Poems at the Poetry Free-for-all - social vs personal in poetry

jsdb

12-11-2000, 08:15 AM

Having been a member here for the last 7 or 8 months, I've had a chance to see the different methods of analyses and critiques, the variety and taste of poems and poets. I think it is commendable that there exist such a site, but I wonder as to its efficacy. Let me say at the outset that I am genuinely thankful for the jolt to my poetic sensibilities, to my poetry and prose in general. I hold no grudges against anyone here, and it pleases me that people are willing to take time to read a complete stranger's writing and offer a response, however detailed or superficial. At the beginning of my pffa experience, I labored over critiques, tried to deconstruct unsuccessfully poems. Due to a lack of comprehensive poetic tools, I failed. I fancied myself someone who could read a poem and recognize its merits or failings. It has become clear that this is not so. I am sincerely not sure whether this is due to my different poetic taste (which, as anyone truthfully asks himself, is what he considers to be a true indicator) or my lack of proper taste (owing either to insensitivity, impatience, bad taste, etc). I have also stopped for the most part giving critiques to strangers, as I feel so distant from their poetry, their otherness, that it would not be fair on my part to intrude upon their private creation. Perhaps I had too high expectations at the outset: that gems would appear here, that something beautiful and worthy of the name of a masterpiece (and by this I don't mean masterpiece etymologically, but a poem that, as someone would say in a cliche way, makes them want to get up in the morning) would suddenly come into being. I don't mean to disparage any of the poets here in saying that they are not genuises. Rather it's become clearer that this site is not where one can find poems alongside Seamus Heaney, Li-Young Lee, Robert Pinsky, etc. When I taught french as a teacher's assistant, I gradually became aware that my french was decreasing in quality. I spent so much time around nonfrench speakers, teaching pronounciation, in an english environment, that the inner sound of french was fading. I think the same phenomenon is at risk here. If you want to write great poetry, you must surround yourself with great poetry. If you want to compose great music, you must hear daily great music. In other words, for best results, you must saturate your environment accordingly. I wonder then if this site is not doomed to fail. 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? I don't say this because I think I am entitled by some inner poetic gift, but to emphasize that poetry is not something arrived at immediately, it is something that you may be on the point of achieving when you suddenly die, one's whole life must be dedicated to the study of the beautiful and one must live. These confused thoughts are an attempt to show that a site where someone critiques my poetry, or your poetry, is perhaps ultimately useless, despite the benevolence shown in the existence of such a place. Would I be confident in learning, even in the company of Seamus Heaney, for instance? I don't know. When he wrote that "I rhyme / To see myself, to set the darkness echoing," what did he mean? How can you, a critiquer, arrive at the darkness encircling me? I hate to butcher what must be one the most penetrating and marvellous lines of modern poetry, but the question must be asked: if I am rhyming to see myself, what role does another play? Poetry partakes both of the personal and the social: here, on this site, we are taking into consideration (mostly) the social. If poetry aids us in relieving our emotions (as a catharsis), what role does communication have at all? The obvious answer is that communication is inherent in beauty, but then one wonders about Pessoa's alteregos, the universal pessimism of Leopardi, the intellectual beauty venerated by Baudelaire and Shelley: these grand poets constructed for themselves edifices that will fall soundlessly when man dies. But then one remembers Homer, the group tradition of epics, the social poetry around the fire. It wasn't so long ago that man began to read silently to himself. Could we say that within the last two millenium man has culturally evolved (lamarckian) from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? I guess what I see here is the difference between the old (group) and the new (personal), and I'm not sure how the two interrelate. I am sorry for this longwinded note, but I'm truly confused, and I would be very happy and grateful to listen to what others have to say--if communication is possible.
Jacob

Harry Rutherford

12-11-2000, 09:15 AM

I'm a bit puzzled by some of what you said, but here are some thoughts.

Surely poetry can be a hobby, like carpentry or watercolours. You mainly do it for your own satisfaction, and you don't expect ever to be Chippendale or Velasquez, but you enjoy the company and advice of like-minded people.

As to

People will critique the development of a poem, its metrics, its diction, its overall idea: but how do you teach poetry and writing?

Compare

People will critique the construction of a chair, the precision of the carving, the paintwork and upholstery decisions, the overall design: but how do you teach carpentery and furniture-making?

No-one would expect to learn to make a chair by hanging around furniture shops and sitting in chairs a lot.

I'm finding it slightly difficult to relate what your saying to the oral/written poetry distinction, but that may be me being dim.

The idea that spending too much time in here instead of reading great poetry will tend to dull your judgement is certainly intriguing. Fortunately, its not an either/or decision. I enjoy a wide variety of different filmed entertainment, from Sunset Beach, through ER and Queer as Folk, to Roman Holiday and Dr Strangelove. To say nothing of Match of the Day. Is that a problem, too? (maybe it is, I don't know).

Harry

PS- communication is possible. Maybe rarely perfect, but definitely possible.

[This message has been edited by Harry Rutherford (edited 12-11-2000).]

garyg

12-11-2000, 09:42 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jsdb:

**What an incredibly well-written post. I agree with the vast majority of what you say, but I'll just highlight a few of your queries.

I have also stopped for the most part giving critiques to strangers, as I feel so distant from their poetry, their otherness, that it would not be fair on my part to intrude upon their private creation.

**I never think of someone's poetry as a *private creation*. I see it as an attempt to convey experience through the poem to a third person: the reader. You just don't connect with some poems, even if they are well-written and technically sound. Other poems you do connect with even with their flaws. And then there are those poems that are so hidiously mangled that one wonders a number of unkind things about the writer.

Rather it's become clearer that this site is not where one can find poems alongside Seamus Heaney, Li-Young Lee, Robert Pinsky, etc.

**No kidding.

If you want to write great poetry, you must surround yourself with great poetry.

**I couldn't agree more, and I don't think you will find many people that will argue with you on this point. Notice how we always tell people to *read more poetry*?

If you want to compose great music, you must hear daily great music. In other words, for best results, you must saturate your environment accordingly. I wonder then if this site is not doomed to fail.

**It depends on what your definition of *fail* is. The workshop environment that exists in some of the forums here can be extremely beneficial to a working writer. The recent influx of talented commentators and poets in Merciless should be a cause of great celebration for all of us.
But, your basic premise that one will not necesarily write a great poem just by hanging around PFFA is a sound one. Not everyone has it in them to write great poetry. But everyone can develop the capability to appreciate good and great poetry, and in the long run, that's what I see as the real aim of this site.

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.

**agreed.

People will critique the development of a poem, its metrics, its diction, its overall idea: but how do you teach poetry and writing? I don't say this because I think I am entitled by some inner poetic gift, but to emphasize that poetry is not something arrived at immediately, it is something that you may be on the point of achieving when you suddenly die, one's whole life must be dedicated to the study of the beautiful and one must live. These confused thoughts are an attempt to show that a site where someone critiques my poetry, or your poetry, is perhaps ultimately useless, despite the benevolence shown in the existence of such a place.

**Those of us who are attempting to convey experience to a reader will benefit by getting feedback from those readers. We will find what parts made the reader stumble when he read a certain passage, what diction choices conjured up an unintended image, what mechanical and grammatical aspects of the poem detracted from the enjoyment of the piece. We would never be able to guess about these things with any amount of certainty. That is why critical feedback is so vitally important to us.
Granted, if a person is writing just to satisty his true inner poetic sacred soul voice, then critical feedback isn't even part of the equation because the writer really doesn't care how a reader will react because he doesn't have the reader in mind at any stage of the creative process. Poems of this genre are what we sometimes call *journal entries*, solipistic meanderings that should probably never be exposed to the outside world.

Would I be confident in learning, even in the company of Seamus Heaney, for instance? I don't know.
When he wrote that "I rhyme / To see myself, to set the darkness echoing," what did he mean? How can you, a critiquer, arrive at the darkness encircling me? I hate to butcher what must be one the most penetrating and marvellous lines of modern poetry, but the question must be asked: if I am rhyming to see myself, what role does another play?

**I have a little epithet that I've devloped over the years that applies to many of the intermediate poets I've been around: If you can't see it, you can't say it. You can't expect a person to produce a piece of writing which demonstrates the subtle and sometimes terrifying interconnectedness of all things when that person can not *see* it for himself. I think, (and these are just my personal thoughts) that this aspect of seeing beyond the mundane and physical is one of the many things which separates we intermediate hackers from someone like a Heaney. Having said that, let's not forget the million or so other *practical* differences: his lifelong study of Literature, for instance. heh

Poetry partakes both of the personal and the social: here, on this site, we are taking into consideration (mostly) the social. If poetry aids us in relieving our emotions (as a catharsis), what role does communication have at all?

**See, the thing is, I don't agree with your premise, so I can't address your question. Yes, there can (I guess) be a cathartic element to writing, but it's so far down the line of importance that most of us don't even really consider it. Once again, having said that, I know that there are many people who pen verse *solely* for the therapeutic of cathartic effect. We usually direct these people to General Poetry.

The obvious answer is that communication is inherent in beauty, but then one wonders about Pessoa's alteregos, the universal pessimism of Leopardi, the intellectual beauty venerated by Baudelaire and Shelley: these grand poets constructed for themselves edifices that will fall soundlessly when man dies. But then one remembers Homer, the group tradition of epics, the social poetry around the fire. It wasn't so long ago that man began to read silently to himself. Could we say that within the last two millenium man has culturally evolved (lamarckian) from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? I guess what I see here is the difference between the old (group) and the new (personal), and I'm not sure how the two interrelate. I am sorry for this longwinded note, but I'm truly confused, and I would be very happy and grateful to listen to what others have to say--if communication is possible.
Jacob

**I think a lot of us want to have our cake and eat it too. (cliche)
We want to write personal observations that will resonate with a sympathetic reader because of the presentation techniques we have crafted.

You've brought up some really good points, and it will be interesting to see what others will contribute to this thread.

If this site produces even one person who can enjoy poetry on a level that they were never before aware of, I don't think we can call the entire exercise a failure.

garyg

JohnBoddie

12-11-2000, 11:09 AM

Unlike Gary, I found this note to be a rambling tour of your own navel.

Poetry and critique both improve only when they are performed. It doesn't happen by osmisis and some people never develop more than rudimentary skill.

If you want to surround yourself with better teachers and a richer environment than you find here, put up the money and attend Breadloaf or one of the other teaching opportunities. Go to the Dodge festival and participate in the workshops.

Just do us a favor and stop wailing about how greatness will never find you if you hang around pffa.

As a start, pick up a copy of Milosz's "The Witness of Poetry" and read his section on "A Challenge to Classicism." It deals with poetry and communication. Follow that with a copy of Pinsky's "The situation of Poetry" to get a better feel for what modern poetry attempts to do.

JB

tbm

12-11-2000, 11:36 AM

poetry is communication. it is necessarily social.

bates

Blythe

12-11-2000, 11:43 AM

Hey Jacob ~

You'll find me in a mix of the above three replies. When I saw the subject of your message I thought you were going to discuss more of the political vs. supra-mundane question but instead this. You do ramble and the length of this message combined with the display makes the rambling a bit hard to unravel.

As far as I can tell you're questioning the worth of the pursuit of this poetry board. Why you are asking is unclear. You read Montaigne, right? At the simplest the answer to your question is diversion - as well as the reason why you asked, and why we have replied. Why do you read Lorca, why do you go to listen to Bach? Why would you pursue creativity at all?

You express your distance from the work of the people who post here. I've always held out to you the possibility that you create this separation for yourself, and that it's utterly easy to dismantle. Is it the same with Yeats or Longfellow as it is when you read someone's poem on here? You and I have read many of the texts together and tried to understand them. I don't know what you mean by your distinction between "old/group" and "new/personal". It seems to me that one and the other are dependent and inextricable, that to be one - a group - is defined by what it means to be a person. You know, why we studied the humanities.

When you want to talk about something being inherent - like communication in beauty - you have to give me some idea as to where you're coming from (them's fightin words.)Are you talking about Heaney's purpose in writing verse? Is he communicating - is his intent to communicate with himself or another - does this matter, make his words beautiful? Do you remember Basia's shocked face after every pronouncement in Freshman Language? Now that's beauty...Do you remember driving to Jemez in Rozac's blue bug? Now that was ridiculous. Or vice versa. One (Basia's face) was not so distinct from the other (silent mountain forest.) garyg said, "You can't expect a person to produce a piece of writing which demonstrates the subtle and sometimes (ha!, sometimes)terrifying interconnectedness of all things when that person can not *see* it for himself." And I don't think you can read a piece that does express that interconnectedness (and understand) if you suffer from the same blindness. The thought behind Feynman's writing is as glorious and poetic and grand as Yeats's writing actually is. And simple.

I do also have to agree with Signori Boddie e Rutherford, avec Monsieurs. You can't absorb these things - any angst-ridden rant on this site will show you that. A poem doesn't come to fruition without thought the way a flower would not blossom did God not remember it.

So there's a reply as ramblling and non-applicable as your original post. So there.

[This message has been edited by Blythe (edited 12-11-2000).]

FireFlower

12-11-2000, 12:24 PM

Thank you for this. I found what you have written well thought out and easily readable. What you have said I can kind of agree with. People improve when reading some of the great poets but at the same time this sort of workshop can be a great help to those who really want to excel. I personally know that if it were not for the pffa I would remain stagnant. The social aspect helps a lot for me, thus, it is my opinion this is all dependent upon the individual. Gosh, just like philosophy there are never any right or wronge answers (of course that is debatable too)... that gets so annoying. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/biggrin.gif-FireFlower

Thanks again!

[This message has been edited by FireFlower (edited 12-11-2000).]

Shaun

12-11-2000, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by garyg:
If this site produces even one person who can enjoy poetry on a level that they were never before aware of, I don't think we can call the entire exercise a failure.
garyg
[/B]
Well, if no one else, this site has opened me up to a whole new world. I am thankful for finding this, and I feel enlightened with the knowledge I now obtain. (that was riddled with cliches, eh?) Thanks again.

------------------
Shaun McCormick

&*(9)%46#$&

12-11-2000, 09:50 PM

Read more Derrida. Good poetry is just a form of Bad poetry.
I enjoyed reading your vigorous and rigorous post

Kemmer

12-11-2000, 11:45 PM

Jacob, If I were a great poet, I would be sending my work off to literary journals, not posting it here.

I'm not at a level where I can point out the mistakes in "My Last Duchess." However, I find critting makes me think about poetry in a new way. Did you ever take a literature course where students were encouraged to find flaws? I find reading crits makes me look at my own writing more closely. I enjoy watching rough drafts change into polished pieces. I like the idea of offering whatever help I can to others who are rolling around on the floor in agony, trying to find the right words. I like making connections with people who are working at this craft.

As to whether poetry is personal or social, it can be either. But unless the poet touches something universal, or at least tries to, the poem will fail. It's about communication, new insight, the human condition, etc.

(Side note on web writing: forget everything you ever learned about paragraphing. It's much easier to read short bursts of prose on the screen. My eyes are watering.) http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Kemmer

------------------
Life is not a zero-sum game.

Ashersimeon

12-11-2000, 11:59 PM

I'm not sure if you are upset that we are all spending time here and not plugging awayat the classics, or if you are upset because I'm not Seamus Heaney. Either way, I don't think this board is here to make us into little Syliva Plath's or Billie Collinses or T.S. Eliot's or whoever.

The most important thing I have gotten from this site is the ability to stand away from my poem and look at it (somewhat) objectively. You can't ever improve unless you are willing to take criticism, and the critical forums here are perfect for building that ability.

I love "I found this note to be a rambling tour of your own navel"

Asher

jsdb

12-12-2000, 08:47 AM

First of all, thank y'all for your comments.
Harry--you say that poetry can be a hobby, which is of course true. But I speak as someone for whom poetry is not a hobby, like carpentery or watercolours. For me, poetry is more serious and directly relates to my level of personal happiness.
Garyg--As you've noticed, the premiss of poetry as a method of (simply) conveying experience is something I deeply question. You write that the "true inner poetic sacred soul voice" is fit only for journal entries, is solipsistic. Why do you hold this opinion? Is it because otherwise there is no poetic, aesthetic standard? If a poet has (to be old fashioned) a destiny, why does communication enter into the picture? For instance, no one understood Joan of Arc, but she was convinced by her religious visions: however, for her, what was not important in itself was the political meaning derived thereof, the wars and battles. It was her relation to God. And how does interpersonal communication deal with this relation? We're back in the realm of whether devotion to God requires political action (social action, poetic communication to others), or whether it is something undertaken in the silence of one's study.
JB--thanks for your recommendations of books. I'm disappointed that you decline to participate in a philosophical discussion.
tbm--I guess you don't want to be dragged in to a tedious argument. I think your statement is open to question, and would like to hear why you are firm in your belief.
Blythe--Can you justify creation?
Fireflower--thanks for your remarks. The social aspect, you're right, is different for different people, but the fundamental issue raised, I think, is whether poetic truth rises from the depths of one's being, or whether it is external.
&*(9)%46#$&--Could you say some more about what Derrida thought, I've never read him.
Kemmer--You write, "As to whether poetry is personal or social, it can be either. But unless the poet touches something universal, or at least tries to, the poem will fail. It's about communication, new insight, the human condition, etc." Could you clarify what you mean, please? How does new insight relate to communication?
Ashersimeon--You are implying that improvement depends on others, that criticism is ultimately meaningful. What about Proust, for instance, with his corklined room? What criticism did he have writing 3000 pages? What criticism did Rilke have when he wrote on a vision his Duino Elegies?

Jacob

debi z

12-12-2000, 09:47 AM

Jacob,

Harry's comment that you can not learn to make a chair by sitting in one, rang true for me. The person who is able to create a fine hand-made piece of furniture which will last for centurys, is as much an artist as the Bard. If you grab a saw, and some cheap fiber-board and guess at the measurements, you have created a piece of junk, which will last 5 hot minutes if you're lucky. Both attempts are driven by the desire to build a chair, what seperates them is skill. Skill comes from exposurer to the 'how to's' of craft and endless attempts at perfecting the skill. If you give someone all the tools and the material they need and lock them away, they (like the monkey with the type-writer writing The Illiad) may eventually craft the perfect chair. But how much quicker they will arrive at their goal if allowed to work amongst a group of other apprentices, all learning from their mistakes and successes. If you add a master carpenter wandering through now and then, then you have a good learning site.

For me, poetry is word craft, the greats not seperated from the rest by the tools they used but by what they created with them. They did not aquire these tools in a vacuum, they were born and grew up in a social world. To view them after the fact is to ignore the tool collecting parts of their lives.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that being forced to write (or compose, or sculpt etc.) a narrow range of theme, as was the case for many of the greats because of the authority of the church, must force one to find better and better ways to express the same thoughts as others if one is to stand out in the crowd, at least in the public realm.

debi z

[This message has been edited by debi z (edited 12-12-2000).]

Julie

12-12-2000, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by debi z:

For me, poetry is word craft, the greats not seperated from the rest by the tools they used but by what they created with them. They did not aquire these tools in a vacuum, they were born and grew up in a social world. To view them after the fact is to ignore the tool collecting parts of their lives.

debi z

Debi is my hero.

Blythe

12-12-2000, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by jsdb:
First of all, thank y'all for your comments.

you're welcome

For me, poetry is more serious and directly relates to my level of personal happiness.

Alright, Jacob - I am having a hard time really understanding what this discussion is about. I think it's a combination of brain unuse and the format of reading on this screen.

Anyway, you have drawn a ratio between poetry (is this reading it or writing it?) and your own happiness (from understanding other' work, or succeeding at your own {i.e., reading or writing?}) Phew. The answer to those questions may help me figure out how important or possible (or unimport- or imposs-) communication is.

I still don't see why poetry has this level of importance to you. Is this opposed to the natural world, or to other forms of art - is poetry "above" these other things and if so, why? Do the words "it is beautiful" or "it is damned" hold some power or meaning for you, or do the ideas behind these statements that hold signifigance for you?

Garyg--As you've noticed, the premiss of poetry as a method of (simply) conveying experience is something I deeply question. If a poet has (to be old fashioned) a destiny, why does communication enter into the picture?

You lost me with the "destiny" part. So if I'm understand correctly, poetry has nothing to do with expression or communication. Why do you say this? Because there is no aesthetic standard? Are there logical standards? Does such a structure enter into poetry? Perhaps it is my misconception that the linguistic basis of the form of art of which we speak lends it its communicative properties. Could be wrong there, though.

For instance, no one understood Joan of Arc, but she was convinced by her religious visions: however, for her, what was not important in itself was the political meaning derived thereof, the wars and battles. It was her relation to God. And how does interpersonal communication deal with this relation?

Woah boy.
Many people are convinced of their visions. Many of them are insane. Some of them are Thomas Tallises or St. Jeromes. It seems to me that you're asking how communication between two people deals with one of the conversants' relationship with God. I don't know that it can. I'm assuming that you mean to say that, could I express to you my relationship with God, I would be communicating something truthfully. Do you think that this is possible, or even neccessary? I have been reminded time and again lately of the subatomic particles that make up our world, and how you can't tell between one and another (destroying individualism) or even if there is more than one (destroying separatism.) To me, communication is not real or needed, because sometimes I can't tell the difference between you or me or anyone. And that seems, to me, to be as close to understanding God as I've come so far.

We're back in the realm of whether devotion to God requires political action (social action, poetic communication to others), or whether it is something undertaken in the silence of one's study.

I don't know how this applies to the discussion.

Blythe--Can you justify creation?

I don't have to, nor do I think there is a justification for it. I don't even know that there is such a thing for mankind. I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

How does new insight relate to communication?
Jacob

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, please.

Blythe

------------------
Life consists in being the self-developing whole which dissolves its development and in this movement simply preserves itself. - G.W.F. Hegel

garyg

12-12-2000, 10:23 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jsdb:

Garyg--As you've noticed, the premiss of poetry as a method of (simply) conveying experience is something I deeply question.

**Well, you'll need to work on that.

You write that the "true inner poetic sacred soul voice" is fit only for journal entries, is solipsistic. Why do you hold this opinion?

**Because, in my experience, I have found it to be true.

Is it because otherwise there is no poetic, aesthetic standard? If a poet has (to be old fashioned) a destiny, why does communication enter into the picture?

**John was right about the navel gazing.

For instance, no one understood Joan of Arc, but she was convinced by her religious visions: however, for her, what was not important in itself was the political meaning derived thereof, the wars and battles.

**"Senator, I knew Joan of Arc, I worked with Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc was a friend of mine. You, Senator, are no Joan of Arc."

It was her relation to God. And how does interpersonal communication deal with this relation?

**Maybe her relationship to her god was a part of her experience, and if she wrote a really good poem about it, she would be relating that experience.

We're back in the realm of whether devotion to God requires political action (social action, poetic communication to others), or whether it is something undertaken in the silence of one's study.

**John was right about the navel gazing.

garyg

Blythe

12-12-2000, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by garyg:
[QUOTE]**John was right about the navel gazing.

garyg

That's a shame - you were so interested, before.

FireFlower

12-12-2000, 11:56 AM

"the fundamental issue raised, I think, is whether poetic truth rises from the depths of one's being, or whether it is external."

Why can't poetry come from both sources? I would say good poetry combines both. If you are putting poetry on display for others to read and enjoy you need to put more into a piece then the "poetic truth" you need to share it in a way that others can understand what you are trying to say. We easily grasp our own work but for other to do so we need their input we do this by way of offering and accepting crits. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif-FireFlower

[This message has been edited by FireFlower (edited 12-12-2000).]

griffin

12-12-2000, 12:38 PM

I'm just going to give some general remarks, since I've just the post plus four replies and am very exhausted (besides, I can't stay long because I'm in the midst of exams).
First of all, I only partially agree with the comment (from Gary, I believe) that states that a poet should be able to see what he writes about in front of him. Agreed, something that isn't tangible shouldn't be written about. But why shouldn't I write about a jungle without having seen a jungle, if I know from reading how it looks like? And why shouldn't I write about some kind of surreality that looks very familiar(for example, Stephen King's Dark Tower series, that portrays a parallel universe where the medieval age and the world of the sixties seem to be mixed together; or Voltaires fables, where animals can talk). I'm a big fan of predicting future events, or putting an existing or fictional character in a totally different context.

I agree people should have experienced the masterpieces of an art to make a better masterpiece. I do however believe that you can't understand the making of a masterpiece without understanding all the levels between.
Can you fabricate a computer without knowing how a transistor works, or even looks like?

That's all for now, although I want to say more.

garyg

12-12-2000, 05:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by griffin:
[B]I'm just going to give some general remarks, since I've just the post plus four replies and am very exhausted (besides, I can't stay long because I'm in the midst of exams).
First of all, I only partially agree with the comment (from Gary, I believe) that states that a poet should be able to see what he writes about in front of him. Agreed, something that isn't tangible shouldn't be written about. But why shouldn't I write about a jungle without having seen a jungle, if I know from reading how it looks like? And why shouldn't I write about some kind of surreality that looks very familiar(for example, Stephen King's Dark Tower series, that portrays a parallel universe where the medieval age and the world of the sixties seem to be mixed together; or Voltaires fables, where animals can talk). I'm a big fan of predicting future events, or putting an existing or fictional character in a totally different context.

I agree people should have experienced the masterpieces of an art to make a better masterpiece. I do however believe that you can't understand the making of a masterpiece without understanding all the levels between.
Can you fabricate a computer without knowing how a transistor works, or even looks like?

That's all for now, although I want to say more.

**Ok, that made no sense whatsoever.

garyg

garyg

12-12-2000, 05:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blythe:

That's a shame - you were so interested, before.

**I know.
I'm blaming the coffee.

garyg

tbm

12-12-2000, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by jsdb:

It was her relation to God. And how does interpersonal communication deal with this relation?

* that one made me howl.

bates

Ashersimeon

12-12-2000, 10:40 PM

You know I don't really know what criticism Proust and Rilke had, since I wasn't hanging around while they wrote. I think criticism teaches you what problems to watch out for in your poetry. I have a tendency to put a lot of filler in my poems (kind of like everybody else), but other people pointing that out has helped me to notice and catch it before I post anything (most of the time). I guess that's all I'm going to add to this, the thread is kind of dissolving into nonsense. Asher

Kemmer

12-13-2000, 12:18 AM

Uh... why did I say poetry should aim to strike some (admittedly abstract) unversal chord? Why did I mention insight and "the human condition?" All that "man against man/nature/god/society/self" stuff?

Uh... because it's literature?

And as for how does "new insight relate to communication?" Well, you gotta have something to communicate. If not, just post a bibliography.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy light verse and trashy novels. I just don't call them poetry and literature.

Kemmer

(And please think about what I said about paragraphing. On-line, white space rules.)

[This message has been edited by Kemmer (edited 12-13-2000).]

Harry Rutherford

12-13-2000, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by jsdb:
First of all, thank y'all for your comments.
Harry--you say that poetry can be a hobby, which is of course true. But I speak as someone for whom poetry is not a hobby, like carpentery or watercolours. For me, poetry is more serious and directly relates to my level of personal happiness.

I was just pointing out that criticising PFFA for not being The Answer may be missing the point.

And I'm sure that for a lot of people, their hobbies directly relate to their level of personal happiness. I know that the joy I got from watching a toucan hawking for termites was as good as anything I ever got from poetry; not as lasting, maybe, and a lot more difficult to take on the train, but every bit as special.

&*(9)%46#$&

12-13-2000, 08:42 AM

My intitial post was a gross and vulgar simplification of Derrida's thoughts.
If you are interested then check out these sites:
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/jdind.html
http://www.mii.kurume-u.ac.jp/~leuers/Derrida.htm

Neophyte

12-20-2000, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by griffin:
I agree people should have experienced the masterpieces of an art to make a better masterpiece. I do however believe that you can't understand the making of a masterpiece without understanding all the levels between.
Can you fabricate a computer without knowing how a transistor works, or even looks like?

I agree with griffin on this point.

Someone, I think Jacob, used the example of a musician. It is true that to be a great (or at least better/best personally possible) musician, one should listen to the greats. However, and this is where griffin makes a nice point, simply listening to those greats will not make another musician great as well. The aspiring musician must understand the rudiments of music first; otherwise, he/she will never know why a performer was so great or what made the composer's work so noteworthy (no pun intended).

The same is true in poetry. Certainly, reading great poetry will enhance the learning process, but one must also understand and practice the rudiments of poetry.

This site does not claim (at least, to my knowledge) to be a one-stop shopping experience for anybody and everybody who wants to be a poet. I have never seen a critic here say "Just hang around here a while, and you'll learn all you need to know about writing good poetry." What I have seen, over and over and over and over, is "Read more poetry." What makes this site useful is not some overzealous attempt to be everything an aspiring poet needs. These forums help us with the rudiments, and that, in and of itself, is enough to keep it from being "doomed to failure" from the beginning.

------------------
Heidi
music.jd.2b@justice.com
www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html)

[This message has been edited by Neophyte (edited 12-20-2000).]