Poetry is Dead

[KikiteNeko]

Hm. Well, I'm pretty hard to offend when people disagree with my taste in reading. Just leave T.S. Eliot alone, lest I go Chris Crocker all up in here.

"LEAVE THE WASTELAND ALONE"

Oh, i thought of that. But we can be safe and stick to the authors who are dead. (By no means will I cast stones at the living - although my first published piece EVER was in fact a poem, it also represents the only good poem I've ever written. The others were horrid, horrid things. :D)

[slcboston]

Hmm... I liked TS Eliot though I did find him a tad pretentious at times. :D

*ducks for cover* :D

[KikiteNeko]

I think that's just the time period. Actually, when he wrote Waste Land, it was not well-received by his peers. The way I understand it, all the other poets were in constant battle to stuff the most literary allusions into their poetry, and Eliot wrote the most incomprehensible (though lovely) poem possible, packed with more footnotes than content. That showed 'em. So I think the pretentiousness was intentional, though he was very humbled in the presence of Ezra Pound, whom he referred to as "the better craftsmen."

Hmm... I liked TS Eliot though I did find him a tad pretentious at times. :D

*ducks for cover* :D

[JRH]

To return to the oiginal subject, I have always contended that Poetry is alive and well, (at least in it's lesser forms) in Song Lyrics, Greeting Card Verse and Forums like these, because all of which show that there is still interest in Poetry/Verse that "COMMUNICATES with it's audiance, and now, even Dana Gioia, (one of the first to pronounce Poetry's demise), contends, in an article in the Hudson Review at: http://www.hudsonreview.com/gioiaSp03.html, that written Poetry is being replaced by a series of oral options, (including "Oral Poetry", "Performance Poetry" and "Rap") which are growing in popularity and that that is, in turn, bringing about a revival in Establishment Poetry as well.

I like the concept that the Establishment is beginning to see the folly of their narrow, self-serving practices, (as it recognizes the public interest that exists and is a strong signal that the "Cycle" is changing), but I am less excited by the recognition of such Oral forms as a driving force, in today's "Poetics".

I, in fact, find the concept, extremely frightening, in that I've always felt that most forms of "Oral Poetry" have to be, by it's nature, limited to concepts that could easily and rapidly be absorbed by a listening audiance, (much like Song Lyrics) and which therefore must be simularly limited in their depth and scope, (and relegated to being considered "Verse" as opposed to "Poetry", except in the rarist of cases).

Moreover, it has always been my experience that most Oral Poetry has always been evaluated by its audiance more on the basis of performance than content, and, in my estimation, that can only lead to a lack in the quality of "poetic" expression.

Hopefully the emphasis on the "Oral" can be reintegrated with the "Written Forms" so that the overall quality of the Poetry that is available does not actually decline.

The "Declamation" of Poetry by the author or by others, however, as long as it originates in written form that is capable of pursuing meaning at greater depth and complexity, and which also co-exists in that written form so it can be reviewed and analysed at leisure to fully assimilate it's message, can insure the best of both aspects and is, hopefully something we will see more of in the future.

No matter how one looks at it, however, It's quite "obvious", at least to me, that Poetry is far from dead, and that there is hope for the future.

Think about it,

Jim Hoye, (JRH)

[Medievalist]

Oh Lord. I'd thought McGonagall had no rival.

He wrote thousands and thousands of lines of the stuff.

And I've not even delved into my collection of Cheese poetry :D

[Medievalist]

Oh, i thought of that. But we can be safe and stick to the authors who are dead. (By no means will I cast stones at the living - although my first published piece EVER was in fact a poem, it also represents the only good poem I've ever written. The others were horrid, horrid things. :D)

Oh lord . . . it gets much much worse -- and that's just sticking to the canononical writers' stuff that isn't anthologized :D

It is, by the way, enormous fun to teach this poetry.

[Medievalist]

Hm. Well, I'm pretty hard to offend when people disagree with my taste in reading. Just leave T.S. Eliot alone, lest I go Chris Crocker all up in here.

"LEAVE THE WASTELAND ALONE"

You might want to look for the facsimile of Eliot's ms. before Pound edited it; it's quite different and in some ways, better.

[Medievalist]

Moreover, it has always been my experience that most Oral Poetry has always been evaluated by its audiance more on the basis of performance than content, and, in my estimation, that can only lead to a lack in the quality of "poetic" expression.

Not quite sure what you mean by "oral" poetry--do you mean oral forumulaic poetry, like, oh, Beowulf, or the Slavic traditional poems, or Irish bardic poetry?

Because poetry was delivered orally right through the early eighteen hundreds, as a standard practice, until cheap printed books and enough free time that the middle class could afford to engage in silent reading.

[JRH]

The terminology was Gioia's not mine, and I'm well aware of our tradition of Oral Poetry in the past, but today, except for readings by Established Poets, oral poetry is primarily spontaneous and off the cuff, (or, in the case of song lyrics, specifically designed for the limited scope of what can be readily absorbed on a simplistic emotional level without much if any intellectual content), which, in both cases, limits such to the level of Verse, NOT Poetry.

The Poems of our historical ORAL tradition were, in fact carefully researched, structured, memorized, and as sophisticated as any of the written Poetry which has supplanted it, but bears little semblance to the overly dramatic, directionless, and undisciplined posturing that goes on in that name today.

Just my opinion,

Jim Hoye

[Priene]

And I've not even delved into my collection of Cheese poetry :D

Cheese poetry? I'm game.

[Shweta]

(or, in the case of song lyrics, specifically designed for the limited scope of what can be readily absorbed on a simplistic emotional level without much if any intellectual content)

Ya know, people keep saying this and it's starting to annoy me*. Many of the songs I listen to make better poetry or short stories than I have any hope of writing anytime soon.
And sure, there are certainly plenty of simplistic and non-intellectual songs. There are plenty of simplistic and non-intellectual poems too**. There's selection bias happening here.
A quick example, from Counting Crows' colorblind:I am
Taffy stuck, tongue tied
Stuttered shook and uptight
Pull me out from inside
I am ready
I am ready
I am ready
I am...fine
I am covered in skin
No one gets to come in
Pull me out from inside
I am folded
and unfolded
and unfolding
I am
colorblind
I wish I'd written that. Even without the music. Tell me what's simplistic and non-intellectual about this, do.
And while I'm at it, here's the start of CC's Round Here
Step out the front door like a ghost
into the fog where no one notices
the contrast of white on white.
And in between the moon and you
the angels get a better view
of the crumbling difference between wrong and right.

I walk in the air between the rain
through myself and back again
Where? I don't know
Maria says she's dying
through the door I hear her crying
Why? I don't know

* Especially because it reads as yet more lit-people whining about genre and hiding behind "the philistines don't understand my Genius", and "That can't be any good, too many people like it." Probably no coincidence that it took speculative poetry to make me realize that I do too love poetry.
I'd say this particular complaint is also really not respectful towards our own members over in Music & Songwriting.

** And nothing wrong with that in principle; I for one adore Green Eggs and Ham :D

[JRH]

Shweta,

Before you start accusing me of being disrespectful to those on the Songwriting Forum, it might behoove you to check that Forum out, paying specific attention to this post at: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83677, and the fact that I've been posting on that Forum for at least 3 years if not more.

I've been writng Poetry for 48 years, Song Lyrics for over 35 years, and setting them to music for over 28 of those based on 30 Quarter hours of Music Theory taken in the early 80s, and I assure you I am well aware of the VERY real differences between them and I stand totally by the statements of mine that you quoted and those that I make in that Post.

You might also check out the 17 Songs I have posted on AcidPlanet.com under J.R. Hoye, or by going to the following site: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=328379&t=1793, which accesses my Song, "Standing Room Only", which won 2d Prize Country in the 2003 Billboard Song contest and offers access to the rest of my songs from that site. and which includes 7 other songs that have won Honorable Mentions in various Song Contests in the last 10 years .

As for the Song Lyrics that YOU referenced, I would say that "by MY standards", which can be seen at: http://www.shadowpoetry.com/cgi-bin/spmb/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=10;t=1641 they would only be considered Verse, and as I say in the essay about Songwriting vs Poetry, VERY few Song Lyrics could be published as Quality Poetry. (and the fact that you LIKE a lyric or RELATE to it does NOT make it well written in terms of Craftsmanship or mean that it is of sufficient scope and/or depth to be rise above the level of Verse and be considered Poetry).

I'm sorry, if this sounds harsh, but I take both my Songwriting and my Poetry VERY seriously and do NOT make any of those destinctions lightly or arbitrarily.

Think about it.

Jim Hoye, (JRH)

P.S. For the record, I have written 6 Science Fiction Short Stories over the years, (although none have been published), have been reading SF for over 55 years and have well over 3000 SF paperbacks in my own personal library. Moreover, I am well aware that Heinlein is usually credited with coining the term "Speculative Fiction" as he didn't want to be restricted to realms of "Science" in his stories, and I also know that the "Rhysling" awards are named for the blind singer in his "Green Hills Of Earth", so don't classify me as one of those "lit-people" who whines about "Genre".

[Shweta]

Before you start accusing me of being disrespectful to those on the Songwriting Forum, it might behoove you to check that Forum out, paying specific attention to this post at: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83677, and the fact that I've been posting on that Forum for at least 3 years if not more.

Sorry, I quoted you but my comment wasn't just about you. It's that several people (and I think I did say that) have been saying that songwriting is just not worthy and it's getting on my nerves.
And yeah, I don't hang out in that forum, cause I can't do songwriting. I am amazed at the people who can.

(and the fact that you LIKE a lyric or RELATE to it does NOT make it well written in terms of Craftsmanship or mean that it is of sufficient scope and/or depth to be rise above the level of Verse and be considered Poetry).
Indeed, and I like plenty of song lyrics that aren't particularly intelligent. And I'm not saying that the lyrics I posted are poetry, but I will say, and maintain, that they are as layered and intelligent a form of expression as poetry. A different form, yes. A "simplistic, emotion-only" form? I have to disagree with you strongly, about both poetry and songwriting on that. I think that characterization is insulting to many people who like popular music, and I think it's also undervaluing the importance of emotional reactions to poetry.

And, having read it, I cannot agree with your poetry/verse distinction either. I think I see what you're getting at, but I also think you're drawing clear lines where there aren't any. Jumping to definitions rather than fully exploring the territory.

I'm sorry if all that feels to you like a novice thinking her opinion is worth the same as an expert's. But despite your expertise, on this one I deeply disagree.

I'm sorry, if this sounds harsh, but I take both my Songwriting and my Poetry VERY seriously and do NOT make any of those destinctions lightly or arbitrarily.

I take my song listening and my poetry reading very seriously, too :)
I think you may have valuable distinctions, but I cannot accept your labels of them and the way you are talking about them, which reads as laden down with value-judgments I don't agree with. So I cannot tell.

I'd be happy to talk about that more, but it seems like you've talked about it plenty, so I don't want to push you to start the dialogue (all over again) with a novice if you don't want to. Not gonna take it badly if you don't want to continue this.

...so don't classify me as one of those "lit-people" who whines about "Genre".
Goodness, I seem to have pissed you off. Possibly I annoyed you to the point of reading something into my words that wasn't there?
Because you know, I said nothing at all about your relationship to speculative fiction. I said something about mine, but the genre I referred to was not that. If poetry is "lit", songwriting is the genre here.

And I have seen this argument far too often, and far too often it is used as an excuse for impenetrable writing. Which I have relatively little respect for. I'm not saying that you are doing that - but the argument reads to me as justification of something social as something inherent. That is, poetry is the high-prestige form and songwriting ain't, so people read all sorts of virtues into the one and vices into the other.
And yeah, I think that is the same sort of nonsense as deciding Queen's English is inherently better than, say, Bombay English.

[Dario D.]

I think it is a mistake for anyone to say that just because poetry can potentially have tons of meaning/worth for those who pursue it, that it isn't dead in our modern world.

One might be part of a group or community that is completely into it, but that would only represent a tiiiiiiiiiiny fraction of the population, which largely thinks almost nothing of it nowadays. (at least that's my observation)

[Medievalist]

I think it is a mistake for anyone to say that just because poetry can potentially have tons of meaning/worth for those who pursue it, that it isn't dead in our modern world.

One might be part of a group or community that is completely into it, but that would only represent a tiiiiiiiiiiny fraction of the population, which largely thinks almost nothing of it nowadays. (at least that's my observation)

Umm... if you have the idea that even fifty years ago the average person thought more about poetry than the average person does now, you'd be wrong.

"Poetry/literature/the novel/books/grammar/spelling..." you name it, they've been perennial complaints since Plato (pace re: the anachronisms of spelling and books).

[Dario D.]

I was under the impression that poetry has seen much better days... like back when reading was widely done for entertainment, with no TV/video-games to crowd it out. You know, the Robert Frost days, and previous. Have you seen The Postman? (old Italian movie: "Il Postino")

[aboyd]

hey!

how are you?
Been a rough year. Took me 6 months to reply to your post! However, I had to resurrect the old thread because I couldn't leave your greeting un-replied to. So hi! Nice to see you again.

I think I'm going to settle in for a long while. Can't wait to re-discover everyone.

[Blarg]

Fun thread, though needlessly contentious in places IMO.

I brought it back because it made me wish that poetry were as alive as Medievalist claims. My understanding is that libraries are closing down across the nation, though. I know in the L.A. riots, bookstores went untouched while everything was smashed around them. Poetry's place is subsumed under broader trends that encompass literature and all sorts of reading in general. And it can't be denied that technology has given people many more entertainment options, which makes the place poetry, or anything else has, smaller. Sure there are internet forums where poetry can be discussed, but consider the impact of that compared to the impact of this: when I was a kid, there were no video games to play. Things change.

[Ambrosia]

Blarg, I don't wish to be seen as contentious, but I think poetry is in better shape now than it ever has been, precisely because of the technology available and the time available for people to pursue it. A hundred years ago people were too busy surviving to worry about pursuing poetry.

I just did a search on the word poetry with Google and came back with: About 279,000,000 results (0.12 seconds)

A search on "poetry forums" using Google came back with: About 54,300,000 results (0.18 seconds)

Dead? I hardly think so. Yes, things change. In this instance, I think it is for the better.

[Blarg]

That poetry is an active art one can't disagree, but so is stuffing animals and almost any other niche activity. They're all available on the internet in quantity that would seem to easily belie their niche status. So perhaps numbers alone don't tell the story sufficiently. Rap aside, poetry's cultural prominence is meager outside the university -- which, of course, is not an institution attended by all, and all who attend do not face much exposure to poetry even there. Everyone's life experience is different, but in all the lunchrooms and around all the water coolers I've been, I've heard many novels discussed, but can't recall hearing anyone so much as mention a single poem.

While there was surely something snicker-worthy about "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world" even when Shelley wrote it, it also became a heralded and remembered sentiment. I don't think that utterance could be made today and carry anything like the same weight.

[kborsden]

Blarg, one thing I constantly fail to understand is this: if you believe so strongly that 'poetry' in general is in the decline, unpopular, unnecessary and ultimately 'dead' in today's literary, and social climate -- why do you busy yourself with it? What's the point in doing something that has no weight, or bearing and that is disconnected from the modern world? Why? If it is dead, why do yo have even the most remote passion for it? If I could say with as much conviction as you that something was 'dead' for all intent and purpose, I can assure you, I'd not care for it because of that... it's somewhat of a contradiction to give such deep analytical critiques, write with the prolific attitude and yet be of such a mind as you are. I just don't get it. If you are so inspired by poetry and the writing of it, the pursuit of it, why can't anyone else? Are you somehow so different or further above the general populous that you can see value in poetry whereas the rest of the world, philistines that they are, cannot?

Could it be that you enjoy it? Perhaps like many others...

Truth is, it's always been this way, more or less, but one difference is the freedom that poets today have to be read and make their work public. As for what you say about Universities, well, that's just ill-informed perpetuation of a false understanding. Yes academic and scholars read poetry, the same poetry I read in comprehensive school, but with a deeper insight to more than just the words. Academics and scholars read and look at many things, that doesn't make those exclusive... we can all read and look at what we want. Hand reader devices and the internet make that possible on a scale that goes beyond the volumes of what a University library contains.

[kdnxdr]

If poetry is dead, would AW poetry forums just be an illusion that has been collectively assembled by unknown entities for an undetermined reason? Or, would it be possible that an unknown force has brought the AW poetry forums into a state of consciousness that can be filtered through a type of lens randomly called "poetry" for some undetermined purpose? Or.....am I just confused?

[Blarg]

The discussion remains as interesting now as it has ever been, with interestingly strong points in direct opposition, as always. Much of it comes down to rhetoric. An all or nothing play like "Is poetry dead?" brings out some pretty funny extremes in people. Of course the question is not likely to have a black-and-white answer. It's not strictly a matter of quantitative analysis.

I do find it interesting when people try to measure everything by numbers, as I was getting at in my post above. If everyone in the whole wide world read and wrote poetry every day, would that mean poetry was at its zenith and had triumphed? How about if it did so because everyone wrote a daily Hello Kitty poem about the cute stickers on their pink purses?

There is more than numbers to the question, and numbers are one of the less interesting parts of it, to me anyway. They may not even be as reliable an indicator as some who cite them might assume.

The internet makes the numbers of poems and people involved with them more visible, but the same thing happens when new methods of collecting statistics are developed -- figures on crimes being committed, for example, may jump up though no more crimes are being committed. There have been some scandals because institutions have decided to stop counting some crimes and reported declining crime rates in their districts and even countries; similarly, that doesn't mean fewer crimes are being committed. In America, after people are unemployed for a while, they are taken off the unemployment rolls. While the media cites 9 to 9.5% unemployment recently, it is possible that the real figure is 16 to 20%. It's hard to keep failing if you keep fudging the statistics, or, as in poetry's case, take numbers uncritically.

More interesting than saying how many poetry sites and poems are online now would be statistics to compare those numbers against. Otherwise the numbers aren't useful in describing trends.

Is there any way to tell whether poetry is on the decline or upswing without reference to a stable baseline? Has mass access to cheap fast internet been around long enough for us to claim we have that stable baseline?

I'd say we're still out in the wilderness as far as the numbers go. Maybe we'll know more about trends once we have more data points to measure the present against.

Right now we can still ask:

1. Even if there seems to be "more" poetry in absolute terms, or a "large" interest in poetry exhibited, does that mean there is more poetry in relative terms? that "large" by whatever definition we might be choosing carries any real weight?

2. Does poetry influence and have currency in society on an increasing or decreasing scale?

Re another question asked -- why do I find myself involved with poetry if I feel it's on the decline? The answer is obvious. Because I enjoy it. No one is holding a gun to my head here. For what it's worth, I'm one of those perverse Americans who likes soccer and doesn't care for football, too. Exceptions, too, are in their own way part of the norm.

But that doesn't mean I think soccer is much competition for football in America. I don't think poetry is much competition for prose either, in terms of affecting public consciousness or even partaking in it. In relative terms, I believe it has lost ground it has little chance of regaining, a hundred or a thousand or thousands of sites not to the contrary.

[kborsden]

why do I find myself involved with poetry if I feel it's on the decline? The answer is obvious. Because I enjoy it. No one is holding a gun to my head here. For what it's worth, I'm one of those perverse Americans who likes soccer and doesn't care for football, too. Exceptions, too, are in their own way part of the norm.

But that doesn't mean I think soccer is much competition for football in America. I don't think poetry is much competition for prose either, in terms of affecting public consciousness or even partaking in it. In relative terms, I believe it has lost ground it has little chance of regaining, a hundred or a thousand or thousands of sites not to the contrary.

Thanks for addressing my question. I wasn't having a pop, and I'm glad you didn't read it that way. Funnily enough, I was also going to use soccer (what I call Football) and Rugby in an analogy much the same as yours.

I don't think anything has to have a major influence on society to be relevant, not directly in any case. The reason why poetry isn't discussed around office water-coolers or in the pub is because the reading of it is a personal experience and an introvert appreciation, unless incarnated theatrically (what I think you'll find is discussed, spoken word performances and plays etc etc) -- a personal experience in the latter case, appreciated externally. In this way, poetry has relevance for the individual, affects and effect the individual through such intimacy. Is it safe to suppose then that it does have an indirect relevance on society?

[Ambrosia]

And, yet, it was a poet who won the Nobel Prize for Literature (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226679) this year, not a novelist.

Also, you are confusing me. You talk in this last post about the number of people writing poetry. Not the number of people reading poetry. I ask you, of those people in the past who you are talking about who were involved with prose, how many of them were writing it? Even in school, curriculum may have you learn to write poetry and short stories, but never do they say you have to write a novel. Perhaps the title of this thread should be "Novels are Dead". It would likely be more accurate.

I have no scientific data for you, but I imagine there are more people today reading and writing poetry than there ever has been in the history of the world, thanks to the ease of finding it on the Internet.

I still think you are viewing "the olden days" with some type of fantasy mentality where poetry somehow was golden and mattered to every person on the planet. And that just is not true, Blarg. It is greater known now, more read now, more written now, more experimented with now, than it ever has been before--precisely because of the technology you damned earlier. When I was a child, I was surrounded by books. Perhaps one of those books was poetry. Perhaps not. I don't remember. I loved those books before I could even read. But I was limited on what was available to me by what was on the shelf. Now kids who learn to love to read are not limited by what is on the shelf. Or what is in their school or what is in their local library or what is in their town book store. They have the whole world to explore. And poetry is one of the things that is explored, obviously, by the number of links easily brought up in 12 to 18 seconds.

Frankly, I don't find this discussion interesting like you do. I find it irritating. Poetry is not dead. But if the very people that write it say it is, it may well be on its way. We should have a thread titled "Poetry is Alive". Why on earth would anyone thinking of getting involved in writing poetry bother when they come here and read that poetry is dead? You are Poet Laureate. You want more people reading and writing it? You want this "love" to prosper into the future? Then perhaps proselytizing its death isn't the answer.


On a side note, I am betting we are clashing on personality types. I am "feeling, perceiving". I imagine you are "thinking, judging".

Just different ways of looking at the world.

[kborsden]

Sure there are internet forums where poetry can be discussed, but consider the impact of that compared to the impact of this: when I was a kid, there were no video games to play. Things change.

I want to add something on Video Games. The most highly anticipated video game of this year is TES5: Skyrim. Its most recent prequels, Morrowind and Oblivion were/are renowned for their depth and player immersion by lighting, interactive world objects etc etc and also made use of in-game books that were actually readable to achieve this. Said books could actually be picked up and flipped through, their contents, as I said, readable -- they were history books, theology books, reference book, novels and poetry anthologies, all from and within the perspective of the game's universe. Poetry in this sense (although not the best ever written) is/was a powerful tool to emote the perspectives of individuals who have never existed and express events, social degrees and character within a world that is purely imagined -- also, several gamers who have created their own mods (or plugins/add-ons) include their own books of an equal spread of topics and genres -- yes, gamers inserting their poetry and prose into a game! ... and you can bet Skyrim will equal that, if not better it.

[Ambrosia]

Good point about video games, Kie. That caused me to remember my stepson and how he learned to read. He has Asperger's and was convinced he would never need to know how to read because there would always be someone there to read for him. Then he became interested in video games. He taught himself to read so he could successfully play them.

Video games rule! :D

[kdnxdr]

My favorest things in the arena of existence is talking. It's so rich! So, anyone talking about anything is my cup of "tea"!

What if I said I hated ALL poetry but my own? Wouldn't that be just fine and satisfying, at least to me? And, wouldn't that world be all inclusive and endless, at least as long as it could be continuously existing? And, whether poetry was dead or alive to anyone one else wouldn't really have any relevance to my world. :)

And, I love you Blarg!

[kdnxdr]

I simply can't resist to make a comment regarding "videoness" and the "eltronification" of literature. Agreed, it's powerful and beautiful (in its own right) and helpful, to a point (in my opinion).

But, as with every and any thing, there is something to be said of the world that exists without such stuff.

We actually couldn't be having this dialogue if that were not true. My fear is that as one world (the "old" is consumed/overtaken by the new (electronification/mechanized), there will not only be a society predominantly dependent on such a world, there will be a devaluing of the other (you know, the "old" one). I feel the premise of a book coming on.......don't anyone steal it!

[George]

an era of pop culture, sloth and rejection of deeper thought.

:Wha:

What are you talking about? Television and cinema is an incredibly deep introspective medium.

In all seriousness, I don't think poetry is dead. To my understanding its always had a bit of a niche/cult market popularized by performing arts/English students. I think unlike novels it takes a lot longer for a poet to be recognized for a body of work than a novelist.

[William Haskins]

In all seriousness, I don't think poetry is dead. To my understanding its always had a bit of a niche/cult market popularized by performing arts/English students.

well, except for, you know, those thousands of years when it was a primary vehicle for mythological narratives, religious tradition, folk tales, romantic overtures, political and social satire, a centerpiece for drama etc.

but yeah, other than that, just a niche/cult market popularized by performing arts/english students.

[kdnxdr]

Oh, William! You give a girl goosebumps! Well....so does your avatar....

xoxo

[Blarg]

In this way, poetry has relevance for the individual, affects and effect the individual through such intimacy. Is it safe to suppose then that it does have an indirect relevance on society?

I think a great deal of improvement, especially the type that lasts, comes about from the inside out. The person who always talks about making things better but only means better for himself, who talks about fairness but is a racist or sexist, who wants freedom of speech but only for people who want to say what he wants to hear, the person who believes he wants a good workplace environment but sours it for others, are all enacting externally something they don't understand or believe internally.

A law or custom may change behavior forcibly and only so long as it is followed and administered well, but a poem can change people internally. In a relatively stable, not to say calcified, society, this may be where the changes that affect people the most are most likely to occur.

Poetry asks us, if only for a few moments, to let ourselves slow down when we think and feel. Doing so creates a mental, emotional, perhaps even spiritual space we are largely unaccustomed to in modern society. The gamut from love to hate and smart to stupid can all be done at top speed. Poetry can't.

Its ability to shift us into another kind of focus and imaginative presence can, however, create the possibility of taking ourselves off the autopilot each of our individual cultures and backgrounds puts us on long enough for us to try some piloting of our own once in a while.

That's how we are most likely to see anywhere new. Most of the rest, most of the time, is recycling other people's patterns and our own, what we already think we know and may claim to believe but don't, skimming over life. Poetry couldn't influence society any more indirectly. But to those it reaches, and those they interact with, its influence can matter.

[kborsden]

I agree with most of your post, Blarg, and I'm glad to see that most of what you said compliments my take. However, I do feel you contradict yourself here and there, you over generalize with a good few 'we', and there is one spot I absolutely don't agree with.


Poetry asks us, if only for a few moments, to let ourselves slow down when we think and feel. Doing so creates a mental, emotional, perhaps even spiritual space we are largely unaccustomed to in modern society.

WE or you -- very general and, ultimately, bullshit... why do you think that so many alternative faiths are being explored in 'modern society'? Because a great deal of people are doing a lot of soul searching and discovering of their 'mental, even spiritual space'.

Poetry couldn't influence society any more indirectly. But to those it reaches, and those they interact with, its influence can matter.

So, to cut a long post short: poetry does influence society, as I said, indirectly through its relevance for the individual? So... not dead!? Well, that was worth dragging up this hell-hammered over convoluted and blue faced, ultimately ego-stroking, misinformed and contentious conversation ;). Thanks. :D :D

[Blarg]

WE or you -- very general and, ultimately, bullshit...


Yes, that is your way ...

Read better, and please, no straw men. I never nail it down to you or any particular person, and use adequate qualifiers for anyone whose panties aren't in a bunch.


why do you think that so many alternative faiths are being explored in 'modern society'? Because a great deal of people are doing a lot of soul searching and discovering of their 'mental, even spiritual space'.


I don't equate faith with being any more contemplative or thinking any more deeply, nor with falling into different rhythms that can make the ruts you've fallen into apparent. In fact faith is overwhelmingly inherited and held fast to. It need not be much examined or understood to be embraced even fervently.

Faith doesn't strike me as necessarily being a particularly still affair, either. Some forms of faith are more ecstatic than contemplative. And most Christians read the bible little if at all, from what I've seen from surveys. I'd be surprised if that were confined to Christians.


So, to cut a long post short: poetry does influence society, as I said, indirectly through its relevance for the individual? So... not dead!? Well, that was worth dragging up this hell-hammered over convoluted and blue faced, ultimately ego-stroking, falsified, misinformed and contentious conversation ;). Thanks. :D :D

Nobody forces you to read anything any more than they force you to blow up about it and be rude so often, so I have zero sympathy. Take a pill, son.

[kborsden]

!

[George]

well, except for, you know, those thousands of years when it was a primary vehicle for mythological narratives, religious tradition, folk tales, romantic overtures, political and social satire, a centerpiece for drama etc.

but yeah, other than that, just a niche/cult market popularized by performing arts/english students.

I probably should have clarified that I meant 'always' in the sense of 1900s forward.

[William Haskins]

but that's just not true. the 20th century saw a lot of poets who were widely read outside of academic circles, indeed even outside literary circles: auden, eliot, frost, ezra pound, dylan thomas, ee cummings, and that's even before you get to your allen ginsbergs, your sylvia plaths, your berrymans in the second half of the century.

among these poets, poetry was about confession, about dissent, about protest, about revolution, and always a healthy dose of universal themes.

[William Haskins]

simon armitage expounds on this very subject:

http://authorscoop.com/2011/11/13/afternoon-viewing-simon-armitage/

[kdnxdr]

I don't think we should ever overlook the fact that much of poetry is about personal catharsis for the poet, as well.

[Blarg]

Interestingly again, that both kills it and keeps it evergreen, depending on your point of view.

It's funny how out of sympathy reasonable points of views can be with each other. I think it points out the limits of the medium -- not just the internet, but the wetware .. the human mind and spirit. Even when we could easily find we agree over 95%, we will find a way to let the other 5% spur us to war.

[StephenD]

i'm sorry. y'all are arguing about whether or not poetry is dead? well, aren't we alive?


and what i mean to say by that fucking line is that knowing whether or not poetry has any effect on others we can not. i hate for it to come to that, but it always does. the only thing we know is our metaphysical existence, folks.

so, shouldn't the poem matter to the poet most?


and what i mean to say by that is isn’t existence lived for ourselves? happiness (the only rational point to being), isn’t that the reason of our being, because, sure, let’s assume for a second that as we know it others exist. how do we then know that they’re experiencing happiness?
once again, we’d have to assume that it would have an “affect” on them.

so we assume, and what is the point to living? happiness. and who creates the happiness? we do. we create our own happiness.

so, yes, poetry is "dead" in that in the long run we can’t say it affects others existence, since we perpetuate our own existence, but we can say that it affects our own, and in that, poetry is “alive”.

[StephenD]

dammit. i should have entered that into the contest.

[kdnxdr]

i'm sorry. y'all are arguing about whether or not poetry is dead? well, aren't we alive?


and what i mean to say by that fucking line is that knowing whether or not poetry has any effect on others we can not. i hate for it to come to that, but it always does. the only thing we know is our metaphysical existence, folks.

so, shouldn't the poem matter to the poet most?


and what i mean to say by that is isn’t existence lived for ourselves? happiness (the only rational point to being), isn’t that the reason of our being, because, sure, let’s assume for a second that as we know it others exist. how do we then know that they’re experiencing happiness?
once again, we’d have to assume that it would have an “affect” on them.

so we assume, and what is the point to living? happiness. and who creates the happiness? we do. we create our own happiness.

so, yes, poetry is "dead" in that in the long run we can’t say it affects others existence, since we perpetuate our own existence, but we can say that it affects our own, and in that, poetry is “alive”.

It's interesting to me, if you substitute "sexual satisfaction" with "happiness", it takes the equation of "self > others = ?" to a whole different place.

If "poetry" and "sexual satisfaction" were one in the same, then the debate becomes much more interesting.

[kborsden]

i'm sorry. y'all are arguing about whether or not poetry is dead? well, aren't we alive?


and what i mean to say by that fucking line is that knowing whether or not poetry has any effect on others we can not. i hate for it to come to that, but it always does. the only thing we know is our metaphysical existence, folks.

so, shouldn't the poem matter to the poet most?


and what i mean to say by that is isn’t existence lived for ourselves? happiness (the only rational point to being), isn’t that the reason of our being, because, sure, let’s assume for a second that as we know it others exist. how do we then know that they’re experiencing happiness?
once again, we’d have to assume that it would have an “affect” on them.

so we assume, and what is the point to living? happiness. and who creates the happiness? we do. we create our own happiness.

so, yes, poetry is "dead" in that in the long run we can’t say it affects others existence, since we perpetuate our own existence, but we can say that it affects our own, and in that, poetry is “alive”.

I think Steph makes an interesting point here.

It was, after all, reading poetry that affected/effected me enough to want to read more and go in search of poetry; to discover it and learn about it and those behind it; that eventually led to me writing it. Also why now, in my 30s, I still write it and still have an affinity for poetry, other people's, classical, and modern as well as my crafting my own to share with other aficionados.

Interesting, also, that this debate is being continued by poets with such passion for the subject (and core principle, poetry) whether we agree on the semantics of influence or not: we are all, have all been influenced by it. That counts for what it is worth first, before we attempt to calculate that same influence on those are silent in this discussion.

[kdnxdr]

"It was, after all, reading poetry that affected/effected me enough to want to read more and go in search of poetry" Kieborsden

Maybe, maybe not. I'm barely educated and if I have any "higher learning" to speak of, I took it from public television. With all the programs that are being presented on the creation of our universe and, really, of all of existence, the overarching theme that I'm picking up is that there is an essential order, even yet in what we refer to as chaos, and that the order of any and everything has an underlying rythmn. If that's all true, the movement of an ocean wave to the despondent stare of a psych patient has it's own intrinsic order&rhymn and poetry does the job of speaking to that essential order/rythmn that is inherent in all of existence.

But, that's just my take. Poetry is like a pair of sun glasses, we "put it on" to take a look at something but with enough protection that the mechanism with wich we look is not harmed.

Addendum: I think I'm wanting to say, poetry can't help but exude out of everything and if we so choose, we "observe" through poetry what is already at work. I see the being of poetry, the reading of poetry and the writing of poetry (really, any poetic response as thinking and movement are as responsive as writing) as all just a matter of degree of poetic engagement.

[StephenD]

kdnxdr, it's not the same, to me at least. what you're describing is level 1 hapiness. i'll explain:


there are four types of happinesses:
1. pleasure- sex, drugs, music, food, etc
2. accomplishments- getting your PHD, winning the superbowl, etc
3. relationships- family, friends, romantic intimacies, etc
4. self-perpetuated happiness

as we can deduce, the fourth one is the one independent of outside forces. this is the self/consciousness. it is from where we get our words. it is from where we get our action. it is where we get our perception.


sure, sex is the same type of happiness as reading, but creating, not in my opinion.

[kborsden]

"It was, after all, reading poetry that affected/effected me enough to want to read more and go in search of poetry" Kieborsden

Maybe, maybe not.

I can only speak for myself, Elaine:


It was, after all, reading poetry that affected/effected me enough to want to read more and go in search of poetry;

So not quite a maybe for me - a definite. If there had never been poetry for me to read, I wouldn't have read it, and not having read it, I wouldn't be writing it.

On the other hand, if your thoughts on universal and cosmic rhythms are correct, then if not poetry, there would have been some other medium with which to match my need for expression and creativity... art, photography, music... or something else.

Perhaps that's what the point is. Is poetry today what it was in the past or has it evolved to suit that need, and only poetry for want of a better name? Is poetry dead, or reborn in a different jacket?

[kdnxdr]

I guess I like to believe that my personal approach to existence is from a more wholistic approach rather than a predominatly compartamental one.

(I better go get some more coffee....I'm sure my speller is still groggy).

[kdnxdr]

"Is poetry dead, or reborn in a different jacket? "

How would we "know" unless we were able to experience and measure the affect of any and all poetry?

Whew! That would be a trip.

[kdnxdr]

Just taking into consideration the model of the life/death cycle that seems to function in all of existence, it would stand to reason, for me, that the model of the life/death cycle would be foundational to the concept of poetry's existence, as well.

[kborsden]

Just taking into consideration the model of the life/death cycle that seems to function in all of existence, it would stand to reason, for me, that the model of the life/death cycle would be foundational to the concept of poetry's existence, as well.

And I can agree that it very likely is, but so again would rebirth or redistribution.

[StephenD]

Is poetry dead, or reborn in a different jacket?

what you were describing, kie, creative expression/art, sure you can say it's all poetry, but let's call it art, to be more accurate. anything can be art- anything we perceive to be art is art to us, because it is a subjective matter. and we all know that art has changed through the years, because of new technology and discoveries ; as for the reflective side of "art", that's always been there, and the interpreting/perception of art, as i said before, is up to us/our "self".

[kdnxdr]

For me, the life/death cycle is stated in different ways that reflect different belief systems and "rebirth & redistribution" are part of the life/death model, just stated within context of particular beliefs.

[StephenD]

of course life is fundamental to art! we have to perceive it (and we can't have perception without existing/consciousness) for it to exist to us/the "self"/our consciousness.

[kdnxdr]

I, personally, am an emphatic believer in the uniqueness of individuals. However, I do believe in the absolute integration of all of existence. It's only limited/partial, and so, weak, understanding that becomes the challenge of perceiving the totality of integrated existence. For me, poetry is one, if not THE key, to going beyond that restriction to obtain comprehensive understanding of the whole of existence.

I'm not smart at all about what I'm talking about but I believe everyone, regardless of status, is allowed to venture their thoughts on any given subject and what inspires me to make my statement about poetry is the very little that I have read/heard regarding the progressive development of consciousness and recorded information, beginning with symbols, which were, in fact, picture/symbols that morphed into what we now recognize as words.

It is a very thin line between poetry and polaroids, in my world. Otherwise, why did we take 3dimentional objects, reduce them to electronic impulses and now we are taking electronic impulses and working to reconstitute them into 3dimentional objects? Things morph, that's just the way it is.

[kborsden]

I guess we make up Blarg's 95% then ;)

[StephenD]

i do not agree that we can reach that understanding through art. art in my opinion means creation.

i believe we can experience the oneness, nirvana, whatever you want to call it, through a specific state of being in which we do not observe our own consciousness. we become completely unconscious.

according to quantum physics, the particle observed is in one fixed existence, however, the particle unobserved is a wave function, and exists at the same time in several places at once.

i also believe that the "strings" that make up the string theory. the strings that make up everything, are really strings of consciousness. (there's evidence, of course, i wouldn't believe in a flying spaghetti monster if there were nothing backing it up)

so in my opinion, being in this state of unconsciousness, this state of wave function, we're able to be infinite/the universe, or at least several places at once, and we assume it's being infinite because we're not used to being in that state, or it's a release of DMT from tricking our brain into thinking we were dead. or a mixture.

[Blarg]

4. self-perpetuated happiness

as we can deduce, the fourth one is the one independent of outside forces. this is the self/consciousness. it is from where we get our words. it is from where we get our action. it is where we get our perception.


sure, it's the same as reading, but creating, not in my opinion.

Sounds more like a talking point in an Ayn Randian universe to me. Self/consciousness independent of outside forces is a hilarious concept that could only be prompted by massive ego. Samuel L. Jackson had the right idea in response: Saying Motherfucker over and over and over again.

[kdnxdr]

I guess I've reached my tipping point.....I don't get the whole idea of the universal application of fucking.

Maybe.....on some very base level of thinking.....it's not the vulgarity of the concept....it's just I don't understand how one concept can be so often used, in such a myriad of circumstances, to be a "free card".

What the fuck does fuck have to do with fucking anything??? Why does this one word, over all other words, have the value of potence, like it's a valid statement of something to all things???

I just don't get it.....I guess I'll always be a bottomfeeder...my brain can't go that high. Oh well.....

(Sorry, I digress.)

[StephenD]

Sounds more like a talking point in an Ayn Randian universe to me. Self/consciousness independent of outside forces is a hilarious concept that could only be prompted by massive ego. Samuel L. Jackson had the right idea in response: Saying Motherfucker over and over and over again.

no it's not a hilarious concept that could only be prompted by massive ego. it's logic. we can not know if anything besides our own consciousness exists. know. i believe there are things outside our particle consciousness, that is all of the same stuff (us/i/everything), but that i can not prove, i do not know.

proof:
direct existence (thoughts/awareness)---
if it can not be possibly untrue then it is true


indirect existence (senses)---
if it can be possibly untrue then it may or may not be true; it is unknown.


our consciousness is the only thing we can prove, because it is the only thing we are directly experiencing.

[kdnxdr]

I would say, in context of poetry and existence, there is a dialogue, even when we don't know what that dialogue is. The dialogue is part and parcel of existence. Everything has a story/a picture, it's inseperable from the whole.

Something does not have to be "known" to exist. Everything that has ever existed has done so independent of being "known". Whether it is an interior existence or an exterior existence, as defined by the determination of the human body/mind.

Poetry, in it's truest sense, depicts the "warp and woof", the "ebb and flow", of existence. When we "do" poetry, we participate in existence, we "jump into" the mechanics of things, even the existence of death.

I would even go farther to say: Everything is a process and every process is a story, a motion, a series of descriptors that are, at the same time, an integral part of the very thing being described.

[kdnxdr]

Now, I'm visualizing a tee-shirt:

Hmmmm..........

Viva La Poetry!

Poetry Lives!

Do Poetry!

One of those has to be a money maker.

[StephenD]

Something does not have to be "known" to exist.

i'm not saying it does. i'm saying you can't prove, or know, it to exist.

[kborsden]

Do Poetry!

Back to the sexual?

[kdnxdr]

i'm not saying it does. i'm saying you can't prove, or know, it to exist.


That's why blackholes are so tricky, to prove by experience that they exist, you might not stick around long enough to tell anyone about it. :)

[kdnxdr]

Back to the sexual?


Well, maybe like line caps, people define the term by use?

[kborsden]

Well, maybe like line caps, people define the term by use?

:D;) yup!

[Blarg]

no it's not a hilarious concept that could only be prompted by massive ego. it's logic. we can not know if anything besides our own consciousness exists. know. i believe there are things outside our particle consciousness, that is all of the same stuff (us/i/everything), but that i can not prove, i do not know.

proof:
direct existence (thoughts/awareness)---
if it can not be possibly untrue then it is true


indirect existence (senses)---
if it can be possibly untrue then it may or may not be true; it is unknown.


our consciousness is the only thing we can prove, because it is the only thing we are directly experiencing.

On the other hand, you could walk in front of a passing bus and be introduced to lots of other things, and prove them.

[Bartholomew]

Poetry isn't dead. It just doesn't pay well.

Unless, of course, you put music to it.

[Magdalen]

I keep going back & forth on what "dead" means. Clearly poetry is animate, with at least a latent potential as "the living word", so should I be considering the term "dead" in a literal sense? As in, "no longer of this earth"? Since I read, write and speak poetry daily, it certainly is not dead to me or the many who partake, so it clearly can't be dead in the literal sense as poetry is still here.

Of course, since poetry is a mechanism (inanimate in that sense) of expression, a conveyance of thought and emotion able to assume various forms, shapes (able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!!) and figures, perhaps the greater weight of its existence should be considered figurative. Which, of course, leads me to think of poetry as an eternal "place-holder" like zero; a symbol (in the collective poetry) and a metaphor (in the singular poem) for the hard, soft, rigid, oozy, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" moments of life, distilled into words, poured onto the page and imbibed in various quantities and languages. So, poetry clearly is not dead in a figurative sense, as 320 posts in this thread attest.

Or, perhaps the phrase "Poetry is Dead" is purely idomatic, in which case I blame Friedrich Nietzsche for encouraging modern thinkers to obliterate useful concepts!!

In conclusion, I am unwilling to admit to the finality of the concept of "dead" and see it, as others in the thread have noted, as a part of a continuum, a process that any one may, at any time, perceive as an "end result" or finish, while another may just as rightly perceive as a beginning.

PS -- My T-shirt phrase:


There's Never Enuf Fuck
in'
Poetry

[StephenD]

you would only know that you are experiencing the sensation (which you experience in your consciousness), blarg. not that it came from outside you.

why don't you give it a chance, eh? think about it.

[kdnxdr]

You think the AW poetry forums could amass some cash if we cranked out some nice T's??

Sounds like a definate poetry project we should seriously consider getting under way!!!


Oh, PNHT??? Wherefore art thou??

[kborsden]

T-shrts with AW poems printed on them? Excellent... short verse naturally.

[kdnxdr]

How about:

Rythmn makes more than a rhyme
if you want a poet, I've got the time!

(I know....it's cheesy :tongue)

[dclary]

How about:

Rythmn makes more than a rhyme
if you want a poet, I've got the time!

(I know....it's cheesy :tongue)

"Poets do it in couplets."

[Magdalen]

How about:

Rythmn makes more than a rhyme
if you want a poet, I've got the time!

(I know....it's cheesy :tongue)

I can make it cheesier --

Poets
use the rhythm
method!!!

[poetinahat]

Kiss me, I'm from Nantucket


Let us go then, you and I

-or-

I am old, I am old
But still I get my trousers rolled
ifyaknowhatimean

[Blarg]

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

Shut up! I'm trying to get some sleep here!

[kborsden]

On a T-shirt:

Should I compare thee
to a muscle-tee

On a coffee mug:

Should I compare thee
to a cup of tea

[kdnxdr]

uh oh! I think the thread is getting tangled!

[boboratory]

Hi everyone,

If I may ask, so the discussion is whether poetry is dead. I've read through alot of posts that deal with some pretty deep concepts, but nothing that says "Poetry is dead because..."

So, if you believe poetry is dead, why do you believe that?

[kborsden]

So, if you believe poetry is dead, why do you believe that?

Summary of discussion thus far in its broad entirety: several posts state that poetry is dead for lack of presence and/or relevance -- and several more posts contest that.

[kdnxdr]

I'm just supposing here but....what if the question that's being asked isn't really whether poetry is dead or not but, rather, is it relevant, or not? I think.

[Blarg]

Those two are thoroughly entwined, and their relation has been brought up in some of the posts here and implied in others.

[William Haskins]

So, if you believe poetry is dead, why do you believe that?

mostly due to the stench of its rotting corpse.

[Cella]

mostly due to the stench of its rotting corpse.

This is rather glum, William.

[William Haskins]

tell me about it.

[Cella]

I'm afraid that's all I got.

[William Haskins]

the only thing more repulsive than a rotting corpse is a poor bastard trying to give it CPR.

[Cella]

has anyone told you how terrifying you are, lately?

[Magdalen]

From Post #23 of this thread:
i don't see it being rooted in the relaxation of formalism. i mean, the beats turned language inside-out, and they maintained a strong and serious readership.

one could argue that the decline of poetry corresponds to the rise of mass media, and that's a part of it, in my opinion. most song lyrics, greeting card copy, commericial jingles are tripe. but the message they convey is easy to grasp.

fed on this steady diet of crap, the mental muscles designed to read and process real poetry are reduced to a state of atrophy. a cultural laziness sets in and people are too fat to reach for any but the lowest hanging fruit.

and (quick apology in advance to any slammers) the merging of poetry and performance dilutes and cheapens the writing, because it compensates often bad writing with moody pretention or "you go girl" attitude.

their intentions are good, i think, but the result is mostly disappointing.

i started the thread impulsively, and to be honest, i don't believe poetry is dead, i just think it's really sick. it'll come back around but i doubt i'll live to see it.

oh yeah, the other thing you mentioned, the lowering of the bar. yes.

and the internet had blown that wide open. with forums and websites, all manner of so-called poetry can proliferate to fill scam anthologies and get lots of critiques with dancing smilies.

it's that mentality of automatic validation that "anything can be poetry" and if you say it doesn't work, then you just don't get it or you're trying to tell them how to write.

it's like how they won't let kids keep score in soccer games.

i don't know. i need a cigarette.


Just thought I'd quote from the 1st page of this damn thread and save all the future-newbs from dragging this up on the mistaken, confused (or awesome) notion of what certain members (past & present) think about the current and recent past of poetry, in general.

Also needed to get rid of the image of giving CPR to a rotting corpse. Also just wanted to add I have nothing to add.

I'm having a cigarette.

[William Haskins]

has anyone told you how terrifying you are lately?

the mall santa seemed a tad vexed.

[Cella]

Well, for what it's worth, I like poetry quite a bit, but am not familiar with it enough to know what could be considered good or poor quality. All I know is if it resonates with me, or it doesn't, and that's something I can usually tell pretty quickly.

So while some of it, at first glance, appears to just be whining or otherwise meaningless to me, I am hoping that with more familiarity and understanding, I can find the meaning behind the work. I feel like a child in an art museum who likes a brightly colored painting without knowing why. Someday, I'll know why.

Carry on.


:)

[kborsden]

RE: Post#23

I agree with every word in that post - and if poetry is dead, than I am a burker, a resurrection-man and bodysnatcher; I can live with that.

[kdnxdr]

Why did I ever think this thread was so much shorter?

[kdnxdr]

"Poetry, whose material is language, is perhaps the most human and least worldly of the arts, the one in which the end product remains closest to the thought that inspired it.... Of all things of thought, poetry is the closest to thought, and a poem is less a thing than any other work of art ...
"




Hannah Arendt (http://quotes.dictionary.com/author/Hannah+Arendt)




Read more - http://w.po.st/share/entry/redir?publisherKey=Dictionary&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquotes.dictionary.com%2FPoetry_wh ose_material_is_language_is_perhaps_the&title=Poetry_whose_material_is_language_is_perhaps _the&sharer=copypaste

Maybe this isn't the best thread to share this quote but, I wanted to share it. If taken as a truth, then it would seem to suggest that poetry is so close to thought that, in actuality, we normally think in poetics and it then gets processed into prose or "mechanical language" (which is whatever is needed to get a process communicated). And, if that's true, then it would seem that poetry could never die as it is essential to thinking.

Just my little musing for the morning.......now, for a fresh cup of hot tea.

[Blarg]

It appears to me that what is being suggested is that the end product is not identical to the thought that inspired to it; rather, the end product is that type of art closest to its inspiring thought.

[William Haskins]

as eliot put it:

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

[kdnxdr]

And, THE SHADOW knows.......

[Magdalen]

And, THE SHADOW knows.......


I dunno, kid, that rings kinda hollow to me!

[Nephytis]

i don't believe poetry is dead. i have a cousin who does 'haiku friday' on facebook and everyone who posts writes a haiku.

i believe that modern poetry are songs, poems with music, and blogs that are diaries.

[Blarg]

And, THE SHADOW knows.......

It always knows
the flavor of fruit!
Wherever it grows!

Oh, wait, that's Toucan Sam ...

[These Mean Streets]

If poetry is not dead, then it has definitely become irrelevant.

Which is worse?

[kborsden]

In what way irrelevant? Does mainsteam equate to relevance? Or is it personal meaning, attention, potential, power, effect, cause, monetary gain? -- if I am affected by it, is it relevant to me? Define relevance... please.

[William Haskins]

If poetry is not dead, then it has definitely become irrelevant.

Which is worse?

well, in biological terms, it's better to be sick than dead, if one holds out any hope for revival.

[These Mean Streets]

In what way irrelevant? Does mainsteam equate to relevance? Or is it personal meaning, attention, potential, power, effect, cause, monetary gain? -- if I am affected by it, is it relevant to me? Define relevance... please.Relevance, in this case, means things like importance. Utility. Use. Need. Necessity. Desire.

While some people feel these things for poetry, of course – just as there are people who obsess over 18th century lithographs or bowling shoes or 50's era toys or swing dancing - the overwhelming majority do not feel a need for poetry. There is a collective desire lacking for it. People – overall - don't use it, need it, feel its lack, miss it, notice it.

Does poetry matter? To some, undoubtedly. To the overwhelming majority of people? No.

[These Mean Streets]

well, in biological terms, it's better to be sick than dead, if one holds out any hope for revival.Are you saying you hope for poetry's revival?

And if so - why? Why should it be revived?

Why do you feel poetry should be?

[kdnxdr]

I NEED poetry, like a fix, like air, like water, like life itself. And, I don't really read that much poetry. But, I live it.

You are poetry! I'm poetry! Nature is poetry!

Poetry exists because it's the nature of thinking, itself.

What happens is that we, for many reasons since the advent of science and machines, have modified our language and thinking to be "machine friendly"; we've become just cogs in one giant process and, according to Kurzweil, soon, if not already, the only reason for human existence will become the arts and slavery. I would suggest finding your medium and entrenching yourself in it before they come to take you away to work in the factories.

[kborsden]

Relevance, in this case, means things like importance. Utility. Use. Need. Necessity. Desire.

While some people feel these things for poetry, of course – just as there are people who obsess over 18th century lithographs or bowling shoes or 50's era toys or swing dancing -

the overwhelming majority do not feel a need for poetry.There is a collective desire lacking for it. People – overall - don't use it, need it, feel its lack, miss it, notice it.

Does poetry matter? To some, undoubtedly. To the overwhelming majority of people? No.

How does something qualify to 'matter'? Who decides and by which measuring stick?

Poetry is used widely in advertising -- many poetry journals need poetry in order to have content. Individuals desire to read poetry and to write it... just look at the numbers here... it is certainly something the poets of AW (and other sites) necessitate. Maybe it doesn't matter to you and you are asserting an opinion as a defining fact for everyone?

Less and less people read books, not many people actually pay attention to politics -- are these also irrelevant?

the overwhelming majority do not feel a need for poetry.

Really? And you know this because...

Does poetry matter? To some, undoubtedly. To the overwhelming majority of people? No.

So, mainstream means relevant then? Is everything which is mainstream or popular therefore relevant? Important? Can it be that some things which are mainstream or popular are unimportant, e.g. ice cream; MacDonalds; wearing your trousers half-off your arse (would the world end without them?) -- why is the opposite then not true? Why can't something non-mainstream be relevant?

[kdnxdr]

BTW, These Mean Streets, welcome, I don't think we've met before.

Of course, by the responses so far, you've probably determined that you hit a nerve. That's cool. It's good to get a fresh word even on an old subject.

I'm wondering, what has your own personal experience been with poetry? For some reason, I have the thought that maybe you read and write quite a bit of poetry yourself.

Many of us here know that achy feeling of not having anyone or anywhere to share our passion. But, everything, yes, everything has it's own paticular market/audience. Nothing, except God, is absolutely pervasive, and, even that, is in high dispute. So.....

If you don't mind, it would be nice if you would share some of your work with us. Roam around the forums and see where you feel most comfortable. Or, feel free to lurk a bit.

Hope to see something you've written soon. We're a relatively friendly bunch with a few sadistic meanings thrown in, but we keep them chained.
(I hope no one makes me define "friendly".)

[These Mean Streets]

How does something qualify to 'matter'? Who decides and by which measuring stick?

Poetry is used widely in advertising -- many poetry journals need poetry in order to have content. Individuals desire to read poetry and to write it... just look at the numbers here... it is certainly something the poets of AW (and other sites) necessitate. Maybe it doesn't matter to you and you are asserting an opinion as a defining fact for everyone?
Of course you're interested in it. Nobody ever said otherwise. I would assume that everyone in this thread was interested in poetry to one extent or another.

As an example of what I mean:

How many people in society do you think are writers? Or even care about reading in general? But regardless, we'll concentrate on those who actively seek to write a book. Even the most generous estimate wouldn't put it over 50% (and it's A LOT less than that) which already means a minority.

Now, out of that many, how many do you think frequent Absolute Write?

Now out of all the people who frequent AW, how many of those frequent the poetry forums? How many participated in the last poetry contest? How many voted? What were the numbers percentage-wise? A majority? Hardly.

No matter how you cut it, the vast MINORITY of those who frequent this site alone, participate in poetry. So imagine all the mechanics, bus drivers, cops, doctors, businessmen, business owners, employees, farmers, factory workers, actors, movie people, journalists, magazine writers, illustrators, graffiti artists, break dancers, cooks, waitresses, construction workers, policemen, firemen, politicians, civil workers, etc. etc. etc. etc etc. etc. – WHO DON'T READ, WRITE OR CARE ABOUT POETRY.

Yes, of course there are those who passionately love and care about poetry. That's a given. But they are not the majority. Far from it.

In other words, it's a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the population (and even this forum) who participate in poetry. Thus my statement about relevance.

People nowadays are too busy paying the bills, raising their kids, dodging the bullets (metaphorically.) And downtime is relegated to less mind-taxing endeavors: like TV, games, internet etc.

Anyway, that's what I meant by my statement.

If you opinion differs, fine. The OP asked a question, I gave my thoughts on the subject.

[These Mean Streets]

BTW, These Mean Streets, welcome, I don't think we've met before.

Of course, by the responses so far, you've probably determined that you hit a nerve. That's cool. It's good to get a fresh word even on an old subject.

I'm wondering, what has your own personal experience been with poetry? For some reason, I have the thought that maybe you read and write quite a bit of poetry yourself.

Many of us here know that achy feeling of not having anyone or anywhere to share our passion. But, everything, yes, everything has it's own paticular market/audience. Nothing, except God, is absolutely pervasive, and, even that, is in high dispute. There is nothing wrong with sharing your passion. Nothing at all. I merely answered the question asked by the OP with my own thoughts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Recognizing the fact that not many people in this world care about poetry doesn't lessen the feelings of those who do. Nor does it lighten it or cheapen their feelings. In fact, I never mentioned the importance of their feelings at all.

I like poetry (quantify: some poetry.) I don't care if others like it or not. That has nothing to do with me and my enjoyment of good poetry.

But I've lived a good number of years, and known many, many, many people in my life – and not one (besides people I've met here and some other forums) knows, writes, reads or cares about poetry.

And you know what? I don't care. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it nor does it lessen my feelings about it in any way.

[kborsden]

And you know what? I don't care. It doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it nor does it lessen my feelings about it in any way.

So it is still relevant to you? ;)

The thing about relevance is context -- it's a subjective term that means nothing at all when speaking about absolutes, that's all I was getting at.

[Perscribo]

Are you saying you hope for poetry's revival?

And if so - why? Why should it be revived?

Why do you feel poetry should be?

Wow. Although this feels a bit like a 5th grade essay question to me, I'm going to take a whack a it.

Poetry paints upon a more malleable canvas than the visual arts--the canvas of our minds. For every one impression a painting might make on an observer, I believe there are at least a hundred more impressions that same painting could make as a poem. The same could be said when comparing it to photography. This impression, connected by forms rhythmic, thick with language that--if carefully placed--evokes an even greater impression when said (or sung) aloud.

Poetry is sustenance, survival, and healing. It's a great substitute for alcohol, crack, the next joint--or whatever else that might have stopped getting us through the night. If you're Christian, it's easier to ingest than a giant King James Bible. Two Psalms and call Him in the morning is really all it takes. One of the oldest pieces of scripture in the Old Testament is the Song of Moses, a poem which some speculate (OK, so maybe just one old college professor) was not written by Moses but by a much older scribe and was sung by the Hebrew women during all that desert wandering. I'd like to think that if some catastrophic event wiped out all the electricity and all the books were scattered or destroyed (choose your end-of-the-world scenario), poetry like that would survive all over again. The center cannot hold. We must glue it together.

Or, if you want to be Buddhist about it, poetry is a distraction and/or distillation of suffering. It can fill the mental prescriptions we need to balance out the pharmaceutical-happy medical establishment--for those suffering from disease or those suffering from the impact of someone else's disease. It can bring the Art of War, so to speak, back to every soldier poised to put a bullet into another's brain.

I know there's a lot more I'm leaving out here. These are just a few justifications for revival that come to my mind.

[Blarg]

LOL I love a good rant. :)

[Pat~]

I don't believe poetry is dead, and I think it will always BE, regardless of how individuals perceive it. Like music, it's always been, and the fortunate ones discover it and try to capture it to share with others.

The reading of/appreciation of/need for/purchasing power of poetry might well be dead, though. Perhaps both these conversations are going on simultaneously in this thread.

[kborsden]

I think you may have a point, Pat. My observation is simply that relevance does not equate to mainstream. The power that reading has, whatever is being read, is great in how an individual sees their lives enriched by it. Prose and poetry have an inherent humanity because they are the thoughts of humanity expressed in literary terms; just because television and other visual media have a more immediate recognition does not overrule the fact they are in most cases influenced by literature first -- even if just considering the scripts or technical outlines for what is required to piecing those together. We write first before we can create any mainstream medium.

A second thought is this: the public appreciation of poetry may be in decline, but the private appreciation? I don't think so.

[Pat~]

Hi Kie--good points. Relevance having to do with mainstream acceptance is surely one way of looking at it that has a fair degree of validity. But I wonder, too, if, in a deeper sense, poetry, like art, music, dance and other inspirational or expressive things, might be 'relevant' to humanity whether or not there is an appreciative enough audience to substantiate that by investing their time, energy, and/or money into it. Personally, I think so.

Guess it's like one of those 'if a tree falls in the woods...' things. But I'll quit before getting stuck in too much philosophical mire, here. ;)

[kborsden]

:D I think we're saying the same thing anyway... I missed out the word 'not' in my post! ;)

[Pat~]

It would seem we are, then! :)

[Brandt]

I hate talking about this, guess I'd rather bury my head in the sand. Maybe we need a few new superstars with something relevant to say and some way to be universally heard. I think we have all that (although I'd be hard pressed to name 5 contemporary star poets... not because they're not out there, but because I'm just not well read), so why the disconnect? Is it public perception? That would seem correctible, at least to some extent, by an aggressive, organized, and well funded PR campaign... we might have pieces of that, but obviously not the whole enchilada. When I ask my teenagers to name 3 poets, they named Frost, Poe, Eliot... all gone. Then, maybe, in another 50 years, people will look for 'what were the poets saying about their (our) time'? I'd like to think there's a better way.

I love reading poetry, not because I love reading, but actually because I like the comparative brevity in lieu of reading a novel. I enjoy the compactness of the message/intent presented and it fascinates me how much can be imparted/said/felt within the relatively short space of a poem. But that's just me. Point is, good poetry is appreciated when read by most poeple, and nothing is quite an adequate substitute when campared... so how does it become sought after? Who cares? I think many would if exposed.

[B.D. Eyeslie]

If I were more prolific, I'd worry that I might have had a hand in her demise, but alas, I'm so incredibly unmotivated I know my alibi will hold up.

[Brandt]

If I were more prolific, I'd worry that I might have had a hand in her demise, but alas, I'm so incredibly unmotivated I know my alibi will hold up.

Move over... you've got company.:D

[kborsden]

:) Maybe those of us that are more prolific are to blame for saturating the market with our lament...