Emotion and poetry

[bronzeage]

First: pinches herself to make sure she is really here. Ouch! Ok good, onward then.

It may be there are as many definitions for poetry as there are poets. I loved Angeline's thorough response and find I agree with her.

The question you posed that I find most interesting is:
"Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?"

In learning to write, we are taught to always consider our "audience". Does this mean our communication must be "received"? Must there be a "receiver" at all? I keep a journal and have many poems scrawled there which I don't necessarily plan on sharing. They are like diary entries. (Of course, whenever someone puts "pen to paper" they must realize what they've written might/could/probably will be found and read someday.) But is that always taken into consideration when one begins writing?

Didn't Emily Dickinson's sister find nearly 1000 poems in her bureau after she passed away? Did Miss Dickinson intend for those poems to be read? And even if a writer IS addressing an audience, might they, at times, never intend for their words to be read?

If a poem is written in a forest, but no one ever reads it, is it still a poem?

Just some thoughts swirling around in my noggin,
~softsmile

You have hit upon the greatest division in poetry. Some poems are written only for the writer and some are written for an audience. The first type only has to satisfy the writer and it does not matter why. The second type must communicate. This is its purpose. Its success or failure is subjective. If there is an infinite number of definitions of poetry, the same poem can succeed and fail, an infinite number of times.

 

[bogusagain]

"[a]rt must generate a strong reaction; even the viewer's revulsion means it's good."

I earn my living from fine art and I am well aware of this sentiment in the art world. I often apply the idea to poetry but sometimes I feel there is a different cultural attitude in poetry where the emphasis is more on technical ability that audience (reader) reaction.

 

[butters]

hello, poetguy - late to the thread, i'll answer as i can

[*]Must a poem attempt (not all poems are successful, of course) to induce some kind of feeling in the Reader, i.e. an emotional response?
i don't write from that perspective - i want my poem to speak in its own voice, and if it moves me then hopefully it might others. perhaps my own writing is art for art's sake rather than anyone other reason. i would regard a poem that can stir others emotionally to be more a success than one that didn't. having said that, some poems are a bit sly, and stir with a subtle finger, their effects felt after the event...


[*]Assuming that one could be written, would a poem that induced a purely intellectual response not be a valid poem? What would it be, then?
is there any such thing as a purely intellectual response? a poem might not play on ones heart-strings, but a well-crafted work that appeals to the intellect for its information/style/wit still brings about an emotional response for me as a reader... it will make me experience a certain sense of pleasure/satisfaction/admiration having read it. a poem totally devoid of ability to make me feel anything, anything at all, that would be a failure - for me. quite possibly it'd be enjoyed by another reader who's bringing a different set of experiences and expectations to the table.



[*]What about a poem whose focus was more or less purely sonic? Is that not a poem? For example, a nonsense poem or something like a silly Dr. Seuss-like poem--if these are not poems, what are they?
again, why would this make it bereft of emotional impact? it would most likely make me feel satisfied and even happy, pleased to have read it for the music of the sounds alone and, beyond that, the experience of having read a well-crafted write. we learn from reading the work of others.



[*]What of light or humorous verse (e.g., limericks, double dactyls)? Is laughter or amusement sufficient "feeling" for these to be poems? What if a limerick isn't funny? Is it then not a poem?
of course! if a poem intended to be humorous makes you smile, then it has achieved something. if it doesn't, then it flops for the individual reader but that isn't the same as saying the poem is not a poem. the fault (if we're to label it as such) might be within the reader's own perceptiveness. a simply dreadful limerick i.e doesn't scan/make me smile/rhyme/has a caustic observation... if it has none of those, and it's not a deliberate, clever parody (which would likely make me smile anyway) then it's probably just plain bad and fails.



[*]Must the Author share the feeling he or she is trying to induce in the Reader? If the Author does not share the feeling, is the poem false?
it's satisfying when the reader tunes into what the writer intends to express, but it can be a pleasant surprise to see where a reader goes with a write... what they bring to the shared table will colour how they view what any of us write, and it can take them to interesting places it's fun to hear about. if no one 'gets' what i'm attempting to show, it can be a bit worrying that's when i'll look again at the poem and ask it if it's true to itself. if it is, it stays the way it's written. if i can clarify/focus areas to improve the communication of what it wants to say, then i do - if i find the time



[*]If the poem induces a feeling, but that feeling is a common one (sadness, for example, in a poem about a dying loved one) is that better than a poem that conveys understanding (or even questioning) of an abstract concept (something political, perhaps)?
for me, the latter would be a more successful poem, but there are times when a reader just wants to experience that simple, one-dimensional 'have-this' emotion served up to them. personally, i rarely find that enough. IF a poem can convey happiness, though, that sense of real joy, and it leaves me smiling - well then i don't really care about all the other clever stuff. it's a winner because it leaves me moved to happiness!



[*]Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?
oooh, now there's the rub.... a poem 'puts it out there' if it is a decent poem. as 1201 implies, a sort of mission - we, as writers, mostly hope the missive will be intercepted, read, experienced, and received as a communiqué... for some this matters less than others. i write because i write - it's not essential for me to share, but i enjoy doing so. enjoy it even more if i get the 'letter' back saying whatever i have written was well-received.

if we're to speak of fault, then each poem (and then its author) must be held up to scrutiny... the jury will always be out debating that one, i'm thinking. it's said a poem is a new poem each time it is read, and especially when read by a different person ... the intersection of writer and reader through the medium of the poem is what differs, and so each event would have to be judged separately... waaaaaaaayyyy too complicated. we all know there are poems that sucketh big time, and readers that wouldn't understand an indirect concept if their lives depended on it. that's why i can't bring myself to put the reader first when i write, or - at least - not 'all' the readers... i guess i place myself as 'the reader' as i write, and it has to satisfy me. i am aware that this might sound a selfish way to write and runs the danger of excluding other readers who don't share enough common ground for a write to work for them. i can live with that. who can possibly set out to write a poem that will communicate with every single reader at the same level? someone will probably now show me a whole host of examples would that make it a GREAT poem, or a homogeneous one?

to sum up, if anything i write makes people feel stuff and think and question, then i consider it a success.

 

[naughty4Daddy]

Just a personal opinion.

On a certain level, I don't think a poet has to draw strong, passionate and intense emotions from his/her readers per se, but I do think the audience have to be affected or influenced. If the poem doesn't evoke any feeling or reaction from the reader at all, it probably means you should keep it to yourself because only you would care.

If you put it aside for a while, then pick it up to read and find out that even you don't care yourself, then it probably isn't a good poem - have had that happen to me before haha.

 

[twelveoone]

From dictionary.com:

com·mu·ni·cate   
[kuh-myoo-ni-keyt]
verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to impart knowledge of; make known: to communicate information; to communicate one's happiness.
2. to give to another; impart; transmit: to communicate a disease.
3. to administer the Eucharist to.
4. Archaic . to share in or partake of.

–verb (used without object)
5. to give or interchange thoughts, feelings, information, or the like, by writing, speaking, etc.: They communicate with each other every day.
6. to express thoughts, feelings, or information easily or effectively.
7. to be joined or connected: The rooms communicated by means of a hallway.
8. to partake of the Eucharist.
9. Obsolete . to take part or participate.​

Surely this seems a normal, and understandable, usage of the word for poetry, for one of the supposed purposes of a poem?

If you still object, perhaps you could clarify. The phrase "one way diplomatic mission" is charming and evocative, but to Poet Guy seems an overly complicated way of saying "communicate."

Because it implies "Communication"
form google

Communication is the activity of conveying information. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has "understood" the sender.
quotes mine.
and that opens up another wormhole
You use is apt for very bad poetry, lesser verse; the better the poetry, the less completely it is "understood" and the process is never completed.
The clarification process is not there. It is the reader that has to recreate what is there. The sender (writer) is out of the loop, so I question the effectiveness of this word regarding poetry vis a vis directionality.

 

[softsmile]

more...

I earn my living from fine art and I am well aware of this sentiment in the art world. I often apply the idea to poetry but sometimes I feel there is a different cultural attitude in poetry where the emphasis is more on technical ability that audience (reader) reaction.

You have hit upon the greatest division in poetry. Some poems are written only for the writer and some are written for an audience. The first type only has to satisfy the writer and it does not matter why. The second type must communicate. This is its purpose. Its success or failure is subjective. If there is an infinite number of definitions of poetry, the same poem can succeed and fail, an infinite number of times.

bogusagain, What kind of art do you make? Do you find creating fine art offers you more freedom from consideration of your audience than writing poetry does?

bronzeage, I'm wondering if there might be some value in examining the different Writer/Audience relationships?:

WRITER > AUDIENCE
1. >self "the id" (expecting other/s to read it)
2. >self "the id"(not expecting other/s to read it, therefore not taking into consideration the audience)
3. >other/s (expecting other/s to read it)
4. >other/s (not expecting other/s to read it, also not taking into consideration the audience)

Pretty simplified... am I forgetting anything?

 

[twelveoone]

Does that mean that, for example, Snodgrass has to become, say, Goebbels or Speer or Goering in The Fuehrer Bunker? If he/she is trying to mock someone, or parody them, or make them out to be horrors of some kind, but writes the poem in their first-person voice, does he or she have to try and live their awfulness?

That seems an extreme demand to Poet Guy, but perhaps it is what is required.

Poet Guy does not think it is required, but acknowledges that he may be wrong.

Complete misread, they must live what they are trying to induce.
If if in the first person they are trying to be Goebbels, they better try to be him, during the draft, and he better be over the editor's shoulder.

WickedEve, one of the finest writers here had something called "Bread", just never rang true to me. She had one or two that had these false notes. She also had to be read twice at least, because your (the reader's) perspective changed. She was that good. You can't "communicate" as I understand that word. The poem lives, she had that knack. I've written things that can be read more than one way. am aware of what can be induced in certain audiences, what they will miss.
I know you wanted to avoid this, but generalizations only go so far. She was best when she was herself, but she induced
, her so-called poetry trances. Her poems, I probably saw something most people missed because I operate in a similar area. I'm sure greenmountaineer saw something different in areas closer to him, and both of us weren't looking for "porn" parts, at least not entirely. This goes back to "communication" problem.
What was she trying to say. Simple, she said it in a poem.

 

[bronzeage]

...
bronzeage, I'm wondering if there might be some value in examining the different Writer/Audience relationships?:

WRITER > AUDIENCE
1. >self "the id" (expecting other/s to read it)
2. >self "the id"(not expecting other/s to read it, therefore not taking into consideration the audience)
3. >other/s (expecting other/s to read it)
4. >other/s (not expecting other/s to read it, also not taking into consideration the audience)

Pretty simplified... am I forgetting anything?

Most of my poetic theory is due to a poor education. When people start slinging numbers and quasi-Greek/Italian words, I usually have no idea what they are saying.

I started writing poetry to impress girls. This was a specific and sometimes harsh audience. I definitely expected it to be read and I knew the reaction I wanted. I wanted my images to be very clear and straight forward, without ambiguity. This was for entirely selfish reasons.

 

[bogusagain]

bogusagain, What kind of art do you make? Do you find creating fine art offers you more freedom from consideration of your audience than writing poetry does?

I make everything from rather traditional etchings, paintings to rather conceptual time based work. There certainly seems to be far more freedom in the visual arts. You certainly get a far larger breadth of expression in art exhibited than poetry published and a far larger breadth of expression accepted. I think the difference is, the gatekeepers and the academics who would be the arbiters of taste don't have a strangle hold over the visual arts that they have over poetry. Or at least, such people are easier by-opassed and ignored in the visual arts.

I've attached a couple of random images from over a long period of time. Showing trhem imdividually is to show them out of context but you'll get an idea.

 

[butters]

I've attached a couple of random images from over a long period of time. Showing them individually is to show them out of context but you'll get an idea.

such striking and evocative images!

the girl's eyes in the b&w... echoing the black circles/holes...

the snake's elongated and featured snout... the expression on the female's face... but mostly the snake's head... has me wondering, looking deeper, wondering...

the first, 'green', a demanding picture... troubling and troubled, raw, like wearing mental turmoil on the outside... the force of green, the push of life. it makes me think 'stuff'.


thankyou for posting these for us.

 

[bogusagain]

the girl's eyes in the b&w... echoing the black circles/holes...

She was a girl called Yukiko I met in Kyoto at an exhibition, her eyes were alien, her eyes were both beautiful and disturbing because they were so unhuman, alien almost. She ended up at the Byam school of art up the Holloway Road the school of art at the top of all places. I think you are from London chip so I'm sure you will know the place. I was hyponitized by her because she was so other worldly. I've tried to write many a poem about her but just could'nt find the words. I did post some poems about her on Literotica but can't find them now but they were under my original handel bogusbrig but I can't find them now.

 

[The_Fool]

Is the poem meant to create a response in the reader or the writer?

Emotion is overrated.

Poetry is a pain in the ass.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

Good topic, PG.

My favorite poems are the ones that invoke some kind of emotional response in me though I've liked poems that seem more purely sonic or just make me think. I don't believe there's anything wrong with those kinds of poems: they can certainly be as good imo as "feely" poems. I just don't personally respond to them as strongly. And I think my best poems are those that make the reader feel something--positive or negative, though I believe they are most likely to evoke a wistful, yearning feeling or a sadness in readers. I don't really try to write em that way--it's just how they come out.

Amusement in a poem is fine, too, but my experience is that poems that have nothing (or little) more than funny to them (like limericks, for example) aren't substantive, and so don't hold much interest for me. That doesn't mean they're not good. They're just not typically nuanced--although some examples like certain double dactyls I've seen written here and the wonderful wry "grooks" by Piet Hein seem to have more substance to me. In general though I suspect that a poem needs to be a certain kind of funny--like ironic funny--to have more to it.

As for a poet saying (in essence) "this is how I feel" in a poem, well lol my opinion is that usually will not make for good poetry. Any kind of explanation, to me, is not effective. One of my all-time favorite poems is Yeats' The Wild Swans at Coole. There is not a thing in that poem that says outright what the narrator is feeling, and yet all the metaphor and imagery work to evoke strong feelings in me as a reader. When I write, that's the sort of thing I'm aiming at.

Do poems have to communicate? How are we defining communication? Every poem says something, even if it says it badly. Some poems (like Browning's dramatic monologues, for example) seem like they're really trying to communicate, to tell the reader "listen to what I'm saying to you." But they don't have to be so clearly trying in order to achieve that. But some poems won't communicate to me: my experience as a reader is subjective relative to yours or anyone else's. A poem that communicates to you may do nothing for me and vice versa. So this communication thing seem very subjective to me.

This worries me somewhat as I have several amusing poems submitted and that's not counting limericks etc and I hope they are on some higher level than just being bits of nonsense. Surely any poem that doesn't make you squirm with embarrassment that it's even being called a poem or one that's so obscure it means next to nothing in the readers eyes meets the right criteria. I'm just glad that there are people on here that can write as I've been on some where complete drivel is the norm and what's more it's applauded as being the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Angeline]

This worries me somewhat as I have several amusing poems submitted and that's not counting limericks etc and I hope they are on some higher level than just being bits of nonsense. Surely any poem that doesn't make you squirm with embarrassment that it's even being called a poem or one that's so obscure it means next to nothing in the readers eyes meets the right criteria. I'm just glad that there are people on here that can write as I've been on some where complete drivel is the norm and what's more it's applauded as being the best thing since sliced bread.

I was only talking about my preferences and, as I said, I do think that some humorous poems can have substance, too. I just think it's a lot harder to make a funny poem also be substantive--at least I know that's true for me as a writer. But look at writers like Ogden Nash and even Dorothy Parker, who both wrote short, somewhat silly poetry that could also pack a punch. So, again, I'm not saying I believe funny poems have to be weighty (in some way) too in order to be good poems: just that's how I like them.

Anyway dear Annie this is a moot point because your work has shown me time and again that you can write a pretty wide range of poetry and do it well across types.

 

[twelveoone]

This worries me somewhat as I have several amusing poems submitted and that's not counting limericks etc and I hope they are on some higher level than just being bits of nonsense. Surely any poem that doesn't make you squirm with embarrassment that it's even being called a poem or one that's so obscure it means next to nothing in the readers eyes meets the right criteria. I'm just glad that there are people on here that can write as I've been on some where complete drivel is the norm and what's more it's applauded as being the best thing since sliced bread.

Muse is embedded in Amuse

even that sounds funny

but for a minute, I thought you were talking about Literotica

 

[softsmile]

thank you bogusagain!

I make everything from rather traditional etchings, paintings to rather conceptual time based work. There certainly seems to be far more freedom in the visual arts. You certainly get a far larger breadth of expression in art exhibited than poetry published and a far larger breadth of expression accepted. I think the difference is, the gatekeepers and the academics who would be the arbiters of taste don't have a strangle hold over the visual arts that they have over poetry. Or at least, such people are easier by-opassed and ignored in the visual arts.

I've attached a couple of random images from over a long period of time. Showing trhem imdividually is to show them out of context but you'll get an idea.

Wow! Thank you so much for sharing your art work! It's such a personal thing (a bit like poetry, and wearing one's heart on their sleeve when sharing it.) I found it hard to tear my eyes away from your "green" man. It was as though he was compelling me to "understand" his turmoil (like Mary Shelley's, "Frankenstein"), and if I just stared long enough, I might discover more. Or could it be he was shedding his skin? Molting? It almost looked as though he was going through an agonizing metamorphosis. The pins, trying to keep his head "together" seemed a small effort against his obvious "destructing", or maybe it was a "morphing" in the end?

The other piece that especially spoke to me was your figure drawing of the oriental woman. (And thank you for already filling in the background about her *smiles*) Interesting how you drew her in front of a target...sends a powerful message! And I really love how you made her left nipple the center of that target as well. I'm glad you told us about her eyes, you've rendered them just as you described, most hypnotic and unusual. Simple and elegant at the same time, I love the subtle sensuality. This one is my favorite.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

Muse is embedded in Amuse

even that sounds funny

but for a minute, I thought you were talking about Literotica

there's worse places than here believe you me lol at least drivel is recognized here for what it is and doesn't have every Tom, Dick and Harry patting them on the back for writing such wonderful poetry filled with deep meaning. Champ anf Butty know where I am talking about and bear this in mind, from what they tell me that used to be a good place to write until the drivel seekers took over so for goodness sake don't let that bug invade this place! Put up the barracades!

 

[softsmile]

Most of my poetic theory is due to a poor education. When people start slinging numbers and quasi-Greek/Italian words, I usually have no idea what they are saying.

I started writing poetry to impress girls. This was a specific and sometimes harsh audience. I definitely expected it to be read and I knew the reaction I wanted. I wanted my images to be very clear and straight forward, without ambiguity. This was for entirely selfish reasons.

I find nothing wrong with your poetic theory, bronzeage. Your streetwise comments carry weight! I love what you said here:

"Poetry is the guy who wears a shirt with "You're not the boss of me" printed across the front."

 

[twelveoone]

there's worse places than here believe you me lol at least drivel is recognized here for what it is and doesn't have every Tom, Dick and Harry patting them on the back for writing such wonderful poetry filled with deep meaning. Champ anf Butty know where I am talking about and bear this in mind, from what they tell me that used to be a good place to write until the drivel seekers took over so for goodness sake don't let that bug invade this place! Put up the barracades!

Hey, that's me! Too late.
Here is a good rule (which I break).
Don't bore too much, or too often. Sure killer.

How's the hubby?

 

[champagne1982]

I feel your pain...

Emotive responses well up whether I invite them or not. Does that make me a good reader or just an emotional wreck?

I figure 1201 may have it right, since I agree with him. A poet must have felt some sort of semblance to what they are attempting to evoke in the reader in order to be effective. So, funny is laughter, nice is the warmth that bogus wants to hurl (from?), love is inexplicable but so obvious, and in my view pain and sorrow hold similar places. To varying degrees everyone interprets things on different scales and assigns a unique value to them, therefore; art being art and poetry is a part of this, then it follows that it's all subjective anyway.

Read, write and read some more. Oh and try to be clearly out of focus... << purposeful ambiguity.

 

[twelveoone]

Emotive responses well up whether I invite them or not. Does that make me a good reader or just an emotional wreck?

I figure 1201 may have it right, since I agree with him. A poet must have felt some sort of semblance to what they are attempting to evoke in the reader in order to be effective. So, funny is laughter, nice is the warmth that bogus wants to hurl (from?), love is inexplicable but so obvious, and in my view pain and sorrow hold similar places. To varying degrees everyone interprets things on different scales and assigns a unique value to them, therefore; art being art and poetry is a part of this, then it follows that it's all subjective anyway.

Read, write and read some more. Oh and try to be clearly out of focus... << purposeful ambiguity.

Bah, ha, ha
I love you

 

[bronzeage]

I find nothing wrong with your poetic theory, bronzeage. Your streetwise comments carry weight! I love what you said here:

"Poetry is the guy who wears a shirt with "You're not the boss of me" printed across the front."

The back of the shirt says, "Love me for what I wrote for you."

 

[UnderYourSpell]

Hey, that's me! Too late.
Here is a good rule (which I break).
Don't bore too much, or too often. Sure killer.

How's the hubby?

the hubby is doing fine thank you, still bed ridden but can't sleep without me awwwww bless ....... I'm sleeping fine without the snoring

 

[softsmile]

Poetry says...

The back of the shirt says, "Love me for what I wrote for you."

Lol... I think we could start a whole thread for sentences that begin with "Poetry says..."

 

[twelveoone]

This statement reminds Poet Guy of a friend of his who owns an art gallery. This friend has said (this is very paraphrased, out of context, and probably filtered through Poet Guy's selective memory) something like "[a]rt must generate a strong reaction; even the viewer's revulsion means it's good."

Polite indifference is probably not a reaction many artists, even poets, would much care for. The emotion Poet Guy himself most dreads is boredom. He can read a poem that has some technical interest (or, for that matter, one written by someone he feels some kinship with) even if it evokes polite indifference.

He really cannot read poems that bore him. That's the killer.

Analyze your statement, Poetguy. What bores you? Why?
Invert the case, why would I think your poems are of interest? Possibly, some technical interest? A metered march to self indulgence? How can I not feel a "polite indifference". (if you're lucky?)
I would rather read something that is alive (read: new, as in make it...) though wounded, or even crippled, than a rhythmic induction to sleep.

The core of poetry is the words, everything revolves around the words, the relationship of the words with the other words and the reader.

Would you care to show me one poem that exists here that impressed you, outside your relatively narrow range, and illustrate the why?

Make my day,
namaste, my asste
POX
In short how many ways to write? Multiply that, gives you how many ways to read.