PDA

View Full Version : Writing Poetry



WICKES
04-12-2015, 11:01 AM
Do you believe that anyone could write half-decent poetry, given enough time, dedication and practise? I don't mean great poetry, or even necessarily good poetry, but reasonable, passable, OK poetry? I have always felt that poetry is somehow more 'natural' to us, more 'innate' than prose. I doubt many people have a great novel or play hidden away in them, yet I suspect many of us have one or two half-decent poems locked up inside. What do you think? Stephen Fry wrote a book on poetry and encouraged his readers to 'unlock' (his word) this latent capacity.

On the whole I'm a believer that you've either got it or you haven't, so I'm not asking whether you can turn yourself into the next Shelley or Larkin or Tennyson through a few teach yourself books. But let's say you placed an average guy on a desert island with shelves of poetry books and nothing else and you gave him a year to write a volume of decent poems, could he do it? Could he internalize the meters, cadences and rhythms of so many great poets that it would stir up a latent poetic gift we all possess?

YesNo
04-12-2015, 02:33 PM
I think anyone could, but they may have better things to do on that deserted island like watching the weather, the waves and the sky. Of course, all that might get boring after a while as well.

If you told them they would be picked up only if they produced 50 short, acceptable poems, that might motivate them.

Pompey Bum
04-13-2015, 08:16 AM
Just sing your songs and don't worry about it.

Lykren
04-13-2015, 05:00 PM
Just sing your songs and don't worry about it.

Yeah true but easier said than done, for me at least. I always agonize about whether it's in my power to improve the poem I'm writing, what it means to 'improve' a poem, etc.

NikolaiI
04-13-2015, 06:37 PM
Very well said Pompey.

Best thing to do is just write thousands of poems, in my opinion. It's like any other skill, you learn how to express yourself best by practicing it, and writing poetry can really do that.

Of course it's also good to read great poetry - but as for poetic skill, I think writing thousands is the best practice.

Pompey Bum
04-13-2015, 07:08 PM
Yeah true but easier said than done, for me at least. I always agonize about whether it's in my power to improve the poem I'm writing, what it means to 'improve' a poem, etc.

Oh agonizing's fine, but I wouldn't worry about what's half-decent or passable. I don't anyway, but then I have no ambition to publish. It feels good to sing your songs, that's all.

Clopin
04-13-2015, 07:18 PM
On the whole I'm a believer that you've either got it or you haven't

This has been proven false for basically every discipline and skill imagineable so I have no idea why it would apply to writing, or writing poetry specifically.

Lykren
04-13-2015, 08:24 PM
This has been proven false for basically every discipline and skill imagineable so I have no idea why it would apply to writing, or writing poetry specifically.

I dunno... admittedly it's one of the very few disciplines you can say this about, but there are true chess prodigies, who are better than adults with years of experience.

There's Malcolm Gladwell with that study he mentioned about there being a perfect connection between hours practiced and skill level in classical musicians. But that's more of an interpretive art than a creative one, so it seems plausible that there would be a difference in this respect between, say, performing and composing.

For example, Madeleine de Scudery wrote millions upon millions of words in her lifetime, but she's not considered one of the greats of French, let alone world literature. That to me indicates that there is such a thing as natural talent in the arts. That is, y'know, if all our standards aren't all subjective anyways :P

Lykren
04-13-2015, 08:27 PM
Oh agonizing's fine, but I wouldn't worry about what's half-decent or passable. I don't anyway, but then I have no ambition to publish. It feels good to sing your songs, that's all.

Yeah I want to publish, therefore I bear the requisite burden of misery XD

Really though, it feels good to sing your songs until you start wondering whether anybody wants to hear them. Then it becomes, no joke, a f*cking awful experience.

I think you're a very good poet, by the way.

Clopin
04-13-2015, 10:10 PM
I dunno... admittedly it's one of the very few disciplines you can say this about, but there are true chess prodigies, who are better than adults with years of experience.

There's Malcolm Gladwell with that study he mentioned about there being a perfect connection between hours practiced and skill level in classical musicians. But that's more of an interpretive art than a creative one, so it seems plausible that there would be a difference in this respect between, say, performing and composing.

For example, Madeleine de Scudery wrote millions upon millions of words in her lifetime, but she's not considered one of the greats of French, let alone world literature. That to me indicates that there is such a thing as natural talent in the arts. That is, y'know, if all our standards aren't all subjective anyways :P

Careful with prodigies, they tend to have put in massive amounts of work to achieve the level of proficiency they have, in Chess or otherwise. Fischer who is credited with the greatest natural talent in Chess, as well as the highest I.Q, was literally playing Chess, all day, everyday, from the time he was six years old. I would not be surprised if he had put in well over the often cited figure of ten thousand hours (of dedicated practice) quite a bit before he became American national champion (at 14!).

And to continue with Chess, the game has been dominated by Soviet and ex Soviet passport holders virtually since the soviet union came into existence, is it just a coincidence that all the people who were most talented at Chess were born in this region and played for the Soviet Union? Are Canadians, Swedes and Finns just naturally good at hockey? Obviously the reason certain regions can dominate certain competitive events and sports is not because the people there are born with exceptional gifts.

Obviously people have different capabilities. I don't believe anyone can become world chess champion, or write as well as Tolstoy, or paint like Rembrandt if they put in enough work, I do however think that anyone of average capabilities can become a professional writer, painter or chess player.

NikolaiI
04-13-2015, 10:49 PM
Hehe, so - I read this earlier Clopin, and,



This has been proven false for basically every discipline and skill imagineable so I have no idea why it would apply to writing, or writing poetry specifically.

Thought you were replying to me (self centered, lol! usually I am quite selfless ;-)

Anyhow, so I wrote a bit in reply. . .

Anyway - as you were saying that to him - I agree with you 100% there, it is very true; as Emerson said, every person has a genius. . and this is very, very true.

Anyway, in assumption of you saying, (which I now saw you didn't, anyway, as it's still theory of poetry, and to sort of explain my reasoning) that writing a lot of poems is false for every discipline and skill (and thinking you were saying that studying, rather than application perhaps -- or, getting correction from others, rather than simply writing thousands oneself, was the best way to learn). .


I partially agree with you.

It's true that there are different ways of learning, and, more than just two. .



All my life I have pretty much focused on the view you present, and understood its truth. . when I was a kid, I got to be around grandmasters a few times at our small club; nothing having to do with inherent worth, just lucky that I happened to be there. . GM Gufeld shared with me, "if someone plays for 23 hours a day for 6 months, and then plays up against someone who has studied for one hour a day for those same six months, the latter would simply thrash the former, with no challenge at all." And all my chess experiences bore this out - study in fact is the key to learning the entire game, and practice plays a very small role - although, there are definite skills involved in playing tournaments, that one only learns by practice, but they are very simple that we pick up naturally, although also with a conscious attitude toward the details, I am sure, one may improve one's approach. . .

those secondary skills largely have to do with physical performance, how to concentrate, how to be inspired to play one's best, etc., etc., and go into the realm of psychological stuff, which has always been highly uninterseting to me, although in poker it's equally as important as strategy -- still, the best poker strategy is to keep people in good spirits. . naturally enough, they don't mind losing as much if they are happy and they like you -- much freer with their money; like a slot machine instead of a vending machine, to use one good analogy -- unpredictable, but in a non-threatening way; and friendly and relaxed . . laughter is a good sign, avoid tables where there is silence, etc.

Sorry, I could write out almost all the works, or at least certainly all the ideas of Caro, in a reasonably good language if I felt like it - but obviously no need to, as they are already on record.

So in learning - you have this idea that study is how you learn, and playing is not - like it's about 99%-1%. . . and it's funny, in the vast majority of casual conversations I have had -- ending a few years ago, heh ;-) -- about the subject (I would certainly have casual conversations with anyone about any subject, but the point is there is no need telling people something when you know most of the time they don't believe, understand, care or value it. . as Caro would say, also not a good idea to share strategy anyway, if it is a competitive type endeavor). . .

Anyway, and yes I've rambled, apologies. . .

There are other things involved in poetry. It isn't something you can from the outside in. What I am getting at it is - Think of for example when you ride a bike - you get much better at riding the bike just by riding, and every time you ride. There might be, eventually, techniques or secrets that you could put into words, or someone could share with you, that would finesse your skill, but for the most part - and especially if you are very good at learning to begin with - you will learn all these up as you practice, and go along.

There is art in poetry - same as in painting, drawing, music, or any of the other arts - also there is logic, and this type of thing - there is, in poetry, anything which you put into it. And of course, there are poems about every subject known to humanity - including botany (Goethe), physics, chess, music, philosophy. . .etc.

But poetry is also related to language - and primarily, we learn language best when we are very young - 0-2, and 3, and then there are many levels at which the brain becomes slightly less scholastic, slightly less absorption-like and . . .etc. - well, you know all this. . .at 18 or so, there's a slight development where we are much more sturdy as a general personality. . 21 or so there is the same, and then of course at 25 the brain stops developing, and is fully developed. . . the rest of one's life, one's flexbility and the rest are probably entirely due to life choices, environment, learning, etc. - although there are certain similarities, between different times of life later on - 30, 40, 50 etc., these are so varied as to be almost useless. . One person achieves a level of maturity at 24 that some don't reach their whole lifetimes, etc.

Anyway - language, when we learn it as infants and young children, is very effortless, we just learn because we hear and absorb and then speak. Naturally, not every person has innate talent - and there are various gradations of all of this. . an entire spectrum, for sure. . .

Anyway - learning as much about poetry at as young an age a possible is probably a good thing, reading - hearing, singing, writing, all of those, etc. - also, I am sure other education can play a helpful role, such as learning a lot of langauges, etc. . .

"Correction does much, but encouragement does more." - Goethe [heh, I wanted to add this, but I am doing so after most of it was written, so not sure where to put it]

There's no simple way to say how one learns poetry - it's entirely specific to every individual; but the central thing, I feel, is that it's someone describing an experience. . . also their heart, what they felt in it. . . the thing is - since it's an experience someone is describing - equally important is what quality of experience did the person have - what did they feel? In other words, the poetry of an extremely enlightened Zen teacher, or Samurai, are going to contain all sorts of stuff that just wouldn't possibly ever be there for someone who never felt those things. . . (although Zen seems to have this weird thing, where they tell people they're not enlightened. . . ah, not important, lol - even though most of the masters said, everyone's already enlightened. . )

Also - something I have always found interesting - the character of a poet matters greatly to me. . . what kind of person were they. . and I feel this so strongly, and it works on so many levels. . . there are so many ways that it's true - nothing has ever made me think it's less true; things have only made me understand it is more so. For instance, were they someone who knew how to be kind? Were they someone who forgives? Etc. etc. - for so many reasons, the character matters, because we learn so, so, so much more from people than we ever realize. . Every word, contains more infromation than most people could ever know.

In real life - the character of anyone I meet, I only assume the good, and believe they will be my friend (naive, I know), and only look for the good. . I judge everyone as equally valuable - and totally valuable; because the mere presence of them, or the fact they are there in the same space as me, means that the way I treat them is likely the way they will treat me back. (Selfish, I know, but a simple way to understand that what we send out is what we receive. . or that, we should send out good things. .)

To go back to the character thing - what quality of life they have, had, is so important because it shines through in every word (this is brilliant, I am sorry for self praise but, well done. . All the rest may have been trash [best I cuold have done at the time, though] but here I really made my point). Their character shines through in every word - we can feel their kindness, or their rage, or their fear, or their absolute fearlessness and infinite peace (if they are in that state, or just mostly peace. . .)

-- Even if we don't know that we know - we still experience their full character. . . in some slight degree, it's there. . . the super-intelligent individuals were better able at understand other humans. . . at reading, them, with intuition, to pick up on every single subtly of who they were. . . It is like being able to pick up the cards someone is holding in poker, the best intuitive or empathic people are able to do extremely well.

And of course, this is partly why our buffers of human decency, respect, courteous manners (but infinitely more importantly, the spirit of friendship, understanding, and forgiveness, which is underlying these, which is the spirit of human companionship, of friendship, the most sacred thing really within us - as Whitman said, the base of all metaphysics. . . it is the source of the infinite heavens in human imaginations, and all of the fear, if self-understanding, self-mastery are attained. . . The surest way of ever succumbing to fear is to block off a portion of one's experience, of one's psyche - of not allowing oneself to experience one's part of oneself. . .

As Emerson said, "All life is an experiment, and the more one makes the better."

In other words - I want the poetry of someone who has experienced, in the way that Hendrix asks, "Are you experienced?"

Because ultimately all poetry is, is a description of a feeling - therefore again, whatever that feeling is is as equally important to the poetry as what the words are, and it shapes the words. For it is only the feeling which inspires poetry - affects the reader - and also the only thing worth conveying. Further, a poem that is about a feeling or experience that one did not actually experience or know - that would be false poetry, and so honesty in the poem is important as well.

But naturally - since feeling is so important in poetry and life - the first and simplest things to go to is - what is the highest experience that one may know? What is the highest feeling?

And having felt this, at 19 (really, the highest - above or equal to what any enlightened master may have ever known. . . see Joyous Cosmology by Watts for more details. . . ) and since then integrated it into my life until I actually got there all the rest of the time, over quite a few years. . .

Anyway - disregard my comment about what is the highest experience, that's not important, heh. Everyone finds out on their own, or they keep trying. .

The point is. . . I mean - I know that sometimes, people who eventually kill themselves may write good poetry- it's just, I cannot help but feel, when I pick one of those books up, the energy of it. . . I know it may seem silly, but I know, I have seen how everything is connected. . .

I mean - for instance, reading Sorrows of Young Werther, I absolutely loved this book and it brought everything home to me.. . so much beauty, one of the most beautiful works I've ever seen or ever read. .. but it does glorify suicide - and indeed, there was a wave of suicides that were sparked by this book. . . as well as people dressing like a mid-18th-century slightly brilliant, slightly narcissistic, suicidial fictional artist. . . all of the same beauty, and more enahnced and subtle, can be seen in the later, more mellow and mature Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, but without the wrenching of the reader character into the character's experience.

Anyway -

So, poetry is unique because it touches on all the aspects and facets of life. . . logic, art, beauty, truth, experience, knowledge, and all the rest. . . since it touches on them all, it really contains them all that's in a sort of unique way. . . although, logic and expereience tell us that everything is interconnected, so physics are related to art, and to botany, by this logic. Getting a bit past the practical at this point, however.

But it does seem quite like that poetry occupies a unique position - although music certainly, can contain references to all the other; still, the best way it's communicated is by words. .

And words make so much of the world - as McKenna said, the world is made of words.

I wrote this at the start, before any of the rest of this.

Words are very important; a single word can start a war, for instance, under the right circumstances (although I pray that those circumstances never exist - in my imaginary world, at least, where infinite peace is possible they do exist), and such a war could kill 500,000 million people or something like that - and if a single word could do that, it could certainly end someone's life. . . so words are very powerful. .


So. . . yeah, everything ties to gether. -And, of course, there are many different theories of learning, that can also be useful in poetry as well as any endeavor. . learning how to learn is a very useful skill. . thing is - when one starts investigating this, one also sees that how to keep oneself in good shape, how to keep the mind in the very best functioning order - drinking enough water, and believing in onself (exercise comes a distant last, in light of the fact of zen masters living to very great ages, while also taking the vow never to run anywhere, only walk). . . although physical yoga is important, it is clear what kind of mind and heart, and simply avoiding anything detrimental to the health, etc. . . If this seems selfish, just notice the fact that we are pre-disposed to kindness. . . If anyone observes, receives, or performs an act of kindness, all three, they receive a boost to their immune system. .

Anyway - it all ties together, but most of the theories of learning are about how to open yourself up to a situation, a poem, or an experience, and experience it fully. . . If you want to learn from someone or something, the simple most important thing is focus and attention on that object. . there's hardly much more that can be said about it. . although the secondary and naturally next thing to understand is - the way to teach, is to be very fascinated with the subject oneself; so that one's attraction or fascination with the subject one's trying to teach, then that naturally gets picked up by the students. . .

So that's the best way to learn poetry, I would say - but then, being fascinated in it, that's only part because it's also very much like riding a bike or playing cards. . So poker for instance, you may study for 4-5-6 years, and learn everything - and have a hUGe leg up on the competition, but it's in the act of performing these skills (maybe a hundred or two), in a single, graceful art and motion that gives you the one simple skill of winning - and as we know, keeping people happy is a natural part of that. Poetry is like riding a bike in that the application of the skill is pretty much the most important thing - especially when we see how it is connected to all branches - and something, like language, that we learn most effortlessly and beautifully when we are 0-3, and 3-15, and on up, years of ages of life. There are of course things we can't learn until we have some of the abilities gained by experience - and again, the quality or value of the experience being translated is equally as important as the language its being expressed in -- Who can teach me strength, except for one with strength? Who can teach me self-control, if not for one who has that? Who can teach me laughter, love, beauty, art, joy -- etc., except for one who has all those in the best extent? And above all, fearlessness. . . But all those tie intogether so intimately and completely as to really form one whole -- the whole and full human being, with all attributes and powers developed in their fullest extent.

Now everything smells like the fragrance of infinite bliss again. heh. ;p

Again, as McKenna says, the world is made of words. . they create everything - of course actions do, too, but words are the source of actions - thoughts are the source of words - and consciousness is the source of thoughts.


But of course - persuasion without other qualities is not to be praised - and in fact, because of this persuasion on its own merits is not at all a good thing -

It is entirely good or bad based on how it is being used, a tool like any other -- in fact, it's an almost entirely undesirable thing, because if it is taken to its full conclusion, then you have effectively nullified the will of anyone you persuade -- so in essence, it's nearly an act of violence, or even worse.

The only good thing then is to teach people strength within them, how to be invulnerable to persuasion (by learning to think for oneself, and uncover new ideas, and have self-trust, etc.)


I suppose that in the interests of peace, etc. - persuasion for the art of peace would be a good thing, and I generally try to do this, knowing its value. .

But in general, it is a thing to be rather deplored -- especially since, it is merely a form of power, and an especially insidious one at that, because again, taken to its conclusion, it results in a nullifying of someone's will, their very personality. . .

This is never a good thing.

Studies done with college students found that when they merely pretended to be in a prisoner and guard type of relationship, an unfortunate majority of them began very, very cruel behavior --

So this is why it's so, so important to be one's own master -- so that nothing can budge one from being kind, compassionate, etc.- Weakness is the only sin, as Vivekananda says, because all wrong in the world comes from it -- and Strength is life, Weakness is death -- as he mentions. . . The corollary of this is that to tell people they are weak -- that is the only wrong you can do them -- and to teach the strength that is within them; that does very, very real and lasting good for them.

NikolaiI
04-13-2015, 10:51 PM
Though I said anyway twice in the first part, the rest is (if only very slightly) better written than that. :-)

NikolaiI
04-13-2015, 11:11 PM
Obviously people have different capabilities. I don't believe anyone can become world chess champion, or write as well as Tolstoy, or paint like Rembrandt if they put in enough work, I do however think that anyone of average capabilities can become a professional writer, painter or chess player.

Yes. Absolutely and very true.


Yeah I want to publish, therefore I bear the requisite burden of misery XD

Really though, it feels good to sing your songs until you start wondering whether anybody wants to hear them. Then it becomes, no joke, a f*cking awful experience.

I think you're a very good poet, by the way.

Music was always very important to me and I had some good teachers, I would say some. . and I will definitely write a bit about it (though only a pagraph or so I hope, lol) . . . just briefly though - I have noticed that anyone who wraps up their ego in their music is the only kind who is likely to be mean to others who aren't as musically talented. . could write many pages about it, and I got a few sentences that I deleted - thing is. . . you definitely and absolutely can get really great at singing and performing, even someone who plays and sings any decent or good song, can be really an amazing thing - even a transormative experience. . . to hear that music. . and it is not all that difficult if you have aspiration to drink the whole ocean. . . play for your best friend (if your best friend is very kind) . . get a great music teacher who is a great human being, those two are pretty much completely dependent on each other (well, the one to the other, naturally). But yeah, as Pompey mentions, a total disregard for results is a key to life - work without attachment to what happens. .

That is, focus all your energy and attention on making the right decision, every time (true for chess, poker, life, spiritual life, work, or anything else). . . some of these, like poker, are most excellent because your actions get rewarded and punished instantly. . if you study for a few years (2 months or less of intensive study, 4-5 hours a day, is way more than adequate, I just like to waaaaay over-prepare for everything, lol.. 'cause another truth of life is - it doesn't matter where you are, whether you are 18 or 45 - what your life is, how much quality you have and what effect you have on the world, that's entirely up to you - and it doesn't take a degree or anything else to be the fullest human being you can be, and have the most effect. .

and clearly, the most beneficial thing any of us can do is to help preserve the species life of all species, to do good for the earth's ecosystem, as all of our entire life is from it -- true wealth is simply the health of the ecosystem, as well as of course, our own health -- and you can understand this at any age; the rest is just integrating all of one's experience (including divine revelations) and integrating one's life. .

Lykren
04-14-2015, 12:07 AM
Careful with prodigies, they tend to have put in massive amounts of work to achieve the level of proficiency they have, in Chess or otherwise. Fischer who is credited with the greatest natural talent in Chess, as well as the highest I.Q, was literally playing Chess, all day, everyday, from the time he was six years old. I would not be surprised if he had put in well over the often cited figure of ten thousand hours (of dedicated practice) quite a bit before he became American national champion (at 14!).

And to continue with Chess, the game has been dominated by Soviet and ex Soviet passport holders virtually since the soviet union came into existence, is it just a coincidence that all the people who were most talented at Chess were born in this region and played for the Soviet Union? Are Canadians, Swedes and Finns just naturally good at hockey? Obviously the reason certain regions can dominate certain competitive events and sports is not because the people there are born with exceptional gifts.

Obviously people have different capabilities. I don't believe anyone can become world chess champion, or write as well as Tolstoy, or paint like Rembrandt if they put in enough work, I do however think that anyone of average capabilities can become a professional writer, painter or chess player.

I think we're agreeing more or less. Both talent and practice play roles, yes?

Though I don't think someone like Reshevsky - who beat titled players at age 8 - had put in 10,000 hours since he started playing at age 5.

Clopin
04-14-2015, 12:28 AM
I dunno, I bet he came closer than you might think. You could accumulate over 12'000 hours in three years. That said Reshevsky is pretty obviously a special case, and certain people do have exceptional gifts.

Clopin
04-14-2015, 12:34 AM
Paul Morphy for example was an absolutely brilliant mind and I think he had one of the best memories in the world, Fischer said he clearly possessed the greatest Chess mind of all time (behind himself, haha).

Pompey Bum
04-14-2015, 09:13 AM
Yeah I want to publish, therefore I bear the requisite burden of misery XD

Really though, it feels good to sing your songs until you start wondering whether anybody wants to hear them. Then it becomes, no joke, a f*cking awful experience.

I think you're a very good poet, by the way.

Thank you very much, Lykren. I fear you are too kind, but thank you. Maybe my "I don't care what people think" attitude is called into question when I feel flattered by someone whose opinion I respect as much as yours--maybe I'm a total hypocrite, who knows? More likely there is some middle ground between your agonizing and my indifference. I hope you do get published, though. I'll buy your book and write wonderful things about it on Amazon--even before I read it. :)

As far as the talent-works debate goes, I recently read an essay on Rabalais written by a 19th century British somebody-or-other who was not being overly generous to his (obviously, French) subject. In damning him with faint praise, he said that, unlike poetry, it was possible to write great prose without any real genius. Now, I don't really care what that long forgotten snob thought about Rabalais. But I find his distinction between writing prose--which in a way is just a matter of learning the language well and then finding one's voice--and writing poetry, where something somewhat different is going on. "The Muse" is a metaphor, okay, but for what? Something intuitive--or primitive? I'm not sure it's a matter of "some have it and some don't" as much as "some are connecting with it and some are experiencing dropped calls." It's a matter of connecting to something everyone has rather than having something others don't. But don't tell your publisher that. ;-)

As for the OP, remember that soft-core porn is at least half-decent and loose stool is eminently passable. And you can do better than that, whether or not anyone likes your poems. True it will help to learn about the language and poetic form and idiom; but eventually it comes down to singing what you have in you. And really, that is all you ever can do.

NikolaiI
04-14-2015, 11:48 AM
Paul Morphy for example was an absolutely brilliant mind and I think he had one of the best memories in the world, Fischer said he clearly possessed the greatest Chess mind of all time (behind himself, haha).

Morphy is great. One of my mentors suggested going through all his games with 'guess-the-move' software for learning tactics. . .a very good idea.

Alekhine is a better source overall though, for learning those things from earlier masters. . . of course, all the world champions and a lot of the early grandmasters have a lot to learn from, but one thing that is special about Alekhine was his annotations. . his two "My Best Games," books, which are also published as one, are simply incredible for their annotations - both strategy and tactics.

syd.w
04-27-2015, 04:53 AM
I think the biggest mistake would-be poets make is cliches. It comes from a place of immitation and not creativity.

Poetaster
04-27-2015, 12:07 PM
I don't see why someone couldn't, given enough time interest and care, at least not give writing a very good poem a go.