Andrey's questions about poems (split from the intro thread)

[QDeathstar]

I've only read whatever poetry they dished out in high school so classes.... At college it was all novels... So... I don't think you have to read a lot of poems to be able to critique a few.  Poetry is personal and once you get passed the generic "this is cliche" and the "you spelt cheese wrong" critique, what the reader offers to the author is how the poem hit them. Or missed. It's a feeling, not a fact.

So, I do have to approach a poem like it's a song. It's a take-it-or-leave-it relationship. Right?

You can do whatever you like bro...

---

You can't just lump flavors of cheese and styles of poetry together.

says who? who queefed and made you chief decider.

You can taste cheese, you can sense it with your taste buds.

You can hear poetry. assonance. consonance. alliteration. rythm. rhyme.
You can see poetry. The punctuation. The line breaks. The font. Line spacing.

How can you experience poetry in any style?

I don't know what you mean by experience.... If you can taste the flavor of cheese and you can feel the tone of a poem you've experienced both things to the same effect. I mean, unless you've vibrated away all feeling in a desperate attempt to reach climax with someone you passive-aggressively hate...

[Lizzie]

Where is Mr. Erthona these days? He always has a way of explaining things....

[QDeathstar]

Erthona knows better than to kick bricks.

[UselessBlueprint]

Well I've read the beginning and the end of what's been written up to now, so I'll drop my two cents in on the original question and take my leave while I can.

Hi,

I'm a 25-year-old songwriter currently experiencing a writer's block. I turned to poetry because I've recently discovered the concept of bibliotherapy (... Yes, at 25, ... I guess that's because Nevada public education sucks.). I'm hoping that somehow by magic ('cause that's how it works here in the real world, right?) poetry could solve my problems with finding my voice and writing melodies.

To be frank, so far all poetry seems to me like self-indulgent exercises in cryptography/cryptology/whatever, a triumph of style over substance, disdain for communication, treating the meaning of the poem as something subordinate. Please, prove me wrong. I just don't see anything galvanizing about it.

Thanks in advance,

- Andrey.

I've seen talk on this forum about singers 'hiding behind the music.' It's a phrase I really hated to see. As some songwriters have made some truly poetic lyrics, and a musical accompaniment can add wonderfully, if done right. Most often, however, one these suffers. I typically find music with good lyrics and poor music, poor lyrics and good music, or - worst of all - poor lyrics and poor music.

If all poetry seems to be cryptic, pretentiously stylistic, and opposed to communication, you have probably not read enough poetry, or have managed to only select piss-poor poems. Nonetheless, and lot of well-known and well-regarded poets were absolutely self-indulgent, some worthy of being called pricks. That being said, no matter the genre, I believe a lot of artists exhibit the same characteristics. I consider sold-out concerts and autograph sessions rather similar to book-signings and the like.

Yet, I suspect I can understand some of where you are coming from. I find some genres of music to be aurally appealing. Some are appalling. It is harder for me to find a painting or a sculpture visually appealing. Yet, it is not very hard to find one that seems appalling to me. In written word, you can have a blend of visual and aural appeal or disgust. This is one of the reasons I enjoy poetry. I view it as any other art - a reflection of environment - but I can listen to it, or read it. The deaf may see it, the blind may hear it - even if a little effect is lost.

If you would like to know how to approach a reading of poetry, I will explain it (simply) this way, the way my professor explained poetry to my class.

Music is an art of sounds and rhythms.
Visuals is the art of images.
Poetry is the art of language.

It will make the same kind of artistic "statements" as any other form of art, but it's medium is language.

[Achebe]

You can't just lump flavors of cheese and styles of poetry together.

says who? who queefed and made you chief decider. 

[ellajam]

Haiku fondue.

[AndreyGaganov]

A critical step to discovering what you DO like in poetry is deciding what you DON'T like. And, it's always ok to say that you don't like a poem, as long as you tell the person why in a constructive manner.

Sounds counter-intuitive, but nevertheless I'll add this to my pile of critiquing rules and guidelines that I've gathered while perusing certain corners of the forum.

[AndreyGaganov]

... seeing things from multiple points of view and being pushed to think about the poem or topic to figure out my own.

So, as I understand, it is important for poetry readers/listeners to get together and discuss the essence of the poem, right?

[ellajam]

... seeing things from multiple points of view and being pushed to think about the poem or topic to figure out my own.

So, as I understand, it is important for poetry readers/listeners to get together and discuss the essence of the poem, right?

I like it, it's fun, but is it necessary? Probably not but for me it has led me further.

[AndreyGaganov]

Good grief, what part of 'sensory perception' don't you understand?

I don't like reading angry posts. If you find yourself exasperated, then why are you persisting in this discussion?

Tasting cheese stimulates our taste buds, that then activates certain areas of the brain. How is it different than tasting cheese?

Are you asking me "how is poetry reading different from tasting cheese"? Simple: I can taste cheese. I don't know what I am to expect from poetry, an eye-gasm, an ear-gasm, or both. Tried reading it silently - nothing. Read over a dozen poems aloud with a boring tone (listening to myself psychoacoustically) - nothing. Recorded and listened to myself reciting those very same poems with pauses, a sense of rhythm, and a stronger tone, but still with my ever so annoying speaking voice - nothing. I feel like all I'm reciting is text loaded with metaphors (assuming that I have to ignore the poet's intent, as in not to pay attention to the meaning of the content). It is as though something is still missing.

[AndreyGaganov]

You can't just lump flavors of cheese and styles of poetry together.

says who? who queefed and made you chief decider.

No need to get caustic. What I'm saying is that we know everything we need to know about cheese, and we are capable of enjoying it. To this day there are still people who don't know how to go about poetry. There's a difference, isn't there? Can you still lump them together? 

You can taste cheese, you can sense it with your taste buds.

You can hear poetry. assonance. consonance. alliteration. rythm. rhyme.
You can see poetry. The punctuation. The line breaks. The font. Line spacing.

1) Yes, but the reaction I expect from eating cheese is a positive one. Who doesn't like eating? 
2) How does punctuation satisfy you in the mind? 

How can you experience poetry in any style?

I don't know what you mean by experience.... 

"Deriving pleasure" is what I meant. 

If you can taste the flavor of cheese and you can feel the tone of a poem you've experienced both things to the same effect.

The only way this can make sense to me is if I compare feeling the tone of a poem to drinking Steel Reserve. I won't like the taste of the hops and barley until I drink Steel Reserve for a long enough period of time and get used to the taste. So, by that logic, I have to read enough poetry to at least  get used to the metaphor-filled build of any poem.

[RiverNotch]

Good grief, what part of 'sensory perception' don't you understand?

I don't like reading angry posts. If you find yourself exasperated, then why are you persisting in this discussion?

What exactly did you expect? This topic is simultaneously loaded and fundamental -- again, like shouting out how you don't believe in God in a church, or how you don't believe in evolution in an appropriate convention. And of course, all of us would stick it out to the end: again, simultaneously loaded and fundamental.

But really, the least of what you could have learned here is this: read. Read, read, read. Read poems, read crits. Read classics, read modern shit. You may not be a "learning by doing" type of guy, but the aspect of poetry you seem so eager to *deny* is a craft, not a science, which can only be learned by doing. My suggestions are this own site's "poems that you love" (and even the spotlit pigs, perhaps), plus a focus on a selection of artists across different periods, places, etc. I've already recommended a ton of artists, so perhaps you should start there -- I think Shakespeare (annotated, since his language and referents and junk are old), Eliot, Plath, Ted Hughes, and Louise Gluck, along with both Gummere's and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf? maybe add to that Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and Tennyson's Idylls of the King ----- although overall, others' suggestions may be more open, I'm no professional educator.

[Achebe]

Good grief, what part of 'sensory perception' don't you understand?

I don't like reading angry posts. If you find yourself exasperated, then why are you persisting in this discussion?

Tasting cheese stimulates our taste buds, that then activates certain areas of the brain. How is it different than tasting cheese?

Are you asking me "how is poetry reading different from tasting cheese"? Simple: I can taste cheese. I don't know what I am to expect from poetry, an eye-gasm, an ear-gasm, or both. Tried reading it silently - nothing. Read over a dozen poems aloud with a boring tone (listening to myself psychoacoustically) - nothing. Recorded and listened to myself reciting those very same poems with pauses, a sense of rhythm, and a stronger tone, but still with my ever so annoying speaking voice - nothing. I feel like all I'm reciting is text loaded with metaphors (assuming that I have to ignore the poet's intent, as in not to pay attention to the meaning of the content). It is as though something is still missing.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve in this thread. You've got multiple answers to your question, now make up your mind and move on. You framed your question as a request for help, but have been engaging in inane arguments with people who've been giving you their point of view. If you'd framed the question as a point of debate you would've got a different response and a lot of people wouldn't have wasted time indulging you in the first place.

[AndreyGaganov]

If all poetry seems to be cryptic, pretentiously stylistic, and opposed to communication, you have probably not read enough poetry, or have managed to only select piss-poor poems.

The same thought reverberates - quality and quantity. Doesn't hurt to bring it up again on this thread, though. 

This is one of the reasons I enjoy poetry. I view it as any other art - a reflection of environment ...

When I listen to music (specifically sound, not lyrics), I imagine things that strike me more as collectively a reaction to, not a reflection of the environment. But considering what you've said there, I guess a part of my brain will have to tell me which it is going to be when it comes to poetry. 

- but I can listen to it, or read it. The deaf may see it, the blind may hear it - ...

So, you are suggesting that poetry isn't necessarily read or spoken text. It can be something exclusively visual or exclusively musical. Did I get that right? (Brings back the memory of someone saying that poetry is all around us.)

If you would like to know how to approach a reading of poetry, I will explain it (simply) this way, the way my professor explained poetry to my class.

Music is an art of sounds and rhythms.
Visuals is the art of images.
Poetry is the art of language.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read the words 'the art of language' is rhetoric. On an additional note: as I understand, good poetry is supposed to make a positive effect that is not to be understood, but then this concept of 'not understanding the effect' butts heads with the concept of 'rhetoric'. 

Thank you for your two cents.

[milo]

Wow this is a long thread!

You don't seem to understand what poetry is for. It is /not/ meant to communicate or deliver a message. It is meant to be enjoyed. Imagine if music had to deliver a message? You don't enjoy reading poetry? Bummer for you. I do. I also enjoy a nice bourbon which I hear others enjoy. Why do I enjoy poetry? Because it is enjoyable to me. I once stated, in a crit on this site, that a poem was worth reading again for a single line break that the author used. I still maintain that as true and have read the poem many times since. I still find enjoyment in that line break (as well as the rest of the poem). Would you? My suspicion is no. Could I explain to you how to enjoy a single line break? Unlikely, no?

[AndreyGaganov]

Good grief, what part of 'sensory perception' don't you understand?

I don't like reading angry posts. If you find yourself exasperated, then why are you persisting in this discussion?

Tasting cheese stimulates our taste buds, that then activates certain areas of the brain. How is it different than tasting cheese?

Are you asking me "how is poetry reading different from tasting cheese"? Simple: I can taste cheese. I don't know what I am to expect from poetry, an eye-gasm, an ear-gasm, or both. Tried reading it silently - nothing. Read over a dozen poems aloud with a boring tone (listening to myself psychoacoustically) - nothing. Recorded and listened to myself reciting those very same poems with pauses, a sense of rhythm, and a stronger tone, but still with my ever so annoying speaking voice - nothing. I feel like all I'm reciting is text loaded with metaphors (assuming that I have to ignore the poet's intent, as in not to pay attention to the meaning of the content). It is as though something is still missing.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve in this thread. You've got multiple answers to your question, now make up your mind and move on. 

I don't know what to do with this kind of tone, so I'll just have to brush it off. If you don't like the thread, why not ignore it?

You framed your question as a request for help, but have been engaging in inane arguments with people who've been giving you their point of view. 

Yes, their points of view are valuable to me. Getting multiple answers to my question is my way of building some muscle, preparing myself for poetry. Don't wanna go camping without food or a flashlight. 

You framed your question as a request for help, but have been engaging in inane arguments with people ...

I'm not even addressing this one, or it will certainly give birth to an argument. 

If you'd framed the question as a point of debate you would've got a different response ...

My social skills are not very strong, but I'm working on it. 

How would you frame my question as a point of debate? Because I am interested in getting a different response. 

... and a lot of people wouldn't have wasted time indulging you in the first place.

Well, then, I apologize. I just couldn't think of a better way to familiarize myself with poetry. I was looking for shortcuts instead of getting frustrated with reading the same poems over and over, asking myself "Why do I continue to dice with this?"

As far as I'm concerned, this has not been for naught. I got a number of takes. Some of them coincide, others are surprisingly different. It's better than nothing.

[AndreyGaganov]

What exactly did you expect? This topic is simultaneously loaded and fundamental -- again, like shouting out how you don't believe in God in a church, or how you don't believe in evolution in an appropriate convention. And of course, all of us would stick it out to the end: again, simultaneously loaded and fundamental.

I'll leave this one well enough alone before I dig a bigger hole for myself. 

But really, the least of what you could have learned here is this: read. Read, read, read. Read poems, read crits. Read classics, read modern shit. You may not be a "learning by doing" type of guy, but the aspect of poetry you seem so eager to *deny* is a craft, not a science, which can only be learned by doing. My suggestions are this own site's "poems that you love" (and even the spotlit pigs, perhaps), plus a focus on a selection of artists across different periods, places, etc. I've already recommended a ton of artists, so perhaps you should start there -- I think Shakespeare (annotated, since his language and referents and junk are old), Eliot, Plath, Ted Hughes, and Louise Gluck, along with both Gummere's and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf? maybe add to that Lord Byron, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and Tennyson's Idylls of the King ----- although overall, others' suggestions may be more open, I'm no professional educator.

I'll do what I can.

[AndreyGaganov]

Wow this is a long thread!

I did not know that was not a norm. Sometimes I post on a forum with threads as large as 300 pages.

[just mercedes]

I wonder how important early exposure to poetry is, to enjoyment of it? I can't think of a child brought up without nursery rhymes, fairy stories (spells in particular, they always rhymed), skipping rope chants, hymns, prayers, but I suppose it happens. Nah. Even Sesame Street does a lot of poetry.

Are you familiar with the hymn "Jerusalem'?

It was written as a short poem, and a hundred years later it was put to music. The musicality is obvious, not least to Hubert Parry.

[milo]

S

Wow this is a long thread!

I did not know that was not a norm. Sometimes I post on a forum with threads as large as 300 pages.

I used to be a member of a beer forum and every month or so someone would show up and post a thread about wine being better than beer. This is pretty much the exact same thread but the names have been changed.

The last poster wins thread here is over 5,000 posts long but tbh, it is funnier as well as more interesting. Worth a read.