Poetic License - Page 3


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Poetic License

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ned View Post
    well said Sas

    but there is one golden rule - by some measure, it must be poetic...
    We are in agreement. Guess I shouldn't have assumed "successfully worked" clarified poetics.

    As an aside, I don't think children (grade school K-8 should be taught poetry forms. Don't ask me how to do it, but it's not that way. Maybe ask them to closely observe three things a week (animals, plants, people, even buildings) and try to describe them in detail, not necessarily uniquely, but that would be the goal. Teach them to observe first. Or, later ask them to make comparisons between diverse things, the beginnings of simile without that heavy word. I hate boxes. Personally, I think teachers ruin creative writing and history classes. Neither can be appreciated if regurgitated.

  2. #22
    poetic license is like 007 license to kill....
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by escorial View Post
    poetic license is like 007 license to kill....
    And if the license is revoked, what will the poet do?

  4. #24
    Fill in appeal application form an send it to district council offices but make sure you send it with c/o M office or it will end up in traffic wardens ticket appeals floor...
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  5. #25
    Global Moderator Squalid Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    1,555
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by sas View Post
    We are in agreement. Guess I shouldn't have assumed "successfully worked" clarified poetics.

    As an aside, I don't think children (grade school K-8 should be taught poetry forms. Don't ask me how to do it, but it's not that way. Maybe ask them to closely observe three things a week (animals, plants, people, even buildings) and try to describe them in detail, not necessarily uniquely, but that would be the goal. Teach them to observe first. Or, later ask them to make comparisons between diverse things, the beginnings of simile without that heavy word. I hate boxes. Personally, I think teachers ruin creative writing and history classes. Neither can be appreciated if regurgitated.
    If they do ruin creative writing and history, they're a crap teacher.

    When I teach creative writing or even literature for that matter, I always stress feeling first. An artist is, after all, entitled to their own feeling about what works and what doesn't. If they weren't, then what the hell is the point, right? But I do think that poets, more than most other artists, have a tendency to excuse technique in the name of feeling and then hide behind the all-encompassing "free-verse". I think that's a problem. For example, free verse is not good if it is not grounded in anything. It is best when technique and content match, when attention is paid to imagery, flow, poetic devices, rhetorical and figurative language, theme, purpose, etc. This is the same in any medium. Hell, modern art has this problem. What I mean is a lot of people see modern art and think it's just mindless crap. A lot of people see Jackson Pollock and think, "Hell, I could do that." They don't have the technical training to properly understand the technique, thus the ill-informed opinion forms and people think Pollock was a no-talent fraud. This is why art critics appreciate Pollock (for the most part) and most laypeople don't. It's not that the critics are smarter; it's that they've been trained to see beyond what they see. There's a lot of chatter these days about how that's crap too and how students just become indoctrinated in theory because they're professors force it on them. I think that's either an argument made by people who don't know what they're talking about or an argument made by people who had bad professors. Good teachers provide the structure and allow the student to choose how they will apply that structure to their own lives. Bad teachers preach a narrow view and punish students for varying from it. I count myself lucky because I only had 1 or 2 teachers who ever did that to me.

    Anyway, it is important to be well versed in technique and form and all those academic things. Eliot recognized this. Pound did. Kafka did. Wordsworth and Coleridge did. Ginsberg did. Other artists too. Hell, you can see it in Shakespeare and all his borrowing and, of course, his form. Becoming a student of your craft allows you to explore your creativity in stronger ways. It also allows you to build upon what has come before you, as Eliot points out in "Tradition and the Individual Talent." It's the same thing with interpretation. It used to be the new critics preached the poem and only the poem. Well, academics evolved and realized an understanding of the artist is more important for interpreting their work, thus new historicism took over. And that's for the best!

    The point is you need have an understanding of a lot of things. From a purely pedagogical perspective, teaching kids that poetry has no rules first is backwards logic as children learn better when there is structure put in place first. I do agree that starting with observation and description is best, and that's actually what a lot of educators are doing now. Pedagogy is constantly evolving, and the old rote instructional methods are quickly becoming extinct among educators who have been properly taught. That being said, government standards are the real blockade for children. We're constantly forced to check boxes, as you noted, because if we don't our scores will lower and we'll be out a job. That's the problem with education; it's the mandates, not the teachers.

    But I digress.

    This all reminds me of a stupid anecdote I learned my first year of college in Intro to Literary Theory. I came out of high school steeped in feeling and lacking any sense of technique. The first day of class, we read "A Good Man is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor. My professor asks us what the story is about. I offer an explanation and he says I'm completely wrong.

    I was pissed. I even told him (brash young freshman I was) that interpretation is an individual exercise: what I get out of the story is equally as valid as what he got. He laughed at me.

    So then he said something to the effect of, "Okay, this story is about aliens. It's my interpretation. Interpretation is an individual exercise, so what I get out of the story is equally as valid as what you get."

    I realized immediately my mistake then went on to suffer through the complicated mess that is literary theory and the various critical approaches. It's similar to a scientific approach. I can shout all day that the world is flat because I feel I'm right, but when a scientist comes around and uses a structured, grounded approach to prove I am wrong, then I am wrong. Interpretation and feelings be damned.

    Point is that all interpretation, just like all art, is not equal. I can love Star Wars 100 times more than I love Citizen Kane, but that doesn't mean Star Wars is technically a better movie. I can scribble some random words down and say it's good art because there is feeling behind it, but unless my approach has been informed by some sort of conceptual structure, what the hell did I do except scribble?


    As for the OP question about poetic license, sure. Poetic license is real and a good thing. But if you're going to use poetic license (and in this sense, I'm applying the term to poetry form) then you better know why the hell you're doing it. Your explanation better not be "because I can." If that's all you got, I call BS.
    "I don't do anything with my life except romanticize and decay with indecision."

    "America I've given you all and now I'm nothing."

  6. #26
    S. Glass,

    (typing with one finger on iPad)

    My comments were focused upon those who teach in grade/middle school. I've seen them kill poetry interest in my grandgirls. Just when I had the most creative one showing interest, a teacher ruined it. Contained her, so she was afraid to step out of the box.

    I know Picasso was an exceptional artist of realism, before his abstract works. By that measure, what you said is validated. Yet, I can't help thinking that if Picasso taught children, he would tell them to just paint what they felt, not duplicate what they saw. At least, I hope so. Free the children first, then introduce them to form.

  7. #27
    Global Moderator Squalid Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado
    Posts
    1,555
    Blog Entries
    1
    I can appreciate your concern, but I am currently a middle school teacher, so I’m right in the thick of it. I do stand by the idea that your grandchildren probably got a bad teacher, and that sucks. Hopefully they get a better one going forward because the worst thing a teacher can do is kill that spirit.

    And I appreciate your sentiment about Picasso, but I disagree. I think he’d teach them form first then encourage them to destroy it haha. Then again, I think you can teach both at the same time.
    "I don't do anything with my life except romanticize and decay with indecision."

    "America I've given you all and now I'm nothing."

  8. #28
    Loved his humanitarian “Blue Period” for me his best works.
    There was never a great genius without a trace of madness. Attributed to Aristotle.

  9. #29
    drink to me,drink to my health...you know i can't drink anymore...clock strikes 3
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  10. #30
    Yes Annie, split infinitive.
    There was never a great genius without a trace of madness. Attributed to Aristotle.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.