Can I start a conversation

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

ChristianSpeaks
Member

since 2006-05-18

Posts 396
Iowa, USA

0 posted 2006-07-02 12:04 PM

Is it required that poetry only serves the poet? I wonder if one poet does not understnd anothers poetry, does that mean the reader does not have the facility that another poet posesses or is it that poet will not allow the full meaning to be understood by every reader. Does that make one poet better that the other. A veiled pen is as leathal as a veiled sword. Is it some form of linguistic masterbation that the word only serves the writer? What is our purpose? To serve ourselves, or those who read what that veiled pen may conjour? What do you think?

CS

An artist's job is not to commentate the truth.
An artist's job is to create it.
-Dane Barner

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

1 posted 2006-07-02 11:33 AM

A discussion like this more properly belongs in Philosophy or one of the other discussion forums. It would probably get more interest there. On the other hand, it might kick up some interest here too.

I can move it for you or it can stay here. Your choice. Let me know your pleasure.

Pete

Skippyrick
Member

since 2006-05-16

Posts 150
Rohnert Park

2 posted 2006-07-02 01:46 PM

what do I think?  First I write for me.  It's the prosses of writing the poem that takes me to a happy place of reslove.  But after writing I love to share with others to see how what I wrote afects them.

So it comes down to weather you understand what I wanted you too.  Well that depends on if you get something  at all.  I would hope that my writing is enjoyed be the reader weather its undestood or not.

Good poetry has a life of its own regardless of the indention of the poet or the reaction of the reader.

Anyone can write a poem,  that does not make them a poet.  Poets have a need to share.

With that said here is poem about poetry.
Form: cinquain

WITHOUT THE POET

What poem
can a pen write
what of meaning for whom
are niches found and placed as thought
sometimes

Peaceful
effortlessly
If unread they are not
sunrise smells and perfect pastries
they’re words

not yet
autumn breezes
plush green landscapes or
playful leaves at empty bus stops
blowing

on to
paper as words
if unseen they are not
bright happy thing-a-ma-gigs
afloat

they’re words
only this pen
unread we could never
have cinquains, limericks, haiku
never

Rick Slottow
10\23\99

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

3 posted 2006-07-05 09:04 AM

I agree, this should be in philosophy.

I get a negative vibe from the 'masturbatory' angle of your 'veiled pen' idea.

Writers strive for clarity, and sometimes, readers are looking in a different direction from the writers view. I think a good writer should be able to express the atmosphere, regardless, but the detail can remain personal without losing the essence of intent.

Much of my writing, I've been told, is puzzling. I am very logical in my rendering of a poem, but I also use association and colloqualisms, making it difficult to pin-point an exact subject. I hope, that by using poetic tools with my imagination, it doesn't matter how ambiguous the content, it should still be an interesting experience, and hopefully the reader can go away thinking how my writing relates to what's going on with them.

ChristianSpeaks
Member

since 2006-05-18

Posts 396
Iowa, USA

4 posted 2006-07-07 10:57 PM

So is poetry entertainment, personal, or meant for the masses?

CS

Moderators - you can move this to philos if you want.

An artist's job is not to commentate the truth.
An artist's job is to create it.
-Dane Barner

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

5 posted 2006-07-13 07:48 AM

I'd say poetry was artful communication, which can be entertainment, and personal. I'm not sure where you're going with 'meant for the masses'; writing something tailored to everybody seems contrived, and quite egotistical-how on earth could the poet 'know' that his/hers writing will appeal to anybody, far less everybody?

I'd say it's better to write to/for somebody-containing yourself within demographic variables seems a more purposeful drive for clarity. The poet can visualise who he/she's talking to, and hopefully, anybody listening inside or outside the demographic gets an insight into one interpretation of 'kinds'.

ps; you can't create Truth, you can only express it.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.