Poetry is Dead

aboyd said:

Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood today, but if that's what qualifies as "poetry isn't dead" I think I'd rather it be dead.

I want more qualifications than "tortured soul." Perhaps "amazing skill with meter or rhyme" or "natural talent for original writing" or "extensive experience with poetic styles and awareness of the formal rules of poetry" or all three plus some.

Personally, I'd be willing to shoot a few of these tortured souls if it puts 'em out of their misery. But maybe I'm too close to this to be objective anymore.

-Tony

Click to expand...

The good news is that it doesn't take "Perpetual Torture". And it's all in perspective. If you haven't lost a love, then maybe you never found love. Poetry doesn't have to come from a negative place, but it generally comes from an emotional place. So, if you have someone who breaths in life so deeply they cannot contain it, you also get a poet.

A story is a bunch of voices. In poetry you are seeing through one pair of eyes, your own, or someone elses, but in such a way that you are attempting to convey something with passion.

William, I have read a number of books written by people from different countries and different ages. You rarely have shallow thinkers before the industrial age.

One of the reasons I think this is true, without the distractions, espectially "Techno" distractions, people took time to think and meditate. And secondly, without all the entertainment options, people were forced to converse. This is where ideas are birthed and become refined.

I'm convinced that too much electronic stimulation (Visual/Sound) is like too much cold on the body; it numbs.

However, there are poets. And maybe the format is changing, with people looking for immediate gratification, and blogging instead of publishing.

Nateskate said:

So, if you have someone who breaths in life so deeply they cannot contain it, you also get a poet.

Click to expand...

Hmm, no, that's the part I don't buy. When I embrace that line of thinking, I get depressingly bad results. Once bitten, twice shy.

I think that someone who breathes in life so deeply that they cannot contain it is simply someone who cannot contain it. How they express that, totally up for debate. Someone who expresses his/her deeply felt emotion by writing schlock that betrays a full ignorance of the language... is writing schlock. They can call it poetry, but I would submit that the overriding classification should be schlock.

EDIT: Aaaaand... someone who expresses his/her deeply felt emotion by painting... is painting. They can call it poetry, but I would submit that the overriding classification should be painting. Aaaannd.... I can post a poem about flowers in the sci-fi forum and call it a novel, but that doesn't make it a sci-fi novel. There are norms, customs, commonly accepted standards that make something fall into one category or another. Poetry has these too, so the bar is a little higher than "be passionate." At least, that's the point I'm putting forward. And I'll admit I'm depressed to see that many people think the bar should be even lower.

I believe it's no different from any craft. I can grab a hammer, nail some boards together, and call myself a carpenter. But I'm not. It might hurt my ego if someone said "actually, you're just a guy who pounds nails at random," but that wouldn't change the truth. If someone gave me the blueprints for a porch and said, "build that, carpenter" and I couldn't read the blueprints, that's quite telling.

I would submit that 90% of the people out there who breathe life so deeply that they must put pen to paper are actually journaling. They're not writing poetry, they're writing diary entries.

I'm just not ready to concede poetry to the "it's whatever you want it to be" crowd.

-Tony

Nateskate said:

William, I have read a number of books written by people from different countries and different ages. You rarely have shallow thinkers before the industrial age.

Click to expand...

You mean you rarely have written works by shallow thinkers? Certainly, there have always been shallow thinkers and non-thinkers throughout history.

But really, there were plenty of shallow thinkers who took pen to paper before the industrial age. It's just that no one saw any reason to save their efforts for posterity!

However, I don't disagree with the general gist of your statements...

Rob

aboyd said:

I believe it's no different from any craft. I can grab a hammer, nail some boards together, and call myself a carpenter. But I'm not. It might hurt my ego if someone said "actually, you're just a guy who pounds nails at random," but that wouldn't change the truth. If someone gave me the blueprints for a porch and said, "build that, carpenter" and I couldn't read the blueprints, that's quite telling...I'm just not ready to concede poetry to the "it's whatever you want it to be" crowd.

-Tony

Click to expand...

Just to play devil's ad for a moment...you can make a table and not be a carpenter; you can plant a flower and not be a gardener; you can even do an experiment and not be a scientist. Can you right a poem and not be a poet? Is this a question of occupational designations, or one of talent?

Moreover, to what end must talent lead to allow such classifications? If I write one really great poem, and everything else I write is crap, am I a poet? Compare that to someone who writes tons of so-so poetry; who is the "better" poet? The same is true for crafts like carpentry. I would never call myself a carpenter, but I have made several items that I believe are of excellent quality; certainly of higher quality than similar items I have seen that were professionally made. Am I a "better" carpenter by virtue of a single production, even though I lack many of the skills possessed by those who fashioned the lesser quality products?

Finally, who gets to decide?

Rob

poetinahat said:

You're right: only properly trained and talented people should be allowed to express themselves. Isn't that what's meant by 'poetic licence'?

Click to expand...

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek with this, but there's a germ of truth here. There's a vast difference between simple self-expression and the dissemination of that expression to the masses. Everyone should express themselves through whatever medium they see fit. However, not everyone's self-expression should be seen by other people. The value should be in the act of expressing one's self, not the reception of that expression by other people.

At least that's how I see it.

Aboyd

Okay, I may not know where you are coming from, so if I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to let me know.

It sounds like you are saying poetry is a calulated formula. Some people get it, others don't.

I do agree it is like any craft, as you say. But not everyone who swings a hammer is a carpenter. Not every carpenter is a finish carpenter. Not every finish carpenter is an artist. Some are. Some just know how to saw.

Did you ever hear the phrase, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks?"

In my mind poetry is an expression, and if someone is speaking their mind, having no substance there, that will show. But more often, you'll see something, even if it's nothing more than cynicsm, and a hatred for poetry as a craft.
Anger, envy, joy, hatred, love, praise are passions. Some negative, some positive, and I think most people enjoy peotry as an honest expression. Anything less than an honest expression may be possible. Their only motivation may be to impress someone or get a grade?

However, as an artform, I don't believe they always have to feel everything they write, but they have to at least understand it, or appreciate it.

On one hand, it sounds like you imply "No depth of soul needed, just talent, it's a craft, and there are many posers who don't measure up to the standards of good poetry. Well, you can have heart without talent. But to me, that is better then talent and no heart."

If there is no passion behind it, but only a clever computer like mind who gets "it", whatever "the poetry it" is, what's the motivation for writing in the first place? I can't imagine someone writing just to prove the point they can do it better than someone else, cold, calulated with no feeling. To me that is akin to faking an orgasm. Louder doesn't mean better. And why would someone want to fake it anyway, when they can have a real one?

I just don't understand poetry as you do. Or am I not getting your point?

robeiae said:

You mean you rarely have written works by shallow thinkers? Certainly, there have always been shallow thinkers and non-thinkers throughout history.

But really, there were plenty of shallow thinkers who took pen to paper before the industrial age. It's just that no one saw any reason to save their efforts for posterity!

However, I don't disagree with the general gist of your statements...

Rob

Click to expand...

Rob, you'd be surprised what kind of books I've read. Reading for entertainment is rather new to me. I've read quite a number of books from People who were in the death camps in Germany, and political prisoners in Russia and China. But of the books of yesteryear, you are right, not all of them were serious. However, I tended to read more serious works any way.

So, perhaps I'm just comparing the thinkers of yesterday and of other cultures with the thinkers of today. Blame it on my weird tastes, and trying to understand humanity.

robeiae said:

Can you right a poem and not be a poet?

Click to expand...

I think they're just titles like any other -- they have commonly accepted criteria attached to them that make them qualify, or not. So, sure. I think it's just whether you decide the label fits. In fact...

robeiae said:

If I write one really great poem, and everything else I write is crap, am I a poet?

Click to expand...

...this is probably a case where the author isn't far enough along to call himself a poet. But if you knew this about yourself -- if you referred to your own work as "one really great poem, and everything else is crap" -- then I'd at least be far far more willing to indulge you in the "poet" title. But I get weary of people who don't know what a stanza is insisting that everything they do is poetry.

Do you know what I mean? Imagine you were a race car driver, and everyone you met said, "Yeah, I have a car, so I'm a race car driver too!" At a certain point, you might want to shout out (or scrawl on a big sign) "Becoming a race car driver took training! Driving a mini-van does not mean you can take a corner at 200 miles an hour!"

robeiae said:

Am I a "better" carpenter by virtue of a single production, even though I lack many of the skills possessed by those who fashioned the lesser quality products?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but it sure lends you credence were you to call yourself one. Bang out a few top-quality carpentry projects, and I may inclined to call you a carpenter, even if you can't read blueprints. You know what I mean? I have a bar for what qualifies, but in my mind it's malleable. With a certain level of competence, I'll let go of the steering wheel and trust a person can find whatever destination we're going for. I do that when I'm looking for a handyman, a plumber, a lawyer, a book of poetry, etc.

robeiae said:

Finally, who gets to decide?

Click to expand...

Well, I think if the poet is keeping her poetry to herself, then she can decide whatever she wants about it. But the second that poem is passed to others, I think the poet has opened herself up to outside judgement. As one of those outsiders, I'm just saying that I want to resist the drive to lower the bar. I want to keep some criteria for what constitutes a poem.

If someone were to say to me "I'm passionate," I would probably reply, "uh, no, I've been burned before by making that the sole criteria." If that person came back and said, "I'm passionate, I've read a lot of different styles of poetry, and oh yeah, I spellchecked everything" I would probably pull up a stool and say, "let's read your poems!"

-Tony

Nateskate said:

It sounds like you are saying poetry is a calulated formula.

Click to expand...

Not quite -- that makes it sound like computers would make excellent poets. I don't think "what makes a poem" is rigidly defined, but I do think there are a few fundamentals that really help sway me in that direction.

For example, on my own site, I have one person in particular who has posted long paragraphs of text in the poetry forum. The "poems" do not have line breaks, do not have stanzas, do not have meter, do not rhyme, do not have even a melodic tone when read aloud, and do not appear to be "the best words in the best order." So do you see what I mean? It's not hitting any bar, so I have a hard time getting past the classification, much less getting into the details of implementation.

Nateskate said:

On one hand, it sounds like you imply "No depth of soul needed, just talent, it's a craft, and there are many posers who don't measure up to the standards of good poetry. Well, you can have heart without talent. But to me, that is better then talent and no heart."

Click to expand...

You put quotes around a whole lot of text there. Are you suggesting that I implied all of that, or was some of it supposed to be your response?

In any case, regardless of whether those words were supposed to be in your mouth or mine, I don't agree with the sentiment. It's a false dilemma. The options are not limited to "heart without talent" and "talent without heart." There are at least two others, "no heart and no talent" and "talent and heart." For me, of those four options, I would say they all lead to dreck, except for "talent and heart." I personally admire another variation, "no talent, lots of heart, lots of research, lots of training." In other words, I know quite a few poets who have no natural ability with poetry, but they doggedly learned the craft, and brought up their writing in the process.

Nateskate said:

If there is no passion behind it, but only a clever computer like mind who gets "it", whatever "the poetry it" is, what's the motivation for writing in the first place?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not proposing such a thing.

Nateskate said:

To me that is akin to faking an orgasm. Louder doesn't mean better. And why would someone want to fake it anyway, when they can have a real one?

Click to expand...

But see, the reader isn't having the orgasm, they're just watching the writer have an orgasm. So it really matters how well that writer can express the orgasm. Someone who has an orgasm and expresses it with this...

ow wow oh it changing my life i think i found g-ospt

Click to expand...

...just isn't doing anything for me. I've got to set the bar higher -- fewer typos, some kind of structure, less sloppiness, more inventiveness. For example, and just to prove that I'm not terribly rigid, I think E. E. Cummings wrote a great and clever sex poem that gets me charged when I read it.

-Tony

William Haskins said:

we live in the dark ages.

Click to expand...

When you said, "poetry is dead", were you referring to . . .

a. amateur poetry

b. commercial poetry (like the kind published in mainstream magazines)

c. poetry that is anthologized by the literary gatekeepers

d. all of the above

or . . .

e. none of the above

Just curious

William Haskins said:

poetry is dead.

the scope of the statement is self-evident.

Click to expand...

Now I get it, :Smack: The reason you believe poetry is dead, is because

you want to. The truth is self-evident.

William Haskins said:

yes, that's what i want.

Click to expand...

Then you shall have it
Poetry is officially dead, because you said so. Works for me

Yes, I read the whole thread, and it seemed too broad a statement to suggest All "poetry is dead," and I did try to get you to narrow your "scope".

I happen to agree with you that "some" poetry is dead, but other forms of poetry, the amateur variety, is on the rise, as a means of self-identity. You didn't leave me much latitude with your "self-evident" response. For the record, I don't snipe--I play .

William Haskins said:

i believe that the function of a poem goes beyond the simple expression of ideas or feelings committed to paper. it depends on establishing a connection with at least one other person. it's a form of communication.

Click to expand...

Yeah, see, you and I are saying the same thing, but it took me 20 paragraphs and a lot of rambling. It took you 3 sentences.

I'll go find a pump and see if I can deflate my windbag.

-Tony

William Haskins said:

okay then.
i won't comment on the "amateur" issue because, quite frankly, i don't concern myself with commerce as it relates to poetry....

Click to expand...

Ok, so help me out here . . . you weren't commenting on "amateur" poetry when you said, "poetry is dead." Correct?

And you don't concern yourself with commerce as it relates to poetry. So, does that mean that you were referring to literary poetry, when you said, "poetry" is dead?

William Haskins said:

but poetry's value being reduced to a "means of self-identity" doesn't exactly make me want to do back flips

Click to expand...

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. I've been watching the growing movement of what I like to call "outsider" poetry (as in "outsider" or "naive" art when the terms are applied to visual arts), and I'm not doing back flips over the concept either. It's just something I became fascinated with as a social movement, every since I read Mona Van Duyn's address to the Library of Congress as U.S. Poet Laureate in 1993. http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/s_z/van%20duyn/popular.htm

I was just interested in your opinion. Wondering if you "truly" thought that poetry was dead, how do you feel about the growing number of "outsider" poets filling the vacuum? Truly if poetry is dead, I would think it would have created a tremendous vacuum--the deafening swish of our brains being sucked out of our heads through our eyes and ears!

See, not sniping at all, just trying to get you to expand your definition of poetry, so I could determine whether or not we agree with the concept that not all poems, poets or poetry are equal.

That said . . . What's dead and what's alive?

Consider this, Alpha:

The rise of "outsider" poetry is the death of poetry as a studied and cultivated art form.

Does that help you any?

pconsidine said:

Consider this, Alpha:

The rise of "outsider" poetry is the death of poetry as a studied and cultivated art form.

Does that help you any?

Click to expand...

Yep! Helps a lot. I've decided to write an essay based on the theme that

poetry has been dying its whole life. I'm taking the side of Donald Hall--the

doomsayers are dead wrong--as per his essay at the following link.

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16222


Hall's essay is from 1989, and I think there is plenty new fuel for a refreshed

version. Plus, there appears to still be a large audience for the topic, based

on the over 2,300 hits William's thread has gathered just since the 17th of

June.


Besides, I detect several sour notes on this thread, including my own, so I'm

heading off to do what I do best--make lemonade!

aboyd said:

Not quite -- that makes it sound like computers would make excellent poets. I don't think "what makes a poem" is rigidly defined, but I do think there are a few fundamentals that really help sway me in that direction.

For example, on my own site, I have one person in particular who has posted long paragraphs of text in the poetry forum. The "poems" do not have line breaks, do not have stanzas, do not have meter, do not rhyme, do not have even a melodic tone when read aloud, and do not appear to be "the best words in the best order." So do you see what I mean? It's not hitting any bar, so I have a hard time getting past the classification, much less getting into the details of implementation.

You put quotes around a whole lot of text there. Are you suggesting that I implied all of that, or was some of it supposed to be your response?

In any case, regardless of whether those words were supposed to be in your mouth or mine, I don't agree with the sentiment. It's a false dilemma. The options are not limited to "heart without talent" and "talent without heart." There are at least two others, "no heart and no talent" and "talent and heart." For me, of those four options, I would say they all lead to dreck, except for "talent and heart." I personally admire another variation, "no talent, lots of heart, lots of research, lots of training." In other words, I know quite a few poets who have no natural ability with poetry, but they doggedly learned the craft, and brought up their writing in the process.

I don't know. I'm not proposing such a thing.

But see, the reader isn't having the orgasm, they're just watching the writer have an orgasm. So it really matters how well that writer can express the orgasm. Someone who has an orgasm and expresses it with this...

...just isn't doing anything for me. I've got to set the bar higher -- fewer typos, some kind of structure, less sloppiness, more inventiveness. For example, and just to prove that I'm not terribly rigid, I think E. E. Cummings wrote a great and clever sex poem that gets me charged when I read it.

-Tony

Click to expand...

Okay, first off, let me say I probably misunderstood you. You have a high standard, and probably far higher than I'd measure up to. Nonetheless, I understand, because I feel the same way about people who play guitars that are out of tune and can't tell they are out of tune. If they are a good player, why not find a great sound?

As a basketball player, I always hated playing competative basketball with guys who didn't care if we won or not. I'm not saying that's healthy, but when you grew up playing on ghetto courts, you don't mess around. If you lost a game on those courts, you might not get a chance to play again that day, because there might be fifty guys or more sitting on the sidelines, waiting to play the winner.

Yet, in tennis, because I stunk, nothing mattered. Anyone with a half decent serve could beat me. So, my standards are relative, and I guess I could drive someone crazy as a poet.

In a sense, my attempt at poetry is like my tennis. I feel I have nothing but honesty and feelings, not polished skill. However, I could do rhyme all day long, because it's like writing songs. That's the one kind of poetry I might be able to at least pretend to know what I'm doing.

But I've tried not doing rhyme on the poetry thread, except in the Cat in the Hat type address to William. I'm trying to grow by doing what I'm not comfortable doing.

However, in terms of meter, I'll say this; because I've structured songs before, what I write on the paper may not translate to the reader, unless it is read outloud. Some things might be lost in translation, because performed poetry is different than written, insofar as there can be a theater type dynamic.

On torment: In my area, I've seen poetry slams, and most of the poets tend to fall into the "outsider" category, round pegs in a square-hole world. Of the ones I know personally, all of them have gone through major pain at some point in their lives. So, I tend to know poets who fit the "Tormented Poet" picture, and in fact, these are the majority of poets I know.

So, perhaps my stereotype is based on a limited experience.