how not to write poetry!!

[cacian]

what are according to you the dos or don'ts of poetry composition?

[MorpheusSandman]

Poetry Magazine recently did a "A Few More Don'ts" article for the centenary of Ezra Pound's famous article: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/toc/2398

Here would be some of mine:

DON'T treat poetry techniques as politics, thinking you have to choose a side and stick to it dogmatically. Different compositions require different techniques, and to rule any out any a priori is no different than a carpenter removing potentially useful tools from his toolbox.

DON'T think that originality comes from being ignorant of other poetry. The reverse is true; originality comes from extensive reading and study and knowing what's been done and knowing how you can do it better.

DON'T think any subject matter can make up for a lack of technical competence, intelligence, and sophistication.

DON'T read poetry uncritically, including your own. Learn to be conscious of what works and what doesn't, and learn to trust your own feelings on the matter.

DON'T treat tradition with either awed reverence or apathetic repugnance, either on your knees at an altar or at the doors with a torch. To become a part of a new tradition one has to grapple with the old, and either polarized attitude isn't grappling.

[Lokasenna]

Do think carefully about every syllable. Take your time - poetry should not be rushed.

Do read other poetry extensively - Morph is absolutely on the money on that score.

Do go back and extensively edit and re-write bits of poetry - it is quite rare for poetry to be 'right' first time.

Do share your poetry with critical friends - somebody else is usually a better judge of your own poetry than you are.

Don't simply write down the first thing that comes to mind and pass it off as 'free verse' - shallow thoughts lead to shallow poetry, and it's often painfully obvious to any audience.

Those are probably my main guidelines for writing poetry. Like any artistic endeavour, it's necessary to gain the skills related to technique and expression - and that means, above all, that you should practice often!

[cacian]

thank you both for your posts. great link Morpheus thank you :)
nothing on lengths I see. what would you say is a correct length for poetry?


Do think carefully about every syllable. Take your time - poetry should not be rushed.

Do read other poetry extensively - Morph is absolutely on the money on that score.

Do go back and extensively edit and re-write bits of poetry - it is quite rare for poetry to be 'right' first time.

Do share your poetry with critical friends - somebody else is usually a better judge of your own poetry than you are.

Don't simply write down the first thing that comes to mind and pass it off as 'free verse' - shallow thoughts lead to shallow poetry, and it's often painfully obvious to any audience.

Those are probably my main guidelines for writing poetry. Like any artistic endeavour, it's necessary to gain the skills related to technique and expression - and that means, above all, that you should practice often!

about writing something on a whim and calling it 'free verse'. why not? risk free poetry is no longer poetry. instinct does have a role.
I am not too sure still what the meaning of free verse is.

[MorpheusSandman]

nothing on lengths I see. what would you say is a correct length for poetry?I don't think there is such a thing. I've seen interesting poems only a few lines/words longs, and I've seen masterpieces of ~20,000 lines and several hundred pages. I like the theory, though, that the perfect length of anything is when nothing more can be taken away without harming the intended affect/structure. Paradise Lost, as long as it is, is very precisely structured, and probably couldn't do with any editing without harming its integrity; but you could also say the same for Keats' Great Odes (especially To Autumn at only 36 lines, IIRC).

[cacian]

talking of Ode i think there comes a point where i can't tell whether it is a short story or just a speech delivered.
i am wondering what the pure definition of poetry which should include minimum/maximum length.

[Lokasenna]

about writing something on a whim and calling it 'free verse'. why not? risk free poetry is no longer poetry. instinct does have a role.
I am not too sure still what the meaning of free verse is.

Because, as I said, shallow thoughts lead to equally shallow poetry. Unless someone is the sort of blessed creative genius who emerges perhaps once in a generation, almost anything that comes off the top of a person's head will not have been developed in any meaningful way.

Think of it in terms of visual media. This is the work of five minutes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usGLp99ruXE/T21TtpQkffI/AAAAAAAAAOw/GyPti2BFaDc/s200/stick+figure.jpg

Now compare it with the work of several months:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/454px-Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Which is better? Caravaggio was indisputably a great artistic genius, one of the finest painters of his age, and yet even for all his talent he could not have produced a masterpiece 'off the top of his head'. All the time that went into the refinement of his subject, his choice of symbols and allegories, his use of lighting, technique and flawless sense of poise and balance - layer upon layer, building into a superb masterpiece. Any cretin can draw a stickman in thirty seconds, or 'compose' a 'poem' of devoid of meaning and sense, but very few can match Caravaggio, even if given the same amount of time to work as he. Even improv musicians, who seem to let forth brilliant music on the spot and without preparation, are composing their music based on deeply ingrained patterns of sound built up through years of careful study and practice. Whilst it is possible to have the same facility for poetry, it is exceedingly rare.

As for the other question about length, it's like asking 'how long is a piece of string?' The answer is that a poem should be as long as it needs to be, whether that means four lines or four hundred.

[osho]

Not to write poems is not possible since it is through poetry I can give my full expression and of course prose will do somewhat but the job really done by poetry is boundless and poetry always existed even before prose was there and our ancestors spoke through poetry. That said I do not mean in the usual rhythm and rhyme we understand poetry today

[cafolini]

Because, as I said, shallow thoughts lead to equally shallow poetry. Unless someone is the sort of blessed creative genius who emerges perhaps once in a generation, almost anything that comes off the top of a person's head will not have been developed in any meaningful way.

Think of it in terms of visual media. This is the work of five minutes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usGLp99ruXE/T21TtpQkffI/AAAAAAAAAOw/GyPti2BFaDc/s200/stick+figure.jpg

Now compare it with the work of several months:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/454px-Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Which is better? Caravaggio was indisputably a great artistic genius, one of the finest painters of his age, and yet even for all his talent he could not have produced a masterpiece 'off the top of his head'. All the time that went into the refinement of his subject, his choice of symbols and allegories, his use of lighting, technique and flawless sense of poise and balance - layer upon layer, building into a superb masterpiece. Any cretin can draw a stickman in thirty seconds, or 'compose' a 'poem' of devoid of meaning and sense, but very few can match Caravaggio, even if given the same amount of time to work as he. Even improv musicians, who seem to let forth brilliant music on the spot and without preparation, are composing their music based on deeply ingrained patterns of sound built up through years of careful study and practice. Whilst it is possible to have the same facility for poetry, it is exceedingly rare.

As for the other question about length, it's like asking 'how long is a piece of string?' The answer is that a poem should be as long as it needs to be, whether that means four lines or four hundred.

No doubt. That is the way it works for value. Or it works for nothing. Excellent post.

[JBI]

Because, as I said, shallow thoughts lead to equally shallow poetry. Unless someone is the sort of blessed creative genius who emerges perhaps once in a generation, almost anything that comes off the top of a person's head will not have been developed in any meaningful way.

Think of it in terms of visual media. This is the work of five minutes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usGLp99ruXE/T21TtpQkffI/AAAAAAAAAOw/GyPti2BFaDc/s200/stick+figure.jpg

Now compare it with the work of several months:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/454px-Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Which is better? Caravaggio was indisputably a great artistic genius, one of the finest painters of his age, and yet even for all his talent he could not have produced a masterpiece 'off the top of his head'. All the time that went into the refinement of his subject, his choice of symbols and allegories, his use of lighting, technique and flawless sense of poise and balance - layer upon layer, building into a superb masterpiece. Any cretin can draw a stickman in thirty seconds, or 'compose' a 'poem' of devoid of meaning and sense, but very few can match Caravaggio, even if given the same amount of time to work as he. Even improv musicians, who seem to let forth brilliant music on the spot and without preparation, are composing their music based on deeply ingrained patterns of sound built up through years of careful study and practice. Whilst it is possible to have the same facility for poetry, it is exceedingly rare.

As for the other question about length, it's like asking 'how long is a piece of string?' The answer is that a poem should be as long as it needs to be, whether that means four lines or four hundred.

This is a question very close to Chinese literature, since the bulk of Chinese literary history required improvisational poems written on an occasion during the occasion. In Japan such works are also common, and in both countries there were traditional activities of one person writing a line, and then the next person matching it for a couplet, or for a tanka, or whatever.

The fact of the matter is, these instantaneous poems are often some of the best poems in the language. The art of anybody is a collection of experiences and understandings brought into a single moment. Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade was supposedly written in a matter of seconds, and it still managed to amaze with its impeccable use of the metrics at its craftsman's hand. Frost's On Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening was supposedly also written in one go.

Each author is different, and each poem is different. Yeats wrote at 2 lines a day, and came out with gold, other authors wrote gold much faster, and still others wrote inconsistently.

The chinese poet Li Bai (Li Po, Li Bo) wrote supposedly off the top of his head the majority of his works, and he is quite good. It depends on the situation and background, as well as the medium of the artist at hand.

[cacian]

Because, as I said, shallow thoughts lead to equally shallow poetry. Unless someone is the sort of blessed creative genius who emerges perhaps once in a generation, almost anything that comes off the top of a person's head will not have been developed in any meaningful way.

Think of it in terms of visual media. This is the work of five minutes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usGLp99ruXE/T21TtpQkffI/AAAAAAAAAOw/GyPti2BFaDc/s200/stick+figure.jpg

Now compare it with the work of several months:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/454px-Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Which is better? Caravaggio was indisputably a great artistic genius, one of the finest painters of his age, and yet even for all his talent he could not have produced a masterpiece 'off the top of his head'. All the time that went into the refinement of his subject, his choice of symbols and allegories, his use of lighting, technique and flawless sense of poise and balance - layer upon layer, building into a superb masterpiece. Any cretin can draw a stickman in thirty seconds, or 'compose' a 'poem' of devoid of meaning and sense, but very few can match Caravaggio, even if given the same amount of time to work as he. Even improv musicians, who seem to let forth brilliant music on the spot and without preparation, are composing their music based on deeply ingrained patterns of sound built up through years of careful study and practice. Whilst it is possible to have the same facility for poetry, it is exceedingly rare.

As for the other question about length, it's like asking 'how long is a piece of string?' The answer is that a poem should be as long as it needs to be, whether that means four lines or four hundred.

Interesting choice of comparisons. I would say the first one is very useful to have nonetheless. nothing is wasted no matter what the outcome is.
the second one of course that is a masterpiece done by a master dedicated to nothing but that and therefore its value is timeless.
poetry however should be flexible because we are not all masters and therefore we must learn to content with what we produce and make.
light long dense even or uneven whichever way, appreciation is about a mix of all sorts. the outcome visual is as important the everything in between. expression is a variety of skills and ideas and that is what makes art a venue explored by all not just the gifted and talented.
i enjoy unfussy work, risky poetry for for example , that is because art for me means the rules are unimportant. unconformism is essential to me ie writing as if grammar /syntax/ gender do not exist. however the stress is more on sound aesthetics and instinct.
of course that is one way of looking at it. your way i appreciate is very different from mine but nonetheless makes it interesting to compare. that is one point of expressive art is that we do not all appear and sound the same. same work same outcome and we have lost the sense of expressiveness i think. that is how i see it :)

[tonywalt]

Think of it in terms of visual media. This is the work of five minutes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-usGLp99ruXE/T21TtpQkffI/AAAAAAAAAOw/GyPti2BFaDc/s200/stick+figure.jpg

Now compare it with the work of several months:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/454px-Michelangelo_Merisi%2C_called_Caravaggio_-_Saint_John_the_Baptist_in_the_Wilderness_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Which is better?

Hi Loks. I really like your stick figure! The aggressive but yet subtle distortion of the figure is unsurpassed in your earlier figurative works. Obviously swiftly applied pencil strokes simultaneously defining the subject and dissolving it. As with previous works, the effect of pictorial immediacy belies the complex methods that went into the work’s production. While this appears to be a rapid, spontaneous rendering, examination shows that Lokesenna worked on it in stages and selected and exploited his materials to underscore his imagery.

It speaks to people. (ok, I'm having a bit of fun-halfway through the week folks). I do love that Carvaggio and Rubens - those two are in their own dimension.

[Lokasenna]

Interesting choice of comparisons. I would say the first one is very useful to have nonetheless. nothing is wasted no matter what the outcome is.
the second one of course that is a masterpiece done by a master dedicated to nothing but that and therefore its value is timeless.
poetry however should be flexible because we are not all masters and therefore we must learn to content with what we produce and make.
light long dense even or uneven whichever way, appreciation is about a mix of all sorts. the outcome visual is as important the everything in between. expression is a variety of skills and ideas and that is what makes art a venue explored by all not just the gifted and talented.
i enjoy unfussy work, risky poetry for for example , that is because art for me means the rules are unimportant. unconformism is essential to me ie writing as if grammar /syntax/ gender do not exist. however the stress is more on sound aesthetics and instinct.
of course that is one way of looking at it. your way i appreciate is very different from mine but nonetheless makes it interesting to compare. that is one point of expressive art is that we do not all appear and sound the same. same work same outcome and we have lost the sense of expressiveness i think. that is how i see it :)

So, in other words, we shouldn't aspire to anything because it is too much effort? Why bother trying to write complex and deeply personal art when you can just say 'ah, what the hell' and throw out your own mental garbage over your audience?

Words vomited on to a page are not art. They are just words. And if you don't even bother with grammar/syntax/gender/spelling/punctuation, then they aren't even words - they're just noises, like animals make.

[JBI]

So, in other words, we shouldn't aspire to anything because it is too much effort? Why bother trying to write complex and deeply personal art when you can just say 'ah, what the hell' and throw out your own mental garbage over your audience?

Words vomited on to a page are not art. They are just words. And if you don't even bother with grammar/syntax/gender/spelling/punctuation, then they aren't even words - they're just noises, like animals make.

An interesting analogy considering the great poet, essayist, polymath Su Shi said the exact opposite, that the art of poetry actually was vomiting the spontaneous feeling out onto the paper. The catch of the calligrapher's brush is in the action of the movement and strokes, not in the calculated laying out of the paper - feeling too meditated is often too restrained and over-considered.

The idea of spontaneity versus time and effort is one that pervades Chinese literary discussion. Some poets decidedly mimicked the classical style of Du Fu, and tried to write by extreme study of classical authors, and thereby work within preset regulations and forms for the sake of perfecting their work. Other poets, Su Shi included, argued against such unnatural poetics, in favor of spontaneity and the essence of the feeling captured within the form of the time period. Such an argument in Chinese literature lasted quite well until the end of the classical period.

What it basically shows is this. The calculated poets tended to be technically perfect, yet soulless, and the best of the spontaneous poets tended to, when their works worked, be excellent poets (Yuan Hongdao being the most famous later poet). Classicism is deeply tied into this idea, in that the romantic spirit of invention is always at odds with the idea that creation is an act of meditative study and synthesis rather than "the spontaneous overflow of emotions," however much mediated over afterward.

It's not such a simple cut a paste idea. Su Shi's final conclusion on the topic, is the artist must have what he termed "bamboo in the breast" and with that sort of fusion, he must spontaneously create, using this inherent feeling and sensibility, which has been developed through reading and practice. Later he says that this bamboo, quite literally, must be vomited onto the page.

[cafolini]

An interesting analogy considering the great poet, essayist, polymath Su Shi said the exact opposite, that the art of poetry actually was vomiting the spontaneous feeling out onto the paper. The catch of the calligrapher's brush is in the action of the movement and strokes, not in the calculated laying out of the paper - feeling too meditated is often too restrained and over-considered.

The idea of spontaneity versus time and effort is one that pervades Chinese literary discussion. Some poets decidedly mimicked the classical style of Du Fu, and tried to write by extreme study of classical authors, and thereby work within preset regulations and forms for the sake of perfecting their work. Other poets, Su Shi included, argued against such unnatural poetics, in favor of spontaneity and the essence of the feeling captured within the form of the time period. Such an argument in Chinese literature lasted quite well until the end of the classical period.

What it basically shows is this. The calculated poets tended to be technically perfect, yet soulless, and the best of the spontaneous poets tended to, when their works worked, be excellent poets (Yuan Hongdao being the most famous later poet). Classicism is deeply tied into this idea, in that the romantic spirit of invention is always at odds with the idea that creation is an act of meditative study and synthesis rather than "the spontaneous overflow of emotions," however much mediated over afterward.

It's not such a simple cut a paste idea. Su Shi's final conclusion on the topic, is the artist must have what he termed "bamboo in the breast" and with that sort of fusion, he must spontaneously create, using this inherent feeling and sensibility, which has been developed through reading and practice. Later he says that this bamboo, quite literally, must be vomited onto the page.

I don't know what you are getting at with this response. Loka already properly addressed the subject of improvisation as an art in his post.

[Calidore]

Hi Loks. I really like your stick figure! The aggressive but yet subtle distortion of the figure is unsurpassed in your earlier figurative works. Obviously swiftly applied pencil strokes simultaneously defining the subject and dissolving it. As with previous works, the effect of pictorial immediacy belies the complex methods that went into the work’s production. While this appears to be a rapid, spontaneous rendering, examination shows that Lokesenna worked on it in stages and selected and exploited his materials to underscore his imagery.


I know I couldn't do that in only five minutes.

[JBI]

I don't know what you are getting at with this response. Loka already properly addressed the subject of improvisation as an art in his post.

It's the simple idea he is getting at of a work as revision, and a time taking effort, which is not how all artists, even many good or great artists would see their work, or method.

There is a difference to saying "oh that jazz pianist had practiced enough already, therefore he was just summarizing his past experience" and saying, his personal feelings of the exact moment were captured at the time they were occurring.

That is the big point - whether the art of writing is merely a crafting through a medium of already established and embellished forms, or whether poetry in this case requires a sort of immediate reaction to the sentiments that will be put on paper.

In the west we really see this debate come in at the end of the 18th century, but it had already enjoyed a long history and debate elsewhere in the world. For all the talk of Caravaggio taking a month to paint the painting, Impressionists and Post-Impressionists were turning out paintings daily, to what we now see as a great acclaim. Are we to say this is the sum of Van Gogh's career, and not a spontaneous reaction to a psychological or physical state, captured within the paint?

If I didn't know anything about art in the World sense, and was restricted to Western Art, I would be the first to agree, however noticing different patterns elsewhere, it make things quite unclear, how much revision, mediation, slowness is actually required by the artist with considerable ability or feeling?

My general conclusion is that both arguments are bad, and each author, or work generally tends to be separate from specific rules - a sketch by Leonardo could probably have taken him a matter of minutes, keep in mind, and are they not virtually stick figures?

[Isabella Ameci]

Originally Posted by JBI......" It's not such a simple cut a paste idea.'

maybe not that, but this is:

[QUOTE=tonywalt;1237605]

Hi Loks. I really like your stick figure! The aggressive but yet subtle distortion of the figure is unsurpassed in your earlier figurative works. Obviously swiftly applied pencil strokes simultaneously defining the subject and dissolving it. As with previous works, the effect of pictorial immediacy belies the complex methods that went into the work’s production. While this appears to be a rapid, spontaneous rendering, examination shows that Lokesenna worked on it in stages and selected and exploited his materials to underscore his imagery.



De Kooning’s painted Woman of 1948, (fig. 1) is the first major surviving painting from his second Woman series, during the same period as his black-and-white abstractions. His aggressive distortion of the figure is unsurpassed in his earlier figurative works, his swiftly applied paint strokes simultaneously defining the subject and dissolving it. As with previous paintings, the effect of pictorial immediacy belies the complex methods that went into the work’s production. While this appears to be a rapid, spontaneous rendering, examination shows that de Kooning worked on it in stages and selected and exploited his materials to underscore his imagery.

[MorpheusSandman]

JBI, I understand the points you're making about improvisation VS craftsmanship, but I think you and Lok are talking about two distinctly different kinds of improvisation. Lok is talking about the person who has likely little experience reading or writing poetry just sitting down and vomiting words on a page. Any teenager can do this and the result will be horrible 99.9999999% of the time. I suspect that many of the improvisational poets you're talking about from China and Japan had internalized their art to a huge degree before they could improvise anything that was good, much less great. You mention jazz, and that's a good example of how no amateur who has only been playing for a few months can go on stage and improvise a solo with the proficiency, soul, and artistry of Davis, Coltrane, Parker, et al. It took those guys years of learning the basics before they became improvisational geniuses.

I've only been writing poetry seriously for about 4-5 years. In that time I look at my early stuff and the improvisational pieces are unreadable dreck. The "crafted" pieces aren't much better, but it's from those pieces that I learned to internalize poetic devices that I use more naturally and unconsciously now. Now I read some of my more recent "improv" pieces, and while I know I still have a long ways to go, they are much better as I note how I was able to use devices unconsciously that, years ago, I had to labor over. So it seems to me that improvisational genius comes from internalizing one's craft, and that you can't really internalize until you've worked at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my experience.

[Lokasenna]

I take your points, JBI - the main difficulty with making generalisations about the production of art is that generalisations, by their very nature, are somewhat limited. Great art can, and most definitely has been, produced alomst instantly, sometimes capturing the sensations and emotions displayed with a clarity that comes of being so close to the event. But these, I think, are very rare circumstances (I don't know whether that puts me in opposition with East Asian artistic tradition, but it's certainly true of the Western one) - most (good) art is the product of careful and deliberate construction, and certainly not any less emotionally authentic for it.

Tennyson's Charge of the Lightbrigade may reflect the tumultous emotions that that catastrophe excited in the poet, and which forced the moment of composition, but as you yourself said that poem is also responding to the style and technique that he had been building for years. And I am inclined to believe that, with practice, it is possible to turn out good art at a rapid rate - Leonardo's sketches might only have taken minutes (or more likely hours) to compose, but they bear the hallmarks of both his native genius and, importantly, his years of practice.

[JBI]

I take your points, JBI - the main difficulty with making generalisations about the production of art is that generalisations, by their very nature, are somewhat limited. Great art can, and most definitely has been, produced alomst instantly, sometimes capturing the sensations and emotions displayed with a clarity that comes of being so close to the event. But these, I think, are very rare circumstances (I don't know whether that puts me in opposition with East Asian artistic tradition, but it's certainly true of the Western one) - most (good) art is the product of careful and deliberate construction, and certainly not any less emotionally authentic for it.

Tennyson's Charge of the Lightbrigade may reflect the tumultous emotions that that catastrophe excited in the poet, and which forced the moment of composition, but as you yourself said that poem is also responding to the style and technique that he had been building for years. And I am inclined to believe that, with practice, it is possible to turn out good art at a rapid rate - Leonardo's sketches might only have taken minutes (or more likely hours) to compose, but they bear the hallmarks of both his native genius and, importantly, his years of practice.

The major difference between East Asian and Western literature, is East Asian literature is more of a performance with an intended specific audience, whereas Western literature in general has been text as text - meaning frozen and revised on paper.

So in Asia, you have art forms like calligraphy that are designed to display a performed sentiment of the creator at the moment of creation - you follow the brush strokes as they fall and bounce, and, if you eye is "tuned" to the sentiment, are supposed to connect to the artist at the moment of creation. In the west, generally our method of reading is to see the product, the shape on the paper, not the act of the shape being put on the paper.

In that sense, something like Shakespeare really exists on two levels - is his art what is in our Folio, or was it deeper based on the conventions, forms, and stage cues given to his actors, who had undoubtedly their own influence on the work (whether it be changing lines, or interpreting, or even altering body language). Post-Renaissance artists in general have been textual, and relied on print media to bring their literature forward, or on physical works - we are not watching the process as much as viewing the product.

Now when we read poetry, we must ask what we are doing - are we reading the movement in the act of creation - meaning focusing on the creative aspect of the work (in the romantic sense), or are we looking at the text as a text (in the new criticism sense) and focusing on the reader. Or are we looking at forms, and comparing the work to a diagram, in the Neo-Classical platonic sense of interpretation.

There is another question of experience - do we want to paint the picture as something real, or meditated, do we want it fresh, or considered? Take photography as an example. It takes less than a second to snap a photo (unless you are playing with the shutter speed, then you may tweak it up for a bit longer). Is the art of the picture in the subject, or in its calculation. Some of my best pictures have been at random, with no actual forethought. The actual artistic experience can be far quicker than one thinks.

This is just a few musings. I don't actually have answers, nor do I want them, to be honest. I assume that it really comes down to both the medium at hand, and the way the artist or author works, and cannot be answered in theory.

[sympathygrl]

Do : Feel the passion for a moment and start writing.
Don't : Don't over think, don't over edit the poem.

[JCamilo]

The major difference between East Asian and Western literature, is East Asian literature is more of a performance with an intended specific audience, whereas Western literature in general has been text as text - meaning frozen and revised on paper.

Popular literature, specially those close to orality, are pretty much this way. If you go to some brazilian regions you may find those poets, repentistas, that are specialized in the old style you mention in chinese poetry (except it is usually in 4 verses), one poet gives one stanza, other duels with another, always rhymed (and often in decassilables, camonian style). Obviously, the improvisation works with the audience. This kind of poetry was highly influential on Brazilain northwest poetry and lyrical composition (Brazilian culture is more musical than literary, so the poetic production and the writting for song's lyric was more close than american). Those poets didn't sharp their skill reading poetry, many have no reading costume or study, but this kind of performance 'by ear' starts when they were kids. They have also awesome memories, typical orality.

[MorpheusSandman]

Do : Feel the passion for a moment and start writing.
Don't : Don't over think, don't over edit the poem.Both are wrong.

[Lokasenna]

Both are wrong.

Agreed.

[mona amon]

This is not from the point of view of someone who knows anything at all about how to write a poem, but rather from the highly subjective perspective of this reader -

1. Don't use poetry to whine about how lonely, depressed or misunderstood you are or how lousy your life is or what a horrible, pointless, ugly place this world is. I don't care.
2. Don't tell me how lovely some stupid patch of daffodils is, or how beautifully some solitary lass is singing. Yawn.
3. Don't use poetry to tell people your mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun, and that she's got bad breath. Honestly!

Do's -
1. Do use beautiful words, evocative phrases, unusual word combinations - anything that sounds really nice.
2. Do use poetry to express noble thoughts, prayers, supplications and praise, anything that inspires me or expresses my own feelings better than I can.
3. Do use it to express feelings of love and longing, nostalgia, yearning for home and so on.

That's all I can think of at the moment. :p

[cacian]

Do : Feel the passion for a moment and start writing.
I guess I have more passions for words then feelings when it comes to writing. I reserve feelings for when I need them .

Don't : Don't over think, don't over edit the poem.
I agree I don't try and think too much because it can get obsessive.

[cacian]

This is not from the point of view of someone who knows anything at all about how to write a poem, but rather from the highly subjective perspective of this reader -

true . :)

1. Don't use poetry to whine about how lonely, depressed or misunderstood you are or how lousy your life is or what a horrible, pointless, ugly place this world is. I don't care.
hehe I agree. lament I can't stand it.


2. Don't tell me how lovely some stupid patch of daffodils is, or how beautifully some solitary lass is singing. Yawn.

LOL would you care for Wordsworth the daffodils?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Wandered_Lonely_as_a_Cloud


3. Don't use poetry to tell people your mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun, and that she's got bad breath. Honestly!

Hehe yes especially if none of us are into masters and mistresses :biggrin5:

Do's -
1. Do use beautiful words, evocative phrases, unusual word combinations - anything that sounds really nice.
2. Do use poetry to express noble thoughts, prayers, supplications and praise, anything that inspires me or expresses my own feelings better than I can.
3. Do use it to express feelings of love and longing, nostalgia, yearning for home and so on.

interesting arrays of ideas. noble thoughts sound cool.

[JCamilo]

Agreed.

And yet, according to every story, Keats was hearing the little bird when he started writting following the passion of the momment and when he entered home, the poem was almost done, needing little editing and we have Ode to a Nightingale, right?

[Lokasenna]

And yet, according to every story, Keats was hearing the little bird when he started writting following the passion of the momment and when he entered home, the poem was almost done, needing little editing and we have Ode to a Nightingale, right?

One has to be careful with apocryphal stories - Coleridge claimed that he wrote Kubla Khan in one sitting as a consequence of a night on the opium, the poem being cut short by the interruption of the person from Porlock. This is a claim now treated with extreme scepticism by modern scholars, who point to inconsistencies in his account and the existence of differing drafts.

There are exceptions - as I have argued above - but these are rare. And if Keats did compose 'Nightingale' in a single sitting, that's great - but its peerless use of language, rhythm and intense imagery can be seen as building on his previous artistic output. An act of genius it might be, but it is one that builds on established tradition.

[cacian]

Coleridge claimed that he wrote Kubla Khan in one sitting as a consequence of a night on the opium, the poem being cut short by the interruption of the person from Porlock.
interesting. I guess if anything is to be interrupted, it shall be mentioned afore. was there anywhere in the poem a hint of it being interrupted ? that would have made for a twist. well at least that is how I would have put it to prove it was.

[JCamilo]

One has to be careful with apocryphal stories - Coleridge claimed that he wrote Kubla Khan in one sitting as a consequence of a night on the opium, the poem being cut short by the interruption of the person from Porlock. This is a claim now treated with extreme scepticism by modern scholars, who point to inconsistencies in his account and the existence of differing drafts.

There are exceptions - as I have argued above - but these are rare. And if Keats did compose 'Nightingale' in a single sitting, that's great - but its peerless use of language, rhythm and intense imagery can be seen as building on his previous artistic output. An act of genius it might be, but it is one that builds on established tradition.

We must still find the stories that end Keats story, but this wouldn't be the only exception, right?

But even if we are discussing if all Poets must be wandering lonely as a cloud with his sister talking on his side, to make poetry (something we must point is very useful for Wordsworth, considering his poetry is more about fugitive feelings than anything else, so waiting his feelings to calm down to talk about how they are in the past is quite a method), even if we all know that writting is always dealing wiht something in past, because as soon you start writing, you are bring those feelings to an artificial form, to claim both of suggestions of Sympahygirl are wrong is just being stubborn.

Even if we supposed she may mean something else, which would just prove the vallue of her editing, she said: Feel the passion for a moment and start writing. What is wrong on that may I ask. She is not even saying "feel passion for the moment and start writing.", not saying the poet must be writting when drunk in love, those moments that you bubble incoherent words for a woman, sounding as charming as a baboon. She even suggests that is "for a moment" and isnt a moment something brief and/or specific? Could she be just suggesting the person to be inspired? (Even if was "write passionately" i would suggest this is not wrong. Passions do not make us forget how to write well, or drive well, or use hats well.) .

And the other one? How is that wrong? over thinking? over editing? It is not the same as do not think and do not edit. Over does not imply doing something excessively, therefore more than necessary. How is that even remotely to wrong?

She may have been far from technical, may just be sympathetic, whistling with the wind, but calling it dead, burying and parking a truck over it to be sure it is never back is a bit exagerate as this last sentence.

[cacian]

here is my own thoughts on this fascinating subject:

if a poem leaves an impression then it has told
you once.
if it leaves a depression then it has told you twice.
if it leaves a regression then it has told you thrice.
that is one too many.
but if it leaves you none that is because you have grown
too told may be toned.
go back and start again.

[JCamilo]

interesting. I guess if anything is to be interrupted, it shall be mentioned afore. was there anywhere in the poem a hint of it being interrupted ? that would have made for a twist. well at least that is how I would have put it to prove it was.

No Cacian, it is a famous story Coleridge kind off used to illustrate the idea that "sudden inspiration' is the source for poetry. It basically says he woke after those dreams and started to write then a neighbour - and it must be unexpected - came by (he was in a cottage) and started all kind of mundane chit-chat "How is the weather", "The chickens', 'Coffee is getting cold" and Coleridge out of politeness replied, so the guy stayed for so long that when he went, Coleridge forgot such dreams and only left with some ideas and lines, which became a poem which. Without him telling the story, nobody would even notice it was "unfinished" or probally remember the poem, which is the today, the most famous unwritten poem ever. And probally the story is the real literary masterpiece. With Coleridge explanation (printed before the poem) you have something else that reading just the poem's stanzas. And Loka is right, Coleridge is not telling the truth.

http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/640/

and there the explanation. Read both:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kubla_Khan/author

[cacian]

camilo thank for the links. I had heard of Kubla Khan before but never got the chance to read it so this is great!

it is written in first then second person then in the narrative voice.
it is slightly confusing.

''In a vision once I saw:''
that is the only time in this piece where he uses the I to refer to himself the writer.

then
''And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise''.

I am wondering who the He is here. Kubla Khan the emperor?

[JCamilo]

I think it is a third person, maybe a reference to both Him and Kubla as one as inspired by a vision. Some sort of the Archetype that he and the build of the castle are (the poem is very platonic).

[MorpheusSandman]

1. Don't use poetry to whine about how lonely, depressed or misunderstood you are or how lousy your life is or what a horrible, pointless, ugly place this world is. I don't care.
2. Don't tell me how lovely some stupid patch of daffodils is, or how beautifully some solitary lass is singing. Yawn.
3. Don't use poetry to tell people your mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun, and that she's got bad breath. Honestly!So you hate Larkin, Lowell, Plath, Wordsworth, and Shakespeare?


Do's -
1. Do use beautiful words, evocative phrases, unusual word combinations - anything that sounds really nice.
2. Do use poetry to express noble thoughts, prayers, supplications and praise, anything that inspires me or expresses my own feelings better than I can.
3. Do use it to express feelings of love and longing, nostalgia, yearning for home and so on.

That's all I can think of at the moment. :pAnd you love Keats, Stevens, Herbert, and Hopkins? Amirite?

[MorpheusSandman]

...she said: Feel the passion for a moment and start writing. What is wrong on that may I ask... And the other one? How is that wrong? over thinking? over editing? It is not the same as do not think and do not edit. Over does not imply doing something excessively, therefore more than necessary. How is that even remotely to wrong? I don't think there's anything wrong, per say, in writing in a moment of passion, or feeling passion and then later writing, but I think it's wrong to suggest that that's all that's needed, or that poetry must be written out of "passion" to begin with (it's often "ideas" rather than "passions" that provoke me). Plus, when you combine that with "don't over-edit," it gives the impression that all one needs to do is write in/after a moment of passion and then not work any more on it. This is what makes every teenager think they can write substantial poetry even if they've never read any, studied, or worked at it at all.

I also think there's a great ambiguity in what "over-editing" would be. How does one determine what "over-editing" is? Do not different poems require different amounts of editing? Personally, I tend to edit every time I read one of my pieces and say to myself that this phrase or word or rhythm or image or whatever doesn't feel right. There are some pieces where I end up rewriting 95% of the initial draft, and others where I may only change a word or two, so I don't know how anyone could say what "over-editing" is. However, I think the real danger in that "don't" is it can easily mislead young poets into thinking that all editing, all thinking, is over-editing and over-thinking, and I'd be more inclined to lead them in the opposite direction.

[cacian]

about unedited work, I greatly believe it holds a vital importance in writing throwing it away through extensive editing is a not a good thing.
I think we must keep all unedited work alongside edited to give the writer an idea about his or her progress.
looking back onto unedited work is a very good thing. getting used to reading unedited then edited afterwards gives the writer a brief outlook on how he or she works. unedited work holds an importance and I think we must learn to preserve it for references on how the mind works.

[Lokasenna]

'Emotion recollected in tranquility', as Wordsworth put it, is none the worse for being seperated from the event - in fact, in 99% of cases it is conducive to better poetry.

I don't know why this is causing such a debate? Surely to god it is not an insensible thing to suggest that poetry is likely to be better if one THINKS about it for a while first? This is common practice!

[JCamilo]

It is very good for Wordsworth but then, the point, the entire point, it does not contradict Feel the passion for a moment and start writing. In fact, we can have Feel the passion recollected in tranquility for a moment and start writing without sounding so strange, no?

And Morph, of course, "don't over edit" does not teach anyone of how much it is or not, but none of those do and don'ts teach posted here need a lot of explanation, included your own list of 'DON'Ts".

[cacian]

It is very good for Wordsworth but then, the point, the entire point, it does not contradict Feel the passion for a moment and start writing. In fact, we can have Feel the passion recollected in tranquility for a moment and start writing without sounding so strange, no?

And Morph, of course, "don't over edit" does not teach anyone of how much it is or not, but none of those do and don'ts teach posted here need a lot of explanation, included your own list of 'DON'Ts".

strange? what is wrong with strange? I like strange.
I think editing is because we are told it. it is a habit we have cultivated to feel good about ourselves like everything we do in life. we try and find fault to perfect when in fact we should be looking into ourselves and accepting the way we are.
what is wrong with reading something imperfect? I read a lot of imperfect stuff I write and I like it because it makes me laugh because it looks silly and I do enjoy it. it was a spare of a moment where I did not write as I am told to. there is humour in everything and there should laughable stuff in literature too. nothing wrong with being imperfect and incalculable. just let the words flow. serious won't mind.
anyway editing or not one still writes.:)

[Delta40]

There is also nothing wrong with writing something spontaneous and polishing it so it shines even better Cacian.

[mona amon]

So you hate Larkin, Lowell, Plath, Wordsworth, and Shakespeare?

And you love Keats, Stevens, Herbert, and Hopkins? Amirite?

I'm ashamed to say I've read only three of the guys on the list (some of their poems I mean, not all). But I just re-read the Shakespeare sonnet, and although my initial objection remains, I must say the man does have a way with words! :D

[MorpheusSandman]

And Morph, of course, "don't over edit" does not teach anyone of how much it is or not, but none of those do and don'ts teach posted here need a lot of explanation, included your own list of 'DON'Ts".What about my list of DON'Ts needs further explaining? I thought they were all quite self-explanatory. Anyway, as I said, I'm more concerned about the implications of saying "feel passion and write" and "don't over-edit," as I feel it can lead naive, lazy, young poets to think all they need is to feel and write, and never learn or actually work at it. I don't really think one COULD "further explain" what "over-editing" is, because it would entirely depend on each individual poem. My "DON'Ts" I feel are pretty universal.

[cacian]

There is also nothing wrong with writing something spontaneous and polishing it so it shines even better Cacian.

I agree one has to polish but it can get obsessive. the 'polishing act disorder' I like to call it can get very serious and then nothing tedious and then it is quit time.
it is a bit like over cleaning. some of us have the urge to clean all the time and it is an impossible task. or it can go the other way no polishing/cleaning whatsoever the two extremes. but then this you can get away with it in literature ie no polishing whatsoever. that is the beauty of writing is that you are forgiven for being yourself imperfect and then perfect and then something in between.;)

[Delta40]

not all I agree one has to polish but it can get obsessive. the polishing act disorder can get very serious and then nothing gets completed.
it is a bit like over cleaning. some people have the urge to clean all the time and it is impossible. or it can go the other way no polishing whatsoever but then you can get away with it in literature but not in a household. that the beauty of writing is that you are forgiven for being yourself imperfect and then perfect and then something in between.;)

Not that I understood anything you really said but then I guess you didn't see the need to edit and would just assume the reader would get your point. Is that what you mean then?

[cacian]

Not that I understood anything you really said but then I guess you didn't see the need to edit and would just assume the reader would get your point. Is that what you mean then?

I mean to say there is a necessity for editing yes but there is also a place for unedited work too. sometime it is nice to just write and enjoy the way it plans out.
the point is: how much is too much editing? the other way could be to say well just don't edit once in a while because it has its place too.

[Delta40]

I mean to say there is a necessity for editing yes but there is also a place for unedited work too. sometime it is nice to just write and enjoy the way it plans out.
the point is: how much is too much editing? the other way could be to say well just don't edit once in a while because it has its place too.

I really think that is up to the person who creates the piece. I doubt very much they have a set formula on how much time to spend editing. It's relative to each piece they produce.

[MorpheusSandman]

I really think that is up to the person who creates the piece. I doubt very much they have a set formula on how much time to spend editing. It's relative to each piece they produce.Absolutely this. I said it earlier; some pieces I end up editing to where I've rewritten 95% of the original draft, and others I hardly touch a word. It just completely depends on the piece, how much work I feel it needs, and how worth my time I feel it is to work on it. The most frustrating thing is spending all of your time editing only to find that certain problems can't be solved to your satisfaction. I have one long piece I've been working on for almost a year now and it still feels really rough in places and I'm not sure how to fix it, yet I've spent too much time on it to just give up.

[Delta40]

Absolutely this. I said it earlier; some pieces I end up editing to where I've rewritten 95% of the original draft, and others I hardly touch a word. It just completely depends on the piece, how much work I feel it needs, and how worth my time I feel it is to work on it. The most frustrating thing is spending all of your time editing only to find that certain problems can't be solved to your satisfaction. I have one long piece I've been working on for almost a year now and it still feels really rough in places and I'm not sure how to fix it, yet I've spent too much time on it to just give up.

How often have you stepped back from the work and just left it?

[JCamilo]

What about my list of DON'Ts needs further explaining? I thought they were all quite self-explanatory. Anyway, as I said, I'm more concerned about the implications of saying "feel passion and write" and "don't over-edit," as I feel it can lead naive, lazy, young poets to think all they need is to feel and write, and never learn or actually work at it. I don't really think one COULD "further explain" what "over-editing" is, because it would entirely depend on each individual poem. My "DON'Ts" I feel are pretty universal.

Meh, Don't over edit is universal. Just like this wonder: DON'T read poetry uncritically, including your own. Learn to be conscious of what works and what doesn't, and learn to trust your own feelings on the matter.

What is reading critically? You know, there is a handful of critical schools, different ways to approach a poem. Should the poet construct, desconstruct, analyse everything in the poem? Maybe trace the roots of his own influence to see every meaning of the poem? Or are you just saying the poet must read it over to see if he used the correct techniques? What is being concious of what works and what doesn't? How yoou do it? When should you stop to give a damn? Trust your feeling? Which feelings exactly? Oh, I know, any young poet can read it and say: Wow, this is exactly like me. People say you can not write poems on the spot and I do. They will see.

I worked in a publishig house, I helped to edit books, and "Don't over edit" is always there. It is universal. Every other person who come to work, had this sense that over-editing was bad. And those are children books, imagine it. Meanwhile, never saw someone able to measure the awed reverence of apathy to tradition - something several poets are actually unconcious of it, or abusevelly awed or a radical enemy, without ever troubling them. Heck, how this is less precise and depending on each individual poem than 'Don't over edit" , I cannot even grasp.

[MorpheusSandman]

How often have you stepped back from the work and just left it?Several times. I wrote the first draft over a period of a month from last November to December. Since then I seem to come back to it a few times a month and edit a section here are there. There are some sections that just don't work, yet the overall structure requires some aspects of those sections to work, so it's a tough slog. If you care to read it, I could send it through PM. It's quite long, though. Very much influenced by Wordsworth's Great Ode.


Meh, Don't over edit is universal. Just like this wonder: DON'T read poetry uncritically, including your own. Learn to be conscious of what works and what doesn't, and learn to trust your own feelings on the matter.

What is reading critically?When I said "read critically" I was not talking about applying any specific literary school of thought, but merely not reading passively. There are many people that read and just let the experience wash over them and never reflect on it. For poets, this is bad because it means they don't learn anything from it. When Keats read Shakespeare's sonnets, eg, he would highlight passages and annotate sections and try to understand why he felt certain things works and others didn't. It's not that he was applying any critical school, he was merely engaging with the text, and forming his own aesthetic through that critical engagement. So much of his Great Odes are formed out of his critical reading of Shakespeare. So, that's what I mean by "reading critically." It's a process of asking yourself what you feel works and doesn't in poetry, and using that to form your own style.

Like I said, I'm more worried about the implication (and the practicality) of "don't over edit" than I am the advice itself. Editing books at a publishing house is very different than a poet editing their own poems. Usually, once something reaches the publishing house it's already been edited to the author's satisfaction. So that's two very different types of editing. I wouldn't expect any publishing editor to completely rewrite a poem, but a poet should feel comfortable practically rewriting a draft if it's needed/desired, and for young poets they'd probably learn more and get better by such extensive editing than they would not editing much (if at all) for fear of "over-editing."


Meanwhile, never saw someone able to measure the awed reverence of apathy to tradition - something several poets are actually unconcious of it, or abusevelly awed or a radical enemy, without ever troubling them. I don't know what you mean by "measuring" these things. There are plenty of people who either seem to praise or dismiss everything traditional, and I don't know what you mean by such a thing "not troubling them". I think either extreme is nonsense. Again, Keats is a good example. In his critical reading of Shakespeare's sonnets he didn't feel that Shakespeare's closing couplets worked, so that lead him to create his own stanza forms for his Odes. So there you see someone "grappling" with tradition, and not either blindly kowtowing to it or dismissing it. I think there's too much to be learned from tradition to dismiss it, yet if all you're going to do is imitate/repeat it then there's no reason to write to begin with since we already have tradition itself.

[JCamilo]

When I said "read critically" I was not talking about applying any specific literary school of thought, but merely not reading passively. There are many people that read and just let the experience wash over them and never reflect on it. For poets, this is bad because it means they don't learn anything from it. When Keats read Shakespeare's sonnets, eg, he would highlight passages and annotate sections and try to understand why he felt certain things works and others didn't. It's not that he was applying any critical school, he was merely engaging with the text, and forming his own aesthetic through that critical engagement. So much of his Great Odes are formed out of his critical reading of Shakespeare. So, that's what I mean by "reading critically." It's a process of asking yourself what you feel works and doesn't in poetry, and using that to form your own style.

Morph, I have no need of explanation. But the simple fact you had to transform "read critically' as 'not reading passively" and/or "learning anything for it' or 'engaging with the text' suffices: your Don'ts also need exlpanation, also can be interpreted in any way and still as vague as anything can be. Just like, one can easily say that if the individual decides or not when to edit or not, he also decides what he learnt and this enough.


Like I said, I'm more worried about the implication (and the practicality) of "don't over edit" than I am the advice itself. Editing books at a publishing house is very different than a poet editing their own poems. Usually, once something reaches the publishing house it's already been edited to the author's satisfaction. So that's two very different types of editing. I wouldn't expect any publishing editor to completely rewrite a poem, but a poet should feel comfortable practically rewriting a draft if it's needed/desired, and for young poets they'd probably learn more and get better by such extensive editing than they would not editing much (if at all) for fear of "over-editing."

A editor in a publishing house will edit any poem (just like any prose text) as much as he wants to do. Now, do you really think authors stop after a draft is approved? I have seen authors to keep following it over and over and even come after the book is printed with "changes" for the next edition. Not to mention authors with a hired deadline which we had to give the "enough". Simple as put, don't over edit is just a sound and simple general advice for anyone dealing with the text (and there is really no basic difference between the author editing his draft or an editor, except the obvious relantionship with the text).


I don't know what you mean by "measuring" these things. There are plenty of people who either seem to praise or dismiss everything traditional, and I don't know what you mean by such a thing "not troubling them". I think either extreme is nonsense. Again, Keats is a good example. In his critical reading of Shakespeare's sonnets he didn't feel that Shakespeare's closing couplets worked, so that lead him to create his own stanza forms for his Odes. So there you see someone "grappling" with tradition, and not either blindly kowtowing to it or dismissing it. I think there's too much to be learned from tradition to dismiss it, yet if all you're going to do is imitate/repeat it then there's no reason to write to begin with since we already have tradition itself.

Well, when making your cause for 'editing" you even came with a 95%, said about "how much work', this imples in some sort of measuring no? Plus you claim your Don'ts are more precise than her Don'ts, so in what your advice can be considered as more precise? Not with Keats example, because he was so awed by tradition that he even composed a poem while walking home after spending some time with a friend reading Chapman translation by Homer. So, let's just apply your approach to her Don'ts to yours right? After all, there is plenty of Dantes, Keats, Yeats, Fernando Pessoa, Borges, Goethe etc. that are certainly in awe with tradition. There is certainly many poets that are prone to polarize (certainly none can actually avoid all tradition, but Wordsworth and Coleridge take on XVIII poetry, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Pound himself certainly made a lot of poetry in search of an impossible rupture). Maybe your don'ts are better suited for reading? Or maybe, yet again, you needed to explain, which suffices my point?

[MorpheusSandman]

JCamilo, I think you're trying to create a false equivalency between the two DON'Ts. If all I had to do was clarify what I meant by "critically" then that's just clarifying a potentially ambiguous word. The words "over" and "edit" are not ambiguous, we know what they mean, but we don't know how they apply to texts. "Over" means we can do it too much, which implies there's a "right" amount of editing, and I do not think one could ever clarify what that "right" amount is without considering individual texts. If I had said "DON'T read too critically" then you could've made an equivalency by asking "what's TOO critically?"

Obviously many authors never stop editing their works. It's why we often end up with multiple texts of the same work, often from radically different periods. However, if you were to pick any handful of cases, sometimes the final works will be the best, and sometimes the earlier works will be. If every author was conscious about not "over-editing," then in the former cases you'd be left with inferior works, and in the latter case you'd be left with better works. Again, if I had a choice, I'd prefer over-editing, since then you can have it both ways. If an author fails to improve a text over time, then at least we (usually) still have the earlier text to compare; on the other hand, if an author stops editing then any chances of improvement are nullified. So it seems to me that extensive editing gives us both options.

When I said 95% I wasn't being literal. It's not as if I actually counted the words, counted how many I changed, and came up with a ratio. It was just a guess based on knowing how much I've rewritten some pieces. It was just an example to show that if I was paying attention to the "don't over-edit" dictum I could never have done that, even though I feel the rewrites are far superior. Nonetheless, you're distorting what I said anyway, and just because you distort what I said and I need to "clarify" does not prove your point. I said nothing about not admiring tradition at all, or not seeking to do new things. All of those authors you listed critically engaged with tradition, they picked up some things and dropped either. They neither blindly imitated (or, when they did, they often became aware of this and stopped it, like Keats stopped writing Hyperion because it was "too Miltonic") nor blindly dismissed. Of course, this is precisely what I said in my post, and your examples really prove my point, rather than yours.

[JCamilo]

JCamilo, I think you're trying to create a false equivalency between the two DON'Ts. If all I had to do was clarify what I meant by "critically" then that's just clarifying a potentially ambiguous word. The words "over" and "edit" are not ambiguous, we know what they mean, but we don't know how they apply to texts. "Over" means we can do it too much, which implies there's a "right" amount of editing, and I do not think one could ever clarify what that "right" amount is without considering individual texts. If I had said "DON'T read too critically" then you could've made an equivalency by asking "what's TOO critically?"

I will quote you "I also think there's a great ambiguity in what "over-editing" would be.'. It is funny. Now you claim that they are not ambiguous. I like to see when someone see his argument refused, just accepting it without trying to imply there was never an argument or your case that, even trying to explain to me what it means, when that is part of what i said.

Your DON'Ts are potentially more ambiguous than that "Don't over edit', not just one word. In everyone of them. And the meak "People do not know how to apply it" goes for the same because how people how to "engage with the tex". It is something as vague and personal, if more, than editing.


Obviously many authors never stop editing their works. It's why we often end up with multiple texts of the same work, often from radically different periods. However, if you were to pick any handful of cases, sometimes the final works will be the best, and sometimes the earlier works will be. If every author was conscious about not "over-editing," then in the former cases you'd be left with inferior works, and in the latter case you'd be left with better works. Again, if I had a choice, I'd prefer over-editing, since then you can have it both ways. If an author fails to improve a text over time, then at least we (usually) still have the earlier text to compare; on the other hand, if an author stops editing then any chances of improvement are nullified. So it seems to me that extensive editing gives us both options.

You need so much to 'win" debates over the internet that you will argue that doing a mistake is good because you can always go back and therefore waste a lot of time and resources? Really?


When I said 95% I wasn't being literal. It's not as if I actually counted the words, counted how many I changed, and came up with a ratio. It was just a guess based on knowing how much I've rewritten some pieces.

Nah, it is an old and bad argumentative fallacy when someone try to support arguments with numbers that do not exist. Such precise and round numbers are always suspect. It is an old joke that Homer Simpson love to do it.


It was just an example to show that if I was paying attention to the "don't over-edit" dictum I could never have done that, even though I feel the rewrites are far superior. Nonetheless, you're distorting what I said anyway, and just because you distort what I said and I need to "clarify" does not prove your point.

Of course it does.

I said: And Morph, of course, "don't over edit" does not teach anyone of how much it is or not, but none of those do and don'ts teach posted here need a lot of explanation, included your own list of 'DON'Ts".

Annd you said: What about my list of DON'Ts needs further explaining?

So of course, making your clarify two of the DONTs (easily to do with others as well) complety proves my point and answer your question.



I said nothing about not admiring tradition at all, or not seeking to do new things. All of those authors you listed critically engaged with tradition, they picked up some things and dropped either. They neither blindly imitated (or, when they did, they often became aware of this and stopped it, like Keats stopped writing Hyperion because it was "too Miltonic") nor blindly dismissed. Of course, this is precisely what I said in my post, and your examples really prove my point, rather than yours.

Absolutely. You said clearly for a poet to not few awed reverence to tradition. Reverence is even stronger than admiration (a word I didnt use, i used "awed', the word you used, so it gets funny I have to answer about a claim i never did). In your DONT there is nothing about do not blind immitate (which shouldn't be an advice reggarding to tradition only but to also poets alive and producing). Because of course, you can have Awed Reverence and drop something there and there, which makes - as I claimed - your DONT is vague, needs explanation and even useless (it is crazy to notice you think that listing poets that treated tradition with Awed reverence proofs your claim that a poet should not treat tradition with awed reverence... but I know. You have to Win).

[MorpheusSandman]

I will quote you "I also think there's a great ambiguity in what "over-editing" would be.'. It is funny. Now you claim that they are not ambiguous.There’s absolutely no contradiction here. Saying there’s an ambiguity about what “over-editing” IS, is different than saying there’s an ambiguity about what “over-editing” MEANS. The former is talking about the extensional aspects of the word, ie, what would be examples of over-editing and how would we know how to avoid that in our own texts; the latter is talking about the intensional meaning of the words.

For a good analogy, take the word “good” itself. We all know what “good” means, but pointing to things that ARE good is more ambiguous as we often disagree. So you may say “write good poetry.” Well, we know what that MEANS, the terms themselves aren’t ambiguous; but then, what IS good poetry and would we even ever agree on what good poetry is? So that’s a perfect example of how the advice itself is fine but completely useless because of the ambiguity about what “good poetry” is, much like “over-editing.”


You need so much to 'win" debates over the internet that you will argue that doing a mistake is good because you can always go back and therefore waste a lot of time and resources? Really?You need so much to "win" debates over the internet that you will argue against a strawman? I said quite clearly there are two potential mistakes in editing: one is "over-editing" where the later edits make a text worse, and the other is "under-editing" where the texts could've been much better. One can look at the consequences of both mistakes. If one perpetually "under-edits," then we will NEVER get to see those improved texts; yet, if one perpetually "over-edits" then we'll (usually) have both the better early texts and the worse later texts. So, under one mistake (over-editing) we get both the better and worse texts; under the other mistake (under-editing) we never get the better text. So I think of these two mistakes, "under-editing" and "over-editing," the latter is the lesser of two evils.


And the meak "People do not know how to apply it" goes for the same because how people how to "engage with the tex". It is something as vague and personal, if more, than editing. You’re still desperately trying to make an equivalency where there is none. Yes, there are many ways to engage with texts; yes, how one engages is personal; yes, the term itself ambiguous because engagement can encompass so many different ways of reading; but, no, it is not even close to the same thing as “over editing” and there’s a simple way to prove this.

Someone comes to me and says “what is critical engagement with a text?” I say “read a text, ask yourself what you like/dislike about it, ask yourself why you like/dislike it, and then try to apply the things you like in your own work, and drop the things you don’t like.” I think any poet, regardless of experience, can do this.

Someone comes to you and says “what is over-editing?” What do you say to them? How can you possibly give them a generalized, universally applicable answer as to knowing what is “over-editing,” what is “under-editing,” and what is “the perfect amount of editing?” Simple answer is YOU CAN’T.

These two examples reveal just how radically different these two pieces of advice are. If you want to say that mine isn’t all that useful because it doesn’t teach one HOW to engage, then, fine, but don’t act as if one can’t read that advice and then go out and engage on their own terms in their own ways. In comparison, one can't go out and "not over-edit" as they'd have no clue what over-editing was or how to recognize it.


Nah, it is an old and bad argumentative fallacy when someone try to support arguments with numbers that do not exist. Such precise and round numbers are always suspect.This deserves nothing more than a: :rolleyes:


So of course, making your clarify two of the DONTs (easily to do with others as well) complety proves my point and answer your question.If that was your point, then every sentence ever written in the history of literature would need clarifying. Just point to any word that can mean multiple things and you’ll have “proved your point” about it needing clarifying. So, congrats, you’ve just proved that every sentence, every offer of advice, is in need of clarification. What a glorious win for you. :rolleyes:


(it is crazy to notice you think that listing poets that treated tradition with Awed reverence proofs your claim that a poet should not treat tradition with awed reverence... but I know. You have to Win).I gave an example of how these poets, however much they admired, respected, or were “in awe” with tradition also grappled with that tradition. Keats loved Shakespeare, you may say he was in awe with Shakespeare, but he wasn’t so much in awe that he worshipped everything Shakespeare did. He didn’t feel Shakespeare’s couplets worked. He didn’t feel Shakespeare’s more abstract rhetorical strategies work. What he took from Shakespeare was his sensuous, symbolic/metaphoric imagery. That’s precisely what I meant by “grappling with tradition.” If all you are is in awe of tradition, worshipping it at an altar, then you aren’t going to change anything about it since you’d (obviously) feel it was perfect as is and couldn’t be improved. Yet all of those poets took things from tradition they were “in awe” of and dropped things that they felt “apathetic repugnance” for. IE, they CRITICALLY ENGAGED with tradition.

If you can’t see that “DON’T” as a warning against either extreme, then I think the problem is more with your reading comprehension than my DON’Ts. But, I know, you have to WIN.

[JCamilo]

I said quite clearly there are two potential mistakes in editing: one is "over-editing" where the later edits make a text worse, and the other is "under-editing" where the texts could've been much better.

You didnt said quite clearly anything but "Both are wrong." and one accout is when she says over-editing was a DONT, therefore a mistake. Once you accept that it is a mistake, you could certainly just avoid the embarassing arguments you produced to sustain your wrong answer to her post and just say 'Oh, ok".

By the way, "If all you are is in awe of tradition, worshipping it at an altar, then you aren’t going to change anything about it since you’d (obviously) feel it was perfect as is and couldn’t be improved.' this is ridiculous, specially considering the list of great poets in Awe in tradition, Keats among him. The problem is how badly you expressed a point that Pound already did. Not anyone reading. The problem that "awed reverence" does not mean copying, inane repetition or anything like this. But of course, you write so clearly.

[MorpheusSandman]

You didnt said quite clearly anything but "Both are wrong." Once you accept that it is a mistake....I meant the advice is wrong, I didn't mean it's not a mistake to over-edit. That's just you (wrongly, again) assuming I meant something I didn't. The advice is wrong for precisely the reasons I've been explaining; it's impossible to explain what over-editing is in any generalized sense. Really, we only recognize over-editing once we can compare the original with the edit, but nobody could say before the edit whether a future edit would be over-editing or not. That's why the advice is wrong; it's something someone can only realize post hoc, not when actually working/editing. This is not the case with "critically engage with texts."

Speaking of your lack of reading comprehension, I clarified myself in two or three follow-up post to yours that it was the practicality of the advice of not over-editing that I had a problem with, not that over-editing itself wasn't a mistake. Let me copy myself just to show what pains I took to make myself clear:

"I also think there's a great ambiguity in what "over-editing" would be... I think the real danger in that "don't" is it can easily mislead young poets into thinking that all editing, all thinking, is over-editing and over-thinking, and I'd be more inclined to lead them in the opposite direction."

"as I said, I'm more concerned about the implications of saying...'don't over-edit...' I don't really think one COULD "further explain" what "over-editing" is, because it would entirely depend on each individual poem."

"Like I said, I'm more worried about the implication (and the practicality) of "don't over edit" than I am the advice itself... for young poets they'd probably learn more and get better by such extensive editing than they would not editing much (if at all) for fear of "over-editing."

So I've made it quite clear that, one, I don't think it's possible to say what over-editing is a universal sense and, two, that I think it's the wrong advice to give poets, especially younger one, because, firstly, there's no practical way to implement the advice and, two, it implies they don't need to really work at poetry and, three, they'd probably learn more by editing extensively as opposed to being worried about "over-editing." So here I've taken great pains to clarify precisely why I felt the advice is wrong, yet you're still going on about how I supposedly meant that over-editing itself is not a mistake. Yet it's my writing that's at fault as opposed to your reading comprehension?


this is ridiculous, specially considering the list of great poets in Awe in tradition, Keats among him. The problem is how badly you expressed a point that Pound already did. Not anyone reading. The problem that "awed reverence" does not mean copying, inane repetition or anything like this. But of course, you write so clearly.Funnily enough, I seem to write clearly enough for everyone around here except you. You're pretty much the only poster on this board or any other board I'm a part of that takes it upon themselves to nit-pick every statement I made for every possible ambiguity and constantly assumes I mean things that would make my statemeents "wrong" as opposed to thinking I mean things that would make them make sense. As per usual, all of your complaints boil down to how you choose to interpret and infer from the words I used. I already said that by "awed reverence" I'm referring to the approach that doesn't feel tradition can be improved or should be changed at all. Keats, whatever his level of "reverence" for tradition, did change it, did feel it could be improved, so he "grappled" with tradition, just like my advice said he should. I dare you to find any other poster that is really confused about what I meant there. If it's only you, then that does indeed suggest the problem is with your reading comprehension and not with my writing.

[JCamilo]

Ok, morph, you won. When you say A & B are both wrong, you do not mean B is wrong, just that <insert imaginary rambling of some sort which is not either A or B> is wrong. And blame the others for not being able to read the words you didnt write. Congratulations, you unlocked a new level of Candy Crush.

[cacian]

Ok, morph, you won. When you say A & B are both wrong, you do not mean B is wrong, just that <insert imaginary rambling of some sort which is not either A or B> is wrong. And blame the others for not being able to read the words you didnt write. Congratulations, you unlocked a new level of Candy Crush.

candy crush!!! I want some of that !!!!:yesnod:

[JCamilo]

Ok then, Once upon a time, there was Hansel, Gretel and Cacian...

[MorpheusSandman]

JCamilo, we would both win if you would start being more interested in what I mean and less interested in what you think I mean. It would make absolutely no sense if I meant "not over-editing is wrong," but it would make plenty of sense if I meant "giving the advice not to over-edit is wrong." Two other posters happened to agree (Loka and Delta), and I didn't notice you picking apart everything they said.

[Delta40]

Is there such a thing as alpha males in the English Lit field???? My beer swilling, Liverpudlian welder step father would say you're all just a bunch of pansy's....(that's not my pov but I'd thought I'd throw it in anyway to demonstrate the influences that have impacted my life :crazy:)

[MorpheusSandman]

Is there such a thing as alpha males in the English Lit field???? Absolutely! There's alpha males in every field. Ever seen the film Footnote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footnote_%28film%29)? That's a fascinating, quietly hilarious, and quite accurate depiction of the alpha male pettiness of academia, in general.