I have a theory/thesis on the appreciation of poetry and sincerely hope I don't offend anyone. It's this: Is published poetry really that superior to our own amateur efforts, or is it that the people here (and on any forum for that matter) who read and comment on submissions are not sufficiently skilled in the reading of the craft to recognise truly great poetry when they see it? I think it's safe to say there's a definite element of Authority Syndrome in a lot of us - we're told Keats was a master poet, so we read his stuff with a preconceived opinion that it's great. Now, I have a book of poetry by a poet whose name is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that his collection was published by Faber and Faber (in other words one of the 'biggies' in terms of publishing houses). But if I was to select one of his poems at random and post it here as my own (ignoring the illegalities and off-chance it gets recognised) would it really receive relatively higher praise than any other submission? You would expect comments such as, "This is incredible! Publish-worthy! Have you got an agent? Get it submitted to a publisher! Very professional!" etc etc. But would it get such comments? I suspect not, which tells us what?
I think truly great poetry does a number of things at once, or one simple things with excellence. I also have a Faber book of poetry. A lot of it I don't like. Some I presume that it is simply that I don't understand/see the references, others just are not my taste ( but I can appreciate them a little) and others I think are complete trash. Here is one I like from the book : Cow in Calf, by Seamus Heaney It seems she has swallowed a barrel. From forelegs to haunches her belly slung like a hammock. Slapping her out of the byre is like slapping a great bag of seed. My hand tingled as if strapped, but I had to hit her again and again and heard the blows plump like a depth-charge far in her gut. The udder grows, Windbags of bagpipes are crammed there to drone in her lowing. Her cud and her milk, her heats and her calves keep coming and going. I would like it no matter who wrote it. I don't go crazy over poems though. Keats' Ode to a Nightingale is in a whole other league though compared to the poem above. Of course there are people out there who probably live and breath poetry yet dislike Ode to a Nightingale, but I find that hard to believe even as I write it! When it comes to art the greats stay great. Not everyone likes classical music, but almost anyone can appreciate it and be touched by it in some way. My favourite poem is actually Jabberwocky. Not because it is a great piece of poetry, but because of what it represents to me personally.
Yes, but this doesn't address my theory. If I lifted a poem from any given poet, that some big name publisher has seen fit to invest in, and passed it off as my own, would anyone recognise it as high quality poetry? What I mean is would anyone, having read it, think to themselves, "Wow! This is a bit special... why isn't this guy published?" or would they just see it as yet another amateur effort?
This is something I have wondered about modern art. In the UK, many famous modern artists (particularly those from the '90's) are only famous because Saatchi pushed their work, and many deserving artists have had their work bought by Saatchi and hidden from the public, forcing them into anonymity (he manipulates prices in this arena like bankers do with commodities). Fame in this area is manifestly unrelated to merit or talent. I went to a Tracy Emin exhibition, and she is inept at fine art, I would not even stick her drawings on the fridge if she were my child.
Yes, it's all a bit... I dunno. As I say it's all about the Authority Syndrome; A poet gets his collection published by a big-name publisher and we're triggered by this to automatically assume their work is of a very high standard. But is it always the case?
I am not a huge poetry reader as I often find it too self-indulgent for my tastes. But I will pick up a published novel that has received a hefty marketing budget, and put it down because it is unreadable crap. The problem is that people have a tendency to treat poetry as an art-form and prose as entertainment, which means poetry tends to attract the elitist mutual appreciation society.
We could say the about novels. Luck is involved. The same goes for music too or any other form of art. The greater the talent the more likely it is to shine through. I have often wondered what literary masterpieces have been written and been lost in time. Judd - Taste. Simple. Would someone recognize the work of Mozart as the work of Mozart? Modern poetry has taken on another form. Due to media outlets we're not really inclined to "read" much anymore, but maybe due to the internet poetry, of a sort, will rise? Rap seems to have taken on many elements of poetry too. Send me poems by PM as a test. See if I prefer your poem to one from the book. I have hardly studied much poetry in my life and I've read more books than I have singular poems. I written hundreds and hundreds though. I was lucky in having two English teachers who reached me with poetry. The first was at secondary school, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
I'm sure a lot of people are influenced by the name of the poet, but I'm equally certain people who study poetry aren't influenced by such things. Also, I think people are more likely to re-read poems by famous poets, thus allowing them to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation for the poem. But at some point in time, every poet is unpublished, so there are definitely people who can appreciate works by unknown writers.
I don't think I'm getting my point across very well. What I'm trying to say, is this. I lift a published poem from some collection or other and present it as my own work. Someone reads it and pulls it apart, saying it fails here and it fails there, the meter is off, bla bla bla. In other words they pass it off as garbage. What does this tell us? That the author is no better at poetry than you and I, or that the guy giving the critique doesn't know what he's talking about?
I think 'Tracy Emin' is the artwork. With familiarity we warm to her journey. She's a tragic figure. @OurJud - enjoy your poetry, don't agonise over this, there's no point. One remedy...when some wanker-poet gets under your collar...is to write your own parody version. When you return months later you forget the 'birthing' just find this rather good poem you wrote. I often do that.
I agree with your supposition. It probably means that a lot of published poetry is the Emperor's new clothes; and a lot of criticism, the pretentious inanities of sycophants, which is why I mentioned the elitist mutual appreciation society, above.
There are a couple things at play here. The first is that when we put something in the workshop, people are automatically critical because it's the point of the workshop to be critical. So, when someone picks up a published piece of poetry, they expect it's gone through rigorous thought/effort/drafts. And, this absolutely taints the reception of the work. The next thing at play is subjectivity. I've read a ton of famous poetry that I just flat out don't like. If I saw it in the critique room and wanted to critique it, I would probably be pretty harsh, regardless of who wrote it. But it's not in the critique room. It's in a published book and I won't waste my time trying to figure out how I think I could make it better. EDIT: I've often had the same thought as you @OurJud. I think a lot of famous authors would get totally ripped to shreds in the workshop because of the wholly subjective nature of writing. That's why I take critique with a grain of salt. If the crit doesn't fit my vision, it's unlikely I'll take it on board. The biggest mistake people can make is not allowing themselves to have a say in their work.
It's pretty rare that I find anything in the critique room that I find truly moving or truly impressive in terms of skill or depth. It's pretty common that I find things in published poetry that I find truly moving and truly impressive in terms of skill and depth. I don't think this is because of where I find the pieces; I think it's because there is such a thing as effective poetry, and people who can produce it are more likely to get their work published. That doesn't mean that there are no pieces of published poetry that I find ineffective, or no pieces of critique room poetry that I find effective. But there are strong correlations between what I find effective and what gets published, in my opinion.
Of course not. However, people will pontificate over crap, if they are told they are supposed to like it- because they don't want to look like the idiot who doesn't get it; especially once accepted into the establishment.
I kind of have to believe, also, that a lot of people are like me with their work. If I think something is finished to the best of my ability, I'm unlikely to put it in the critique room. Instead, I'll give it to one of the people in my circle I trust to help me refine it. What I, and I think other people, put in the workshops are pieces they know are flawed, and they put them here to have others help to find the flaws.
This is something I've thought about myself. I've only just started writing poetry to be fair, and not for one second am I suggesting my efforts are fit for anything but critique, but there comes a time when you have to say, "These are mine, I like them, I think they're good." at which point you do 'something' with them.
Poetry is one of those forms of artistic expression that can be easy to fake. You can write a bunch of crap and call it poetry, and nobody can argue with it because it's 'art.' If you develop a persona and/or schtick to go along with it, that can help get your crappy poetry published. In fact you can rattle off a crappy poem in just a couple of minutes. At least with a song, you need a tune as well as lyrics. A short story takes more than a couple of minutes to write. A novel or play can take years. But poetry? ANYBODY can do it—and fast. Right? However, a fantastic poem leaves a lasting impression. It makes you think, or appreciate something, or look at something in a new way. And it doesn't really matter who wrote it. I'm not a huge fan of poetry. In fact, there are very few books of poetry here in my house. However, there are some poets whose work I do enjoy, and a few of them are unpublished. Is this a case of 'I don't know a lot about art, but I know what I like?'
But this doesn't automatically make a novel good, even if it gets published. I've pretty much lost all focus on what I was trying to say in the first place now.
YES-YES-YES! The highest form of Art, that would be Sculpture. You can't fake it. Sculpture is the most demanding of disciplines, requiring a level of dedication and natural born talent that no other artistic medium can match. Poetry, on the other hand, requires the least amount of natural talent, and nearly no dedication to craft. Unless poetry is in the form of song lyrics, it should be regarded as the least of artistic pursuits. Anything a troubled 14 year old girl can do reasonably well, is not Art! Who receives the most critical attention and literary praise... Percy Bysshe Shelley, or his far more talented wife, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley? You can take a class in English Lit, and never cover the work of Mary Shelley, but oh my, you will get a heaping dose of Percy Shelley! I've never understood the attraction of Poetry. It's melodramatic nonsense!
Good lord. You sure are pompous, aren't you? May I ask what you've done to be such an authority on all forms of art?
This is why I don't post in the Workshop either. I have a a few readers who offered up valuable critiques on Under The Knife when it was posted in an early free online version (some of whom followed me over from my fanfiction days) and they are definitely my go-to folks f I need additional concrit before submitting to a publisher. In the Workshop I feel like the audience is to broad to effectively provide feedback specific to my genre, writing style and goals. These people helped me get published in the first place by basically offering beta services during the book's WIP stage, so I know I can trust them and their opinions.
Janert - One of the main reasons I expect the poem to be clear enough for most readers to understand. You cannot "fake" meaning. If a poem is open to differenr interpretations that is fine, that, as Wilde would probably say, is what an artist wants. In poetry though, if the main thread of meaning is misses by the reader, then the poem fails in its intent. Anyone can string a bunch of words together, true. Not anyone can write numerous works of poetry that are liked and understood by many. Iain Sparrow - It sounds to me like you are equating technique with artistic talent. In writing having the technical ability to write an instruction manual does not make someone an artist. All that said, I do find poetry to be quite a pompous medium. I find more pleasure in writing poetry than from reading it, more often than not. Generally I have found if you attempt anything in life for long enough you come to appreciate the abilities of other people.
