Do You Write Poetry?

[Sandra Craft]

So, you're saying that if at first I don't understand something I have no business reading it? Well, that puts a fair few scholars out of business doesn't it?! Fuck me, what a stupid thing to say!

Nam, you have just validated everything I wrote and insulted your entire audience.

I don't know -- I think I get what Nam is saying.  It is like telling jokes, the audience either gets it or they don't and if you explain it, it just ruins the joke.  I also think that if someone, like Mags or myself, has a fairly consistent inability to understand poetry that's something going sideways on our end rather than something wrong with nearly every poet in the history of humanity. 

I know in my case I tend to be very literal-minded and that doesn't lend itself easily to appreciation of any kind of art.  And I'm going to stop there because I don't want this to turn into another art appreciation derail.  Art is such a minefield.

[Tank]

 

[Siz]

So, you're saying that if at first I don't understand something I have no business reading it? Well, that puts a fair few scholars out of business doesn't it?! Fuck me, what a stupid thing to say!

Nam, you have just validated everything I wrote and insulted your entire audience.

I don't know -- I think I get what Nam is saying.  It is like telling jokes, the audience either gets it or they don't and if you explain it, it just ruins the joke.  I also think that if someone, like Mags or myself, has a fairly consistent inability to understand poetry that's something going sideways on our end rather than something wrong with nearly every poet in the history of humanity. 

I know in my case I tend to be very literal-minded and that doesn't lend itself easily to appreciation of any kind of art.  And I'm going to stop there because I don't want this to turn into another art appreciation derail.  Art is such a minefield.

I believe the saying goes "If you have to explain the joke it isn't funny".

I, too, am left brain dominant. But that by no means precludes an appreciation of beauty (or whatever characteristic) - or a respect of others appreciation of beauty where I see none. I'm not saying every inaccessible poet is talking shit (indeed, some inaccessible poetry is beautiful in more ways than just the meaning of its words (rhythm, rhyme, creating a mood, clever imagery and metaphore, even the shape of the words on the page...etc...)). I'm saying that thoughtless, vacuous shit is often passed off as poetry by playing on (and perpetuating) the pretentiousness and insecurity of the reader. I am sufficiently comfortable in my own literacy and understanding of poetry not to be bullied into giving merit to a group of sentences simply because they have been manufactured to sound superficially like the thoughtful writing of others.

[xSilverPhinx]

Explaining things is usually frowned upon in writing, but you as the writer still would have to show the reader with your words and metaphors  what you're writing about so that they don't need explaining in the first place. I disagree that in most cases if the audience doesn't get it, it's the audience's fault. That way bad writing gets passed off as "too elitist/too good" for the common reader to understand.

Writing difficult while employing some weird metaphors for the sake of writing difficult shouldn't be the purpose of poetry. It should be, among other things, about seeing the world in a different way, a way that the reader probably hasn't ever thought of before.

Books compared reading poetry to getting a joke. Seems to me in some cases it's more like an inside joke, where only a select few,  including the author, have sufficient contextual knowledge about the poem to interpret in a way not to be deemed "illiterate" by the club. 

[Crow]

Dissecting a piece of literature line by line is EXACTLY to establish the intention of the author. Only then can you give a reasoned opinion of the piece. This does presuppose that the author did, actually, intend a meaning to each and every line. Where that is in question the exercise is futile - just like assigning meaning to a splot of paint that many try to pass off as 'Art'. If Nam is unable to offer a definitive meaning behind his own words - each and every one of them - then I am insulted and angered that he is inviting me to read and invest thought on analysing his work on which he has not, himself, invested any thought.

In response to what Mags wrote, I get the impression that amateur authors of poetry choose words and phrasing solely because they sound 'poetic' and not because they actually mean anything. The fact that some quality poetry is non-literal and somewhat inaccessible is a useful smokesceen for lazy, vacuous writing - giving the impression of poetry but with no substance. The author, shallowly smug at his own poetic genius, blames a reader's lack of comprehension on literalist obtuseness or literary incompetence. Do you remember ever as a little kid making little illegible scribbles on a piece of paper pretending to do grown-up writing? That's what this reminds me of.

Of course it is to derive meaning but seeing as the author in a literature class isn't present then you can't get the exact meaning, as many people get different interpretations from all literature. For example some people think Harry Potter is a tale of a child going crazy due to abuse, other people think the bible is literal, etc. The only person that can give a definitive answer to that is the author. Literature class is about critical thinking. I remember having quite a famous author come in no idea what there name was and the teacher after weeks of going line by line through one of their books started asking questions on the meaning of parts of his book his reply was "there is no meaning, I write because I enjoy it".

I get the frustration in not getting a reply from the author but they can give as much or little as they like and not required to give any answer, if you think it is rubbish then that is your opinion many others will share it and others wont but at least you can give an answer in why you dislike it that is critical. I thought I got quite close to the meaning of what the author wrote but then that might have been after the fact as you can post rationalise anything.

[xSilverPhinx]

I remember having quite a famous author come in no idea what there name was and the teacher after weeks of going line by line through one of their books started asking questions on the meaning of parts of his book his reply was "there is no meaning, I write because I enjoy it".

There was this one case with a local university's entrance exam where they asked a bunch of questions regarding some poet's writing. When they gave that poet the questions so that he could answer it himself, he said that none of the interpretations had anything to do with his writing.

That's why they only use poems by long dead poets now.

[Nam]

Explaining things is usually frowned upon in writing, but you as the writer still would have to show the reader with your words and metaphors  what you're writing about so that they don't need explaining in the first place. I disagree that in most cases if the audience doesn't get it, it's the audience's fault. That way bad writing gets passed off as "too elitist/too good" for the common reader to understand.

I didn't mean to imply that all poetry is great  because it isn't, not even my own. Hell, I'm the first one to say the vast majority of my own work is crap, and I don't say that for pity reads, I actually believe it. Because I am my biggest critic of my own work and that's where 99% of people who write poems (not poetry for the deeper meaning) fail. They never criticise themselves. Sadly, others rarely criticize them either.

Poems Aren't Meant To Make Sense

The title: have you ever heard that before?  I've heard that since I was a child.  People still say it, from time to time, even today.  But the thing is: they are supposed to make sense.  They do make sense, most of the time.  But, when I first started writing, mainly all of my poems made no sense.  Why?  'Cause I didn't know how to write poetry.  And, to some degree one can say: I still do not.   But that saying is only said by those who do not understand poetry to begin with.  Those are the types of people who say that; even those who believe that they write it themselves.

Poetry is different than prose.  In prose everything is mainly literal.  We can read literal 'cause we are taught literal.  We are not really taught about metaphors, similies, analogies, and the like.  Well, some of us are but most, I feel, aren't.  And, that's what many poems are written in.  Metaphors, I feel, being the one device that is used most of all; I know I use it mainly in all my poems; and if one doesn't understand the metaphor being used, how are they to understand the poem that is written?

Of course, then you have poems that may seem to be literal but the whole of the poem may be allegorical, or a complete metaphor; and how is the reader to really understand that?  Are they meant to?  Most can't see beyond each word that is written, in each line that describes an action, or a thought, or some sort of substantial overview of what is meant to be said compared to what isn't; or is, but the reader can't figure it out.

However, there are times when a writer doesn't even know how to write what they are writing.  They learn as they go along, or they are in the process of being taught but do not fully grasp the underlying aspect of it all.  That was the way it was with me.  When I read poetry, I knew what it meant, at times.  Not always.  But I also knew that I wanted to write poetry.  I wanted to convey the same sense of emotion and/or viewpoint as the poems in which I read.  And, it was difficult 'cause I had to teach it to myself; I didn't have anyone really to learn from.  I read, and read, and read 'til I felt I couldn't read anymore, and then I began to attempt to write it myself, and I failed many times.  As I am sure many other writers had failed before in their life.

Some never actually get to that point of actually writing what is so clearly in their mind onto paper.  It comes out differently than they wish it to.

"Poems aren't meant to make sense." -- is said by those who do not understand that a poem does make sense; and not just to the writer but to the reader, as well.



David Garrett Arnold
March 29 2012

Writing difficult while employing some weird metaphors for the sake of writing difficult shouldn't be the purpose of poetry. It should be, among other things, about seeing the world in a different way, a way that the reader probably hasn't ever thought of before.

People put too much strain on writers. What they should be, or shouldn't. It's like those who make films off books or an actual event. Leave things out, or add things, or leave things as they were but have no visuality to the watcher's eye. In their mind they see it a different way. They could have done it better.

-Nam

[Nam]

So, you're saying that if at first I don't understand something I have no business reading it?

Well, that puts a fair few scholars out of business doesn't it?! Fuck me, what a stupid thing to say!

Nam, you have just validated everything I wrote and insulted your entire audience.

Did i say that? Show me where i said that.

This is what I said:

However, people who do not understand what is written have no business reading it to begin with. That makes them illiterate in the whole form itself.

Poetry is most times metaphorical, allegorical, applies similes and painting a picture. If a person doesn't understand those things then reading poetry itself is nonsensical. They literally have no business reading what they do not understand because if they do not understand what they are reading then they critique the writer and not the poem itself. And, yes. I believe people like that have no business reading poetry.

It's like the saying, "My mother always told me if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all."

People read that the wrong way. Because they don't understand what that means. And people tend to apply that line to the most trivial of things. It's a metaphor. If you can understand what that line means then there's hope for you (you being used here in general, not you specifically) otherwise people who can't read metaphors have no business reading works that use them. And poetry, mainly, uses that tool to convey meaning.

-Nam

[Claireliontamer]

I think the best poems don't need the in depth analysis (although I actually quite liked doing all that at school at times, not with novels though, I hated analysing novels).  However, to me the best poems are the one that hit an emotional nerve.  A famous one:

W. H. Auden


Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

How can you read that and not be moved emotionally? 

[Magdalena]

Fuck you very much.

-Nam

So, you're saying that if at first I don't understand something I have no business reading it? Well, that puts a fair few scholars out of business doesn't it?! Fuck me, what a stupid thing to say!

Nam, you have just validated everything I wrote and insulted your entire audience.

Art is such a minefield.

You guys are right. I came to hear poetry.
I said, "I don't get it."
The poet is now angry...
I've had enough.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think the best poems don't need the in depth analysis (although I actually quite liked doing all that at school at times, not with novels though, I hated analysing novels).  However, to me the best poems are the one that hit an emotional nerve.  A famous one:

W. H. Auden


Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

How can you read that and not be moved emotionally?

Something like this could have inspired the Rolling Stones song "Paint it Black".

[Nam]

You guys are right. I came to hear poetry.
I said, "I don't get it."
The poet is now angry...
I've had enough.

No, you said:

That's what I'm talking about! There's sooooooo much mystery around poems! I hate it! It's like they, the poets, know sooooo much more than you! He is so smart, and you can't figure it out! It's like an exclusive club where only the "poets" are allowed and they write, and write, and from far away they watch you read their stuff and, "Our ignorance amuses them!

[bold mine]

That's not: I don't get it.

That's: it's their fault. They're just a bunch of elitist snobs laughing at us.

That's: you blaming us, or me, for your lack of knowledge. It's not up to us to explain our work to you or anyone else. Especially if you don't get it in the first place.

I interpreted my work above for fun. Everyone was having fun trying (or jokingly trying) to interpret my poem so I joined in in the "joke". Is my fun interpretation what the poem is about? Yes. That's what it is about: two people having sex for the first time. But I interpreted it in a humorous way because everyone else was doing the basic same thing.

You interpret that as me being an asshole. No. You're the asshole.

-Nam

[Claireliontamer]

I think the best poems don't need the in depth analysis (although I actually quite liked doing all that at school at times, not with novels though, I hated analysing novels).  However, to me the best poems are the one that hit an emotional nerve.  A famous one:

W. H. Auden


Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

How can you read that and not be moved emotionally?

Something like this could have inspired the Rolling Stones song "Paint it Black".

Possibly but I think it's more likely that the emotion of grief inspired both of them.

[Tank]

You guys are right. I came to hear poetry.
I said, "I don't get it."
The poet is now angry...
I've had enough.

No, you said:

That's what I'm talking about! There's sooooooo much mystery around poems! I hate it! It's like they, the poets, know sooooo much more than you! He is so smart, and you can't figure it out! It's like an exclusive club where only the "poets" are allowed and they write, and write, and from far away they watch you read their stuff and, "Our ignorance amuses them!

[bold mine]

That's not: I don't get it.

That's: it's their fault. They're just a bunch of elitist snobs laughing at us.

That's: you blaming us, or me, for your lack of knowledge. It's not up to us to explain our work to you or anyone else. Especially if you don't get it in the first place.

I interpreted my work above for fun. Everyone was having fun trying (or jokingly trying) to interpret my poem so I joined in in the "joke". Is my fun interpretation what the poem is about? Yes. That's what it is about: two people having sex for the first time. But I interpreted it in a humorous way because everyone else was doing the basic same thing.

You interpret that as me being an asshole. No. You're the asshole.

-Nam

Not acceptable, Strike one.

[Nam]

Strike one? What is this baseball. Please...

-Nam