to authenticate the existence of a wall:
1) Walk right into it. Your forehead, chest or knees may be bruised but you will have experienced the 'wallness' of it.
2) Stand back and wait for the sun to cast a shadow of it; then, measure the shadow.
to authenticate the existence of a wall:
1) Walk right into it. Your forehead, chest or knees may be bruised but you will have experienced the 'wallness' of it.
2) Stand back and wait for the sun to cast a shadow of it; then, measure the shadow.
That is a famous essay and worth re-reading. Yes I agree with you that the language is the basis of poetry. Everyone has the same emotions, it's how you write them. And as to ideas, if ideas were the foundation of poetry, then why does a writer write an essay about the ideas. It's not the emotion, it's not the ideas, it's the craft of poetry. And it's not just the act of expression either. An infant wailing is expressing very powerful emotions. But's not poetry.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Perhaps we could say that the writer works the ideas into the piece through his craft.
Emotions can be and often are part of the "experience," but as T.S. Eliot suggest, the emotions are more part of the reader's reaction to the piece. Indeed, the best poems are reader, rather than writer, directed. In other words, so-called "poems" which are thinly-disguised journal entries, all focused on "I" and "me" rarely resonate with the reader.
I always say that the problem with "self-expression" is that
all too often there is too much emphasis on the former and not enough on the latter.
I dunno Aunt Shecky, that seems kind of a sweeping statement. There's a lot of really good poetry out there written from the perspective of 'I'. Imagine, a world without John Donne? Or Louise Gluck, Sharon Olds? I agree, there's a thin line sometimes between what is presented as poetry and a journal entry but then writing from the perspective of 'I' can still resonate with the reader and still be poetic. Like Virgil said, it's what you do with the language that counts. If your poem is just 'you dumped me, I'm angry...rant, rant, rant.' then yes, this is guilty of what you describe, but put it into the perspective of something like 'Don't hesitate to call' by Louise Gluck and it's something different entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I'd have to agree with this statement though:
I think, with poetry, there are a number of things at work, many of which have been mentioned: idea, emotion, language, rhythm. No one on their own is enough and the craft is in putting together the right balance of these things to present your image in a way that resonates with the reader, in a way that is more memorable and compelling than mere words alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
Thanks for responding to this long thread, Fifth Element.
Just for the record, I never would characterize the poetry
of John Donne, Louise Gluck, or Sharon Olds (one of my "faves") as writing journal entries.
I agree with you completely about the importance of rhythm because, as Judson Jerome often suggested, poetry is the bridge between music and the spoken word.
I agree, though they do all write from the perspective of 'I'. Sometimes this results in the 'journal' style, but it doesn't have to. I think we agree on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntShecky
I'm so glad to find another Olds fan (yippee!)! I read Monarchs and Ecstacy and fell in love with her poetry. She writes very passionately, I love that about her work.
ERRATA:
It's not that I'm deliberately "bumping" this old thread o' mine, but when I was looking up something, I noticed a glaring error that really needs fixing. (Too much "misinformation" already appears on the Web, and I really don't want to be guilty of posting wrong, however inadvertently.)
I wanted to "edit" reply #11 above, but evidently the thread is too old. SO-- the statement that Miller Williams is a former US poet laureate is incorrect. Either I confused him w. someone else or it was wishful thinking on my part, as maybe Mr. Williams deserves that accolade.
PLEASE-- if anyone spots any other errors I made in this thread, please correct them in a reply. Thanks.
Refreshing, really. A professor I had once decided that there was no real law, order, or definition for poetry, that many words jumbled strangely together on a page without any kind of purpose or order constituted poetry if that is what the author decided it was and that a single word repeated over and over also constituted poetry if the author decided it was. Any thoughts on that? I am inclined to argue against him.
I'll be the first to admit, isidro, that many contemporary poems seem inacessible to me, even though I've spent a lifetime trying to understand it. I think that there are some poems that are "abstract" in the way a contemporaryQuote:
Originally Posted by isidro
painting is abstract -- but in such a painting at least I can appreciate the colors or the shapes or the composition. With a difficult and dense poem, however, I am totally asea-- though I warrant that in most cases the problem might be w. yours truly rather than the work itself.
Not every contemporary poet writes incomprehensible stuff, though, and there are several poets writing today who produce works that are accessible yet still rich in meaning.
(Please don't forget to point out any mistakes or erroneous info you may see in my "manifesto.")
I'm glad you disagree with him Isador. That professor ought to be fired. Babbling does not constitute poetry. First and foremost there has to be cohesion not just in poetry but in all works of art. next there has to be charged language, and babbling s not language.Quote:
Originally Posted by isidro
Aunty, I applaud your concise guide to poetry and its elements. I consider myself still new to this so I hope I live at least as long as Stanley Kunitz to take in all there is to know about poetry.
There are many poems by Wallace Stevens that I don't understand, but that in some way get to me. I have always looked at these poems as a validation that use of language is where the punch comes from. For this he remains my favorite poet. I feel like the character in Man Carrying Thing reading his poems.
Thanks also to all those who responded to help make it a very interesting thread.
They tell kids that, so they can begin to understand how untraditional forms work - in truth, there is some truth to it, but in order to understand that, you first need to understand the forums - poetry is everything that fits within the dialog of poetry, regardless of form, technically, so, in essence, writing in clusters all over the place is a valid form - though, not generally a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The problem is, it only works if the work fits into the frame - I don't, for instance, consider much of the stuff put in the personal poetry forum to be poetic, whereas I think the more wacky poems of Robert Kroestch to be top notch poetry - the problem is, people who don't understand the dialog end up having limited ideas of the possibilities of poetry - so, in a sense, the professor is write, it just so happens that poetry, to really be poetry, has to be somewhat good and intelligible, in the sense that it can speak to the audience, and to other poems.
The professor was in fact reprimanded but that was because he tried to push his sexual ideas on his class to a very revolting degree. And I confess, I was his biggest opposition and antagonist in that. :)
Well then they tell kids crap. She said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Any work of anything that is jumbled together without "order" or "purpose" is certainly not art. It may be something else, but it's not art.Quote:
Originally Posted by isidro
A professor I had once decided that there was no real law, order, or definition for poetry, that many words jumbled strangely together on a page without any kind of purpose or order constituted poetry...
Dunno about that. Art can be as accidental (or even incidental), as it is intentional, if not more so. Which might be sort of lame and demoralizing, but then, as that trendy professor seemed to be saying, the holy principles of aesthetics work in the most mysterious of ways. :brow: Or, if you’d prefer a bit of historical insight, there is a quaint Latin saying, lamer still, but equally as non-delineative: de gustibus non est disputandum. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil