Simplicity in Poetry

[cvanshelton]

I don't mean consumers in the monetary sense. The audience is people who will read your writing, not necessarily those who pay for it.

Alright, this is how I would break it down logically:

You want to write a poem
You want your poem to be read
You want the poem to be good
Good poems connect with the reader
Good poems have been edited
Not all good poems connect with all readers
You choose a set of readers for the poem
Good poems must have certain elements
Different types of poems have some different elements that make them good
Not all sets of readers respond to the same elements
You write a poem with elements that your readers respond to
You edit your poem
Editing your poem necessitates you reading the poem as a reader
There are many types of readers
you can't write to everyone
Identifying your readers narrows the focus of the edit
You edit your poem
It has good elements that your readers respond to
Your poem touches the reader
Your poem is good.

And that's it for me. I'll bow out now. It seems we are just on the treadmill of a difference of ideas. I appreciate that you are so committed to your process, and I understand your perspective and see its merit. I regret putting my thoughts up as "rules". I see that has rubbed a few people the wrong way. Please accept my apology. I agree that in the end, the poem itself is the summum bonum. I simply find it useful to be mindful of the readers experience when I write. In response to the OP, complexity and simplicity, for my writing, is usually determined by who I am writing to or for. Neither one is inherently "good" or "bad". It comes down to pragmatism - what is most useful over the longest time given the context. Cheers!

[milo]

First - don't get too excited when people don't agree with you. Poets rarely agree with anyone on anything.

Second - yes, your process seems very strange to me as I have never ever put that type of pre-planning into writing. That being said -

Let's say you never added the step of considering your target consumer into your pre-planning

1. Your poem wouldn't be any worse (possibly better as it wouldn't have this unnecessary constraint placed on it)

2. It would appeal to people outside your "target" group more.

I still don't see the benefit in adding a target. In addition it now occurs to me that you are altering your writing away from what might have been your more original voice.

Anyway, carry on. It seems to work for you (I am guessing based on what you say) but I highly doubt it would help any other writer of poetry in the known universe.

---

There's another portion of her book that's called "The Dangers of Concentrating on Publication," and I think that this might connect with some of the things I'm hearing:

...the danger, I think, of connecting writing with publication is that you can end up focusing on writing in a way that will be acceptable and publishable. If you concentrate on publication possibilities when you're writing, I think you lose your focus on the writing itself. Instead of the process of writing -- the desire to shape our experience into language that can form a bridge between your life and that of others -- you concentrate on what is bland and acceptable. You become afraid to take any risks in your work.

When you're writing, you need to concentrate on the poem or story you are writing; you need to find the voice inside yourself that fits the poem or story and that is honest and true to the story. Publication is important. We all like to be published and to win prizes and awards. It validates us and our work, but in the end, it is the writing that matters. If it's any good, it will last long after no one remembers the names of any prize, no matter how prestigious.

I could paper ten rooms with rejection slips and contest letters informing me I didn't win, but I don't care about it as much as I did 20 years ago. I have to believe in what I'm doing with my work and where that works needs to go, even if no one else agrees. I know that I'm on a journey and that I have to follow wherever my instinct about writing leads me. I can't worry who likes what I'm doing and who doesn't. I hope that the readers of this book will learn much more quickly what it has taken me so many years to learn. Your instincts know more about what you need to write than anyone who exists outside of your skin."

Am I on the right track with this?

The italics are mine. I highlighted that bit because I think that relates back to the original post, accessible language being a more efficient vehicle to bridge the gap between writer and reader.

---

As I mentioned before, writers do not have actual audiences as writing makes for poor performance art so I am assuming we are talking about consumers.

I'm using these notions interchangeably. Perhaps that's where I'm getting confused. I go to poetry readings and what not, but I mostly read poems for myself in print so theatrical presentation was not what I had in mind. But, Shakespeare was a poet and his work is presented in theaters. Perhaps I should say reader?

---

Milo: Is your point about the children's writing that you can't know specifically who is going to be reading the poem, just that they would be children in general? What I hear you saying is that if you don't know the person who's going to be reading your poem, then you can't write for them personally but rather in a general style. Is that accurate?

My point about a children's poem is that it is just a type of poem not an audience. Plenty of adults (myself included) read children's poems. knowing whether the children are deaf or war refugees or suburbanites or whatever will not produce a better poem than just knowing the type.

I have written several children's poems myself but I tend to mess them up by peppering them with complex words . . .

[ellajam]

milo wrote: I have written several children's poems myself but I tend to mess them up by peppering them with complex words . . .

tho in truth, hearing an adult tripping over a complex word seems to be one of the joys of childhood, so maybe they're just right.

[Lizzie]

I have written several children's poems myself but I tend to mess them up by peppering them with complex words . . .

So, you DO understand.

"Visualize Jane scampering. Contemplate Jack ambling."

My 5 year old son has a book about dinosaurs that he loves for me to read, and it has the word Quetzalcoatlus in it. Hard to pronounce, but at least it's still a concrete noun.

[milo]

I have written several children's poems myself but I tend to mess them up by peppering them with complex words . . .

So, you DO understand.

"Visualize Jane scampering. Contemplate Jack ambling."

It isn't that I don't understand it's that I will always try to make the poem the best I can which sometimes causes these discrepancies. For me, it is all about the poem.

[Lizzie]

It isn't that I don't understand it's that I will always try to make the poem the best I can which sometimes causes these discrepancies. For me, it is all about the poem.

Well, whatever you're doing is working, so I say keep doing it. For me, I'm not satisfied with my work unless it makes a connection. That's just what I find compelling about writing. I have to believe on some level that you see the value of this yourself, since your work is quite good. I've never forgotten your poem Hide & Seek and how it leveled me when I read it. So, I know that you understand the necessity of grabbing the reader and hugging them tight.

I'm not going to write shit just so that it will sell. I'm not about to run out and write the next "Twilight." I agree with C that the word "pander" feels like you mean selling out.

[Weeded]

Ima go ahead and ignore the ego-fueled rant of a threadjack and "rules" and "reasons to write" and try to bring it back to the OP by looking at this

Poem are simple because life is simple.
Poems are complex because life is complex.

THIS right here is the truth. This is why this discussion turned into what it now is. Some people will just never be able to accept a statement like this, which is probably why there's not much poets in the world, and even fewer great poets.

First you have to understand this, then you have to apply it by well, not applying it.

I just saw the perfect example of this quote in the past two days and its so crazy to me that I happened to log on pigpen and this discussion started and now I just so happen to have a platform to share my correlation with yall fellow thinkers. Talk about meant to be, but ok,

two days ago I watched the film No Country For Old Men. As most of you know, the title was taken from the Yeats poem, but there is nothing poetic about this movie (or so it seems). It's a great thriller, set in modern day Texas, full of guns and drug money and sheriffs and southern accents. This is the external, and its simple, easy to follow, easy to love.

But the ending is well, just random as hell. The last 5 minutes seems like a nonsense conversation between an unimportant character and his wife that had a total of 6 minutes screentime.

That was on the first watch. The title of the movie (and other little strange one-liners) made me watch it again though. And again, and again. I just finished watching the film for the fifth time less than twenty minutes ago, and it left me in tears, shaking out of pure fear of that which I did not understand, which I still dont understand, but have had a sliver of understanding bestowed upon me by another humans creation. That which is internal, which cant be communicated.

This movie is not simple, far from it. Yet at the very same time, it is.

And that my friends, is poetry.

By the way, if you havent seen the movie, watch it.

mike

[next]

As far as morality plays go, that movie isn't half bad.
----

As to the audience discussion:

Where does revising your poem in response to workshop criticism fit into all this?

[Lizzie]

The Coen Brothers are my favorite directors, hands down. I just bought "The Man Who Wasn't There" about a week ago. I could watch it on a continuous loop for the rest of my life.

Where does revising your poem in response to workshop criticism fit into all this?

Next: I'm wondering this too. Absolutely. We make revisions to our work all the time based on 'I'd like the poem better if you did x, y, z.'

[ellajam]

As far as morality plays go, that movie isn't half bad.
----

As to the audience discussion:

Where does revising your poem in response to workshop criticism fit into all this?

Ah, that is one of the things that I have been learning here, how not to over-write towards your, my, audience. It's a delicate balance to appreciate and play with their responses but not lose my own voice.

A practiced critic doesn't try to mold the poem to their own view but tries to help the poet perfect their own voice. A practiced poet trolls the critique and makes changes that hone the poem without bending it so much that it becomes something else. Or, sometimes, springs off in a different, sometimes better, direction.

Giving and receiving critique are learned skills, executed with mutual respect they can make a poem shine without becoming more the audience than the original voice.

[Achebe]

It isn't that I don't understand it's that I will always try to make the poem the best I can which sometimes causes these discrepancies. For me, it is all about the poem.

Well, whatever you're doing is working, so I say keep doing it. For me, I'm not satisfied with my work unless it makes a connection. That's just what I find compelling about writing. I have to believe on some level that you see the value of this yourself, since your work is quite good. I've never forgotten your poem Hide & Seek and how it leveled me when I read it. So, I know that you understand the necessity of grabbing the reader and hugging them tight.

I'm not going to write shit just so that it will sell. I'm not about to run out and write the next "Twilight." I agree with C that the word "pander" feels like you mean selling out.

I think this entire discussion is a quibble about language.
When Milo says 'write for yourself' he's targeting that advice at someone who already has an appreciation for poetry. For a complete novice, the exact opposite advice holds - he should never write for himself, because he won't be able to tell good from bad.
But if you have the basics in place, you should NOT write for others because:
1) 'Others' is not a monolithic segment. In trying to write something that everyone likes, you'll end up writing something that no one likes. 
2) It is fair to assume that your tastes are not unique. Therefore, there'll always be a segment that likes what you like, content-wise and style-wise.
3) If you try to write for a segment that you don't belong to, you'll fail. That's because you can't empathise with the jerks. The same way that if you're a particle physicist, you can't really form a lasting friendship with a young earth creationist, or if you're an orchid you can't mate with a beagle. Don't bring up Shakespeare, because let's face it, if someone tried to write a play with Elizabethan puns today, they'd get beaten to death. Tastes have evolved. Shakespeare's mates knew nothing about calculus.
4) If you're writing for yourself and you are totally happy with what you have written, feedback is a waste of time. However, people who are totally happy with what they have written are generally crap writers (defined as 'it's easy to write like them'). Given that we're already talking about someone who's writing above the level of complete novice, you will be totally unhappy with what you've written most of the time. Feedback helps then. However, even then it doesn't mean that what everyone says has value - some feedback will be plain bad, while some will be the opinion of someone who has different tastes. You are then free to pick and choose what you like...to make the poem according to what you like.

[rowens]

Weeded, you should read Cormac McCarthy, and watch The Sunset Limited and The Counselor. The Counselor if only for the last scene which reminds you who wrote the thing. You could watch Child of God if you prefer less talking and more violence. -- I don't know an audience. They don't come to my house and shake my hand, they don't go to the movies with me. I don't read the literary journals, but what complexity I've seen in recent poetry is something anybody can learn in college, overhear on the street or look up online. In other words, worthlessness. And the people who write and edit that stuff are boring people with no personalities. I assume the poetry audience is mostly that way too, so I assume I wouldn't like them.

[Leanne]

I think there’s been a great denial of the kinds of poets and poetries that could speak to a lot more people. Poetry has been kind of hoarded inside the schools, inside the universities. The activity of writing about poems and poetry--the activity of making it available and accessible--became the property of scholars and academics and became dependent on a certain kind of academic training, education, class background. (Adrienne Rich)

I love education, and loathe academia. Education is not a privilege for the pretentious, and neither is poetry. Almost everything I learned about poetry in 9 years at university was good only until I stopped writing for the pleasure of academics and stepped out into the world -- and yet, if I had not learned those academic skills I wouldn't be in a position to know which were valuable and which were only there to perpetuate institutionalised poetry.

The higher degrees in writing are excellent for discipline and challenging yourself to write in ways you would otherwise not consider. There is no "I really like cliches therefore I'm going to keep writing with them" if you want to get your piece of paper. Unfortunately, there is a particular group of academics that has made itself into a cliche, to the point where it's easy to predict the kind of writing that will be published in places like The New Yorker (that's if they DID publish emerging poets like they say they do, but of course they don't unless they're mentored by someone who doesn't represent a risk).

The full article from whence Madame Rich's quote was drawn is called Academia vs. Poetry: How the Gatekeepers of Contemporary Literature might be Killing It by Rosemarie Dombrowski, PhD. It's well worth a read whether you agree with it or not. She does not argue for simplicity, but neither does she advocate complexity: she advocates less wanking, more intercourse.

[milo]

It isn't that I don't understand it's that I will always try to make the poem the best I can which sometimes causes these discrepancies. For me, it is all about the poem.

Well, whatever you're doing is working, so I say keep doing it. For me, I'm not satisfied with my work unless it makes a connection. That's just what I find compelling about writing. I have to believe on some level that you see the value of this yourself, since your work is quite good. I've never forgotten your poem Hide & Seek and how it leveled me when I read it. So, I know that you understand the necessity of grabbing the reader and hugging them tight.

I'm not going to write shit just so that it will sell. I'm not about to run out and write the next "Twilight." I agree with C that the word "pander" feels like you mean selling out.

I think this entire discussion is a quibble about language.
When Milo says 'write for yourself' he's targeting that advice at someone who already has an appreciation for poetry. For a complete novice, the exact opposite advice holds - he should never write for himself, because he won't be able to tell good from bad.
But if you have the basics in place, you should NOT write for others because:
1) 'Others' is not a monolithic segment. In trying to write something that everyone likes, you'll end up writing something that no one likes. 
2) It is fair to assume that your tastes are not unique. Therefore, there'll always be a segment that likes what you like, content-wise and style-wise.
3) If you try to write for a segment that you don't belong to, you'll fail. That's because you can't empathise with the jerks. The same way that if you're a particle physicist, you can't really form a lasting friendship with a young earth creationist, or if you're an orchid you can't mate with a beagle. Don't bring up Shakespeare, because let's face it, if someone tried to write a play with Elizabethan puns today, they'd get beaten to death. Tastes have evolved. Shakespeare's mates knew nothing about calculus.
4) If you're writing for yourself and you are totally happy with what you have written, feedback is a waste of time. However, people who are totally happy with what they have written are generally crap writers (defined as 'it's easy to write like them'). Given that we're already talking about someone who's writing above the level of complete novice, you will be totally unhappy with what you've written most of the time. Feedback helps then. However, even then it doesn't mean that what everyone says has value - some feedback will be plain bad, while some will be the opinion of someone who has different tastes. You are then free to pick and choose what you like...to make the poem according to what you like.

Actually, I never say write for yourself as it isn't really something I believe in. I say write to create a poem - just for the poem and not for anyone else. I write every poem as if it is the only thing I will ever write. When I am finished I am certain I will never write again. And who knows, one of these times it will probably be true.

[Leanne]

Actually, I never say write for yourself as it isn't really something I believe in. I say write to create a poem - just for the poem and not for anyone else. I write every poem as if it is the only thing I will ever write. When I am finished I am certain I will never write again. And who knows, one of these times it will probably be true.

All of the yes. "I only write for myself" is a copout for when people suggest you change something; this is not milo. "Write for poetry", now, that is something I see in every poet whose work I love and return to time and again.

I read every new poem by a favourite poet as if it's their last, because there's every chance (as milo says) that it will be.

[Achebe]

Well, whatever you're doing is working, so I say keep doing it. For me, I'm not satisfied with my work unless it makes a connection. That's just what I find compelling about writing. I have to believe on some level that you see the value of this yourself, since your work is quite good. I've never forgotten your poem Hide & Seek and how it leveled me when I read it. So, I know that you understand the necessity of grabbing the reader and hugging them tight.

I'm not going to write shit just so that it will sell. I'm not about to run out and write the next "Twilight." I agree with C that the word "pander" feels like you mean selling out.

I think this entire discussion is a quibble about language.
When Milo says 'write for yourself' he's targeting that advice at someone who already has an appreciation for poetry. For a complete novice, the exact opposite advice holds - he should never write for himself, because he won't be able to tell good from bad.
But if you have the basics in place, you should NOT write for others because:
1) 'Others' is not a monolithic segment. In trying to write something that everyone likes, you'll end up writing something that no one likes. 
2) It is fair to assume that your tastes are not unique. Therefore, there'll always be a segment that likes what you like, content-wise and style-wise.
3) If you try to write for a segment that you don't belong to, you'll fail. That's because you can't empathise with the jerks. The same way that if you're a particle physicist, you can't really form a lasting friendship with a young earth creationist, or if you're an orchid you can't mate with a beagle. Don't bring up Shakespeare, because let's face it, if someone tried to write a play with Elizabethan puns today, they'd get beaten to death. Tastes have evolved. Shakespeare's mates knew nothing about calculus.
4) If you're writing for yourself and you are totally happy with what you have written, feedback is a waste of time. However, people who are totally happy with what they have written are generally crap writers (defined as 'it's easy to write like them'). Given that we're already talking about someone who's writing above the level of complete novice, you will be totally unhappy with what you've written most of the time. Feedback helps then. However, even then it doesn't mean that what everyone says has value - some feedback will be plain bad, while some will be the opinion of someone who has different tastes. You are then free to pick and choose what you like...to make the poem according to what you like.

Actually, I never say write for yourself as it isn't really something I believe in. I say write to create a poem - just for the poem and not for anyone else. I write every poem as if it is the only thing I will ever write. When I am finished I am certain I will never write again. And who knows, one of these times it will probably be true.

This is why we should abolish language.
When you say 'write for the poem' I presume you mean 'write for what you think the poem should sound like without worrying about whether others will like it.' In other words, write to create something that is beautiful by your standards. That is what I mean by 'write for yourself'.
There are 3 options: 1) write something that you think others will like, read, and thank you for 2) write something that is so inscrutable that it appeals only to you; and 3) write something that you find beautiful. We're both suggesting option 3 I think.

[Lizzie]

I think this entire discussion is a quibble about language.
When Milo says 'write for yourself' he's targeting that advice at someone who already has an appreciation for poetry. For a complete novice, the exact opposite advice holds - he should never write for himself, because he won't be able to tell good from bad.
But if you have the basics in place, you should NOT write for others because:
1) 'Others' is not a monolithic segment. In trying to write something that everyone likes, you'll end up writing something that no one likes. 
2) It is fair to assume that your tastes are not unique. Therefore, there'll always be a segment that likes what you like, content-wise and style-wise.
3) If you try to write for a segment that you don't belong to, you'll fail. That's because you can't empathise with the jerks. The same way that if you're a particle physicist, you can't really form a lasting friendship with a young earth creationist, or if you're an orchid you can't mate with a beagle. Don't bring up Shakespeare, because let's face it, if someone tried to write a play with Elizabethan puns today, they'd get beaten to death. Tastes have evolved. Shakespeare's mates knew nothing about calculus.
4) If you're writing for yourself and you are totally happy with what you have written, feedback is a waste of time. However, people who are totally happy with what they have written are generally crap writers (defined as 'it's easy to write like them'). Given that we're already talking about someone who's writing above the level of complete novice, you will be totally unhappy with what you've written most of the time. Feedback helps then. However, even then it doesn't mean that what everyone says has value - some feedback will be plain bad, while some will be the opinion of someone who has different tastes. You are then free to pick and choose what you like...to make the poem according to what you like.

Actually, I never say write for yourself as it isn't really something I believe in. I say write to create a poem - just for the poem and not for anyone else. I write every poem as if it is the only thing I will ever write. When I am finished I am certain I will never write again. And who knows, one of these times it will probably be true.

This is why we should abolish language.
When you say 'write for the poem' I presume you mean 'write for what you think the poem should sound like without worrying about whether others will like it.' In other words, write to create something that is beautiful by your standards. That is what I mean by 'write for yourself'.
There are 3 options: 1) write something that you think others will like, read, and thank you for 2) write something that is so inscrutable that it appeals only to you; and 3) write something that you find beautiful. We're both suggesting option 3 I think.

Milo, perhaps speak to us in metaphor or simile -- there's too much tell going on here and not enough show.

As a visual/kinesthetic learner, I'm actually dead serious. Some images would help me

And, we've already established (in a juicy twist in this conversation on poetry) that words are no more use here.

---

Weeded, you should read Cormac McCarthy, and watch The Sunset Limited and The Counselor. The Counselor if only for the last scene which reminds you who wrote the thing. You could watch Child of God if you prefer less talking and more violence.                             --                                       I don't know an audience. They don't come to my house and shake my hand, they don't go to the movies with me. I don't read the literary journals, but what complexity I've seen in recent poetry is something anybody can learn in college, overhear on the street or look up online. In other words, worthlessness. And the people who write and edit that stuff are boring people with no personalities. I assume the poetry audience is mostly that way too, so I assume I wouldn't like them.

I just checked out the book "Beautiful & Pointless: A Guide to Modern Poetry." It's by David Orr. I wonder if he has a similar beef with modern poetry.

[shemthepenman]

All swears alight like 22
and 17's like red
these numbers helped me out a bit
but'll fuck me when i'm dead.

i wrote that for the poetry. shit, though, an it.

this whole idea of writing for yourself or, even worse, writing for 'poetry' [whatever the fuck that means], is the most pretentious nonsense i have ever heard. anyone who writes poems and posts them on the internet is doing so because they want someone somewhere to say 'oh, that's good' or words to that effect. whether the standard be academic or folk. i wonder how far any of us would persevere [and not start saying "i write for mysellf"] with this crap if everything we posted was met with ridicule and hostility? if every poem Milo wrote got a "this is utter shite" comment?
van gogh [often the poster boy for "i'm an artist. no one understands me"] didn't paint 'for art', he painted against it. but this doesn't mean he painted for himself, either. of course, there are some loony toons outsider artists drawing perfect pictures of St. Paul's from memory, but it is only a happy coincidence that these lines conform to a gregarious standard. give a pen and paper to most mental patients and they may love it, writing poems, oh look how happy they are. . . but seriously, don't let anyone else read it :/
the fact is, and i have said it before, but these questions are academic. we write to be read. we love the process, no doubt; but we write to be read. and why? because we like to read. our writing is inspired by our own enjoyment in reading. our own arrogance that we can do that, too! or we want to get close. and this, already, suggests an innate binary relationship between poet and reader.

[Leanne]

Fuck me, if I wrote "to be read" I'd have stopped years ago. It's like shouting into the vagina of a 20p hooker -- you get back a lot of echoes but essentially there's no point in bothering because you'll just get lost.

[milo]

Eh - I wouldn't agree with this that. If everyone here said it was shit there is a pretty good chance it would be shit. I would most likely work to write better.  Initially, like most, everything I wrote was shit and I was told so in pretty clear terms.

The thing is, shit isn't really subjective, taste is. If a poem is good but not to my taste it is still good.  There are usually some pretty objective reasons that poetry is shit or what is holding it back. Avoiding writing shit poetry isn't writing for an audience, it certainly isn't knowing your audience and it isn't writing for yourself.

It is . . .

Writing to produce a poem.

(Also, agree with Leanne, writing to be read is utterly pointless, but if I were to start doing that I would most likely do something with my writing other than occasionally posting it here)

((I do like the end of the rant though - writing inspired by reading. Nothing quite like reading a great poem and thinking, "I want to write that!". Still just writing to make a poem though - no target audience, no writing for myself, etc.)