Are Poets Born Not Made?

[Pierre Menard]

Yes, I said it was unfair then went ahead and did it anyway. I guess what I was trying to say was that I find most of the poetry that is admired by critics to be rather effete, dull, and tepid. So I went ahead and made an assumption about these poets (which I admit was wrong). Which of these poets do you suggest I try? What I am looking for is subject matter that is at least a little bit controversial, or shocking. Offensive, even.

More and more it seems people are confusing their own singular opinion as 'right' and everyone elses, including people far more well read, as 'wrong'.


Why should we take your singular opinion on the canon seriously, but ignore people who've read more than you know more than you as well the authors influenced by other work and the general common educated reader who have loved and read the classics for hundreds of years (in some cases).

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

This, I suspect, plays a large role in the anti-canon crowd's thinking (though they'll never admit to it). I knew a guy whose favorite poet/author was Bukowski and, surprise surprise, he was completely against the canon.

[Delta40]

So Paradoxical, the upshot is this, if you're going to claim to have a spiritual self in search of something refreshingly different, at least read, appreciate and agree on the f ucking bible first will you?

[paradoxical]

More and more it seems people are confusing their own singular opinion as 'right' and everyone elses, including people far more well read, as 'wrong'.


Why should we take your singular opinion on the canon seriously, but ignore people who've read more than you know more than you as well the authors influenced by other work and the general common educated reader who have loved and read the classics for hundreds of years (in some cases).

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

Good Lord, I'm not asking anyone to take my opinion seriously. I'm just thinking out loud. And I never said that I was right and everyone else was wrong. Far from it. I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new. I also said there may be no other way. Read my last post. Like the comment made by Morpheus, you skipped over the part where I mentioned that I am a fan of T.S. Eliot, Blake, Shakespeare, Wordsworth. Surely they are part of the cannon? I also like Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, and many others. But I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid. Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason. Look at how much resistance there has been to allow Black voices, women, or queer writers. Look at the visceral reaction it causes. Many are entrenched in their beliefs and take things personally if you dare question the cannon.

So I don't qualify as a "general common educated reader"? I did study English literature at university, for what it's worth. How do you know how much I have read? And notice the comment I made at the end of my reply to StLukes, where I acknowledged that is very well-read and educated. He has obviously read more then I have and I told him that I respect his opinion. But yes, I prefer something along the lines of Bukowski, William S. Burroughs, or Kerouac. I'd rather read Henry Rollins pathetic "poetry" then most of what is considered fine and good by most. I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up. It has to be at least a little exciting. Not more boring middle-class and upper-class white people droning on about the same subjects. Not all of it is like that, of course. But that element is certainly there. Sorry, but I feel that it is true. Call me wrong. Ignore what I say. Hell, I don't care.

This, I suspect, plays a large role in the anti-canon crowd's thinking (though they'll never admit to it). I knew a guy whose favorite poet/author was Bukowski and, surprise surprise, he was completely against the canon.

Whatever. This thread is getting tiresome.

So Paradoxical, the upshot is this, if you're going to claim to have a spiritual self in search of something refreshingly different, at least read, appreciate and agree on the f ucking bible first will you?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The bible?

edit: Ah, never mind. Now I get it. LOL.

[miyako73]

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

[Delta40]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The bible?

Och dinna worry ye wee hede aboot it! Oh no! I've turned all Scottish! Must mean it's time to read Rabbie Burns - I will have to locate him in Seven Centuries of Poetry in English. Phew! I will now carry my intellectual nobody to bed with a mug of hot milk and ponder, For A' That...

Is there for honest poverty
That hangs his head, an' a' that?
The coward slave, we pass him by
We dare be poor for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toil's obscure, and a' that;
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,-
The man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin' grey, an' a' that?
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine,-
A man's a man, for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their tinsel show an' a' that;
The honest man, though e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts an' stares an' a' that,-
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that;
For a' that, an' a' that
His riband, star, and a' that;
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak' a belted knight
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's aboon his might,-
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that;
Their dignities an' a' that,
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth,
Are higher ranks than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,-
(As come it will for a' that),-
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree an' a' that.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,-
That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that!

[ShadowsCool]

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

How can one know one from the other? It's such a personal issue. Most writers are not poets and most poets are not made. You either are or you're not.

[stuntpickle]

(it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).

Oh, I don't know. With algebra, one need only follow the directions. Of course, I suppose that's how some approach poetry too.

Maybe you have an instructive quote handy?

[JCamilo]

I think the distinction I've been trying to make is between intellectual and academic/critic, but another distinction would have to be drawn between intellectual and just "everyday thinker" or "every product of our minds" as well. I see an intellectual as being someone more in between those extremes. Someone who spends more time thinking on intellectual, theoretical subjects (even if they're aesthetics and poetry), but perhaps does not solely make their living at it in a formal setting. Wikipedia says of an intellectual that: I think one reason it's tempting to consider most of the great poets as intellectuals is that poetry, being the art of language and form, is an inherently intellectual pursuit. You can not utilize language without having learned language, and you can not utilize form without having learned form. But, what's more, one can't use either if they have no thoughts, nothing the least bit intellectual, to write about in the first place. I don't think it would be difficult to fit most of the great poets into one (or more) of the three categories listed above.

Well, like i said It is ok if you define intellectual as the use of intellect, but even wikipedia rules out keats (it is a person who is analytical, use reason, etc), so some poets would be like this and Keats, one that use primary emotion not. But we could avoid it and move on, as we agree on something enough to discuss, does not matter if we do not agree how we name it.

As for "innate intellectual," perhaps a better term would've been "half-intellectual," which is stranger, but is perhaps open to more of a new definition. What I meant was that in reading and absorbing poetry, Keats was "innately," or perhaps "intuitively" would've been a better term, learning from it. One doesn't necessarily have to sit down with the conscious intent of "I'm going to learn," and then drill facts into their head through repetition. I think most great artists have that ability to transform even cursory reading into a kind of intuitive, instinctual knowledge, the kind of knowledge that they may not be completely aware or conscious of themselves, but is nonetheless in them simply from what they've absorbed. But that absorption still required them to read and to think on what they read to some extent, and Keats' theories are a reflection of his reading and his reflecting on that reading, which is an entirely intellectual pursuit.

Mostly fine. I would just say innate genius, could be easily understood. Then we have a guy like Keats, which poetic method is based on emotion. A different claim (I say claim because it may be possible they claim it different and pratice it alike) is the one of Poe, which method is based on reason. So, maybe they are actually talking about how to construct a poem (poe) and how to find poetic inspiration (Keats), and we may say a poet is born, but poetry is crafted. What probally make a great poet is not explaning the craft, maybe it is the famous: the rules and models are not jails, not rigid, but mallable, so it is when the innate traits (which we may extend to every writer) is able to deal with the materials he have. Even a critic is good when his insight is able to change what he studies and he have the capacity to explain it and make it "believable".

And yes, I agree much about Keats natural critical insights. Maybe the great difference if he lived longer would not be better poems, but a critical body organized and original that would be a work of genius... Anyways, I also think there was a huge mistake when they related his failures, specially the long poems or dramatic poems as failures in attempts of intellectualization. I think it was just not the best suited form, one he needed more pratice.

Yes, but surely you can see that Negative Capability in itself is a very intellectual concept. It's a theory that a lack of conscious knowledge is better than complete conscious knowledge because, amongst other things, it allows artists to mimic the moments of life where we simply don't understand what's happening to us and we have more questions than answers. So even in its argument against not completely understanding everything poetic, Negative Capability is still a thoroughly intellectual concept.

If intellectual meant product of his tought, i would just say all concepts are, so I would not use the word. But yes, a great concept that shows someone with a sharp capacity to feel poetry.

Keats certainly presents something else beyond what romantic poets were thinking.

I meant "study for autodidacts is just something that happens everyday," meaning people that are self-tought. One does not NEED teachers and schools to learn. It is perfectly allowable to buy and read textbooks and teach one's self, especially on subjects that aren't too mind-bendingly technical (it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).

Yes, sure. Learning can be done everyday, in many ways.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

And how do you distinguish between the two? By what you like?

[MorpheusSandman]

Read how Irving Howe defines and argues what confessional poetry is: A confessional poetry to me is the use of I to reveal memories repressed or unsaid.

Then I am a confessional poet.

born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

================================================== =

3. MorpheusSandman is making a criticism of people that write poetry in a particular way, saying that they consider themselves 'geniuses,' by using Clive James' views on Ezra Pound.

More like I'm criticizing people that choose to dismiss/ignore the poetic tradition while (ironically) being allowed to do so because of that tradition. James' point was that the moderns who "freed" everyone were steeped in that tradition, and everyone now that chooses to ignore it have only been given that liberty because of people that actually DID learn it and DID work hard at it. What I'm really criticizing is the anti-intellectual attitude (which I think is born out of xenophobia and laziness, more than anything) that poets are just these divinely inspired creatures that don't need to work at or learn their craft.

================================================== =

I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new... I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid.

Canons have ALWAYS been slow, though. It's not as if those in the 17th Century considered Shakespeare as the greatest writer ever in the English language. He owes much of that reputation to the 19th Century and, especially, the German intellectuals. So criticizing the canon for being slow is bizarre to me, because all canons are formed via a "consensus" of what emerges out of criticism over a long period of time.

But your "much of what is considered good/great... is dull and tepid" is a really, really, general and vague statement. You've admitted you like some of the canon, so what part of the canon is "dull and tepid?"

Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason. Look at how much resistance there has been to allow Black voices, women, or queer writers.

The reason is because for centuries it was primarily white men that were writing poetry. A good chunk of poets from the 20th century that are, let's say, eligible for the canon are black, female, and queer (Paul Lawrence Dunbar, Langston Hughes, Rita Dove, Adrienne Rich, Yusef Komunyakaa, WH Auden, James Merrill), and they have predecessors like Whitman and Dickinson.

I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up.

Hey, I dig Burroughs, but it seems like what you're hankering for is some kind of sensationalist shock. It's been done and, quite frankly, I feel more "awakened" by Blake than I do by Bukowski (whom I don't like) or Burroughs (whom I do).

================================================== =

Well, like i said It is ok if you define intellectual as the use of intellect, but even wikipedia rules out keats

Wikipedia rules out Keats? Did I miss that?

Then we have a guy like Keats, which poetic method is based on emotion.

What I'd say it's based on eliciting emotion via a very learned craft and technique. Keats' placing emphasis on imagery over philosophical statements came out of his reading of Shakespeare's sonnets, and loving those parts where Shakespeare carried the meaning through metaphor and imagery. In fact, Keats' rejection of the couplet ending was partly due to his distaste for how Shakespeare would often restate what he had already said in a more appealing way in the first 12 lines. Something like To Autumn is very much the pinnacle of using imagery that is very much symbolic, and it's an allegorical mode that he developed throughout his earlier poetry and through his reading of Shakespeare. So it was not something that came strictly innately, it was something that was made out of his reading and reflection.

I also think there was a huge mistake when they related his failures, specially the long poems or dramatic poems as failures in attempts of intellectualization.

I don't think it was a failure of intellectualization as much as it was a failure of presenting intellectual concepts. The Odes are, in their way, MORE intellectual in how they carry their intellectual concepts through imagery, allegory, and dramatic development.

If intellectual meant product of his tought, i would just say all concepts are, so I would not use the word..

I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just "everyday learning" and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it.

[ShadowsCool]

Then I am a confessional poet.

So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

That was my thinking also when I read that. The fact that some people think certain poetry is inferior to their own, speaks of presumptuous righteousness on their part.

We all are different writers with different skill sets. I never went to writing school, nor did I finish college. Does that mean I suck because I don't write like the Harvard grads? Or that my style is more narrative and not modern enough?

If I comment on their poetry but they don't even acknowledge me as a writer, then why should I care about their writing?

This is why I wrote what I wrote before (A Certain Snobbery in Poetry). Some people come off high on their rocker! And it stinks to high heaven!

[MorpheusSandman]

I would hope that we're all here to improve and none of us think that we've really "made it." If we had arrived we be getting published in Poetry and APR and Tin House and Ploughshares and getting selected for anthologies or being up for awards and having decent selling books and probably be getting paid to teach (or lecture or something). Most of the work I post here is work that I know is incomplete and needs work, and I'm open for suggestions on how to do it better. Others, though, seem to have this attitude that they're infallible, their work can't be improved upon, they don't need to learn anything new, they don't care about reader's reactions or criticism... and to them I can't help but wonder why they're posting their poetry here in the first place. If they're all that and we're just bad readers, go find better readers that will actually pay you for your work. This SHOULD be a place for learning and improving and helping others do the same, more than anything else, not a place for being above that, either as a writer or as a critic.

[ShadowsCool]

And this is why I have utmost respect for the following posters. In no particular order:

Twota - Always good natured, willing to learn, a solid poet and has something positive to say.

Silas Thorne - Another who is a solid contributor. Leaves a positive impression. Professional. Superb writer.

MystyrMystyry - A writer of the highest order, filled with imagination.

Hawkman - Is willing to break down your poetry and leaves no punches. In a good natured way. And writes superb stuff.

Delta - The first lady of poetry of the highest order; who is a stunning poet and solid all around. Very humble!

Jack of Hearts - Another who is willing to take the time to comment. Tells you what he likes and don't like. A superb writer himself.

Bar22do - Another all around great contributor and a solid writer in his own right!

Jerrybaldy - A superb writer and also contributes, helping others.

hillwalker - Though he don't post much anymore, is still remembered as a learned master of the art of writing. And is missed. Superb writer.

Bewlay Brother - Another solid writer who gives his time in sharing and commenting on other poetry.

Dark Muse - An interesting writer with a fresh prospective on the art of writing.

paradoxical - Ditto

PrinceMyshkin - Ditto

DocHeart - Ditto

Kittypaws - Ditto

Cacian - Ditto

Bookbeauty - Ditto

Yes/No - Ditto

Tah - A major contributor to the poetry boards. A solid writer in his own right!

Mutatis-Mutandis - A willing participant and knows the genre. Is willing to lay it on the line. Knows the art well and writes top notch too.

Buh4Bee - A very good character, who is always willing to share his assessment of your writing. A very good writer.

And you Sandman, though we don't always agree on stuff, you know your stuff (I can't deny) and you're as good as they come.

And them too: Paperleaves, blank|verse, Alexander III, Qimi, and firefangled.

[MorpheusSandman]

I certainly can't disagree with anyone on that list, Shadows, and I'd add your name to it as well, as well as others that haven't been around as much lately, like Paperleaves, blank|verse, Alexander III, Qimi, and firefangled.