Holding the Reader's Interest

[matsunosuperfan]

Lately I think it is kind of the only thing that matters. Obviously this isn't true but pretending it is might be useful. 

What are some examples of contemporary poems that grab and keep your attention? 

Or, what are some popular/lauded poems that you think don't actually do this well?

[dukealien]

It seems to me that a reader's loss of interest (or boredom setting in, if you will)  is an event rather than a characteristic of the poem (or other work).

It is *not* the reader looking at the work as gray text and deciding it's too long, or looking at the title and deciding he won't like its philosophy.  Or even just seeing the writer's name and deciding to go no further from past experience or what he's been told about that author (including his political alignment).

No, to *become* bored or disinterested, the reader has to *start* reading.  What in the poem then triggers the event of his deciding to stop before he reaches the end?  Obviously, it disappoints his expectations.  He expected continued, or at least occasional novel wordplay, and he's not getting it.  Or he expects a story, and it's either not there or not going anywhere.  Or he expects to feel an emotion (particular or a generally heightened state) and the poem isn't triggering it.

After that initial realization (or labeling) of boredom, the reader may go a bit further - even to the end, if he's a bit of a masochist - and if he's honest, might find redeeming virtues.  But the critical moment is that realization he's not enjoying himself as much as, or in the way, he expected.

So to prevent boredom, the author must continually - or periodically - stroke the reader's expectations.  Not for nothing is "challenging" a kiss of death:  he can't demand too much attention, and above all he can't expose purposes or beliefs that are contrary to the reader's.  Boredom is  discomfort seeking an excuse to stop, and it feels guilty to the extent it's dishonest.

The lesson is, know your audience (in particular, readers whose good opinion  you value).  Stroke them as they wish to be stroked and keep it short.  This doesn't mean your poem has to be all sugar and flowers - some readers are worth plying with objectively good poetry.  But the question was how to avoid boring readers, not how to write a good poem.

[matsunosuperfan]

It seems to me that a reader's loss of interest (or boredom setting in, if you will)  is an event rather than a characteristic of the poem (or other work).

It is *not* the reader looking at the work as gray text and deciding it's too long, or looking at the title and deciding he won't like its philosophy.  Or even just seeing the writer's name and deciding to go no further from past experience or what he's been told about that author (including his political alignment).

No, to *become* bored or disinterested, the reader has to *start* reading.  What in the poem then triggers the event of his deciding to stop before he reaches the end?  Obviously, it disappoints his expectations.  He expected continued, or at least occasional novel wordplay, and he's not getting it.  Or he expects a story, and it's either not there or not going anywhere.  Or he expects to feel an emotion (particular or a generally heightened state) and the poem isn't triggering it.

After that initial realization (or labeling) of boredom, the reader may go a bit further - even to the end, if he's a bit of a masochist - and if he's honest, might find redeeming virtues.  But the critical moment is that realization he's not enjoying himself as much as, or in the way, he expected.

So to prevent boredom, the author must continually - or periodically - stroke the reader's expectations.  Not for nothing is "challenging" a kiss of death:  he can't demand too much attention, and above all he can't expose purposes or beliefs that are contrary to the reader's.  Boredom is  discomfort seeking an excuse to stop, and it feels guilty to the extent it's dishonest.

The lesson is, know your audience (in particular, readers whose good opinion  you value).  Stroke them as they wish to be stroked and keep it short.  This doesn't mean your poem has to be all sugar and flowers - some readers are worth plying with objectively good poetry.  But the question was how to avoid boring readers, not how to write a good poem.

Great answer, thanks for chiming in

[busker]

It seems to me that a reader's loss of interest (or boredom setting in, if you will)  is an event rather than a characteristic of the poem (or other work).

It is *not* the reader looking at the work as gray text and deciding it's too long, or looking at the title and deciding he won't like its philosophy.  Or even just seeing the writer's name and deciding to go no further from past experience or what he's been told about that author (including his political alignment).

No, to *become* bored or disinterested, the reader has to *start* reading.  What in the poem then triggers the event of his deciding to stop before he reaches the end?  Obviously, it disappoints his expectations.  He expected continued, or at least occasional novel wordplay, and he's not getting it.  Or he expects a story, and it's either not there or not going anywhere.  Or he expects to feel an emotion (particular or a generally heightened state) and the poem isn't triggering it.

After that initial realization (or labeling) of boredom, the reader may go a bit further - even to the end, if he's a bit of a masochist - and if he's honest, might find redeeming virtues.  But the critical moment is that realization he's not enjoying himself as much as, or in the way, he expected.

So to prevent boredom, the author must continually - or periodically - stroke the reader's expectations.  Not for nothing is "challenging" a kiss of death:  he can't demand too much attention, and above all he can't expose purposes or beliefs that are contrary to the reader's.  Boredom is  discomfort seeking an excuse to stop, and it feels guilty to the extent it's dishonest.

The lesson is, know your audience (in particular, readers whose good opinion  you value).  Stroke them as they wish to be stroked and keep it short.  This doesn't mean your poem has to be all sugar and flowers - some readers are worth plying with objectively good poetry.  But the question was how to avoid boring readers, not how to write a good poem.

The assumption that “I am bored because I don’t like the author’s views” is baseless.

It is quite possible to find interesting Syed Qutb’s observations about the Americans or the political philosophy of Ted Kasczinski without agreeing with Salafism or the practice of sending letter bombs to distasteful individuals. Indeed, at the fringes are people that the reader might consider so outlandish that their views are like observing the behaviour of chimpanzees in the wild. If Trump ever publishes a Meditations that is not ghost written, it would be studied by animal behaviourists.

The problem is with poems that say things that are merely stupid without being outlandish. These poems are often didactic, but the didacticism is that of the flat earth argument, climate change denial, anti vaxx hypothesis, intelligent design 101, or what passes for conservatism in the Anglosphere.

These discourses are severely uninformed and lacking in self reflection, making them boring rather than funny.

The clerk of Oxford has nothing to learn from the miller’s tale.

[matsunosuperfan]

This is fantastic, keep it coming

[wasellajam]

Lately I think it is kind of the only thing that matters. Obviously this isn't true but pretending it is might be useful. 

What are some examples of contemporary poems that grab and keep your attention? 

Or, what are some popular/lauded poems that you think don't actually do this well?

Outside of poems posted on this site (where I triple my concentration level), Tornado by Megan Falley is one of the few poems I've read recently that kept, keeps, my interest. It is an April poem copied from IG which may have been edited since but here's why it keeps me interested. It starts with "I admit", who doesn't like a juicy admission? The details of the peeves are so descriptive I can see them and their intimacy allows me to think "Those are not mine, these are mine." so I'm interacting with the poem. The conclusion circles back exquisitely, we all know how hard that is to do. It leads back to read again. Plus, of course, there's my personal preference for poems that break my heart by expressing the human experience in its precious details.

Tornado
for Andrea Gibson

I admit, you drove me crazy.
The careless way you’d salt a tomato,
no napkin or plate beneath it.
Just right over the floor,
your summer snow, trusting
someone else would sweep it.

And you never took your boots off.
Only ever used half a stevia packet.
The rest would collect in the crevices
of car doors, divots no vacuum could reach.
There was nothing you couldn’t fix
with duct tape, or shoelaces
stolen from other people’s shoes.

And you broke everything
you borrowed. All those stains
you called heart-shaped.
Plus you lost my heirlooms.
Not because you didn’t care,
but because you moved so fast,
like maybe you always knew
you would leave too soon—

so why waste a minute
screwing the cap back on
the pickle jar? Do you remember
how many times you thought
something was stolen?
That we’d been invaded?
Because you couldn’t wait
that extra breath to look.
You loved me

because I always found everything.
I always assured you:
nothing was taken from us.
Not even time.

It’s all such a mess—
how immaculate
the house is now.
All I want is you
tracking muddy bootprints
across my life.

Come back, fix this
with my missing shoelaces.
Why did I care
that we were walking
on salt?

Come home.
I will call it the beach.

-Megan Falley

---

It seems to me that a reader's loss of interest (or boredom setting in, if you will)  is an event rather than a characteristic of the poem (or other work).

It is *not* the reader looking at the work as gray text and deciding it's too long, or looking at the title and deciding he won't like its philosophy.  Or even just seeing the writer's name and deciding to go no further from past experience or what he's been told about that author (including his political alignment).

No, to *become* bored or disinterested, the reader has to *start* reading.  What in the poem then triggers the event of his deciding to stop before he reaches the end?  Obviously, it disappoints his expectations.  He expected continued, or at least occasional novel wordplay, and he's not getting it.  Or he expects a story, and it's either not there or not going anywhere.  Or he expects to feel an emotion (particular or a generally heightened state) and the poem isn't triggering it.

After that initial realization (or labeling) of boredom, the reader may go a bit further - even to the end, if he's a bit of a masochist - and if he's honest, might find redeeming virtues.  But the critical moment is that realization he's not enjoying himself as much as, or in the way, he expected.

So to prevent boredom, the author must continually - or periodically - stroke the reader's expectations.  Not for nothing is "challenging" a kiss of death:  he can't demand too much attention, and above all he can't expose purposes or beliefs that are contrary to the reader's.  Boredom is  discomfort seeking an excuse to stop, and it feels guilty to the extent it's dishonest.

The lesson is, know your audience (in particular, readers whose good opinion  you value).  Stroke them as they wish to be stroked and keep it short.  This doesn't mean your poem has to be all sugar and flowers - some readers are worth plying with objectively good poetry.  But the question was how to avoid boring readers, not how to write a good poem.

Well said. My only slight quibble is the last line, the goal is to engage to the point of being a "good" poem. Or edit an engaging piece into a good poem.

[matsunosuperfan]

that Megan Falley poem is SO aesthetically not my cup of tea, but I agree - it's very gripping and the imagery and tone feel so lived-in and genuine that I can't be mad at it. Last line is very Instagram but again, so heartfelt and specific that I go with it instead of resisting. It's like AWWWWW : (

[dukealien]

Looking over the discussion, considering some assumptions.

First, that the reading of the poem is linear - like the mouse's tale, it starts at the beginning, comes to the end, then stops.

Unless we're considering nth readings and skipping ahead, that means you start with a cleans slate and a full bag of tricks, and as the read progresses the slate gets dirty and the bag empties.  (Okay, the title is on the slate to begin with, but it's easy for the reader to forget.)

So, you start with a brilliant first line or couplet.    You're now one trick down and the reader's expectations are raised (assuming it worked).  You see where this is going:  you don't want to get well along in the work but with nowhere to go (in the story, but mainly talking about wordcraft here).  On the other hand, the surprise ending (or the like) is a cliche.  Where do you peak so as not to disappoint and potentially bore the reader?

The impression I get from the above is that in addition to rhetorical high points there need to be turns (like the conventional turn at the end of a sonnet).  A sudden change of ground or direction as opposed to a brilliant firework line that's  gone once the reader has time to savor it and then read on.  And for a work of more than a few lines, there should be several such turns.

Of course they can't be too wild (in the meantime, everyone back at the ranch has died of monoxide poisoning from that leaking charcoal stove).  Or can they?

[matsunosuperfan]

Looking over the discussion, considering some assumptions.

First, that the reading of the poem is linear - like the mouse's tale, it starts at the beginning, comes to the end, then stops.

Unless we're considering nth readings and skipping ahead, that means you start with a cleans slate and a full bag of tricks, and as the read progresses the slate gets dirty and the bag empties.  (Okay, the title is on the slate to begin with, but it's easy for the reader to forget.)

So, you start with a brilliant first line or couplet.    You're now one trick down and the reader's expectations are raised (assuming it worked).  You see where this is going:  you don't want to get well along in the work but with nowhere to go (in the story, but mainly talking about wordcraft here).  On the other hand, the surprise ending (or the like) is a cliche.  Where do you peak so as not to disappoint and potentially bore the reader?

The impression I get from the above is that in addition to rhetorical high points there need to be turns (like the conventional turn at the end of a sonnet).  A sudden change of ground or direction as opposed to a brilliant firework line that's  gone once the reader has time to savor it and then read on.  And for a work of more than a few lines, there should be several such turns.

Of course they can't be too wild (in the meantime, everyone back at the ranch has died of monoxide poisoning from that leaking charcoal stove).  Or can they?

Yes this all sounds more or less right to me and explains why I find James Tate, Dean Young and Kim Addonizio, to name a few, so captivating at the height of their powers:

Eating Together

By Kim Addonizio

I know my friend is going,
though she still sits there
across from me in the restaurant,   
and leans over the table to dip
her bread in the oil on my plate; I know   
how thick her hair used to be,   
and what it takes for her to discard
her man’s cap partway through our meal,   
to look straight at the young waiter   
and smile when he asks
how we are liking it. She eats
as though starving—chicken, dolmata,   
the buttery flakes of filo—
and what’s killing her
eats, too. I watch her lift
a glistening black olive and peel   
the meat from the pit, watch
her fine long fingers, and her face,   
puffy from medication. She lowers   
her eyes to the food, pretending
not to know what I know. She’s going.   
And we go on eating.

---

In the Addonizio poem there is no big "aha" ending - the speaker makes clear the circumstances of the occasion right away. The whole poem is concerned with the same juxtaposition highlighted in the closing lines. But they feel epiphanic nonetheless, because they offer a new way to see the scene that's just been described - a final "turn" in a series of turns.

[milo]

Lately I think it is kind of the only thing that matters. Obviously this isn't true but pretending it is might be useful. 

What are some examples of contemporary poems that grab and keep your attention? 

Or, what are some popular/lauded poems that you think don't actually do this well?

just write a poem that isnt shite and poetry readers' interest will be kept.

People who don't like poetry anyway will continue to scroll . . . and scorll . . . and scorll

[matsunosuperfan]

Brilliant insight Milo, is water also wet in your view?

[milo]

Brilliant insight Milo, is water also wet in your view?

just a reminder that your contention is that holding a reader's interest might be a good idea . . .

[RiverNotch]

hello, pot

Brilliant insight Milo, is water also wet in your view?

---

interest and attention are overrated, i think. plenty of great works are boring when one's not in the right mood, when one doesn't possess the right mindset, and so on. have you tried reading the bible from genesis to the apocalypse? leviticus is boring as hell, yet as a whole, the bible works. have you seen how many people scroll off a brilliant yet long form youtube video? how many people have fallen asleep to the movie andrei rublyov or the miniseries fanny och alexander?

milo's answer, while it seems rather dismissive, is kind of the bull's eye for this. another one is how pope, when he talks about all his rivals being "dull", means much more than simply "boring". he means dreadful, stupid, self-inconsistent, which are all criteria that can coexist quite well with "interest"---see the fast and the furious movies, unless you think millions of people go to the movies to get bored. the poet who's actually interested in being a poet has "interesting" in terms of holding people's attention be the last thing on their mind---except, that is, for dramatic poets, where a consistent mindset amongst one's audience is assumed. and not every poem, in fact not even the majority of poems, is supposed to be a drama. milton wrote to justify the ways of god to man. plath wrote to express her inner anguish. unless you're writing for the stage or for the screen, "attention" should only come into play, not as you are writing, but as you are editing, deciding whether or not your piece can survive its boredom.

[busker]

Brilliant insight Milo, is water also wet in your view?

just a reminder that your contention is that holding a reader's interest might be a good idea . . .

an answer worthy of reddit.
are you a leftist wanker in your new avatar?