navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » What is unpoetic?
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic What is unpoetic? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA

0 posted 2007-01-22 11:19 AM



So I have heard the term "unpoetic" several times over the past few weeks. I looked it up and could not find a definition for the term nor an entry in any major dictionary. So here are the definitions for "poetic."


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
1. possessing the qualities or charm of poetry: poetic descriptions of nature.
2. of or pertaining to a poet or poets.
3. characteristic of or befitting a poet: poetic feeling; poetic insight.
4. endowed with the faculty or feeling of a poet: a poetic eulogist.
5. having or showing the sensibility of a poet: a poetic lover.
6. of or pertaining to poetry: poetic literature.
7. of the nature of or resembling poetry: a poetic composition; poetic drama; poetic imagination.
8. celebrated in poetry, as a place.
9. providing a subject for poetry.
10. of or pertaining to literature in verse form.
–noun
11. poetics.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
po·et·ic   (p?-?t'?k)  Pronunciation Key      
adj.  
Of or relating to poetry: poetic works.
Having a quality or style characteristic of poetry: poetic diction.
Suitable as a subject for poetry: a poetic romance.
Of, relating to, or befitting a poet: poetic insight.
Characterized by romantic imagery: "Turner's vision of the rainbow . . . was poetic, and he knew it" (Lawrence Gowing).

n.   The theory or practice of writing poetry; poetics.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source
poetic

adjective
1. of or relating to poetry; "poetic works"; "a poetic romance"
2. characterized by romantic imagery; "Turner's vision of the rainbow...was poetic"
3. of or relating to poets; "poetic insight"
4. characteristic of or befitting poetry; "poetic diction"

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
poetic [pou?etik] adjective
of, like, or suitable for, a poem
Example: a poetic expression

Do any of these definition ring true to you? Do you find that these definitions miss the point of what is poetic? What would be a opposite of these definitions. Does your poetry fall into what is commonly known as poetic?

cs

© Copyright 2007 Dane Barner - All Rights Reserved
Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
1 posted 2007-01-22 04:34 PM


Hey CS!!!

Well Un poetic is basically a piece of writing that posses none of the rules that make something poetic.  I generally hate that term, because allot of people need to be trained to write poems poetically.  And when some one calls someone un poetic, sometimes people confuse a skill with a talent. Hence taking it as they don't have talent.  My guess is good poetry is 35%skill, 35%talent, 30% voice/authenticity.

  Personally, I like the rule of thumb show don't tell

for example (The sentence by its self)
1.Maybe He/She's shallow  

2.If I was a book would you read me,
or would I collect dust,
until you find something prettier to look at  

Now given that the structure was terrible in the second one, comparing the two the second one has the same message, a mental picture, and sets a mood.

Typically I like to see structure in poetry.  Structure and imagery separates a story, from  a memo.  I can't wait to se what others say.

Lots of love,

-Juju


  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

[This message has been edited by Juju (01-23-2007 07:48 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
2 posted 2007-01-22 05:36 PM


I think the problem here is that 'poetic' has two meanings. On the one hand, it is the adjective form of poetry. On the other, it means something like transcendent (which in itself is vague).

You combine the two and what do you get? A belief that adding line breaks (Really just an added bit of punctuation) to a piece of writing means a lot more than it should. We have the same problem with prosaic by the way.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
3 posted 2007-01-23 01:16 AM


First of all you need to ask "What is poetry?"

When you know what poetry is, then you will know what has characteristics or manners thereof, and is "poetic".  And then also, what doesn't have or is lacking those characteristics or manners, "unpoetic"


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
4 posted 2007-01-23 06:38 AM


Math.

Math can be a poetic subject in a poem.

But, mathematical symbols do not possess poetic qualities (to me.) Though when recited, one can attach a formal poetic structure, and there are methods in formulation where poetry comes in handy for learning or teaching. Accounting, in itself, is listing without attention to voice, metaphor, rhyme scheme, mood, etc. or anything outside the field of data and values. Meter and rhythm would be individually induced? Though the accountant can enforce a style derivative of poetry and add all sorts of charm to the equation. Bottom lines have the most important voice in accounting, and that's what can become poetic to the ears and to the wallet.  

so math isn't devoid of poetics, but when I'm writing out an equation, they won't let me be "creative" with it. Ha.

though, poetically: music, lyrics, and poetry depend on mathematics for structure and sound.

I think it depends entirely on personal perspective.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
5 posted 2007-01-24 12:32 PM


Brad:
quote:
You combine the two and what do you get? A belief that adding line breaks (Really just an added bit of punctuation) to a piece of writing means a lot more than it should. We have the same problem with prosaic by the way.


I think one of the beauties of poetry (in the sense of your second definition) is that it defies precise definition and yet most people know it when they see it.  


Stephen.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
6 posted 2007-01-24 12:13 PM


That is because it has so many forms.  It is like love.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
7 posted 2007-01-24 05:07 PM



The words poet, poem, poesy, poetic, and poetry, all come from Greek.  They originally had the implication of "making, creation", and then more specifically a "a poetic making or creation"

ποιειν [poiein] "to make, to create (anything); to compose a poem"

ποιητης [poietes] "a maker (of anything); a poet"

ποιημα [poiema] "anything made or done; a poem"
(Plural: ποιηματα [poiemata] "creations; poemata")

ποιησις [poiesis] "a making, a creation (of anything); poesy"

ποιητικος [poietikos] "creative; poetic"

(also used as a noun as in "poetics")

ποιητρια [poietria] "poetess"


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
8 posted 2007-01-24 06:15 PM




Look at the first line of the Septuagint.  There is the verb that is related to poetry describing  the very creation of the heaven and earth:


Εν αρχη εποιησεν `ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην
En  arche   epoiesan   ho  theos  ton   ouranon   kai   ten   gen.
|     |        |       |     |     |      |        |     |     |
In beginning  made    the   God   the   heaven   and   the  earth.


The words ouranos "heaven" and ge "earth" and their corresponding forms of the word "the" show up with an -n to indicate they are direct objects of the word epoiesan "made".
  
The e- at the beginning of the word is a handy little addition to indicate past tense.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
9 posted 2007-01-24 06:35 PM


I think most people know a poem when they see one, I also think they use 'unpoetic' when their predictions go awry on what a poem should say.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
10 posted 2007-01-24 06:53 PM


quote:
I think most people know a poem when they see one

I am not sure about that.  Try this experiment someday in a place where most people speak English: Write some freeverse down on paper without any line breaks.  Then write a form verse with meter and rhyme out on paper without any line breaks, so that both of them appear to the eye to be prose.  Now go up to someone on the street and ask him to read both of them and say what he thinks.  I bet you very very few, if any, shall recognize that the freeverse one is a poem.  But most shall recognize right away that the one with meter and rhyme is a poem.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
11 posted 2007-01-24 07:03 PM


Put anything in a line break form and before they read it, most people will think it's a poem. That is the expectation.

I start from that point. You start from the second impression: when the expectation is either met or not.


ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
12 posted 2007-01-25 11:13 AM


But now we are getting away from the first question. Let's step away from formatting because then you are getting into what a poem looks like not what is poetic. I could craft a very careful grocery list in the proper format and Joe Blow on the street would call it a poem if it fit the picture in his head for what a poem should look like.

It seems to me from what Ess said
quote:
First of all you need to ask "What is poetry?"

When you know what poetry is, then you will know what has characteristics or manners thereof, and is "poetic".  And then also, what doesn't have or is lacking those characteristics or manners, "unpoetic"


That the definition of poetic is very personal. That would support the definition of poetry which, when looked up, provides the same lack of defining character and thus requires a personal view to solidify the term.

So, what about this? Can we say that somebody else's writing is unpoetic?

cs

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
13 posted 2007-01-25 02:38 PM


Of course, you can call another person's poem unpoetic. You can do that either through visual or aural association. The point, however, is not that it is subjective but that one's subjective judgement is already based on non-subjective factors (line breaks, metrics, rhyme schemes etc.).

If you see a grocery list in your pocket, you probably won't ask whether it is poetic. If you see a grocery list in Poetry magazine, you probably will.

The problem with calling something unpoetic is not that it is subjective (If you ask someone's opinion -- if you post on an open forum -- that is what you want by definition.), the problem with unpoetic is that those non-subjective factors are never clarified.

Why aren't they clarified?

Personally, I think it's an attempt to avoid giving an opinion altogether.

ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
14 posted 2007-01-25 04:05 PM


So if those non-subjective factors were clarified wouldn't that strip the creativity from the form? Truly, turning poetry in to an equation?

I see what you're saying and I am sorry to agree in questions, but that's how it make me think.

So using that nonclarified subjective anti-definition we could say that my free-verse is unpoetic and Ess's form and meter is poetic, but we have nothing that would prove that objectively. So should we ever critique a poems poetic-ness? (is that a word - oh and I just use Ess as an example of a formal writer and by no means pass judgement on his work)

cs

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
15 posted 2007-01-25 05:23 PM


If someone says that you're free verse is unpoetic and Essorant's is -- essentially because one is a series of iambs and one is not -- I am always stuck with a simple question:

Why not say you prefer metered verse?

I see nothing wrong with that. But it seems the height of ego to argue that one is poetry or poetic and the other is not. The irony is that if I'm right about this then the arrogance is the result, not of actually wanting to exclude free verse from the poetic, but because you are insecure in stating your own opinions.

But let's say we're talking about someone who has read poetry daily for most of his or her life (a professor or a pro), let's say they are arrogant and mean, "I know it when I see it and this isn't it."

What do we do with that?

Honestly, some of the best advice I've ever gotten has been like that, but I don't think it works on the internet. We are a faceless bunch, you don't know who I am, I don't know who you are, and until you know this person is Pinsky or Bloom, or 'Reg'(a minor poet from the SF area who tore me down and spit my stuff onto the pavement  -- I learned a lot from him), I would be very weary of accepting advice from those who talk the talk without knowing if they walk the walk.

For better or worse, we tend to think that objective statements have more weight than subjective ones and yet in poetry don't all we really want to know is what people think and feel while reading our stuff?

It's kind of like making dinner for someone and then asking, "Did you like it?"

"It was spaghetti with a pesto sauce."

And so you're stuck asking the question, "What does that mean?"

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
16 posted 2007-01-25 07:48 PM


quote:
Personally, I think it's an attempt to avoid giving an opinion altogether.

I couldn't agree more.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

17 posted 2007-01-25 08:06 PM


From "Memoirs of a Geisha":

Narrator (Old Sayuri): At the temple, there is a poem called "Lost" carved into the stone. It has three words, but the poet has scratched them out. You cannot read Loss, only feel it.

* * *

I wish I had written that.


    

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
18 posted 2007-01-25 10:16 PM


Brad~

quote:
is not that it is subjective but that one's subjective judgment is already based on non-subjective factors (line breaks, metrics, rhyme schemes etc.)



I partially disagree

I think external factors are both non-subjective and subjective, due to the nature of human perception of words and sound. Words and sounds are facts that become internalized or expressed to each his/her own. Aren't we subjectively drawn in by the externals?  If the externals are stimuli that naturally compel one to fall into the meter or a rhythm or a universally appealing thing? Whereby we also lean away if it goes against our preference.

Is it possible the objectives are not clarified, because we involuntarily have a preference that may or may not be openly expressed? properly? or have no opinion at all because we are unmoved?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
19 posted 2007-01-25 11:28 PM


quote:
The problem with calling something unpoetic is not that it is subjective (If you ask someone's opinion -- if you post on an open forum -- that is what you want by definition.), the problem with unpoetic is that those non-subjective factors are never clarified.

Why aren't they clarified?



Let me try then.


I would say "unpoetic" would describe a failure to demonstrate those qualities which most have traditionally associated with poetry and poets.  These include: imaginative wording, cleverness, insight, steering away from overtness, avoiding hopeless obscurity, and the ability to make the mundane seem profound and the profound even more profound.  Of course these qualities are general and subjective, and they can also describe great prose as well.  But they would be considered especially poetic when they also are demonstrated along with the unique mechanics of verse (whether free or metered I care not).


I know you'll shred this Brad, but at least I tried.





Stephen.  

ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
20 posted 2007-01-26 11:16 AM


quote:
I would say "unpoetic" would describe a failure to demonstrate those qualities which most have traditionally associated with poetry and poets.


But then you go back to the subjectivity thing. You would have to say:

I would say "unpoetic" would describe a failure to demonstrate TO ME OR IN A WAY I CAN UNDERSTAND those qualities which most have traditionally associated with poetry and poets.

I'll go back to the previous question: Can we definitively say that someone else's work is unpoetic?

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
21 posted 2007-01-26 08:46 PM


CS:

I think the first question you must ask is whether it is proper to have a definitive standard against which to judge an alleged poem as poetic or unpoetic.  Aristotle found many connections between poetry and rhetoric, but cited their respective purposes as being a key to recognizing the difference between the two.  I'm not sure I buy this entirely, but it does provide a convenient framework.

I think it is fun to try to push the boundaries of poetry, and aim to redefine what others argue are fixed qualities of poetry.  Rather than being caught up in the negative, wouldn't it be more interesting to explore just how broad the definition of poetry can be?

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
22 posted 2007-01-27 09:06 AM


Well, I never hid my opinion about forms.  My opinion still stands as it was expressed here here:


"I won't hide the fact that I find freeverse an inferior form of writing poetry when held up in comparison with traditional, wellwritten formverse in English.   In my opinion it is a bit of a delusion to paint it out as if it is an "equal" tool.  I simply don't see this "tool" doing as well as the tools of such poets as the Beowulf-Poet, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, and Poe and so many others, that heightened poetry so strongly thro stress-meter, syllable-stress meter, and rhyme.  They had much more than good ideas, but they heightened the language as much as possible to bring forth ideas and words in as eloquent a way as possible.  People today may go that distance as well if they dared to be so ambitious and heighten language as much as possible by using such forms.  But since freeverse basically "frees" itself from those, it also lacks the long historical support of them.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have its own more individual strength, but that individual strength is is not as strong as the traditional forms already so strongly proven thro many ages."

As far as judging a poem as "unpoetic", I think it is like saying a man is "bald" or "blind".  Many if not most that we call "bald" or "blind" still have some hair and some sight.  Just like "bald" or "blind" we often use the word unpoetic (and poetic) intensively, not to indicate an absolute absence of something, but a predominace of an inability or absence of something.  In other words unpoetic may usually refer to something "not very poetic" instead of something "not poetic at all"


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
23 posted 2007-01-27 06:17 PM


quote:
I think external factors are both non-subjective and subjective, due to the nature of human perception of words and sound. Words and sounds are facts that become internalized or expressed to each his/her own. Aren't we subjectively drawn in by the externals?  If the externals are stimuli that naturally compel one to fall into the meter or a rhythm or a universally appealing thing? Whereby we also lean away if it goes against our preference.


If I understand this, yes. I hesitate because of 'to each his/her own'. Language is still at bottom a social exercise (with idiosyncrasies of course); its beginning may be arbitrary, but its use is not. I simply do not see how one can look at the tradition of poetry in English and not conclude that following and rebelling against the tradition are both 'poetic'.

Does that mean anything goes?

No, I don't think so if only because we'll be stuck with the same thing over and over again -- a continual reinventing of the wheel -- precisely because of the following:

quote:
Is it possible the objectives are not clarified, because we involuntarily have a preference that may or may not be openly expressed? properly? or have no opinion at all because we are unmoved?


I think that's right on the money. The only point I'm trying to make is why not simply say that?

I like it but I don't know why.

I don't like it but I don't know why.

I am unmoved. I don't know why.

Or hazard a guess as to why these things happen.

What has been neglected in this discussion so far is the idea of a target audience. You don't write for everyman, you can't. You write for a specific audience and that audience isn't always the audience you're going to get.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
24 posted 2007-01-27 06:21 PM


Jim,

How much more expansion do you need?

Stephen and Essorant,

What do you do with the King James Bible?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
25 posted 2007-01-27 10:07 PM


quote:
Stephen and Essorant,

What do you do with the King James Bible?

Brad,

I'm slow, I'm tired from work ... and for the life of me, I can't figure out what you're asking here, or how it relates to my last reply to you.  


Help me.  What do I do with the King James Bible?


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
26 posted 2007-01-27 10:56 PM


quote:
I would say "unpoetic" would describe a failure to demonstrate those qualities which most have traditionally associated with poetry and poets


The King James Bible is in free verse. It has lists, it uses phrasing that was originally intended to be familiar, not profound. It does not use line breaks, it does not use rhyme, yet few would deny that it is a great work of literature -- poetic if there ever was such a thing.

In many ways, it didn't just go against the poetic tradition, it created a new one.

PS Get some sleep.  

[This message has been edited by Brad (01-30-2007 07:04 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
27 posted 2007-01-27 11:03 PM


zzzzzzzzzz

(Now that's poetic to me!)

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
28 posted 2007-01-28 12:24 PM


Other than the songs and psalms, I don't think most of the translation of the bible is poetry.  Poetic, yes, but not poetry.  That doesn't mean the original text didn't include poetry in the Hebrew or the Greek, but in the english translations, it reads predominatly as prose, and I think most English-speaking readers shall recognize it as such.


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
29 posted 2007-01-28 04:21 PM


I agree with what Ron quoted. Without voice the poetry becomes kinda boring, even songs.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2007-01-29 10:05 PM


Brad,

I don't think it's that incredible that the KJV Bible is considered a "poetic" work of literature, seeing that roughly 1/3 of it is literally poetry (with line breaks, and the translation-surviving parallelisms of Hebrew Poetry).  Even the non-poetry books are interspersed with quotes of poetry.  


And yet, the geneologies are still tedious repetitions of names, and the histories of Israel's Kings are still prosaic as ever.


The parts that aren't "poetry" and yet are still poetic fit the description I gave earlier ... a great Example would be 1 Corinthians 13.  


Stephen.  

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
31 posted 2007-01-29 11:51 PM


Poetry is what you say it is, nothing else. If you think grass is poetic or a brick is poetic, then to you it is, no one can say otherwise. It is all opinion and the tastes of the individual.

One could say that...

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Sugar is sweet
and so are you.

... is a poem. I disagree. I think it's numb and pointless. That is my opinion, that "poem" is not my taste. No one here can argue with that becuase they would be saying that we have no right to form our own opinions. If I can be so frank, a lot of the poetry I read on this site and many many other sites are poems that do not cater to my tastes and in my opinion are bad. But I know they must be considered good, because many of the poems on PiP get 20, 30, 40 responses, good responses.

Now, of course, the poetry I write is my taste because obviously I wrote it. But I'm lucky to get any comments on certain poetic pieces so that tells me that my poetry does not cater to many people's tastes. I'm fine with that and actually prefer it that way. My poetry is a collection of my thoughts, and no one should be able to easily understand my thoughts or else I'd think of myself as too simple a person.

So you guys can discuss definitions and different dialects and what not; but ultimately it's all about the individual's taste in writing and poetry. That's all I really have to say.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
32 posted 2007-01-30 01:27 AM


Ed:
quote:
Poetry is what you say it is, nothing else. If you think grass is poetic or a brick is poetic, then to you it is


Ali-G once told the Surgeon General C. Everett Koop (in a mock interview) that his cat was "a real person", to which the kind surgeon scoffed.  Though "human" may defy easy definition, we all see the absurdity of Ali-G's mistake.


Wouldn't it better to admit that it's possible for someone to lack poetic sense?  Why argue that there is no such thing as a real green and red, just because some may be color blind?  


Wouldn't it diminish poetry to say that it is total subjectivity, and that there are no real qualities which make something poetic?


Stephen.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
33 posted 2007-01-30 01:00 PM


As humorous as your cat example may be, it's a little off the topic. This discussion isn't about what is a poem and what is not a poem. It's (unless I'm mistaken, and please tell me if I am) about how a poem can be unpoetic. In other words, it is a poem, but not a very good one.

"Why argue that there is no such thing as a real green and red, just because some may be color blind?"

Excellent example, very good. Let's say someone is colorblind, they can't see red or green, ok. For them, red and green does not exist because they can't see it. Now, I want someone who is not color blind to explain to that person what red looks like and what green looks like. It's not possible to truly give them a full definition and really let them know what the color is.

This goes along the lines of a past discussion on this board about reality. I chimed in my two cents about my theory of two different realities: the worldly (authentic) reality, and the personal reality of the individual. If a mentally insane person says that spiders are nesting in his ears, then to him he has spiders in his ears. You, a sane person, cannot tell him otherwise. Sure, you can try to reason with him but he still feels their presence on his skull. It would be the same as if you, still a sane person, actually had a spider on your leg and you knew it was real; no one could tell you any different because you have a spider on your leg. It's the same concept with our insane man, it's totally real with him. Why do you think people on LSD tend to jump out windows? The hallucinations are so real to them they can't cope.

Now, let me ask you, do you like Charles Bukowski? Or William S. Burroughs, Franz Kafka, Hunter S. Thompson, Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso or John Steinbeck? Is there one author in there you don't like? Do any of those people not tickle your literary fancy? There are plenty of books and authors that do not cater to our tastes. Do you have any idea how many publishers turned down Mario Puzo's The Godfather? It's insane how many turned him down until Putnam decided to do it. The other publishers didn't like the book, they thought it was "unbookworthy" if you will. So yes, I do believe that a poem can only be unpoetic to the individual and perhaps a masterpiece to another. For instance, that "roses are red" poem; I hear first graders really love it.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
34 posted 2007-01-30 02:57 PM


A poem should be judged by what virtues are in the poem not by how well the reader's tastebuds like it or not.  Just because you don't like vegetables doesn't mean they are now predominatly unhealthy for you or others.  They are predominatly healthy for everyone and anyone.  And just because you like McDonald's greaseburgers doesn't mean they are now magically very healthy to eat.  Therefore there is an important distinction to make: good, healthy and helpful things are good, healthy, and helpful, and bad, unhealthy, and unhelpful are bad, healthy, and unhelpful, whether or not an individual's tastebuds like them.  


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
35 posted 2007-01-30 03:25 PM


Ess, hmm, I wonder. Whenever I hear someone say "I hate vegetables", I usually don't hear them say "Vegetables are bad for you." In fact, I've never heard anyone say or imply such a silly thing. They just don't care for them.

"A poem should be judged by what virtues are in the poem not by how well the reader's tastebuds like it or not."

Are you saying that the reader should have no opinion about the poem? Please, let's be reasonable here. I don't like Cadillacs but everyone says what great cars they are. But I don't like them. Are you saying I should like them because they're good cars? That's almost Communistic. If you read my above statement, you'll read about Mario Puzo's trouble getting his book published. The other publishers just didn't care for it. And also, I've NEVER ever ever heard someone say that McDonald's is good for you. People don't make statements like that. Just because something has all the components to make it good, doesn't mean everyone will like it. And just because the construction of something is bad doesn't mean everyone will hate it. It would be crazy to think such a thing.

Oh and could you tell me some of those "virtues" a poem should have. I'm curious as to what they are. I'm sure they're set in stone too.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
36 posted 2007-01-30 04:10 PM


quote:
Excellent example, very good. Let's say someone is colorblind, they can't see red or green, ok. For them, red and green does not exist because they can't see it. Now, I want someone who is not color blind to explain to that person what red looks like and what green looks like. It's not possible to truly give them a full definition and really let them know what the color is.


Is there any definitve way to know that they, in fact, are the color blind ones? Or could it be that we've told ourselves of that red is red and green is green when maybe we started with the wrong conclusions. It gets to be a bit metaphysical, you have to ask yourself what is the true nature of poetry - Can something be poetic to one and not to another? Does it loose it's merit if it's not universally accepted?

CS

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
37 posted 2007-01-30 06:33 PM


"Is there any definitve way to know that they, in fact, are the color blind ones?"

lol. It's like I was saying about the two realities. There is an authentic one and a personal one for the individual. Red is red and green is green, that is the authentic reality. But you have to understand, defining basic colors has no real complexity. Now defining a piece of written work, that is a little more difficult.

"what is the true nature of poetry - Can something be poetic to one and not to another?"

Bingo. On the money, you got it!

"Does it lose it's merit if it's not universally accepted?"

God I hope not, then my work would just be utter nonsense. I don't know if you've ever heard of this author, John Kennedy Toole. But he wrote the Pullitzer prize-winning novel, A Confederacy of Dunces (one of my favorite books). But see, he wrote it over a decade before it was recognized and given the award. Unfortunately, during that period he took his own life so he never got to accept his award. But you see my point, just because something is not hailed as a masterpiece (right away, or even at all) doesn't mean it's not.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
38 posted 2007-01-30 07:09 PM


I would hate it if someone read one of my poems and said, "I don't like it, but I know it's good for me."


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
39 posted 2007-01-30 07:31 PM


lol, my point exactly.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2007-01-31 12:53 PM


I think it is more important to write a poem with good manners and good thoughts, than write a poem that the people "like".  Many people today don't "like" things that are good for them.  So be it.  They can listen to someone scream and rant and rave into a microphone and call it " good music".  They can watch a movie full of violence and nudity and call it a "good movie" and like it.  They can look at a obscurities, blurs and warped out colours and call it "good art" and like it.  And they can spill out a bunch of words and emotions on paper, without any rhyme or reason too and call it "poetry" and like it.  But I'm not going to be one that bows to such behaviours, just because they "like" it.  To me doing what is good for people and civilization comes first, not doing what they "like".



Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
41 posted 2007-01-31 01:43 AM


My God, I really wonder how you would react to my work? For some reason, I'm not happy about this, lol.

"I think it is more important to write a poem with good manners and good thoughts, than write a poem that the people "like"."

Ess, do you realize that you are putting down an entire style of writing? Are you saying that if I don't write poems about flowers and what a groovy day I had or bees loving the honey out of each other, then I am not writing worthy poetry? Can you possibly be saying that!? I can't really believe this.

"Many people today don't "like" things that are good for them.  So be it."  

So you know what is generally good for everyone? The whole world Ess? How is happy, lovey poetry good for people? How can poetry on the stranger, more experimental side be bad for them? I'm really taking this personally for some odd reason. I feel like my poetry is bad for people now. Maybe that's why I get so few responses...


"They can watch a movie full of violence and nudity and call it a "good movie" and like it."  

As an aspiring filmmaker, I do agree with you about this. Certain areas of our cinema is destroying the youth. Movies that are packed to the brim with sex, violence, gore and general cerebral mutilation is a real problem and I can identify. I wish films were wholesome the way they were at one point.

"They can look at a obscurities, blurs and warped out colours and call it "good art" and like it."  

Lol, you should see my scribbles, I just can't win here.

"And they can spill out a bunch of words and emotions on paper, without any rhyme or reason too and call it "poetry" and like it.  But I'm not going to be one that bows to such behaviours, just because they "like" it."  

You know, I am actually upset about this. Because I have a lot of respect for you and now to find out that you detest that certain style of poetry, my style of poetry. I feel like you're a grandfather that doesn't approve and I find myself wanting approval. And I say all this very genuinely. I mean does a poem have to rhyme to be good? I mean seriously, think about it. Hackneyed rhyming does not make a poem good, in my humble opinion, it makes it almost bad.

"To me doing what is good for people and civilization comes first, not doing what they "like"."

Yes, I suppose. But you have to realize that you can't muzzle people's minds. Yes, I know that some people are out of control these days but not everyone is like that. Where would the variety be if all poetry was the same in such a way? Why are unique thoughts looked at in such a negative way? How can a style that doesn't follow the "rules" be bad for someone? I really don't understand.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
42 posted 2007-01-31 07:18 AM


I think Essorant is only being honest with his thoughts. He doesn't represent the masses, but he is an example of an audience. Obviously he would not be your target audience if you intend to market your poetry. If you simply want to post poetry for responses and have no desire to market, approval is not required nor offered as a standard. Appreciated, sure, but approval isn't even necessarily a good thing, because some never grow or continue to polish their style because they feel they are already "there."

He could also be an editor, or the head of a publishing company, which would decline anything, by all rights, which does not fit into the materials handled and represented by his company.

It's no secret that what we write will not appeal to the masses or our manuscripts wouldn't sit on desks unread or rejected, and death would not be the publisher of most poets.

If you take his reply personally, then get ready to feel defeated completely in the writing world. If you don't believe in yourself they won't grab you by the hand and say "Let me publish you. Your work is really fantastic. Love you. Mean it."

As far as happy feel good poetry? Helen Steiner Rice and Maya Angelou have done well with it.

Dr. Seuss is still awesome for all ages.

but let us not forget the dark side of the moon.

Pink Floyd proves there Are others.

ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
43 posted 2007-01-31 11:20 AM


quote:
I would hate it if someone read one of my poems and said, "I don't like it, but I know it's good for me."


I feel this way sometimes when I read Faulkner or Whitman. I don't always like it, but I know that I can learn from it. It's like listening to Shoenberg or Berg or even late Beethoven, you may not fully buy into the premise, but you cannot say it's without merit or lesson.

quote:
I think it is more important to write a poem with good manners and good thoughts, than write a poem that the people "like"


I think that it's most important to write a poem/song/manuscript that you the writer like. I don't ever think that Brahms or Chopin sat down to write something that everyone would like. Look how they did. Conversely, Mozart did that very thing. Two sides of a coin I guess. Decide on one or flip again.

Great poets for me(both word and lyric): Bukowski, Paul Simon, Ben Folds

cs


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
44 posted 2007-01-31 12:19 PM


"then get ready to feel defeated completely in the writing world"

lol, I know what the writing world is like, I've been in it for quite a while and find myself, as my work grows, that I'm getting deeper into it.

[If you don't believe in yourself they won't grab you by the hand and say "Let me publish you. Your work is really fantastic. Love you. Mean it."]

I agree 100%, I would never want such a patronizing thing. See when I said:

[You know, I am actually upset about this. Because I have a lot of respect for you and now to find out that you detest that certain style of poetry, my style of poetry. I feel like you're a grandfather that doesn't approve and I find myself wanting approval.]

I meant that I was upset that he thought such a thing. And I said that I felt like I wanted approval, not need it. I never need approval, simply because I've rarely gotten it. Fortunately, the few times I have received approval has been very lucrative and reaped good benefits for my work.

See, that is just the thing. I don't see my poetry as dark and unhappy. I like to think my work goes against the grain. And the only reason I like to think that is because it does. This is not me being egotistical, it's me being truthful.

For someone to say that at entire style of writing is "bad" for the population because it is different is a great injustice and that's what I was upset about and that's all I was saying. Thanks  r

"I think that it's most important to write a poem/song/manuscript that you the writer like. I don't ever think that Brahms or Chopin sat down to write something that everyone would like. Look how they did."


Bravo, well said Christian! That is exactly my point. I think you summed up the entire purpose of this thread in that statement. Well done.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
45 posted 2007-01-31 04:23 PM


Ed~

All is good then. I'm glad you know what it's like out there. Some feel so shot down.

"Against the grain" is great, but many will hold the opinion that such a work is inferior to the standard mediums. I do have a problem with that:

The authors of those standard mediums are dead. If alive, I doubt very seriously they would expect to be seen as model poets. Some don't even know they were published. Some may reject the idea completely. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

So while I appreciate them for what they have done, I hardly think any writer would tell another, "Write like me, or else your work is crap!"

"I think that it's most important to write a poem/song/manuscript that you the writer like. I don't ever think that Brahms or Chopin sat down to write something that everyone would like. Look how they did."

I second the praise.

I’d say that the masters didn’t feel they had a grasp on what was poetic and probably threw away many works they felt were unpoetic. I’d say there are unpublished works by unknowns that would make the masters feel they were never poetic at all.

so to me, upoetic would be something that has been overdone to the death of inspiration.





Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
46 posted 2007-01-31 04:40 PM


No doubt that Brahms and Chopin didn't try to please everyone. That is, after all, quite an impossibility. They did,however, surely write to please enough people to pay for their efforts and earn a pretty good living.

If you write only for yourself then you will almost surely be your only reader. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I suspect, however, that there are damn few published authors who write with that attitude.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
47 posted 2007-01-31 05:54 PM


"All is good then. I'm glad you know what it's like out there. Some feel so shot down."


Lol, yeah. I've been shot down so many times, clay pigeons got nothing on me if you catch my drift.


"If you write only for yourself then you will almost surely be your only reader."

I beg to differ.

"I suspect, however, that there are damn few published authors who write with that attitude."

Hunter S. Thompson, William S. Burroughs, Corso, Ginsberg, Kafka just to name a few. Kafka didn't even want a lot of his work published. Burrough's Naked Lunch was banned when it came out for God's sakes. I'm finishing my own book right now with intentions to have it published. So I suppose if I get turned down enough your point will be made, we'll see. But for now, I must disagree.

And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
48 posted 2007-02-01 05:51 PM


Hmmm, I wonder if I made a mistake trying to bring 'target audience' to the discussion.

Let's see what have we got:

1. One should write for civilization.

2. One should write for oneself.

3. One should write for a target audience of the future?

Am I getting it about right? Have I missed something?

I want to add a fourth one:

4. One should write based on what one likes to read.

Not very profound, but I hope it leads us to the next question:

What do you like to read?

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
49 posted 2007-02-02 02:02 AM


Meh. Its an opinion.  Like in chemistry, hot and cold is a quality, while the actual temperature is a quantity.  

When I mentioned earlier, that I don't like using the term un poetic, I was referring to the fact that it is an opinion.  The only thing that you can achieve out of saying something is un poetic is hurting somebody's feelings.  While saying "you need a clearer voice" gives them a goal to work forward.  

What may be poetic to some may be the opposite to others.  Just like what is hot to some maybe cold as far as I am concerned.  In science saying something is warm doesn't cut it.  in order to get to the root to what the problem an accurate account is needed like the actual temperature.  

So in my opinion saying something is un poetic is no different than saying I don't like it.  It's an opinion.

Oh well I need to get to bed

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
50 posted 2007-02-02 02:25 PM


Brad~

different keystrokes for different folks.

Currently: Voltaire's Candide (studying the French Enlightenment writers) Thirteen Moons by Charles Frazier, because I love southern historical fiction, and the works of Sir Richard Francis Burton, Arabian Nights, as well as Rice's biography on the Captain.

None of which imbue my writing as much as provide a study or an escape. Though my poetry is translated to French and German, I am southern, while Sinbad is one of my earliest childhood heroes and Scheherazade is one of my favorite female characters of fiction, whom Poe also found of interest, and anything about Poe interests me.


Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » What is unpoetic?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary