Everyone's a Poet: Criticizing the Poetry Slam

[Birol]

Everyone's a Poet: Criticizing the Poetry Slam (http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1993/08/brady.html)

[Shady Lane]

I don't think I'm able to distinguish good poetry from bad.

I'm not quite artistic-minded.

[poetinahat]

Thanks for the link, Lori. I hope this thread gets a lot of discussion, because I don't trust my initial response to the article, which is that it's rubbish.

The way I read it, he's saying that even an open event like a poetry slam can't be all-inclusive because of the consumerist, exclusionary society in which we live. Therefore, even if we choose to participate in something like a poetry slam, we're still not doing anything constructive or helping to shape our culture. In other words, "Sure, it sucks that art is only for Artists, but get used to it; you're all drones anyway. You can't do anything about it, though, so don't feel too bad."

I think he's trying too hard to come up with a thesis, and I disagree with the one he's presented. By God, don't just sit there -- do something!

No, not everyone will be Great, but everyone can have a go. The notion that art is a waste of time for most people seriously angers me. Everybody deserves the chance to Get Culture. They can reject it if they want, but they shouldn't be excluded.

Of course, I may have read the article wrong.

Again, I would love for this discussion to blossom. Thanks, Lori.

[poetinahat]

I don't think I'm able to distinguish good poetry from bad.

I'm not quite artistic-minded.
But does poetry sometimes get a reaction from you? That's more interesting - and infinitely more useful - than whether it's arbitrarily good or bad.

People laugh about the "I don't know art, but I know what I like" cliché, but it's not all wrong. If art gets to me, then there must be good in it for me. If it doesn't, then there may not be anything there. Just because somebody else thinks I should like it doesn't mean they're right. But the thing is that it goes both ways; if I don't like an artwork, that doesn't make it bad. It just means that it doesn't do anything for me.

Technique is something else; poor craft may produce good art, but it's not so likely. As with anything else, the better control one has over the tools, the more likely the result will be as desired (and the more creative the artist can be).

Of course, there's another aspect to art, and that's the analytical aspect of trying to look at it from the artist's view -- trying to figure out what she was getting at, and how. That's interesting to some people, and not so to others.

Sorry for the lecture, Shady; and I apologise doubly if I'm telling you things you already know. I just hope you're not selling yourself short.

[blacbird]

Well, I'm not at all sure that everyone "can give it a go". I've attended several of these events, on invitation of some friends, though I've never been tempted to participate in one. After attending them, I never will be. Poetry-slam poetry is more performance art than poetry. And that's fine if you're good at performance art. Most of the people I've seen perform at these events are either actors or musicians. It's a pretty small sector of the spectrum of poetry that works at these things, usually angst- or anger-laden diatribe, constructively disguised behind a certain admirable level of word-craft (though not always even that). Which is okay if that's what you're into.

But it's hardly an inclusive or even inviting venue if you're not.

caw

[poetinahat]

Fair enough, blacbird -- and it's easy to envision these events as being cliquish klatsches of beatniks and fops, where newcomers need brass cajones to claim a turn at the mike. If the article is criticising the dynamics of poetry slams as they seem to exist, then I've missed the point, in which case the rest of this post doesn't bear reading.

ETA: On re-reading, it looks like that's exactly what the article's saying: Poetry slams and open-mike nights create their own exclusionary cultures; they have to, in order to appeal to the people who frequent them. So they really don't encourage Everyman to produce poetry.

I wonder whether it's significant that the author is a grad student at Berkeley, where one would expect to find a hotbed of coffeehouse culture. Would his impressions have been different if he'd been from, say, Nebraska (where Ted Kooser, former US Poet Laureate, is an English professor at U Nebraska-Lincoln)? In fairness, Lincoln may have more boho java shops than Berkeley; I have no idea.


The slam and open-mike simply open up a new area of creative privilege for a relatively few. Insofar as these events simply adjust to the exclusionary cultural system and indeed depend on it for their own 'bohemian' and 'alternative' allure, they function as conservative social devices. They simply make a bad situation bearable. In a society in which all had a stake in cultural production would poetry slams and open-mikes even exist?


(The original post has been removed; it's irrelevant now.)

[Puma]

Did you notice the date on the article - 1993? There may be a little perspective adjusting necessary.

IMO, his article was basically BS and didn't really say much at all. Start dissecting it, critical thought by critical thought, and there's not much there. I also had the feeling he was flip-flopping in his viewpoint.

I'm not going to get into discussing my viewpoint on the topic he presented - I have too definite opinions on the subjects. Puma

[Shadow_Ferret]

But does poetry sometimes get a reaction from you? That's more interesting - and infinitely more useful - than whether it's arbitrarily good or bad.


Not only can't I tell good poetry from bad poetry, I don't understand modern poetry enough to even get a reaction. To me it's just weird.

[sonya bateman]

Well, gosh. That there guy sure does use a whole passell of big words. Gee, he must be important.

I guess I'll go buy my movies and novels and shuffle through my colorless life, unable to influence the culture in which I live. Heaven forbid we should have poetry in bars. Anything more complicated than karaoke and our poor consumer-driven heads might explode.

Dude. This guy used a lot of fancy language to say "you all just don't understand us (with the implied "me")".

[Jamesaritchie]

I've been to two poetry slams. There won't be a third. Rubbish, and not a bit of real poetry to be heard.

[poetinahat]

I hope skelly gets over to this thread. His poem about Bertolt Brecht indicates to me that he knows pretty well what this writer was up to.

[William Haskins]

here's an article that appeared in the local paper last week, for a more contemporary (if biased in favor) account.

http://www.austin360.com/arts/content/arts/stories/xl/2007/08/0802xlcover.html

i personally think poetry slams bear little resemblence to poetry and i find them, more often that not, to be absurd forays into identity politics.

the test for me is whether or not a poem works on the page. the direct relationship is between the words and the reader's mind. this is not to say that poetry spoken aloud cannot be enjoyable. but if it depends solely on inflection and (all too often manufactured) emotion to carry it off, that's a parlor trick, not poetry.

in short: slams = theatre, not poetry.

[below]

Interesting. I think the article could have made some of the same points without the pretentious language, and without explaining why he thinks that poetry slams and open mike nights need to do more politically/socially, and what perchance that is... Plenty of these art organizations also do things like run food drives.

Also, he talks about the exclusionary nature of slams, but not in the way that I think really needs to be up for debate.

Bona fide Slams are about performance, about throwing down. It's like "numbers", upping the ante. It's poetry that's written to be antagonistic and angsty, sometimes political. But it's also closed off poetry to vast numbers of people who may be good writers but not necessarily performers, or whose poetry is better read silently, than called out.

There's also the whole issue of the poetry slam "ranking" people's performances. Certain kinds of performances are valued far above the actual text being read. It stops being literary and starts being spoken word art, which is fine - only this is now the most popular form of "poetry" and can, if we're not careful, limit what kind of work is valued as poetry. Or limit what is acceptable in the spoken word/open mike communities. It's similar to how, today, singers on "American Idol" need to belt and do a "money note" to be considered good, and other styles of singing are no longer appreciated for their own sake. Plus, I just think it's BS for us to turn a poetry reading into the "it's got a good beat and you can dance to it" section of American Bandstand.

Reverend Jen, a performance and visual artist in New York, had a really great take on one of the big New York poetry slams, and created a "anti-slam" that has been running for several years. I'll append that.

[below]

Reverend Jen writes about the start of the "anti-slam" here: http://www.revjen.com/antislam/index.html

Here's another look at what happens at these events.

I imagined the open mic was something like the audition montage you see in films about the performing arts. The audition in this style of montage is always an open call attended by a variety of kooky types – the old man doing a profanity-laden monologue, the off-key singer. Behind his table, the director rolls his eyes à la Simon Cowell, reminding us that these people are terrible! I presumed that, like the characters attending these auditions, open mic artists were one of two kinds: Either they believed talent scouts were on the prowl and they might get discovered, or they had no plans for stardom and were simply performance opportunists—the kind who hog the karaoke mic. At the two open mics I attended—Collective Unconscious’ and Surf Reality’s—there were representatives of both camps. But there were also some acts that were harder to categorize. Open mic performance, with its element of impromptu masquerade, can be innovative. It can also be painful to watch. But there is something bizarrely subversive about gathering together the elderly, the eccentric, the fame-thirsty, and those working on their manner in power point presentations for six-minute slots of the good, the very good and the very, very bad.

Big Mike, a regular, takes the stage first, after asking me if he can take an ‘adult photo’ of me with one of the two Polaroids he wears around his neck. (I decline.) He then performs an eardrum-assaulting monologue from a sheaf of papers. Reverend Jen’s chihuahua writhes in pain. Next come a rash of stand-up comics whose sets are rife with jokes of the ‘why do women always ask you if they look fat?’ variety. One comic with a particularly mainstream sensibility directs his complaints about women to a John Waters type in the front row, whose arch replies prompt much hilarity from the regulars. A guy with floppy hair arrives fresh from acting class to do an ‘act like an animal’ exercise with a Sam Shepard monologue. Someone performs cunnilingus on the mic. Not many people are playing acoustic guitars, but those who do also want to read poetry.

* * *


The open mics at Collective Unconscious and Surf Reality do not place limits on what may be performed—as long as it doesn’t go over the time limit or involve harassing audience members. This makes for a collision of cultures, mostly between the regulars, whose aesthetic is more edgy, and those who wind up at the show with the help of Google and want to tell lawyer jokes. Reverend Jen appears to appreciate the individual freakishness of each guest on the stage, however, and the no-heckling ground rules ritualize each performer’s acceptance into the club. One young man praised this community aspect after playing the guitar and singing about rainbows and people getting ‘so damned high.’ Jumping up and down during the applause, he exclaimed, ‘Man, I fucking love you guys! Every fucking Sunday, man – every fucking Sunday!’

‘This is Church. It’s the only place where you can really be yourself – no place else.’ So says Lloyd Floyd, a comic and Surf Reality regular who describes himself as having been ‘born on stage.’ The more I watched, the more this religious metaphor seemed apt – especially during the confessional acts.

A put-together woman in her thirties takes the stage with a didgeridoo-player who appeared earlier. ‘Hit it,’ she commands. The regulars cheer. She holds a book called Becoming Attached, and reads a phrase describing the ideal mother as ‘warm.’ This sends the woman into a neurotic tailspin: ‘My. Mother. Was. COLD!’ She appears about to cry, wailing that she ‘can’t become attached to anything.’ The audience is quiet, uncertain just how tongue-in-cheek this is. Then, from the back row, a few laughs ring out. The woman smiles wanly and then laughs hysterically. The performance is half therapy, half comedy, and its dynamism depends in part on her being known by the regulars. This group energy – and acceptance – is clearly what keeps many coming back.

That is from the Morning News. http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/new_york_new_york/the_church_of_the_open_mic.php

[endless rewrite]

I try and keep an open mind about these things, I've seen too many involving angry men who need their hair washing, ranting about politics and not getting laid (hint, try a nice aftershave and not wearing foisty, too tight, black jeans) But I am very much looking forward to an upcoming poetry slam in which all participants are from two old people's residential homes. They have been working with a poet as their writer in residence and producing some great work. Wonder if there will be any hecklers? I've been working as a writer in residence in the same area but with primary school kids and hope to have both groups going up against each other at a future poetry slam.

[davids]

WOW great discussion-lots of interesting thoughts and then there is me-I do not give a shit! Getting to be a disturbingly common feeling I seem to be having recently-BTHOOM as in life in gereral

[skelly]

Thanks for the heads-up on this Rob. Missed it earlier.

I think this guy Brady's problem is his preconceived (and somewhat foppish) idea of what art is supposed to "be." He seems to be comparing these "poetry slams" (which I know nothing of, and really don't wish to, they sound absurd) to some sort of artistic "movement," like Imagism, or Surrealism.

Therefore in looking at slams and open-mikes, I am tempted to ignore their progressive element(the critique of culture)and emphasize their incomplete, apolitical and conservative elements. Such events are incomplete because they only indirectly identify the deficiencies of cultural production in society. These events are apolitical because they do not consciously point to anything beyond themselves; that is, they do not engage the social relationships supporting a culture of exclusion and passivity.

I don't know that poetry slams where intended to do these things. I think he his holding them to some standard towards which he is biased. I don't know that I agree with the notion that art should always come with a capital "A," that it must transcend. I DO agree with him when he says:

The slam and open-mike simply open up a new area of creative privilege for a relatively few.

I can believe that. A lot of the "fight the power" mentality is really "let's divide this all up in some manner such that I'm the power."

Interesting discussion, at any rate. I'm going to read this article over a few times and see if I missed anything.

[Sarashay]

I've actually been to slams, participated in slams and even won slams. I was a semi-finalist for the Atlanta Slam Team back in 2000. I know from slams.

The one thing that seems to get missed in all this is the fact that many regular readings are not JUST slams. The one I go to regularly, a little place in Decatur called Java Monkey, has a very inclusive reading every Sunday night that is extremely popular. They do the slams once a month and then cull the teams from the winners of those monthly slams.

Slam poetry is a subset of poetry in general. The limitations on time and the need to connect with and impress an audience place certain limitations on it. Then again, writing a sonnet or a villanelle requires boundaries as well. It doesn't mean that those forms are the be-all and end-all of what poetry can be.

I will admit, I did get soured on slams the last time I seriously participated in one. In the semi-finals for the Atlanta Slam Team, the poem that meant the most to me got the lowest score of the entire evening. The second piece I did (point were cumulative, thus we all got a second round) was a sort of parody piece with a punchline, and it scored better.

That's the point when I decided that slams weren't for me.

Slam is sort of the rock and roll version of poetry. Some people think it's utterly brilliant, some people think it's responsible for the downfall of civilization and some people think it just depends on how it's done.

As for that muddled article that started this discussion, I've long since lost faith in the myth of the Arteest. I subscribe to the radical notion that anybody who creates art is an artist. Even if you're not selling enough to quit your day job. If you are selling enough to quit your day job, you're a professional. And good on you. And, yes, I understand the annoyance of dealing with people who are acting like they're on the professional level when they're still on the day job level, but since there's no real harm done by incompetence in art (unlike other professions) you'll simply have to live with it.

[Celia Cyanide]

I have enjoyed the poetry slams I have been to. It is mostly performers, "spoken word artists" more than poets. While some of them can be exclusionary and pretentious, I like most of them. Those of you who say it's not real poetry are probably right. I suppose I don't like "real poetry."

[blacbird]

Poetry slams are to poetry what American Idol is to singing.

caw

[Birol]

Poetry slams are to poetry what American Idol is to singing.

caw

Why?

You know, I have to be honest, I'm not exactly certain what makes a poetry slam, although I've pretty much agreed with every post poetinahat has made. How is a poetry slam different from an open mic night?

[poetinahat]

I suppose I don't like "real poetry."
What does "real poetry" mean to you?

Is it a term you're using to divide the world between those who scoff at poetry slams and those who don't?

I hope what I write is, er, real. Who can tell me?

[blacbird]

Why?

You know, I have to be honest, I'm not exactly certain what makes a poetry slam, although I've pretty much agreed with every post poetinahat has made. How is a poetry slam different from an open mic night?

The competition aspect. A winner, and a lot of losers. The ones I've attended were early rounds of a tournament. I couldn't bear to attend the finals. There are national poetry slams, and I've seen a video documentary about these things, and the viciousness makes Simon Cowell look like Mr. Rogers.

caw

[Celia Cyanide]

What does "real poetry" mean to you?

Is it a term you're using to divide the world between those who scoff at poetry slams and those who don't?

It isn't a term I am using, really, which is why I have it in quotes. I am not sure why people think that the poetry at slams is not "real." It seems real to me, and those who are performing it. Sure, some of it is crap. That's what happens when you have an open mike, and allow people to perform. Some are going to be good, and some are not.

[Sarashay]

A poetry slam is a competition. Poets read and are scored by five judges (composed of volunteers from the audience) on a scale of 1 to 10. The high and low scores are dropped, making it a range from 3 to 30.

It's done in an elimination round style, so if you have, say, eight poets competing, the top four go to the next round, the top two from that round compete head to head and thus the winner is determined.

There are rules about performance--no props, no musical instruments and poems are limited to three minutes, maximum. If the poem goes over three minutes, one tenth of a point is deducted from the poet's score for each ten seconds over the limit.

High scores tend to go to people who are loud, dynamic and dramatic. Funny helps a lot, too.

I'm not sure how the judging is Simon Cowell-ish, since it's merely numerical and offered without comment.

[Shadow_Ferret]

What does "real poetry" mean to you?


To me, nobody writes real poetry any more. It died out decades ago. I have a book called "Immortal Poems of the English Language" and in my opinion, it contains real poems. Shakespeare, Elliot, Milton, Frost, Whitman, Keats, Yeats, Tennyson and Wordsworth.

As I stated in a previous post, I simply don't understand most modern "poetry," that is, free-form. I'm old-fashioned that way.

[poetinahat]

Shadow (and all), I commend to your attention this sonnet (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72828) by our own Norman D Gutter. It's marvelous.

Over in the Poetry section, some of us are still writing structured works -- sonnets, villanelles, redondillas and even sestinas -- the flag still waves.

[Birol]

(The password is citrus.)

[Celia Cyanide]

Shadow (and all), I commend to your attention this sonnet (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72828) by our own Norman D Gutter. It's marvelous.

Over in the Poetry section, some of us are still writing structured works -- sonnets, villanelles, redondillas and even sestinas -- the flag still waves.

I don't really know what to say to this, because a lot of the poetry I hear at slams and open mike nights seems structured. Maybe I don't know enough about poetry to know about structure.

[tinasamuels]

I shouldn't comment here as I'm not a poet, but...

I believe that poetry, like any art form, is going to be different for everyone. Each person that reads a poem, like looking at a painting, will read different things in it, and receive a different feeling from it. All beauty, even written, is in the eye that beholds it.

[blacbird]

It's not the judging I'm comparing to Simon Cowell, sorry for being misleading. At the high level of competition, it's the behavior of the competitors. We're talking some industrial-strength extra-crispy type-A personalities.

caw

[davids]

Sort a like WCW?

[Shadow_Ferret]

Shadow (and all), I commend to your attention this sonnet (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72828) by our own Norman D Gutter. It's marvelous.

Over in the Poetry section, some of us are still writing structured works -- sonnets, villanelles, redondillas and even sestinas -- the flag still waves.
Wait a minute!

We have a poetry section?

[poetinahat]

I don't really know what to say to this, because a lot of the poetry I hear at slams and open mike nights seems structured. Maybe I don't know enough about poetry to know about structure.
My post was a digression from the debate on slams -- just a reply to Shadow Ferret's earlier comment that no one writes formal poetry anymore.

Never mind the structure, though -- do you like the poem? Structure and poem quality aren't correlated at all, IMO. I'm certainly not taking sides for or against. I like both, and I see no reason why one should have to choose one over the other.

I think the common gripe is that lack of structure means that anybody can slosh any old heap of words together and call it a poem. Well, it might be a poem, but that doesn't mean it's any good. Artistic freedom does not imply that control is obsolete. (No, Mr. Manonthestreet, your six-year-old could *not* have painted Guernica.)

There's more to poetry (or prose, in fact) than words and what they mean. It's also how they sound and the rhythm they create. You don't need structure to get that; it's just another tool to use.

[poetinahat]

Wait a minute!

We have a poetry section?
Yes indeed! It's in the shanty that we used to call 'outside' before the Trump TIO Tower went up.

[poetinahat]

Kevin, read that to some Coltrane and I'm y...

*ahem*

Yes. Well said.

[Writer???]

As usual I'm about a month or so behind the times, so I doubt anyone cares what I have to say on this dead subject. But, I read every post in this thread so I can't NOT say something about it. :D

Poetry Slam. Is it poetry? Is it art? I don't care to debate that. It's entirely up to the individual.

I will say it is my opinion that "performance art", ramped up to the level of competition; regular, repeated competition as this is, becomes something entirely different.

Most poetry is expression of emotion, personal experience, memory, hopes, dreams, loves etc. And, while the "audience" is considered by the author, it (the audience) is NOT the main focus of the piece. We are not setting out to impress anyone or win anything. We are merely trying to relate something we want to tell.

When competition enters the picture, anyone seriously interested in winning must gear their piece toward the audience and the judges. We don't, I think, normally set out thinking about being loud or expressive and demonstrative, which is an apparent requirement for getting higher scores as has been pointed out here for these competitions.

The writing changes. The thought process changes. Perhaps even the message changes. We're not thinking or writing about what we might normally, we're thinking about winning and getting votes and moving to the next phase of competition. All for the sake of the competition. It is no longer art for arts sake, it is art for winnings sake. And I don't think that is the way most of us write normally.

Of course we want to do a good job, and hopefully we work hard at choosing the write words to express the message or thought the best we can, but again, the MESSAGE is the focus here, NOT the performance, not "winning" anything.

Especially not impressing, repeatedly, the same group of people or judges who are the ones forming this limited audience said art is written for and performed to.

There is an inherent amount of "phonyness" involved in ongoing competition simply because you must be writing or creating for THAT group. What do they like? What gets their attention and wins their favor? I'm not saying these people are phony or wrong. I'm just saying it's not real and from the heart and what they would probably write as a "norm". It all begins from the premise of competition with the goal of winning. And that has to have an effect on what and how they create.

Any requirement, actually expressed or inferred, placed on the artist, beyond "write you", changes what would normally be produced.

[plnelson]

Everyone's a Poet: Criticizing the Poetry Slam (http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1993/08/brady.html)

I couldn't figure out where he was going with it. He had very little to say about poetry slams. Mostly, his essay was a meandering, overstuffed collection of lit-crit and leftie jargon he must have had left over from some other such exercise.

I don't like poetry slams because of their hyped-up competitive, gong-show atmosphere. Sort of like comparing and contrasting For Whom the Bell Tolls and The Great Gatsby by having Hemingway and Fitzgerald have a wrestling match in the shower.

[plnelson]

To me, nobody writes real poetry any more. It died out decades ago. I have a book called "Immortal Poems of the English Language" and in my opinion, it contains real poems. Shakespeare, Elliot, Milton, Frost, Whitman, Keats, Yeats, Tennyson and Wordsworth.

As I stated in a previous post, I simply don't understand most modern "poetry," that is, free-form. I'm old-fashioned that way.
So everything you don't understand isn't "real"? If you preferred the old "dial" telephones where you put your finger in a hole and give it a twist (hmm...) then cellphones aren't "real" telephones? And then what do you say about the great poets of the Roman empire, e.g., Horace? Most of his poetry didn't rhyme until about 1700 years after he wrote it.

[Writer???]

So "real" poetry would be????

If one chooses not to follow any form and structure or rhyme of somekind and placement, offers no discernable meter and merely relates a story through "Broken-prose confession" to quote a Haskins referenced editor, then it would still lay with the reader to accept or reject such as "real" poetry wouldn't it?

I mean, I can spit on a wall all day long and say I'm painting it, and in a fashion I would be, the wall would be "covered" with something, but it wouldn't "really" be "painting" and all that it involves now would it?

And comparing "real" poetry to "real" telephones isn't really apples to apples is it. I mean a phone is concrete, physical technology, it either makes phone calls or it doesn't. It's not really open to interpretation. It's not subjective.

[Writer???]

If you want to engage in conversation fine, but keep your smart-assed comments to yourself. I don't recall any derragatory statements or name-calling from my posts in this thread.

[plnelson]

So "real" poetry would be????

If one chooses not to follow any form and structure or rhyme of somekind and placement, offers no discernable meter and merely relates a story through "Broken-prose confession" to quote a Haskins referenced editor, then it would still lay with the reader to accept or reject such as "real" poetry wouldn't it?

Perhaps, so if lots and lots of readers DO think it's poetry then maybe you're missing something . . .

For example, many people think that Walt Whitman was the greatest poet America ever produced. But he wrote like this:

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.

And you didn't answer my question about Roman poetry. Here's part of an ode by Horace: (Translations copyright by Harvard University Press):

Velox amoenum
saepe Lucretilem
mutat Lycaeo
Faunus et igneam
defendit
aestatem capellis
usque meis
pluviosque ventos.

( In swift passage Faunus
often changes
Lycaeus for fair Lucretilis,
and wards off
from my goats
the fiery heat and rainy winds
during all his stay. )


Here's some Ovid . . .

In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas
corpora; di, coeptis (nam vos mutastis et illas)
adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi
ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen!
Ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum
unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,
quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles

N.B. that neither of the Latin poems is without meter, but it's certainly not a meter you are used to. And neither one has a rhyming scheme. Yet Ovid and Horace are both regarded as among the greatest poets in history, and since they both wrote about 2000 years ago they are certainly not tainted by Modernism or PoMo.

I think you should study more poetry, and history of poetry, and open up your mind and heart to it. The idea that poetry must have a rigid metric structure and a rhyming scheme represents a very narrow period in European history, and doesn't reflect European poetry before or after, or the rich poetic traditions of many other cultures.

My day job is as an engineer for a scientific and medical products company so I certainly like structure and rules where appropriate. So if I can "get" and love and write free-verse poetry then anyone can!

You seem to want some kind of rule to tell if a poem is "good" or "bad"; you seem to be afraid that without rules the world will fill up with crap and charlatans who produce it. So what? That's called "Sturgeon's Law" and it's always been true - not just in poetry but in all of the arts.

The only "rule" I apply to poetry and other writing, as well as painting, photography, drama and music is this: does or will it stand the test of time? If generation after generation still finds merit in Whitman or Dickenson, or TS Eliot or ee cummings, maybe there's a reason for that. Your job is to discover that reason.

[Writer???]

Perhaps, so if lots and lots of readers DO think it's poetry then maybe you're missing something . . .

For example, many people think that Walt Whitman was the greatest poet America ever produced. But he wrote like this:

I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.

And you didn't answer my question about Roman poetry. Here's part of an ode by Horace: (Translations copyright by Harvard University Press):

Velox amoenum
saepe Lucretilem
mutat Lycaeo
Faunus et igneam
defendit
aestatem capellis
usque meis
pluviosque ventos.

( In swift passage Faunus
often changes
Lycaeus for fair Lucretilis,
and wards off
from my goats
the fiery heat and rainy winds
during all his stay. )


Here's some Ovid . . .

In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas
corpora; di, coeptis (nam vos mutastis et illas)
adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi
ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen!
Ante mare et terras et quod tegit omnia caelum
unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,
quem dixere chaos: rudis indigestaque moles

N.B. that neither of the Latin poems is without meter, but it's certainly not a meter you are used to. And neither one has a rhyming scheme. Yet Ovid and Horace are both regarded as among the greatest poets in history, and since they both wrote about 2000 years ago they are certainly not tainted by Modernism or PoMo. - Your question (directed at someone else by the way) implies that Homer was unstructured, unrhymed free-verse and comparable to "modern" poetry. Yet your example is full of rhyme and alliteration. Are these mere happenstance of the language?

I think you should study more poetry, and history of poetry, and open up your mind and heart to it. The idea that poetry must have a rigid metric structure and a rhyming scheme represents a very narrow period in European history, and doesn't reflect European poetry before or after, or the rich poetic traditions of many other cultures. - Good advice. I will continue to study poetry, and my heart and mind are very open to it or I wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I think maybe that you just don't like that I don't accept YOUR view of poetry and it's history. Is something poetry or not is debatable all day, but good or bad?, that's always a personal decision of the individual and you can't seem to accept that aspect.

I don't reject off-hand ALL free verse, unrhymed, unstructured poetry. And I'm not the one who made the statement that "nobody writes real poetry anymore." But, I do allow that some, many probably may feel that way and I see their reasons for it. Not everyone is willing to lower or change their standards and accept anything that comes along. Some people will hold to a higher (in their opinion) standard of "What is poetry?"
If there are no standards, or "rules" let's say, then anything written could be poetry. Where do you draw the line? Even with rules it is sometimes subjective. Surely there must have been some point where you said, "Well, it rhymes, but I wouldn't call it poetry." or something similar.

My day job is as an engineer for a scientific and medical products company so I certainly like structure and rules where appropriate. So if I can "get" and love and write free-verse poetry then anyone can! - And I wouldn't argue that point with you. Accept for the "love" part. I think anyone can "get" it if they take the time to discover the poetic devices used beyond rhyme and meter within a given poem. But that doesn't mean that everyone will like it or even consider it legitimate poetry.

You seem to want some kind of rule to tell if a poem is "good" or "bad"; you seem to be afraid that without rules the world will fill up with crap and charlatans who produce it. So what? That's called "Sturgeon's Law" and it's always been true - not just in poetry but in all of the arts. - I have rules that tell me if something is poetry or not, they're called poetic devices. And I have my own judgment, likes and tastes that tell me if it's good or not. What I WANT is for others to stop calling those of us who don't agree with everything you say, ignorant, uneducated, closed minded, and unwilling to change. I read tons of poetry. I accept, like, love and enjoy at least some of every type. I happen to like formal poetry because I enjoy the difference from prose that leaps out at you from the page. I don't want to have to "study" everything and dig for nuances. To me, so much of free verse winds up being "a study" trying to find the poetic in it that it becomes a chore and not enjoyable.

The only "rule" I apply to poetry and other writing, as well as painting, photography, drama and music is this: does or will it stand the test of time? If generation after generation still finds merit in Whitman or Dickenson, or TS Eliot or ee cummings, maybe there's a reason for that. Your job is to discover that reason. - Well, that is YOUR rule and it might work for you but it is not a "standard" for eveyone. What exactly do you mean by "stand the test of time"? That's so meaningless and fluctuating. If you mean popularity and quotability then most of the ones you mention have fallen short of the test as there are far fewer people today that are even aware of them, let alone those who like or love them than in bygone years. Or, is like Garrison Keillor puts forth in his anthology, "memorability and stickyness"? A poem finding its way into the world and taking on a life beyond what the author expected or intended. To be read and taught, to be quoted in film or carved in plaques. To be read at ceremonies and special occassions, etc. Then yes, there is something to be said for those you mention. But, what is that beyond the mere appreciation of a single quoted verse, or maybe even a whole poem. It is certainly not a resounding endorsement for a particular style or form or body of work. It is not the definitive "rule" of acceptability that everyone must adhere to. Good or bad is always an opinion, and real or not is getting so blurred as to be just as much opinion as good or bad.

In the end it still all comes down to the individual and THEIR set of rules. Do you require anything beyond line breaks for something to be poetry? I'm just curious where you draw the line, beyond your "test of time" of course. How exactly do you judge "new" poems? Or unpublished work like here in the critique area?

Do you write poetry? How do you approach it? Do you think about poetic device or do you just let it flow and make adjustments later, or do make adjustments at all? Do you think beyond line breaks and try to incorporate any specifics like, assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, cross rhyme, etc. or is any "formalness" just happy accidents?

I realize these are a lot of pointed questions but believe me, I am not trying to sound like or be an ass about this. I am honestly just trying to have a conversation and get a feel for what your approach is to poetry and "stand the test of time" doesn't help with new, untested pieces. Please don't take offense or think I am attacking you. I am enjoying this discussion very much.

I hope this post shows up, something strange going on when I previewed it.

[plnelson]

Do you require anything beyond line breaks for something to be poetry?

What makes you think I require line breaks? Haven't you ever heard of prose poems? Some of my favorite poems are by Baudelaire, for instance (another example of a 19th century poet who stood the test of time) and I also write prose poems myself sometimes. Pablo Neruda and William Carlos Williams have also written notable prose poems, as have many others.

Why do you feel you need categories and pigeonholes to decide if something is poetry or not? How do you decide if something is music? Does it have to be in a chromatic or whole tone or pentatonic scale? Is it still music if it's in quarter-tones? What if it's all percussion? Is rap music "music" or "poetry" or both or neither? What about gamelan music?

BTW, my definition of standing the test if time is simple - it's more than a generation old and I can still buy a recently-printed copy. Any good university bookstore can supply you with the major Roman poets, for instance.

[JRH]

Writer,

I agree entirely with PLNelson' comments about judging a poem as to how it "might" pass the test of time and, and one must form that opinion by reading and analysing those Poems that have done so and determining what the factors are that made them successful.

A judgement STILL has to be made, but will undoubtedly be made more effectively by using well informed criteria of judgement.

I write Poetry, and I have studied the Masters extensively in honing my skills to make such judgements, about their Poems, and I write all of mine with such criteria in mind, because my INTENT is that each of my Poems will pass that test.

Whether they will or not, (or whether you or anyone else will perceive them as having that quality), is a matter for time to reveal, but I guarantee that my attitude, (and the habits of critical judgement I've made as a result), will increase my chances of success.

Write On,

Jim Hoye, (JRH)

P.S. For the record, and with the original subject in mind, I wonder how many are aware that the Beat Poets, and their followers, with their emphasis on social criticism and with their practice of reading their Poems in coffeehouses, (sometimes to musical accompaniment) were the template, both for such "Raves and for "Rap" music)

[Writer???]

"The only "rule" I apply to poetry..."

That's what you said and I can't believe you honestly have no personal requirement and can form no opinion on good or bad, poetry or not beyond this "test of time. It just doesn't make sense. I understand that being a tool for use in your judgement, but being the ONLY RULE you apply is allowing others to decide for you what you determine good or bad.

Like every other discussion on line, you want to be broad and general in your statements, but then narrow and nit picky in your response. I don't need to pigeonhole poetry. I just need you and anyone else to understand I'll decide for me what I like and what I consider good or bad poetry, or poerty or not.

You base you opinions on what stands the test of time, at least one generation you say. You said you do this with art and music as well? Well where is YOUR choice, your taste, your likes in all this. Just because something is still available and still purchased, does that automatically make it good? What about all those horrible, campy movies that have a cult following, are they good just because with some they are still popular and still around to be sold and watched and even celebrated on "Movie Nights" or something?

It's funny, half your argument is trying to convince me I need to be more accepting and open minded, and the other half is telling me to only accept what the "crowd" of popular opinion says and not use my own mind and tastes to make a judgment on what I like or consider good.

And I have told you I DO like at least some of all kinds of poetry, but if you're not willing to even admit that there are different categories of poetry I don't think we can even discuss this anymore, that's just too weird and narrow minded thinking for me, and even goes against your own labling of poetry you've discussed.

I like to discuss issues, but hopefully for the sake of learning something, not just arguing for arguings sake.
Thanks for the conversation. See you around the forum.