The Perception of Poetry as Truth

[Dark Muse]

I find it quite interesting at times the way in which people perceive poetry so differently than they do novels and what I mean specifically in this case, is the fact that with a novel, obviously the reader goes in already with the understanding that the work is fictitious, and thus even if the novel is written in the 1st person point of view they would not make the presumption that the narrative voice in the story is one and the same with the author, but would acknowledge the separation between the character telling the story and the author.

In my experience when it comes to poetry this separation does not seem to always exist, but thier is a tendency it seems for people to automatically presume that the narrator/voice of the poem is one and the same with that of the author, and frequently poems written in 1st person narration or perceived as being autobiographical.

I know with my own poetry I often find it simply easier to write from a 1st persona point of view yet more often than not I am in fact writing through the eyes of a character I have created in my head to convey the poem and I find myself often having to explain to others that my poem are not about myself or my own experiences, which always make me feel a little awkward as if I were being dishonest, even thought i had not intention of trying to purposelessly make the poems come across as autobiographical.

But i cannot help but to wonder why it seems that with poetry more people have a tendency to see the works as truth, and why it is not simply a given that a poem is a work of fiction (unless otherwise stated) the same way that it is given that a novel is a work of fiction.

Is it becasue of the fact that a poem lacks a tangible character such as a novel has, so that within a poem you don't really "see" the speaker you only have the words themselves so it is harder to separate the voice of the poem from the voice of the poem from the voice of the author.

Or is it because of the contemporary wave of confessional poetry which does often tend to have a autobiographical nature to it, that it has become more of a given that poems are in fact written from a real life point of view?

Or the fact the poetry tends to be of a more emotional nature which makes it seem more truthful, than novels are, that is to say while novels can certainly be very emotional, poems come from a more purely emotional place than a novel typically does, which has more of a plot, setting, and interacting characters than a poem typically has.

I would love to here your thoughts, either if you yourself are given to see poems as being more "true' than you would presume a novel to be, or theories as to why you think there is a tendency for poems to be perceived as being more truthful in nature.

Or perhaps I myself am just the weird one for writing fictional poetry and most poetry in this day and age is by nature autobiographical.

[stlukesguild]

Good observation. I think that some of what we have been discussing at LitNet per writers like Ginsberg, Jim Morrison, Bukowski, etc... ties in with this in that there is indeed a notion that poetry especially is simply "self expression" and that it is enough that the artist/poet be honest or truthful about his or her experiences/perceptions for the poetry to have merit. Indeed... to a certain extent we could expand this notion to contain all artistic endeavors... albeit in some art forms (such as poetry) there seems to be a greater presumption of a single unique artist's "voice"... and how could it be otherwise? Anything else would be false and not art.

Undoubtedly, this all goes back to the Romantics who pushed the notion of the poet or artist as genius and visionary, art/poetry as inspired "self-expression" with a single unique voice. Where Michelangelo might paint in a certain style, then turn around and turn out simple design work for a patron or work upon an architectural project... and where Goethe could never be pinned down... writing in one form and then another, changing styles and even genre as freely as another might change shoes... the ideal of the Romantic poet/artist was an individual who spoke with a single, consistent "voice"... a voice that was clearly "self expressive" or revealed the real artist.

This clearly relates with the current obsession for biography or the "cult of personality." Art if it is honest, must accordingly reveal the creator. But then who is Shakespeare? He, as always, becomes the central case in point when regarding the difference between how poetry is read as opposed to "fiction". Shakespeare's plays contain the greatest body of characters in the whole of literature. Hamlet, Iago, Lady MacBeth, Otello, Falstaff, Lear all rank among the greatest character inventions in the whole of literature... but we would be hard-pressed to identify any of them as clearly representing the author. As Borges suggested... he is all... and none. The very fact that the man behind the curtain is so well hidden has led to continual speculation that the simple man from Avon could not have written these works... they must have been the product of Sir Francis Bacon, Edward de' Vere, or even Christopher Marlowe. But with his sonnets we continually get the Freudian analysis... the attempts to use the literature as a means of fleshing out a biography of the artist. Questions arise as to Shakespeare's sexual orientation... was he gay? was he bi-sexual? Was the "dark lady" black... or perhaps mulatto? For whatever reason there is this notion that poetry offers a greater window to the man behind the curtain and the audience... raised on the notion of the cult of personality and the need to know all the juicy gossip and personal biographies of their "heroes" is fooled into thinking that what they see is the "real" artist sans artifice... when in reality, what they are seeing is an artifice that is perhaps even more artful in disguising the creator.

With Romanticism art/poetry is marketed as 'self-expression". The artist/poet need not hide behind invented characters or known narratives. he or she is merely spilling his guts upon the page... or so they would have us believe. As a result, the artist/poet is protected from adverse criticism or aesthetic comparison: the suggestion that one might look at a work of poetry and question the craftsmanship or the merits of the art becomes seen as almost blasphemous... "How can one reduce Art to mere formal rules? How can the honest expression of emotion and feeling be subjected to analysis or comparison?" Yet ultimately, Wordsworth's or Byron's or Whitman's or Baudelaire's narrators are just as much an artistic invention... just as much a product of artifice... just as much "fiction"... as any character of Shakespeare or Dickens.

J.L. Borges played with the notion of the unknowable man behind the curtain... the artist who denies any notion of a single unique and honest "voice". Fernando Pessoa was probably the Modern poet who best challenged the presumption of art... of poetry as mere biography or "self expression"... ultimately inventing multiple personae... multiple narrators/poets with unique and wholly fictive biographies and histories... all as brilliantly realized as any invented character out of Dickens.

Oscar Wilde, who was never wrong about anything:ihih: stated it best when he declared: “To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim”.

[Dark Muse]

Wow, thanks for the great insight. The idea of the cult of the personality, puts me in quite an awkward position at times with my own work. Because I often will write poems about experiences that are not my own as a way for tying to see things from a different perspective, and well if it is a negative experience I happen to be writing about, I will then often have several people wanting to offer me their sympathy and condolence, support, etc... and I have to explain that the poem was not in fact about me, leaving me feeling as if I have in fact committed some wrong by using the first person narrative.

I have written parody poems about myself being a liar of a deceiver because of these experiences. In some cases I will actually put on disclaimers to my poems explaining they are not about me personally.

[stlukesguild]

Wow, thanks for the great insight. The idea of the cult of the personality, puts me in quite an awkward position at times with my own work. Because I often will write poems about experiences that are not my own as a way for tying to see things from a different perspective, and well if it is a negative experience I happen to be writing about, I will then often have several people wanting to offer me their sympathy and condolence, support, etc... and I have to explain that the poem was not in fact about me...

It could be worse... you could be a painter such as myself whose primary theme is the nude leading many to search for some Freudian interpretation: Is he sexually frustrated? Is he some sort of deviant? Is he perverted? Poor Georgia O'Keefe couldn't even paint flowers without being suspect of having Lesbian tendencies, while Matisse's goldfish were clearly penises:skep::lol:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/4972720672_12641873aa_b.jpg

[Dark Muse]

It could be worse... you could be a painter such as myself whose primary theme is the nude leading many to search for some Freudian interpretation: Is he sexually frustrated? Is he some sort of deviant? Is he perverted? Poor Georgia O'Keefe couldn't even paint flowers without being suspect of having Lesbian tendencies, while Matisse's goldfish were clearly penises:skep::lol:

LOL me and a friend of mine made the joke once that if either of us become famous, we are going to have to accept the fact that someday someone is going to try and turn us into suppressed homosexuals.

[JCamilo]

Put frankly, I think the idea of romantics never abandoning their style to work for money wrong. It is our vision of them (and even, for years the whole of Shelley work was not published to convey with the notion of a sentimental author and not an political author).
I look the translations, when the author tries to convey himself and express the other for example or Coleridge who did got some works (not finished) who are not exactly an ancient mariner... Borges who did his jingles to get money or how they also all those who worked for newspapers, the letters... Mostly, it is quite hard threw away a work by Michelangelo, they are kept in safehavens because they are born as market, while writers would not guard the stuff they would consider minor...

[stlukesguild]

Don't get me wrong. I don't lay the whole blame upon the Romantics. I quite love the Romantic poets, and as you note, the stereotype of them as spilling their guts regardless of consequences owes more to later interpretations. These poets were highly disciplined... often having spent years laboring in the translation of older poetry... mastering poetic form. Their works were not as unified by a single voice as we might think. But there is that misguided perception today... and this is merged with the great biographies: Keats, Shelley, Byron all dying tragically young, the wild sexual escapades, intimation of illicit desires (menage a tois, bisexuality, and incest), political rebellion, alcoholism and drug abuse, etc...

[Cat Square]

As an aspiring artist ever struggling with my craft, I have a hard time accepting the notion that someone could create a legitimate expression without some kind of intimate understanding of their subject. By "legitimate expression" I mean the articulation of something (consciously or otherwise) from deep within the artist that connects with his or her spectator in the magical realm of shared subjectivity, elevating the expression from literal description to art.

So when Dark Muse or Fernando Pessoa write from a perspective not their own, maybe the narrative is fiction, but the lines or passages that people connect with on a meaningful level must have roots in some kind of understanding or experience.

[shortstoryfan]

Right now, expressing myself in poetry is not one of my interests or talents. Many beginning writers or amateurs seem to make this their aim, and if someone says that they don't follow the same method they are automatically not writing poetry, because it has no meaning. I think it's just one path to get a strong poem, but I've seen self expression turn ugly time after time.

Sometimes I'll write poems where I'm just experimenting with nonsense words or phrases. Or I try to write something in which I have a narrative in mind, but try to keep the audience from fully seeing the narrative. Words just don't have meanings. They have associative and suggestive qualities that are just as rich.

I struggle with "voice" and trying to not pigeon-hole myself. I hate writing exercises. I hate to write that awful poem, just to see the possibilities. Looking at the work I've done (which is so very small), I can see differences, but while I'm writing them, each of these poems have felt like they were "in voice". Not my voice, but the voice of my aesthetic (something I can't actually describe in words, so I'm not sure how I know what it is).

And then I look at those poems, and I think about one day having a chapbook or putting together a full length manuscript together for a contest or publication submission. So many books today seem to be so solid in their concept. They are no longer simply random poems, but each section means something, and is organized in a particular way.

Wow, I've gotten really off topic.

A poet I know, who is kind of a mentor said something about her job as a poet being, "truth telling". And as much as I admire her, I just thought, "Wow, that's not me at all." And I kind of felt bad about that. I feel bad that I don't have this...story as a person to share and inspire people. I feel like I'm supposed to, to write, and I feel guilty.

[Alexander III]

As an aspiring artist ever struggling with my craft, I have a hard time accepting the notion that someone could create a legitimate expression without some kind of intimate understanding of their subject. By "legitimate expression" I mean the articulation of something (consciously or otherwise) from deep within the artist that connects with his or her spectator in the magical realm of shared subjectivity, elevating the expression from literal description to art.

So when Dark Muse or Fernando Pessoa write from a perspective not their own, maybe the narrative is fiction, but the lines or passages that people connect with on a meaningful level must have roots in some kind of understanding or experience.

You understimate the powers of imagination !


As for the topic, I think the concept is that poetry is always something very personal , unlike theatre or novels. For example with Shakespeare we see his plays, but we never try to search fro Shakespeare in his characters, however in his sonnets we assume that it is Shakespeare and not a character narrating.

I do think rather than verse or prose it has to do with length, a long epic poem or a play in verse, is rarely seen as begin as personal and in fact most of the times the narrators voice is different from the authors. The best example of this is that Byron was criticized for having both Childe Harold and Don Juan simply be mirror of himself, this shows that he was the exception to the rule in epic writing. However short poems as always been personal, I suppose this is because in a short poem one cannot make the narrator clear to the audience there is not enough time to flesh our the narrator as a character, therefore most poets use their own selves, as there is no need to flesh out the narrator as from all the collection of poems the personality for the poet or narrator can be seen.

I suppose if one were to write an anthology of poetry, al poems using the same narrator which was not the poet, it would work, as through all the poems in the anthology, the character would be seen.

But then again, I suppose as long as it creates beauty, all else is irrelevant.

[Cat Square]

You understimate the powers of imagination !

I couldn't disagree more.

[Alexander III]

I couldn't disagree more.

Thats quite fine, no one is perfect after all