Young Writers Society

In 'A Clockwork Testament', Anthony Burgess, through Enderby, expounds upon the nature of poetry. Enderby emphasizes repeatedly to his Creative Writing class that poetry is about words, not feelings. It is a notion which is remarkably absent from modern studies of poetry.

In English classes we are given assignments to write poems without first being taught the fundamental skills of poetry, like the importance of word choice, sound, and rhythm. Rhyme schemes and genres of poetry are illustrated, sure, but this is useless without the basic knowledge. Students are often left floundering because they don't know how to write a proper sentence.

What matters foremost is words, sentence structure, and format. Students instead rely on the stereotype of poets as being "sensitive" and write about their emotions. What good is inner expression when the form is lazy and unremarkable? What we end up with in this present situation instead of poems are angsty diary entries with forced metaphor and an utter lack of structure. Poetry has moved from an intellectual and complex art form to lame cries of help from suicidal Goth kids.

Granted, I am oversimplifying. There are plenty of brilliant poets out there; they are just not generally well noticed. Instead, the public conception of the poetic medium is akin to a "phase that kids go through" or just a shabby and boring outlet for intellectually underdeveloped teenagers. Let's take poetry back from children and make it smart, complex, and interesting again.

Agreed.

I never learned anything about form or structure in poetry until this year, really. I've never considered it a carefully selected choice of words, only a short piece of writing that conveys a feeling. Now I'm trying to get rid of all my bad habits I formed at a young age and start writing intelligently.

Agreed.

But how?

Perhaps it is a difference in education, but I was taught things like structure and word choice and form in high school - more so now that I'm in uni.

I think that people need to reach a happy medium here. There's no point stressing structure and form over emotion and feeling. Yes, you can have an apathetic poem be wonderful, but how many will reach that standard? Poetry is about words as much as it is feelings. Without the feelings, the words lack meaning, they are no longer important because they have no emotional, personal context.

I would never wish to take poetry away from the children, ever. Poetry should be a medium that everyone enjoys, instead it is cluttered into a box of stuffy intellectuals and teenagers who don't understand it's potential. I'm glad teens and children take the time to try to form their feelings into some sort of meaningful structure, from there they should be able to refine it and grow. Of course many chose to leave them as one-off pieces of their "inner torment". I should think that many poets - I think of Poe here, particularly - were rather depressed and emotional. And yet they produced these amazing works that people love even today - The Raven, anyone?

Not everyone is adept at poetry, or writing, so I appreciate any attempt to formulate words and actions in any context. Yes, the amount of emo "nobody loves me, everybody hates me, but I don't care because I'll die tomorrow" poetry does annoy me. Merely because people understand this to be poetry full grown, but it isn't, this is the teenage of poetry.

The best thing that we can do to change the prevailing perspective of poetry is to teach by example and do what we can to produce a different generation. This is why YWS is here, is it not? To help and teach each other in a constructive, growing environment.

Let poetry be what it is at any age and merely suggest growth in some way. There are plenty of people willing to learn how to effectively form their thoughts and emotions. Teach them. ^^

*Hearts* Le Penguin.

You are not oversimplifying. Too often, poetry is seen as just something written for the poet, and thus it is assumed that the piece can be as strange, simplistic, or emotionally one-road as it wants. This is not true, and the juvenile presentation of some poets (this site being a prime example) is taken as the norm, with truly great works being labeled "Oh, I can't understand this well" and "It sounds really pretty, lol!". The concept of poetry has become a collective dumbing down.

Poetry is something written for the poet. Regardless of everything people say about not writing for you, writing what people want/can read - that in itself is a dumbing down - poetry is first and foremost for the author. I don't write for other people, I write for myself, I keep the audience in mind, but it isn't my focus or my intention to please them. My intention is to write something I want to write if the people like it, yay for them. If they don't, someone else will.

Why should poets have to water down their poetry for these other elements? Why should we assume that anything "strange, simplistic, or emotionally one-road" is inferior? Poetry can be anything it wants to be, if that happens to be overly strange or simplistic, what does that matter? It means people either have to read into it more, or they get a nice cover picture. And emotionally one-road? That's what most poetry is, there's one singular thread of thought and opinion and anything else is just lucky extras.

You say that “The concept of poetry has become a collective dumbing down." of course it is if we cannot be strange or personal. I honestly can't see why it's bad to infuse poetry with your own emotions, if you don't you ignore all the human influences on the words themselves. In any case, the concept of poetry isn’t lost because of how people write; it’s lost due to how people encounter these works. The more people understand poetry - how it works, and what it is – the better their critiques get. You can’t blame someone for not knowing how to react to an exceptional poem, even seasoned poets can look at such things and say “I don’t know what to say about this.” At least saying “It sounds really pretty, lol!” Is attempting a reaction (I like to know when my poetry is pretty, too.) and having that reaction is important to the author as well.

You oversimplify the issue, Galerius, and if people wish to help the situation, then they need to stop doing what you’re doing. People need to learn, not have others assume their work is pathetic, and they don’t understand poetry, because of a lack of stylized skill. I stress to you that having emotion is essential in poetry, because that’s what makes poetry such an identifiable and amazing medium. Instead of blankly criticising, attempt to help people with their poetry.

That’s the best advice for this situation that I can give. Help, don’t hinder.

*Hearts* Le Penguin.

I agree with Penguin on pretty much everything, although I think that the emotions and feelings that go into a poem are much more important than the words, grammar, structure, etc. Poetry is a fantastic way of expressing oneself, so people who don't have a good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, poetic styles, etc, shouldn't be discouraged from posting their poetry here-quite the opposite. And I've noticed that some people seem to think it's okay to just tell some 14-year old that their work is absolute crap and shouldn't be considered poetry (not necessarily in those exact words, of course)-it isn't okay to say that to anybody. If you're going to be critical, give your fair share of compliments, even if it's just "you made a good effort", or something.

Also, poetry is an art, and the fundamental rule about art is that there are no rules. There are only norms, and if you can't at least appreciate something that goes against the norm-or what certain "intellectuals" (*cough* snobs *cough*) consider to be the norm-then you are probably very narrow minded. Poetry is an expression, and language is nothing more than a tool for expressing oneself, so it is only logical to assume that expression has priority. Heck, you could just mix completely random words together and call it poetry-if the poet decides it means something, then clearly there is some meaning in it, no matter how apparently childish that meaning may be.

Poetry should be diverse and varied, and if you put too many rules on what makes good poetry, you're only restricting the way in which people express themselves-and as nobody is the same as the next person, this can only be a bad thing (not taking into account the possibility of someone expressing themselves by throwing bricks at random passers-by, and the like).

There is a popular illusion that to be intelligent you have to appear intelligent. I would like to argue that, actually, in most cases, people who are content with their "unintelligent" appearance are at a huge advantage, as they can spend more time and use more of their brain towards more important things. Sure, it's nice to have a good vocabulary and understanding of grammar, but if those aren't your strong points, there's nothing wrong with that, though there are certain careers which may not be appropriate with someone who lacks good language skills. But poetry is not one of those careers-it is first and foremost a method of expressing yourself.

To lamely exploit a lame and heavily cliched metaphor which certain people oh so despise, consider your heart to be an idealistic monarch and your brain nothing more than an esteemed advisor.