Hello poets, philosophers and fellow undiscovered geniouses. A friend yesterday asked me "What is poetry?"
Although I've studied, read and write poetry, I found this a tricky question. Every answer I came up with I found something I considered poetic to contradict my answer! Please comment

Collins English dictionary says poetry is the art of writing poems, beautiful or pleasing.
A poem is an imaginative piece of writing in rhythmic lines.
A poet is a writer of poems.
Between the two descriptions is the word" POEP "
Which means, and i quote, " Emission of gas from the anus."
Do you think there might be a word to describe some of the similar stuff we call poetry which we emit from the mouth?
Or on paper for that matter.

In my humble opinion, i think if it has rhythm, it's a poem.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to rhyme.

Poetry is the best words in the best order.

Poetry is language at the furthest stretch of meaning.

Poetry is as difficult or simple as life is.

Well put Steve.

This one got me thinking - always risky! I'm not really sure that poetry needs to be beautiful or pleasing.

I think another definition might be the creative use of words and language to convey more than the words themselves would do. That extra might be emotion, it might create images in minds, it might provoke thought. It doesn't matter whether it has Rhyme and the rhythm need not be constant, but where used they add to the overall effect.

Its a bit similar to a piece of art which I think does more than just show you what something looks like. It doesn't matter whether it uses paint, colour, texture or other techniques, but those that are use add to the overall effect.

I found a definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which seems to have a similar approach albeit somewhat wordy:

"writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm"

That emotional response might well be the key.

Seamus


PS - to whom it may concern - why don't any of the men in the icons have long hair, or grey hair?

I'm glad they included the word rhythm in that definition - I've never seen a dictionary definition of poetry that didn't include rhythm, and I'd define it as rhythmically structured text - prose can be words arranged in the most beautiful possible way, but as seamus says poetry doesn't have to be - not part of what defines the noun itself or even the art form.

Further, I think it can be repulsive and that that's often better than beauty in that it does more to you than harping on about beauty ever can... which, in itself, is beautiful - okay so the metaphilosophy doesn't work and repulsive poetry is in fact beautiful poetry. All things considered I'll let you have that point, Steven.

Except... poetry can also be rubbish. It can be rubbish and still be poetry; rubbish poetry, but still poetry. And holy christ I've heard some corkers in my time. Fact is, poetry is a fairly defined noun, post-modern eegits like to try and question whether language means what it means and cite the few scant anthropolgical examples that they've based their whole wrong massive over-extrapolation on, but the word poetry hasn't changed from meaning rhythmically structured text in my lifetime or within well researched history.

If we start defining it in terms of beauty and not in terms of rhythmically structured text, we'll have to start calling stuff like fashion models poems. So, then what would we call rhtyhmically structured text in order to distinguish it from catwalk models? Would we have to start talking about Shakespeare's epic bimbo: The rape of Lucrece? No, let's stick to having nouns and using them to mean stuff that they mean (within the confines of unforced temporal shifts in semantics, of course).

I try not to get too hung up on what a dictionary's definition of a word may be. Afterall, each one will have a lexicographer's thumbprint written all over it and the word's etymology will certainly evolve, if not in our lifetime, then the next.
Perhaps poetry is more than just a word? It may even be more than a rhythm. Poetry per se, although a noun, can also be an adjective and it will not be too long before it becomes a verb in some contexts. Therefore, it becomes almost impossible to define, just as the word 'love' promotes equal amounts of head scratching and vacant stares.
Personally, I feel that Steven's definition is not too wide of the mark where I consider poetry to be and how it should be defined. IF, we choose to attach labels to a particular word or concept we should be open to the fact that we can only define something within the restrictions of our language.
If you ask me - it's all bollocks.

trouble is, if we don't attach specific meaning to words, then all of what you've just said could be an intricate story about a green princess called clarence, so I go with dictionary definitions. I'm fine with people writing un(poetically)structured stuff, as long as they recognise that it's not poetry and give it another noun (such as prose). The difference between prose and poetry will always be that poetry has a rhythmical structure of some kind, whether accentual or the old style form using metrical feet.

Now, we just need T O'C to stick his oar in with "It has to rhyme, etc."

Anyway, "poetry" can't be a verb, and is only ever an analogy in "Poetry in motion" so is descriptive but not adjectival. And if anyone says any different I'll poetry their ass.

OK we've seen all these ideas of poetry.

To me poetry is personal. It's something that you want to share with the world. Whether the world want's it is obviously something else. Poets will argue horribly about the way poetry should be perceived, ie. rhyme, meter, free verse, etc.
I don't really care about all that. My lovely hubby John gave me poetry when I was feeling down and he uplifted me into another universe. We have visited Poet's sites like Sylvia Plath, and we care about green Britain. If you like what I like thank you for visiting my site. Sandre Clays.

Wait a ga- da- bur- What? Poetry is personal - It's something I want to share with you all... How is that personal then?

"Anyway, "poetry" can't be a verb, and is only ever an analogy in "Poetry in motion" so is descriptive but not adjectival. And if anyone says any different I'll poetry their ass".

Well? That just about reinforces what it was that I was saying about language. Why can't 'poetry' be a verb? Does the structure of the word and its morphology limit its word class or is it simply that we haven't found the right context in which to use it - or both? In fact, I know some men and women who will become nothing short of excitable about the thought of having their asses poetried. While I recognize the concepts of arbitrary signs (Ferdinand de Saussure's books first bored the arse off a me) I think that poetry is a feeling which we all have inside us. We have, over the years, agreed to call it 'poetry', so that the majority can at least identify with all its blurred edges. It's a conduit for our creativity, like playing in sandpits. If it has rhythm then it 'feels' poetic - I think this has more to do with the inate features of how language sits in our mind.
Poetry is more than a single explanation.

There are, of course, works that are labelled 'poetic prose'.Where does one concept end and the next begin?

I'm off - to poetry the world with my poetry blaster that squirts patterns of poetic mosaic at poems and prose and the fissure which separates them both.

I just googled him and found out who he was - every time I think up a clever, sensible philosophical construct some cheeky individual pops over to a part of the timeline that happened before I even existed and tells it to all and sundry in an effort to make me look stupid!

Either way, he's right in what he's saying (even if he did wait until after I'd said it before writing a book about it in the early 20th century), and while meanings do change slowly with usage, it hasn't happened yet to the word poetry and I think we should stick with the zeitgeist on this one.

If postmodernists want to force these changes by "challenging peoples ideas of what is and isn't <insert noun>... by doing something that isn't <insertnoun>, telling people that it is <insertnoun> and putting the onus on them to argue very easily that it isn't", they should start with more innocuous words like "the", "is" and "and" and "but". Then when the foregoing sentence doesn't mean what it meant before they changed the meanings of those words, they should then challenge the new meanings and so on and so forth in a cycle of infinite regress. Anything to keep postmodernists off our streets.

Ok so poetry is a noun! BUT
When something is written poetically, it becomes an adverb!
I agree that poetry doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful or pleasing. I think aesthetically pleasing is probably a more suitable description.
At the risk of bringing up the subject of song being poetry, since wol invites poets to post their stuff for open-mic sessions, then surely poetry has to be rhythmic.
In the sense that when "spoken" it resonates the emotion intended within the poem and its content.
It can be projected as fast paced or slow. Or even melodic.
I can think of tons more adjectives to describe how a poem can be rhythmic, life is rhythmic.
The only instance in which i think a poem must rhyme is when writing about still life., or to make it more fun for children and those just beginning to read it.

Well said JR

Poetry is something inside us all trying to escape.
poetry is who we are and who we are against
poetry is the stuff of life and death
poetry is overcoming hardship yet still allowing breathe
poetry is your beliefs and your convictions
poetry has incredible sexual connections
poetry at its best willl be remembered for eternity
poetry at its worst won't get that reading for posterity
poetry is at the heart of humanity
thank god for poetry, it has given me back my sanity.

Good poetry can paint windows in your mind to look out of and see things in a different light.

Great poetry can smash those windows in your mind.

Mmmh - Simply speaking or talking involves some sense of rhythm, no matter how subtle that rhythm may sound - or not, as the case may be. Poetry may exaggerate those parts of our speech that we now consider are more pleasing on the ear, but in the sense of poetry demanding rhythm, then I would disagree. Language - demands rhythm. Whether that rhythm is mono - syllaballic with little or no intonation, or, it is forced with the phonology of certain sounds that are found in each and every lexeme.
It's no coincidence that those people who we like to listen to whether it's them reading the news or simply talking, have a particular rhythm to their voice that has nothing to do with poetry as a muse. It may SOUND like it has rhythm, but does that make it poetry? Some parrots sound like they can talk - maybe we should ask them?

I do think however, that because 'poetry' is in itself difficult to define, that only adds to its beauty. There are no right or wrong answers. Therefore, when individuals state that things 'MUST' and 'WILL' this only dilutes what it is they have to say.

Thanks DG. Good point John! That really blew my mind!

Language and poetry, or indeed any written "prose," is a way of expressing thought.
So if language demands rhythm, then surely it follows that poetry etc.. demands it too?
We don't "think" in mono syllables and intonation can be projected to a reader by the use of punctuation and the style of font used. ( when the system allows it.)
But that's another topic of discussion for the wol team to get their teeth into. Why is it that whatever font style i use to enter a blog, it always changes to the same style of text as previous ones?
Perhaps some etymology is needed here. Pardon the pun!

Janet - putting our many differences aside, if you have been reading what I am saying, you will no doubt be aware that my argument is that language IS rhythmic. If it follows that poetry has to be rhythmic in order to qualify as poetry, then everything we say could be construed as poetic.I'm sure there are people out there who may argue it is!
If we try too hard to pigeon hole poetry all this does is to make us think that bit deeper. Poetry is not just about words. Under its current remit it manifests itself through words and rhythm, but any person who considers that they write poetry should surely be aware that what it is inside them, is also 'poetry' , those who choose to articulate their creativity with words, because they cannot draw, paint, sculpt, sing, dance. It's a conduit for our creativity. Just like smacking people over the head with a wet fish is a conduit for frustration or anger.

"We don't think in mono syllables..."

Try telling that to the Chinese, Mandarin speaking/thinking world some of which, I'm sure, write poetry or whatever arbitrary sign they refer to it as.

I'm not going to go along with this relativism that seems to be being reiterated, but never really justified. Firstly, ordinary speech does not have anything that you can annotate as rhythm without changing time signature very second or even first word over and over again to the extent that it is arhythmic. Newsreaders are definitely arhythmic and usually have a warm tone to their voicing and aren't poets.

Secondly, you now seem to be classing ordinary speech said in such timbres as poetry on top of all of the other things that don't fit any sensible definition of poetry that people in this thread have said are poetry. What next, is leicester (for slightly out there example) a poem? Well it depends on how you define a poem and how you define a city so yes. However, no. Very clearly no.

No, and let's nip this in the bud before we go back and replace every noun in the foregoing with just poetry (because it's so ill-defined, oh please) a poem is rhtyhmically structured text - as opposed to prose, which is non-rhythmically structured text and which is what you are currently reading and there is nothing remotely poetic about this.

Within that you have great prose e.g. Solzehnitsyn stuff, great poetry e.g. Yeats stuff, awful prose such as Giles Brandreth stuff, and awful poetry such as Wordsworth stuff.

Note, there is a hell of lot of scope for being creative with rhythm. Okay, classical forms are limiting in that they repeat (with occasional swapping of metrical feet) the same rhythm figure over and over and they hadn't mastered putting rest beats into poems in those days so every crochet or quaver beat was a syllable. Accentual poetry (which was an ancient form that Yeats rediscovered) relies on much cleverer devices that you just have to find and write things such that someone just reading them off the page would naturally have to read it in the intended rhythm.

Changes in rhythm figures, should stay true to the underlying beat otherwise you don't have a rhythm or a poem.

I've recently found great enjoyment reading the Bloodaxe Book of Poetry Quotations, compiled by Dennis O'Driscoll. (That's poets and commentators talking about poetry rather than an anthology of poetry excerpts. Recommended - £2 in my friendly neighbourhood clearance bookshop!)

I've highlighted (highlit??) my favourites and may select a few to compile into a piece with which to regale a future poetry night near you. Be very afraid!

My favourite, after many pages of debate similar to that on this thread, is something like:

"Poetry is what they give you if you ask in a bookshop for a book of poems!"

As the great bard Hovis Presely famously said, "You Can't Sat Fairer Than That!"

Actually DG, I find your comments very poetic.

Uh DG excuse me but why is Wordsworth awful? A lorra lorra people like him. Maybe because we are awful?

Perhaps DG is right when he says this line has gone past the original question. What is poetry?
Debate and discussion usually does.
Personally, i've found i agree with several points made, but not all. We're all entitled to our opinions regardless of what others think about them.
I would like to think that each of us on this line has been given "food for thought." I know i have.
And Darren, thankyou for putting our many differences to one side on this occasion. I must admit that i did misinterpret what you meant about language and agree with your interpretation once you explained it. I hope this doesn't dilute the fact that i stand by my opinions,where i feel i am right.
Just don't hit me with that wet fish!

If i remember correctly, this same subject was going on in pretty much the same vein when i first joined the site in May.
At the time i didn't join in. I have thoroughly enjoyed every entry everyone has made. Discussion forums rule.

Darren, whether you did or not, it was not poetry, and if you did then it conflicts with this beauty nonsense because my words were very dry, stuffy and boring, each one clothed in a pipesmoke infused tweed jacket.

Sandre, you don't at all, you are just saying that, nobody does. Just in the same way that nobody goes home and sits there thinking about a bunch of flowers they saw, when they could be thinking about football beer and lines from monty python films instead. It's all lies. That and he pressaged the Georgian poets, for which I will never forgive him.

How about, given that every dictionary agrees with me on this one and the fact that it is what the word poetry actually means (as opposed to some other object we might randomly decide to misnominate), we call poems rhythmically structured text. We can then state as an aside that the induction of emotional response and/or ability to entertain in some worthwhile way or lack of both disinguishes good poems from bad poems, but that both are poems.

It may be possible to push this definition by producing a different (but demonstrably present) structure and getting people to agree that this structure type be included in the definition of poetry. To do that, by the way, you would have to be very sure that you were a genius and few people are. As someone who just writes and performs poetry as a hobby, I know that achieving such a conceit is way beyond my abilities.

Poetry is; a colour, a heartbeat, a feeling, a sound, an emotion, an expression that lives in a pocket in your soul that spills through your pen or computer keyboard onto unsullied sheet.

The true definition of poetry is set to remain an enigma, but if you can write a poem that moves reader then poetry you have defined.

deary me, no.

At the risk of being nerdy and boring:

A colour is what your brain interprets when a particular frequency of light temporarily isomerises an orthorhodopsin molecule by virture of having energy (Planck's constant times it's frequency) equal to that of the electron energy level gap between pi and pi* in the particular rhodopsin molecule - there are ones for red green and blue light frequencies) in a cone type nerve cell in your retina.

a heatbeat is the coincidental contraction of a set consisting of a ventricle a bi- or tricuspid valve and an atrium or possibly not depending on whether that particular beat signifies the end of a systole or diastole.

a feeling is slightly fuzzy in its definition since it can mean an emotion out right or the combination of your thoughts at the time of experiencing an emotion and the emotion itself or even an illicit frottage of someone else's bits or our own for that matter, but context defines it.

a sound is the noun we give to the interpretation your brain gives to the stimulation of hair-like nerve sensor cells in your cochlea in combination with the distance along your cochlea to which extent the hair cells are vibrated enough to transduce an "all or nothing" potential difference

A emotion is what the mind interprets us to "feel" when we bathe the brain in a hormone that is analagous to a neurotransmitter type that only certain areas of the brain can utilise to carry a chemical signal across the synapes between the ends of the denrons of connecting neurones but other areas can't

An expression, again slightly fuzzy definition, could mean a part of speech that is colloquial, could mean a mathematical notation of a relationship between variables, could mean a facial contortion or lack thereof. Fuzzy, indeed, but context allows us to easily select the intended semantics.

An expression that lives in your pocket is a thing that doesn't exist and that you made up, but as a phrase it's a fairly pretty metaphor. Certainly I'd shag it, but then I don;t have a reputation for being fussy.

A poem is none of the above, and isn't something that is hard to define. See dictionary for further clarification. Thank you.


Incidentally, and possibly quite frighteningly, all of the above was from my head without recourse to reference material.

On the Future of Poetry

Scatter the words
disperse the verse
pluck it from the stars
drown it in the rivers
feed it to the carp
strike it from the airwaves
ban it from advertising
unless dumbed down
do not on any account
allow it to breed

Alternatively,
let it fly with the birds
spiral in the breeze
redistribute itself
like an airborne virus
or unwanted seed.

Must admit, I share that same passion for it Sandre, and I keep seeing it pushed to the margins too. However, I think poets themselves are responsible for most of that.

We need to take a slightly more hard-nosed approach to our S & M (no, no, I mean sales and marketing). The popularity of an art and entertainment form (and form of creative writing) is subject to public approval (just to state the obvious). Most of the public can't even be persuaded to look at or listen to a poem these days, and much less to pay attention. Go to most poetry events and the audience consists almost entirely of poets.

The reasons are many. Poetry has positioned itself increasingly as a writing activity that is therapy for people with mental health issues - this places the reader or listener as unpaid therapist and most people don't want to do that. The end product quality of the poems produced by these mental health activity sessions can sometimes be pretty high, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Yes, keep that up. Music and art are also in this game, but there are still professional musicians and artists around so the the two aren't mutually exclusive. We need to have outlets for poets who are highly skilled at their craft.

Another thing that some of us do is what I see happening in this discussion. I know I'm dogmatic (and correct) on this one, but we have to have something that we can promote. You go to Jo(e) Public and have the following discussion:
"Can I interest you in some poetry?"
"What is it?"
"Anything."
"Is it one of these."
"Sure, why not?"
"Then no."
It isn't going to get people watching, litening to or reading or otherwise participating in poetry. Unless you redefine the noun poetry to mean "any item that isn't read, listened to, written, recited or appreciated".

Having a definition that gives you scope to develop beautiful (or otherwise aesthetic) poems that are clearly artful and have a structure such that it is evident to Jo(e) Public that you've sculpted your words and worked them into this item that you are presenting people with might, in time, bring people to poetry. Saying, without reasoned justification, "I'm going to barf on a dog and spuriously claim that it's poetry and you're a fascist for saying otherwise" will maintain the status quo.

An interesting discussion and the last contribution from Dermot outlines the "showbiz" model of poetry, which is a perfectly valid and traditional model and is something that WOL and other poetry groups continue to experiment with - sometimes successfully sometimes less so.

However, I've been thinking about what WOL's core activity is or should be and I've been struggling with a statement about what we do.

So, I believe that in the real world (as oppose to the virtual world of the web) WOL's core mission is to take the idea of poetry out into the community and encourage ordinary people to share their poetry with others by participating in our events. This wasn’t always our perception of what we did, we used to think WOL was all about “performance” now we realise it is really about “participation”.

We are non-judgemental and are supportive of what anyone attempts with their poetry although we draw the line at racism and sexism which will not be tolerated.

We have no agenda to “improve” or change the people who engage with us. We hope people’s writing will improve through exposure to more experienced and (maybe) better read poets, but regard any improvement as a bonus.

Similarly, although some people via contact with WOL get involved with writing groups, other performance poetry groups and the Arts in general we regard this as incidental, if beneficial, and not part of our core activity.

We hold regular open-floor, read-around events in several towns in the NW and W Yorks, some of these have been or are funded by other organisations. We also have similar irregular events held (very often though not always) in conjunction with, and often at the instigation of and/or funded by other organisations such as Libraries, Festivals, Community Groups, mental health groups etc.

We believe that the core activity is unique and as such differentiates us from all other poetry groups and, as far as we know, the vast majority of Arts organisations.

We think that this is our “Unique Selling Point”.

Questions: Is this our core activity? If it is, should it be? If not what do you think is the alternative?

I agree with all that Paul has said. I feel WOL could be a starting block for many who enjoy writing and sharing their poetry. Where they go from there is up to them. We are non judgmental accepting and enthusiastic towards all levels of poetic form. Beginners through to the polished professionals.
The mix is a terrific way to develop and inspire all who participate . Yes, WOL is unique and we will endeavour to keep the spirit alive by providing facilities whereby poets can come together and enjoy each others company.

I note from one isolated narrow minded comment on poets mental health issues using poetry as a therapy, dismissing their quality of work as second class, as a rule, compared with those more highly skilled in the craft. You no my late Gran had a saying that suites you to a tee; 'Don't moch the afflicted you might be stuck comical yourself one day'

Speaking as a accomplished poet with Parkinson's disease. I have enjoyed the compliments, constructive obserations, and general comments of my poetry peers on this site. Not only that I have had unsolicited support ot the open mic nights at WOL', Freed Up poetry nights, and a show at the Contact Theatre over the last few years. In turn I have learnt much from my fellow poets, which has helped me no end, when I listen and observe their work. No matter where I have gone on stage nobody has dismissed my poetry as a therapy. Neither do the publishers producing my poetry book about my Parkinson's experiences.

I would like to thank the commenter who took the trouble to look in the dictionary for the following; Poetry is; a colour, a heartbeat, a feeling, a sound, an emotion, an expression. I would be interested to discover his or her motivational drives in the production of their work.

What is poetry? What is poerty all about? See WOL

Think you might have misunderstood my comments about the mental health thing - I actually said that that can and should continue but should not be the main focus of modern poetry.

Likewise, you misunderstood where the definitions came from - I didn't consult a dictionary for them I just knew them already, and I was saying that poetry isn't any of those things. Which, of course, it self-evidently isn't.

My motivations for my work are generally just plain and simple enjoyment of poetry and having something I find enjoyable in my head and wanting to get it from my head to paper then to perform it if it'd benefit from being performed.

"How to win friends and influence people".

A wonderful book by Dale Carnegie. Pretty cheap too.

I'm not a big reader, I'm afraid, and will happily admit that I'm not the nicest of people and wouldn't aspire to be. I reckon I'm about mid-table in the global niceness competition and am satisfied with that placing.

Anyway, there's absolutely no harm in disabusing someone of a misapprehension that they have about something that I said. Otherwise, he's left with the idea (as he stated) that I'm narrow-minded and think that no good poetry comes from people with mental health problems and that we should ditch such workshops. That is entirely contrary to what I said. I think a person with mental health problems can be as good at poetry as anyone else because I don't know of any mental health problems that affect creative writing skills in any way. There are no barriers to a person with mental health problems from achieving in our art form, in much the same way that Vinnie Van Gogh was one of the best artists of all time and Robert Smith's music and lyirics are fantastic.

Coming back to the what is poetry aspect of it, from what I hear of these workshops organisers don't tend to teach the basics such as classical meter, the development of modernism, postmodern theory, exercises that help people to develop ideas of their idiom and the material content of their poems, or technique or indeed what differentiates a poem from a piece of prose. So, hand some people in such a workshop a piece of paper and say "just write about what's on your mind or whatever" and (even leaving aside whether or not any members of that particular group has much aptitude for creating poetry or not), you won't get much worthwhile poetry back on most occasions. And, again this is only what I've heard about such things, people are then encouraged and old how wonderul their work is rather than given positive feedback together with a way forward in order to progress their skills.

And I still maintain that if you don't have a discernable and objectively definable craft that the word poetry refers to, then you might as well get rid of the word poetry and say there is no such thing because you have a definition of it that doesn't mean anything.

It's funny how people nearly always focus on the first part of the book's title, when really, it should be the latter.

Dermot, I realised a long time ago that a person will always offend somebody on this site with their opinions. Perhaps it's best to articulate in - depth thought verbally over a large beer and if and when somebody wants to poke you in the eye, then they can form an orderly queue!

Some viewpoints would best discussed over a pint Darren but the choice of words used by Dermot, whilst he may not wish to cause offense, leave some to be desired. Please see below.

'Poetry has positioned itself increasingly as a writing activity that is therapy for people with mental health issues - this places the reader or listener as unpaid therapist and most people don't want to do that. The end product quality of the poems produced by these mental health activity sessions can sometimes be pretty high, but it's the exception rather than the rule'.

Forgive me if I found your responce patronising, however Dermot I would be pleased to discuss any points over a pint away from this site.

Getting back to the point of the discussion here are a few quotes I have found;

Definition: Poetry is an imaginative awareness of experience expressed through meaning, sound, and rhythmic language choices so as to evoke an emotional response. Poetry has been known to employ meter and rhyme, but this is by no means necessary. Poetry is an ancient form that has gone through numerous and drastic reinvention over time. The very nature of poetry as an authentic and individual mode of expression makes it nearly impossible to define.

There are as many definitions of poetry as there are poets. Wordsworth defined poetry as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings;" Emily Dickinson said, "If I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire ever can warm me, I know that is poetry;" and Dylan Thomas defined poetry this way: "Poetry is what makes me laugh or cry or yawn, what makes my toenails twinkle, what makes me want to do this or that or nothing."

Poetry is a form of expression. Whether it is spoken or written, it is the manifestation of thoughts, feelings, and intellect. It is a way of communicating. With poetry one can effectively communicate opinion, desire, ideas, cleverness, and most of all state of mind. Although poetry is a supreme form of expression...

Dictionary definition - Main Entry: po·et·ry
Pronunciation: \?p?-?-tr?, -i-tr? also ?po?(-)i-tr?\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: metrical writing : verse b: the productions of a poet : poems
2: writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm
3 a: something likened to poetry especially in beauty of expression b: poetic quality or aspect <the poetry of dance>

Prose has to go to the end of the line. With poetry, it's an option.

Beer is probably the way forward here. Will bring one of my lexicographer friends along too to back me up if things get nasty - that Suzy Dent would leave more than a thumbprint on you if you tried anything funny. Philip, I really think you're missing half of what I said in that sentence here and choosing to think that I'm in some way against people with mental health issues. I'm really not.

I remember Suzy. She wa sthe fanny on as tick who got so wrapped with sp elling that s he did n't know how to blow literature bu bbles wit hout thinking ab out what s he wrote. Written? Who cares? Beer? Bananas, Balls, Brown Bread.
Kiss me.

What ever Darren is on please can I have some too!!

I spent the day making up names for snails that crept through my garden.I imagined what it must be like making love to Carol Vorderman long before the affects of Lefe had finished coursing through my battered veins.
Then I dreamt what it must be like making stains on the breasts of Melinder Messenger because I’d read somewhere that she was very intelligent and not just a pair of wibberly wobblies.
Then I thought of what it must be like being a lollipop man starting work when you're sixty. I mean, it’s a long time to wait for a chosen career to start working your way up a ladder. Then I wondered why my mate’s bladder is the size of a peanut and why he has four pisses to my one and then I realised that it doesn’t really matter - not to me anyway.
And why is the space shuttle American? Why not outer Mongolian or something? And why was the first man on the moon called Neil? I mean, c’mon - Neil? And what was the mother of Bernard Cribbins thinking when she asked the Vicar to name her child? These things baffle me. Like poetry that doesn’t even rhyme init. Maybe it ain’t poetry. Maybe it’s just nonsense. Like James Blunt. Who’s very nice and sings with a lovely smile. And all the while what really surprises me is the fact that Morecombe and Wise ain’t still on the tele. Like Jim Davidson or Fanny Craddock and Steve Irwin. Is he dead? Stung by a fish or something. Stupid boy.

Hi Sandré!

"Poetry has positioned itself increasingly as a writing activity that is therapy for people with mental health issues - this places the reader or listener as unpaid therapist and most people don't want to do that. "

Just wanted to comment on this - "poetry" can't position itself on anything - though some people have used poetry for this purpose - and when they do it is often boring for the reader or listener, as well as sometimes uncomfortable. But then if it helps someone to write a poem, it's better than doing nothing and in certain circumstances can be beneficial to the writer. As a writer-in-prison, I see a lot of therapeutic writing, and some of it is very moving.

I do think sometimes that poets who concentrate exclusively on their own experience and never step outside of it can get terribly introverted and self-obsessed, though. Poetry isn't just about "the self"; it's also about the world around you.

Mornin' all.
What do they put in their beer at the Tudor anyway.
My head feels like a curly cabbage today.
Or could it be the large vodka coke i decided to have as a nightcap?

That aside though, there was some good " poetry" read out loud last night, don't you think?
This is still a poetry discussion isn't it?
Excuse me, need the latrine.

Poetry is just bloody poetry. Let's all get over it and move on

Poetry is in the eye of the beer holder.

People
Organising
Entertaining
Treats
Rousing
Yehah’s

What else do you expect at 3 in the morning???

Poetry is just bloody poetry.
--------

Sandre -

I've always had difficulty with this kind of approach because I think if your(my) poetry is going to actually amount to something more than a nice decoration, some thinking has to be done about what you (or I) think poetry is, or does, and what you think your audience is. That doesn't mean there is a single answer to the question; it might even be different for everyone.

For instance, to use Philip's acrostic below, I wouldn't have put "Entertainment" as standing for the "E". I'd put the word "Exploration"; because for me that's an important part of what poetry does. "Entertainment" comes secondary to the exploration of language, experience and ideas that I think is the main task of poetry.

But that's me.

Poetry is 'poetic' expression! Thanks guys!

All respect to you Steve, you're an excellent poet, but what I was really doing was trying to draw a line under this thread because basically no-one will ever really agree about poetry and I think that's just how it should be!

I know nobody will agree, Sandre, but I think discussion of these things is enlightening for us all. We might learn something from someone else's definition of poetry, rather than being entrenched in our own views. It's good to have our own ideas challenged sometimes, and to challenge other peoples' ideas.

As long as the debate is polite and open, and not just people snipping at each other from their own self-erected barricades.

That way we can learn.

Richard, you have told us nothing. You have used a different derivative of a word you haven't defined and that is the subject of this debate (in which people come up to me and say a poem is this, I tell them: no, that's a golf ball and they come back with something else, I say no - crisp bag and they come back with something else and I ask if they have dredged a lake and they say I have, Ted, yeah) and that in common usage (all the dictionaries agree, so I'm safe to say this) it is rhythmically structured text.

Stephen, as Sandy says, you have done some poems that I have admired but given that Sandy won't commit to a definition of what poetry is, she can't say that you're an excellent poet because she wouldn't be saying what she means (given that she doesn't have a defined meaning) and (inductively deriving) would logically therefore not know what an excellent poet was as would not be able to explain what one was to herself, so she might as well be saying you are nothing. But I concur that you are a very fine nothing.

On your point about entertainment and exploration: firstly valid, secondly it's rather a floccinauccinihilipilifcation (if that). Suppose one were to like (say) a found poem because of the exploration of whether, on mixing real missing person reports into fictional ones, the resulting reports would have as much (or more or less) piquancy when read by someone who knows they are fictional. Two points arise [1] someone savvy of process - possibly someone who was creative - would enjoy the results (the wonderment and spectacle if it works in a way you would consider non-obvious) from that perspective and that would be the majority of their entertainment - the other part of their entertainment would be the tearjerker experience (which they must necessarily have had in order to compare how moving the real and made up ones were, [2] most people will either get the spectacle or the tearjerker or not be entertained by it at all.

In short, in exploring what words can do, you are exploring what they can do to someone's emotions and that is entertainment and so is the feeling you get from the result of the experiment. I think people just shy away from calling it that because they see it as tacky because it is a need that you have in common with people whose prefered forms of entertainment you would baulk at calling art. We all have a certain amount of snobbery on such things - I should know as I'm one of the worst culprits and am not ashamed of it.

DG - I don't think I have anything against poetry being "entertaining" - it's just that it's not something I'd put as a priority. I'm sure that some people will find my poetry entertaining, and I'm glad that they like it.

But if I'm writing a poem, I want it first of all to surprise me - to be something I didn't know I could say. John Ashbery (a poetic hero of mine) said that he didn't see the point of poems that only communicate something you already know. They should communicate something you don't already know, they should make you, not so much think, as go "hmmmm..." - leave a mystery, a question mark hanging in the air, a something unsaid that the reader has to say for themselves (and it'll be different for everyone...)

That's my definition of what I'm trying to do in my poems. That probably will be entertaining for some, and for others it'll be terribly frustrating. I really don't mind if people don't connect with my poetry - there's plenty of that they can connect with.

I don't think entertainment is a bad thing. It's just that I do my thing and if people like it, they like it. If they don't, well, they don't.

That is a wonderful piece of poetry Dermot. No rhythm.

Oh crikey! Not you too! The liberal zombies surely can't have got you too, Malcolm.

That there - the thing I wrote below is prose. We call it that because it isn't structured rhythmically. We can build up from these beginnings to distinguish the meanings of other words from each other as concept hangers (if you will). We don't have to have just one word (e.g. the word "poetry") to mean is, but and and the, and sentences such as "that which is blinking obviously prose". And through enough iterations of this distinguishing one word from another idea of mine, we might end up with a vocabulary, a language and the ability to communicate. So there's a lot at stake here.

Besides, there are enough "liberals" (this word is often indistinguishable from "nazis" when taken to it's habitual extremes) who have already shot poetry in the foot. You can be a fascist like me and put a splint on it by insisting that they're just lying to themselves and to everyone else if they try to say that a colour is a poem.

I agree with DG in that this site may be regarded as a form of vanity publishing whereby anyone can publish anything and call it "poetry". There is no editorial control and therefore no reason for any "poet" to edit or even contemplate what it is they write. So often, or so it would seem, the stream of consciousness begins and ends on a blog and the writer passes on to the next offering hoping to receive hugs and plaudits as they do so knowing that there will be little external attempt at positive, or negative, critique and analysis.

I have heard it argued by the people who run Write Out Loud that by having a non-judgemental, supportive environment where new people can experience the work of well-read, more established poets that this can have a positive effect, causing development by some sort of osmosis.

But is this really the case? Who can seriously say they have changed due to involvement on this site? Where are the examples of this development? Are members of this site reading more poetry and more diverse poetry styles? Are they attempting new styles and forms in their own poetry? Who wants to take the risk of having their poetry analysed and critiqued? How many poets, along with Mr Waling, are attempting to surprise themselves?

I hope that many poets can answer such questions in a positive way but frankly I doubt it.

Who, may i ask, with the greatest respect is the "honest critic" who won't put their name where their opinion is?

Personally, i know i've grown because of this poetry site!
I'm sure all those who now know me a little,due to having read my poetry and met me at open-mic gigs will agree with that.

In a few short months, i've learned a lot from other poets writes, opinions, critique and friendly helpful approach to new members.
A huge thankyou for and to those people is well overdue, and not just from me, i'm sure there's a lot more out there who feel the same.

I have noticed a distinct change in the way i approach my own work since joining. What's more is, i found a versatility within me that i never knew possible, simply because my confidence has grown with me to create.

Whatever any of us write, we're not perfect. Otherwise we'd have nothing left to write.
The reading of and enjoyment of anyones material is a matter of personal choice. Even for publishers.

As for blogging our material, yes, we blog to receive comments. I recently conversed with one poet on this site who blogs work he wants comments on, then when he's happy with the final draft, places them on his profile.
Nothing wrong with that! Would you agree?

Loathe as I am to rise to "honest critic's " bait, I have to support Janet here. For me the issue is less about how you define poetry but what its function is. Write out Loud has expressly sought to develop and support that function which encourages self-expression in a non-judgemental way. This might be a therapeutic exercise, be hardly distinguishable from prose (other than its length), fail to dance in rhythm, or trance with rhyme, but my guess is that the writers , whether schooled or not, have some idea in their head what poetry is, and start by seeking to represent their feelings and observations in that way.

I have been on the circuit long enough and seen enough people develop their interest, technique and sophistication through listening to others that it seems a perfectly respectable way of raising poetic standards whatever they may be. Let's face it we're mainly pub singers not prima donnas, most of us won't win the Forward Prize, and history frequently sees the denigration of roots culture by the artistic/literary establishment (until it senses a buck), but I think you could successfully anthologise many of WoL's regular contributors, rustic and naive as they be, alongside "proper" poets.

Dave

Steve says 'I really don't mind if people don't connect with my poetry'.

Oh perleeze! DG thinks my opinion is worthless but I'll say it again. Steven Waling is an excellent poet but I think he's telling porky pies here. Even if it is at a subconscious level I think every poet is trying to connect with the rest of humanity. Otherwise why in the world would we put ourselves at risk of rejection in trying to get published. I suppose when you get to the level of having been published on a regular basis as Steve has you can have the luxury of saying you don't care whether you connect or whatever. Most poets I believe really do care what people think of their work. Which is why I totally disagree with the throw away lines of our anonymous critic about the blog site. I think there are some seriously good poems on there and Write Out Loud should be congratulated for giving poets a chance to share their work.

The ‘Honest Critic’ is hiding behind a disguise no greater than that worn by the Lone Ranger. Yet this anonymity is the stick that pokes our fires of frustration and pipes the bellows of everybody’s opinion pipe.
If the ‘Honest Critic’ should choose to reveal themself, then I suspect we may all be left swimming in the bubbles of an anti-climatical froth.
However, some points that they abruptly raise are perhaps worthy of further discussion - are they not? Yet I, for one, cannot communicate with anybody who chooses to converse while wearing , at its best, a ridiculous disguise, or, at its very worst, a pantomime costume of an opinion based on nothing more than what they think they see and read on this site. I may even agree with this person and what it is they have to say, but not while they're hiding inside a tepid pan of anonymous broth.
This site is open, and to a very large extent - it’s honest. That's what has attracted over 250 people to it since I first became a member but if a member chooses to remain a ’Honest Critic’ then we'll have no choice but to send in the idiolect police who will take great pleasure in removing said critic's rhyming couplets. After which, they will beat them with sugar coated poetry until he or she submits in moans of anguish.
So, Kemo sa-bay, reveal yourself if you wish to be taken seriously. Otherwise, wallow in your own failings as a person who sports very small reproductive organs!

Will the 'Honest Critic' choose to reveal themself?
Find out in next weeks episode of The Lone Ranger in
'I very much doubt THAT'.


PS First reports from the Idiolect Police are favourable. They have furnished 4 possible suspects. The heat, as they say, is on.

Here we go again!
Thanks Dave for your support but what, in your vast experience is a "proper" poet?

Idiolect police eh?
I like the sounds of that. So who are the suspects so far?
After all, Darren's the one most of us know as the ex copper.
The hunt continues. What is the sentence?

Please correct me if i'm wrong but did i read somewhere in wol rules that no-one is allowed to post under a false identity?

Sorry Lauretta, if my suspicions are correct. You've got to go! :-)

What fun, we have a battle of the poetry pro's.

Dermot is quite the nicest nazi I know (that's poetic because of the pleasantly rhythmic alliteration.)

Wittgentstein taught us that words are defined by their use and they do not have any intrinsic meaning. Proof of this is given to us all the time by the way that words change their use completely. 'Gay' is one of the commonly quoted examples.

When somebody says 'that's poetry' in response to hearing something that they find beautiful, insightful or both, they are not wrong if the thing they heard did not have rhythm. Dermot writes beautifully, with an enthusiasm and imaginative use of language that shines through verry strongly. The truth is that I can put rhythm into almost anything I read and it is particularly easy in the case of Dermot's writing. Therefore, even by his own chosen definition what was written as prose I could read as poetry.

Dermot is absolutely right that language is the means by which we communicate and if we approach it in too cavalier a fashion we can damage the effectiveness with which we understand each other. I am not suggesting that poetry does not have meaning in its current usage.

I said early in this discussion, or in another one on a similar subject, that poetry is the use of language that conveys enjoyment beyond that of the information conveyed. I think that is a reasonable description of the current use of the word.

The reason that I think it worth contributing to this discussion is that newcomers to poetry or those who are at all reticent about the worth or categorisation of what they do can be put off by others who state rigid rules for what can be considered poetry.

It is OK for poets to be repulsed by rhyme or to require certain structures for material to be considered poetry in their eyes, but it is best that they express those views in the company of others of similar mind rather than trying to evangelise their dogma where it might crush emergent talent.

I regularly surprise myself by my writing and it does not need to be poetry to do that. Jeremy Paxaman has just attracted some attention by saying that Burns wrote doggerrel. I happen to agree with him. I think that most of Burns' work was crap, but that doesn't mean that I deny he was a poet and many like his work. I also enjoy trivial rhymes and doggerel. I should do, I write plenty of it. What I like about the WoL site is that it is open and inclusive. There is a lot of very good work on here and some that is as bad as Burns. Those people who think that much of it is not poetry have plenty of other sites that will share their opinions.

But, above all, please do not go away Dermot, you are an excellent poet whose work I enjoy enormously. And you are quite the nicest nazi I know.

I thought I met you Janet?
Hugged you, saw your lovely smile lil one!

I am available to be met, and do not hide.
I own the copyright on the fragments of my mind.
If scattered
then jigsaw find.
but help me with the pieces

in this case
It's better to start in the middle.
As that is where the heart resides.


what's a blog for after all?

for me, its a online notepad to jot those emotions down in an instant, then revisit sculpt create a final piece.

Its a quick message to the wider world, to your fellow performers, hello I exist.

what's poetry?
for me it is all about emotion.
Actually I think a hybrid word may be best, then the purists can be appeased.

tell you what keep the word poetry, I will use words to express different ranges of emotion in order to convay an event situation or feeling. This will be done on a stage as I notice you are here for an enjoyable evening out (the bar gave it away)

If I make you laugh or you laugh at me I dont mind as long as I see you smile.

All of the people on this site whom I have met, I have seen almost all of them smile, and that was worth one million poetry books.

Whos the masked crusader
who cares.


WOL have helped me grow, they support and they encourage
how many have floursihed in these ranks
but I need them

Sandré, I haven't said that your opinion is worthless but given you don't know what poetry is (if you do then tell me - without the infinite regress that its just bloody poetry -which is? - just bloody poetry - which is? - just bloody ..., because you infinitely regressing doesn't tell me about poetry, it tells me something else), then you don't know what a poet is. This if then proposition is logically true.

Dave, no. The question isn't what is (sic.) the function of poetry, it is what is poetry... unless we have another of these threads about what is "what" and another called what is "is" and decide that they mean entirely different things. The functions of poetry will vary from person to person and your little question will draw a tally chart and get all mean, mode and median on us. The what is poetry question is a much better defined one in that it allows use to answer from an arts/humanities perspective and has a piquancy that I'll come to shortly and is one that we can (with reasoning) answer satisfactorily. With unreasoning we can be unreasonable about it and claim poetry as being the same thing as prose.

However, Malcolm has just shown (although not entirely successfully in my view) that one can still hold that view and give reasons that follow quite linearly and without any hidden leaps of spuriousness from a quite widely ascribed to (even partly so by me) premise. Counterbalancing this premise he also implied (possibly inadvertently) that he took my point that this premise is the exception rather than the rule given that you all understand at least ninety-nine per cent of what I am saying. Therefore, I would ask those who have tried to tell me that a poem is a colour or a golf ball etc and then got all steamed up when I pointed out the obvious lack of reasoning as to why you thought that (and the even more obvious observation that is plainly isn't) to just admit you were being obtuse (and wrong).

Malcolm's point about rhythm also needs addressing. You may be able to force a rhythm to the way you read that in the same contrived and garbled way that Cliff Richard fitted the words of the lord's prayer to the tune of amazing grace, or you may be able to fit it to rhythm(s) plural by reading it naturally but the former involves unnatural pauses and stresses and this last involves the underlying beat changing completely and frequently such that no bits of it remain in the same time signature or even the same song. And that last one is therefore not really a rhythmic structure - and the first isn't rhythmically structured text. I think we can safely call it prose. We don't NEED to overuse the word poetry.

Can't really say you have an objective way to claim there is better enjoyment in what is said poetically and what does that phrase even mean? No no, I mean APART from nothing.

I promised I would deal with piquancy and here I will address what honest critic said about people not growing as a poet, and the response from people who can't tell themselves or anyone else what a poem is (without unreasoning insistance as opposed to reasoned definition, logic and reference to any the wealth of previous technical and philosophical development of what a poem was before they made up their own). It has become clear that some (not all, but some) people who are claiming to be poets, haven't bothered finding out the state of play. Some of them are hoping to advance poetry, without looking at the sequence of previous advances and understanding the reasoning behind them. Now, if you really want to be liberal there are two ways you can do it: 1) take the outermost two mindsets and espouse the middle regardless of logic e.g. you're in a room with hitler and charles manson and believe the middle ground out of what they are both saying regardless of its psycho-nutcase-ishness just because you're not very bright (this is the most usual way to be a liberal) 2) determine logically what the two extreme positions really are and go for the middle ground (the rare species cleverus liberalis does this).

The two extreme positions relevant to the current discussion are 1) avoid any knowledge of what has gone before you in your chosen field of poetry - you know what you are doing and nobody else before you knew what they were doing, but you know the future despite not knowing the current or previous state of play 2) Know everything everyone else has ever devised about the minutiae of trochees, spondees pyrrhics classicism, romanticism and accentual modernism, accentual postmodernism and slavishly follow every rule and even if you come up with something new that does a clever rhythmic trick and stays within existing rules reject it because no genius other than yourself has given permission. The middle ground would be to learn a bit about the history and techniques that other people have come up with but don't obsess about it and try and come up with clever little techniques yourself and experiment to see if they work by reading them in every other natural way that you may expect another person to read it from the page in order to validate your advances.

I apologise for the length of this post however this next bit is annecdotal and you can skip it if you wish...

I am a scientist by trade and when I was set the exercise of writing a poem (which I turned my nose up at at first) I figured I didn't know enough about what made a poem a poem as opposed to prose. I happened to have a collection by Edgar Allen Poe and had noticed (but not read) a treatise on poetry in it. So I read that and it taught me a lot about how poetry used to be written - the basics in other words. I wrote about four poems using the metrical feet his article had taught me about before I noticed how unnatural and contrived my poems sounded (you should always contrive your poems because that just means think them up, one of the skills is to get them to sound natural). I remembered liking a Portrait of a Lady by Elliot, and started (albeit subconciously) writing poetry that had an accentually determined rhythm (the second of these was called "untitled" and it's about the best poem I have ever written) I then read up on these modernists such as such as TS Eliot and agreed wholeheartedly with their technical approach and their substantive content (the themes of their subject matter) and then I read a bit of Thomas and could see his trick instantly as something that worked but that had no further sustainability if poems were to be continued. I had known modernism and postmodernism as philosophical overarching schools and knew the latter to be one massive blob of overextrapolated wrongitude, but I now looked into postmodernism in art because Thomas had shown me that it could be quite clever. Anyway, it turned out that there was just him and Larkin who had done anything worthwhile with it and every other exponent was just a worthless clown, so I went back to modernism.

If this story has a point, it is that despite my prejudiced presupposition that poetry would be a load of airy-fairy crap and my natural arrogance (I've a tendency to think I know it all already), I took the trouble to learn a little bit about the background of poetry and to learn the craft before commiting myself to an idea of what the field of poetry is and developing ideas within it that I could call both my own and "poetry", and certainly before I presumed to be able to say I was a poet. I flicked through steven fry's book called the ode less travelled in a bookshop a few weeks ago, and for anyone who genuinely wants to learn the basics, I would recommend it as a starting point.

DG

You have made some really well reasoned points in your post and your scientific background shows through. I also trained in science, then I went off and worked in IT for about 20 years and so I tended to rely very heavily on reason and logic in a similar way to you have made your points. However for the last few years I have worked in creative industries and teaching and have learned much about other ways of working. I am an artist, and I teach art, but I would not be prepared to say that my definition of art is more correct than anyone else's, even when I can back it up with proper reasoned arguments.

I've also learned that most of the time asking people "to just admit you were being obtuse (and wrong)", even when they are, tends not to result in such admissions.

Whatever poetry is I'm quite sure that there are very many forms of it and bearing in mind that we are using an English word I wonder if other languages use one or more words to describe what we call poetry.

I was at a Congolese Wedding last year and the speeches involved a series of traditional statements and responses by various speakers which they referred to as poems. I certainly couldn't see the rhythm that most use as a defining element of poetry but neither would I argue that it was not poetry.

I don't think the meaning of some words, whether poetry, art, beauty, love or hate can be precisely defined, or that such a definition would remain accurate over time.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but at least there is a word I could define.

Difference is what makes the world an interesting place. As the French say "vive le difference"

Seamus

Seamus,
in that case, let me define it instead - since you can't and I can (No art though, art is a bit harder because it has a lot more context derived meanings - one can talk about an art for example whereas one wouldn't talk about a poetry - that plus the irrelevance aspect stop me from bothering to define art here, but ask me when I'm out sometime and I'll tell you then). Yes definitions change slightly over time - and you clearly didn't read many of the foregoing posts, nor too my partial dismissal of Wittgenstein - but quite frankly the effect is (a) minor, (b) generally resolved and new meanings are generally agreed by all parties within a generation. So, no, mine (which also seems to concur with every dictionary that people have quoted on this thread) seems to be the same as that of most experts (not saying I'm an expert there, just that I've read up on some stuff), the public and anyone else the dictionary compilers would have sampled and it should be reasonably up to date.

The main message I'd like to get across to people in this discusion though is that some poets on this thread haven't read up anything on the technical side (the hard work part of writing poetry) and - I'm not saying it'll change your minds or even give you a basis to argue what you're currently arguing from or make you argue from a logical perspective - but to read up (a little bit) on the technical/structural aspects of classical and modern poetries, and a bit on the idealogical differences in the subject matters (including mood and emotional content) of classical, modern and postmodern poetries (the other hard work part of writing poetry) won't harm anyone and will give them an idea of where contemporary poem has come from. Just for your own curiosity it probably isn't a bad thing and it won;t take a lot of your time.

DG SAID:

"The main message I'd like to get across to people in this discusion though is that some poets on this thread haven't read up anything on the technical side (the hard work part of writing poetry) and - I'm not saying it'll change your minds or even give you a basis to argue what you're currently arguing from or make you argue from a logical perspective - but to read up (a little bit) on the technical/structural aspects of classical and modern poetries, and a bit on the idealogical differences in the subject matters (including mood and emotional content) of classical, modern and postmodern poetries (the other hard work part of writing poetry) won't harm anyone and will give them an idea of where contemporary poem has come from. Just for your own curiosity it probably isn't a bad thing and it won;t take a lot of your time."


I think this is something I would like to do, I have to admit to only my studies at High School. After that I went into electronics and science, and left all creative stuff behind until I had settled into a secure lifestyle.

Now I have a touch more time and enthusiasm for the medium I'm going to heed the advice. I hope this will help with my performance work too.

I can also offer advice on performance technique if you wanna learn to do the dreaded rant.

DG, I did in fact read all of the foregoing posts. Having read and understood them doesn't mean that I agree that they are all correct. Plainly some are directly opposed to others so they can't all be correct. My point was that correctness isn't really all that important here. Rather I think much important stuff tends to lie in differences and all those opposing ideas can all be held perfectly legitimately by different people. We don't really need to focus on right and wrong here.

I did also define poetry and quote a dictionary version as well - back on 22nd July.

I agree that studying any artform can be of benefit to the artist but it is by no means essential. Sometimes the most original ideas come from those least educated in a given medium (note I said "sometimes"). A quick look at "outsider art" will demonstrate how original and competent such work can be.

Seamus

Sandre -

Just to clarify - in a sense I do want to be known as a poet - certainly read - but I'm not that bothered how big an audience I get. I know some people will get it, some won't, and that's fine.

Meanwhile, here's a little quote from a poetic hero of mine:

"The very existence of poetry should make us laugh. What is it all about? What is it for?"
--Kenneth Koch

Poetry adds to the quality of our lives. Like music or art. That'll do me.

When you use a word you must convey something worthwhile so to that extent I have something in common with Dermot. Poetry is not a colour or a golf ball. That is just daft.

WoL is based in performance poetry which is a part of the performing arts that draws upon the poetry that is part of literature, but is also distinct from it. Performance poetry and the poetry of the page are both poetry. Poetry does not necessarily require text at all (text being written or printed words as dictionaries agree). I have done improvised, rhythmic performance pieces that I call poetry, but they have never been committed to the page. The sets of performance and literature each have poetry subsets and there are overlaps, but not all of poetry enters the literature set and definitions which require that are too restrictive.

Whatever Dermot's opinion, I stick to my Wittgensteinian view. It is not possible to give a precise definition of 'poetry'. It is entirely legitimate to include in poetry the use of language that may not appear rhythmic in text or may not be commited to text at all.

I certainly agree that there is value in sudying poets and the history and development of poetry. However, poetry is still developing and will continue to do so. With that change there will be evolution in the uses that the word 'poetry' has.

Returning to my original reason for contributing to this thread, it is unhelpful for contributors to the site to dismiss contributions as not being poetry on the basis of their own understanding of the word. Their reasons for doing so will be varied, but I am not concerned with whether it is snobbery, pretention, fears for misuse of language or their own perception of scholarship. The effect of this refusal to accept poetry that does not conform to their own opinions could be to drive away people who want to be part of a performance poetry site and who may find that they benefit from the site.

I am now repeating myself so I apologise for being boring, but there are a great many places which specialise in particular poetic forms and views on what poetry is and is not. I don't think WoL is one of those places.

In asking the question, 'what is poetry?' am I looking to define it, to understand it, to explain it to others, or to win an argument?
The responses below have a range of such functions, and there are some misunderstandings based on assumptions that we all 'mean' the same thing, or seek the same goal in posing the question or attempting ot answer it.
There are those seeking fun from being provocative, particularly by illuminating the logical inconsistencies in some of the responses.
Even physicists are divided on the value of relying on that slippery beast logic, though.
The way we respond to the question is a product of our weltanschauung, or 'the way we view the world'. In order to be a successful scientist you do need to believe that logic is important, and you get in to the habit of using it as a means of 'understanding the world'.
And yet, there have been scientists who believed in God...
If seeking definitions, Dermot's theses are valid. Logic requires definitions; definitions can kill (poetry, people... ).
I cannot appreciate a flower by defining it, nor yet poetry. Yet if you are seeking to define poetry (as I suppose lexicographers must) you have to recognise that any definition is partial and ephemeral.
Lovely discussion, beautiful arguments. Highly enjoyable. Thank you.
If poetry were a colour, it would be a golf ball.

That is a good point malcolm in that poetry can be entirely oral. However I'd say the text of it would have to be rhythmically structured in order to be poetry. Julian, I stick by my idea that most of the ideas of Wittgenstein and the Weltanschauung (this arose from the extremely sparse anthropological evidence that I alluded to in an earlier post when I said that all of postmodernism was a ridiculous overextrapolation from these data - I reccomend the you all read up on the two or three anecdotal accounts of incidents in strange lands that they based their whole small idea on) have a miniscule effect on semantics. Here's a thing though, how about - given that I keep putting out a definition that can be grasped (at least in nearly all) empirically, the clarity of which has universality - how about some other people put out a definition of it that doesn't rely on the assumption of personal tastes (e.g. "saying something in a beautiful way" - beautiful to everyone? I think not - beautiful to a majority? I still think not). Because all I've heard so far is "mwerr mwerr mwerr mwerr rubbish".

As to putting off would-be poets... under my definition they wouldn't be poets. Yes, I do sound a trifle vitriolic to some ears, but I try to tailor my sarcasm towards amusing and jocular. I wouldn't want to put off people who had a latent talent (if you'll excuse the anagram) that they would otherwise hone, but a poet said to me the other day that when (s)he first wrote a couple of things, someone looked at them and told him (or her) that they didn't scan. At first the poet was annoyed - mortified even... then he or she went away and thought about it and has been happier with his or her output and the development that that poet's skills have undergone ever since. I'm not making this up, honest. That's the kind of person I wouldn't want to discourage.

In truth, I wouldn't want to discourage anybody, but I think in any field (arts based fields in general) that a little bit of knowledge of what has gone before can help your development. I would also say that concentrating too much knowledge of the technical side and (especially) of the works of other poets can damage it. I think there is a happy medium to be found and that finding starts the minute you get away from no knowledge at all and is sated when you feel that your output is at the top of its game.

Well, sounds to me that we all agree then: poetry is something that CAN be defined, should we want to do so; can't if we don't?

You see
Steven your poetry is so great. example Sharplie's Boots, Wigan. but I still think you want to be liked, we all do. Frankly DG's science leaves me cold but there it is. I love trying to be a poet. I have not this huge intellect that most male poets want to be, however I'm still up for the challenge. Love you all, guys.

I have to say I have been very intrigued by this discussion, sometimes heated deabate on the question I posed several weeks ago! What is poetry?

The problem I see with such a question is that we are ultimately restricted in our answer by the terms and conventions which created the art form in the first place. What is considered to be poetry cannot move drastically out of the box of what the past defines a poem should be. I have a problem then with trying the answer the question correctly or at least 'fairly'. I would find it very difficult to turn around and say to a poet, "This is not poetry" because it lacks certain conventions.

Poetry is an art form and art should be a free form of expression. A painter does not have a set of linguistics he must operate within, he can create new shapes, shades of colours and pictures. A poet cannot make up new words (if they want to be taken seriously) Unlike painting or drawing, poetry is confined to certain rules and if it breaks these rules it takes the risk of being refused as poetry or at the very least being labelled 'bad poetry'.

Poetry in my opinion is something we should be allowed to explore with freedom. I think that even if the most distinguished of published poets and scholars were gathered together in a room with coffee and biscuits, a lenghly debate would take place in trying to pin poetry down to a single definition. And if they were able to agree on a single definition in their frustration, one if not all of these people would have in their collection, a poem which did not meet the definition they had agreed upon. I look forward to your replies! All the best. Richard

This is poetry

Thorpitude

Skill ivy to the brolig heure
Cur forstang tho it clive
Fung custove for sing crulling sime
Cud prustick villing nive


Fud custagavidge sorkily
Fud favit barramore
Yet fortasonich tithily
Cum carad konik dore


Far fortu later farid us
Cut fitti fitti cude
Faranupted tully fules
Tarrabered in the lude


Dermot will agree because it is text with a clear rhythmic structure.

Many of us who are aware of scanning and use it, will also break the scan for various reasons. This is particularly the case in performance poetry where dramatic effect in the presentation can be important.

If people are told that they are not poets when they have aspiration to be one and believe that poetry is something that they want to produce, cannot help but be off putting to some and it is unnecessary.

To say that an oral performance is poetry although it has not been written down, because it would be shown to have rhythmic structure if it were to be committed to text, not only shows the definition to be trivial, it is probably also wrong. Dermot dismisses definitions that are dependent on personal taste, but the evaluation of rhythm is also subjective.

As a performer I can deliver words with rhythm when those words would not be seen to have rhythmic structure when read by a person who had not heard them performed.Many other performance poets do the same. Is the performance poetic and the text not poetry?

I am not interested in what post modernism might or might not be, but dictionary definitions of words are simply lexicographers descriptions of the current use of words. That is why dictionaries have to be continually recompiled.

I am not in any way trying to shut down a discussion, but I am conscious of the perception that I may be one of the little boys behind the bike shed comparing the size of my cigarette so I think I will stop here.

yes, that is bloody awful nonsense poetry Richard. I have always agreed that such things existed. I can also say that some non-rhythmically structured texts are quite good but aren't poetry (no matter how beautiful) - there is some beautiful prose out there and some crap poetry. I don't have a problem with there being rubbish poetry that clearly is poetry. I said that about six or seven posts ago.

Second, I've already dealt with that point about unnaturally jamming words at odd angles into rhythms they don't read correctly in like bodies in the boot of a car in an earlier post - that isn't rhythmically structured and doesn't have universality. That's why there actually is an art to doing stuff that all readers will find the rhythm to. Read back over previous posts and you will see this to be true - there is no point in lying to yourself that something that isn't rhythmically structured is. As to putting people off - if they're put off by telling them that people in the past have come up with clever ways of doing it that might help them - then by all means put them off - I don't want that sort of person turning up to poetry events because there is a chance that they might turn up at one that I'm at and I really don't want them near me if they are like that.

Sandré (and others), just because I happen to be (as a small fraction of my job - I'm mostly commercial) a scientist, does not mean that I'm being scientific when I am advancing logical arguments in English - in fact, my doctorate is in philosophy - which is the activity of adding new items to the existing "body of knowledge" within a subject, whereas science (and English) are just subjects. So, no, I being arts and humanities when I discuss poems - I'm just doing the activity of philosophy on the subject of English - no science there at all. (And before anyone mentions eastern "philosophy" that is so called only by practitioners of it because they reckon the title "eastern philosopher" sounds better than "liar" - it's a rebranding exercise and they are still just liars and their practices don't go through the philosophic method of premise hypotheisis exploration through testing followed by concluding only that which the results can truthfully be said to show within reasonable truth conditions.) Do I use parentheses too often?

DG, one day, if you're up for it, we will get together a group of "poets," and a couple of my trusted friends.
A scientific, philosophical experiment.
There's at least three and the numbers going higher every minute i spend writing this, "ancient" poets waiting to show us how poetry has and could, evolve over the years using several methods mentioned here as well as brand new ones coming into being at this very moment.

Form the questions. Write them down. The answers are waiting. Go on, i dare you.

Anyone else up for this? If only for fun, who knows what we could tap into. ( this is not a seance i speak of, but a discussion.) :-)

Also, it would need to be video recorded for posterity in the name of scientific research of the arts.

Sounds like a good excuse to get drunk and do stuff we can regret so count me in. That said - I think in some small way I already add something new to what's being done in contemporary poetry. I mean, I don't know anyone else currently writing in a similar manner to me. The other day, I even heard a poet who'd just heard my stuff saying "Well one thing's for sure: I'm not bloody writing like THAT!" I told him to just have confidence in his abilities and that one day he would be writing like me. I don't think he believed my words of encouragement because I returned to find him hanging from the ceiling with a hastily scribbled suicide note on the floor beneath his feet.

OK DG you will hate this

Aspirations

If I were a real poet
I'd write of the great
heroes from mythology
of Theseus and the Minotaur
Perseus and Andromeda,
of crumbled dynasties
abandoned gods, tombs, catacombs,
Pharoes buried with their wives,
wild Norsemen in their longships,
Valhalla, plunder, burning pyres,
Arthurian legends, sacred quests,
beleaguered castles
knights riding to their deaths.

I'd take you on a journey
across the span of centuries,
where you could taste my colours,
inhale my melodies,
sparkling like perfumes in their phials,
feel the warmth of my arms
with your eyes.

All this would I create
but being of prosaic ilk,
my thoughts are sorted,
senses filed,
not to be mismatched,
nor ever surprise.

Strangely no, that was really nice. I only use the word strangely because I usually try to steer people away from classical mythologies and into things that are modern - usually urban - and experiential because I genuinely believe that describing how you were/would have been feeling in a situation gives a reader/listener much more of a feeling of being there than describing what it looks like ever can. Much of that last sentence is by the by, but I think that one is the best one I've heard from you Sandré and it's very good - and has one of my favourite aspects of modernism in that your viewpoint character is something of an unreliable narrator (read the novels of Henry James for more on unreliable narrators - he was superb at them). By that I mean you seemed to be enjoying the flow of the words and images you were playing with throughout the bulk of the poem rather more than you let on at the end.

However, as I said a while ago, the material content is what makes a poem good or bad (and this is subjective and will vary from person to person) rather than what makes a poem a poem. Material content is a whole other discussion and I have ideas on techniques for developing one's idiom and emotional content - but whilst the techniques make sense (I nicked them from (acting exercises) that aspect of poetry only obeys two rules as far as I can see (1) don't write it if you feel you don't have it (avoid - "I'd better sit down and write a poem - now what's the big issue in the news at the moment that I can express a popular opinion on?" in favour of waiting until there is a poem going on in your head that you like and want to put down on paper (2) be honest with yourself - read it back and see if it is actually doing something to you - e.g. genuinely making you laugh, actually making you cry, scintillating you into a frenzy of excitement - and if not, burn it; it's rubbish.

Coming back to the poem above, if the last bit relates to me - I think you can both argue stuff like this logically and also still write poems that surprise people and that still follow an accentual (or even classical) rhythm. I'm broad-minded like that. And in truth, whilst I put out cogent logical arguments (particularly whenever I publish my research in scientific journals) my thoughts fly chaotically (if you'll excuse the split infinitive) all over the place and I can't stop them because I'm dyspraxic - wouldn't want to either because I cycle through so many completely disparate concepts at the same time and some of the stuff that I get out of that is straight out of left-field. As to surprising people, maybe this is vanity but I'd like to think that when I get up on stage that people who have seen me a fair few times won't always know what to expect.

Omigod DG I do not know what to say in answer to that. Perhaps we are all trying too hard. Anyway I love you.

Sandre- of course I want to be liked. I just don't have to be liked by everybody.

"I have not this huge intellect that most male poets want to be"

Don't underestimate yourself. Leave that to the sexist male reviewers who never read poetry by women.

"What is considered to be poetry cannot move drastically out of the box of what the past defines a poem should be."

Away and read some Charles Olson.

Or go to the exhibition in Bury which is currently showing some of Robert Grenier's poem-drawings.

Or look out for Bob Cobbing's concrete/sound poetry.

The box of poetry is a lot bigger than you think.

Let's get drunk and do stuff? Sorry I was trying to lighten the thread and now feel thoroughly ashamed. Drunk and do stuff is not a good message. Tee hee!

Answering this question is like throwing light on subatomic particles in order to see the subatomic particles. The light adds energy to the system and the subatomic particles change their motion, energy level, etc. Similarly, how we use words to define the use of words adds an energy to the system that alters our perceptions. Having said that, poetry is for me a source of joy, wonder, solace and friendship.

I posted this comment on the Blog, and it seems to belong here really:
Poetry is a reflection on life. There are lots of skilful ways of turning a piece of writing into something that feels complete, that has an internal balance, that wakes us up to contrasts and variablility in our world, and maybe, if we are lucky, achieves a kind of transformation, shifting our thoughts from one cast to another as the words take you on a journey.

I have found sometimes that writing a poem has lifted a mood and left me somewhere more satisfying.

I wonder if anyone discussing this has read Winifred Nowottney's book, The Language Poets Use.
There is so much in that book that is relevant to this debate.

We'll all have to find something else to do if someone comes up with a definition we all agree with.

It's a great question. I'd rather not know the answer.

I think poetry is custard.

Some of us are custard tarts. Some of us are custard. Some of us question the internal logic of the custard/custard tart model. They're not really what one would call binary oppositions, are they? It's a flawed model, but a model nonetheless. Some of us don't question. Some of us do. Some/none of us do/don't believe/know about conceptual absolutes/stuff. Some of us have no truck with custard whatsoever.

I believe I've made my point. That's belief. Not certainty.

On Poetry

“ I agree that music hall songs can be good poetry- so can limericks, drawing or tap-room- but I don’t think cracker mottoes etc. ever have been.”

“Almost anything one says about poetry is as true as anything else that anyone else has said,…”

“ What’s more, a poet is a poet for such a tiny bit of his life; for the rest, he is a human being, one of whose responsibilities is to know and feel, as much as he can, all that is moving around, and within him, so that his poetry, when he come to write it, can be his attempt at an expression of the summit of man’s experience on this very peculiar, and, in (year), this apparently hell-bent place”.

Who said it?

Dylan Thomas?

Poetry is pure platinum, well-smithed and well-put!!!

A coconut to Mr Blackburn. Was it a guess?

A coconut to Mr Blackburn. Was it a guess?

A coconut to Mr Blackburn. Was it a guess?

Apologies I seem to have sticky button syndrome.

I believe there has been some (probably unintentional) disingenuity in this thread,; specifically the mismatch between what people claim they believe and how they would act on their intuitive beliefs about what poetry really is. An example of this is the commenter who said in this thread that he would not wish to advise people to read up a little bit on how people have structured their poetry in the past (nor limit the definition of poetry such that it would not include things that are prose) because to say that someone's piece of writing is not poetry might put them off from trying to be involved in poetry, and then in another thread said "Well it may be of interest to you, but it's not poetry".

Another example of the above arose at the Hebden Bridge event on Thursday. A poet went up to the mic and, in reference to my comment on this thread regarding the majority of poetry audiences being poets, she said that her definition of a poet is a lover of words so that's exactly the sort of person she would like to see in her audience (she might not have said that at all - I wasn't listening to her (or any of the other acts) because all I'd turned up there to do was to bore people with my own poems and same for all the other poets in the audience).

Now, I have many conceptual problems with the relevant part of the above. First, a poet is a lover of words doesn't quite nail it down for me. Even a poet is a lover of poems wouldn't. If that same person went to (e.g.) a Barry Manilow concert, and Barry Manilow just sat there on stage all night ignoring the audience and listening to (e.g.) Sk8er boy by Avril Levigne on a set of headphones constantly on a loop, and charged a ticket price on the grounds that his definition of a musician was a lover of music, I reckon she'd demand her money back. In the ensuing legal case, she'd probably argue (rather skillfully) that when she bought a ticket to see a musician, she had assumed that she had gone to see the dictionary's description of a musician, not Barry Manilow's description of one.

And that's just point one! Point two is that a lover of words (rhetorical question mark) surely that's a logophile isn't it. Not a poet, a logophile. And (excuse me generalising here) but aren't most logophiles etymological pedants? If so, you really don't want that sort of person in your poetry audience (myself excluded, of course) because they're really going to struggle aspergersly with your similes. And besides anything else (this is point three) you really don't want them in your audience while you're telling all and sundry that your definition of a poet is a lover of words, because they won't be able to contain themselves and will blurt out "Erm, actually no, actually a lover of words is a logophile. Whereas, a poet is blah blah blah etc."

All I'm saying here is, before you advance a highly theoretical argument that involves a crazily extreme kind of relativism to make it work, just take a little step back and ask yourself: "What would Mister Reality say - if he were here, right now?"

Actually DG I am not surprised that most of the people who come to an Open Mic session are poets. I must admit that I have been to one or two open mic sessions in the past purely in order to have people listen to me, and not in the least interested in anyone else's words. The first few times I read I had to psych myself up a bit, and my focus was all on getting my voice out there. After a while I could relax, and start to listen to others. The session at Stubbing Wharf was my first experience of Write out loud in Action and it was great. Informal, inclusive, friendly. Little glimpses into many people's individual worlds, and very mixed in styles.
Joining in these discussions is a bit similar. Its scary that people may pore over my words and criticise, but that's ok really. ?

I've been thinking about this for a while now....

It's all very hypothetical, isn't it? I mean, we can go all literal and bang on about form, style, etc., but that only answers part of the question. (Maybe that's the point).

I think... If everything exists only in as much as it is perceived to exist, then poetry has to be some sort of extrapolation of that theory. Through poetry one seeks to communicate, confirm, agree or argue. (?) But then I suppose that may only apply to how poetry functions as discourse. How important is the poet in relation to the poetry? (A relevant question?) Plus there's obvious flaws in the theory.

Tricky.

Gah? Do what now?

This addition came two minutes later:

No, had to come back. Firstly, that'd be a hell of an if. Second, given the Cogito (Descartes), whatever is doing the perceiving inalienably an absolute certainty,existing with greater surety than we can attribute to any other thing we have any surety of through perception thereof. So, if you have that as the premise, the proposition might be logically true but the hypothesis can't be because the premise is demonstrably incorrect.

Parting thought, If you like it great, if not what the hey!



'Write a poem and a doorway opens from your soul.

Read it out you control the world'

Dermot - Yeah. Well, I did say it was a flawed theory. (Half-expected you to drive your bus through the holes in my 'If'. - Most reassuring that you did!)

I'm not the only poet here tying themselves in knots over the thread's question. Take a good look in the mirror, DG.

I take issue with your use of the words 'absolute certainty'. (Can't go back and re-read your post as I'm posting this - damn website layout). If people were to agree that a subject was inalienably an absolute certainty, wouldn't that undermine the need for argument in the first place?

Again, maybe I'm missing the point. Could be worse though. Could be raining.

Incidentally - I'd just like to add that poetry is how my soul dances through the treacle of experience. I'm pretty sure posting that sends you into an incandescent rage. In fact, I'd be prepared to argue that it's inalienably an absolute certainty.

Phil G - 'control the world'?! From Stretford?! This is a side of you I never knew existed!

Hi Steve.

Both me and my facial hair have thought long and hard about this and although me and my hairy chins have our differences, we usually arrive at the same conclusion.

Dermot has a wonderful, if not a completely unique, way in which to look at a world and how this thinking is best served by inserting logical thoughts into an appropriate shaped hole, or orifice, for that matter.

The semantic laws of contradiction (which apply to other relevant contradictory laws also) apply to several statements that he has uttered in not just this particular context but in others. However, that is not to say that his opinion, which is based hugely on what he has no doubt read, is not worthy of consideration - albeit briefly. A nano-second springs to mind.

Dermot is speaking with a mind soiled with science. He offers hypothesis after hypothesis in the faint hope that this reinforces what it is he has to say. I have become enlightened with various things that he has said or quoted throughout this thread.So much so that I have considered investing heavily in both The Reader's Digest and The Philosopher's Bumper Book of Party Anecdotes (in which there is a section on poetry). However, he has failed to convince me that his definition of 'poetry' is any more relevant than the opinion of my incredible talking underpants.

I look forward to any remark from DG, as this will reinforce my own hypothewotsits.

PS Is Des Cartes the shiny fella' from off the tele?

The shiny fella from off the telly was wrong in his absolute certainty that he thought therefore he was. All he had actually established was thinking therefore thought. He achieved absolutely nothing in proving that he am, or was, as he is now expired. Of course he will only have expired if he was there to inspire in the first place and he never established that.

Similarly DG is incorrect in assuming that he can tempt me to return to this thread after I have said that I have left it by describing me as a comentator and then misstating my remarks by saying that I would not advise anybody to read up a little bit.

I wrote this in the past not the present, unpoetically, so I am not here in this thread and cannot be argued with however ungrammatically.

I may perform this contention rhythmically the next time Dermot is not listening in the audience just for the benefit of the poets present (not those for whom there is no present. I refuse to present presents to present deniers) and the distress of attentive poetry pedants.

Dermotitis is persistent, but curable.

Blimey! I thought my previous post would be the contraversial one out of those two.

Let's see...

Malcolm, I thought I went off at tangents until I read that, but now I see I'm a linear lubber compared to the master. If he was thinking then clearly (a) something or someone that existed was thinking (because you said that he was in the if part of this statement) and (b) someone that was he was the thing that existed that was thinking.

Darren, I'm glad you have found so many self-contradictions in my statements - print them off and bring them to the Tudor tonight and we'll have a laugh at them. Also find one instance of me tusing science to discuss this question and bring it along. I've looked at the issue from a marketing perspective, an entertainment perspective, a linguistic and semantic perspective and a philosophical perspective (read back and you will see that I have). The one thing I haven't done to shed light on "what is poetry" is to bombard it with neutrons to find out what it is. I think your mind is clouded by the conotations that you accidentally ate when I mentioned (purely by the by) that a small part of my job involved me being a scientist. I'm mostly business administration these days.

Steve, the little oasis of sanity amongst all this, if you're perceiving stuff, that stuff is either really there or the product of your imagination, right? So, that computer you perceive yourself to be sitting at might be real or imagined, the stuff you perceive I've written might have come straight out of your imagination, and you might be imagining that I exist (you might have made me up). You might just be imaging that your body and head exist and that they are made out of stuff and that there even is such a set of stuff as "stuff in the first place). But something is perceiving stuff that is either real or imaginary and whatever is experiencing or imagining this stuff can't just be a figment of your imagination (or if it is then, logically, you are imagining that) so you do exist regardless of whether you have a physical body surrounded by the stuff you perceive yourself to see around you or not. If you have a good argument that this is not a thing (possibly the only thing) that you know to be absolutely correct, an argument that meets the points I've just made head on and annihilates them one by one, then I would love to hear it.

What is poetry?

Below is a link to youtube for a Fry and Laurie sketch exploring this very issue :-). See also Steven Fry's book An Ode Less Travelled in which he calls for a return to classic poetic forms, condemning - as he puts it - the "pathetic arse dribble" of much contemporary free verse along the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx_YY_frOvQ

What is poetry ?
Oh Dear why would I want to join this extensive discussion ? There are so many articulate intelligent enthusiastic opinions already on the subject but here goes.
To me poetry is personal ,its an unexpected thought process that brings with it discipline, concentration and dedication. I enjoy the challenge of the written word and now I have the equal challenge of sharing it with others. Many of these poems are spontaneous in response to some form of inspiration. Or waking in the middle of the night with an urgent need to write something down as by morning it has gone. Sometimes it develops into a fairly decent poem or a line of prose. I gave birth to this, it may need lots of attention and take many years in its development but at the end of the day it is all mine and I deem it a privilege to be able to share it. Will it be a masterpiece I doubt it, but the process is such a delight. I do read poetry and I listen to everyone who shares their work at Write Out Loud . I am learning so much about poetry by simply being part of WOL, it’s the process of learning and improving that works for me. I feel that after all this discussion and debate, there is not one definition but many to be had on Poetry.

Consciousness

I am, I am, I know I am.
I have been since so young.
I am who I know I am.
That I know,
shows what I am.

An oak is unaware,
I think,
of oakenness or tree.
Bacterium of
bacteriousness,
is absolutely free.

But, where lives
the knowingness,
that I am surely me?
That I am not
a rock, or coconut,
a rabbit or a flea.

Is the me,
that know's I'm me
in brain, or mind,
or where?
If mind it is,
then do I mind.
If brain,
then do I care?

The me that drinks
until I reel,
in alcoholic haze,
does not behave
like sober me,
but me is there
each way.

If me survives
continuous
through liquor
poisoned cells.
Then surely me
must live beyond
the body
where I dwell.

The thread of me
that lives on through,
the child
and the man.
In sickness, health
and drunkenness,
in waking, sleep
or spell,
may not survive
a damaged brain,
though body mine
lives on.

A comatose,
or cabbage me,
would not be me at all.

If mind, or soul,
or spirit me,
of DNA were free,
that pulp brained
sorely damaged man,
would surely still
be me.

The truth it seems
is simple.
I die a bit
each day.
Enough remains
to recollect
that all will die
some day.

Descartes did not establish the continuity of self. He did not show with absolute certainty, as he believed he had, that the thinking entity had a continuity of real existence that was René Descartes. The written and spoken word lack the precision necessary to demonstrate the absolute certainty of things as complex as the nature of self. In referring to 'he' I am pragmatically accepting that Descartes existed rather than engaging in spurious philosophical proofs.

I am absolutely certain that poetry exists beyond the current dictionary definitions of poetry. Or relatively so.

I think Val’s right – “there’s not one definition of poetry to be had but many.” I’ve often delivered the following theories, over a pint or three:

I think one of the main problems with (and for) poetry, and the crux of the debate here, is equal to the challenge of generalising about music. Both are hugely diverse art forms with many practitioners/fans/observers immovably opposed to works outside of their chosen niche. In music however there are any number of opportunities and entire infrastructures (clubs, magazines, radio stations, record companies, websites etc etc) for these “worlds” to operate entirely separate from each other.

With poetry however, the “playing field” is so much smaller and therefore everything often gets lumped together under the one, inadequate, value-laden and baggage-heavy word - “poetry”. This leaves hugely diverse poets often competing for, or operating within the same, relatively tiny, page and stage arenas with all manner of deafening culture clashes ensuing. I’ll write a (performance) poem about this one day with a compere saying something like “Ladies and gentlemen, please give it up for Beethoven, next up the Sex Pistols. Make sure you come back after the break for Crazy Frog!” © :-)

That, for me, really is what happens in poetry. Furthermore, to stretch the analogy further, you then have a single niche of this entire art form, often the culturally and/or self-appointed gatekeepers and power-brokers, claiming the whole art form as their own and negating, closing doors and almost denying the right to exist for anyone who dares differ from their niche. That’s the equivalent of avant garde classical music or free jazz denying anyone else the right to even use the word “music”. A further terrible effect is to confuse and alienate potential audiences into thinking that the entirety of an artform is “not for me,” or sadly much, much worse.

Many new and/or ill-advised poets then come a cropper by seeking the approval of, or trying to pass through gates controlled by, inveterate niche dwellers with all their in-crowd “snobbery”*. That’s the equivalent of sending your nu-thrashjazzgrimecore masterpiece to Radio3 and wondering why they don’t like it. They never will and it’s not FOR them! (But at least some show at midnight on Radio 1 might love it. John Peel RIP – my first exposure to performance poetry was on Peel – JCC, LKJ, Attila, Ivor Cutler, Popticians etc )

*Nb this “snobbery” is value-based and taste-based and not exclusively defined by class – working class people can and do (all too infrequently) kick their way through almost-closed gates through sheer tenacity and talent in the same way that a Home Counties post-code and an expensive education can still cause one’s poetry to be…(thinks about wording carefully) not very good.

At this point, I’ve just deleted a long draft paragraph exploring the quotation “The best thing about poetry is that anyone can do it. The worst thing about poetry is that anyone can do it.” That’s another debate for another time and one which takes the debate into not just “niches” but “leagues within niches” and deeper into public perceptions and audience ratings. Every area of human endeavour has, and needs, its beginners, its students, (we should all remain learners) and its virtuousos, but I recall another quote, something like “if everyone who claimed to be a poet was a high-wire act, there’d be a lot of dead poets!” For me, that applies at whatever height the wire is set.

Returning to my main theme however, further problems and injustices are then evident. The poetry elite, or at least those who claim the artistic high ground, then try to deny admission to The Most Honoured Guild of Poets to anyone without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the entire history, depth and breadth of the entire art form. Rubbish! To put it politely, perpetrated by those inside the walls to keep those of us who remain outside, outside. A 16 year old kid can make an earth shattering hip-hop album on a computer in their bedroom these days, without even a full knowledge of hip-hop, never mind of the entire history of music! (That said, there is no inverse snobbery to be gained from ignorance and stage poets could learn a lot in terms of craft and form from the page poets and vice versa in terms of connection and presentation. The whole artform would then be stronger. I take no misguided pride in my own lack of poetic schooling.)

But something else has gone on, and this does relate to class, and that’s the tragic erosion and negation of our oral and folk traditions, most notably in England, as distinct from the rest of these small islands. I’ve been in both Ireland and Scotland in the last few weeks and both have retained their folk traditions much nearer to the fore of their national and personal identities, and they, and all of us, are richer for that. But this erosion is no accident, methinks, when we’re talking about songs, poems and stories which tell of our social history with all its great wrongs and injustices. We’ve been robbed of all that and must reclaim it, spoken word comes from that tradition and can help revitalise it. But I digress....

A few caveats and closing points. I have no wish to denegrate academic or page poetry in even its most avant garde forms (Stephen Fry does so however, talking about the “arse dribble” of free verse in his book The Ode Less Travelled.) – there should be room for all of us. There are many fine practitioners, including those who use their talent to provide great insight and beauty and/or to “rage against the machine.” I respect everyone’s right to self-expression, I just wish they’d respect mine! I’m neither thick, a philistine nor closed to all forms of very challenging art, but when poetry is not just avant-garde, but avant-meaning, avant-engagement and avant-got-a-clue-wot-you’re-on-about-mate, then it’s not for me, thanks. What really frustrates me however is both the closed-shop of the poetry world and the extent to which much of this obtuse, inaccessible “emperor's new clothes” output has been allowed to serve as almost the entire public perception of modern poetry. I covered this in my poem “Too Much Poetry…” in a recent edition of The Ugly Tree magazine.

But things have been changing! Maybe the gatekeepers will find soon that their gates are redundant, keeping no-one out and nothing in? Spoken Word, for want of a better phrase (there’s an entire debate!), in many countries is in the best shape it’s been for a very long time – from pro to newcomer levels. Scenes are emerging, strengthening, building their own infrastructures and connecting around region, style, content, ethnicity, sexuality, politics, age etc. The internet and couch surfing are building affordable touring circuits. Web forums, podcasts, social networking, etc mean that there’s no excuse for not seeking out the best practitioners around to learn from and network with. Online publishing and print on demand services are changing the economics away from the big publishing houses.

And they’re scared! As my poem “Rock and Roll” explores, the cultural explosion that was Punk removed the stranglehold of the ageing hippy and white, male, upper/middle class-dominated record labels and saw through their deliberately propagated mystiques and barriers that there was something mystical and specialist about getting your self expression on to vinyl and out into the public realm. Much like travel agents did with booking Holidays (In The Sun.) There’s a long history of soap boxing, pamphleteering and chapbooks in poetry but the opportunities are exploding and really becoming clear to many people now. DIY, kids! Don’t kick over their barriers, just ignore them – you wouldn’t like it in there anyway!

Poetry, in many guises, is finding lots of new outlets – on the tube, in public art, on CD, on the telly sometimes, all over the web, at rock and the more “boutique” arts festivals, through slams – including in schools, accompanied by music and storming the pop charts, and so on. We need to keep building the platforms, keep finding and supporting new blood, keep investing in our own devotion to craft, to reading, learning and networking, supporting wider participation whilst pursuing and not being embarassed by excellence, keep changing public perceptions, keep lobbying for funding, building audiences and, as Val says, maybe one day there’ll be a recognition of the many definitions of poetry – and all of them thriving!

Phew! Glad I got that of my chest. I’m off for a lie down. Cheers.

Tony

Just wanted to add a view on the various pieces, as I've been following the thread.I think Tony's piece was superb and loved the rejection of [self proclaimed] elitism or arrogance in all its forms. I've largely agreed with DG's points but feel Malpoet's view could be accommodated within with minimum greasing.

I think it's been a great and hugely informative debate to follow but doesn't need and is lessed theirin by some of the pettiness or sniping (even dresssed up sniping is sniping - pigs with lip sticks and all that) that crept in just recently over the last day.

I am largely agreeing with Tony and getting well greased.

As I stated in an earlier post, I haven't read the ode less travelled, but have flicked through it when I happened to be in a bookshop and that it looked like a good introduction to the old metrical feet based breakdown technique. Consequently, I can't really comment on that quote because I don't know the context. However, I'd imagine that Steven Fry is clever enough not to dismiss rhythmic structures that are not classical forms such as english metrical feet (with stressed and unstressed syllable rather than the classical long and short), accentual rhythms, irregular refrains, and rhythms with deliberate breaks (I believe someone mentioned Carole Ann Duffy's knife poem in here - occasionally hexametric, but not all the time). I would concur with Steven that (completely) free-"verse" is arse-drivel rather than poetry. Some of it can be quite nice prose though. Classical forms are not something that appeals to me either, they tend to sound forced and they are of a time when actors couldn't talk like real people and always had to hrrrrrolll there rs in a way that requires a lot of leisure time to spare to listen to, so the classical unnatural footage (together with the crappy villanelle/rondeau/sonnet nonsense) made strict form poetry the sort of contrivance that you had to annunciate like a twat.

Either way, I stand by what I say in advising people to find out a bit about what has gone before. If you still disagree with it after a bit of reading up about it, at least you will know what you disagree with. I will leave you with a little known satyrical Tennyson poem called "A five-year old throws a strop", without fear of legal action from his estate:

A five-year old throws a strop

By Bob Tennyson

I’m a tortured genius
You don’t understand me
I may not be able to do the math
But one plus one can equal three
Your words of advice are like daggers to me
I will not take them on board
Count on your fingers?
Tsh, pah!
Who ever heard?
Only if you limit what “fingers” means
And try to limit me.
I will not learn the basics
I will not conform to the rules
Mathematics will change to accommodate me
Have you not heard of avant garde?
I will change a subject I don’t know about
Because learning the basics is hard

1 + 1 = 10

Not satirical this Satyrday. I'm sated.

I very much agree with Tony that while Music is not just billed as music but advertised as Jazz, classical concert, acoustic guitar etc. live poetry is a very open category, in the advertising, so a) you dont know what to expect and b) some venues have tried to set a standard and vet your poems before asking you to read.
I read a poem at a workshop once, and someone asked me if I had thought of writing for children. What was that about? If they had asked me -had I thought of reading to children, the question might have been inoffensive, but I took it to mean that there was a lack of oblique references to adultery, going on what others had read. I didnt go back to that workshop.
Saying that a poem has to rhyme is like saying a painting should have blue in it. Its a good option, but it depends what you want to convey. Consonantal chime is also a good option,
Winifred Nowottny (two tt's) says "structuring may be imposed without the importation of systems not found in ordinary language."
There is a natural rhythm in ordinary speech, which can be drawn upon. Pope chose to use iambic pentameters, five beats to a line, with an unstressed syllable before each stressed one, but he set this off against the rhythms in natural speech so that his lines are anything but repetetive and boring. Since the poetry he wrote was written to read aloud, he had the opportunity of making the most of this interplay. How many English teachers have spoiled his work for us by insisting on the repetitive rhythm, and losing the natural speech rhythm?
Anyone wanting to discover more about the use of classsical rhythms could get a lot out of reading 'The Dunciad' in which he sends up his poetry rivals.
One thing that stops us saying this is a 'classical poetry night' or a 'free verse night' etc. is that it would put lots of people off and I for one enjoy the variety. Another is that nobody would agree on the classification. But the biggest reason I suspect is that it would split the audience up. If live poetry is going to develop that way it will happen naturally as people gravitate towards venues where they get what they enjoy.

I haven't read that one but mind you I'm not much of a reader. However, will have a look for it. As to rhyme, I don't think anyone (short of a shool kid) will argue the point in either direction. Both myself and Tony have recommended the Steven Fry one, I've recommended an article by Edgar Allen Poe and you've recommended the Dunciad by Pope. These all seem to be on classical meter.

Like you, Freda, I'm keen to steer people towards accentual rhythmic structure. I don't know of many texts on this subject other than books on either modernism or postmodern literature in general. I suppose this is because you have to find your own tricks in this way of writing. If you read Eliot, he went one further in his early stuff (before he fell victim to the laziness and started writing disciplined verse) and actually used recognisable character-traits to dictate the tempo and voicing in which you read it. Certainly this is the case in a lot of his stuff up to and including the Wasteland.

I'd recommend the lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock for an idea of how he switches tempo, portrait of a Lady, dans le restaurant and the wasteland itself. Especially compare and contrast the cautionary tale bit at the end of this last "Phlebas le phenician pendant quinze-jours noyer..." (or however it goes) with death by water or whatever the section heading in the wasteland (they are slightly different).

For a poetical treaties on accentual free verse there is an excellent chapter in Philip Hobsbaum's 'Metre Rhythm and Verse Form' (pp. 89 - 120). There is also a passable chapter in Derek Attridge's 'Poetic Rhythm an Introduction'. However, the Modernist's accentual rhythms call back to the rhythms of the Ancient Briton, so why not cut out the middle men.

Accentual rhythm is most alive in the Welsh poetic tradition, which is still widely celebrated in the Welsh language. Mererid Hopwood's 'Singing in Chains' is the best introduction to the Welsh accentual tradition. Also, Alan Bliss's dissertation, 'An Introduction to Old English Metre', compares the Modernist's poetics to those of the Anglo-Saxon poets. This is a good read for anyone wanting to further their understanding of Eliot. DG is quite right that all should read The Wasteland and Prufrock, but I would add William Morris's translation of Beowulf, because this is the only version to capture the rhythms of the original.

As to my opinion of what constitutes poetry, I believe that it is something like 'the force' and is all around us. There is poetry in the headlines and on the ketchup bottle and on the health and safety signs.

Try this definition for size....

'Poetry is the manipulation of language into forms which are syntactically distinct from normal speech.'

It probably means something to you Siren, but it doesn't tell me anything about what a poem is.

Poetry is so broad a church that it can only be defined by what it is not. If we are to include twentieth century innovations as poetry then we can only differentiate it from prose or drama by its rhythm and syntax. Cadence and word order are what define poetry as distinct from other forms of literature. Poetry has artifice contained within it. Natural speech patterns are distorted in the search for elegance, opacity, rhythm, rhyme, or anything else that poets wish to achieve. As soon as we hear a poem read aloud we instinctively recognise it as poetry because of these factors.

Yes that is clearer and I broadly agree. The fact is that poetry cannot be defined adequately. We recognise it when we come across it, but we do not all recognise the same thing.

Poetry is not a box.

I am poetry. So far undefined.

What about;
the spoken or written word which the hearer or reader finds pleasing on account of its arrangement, and or manner of expression.
Or even the motion of a piece of machinery; many people find the motion of a steam engine to be quite satisfying,
or that of a ballet dancer 'poetry in motion' ?
In my early teens I heard for the first time, a Vietnamese man speaking, and I had the distinct impression that he was actually singing -poetry there?
Perhaps we should not attempt to define poetry as a thing, or event but rather as an emotional response to summat or other ....?