Young Writers Society

There's something I have been thinking about a bit lately and I wondered if it's just my ignorant impression or if it's true--so I thought I'd post it here and get opinions from all you poetry gurus!

Basically, my question is the title of this post: is poetry fiction? The thing is, if I read a short story in first person, I assume that the narrator is a made up character, but if I read a poem in first person, I assume that the narrator is the author. If an author says "I am in love" in a short story, it's not usually the author declaring his/her love, it's just the author creating a character who is in love and having that character narrate a story. Poetry, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be that way. If I read a love poem, I assume that the author of that poem is in love.

This is part of why I don't review poetry very often; I can tell the author of a short story that their narrator is shallow or annoying or mean... but I can hardly say the same to a poet who is writing about them-self!

Now, I know there are fictional poems. I know there are poems that tell stories which the author has made up. But I'm not talking about those poems. I'm talking about the poems that seem to be autobiographical. Basically, if you say "I am in love" in a poem, does that mean you are in love or does that just mean that you felt like writing a love poem?

I look forward to seeing what y'all have to say about this.

I was taught, and even before I was taught, I was, and always have been, under the impression that the narrator is never the author. So I have never thought that the narrator of the poem was the author speaking.

Though, I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, I consider poetry fiction. Fiction as in something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. Not in the strict literature sense of the word.

The only poem I ever wrote was for the sake of challenge. It's a proper Shakespearean sonnet, with ten feet in each line, with the proper rhyming pattern, all that jazz. I really don't believe in writing non-rhyming poetry as an "outlet for feelings" - if you're going to write something that doesn't rhyme but needs to be done quickly to release steam, in my book it's easier and more efficient to write flash fiction. Or, hell, just talk to someone.

That being said: yes, the perfect poem, for me, would definitely be fiction. It is a carefully constructed work of art, not a bunch of "blackness eating my soul"s and "howling void of hate"s and "crawling in my skin"s thrown together at the end of an angry breakup and unleashed on innocent, unsuspecting Internet users. The perfect poem may be inspired by real-life events, but it is able to stand on its own merits.

Hmm, this got me thinking. I might put up a blog post about this.

DON'T PUT US IN A BOX.

My poetry, personally, is generally fiction, but I don't think I would ever box it up like that. I suppose that poetry is typically such an abstract and bendable concept that "amateurs" don't typically whip around as many rules as you prose-y folks do.

You are committing two common misconceptions that hurt poetry today. It is not your fault, but rather the poetry world's in failing to connect with its audience and communicate, as well as make itself relevant; very difficult though with how quickly the world is changing around us, so we must adapt to survive. I will be argued with on this I suspect. That's the thing about poetry, it's VERY personal, but then it's not. It's the ultimate duality and hypocrisy dwelling into multiplicity (just for you Navita ), and then it is without all of that; it can defy rationality and all reason and still plausibly work with verisimilitude/suspension of disbelief and create new ways for the audience to connect and understand the word and poetry within and without themselves, at the drop of a pen or click of a key.

First,

but if I read a poem in first person, I assume that the narrator is the author.

Lose this now. It will blind you to truly reading into and around a poem and actually seeing the words for what they are. The speaker (in poetry) is a spontaneous voice that is spun from a wellspring of imagination and desire to write. I am not screaming from the mountaintops (I edit and revise as much as I can to make sure this NEVER bleeds through), I am presenting something in another voice and perspective which may very well not be my own, but is created from idea that I try to present the reader that can be connected with, at least that's the goal. Doing so is quite difficult if your goal is write at a high level and present complex ideas, BUT, also not getting stuck in your own head.

Secondly,

but I can hardly say the same to a poet who is writing about them-self!

Now, I know there are fictional poems. I know there are poems that tell stories which the author has made up. But I'm not talking about those poems. I'm talking about the poems that seem to be autobiographical. Basically, if you say "I am in love" in a poem, does that mean you are in love or does that just mean that you felt like writing a love poem?

You're creating this exception for poetry because of the difference in "narration", BUT, narration exists in prose. A speaker exists in poetry. They are different beasts, but the manner in which they communicate is rather similar in a detached voice (generally, many examples of authors breaking this fourth wall). That said, consider the roots of prose and poetry: written versus spoken. I'd rather not rant on that here though.

Now this point of yours also presents a quandary. I do not ever call something a "fictional poem", because it is both a fallacy and misconception. All poetry can be fictional unless explicitly stated to be autobiographical. However, we must define what position we are choosing to analyze and categorize poetry in: structuralist/metaphysical/communist/postmodern(which brings in new criticism)/etc. This is necessary simply because what a poem is and what a poem does changes with each one (culture has a considerable impact on poetry, but it's not the end all be all). I for one do not care for any of them, but rather agree with some other members on here; poetry, really art in general, embodies both the inner and external of something and in the process creates a reciprocal relationship with the reader. HOWEVER, the varying degrees of ability in executing a GOOD poem versus a not so good one, can create the impression of the speaker being the poet. That is important.

So is poetry fiction? I would argue you cannot place it into definite categories as say, prose has. Even prose poetry. Again, execution is key and important, much, much more than analysis and criticism can ever hope to achieve. Once we look at poetry for its ability, it may be easier to distinguish between speaker and writer.