New Sincerity

[SuicidalBlueJay]

This thread has been split from All Alone to enable further discussion on this topic if desired/ Admin


Billy, what I was trying to say before is that there are different philosophies and points-of-view on what makes something beautiful or meaningful. Some people (more traditional, like yourself) would say that originality and skillful use of words are what makes a poem "good" or "beautiful". But in a world with so many poets making thousands upon thousands of poems, some people might say "oh, being 'original' has lost it's meaning, and the sincerity of the poem is what makes it "good" or "beautiful". They call it "New Sincerity", and it applies to art of all forms (including poetry). Now, I'm not saying that one point of view is more right than the other. I believe that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to make a poem, as I believe that is relative to the individual.

Do you see what I'm saying? This might all sound stupid to you...

I guess someone who would like my poem would be against elitism (trying to be better than others in some way or another). They wouldn't think "Jack" is better than "Jill" because he doesn't use cliches and has studied the poems by all the famous poets. They might like my poem because it was written by someone who doesn't consider them self "more educated", "more skillful", "more knowledgeable" about poetry than them.

You get the idea. But please don't take me seriously, It's just philosophy. I couldn't help myself...

[billy]

this is turning into more of a discussion than feedback but i'm afraid originality will usually trump your cliche. sincerity is not carried on the back of cliche, how can a poet be or seem to be sincere if they simply repeat what a hundred other poets have said. so no, i'm sorry but i don't get your idea. and i don't get how not liking cliche is elitist.
in truth and outside all the cliche you use, the poem isn't well written and carries little if any sincerity. by all means stick to your guns because i could be wrong and it could be a great and sincere poem despite what i say.
thanks for the read.

[Erthona]

.

Sincerity does not a poem make, inspiration does. It usually takes most people many years to recognize how to access inspiration in a way that is functional for poetry. Most of the time sincerity is used as an excuse to avoid critique, there are many sites that support that, this is not one. Those other sites the people are serious about themselves but not about their poetry, here we are serious about poetry and hopefully not about ourselves. For people who have worked years at their craft to have someone say, this is good because it is sincere is a bit nausea producing. Of course we never say that cause it might make us look bad. Still, what reaction do you think someone would get who had never painted, knew nothing of shade, depth, color, brushes, perspective, et al, and upon completion of their first endeavor, declared it good because it was sincere. As someone who has been good enough to make money in both music and art, let me say, poetry is much harder than either.

Please stay, learn, grow, but do me a favor, drop the sincerity gig.


dale

.......................................paulie shores is dead!.....................

[Leanne]

If I may point out one very large distinction: New Sincerity was proposed as an antidote to cynicism and darkness, NOT as an antidote to carefully crafted, creative and original artwork.

[Wjames]

If someone sincerely loves poetry, chances are they will have read and written enough poetry that they won't want their poems to have essentially the same content as everyone else's first 50 poems. They sincerely want to create not only something they like; but something they've never seen before.

That's the type of sincerity I ascribe to. There's obviously no "right" or "wrong" way to make a poem, and anyone can find beauty in just about anything (I had a glorious shit this morning, for instance).

[Leanne]

Write a sincere ode to it...

[abu nuwas]

Thanks to Leanne for making an important point.

I have glanced at wiki, and, although it says nothing of the kind, I scented the influence of the American religious Right, dreaming of 'back to the future' and purity rings. But pendulums (pendula?) do swing, and although, e.g., it once seemed that the 'permissive society' could only become more so, and religion fade away, that seems to have slowed or halted here, partly because of demographic changes which were unforeseen, but partly, just the elusive Zeitgeist. SO it may have some mileage; certainly, the intelligentsia, like its aristocratic predecessors, tends to fall into an easy trap of adopting a stance of amused boredom (or bored amusement) as the only respectable way to present itself.

It seems that in Russia, they had something similar, and did think it would enable them to recover past heritage, so those of us with a bent for that sort of thing, might don the cloak, and claim some sort of intellectual underpinning.

0The problem seems more to lie in supposing that an untrammelled, untutored gushing will better represent one's feelings, than adopting a few tools. I might sincerely want a cup of tea; but I should not emulate the character in a film about Mr Holy, who constantly says ''Mam, will yer make the fockin' tay!' It is, at least, not quite as barren a topic as first seemed.

[rayheinrich]

Sure, the poem's subjectively (mine own, of course) awful.

What's missing is the concept of 'audience'.

By now (in the largely unknown history of all things)
there are a bizillion of the very same damn things
running around loose. In our life, we have the potential
(never realized) of encountering a bizillionth of them.
The possibility of any one of these things seeming truly
original to any one person is a damn near absolute
certainty. If we increase the person-number to a million,
it's a bit less of a damn near absolute certainty.
(The poetry of Hallmark is generally understood to be
quite good.)

'Originality' depends on who sees it. Since each one of
us has seen almost nothing, almost everything seems
original.

If you write a poem that two (much less three) PigPenerasts
describe as fetidly reeking of moldy corn, you can be confident
that the possibility of it not fetidly reeking of moldy corn
is about one in a bizillion. And conversely, you can be
confident that there are a bizillion (minus a few ten-thousand
or so) that think it's the most original dingus they've
ever happened across.

In summation: By your great fortune, the gods of poetry
have led you here. If this is the audience you want,
then stay and learn to be original to them. If not, the
gods won't punish you, the punishment will be your own.

[Leanne]

I sincerely love you to bits, Ray

[rayheinrich]

I sincerely love you to bits, Ray

And I you (he said ellipsisly).




Semi-extraneous limerick:

An earnest young man named O'Hairity,
strangled eight in a fit of barbarity.
"I'm confessing", he said,
"I'm quite happy they're dead".
(He was cleared on all counts for sincerity.)

[ellajam]

I sincerely love you to bits, Ray

And I you (he said ellipsisly).




Semi-extraneous limerick:

An earnest young man named O'Hairity,
strangled eight in a fit of barbarity.
"I'm confessing", he said,
"I'm quite happy they're dead".
(He was cleared on all counts for sincerity.)

When Leanne lost her last bit of charity
she banned eight in a fit of barbarity.
"I'm confessing", she said,
"I'm quite happy they're dead".
(She was cleared on all counts for sincerity.)