Crimes Against Poetry?
After reading recent discussion threads on the subjects of simplicity, taste, what makes a poet etc, I came to thinking about my own personal likes and dislikes and the works I enjoy reading and hearing. I believe that I have a reasonably eclectic palate and enjoy both modern and more traditional forms of poetry. I guess we all, to some extent, “know what we like and like what we know.” Some poems I seem to instinctively enjoy, without necessarily being able to go into great depths about what it is that engages me about them. I like the use of rhyme for instance, when it is almost incidental to the work and not the sole aim of the process. Imaginative use of metaphor to create an image or to link thoughts and ideas also pleases me. I enjoy narrative, and a poem that when I’ve read it leaves me somehow richer for having learned something – even if that’s simply a new way of looking at the world or a situation. Most of all I appreciate poetry which moves me in some way. By that I mean some stirring of the emotions – the kind of poetry I can “feel.” This can range from clever and witty folk/dialect poetry, which makes me laugh, to more sombre works, which are apt to bring a tear to the eye – and the whole spectrum in between.
Having said this, there are some things, which always have and (probably, unless someone can convince me otherwise) always will turn me off a poem. I would even be prepared to argue that there are poems out there that I simply do not recognise as poems, but that’s another matter for another thread.
I would be interested to know what other contributors feel about this subject, and therefore I will stick my big, fat, ignorant (and undoubtedly controversial) neck out and state my top five poetic turn-offs and my reasons for them. These, I hasten to add, are purely personal – and I am not looking for any kind of approval or agreement. Others may wish to follow suit. In no particular order of heinousness they are:
1. FORCED RHYME – Unless it’s purely for comic effect this ruins a poem completely for me. It is so incongruous, tortured and clumsy and the equivalent of fingernails on a blackboard. Rhyme can be a great tool – for emphasis, rhythm and reinforcing the memory of a poem. When everything else in the poem is sacrificed to obtain the rhyme, that poem then simply becomes an exercise in finding words which sound the same, and is reduced to the status of “moon, June, spoon, the cat sat on the mat.” I realise that perhaps most poets begin their writing journey by creating (from learned example) rhyming poetry. If done well it can be excellent, but if they never get beyond making rhyme their priority their writing often fails to progress.
2. FORCED CONTRACTION – In his “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” Thomas Gray’s “lowing herd” is still, no doubt “winding slowly o’er the lea.” So be it. It is a poem from another age known, quotable and revered by many in its depiction of the eighteenth century and its life and, surprisingly, politics. The contraction of the word “over” (two syllables) to o’er (one syllable) to fit the meter was a commonly used and accepted device in the poetry of the time. As such these contractions are an anachronism, and have no place in today’s poetry. I see these contractions as laziness for modern poets. If one has to use contractions such as where‘ere, ne’r, what’er, then I suggest the poet is not working hard enough to find the right words in the right order. It’s comparable to a mechanic using only an adjustable spanner when he has a full toolbox of varying sizes. This often seems to occur when a poet is not widely read and is writing simply in imitation of the “classic” poetry of yesteryear. The cure? Read more widely, read contemporary poetry and drop the archaic language.. The English language is rich, varied and ever expanding; there is no necessity to torture it to death to create a poem. This also seems to hold true for the so often obvious contortions of grammar.
3. SELF INDULGENCE – What do I mean by this? OK, let’s start with perhaps the best known of all poems in the English language – William Wordsworth’s “Daffodils” and its opening line – “I wandered lonely as a cloud.” The offending article? First person singular – “I.” Many poets seem never to be able to escape this “me, me, me” syndrome. Yes, much poetry is about experience and perspective, but when the only perspective is purely their own I find this very tiresome and lacking in imagination. To carry this off a poet has, for me, to be exceptionally skilled and the poem exceptionally good. Unfortunately few poets are. Again this seems to be the starting point for many aspiring poets – we have all no doubt read poems of teenage angst, depression, unrequited love, thoughts of suicide et al. Are these “thoughts on paper” going to interest a prospective audience; are they original, fresh perspectives, unique observations? Or, are they simply poetic therapy? Of course there will always be exceptions to this, but largely I would urge the writer to consider the bigger picture and to step outside their own little world and consider the reader.
4. SHOCK POETRY – I would preface this choice with the rider – not all shock poetry. Some poetry should shock us out of our complacency and comfort zone, but just as I don’t want chips with every meal, I don’t want to be shocked or offended by every poem an author writes. I have encountered poets who are the proverbial “one-trick-pony”, their every stanza littered with gore, obscenity, profanity and perverse sexual imagery. They seem to never have heard the word subtlety. If this sort of imagery is overused it simply becomes tawdry and, quite frankly, boring. Again, this seems to be laziness; just as habitual swearing in conversation indicates a lack of vocabulary the continual need to shock indicates a narrowness of thought. The use of this “tool” should be sparing - and always judicious. Conversely I don’t want to read poem after poem that’s a heart shaped teddy bear dipped in lovey-dovey honey. Varied output, varied style – a plea for contrast. Otherwise it all begins to look bland and beige after a while.
5. PRETENTIOUSNESS AND ELITISM –
– pretentiousness -
noun - attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
- elitism –
noun (1) the belief that a society or system should be run by an elite. (2) the superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite.
I have intentionally left this point until last, as I feel it will probably be the most contentious. It is a subject I have alluded to before, as no doubt some will be aware. Poetry today is probably more diverse in terms of form, structure and content than it has ever been. I don’t have a problem with this – in fact I accept and indeed welcome it. If every poem rhymed, had strict meter or stayed within the straitjacket of past convention, then poetry would die on its feet. Having said this there is some great, old, classic poetry, and I wouldn’t want to see the baby thrown out unceremoniously with the bathwater. Conventional tried-and-tested forms of poetry will, I suspect, always have their place for many readers - and for some be simply old-hat. I feel comfortable in being able to appreciate the merits of most styles. Poetry, as with any other art form, is inevitably begging an opinion of the intended audience – if it isn’t then we should keep it to ourselves. What irks me somewhat is when I fail to “get”, or understand or to see the point or merits of a poem (as I am certain is true of many others) and, in lieu of an explanation of the work this is blamed on my ignorance or the shallowness of my education. I find this attitude insulting – not just to myself, but also to the majority of readers. Should the ability to appreciate poetry depend on the books you have read or schools you attended? Is there a genre of poetry out there that I have to accept that I’m never going to “get”? Can anything be construed as poetry just so long as the person who wrote it is seen as clever enough and published? Am I allowed to restructure any piece of prose ever written – even down to the ingredients list on a cereal packet - and call it poetry – or is poetry something indefinably more than that?
As I have stated, these points are simply personal opinions. I am not looking to start an argument but merely to stimulate healthy and constructive debate – and hopefully to learn.
So, who’s next with their top – or bottom, five?
Regards,
A.E.
Having said this, there are some things, which always have and (probably, unless someone can convince me otherwise) always will turn me off a poem. I would even be prepared to argue that there are poems out there that I simply do not recognise as poems, but that’s another matter for another thread.
I would be interested to know what other contributors feel about this subject, and therefore I will stick my big, fat, ignorant (and undoubtedly controversial) neck out and state my top five poetic turn-offs and my reasons for them. These, I hasten to add, are purely personal – and I am not looking for any kind of approval or agreement. Others may wish to follow suit. In no particular order of heinousness they are:
1. FORCED RHYME – Unless it’s purely for comic effect this ruins a poem completely for me. It is so incongruous, tortured and clumsy and the equivalent of fingernails on a blackboard. Rhyme can be a great tool – for emphasis, rhythm and reinforcing the memory of a poem. When everything else in the poem is sacrificed to obtain the rhyme, that poem then simply becomes an exercise in finding words which sound the same, and is reduced to the status of “moon, June, spoon, the cat sat on the mat.” I realise that perhaps most poets begin their writing journey by creating (from learned example) rhyming poetry. If done well it can be excellent, but if they never get beyond making rhyme their priority their writing often fails to progress.
2. FORCED CONTRACTION – In his “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” Thomas Gray’s “lowing herd” is still, no doubt “winding slowly o’er the lea.” So be it. It is a poem from another age known, quotable and revered by many in its depiction of the eighteenth century and its life and, surprisingly, politics. The contraction of the word “over” (two syllables) to o’er (one syllable) to fit the meter was a commonly used and accepted device in the poetry of the time. As such these contractions are an anachronism, and have no place in today’s poetry. I see these contractions as laziness for modern poets. If one has to use contractions such as where‘ere, ne’r, what’er, then I suggest the poet is not working hard enough to find the right words in the right order. It’s comparable to a mechanic using only an adjustable spanner when he has a full toolbox of varying sizes. This often seems to occur when a poet is not widely read and is writing simply in imitation of the “classic” poetry of yesteryear. The cure? Read more widely, read contemporary poetry and drop the archaic language.. The English language is rich, varied and ever expanding; there is no necessity to torture it to death to create a poem. This also seems to hold true for the so often obvious contortions of grammar.
3. SELF INDULGENCE – What do I mean by this? OK, let’s start with perhaps the best known of all poems in the English language – William Wordsworth’s “Daffodils” and its opening line – “I wandered lonely as a cloud.” The offending article? First person singular – “I.” Many poets seem never to be able to escape this “me, me, me” syndrome. Yes, much poetry is about experience and perspective, but when the only perspective is purely their own I find this very tiresome and lacking in imagination. To carry this off a poet has, for me, to be exceptionally skilled and the poem exceptionally good. Unfortunately few poets are. Again this seems to be the starting point for many aspiring poets – we have all no doubt read poems of teenage angst, depression, unrequited love, thoughts of suicide et al. Are these “thoughts on paper” going to interest a prospective audience; are they original, fresh perspectives, unique observations? Or, are they simply poetic therapy? Of course there will always be exceptions to this, but largely I would urge the writer to consider the bigger picture and to step outside their own little world and consider the reader.
4. SHOCK POETRY – I would preface this choice with the rider – not all shock poetry. Some poetry should shock us out of our complacency and comfort zone, but just as I don’t want chips with every meal, I don’t want to be shocked or offended by every poem an author writes. I have encountered poets who are the proverbial “one-trick-pony”, their every stanza littered with gore, obscenity, profanity and perverse sexual imagery. They seem to never have heard the word subtlety. If this sort of imagery is overused it simply becomes tawdry and, quite frankly, boring. Again, this seems to be laziness; just as habitual swearing in conversation indicates a lack of vocabulary the continual need to shock indicates a narrowness of thought. The use of this “tool” should be sparing - and always judicious. Conversely I don’t want to read poem after poem that’s a heart shaped teddy bear dipped in lovey-dovey honey. Varied output, varied style – a plea for contrast. Otherwise it all begins to look bland and beige after a while.
5. PRETENTIOUSNESS AND ELITISM –
– pretentiousness -
noun - attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
- elitism –
noun (1) the belief that a society or system should be run by an elite. (2) the superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite.
I have intentionally left this point until last, as I feel it will probably be the most contentious. It is a subject I have alluded to before, as no doubt some will be aware. Poetry today is probably more diverse in terms of form, structure and content than it has ever been. I don’t have a problem with this – in fact I accept and indeed welcome it. If every poem rhymed, had strict meter or stayed within the straitjacket of past convention, then poetry would die on its feet. Having said this there is some great, old, classic poetry, and I wouldn’t want to see the baby thrown out unceremoniously with the bathwater. Conventional tried-and-tested forms of poetry will, I suspect, always have their place for many readers - and for some be simply old-hat. I feel comfortable in being able to appreciate the merits of most styles. Poetry, as with any other art form, is inevitably begging an opinion of the intended audience – if it isn’t then we should keep it to ourselves. What irks me somewhat is when I fail to “get”, or understand or to see the point or merits of a poem (as I am certain is true of many others) and, in lieu of an explanation of the work this is blamed on my ignorance or the shallowness of my education. I find this attitude insulting – not just to myself, but also to the majority of readers. Should the ability to appreciate poetry depend on the books you have read or schools you attended? Is there a genre of poetry out there that I have to accept that I’m never going to “get”? Can anything be construed as poetry just so long as the person who wrote it is seen as clever enough and published? Am I allowed to restructure any piece of prose ever written – even down to the ingredients list on a cereal packet - and call it poetry – or is poetry something indefinably more than that?
As I have stated, these points are simply personal opinions. I am not looking to start an argument but merely to stimulate healthy and constructive debate – and hopefully to learn.
So, who’s next with their top – or bottom, five?
Regards,
A.E.
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:07 pm
Wow, Mr. Emmerson, I'm sure glad I came back to the computer for a bit. I don't know what I could add that would promote this discussion further ... except maybe one thing: your reference to 'the cereal box'.
I have found that poetry does indeed leap out at me from the strangest places - personal letters, the middle of a paragraph, posters, a physics textbook, and, yes, cereal boxes too. I see and hear much rhythm and imagery everywhere. But, deliberately, the techniques of advertising are cleverly invasive, and I am sure the gurus of persuasion know very well how we, the public, respond to musical sound and vivid word grouping. In my opinion, the advertising world uses poetic techniques constantly.
I have found that poetry does indeed leap out at me from the strangest places - personal letters, the middle of a paragraph, posters, a physics textbook, and, yes, cereal boxes too. I see and hear much rhythm and imagery everywhere. But, deliberately, the techniques of advertising are cleverly invasive, and I am sure the gurus of persuasion know very well how we, the public, respond to musical sound and vivid word grouping. In my opinion, the advertising world uses poetic techniques constantly.
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:46 pm
Ooo er Anthony – I started reading, thinking I was going to agree with everything you said (cos I usually do) but I ended up feeling very insecure because I may be guilty of most of the things you object to. Let me explain and give you my perspective on the things you hate:-
Forced Rhyme
My natural inclination is to rhyme and I have had to make a real effort to stray from that. In every poem I write there is always at least one line that I don’t quite like cos I have ‘compromised’ on the word I have chosen – my poetry is on the whole, more of a performance kind and I think little foibles like that don’t always show up on a stage – does that make it OK? I would agree that continual horribly forced rhyme sounds ridiculous.
Forced Contraction
I do use this in some of my poems and don’t have a problem with it – I can’t see the problem of blending old with new, just as we switch around the order of words in a sentence to achieve rhyme – we would never actually speak the way we write – think ye not? I think you are being a little heavy handed and provocative accusing poets of laziness and the need to read more. This site is for all, brilliant and average, academic and non academic, time starved and time rich, so its poetry will reflect that and should be tolerated.
Self Indulgence
I am definitely guilty of this. Very much of my poetry is driven by personal experience and emotion; a bit like putting my house in order. I spend 90% of my time attending to the needs of others so I feel justified in writing for and about me – no-one has to read it if they don’t want to. I do take your point that poem after poem on the same theme can become tedious though and it is something I wrestle with. You are probably right that poets need to see beyond themselves and this is something I hope to challenge myself with in the future. I do like reading poems with emotional content though – a poem about a garden in France or a flower or something inanimate just doesn’t do it for me.
Shock Poetry and Elitism
Would agree with you on both of these titles. I like to understand a poem and think that if I can’t, the poet should give me an explanation. From my experience, it is very rare that poets refuse to do this – most of us want to be understood – what is the point otherwise?
What I would like to add to all this is that we should be careful in how we criticise. There are inexperienced, less able poets on this site (I would include myself in that) who can be very easily bruised by pointed criticism. At the end of the day we can all make choices over which poets we ignore and which we read. What we should urge for is restraint in blogging. Ten tons of poems from any poet, be they brilliant or average, is just overload - the more so if we don't like their style.
What do I not care for?
1) Poems that are too hard to understand – make them subtle but don’t confound me.
I realise that there are some brilliant brains on here – but if you are writing just for them then your audience is very restricted.
2) Bland wishy washy poetry that hasn’t required much effort, pretends to be more than it is and expects the reader to do all the work.
Over to someone else...
Forced Rhyme
My natural inclination is to rhyme and I have had to make a real effort to stray from that. In every poem I write there is always at least one line that I don’t quite like cos I have ‘compromised’ on the word I have chosen – my poetry is on the whole, more of a performance kind and I think little foibles like that don’t always show up on a stage – does that make it OK? I would agree that continual horribly forced rhyme sounds ridiculous.
Forced Contraction
I do use this in some of my poems and don’t have a problem with it – I can’t see the problem of blending old with new, just as we switch around the order of words in a sentence to achieve rhyme – we would never actually speak the way we write – think ye not? I think you are being a little heavy handed and provocative accusing poets of laziness and the need to read more. This site is for all, brilliant and average, academic and non academic, time starved and time rich, so its poetry will reflect that and should be tolerated.
Self Indulgence
I am definitely guilty of this. Very much of my poetry is driven by personal experience and emotion; a bit like putting my house in order. I spend 90% of my time attending to the needs of others so I feel justified in writing for and about me – no-one has to read it if they don’t want to. I do take your point that poem after poem on the same theme can become tedious though and it is something I wrestle with. You are probably right that poets need to see beyond themselves and this is something I hope to challenge myself with in the future. I do like reading poems with emotional content though – a poem about a garden in France or a flower or something inanimate just doesn’t do it for me.
Shock Poetry and Elitism
Would agree with you on both of these titles. I like to understand a poem and think that if I can’t, the poet should give me an explanation. From my experience, it is very rare that poets refuse to do this – most of us want to be understood – what is the point otherwise?
What I would like to add to all this is that we should be careful in how we criticise. There are inexperienced, less able poets on this site (I would include myself in that) who can be very easily bruised by pointed criticism. At the end of the day we can all make choices over which poets we ignore and which we read. What we should urge for is restraint in blogging. Ten tons of poems from any poet, be they brilliant or average, is just overload - the more so if we don't like their style.
What do I not care for?
1) Poems that are too hard to understand – make them subtle but don’t confound me.
I realise that there are some brilliant brains on here – but if you are writing just for them then your audience is very restricted.
2) Bland wishy washy poetry that hasn’t required much effort, pretends to be more than it is and expects the reader to do all the work.
Over to someone else...
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:12 pm
Hummmmm... yes well I suppose I come under the category of forced rhyme on one of my poems. I enjoy playing with words. It amuses me. I certainly dont feel it is less worth while because of this. If I decide to write using rhyme to make a statement or create a humerous piece,then it is a technique just as valid as any other.
I dont agree with your statement that archaic language is no longer acceptable stylistically. There is a place for all forms of the English language, depending on the format you are using.This is one of the great gifts we have inherited from the infusion of different languages from different races through the ages. To actually tell someone to read more widely if they use it occasionally is not acceptable to me.
I would agree with some of your comments regarding self indulgance. One of my pet hates is a poet that cant seem to change his/her subject matter, and re hashes the same sentiments repeatedly ....Im not having a go at anyone here, I just like my subject matter to be varied. Im not really into puffing and panting and moaning and groaning...... it doesnt do it for me.
Cate
I dont agree with your statement that archaic language is no longer acceptable stylistically. There is a place for all forms of the English language, depending on the format you are using.This is one of the great gifts we have inherited from the infusion of different languages from different races through the ages. To actually tell someone to read more widely if they use it occasionally is not acceptable to me.
I would agree with some of your comments regarding self indulgance. One of my pet hates is a poet that cant seem to change his/her subject matter, and re hashes the same sentiments repeatedly ....Im not having a go at anyone here, I just like my subject matter to be varied. Im not really into puffing and panting and moaning and groaning...... it doesnt do it for me.
Cate
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:23 pm
A big subject, well tackled by Anthony, with eloquent contributions from Cate, Cynthia and Isobel.
I dunno, this is all subjective really, but I've found I can respect the skill of some performance poets on the circuit, without actually enjoying thier poems or performance at all. Thier voice / delivery / personality puts me off.
Page poetry really ought to be literate, and, ideally, literary, but sadly not all of it is. Performance poetry doesn't even have to be literate, let alone literary, but it does have to communicate and please / inspire / entertain if it is to be successful.
Here's the thing that some people forget, or don't even think of when considering performance poetry - it's an AURAL art form. Doh! It's obvious really...
I dunno, this is all subjective really, but I've found I can respect the skill of some performance poets on the circuit, without actually enjoying thier poems or performance at all. Thier voice / delivery / personality puts me off.
Page poetry really ought to be literate, and, ideally, literary, but sadly not all of it is. Performance poetry doesn't even have to be literate, let alone literary, but it does have to communicate and please / inspire / entertain if it is to be successful.
Here's the thing that some people forget, or don't even think of when considering performance poetry - it's an AURAL art form. Doh! It's obvious really...
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:51 pm
Having read all the posts and their viewpoints I have found myself agreeing more or less completely with the original poster.
I would add my pet hates with poetry though.
1) Punctuation, or lack thereof. Obviously when spoken it's not that necessary, however on the page it is essential and I have seen far too many collections that show the writer's inadequacies. This to me is a true crime against writing. As it is words drop out of our mouths and die at our feet because people misuse our great language. However, I feel that punctuation and grammar are the real victims in today's speech and writing. Of course people can claim that this has often been the case and that poetry doesn't require grammar and punctuation; my viewpoint? Grammar no, punctuation yes.
2) Lack of Knowledge/Experience. Several times I have read or listened to poets drivelling on about a subject they clearly have no knowledge of and usually over-emphasize. It is often clear that these people have taken the most prominant features of something and created a caricature with words. I believe strongly in the statement: 'write what you know'.
3) Teenage love poems. For that matter I dislike most soppy drivel that sounds like an infatuated teenager has written it. I don't like hearing it....unless it is very well written. Love poetry is something that should be kept under house arrest.
That's about it, as I have said I agree with the original poster and will not bore you with repeating his words.
I would add my pet hates with poetry though.
1) Punctuation, or lack thereof. Obviously when spoken it's not that necessary, however on the page it is essential and I have seen far too many collections that show the writer's inadequacies. This to me is a true crime against writing. As it is words drop out of our mouths and die at our feet because people misuse our great language. However, I feel that punctuation and grammar are the real victims in today's speech and writing. Of course people can claim that this has often been the case and that poetry doesn't require grammar and punctuation; my viewpoint? Grammar no, punctuation yes.
2) Lack of Knowledge/Experience. Several times I have read or listened to poets drivelling on about a subject they clearly have no knowledge of and usually over-emphasize. It is often clear that these people have taken the most prominant features of something and created a caricature with words. I believe strongly in the statement: 'write what you know'.
3) Teenage love poems. For that matter I dislike most soppy drivel that sounds like an infatuated teenager has written it. I don't like hearing it....unless it is very well written. Love poetry is something that should be kept under house arrest.
That's about it, as I have said I agree with the original poster and will not bore you with repeating his words.
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:05 am
<Deleted User> (5646)
Guilty or not guilty!
Forced rhyme- been guilty but trying harder.
Contraction- occasionally guilty.
Self indulgence- definitely guilty. (further comment in the post)
Shock poetry- not guilty.
Pretentious and/or elitist- definitely NOT guilty. In my own opinion.
Now my explanation purely for my own indulgence. :-)
but using Anthony's format.
Forced rhyme is something i've been aware of in my own work but when i've wrestled too long and not come up with something better suited to my purpose i've posted it here asking for suggestions in comments. Some are helpful and some just point out what i already know is wrong with it which defeats the object of the exercize for me.
Contraction is something i've used also in my work but there goes that word i detest. Archaic!
It rattles my cage because in context to the subject matter in my opinion it is equally acceptable as ''text message'' talk to produce the same effect in a modern or contemporary poem.
Poetry breaks so many traditional rules anyway. I don't see why ancient and modern cannot be demonstrated and illustrated in one poem unless the more contemporary style and shape dictates otherwise.
Just one example:- where a poet writes as it will be performed and the poem is about old lancashire or a dialect from a modern point of view it will be necessary.
It irks me when people seem to think there is no place for traditional methods on a performance poetry website.
That for me is the definition of pretentious!
Self indulgence i have been guilty of and still am in the respect that i do write about my own experiences and observations. I do write in the first person but have learned how to characterize most of it so it isn't quite so indulgent.
I've written wallowing poetry too but now it's out of my system for the most part. I agree that this is often where people start to write poetry and i think part of the reason for that is because their existence is becoming a little more poetic. They are still learning to ''see the bigger picture'' and be encouraged to continue and assisted on their journey towards becoming a writer of good if not great poetry.
Shock poetry is something which i try to stay away from writng. Ranting poetry with too much bad language is off- putting for me personally. I'm not a prude by any means but often it's out of context, over-used and needless. It can be offensive to some audiences which should be taken into consideration when performing. At a recent slam, i noticed one of the judges literally cringing at every poem which included swear words. Something to think about maybe?
This raises another topic. Should the audience/judges be more open minded or should it be the performance poet who judges what will be best received to achieve their goal?
I agree with some of the others here too that ''overkill'' of any kind is criminal and no poet will gain respect and/or adulation from continuous and repetitve poetry in the same style and the same vein. We all need to be versatile but it does take time, effort and patience to achieve and better attempted when the writer is good and ready to progress. Pushing someone to force their own boundaries can also be off-putting for a sensitive person, sending them backwards or on a downward spiral. Not a good thing in my opinion. :-)
I've already given my opinion on my definition of pretentious.
Elitists who don't elucidate are my pet hate. These are the people most ignorant and i have little time or respect for.
I too like to see and include punctuation in poetry on the page whether or not it is modern or traditional. I find it lazy when a poet makes the reader decipher where one sentence begins and another starts. Omission often confuses the intention behind the meaning and appropriate pauses for effect.
Over to the next one!
Forced rhyme- been guilty but trying harder.
Contraction- occasionally guilty.
Self indulgence- definitely guilty. (further comment in the post)
Shock poetry- not guilty.
Pretentious and/or elitist- definitely NOT guilty. In my own opinion.
Now my explanation purely for my own indulgence. :-)
but using Anthony's format.
Forced rhyme is something i've been aware of in my own work but when i've wrestled too long and not come up with something better suited to my purpose i've posted it here asking for suggestions in comments. Some are helpful and some just point out what i already know is wrong with it which defeats the object of the exercize for me.
Contraction is something i've used also in my work but there goes that word i detest. Archaic!
It rattles my cage because in context to the subject matter in my opinion it is equally acceptable as ''text message'' talk to produce the same effect in a modern or contemporary poem.
Poetry breaks so many traditional rules anyway. I don't see why ancient and modern cannot be demonstrated and illustrated in one poem unless the more contemporary style and shape dictates otherwise.
Just one example:- where a poet writes as it will be performed and the poem is about old lancashire or a dialect from a modern point of view it will be necessary.
It irks me when people seem to think there is no place for traditional methods on a performance poetry website.
That for me is the definition of pretentious!
Self indulgence i have been guilty of and still am in the respect that i do write about my own experiences and observations. I do write in the first person but have learned how to characterize most of it so it isn't quite so indulgent.
I've written wallowing poetry too but now it's out of my system for the most part. I agree that this is often where people start to write poetry and i think part of the reason for that is because their existence is becoming a little more poetic. They are still learning to ''see the bigger picture'' and be encouraged to continue and assisted on their journey towards becoming a writer of good if not great poetry.
Shock poetry is something which i try to stay away from writng. Ranting poetry with too much bad language is off- putting for me personally. I'm not a prude by any means but often it's out of context, over-used and needless. It can be offensive to some audiences which should be taken into consideration when performing. At a recent slam, i noticed one of the judges literally cringing at every poem which included swear words. Something to think about maybe?
This raises another topic. Should the audience/judges be more open minded or should it be the performance poet who judges what will be best received to achieve their goal?
I agree with some of the others here too that ''overkill'' of any kind is criminal and no poet will gain respect and/or adulation from continuous and repetitve poetry in the same style and the same vein. We all need to be versatile but it does take time, effort and patience to achieve and better attempted when the writer is good and ready to progress. Pushing someone to force their own boundaries can also be off-putting for a sensitive person, sending them backwards or on a downward spiral. Not a good thing in my opinion. :-)
I've already given my opinion on my definition of pretentious.
Elitists who don't elucidate are my pet hate. These are the people most ignorant and i have little time or respect for.
I too like to see and include punctuation in poetry on the page whether or not it is modern or traditional. I find it lazy when a poet makes the reader decipher where one sentence begins and another starts. Omission often confuses the intention behind the meaning and appropriate pauses for effect.
Over to the next one!
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:07 pm
Forced rhyme - not guilty, as I don't use it much anyway. Rhyme is too much like the tinkling bell that Milton complained about in his Preface.
Contraction - I don't see the point of all that as it just makes the poetry sound old-fashioned. Unless it were meant ironically, or you were using common demotic speech in your poems (which is fine.)
All poetry's self-indulgent, chaps. It's not going to change the world.
Shock poetry? Never indulged in it. I think unless you have something strong to say, trying to shock an audience is always going to bring diminishing returns. Though I don't really recognise the category, "swearwords."
Elitism is a difficult one. Some people think you're elitist if you use a word of three sylables in a poem!
Contraction - I don't see the point of all that as it just makes the poetry sound old-fashioned. Unless it were meant ironically, or you were using common demotic speech in your poems (which is fine.)
All poetry's self-indulgent, chaps. It's not going to change the world.
Shock poetry? Never indulged in it. I think unless you have something strong to say, trying to shock an audience is always going to bring diminishing returns. Though I don't really recognise the category, "swearwords."
Elitism is a difficult one. Some people think you're elitist if you use a word of three sylables in a poem!
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:57 am
<Deleted User> (5763)
Very interesting discussion this Anthony.
If by 'forced contraction' you mean imitating 'classic' poetry for imitation's sake, then I would agree with you, it is archaic.
But in everyday speech (Lanky Twang), I and many people around me use language such as
'A'm goin' up t' road t' t' pub'.
'I am going up the road to the pub', or even 'o'er t' road...'.
You wouldn't consider that as archaic or forced contraction in my poetry ...or would you?
If by 'forced contraction' you mean imitating 'classic' poetry for imitation's sake, then I would agree with you, it is archaic.
But in everyday speech (Lanky Twang), I and many people around me use language such as
'A'm goin' up t' road t' t' pub'.
'I am going up the road to the pub', or even 'o'er t' road...'.
You wouldn't consider that as archaic or forced contraction in my poetry ...or would you?
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:50 pm
Hi All,
And thanks for your contributions. Yes Isobel, I did intend to be a little provocative - and it seems to have worked as it provoked some responses! I thought I ought to respond to a few of the points that have been made - and to clear up, perhaps, a few misunderstandings.
Poetry these days seems to have few rules - and I feel that's a good thing. However, the conventions that do loosely exist are there to be broken. If a poet does this with skill, and above all originality, then I applaud them. Everyone has views and opinions, and mine are no better or more worthwhile than anyone else's. They are simply personal opinions. What I did want to get from others was a sense of the kinds of poetry which doesn't work for them. Sometimes I will read only a few lines of a poem and know almost instantly that I'm not going to enjoy it. That may be due to many things - style, content etc. I guess it's probably the same for all of us. I had no wish to offend or upset anyone in starting this topic, and I hope I haven't. What I did want to do was to make people think. I hope I succeeded, if only to to some small degree.
To answer a few specific points:
Bill -
I am originally from the Peak District of Derbysire - with an accent of the high Pennines, which sits somewhere between Yorkshire and Lancashire. I love accents and dialects, although I have lost mine somewhat due to travelling (it does tend to return when I visit my folks in Buxton!) Two of my favourite humorous poems are by a Northerner called Bill Froggatt - you may of heard of him. They were often performed by a folk band from the Ashton/Skelmerdale area - "The Fivepenny Piece." You can find them here:
http://www.monologues.co.uk/1960-2000/Hencote_The.htm
http://www.monologues.co.uk/1960-2000/Parrot_Froggatt.htm
Contraction to imitate dialect is essential in this kind of poetry - long may it continue. What I find off-putting is when contraction is used simply to make lines fit the meter, and is so incongruous with the rest of the poem. If the rest of the poem follows the same style for the purpose of giving the sense of an era or area, then all well and good; if it doesn't then the contraction sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. In the past poets wrote in the vernacular of the day, or of their "local" language. I feel we should too. Txt speak is perfectly acceptable in context, emails are often little more than abbreviated letters. Use whatever language or convention suits the style of poem you are writing - but to stick a where'ere in the middle of it just to make it fit the meter simply sounds ridiculous to me! Consistency is probaly what I meant.
Steven:
"All poetry is self-indulgent." Hmmm, a bold statement! Is it still self-indulgent if you are writing for an audience and not simply your own amusement? I suppose all art is a kind of ego trip. As for elitism; I like poetry that challenges me, that maybe it takes me several readings to "get." But I dislike poetry that causes me to think - is this really a poem? The kind of prose that baffles and masquerades as poetry, simply because the author says it is, but cannot, or will not, explain what makes it poetry.
Janet:
I totally agree that poetry sometimes needs a "voice." If that voice is dialect or colloquialisms that's fine by me. But the insertion of say eighteenth century contractions in an otherwise modern poem just for the sake of "fit" is, well, I hope you get my drift.
I am all for newer poets learning and improving - I count myself among them. It saddens me though sometimes when inexperienced writers are so precious about their work that they see it as immutably perfect - I admit mine isn't and I am invariably unhappy with everything I write and welcome suggestions for improvement. Criticism should be first and foremost encouraging - but sometimes it will never be welcomed.
Martin:
In most poetry I feel punctuation is essential. I have been guilty in the past of writing without it - on purpose. Simply because I felt it unneccesary in the poem as it broke up the flow, and I hoped to achieve the same effect through judicious line-breaks.
Steve:
Totally agree. Performance poetry and page poetry are different beasts. I have used suitable page poetry for performances, but often have to set it out and punctuate it quite differently to be read for an audience.
Cate:
I think I've explained my reservations re archaic language, forced contractions in my response to Bill. I'm not saying never - just not as a wedge to make something fit. As for forced rhyme, if it's used humorously or to make a point, then that's perfectly acceptable. If the only point of a poem is a series of rhyming words - no thank you.
Isobel:
Pretty much all rhyme is a compromise. It feels good if you can find the exact rhyme with the exact meaning - but it seldom happens for me! The difference I mean is when a poet is constructing a poem around the rhyme - rather than the rhyme around the poem.
Mixing old and new is fine too - so long as it's intentional and the poet knows what they are doing. And you're right - we don't write exactly as we speak. But an "o'er" or a "thou" in an otherwise contemporary poem is like a skidmark on a washing line - you just don't want to see it!
Self indulgence is fine too, but here originality is surely the key. Sure, write about yourself aqnd your experiences - but do it from a (hopefully) fresh perspective. I tend to try to avoid this as I find it really difficult.
As for criticism, I would hope I would always try to be tactful and constructive - I'm a reasonably sensitive soul - I hope. (Except maybe for the times when I encounter the odd smug, self-important smart-a**e!)
Cynthia:
Words are the most amazing and potent communication tools - you're absolutely right. I will perhaps set myself the challenge of crafting a poem from:
Maize, Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.
(The stated ingredients from a pack of Kellog's Cornflakes!)
Or maybe you'll beat me to it!
Regards,
A.E.
And thanks for your contributions. Yes Isobel, I did intend to be a little provocative - and it seems to have worked as it provoked some responses! I thought I ought to respond to a few of the points that have been made - and to clear up, perhaps, a few misunderstandings.
Poetry these days seems to have few rules - and I feel that's a good thing. However, the conventions that do loosely exist are there to be broken. If a poet does this with skill, and above all originality, then I applaud them. Everyone has views and opinions, and mine are no better or more worthwhile than anyone else's. They are simply personal opinions. What I did want to get from others was a sense of the kinds of poetry which doesn't work for them. Sometimes I will read only a few lines of a poem and know almost instantly that I'm not going to enjoy it. That may be due to many things - style, content etc. I guess it's probably the same for all of us. I had no wish to offend or upset anyone in starting this topic, and I hope I haven't. What I did want to do was to make people think. I hope I succeeded, if only to to some small degree.
To answer a few specific points:
Bill -
I am originally from the Peak District of Derbysire - with an accent of the high Pennines, which sits somewhere between Yorkshire and Lancashire. I love accents and dialects, although I have lost mine somewhat due to travelling (it does tend to return when I visit my folks in Buxton!) Two of my favourite humorous poems are by a Northerner called Bill Froggatt - you may of heard of him. They were often performed by a folk band from the Ashton/Skelmerdale area - "The Fivepenny Piece." You can find them here:
http://www.monologues.co.uk/1960-2000/Hencote_The.htm
http://www.monologues.co.uk/1960-2000/Parrot_Froggatt.htm
Contraction to imitate dialect is essential in this kind of poetry - long may it continue. What I find off-putting is when contraction is used simply to make lines fit the meter, and is so incongruous with the rest of the poem. If the rest of the poem follows the same style for the purpose of giving the sense of an era or area, then all well and good; if it doesn't then the contraction sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. In the past poets wrote in the vernacular of the day, or of their "local" language. I feel we should too. Txt speak is perfectly acceptable in context, emails are often little more than abbreviated letters. Use whatever language or convention suits the style of poem you are writing - but to stick a where'ere in the middle of it just to make it fit the meter simply sounds ridiculous to me! Consistency is probaly what I meant.
Steven:
"All poetry is self-indulgent." Hmmm, a bold statement! Is it still self-indulgent if you are writing for an audience and not simply your own amusement? I suppose all art is a kind of ego trip. As for elitism; I like poetry that challenges me, that maybe it takes me several readings to "get." But I dislike poetry that causes me to think - is this really a poem? The kind of prose that baffles and masquerades as poetry, simply because the author says it is, but cannot, or will not, explain what makes it poetry.
Janet:
I totally agree that poetry sometimes needs a "voice." If that voice is dialect or colloquialisms that's fine by me. But the insertion of say eighteenth century contractions in an otherwise modern poem just for the sake of "fit" is, well, I hope you get my drift.
I am all for newer poets learning and improving - I count myself among them. It saddens me though sometimes when inexperienced writers are so precious about their work that they see it as immutably perfect - I admit mine isn't and I am invariably unhappy with everything I write and welcome suggestions for improvement. Criticism should be first and foremost encouraging - but sometimes it will never be welcomed.
Martin:
In most poetry I feel punctuation is essential. I have been guilty in the past of writing without it - on purpose. Simply because I felt it unneccesary in the poem as it broke up the flow, and I hoped to achieve the same effect through judicious line-breaks.
Steve:
Totally agree. Performance poetry and page poetry are different beasts. I have used suitable page poetry for performances, but often have to set it out and punctuate it quite differently to be read for an audience.
Cate:
I think I've explained my reservations re archaic language, forced contractions in my response to Bill. I'm not saying never - just not as a wedge to make something fit. As for forced rhyme, if it's used humorously or to make a point, then that's perfectly acceptable. If the only point of a poem is a series of rhyming words - no thank you.
Isobel:
Pretty much all rhyme is a compromise. It feels good if you can find the exact rhyme with the exact meaning - but it seldom happens for me! The difference I mean is when a poet is constructing a poem around the rhyme - rather than the rhyme around the poem.
Mixing old and new is fine too - so long as it's intentional and the poet knows what they are doing. And you're right - we don't write exactly as we speak. But an "o'er" or a "thou" in an otherwise contemporary poem is like a skidmark on a washing line - you just don't want to see it!
Self indulgence is fine too, but here originality is surely the key. Sure, write about yourself aqnd your experiences - but do it from a (hopefully) fresh perspective. I tend to try to avoid this as I find it really difficult.
As for criticism, I would hope I would always try to be tactful and constructive - I'm a reasonably sensitive soul - I hope. (Except maybe for the times when I encounter the odd smug, self-important smart-a**e!)
Cynthia:
Words are the most amazing and potent communication tools - you're absolutely right. I will perhaps set myself the challenge of crafting a poem from:
Maize, Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.
(The stated ingredients from a pack of Kellog's Cornflakes!)
Or maybe you'll beat me to it!
Regards,
A.E.
Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:20 am
Just one comment, Anthony -
As someone who's own practice and reading takes in quite a lot of prose poetry, visual poetry and "bafflement" (for want of a better word), I think I'd stretch the word "poetry" quite a long way myself. And actually - a poem that cause you to question "is this really a poem?" might be more of a poem than one where it looks like every other on the planet.
I don't think all poetry is for all people, any more than I think that everyone is an opera fan or a jazz fan, but that doesn't mean they're being elitist. Most writers are just following their noses, as it were. I don't think they have any intention of stopping people from appreciating them or reading them; just that they go where they feel they have to.
"Writing for an audience" is just as self-indulgent as writing for yourself, by the way. After all, who doesn't like their ego being stoked after a successful performance. But of course, we're all doing both things at the same time: writing for ourselves and for an audience (or readers.) We're never just doing one or the other.
As someone who's own practice and reading takes in quite a lot of prose poetry, visual poetry and "bafflement" (for want of a better word), I think I'd stretch the word "poetry" quite a long way myself. And actually - a poem that cause you to question "is this really a poem?" might be more of a poem than one where it looks like every other on the planet.
I don't think all poetry is for all people, any more than I think that everyone is an opera fan or a jazz fan, but that doesn't mean they're being elitist. Most writers are just following their noses, as it were. I don't think they have any intention of stopping people from appreciating them or reading them; just that they go where they feel they have to.
"Writing for an audience" is just as self-indulgent as writing for yourself, by the way. After all, who doesn't like their ego being stoked after a successful performance. But of course, we're all doing both things at the same time: writing for ourselves and for an audience (or readers.) We're never just doing one or the other.
Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:01 am
I'm kind of sorry I'm picking up a remark from a few posts ago but here it is anyway.
Steven, your comments about 'self-indulgence' make me wonder if you actually realise what you have said. By your remarks all writing would be self-indulgant, which quite clearly isn't the case. Your assumtion that everyone loves having their ego stroked after a performance also shows a humiliating lack of awareness. Anyone who has had even the slightest opportunity to talk to me will know that I prefer criticism over praise. I write to entertain and make people think, and that is not exactly giving into my own wishes and desires too freely. Maybe we're both caught in symatics though.
Regardless, of the definitions you use though I must remark that often your statements appear to be presented as fact. It would just for once be nice to hear you back up your rather bold claims....even if it is only from personal experience.
Steven, your comments about 'self-indulgence' make me wonder if you actually realise what you have said. By your remarks all writing would be self-indulgant, which quite clearly isn't the case. Your assumtion that everyone loves having their ego stroked after a performance also shows a humiliating lack of awareness. Anyone who has had even the slightest opportunity to talk to me will know that I prefer criticism over praise. I write to entertain and make people think, and that is not exactly giving into my own wishes and desires too freely. Maybe we're both caught in symatics though.
Regardless, of the definitions you use though I must remark that often your statements appear to be presented as fact. It would just for once be nice to hear you back up your rather bold claims....even if it is only from personal experience.
Wed, 1 Jul 2009 04:03 pm
I was probably overstating the thing about "self-indulgence." But one of the good things about poetry is that it is an indulgence, surely. Yes, you can put a religious, philosophical, political message in there; but there are often better and quicker ways to do that, and why does anyone one to listen to your (my) opinion anyway?
Maybe this is an indulgence you can share, like a box of chocolates; but playing about with language is what poetry is all about. It exists its own place, where generally you don't get many "important" people taking notice. So you can do what you want; rhyme or not rhyme, simple or complex.
Maybe this is an indulgence you can share, like a box of chocolates; but playing about with language is what poetry is all about. It exists its own place, where generally you don't get many "important" people taking notice. So you can do what you want; rhyme or not rhyme, simple or complex.
Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:36 am