Is Poetry for Cowards? - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Eiji Tunsinagi · 02-23-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirror

I have said this before, and I will say it again (verbatim): Honesty/Feelings/Emotion must be married to the utmost attention to craft. Otherwise, you're left with bland sincerity.

I'm going with Mirror. I don't want to sound like some pretentious fool, but poetry is about feeling and emotions and rawness and realism. Poetry is about telling the truth or lying truthfully. It doesn't always make 100% sense, but that's reality.

I'd rather read a poem that captures me with feeling than fact and form, is all.

dannyboy · 02-23-2008, 11:47 PM

so umm write more poems like umm say stories, or maybe umm not stories, maybe films...no wait ...reality tv shows, yeah thats the thing...or maybe picture books?

Eiji Tunsinagi · 02-23-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyboy

so umm write more poems like umm say stories, or maybe umm not stories, maybe films...no wait ...reality tv shows, yeah thats the thing...or maybe picture books?

Yes. Poems written by robots, actually.

Olly Buckle · 02-24-2008, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

If you take a look at the variety that exists in both poetry and poets then you see that the question has no answer; or it has as many answers as there are differing personalities writing poetry. Therefore it's a stupid question.

Can't accept this Baron, if it were so we would have to accept each poet, maybe even each poem, as a unique event and say nothing general about poetry, yet there is a sticky at the top of this poetry thread, put there by you, which refers us to people who do say general things about it.
To go back to the question in the title, is poetry for cowards? Good poetry seeks out the most hidden emotions and exposes them to the world, which requires some bravery, or devil may care foolhardiness. Bad poetry imitates this without the poet exposing himself, just wearing the coat of emotional platitudes. So bad poetry is for cowards.
Having said that I can find exceptions, ballads, comic verse, limericks. But I don't think that was what the original question was about. In another sense you are also right, every event is a unique one, but we humans don't work like that, it's our modus operandi to look for the similarities.
This post reminds me of the Ox, a contentious question that gets everyone going and then leave us to it, I am beginning to worry about him, sent a pm but no reply yet.

Baron · 02-24-2008, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Can't accept this Baron, if it were so we would have to accept each poet, maybe even each poem, as a unique event and say nothing general about poetry, yet there is a sticky at the top of this poetry thread, put there by you, which refers us to people who do say general things about it.
To go back to the question in the title, is poetry for cowards? Good poetry seeks out the most hidden emotions and exposes them to the world, which requires some bravery, or devil may care foolhardiness. Bad poetry imitates this without the poet exposing himself, just wearing the coat of emotional platitudes. So bad poetry is for cowards.
Having said that I can find exceptions, ballads, comic verse, limericks. But I don't think that was what the original question was about. In another sense you are also right, every event is a unique one, but we humans don't work like that, it's our modus operandi to look for the similarities.
This post reminds me of the Ox, a contentious question that gets everyone going and then leave us to it, I am beginning to worry about him, sent a pm but no reply yet.

It hasn't got my goat, Olly, I just think it's a stupid question. Try, do you have to be an alcoholic to be a novellist?

dannyboy · 02-24-2008, 06:55 AM

or - why isn't an apple more like an orange?

Pete_C · 02-24-2008, 07:13 AM

Yep, cowards. lazy cowards. They twirl their words around with gay abandon, create rules with which to beat each other around the buttocks, and generally "ponce up" the simplest statements. I think we should gas them all, actually. They're devious smart-arses with their "look at me" fancy nonsense. If I see a girl with a nice arse, I say "nice arse". They compare it to a fucking pomegranate!

Cowards!

COWARDS!

C'mon you bastards, I'll take you all!

dannyboy · 02-24-2008, 07:22 AM

I'm too scared....

Foxee · 02-24-2008, 08:39 AM

I agree, Dannyboy...terrifying. But since I've only recently been promoted to 'poet' I guess I don't have the sense to fold my tent and go home.

(Dear LawyerBoy, I am not actually in a tent. That was a metaphor. Don't want to confuse you or anything!)

Quote:

...if it were so we would have to accept each poet, maybe even each poem, as a unique event...

Poetry is not dissimilar to visual art. There are rules of craft and structure but what you do with them is up to you. Poetry, like artwork, is subjective. That doesn't prevent truly horrible poetry from stinking to high heaven but it might prevent people from saying so.

Which makes some readers of poetry cowards, perhaps, but not the poets themselves.

Olly Buckle · 02-24-2008, 10:44 AM

Pomegranate Pete? Those funny coloured lumpy things? Peach rather, looked at from the right angle. Wouldn't they give her a bit of their "look at me fancy nonsense" poetry rather, bet they wouldn't title it "To the girl with the nice arse" though. Might be a good subject to set if I ever win that poetry LM though.
If it is like the visual arts there ought to be new developments which break the rules, like Turner painting light or the cubists and limericks seem to be the only thing I can think of. Being subjective might stop some people saying what they think, not Pete. Hang on I'll go find it.

Olly Buckle · 02-24-2008, 10:47 AM

Here it is

Did you expect to be swamped with praise by readers who were blown away with your writing skills, your unique phrasing or your rich imagery? If you did, I hope you aren't holding your breath. The format is awful; it adds nothing and is totally uninspired. The poem is littered with errors, showing you've put no effort in. Why expect any one else to bother if you don't? The images are rehashed 1970s horror film staples that are so old as to be tired. In short, it's not good.

Poor Sleepy1 it was only about his second post.

Baron · 02-24-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Pomegranate Pete? Those funny coloured lumpy things? Peach rather, looked at from the right angle. Wouldn't they give her a bit of their "look at me fancy nonsense" poetry rather, bet they wouldn't title it "To the girl with the nice arse" though. Might be a good subject to set if I ever win that poetry LM though.
If it is like the visual arts there ought to be new developments which break the rules, like Turner painting light or the cubists and limericks seem to be the only thing I can think of. Being subjective might stop some people saying what they think, not Pete. Hang on I'll go find it.

So where have you been that you've missed the various transitions from ancient verse through classical form to free verse? We now hhave the situation ehre people believe that there are no rules in poetry so they can post any rubbish and call it a poem, just like those who try to imitate abstract painters without realising the principles, symbolism and visual metaphors employed by painters like Picasso. Art is art, crap is crap and a stupid question is still a stupid question.

MisterJack · 02-24-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

This post reminds me of the Ox, a contentious question that gets everyone going and then leave us to it, I am beginning to worry about him, sent a pm but no reply yet.

That about sums this whole debate up for me.

J.R. MacLean · 02-24-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawyerBoy

I never understood poetry in English class. And a few years back…I started to suspect that nobody really understands poetry…because maybe there’s not much to understand. By their nature, poets are vague. They want to share their thoughts and feelings…only maybe they don’t REALLY want to share their thoughts and feelings (for whatever reason)…because if they did, they’d just say what they have to say in prose. No sense beating around the linguistic bush.

Just a theory. Maybe I just came up with it to justify my own lack of understanding. Easier to place the blame elsewhere...

-LawSchoolBlogger.com

Your premise is flawed. Good poets, good artists don't just want to share their thoughts and feelings. They want to re-create the Truth (for want of a better word) of experience. The Truth of experience (consider say, the delicacy, the beauty, detailed precision in the makings of a flower) is at once incredibly complex and deeply mysterious. So yeah, bad poetry is vague; good poetry cannot be.

Understanding can go beyond our 'civilized' concepts of logic, fact, and knowledge (head) into realms of intuition, compassion, music (heart). Good poetry can knock on and open dormant doors of perception and fundamentally deepen the understanding of the reader in ways that of necessity difficult to expain in a prosaic way. So difficult that I'll stop right here.

I do think such questions are very appropriate for a poetry forum.

cheers
J.R.

MisterJack · 02-24-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R. MacLean

I do think such questions are very appropriate for a poetry forum.

I do have to question the sincerity of the OP's desire to find out the answer. He hasn't aknowledged either Sniper's or Mirrors responses to his question. No disrespect to FantasyWitch but the aforementioned are established, talented poets with real answers, and they were blindsided by his comments to her.

I personally think this is a wind up thread and am considering it redundant as it's taking up the space of someone's work who may be looking for critique.

Just my thrupny-bits worth

Jack