Poetry as Propaganda

[Mister Joy]

With one of my modules (titled "writing about place") I'm beginning to get the feeling that our lecturer's ambition is to turn us into political activists (though I may be wrong - it could just be an eliment of the syllabus). The concept that she seems to be encouraging is "writing to persuade". I'm uncomfortable with this because I simply don't think that it's the job of poetry or fiction to persuade anyone, it and the opinions that it inevitably expresses are only art, and when it comes to persuading with non-fiction I try to be very direct and point for point, free of any artistic flair. I've no ambition to knowingly produce propaganda that relies on generating emotional bias, rather than straight-forwardly presenting the facts, because I think it's specious and dishonest. I want to write fiction for people to enjoy not for the purpose of social engineering. And, if I'm to persuade, I'll endeavour as much as possible to be to the point.

One of her points is that, in order to write good poetry, we need to have passions and things that are important to us, while I find that "writing to persuade" - just thinking about poetry in that way - actually goes against my passions and my principles.

Would you say that's fair enough or am I just being silly? How legitimate is poetry when it comes to presenting an argument, would you say?

[GodlessInND]

One of her points is that, in order to write good poetry, we need to have passions and things that are important to us...

Let's say for a moment I agree with your instructor on this point:  passionate poetry doesn't equal persuasive poetry, or vice versa.  If your passion is political activism, then your poetry might serve to influence your reader's point of view.  But in general, I agree with you:  

...I simply don't think that it's the job of poetry or fiction to persuade anyone...

You are most certainly not being silly.  Your points are valid and should be brought up during discussion.  Keep thinking!

[VanReal]

Try not to think about it too much, one thing you'll see in every course is the attempt to develop a skill.  In this instance the lecturer wants you to learn to write persuasive poetry.  Maybe you are trying to persuade the reader to see your point, maybe you are trying to persuade them to see through your eyes.  It's just a lesson you don't have to use the tool later if you are uncomfortable with it.  I took a poetry course once, I never got the symbolism right and ended up feeling like a complete idiot, so kudos to you for sticking with it.

[Mister Joy]

Likewise, I'm much more of a prose writer. Probably because I don't read much poetry and so I struggle with writing it.

Anyhoo, I see what you're saying. I agree, in that I think of art, looking at art, as a means of playing with ideas, suspending your disbelief towards them, letting them stay in your head for a bit as a guest, making them coffee, etc. So yes, when it comes to making art I think it's ligitimate to have them look through your eyes, maybe even necessary. Our opinions will shape what we write, paint etc. whether we want them too or not, really. Phillip Pullman is an atheist, so his book Northern Lights (or The Golden Compass as it was published in the States) naturally reflected a godless perspective on life, much to the affrontation of any Christians who lacked the imagination to even humour concepts that they don't agree with. But that's all Pullman is asking his readers to do: entertain ideas, for the sake of it, for pleasure and for no other reason. He's not trying to make anyone accept them, that isn't his ball-game and if it was then it would be obvious through his presentation (and would annoy me even though I'm an atheist myself). It isn't hard to tell when an idea is trying to take up permanent residence, against your consent, saying "I should be here, you fool", and not just popping by politely to say hello, get to know you and have a cup of tea. It'll avoid entertainment or interest for interest's sake, it'll just come in and try to chain itself immovable to the furniture. And if you want to do that, as a writer, then you're not producing 'art', as I understand it. You're producing arguments. Now, if you were to assess a poem or a piece of fiction as an argument, then it would simply disintergrate. Imagine the reaction if George W. tried to justify the invasion of Iraq with a sonnet!

I'm doing a 'creative writing' course and those are the skills I want to develop and should be developing. Arguing with people is an entirely different thing and combining the two simply doesn't work, not from the point of view of constructing good arguments and not from the point of view of making unintrusive, enjoyable art. So, I don't think I'm learning a skill that I simply don't like using; the concept actually undermines and unlearns skills that I already have or at least aspire to develop, being deliberately erronious on both accounts as well as relying on others' ineptitude in those areas as well: non-committal intellectual play on the one hand, ability to reason seriously on the other, with a line between the two.

Also, she's teaching us two lessons at the same time, assuming, I think, that they're complimentary:
1) in order to write good poetry, it needs to be 'from the heart', ie. from our passions and interests, what's important to us.
2) 'writing to persuade'.

So it isn't as simple as just getting on with it. Because of what's important to me, I can't do both. So I've got to ask, which will get me a better grade: writing about what's important to me without trying to make others accept it but simply entertain it (my preference, obviously) or using poetry as tool for social engineering, not towards anything that I genuinely see as necessary or important but rather as a devils advocate, contradicting my actual views, in fact, and thus rendering it fairly superficial? Then I've got to follow it up with a far more important question: which of these two approaches will enable me to actually learn anything?

Kind of thinking aloud here, by the way.  I have tried to raise the point with her a couple of times but I don't think she's understood where I'm coming from. Not of her own fault (she's not stupid and other than this I've actually found her seminars far more interesting and enjoyable than my other tutors') but simply because I haven't had time in the seminars to explain and clarify exactly what my problem is - I don't want to steal the whole show with one debate. I'll get a chance to talk to her one-on-one and face to face about it sometime, I hope.