a point arose about this is not poetry

[billy]

Hey billy---

Is a bag of flower supposed to be flour? Because I'm not especially afraid of explosives hidden in flowers, but explosives hidden in flammable material....that is something else....might even beat my RPG, especially if all the targets are spread out!

no it's flowers (i hate you) and yeah flour

[rayheinrich]

Do you think the Sufi made up tales about poets?

At some point in time, the Emir got it into his head that he was a poet.
After working for many days and nights, he completed a poem
and asked a turtle, if he would come to the recital. The turtle, of course,
could not refuse.

After the Emir had completed reciting the poem, he asked the turtle
for his opinion. "Are you sure, Sir?" asked the turtle, cautiously.
Oblivious, the Emir said, "Of course, that's why I brought you here!"
"All right then," the turtle replied, "If it pleases Your Lordship, it's terrible."

Obviously angered, the Emir called out "Guards! Put this reptile in prison."
Turning to the turtle, he said, "Thirty days," and walked out in a huff.

Shortly after the turtle had completed his sentence, the Emir called upon
him to attend a recital of another poem. When the Emir finished reciting,
the turtle immediately rose to his feet and started for the door.

"Where are you going, turtle?" the Emir asked, surprised.
"To the prison, sir."

[bena]

AHAHhhhhaha. that is too funny.

[milo]

You seem to feel like you have it all figured out, why not respond as you see fit and the rest of us will do the same?

I thought it would be useful to have a discussion about this, but if you want to leave it like that, so be it.

A judge in a village court had gone on vacation. Nasrudin was asked to be temporary judge for a day. Nasrudin sat on the Judge's chair with a serious face, gazing around the public and ordered the first case be brought-up for hearing.
"You are right," said Nasrudin after hearing one side.

"You are right," he said after hearing the other side.

"But both cannot be right," said a member of public sitting in the audience.

"You are right, too" said Nasrudin.


You are not actually having a discussion.

[Erthona]

You can and cannot learn much from the Mullah, Rumi on the other hand is much more instructional for poets!


Dale

[witsentat]

I think that for it to really be poetry it must be written in the metaphoric blood of the poet. It need not be shared. Need not in fact be read at all. It is a communion between the poet and the universe. Something most of us, never achieve. It is poetry because I, the poet, say it is. If it looks like prose to you, and I say it is poetry, then it is poetry. Lighten upn everybody.

Inquote='Todd' pid='142107' dateline='1380852168']
Okay, so when is something prose like without poetic elements, and when is it a prose poem?

Do people accept that there are prose poems? Or do they largely consider that category sophistry?

Take it further, is free verse poetry?

Is experimental poetry poetry or just "too-cute" horseshit?

We all critique. We all have opinions, and we're not shy to share them.

My take:

There's a lot of poems I see written that stay too close to the narrative. You read them and get a "and then this happened" feel. That's where I think they need to be edited to make them less like prose.

I think there are legitimate prose poems (some of Rimbaud springs to mind). That said, a lot of prose poetry could be found poetry in novels so I realize the definition can be blurred. My view of poetry for the little it's worth accepts that there are prose poems, with the caveat, that not every poem with prose elements is a prose poem.

Free verse: definitely poetry

Experimental: Sometimes, but with a great deal horseshit in the mixture.
[/quote]

[billy]

We must make a distinction between a critic and what is (should be) done here at the workshops. A critic will evaluate, yes she is capable of suggesting corrections and the like, but I think the intention of most critics has never been to see the artist improve, rather it is whether their work should be read/seen: should it enter the canon, be remembered? should we buy a ticket at the theatre? The mentor/group review situation is about improvement. With this distinction in mind, we must must take into account how the artist will react. A critic really only cares about the work not the artist, the mentor is concerned with the artist, why? Because it is she who creates the work.

actually i don't agree, while i don't really give a toss about the poet, i really do. not as a person but as "the poet" the idea of crit be it good or bad is so said poet can take in what's been said and hopefully improve, if said poet doesn't want to improve or help others improve then why bother coming here? i think many associate people who give suggestions as critics, and too some extent that's fair enough. but we're not critics per say, though we give critique. we are not doing a piece so other can decide to read or not to read it. we do it for the sole purpose of helping others and helping ourselves expand as poets. some like ray give feedback but only post their work (and good work it is) in the for fun section. i'm sure on the odd occassion he gains something from reading a good critique. (not all critique is negative) we're a workshop and possibly a meet place for would be poets. what i like about this place is the fact we have no pretensions of being anything else. i like it.

---

i think this post is quite beautiful

Do you think the Sufi made up tales about poets?

I think you are young and idealistic, and very much in love with your own thoughts: theoretical thoughts that have little or no grounding in experience. I've been there, I get that. I envy you, but when I was in that place, I could hear nothing but myself, and all I wanted to do was fight. However, now I am too old and too tired to fight just for the sake of fighting, I fear you will have to find someone else to spar with.

Dale

---

poetry is poetry and horseshit is horseshit

if you can't tell the difference it's most likely horseshit, if you think it's poetry it's most likely horseshit, and if someone tells you it's good poetry it's most definitely horseshit.
sufi was walking down the road with his student, in the middle of the road was a pile of horseshit, look master it's horseshit, yes child said the master, and gave him a bucket saying "though it is indeed horseshit, it's very good fucking horseshit and will go nicely round the base of my roses" the student asks, "is that so master" and the master laughs, "no son, it's horseshit...i don't have any roses" WTF

I think that for it to really be poetry it must be written in the metaphoric blood of the poet. It need not be shared. Need not in fact be read at all. It is a communion between the poet and the universe. Something most of us, never achieve. It is poetry because I, the poet, say it is. If it looks like prose to you, and I say it is poetry, then it is poetry. Lighten upn everybody.

Inquote='Todd' pid='142107' dateline='1380852168']
Okay, so when is something prose like without poetic elements, and when is it a prose poem?

Do people accept that there are prose poems? Or do they largely consider that category sophistry?

Take it further, is free verse poetry?

Is experimental poetry poetry or just "too-cute" horseshit?

We all critique. We all have opinions, and we're not shy to share them.

My take:

There's a lot of poems I see written that stay too close to the narrative. You read them and get a "and then this happened" feel. That's where I think they need to be edited to make them less like prose.

I think there are legitimate prose poems (some of Rimbaud springs to mind). That said, a lot of prose poetry could be found poetry in novels so I realize the definition can be blurred. My view of poetry for the little it's worth accepts that there are prose poems, with the caveat, that not every poem with prose elements is a prose poem.

Free verse: definitely poetry

Experimental: Sometimes, but with a great deal horseshit in the mixture.

[/quote]

[Leanne]

I wonder about this metaphorical blood. It seems a very easy phrase for emos and amateur tragics to toss off but, like most of their abstractions, it lacks any actual depth. Just like a poem isn't a poem just because you label it so, writing poetry isn't only a painful experience that causes your soul to bleed in crimson and black and Doc Martins.

But what would I know? I'm sitting on a chair that I call a potato.

[abu nuwas]

I wonder about this metaphorical blood. It seems a very easy phrase for emos and amateur tragics to toss off but, like most of their abstractions, it lacks any actual depth. Just like a poem isn't a poem just because you label it so, writing poetry isn't only a painful experience that causes your soul to bleed in crimson and black and Doc Martins.

But what would I know? I'm sitting on a chair that I call a potato.

I was just on the point of timidly disagreeing, and saying that architecture might be poetry, or welding, echoing some discussion of years ago, when I read your last line, and burst out laughing. I don't often, but.. caught off guard!

[rayheinrich]

A serious poet named Bud,
disgorged metaphorical blood.
He so over-versed,
That his poems they all burst.
(He was drowned in the subsequent flood.)

[milo]

As a poet you might feel quite frisky
don't write in your blood - that's too risky
just imagine your nadir
and your chair like a 'tater
and use metaphorical whiskey

[leesharks]

If I say it's a poem, it's a poem.

If I wanted to be more objective, I might say something like, "If it's published as a poem, then, historically speaking, it is a poem. If it is widely circulated enough, and if enough people claim loudly enough that it is or is not a poem, then, historically speaking, it will influence our perception of what is and is not a poem."

And I might go so far as to say that the history of verse is a history of unpoemish innovations that come to be called poetry.

Dickinson was quoted early on by Erthona--we like her so well because she created us out of thin air, crafting unpoemish poems that became central to our definition of what a poem is.

For an earlier example, print technology shifted the defining onus of poetry from the aural to the visual, how a piece looks and reads and "sounds" on the page. Dickinson, whose poems are very much poems in this sense--literary rather than musical works--could hardly be termed a poet in this earlier, musical sense, dependent as it is on public performance, vocal talent, instrumental training, &c.

The same people who will cry most loudly that this or that is not a poem--as, for example, is so characteristically true of the response of more pedantic readers to some spoken word or hip hop--are the same who would have told Dickinson that her poems weren't poems.

There were, maybe, seagulls.

In my experience--and I acknowledge the following as a personal bias that carries little authority into the realm of the objective or even stereotypical--the people who cry "not poem" have tended towards a certain kind of personality and a certain level of skill.

They have been, by and large, individuals with a degree of literacy--institutional, social, cultural, linguistic and otherwise--but not much imagination. (That's not quite fair--let me at least say, they have not been savants and have had a somewhat restrained sense of vision.)

They have also been, I have found, interested less in the substance of rational discourse than its semblance.

A fact that is, to my mind, somewhat self-apparent in the relevant claim itself: "This is not poetry." This claim tends to be asserted on the basis of a mystical personal authority derived from communion with the universal-historical nature of verse--all while proclaiming itself to be a guardian of objective reason and culture--and is, as far as I can tell, largely impervious to the argumentative force of history, contemporary example, expert opinion, or the dictionary.

[Leanne]

There are many people in the world who will proclaim David Beckham to be the greatest footballer of the modern era. These people may be conversant with the beautiful game, have seen it played (most likely in the MLS and the occasional World Cup), have seen David Beckham play it, have rightly assumed that he is a good player and then, because they have limited experience with other players and have "heard of" Beckham, assume that familiarity is the best yardstick by which to measure greatness. They have not immersed themselves in all aspects of the game, watched other national leagues, examined the technical merit of less flamboyant players, followed the careers of players not married to twigs or with their own perfume brand, etc. To their educated -- but narrow -- viewpoint, the best player in the world is David Beckham and all others who play like David Beckham must therefore be quite acceptable also.

It is not wrong, but it is right only within a very small sphere of reality. When the sphere expands, so too do judgments about quality. I would implore all readers of poetry to avoid defining things in the negative -- if you must, then say "this is not what I recognise as poetry, but perhaps it could be recognised as poetry some day".

---

PS. When we accept only what we know as being good and proper, that's called stagnation.

[leesharks]

There are many people in the world who will proclaim David Beckham to be the greatest footballer of the modern era. These people may be conversant with the beautiful game, have seen it played (most likely in the MLS and the occasional World Cup), have seen David Beckham play it, have rightly assumed that he is a good player and then, because they have limited experience with other players and have "heard of" Beckham, assume that familiarity is the best yardstick by which to measure greatness. They have not immersed themselves in all aspects of the game, watched other national leagues, examined the technical merit of less flamboyant players, followed the careers of players not married to twigs or with their own perfume brand, etc. To their educated -- but narrow -- viewpoint, the best player in the world is David Beckham and all others who play like David Beckham must therefore be quite acceptable also.

It is not wrong, but it is right only within a very small sphere of reality. When the sphere expands, so to do judgments about quality. I would implore all readers of poetry to avoid defining things in the negative -- if you must, then say "this is not what I recognise as poetry, but perhaps it could be recognised as poetry some day".

---

PS. When we accept only what we know as being good and proper, that's called stagnation.

Leanne, you are the soul of reason.

My only amendment would be to point out that the situation would be more like someone claiming that other players are not, in fact, football players

because they are not David Beckham.

[Leanne]

True parity would be achieved in such a statement. Defining what is and isn't a football player would be much simpler. "Yes, of course it's clever, but it's just not football Senor Messi."

One could easily distance oneself from all possible controversy. Why, there'd be no need to think about it at all.

What a wonderfully simple world that would be.

[billy]

if you read one poem how do you know it's good or bad apart from being grammatically correct. if the poem has no punctuation wouldn't you think it badly written? we judge poetry as we judge everything. we just through the experince of the subject, i have watched beckham and a thousand other professional footballs and he is indeed one of the greats. but as a defender he's mediocre. he has been called by some "an actual spacial genius on the grounds he can judge distance, height, wind, velocity, and as well as that impart an accurate curve to the ball on more than an average number of times. he's a natural and to boot he's an experienced natural who has practised his art since childhood. when some one says becks is one of the best half the worlds population agree. he knows his craft, we/i only know this because i am/was an avid watcher of football.

when i came to poetry i really did believe that emo poetry was good as well as cliched love poems. i believed this because i lacked any experience of poetry, i hadn't read anything except the general fluff, i had no idea how to compose any kind of poem but a bad one...to me they were great but i now know they were shite. Dickinson, who was she, i'd maybe hear an odd sonnet which i thought was brutal, i'd read shakespeare but saw nothing in it...i knew no better, no i can see the beauty in a lot of his work abd even some in emily's work which i'm not to keen on, the pages of poetry books opened up and fuck me, i was hooked. i do know the difference 'twixt prose and poetry, but that hasn't always been the case.

as for any football player (professional/good) claiming another player isn't good because he's not becks....i call bullshit. most professional players have role models other players who inspire/d them. most football support will give you a list of ten or twenty world class players and they won't all be becks or their own team members. they know football because they watch (read) it, they can tell the difference between a third level football match and a top flight one. like prose and poetry they even argue about it constantly

[Leanne]

There's only one Henrik Larsson...

Having read far too much poetry in my life (misspent youth), I'm quite comfortable in my likes and dislikes, but as much as I dislike a lot of poets and upset a lot of people when I say how much they suck, I still wouldn't say they weren't writing poetry. Even that they wrote good poetry. Just not good poetry that I like in the least

(Please don't go to the Maya Angelou corner though, I won't be able to contain my rage)

[billy]

what about angelou did she write poetry

i always saw sexton and plath as non poetry writers (what little i saw) and jack showed me through his love of them that they did write some really good stuff. i'm over equating 'not liking' to it not being. that said some newbs poetry sucks big fat hairy balls.

[Leanne]

Some are attempts at poetry that haven't quite made it yet... it's not as simple as "it's a poem if I say it's a poem", because I'm afraid that someone else really does have to agree with you. A consensus of two might be enough to make it a poem, if not necessarily a good one. The more you read (and write), the easier it becomes to recognise when someone's doing something different on purpose and when they're just making an error out of ignorance.

Beginners mostly fall into the latter camp, but immersing themselves in poetry will make this happen less frequently.

[Erthona]

1 or 2% of newbs write decent stuff. The rest need to go to AP purgatory until they have done enough penance to allow entrance into Pig Pen heaven.