![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
as seen in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
choriamb
Jul. 19th, 2008 05:09 pmA Defence of Poetry, by Percy Bysshe Shelley (this is a philosophical statement and, as such, is dense)
as seen in
Jul. 19th, 2008 05:09 pmI write tomato, you sing ketchup.
Jul. 18th, 2008 09:13 pmBob Dylan does not deserve this snobbery and pedantry: Academics need to stop pretending that pop lyrics have no literary worth, writes Michael Horovitz (seen in choriamb)
The article is well-written. However, there is something to the "snobbery" that many poets have towards pop lyrics. A lot of pop lyrics barely utilize the amount of craft that academic poetry does. I'm a fan of slant rhyme, for example, but even I couldn't get away with some of the rhymes that songs do unless I were writing a song. Popular lyrics have a lot more leeway because they are melded with the accompaniment (especially if the melody comes before the words do); also, much doggerel can be catapulted into cultural dominance due to the notation that buoys it. A good musical progression can lead listeners to forgive mediocre lyrics.
choriamb)The article is well-written. However, there is something to the "snobbery" that many poets have towards pop lyrics. A lot of pop lyrics barely utilize the amount of craft that academic poetry does. I'm a fan of slant rhyme, for example, but even I couldn't get away with some of the rhymes that songs do unless I were writing a song. Popular lyrics have a lot more leeway because they are melded with the accompaniment (especially if the melody comes before the words do); also, much doggerel can be catapulted into cultural dominance due to the notation that buoys it. A good musical progression can lead listeners to forgive mediocre lyrics.
a poem is a machine
Jul. 15th, 2008 01:01 pm"A successful poem is, as Williams said, a machine made out of words; if it is properly constructed it cannot fail to perform its function, which is to control its reader, by its selective and stylized processional means, that the reader 'cannot choose to hear.'" -- Helen Vendler, Contemporary American Poetry (9th ed.), p. 9.
(no subject)
Jun. 6th, 2008 01:45 amHow to Recognize Bad Poetry (at ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
creativewriter) -- Generally, good advice.
creativewriter) -- Generally, good advice.(no subject)
Dec. 7th, 2007 12:52 pmOver at 13_blackbirds, I've given some pointers on how to explicate a poem. This skill was taught to me by the venerable Elizabeth Dobbs, a professor at Grinnell. I had her my freshman year, when I (foolishly) thought I was going to be an English major. She was legend on campus for how strict she was and how dour.
I took her Poetry in English course, which compensated forComposition I Fundamentals of Literary Analysis. It was one of the best courses I had in my time at Grinnell.
13_blackbirds, I've given some pointers on how to explicate a poem. This skill was taught to me by the venerable Elizabeth Dobbs, a professor at Grinnell. I had her my freshman year, when I (foolishly) thought I was going to be an English major. She was legend on campus for how strict she was and how dour.I took her Poetry in English course, which compensated for
(no subject)
Apr. 28th, 2007 02:04 pmWhat makes poetry difficult, anyway? -- written by Robert Pinsky
(no subject)
Dec. 20th, 2005 09:55 amWhat makes this poem minimally interesting (not necessarily successful) is the word "whereas". And when I say "minimally interesting," I mean "minimally interesting to me."
I don't think the poem is particularly successful because
Poems need a sense of urgency, an acute necessity. Or they should reveal something. Neither occurred here.
I need to spend more time writing and not thinking about writing.
I don't think the poem is particularly successful because
- It was dashed off.
- It doesn't say anything pressing.
Poems need a sense of urgency, an acute necessity. Or they should reveal something. Neither occurred here.
I need to spend more time writing and not thinking about writing.
I wrote rap lyrics before I ever wrote a poem. So before I began fiddling with words academically, I had access to concepts like syncopation and internal rhyme. And surprise. Rap in the mid- to late eighties was all about one-upping someone (which I didn't like) or fooling the listener as to where the rhyme would end up next. I stopped rapping because I realized early on that I couldn't make up things on the fly--too shy, not witty enough.
When I started writing poetry, I don't know who I may have come across. In high school I gravitated to strong voices. Plath's "Daddy" had a profound impact on me insofar as I understood, and continued to be utterly floored by, the rhyme she put in the reader's face as well as the import of her subject matter. She understood the musicality of words. But I didn't seek out her poems; I just enjoyed what I came across in high school. "The Road Not Taken" also hit me, but that may be because my 10th grade English teacher made all of her students memorize it.
My first true influences I can identify are Anne Sexton and Sharon Olds. The confessional drew me in and gave me permission to write about subjects I didn't know could be poetic. I loved Sexton's playfulness and seriousness about sonics, and Olds' ability to lay everything out for the reader inspired me to be as risky as she was, to say the things she did. This was about the time I was in college.
After college, my major influence has been Wallace Stevens, for his determination to force his words onto the page. He deliberately pushed the limits concerning informal rules about repetition and rhyme. He wrote nonsensical poems that feel like poems because of the way they sound. His poems did what Dickinson said poems should: took the roof off the top of my head. His poems exposed the inner workings of poetry for me, and his prose about poetics was liberating and eyeopening. (I heartily encourage everyone to read The Necessary Angel, if you haven't already. Or even if you have.)
My goal in writing poetry? To keep honing my skills. Poetry is like a sword that can just keep getting sharper and sharper.
When I started writing poetry, I don't know who I may have come across. In high school I gravitated to strong voices. Plath's "Daddy" had a profound impact on me insofar as I understood, and continued to be utterly floored by, the rhyme she put in the reader's face as well as the import of her subject matter. She understood the musicality of words. But I didn't seek out her poems; I just enjoyed what I came across in high school. "The Road Not Taken" also hit me, but that may be because my 10th grade English teacher made all of her students memorize it.
My first true influences I can identify are Anne Sexton and Sharon Olds. The confessional drew me in and gave me permission to write about subjects I didn't know could be poetic. I loved Sexton's playfulness and seriousness about sonics, and Olds' ability to lay everything out for the reader inspired me to be as risky as she was, to say the things she did. This was about the time I was in college.
After college, my major influence has been Wallace Stevens, for his determination to force his words onto the page. He deliberately pushed the limits concerning informal rules about repetition and rhyme. He wrote nonsensical poems that feel like poems because of the way they sound. His poems did what Dickinson said poems should: took the roof off the top of my head. His poems exposed the inner workings of poetry for me, and his prose about poetics was liberating and eyeopening. (I heartily encourage everyone to read The Necessary Angel, if you haven't already. Or even if you have.)
My goal in writing poetry? To keep honing my skills. Poetry is like a sword that can just keep getting sharper and sharper.
prose poetry
Sep. 21st, 2005 09:16 amAt Thirteen Blackbirds, I was going to give an assignment where we each wrote a prose poem. But because I'm so poor at the form, I was unable to give a good description of what a prose poem is. So I had to scrap that assignment for a later date.
The prose poem I had in mind as an example is by Carolyn Forche. Someone onchoriamb brought it up yesterday, so I didn't even have to search very far for it. It's called "The Colonel." It was hailed as an instant classic.
If you were to describe a prose poem, how would you do so?
The prose poem I had in mind as an example is by Carolyn Forche. Someone on
choriamb brought it up yesterday, so I didn't even have to search very far for it. It's called "The Colonel." It was hailed as an instant classic.If you were to describe a prose poem, how would you do so?
(no subject)
Jul. 21st, 2005 09:36 amPeople are starting to look at me rather oddly when I tell them that I enjoy the heat. This summer looks to be quite the scorcher, though. I was watching the weather on some cable channel yesterday and was stunned to see how widespread the heatwave is. And we in the upper Midwest are not to see any relief until next Wednesday. My heart goes out to those trapped in the mountain zones.
I went to the poetry meeting at Barnes & Noble last night, and man was I nitpicky about grammar. I was almost embarrassing myself. I challenged someone's piece as to whether it qualified as poetry (seemed more like prose to me), but I eventually tempered my criticism. People there generally seemed to like "That's What It's Like," even if they didn't know that there was a subtext (it's rather obscure, I realize--I was interested to see if the poem succeeded without that subtext being consciously noticed).
I finally distilled part of my poetic philosophy into one neat sentence: The reader's interpretation is more important than [the writer's] intention. I've held this view for about three years now, and it has been only since then that I've started writing poetry seriously.
I went to the poetry meeting at Barnes & Noble last night, and man was I nitpicky about grammar. I was almost embarrassing myself. I challenged someone's piece as to whether it qualified as poetry (seemed more like prose to me), but I eventually tempered my criticism. People there generally seemed to like "That's What It's Like," even if they didn't know that there was a subtext (it's rather obscure, I realize--I was interested to see if the poem succeeded without that subtext being consciously noticed).
I finally distilled part of my poetic philosophy into one neat sentence: The reader's interpretation is more important than [the writer's] intention. I've held this view for about three years now, and it has been only since then that I've started writing poetry seriously.
a comment I made in about_poetry
Jun. 7th, 2004 12:54 pmThe reader is NO PART of the poem, and should be of little or no interest to the poet while he is composing it. A poet, at least one with personal integrity, cares about honestly (and artfully) expressing his ideas. To subject his ideas to the filter of what the (possible eventual) readership might think, is to pervert (or at least dilute) the ideas.
When one is composing a poem, there is obviously an audience, even if it's an audience of one (the poet himself). You may not think the poet is part of the audience; you haven't substantiated that opinion. If the poet isn't even going to read his own work, then who is he writing for?
If the poem is written to be read, then the poem has an audience in mind, even if that audience is vaguely defined.
If the poet goes into a poem thinking there is no audience, there is little reason for him to think about the craft involved in writing. Who else is the craft for? It's not for the poet himself, as he already knows what he means. If the poet is merely writing to write, there is no need to use tropes or imagery, no reason to submit his writing to the rigors of figurative language, no need to grope for just that right word.
So, if there is craft involved, there is probably the assumption that the piece will be read by more than the author himself. That implies an audience.
To say that the audience should not be thought of gives ammunition to all those "poets" who claim that the reader "just didn't get" what they were writing. Odds are, their writing was unclear to anyone who couldn't read their minds. Poetry is not a mind-reading exercise. The reader can't know what the author's intentions were. The only way the reader has any idea of what the author is talking about is through the author's word choice and manipulations with language. And, again, if there is no conception of an audience, there is no need for an author to think very deeply about word choice or language manipulation.
I'm not saying the author should pander to the audience. Just that the author probably assumes that there will be a wider readership than just him alone. Don't confuse or collude these two very distinct ideas.
(Read the whole [?] discussion here. [In truth, the originator of the thread can't usually seem to get his replies in the correct threads, so he replies in a brand-new post. The conversation has been going on since last Friday.])
When one is composing a poem, there is obviously an audience, even if it's an audience of one (the poet himself). You may not think the poet is part of the audience; you haven't substantiated that opinion. If the poet isn't even going to read his own work, then who is he writing for?
If the poem is written to be read, then the poem has an audience in mind, even if that audience is vaguely defined.
If the poet goes into a poem thinking there is no audience, there is little reason for him to think about the craft involved in writing. Who else is the craft for? It's not for the poet himself, as he already knows what he means. If the poet is merely writing to write, there is no need to use tropes or imagery, no reason to submit his writing to the rigors of figurative language, no need to grope for just that right word.
So, if there is craft involved, there is probably the assumption that the piece will be read by more than the author himself. That implies an audience.
To say that the audience should not be thought of gives ammunition to all those "poets" who claim that the reader "just didn't get" what they were writing. Odds are, their writing was unclear to anyone who couldn't read their minds. Poetry is not a mind-reading exercise. The reader can't know what the author's intentions were. The only way the reader has any idea of what the author is talking about is through the author's word choice and manipulations with language. And, again, if there is no conception of an audience, there is no need for an author to think very deeply about word choice or language manipulation.
I'm not saying the author should pander to the audience. Just that the author probably assumes that there will be a wider readership than just him alone. Don't confuse or collude these two very distinct ideas.
(Read the whole [?] discussion here. [In truth, the originator of the thread can't usually seem to get his replies in the correct threads, so he replies in a brand-new post. The conversation has been going on since last Friday.])
personal notes, 3/22/04
Jun. 5th, 2004 12:13 amPoetry is really a type of energy transference. Basically, the poet is trying to 1) recreate a past feeling of his or her own or 2) create an altogether new feeling in the reader. Either way, the poet is attempting to engender a lived sensation in the reader.
The only means by which the poet can do this is through language, primarily the word on the page. Words themselves are filled with a type of energy of their own, by the fact that they are automatically associated with tones. Even upon sight, words transfer their tones to the inner ear; they're instantly transduced from visual images into sound.
The most successful poems seem to possess their own inner store of energy, a faintly felt lifeforce that is captured in the rhythm or cadence of the piece. But that rhythm in metrical pieces is so regular that those poems seem to lack this intrinsic energy. The excellent metrical poems combine time signature with inflection and meaning. This collusion of sense and sound produces (or reproduces) a feeling in the reader that is both familiar and novel, simple yet profound.
The only means by which the poet can do this is through language, primarily the word on the page. Words themselves are filled with a type of energy of their own, by the fact that they are automatically associated with tones. Even upon sight, words transfer their tones to the inner ear; they're instantly transduced from visual images into sound.
The most successful poems seem to possess their own inner store of energy, a faintly felt lifeforce that is captured in the rhythm or cadence of the piece. But that rhythm in metrical pieces is so regular that those poems seem to lack this intrinsic energy. The excellent metrical poems combine time signature with inflection and meaning. This collusion of sense and sound produces (or reproduces) a feeling in the reader that is both familiar and novel, simple yet profound.
(no subject)
Mar. 11th, 2004 09:38 pmPoetry has the ability to break time into micromoments.
That is an awesome ability. (I intend the fullest meaning of "awesome". That's not a word I use as slang.)
That is an awesome ability. (I intend the fullest meaning of "awesome". That's not a word I use as slang.)
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2003 10:33 pm"The writer who maintains that he works without regard for the opinion of others is either a jackass or a pathological liar." --Theodore Roethke, "Verse in Rehearsal"
random stuff, but mostly Wallace Stevens
May. 19th, 2003 04:05 pmI spent time with some friends this weekend. We ate hot dogs, kielbasa, polish sausage, chips, chocolate-butterscotch-peanut butter Rice Krispie treats, and an Oreo pie. (The pie was fantastic.) Also, relatively large amounts of alcohol were consumed. We played the Warner Bros. version of Trivial Pursuit, which is ridiculously difficult. Somehow, I ended up with the most pie pieces before we called it quits.
I've been reading the collected prose and poetry of Wallace Stevens. I can hardly believe that "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird," "The Emperor of Ice Cream," and "Sunday Morning" were all published in his very first book of poems.
What I've mostly been paying attention to has been his prose. The complete text of The Necessary Angel, his book on the nature of poetry, is included in this text. It's been very eyeopening and extremely helpful, reading his theories. ( For example, he wrote: )
I finished "Confession" today (it was begun four days ago). It's my first attempt at a villanelle, and it just kind of came on its own. I'm still not quite at ease with form, but I'm trying to stick my toe in the water so as to get more used to it.
I've been reading the collected prose and poetry of Wallace Stevens. I can hardly believe that "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird," "The Emperor of Ice Cream," and "Sunday Morning" were all published in his very first book of poems.
What I've mostly been paying attention to has been his prose. The complete text of The Necessary Angel, his book on the nature of poetry, is included in this text. It's been very eyeopening and extremely helpful, reading his theories. ( For example, he wrote: )
I finished "Confession" today (it was begun four days ago). It's my first attempt at a villanelle, and it just kind of came on its own. I'm still not quite at ease with form, but I'm trying to stick my toe in the water so as to get more used to it.
I fear forms.
Feb. 25th, 2003 01:40 amAnyone want to give me any advice for writing villanelles or pantoums?
Some random thoughts on poetry that have crossed my mind the last month or so:
Poetry is beauty in objectification--it is finding beauty in objectification.
Confessional poetry offers one the opportunity to make one's own life a work of art and a commentary on that art simultaneously.
Poetry is an end.
Poetry can also be a means (e.g., as therapy/catharsis). But when it's at its best--when it's art--it's an end.
Words evolve right alongside our bodies.
Art is wrought of tension.
Poets deliberately manipulate language, moving a word here, there; tossing it aside; conjuring one anew.
Poetry is an interlocution between this world and the immaterial.
Poems are the braids in God's hair.
What the human race is mathematical poetry.
Art is the epitome of irrationality.
Poetry is words in a different dimension, captured in this!
A poem strives either to make the familiar novel, or the novel familiar.
Some poems are declarations. Some poems are intimations.
Finding your voice means finding your rhythm (which could also mean following your idiom).
Poets, too, need to learn the art of storytelling.
Writing comes in stages just as music comes in layers.
Poetry is beauty in objectification--it is finding beauty in objectification.
Confessional poetry offers one the opportunity to make one's own life a work of art and a commentary on that art simultaneously.
Poetry is an end.
Poetry can also be a means (e.g., as therapy/catharsis). But when it's at its best--when it's art--it's an end.
Words evolve right alongside our bodies.
Art is wrought of tension.
Poets deliberately manipulate language, moving a word here, there; tossing it aside; conjuring one anew.
Poetry is an interlocution between this world and the immaterial.
Poems are the braids in God's hair.
What the human race is mathematical poetry.
Art is the epitome of irrationality.
Poetry is words in a different dimension, captured in this!
A poem strives either to make the familiar novel, or the novel familiar.
Some poems are declarations. Some poems are intimations.
Finding your voice means finding your rhythm (which could also mean following your idiom).
Poets, too, need to learn the art of storytelling.
Writing comes in stages just as music comes in layers.
