More in Poetry People - Conversation on Poets
Poetry People - Conversation on Poets
| << Previous | Next >> |
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
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
by Alcuin of York on June 5 2007