Poetry, prose, metre, stuff, to keep the other thread clean

[twelveoone]

or it's a scam to get grants
More
Financing
Assholes
you know the same crap that goes on for the common good.

 

[twelveoone]

Poems for the Betterment of Mankind
Poems for the Common Good
Poems that Cure Cancer

the problem with poetry is it ain't XBox, facebook or fast food

Here is a hot item, make any woman want you

NLP for Poetry.

 

[Tsotha]

Disclaimer: I understand almost nothing of what is being said. I have questions, if you're willing to answer.

My point has always been: prose poetry is fine, it works well describing small scenarios, to say things directly, but to be a consummate prose poet you're likely not going to say much of anything special.

1) What do you mean, "special"?

2) And why is a consummate prose poet not likely to say anything special?

3) Who is likely to say something special, then?

There are novels to say certain things and the space poetry provides is inadequate, unless you dedicate your time and energy into creating new metaphor, new ways of circling around that thing which can't be expressed in a novel's worth of words, ideas, images.

4) What is "that thing which can't be expressed in a novel's worth of words, ideas, images"? Can you provide an example (a poem) that presents such a thing?

5) Why is the space poetry provides inadequate to say certain things which are said in novels?

Sound works with metaphor in a certain way as to become a symbol beside itself, completely foreign to how words work in a story, speech, any other text.

6) You are saying that sound has a meaning in itself, that it becomes a symbol for meaning alongside metaphor. Is this correct?

If so, then I ask this question: by adhering to a specific form, what is the poet trying to achieve? Why does he choose to write a sonnet and not a triolet?

That's where I spend my time, finding out how an author is using sound and symbol, organization of words and lines. Where's the play action pass, the artistic misdirection, how many things are being said in how many ways? Poet as offensive coordinator, reader as quarterback with multiple options. Why does the poet choose to have an internal rhyme here and end the final line on a half-rhyme out of that internal rhyme and why do I enjoy it so much? I'm always glossing over that thing because it's very rare to come across exceptional poems and one needs that data set to mine and dissect.

I once said something like this:

"I like the poem, but I wouldn't have broken lines 3-4, it broke up the rhythm in a place where it wasn't adequate."

To which the response was:

"You ignorant fool, he is writing a <insert form's name here>"

So, yes. How, where and why. Why, why, WHY.

7) Where is the how, and the where, and the why in a fixed form? What does the "pure poet" hope to achieve by deciding to write a specific form? How can an arbitrary, fixed form possibly be the best choice to play alongside metaphor in a poem?

Now the problem I have is that some seem to use it as a "barrier of entry", a separation of the wheat from the chaff. If you have a tool, show us the utility, without the sanctimonious language.

Exactly. Tools, so many tools. You can paint the prettiest painting, with all those "sacred" tools, but if you're painting a bowl of fruit, it's still a shitty painting. No matter that you made it all flowery with iambs.

The barrier for entry, we know, we've talked about it. If you haven't read much poetry you won't know how to write an engaging poem for poets or non-poets.

If I can't paint photo-realistic fruit bowls, I can't paint an engaging picture? That's bullshit. The camera should have rendered painting irrelevant, then.

What is contained within poems that is passed to the student of poems?

8) Tell us, what is contained within poems? (I do not know.)

What are tools of the trade aka traditions that all newcomers must be initiated into if they'd like to tread the same hallow halls of TS Eliot or the fallow fields of Dylan Thomas?

9) I ask again: is poetry created only by adherence to a set of arbitrary rules?

10) If not, why must all newcomers be initiated into certain tools? What tools are those, and who decides? What is the purpose of those tools?

Is it that poetry is nothing particular, that a prose story must have certain details, look a certain way and follow a very narrow structure, but to say the same thing of poetry is heretic to the folks who mistook what the after-modernists were actually going on about?

11) What is the "very narrow structure" of prose? As far as I know, prose is anything from a technical manual to a movie script; that is, there is nothing at all "narrow" about it.

I mean, that thing we hear so often 'round these parts: 'No, you're wrong in your criticism, poetry is whatever I want it to be!'

12) What is poetry? I have started a thread, looking for an answer, but all the answers were subjective, and each person had a different idea. You, however, seem to have a clear notion of what it is, so I'm hopeful that your answer will finally sate my curiosity.

Every artist you can name was a serious student of a tradition before they created new traditions and forms. (...) It's plain lazy to think that you can be a great(or even passably competent) artist without being a great student and scholar of the arts.

13) What is a "great artist"?

14) What traditions should a "great artist" study? You've only cited poets from your language.

The intuitive creation, the artist who breaks the mold- is usually just cover-up for traditional thievery and a little ingenuity after years of study.

Yes, everything comes from something. It doesn't mean the "thievery" must come from artistic traditions. It can come from anything (and everything, if unconscious) in a person's life.

The reason the Beatles could jock the black american rock n rollers so well and craftily was precisely because they studied every record they could get their hands on inside and out, they learned the technique of what was burgeoning on widespread popularity and mastered it. How does Kaddish or Howl happen without Ginsberg dissecting WC Williams, without WC Williams studying Leaves of Grass?

The correlation between popularity and "greatness" is a result of your judgment of value. As I said, what is a great artist? Different people will have different answers.

People appear, ask for critique, get defensive when they're told they need to relax the cliche, be a little more creative...and it's because they have no concept of poetry.

They get defensive because of a mix of the following:

• The advice is being provided with no tact / compassion AND the work presented is too personal. Result: the feedback is seen as a personal attack.
  
• The advice is being given in a tone that makes it clear that the person receiving is unworthy / an idiot. The person giving advice is more interested in using the newbie to demonstrate how superior he is, than in actually helping.
• The advice is being given by a shitty teacher. Learning is like climbing a stair. Make a stair with steps too high, and some people won't be able to climb.

I'm not talking linearity, I'm talking studying a breadth of poetic technique before you go around presenting your own work as something worthy of critique.

You can no more learn how to write a poem by ONLY reading than you can learn to write a novel by ONLY reading. At some point you have to write a "poem". People ask for "critique" because they are trying to complete the feedback loop, to be told how they are doing — not necessarily because they think it's "worthy of critique" / "the best poem ever", but because they are learning.

Many don't stop to think about what they are doing, they don't read poems, they don't comment... They just write. That leaves the feedback loop broken, too. So I agree with you that "study" is important.

How can you free your mind of pre-conceptions about poetry if you have no concept of poetry beyond reading a handful of poems in school or a few poems online?

Agreed, it's good to read, and to learn.

The pre-conceptions of most of the people who post their poetry online is just plain-faced ignorance. If someone is asking for criticism and looking to write better poetry there is a blueprint out there.

15) Is poetry so pathetic that there is a "blueprint" for it? If so, I'll teach my computer to write it, so I can save everyone else the trouble.

The snobbery comes from folks who show up not just to show other people their poems, but actually interested in becoming a better poet and looking to engage but then saying, "No, I don't have to read poetry to become a better poet, you're an idiot stuck in the 19th century. In the 21st century we just write whatever we want and eventually it'll be good."

16) Who is saying that? What I do see being said is: "if you cannot tell me the purpose of your 19th century tool / tradition, then stop pestering me about how I'm a lesser poet."

I swear there is a technical paper out there ( I had it once) that most people recognise poetry as poetry only if it has end rhyme.

You don't need a paper to know that. Most people will not know what <something> is, unless <something> has meaning in their lives. Everyone knows what an airplane is, even if they don't know how to build one (or how it even manages to fly). People don't know what a poem is because they don't care, and they don't care because they are useless (to them).

Now the cliche, as I said most people don't think, the cliche is the least thoughtful thing you can possibly do, it has an audience because the audience doesn't think also. Breaking the pattern excites the audience, subvert it, invert it, pervert it but change the cliche. Make the dark as night "stark as night", "dark as mother's night", anything. Anytime you see a phrase you've seen before, think, does the next person really want to see "my love is like a red, red rose"? Get's old, like your mother's red red pantyhose, you really don't want to think about that now.

And then it goes straight over people's heads. Again, useless (to the reader).

The question always is: do you care that the reader doesn't understand? You're selecting your public.

poet > poem < reader

write her a poem full of cliches, see if it will be read.

Actually, yes, it will. It has a greater chance of being seen as "useful" by people (in general), since they'll actually be able to understand what the fuck is being said. Now, "poets", they are a tough crowd. Especially so those with their heads up their asses, set on showing the world how "great" they are.

Yep. It's the reason why poetry diappears up its own semi-colon. The idea that someone knows what poetry is and someone doesn't. The reality is, the readers decide, not the writers.

gentle giant
its head up in clouds
ba DUM is the sound
of his ass and his head
when they hit the ground

A question for bogusagain, again:

17) If some piece of art isn't popular, is it irrelevant?

18) What arms cradle the unpopular idea? The innovative idea, far beyond its time? The idea that critiques society? The idea that breaks ground, even if only after a person's death? If not art, then what?

So prose has the advantage of not having to follow ritual, the ceremony of rhythm and rhyme. There are no sacred forms that in and of themselves reflect something special about a few words strung together. There's no reason to read, reflect, meditate with the aid of meter and repetition.

19) What is the difference between prose and poetry?

The problem is the preparation isn't very good, there are no more road signs to adulthood. So why wouldn't you ask why poetry no longer serves most adults, or has anything to offer most people you know?

Many things which were important aren't important anymore. The world keeps changing, not always for the better.

Things become niche not necessarily because they are bad, but because people don't care about them. Hint: many people aren't nearly as smart as they think. Smart monkeys are actually pretty dumb. They are barely a step above hitting each other with clubs and throwing shit at each other.

Would someone who has never studied circuitry tell an electrical engineer that he doesn't know the organization of circuits when he's spent decades building circuitry? It's just so heinous that poets bad mouth their own learning and experience so readily.

You cannot possibly be comparing an exact science with something subjective like art.

The readers decide what goes in Bogusagain's poetry? Does that really make any sense?

Actually, yes, it does. Some sense.

My knowledge of art is pretty pathetic, but I do know that art was created as an expression of <something>. Decorating vases, weaving patterns into cloth, and later, some asshole who was king paid others to paint him or tell stories about how great he was.

So, originally it had the public in mind; all these past techniques must have made sense in the context in which they were used. The more the artist can sustain himself without needing to please a public, the further he can go into a state of complete disconnect from reality.

Which is cool, by the way — if you don't care about being disconnected from reality. As I said, not everything changes for the better. There is value in standing up for a niche idea.

Because poets don't write poetry that is relevant to people's experiences?

Sometimes they write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if they weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences. Like filling their mouths with fast-food and growing into fat fucks, instead of exercising and eating healthy.

 

[todski28]

Well Tsotha you have effectively asked every damn question I have been asking myself for near on 2years thanks for the time and effort you put in, hope some of those with answers can help enlighten

 

[twelveoone]

Quote:
Originally Posted by twelveoone
I swear there is a technical paper out there ( I had it once) that most people recognise poetry as poetry only if it has end rhyme.
You don't need a paper to know that. Most people will not know what <something> is, unless <something> has meaning in their lives. Everyone knows what an airplane is, even if they don't know how to build one (or how it even manages to fly). People don't know what a poem is because they don't care, and they don't care because they are useless (to them).

The paper I referred was written because the writer got a grant to right it, I have sarcastically referred to it in the past, because most people do not read poetry, anyway. Most people do not read much beyond texting and facebook, I agree with your statement.

 

[twelveoone]

Originally Posted by twelveoone
write her a poem full of cliches, see if it will be read.
Actually, yes, it will. It has a greater chance of being seen as "useful" by people (in general), since they'll actually be able to understand what the fuck is being said. Now, "poets", they are a tough crowd. Especially so those with their heads up their asses, set on showing the world how "great" they are.

In context this was presented it was a joke, not to be taken serious. Don't. Again to an extent I agree, however, the cliche does not cause people to think, it passes though unchallenged. It also makes for a rather boring poem. Do you wish to hear the same thing said over and over again? "War is Peace."

 

[twelveoone]

Quote:
Originally Posted by twelveoone View Post
Now the cliche, as I said most people don't think, the cliche is the least thoughtful thing you can possibly do, it has an audience because the audience doesn't think also. Breaking the pattern excites the audience, subvert it, invert it, pervert it but change the cliche. Make the dark as night "stark as night", "dark as mother's night", anything. Anytime you see a phrase you've seen before, think, does the next person really want to see "my love is like a red, red rose"? Get's old, like your mother's red red pantyhose, you really don't want to think about that now.
And then it goes straight over people's heads. Again, useless (to the reader).

The question always is: do you care that the reader doesn't understand? You're selecting your public.

poet > poem < reader

OOPs out of sequence.
We'll forget about "like your mother's red red pantyhose,"...
Now, Tsotha your English is very good, in my mind I think of you as an American, I forget. My apologies, for that and the ethno slur implied by the term "American", the US kind of co-empted both continents, didn't they. My guess you are Brazilian.
We will forget about cliches, for now.

The first question is difficult to answer. The second part. Yes. Every writer whether he likes it or not, writes to a select audience, because the audience selects the writing. A sonnet lover probably will not like my material, because if I write a sonnet it will not be recognised as such. I am aware of it. To get someone to read anything it must be interesting, so I use a few tricks to get it to be so. For some reason one of the most difficult you responded too. This worked, in this case.
poet > poem < reader

The question always is: do you care that the reader doesn't understand?
I have to understand it first, I have to give it enough so that the reader has something, they have to be interested, if they read it twice, all the better. That is all To completely understand a poem, a good poem, is impossible. An analogy:
Suppose we meet, talk for 20 minutes and you have an opportunity to either talk or not talk to me for another 20 minutes. Something must have happened, for the yes or no. Suppose you are interested enough to talk for another 20 and then another 20. In one hour you will not completely understand me. Hell, I don't even completely understand all the possibilities in half the poems I write.

I think I had three, is this to your satisfaction?

Look at again what you did with your poem, it is all there. You in effect did the same thing I do, you diagrammed on paper, I keep it in my head.

Warning, back it off a bit, it is like a chess game, and some of the great chess players get a little strange, and some went mad.

Don't bite off more than you can chew (a cliche or overused figure of speech) and allow some time for digestion.

 

[twelveoone]

Bonus for free
Sometimes they write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if they weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences. Like filling their mouths with fast-food and growing into fat fucks, instead of exercising and eating healthy.

Fuck that!
If you can't grow into Jabba the Hut, what is the use of living? As they say in the US
Livin' Large

ah, that was a joke.

 

[bogusagain]

gentle giant
its head up in clouds
ba DUM is the sound
of his ass and his head
when they hit the ground

A question for bogusagain, again:

17) If some piece of art isn't popular, is it irrelevant?

It obviously is irrelevant to the people ignoring it.

Some art is created irrelevant, some art achieves irrelevance and some art has irrelevance thrust upon it.

Sometimes there is not enough time on this planet to care whether something is irrelvant or not, like this.

18) What arms cradle the unpopular idea? The innovative idea, far beyond its time? The idea that critiques society? The idea that breaks ground, even if only after a person's death? If not art, then what?

I think most poets cradle the unpopular idea. I think poets nowadays feel they have failed if they don't cradle an unpopular idea, being a poet and unpopular seems to be a popular ambition amongst poets.

However, when most people cradle a popular idea, most of the time they want to make the idea popular. I don't get the sense poets who embrace the secrets of the sect, want their ideas to be popular. If they did, why wouldn't they try to be relevant and engage the public?

Sometimes they write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if they weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences. Like filling their mouths with fast-food and growing into fat fucks, instead of exercising and eating healthy.

That is a very patronizing and insulting view of a potential audience.

An English politician commented, when one of his party said insulting things about people who were ignoring their party, if customers were walking past my shop to go to someone else's shop, I wouldn't shout insults after them, I would ask myself why.

 

[Tsotha]

That is a very patronizing and insulting view of a potential audience.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, though, it's patronizing and insulting to think that people cannot choose better than they do, and that if you produce that fat food people will shove it in their mouths. (Some won't.)

Just because something is popular, it doesn't mean something is "good". That's how niches are created, and sometimes niches grow.

The cuddly homogeneous thing is bullshit, and not everyone likes The Beatles.

And I apologize to all the undefined people out there who feel offended by my words. You're still fat fucks, though, regardless of what I think.

An English politician commented, when one of his party said insulting things about people who were ignoring their party, if customers were walking past my shop to go to someone else's shop, I wouldn't shout insults after them, I would ask myself why.

There is no such thing as a perfect poem, because it can only be adequate for so many people. If you write a green poem, it will be perfect for green people, and so-so for yellow and blue people. Red people will have no idea what it means. You cannot please everyone, you need to select a color. You're selecting a color and saying "fuck you" to the others.

If I were selling cookies, trying to maximize profit, I'd ask myself why people aren't entering my shop. However, a poem isn't a cookie. You cannot mass produce it, you cannot add special ingredients to make people addicted, you can't sell it across the border to people who speak another language, you can't even put your finger on what makes it a poem, or a "good" poem.

Instead, since I'm writing a poem, I ask myself: did I reach the intended audience?

 

[Tsotha]

Originally Posted by twelveoone
write her a poem full of cliches, see if it will be read.
Actually, yes, it will. It has a greater chance of being seen as "useful" by people (in general), since they'll actually be able to understand what the fuck is being said. Now, "poets", they are a tough crowd. Especially so those with their heads up their asses, set on showing the world how "great" they are.

In context this was presented it was a joke, not to be taken serious. Don't. Again to an extent I agree, however, the cliche does not cause people to think, it passes though unchallenged. It also makes for a rather boring poem. Do you wish to hear the same thing said over and over again? "War is Peace."

Of course I don't want to hear the same thing over and over again. The cliche does not cause people to think, but neither does something incomprehensible.

I think it's a superior poem when green people can read it and feel the green poem is fantastic, and red people can read it and get something out of it, too.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Instead, since I'm writing a poem, I ask myself: did I reach the intended audience?

My intended audience for my poems, and for my stories, is myself.

Frequently I might be writing on a subject that doesn't appeal to me personally but I am trying to create something that is acceptable for a specialist audience.

Am I satisfied with what I have created? That is the sole criterion by which I judge my own work. Have I achieved my intention completely?

The answer is always - No. The work always falls short of the idea in my head.

If some people like what I have created that is a bonus.

 

[bogusagain]

In your opinion.

What you said was quite clearly patronising.

In my opinion, though, it's patronizing and insulting to think that people cannot choose better than they do, and that if you produce that fat food people will shove it in their mouths. (Some won't.)

The analogy doesn't add up. Low income people tend to eat fatty food because it is cheaper and more affordable than quality food. Bourgeois people lecturing them while supporting the economics that creates the situation in the first place is patronising and hypocritical in the extreme

When it comes to culture, it is rather elitists and imperialistic to expect people to take your advice. How do you know your advice is any good? The greatest literature in the modern English language was both populist and commercial.

Just because something is popular, it doesn't mean something is "good". That's how niches are created, and sometimes niches grow.

Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it good either. It might be turgid academic bullshit.

The cuddly homogeneous thing is bullshit, and not everyone likes The Beatles.

I was more thinking of Shakespeare and Dickens when it comes to popular.

And I apologize to all the undefined people out there who feel offended by my words. You're still fat fucks, though, regardless of what I think.

Why apologize for being offensive when you really mean to be offensive?

I'll finish off later. I have plates in acid.

 

[Tsotha]

What you said was quite clearly patronising.

To someone, it was.

The analogy doesn't add up. Low income people tend to eat fatty food because it is cheaper and more affordable than quality food. Bourgeois people lecturing them while supporting the economics that creates the situation in the first place is patronising and hypocritical in the extreme

Low income people eat fatty food, where? Where I live, it's cheaper to buy "real" food. Poor people can't afford the price of the brands involved in fast food. I'm sure your argument makes sense in Europe, though.

The situation will change, of course. Eventually, the prices for "bad" food will be lowered (when more people choose to eat bad food), making "real" food less viable. No matter that there is a hidden value in healthy food, which isn't evident in the price tag.

It only goes to show the intelligence of group behavior in human beings.

When it comes to culture, it is rather elitists and imperialistic to expect people to take your advice. How do you know your advice is any good? The greatest literature in the modern English language was both populist and commercial.

I'm not asking anyone to take my "advice", but I do have an opinion for myself.

The "greatest" literature was both populist and commercial in your opinion. I find it rather amusing that you're saying I'm imperialistic.

José de Alencar was popular. His stuff is garbage (in my humble opinion). Machado de Assis was popular, there is only one story by him that doesn't put me to sleep. The television is filled with brain dead soap operas, and the radios are paid to play the lowest common denominator in music. IN MY OPINION.

Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it good either. It might be turgid academic bullshit.

Yes, exactly my point. No correlation between popularity and being "good" at all, on either side of the spectrum. Being unpopular doesn't automatically make something good. "Good" is subjective. What is good for one, isn't good for another. In your universe, though, as far as I can understand, Twilight is the ultimate piece of literature, and I'm elitist for not thinking so.

I was more thinking of Shakespeare and Dickens when it comes to popular.

My point is that there is nothing which is liked by everyone. There are niches, serving the needs of a niche is just as "noble" as your crusade to serve the masses.

Why apologize for being offensive when you really mean to be offensive?

I mean to be truthful. Would you rather I lied, or used pretty words to say how much respect I have for people I do not respect?

My original point was:

"Sometimes poets write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if some people weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences."

You call me "elitist" and "imperialist". I would rather have you explain why you're more "respectful" than I am.

 

[Tsotha]

The next time I go by a group of crack addicts, I'll be sure to remember not to think that someone should help them. After all, who am I to judge their choice of entertainment? God forbid I have an opinion, that would be elitism.

It's good to include more people, to give them access to education, and health services, and things that give them joy. Sometimes what gives people joy is bad, and that is fine. However, I do not need to give incentive to what is "bad" in my opinion.

The world is changing, and not always for the better. People need to take a stand, at times. Or do you suppose your idea of "the masses are always right!" necessarily leads to what is best, every single time?

 

[bogusagain]

Low income people eat fatty food, where? Where I live, it's cheaper to buy "food" food. Poor people can't afford the price of the brands involved in fast food. I'm sure your argument makes sense in Europe, though.

The situation will change, of course. Eventually, the prices for bad food will be lowered, the more people choose to eat bad food, making "food" food less viable. No matter that there is a hidden value in healthy food, which isn't evident in the price tag.

The same accounts for north America too, why do you think there are more obese people in north America? The whole food economic system is supported by US government subsidies for corn made Fructose which manufacturers put in just about every processed food you can think of. And processed food is cheaper than fresh food in north America as it is in Europe. We have a similar subsidy problem in Europe. It's basically criminal but don't blame the victims, blame the profiteers supported by governments.

It only goes to show the intelligence of group behavior in human beings.

Yes, group wisdom is questionable like poetry academics who flog the dead horse of academic poetry which year on year sells less and less.

I'm not asking anyone to take my "advice", but I do have an opinion for myself.

Surely if you didn't want anyone to take your advice, you'd keep your opinion to yourself? Surely the point of publicizing ones opinion is to influence the debate?

José de Alencar was popular. His stuff is garbage (in my humble opinion). Machado de Assis was popular, there is only one story by him that doesn't put me to sleep. The television is filled with brain dead soap operas, and the radios are paid to play the lowest common denominator in music. IN MY OPINION.

I'm not saying popular work might not be garbage, I'm saying unpopular academic stuff can be equally garbage. Being unpopular and academic doesn't make something good.

Yes, exactly my point. No correlation between popularity and being "good" at all, on either side of the spectrum. Being unpopular doesn't automatically make something good. "Good" is subjective.

If you are agreeing with me, why are you arguing with me? My argument isn't about good and bad, never has been but engaging with the reading public. Time will decide whether work is relevant or irrelevant.

My point is that there is nothing which liked by everyone. There are niches, serving the needs of a niche is just as "noble" as your crusade to serve the masses.

If poets are happy to have an a small audience that is fine but this argument wasn't about that, it was about someone claiming THEY KNEW what was good poetry or not, whether the poetry had an audience or not. I questioned the relevance if no one was reading it because it was irrelevant to peoples lives. If poets want to only write to the inner circle of the poetry sect, that is fine, it probably allows them to think they are misunderstood geniuses. However, they aren't misunderstood geniuses, they are just not engaging with the contemporary world.

The average poetry book by top poets in Britain sell around 300 copies. That is a copy each to family members and friends, a couple of libraries and academic institutions. I think the average sold by top poets in the USA is 1,200. Basically, the readership is miniscule.

I mean to be truthful. Would you rather I lied, or used pretty words to say how much respect I have for people I do not respect?

I've got no problem with you being offensive, I was wondering why you were aopolgizing when you didn't really mean it.

My original point was:

"Sometimes poets write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if some people weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences."

You call me "elitist" and "imperialist". I would rather have you explain why you're more "respectful" than I am.

Well it is elitist and imperialist to know what is best for other people.

Whether you read poetry or not, is a free choice. I think it is quite natural to be turned off by elitists lecturing someone that the choices they made are not just bad but garbage. If a poet wants to engage people in what they think is "good poetry", they should write "good poetry" that engages with people and is relelvant to them.

 

[bogusagain]

The next time I go by a group of crack addicts, I'll be sure to remember not to think that someone should help them. After all, who am I to judge their choice of entertainment? God forbid I have an opinion, that would be elitism.

The use of drugs in western society is often down to a drug economic system fueled by prohibition like alcohol prohibition in 20s America. A few wise laws and some economic justice could minimise the impact of drugs.

It's good to include more people, to give them access to education, and health services, and things that give them joy. Sometimes what gives people joy is bad, and that is fine. However, I do not need to give incentive to what is "bad" in my opinion.

Education isn't lecturing people what is good and bad and what is right and wrong, it is cultivating critical thought so people can make choices and create for themselves, independently of those who claim to know best.

The world is changing, and not always for the better. People need to take a stand, at times. Or do you suppose your idea of "the masses are always right!" necessarily leads to what is best, every single time?

If you are telling people they are inadequate and know nothing, they are hardly likely to respond to you or your ideas in a positive way. Seduction is a far better and far more successful strategy than coercian. Hence, write poetry that engages with people, not poetry that turns them off.

 

[pelegrino]

Reading, reading, reading... all of you, again we are digressing from the technical aspects of poetry (the thread's title) into ... sociology. I am not really complaining, nothing wrong with that, let this thread change content if that is where we want it to go.
I do not think that there is big disagreement in the latest posts by Tsotha and Bogus.
My opinion is that people cannot appreciate poetry the same way as they cannot appreciate healthy food because they are brain washed and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I don't think we can afford to be patronizing nor do I think that we are.
There is a difference (market difference) between Europe and the US and Tsotha realizes that.
All cultural products, from Mc Donald's burgers to poems are controlled by the social class that owes the means for production, distribution and exchange (and don't call me a Marxist for that, cause I am one any way), but I believe that all the arts have still some ground, some space (not very big indeed) to carry on the struggle.
Bogus talks about "ivory towers". I believe he is right, they do exist, but not everywhere. Only, more and more of them are been built every day and I don't exclude myself from the builders.
Poetry in my opinion has forgotten one of its main objectives: To teach people. To teach them what to eat and what to read.
It does not have to follow any political party line to do that, but look at it now:
Look at its miserable state. It has been depoliticized, dehumanized, re-spiritualized, with its balls cut-off.
Cut-off from its natural audience, ie the people.
Like them it is politically castrated.
And here we are, talking still about its "esoteric content" while we admit that its potential readers are idiots who eat fast food and think that Eros is a pornographic word.
In an order of priorities, I'd rather teach any audience with my songs of how to eat and how to fuck (and enjoy both) first, and never mind my "esoteric bollocks" and other minor concerns. I cannot afford to be completely free neither in my choice of subject, nor in my way of expressing it, if they still eat Mc Donald's.
Oops, I'm ranting a little. Sorry

 

[bogusagain]

A quote to lecture myself. “There’s no money in poetry, but then there’s no poetry in money, either.” – Robert Graves

A quote to lecture the evangelists. “Publishing a volume of verse is like dropping a rose petal down the Grand Canyon and waiting for the echo.” – Don Marquis

If you are happy to write just for yourself, that is fine but don't complain when no one is listening. If you want to engage with a wider readership, you have to write with a wider readership in mind.

 

[twelveoone]

I think it's a superior poem when green people can read it and feel the green poem is fantastic, and red people can read it and get something out of it, too.

There is no such thing as a perfect poem, because it can only be adequate for so many people. If you write a green poem, it will be perfect for green people, and so-so for yellow and blue people. Red people will have no idea what it means. You cannot please everyone, you need to select a color. You're selecting a color and saying "fuck you" to the others.

If I were selling cookies, trying to maximize profit, I'd ask myself why people aren't entering my shop. However, a poem isn't a cookie. You cannot mass produce it, you cannot add special ingredients to make people , you can't sell it across the border to people who speak another language, you can't even put your finger on what makes it a poem, or a "good" poem.

Instead, since I'm writing a poem, I ask myself: did I reach the intended audience?

OK, what are you saying?

And you are using an analogy that fails badly...

If I write a poem in english (green) WTF do I care if the Chinese (red) care?

Now you know from your limited experience here that if a poem was written in the style of X. X would not like it, because X did not write it, it would be incomprehensible to X.

You also know comprehension in regards to audience covers a very wide range. I like everyone else targets , specific use of tools (ingredients) targets , some of the tools are addicting. We are talking about psychological patterning.
A poem is nothing but a game, you play with yourself (I don't know if you caught that) and plays with someone else (hopefully). Truth? Beauty, (a certain form of symmetry), subjective. Profundity, a cheap shit illusion.
Specifically, I created an alt as a veracity test for a certain reviewer that used what I perceived would be to his liking. It worked, he passed. I suspect this is done by others as targeting, because it does not take much to generate text.
But WTF do I know, eh?

 

[twelveoone]

And I get my threads bounced? WTF, eh?
What snails did I trod on?
I am so beyond the pale
or pail as in puke in.

 

[Matryoshka]

OK, what are you saying?

And you are using an analogy that fails badly...

If I write a poem in english (green) WTF do I care if the Chinese (red) care?

Now you know from your limited experience here that if a poem was written in the style of X. X would not like it, because X did not write it, it would be incomprehensible to X.

You also know comprehension in regards to audience covers a very wide range. I like everyone else targets , specific use of tools (ingredients) targets , some of the tools are addicting. We are talking about psychological patterning.
A poem is nothing but a game, you play with yourself (I don't know if you caught that) and plays with someone else (hopefully). Truth? Beauty, (a certain form of symmetry), subjective. Profundity, a cheap shit illusion.
Specifically, I created an alt as a veracity test for a certain reviewer that used what I perceived would be to his liking. It worked, he passed. I suspect this is done by others as targeting, because it does not take much to generate text.
But WTF do I know, eh?

I can only wish my poems were addicting..... That'd be really awesome

 

[Epmd607]

Well said. The idea of the spiritual is a way of keeping the population doped up and subservient to (irnically) the soulless establishment.

BTW it would be wonderful if people who talk about "the spiritual" could actually define what "the spiritual" is. It is such a woolly term with no real meaning.

This is pretty much the crux of our conversation: I believe poetry has pretty much always been an attempt at defining human spirituality(with volume up to 11 metaphor) and the sounds/rhythm of our language. But you don't believe in human spirituality as anything of value therefore what I'm saying about poetry having a special place in the face of prose can't possibly register with you.

 

[bogusagain]

But you don't believe in human spirituality as anything of value therefore what I'm saying about poetry having a special place in the face of prose can't possibly register with you.

Define human spirituality and I'll tell you if I believe in it.

It can't register with me because you won't say what IT is.

As far as I can see, poetry like prose, like music and song, like painting, like sculpture, like theatre, are art forms through which we communicate. That communication is at its best when the creator can provoke an emotional and/or and empathetic response etc, in the people the creator is trying to engage with.

 

[Epmd607]

I take it, you mean "materialism" in a western/all American/post-modern, whatever sense.
Not dialectical-historical materialism in a Marxist sense. We use this philosophical term so fucking casually now a days. Do we really know what we talk about one wonders.
It is not such a bad thing that spiritualism is tossed away, is it?
It had become too political (serving only right wing ideologies) and it deserved it.

Yes, I mean exactly what philosophical materialism has always meant. Historical/dialectical materialism is far closer to Hegelian Idealism than materialism and irrelevant.

Materialism in the text you quote refers to: consciousness as solely the result of material properties and interactions.

There is no point to poetry that seeks the non-material when you live in a culture that only gives intellectual credence to materialism and realism. And by realism, I mean philosophic realism in the realist sense(near pun?), and also the weaker version of realism in art.

So you infuse your modern poetry with realism aka prose, and then it's pretty much: what's the point of writing poetry when you can write a novella?

I can't remember if you were the Tolkien fan or if that's someone else. Anyway, Tolkien creates a world in fantasy literature free of level 1 allegory and every critic until today has been trying to pull his work into that base form of allegory: historical commentary and satire. He wrote myths and fables, had nothing to do with the day to day struggles of the working class, soldiers, the elite etc. Try pulling myth out of Game of Thrones, the story will be an empty shell in fifty years because it will have nothing to refer to in the culture.