What makes it poetry?

[Tathagata]

I watched the documentary on Charles Bukowski (Bukowski: Born into This) late last night on the cable television. Never really had the inclination to read his poetry until today. (She took all my Bukowski--including Love is a Dog from Hell, which I never had the chance to crack--with her when she moved to LA; she left the Chaucer. Smart girl.)

Anyways, I'm taking the time on this day off work (I'm trickydickyphobic) to read some of his poetry. And I come across this


I don't really agree with the guy. I like that CB's poetry is prosaic--he's a great storyteller.
What do you all think? Does Bukowski's style detract from the impact of this poem?
Is less more or is this guy chipping away at David?

This guy, whoever he is, misses the whole point.

Nothing worse than somebody rewriting your poem so it sounds good TO THEM
then pronouncing it " fixed"

Once you see/hear Bukowski read his stuff you either get it or you don't.

Read "Pulp" his last " novel" and "Women"

"Love is a dog from Hell" has some great stuff in it.

 

[Picodiribibi]

I'm confused.
It sounds to me like a Bukowski poem is good because Bukowski wrote it. I must agree that after hearing Bukowski read his own poetry (and learning about the man) I hear his voice when I read those poems myself and that voice adds to my enjoyment of the work. But at the same time I feel cheated because that means poetry is, on some level, a popularity contest; that if you put a Bukowski poem, without any attribution to its author, side by side with the same "corrected" (TOP) poem, one might be tempted to say that the TOP poem was superior because it was more economical. In effect, that a simulacrum of Bukowski was superior to the authentic Bukowski because it didn't mince around with words. That bothers me.

 

[Angeline]

I'm confused.
It sounds to me like a Bukowski poem is good because Bukowski wrote it. I must agree that after hearing Bukowski read his own poetry (and learning about the man) I hear his voice when I read those poems myself and that voice adds to my enjoyment of the work. But at the same time I feel cheated because that means poetry is, on some level, a popularity contest; that if you put a Bukowski poem, without any attribution to its author, side by side with the same "corrected" (TOP) poem, one might be tempted to say that the TOP poem was superior because it was more economical. In effect, that a simulacrum of Bukowski was superior to the authentic Bukowski because it didn't mince around with words. That bothers me.

If "good" poetry were decided by popularity, we'd be in trouble here, wouldn't we? Voting here usually means that your best pal's poem (regardless of quality) takes the top spot. And if you look at what sells, you'd have to assume that Rod McKuen is a great poet. Or that Pablo Neruda (who regularly outsells other poets, at least in U.S. bookstores) is the greatest poet in recent history. Anyway it seems to me that taste is way too subjective for any of us to say a particular poet or style of poetry is definitively "it." I love Ted Berrigan for his absurd humor and beat sensibility, and probably also because the "voice" of his time and place resonates with me, but I know he is an acquired taste. I love Langston Hughes, but many people find his poetry pedestrian. I love Shakespeare's sonnets and Robert Browning's dramatic monologues. I think they're timeless, yet there are others who consider both hopelessly outdated.

To me, there's something fundamentally wrong with trying to define the pinnacle of any art form. So what if Bukowski is a storyteller? So what if Browning is outdated? We can all argue things like metaphor or assonance or line breaks ad nauseum. What matters is what I enjoy when I read poetry--or you enjoy when you read it.

 

[Tathagata]

I'm confused.
It sounds to me like a Bukowski poem is good because Bukowski wrote it. I must agree that after hearing Bukowski read his own poetry (and learning about the man) I hear his voice when I read those poems myself and that voice adds to my enjoyment of the work. But at the same time I feel cheated because that means poetry is, on some level, a popularity contest; that if you put a Bukowski poem, without any attribution to its author, side by side with the same "corrected" (TOP) poem, one might be tempted to say that the TOP poem was superior because it was more economical. In effect, that a simulacrum of Bukowski was superior to the authentic Bukowski because it didn't mince around with words. That bothers me.

There was a scene in Amadeus where the emperor told Mozart his opera was fine , it just had " too many notes"

The poem is the way Bukowski intended it, there are reasons, which I won't start listing and defending as though I Knew the man.

Could you improve Picasso's painting by making the eyes on opposite sides of the face?
Well of course then we'd all know it was a face and it would conform to the majorities view of how a face should look.
People like that both bore and frighten me.

To accept an artist ( to borrow an over used term) you accept them as they are warts and all because you connect or see or feel something in what they do.
The only medium that I can think of, that allows you to reinterpret someones work is music.

I hear Pat Boone's version of "Tutti Fruitti" out sold Little Richards.
I'm sure he just fixed it according to the rules and the "norm" of the day and found it a much better more dignified song.

Popularity , mass acceptance, does not always equal quality.

You like what you like regardless of whether it's " right" or " well written" or beautifully played" or not.

Besides that guy obviously had something against drunks which makes me think he probably had some kind of syphilitic brain disease from childhood episodes of bestiality

 

[sophieloves]

imo a poem lives and breathes independent of its author, once birthed. it does transcend the words strung together to create it. just like a baby is created, yet becomes its own person.

many people write poetry.
few are poets.

 

[twelveoone]

This was both: my personal view and the definition of poetry, except that in a drastically abbreviated form. At the same time, personal or not, it is based on the history of poetry and the development of the views that go back more than twenty five centuries, starting with the ancient Chinese, via skalds and Japanese, all the way to Boleslaw Lesmian. (I am so sorry for you, guys, that you cannot read Lesmian, or even just poems for children by Julian Tuwim and Boleslaw Lesmian; all those Eliots and Frosts are pitiful weak amateurs when compared to Lesmian).


OK, if all you want is to argue for the sake of arguing, I am done. Good luck.

At the risk of sounding like this is a rhetorical question, why are Eliot and Frost pitiful weak amateurs compared to Boleslaw Lesmian?

Two People


Often a song sings in my soul, sad and forlorn,
For two people, who so yearned to be lovers sworn.
In a garden declaring their love in hushed voice,
They fled from each other, their needs leaving no choice...


Never did the lovers meet, both being to blame;
Time moved ceaselessly on, never staying the same.
But they'd love again: reaching for a flower once more,
They fell ill like no one had in the world before.


Under a sycamore, two beds, two shadows lay,
Under a sycamore, two lovers passed away
A hapless death charade, with neither taint nor sin,
No happy tears or smiles, or loving glow within...


Their red lips faded to a cold purple of death,
Such a pallid paleness the world had never met.
They had desired to love on the eternal side,
But love had ceased to exist, it too had died.


And lastly on bended knees at their luckless threshold
They prayed in hope, but there was no God to behold.
Their wills remained to Spring and to Summer's eve,
Bent on life: but no more was there an Earth to receive.

translation by Barry Keane

Glad to see you come down from Mt. Giewont.
But the birds still circle.

 

[Picodiribibi]

imo a poem lives and breathes independent of its author, once birthed. it does transcend the words strung together to create it. just like a baby is created, yet becomes its own person.

many people write poetry.
few are poets.

I like this answer to the question "What makes it poetry?" I've passed it through the brain-sieve, filtered it twice, and this what I get:

A poem is its author's child;
The poet dead, it still runs wild.

Authentic poets write authentic poetry.

So what, besides the discipline to write, makes an authentic poet? Where does the inspiration to write poetry come from? Anomie or Götterfunken? Does the vary by era? Does it vary by location? And how does a poet's perception of the source of his inspiration affect his writing? How do other's perception of the the poet's source of inspiration affect their interpretation of a poem?
Let's talk about the sociology of poetry. Or not.

 

[Angeline]

I like this answer to the question "What makes it poetry?" I've passed it through the brain-sieve, filtered it twice, and this what I get:

A poem is its author's child;
The poet dead, it still runs wild.

Authentic poets write authentic poetry.

So what, besides the discipline to write, makes an authentic poet? Where does the inspiration to write poetry come from? Anomie or Götterfunken? Does the vary by era? Does it vary by location? And how does a poet's perception of the source of his inspiration affect his writing? How do other's perception of the the poet's source of inspiration affect their interpretation of a poem?
Let's talk about the sociology of poetry. Or not.

Do you by any chance remember Roseanne Rosannadanna from Saturday Night Live? You ask a lot of questions.

I love literature, language, and playing with words, I feel things keenly and I've had lots of trauma in my life. I tend to think that combination makes me want to express myself by writing poems. I don't know what motivates others.

I've talked a lot with Lauren Hynde about how different cultures express themselves poetically. That has fascinated me for a while now. There seems, to me, to be certain qualities shared by Latino (or Latin-influenced) cultures and Asian cultures, for example, that are expressed in enough of their respective poetry that one can identify a "voice" specific to a culture. Not always, of course, but often. You could argue the same for poems written by Americans, or within that culture, Black Americans. And on a more personal level, as I said in the other thread, I know my East Coast, mid-Atlantic urban background influences my style as much as what I've read and like. And I'm sure that's also true for my age and political background, religious upbringing, socioeconomic status, etc.

I don't think one could argue successfully that any one culture is more poetic than any other. I'm fascinated by poetry of the Holocaust because I lost family in it; it's meaningful for me. I like the poetry of writers from Mexico and South America for the dreamy, sensual quality I see in so many of their poems. Those are just my preferences.

What do you think?

 

[wildsweetone]

So what, besides the discipline to write, makes an authentic poet?
an authentic poet is one who writes poetry. and to go out on a limb, one who writes poetic poetry.

Where does the inspiration to write poetry come from?
under my nose.

Does the [writing/poetry] vary by era?
of course. just check out the environment around you, note how much has changed in your own lifetime. would our parent poets have written about cell phones for example?


Does it vary by location?
yes. and no. living in Auckland, NZ doesn't stop me writing about deserts. however, lack of research and/or physical experience, does limit my knowledge of detail (and i do so love those tiny details!).

And how does a poet's perception of the source of his inspiration affect his writing?
each of us is unique therefore our perception on what we see or what inspires us is going to be unique. sure some will be similar to other perceptions, but if we search hard enough, we can be completely unique.


How do other's perception of the the poet's source of inspiration affect their interpretation of a poem?
that's like asking how a rainbow affects you as compared to how it affects me. frankly, when i write, i often don't consider how others will perceive their own baggage in my poetry. i prefer to concern myself with getting my poems to say what i want them to say without worrying about other people's perceptions at this early point in my poetry writing life. --- i often don't write to an audience.

 

[Picodiribibi]

I believe that a poem is a reflection of a poet's values, the norms of his self-identified group and his social location (era, geographic location, social status, wealth and power). The interpretation of a poem is a relational synthesis of the reader's values and the author's values (using the poem as a proxy for those values). Objectivity (a relative synthesis of values) in the interpretation of poetry is impossible.

Basically, what you all said.

I like questions. I like questions because they beg more questions. For example, how might the homogenization of culture (or, alternately, the rationalization of society) affect the poetic imagination?

 

[unpredictablebijou]

A poet is someone who thinks his or her navel is so fabulous that not only are they willing to stare at it all day, they also want other people to stare at it.

wanna see mine? I'm working on my fourth book about it.
bijou

 

[Tzara]

I believe that a poem is a reflection of a poet's values, the norms of his self-identified group and his social location (era, geographic location, social status, wealth and power). The interpretation of a poem is a relational synthesis of the reader's values and the author's values (using the poem as a proxy for those values). Objectivity (a relative synthesis of values) in the interpretation of poetry is impossible.

Basically, what you all said.

I like questions. I like questions because they beg more questions. For example, how might the homogenization of culture (or, alternately, the rationalization of society) affect the poetic imagination?

You are a sociologist, aren't you?

 

[Picodiribibi]

You are a sociologist, aren't you?

No, but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[Tzara]

Where does the inspiration to write poetry come from? Anomie or Götterfunken?

I think of poems as Gedankenexperimenten. A good poem is founded on a well-crafted Dasein.

 

[Tzara]

No, but I once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I would have a clever comeback for this (especially that edit wordy thing) but I can't think and laugh at the same time.

 

[Angeline]

Gedankenexperimenten.

Bless you.

 

[Angeline]

I believe that a poem is a reflection of a poet's values, the norms of his self-identified group and his social location (era, geographic location, social status, wealth and power). The interpretation of a poem is a relational synthesis of the reader's values and the author's values (using the poem as a proxy for those values). Objectivity (a relative synthesis of values) in the interpretation of poetry is impossible.

Basically, what you all said.

I like questions. I like questions because they beg more questions. For example, how might the homogenization of culture (or, alternately, the rationalization of society) affect the poetic imagination?

Ruin it? Too depressing to contemplate.

 

[Tzara]

Bless you.

I didn't get any of that on you, did I?!

 

[Angeline]

I didn't get any of that on you, did I?!

What's a little schmutz among friends?

 

[unpredictablebijou]

What's a little schmutz among friends?

lemme guess this one:
my ex, out with his buddies?

 

[Angeline]

lemme guess this one:
my ex, out with his buddies?

nah that's putz

 

[Tzara]

What's a little schmutz among friends?

Actually, spukhafte Fernwirkung.

I want one of those flat bagels with the sunflower seeds. And that cream cheese. Our coffee is better, though.

 

[Angeline]

Actually, spukhafte Fernwirkung.

I want one of those flat bagels with the sunflower seeds. And that cream cheese. Our coffee is better, though.

We'll be there next Tuesday. We'll have a bialy toast in your honor. (You know you can make the cream cheese. You just need to chop scallions and mix it into the plain stuff. Let it sit in the fridge overnight and it'll be um fragrant in the morning.)

I'm thinking maybe what you really had was a bialy. Did it look like this?

 

[Tzara]

We'll be there next Tuesday. We'll have a bialy toast in your honor. (You know you can make the cream cheese. You just need to chop scallions and mix it into the plain stuff. Let it sit in the fridge overnight and it'll be um fragrant in the morning.)

I'm thinking maybe what you really had was a bialy. Did it look like this?

No, I was tempted by those but resisted.

It's a standard thing on their menu. I think maybe one of those unleavened bagels you talked about. It was good.

The wyf loves salt bagels. Said Tal didn't make them salty enough. Wimps.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

nah that's putz

schlemiel, perhaps. Or meshugginah. Goyim, at the very least.