I know that this is a question we have explored before but it has been mentioned recently on WOL.

If I think of a lot of my work. There is both the accessible (Easily understood) and the absolutely unfathomable and I like both,

If I were to compare each style to music however what would we get.

On the one hand a catchy tune thats good on the surface but soon forgotten and on the other a multilayered masterpiece that takes several listenings to appreciate but stays with you for ever.

My musical examples would be...

(Well I will let you go first while I think about it)

Win

First, I don't think there's a 'should' about it.

Accessibility is for disabled access. Some poetry is reasonably understandable, some poetry is funny and/or direct.

I want my poetry to look around corners, look into things, explore the possibilities of language.

My musical examples would be Abba and Stockhausen: both exist in the world of music, and both have their fans. Most people can't like both; but we all have different agendas when we're writing and when we're reading. Sometimes I just want to switch off and be entertained. Sometimes I want to challenge my own boundaries and see what I can get from something 'difficult.'

Poetry affords the use of the rich
panoply of the English language but
essentially it is about communicating feeling and meaning to
the reader. If these are lost in an exercise of "look how clever I am", then what's the point?

Not necessarily. Poetry can be about a lot of things besides 'communicating feeling and meaning to the reader'. A delight in the sound of words, for instance; a sense of the mysterious aura surrounding language; an attempt to reach for some feeling that's just beyond understanding, for instance.

TS Eliot said that a poem can be appreciated before it's understood, because it's not just about communicating messages. Well, not always at least. "If you want to send a message, go Western Union" as someone once said.

And does poetry have to have a point?

It 'should' be all things, and never tie itself down.

Re the music comparison, I am a huge fan of folk, blues and country music where there is repetition and catchy stuff galore, but as you also know Houston, my all time favourite album, In The Aeroplane Over The Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel may well be seen as inaccessible - scary even to some people, but I LOVE that it is like that

Oh - and nice to meet you Steven :)

Just to give a for-instance: I love the book Eunoia by Christian Bok, a book of five chapters each only using one vowel throughout the chapter. It took him 8 years to write - no doubt many will say "why?" but my answer is "why not?" - it's funny, sexy and innovative all at the same time...

There's so much. To take just one - have had to listen my way into Nick Drake, but it is SO worth it.

My difficulty is the very word "accessible" which, in my view, should only ever be used in the context of wheelchair ramps or crotchless panties.

Just to give a for-instance: I love the book Eunoia by Christian Bok, a book of five chapters each only using one vowel throughout the chapter. It took him 8 years to write - no doubt many will say "why?" but my answer is "why not?" - it's funny, sexy and innovative all at the same time...

Is that innovative? I'd liken it to drawing with your feet when you've got two hands in good order. I think if you can write, then you write. If you can't, then you do stuff like that.

Have you read it, Ray? Or is that just an ill-informed Daily Mail reader type quip? ("That modern art rubbish, what's it all about?" etc etc etc...)

Part of the fun of writing, surely, is to set yourself problems and try to solve them? It's a great book; very funny in places and beautifully written.

I don't have a problem with art being accessible, by the way. Most art galleries have ramps and lifts these days.

But I do have a problem when somebody says that all poetry/all art/all music has to be easy to understand. I don't have a problem with poetry that is relatively easy to understand; but I also like difficult poetry.

No, Steven, I haven't read the book. I do check my armpits and testicles each morning for early evidence of Daily Mail type quips. So far I'm clean. Or at least, I tell myself it's a healthy cynicism. There are many things to consider when reading a book, many things which might enhance my experience; that each chapter has been written using only one vowel isn't one of them.If I were to read the book and if I gained some enjoyment from the exercise it would be despite rather than because of.

Of course there should be absolute artistic freedom in every art form - including poetry.

A poet should be free to write intelligent, insightful, meaningful work or a pile of pretentious twaddle that fails to connect with 99% of its audience or readership.

I have a healthy suspicion of theuse of "The Daily Mail" and its considerable readership as somehow worthy of knee-jerk derision. TheBBC - with its quiz shows...and theusual suspects on its panels - areso frequently guilty of this that Ican only suspect an "agenda"...or is it just fear of huge influence in competition for the attention of the "masses"?And if you want to know why only the best can survive in a commercialworld - check out the famous popular song "Stardust". Sinatra -the master of a lyric - sung his famous version using only a part ofthe lyric and it is still a masterwork. Interesting to notethat Ol' Blue Eyes admitted that hewasn't a big fan of poetry. I can only guess what sort of "poetry" he had in mind!

As for political poetry - there is little point to it if the meaninggoes astray. I richly enjoyedAlexander Pope's riposte to LordHervey who had insulted him."Yet let me flap this bug with guilded wingsThis painted child of dirt that stinks and stings..."and the lines -"Eternal smiles his emptiness betray,As shallow streams run dimpling all the way" - were surely made for a certain Tony Blair!

should poetry be accesible?

It is a leading question in that it subconciously imposes a false dichotomy. It begs for a yes or no answer that essentially results is a flawed debate. Would anyone ask this question of the novel? Would people be seriously posing and responding to this question if we were dealing in prose/fiction? I would say most certainly this would not be the case. I would also say that poetry is just as wide and diverse as that of the novel, of prose, of fiction. Of another art form, that form being music; Ray Charles once said there are only two types of music, good music and bad music. That too could be said to be a false dichotomy, but I think Ray Charles was being illustrative not literal.

I think he was saying that the genres of music are of little consequence. That discussions between types of music may generate more heat than light and that the real issue- that which is easy overlooked is...music like all art is either good or is it is crap!

Poetry like the novel then, wide and diverse. Ultimately if not literally either good or bad (subjectively speaking).

P.S

The one guarentee with poetry; when you try to boil it down and define it, define what it is, define what makes it right or wrong...

it bites you.

It laughs at you.

Poetry
doesn't


wont

fit neat

little definitions-


it refuses to.

John Coopey has a point about the
use of "accessibility". It is too often used as a yardstick of something somehow less worthy or credible---that defeats the challenge to be "difficult". How often we hear the analogy used in the world of classical music. The
shamefully neglected 20th century British composr George Lloyd was a
victim...his marvellous CV of work
included 12 fine symphonies, 4 piano
concertos, a cello concerto that
stands alongside the Elgar composition...and a choral work that
was described by Gramophone magazine
as "one of the finest pieces of English choral writing of the 20th
century". Yet his sin in an atonal
post-WW2 music world was to be seen as accessible. The kiss of death!
Hideous, shameful nonsense from
which his career never recovered.
Thank goodness for the American
entrepreneur who put his music on CD for posterity.

But it isn't true that "only the best can survive in a commercial world." Quite the opposite, if anything.What survives is what is most popular. Not at all the same thing as the best. How else explain Cilla Black, Simon Cowell, Stephen King,Jeremy Clarkson, Jeremy Kyle, The Daily Mail itself.

I like Steve Black's comment on this issue. Would also agree with you Chris that poetry can't be defined.

Yes - it ultimately depends on whether a writer is writing to please himself or whether he is writing to please an audience/reader. If he is only writing to please himself though - why bother showing it to the world? Why not just use it as a rhyming or non rhyming diary?

I concede that many of my comments on this topic are a little provocative and maybe mischevious also. With page poetry accessibility isn't really an issue since we can choose not to read a poet, just as we can choose not to watch a certain television programme. However, I err more on the performance poetry side and find it hard when occasionally those people who write for themselves decide to perform their work at open mic, with no heed to what an audience might like to listen to. Unless we all want to perform to other poets and no-one else, performance poets really need to grasp this nettle.

I guess we are all different. I find occasions where I have connected with non poets to be the most rewarding of all. Without the possibility of that, performing my poetry would be a futile experience.

"Clearly some authors despise their readership whilst others will do almost anything to garner attention. "

This is where it gets complicated, though. Someone like, say, Geoffery Hill - famously difficult author - says that difficulty itself is what makes a work beautiful. He says that it's about respecting the audience's intelligence - rather than pandering to their worst instincts. He, in fact, would probably claim that he respects the audience more than those who are populists. A somewhat spurious claim if I think about it; but an interesting point.

That something is 'difficult' is to do with the writer wanting to reach a different part of the brain from the one that simply entertains. It's not neccessarily about trying to put people off.

There are different types of difficulty, of course; but I'll leave it there for now.

Yes - I hear what you are saying Steven - though I think you are probably talking more about written work rather than performance stuff.
It would be easy to patronise an audience by dumbing down one's work and there is a need to go beyond funny ha ha entertainment when it comes performance poetry.

I think poets need to work on getting an audience's attention before taking them onto that next stage though. Pull them in with the accessible and the entertaining to then challenge them with more thoughtful pieces. That presupposes you have enough time to do that though. Often you are restricted to a time slot on open night and since you are playing to mostly poets, you already have a reasonably receptive audience. Those challenges really come when you are performing to non poets.

There is clearly a place for all types of poetry as in music, literature etc.
I don't think there is anything wrong with poetry that appeals to a wide audience even if it may be somewhat simplistic. It might just encourage more people to take an interest and explore. There is always going to be material that takes a little more thought to appreciate. That is the beauty of writing and of reading other peoples work. With regard to comments, it is often difficult to comment on poems we don't fully understand, perhaps for fear of exposing our lack of perception. WOL is a site for performance poetry and no-one wants to read stuff out that has audiences scratching their heads. There's nothing like a rousing round of applause even if you have parodied someone else's good work.
I have that album Laura - it is as you say excellent though somewhat unusual. My family won't let me play it in the car. Philistines!

Should poetry be accessible?

I guess it depends on the intentions of the author. I don't think I've ever written anything that isn't reasonably intelligible to the casual reader, simply because I want to communicate a message/mood/idea/thought to any potential audience.

I'm not writing to prove how much smarter I am than a reader - because I'm not! I can agree with Steven that not all poetry should adhere to this; some poetry should challenge and do more than just simply be some kind of narrative account of thoughts or events. All poets should be allowed licence to "play" with language. However, there are poems which seem to be written purely for vanity's sake, and more akin to science/mathematical puzzles than art. And I do believe that poetry, at its very least, should be an attempt at artistic creativity.

This isn't to say that I wish to impose my "taste" on anyone else. No one poem is ever going to be all things to all men, and I freely accept these days there is a huge variety of styles/forms which are covered by the wide umbrella of poetry.

At the certainty (not risk) of repeating myself though, the definition of what is and isn't poetry seems to lie entirely in the author's hands. If the author of the work asserts that it is poetry, then who am I to dispute that - just as a pile of bricks is art, so long as the artist says it is? I do worry though that this somehow devalues poetry, that work containing very little original thought, creativity and ultimately yes, art, does nothing for the wider genre other than alienating any potential readership.

As to popularity; when something is popular this is not necessarily a measure of its quality. Good/bad is a very subjective definition unique to the reader/audience.

This isn't a new debate, and I fear it's one that has no definitive answer. Poetry should do what the writer intends it to do. If the intention is to entertain/ enlighten/amuse - and it succeeds in doing that, then fine. If the intention is to puzzle/question/challenge, then fine also. If it fails to communicate anything to the reader whatsoever, except a total lack of any kind of intelligibility I'm not sure I understand the writer's intention.

I feel sure that there's never going to be a universal, all-encompassing definition of what is and isn't poetry - let alone what's good and bad poetry. All I know is that on a personal level I write in the hope that at least someone somewhere will read and (hopefully) take something from what I write. If this was not the case then why would I write anything?

Language is, at its most basic, a means of communication between sapient beings. I believe the art/science of making that language inaccessible is called cryptography - and I'm no Alan Turing.

Regards,

A.E.

p.s. I don't think narrow definitions of poetry help anyone. For my part, when someone reads/hears my work I feel I have had the privilege of letting my words out to play in someone else's head.

accessible?
Write for the audience you want to speak to, even if that is just you yourself.
Writing is communicating with not only others but also with yourself.
Problem starts when one 'style' of poetry becomes 'The Establishment' and all else is scorned by those such as a certain Review.
Poetry for all means variety of verse. Long live variety.
For my own part if I want a word puzzle I will do a cross-word, but then I am a lazy reader.
Enjoying reading much WOLWORKS, performance poetry is for me, another dimension!

"there are poems which seem to be written purely for vanity's sake, and more akin to science/mathematical puzzles than art."

Wanting to entertain an audience is not itself a form of vanity? It certainly can be, from some of the performances I've seen...

But also. of course, there are readers for even the most puzzling poetry (such as JH Prynne, who's Collected sold by the bucket load...) All art, even the most self-effacing, has an element of vanity about it.

With regard to performance poetry, I suspect that one could probably do things with it that would be different from the usual comedy poetry performance: something more like performance art or more like drama. It might not go down in the usual pub atmosphere; but why does it always have to be in that environment? If you want to do something different, maybe an art gallery?

Hi Steven,

Not being familiar with Prynne's work I found this article:

http://bebrowed.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/j-h-prynne-on-difficult-poetry/

An interesting read.

As for vanity, sure, I agree that there's a large element of self-satisfaction in both the successful performance or publication - but not for me in trying to claim any kind of intellectual superiority by baffling the audience. The satisfaction comes in having "connected" with the recipient, which I feel some more obscure work fails to do.

Regards,

A.E.

"but not for me in trying to claim any kind of intellectual superiority by baffling the audience.

But who precisely is doing this? There are poets (like Prynne) who assume a knowledge among their audience that might well be baffling to some readers. That probably limits their audience, in that they're not going to attract the people who don't have that kind of knowledge (though Prynne's early work isn't nearly as difficult as it's sometimes assumed to be...) but then we all limit our own audiences by the kinds of things we write, because we can't please everybody.

I don't think that we should assume that anyone is out to deliberately baffle people (in a "ha! this'll stump'em" kind of way. But not all poetry appeals to everyone.

Which isn't to say that there isn't the most awful snobbery among different schools of poetry; but it works both ways. There's a reverse snobbery in the "I write for the common man, not that pseudo-intellectual stuff..." Whenever I hear that, I personally feel a groan coming on. We're usually in for some ranting 'voice of the people' tosh or someone stringing a lot of bad puns together and calling it poetry...

Ray Miller - you make a point about
modern talent. Perhaps I should have realised I was citing a master-singer long dead and a song older
than your mother. Mediocrity defines todays' talent in many aspects of entertainment. But "survival" also has its badge of
merit as the public an be notoriously fickle and unforgiving in a digital age...and the Daily Mail has been going since 1896.

No, I make a point about talent of any era - popularity, commercial success, longevity are no guarantor of quality and it was ever thus.

"Accessible", in the sense it is being used in this thread, is a weasel word, most unpoetic.

ITV's execrable 'X Factor' is "accessible" because it is designed to appeal to morons.

You have to be able to understand the poets language. You have to want to find out what a poet is trying to say. If you don't you just won't get it. Then it is easy to criticize in ignorance. Accessibility is an inappropriate words for poetry.

T S Eliot said a poem can be appreciated before it's understood. Not all poets are 'trying to say something' as a major part of what they're doing as writers. Part of poetry is to explore language, to stretch it, to play with it. There are also 'musical' and 'visual' pleasures in poetry that go beyond rational meanings. I like surrealism; I don't expect to "understand it." I like abstract art: I don't complain if "I don't know what it's supposed to be."

Similarly with certain kinds of poetry. Wanting to know what a poet is trying to say isn't just about being able to get it immediately; sometimes, what draws me into the poem, into finding out more about the poem, is to do with the language and the form used.

Sometimes the poet deliberately delays understanding in order to get the reader to think about stuff they wouldn't otherwise think about. Sometimes the reader doesn't want to do that, but that's not the poet's fault.

Only rich people should be allowed access to poetry. All working class people should work on the industrial side like printing. This would increase employment in the current financial climate. Poor or middle class people will always think they are more creative than bankers, senior executives etc.. but the reality is, the rich have more time to perfect their writing and its not effecting the economy.
Talentless writers caused the recession.

yes kealan, now get back to that manual labour of yours

Yes - Graham I would agree with you. You have to want to know what a poet is trying to say. But not everyone would agree with that - including many poets who write in a style that is difficult to understand. Some people almost scorn the reader if they dare to ask what it's all about. As if the sound of the words should be enough...

For what it's worth I think that people who think in that way are cvdmbncdrtuymnvcdewhczzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I don't care whether we call it accessible or understandable either. I think we are getting a bit pedantic. So long as we all know what we are talking about what does it matter?

I'm always interested in how folk
view the worth of others and I'm not
unduly surprised by the harshness
of the views expressed. But
"one man's meat..." seems to have a
culinary relevance to opinions across the board and is by no means an exclusion to competence or even expertise. Personal prejudice is a
frequently the bigger culprit.
What fun this is!

"Some people almost scorn the reader if they dare to ask what it's all about."

Who are these people? Name some names then we can alll avoid their poems.

If there's one thing that annoys me most about these sorts of discussions it's people throwing unsubstantiated accusations about the so-called motives of writers who are never named but are supposed to be 'contemptuous' of readers.

I have read poetry that is simple and poetry that is difficult; poetry that rewards rereading and poetry that is throwaway; poetry that is 'experimental' (whatever that means) and poetry that is traditional. But I've never yet come across a poet who doesn't want or is contemptuous of readers.

That doesn't mean that you're going to like every poet you read/hear perform. There are plenty of poets who do nothing for me.

But grant them the good grace to not accuse them of being 'contemptuous' of readers. All writers want readers; some writers demand more of their readers than others. Some writers will 'speak to your condition' (to use a rather lovely Quaker phrase) others will not.

Or 'one man's meat' as it says above.

I clothe myself in ideas.

One hopes that enough 'accessible' poetry is being written so that most of the population is not locked out from a wonderful medium of expression and so that more people will feel eager to broaden their reading/listening to something more stretching.
Similar to popular (and I don't mean dumb) science encouraging a deeper interest in science.
Neither end of the spectrum deserves scorn.

Steven – I think I am more active on this site than you – unless you are one of those sleeping watchers. I read and comment a lot, so I like to understand what I’m reading.
The only poetry I can recall you posting has been modern, ‘experimental’ stuff – lists and such like – things less concerned with emotions and feelings and more concerned with the mechanics of the poem. Perhaps that is why we differ so widely on this subject.
If a poet is writing a poem about an emotion/experience and his readership fails to grasp that emotion, for me the poem has failed.

I think you misread my comment about scorn. I wasn’t referring necessarily to poets who write in an obscure fashion. I’ve had no experience of poets being scornful towards me on this site after me having asked for an explanation; Marianne Daniels has been very obliging in her explanation of a recent poem. I find much of Moxy’s work hard to understand also – but she has always been very obliging.
The difficulty lies in the fact that you can’t keep on asking for explanations without looking and feeling like an idiot. Then it becomes easier not to comment at all, which is a shame, because once understood, some works can be quite remarkable.
Clearly, how well we understand a poet’s work also has something to do with our own intellect and sometimes our empathetic capacity. My mind struggles to work in any kind of abstract or surreal way but I don’t think I’m in a minority on that score.

I think the scorn (and maybe that was too harsh a word) comes from other poets or fans of that type of poetry, who think that I am wrong to look for a meaning. I can think back to little snipes from other poets that I have seen posted following my comments in the past, but I have no intention of naming names.
I can also remember Darren Thomas posting a quote on the autobiography section of his profile page which said that one of the most annoying things for a poet was to be asked by the reader for meaning. I can’t remember whose quote it was, but I think it does reflect a consensus of opinion out there and it’s that kind of thinking that makes me now skip over work that doesn’t lend itself to interpretation.

We can all pick and choose what we read so this whole issue shouldn’t really be a problem. As I’ve said earlier, it only becomes tedious when people read this kind of work out at live venues. For me, it takes several reads to get any meaning out of it at all – so it is that much worse if it’s one audio. You might as well be watching a foreign film, without any of the sexy action.
I suppose it’s a question of getting the audience right. What goes down well on Radio 4 wouldn’t necessarily work at the Tudor and vice versa 

The trouble is that some poems/poets can neither be appreciated or understood! How often I've returned several times to so-called difficult poems only to be utterly and finally convinced that I've been wasting my time reading nonsensical tosh. Eventually you look back at all these quarter-hours and half-hours and become more, much more selective.

"When you consider that the readership for poetry is predominantly other poets then I would suggest reading can be as self-indulgent/self-serving as the writing is itself." Strange how much this bothers some people. Would we be bothered that the only audience for you when you talk is other people who talk themselves? Is it self-serving to talk to those who also talk? Most poetry audiences write poetry - Great! It's true some of the audience are not listening, anxious about not missing their own 'mic' moment. But the others are. The best bit, to me is the discussion afterwards or in the break, when people say - I wrote one a bit like the one you read...

Sometimes, a poems accessibility means that it doesn't get accessed. Nursery rhymes come to mind. Some of them are charming and clever poems but their simplicity means that many adults won't bother with them. They are 'over-accessible' if there is such a word.

Who are these people throwing unsubstantiated accusations?

"...I can also remember Darren Thomas posting a quote on the autobiography section of his profile page which said that one of the most annoying things for a poet was to be asked by the reader for meaning. I can’t remember whose quote it was, but I think it does reflect a consensus of opinion out there and it’s that kind of thinking that makes me now skip over work that doesn’t lend itself to interpretation".

It was a quote attributed to Nassim Nicholas Taleb - 'if you want to annoy a poet simply ask him to explain his work' - which is a statement worthy of any discussion room accelerant ? - and makes NO mention about explaining 'meaning'. Meaning is often overrated - and itself subject to abuse by semantics. And, everything is open to interpretation - whether it's 'fathomable' or not - the beauty of language, certainly as far as I'm concerned, has much more than a skin (meaningful) depth - which includes every aspect of its linguistic make up. I understand too that Taleb's statement itself can be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context it was uttered or written down? In some cases a reader/audience member's interpretation of what a writer's original sentiment was - is often more fantastical than the writer's themself! Imagination is like taxation. It gets everywhere. I don't want to 'understand' everything that I read. More often than not I usually convince myself that if I do understand anything then it's stopped shifting - or I have. By that I mean that I like to re-discover poetry/poems by looking at them when they think that you're not looking at them. Poetry has an amazing ability to change its clothes or slip into something a little more comfortable if you turn away from it for just a moment. And great poetry will even do this right in front of your eyes - as you're staring right at it... poetry's ace.

and to those who are throwing unsubstantiated accusations - don't.

You'll have someone's eye out.

Poetry IS accessible. However, sometimes individuals have to let the air out of an over-inflated prejudice to be accommodated by its tunnels, its nooks and its hairy crannies.

Whenever anyone asks me what my poems mean, I ask them what it means for them. Then I say, "something like that."

Poets do usually have a kind of idea of what they're trying to write about when they start. But it's often only a partial understanding in itself, unless you're just preaching some kind of message. Poems go out from their writers like children leaving home; and when they do, they develop lives and meanings of their own.

Writing for me is an act of discovery, not about getting my message across.

"Poems go out from their writers like children leaving home; and when they do, they develop lives and meanings of their own".

I like that.

Absobloodylutely Steven and Darren - couldn't have said it better myself. Some of the stuff I write has multiple meanings even to ME and I love that. I adore layers of meaning, it's what my favourite writers have always done for me, and because I get great joy out of it, I kind of expect that others will too. I LIKE not being spoon-fed. Course, some stuff will be like that, but the most interesting writing, imo/e, will make you hungry to read it again, or toss it around in your mental mouth, to be savoured over and over.

Goodness me... 53 posts since I started this one 5 days ago. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back :-). Lots of interesting views / comments and analogies. I like Stevens recent one.

Carry on... Win x

Yes - I like Steven's latest input. My last two poems started off in one place and ended up somewhere totally different - not at all as I had planned.

To use the analogy I used at the Tudor last week - all poets are donkeys but some are bigger asses than others.

Yes we are talking semantics and splitting hairs in some cases. Explaining one's work can be a whole lot like explaining the meaning also... unless of course you are explaining that there is no definitive meaning :)

The degree that something is inaccessible or accessible also makes a difference. I like to be left puzzling over meaning - that's probably why I look for it. Things handed to you on a plate aren't always as enjoyable. I like to have a cat in hell's chance of finding that meaning though - else it's a total turn off.

Clearly we are all different.

Thing is Steve, what if you DO have knowledge of certain things, and other people don't? Do you not write what you want to write about, for fear of 'excluding' some readers? Or do you write about what you want and hope that someone somewhere may understand it - it may touch them, or amuse them, or they may identify with it and gain solace?

It's like if you go round an art gallery - you don't HAVE to know the history of all of the artists/movements, but I think it does enrich the experience if you have a little knowledge of where it's come from. It's not compulsory - it should be for your own pleasure.

I went back to school as a mature student, soaked up tons of info that I had not previously been aware of, and it felt like being born again in a way. It opened up avenues, it didn't close them. Complexity doesn't always equal 'superior' but if you have a mind that likes to play, surely you enjoy complex things? I love funny daft stuff as well as complex. I don't agree with hierarchies in any area, but you can't slag off someone else's preferences in writing/reading just because they have knowledge that you don't. Nowt to stop anyone picking up a book and checking shit out for themselves is there?

Don't let anyone make it opaque for you - if you don't understand something, it is totally in your hands to do something about that. You've already said above that this is something you've done. Oh, and btw, I studied post-modernism as part of my course, and even I couldn't sum up what it's about ;)

Not everyone will understand everything that is written. Sometimes I will be reading something and think 'aha!' and I 'get' the reference, and it gives me great joy - and this includes novels, songs, films, poetry - all forms. Sometimes I don't, and I might look it up if I'm interested. Other times it'll just fly straight over my head, I'll be oblivious to it.

Should questions about poetry start with the word 'should'?

Steven, Write Out Loud, Stockport is in the local art gallery every month. Coming up to its 2nd annivesary.

The late Adrian Mitchell said, "most people ignore most poetry because most poetry ignores most people". Is he right? This quote is about to pop up in a news feature.

And, depends what you mean by 'accessible'. If you can't read it, or hear it, it is not accessible; if you can hear or read it, it is.

It is my view that the most memorable and lasting works of verse/poetry always seem to
contain something more substantive than ideas or mere flights of fancy...either via matchless evocations of nature and/or allegories of the frailties amd temptations that affect the human condition competing with time's all-consuming appetite.
How many modern poets might expect
to be seen as legit. successors to
the past masters in public affection
or recognition? The dice seem generously loaded in favour of the
glorious past when posterity
beckons.

Well, posterity is for the deceased so I guess we will never know in this existence. It depends upon cultural change so much M.C. as nature, grief and love do not alter they are safe bets if we want accessibility in a hundred years. Many fine poetry will have been lost by the fact that the content is now too alien to the current reader. In the same way, poems about emails, ipods and cars may seems quaintly odd in the future and lose their way. So accessibility over time requires the poets to play it safe in writing about enduring aspects of life. However, poetry that stands in the here and now may make its mark much deeper in the present by referencing to daily activity and life. Just a thought, I am enjoying others views.

Interesting read.
Laura - the Neutral Milk Hotel album you mentionned is one of my favourites. "Oh Comely" is epic.

I don't think every poem that I have read has wanted to convey a sturdy message, I prefer those that create a feeling in me and sometimes that is done without me being aware that I have actually understood it!!! I can read something and think, what the ruddy hell was that about? And then when I go back to it, I realise the beauty of the words used has left "an echo, a stain" to quote Sarah Kane, and I have been touched in a way that I don't need to explain. This, to me, is more important, than finding out a secret code or MEANING MEANING MEANING and I have irritated myself a little bit there because it does mean something...ah jesus, I don't even have access to my own thoughts...!

I don't think people really write in a way to advertise how clever they are when they write in an experimental way, i think, or maybe hope, that it is more to do with the beauty of word play - the assonanace, the alliteration and cacophony of certain words that can grab you and hold you and stop you. I find some peoples work absolutely breathtaking for the way they have controlled the pace of my reading...does that make sense? here I go again...

But we all must agree that Pam Ayres is pants right? ;-0

'ah jesus, I don't even have access to my own thoughts...!'

Now that phrase I can definitely identify with. I don't always know what my poems are about until long after they're written.

I also do sort of agree with Steve Black about the cliqueism of certain groups in poetry; though I'm never quite sure what to do about it. When people gather in groups they tend to form cliques and performance poets are just as guilty of this as the SE England poets Steve mentions.

One thing to remember about poetry is that, like music, meaning is only one aspect of the art. Poetry is a performative art involving sound, appearance on the page, even such things as typography: and part of its pleasure, whether we hear it in our heads or as a live experience, is the sound it makes and the pictures it conjures up; not just the message it's giving. Or as Wallace Stevens called it, it's a kind of 'fictive music...'

Wow Marianne - that's 2 people on here now that have said they love NMH! Most people I meet have never heard of them - but I do evangelise about them have to say, just to spread the word :)

I'm not sure I've ever come across knowledge that obscures and detracts, Steve: could you expand on what you mean?
surely all knowledge is enlightening?

"Eleven and seven-eighths poems have died as a direct consequence of this thread. Requiescat in poesy."

I think we should blame it all on Winston Plowes. Fancy asking a bunch of poets about their views on anything - they are so bound to scratch each other's eyes out.
Opinions should be swept under the carpet, along with meaning, interpretation, explanation and gripper rod.

Let's all get a grip on ourselves. We all must like our own poetry, or we wouldn't be writing it. Let's write for ourselves - if anyone else likes it, that's a bonus. When it comes to performing it live, I think we need to be a little more discerning though. Now - what punishment shall we mete out on the retiring Winston...

Interesting what Jane says about the permanence and transience of subjects. I thoroughly enjoy the tragedies of Shakespeare (and the Bee Gees for that matter) but I've never raised a grin at the comedies. Give me Billy Connolly every time.

I 'ave to say, though, Moxy,
Mi neb I need to stick in;
I'm proud to say that poesy
Is still alive an' kickin'.

I love unexpected sources of poetry. A love of tall ships onceimpelled me to spend a huge (for me)sum on a book on the subject...andwas delighted to discover lines of verse therein. No subject is toorarefied for the muse to work themagic.Here's a sample found between thecovers of that beautiful volume."D'ye mind the day we squared awayAnd ran her east by south,And she trampled down big Horn seaswith a white whale bone in her mouth,And the best hand gripped the bucking wheel and dared not look behindAt the growling greybeard in her wake,D'ye mind old pal...d'ye mind?"You can almost taste the salt sprayand hear the keening desolatewind in those rudely written but supremely felt lines.

Steve - I kind of see what you mean. Though I think it's probably a fault of bad writers rather than something that is a characteristic of the best. They're always a lot of bad poetry in any age.

You don't need all that extra information to appreciate Eliot, but it can sometimes help to know a little more about where he's coming from; so it can help with working out what it means. (I'm also conscious of WC William's verdict on Eliot, that he sent poetry 'back to the classroom.')

If all that knowledge lying behind the poem comes across as too much like a lecture then it can be counter-productive; but if it helps to have a basic understanding of, say, the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, in order to go deeper into Charles Olson, or to read Veronica Forrest Thompson's Poetic Artifice in order to deeper understand what it is I like about late 20th century innovative writing, then I'll do the work.

I recently read the first chapter of Deleuze & Guatarris' A Thousand Plateaus and it crystalised a lot of what I like in contemporary poetry, as well as what I don't like (straight-forward narratives, it seems.) But I only read it to add to the pleasure of reading; not because I felt like it was a duty. If your reading around poetry as well as your reading of poetry isn't pleasurable (and D & G are actually very pleasurable to read, despite being theory) there's no point in doing it.

I think it totally depends on context. If it's going to be published in, say, a journal (which is aimed at poets and academics) then you can afford to be a little more...complex. However, if you're performing at a town festival or something, and the people listening are perhaps not used to poetry, then accessible is a massive plus. If you're not accessible in that context you will be forgotten and not listened to and probably slagged off by a number of listeners.

I think also the topic matters. if the poem is contextual, for example, go ahead, indulge your complex side. But if it's about something that a lot of people experience, rape for example, direct is often the way to go to have the most impact and have more people relate to it.

"If you're not accessible... you will be forgotten and not listened to and probably slagged off by a number of listeners."

As have many great artists throughout history who have believed in their work. Is it a question of just wanting to be popular?

Win

Have a lot of people experienced rape?

From the Rape Crisis website

Around 21% of girls and 11% of boys experience some form of child sexual abuse. 23% of women and 3% of men experience sexual assault as an adult. 5% of women and 0.4% of men experience rape. (Cross Government Action Plan on Sexual Violence and Abuse www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ Sexual-violence-action-plan)

That's a lot of people. Especially when one is too many.

Abuse would have been a better example then perhaps.

In an effort to try and lighten up the analogies here, I can only think in terms of food (January diet already making me tetchy).
Accessible, if it means popular, relevant or god forbid, easy to understand, reminds me of the phenomena of the celebrity chef!
Most of them wave their arms around a lot, swear incessantly, shout, have gimmicky sayings and are usually over-exposed, just to be popular.
Real cooks just cook and let their recipes talk for them.
I can think of nothing less accessible than shouting out a piece of poetry to a noisy, sometimes disinterested room full of people. Is that accessible?
Perhaps nursery rhymes would do?

Dave, 20+ % ! What are we (Men) doing?

Graham, good comments

Hi Win

Can't ignore a straight question, especially about something so serious, but I don't know. I don't think it means that proportion of men are offenders. But the answer to your question lies in the minds of the men who are. Dark places and I don't really want to go there. One has to respect those academic researchers, therapists, prison chaplains etc who do - someone has to do it, but it must be very difficult sometimes. It would just make me very very angry for their victims.

Poetry operates on many levels, with much smarming between arguable 'guide' boundaries. If the 'I' of the writer doesn't punch the 'You' of the reader in heart or head, the poem is inaccessible, and simply self-indulgent.

Hi Cynthia, In interesting definition of 'accessible' that, which I quite like. It covers all genres I suppose but I would suggest that a nudge can be as effective as a punch in some cases. The strenght of connection is not always proportional to the force of the words :-)

Yes - I like Charlotte and Cynthia's contributions very much. They make sense to me. It's nice to hear it coming from others. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice in a non T.S. Eliot Wasteland. That's not to dis T.S. Eliot, either. I enjoyed studying his work when I was younger. He did punch you in the head... and as Charlottes says, you have to put every work into the context of where it is being received.

On the rape discussion - a lot of date rape happens that people are never aware of because girls are too embarrased/ashamed to report it. It has never happened to me but I have known women who have been totally scarred for life by it. I'm still shocked by the statistic that Dave B quoted though.

Blimey! This thread is still running!

Steven, in response to your earlier question to me, I well remember not long after joining WOL my education being called into question after having had the audacity to question a particular "poem". The work in question did nothing for me, neither, evidently, did it do much for anyone else. So yes, intellectual snobbery is not only "out there", but in here too. Perhaps some people just can't write "proper" poetry . . .

I don't think I will ever be convinced to persevere with the "difficult", "stream of consciousness", "therapy", "me, me, me", "experimental", "puzzle" genres of the written/spoken word. From experience the effort expended more often than not exceeds the reward. Life is simply too short. But then, with my obvious lack of education, what do I know?

Regards,

A.E.

One of the things that got me into experimental poetry, though, was learning how to deal with its unfamiliarity. Experimental poets are likely to use collage, sample and other forms of appropriation and to not use a straight logical sequence (A+B=C for instance.) They don't all use complicated words but lines or sentences are often fragmentary or broken off.

So learning to read without expecting an 'answer' or some kind of epiphany helps. I read through Ashbery poems very quickly without trying to work them out or find the 'meaning' - as if there were only one. I enjoy the play of language, the with sometimes, even the shape of a poem on the page.

Ira Lightman has these dual column poems and I recently read one said while he read the other in a reading he gave in Manchester. That was an interesting experience: it was like being part of a conversation.