Why most members, posters choose to write poetry from the rest of other genres?

I wonder why we choose to write poetry from a great many other genres of writing. Even if I am incapable of versifying my ideas or put my emotional quotients into words, I love reading and commenting on poetry frequently. Poetries, I know spring from the heart and we see how beautifully some poets here can carve their ideas out into beautiful poems.
Does it need especial skills? I am more comfortable with prose writing. I know if I will write a poem it will be sandy dry and desiccated. I have never learned the art of writing poetry.

Can anyone out there help me with this?

Curious enough I have opposite feelings to you, writing poetry has always seemed far more natural than writing prose, my prose is quite horrid in fact. Of course I do believe that beautiful prose owes more to understanding poesy than anything else.

As to why people choose poetry instead of other genres, well of that I am not sure, to me it appears that there are just as many poetry writers as short story writers in this day and age. Of course I may be utterly wrong.

My hypothesis is that we enjoy writing poetry because it is an opportunity to deliberately bend the rules of writing. This enables the creative process… Oh yeah, it also gets the ladies.

For what it’s worth, in my experience good poetry takes a lack of skill, so to speak. Generally skill implies that you’re going to be stuck in a certain paradigm of thinking or writing – you will be chained by rules. That is not to say that skill is bad, one just needs, in my opinion, to know when employing that skill is apt or not. I find the worst poetry comes from those who try too hard.

Reading other poets would probably help.

What did Ezra Pound say?

Writing prose is like shooting an arrow at a target. Writing poetry is like shooting an arrow at a target while riding a horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

My hypothesis is that we enjoy writing poetry because it is an opportunity to deliberately bend the rules of writing. This enables the creative process… Oh yeah, it also gets the ladies.

For what it’s worth, in my experience good poetry takes a lack of skill, so to speak. Generally skill implies that you’re going to be stuck in a certain paradigm of thinking or writing – you will be chained by rules. That is not to say that skill is bad, one just needs, in my opinion, to know when employing that skill is apt or not. I find the worst poetry comes from those who try too hard.

Reading other poets would probably help.

---

I have to utterly disagree, bad poetry requires lack of skill and no constraints, good poetry is carefully crafted and often crafted while chained by many rules such as meter and others, that is why free verse is the hardest mode of poesy to write in, everyone can do it, but to do it well requires having mastered writing in meter. The best verse comes from those who have sweated it out, I think it was Picaso who said - when inspiration comes it better find you working.

For what it’s worth, in my experience good poetry takes a lack of skill, so to speak.

Such a comment leaves me wondering about your experience with good poetry... and certainly about your knowledge of the abilities, training, education... development of poetic skills of good poets.

Generally skill implies that you’re going to be stuck in a certain paradigm of thinking or writing – you will be chained by rules.


No there's a truly Romantic idea... practice, study, experience all count for naught... and are actually detrimental to the poet? Or is this simply the fantasy or justification of those lacking the self-discipline that a mastery in any artistic endeavor demands? Certainly, it is possible for the highly skilled artist to be limited by what he or she knows. On the other hand, the artist who is unaware of the cliches may be far more likely to fall into them. I would also suggest that the more abilities one has, the more possibilities are open to one.

I find the worst poetry comes from those who try too hard.

Like Dante or Spenser or Milton who most certainly have great pretensions and put forth the most complex efforts?

Such oppositions require an ingenuous rebuttal! Let’s see what I can do…

Consider Shakespeare, the greatest English poet. In a number of his sonnets he admits that his hand is “untaught.” It seems to me, at least, that this was the very element that made his writing so great and gave it that certain level of innovation and creativity that Milton could not even match.

When I say worst or best, it is, of course, rather subjective on the one hand, and rather dependant on what respect I am referring to on the other. i.e. something can be bad in one respect and good in another; yet, as art is the process of creating symbolic expression it stands to reason that the most creative are the pieces whose expression is least bound by the prejudice of skill. In this sense I would assert that Rousseau is much more of an artist than Constable (although Constable may be more aesthetically appealing). Constable is nearly the ultimate example of how skill constipates human expression—he forever resided with the careless and indolent habit of realism. By my definition Constable is not “good art.” Of course there is room for debate over the definition of art (though I think it ought to be reserved for a different forum).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

No there's a truly Romantic idea... practice, study, experience all count for naught... and are actually detrimental to the poet? Or is this simply the fantasy or justification of those lacking the self-discipline that a mastery in any artistic endeavor demands? Certainly, it is possible for the highly skilled artist to be limited by what he or she knows. On the other hand, the artist who is unaware of the cliches may be far more likely to fall into them. I would also suggest that the more abilities one has, the more possibilities are open to one.

---

If you are implying that I’m trying to justify some behavior of mine (i.e. writing terrible poetry), perhaps you ought to read some of it before you decide whether or not to employ that criticism. I do agree that the more abilities one has…, as was implied in my original post, but what occurs to me is that many individuals, while they think they are aware, are not aware of the paradigms that they comfortably rest in. And yet, even when they are, I am inclined to question, when one of these abilities is employed, how does it tend affect one’s ability to express? In some cases it can certainly enhance it, but in many others I think it tends to be destructive. So, I think it is reasonable to argue that attempting to deliberately cast every superfluous/dispensable prejudice away renders the best art.


“I find the worst poetry comes from those who try too hard.”

This comment was perhaps unintentionally loaded. What was meant was people who write with the goal of impressing people (i.e. trying to be a “good” poet) have proven to me to be the worst writers. On the other hand, those who write for themselves (disregarding what people may think) are those who tend to produce the most innovative and best poetry.

People write poetry because of a Romantic mythology, and because they lack any training to tell that their poetry is mediocre, or are too egotistical to see nobody cares. Generally, the outlet has been employed to great effect by whiners and misfits, and people going through emotional crises which think for some reason other people care that they've written a poem about it.

The truth is, poetry is perhaps the most difficult genre to work in and produce something worth reading, just because it is the oldest, and has the heaviest weight behind it. The "Anxiety of Influence" if you will, is sharpest in poetry, as the individual must really struggle to make it within the tradition as an individual, and the individual poem must struggle to survive the onslaught of space, as it vies for supremacy amongst countless other poems, and has no length to really give it substance.

A novelist has the advantage, generally, of longer form, which puts less of an emphasis on stylistic perfection - that is an old issue, and has always remained a problem.

Simply put, mediocre poets can write mediocre lines in 20 minutes and get some mediocre readers to give mediocre criticism about them.

If you look at good poetry, it is never without careful calculation. The most ridiculous of talents - Wordsworth or Li Bai [Li Po] who seem to create worlds out of "spontaneous flows of emotion" are just as calculated as T.S. Eliot, or Richard Wilbur. Wordsworth wasn't just writing, he was thinking carefully, and constructing an argument, and some of its charm is in that it disguises itself as something that was hard work. Li Bai, probably the single most brilliant Romantic, and generally taken as the most popular in the world (in China he is almost without a doubt the most popular poet, and has been for quite a long time) seems to throw words out like they were nothing - on the spot. But even he, when you begin to unpack things, seemed to have a sense of calculation and of form that he was working in - that is proven by allusion, or tradition that seems to hide behind the surface. If it was so easy, how come he didn't write thousands?

Writing poetry is never easy, and those who pretend are merely working out of a tradition of false-modesty, something which, given Shakespeare's mention above, makes sense in context. His "unskilled hand," is a poetic ploy, because, more than any other works, his poems and plays seem most conscious of their excellence, hence his Sonnets convinced opinion of their posterity. Castiglione insisted on such a "flattery" of oneself, by playing down ones work, and one arguably can see that everywhere - Shakespeare as no exception.

The best poetry always comes from those who try the hardest, but also have a talented and a context for it. The craftiest poets, Milton, Du Fu, Virgil, etc. all tried very hard, and their works were excellent. The top prize of the Dionysian contest went to the best play, not the one that was made with the least effort.

To pretend that not a lot of hard work is necessary is to belittle the art form. Simply put, some people are better at writing than others at a particular time, for any number of reasons, but none of them got there by simply doing a lazy job. Yeats wrote at 2 lines a day, and once Wordsworth abandoned his craftiness, he seems to have stopped producing anything worth reading.

Poems are things that are contemplated and revised, and that have real artists writing them, working hard. Some are better than others, and some people put in more effort than others. Poetry is not writing to a metre or rhyme scheme, or chopping up prose, or removing words from sentences. The problem is that some people don't get that, and think that they have something that other people should read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist

Consider Shakespeare, the greatest English poet. In a number of his sonnets he admits that his hand is “untaught.” It seems to me, at least, that this was the very element that made his writing so great and gave it that certain level of innovation and creativity that Milton could not even match.

---

There is a word for this: sprezzatura, which is a kind of feigned nonchalance in regards to art. Its most direct application is in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, but is pretty much applicable to anything in Shakespeare, and most anything in good poetry. Sprezzatura denotes the appearance of, the posturing of a certain effortlessness, while in reality, whatever was achieved was achieved with perhaps intense effort. To apply it to a different subject, look at a high quality pitcher. This ace pitcher makes the game look seemingly easy, like getting the hitters out is taking absolutely no effort. While this ability certainly requires a good bit of natural talent, it is also the direct product of intense hard work, almost year round.

As JBI pointed out, this is a commonly used tactic, especially with the English Romantics, who tend to be associated by the layman as "typical poetry". Although Romantic poetry tends to give the effect of being spontaneous and impulsive, its just as much a product of deliberate effort and thought-out planning as the most contrived poem of Milton or Alexander Pope. Wordsworth wrote in the Preface to the Lyrical Ballads: "poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings", but everyone seems to forget the second part: "it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility". If anyone has seen the rough drafts of a Romantic poem, like say Keats's "The Eve of St. Agnes", with its numerous revisions, you can easily tell that the Romantics didn't always sing of summer in "full-throated ease".

Hmmm JBI, I am unsure weather you are a cynic with glimpses of being a realist, or a realist with glimpses of being a cynic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Hmmm JBI, I am unsure weather you are a cynic with glimpses of being a realist, or a realist with glimpses of being a cynic

---

There's a difference?

There might be slightly simpler reason why more people choose poetry than other genres. Nearly all of the stuff I write for a living is 1000 to 2000 words in length, and "terribly British". Not only would it be immensely time-consuming, it would probably be exceptionally tedious for those who don't necessarily respond to British humour.

Consider Shakespeare, the greatest English poet. In a number of his sonnets he admits that his hand is “untaught.” It seems to me, at least, that this was the very element that made his writing so great and gave it that certain level of innovation and creativity that Milton could not even match.

I like use of the Italian term, sprezzatura, the feigned nonchalance. It reminds of the Alexander Pope quote that recently was brought to attention here:

True ease in writing comes by art not chance,
As they move easiest who have learned to dance.
-Alexander Pope

The suggestion is that the apparent nonchalance or spontaneity is far more possible for one who has mastered the art. Shakespeare unquestionably has a mastery of the use of language and poetic form. He might not be as much of an academic as Milton, who had a mastery of several languages and was unquestionably one of the most educated and intelligent writers who ever lived, but any claims of his own lack of ability are but conventions of feigned modesty... not unlike Dante's protestation that he is not equal to this or that predecessor when the intention is clearly that of placing himself in direct competition with these same individuals. Milton, by the way, surely does not pale in comparison with Shakespeare. Shakespeare is the greater writer... producing a greater body of work... but he never comes to near to rivaling Paradise Lost as an extended epic poem. One might also note that Milton at his best most certainly rivals Shakespeare as a poet.

When I say worst or best, it is, of course, rather subjective on the one hand, and rather dependant on what respect I am referring to on the other. i.e. something can be bad in one respect and good in another; yet, as art is the process of creating symbolic expression it stands to reason that the most creative are the pieces whose expression is least bound by the prejudice of skill. In this sense I would assert that Rousseau is much more of an artist than Constable (although Constable may be more aesthetically appealing). Constable is nearly the ultimate example of how skill constipates human expression—he forever resided with the careless and indolent habit of realism. By my definition Constable is not “good art.” Of course there is room for debate over the definition of art (though I think it ought to be reserved for a different forum).

A comparison of Constable and Rousseau is difficult as a result of the very different intentions of the artists and the standards that they worked under. One might prefer one or the other solely as a result of the preference for one style over another... Modernism over Romanticism and Realism. I probably prefer Rousseau myself... but I will admit that Rousseau has a very limited oeuvre of truly strong pieces... quite a bit smaller than that of Constable. I would also question the suggestion that Constable is less original as a result of being trapped within the conventions of illusionism. Constable and Turner are among the key players in elevating the genre of landscape and point the way toward Impressionism.

But lets look at other possible comparisons: Rousseau vs Rubens, Turner, Michelangelo, or Giotto. In each of these instances he comes out far worse far wear against far more formally trained artists. And how does he fare against Picasso, Matisse, Beckmann, or other formally trained Modernists? Not so good, I would venture. But I would also note that Rousseau was most certainly not incompetent or "lacking in skill". There is no doubt that he was seriously limited in terms of drawing in an academic, realist manner. He is far less competent than even Giotto on those terms. On the other hand, he has a mastery of composition, a definite skill in the handling of color and value and even in the manipulation of paint. Of course, while Rousseau was never formally taught, he studied the paintings in the museums and the galleries and was especially fond of the academic masters such as William-Adolphe Bouguereau. This influence is obvious in his smoothly polished surfaces.

But ultimately the use of Rousseau as proof of the notion that untutored art or art lacking in skill is superior to art that is overly skilled is ingenuous at best. Rousseau is perhaps the greatest "outsider artist" (unless we count Blake or Van Gogh... both of whom were formally educated in art). Let's look at the rest of art history. Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Rubens, Vermeer, Giotto, Botticelli, Leonardo, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Degas, Monet, Manet, Matisse, Picasso, Klee, Beckmann, etc... were all formally educated artists with more than formidable skills. Rousseau is marvelous... but ultimately he is an exception to the rule, and exceptions to the rule don't proove the rule to be wholly false.

If you are implying that I’m trying to justify some behavior of mine (i.e. writing terrible poetry), perhaps you ought to read some of it before you decide whether or not to employ that criticism. I do agree that the more abilities one has…, as was implied in my original post, but what occurs to me is that many individuals, while they think they are aware, are not aware of the paradigms that they comfortably rest in. And yet, even when they are, I am inclined to question, when one of these abilities is employed, how does it tend affect one’s ability to express? In some cases it can certainly enhance it, but in many others I think it tends to be destructive. So, I think it is reasonable to argue that attempting to deliberately cast every superfluous/dispensable prejudice away renders the best art.

I make no implications as to your own poetic efforts, not having read any. I do imply that there is a romantic notion that would have us believe that the artist who has mastered too many skills... who is incredibly facile and fluent... is more likely to produce poor art or poetry. This seems but a defense of laziness and a lack of discipline. Yes, there are many artists, poets, and musicians who have the greatest facility and knowledge... and still produce mediocre art at best. The ability to analyze poetry or art and the talent of creating poetry or art are not necessarily one and the same... nor do the assuredly walk hand-in-hand. Still the untutored genius with but the most limited abilities is a romantic fantasy. Many of the heroes of this fantasy (Blake, Rimbaud, Rousseau, Van Gogh, etc...) were actually far less idiot savants than they are often made out to be.

This comment was perhaps unintentionally loaded. What was meant was people who write with the goal of impressing people (i.e. trying to be a “good” poet) have proven to me to be the worst writers. On the other hand, those who write for themselves (disregarding what people may think) are those who tend to produce the most innovative and best poetry.

The effort to impress may indeed become a detriment when it is is not employed for a further reason: ennobling the subject, singing the praises of God or the King or a lover, powerfully expressing an emotion. The effort to impress also becomes a detriment when it leads the artist to something clearly unnatural... to the use of a language or form that are foreign to the individual and serve no purpose but to impress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I wonder why we choose to write poetry from a great many other genres of writing. Even if I am incapable of versifying my ideas or put my emotional quotients into words, I love reading and commenting on poetry frequently. Poetries, I know spring from the heart and we see how beautifully some poets here can carve their ideas out into beautiful poems.
Does it need especial skills? I am more comfortable with prose writing. I know if I will write a poem it will be sandy dry and desiccated. I have never learned the art of writing poetry.

Can anyone out there help me with this?

---

I think it does take a special skill and talent to write good poetry. I don't know the statistics, but if more forum member post poetry, it might be for feedback and learning, sharing to help others grow, precisely because it is not easy.

JBI-People write poetry because of a Romantic mythology, and because they lack any training to tell that their poetry is mediocre, or are too egotistical to see nobody cares. Generally, the outlet has been employed to great effect by whiners and misfits, and people going through emotional crises which think for some reason other people care that they've written a poem about it.

EJMathews- I think it does take a special skill and talent to write good poetry. I don't know the statistics, but if more forum member post poetry, it might be for feedback and learning, sharing to help others grow, precisely because it is not easy.

I think there is a degree of truth to both JBI's cynical thoughts, and EJMathews' more generous suggestions. There are a lot who imagine that writing poetry is easy... and certainly penning a few lines of bad verse is far easier than writing a couple hundred pages of prose for a novel... or even a few dozen pages for a short story or essay. Exposed to popular music... (which many teachers even employ as a means to engage students with poetry)... and believing that such verse amounts to serious poetry it is no wonder that so many think they can write poetry themselves... and most persons who are somewhat well-read can probably write poetry as well or better than most pop music lyrics.

On the other hand, I agree with EJMathews' assessment. We would not expect that the person who is just learning the mechanics of writing is going to set out to compose an epic poem or novel anymore than the beginning artist is likely to produce a large-scaled multi-figural painting or the beginning composer would be prepared to score an entire symphony or opera. The beginner takes tentative steps and seeks some feedback. I certainly remember my own initial efforts as an art student and recognize that my professors surely could have torn my efforts to shreds if they weren't considering where I was at as a learner... and this is obviously something I must keep in mind as an art teacher... even with those students who are cocky enough (and ignorant enough) to suppose that they are actually better than their teacher. Of course as an artist in any field approaches the level of the "professional" the criticism become far more fierce (and it should) in preparing the individual for the real world and in refusing to allow lax mistakes to pass unnoticed. This is the problem with online social groups as far a a source of feedback. In most cases we are ignorant of the age and experience of a person seeking feedback. Where one of JBI's or my harsh criticisms may be warranted for a writer like Bukowski or even Jim Morrison, it may be completely inappropriate for the 15-year old high-school student. It is for this reason that I largely avoid critical comment on member writings... unless specifically asked.