Poetry People - Conversation on Poets

Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on May 31 2007 Julie, I'm so glad you brought that point up. Poetry does appear to have lost its relevance to all but those who write it these days -- that's why it's up to those of us who write it to shove it back under people's noses, because poets (the real ones, not the beret-wearing posers) should be a cultural conscience. Dress it up and make it pretty by all means, but we desperately need poets to say things, say them loudly and make sure that they're heard. How is that supposed to happen? I don't know. Poetry needs a makeover and not with the botox injections it's been getting for the last half century. Lights, colours, flashpots, whatever works -- but don't dumb poetry down, smarten people up.
Julie herselffrom Here and There 302 posts	on May 31 2007 I definitely agree that poetry, and all art, should be a part of the cultural consciousness. And I'm also certain I'm advocating the complete opposite of dumbing poetry down. I want to keep it brilliant! Unfortunately, that creates a gaping hole in my thought process. Keeping poetry subtle, in our culture, means that it might make itself inaccessible to the masses (intellectual elitism?) . . . and therefore wouldn't be bringing much consciousness to the culture. Perhaps if poetry was more widely accessed and read, there wouldn't be such a divergence between what I like (the sublte art), and what the culture needs (a big ol' kick in the ass). I'm still unclear how any of this poetry reaches the audience it needs to though . . . it should . . . but it doesn't . . . or does it? I remember as a kid, someone used to cover the ads at the local train station with poetry. It was a pretty cool, subversive thing to do. This kind of unsubtle writing might be perfect for that . . . viral poetry. Awesome.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on May 31 2007 Poetry has until recently always been the predominent language art shared by the masses. One suspects people can handle it. Perhaps i'm too optimistic, but I dont' think we give people enough credit -- they can understand poetry, and will, if it's well written and presented artfully. It's simply that 99% of the poetry produced now is horrible. It is so democratized, that people think that any emotional spew is poetry. Freeverse, in a sense, has been the death of poetry as a relevant medium for conveying societies important thoughts. I think, perhaps, that's where poets need to focus: learning the craft and perfecting it, such that the quality of the product is so good it can not be ignored. ----- stephan
Melden Fred Associate, 1848 posts	on May 31 2007 Wow! I feel honored to have lit this fire, but everyone here is the tinder. Julie: You said that movies are unsubtle, "because, apparently, the assumption is that the masses are too dumb to 'get it' if the brilliant parts aren't pointed out with neon lights and slapstick." Well, the masses ARE too dumb to get it, frankly. Especially in this country where the literacy level is #55 among nations (I believe I read that actual figure). After all, "Pirates of the Caribbean" didn't make the big bucks because of its commentary on Elizabeth I allowing her captains to harass the Spanish in the Americas. In the marketplace, adrenaline beats thought hands-down. Leanne: You said, "Poetry needs a makeover and not with the botox injections it's been getting for the last half century. Lights, colours, flashpots, whatever works -- but don't dumb poetry down, smarten people up." See the contradiction: Poetry needs a makeover, but then, smarten people up. I think the 2nd is correct. People need a makeover more than does poetry. The biggest dangers to poetry are the rapid pace of modern life, which allows too little time and space for reflection; and the consumptionist ethos, which is based on alienating people from themselves, so that in their dissatisfaction, they will go shopping. Finally, Back to W-F: Poetry can't be fashioned or transmitted in some special manner to reach the audience. We can help cull out from the masses those who can be turned from the mass ethos to that something within themselves we express through poetry. I rather think of it as an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario, except that instead of savingall the entrepreneurs, we save those least engulfed by consumerism, drugs, and self-righteousness.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on May 31 2007 i don't necessarily think it's a paradox. I think smartening poetry up, with a makeover would help smartening people up. ----- stephan
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on May 31 2007 "Poetry can't be fashioned or transmitted in some special manner to reach the audience." I disagree and definately think that it can. Maybe it's because I write for kids and not adults. I find that children's poetry reaches both audiences in the same manner. I use humor or at least I try to, which is my manner or style of fashioning poetry. I think that poetry can be fashioned or transmitted in some special manner to reach the audience but the poet has to be willing to write for an audience not just for themselves.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on May 31 2007 I don't actually see a paradox either. I see a hell of a lot of poetry written by very dumb people. Just picking up a pen and calling yourself a poet doesn't instantly set you above the idiot mass.
Melden Fred Associate, 1848 posts	on May 31 2007 Jen, I disagree. I'm going to make a sweeping assertion, which I'm sure will stir up more dust than a campaign speech: Good poets never write for an audience. They write for themselves. Obviously, any writer must be aware of his/her audience; otherwise, effective communication would be impossible. They therefore write TO an audience. But a poet who writes for an audience instead of for him-/herself has a special title. It's "hack". Good poets connect their unconscious with their conscious simultaneously, and that requires an immense amount of self-reflection, rather than its opposite, marketing. Alcuin
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 1 2007 Every writer writes for themselves whether they are good, bad or a “hack.” What I meant was; a writer who not only writes for themselves but who creates their piece with the reader/audience in mind will be better equipped to reach that audience in the special manner you spoke of.
Melden Fred Associate, 1848 posts	on June 1 2007 Jen, I think that's fair, but it begs the questions "What/who is the audience we want to reach?" and "How do we shape the writing to reach them?" As a specific example, let's take today's announcement by the Bushwhacker about global warming. If Kerry did that, they'd call it flip-floppin'. When the Bushwhacker does it, its Leadership. How do we write a poem about this so it: a) reveals its just a stalling maneuver; b) reveals that instead of leading (as it is portrayed), it's really obstructing the work of the rest of the G8; c) reveals the business considerations that are the leading motivations for the policy; d) doesn't end up being spin itself. Remember, you have to reach the portion of the population that thinks the evening infotainment show is about "news". Alcuin
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on June 1 2007 um. My quibble on this is that it was not called leadership, it was called flipflopping. He is getting destroyed on this. (rightfully, since this is a stupid policy and a ridiculous move) Bush get no good press no matter what he does. The guy can't win for anything. Not that he should in this case anyways. ----- stephan
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from anstey on June 1 2007 But I don't think Jen's point necessarily begs that question. I think it's perfectly valid to say that the author of any work, poetry or not, determines the audience. And though, the author does write for themselves, they write to reach whatever their chosen audience is. ----- stephan
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 1 2007 Every writer must please him/herself with his/her writing or it's a sham. However, if it's all about the writer and the audience be damned, it's not much different to jerking off in front of granny. I'll have to look up what Bush has done now, nobody here cares anymore
Laurie Blumfrom Cloud 9 Associate, 2074 posts	on June 1 2007 I agree for the most part that I write to please myself, but I also need to be aware if what I write can "connect" to others. Without that connection with other human beings.. Iwould no longer be writing poetry, but a journal or diary of my private thoughts. I believe that is the basis for my being here on this site... to work on developing myself as a writer that can convey thoughts and feelings to readers. If I just wrote what only pleased me...why would I post poetry here for critiques? Lastly I often think as writers we tend to over-analyze what a piece is about or what it means. Sometimes it is just something random and silly, purely for entertainment, and I think that is often exactly the types of writing that attract the general audience.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Laurie on June 1 2007 Laurie: I very much agree with that last point, but I wonder if that isn't the crux of the problem. Shouldn't the general audience want more than drivel and giggles? Shouldn't the general audience want to be entertained and provoked to think? Evoked to feel? Shouldn't an audience want more? Shouldn't a writer expect more? Isn't that what communication should be? ----- stephan
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 1 2007 I think the crux of the problem with writing is, you can’t please everyone and it’s futile to try. That’s why writing with a specific reader/audience in mind is a useful tool. Some pieces will strike a chord with a general audience and some pieces are geared for a specific audience. It’s the writer’s job to determine the difference and know who they are trying to reach. If you don’t know who you’re trying to reach, it’s the same thing as spinning your wheels. I don’t think writing with an audience in mind makes you a hack or a jerk-off. It shows that you’ve done your homework and you know you can’t please everyone.
Jayne	on June 1 2007 I wonder about this too much, its giving me a mental cramp, because it seems to me, approaching 'the problem' requires a strategy, which begs for definition of the problem, which reveals more than one problem. I'd like to knock them all out with one flyswatter, and get on with writing and reading but the problem has become more interesting to me than my own stuff lately, and most of the stuff called poetry I come across. I call that problem, 'the poet has mistakenly assumed that I am interested in this from the get go and has done nothing to earn my interest problem'-- As a reader, my demands are and should be multiple and relentlessly so, I want to know that what I'm reading is worth the thought I am going to invest, but the poetry market is flooded with writers who seem, to me, to resent the cherishable fact of good, relentless taste.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from jayne on June 1 2007 Jayne: As a reader, my demands are and should be multiple and relentlessly so, I want to know that what I'm reading is worth the thought I am going to invest, but the poetry market is flooded with writers who seem, to me, to resent the cherishable fact of good, relentless taste. Now, let the entire choir sing THAT tune! There's not doubt about it, that's so exactly what I wished I said. I expend ridiculous amounts of effort trying to put layers into my poetry that I suspect no one notices or cares about -- but, as a reader, that's what i look for -- depth. Of course, the question as to whether I'm a regular reader or not must be asked as well. And I suspect I'm not. First of all, i'm awful at connecting other people's metaphors. Interpretting is my weakest area. I'm often so ashamed of this, I refrain from commenting on wonderful poems, for fear of proving my idiocy. (not a good trait to have as someone running a writer's community!) ----- stephan
Jayne	on June 1 2007 Antsey, I was just trying to figure out how to quote something you had said in this thread, I was passionately agreeing with your comment about 'one suspects readers can handle it' and what you said before and after it in my head prior to commenting
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from jayne on June 1 2007 To quote, I just copy and past the text I want, then use the indent button and the ital button. I think that looks nicest. ----- stephan
Jayne	on June 1 2007 I'd bet if more folks had a fear of idiocy, illiteracy wouldn't be a problem
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 1 2007 Where's that Monkey medal for Jayne, please? I think you've nailed one of the dreadful symptoms of easy access to internet poetry. Now, most of us are here because we love poetry, we love to write and we desperately want to get better at what we do. However, a lot of other sites really just offer a place for people to throw up their stuff and be patted on the back for it, told "oh, I know just how you feel" or "you are so talented and brave to write such beautiful poetry, now please come and leave the same comment on mine". Since these people thrive on attention, they become a plague. Some of them may even turn out to be good writers if they are put into different environments, but why leave that ready supply of sweet narcotic? They have a readymade audience of people who are easily impressed and just as desperate for validation as themselves. It's like flooding the market with cheap diamonds -- people might know there's something better but it's too hard to come by and it's easy enough to fool the masses with something vaguely shiny. Even worse, though, over time people's tastes become accustomed to this rubbish and they just don't know what to make of the real thing. Reclaim poetry. Use the internet -- it is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil Make good poetry impossible to ignore. It will call to people, if only they know it's there. Beatings may be necessary. I'm ok with violent means. People may be stupid by choice -- give them another choice. Let them know that for a little bit more effort than a Big Mac they can have a filet mignon.
Jayne	on June 3 2007 Hey Leanne, I've been reading some of the other postings put up by you today, this site amazes me and I think you're an excellent communicator. I appreciate your postings on forms, and I went to that site on Dr. Seuss, and finally understand what slant rhyme is after wondering lazy for a few years, so thanks for that. The internet has numbed pretty much any desire I had for being a writer, but its made me a better reader. your comments in another thread about walking away from an education degree strike me, I've read some of your poetry and it seems to happen naturally, I think you're doing it (touching on the stuff that this thread addresses) with your poetry alone, I'd do a whack job on my brain trying break down what all I mean by that, but simply reading your poetry inspires the reader in me. I don't know really know what a monkey does here, but I'm usually swinging upside down in trees and I can only imagine what a medal would do
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 3 2007 It's the upside down swinging that gives you the perspective you need I do appreciate your words immensely, Jayne -- and as for not being a writer, bollocks to that I'm afraid. I think all of us will admit that we've been through periods of "oh, I'll never be good enough why bother" or "I have no idea what I'm going to write about and I don't think I ever will again". Amazingly, they don't last forever. Being a good reader, though -- well, that may be even more important. Read and you will write. Meanwhile, just chip in whenever you like, because it's a pleasure having you here.
Melden Fred Associate, 1848 posts	on June 5 2007 First things first: Stephan – now you did it! Look at all the dust you got stirred up here. However, most of it is gold dust. Leanne: What’s wrong with jerking off in front of your granny? Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it. Jayne: Yes, if the writer takes the attitude, “The audience be damned”, he/she shouldn’t be writing. We do write to communicate – I’ve gotten into some disagreements with some fellow poets over my contention that poetry is a form of communication (believe it or not!) – but that is different than marketing, in which one puts selling ahead of love of craft. (I think I’ll post this as an issue for discussion.) We should write to an audience, but we should be SELECTIVE about that audience. We write to communicate to someone intelligent and sensitive and patient enough to dwell on what we have to say. Stephan: “Shouldn't the general audience want more than drivel and giggles? Shouldn't the general audience want to be entertained and provoked to think?” The problem is that entertainment is not (for most of “them”) having to think. For most people, entertainment=diversion (We should ask, “From what?”). It’s not having to think; it’s being excited and turned on and made to laugh. In short, yes, we should write to communicate, but to an audience that thinks and appreciates the sensitivity of the writer and the beauty of language. I’m not interested in anybody’s brain-farts. Politics is a mess because We, The People are a mess. Quality writing does not interest most people because We, The People have lost our quality (current site’s population obviously excepted, or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. We’d be talking about Sanjaya). Alcuin
Ruth Elliottfrom Neverwhere Associate, 763 posts	on June 6 2007 to sum up - I agree, disagree, concur, consider politely all the above points - and still stubornly cling to my right to voice my own (which may or may not be unique) I do agree with Leanne about writing for yourself, if I write to please anyone else and lose my honesty, I don't care what people think of it, it's crap. Perhaps so many people are full of self-delusional crap that the poetry they produce is sincere and honest (terrifying thought). Poetry's problem, I think, is a lack of effective marketing. I personally attempt to convert at least 2 people a day to poetry by going door to door and asking people "can I talk to you about Franz Wright? Neruda? Gwendolyn Brooks? (sometimes I can even get to Mary Oliver before the door hits my nose). What I DO think, is poetry should be experienced and not interpreted to point of symbolic dissection. The pressure to "get" a poem can turn people away. Art, in paint or pen I don't think needs to be understood on an intellectual level (at least not exclusively) I think it's purpose is to evoke emotion, that can be unique to each person. This can occur with or without the 'intellectual' experience. This is how we end up with 'cultural snobs' . I enjoy a huge variety of poetry, and don't have the intellect to 'comprehend' most of it 'properly' and am as happy as a clam about that. Enough said - you'll all be sick of me soon at this rate!
Julie herselffrom Here and There 302 posts	on June 6 2007 I think the best poetry combines elements of both feeling and intellect . . . too much emotion without substance is wishy-washy . . . too much subtance without emotion is, well, clinical. Personally, I have trouble 'feeling' a poem if I don't understand it. I don't think that the beauty of meaning in a poem has to do with intellectual snobbery. To me, it's a reflection of life . . . peeling back the layers . . . The meaning doesn't have to be completely obscure, or hidden in references that only the educated elite can understand. The best poems, to me, are where the layers are found as easily as picking up a rock, or looking behind a leaf . . . or having a new life experience that opens a new door. It's exciting.
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 13 2007 Hi and hello, as well as be gone. it's a new fad, this life, but sounds like the same engine. Less roar, more torque; a gentle hum. Should it be wingdings, then it'd make perfect sense. But what is and what isn't is a difficult subject. One subject I'm quite fond of is phallacy, or phallic whips. The proof is in the pudding my lad and you can grab my tapioca anytime baby. I see it taking new shapes, new forms, new eyes, new ears. Ever look at a nipple under the microscope? That's how it should be. Wait. I take that back. It should be more like something else. Wait. I take that back...who was I influenced by? Wait. I take that back. Did history become the dictator? Wait. Actually, take that. You copy righters with your copy written history. I'll dare say Shakespeare was a joke, and Philip Larkin is the iris that let his skirt down to soon. I'm not afraid of you. The key is to be our self. Psh. Let the air out of those lungs. Smile. Divorce me. Whip me, beat me, punch me, but God almighty, you best not forget me. Said poetry to the whipper-snapper-turtle soup eater, magic muffin rider, pogostick. They provide forks in the road, but no plates, must be the silver they wear. Hold on, I'm pulling something out of my skull...hmm...yes...it appears to be the cosmos, wait...nope...false alarm, it was my two cents, as well as as a thousand other pennies I'd like to exchange for different change. Money talks and we need a translator. O Glorious Ishtar! Where have all the words gone? Everywhere. Everywhere. Everywhere. Okay enough rambling. This is serious buisness, this resuscitation. Poetry choking on a chicken bone. Poetry choking his chicken. Poetry chocking bones on a chicken. Maybe twice. Actually, I did it three time today. My God. What are you really saving? Honestly? R.I.P. Unicorn.

28 comments

Poetry People - Conversation on Poets

Comments