Poetry and Social Media

[alonso ramoran]

Whatever mainstream poetry that oozes through the pipes of social media is, at most times, icky with all the attributes of "bad poetry". Why aren't there more poets that are willing to embrace the accessibility of the internet to deliver more high quality stuff? Why must those that our somewhat confident in their work allow a sludge of cliches and needless line breaks to permeate social media? Am I just not exposed to the right people online? Or are these people who write better than your 20-something-year-old-but-still-filled-with-the-romantic-angst-of-high-school just old-heads who fear that the internet will be the death of poetry... oh my! Do they rightfully fear so?

[Leanne]

Ick gets the clicks. Sad but true. Like that moron going on the other day about the "virtue" of cliche, for so many writers it's easier to be predictable, toss off an aphorism or two and add a canva background to make it look vaguely interesting. Gods forbid anyone actually expected a person to read more than once.

If you can't put it on a poster, don't bother.

I bother. But words aren't instagrammable and the world is so full of surface chatter that anything vaguely complicated has no chance of being heard. The morons are super good at shouting.

[alonso ramoran]

'Tis sad. What is the Instagram for poetry today was probably the Hallmark of yesterday. Maybe? Not sure about such things.

I just find it really tragic that the internet can be used to expose those who are not detected by the mainstream's radar, but I think the thing about the mainstream is that it probably always will detect what is quick and easy for the masses to consume. Who would want to look at poetry describing all the nuances of meaning to something ordinary? Yuck. But that other poem... that canvas backdrop tho... and that font... so aesthetically pleasing...

I find it awesome that you bother. I bother too. A lot more people should probably bother. I want poetry to garner the audience like movies do and music does. Is it bad to want that? I question myself a lot on this forum because you guys are critics and can be critical, which is great, but I don't feel free to say whatever I want. And that fault's perhaps on my end, but I digress.

I feel like words should be instagrammable and the mainstream should be changed for poetry. Something anecdotal: A lot of people that I follow on twitter realize this... like they can tell Rupi Kaur is a bad poet, yet they understand her appeal, and yet they don't read or write poetry. "Good poetry" shouldn't be as obscure as it is today.

[Leanne]

We aren't critics, we are readers and writers who like to consider what we read in detail. The end product is critique.

Obscurity is often for no other reason than the writer making up for lack of ability by trying to make the reader feel stupid. Having said that, I like my poetry layered and with enough mystery to make me want to return.

As for saying what you want here: do it. Often. Please.

[alonso ramoran]

Oh no, I get that we are readers and writers, but here I can’t help but feel we are also critics. And this feeling seems to be amplified here, in this forum, which is, again, an issue on my end. Maybe something to do with the end product being critique

How fine is the line between intriguing and obscure? I guess there may be an element of subjectivity to it, but fun words are fun words

[billy]

we are critics, that's the point of the site; work-shopping. we're also poets and readers, we have to be readers in order to give feedback. most poetry on social media is done for accolades and back-slaps from people who are family, friends and others who haven't really been immersed in any decent poetry workshops or who have read much of what we know as decent poetry. many new poets who know of the older poetry often try and emulate it hence a lot of the cliche. they don't realize that while we can use form from the pst, the language we use in it should generally be modern and original. most people mum or friends would say that's lovely to any old piece of shit they read, it's the nice thing to do. most isn't posted in a workshop so no critique is needed or warranted.

[RiverNotch]

*What* social media? This is social media. So's /r/poetry, though I haven't bothered to visit that. And youtube, to a lesser extent also spotify.

Anyway, idk if there are any real solid literary critics that focus on poetry over in youtube*, although that would be fun to watch. I do watch a lot of critics there, but it's mostly for popular media, like video games, movies, and pop music. Part of it's to do with the clicks, but part of it I think is the medium itself -- youtube, being an audiovisual medium, is better suited for analyzing things that are also audiovisual, so of course the most poetic things I've watched relate to hip hop.

Spotify as a medium for music is generally iffy. There's no real curation there, and the company seems to be rather shady when it comes to promoting certain artists' music (Drake's latest album is still fresh on my mind). A lot of the music there is really oriented towards clicks, moreso than in youtube, where a lot of the critical channels i subscribe to understand their fundamentally niche appeal. Soundcloud is really just aural soup, a lot like pre-1960s radio: if you wanna look for the poetic stuff there, even when looking at genres that have a propensity for that like hip hop or folk, you need an external curator, like Greil Marcus or Robert Christgau.

And then there's the media you're probably referring to, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Twitter I don't think is a good place for the sort of poetry that would be worth posting here, alhough it can get very poetic. I think, but I don't frequent that place nearly as much as a lot of folks, those who advertise themselves as poets on Twitter *and* use it mostly as a medium for disseminating their poetry are probably not very good poets -- usually creators who use Twitter use it for discussing, well, their lives, when their next book is coming up, etc. As a poetic medium, it's more like a comedy club, a witty stage play, or even wisdom literature: the poetry comes in the way certain exchanges involve really witty repartee, like whenever companies trie to out-meme each other.

I genuinely don't know that much about Instagram, but from my understanding it's a lot like youtube, too, in that the focus is less on the words and more on the pictures. So more likely than not whatever poetry is on there is gonna be bad, or at least the trite sort of stuff that would be valueless without the picture to which it's attached.

As for facebook, it's pure trash. There are some pages that are solid, like the whole Humans of New York series, but it's really all about 'connecting people'. Which means it doesn't really connect people at all, only masks of people, and oftentimes that could mean people finding themselves in soundboards all too unhealthy for them, hence the whole fake news dilemma. It isn't like this site, or reddit, or even youtube, where having an actual focus other than the selves we want to present to the world means that we can actually moderate ourselves. It's more like a reverse 4chan, which with its complete anonymity allows for folks to be completely unrestrained, to be their true trollish selves.

* - although i hear some folks here have released yt vids?

---

This means that on facebook rare is the person who wants to express anything too complicated, anything too contrarian, for fear of making a bad impression on others. I tried posting some of my stuff there long ago, and of course much of them weren't very good, but all the folks were either 'oh, this is very good!' or 'oh, who the heck are you really?'. no one really comes there to read, not unless it's something they already have an opinion on. there's nothing critical about facebook, even when all one's friends are critics. it's trash.

[rowens]

Many poets who think they're worth reading save themselves for the important poetry publications which nobody but poets and critics read.

[alonso ramoran]

River,

Good point about this site being social media. Never thought of it that way for some reason. Maybe it has to do with using more thought when you interact with others and their work as opposed to twitter and fb where it's all like "nice job!" or "wow!" or the far much worse "what drugs were you on when you wrote this?"

As far as poetry on yt, I hardly come across those videos. If I'm ever watching anything analytical on there it's on film or some sort of visual media. Analytical videos on music I watch more often than analytical videos on poetry, mostly bc, like I said, I hardly come across those videos.

As for twitter and instagram, I don't find anything wrong with trying to spread your poetry on there (I might be biased because I do this). If you believe that you have something different to offer to the masses, then what's the harm in trying? Make no mistake, I don't think I'm some cutting edge revolutionary; I just have fun with my presence as a *ahem* "poet" on social media sites like those. And my main gripe with poets who actually do put out good work and condemn social media is that it just makes them seem really old and bitter, like the internet is some sort of witchcraft that will bring about the end to "true poetry". If they care about the future of poetry as an art form, they should at least try to have fun and experiment with the interface of social media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rowens,

That's dumb. In an ideal world, poetry would be like film or music, where it's consumed every day by everyday people, and these everyday people could discern good from bad poetry like everyday people, back in the pragmatic world, recognize a good movie from a bad one and at least let the mediocre movies slip through the cracks (or chasms) of audience commendation.

These poets who save themselves sound like Catholic schoolgirls.

[rowens]

When I say anything about poetry to people in person, they usually lose interest right away. But that goes for almost anything I say in conversation. Then there's the question of showing something you wrote to someone. Why would anybody do such a thing? I don't know.

---

I don't know how to use Social Media, the ones we're talking about. And in person, it's getting as bad. If I disagree with someone they either end the conversation immediately, or give me looks of hatred while they explain to me why I'm wrong. Humorless looks of smug disdain. It's not everybody, but there are many. Enough to make me not want to talk in public.

[alonso ramoran]

rowens,

Yes, I'm afraid people's disinterest in poetry has to do with the pragmatic world we're living in that I was getting at in my previous post. Usually I feel like the answers to your questions rowens aren't so matter-of-fact, but I can't help but be blunt here: "Then there's the question of showing something you wrote to someone. Why would anybody do such a thing?" Well, to answer that, if that artist has separated their self enough from their art, what's the issue? You're already showing poetry on here, this site. I mean if it's something personal, I can understand. But what you seem to be talking about in your question is showing something you *artistically* created to someone? Not something personal? Or you were being sarcastic?

And I'm sorry to hear about people being so dismissive towards what you have to say. I always find what you have to say on here very interesting and I'm always excited to hear your takes. Maybe it has something to do with our political climate in the US these days (if you live in the US), but that's another thread for another time.

[rowens]

Everything is personal to me. But if you show somebody a poem, they either don't know what to say, or they think it's weird. But then, a better question is, Why do you think, no, What do you think poetry should do to be more relevant for people who seem to be doing fine without it?

---

And by people, I mean all the people you mention who either write cliches or don't show any interest at all.

[alonso ramoran]

Well, I don't have answers, just ideas. I think poetry that challenges thought in an entertaining and refreshing way should, for one thing, try to appear less niche. How? Well, one of the main topics of this thread is social media, so, by using mainstream social media platforms like Twitter and Instagram to promote this type of poetry, not the ones that, as Leanne said, appear to belong nailed on some family room wall. Another way, which was discussed in another thread, is to make learning about poetry more fun in primary/secondary schools. I know I didn't give a damn about it in high school until the latter portion of my senior year but that could've been just me.

Outside of social media, I would also suggest that people not be afraid to talk about it in real life. As long as the person talking about it seems genuinely passionate about the art form and not pretentious, people should appear interested. My two cents.

[rowens]

I just don't understand Social Media. The point of it. I go out at night and want to have me a good time. And everybody's sitting around on their phones. And eventually some Negative Nancy gets offended, and everybody stops what they're doing to get me out of the place. Disturbing the peace, I guess. Then I go home. Feel like shit. . . . What am I supposed to do, sit around talking to you people all day? Who the hell here wants to do that?

---

The thing about poetry, people like it. They get touched by it. But there are plenty of other things to do. Poetry and knight-errantry are both wonderful things. So was Jesus. But who the fuck wants to live like Jesus, these days? . . . Poetry is there to touch people when they want to be touched. Unfortunately for poets, poets don't get to choose when somebody wants to be touched.

---

I know this sounds cliched. But it's the god awful truth. Look at all the beauty that came out of broke people. All of American and everywhere else music. All the wonderful gay artists. All the wonderful criminal artists. All the underdogs. The Cliched Underdogs. All the abused. The fucked up. The retarded. All the desperate really. Who created art because there wasn't anything else to do. . . . Really. . . . Now we have to compete with all that. But anybody can do it, really. They just have to step out, and . . . do it. And those who have wonderful lives and produce better art than any of us dream of. . . Well, I just guess we're going to have to outdo them, now aren't we? We only live once, despite what those fancypants Buddhists and Vedas say. We got to get our rocks off, in a beautiful manner, matter, what ever the fuck ever. I'm alive now. It aint my fault Shakespeare shat all over the English language and Dante on the ones I DON'T KNOW. . . . That's my Republican Right-Wing American views on one thing.

[rowens]

I have two Left-Wing views. But they both involve Women and Sex.

[alonso ramoran]

No, poets don't get to choose when "someone wants to be touched", but what poet actually cares to a certain degree? We live for the creative process, don't we? There are plenty of other things to do, but I believe this thing matters just as much. I feel like photography is having a better run in my generation, and writing, well...

In many instances, if not most or all, you're right. It's often those who come from hardship that have the drive to produce quality art. What this has to do with the exposure of quality poetry? Not quite sure. Is it that those who took a minute to write a poem because it came from the heart and thus is perfect get the most exposure, while we toil away for the right things to pen then not call our poetry masterpieces get the least? If this is so, I would argue it's because those poets don't bend to the Internet landscape, other than using it to contact publishers and seek improvement on forums like these (if there is any other forum like this one (; ). The internet is a huge part of this age, fun fact, and the world of music knows this awfully.

Maybe the internet is what will rob poets of their coin. All poetry is, is words, and words are not hard to come by. A sound, video, or performance on the other hand, well, their experiences are what poetry aims to capture. If music is just sounds and it's harder to come by than words, and music artists are already getting bilked by streaming platforms, I can only imagine what other platforms will do with poets, should poetry gain traction. But should poetry gain traction, I would hope the public would be able to recognize by then that not everyone can write, or rather, anyone can write, but like other art forms there is a craft to it. Maybe this would put the coin back in our pockets.

[rowens]

Well, shit, you can find poetry on the Internet. You can read those poet/critic magazines. Some of them are online. You just have to look for it. There are plenty of old and new resources for poetry on the Internet. Videos of poetry readings and book talks and lectures and discussions. There is poetry online. It's just that you have to type it in. People aren't going to point you in the direction because they're not interested. If you're, it's there.

---

You have to look for stuff. Type in whatever you want to hear, and try it out. Poetry is mainstream but people just don't always consider it. It's everywhere. A lotif not all of songs and tv shows and movies have poetry seeping through them, were inspired by poems, they just don't say it. Poetry is like an unspoken backbone of most every culture. And the reason why people don't focus on it is because it is not as easy and spoonfed of a medium as most else things. To read poetry, you have to put something into it. And that can be exhausting.

---

And I'm no expert. The only reason I'm not exhausted is because I'm restless.

---

Another thing about poetry is there's no practical application for it. You don't have to live up to anything. Poetry writing is unpredictable. You can write a decent poem then talk like a moron ten minutes later. There's a reason why it's not whatever we were talking about.

[alonso ramoran]

Haha well I’m not arguing for myself. I don’t doubt a single point you made there. Though I would argue about it being one of the only mediums where the messages aren’t spoonfed to you.

I would say people don’t focus on poetry not because it’s not an easy medium to focus on but because people don’t make it easy to focus on. Poetry doesn’t exist in a vacuum. And I’m not talking about simplifying your work.

[rowens]

Another thing is, and this is a joke but it's true, lots of people start writing poetry because there's nothing else to do. Or at least no other way that they can find to get through what they need, want, to get through. And a lot of people never get through. But then if you keep doing it, what 'get through' means evolves. And that could mean anything.

[alonso ramoran]

I really hoped that this would be more than just a back and forth between two guys but oh well. Everyone else must have better things to do.

I agree with a lot of your ideas rowens, especially the one about "getting through", but ultimately I just feel as if there has to be a way to popularize above average poetry. It's happening in the film industry, where more artsier flicks are reeling in bigger audiences because of distribution studios like A24. And their promotion techniques use a lot of social media.

And I don't think you have to live up to anything for any art form. It makes those that believe so look weird.