Bad Poetry

[rayheinrich]

While reading 'good' poetry is still the better way of learning to write;
reading 'bad' poetry as an example of what not to do is, it seems to me,
useful as well. Any thoughts? (See example below.)

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space.

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect.

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over.
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover.

It was sad to see but inevitably known.
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone.

[Brownlie]

While reading 'good' poetry is still the better way of learning to write;
reading 'bad' poetry as an example of what not to do is, it seems to me,
useful as well. Any thoughts? (See example below.)

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space.

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect.

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over.
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover.

It was sad to see but inevitably known.
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone.

Can you tell me why this is bad?

[rayheinrich]

Can you tell me why this is bad?

The same reason anybody says something is bad: They don't like it.

I usually use 'bad' in quotes to mean 'a poem I don't like'; because
it's shorter and easier to type even though I know it helps promote
the belief that there exists a universal set of rules governing what
IS bad. This, by the way, does not preclude the existence of sets of
common-consensus rules, each adhered to by a large group of people.
Obviously there are. That, by the way, is the purpose of workshops
and teachers et al. The purpose is to teach writers how to adhere to
a particular set of them.

But you're right, the learning isn't just by reading it. The learning
would involve a teacher asking students to make a detailed list of
what, to them, makes it a 'bad' poem. Then she'd go over their lists
in class and comment on them and ask the class to do the same.

The next assignment would be to edit it to make it a 'good' poem.
A discussion would follow this as well.

This, as well, could also be used in a workshop environment by posting
the poem and have people do criticism of it just like it was a regular
poem someone had posted. The MAIN advantage would be that
everyone would feel free to be more severe because it wasn't
connected to someone in the group who could be hurt. (Assuming,
of course, that it was a poem that no one in the group had written.)

[Brownlie]

Was Emily dickinson a genius for her formal deviations or was she sloppy?

[milo]

Can you tell me why this is bad?

The same reason anybody says something is bad: They don't like it.

I usually use 'bad' in quotes to mean 'a poem I don't like'; because
it's shorter and easier to type even though I know it helps promote
the belief that there exists a universal set of rules governing what
IS bad. This, by the way, does not preclude the existence of sets of
common-consensus rules, each adhered to by a large group of people.
Obviously there are. That, by the way, is the purpose of workshops
and teachers et al. The purpose is to teach writers how to adhere to
a particular set of them.

But you're right, the learning isn't just by reading it. The learning
would involve a teacher asking students to make a detailed list of
what, to them, makes it a 'bad' poem. Then she'd go over their lists
in class and comment on them and ask the class to do the same.

The next assignment would be to edit it to make it a 'good' poem.
A discussion would follow this as well.

This, as well, could also be used in a workshop environment by posting
the poem and have people do criticism of it just like it was a regular
poem someone had posted. The MAIN advantage would be that
everyone would feel free to be more severe because it wasn't
connected to someone in the group who could be hurt. (Assuming,
of course, that it was a poem that no one in the group had written.)

no matter how people will try, you cannot democratize quality, it is something that is inherent.

A workshop or committee will never be able to "vote" strength into the iron of a bridge and a poem is the same way.

[Brownlie]

Can quality be objectified as iron?

[Leanne]

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space. -- rhyme without meter to match, quite unbalanced

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect. -- unmitigated prose, with a vague generalisation ("cruelest sense") to boot

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over. -- tell, tell, tell
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover. -- what the? A good example of rhyme driving the word choice with no regard for meaning

It was sad to see but inevitably known. -- awkward, telly and vague
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone. -- awkward, telly, vague and stupid

---

Even William Topaz McGonagall would have hung his head in shame at this one -- I do hope it's not by a well-regarded poet, Ray.

[milo]

Can quality be objectified as iron?

quality can be measured /in/ iron, it cannot be voted on it must be measured.

Poetry is more difficult but the idea is the same. No matter how many people /vote/ that a bad poem is good, it is not.

---

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space. -- rhyme without meter to match, quite unbalanced

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect. -- unmitigated prose, with a vague generalisation ("cruelest sense") to boot

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over. -- tell, tell, tell
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover. -- what the? A good example of rhyme driving the word choice with no regard for meaning

It was sad to see but inevitably known. -- awkward, telly and vague
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone. -- awkward, telly, vague and stupid

---

Even William Topaz McGonagall would have hung his head in shame at this one -- I do hope it's not by a well-regarded poet, Ray.

A quick google reveals that it is from deep underground poetry. It received the following telling comments:

"indeed, deep vortex man"
and "very good, very real"


The site advertises itself as "The Harder Side of Poetry"

L
O
L
!
!
!

[Brownlie]

I love you all, but I could not resist posting this image I got when I googled Uberman...



Not only is he strong, but his technical verse is flawless. The masses always overlook him though...

Also this one.

[rayheinrich]

Was Emily dickinson a genius for her formal deviations or was she sloppy?

Both
But dubbing her a genius transformed a lot of that sloppiness into genius.
Fine with me cause I love short. Wish more writers would learn that
from her.

[Brownlie]

Was Emily dickinson a genius for her formal deviations or was she sloppy?

Both
But dubbing her a genius transformed a lot of that sloppiness to genius.
Fine with me cause I love short. Wish more writers would learn that
from her.

Efficiency and short are two different things. If a poem loses a subject, becomes redundant, or progresses into seething goop then I see your point. If readers are lazy and have A.D.D. like I do well that's another story.

[rayheinrich]

Can you tell me why this is bad?

Ray runs on for a bit...

no matter how people will try, you cannot democratize quality, it is something that is inherent.

A workshop or committee will never be able to "vote" strength into the iron of a bridge and a poem is the same way.

You misunderstand. There's nothing about democratizing 'like' in my
comments. I said that there existed different sets of rules for judging it;
NOT that I would accept a vote. I sure as hell wouldn't. I happen to
like my set and I think everybody else is wrong. (Though I do happen to
agree with most of the rules of quite a few other people. Leanne, for
instance, I think most of her rules agree with mine. (She may have a
different opinion on this , but again: it ain't no democracy.)

---

Was Emily dickinson a genius for her formal deviations or was she sloppy?

Both
But dubbing her a genius transformed a lot of that sloppiness to genius.
Fine with me cause I love short. Wish more writers would learn that
from her.

Efficiency and short are two different things. If a poem loses a subject, becomes redundant, or progresses into seething goop then I see your point. If readers are lazy and have A.D.D. like I do well that's another story.

I said I love short, not that that was my only criteria. There's lot's of
short that I don't like.

---

Can quality be objectified as iron?

No, if meant literally; if meant metaphorically
you can link any damn thing you want and it will always be yes.
(Not that I have to like your 'yes'.)

---

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space. -- rhyme without meter to match, quite unbalanced

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect. -- unmitigated prose, with a vague generalisation ("cruelest sense") to boot

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over. -- tell, tell, tell
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover. -- what the? A good example of rhyme driving the word choice with no regard for meaning

It was sad to see but inevitably known. -- awkward, telly and vague
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone. -- awkward, telly, vague and stupid

---

Even William Topaz McGonagall would have hung his head in shame at this one -- I do hope it's not by a well-regarded poet, Ray.

Well regarded by quite a few idiots who write execrable crap such as this.

---

Can quality be objectified as iron?

quality can be measured /in/ iron, it cannot be voted on it must be measured.

Poetry is more difficult but the idea is the same. No matter how many people /vote/ that a bad poem is good, it is not.

---

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space. -- rhyme without meter to match, quite unbalanced

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect. -- unmitigated prose, with a vague generalisation ("cruelest sense") to boot

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over. -- tell, tell, tell
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover. -- what the? A good example of rhyme driving the word choice with no regard for meaning

It was sad to see but inevitably known. -- awkward, telly and vague
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone. -- awkward, telly, vague and stupid

---

Even William Topaz McGonagall would have hung his head in shame at this one -- I do hope it's not by a well-regarded poet, Ray.

A quick google reveals that it is from deep underground poetry. It received the following telling comments:

"indeed, deep vortex man"
and "very good, very real"


The site advertises itself as "The Harder Side of Poetry"

L
O
L
!
!
!

I must come to the defense of DU. There ARE some good poets that
post their poetry there. (About 23 out of 1300, but who's counting?.)

[billy]

While reading 'good' poetry is still the better way of learning to write;
reading 'bad' poetry as an example of what not to do is, it seems to me,
useful as well. Any thoughts? (See example below.)

"The DECADENT SHIRE!"
Enter not this shadow place, for within its nook love found no space.

A shire so fallen in the cruelest sense. The regard of its caretaker
never holding any respect.

For innocent care was not rendered and selfish greed had taken over.
The spoils of this fallen dream became a twisted dying clover.

It was sad to see but inevitably known.
These were the lost memories of a reality so empty and alone.

it's best to read good poetry and bad poetry, we need to read as much and as varied poetry as we can and as much feedback as we can in order to see the mechanics of the beast. i personally thing you write some good poetry, the standard you have seems pretty high. how did you get to that stage? did you read good or bad poetry etc. reading bad poetry gives us something to balance good poetry against. sadly, most poets on internet poetry sites only ever read internet poetry on ego building sites.

i'd class the poem you posted as novice. i wouldn't call it bad poetry, more undeveloped poetry. (not to be confused with primitive)

---

Can you tell me why this is bad?

while it's bad, i would only see it as such if the poet didn't try to improve his/her skills. otherwise it's just undeveloped, as i stated earlier.

ray i think is correct, it's bad to the reader if they dislike it, there is a lot in the poem to dislike (for me)

---

A quick google reveals that it is from deep underground poetry. It received the following telling comments:

"indeed, deep vortex man"
and "very good, very real"


The site advertises itself as "The Harder Side of Poetry"

i do know of a few good poets on that site, and some good poetry but a lot that write there write similar stuff to novice poets all over the web. for me the difference between it and here is the quality of feedback in general. there is some good feedback there but there's also a lot of wow and i love it and that's a great poem and other back slapping stuff.

if i'm honest i have to concede that sites like that are breeding grounds for the good poets that move on to good workshopping sites in order to improve their craft.

---

You misunderstand. There's nothing about democratizing 'like' in my
comments. I said that there existed different sets of rules for judging it;
NOT that I would accept a vote. I sure as hell wouldn't. I happen to
like my set and I think everybody else is wrong. (Though I do happen to
agree with most of the rules of quite a few other people. Leanne, for
instance, I think most of her rules agree with mine. (She may have a
different opinion on this , but again: it ain't no democracy.)

you make a good point, if enough people make a sensible comment or critique on a poem, then the poet would be silly to not look at it again.

if 20 people say it's shit, the odds are it will have a smell of shit at least

the problems arise when people give bad critiques which are just as bad as bad poetry, i know i've given bad feedback (mia culpa) one of the worst pieces of bad feedback is the ego boosting 'WOW it's fantastic"

leanne's crit of the poem you put up is spot on

[milo]

Ray runs on for a bit...

no matter how people will try, you cannot democratize quality, it is something that is inherent.

A workshop or committee will never be able to "vote" strength into the iron of a bridge and a poem is the same way.

A quick google reveals that it is from deep underground poetry. It received the following telling comments:

"indeed, deep vortex man"
and "very good, very real"


The site advertises itself as "The Harder Side of Poetry"

L
O
L
!
!
!

[font=Courier]
I must come to the defense of DU. There ARE some good poets that
post their poetry there. (About 23 out of 1300, but who's counting?.)



please, don't feel like you have to, I have never seen the site before, they may be the best site evar! I was just momentarily amused by what I did see in that thread.

[Leanne]

Momentary amusement is the best kind.

I agree with Ray in all things except cats. And daffodils. Mostly cats. Oh, and the nomenclature of potato chips.

[milo]

Momentary amusement is the best kind.

I agree with Ray in all things except cats. And daffodils. Mostly cats. Oh, and the nomenclature of potato chips.

I feel like this discussion has covered a lot of excellent ground!

Now would be a good time to switch to discussing the nomenclature of potato chips?