writing worth a shit
#21
(07-14-2014, 10:23 AM)rowens Wrote:  That makes sense. But I was talking about the writer writing, not the reader reading. The writer needs to have a belief in the work they're doing, and a personal stake in it. Not just a need to please, or a reputation as someone good at something.

Until someone writes a fucking amazing poem that means nothing to them.
Reply
#22
I'd rather write something that no one likes than write something I don't want to write.

Even hack writers write good things, but it lacks something to me.
Reply
#23
(07-14-2014, 10:30 AM)rowens Wrote:  I'd rather write something that no one likes than write something I don't want to write.

Even hack writers write good things, but it lacks something to me.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that I couldn't possibly know, nor could you.

Your favorite poet might have rolled his eyes every time he had to write that bullshit sophomoric line just so other people would get it. Eliot may have thought the Wasteland was cheap and boring and severely limited by the collected intellect of his readership while being wholly delusional all the while. Who knows?
Reply
#24
It doesn't matter if people disagree with me. I feel this way. I feel that personality and the joys and sufferings, pleasures and sicknesses of the writer and the artist is part of the experience. Sometimes those things can't be known, but they add something when they are known. I don't think it would be better if all books were published anonymously like some literary critics have said.
Here I'm talking about the reader's experience.

And obviously the writer's work is affected by the person they are; even if they're a person that is good at hiding their personality.
Reply
#25
(07-14-2014, 10:49 AM)rowens Wrote:  It doesn't matter if people disagree with me. I feel this way. I feel that personality and the joys and sufferings, pleasures and sicknesses of the writer and the artist is part of the experience. Sometimes those things can't be known, but they add something when they are known. I don't think it would be better if all books were published anonymously like some literary critics have said.
Here I'm talking about the reader's experience.

And obviously the writer's work is affected by the person they are; even if they're a person that is good at hiding their personality.

It's not that I disagree with you. It's just that don't have an opinion any more than I might hazard a guess at how many stars there are. Unless maybe I was writing a poem - but that wouldn't mean I actually thought there were that many stars - the imagination is funny like that.
Reply
#26
I dont think that you need to follow rules when writing as becusk skd, s,swdc,sd and,md,
B
Tu

h.Ello-

But, I think they give you perspective.
Reply
#27
(07-14-2014, 11:50 AM)Qdeathstar Wrote:  I dont think that you need to follow rules when writing as becusk skd, s,swdc,sd and,md,
B
Tu

h.Ello-

But, I think they give you perspective.

I think people instinctively want to rally against rules. Especially poets. The truth is there are no rules in poetry and, as I've often said it is a poet's duty to challenge everything.

That being said, there are paradigms and a poet needs to be able to fluidly operate within as many paradigms as possible.
Reply
#28
And how many are possible? Care to pigeonhole the concept a bit more so we can argue about it? I was just about to say earlier that a poet must be able to breath and then they wheeled out the iron lung.
Reply
#29
(07-14-2014, 12:25 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  And how many are possible? Care to pigeonhole the concept a bit more so we can argue about it? I was just about to say earlier that a poet must be able to breath and then they wheeled out the iron lung.

The upper limit is infinite as a good poet creates new paradigms. Still, a poet should learn at least the basics of syntax and communication.
Reply
#30
(07-14-2014, 12:28 PM)milo Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:25 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  And how many are possible? Care to pigeonhole the concept a bit more so we can argue about it? I was just about to say earlier that a poet must be able to breath and then they wheeled out the iron lung.

The upper limit is infinite as a good poet creates new paradigms. Still, a poet should learn at least the basics of syntax and communication.

Meh, should is too soft. Nothing interesting there.
Reply
#31
(07-14-2014, 12:30 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:28 PM)milo Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:25 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  And how many are possible? Care to pigeonhole the concept a bit more so we can argue about it? I was just about to say earlier that a poet must be able to breath and then they wheeled out the iron lung.

The upper limit is infinite as a good poet creates new paradigms. Still, a poet should learn at least the basics of syntax and communication.

Meh, should is too soft. Nothing interesting there.

Should is weak. Still, there is plenty interesting there if you look and even some arguable though not easily.
Reply
#32
Some did speculate that EE Cummings was able to self induce Aphasia and that that was what they thought made his poetry interesting though of course today it would just look erroneous.
Reply
#33
(07-14-2014, 12:44 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  Some did speculate that EE Cumming was able to self induce Aphasia and that that was what they thought made his poetry interesting though of course today it would just look erroneous.

90% of cummings fruitcakiness added nothing to the actual poem other than novelty - the poems were of equal value without it. Still, it did make him famous which at least gained him a broader audience for what was good - some of which was very good.
Reply
#34
(07-14-2014, 12:47 PM)milo Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:44 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  Some did speculate that EE Cumming was able to self induce Aphasia and that that was what they thought made his poetry interesting though of course today it would just look erroneous.

90% of cummings fruitcakiness added nothing to the actual poem other than novelty - the poems were of equal value without it. Still, it did make him famous which at least gained him a broader audience for what was good - some of which was very good.

Right. Email it in today and they would just delete the "typo'd" ungrammatical and unneeded adverb and publish without it.
Reply
#35
(07-14-2014, 12:50 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:47 PM)milo Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:44 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  Some did speculate that EE Cumming was able to self induce Aphasia and that that was what they thought made his poetry interesting though of course today it would just look erroneous.

90% of cummings fruitcakiness added nothing to the actual poem other than novelty - the poems were of equal value without it. Still, it did make him famous which at least gained him a broader audience for what was good - some of which was very good.

Right. Email it in today and they would just delete the "typo'd" ungrammatical and unneeded adverb and publish without it.


anyone who did it today would just be a "copycat".
Reply
#36
(07-14-2014, 01:07 PM)milo Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:50 PM)trueenigma Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 12:47 PM)milo Wrote:  90% of cummings fruitcakiness added nothing to the actual poem other than novelty - the poems were of equal value without it. Still, it did make him famous which at least gained him a broader audience for what was good - some of which was very good.

Right. Email it in today and they would just delete the "typo'd" ungrammatical and unneeded adverb and publish without it.


anyone who did it today would just be a "copycat".

In this paradigm he hadn't already more existed. Anyway there are others that have already taken the experimentation much more furtherest so while I am wronger you are wrong and I only said that in hopes of a vigorous debacle er.. debate anyway

(07-14-2014, 11:09 AM)trueenigma Wrote:  
(07-14-2014, 10:49 AM)rowens Wrote:  It doesn't matter if people disagree with me. I feel this way. I feel that personality and the joys and sufferings, pleasures and sicknesses of the writer and the artist is part of the experience. Sometimes those things can't be known, but they add something when they are known. I don't think it would be better if all books were published anonymously like some literary critics have said.
Here I'm talking about the reader's experience.

And obviously the writer's work is affected by the person they are; even if they're a person that is good at hiding their personality.

It's not that I disagree with you. It's just that don't have an opinion any more than I might hazard a guess at how many stars there are. Unless maybe I was writing a poem - but that wouldn't mean I actually thought there were that many stars - the imagination is funny like that.

I would like to add that I don't believe that all poets must be limited even by their own knowledge or experience. Two things that come to mind as possibly invaluable tools and examples of unknown quantities are empathy for the emotional camp and talent in the intellectual and cognition camp, or both in both.

Personally I both enjoy and don't enjoy such a wide range of poetry by poets of such a wide range of opinions and experience that it hardly matters to me. I care about people and I care about art. I'm interested in both. But I rarely read the bios. I don't know if the two are inseparable but I do know they are not the same thing. When I look at my daughter I do not see the Mona Lisa - though when I look at the Mona Lisa I might see her.
Reply
#37


[Image: dice.jpg]
Crap-Shoot


almost terse
Reply
#38
What she said.
Reply
#39
two! or was that too?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!