03-11-2013, 07:11 PM
There have been some interesting points made on Serious of late. Interesting to me, that is…I cannot speak for others, in spite of my wish to constantly so do.
What has emerged from some recent postings will not be new to everyone…and in truth are but a rediscovery for me. Nonetheless, as a discussion thread starting point, I think there is often a need to restate old beliefs if only to test for contemporary validity.
So here I go with a lofty proclamation. Discuss:
Poetry is sufficient unto itself, but not all that is written is born of a need to be considered as poetry by the writer, nor is it deserving of being defined as poetry by the reader.
I will kick this one off.
First of all, any “lofty proclamation” needs to be removed from elitism and brought down to earth in order that all who wish to offer opinion can do so, regardless of their perceived, or self-perceived, ability to comprehend the discussion. In this case, the most difficult hurdle to get over is the first…what is poetry?
I should say right now that this is a very old chestnut and not one I want to roast again, but for understandable reasons “poets” continually believe that they are redefining the poetic discipline by their own unique and perceptive imaginings. Yes…imaginings. In fifty years of writing poetry (by any and all definitions, I got older and wiser!) what I want to make clear is that nothing is new under the still un-named sun; ipso facto what I am about to say is only a restatement of often noted truisms.
Here goes.
Poetry is sufficient unto itself… what this says at first glance is that whatever you care to consider as poetry IS poetry by your definition. The “you” here is the writer. Acceptance of this statement is very insular. It is also temptingly liberating. If we permit the individual’s definition of poetic endeavour to become a tested norm we end up with silent symphonies and dead sheep in formaldehyde, as has happened in the world of art. Each of us must decide if this is where we want to be.
The problem is one of peer persuasion. If a genre-to-be poet can find enough followers to buy in to acceptance of his/her defined “poetry” then a kind of self-perpetuating myth is born. Usually short lived, these flashes of novelty become extinguished by the deoxygenated atmosphere of the closed community.
Sometimes, though, through a tiny fissure, a new “something” emerges and escapes the confines of the vessel which the “establishment” has created over a very long period of time. So if there is a question as to what “poetry” is to you, you need only decide whether you are inside or outside the metaphorical vivarium. I find no regret in deciding, after a considerable time, it is better to be inside looking out than outside looking in; but to reach this conclusion you have to have experienced both the options.
…not all that is written is born of a need to be considered as poetry by the writer
Some of us write to be accepted as poets…some of us are poets and just write. There is, however, another group…a very big group. I wish they would all go away and start a club of their own…not because they are all bad people or even all bad poets, but because they do not know which they are themselves. They write because they are burdened by their own thoughts and must tell us all about it. I have heard it all before. Do not, though, be critical of what seems to be the insensitive dismissal of the cravings of the needy. This is ONLY about poetry…not people. The sad fact is, emotional writing is much improved by the great journey to experience but it is made ACCEPTABLE as poetry by paying for the ticket. By all means self-harm…and write about it; overdose…and write about it; lose your lover…and write about it; commit murder, mayem, rape, sodomy, buggery, sodomobuggery…and write about it. Just do not expect that what you tip onto the paper is automatically poetic. It is more often not, but it sometimes is. When it is, come back inside the vivarium…but only if you want to be a poet. If you do not feel this need, then just keep doing what you are doing. At any given time there are more “outside” than “inside”…but there are many more want in than want out. Once your poetry is written because it is beautiful, emotive, warm, funny, clever, complex, sad, happy, purposeful…oh, how I could go on…it becomes its own reward. Once the soft but tested rules are learned, poetry becomes a mission in itself. For “mission” read hope, distraction, comfort and, without actually becoming emetic, a joy to the reader AND the writer.
..nor is it deserving of being defined as poetry by the reader.
Of course, that depends upon the reader. I am talking about me. I said so at the start. When I write poetry it is because I want to express myself using the medium of poetic discipline. Because I am a free spirit, I can imagine ANYTHING…but there are some things which I can write about which flow not from imagination, but from memory. I treat the two streams as outlets from the same reservoir. Once I have the temerity to think that you, the reader, may be thirsty enough to drink my drink, I begin the process of purification. By that, I do not mean sanitization. What I try to do is to make the unpalatable palatable and that is all. I am trying to blend two streams in to an acceptable one. I am stretching this metaphor way too far, but I hope that the end product can always say on the label… “ Contains Poetry”.
Best,
tectak
What has emerged from some recent postings will not be new to everyone…and in truth are but a rediscovery for me. Nonetheless, as a discussion thread starting point, I think there is often a need to restate old beliefs if only to test for contemporary validity.
So here I go with a lofty proclamation. Discuss:
Poetry is sufficient unto itself, but not all that is written is born of a need to be considered as poetry by the writer, nor is it deserving of being defined as poetry by the reader.
I will kick this one off.
First of all, any “lofty proclamation” needs to be removed from elitism and brought down to earth in order that all who wish to offer opinion can do so, regardless of their perceived, or self-perceived, ability to comprehend the discussion. In this case, the most difficult hurdle to get over is the first…what is poetry?
I should say right now that this is a very old chestnut and not one I want to roast again, but for understandable reasons “poets” continually believe that they are redefining the poetic discipline by their own unique and perceptive imaginings. Yes…imaginings. In fifty years of writing poetry (by any and all definitions, I got older and wiser!) what I want to make clear is that nothing is new under the still un-named sun; ipso facto what I am about to say is only a restatement of often noted truisms.
Here goes.
Poetry is sufficient unto itself… what this says at first glance is that whatever you care to consider as poetry IS poetry by your definition. The “you” here is the writer. Acceptance of this statement is very insular. It is also temptingly liberating. If we permit the individual’s definition of poetic endeavour to become a tested norm we end up with silent symphonies and dead sheep in formaldehyde, as has happened in the world of art. Each of us must decide if this is where we want to be.
The problem is one of peer persuasion. If a genre-to-be poet can find enough followers to buy in to acceptance of his/her defined “poetry” then a kind of self-perpetuating myth is born. Usually short lived, these flashes of novelty become extinguished by the deoxygenated atmosphere of the closed community.
Sometimes, though, through a tiny fissure, a new “something” emerges and escapes the confines of the vessel which the “establishment” has created over a very long period of time. So if there is a question as to what “poetry” is to you, you need only decide whether you are inside or outside the metaphorical vivarium. I find no regret in deciding, after a considerable time, it is better to be inside looking out than outside looking in; but to reach this conclusion you have to have experienced both the options.
…not all that is written is born of a need to be considered as poetry by the writer
Some of us write to be accepted as poets…some of us are poets and just write. There is, however, another group…a very big group. I wish they would all go away and start a club of their own…not because they are all bad people or even all bad poets, but because they do not know which they are themselves. They write because they are burdened by their own thoughts and must tell us all about it. I have heard it all before. Do not, though, be critical of what seems to be the insensitive dismissal of the cravings of the needy. This is ONLY about poetry…not people. The sad fact is, emotional writing is much improved by the great journey to experience but it is made ACCEPTABLE as poetry by paying for the ticket. By all means self-harm…and write about it; overdose…and write about it; lose your lover…and write about it; commit murder, mayem, rape, sodomy, buggery, sodomobuggery…and write about it. Just do not expect that what you tip onto the paper is automatically poetic. It is more often not, but it sometimes is. When it is, come back inside the vivarium…but only if you want to be a poet. If you do not feel this need, then just keep doing what you are doing. At any given time there are more “outside” than “inside”…but there are many more want in than want out. Once your poetry is written because it is beautiful, emotive, warm, funny, clever, complex, sad, happy, purposeful…oh, how I could go on…it becomes its own reward. Once the soft but tested rules are learned, poetry becomes a mission in itself. For “mission” read hope, distraction, comfort and, without actually becoming emetic, a joy to the reader AND the writer.
..nor is it deserving of being defined as poetry by the reader.
Of course, that depends upon the reader. I am talking about me. I said so at the start. When I write poetry it is because I want to express myself using the medium of poetic discipline. Because I am a free spirit, I can imagine ANYTHING…but there are some things which I can write about which flow not from imagination, but from memory. I treat the two streams as outlets from the same reservoir. Once I have the temerity to think that you, the reader, may be thirsty enough to drink my drink, I begin the process of purification. By that, I do not mean sanitization. What I try to do is to make the unpalatable palatable and that is all. I am trying to blend two streams in to an acceptable one. I am stretching this metaphor way too far, but I hope that the end product can always say on the label… “ Contains Poetry”.
Best,
tectak
. i struggle to understand how people get so easily pissed when the bad stuff is pointed out 