Common mistakes in "Common Mistakes"

[Michael Pendragon]

>Common Mistakes
>
>The question was: What do you feel is the most often seen, or most >egregious, error made by poetry novices and not-so-novices alike? Here >are some of the answers:
>
>Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
>
>Too many people think if they write about something harsh, or >frightening, or emotionally scarring, that it will make their poems >good. "If I write about rape, it will be so moving!" they say. But it >doesn't work that way. Trite images (or lack thereof) and poor writing >cannot be elevated by the topic. Indeed, they can succeed in making a >mockery of the topic.
>
>Advice: Stick to less emotionally charged material until you know that >you aren't going to cause giggles in your reader. Trust me. No one wants >to giggle at a poem about child abuse, or war, or rape. Write about >something easy to describe, and easy to discard. Don't try to write >something that will change the world. First, try to change your way of >perceiving the world.
>
>And good luck.
>
>Contributed by Julie Carter

Write about whatever you feel like writing about. If child abuse is a topic that you feel a need to express yourself about, by all means do.

How well you succeed depends upon how much talent you possess.

>Attempting to write poetry without reading any
>
>I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
>
>Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:

>Elizabeth Bishop / Geography III
>Theodore Roethke / (anything)
>James Wright / The Branch Will Not Break / St. Judas / Shall We Gather >at the River
>John Balaban / Words for My Daughter
>Tony Hoagland / anything
>Kim Addonizio / the Philosopher's Club
>Contributed by Preston Mark Stone

A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.

And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.

Every poet has his/her own voice. Use yours.

If you study Theo Roethke's techniques, you'll end up sounding like his clone.

>A mistake I see performed commonly by better-than-average poets
>
>is the use of all those figures of speech, sound devices, and >interesting line breaks that our teachers told us to use (and for you >lower-than-average poets-- USE THEM!!), but without some sort of >direction or means to marry those devices/figures of speech with the >action or theme of the poem.
>
>In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use >of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a >carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light >breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your >poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and >images create that impact.
>
>If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.
>
>Contributed by Ryan Deschamps

Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.

>"just one more pretty adjective, please"
>
>Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line, or to >introduce an interesting internal rhyme, or to add weight or clarity to >the image, or to differentiate one object from another, or (see - I can >go on making excuses up all day)...
>
>Why is this not "a good thing": think of a poem as a christmas tree, and >the adjectives as baubles. The more baubles you add, the prettier the >christmas tree becomes. But add too many baubles, and the christmas tree >disappears under a dazzle of meaningless balls. In the end, it is the >message of the christmas tree that is important, not the tacky dross we >(well, I) add to it.
>
>Cure: for me, there is no cure - my only hope is that when I post an >adjective infested poem, someone takes the time and trouble to give me a >hard beating with the criticism stick. For others? Maybe they can learn >from my mistakes...
>
>Contributed by Rik Roots

Words are to poetry as musical notes are to a composition. Do not sacrifice the poem's melody for the sake of avoiding an "extra" word.

A Christmas tree is appreciated with the eyes. A poem with the mind (and, if read aloud, ears). You need to "paint" the poem's "imagery" with words. Too few, and you end up with a stick figure.

>Linebreaks don't make something automatically a poem
>
>There has to be something happening STRUCTURALLY; the breaks have to be >there for a reason; the sound and sense of each word, line, phrase, >stanza has to be there for a reason that relates to some other part. I'm >not talking about the easy meter, sing-song stuff here (you can get >structure with very little content just by playing "Twinkle, Twinkle, >Little Star" on the piano; but it isn't Beethoven or Debussy); I'm >talking about the mistake of smart ideas and images, narrative, pregnant >pauses, etc., laid out in a "clever" way, being "enough". A look past >those things, "under the hood", shows not much there. It's not just >paying attention to how the story is told; it's about how the words >relate to each other when you take the story away.
>
>Contributed by Steve Layton

Translation: When writing prose, know when to end your first paragraph and/or when to begin a new one.

>Attempting to describe an emotion, sensation, reaction, mood etc. head->on
>
>...by simply saying what you felt or thought. The experience of human >response is complex and individual, its classifications banal and ten-a->penny.
>
>Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language, concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), >sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the >experience, whether actually part of the experience or not. Aim to give >the reader fragmentary, overlapping and interlocking components of an >experience, rather than the thing itself.
>
>Contributed by Jim Sheard

Translation: How to compose pseudointellectual gobbledegook. Fragmentary components turn a poem into a laundry list of poetic thoughts. Avoid this practice at all costs.

If describing the emotion is supplemental to the poem's narrative, a "banal" description is all that is needed. Why distract the reader with unnecessary vagueries?

If the emotion is to be a major element of the poem, feel free to use a little metaphor.

>Rhyme padding
>
>The practice of adding totally unnecessary words and phrases to fill out >a rhyme scheme.
>
>The only solution is to actually put in the time to develop meaningful >material...or change the scheme.
>
>Contributed by gnarl

Again, words are to a poem as musical notes are to a composition.

Every rhymed poem contains extra words in one form or another. The trick is to have them appear essential.

Rather than inserting an extra word into a line, rewrite the line in a naturally sounding manner.

>Grammar and Spelling
>
>Mine: Thinking that talent can excuse sloppiness when it comes to a >basic application of good grammar and spelling.
>
>Cure: Remembering that Julie Carter might read it. :)
>
>Solution: Don't give up even if the lack is caused by real cognitive >problems. Review old lessons, memorize old spelling rules, reread any >and all work before considering it ready for public view. Spellcheck >everything. When a error is pointed out despite all your precautions, >thank the commenter and take a look at the passage where the error was >made, review rules again. Keep husband or dictionary at hand at all >times.
>
>Contributed by debi z.

Or just turn on spellcheck.

>Totem Words
>
>These are the words that are so common, they've become almost funny. >Everyone uses them because they are easy descriptors for emotions, but >this fact alone has made their use an eye-sore. They have become like >the White Elephants of prosody, and finding more than one in an opening >line is usually not a good sign.
>
>Some of my favorites:
>
>Dark - "my mind was dark with (insert emotion)"
>Heart - "my heart was left (broken, smashed, pureed)"
>Bleeding/Blood "my blood surging like a (run for your life)"
>Soul - "...setting my soul free to do (insert activity)"
>Beauty - "(insert subject) was the vision of beauty"
>Shadows - "shadows crept over the (walls, graveyard, Radio Shack)"
>Excelsior - words cannot describe my hatred for Stan Lee.
>Contributed by Tom W.

They are commonly used because they are common to everyone's experiences.

The words I find funny are the cliches that modern poets gravitate toward that send most readers running for a dictionary: the "gibbous" moon, for example.

>Mistake: No sonic awareness
>
>Cure: Read Dylan Thomas.
>
>Advice: Read every single fucking draft of your own work out loud >numerous times. Preferably in front of a mirror so you can see how your >mouth is moving as you over-enunciate.
>
>Contributed by gg

A bit excessive, but a good idea. A poem should be spoken (or, at least, sound good when "spoken" in one's head). It should flow easily when read aloud.

Reading Dylan Thomas is just silliness. Find your own voice, rhythm, meters, etc.

>Mistake: Inability to separate the narrator's voice from the voice of >the writer.
>
>Cure: Do exercises in which you write pieces from the point of view of >an inanimate object, a person of the opposite sex, etc.
>
>Advice: Realize that you should be trying to convey experience with your >writing and that no one but your mother and your therapist gives a >flying fuck about your emotions, your ~feelings~, or your sense of >darkness enveloping your sacred soul.
>
>Contributed by gg

The narrator can be the poet ... or not. It all depends upon the poem.

>Hmm
>
>I'm going to name more than one, so I'll name them really vaguely.
>
>Kind of in line with what you're saying, I think form is often >misunderstood and underrated; not form as in the shape, but in how the >words relate to each other; presumably the most obvious tactic is to >pick the best word for each statement, the best sentence for each moment >(I play chess that way and lose), but it's easy to forget that each one >of those words and sentences is relevant up to (or down to, if you write >in English) the end of the poem, and if you play them right, even >farther. So you can play with them after you've planted them in the >mind. This does seem vague, and obvious too, but my advice is simply >avoid tunnel vision.

Huh? Someone certainly didn't pick the best words/sentences here.

>I suppose the specific element I notice most often ignored is syntax. If >the words are good, people read them one at a time, so the order they're >in always has an effect. One example:
>
>I feel like I stepped on a nail with my brain
>
>as opposed to:
>
>I feel like my brain stepped on a nail
>
>In the first, the sensory data is delivered before the reader is aware >that it applies to something impossible; in the second, the fact that >the statement is figurative is made clear first, and the imagined >sensation is mediated. There are better examples; it works better when >you're reading slower. The length of the statement is also important, >because it effects surprise vs suspense. This stuff comes in handy if >you're telling a story.

Good advice ... if one plans on writing a newspaper article.

Both ways (of getting your brain nailed) are valid in poetry. It depends on what the poet is trying to express. The switch from sensory data to figurative speech in example one can provide an intended shock or jarring element to the line.

>A quote: Poetry is emotional in nature and theatrical in presentation. >If I remember correctly Philip Larkin said that. The statement may be >argueable, but with a poem-in-progress lying in front of you it's easy >to forget that eventually it will be one series of events with a start >and a finish, not a map. I imagine the only poets who've never forgotten >that are ones who don't think about their statements.
>
>Contributed by chuckk

If chuckk means that the progression of the narrative should be clearly plotted, rather than randomly set down and left to the reader to connect, then I agree.

>Malady: Forgetting that poetry is poetry. Fiction. Art. Not journalism. >Not a diary entry. Not therapy

Exactly! Live it. Learn it. Brand it on your soul.

>It may mimic these things at times, but will not succeed as poetry >without due attention to all appropriate poetic devices and details.

Particularly rhyme and meter.

>Rx: If your purpose is to mend that achy-breaky heart or pump up that >leaky-squeaky ego, consult a professional. If your purpose is to write a >good poem, never forget that the quality of the poem comes first - >before loyalty to facts, sentiment or memory, before the need to >unburden yourself of that chip, skeleton or baggage. Abandon the >irrelevant excuse "but that's how it really happened!" It's a poem >killer. How it happened, or what she wore, or what the weather was like >are merely the means to your end, the paint on your palette. Create, >eliminate or alter reality as the poem demands. And listen carefully. >Some poems speak very softly.
>
>Contributor's name not recorded

In short: poetic license is justified.

>Avoid the "Mindless Extremes of Love" school of poetry
>
>Two Examples:
>
>Endless Love: My love is higher than a hawk,/ And deeper than a well. - >From the movie "Calamity Jane", starring Doris Day.
>The flip side of Endless Love: You done me wrong. Since I am made of >gold, you, obviously, are the Anti-Christ. Poor me. I still love you.
>Contributed by cythera

Extremes are a valid poetic tool. When used properly, they can contribute to a poem's success.

>Failure to acknowledge there is a world beyond the narrative
>
>Not being open to other forms of poetry besides the metric centered, >left justified, line and strophe broken, generally narrative model. I >think I see this mistake frequently here, in both crits and the >recommended reading. Of course I love much of the above poetry, both >here and in the world of books - but it's not all there is.
>
>Recommendations? In addition to the usual reading list of Thomas, >Heaney, Yeats, Frost etc etc how about -
>
>Some journals. "Shiny" is a good one. "New American Writing" is another. >"American Poetry Review" too. Jacket Magazine online and free, I think >at www.jacketmagazine.com is a current favorite of mine.
>Some essays on poetics. "New American Poetics" I think is out of print, >but the essays from it have been reprinted all over the place, including >in "The Poet's Work" and the Norton postmodern anthology.
>Some anthologies. The above Norton. "Poems for the Millenium" volumes 1 >and 2 are very hefty and very very good. ed by Jerome Rothenberg.
>And some poets. I have a slew of favorites, but some of the best are >Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, Robert Duncan, Philip Whalen, Anselm >Hollo, Anne Waldman, Mei-mei Bersenbrugge, John Ashbery, Ginsberg, Frank >O'Hara, Amiri Baraka, James Schuyler, Gary Snyder, etc ... Wooops forgot >Denise Levertov. and Jack Spicer.
>Nobody has to like any of this, but acknowledging that it exists and is >part of the art is important I think. I guess part of what I am saying >is that it is good to read poetry that you don't like too.
>
>Contributed by john sullivan

A resounding yawn.

The short version: Feel free to experiment with different forms.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:40:03 PM UTC-4, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> I like pseudointellectual gobbledegook.

Your poetry isn't pseudointellectual.

[George Dance]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:25:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >Common Mistakes
>
> >The question was: What do you feel is the most often seen, or most >egregious, error made by poetry novices and not-so-novices alike? Here >are some of the answers:
>
> >Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
>
> >Too many people think if they write about something harsh, or >frightening, or emotionally scarring, that it will make their poems >good. "If I write about rape, it will be so moving!" they say. But it >doesn't work that way. Trite images (or lack thereof) and poor writing >cannot be elevated by the topic. Indeed, they can succeed in making a >mockery of the topic.
>
> >Advice: Stick to less emotionally charged material until you know that >you aren't going to cause giggles in your reader. Trust me. No one wants >to giggle at a poem about child abuse, or war, or rape. Write about >something easy to describe, and easy to discard. Don't try to write >something that will change the world. First, try to change your way of >perceiving the world.
>
> >And good luck.
> >Contributed by Julie Carter

Thanks for reposting this, Michael. It looks like a good beginning for the type of discussion readers of aapc would be more likely to enjoy than the usual fare.

>
> Write about whatever you feel like writing about. If child abuse is a topic that you feel a need to express yourself about, by all means do.
>

Agreed. Many people write poems as a hobby, or occasionally as a cathartic or a commemmoration; and there's no reason why they shouldn't. If they want to write poetry strangers might like to read, they should learn the craft; but no one has to write poetry like that.

> How well you succeed depends upon how much talent you possess.
>

Sure; I don't think Julie'd object, because it sounds like she's talking about writing successful poetry. While this might sound like a quibble to you, I'd say 'talent and skill'. IMV talent's natural or innate, while skill is acquired; virtually anyone can acquire the skills needed to write a successful poem regardless of talent.

>
> >Attempting to write poetry without reading any
>
> >I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
>
> >Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:
>
> >Elizabeth Bishop / Geography III
> >Theodore Roethke / (anything)
> >James Wright / The Branch Will Not Break / St. Judas / Shall We Gather >at the River
> >John Balaban / Words for My Daughter
> >Tony Hoagland / anything
> >Kim Addonizio / the Philosopher's Club
>
> >Contributed by Preston Mark Stone
>
> A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.
>

True. I've never talked to a poet who hadn't and wouldn't read any poetry. This whole part sounds like attacking a straw man. The advice is innocent enough -- find some poets whose work you consistently like, and read them most -- but who in the world would need to be told that?

>
> And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.
>

Sure; that's really the only criterion for a successful poem that a reader brings to the table: Did I enjoy reading the poem?

>
> Every poet has his/her own voice. Use yours.
>
> If you study Theo Roethke's techniques, you'll end up sounding like his clone.
>

It's self-defeating; copiers of someone else's style are usually quickly forgotten. My preference is to read anthologies, with a mix of poets and poetic techniques. Since my interest is to write good poetry, I enjoy trying to figure out what made the poem successful. That doesn't mean I'll use that, but it does mean I know it and can use it later if I want to.

> >A mistake I see performed commonly by better-than-average poets
> >is the use of all those figures of speech, sound devices, and >interesting line breaks that our teachers told us to use (and for you >lower-than-average poets-- USE THEM!!), but without some sort of >direction or means to marry those devices/figures of speech with the >action or theme of the poem.
>
> >In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use >of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a >carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light >breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your >poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and >images create that impact.
>
> >If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.
>
> >Contributed by Ryan Deschamps
>
> Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.

Sure; in verse line breaks come at the end of each verse. But that doesn't remove the practical question of where to put them.

Someone trying to write a successful poem should know the fundamentals of line length - short lines read faster, (better suited to action), while long lines require more time (better suited to contemplation) -- and line breaking -- eg, the last word in a line gets the most attention, and when possible the most strongest word in the line should go there -- which apply to both verse and open form.

(snip here - I might reply to the rest later)

[Michael Pendragon]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:25:06 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:25:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > >Common Mistakes

> > >The question was: What do you feel is the most often seen, or most >egregious, error made by poetry novices and not-so-novices alike? Here >are some of the answers:

> > >Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem

> > >Too many people think if they write about something harsh, or >frightening, or emotionally scarring, that it will make their poems >good. "If I write about rape, it will be so moving!" they say. But it >doesn't work that way. Trite images (or lack thereof) and poor writing >cannot be elevated by the topic. Indeed, they can succeed in making a >mockery of the topic.
>
> > >Advice: Stick to less emotionally charged material until you know that >you aren't going to cause giggles in your reader. Trust me. No one wants >to giggle at a poem about child abuse, or war, or rape. Write about >something easy to describe, and easy to discard. Don't try to write >something that will change the world. First, try to change your way of >perceiving the world.

> > >And good luck.
>
> > >Contributed by Julie Carter

> Thanks for reposting this, Michael. It looks like a good beginning for the type of discussion readers of aapc would be more likely to enjoy than the usual fare.
>

Peter's plonking me again, and Horatio will no doubt find it boring, but there's still us "regulars."

> > Write about whatever you feel like writing about. If child abuse is a topic that you feel a need to express yourself about, by all means do.
>
> Agreed. Many people write poems as a hobby, or occasionally as a cathartic or a commemmoration; and there's no reason why they shouldn't. If they want to write poetry strangers might like to read, they should learn the craft; but no one has to write poetry like that.
>
> > How well you succeed depends upon how much talent you possess.
>
> Sure; I don't think Julie'd object, because it sounds like she's talking about writing successful poetry. While this might sound like a quibble to you, I'd say 'talent and skill'. IMV talent's natural or innate, while skill is acquired; virtually anyone can acquire the skills needed to write a successful poem regardless of talent.
>

I gotta disagree with you there. A poet who has the skill, but not the talent is ... well, Peter.

To write a successful poem requires both.

> > >Attempting to write poetry without reading any
>
> > >I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
>
> > >Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:
>

<reading list snipped>

> > >Contributed by Preston Mark Stone

> > A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.
>
> True. I've never talked to a poet who hadn't and wouldn't read any poetry. This whole part sounds like attacking a straw man. The advice is innocent enough -- find some poets whose work you consistently like, and read them most -- but who in the world would need to be told that?
>

Unfortunately, "Read lots of poetry" is Peter's stock advice to every new poet who shows up here.

Here he is feeding his favorite line of b.s. to Alex on June 30th (along with a plug/link for his site):

"The only useful advice I can give you is to stop trying to write poems
until you've acquired some idea of what a poem is. To acquire such an
idea, you'll need to read a lot of real poems, old and new, long and
short, English and foreign, metrical and free, rhymed and unrhymed.
You'll find some AAPC regulars' suggestions for real poems to read on
the AAPC site."

This narcissistic display of arrogance is typical PBJ douchebaggery, for as you've noted, no poet needs to be told to read poetry.

> > And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.

> Sure; that's really the only criterion for a successful poem that a reader brings to the table: Did I enjoy reading the poem?
>

When I read a poem that really connects with me, I not only enjoy it, but want to commit it to memory -- to make it a part of me in a sense. Unfortunately I don't have time to memorize them all, but those I do remain with me -- hopefully influencing my own work on some subconscious level.

> > Every poet has his/her own voice. Use yours.

> > If you study Theo Roethke's techniques, you'll end up sounding like his clone.
>
> It's self-defeating; copiers of someone else's style are usually quickly forgotten. My preference is to read anthologies, with a mix of poets and poetic techniques. Since my interest is to write good poetry, I enjoy trying to figure out what made the poem successful. That doesn't mean I'll use that, but it does mean I know it and can use it later if I want to.
>

Yes, I also enjoy reading anthologies. They also allow me to sample the work of major poets, so can pick and choose which single author collections to read.

> > >A mistake I see performed commonly by better-than-average poets
>
> > >is the use of all those figures of speech, sound devices, and >interesting line breaks that our teachers told us to use (and for you >lower-than-average poets-- USE THEM!!), but without some sort of >direction or means to marry those devices/figures of speech with the >action or theme of the poem.
>
> > >In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use >of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a >carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light >breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your >poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and >images create that impact.
>
> > >If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.

> > >Contributed by Ryan Deschamps

> > Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.
>
> Sure; in verse line breaks come at the end of each verse. But that doesn't remove the practical question of where to put them.
>
> Someone trying to write a successful poem should know the fundamentals of line length - short lines read faster, (better suited to action), while long lines require more time (better suited to contemplation) -- and line breaking -- eg, the last word in a line gets the most attention, and when possible the most strongest word in the line should go there -- which apply to both verse and open form.
>

Hmm ... I've never focused on the last word as a matter of course. For me, that is, in my verses, the strongest word can appear anywhere within a given line. Sometimes it's the end word, sometimes not.

Take R.L. Stevenson's "Requiem", for example (I've set what I find to be the strongest words in ALL CAPS):

Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the GRAVE and let me lie:
GLAD did I LIVE and GLADLY DIE,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you 'GRAVE for me:
HERE he lies where he LONG'D to be;
HOME is the sailor, HOME from the sea,
And the hunter HOME from the hill.


Of course different words might seem more important to different people. For me the strength lies in the play on "grave" in lines 2 and 5; the equality of gladly living and dying in line 3; line 6's "Here" and "Long'd" stress an important part of the poem's message (the death wish); and the repetition of "Home" in lines 7 and 8 stresses both the cadence and the ultimate message that death is a return "home" (to whatever Heaven or state of nonexistence one believes himself to have originated from).

> (snip here - I might reply to the rest later)

Hope so.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 1:56:18 AM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:


> You were advised to read the FAQ, not to whine enviously about it.


> Readers who, unlike Dunce and his creepy fiancé, are interested in
> learning something about how to write poetry will find the AAPC FAQ
> and Resources here:

Poor little Peeby. You never could take criticism.

[Michael Pendragon]

Here FWIW is my advice to poets:

1.

Get off the internet. Turn off the television. Put down that book.

Creative juices won't flow if you're busy being entertained.

Ideally, it's best to be alone in some romantic location: walking on the beach or through a forest. But a morning bus commute will work just as well. So will waiting for the final rinse cycle at the laundromat.

Just break out a pen and paper and wait for the thoughts to come.

2.

Be receptive. Don't say "Today I'm going to write about this." Just clear your mind and allow the poem to come to you.

There are an unlimited amount of topics to write about. Ignore those that don't arrive with a line (or portions of one or more lines) attached.

Once you get the first two lines down (whether they're at the beginning of the poem, the middle, or the end), the rest of the poem will usually follow.

3.

Know when to quit. Sometimes an appealing idea just won't translate into lines that properly capture it. Jot down what notes you have and put it aside. Somewhere down the road, the right words may arise.

4.

Fall in love with each poem as you write it.

If it doesn't seem like the greatest thing you've ever read, then you've failed. Each line you write should leave you eagerly waiting to create the line that follows. If you're not spellbound by it, your readers certainly won't be.

5.

You've either got it, or you haven't. No one can teach you how to be a talented writer. You can learn how to master grammar and syntax ... and end up sounding like every textbook you snored your way through in high school. You can never learn how to create a work of art.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
> My experience is somewhat different, Michael.
> I've found that creative juices will most definitely
> flow if you're busy being entertained by porn on
> the internet, so be sure to have tissues handy.

"Don't knock my hobby." -Woody Allen

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
> Okay, I won't knock your Hobby
> Lobby. I also won't shop there.

I appreciate that...

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:25:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

> >Common Mistakes
>
> >
>
> >The question was: What do you feel is the most often seen, or most >egregious, error made by poetry novices and not-so-novices alike? Here >are some of the answers:
> >
> >Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
> >
> >Too many people think if they write about something harsh, or >frightening, or emotionally scarring, that it will make their poems >good. "If I write about rape, it will be so moving!" they say. But it >doesn't work that way. Trite images (or lack thereof) and poor writing >cannot be elevated by the topic. Indeed, they can succeed in making a >mockery of the topic.
> >
> >Advice: Stick to less emotionally charged material until you know that >you aren't going to cause giggles in your reader. Trust me. No one wants >to giggle at a poem about child abuse, or war, or rape. Write about >something easy to describe, and easy to discard. Don't try to write >something that will change the world. First, try to change your way of >perceiving the world.
>
> >
>
> >And good luck.
> >Contributed by Julie Carter
>
>
>
> Write about whatever you feel like writing about. If child abuse is a topic that you feel a need to express yourself about, by all means do.

Of course this has nothing to do with the mistake which was:

Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem

which is a pretty common error. It was interesting that you decided to discuss
something else in response.

>
> How well you succeed depends upon how much talent you possess.
>
> >Attempting to write poetry without reading any
> >
> >I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
> >
> >Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:
>
>
>
> >Elizabeth Bishop / Geography III
>
> >Theodore Roethke / (anything)
>
> >James Wright / The Branch Will Not Break / St. Judas / Shall We Gather >at the River

> >John Balaban / Words for My Daughter
> >Tony Hoagland / anything
> >Kim Addonizio / the Philosopher's Club
> >Contributed by Preston Mark Stone

>
> A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.

Interesting point that has nothing to do with the common mistake listed which
was:

"Attempting to write poetry without reading any"

> And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.

here is a sweeping opinion of yours which has nothing to do with the passage you
quoted and is very questionable. Who are you to tell people why to read
poetry? God forbid someone reads something for research in your strange, narrow
world.

> >A mistake I see performed commonly by better-than-average poets
> >
> >is the use of all those figures of speech, sound devices, and >interesting line breaks that our teachers told us to use (and for you >lower-than-average poets-- USE THEM!!), but without some sort of >direction or means to marry those devices/figures of speech with the >action or theme of the poem.
>
> >
>
> >In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use >of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a >carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light >breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your >poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and >images create that impact.
> >
> >If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.
> >
> >Contributed by Ryan Deschamps
>
>
> Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.

Once again, you fail to address the point. Ryan points out that using poetic
devices that don't in any way add to the poem should be avoided.

>
> >"just one more pretty adjective, please"
> >
> >Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line, or to >introduce an interesting internal rhyme, or to add weight or clarity to >the image, or to differentiate one object from another, or (see - I can >go on making excuses up all day)...
> >
> >Why is this not "a good thing": think of a poem as a christmas tree, and >the adjectives as baubles. The more baubles you add, the prettier the >christmas tree becomes. But add too many baubles, and the christmas tree >disappears under a dazzle of meaningless balls. In the end, it is the >message of the christmas tree that is important, not the tacky dross we >(well, I) add to it.
> >
> >Cure: for me, there is no cure - my only hope is that when I post an >adjective infested poem, someone takes the time and trouble to give me a >hard beating with the criticism stick. For others? Maybe they can learn >from my mistakes...
> >
> >Contributed by Rik Roots
>
> Words are to poetry as musical notes are to a composition. Do not sacrifice the poem's melody for the sake of avoiding an "extra" word.

If words contribute to a poem they are not extra words. Why are you tacking
this obvious statement to the end of Rik's great advice about avoiding too many
adjectives.

>
> >Linebreaks don't make something automatically a poem
> >
> >There has to be something happening STRUCTURALLY; the breaks have to be >there for a reason; the sound and sense of each word, line, phrase, >stanza has to be there for a reason that relates to some other part. I'm >not talking about the easy meter, sing-song stuff here (you can get >structure with very little content just by playing "Twinkle, Twinkle, >Little Star" on the piano; but it isn't Beethoven or Debussy); I'm >talking about the mistake of smart ideas and images, narrative, pregnant >pauses, etc., laid out in a "clever" way, being "enough". A look past >those things, "under the hood", shows not much there. It's not just >paying attention to how the story is told; it's about how the words >relate to each other when you take the story away.
> >
> >Contributed by Steve Layton
>
> Translation: When writing prose, know when to end your first paragraph and/or when to begin a new one.

Again, you seem to not understand the advice.

> >Attempting to describe an emotion, sensation, reaction, mood etc. head->on
> >
> >...by simply saying what you felt or thought. The experience of human >response is complex and individual, its classifications banal and ten-a->penny.
> >
> >Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language, concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), >sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the >experience, whether actually part of the experience or not. Aim to give >the reader fragmentary, overlapping and interlocking components of an >experience, rather than the thing itself.
> >
> >Contributed by Jim Sheard
>
> Translation: How to compose pseudointellectual gobbledegook. Fragmentary components turn a poem into a laundry list of poetic thoughts. Avoid this practice at all costs.

If you don't understand it, the "translations" aren't really responses.

>


> >Rhyme padding
> >
> >The practice of adding totally unnecessary words and phrases to fill out >a rhyme scheme.
> >
> >The only solution is to actually put in the time to develop meaningful >material...or change the scheme.
> >
> >Contributed by gnarl

> Again, words are to a poem as musical notes are to a composition.
> Every rhymed poem contains extra words in one form or another. The trick is to have them appear essential.

> Rather than inserting an extra word into a line, rewrite the line in a naturally sounding manner.

You seem to be actually agreeing with this one but don't realize it.

> >Grammar and Spelling
> >
> >Mine: Thinking that talent can excuse sloppiness when it comes to a >basic application of good grammar and spelling.
> >
> >Cure: Remembering that Julie Carter might read it. :)
> >
> >Solution: Don't give up even if the lack is caused by real cognitive >problems. Review old lessons, memorize old spelling rules, reread any >and all work before considering it ready for public view. Spellcheck >everything. When a error is pointed out despite all your precautions, >thank the commenter and take a look at the passage where the error was >made, review rules again. Keep husband or dictionary at hand at all >times.
> >
> >Contributed by debi z.

> Or just turn on spellcheck.

This tends to make many people laughing stocks. Look how many times that clown dunce got caught out through that very technique.

> >Totem Words
> >
> >These are the words that are so common, they've become almost funny. >Everyone uses them because they are easy descriptors for emotions, but >this fact alone has made their use an eye-sore. They have become like >the White Elephants of prosody, and finding more than one in an opening >line is usually not a good sign.
> >
> >Some of my favorites:
> >
> >Dark - "my mind was dark with (insert emotion)"
> >Heart - "my heart was left (broken, smashed, pureed)"
> >Bleeding/Blood "my blood surging like a (run for your life)"
> >Soul - "...setting my soul free to do (insert activity)"
> >Beauty - "(insert subject) was the vision of beauty"
> >Shadows - "shadows crept over the (walls, graveyard, Radio Shack)"
> >Excelsior - words cannot describe my hatred for Stan Lee.

> >Contributed by Tom W.
>
>
>
> They are commonly used because they are common to everyone's experiences.

"common" in poetry should be challenged. You are agreeing with this advice but probably don't realize it.

> The words I find funny are the cliches that modern poets gravitate toward that send most readers running for a dictionary: the "gibbous" moon, for example.

"gibbous moon" is hilarious in a poem. There are a bunch of other words that get stuck into beginner poems that wouldn't appear anywhere else as well. Often funny words for colors.

> >Mistake: No sonic awareness
> >
> >Cure: Read Dylan Thomas.
> >
> >Advice: Read every single fucking draft of your own work out loud >numerous times. Preferably in front of a mirror so you can see how your >mouth is moving as you over-enunciate.
> >
> >Contributed by gg
>
> A bit excessive, but a good idea. A poem should be spoken (or, at least, sound good when "spoken" in one's head). It should flow easily when read aloud.
>
> Reading Dylan Thomas is just silliness. Find your own voice, rhythm, meters, etc.

Reading other poets is a great way to learn your own voice - especially through
sonic awareness. Dylan Thomas it probably a great choice. I would add Seamus
Heaney.

> >Mistake: Inability to separate the narrator's voice from the voice of >the writer.
> >
> >Cure: Do exercises in which you write pieces from the point of view of >an inanimate object, a person of the opposite sex, etc.
> >
> >Advice: Realize that you should be trying to convey experience with your >writing and that no one but your mother and your therapist gives a >flying fuck about your emotions, your ~feelings~, or your sense of >darkness enveloping your sacred soul.
> >
> >Contributed by gg
>
>
>
> The narrator can be the poet ... or not. It all depends upon the poem.

If a poet restricts herself to the facts of personal narration she will fail
more often that she succeeds.

> >I suppose the specific element I notice most often ignored is syntax. If >the words are good, people read them one at a time, so the order they're >in always has an effect. One example:
> >
> >I feel like I stepped on a nail with my brain
> >
> >as opposed to:
> >
> >I feel like my brain stepped on a nail
> >
> >In the first, the sensory data is delivered before the reader is aware >that it applies to something impossible; in the second, the fact that >the statement is figurative is made clear first, and the imagined >sensation is mediated. There are better examples; it works better when >you're reading slower. The length of the statement is also important, >because it effects surprise vs suspense. This stuff comes in handy if >you're telling a story.
>
> Good advice ... if one plans on writing a newspaper article.

>
> Both ways (of getting your brain nailed) are valid in poetry. It depends on what the poet is trying to express. The switch from sensory data to figurative speech in example one can provide an intended shock or jarring element to the line.

Actually, the writer didn't say either one was valid or invalid, it is more a
suggestion to be aware of how syntax affects the delivery of a message. Poetry
can certainly be improved just by studying the effects of different syntactical
formations.

> >Avoid the "Mindless Extremes of Love" school of poetry
> >
> >Two Examples:
> >
> >Endless Love: My love is higher than a hawk,/ And deeper than a well. - >From the movie "Calamity Jane", starring Doris Day.
>
> >The flip side of Endless Love: You done me wrong. Since I am made of >gold, you, obviously, are the Anti-Christ. Poor me. I still love you.
>
> >Contributed by cythera

> Extremes are a valid poetic tool. When used properly, they can contribute to a poem's success.

"Hyperbole" can be valuable if used sparingly but the "my love is deeper than the ocean"-type statements are laughable.

> >Failure to acknowledge there is a world beyond the narrative
> >
> >Not being open to other forms of poetry besides the metric centered, >left justified, line and strophe broken, generally narrative model. I >think I see this mistake frequently here, in both crits and the >recommended reading. Of course I love much of the above poetry, both >here and in the world of books - but it's not all there is.
> >
> >Recommendations? In addition to the usual reading list of Thomas, >Heaney, Yeats, Frost etc etc how about -
> >
> >Some journals. "Shiny" is a good one. "New American Writing" is another. >"American Poetry Review" too. Jacket Magazine online and free, I think >at www.jacketmagazine.com is a current favorite of mine.
>
> >Some essays on poetics. "New American Poetics" I think is out of print, >but the essays from it have been reprinted all over the place, including >in "The Poet's Work" and the Norton postmodern anthology.
>
> >Some anthologies. The above Norton. "Poems for the Millenium" volumes 1 >and 2 are very hefty and very very good. ed by Jerome Rothenberg.
>
> >And some poets. I have a slew of favorites, but some of the best are >Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, Robert Duncan, Philip Whalen, Anselm >Hollo, Anne Waldman, Mei-mei Bersenbrugge, John Ashbery, Ginsberg, Frank >O'Hara, Amiri Baraka, James Schuyler, Gary Snyder, etc ... Wooops forgot >Denise Levertov. and Jack Spicer.
>
> >Nobody has to like any of this, but acknowledging that it exists and is >part of the art is important I think. I guess part of what I am saying >is that it is good to read poetry that you don't like too.
> >
> >Contributed by john sullivan

> A resounding yawn.

Not surprisingly, this is advice that would apply mostly to you which is most
likely why you avoid it.

It is good to see new poets reading the FAQ! Other members should note that there is a ton of other useful stuff also available.

Hopefully you can find time to read it a few more times so you can really
understand it.

[George Dance]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 1:56:18 AM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:

> In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:25:06 -0700 (PDT),

> George Dance wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:25:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>

> > <whinesnip>
>
> <whinesnip>

>
> You were advised to read the FAQ

-- and, as usual, your advice looks stupid and wrong-headed. The first two poetry rules we've looked at from the FAQe --

1) Avoid interesting subjects; and

2) Read and copy a famous poet from a list of approved famous poets --

Are ideas that no one interested in writing poetry ought to take seriously.

> , not to whine enviously about it.
>

Not all criticism is motivated by envy, Piggy. It sounds as if you're projecting again.

>
> Readers who, unlike Dunce and his creepy fiancé, are interested in
> learning something about how to write poetry will find the AAPC FAQ
> and Resources here:
>

> http://aapc.homeridae.org/
>
>
> --
>
> PJR :-)
> ἔστι τις σιῶν τίσις - Alcman

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:26:52 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:25:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > >Common Mistakes

> > >Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
>
> > >Too many people think if they write about something harsh, or >frightening, or emotionally scarring, that it will make their poems good. "If I write about rape, it will be so moving!" they say. But it doesn't work that way. Trite images (or lack thereof) and poor writing cannot be elevated by the topic. Indeed, they can succeed in making a mockery of the topic.
>
> > >Advice: Stick to less emotionally charged material until you know that >you aren't going to cause giggles in your reader. Trust me. No one wants >to giggle at a poem about child abuse, or war, or rape. Write about >something easy to describe, and easy to discard. Don't try to write >something that will change the world. First, try to change your way of >perceiving the world.
>
> > >And good luck.
>
> > >Contributed by Julie Carter
>

> > Write about whatever you feel like writing about. If child abuse is a topic that you feel a need to express yourself about, by all means do.
>

> Of course this has nothing to do with the mistake which was:

> Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
> which is a pretty common error. It was interesting that you decided to discuss something else in response.
>

Did I?

Julie assumes that a "novice" poet will gravitate to a "powerful" subject in hope that it will compensate for his lack of poetic skill. She recommends that such would-be poets stick to disposable fluff. I find this attitude both presumptuous and condescending.

I don't share Julie's assumption. A poet will write about whatever subject works for him. No poet is going to write an intentionally disposable piece of fluff. Why would he bother?

> > >I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
>
> > >Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:
>

> > A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.
>
> Interesting point that has nothing to do with the common mistake listed which
> was:

> "Attempting to write poetry without reading any"

Which is even more nonsensical than Julie's advice.

The only people who write poetry w/o reading any are high school students who have to write one for an English class.

You can be sure that anyone who likes poetry enough to want to write some of their own, likes it *because* he reads it every chance he gets.

> > And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.

> here is a sweeping opinion of yours which has nothing to do with the passage you quoted and is very questionable. Who are you to tell people why to read
poetry? God forbid someone reads something for research in your strange, narrow world.
>

I am the Pendragon!

(I refer you to my theme song, "O Fortuna", reprinted below.)

Reading poetry that you don't enjoy because you will supposedly learn from it (even if the only thing you learn is how *not* to write a poem) turns a passion into an exercise in tedium.

> > >In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and images create that impact.
>
> > >If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.
>
> > >Contributed by Ryan Deschamps

> > Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.
>

> Once again, you fail to address the point. Ryan points out that using poetic devices that don't in any way add to the poem should be avoided.
>

Yes. "Common Mistakes" ought to have been titled "Poetry for Dumber-Than-Dummies".

Ryan says that if you want to right about a carnival, you should avoid words that suggest quietude. No kidding.

Ryan says that you should marry any devices to the content of the poem. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Forget about poetry. This is basic writing for pre-schoolers.

If I didn't address these points, it's because I didn't see any need to. I did, however, address Ryan's one error (please note the title of this thread): that one should creatively use line breaks.

> > >"just one more pretty adjective, please"
> > >Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line, or to >introduce an interesting internal rhyme, or to add weight or clarity to >the image, or to differentiate one object from another, or (see - I can >go on making excuses up all day)...

> > >Why is this not "a good thing": think of a poem as a christmas tree, and >the adjectives as baubles. The more baubles you add, the prettier the >christmas tree becomes. But add too many baubles, and the christmas tree >disappears under a dazzle of meaningless balls. In the end, it is the >message of the christmas tree that is important, not the tacky dross we >(well, I) add to it.
> > >Cure: for me, there is no cure - my only hope is that when I post an >adjective infested poem, someone takes the time and trouble to give me a >hard beating with the criticism stick. For others? Maybe they can learn >from my mistakes...
>
> > >Contributed by Rik Roots

> > Words are to poetry as musical notes are to a composition. Do not sacrifice the poem's melody for the sake of avoiding an "extra" word.
>
> If words contribute to a poem they are not extra words. Why are you tacking
> this obvious statement to the end of Rik's great advice about avoiding too many adjectives.
>

I refer you to Rik's opening paragraph:

"Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line,"

I'm assuming that the motive for adding these "extra" syllables is to pad the line to fit the meter. If so, the extra syllables are required.

Of course Rik *could* be referring to chopped up prose, in which case none of what he says has anything to do with poetry.

> > >Linebreaks don't make something automatically a poem
>
> > >There has to be something happening STRUCTURALLY; the breaks have to be >there for a reason; the sound and sense of each word, line, phrase, >stanza has to be there for a reason that relates to some other part. I'm >not talking about the easy meter, sing-song stuff here (you can get >structure with very little content just by playing "Twinkle, Twinkle, >Little Star" on the piano; but it isn't Beethoven or Debussy); I'm >talking about the mistake of smart ideas and images, narrative, pregnant >pauses, etc., laid out in a "clever" way, being "enough". A look past >those things, "under the hood", shows not much there. It's not just >paying attention to how the story is told; it's about how the words >relate to each other when you take the story away.
>
> > >Contributed by Steve Layton

> > Translation: When writing prose, know when to end your first paragraph and/or when to begin a new one.
>

> Again, you seem to not understand the advice.

Of course I do.

Steve is saying that simply chopping up a piece of prose won't turn it into a poem. And to that extent, I agree with him.

However, his advice is simply to chop it up with discretion.

Chopped up prose is chopped up prose regardless of how you choose to slice it.

> > >Attempting to describe an emotion, sensation, reaction, mood etc. head->on

> > >...by simply saying what you felt or thought. The experience of human >response is complex and individual, its classifications banal and ten-a->penny.

> > >Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language, concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), >sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the >experience, whether actually part of the experience or not. Aim to give >the reader fragmentary, overlapping and interlocking components of an >experience, rather than the thing itself.
>
> > >Contributed by Jim Sheard

> > Translation: How to compose pseudointellectual gobbledegook. Fragmentary components turn a poem into a laundry list of poetic thoughts. Avoid this practice at all costs.
>

> If you don't understand it, the "translations" aren't really responses.

I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't understand. Whether you fail to comprehend the meaning of my comments (perish the thought!), or the gibberish I'm commenting on is the question.

To avoid any further confusion:

Jim: Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language,

MMP: Jim says "Don't try to describe your own responses (feelings), but grab assorted snatches of descriptive language and run them altogether in a fragmentary list. The reader is then free to apply his own responses to your verse."

Jim elaborates: ...concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the experience, whether actually part of the experience or not.

MMP: "Whether actually part of the experience or not"??? Why not toss in the kitchen sink as well?

Jim: Aim to give the reader fragmentary, overlapping and interlocking components of an >experience, rather than the thing itself.

MMP: Like I said: Laundry List.

> > >Rhyme padding
>
> > >The practice of adding totally unnecessary words and phrases to fill out >a rhyme scheme.
>
> > >The only solution is to actually put in the time to develop meaningful >material...or change the scheme.
>
> > >Contributed by gnarl
>

> > Again, words are to a poem as musical notes are to a composition.
>
> > Every rhymed poem contains extra words in one form or another. The trick is to have them appear essential.
>
> > Rather than inserting an extra word into a line, rewrite the line in a naturally sounding manner.
>
> You seem to be actually agreeing with this one but don't realize it.

I am agreeing with the solution. My objection is to gnarl's implication that "rhyme padding" is a mistake to be avoided. Rhyme padding is necessary if the poem is to rhyme (and a poem without a rhyme is like an oil painting without the paint).

> > >Grammar and Spelling

> > >Mine: Thinking that talent can excuse sloppiness when it comes to a >basic application of good grammar and spelling.
>
> > >Cure: Remembering that Julie Carter might read it. :)

> > >Solution: Don't give up even if the lack is caused by real cognitive >problems. Review old lessons, memorize old spelling rules, reread any >and all work before considering it ready for public view. Spellcheck >everything. When a error is pointed out despite all your precautions, >thank the commenter and take a look at the passage where the error was >made, review rules again. Keep husband or dictionary at hand at all >times.
>
> > >Contributed by debi z.

> > Or just turn on spellcheck.

> This tends to make many people laughing stocks. Look how many times that clown dunce got caught out through that very technique.
>

debi z. mentioned spellcheck as one of her many solutions. I was being curt to make a point. I don't need 100 words to tell me to check for spelling errors.

> > >Totem Words

> > >These are the words that are so common, they've become almost funny. >Everyone uses them because they are easy descriptors for emotions, but >this fact alone has made their use an eye-sore. They have become like >the White Elephants of prosody, and finding more than one in an opening >line is usually not a good sign.
>

> > >Contributed by Tom W.

> > They are commonly used because they are common to everyone's experiences.

> "common" in poetry should be challenged. You are agreeing with this advice but probably don't realize it.
>

Not at all. I strongly believe that poetry should be universal. It should speak to everyone -- not just a handful of English professors.

Totem words have become totems because they are universal to the human experience. They should be sought out by the poet, not avoided.

> > The words I find funny are the cliches that modern poets gravitate toward that send most readers running for a dictionary: the "gibbous" moon, for example.
>

> "gibbous moon" is hilarious in a poem. There are a bunch of other words that get stuck into beginner poems that wouldn't appear anywhere else as well. Often funny words for colors.
>

Here's a truly hilarious web page:

http://hellopoetry.com/words/46932/gibbous/poems/

> > >Mistake: No sonic awareness

> > >Cure: Read Dylan Thomas.

> > >Advice: Read every single fucking draft of your own work out loud >numerous times. Preferably in front of a mirror so you can see how your >mouth is moving as you over-enunciate.
>
> > >Contributed by gg
>

> > A bit excessive, but a good idea. A poem should be spoken (or, at least, sound good when "spoken" in one's head). It should flow easily when read aloud.
>
> > Reading Dylan Thomas is just silliness. Find your own voice, rhythm, meters, etc.
>

> Reading other poets is a great way to learn your own voice - especially through sonic awareness. Dylan Thomas it probably a great choice. I would add Seamus Heaney.
>

It's a great way to learn Seamus Heaney's voice.

Our voice is established in our formative years, and has become unmistakeably ours by the age of 10 or so. Our poetry will always reflect this this voice.

Mr. Heaney wrote some effective short prose.

> > >Mistake: Inability to separate the narrator's voice from the voice of >the writer.
>
> > >Cure: Do exercises in which you write pieces from the point of view of >an inanimate object, a person of the opposite sex, etc.
>
> > >Advice: Realize that you should be trying to convey experience with your >writing and that no one but your mother and your therapist gives a >flying fuck about your emotions, your ~feelings~, or your sense of >darkness enveloping your sacred soul.
>
> > >Contributed by gg

> > The narrator can be the poet ... or not. It all depends upon the poem.

> If a poet restricts herself to the facts of personal narration she will fail
> more often that she succeeds.
>

gg did not say this. What he said was don't write in the first person, and don't write about your personal feelings.

His point was that one should convey the "experience" (apparently the subject of the poem), not your reactions to or feelings about it. Why writing about it from the p.o.v. of a "person of the opposite sex" or of "an inanimate object" would be seen as preferable is anybody's guess.

> > >I suppose the specific element I notice most often ignored is syntax. If >the words are good, people read them one at a time, so the order they're >in always has an effect. One example:
>
> > >I feel like I stepped on a nail with my brain
> > >as opposed to:
> > >I feel like my brain stepped on a nail
>
> > >In the first, the sensory data is delivered before the reader is aware >that it applies to something impossible; in the second, the fact that >the statement is figurative is made clear first, and the imagined >sensation is mediated. There are better examples; it works better when >you're reading slower. The length of the statement is also important, >because it effects surprise vs suspense. This stuff comes in handy if >you're telling a story.
>
> > Good advice ... if one plans on writing a newspaper article.

> > Both ways (of getting your brain nailed) are valid in poetry. It depends on what the poet is trying to express. The switch from sensory data to figurative speech in example one can provide an intended shock or jarring element to the line.
>

> Actually, the writer didn't say either one was valid or invalid, it is more a
suggestion to be aware of how syntax affects the delivery of a message. Poetry can certainly be improved just by studying the effects of different syntactical formations.
>

I think it strongly implied that the writer prefers the second.

To say that syntax affects writing is yet another statement of the all-too-obvious.

> > >Avoid the "Mindless Extremes of Love" school of poetry

> > >Two Examples:

> > >Endless Love: My love is higher than a hawk,/ And deeper than a well. - >From the movie "Calamity Jane", starring Doris Day.

> > >The flip side of Endless Love: You done me wrong. Since I am made of >gold, you, obviously, are the Anti-Christ. Poor me. I still love you.

> > >Contributed by cythera

> > Extremes are a valid poetic tool. When used properly, they can contribute to a poem's success.
>

> "Hyperbole" can be valuable if used sparingly but the "my love is deeper than the ocean"-type statements are laughable.
>

"How Deep Is the Ocean" is a wonderful song by Irving Berlin. It spoke to a lot of people, and made him a truckload of money in the process. A metaphor doesn't become "laughable" simply because it has become commonplace. I don't think one can fall in love without experiencing it in hyperbolic terms. A love that isn't perceived as "endless" is merely a dalliance.

Yes, I know that poets should be on the cutting edge, creating new ways of communicating experiences, and so on; but sometimes an old cliche expresses it 10 times better.

However, cythera (note the cliched lower case "c") didn't attack hyperbole, but extremes. She cited a classic Paul Francis Webster lyric that transposed the heights reached by the soaring hawk with the depths of a well in order to have Wild Bill Hickock's love extend beyond the opposing boundaries of each.

Granted, on their own, the two descriptions are throwaway cliches -- but when taken together they create a third, unspoken, measurement so vast that no fitting metaphor exists.

> > >Failure to acknowledge there is a world beyond the narrative

> > >Not being open to other forms of poetry besides the metric centered, >left justified, line and strophe broken, generally narrative model. I >think I see this mistake frequently here, in both crits and the >recommended reading. Of course I love much of the above poetry, both >here and in the world of books - but it's not all there is.
>

> > >Recommendations? In addition to the usual reading list of Thomas, >Heaney, Yeats, Frost etc etc how about -
>
> > >Some journals. "Shiny" is a good one. "New American Writing" is another. >"American Poetry Review" too. Jacket Magazine online and free, I think >at www.jacketmagazine.com is a current favorite of mine.
>
> > >Some essays on poetics. "New American Poetics" I think is out of print, >but the essays from it have been reprinted all over the place, including >in "The Poet's Work" and the Norton postmodern anthology.
>
> > >Some anthologies. The above Norton. "Poems for the Millenium" volumes 1 >and 2 are very hefty and very very good. ed by Jerome Rothenberg.
>
> > >And some poets. I have a slew of favorites, but some of the best are >Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, Robert Duncan, Philip Whalen, Anselm >Hollo, Anne Waldman, Mei-mei Bersenbrugge, John Ashbery, Ginsberg, Frank >O'Hara, Amiri Baraka, James Schuyler, Gary Snyder, etc ... Wooops forgot >Denise Levertov. and Jack Spicer.
>
> > >Nobody has to like any of this, but acknowledging that it exists and is >part of the art is important I think. I guess part of what I am saying >is that it is good to read poetry that you don't like too.
>
> > >Contributed by john sullivan

> > A resounding yawn.

> Not surprisingly, this is advice that would apply mostly to you which is most
> likely why you avoid it.

It isn't so much advice, as a run-down on Mr. Sullivan's cumulative studies in poetry.

Should I run off a partial list of the anthologies and journals I've read? Or name a dozen of my favorite poets? Should we turn this into a poetic pecker measurement contest?

Basically, John's point (spoken and dropped along with his pants) was that one should be open to other forms of poetry. Sorry, Horatio, but it's not that easy. No matter how many chances I've given cottage cheese, it always ends up making me want to barf.

> It is good to see new poets reading the FAQ! Other members should note that there is a ton of other useful stuff also available.
>

ROTFLMAO!

> Hopefully you can find time to read it a few more times so you can really
> understand it.

Cottage cheese.

Here, as promised, is my theme song:


O FORTUNA


He rules the earth
He rules the land
Malefica Pendragon!

Great nations fall
At his command
Malefica Pendragon!

He rules the sun
The moon on high
Malefica Pendragon!

His cannon shake
The starry sky
Malefica Pendragon!

He rules the night
He rules the day
Malefica Pendragon!

The gods above
His word obey
Malefica Pendragon!

The King of Kings
The Lord of Lords
Malefica Pendragon!

Glory and fame
His just rewards
Malefica Pendragon!

Praise to the King
Praised be his name
Malefica Pendragon!

The throne of God
His rightful claim
Malefica Pendragon!

Hail to the King
Hail to the Lord
Malefica Pendragon!
May Fortune bring
His just reward
Malefica Pendragon!

Dame Fortune smile
On all his days
Malefica Pendragon!

While minions show'r
Their King with praise
Malefica Pendragon!

He rules the earth
The sky above
Malefica Pendragon!

We bring to him
Our endless love
Malefica Pendragon!

Hail to our King
Praised be his name
Malefica Pendragon!

All Heaven sing
His glorious name
Malefica Pendragon!

King of all Kings
Lord of all Lords
Malefica Pendragon!

King of all Kings
Lord of all Lords
Malefica Pendragon!

Malefica
Malefica
Malefica Pendragon!

Malefica
Malefica
Malefica Pendragon!

[Michael Pendragon]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 10:22:09 PM UTC-4, Peter J Ross wrote:

> >> > <whinesnip>

> >> <whinesnip>
>
> >> You were advised to read the FAQ

> >> , not to whine enviously about it.

> <evidence of envious whining snipped>

> Why are you such an illiterate, envious whiner, Dunce?

You hear whining everywhere, Peeber. You must have been severely criticized (or punished) for it as a child for it to form such a resounding facet of your life experiences today.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

[Will Dockery]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:42:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> Julie assumes that a "novice" poet will gravitate to a "powerful" subject in hope that it will compensate for his lack of poetic skill. She recommends that such would-be poets stick to disposable fluff. I find this attitude both presumptuous and condescending.
>
> I don't share Julie's assumption. A poet will write about whatever subject works for him. No poet is going to write an intentionally disposable piece of fluff. Why would he bother?

And be damned by the very ones the poet is trying to please, no doubt.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:42:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:26:52 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> > Of course this has nothing to do with the mistake which was:
>
>
>
> > Mistake: Thinking the power of the "story" creates the power of the poem
>
> > which is a pretty common error. It was interesting that you decided to discuss something else in response.

> Did I?

yes

>
>
>
> Julie assumes that a "novice" poet will gravitate to a "powerful" subject in hope that it will compensate for his lack of poetic skill. She recommends that such would-be poets stick to disposable fluff. I find this attitude both presumptuous and condescending.

actually, Julie has witnessed many poets attempting to use subject matter to
compensate for a lack of skill. She suggests avoiding sensitive subjects until
the poet has the skill to not trivialize them.

>
>
>
> I don't share Julie's assumption. A poet will write about whatever subject works for him. No poet is going to write an intentionally disposable piece of fluff. Why would he bother?

Poets will write what they write. They shouldn't assume the power of the
subject will compensate for a lack of skill. Best to stick to the familiar
while they gain the skills. Good advice, Julie!

>
>
>
> > > >I run across this constantly, among beginning writers, young poets I've >tutored, and newsgroups. There seems to be this general sense that >reading and studying poetry will somehow kill spontaneity and make your >writing "less original." I think most would agree, though, that to build >a beautiful house you need to first understand how beautiful houses are >built.
>
> >
>
> > > >Advice: Find good poets, and read them obsessively. Study what they do >with language, how they build imagery, what machinery is at work. Go to >the aapc website and read the bios of poets you admire -- many of them >include lists of poets who have influenced them. Write to poets whose >work you admire and ask them what you should read (and maybe even what >you should avoid). Here's a list of poets/books to get you started, in >case you're curious as to my opinion:
>
> >
>
> > > A poet shouldn't have to be told to read poetry -- he/she should enjoy reading it.
>
> >
>
> > Interesting point that has nothing to do with the common mistake listed which
>
> > was:
>
>
>
> > "Attempting to write poetry without reading any"
>
>
>
> Which is even more nonsensical than Julie's advice.
>
>
>
> The only people who write poetry w/o reading any are high school students who have to write one for an English class.
>

not true. Many beginning poets become enamored with the idea of writing poetry
and never actually read any amount of poetry already written. You aren't
familiar with this so I guess that explains why don't understand the advice.

>
>
> You can be sure that anyone who likes poetry enough to want to write some of their own, likes it *because* he reads it every chance he gets.

completely untrue.

>
> > > And it should be read *only* for the enjoyment that it brings.
>

> > here is a sweeping opinion of yours which has nothing to do with the passage you quoted and is very questionable. Who are you to tell people why to read
>
> poetry? God forbid someone reads something for research in your strange, narrow world.

>
> I am the Pendragon!
>
>
>
> (I refer you to my theme song, "O Fortuna", reprinted below.)
>
> Reading poetry that you don't enjoy because you will supposedly learn from it (even if the only thing you learn is how *not* to write a poem) turns a passion into an exercise in tedium.

You didn't say "reading poetry you don't enjoy". Perhaps you don't even
understand your own advice? You said the /only/ reason . . .

> > > >In other words-- try as much as possible to be deliberate with the use of imagery, sound device, and line breaks. If you are writing about a carnival, you might not want to use lots of words that suggest light breezes and quiet. Think lots about what kind of impact you want your poem to have on your reader, and try to make the line breaks, sounds and images create that impact.
>
> >
>
> > > >If you think I'm asking the near-impossible, you're right.
> > > >Contributed by Ryan Deschamps
>
> > > Certainly use poetic devices. A poem without technique is just short prose. Line breaks should be used at the end of a complete stanza or verse. The only impact creative line breaks have is to point up the poet's lack of skill.
>
> >
> > Once again, you fail to address the point. Ryan points out that using poetic devices that don't in any way add to the poem should be avoided.
>
> >
>
> Yes. "Common Mistakes" ought to have been titled "Poetry for Dumber-Than-Dummies".
>
> Ryan says that if you want to right about a carnival, you should avoid words that suggest quietude. No kidding.
>
> Ryan says that you should marry any devices to the content of the poem. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
>
> Forget about poetry. This is basic writing for pre-schoolers.

You would be surprised how often these mistakes come up in poetry written by
beginners. You can find several of these mistakes in poetry posted right on
this board quite recently.

>

> > > >"just one more pretty adjective, please"
>
> > > >Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line, or to >introduce an interesting internal rhyme, or to add weight or clarity to >the image, or to differentiate one object from another, or (see - I can >go on making excuses up all day)...
>
> > > >Why is this not "a good thing": think of a poem as a christmas tree, and >the adjectives as baubles. The more baubles you add, the prettier the >christmas tree becomes. But add too many baubles, and the christmas tree >disappears under a dazzle of meaningless balls. In the end, it is the >message of the christmas tree that is important, not the tacky dross we >(well, I) add to it.
>
> > > >Cure: for me, there is no cure - my only hope is that when I post an >adjective infested poem, someone takes the time and trouble to give me a >hard beating with the criticism stick. For others? Maybe they can learn >from my mistakes...
> >
> > > >Contributed by Rik Roots
>
> > > Words are to poetry as musical notes are to a composition. Do not sacrifice the poem's melody for the sake of avoiding an "extra" word.
>
> >
>
> > If words contribute to a poem they are not extra words. Why are you tacking
> > this obvious statement to the end of Rik's great advice about avoiding too many adjectives.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I refer you to Rik's opening paragraph:
>
> "Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line,"
>
> I'm assuming that the motive for adding these "extra" syllables is to pad the line to fit the meter. If so, the extra syllables are required.
>
> Of course Rik *could* be referring to chopped up prose, in which case none of what he says has anything to do with poetry.

You are assuming an awful lot during your reading, I noticed. Rik didn't say
meter padding, someone else offers that later. Rik was referring to the mistake
of using extra adjectives. Many writers attempt to "describe" in poetry which
they think means using lots of adjectives and flowery language. Strong poems
are written on the bedrock of strong nouns.

>
> > > >Linebreaks don't make something automatically a poem
> >
> > > >There has to be something happening STRUCTURALLY; the breaks have to be >there for a reason; the sound and sense of each word, line, phrase, >stanza has to be there for a reason that relates to some other part. I'm >not talking about the easy meter, sing-song stuff here (you can get >structure with very little content just by playing "Twinkle, Twinkle, >Little Star" on the piano; but it isn't Beethoven or Debussy); I'm >talking about the mistake of smart ideas and images, narrative, pregnant >pauses, etc., laid out in a "clever" way, being "enough". A look past >those things, "under the hood", shows not much there. It's not just >paying attention to how the story is told; it's about how the words >relate to each other when you take the story away.
>
> >
> > > >Contributed by Steve Layton
>

> > > Translation: When writing prose, know when to end your first paragraph and/or when to begin a new one.
>
> >
> > Again, you seem to not understand the advice.

> Of course I do.

> Steve is saying that simply chopping up a piece of prose won't turn it into a poem. And to that extent, I agree with him.
> However, his advice is simply to chop it up with discretion.

Actually, Steve's advice has nothing to do with prose. Steve is discussing the
importance of choosing line breaks. Did you even read any of these?

> > > >Attempting to describe an emotion, sensation, reaction, mood etc. head->on
>
> > > >...by simply saying what you felt or thought. The experience of human >response is complex and individual, its classifications banal and ten-a->penny.
>
> > > >Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language, concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), >sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the >experience, whether actually part of the experience or not. Aim to give >the reader fragmentary, overlapping and interlocking components of an >experience, rather than the thing itself.
>
> >
> > > >Contributed by Jim Sheard
>
> > > Translation: How to compose pseudointellectual gobbledegook. Fragmentary components turn a poem into a laundry list of poetic thoughts. Avoid this practice at all costs.
>
> >
> > If you don't understand it, the "translations" aren't really responses.
>
>
>
> I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't understand. Whether you fail to comprehend the meaning of my comments (perish the thought!), or the gibberish I'm commenting on is the question.

> To avoid any further confusion:

> Jim: Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language,
>
> MMP: Jim says "Don't try to describe your own responses (feelings), but grab assorted snatches of descriptive language and run them altogether in a fragmentary list. The reader is then free to apply his own responses to your verse."
>
> Jim elaborates: ...concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the experience, whether actually part of the experience or not.

Poetry is not about describing experiences. There really isn't any room in
poetry for description, that is better left to prose. If the poem is written
properly with strong imagery, the reader will understand the emotion without the
writer having to "tell" the reader what the emotion was. Jim is dead on here.
Way to go Jim!

>
> > > >Rhyme padding

> > > >The practice of adding totally unnecessary words and phrases to fill out >a rhyme scheme.

> > > >The only solution is to actually put in the time to develop meaningful >material...or change the scheme.

> > > >Contributed by gnarl

> > > Again, words are to a poem as musical notes are to a composition.

> > > Every rhymed poem contains extra words in one form or another. The trick is to have them appear essential.

> > > Rather than inserting an extra word into a line, rewrite the line in a naturally sounding manner.
>
> >
>
> > You seem to be actually agreeing with this one but don't realize it.
>
>
>
> I am agreeing with the solution. My objection is to gnarl's implication that "rhyme padding" is a mistake to be avoided. Rhyme padding is necessary if the poem is to rhyme (and a poem without a rhyme is like an oil painting without the paint).
>

Rhyme padding is /not/ necessary. A good writer takes the time and consideration necessary to produce the correct words without padding.

> > > >Grammar and Spelling

> > > >Mine: Thinking that talent can excuse sloppiness when it comes to a >basic application of good grammar and spelling.
> > > >Cure: Remembering that Julie Carter might read it. :)
> > > >Solution: Don't give up even if the lack is caused by real cognitive >problems. Review old lessons, memorize old spelling rules, reread any >and all work before considering it ready for public view. Spellcheck >everything. When a error is pointed out despite all your precautions, >thank the commenter and take a look at the passage where the error was >made, review rules again. Keep husband or dictionary at hand at all >times.

> > > >Contributed by debi z.

> > > Or just turn on spellcheck.

> > This tends to make many people laughing stocks. Look how many times that clown dunce got caught out through that very technique.

> debi z. mentioned spellcheck as one of her many solutions. I was being curt to make a point. I don't need 100 words to tell me to check for spelling errors.

> > > >Totem Words
>
>
>
> > > >These are the words that are so common, they've become almost funny. >Everyone uses them because they are easy descriptors for emotions, but >this fact alone has made their use an eye-sore. They have become like >the White Elephants of prosody, and finding more than one in an opening >line is usually not a good sign.
>
> >
>
> > > >Contributed by Tom W.
> > > They are commonly used because they are common to everyone's experiences.
> > "common" in poetry should be challenged. You are agreeing with this advice but probably don't realize it.
>
> Not at all. I strongly believe that poetry should be universal. It should speak to everyone -- not just a handful of English professors.

common is boring to "all". If it has already been said, there really isn't much point in saying it again. Poetry is about being fresh and original with language.

> Totem words have become totems because they are universal to the human experience. They should be sought out by the poet, not avoided.

ridiculous. These words have lost their power for the most part. All common
words are "universal" to the human experience. I would say it isn't the words
themselves but the boring unoriginal usage I see in poetry.

> > > The words I find funny are the cliches that modern poets gravitate toward that send most readers running for a dictionary: the "gibbous" moon, for example.

>
> > "gibbous moon" is hilarious in a poem. There are a bunch of other words that get stuck into beginner poems that wouldn't appear anywhere else as well. Often funny words for colors.

> Here's a truly hilarious web page:

> http://hellopoetry.com/words/46932/gibbous/poems/
>

> > > >Mistake: No sonic awareness
> > > >Cure: Read Dylan Thomas.
>> > >Advice: Read every single fucking draft of your own work out loud >numerous times. Preferably in front of a mirror so you can see how your >mouth is moving as you over-enunciate.
>
> >
>
> > > >Contributed by gg
>
> >
> > > A bit excessive, but a good idea. A poem should be spoken (or, at least, sound good when "spoken" in one's head). It should flow easily when read aloud.

> > > Reading Dylan Thomas is just silliness. Find your own voice, rhythm, meters, etc.

> > Reading other poets is a great way to learn your own voice - especially through sonic awareness. Dylan Thomas it probably a great choice. I would add Seamus Heaney.

> It's a great way to learn Seamus Heaney's voice.

> Our voice is established in our formative years, and has become unmistakeably ours by the age of 10 or so. Our poetry will always reflect this this voice.

Then why are you so worried that reading good poets will change your voice?
Reading good poets is a great way to learn to write. You don't need to emulate
them to understand what works and doesn't.

> Mr. Heaney wrote some effective short prose.

I am unfamiliar with his prose, I will have to look some up later.

> > > >Mistake: Inability to separate the narrator's voice from the voice of >the writer.
> > > >Cure: Do exercises in which you write pieces from the point of view of >an inanimate object, a person of the opposite sex, etc.
> > > >Advice: Realize that you should be trying to convey experience with your >writing and that no one but your mother and your therapist gives a >flying fuck about your emotions, your ~feelings~, or your sense of >darkness enveloping your sacred soul.
>
> > > >Contributed by gg

> > > The narrator can be the poet ... or not. It all depends upon the poem.
> > If a poet restricts herself to the facts of personal narration she will fail
> > more often that she succeeds.
>
> >
> >gg did not say this. What he said was don't write in the first person, and don't write about your personal feelings.
>
>
>
> His point was that one should convey the "experience" (apparently the subject of the poem), not your reactions to or feelings about it. Why writing about it from the p.o.v. of a "person of the opposite sex" or of "an inanimate object" would be seen as preferable is anybody's guess.

That is not what he said. The mistake was the inability to separate the
narrator's voice from the author's. His suggestion was to do "exercises" in from different POV's to learn this important technique. Great advice, Gary!

>
> > > >I suppose the specific element I notice most often ignored is syntax. If >the words are good, people read them one at a time, so the order they're >in always has an effect. One example:
> > > >I feel like I stepped on a nail with my brain
> > > >as opposed to:
> > > >I feel like my brain stepped on a nail
> >
> > > >In the first, the sensory data is delivered before the reader is aware >that it applies to something impossible; in the second, the fact that >the statement is figurative is made clear first, and the imagined >sensation is mediated. There are better examples; it works better when >you're reading slower. The length of the statement is also important, >because it effects surprise vs suspense. This stuff comes in handy if >you're telling a story.
> > > Good advice ... if one plans on writing a newspaper article.
>
> > > Both ways (of getting your brain nailed) are valid in poetry. It depends on what the poet is trying to express. The switch from sensory data to figurative speech in example one can provide an intended shock or jarring element to the line.
>
> > Actually, the writer didn't say either one was valid or invalid, it is more a suggestion to be aware of how syntax affects the delivery of a message. Poetry can certainly be improved just by studying the effects of different syntactical formations.
>
> I think it strongly implied that the writer prefers the second.

having a preference for one or another has nothing to do with the advice. You
find the strangest parts of these to criticize.

> To say that syntax affects writing is yet another statement of the all-too-obvious.

I don't think enough people study the different effects that can be created with
different syntax. The focus seems to be the rush to get it on paper. While it
may seem obvious to say that different syntaxes can create different effects,
this is another common mistake we come across.

> > > >Avoid the "Mindless Extremes of Love" school of poetry
> > > >Two Examples:
> > > >Endless Love: My love is higher than a hawk,/ And deeper than a well. - >From the movie "Calamity Jane", starring Doris Day.
> > > >The flip side of Endless Love: You done me wrong. Since I am made of >gold, you, obviously, are the Anti-Christ. Poor me. I still love you.
> > > >Contributed by cythera
> >
> > > Extremes are a valid poetic tool. When used properly, they can contribute to a poem's success.
>
> > "Hyperbole" can be valuable if used sparingly but the "my love is deeper than the ocean"-type statements are laughable.
>
> >
>
>
>
> "How Deep Is the Ocean" is a wonderful song by Irving Berlin. It spoke to a lot of people, and made him a truckload of money in the process. A metaphor doesn't become "laughable" simply because it has become commonplace. I don't think one can fall in love without experiencing it in hyperbolic terms. A love that isn't perceived as "endless" is merely a dalliance.

perhaps useful for falling in love or experiencing love but laughably bad in poetry. Commonplace in poetry is bad. And boring as well.

> Yes, I know that poets should be on the cutting edge, creating new ways of communicating experiences, and so on; but sometimes an old cliche expresses it 10 times better.

Then leave it as it was said. No point in saying it again. You need to find
your /own/ voice, not rehash the voices of so many others.

>
>
>
> However, cythera (note the cliched lower case "c") didn't attack hyperbole, but extremes. She cited a classic Paul Francis Webster lyric that transposed the heights reached by the soaring hawk with the depths of a well in order to have Wild Bill Hickock's love extend beyond the opposing boundaries of each.
>
>
>
> Granted, on their own, the two descriptions are throwaway cliches -- but when taken together they create a third, unspoken, measurement so vast that no fitting metaphor exists.
>

Why not just add a third and a fourth throwaway cliche to make it super duper powerful? This is the type of writing beginners do. Good song lyrics don't always make good poetry.

>
> > > >Failure to acknowledge there is a world beyond the narrative
> > > >Not being open to other forms of poetry besides the metric centered, >left justified, line and strophe broken, generally narrative model. I >think I see this mistake frequently here, in both crits and the >recommended reading. Of course I love much of the above poetry, both >here and in the world of books - but it's not all there is.
> > > >Recommendations? In addition to the usual reading list of Thomas, >Heaney, Yeats, Frost etc etc how about -
>
> >
>
> > > >Some journals. "Shiny" is a good one. "New American Writing" is another. >"American Poetry Review" too. Jacket Magazine online and free, I think >at www.jacketmagazine.com is a current favorite of mine.
>
> >
>
> > > >Some essays on poetics. "New American Poetics" I think is out of print, >but the essays from it have been reprinted all over the place, including >in "The Poet's Work" and the Norton postmodern anthology.
>
> >
>
> > > >Some anthologies. The above Norton. "Poems for the Millenium" volumes 1 >and 2 are very hefty and very very good. ed by Jerome Rothenberg.
>
> >
>
> > > >And some poets. I have a slew of favorites, but some of the best are >Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, Robert Duncan, Philip Whalen, Anselm >Hollo, Anne Waldman, Mei-mei Bersenbrugge, John Ashbery, Ginsberg, Frank >O'Hara, Amiri Baraka, James Schuyler, Gary Snyder, etc ... Wooops forgot >Denise Levertov. and Jack Spicer.
>
> >
>
> > > >Nobody has to like any of this, but acknowledging that it exists and is >part of the art is important I think. I guess part of what I am saying >is that it is good to read poetry that you don't like too.
>
> >
>
> > > >Contributed by john sullivan
>
>
>
> > > A resounding yawn.
>
>
>
> > Not surprisingly, this is advice that would apply mostly to you which is most
>
> > likely why you avoid it.
> It isn't so much advice, as a run-down on Mr. Sullivan's cumulative studies in poetry.
> Should I run off a partial list of the anthologies and journals I've read? Or name a dozen of my favorite poets? Should we turn this into a poetic pecker measurement contest?

> Basically, John's point (spoken and dropped along with his pants) was that one should be open to other forms of poetry. Sorry, Horatio, but it's not that easy. No matter how many chances I've given cottage cheese, it always ends up making me want to barf.

I assume you have decided then that cottage cheese is not actual food and should
be kicked out of the four food groups? Perhaps anyone who does something
different or outside of your very narrow scope of poetry shouldn't be allowed to write at all.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:19:48 AM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:42:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:26:52 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Did I?

> yes

Rhetorical question.

> > Julie assumes that a "novice" poet will gravitate to a "powerful" subject in hope that it will compensate for his lack of poetic skill. She recommends that such would-be poets stick to disposable fluff. I find this attitude both presumptuous and condescending.
>

> actually, Julie has witnessed many poets attempting to use subject matter to
compensate for a lack of skill. She suggests avoiding sensitive subjects until
the poet has the skill to not trivialize them.
>

Poets? I think not.

Julie has witnessed many students attempting to write poetry for a class.

Not the same thing.

> > I don't share Julie's assumption. A poet will write about whatever subject works for him. No poet is going to write an intentionally disposable piece of fluff. Why would he bother?
>

> Poets will write what they write. They shouldn't assume the power of the
subject will compensate for a lack of skill. Best to stick to the familiar
> while they gain the skills. Good advice, Julie!

Yeah. Good advice for high school kids who never gave a hang about poetry in the first place.

> > > Interesting point that has nothing to do with the common mistake listed which was:
>
> > > "Attempting to write poetry without reading any"

> > Which is even more nonsensical than Julie's advice.
> > The only people who write poetry w/o reading any are high school students who have to write one for an English class.
>

> not true. Many beginning poets become enamored with the idea of writing poetry and never actually read any amount of poetry already written. You aren't familiar with this so I guess that explains why don't understand the advice.
>

No, I'm not familiar with this.

IMHO, the only beginning poets are age 12 and under. Poetry is an innate drive. If you're a poet, you've loved reading and writing poetry since childhood.

You hone your skills over the years by writing about whatever you feel a *need* to.

> > You can be sure that anyone who likes poetry enough to want to write some of their own, likes it *because* he reads it every chance he gets.
>
> completely untrue.

You're not painting a very encouraging picture of the "pigpen." When I was 17, I carried a small Laurel edition of Poe's poetry in my pocket until I'd memorized virtually the entire book. I've got a closet full of poetry books that I've read and cherish. And judging by the poets I've worked with over the years, I'm not along in this.

> > poetry? God forbid someone reads something for research in your strange, narrow world.
>

> > I am the Pendragon!
> > (I refer you to my theme song, "O Fortuna", reprinted below.)
>
> > Reading poetry that you don't enjoy because you will supposedly learn from it (even if the only thing you learn is how *not* to write a poem) turns a passion into an exercise in tedium.
>

> You didn't say "reading poetry you don't enjoy". Perhaps you don't even
> understand your own advice? You said the /only/ reason . . .

I said the *only* reason to read it was for enjoyment. Any other reason would therefore *not* be an enjoyable one.

> > Forget about poetry. This is basic writing for pre-schoolers.

> You would be surprised how often these mistakes come up in poetry written by
> beginners. You can find several of these mistakes in poetry posted right on
> this board quite recently.

These mistakes are common to prose writing as well as poetry. If you haven't mastered prose, you're not going to magically write a great poem.

And since poetry is an art form, a basic understanding of the language one writes in is a prerequisite.

> > I refer you to Rik's opening paragraph:
> > "Cause: Often used to fit a couple of extra syllables into a line,"
> > I'm assuming that the motive for adding these "extra" syllables is to pad the line to fit the meter. If so, the extra syllables are required.
>
> > Of course Rik *could* be referring to chopped up prose, in which case none of what he says has anything to do with poetry.
>

> You are assuming an awful lot during your reading, I noticed. Rik didn't say
meter padding, someone else offers that later. Rik was referring to the mistake of using extra adjectives. Many writers attempt to "describe" in poetry which they think means using lots of adjectives and flowery language. Strong poems are written on the bedrock of strong nouns.
>

Strong writing of any sort.

Again, if you haven't first mastered the language, your poetry is going to be flawed.

Advice to *poets* should be poetry specific -- not English 101.

> > Steve is saying that simply chopping up a piece of prose won't turn it into a poem. And to that extent, I agree with him.
>
> > However, his advice is simply to chop it up with discretion.
>
> Actually, Steve's advice has nothing to do with prose. Steve is discussing the importance of choosing line breaks. Did you even read any of these?
>

Steve must be describing chopped prose, because line breaks in poetry are determined by the form.

Did I ever read a line break???

> > I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't understand. Whether you fail to comprehend the meaning of my comments (perish the thought!), or the gibberish I'm commenting on is the question.
>
> > To avoid any further confusion:
>
> > Jim: Advice: Forget about describing your own responses. Assemble bits of >language,
>
> > MMP: Jim says "Don't try to describe your own responses (feelings), but grab assorted snatches of descriptive language and run them altogether in a fragmentary list. The reader is then free to apply his own responses to your verse."
>
> > Jim elaborates: ...concrete imagery from the occasion of the experience(s), sounds and words and phrases and rhythms which seem to resonate with the experience, whether actually part of the experience or not.
>

> Poetry is not about describing experiences. There really isn't any room in
> poetry for description, that is better left to prose. If the poem is written
> properly with strong imagery, the reader will understand the emotion without the writer having to "tell" the reader what the emotion was. Jim is dead on here.
>
> Way to go Jim!

Tell that to Seamus Heaney, Jim:

"I always felt like crying. It wasn't fair
That all the lovely canfuls smelt of rot.
Each year I hoped they'd keep, knew they would not."

> > I am agreeing with the solution. My objection is to gnarl's implication that "rhyme padding" is a mistake to be avoided. Rhyme padding is necessary if the poem is to rhyme (and a poem without a rhyme is like an oil painting without the paint).
>

> Rhyme padding is /not/ necessary. A good writer takes the time and consideration necessary to produce the correct words without padding.
>

Which is a form of rhyme padding. If one writes a line that comes out two feet short, he reworks it until meets the requirements of the form.

Mastering the proper techniques for padding disguises it: it doesn't make it go away.

> > > > >Grammar and Spelling


> > > > >Totem Words

> > Not at all. I strongly believe that poetry should be universal. It should speak to everyone -- not just a handful of English professors.
>

> common is boring to "all". If it has already been said, there really isn't much point in saying it again. Poetry is about being fresh and original with language.
>

Methinks thee bores too easily, Horatio.

Poetry is *not* about being "fresh and original" -- that's creative writing fodder.

Poetry is about capturing the Eternal ... perfectly.

> > Totem words have become totems because they are universal to the human experience. They should be sought out by the poet, not avoided.
>

> ridiculous. These words have lost their power for the most part. All common
> words are "universal" to the human experience. I would say it isn't the words themselves but the boring unoriginal usage I see in poetry.
>

Then you agree with me. Use the so-called "totem words" -- just use them well.

> > Our voice is established in our formative years, and has become unmistakeably ours by the age of 10 or so. Our poetry will always reflect this this voice.
>

> Then why are you so worried that reading good poets will change your voice?
> Reading good poets is a great way to learn to write. You don't need to emulate them to understand what works and doesn't.
>

If one reads poetry, not for the sheer joy it brings, but to *learn,* then this learning would entail a desire to have one's voice sound more like the one being studied.

Nor do you need to read to understand what works and what doesn't. You recognize this immediately. A child can tell you if a poem doesn't work.

> > Mr. Heaney wrote some effective short prose.

> I am unfamiliar with his prose, I will have to look some up later.

You're quite familiar with it. You simply choose to call it poetry.

> > >gg did not say this. What he said was don't write in the first person, and don't write about your personal feelings.
>
> > His point was that one should convey the "experience" (apparently the subject of the poem), not your reactions to or feelings about it. Why writing about it from the p.o.v. of a "person of the opposite sex" or of "an inanimate object" would be seen as preferable is anybody's guess.
>

> That is not what he said. The mistake was the inability to separate the
> narrator's voice from the author's. His suggestion was to do "exercises" in from different POV's to learn this important technique. Great advice, Gary!
>

gg cannot know whether a poet uses the first person narrative to express his own feelings or those of a fictive character. The only "mistake" that he points out in regard to this is regarding the expression of one's feelings.

And, again, his "solution" of writing from other perspectives is a grade school creative writing exercise: Today I want you to write about your English book. How does it feel? What does it want to tell you? ...

> > > Actually, the writer didn't say either one was valid or invalid, it is more a suggestion to be aware of how syntax affects the delivery of a message. Poetry can certainly be improved just by studying the effects of different syntactical formations.
>

> > I think it strongly implied that the writer prefers the second.

> having a preference for one or another has nothing to do with the advice. You find the strangest parts of these to criticize.
>

What advice? Understand syntax? Seriously???

And in this case, preference has everything to do with it.
Since a "common mistake" was supposedly being addressed, we can assume that at least one of the examples must be deemed faulty. And the obvious preference for the second example implies that the fault with the first.

> > To say that syntax affects writing is yet another statement of the all-too-obvious.
>

> I don't think enough people study the different effects that can be created with different syntax. The focus seems to be the rush to get it on paper. While it may seem obvious to say that different syntaxes can create different effects, this is another common mistake we come across.
>

This is a common mistake among those same just-doing-it-to-complete-the-assignment high schoolers I'd mentioned earlier.

Anyone who has mastered the language well enough to *appreciate* a poem, is going to have an understanding of syntax.

> > > "Hyperbole" can be valuable if used sparingly but the "my love is deeper than the ocean"-type statements are laughable.
>

> > "How Deep Is the Ocean" is a wonderful song by Irving Berlin. It spoke to a lot of people, and made him a truckload of money in the process. A metaphor doesn't become "laughable" simply because it has become commonplace. I don't think one can fall in love without experiencing it in hyperbolic terms. A love that isn't perceived as "endless" is merely a dalliance.
>

> perhaps useful for falling in love or experiencing love but laughably bad in poetry. Commonplace in poetry is bad. And boring as well.
>

If that's the way one experiences love, then love is best expressed in those terms.

I'd be more inclined to laugh at an expression of love that lacks hyperbole.

> > Yes, I know that poets should be on the cutting edge, creating new ways of communicating experiences, and so on; but sometimes an old cliche expresses it 10 times better.
>

> Then leave it as it was said. No point in saying it again. You need to find
> your /own/ voice, not rehash the voices of so many others.

An old cliche is an expression -- not a poem. A poem can and should incorporate cliche's as needed. This doesn't mean that poetry should only use cliches. Acknowledge the cliche then add a new metaphor or two.

> > Granted, on their own, the two descriptions are throwaway cliches -- but when taken together they create a third, unspoken, measurement so vast that no fitting metaphor exists.
>

> Why not just add a third and a fourth throwaway cliche to make it super duper powerful? This is the type of writing beginners do. Good song lyrics don't always make good poetry.
>

You're missing the point. The juxtaposition of the first and second cliche create a new, original, and *unstated* third concept. The third concept is the important one.

> > > Not surprisingly, this is advice that would apply mostly to you which is most likely why you avoid it.
>
> > It isn't so much advice, as a run-down on Mr. Sullivan's cumulative studies in poetry.
>
> > Should I run off a partial list of the anthologies and journals I've read? Or name a dozen of my favorite poets? Should we turn this into a poetic pecker measurement contest?
>
> > Basically, John's point (spoken and dropped along with his pants) was that one should be open to other forms of poetry. Sorry, Horatio, but it's not that easy. No matter how many chances I've given cottage cheese, it always ends up making me want to barf.
>

> I assume you have decided then that cottage cheese is not actual food and should be kicked out of the four food groups?
>

Any cottage cheese I'm served will end up in the garbage.

> Perhaps anyone who does something different or outside of your very narrow scope of poetry shouldn't be allowed to write at all.
>

I'm not unreasonable. I'll allow them to write ... just not to call it poetry.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 12:05:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:19:48 AM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:42:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:26:52 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:

> You're not painting a very encouraging picture of the "pigpen." When I was 17, I carried a small Laurel edition of Poe's poetry in my pocket until I'd memorized virtually the entire book. I've got a closet full of poetry books that I've read and cherish. And judging by the poets I've worked with over the years, I'm not along in this.
>

I am not painting any picture of the pigpen. Participants who are interested in
a different forum that I also take part in (though only for a short while now)
can check it out for themselves at www.pigpenpoetry.com. This has nothing to do
with anything that goes on over here.

> > > poetry? God forbid someone reads something for research in your strange, narrow world.
>

>

> > > Reading poetry that you don't enjoy because you will supposedly learn from it (even if the only thing you learn is how *not* to write a poem) turns a passion into an exercise in tedium.

> > You didn't say "reading poetry you don't enjoy". Perhaps you don't even
> > understand your own advice? You said the /only/ reason . . .
>
>
>
> I said the *only* reason to read it was for enjoyment. Any other reason would therefore *not* be an enjoyable one.

Not true either. I read a lot for research. I enjoy it. I don't read for the
enjoyment though. I also read for other reasons. In fact, I read for whatever
reasons I choose or for no reasons and nothing you can say will change that.

> Advice to *poets* should be poetry specific -- not English 101.

I think you are reading the "common mistakes I've seen in poetry" section for

> > Actually, Steve's advice has nothing to do with prose. Steve is discussing the importance of choosing line breaks. Did you even read any of these?
>
> >
>
> Steve must be describing chopped prose, because line breaks in poetry are determined by the form.
>

Also not true. The form may choose /where/ the line breaks but it does not choose the word. Also, some rhyming, metered poems are not in fixed form either as I am sure you know.

> > Rhyme padding is /not/ necessary. A good writer takes the time and consideration necessary to produce the correct words without padding.
>

>
> Which is a form of rhyme padding. If one writes a line that comes out two feet short, he reworks it until meets the requirements of the form.
>

That isn't padding at all, it is revising. If the poet finds herself padding
she should probably put it away for a while until she can produce natural lines

> > common is boring to "all". If it has already been said, there really isn't much point in saying it again. Poetry is about being fresh and original with language.
>
> >
>
> Methinks thee bores too easily, Horatio.
> Poetry is *not* about being "fresh and original" -- that's creative writing fodder.
>
> Poetry is about capturing the Eternal ... perfectly.

ugh. I whole-heartedly disagree. If poetry is just re-hashed words it isn't
worth the time to read it much less write it. There is already plenty of great
poetry in the world, the only reason to produce more is if you are offering
something fresh or original.

>
> > > Totem words have become totems because they are universal to the human experience. They should be sought out by the poet, not avoided.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > ridiculous. These words have lost their power for the most part. All common
>
> > words are "universal" to the human experience. I would say it isn't the words themselves but the boring unoriginal usage I see in poetry.
>
> Then you agree with me. Use the so-called "totem words" -- just use them well.

I agree that the advice is good. If you find yourself reaching for the same
words that thousands of other poems use to transmit the same experience, don't
bother.

>
>
>
> > > Our voice is established in our formative years, and has become unmistakeably ours by the age of 10 or so. Our poetry will always reflect this this voice.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Then why are you so worried that reading good poets will change your voice?
>
> > Reading good poets is a great way to learn to write. You don't need to emulate them to understand what works and doesn't.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If one reads poetry, not for the sheer joy it brings, but to *learn,* then this learning would entail a desire to have one's voice sound more like the one being studied.

Also not true. In learning everything it is essential to study what has come
before, not just poetry. In poetry it is perhaps more important.

>
>
>
> Nor do you need to read to understand what works and what doesn't. You recognize this immediately. A child can tell you if a poem doesn't work.

I don't think so. May writers cannot tell what works or what doesn't in poetry.

>
> > > Mr. Heaney wrote some effective short prose.
> > I am unfamiliar with his prose, I will have to look some up later.

> You're quite familiar with it. You simply choose to call it poetry.

I don't choose to call it anything. I read his poetry.

> > That is not what he said. The mistake was the inability to separate the
> > narrator's voice from the author's. His suggestion was to do "exercises" in from different POV's to learn this important technique. Great advice, Gary!
>
> >
> gg cannot know whether a poet uses the first person narrative to express his own feelings or those of a fictive character. The only "mistake" that he points out in regard to this is regarding the expression of one's feelings.

You cannot know what he knows or doesn't. He is recalling the mistake he encounters a lot and some good advice for dealing with it.

>
>
>
> And, again, his "solution" of writing from other perspectives is a grade school creative writing exercise: Today I want you to write about your English book. How does it feel? What does it want to tell you? ...

There is a reason these exercise exist. They work.

> > > > Actually, the writer didn't say either one was valid or invalid, it is more a suggestion to be aware of how syntax affects the delivery of a message. Poetry can certainly be improved just by studying the effects of different syntactical formations.
>
> >
> > > I think it strongly implied that the writer prefers the second.
>
> > having a preference for one or another has nothing to do with the advice. You find the strangest parts of these to criticize.
>
> >

> What advice? Understand syntax? Seriously???

Understand the different effects syntax can have.

> And in this case, preference has everything to do with it.
>
> Since a "common mistake" was supposedly being addressed, we can assume that at least one of the examples must be deemed faulty. And the obvious preference for the second example implies that the fault with the first.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > To say that syntax affects writing is yet another statement of the all-too-obvious.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I don't think enough people study the different effects that can be created with different syntax. The focus seems to be the rush to get it on paper. While it may seem obvious to say that different syntaxes can create different effects, this is another common mistake we come across.
>
> >
>
>
>
> This is a common mistake among those same just-doing-it-to-complete-the-assignment high schoolers I'd mentioned earlier.
>
>
>
> Anyone who has mastered the language well enough to *appreciate* a poem, is going to have an understanding of syntax.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > "Hyperbole" can be valuable if used sparingly but the "my love is deeper than the ocean"-type statements are laughable.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > "How Deep Is the Ocean" is a wonderful song by Irving Berlin. It spoke to a lot of people, and made him a truckload of money in the process. A metaphor doesn't become "laughable" simply because it has become commonplace. I don't think one can fall in love without experiencing it in hyperbolic terms. A love that isn't perceived as "endless" is merely a dalliance.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > perhaps useful for falling in love or experiencing love but laughably bad in poetry. Commonplace in poetry is bad. And boring as well.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If that's the way one experiences love, then love is best expressed in those terms.
>
>
>
> I'd be more inclined to laugh at an expression of love that lacks hyperbole.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Yes, I know that poets should be on the cutting edge, creating new ways of communicating experiences, and so on; but sometimes an old cliche expresses it 10 times better.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > Then leave it as it was said. No point in saying it again. You need to find
>
> > your /own/ voice, not rehash the voices of so many others.
>
>
>
> An old cliche is an expression -- not a poem. A poem can and should incorporate cliche's as needed. This doesn't mean that poetry should only use cliches. Acknowledge the cliche then add a new metaphor or two.

Cliches are best avoided in poetry.

>
> > > Granted, on their own, the two descriptions are throwaway cliches -- but when taken together they create a third, unspoken, measurement so vast that no fitting metaphor exists.

> > Why not just add a third and a fourth throwaway cliche to make it super duper powerful? This is the type of writing beginners do. Good song lyrics don't always make good poetry.

>
> You're missing the point. The juxtaposition of the first and second cliche create a new, original, and *unstated* third concept. The third concept is the important one.

What is this important concept you are getting? I just see another boring hyperbolic expression of love. It has been done to death.

> > > > Not surprisingly, this is advice that would apply mostly to you which is most likely why you avoid it.
>
> >
>
> > > It isn't so much advice, as a run-down on Mr. Sullivan's cumulative studies in poetry.
>
> >
>
> > > Should I run off a partial list of the anthologies and journals I've read? Or name a dozen of my favorite poets? Should we turn this into a poetic pecker measurement contest?
>
> >
>
> > > Basically, John's point (spoken and dropped along with his pants) was that one should be open to other forms of poetry. Sorry, Horatio, but it's not that easy. No matter how many chances I've given cottage cheese, it always ends up making me want to barf.
>
> >
>
>
>
> > I assume you have decided then that cottage cheese is not actual food and should be kicked out of the four food groups?

> Any cottage cheese I'm served will end up in the garbage.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps anyone who does something different or outside of your very narrow scope of poetry shouldn't be allowed to write at all.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I'm not unreasonable. I'll allow them to write ... just not to call it poetry.

No one really cares if you call it poetry or not. I would recommend you do some of those exercise you seem to hate so much.

I would like to touch back on the spelling/grammar issue from before:

I don't think spelling/grammar mistakes are fundamental flaws in poetry at all.
They are fixed with a simple edit and they represent a binary condition -
either they are wrong or not, they won't ruin a good poem as once they are fixed
the poem is still food so I would like to agree that should be removed.


I have actually run into spelling errors and grammar errors that gave me ideas
for poems.

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 1:47:36 PM UTC-4, Hieronymous707 wrote:
> the poem is still food
>

> Mmm. Good!

Poetry is one of the four heart and soul food groups.

[Will Dockery]

Hieronymous707 wrote:
> You're obese. That's not good for your heart and soul.

You haven't seen me in person in years (unless you've been stalking me here) so how would you know this?

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 1:41:59 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 4, 2014 12:05:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Friday, July 4, 2014 10:19:48 AM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:42:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:26:52 PM UTC-4, qwerty...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You're not painting a very encouraging picture of the "pigpen." When I was 17, I carried a small Laurel edition of Poe's poetry in my pocket until I'd memorized virtually the entire book. I've got a closet full of poetry books that I've read and cherish. And judging by the poets I've worked with over the years, I'm not along in this.
>
> I am not painting any picture of the pigpen. Participants who are interested in a different forum that I also take part in (though only for a short while now) can check it out for themselves at www.pigpenpoetry.com. This has nothing to do with anything that goes on over here.
>

And here I thought you were speaking from experience.

> > I said the *only* reason to read it was for enjoyment. Any other reason would therefore *not* be an enjoyable one.
>

> Not true either. I read a lot for research. I enjoy it. I don't read for the enjoyment though. I also read for other reasons. In fact, I read for whatever reasons I choose or for no reasons and nothing you can say will change that.
>

I'm surprised that research doesn't bore you.

You can read whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. But if you don't enjoy reading *poetry* then you're not a true poet.

> > Advice to *poets* should be poetry specific -- not English 101.

> I think you are reading the "common mistakes I've seen in poetry" section for

Horatio interrupted?

> > Steve must be describing chopped prose, because line breaks in poetry are determined by the form.
>
> Also not true. The form may choose /where/ the line breaks but it does not choose the word. Also, some rhyming, metered poems are not in fixed form either as I am sure you know.
>

Of course one makes allowances when needed. But in general the form dictates their placement.

> > Which is a form of rhyme padding. If one writes a line that comes out two feet short, he reworks it until meets the requirements of the form.
>

> That isn't padding at all, it is revising. If the poet finds herself padding
she should probably put it away for a while until she can produce natural lines
>

It's not revising, because it hasn't yet been written in a finalized form. If I jot down a line that comes up short, I have to figure out how to say approximately the same thing in the requisite amount of feet.

Our point of contention here appears to be that you are seeing "rhyme padding" as wholly negative (which, indeed, it often is), while I'm seeing it as a neutral term about sentence structure.

You're probably right as to the author's intent, but if so, it wasn't adequately expressed.

> > Poetry is *not* about being "fresh and original" -- that's creative writing fodder.
>
> > Poetry is about capturing the Eternal ... perfectly.

> ugh. I whole-heartedly disagree. If poetry is just re-hashed words it isn't
> worth the time to read it much less write it. There is already plenty of great poetry in the world, the only reason to produce more is if you are offering something fresh or original.
>

There are an infinitude of experiences and feelings in the world, and feel of these have been captured in their perfect form.

> > Then you agree with me. Use the so-called "totem words" -- just use them well.
>

> I agree that the advice is good. If you find yourself reaching for the same
> words that thousands of other poems use to transmit the same experience, don't bother.
>

Like I said, open with the "totem word" and expand on it. Don't just dance around it with a bunch of vague abstractions.

> > If one reads poetry, not for the sheer joy it brings, but to *learn,* then this learning would entail a desire to have one's voice sound more like the one being studied.
>

> Also not true. In learning everything it is essential to study what has come
> before, not just poetry. In poetry it is perhaps more important.

Perhaps it's the word "study" that I'm objecting to. It's certainly useful to be familiar with the great poetry of the past (especially where allusions are concerned), but leave the study of it to the Academicians. "Those who can, do ...."

> > Nor do you need to read to understand what works and what doesn't. You recognize this immediately. A child can tell you if a poem doesn't work.
>

> I don't think so. May writers cannot tell what works or what doesn't in poetry.
>

How can they fail to know if a poem touches them? Either it moves them, or it doesn't.

> > You're quite familiar with it. You simply choose to call it poetry.

> I don't choose to call it anything. I read his poetry.

Has he written any?

> > gg cannot know whether a poet uses the first person narrative to express his own feelings or those of a fictive character. The only "mistake" that he points out in regard to this is regarding the expression of one's feelings.
>
> You cannot know what he knows or doesn't. He is recalling the mistake he encounters a lot and some good advice for dealing with it.
>

Since no one can know what another is thinking, why should you think gg an exception?

> > And, again, his "solution" of writing from other perspectives is a grade school creative writing exercise: Today I want you to write about your English book. How does it feel? What does it want to tell you? ...
>
> There is a reason these exercise exist. They work.

For third graders.

> > What advice? Understand syntax? Seriously???
>
> Understand the different effects syntax can have.

Which is the same as understanding syntax. If you don't understand its potential effects, then you've failed to understand it.

> > An old cliche is an expression -- not a poem. A poem can and should incorporate cliche's as needed. This doesn't mean that poetry should only use cliches. Acknowledge the cliche then add a new metaphor or two.
>

> Cliches are best avoided in poetry.
>

Then avoid writing love poems as well.

> > You're missing the point. The juxtaposition of the first and second cliche create a new, original, and *unstated* third concept. The third concept is the important one.
>

> What is this important concept you are getting? I just see another boring hyperbolic expression of love. It has been done to death.
>

That it's not only higher than the highest reaches of the imagination (cliche #1), or deeper than its deepest depths (cliche #2). It reaches beyond the limits of comprehension *in both directions at the same time* (unstated concept that exists only in the juxtaposition of the two cliches).

> > I'm not unreasonable. I'll allow them to write ... just not to call it poetry.
>
> No one really cares if you call it poetry or not. I would recommend you do some of those exercise you seem to hate so much.
>

Thanks, but no thanks.

> I would like to touch back on the spelling/grammar issue from before:

> I don't think spelling/grammar mistakes are fundamental flaws in poetry at all.
They are fixed with a simple edit and they represent a binary condition -
either they are wrong or not, they won't ruin a good poem as once they are fixed the poem is still food so I would like to agree that should be removed.
>

That's one we agree on.

> I have actually run into spelling errors and grammar errors that gave me ideas for poems.
>

I don't recall having had that experience ... but I'm open to it.

[qwerty...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 2:19:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:

>
> I don't recall having had that experience ... but I'm open to it.

Recently I saw someone posting about an e-pic they had read and voila:

http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/showthread.php?tid=14641

[gen...@hotmail.com]

On 4-Jul-2014,creepy mike wrote:

> Perhaps it's the word "study" that I'm objecting to.

Since you've never done any, that's entirely understandable.

I'll bet you object to the word "work" as well.

Ah, but I forgot, you're a ~true poet~

[Michael Pendragon]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 2:37:48 PM UTC-4, gen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 4-Jul-2014,creepy mike wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's the word "study" that I'm objecting to.

> Since you've never done any, that's entirely understandable.

I study philosophy, psychology, history, and the like. I read poetry because I enjoy reading poetry.

> I'll bet you object to the word "work" as well.

Emphatically. Work is a curse. But since I have a family to support, I have to make sacrifices.

Have you got a job, Jen?

> Ah, but I forgot, you're a ~true poet~

Yes. And as far as I can see, you're not even a pretend one.

[Will Dockery]

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> Gen wrote:
>
> > Ah, but I forgot, you're a ~true poet~
>
> Yes. And as far as I can see, you're not even a pretend one.

We barely even know that Gen is a real person!

[Will Dockery]

"Hieronymous707" <hierony...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:57d68c2c-a733-4674...@googlegroups.com...
> You really don't appreciate Jack shit.
> You have no idea what the *fuck* I'm
> talking about when I mention your Hobby
> Lobby, do you. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

More on point... I don't *care* what you're talking about.

My choice, right?