Lauren Hynde
Hitched
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,061
Liar is always right. Mostly. 
Why are many Literotica poems so vague?
- Thread starter sack
- Start date
flyguy69
Arch Angel
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Posts
- 2,661
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay.. I have a problem with....
I wonder, Maria, if you didn't fall into the vote/thermometer trap-- if you made a comment first, then tried to cast a vote, only your thermo rating would be included in the vote tally.
Back to the topic of the thread; I don't think many lit poems are vague. If anything, too many lit poems show the subtlety of a noogie with a ball-peen hammer. Granted, some poems are both abstruse and highly rated, which leaves some of us (myself included) scratching our heads.
I like poems that say something meaningful more than poems that don't. I like poems that use clever word choices more than poems that don't. I like poems that present perspectives that are fresh and novel more than poems that are cliche. When all of these things coincide I find a poem I love.
The problem is that each of these is a sliding scale, and my thoughts on "clever" may not match anyone else's. Since no one is obliged to write for me I can't bemoan the fact that the bulk of lit poetry doesn't strike this precarious, shifting balance.
You mean we've been staring at your ex all this time? That is one shapely ex!WickedEve said:
I wonder, Maria, if you didn't fall into the vote/thermometer trap-- if you made a comment first, then tried to cast a vote, only your thermo rating would be included in the vote tally.
Back to the topic of the thread; I don't think many lit poems are vague. If anything, too many lit poems show the subtlety of a noogie with a ball-peen hammer. Granted, some poems are both abstruse and highly rated, which leaves some of us (myself included) scratching our heads.
I like poems that say something meaningful more than poems that don't. I like poems that use clever word choices more than poems that don't. I like poems that present perspectives that are fresh and novel more than poems that are cliche. When all of these things coincide I find a poem I love.
The problem is that each of these is a sliding scale, and my thoughts on "clever" may not match anyone else's. Since no one is obliged to write for me I can't bemoan the fact that the bulk of lit poetry doesn't strike this precarious, shifting balance.
Maria2394
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Posts
- 2,958
Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay.. I have a problem with....
Oh NO!! you mean my grand conspiracy delusions are all a horrible delusion??? now what do I do with my life?? Im melting, melting, melting
ps, flyguy, if I vote I always vote before leaving a comment, and if I leave a comment , I set it at what I voted...
Lauren Hynde said:Maria, no one can remove votes except Laurel, and she doesn't do it on request, unless the vote was illegal or blatantly malicious by Laurel's standards. In all probability, what happened was that your vote was never accounted for in the first place, a temporary glitch, a connection hiccup... I've noticed that sort of thing happening once in a while, but it's only a software error, not a grand conspiracy.
Oh NO!! you mean my grand conspiracy delusions are all a horrible delusion??? now what do I do with my life?? Im melting, melting, melting
ps, flyguy, if I vote I always vote before leaving a comment, and if I leave a comment , I set it at what I voted...
flyguy69
Arch Angel
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Posts
- 2,661
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay.. I have a problem with....
Have you written something that fits my bill? I haven't been reading you lately. Just staring at your ex.WickedEve said:Well, looky here. It's Mister "I'm too good for cliché, witless, stale poetry."
WickedEve
save an apple, eat eve
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2001
- Posts
- 11,470
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay.. I have a problem with....
My ex was very upset when I covered him with a pink thong and let some sailors slap him.flyguy69 said:Have you written something that fits my bill? I haven't been reading you lately. Just staring at your ex.
Angeline
Poet Chick
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Posts
- 27,157
I wanna rant. It may be because I just worked all day, but I am in a ranting mood. The sides people are taking in this thread are black and white, and it's just not that clear-cut.
Look at these arguments:
ARGUMENT 1:
Anything can be a poem because it's ART. If I read it and I don't understand it, it could still be a great poem--I just don't understand it or it's not to my taste.
ARGUMENT 2:
If I deviate from total clarity in my writing so you don't easily understand me, if you as a reader have to work to get anything meaningful out of the read, I can't have written a good poem because it didn't communicate.
These are specious arguments. They're both limited.
Lauren wrote a great poem in Berlin-Los Angeles imo. Not everyone understood every image, not everyone interpreted every image or even the whole piece the same way. I have no doubt that few of us, if anyone, understood it the way Lauren intended us to when she wrote it, but I believe it's a great piece of writing. One doesn't need to understand everything perfectly clearly or in exactly the same way for art to be good. Taste and the contextual knowledge one brings to it do affect how well one understands/appreciates a particular piece of art. I could even argue that maybe the best poems (or paintings, whatever) are layered so there's a superficial (surface) meaning and deeper ones. Then, presumeably, everyone has a chance of getting something out of it.
But it's also true that some art just isn't very good. I'm not talking about the poem that Sack dissected when he started the thread or any specific piece of art. Some poems aren't as good as others. Everyone here knows it. Some writers don't have enough knowledge of language, don't carefully think through what they want to say, or don't edit their work. A poem by someone who is more well-read and therefore better at manipulating language or is more careful and tries harder to be precise about what they mean usually produces a better poem.
And that's not necessarily about talent either. I used to evaluate writing for a living, and I could look at two writing samples on the same subject, one of which would be corrrect grammatically but mediocre, and the other sloppy and poorly put together but inventive and creative and interesting. I know who I think has more talent, but (like I always tell my kids) talent ain't enough: you have to do something with it. It takes discipline (hear me Tath? discipline! lol)
Ok, when I start talking about parenting it's time to stop. But everyone here knows what I mean. You know you do. Yeah, you have to allow for taste and the reader's ability to understand or be broad-minded. Yes it's better than ok to think outside the box, make up words, whatever. Growth comes from experimentation, but you need to know the rules before you can break them.
And if you don't want to write "great poetry" or "make art," that's fine too, but don't get bent out of shape if you check the public comments box and someone thinks you didn't do a good enough job. If you didn't care enough to run spell check and think about whether readers will understand, why would you care if they don't?
I will now return to my usual tranquility.
Look at these arguments:
ARGUMENT 1:
Anything can be a poem because it's ART. If I read it and I don't understand it, it could still be a great poem--I just don't understand it or it's not to my taste.
ARGUMENT 2:
If I deviate from total clarity in my writing so you don't easily understand me, if you as a reader have to work to get anything meaningful out of the read, I can't have written a good poem because it didn't communicate.
These are specious arguments. They're both limited.
Lauren wrote a great poem in Berlin-Los Angeles imo. Not everyone understood every image, not everyone interpreted every image or even the whole piece the same way. I have no doubt that few of us, if anyone, understood it the way Lauren intended us to when she wrote it, but I believe it's a great piece of writing. One doesn't need to understand everything perfectly clearly or in exactly the same way for art to be good. Taste and the contextual knowledge one brings to it do affect how well one understands/appreciates a particular piece of art. I could even argue that maybe the best poems (or paintings, whatever) are layered so there's a superficial (surface) meaning and deeper ones. Then, presumeably, everyone has a chance of getting something out of it.
But it's also true that some art just isn't very good. I'm not talking about the poem that Sack dissected when he started the thread or any specific piece of art. Some poems aren't as good as others. Everyone here knows it. Some writers don't have enough knowledge of language, don't carefully think through what they want to say, or don't edit their work. A poem by someone who is more well-read and therefore better at manipulating language or is more careful and tries harder to be precise about what they mean usually produces a better poem.
And that's not necessarily about talent either. I used to evaluate writing for a living, and I could look at two writing samples on the same subject, one of which would be corrrect grammatically but mediocre, and the other sloppy and poorly put together but inventive and creative and interesting. I know who I think has more talent, but (like I always tell my kids) talent ain't enough: you have to do something with it. It takes discipline (hear me Tath? discipline! lol)
Ok, when I start talking about parenting it's time to stop. But everyone here knows what I mean. You know you do. Yeah, you have to allow for taste and the reader's ability to understand or be broad-minded. Yes it's better than ok to think outside the box, make up words, whatever. Growth comes from experimentation, but you need to know the rules before you can break them.
And if you don't want to write "great poetry" or "make art," that's fine too, but don't get bent out of shape if you check the public comments box and someone thinks you didn't do a good enough job. If you didn't care enough to run spell check and think about whether readers will understand, why would you care if they don't?
I will now return to my usual tranquility.
twelveoone
ground zero
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,882
Please don't return to your usual tranquilty - tell us what you see in Berlin-Los AngelesAngeline said:I wanna rant. It may be because I just worked all day, but I am in a ranting mood. The sides people are taking in this thread are black and white, and it's just not that clear-cut.
Look at these arguments:
ARGUMENT 1:
Anything can be a poem because it's ART. If I read it and I don't understand it, it could still be a great poem--I just don't understand it or it's not to my taste.
ARGUMENT 2:
If I deviate from total clarity in my writing so you don't easily understand me, if you as a reader have to work to get anything meaningful out of the read, I can't have written a good poem because it didn't communicate.
These are specious arguments. They're both limited.
Lauren wrote a great poem in Berlin-Los Angeles imo. Not everyone understood every image, not everyone interpreted every image or even the whole piece the same way. I have no doubt that few of us, if anyone, understood it the way Lauren intended us to when she wrote it, but I believe it's a great piece of writing. One doesn't need to understand everything perfectly clearly or in exactly the same way for art to be good. Taste and the contextual knowledge one brings to it do affect how well one understands/appreciates a particular piece of art. I could even argue that maybe the best poems (or paintings, whatever) are layered so there's a superficial (surface) meaning and deeper ones. Then, presumeably, everyone has a chance of getting something out of it.
But it's also true that some art just isn't very good. I'm not talking about the poem that Sack dissected when he started the thread or any specific piece of art. Some poems aren't as good as others. Everyone here knows it. Some writers don't have enough knowledge of language, don't carefully think through what they want to say, or don't edit their work. A poem by someone who is more well-read and therefore better at manipulating language or is more careful and tries harder to be precise about what they mean usually produces a better poem.
And that's not necessarily about talent either. I used to evaluate writing for a living, and I could look at two writing samples on the same subject, one of which would be corrrect grammatically but mediocre, and the other sloppy and poorly put together but inventive and creative and interesting. I know who I think has more talent, but (like I always tell my kids) talent ain't enough: you have to do something with it. It takes discipline (hear me Tath? discipline! lol)
Ok, when I start talking about parenting it's time to stop. But everyone here knows what I mean. You know you do. Yeah, you have to allow for taste and the reader's ability to understand or be broad-minded. Yes it's better than ok to think outside the box, make up words, whatever. Growth comes from experimentation, but you need to know the rules before you can break them.
And if you don't want to write "great poetry" or "make art," that's fine too, but don't get bent out of shape if you check the public comments box and someone thinks you didn't do a good enough job. If you didn't care enough to run spell check and think about whether readers will understand, why would you care if they don't?
I will now return to my usual tranquility.
examples please
