Angeline-
I don't think you have ever written an ineffectual poem, if you have, I haven't read it.
You are a patient women when it comes to that submit button, aren't ya?
Emotion never gets in the way of writing (unless it makes you incapable of writing at all). It is the artistic ignorance, in particular making a big deal of one's own or anybody's emotions, e.g. labeling them, which produces lousy writing. Emotions and mood are helpful. Just don't spell them out explicitly.
Really? Even in those big, smeary, red letters?
I tell them "write from your elbow instead".
Oh, my god! I love that!
I guess a poem shouldn't spell out anything explicitly, right?
Really? Even in those big, smeary, red letters?
I don't mind people "writ[ing] from the heart." I almost think it's essential--the writer has to be committed to what they are writing to be successful. What I generally don't care for are poems written by people who want to say something like "these feelings just spilled out of me onto paper." That usually seems to mean something like I'm feeling overwrought and just core-dumped a lot of very personal feelings onto paper and have no intention of trying to structure that in any way to make it somehow relevant to a reader other than myself and perhaps a few close friends but, dammit, these are feelings from my very SOUL and you're a complete asshole if you say anything the least critical about it. Oh, I welcome your comments.
When I read someone's poem, what I am interested in (as a poem) is how it affects me, what it makes me feel or think. I want to feel empathetic not sympathetic. I want to learn something about me through your telling me something about your experience, thoughts, feelings.
Now, I might care about you (the writer) personally, or at least as personally as one can get on a public bulletin board where everyone posts pseudonymously, but that's a different thing. It's more equivalent to a conversation or phone call with a friend. It's a personal emotion, not an artistic one.
For me, a case in point is Donald Hall's book Without, which is a series of very grim and sad poems Hall wrote about the death of his wife Jane Kenyon from cancer. Cried my way through the whole damn book.
But why I liked it was not that I felt for Hall. It was because I identified with his experience--by experiencing the death of his wife through his experience. Why Shakespeare works. Or Greek tragedy.
Hmmm. I see I've been ranting again, so I'll stop. (Eve said I could, though.)
Interesting thread, though. Carry on.
Really? Even in those big, smeary, red letters?
I don't mind people "writ[ing] from the heart." I almost think it's essential--the writer has to be committed to what they are writing to be successful. What I generally don't care for are poems written by people who want to say something like "these feelings just spilled out of me onto paper." That usually seems to mean something like I'm feeling overwrought and just core-dumped a lot of very personal feelings onto paper and have no intention of trying to structure that in any way to make it somehow relevant to a reader other than myself and perhaps a few close friends but, dammit, these are feelings from my very SOUL and you're a complete asshole if you say anything the least critical about it. Oh, I welcome your comments.
When I read someone's poem, what I am interested in (as a poem) is how it affects me, what it makes me feel or think. I want to feel empathetic not sympathetic. I want to learn something about me through your telling me something about your experience, thoughts, feelings.
Now, I might care about you (the writer) personally, or at least as personally as one can get on a public bulletin board where everyone posts pseudonymously, but that's a different thing. It's more equivalent to a conversation or phone call with a friend. It's a personal emotion, not an artistic one.
For me, a case in point is Donald Hall's book Without, which is a series of very grim and sad poems Hall wrote about the death of his wife Jane Kenyon from cancer. Cried my way through the whole damn book.
But why I liked it was not that I felt for Hall. It was because I identified with his experience--by experiencing the death of his wife through his experience. Why Shakespeare works. Or Greek tragedy.
Hmmm. I see I've been ranting again, so I'll stop. (Eve said I could, though.)
Interesting thread, though. Carry on.
Emotion is fine. A poem controlled by emotion and written while you're emotionally out of control may turn out not to be that great. I don't think you have anything to worry about, though. Your emotional poems show talent and skill and don't come across as overly emotional.
Only because I edited a bit before posting. However, you gets the whole pot of soup—chicken bones, too much salt and all in the Suddenly Passion thread.
Only because I edited a bit before posting. However, you gets the whole pot of soup—chicken bones, too much salt and all in the Suddenly Passion thread.
Almost, but such a statement requires some additional comments or else it may be misleading and cause bad writing.
Champagne has provided a partial answer or rather a tool: metaphoric images. They may, in general, seem artificial, cliched, silly or even snobbish though. Equally important is that the images are organic, which in particular means that they are well integrated with the rest of the poem. The material for the poem's net of the word-bridges, which turn poem into one, consists of images, meanings and the quality of sound.
