Discussion:
poetry defined
(too old to reply)
Will Dockery
2004-08-18 03:33:27 UTC
Permalink
is eliot said "poetry is communication despite language"
I say poetry is the ineffable made audible
poets are exceedingly rare.
and poets are born, not made.
Absolutely correct! Though obviously the tricks of the craft are
important, it's the spark of creativity, the blessing of the muse that
makes the poem.

Otherwise the poem, no matter how well crafted, is an empty shell.
poetry is inexcorable
it is a relentless river
poetry is jam packed. In every phrase, syllable, molecule the images and
characters and jokes and emotions, the shreds of beauty and indignation must
unpack like a large hyperactive kindergarden --except for those still beige
deserty type poems, and there are only two or three of them things ever worked
on the whole history and besides how many might the species need?
m the r
Dale
2004-08-18 11:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Otherwise the poem, no matter how well crafted, is an empty shell.
"Without a shell, a snail is just a slug, and peanuts rot in the rain."
Kiro Yetsuna, "The Fifteen Marshes"
Will Dockery
2004-08-19 09:01:59 UTC
Permalink
I concur that some people are born with the verbal ability
to assimilate lessons quicker and, once done, to produce better
poetry than others. The greats had such innate ability, I'm
sure. As long as "born poets" is short for "born to become poets
after learning the fundamentals of language and the art form" I
have no objection to its use. Applying it to any individual
before they have learned the basics or produced noteworthy
poetry FREE OF THE FLAWS THAT YOU MENTIONED seems more than a
little presumptuous.
Yeah, THOSE FLAWS will have to be purged, from my older poems through
re writes, and the new ones, from the get-go.

I see room for improvement in the poetry I've written over the last
twenty or so years, and the new poems will be improved, at least to my
eyes.

I can'r and don't expect to change any opinions of the trolls here
such as Gamble and Sherman, but I'm completely unconvinced they're
what they claim to be... I clearly see them, and several others as
ignorant trolls propped up and goaded on by their friends.
Poets write poetry. Until you write some you aren't a poet.
I've written dozens of poems. I'm a poet. You don't like them, so
what... repeating over and over that they're *not* poems will not make
this so.

They're poems.

We can waste as many years on this as you care to, but I'll continue
to correct you. I'm a poet, I write poetry.
Inspiration doesn't make anyone a poet (or anything else).
But lack of inspiration makes lousy poetry. No amount of book learning
and clever craftsmanship can help a poem that lacks inspiration.

Heh, I'll go to my grave *knowing* that. It's a universal truth of
poetry. Of *everything* in life.
If I have a great idea for a building am I suddenly an architect?
Nope, but maybe you can build a hut in the backyard.

I think that's a point you make, perhaps in a roundabout way: I've
been trying to build skyscrapers when I should be working on a simple
woodshed.

I've been reading your poems some lately, and am changing my opinion
of them... no wasted words, to the point poetry. That's what I meant
when I wrote earlier about chopping down, editing my older poems...
too many words, too much *filler*, basically.
You have shown no evidence of it yet.
I don't agree, of course.
So, you hate the poetry. Tell me something new, Colin.
There *are* themes in my poems,
Too many themes. None of them cogent.
Your task will be to write a poem on ONE clear theme.
That's what I was getting at a few lines ago. Some of the older poems
just might splinter into two, three or more poems. It looks that way
at this point, and I want to post some of these edits when the flames
die down again.

That said... I anticipate *at least* two or three weeks of all manner
of attack on me from practically every corner.

I intend to keep my cool as best I can and keep my focus on my life
and poetry/music.
Keep studying and read a lot of poetry.
I will, and thanks for the comments.
You're welcome. For what little it is worth, I applaud
your amibition/determination to become a poet.
I already am a poet, and have been for some years now. I do intend to
become a better poet, though.

=====
Art, music, poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.lulu.com/dockery
Dale
2004-08-19 13:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
I've written dozens of poems. I'm a poet. You don't like them, so
what... repeating over and over that they're *not* poems will not make
this so.
They're poems.
Repeating over and over that they *are* poems will not make this so.

dmh
Will-Dockery
2024-07-17 11:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
is eliot said "poetry is communication despit
language
Post by Will Dockery
I say poetry is the ineffable made audibl
poets are exceedingly rare
and poets are born, not made
Absolutely correct! Though obviously the tricks of the craft ar
important, it's the spark of creativity, the blessing of the mus
tha
Post by Will Dockery
makes the poem
Otherwise the poem, no matter how well crafted, is an empt
shell
Post by Will Dockery
poetry is inexcorabl
it is a relentless rive
poetry is jam packed. In every phrase, syllable, molecule th
images an
Post by Will Dockery
characters and jokes and emotions, the shreds of beauty an
indignation mus
Post by Will Dockery
unpack like a large hyperactive kindergarden --except for thos
still beig
Post by Will Dockery
deserty type poems, and there are only two or three of the
things ever worke
Post by Will Dockery
on the whole history and besides how many might the specie
need
Post by Will Dockery
m the r09d
From the archives, thoughts on poetry


This is a response to the post seen at
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=658217694#65821769

Will Dockery
2004-08-19 18:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
such as Gamble and Sherman,
I would guess that Gary and Jim would like nothing more
than to see you write an actual poem.
Ask any experienced reader of Usenet if they believe that load of
bullshit you just dumped. GG and JR: you've been here a while, Colin...
can you honestly tell of a time these two ever wrote anything *here*
that wasn't a vicious piece of trollery?
Ask any experienced poetry reader to list all of the
things they look for in a poem. See if your efforts contain
ANY of the aspects listed.
That would be interesting. Before I leave, I'll repost this at the
various newsgroups and see what results manifest.

"Ask any experienced poetry reader to list all of the
things they look for in a poem."

I know you deny this as much as you promote the concept that I don't
write poetry, but the problem with my poem not having what you look for
is basically that you don't like my poetry... so you can't find what
you want.

Here's the howler, the "us against them" of the poetry wars, the mantra
of this enemy land [us.arts.poetry] you bravely wander:

What is good or bad in poetry is a matter of taste. You like, say JR
Sherman's poems... so *they* have the elements you look for. See below
for your opinion of *my* poems.

So you don't like my poems. That doesn't change the fact that they are
poems.
Post by Will Dockery
Inspiration doesn't make anyone a poet (or anything else).
But lack of inspiration makes lousy poetry. No amount of book
learning
Post by Will Dockery
and clever craftsmanship can help a poem that lacks inspiration.
"...you wanted your poetry to move people...that's what
escalators are for, no?"
- Mary E. Hope
Post by Will Dockery
You have shown no evidence of it yet.
I don't agree, of course.
Art is what the audience envies.
I've always said a very similar thing. When I read something that makes
me think "wish I'd written that".
Every good poem has
at least one phrase or image that stops the reader and makes
them wish they'd thought of it or encountered it earlier.
Aside from some promising glimpses in the first and, IIRC,
the third poem you posted to Usenet, I have not seen a single
remarkable line in any of your works.
Well, damn, Colin! I'm flattered... I won't throw out the other
gazillion lines I've posted just yet, but I'd sure appreciate you
pointing out which two those poems are---.

Seems like an excellent place for me to consider where to make my next
moves.
You have not stayed the
same. You've actually gotten worse. With luck, work and
time let us hope that you can reverse this trend.
I think I might agree with you on this from certain perspectives. Not
all, but some.

A good friend of mine, Rick Howe, who's read my poetry from the mid
1980s up until 1990 something, who doesn't post on Usenet, wrote me
that somewhere during that point I went from "poet" to "popstar" or
something like that, and have steadily degenerated since. Of course, I
cursed him and moved on.

I'll dig up some of his lengthy writings and post them here one of
these days. Interestingly, most of the poetry of mine he's written
about hasn't even made it onto Usenet.
b***@yahoo.com
2004-08-22 14:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
such as Gamble and Sherman,
I would guess that Gary and Jim would like nothing more
than to see you write an actual poem.
Ask any experienced reader of Usenet if they believe that load of
bullshit you just dumped. GG and JR: you've been here a while, Colin...
can you honestly tell of a time these two ever wrote anything *here*
that wasn't a vicious piece of trollery?
Ask any experienced poetry reader to list all of the
things they look for in a poem. See if your efforts contain
ANY of the aspects listed.
That would be interesting. Before I leave, I'll repost this at the
various newsgroups and see what results manifest.
"Ask any experienced poetry reader to list all of the
things they look for in a poem."
I know you deny this as much as you promote the concept that I don't
write poetry, but the problem with my poem not having what you look for
is basically that you don't like my poetry... so you can't find what
you want.
Here's the howler, the "us against them" of the poetry wars, the mantra
What is good or bad in poetry is a matter of taste. You like, say JR
Sherman's poems... so *they* have the elements you look for. See below
for your opinion of *my* poems.
So you don't like my poems. That doesn't change the fact that they are
poems.
Post by Will Dockery
Inspiration doesn't make anyone a poet (or anything else).
But lack of inspiration makes lousy poetry. No amount of book
learning
Post by Will Dockery
and clever craftsmanship can help a poem that lacks inspiration.
"...you wanted your poetry to move people...that's what
escalators are for, no?"
- Mary E. Hope
Post by Will Dockery
You have shown no evidence of it yet.
I don't agree, of course.
Art is what the audience envies.
I've always said a very similar thing. When I read something that makes
me think "wish I'd written that".
Every good poem has
at least one phrase or image that stops the reader and makes
them wish they'd thought of it or encountered it earlier.
Aside from some promising glimpses in the first and, IIRC,
the third poem you posted to Usenet, I have not seen a single
remarkable line in any of your works.
Well, damn, Colin! I'm flattered... I won't throw out the other
gazillion lines I've posted just yet, but I'd sure appreciate you
pointing out which two those poems are---.
Seems like an excellent place for me to consider where to make my next
moves.
You have not stayed the
same. You've actually gotten worse. With luck, work and
time let us hope that you can reverse this trend.
I think I might agree with you on this from certain perspectives. Not
all, but some.
A good friend of mine, Rick Howe, who's read my poetry from the mid
1980s up until 1990 something, who doesn't post on Usenet, wrote me
that somewhere during that point I went from "poet" to "popstar" or
something like that, and have steadily degenerated since. Of course, I
cursed him and moved on.
I'll dig up some of his lengthy writings and post them here one of
these days. Interestingly, most of the poetry of mine he's written
about hasn't even made it onto Usenet.
Yes, there seems to be no filter on this type of board...otherwise
we'd be smelling the patchouli for real. God Awful stuff if you ask
me.
~~~""~o~V~o~""~~~
2004-10-19 16:19:44 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Aug 2004 20:33:27 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Will Dockery)
done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in these here little old Usenet
Post by Will Dockery
is eliot said "poetry is communication despite language"
I say poetry is the ineffable made audible
poets are exceedingly rare.
and poets are born, not made.
Absolutely correct! Though obviously the tricks of the craft are
important, it's the spark of creativity, the blessing of the muse that
makes the poem.
Otherwise the poem, no matter how well crafted, is an empty shell.
poetry is inexcorable
it is a relentless river
poetry is jam packed. In every phrase, syllable, molecule the images and
characters and jokes and emotions, the shreds of beauty and indignation must
unpack like a large hyperactive kindergarden --except for those still beige
deserty type poems, and there are only two or three of them things ever worked
on the whole history and besides how many might the species need?
m the r
Poetry should convey a message, whether it be serious,
mournful,studious, witty, challenging, spiritual, or downright
slapstick-comedy type.

A series of words simply thrown together and called a 'poem' is not
really poetry at all, at least not to me !! :o)

-------------------------------------------------------
JESUS IS THE ROCK
God doesn't call the qualified; He qualifies the called
-------------------------------------------------------
Dale
2004-10-19 16:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~~~""~o~V~o~""~~~
Poetry should convey a message, whether it be serious,
mournful,studious, witty, challenging, spiritual, or downright
slapstick-comedy type.
A series of words simply thrown together and called a 'poem' is not
really poetry at all, at least not to me !! :o)
Surely, ANY use of words should convey a meaning, but this all depends
on one's defintion of "meaning." For far too many, it is simply the
overt - and usually didactic or hectoring - presnetation of this or that
cultural opinion, boldly underlined and - almost always - plainly a
barrier to poetic expression. AND any series of words - no matter how
random - will convey a meaning with little or no effort on the writers
(or tosser's) part, because - simply put - readers will always take
words to have meaning, and so will instill what they can. This is what
makes nonsense possible; pattern-recognition is one of the basic
elements of cognition. Now a poem may convey meanings quite unknown to
the writer, and this isn't always (or even mostly) a bad thing: I find
that it isn't worth writing AT ALL if all sensations and "meanings" are
known before-hand, since - at least to me - the process of discovering
new sensations while composing is more important finally than the poem
itself, as an object.

dmh
Stuart Leichter
2004-10-19 20:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by ~~~""~o~V~o~""~~~
Poetry should convey a message, whether it be serious,
mournful,studious, witty, challenging, spiritual, or downright
slapstick-comedy type.
A series of words simply thrown together and called a 'poem' is not
really poetry at all, at least not to me !! :o)
Surely, ANY use of words should convey a meaning, but this all depends
on one's defintion of "meaning." For far too many, it is simply the
overt - and usually didactic or hectoring - presnetation of this or that
cultural opinion, boldly underlined and - almost always - plainly a
barrier to poetic expression. AND any series of words - no matter how
random - will convey a meaning with little or no effort on the writers
(or tosser's) part, because - simply put - readers will always take
words to have meaning, and so will instill what they can. This is what
makes nonsense possible; pattern-recognition is one of the basic
elements of cognition. Now a poem may convey meanings quite unknown to
the writer, and this isn't always (or even mostly) a bad thing: I find
that it isn't worth writing AT ALL if all sensations and "meanings" are
known before-hand, since - at least to me - the process of discovering
new sensations while composing is more important finally than the poem
itself, as an object.
dmh
There's something in your last clause that's profound, maybe, but it sounds
like it's contradicting the first part of its sentence unless the
contradiction is due to some elided thought. (But I wouldn't be surprised,
either, to learn that expository writing has embraced jazz riffings, and
none too soon.) I take the paragraph to be a nice accounting of
deconstructionist theory. "... as an object" at the end looks quite
defensive sticking out there like an afterthought. Isn't "object" there much
too diffuse, pointing to innumerable possible meanings, at least half being
physical, half being half-physical, and the other halves being non-physical?
If I take your meaning right, you can delete "as an object". Otherwise it
needs secondary development.

I wonder, now, if poetry, per se, were never again composed, if there would
be any significant difference in the good life of culture and art.

--
Stuart
Dale
2004-10-19 21:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Leichter
Post by Dale
Post by ~~~""~o~V~o~""~~~
Poetry should convey a message, whether it be serious,
mournful,studious, witty, challenging, spiritual, or downright
slapstick-comedy type.
A series of words simply thrown together and called a 'poem' is not
really poetry at all, at least not to me !! :o)
Surely, ANY use of words should convey a meaning, but this all depends
on one's defintion of "meaning." For far too many, it is simply the
overt - and usually didactic or hectoring - presnetation of this or that
cultural opinion, boldly underlined and - almost always - plainly a
barrier to poetic expression. AND any series of words - no matter how
random - will convey a meaning with little or no effort on the writers
(or tosser's) part, because - simply put - readers will always take
words to have meaning, and so will instill what they can. This is what
makes nonsense possible; pattern-recognition is one of the basic
elements of cognition. Now a poem may convey meanings quite unknown to
the writer, and this isn't always (or even mostly) a bad thing: I find
that it isn't worth writing AT ALL if all sensations and "meanings" are
known before-hand, since - at least to me - the process of discovering
new sensations while composing is more important finally than the poem
itself, as an object.
dmh
There's something in your last clause that's profound, maybe, but it sounds
like it's contradicting the first part of its sentence unless the
contradiction is due to some elided thought. (But I wouldn't be surprised,
either, to learn that expository writing has embraced jazz riffings, and
none too soon.) I take the paragraph to be a nice accounting of
deconstructionist theory.
I don't much cotton (or wool) to deconstruction theory, so the
similairty (if there is one) is entirely a coincidence.

But I see your point about the possible contradiction - but it IS a
rather long sentence. The contradiction is merely superficial: the new
sensations created by the poetic experience are the most important
aspect (for me) of the experience, and the poem (the visual trail of the
experience) is of secondary importance - to me that is. I might have
better said "Now a poetic experience may reveal..." etc. But that would
deny the other half of the equation: the reader's response. THAT might
create even newer sensations which are quite apart from what was "meant"
by the writer. That is often fine, but as often not.

.
Post by Stuart Leichter
"... as an object" at the end looks quite
defensive sticking out there like an afterthought.
Not at all: it is merely disguishing (with emphasis) the poetic
experience from the mere evidence of that experience, the poem.
Post by Stuart Leichter
Isn't "object" there much
too diffuse, pointing to innumerable possible meanings, at least half being
physical, half being half-physical, and the other halves being non-physical?
If I take your meaning right, you can delete "as an object". Otherwise it
needs secondary development.
It seems clear to me.
Post by Stuart Leichter
I wonder, now, if poetry, per se, were never again composed, if there would
be any significant difference in the good life of culture and art.
Probably not. But I was always rather attracted to the seeming
"worthlessness" of poetry.

dmh
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...