And, like I said, maybe this is healthy. Not everyone who writes probably ought to be read. There are plenty of people who scribble away into the night (or click and clack away on a keyboard, for you non-neo-luddites) who have no desire (they claim) to publish. I don’t necessarily believe them, but I believe that THEY think this is the case. Mostly I think they want to be “discovered” but don’t want to admit that it requires as much ego as it does talent and discipline to be published. Nobody wants to be an asshole. But we all like to read them.
The thing that has become the saving grace for poetry in America, however is that intimidating digital expanse we call the Internet. Blogs have given people the ability to self-publish in way that vanity presses never could. The mass availability of the net and software has given rise to the e-journal—and with recent changes made by the post office regarding how magazines are charged for postage, e-journals and e-presses are the best way for people to get the word out without going into the hole. The Internet is what the mimeograph machine was to the small press in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
This, of course, has exacerbated another problem in the arts. We’re still fighting over who art belongs to. University and MFA poets have a strangle hold on most of the traditional and widely circulated journals; most books of poetry that are published (written poets who are still alive, at any rate)are published in short runs by struggling presses. Universities, by the nature of how they are, work to exclude people from creative writing programs. As a result, the mass of writing that occurs outside of the ivory tower -- and there’s plenty of worthwhile stuff out there – gets labeled “outsider” art. There are people who take pride in this label, but I suspect it’s because they weren’t given a choice. There’s a bitterness that results. “Outsider” writers resent university writers. University writers look down on outsiders who haven’t tried to emulate Robert Browning. The result is an even harsher artistic climate with deep resentments, and unresolved egos.
As a writer who has been in and out and in the academic world, this problem has always frustrated me. It’s true, I have a university education, and that, right now, I pay rent teaching. It’s true that I have known some fine writers who have come out of Masters and MFA programs. But it’s also true that I have met some equally fine writers who felt restricted by the high walls and sometimes ridiculous loops of higher education. These writers read just as much and think just as much; but they don’t need to try and write sonnets to feel like a poet. The stigma of poetry – that it is difficult, that it is purely academic, and therefore, boring – is perpetuated, mostly unintentionally, by university writers because they have bought into the notion that only poets will enjoy poetry. The digital explosion has more potential to give art back to who it belongs to – EVERYBODY – than any tool or delivery system since Whitman was giving out free copies of his poems on street corners, and since Leroi Brown (Amiri Baraka) published Kerouac and Ginsberg on a mimeograph.
That’s why I’m happy as hell that there are sites like this one, dedicated to finding poetry and introducing it to the world. Now if only we could learn to get a long and leave our degrees (or the absence of them) at home. Maybe over enough beer.
Poetry's in every phase of life--- including and especially acting and music. However, you're right--- Poetry, at its fundamental core is subject to being the only art where a competitive spirit is only seen as damaging.
ReplyDeleteActing has its Academy Awards, Golden Globes, and Actor's Guild only to further promote itself. Music has its award ceremonies as well. The "winners" are never really agreed upon, but the winner becomes the entire genre when that competition brings out the best in everyone and brings in the audiences that just want to see "the very best".
Poetry's the last to not have figured it out, but that doesn't mean it's too late. Everyone knows how passionate Will Smith is about acting, and he still subjects himself to caring about who gets the year's Best Actor, and he is only the better for it (as much as he's disappointed year in and year out).
All I'm saying is that Online Poetry has taken huge strides in making this a free market, but WE must take it to the next level. Great article!
A lot of the points that you make are valid, though the issue of 'competition', and the lack, thereof, in poetry is one that I find hard to accept. I find poets no less competitive than painter, composers. There are thousands of poetry competitions offering big bucks at times.
ReplyDeleteI find that the problem with poetry is the same with classical music in that the art is littered with ‘lollipops’. Wordsworth’s ‘Daffodils’ is a prime example. But how many people who claim to like it can appreciate the genius, for example, of referring to a ‘crowd’ of daffodils.
I read, write and critique poetry and have recently come to the conclusion that, at present, the printed book form is superior to posting on a web site. A person who reads poetry from a book has made a greater effort: they have chosen and bought the book and so are prepared to engage in what they have purchased. On the internet I find the majority of comment left on poems to be gratuitous. There is no attempt to grasp a meaning from a poem. Metaphors are taken as literal meanings. In short there is a lot of uninspired writing out there and mainly comments are made in return for another comment by the poet of a work by the respondent.
So whilst there seem to be a flourishing of poetry sites and blogs there is little appreciation of the actual poem itself.
I think that a lot of the reason for this can be found in the actual world whereby attempts to engage an audience through an artistic channel clashes with the acceptance of the idea that criticism is elitist. In our multicultural world everything is of equal value. The arts are not seen as disciplined dialogues but are measured as entertainment and thus quantity is the determining factor of what is viewed as good.
Poetry appears as a simple artform: The physical labour needed to produce a poem is less than that to produce a novel. Poetry is seen as a canon of soundbite.
Therapists tell their patients to use the mechanics of poetry to free themselves of their demons. This would be alright if there was a doctor-patient privilege in operation, but unfortunately that is not the case. And so instead of poetry we have statements of resentments and outpourings of (perceived) abuse.
So it seems that I am not too enamoured with the internet. Well not really. There are many fine poets on the internet. Wendy Mooney is one such poet whose blog,
http://journeyintopoetry.blogspot.com/ contains works that are superior to a lot of published poets. John Kay, who posts on Poemhunter.com is one of my favourite modern poets. Jefferson Carter and Lamont Palmer also post on Poemhunter and are superb poets by any standard. Kristen Reynold, who posts on Poetrysoup.com is a poet who I have recently come across and is so gifted in her writing. Sue Anne Simar publishes a journal, 10X3Plus ( blog: http://www.10x3plus.com/ ) and also posts her poetry on Poemhunter.com. She is an outstanding writer.
And there are many others.
For me it will be frustrating that the majority of stuff posted on the internet is just rubbish, but the fact that it is now easy to create your own blog and does require effort to maintain it suggests to me that there are a hell of a lot of people out there who are serious about what they are doing and take a pride in their work. And that can be good news for those who take poetry seriously.
nice article
ReplyDeleteYour opening line has long been a lament of mine. It is quite obvious that the largest group of poetry readers, perhaps 90% or more, are poets themselves; not all published, some may never be published, and some are probably pretty lousy too. But the point is that they have a passion for poetry and that is why they read it.
ReplyDeletePart of my self-appointed mission in life, and the motto of my small publishing house, NavWorks Press, is to "promote poetry and the writing arts." My focus is on getting non-poets to appreciate poetry.
One huge misconception among readers of poetry is that you can quickly read through a poem, grasp all you ever will from it, determine how much you like it or not, and then move on never to return again. Poetry is not meant to be read once, not even twice, but to be repeated again and again just like any song or musical piece.
Imagine what it would be like to listen to an artists album or CD once, make an assessment, and then move on never to hear those songs again. That would suck-- not only for the recording artists, but for the listeners as well. You could never "get into" a song and really feel its inner workings and tap its soul. It would be a surface thing, a superficial encounter.
That's one of the main problems with reading and appreciating poetry today, it has become a superficial encounter. People expect to get everything and understand everything in one quick reading.
Poetry, like music, is an art form that finds its fruition in being read or heard again and again, like a hit song or a favorite song. The most well beloved poems of the past are oft repeated and we know them because of their lasting effect and because they have been repeated again and again. They have become familiar friends.
My message to new poetry readers (and old ones if you're listening) is to read and enjoy a poem over and over again. If it is a good poem, each time you read it you will hear and see things you missed before, it will become richer, deeper, and it will grow on you to the point that you like reading it again and again for the mere pleasure it gives you.
You may even find yourself quoting lines of it to yourself in the middle of the day, or suddenly going, "Oh, that's what that comparison means, wow, that's good."
If it is not a good poem to you, after a few readings you'll probably move on. You'll discover that you have gotten all you want out of it and you'll move on.
A good poem should grow on us like a good song. As poets we all need to become "ambassadors of poetry" and begin to teach people that they need to read and enjoy a poem over and over if they really wish to get the greatest satisfaction and pleasure from it. Explain to them that they have never listened to a song just once and felt they grasped everything and exhausted everything the song had to offer. So too, it is foolish to think you could read a poem once and grasp every nuance of meaning the poet put into it.
Heck, sometimes a poem is initially downright confusing. It takes five readings just to get your bearings and then start grasping some of the intricacies the author was after.
Let's vow to never let poetry become an art of the elite, or some "insider's art." We need to make it accessible to everyone and begin to teach others that poetry is an art form that yields its greatest pleasure and satisfaction through repeated exposure.
There is so much competition in online poetry, just as there is in anything virtual or real world. Those that are successful are those that are competitive - but in no way against others, just against themselves. Competition is a good thing, when it is meant as such. There is always going to be someone who is "better". Read, learn and understand how and why they are better, and integrate those things into ones own work.
ReplyDeleteIs the Online Poetry Community a government agency? Is that what makes this blog "official"?
ReplyDelete