Why is poetry `good` ?
Tue, 2001-05-22 23:48
#1
Why is poetry `good` ?
As someone who literally reads hundreds of poems a week, I have been wondering, always a dangerous occupation, about what constitutes a ggod poem, or why a poem works for me. It is no doubt a fact that judging poetry is a highly subjective occupation and my main disclaimer for people not always agreeing with the cherries or why they haven't got one. I look for originality of expression, lack of cliche, a poetic `music`, which I'm afraid I can't really define. My favourite poets on the site all have that poetic sensebility, a heightened form of expression that fires the reader in all sorts of emotional directions. There are rythms even where there isn't ryhme and a carving out a sculpting of poetic design from a mass of verbiage that the spark or idea came from. The poems that don't work for me are those where the motive or ambition of the poet has not succeeded in being translated into a personal original poem but a generalised and cliche ridden series of verses that lean to heavily on the derivative.
As if the poet, in not initially being able to express exactly the feelings the poem inspired, falls back on expressions that come closest and are ready made and comfortable. I wonder if the poets on the site and people who enjoy reading poetry would like to say what constitutes good poetry for them.
Barry Wood
Mark, I've never written poetry, but since I've joined ABCtales, have read a fair amount. Personally, I don't look for anything special. If I read a piece of material, I either like it or I don't. For instance, "Eating Orange" was so powerful during the first read I could smell the oranges, taste the oranges, and feel oranges. I literally licked my lips.
And sometimes I read a piece of poetry and afterwards, so, "huh?"
stormy_petrel
As a newbie to this
poetry lark,
Mark,
I think I'll just
watch
this thread,
instead
of
waiting for green shoots in spring growing like my love for times in the past when everything was rosy but now he/she
is dead.
Fred.
Stormy Lover
Immodium is the best thing for repelling trots, Stormie!
your poetry shows signs of decadent genius. The effortless medium of dropping in ryhme was an astonishing concept.
All in all we love your Bobby Charlton.
Jake Kane (jrk)
Good question. I don't know whether there can be such a thing as a bad poem. Poems that people dislike, yes, but my belief is that poems are a personal thing, and that the words were even put on to paper makes it good. But hey, that's me, Larry the bloody liberal.
Personally, if a poem brings out an emotion in me (other than despair at cliche) or if it has a line that makes me go 'wow', then I consider it good, and by good, I mean I enjoyed and liked it. Hey kids, let's keep away from those absolutes, eh?
In addition, I like poems that show a bit of soul, or some spark of insight or creativity. I've read many well-written, well-structured poems that are just lifeless. Yes, for me poems need to be alive.
- Jake Kane
(jrk)
syrupy waffler
I'm often suprised when I read other people's stuff that I think is original, expressed simply, the emotions given to me so strongly, and the poem has no cherry. Those who can say cleanly what they want in half the words and give twice the depth and humanity of long winded descriptive stuff are doing something far harder. A thought bite which keeps you going far longer than a syrupy waffle would.
Also, a thing I find fascinating is how you can rwally like someone's work, but not understand what they find so wonderful in the writers who inspire them
David Floyd
Over-reliance on rhyming can be very funny but it's bad news if you're trying to be serious. Funeral tributes in rhyming couplets can be especially problematic
For example:
You always loved arranging flowers
We'd chat on the phone for three and a half hours
You baked lovely home-made bread
I'm very sorry that you're dead
I agree with what Mark's saying about cliches and stuff. I think the bad (or at least not very interesting) poems tend to come when people try to write 'good' poetry rather than writing the first things that come into their head.
For me the best poems are the ones that seem so simple that you think "I could write something better than that", then you discover that you can't.
Monty
The fact is that most of it is not good.
s.w
About cliche.
It can be used like Picasso used objets trouves to make something new, strange and beautiful from things which seem ordinary and worn out
Have only realised this from reading poems on abc
sw
If you write what comes into your head, isn't that just therapy?
Wolfgirl
If you simply spill everything from your brain (stream of consciousness) then yes, it probably is a cheaper form of therapy than sitting with a man in a greasy grey suit for a couple of hours. The difference is, some people's random outpourings translate into something incredibly eloquent and poignant. Another poet, however sincere, may appear self-indulgent. It only takes a twist of a sentence. Does it touch you? If it reaches the blackest heart and the most cynical eye, it has achieved something. The very fact that it stimulates so much passion and debate, makes it an exciting medium.
Primate
Hmm... It's true that a lot of rhyming poetry is predictable, trite and cliched, but then again so is a lot of non-rhyming poetry. Perhaps it's the medium itself that is limited? After all there's only so many ways of squeezing an orange into a shot glass, which is essentially what most poetry is trying to do....
stormy petrel
I'm still watching..... and learning.
more contributions needed!
I liked that primate... and yours waffler. But then - have just checked back - that's unfair on the others. I have enjoyed all the posts so far.
No, for once I am not trying to be funny. I haven't been writing for very long and usually keep quiet in the more serious threads as I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. I'm particularly enjoying this one because I've only just started to experiment with poetry and find it to be a fascinating world I had previously ignored.
Except for Limericks of course!
But they are easy aren't they?
robert
i am tempted sometimes to define good poetry simply as stuff that i would have liked to have been able to write myself, but i think this is a very narrow view
so i was interested by sw's comment about not understanding why certain writers are inspired by certain other writers - does quality transcend style, perhaps? i.e can inspiration come from something that in terms of style is completely different to your own writing, but which still has quality?
i've not been reading or writing poetry for long, and i think there's a danger when you start out of confusing inspiration with just being derivative