the "What makes something poetry?" discussion

[Gyppo]

My words are but brush strokes on the canvas of your mind.

Yes!

Gyppo

[Mark H]

A macho boast
spoken openly
makes one
doubt

but …

A faint heart
never won
a fair
lady

[HaroHalola]

Allie - Your Words speak to a Truth far greater than you may discern & percieve; as Saladin's scimitar sliced the weightless, floating scarf to halves, the blustering (humiliated) Saladin could but stand agape, reduced to an indiscernible puddle of muddled mutterings - a precious moment in the Literature of "reduction-division," indeed, " 'The Pen!' be mightier than the Sword!"   H'H./H.e.m.

[thatollie]

Fordy inspired
A chapter written
Makes novel
not

[fordy]

After a bit of tracking down, the story of Richard and Saladin can be found here:

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=evans&book=kings&story=richard

A Sat thread
hijacked thoroughly?
I hope
not

[Mark H]

Fordy

An interesting little fable indeed. I have written a dumbed down version which I think may be suitable for the BBC’s culture show: …

King Dick (places shiny helmet on table): Heh Sally, look at my weapon.

Saladchin: (looks impressed): Wow! That’s massive and so hard. I bet you could bash through iron with that.

King Dick: Well get your weapon out then.

Saladchin: (produces weapon and waves it about a bit). So what do you think?

King Dick: (laughs) Blimey Sally, it’s curved just like a banana. Don’t wave it about like that, you’ll have some buggers eye out. Right I’m off out for a few pints with the Knights Templar. We thought we would try that new gay bar in town- you coming?

(They put there weapons away and head off to the lodge).

And just to un-hijack the thread …

I have a quote from my “Poetry for Uneducated Dimwits” book. It says,

“Poetry defies definition despite attempts by philosophers and poets to pin it down.”

Well if philosophers can’t define it what chance do we have?

Citabria

PS – I think I met your Norwegian cousin Fjordy the other day.

[Allie]

Ah, but philosophers never set out to define anything, just to argue about its definition. And poets are not noted for their definitions, either, are they? Their observations are purely personal.

[fordy]

Fordy

I have a quote from my “Poetry for Uneducated Dimwits” book. It says,

“Poetry defies definition despite attempts by philosophers and poets to pin it down.”

Well if philosophers can’t define it what chance do we have?

Citabria

PS – I think I met your Norwegian cousin Fjordy the other day.

Since when has one philosopher been able to agree with h(im/er)self about anything? The philosopher's favourite phrase "... on the other hand ..."  As for poets agreeing about poetry, this forum is all the evidence I need present.  

We don't speak about our cousin. We are supposed to be shallow and easy to cross but ever since he took up with that Slarty Bartfast fellow, he's gone all deep and sullen on us - he's just not one of us any more.

[Amie]

As for poets agreeing about poetry, this forum is all the evidence I need present.  

I wouldn't recommend using this forum as your only source of evidence.

People are no more likely to disagree about poetry than they are about anything else subjective (eg prose, art, music, etc).  It's like saying that you can't have an opinion about what you like to see in art because there are so many differing opinions out there. 

I don't like to label things "not poetry", but I do sometimes wonder why someone has chosen to write a poem when it seems like what they really wanted to do write was an essay.  Otherwise I tend to try to keep my opinions to I like or don't like this, and try to explain why through analysis of the basics.

Among people who actually study this stuff, there are broad levels of agreement (the things I put in my sticky are considered absolute basics that 95% of of people who teach poetry with agree with - they aren't my own original ideas by a long shot - and I was skeptical, until I realised that most poems I like do in fact follow those rulees.  And when I don't like something so much, often it's because it deviates from them).  So, it's not even really that subjective - just like you can say that 90% of people probably won't call a bunch of discordant notes a song, still there are people who can listen to "industrial" music or random piano clashings and pronounce it genius.  Doesn't mean it is or isn't, but neither does it mean that music theorists are wrong or just talking from personal opinion when they say that 90% of people prefer to hear this combination of notes than that.

[Amie]

ps, before someone comes back with anything that tries to say that I am suggesting the opposite:  I totally agree that someone can break all the "rules" and end up producing a work of genius.  I don't mean to suggest that they are immutable rules - but someone lacking that talent or genius or whatever you want to call it breaks the same rules, and most often it produces a poor poem.  Personally I hate most of the "rules" for prose writers, and don't like the snappy chick lit style that is considered tight and clean and acceptable in today's environment.  You get differing opinions on anything subjective.

[Mark H]

Fordy

ever since he took up with that Slarty Bartfast fellow, he's gone all deep and sullen on us - he's just not one of us any more.

I did wonder why he just kept muttering, “Fort-two, forty-two.”

Others,

What is poetry? I would like to propose a solution:

Let’s assume someone writes something that looks like total twaddle and then claims it is poetry. If they have a track record of writing poetry that has been more generally accepted, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt (sort of like Picasso). BUT if they have only ever produced twaddle and show no ability whatsoever for more traditional forms, then we should consider them twaddlists.

Does that sound reasonable?

Citabria

[Amie]

"Twaddlists" 

But on the other hand, even great poets are capable of producing twaddle or disappearing up their own behinds (subjective, yes, I appreciate)

I think (just a thought) - if someone's demonstrated that they understand the basics of technique and have studied form etc - then when they deviate from those accepted rules, you have to accept that they probably did it on purpose and not through ignorance.  So you dig a little deeper to see what they were trying to achieve.  You may still not like it once you understand what they were after, but it's worth looking for it.

And still, someone can deviate from the rules not knowing what they are, and due to their natural insight or intuition or talent or whatever you want to call it, can still produce something delightful.  I read something on another forum recently which I thought was completely charming, and broke about a zillion rules - still, I liked it because it was fresh and honest, and recreated that experience for me (in this case of being a naive young girl getting ready to go on her first date)

In any case, I always start with "Did I like this?" and not "Is this following the rules?" - I really don't give a damn how many "rules" something breaks if it moves me or makes me happy or makes me look at something in a new way.  If I read it and don't like it, I try and figure out what the author was trying to do, what moved them to write that poem, and then refer back to technique and see if any of the usual problems apply.  If I read it and like it, I may still dig a bit deeper to see if there are any suggestions which might help them develop their theme better, or further whatever aims they seemed to have when they wrote it (again, applying usual caveats that these things are all subjective, and any comments I give are just suggestions, for the writer to apply or not as they feel benefits their writing).

[HaroHalola]

This will be on the same "Page" as Sat., I believe; briefly, for me, & subjectively-so, the "Music" (amongst the primary, "1st. there was Sound") has always come 1st., (why it took me the better part of my Life to appreciate the "Genius" of B. Dylan) as the visceral must permeate/"get-through" before I attend to the "message" (no surprise, here, why "Primitive" Cultures had little/or none of Written Language).  This, of course, upon introspection has also turned-up my familial acculturation, where "little" meaningful attention was given to overt "communication," another matter, though again, subjective.

But "Key" is Communication, & from our vantage point here, Screed "don't cut It," why the Morld is as It is!, the dumbing down...

Beauty through Form without "Form," whatever Intelligently moves, viscerally/inertially... "Art (Poetry), is Energy shaped by Intelligence! (Rimbaud?).   H'H./H.e.m.

[fordy]

Fordy

What is poetry? I would like to propose a solution:

A solution? What is to solve? Someone writes; to you it's poetry, to me it's not. So what? Why the rush to lable and categorise? Let the writer write.

[HaroHalola]

...Uh, let the "games" continue to begin?  Hey, folks, Armageddon continuing in California (Kalinfernia), USA.   H'H./H.e.m.