Making Poetry Popular

Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 15 2007 The last is especially true, at least for me. I personally find it difficult to give in-depth constructive criticism. It’s not that I don’t want to, it’s that I don’t know how to. I’m reading and learning from others here who have the finesse. The best advice that I can give is to detach yourself from your written words. Once it is out of your head and written down it doesn’t belong to you anymore. It’s out there for others to interpret. This gives you a different vantage point. What you think you said and what you really said are two different things. If you are willing to do that, keep an open mind, take and implement suggestions, you are half way there.
Amanda Bakerfrom Kentucky 287 posts	on June 15 2007 There are people here that have the heart and passion to do just that. When I came to this site, i just enjoyed writing. Since I have been here I want to learn. I want to better my skill to create poetry that will stand up against time. You have started. Even if it is just one mind. It is very disheartening to read about people I think to be great poets struggling to get their work read. It makes beginners wonder why we should push on. But that IS the reason we should push on. To replace the crap on the shelves being passed of as poetry with something substantial and well crafted. As new people join this site, minds are being changed. Even if it is only the mind of the poet. But, it's a start. Change the quality of work being produced inturn changing readers minds when they have something better to read. Oh yeah, AMEN Stephan. I got sidetracked on a ramble there. I will gladly go on this mission with you guys.....as soon as I get this meter thing down. May I bring my walker? I suspect it may take a bit. ----- ...but what do I know?
Derma Kaputfrom Possum Grape, Arkansas Associate, 2156 posts	on June 15 2007 That's all very well said. Item C resonates most strongly with me, though not to the exclusion of all the rest. One point about the poetry out there that does get published in the better journals - much of it is exceptional quality, that's why its difficult to get through the door sometimes. Competition. However, sometimes I think the focus on particular styles of writing can be a little bit too narrow, no matter what they say in their submission guidelines. All we can do is always seek to improve and keep our own work genuine. That and build a healthy community of poets. Poets and community go together very well.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 15 2007 :) Try getting a sonnet accepted into a journal -- it could be the greatest ever written and it wouldn't matter a damn! But... Jen, I want to hug you. And Mandi. And everyone, really, because I am finally starting to think that this is not impossible... it might have been in the past but I think the tide is turning. We have reached saturation point in the idiocy solution and we, the sediment, shall start crystallising and building our way to the top. Poetry is not about poets. It can't be, if we want it to survive. We won't, after all, so poetry's the only chance we have. Above all: See one, do one, teach one
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 15 2007 I strongly agree and disagree with you, Mr. A. But, more so disagree. I don't think that anything must be anything. Must stinks of elitism. What poetry needs is nothing we can do. What is and what isn't poetry can't be measured, not by form, meaning, or logic (Especially by creatures with limited inisight). If poetry must be anything, it needs to be whatever it is to the individual reading it, and or writing it. I guess there are those who'll say a brilliant poem will convey exactly what the author intends...and I'll say hogwash. We as individuals are shaped, nay, influenced differently from each other as well as from time. Shakespeare is what shakespeare is, because society has allowed him to be that. Is he greater than the learning disabled child scrawling backwards bs and ls on the sidewalk? I dare say no. Shakespeare was probably one of the few literate people of his time, he was probably in the court of some well to do society (as most poets were/are) and at that point in time the conditions were ripe that he'd be what he is today. I think his janitor probably had more imagination then him, but we'll never know, he wasn't even considered to be looked at. Pop art is pop art however you want to look at it. Shakespeare was pop. To the fullest. As all artist who hit the mainstream. I can't say there's anything wrong with that. But, I can say that in a time where nothing make sense, we, if we were very bright at all, should return to being us. Writing is one thing we can agree on. But to say one man has it right because you agree with his perspective, is to say, that the other man is wrong because he doesn't share the same collective-ego as you. Poetry will be exactly what it is, if not, then it's not poetry. One man's garbage is another man's treasure. What I do agree with, is that poetry needs to be taught, but more so encouraged. Instead of telling people what poetry is, we should be asking what can poetry do. What can become poetry. Poetry is much more than aesthetics. Much more than some critic's mirror. I'll tell you where poetry went wrong, as soon as man started to limit his vision of it, as soon as he started to box it in. We live in a crazy time, but no more crazier than the time of Shakespeare. We need to stop turning people into icons. I say let poetry die, don't save it, and as poets or whatever label you want to tag your self as, be your self and write. After all what does poetry mean when you can't bring it heaven? Or when you're rotting in the ground? Or the flames are licking our backs? What is poetry in how many billions of years when the sun begins its collapse? Emphasis means very little to the poet.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 15 2007 Ryan: Keats was the son of a stableman. Spenser was the son of a tailor and lied his way into university. Whitman's dad was a carpenter and his mother was barely literate. Kerouac was an immigrant football jock. And yet Byron, Tennyson, and Shelley were all nobles. Yeats was a lawyer politician. Kierkegaard was a priest. Background matters not a damn to poets. Shakespeare's family were tenant farmers and Will himself only rose to prominence through acting, because he was desperate for money. You are right, we cannot afford to be elitist, but additionally we cannot afford to have poetry measured by the worst of it, and bad poetry does exist, no matter how egalitarian it would be to say that everything written as poetry deserves the name. How does one "let poetry die" and yet continue to write? Shall we just become generic producers of text? Ignore the craft itself and spew any old crap onto a page and stick it in Dewey Decimal 811?
Dave Morris 15 posts	on June 16 2007 I'm not sure if it is poetry itself that is being devalued so rather than a devaluation of society as a whole. People are reading less and less, we are bombarded with so much that they cannot differentiate as easily as we once could. With the advent of mass-media and mass-marketing all the works and ideas that otherwise would not 'make the grade' are out there, bold and clamouring for attention which would and should be otherwise put into reading and understanding the truly sublime things that are buried beneath the onslaught. Saying all that, I still believe poetry is not a dead art-form, and it's possible to bring it back to the forefront, and Stephan's ideas are a good point from which to start. We must strive, otherwise be buried ourselves.
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 16 2007 Bad poetry does exist. I've written enough to know. But to say there is something wrong with the current state of poetry, is like saying the 15 billion years it took to write this sentence is off time. I suppose backround doesn't matter...but it still doesn't hurt to establish your self in the 'right' circle. But of course I'm very much about sweeping generalizations....so I don't know. All I know is I'm going to write to the best of my capabilities. And if anyone wants to take upon the crusuade of saving something that is neither dead nor alive, then by all means go for it. I'll be busy writing.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on June 16 2007 Hey Ryan, To me 'saving poetry' is really about saving the audience for poetry, and preservering the history of it. At the rate things are going, it won't matter what is written: No one will bother to read it. No one will hear it. I do want people to write poetry, and as you know, i'm not particularly judgmental on form -- only content and quality, and even then, I don't censor people, I just point out what i dislike and why. But this isn't just about that. This is a marketing thing. Poetry needs to be sold to the people again, or it will be a lost art -- and that makes me sad. ----- stephan
Dave Morris 15 posts	on June 16 2007 Agreed Stephan, we must use the tools that are out there, same as everyone else, to make ourselves heard. It's always been that way, the people (poets, scientists, educators, politicians, etc.) who put themselves forward and express themselves most clearly are the ones who's opinions will be respected and listened to. Now how to go about it, that is the meat. I think poetry through music is probably the most popular form that attract attention in our times, I don't believe that will ever be a problem, so perhaps instead we could discuss ways for poetry as the written word to be expanded.
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 16 2007 Stephan, And that is what I suppose (and I do suppose things on a regular basis) is of most importance. Giving poetry back to the people, is something that I can admire. But then I can also admire giving people back to poetry. I think my greatest dilemma, is that people fall into the habit of making history a template. What was great then is not so great now, but others will convince you other wise. Timeless pieces, as some would put, have (and this is another generalization) 'surrvived' (if you want to call it that) due to a collective-egos' need to justify what is great and grand. And maybe it is. I don't know, I'm only Shakespeare's janitor. And this will have to end abruptly, because the battle for the dollar has begun, in othe words resteraunt dishes are calling. But, I'll come back and elaborate.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 16 2007 Ryan, you are right. Poetry is NOT dead. The problem is, a lot of people think it is ("the rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated") and it's bloody hard for a ghost to make itself heard. And that's probably the point -- we know it's still alive and humming, but we're inside it. And it isn't just poetry. Many other genres of the arts are written off as "hobbies" and "irrelevant", when in fact the producers of these arts are spending a large part of their lives (time which should rightfully be earning them money) doing something that is immediately relevant and important for a society that doesn't even realise it's too stupid to get it. Throughout history the measure of a society's greatness has been through its art -- the Golden Age of Athens wasn't so called because its treasury was full. And yet perhaps that's their game, the mysterious Powers That Be -- keep people at each other's throats, make it impossible for the artists to get a word in edgeways, and with so much noise nobody will be able to hear when the important questions are asked so it will avoid awkward answers. If we really want to live in a world of gladiators and jaded morons laughing at the less fortunate, we're heading for the fall. I don't really fancy that life for my children. And I've lived with discouragement for far too long, thinking that what I do as a writer is not important -- what I write might not be important, but if I can use it to open the way for people who do write valuable stuff (and I've read plenty of it in recent times) then I am sick of sitting on my arse gathering dust. Art is important. I don't think I've ever said this before, but the shit for sale right now (for the most part) is not art. It is commercial pretense. The "exciting life story" of some ciminal or sports star (written with such-and-such) is not art. A canvas painted the same colour as your sofa is not art. Manufacturing pop stars is not art. Voting people off an island is not art. But the world has forgotten the distinction because they're not being shown an alternative, or if they are it's wrapped in academia and intellectualised so that people feel stupid if they don't understand it -- and you know what? That's not really the point of art either. I don't know about you guys, but I don't write poetry just for poets to read. And I certainly don't write it to please myself (it doesn't). And yet listen to us, arguing the semantics of it when we should be out shouting at the world. Poets are the world's worst procrastinators (or perhaps that should be "world's best") -- and it's time to stop that, or we'll never get anything done. Not just for us. It's not too ambitious to say that if art is given back a real place in the world, the world will be a better place. At least for starving artists...
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 17 2007 I don't mean to be bitchy (no, really) but this whole conversation.. all this stuff about how poetry "should" be and what "needs to be done".. strikes me as very....elitist. And, almost condescending. It makes me go BLAH. Not because many of you don't have valid points (you do), but because it seems to me to almost be the source of the problem, the (percieved or real, I don't know) divide between poetry and other writing is in this...disussion. Does that make sense? Eh. Maybe it's just my tendendy to get nervous about any proclamation, and I'm just in love with being vague an ineffective. I'm with what Ryan said (I think it was Ryan I don't wanna check).. you guys worry about what it SHOULD be, and i'll just be writing. Well, not ME. But.. t hat's a good way to look at it. Ehhhhhhhhhh wahtever. This kind of discussion still makes me feel blah-y.
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 17 2007 Upon closer reading, I repeated some of what was already said, in my comment. Um.. oops. ITS ALL BEEN SAID ANYWAY LEAVE ME ALONE.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from ShannonVeeeee on June 17 2007 Interestingly, and possibly it's just me, but I do not separate 'poetry' from any other writing. Poetry is writing. It serves precisely the same purpose as all other writing. The definitive difference between poetry and prose is the units of measure and the tools commonly used. (Prose measured in sentences, poetry in lines) I only bring this up as a touch point in the conversation. ----- stephan
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on June 17 2007 So frame it how you will, but the audience for poetry has been continuing to shrink and isolate itself. You call a call to make poetry more accessible to a wider audience elitist -- which makes no sense to me. I suppose if a person isn't really writing poetry for anyone but themselves then it's irrelevant. However, I see no reason to write except to communicate the ideas in my head to those people who happen, for better or worse, to be outside my head. (which, as some of you might not be aware includes everyone with the exception of me) If no one is going to read whe I've written -- then i would not bother to write it. ----- stephan
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 17 2007 Trueee that, anstey pants. Though YOU may not make a distinction (and I believe that's a good call, though that's just my opinion and wtf do I know), I think many people do. And it's not a positive one. I think Hallmark and hallmark-esque poetry has ruined its reputation. I know people who are just like "i don't like poetry". how can you NOT like poetry? ANY of it? really? that's like saying.. I DONT LIKE FICTION. Which I guess is allowed.. but it's lame. If I may quote toothepastefordinner "poetry! oh noetry!"
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 17 2007 " You call a call to make poetry more accessible to a wider audience elitist -- which makes no sense to me. " Nein. Elitist is a strong word (and using it seems harsh and, ironically enough, rather elitist in itself) and I think I used it because it's been stuck in my head lately. I mean more like... frick. I can't think of a suitable word. Presumtuous? And the part I was calling elitist/presumtuous/whatever was not the appeal for a wider audience part, but the idea of the WAY one makes it appeal to a wider audience is through a, b, c,d etc. Your original points. Mostly just the first one, where you said, some poetry is garbage. Cuz.. everything is subjective. Even shite. I think. Maybe. I don't know. What? EDIT: I SPELLED PRESUMTUOUS WRONG. TWICE!
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on June 17 2007 ah. Ok. Presumptuous makes more sense to me. THe reason for the stress on quality is that if people see 'shit' and think that's what poetry is, then they won't waste their time. Right now people read Hallmark and think that's poetry -- i definitely don't think that helps. ----- stephan
Julie herselffrom Here and There 302 posts	on June 17 2007 It is interesting how people in general hesitate to acknowledge bad poetry. Other artistic expressions don't get that hesitation. American Idol is popular because the bad singers make us laugh. We can easily label bad music, trite fiction, ugly art, stupid sculpture. But poetry seems to maintain some degree of aura about it. Sometimes I wonder if it has something to do with the emotional aspects of poetry, and a pop-psychology culture that believes any emotion is an OK emotion (and aren't they all inherently beautiful)? And I think it is because people just don't notice the real skill behind the poetry . . . the turns of phrase, the rhythms, meters, and metaphors - afterall, the greeting card industry really doesn't employ these things. And poetry isn't entirely spoon-fed to the culture either. Movies & TV are dumbed-down enough that you can't miss the plot or the joke. You can miss the point of really good poetry, though. I think that is intimidating to some people because it requires a little bit of thinking to read it. And I don't mean to imply that in an elitist, inaccessible way. I think most people are capable of thinking it through, but probably just not used to doing that.
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 17 2007 Leanne, I agree that writers should be paid in full (esp. great writers). Whether that be money, or at the very most acknowledgement. Stephan, I can't agree with your prose vs. meter. I do agree it's either or, since those are the two modes of language. But, I think poetry is a big enough umbrella to include both writings. Society, I think the main problem with poetry is that the average person does not want to read something that takes TIME, to read and understand. Man has entered into the hyper-reality realm; instant gratification is all he wants. Now is all she wants. Poetry's habit of being a protean creature is alarming to some people. But that's all I can really say about society. Ryan
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 17 2007 Stephan, Who are you writing for, if not your self? Even if it's to transfer some idea to another, is it still not writing for your self? For your piece of mind to be heard? To be shared? metaphor 1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora "a transfer," especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. "a carrying over," from metapherein "transfer, carry over," from meta- "over, across" (see meta-) + pherein "to carry, bear"
Dave Morris 15 posts	on June 18 2007 So, now that we all agree one the one fact that poetry is in trouble (at least from a popular point of view), let's go back to Stephan's original question; that is, how to fix such a problem? Exposure seems to be the way to go, and I'm not talking about dying in the woods here....
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Somnabulant with Aggression on June 18 2007 Somnabulant with Aggression: Well, We agree that it is unpopular, but not that that is a problem. If one doesn't care whether there is a market for poetry, then there is no problem at all. Ryan: I think there is a vast difference between writing for one's self as an audience and writing to share ideas with an array of people, and influence the world around us with our thoughts. Obviously both are selfish in some way, but if one is trying to communicate to a wider audience the cultivation of the audience and thus the popular appeal of the presentation of the work do matter. In that sense the writing isn't for the writer at all, it is for the audience. Now as far as poetry vs. prose, I didn't mean to imply meter is required for poetry at all. to be more clear -- Prose is defined by sentences, Poetry by lines. ----- stephan
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 18 2007 I don’t think poetry is unpopular at all. It’s everywhere, in songs, TV commercials, advertising and yes, even greeting cards. I think that IS the problem. We are bombarded with it all day, everyday. It might not be what you consider to be “poetry” but poetry takes many different forms. Writing is an extremely competitive market, no matter what genre you choose. I don’t think poetry is dead or unpopular. I think it’s very competitive and you to set yourself apart from the competition, which is easier said than done.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Jen on June 18 2007 Jen: Sincerely, if advertising and jingles are poetry, i will delete every poem i ever wrote, this site, and burn every copy of the magazine after I publish it. ----- stephan
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 18 2007 I said you might not consider it to be poetry but it is a form of poetry. You don't have to write jingles or anything you don't want to. All I'm saying is that poetry isn’t dead or unpopular, it's everywhere and it’s very competitive.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Jen on June 18 2007 Jen: I don't consider it to be -- because it's not. I'm not some elitist gatekeeper of poetry, but I do think that including that type of writing as 'poetry' is not right. And I agree in at least one sense, poetry isn't really dying, good poetry is dying. More people write poetry now than ever before in the history of the world -- and it's almost completely shit. Poetry isn't dying ~~but its relevance is. Its saleability. Its meaning in every day life.~~ --- stephan
Julie herselffrom Here and There 302 posts	on June 18 2007 Oh goodness. I guess you could consider advertising and jingles to be poetry in it's widest interpretation, but they'd have to be the soulless mutant zombies in the graveyard of Western culture. In my humble opinion, of course. :D
Laurie Blumfrom Cloud 9 Associate, 2074 posts	on June 18 2007 The question remains, what can we do as individual writers to make a difference? I walk into a bookstore and pick up a novel or book of poetry and I think "I write better than that person" and then I read some poetry in another book or here on this site and I think "Wow! I really suck, will my writing ever improve?" How do we find that ellusive spot where our writing is both what we want it to be and appealing to the general public? Because that is what I think is needed we need to lure people to poetry, we need to make society think it was their idea to embrace it.
Jennifer Raganfrom Camillus, New York 423 posts	on June 18 2007 For the love of God and all that is poetry. I didn’t say that jingles and advertisement are poetry. I said they are a form of poetry. Turn off the TV and radio, don’t buy any greeting cards and go write what you consider poetry to be.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Jen on June 18 2007 For the love of God and all that is poetry. exactly. Love, stephan P.S. Jen Ragen RULES! ----- stephan
Deadpoetsmilk	on June 18 2007 Stephan, I can appreciate the need to want to bring a work of depth to the forefront. I don't really know what to say....after that first sentence. I can appreciate the idea. But to get back onto 'topic', How to market/how to make society 'smarter'/how to 'bring back great poetry,' would require a heck of a lot. A) Encouragement of good poetry, discussion, examination, writing. This includes learning the history all the way from B.C to Present day. B) Teachers who love the craft, and thus can provide that passion to the children. Maybe not passion, the latin Pati meaning to suffer...actually yeah, passion. Society needs to learn how to suffer great art. As far as I'm concerned there's an abundance of publishers willing and ready to publish any crap that hits the page, and because of this overflow, I think it easier, for this generation of poets to miss out on the suffering...which here comes another generalization, makes a greater writer. I'm talking 'bout teaching meter in Elementary schools. C) Throw a way your televisions, radios, and computers. D) Listen more. E) Pay less attention to Aesthetic qualities, though they do serve a purpose, they are always changing with the time. F) Protest. Get off your ass. Go to colleges, pick a cookie cutter poet, a well established cookie cutter poet, and embarass him or her, whether that be an essay on why they are shitty, or by marching around with signs...do it...do something. Hallmark and Jingles aren't poetry, but, neither is the most of the bullshit that is supported by the Academia. (Billy Collins, Donald Hall, ect...) G) And this is the most important to me at least, it is okay to use history as a way to examine the past, but never...never....fall into the habit of using the past to justify the present. Perhaps things have become this way because we've paid to much to what other's think, because we've turned famous essayist, poets, critiques, into unicorns, and because of this we've lost sight of the greatest thing an individual can posses, and that is their voice. But I'm not sure if I'm wording this correctly. What I mean at the very core, is trust the past, but don't turn it into an icon. H) Write. Read. Write. Read. I) Provide schools with etymological dicitonaries.
Derma Kaputfrom Possum Grape, Arkansas Associate, 2156 posts	on June 18 2007 C) Throw a way your televisions, radios, and computers. how poetry will become popular again? total social and economic collapse. first everyone loses their toys and mindless distractions, then they'll rely on poets to entertain them again. so I vote for either anarchy, or Ryan's point, as cited above. but seriously, I think Jen makes a substantial point - poetry is all over the place, albeit commercial crap. and many people think serious poetry is for fools and panseys. because people who think that are ignorant. so we want poetry to be relevant again? minimum of two years studying and writing poetry as a requirement for high school graduation. you know, like a language requrement? only I can't see this happening. so I propose everyone in this discussion organize other poets to teach poetry classes to children in their local communities, through park programs or community education. Because, obviously, its an issue of education. We know the value of poetry. We also know many people who don't. That can be changed.
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 19 2007 Throw a way your televisions, radios, and computers. Umm, sure, if the intent is to write naive, uninformed poetry. trying to cut yourself off from the world? or just the "evil media"?
Derma Kaputfrom Possum Grape, Arkansas Associate, 2156 posts	on June 19 2007 that still leaves reading, talking to actual people, and engaging with the world around you - which is hardly the same thing as being cut-off. frankly, computers and radios can stay. television has got to go. not that it will, of course.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on June 19 2007 We could also use poetic smoke signals to recruit a certain subgroup formerly known as indigenous to this continent and ultrasonic whistles to spread poetry amongst the canine subgroup. ----- stephan
Dotdotdotfrom mars 466 posts	on June 19 2007 Fine, not cut off. But.. I just don't think it's ever a good idea to intentionally shelter yourself from things. You need the perspective.. to understand the state of.. other people. TV is just another medium people use to express themselves (at least in theory.) We need to understand the... freaking reality shows. I mean, you can write good poetry without it, but to say that it's a necessity to write good poetry, to NOT watch/listen/whatever? Weak. I still hate this discussion. It feels useless. Only because I don't believe anything will change. At least not by anything we can do. Not because we dont' rock but because... we can't realistically change the way a society looks at an "art form" that has been swept under the rug for agesss.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on June 19 2007 There are great writers writing great scripts for great TV shows that will never be seen -- they deserve a medium free of reality programmes and jackasses also -- I would hate to see poetry privileged over television because they're both in the same boat. Poetry is crap in the same way that TV is crap, and if we saturated ourselves with Hallmark and "poetic affirmations" to the same degree as we do television we'd be in just as much shit. So no, TV does not have to go. It's not Logie Baird's fault. Might as well blame paper for all the rubbish poetry. Shannon -- nothing will change if discussion is all that happens -- but if discussions breed action then there's a chance. Not a big one, but hell, it's got to be worth a shot. I don't want to live the rest of my life in some cornflakes-and-candy world, do you?
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Leanne on June 20 2007 Leanne:I like cornflakes. ----- stephan
Fallica thomas 46 posts	on May 22 2008 Once upon a time anyone could hang out a shingle and call themself a doctor.....people died......too many people call themselves 'poets' ...poetry dies.....we need poetic licencing......so I think we should establish a bureau wherin we administer to poetic licence and and those with a licence can shoot anyone who pretends to poetry....in season of course

41 comments

Comments