Ask-a-Poet

re: post 20 (as a member of the audience)

"there exist different strata of "getting it."" WHaskins

Pure genius, in my little book.

Kborsden, re: post #23

Very interesting. You triggered a question, for me. Historical, I would think that the types of early music, particularly chant, and the historical progression of mathematical understanding would have been two huge influences in the developments concerning formal writing, which were probably first related to religion/worship and the development of symbolic representation of count.

Any thoughts?

re: kdnxdr (post#27)

kdnxdr said:

Kborsden, re: post #23

Very interesting. You triggered a question, for me. Historical, I would think that the types of early music, particularly chant, and the historical progression of mathematical understanding would have been two huge influences in the developments concerning formal writing, which were probably first related to religion/worship and the development of symbolic representation of count.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I did mention religion as an influence

kborsden said:

Alliterated verse lived for a long time and through many centuries adapted to social, theological and economic climates. Add to this the decades of bastardisation from foreign influences until the ‘new poetry’ (what we consider formal verse) became fashion

Click to expand...

Organised religion is also younger than poetry, and it's important to understand that such religious aspects came very late to Britain in comparison with Europe. There are many ancient poetic forms and you could argue that scripture itself is a form of poetry. Before religion there was battle and heroism, nobility in strength etc -- in my opinion, these were more likely the first things such songs were written about.

Foreign poetry in particular seems to have been influenced by syllabic measure and mathematics earlier than English poetry. It's those classical metres that alliterated verse and its relatives were adapted to, for whatever reason, be it a strive for authenticity or to match the heritage of the foreign counterparts, expressionism and experimentalism and so forth.

Arabic and Grecian poetry were the most related to mathematical ideals, but this is understandable given their advanced society compared to the ancient Celts -- again, these ideals are what English poets of their time wanted to emulate. We even pinched all their terminology. Our reference of syllabic accentuation uses terms which referred to long and short syllables, not volume or emphasis, but we had nothing else to use as a measuring stick with any great consistency. In this sense, English poetry is heavily bastardised through foreign influences, more so than religious ones.

to kborsden, re: post #17

kborsden said:

Question for Poetinahat:

In discussing what constitutes a poem, do you believe the purpose of the poem, or of poetry in general outweighs any other description of individual elements such as imagery, form, figurative/linguistic devices and phonology?

Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand the question: to paraphrase, are you asking whether the spirit is more important than the body in defining poem-ness?

Again, I'm reminded of an anecdote. Scene: anatomy class. The professor has a particular scorn for spiritual beliefs. He proceeds to dissect a cadaver, showing the students each organ as he goes. Then, when he's done, he asks smugly, "Now, I ask you, class... where, in this catalog of items, is the soul?"

One hand is raised, and the student, subdued, replies: "Where, sir, is the life?"

The tools aren't more important than the product, but they might separate it in definition from prose - they certainly enable it to function.

kborsden said:

And, if so (for both William and Rob), what do you see as being the true purpose of poetry?

Click to expand...

There might be many, and there might be none. I can talk about why I write poems, but that's just me. I know others write them for many different reasons, and they're a lot different from mine.

One of my big hangups in life is the preoccupation I see with everything's having to have a purpose. Part of that is that I don't have any notion of a calling in life - at forty-seven, I have no idea what I want to be when I grow up. So purposes can be difficult for me to grasp.

kborsden said:

(for Mag, Rob and William). Is that purpose what we see poetry doing today? Or can the role of poetry evolve/devolve?

Click to expand...

I don't think that it's just poetry that's evolving/devolving or 'dying', as has been said. It's happening to all art; it's flourishing, but because it's more accessible, the overall standard has dropped. That's simply because we see more of it, not just the creme de la creme. Same with painting, architecture, music, or what-have-you.

Also, the notion of What Art Is has been challenged very strongly in the last two hundred years (think of the Impressionists, the Fauves, the Dadaists, the Beats, the Existentialists, the Constructivists, and the Jazz Musicians). So opinions are more diverse and more prevalent. Well, that's my theory.

When people think of poets, they still think either of gifted aesthetes, academics, or effete poseurs. But the word 'poem' still carries cachet; it still connotes art, beauty and expression.

to Perks, re: post #19

Perks said:

So my question is: is this something you worry about when writing poetry? On a scale from one to ten, how attached are you to the idea of the reader having the intended experience? Or is it more about crafting the thing, and the reader's interpretation being viewed as an entirely separate exercise?

Click to expand...

GREAT question.

I love the process of crafting the thing. Making a poem - the message, the music, the taste; letting it sit, then coming back and seeing the flaws with rested eyes, and fixing them; gives me joy.

More joy comes from learning how other people read it. If they get it the way I meant it, I'm ecstatic. On the other hand, If they find flaws I didn't see, or if they find meanings I didn't put in, I'm thrilled as well.

I'd say that, for reader's experience, I have to put a 10. (eta: that is *not* to say that I put "crafting the thing" as a 1; the two are strongly correlated for me. If I haven't enjoyed writing it, I'm pretty sure the readers won't like reading it anyway.)

I believe that caring about the intended experience is vital to prosody. If the poet doesn't care what I, as a reader, will think, I won't even start with it. Why would I? If the poet doesn't care how I react to it, chances are very high that I won't react well.

I can find accidental beauty anywhere. I want to be shown something beautiful and strange. The operative phrase is "I want to be shown".

Well, I guess there's my answer to Kie's previous question; that's my purpose for poetry.

For all the poets:

All these questions have pat answers -- if I could've designed 'em better I woulda. Still, I think you're all are smart guy and girl type girls and guys, so you'll dig me when I say I'm looking for honesty and a step beyond the obvious. I want truth and I want to gain insight into poetry and the poets that write it.

Get me?

1 - What, if any, critical perspectives do you adopt when reading or writing a piece of poetry?

2 - Do you see any beauty in the banal?

3 - Should a poet deconstruct her own poetry?

4 - Is a poem really a headbutt?

5 - Does form, like censorship, make for a more precise and deeper work than something free form and uncensored?

Like I said, these are kick off questions, feel free to bend them a bit. Obvious answers will be questioned until the questions become more precise and the answers become more accurate.

Make sense? No? Go!

re: HarryHoskins (post#31)

HarryHoskins said:

What, if any, critical perspectives do you adopt when reading or writing a piece of poetry?

Click to expand...

I like rhythm, unique phrase, a fresh look at something tired or familiar. I don't like overly familiar wording, or reading poetry that assumes the reader is an idiot or anything other than the poet's equal.

I scan for grammar, spelling, clever use of phonics and line structures, internal phrasework, sub-text, anything interesting.

I expect the same from my own poetry. That doesn't mean I impose on others that they write the same as me, but I do expect something... to come away with something afterwards.

HarryHoskins said:

Do you see any beauty in the banal?

Click to expand...

I see more beauty in the banal than anywhere else. What's so special about what you're told is special? The most beautiful things are often the most simple... just as humility is the most endearing quality.

HarryHoskins said:

Should a poet deconstruct her own poetry?

Click to expand...

Yes, always before and after anyone else will or has. <sarcasm>

HarryHoskins said:

Is a poem really a headbutt?

Click to expand...

Literally, no. Figuratively, depends what you're writing. Aggressive or high-paced poetry, maybe. Also depends on concept and subject matter, the poet's goal and ultimately the poet.

I'm not the type that wants to 'headbutt' my reader. I'd rather gift my reader a unique, sonorous experience.

HarryHoskins said:

Does form, like censorship, make for a more precise and deeper work than something free form and uncensored?

Click to expand...

I've already answered this in response to William. In addition to my previous answer, I'll say that writing to form can be deceptive. I've noticed through my teaching that there is a form for everyone, one form that a poet seems to flourish in. I think what happens there is that while writing to a template, the concentration shifts, possibly thoughts become somewhat more organised, especially if you've written to the same method a few times, but overall, it's about voice. If a poet finds their voice in formal poetry, so be it, but if they find it in free verse, just as good. That doesn't mean they should stick to that, there should always be room to diversify and experiment; it's the only way we as poets can really be sure that we're being true to ourselves in what and why we write.

Question for William

You say that you see the poetry-affectionado populace as in decline or shrinking, ultimately, poetry as a dying art.

Do you think the growing attitude that poetry as a personal endeavour may contribute to this in some way?

Can the decline of poetry in the public eye be blamed, in part on poets taking poetry away from the public eye to begin with?

poetinahat said:

Let me make sure I understand the question: to paraphrase, are you asking whether the spirit is more important than the body in defining poem-ness?

Click to expand...

In a way, yes. But more in the sense of if a poem can be technically excellent but miss the most defining point of poetry and thus cease to be a poem. In other words, is it the writing of the poem that makes it a poem, or the idea, the drive, concept or purpose, whatever...

but you answered that rather nicely in your reply to another question later on, so

to Harry, re: Post #31

HarryHoskins said:

1 - What, if any, critical perspectives do you adopt when reading or writing a piece of poetry?

Click to expand...

When writing

I remind myself that the poem is going to be read. The goal is to write and revise it so that someone who doesn't know my thoughts will feel what I want them to will perceive the images and impressions I pictured as I wrote them.

Before that, though, I decide who the intended audience is - what they're like, what knowledge or experience I can assume, the context in which they're likely to come into contact with my poem. For example, is it going to be read at a wedding, published in a literary journal, or found in a dresser drawer?

When reading

I try to be a blank canvas, to empty myself of my own predisposition, then, if appropriate, take on the context - say, the life and circumstances of the poet at the time - and just read the poem.

HarryHoskins said:

2 - Do you see any beauty in the banal?

Click to expand...

Some of my favorite subjects are banal ones. Art can bring out beauty in anything; witness the long history of still-life painting.

eta: Banality of the subject may even serve to emphasise the beauty of the artwork itself by not competing for attention.

I see a lot of banality in beauty too, as it happens.

HarryHoskins said:

3 - Should a poet deconstruct her own poetry?

Click to expand...

If she wants to, sure.

Must a poet be able to deconstruct her own poetry? Well, I think an artist ought to be able to demonstrate skill through control in the creative process. The poet should be able to say "this is what I meant to do, and this is how I achieved it". But that's not the same as deconstruction.

HarryHoskins said:

4 - Is a poem really a headbutt?

Click to expand...

42

HarryHoskins said:

5 - Does form, like censorship, make for a more precise and deeper work than something free form and uncensored?

Click to expand...

How does censorship make for a more precise and deeper work? Is it synonymous in this case with editing or revision? Or does this refer to a poet's censoring the inner voice? Something else? I'm not comfortable with the idea of censorship being viewed as a creative device.

Now, about form: Forms are devices, and they can be used to great advantage. But they are no guarantee. Nor is the absence of form.

I write both, when I think it's appropriate - but it depends on the form, too, and if a known form doesn't suit, the poet is always free to make one up and use it. So I don't see form as restrictive.

Form encourages greater control of words and rhythm, and it provides a framework, a starting point, that can be helpful or even inspirational.

I think I've said before that there are plenty of bad formal poems and bad free-form poems, but it's much easier to write a bad free-form poem.

RE: Haskins Post #32

William Haskins said:

. . . views on the relative pros and cons of live readings vs. the "words on the page" aspects of poetry?

Click to expand...

Love this thread!! Will respond to this in about 10 hours as I have to go to work (again!!). Also I've been immersed in my duties as a parental unit these past couple days and haven't been able to do more than dip my toes into the lovely breadth of topics so far.

My immediate reply to the question is that I like to hear, read and speak poems that are able to be appreciated in both "aural" and "visual" realms. More later.

Did I already say, "Great Thread"!!???

a question for william

i saw you post the link to this yesterday;
So You Want To Be A Writer
(Charles Bukowski)

the sentiments in bukowski's poem are in stark contrast to your maybe tomorrow.
i'm curious, how do they really come for you? do poems burst out of you in spite of everything or does the "idiot in you" force them out sometimes?


i have no talent for poetry but for some reason i want it.


anyone else on the panel willing to chime in i'd be interested.

To William/and whomsoever else would like to respond:

It seems to me that I've heard reference to, in so many different contexts, the poet as someone who is especially sensitive or possibly even "strange" in some way.

Do you think that poets do, in fact, have a special sensitivity, or sense, about them that sets them apart from the way other groups tend to experience/contemplate/think about life and it's myriad of experiences/meanings?

re: kdnxdr (post#40)

kdnxdr said:

Do you think that poets do, in fact, have a special sensitivity, or sense, about them that sets them apart from the way other groups tend to experience/contemplate/think about life and it's myriad of experiences/meanings?

Click to expand...

No. I just think the act of sitting down to write about it sets that experience apart. When someone else reads it, they experience it because of their own familiar reference or own experience of the same/similar in the way which suits it to them.`

While it is true that there have been many examples of poets through history being 'a little bit odd', whether we define that oddness in modern terms as savantism, or mental illness, or whether it because of other actors such as alcoholism or substance abuse. I don't think it's a prerequisite for being poet -- I do think that poetry attracts such types (i.e. myself and those who attend my class).

a question for kdnxdr

Poetry is inherently an intensely personal genre, but also, I think, very communal and connected to its past. What are your thoughts on being a poet in those terms. In other words:

What, to you, are the important aspects of:
- operate independently
- working in a community of poets
- stand on the shoulders of those who came before

?

poetinahat said:

Poetry is inherently an intensely personal genre, but also, I think, very communal and connected to its past. What are your thoughts on being a poet in those terms. In other words:

What, to you, are the important aspects of:
- operate independently
- working in a community of poets
- stand on the shoulders of those who came before

?

Click to expand...

Phew!
I think, as individuals, poets (or anyone choosing to express themself) operate independently, in that the expression comes from the person expressing. And, because I do believe that each individual has unique characteristics, even if they are an endless succession of recombinations, that individuality is what, I think, is commonly referred to as "finding our voice". The first squall is part of that evolution that involves our very base self to whatever/whomever we morph into and continues until we stop morphing. I think there is something about being a self that, by nature, needs to express itself. So yes, one layer of the onion is exclusively self expression that emminates solely from the self.

Personally, "working in a community of poets" can have so many different looks about it. Look at us AW-poetry-forumers, we are a bunch of poets "working in a community of poets" and WOW!, look at the benefits of doing so, it's priceless. The encouragement, the scrutiny, the harrassement, the support, the education, the enlightment, the vicarious experiences, the challenges.......need I go on?? But, as you all answered my previous question, there are different dynamics for different poets, different muses, crutches, inspiration......some don't seem to need others. Being a loner is a rough row to hoe, at least for me. I also have my own thought that even those that attempt to operate in the singular, do so as an anti-statement, playing against what they perceive the other to be, if that makes any sense, and so, they need the other, even if by rejecting him/her/them.

In my belief system, the past, present and future are inseperable. I believe they are functioning at all times, simultaneously. Time is one atom for me that just doesn't split, though you can emphasize one over the others to give focus to what you want to say, but, always, in the background, it just takes a little tense change to shift the focus. There is always, for me, "a going away from, a now moment, and a going towards. That's just the way I roll. That said, I don't believe any expression by anyone is "first case". Oh, we might go back to the first utterance of a particularity, but I do believe, whatever that first instance might be, it was born out of something previous to it. I really do believe that we are in a constant state of rehashing, retelling, refashioning, and regurgitating, but with our own personal signature thrown in, one way or another.

Lot's of people might not agree with me. But, you asked me, and I gave you my best answer.

Question for all:

I've seen so many different kinds of programs/events such as poetry slams, poem presentations that incorporate music/dance, poems on buses......all kinds of stuff that indicates that our culture overall does want to keep poetry around....I've even seen advertisements that use it.

I'm curious as to what public poetry events you've enjoyed?
What public presentations would you like to see happen?

....and a very honest person.

RE: Haskins #32 Part II

given this, what are your views on the relative pros and cons of live readings vs. the "words on the page" aspects of poetry?

Click to expand...

I've never been to a "Poetry Slam" but I have done a few readings of my work at local groups and I enjoyed it.As I mentioned earlier, I love to hear poetry as well as read it, and I think the combination of the two is The Best! As in, when I hear a familiar poem read (especially by the poet, as in A Century of Recorded Poetry, a CD of famous poets reading their poems) it's almost like the relationship I have with pop tunes (&/or Dylan & Bono lyrics) -- the verbal combines with the aural and visual and becomes an extememly satisfying endeavor.

But, I'm not at all interested in Poetry as a Competitve Performance, which some "Slams" accentuate. In that sense I would be troubled by a particular poem being designated as "best" and, no doubt, would not agree with the majority.
Not to contradict my previous statement, but if the "performer" or the "performance" of a piece somehow out-weighed the overall merits of the poem, I would be bummed that the more meaningful (but less-well performed?) poem was left behind in the rush of popular appeal, so to speak.

So I guess I'd prefer the "words on the page" to have already been appreciated so that the live reading aspect enhances the experience.

As usual, I want to have it both ways!!
Thanks for asking.

http://murphguide.com/poetry.htm

http://dfwopenmics.com/

http://chicagopoetry.com/