a poem (warning, this piece has a lot of adult language)

O_o
See the thing is, even if you put a warning,
A lot of 13-16 year olds will still read this.
The human psychology.
They tell you don't read this, they get curious and read it anyway.
Apparently I am one of them.

Anyway, this poem (if you can call it that)
Shouldn't be here.
Like everyone says, you're just throwing out vulgarities
Putting them together in an angry, haphazard manner.
Then since it doesn't really qualify as a story,
You decide to put it up as a poem.

Fine, so you have your own opinion,
That this is poetry,
Even if it is, its probably the most ugly piece of poetry I have read.
It's not even funny. Just shocking.
But I guess it's my fault for being curious.

..I wasn't too impressed. Put this in the non-fiction section titled "I'm angry and I have to let out my feelings" Because that's what this 'poem' sounded like to me.

Yes it's quite funny, but not really poetry.
I'm sorry, I really disagree with you, classifying it as a poem. Well that's my opinion. You don't have to agree.

Hahahahahahahahahahah!

interesting...... i really cant put what i want to say i words.....hey....i guess its just expressing yourself.... ............oh well.....im a little confused with the meaning though.........

This poem kicks major but! I love it! Come up with more stuff like this!


Please do not curse on the forum! Thanks, Suzanne

I never said i didnt like it because of the curse words, I said there were too many curse words. Atleast I implied it.

Hence the warning. This still belongs in the poetry forum.

I didn't like it very much. it just seemed a little too adult oriented if thats the fraze for it>

Heehee. Moma would call it art if the flesh has a meaningful and modern purple stripe painted on it.

But, really... I don't think intention defines art in any way. The act of creation is beautiful, regardless of its form. Expression and creation are the key.

And, to satisfy the naysayers, there is such a thing as bad art. Look at Kincaid. Sometimes art starts as artistic masturbation and has meaning assigned to it later. Look at Pollack.

There is a spectrum of artistic relevance. Embrace the grey. Grey happens. (Unless you're a zebra :)

No, but if you had, then Im sure somebody in MOMA would have found it artistic.

Again, Qi, the urge does not constitute the act. Just because I had an urge to eat the flesh off a certain person does not mean I did.

IF, art is not based on the spontinaity of life, and in no world is art based on computation and planning, then you have said that art does not, and cannot exist, because there is no other way to go about creating it.

I think a lot of bugs have crawled up a lot of asses and died. I feel sorry for them. Qi, I think you should write a poem about that.

I got to wondering if this would be more poetic if it were more organized... perhaps the irony of a metered rant would work. But then, what I like is the non-sequiturs (sp) that are connected by diction rather than content and form. I think this is one of those poems that could go a lot of directions.

PS- Lay off Crysi. She's doing her job.

I disagree with that conclusion on many levels, but, firstly, let's look at the number of errors your response has:

A) You're not refuting my argument. In fact, you're agreeing with it.
B) You still haven't shown how it leads to that point. I'm quite interested.
C) Art not existing is somewhat of a 'duh', but that's a very rudimentary statement. Trees don't exist until we link them in with an entire network of 'Other' experience. Art must define itself through the Other; it is not a self-sustaining process. Nevertheless, the 'tree' exists...

That was a conjecture based on what you said. Your argument leads irreverably to that point.

Perhaps it was this:

art doesn't exist.

If you couldn't get that out of what I said, then your not as smart as you would have us believe.

Get over yourself.

I had an urge to go crap. That isn't art.

Art is the work that is produced from the urge, and its value as artistic is how much or little it changes the constellation of traditional art.

You're intellectualizing again, you can't do that with art. if art isn't the urge, and it CERTAINLY isn't sitting down and thinking about it, then we've exausted our options, art doesn't exist.

No, Qi, it doesn't. An urge is not 'art'.

Qi, I think you may just get your wish soon enough...

the urge to paint something constitues art, and i dont see a difference.

And since the urge to write constitutes something as 'art'...

I would rather have seen it get locked - but I only started the thread- who am I complain right?

I FELT like writing it, that's why.

Why DID you write this, Qi?

Most of the lines sound like they could have come straight out of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's (see: Full Metal Jacket), or any other DI for that matter's mouth. The point, however, is unclear.

I went ahead and moved it. Not because I wanted too, but because I'd rather see this PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT POETRY continue, rather than get locked because of an arbitrary rule.

Because you're being unreasonable. We'd still BE on topic if you hadn't come around and complained about nothing. thanks for that.

Qi, I'd watch it if I were you.

A.O. Avalon wrote:We are debating whether or not his piece can be considered poetry.

Qi right, Crys. We are debating whether or not his piece can be considered poetry.
And I don't understand your concern. No one else is trying to change the topic of the thread. If they want to, they're welcome to. We'll respond.

We are discussing my poem, thank you. Lay off.

Crysi wrote:GUYS. If you want to debate the true definition of art, PLEASE take it to the debate and serious discussion board. Thank you.

Now, let's please leave this thread for further comments on Qi's poem, shall we?

I looked up "poem" dear, you looked up "poetry". The definitions are actually different, which strikes me as odd.


I'm not sure what you mean by

Besides I'm sure you have written something before your presumable age of 20?

Metrical composition doesn't mean a composition with a beat, that would be lyrics.

Power to the people(masses), I'm not gonna argue, I just won't. Imply go ahead, speculate, I don't care: I'm a baby and won't argue, well I won't. I understand my answer was feeble, and did not answer the question as it should have done, but there! And as this is a literary forum, I excert my right to write(in old english)! Besides I'm sure you have written something before your presumable age of 20?


Hwait!(A slighter, unclear, feeble attempt, oh how I contradict myself...)

Oxford: Poesy, archaic for poetry! *ahem* Poetry:1. Metrical compsition, usually concerned with feeling or imaginative description. (there is also 2-3, one of which was given above). Well there it is, a metrical composition, and this doth not seem metrical, I shall remain silent. SHould you choose to ask me why it doth not seem so, then answer it yourselves, I'm sure you all know the answer!

That definition is quite clear above...Hrrmmm, well we live in a free country ._. Freedom of speech and ideass...... .__. Twas good no doubt, in describing your emotions...Not a subject, or at least not a way I am fond of...To see my views on Art, see the discussion thingymaborg thread!

I'm not stupid really....But at times I can be rash. Can we all just be friends? I'm really the likeable kind...Oh pitter patter I am rambling! Don't delete me!

The problem with your arguement Ere, is that you want opinion to decide the rule, when that simply won't work.

For instance, the definition of music. Let's say our scenario is me trying to decide what does and doesn't constitute music. If I were allowed to go by my personal opinion then I could announce right now:

LINKIN PARK IS NOT MUSIC. IT IS CRAPPY CRAPPY NOISE FOR JERKS.
Obviously, I'm going to get many angry replies about why I am dead wrong.

That's why the accepted definition of music is "sound organized in time". Therefore, there is no dispute as to what IS music, simply an arguement about what GOOD music is.
Similarily, a poem is defined by Oxford's English Dictionary as "a literary composition that is given intensity by particluar attention to diction (sometimes involving rhyme), rhythm, and imagery."

So we must allow that Qi's work is a poem. We're not debating is classification, merely its worth as a poem.

Poetry is what you make of it.

and youve got 4 years before you go to college, and old english is annoying.

Sorry, but I do wish to take English and Classics in University, so practicing now and on will help, and besides I like it. Now, 'what is proper poetry exactly?', I'm not quite sure! But 'riddle me this'(as my friend says): What is a proper anything? An essay is what it is because we call it that, or rather, an essay is a written piece following some rule. I'm sure poems have them, but like I have been saying, now for the third time, to me this does not seem like a poem rather it seems like an informal statement, or a rantish shout, made to be poem. Whos to say that isn't a poem? All I'm saying is that to me it seems like something else masking itself as a poem, or trying to be a poem, but is quite rough around the edges. SUmmat like that! [/i]

I wasn't asking you, Incan, I was asking Erethror. I want his opinion, NOT yours. We've had plenty of it. I can't argue with you and you know it, so quit badgering me. I know what art is because I feel it. And I can and will stand in defense of any artistic venture, because art in all its forms is in my very soul. You simply cannot intellectualize it.

True, but you've done a bad job at defining it, and havent said anything that is necesarily true.

Gal -- I've defined it. Quit asking, and start explaining why I'm wrong.

First, less old english. This is the 21st century. Secondly, what is 'proper poetry' exactly anyway?

If it were not for a society, and self-imposed 'laws', I could care less and call your piece, poetry. In fact I could call everything poetry, including my shoes. That would render laguage usless, unless I pointed, but then how would blind people know what the hell I'm talking about? I admit some of these laws are selfish, and rather fearful, but by using a well known, well established language, grammar and all, at least someone's gonna understand you, and even more so if you learned or spoke the language of that area you belong to. That was an example, and perchance you were confunded somewhere along the way...Anyway, poetry must have some kind of rule or fashion, which the masses can point out from the many other writing pieces. And to me, and don't point and say 'well obvious you've not been properly exposed to poems', because I deem I have, this does not seem like, fine I'll say it: 'proper poetry', perchance that'll let you see some ray of light between us, some link of understanding(that being, that I have called your piece poetry(even if I doth call it improper) , more than less because you deemeth, and you are older and wiser perchance).

I feel stupid for not realizing the point of this poem at the beginning. But I did find that last line amusing anyway. Now your blog makes much more sense lol.

GUYS. If you want to debate the true definition of art, PLEASE take it to the debate and serious discussion board. Thank you.

Now, let's please leave this thread for further comments on Qi's poem, shall we?

Your still thinking too much about it. Art has nothing to do with tradition. If it did, it would never change. We'd still be looking at stick pictures of bison and migratory patterns.

well, obviously you have a poor sense as to what art is.

Art is art because someone, somewhere decides to call it art. Its that simple.

well, obviously you have a poor sense as to what art is.

What's your point? I said it wasn't art.

well, neither is modern art, but its still a million dollar a year industry.

I'm not saying it isn't poetry. It just isn't artistic.

well, lyrical poetry does, yes. But there are no rules for the composition of poetry. This would be free style.

Yes it can be about one's feelings, but poetry is a metrical composition, which, it seems to me, this 'poem' lacks, it being, some kind of flow (not meaning it has to rhyme!). It may just be my taste in poems, and their association, but this just doesn't ring as poetry to me.

How can we place a value on art if it is not inextricably bound up in tradition?

And, the artist who goes in seek of anything 'new' ends up finding perversities, not new emotions. The artist who has done true searching knows that art never changes -- only the alignment of the (same) material changes.

If art were based on tradition, then art would never change.

Your taking an intellectual stance on an emotional activity. Your implying by that, that only smart people can do art, which most obviously is not true. You think too much brad. Art isn't based on tradition, drawings and paintings are. But tradition isn't what makes it art. Art makes tradition. Artists are saying something about their time, not the other way around. They observe, and interperate current events, not past ones. Weddings are based on tradition, laws are based on tradition, and neither are considered art in any way.

Qi -- your poem brought about emotions, yes, and perhaps Gwen Stefani doesn't (that's an opinion, by the way), but that still doesn't make this art.

Gal -- My 'dictionary' definition of 'art' comes explicitly from Woolfe, Eliot, and Irigaray.

Art is based on tradition.

Ieatworms, you are my new favorite person!

My art professor once told me 'Art isn't beautiful. It's isn't pretty. It's a comment".
I think that applies here.

Qi- this poem honestly did not make me feel much but amusement. Gal- I didn't think about this as a social commentary until you pointed it out, but I think you're right.

I enjoyed the flow of this. It did not feel haphazard. I didn't find the ending funny. I found it thought-provoking. Seeing how much you were willing to say in the body of the poem made me wonder what could possibly be deleted. I think the unknown insult is the most powerful because you know only its intent and not its definition. I like it.

I think if this was intended to be more of a commentary and less of a rant,a change of voice might help. If it was more of a "he said/she said" your (albeit perceived but not real) anger would loose focus to the language instead. I'm not sure how to accomplish this, however. Just a thought.

Keep swearing in poetry all you want. Just remember some people can't see past it.

There are all kinds of different poetry, Gal, with all kinds of different intentions. It wouldn't surprize me if lots of medieval poets wrote about things and people so they would be remembered. In fact, I'm pretty sure songs and poems were written about people so they would be remembered. And there's also traditional Haiku. Many are just brief images of nature.

Incan, dictionary definitions aren't what I'm looking for--otherwise I wouldn't have asked. Besides, I found your definitions rather convoluted.

Erethror, that's what people said about Ginsberg, not that Qi is Ginsberg. As far as I know, the goal of writing poems has never been to immortalize anything. Its always been to comment on the world around us. If that commentary happens to be upon the profanity of the nation, that's what it is. I am utterly astounded by the amount of arrogance I'm seeing here.

This seems like an angry comment if anything. I wonder what happened to poetry, what was once used to immortalize the great, and describe the beautiful things around us, has slowly turned into, well this, if indeed it is poetry.

no, but gwen stefani doesn't draw out any emotion either, just mindless drab. This piece definately DID bring out some emotion, otherwise no one would care.

Gal, I clearly outlined that above.

Qi, you may have reached your intention -- I'm sure you did. Attention doesn't make something art -- Gwen Stefani is not a work of art.

What gives something artistic merrit? What makes something art? What makes poetry poetry? Why?

Yanno, you say it isn't art, but this one hap hazardly thrown together bunch of vulgarities has sparked more emotion, and more response than any other piece in this thread. You may not like it, and I damn well don't expect you too, but this piece has achieved exactly its intentions.

This may be poetry, but it certainly isn't art, nor does it have artistic merit. It is the standard, normative rants of everyone -- ultimately, it conforms. To conform for the new work is to not conform at all; it is not new, and it therefore can not be a work of art. Understand that art never improves, it never completely invents itself, so I'm not testing the merit of a work on complete originality, but that of the ability of the poem to take old materials and rearrange them.

Why do I care about the poet? Life is exchangeable, we have plenty of it everywhere. What we don't have everywhere is the ability to produce original materials, which this piece obviously didn't strive for. The risk any poem takes when it is concieved is the notion of lack of meaning -- the words in this poem are used so frequently they've lost all meaning. Meaningless words are to a poem as cancerous cells are to the body. Words and language could never sum up the character of the (author of the) poem.

"We live in society, but society also lives in us."
-Emile Durheim

A poem gives us little insight into the life of the poet, and, really, I could care less about him or her, but it does give us plenty of insight into the society in which the poet dwells, which I still find to be a totally useless critique and reading.

Yeah. It does have artistic merit because it shows us insight as to who the character of this writer is. Every piece of writing does that. But... I don't know. The real reason I don't like it is because it seems like a bunch of insults lobbed in a half-hazard, unreal fashion. Sometimes you may think this later on if the offending person does something particularly bad. And then, that is where the poem reveals who the writer is. The thoughts are so scattered, so crude, so selfish that is almost embarrassing to read it because it shows a part of a person's self which we would rather not go into. And such, it has artistic merit which nearly everyone hates.

EDIT: This isn't meant to be an insult, mind you. I've written things rather similar to this, which is one reason why I'm picking up the things I pick up. Everybody has these kind of feelings sooner or later, if not these, then the same thoughts with less cursing. You just displayed it in writing.

Two fundamental definitions:

1. Journal entry--Writing in which the writer tells the reader what emotions the writer is experiencing about something.

2. Poem--Writing in which the writer causes the reader to experience emotion about something.

This is a 1. It's "self expression" at its worst and shows us nothing other than the writer totally self-absorbed in himself, staring with rapt fascination into the intricacies of his own navel as if it were the only subject of interest in the world--and to the writer, it probably is. Not so, alas, to the reader who cares little or nothing about the writer or the writer's navel but who rather comes to poetry to experience and to feel something him or herself.


And this poem is something that Ferris Bueller could have written in his diary if he had kept one.

Alright guys, let's settle down.

Gal, I agree with Jack - there are other reasons we may not like this piece. I know you're protective, but we have a right to dislike this piece, do we not?

I suggest we all try to get back to actual critiques of this poem and not flames or debates. Gal, I apologize for what I said.

Sound good to whom, fire? Are you the grand master of what is or isn't good poetry anymore?

Somewhat biased? If you know me at all, you know I'm brutally honest when it comes to these things.

Would I put it in an anthology? No. Of course not. In fact, I don't particularly care for the style. But I do feel he raises an interesting point about American language. Just because you don't happen to like it doesn't make it devoid of all artistic value. And just because I'm dating him doesn't mean it is. Is it so horrible to ask someone to look beyond the author himself and actually find something positive here? And I'd like you to consider--why don't you like this piece? Because of the language...or because Qi wrote it?

Aren't you somewhat biased?

Anyway, swearing can be used to make a point and it can enhance a poem or story. HOWEVER. You have to have skill to use it effectively, otherwise it's trash.

Someone asked why so many people passed this up... I think it's either because they see it as garbage and unworthy of comments, or they're more innocent and are offended by this.

Of course, it's not like we have a lot of reviewers anyway, and a lot of members have become unactive...

Sound good to whom, fire? Are you the grand master of what is or isn't good poetry anymore?

Read through this whole forum. Every poetry section. There's a LOT that doesn't sound good to me. It sounds whiney and infantile. Go tell them their poetry doesn't sound good, hmm? Or are we all so caught up in our own meaningless self-importance that we've forgotten that part of the reason poetry exists is to make people uncomfortable with their world. It EXISTS to make commentary about the way we, as a species, treat eachother. Immitating that treatment, if need be. I can't think of a single good beat poet who hasn't used swearing in a poem to make a point. The greats knew what they were doing, and they were despised as writers when they first hit the scene. Try, just TRY to see a reason to like this poem rather than hate it. See the good first, THEN worry about the bad.

I thought it was pointless, not because it was offensive, which it wasn't really, but because it sounds like an 8-year-old who just learnt all the swear words wrote this.

Swear all you want in your poems. Just make it sound good at the same time.

I echo Gal on her comment about American society, which you have to admit is at least some what true.
Furthermore, I don't think that writing must be obscenity free to be true art; it is the job of the writer to record the world around him or herself, and if you haven't noticed, folks, the world is full of obscene things happening, be it the denial of basic civil rights, or a government's abandonment of it's people.

To address specifically the style of FuFu's poem, I think there is something to be said for the art of excess -- beyond shere shock value, what statement does this make to you? Does the shere magnitude of obscene language make it less offense, or more? I'm only the ninth person, including the author, to respond to this poem. There are what, several hundred, if not over a thousand, members of this site? Why have so many of us passed this by? Is it because we just avoid anything that looks potentially frightening, or do we simply not care anymore?

Interesting imagery Qi, especially the bit about the shot... *Cringes*

No, they do not do tetnus shots up the penis. Tetnus shots are notoriously painful, and inserting a cathider (which goes up the urethra) is excruciatingly painful. so a shot up that particularly sensitive region would hurt even more.

I think its a pretty interesting commentary on how we talk to one another in American society. Its FUNNY. Espeically that last bit. You people take yourselfs too seriously. You ought to know by now not to take anything Qi writes at face-value.

Okay, looked at it with my younger sister! Our comments?

The words "pea brained" should be "pea-brained." Remember that you are describing someone as this adjective, therefore it is in one word.

Also "devils" should be "devil's" since it is possesive.

Also, my sister and I are wondering if doctors normally put a tetnus shot up the penis. We are not doctors, nor are we men, so we're not quite sure, but it makes us wonder. And my brother won't tell us (though I have asked). Since you seem so open on this matter, can you enlighten us?

While the last part was amusing...

This is not poetry. This is an example of people who call themselves writers but still sink to the lowest parts of society where a thesaurus or dictionary is apparently unavailable.

I think it's disgusting and extremely puerile.

What was the point of this poem? Its so cluttered with adult language that I can't see what its sopposed to be about. I can't even call this poetry really, just a big rant full of swear words...

The title is
"You can go Fuck yourself."
or "insult"
or better yet "You incestuous clod!"

I actually wasn't angry at all when i wrote it.

Well, it's definitely a poem of anger...it reminds me of how this certain kid speaks to me,lol.
God. I'm glad my mom didn't see this when she walked by my computer today I didn't like this poem but I tried giving you the benefit of a doubt.

"I dont mean any of this in a bad way,
all due respect,"

was quite hilarious. But overall, I think the language got a little bit...out of hand. I know you said "(warning, this piece has a lot of adult language)" and it had to XXX rating but still...it was a bit much to be a non-adult website. A majority of the people on this site are between the ages of 13-16. I think it would go fine on the other site Nate's coming out with.

O.O ooooooh kay........Qi, whats the name of this poem? "You are so ugly the last time i talked to you on the phone i got ear infection"? Personally, i dont see anything artistic in this poem, more like shitting in a closet. To dump everyhting bad in your so you can feel better. Next please...

Actually, Qi, it's on the front page and it's pretty unavoidable.

there's a warning. You dont like swearing, then dont open the thread, its that easy.

The bad part of this poem is that it's displayed on the main page, whether you like this kind of language or not.