hypothetical question

I know what you mean about poets trying to tackle the universe before they even know how to write. But no, no odd set of unenforceable "requirements" would make a difference.

I'd like to train poets to be open to impressions and visions period, regardless of where they come from. But many off them do think that writing poetry is all about thinking you know everything. Or, the other type of poet I can't stand ... the ones who write only to show off how "brilliant" they are (when they usually aren't), leading to how stupid everyone else must be by comparison (when they aren't). Argh!

Why not ask toothbrush?

Part of me says, yeah, writing about a mundane object is a useful exercise, just as drawing a mundane object is a useful exercise. You discover that there's really something there when you observe closely.

And yes, it might save us all one doggerel poem from ourselves as beginners, at least.

But well, isn't it something we all have to get out of our systems?

Dichroic said:

Would the world (at least, the poetry-writing / -reading segment of it) be a better place if all beginning poets were required to write a poem about a toothbrush?

Or a coffee mug, a child's game, a particular cloud, a day at work - I'm not fussy.

It's been my observation that a frequent problem for fledgeling poets is that they often begin by trying to be Profound, writing on God or their immortal soul or the state of the world. (I don't mean they, actually, I mean we. I've got stuff like that packed away in the back of old drawers myself.) And except for a few with extraordinary talent, they end up with Hallmark doggerel at best, and at worst ... well, worse. Something not even good enough for Hallmark.

Would beginning poets be better off if they were forced (or at least encouraged) to extract their poem from something utterly mundane instead?

(To be clear, this is an utterly hypothetical question. I'm not proposing any sort of requirement for new people here or anywhere else. Just curious about your opinions.)

Click to expand...

No.
To me that would be no more beneficial than requiring a beginning poet to write about God, their immortal soul, or the state of the world. Is it easier to write a poem on something mundane than to write a poem on something profound? I don't think so. For most of us, writing poor poems is the crawling stage toward writing good poems. Some of those early poems might not pass muster by even Hallmark, but they say exactly what the poets intended at the time they wrote them. The skill to put exactly what they intend into poems in a way that others can appreciate comes with practice and knowledge.

Getting to the point where a person can believe they really are a poet is difficult enough without putting artificial barriers in their way. Some of the truly awful poems I wrote years ago are the ones I cherish the most. Yes, now I can see the flaws, but they were the ones that made be believe that I could write poetry. Only after I believed I could write poems about what I wanted to write about, could I even begin to write on a topic suggested by someone else.

Just the two cents of a self-described poet.

Personally, I think the value judgments and the easy/hard calls are really interesting, but the difference as I see it is between abstract notions and concrete objects. Writing about the latter makes us actually hone our perceptions. It's a useful exercise.

Writing about abstract concepts is probably not as useful a training tool. :shrug:

In the hands of the beginning poet, the toothbrush and god will come across with the same impact. The subject matter is secondary to the exercise of writing, understanding what works and what doesn't, and improving. I think that simply writing is the best thing for any poet, but beginners in particular.

a categorical exercise presumes that all poets are created equal.

to cast it in the framework of the visual arts, one student might respond to a brick by brick buildup of skills, exhaustively sketching still lifes, the human hand, a vase... in order to build up their skills in perspective, in light and shadow, in scale, etc.

another student might just as likely respond to a blank canvas, a palette and his or her imagination and have the natural talent, temperament and mindset to create a stunning piece of art without ever consciously adhering to any set of rules or techniques.

William Haskins said:

another student might just as likely respond to a blank canvas, a palette and his or her imagination and have the natural talent, temperament and mindset to create a stunning piece of art without ever consciously adhering to any set of rules or techniques.

Click to expand...

In many years of art classes, I never saw that happen. Often I saw interesting vision hampered by lack of technique, but never by mastery of technique.

Just my 2c.

Shweta said:

In many years of art classes, I never saw that happen. Often I saw interesting vision hampered by lack of technique, but never by mastery of technique.

Just my 2c.

Click to expand...

yes, but i'm afraid you're missing my point.

the sample for your anecdotal evidence is made up entirely of those who, either through self-assessment or on the advice of another, sought out instruction.

unless you're saying that the only capable artist emerge from classes (and i don't think you are, mind you), your 2c is somewhat flawed.

I'd probably find some metaphor of a diety in that toothbrush, using broad strokes of phrasing to save the decay of society, or to focus on the soul of that discarded toothbrush, with its bristles bent from a life of fulfillment, and its handle scuffed from the pressure its thankless but steady labor. And I'd end up square on the top of scottVee's shit list, which means I'd better stick to prose, until he decides to come over there and put me in my place again.

[This is not a personal attack, but a general statement, scottVee being symbolic of an attitude. But there I go again, explaining myself in the poetry forum..]

William Haskins said:

the sample for your anecdotal evidence is made up entirely of those who, either through self-assessment or on the advice of another, sought out instruction.

Click to expand...

Point.
And I was doing that without being aware of it, which is totally my bad.

unless you're saying that the only capable artist emerge from classes (and i don't think you are, mind you), your 2c is somewhat flawed.

Click to expand...

I'm not, it's true.
However.

It's hard to know what all this means because of the influence of the academy and of connections in the 'art biz', of course -- but I'm not sure any of the currently-prominent or historically-noted artists I've heard of, seen displayed, studied, were entirely untutored. And for the most part the untutored visual art I have seen is pretty dire.

So, okay, there may be a genius who would be harmed by learning what lesser minds were doing, but I haven't seen or heard of any.

And in the art classes I've been in where the teacher didn't teach but let all the little special snowflakes do our own thing, we did not improve.

So I'd say my 2c is indeed flawed, but not beyond all worth.

NeuroFizz said:

I'd probably find some metaphor of a diety in that toothbrush, using broad strokes of phrasing to save the decay of society, or to focus on the soul of that discarded toothbrush, with its bristles bent from a life of fulfillment, and its handle scuffed from the pressure its thankless but steady labor. And I'd end up square on the top of scottVee's shit list, which means I'd better stick to prose, until he decides to come over there and put me in my place again.

[This is not a personal attack, but a general statement, scottVee being symbolic of an attitude. But there I go again, explaining myself in the poetry forum..]

Click to expand...

Surely a writer of that magnitude has better things to do than follow you around a message board impuning your art. I think you're putting on airs, Rich

As for the OP, I think it is natural to begin with broad concepts, just as it is natural for the beginning poet to think that every poem they write must impose his/her unique perspective on the reader. The most common flaw that I see in beginner's work has less to do with the subject matter than with the beginning poet's tendency to internalize everything, such that any metaphor or symbolism that exists is dependent upon something that the poet thinks, or feels, or has experienced, but which is never fully formed on the page. The reader feels as if they are snooping through someone's curiously formatted journal entries. I think if you ask beginning poets to write poems about toothbrushes, you will get poems that try too hard to tell us something about toothbrushes that we don't already know, or you'll get some tortured metaphor such as the ones Rich describes above.

(j/k Rich)

"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."
Skelly

anis said:

"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Click to expand...

I think Timothy Leary said something similar, but I don't think the word "wisdom" was included. I think this is just an example of convergent evolution.

Uck! I said I wasn't going to say anything else to this hypothetical question, but I changed my mind. I do not consider myself a good poet or a good artist. I get by. I do it for pleasure and enjoy the outlets as ways of reaching higher in my own path. My path being the path I take from birth to death... no path to wisdom... that's just a bucket of crap on a hot day. Wisdom counts for nothing when you're a steaming pile of loam wrapped in coffin candy. My path is just from beginning to end... and poetry and art are two of the things I do along that path. My first workshop in poetry I took last month. I did not study art. I've had dozens, if not hundreds, of requests for commissions. This beginners should start at the bottom is a load of horse crap and apple sauce. We are not all created equally when it comes to this... some could take art classes for eons and still walk away with enough skill to draw a terrible stickman. I take offense to the question, actually. It presupposes that beginners lack an inborn talent... that they have to fish their way to the top. You are suggesting that those with an inborn talent dumb themselves down to write about inanimate objects. I knew my God when I was 5... and I was comfortable exploring God in poetry when I began poetry. I will never say I'm a good poet or a good artist... I don't have to. I am not reaching for a goal... I am reaching for a light... the light of the ending. I would never suggest that a beginning poet dumb themselves down for the pomposity of others who think they just don't have the time to read through the dregs of terrible poetry. Poetry is something that comes naturally to some. I believe there are poets out there who wrote amazingly beautiful first poems... to think otherwise would just be small minded and crazy. I must be going through a phase, because it doesn't take much to get me going these past few days. I know this is just a hypothetical question to begin a discourse... but man, it stinks of highbrow pomp.

KTC said:

I do it for pleasure and enjoy the outlets as ways of reaching higher in my own path.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, and I can't see where anyone has suggested otherwise. Everything in your post is true as it applies to you, but I'm sure you would agree that other people write poetry for different reasons. For some, poetry may be less a means toward self enlightenment, or self exploration, and more a need to communicate or express certain things to other people. From that perspective, this hypothetical discussion isn't about stifling budding creativity, or high-brow elitism. Rather it's an exploration of technique, or an examination of the process.

All IMO, of course, and make no mistake, I think you brought up a lot of valid points in your post, all worthy of further discussion.

KTC said:

I couldn't disagree more. Posts like this make me want to shoot my foot off in frustration.

Click to expand...

Good grief Kevin, it was a joke...

Kevin, I support your general position in your longer post, but here is Scott's full quote:

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."

The second line should have indicated to all that his full quote wasn't a validation of anything but tomfoolery. Although...I've been stinking up the AW threads lately. Wait... Scott, dammit. What the hell do you mean by that?

Shweta said:

So I'd say my 2c is indeed flawed, but not beyond all worth.

Click to expand...

i agree, and didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary.

by the way, i never made a distinction between lesser and greater minds. only lesser and greater natural talent.

while not always easily quantified, there is a difference.

Uh-oh. lesser + lesser = lesserer. Oh, why won't Irish Spring and hard water slough this stench to the drain. Maybe if I take my toothbrush to my skin with its fluorided lessoning power it will unleash its lessening power.

KTC said:

Yeah... but it kind of went with the question and supported it. That's where I saw that it wasn't funny... but a validation.

To presuppose that all beginners start at the same beginning is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I think you've pinpointed the crux of the issue. Either we differ in what we mean when we use the word "beginners," or we're using the terms "creativity" and "talent" interchangeably. When I use the term "beginner" in the context of this discussion, I mean people who--regardless of their innate creativity--have yet to achieve the skill level to express that creativity in the form of a poem, other than by happenstance. To presuppose that every artist starts at a different "beginning" is to imply that there is no beginning, that every person who sets out to write poetry does so at the same level of talent and skill with which every other poet writes. I disagree. If poetry is a craft, rather than just words that bubble up from our subconscious minds, then there is indeed a "beginning," and we all develop our craft from the same starting point.

NeuroFizz said:

Kevin, I support your general position in your longer post, but here is Scott's full quote:

"The invariable mark of a beginning poet is a profound lack of wisdom. And they smell funny."

The second line should have indicated to all that his full quote wasn't a validation of anything but tomfoolery. Although...I've been stinking up the AW threads lately. Wait... Scott, dammit. What the hell do you mean by that?

Click to expand...

If that's the case, you haven't been stinking them up near enough in the crit forum to suit me. I can't remember the last time I saw a new poem by you over there. Get crackin! Or stinkin! Or whatever you call it!