Auto-biographical poetry.

[Pete Ak]

I'm not going to claim to 'know' what or how it's done - just that having written a few pieces which are purely autobiographical I feel as if i need to offer apologetic explanations such as - "I've written this to see if I can evoke feelings in the reader/listener which allow him to 'feel' something of which I have felt." This s most definitely not, 'feel sorry for me,' - or 'haven't I done well!' Not even 'see what it's like in my shoes'. I believe what I'm doing is 'art' in a very real sense because it attempts to be evocative and reveal things that are inside me which would not be revealed had I not tried to do so and engender feelings in the reader/listener he would not ordinarily have experienced. Whether or not this accords with other views of what art is (in part at least) is I suppose, what I'm asking. Does autobiographical poetry lean toward self indulgence or does it encourage an authentic form of artistic expression?

[hillwalker]

Autobiographical poetry is often mawkish and sentimental - largely because the writer is too close to the subject. Unless the poet has achieved something momentous in their lives why would anyone choose to read about their life experience? It's better to distance oneself from what you're writing about. There's no harm in using a life experience to inspire your work, I've often done so myself. But I don't signal the fact because if the author is too intrusive it leaves no room for the reader to manoeuvre.

I'd also advise against inserting a preamble before a poem. Explaining what the poem is about, or what you're trying to say by writing it, is a redundant exercise. If the poem can't stand on its own it's not doing its job.

H

[Delta40]

Having said what Hill did - especially about the preface, people often start writing poetry because of 'unfinished business'. As a result, they develop their writing skills and improve. IMO I don't want to read poetry that is sterile. Poetry doesn't always have to be personal, yet so much of it often is. One strives to frame their work in ways that will speak to the audience. Poetic license will allow you to be evocative more than the event itself, which may, if you're not careful, induce pity. I screw up on this myself and it's the last thing I want from the audience when all I aim to do is hang it out there in its cold stark truth.

Don't ever preface your work because you will undermine anything that follows. It just sounds like you go through life explaining everything you do.

[Pete Ak]

Couldn't agree more about the preamble/preface - I have done it in live performance but always feel uncomfortable which is partly why I posed the Q! I agree with your comment 'H' about sentimentality but I'll have to look up 'mawkish'! (One of those recognisable words I rarely use.) Thanks for your thoughts both of you.

[Haunted]

I don't believe in "autobiographical poetry", period. Why would you think anyone wants to know about our lives, our feelings? They don't know us from adam! Start with the presumption that we are nobody to the readers. Readers just want to have a nice time. The last thing you want to do is bore them with your life story. Never let ego gets in the way. Focus on the audience, not yourself. Of course some would say poetry is all about self expression. That's fine, just don't force it on the rest of us. I always maintain that what we write should be relatable to the reader, merely expressing our own personal feelings just doesn't cut it.

Also, you shouldn't have to explain yourself. If you found yourself doing that, that means your poem has failed in some shape or form. Instead, work on the poem, not on the "explanation".

[Pete Ak]

Thank you Haunted... I agree with you so considering yours and other views I can see that I need to re-consider how I express personal experiences. Cheers!

[Jerrybaldy]

Ah, I have posted quite a few autobiographical pieces on here. A couple were maybe over personalised but if I chose for example poems I have written about my father, I do not expect anybody to be interested in my father or my relationship with him. However when you write about the emotions of it,this is universal and people enjoy receognising their own thoughts in yours.

Also I tend to write in the first person, which has the added benefit of confusing the hell out of some people as to what is autobiographical and what is not.

Your question is a good one, but it is posted in the wrong section :)

cheers
JB

[hillwalker]

I tend to write in the first person, which has the added benefit of confusing the hell out of some people as to what is autobiographical and what is not.JB

I think there's a difference between writing about yourself (autobiography) and writing to share a personal observation or emotion which is what most of us do when we create a poem. I write a lot of poetry in the first person - but often from the viewpoint of a woman. Being a man that means I'm obviously making up much of what I write about, but it still has personal relevance otherwise it would seem contrived. I think we all reveal parts of ourselves whenever we write from the heart whether we intend to or not. The secret is to keep the 'artist' out of the 'art' as much as possible.

H

[hallaig]

All poetry is autobiographical. How can it be anything else? You can't keep the artist out of the art, nor is it desirable to do so.

[hillwalker]

All poetry is autobiographical. How can it be anything else? You can't keep the artist out of the art, nor is it desirable to do so.

As long as the artist does not become so intrusive that all we see is a writer being a writer rather than his creation...

H

[hallaig]

No sure what you mean. If you're talking about a that self indulgent angst you see here at times, I agree, but that's simply bad writing.

[Haunted]

I think there's a difference between writing about yourself (autobiography) and writing to share a personal observation or emotion which is what most of us do when we create a poem.

This is what I meant, I wasn't saying it correctly. (Thanks Hill, sorry Pete.) I too write about things that happened in my life, but I wasn't set out to write about myself per se. Writing is derived partly from imagination, the rest drawn from personal experiences so it's unavoidable we have bits and pieces of ourselves embedded in our work. But writing about a personal experience is not the same as writing about yourself in an autobiographical sense. There is sharing involved in a personal experience, but autobiography is pretty much one-sided and irrelevant to those who don't know you. Even those who do, may not care enough to read every detail.

Example. There was a tv mini-series on Elvis's life a while back. They tried too hard to be "autobiographical" to show how he actually lived day to day that they even showed his car breaking down on a highway 3 times, him jumping out of the car 3 times, each time opening the hood and looking under. Do we really need a blow by blow replay of someone's life, even if they are famous? It bored the crap out of everyone's mind and the show was canceled after just a few episodes. The lesson to learn is, the "real" story is inherently boring. That's why movies are never about something that took place with real life accuracy, it's always presented as "Based on a True Story."

So there is the difference. One's own story might not be relevant to anyone except the person involved. The key is to know what to extract from those personal experiences and write around them, dress them up, exaggerate or even fictionalize if needed, so other people can relate. I would suggest focus not on the "autobiography", but the art itself.

[hallaig]

So there is the difference. One's own story might not be relevant to anyone except the person involved

How's that then? Unless you come from Mars your experiences are bound to promote empathy friom the reader. Writing about yourself and your experiences and your feelings isn't going to bore anyone, unless the way you write about it is boring.

[hillwalker]

There's a guy on another writing site who writes about his own personal history as a North Sea fisherman - telling us how hard it was, recalling every storm he ever experienced, all the name of the boats he crewed, how amusing his workmates were (ad nauseam), how much he loves his wife and kids, how he's now retired and takes his dog for walks in the park as often as he can.
He uses both prose and poetry to inflict this dross on his audience - and his writing's not particularly bad but the material is enough to make you wish he'd been drowned at birth.

That's how one's life can be irrelevant to most readers when it's recorded in every minute detail and treated as if it's sacrosanct.

H

[hallaig]

Jesus how can you make the life of a North Sea Fisherman boring? As I say it all boils down to bad writing.

[hillwalker]

Jesus how can you make the life of a North Sea Fisherman boring? As I say it all boils down to bad writing.

By giving a blow by blow account of every fifteen day voyage from the journey by car to the dockside to what footwear he was wearing, what sandwiches his wife had made for the car trip, all the 'hilarious' tricks the crewmen played on each other, and almost an hour by hour record of each day... and night. I could go on and on.
That's not just bad writing - it's knowing what to include and what to leave out.

H

[Jerrybaldy]

Never have I seen such a disagreement between two people saying essentialy the same thing :D

[hallaig]

Best type of argument

[Pete Ak]

Apols if I've broken protocol and posted in the wrong forum (not bad for a first post!) Thanks for your responses tho... much food for thought.

[MorpheusSandman]

A lot of great auto-biographical poetry has been written (Lowell, Berryman, Plath, much of the Romantics), a lot of terrible auto-biographical poetry has been written; a lot of great non-autobiographical poetry has been written (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Eliot, Ashbery), a lot of terrible non-auto-biographical poetry has been written. The issue of biography as it's related to artistic quality is a non-issue; the only pertinent issue is whether or not any substantial emotion or idea or aesthetic is accomplished by the writer and communicated to the reader. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me if Sylvia Plath's Daddy is really about her own father, all that matters is that I feel the power of the emotions as communicated by the language and rhythm; likewise, it doesn't matter that Eliot's Prufrock is nothing but a work of the imagination, because I also feel the power of the emotions as communicated by the same things. Whatever the basis for your initial concept, you have to make sure it's realized as best as possible through the medium of poetry, which is the art of language in form. Without that latter part, it doesn't matter where piece originates from.