Measuring Poetry

[heslopian]

Came across this clip from Dead Poets Society and it really inspired me: to puke.

[youtube]wOENu0fK0uM[/youtube]

This is, in my opinion, a load of crap. If we can't measure poetry then where does quality control come in? The graph isn't demeaning literature. On the contrary, it helps give the serious reader a refined understanding of it. Does the Williams character think that Shakespeare and Byron just went with the flow and drummed out whatever popped into their heads? No. They worked at their craft. Creation requires effort. Beauty doesn't just pour out of your arse.

[billy]

in my opinion art not just poetry is unquantifiable and therefore impossible to measure.
i can't explain why it's just what i think and feel.
of course we can say. "that's a good poem" the trouble with that though is that we is never everyone, if it has to be consensus based then the measuring of poetry fails. who says what the score is along the xy axis. of course the craft of poetry requires work but isn't it fact that at the end of the day all we can say is whether we think it good bad or mediocre poetry, or is every classical poem a ten? surely if you try and measure poetry you can't measure the poet. only their individual works, which i don't think can be done.

[heslopian]

I think once you reach a certain level of quality art becomes impossible to measure objectively. You can measure a bad sonnet by whether it conforms to the rules of a sonnet, and you can measure a bad piece of free verse by how elegant the lines are, but when you're faced with two great sonnets or two great pieces of free verse, then the objective results become less clear. I think measuring great poems is useful however in order to determine how you yourself feel about them. Making clear if you prefer a Byron or a Shakespeare sonnet. I don't think everyone's graph should be the same. Importance and Perfection are subjective. As Nabokov said, art is useless to society, but important to the individual.

[billy]

if every graph isn't the same who's to say whose right or wrong, if we all have a different graph doesn't it negate the score and simply make it a personal choice.

[heslopian]

I don't think so. I see it just as a simple ordering of your thoughts. Once you've mapped out and know for sure how you feel regarding certain poems you can start discussing them with greater insight.

[billy]

i agree but my point is, art is immeasurable once you get past bad, okay, good, very good and excellent. and even then it can only be a personal measure. do people actually create graphs in order to say how good a poem is? or do they just say...i think thats a good poem?

[heslopian]

I suppose it depends entirely on the individual. Dr. Pritchard may well have meant when he scored a Shakespeare sonnet that he thought the score objective and not open for debate.

[abu nuwas]

The scene depicting young people following the directives of one man, to eschew the beliefs of another, before proceeding to tell them how he felt they should think is a little dismaying, as I suspect few young folk would refuse, and we have that with 'radical' Imams and others poisoning the minds of the impressionable young.

In order to measure, one needs a miniature building-block, defined in relation to other things, even though it begin by being arbitrary. In Paris, there is a metal rod, which at a given temperature, represented the metre. Once one has this, other measurements flow. Rather ironically, there is no such metre in poetry-- not for measurement. Appraisals are fine; the idea of an accepted canon is fine. Yet over time, items which were immensely revered fade, and vanish: one only has to look at different editions of the Oxford Book of English Verse to find that people who once were thought giants, are now represented by scarcely anything.

[Leanne]

The scene depicting young people following the directives of one man, to eschew the beliefs of another, before proceeding to tell them how he felt they should think is a little dismaying, as I suspect few young folk would refuse, and we have that with 'radical' Imams and others poisoning the minds of the impressionable young.

Absolutely -- that's largely the reason I despised Dead Poets' Society, as it smacked of a cult of personality with poetry as the excuse. A far better cinematic representation of poetry, art and indeed all learning can be found in The History Boys eg. "The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out, and taken yours."

In order to measure, one needs a miniature building-block, defined in relation to other things, even though it begin by being arbitrary. In Paris, there is a metal rod, which at a given temperature, represented the metre. Once one has this, other measurements flow. Rather ironically, there is no such metre in poetry-- not for measurement. Appraisals are fine; the idea of an accepted canon is fine. Yet over time, items which were immensely revered fade, and vanish: one only has to look at different editions of the Oxford Book of English Verse to find that people who once were thought giants, are now represented by scarcely anything.

In the physical universe, the parameters stay (largely) the same, with variables easy to predict, measure and compensate for. In culture and society, the shifts are somewhat less rational. The art world is in constant flux -- for an artist, the best you can hope for is that you will stumble upon something that registers on one of the more static (or more often renewed) scales. That's why the holy trinity of Love, Death and Betrayal are the themes that most often transcend time. The truth is, we really can't say definitively whether a poem is great or not in its time, because all the other pointers and cheats still exist to help us with the insights, rather like an in-joke. If, in even twenty years, it does not seem anachronistic or impenetrable, perhaps it has a shot at lasting.

[abu nuwas]

I took 'The History Boys' as a fairy-tale, reflecting the fantasies of the chief fairy. Your quote though, rings true to v many readers, and it is so striking, when the writer is long-dead, and from a different culture. I recall being stunned by the clarity of Plato. It was so like the almost rabbinic dissection of argument which I was used to growing up, and quite different from the real, 'direct man' (to use Dostoyevsky's word) who spoke with no need for rational basis, like this, (the discussion might be about anything, God, politics, why):

Me: I don't follow. Are you trying to say......

D.M : HAVE YOU EVER RUN A MILL?

In his view, as plainly in my teens I had not run a mill, the answer 'no', proved that only he had the right to speak, about anything, and generally through his arse. So that meant that one more or less had to poke fun at him, and drift further and further away from the point.

So, it was strange that some Greek of 2000 years back would seem more comprehensible than an Englishman, face to face, but so it was.


Fascinated by your chosen holy trinity. While I should not wish to disagree, it did occur to me that over the years, there have been other candidates: bravery and acts of derring-do; sinking down the social scale, to poverty ; rising from poverty, going to learn the rudiments of mathematics, science, and other improving things, while working so hard that, by putting a little by, and investing successfully, getting the old home back, or marrying the girl he could not when poor; or the tragic fate of children --'The Mighty Atom' (a bit of a tirade against science and reason, really). The fate of the poor : Rattle his bones/Over the stones/He's only a pauper /Whom nobody owns. Then there is the whole religious bit.......

[ICSoria]

Came across this clip from Dead Poets Society and it really inspired me: to puke.

This is, in my opinion, a load of crap. If we can't measure poetry then where does quality control come in? The graph isn't demeaning literature. On the contrary, it helps give the serious reader a refined understanding of it. Does the Williams character think that Shakespeare and Byron just went with the flow and drummed out whatever popped into their heads? No. They worked at their craft. Creation requires effort. Beauty doesn't just pour out of your arse.

I would like to offer my own opinions on this and hope they are sufficiently cohesive with the rest of the discussion. I have put it together rather hastily as I am preparing to drive to Arizona today. I will be on the road and not come back online until later tonight or tomorrow morning (Pacific Time). Please feel free to point out where I am wrong in anything I write. You will soon realize I have very thick skin. I also have a great respect for anyone who can explain certain facts more clearly to me.
I am really glad you posted that clip, Jack. I also watched that movie…once, and knew something was lacking. You summed it up well in my opinion. Someone once attempted to excoriate me on a thread in which I offered what was in their opinion, a harsh critique on a poem. I was accused of being, among other things, “overbearing” and told: “You do not get to decide what helps people learn”. OK, he had a right to say it since he owned the site. Even so, I respectfully submitted that he was peddling horse fluff in that statement. In my opinion, art and poetry may not be quantifiable according to some pedantic mathematical theory, but most can be judged as good, bad, working, or failing by professional or amateur critics. One need not go to school to learn about critiquing. However, reading up on various forms and poetic tools such as effective metaphor, simile, rhyme, and meter helps prepare poets with better understanding of their craft. Such knowledge allows them to distinguish lines that seem a bit too forced, if not contorted, as to render them ineffective. Yes, it also helps to read the great works of other poets--mainly dead ones, although I am inclined to believe that some of them are over-rated--having become venerated simply because they finally became dead.
Critiquing is all about making decisions; determining what makes a poem work and what makes it fail and it usually takes no special qualifications to recognize a bad poem when the points that fail are glaringly obvious. In critiquing most poems on any forum, even newbies are capable of offering more than a gratuitous, “Wow, that’s great, dude! or This touched me deep down!”, if they make a half-hearted attempt. It can involve a simple correction of typos or syntax, or at least attempting to explain what line worked for them and what didn’t, without fear of someone saying they’re wrong. It is after all subjective reasoning and anyone’s opinion can be held to scrutiny.
Shakespeare definitely did not “go with the flow.” He certainly created many of the parameters and established the paradigm. Many believe that poetry springs from the heart, or somewhere else deep down inside. I say it may well begin there but to turn it into good poetry, it must be crafted. The fact is: Certain prosodic parameters still exist, even in free-form. These parameters govern whether, and how long any poet's creative attempts will be remembered. In the end, writers who ignore these parameters subject their works to suffering the same fate so many previous, hastily forged, online pieces have suffered: an extremely limited shelf life.

Sid

[heslopian]

The owner of that site you allude to sounds like an ignorant fuckwit. By decrying your critique he's deciding what helps people learn, which he accused you of; circular logic anyone?
Your mention of overrated dead poets calls to mind another salient point about the film. It takes place in the 50s yet none of these oh-so bohemian kids or their teacher have seemingly heard of Robert Lowell, Anne Sexton, Allen Ginsberg or any of those who would have been at that time the contemporary poets. Why does death immediately equal brilliance?

[Leanne]

In critiquing most poems on any forum, even newbies are capable of offering more than a gratuitous, “Wow, that’s great, dude! or This touched me deep down!”, if they make a half-hearted attempt. It can involve a simple correction of typos or syntax, or at least attempting to explain what line worked for them and what didn’t, without fear of someone saying they’re wrong. It is after all subjective reasoning and anyone’s opinion can be held to scrutiny.

Sid, I agree with pretty much every word of what you've written, but this in particular begs more discussion. I often hear the excuse from people new to poetry that they're "not qualified to comment on other people's poems". This is nonsense. If you think you can write it, you can most definitely read it. Every poem should evoke some kind of response and learning to articulate that is just as important as learning any other aspect of the craft, since poets are in the word business. Some of the most valuable criticism often comes from the "unprofessional" critics; things like "I really don't understand what you mean by this line" don't always indicate a bad reader, they may well mean that the writer has used too obscure a device that doesn't link properly with the rest of the poem. "Professional" readers often miss things that fresh eyes will notice. Just as important are the comments that say "I really like the idea in this line because..." -- a reason is very valuable. I don't mind how short or non-technical a comment is, as long as it's clear that the poem has been read -- generic compliments are far worse than harsh, insulting criticism in my book.

I often say, and will keep on saying, that I don't write for academics or professional poets -- so while I never discount their response and consider every critique vital to my growth as a writer, the feedback from the non-poet or new has just as much weight for me. This is another measure, of course -- how well your poetry works for those who are new to it.

[abu nuwas]

Leanne, awesome comment, awesome awesome!

Do you know, I feel the same about nuclear physics! You have no idea how many designs I have sent in for the new generation of reactors --- and would you believe, not one reply! The arrogance of these soi-disant 'professionals'! I have learned from 'Physics for Dummies' myself, and the School of Life -- does that make my opinion less valid than these so-called experts? I think not! Just a case of 'who you know, not what you know' if you ask me!

(Sgd) Disgusted
Penge

[Leanne]

Penge is a haven for the malcontents of England, it seems :p. I shall have to write a poem about physics now, just to show Prof Hawking et al how it's done.

[ICSoria]

I don't mind how short or non-technical a comment is, as long as it's clear that the poem has been read -- generic compliments are far worse than harsh, insulting criticism in my book.
I often say, and will keep on saying, that I don't write for academics or professional poets -- so while I never discount their response and consider every critique vital to my growth as a writer, the feedback from the non-poet or new has just as much weight for me. This is another measure, of course -- how well your poetry works for those who are new to it.

I agree with your entire summary and this particular point I debated ad nauseam. You will find generic comments on that site's Open Poetry forums, filled with all manner of writers looking for a daily ego stroke. The forums in turn are moderated by poets expecting their very presence to elicit awe. Yet, if you read the posts of these same venerated mods, you notice that after 10,000 posts, they have shown no growth. I would submit that newbies who jump right into the mix and start critiquing and attempting to learn from established critics and critiques they offer, will grow more quickly in their craft than those mods who hide in the Open Forums because they consider anything beyond a fluff-critique, to smack of personal attack.

Thank you all for allowing me to vent.

Sid

[billy]

Someone once attempted to excoriate me on a thread in which I offered what was in their opinion, a harsh critique on a poem. I was accused of being, among other things, “overbearing” and told: “You do not get to decide what helps people learn”. OK, he had a right to say it since he owned the site.

Sid

this site is paid for by me but i don't own it, i only own the the name. the members own it and the mods to some extent are the custodians, all honest crit/feedback will be welcome here and poets who don't like it, or shout down the person giving feedback may leave at any given time. without honest feedback how can we hope to improve as (and i say this with tongue in cheek) poets. we have a mild crit forum for a milder nudge on how to improve and a for fun section where no critique should be given unless you know the poet won't mind. we have a new member in the forum his nic is ck, i see he already tried his hand at giving a piece of feedback. and i applaud him and everyone else who does the same.

leanne; you're so right, we all need to get stuck in with the feedback.
ck.s feedback is as important as yours or mine, i love seeing fresh people leaving it. it can only help them grow.

[ICSoria]

Someone once attempted to excoriate me on a thread in which I offered what was in their opinion, a harsh critique on a poem. I was accused of being, among other things, “overbearing” and told: “You do not get to decide what helps people learn”. OK, he had a right to say it since he owned the site.

Sid

this site is paid for by me but i don't own it, i only own the the name. the members own it and the mods to some extent are the custodians, all honest crit/feedback will be welcome here and poets who don't like it, or shout down the person giving feedback may leave at any given time. without honest feedback how can we hope to improve as (and i say this with tongue in cheek) poets. we have a mild crit forum for a milder nudge on how to improve and a for fun section where no critique should be given unless you know the poet won't mind. we have a new member in the forum his nic is ck, i see he already tried his hand at giving a piece of feedback. and i applaud him and everyone else who does the same.

leanne; you're so right, we all need to get stuck in with the feedback.
ck.s feedback is as important as yours or mine, i love seeing fresh people leaving it. it can only help them grow.

Where the hell have you guys been all my life!
...or, at least the last decade, when I was trying to find sites on which to post; where poets and mods take it seriously...and know what they're talking about beside?

Sid

[Leanne]

I know exactly what you mean

Sycophants and praise whores abound on the internet... but we have pesticides for those...

[billy]

sadly i'm writing from a script that leanne gave me hehe.
it is good that people here are willing to listen and share.
we only have a few as of now but we're growing.
and back on topic, measuring poetry. you either like it
or don't, a good poem will be liked by many and an excellent poem by most.