08-27-2016, 06:54 AM
All swears alight like 22
and 17's like red
these numbers helped me out a bit
but'll fuck me when i'm dead.
i wrote that for the poetry. shit, though, an it.
this whole idea of writing for yourself or, even worse, writing for 'poetry' [whatever the fuck that means], is the most pretentious nonsense i have ever heard. anyone who writes poems and posts them on the internet is doing so because they want someone somewhere to say 'oh, that's good' or words to that effect. whether the standard be academic or folk. i wonder how far any of us would persevere [and not start saying "i write for mysellf"] with this crap if everything we posted was met with ridicule and hostility? if every poem Milo wrote got a "this is utter shite" comment?
van gogh [often the poster boy for "i'm an artist. no one understands me"] didn't paint 'for art', he painted against it. but this doesn't mean he painted for himself, either. of course, there are some loony toons outsider artists drawing perfect pictures of St. Paul's from memory, but it is only a happy coincidence that these lines conform to a gregarious standard. give a pen and paper to most mental patients and they may love it, writing poems, oh look how happy they are. . . but seriously, don't let anyone else read it :/
the fact is, and i have said it before, but these questions are academic. we write to be read. we love the process, no doubt; but we write to be read. and why? because we like to read. our writing is inspired by our own enjoyment in reading. our own arrogance that we can do that, too! or we want to get close. and this, already, suggests an innate binary relationship between poet and reader.
and 17's like red
these numbers helped me out a bit
but'll fuck me when i'm dead.
i wrote that for the poetry. shit, though, an it.
this whole idea of writing for yourself or, even worse, writing for 'poetry' [whatever the fuck that means], is the most pretentious nonsense i have ever heard. anyone who writes poems and posts them on the internet is doing so because they want someone somewhere to say 'oh, that's good' or words to that effect. whether the standard be academic or folk. i wonder how far any of us would persevere [and not start saying "i write for mysellf"] with this crap if everything we posted was met with ridicule and hostility? if every poem Milo wrote got a "this is utter shite" comment?
van gogh [often the poster boy for "i'm an artist. no one understands me"] didn't paint 'for art', he painted against it. but this doesn't mean he painted for himself, either. of course, there are some loony toons outsider artists drawing perfect pictures of St. Paul's from memory, but it is only a happy coincidence that these lines conform to a gregarious standard. give a pen and paper to most mental patients and they may love it, writing poems, oh look how happy they are. . . but seriously, don't let anyone else read it :/
the fact is, and i have said it before, but these questions are academic. we write to be read. we love the process, no doubt; but we write to be read. and why? because we like to read. our writing is inspired by our own enjoyment in reading. our own arrogance that we can do that, too! or we want to get close. and this, already, suggests an innate binary relationship between poet and reader.