When I was at Cheltenham a young poet, Daniel Sluman, warned of the dangers of "sentimentality" in poetry. http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/blogentry.php?blogentryid=36203 I believe he was talking more widely than just about disability. We may not feel we are being sentimental in writing about the death of a parent, for instance, but maybe others do. Do we have to keep our "feelings" in check in some way to produce good poetry?

No! Let it all splurge out; all the hate; all the bitterness; all the bile. That's my rule anyway; I only got into 'poetry' so I could write more briefly about my grievances as a marginalized person with disabilities in a cut-throat world. At least some people know my name now, more so on Scribd than here; whereas if I'd stayed meek and mild and turning the other cheek, I'd have lived and died in total obscurity.

That's an interesting subject for a thread Greg.

It's all a question of taste I suppose. I like poetry that engages my feelings and that expresses the poet's feelings, Not all people do though and I know of plenty who think there is too much self in poetry, too much of the I instead of the universal. I like it when the personal can be related to the universal - taken that one step further.

There is a fine line though and it all depends on how it's expressed. I think the problem is when amateur poets try putting sad feelings to rhyme. That often doesn't work, feeling more like Humpty Dumpty with the wrong lyrics.

Having just ready JC's latest piece I think that sums up this post nicely. However I think that sentimentality mustn't be allowed to approach the mawkish.

John's account of the vigil is wonderfully observed from the distance of time and via the words of another.

The rules are - there are no rules. If you don't like it don't read it and don't rate it - but don't inhibit people's need to express their feeling in a cathartic way. Rather than keep our feelings in check we should open the emotional gates wide - and others should embrace that liberation whether it be deemed 'good' or 'bad' poetry. Good poetry will always raise to the top. Good topic :-)

Not another 'Rules, there are no rules' arse. THERE ARE RULES! It's got to be bloody literate, for a start. If you can't write it don't post it. Don't clog up our arteries with inarticulate drivel.

Not aimed at you, personally...just folks who do.

There ARE rules. Speaking in tongues is NOT poetry...it's bollocks!

:D

Jx

If you would like to point me at these rules - not your rules - THE rules - I will happily concur. You appear to want to be judge, jury and executioner - I would suggest you calm down a little and embrace your fellow (trying their best) poets.
Aimed at you, personally, in a friendly sorta way :-)
Ian

I'm afraid I can see this going the way of all flesh, Greg!

What does sentimental mean? "Dealing with feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way" apparently. Maudlin or mushy too.

As Greg suggests in his opener there is room for disagreement here. What seems exaggerated and/or self-indulgent to one person may be authentic and appropriate to another. As Izz says, there is a fine line. The location of the line can vary from country to country and culture to culture. In general, (sweeping generalistaion) Brits appreciate understatement, Italians don't

Sorry about that rant, I'm back on the medication now (true). Still, there are rules, honest, there are....and any fule kno that!

: )

Jx

honestly john - rules are there to be ignored - it frees the spirit. you don't have to like something but imposing 'rules' on any artform is plain wrong. and i ain't no fule :-)
Ian

I agree with Ian re 'rules' one of the strangest poems I came across (as a kid) was a circular work and another like steps. I didn't understand the poem nor why it looked as it did- but everything is up for grabs- anything and everything. Ian has ably explained his case so no need for me to reiterate. Who sets those rules? If that were possible I would proffer rules preventing odes about vases and the warbling of a bird in the country-side. Tit-willow!

I don't quite know how we got onto rules. Maybe it was my fault for going down the path of criticising certain types of poetry.

I'd agree with Ian and Tommy that rules are there to be broken and that everyone should express themselves as they want to without fear.

I'd agree with John that those freedoms of expression aren't always the easiest to read and enjoy :)

One man's poison is another man's meat though. I've seen some hideously sentimental (fingers at the back of the throat) stuff on here which other poets have really loved.

Vive la difference!

Thank's for rescuing me from infelicitous ignominy Izz. Although I do remember you once thinking that one of my poems was going to be a pile of sentimental claptrap...and then! :D

Rules aren't there to be broken, they are there to be played with, bent, twisted and wrought into new shapes...but there is always and underlying aesthetic. I've argued here before (as any fule kno) crap poetry ain't poetry, however much one bleats about 'perception' and 'opinion'. Shit poems just aren't poems, they are words arranged in an unpleasing, unappetising, unpoetic way. Poetry has an internal logic. If it can't press the buttons, it's not poetry. So there...!

:D

Jx

hate to be pedantic but:
'crap poetry ain't poetry' - yes it is, it's CRAP poetry
'Shit poems just aren't poems' - yes they are, they are SHIT poems.
You are confusing quality with definition.
Your definition is different to mine - but we may agree on quality.
Fanks Tara
Ian

Men... LOL

XX

Talking about sentimentality

What do people think about today`s news that whereas fifty five percent of first- time marriages are destined for the divorce courts, `just` thirty - one percent of second marriages are likely to go the same way.

Couldn`t someone write a suitable poem about the rights of those loving same-sex couples who are being denied entry into this blissful state?

Isobel and Dave express my views succinctly. But I also basically agree with John A.'s stand in his losing battle about rules, for I also contend that 'no rules used' can be just as much a massacre of poetry as 'no holds barred' can be a travesty in Boxing. To some degree, to be 'art', there must be 'the dance' as opposed to a bacchanalia.

Once again, from many prior discussion threads, I think personal catharsis should be first expressed in a private notebook, and then refined into shared poetry. It does take some effort.

Yep - that approach has a lot to commend itself Cynthia.

I'm all for cathartic poetry - have written a lot myself in the past - but I think there's something to be said for fine tuning it once you've splurged it all out - a bit like cleaning up the meconium :)

Can I just use this thread to pledge my undying thanks and admiration to CBT?

In both senses of the abbreviation!

: )

Jx

I am always struck by the fact that readers always seem to assume that sentimental poetry is biographical.

Judging by the feedback of some of my work, a lot of the critique can be described as sympathetic instead of objective.

We seem to be in danger of confusing sentimentality with catharsis here. The two are not necessarily the same.

I don't recall you ever writing sentimental poetry Graham. Feelings, even if they are imagined feelings are fine so long as they don't cross that line.

Don't ask me for a grid reference of that line though :)

You have to be very careful when you write about fluffy kittens and children though. Also the deceased. I've noticed that a lot of memorial poems in newspapers and orders of service - they are just way too sentimental. That probably makes me sound very hard, but it's just the way it is, for me. I think poetry written on certain subjects is much more powerful if it reins in the tears and exerts some discipline.

I think with sentimentality the filter always has to lie with the reader - the person who writes the poem has a right to be as sentimental as they feel the need to be - that doesn't mean every reader needs to appreciate the feelings, or the way they are expressed. Age, background, education, race, sex and religion (among others)can all play a major part in how sentimental (or not) a person is in expressing their feelings. I feel the same denominators are present when the reader filters/appreciates what they read. Getting the reader and writer to hit the same 'wavelength' makes for a successful poem IMHO

for my position on sentimentality: see above re vases and tit willows.

For a poet not to exhibit sentiment (feeling) in a poem is like a soldier not firing his rifle in a battle.

The problem is with the suffix `ality` which immediately turns the meaning of the word to `mawkisness`. `Mawkish` poems almost always lack what Isobel means when she talks of the `universal` which is all about including and sharing your own sentiment with the reader...What is needed is the feeling `Yes, we`ve all had that feeling and that poet has `got` it`.

Regarding keeping feelings in check when writing, I`m not sure...But the poet should always take a long, cool look at it when finished (with a view as to how it will strike the reader)

With regard to rules: there are actually lots and lots and lots of different rules in poetry, and you get to pick which ones apply to you or to the poem you're writing, and then you get to play with them. You can choose whether you want to write a sonnet or a lipogram.

of course there are rules in poetry Steven - the point I was originally making (admittedly sidetracked a bit) was that there are no rules regarding sentimentaility. It is quite liberating though to ignore the 'conventional' rules and try something a bit different - in that way new rules can be created....

A poem without feelings is probably a pretty dead thing; but a poem doesn't have to gush. Also, what's wrong with some sentimental poetry is that it only ever presses the obvious buttons, like pictures of kittens press the 'aaahhh' button. Really good 'sentimental' poetry can catch you off guard and make you gasp with a suddenly felt emotion. Sometimes it even makes you feel uncomfortable.

Some excellent points here about the 'attitude' towards 'sentimentality', like historical time, country, culture etc. IMO, regarding this arena, it is totally unacceptable to consider one's view as right and another person's as wrong - just different. I think the good poet, and reader, makes an effort to understand varied viewpoints. Sentimentality has taken a pejorative hit, strongly fanned by smartass literary types who think they have the right to dictate tastes. Steven's recent point was excellent.

Naah, you're wrong there Cynth - I'm always right ;)

Well Steven, I never thought I'd hear the day you said

'A poem without feelings is probably a pretty dead thing'

Even I'd fall short of saying that, and I write a lot of emotionally charged stuff.

I'd have to agree big time with Harry on this issue.

One of the definitions for sentimental is 'feelings expressed in words'. As soon as you add the 'al' to it the definition becomes 'excessively romantic or nostalgic'.

It doesn't say 'excessively romantic or nostalgic on a scale that should be determined by each individual reader' - though maybe it should do ;)

How I react to poetry with sentiment can be reflected by two vowels. Some poetry makes me go aaaah and some poetry makes me go ooooh. It's all down to how a poet shows me those emotions and what is left for me to imagine.

I agree with Harry and like the image of the soldier and gun.
I like better still the idea of Isobel going "oooo" and "aarrgh" and wonder if you mightn't post an audio of this for my benefit?

Oh you naughty boy - I obviously left too much to your imagination :)

OOh I want to join in with this thread. Lots of different aspects to this press buttons. I think that the idea of 'rules' in language is often seen as some person making 'rules' whereas it seems to me that we would not understand each other if we didn't have a common understanding of how language works, without anybody really making the rules. Language is always changing because poets and writers push its boundaries as Shakespeare did, and invent new ways to say things. If a lot of people take that up it becomes 'the rule'.
As to sentimentality, I agree with what has been said here, but I also think that if we are writing down feelings and emotional experiences it is easy to drop into clichés, and a poet has to search for what is the real experience, not just using an emotional template. How can you really identify your unique experience and that makes it worth expressing. It is harder to do than accepting the phrases that other people already use.
Thats my pennyworth.

And worth every penny Freda! Only kidding!
What a great thread. I could not be bothered but did think of going back to some older threads that had similar discussions, almost always ascending/descending to 'what is poetry', if only by implication.
Do we always know when we are following rules? Should we?
great contributions.
But, to provide an answer to Greg's question: No, we don't keep our feelings in check; at least not whilst drafting. That is the last thing we should do. We should (i.e. my view) go to those places where our feelings are our own truths and understandings of the world we experience, in the way we experience it. That might or might not produce a poem.
However, editing it, thinking about poetry - rendering it poetic without losing the sense, the essence of those truths - will hopefully hone it into something that expresses the sentiments in a poetic way (whatever that is). OK, Losing the will now...

And, at the risk of taking this off elsewhere, it brings to mind a question that has long plagued me about this site (all my fault, I know). As Isobel said, vive la différence. The blogs - i.e. uploaded poems - are all mixed up together. We have often talked about, but never tackled, the question of whether to attempt to create different blog sections for different types of poetry/poem. Experimental, sentimental(al), temperamental, accidental, bleeding mental; or how about Dead Poetry, Dead Good Poetry, Dead Beat Poetry; Arts and Flours; rhyming; first person poetry, etc, etc.
Shall I make this another thread? is it worth it?
Seriously though I do think it might be time to split the blogs up now.
Although, you can start your own sections by setting up a group profile, whether for a writing group, whatever.
Sentimental is, as mawkish does. There.

If there 'are no rules' in poetry, then how can you tell any poem apart from another? Sorry to bark on about this, but it is self evidently cretinous to believe that everything is a free for all and that no semantic, linguistic, aesthetic considerations should be tolerated. I can't see (or hear) how you can tell the 'dead good' from the 'dead bad' if one is not applying an aesthetic that is separated from the individual (i.e. It's NOT good just because a few folks said they liked it, that doesn't make it good, it just means a few folk said they liked it).

Anyway, do what thy wllt to the blogs, anything to create a bit of a stir on here would be welcome! : )

Jx

So much to think about.

For me, it's often hard to say why I like certain poems and just what makes them poems. I am tending to like free verse more nowadays, which doesn't necessarily mean a total abandonment of metre and rhyme - just a less rigid format. A lot of what I write is done by feel - I just know how many beats I want in a particular line - that's why the 'there must be rules' argument doesn't really appeal.

I like what Freda has to say about falling into the cliché trap. Often with emotional poetry, there is the danger of doing that. It's hard to express feelings in an original way cos they've all been done to death. Perhaps that's where effort should really be focused - but that original imagery would have to make sense and tie into the emotions for me to enjoy it though - which brings us back to very many of our other discussion threads :)

Carving the blog section up would be tricky. You might end up missing gems. Perhaps we could split it into traditional poetry and contemporary poetry - rules and no rules :)

What do peeps think about this one - without tearing it to shreds!

I can't see any formal rules and some might see it as prosy but I like it and to me it's poetry.

http://www.writeoutloud.net/profiles/thomasroche#page_comment_110625

I think it's perhaps more a question of knowing the rules, being familiar with the essence of poetry before you go ahead and do your own thing. There will always be good and bad poetry (albeit subjectively) and there will always be people who write well to rules and people who write badly to rules - just the same as in free verse.

I think this argument/discussion has endured since speech became fluid in every language imaginable. For me, the best criteria of what you consider to be good poetry is what you personally think about it. The sensitive reader has wide parameters. Then, you have to be as stringent with your own work as you are with the poems of others - a kind of necessary, third-party distance. IMO, a feel for the force of emotive language is paramount; but so is the sensitive relationship of events in time and place. Words are only the tools to express an innate, umbrella philosophy. That is, for me - the crux. No philosophy - no poetry. I never thought I'd actually plain out say it.

Thanks for pointing us at Thomas's profile Isobel. I think his poem 'Anchor' contains sentiments but is not sentimental. Thoughts not cliched. (darn, where is the accent when you need it?) and clearly a process of trying to work something out. I think when you feel you are being asked to observe the poet trying to understand what he is thinking out, it may be obscure without putting you off. At other times, obscurity feels as if the poet is saying 'ha ha I know something you don't' and that is off putting.

Rules - there are no universal rules in poetry but that doesn't mean that there are 'no rules at all.' Like I said before, you pick and choose the rules that fit the kind of work you do. Free verse has rules - rather like a jazz tune has rules - but they're often internalised and not easy to pin down to a definition. You go by feel, as Isobel said (Frank O'Hara talked of 'going on your nerve.')

Some people like rules; it makes them feel comfortable.

Sentimental: I think it's sentimental if all it does is take you to conventional feelings and tells you how sad/soppy/happy you're supposed to feel.

There's a type of poem for instance that tells you all about 'the hell of heroin's power' in obvious cliches that are supposed to make you feel something. Except you're more sickened by the cliches than you are by the subject. Then there's someone writing about the experience itself that makes you feel uncomfortably like you're in the room with the addict and you want to get away but you can't...

...and that, folks, is the difference between sentimental and true feeling. Showing not telling.

I see you also can't find the accent for clichays Steven. I think its under insert in Word. This is more like writing in txt.
'Show not tell' is a bit of a chlichay too.

Jazz is about really really understanding keys and harmony and being able to improvise without losing the framework you are working in so its a good parallel for 'free verse'.

A sonnet has `rules`A villanelle has `rules`An ode has `rules` Villanelle`s have `rules` Epic`s have `rules` Free verse has `rules` Limerick`s have `rules` These `rules` are not universal they are particular and -like them or not -they can be explained.

The trouble about the `rules` that Stephen talks about is that (even though they may be `internalised`) It should be possible for the poet to make an attempt at explaining them to a willing to be convinced reader, no matter in how rough or general a manner. (Sadly the attempt is never made).

Seriously, Stephen,some of us are willing to come more than half way to understanding you, if you will only make the attempt.

A combative (but interesting) essay concerning this kind of inexplicable poetry is an essay by Chesterton called `The Mystagogue`

I suggest Harry you just look up 'A Few Don'ts' by Ezra Pound if you want to know the conventions of good free verse. Pretty simple really, even a dunderheaded formalist could read it.

I'll give it a try, then.

I don't see why everyone had to get so crochety every time we discuss this issue.

I don't think Steven was being literal when he said 'there are no universal rules in poetry'. Of course there are given rules for certain types of metred poetry. I took what he said to mean that once you got beyond those formal categories, you had a free-er hand.

I don't see why a poet should feel obliged to explain the 'internalised' rules to their poetry either - or why a reader should have any right to an explanation. No-one needs to convince me of anything when it comes to free verse - it's either good or it's bad and I, as a reader, can't explain it to myself - other than flow - which probably gets back to the whole idea of good jazz music and bad. Some people feel the flow and others don't. Or perhaps it's a question of some readers needing to hear the flow and others not.

You go girl - speak your mind, and don't hold back! :-D

I would have thought if there wasn't something inexplicable in art it wouldn't be art. If you're not reading something or seeing something or hearing something with the question "how on earth did s/he do that?" then it's just rather dull.

I do get irritated by these snarky remarks that free verse is somehow either too difficult for ordinary folks or too simple or too ill-disciplined or too this or that. There's bad free verse and good free verse. And sometimes us writers don't exactly know how we came upon just the right words for that poem. If you know exactly where you're going to see before you've got there what's the point in going there?

When I say there are no universal rules, I mean there are no rules that pertain to every poem; just as there are no absolute rules for grammar (pace that idiot Michael Gove). The rules for grammar depend on the use the grammar is put, as any fule kno, and the same is true of the rules for poetry.

I see the thought behind Harry's comment above. Adding "ality" somehow reduces honest sentiment to something less than honest. "Gush" seems a better description. As for rules. I go along with the adage that "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" when creating something. There has to be flexibility in thought as well as action in this life (but see my final comment below). No matter what terms are applied though: if it WORKS it WORKS. Finally - unless it is intentional within the context of the subject, give the reader the respect of employing the correct spelling when borrowing the English language for your purpose. And I'm not just being sentimental :=)

Corect spelin iz anuzer set ov convenshuns wi cud argu frm now til Domesday if u wish abut. In th age of tinterweb n txt messages itz changin all the time. Gr8...

Steven,
`Correct spelling is another set of conventions we could argue till Domesday if you wish about. In the age of the interweb and text messages it`s changing all the time. Great.`

See how willing we are to come more than half-way to understanding even this conglomerate of electro-speak.

what we`re not willing to do is to place any poets - good or bad - on the kind of pedestal which absolves them from needing to offer any explanation whatsoever to us poor poetic peasants about what their poem is trying to do.

That would be the very height of snobbish sentimentality on their part (and servile sentimentality on ours)

One can always give a basic explanation but isn't always the case that poetryvis what gets lost in translation?

By the way, I agree about the 'ality.'

I don't think difficulty can always be explained away and there always ought to be some mystery about it otherwise it's just expository prose. Besides, you make the assumption that the author always knows what it's about. I personally don't like to say too much because the reader might see things I've missed or am only dimly aware of in the poem. It's not that i don't want to explain.

One of the huge advantages of "The Queen's English" is that it is the common currency by which others are not NOT disenfranchised in being understood. I would not resort to my old West Country expressions if I wanted to be understood by those who had been educated to understand English in its "received" definition and who may/may not be of British/English origin. As I say, unless it is intended "in the context", stay with the language as it is known and understood in its widest sense. Modern "computer speak" is merely a device for speed/brevity...fine if you're on a PC/phone - but why encourage the mangling of a famous language for those cheap (in the literal sense) reasons? Gr8 ? It may be great for your phone bill but it grates on my own appreciation of the English language as a tool for elevating and communicating the human experience as art.

Unrelated Incidents' - No.3


this is thi
six a clock
news thi
man said n
thi reason
a talk wia
BBC accent
iz coz yi
widny wahnt
mi ti talk
aboot thi
trooth wia
voice lik
wanna yoo
scruff. if
a toktaboot
thi trooth
lik wanna yoo
scruff yi
widny thingk
it wuz troo.
jist wanna yoo
scruff tokn.
thirza right
way ti spell
ana right way
to tok it. this
is me tokn yir
right way a
spellin. this
is ma trooth.
yooz doant no
thi trooth
yirsellz cawz
yi canny talk
right. this is
the six a clock
nyooz. belt up.

Tom Leonard

Accent and spelling make interesting bedfellows but they are not inter-dependent. As for using words for a reason/to make a point - see my earlier comment on "context".
The question of whether such use is "poetry" let alone "art", is, perhaps, best left to posterity.

Steven,
Leonard`s crudely phonetic imitation of `proper` English to satirise English class attitudes is not worthy of your argument.

Can I assure you that we all agree that poetry can sometimes include mysterious sayings, such as:
opening on the foam of perilous seas and faery lands forlorn...My singing is gone out upon the dark....But for those obstinate questionings Of sense and outward things...
But on the viewless wings of poesy. Not to mention Shelly`s cloud of fire, unbodied joy, star of heaven, intense lamp, lovely cloud, High born maiden, etc; None of which are immediately suggestive of a skylark...and others.

We are aware of the seeming irrevelance of these things in themselves, but point out that it has been generally agreed over a long period of time that they make poetic sense in the body of their poems and recognise that the attempts to explain why (which are periodically made) sometimes fall short of their poetic power.

But this is a million miles from saying that - because the above is true - any conglomeration of random un-related words which happens to agree with some writers internal metaphorical systems hould be automatically read as poetry and judged as such...Your argument seems to me to be saying that it should be so read.

The test is to take a section of such poetry and try to explain what poetic effect the poet is trying to achieve. And - given that we are all amateurs - the extent to which we succeed.

To be spellbound before some supposed magic power of convoluted word-play without asking what it is `about` is just fawning, sentimental idolatry.

Reet gradely, Harry.

: )

Jx

Harry - I think you are chucking another issue into the melting pot here. The original thread was about sentimentality, which then meandered into form and lack of form. If we are now talking about sentiment, as in 'meaning' - then I'm with you whole heartedly - though I know Steven won't be ;)

For a poem to work for me, it can't be just about imagery - in fact those kind of poems set my teeth on edge. That's not universal though - other folk seem to like them, so there's a market for everything.

I'd agree also that some effort should be made with spelling and grammar cos it's a distraction to the reader - unless that incorrect spelling is there deliberately to make a point, as in Steven's poem. When I'm reading a poem, I want to be totally immersed in what the poet is saying to me - with no distractions. Having said that, I have read some good stuff on here that has been littered with spelling mistakes. I've come to the conclusion that the ability to spell lies in a certain part of the brain, that has nothing to do with intelligence or how well someone has been taught at school, or how much they read. And I see evidence of that amongst my own children. If only spellcheckers could pick up everything.

ISOBEL,
I take your point about chucking in another issue.

I really do think it is sentimentality to hero-worship the sometime linguistic or metaphorical `difficulty` of some of the greater poets and single this out as carte-blanche to accept any bunch of mixed-up jumble as a poem, and I really think that this is what this argument is based upon.

It puts me strangely in mind of the current proposal that the main reason for regarding a marriage as a marriage is Larkin`s `much mentioned brilliance`- Love. (don`t they ever look at the divorce figures?)

This classifying both things only by the `big Bang` element in them is (for me) the very height of sentimentality.

Thanks for making me think.

Then I think we are at odds again over what sentimentality means - because I don't see it in 'the hero worship of the metaphorical difficulty of some of the greater poets'. In fact I haven't seen any evidence of anyone referring to the greats with affection, other than yourself, Harry.

We just seem to have one bunch of people who think there should be rules, one bunch who disagrees and the sane majority who believe that some balance needs to be achieved - not the total abandonment of form, but an informed abandonment of form - if that makes sense :))

Thank you for making me think, too Harry. I keep thinking I must stop chiming in so often to these threads, cos I know I've said it all before - but somehow I get drawn in - there are so many different ways of saying the same thing - and it's raining outside...

I think generally when you're writing about a subject you can choose to become full of sentimentality, and when that's the case with me I often realise that it's probably going to be something more personal to me and I dismiss the notion that I might share it with others to see what they think.

Often I have been quite self-indulgent with my writing, in this way I use sentiment more to let off steam and to keep it to myself more as writing 'practice' than to consciously compose a poem which I hope will have a more universal meaning and that fellow poets can relate to.

I only think abandoning the 'rules' (whatever they might be) can be really justified in terms of form and content. Going too far by just reducing the lines in the poem to pure sentiment never makes for great reading in my opinion.

But of course, we are all different! :)

@ Isobel, I think 'Anchor' was great. Thomas seems a great talent.

I don't know where I said that a set of random words was a poem, Harry. Or that you shouldn't explain what a poem is 'about' or how it was made. Just not too much, for me, because I want to be able to make my own mind up, not to be corralled into the poet's point of view only. I don't like to be buttonholed.

And really, Harry, go and search the meaning of the word 'irony'; I write most of my poems in Standard English, as I had my Northern dialect drummed out of me at Grammar School.

And I'd recommend 'The History of Englishes' by David Crystal for a good explanation of how come the dialect of a small area round London become 'Standard' in t'first place. It's a reight gradely read tha knows.

I LOVE the 'old masters' from centuries back. I do select favourites, of course, but my admiration in general is boundless.

I do not think you should ever have to 'explain' a poem.

However, I do think that it can be very helpful to point out poetical tactics that influence personal reactions, such as skill in manipulating sound, sight and emotions. Such techniques can readily be appreciated when a little guidance is offered.

I do not mind being thrown into a cloud of words that envelop me like a fog through which I see dimly, or a maelstrom whose only purpose is to grab me, chew me up and pitch me out - puzzled and weary. If I allow myself to be receptive, the poet can provide an 'experience'. Art and Life - two sides of the same coin.

Steven,

Your standard English is perfectly clear and understandable, but what we`re discussing is English which is not standard and not understandable.(by which we mean meaningful)

The Leonard poem, in standard English would read:`This is the six oclock news`, the man said` and the reason I talk with a `b.b.c. accent is because you would not want me to talk about the truth with a voice like one of you scruff , you would not think it was true, Just one of you scruff talking. There is a right way to spell and a right way to talk it. This is me talking your right way of spelling. This is my truth. You don`t know the truth yourself because you cannot talk right. This is the six oclock news…Belt up.

(The piece works due to the phonetic similarity of the two accents)

That got out of the way we can begin to recognise that it is meant to be satirical, and we can ask:
1...who is being satirised? The person reporting what the announcer said (for his own accent?)
2...The announcer assuming the `truth` of his own accentual superiority by mocking the accent of the reporter.
3...or, By inserting (foregrounding?)the word `truth` in the announcement is the poet satirising all of us - both right and left- for assuming that truth depends only accent (therefore class)

The point about all this is that we can only begin to speculate about what the poem `means` when we can understand the phrases (which calls for some readable form of `The queens English`)

The cliche form of sentimentality is imitatively humble and can lead on to improvement.
The `guess what I`m saying` form leads nowhere (only to Freda`s remark about some (snob?) saying `ha-ha I know something you don`t`.

I think the problem with these threads is that occasionally folk drop in, read a couple of comments completely out of context and then assume the worst.

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing about something that is deeply important to you emotionally. I've written plenty of stuff like that myself. I've even written a rant defending the right to write cathartic poetry.

I can't help but like poetry that steps outside of the author's own experiences though - or poetry that stems from that, which then leads on to the universal - the human condition.

Over the years I've been on WOL, I've written and enjoyed reading plenty of emotional poetry. Would I want to buy a book full of it and nothing else? Probably not - just as I would never choose to buy a book about biographical child abuse - there are other types of story I would rather read.

I like the old masters too Cynthia/Harry. They've left us something concrete to hang on to, beyond personal experiences - and they said things in a beautiful way.

Now I am confused.
I read the Tom Leonard poem and I heard it in my head in a Glaswegian accent. There is no way I can make it sound like standard English. Harry you say that 'the two' accents are phonetically similar, but surely the whole point of the poem is that by writing the poem phonetically you can represent a Glaswegian (or other Northern place- I am no accent specialist. I went to Lancaster not Leeds) accent, and meanwhile the voice is claiming to be talking in a posh accent which we then assume has been translated into Glaswegian for the sake of the people it is being spoken to.
coz yi
widny wahnt ....
That is not standard English.
Sentimentality after all is the topic here. There are sentimental ways of representing non standard accents too. But this one is not sentimental. I thought it was quite clever and funny in a satirical way.

Freda,
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.

I assumed that Steven posted the poem as an answer to the comments about `Queens English` but was using even this linguistic rag bag to demonstrate the necessity of understandability.

The poem`s accentually `sruffy` words (which are linked together by some `correct` English words) are - whatever the actual accent - quite recognisable as English due to their rough phonetic similarity to ordinary English...and it is this easy recognisability that enables the reader to tell what the poet is saying and speculate as to his meaning. (as you have done)

This is the opposite to some undecipherable mystagogic text presented to us as poetry.

So hasta got an example ov wot thaz tokin abaht or are we jus sposed to guess from vague abstractions?

I think it is very clever to reproduce accents phonetically, but I have no idea how it relates to sentimentality. Mawkish poetry revolts nearly everyone I would guess, but when it comes to the big events in life, love, death, new babies, pets dying, divorce, etc you cant escape the fact that it has happened to many others before you, and they may have cornered the market in suitable phrases so that you find yourself even weeping in cliches. Thats when the need comes in to be fully attentive to the real experience and not get sidetracked by existing narratives. Even if it has all been said before its good to make the experience your own. Shakespeare probably made a better fist of it than you will, but thats no reason not to have a go. Shakespeare wasn't here and now. (seems as if he is though sometimes)

Steven,

I thought that Fanzao had jumped to my rescue but hit the wrong blog :)

Chat rules restricting any local choice. I can find outside no more absolutely appropriate example of what I would call `poetic` mystagoguery than the item that you asked us to consider in another sense.

(sorry about this - honest)

the red wheelbarrow

so much depends
upon

the red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

I can find nothing poetic in it but am willing to listen to anyone who can explain to me why I should.

The last comment in this discussion has been deleted by the WOL moderation team.

If contributors can't reach agreement on these threads, can we please ask them to disagree politely.

Thank you.

I can't help missing the old thread, it was a lovely warm thing.

(Is that nostalgia, rather than sentimentality?)

As a friend of mine once memorably said 'They don't make things like they do now'.

: )

Jx

AAWWW, ISOBEL!

It was no matter, Yvonne is always sayin` things like that about me (and worse) I`m used to it.

I did wearily haul through the old red Wheelbarrow thread and, to my surprise, no one - me neither - thought of the possibility of an analogy to still life in painting. Imagine what a splash of Van Gogh`s sunflowers might have started(mind it still doesn`t wash)