<WR> Why doesn't poetry pay?
Faith L. McCammon
wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
Dickinson.
What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people like
to read poetry nowadays?
I've had more poetry published than you can shake a stick at, but I've never
made one cent from any of it. Many times I've had to buy a copy of the
publication my work was in so that I could see it in print.
I don't submit poetry any more for various reasons. I'll be honest, yes, no
payment is one of them.
Who is your favorite poet?
Why do you think that poetry is a penniless market?
Faith
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Suite/8596
Prince Richard Kaminski
"Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money?
Because it's very much a minority interest. Add to that the fact that a book,
for example, would have to contain several dozens of poems at least, then that
makes each individual poem not worth very much, financially. Think about length.
A novel pays more than a short story, of course it does, you'd expect it to. So
how about a five line poem?
> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
> demand for poetry less than it is for fiction?
Yes. Go into your local bookstore. How many novels do you see? How many
non-fiction books do you see? And how many books of contemporary poetry do you
see? That should answer your question for you. There's no demand for it, at
least not commercially.
Terje Johansen
>Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was a
>wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
>Dickinson.
>
>to read poetry nowadays?
>
>I've had more poetry published than you can shake a stick at, but I've
never
>made one cent from any of it. Many times I've had to buy a copy of the
>publication my work was in so that I could see it in print.
>
>I don't submit poetry any more for various reasons. I'll be honest, yes,
no
>payment is one of them.
>
>Who is your favorite poet?
>
>Why do you think that poetry is a penniless market?
>
>Faith
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Suite/8596
>
>
>
I enjoy poetry. I read it, and I write it. I use it to find an outlet for
feelings when my heart is in a rage; to set words to feelings. But I'll
probably never earn anything on it.
Frost, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Reine, Shakespeare, Coleridge - I treasure them.
How much are you willing to pay to read a single poem? How much would you
pay to see just one painting? Unless there's at least half an hour of
entertainment in it or the author is Very Famous, you are unlikely to find
many customers for it.
I was in rec.arts.poetry for a short bit; posted some, commented some. The
1000+ daily postings, mostly original ones, made it hell to follow, and you
cannot quickread poetry - it is like eating an endless array of weird food;
sooner or later you'll find yourself burping.
--
-Terje Johansen
---
comp.publish.electronic.misc - where e-publishers and e-writers meet.
Old Bill
Terje Johansen <terje.j...@tandbergtv.no> wrote in message
news:851odh$6hd$1...@oslo-nntp.eunet.no...
> Faith L. McCammon wrote in message <850iod$t66$1...@athena.netset.com>...
> >Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was a
> >wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
> >Dickinson.
> >
> >What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
> >demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people
like
> >to read poetry nowadays?
>
I'm sorry to say it, but I just have no interest in other people's (usually)
badly-expressed angst. I have enough of my own to be going on with.
Azed
considered to be "woman's work" doesn't pay. This has
nothing to do with whether or not the poet in question is a
woman or not. It's that most publishers are as exploitative
as your most hardened profit pig. Governments and corporate
leaders know that if they appeal to a sense of duty,
vocation, or even mission, that the "morally responsible"
will accept less renumeration, or none at all. Thus there
are those, and there will always be, that seek to make a
profit from anyone with a spiritual sense of vocation.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Terje Johansen
Are you saying that there are publishers who earn more than the most
marginal profits on publishing new poetry today?
Usenet Poster Boy
"Faith L. McCammon" <mc...@belmontcty.net> writes:
> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was
> a wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
> Dickinson.
>
It depends on the language that the poetry is written in, of
course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
languages or all times.
> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is
> the demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few
> people like to read poetry nowadays?
>
Both or those are true. Also true is the observation that it is very
easy to write bad poetry, even by comparison to how easy it is to
write bad fiction.
> I've had more poetry published than you can shake a stick at, but
> I've never made one cent from any of it. Many times I've had to buy
> a copy of the publication my work was in so that I could see it in
> print.
>
I've only had a small amount published, but it was always in paying
markets. Yet even in that case, there wasn't enough revenue to 'make
ends meet'.
> Who is your favorite poet?
>
In what language? Li Po, Pablo Neruda, Marie Rainier Rilke, Ovid, and
Homer come to mind, although I've never read Rilke or Home in their
native languages.
In English, it varies from time to time.
> Why do you think that poetry is a penniless market?
>
Too many bad poets and too few good readers.
Azed
from marginals sounds like a fair exchange at first glance.I
have had experience with publishers on another level also.
When the stuff finally started paying, and second editions
proved necessary, your earnest writer was suddenly
forgotten, in spite of a contract. It simply costs too much
to defend one's self in most legal systems. That happened to
me three times. I hope you didn't take it personal. I know
there a many fine and honest publishers out there somewhere.
I just haven't found them. I make more money with the
occassional "critique" and diverse magazine articles.
Frankly, it's more satisfying typing these lines in response
to your reply, but not always.
JAS Carter
<old...@btinternet.com> spake thus:
>> >Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was a
>> >wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
>> >Dickinson.
>> >
>> >What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
>> >demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people
>like
>> >to read poetry nowadays?
>
>I'm sorry to say it, but I just have no interest in other people's (usually)
>badly-expressed angst. I have enough of my own to be going on with.
Bad poetry is about angst.
Good poetry, though? You shouldn't care *what* it's about.
If you do, the poet probably didn't do his or her job!
Julie Carter
--
ICQ: 1265510
Faith L. McCammon
"Usenet Poster Boy" <usenet...@fogey.com> wrote in message
news:73zouji...@shell3.ba.best.com...
> > a wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
> > Dickinson.
> >
>
> course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
> language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
> languages or all times.
I never thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Faith
>
> > What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is
> > the demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few
> > people like to read poetry nowadays?
> >
>
William Penrose
>
> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
> demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people like
> to read poetry nowadays?
My guess is that there is no real market for poetry, except in popular
music. People write poems for their own benefit, I suspect, to the great
dismay of their relatives and friends who must listen and nod
appreciatively.
Then there is the problem that all the good poems were already written
by Shakespeare, Donne and them guys. There are none left for modern
generations.
Bill (who has tried real hard, but can't stay awake during a poetry
reading)
--
************************************************************
Information on gas sensors and related instruments:
Check us out at http://www.customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618,
email wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and product development to this
and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Steve Pritchard
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38a70717...@news.ohiohills.com...
> Bad poetry is about angst.
Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word in it.
JAS Carter
<wpen...@anet-chi.com> spake thus:
>Faith L. McCammon wrote:
>>
>> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
>> demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people like
>> to read poetry nowadays?
>
>My guess is that there is no real market for poetry, except in popular
>music. People write poems for their own benefit, I suspect, to the great
>dismay of their relatives and friends who must listen and nod
>appreciatively.
Most poets would say what you're describing is bad poetry, not all
poetry.
Bad poetry is everywhere.
You have to search for the good stuff, but it exists.
JAS Carter
<st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> spake thus:
Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
I assume then you've never read much of any.
Usenet Poster Boy
"Steve Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> writes:
> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:38a70717...@news.ohiohills.com...
> > Bad poetry is about angst.
>
> Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word in it.
As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry among other
writers is a significant reason for not discussing poetry in a general
writing group.
JAS Carter
<usenet...@fogey.com> spake thus:
>> > Bad poetry is about angst.
>>
>> Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word in it.
>
>As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry among other
>writers is a significant reason for not discussing poetry in a general
>writing group.
It is shocking, really.
Well, maybe not shocking.
Mildly startling?
JAS Carter
<usenet...@fogey.com> spake thus:
>> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was
>> a wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
>> Dickinson.
>
>It depends on the language that the poetry is written in, of
>course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
>language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
>languages or all times.
Is it that English readers don't respect poetry, or that English
readers don't understand what poetry is?
I mean, look at what most people think of as poetry, and what they'll
try to pass off as poetry. And then listen to their excuses if
they're called on it.
They'll say, "But it's how I feel" as if how they feel makes their
writing better.
Or they'll say, "Poetry is about emotions" as if poetry is just one
big group hug.
>> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is
>> the demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few
>> people like to read poetry nowadays?
>
>Both or those are true. Also true is the observation that it is very
>easy to write bad poetry, even by comparison to how easy it is to
>write bad fiction.
Writing truly bad poetry is an artform, though. People from WebTV
seem to be the best at it. ;)
>> I've had more poetry published than you can shake a stick at, but
>> I've never made one cent from any of it. Many times I've had to buy
>> a copy of the publication my work was in so that I could see it in
>> print.
>
>I've only had a small amount published, but it was always in paying
>markets. Yet even in that case, there wasn't enough revenue to 'make
>ends meet'.
It's very difficult indeed to make any money at it. Of the dozens of
poets I know, only two actually support themselves with poetry.
>> Why do you think that poetry is a penniless market?
>
>Too many bad poets and too few good readers.
Good answer.
For some reason, while few people would say, "Anyone can write a
novel," lots of people would say, "anyone can write poetry."
Perhaps your word was the correct one. Respect.
Pat Christian
that people do buy and read more. For the same reasons poetry publications don't
draw they same levels of advertising. But that doesn't say anything about the
literary or human value of poetry to society.
pat
JAS Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 03:04:48 GMT, in misc.writing William Penrose
> <wpen...@anet-chi.com> spake thus:
>
> >Faith L. McCammon wrote:
> >>
> >> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
> >> demand for poetry less than it is for fiction? Is it that few people like
> >> to read poetry nowadays?
> >
> >My guess is that there is no real market for poetry, except in popular
> >music. People write poems for their own benefit, I suspect, to the great
> >dismay of their relatives and friends who must listen and nod
> >appreciatively.
>
> Most poets would say what you're describing is bad poetry, not all
> poetry.
>
> Bad poetry is everywhere.
>
> You have to search for the good stuff, but it exists.
>
nanci
>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:09 -0000, in misc.writing "Steve
>Pritchard"
><st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> spake thus:
>
>>Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word
>>in it.
>
>Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
>
>I assume then you've never read much of any.
i have.
but that's not the point. steve is our resident
anti-poet. as, to me, there is no such thing
as good tasting beer, to steve, there is no such
thing as good poetry.
see?
--
n
All men are different ...... all husbands are alike. -- Lylah
Barber's Aunt Ouida
Peter Hickman
JAS Carter wrote:
> On 06 Jan 2000 08:35:33 -0800, in misc.writing Usenet Poster Boy
> <usenet...@fogey.com> spake thus:
>
> >> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was
> >> a wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
> >> Dickinson.
> >
> >It depends on the language that the poetry is written in, of
> >course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
> >language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
> >languages or all times.
>
> Is it that English readers don't respect poetry, or that English
> readers don't understand what poetry is?
For some reason, I can only think of describing what went wrong in fairly
cryptic ways:
The genre defined itself out of existence.
Every poem came to be essentially about the failure of language to
function very well when it is supposedly functioning in a genre that
defines itself as a realm where language is pushed as close to failing as
it can go.
The effects were pretty fine, but, (alas) all too easily duplicated in
many ways by the application of an intense ineptitude to anything
sufficiently trivial.
Or, more aesthetically, poetry went clear to the bottom of Modernism
and neglected to provide itself with any means of coming back.
Lyric poetry (as opposed to song lyrics, which are better than ever, if
you know where to look) is now as dead as Epic Poetry. These things
happen. Genres can cease to function when they become overly specialized
in an aesthetic niche and the aesthetic shifts and the air hose gets cut
and the next thing you know a plaintive voice is singing:
"They're chumming the ocean....."
<snip>
You never can tell..............................Pete
JAS Carter
(nanci) spake thus:
>>>Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word
>>>in it.
>>
>>Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
>>
>>I assume then you've never read much of any.
>
>i have.
Me too. :)
>but that's not the point. steve is our resident
>anti-poet. as, to me, there is no such thing
>as good tasting beer, to steve, there is no such
>thing as good poetry.
>
>see?
I do.
And I'm with you on the beer thing. *shudder*
nanci
like, said:
>As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry
>among other writers is a significant reason for not
>discussing poetry in a general writing group.
the shocking lack of knowledge of engineering principles
among engineering students is a significant reason for
not discussing engineering principles in a general
engineering core class.
--
n
Calm down -- it's only ones and zeros.
JAS Carter
<Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> spake thus:
I guess I would disagree with almost everything you state. As with
all arty type stuff there are phases and wings of poetry that I
dislike or even despise.
I'm no fan of confessional Plath or Sexton type verse that emphasize
the poet over the language. And I'm certainly no fan of the
Hallmarkian spew that characterizes many novice attempts at a "love
poem."
Angst is overdone and, frankly, boring, and surrealism leaves me
searching for the floor.
I'm a fan of formalism which is somewhat passe (depending on the
circles).
But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is tripe, and
some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a student of the craft of
poetry, and the new stuff (the good new stuff) has craft in abundance.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Jensen wrote:
> usenet...@fogey.com (Usenet Poster Boy) wrote in
> <73ogaxg...@shell3.ba.best.com>:
>
> >
> >"Steve Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:38a70717...@news.ohiohills.com...
> >> > Bad poetry is about angst.
> >>
> >> Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word
> >> in it.
> >
> >As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry
> >among other writers is a significant reason for not
> >discussing poetry in a general writing group.
>
> oddly enough, a reporter from the sacbee called me yesterday to
> interview me about the haiku poets' group that is starting up in
> the central valley. actually, his article's focus is the
> american haiku archives but i guess the group will be a sidebar-
> type topic.
>
> one of the questions he asked me immediately brought to mind
> some of your comments from the other day. he asked me if being a
> haiku poet changed how i looked at the world. he said that just
> from researching his story and talking to various poets, he
> himself was looking at his environment in a different, more
> positive way.
>
> so, i guess you can talk to a journalist about haiku.
A wild hare
The clatter of a trap
A black bitch wins
Keltic
wrote:
>And I'm with you on the beer thing. *shudder*
Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Lend me your beers!
Cheers, Keltic
Usenet Poster Boy
nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> On 07 Jan 2000, Usenet Poster Boy usenet...@fogey.com,
> like, said:
>
> >As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry
> >among other writers is a significant reason for not
> >discussing poetry in a general writing group.
>
>
> the shocking lack of knowledge of engineering principles
> among engineering students is a significant reason for
> not discussing engineering principles in a general
> engineering core class.
>
The shocking lack of Usenet posters in being able to construct a valid
analogy is a significant reason for not debating with usenet posters.
Usenet Poster Boy
jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) writes:
> On 06 Jan 2000 08:35:33 -0800, in misc.writing Usenet Poster Boy
> <usenet...@fogey.com> spake thus:
[snip]
> >It depends on the language that the poetry is written in, of
> >course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
> >language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
> >languages or all times.
>
> Is it that English readers don't respect poetry, or that English
> readers don't understand what poetry is?
Both, I think, although the lack of respect often comes from a lack of
understanding. They way poetry is taught (when it is) in K-12 doesn't
help, either.
[snip]
>
> For some reason, while few people would say, "Anyone can write a
> novel," lots of people would say, "anyone can write poetry."
>
> Perhaps your word was the correct one. Respect.
>
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Peter Hickman <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> writes:
[snip]
> For some reason, I can only think of describing what went wrong in
> fairly cryptic ways:
>
>
> The genre defined itself out of existence.
>
Try telling that to the best of Modern English poets, or the people
who hand out the Nobel prize for literature.
> Every poem came to be essentially about the failure of language to
> function very well when it is supposedly functioning in a genre that
> defines itself as a realm where language is pushed as close to
> failing as it can go.
>
What an odd description of "Modern English Poetry", especially since
it fits so few good poets.
[snip]
> Lyric poetry (as opposed to song lyrics, which are better than ever,
> if you know where to look) is now as dead as Epic Poetry. These
> things happen. Genres can cease to function when they become overly
> specialized in an aesthetic niche and the aesthetic shifts and the
> air hose gets cut and the next thing you know a plaintive voice is
> singing:
>
I'm not sure who you have in mind, but you clearly haven't been
reading the same modern poets I have. W.S. Merwin has recently
written an excellent book length poem, for example, that has none of
the failings you claim for modern poetry, and the latest edition of
the Norton Anthology is full of late 20th century poets who do not
have any of the failings you are trying to ascribe to them.
Marty
Prince Richard Kaminski
Jensen wrote:
> walking the track
> the dog's footprints in the clover
>
> cheers,
Wuff wuff, wuff, grrrrr
Growffff, arfff, ruff!
nanci
people come to discussion newsgroups not only
to discuss intelligently, but to learn, hence
my analogy.
if there is no discussion of poetry in a general
writing newsgroup, those people who come to learn
all manner of things will not learn much about poetry.
i may not deliberately seek out poetry in order
to learn about it. i have learned a great deal,
serendipitously, through the discussions in this
general writing group, and others to which i belong.
long live serendipity.
--
that is all
What happens if you get scared half to death twice? -- Steven
Wright
nanci
>But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is
>tripe, and some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a
>student of the craft of poetry, and the new stuff (the good
>new stuff) has craft in abundance.
i snipped most of your comments; i tend to agree.
i only wanted to say: isn't it interesting that there
is a useful discussion on poetry in this general writing
newsgroup?
--
nanci
Alma Hromic
>jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) was SO like:
>
>>But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is
>>tripe, and some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a
>>student of the craft of poetry, and the new stuff (the good
>>new stuff) has craft in abundance.
>
>i snipped most of your comments; i tend to agree.
>
>i only wanted to say: isn't it interesting that there
>is a useful discussion on poetry in this general writing
>newsgroup?
amen!
A.
***************
"The difference between journalism and literature
is that journalism is unreadable
and literature is unread."
Oscar Wilde
Beth McKinley
>
>
>"Faith L. McCammon" wrote:
>
>> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money?
>
>for example, would have to contain several dozens of poems at least, then that
>makes each individual poem not worth very much, financially. Think about
> length.
>A novel pays more than a short story, of course it does, you'd expect it to. So
>how about a five line poem?
>
>> What makes poetry so different as a paying market than fiction? Is the
>> demand for poetry less than it is for fiction?
>
>non-fiction books do you see? And how many books of contemporary poetry do you
>see? That should answer your question for you. There's no demand for it, at
>least not commercially.
>
>
And while we at it, if writing poetry doesn't bring in any money, why are
books of poetry so expensive?
Beth McKinley
Tetractys
> What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
Simple. You're 3/4 dead.
--
Zeno
Rob Allen
because
most poetry ignores most people.
-Adrian Mitchell (b. 1932), British poet, author. Epigraph to Poems (1964).
====
It is no longer possible for lyric poetry to express the immensity of our
experience. Life has grown too cumbersome, too complicated. We have acquired
values which are best expressed in prose.
-Boris Pasternak (1890-1960), Russian poet, novelist, translator. Interview
in Writers at Work (Second Series, ed. by George Plimpton, 1963).
====
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University
Press. Copyright © 1993 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
Rob <they said it, I'm not sure if I agree with it, but it seemed relevant>
Allen
Sunbeam the Deacon
I think when people say "poetry" these days they tend to mean lyric
poetry. Obviously a non-genre like Merwin's texts or other non-lyric
modern poetry (all pretty non-generic, like Berryman's _Dream Songs_ or
Pound's _Cantos_) can't be generically dead for they don't belong to any
particulare genre. And so it is with all poems these days. Each is its
own generic moment, cunningly hacked out of an unobliging linguistic
strata. The genre of Lyric Poetry seems to be dead. Possibly Wallace
Stevens was the last lyric poet in English....and even then as much by
parody as by poetry.
It would be nice if some poetic genre could be revitalized in English,
but I think it would take an entirely new aesthetic to do it.
--
Then Pallas breath'd in Tydeus' sonne --
to render whom supreame
To all the Greekes at all his parts she cast a hoter beame
On his high mind, his body fild with much superior might
And made his compleate armor cast a farre more complete light.
(Chapman's Homer: Iliad, Fifth Book, first lines)
............Pete
Sunbeam the Deacon
JAS Carter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:29:40 -0500, in misc.writing Peter Hickman
> <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> spake thus:
>
> >> >> Seriously, why doesn't poetry bring in any money? Robert Frost was
> >> >> a wonderful poet, but he didn't get rich from it. Neither did Emily
> >> >> Dickinson.
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the language that the poetry is written in, of
> >> >course. In the 20th century, for the most part, English isn't a
> >> >language whose readers respect poetry. This is not true of all
> >> >languages or all times.
> >>
> >> Is it that English readers don't respect poetry, or that English
> >> readers don't understand what poetry is?
> >
> > For some reason, I can only think of describing what went wrong in fairly
> >cryptic ways:
> >
> >
> > The genre defined itself out of existence.
> >
> > Every poem came to be essentially about the failure of language to
> >function very well when it is supposedly functioning in a genre that
> >defines itself as a realm where language is pushed as close to failing as
> >it can go.
> >
> > The effects were pretty fine, but, (alas) all too easily duplicated in
> >many ways by the application of an intense ineptitude to anything
> >sufficiently trivial.
> >
> > Or, more aesthetically, poetry went clear to the bottom of Modernism
> >and neglected to provide itself with any means of coming back.
> >
> > Lyric poetry (as opposed to song lyrics, which are better than ever, if
> >you know where to look) is now as dead as Epic Poetry. These things
> >happen. Genres can cease to function when they become overly specialized
> >in an aesthetic niche and the aesthetic shifts and the air hose gets cut
> >and the next thing you know a plaintive voice is singing:
> >
> >"They're chumming the ocean....."
> >
> ><snip>
>
> I guess I would disagree with almost everything you state. As with
> all arty type stuff there are phases and wings of poetry that I
> dislike or even despise.
>
> I'm no fan of confessional Plath or Sexton type verse that emphasize
> the poet over the language. And I'm certainly no fan of the
> Hallmarkian spew that characterizes many novice attempts at a "love
> poem."
>
> Angst is overdone and, frankly, boring, and surrealism leaves me
> searching for the floor.
>
> I'm a fan of formalism which is somewhat passe (depending on the
> circles).
>
> But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is tripe, and
> some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a student of the craft of
> poetry, and the new stuff (the good new stuff) has craft in abundance.
This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
essentials.
Anyway I can tell you a formula for writing a "Modern Poem" that most
"literate" people will think is one of the best things they have ever
seen:
1) commit a few minor awkwardnesses early on (to convince the reader
you don't quite know what you are doing)
2) make it 2 and a half pages long and have it consist of two
contrasting sections with a break 1/3 of the way down page two (this
adds emphasis to that most devastating manouever of modern
poetry....stopping in the middle of something).
3) make the average line about 12 syllables long but go as long as 22
or as short as 5...but no shorter (shorter than 5 implies you think you
aren't an idiot and the whole point is to convince the reader that you
are some sort of naive idiot)
4) advance an obviously false confessional statement halfway down page
1
5) sneak in a detectably "real" confessional statement at the bottom of
page 2 to convince the reader that they know exactly what is "really
going on" in the poem
And there you have it.
Usenet Poster Boy
nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> usenet...@fogey.com (Usenet Poster Boy) was SO like:
>
> >
> >nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> >
> >> On 07 Jan 2000, Usenet Poster Boy usenet...@fogey.com,
> >> like, said:
> >>
> >> >As I was saying, the shocking lack of knowledge of poetry
> >> >among other writers is a significant reason for not
> >> >discussing poetry in a general writing group.
> >>
> >>
> >> the shocking lack of knowledge of engineering principles
> >> among engineering students is a significant reason for
> >> not discussing engineering principles in a general
> >> engineering core class.
> >>
> >
> >The shocking lack of Usenet posters in being able to
> >construct a valid analogy is a significant reason for not
> >debating with usenet posters.
>
> people come to discussion newsgroups not only
> to discuss intelligently, but to learn, hence
> my analogy.
>
Your analogy would be apt if you had mentioned a lack of knowledge of
engineering principles among accounting students. That is the
approximate similarity of discussing poetry with general writers.
> if there is no discussion of poetry in a general
> writing newsgroup, those people who come to learn
> all manner of things will not learn much about poetry.
>
One doesn't learn "all manner of things" in a general writing
newsgroup, one learns about prose writing, just as one doesn't learn
"all manner of things" in an engineering discipline, one learns (one
hopes,) engineering.
> i may not deliberately seek out poetry in order
> to learn about it. i have learned a great deal,
> serendipitously, through the discussions in this
> general writing group, and others to which i belong.
>
The purpose of a -focused- group is *not* serendipity. Serendipity in
this case would be for you to dip into r.a.p and find something that
encouraged you to learn poetry.
Serendipity is *not* desirable in an engineering curriculum either,
and thus, if you meant to draw a serendipitous analogy, another place
where your analogy falls down.
> long live serendipity.
>
> --
> that is all
>
> What happens if you get scared half to death twice? -- Steven
> Wright
You learn about Zeno's paradox and other uses of geometric sequences.
Usenet Poster Boy
nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) was SO like:
>
> >But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is
> >tripe, and some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a
> >student of the craft of poetry, and the new stuff (the good
> >new stuff) has craft in abundance.
>
> i snipped most of your comments; i tend to agree.
>
> i only wanted to say: isn't it interesting that there
> is a useful discussion on poetry in this general writing
> newsgroup?
>
Under what thread title does it appear? I can't find it on my news
server.
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I think when people say "poetry" these days they tend to mean lyric
> poetry.
You are the only person I've encountered who makes that assertion.
> Obviously a non-genre like Merwin's texts or other non-lyric modern
> poetry (all pretty non-generic, like Berryman's _Dream Songs_ or
> Pound's _Cantos_) can't be generically dead for they don't belong to
> any particulare genre. And so it is with all poems these days.
> Each is its own generic moment, cunningly hacked out of an
> unobliging linguistic strata. The genre of Lyric Poetry seems to be
> dead. Possibly Wallace Stevens was the last lyric poet in
> English....and even then as much by parody as by poetry.
As I suspected, you aren't actually reading any modern poets. "genre"
has nothing to do with the effectiveness of poetry, and it is
extremely difficult to dismiss Merwin's latest work as "non-lyric"
unless you have a very unusual definition of 'lyric.'
You have constructed a false dichotomy, anyway. There is no
constraint on poetry that requires it be 'lyric' to be good, nor do
people who actually read poetry make such a distinction.
> It would be nice if some poetic genre could be revitalized in
> English, but I think it would take an entirely new aesthetic to do
> it.
>
Poetry is doing just fine in English, lyric and otherwise.
Usenet Poster Boy
beth.m...@gov.ab.ca (Beth McKinley) writes:
> And while we at it, if writing poetry doesn't bring in any money,
> why are books of poetry so expensive?
>
Depends on the book. Most of the poetry books I buy (called
chapbooks) tend to cost far less than the price of a novel. Dover
has much good poetry available inexpensively. The Norton collections
are not particularly expensive, especially not in the paper back
editions, and can be usually found in used book stores.
On the other hand, books of new poetry by well known authors in
hardback are expensive because:
* poetry is harder to type set than prose, making it more expensive
per page to produce
* poetry books have (much) smaller press runs than other books
meaning there is no economy of scale.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[snip]
> This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
> years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
> doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
> idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
> symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
> definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
> force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
> essentials.
How can you possibly have given up poetry 20 years ago and claim to
have any knowledge of its current state?
As for the rest of the paragraph, it is gibberish.
> Anyway I can tell you a formula for writing a "Modern Poem" that most
> "literate" people will think is one of the best things they have ever
> seen:
>
[a bunch of posh]
> And there you have it.
Where 'it' seems to be a demonstration that the author is as
unfamiliar with 20th century poetry as one might expect from someone
who had given up reading it 20 years ago.
I would suggest that you find yourself a copy of _Quickly Aging Here_
and read and understand it before continuing to pontificate on a topic
that you are so out of touch with.
Usenet Poster Boy
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> writes:
> Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
[snip]
> > Under what thread title does it appear? I can't find it on my news
> > server.
>
> Have a look for Faith's recent posts. She started a thread asking why
> poetry doesn't pay very well compared with other forms of writing, and
> subsequent posts included Jensen posting one of her haiku.
I know. I've posted in that thread. It's about economics, not the
craft of poetry, AFAICT.
Blanche Nonken
> richard....@lineone.net (Prince Richard Kaminski) wrote
> in <38765F4E...@lineone.net>:
> >> so, i guess you can talk to a journalist about haiku.
> >
> >A wild hare
> >The clatter of a trap
> >A black bitch wins
> >
>
> walking the track
> the dog's footprints in the clover
> jen
> (the only dog racing haiku i have ever written)
The pen strokes paper
The keys clatter tirelessly
And I can never remember exactly how many syllables to put on the last
line.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
>
> > jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) was SO like:
> >
> > >But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is
> > >tripe, and some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a
> > >student of the craft of poetry, and the new stuff (the good
> > >new stuff) has craft in abundance.
> >
> > i snipped most of your comments; i tend to agree.
> >
> > i only wanted to say: isn't it interesting that there
> > is a useful discussion on poetry in this general writing
> > newsgroup?
> >
>
Alex Jay Berman
>On 07 Jan 2000, JAS Carter jsgo...@yahoo.com, like, said:
>
>>On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:09 -0000, in misc.writing "Steve
>>Pritchard"
>><st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> spake thus:
>>
>>>Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word
>>>in it.
>>
>>Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
>>
>>I assume then you've never read much of any.
>
>i have.
>
>but that's not the point. steve is our resident
>anti-poet. as, to me, there is no such thing
>as good tasting beer, to steve, there is no such
>thing as good poetry.
>
>see?
>
>--
>n
There's a thought:
Hey, Steve!
What do you think of lyrically-written prose?
Prose that has a hint of the tactile, a smidge of the sensory, to it?
Say, a Bradbury, or a Lovecraft?
Alex Jay Berman
"I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe."--Albert Einstein
"... but as a fiction writer, I _do_."--Alex Jay Berman
stickhippie
mean to imply that the beauty of writing is reserved only
for the few who dictate what form and presentation a work
must take? Art is always subjective.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Azed
romance novels. Haw many 60 page "poetry" books are there
out there that should have been converted into rose-water
novels, but for the unfortunate lack of expertise in the
basic language-related skills necessary. Unfortunately,
freedom in verse has somehow been taken for freedom from
grammar and vocabulary. In other words, too many poets out
there have created a personal language that only the creator
can understand. Hermetic? yes ...books designed to be
read only by their writers.
Do I dare say that there are too many female poets out
there? Of course not. I would never say a thing like that,
while smoking a cigarette, scratching my belly, and watching
South Park on the tube. I wouldn't even say a ridiculous
thing like that here, on this board.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
JAS Carter
>jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) was SO like:
>
>>But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is
>>tripe, and some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a
>>student of the craft of poetry, and the new stuff (the good
>>new stuff) has craft in abundance.
>
>i snipped most of your comments; i tend to agree.
>
>i only wanted to say: isn't it interesting that there
>is a useful discussion on poetry in this general writing
>newsgroup?
I'm not sure. Is that interesting.
I talk about poetry all the time, so it doesn't surprise me.
--
Julie Carter
http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
If you're not part of the solution,
you're part of the precipitate.--Henry J. Tillman
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.--John Lehman
JAS Carter
>> But I've read the new stuff. I read it every day. Some is tripe, and
>> some is pretty gosh darned smashing. I'm a student of the craft of
>> poetry, and the new stuff (the good new stuff) has craft in abundance.
>
> This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
>years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
>doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
>idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
>symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
>definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
>force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
>essentials.
>
> Anyway I can tell you a formula for writing a "Modern Poem" that most
>"literate" people will think is one of the best things they have ever
>seen:
>
> 1) commit a few minor awkwardnesses early on (to convince the reader
>you don't quite know what you are doing)
>
> 2) make it 2 and a half pages long and have it consist of two
>contrasting sections with a break 1/3 of the way down page two (this
>adds emphasis to that most devastating manouever of modern
>poetry....stopping in the middle of something).
>
> 3) make the average line about 12 syllables long but go as long as 22
>or as short as 5...but no shorter (shorter than 5 implies you think you
>aren't an idiot and the whole point is to convince the reader that you
>are some sort of naive idiot)
>
> 4) advance an obviously false confessional statement halfway down page
>1
>
> 5) sneak in a detectably "real" confessional statement at the bottom of
>page 2 to convince the reader that they know exactly what is "really
>going on" in the poem
>
> And there you have it.
Write it.
Post it on aapc.
You'll get hammered.
I'll be the one with the rubber mallet.
JAS Carter
<slaughterhou...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>You seem to discount the poetic efforts of many. Do you
>mean to imply that the beauty of writing is reserved only
>for the few who dictate what form and presentation a work
>must take? Art is always subjective.
The poetic efforts of the many, when read, will eventually lead to an
aneurism.
Spewing your emotions on paper does not mean you're writing poetry.
Azed
else, maybe something with a more "romantic" sound to it,
maybe we,ll get rid of enough of the "poetic pollution" to
finally see what's really happening out there in the world
of poetry. Sugar will certainly have to be used as bait,
perhaps with a few tears added to make a foggy syrop.
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
> > years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
> > doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
> > idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
> > symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
> > definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
> > force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
> > essentials.
>
> How can you possibly have given up poetry 20 years ago and claim to
> have any knowledge of its current state?
I gave up writing poetry 20 years ago. I still read it and it hasn't
changed at all in 20 years.
>
> As for the rest of the paragraph, it is gibberish.
You mean you don't understand how poetry relates to genre? Well, it
doesn't and that's why poetry is more or less dead.
> > Anyway I can tell you a formula for writing a "Modern Poem" that most
> > "literate" people will think is one of the best things they have ever
> > seen:
> >
> [a bunch of posh]
> > And there you have it.
>
> Where 'it' seems to be a demonstration that the author is as
> unfamiliar with 20th century poetry as one might expect from someone
> who had given up reading it 20 years ago.
I still read it. I just don't think it is a functional genre and the
reason it isn't is that the Modernist Aesthetic, if applied to poetry,
leaves you precisely nowhere.
> I would suggest that you find yourself a copy of _Quickly Aging Here_
> and read and understand it before continuing to pontificate on a topic
> that you are so out of touch with.
I gave the topic a lot of thought back when I quit writing poetry. I
think that for poetry to be revitalized it needs a new generic
definition and a new aesthetic.
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > I think when people say "poetry" these days they tend to mean lyric
> > poetry.
>
> You are the only person I've encountered who makes that assertion.
A) It isn't my fault if people can't define their genres
B) And that is precisely why lyric poetry doesn't function any more in
English.
>
> > Obviously a non-genre like Merwin's texts or other non-lyric modern
> > poetry (all pretty non-generic, like Berryman's _Dream Songs_ or
> > Pound's _Cantos_) can't be generically dead for they don't belong to
> > any particulare genre. And so it is with all poems these days.
> > Each is its own generic moment, cunningly hacked out of an
> > unobliging linguistic strata. The genre of Lyric Poetry seems to be
> > dead. Possibly Wallace Stevens was the last lyric poet in
> > English....and even then as much by parody as by poetry.
>
> As I suspected, you aren't actually reading any modern poets. "genre"
> has nothing to do with the effectiveness of poetry,
Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre. It is defined by lacks
and random effects rather than any generic expectation. When you pick
up a poem, you expect nothing and that is pretty much what you get.
and it is
> extremely difficult to dismiss Merwin's latest work as "non-lyric"
> unless you have a very unusual definition of 'lyric.'
Lyric Poetry is a genre. It is obviously a dead genre. "Lyric" by
itself is a word with various uses.
Anyway, hasn't Merwin been dead for years?
> You have constructed a false dichotomy, anyway. There is no
> constraint on poetry that requires it be 'lyric' to be good, nor do
> people who actually read poetry make such a distinction.
Exactly. Lyric poetry is a dead genre.
> > It would be nice if some poetic genre could be revitalized in
> > English, but I think it would take an entirely new aesthetic to do
> > it.
> Poetry is doing just fine in English, lyric and otherwise.
If it is doing so well, why is it in a state wherein its genre has
nothing to do with its effectiveness? What is this non-generic
effectiveness except a sign that the genre is dead?
Sunbeam the Deacon
> > This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
> >years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
> >doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
> >idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
> >symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
> >definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
> >force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
> >essentials.
> >
> > Anyway I can tell you a formula for writing a "Modern Poem" that most
> >"literate" people will think is one of the best things they have ever
> >seen:
> >
> > 1) commit a few minor awkwardnesses early on (to convince the reader
> >you don't quite know what you are doing)
> >
> > 2) make it 2 and a half pages long and have it consist of two
> >contrasting sections with a break 1/3 of the way down page two (this
> >adds emphasis to that most devastating manouever of modern
> >poetry....stopping in the middle of something).
> >
> > 3) make the average line about 12 syllables long but go as long as 22
> >or as short as 5...but no shorter (shorter than 5 implies you think you
> >aren't an idiot and the whole point is to convince the reader that you
> >are some sort of naive idiot)
> >
> > 4) advance an obviously false confessional statement halfway down page
> >1
> >
> > 5) sneak in a detectably "real" confessional statement at the bottom of
> >page 2 to convince the reader that they know exactly what is "really
> >going on" in the poem
> >
> > And there you have it.
>
> Write it.
>
> Post it on aapc.
>
> You'll get hammered.
>
> I'll be the one with the rubber mallet.
On what grounds would you hammer it? I.e. what possible generic
criteria are there? I think the answer would be that there are none.
I.E. there is no generic definition for poetry, ie. the genre is dead.
>
> --
> Julie Carter
>
> http://jsgoddess.ourfamily.com
>
> If you're not part of the solution,
> you're part of the precipitate.--Henry J. Tillman
>
> Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.--John Lehman
--
nanci
>however, i believe nanci said a 'useful' discussion of
>poetry, not a discussion about the craft of poetry. i suppose
>the question then becomes whether one finds the discussion of
>the economics of poetry useful
pretty much any discussion that involves almost any
aspect of writing is useful to someone, somewhere.
if it is the economics of poetry, it is certainly
useful to those who have a good grasp of poetry, and
who may want to know what they can make out of it.
if it is about the form or structure or even usefulness
of poetry, it is useful to people who have a deep
interest in poetry, and to people like me, who have found
that they can identify with poetry, even though they
don't know much about it. i may not participate
in such discussions because i have nothing useful to
say, but i *do* find them interesting and useful.
*this* thread, concerning whether poetry is dead or
not, is interesting. it is useful to me, at the very
least. while people like Steve may take the opportunity
to make a few wittily disparaging remarks (always
maintaining their facade of distaste), that does not
detract from the overall usefulness of a thread like
this.
threads that involve jen's discussions of haiku are
fascinating, to me. haiku is a form that i absolutely
adore when it is done correctly. i cannot even begin
to grasp it enough to actually *do* it, but i can
certainly learn a great deal from those discussions
involving it.
i cannot paint, but i still enjoy listening to painters
or other artists discuss things having to do with painting.
enjoyment to me == usefulness to me
--
n
Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Obelix
---------------------------------------
something went wrong
with modern english poetry
or went wrong
with how we see it
once we looked ahead
to the modern
now we look behind
at "post"-modern
once we were english
now we're american
or further still,
(ethnic)-american
and poetry
that naked flower
is now mocked
because it has
no dot.com
no attitude
no monetary reward
modern english poetry
is a museum piece
beside pieces of
the hindenburg
and george washington's
wooden teeth
Usenet Poster Boy
jje...@alumni.uvic.ca (Jensen) writes:
> usenet...@fogey.com (Usenet Poster Boy) wrote in
> <73so095...@shell3.ba.best.com>:
[snip]
> >
> >I know. I've posted in that thread. It's about economics,
> >not the craft of poetry, AFAICT.
>
>
> absolutely correct, marty.
>
> however, i believe nanci said a 'useful' discussion of poetry,
> not a discussion about the craft of poetry. i suppose the
> question then becomes whether one finds the discussion of the
> economics of poetry useful.
>
I think we should split hairs about whether or not discussions of
economics qualify as discussions of the things that the economy
involves or not. :)
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> >
> > Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
> > > years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
> > > doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
> > > idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
> > > symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
> > > definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
> > > force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
> > > essentials.
> >
> > How can you possibly have given up poetry 20 years ago and claim to
> > have any knowledge of its current state?
>
> I gave up writing poetry 20 years ago. I still read it and it
> hasn't changed at all in 20 years.
>
In this you are wrong. Even the poets themselves have changed in 20
years. Merwin, mentioned earlier, writes very different poetry than
he wrote in the 70s.
>
> >
> > As for the rest of the paragraph, it is gibberish.
>
> You mean you don't understand how poetry relates to genre? Well, it
> doesn't and that's why poetry is more or less dead.
>
Poetry isn't dead. Neither more nor less, although it is not respected
in English. But to absolutely clear: your words, although strung
together as if they had English syntax, do not add up to an expression
of meaning. The whole thing doesn't even add up to a coherent paragraph.
[snip]
> > Where 'it' seems to be a demonstration that the author is as
> > unfamiliar with 20th century poetry as one might expect from someone
> > who had given up reading it 20 years ago.
>
> I still read it. I just don't think it is a functional genre and
> the reason it isn't is that the Modernist Aesthetic, if applied to
> poetry, leaves you precisely nowhere.
>
There is no "modernist aesthetic" active in modern English poetry.
> > I would suggest that you find yourself a copy of _Quickly Aging Here_
> > and read and understand it before continuing to pontificate on a topic
> > that you are so out of touch with.
>
> I gave the topic a lot of thought back when I quit writing poetry.
> I think that for poetry to be revitalized it needs a new generic
> definition and a new aesthetic.
>
You are entitled to think that, but you've made no case here to
support your thinking.
What is the most recent Merwin you've read, for instance? Are you
familiar with _Quickly Aging Here_? Do you know anything about the
current West Coast movement? How do you apply your broad brush to
native-american poetry of the late 20th century? What is your
response to "20th century pleasures"?
And if English language poetry is "dead" how do you explain Nobel
prizes in literature going to English language poets?
I'm afraid that all you've done so far is demonstrate that the
stereotype you have of modern English poetry is not a very accurate
portrait.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> >
> > Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > > I think when people say "poetry" these days they tend to mean lyric
> > > poetry.
> >
> > You are the only person I've encountered who makes that assertion.
>
> A) It isn't my fault if people can't define their genres
It is "your fault" when you assert that "people" "tend to mean"
something when you can't substantiate that definition.
> B) And that is precisely why lyric poetry doesn't function any more in
> English.
>
Your unsubstantiable claim that people mean "lyric poetry" when they
say "poetry" is the reason that "lyric poetry doesn't function"?
Poetry isn't now merely "lyric" poetry; your assertion that people mean
"lyric poetry" when they say poetry isn't accurate; and even if lyric
poetry no longer had a presence in English (something that isn't true)
it would not support the thesis that poetry in English is dead.
[snip]
> > As I suspected, you aren't actually reading any modern poets. "genre"
> > has nothing to do with the effectiveness of poetry,
>
> Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre.
That you aren't reading modern poets is why poetry is "dysfunctional"?
How odd.
> It is defined by lacks and random effects rather than any generic
> expectation. When you pick up a poem, you expect nothing and that
> is pretty much what you get.
Nonsense. When *I* pick up a poem, I expect to read poetry rather than
prose, and *that* is what I get -- at least from -good- poetry, of
which there is still quiet a bit being written in English.
>
[snip]
> Lyric Poetry is a genre.
It is, to be precise, "A usually short poem that expresses personal
feelings, and may or may not be set to music." It is not a "genre",
it is merely a kind of poem.
> It is obviously a dead genre.
Perhaps to you. Certainly not to anyone actually familiar with late
20th century poetry.
[snip[
> Anyway, hasn't Merwin been dead for years?
No. He was still alive in May. I have not heard that he died since,
so he may still be alive. You have, I take it, not read any of his
recent work, then. How odd that you would try to characterize a poet
whose work you are not familiar with.
>
> > You have constructed a false dichotomy, anyway. There is no
> > constraint on poetry that requires it be 'lyric' to be good, nor do
> > people who actually read poetry make such a distinction.
>
> Exactly. Lyric poetry is a dead genre.
>
You can't get from what I wrote to "Lyric poetry is a dead genre."
Nor have you written anything that substantiates that assertion.
> > > It would be nice if some poetic genre could be revitalized in
> > > English, but I think it would take an entirely new aesthetic to do
> > > it.
>
> > Poetry is doing just fine in English, lyric and otherwise.
>
> If it is doing so well, why is it in a state wherein its genre has
> nothing to do with its effectiveness? What is this non-generic
> effectiveness except a sign that the genre is dead?
>
More gibberish. Poetry comes in many forms, of which lyric is but
one. With the exception of east coast academic (as practiced in The
New Yorker,) the forms are alive, vigorous, and very effective,
although like any art, 90% is crap, and one must find the other 10%.
Of course, it is hard to find the 10% if you operate from the
assumption that good poets are dead before they have died and confuse
yourself about non-issues like 'genre'.
Marty (who recommends _The River Song_ to those who think W.S is dead)
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> > >
> > > Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > This is what always puzzled me and it's why I gave up poetry about 20
> > > > years ago: what rhetorical effect is the "craft" aiming at? There
> > > > doesn't seem to be any. In short, nobody can ever really have any real
> > > > idea whether the poem does anything linguistically or not. This is a
> > > > symptom of the fact that the genre has ceased to have a generic
> > > > definition....In effect the genre was wiped out by absorbing the full
> > > > force of the Modernist Aesthetic of expression via reduction to
> > > > essentials.
> > >
> > > How can you possibly have given up poetry 20 years ago and claim to
> > > have any knowledge of its current state?
> >
> > I gave up writing poetry 20 years ago. I still read it and it
> > hasn't changed at all in 20 years.
> >
>
> In this you are wrong. Even the poets themselves have changed in 20
> years. Merwin, mentioned earlier, writes very different poetry than
> he wrote in the 70s.
I guess you like Merwin. I don't think this means the genre, or more
particularly Lyric Poetry as a genre, is in good shape, or any shape at
all....
>
> >
> > >
> > > As for the rest of the paragraph, it is gibberish.
> >
> > You mean you don't understand how poetry relates to genre? Well, it
> > doesn't and that's why poetry is more or less dead.
> >
>
> Poetry isn't dead. Neither more nor less, although it is not respected
> in English. But to absolutely clear: your words, although strung
> together as if they had English syntax, do not add up to an expression
> of meaning. The whole thing doesn't even add up to a coherent paragraph.
Neither does Modern English Poetry.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Where 'it' seems to be a demonstration that the author is as
> > > unfamiliar with 20th century poetry as one might expect from someone
> > > who had given up reading it 20 years ago.
> >
> > I still read it. I just don't think it is a functional genre and
> > the reason it isn't is that the Modernist Aesthetic, if applied to
> > poetry, leaves you precisely nowhere.
> >
>
> There is no "modernist aesthetic" active in modern English poetry.
I think there is. I think it is what reduced the genre to just about
nothing.
>
> > > I would suggest that you find yourself a copy of _Quickly Aging Here_
> > > and read and understand it before continuing to pontificate on a topic
> > > that you are so out of touch with.
> >
> > I gave the topic a lot of thought back when I quit writing poetry.
> > I think that for poetry to be revitalized it needs a new generic
> > definition and a new aesthetic.
> >
>
> You are entitled to think that, but you've made no case here to
> support your thinking.
How would you define poetry as a genre? You can't, because it is no
longer a functional genre.
>
> What is the most recent Merwin you've read, for instance? Are you
> familiar with _Quickly Aging Here_? Do you know anything about the
> current West Coast movement? How do you apply your broad brush to
> native-american poetry of the late 20th century? What is your
> response to "20th century pleasures"?
>
> And if English language poetry is "dead" how do you explain Nobel
> prizes in literature going to English language poets?
Is the Nobel Prize committee able to define the genre? no.
>
> I'm afraid that all you've done so far is demonstrate that the
> stereotype you have of modern English poetry is not a very accurate
> portrait.
Neither a stereotype nor a portrait is required. What is needed is a
functional genre.
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> > >
> > > Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > I think when people say "poetry" these days they tend to mean lyric
> > > > poetry.
> > >
> > > You are the only person I've encountered who makes that assertion.
> >
> > A) It isn't my fault if people can't define their genres
>
> It is "your fault" when you assert that "people" "tend to mean"
> something when you can't substantiate that definition.
My point is that there is no definition, because there is no genre.
>
> > B) And that is precisely why lyric poetry doesn't function any more in
> > English.
> >
>
> Your unsubstantiable claim that people mean "lyric poetry" when they
> say "poetry" is the reason that "lyric poetry doesn't function"?
No. The fact that people mean lyric poetry when they say poetry is a
symptom of just how dysfunctional the whole generic definition of Modern
English poetry is.
>
> Poetry isn't now merely "lyric" poetry; your assertion that people mean
> "lyric poetry" when they say poetry isn't accurate; and even if lyric
> poetry no longer had a presence in English (something that isn't true)
> it would not support the thesis that poetry in English is dead.
Well which is it? The whole generic definition is a mess as you
demonstrate right here.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > As I suspected, you aren't actually reading any modern poets. "genre"
> > > has nothing to do with the effectiveness of poetry,
> >
> > Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre.
>
> That you aren't reading modern poets is why poetry is "dysfunctional"?
> How odd.
Or how interesting: You say " "genre" has nothing to do with the
effectiveness of poetry...
And I say: Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre. Ie. if poetry
were a properly defined genre then its effectiveness would have
something to do with its genre.
> > It is defined by lacks and random effects rather than any generic
> > expectation. When you pick up a poem, you expect nothing and that
> > is pretty much what you get.
>
> Nonsense. When *I* pick up a poem, I expect to read poetry rather than
> prose, and *that* is what I get -- at least from -good- poetry, of
> which there is still quiet a bit being written in English.
There may be perfectly good poems out there...but how, except via the
Noble Prize Committee, does anyone know what they are?
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Lyric Poetry is a genre.
>
> It is, to be precise, "A usually short poem that expresses personal
> feelings, and may or may not be set to music." It is not a "genre",
> it is merely a kind of poem.
It is a genre (kind) of poetry. It appears to be most confusingly
dead, but still, very dead.
> > It is obviously a dead genre.
>
> Perhaps to you. Certainly not to anyone actually familiar with late
> 20th century poetry.
Well, you claim this familarity, but you say it does not exist. This
sounds like a dead genre to me.
>
> > Anyway, hasn't Merwin been dead for years?
>
> No. He was still alive in May. I have not heard that he died since,
> so he may still be alive. You have, I take it, not read any of his
> recent work, then. How odd that you would try to characterize a poet
> whose work you are not familiar with.
I just looked at some of it and it was just like the poetry of 20 years
ago. Poetry hasn't changed a bit.
> >
> > > You have constructed a false dichotomy, anyway. There is no
> > > constraint on poetry that requires it be 'lyric' to be good, nor do
> > > people who actually read poetry make such a distinction.
> >
> > Exactly. Lyric poetry is a dead genre.
> >
> You can't get from what I wrote to "Lyric poetry is a dead genre."
> Nor have you written anything that substantiates that assertion.
See above.
>
> > > > It would be nice if some poetic genre could be revitalized in
> > > > English, but I think it would take an entirely new aesthetic to do
> > > > it.
> >
> > > Poetry is doing just fine in English, lyric and otherwise.
> >
> > If it is doing so well, why is it in a state wherein its genre has
> > nothing to do with its effectiveness? What is this non-generic
> > effectiveness except a sign that the genre is dead?
> >
>
> More gibberish. Poetry comes in many forms, of which lyric is but
> one. With the exception of east coast academic (as practiced in The
> New Yorker,) the forms are alive, vigorous, and very effective,
> although like any art, 90% is crap, and one must find the other 10%.
So at least one part is dead and the other 90% is crap? I'd say that's
a dead genre or two or three...
> Of course, it is hard to find the 10% if you operate from the
> assumption that good poets are dead before they have died and confuse
> yourself about non-issues like 'genre'.
That fact that "genre" is a non-issue where poetry is concerned is a
definite sign that it is a dead genre.
> Marty (who recommends _The River Song_ to those who think W.S is dead)
--
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > In this you are wrong. Even the poets themselves have changed in 20
> > years. Merwin, mentioned earlier, writes very different poetry than
> > he wrote in the 70s.
>
> I guess you like Merwin. I don't think this means the genre, or more
> particularly Lyric Poetry as a genre, is in good shape, or any shape at
> all....
>
I use Merwin as an example. One of many you seem unfamiliar with. At
least I have evidence to support the argument that poetry is alive and
well in English, where as you have only some confusion about lyric
poetry and unsubstantiated assertions.
[snip]
> Neither does Modern English Poetry.
>
A statement that might bear some weight if it came from someone who
had any familiarity at all with modern English poetry.
You've made assertions about offered no supporting evidence.
[snip]
> > There is no "modernist aesthetic" active in modern English poetry.
>
> I think there is. I think it is what reduced the genre to just
> about nothing.
>
You may thing what you like, but you aren't offering any evidence to
justify or support those thoughts.
[snip]
> > You are entitled to think that, but you've made no case here to
> > support your thinking.
>
> How would you define poetry as a genre? You can't, because it is no
> longer a functional genre.
>
I wouldn't define poetry 'as *a* genre'. That's your false
dichotomy. I *would* define poetry precisely the way that Princeton
Dictionary of Poetry and Poetics does.
And I can point to any number of effective modern poets, writing in
English, that demonstrate that poetry is not 'dysfunctional' or 'dead'
in English.
[snip]
> > And if English language poetry is "dead" how do you explain Nobel
> > prizes in literature going to English language poets?
>
> Is the Nobel Prize committee able to define the genre? no.
>
Are you able to raise any actual arguments? no.
[snip]
> Neither a stereotype nor a portrait is required. What is needed is
> a functional genre.
>
>
Poetry encompasses more than one form, and is quiet functional,
without being infected by 'genre'. Even in English it moves people to
action, stirs emotions, raises a smile, and wins Nobel prizes in
literature.
Do you actually have a point to make, or will continue to make
unsubstantiated assertions and demonstrations of your lack of
familiarity with modern poetry?
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
[snip]
>
> My point is that there is no definition, because there is no genre.
>
Then you have no point, since there is a definition and there is
active poetry.
> > Your unsubstantiable claim that people mean "lyric poetry" when they
> > say "poetry" is the reason that "lyric poetry doesn't function"?
>
> No. The fact that people mean lyric poetry when they say poetry is a
> symptom of just how dysfunctional the whole generic definition of Modern
> English poetry is.
>
You have offered *no* evidence to support your mistaken assertion that
"people mean lyric poetry" when they say poetry.
Nor would "people" whomever they are, confusing all of poetry with one
form of poetry be any evidence that poetry is dead or dysfunctional.
All you have demonstrated is that *you* have a definition of modern
English poetry that is, due to being in no way related to the actual
poetry, dysfunctional.
> >
> > Poetry isn't now merely "lyric" poetry; your assertion that people mean
> > "lyric poetry" when they say poetry isn't accurate; and even if lyric
> > poetry no longer had a presence in English (something that isn't true)
> > it would not support the thesis that poetry in English is dead.
>
> Well which is it? The whole generic definition is a mess as you
> demonstrate right here.
The only person having any problem defining anything related to poetry
is you. I know what it is and how to recognize it and the 'people'
you refer to simply don't exist.
[snip]
> Or how interesting: You say " "genre" has nothing to do with the
> effectiveness of poetry...
>
> And I say: Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre. Ie. if poetry
> were a properly defined genre then its effectiveness would have
> something to do with its genre.
Silly word games. Labels have nothing to do with the effectiveness of
art forms. Your personal failure to be able to define poetry is an
argument from ignorance, not a demonstration that poetry is dead.
[snip]
> There may be perfectly good poems out there...but how, except via the
> Noble Prize Committee, does anyone know what they are?
>
By doing something you seem to have stopped doing despite your
assertion to the contrary: by reading poetry.
[snip]
>
> It is a genre (kind) of poetry. It appears to be most confusingly
> dead, but still, very dead.
>
You are become quiet tedious with this repetion of a point that you
offer no evidence in support of.
>
> > > It is obviously a dead genre.
> >
> > Perhaps to you. Certainly not to anyone actually familiar with late
> > 20th century poetry.
>
> Well, you claim this familarity, but you say it does not exist.
> This sounds like a dead genre to me.
I say no such thing. I have never asserted that poetry "does not
exist." I have asserted that your insistance on labeling it and
making it fit genre is irrelevant to its effectiveness.
[snip]
> > No. He was still alive in May. I have not heard that he died since,
> > so he may still be alive. You have, I take it, not read any of his
> > recent work, then. How odd that you would try to characterize a poet
> > whose work you are not familiar with.
>
> I just looked at some of it and it was just like the poetry of 20
> years ago. Poetry hasn't changed a bit.
What did you look at? Certainly not Merwin, whose style has changed
quite a bit in 20 years.
[snip]
> >
> > More gibberish. Poetry comes in many forms, of which lyric is but
> > one. With the exception of east coast academic (as practiced in The
> > New Yorker,) the forms are alive, vigorous, and very effective,
> > although like any art, 90% is crap, and one must find the other 10%.
>
> So at least one part is dead and the other 90% is crap? I'd say
> that's a dead genre or two or three...
and you would be fixating on a non-issue while playing semantic games.
Anyway, you've made no actual points, and provided no substantiation
for any of your bald assertions, so there's no merit in continuing
this.
If you should actually bother to find out what poetry is like in the
20th century and then care to discuss it with evidence rather than
assertion, we can continue. But if you wish to continue to
demonstrate that you don't have any familiarity with modern poetry and
make claims you don't even care to attempt to substantiate you'll have
to do it without me.
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> [snip]
[snip]
>
> > > And if English language poetry is "dead" how do you explain Nobel
> > > prizes in literature going to English language poets?
> >
> > Is the Nobel Prize committee able to define the genre? no.
> >
>
> Are you able to raise any actual arguments? no.
I've pointed out a lot of problems with the generic definition and
basic aesthietics of Modern English Poetry.
If these don't seem "actual", then I don't know what to tell you.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Neither a stereotype nor a portrait is required. What is needed is
> > a functional genre.
> >
> >
>
> Poetry encompasses more than one form, and is quiet functional,
> without being infected by 'genre'. Even in English it moves people to
> action, stirs emotions, raises a smile, and wins Nobel prizes in
> literature.
>
> Do you actually have a point to make, or will continue to make
> unsubstantiated assertions and demonstrations of your lack of
> familiarity with modern poetry?
I'm perfectly familiar with Modern Poetry. Merwin, for example, has
been an accepted major poet for 20 years.
Moreover, since you substantiate everything I'm saying yourself by
referring to the "infection" of genre, I don't see what more you can
want.
But I will make my basic points again:
1) When people say poetry they mean Lyric Poetry (as opposed to say epic
which is certainly dead)
2) Apparently only the Noble Prize Committee has any idea who or what
good poetry is
3) Because the genre, as a genre, is very poorly defined
4) and I blame this on the lingering impact of Modernist Aesthetics
You have "substantiated" points 2 and 3 yourself and I suspect you will
substantiate 1 and 4 as well sooner or later
Sunbeam the Deacon
Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > My point is that there is no definition, because there is no genre.
> >
>
> Then you have no point, since there is a definition and there is
> active poetry.
What is the definition? And there are plenty of "active" things that
don't belong to any functional genre.
>
> > > Your unsubstantiable claim that people mean "lyric poetry" when they
> > > say "poetry" is the reason that "lyric poetry doesn't function"?
> >
> > No. The fact that people mean lyric poetry when they say poetry is a
> > symptom of just how dysfunctional the whole generic definition of Modern
> > English poetry is.
> >
>
> You have offered *no* evidence to support your mistaken assertion that
> "people mean lyric poetry" when they say poetry.
How would "support" be possible given that nobody knows what poetry is?
I'll bet the definition you give (if that ever happens) will essentially
define lyric poetry.
>
> Nor would "people" whomever they are, confusing all of poetry with one
> form of poetry be any evidence that poetry is dead or dysfunctional.
Why wouldn't it be?
> All you have demonstrated is that *you* have a definition of modern
> English poetry that is, due to being in no way related to the actual
> poetry, dysfunctional.
No, I have no definition because, as far as I can see, in terms of
genre, there is no such definition.
> > > Poetry isn't now merely "lyric" poetry; your assertion that people mean
> > > "lyric poetry" when they say poetry isn't accurate; and even if lyric
> > > poetry no longer had a presence in English (something that isn't true)
> > > it would not support the thesis that poetry in English is dead.
> >
> > Well which is it? The whole generic definition is a mess as you
> > demonstrate right here.
>
> The only person having any problem defining anything related to poetry
> is you. I know what it is and how to recognize it and the 'people'
> you refer to simply don't exist.
Since nobody can define poetry as a genre (and any attempt will
essentially define lyric poetry) then if any people exist they will be
the people that I mean.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Or how interesting: You say " "genre" has nothing to do with the
> > effectiveness of poetry...
> >
> > And I say: Which is why poetry is a dysfunctional genre. Ie. if poetry
> > were a properly defined genre then its effectiveness would have
> > something to do with its genre.
>
> Silly word games. Labels have nothing to do with the effectiveness of
> art forms. Your personal failure to be able to define poetry is an
> argument from ignorance, not a demonstration that poetry is dead.
I don't think so. A genre that evidently has the terminal problems of
definition that poetry has is essentially a dead genre, no matter what
the Noble Prize Committee may think.
>
> > There may be perfectly good poems out there...but how, except via the
> > Noble Prize Committee, does anyone know what they are?
> >
>
> By doing something you seem to have stopped doing despite your
> assertion to the contrary: by reading poetry.
If the genre cannot be defined, how will I know I am doing that unless
the Noble Prize Committee can see the whole future of Mankind?
> [snip]
> >
> > It is a genre (kind) of poetry. It appears to be most confusingly
> > dead, but still, very dead.
> >
>
> You are become quiet tedious with this repetion of a point that you
> offer no evidence in support of.
See the above. If only the future vision of the Noble Prize committee
can specify the object, the object does not exist for all practical
purposes.
> >
> > > > It is obviously a dead genre.
> > >
> > > Perhaps to you. Certainly not to anyone actually familiar with late
> > > 20th century poetry.
> >
> > Well, you claim this familarity, but you say it does not exist.
> > This sounds like a dead genre to me.
>
> I say no such thing. I have never asserted that poetry "does not
> exist." I have asserted that your insistance on labeling it and
> making it fit genre is irrelevant to its effectiveness.
Effectiveness at doing what? No one can specify that. The
effectiveness is, by definition, not to be specified. IE. the genre
does not exist as a genre. Ie. poetry has no generic definition so the
term "poetry" does not really denote anything, ie poetry, generically
speaking, does not exist and the genre is empty, ie "dead"....
>
> [snip]
>
> > > No. He was still alive in May. I have not heard that he died since,
> > > so he may still be alive. You have, I take it, not read any of his
> > > recent work, then. How odd that you would try to characterize a poet
> > > whose work you are not familiar with.
> >
> > I just looked at some of it and it was just like the poetry of 20
> > years ago. Poetry hasn't changed a bit.
>
> What did you look at? Certainly not Merwin, whose style has changed
> quite a bit in 20 years.
What if I find signs of change in Merwin? What will this tell me?
> > >
> > > More gibberish. Poetry comes in many forms, of which lyric is but
> > > one. With the exception of east coast academic (as practiced in The
> > > New Yorker,) the forms are alive, vigorous, and very effective,
> > > although like any art, 90% is crap, and one must find the other 10%.
> >
> > So at least one part is dead and the other 90% is crap? I'd say
> > that's a dead genre or two or three...
>
> and you would be fixating on a non-issue while playing semantic games.
>
> Anyway, you've made no actual points, and provided no substantiation
> for any of your bald assertions, so there's no merit in continuing
> this.
>
> If you should actually bother to find out what poetry is like in the
> 20th century and then care to discuss it with evidence rather than
> assertion, we can continue. But if you wish to continue to
> demonstrate that you don't have any familiarity with modern poetry and
> make claims you don't even care to attempt to substantiate you'll have
> to do it without me.
Okay.......
Dr. Kindheart
Sunbeam the Deacon wrote in message <3877EB47...@worldnet.att.net>...
<snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip snip>
Do you two pseudo-intellectuals have e-mail capabilities? If not let me
recommend either JUNO, Yahoo, or Hotmail as free servers that will give us
all a break.
--Kindheart
twahlmeier
Usenet Poster Boy wrote in message <734scpj...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>
>Peter Hickman <Peter....@rtp.ppdi.com> writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>> For some reason, I can only think of describing what went wrong in
>> fairly cryptic ways:
>>
>>
>> The genre defined itself out of existence.
>>
>
>who hand out the Nobel prize for literature.
>
>> Every poem came to be essentially about the failure of language to
>> function very well when it is supposedly functioning in a genre that
>> defines itself as a realm where language is pushed as close to
>> failing as it can go.
>>
>
>it fits so few good poets.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Lyric poetry (as opposed to song lyrics, which are better than ever,
>> if you know where to look) is now as dead as Epic Poetry. These
>> things happen. Genres can cease to function when they become overly
>> specialized in an aesthetic niche and the aesthetic shifts and the
>> air hose gets cut and the next thing you know a plaintive voice is
>> singing:
>>
>
>reading the same modern poets I have. W.S. Merwin has recently
>written an excellent book length poem, for example, that has none of
>the failings you claim for modern poetry, and the latest edition of
>the Norton Anthology is full of late 20th century poets who do not
>have any of the failings you are trying to ascribe to them.
>
>Marty
I would have to agree with Peter Hickman. It's not that the poems are that
bad, but they have become so TRIVIALIZED. When Keats or Tennyson or Kipling
(Masefield/Frost) wrote about commonplace things, they were able to do so
with a command of the language that is unheard of in today's poets. It's
not that the poems are dumbed down, but the poem writers.
While I was in college (a 4-year liberal arts school), I worked in the
library. Not only did I read the classics, I read the modern stuff
published in the school writing journal. Most of the modern stuff was
incomprehensible. N.B. My freshman writing class had to write an essay to
pass the class. I went into the essay with an A average. The assignment was
to write about "what is your favorite season and why". Out of three
professors, one said I was "too poetic, because I used too many descriptive
phrases", one said I was "not poetic enough for the subject matter", and the
third gave me a passing grade. And people wonder why the stuff is so bad.
It's like the colleges are teaching "poetry helper". Just add words.
Troy the arsonist.
"I don't want to set the world on fire, i just want to start a flame in your
heart."
Bill Funke
<mc...@belmontcty.net> wrote:
<...>
>Who is your favorite poet?
All of the good ones. I have a special fondness for Conrad Aiken,
though. Probably because he was my "Rosetta Stone." He was the first
one whose imagery and symbolism was immediately apparent to me, and
gave me the clue to understand Eliot, et al.
>Why do you think that poetry is a penniless market?
Not entirely penniless. When I was in the Army I made a couple of
bucks with another guy who was a pretty good artist. He'd do a
pastel of some guy's girlfriend from a picture, and I'd write some
sappy love sonnet. Practiced bad calligraphy putting the poem on the
bottom of the picture. The girlfriends loved it, or at least told the
guys they did.
Close to penniless, though.
Anyway, my guess is that it's because poetry requires that the reader
work almost as hard as the poet. Not only is it difficult for an
"average" reader to follow the rythm of much poetry while reading, it
requires a lot of work to understand the what the poet is saying.
Then, after all that work, you find out the poet is preaching to you
half the time.
Dunno about the rest of the world, but for some reason Americans are
fairly ignorant about poetry. Maybe it's like math and history--
shoved down our throats in schools to students who have no
understanding of its relevance to the real world.
What is "good" poetry, anyway? Is it anything like "good" art? Who
decides?
If Ezra Pound were to pop up unannounced and unheard of today, would
he be discarded as a lousy poet because nobody knew what the hell he
was talking about?
On the other hand, there's Hallmark, song lyrics... Some people have
made a buck out of something approximating poetry.
BTW, been away for a while-- belated Happy New Year to all.
Sunbeam the Deacon
The Chocolate Lady wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 20:42:24 -0500 during the misc.writing Community
> News Flash, Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net>
> reported:
>
> >3) Because the genre, as a genre, is very poorly defined
>
> You haven't proven this at all. Its like saying that fiction, as a
> genre, is very poorly defined. It isn't. You seem to be saying only
> that one specific kind of poetry is poorly defined. That may be the
> case, but that doesn't kill off all poetry, does it?
>
I agree, the poor definition of poetry as a genre is something of an
illusion induced by the collapse of Modernism, but, alas, in this case
the illusion is the reality.... essentially it goes like this;
1) People still know what lyric poetry is...but it appears to have been
reduced so much to "essentials" by the Modernist Aesthetic that nobody
knows what to do with it any more (except note that something
"expressive" is going on...but that undermines the generic idea still
more)
2)there maybe other types of poetry, but they are, at this point, even
less well defined than the badly erroded state of Lyric Poetry and if
all anyone knows about them is that they are "expressive"...they may
never in fact become recognizable at all.
And Fiction centers on narrative so it is generally always okay.
Sunbeam the Deacon
The Chocolate Lady wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2000 10:07:38 -0500 during the misc.writing Community
> News Flash, Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net>
> reported:
>
> >
> >
> >Usenet Poster Boy wrote:
> >
> >> I would suggest that you find yourself a copy of _Quickly Aging Here_
> >> and read and understand it before continuing to pontificate on a topic
> >> that you are so out of touch with.
> >
> > I gave the topic a lot of thought back when I quit writing poetry. I
> >think that for poetry to be revitalized it needs a new generic
> >definition and a new aesthetic.
> >
>
> In order to see if this theory works, one should try to take it and
> apply it to another writing genre.
>
> Let's see... first we would have to assume that poetry, as a writing
> art form, is dying out. Oh dear. How can we apply this same theory
> to another writing art form, if the initial assumption is already so
> fully in error.
>
> Sorry, Pete. If poetry as a writing art form was really dying, they
> why are there so many entries (both new and old) in "Poets Market"?
> And why would Writers Digest Books continue to update and publish such
> a reference book if the industry itself was dying?
I don't find reference books a convincing source for what people really
experience. I think most people don't find poetry very engaging and the
basic reason is that it is not well defined generically.
> OK. Let's forget that for the moment, shall we?
>
> A new generic definition? Why would that be necessary to revitilize
> poetry in general? Doesn't the fact that there is still a large
> interest in poetry - as a whole, in all its forms - enough to allow
> for poetry not to require such a new generic definition? Does any
> other writing art form require it as long as there are still people
> who write and read them?
You would think so if you take the Modernist extension of the Romantic
Idea that each Great Work is its own genre....however Modernism has
vanished and left poetry high and dry...without an aesthetic and without
any workable genres.
>
> A new aesthetic? What's wrong with the old one? What was beautiful
> 300 years ago will still be beautiful 300 years from today - what was
> crap 300 years ago has long been forgotten and what is crap today will
> never survive another 300 minutes, let alone 300 years.
This isn't quite true. Even the worst crap from the late 17th century
can be identified as to what its effect was supposed to be...ie we know
why it is crap. If you look at most poetry these days...can you tell
what went wrong? No. There is no generic definition and no aesthetic.
the crap is pure crap and pure crap should not occur as part of a
literary genre.
This is true
> of all writing art forms, not just poetry. And just as there are
> always new genres of expressing oneself in writing,
That's the Modernist take on Romanticism. Is it true? What does it
imply? I think it implies that Modern English Poetry is a mess because
it is still hooked up to a vanished set of aesthetic evaluations of
such things as genres.
there will be new
> waves and trends in both fiction and poetry. Some will fizzle out,
> some will continue. Poets don't generally write like e.e. cummings
> anymore, but that doesn't mean that his poetry isn't still enjoyed.
> I've noticed many places that show Science Fiction and Fantasy poetry.
> I even found one site that wasn't too bad. I'd like to read more of
> it, but I know I can never write it.
>
> Tastes change, but an excellently written phrase will always be just
> that. Both poetry and prose should and do strive for that. There's
> your generic definition of aesthetic, my friend. And it applies to
> all writing art forms.
>
My point is that no amount of excellent phrases add up to a functional
genre. Modern English Poerty may have lots of excellent phrases, but
these don't fit into any generic or aesthetic scheme....hence the
problems poetry has....
--
Old Bill
Sunbeam the Deacon <artemu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3878AC8F...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
<snip>>
> My point is that no amount of excellent phrases add up to a functional
> genre. Modern English Poerty may have lots of excellent phrases, but
> these don't fit into any generic or aesthetic scheme....hence the
> problems poetry has....
>
>
The problem that poetry has is that so much of it is junk. The good stuff
just gets buried among the mass of rubbish.
nanci
>The problem that poetry has is that so much of it is junk.
>The good stuff just gets buried among the mass of rubbish.
>
this is true of any writing genre. however, people seem
to be more willing to forgive, or even to seek out,
the rubbish in fiction and non-fiction. these same
people dismiss poetry (as they dismiss "classical" music).
i don't think it has to do with rubbish so much as the
everyday Man's view concerning the "snobbishness" of poetry,
the concept of poetry as soft and "touchy-feely" and the
idea that poetry is something that you just don't get.
oh. while i'm at it, i just wanted to AGAIN point out that
this thread is concerning writing, it has some depth,
and it is taking place in a general writing newsgroup.
and it concerns poetry, and is fairly meaningful, if you
can get past the extremely dry hair-splitting between
Pete and Marty.
--
n
A sign that you've had too much of these times: Your reason
for not staying in touch with family is that they do not have
e-mail addresses.
nanci
>for nanci's to have been correct, she would have had to
>specify a sub-discipline of engineering instead of just
>engineering principles.
>
not really. a civil engineer can get benefit from
a general engineering course, as can a chemical engineer,
as can an electrical engineer. the general engineering
course covers many aspects of engineering, including
basic engineering principals. my chem-E roommate
lamented taking the course. "What do I need to learn
about ohms and volts and circuits for?"
my aeronautical engineering buddy lamented. "Why on
earth should I fret over balancing chemical equations?"
i, the electrical engineering student wondered why
so much emphasis was placed on stresses, tensions,
forces, dynamics and statics. even so, the well-rounded
discussions and principals and information were of
benefit to *each* engineering student.
i believe my analogy was a decent one.
--
n
If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping
me.
nanci
>>i believe my analogy was a decent one.
>>
>
>but it would have been beyond question if you'd said 'civil
>engineer' or 'chemical engineer' or any of those other sub-
>disciplines of engineering.
>
hmmm. let me think about that for a moment.
the discussion centered on whether a general writing
group could serve as a place for discourse on poetry.
in this case, poetry is the sub-discipline of writing.
the general writing group is the metaphorical equivalent
of the general engineering core course.
students from all sub-disciplines of engineering take
the general course, just as writers from all sub-
disciplines of writing attend misc.writing or one of
its sister general groups [to be].
thus, an electrical engineer may derive benefit from
a discussion of civil engineering practices in the
core course, just as a journalist may derive benefit
from a discussion of poetry in a writing group.
now if i'm following you, i would have made a *better*
analogy (forgive me, i'm noodling out loud, so to speak),
if i'd pointed to a specific course, say a civil
engineering course, and discussed whether a chemical
engineering student would derive benefit from taking
that course.
unquestionably, any sort of engineer would derive *some*
benefit from taking the course, but that scenario would
be more analogous to, say, a writer of fiction going to
rec.arts.poetry to derive benefit from a discussion of
poetry in that group. which was not at all the point
i was trying to make.
either i'm getting confused, or we're talking around a
topic and not quite understanding what each other is saying,
or my analogy was actually much better than i originally
thought it was and i should reward myself by baking some
fudge brownies and eating them.
*do* tell me i may bake brownies. i'm rather in the mood
for them.
--
fellow st. bernard.
The word trousers is an uncommon noun because it is singular
at the top and plural at the bottom. -- grade school wisdom
nanci
>no. had you followed me correctly <g>, you would see that
>your original analogy would be better had it read like this:
>
>"the shocking lack of knowledge of civil engineering
>principles among engineering students is a significant reason
>for not discussing civil engineering principles in a general
>engineering core class."
oh! yes. perhaps i should take the time to backtrack
and re-read my words, rather than try to wing
it and remember what i wrote while in a lack-of-chocolate-
fudge-brownie-induced state of funk.
thank you, yes, your correction works much better.
>>*do* tell me i may bake brownies. i'm rather in the mood
>>for them.
>
>
>i shall tell that, not only should you bake those brownies,
>but you should EAT them as well.
oh, thank you!!!
>(ever tried them warm with heavy cream?)
that would necessitate me going out to the store. in
my state, i probably should eschew trips outside until
i'm all better. i'll get cracking on those brownies
now, though and then life will become much sweeter.
--
n (did i ever tell y'all about pizookies?)
You know you're drinking too much coffee when your first-aid
kit contains two pints of coffee with an I.V. hookup.
Usenet Poster Boy
"twahlmeier" <twahl...@mciworld.com> writes:
[snip]
> I would have to agree with Peter Hickman. It's not that the poems
> are that bad, but they have become so TRIVIALIZED. When Keats or
> Tennyson or Kipling (Masefield/Frost) wrote about commonplace
> things, they were able to do so with a command of the language that
> is unheard of in today's poets. It's not that the poems are dumbed
> down, but the poem writers.
>
I think you are making the mistake of comparing typical poetry of our
current time with the best poetry of an earlier generation. Certainly
the best poets of our generation are as effective as the best poets of
earlier generations in their use of language. It is, in fact, the
exquisite use of language by the very best poets that most impresses
me in this time of trivialization of language.
[snip]
Marty (who always thought Kipling 'overwrought' anyway.)
Usenet Poster Boy
nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> old...@btinternet.com (Old Bill) was SO like:
>
> >The problem that poetry has is that so much of it is junk.
> >The good stuff just gets buried among the mass of rubbish.
> >
>
> this is true of any writing genre. however, people seem
> to be more willing to forgive, or even to seek out,
> the rubbish in fiction and non-fiction. these same
> people dismiss poetry (as they dismiss "classical" music).
>
Oh no. *those* are the people who keep Hallmark in business.
> i don't think it has to do with rubbish so much as the
> everyday Man's view concerning the "snobbishness" of poetry,
> the concept of poetry as soft and "touchy-feely" and the
> idea that poetry is something that you just don't get.
>
That's not a failing of poetry. *That* is a failing of how poetry is
-taught-. If one thinks that modern poetry is snobby,
incomprehensible, soft or 'touchy-feely', they haven't read well in
English poetry, and prescribe Langston Hughes as a starting point.
> oh. while i'm at it, i just wanted to AGAIN point out that
> this thread is concerning writing, it has some depth,
> and it is taking place in a general writing newsgroup.
It has no depth. It consists of people claiming back and forth
"poetry's bad", "no it isn't", "yes it is", with no insight at all.
It is a Hallmark card discussion of a topic that deserves more.
>
> and it concerns poetry, and is fairly meaningful, if you
> can get past the extremely dry hair-splitting between
> Pete and Marty.
>
And Nanci's cheap shots.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
dav...@jdc.org.il (The Chocolate Lady) writes:
> On 07 Jan 2000 22:48:04 -0800 during the misc.writing Community News
> Flash, Usenet Poster Boy <usenet...@fogey.com> reported:
>
> >
> >Your analogy would be apt if you had mentioned a lack of knowledge of
> >engineering principles among accounting students. That is the
> >approximate similarity of discussing poetry with general writers.
> >
>
> Except that accounting and engineering are completely different
> fields. Poetry is a type of writing, just as fiction is a type of
> writing, just as non-fiction is a type of writing, just as
> screenwriting is a type of writing, just as playwriting is a type of
> writing, just as technical writing is a type of writing.
>
Oh lord no. Engineering and accounting share a heavy reliance on
mathematics, in the same way that fiction and poetry share a heavy
reliance on language; but both use their material in radically
different ways.
Usenet Poster Boy
dav...@jdc.org.il (The Chocolate Lady) writes:
[snip]
>
> So far, I haven't found all that many places to find the "new
> stuff".
The New Yorker was, once, but has long since stopped. A good library
might have _Poetry_ or any of a number of other good poetry journals,
but you are, IIRC, at a disadvantage when attempting to find English
language publications. On line poetry is, like everything else on
line horribly edited and the good is utterly overwhelmed by the trashy.
[snip]
My favorite way of finding new poets, since I have had the opportunity
to do some traveling, is to go to local bookstores in areas I visit,
find the "local authors" section, and read the poetry. Usually
locally published poets are available in chap books, which are
inexpensive, and reading chap books gets you away from the mistaken
notion that modern English Poetry is merely what appears in the New
Yorker.
A recent book (a few years old now,) that I recommend is _20th Century
Pleasures_. The Norton Anthology is always good, and recent editions
are usually available in used bookstores.
Marty
Paul Martin
> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:38a14ef6...@news.supernews.com...
> > On 7 Jan 2000 19:04:39 GMT, in misc.writing nan...@engineer.com
> > (nanci) spake thus:
> >
> > >>>Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word
> > >>>in it.
> > >>
> > >>Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
> > >>
> > >>I assume then you've never read much of any.
> > >
> > >i have.
> >
> > Me too. :)
> >
> > >but that's not the point. steve is our resident
> > >anti-poet. as, to me, there is no such thing
> > >as good tasting beer, to steve, there is no such
> > >thing as good poetry.
> > >
> > >see?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > And I'm with you on the beer thing. *shudder*
>
> I *knew* it! Damned poets have no taste!
> <g>
"The trouble with poet is how do you know it's deceased?" --Sweeny Todd
Paul (and considering that the hottest-selling book of poetry at the
moment is written by Jewel... well, need we say more?)
--
The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds; and
the pessimist fears this is true. [James B. Cabell]
Usenet Poster Boy
nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> usenet...@fogey.com (Usenet Poster Boy) was SO like:
>
[snip]
> >It has no depth. It consists of people claiming back and
> >forth "poetry's bad", "no it isn't", "yes it is", with no
> >insight at all. It is a Hallmark card discussion of a topic
> >that deserves more.
>
> by "depth" i mean the number of posts going into the
> thread, not the depth of the conversation.
>
oh. if that's your definition of depth, you should play with PRK more
often. Those threads always go pretty deep.
>
> >> and it concerns poetry, and is fairly meaningful, if you
> >> can get past the extremely dry hair-splitting between
> >> Pete and Marty.
> >>
> >
> >And Nanci's cheap shots.
>
> it was humor, marty. a small joke at yours and pete's
> expense. my pardon. i forgot that, since you don't
> seem to have much regard for me, you might consider my
> small jibe a "cheap shot" as opposed to a bit of jocularity.
>
I have a very small regard for the cheap shots that are passed off as
humor in misc.writing.
But no, cheap-shot/jocularity aside, there is no real depth in this
so-called discussion of poetry. It is, as one would expect of a
discussion of poetry in a forum not populated in the main by poets,
rather superficial. What surprises me about it is how inarticulate it
is, given that it appears in a writing newsgroup.
Of course, r.a.p is populated by poets and the discussion there rarely
extends beyond the playground insult level either.
Perhaps TMM is right and Usenet is no place to attempt to articulate
well thought out comments on carefully observed topics in the
misguided belief that intelligent exchange will follow. (In
engineering speak: the signal-to-noise level on Usenet is too low.)
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
Jerry Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> I have been cogitating about art in general, and have decided it is
> _anything_ we do for reasons other than function. We write to record
> information so it can be widely disseminated -- that is writing's
> functional basis. But when we write about things that don't exist, for
> no real reason, it becomes art.
>
Alas it is too easy to demonstrate the failure of that
dichotomy. Throughout most of European history art had a function, if
no more than to "celebrate the glory of god."
But even among the modernists there are those who, with Frank Lloyd
Wright, believed that great art arises when form follows
function. That was a tenet of both the Arts&Crafts movement at one
extreme and Bauhaus at the other, and seems to be accidently true of
the artifacts of the Shaker community.
> Similarly, we speak to communicate; but singing, because it is
> unnecessary, becomes art, and from that springs music.
There is at least one theory that suggests that human languages were
originally -more- song like and that they have changed away from that
over time. There are certainly older more musical languages than
English.
[snip of other examples]
>
> The more complicated and abstract the unnecessary becomes, the more it
> embodies art. It's really that simple. Various cultures have evolved
> their own traditions for understanding art; much art is impenetrable to
> those who do not understand the traditions. Some arts have become so
> abstract and obscure that, for the most part, only their practicioners
> can judge the quality of work and, indeed, obtain enjoyment from these
> arts.
I think you are going in a different direction here than with your
earlier point, and it is one that various art historians would
disagree with. While art does go through periods of increasing
complication, it also goes through periods of simplification, and, in
apparent paradox, sometimes the *simplest* art is the hardest for an
outsider to understand, as witnessed by the vocabulary of Jasper Johns,
especially his most recent work on display at SF-MOMA.
>
> When it comes down to it, all you can really say about a given work is
> 1) whether you found it enriching or enjoyable and 2) how close it comes
> to the ideals of the particular artistic tradition it springs from. And
> you can only judge the latter to the extent you are educated in the
> tradition.
>
On this we both agree. There is, in fact, visual art, that when asked
to judge, I simply say "I'm sorry, but I don't know the vocabulary of
that school well enough to appreciate this example."
> As for myself, I have put as much effort into understanding the
> traditions of my culture's art as seems useful to me. Some of it goes
> over my head, and always will. I see no real need to spend years of my
> life studying music just so I can understand what a composer is saying
> with no promise that I will find what he has to say worthwhile. Much
> art is enjoyable, even comprehensible, only to other artists.
>
Oh yes, about the diversion. You are touching, I think, on a separate
issue when you talk about the comprehensibility of art. First, art is
not always meant to be 'understood'. Some art is merely there to be
experienced, and no experience of it is superior to any other. But
for art that is intended to be understood in some manner, there are
really two different ways in which it fails. When a movement is new,
it is almost always misunderstood, in part because no one has yet
found a lucid way of describing it, and in part because knowledge of
the context hasn't had time to spread. Such art can eventually turn
out to be quiet simple to understand.
On the other hand, there is a tendency, especially in certain visual
media, for schools to develop that are intentionally obscuring, that
explicitly develop a jargon intended to distinguish those in the know
from outsiders.
I'm afraid "art" isn't that easy to pin down, and that's only in the
context of later Western culture. It gets even harder when you take
in an Eastern aesthetic and try to incorporate it in a model of art.
Marty
Usenet Poster Boy
mag...@forest.gen.nz (Maggie Forest) writes:
> On 09 Jan 2000 16:52:07 -0800, Usenet Poster Boy
> <usenet...@fogey.com> wrote:
> >Oh lord no. Engineering and accounting share a heavy reliance on
> >mathematics, in the same way that fiction and poetry share a heavy
> >reliance on language; but both use their material in radically
> >different ways.
>
> uhm... having been an accountant in a previous life, I'd have to say
> the reliance on mathematics is minimal. An accountant deals in
> numbers, this is true, but the maths... well, I didn't even do maths
> past high school, and still managed to get accredited.
>
Let me clarify: by "heavy reliance" I didn't mean that the subject
matter was deep, only that it was indispensable. Try doing accounting
without that high school math. . .
Marty
Keltic
<tetr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Steven Wright asked through his channeller:
>> What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
>Simple. You're 3/4 dead.
Wouldn't you be 1/4 dead?
That would indicate that the more times you're scared half to death,
the less dead you become. That sorta vindicates Nietzsche; what
doesn't kill you, apparently, makes you stronger.
Cheers, Keltic
Steve Pritchard
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:09 -0000, in misc.writing "Steve Pritchard"
> <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> spake thus:> >news:38a70717...@news.ohiohills.com...
> >> Bad poetry is about angst.
> >
> >Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word in it.
>
> Hmm. You've never read good poetry?
>
> I assume then you've never read much of any.
Julie, I can count the amount of "good" poetry that I have read on the
fingers of one hand. I have never seen enough fingers to tally up the score
for "bad" poetry.
You assumption, by the way, is slightly incorrect.
Steve Pritchard
Usenet Poster Boy <usenet...@fogey.com> wrote in message
news:73ogaxg...@shell3.ba.best.com...
>
> "Steve Pritchard" <st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> > JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:38a70717...@news.ohiohills.com...
> > > Bad poetry is about angst.
> >
> > Bad Poetry is a phrase that has at least one redundant word in it.
>
> writers is a significant reason for not discussing poetry in a general
> writing group.
Shocking? Why is that, exactly?
Poetry has absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever. I've read more than enough
to convince me that I have given it my best shot and that I want no further
part of it.
Are there genre of fiction you dislike? I'll assume there are and that you
therefore avoid them. Would you consider your lack of deep knowledge of this
genre some defect in your education or character, or just admit that you
don't really want to know much about it.
There are a good many poets in this group. If you want to talk about poetry
you will doubtless get replies. The knowledge of the subject is there within
the people who have an interest in it. I, for example, know very little
about Chaucer but I do not consider my ignorance on the subject much of a
personal loss.
Steve Pritchard
>
> nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
> > if there is no discussion of poetry in a general
> > writing newsgroup, those people who come to learn
> > all manner of things will not learn much about poetry.
> >
>
> One doesn't learn "all manner of things" in a general writing
> newsgroup, one learns about prose writing, just as one doesn't learn
> "all manner of things" in an engineering discipline, one learns (one
> hopes,) engineering.
I have learned many, many things since finding this group. Some of those
things have been about prose writing, others have been about philosphy,
history, cooking, engineering, rocket science, horse riding, snowmobiling,
archaeology and so on. I would spend far less time here if all I was going
to get from it was grammar lessons.
> > i may not deliberately seek out poetry in order
> > to learn about it. i have learned a great deal,
> > serendipitously, through the discussions in this
> > general writing group, and others to which i belong.
>
> The purpose of a -focused- group is *not* serendipity. Serendipity in
> this case would be for you to dip into r.a.p and find something that
> encouraged you to learn poetry.
The purpose of this group matters not one jot. It appears that nanci, like
myself, has learned more than just prose writing from this group. It's a
fact, not a supposition.
Steve Pritchard
> On 7 Jan 2000 19:04:39 GMT, in misc.writing nan...@engineer.com
> (nanci) spake thus:
>
> >>>in it.
> >>
> >>
> >>I assume then you've never read much of any.
> >
Steve Pritchard
Alex Jay Berman <smeg...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3876ea40....@news.erols.com...
> On 7 Jan 2000 19:04:39 GMT, nan...@engineer.com (nanci) wrote:
>
> >but that's not the point. steve is our resident
> >anti-poet. as, to me, there is no such thing
> >as good tasting beer, to steve, there is no such
> >thing as good poetry.
> >
>
> Hey, Steve!
>
> What do you think of lyrically-written prose?
> Prose that has a hint of the tactile, a smidge of the sensory, to it?
Okay, to say I have no taste for poetry *at all* is perhaps the slightest
stretch of descriptive terms. I'd say almost all poetry I have read fits the
"bad" category, but some I can appreciate, of not enthuse about. Back when I
was a kid I was force fed war poetry in school and though most of it was dry
and dreadful, a few individual poems did make me stop, think and appreciate
the imagery. "Dulce Et Decorum Est..." is one good example of this, and I
still remember a great deal of it despite having read it some <mumble,
mumble> years ago.
In the first few weeks of my current creative writing course we turned to
poetry once again and my eyes rolled back into my head pretty quickly.
However, something did grab my attention when the lecturer mentioned song
lyrics, and how they were not really poetry, but were a close cousin. I was
not so sure. I brought up war poetry and said that I had appreciated some of
it, and that I could pick out at least one modern song lyric that was a
close match. I was challenged to prove it. While not focusing on the groans
of dying men, or the destructive powers of mustard gas and bullets, it did
have a great emotive charge to it. I brought in the lyrics the following
week and read them out, and my lecturer admitted that they were as close to
poetry as anything she could remember of the war poets. I'd disagree with
that to some extent, but they did prove her original suggestion wrong.
(The lyrics were "Le Morte Dansant" by Magnum, which I won't post here
unless this thread requests them)
Steve Pritchard
nanci <nan...@engineer.com> wrote in message
news:8EB581C8Ecrinklednipplesdotco@news...
> *this* thread, concerning whether poetry is dead or
> not, is interesting. it is useful to me, at the very
> least. while people like Steve may take the opportunity
> to make a few wittily disparaging remarks (always
> maintaining their facade of distaste), that does not
> detract from the overall usefulness of a thread like
> this.
Provided they come across as witty then I don't mind. If people think they
are bitter and sarcastic then I *do* try to placate them. I don't like
poetry but I know others do. People are free to choose what they want
without being derided for it and I keep my comments here in misc.writing
where most people know I'm light hearted about it all. I would not take
these remarks into a poetry newsgroup where no one knows me.
I mean, I'm into roleplaying games, so who am I to throw stones at anyone's
personal preferences?
Steve Pritchard
> old...@btinternet.com (Old Bill) was SO like:
>
> >The problem that poetry has is that so much of it is junk.
> >The good stuff just gets buried among the mass of rubbish.
> >
>
> this is true of any writing genre. however, people seem
> to be more willing to forgive, or even to seek out,
> the rubbish in fiction and non-fiction. these same
> people dismiss poetry (as they dismiss "classical" music).
>
> everyday Man's view concerning the "snobbishness" of poetry,
> the concept of poetry as soft and "touchy-feely" and the
> idea that poetry is something that you just don't get.
I don't get it, I'll admit. What highlights bad poetry for me is when these
"touchy-feely" expressions are so clearly false, so obvious written in order
to provoke a reaction rather than being a true emotive expression. Vivid,
even florid decriptions of the mudane which may just about work in
below-average fiction but which fall apart in poetic form. The use of poetic
analogy that jars the reader out of the words and back into the real world,
puzzling over what those words are actually trying to say. Terrible modern
stuff that seems to think it is innovative or shocking to have single word
line break up the meter and scan. That astonishingly bizarre method of
scattering the words
randomly
around thepagelike this
is just too bewilderingly dumb to describe. I find the whole thing very much
like the art world; I have a limited knowledge of it but I trust my own
judgement. I know what I like and what I don't and I can tell you why on
both counts.
> oh. while i'm at it, i just wanted to AGAIN point out that
> this thread is concerning writing, it has some depth,
> and it is taking place in a general writing newsgroup.
>
> and it concerns poetry, and is fairly meaningful, if you
> can get past the extremely dry hair-splitting between
> Pete and Marty.
Agreed, which is really saying something coming from me.
Steve Pritchard
Obelix <obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:023a5bf4...@usw-ex0101-003.remarq.com...
> Modern English Poetry: What Went Wrong?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> something went wrong
> with modern english poetry
> or went wrong
<..snip..>
An example of what I don't like.
Alma Hromic
<st...@spelbind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There are a good many poets in this group. If you want to talk about poetry
>you will doubtless get replies. The knowledge of the subject is there within
>the people who have an interest in it. I, for example, know very little
>about Chaucer but I do not consider my ignorance on the subject much of a
>personal loss.
>
i had to deal with the guy in the original middle english for my
english o-level exams. hooo boy.
A. (in other words, although i love language in all its forms, i don't
blame you, steve....)
***************
"The difference between journalism and literature
is that journalism is unreadable
and literature is unread."
Oscar Wilde
nanci
>
>nan...@engineer.com (nanci) writes:
>
>> old...@btinternet.com (Old Bill) was SO like:
>>
>> >The problem that poetry has is that so much of it is junk.
>> >The good stuff just gets buried among the mass of rubbish.
>> >
>>
>> this is true of any writing genre. however, people seem
>> to be more willing to forgive, or even to seek out,
>> the rubbish in fiction and non-fiction. these same
>> people dismiss poetry (as they dismiss "classical" music).
>>
>
>Oh no. *those* are the people who keep Hallmark in business.
true enough.
>
>
>> i don't think it has to do with rubbish so much as the
>> everyday Man's view concerning the "snobbishness" of
>> poetry, the concept of poetry as soft and "touchy-feely"
>> and the idea that poetry is something that you just don't
>> get.
>>
>
>That's not a failing of poetry. *That* is a failing of how
>poetry is -taught-. If one thinks that modern poetry is
>snobby, incomprehensible, soft or 'touchy-feely', they
>haven't read well in English poetry, and prescribe Langston
>Hughes as a starting point.
never said it was a failing of poetry. i agree here, too.
>> oh. while i'm at it, i just wanted to AGAIN point out that
>> this thread is concerning writing, it has some depth,
>> and it is taking place in a general writing newsgroup.
>
>It has no depth. It consists of people claiming back and
>forth "poetry's bad", "no it isn't", "yes it is", with no
>insight at all. It is a Hallmark card discussion of a topic
>that deserves more.
by "depth" i mean the number of posts going into the
thread, not the depth of the conversation.
>> and it concerns poetry, and is fairly meaningful, if you
>> can get past the extremely dry hair-splitting between
>> Pete and Marty.
>>
>
>And Nanci's cheap shots.
it was humor, marty. a small joke at yours and pete's
expense. my pardon. i forgot that, since you don't
seem to have much regard for me, you might consider my
small jibe a "cheap shot" as opposed to a bit of jocularity.
please accept my apology.
--
n
When a man says "Good idea." He really means....... "It'll
never work. And I'll spend the rest of the day gloating."