-
I thought this passage might be interesting to discuss. It's from from Mary Karr, "Against Decoration," Viper Rum, Penguin Books, New York, 1998.
"I define two sins popular in much of today's poetry...:
1. Absence of emotion. What should I as a reader feel? This grows from but is not equivalent to what the speaker/author feels. Questioning a poem's central emotion steers me beyond the poem's ostensible subject and surface lovelinesses to its ultimate effect. Purely decorative poetry leaves me cold.
2. Lack of clarity. The forms of obscurity in decorative poetry are many and insidious: references that serve no clear purpose, for instance, or ornate diction that seeks to elevate a mundane experience rather than clarify a remarkable one. lack of clarity actually alienates a reader and prevents any emotional engagement with the poem
My test for a poem's emotional clarity is this elementary exercise: Can you fill in a blank about a poem's subject with an emotional word? 'The Waste Land,' for instance, is a poem about spiritual despair. It is also about lots of ideas, not least of which is a twentieth-century decay of faith which precipitates that despair. But it strives to create that despair in the reader. That's why I return to it, not to test my knowledge of Greek myth and the Upanishads (references to which I had to look up initially anyway), but to rediscover the gravity of certain ideas with the conviction that is only born of feeling.
In my view, emotion in a reader derives from reception of a clear rendering of primal human experiences: fear of death, desire, loss of love, celebration of being. To spark emotion, a poet must strive to attain what Aristotle called simple clarity. The world that the reader apprehends through his or her senses must be clearly painted, even if that world is wholly imaginary, as say, in much of the work of Wallace Stevens."
Thoughts?
-
Ones task is to describe, "It". What It is varies, according to whim, but ventures never too far from language. Some might urge that the poem be atypical a constant inversion of terms, repetition of varying determinations; or that it be based upon sound, that tone itself evoke response. Rigid, formulaic, stolen, refurbished, translated, constructed, created--all terms that lead to the existence of "poem". Each addresses an approach which language uses to express "it".
I myself am not entirely sure what a poem is, I am fairly certain that I want it to do something, but I am at a loss for words to say what that something is; and I know, quite clearly, that I want to write about, am indeed, forced to write about "it". What I don't know, is almost everything, other than facts or rote figures embedded by my experience; but of what use is that when "it" lies on the other side; somewhere I have never been, so far as I can determine with the senses with which I have been blessed--
thus "poem" lies over there somewhere, outside but integral to the human. Above for example, it is mentioned that "The Wasteland" expresses for the reader a spiritual despair I would not dispute that, but it's very title indicates something in addition to that--a place where the poem, a modern poem in this instance, resides, it is a poem about a poem that lies beyond our reach, it aches to exist but cannot.
It is that ache which the poet must strive for--I suppose on a fundamental level it can be expressed as a Love, yet one that cannot be fulfilled, technical prowess will not bring it into existence, nor will empathy and desire, it lies Outside.
We are left with expressions of our existence, we can use that to share our narcissism, our experience within existence, our superiority or our inferiority our anger or our sadness, and if we manage to communicate that, we count ourselves successful.
Yet, we have not found either "it" or "poem" tho both lie underneath everything we write, and beyond.
I suppose it is possible to say that the poet, whoever that may be, should admit failure before venturing on, yet not without defiance, and not without hope, however faint that may be. -
-
I'm not sure what a poem is either, though I can be quite opinionated about not-poems. I am certainly in pursuit of "it," which is really hard, since I don't know what "it" is; I only know I haven't achieved it yet, other than perhaps in fleeting, accidental moments. (Maybe it's always fleeting and accidental? Maybe one dances the happy dance when one chances upon it, like finding a four-leaf clover? I dunno.)
I agree - this week, anyhow - with Mary Karr about emotion and clarity. How clear is clear can be debated, but I think she handles that by saying it need not be "equivalent to what the speaker/author feels." I only know that when I read a poem I just don't get and which doesn't entice me to work at it, even, it doesn't reach me emotionally any more than it does cognitively. And then I have to ask: "is it a poem?" or "for what, poetry?" Narcissism only, maybe. But it's gotta be less about "sharing" our experience than about reaching that universal in which the reader sees him/herself, no? Shed a new light on something old, that kind of thing. Otherwise, why?
Thanks for weighing in.
-
-
I'm a little reluctant to jump into this for two reasins: 1) I will undoubtedly say something that a member or two will believe is utter tripe; and 2) talking about poetry never seems to work for me.
I understand that it is the stock-in-trade of academics, but it strikes me as trying to catch lightning in a bottle. Let's assume that poetry is the "it" that you and Lute mention. So we start by trying to describe something that we freely admit we can't describe. That is problematic. It leaves "it" for others to describe - people who may or may not even be looking for "it", let alone understand "it".
I have been trying to decide if the endless analysis required in my university courses actually did me any good as a writer. I conclude that it only helped me indirectly, in that it increased my exposure to various works of literature (which, in turn, has become an ingredient in everything I write).
To be shockingly frank, I really don't care if anyone labels my work "poetry" or not. I am after the reaction, the physiological change that occurs with good writing - that "feeling" of well-being, pheremones released by the empathetic response. I tend to call what I write "little things", "whatsits", or just "pieces". I don't care if people want to call it prose, poetry, or piffle - as long as I elicit that response
Actually, on second thought, call them really, really short novels, please.
Thank you. -
-
Speaking only for myself, I wasn't referring to poetry as "it," but rather that "something" that makes a poem (or any piece of insight, I suppose) jump out at ya. Some might say that IS the poem, I suppose, and I can understand that use of the word.
I like "whatsits." There's something unnerving to call one's stuff "poetry." Sounds highfalutin' or something, however that's spelled. But yeah, to elicit that response, and to have that elicited in myself by a piece of writing - that's what I'm after, too.
So okay, in the future, really really short novels it is. You're welcome.
-
Well, ain't that just the cat's pyjamas? (Glad you linked the lyrics, too.)
-
-
I hope they're not deleted
-
-
ummmm
It appears they are??? -
-
I deleted them
I couldn't find the epitaph for my fish
sometimes I get tired of posting other peoples works
-
-
-
-
-
Ah hell, Zara. I saw that the topic was "Two Popular Sins," and I was absolutely certain you were starting a thread in my honor about Paris and Nicky Hilton.
Dammit, now I actually will have to think.
-
-
Yeah, I did that just for you. Red herring.
-
-
Well, perhaps not. I mean, if it's "absence of emotion" and "lack of clarity" that are the two popular sins that you want us all to consider and discuss, it occurs to me Paris and Nicky might still prove to be quite topical.
-
-
Does your bird say, "Two sins! Two sins!"?
-
-
Alas, Bird (that's his name) is quite excitable and no doubt wants to comment on sins, but unfortunately has not developed the skill to articulate the requisite words -- or any other words, for that matter. We can hope, but for now tweets, chirps and running around the cage are the only way Bird communicates his enthusiasm for such topics as the Hiltons. That, and crapping on the paper that lines his cage. He can be forgiven for that, though. A lot of other critics would love to do the same thing when discussing the Hiltons, and probably think Bird is simply "spot on" in his unique form of editorializing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I just looked again, and I would just get rid of those two rules and make it just this one (that I believe covers a multitude of sins):
Stop trying to sound like a poet. It pays to enrich your vocabulary, but do it before you write. Readers will know that you are not being honest, and the intent of the poem will be lost among a bunch of big words that (for most people) are not evocative at all.
(I don't know, but it sure seems like most of the "scholarly" attempts at poetry here leave me cold. all those "wonderful constructions" weren't meant for me - they were designed, I think, to impress some other stuffed shirt.) -
-
-
-
I am really, really afraid to ask -- but exactly what is that emoticon called and what exactly are those two heads doing?
I mean, that emoticon looks like it might be titled "Prison Shower" ... -
-
lol. it's called glomping. It's probably one of the two sins.
-
-
-
Could be that's what she's saying, in a way.
I'm a big fan of single syllables.
-
-
Yes, in a way, I think she is saying that.
Some words deserve to be used, even with may syllables. "Cummerbund" springs to mind (it usually does), or canoodle. I used crapulous in a poem and I can't think of a single word that could have served in its place.
But, yes, most of human experience, I think, can and should be described in single syllable words. -
Mary Karr is a novelist. She is a very literal, autobiographical writer of prose.
-
-
Also poet, as noted below.
-
-
-
Scott,
Could you link me to an example of something you would define as "scholarly?"
That would help me.
Lisa
-
-
My quick and overall take is I could be fine with 1 but have serious issues with the pronouncement made in 2. Emotion is the reason I read - I want to feel something and/or have my safe little world shaken up a bit. When I stand in front of a painting I like when my knees knock.
2 feels too narrow minded and a sweeping generalization. Each of us come to a piece of art or a poem with our own lens of perception -- what may seem obscure to one reader may strike a very emotional chord for another. References that serve no clear purpose -- who is the definer of "clear purpose?" No no no -- number 2 doesn't work for me. Too bossy.
-
-
This excerpt from Mary Karr's essay was handed to me as is, and I thought it was interesting as is, but today I looked the thing up, and much of it is available as a "book review" online, if you look up "decorative poetry" and viper rum. I'd link you, but the link is too long and breaks the box. I can IM it to you and anyone else who's interested.
I think "clear purpose" means that the reference would have to enhance the poem, or the world-of-the-poem, such that the poem would suffer (lose meaning) without it.
I know what you mean about the difference between reader perception and poet's intent, and I don't care if I read what the poet intended me to read, as long as I get meaning (emotional connection) from it. Nor do I care if the readers of my tripe "get" what I mean to say, as long they get SOMETHING, and to that end, I aim for clarity. Not to jamb anything down the reader's throat (persuasive essays are for that, not poetry, imo), but to hand them something they can sort through.
Poetry I don't understand (after giving it some effort) used to make me feel stupid. Now I'm older, quite old in fact, and I figure I'm not all THAT stupid.
The point is, I can't access emotion through a tangle of verbiage that's meaningless to me. My knees don't knock if I don't know what I'm looking at.
-
-
I'm not that interested in reading more of her stuff but thanks for posting the two points for discussion, it is interesting.
Mostly I go with my gut and like you, feeling more confident in my own opinions, sort of nice isn't it? I'm coming down, after all these years of study, to believing there are poems and there are things that are not poems. Even almost poems are poems more than not poems -- defining It without the context of the proposed Poem however, is nearly impossible. No perhaps impossible. And yet with a particular piece of work to look at and discuss -- things become so much clearer. It seems the definition like the poem itself is much like a shape shifter.
The Magic is what makes it Poem maybe.
I have often knocked knees looking at something that I don't know what it is -- Mark Rothko for instance. I had such a strong reaction to a painting of his and really I couldn't tell you what I was looking at. With words, I can say that reading Gertrude Stein or even ee cummings as a kid - I wasn't "sure" what I was reading but whatever it was "got me."
These days I don't try to define it as much as Find it.
Good Poetry Forum Topic.
-
-
"I don't try to define it as much as Find it."
I like that.
We humans are cursed with trying to find definitions for everything, I figure, in our search for truth. Maybe we hope to understand better by analysing our perceptions. Complicated beasts, us. In the end I suppose it does come down to chemistry and instinct.
Regarding painting, shape and colour and texture - they all speak to us, we perceive meaning on some level, that's what I think. I loved ee cummings too, I'm sure for the images, though I couldn't have articulated that at the time. So maybe that's it, if the language is too obtuse (or I'm distracted by other things in the poem) I don't get the image, and then it doesn't do what poetry ought to do, which is MOVE me.
Of course, you realize, I talk through my hat.
-
-
Here let me hold up my very own beret and talk through it ...
you know what is funny about your liking ee cummings? you recently made a comment that a stray or wrong apostrophe ruined reading a poem for you -- how the hell did you ever like cummings????
I was thinking how much easier it is to say what isn't a poem rather than what is. All fits I think with the art of poetry which is so much like walking on a sponge.
-
-
hahahaha
He messed with commas and such, but didn't make apostrophe errors...didn't use the possessive form when it was supposed to be plural, for example, which is the one that drives me nuts. His twisting of convention was intentional and part of what his poetry was about.
And yeah, way up there, I said something about knowing a not-poem, but not knowing a poem. That's what makes it all so challenging and interesting for me. 'Course sometimes I'll think something's a poem when most everyone else says it isn't, and, more frequently I'll think somethings not a poem while the critics are raving. It's the hat, I guess.
-
-
And in the end "poem" is just a label, so we go back to "the image" or "the affect".
On the Road is considered by many (myself included) to be a prose-poem. Falkner, Hemingway, Ayn Rand, Carver (and many other 20th century novelists) - all were poets in a way and all of them wrote extremely poetical prose.
Then we have to ask how the label serves us. In most cases, it only tells me where to find something on the bookshelves at my library or bookstore.
As I think about it, this may be another reason I resist the label, "Poet" - in the minds of so many, a poem is something specific and I really don't want to be fenced in like that.
-
-
-
-
-
Perhaps, the primary quality is that transcendence, that which rises above the merely "personal", the aggrandizement of "I".
Once that is accomplished one may search the poem for those qualities which "wound", the magic, the duende, the breath. At that point one comes to the threshold of poem, one is immersed.
-
-
Did I ever tell you, I did my own little tally once, in a book of poems, and almost exactly half of them were first person. That was to satisfy a curiosity about the use of "I" in a poem. "I" doesn't mean that the poem is ABOUT "I," of course, but seeing that freed me up to use "I" when it seemed the best choice. But I'm pretty sure you're not talking about just "I," but rather that other stuff, like you said. "I" doesn't have to be eliminated, as long as it doesn't exclude the reader, right?
(Do tell me why I'm going on and on....)
-
-
I found myself agreeing with a few of Mr. Bell's 32 things -- The I in the poem is not you but someone who knows alot about you and
autobiographical rots.
Of course breaking those rules in tantamount to art but it is a good place to start I think. -
I think the hope is that there is a certain empathy that the reader will feel.
Even when we leave out the literal "I", the reactions are those of the writer, initially - since we can't really experience how another person "feels" love, hate, ennui, sadness, happiness, etc. - written in the hopes that individual, personal experiences and emotions are also universal in nature. I think it is that empathetic response that makes all creative writing possible.
-
-
I agree, the poem is always about oneself, even if that's not explicit. That is what we want, yeah, the universal.
-
LOL. I was about to chime in how I disagree. I think the Poem is always about the Poem.
I'm laughing though cause if I had to have guessed this one, I'd have guessed you and Zara would agree on that point.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Honestly, what does anyone expect a best selling memoirist/creative non-fiction writer to write - mystic poetry? Of course, she is going to think most poetry lacks clarity. That's what makes it poetry.
-
-
She has also published four volumes of poetry, received a Guggenheim Fellowship for poetry, and won the Pushcart for poetry. My guess is that she knows of what she speaks, whether we agree with her opinions or not.
-
-
My point is that she doesn't write that type of poetry and that she is in favor of a clear voice. Maybe you are too. I certainly like it and use it more and more the older I get - but not to the exclusion of the other.
-
-
I am only guessing, but I think that oftentimes obscurity is the refuge of a writer who doesn't even possess clarity. In other words, I read a lot of work that seems to pretend to be momentous with obscure allusions and abstractions that cannot be untangled.
I personally don't believe that lack of clarity makes poetry, do you?
Somewhere along the line, someone (either the writer or the reader) needs to be clear. The reader may not understand how he or she got to a certain place, but the writer should, don't you think? -
-
no, I don't feel that way, Scott. I think a lot of poetry is obscure or at the very least, fluid. I know in a lot of my own work, the meaning changes over time depending on what I bring to it in the way of experience. I know that I was recently talking to someone who said they would never have been able to understand even an iota of what Shelley was on about were it not for copious notes made by his wife, Mary, detailing each poem.
Furthermore, I read Shelley and find my own interpretations - I don't even worry about what it meant to him - and I have experienced epiphanies through his work. I admit when I read more about the work, my understanding deepened in that moment. It would be changed again now if I went back to it, I am sure.
I just wrote my first rime royal for a contest recently and at the time, I wasn't even sure it made any sense. I know what sparked it but I was unsure of the direction it took or what the meaning was. About a week later, it seemed suddenly clear what it was about - though I think another reader would have another interpretation - therefore, it can't really be classified as being "clear," as far as I am concerned. -
-
But Shelley knew what he was "on about" I would wager (not that either of us could actually prove anything). It is possible for the writer to layer meaning into a work so that it takes on different meanings in different contexts - and it is also possible for the reader to impress his or her personal meaning on the work, quite distinct from the writer's intention, but I would question the idea that a writer should have no meaning in mind as he or she writes and edits a work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Poetry is anything not considered prose. It can reflect an inner feeling or an expression of love, be a vignette in verse such as "cowboy poetry" which depicts a way of life gone but not forgotten. It can be the silliness of a nursery rhyme, song lyrics are poetic, the bible, in places, is poetic verse. Academics, of any ilk, endeavor to instill conformity in their students believing the old tried and true ways are the best. Poems are flights of fancy conjured up in the minds of young and old alike. Allpoetry enables each of us to write what we like and face the critism of our peers who in most instances are unqualified to judge.
-
-
I'm not really sure that it is fair to say that anyone is not qualified to judge. It seems to me that whoever reads a piece is certainly qualified to say whether it was effective to them or not - and, really, that is all that matters. I don't care if they know why it was effective (and I usually don't pay much attention to that, anyway). I usually have a pretty good idea why something works in my writing.
I don't write for the academics - there aren't enough of them and they make a living picking the bones of writers, anyway.
I think your definition of poetry as anything that is not prose falls a little short. There is an effect to poetry. Without it, it is only a bunch of words. -
Not sure if you've caught what thelordreigns has said, below, which responds to your statement that "poetry is anything not considered prose."
I would say that definition is a starting point, for sure, and a good place to be for someone who seeks self-expression or self-exploration through writing. I agree that poetry takes many forms, and I think it's possible that some academics might encourage conformity (though the few I've met certainly haven't.) I do think, however, that writing poetry is more complex than just writing non-prose, that it takes skill and study (in the form of reading a ton of it) to get good at it, and that the pursuit of it is a lifelong one.
I'm sure we're talking about two different things here, though. A purist might not call "flights of fancy" poetry, but I think there is room for all kinds and all levels.
Thanks for your input.
-
-
My favorite definition of poetry comes from an old departed friend:
"If it makes an image - it's poetry." ~ Leo Connellan
And I agree that two of the major flaws in poetic attempts are the lack of clarity and the lack of emotion. Those attributes, when present, contribute to the creation of an effective poetic image.
But the "poetry is anything that's not prose" definition works when first starting to write poetry. Really what you are saying is that poetry is anything that doesn't have complete sentences that comprise a paragraph. But this is leading us back into a discussion we probably don't want to have again. -
-
Right! The image!
-
-
Right! The Image!
-
-
Forums /
Poetry and Inspiration Discussion /
Two Popular Sins
|
|
Forums
Sign up for FREEA free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?About AllpoetryWhere friends share poetry - get feedback & publish free today.
→ Learn more
Online: 442Moderators - add ticket Greeters - ask question Gold members
↓
Adios Muchachos
artvswar AutumnGypsy Backstreet Boys blackchapter CelticQueen creionique cricketjeff gillybilly HauntedAngel2012 hopergroper Jesaan jonathangizmo laiqua aran leo2 Lost Vampyre Angel markstanley Naughtygrlred oceanbluize piondexter RareFlower RikkiRae ShallowBeliefs shibby shivs slipperssun VianneErekev waydownuponjoy Zahhar 262 visitors → Show all onlinePlease Support AllpoetryUpgrade today from 5.95/month!
|
|
Notify a Moderator
Ask a question
Random
Chat
Terms of Use
Rules
Our sites: Stories, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Quotes, Philosophy. © Social Design History:
| |
Adding your reply:
zara
Aug 20 2:04 PM
Reply