What is Poetry? Jump on in.

[Bela]

Greetings!

As I mentioned in a thread in Merciless, there appears to be a great need here for a thorough examination or re-examination of what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it "a poem". What defines it as a poem?

I certainly do not have the answer. I think many of you probably do. I would be most gratified if you could post your opinions, thoughts, favorite quotes and essays, etc. in this thread so that we can somehow arrive at a workable definition to which critiquers can subsequently refer, and from which would-be poets can draw inspiration.

I'll open with a piece by Wallace Stevens, whom I have been re-reading since the plagiarized post that appeared in Merciless recently.

Of Modern Poetry

The poem of the mind in the act of finding
What will suffice. It has not always had
To find: the scene was set; it repeated what
Was in the script.
                  Then the theatre was changed
To something else. Its past was a souvenir.
It has to be living, to learn the speech of the place.
It has to face the men of the time and to meet
The women of the time. It has to think about war
And it has to find what will suffice. It has
To construct a new stage. It has to be on that stage
And, like an insatiable actor, slowly and
With meditation, speak words that in the ear,
In the delicatest ear of the mind, repeat,
Exactly, that which it wants to hear, at the sound
Of which, an invisible audience listens,
Not to the play, but to itself, expressed
In an emotion as of two people, as of two
Emotions becoming one. The actor is
A metaphysician in the dark, twanging
An instrument, twanging a wiry string that gives
Sounds passing through sudden rightnesses, wholly
Containing the mind, below which it cannot descend,
Beyond which it has no will to rise.
                                     It must
Be the finding of a satisfaction, and may
Be of a man skating, a woman dancing, a woman
Combing. The poem of the act of the mind.

by Wallace Stevens (1942)
(with apologies for copyright infringement)


[This message has been edited by Bela (edited 07-27-2000).]

[M. CORSO]

Bela,as probably one of the guiltiest here at pffa,of submitting what ends up being prose in a poetry format, I look forward to learning what I can from this disscusion. I appreciate your having started this, and hope others respond.Thank you.

[griffin]

The best way I found to comment on this is by piercing the arguments of the "Prosey posts are not poetry"-party.

So what if prosey posts aren't poetry? Poetasters are the same sort of people that would like prose anekdotes. Toon Hermans, a Belgian poet, said: "Poetry has no use, yet a walk through the woods doesn't either. But both of them enrich people."
Prose anekdotes are also enriching. They tell you something more about personalities, about culture, or they just amuse you. So why should we distinguish them from a walk through the woods?

I'd really want to have a debate about this, me being the defending party. I have lots of other arguments, but I'm keeping them for trumps http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

[tbm]

Originally posted by griffin:
The best way I found to comment on this is by piercing the arguments of the "Prosey posts are not poetry"-party.

So what if prosey posts aren't poetry?

* ahhh. the infamous "so what" argument. you have undermined your conclusion before ever postulating it. prose isn't poetry. i agree entirely. so what are you arguing?

Poetasters are the same sort of people that would like prose anekdotes.

* poetasters are also the same sort of people who would like pasta, i presume, though i have yet to see any sauce recipees posted.

Toon Hermans, a Belgian poet, said: "Poetry has no use, yet a walk through the woods doesn't either. But both of them enrich people."
Prose anekdotes are also enriching.

* i agree entirely. unfortunately, their enriching qualities don't make them poetry.

They tell you something more about personalities, about culture, or they just amuse you. So why should we distinguish them from a walk through the woods?

* ahhhh. i see. so because prose is kind of like poetry, no distinction needs be made in forum designation. interesting. old family photographs are kind of like poetry. does that mean i should post them in merciless?

I'd really want to have a debate about this, me being the defending party. I have lots of other arguments, but I'm keeping them for trumps http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

* i will be reading.

nice discussion,
bates

[The Jabberwocky]

The Ogre brought up an excellent point about this subject some time ago and I think it was all-too-readily dismissed: The linebreak makes the poem.

It is actually a pretty good, descriptive definition: (1) When you see a piece of writing with line breaks you read it differently than you would a piece of writing that has no line breaks, and (2) it is almost completely free from arbitrary, legalistic elements.

You might think it is a stupid definition (I actually did at first) but give it some thought ... it grows on you. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

The Jabberwocky

[Bela]

What we're looking for here is an answer to the question "What is Poetry". I'm not clear on how "prose anekdotes" contribute any clarity to that issue.

Is there such a thing as poetry? What is it?

Here's another piece which seems a little more on-topic, and which I offer for your enjoyment courtesy of the anthology I happen to have closest to my elbow at this moment:

Poetry

I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond all
      this fiddle.
  Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one
        discovers in
  it after all, a place for the genuine.
    Hands that can grasp, eyes
    that can dilate, hair that can rise
      if it must, these things are important not because a
high-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because
        they are
  useful. When they become so derivative as to become
        unintelligible,
  the same thing may be said for all of us, that we
    do not admire what
    we cannot understand: the bat
      holding on upside down or in quest of something to

eat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless wolf
        under
  a tree, the immovable critic twitching his skin like a horse
        that feels a flea, the base-
  ball fan, the statistician–
    nor is it valid
      to discriminate against "business documents and

school-books"; all these phenomena are important. One must
        make a distinction
  however: when dragged into prominence by half poets, the
        result is not poetry,
  nor till the poets among us can be
    "literalists of
    the imagination"–above
      insolence and triviality and can present

for inspection, "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," shall
      we have
  it. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand,
  the raw material of poetry in
    all its rawness and
    that which is on the other hand
      genuine, then you are interested in poetry.

Marianne Moore (1921, 1935)

[tbm]

i've been digging through the store for the last hour and have found numerous quotes concerning the nature of poetry. my favourite so far is this:

Poetry is life distilled.

-- Gwendolyn Brooks

this makes sense to me as such:

as griffin has said, poetry enriches people, as does prose. and i have retorted that almost anything enriches people, be it pasta or old family photographs. so what makes poetry unique in its enrichment?

the explanation of poetry as "life distilled" seems to answer this question. poetry is a summation of an instant of life. this is where it varies from prose. prose, alone, is incomplete without the situation that encompasses it. it is meaningless without a point of reference. poetry, on the other hand, escapes this referential deficit.
poetry is a story in itself, a story of words coming together. it is a reflection of a single instant, a subtle eye-blink that educates.

wallace stevens wrote, "poetry is a revelation in words by means of the words." poetry speaks for itself. it is its own experience, even in the absence of reference. it communicates not only the experience, or the sound, but rather itself is a part of that experience. poetry is instantaneous.

elizabeth bishop wrote that "poetry is hundreds of things coming together at the right moment." it communicates beyond the boundaries of its pages, beyond its own experience. it is, as implied by elton glaser, "a color photograph of the ruins."
it is understatement that expounds beyond overstatement. it is "life distilled".

poetry is singular in that it has and is its own voice simultaneously, a quality which nothing else can emulate. it stands alone as a body of knowledge, and often communicates more than a thousand page book. poetry is a snapshot of the mind, or, as bela has so carefully quoted wallace stevens: "the poem of the act of the mind." and to this end nothing else will suffice.

bates

[Trull]

Wonderful idea Bela! TBM don't be so coy--cough it up. My first thought is of a quote I read somewhere that said--to paraphrase--poetry is the highest exercise of language. Who said it? TS? Gabriel will know...
On a personal level,I find this to be truth. As I delve back into poetry after a long absence, I find my writing in general is better. I am more attuned to nuance, to economy, and trying to say something universal in an original way. Readers can say Ahh, yes, I recognize that, but at the same time say, I never thought of it that way before. Giving the audience that sense of discovery is what poetry is about to me. I'll leave the academic debates to the more scholarly.

***a minute later...
Look--I'm psychic! As I was writing this, tbm posted those great quotes. so tbm, ignore my request to cough it up--you did, splendidly. Am happy to see so many women poets in attendance throughout this thread!

[This message has been edited by Trull (edited 07-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Trull (edited 07-28-2000).]

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Jabberwocky:
The Ogre brought up an excellent point about this subject some time ago and I think it was all-too-readily dismissed: [b]The linebreak makes the poem.


**I thought it
was silly then,
I think it's silly
now, yet it's
a better definition
than I have the time
or energy to exposit
at this time, so
this poem
will have to
make do.
Rod McKuen is
laughing all
the way to
the bank,
hey this is
really easy,
does this mean
I can call myself
a ~Poet~?
I don't think
so. Jewel and
Maya Angelou
write with
linebreaks too.

all rights reserved
copyright yadda
yadda
yadda.

garyg

It is actually a pretty good, descriptive definition: (1) When you see a piece of writing with line breaks you read it differently than you would a piece of writing that has no line breaks, and (2) it is almost completely free from arbitrary, legalistic elements.

You might think it is a stupid definition (I actually did at first) but give it some thought ... it grows on you. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

The Jabberwocky

[lenny]

First I would like to commend Bela for inviting us all here and defusing another escalating confrontation so diplomatically. I have never seen so much in-fighting, trolling and back biting from both sides as I do in this place. I don't see why this happens so often. I think it's a case not only of deflated egos, but just as much of inflated, overly sensitve, defensive egos who feel empowered somehow by tearing others to shreds at their whim whether it is warranted or not. It feels sometimes like we have to watch everything we say or we will be in trouble--even expelled! It's like being back in Woodstock '69 and instead of having the Hog Farm there to lend aid and help out we have the cops prowling the crowd to bust whoever they can.
As for poetry, well, it's one of the lovelier things in life. I think the argument is not what poetry is or what prose is, but simply, what is poetry, period. What is considered poetry is so relative to the times and prevailing attitudes that it is in constant flux. Poetry is, to me, first and foremost an expression of a persons feelings, views, perspectives and thoughts. A person who writes of these expressions merely to flaunt their knowledge of form is missing the whole point of poetry in my opinion. I am not saying that form is not important--it is. I am simply saying that when we place more importance on the form than the subject matter, we are writing simply to be known as 'knowledgeable' in poetry. A good subject can be greatly enhanced when delivered with good form, but a poor subject dressed in 'currently correct form' will not be made any better by that form. I have seen many technically perfectly constructed poems that were dry and lifeless. On the other hand I have seen many that were lacking in 'proper form' that reached into me and touched that certain spot in the poets heart. Line breaks, punctuation, meter, etc. are all contributing factors to the richness of a poem, but not a single one of them can define what a poem is. No one can truly define what is a poem for another and what is not. If we want to convey our sentiments succinctly to others then we must first determine who we are trying to reach and then use the currently acceptable form of that group to deliver our piece. We are all so different. If we do not do this we cannot expect to be accepted or understood. Critique is relative to your chosen group. Many popular poets are disliked by some and well liked by others. It does not make them better or worse. Of course there are certain things scribbled down and put out for others to read that are truly horrid. They are a different can or worms altogether and the extreme. I am not speaking of these. There are some things in every walk of life with no redeeming value. I'll stop here but I know I will soon be called on the carpet. Smiling at you all.



------------------
lenny

[The Jabberwocky]

garyg:

I thought it
was silly then,
I think it's silly
now, yet it's
a better definition
than I have the time
or energy to exposit
at this time, so
this poem
will have to
make do.

This is an okay introduction. You may want to consider working on the sentence structure and I think you are showing a tendency towards wordiness but I think you've introduced your point well enough. The disjointed caesura and irregular line breaks illustrates your lack of understanding of the question brilliantly! http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/wink.gif

Rod McKuen is
laughing all
the way to
the bank,
hey this is
really easy,
does this mean
I can call myself
a ~Poet~?

I wouldn't quit your day-job. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/wink.gif Actually, sure you can call yourself a poet. Whether this poem demonstrates an advanced level of proficiency or insight is another question entirely.

I don't think
so. Jewel and
Maya Angelou
write with
linebreaks too.

Yeah, and their poetry is mediocre ... like mine, like yours ... like most of our poetry happens to be. The linebreak definition happens to remove much of the self-conscious baggage that hinders experimentation ... risk taking ... comprende?

The Jabberwocky

[Marya Evening]

This is a fantastic idea but it's like the definition of beauty. Everyone is going to have a different opinion.
I'm here as a rookie but here is my take on poetry vs prose. Prose is like coffee with cream and sugar. Poetry is black. Poetry has concentrated vivid imagery without alot of the frills that are found in prose. And let's not forget the linebreaks. Prose is talkier and has more 'ifs ands or buts'. Poetry in my opinion is more succinctly evocative.
Tear me up if you must. I don't pretend to know anything more about poetry than what I've learned at this site. Hey, I love this place. I'm a sponge, I'm a sponge! Yours truly, Marya

[tbm]

i find it interesting how often the word "expression" comes up in arguments concerning poetry. according to my dictionary, expression is "a squeezing out." however, when i write, it hardly feels like poetry is simply oozing out of me. this misusage of "expression" seems to be little more than an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.

now as for communicating ideas, feelings, and experiences, i happily concede that poetry is a wonderful venue.

thanks,
bates

[Cmosely11]

poetry is whatever i want it to be.

[the ogre]

I think some people are moving in the wrong direction here. Bela said:

"As I mentioned in a thread in Merciless, there appears to be a great need here for a thorough examination or re-examination of what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it "a poem". What defines it as a poem?

I certainly do not have the answer. I think many of you probably do. I would be most gratified if you could post your opinions, thoughts, favorite quotes and essays, etc. in this thread so that we can somehow arrive at a workable definition to which critiquers can subsequently refer, and from which would-be poets can draw inspiration."

As I read this, it's a call to define poetry so that others can understand what you mean when you say "this isn't poetry". A personal, idiosyncratic definition is not going to help the cause, is it?

The 'line break' definition is clear, not perfect, but easily understandable for most people. Unfortunately, it won't be adhered to here because it forces most of the 'this isn't poetry' posters to rephrase what they say. God forbid people should actually state their opinions as opinions.

As long as you maintain a definition of poetry that is abstract - it must show higher things or show the world or be noble or whatever - you will continue to confuse people. Yes, they will respond with published poems from respected poets that contradict your position. The usual response then seems to be "I don't like that poet anyway". This response is irrelevant because you are defending an objective declaration with subjectivity.

I don't see a way to solve this problem as long as people seem so wedded to declaring their opinions as facts.

Really, what's the difference between these two phrases:

1)This is not a poem.

2)I think this is a very bad poem.

One obscures the nature of the response itself (and generally pisses people off).
Two is just being honest and true to the situation (but it will still piss some people off but not as many and not as vehemently).

the ogre

[Julie]

Poetry is merely the essential juices of language, boiled down to a thick paste that can be toxic when you overdose.



------------------
Julie Carter

Read more poetry!

[robp]

Poetry is just words (I know I'm leaving myself open here by excluding stuff in Experimental that contains only vowels or typographic symbols). Of course, prose is "just words" too. When I contemplate the difference, I'm reminded of concentrated orange juice. In (good) poetry the imagery, meaning, message and/or (god forbid) emotion is evoked with an economy of words not typically found in prose. The information content per word, so to speak, is significantly higher in a good poem than in a work of prose saying the same thing. This is typically achieved through any number of a variety of well-known literary devices. Some of these devices are also used in prose, but usually to a lesser extent. For example, metaphor runs rampant in poetry, where its use is somewhat more restrained in prose. As another simple example, a well-chosen combination of words in a poem might have an assonance or alliteration that implies a particular sound or image in the reader's mind, without ever explicitly describing that image. In prose, one is far more likely to find a literal description of the image. To me, one of the hallmarks of poetry is that it tells the reader something without blatantly "telling" him/her; things are often more implied than directly stated and the reader's mind is forced to conjure up the images for itself. In a good poem, the mental image will be vibrant and clear; in a bad poem it will be washed-out and fuzzy, or even non-existent. Of course it's not *all* about concrete imagery, the same sort of statement applies to feelings that might be evoked, etc. etc.

Line breaks? OK, most poetry has line breaks. While this may be true, I don't think that inserting line breaks into some text creates poetry. garyg's example above demonstrates that pretty effectively.

And of course, some text conforms to well-defined poetic forms (such as a sonnet) that clearly label it as poetry. Whether it's good or bad poetry is independent of whether it adheres to the rules of the form.

As for zealous statements like "poetry is Art!" or "poetry comes from the heart!" and the like, usually uttered by people who wish to be considered (for one reason or another) as "Poets", all I can say is "fuddle duddle". Good poetry can certainly be considered as art, but so can good prose. And to the extent that it originates from the heart (which isn't a big extent), the same can be said about prose as well. These sorts of pretentious statements may or may not be true; either way, they aren't a differentiator from the prosaic form.

Just my 1.36 cents (that's 2 Canadian cents).

robp

[robp]

Originally posted by Julie:
Poetry is merely the essential juices of language, boiled down to a thick paste that can be toxic when you overdose.

**I think Julie just succinctly demonstrated the point I tried so verbosely to make. Edit out the occasional word, insert a line break or two, and *that* is poetry!

Poetry: merely
essential juices
of language
boiled down to
a thick paste,
toxic when
you overdose.


Heh. My apologies, Julie!

robp


[This message has been edited by robp (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Shaun]

I always felt poetry was the telling of a story or an event, using the best imagery and descriptions as possible, without disturbing the flow and tone of the poem.

I once heard this, although I can't remember from who: "Prose is the right words in the right places, poetry is the best words in the best places."

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

[Bela]

Originally posted by Shaun:

I once heard this, although I can't remember from who: "Prose is the right words in the right places, poetry is the best words in the best places."


I think you're referring to this:

"Prose [is] words in their best order; Poetry [is] the best words in the best order." -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

[Marya Evening]

Hey Ogre, sorry our feeble definitions of poetry don't stand up to your scrutiny. Would you like us to jump through hoops for you while running in place or maybe while spinning a plate on a stick with one hand and stroking your massive ego with the other??? Just wondering, Marya

PS Thanks for explaining to us what Bela really meant...I was about to send in a recipe for foccacia!!

[Bela]

Actually, with the primary exception of ogre, whose interpretation of my comments is rather off the mark, and Jabberwocky, whose foray into criticism seems out of place here, I think we are moving in precisely the right direction here. Their unfortunate spiral into individual techniques for the critique of poetry on a poetry forum is not relevant in this discussion. This discussion is based on a definition of fundamental terms.

That which I am interested in is to hear each individual's view on, to re-quote myself, "what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it 'a poem'". Hence the two examples I have thus far posted of works by poets examining the essence or process of poetry.

I think it is vital that we each examine for ourselves the reasons why we create a piece of writing, define or label it a poem, and share it with others in the context of that definition. What are our goals, and what are the methods we use to achieve those goals.

Most vital, perhaps, is simply that some serious effort has been made toward that process of examination. That process should be a continuing one, re-introduced and re-examined with the creation of each new poem.

Whether or not any consensual agreement can be reached on a definition of poetry is less important, although a working hypothesis should be approachable. I would like to believe that there is such as thing as poetry, and that it is different from other collections of words, such as a tax return or a list of adjectives starting with the letter "x" (suggestions, anyone?).

That which robp expressed above, and the ideas tbm was getting at, echo my own developing views on poetry quite closely. I'll try to elaborate them further as this discussion continues and as my critical examination of my own goals progresses.

I'd also like to quote Matthew Arnold, in turn quoting Goethe, as follows:

"Two kinds of dilettanti, says Goethe, there are in poetry: he who neglects the indispensable mechanical part, and thinks he has done enough if he shows spirituality and feeling; and he who seeks to arrive at poetry merely by mechanism, in which he can acquire an artisan's readiness, and is without soul and matter. And he adds, the first does most harm to art, and the last to himself."

Bela

[Donner]

When I was little, I used to think that poetry was as simple as:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are.

You wrote a few little lines that rhymed and called it a poem and were quite happy with the results. But now, after attempting to write a few, and reading and studying what makes a poem a poem, I find that poetry is simply far more complex. Just like the human experience.

Of course, the easy way out is to look up the definition in the dictionary--"writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound and rhythm." Simple, neat and to the point. But it's more than that.

For me, poetry is trying to search out and discover the complexities of life through the simple, ordinary things of life, like Emerson's poet who "puts eyes and tongues into every dumb and inanimate object" and "as the eyes of Lyncaeus were said to see the earth, so the poet turns the world to glass and shows us all things in their right series and process." To quote Robert Pinsky, "The word 'poet' is based on the Greek word for 'maker,' which suggests that the artist in us is deeply related to the tinkerer, the gadget-rigger who feels an urge to pile one stone upon another, or to try how a fig leaf might look if we wore one right here.. Poetry extends that restless making-instinct into the realm of language." He further states, "Limitation is one of the things the poet in us likes. As Rudolf Arnheim says in his great book Film as Art, limitation brings out the difference between the artist and the engineer. Confronted with a limitation (silent film, black-and-white), the engineer tries to create a way to remove it. Confronted with the same limitation, the artist tries to create a way to use it."

Which says to me that poetry is a way of looking at life in limited, specific ways, but in limitless combinations. Unique perspectives in concentrated form. The poet as the "maker", the portrayer of experience, who says everything he wants to say in as concise a manner as possible and in a way that it's never been said before. Simple.

Poem, poem, like a star,
How I wonder what you are.

Donner




[This message has been edited by Donner (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Bela]

Thanks, Donner. That was really excellent.

More, more!

Bela

[garyg]

****Between poetry and other forms of imaginative literature there is no sharp distinction. You may have been taught to believe that poetry can be recognized by the arrangement of its lines on the page or by its use of rime and meter. Such superficial tests are almost worthless. The Book of Job in the Bible and
Melville’s Moby Dick are highly poetical, but a versified theorem in physics is not. The difference between poetry and other literature is one only of degree. Poetry is the most condensed and concentrated form of literature, saying most in the fewest number of words. It is language whose individual lines, either because of their own brilliance or because they focus so powerfully what has gone before, have a higher voltage than most language has. It is the language that grows frequently incandescent, giving off both light and heat.

Ultimately, therefore poetry can be recognized only by the response made to it by a good reader. But there is a catch here. We are not all good readers. If we were, there would be no purpose for this book. And if you are a poor reader, much of what has been said about poetry so far must have seemed nonsensical. "How," you may say, "can poetry be described as moving or exciting when I have found it dull and boring? Poetry is just a fancy way of writing something that could be said more simply." So might a color-blind man deny that there is such a thing as color.****

Laurence Perrine,
first chapter of Sound and Sense; An Introduction to Poetry.

[linus]

What is Poetry?

to me, it is trying to describe thoughts and emotions with words.. difficult yes, but rewarding when you suceed at the task

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by linus:
[B]What is Poetry?

to me, it is trying to describe thoughts and emotions with words.. difficult yes, but rewarding when you suceed at the task

**If your goal is simply to describe thoughts and emotions, you will produce nothing but abstract piffle. You want to attempt to convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Emphasis through repetition.

garyg

[griffin]

Originally posted by garyg:


****Between poetry and other forms of imaginative literature there is no sharp distinction. You may have been taught to believe that poetry can be recognized by the arrangement of its lines on the page or by its use of rime and meter. Such superficial tests are almost worthless. The Book of Job in the Bible and
Melville’s Moby Dick are highly poetical, but a versified theorem in physics is not. The difference between poetry and other literature is one only of degree. Poetry is the most condensed and concentrated form of literature, saying most in the fewest number of words. It is language whose individual lines, either because of their own brilliance or because they focus so powerfully what has gone before, have a higher voltage than most language has. It is the language that grows frequently incandescent, giving off both light and heat.

Ultimately, therefore poetry can be recognized only by the response made to it by a good reader. But there is a catch here. We are not all good readers. If we were, there would be no purpose for this book. And if you are a poor reader, much of what has been said about poetry so far must have seemed nonsensical. "How," you may say, "can poetry be described as moving or exciting when I have found it dull and boring? Poetry is just a fancy way of writing something that could be said more simply." So might a color-blind man deny that there is such a thing as color.****

Laurence Perrine,
first chapter of Sound and Sense; An Introduction to Poetry.

The best explanation I've seen yet. Hats off for Laurence and Gary

[lenny]

Originally posted by garyg:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by linus:
[B]What is Poetry?

to me, it is trying to describe thoughts and emotions with words.. difficult yes, but rewarding when you suceed at the task

**If your goal is simply to describe thoughts and emotions, you will produce nothing but abstract piffle. You want to attempt to convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Convey experience. Emphasis through repetition.
###Sometimes the thought and/or the emotion is the experience. Not all thoughts or emotions ever make it past their native states to don the garb of 'acted out experience' but they nonetheless still deserve to be conveyed--concepts, ideas, feelilngs. It is true that they are much more difficult to convey but so are they so much more rewarding when they are successfully conveyed. Omar Khayam was a master at this, as was Tagore and, I am sure, many others. I find so called 'abstract poetry' challenging and fascinating to read and write. Poetry is, and will remain, capacious in what it is and what it can express. Its only parameters are those which we ourselves assign. Poetry is the freest form of written communication.

garyg




------------------
lenny

[tbm]

reading over this discussion again, i am reminded of an art exhibit that i saw in denver a few years back. it was put on by a scientist of swiss descent, i believe. he had perfected a new method of mummification using a clear, gelatinous mixture that allowed the innerworkings of human bodies to be viewed without fear of deterioration. he hoped to someday use this process to display the internal operations of the human form in order to educate medical students, etc.

well, as i was looking at these particular skinned, mummified bodies, it became clear to me just how complex the human body is. i came to realize that day, that without the skin, the basic operations of life make a good deal more sense.

and i realize now: poetry is prose without skin. who knew?

bates

[loverboy]

In my experience poetry is simply the art of words, no more no less...There really aren't any rules or definitions: You don't have to rhyme, you don't have not to; You can break a line here, you can break it there; You can write about heartache, you can write about a leaf...It's more about the color one sees when he reads it. Poetry is art and art is defined by the artist.

[M. CORSO]

loverboy,as an artist of sorts (Tattoos) I can asure you that art in any form has never been,or ever will be , defined by the artist.

[Donner]

One of my favorite quotes dealing with the question of who should define poetry, the reader or the writer, is one by poet and critic Howard Nemerov--"You never ask a poet what he means, you tell him!"

The problem with the artist defining art is that it leaves the door open to untold subjective definitions, one per artist, and writing for perhaps an audience of one--himself. Without some standards--those of form, structure, sound, metaphor, imagery and the like (and I do think that there are individuals that come along from time to time that infuse new ideas from which new standards emerge)--there is choas. I think it would be better said that the artist interprets his art within the boundaries of standards. That leaves a very broad canvas on which to paint or a very big piece of paper on which to write.

Donner

[The Jabberwocky]

Bela:

I apologize for misunderstanding your question. My initial response was to what I perceived to be your point for this thread:

As I mentioned in a thread in Merciless, there appears to be a great need here for a thorough examination or re-examination of what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it "a poem". What defines it as a poem?

I thought, apparently mistakenly, that you were looking for opinions on what constitutes "poetry" and I answered accordingly. After your clarification, I think I better understand what you are getting at.

Concerning poetry, I think there is some truth to the "read poetry" phrase I see used so often in this forum but I think this is also only the beginning. Understanding poetry (verse, blank verse and free-verse alike) is, in my opinion, an essential goal we ought to have when we do pick up Norton's Anthology and start plugging away.

I think expression of thoughts/emotions is a good place to start when writing a poem but, as you read more poetry and strive to understand more than simply the words used, you begin to recognize the visual and audible effects meter, word choice and punctuation have on a poem. Alexander Pope's "A Craft of Verse" is an excellent example of the point I am trying to make.

I also think it is important to keep in mind that poetry is an evolving creature and, in my opinion, it is best to avoid saddling the question of "What defines [a piece of writing] as a poem" with too much structure. That, btw, is why I am a fan of the line-break definition ... if my piece of writing is not "poetical" in the classic or conventional sense, who cares? http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif If it is a quality piece of writing, who cares if it is poetry or prose? I, personally, do not.

The Jabberwocky

[Gabe1]

Forgive me if I paste my answer in between bela's post, but I need the crutch to provide direction.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bela:
...I am interested ... [to] hear each individual's view on, to re-quote myself, "what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it 'a poem'". Hence the two examples I have thus far posted of works by poets examining the essence or process of poetry.


*Well, I am trying to create, illustrate, or explain a certain truth. This is especially the case for truths that aplly directly to the human condition. But instead of doing this with pages, paragraphs, diagrams or color-crayons, I believe the best tool for this purpose is the image.

I think it is vital that we each examine for ourselves the reasons why we create a piece of writing, define or label it a poem, and share it with others in the context of that definition. What are our goals, and what are the methods we use to achieve those goals.


*Reasons: Why is it poetry? Because what I write is concerned first and foremost with the line, the image, and clarity of language. Whether or not I am successful in this is besides the point. These concerns are in opposition, to some extent, to prose which is, I would say, concerned more with the concept, the page or chapter, and has less intensity of language.

*Goals: To create an image, to use the right words in the right places. To convey a kind of truth that is essential to the human condition. Sometimes, in all honesty, I'm just digging for a cheap laugh.

*Tools: Imagery, clear and unusual. I have a tendency to create a kind of grotesque character in many of my poems. I have found these characters a valuable lens to look at things with. Diction and syntax, Which words and why. I often choose words that have a particular sound that I feel with influence meaning in some way. I am more likely to use "stone" over "rock" in a particular instance because the open vowel creates a heavier, colder feeling for me.
Metaphor, the glory of metaphor. Finding new and startling relationships, finding mundane relationships that are also startling.
Irony, I cannot conceive of humankind without it. It provides a kind of clarity through misunderstanding. Nuts, now I'm getting distracted.

Well, what's a poem? Surely I should have some pithy comment on hand for this.

I'll have to think about that a bit longer I'm afraid.

-Gabriel

[robp]

I originally posted this in "challenges" but it was inspired from this discussion so I'll include it here:


Whinebreaky linebreaky,
garyg said it best:
poetry's more than just
broken-up prose.

Metaphor images,
representational,
convey experience
in lyric flows.


I make no representations about whether silly dactyllic doggerel represents "poetry" or not. Heh.

robp

[littlebit]

Bela:

"what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it 'a poem'".

**Express through the use of meter, rhythm, syntax, grammar, language and/or rhyme; thoughts, feelings, visions, philosophies, humor and/or pictures.

"I would like to believe that there is such as thing as poetry, and that it is different from other collections of words, such as a tax return or a list of adjectives starting with the letter "x" (suggestions, anyone?)."

**Poetry differs from any other collection of words in, of course, the basic structure, but perhaps more importantly in the intent. To express something (listed above)in a fairly succinct and vivid manor. Poetry is the release of that creative ache which begins in the chest and works its way to the throat. Poetry is an urge to enlighten, entertain or share in a manor that is (generally) recognizable by many.

Just some thoughts.

littlebit

[griffin]

Poetry is an aesthetical play script.

[tbm]

i'm now absolutely positive that the original misuse of the word "expression" was sadistically committed on my behalf by one of my late ancestors who had a mean-streak for irony.

bates

[Julie]

Originally posted by tbm:
i'm now absolutely positive that the original misuse of the word "expression" was sadistically committed on my behalf by one of my late ancestors who had a mean-streak for irony.


You've got to ac-cen-tu-ate the positive
E-lim-i-nate the negative
Grab on to the affirmative
Don't mess with mister in-between!

What this has to do with your post is beyond me. I just felt like singing.

[JohnBoddie]

Seamus Heaney describes poetry as "the music of what happens."

Helen Vendler throught that was a pretty good definition and used it as the title of her book on the subject.

I'm inclined to trust Heaney's description as being about all that's needed.

JB

[lexer5]

When I work on a poem, I think in terms of a transmission taking place, a transmission via language running between writer, poem, and reader. Language is the vehicle of thought, it is what organizes and makes coherent our experience of the phenomenal world. Language is the very filter by which we perceive and conceive ideas about the world, self, and experience. And so getting back to poems:

As a transmission a poem only varies from an advertisement, a slogan, or a newspaper pamphlet, in that its aim is not just to communicate an experience; but more importantly to sustain by way of figurative language, sensorial imagery and sounds, and some semblance of trope, a mundane experience of the world radically reorganized into a new experience. (wow, please excuse the run-on) Poems are condensed language that re-present the world, or give the world back to you fresh and new.

In other words, how I measure a good poem:
If I read a line about trees, and the nature of the diction/imagery/sounds/etc. present the sensorial impression of the trees in the poem so profoundly in my mind that for the next week when I look out the window and see trees I see them via the language of the poem; that is effective and productive language, that is a poem. It reorganizes the way I think of and perceive trees. It gives the world back to me fresh and new in the sense that I now experience trees differently because of the well crafted language of the poem.

Don't advertisements, slogan, etc. do this as well? Of course they do. They are key players in a symbolic field of language which shapes every persons subjective experience of the world. However, that language is deployed by think tanks of psychologist trying to get you to buy something or think aligned with someone's political agenda. I'd argue that the reason why I'm so damn cliche-riddled and walk through most of my life experiences with a passive disengagement is because I'm so used to absorbing all these jingos and recycled ideas that it's hard to think outside or against the grain of "normal" language. A good poem shocks one out of that haze. A good poem reopens one's experience of the world mediated by the language found in the poem. Not that anything I've written achieves this.


so that's my buck fifty. *sigh* maybe I should've spent it on a cola and fries.

lexer5

[Adam]

I came upon this piece this weekend, and thought it might be appreciated in this thread.


"Or as Gertude Stein Says"

a poem is only
taking a child's down skull
gently between your hands
and, with not so much breath as might
startle a gnat's wing,
whispering,
"Look!"

-Vassar Miller, My Bones Being Wiser

I think it's part of an answer, at least. It's also beautiful, don't you think?

(Also, the fifth line is supposed to be indented, but I can't get it to display properly. Can anyone tell me how?)

[This message has been edited by Adam (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Seremba]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bela:
[B]Greetings!

As I mentioned in a thread in Merciless, there appears to be a great need here for a thorough examination or re-examination of what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it "a poem". What defines it as a poem?

*I have been reading all the replies to this discussiom with interest, for me, I would have to use the analogy of painting a picture.
When I sit down to paint something, I never become daunted by a blank canvas, I always
have an idea of what I am going to fill it with. Usually I paint from life, drawing on what I know. I will make changes as I go along. I will eradicate lines, smooth over the edges. I will also exaggerate images and dispense with objects that don't fit the whole picture. throughout the job I will constantly stand back and take a long look.
When I am finished, I am not always happy with the results and I will only hang it on the wall when I am happy with it. I'll never call it a painting, that title was given to it long before I knew what it was.
What defines poetry? What defines art?
As Gary pointed out with his quote the readers; good or bad and in painting the voyuers. Writers as with painters merely
open a window it is up to others to take a peak outside and see if they like the changes to their landscape.

Seremba


[This message has been edited by Seremba (edited 10-15-2000).]

[Harry Rutherford]

..
Art is the complicit manipulation of the audience by the artist.
.
Literature is art using the medium of language.
.
Poetry is literature with linebreaks.
..

In other words, when we write poetry we are trying to produce something that someone else would choose to read for no other reason than it gives them pleasure.

'Pleasure' is necessarily being used broadly here- people read poems because they make them feel, or think, or believe, or laugh, or wonder, or whatever; but they find pleasure presumably in feeling, thinking etc etc etc.

Note the use of the word 'complicit'. This is very important. This is where art diverges from advertising and propaganda.

As for my personal reasons for writing poetry- its a bit like why I like doing cryptic crosswords. Its exercise for the brain, and there is intrinsic pleasure in manipulating language. Mind you, this motivation is probably why my poetry is usually bad and unfinished.

Ho hum.

[OWLcrkbrg]

I thought poetry was a form of entertainment. Personally, if a poem doesn't entertain me in one way or another it might as well be work.

Dan

[merman]

Read this last night, thought it might be apropos here. It's from William Stafford's Writing the Australian Crawl.


"Poetry is the kind of thing you have to see from the corner of your eye. You can be too well prepared for poetry. A conscientious interest in it is worse than no interest at all, as I believe Frost used to say. It's like a very faint star. If you look straight at it you can't see it, but if you look a little to one side it is there.

If people around you are in favor, that helps poetry to be, to exist. It disappears under disfavor. There are things, you know, human things, that depend on commitment; poetry is one of those things. If you analyze it away, it's gone. It would be like boiling a watch to find out what makes it tick.

If you let your thought play, turn things this way and that, be ready for liveliness, alternatives, new views, the possibility of another world--you are in the area of poetry. A poem is a serious joke, a truth that has learned jujitsu. Anyone who breathes is in the rhythm business; anyone who is alive is caught up in the imminences, the doubts mixed with the triumphant certainty, of poetry."

[This message has been edited by merman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by merman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by merman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by merman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by merman (edited 11-20-2000).]

[Patrice]

If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire ever can warm me I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only way I know it. Is there any other way?
--Emily Dickinson

------------------



Patrice

[Nomadie]

Hello all: I'd like to share these two quotes:

"A genius is someone who shoots at a target no one else sees and hits it" - unknown

(replace genius with poet)

"The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the nonobvious."
--Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), philosopher

(um, insert poems for victory please)

The reason I write is to understand/share my observations on any given thing. I think of it as a tool, the output being interpretable, as others may identify with the same. These things I am not usually capable of speaking. The poems I love speak truths that cannot be denied by the words used, and how they are used. I think one way poems differ from media is in the personal element. Ads are written for the masses. Poems are not written for popularity, although it's a big plus!

This string of posts is helpful, so glad I came across this..I have'nt educated myself in poetry and find this inspiring. Thanks to all who replied.

-my 1 peso


------------------
"I do resent being hunted and invaded," Russell Crowe growls. "It's another rank stupidity that we have to put up with because some people have a constitutional right to make money out of being parasites."

[This message has been edited by Nomadie (edited 12-08-2000).]

[maxwell1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bela:
[B]Greetings!

As I mentioned in a thread in Merciless, there appears to be a great need here for a thorough examination or re-examination of what exactly it is we are trying to do when we produce a piece of writing and label it "a poem". What defines it as a poem?

I certainly do not have the answer. I think many of you probably do. I would be most gratified if you could post your opinions, thoughts, favorite quotes and essays, etc. in this thread so that we can somehow arrive at a workable definition to which critiquers can subsequently refer, and from which would-be poets can draw inspiration.

++Good point, We first need to set the rules, or institutionalize the process, but I think creativity in ideas & style and originality in way of expression are a beginning towards a good poem.


[This message has been edited by Bela (edited 07-27-2000).

[Rachel Lindley]

Poetry is documentation of life’s distillation.

It is a fine paring away of the extraneous, a process which also involves peering at what is shaved away in microscopic detail. It is the simple, and simple is always supremely difficult to capture. Complex is easy. In the complex, one may expand, expound, categorize and subcategorize. One may avoid absorbing the whole by examining only its parts, and as a result never find truth. A novel does this. A newpaper column does this. As with an algebraic equation, such subdivision and expansion can help in the communication of the whole idea, but eventually one reaches a final point where what is left is a simple choice: yes, or no. Solve it, or leave it be. Poetry is the writer’s way of sharing a unique perspective on that single moment, yet in the process revealing a glimpse of the whole, and not simply the sum of parts. That is what makes poetry such a paradox, in that it focuses on a minute point in time and space, and in that point peeks at an entire universe.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 12-10-2000).]

[Rachel Lindley]

Whoops. I read through the other thoughts presented in this thread after I had posted mine, and I saw bates' quote from Gwendolyn Brooks, stating "poetry is life distilled." I offer apologies to Ms. Brooks for unknowingly paraphrasing her statement. Obviously, however, I agree with it.

Rachel

[tbm]

cheater.

[Rachel Lindley]

Call the poetry police. I've been bad.

[Innamorare]

Thank you one and all, this is the best thing a newbie could possibly want to read here!!!

BK

[jackryhme]

all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by jackryhme:
all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

How, exactly, is one able to put emotions on paper, considering that emotions are comprised of neurochemical responses and hormonal secretions?

Poetry is not "emotions on paper." Poetry is words on paper. The use of words is a skill, not an emotion. Emotions have little to do with poetry. Poetry is also not the "expression of emotions on paper" either, which is the common follow-up to the former statement. That's even worse, conjuring images of emotions being squeezed onto the page like pus from a boil.

Certainly, a writer may feel emotional about a poem, and a reader may experience an emotion from reading a poem, but that is not the primary motivation for its existence.

Poetry is a process documenting a single moment in existence from an entirely unique perspective: the writer's. It states no more or no less than is absolutely necessary to capture that moment. By doing so, the poet creates the possibility that the reader will find his or her own perspective shift or widen in a way never known before to the reader, endowing a simple set of words with far greater significance. It may relate to politics, to love --- or to an ant. Good poetry moves that prism through which I look at life and alters the shapes, textures and colours of what I look upon, either subtly or enormously. Is that a tall order? Damn straight. That's why good poetry is so difficult to write; it takes skill and practice, and not the simple spewing of emotionally charged phrases onto paper. Anyone can do that.

Write something new, something different, or write something familiar in alien terms. Don't write something sentimental, or angst-ridden, or melodramatic -- it's all been written before in much the same way, and neither I nor most avid readers of poetry have any interest in that.

Rachel

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jackryhme:
all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

**You couldn't be more wrong.

garyg

[littlebit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by jackryhme:
all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

**You couldn't be more wrong.

garyg


po·et·ry [ptree ] noun

1. LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse, in particular verse writing of high quality, great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight
[14th century. Via Old French from, ultimately, Latin poeta (see poet ).]

**Edited for PFFA:

"LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse"

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by jackryhme:
all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

**You couldn't be more wrong.

garyg


po·et·ry [ptree ] noun

1. LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse, in particular verse writing of high quality, great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight
[14th century. Via Old French from, ultimately, Latin poeta (see poet ).]

**Edited for PFFA:

"LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse"


**Do you have a point?

garyg

[littlebit]

jackryhme:
all fancy words aside.. its simple .. poetry is emotions on paper this defines no other work prose included

**You couldn't be more wrong.

garyg


po·et·ry [ptree ] noun

1. LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse, in particular verse writing of high quality, great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight
[14th century. Via Old French from, ultimately, Latin poeta (see poet ).]

**Edited for PFFA:

"LITERATURE literature in verse: literary work written in verse"


**Do you have a point?

garyg[/B][/QUOTE]

**Yep.

[Innamorare]

Don't you have to have an emotion about what you write? Seems to me Jack is right!

Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings....recollected in tranquility.
William Wordsworth

No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft.

H.G.Wells

bk

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

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

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Do you have a point?

Yep.

**Good.
What is it?

garyg

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Innamorare:
Don't you have to have an emotion about what you write? Seems to me Jack is right!


**"Seems to me" is the operative phrase here.
See if you can find a clue somewhere.
Good luck.

garyg

[Donner]

Originally posted by Innamorare:
Don't you have to have an emotion about what you write?

A writer can construct a poem about a subject that he *feels* absolutely nothing about, has no *emotional* investment in whatsoever, write about a *ficticious* event or simply *imagine* what emotions might be involved, and the words that he puts down on paper or screen will elicit the intended response from the reader if he's done his job.

It's about words, not emotion.

Donner

[littlebit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Do you have a point?

Yep.

**Good.
What is it?

garyg

**Just as it reads. If one takes "great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight" out of the actual definition of poetry then one finds the version prefered on this site. There is no reason that poetry cannot be about emotions.

"How do I love thee, let me count the ways."

Jennifer

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Do you have a point?

Yep.

**Good.
What is it?

garyg

**Just as it reads. If one takes "great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight" out of the actual definition of poetry then one finds the version prefered on this site. There is no reason that poetry cannot be about emotions.

"How do I love thee, let me count the ways."

Jennifer


**Please don't even pretend to know what you are talking about.

garyg

[littlebit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Do you have a point?

Yep.

**Good.
What is it?

garyg

**Just as it reads. If one takes "great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight" out of the actual definition of poetry then one finds the version prefered on this site. There is no reason that poetry cannot be about emotions.

"How do I love thee, let me count the ways."

Jennifer


**Please don't even pretend to know what you are talking about.

garyg

**I do not need to pretend. The original question was about opinion and as far as I know opinion is still a subjective thing. It is my opinion that emotions/feelings can be written about and done so well. Shakespeare, Poe, Dickinson all wrote about emotions whether it was love, pain or great fear. Please do not resort to condescension instead of true debate skills. It does not flatter someone with your intellectual capacity.

Jennifer

[tbm]

Originally posted by littlebit:

I do not need to pretend. The original question was about opinion.

* your opinion is wrong.

bates

[garyg]

I do not need to pretend.

**Then why are you?

The original question was about opinion and as far as I know opinion is still a subjective thing.

**Uh, yeah.

It is my opinion that emotions/feelings can be written about and done so well.

**Please try to stay on task. Some (I assume) twelve year old postulated that *poetry is emotions on paper*, then you started doing an impersonation of Merriam Webster for some reason known only to yourself.


Shakespeare, Poe, Dickinson all wrote about emotions whether it was love, pain or great fear.

**Oh please.


Please do not resort to condescension instead of true debate skills.

**It's hard not to be condescending with someone who is attempting to defend the indefensible.


It does not flatter someone with your intellectual capacity.
Jennifer

**I've had this discussion more times than I care to recall. I'm really tired of it. If you want to believe that poetry is *emotions on paper*, go right ahead on 'er. Wallow in your ignorance.

garyg

[Donner]

Originally posted by littlebit:
There is no reason that poetry cannot be about emotions.


The point made was that poetry is written from emotion and that one cannot write poetry without emotion, not that poetry cannot be about emotion. There is a huge difference.

Donner

[jackryhme]

lol 12 years old heh thanks garyg i wish i had thy undaunted faith lol tell ya what .. write without emotions, leave them out totally .. make ur poem stand alone without, then read it and ask ur self is it poetry?
many things can be written without emotions attached.. poetry is not one... if u think so then do so.. or lol think of more pretty words to refute this k?

------------------
people are born separate
lead separate lives
yet are far more alike
than too few realize......jackryhme

[Adam]

Jackryhme, littlebit,

I think poetry is my emotions on paper. Prose? Prose is my longer more diluted emotions on paper, less sap per mL. Sometimes I’m required to put my brain on paper, or at least my thoughts, though thankfully not very often. I once laid my heart out on the page, my life force and vital needs, all for a very beautiful person, and regretted it because it made a rather intimidating mess. I’ve laughed on the page before, and sneezed as well, to approximately the same comical end. The point is, to save you a little time, it’s all made of words. I could be sitting at home fixing a snowblower or tying knots and thinking about BattleBots and dictating a tolerable love letter to my Latin lover. However, if I took a moment, or an hour or a lifetime examining the things that I might be tempted to just toss on the page, it might (maybe, perhaps, if we are lucky) turn out far more interesting for other people to read.

You’re missing the point. Citing the strong feelings behind writing is no excuse for bad/boring writing, unless your sympathetic mother or tolerant significant other is your target audience. Everyone already has far far too many strong feelings to deal with. Why the hell would I want to read about yours? There has to be something more in it. Get it? You have to make it beautiful, or smart, or I have to learn something great, you have to make me believe something strange or impossible for at least a fraction of a second, or show me something I have never seen or include me in a world I have never really known. The point is that I already have all of your emotions, and you mine, and I don’t at all want to be reminded of that fact unless you have something extremely interesting to say.

Adam

[FireFlower]

poetry is art.

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jackryhme:
[B]lol 12 years old heh thanks garyg i wish i had thy undaunted faith lol tell ya what .. write without emotions, leave them out totally .. make ur poem stand alone without, then read it and ask ur self is it poetry?
many things can be written without emotions attached.. poetry is not one... if u think so then do so.. or lol think of more pretty words to refute this k?


**lol yeah, like u really got me there, lol...no real peom lol can stand w/out ur feelings...lol and emotions, ur rite. lol...

gArYG

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FireFlower:

poetry is art.

**They interrupted Gore's concession speech tonight with a breaking news update relating to your startling revelation. Tipper was all in a tizzy. Thanks for sharing.

garyg
I'll take *The Bleeding Obvious* for $200 please, Alex.

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam:
[B]Jackryhme, littlebit,

I think poetry is my emotions on paper. Prose? Prose is my longer more diluted emotions on paper, less sap per mL. Sometimes I’m required to put my brain on paper, or at least my thoughts, though thankfully not very often. I once laid my heart out on the page, my life force and vital needs, all for a very beautiful person, and regretted it because it made a rather intimidating mess. I’ve laughed on the page before, and sneezed as well, to approximately the same comical end. The point is, to save you a little time, it’s all made of words. I could be sitting at home fixing a snowblower or tying knots and thinking about BattleBots and dictating a tolerable love letter to my Latin lover. However, if I took a moment, or an hour or a lifetime examining the things that I might be tempted to just toss on the page, it might (maybe, perhaps, if we are lucky) turn out far more interesting for other people to read.

You’re missing the point. Citing the strong feelings behind writing is no excuse for bad/boring writing, unless your sympathetic mother or tolerant significant other is your target audience. Everyone already has far far too many strong feelings to deal with. Why the hell would I want to read about yours? There has to be something more in it. Get it? You have to make it beautiful, or smart, or I have to learn something great, you have to make me believe something strange or impossible for at least a fraction of a second, or show me something I have never seen or include me in a world I have never really known. The point is that I already have all of your emotions, and you mine, and I don’t at all want to be reminded of that fact unless you have something extremely interesting to say.

Adam


**Oh Bless You, Adam.

garyg
I shall wear my trousers
rolled.

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBroad:
[B] How, exactly, is one able to put emotions on paper, considering that emotions are comprised of neurochemical responses and hormonal secretions?

Poetry is not "emotions on paper." Poetry is words on paper. The use of words is a skill, not an emotion. Emotions have little to do with poetry. Poetry is also not the "expression of emotions on paper" either, which is the common follow-up to the former statement. That's even worse, conjuring images of emotions being squeezed onto the page like pus from a boil.

Certainly, a writer may feel emotional about a poem, and a reader may experience an emotion from reading a poem, but that is not the primary motivation for its existence.

Poetry is a process documenting a single moment in existence from an entirely unique perspective: the writer's. It states no more or no less than is absolutely necessary to capture that moment. By doing so, the poet creates the possibility that the reader will find his or her own perspective shift or widen in a way never known before to the reader, endowing a simple set of words with far greater significance. It may relate to politics, to love --- or to an ant. Good poetry moves that prism through which I look at life and alters the shapes, textures and colours of what I look upon, either subtly or enormously. Is that a tall order? Damn straight. That's why good poetry is so difficult to write; it takes skill and practice, and not the simple spewing of emotionally charged phrases onto paper. Anyone can do that.

Write something new, something different, or write something familiar in alien terms. Don't write something sentimental, or angst-ridden, or melodramatic -- it's all been written before in much the same way, and neither I nor most avid readers of poetry have any interest in that.

Rachel


**Hey Rachel,
It seems to me that your brain is working just fine.

garyg

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by garyg:

**Hey Rachel,
It seems to me that your brain is working just fine.


It comes in brief spurts, followed by neurological incapacitation. I've now used up my set allotment for the season, and must go back to basket-weaving for the next 3 months.

Until spring,

Raaaaauuuuuggggghhhhhhhhhh

[jackryhme]

ah tis so easy to mock my friend garyg tis also far easier to use other's words as urs which u will with this again im sure as it is i think all do have more respect for the honest opinions of your choices then actual words of yours anyway but please continue to respond you may make a valid point yet though i think it may be without impact and yes liquified emotions poured from a pen as mine or any ones elses and while u may be bored by mine well another might not be so its always ur choice to read or not

------------------
people are born separate
lead separate lives
yet are far more alike
than too few realize......jackryhme

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jackryhme:
[B]ah tis so easy to mock my friend garyg tis also far easier to use other's words as urs which u will with this again im sure as it is i think all do have more respect for the honest opinions of your choices then actual words of yours anyway but please continue to respond you may make a valid point yet though i think it may be without impact and yes liquified emotions poured from a pen as mine or any ones elses and while u may be bored by mine well another might not be so its always ur choice to read or not


**This is a site that is devoted to the expression of the written word in English. Could you please attempt to parse your comments in some reasonable approximation of the language that we all know and love?

Thank you.

garyg
*attempt* is the operative word
in case
you missed it.

[Rachel Lindley]

jackryhme, here are the steps you'll need to take to write your first reasonable attempt at poetry:

1. Learn to spell. (Even your screen name is misspelt, and this is a very bad sign.)
2. Learn to use punctuation.
3. Learn to use grammar -- any kind will do.
4. Expand your vocabulary.
5. Read more poetry.
6. Grow up.
7. Learn linguistic rules before you attempt to break them.
8. Learn debating skills.
9. Stop using "tis" in a sentence. I don't think we're in 1800 anymore, Toto.
10. Learn you are a very small person in a very big world, and your highly unwarranted postures of artistic grandiosity are not impressive, but funny and rather pathetic.
11. Grow up some more.
12. Read more poetry.

Get back to me in 3 or 4 years if you've managed to get past number 6.

Rachel

[Donner]

Originally posted by TheBroad:
jackryhme, here are the steps you'll need to take to write your first reasonable attempt at poetry:


Rachel

You are my hero, Rachel.

Donner

[littlebit]

Originally posted by tbm:
Originally posted by littlebit:

I do not need to pretend. The original question was about opinion.

* your opinion is wrong.

bates

**An opinion is neither right nor wrong.

[Donner]

Originally posted by littlebit:


**An opinion is neither right nor wrong.


An opinion based on a faulty premise is.

Donner

[littlebit]

Originally posted by garyg:

I do not need to pretend.

**Then why are you?

Very nice. It took awhile, I assume, for you to think of this prepubesent come back? I truly expect better from you, evidentally you do not.

The original question was about opinion and as far as I know opinion is still a subjective thing.

**Uh, yeah.

See above.

It is my opinion that emotions/feelings can be written about and done so well.

**Please try to stay on task. Some (I assume) twelve year old postulated that *poetry is emotions on paper*, then you started doing an impersonation of Merriam Webster for some reason known only to yourself.

The individual stated what he/she believes poetry is or is made of, as an opinion. I happen to share part of the opinion in so far as poetry can be about emotions. The definition of poetry includes emotional intensity. Back on track for you?

Shakespeare, Poe, Dickinson all wrote about emotions whether it was love, pain or great fear.

**Oh please.

Please do not resort to condescension instead of true debate skills.

**It's hard not to be condescending with someone who is attempting to defend the indefensible.

You are partially correct. I do not truly consider you capable of being condescending toward me.


It does not flatter someone with your intellectual capacity.
Jennifer

**I've had this discussion more times than I care to recall. I'm really tired of it. If you want to believe that poetry is *emotions on paper*, go right ahead on 'er. Wallow in your ignorance.

garyg


Poetry is not just "emotions on paper", it is pictures, events and thoughts. They are, however, included. It would be appreciated, for future reference, if you could possibly refrain to one to two insults per thread/per person. I do not recall ever attacking your intelligence and I certainly do not appreciate you attacking mine. Your consistent habit of resorting to name calling is similar in nature to a sibling who is not getting their way. When you are all out of good reasons, call them stupid. It is beyond me that someone of your obvious intellectual level can stoop to such a childish one. If you are truly so tired of having this conversation then choose not to do so.

[garyg]

An opinion is neither right nor wrong.


**I believe the earth is flat, and that the tooth fairy leaves shiny coins under my pillow. That's my opinion, and it can't be wrong.

garyg
I had a more meaningful conversation with my kids last night.



[This message has been edited by garyg (edited 12-14-2000).]

[littlebit]

Originally posted by Donner:
The point made was that poetry is written from emotion and that one cannot write poetry without emotion, not that poetry cannot be about emotion. There is a huge difference.

Donner

**I am afraid I didn't follow your reasoning. If you would be so kind as to explain what you meant once more. I know I am simply reading this incorrectly and need your assistance.

Thanks,

Jennifer

[littlebit]

Originally posted by Donner:
Originally posted by littlebit:
An opinion based on a faulty premise is.

Donner

**Good point. The problem, as I see it, is that art is a gray area and therefore "facts" are not necessarily "facts". Poetry can be written with emotion and about emotion and if can be done well. That is only opinion and is not based on a false premise as that premise is my opinion of what "done well" means. A bit cyclical I will admit. I enjoy Emily Dickinson. Her poetry is very emotional and abstract. Her poetry is not something that would be accepted well on a site such as this and perhaps not even in the world of literature if it were to be written today. That does not mean it is "angst ridden crap" it simply means that tastes have changed and trends are different now. Can you see where I am coming from on this? It isn't a matter of right and wrong it is a matter of skill and taste.

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by littlebit:
**Good point. The problem, as I see it, is that art is a gray area and therefore "facts" are not necessarily "facts". Poetry can be written with emotion and about emotion and if can be done well. That is only opinion and is not based on a false premise as that premise is my opinion of what "done well" means. A bit cyclical I will admit. I enjoy Emily Dickinson. Her poetry is very emotional and abstract. Her poetry is not something that would be accepted well on a site such as this and perhaps not even in the world of literature if it were to be written today. That does not mean it is "angst ridden crap" it simply means that tastes have changed and trends are different now. Can you see where I am coming from on this? It isn't a matter of right and wrong it is a matter of skill and taste.

I think you're missing the point that I, garyg and Donner have been making. Poetry may certainly be about emotion, and evoke an emotional response. It is not, however, necessary, nor is it always written while experiencing an emotion. Poems don't have emotion, the people reading and writing them do.

I've read some very good poetry which has made me think or perceive some small or large part of life differently, and whatever emotional response I may or may not have had while in the process of reading it was irrelevent.

To define poetry one must define all poetry, and not all poetry is written about emotions or while experiencing emotion. Yet we call all of it "poetry." Poets can write poems without attaching their intense emotions to the subject matter or the words. What's more, there's absolutely no way of knowing what a poet's emotional state really was when writing the poem, including Emily Dickinson. Therefore, to define poetry as "emotions on paper" is inaccurate. Extremely so. To say that the emotional state of the poet is, although not the sole defining factor for poetry, one crucial component is also inaccurate, for the same reason.

Rachel

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 12-14-2000).]

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

quote:

Originally posted by garyg:

I do not need to pretend.

**Then why are you?

Very nice. It took awhile, I assume, for you to
think of this prepubesent come back? I truly
expect better from you, evidentally you do not.


***There's four personal attacks, by you, in your first response.


The original question was about opinion and as far
as I know opinion is still a subjective thing.

**Uh, yeah.

See above.

It is my opinion that emotions/feelings can be
written about and done so well.

**Please try to stay on task. Some (I assume)
twelve year old postulated that *poetry is emotions
on paper*, then you started doing an
impersonation of Merriam Webster for some
reason known only to yourself.

The individual stated what he/she believes poetry
is or is made of, as an opinion.

***An opinion which is demonstratably indefensible. The mere fact that you have never seen it disproved in no way makes the *opinion* that *poetry is emotions on paper* any more valid.

I happen to share
part of the opinion in so far as poetry can be about
emotions.


***That is not the same thing as saying that *poetry is emotions on paper*.


The definition of poetry includes
emotional intensity.


***No, it does not. Poems can not have emotions, therefore poems can not have emotional intensity. Writers have emotions. Readers have emotions. Some would argue that dogs have emotions, and if I'm not careful, you will start arguing about that too. Poems are made up of words, phrases, literary devices, etc. It is impossible to have an emotion in a poem. A poem may elicit an emotional response in a receptive reader, but that does not mean that the poem contains emotion. Can you grasp this simple concept?


You are partially correct. I do not truly consider
you capable of being condescending toward me.

****I've lost count, is that the fourth or fifth personal put-down that you've aimed my way?


It does not flatter someone with your intellectual
capacity.
Jennifer

**I've had this discussion more times than I care to
recall. I'm really tired of it. If you want to believe
that poetry is *emotions on paper*, go right ahead
on 'er. Wallow in your ignorance.

garyg


Poetry is not just "emotions on paper", it is
pictures, events and thoughts.

****Your backtracking is duly noted. However, you still don't know what you are talking about.


They are, however,
included. It would be appreciated, for future
reference, if you could possibly refrain to one to
two insults per thread/per person.

****Follow your own advice.

I do not recall
ever attacking your intelligence and I certainly do
not appreciate you attacking mine.

****You have done more to undermine any appearance of *intelligence* you might have than I would ever even attempt.

Your
consistent habit of resorting to name calling is
similar in nature to a sibling who is not getting
their way. When you are all out of good reasons,
call them stupid.


***Until this post, I hadn't even started listing good reasons.

It is beyond me that someone of
your obvious intellectual level can stoop to such a
childish one.


****There appear to be many things *beyond you*: most of the concepts in this thread for starters.


If you are truly so tired of having this
conversation then choose not to do so.

****That's a rhetorical question, I'm sure.

Poems don't have emotions. Just remember that. People do.

garyg

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Good point. The problem, as I see it, is that art is a gray area and therefore "facts" are not necessarily "facts".


****Facts are always facts.

Poetry can be written with emotion and about emotion and if can be done well.

***You have no idea if a poem is written *with emotion*. Although, your comment is so vague that it isn't readily clear just what *with emotion* means. Since I've had this discussion roughly 500 times, I'll assume you either meant: 1) The writer was emotional when he wrote it. or 2) the poem itself has emotions. or 3) The reader experienced an emotional response when reading it. Which is it?

garyg

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by garyg:

Poems don't have emotions. Just remember that. People do.

garyg

** I can't believe this. I go back, edit my response to add "poems don't have emotions, people do," the page refreshes, and there's your response. First Gwendolyn Brooks, now you. I think I'm metamorphizing into a parrot.

Rachel

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBroad:
[B]Originally posted by garyg:

Poems don't have emotions. Just remember that. People do.

garyg

** I can't believe this. I go back, edit my response to add "poems don't have emotions, people do," the page refreshes, and there's your response. First Gwendolyn Brooks, now you. I think I'm metamorphizing into a parrot.

Rachel

***Yeah, and Gwendolyn died on the day that you parrotted her, this does not bode well for m

[Blythe]

Originally posted by garyg:
[B
****Facts are always facts.

garyg

[/B]
The only problem is, they don't exist.

[Donner]

Originally posted by littlebit:
**I am afraid I didn't follow your reasoning. If you would be so kind as to explain what you meant once more. I know I am simply reading this incorrectly and need your assistance.

Thanks,

Jennifer



Jennifer,

It's very simple, really. The original point made was that "poetry is emotions on paper", not that poetry cannot be about emotions, which lead to this whole bunny trail. No one is saying that.

I'm not going to reiterate what's been stated so well by Adam, Rachel, Gary and others. You can certainly scroll back and read their comments, including mine about the writer using words to elicit certain emotional responses, even if he feels no connection emotionally to the subject written about.

One of the main reasons the opinion that poetry is about emotions and written from "the heart" is a misplaced one is that it allows the writer to rely on the use of abstractions and cliched phrases, rather than learning the craft of good writing. If I believe that I'm writing from my heart and soul, not from my brain, I'm more likely to use terms such as heart, soul, eternity, et al, ad infinitum, and think, There, I've bared my soul; I've written a poem! Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the worst examples of poetry I can think of are written by soul-barers, pieces better left in a diary.

What that person doesn't realize is poetry is a craft that relies on skills learned and developed. A good poem doesn't fall out from one's heart onto the page; it relies on words. (To use Emily D., one of your favorite writers as the example--it is her words that elicit an emotional response from her readers. Feelings and emotions didn't flow out of her pen; words did.) Poetry in that sense is no different than any other discipline. It takes thought, practice, and a good working knowledge of the skills and poetic devices that make up good writing. (God forbid that we actually have to think when we write.)

And people who think poetry is simply about emotions on paper miss out on the joy of playing with language, the foundation of poetry.

Nuff said.

Donner

[jackryhme]

(offensive comments snipped)

jackryhme, or whatever your name is: You can stop posting to this thread now, it's been pretty clear from the beginning that you had nothing to contribute. Oh, and by the way: that's a directive, not a request.

garyg

Second Warning.
Stop posting poem fragments and offensive epithets to this thread, or your posting privileges could vanish without warning.

[This message has been edited by garyg (edited 12-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by garyg (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Innamorare]

Poetry lies its way to the the truth.

John Ciardi
American Poet, editor

[Innamorare]

Biographia Literatia (1817)

The poet, described in ideal perfection
Brings the whole soul of a man into activity.
with the subordination of its faculties to each other, according to the relative worth and dignity. He diffuses a tone and spirit of unity, that blends and (as it were) fuses, each into each, by that synthetic
and magical power, to which we have exclusively apropriated the name of imagination. This power first put in action by the will and understanding, and retained
under their irremissive, through gentle and unnoticed control,(laxis effertur habenis) revels itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities of sameness with difference; of the general, with the concrete the idea, with the image; the individual with the representative; with the sense of novelty and freshness, with old and familiar objects;
a more than usual state of emotion, with more than usual order judgement ever awake and steady self possession with enthusiasm
and feeling profound or vehement; and while it blends and harmonizes the natural and the artificial, still subordinates art to
nature; the manner to the matter and our admiration for the poet to our sympathy to the poetry.

Ch.XIII

The man that has no music in his soul can indeed never be a genuine poet.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge
British poet, critic, philosopher
(1772-1834)


[This message has been edited by Innamorare (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Monique]

Dear God, I've been holding off on this for a couple of months now, but (against better judgement) I'm having at it:

Poetry is creating a brand-new cliche.

There -- said and done, please forgive me.

-Monique

[littlebit]

Originally posted by Donner:
Jennifer,

It's very simple, really. The original point made was that "poetry is emotions on paper", not that poetry cannot be about emotions, which lead to this whole bunny trail. No one is saying that.

**ok.

One of the main reasons the opinion that poetry is about emotions and written from "the heart" is a misplaced one is that it allows the writer to rely on the use of abstractions and cliched phrases, rather than learning the craft of good writing. If I believe that I'm writing from my heart and soul, not from my brain, I'm more likely to use terms such as heart, soul, eternity, et al, ad infinitum, and think, There, I've bared my soul; I've written a poem! Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the worst examples of poetry I can think of are written by soul-barers, pieces better left in a diary.

**I do not believe this to be true. I believe one can, at a minimum, feel as though they are writing "from the heart" and still include intelligence in the process.

What that person doesn't realize is poetry is a craft that relies on skills learned and developed. A good poem doesn't fall out from one's heart onto the page; it relies on words. (To use Emily D., one of your favorite writers as the example--it is her words that elicit an emotional response from her readers. Feelings and emotions didn't flow out of her pen; words did.) Poetry in that sense is no different than any other discipline. It takes thought, practice, and a good working knowledge of the skills and poetic devices that make up good writing. (God forbid that we actually have to think when we write.)

**One can think and feel at the same time.

And people who think poetry is simply about emotions on paper miss out on the joy of playing with language, the foundation of poetry.

**Good point.

Nuff said.


**Better point! http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif
Donner

[jackryhme]

(snip)

------------------
people are born separate
lead separate lives
yet are far more alike
than too few realize......jackryhme

jackryhme,

You have been directed by a moderator to cease pointless and offensive comments to this thread. You have been warned twice before. Do not post to this thread again.

Donner
Moderator

[This message has been edited by Donner (edited 12-16-2000).]

[Donner]

Originally posted by littlebit:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Donner:
Jennifer,
It's very simple, really. The original point made was that "poetry is emotions on paper", not that poetry cannot be about emotions, which lead to this whole bunny trail. No one is saying that.

**ok.

One of the main reasons the opinion that poetry is about emotions and written from "the heart" is a misplaced one is that it allows the writer to rely on the use of abstractions and cliched phrases, rather than learning the craft of good writing. If I believe that I'm writing from my heart and soul, not from my brain, I'm more likely to use terms such as heart, soul, eternity, et al, ad infinitum, and think, There, I've bared my soul; I've written a poem! Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the worst examples of poetry I can think of are written by soul-barers, pieces better left in a diary.

**I do not believe this to be true. I believe one can, at a minimum, feel as though they are writing "from the heart" and still include intelligence in the process.

What that person doesn't realize is poetry is a craft that relies on skills learned and developed. A good poem doesn't fall out from one's heart onto the page; it relies on words. (To use Emily D., one of your favorite writers as the example--it is her words that elicit an emotional response from her readers. Feelings and emotions didn't flow out of her pen; words did.) Poetry in that sense is no different than any other discipline. It takes thought, practice, and a good working knowledge of the skills and poetic devices that make up good writing. (God forbid that we actually have to think when we write.)

**One can think and feel at the same time.

And people who think poetry is simply about emotions on paper miss out on the joy of playing with language, the foundation of poetry.

**Good point.




I give up.

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by littlebit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by garyg:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by littlebit:

**Do you have a point?

Yep.

**Good.
What is it?

garyg

**Just as it reads. If one takes "great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight" out of the actual definition of poetry then one finds the version prefered on this site. There is no reason that poetry cannot be about emotions.

"How do I love thee, let me count the ways."

Jennifer


**Please don't even pretend to know what you are talking about.

garyg

**I do not need to pretend. The original question was about opinion and as far as I know opinion is still a subjective thing. It is my opinion that emotions/feelings can be written about and done so well. Shakespeare, Poe, Dickinson all wrote about emotions whether it was love, pain or great fear. Please do not resort to condescension instead of true debate skills. It does not flatter someone with your intellectual capacity.

Jennifer

Okay, I know I'm in this late, and I know I'm not yet a poet, but let's get real here. Shakespeare did not necessarily write about "love, pain or great fear" because he felt all those things at the precise moment(s) he was writing his poetry (nor his plays). Shakespeare was not brilliant because he was able to "express/communicate" his emotions or put his "emotions on paper". Shakespeare was, and remains, brilliant because of his exceptional insight into the way people work, what makes them "tick" so to speak, and his ability to put his insight into words, uniquely and exceptionally. This is, imo, what makes all great poets great. (Forgive the cliche.) Yes, poets can, and often do, write about emotions, but it is the words (and not the emotions themselves) that make the poet. And, if I understand the posts up to this point, that is the argument being made.

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

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by Adam:
Jackryhme, littlebit,

I think poetry is my emotions on paper. Prose? Prose is my longer more diluted emotions on paper, less sap per mL. Sometimes I’m required to put my brain on paper, or at least my thoughts, though thankfully not very often. I once laid my heart out on the page, my life force and vital needs, all for a very beautiful person, and regretted it because it made a rather intimidating mess. I’ve laughed on the page before, and sneezed as well, to approximately the same comical end. The point is, to save you a little time, it’s all made of words. I could be sitting at home fixing a snowblower or tying knots and thinking about BattleBots and dictating a tolerable love letter to my Latin lover. However, if I took a moment, or an hour or a lifetime examining the things that I might be tempted to just toss on the page, it might (maybe, perhaps, if we are lucky) turn out far more interesting for other people to read.

You’re missing the point. Citing the strong feelings behind writing is no excuse for bad/boring writing, unless your sympathetic mother or tolerant significant other is your target audience. Everyone already has far far too many strong feelings to deal with. Why the hell would I want to read about yours? There has to be something more in it. Get it? You have to make it beautiful, or smart, or I have to learn something great, you have to make me believe something strange or impossible for at least a fraction of a second, or show me something I have never seen or include me in a world I have never really known. The point is that I already have all of your emotions, and you mine, and I don’t at all want to be reminded of that fact unless you have something extremely interesting to say.

Adam

Exactly. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

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

[Neophyte]

Sorry for the third post in a row, but wanted to mention Ted D's initial post in the "Why Critique" thread also has bearing on this subject. Those who haven't already, should read it as well.


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

[Dawn Bruce]

For me,poetry is an echo,as Christopher Smart said
'For echo is the soul of the voice exciting itself in hollow places.'

[Innamorare]

Just found this quote and wished I had found it sooner!

"The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an objective correlative, in other words a set of objects, a chain of events, which shall be the formula of that particular emotion. Such that when the external facts, which must terminate in a sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked." T. S. Eliot

[Erika S]

I also just found a quote. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with emotions on paper, though. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif

Actually it relates to Heidi's point about words.

From <em>Poetry: An Introduction Through Writing</em> by Lewis Turco:
"The poet focuses all his attention upon the literary resources of the language. . . . [H]e has at his disposal exactly the same things that other writers have, but the difference between the poet and other writers is in focus: The poet regards language as a material, much as a graphic artist regards his pigments, clay, or ink. To a poet, the language is a substance to be molded and shaped. All else is secondary, because the poet realizes that how something is said often has more to do with what is said than anything else: Something said well is well-said; but something said superbly is a poem."

It's the language that makes poetry possible.

-Erika

[This message has been edited by ericaeatscrayons (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Innamorare]

I take as metaphysical poetry that in which what is ordinarily apprehensible only by thought is brought within the grasp of feeling, or that in which what is ordinarily
only felt is transformed into thought without ceasing to be feeling.

T.S. Eliot

[kaydee]

What I want to get from a poem is not emotion. It is recognition. I want to read what the poet has written and get that click of "Yes! Exactly! That's it! I knew that, but I didn't know it that way." When the words on the page assemble an image in a way that is new and unique and still resonates inside me, then I am reading poetry.
I have read countless poems in which the writer believed that rhyming love and dove amounted to poetry. And every single word, emotion, and feeling the writer poured on to the page had been said (usually with fewer misspellings) on twenty thousand Hallmark cards. If I already know it, then I do not need the interpreter (writer). You must bring me something new, something I didn't know until you told me.
Poetry is the distillation, the essence of experience. It pa