Craft Notes
No One Would Ever Say That
[Much thanks this morning to Elisa Gabbert, who sends thoughts on plainspokenness. – BB]
Over at the new Ploughshares blog (I wrote for it back when it was a humble blogspot), Peter B. Hyland is talking about accessibility and the closely related (in poetry at least) matter of “plainspokenness,” as “plainspoken” poets (such as Billy Collins, he offers) are less intimidating and considered “more convivial.”
It’s a familiar idea that poetry should sound like speech. But Hyland doesn’t claim this; instead, he suggests that “maybe there’s no such thing as plainspoken poetry,” using “The Red Wheelbarrow” as an example of a seemingly plainspoken poem that doesn’t really sound like how people talk.
This reminded me of a post I read years ago (in 2007) on Jonathan Mayhew’s blog:
I learned something quite significant from this. I learned that C Dale Young and I do not speak the same language, poetically speaking. I searched through a recent poetic sequence of mine, The Thelonious Monk Fake Book, to see whether I use words like dark, sadness, chest, hands, water, rain, body, silence. Generally, I don’t use these words very much if at all. Where my vocabulary coincided the most with his was in an Ira Gershwin lyric I happened to be quoting at one point. “Holding hands at midnight , ‘neath the moonlit sky.” I did use “blue” a lot, but that was quoting the titles of Monk tunes, mostly.
It’s no criticism of C Dale’s excellent book of poetry of course to say that I simply couldn’t bring myself use words like that (very much). To me they are *poetry words.* In other words they might correspond to what the average person expects to find in a poem. I don’t like depending on an identifiably poetic tone. On the other hand I’m sure my own *poetry words* would be just as embarrassing, if I knew what they were… If I did know I’m sure I would be obliged to ban them, viewing them as crutches that I was better off without…
And in a comment he added:
They are “poemy” words used as such:
“There is light and there is dark,
the man’s face and the man’s face in water.
His eyes were pools of grief, bottomlessand dangerous… ”
That’s six of your favorite hundred words right there so this is a good example. The diction is simple yet elevated in tone. Pools and grief are both simple words, but nobody would actually say “pools of grief” unless writing a poem.
I’ll remember this post forever because it inspired a short poem containing the phrase “pool of grief.” It struck me because I both agree strongly (I hate poemy word choices, like “stone” over “rock”) and disagree with the implication that if “nobody would actually say” something, it’s annoying in a poem. (I’m not sure he means that, but it is implied.)
So there’s two opposing viewpoints here: 1) Poems should be plainspoken and 2) Poems are never truly plainspoken. I fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum. I do think poems can be plainspoken and sound like speech—take this poem (in its entirety) by Chris Tonelli:
IMAGISM
- I fucking love
- the lily on the window sill.
- It’s yellow.
I’m pretty sure that’s something he would say. So I wouldn’t argue that poems never are or shouldn’t be plainspoken as a rule.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s something to aim for. I think poetry should be an expression of thought; some poets think the way they talk, others don’t. What’s important to me is not whether a poet can translate his/her thoughts into plain speech, but whether his/her thoughts are interesting in the first place. (And, I guess, if your thoughts aren’t interesting, can you do something formally or “craft”-wise that at least elevates them, or any base material, to a worthwhile piece of writing.)
Another question is whether plainspokenness necessarily entails accessibility, and vice versa. Are there irrational or nonsensical poems, or poems with broken/complex syntax, that are nonetheless considered easily accessible? (Nursery rhymes come to mind.) Are there superficially plainspoken poems that are actually difficult or intimidating?
Tags: elisa gabbert, jonathan mayhew, peter hyland
On an English methods class I teach seminars on there’s this essay question:
“The linguist Roman Jakobson described the language of poetry as ‘organized violence committed on ordinary speech’. With reference to a number of poems, consider the validity of distinctions between ‘ordinary’ language and the language of poetry.”
If someone had given me this post as a reply: me, creamed.
On an English methods class I teach seminars on there’s this essay question:
“The linguist Roman Jakobson described the language of poetry as ‘organized violence committed on ordinary speech’. With reference to a number of poems, consider the validity of distinctions between ‘ordinary’ language and the language of poetry.”
If someone had given me this post as a reply: me, creamed.
“I think poetry should be an expression of thought”
Let me point out that this conception isn’t inevitable.
“I think poetry should be an expression of thought”
Let me point out that this conception isn’t inevitable.
i like this. the difference between the poetry of ordinary language and the language of ordinary poetry.
i like this. the difference between the poetry of ordinary language and the language of ordinary poetry.
My friend (he’s a poet) and I have this ongoing joke about the use of the moon in poetry. I argue to ban, we point out its use over and over. Then I got where I wanted to insert the moon in my writing. And then we got where we could make anything the moon. The moon might be beer in a certain writer’s work, etc.
My friend (he’s a poet) and I have this ongoing joke about the use of the moon in poetry. I argue to ban, we point out its use over and over. Then I got where I wanted to insert the moon in my writing. And then we got where we could make anything the moon. The moon might be beer in a certain writer’s work, etc.
The second phase is the hardest, because you know that the moon is overused but you still want to use it. Sometimes I would tell myself “I’m using it in a better way” but it was a lie.
The second phase is the hardest, because you know that the moon is overused but you still want to use it. Sometimes I would tell myself “I’m using it in a better way” but it was a lie.
Great post. It has me thinking about intimidating plainspoken poems. Thinking of some Sylvia Plath, like “By Candlelight,” which has no big words but uses the small ones strangely. “The dull bells tongue the hour” etc. The poem becomes a kind of riddle in simple words.
I’d argue that the continuum of plain poems stretches between simplicity and complexity. Billy Collins uses plain words to express relatively plain ideas while William Carlos Williams aims to express complexity in the simplest terms possible, as if he’s trying to remove the barrier of language as he tries to express (the word “express” doesn’t seem enough here) the ideas themselves.
Great post. It has me thinking about intimidating plainspoken poems. Thinking of some Sylvia Plath, like “By Candlelight,” which has no big words but uses the small ones strangely. “The dull bells tongue the hour” etc. The poem becomes a kind of riddle in simple words.
I’d argue that the continuum of plain poems stretches between simplicity and complexity. Billy Collins uses plain words to express relatively plain ideas while William Carlos Williams aims to express complexity in the simplest terms possible, as if he’s trying to remove the barrier of language as he tries to express (the word “express” doesn’t seem enough here) the ideas themselves.
it’s natural to still want to use it–why shouldn’t we! the moon exists for us just as equally as it did for “the ancients”–maybe even more so, since we modern people are burdened with the knowledge that the moon is spinning away from the earth a little bit each year, and so our feelings for it grow stronger…
I agree completely — the complexity of the language and the complexity of ideas represented are independent. I tend to be most attracted to poems that use conversational language to express complex ideas.
it’s natural to still want to use it–why shouldn’t we! the moon exists for us just as equally as it did for “the ancients”–maybe even more so, since we modern people are burdened with the knowledge that the moon is spinning away from the earth a little bit each year, and so our feelings for it grow stronger…
I agree completely — the complexity of the language and the complexity of ideas represented are independent. I tend to be most attracted to poems that use conversational language to express complex ideas.
the word “express” doesn’t seem enough here
demonstrate? embody?
the word “express” doesn’t seem enough here
demonstrate? embody?
I meant like “.” Just funning about words not being good.
I meant like “.” Just funning about words not being good.
whoops it took out the bracketed thought. In the quotes should be “gesturing wildly without saying anything”
whoops it took out the bracketed thought. In the quotes should be “gesturing wildly without saying anything”
Me too. We may need to high-five again.
Very thought provoking. I think the fact that a poem can use plain words doesn’t even mean that it will necessarily be plainspoken — this gets to the complexity that Amelia mentions above. Like in “Imagism,” “lily” is a common word, but to me lily is much more poemy than “dark” or “chest” — and furthermore, using those words in this poem begs the reader to imbue them with something that is not plain. That’s the complication for me. But it’s also the solution.
Me too. We may need to high-five again.
Very thought provoking. I think the fact that a poem can use plain words doesn’t even mean that it will necessarily be plainspoken — this gets to the complexity that Amelia mentions above. Like in “Imagism,” “lily” is a common word, but to me lily is much more poemy than “dark” or “chest” — and furthermore, using those words in this poem begs the reader to imbue them with something that is not plain. That’s the complication for me. But it’s also the solution.
Up high, down low, and so forth.
Up high, down low, and so forth.
“Poemy word choices” are more than just signifiers. They are colors that inevitably shape “an expression of thought.”
Its yours to feel you want a conversational language, but I couldn’t imagine feeling “hate (towards) poemy word choices, like “stone” over “rock”.”
Between these, “rock” is the more modern and “stone” more of an antiquity, but their context cannot override the effect on how the sounds of these words differ extremely, though their meaning the same, and those sounds will paint different colors in a poem, possibly different portraits.
It is natural to feel anxiety towards common words, be they poemy or the moon. But sometimes there is only the moon and the sound it makes.
“Poemy word choices” are more than just signifiers. They are colors that inevitably shape “an expression of thought.”
Its yours to feel you want a conversational language, but I couldn’t imagine feeling “hate (towards) poemy word choices, like “stone” over “rock”.”
Between these, “rock” is the more modern and “stone” more of an antiquity, but their context cannot override the effect on how the sounds of these words differ extremely, though their meaning the same, and those sounds will paint different colors in a poem, possibly different portraits.
It is natural to feel anxiety towards common words, be they poemy or the moon. But sometimes there is only the moon and the sound it makes.
this is great, Brian, thanks.
this is great, Brian, thanks.
cicadas, sage, fireflies, fleck = poetry words I hate
cicadas, sage, fireflies, fleck = poetry words I hate
I agree, and it’s the effect these choices have on the poem that bothers me. Specifically, I think they’re too often used to give the poem more heft or depth, by referring, in addition to what the words mean, to the vocabulary we all associate with serious poetry, which is a lazy way to achieve (the illusion of) depth.
I agree, and it’s the effect these choices have on the poem that bothers me. Specifically, I think they’re too often used to give the poem more heft or depth, by referring, in addition to what the words mean, to the vocabulary we all associate with serious poetry, which is a lazy way to achieve (the illusion of) depth.
Or “wheel,” as a verb. Birds are always wheeling in poems, especially fucking starlings.
Or “wheel,” as a verb. Birds are always wheeling in poems, especially fucking starlings.
Great thoughts here. I really enjoy simpler language that, as others have noted here, does complex things. That takes more work, more skill and I find it infinitely more interesting as a reader.
I do worry about this idea of accessibility versus inaccessibility in poetry and the notion that some writing is more difficult than others because I think that sets up this notion that accessible poetry or plainspoken poetry is somehow easy while poetry written in ornate language, language that is decidedly not plainspoken, is more difficult. Such is not always the case. Does this sentence make sense? It does in my head.
Great thoughts here. I really enjoy simpler language that, as others have noted here, does complex things. That takes more work, more skill and I find it infinitely more interesting as a reader.
I do worry about this idea of accessibility versus inaccessibility in poetry and the notion that some writing is more difficult than others because I think that sets up this notion that accessible poetry or plainspoken poetry is somehow easy while poetry written in ornate language, language that is decidedly not plainspoken, is more difficult. Such is not always the case. Does this sentence make sense? It does in my head.
I read no fewer than 7 submissions last night involving the word cicada. It was shocking. It was an epidemic.
I read no fewer than 7 submissions last night involving the word cicada. It was shocking. It was an epidemic.
E
Maybe it is just a problem of collective consciousness that you seem to be referring to that, while I may be able to recognize, I dont agree with. When I read a poem Im not thinking of the cannon of poetry, but of the language in the poem. Therefore an ATM or burrito or a star would be valid. I dont care where it takes from as long as it works, and what works for one reader wont for another.
There are moons and stones. I wont reduce someone’s intent by saying that these are pretenses because they’ve come before. As a reader it may set off an alarm when these words surface, but it seems reactionary to draw lines before language, which is not to blame. The intent is, and I agree with you on this.
Here is a poem by Steven Manuel in the new Cultural Society –
Untitled
a star
w /
tick
legs
but all
white
stuck
on the wall
of heaven
The cargo of this poem is loaded – “star” “white” “heaven”
But its rhythm and breaks and ryhme of “white” and “wall” all give to me
a fierce expression chosen carefully.
haha :)
E
Maybe it is just a problem of collective consciousness that you seem to be referring to that, while I may be able to recognize, I dont agree with. When I read a poem Im not thinking of the cannon of poetry, but of the language in the poem. Therefore an ATM or burrito or a star would be valid. I dont care where it takes from as long as it works, and what works for one reader wont for another.
There are moons and stones. I wont reduce someone’s intent by saying that these are pretenses because they’ve come before. As a reader it may set off an alarm when these words surface, but it seems reactionary to draw lines before language, which is not to blame. The intent is, and I agree with you on this.
Here is a poem by Steven Manuel in the new Cultural Society –
Untitled
a star
w /
tick
legs
but all
white
stuck
on the wall
of heaven
The cargo of this poem is loaded – “star” “white” “heaven”
But its rhythm and breaks and ryhme of “white” and “wall” all give to me
a fierce expression chosen carefully.
haha :)
in fiction, don’t you hate those novelists where they have an otherwise plain-as-french-toast-with-no-toppings page of a novel and then are like, “hmmm, i should put a lot of fancy flowers and shrubbery names here, and ummm, a couple of overwrought verbs here, hmm, yeah that’s better. Literary Fiction.”
then again i just wrote a story with the color “amaranth” in it. fuck…
in fiction, don’t you hate those novelists where they have an otherwise plain-as-french-toast-with-no-toppings page of a novel and then are like, “hmmm, i should put a lot of fancy flowers and shrubbery names here, and ummm, a couple of overwrought verbs here, hmm, yeah that’s better. Literary Fiction.”
then again i just wrote a story with the color “amaranth” in it. fuck…
I don’t get why anyone would pick on the moon. But then somebody goes and blows up a bit of it and they find water. So there’s that.
I don’t get why anyone would pick on the moon. But then somebody goes and blows up a bit of it and they find water. So there’s that.
I want to send the Cultural Society a huge plate of disco fries — their poems are so skinny.
I want to send the Cultural Society a huge plate of disco fries — their poems are so skinny.
forgive me for being incomprehensible, i’m working on sleep deficit–
i read something where somebody called metaphor the atom of thought. is rhyme the atom of language that is expressive of thought. aren’t nursery rhymes that evidence we are decoding meaning based on sonic predictables w/in the piece way before we are making judgments based on language conventions existing outside it, leading to concepts like plainspokenness. and does that endorse sonic patterning as the key to accessibility, where diction and grammar can then be as weird as shit w/o injury.
forgive me for being incomprehensible, i’m working on sleep deficit–
i read something where somebody called metaphor the atom of thought. is rhyme the atom of language that is expressive of thought. aren’t nursery rhymes that evidence we are decoding meaning based on sonic predictables w/in the piece way before we are making judgments based on language conventions existing outside it, leading to concepts like plainspokenness. and does that endorse sonic patterning as the key to accessibility, where diction and grammar can then be as weird as shit w/o injury.
This debate is at the very least a waste of time, and possibly unnecessarily restricting for young aspiring poets. The appropriate level of diction is idiosyncratic to each individual poem—no prescriptive rules. If you’re writing a poem and you think you can replace ‘stone’ with ‘rock’ w/o it considerably changing the poem, then you need to look harder, or read more poetry.
And that Tonelli poem is really bad.
This debate is at the very least a waste of time, and possibly unnecessarily restricting for young aspiring poets. The appropriate level of diction is idiosyncratic to each individual poem—no prescriptive rules. If you’re writing a poem and you think you can replace ‘stone’ with ‘rock’ w/o it considerably changing the poem, then you need to look harder, or read more poetry.
And that Tonelli poem is really bad.
Well I make no claims to objectivity … I have my preferences. I don’t think “white” and “star” are inherently poemy words, actually. (Also, I never, at least on this page, shit-talked poems about the moon.) But, no offense to Steven Manuel, this isn’t the kind of poem that blows my top. Doesn’t read as fierce to me at all.
Well I make no claims to objectivity … I have my preferences. I don’t think “white” and “star” are inherently poemy words, actually. (Also, I never, at least on this page, shit-talked poems about the moon.) But, no offense to Steven Manuel, this isn’t the kind of poem that blows my top. Doesn’t read as fierce to me at all.
” The appropriate level of diction is idiosyncratic to each individual poem—no prescriptive rules. If you’re writing a poem and you think you can replace ’stone’ with ‘rock’ w/o it considerably changing the poem, then you need to look harder”
I agree with this, but its no waste of time. I think because Elisa has read so much poetry she’s recognizing patterns and calling out to them.
The Tonelli poem I also love.
” The appropriate level of diction is idiosyncratic to each individual poem—no prescriptive rules. If you’re writing a poem and you think you can replace ’stone’ with ‘rock’ w/o it considerably changing the poem, then you need to look harder”
I agree with this, but its no waste of time. I think because Elisa has read so much poetry she’s recognizing patterns and calling out to them.
The Tonelli poem I also love.
somebody step in your corn flakes this morning?
somebody step in your corn flakes this morning?
I went out of my way to NOT make a prescriptive rule.
My entire point was that choosing “rock” over “stone” or vice versa WOULD change the poem.
Why don’t you try reading the post “harder”?
I went out of my way to NOT make a prescriptive rule.
My entire point was that choosing “rock” over “stone” or vice versa WOULD change the poem.
Why don’t you try reading the post “harder”?
Hey Elisa, sorry, I didn’t mean for it to sound like I was directly addressing you. I enjoyed your post; I thought it was a really sensible response to this whole debate. (Although I do not understand the idea of “poemy” words, nor do I understand why someone would hate those same “poemy” words.)
I just wanted to make clear that I think this debate (the plainspoken vs. ornate debate) can, IMO, be actively harmful for young writers. It encourages them to write out of a very small and restricted part of themselves, rather than fully developing their own process. The ‘you’ was irresponsible shorthand, and I totally understand how this might seem like I was addressing you. Probably it should have read ‘young developing poet,’ or etc.
Arbitrarily preferring certain un-“poemy” words to certain “poemy” other (or vice versa) is a bad idea because it limits a poet unnecessarily. (And also because I think these “poemy” words are probably a fiction, but, um, yeah.)
Hey Elisa, sorry, I didn’t mean for it to sound like I was directly addressing you. I enjoyed your post; I thought it was a really sensible response to this whole debate. (Although I do not understand the idea of “poemy” words, nor do I understand why someone would hate those same “poemy” words.)
I just wanted to make clear that I think this debate (the plainspoken vs. ornate debate) can, IMO, be actively harmful for young writers. It encourages them to write out of a very small and restricted part of themselves, rather than fully developing their own process. The ‘you’ was irresponsible shorthand, and I totally understand how this might seem like I was addressing you. Probably it should have read ‘young developing poet,’ or etc.
Arbitrarily preferring certain un-“poemy” words to certain “poemy” other (or vice versa) is a bad idea because it limits a poet unnecessarily. (And also because I think these “poemy” words are probably a fiction, but, um, yeah.)
Everything is actively harmful for young writers. Also, everything is great.
Everything is actively harmful for young writers. Also, everything is great.
The original post is definitely worthwhile. Additionally, I’d love to hear Elisa expound on what she means by ‘expression of thought.’ Or even just ‘thought’ generally—it suggests maybe a somewhat different reading process than mine, and I’d love to discuss it. (The it is that I get from poems definitely does not strike me as ‘thought’. . . but, you know, maybe that’s what it really is? Currently unsure.)
The Tonelli poem is dull. But I don’t really want to debate that (Stephen will eat me).
The original post is definitely worthwhile. Additionally, I’d love to hear Elisa expound on what she means by ‘expression of thought.’ Or even just ‘thought’ generally—it suggests maybe a somewhat different reading process than mine, and I’d love to discuss it. (The it is that I get from poems definitely does not strike me as ‘thought’. . . but, you know, maybe that’s what it really is? Currently unsure.)
The Tonelli poem is dull. But I don’t really want to debate that (Stephen will eat me).
should read: ‘the thing it is that I get from . . .’
should read: ‘the thing it is that I get from . . .’
is ‘corn flakes’ a euphemism?
is ‘corn flakes’ a euphemism?
Getting an MFA in poetry (depending on your program, of course) is a good way to learn to hate “poemy” words because the majority of the poetry that is assigned and the majority of the poems in the journals that students are encouraged to read and submit to have a very restricted vocabulary. This limited “poemy” vocabulary often doesn’t make room for words like Nintendo and spitball. I don’t think there should be rules against certain words, I’m just tired of seeing the same words over and over because a lot of poets think those are the words they have to use if they’re going to be taken seriously as poets.
If/when I teach poetry, I won’t tell my students not to use certain words. Instead I’ll go out of my way to explain that ALL words (including “Nintendo” etc.) are valid, and that they shouldn’t limit themselves to words that seem like they belong in poems.
Getting an MFA in poetry (depending on your program, of course) is a good way to learn to hate “poemy” words because the majority of the poetry that is assigned and the majority of the poems in the journals that students are encouraged to read and submit to have a very restricted vocabulary. This limited “poemy” vocabulary often doesn’t make room for words like Nintendo and spitball. I don’t think there should be rules against certain words, I’m just tired of seeing the same words over and over because a lot of poets think those are the words they have to use if they’re going to be taken seriously as poets.
If/when I teach poetry, I won’t tell my students not to use certain words. Instead I’ll go out of my way to explain that ALL words (including “Nintendo” etc.) are valid, and that they shouldn’t limit themselves to words that seem like they belong in poems.
Right on, Elisa. It sounds like the MFA program is having them read too much bad poetry (not surprising). Great poetry should infect the potential poet with the sense that all words are viable, so long as the poet can wrangle them into the perfect location in the appropriate poem. Life is their dictionary.
Why do they encourage them to read journals?
Right on, Elisa. It sounds like the MFA program is having them read too much bad poetry (not surprising). Great poetry should infect the potential poet with the sense that all words are viable, so long as the poet can wrangle them into the perfect location in the appropriate poem. Life is their dictionary.
Why do they encourage them to read journals?
Ryan: “Why do they encourage them to read journals?” So they’ll have a sense of the “market” for their poems. Students are encouraged to send out their work, so they need to read journals to know where their poetry might fit. Most of the time, of course, this fails miserably, because poets haven’t figured out their own voice yet and they aim for the wrong journals. I took me several years of sending out to figure out my “market.”
I should say that I don’t think everything that’s defined as “poetry” falls under the “expression of thought” rubric — just the poetry that I prefer/like to read/think of when I say “poetry.” This could be a post in itself, I guess (and I can make a note to write it) but what I basically mean is this: I don’t think that great poetry comes from taking content and molding it into interesting language. (To me, a lot of formal poetry follows this pattern: the content of a love poem or a poem about the moon or rocks is molded into the form of a sonnet or sestina or what have you.) In the kind of poetry I prefer, it feels like the content and language are inseparable — once you try to rework the language into something else (by paraphrasing or putting it into a form, say), the content is different. Because the way the thought or idea occurs IS the poem. To me, this is why a poem has to be a poem and not a short story or an essay. The content isn’t extractable.
Ryan: “Why do they encourage them to read journals?” So they’ll have a sense of the “market” for their poems. Students are encouraged to send out their work, so they need to read journals to know where their poetry might fit. Most of the time, of course, this fails miserably, because poets haven’t figured out their own voice yet and they aim for the wrong journals. I took me several years of sending out to figure out my “market.”
I should say that I don’t think everything that’s defined as “poetry” falls under the “expression of thought” rubric — just the poetry that I prefer/like to read/think of when I say “poetry.” This could be a post in itself, I guess (and I can make a note to write it) but what I basically mean is this: I don’t think that great poetry comes from taking content and molding it into interesting language. (To me, a lot of formal poetry follows this pattern: the content of a love poem or a poem about the moon or rocks is molded into the form of a sonnet or sestina or what have you.) In the kind of poetry I prefer, it feels like the content and language are inseparable — once you try to rework the language into something else (by paraphrasing or putting it into a form, say), the content is different. Because the way the thought or idea occurs IS the poem. To me, this is why a poem has to be a poem and not a short story or an essay. The content isn’t extractable.
On the whole literary journals are better than books. Diversify diversify diversify.
On the whole literary journals are better than books. Diversify diversify diversify.
That poem strikes me as a pretty good argument as to why students should not be encouraged to read journals. (assuming CS is a journal.)
or – ‘read ONLY journals.’
balanced diet, etc.
That poem strikes me as a pretty good argument as to why students should not be encouraged to read journals. (assuming CS is a journal.)
or – ‘read ONLY journals.’
balanced diet, etc.
That seems kind of strange. Why would you tell a student who has yet to fully develop as a poet to start sending out stuff? Surely this is info they could give them once they’ve graduated the MFA.
Completely agree re ‘thought.’ What you call thought, I think I call ‘imagination,’ or ‘intuition,’ or ‘consciousness.’
I think most bad poems occur because the artist was dead-set upon a certain kind of ‘content.’ At a certain point a poem demands its own content, and what the poet need to do is just shut up and listen. . .
That seems kind of strange. Why would you tell a student who has yet to fully develop as a poet to start sending out stuff? Surely this is info they could give them once they’ve graduated the MFA.
Completely agree re ‘thought.’ What you call thought, I think I call ‘imagination,’ or ‘intuition,’ or ‘consciousness.’
I think most bad poems occur because the artist was dead-set upon a certain kind of ‘content.’ At a certain point a poem demands its own content, and what the poet need to do is just shut up and listen. . .
I had a thought about this, a plain thought, I guess, but hopefully not as plain as a Billy Collins thought. It seems fancy language and charged words are mostly being hated on here. I agree about most of the examples that were already provided (cicada), that they’re usually weak (also–I’m guilty of cicada). I also agree that moon is not inherently weak, not stone either. I think fancy language–its appearances in poems being mostly criticized here for not bearing any meaningful heft–does often reveal something about a poem: the poem doesn’t really have anything to reveal at all, or what it reveals is unoriginal and dull, like the movie Avatar.
Although the collective conscience Brian disagrees with and I often also disagree with tends towards trends, and those trends become things to avoid, there is or will always be exceptions, even within the haters’ system: somewhere someone is writing a kickass poem about the moon. That person is either a terrible poet or the greatest poet ever. Efforts are being made all the time, consciously and unconsciously, to kill words and give words comebacks. Plainspoken poems, often bespeaking more narrative basis’, are kind of popular among some people. Soon they’ll be damned, excluding the ones that survive, the ones that are amazing in other ways too. In reductionist words, it’s how and by whom the language is wielded that determines the appeal of the poem; the language doesn’t fire itself, someone has to pull the trigger. Give the moon to the wrong person and they’ll fuck it up. Give it to the right person and they’ll fuck you up.
I had a thought about this, a plain thought, I guess, but hopefully not as plain as a Billy Collins thought. It seems fancy language and charged words are mostly being hated on here. I agree about most of the examples that were already provided (cicada), that they’re usually weak (also–I’m guilty of cicada). I also agree that moon is not inherently weak, not stone either. I think fancy language–its appearances in poems being mostly criticized here for not bearing any meaningful heft–does often reveal something about a poem: the poem doesn’t really have anything to reveal at all, or what it reveals is unoriginal and dull, like the movie Avatar.
Although the collective conscience Brian disagrees with and I often also disagree with tends towards trends, and those trends become things to avoid, there is or will always be exceptions, even within the haters’ system: somewhere someone is writing a kickass poem about the moon. That person is either a terrible poet or the greatest poet ever. Efforts are being made all the time, consciously and unconsciously, to kill words and give words comebacks. Plainspoken poems, often bespeaking more narrative basis’, are kind of popular among some people. Soon they’ll be damned, excluding the ones that survive, the ones that are amazing in other ways too. In reductionist words, it’s how and by whom the language is wielded that determines the appeal of the poem; the language doesn’t fire itself, someone has to pull the trigger. Give the moon to the wrong person and they’ll fuck it up. Give it to the right person and they’ll fuck you up.
“fully develop as a poet” — is this a thing that happens?
“fully develop as a poet” — is this a thing that happens?
Maybe it’s so they can start getting used to rejection.
Yeah I think I lump all that into “thought” since, you know, it happens in the brain.
Maybe it’s so they can start getting used to rejection.
Yeah I think I lump all that into “thought” since, you know, it happens in the brain.
I don’t think “poemy” means “fancy” or “charged” — to me it strictly means “is frequently found in poems” (not counting the 100 most common words like “is” and “the” etc.). “Body” is a poemy word to me, but not fancy.
Anyway, I was mainly investigating the *idea* of plainspokenness and how it relates to accessibility .. the thing about hating poemy words was more of an aside. I’m surprised so many people are focusing on it.
I don’t think “poemy” means “fancy” or “charged” — to me it strictly means “is frequently found in poems” (not counting the 100 most common words like “is” and “the” etc.). “Body” is a poemy word to me, but not fancy.
Anyway, I was mainly investigating the *idea* of plainspokenness and how it relates to accessibility .. the thing about hating poemy words was more of an aside. I’m surprised so many people are focusing on it.
Maybe not fully, but poets definitely develop, and someone interested enough to care can tell when one of their students should start thinking about publication, and when they should probably remain content to practice. (Not saying they have to be producing groundbreaking stuff, just that it’s probably counterproductive to start submitting before a poet has a) the basic foundations of what’ll become “a mastery of the craft” and b) a more than passing familiarity with the texture of their own imagination, a feel for their own creative process, etc. ie once their poetry starts taking on what Elisa called the inseparability of language and content.)
Maybe not fully, but poets definitely develop, and someone interested enough to care can tell when one of their students should start thinking about publication, and when they should probably remain content to practice. (Not saying they have to be producing groundbreaking stuff, just that it’s probably counterproductive to start submitting before a poet has a) the basic foundations of what’ll become “a mastery of the craft” and b) a more than passing familiarity with the texture of their own imagination, a feel for their own creative process, etc. ie once their poetry starts taking on what Elisa called the inseparability of language and content.)
Yep.
Sometimes I wish I could read a neurological explanation for what happens inside the “poetic process.” (Something that was more than pseudoscience.)
Yep.
Sometimes I wish I could read a neurological explanation for what happens inside the “poetic process.” (Something that was more than pseudoscience.)
“I should say that I don’t think everything that’s defined as ‘poetry’ falls under the ‘expression of thought’ rubric — just the poetry that I prefer/like to read/think of when I say ‘poetry.’ … In the kind of poetry I prefer, it feels like the content and language are inseparable … The content isn’t extractable.”
This is confusing to me because I would think “expression” implies the pre-existence of something that the poem serves to communicate. (Which I agree, as I tried to point out above, isn’t the only way a poem can be thought of as working.)
The Tonelli poem, as signaled by its title, is a literary-historical joke. I suspect the people here who say they don’t like it don’t get it. But I also don’t see how it can be cited as an example of “plain-spoken-ness” in poetry, since its exaggerated colloquialism is part of the joke and was obviously done for effect. It’s too meta to be plain.
“I should say that I don’t think everything that’s defined as ‘poetry’ falls under the ‘expression of thought’ rubric — just the poetry that I prefer/like to read/think of when I say ‘poetry.’ … In the kind of poetry I prefer, it feels like the content and language are inseparable … The content isn’t extractable.”
This is confusing to me because I would think “expression” implies the pre-existence of something that the poem serves to communicate. (Which I agree, as I tried to point out above, isn’t the only way a poem can be thought of as working.)
The Tonelli poem, as signaled by its title, is a literary-historical joke. I suspect the people here who say they don’t like it don’t get it. But I also don’t see how it can be cited as an example of “plain-spoken-ness” in poetry, since its exaggerated colloquialism is part of the joke and was obviously done for effect. It’s too meta to be plain.
Agree with MFA people sentiment. Then they wonder why they’re not getting published more. I teach hs creative writing and all words are fair game, even made-up ones, when appropriate.
Agree with MFA people sentiment. Then they wonder why they’re not getting published more. I teach hs creative writing and all words are fair game, even made-up ones, when appropriate.
I get the joke—and maybe it’s ‘okay’ as a joke, but, meh, even then I think we can try harder—but it’s still not a very good poem.
I get the joke—and maybe it’s ‘okay’ as a joke, but, meh, even then I think we can try harder—but it’s still not a very good poem.
“This is confusing to me because I would think ‘expression’ implies the pre-existence of something that the poem serves to communicate.”
Thoughts aren’t words on paper, the way a poem is words on paper, so yes, the poem is just an expression of the actual thought, which consists of neuronal firings. These firings can only be made intelligible to other humans via brain scans or some form of expression, in this case, artistic expression.
Even if the plainspokenness is meta, I think the poem is still literally plainspoken. But point taken.
“This is confusing to me because I would think ‘expression’ implies the pre-existence of something that the poem serves to communicate.”
Thoughts aren’t words on paper, the way a poem is words on paper, so yes, the poem is just an expression of the actual thought, which consists of neuronal firings. These firings can only be made intelligible to other humans via brain scans or some form of expression, in this case, artistic expression.
Even if the plainspokenness is meta, I think the poem is still literally plainspoken. But point taken.
All right, I think I see what you’re saying. Thanks btw for the interesting post.
All right, I think I see what you’re saying. Thanks btw for the interesting post.
It is silly to have rules ( <- is that rule?)
Singling out certain words as the first to be thrown against the wall come the revolution is strange, I agree with what Brian Foley wrote earlier, "But sometimes there is only the moon and the sound it makes".
The fixation on individual words is ____, if anything words get in the way of writing poetry. This is also true in reading poetry, if any words are noticed by the reader then the poem is in trouble and better have an escape hatch or a clever excuse or…rules are silly, right?
Having "content and language [be] inseparable" is a sentiment I also agree with, but isn't this a bit like saying when it rains I will get wet when I go outside without an umbrella? Besides, I believe most people who say this don't actually understand what they are saying (I'm not pointing any particular finger, only suggesting this phrase no longer engenders trust from me). Some T.S. Eliot follows:
… Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Will not stay still.
http://www.ubriaco.com/fq.html
It is silly to have rules ( <- is that rule?)
Singling out certain words as the first to be thrown against the wall come the revolution is strange, I agree with what Brian Foley wrote earlier, "But sometimes there is only the moon and the sound it makes".
The fixation on individual words is ____, if anything words get in the way of writing poetry. This is also true in reading poetry, if any words are noticed by the reader then the poem is in trouble and better have an escape hatch or a clever excuse or…rules are silly, right?
Having "content and language [be] inseparable" is a sentiment I also agree with, but isn't this a bit like saying when it rains I will get wet when I go outside without an umbrella? Besides, I believe most people who say this don't actually understand what they are saying (I'm not pointing any particular finger, only suggesting this phrase no longer engenders trust from me). Some T.S. Eliot follows:
… Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Will not stay still.
http://www.ubriaco.com/fq.html
Norman Holland has some stuff on the topic–(The Brain of Robert Frost and, more recently, Literature and the Brain. There’s also a bunch of stuff at Alan Richardson’s site “Literature, Cognition, and the Brain.” He doesn’t update it anymore, but there’s a pretty extensive bibliography at http://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/lcb/bib/annot.html.
Norman Holland has some stuff on the topic–(The Brain of Robert Frost and, more recently, Literature and the Brain. There’s also a bunch of stuff at Alan Richardson’s site “Literature, Cognition, and the Brain.” He doesn’t update it anymore, but there’s a pretty extensive bibliography at http://www2.bc.edu/~richarad/lcb/bib/annot.html.
[…] mean, within reason) and I’m not sure they’re a poetry cliché (yet) (as commenters on my last post said of the moon) and I’m not sure they’re even a personal cliché because I’ve […]