in response to 'social vs personal in poetry'

[Paul Cawthorne]

beyond the discussion of a helpful critical process is the simple truth that people want attention, and that people are lonely. we are all attempting to find our people. so, if this site can create a community, then it cannot fail.

there is much discussion about what is good poetry. there have been many references to the greatness of seamus heaney. seamus heaney is a master poet; his insight and skill are immense. but for me, heaney's work lacks passion. i might study his work, but i would not emulate it. again, i think this issue of what is good poetry is defined by human nature. we all read ourselves into our favorite writers. our most beloved poets are the ones who join us in our own isolation.

charles bukowski was loudly criticized by the intellectual community as being crass, vulgar and without skill. some of his work cannot withstand this argument. however, some of his work is more powerful than anything i have ever read. and so have i simply read myself into bukowski's work? i say that i have. i also say that the truth is more powerful than language and form. bukowski taught me that poetry is not a chore, it is an easy confirmation of how i grasp reality.

there are divisions among writers as to what is good and what is garbage. what you have, really, is an alignment of the intellectual minority against the ‘journal entry’ majority. who is right? i don’t know. i only care that something i read is well written, and that it reveal the reason it needed to be written. it is true that the majority of ‘journal entry’ type poetry fails to produce anything but self-important neurosis. it is also true that the poetry heralded by the intellectual minority speaks only to that minority.

and so once again this comes back to human nature. there is terrible in-fighting and bitterness and resentment amongst writers (and people in general). there is jealousy and rage. it's incredible. can we possibly help each other?

you wrote:

"Yes, there are moderators here, there are accomplished "poets" of all sorts, but all the critiquing in the world cannot substitute for the immersion in Shakespeare, Shelley, Baudelaire, Rilke, etc. People will critique the development of a poem, its metrics, its diction, its overall idea: but how do you teach poetry and writing?"

the answer to your question is: you don't.

a critical analysis of a writer's work can illuminate its flaws, but it cannot reveal to the writer how they should position their perspective. that's why the moderators are always telling people to read, in the hope that exposure to good writing will instill a sense of balance. if you expect that this site will create a genius, you will be disappointed. but that isn't what this site is about. it's about humans trying to touch other humans. and it is successful.

and poetry should not be so serious. no one reads it anymore. poetry is not owned by a handful of elitists. it is everyman. e.e. cummings wrote:

"may my mind stroll about hungry
and fearless and thirsty and supple
and even if it's sunday may i be wrong
for whenever men are right they are not young"

very well.

[garyg]

Anyone who prefers Bukowski to Heaney is not going to benefit from a point by point refutation of his argument, in my opinion.

garyg
Poetry is serious

[Carillon26]

Originally posted by garyg:

Poetry is serious


And so is life-but….

Must poetry be reserved only for the intellectually superior, the sober and serious-minded? Yes, if I wish to communicate some special understanding effectively, not to say beautifully, I must sit down to serious work with my tools, I must craft my statements carefully and thoughtfully. I use words for this, never having mastered the tools of music or the visual arts. Sometimes, a perception requires considerable effort to understand well enough to explain to others, and painful labor to craft that explanation into a form that satisfies both writer and reader. Poetry especially attempts to make that interchange both esthetically pleasing and intellectually stimulating, I think--and when it succeeds, for me, there is an additional 'sock to the gut' as it hits an emotion.

But does all this require grim determination with never the light of levity or fun? I know that garyg has a large and biting sense of humor (he went to school with Don Rickles, didn't he?); perhaps I mistake his intent? I too, take poetry, writing, words seriously--I take myself seriously. But not THAT seriously--if I were to wake up every morning and think "life is serious"--I would begin to contemplate suicide! Playing with words is also the most fun I can think of having while sitting at my keyboard (OK, not THE most fun, but this isn't the forum for that!).

Perhaps though, my ideas of fun are skewed--my favorite 'toy' is this computer, and my favorite 'games' include teaching my spreadsheet to analyze data for me without making me do any of the work--which is work in itself--but oh, so much fun! So, once again--must I put on my 'Puritan work-ethic' face to approach poetry--or may I skip and run along the path while the slow-pokes catch up? Do I have to make a choice? Must "Poetry" make a choice?

Please say it ain't so!



------------------
Carol

If you aren't having fun, you're doing something wrong!

[Julie]

Originally posted by Paul Cawthorne:

and poetry should not be so serious. no one reads it anymore.

Bzzt. Thanks for playing.

Julie (who has never been prouder to be a nobody)

[Paul Cawthorne]

"Anyone who prefers Bukowski to Heaney is not going to benefit from a point by point refutation of his argument, in my opinion."
garyg
"Poetry is serious"

you suggest that my sensibilities should match yours if i am to benefit from your observations. you have something to protect that should not require your vigilance, in my opinion.

"Bzzt. Thanks for playing."
Julie "(who has never been prouder to be a nobody)"

i misspoke when i said that no one reads poetry anymore. my point was: the people who dictate what is accepted as good poetry are, for the most part, its only audience.

there's a lot of discussion here about being careful not to alienate the reader. the critics voice on this site is maintained above the poet's voice. a surly, confrontational critique, if met with a similar response from the receiver, disappears to the outside. and i suppose you deal with thousands of idiots who warrant such treatment. however, the culture that is then maintained cannot possibly welcome anyone that doesn't share the critic's sensibilities. garyg's response to my post is a perfect example.

i do not propose that bad writing should be celebrated. i propose that a writer can be encouraged to follow their own voice without being shouted down.

[Kate]

So that's what your post was all about? Why didn't you say so in the first place? I'm always amazed when folks with such few posts have the site and its players all figured out.

There are plenty of places where you won't be "shouted down," Paul. Why not lurk around a bit more, post more, before making such assumptions?

Have you been here before? Under another name? Just curious. Maybe the naysayers are all just starting to sound alike.

[tbm]

Originally posted by Paul Cawthorne:

there's a lot of discussion here about being careful not to alienate the reader.

* without the reader, communication is pointless. without the author, the world is a hair quieter. Bliss! purchase a tape recorder if you want to think out loud.

bates

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Cawthorne:

"Anyone who prefers Bukowski to Heaney is not going to benefit from a point by point refutation of his argument, in my opinion."
garyg
"Poetry is serious"

you suggest that my sensibilities should match yours if i am to benefit from your observations.

**No, I suggest that your apparent complete absence of any sensibilities whatsoever would make it a waste of my time to point out the glaringly obvious holes in your argument.

you have something to protect that should not require your vigilance, in my opinion.

**Deep, man.


"Bzzt. Thanks for playing."
Julie "(who has never been prouder to be a nobody)"

i misspoke when i said that no one reads poetry anymore. my point was: the people who dictate what is accepted as good poetry are, for the most part, its only audience.

**And then you go and make me look like a psychic with this response to Julie.


there's a lot of discussion here about being careful not to alienate the reader. the critics voice on this site is maintained above the poet's voice. a surly, confrontational critique, if met with a similar response from the receiver, disappears to the outside. and i suppose you deal with thousands of idiots who warrant such treatment. however, the culture that is then maintained cannot possibly welcome anyone that doesn't share the critic's sensibilities.

**You obviously have a problem with the climate we have created here at PFFA. Feel free to bask in the warm waters of poetry.com, postpoems.com, and any or all of the other shallow wading pools of heartfelt emotion where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day.


i do not propose that bad writing should be celebrated.

**"I am not a crook." Richard Nixon
"I did not have sex with that woman." Bill Clinton.
"Read my lips, no new taxes." George Bush Sr.
"i do not propose that bad writing should be celebrated." Paul Cawthorne


i propose that a writer can be encouraged to follow their own voice without being shouted down.

**What absolute horseshit. That's right, I'm dismissing your entire position and argument without going to the trouble of refuting it.

garyg
"follow their own voice"
highhanded sarcastic laughter

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carillon26:

**Your post is so well-written that it deserves a reply.

And so is life-but….

Must poetry be reserved only for the intellectually superior, the sober and serious-minded?

**No.


Yes, if I wish to communicate some special understanding effectively, not to say beautifully, I must sit down to serious work with my tools, I must craft my statements carefully and thoughtfully. I use words for this, never having mastered the tools of music or the visual arts.

**Same here.

Sometimes, a perception requires considerable effort to understand well enough to explain to others, and painful labor to craft that explanation into a form that satisfies both writer and reader. Poetry especially attempts to make that interchange both esthetically pleasing and intellectually stimulating, I think--and when it succeeds, for me, there is an additional 'sock to the gut' as it hits an emotion.

**For me too, obviously. But that *sock in the gut* is only achieved (for me) by the display of the skills of the artist's craft, not by some psychic *reading* of the author's intent. Poems are made up of words and images, not emotions. But, you know that.


But does all this require grim determination with never the light of levity or fun? I know that garyg has a large and biting sense of humor (he went to school with Don Rickles, didn't he?);

**Don Rickles is my father. I think.


perhaps I mistake his intent? I too, take poetry, writing, words seriously--I take myself seriously. But not THAT seriously--if I were to wake up every morning and think "life is serious"--I would begin to contemplate suicide! Playing with words is also the most fun I can think of having while sitting at my keyboard (OK, not THE most fun, but this isn't the forum for that!).

Perhaps though, my ideas of fun are skewed--my favorite 'toy' is this computer, and my favorite 'games' include teaching my spreadsheet to analyze data for me without making me do any of the work--which is work in itself--but oh, so much fun! So, once again--must I put on my 'Puritan work-ethic' face to approach poetry--or may I skip and run along the path while the slow-pokes catch up? Do I have to make a choice? Must "Poetry" make a choice?

Please say it ain't so!

**I don't think that the majority of PFFA participants really care if the real life garyg is a lighthearted and gregarious merry prankster, or a dour and sober pedantic snob.

garyg

[Gabe1]

Originally posted by garyg:


**I don't think that the majority of PFFA participants really care if the real life garyg is a lighthearted and gregarious merry prankster, or a dour and sober pedantic snob.

garyg


*I happen to have a tremendous emotional investment riding on the hope that you are in fact a lighthearted pedantic prankster, but I have been known to get bad stock tips.

Come on seven!

-Gabriel



[This message has been edited by Gabriel (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Carillon26]

Originally posted by garyg:

**Your post is so well-written that it deserves a reply.



Why, thank you!



**For me too, obviously. But that *sock in the gut* is only achieved (for me) by the display of the skills of the artist's craft, not by some psychic *reading* of the author's intent. Poems are made up of words and images, not emotions. But, you know that.



Of course. My point was that the 'sock to the gut' comes AFTER the the esthetic and intellectual appreciation, or more accurately, along with it. ALMOST anybody can appeal to the emotions of others with some combination of words calculated to do so
("See the tree, how big it's grown?" was the first song I remember having a love/hate relationship with; I did get all choked up hearing it, if I 'sank into the feeling,' which was usually on my way to the bathroom to deliver an appropriate libation to the porcelain god!); the poet hopes to do this with more finesse and subtlety.



**Don Rickles is my father. I think.



Ah.



**I don't think that the majority of PFFA participants really care if the real life garyg is a lighthearted and gregarious merry prankster, or a dour and sober pedantic snob.



I was not trying to delve into garyg's private psyche--although I think he does a rousing rendition of BOTH personae, sometimes within the same post! (Normally, I might attach a winking smiley here, but I believe garyg doesn't appreciate the lil devils. Personally, I think a wink is worth a paragraph, if not quite a thousand words.) I was simply asking if Poetry (with a capital P) had to be taken so seriously as all that. I believe you have answered that, too. Thank you, sir!


------------------
Carol

If you aren't having fun, you're doing something wrong!

[This message has been edited by Carillon26 (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Paul Cawthorne]

speaking of horseshit, i bought a Faroy candle (DEFINING QUALITY SINCE 1950). there was a sticker on the candle that said, basically: eliminates odors with a mild, refreshing scent. i sniffed the candle for a few moments before buying it. it was pleasant. i was instructed to trim the wick to 3/8's of an inch before lighting. i got the ruler and measured 3/8's of an inch, thinking, i should just light the damn thing. but i snipped the wick. then i set it to flame. and an hour later the wick was drowned in wax. a few days later i carved out a few tablespoons of hard wax to try to make room for the wick. i set it to fire again. then i thought: wait a minute, where's the refreshing scent? i confronted the candle; i tried to waft its fumes toward me. nothing. i leaned down and took a good wiff and the flame went into my nostrils.

i'll take the horseshit.

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Cawthorne:

i'll take the horseshit.

**And I'll take Heaney.
Chaque une a son gout.

garyg
I'm sure I spelled that wrong



[This message has been edited by garyg (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by garyg:

**And I'll take Heaney.
Chaque une a son gout.

garyg
I'm sure I spelled that wrong


You're very close: "Chacun a son goût."

I prefer strawberry. Bukowski gives me hives.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 01-10-2001).]