07-15-2016, 02:04 AM
in my opinion, i think when people speak of a 'god' given talent they are assuming the talent is simply for the act of writing poetry, or, having 'a way with words' with no causal process. loads of people have a way with words and have a natural inclination for writing. we see it more now, what with the internet--a lot of folks talk about how the internet has degraded language, etc. they say "stay away from the youtube comment section"; but from my own personal experience, the youtube comment section is full of very articulate vile little pricks, all saying the same nasty shit beautifully [albeit, unoriginal and borrowed]--but i think, in reality, the talent in writing great poetry [or just writing great anything] is being a quick study; not to just go blindly writing and by some divine miracle, genetic predetermination, or unconscious mimicry produce great work. some would like to keep the romantic idea alive that there is no logical causation and poems just appear in us [or from us] like spontaneous generation. they are opposed to the mapping of a process because it alienates them. there is the misconception that tradition says "if you do X, Y, and Z, you will write great stuff" the implication being "if you cannot [or have no inclination to] do X, Y, and Z, you cannot write great stuff". and of course, there is some fight back against this: "fuck you! i can write whatever i like and it will be great!" and not just from the pretentious. but this is just laziness. and having this attitude [which i am sure we've all had at some point] one will never, or will only by accident, write truly inspired poems. even the innovators, who were ahead of their time, would have studied and understood the rules of the game; and understood them quickly, deeply, and well--and this actually does have a biological explanation--and used or misused them very deliberately, with varying degrees of success. einstein may have had an original idea, been unfathomably creative, but he didn't reinvent mathematics in order to think it--in fact, kicking against the fundamentals of mathematics would have slowed down his creative process [like i said in another thread, an understanding of rules and guides, etc. clear a space, allow a freedom, for one to truly be creative]. so, far from not needing a standard and accepted tools for writing, the great poets are able to find and utilise the tools more quickly and, as a consequence, more creatively. and by degrees, we're all trying to head in that direction. well, some of us not so much. and i am not saying that not being tooled-up necessarily means you won't write well, but i doubt it will ever be consistent and it'll be slow going. and, i think for the majority of people, myself included, it takes time to fully appreciate exactly why the such-and-such rule or [for all you pussy millennials] guides have endured and why they're agreed upon standards. for example, after years of vaguely hearing mention of a 'show don't tell' rule, and ignoring it, once you actually clearly see and appreciate the benefit of applying this principle [genuinely understand its function] it becomes so much easier to manipulate and experiment with effectively. you decide exactly when to tell and how this improves the work. and for me, this is true individualism. it is being in control, not just of what you want to say and how you want to say it, but also it gives greater control over exactly how it's received. one can write surreal streams of nonsense deliberately, but if it is unclear you know what you're doing or that you are in control they will be read as if you are an idiot that just didn't know how to spell; of course, one doesn't always want to dictate how something is read, leave it open for interpretation, etc. but on the whole, it is all about gaining knowledge in order that one become ever more deliberate, ever closer to true Self-expression. not just a monkey banging randomly at a typewriter and occasionally getting lucky.