Which is more important?

[milo]

... lifelong commitment‎ poetry demands of its adherents.

Pretentious (and silly) statements, such the one above, are
the hallmark of dabblers and do-nothings and future Hallmark
card writers. That said, some of the very best writers around
were/are dabblers and do-nothings; and quite a few of them
weren't above making a few bucks writing text for cards
(e.g. Raymond Carver). Talk about understanding your audience...

"do-nothings" maybe. I can't agree with any other part of the statement.

And, since when is "pretentious" bad? I have never read a thing worth reading by an unpretentious poet.

[milo]

"In fact, the bad poet is usually unconscious where he ought to be
conscious, and conscious where he ought to be unconscious. Both errors tend
to make him `personal.’ "
-T.S. Eliot, "Tradition and the Individual Talent", 1919

[Simatong]

Hello Simatong,

I think you miss a great opportunity to learn by just shrugging off critique! It's always valuable to try out ideas by others, you can always reject them afterwards. But by experimenting with ideas by others you usually come up with new ideas of yourself as well.

I don't think a poem is less "from the heart" when we use our brain as well by the way. I feel that our job is to make the reader feel something, not to necessarily revel in our own feelings. And achieving that is in large part also a cerebral craft.

I agree that it can be a cerebral craft, but be it cerebral or emotive, it is still an extremely subjective thing. Already, I have written works that have gotten praise and scathing reviews on this forum. Some say they like the message behind the words, while others call it cliched. Two different people with differing views on one piece. Indeed, what sounds cliche to one might seem beautiful to another. Poetry is such a subjective thing that, even when taking in both positive and negative feedback, I find it best to analyze the analysis I receive, thank the person for their time, and then move on, seeing what else inspires me and what else can be seen in another's artistry. Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?

Pardon the length but -

The Rules (by Dennis Hammes)

The Rules.

1. Make certain your readers understand that, with five billion
people on the planet, your feeling is perfectly unique. If your
poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude must.

2. Make certain your readers understand that, while the species
has been making arts for 27,000 years (that we know of), your
feeling has never before been experienced. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

3. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is both
too unique and too novel to be couched in the standard language of
any country or people. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

4. Make certain your readers understand that, while you may
condescend to use their pathetic attempt at a language, you must
alter its spelling and punctuation according to the dictates of your
most-novel and -unique feeling. If your poem does not say this,
your explanatory prelude must.

5. Make certain your readers understand that their pathetic rules
concerning sound and form, and their effect on rhetorical period,
have nothing to do with the expression of your feeling, since your
feeling is so unique and novel as to be utterly unaffected by the
manner of delivery. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

6. Make certain your readers understand that any who do not
understand the finer points of your feeling, including especially
that it unique and novel, is a troll. If your poem does not say
this, your explanatory prelude must.

7. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is so
pure that any rules of language or techniques of poetry would only
sully it. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

8. Make certain your readers understand that you, yourself, are
so unique and novel, but especially so pure, as to have no need of
any technique discovered by lesser masters. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

9. Make certain your readers understand that nobody can read your
poem, or understand your unique and novel feeling, nor especially
its purity, without your personal intervention and help given in
several sessions to their pathetic inabilities to read their own
language. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

10. Make certain your readers understand that your pure spirit
will be available eternally to help those pathetic trolls understand
your unique and novel feeling, and personally chastise those who
just don't get it. If your poem does not say this, you have endless
space on the internet to explain this at length, especially if your poem
can't.

I find it interesting that some people read nuances in my statements that aren't there. Never once did I even imply that I have something so unique as to be unquestionable. I merely stated that I analyze the critiques I receive and move on, either taking or leaving the suggestions given. Some of them have been inspiring and have led me to want to change some things. Others don't do that and I simply move forward. In both cases, I read what is written to me, absorb it, analyze it, and move on, regardless of how inspired or uninspired I am by the critiques. I am sorry if you take offense to this, and I am sorry if that somehow leads you to believe that I am some egotist. However, if you feel the way you do~~~then feel that way. I have explained myself several times in ways I can't help but feel are rather clear, but I tire of having to defend myself when I simply gave a simple input.

---

You are writing poetry because millions of others before you have written poetry and given you something to work with. If you think that means you're an individual, then you are ignoring the legacy of those forerunners (and peers). Some might view that as intensely disrespectful.

No. I write poetry because it is a natural tendency for me, a desire that is not contingent on the existence of any forerunner; I like using words to express how I feel.
It is that simple.
I don't simply THINK that I'm an individual. That's an odd statement to me, because to think I am individual is to imply that it is mere belief. My individuality is a fact. As is everyone's. Every single being that walks this ever-turning globe is unique. They have their own way of doing things, there one ways of expressing themselves. And this is ESPECIALLY true of poetry. We all leave our own imprint, every one of us creating poetic art in ways that is uniquely ours and no one else's. However, as I said, when we ONLY listen to what others think our work should be instead of also going by what our hearts and minds say, then it no longer becomes our own work. We lose our voice, and we rob ourselves of the opportunity to express the life of the individual within ourselves. Every last one of those forerunners were unique, expressing individuality in many astounding and beautiful ways. They may have let the voices and experience of others GUIDE them, but being guided is not the same as losing one's inner "voice". However, that is what I believe. Others will have their views.

[milo]

I agree that it can be a cerebral craft, but be it cerebral or emotive, it is still an extremely subjective thing. Already, I have written works that have gotten praise and scathing reviews on this forum. Some say they like the message behind the words, while others call it cliched. Two different people with differing views on one piece. Indeed, what sounds cliche to one might seem beautiful to another. Poetry is such a subjective thing that, even when taking in both positive and negative feedback, I find it best to analyze the analysis I receive, thank the person for their time, and then move on, seeing what else inspires me and what else can be seen in another's artistry. Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?

Pardon the length but -

The Rules (by Dennis Hammes)

The Rules.

1. Make certain your readers understand that, with five billion
people on the planet, your feeling is perfectly unique. If your
poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude must.

2. Make certain your readers understand that, while the species
has been making arts for 27,000 years (that we know of), your
feeling has never before been experienced. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

3. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is both
too unique and too novel to be couched in the standard language of
any country or people. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

4. Make certain your readers understand that, while you may
condescend to use their pathetic attempt at a language, you must
alter its spelling and punctuation according to the dictates of your
most-novel and -unique feeling. If your poem does not say this,
your explanatory prelude must.

5. Make certain your readers understand that their pathetic rules
concerning sound and form, and their effect on rhetorical period,
have nothing to do with the expression of your feeling, since your
feeling is so unique and novel as to be utterly unaffected by the
manner of delivery. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

6. Make certain your readers understand that any who do not
understand the finer points of your feeling, including especially
that it unique and novel, is a troll. If your poem does not say
this, your explanatory prelude must.

7. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is so
pure that any rules of language or techniques of poetry would only
sully it. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

8. Make certain your readers understand that you, yourself, are
so unique and novel, but especially so pure, as to have no need of
any technique discovered by lesser masters. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

9. Make certain your readers understand that nobody can read your
poem, or understand your unique and novel feeling, nor especially
its purity, without your personal intervention and help given in
several sessions to their pathetic inabilities to read their own
language. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

10. Make certain your readers understand that your pure spirit
will be available eternally to help those pathetic trolls understand
your unique and novel feeling, and personally chastise those who
just don't get it. If your poem does not say this, you have endless
space on the internet to explain this at length, especially if your poem
can't.

I find it interesting that some people read nuances in my statements that aren't there. Never once did I even imply that I have something so unique as to be unquestionable. I merely stated that I analyze the critiques I receive and move on, either taking or leaving the suggestions given. Some of them have been inspiring and have led me to want to change some things. Others don't do that and I simply move forward. In both cases, I read what is written to me, absorb it, analyze it, and move on, regardless of how inspired or uninspired I am by the critiques. I am sorry if you take offense to this, and I am sorry if that somehow leads you to believe that I am some egotist. However, if you feel the way you do~~~then feel that way. I have explained myself several times in ways I can't help but feel are rather clear, but I tire of having to defend myself when I simply gave a simple input.

---

You think the great Dennis Hammes wrote the rules.for you?

Wow, super narcissist alert!

[Simatong]

Pardon the length but -

The Rules (by Dennis Hammes)

The Rules.

1. Make certain your readers understand that, with five billion
people on the planet, your feeling is perfectly unique. If your
poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude must.

2. Make certain your readers understand that, while the species
has been making arts for 27,000 years (that we know of), your
feeling has never before been experienced. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

3. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is both
too unique and too novel to be couched in the standard language of
any country or people. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

4. Make certain your readers understand that, while you may
condescend to use their pathetic attempt at a language, you must
alter its spelling and punctuation according to the dictates of your
most-novel and -unique feeling. If your poem does not say this,
your explanatory prelude must.

5. Make certain your readers understand that their pathetic rules
concerning sound and form, and their effect on rhetorical period,
have nothing to do with the expression of your feeling, since your
feeling is so unique and novel as to be utterly unaffected by the
manner of delivery. If your poem does not say this, your
explanatory prelude must.

6. Make certain your readers understand that any who do not
understand the finer points of your feeling, including especially
that it unique and novel, is a troll. If your poem does not say
this, your explanatory prelude must.

7. Make certain your readers understand that your feeling is so
pure that any rules of language or techniques of poetry would only
sully it. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

8. Make certain your readers understand that you, yourself, are
so unique and novel, but especially so pure, as to have no need of
any technique discovered by lesser masters. If your poem does not
say this, your explanatory prelude must.

9. Make certain your readers understand that nobody can read your
poem, or understand your unique and novel feeling, nor especially
its purity, without your personal intervention and help given in
several sessions to their pathetic inabilities to read their own
language. If your poem does not say this, your explanatory prelude
must.

10. Make certain your readers understand that your pure spirit
will be available eternally to help those pathetic trolls understand
your unique and novel feeling, and personally chastise those who
just don't get it. If your poem does not say this, you have endless
space on the internet to explain this at length, especially if your poem
can't.

I find it interesting that some people read nuances in my statements that aren't there. Never once did I even imply that I have something so unique as to be unquestionable. I merely stated that I analyze the critiques I receive and move on, either taking or leaving the suggestions given. Some of them have been inspiring and have led me to want to change some things. Others don't do that and I simply move forward. In both cases, I read what is written to me, absorb it, analyze it, and move on, regardless of how inspired or uninspired I am by the critiques. I am sorry if you take offense to this, and I am sorry if that somehow leads you to believe that I am some egotist. However, if you feel the way you do~~~then feel that way. I have explained myself several times in ways I can't help but feel are rather clear, but I tire of having to defend myself when I simply gave a simple input.

---

You think the great Dennis Hammes wrote the rules.for you?

Wow, super narcissist alert!

Now think these rules were written for me; Admittedly, I had thought you yourself had written these rules as a response to one of my posts. But whether it was written by you or by Mr. Hammes (who I didn't know existed until you mentioned him), given that there is clearly a caveat in the tone, one can logically deduce what the post was aiming at. My comment was a response to the implied commentary as made by the poster of these rules (you), not as a show of narcissism. As I said, there was a caveat in your tone, aimed at me; I responded to the caveat and gave my opinion. It is very disconcerting to see an individual comparing an obvious response to an extreme form of narcissism~~

[milo]

I find it interesting that some people read nuances in my statements that aren't there. Never once did I even imply that I have something so unique as to be unquestionable. I merely stated that I analyze the critiques I receive and move on, either taking or leaving the suggestions given. Some of them have been inspiring and have led me to want to change some things. Others don't do that and I simply move forward. In both cases, I read what is written to me, absorb it, analyze it, and move on, regardless of how inspired or uninspired I am by the critiques. I am sorry if you take offense to this, and I am sorry if that somehow leads you to believe that I am some egotist. However, if you feel the way you do~~~then feel that way. I have explained myself several times in ways I can't help but feel are rather clear, but I tire of having to defend myself when I simply gave a simple input.

---

You think the great Dennis Hammes wrote the rules.for you?

Wow, super narcissist alert!

Now think these rules were written for me; Admittedly, I had thought you yourself had written these rules as a response to one of my posts. But whether it was written by you or by Mr. Hammes (who I didn't know existed until you mentioned him), given that there is clearly a caveat in the tone, one can logically deduce what the post was aiming at. My comment was a response to the implied commentary as made by the poster of these rules (you), not as a show of narcissism. As I said, there was a caveat in your tone, aimed at me; I responded to the caveat and gave my opinion. It is very disconcerting to see an individual comparing an obvious response to an extreme form of narcissism~~

I posted them for your benefit, so you could learn. And you do need to learn. Sadly, it seems you are bulletproof even to the brilliance of Mr. Hammes. These were written most likely before you were born, not for you but for everyone. And while you can't seem to figure them out there are others who will.

[Simatong]

You think the great Dennis Hammes wrote the rules.for you?

Wow, super narcissist alert!

Now think these rules were written for me; Admittedly, I had thought you yourself had written these rules as a response to one of my posts. But whether it was written by you or by Mr. Hammes (who I didn't know existed until you mentioned him), given that there is clearly a caveat in the tone, one can logically deduce what the post was aiming at. My comment was a response to the implied commentary as made by the poster of these rules (you), not as a show of narcissism. As I said, there was a caveat in your tone, aimed at me; I responded to the caveat and gave my opinion. It is very disconcerting to see an individual comparing an obvious response to an extreme form of narcissism~~

I posted them for your benefit, so you could learn. And you do need to learn. Sadly, it seems you are bulletproof even to the brilliance of Mr. Hammes. These were written most likely before you were born, not for you but for everyone. And while you can't seem to figure them out there are others who will.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that until you mentioned him, I didn't know who he was. I got the gist of what the rules were saying. That isn't the point. While the words themselves belong to Mr. Hammes, the intent behind the post belongs to you, and that is what I was responding to. The rules of Mr. Hammes are easy to figure out. What seems difficult to figure out is why some people are getting offended by a simple comment that I left regarding how I see things. These are my views, how *I* feel about poetry and the critiques received concerning them. Never once did I respond with arrogant, passive-aggressive, or tongue-in-cheek comments. Never once was there a caveat in my tone. It was a mere response, just like this one.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

[milo]

Now think these rules were written for me; Admittedly, I had thought you yourself had written these rules as a response to one of my posts. But whether it was written by you or by Mr. Hammes (who I didn't know existed until you mentioned him), given that there is clearly a caveat in the tone, one can logically deduce what the post was aiming at. My comment was a response to the implied commentary as made by the poster of these rules (you), not as a show of narcissism. As I said, there was a caveat in your tone, aimed at me; I responded to the caveat and gave my opinion. It is very disconcerting to see an individual comparing an obvious response to an extreme form of narcissism~~

I posted them for your benefit, so you could learn. And you do need to learn. Sadly, it seems you are bulletproof even to the brilliance of Mr. Hammes. These were written most likely before you were born, not for you but for everyone. And while you can't seem to figure them out there are others who will.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that until you mentioned him, I didn't know who he was. I got the gist of what the rules were saying. That isn't the point. While the words themselves belong to Mr. Hammes, the intent behind the post belongs to you, and that is what I was responding to. The rules of Mr. Hammes are easy to figure out. What seems difficult to figure out is why some people are getting offended by a simple comment that I left regarding how I see things. These are my views, how *I* feel about poetry and the critiques received concerning them. Never once did I respond with arrogant, passive-aggressive, or tongue-in-cheek comments. Never once was there a caveat in my tone. It was a mere response, just like this one.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

The only thing that is abundantly clear is that you are immutably self-absorbed. Whatever imagined slight you believe to have received is irrelevant to me or this thread. What is relevant are naive, clueless statements like : Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?" To which anyone can see the wisdom of mr. Hammes applies.

[Todd]

Now that I've reflected more on the original question, I think the most important thing is the execution of the poem. The inspiration is less important than what actually comes of it.

[Simatong]

I posted them for your benefit, so you could learn. And you do need to learn. Sadly, it seems you are bulletproof even to the brilliance of Mr. Hammes. These were written most likely before you were born, not for you but for everyone. And while you can't seem to figure them out there are others who will.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that until you mentioned him, I didn't know who he was. I got the gist of what the rules were saying. That isn't the point. While the words themselves belong to Mr. Hammes, the intent behind the post belongs to you, and that is what I was responding to. The rules of Mr. Hammes are easy to figure out. What seems difficult to figure out is why some people are getting offended by a simple comment that I left regarding how I see things. These are my views, how *I* feel about poetry and the critiques received concerning them. Never once did I respond with arrogant, passive-aggressive, or tongue-in-cheek comments. Never once was there a caveat in my tone. It was a mere response, just like this one.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

The only thing that is abundantly clear is that you are immutably self-absorbed. Whatever imagined slight you believe to have received is irrelevant to me or this thread. What is relevant are naive, clueless statements like : Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?" To which anyone can see the wisdom of mr. Hammes applies.

I am self-absorbed simply because I believe that the figurative voice of every poet is unique and individual? That's not narcissism. It is fact.
The voice of Shakespeare differed from that of Dickenson, and her voice differed from that of Frost. All of these individuals brought a unique essence to the poetic arts, as did the poets before them, and as will all poets that come thereafter. Because they followed the individual voice within themselves, they created beautiful works of literary art. That is what almost every poet does. We can learn a lot from those who guide us, but at the end of the day, the poems should echo the inner voice that lives within us, the individual person who writes the poetry. As I said before, I believe that it is good to be GUIDED by those before us, to find inspiration in their work and their insight, but EVERY poem from EVERY *individual* should reflect who they are inside. If Shakespeare of Dickenson~or even Mr. Hammes wrote their poetry SOLELY based on the critiques and opinions of others instead of using them simply as a guiding force, we would be robbed of the chance to know of their *true* work.

[milo]

I thought I made it abundantly clear that until you mentioned him, I didn't know who he was. I got the gist of what the rules were saying. That isn't the point. While the words themselves belong to Mr. Hammes, the intent behind the post belongs to you, and that is what I was responding to. The rules of Mr. Hammes are easy to figure out. What seems difficult to figure out is why some people are getting offended by a simple comment that I left regarding how I see things. These are my views, how *I* feel about poetry and the critiques received concerning them. Never once did I respond with arrogant, passive-aggressive, or tongue-in-cheek comments. Never once was there a caveat in my tone. It was a mere response, just like this one.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

The only thing that is abundantly clear is that you are immutably self-absorbed. Whatever imagined slight you believe to have received is irrelevant to me or this thread. What is relevant are naive, clueless statements like : Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?" To which anyone can see the wisdom of mr. Hammes applies.

I am self-absorbed simply because I believe that the figurative voice of every poet is unique and individual? That's not narcissism. It is fact.
The voice of Shakespeare differed from that of Dickenson, and her voice differed from that of Frost. All of these individuals brought a unique essence to the poetic arts, as did the poets before them, and as will all poets that come thereafter. Because they followed the individual voice within themselves, they created beautiful works of literary art. That is what almost every poet does. We can learn a lot from those who guide us, but at the end of the day, the poems should echo the inner voice that lives within us, the individual person who writes the poetry. As I said before, I believe that it is good to be GUIDED by those before us, to find inspiration in their work and their insight, but EVERY poem from EVERY *individual* should reflect who they are inside. If Shakespeare of Dickenson~or even Mr. Hammes wrote their poetry SOLELY based on the critiques and opinions of others instead of using them simply as a guiding force, we would be robbed of the chance to know of their *true* work.

You are self-absorbed because you think this thread is all about you.

[Truerenigma]

Now that I've reflected more on the original question, I think the most important thing is the execution of the poem. The inspiration is less important than what actually comes of it.

I agree. Even if it (the inspiration, event, or even the idea) it is more important to the writer, the execution, and the way the idea is illustrated, is more pertinent to the quality of the poem.

Someone once told me (I can't remember who) that it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

[Simatong]

The only thing that is abundantly clear is that you are immutably self-absorbed. Whatever imagined slight you believe to have received is irrelevant to me or this thread. What is relevant are naive, clueless statements like : Anything other than that and I feel I would either become lost or turn my poetry in to something that reflects the work of another instead of what lies in my heart, and if a poet loses his own voice to the noise of the crowd, what does that say of his craft other than that it no longer exists as something individual?" To which anyone can see the wisdom of mr. Hammes applies.

I am self-absorbed simply because I believe that the figurative voice of every poet is unique and individual? That's not narcissism. It is fact.
The voice of Shakespeare differed from that of Dickenson, and her voice differed from that of Frost. All of these individuals brought a unique essence to the poetic arts, as did the poets before them, and as will all poets that come thereafter. Because they followed the individual voice within themselves, they created beautiful works of literary art. That is what almost every poet does. We can learn a lot from those who guide us, but at the end of the day, the poems should echo the inner voice that lives within us, the individual person who writes the poetry. As I said before, I believe that it is good to be GUIDED by those before us, to find inspiration in their work and their insight, but EVERY poem from EVERY *individual* should reflect who they are inside. If Shakespeare of Dickenson~or even Mr. Hammes wrote their poetry SOLELY based on the critiques and opinions of others instead of using them simply as a guiding force, we would be robbed of the chance to know of their *true* work.

You are self-absorbed because you think this thread is all about you.

I never stated that is was all about me and never even made such an implication. I have made it quite clear, especially in my last post, that individuality exists in everyone and thus reflects in everyone's poetry.
But believe what you will
This is my last response to this subject.
Thanks for the discussion and have a nice day!
May your day be filled with inspiration.