Simplicity in Poetry

[shemthepenman]

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.)

you're missing the point. you are writing to satisfy a standard that is not necessarily your own. it is all very well for you and Leanne to say 'write for poetry' [i still can't get my head around that--as if that is something different from writing for a third party subjectivity], but you are obviously good at it. if everyone said your not then you would either say 'fuck you! you don't get it' or try to conform to their standard. . . which is clearly not your own.

i missed the last part of you message "no target audience". . . you cannot really believe that! you are far too smart! of course you have a target audience! oh well, you are funny

[Leanne]

I don't think anyone's missing the point, I think everyone's playing beautifully executed shots from different ends of different courts (to paraphrase Tim Minchin). This is why we write poems instead of writing about poetry.

[Lizzie]

(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)

You are killing me Milo. Dead on the floor. Not literally, only in the most modern of senses.

Writing to be read is utterly pointless, eh? Well, that's it then. I put down the pen, forever.

What if I read my own poems out loud to myself, is that pointless too?

What if I write poems to share here at the Pen, in the for fun forum. That's what I like doing, not taking things too seriously, having a mutual, virtual laugh with like minded others, is that pointless too?

What if I want to write a poem for my child, something they can tuck away and keep as a reminder of what I saw in their youth? Something to remember the good times between us when I'm gone? Pointless? I suppose so.

[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.)

you're missing the point. you are writing to satisfy a standard that is not necessarily your own. it is all very well for you and Leanne to say 'write for poetry' [i still can't get my head around that--as if that is something different from writing for a third party subjectivity], but you are obviously good at it. if everyone said your not then you would either say 'fuck you! you don't get it' or try to conform to their standard. . . which is clearly not your own.

i missed the last part of you message "no target audience". . . you cannot really believe that! you are far too smart! of course you have a target audience! oh well, you are funny

I, of course, never said "write for poetry"

Where do you come up with this stuff?

---

(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)

You are killing me Milo. Dead on the floor. Not literally, only in the most modern of senses.

Writing to be read is utterly pointless, eh? Well, that's it then. I put down the pen, forever.

What if I read my own poems out loud to myself, is that pointless too?

What if I write poems to share here at the Pen, in the for fun forum. That's what I like doing, not taking things too seriously, having a mutual, virtual laugh with like minded others, is that pointless too?

What if I want to write a poem for my child, something they can tuck away and keep as a reminder of what I saw in their youth? Something to remember the good times between us when I'm gone? Pointless? I suppose so.

I think there is a confusion over what it means to "write to be read"

I am thinking it is on your part but if it is on mine then I apologize.

[shemthepenman]

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.

fair enough, Milo, you didn't say "write for poetry" :/

i still think the principle stands. saying 'don't write for anyone else but to create a poem' or whatnot. is just silly. i expect you both to stop posting poems now, then

[Leanne]

Just write. Seriously. Grow up. If someone is telling you they write for different reasons to you, then they write for different reasons to you. They're not you. If you need to write for the same reasons that other people write, then you probably don't need to write.

I made a conscious decision to focus my energy on writing poetry after having learned several different text types and ways of expression. Poetry worked for me because it gave me the most scope to do what I wanted to do in as little space as possible. I don't do it because it's easy, or because it gives me great exposure, or even because I particularly like other poets. I do it because I enjoy the process of doing it, and couldn't give a rat's about the end product except to make it better, because I enjoy that process as well. If others like it, good for them, but 90% of the time I'm just pissing into the wind. The poems that will always get the most comments, the most exposure, are the ones that people feel they don't have to work for -- and that's ok, because they're the kinds of political policies that get the most votes as well. That's why it's the status quo.

I won't dumb things down if people can't be bothered keeping up, but plenty will, and I'd suggest people who want it easy seek out the ones who make it easiest for them. That's diversity. And if, like pretty much every other time I open my mouth these days, people don't feel the need to respond to what I've got to say, I will not die of it and I will not stop doing it just because someone says they do it differently.

[milo]

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.

fair enough, Milo, you didn't say "write for poetry" :/

i still think the principle stands. saying 'don't write for anyone else but to create a poem' or whatnot. is just silly. i expect you both to stop posting poems now, then

There are 2 problems with this logic.

First, I could potentially be posting to improve.
Second, I enjoy the social aspect of poetry- discussions and what not, separate from writing.

I really do post very little poetry here anyway so it wouldn't be much different from what I do now.

Anyway, it is much like carpentry and gardening (both of which I do)

There is a joy in creating something.

[shemthepenman]

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.

fair enough, Milo, you didn't say "write for poetry" :/

i still think the principle stands. saying 'don't write for anyone else but to create a poem' or whatnot. is just silly. i expect you both to stop posting poems now, then

There are 2 problems with this logic.

First, I could potentially be posting to improve.
Second, I enjoy the social aspect of poetry- discussions and what not, separate from writing.

I really do post very little poetry here anyway so it wouldn't be much different from what I do now.

how would you improve if there wasn't an intersubjective standard to aim for?

anyway, i was not trying to be a dick about it. i think you are both great writers of course [in fact, i just read a poem by Leanne today that was phenomenal]. . . all i am saying is you are writing for other people, and if not how would anyone [i used you and Leanne as examples because you were handy] fare if they were repeatedly told they were no good. this is a reliance on subjective/inter-subjective opinion. i think we always write with the reader in mind. the reader is us. but 'i' am the reader who likes to read.hence there is already a multiplicity. if i wrote for myself it would be therapy. if i wrote for the standards of poetry it is inter-subjective conformity. is all. and yep, i agree entirely with Leanne about why we write is our own concern, but i was just commenting on the details, and how one may think one is writing for oneself or this or that, but when push comes to shove, deep down we all know that we are writing to be read, just as we like to read in the first place. i like some odd writers. i think i must be the only person that likes them. but, still, they inspired me to write. if there is another me out there

[Leanne]

I'm grateful that you have enjoyed a poem, but my point is more or less that if you didn't, I wouldn't stop. That's not because I don't consider the audience important, it's that I'm comfortable enough with poetry to know that my audience is quite limited and nobody is going to respond in the same way to everything I write. Rather, I write for the pure joy of constructing something I'm reasonably not shite at.

[shemthepenman]

I'm grateful that you have enjoyed a poem, but my point is more or less that if you didn't, I wouldn't stop.  That's not because I don't consider the audience important, it's that I'm comfortable enough with poetry to know that my audience is quite limited and nobody is going to respond in the same way to everything I write.  Rather, I write for the pure joy of constructing something I'm reasonably not shite at.

yeah yeah, i enjoy all your poems, you div.

ok, maybe i was being a bit too philosophical about it. granted. i only read the last few comments, so. my hypothetical [which was only a hypothetical] was just to indicate that there is a certain binary system [minimally] to writing poems. and that the other part of the binary isn't an abstract thing made objective. but rather an inter-subjectivity. what i actually find more interesting is the question of why there is such a fight against the idea that we write for others? in fact, what other profession, outside of the arts does that? a fellow builds a house: oh well, of course i built it for myself. luckily the people i built it for liked it :/ but that isn't true. the way the manual builder does it is based on money. so the builder would say, "well, i didn't get paid a lot, but it's not about the money. . ." and you think yeah, don't get paid then build me a house! fuck that! hey miss teach our children, we won't pay you, but teach them for the love of it. write a shit poem that no one reads. . . ever. and everyone thinks is shit. i just, personally, don't think i would be able to go on writing poems. and to be honest, although i read these terrible fucking poems sometimes on here by random people, all justifying their shitiness, i have to have hats off to them for keep on going on with the practise.

oh well.

[milo]

I'm grateful that you have enjoyed a poem, but my point is more or less that if you didn't, I wouldn't stop.  That's not because I don't consider the audience important, it's that I'm comfortable enough with poetry to know that my audience is quite limited and nobody is going to respond in the same way to everything I write.  Rather, I write for the pure joy of constructing something I'm reasonably not shite at.

yeah yeah, i enjoy all your poems, you div.

ok, maybe i was being a bit too philosophical about it. granted. i only read the last few comments, so. my hypothetical [which was only a hypothetical] was just to indicate that there is a certain binary system [minimally] to writing poems. and that the other part of the binary isn't an abstract thing made objective. but rather an inter-subjectivity. what i actually find more interesting is the question of why there is such a fight against the idea that we write for others? in fact, what other profession, outside of the arts does that? a fellow builds a house: oh well, of course i built it for myself. luckily the people i built it for liked it :/ but that isn't true. the way the manual builder does it is based on money. so the builder would say, "well, i didn't get paid a lot, but it's not about the money. . ." and you think yeah, don't get paid then build me a house! fuck that! hey miss teach our children, we won't pay you, but teach them for the love of it. write a shit poem that no one reads. . . ever. and everyone thinks is shit. i just, personally, don't think i would be able to go on writing poems. and to be honest, although i read these terrible fucking poems sometimes on here by random people, all justifying their shitiness, i have to have hats off to them for keep on going on with the practise.

oh well.

The beauty of poetry is its almost complete worthlessness as it resists monetization of all forms. This renders all but 3 living poets hobbyists. Ahhh - the joys of being a hobbyist mean you get to do a thing for the joy of it.

Once again, just like carpentry, gardening and guitar playing I (and statistically everyone else) get to write poetry for the joy of it.

Difference of the home builder is he does it for a paycheck.

[Leanne]

If you'd seen my pay cheques you'd know I really do teach just for the love of it

[shemthepenman]

If you'd seen my pay cheques you'd know I really do teach just for the love of it

true [i know a teachers salary]. that wasn't a great example.

---

The beauty of poetry is its almost complete worthlessness as it resists monetization of all forms. This renders all but 3 living poets hobbyists. Ahhh - the joys of being a hobbyist mean you get to do a thing for the joy of it.

Once again, just like carpentry, gardening and guitar playing I (and statistically everyone else) get to write poetry for the joy of it.

Difference of the home builder is he does it for a paycheck.

you're talking shit. but whatever. think what you've been conditioned to think. most people do.

ps. i did say ages back that of course there is a love for the process. but the bottom line is the process is already established. a guitar player already likes the sound of the guitar and assumes he's not alone. he enjoys learning because he's already previously enjoyed listening. i can't keep going over the same point you obviously don't understand.

and yep, the home builder does it for a paycheck. that was kinda the metaphorical point. :/

stick to writing poems Milo, smarts isn't your strong suit

[milo]

I understand your point I just don't agree with it. Your claim is that because you write to a standard - you didn't create that standard you learned it hence you must have a target audience of the people who developed the standard.

It is a pretty flimsy argument.

[Leanne]

If the process was already established, what would be the point of continually trying to improve and innovate?

[milo]

Also, a target audience would be one you expect to read and enjoy the finished product and, let's face it, Frost, Pound, Eliot - they will not be reading my poetry.

[Leanne]

Also, a target audience would be one you expect to read and enjoy the finished product and, let's face it, Frost, Pound, Eliot - they will not be reading my poetry.

Because they're stuck up bastards

I forget whose side I was on now, or whether I was devil's advocate or deviled egg.

[QDeathstar]

honesty I tried to figure out WHAT WAS GOING ON in the posts above but I couldn't quite figure it out... something about motivations for poetry.... well, I will say this. A lot of people write poems that no one will ever read. I wrote many before deciding to share them, and I have some that I've chosen not to share.... so there are many reasons to write poetry.... but writing just to write certainly is one.


and, even I like breadsticks.

[Lizzie]

Also, a target audience would be one you expect to read and enjoy the finished product and, let's face it, Frost, Pound, Eliot - they will not be reading my poetry.

I like this idea, writing for the dead. It has a certain romance.

You know, I once had a philosophy textbook (dreadful book but good title) called, "The Great Conversation." The idea being that philosophers speak via their writings to the future philosophers after having listened to and studied from the ones who had already passed on.

[Leanne]

Is it a baguette or a French stick, that is the question.