are poets sefl-centered?

[cacian]

I personally think poetry is for the masses by the masses and those who differ in views may think again.
I however think stories are for the upper mass who think poetry is too short to give it time and so delve into encyclopaedic worlds of words to create a monster-piece of light grabbing literacy device.
what is a poem after all compared to a story with a hardcover painted back?

please discuss.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

According to my view:

No, poetry is more affective than other branches of literature, it does what the sword does, and perhaps concentrated idea conveys a wide message is worthy to be read.
Furthermore people haven't sufficient time to read long works.
Generally, this matter is to the reader choice and his taste.
poetry for me is more tasty than stories even if I write stories.
To your question: Are poets self centered? I think no...
last notice:
I can bring here many poems written by kings or princes to the masses, this by no means it does mean poetry is written by masses for masses. I think it is wrong idea

[hannah_arendt]

I don`t think that poets, writers or astists are self- centred. It depends. There are many such people not being poets.

[cacian]

According to my view:

No, poetry is more affective than other branches of literature, it does what the sword does, and perhaps concentrated idea conveys a wide message is worthy to be read.
Furthermore people haven't sufficient time to read long works.
Generally, this matter is to the reader choice and his taste.
poetry for me is more tasty than stories even if I write stories.
To your question: Are poets self centered? I think no...
last notice:
I can bring here many poems written by kings or princes to the masses, this by no means it does mean poetry is written by masses for masses. I think it is wrong idea

kings or princes they may be but they are writers first and that makes them the same as any other human being.

[JBI]

Depends which poets. Some poets didn't even leave their names to their works - how could that be "self-centered".

[cacian]

Depends which poets. Some poets didn't even leave their names to their works - how could that be "self-centered".

but that is self-centered not leave a trace. is it not?

[Lokasenna]

but that is self-cantered not leave a trace. is it not?

In that case, you might as well just ask: are people self-centred? To which the answer, of course, is 'some'.

Also...

I however think stories are for the upper mass who think poetry is too short to give it time and so delve into encyclopaedic worlds of words to create a monster-piece of light grabbing literacy device.

Words fail me. Sadly, they don't seem to fail you. What on earth does it mean?

[missylovalova]

I personally think poetry is for the masses by the masses [...] I however think stories are for the upper mass who think poetry is too short to give it time

I think there's a paradox there.

Poetry is enjoyed at different levels of experience. 'All' poetry can not be universal for this reason. But this is also why the 'better' poetry (and again this is subjective), by which I mean the poetry which calls itself revolutionary, which aims for metaphysical realities and expansive concepts of literary theory won't hit the mark in this day and age.

That poetry is reserved for the academics and aspirers. Poetry is an action, it does not incite action, therefore it is the 'better art' - not the 'necessary art'. The necessary art is the one that is truly universally comprehensible and encourages action, even if it's just in the form of discussion. Harry Potter is a necessary art... Banksy is a necessary art... it brought world's together. Education should not be dumbed down to appeal to masses, but similarly, the masses should be catered for with respect to universality.

Are poets self-centred? Whitman was, imo... but then maybe I'm self-centred to assert as much? And maybe there's a shadow of superiority in pointing out conceit in someone else?

[MorpheusSandman]

My answer to this would be the same if you ask it of people in general: while it varies between individuals, I think poets, like people, are generally self-centered. While there are, eg, activist poets and nationalist poets and entertainment poets, most poets end up culling mostly from their own life and experiences, even if those experiences are what other art is out there (like Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent). By self-centered I don't think that necessarily means that all poets are autobiographical, but merely that they're writing poetry for themselves, primarily, and its ability to appeal to others is just a nice bi-product.