To read, or not to read...

[twelveoone]

WSO
Go read them, see if you can emulate his style.

Acknowledgement of learning tools from reading others:

Two of the people on this thread, I have learned from:
Angeline's "the Nightingale" is almost a textbook case on how simple repitition can be a stunningly effective tool in writing, this shows up in my "just" used for a completely different reason. She tells me her "Nightingale" was based on a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale.

Pat Carrington has a remarkable ability with flow, without using rhyme. One of the tools (or tricks of the trade) is he often uses alliteration (again a from of repition) in patterns of three in a line. This principle seems to be almost hard-wired in the brain and is used elsewhere as in boxing, pitching (baseball).
(this point should be shoved down the throat of another poster in another thread)

Go read them, see if you can emulate their styles.

All the bullshit I come with, was done after carefull consideration of something I read.

Go read me, see if you can emulate my style.

Just read, most of the people here that post their 'poety" should do a lot more reading and a lot less posting.

It is evident to me that both Angeline, and Pat have done a considerable amount of reading of poetry, and they are two of the best here.

Oh, uniqueness? You might argue, there may be ten people here, that some might scratch their heads and ask thenselves what the fuck are they doing.

Lauren Hyde being one, it is obvious to me that she is well read.
Bogubrig - same
Liar-same
et al.

Go read them

 

[PatCarrington]

Rules are learnt to be broken. How many good poets become masters of their craft only to bore the reader by being so competent within accepted conventions they never surprise and excite, you just end up admiring their skill and nothing else. Give me a bad poet that dares and keep the good poet that daren't.

how about a good poet who dares?

wouldn't that be far better than the other two alternatives?

If you are boringly competent in your craft you have more chance of being published than if you are exciting and fresh.

in my experience, that is not the case at all. if any extreme is prevelant, i think it is the reverse.

fresh language is more highly regarded now than ever. of course, one's definition of "fresh language" is a very subjective thing.

One has to be aware of poetry or one would not be indulging in poetry but the love of language is far more important than the love of the craft of poetry. If one doesn't read poetry I guess one will retread so many trodden paths and miss so many new ideas as well as create new paths. However one doesn't need to be and shouldn't be, deferential to poetry, language is far more important.

i agree 100% with that statement.

being 'undeferential,' WSO, is not the same as being 'unaware.'

 

[twelveoone]

1201 bows deferential to that statement, Pat, to you.

even though I go the bogusbrig route

 

[PatCarrington]

1201 bows deferential to that statement, Pat, to you.

even though I go the bogusbrig route

this thread started with....should one read, read, read, as tristesse said.

i know of no argument or philosophy or point-of-view that could effectively argue the 'NO' side of that debate.

to be deferential, or undeferential, you have to know what you are reacting TO.

as far as 'fresh language,' i have had that debate with many friends, many times. it is a very subjective thing. some people think simply 'writing like you talk', or 'writing like the street,' makes language fresh. fresh, to me, does not simply mean modern, or new.

fresh means new and effective.

there is no way to get subjectivity out of it, but in all those conversations, it turned out that the people i debated were not so much arguing that 'fresh language' is not highly regarded, but that their fresh language was not being highly regarded. in other words, a frustration that their own writing could not find publication.

and they then make the assumption that the editors, and not themselves, are wrong and at fault.

and that conclusion is not only poorly conceived, but lands them right where they do not want to be, which in most cases is synonymous with exactly where they are already.

the editors of today's literary journals DO recognize and know effective originality when they see it. there is no doubt in my mind about that.

 

[Angeline]

Originality to me means voice. Nobody is ever going to write anything utterly new. Language isn't utterly new, but it evolves and so do we as writers of it. In my opinion the only way to evolve your ability to manipulate language is to spend a lot of time around it--by writing AND reading. Writers have to do a certain amount of self-analysis (some would argue that's all writing is anyway) in order to develop a voice. Otherwise we write the same thing over and over--we may have new things to say, but how will we have the tools to express them without exposure to other writing? To understand yourself as a poet, you look at other writers, you see what you like and don't, and you ultimately find out that those likes and dislike have a lot to do with what you think works or doesn't in your own writing.

There's no sin in emulating other writers. I've learned from famous writers and from poets here because I read them and I think about what it is in these writings that does or doesn't work--then I adapt what I think does to my own style. Maybe the first time I try something new it won't be effective because I'm not yet practiced at it--but I will be if I keep going. That's growth. That's a good thing.

And it's important to remember that not all journal editors have the same idea of what is original or effective. The trick is to find the places that see what YOU write as having those qualities. And how do you do that? You read what's there, see if you fit in. There's room for Born Magazine and Sonnet Central, for Exquisite Corpse and New Formalist--they're not all right for me, but that's ok. And I won't know which is unless I understand what they're about by reading.

Reading and writing are two sides of a coin. They can't be separated--we write so others will read us; we read because we love writing. How can that be bad?

 

[Tathagata]

Everyone who just starts out has the same intent which is to showcase " their" unique talent, vision, truth etc.
In the beginning the best and often the easiest way to do this is by having " no rules"
By expressing yourself purely and with no editing feels right because, in that way. you have captured the moment.
And this serves us all well for different lengths of time.
Most of us pass on the other stages and other awarenesses ( is that a word)?, some dont.
Eventually you realize that what you have to say isn't all that unique...it's how you say it.
We've all lost loves, we've all been sad, we've all had sex ( of some sort) and , in the beginning, we all describe it in much the same way.
Go read through a few hundred " erotic" poems and count the " thrusts, wet, liquid, merge, thighs, suck,deep" etc etc.

By reading other poets, other styles, you see how some people can describe those same thing in a different way, sometimes better, sometimes not.
But when you read a new phrase and you think " Gosh, that's the same thing as "thrust deep" only he/she used a better phrase, you see that how you phrase things can get your "message" across much clearer and much closer to what you really feel.

If you stuck to just the language one person taught you..you wouldn't be able to express yourself except with others words, hence, other thoughts.
To find your own " voice" you have to be able to select the exact word or phrase that captures what you want to say in your own way.

 

[Angeline]

Everyone who just starts out has the same intent which is to showcase " their" unique talent, vision, truth etc.
In the beginning the best and often the easiest way to do this is by having " no rules"
By expressing yourself purely and with no editing feels right because, in that way. you have captured the moment.
And this serves us all well for different lengths of time.
Most of us pass on the other stages and other awarenesses ( is that a word)?, some dont.
Eventually you realize that what you have to say isn't all that unique...it's how you say it.
We've all lost loves, we've all been sad, we've all had sex ( of some sort) and , in the beginning, we all describe it in much the same way.
Go read through a few hundred " erotic" poems and count the " thrusts, wet, liquid, merge, thighs, suck,deep" etc etc.

By reading other poets, other styles, you see how some people can describe those same thing in a different way, sometimes better, sometimes not.
But when you read a new phrase and you think " Gosh, that's the same thing as "thrust deep" only he/she used a better phrase, you see that how you phrase things can get your "message" across much clearer and much closer to what you really feel.

If you stuck to just the language one person taught you..you wouldn't be able to express yourself except with others words, hence, other thoughts.
To find your own " voice" you have to be able to select the exact word or phrase that captures what you want to say in your own way.

You just need to listen to me.

 

[bogusbrig]

The more aware you become of language, the more you realise what a rough and rather blunt tool it is. Learning a second language helps in this awareness, especially when you hit upon a word that doesn't exist in your own language that expresses something you've wanted to express but couldn't find the right combination of words. I think it is this awareness of just how imprecise language is that starts one on a private search for precision in expressing oneself through poetry.

Then you have the tricky problem of subject matter. What do you want to express with this skill in language you are trying to perfect? Poetry for poetry's sake or some other obsession? There is a ripple affect in whatever we do and an interest in knowledge and experience in all things is essential. Reading is a big part of this building a body of knowledge and experience, simply because as been mentioned in this thread already, its the medium of the art we are dealing with.

 

[Tathagata]

You just need to listen to me.

yes my little dictionary Dom

 

[Zanzibar]

My votes for reading!

I started out writing poetry in a creative writing class.... when the day started we had to write for 5 minutes about anything at all. Some days I wrote stories, some poems, some rants, some just words all a tumble.

I got that journal from that class last thanksgiving when my folks came to visit. Mom had found it and thought I might want to have it. God, what a lot of drivel most of it was... though there were some pearls in there, and some great ideas for other things.

I came here a lil over a year ago, and started with stories, and then saw some of the poetry challenges. I entered a few, and did fairly well... but those combined my wit with words with a given format, like the bob. Since then I've read a lot more work, and started writing some more of my own poetry... because I've got an idea of some of the things that really hit home with me, or made me think - and I use those kinds of things now.

Just like I've read several thousand books ( I have a library of over 1500 books and have given away hundreds more ) Some really bad, some really good and many in between. I take what I liked in what I read, and use it in my own stories. Using rich descriptions, building up the story, detailed interactions...

Very little of that was in my first works in high school. It wasn't till I broadened my horizons and really dove into books - books written for adults, classics, etc that my abilities to write, my vocabulary, and my style really grew.

My votes to read and experience. Explore and find things that ring out inside you - that break out your passions and ideas, just like a carpenter users a wide variety of tools to creeate a masterpiece - not just a hammer. To me, not experienceing many different kinds of poetry/stories would be like doing just that -building a house with just a hammer.

It can be done, but I think you get more impressive/effective results if you have a full toolbox.

 

[Angeline]

yes my little dictionary Dom

I'll spank you with the OED you bad little monkey.

 

[Tathagata]

I'll spank you with the OED you bad little monkey.

life is good

 

[wildsweetone]

WSO
Go read them, see if you can emulate his style.

Acknowledgement of learning tools from reading others:

Two of the people on this thread, I have learned from:
Angeline's "the Nightingale" is almost a textbook case on how simple repitition can be a stunningly effective tool in writing, this shows up in my "just" used for a completely different reason. She tells me her "Nightingale" was based on a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale.

Pat Carrington has a remarkable ability with flow, without using rhyme. One of the tools (or tricks of the trade) is he often uses alliteration (again a from of repition) in patterns of three in a line. This principle seems to be almost hard-wired in the brain and is used elsewhere as in boxing, pitching (baseball).
(this point should be shoved down the throat of another poster in another thread)

Go read them, see if you can emulate their styles.

All the bullshit I come with, was done after carefull consideration of something I read.

Go read me, see if you can emulate my style.

Just read, most of the people here that post their 'poety" should do a lot more reading and a lot less posting.

It is evident to me that both Angeline, and Pat have done a considerable amount of reading of poetry, and they are two of the best here.

Oh, uniqueness? You might argue, there may be ten people here, that some might scratch their heads and ask thenselves what the fuck are they doing.

Lauren Hyde being one, it is obvious to me that she is well read.
Bogubrig - same
Liar-same
et al.

Go read them

twelveoone, thanks for that copy and pasted posting that managed to fill 54 pages of a word document. I won't print it out but will take some more time to try and understand what it's all about -it'll probably take me a year so don't expect to hear from me about it any time soon. Briefly, it looks to me like you wanted me to read somebody's opinion on TS Elliot's poetry that he wrote by using other works of writing by other 'authors'. I 'think' you want me to see how his words and phrasing looked and compare it to the originals he was 'inspired' by, right? I'm sitting here wondering how inspiring Elliot's writing would be to me had he not borrowed inspiration from other writers.

Contrary to what you've mentioned, I do read other authors' writing. I have been reading some classical poetry and modern poetry and poetry that was so way out there for public consumption that a Wellington publisher gave away free copies and sent one my way.

I have no wish to imitate other people's writing. I do however wish to have my own style and voice that will have a uniqueness I will be able to say is my own and while it might be much harder work, the end result will be something that is solely 'me'.

In 50 years time I don't want to have someone copying my poetry and analysing it saying that I wrote this line because of this poem, and that line because of that bible verse.

But that's just me I guess. And if it means I go nowhere with my writing, then sobeit. But I don't believe that will be the case.

It is possible we all learn differently you know. Some of us learn through reading and some of us learn through writing (edit to add -) and some through both. Perhaps I'm one who learns better through writing.



edit to add: I hope what I've said doesn't sound arrogant, it's not meant that way. I've learnt a lot through this discussion - ironic really because I've learned whilst reading.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Sorry I'm late to the discussion.

... but I believe that one can write truely great poetry simply from listening to one's own self.

I think that's an incredibly pretentious and self-absorbed thing to say.

Seriously. I doubt anyone, no matter how much of a genius, can write music without ever hearing it. How would he or she even recognise it as music? He or she would have to know the range of the instruments, whichever they are, and that can't be done without listening to other people's music. In an isolated, sterile environment, nothing survives. Nothing can be brought to life.

I understand how the argument can be made that if we know how to talk - if we know words - that's all we need to create poetry on our own, without any outside influence. But to me, that's the equivalent of saying we can learn how to waltz on our own - without a partner and without having ever heard music - simply because we know how to walk.

 

[twelveoone]

Pat, I defered to your competence, your ability, was not implying anything else.

but I agree with bogusbrig's statement, as I've seen alot of boringly competent poets that are published.

of course boredom is a bit subjective, but both agree, (and I do) the whole object is freshness.

and I think WSO missed the point they were Eliot's acknowledged sources, in this case someone filled in the text of the sources. And I would argue that knowing things that are refered too, things that are used, adds a certain bit of the enjoyment of it. And "the Wasteland" was so damn fresh, it wasn't considered poetry in alot of circles.

We all owe, the more you read the more you see what is owed.

 

[bogusbrig]

And "the Wasteland" was so damn fresh, it wasn't considered poetry in alot of circles.

The Wasteland is incredible. It is one of those works that you can go back to time and again and feel like you are reading it for the first time all over again. There are not too many works of such freshness. It still has a contemporary feel about it after all this time.

 

[Angeline]

The Wasteland is incredible. It is one of those works that you can go back to time and again and feel like you are reading it for the first time all over again. There are not too many works of such freshness. It still has a contemporary feel about it after all this time.

Have you seen the annotated copy of it 1201 mentioned? It's incredible--really cool to see the edits on copy. I may be wrong, 1201 may know, but I think there are edits in there by Ezra Pound, too (the poem is dedicated to him, if memory serves).

I had to use it for a college course way back when. I thought it was fascinating to see a great writer's drafting/editing process.

 

[The_Fool]

Once I get through this MBA program I am going to take some writerly classes. Don't know what yet. Langston Hughes is on my desk at work. TS Eliot and ee cummings are on my desk at home.

 

[twelveoone]

Have you seen the annotated copy of it 1201 mentioned? It's incredible--really cool to see the edits on copy. I may be wrong, 1201 may know, but I think there are edits in there by Ezra Pound, too (the poem is dedicated to him, if memory serves).

I had to use it for a college course way back when. I thought it was fascinating to see a great writer's drafting/editing process.

Ezra had him throw half of it out, told him to toss the Conrad "...the horror, the horror" at the beginning. I have a copy. Ezra did some corrections, suggestions. Ezra was the better Craftsman, Eliot the better Artist, don't think anything equaled it in that century. Very unique.
Some of what was tossed, well pretty lame.
I brought it up, it was the best example I could think of in this arguement.

 

[twelveoone]

BTW also proves the value of edits, a good critic

 

[wildsweetone]

Sorry I'm late to the discussion.


I think that's an incredibly pretentious and self-absorbed thing to say.

Seriously. I doubt anyone, no matter how much of a genius, can write music without ever hearing it. How would he or she even recognise it as music? He or she would have to know the range of the instruments, whichever they are, and that can't be done without listening to other people's music. In an isolated, sterile environment, nothing survives. Nothing can be brought to life.

I understand how the argument can be made that if we know how to talk - if we know words - that's all we need to create poetry on our own, without any outside influence. But to me, that's the equivalent of saying we can learn how to waltz on our own - without a partner and without having ever heard music - simply because we know how to walk.

Pretentious and self-absorbed thing to say indeed! Probably I agree with you there dear. Knowing one's self is an important part of being, in my opinion.

You've all reminded me how little I know and how much more I have yet to learn (yes, some through reading -shock! horror!- lol).

However mention of music made me think (and I don't know much about this either but bare with me a moment).

Beethoven went deaf after he had learned to compose music (obviously he had also been able to listen to music others had composed before his deafness was complete). However, it has been said and argued that some of his works AFTER deafness were better than the works when he could hear.

It's interesting for me to note this because it kind of says what I'm trying to say. Without outside influences we open up a whole new world from within each one of us. We rarely even touch on it because we are so busy being sponges for all the information that is around us each day.

What if... What if we didn't have this constant extraneous information? What if we were left to our own devices - at this stage of our lives - and given free reign with our writing? Sure, most of us here have a reasonable command of the english language and rules. If our poetry/writing gained depth by us being left alone (which I believe it would), then just imagine what possibilities could happen if we stopped being so rigourous with beginning writers.

 

[Tathagata]

Pretentious and self-absorbed thing to say indeed! Probably I agree with you there dear. Knowing one's self is an important part of being, in my opinion.

You've all reminded me how little I know and how much more I have yet to learn (yes, some through reading -shock! horror!- lol).

However mention of music made me think (and I don't know much about this either but bare with me a moment).

Beethoven went deaf after he had learned to compose music (obviously he had also been able to listen to music others had composed before his deafness was complete). However, it has been said and argued that some of his works AFTER deafness were better than the works when he could hear.

It's interesting for me to note this because it kind of says what I'm trying to say. Without outside influences we open up a whole new world from within each one of us. We rarely even touch on it because we are so busy being sponges for all the information that is around us each day.

What if... What if we didn't have this constant extraneous information? What if we were left to our own devices - at this stage of our lives - and given free reign with our writing? Sure, most of us here have a reasonable command of the english language and rules. If our poetry/writing gained depth by us being left alone (which I believe it would), then just imagine what possibilities could happen if we stopped being so rigourous with beginning writers.

Knowing a little about music I'd have to say

Beethoven was a genius which is basically a mutation or aberration, if you will.
It had nothing to do with the fact of him going deaf, it was simply he knew music so well he didn't have to " hear it" to write it.

Mozart, also, basically wrote his music down finished with little or no editing.
because he composed in his head.

Neither was able to do that because they hadn't listened to any one else.
On the contrary they studied others works and often imitated others " styles" in their own works.

I have a feeling you are set in your opinion on this so I'm not going to belabor this point.
There is something to be said from writing from the " inside' if you are talking about a spiritual writing.
Eventually that's what, in my opinion, poets strive to do is to write a transcendental piece.

To use your music analogy
To think you can write the 9th symphony if you haven't listened to anyone else seems a bit unrealistic.
But I wish you luck in your endeavor

 

[PatCarrington]

Pat, I defered to your competence, your ability, was not implying anything else.

but I agree with bogusbrig's statement, as I've seen alot of boringly competent poets that are published.

of course boredom is a bit subjective, but both agree, (and I do) the whole object is freshness.

and I think WSO missed the point they were Eliot's acknowledged sources, in this case someone filled in the text of the sources. And I would argue that knowing things that are refered too, things that are used, adds a certain bit of the enjoyment of it. And "the Wasteland" was so damn fresh, it wasn't considered poetry in alot of circles.

We all owe, the more you read the more you see what is owed.

1201, i understood that.

the statement bogusbrig made was:

If you are boringly competent in your craft you have more chance of being published than if you are exciting and fresh.

i just don't buy that at all, find it downright silly. and as i said, it is an argument i have heard a few close friends use to rationalize their own shortcomings.

i have a habit. when i read a poem i like a lot or think is high-quality, i save it for a second reading later on.

reading many of today's poetry journals, i sometimes find myself saving close to 50% of the poetry for second readings. the percentage is usually high. and they are all from poets i do not know, whose work is not familiar to me.

i read all the poetry here every day. as contrast, the last time i saved a poem at literotica from a poet i did not know (excluding the handful of poets whose work i reread on a regular basis) was 12/15/2004. i have read an awful lot of poems here in those 5 months, saved none.

the last web journal i read, last week, over half the poems required me to save them to reread.

that is the difference to my eyes.

either way, there is no question that everyone should read as much as they can. there is simply no reason not to, and no way it will not make you better.

 

[Angeline]

I think you should all go read a poem and then write one.

 

[PatCarrington]

I think you should all go read a poem and then write one.

i just read "Nightingale.'

....nothing's coming to my mind.

do you think i just have trouble with birds?