*Should poetry be open source?*

[jst5150]

http://www.vianegativa.us/2007/08/29/should-poetry-be-open-source/

Snip:
But if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that my every-morning deep reading of several poems by another poet or poets often has a direct influence on whatever I then sit down and write, and not just in the vague sense of giving rise to a poetic mood. Quite often a specific image or turn of phrase will catch fire, and I’ll take that ember and light my own kindling with it. It’s usually too small a thing even to require crediting the author, and my use of it falls entirely outside the boundaries of their own conception, but I still feel indebted in some way. And the only way to repay that debt, I feel, is to write the best poem I can. Of course, sometimes the ember comes from something I observe, or a dream the night before, or an overheard snatch of conversation, but in every case it’s coming from outside. I’ve talked to plenty of other artists and poets, and read many more interviews, and they all tend to say something pretty similar: authentic inspiration comes from an encounter with the other. I guess that’s why it seems so absurd to me to try and assert ownership and control over ideas. The source code of the imagination is existentially open.

[dclary]

All literature is open-schema. LOL.


But that's how it's always been. We grow and expand our own writing ability by absorbing what we've learned from those other writers we've read. It's inevitable we'll adopt some of their mannerisms, stylistic methods or other artifacts.

[Ultra]

FWIW, my thoughts (pasted from the comments):

I think there are a lot of broad arguments made for what is essentially a personal choice. Dave, your thoughts on the state of poetry are exactly right– there’s not much money to be made, and GPL- or CC-licensing your work does make it easier for someone else to “advertise” you. For some writers, that will be the best course of action, because they are aggressively looking for a greater audience. Others will remain fiercely protective of the current literary publishing system, and won’t want work re-distributed.

I see both sides quite clearly. Depending on the day, you’ll catch me siding with one or the other; some days I wish I could get my work in front of more people, some days I feel like I should buck it up and work within the current system, which isn’t entirely flawed and has significant merits. I’m still snobby enough that, if I have limited time to read, I’ll generally select the book from Ecco over the blog or the book from Lulu. (And I say that as a small press publisher, who is hoping to get his books in front of readers who prefer those Knopf or Penguin releases.)

The publisher side of me would be furious to find whole poems from the short books my authors produce in a form that the author didn’t authorize. The avid reader side of me has been known to pull a poem or two from a book I adored and post it to my blog to illustrate some point I’m making (perhaps a point about why I loved the book), figuring that it can’t do anything but help sales.

[Medievalist]

No, poetry shouldn't be open source.

Writers mostly have a creative vision; I'd like to see that remain unaltered, though of course, there are many poets who like to be meta and pomo and favor mashups and the like.

That said, I'm fond of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/license/) licenses, though I believe poets like other artists should be paid for their work.

[veinglory]

I would assume it would be up to the poet. There are at least a few hundred professional poets. They don't tend to make the money primarily from royalties but they still need to be able to control rights to their output in order to attract patrons etc.

[plnelson]

I would assume it would be up to the poet. There are at least a few hundred professional poets. They don't tend to make the money primarily from royalties but they still need to be able to control rights to their output in order to attract patrons etc.

I know this is OT, but just out of curiosity, what is a "professional poet"? Are there actually many people who entirely support themselves writing or reading poetry? I always thought that even major, widely-published bigtime poets actually support themselves teaching or editing. Even Billy Collins, arguably the most popular living US poet, who was Poet Laureate a couple of times, still has a day-job as a college professor. Likewise Robert Pinsky, another former P.L., teaches at Boston University and is the poetry editor at Slate.

Of course Collins famously likes to quote Max Beerbohm who said that, "the most difficult thing about being a poet is knowing what to do with the other 23 and a half hours of the day." So maybe poets take other jobs, not for the money, but just because they have so much free time.

[Norman D Gutter]

Copyright laws should be followed in regards to another poet's copyrighted works (which is any work in tangible form), especially by writers who hope to have their own works be of value some day. I think the current year for which you can be certain a work is public domain is 1925 (plus or minus a year). Anything first published after that date should be assumed to be copyrighted, and any re-printing of it should be at the sole discretion of the poet or the poet's heirs. The notion that by violating the poet's copyright you are advertising their works doesn't wash. Only the poet should be able to decide how their work is advertised.

So many poems (and other works, for that matter) have been written through the millenia, probably every possible plot has been written before. Plots, though, cannot be copyrighted. I think many of my ideas for poems come from reading one of the masters' poems, with one line standing out and causing me to write a poem about it. That is not a violation of copyright. Copying a plot or theme is not a violation of copyright. Only using a poet's exact words to an extent greater than allowed under Fair Use clauses, or their equivalent in other countries) would be a violation.

So, I believe poetry should not be open source.

NDG

[William Haskins]

"there is no money in poetry; but then there is no poetry in money, either." - robert graves

anyone who wants my poetry can have it. print it, share it, give it to friends, give it to enemies, line cat boxes and bird cages with them, roll joints in them and smoke my words, love it, hate it, laugh at it, use it to get laid, use it to get even.

i just don't care. they're written to be read. anything that stands in the way of that is ego or greed or spite.

[veinglory]

I personally know two professional poets. Yes they are professors but the only reason they have the gig is because they are internationally respected poets. They became internationally respected poets by placing their works with internationally respected literary journals (that required first publishing rights). This in turn impressed the tenure boards and the agencies that gave them grants and visiting scholar's postings. It all still comes back to the rights.

[William Haskins]

I personally know two professional poets. Yes they are professors but the only reason they have the gig is because they are internationally respected poets. They became internationally respected poets by placing their works with internationally respected literary journals (that required first publishing rights). This in turn impressed the tenure boards and the agencies that gave them grants and visiting scholar's postings. It all still comes back to the rights.

if your goal is to impress the literary establishment and gain leverage in academia, i have no argument.

if your goal is for homemakers and waiters and plumbers and soldiers to read it, find the shortest distance between you and then and make the words available.

that's all.

[William Haskins]

As for no money in poetry? You can't live off of it, but you can pay some of the bills. Last year, my poetry made enough money to pay half of my daughter's residence fees at university. I'm still going to continue to seek payment from my stuff, thank you very much. I'm up past $700 so far this year (counting chapbook sales, contests and regular submissions). Nothing to sneeze at.

not sneezing at it.

i never said my views should be adopted by everyone, and i don't care if you seek payment.

[veinglory]

I would still suspect a poem going a longer distance might sometimes reach more people at the end. One of my little poems got in a book that got into chain stores. I suspect more people have seen it there than see most poems wandering the open internet.

[William Haskins]

to each her own.

[plnelson]

I personally know two professional poets. Yes they are professors but the only reason they have the gig is because they are internationally respected poets.

I don't think that makes them professional poets. They earn their living as professors so, professionally, they're professors.

I'm a software engineer. I got my job because way back when I went on a job interview and we all went to lunch, we sat around trading lines from Monty Python and Firesign Theater. I made such a good impression as a result of the fact that I knew all that stuff that that I won the job over other equally qualified candidates who didn't know old skits like that from heart. But that doesn't make me a professional comedian.

How you got your job is one thing; what you do for a living is your profession.

[poetinahat]

With respect, I think the OP's question is only obliquely related to the actual point of the extract.

It's not that poetry should be open source, or that poets shouldn't charge for their work. In fact, the quote makes it quite clear that the author identifies small debts of ideas that can't be repaid directly, but are debts nonetheless.

The point, as I see it, is basically that everything we think or write is influenced somehow by any number of things we see or read, and it's not possible (or necessary in all cases) to acknowledge all these influences.

In other words, I think all the author was suggesting is that there's no such thing as a completely original thought.

[plnelson]

The point, as I see it, is basically that everything we think or write is influenced somehow by any number of things we see or read, and it's not possible (or necessary in all cases) to acknowledge all these influences.

In other words, I think all the author was suggesting is that there's no such thing as a completely original thought.

I dunno. The idea that we're all influenced by what's gone before is, if you'll excuse me, trite. That's not exactly an earthshaking or controversial concept.

"Open Source" implies something different - an ego-free, ownership-free , public collaboration. "Open source" would involve me replacing WCW's "red wheel barrow" with a blue one or a Harley, and not calling it parody.

[poetinahat]

I dunno. The idea that we're all influenced by what's gone before is, if you'll excuse me, trite. That's not exactly an earthshaking or controversial concept.
I agree. And I don't think there was anything earth-shattering about the article the excerpt that Jason posted.

"Open Source" implies something different - an ego-free, ownership-free , public collaboration. "Open source" would involve me replacing WCW's "red wheel barrow" with a blue one or a Harley, and not calling it parody.
If that's true, I'm adamant that poetry is *not* open source. I'd call that plagiarism.

Of course, if one declares the work 'open source' and free for others to edit and re-use, fine. But it's up to the poet to do that, not for others to presume.

[kdnxdr]

Does that mean we did a "bad thing" when we were playing with red wheel barrow? Do you remember that thread?

I, personally, didn't mean to do harm. I was just spoofin' with that particular poem.

[poetinahat]

Nah -- you called it a parody, eh?

[kdnxdr]

Yeah, yeah. Parody, that's what it was.

[plnelson]

Of course, if one declares the work 'open source' and free for others to edit and re-use, fine. But it's up to the poet to do that, not for others to presume.

The way this is normally done in software is via a "copyleft", which is a species of GPL - General Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GPL).

Of course in the case of "The Red Wheelbarrow", the copyleft would be longer than the poem! :)

[jst5150]

I don't believe poetry should be open source, but I do agree with William on intent.

Poetry for some is a means of making an emotional connection with friends or loved ones that cannot be done by other means. For instance, maybe someone's got an intimacy problem. He writes a poem instead of giving a hug (though how he gets from not hugging to stanzas is another thread entirely). Or the woman who can't think of a way to tell her guy she wants to BFF him in a big way. So, she scribbles out a few words that lay the bread crumbs to sharing toothbrushes and picking up wet towels together.

In that sense, poetry IS an open source because the author's intent (keyword there) had nothing to do with the business of publishing. The intent was to give a hug or establish a relationship. With the need met, the poetry becomes a devalued commodity. Its owner believes it worth to zero (unless he wants to give another hug). In any case, with its inherent value at zero,that poem effectively becomes open source in his head and he doesn't care who uses it.

That said, the other facet of this is more interesting: that poetry isn't open source. This assumes that the writer plans to make a living writing poetry. That assumes there's a market with a revenue stream from poetry. That there are a set of deliverables. That other people are counting on poetry to make them money along with you. That poetry will have broader use than the written word – movies, TV, art, science. And so on. However, I've never seen any of that. In fact, I would offer that KTC is probably the model upon which a revenue stream might be built. Hustling from contest to contest; looking for journal opportunities. In the end, enough money to buy a solid used car or cover portions of tuition. Certainly, however, not enough for walking around money or to build the foundaton for independence.

Here's my own example: from September-December 2006, I wrote a lot of poetry. There were a number of reasons for this. I had a lot of time on my hands. I had few distractions. I had a number of quick, one-shot ideas that made good poems. When the Blue Rock Collection came up, it offered a tremendous opportunity for growth. All that said, my intent was to write poetry, share it with the forum and get critiques (which seem harder and harder to come by). I used to forum as a publisher. When I started writing for the Blue Rock Collection, my intent was growth. i worked very hard to write good poems for that collection. On both accounts, my intent met with expectations.

In closing, I think intent is everything. I'd also add that open source means another user can add on or change the work -- and I'm not in favor of that. I'd prefer to have a collaborator or editor I can vibe with to do that; someone who understands my intent as the writer and doesn't just add Iron Maiden lyrics or zombie beheadings in new stanzas.

[veinglory]

Even when I made my living as a professor I was a psychologist. Besides, both these people live, eat, breath and perspire poetry. I'd like to see anyone try and tell them they aren't poets. I think people get to define that for themselves. It would be ironic for a perspective devoted to freedom to try and tell people they aren't what they think they are.

[Unique]

Does that mean we did a "bad thing" when we were playing with red wheel barrow? Do you remember that thread?

I, personally, didn't mean to do harm. I was just spoofin' with that particular poem.

:roll:If what we did with that poem is illegal -


Then Come and Get Me!

All our stuff was better than the original. Yeah, I remember that thread and yeah, I still hate that poem.

[JRH]

Veinglory,

Being a "Poet" and being a "Professional Poet" are not one in the same.

Unless a Poet makes his/her living exclusively from the sales of his/her Poetry, his/her true source of income is his "Profession" no matter how closely that might be related to the Poetry he/she writes. That doesn't diminish his/her status as a Poet, it simply recognizes the fact that Poetry, by itself, does not pay enough to support anyone, no matter how good they are.

As for the concept of "Open Source" any Poet should take his/her INSPIRATION wherever he/she can find it and ALLUSION is a perfectly proper tool for RELATING another's work to one's own, but taking credit for someone else's work is inappropriate and non-productive because, although individual poems can be stolen, talent, (or lack of it), can not, and will alway show through in the end.

Think about it.

Jim Hoye (JRH)

[Priene]

Of course there are new ideas. Maybe some writers only regurgitate and re-form others' work, but new ideas come into the mix all the time.

There was no Waste Land before Eliot. Shakespeare couldn't pick up a copy of Hamlet. Homer had no Iliad to refer to. Back in the days when our species had just evolved, there was no Ulysses, no Tristram Shandy, no Gilgamesh and no decent toilet facilities either. Individuals worked all of this out, and there's plenty more work to be done.

[Unique]

oh, dear.

speaking of chickens.... i believe they're after me and have actually mutated.

fair use. hm.

if it were your (work), would you feel honored by what someone else was doing with it or would you feel ripped off?

That, is the question.

[Priene]

I've been plagiarised once. I didn't appreciate it.

[Unique]

I've been plagiarised once. I didn't appreciate it.
i, most likely wouldn't either. if someone asks, i may GIVE it to them. then again, i may not. if i had plans for it, no. if you aren't polite enough to ask, i'm not nice enough to give it to you.

of course, YMMV

[veinglory]

Veinglory,

Being a "Poet" and being a "Professional Poet" are not one in the same.



Did I say it was? I make about 10% of my income from writing, some of that from poetry. But when my poem makes $50 I eat better that week. I don't think anyone should stop me from using my poetry as a commodity to whatever extent I am able.

[Teena]

They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery....but I wouldn't want someone else to use my original work for their gain.

However, who hasn't seen "spoofs" of nearly everything from popular songs to paintings? I think it depends on how it's used and for what purpose. If we, in this forum, use someone else's work to critique or re-write to challenge ourselves and each other to practice the craft are we hurting anyone? Critiqueing or practicing the style or voice is a learning tool. We did that in advanced literature classes in 7th grade.

Trying to see both sides is making me cross-eyed!

[Unique]

They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery....but I wouldn't want someone else to use my original work for their gain.

However, who hasn't seen "spoofs" of nearly everything from popular songs to paintings? I think it depends on how it's used and for what purpose. If we, in this forum, use someone else's work to critique or re-write to challenge ourselves and each other to practice the craft are we hurting anyone? Critiqueing or practicing the style or voice is a learning tool. We did that in advanced literature classes in 7th grade.

Trying to see both sides is making me cross-eyed!

Both Before & After
brought to you by ..... Absolute Write
Imitation as a Form of Flattery

this is for all the lonely people...thinking that life is... @AW@ 2005-2007


I wrote this parody, spoof, poetry in motion, paradox in a box -
about/for Mr. Haskins as A FREE GIFT ... because... that's how we do things around here. Enjoy-Namaste-AW


When I am an old man I shall wear black
With green suspenders that don’t hold my pants up
And I shall spend my IRA and 401K on peyote and cigars
And driftwood candles and say we’ve no money for rootbeer
I shall sit down on the sidewalk and blow bubbles
And wobble along in the shops and alarm the matrons
And I’ll do my schtick in the public arena
And take up sobriety just to see if there’s a difference
I shall go outside and curse the rain
That waters the flowers of others but not mine
And pick my friends by how well and how far
They can spit.

You can wear T-shirts with political slogans and a hat
And bet three pounds a go at the races
Or only slap and tickle once a week
And hide erasers and chewtoys with the placemats in a box.

But for now we must wear our clothes to protect the shy
And raise the rent and wash our feet
And set a good example, (though, Lord, don’t ask me why)
When friends come to dinner they bring their own papers

But perhaps if I practice a just little now - to get the hang of it
So people won’t be too shocked nor surprised
When suddenly I am old and wearing black
And asking, ‘pass the mushrooms, please’.



I used the pattern of one of my favorite poems to get the meter/metre/Pattern
I Did NOT copy WORD for WORD; I didn't need to/two/too - because...Guess What? I had MY OWN WORDS. Mr. Haskins inspired me to think. I hope I have done the favor for him as well. He thanked/shanked/tanked Me often enough. ;)

When I AM an old woman, I shall .... do things differently....
but still ... I'm not that old ... yet ...

Guess the poem, with the author (I won't make it too hard for you)(then you can pick one book) from Unique's very own, custom built library... not quite free ... dumb looks are still free...s/h+tax/title ... still extra. ;)
Do the MATH and you can pay sh/+/-/ip for yourself. ;)

[Teena]

Unlike Jenny Joseph, I wear purple, and red hats, but not together....yet. I may never be that old. However, I am now old enough to say what I think and usually get away with it.

Enjoyed the parody of her "Warning." :D


_________________
"I can only give you words for all I have and all I am are there within." ~Me