Is Simpler Always Better in Poetry?

[ddgryphon]

In the Fathoms Deep (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41563) thread, I offered a reaction to the Michelle's excellent image. I knew the reaction was my voice and intended it as more a reaction than a rewrite.

This prompted a very interesting post by Crashbam That I will quote here:

Not to be a complete, suck up, brown nosing newbie, but I think both versions work, though in different ways.

I like the simplicity of Michelle's version. It's a simple clear image. It's haikuian (If this isn't a real word, I take full credit for bastardizing the language).

dddgryphon's image is more vivid in some ways (They circle the dark depths, never breaching into light)

I'm on an anti adverb kick, so I'm on the fence about fitfully (I just finished William Zinssers "On Writing Well"). And I think I like the simplicity of whale over leviathan, though that word appeals to my Melville obsession.
Which made me think -- "Wow, does my voice overcomplicate and obfusticate meaning?" I know that Crashbam didn't intend it this way, but my initial reaction was just that.

Then I thought, maybe I'm just old now, and my voice sounds old fashioned -- not an out of touch sort of thing for a middle-aged writer to think.

So, I looked up Zinsser's book and found some interesting quotes, That spoke specifically to Zinsser's direction. I ask you to bear with me if this becomes overly long, as I think it is an important discussion.

(whole of this is found at http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/general/sources/zinsser.htm)Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon. . .But the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence. And they usually occur, ironically, in proportion to education and rank. . .Clutter is the ponderous euphemism that turns a slum into a depressed socioeconomic area, a salesman into a marketing representative and garbage collectors into waste disposal personnel. In New Canaan, Connecticut, the incinerator is now the "volume reduction unit." I think of Bill Mauldin's cartoon showing two hoboes riding a freight train. One of them says, "I started as a simple bum, but now I'm hard-core unemployed.". . .
Style is organic to the person doing the writing, as much a part of him as his hair, or, if he is bald, his lack of it. Trying to add style is like adding a toupee. At first glance the formerly bald man looks young and even handsome. But at second glance and with a toupee there is always a second glancehe doesn't look quite right. The problem is not that he doesn't look well groomed; he does, and we can only admire the wigmaker's almost perfect skill. The point is that he doesn't look like himself.
This is the problem of the writer who sets out deliberately to garnish his prose. You lose whatever it is that makes you unique. The reader will usually notice if you are putting on [end of page 20] airs. He wants the person who is talking to him to sound genuine. Therefore a fundamental rule is: be yourself.
I think that Zinsser means well and is correct in a number of circumstances. I think his advice is more valuable in terms of newspaper reporting, non-fiction, script writing, and daily writing. I'm not so sure I agree with his assertions when it comes to story telling or poetry.

I did a quick bit a research at Poets.org and come up with the following:

Alone (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15624) by Maya Angelou
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19212 White Apples by Donald Hall

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16497 Fishing on the Susquehanna in July by Billy Collins

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15605 Vespers by Louise Gluck

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16423 Take the I Out by Sharon Olds

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16891 Quilts by Nikki Giovanni

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16762 Dishwater by Ted Kooser

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15227 Miracle Ice Cream by Adrienne Rich

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16395 June Light by Richard Wilbur

All randomly selected from the "Most Popular Contemporary Poets on Poets.org, Summer 2006 and all excellent poems (at least I think so)

I am struck by the sparsness of their work. There is indeed a simplicity of language and a plainess to their work. Work which remains beautiful and poetic despite the lack of florid language.

If you've made it this far, go on to the next post. Where I lay out the 10 most popular poets on Poets.org Summer 2006.

After that we can actually begin to have a discussion.

{Sorry, previewed to see if I remembered the format correctly and am not retyping that bit -- the links are good}

[ddgryphon]

With Maya Angelou the only carryover on the list I will extend to number 11:

Here they are with a random poem:

William Shakespeare (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15556)

Langston Hughes (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15608)

e e cummings (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15399)

Robert Frost (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15718)

Emily Dickinson (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15391)

W. H. Auden (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15546)

Walt Whitman (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15753)

Sylvia Plath (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15292)

William Carlos Williams (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15540)

Dylan Thomas (http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15380)

Okay. Between these two posts we have apples, oranges, pears, cherries, blueberries and watermelons to compare against one another.

All of this to ask a question of poetry. What is poetic? What rules can we apply to a poetic bit of writing? Can the same rules govern all forms of writing?

Then let's make it personal:

What do you mean when you choose words? What makes you pick a word like Leviathan over Whale? (I'll give my answer eventually) When is an adverb needed or not needed?

I'm not trying to be difficult. You may remember how I dislike all the attention paid to "The Red Wheelbarrow" and how I don't find it worthy of the immense praise and importance put on it. In fact, I find "Tract" a much more worthy and important effort by the same poet and wonder why? Why do I prefer one over the other? What makes something sing for me?

Finally, in my third post, I'll give a quick prose example, just to clarify my concern over Zinsser's importance when writing creatively.

[ddgryphon]

This will show where my sympathies lay, more clearly than anything else.

I've grabbed a random paragraph from my favorite prose author (Ray Bradbury) and intend to Zinsser it. FWIW, I have randomly opened "The Martian Chronicles" and found the opening paragraph to "October 2002: The Shore"

Mars was a distant shore, and the men spread upon it in waves. Each wave different, and each wave stronger. The first wave carried with it men accustomed to spaces and coldness and being alone, the coyote and cattlemen, with no fat on them, with faces the years had worn the flesh off, with eyes like nailheads, and hands like the material of old gloves, ready to touch anything. Mars could do nothing to them, for they were bred to plains and prairies as open as the Martian fields. They came and made things a little less empty, so that others would find courage to follow. They put panes in hollow windows and lights behind the panes.

My edit:

Men spread like waves over the surface of Mars. Each wave was stronger than the one before it. The first wave of men knew spaces, coldness and being alone. There was no fat on them, because they had been hardened by their lives. They were leathery and ready to touch anything. Mars couldn't hurt them because they came from plains and prairies as open and empty as the Martian fields. With their arrival, things became less empty and others found courage to follow. They created homes that lit the way for others.

My thoughts: Many of the ideas presented by Zinsser are excellent for the clarity required of articles, non-fiction, and daily writing. For my money, however, Poetry and creative writing in general isn't so much about the facts as it is about the experience. Words are chosen for their implications as well as their explicitness. Some words are more evocative than others -- some words echo differently (like harmonics in music) leaving a different vibration in the reader or listener.

Please don't read this as a defense of my choice of words, but I think that the choice between whale and leviathan is an excellent example of linguistic harmonics. The vibe and image of whale is different than that of leviathan so, depending on the moment and the carriage of emotion and image, which word you choose is inherently different.

That's the long and the short of it -- what's the worst, you've read some excellent poetry and listend to a crazy middle aged man rant on about something.

I'm interested what other folks here think about word choice, voice, and the nature of writing.

I hope this becomes at least as lively as the Wheelbarrow discussion.

[wordsheff]

I must admit it's late and i only read ur thread's headline, and to comment on that, the combination of simple and poet (or the grammatical flowers of those roots), i just wanted to mention a quote from Tu Fu I came across today:

"The ideas of a poet should be noble and simple."

Got it second hand from the prose portion of Gary Snyder's Turtle Island.

I've thought over that list before tho, that i noticed you posted from Poets.org...not really too surprising, except I'm surprised Billy Collins isn't on there, I'm really starting to like him...and I think the little bit I've read on his poetry career would be inspiring to everyone, so I recommend looking him up to anyone not familiar with him. I've only read two recent ones, "Snow Day," "Rain" (just published in the Paris Review so I'm not sure it's online) then the ones that are always anthologized...i forget the name right now...something about how to read poetry, what modern readers try to do and what they should do.

WS

[Godfather]

I think it depends completely on the poem, and the nature of the poem.

Lately, I've been using very simple language. And I guess I'm proving a point, in my mind. I'm proving that I'm not pretensious, people sometimes tell me I am but in my own head, I'm sure as hell not. More importantly, I'm using my own language.

If a poem works with more complex language, "big words" and whatnot, then that poem should consist of "big words" and whatnot, depending on the poets intentions.

[jst5150]

I'd offer that you should use the word you mean to use. For instance, a whale is not a leviathan. Cold, cool, freezing and chilled are all different words. Using the right word, regardless of how many syllables it may have, excuses you from making excuses.

In a recent poem posted here, I used the word "aqueous." I knew what the word meant. I looked it up in Webster's to verify the exact meaning. It was the exact meaning and I meant to couple it with "bask." As the attorney down the hall reminded me, words mean something. All of them. I meant to say aqueous bask.

The more you learn about language -- or whatever you are using to communicate your message (language for poems, paint for paintings; ink for drawings; and so on), the better you are able to use those tools to tell your story.

Off to write my poem about a dead elven warrior. Cheers.

vr, Jason

[ddgryphon]

Kevin:

Great thoughts. I think you need an intimacy with words akin to a Jazz player's intimacy with music in order to write like that. Judging from your work, you have an internal relationship with words that allows you to write in ways others wish they could. Same way Monk could play in ways others wished they could.

About Monk -- and I know I always fall back on music for explanation -- but people would look and analyze what he would do and think "you can't do that" but they were amazed, because you could, and it worked beautifully. Somebody has to cross the ocean. Rewriting is a tool many of us need, but not all of us. I need it because I'm constantly reaching with my words, trying to reach a common understanding between the words and me. This was Beethoven's experience in composing -- fighting for his meaning. Mozart didn't fight, he was so much at one with the music that it literally poured out of him onto the page -- nearly perfect in a single draft. In all of music history we've only had one Mozart. The rest of us fall between the worst and best.

You are in tune with the resonance of your words -- the right word falls from your mind and the resonance fills us, the readers, even if you yourself don't.

This is a part of what I'm talking about. A lot of us here are trying to learn and grow and are fighting to reach that zen state which you exemplify.

Don't apologize for being brilliant and I won't apologize for not being so. I'd hate to have to commission something from you and slowly poison you to death ;) . We'd all suffer in the end for that.

BTW: I'm glad to see you posting, if only in the poetry game, your verse again. It always resonates, and in the end, that's what I think good writing should do: resonate.

[poetinahat]

Kevin, you'll always be the Bete Noir, but there's no hate; never was. Your way works great for you, and we're all glad for your gift. Sometimes it falls that way for me, but rarely. I have to work to make things look like they just came to me, except for the occasional inspired bon mot, and I can't take credit for those.

Even then, I think things that "just come to me" have actually been rattling around for a while, and they've just finally found the right place to land. (Sounds naff, but you know what I mean.)

Dirk -- what a fantastic example: Mozart vs. Beethoven vs. Monk.

Jason, you've made a great point as well. I was going to blather on (oh, guess what -- I still am) about how different styles work for different voices. But, well, you said that already. In Dirk's terms, I suppose, John Lee Hooker wouldn't have sounded right playing Gershwin, nor vice versa.

(Sorry for the intrusion; I feel like the John Madden figure here, popping in to restate what you've already heard. BAM! Poetry's a game of inches!)

[pconsidine]

I tend to prefer simpler words. My philosophy has always been to work hard to keep people from getting hung up on what something means and focus on why it's there. To me, that has meant choosing words that are common and easily understood in the interest of not creating roadblocks between my reader and my point.

Not to say that I'm above playing a little fast and loose with the language when I feel like it (after all, what kind of word is swiggles anyway?), but those are more rare than otherwise.

Just my 2¢.

[Rivana]

Always is always stupid,
never is never right.

lol. You can quote me on that.

No, but seriously -I think too many artists in whatever form they choose to work spend far too much time in search of the whole grail of their vocation.
I cannot for the life of me find one rule in all the world that fits 100% of the time. And with that I mean -no, simpler isn't always better. The right word, rhythm, meaning, tone for the right piece of poetry is right. It doesn't get any simpler than that, it can't. It's also the hardest part of creating, the one that divides artists from amateurs if one so wishes; the weighing of scales, the judging of all things big and small, be it consciously or unconsciously done.

[veinglory]

"Simpler is better" is common poetry advice in poetry like "write in third person" or "show not tell" is in prose. There are plenty of exceptions and it can be over done. I see people taking out so much of a poem sometimes that it reads more like a classified advertisement.

[wordsheff]

God, people really do think too much. For me, it's not even a question of simpler...it's FIRST THOUGHTS. I don't see one route and take the simpler one or the more difficult one. I see one route and it's my only option. My one piece of advice, when writing poetry: DON'T THINK!


You could change "writing poetry" to "making policy" and I would swear that was George W. Bush himself.

"(Hate me if you must.)"
C'mon...you think people HATE you? That's a strong word, man...maybe adamently disagree.

I think your philosophy is for the lazy poet who doesn't care about his poetry...and I don't know if you're a lazy poet (note: I'm not calling you in general lazy), but I do know you don't care about your poetry (or maybe you'd word it differently...maybe care isn't the right word). I can't think of any masterpieces of any piece of art that didn't require time and revision...

certainly no movie or architecture was done in this way, and a poem is not altogether different from either of those art forms....

IDK, pure and SIMPLE: your philosophy on poetry puts it on the level of an email message...I mean, am I wrong in saying that, KTC? Note it's not meant as an insult, it's just true that I write my emails in the way you say you write poetry, and my emails are usually filled with typos and sarcasm lost in translation.

-WS

[wordsheff]

Ah, but the improv one might add...I don't know much about jazz but I can imagine someone mentioning jazz again and again in this thread, but didn't the Beats and those of the Harlem Renaissance, among many others I'm sure I'm unaware of, use that "jazz philosophy" to death? C'mon, that's over and done with.

Now really, improv, such as the stage comedians do...does a poet want to be grouped with them? I mean, one can probably elevate that to high art, but really, is improv not for a laugh in the here and now...how many improv performances have you seen from 50 years ago? So what makes one think an "improv poem" is going to be read 50 years from now? See, one may not care if their poem is read 50 days from now, but I do...so if that is where we differ, so be it.

This is a debate probably as hopeless as religion and politics b/c deep down written in stone are our beliefs, and it takes TIME TIME TIME to erode those away until it's time for a new one.

-WS

[Stew21]

I happen to agree with Kevin. When I try to edit myself in poetry (not in other writing) it never turns out right. The ones that do turn out right, I never searched for simple or complex, I just wrote. When I did have my "editor on" the work came out uninspired at best. I was trying too hard and failing. I was struggling with it. when I let it all go, and just wrote, it actually ended up not half bad. AT least that is how it works for me. I'm not a studier of poetic form, though, just a writer.
It's different for everyone, I suppose. Simple strikes me more when I READ poetry. When I write it, all is fair game, it's the words from someplace deeper.

My point: I don't think it matters how it gets to the page, or if it simple or complex, just that once it's there it is felt by the readers.

[pconsidine]

Ah, but the improv one might add...I don't know much about jazz but I can imagine someone mentioning jazz again and again in this thread, but didn't the Beats and those of the Harlem Renaissance, among many others I'm sure I'm unaware of, use that "jazz philosophy" to death? C'mon, that's over and done with. I always get a little miffed when people think that the "jazz philosophy" means that you can do whatever you want whenever you want to with no regard for anything or anyone else.

For all its seemingly free-flowing ideas, jazz music is more grounded in advanced learning, technical proficiency and just plain practice than any other art form. The original jazz masters learned from the masters of classical music like Nadia Boulanger, knowing that in order to gain the freedom that they were looking for, they first needed to learn something about discipline. Jazz's random feeling doesn't come from ignorance of the rules. It comes from the knowledge of so many different rules that any note can be justified.

To me, someone's first thoughts might be worth reading, but I would never presume to call them a poem. Art requires work. Anything else is just a happy accident.

[Stew21]

To me, someone's first thoughts might be worth reading, but I would never presume to call them a poem. Art requires work. Anything else is just a happy accident.

I don't think this accounts for natural ability, nearly enough. Just my opinion.

eta: I don't think this discussion is really about how it gets to the page, but the result being simple or complex and how it effects the reader. which is better? not which way the writer wrote it.

[P.H.Delarran]

I'm most attracted to work that is complex in thought but simply put. Give me some profound concept that has been hammered down into a few choice words and I'll call you brilliant. But that doesn't mean the words need to be simple, in fact, that's where more complex words may work best. Or they may not, it depends on the point being made. Back to the leviathan here. It's a completely different creature than a whale and brings much more complex traits to mind. Changes the poem immensly. As has already been said here, what point is the poet trying to make? They should consider the impact of each word. Not seek a pretty word just to look smart. So it can work the opposite, a simple word may be all that's needed for a complex thought, and a complex word may best describe a simple concept. Poet's discretion.
But either way, too much description is just fluff. Unless the point is about excess. However, some poets can pull it off. It's all about personal style. A poet should stick with his basic instinct on this and also go with what he likes to read. There are no hard fast rules.

In prose, I get highly annoyed at too much description. Sure, tell me that it's Fall by briefly describing the turning leaves or browning grass, but I don't need this commentary for the entire journey. It gets stale. Kill the fluff and keep it fresh. However, I'm currently reading Tom Robbins, who inundates his work with metaphor and simile and description, it would be overkill except for one thing, his associations are so off the wall, so completely astray from the usual that I find myself gleefully wallowing in their excess, seeking out the next. He has found a way to make my mind consider ideals that I may never have thought of otherwise. Usually I skim through long descriptive sentences to get back to the plot of a story, but he manages to weave color and reflection into simple plot and has captured and held my interest.

[Stew21]

p.h. - I love Tom Robbins. He is brilliant in his view of things, is he not? What a KOOK! :) And yes, too much description can kill something for me, but when T.R. does it, I get a completely new perspective that I like to see him round out fully. You know he writes his novels a sentence at a time, meaning no outline, no plot, first sentence, make it perfect, second sentence same thing. Sometimes he can write a bunch of them in a day, sometimes he works all day on one. Amazing the method behind that madness. Doesn't matter how he does it, the result is always entertaining. Pure talent.
And then I read Ernest Hemingway with short declaritive sentences and clean short description and I absolutely LOVE it. So completely different, and both so wonderful. The picture or thought evoked and created, the final product and how it makes a reader feel is what matters, simple, complex or somewhere in between. Evoking feeling from a reader matters, not a particular use of style.

[wordsheff]

I am drawn more to the complex, like an ashbery poem TO ME...whereas a billy collins poem i generally love for the idea and such, but it is less attractive...

i guess i would say a complex poem to me, one that is hard to "figure out" is like that bad *** guy to girls...unreasonably attractive...idk if that makes sense...it's just for me what i am mystified by and therefore think about more.

WS

[wordsheff]

And about jazz...i was just sayin what i thought one might say...i dont know anything about jazz tho i'm startin to listen to it...time out and the best of coltrane have got me into it so far.

ws

[pconsidine]

And about jazz...i was just sayin what i thought one might say...i dont know anything about jazz tho i'm startin to listen to it...time out and the best of coltrane have got me into it so far.

ws
No problem, word. It's just one of those pet peeves that spawns a rant. :) (As an aside, I'd recommend a range of Miles Davis, too, as instructive listening. Birth of the Cool, Sketches of Spain, and Bitches Brew are the typical Holy Trinity of Miles.)

As far as what I prefer in poetry, I'm with P.H. (again). I have much more respect for a writer who can create complex reactions using simple words. I think the thread on "Red Wheelbarrow" is a perfect example of how that works. It's also the principle behind haiku. Simplicity of language and imagery can often leave the most room for the reader to become involved, filling in the gaps with their own experience and making the poem a piece of themselves, rather than a work of art to be simply received and reacted to.

[ddgryphon]

I don't think this accounts for natural ability, nearly enough. Just my opinion.

eta: I don't think this discussion is really about how it gets to the page, but the result being simple or complex and how it effects the reader. which is better? not which way the writer wrote it.

Close, I'm wondering which one speaks more clearly, and is more likely to create sensation in the reader. How it gets there isn't important to me or this discussion (I personally know I need to draft and redraft usually--and the more complex the poem, the more I have to do that).

Also, we seem to be hung up on the definition of complex. I don't consider, for easy example, leviathan to be a complex word. I do think it is a word with a good deal of resonance. A lot of 20th century music proved that complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't make something good -- though it took a while for that lesson to be learned. Art is intended to communicate -- if it becomes so complex that it fails to do that, what's the point?

Where's the happy medium?

What is a poetic turn? Where is it different from prose? Can we impose prosaic clarity on poetry and it still be poetry?

[ddgryphon]

didn't the Beats and those of the Harlem Renaissance, among many others I'm sure I'm unaware of, use that "jazz philosophy" to death? C'mon, that's over and done with.

This is what gets you into trouble -- speaking about something without actually understanding the philosophy behind it.

Haven't sonnets been done to death? Aren't they over and done with?

In addition Jazz was brought up as a metaphor for poetry rather than a structure -- but classical music was also brought up, yet I don't hear you ridiculing classical poetry that was informed by such music and philosophies.

My contention is, that anything that can make a work speak to an audience isn't over and done with. Things may fall out of vogue, but that doesn't mean there's nothing left to say in that voice. Or that that voice can't inform or help shape another. Nothing ever really goes away, it simply morphs into other things with echoes of the original coming through.

[Angelinity]

not an easy topic methinks. i've been obsessing over simplifying for ages. yet it seems that the more i think i've simplified, the less sense I make to the reader.

things is - simplicity, like most concepts, is in the eye of the beholder. can one write simply across the board? don't think so - one can aim for the mainstream or pick a niche. no matter what you do, someone somewhere will find your stuff either too complex or too simple or too... something.

can't please the whole lot, can you. best write true to yourself and damn the lot - please yourself.

my solution, anyway :D

[crashbam]

dddgryphon,

I'm glad you didn't take anything I posted as negative, because I didn't intend it that way. As I said, I just finished Zinsser's book and I really got a lot out of it. True, his advice is really focused on non fiction, but I think it has application to all writing including poetry.

Simplicity is something I struggle with too. My writing has been filled with adverbs and when I considered what they added, I realized my writing would be much stronger without them.


However, you and I are not far apart in viewpoint. I think I actually prefer leviathan too. But that word has become common through usage (particularly Melville) so I don't see it as overly florid.

mckbunny made a comment on my poem "Bliss" questioning my use of the word "midst", asking what I meant by it. And I responded with the following:

You raise some interesting issues with the word midst though, mkcbunny and I suppose the real reason I chose it is that I liked the way it sounds and I think in this context it gets my point across while maybe not being 100% on par with the technical definition.

So I think my hypocrisy is showing (I better zip up).

Also, perhaps this is really what is meant by "poetic license"?

Poetry, to me, is all about using language in different interesting ways. In that same post, I said the following:

I think poetry is one of those things that should leave a little confusion with the reader though, so that they think about about the poem and derive for themselves what it means to them. That's not to justify sloppy word choice however. But I've always viewed my poetry as an abstract painting, and maybe my lines curve when they should be straight and my color choices are not true to life.

Sorry to keep quoting myself, but I think it's on point.

I love this discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

[ddgryphon]

Crashbam, you basically were the impetus for this discussion. I'm glad you responded in the original thread, or I never would have thought to discuss this openly here.

I can't speak for you, but my word choice boils down to three basic things:

1.) resonance
2.) clarity
3.) sound quality (how do the sounds flow together -- poetry is a very auditory experience for me. I feel it is meant to be spoken aloud)

So, perhaps we aren't so far apart. I really had a knee-jerk reaction to Zinsser. I prefer Bradbury to King -- not just for content (but content does play a part). I want to be clearly transported by language. I want language that touches all my senses while forming a clear image.

[ddgryphon]

WOW! That's it, exactly. That's how I have always written poetry. I just fire it off and click SEND.

And, you're right. I am always saying I don't care...but I don't think care is the right word. I don't know what the right word is, but CARE is just not completely it.

Perhaps you are indifferent to your poetry?

[pconsidine]

Perhaps you are indifferent to your poetry?
I'd more say it's an example of two views of art: One view does it to do it and doesn't care about the audience. The other view takes into account the effect the work has on the audience and uses that as a tool in the creation.

I don't think there's any objective correlation between quality and either view. After all, Kafka was one of the first sort and we wouldn't call him inferior because of it. And there are certainly examples of work that we'd consider overly conscious of the audience, to the point that it seems contrived.

I think it's pretty obvious which camp I belong to, and though I can be a little strident at times in supporting my opinion, I really don't hold anything against those of the other view.

[poetinahat]

No problem, word. It's just one of those pet peeves that spawns a rant. :) (As an aside, I'd recommend a range of Miles Davis, too, as instructive listening. Birth of the Cool, Sketches of Spain, and Bitches Brew are the typical Holy Trinity of Miles.)
I have just got to add: Kind of Blue, and In a Silent Way (the title piece of which is possibly the sexiest piece of music ever played).

[poetinahat]

Hey, Kevin, is part of your thesis that 'simpler' applies not just to language, but to process? In other words, that it's a disservice to meddle with the words after you've written them down?

I'd agree with Trish, that what matters is what's on the page and how it affects the reader. However, I'd also agree (emphatically) with p.h. that most of us have to work quite hard to get a simple expression of a rare idea. Congratulations to those of you who don't have that problem, but acknowledge that it doesn't happen for everyone that way (and, indeed, is probably rare).

Brilliant discussion; I'm enjoying it immensely. What an excellent group you all are.

[Stew21]

I'm enjoying it too. I suppose there are people in just about any craft that have to work very hard or not hard at all. (even sports) and people who feel passionately about the process and those who do not. People who see the process and the outcome in the simplest ways, and those who see it more complexly (is that a word?)
I also believe that there are very talented people that are a bit tortured by their gifts. Who even look on it with a bit of disdain. It doesn't mean the work is less valid no matter how the creator approaches it.
It is rare, but I do believe there are those rare people in all crafts.

Regarding simplicity: simplicity of words with a large thought (The Nuisance for example, Rob - excellent piece, simple read, very large idea) And perhaps its the simple ideas that when elaborated on are good reads, and the large ideas when put simply that are good reads?

[crashbam]

I can't speak for you, but my word choice boils down to three basic things:

1.) resonance
2.) clarity
3.) sound quality (how do the sounds flow together -- poetry is a very auditory experience for me. I feel it is meant to be spoken aloud)

So, perhaps we aren't so far apart. I really had a knee-jerk reaction to Zinsser. I prefer Bradbury to King -- not just for content (but content does play a part). I want to be clearly transported by language. I want language that touches all my senses while forming a clear image.

I can't disagree with that. For me the auditory is very important, but auditory doesn't quite capture it. It's also visual, building a vivid image in my head. And between the auditory and the visual, creating a visceral reaction.

And I think you are closer to Zinsser than you realize. If you read the entire book, I think you'll realize he is not in favor of taking all the beauty out of writing. To the contrary, his own use of language is wonderful and captivating. I think his emphasis is more on skillfully constructing sentences, paragraphs and entire pieces in interesting ways that hold your interest, rather than using big, fancy words whose meanings aren't clear and are maybe not precise. I highly recommend On Writing Well to everyone. It's a book on writing that is actually enjoyable to read.

[poetinahat]

Okay, Kevin -- so, for you, simple or florid is irrelevant; it's just what happens to come out. Right?

I just had an idea for another discussion. Let's continue here on the main topic; it's a cracker.

[drachin8]

Hmm. This is a rather interesting discussion. I guess for my poor two cents, I must throw in that the complexity or simplicity of a poem I write depends heavily on the mood I am trying to evoke with the poem (and sometimes on whether my brain is operating properly and attaining the choices I really want!). Some poems seem to deliver their message strongly when surrounded by simplicity, others seem to grow in beauty when surrounded by complexity. It all depends on the piece.


(oh yeah, ddgryphon, the WH Auden link is going to Emily Dickinson)


:)

-Michelle

[Stew21]

Some poems seem to deliver their message strongly when surrounded by simplicity, others seem to grow in beauty when surrounded by complexity. It all depends on the piece.


-Michelle

I think this is similar to what I was trying to say a couple posts up, you just said it better.
Regarding simplicity: simplicity of words with a large thought (The Nuisance for example, Rob - excellent piece, simple read, very large idea) And perhaps its the simple ideas that when elaborated on are good reads, and the large ideas when put simply that are good reads?

Larger more complex ideas in a simple form are very striking. Simple ideas or images in a more complex form are very striking.

[ddgryphon]

Okay -- I fixed the Auden link -- you can browse in peace.

Thanks Michelle.

[jst5150]

Let's continue this spur with this:

Message>Sender>Receiver>Feedback

Now ...

I'm not sure the emotional outburst that comes with feeling the words and laying them down on paper or in electrons defines 'simple' or 'complex.' When that happens, then the syntax of what's in your head is now out of your head, something like a good projectile vomit. And, if you believe it to be poetry, then, well, it probably is.

But (and this is a J-LO sized 'but'), has what's flowed out of your head something -- anything -- that can be put out as "message delivered?" There are plenty of teenagers who scribble their angst down on lined paper, stuff it in their Peechee folders and believe it to be Wordsworth quality poetic verse. Still others gush about love for five stanzas so they can get laid (done it, and it works -- message delivered). Still others write because, as Marky Mark said, they "feel it, feel it."

If, indeed, you are aching to tell a story about love, pain, happiness, sorrow, greed, hatred, war or peace, then you have to define whatever the message is, find the correct vehicle to send that message (one that others identify as the vehicle for sending that message), and ensure it will be received. It is hubris that tells the sender, "Well if they don't get it, tough. I do, and that's enough." And shame on the sender. Regardless of the communication medium (see my previous post, this thread), the sender has to make his/her message clear, and find the right vehicle for delivery.

To bring this around, you are a communicator, and the discussion of simple and complex comes down to one thing:

Form follows function.

And that's that.

[pconsidine]

jst -

That pretty succinctly describes one of the views that I spoke of earlier - that it is the job of the author to ensure that his intention is properly received by the audience. But that's still only one point of view.

There are still those for whom it is merely the telling of their story is enough. They place no importance on the audience's reaction to it. They don't care if their message is mangled, misunderstood or misappropriated. It is simply in the act of their telling that they find what they're looking for. For them, form follows feeling. And that's as far as their interest goes.

As I said before, both are completely valid. I tend to be of the first sort. I view anything I put on paper as a message to be received and I tend to measure the effectiveness of a piece by how closely the audience reaction matches my intent. But I've often entertained thoughts of being wholly self-contained. Yes, I would continue to share my work, but the audience reaction no longer figures into it beyond a simple affirmation that the work affected them in some way (and even hatred is an emotion).

Like most other dichotomies, this one is really just facets of a greater whole. If the end result is a piece that moves its audience - and this applies to any medium - then one must consider it successful in some fashion, even if totally by accident.

(I realize that might sound like I'm contradicting my earlier statement that Art without work is merely "a happy accident," but it's really more of an extension of the same idea. What I was really saying before was that putting the work into it increases the likelihood of success.)

[jst5150]

There are still those for whom it is merely the telling of their story is enough. They place no importance on the audience's reaction to it. They don't care if their message is mangled, misunderstood or misappropriated. It is simply in the act of their telling that they find what they're looking for. For them, form follows feeling. And that's as far as their interest goes.
Then to whom are they telling their story? Themselves. Again, it smacks of hubris. In other circles, it would be called masturbation.

As I said before, both are completely valid. I tend to be of the first sort. I view anything I put on paper as a message to be received and I tend to measure the effectiveness of a piece by how closely the audience reaction matches my intent. But I've often entertained thoughts of being wholly self-contained. Yes, I would continue to share my work, but the audience reaction no longer figures into it beyond a simple affirmation that the work affected them in some way (and even hatred is an emotion).
I disagree. If you're creating/messaging for yourself, then you're simply rubbing your belly and patting yourself on the head. You can do it, sure. It proves you have some level of coordination, OK. But ultimately, a lot of people can do that, too. My sense is that people who are hung up on the vanity aspect of the creative -- that is, creating for themselves -- are waiting for that "big break" or that "someone will take notice of their pagentry, ambiance and grandeur." I'd guess a similar archetype would be the guy waiting in the stands of a football game waiting to be plucked out when a key injury hits his team.

Like most other dichotomies, this one is really just facets of a greater whole. If the end result is a piece that moves its audience - and this applies to any medium - then one must consider it successful in some fashion, even if totally by accident.
With this I t-t-t-t-totally agree, however, if it connects with the audience then, by accident or through merit, the message was intended to do this. My sense is, in the end, we always mean to do this. It just makes us seem more rebellious to deny it. :-)

[pconsidine]

j,

What's most interesting to me is that I used to feel exactly the same way as you do. In fact, part of me still does. I don't really see the point in sharing work when there is no give-and-take with the audience. If one doesn't take anything in from the audience, then why bother performing?

But these days, I'm making a conscious effort to "live and let live," especially when it comes to art. And it's making me want to play Devil's Advocate with you a little bit.

But at heart - I'm on your side. ;)