Topic ID: 13551
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Incandescence
If you've nothing nice to say, come sit with me.
Epic Novelist
Gender: 
Age: 19
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 3023
Reviews: 901
Country: USA
430 Points
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: On Subjectivity in Poetry |
 |
|
Hi guys,
First, I'd like to acknowledge that we are all drawn to different styles of poetry in much the same way we are all drawn to different styles of music -- as was recently pointed out on the poetry board.
Still, regardless of style, subject matter, what have you, there needs to be the basic employment of craft. The use of poetic devices, meter, musicality, originality, etc.
For me, I am basically open to any subject matter, from toilet seat covers to mom's apple pie, so long as the writing makes me look at these things in a new/different light. I largely feel that, with a familiarity and control of language precipitated upon us from our rich literary canon, there is an infinite jigsaw of possibilities. We, as poets and writers, in general, are obligated to create that which has yet to be created.
Now, I've been here since the birth of YWS, and I have seen poets come and go from our forums with an unsettling ease and disregard/disinterest in making themselves better writers. I think there are only two things that annoy me:
a) Folks who write very emotional poetry but have few technical skills and become deeply, flamingly offended when YWS members suggest that form (which exists even in free verse, I do believe) is as important as content.
and
b) Folks who really believe that there's some kind of in-crowd here, and that you can garner heaps of praise and write whatever you want as long as you're popular with it: The YWS as Junior High theory.
But I'm just a cranky old thing, so I'll stop here and invite responses. I want to know: where is the place of the subject in the poem? What of subjectivity? There are clearly some direct links--that is, without a voice, a subject, there is nothing. But does this subjectivity ultimately blindside any objective features of a poem, which would render critiques and comments alike ultimately useless?
I believe it was Leonard Cohen who said: ""Art is not a declaration; it's a verdict."
Take care,
Brad |
_________________
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." -Hal Abelson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Middle Children
Junior Writer
Gender:
Age: 18
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Reviews: 1
Country: England
300 Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Incan, I agree with every point you made here. While I'm new to this forum, I've had it up to my ears with people getting offended because of a).
I think subjectivity in the reviewer in the greatest tool for the writer, so long as they aren't blinded by their own emotions, and so long as they are willing to listen. While there might be a lot of emotion in a poem from the writer's perspective, sometimes the reader doesn't see it.
And that's what they're there for. If a reader thinks they can help with the execution of the poem, so that the emotion has a stronger voice (or even if they're just tidying up the cliche, the messy, or the lazy), the writer should listen.
If the writer is unwilling to listen to what is said because they think it's all subjective, or they only want to listen to facts, they can read a text book on poetry. If one exists.
- MC |
_________________
We are the middle children of history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Suzanne
won NaNoWriMo!
Writer of Legend
Gender: 
Age: 18
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 7088
Reviews: 1754
Country: Riverbluff, MO
1160 Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*claps* I only hope the several members who I told that they need to get structure of some form into their work to make it better and then argued with me that this is the way they work and they won't change and style is a rule and I don't work with rules and (the list goes on, really) would come and read this.
I'd say subject and structure lay side by side. Without subject, the poem is nothing or if it is somethings, it's crappy abstract. Then if the poem has no structure...To me, it can't even have a good subject. Structure is part of the subject. whether you have couplets, or five line verses, what your rhyming pattern is, and if there is one, whether you use big words or small one, how many syllables in each line, it all shapes a relation to the subject in a subtle way. It makes the poem look the way it is. It sometimes even presents more of the idea in the poem, like I did with my horrible-and-please-don't-go-read-it-poem Anxiety. To promote the feeling, my lines were either three syllables, or two syllables and I used indents like crazy.
They have to come together nicely. And there are always exceptions to these kinds of things. Poetry doesn't need to rhyme, they say, poetry doesn't have to have rhythm, they say, poetry can look like boring stream of consciousness... lol. The point is you can do all of that AFTER you know how to write a poem with only seven syllables on each line, and it comes out pretty good. It's the so popular "Know the rules before you break them" thing, and I try to get people to learn that but they just don't like structure. They think it is a bad thing. |
_________________
I demand
you put my heart back in my hand,
and wipe it clean from the mess you made of me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cade
Stores writing utensils in a flowerpot.
Master of the Forum
Gender:
Age: 17
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 1945
Reviews: 752
Country: Where the wild things are.
521 Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you, Claudette! Structure is always a part of good poetry, regardless of rhyme and rhythm. A poem doesn't have to have rhyme or a set rhythm, but it can't be a stream of consciousness, either, because they're impossible to read and enjoy.
I've read a lot about music being a part of poetry; rhythm is always present in both, no matter what the style. Writing poetry is just like composing music; you have to make something new, but slapping random notes on a staff isn't going to accomplish that. Likewise, you can come up with really beautiful melodies or phrases, but they have to work together with the rest of the poem or piece of music or they're just fleeting, forgettable moments.
This is especially true with jazz improvisation. Some people might think that improvisation is really easy, because you can play whatever you want, but of course that's not true. You create a melody from specifc chords, you have to improvise from other melodies, use rhythm and repetition to create something enjoyable rather than something annoyingly dissonant. And, just as it's important to read and study other poetry, it's important to listen to a lot of jazz before making a decent attempt to improvise, or you won't know what it's supposed to sound like.
Some composers/musicians say, "Well, it's new, it hasn't been heard before, it's artful expression of the soul, therefore you should appreciate it!" but it's hard to appreciate something that sounds terrible. Sure, I'm not much for classical music, but I realize that it is expertly composed. As my English teacher put it, "Even if you can't stand A Tale of Two Cities or Paradise Lost, you still have to acknowledge that Charles Dickens and John Milton were literary geniuses."
So...yes, all elements of poetry are important. Form and content both have to be present, just as technical knowledge and melody have to be present in music. But too much of one thing (i.e. a poem all about feelings or a poem being squashed by its rhyme scheme) that overshadows and forgets all other elements is upsetting. Anyone who's ever eaten a whole box of cookies knows that.
Colleen
P.S. I adore Leonard Cohen. |
_________________
"My pet, I've been to the devil, and he's a very dull fellow. I won't go there again, even for you..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
