreciate being critiqued... Now that I cannot imagine... and would be quite furious about...

[Isabella Amaris]

If writers only write for themselves, there is absolutely no reason for the existence of a critiquing community.

I think this is the bit which got me going...


In the context of our Poetry Forum here, I'd say poems written only for oneself (but which are open to reading by others) belong in the Chapbook subforum - where poems can be read, but there's no request for critique.

My concern isn't whether people really write just for themselves; if you do, great, and if you don't, also great. What does concern me is asking people to read and give feedback when it's never going to be considered. That's all.

Hmmm, okay, I see where you're coming from. And I agree with you there. No matter the writing process of the poet, if they actually ask for the critique, it is absurd if they do not intend to actually consider the critique once it's given. ...

Wow, it's stunning to me that this would actually happen... Why ask for a critique if you don't want one? Maybe ppl just confuse critiques for comments and get upset when they don't get the comments they expected?... hmmm...

[Isabella Amaris]

I never said that it did. Poetry should be of a personal nature, or better said, most commonly is of a personal nature or attends to some personal point of reference for the poet. How would you write anything without inspiration, or how do you develop your own style without a personal imprint?

This is still a craft issue, but, ok... as I said, no matter the reasons for writing, or the methods for writing (ergo how or why) the poem is and can still be critiqued, it's your choice as the reader whether you do. What I was getting at is the value of that critique to the poet if the poet is writing without interest for an audience -- and as I said previously, the most common defensive mechanism in receipt of harsh or unwanted criticism/critique is 'I wrote it for myself', which of course invalidates immediately any input from anyone else (snark). You're free to go on and critique whatever you see fit to, I'm not stopping you. There are many members of this forum who give a huge amount of their time to share their insights, skills and efforts to help others, some even that spend more time and energy on other people's poetry than their own, and it's always welcome for more people to want to get involved with that. But after you've done it for a while, you get to know the types who'll appreciate it, and those who won't (it's not about being right all the time and having your suggestions or advice followed 100%, even if the poster doesn't agree, a thank you for the time is enough to see most critters right) -- and to be honest, the poem usually gives away enough of the poet to judge in which category they fall, as Rob said.

I don't know, you tell me... but I don't think we are to be honest as most of what you're saying is rather idealist, and my take is more realist as the result of experience.

Won't go into bits on objectivity and craft - I think I would be rehashing what I've already said for the most part, only in different words... As to idealism and realism, yes, I can see why this would cause us to take different views. I'm definitely new to critiquing on forums, and in this sense, one could say my view is an 'idealist' one for sure - in fact, am quite surprised by what you guys are saying is the reaction of those who get critiqued... especially since they're asking for it... the critique, I mean...

To me, once the writer puts a piece up for critique (knowing of course that a critique can be pretty harsh), it is irrelevant what a writer's motivations were when writing the piece. From that point, it 'belongs' to the reader for the most part, and can be ripped to shreds if need be... constructively, of course... (there must be some ethical guidelines somewhere ha)... time to read the stickies...

Hmmm, and time to go check out the forums a bit more...

[Blarg]

To be fair, we are talking about situations that aren't the norm. Most people who ask for a critique want one.

But it is perhaps less the norm than one might think. I suspect that's a big reason why most people come into the forums for a while then leave. I've been at other forums where staying for many years and actively contributing was the norm. Here, it's the exception. My guess is people are scared off.

I'm surprised you say that none of your friends are scared off. I have an arts degree and still found a reliably large segment of the people I was around unable to handle criticism very well. Then again, it's one thing to think of yourself as an artist and want to be an artist, and another to have the mentality and true driving interest necessary to be one. Of course, even at the top of the heap, accomplished artists still sometimes freak out at criticism. One of the signatures of real art, as opposed merely to craft, in my mind is that it may put the artist somewhat at risk in the effort to push art and its consumers into new places. So those taking risks may find it a scary endeavor and recoil at criticism of their efforts. Perhaps early success brings some artists to prominence before their skin has any leather in it. They get emotionally ahead of themselves, as it were, and remain unbalanced.

But most people are in a similar situation. Their desire to achieve outmatches the level of emotional equilibrium and maturity it takes to deal with the fact that the road to artistic achievement is likely to be a long slog of it with plenty of dead ends and delay. Nobody expects to be at the level of a pro basketball player after shooting the first hoop or even the first 5000. But people tend to regard working with language as something anybody can do well, at least with a little tinkering. After all, you can read and write, right? Maybe you have a soul you feel is a pretty good one too, with some interesting depths. What else is there?

Unfortunately, that's only enough for good intentions. And when someone's poetry or prose gets criticized, he can feel they are stepped on unkindly. He may get angry, he may get sad, he may just not show up anymore. If it were basketball, he'd be down at the courts again tomorrow. There's a certain risk to the soul involved, but it doesn't run as deep.

[kborsden]

Interesting post, Blarg -- and one I agree with on many points, in particular about the general attitude toward the supposed ease. What I find grates me, to turn the conversation back to the thread's title question, is when that supposed ease is put forward by prose writers. Not every author is a good poet, and not every poet is a good author, but that doesn't stop people who have a firm foot in prose attempting poetry and vice versa, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, the statement that I see more often than not, and the attitude that I so commonly run into is that poetry is easy and requires less skill and aptitude to do well because of the fact that it is somehow exempt from objective review or matters of critique due to the 'soul' or personal aspect of it. Which is, of course, nonsense. However, I don't see that same mental posturing in the reverse situation. As a poet first and foremost I find I have to redirect my thought process, and actually alter the way I approach language in order to write prose. It may take me between 3 and 6 days to write a poem I am mildly happy with or that I am willing to allow for critique after a week minimum (not because I'm tetchy, but because I want to write my own poem, not ask others to do it for me) -- but I can't keep the act of writing fluid enough for prose, I switch off, meander, reformulate the concept into verse or trail off and forget what I wanted to write. Perhaps it's more than just stung egos, maybe at times an element of truth brings realisation. Think 'Idols' when a judging panel at times can shake sense into a delusional auditionee and make them aware that singing just isn't for them.

If anyone thinks that the critiques on these forums are harsh -- they need to rethink whether they want to write, poetry or prose. It's not friendly out there, not friendly at all.

I don't think there's anything particularly elitist about either poetry or prose; you either have it in you or you don't even if there are techniques that can be learnt adopted and adapted, but while largely this type of angle is what most consider or take into understanding by way of how they approach prose, it's odd that not many think or feel the same way about poetry. Poetry is, for many, something that anyone can do.

[Blarg]

I do think it is wise for people to come to better understandings of where they stand artistically. They may not always know what to do with themselves when they get to what they envision as understanding, though, because they may not realize how art and potential generally work.

Skills take time to develop, and most everyone is good at just about nothing when first starting out. Not being good at something is the natural outcome of not knowing what you're doing and not having practiced enough -- it's not simply the natural outcome of having no talent and no hope. It's not spooky. It's about something being new to you.

Most people are newer to the artistic use of language than they know. As a result, too many will think they reached the limits of their potential when they have just started exploring it.

[Isabella Amaris]

I'm surprised you say that none of your friends are scared off... ... Then again, it's one thing to think of yourself as an artist and want to be an artist, and another to have the mentality and true driving interest necessary to be one. ...

But most people are in a similar situation. Their desire to achieve outmatches the level of emotional equilibrium and maturity it takes to deal with the fact that the road to artistic achievement is likely to be a long slog of it with plenty of dead ends and delay. Nobody expects to be at the level of a pro basketball player after shooting the first hoop or even the first 5000. But people tend to regard working with language as something anybody can do well, at least with a little tinkering. ...

And when someone's poetry or prose gets criticized, he can feel they are stepped on unkindly. He may get angry, he may get sad, he may just not show up anymore. If it were basketball, he'd be down at the courts again tomorrow.

Heyya Blarg, interesting discussion this is. I agree with everything you said. Just quoted some bits of what you said which I think may explain why I've been fortunate not to be burned by those I have helped in critiquing. Was talking this over with a friend, and we came to the conclusion that it's basically a question of the level of maturity of the person being critiqued - looking at your analogy, most of my friends have moved into thinking of writing as basketball instead of something that is immune to hard work... In hindsight, this 'sample' of friends that I've worked with is probably one that wouldn't stretch across the board to everyone who happens to be writing...

I don't know if it's a matter of culture or education or training or what exactly that inspires this kind of maturity though... it's probably individual personalities... but hmmmm I can say that I and many of my friends are used to debating things while divorcing our feelings from the issue at hand (supposedly anyway). I don't know if this method of dealing with arguments is what has translated to our writing endeavours, or if it's just an arbitrary pattern I've hit on.

I would think that arguments of logic would follow the same pattern. Maybe we're all also just big believers in logic... ie it would be illogical to dismiss critiques when you're the one who asked for them...

lol anyway, all logic aside, I think it's just plain rude not to thank ppl for their critiques, so maybe it is a question of culture/personality that leads to the necessary level of maturity to take critiques well...

[kborsden]

I don't know if it's a matter of culture or education or training or what exactly that inspires this kind of maturity though... it's probably individual personalities... but hmmmm I can say that I and many of my friends are used to debating things while divorcing our feelings from the issue at hand (supposedly anyway).... arguments of logic would follow the same pattern... it would be illogical to dismiss critiques when you're the one who asked for them... maybe it is a question of culture/personality that leads to the necessary level of maturity to take critiques well...

Definite fusion of the lot...

[Blarg]

Yeah it sounds like you have a more creatively mature circle around you than most.

[Isabella Amaris]

Either that or... *horrified look after just realising something* I might just be someone who's unaware if they've offended someone else... or unaware if they're being treated snarkily for supposed offense... omg... very possible ... I'm in my own world half the time... yeesh...