confused about modern poetry

Koosier-- poet lauriate of the US (past?) teaches at the local college here. They are constantly publishing his stuff. I cant stand it. It really does not remind me of anything more than simple sentances, chopped up because there is not meter or anything that I can see. This is my idea of a Ted Koosier Poem:

One day I went to the laundromat
and saw a big truck backing up
near the window
I turned to a lady picking through dirty socks
and asked her where her dog was
she began to weep bitterly
and the tears turned into oatmeal
then I saw the men were unloading a coffin
were am I?
Oh
The Laundromat

Of course, this is just an "off the cuff" example. I just don't get this sort of poetry.

 

i'd rather see one of his real ones... why don't you post an excerpt from one here?... as long as you provide the attribution and it's for 'educational' purposes [;-) ], it's not a crime...

 

I would love to see some of your art, some the writing you have perfected to the point of which you can call yourself a true poet. Sad to say, I've never seen any signs of that yet.

 

just where did i call myself a 'true' poet?... if all you can offer here is a childishly snide slap at a fellow member, while deliberately misquoting same, sad to say, i see no signs of intelligence or courtesy... and i see no reason why i should have to prove anything to you...

 

Why would you refer to yourself as 'a poet of many decades' if you didn't think you were a true poet? You wouldnt call yourself a poet if you thought you were a fake.
As for what I've got to offer, I've already put my input into this conversation, and as Im sure you're aware, I'm an active reviewer of poetry, which, I note, you're not.
Also, I didn't misquote, I highlighted what's relevant.

I didnt expect you to prove anything anyway.

 

Umm, respectful discussion please, no personal atacks.

 

not a fan. I'm sure you can look him up on the web, seeing he was U.S. poet laureate (just the last one before this one-- of course being Bush's poet doesn't really recommend him for much). My point his stuff is really normal sentences cut up and stacked. I think I did a really fine send-off.

 

...just checked and have to agree for the most part... being chosen by bush is, i also have to agree, not a great recommendation... but the guy did win a pulitzer... wonder if the quality of the judges there have gone downhill, too... ;-)

 

sorry. I wonder that too. I suppose I have to study it.

 

Lol, this discussion is so depressing... I often get made fun of for my "greeting card verse" and guess who says that: all those angsty emo poets who use it for the "expression" aspect and not for the "art" and "craft."

 

True but some of his work, this one for example is very good indeed. Worthy of the pulitzer I don't know but worthy nevertheless.

Tattoo

What once was meant to be a statement—
a dripping dagger held in the fist
of a shuddering heart—is now just a bruise
on a bony old shoulder, the spot
where vanity once punched him hard
and the ache lingered on. He looks like
someone you had to reckon with,
strong as a stallion, fast and ornery,
but on this chilly morning, as he walks
between the tables at a yard sale
with the sleeves of his tight black T-shirt
rolled up to show us who he was,
he is only another old man, picking up
broken tools and putting them back,
his heart gone soft and blue with stories.


from Delights & Shadows, Copper Canyon Press, Port Townsend, WA 2004

 

As far as I'm concerned, labelling someone's work "greeting card verse" is not productive. Now if someone feels that the rhymes are forced, or that the poetry only speaks on a literal level, that's a step closer to constructive criticism. If someone takes it a step further and offers alternatives or other work to compare with, that's truly constructive/ And that remains true even if the author doesn't feel the suggestion fits his or her intent or style.

Reviews are opinions, and the act of discerning what you do or do not like about a particular piece may give you ideas for your own work, but it will certainly help you see where the weak points are, before you present it for others to examine.

There isn't a right way or a wrong way, but rather finding what works best for each writer.

 

And a lot of modern poetry proponents ignore the fact that you should know how to do something before denigrating it. I think they give a bad name to the people who actually know what they're talking about(or writing) in relation to so-called "modern poetry".

 

Are you kidding me mate?

If you think that modern poetry is bad for your traditional poetry, then that's up to you, but at least try and prove it. I've read poems from angsty teens that are atrocious, just as Ive read poems from traditional no-hopers who are on the same level of lame as the angsty teens. No style of poetry is any better or worse than the other. It's like arguing whether any style of music is better than the other. There is only the quality of what people write within the style and then peoples opinions.

Get off your high-horse mate. Step down off the pedestal. Open your eyes and mind and learn, instead of being ignorant.

 

I don't think it's necessarily bad for "my traditional"*cough* poetry. I dont see myself as on a high horse, or a soapbox either. I'm not saying it's a worse style either. It can be very useful,,and I have written some more "modern" poems to an extent. My only problem with the style is that most of the original writers and forebears of it had a kniwledge of traditional poetry, and had very concrete reasons for their deviation(s), and even had a set of priniciples that they used with some consistency to provide their own personal rhythm or flow. I see a lot of people on sites like this now(not refering to any people here that I know of) who post up poems for what I would normally assume is the expression aspect, and then proceed to reject in totality any suggestions on the grounds that "free verse" and/or "modern poetry" has no rules and is all about experimenting. The first is generally unrue, and the second is true under the conditions that the poet understands how their "experimentation" differs, and has a reason for the form choices they have used, rather than having just ejaculated onto the paper and posted it without even bothering to give it a look-through. I have enjoyed many more experimental, avant-garde style poems, but only when the poet knew what the heck they were doing. The reaso I advocate that people learn traditional style (if not all the different specific forms) is because I think the discipline doing such a thing gives them can make their efforts to expand beyond the "stereo-typed, overwrought, etc..." style of traditional poetry a more interesting and useful venture.


I'm not arguing that either style is better, just that the second was formed by people knowledgable in the first, and I think having at least some basis in poetic device and rhythm(line-breaks for eample are generally horrible in poems by beginners who have looked only at free-verse) is important when considering why (and how) not to use "traditional" meter and imagery.

 

Frost, we've discussed adding some information about patterns and techniques of traditional poetry. Why not do the same with some techniques and approaches unique to modern poetry style?