Are Poets Born Not Made?

[Drkshadow03]

Some people in this forum have the annoying braggadocio of a latent megalomaniac. They create their own literary terms as if they have the authority, in skill and in scholarship, to do so. In truth, they actually build mirrors and smokes, so they can still project a semblance of what is true, valid, and correct. The fact is that they haven't written any poetry or prose that has moved me the way those of the canonical authors have. This is the danger in this forum. Due to cliquish patronizing and thoughtless appreciation of mediocrity, the mediocre think they are superior. What a farce!

The image of a mirror is surely apt.

I was literally going to write the exact same thing this morning when I read that exact same comment.

[miyako73]

I was literally going to write the exact same thing this morning when I read that exact same comment.

Spare me from this cliquishness and back-patting. I'm not the one who invents literary terms to support my arguments. I don't also have the arrogance to say that if Sylvia Plath or Elizabeth Bishop could do it, I also can. I am no Plath or Bishop. Go and find out who has that arrogance.

So everyone is a unique little snowflake; so why are some people better writers than others? Because all it requires is the right kind of uniqueness? Really, I could use your argument to argue that there is no difference between born and made poets, because made poets are unique in the totality of their emotions and personality which is theirs and theirs alone no different than anyone else... so why the distinction again?

miyako, you're the type that could look at the numbers 1,595,320,005 and 1,595,320,006 and call them "unique" even though they have 9 integers in common and 1 different. You seem to see this issue only in black-and-white, completely alike/completely unalike, rather than "certain things in common, certain things that are different." If we were all as unique as you make it out to be, we could never see ourselves reflected in the writings of others to begin with.

You are also the kind of person who thinks a shirt and a flower are the same as long as they are red and fragrant.

[Drkshadow03]

Spare me from this cliquishness and back-patting. I'm not the one who invents literary terms to support my arguments. I don't also have the arrogance to say that if Sylvia Plath or Elizabeth Bishop could do it, I also can. I am no Plath or Bishop. Go and find out who has that arrogance.

I just found it amusing that I had the exact same reaction to your post. 'Tis all.

[miyako73]

Originally Posted by stuntpickle
I've seen miyako posting a number of published poems and essays on this forum (for instance, one by Lorca). I take it for granted that she is reading them before doing this.
I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't even reading them. In our first debate regarding formalism and formalists, she seemed to be in favor of Vendler as a critic, but tried to claim Vendler wasn't a formalist. Then, when she challenged me by asking what critics support noticing anagrams in poetry, I posted repeated excerpts from Vendler's Shakespeare book. Then, after realizing that Vendler supported the kind of criticism she (miyako) disliked, she posted one of the only critical attacks on Vendler online by an idiot named Dan Schneider. I doubt seriously she even read it, because when I countered several of Dan's points, miyako didn't even bother addressing them.

So, she went from: seeming to support Vendler by claiming she wasn't a formalist, to trying to attack her when she realized Vendler engaged in the kind of criticism she found distasteful.

But, regardless of all that, miyako has come out against poets trying to learn their craft several times. You both say "nobody's claiming poets come out of the womb composing masterpieces," but then... what happens? What separates "born" poets from "made" poets? miyako keeps mentioning emotions, sensibilities, and moods. Do you think all that it takes to make a great poet is them having the right emotions, et al.?

First: yes, I read first before I post. I don't post materials I'm not familiar or I've not encountered before.

Second: you have the habit of twisting my statement to support your argument. Find my post that said what you wrote:

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Someone like miyako who thinks that all a poet needs is their moods, emotions, and sensibilities.

Third: also find a post where I expressed my being a fan of Vendler. Right from the start, I've questioned your graphic mangling of the text. You've said again and again that you are the Vendler in this forum and what you've been doing is Vendler's method. Now, did you really think that I've agreed to everything your goddess does and writes as far as literary criticism is concerned? Simple logic.

Fourth: Schneider's essay is not the only one that questions Vendler's lucidity. Read Rita Dove's. Are you even published in your local paper? What gives you the gall to call a known essayist an idiot? You wanted me to respond to your misreadings? It would have been a waste of time in my part, frankly.

[tailor STATELY]

ee cummings

birn

ou

mad

5/24/2012

Just curious.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think this thread has exhausted itself.

[Delta40]

I think this thread has exhausted itself.

I agree. There's enough puff here to fill a balloon and fly us all to the moon

[tailor STATELY]

before you turn

off the lights would

someone care to answer my question

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[miyako73]

what was the question?

[tailor STATELY]

Sorry -

I left it in the form of a poem titled ee cummings:

Was he born a poet or made a poet ?

... just curious.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[miyako73]

I don't really know what kind of poetic education trained him. He had his own style. If some of his poems were due to his tantrums and bad mood while in front of his typewriter, he indeed had a gift. He even made his typewriter, maybe out of boredom, speak for his current state of mind. Wasn't that original?

[Delta40]

If some of his poems were due to his tantrums and bad mood while in front of his typewriter, he indeed had a gift.

Lol. Tantrums and moods don't constitute the criteria for a gift. I'm sure there are plenty of poets out there who write crap then throw their computer against the wall but it doesn't improve the poor quality of their work!

On the other hand I'm sure it would have still been termed a gift if Cummings beat his wives and only through that violence could he produce his best work.

[stuntpickle]

Amazing you said nothing about this level of enthusiasm in your post. All you said was: "The discussion about music largely concerns culturally relevant artists from the last fifty or so years, whereas the discussion of literature concerns relics as far back as antiquity (Virgil!). Has the disparity occurred to no one?"

But you have no point, because the original post that mentioned modern music was comparing modern music to canonical music as being analogous to modern poetry and canonical poetry, and there HAS been discussion of modern poetry, as well as plenty of people recommending certain contemporary poets and deriding others, the same way we were recommending certain modern music and deriding others. There's no disparity. Everyone on both sides has mentioned modern music/poets they like/dislike and canonical music/poetry they like/dislike. All four groups have been aptly represented, I think.

You said I was "accusing" you of comparing poetry to music.

Consider:

yet you accuse me of comparing modern music to canonical poetry when I wasn't the one that brought it up?

This is flatly false since I was the one doing the comparing. Moreover, I wasn't even talking about you at all in that section. But this is standard BS with you. You completely misrepresent what I say in this endless quest to satisfy your narcissistic desire to be right ABOUT ANYTHING. You're so desperate to prove that you are some big intellectual; the irony, of course, is that in your quest to demonstrate this, all you demonstrate is that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.

I then went on, in that very post, to illustrate how intuition can lead to an intellectual formulation through Keats.

The problem here is your tin-eared ignorance of “intellectual”. I take it for granted that you know what “connotation” means. How is it that you are incapable of recognizing that what most persons mean by “intellectual” is precisely NOT something that can be derived by intuition. For Chrissake, even in the friggin Wikipedia article you, yourself, cited it made this distinction VERY CLEAR.

Anyway, then explain to me how Keats formulating the theory of Negative Capability is not the product of an intellectual? How is Negative Capability emotional or intuitive rather than rational?

When one says a person has a certain intuitive capacity, one does not mean a person is unintelligent or incapable of making rational statements. One means that their skills are largely inherent and natural, as opposed to acquired through the application of formal criticism, education and plain ratiocination. You seem to be presenting the absurd argument that if someone has intuitive knowledge then he is incapable of making an intelligent statement without immediately becoming an “intellectual”. The absurdity of this statement is plain, as it seeks to appropriate the rightness of an idea or notion into a necessarily “intellectual” formulation. This is not only wrong, but idiotic too.

I wouldn't be surprised if she wasn't even reading them.

Who cares if you'd be surprised? You are not the supreme interpreter of Miyako's actions. I find it strange to think that she could have ever posted a relevant poem had she not read them. I mean, why didn't she post a recipe for biscuits if she was totally ignorant of the content?

In our first debate regarding formalism and formalists

That was hardly a debate. That was you attempting to shame her in public with your presumed superiority. You're a narcissist who doesn't know what he's talking about. When this is demonstrated unequivocally to you, you always resort to the worst sort of semantic legalism to confound the discussion because the truth is that you're not at all interested in the discussion, itself, but rather only in demonstrating how smart you are. The problem, of course, is that your general ineptitude results in demonstrating the contrary.

, she seemed to be in favor of Vendler as a critic, but tried to claim Vendler wasn't a formalist. Then, when she challenged me by asking what critics support noticing anagrams in poetry, I posted repeated excerpts from Vendler's Shakespeare book. Then, after realizing that Vendler supported the kind of criticism she (miyako) disliked, she posted one of the only critical attacks on Vendler online by an idiot named Dan Schneider. I doubt seriously she even read it, because when I countered several of Dan's points, miyako didn't even bother addressing them.

So, she went from: seeming to support Vendler by claiming she wasn't a formalist, to trying to attack her when she realized Vendler engaged in the kind of criticism she found distasteful.

It seems to me that all you're trying to do here is embarrass her. If you think it's okay to constantly point out what someone got wrong, then perhaps you'd care to discuss metaphysics, fallacies, logical validity, or any of the other things about which you have demonstrated a complete ignorance.

What separates "born" poets from "made" poets? miyako keeps mentioning emotions, sensibilities, and moods. Do you think all that it takes to make a great poet is them having the right emotions, et al.?

Forget Miyako for a second. That you continue to try and assault her while addressing me is telling. What separates a born poet from a made poet? The distinction is elementary. What one means by a born poet is someone with an inherent artistic capacity who acquires technique in a manner that is apart from the conventions of formal learning. What one means by a made poet is someone who has been INSTRUCTED according to the conventions of formal learning and has acquired knowledge ABOUT poetry and has tried to parlay that knowledge into a rational approach to the medium.

In music, the distinction is more obvious. You have persons who sit in their rooms as children trying to puzzle out songs on the radio, and then you have the typical persons who are EDUCATED in the art and then attend various institutions in the hope that they can make progress.

This is NOT to say that a natural talent cannot receive an education or that an intellectual is debarred from having any innate skills. We are discussing the issue in principle rather than in practice. It seems as though you are attempting to appropriate both sides of the discussion so that there exists no opposition. You are trying to reconstruct your position into one that has all these contradictory elements. I think you are doing this to try and win the argument by leaving the opposition no territory to occupy. But it seems that you lack the intellectual capacity to understand that all you accomplish is undermining the coherency of your own position. And so we have to deal such incoherent, implausible terms as “innate intellectual.” And when someone points out the absurdity of this, you resort, as usual, to more hand-waving.

I stated even within that post I felt it was a false dichotomy (it has to be either/or),

What I find most telling about your absurd argument is that when you try and demonstrate what a poet must do to be good, you almost invariably start talking about activities that are more commonly associated with the intuitive side rather than the intellectual one. So for instance you talk about people imbibing poetry. But you never talk about listening to a theoretical lecture and deriving the necessary skills from that. So it seems as though you are honoring the dichotomy. The strange thing is that you're proposing an intuitive approach and calling it intellectual. What we mean by the natural or intuitive approach is deriving automatically the necessary lessons from familiarity with the medium. What we mean by an intellectual approach is LEARNING, perhaps even by rote, a theoretical understanding of poetry. Of course, this is not to say than an intuitive approach can never lead one to an idea that sounds “intellectual”. By intellectual and intuitive we mean to address the methods rather than the results. As J pointed out, you are trying to suggest that the means of arriving at an idea must necessarily be intellectual if it is a good idea. And this is simply wrong.

and for the same reasons I've explained numerous times and you have (surprise, surprise) completely failed to address. We agree there is a difference between intuition and intellect, but my argument has always been (from the beginning) that one does not have to exclude the other and, in fact, intuition usually leads to intellectual formulations.

Your “argument” is at its heart (surprise, surprise) an equivocation.

1. Stunt and J say Keats was not an intellectual, by which they mean someone who had a primarily rational understanding of poetry acquired through formal education, erudition and learned conventions.
2. But Keats was clearly an intellectual, by which I mean someone who, through hard work and familiarity with poetry, came to some intelligent conclusions.
Therefore, Stunt and J are wrong.
Consider:

Equivocation
Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Equivocation

You know, me bringing semiotics up in that other thread was important, because you seem to be completely lost in this area.

You really are clueless. Your whole hilarious point about semiotics was that “nothing” had no referent. You're kidding! You're such a genius.

All anyone means by “nothing” is the absence of any referent. It's a common grammatical construction that any schoolboy knows. You make the sophomoric mistake trying to ascribe positive attributes to it.

You have misinterpreted the fact that I chose not to address the point as a concession. The truth is that I was more concerned about your consistent reliance on fallacious reasoning than a relatively minor misappropriation of semiotics.

The notion that words have uses as opposed to meanings is something that comes to us by way of Wittgenstein. I would suggest you try reading him, but I think you'd be better served by reading Descartes or Aquinas and trying to learn how to assemble logical statements into coherent arguments.

The point is that both “nothing” and “intellectual” have appropriate uses, and you're simply using them both incorrectly.

Really, a lot of our disagreements would be aided tremendously if you had the first clue how language works.

Says the projecting narcissist.

Every time you find me using a word that's different from the way you use it and the way you define it, you try to act like I'm the idiot who's confused,

Have you been to elementary school? I ask because that's generally when they teach people connotation. Regardless of who you are, you have the obligation to adhere to certain conventions of language. I can't believe that I have to tell someone who calls himself a poet that words have currency beyond their strict denotation.

without considering that I could be using it in another way that's perfectly legitimate. Look at the various definitions of intellectual on Dictionary.com that fit

First my point did not primarily concern, the denotative meaning of “intellectual”. I quoted Merriam Webster's since you seemed to think that my suggestion about the connotation had come from nowhere. And you demonstrate that you don't know how to use a dictionary, since you try to use a definition that includes the point of contention “intellect” in a way that undergirds the entire definition, as though it completely agrees with you.

a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.[/b] (So Keats didn't pursue knowledge about aesthetics?)

Oh gee, I wonder what the word “intellect” in that definition means.

M-W:

:*the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will*:*the capacity for knowledge

an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9.
a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher. (One reason I said it's tempting to call all writers intellectuals)

The reason you said something was derived from a some secondary definition in a descriptivist dictionary? God, you're hilarious.


Merriam Webster:

a : given to study, reflection, and speculation

b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>

You're so clueless! You purposely leave out the primary definition and then subsequently demonstrate that you don't understand the secondary one. The essence of the word “intellectual” involves the mind as opposed to what is traditionally called “the heart”. And that meaning/use overhangs all the others. It's called connotation. And every schoolboy understands this.

So, as much as you'd like to make it out that I'm "confused" regarding the meaning of the term intellectual, it could also very well possibly be that you (and I, and JCamillo) simply had different definitions of the term in mind when we brought it up. But the real crime here is that I have repeatedly attempted to clarify my definition

No the real crime is that you are AGAIN engaged in equivocation. You have relinquished the entirety of your original point in order to agree exactly with me and J—except that you're calling it “intellectual” in hopes of salvaging your initial idiotic point, which was to admonish someone for daring to suggest that “learning” (and spare me more of the semantic waffling please) wasn't central to being a poet. I'm happy that you agree with me in principle, but I do wish you would stop trying to disagree in name. It seems that your only point is that you have a bizarre understanding of the word “intellectual”.

So if you think someone can become a great poet, quite apart from any academic structure or regimented learning, and do it ALL by himself simply by applying his innate capacities to the medium, then WHAT THE HELL is the argument about? It would seem that you agree that poets are born but only if we'll allow you to maintain your dignity by agreeing that intellectual means something it doesn't.

If the only disagreement is about what "intellectual" means, then why are you so desperately trying to demonstrate the impossibility of intuitive talent?

If someone taught himself to play the piano without any instruction, he would be considered a "born" talent, right?

Yeah, yeah, you've pulled this trick numerous times, stunt,

There's no trick. More than once, I have offered to let you escape from your idiotic misstatements, and you have refused to accept, presumably, because I didn't say you were right. If you really want me to, I can simply go back to pointing out all the fallacies.

[miyako73]

A person whose logic I question cannot embarrass me.

I wrote the following:

"I also don't write at my whim. Without my mood, I can't think of apt words to use. Without my sensitivity, I am blind to the images in my head. Without my emotions, my metaphors are stale. My writing skill may not be natural or inborn, but my mood, sensitivity, and emotions are."

I have no idea how it became what he wrote:

"Everyone has inborn moods, sensitivities, and emotions; not everyone can write like Milton, Keats, Heaney, etc."

"Someone like miyako who thinks that all a poet needs is their moods, emotions, and sensibilities."

Now, whose logic is faulty?

[stlukesguild]

Now, whose logic is faulty?

I would say it is your logic that is at question... or your fluency in English isn't quite up to the level you think it is.

The dispute is really not all that complex here. You have stated that your moods, sensitivity, and emotions are inborn. Everyone has moods, sensitivities, and emotions. Moods, sensitivities, and emotions don't create works of art. We all have perceptions as well. We see, hear, smell, touch, taste... But these alone do not create poetry either. Poetry is a form of art and all art forms involve a language and a vocabulary which must be learned. Some individuals have a predisposition for rapidly learning and mastering these skills. Their brain is wired in such a way that language or images or colors or forms or the organization of sound makes rapid sense to them. Others must labor to a greater extent to master the artistic language they love. Some benefit from a structured formal education, while others are "self-taught." Regardless of whether one is born with the seemingly inherent ability to rapidly and fluidly master an artistic idiom ala Mozart, Keats, Rimbaud, or Peter Paul Rubens... or one struggles and only succeeds through hard-labor and trial-and-error ala Cezanne, T.S. Eliot, or Beethoven, no one is a "born artist" and no one achieves anything as an artist without having gained a certain body of knowledge and experience through a degree of discipline and learning. This is all that we have been arguing. I somehow doubt that you would deny that your own poetic abilities did not owe something to what you have read, to practice, and to a degree of self-discipline and not to staring at your navel and waiting for the muses to arrive.