05-08-2015, 08:59 AM
Reality in poetry.
This was commented on in the "The Purpose of Poetry" thread, but I thought
it deserved its own thread.
Prose has distinct categories for fiction and non-fiction, but poetry doesn't.
Why is that?
Was poetry, at some point (or now) viewed as so abstract that
it was unnecessary to make that distinction?
Or that its subjects didn't require that distinction to be made?
Is the 1st person confusion/misconception more pronounced in poetry because of the above?
------
Their's a poet on 'Deep Underground Poetry' who has written a few poems
(quite good, if scary) in 1st person where the narrator is a pedophile.
People go nuts, especially the ones that don't 'get' that a poem's narrator
isn't necessarily the author. Some of these are thoughtful poems that
explore pedophilia and bring up some interesting social contradictions;
some are violently graphic. Should a poet not do 1st person on the latter?
I am not brave enough to ever write 1st person about this topic. The practical
reason is I don't want some people to confuse me with the pedophile in my
poem. This is bowing to ignorance. But, as I said, in this instance I'm not
strong enough to live up to my principles.
But the other reason, is more interesting: While I'm rationally aware that
the author should never be assumed to be the narrator, emotionally/irrationally
I react to it, I feel the writer IS the character.
I guess one reason is that, as a reader, I've gotten so good at suspending my
disbelief, of immersing myself in what I'm reading, that it has leaked over
into my perception of the real world. I guess it's like the old saying about
salespeople: the best ones believe their own lies.
So if I wrote 1st person about a pedophile, I would, in some fashion, be one.
This is the same problem encountered by actors (especially 'method actors').
When they play a vicious killer, their personality changes even when they are
not acting, and afterwards they can sometimes suffer something akin to PTSD
(posttraumatic stress disorder).
Another reason is that writers take advantage of, even promulgate this
misconception (there a SO many books that authors claim to be non-fiction,
when, in reality, they're not). The reason is that readers really want to
believe what they're reading is real and are more likely to buy, enjoy,
and be moved by them if they think they are real.
How have you as a writer, reader, coped with this irrational side of yourself?
Do you find yourself consciously/subconsciously trying to convince your
readers, not by overt claims such as the 'non-fiction' authors above, but by
how you structure your narrative, how you present your characters, the context,
the setting... that what you are writing is real?
This was commented on in the "The Purpose of Poetry" thread, but I thought
it deserved its own thread.
Prose has distinct categories for fiction and non-fiction, but poetry doesn't.
Why is that?
Was poetry, at some point (or now) viewed as so abstract that
it was unnecessary to make that distinction?
Or that its subjects didn't require that distinction to be made?
Is the 1st person confusion/misconception more pronounced in poetry because of the above?
------
Their's a poet on 'Deep Underground Poetry' who has written a few poems
(quite good, if scary) in 1st person where the narrator is a pedophile.
People go nuts, especially the ones that don't 'get' that a poem's narrator
isn't necessarily the author. Some of these are thoughtful poems that
explore pedophilia and bring up some interesting social contradictions;
some are violently graphic. Should a poet not do 1st person on the latter?
I am not brave enough to ever write 1st person about this topic. The practical
reason is I don't want some people to confuse me with the pedophile in my
poem. This is bowing to ignorance. But, as I said, in this instance I'm not
strong enough to live up to my principles.
But the other reason, is more interesting: While I'm rationally aware that
the author should never be assumed to be the narrator, emotionally/irrationally
I react to it, I feel the writer IS the character.
I guess one reason is that, as a reader, I've gotten so good at suspending my
disbelief, of immersing myself in what I'm reading, that it has leaked over
into my perception of the real world. I guess it's like the old saying about
salespeople: the best ones believe their own lies.
So if I wrote 1st person about a pedophile, I would, in some fashion, be one.
This is the same problem encountered by actors (especially 'method actors').
When they play a vicious killer, their personality changes even when they are
not acting, and afterwards they can sometimes suffer something akin to PTSD
(posttraumatic stress disorder).
Another reason is that writers take advantage of, even promulgate this
misconception (there a SO many books that authors claim to be non-fiction,
when, in reality, they're not). The reason is that readers really want to
believe what they're reading is real and are more likely to buy, enjoy,
and be moved by them if they think they are real.
How have you as a writer, reader, coped with this irrational side of yourself?
Do you find yourself consciously/subconsciously trying to convince your
readers, not by overt claims such as the 'non-fiction' authors above, but by
how you structure your narrative, how you present your characters, the context,
the setting... that what you are writing is real?
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions