writing worth a shit

[rowens]

Writing isn't about following rules or breaking rules. If you write a poem that nobody likes but you, you have your whole life to enjoy that poem alone. And that's fine, just do it. Following rules doesn't make a poem, breaking them doesn't. If you don't know any rules, then what do you know? It's not impossible to know nothing about poetry and still write a good poem, and it's not impossible to be an expert in poetry and a great deal more than that and be a mediocre poet. If you write a poem that nobody likes, it might be that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or it might be that you're wrong. That's part of it. Time will tell, or you and your poem might be forgotten. That's part of it

If nobody likes the poem, and you don't care then you're fine. If you do care, you have to work. Learn rules, ignore rules, break rules; just try. If you fail, you fail. Some humans die in the womb. Maybe you're like that. If it was easy as saying how you feel or what you want to say it would be easy. If it was easy it would be as boring as grass in your neighbor's yard. And maybe some people will like the grass in your neighbor's yard. People like lots of things. Writing isn't about right or wrong. It happens, it gets written or it doesn't, people will read it or maybe they would rather not waste time, or maybe they'll enjoy telling you you can't write. That's all part of it.

---

And being a successful writer isn't pleasing an audience but earning an audience. Or, better yet, creating one.

---

And being a successful writer doesn't mean someone's a great or even good one. Just good enough; if you're willing to settle.

[tectak]

Writing isn't about following rules or breaking rules. If you write a poem that nobody likes but you, you have your whole life to enjoy that poem alone. And that's fine, just do it. Following rules doesn't make a poem, breaking them doesn't. If you don't know any rules, then what do you know? It's not impossible to know nothing about poetry and still write a good poem, and it's not impossible to be an expert in poetry and a great deal more than that and be a mediocre poet. If you write a poem that nobody likes, it might be that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or it might be that you're wrong. That's part of it. Time will tell, or you and your poem might be forgotten. That's part of it

If nobody likes the poem, and you don't care then you're fine. If you do care, you have to work. Learn rules, ignore rules, break rules; just try. If you fail, you fail. Some humans die in the womb. Maybe you're like that. If it was easy as saying how you feel or what you want to say it would be easy. If it was easy it would be as boring as grass in your neighbor's yard. And maybe some people will like the grass in your neighbor's yard. People like lots of things. Writing isn't about right or wrong. It happens, it gets written or it doesn't, people will read it or maybe they would rather not waste time, or maybe they'll enjoy telling you you can't write. That's all part of it.

---

And being a successful writer isn't pleasing an audience but earning an audience. Or, better yet, creating one.

---

And being a successful writer doesn't mean someone's a great or even good one. Just good enough; if you're willing to settle.

Well, yes or no to this. It matters or it doesn't matter. It may be true, it may not be. Who cares. Who doesn't. It doesn't matter except when it does...but even then it doesn't. I am glad I wrote this but I wish I hadn't...even though I mean it but not really...except deep down. Nothing really matters....the concept of zero. Where would we be without it? I need a drink...no, a sandwich. Beef and horseradish. Aw, the hell...I'll have a glass of water. With a shot of whisky....No. Ice. Forget the water. Forget the ice. Just give me a large whisky...no, a small one...smaller than that. Oh, forget it. I'm going to bed...right now...after I've watched the News.
Best,
tectak.

[rowens]

A writer has to make decisions, and accept possible failure. But never accept absolute facts. Facts and rules don't mean anything if you can't write. If you can write, rules mean everything if you know them and little if you don't. If you can write and don't know certain rules, you can still write. There is no framework you have to know, but there are frameworks that are hard not to notice if you're serious.

---

And you don't have to accept failure to fail.

[ellajam]

Writing isn't about following rules or breaking rules. If you write a poem that nobody likes but you, you have your whole life to enjoy that poem alone. And that's fine, just do it. Following rules doesn't make a poem, breaking them doesn't. If you don't know any rules, then what do you know? It's not impossible to know nothing about poetry and still write a good poem, and it's not impossible to be an expert in poetry and a great deal more than that and be a mediocre poet. If you write a poem that nobody likes, it might be that you're right and everyone else is wrong, or it might be that you're wrong. That's part of it. Time will tell, or you and your poem might be forgotten. That's part of it

If nobody likes the poems, and you don't care then you're fine. If you do care, you have to work. Learn rules, ignore rules, break rules; just try. If you fail, you fail. Some humans die in the womb. Maybe you're like that. If it was easy as saying how you feel or what you want to say it would be easy. If it was easy it would be as boring as grass in your neighbor's yard. And maybe some people will like the grass in your neighbor's yard. People like lots of things. Writing isn't about right or wrong. It happens, it gets written or it doesn't, people will read it or maybe they would rather not waste time, or maybe they'll enjoy telling you you can't write. That's all part of it.

---

And being a successful writer isn't pleasing an audience but earning an audience. Or, better yet, creating one.

---

And being a successful writer doesn't mean someone's a great or even good one. Just good enough; if you're willing to settle.

They say everyone likes the smell of their own farts. That may be true or it may not be true.

I like my own poems, no, sometimes I like them. What I like is working on them, no, sometimes I like working on them. What I like is playing with the words that end up in my poems, yeah, that's it. That's enough for me. And I like reading poems that make me go wow, or yikes, or hoowheee.

I post in a workshop because I find it interesting to read how others perceive my work, what sinks and what hovers. I edit to watch the changes in how I and others read the poem when it changes. The edited version is sometimes even shittier than the original, sometimes slightly less stinky. Edit, don't edit, poet's choice, but when it's posted in a workshop I give the readers the benefit of the doubt. If more than one stumbles at the same point, I've probably tripped them.

I think we're all learning all the time. Does that improve the individual poem? Sometimes.

[tectak]

A writer has to make decisions, and accept possible failure. But never accept absolute facts. Facts and rules don't mean anything if you can't write. If you can write, rules mean everything if you know them and little if you don't. If you can write and don't know certain rules, you can still write. There is no framework you have to know, but there are frameworks that are hard not to notice if you're serious.

---

And you don't have to accept failure to fail.

Rowens, you speak the white man's truth...but there remains one small catch. You speak to writers, not to posters on a site dedicated to improvement by critique. All of what you say is valid to the lonely and isolated aspirant...but what do you advise once a hermit hires a bullhorn?
Best,
tectak

[Truerenigma]

If nobody likes the poem, and you don't care then you're fine. If you do care, you have to work.

There, I found it. Buried under the usual irrefutable and inarguable and indubitably profound and absurd rhetoric or ant-rhetoric or whatever.

How to win an argument by not getting in one:

"The sky is up, or it's not; either way there is indefinably definitely a sky, or there isn't, but I'm sure you have an opinion about it, or you might not ..."

[milo]

I prefer syrup with my waffles

[rowens]

The people that can't write yet insist that they can can carry that belief to their death. It's always been that way. They aren't important to me, and telling them that they're wrong more than once is too much. There are more important things to do.

[Leanne]

The people that can't write yet insist that they can can carry that belief to their death. It's always been that way. They aren't important to me, and telling them that they're wrong more than once is too much. There are more important things to do.

Agreed. Once is plenty, then move on. There are people who really matter who deserve our attention.

[abu nuwas]

The people that can't write yet insist that they can can carry that belief to their death. It's always been that way. They aren't important to me, and telling them that they're wrong more than once is too much. There are more important things to do.

Would you give the same advice to a physicist engaged in designing a nuclear power-plant? It is axiomatic that everyone may do as they please, but you seem to suggest that no element of craft is necessary, in poetry.

Poetry may be notoriously difficult to define, and therefore to write a manual on its composition for, but it is a definite thing for all that, as you can tell by asking what it is not. It isn't a cam-shaft for example, and it isn't a peanut.

[Leanne]

But the guy who thinks the cam-shaft is a peanut won't change his mind, he'll just keep making that crunchy peanut butter and wondering why nobody else thinks it's amazing.

[rowens]

Poetry isn't science. And it's not the same as with a doctor or a physicist.

What I'm saying is that poets have to stand behind their work, they might be wrong, but that's something they have to deal with. I'm saying that poets have to believe in themselves, I'm not saying that they will be good poets. In most cases they won't be good poets. Strong poetry comes from a strong individual or else it's just mechanical. A strong individual might write nothing but horrible poetry; there's a risk there. But there needs to be strong personal integrity and strong ability.

[Leanne]

Yes. And while generic cookie-cutter poetry might be popular with the New York Times, the rest of the thinking world tends to like something with a strong personal stamp that stands out from the rest.

Poetry riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, addressing bland abstractions and requiring Spark Notes to justify it doesn't stand out; it's the norm in a cyberverse of mediocrity.

[Tiger the Lion]

My writing is still immature, egocentric, pretentious, cliche, poorly punctuated, preachy, cartoonish and trite. I am thrilled to be reminded of that as many times as it takes.

[Leanne]

My writing is still immature, egocentric, pretentious, cliche, poorly punctuated, preachy, cartoonish and trite. I am thrilled to be reminded of that as many times as it takes.

I hope to be guilty of all of the above -- with the exception of poor punctuation (!) -- regularly. Especially the cartoonish part. Everyone loves cartoons.

I want to write poems of Garfield.

[Tiger the Lion]

My writing is still immature, egocentric, pretentious, cliche, poorly punctuated, preachy, cartoonish and trite. I am thrilled to be reminded of that as many times as it takes.

I hope to be guilty of all of the above -- with the exception of poor punctuation (!) -- regularly. Especially the cartoonish part. Everyone loves cartoons.

I want to write poems of Garfield.

I know how to tickle a nerve with a rhyme,
I know I can retell events,
but too often I get so ahead of my tale,
that I can't tell my feet from my assonance.

[Truerenigma]

I don't think a poet must be strong for the poetry to be strong because I like the rest of the world have no clue about the person behind the poem aside from what can be read or told to me or otherwise observed. A bunch of poets say they are marxists and people say marxists are good poets I guess. It is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

[rowens]

The person writing is the one doing the work. So they matter for something.

[Truerenigma]

The person writing is the one doing the work. So they matter for something.

Maybe they matter, but I can't begin to make ridiculous abstract inferences about their character or personality based on the quality of the poetry, much less try to measure an unquantifiable element like "strength", unless we are talking about weightlifting.

[rowens]

That makes sense. But I was talking about the writer writing, not the reader reading. The writer needs to have a belief in the work they're doing, and a personal stake in it. Not just a need to please, or a reputation as someone good at something.