Poetry and why it fails

[Deleted member]

I suppose we haven't had a good ol' pretentious art / aesthetics debate in a while so here goes.

In my opinion,

Poetry is the lowest form of serious literature.


I would like to present to you all a case example of the sheer amount of bull**** and insincerity one can put into poetry and have it still deemed as "good." Now, before I begin, I'd like to state that this debate is about poetry, but that doesn't mean we can't bring other art forms. But it's about poetry specifically.

Let's go:

Around May of last year, the yearbook class at my school began collecting pieces of literature to feature in the yearbook's end pages. My writer's craft teacher decided to push me to submit something.

We were working on the poetry unit at the time, so unfortunately I was tasked with writing an epic poem.

In my head, I refused to do it sincerely. I opened up Word and made a brief skeleton of a poem with blanks to fill in words, much like mad libs. I then popped open MSN and began to ask my girlfriend for epic-y sounding nouns, verbs, and adverbs, etc. I filled them in. The following poem took literally 5 minutes to write, and I got 10/10 on it. Perfect mark.

Enlightenment, rampant, vicious sabres blowing with the wind of God
Picturesque, captured by the light of power
Iridescent amongst the looming shadows
Charming me
Salvation is sensation.
Artisans in the sands
Rarely dreading the notion
Entertaining the thought of night
Deceiving all those who waste souls
Ultimatums forcing those who perish to
Master life, and reject death.
Brazen, ready to ravage the tree of eternity
Lofty with air
Ominous with their grace.
Lacerations carve our minds' eye.

What did you think? Was it good?

Was it bad? If so, is it bad because you already know it was 100% bull****?

The clever people reading this noticed the hidden acrostic in the poem.

I was heartbroken to find out that my teacher had handpicked my poem as one of the pieces to be featured in the yearbook, when my piece that I spent days on writing (which was good, trust me.) did not get picked. She picked the one piece that I spent no time at all writing because of god knows why.

The kicker to this story? She gave me a 0 after we had an discussion in class and I revealed to her that such an obvious hidden message was glaring at her. (The first letter of each sentence was in HUGE 72 letter font. I made her feel pretty dumb, I suppose. But that's not the issue.)


I applaud whoever has read this far, btw. I know my ramblings are..well.

Poetry is the modern art of literature.

Poets are the athletes who wanted to become international football stars but sadly became a lowly high school gym teacher.

Poetry is the lowest form of literature. The fact that I can take random things and string them together so effortlessly and still create something that is deemed good is ridiculous. My point is that poetry is the easiest to bull****, and thus is the inferior style of writing.

This is more aimed to the free verse / epic poem / dadaist poetry, I should clarify.

Poetry is the epitome of insincerity.

So..what are your thoughts?

 

[Silent_Jester]

Thats not true. Last year in my English class we had to study a huge unit on poetry. MOST people completely sucked. Of course most people have the emotional capacity of a peanut, but thats not the point. They all wrote some stupid poem about basketball, a car, Chuck Norris. (I still hate that kid) But some of us wrote incredible heart wrenching poetry. The poem you wrote while it was completely made up, was in fact great. You obviously have a talent for poetry of else your teacher wouldn't have even made you write any poem.

 

[Deleted member]

The fact that you think my poem is great only proves my point more.

 

[Wikipedia]

So you got a 10/10 on your poem. From who? A teacher that went to a couple years of college to get his/her teaching degree. Grades are more on effort than anything. Especially in the arts, when these things are based off of opinion rather than facts, it is harder for an English teacher to look at a poem and say, 'That's wrong' than a math teacher to look at '2 + 2=5' and say, "That's wrong."

The fact of the matter is, your poem doesn't make any sense. Sure, if who you are talking to someone that is not well versed in studying literature then you can make up some 'deep' analysis of the poem and sound smart.

"What I get from the poem is a scenario played out in which man is conquering fate in a great battle of good and evil. Blahblah *words taken from dictionary.com's word of the day* blahblahblah *overuse of adjectives/adverbs* blahblah.

Trying getting your poem published, sure you can fool a couple of friends with a few aesthetically pleasing phrases and uncommonly used words but your poem would be easily disregarded if someone who knows how to analyze poetry were to look over your poem.

So now your argument is stumped. Either you try to explain a real meaning to the poem, which would force your argument into internal contradiction, or you failed at making the point that good poems can be made through ad libbing.

Regardless, you failed to support why poetry fails. All I got was that your teacher, amidst grading hundreds of papers, slapped on a 10 out of 10 on your ad libbed poem. Care to support why your teacher's opinion even matters?

 

[Deleted member]

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't need to make sense for it to be a good poem, which is my point. The guy above already said it was great.

I haven't failed at proving poems can be ad-libbed, but rather proven it on the first reply.


My teacher's opinion matters because it's my teacher. A teacher is not going to give an A for effort on an essay, nor are they going to give an A for effort on poetry. That's why Writer's Craft courses are hard to teach and are often subject to many criticisms.

Also, a scholar's opinion on subjective matters really only matter when they come into addressing themes and hidden images. Clearly, I'm not going to be the one to prove that Tybalt and Romeo are gay, the scholar is.

My dad is a movie critic for our city's newspaper. Do I value his opinion on movies? Yes. Do I value his opinion over others? Not necessarily.

Regardless.

The fact it got perfect is arbitrary, really. So far we have 2 people saying that it's good, namely my teacher and the guy who posted above. Which shows that ad-libbed poetry can be "good".




Edit in regards to yours:


Hey buddy, it was published. It was featured in my yearbook at the back and I got a lot of people complimenting me on it. The anthology it's included in doesn't matter in this case, all you need to know is that it passed quality control enough for it to be deemed good Yearbook material.

Second edit:

More on the fact that this poem doesn't make sense:

Who the **** gives a ****? Have you heard of Dadaist poetry?

Have you heard of the poetry where you take strips of sentences, put them in a ziplock bag, shake it up, and arrange them in a nice way?


I suggest you read Jabberwocky for a poem that doesn't make sense yet it's extremely popular.

 

[Wikipedia]

And who says their opinions matter?

"Because it's my teacher"
That doesn't pass as support for your argument.


Also, I never said that you failed to prove that poems can be ad libbed, I said that you failed to prove that good poems could be ad libbed.

 

[Deleted member]

Slow down there Mr. Elitist, since when does someone's opinion not matter?

I know what you said. You're being really ignorant as I've already proven that several people thought the poem was good. The poem was ad-libbed. There is no official way of determining good, so you need to accept the fact that even here in this thread the poem was deemed "great".

Trying getting your poem published, sure you can fool a couple of friends with a few aesthetically pleasing phrases and uncommonly used words but your poem would be easily disregarded if someone who knows how to analize poetry were to look over your poem.

We'll play the waiting game. I made a bet with my teacher after having this discussion (and him getting pretty passionate in poetry's defense) that I'd be able to submit a piece of half-***** piece of poetry and he'd still give it a high mark because he couldn't spot the half-assedness.

He took the bet. He thinks he'll be able to tell.


But what happens when I simply take a "good" poem from the internet and say that I did it? What if he legitimately believes that it's half-assed? How can it be half-***** when it's already famous / published?


This is why poetry is silly.

 

[Wikipedia]

So now you have resorted to name calling.

Yes, you have pointed out that a couple people have said it is a good poem, yet the creator of the poem says it is "bull****" and "insincere". So we actually have two that say it is bad and two that say it is good. At what point do you take the opinion over others? So this poem has +4 for good and -2 for bad...so mathematically this poem is +2 good! No.

You need to support why the poem is good and why the opinions of those saying it is good matter. I think the argument here is in the definition of good.

Yes, I have heard of poetry that you draw words out of a zip lock bag but you fail to support that you can make good poems with this method.

Additionally, I have read the poem Jabberwocky. It is meant to be cute and nonsensical, your poem, however, was meant to be methodical and serious. Just by it being labeled as an epic poem denotes it as a bad poem because it does not follow the standards of an epic poem.

Again, this argument comes down to the definition of good and who holds the right to define a work as good. I could read the following to my four year old sister,
"Princess, princess.
Castles and cute princes.
Singing birds and Trees.
Love, I want to marry a cute prince.
This is my dream."

And she would say that is an amazing poem. But, according to you, her opinion holds as much weight as someone who has been trained in analyzing poetry for decades and has read, studied and analyzed thousands of poems.

We'll play the waiting game. I made a bet with my teacher after having this discussion (and him getting pretty passionate in poetry's defense) that I'd be able to submit a piece of half-***** piece of poetry and he'd still give it a high mark because he couldn't spot the half-assedness.

He took the bet. He thinks he'll be able to tell.


But what happens when I simply take a "good" poem from the internet and say that I did it? What if he legitimately believes that it's half-assed? How can it be half-***** when it's already famous / published?


This is why poetry is silly.

You are only supporting my statement that your teacher doesn't know anything. Gosh, please, before you say another word about your ignorant teacher, would you please address how he/she is even important in this argument or why his opinion matters. You have to support these things.

So poetry is silly because your high school teacher may or may not be able to tell if you are plagiarizing a work while he/she is under the impression that you are "half-assing" it. Can you not see that it isn't poetry that's silly, it's your argument?

 

[Crimson King]

Since I am a poet, I have way too much personal stock in this argument to not become downright beligerent.

In short, 2 centuries ago, poetry was considered the only intellectual form of literature because it required the writer to say what he had to say in a short time span and with severe restrictions.

Really, just because YOU don't like poetry, doesn't make it a legitimate. Your opinion is not definitive of all literature.

 

[Deleted member]

Since I am also a poet, I feel I'm allowed to criticize my "creative outlet".

Who am I kidding, it's not creative at all LOL

I'll finish this a little later, but Eric, I know it's just my opinion. The debate hall is kind of lacking at the moment, so I thought I'd try to stir some ****.

Call me on it, come on.

 

[cF=)]

I see what you mean DeL, but in all honesty, every form of art has a ******** brother. You can't deny the talent Victor Hugo had or how brillant Jean-Sebastien Bach was simply because you wrote a crappy, yet successful poem or because Simple Plan is popular worldwide...

EDIT: Painting's funny in the same way. Ever heard of Malevitch and his 'white square on a white background' ? I could relate this example to dadaism: they both were revolutions, but it looks silly to say it's 'artistic'.

The fact that you wrote a second one and made it worst than what you posted here is hilarious though lol

 

[KevinM]

I really can't debate this as i would be extremely beligerent what with my want of being an english teacher and the obvious ease of being able to prove that poetry doesn't fail and is in fact one of the most important aspects of the literary world. For now i'll just read and hopefully be able to effectively put my arguements on the table without just calling you completely ignorant. It is however apparent that you either have never read a good poem, or have the intelligence to comprehend what is going on within one.

 

[Mediocre]

Poetry is the lowest form of literature. The fact that I can take random things and string them together so effortlessly and still create something that is deemed good is ridiculous. My point is that poetry is the easiest to bull****, and thus is the inferior style of writing.

This is more aimed to the free verse / epic poem / dadaist poetry, I should clarify.

Poetry is the epitome of insincerity.

You've got a crappy English teacher who can't recognize a crappy poem when he sees one. That does not mean poetry in general is worthless.

I agree that stringing random words together doesn't make a good poem, yet I still like poetry. You know why? Because most poems (even the really bad ones) are not made by stringing random words together.

You mention Jabberwocky as an example of a "random" poem. I don't see where you get that from.

First of all, Jabberwocky has a rhyme, a verse, a meter. Admittedly, those aren't enough to make it a good poem, but they certainly aren't "random." It has a plot, strange as it might be. That's not to say that I consider it a good poem. It's kind of funny and rather entertaining, sure, but that's it.

To me, a good poem has to make me think, or make me feel some sort of emotion. Jabberwocky doesn't really do that (beyond mild amusement) and your poem doesn't really do that (beyond a mild feeling of confusion). Therefore, I don't really like either of those poems.

The great thing about poetry is that you can like some poems and dislike others, and it's completely personal. Just because a poet is highly regarded doesn't mean you have to like them, although lots of teachers seem to expect you to. I know there are plenty of esteemed poets that I think are pretty much complete crap.

So, I think it's pretty stupid to say that you dislike poetry. You don't dislike poetry; you dislike poems. A lot of them, anyway. And you dislike people who blindly praise poems in an effort to make themselves seem intelligent.

Disliking an entire medium is just not sensible. Unless the medium is ridiculously constraining, or your tastes are horribly narrow, there's always something in a medium to fit your tastes. It may take a while to find, but it's there.

Who am I kidding, it's not creative at all LOL

It's a creative as you make it. No more, no less.

 

[Crimson King]

Since I am also a poet, I feel I'm allowed to criticize my "creative outlet".

Who am I kidding, it's not creative at all LOL

I'll finish this a little later, but Eric, I know it's just my opinion. The debate hall is kind of lacking at the moment, so I thought I'd try to stir some ****.

Call me on it, come on.

Give it time, I added about 15 people the other day. Once they start logging in/checking PMs, I expect activity to go up.

 

[Deleted member]

I should first respond to Kevin, who unfortunately took a little too much offense to my free thought:

KevinM, you may or may not know this, but high school English teacher was and still is a growing possibility as a career path for myself. But do I have to like all mediums in my field to teach it?
Also, I've read good poems. A lot of the time, when you're asked to find meaning within poetry that is just thrown together you start to think, "well, the creator didn't put any thought into it, so why am I trying to find meaning in nothingness? Sure it may look pretty. But there's no intent."

I'd then like to point out that you made an excellent point, Mediocre, in clarifying my opinion. You're exactly right. I don't like a lot of poems. There is of course a lot of intimately profound poetry.

There aren't really any buts to that last statement. I will say, for the record, that I have read a hell of a lot of poetry in my day as I used to absolutely love it. I started with Eliot and kept going. But more and more I found people abusing the medium, so I've grown to detest it and its inherent pretentiousness.

Jabberwockey is completely random by the way, half the words are made up. What about the poem Grasshopper?

r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r
who
a)s w(e loo)k
upnowgath
PPEGORHRASS
eringint(o-
aThe):l
eA
!p:
S a
(r
rIvInG .gRrEaPsPhOs)
to
rea(be)rran(com)gi(e)ngly
,grasshopper;

A lot of that is pretty random my friend.

Will add more later

 

[Wikipedia]

And what about Grasshopper? You are the one trying to prove that good poems can be made by lining up random words in a sentence. But by posting Grasshopper you are only proving that truly terrible poems can be made by lining up random words/letters/symbols.

I would still like to bring this argument back to the original statement. Poetry fails. This has yet to be proven by the affirmative party.

 

[Deleted member]

And what about Grasshopper? You are the one trying to prove that good poems can be made by lining up random words in a sentence. But by posting Grasshopper you are only proving that truly terrible poems can be made by lining up random words/letters/symbols.

I would still like to bring this argument back to the original statement. Poetry fails. This has yet to be proven by the affirmative party.

Hahaha. This is so perfect.

The grasshopper poem is written by E.E. Cummings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings

He is remembered as a preeminent voice of 20th century poetry, as well as one of the most enduringly popular.

Okay, so Cummings' poem Grasshopper is truly terrible. You agree with me that this poem has fail written all over it.

What, did you think I wrote that piece of garbage? No, one of the most famous poets of the 20th century did. You just called it truly terrible.

What's that? Grasshopper is just an exception?

http://www.gvsu.edu/english/cummings/issue9/Webster9.htm

The first, the famous grasshopper poem, visually and verbally scrambles the letters of the grasshopper's name in three different ways, turning a common insect into three exotic beasts.

I think I've said enough.

Lmfao. "Exotic beasts". What absolute bull****. A guy has a dyslexic moment and all of a sudden the grasshopper is being hailed as an exotic beast.



Also, Mediocre, I should clarify the anecdote by explaining that I'm taking writer's craft for the second time this year. I took it last year, enjoyed it, and wanted to take it again to push myself to write and for motivation.

The first year teacher didn't object to the poem, she was the one who gave it a 10/10.

This year's teacher I had the debate with and have the bet with. He thinks he can spot a ****ty half-***** poem. I think I can submit one undetected. Because I think poetry is so ridiculously open ended that way. Trust me, this teacher isn't a crappy teacher. He's in fact very wise.

I should also note that if you think my previous teacher is undoubtedly crappy because she liked the poem, then you are contradicting your other statements, saying that

The great thing about poetry is that you can like some poems and dislike others, and it's completely personal.

Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions, but isn't her opinion valid?


A lot of you are saying that random words do not make good poetry.

That is extremely hypocritical, and is down-right wrong. But then again, the phrases "good" and "poetry" are very hard to swallow together.

 

[Wikipedia]

Gosh, I'll just take the easy route in this argument.

What is wrong with the poem Grasshopper? What is wrong with a well known poet making a bad poem? By that definition, all other forms of literature fail because at one time or another I am sure there has been a well known author in every branch of literature that has written a bad piece of work.

I assumed you did not write Grasshopper, you did not trick me into saying that it was terrible. You also assume my opinion matters in labeling this poem as good. I don't see how that is a problem when I had no knowledge of the poem or have had no professional training or schooling in analyzing poetry. It is perfectly fine that after reading the analysis of the poem that I actually find the poem Grasshopper quite witty.

You assume several things in this Grasshopper argument. First, a well known poet is incapable of writing a bad poem. You claim that the poet of Grasshopper is well known, and therefore since he made a poem that appears to be random that this is supports the argument that good poems can be made through putting random words together.

In addition to this, you contradict yourself in saying the poem Grasshopper is random when you clearly knew that the author did not do this.

Finally, you assume that poetry as a genre is only as good as its worst. You know there are better poems out there, that is why Grasshopper fails to show why poetry fails.

I think you also have the definitions of "popular" and "good" mix up or misunderstood. They are not the same thing, I poem can be popular and not good.

The only thing you proved with your Grasshopper argument is that things that appear to be random and nonsensical don't make sense until they are explained. The author wrote Grasshopper in a totally different plane than standard poetry, it would be like if he wrote a poem in Russian and then we are judging it on English standards, according to English written Russian is just a bunch of weird symbols. Of course the Russian poem wouldn't make any sense to English speakers, but if the poet explained what it meant then it will hold more meaning.

 

[KevinM]

Or perhaps we could continue on the literary genious that was E.E Cummings and take a look at this gem.

anyone lived in a pretty how town

(with up so floating many bells down)

spring summer autumn winter

he sang his didn't he danced his did



Women and men(both little and small)

cared for anyone not at all

they sowed their isn't they reaped their same

sun moon stars rain



children guessed(but only a few

and down they forgot as up they grew

autumn winter spring summer)

that noone loved him more by more



when by now and tree by leaf

she laughed his joy she cried his grief

bird by snow and stir by still

anyone's any was all to her



someones married their everyones

laughed their cryings and did their dance

(sleep wake hope and then)they

said their nevers they slept their dream



stars rain sun moon

(and only the snow can begin to explain

how children are apt to forget to remember

with up so floating many bells down)



one day anyone died i guess

(and noone stooped to kiss his face)

busy folk buried them side by side

little by little and was by was



all by all and deep by deep

and more by more they dream their sleep

noone and anyone earth by april

wish by spirit and if by yes.



Women and men(both dong and ding)

summer autumn winter spring

reaped their sowing and went their came

sun moon stars rain

(Another seemingly random poem, however on a level of analysis what you realize is that Cummings had taken an analytical look at society it his seeming nonsense.. so i stick to the fact that it doesn't seem like you understand the poems you so readily criticize.

 

[Deleted member]

What is wrong with the poem Grasshopper? What is wrong with a well known poet making a bad poem? By that definition, all other forms of literature fail because at one time or another I am sure there has been a well known author in every branch of literature that has written a bad piece of work.

I think you misunderstood here. I already explained that Grasshopper isn't an exception. For argument's sake, let's realize that for all intents and purposes, the poem Grasshopper is famous. It is not infamous, that would imply it was notorious for something probably negative, like bad quality. A infamously bad poem. It's not. It's famous. It's famous for being a good poem and different and yeah I can't continue on that, but we need to stop deciding what is good and what isn't. This poem is famous, it's written by a very well known writer, so let's assume that it's pretty ****ing good.

You also assume my opinion matters in labeling this poem as good. I don't see how that is a problem when I had no knowledge of the poem or have had no professional training or schooling in analyzing poetry. It is perfectly fine that after reading the analysis of the poem that I actually find the poem Grasshopper quite witty.

Why do we need professional training or schooling to analyze a subjective art form? We don't. Consider this. Andy Warhol is still alive, and for another one of his art pieces, he takes a dump on a piece of paper, puts a flag in it, and presents it formally as art.

Come on. Do I need formal training and schooling to fully understand his intention? Do I really need to know a background to know that it's just a turd?

You assume several things in this Grasshopper argument. First, a well known poet is incapable of writing a bad poem. You claim that the poet of Grasshopper is well known, and therefore since he made a poem that appears to be random that this is supports the argument that good poems can be made through putting random words together.

Again, for all intents and purposes, Grasshopper is a good poem. I obviously don't like it, but it's clear that it's popular enough to be considered as good, because there is clearly an audience that wants to read it. You may not like Britney Spears, but if you're into pop music, she's probably good. If it was bad pop music, I highly doubt it would be so popular between pre-teen girls and gay men. Yeah, I don't listen to Britney Spears.

In addition to this, you contradict yourself in saying the poem Grasshopper is random when you clearly knew that the author did not do this.

Right, because Cummings had the exact spelling of the three exotic beasts down to a rhyme and reason. If you want to get technical, Cummings had a possible 2.8531167061e + 11 ways to turn the word grasshopper into an exotic beast. 11 letters to the power of 11.

Finally, you assume that poetry as a genre is only as good as its worst. You know there are better poems out there, that is why Grasshopper fails to show why poetry fails.

Do I? I know there are better ones? Well okay, if you say so. Alls I know is, Grasshopper is a popular imagist poem which is evident to me that such a basic and random piece of writing can be deemed as good.

I think you also have the definitions of "popular" and "good" mix up or misunderstood. They are not the same thing, I poem can be popular and not good.

And that's where I disagree.

Take Halo 3 for example. I've never been one for Halo, but it's retardedly popular. Clearly, the millions of people playing and creaming themselves over this game is not for nothing. It's a good game, but I can't seem to get into it.

If something is popular, generally it is good at what it does or what it is aimed at.

We associate good with popular all the time. That's why brand advertising works so easily.

The only thing you proved with your Grasshopper argument is that things that appear to be random and nonsensical don't make sense until they are explained. The author wrote Grasshopper in a totally different plane than standard poetry, it would be like if he wrote a poem in Russian and then we are judging it on English standards, according to English written Russian is just a bunch of weird symbols. Of course the Russian poem wouldn't make any sense to English speakers, but if the poet explained what it meant then it will hold more meaning.

Are you asking for an explanation for my epic poem then? Would that comfort you? I could easily type some bull**** up and explain my epic to you, maybe that way you can rest easily knowing that there was some intent and purpose behind it. Sure, explaining Grasshopper gives you more meaning, but it's still, at the end of a day, simply one line that's broken up into somewhat-random pieces.

If you'd like, I can give you an example of a zip-lock bag poem. Let's see you try and get meaning from that.

 

[NoSurprises]

T The poem you wrote while it was completely made up, was in fact great. You obviously have a talent for poetry of else your teacher wouldn't have even made you write any poem.

That was a terrible poem. It's not more a great poem then saying "He unfastened his oral cavity and resonated" is an amazing sentence for a book. All you did was throw large, "epicish" words in, but that didn't make it any better. You really don't have any case other the "I hate poems", so there's not much else to say on this.

 

[Deleted member]

Your post doesn't contribute much other than your negative opinion on my poem that got literary praise.

 

[Crimson King]

I actually read you poem this time. I'll post a line by line analysis later, but in short, it's really just a load of big words that you hope means something. If your in High School, that's your answer as to why it got 10/10. If you are in college, your professor is inept.

 

[NoSurprises]

Your post doesn't contribute much other than your negative opinion on my poem that got literary praise.

You're argument was that poems are easy and a load of crap, and then presented a single poem that you wrote. I showed why it wasn't a good poem, and then said that the rest of your argument was taste. Don't try and say your poem got literary praise, a high school teacher is not literary praise. She's a teacher. If you get it published, or have a respected poet prise your work, then you have literary praise.

 

[Deleted member]

I actually read you poem this time. I'll post a line by line analysis later, but in short, it's really just a load of big words that you hope means something. If your in High School, that's your answer as to why it got 10/10. If you are in college, your professor is inept.

Correct. But had I not beat you to the punch and revealed that it has no intention to it, people would legitimately try and find my meaning. Am I right? Had you not known, you would not have had the extreme insensitivity to post that it means absolutely nothing, as that could crush a man.

Understand, everyone, that I did not present my poem to my audiences the way I did now. When it was finished, I put on an extremely sincere disposition, and didn't reveal that it was bull****.

Honestly, I think one of the major factors in some of these criticisms on the poem is due to this reveal. And I think it's pretty upsetting that just because I have no intention, the level of awareness goes down dramatically. CK, you just posted saying you didn't read it. I'm assuming you skipped over it the first time solely because I said it was bull**** and didn't care. This is an interesting observation that must be noted.

NoSurprises, read the thread next time before posting.

 

[NoSurprises]

Since I am also a poet, I feel I'm allowed to criticize my "creative outlet".

Who am I kidding, it's not creative at all LOL

I'll finish this a little later, but Eric, I know it's just my opinion. The debate hall is kind of lacking at the moment, so I thought I'd try to stir some ****.
Call me on it, come on.

Answered

Slow down there Mr. Elitist, since when does someone's opinion not matter?

I know what you said. You're being really ignorant as I've already proven that several people thought the poem was good. The poem was ad-libbed. There is no official way of determining good, so you need to accept the fact that even here in this thread the poem was deemed "great".

By a moron. But I already said that

We'll play the waiting game. I made a bet with my teacher after having this discussion (and him getting pretty passionate in poetry's defense) that I'd be able to submit a piece of half-***** piece of poetry and he'd still give it a high mark because he couldn't spot the half-assedness.

He took the bet. He thinks he'll be able to tell.


But what happens when I simply take a "good" poem from the internet and say that I did it? What if he legitimately believes that it's half-assed? How can it be half-***** when it's already famous / published?


This is why poetry is silly.

Not only is that something I can't comment on, but what you're asserting is based on an assumption, that he won't be able to discover if it's a half-***** poem or a great one. Again, I wouldn't hold a high school teacher to be a great literary scholar.

I should first respond to Kevin, who unfortunately took a little too much offense to my free thought:

KevinM, you may or may not know this, but high school English teacher was and still is a growing possibility as a career path for myself. But do I have to like all mediums in my field to teach it?
Also, I've read good poems. A lot of the time, when you're asked to find meaning within poetry that is just thrown together you start to think, "well, the creator didn't put any thought into it, so why am I trying to find meaning in nothingness? Sure it may look pretty. But there's no intent."

Just your taste you're presenting as fact. Nothing I can comment on, besides the "rest of your argument is taste". I have no problem finding meaning in most poetry.

I'd then like to point out that you made an excellent point, Mediocre, in clarifying my opinion. You're exactly right. I don't like a lot of poems. There is of course a lot of intimately profound poetry.

There aren't really any buts to that last statement. I will say, for the record, that I have read a hell of a lot of poetry in my day as I used to absolutely love it. I started with Eliot and kept going. But more and more I found people abusing the medium, so I've grown to detest it and its inherent pretentiousness.

That really changes your entire argument, and I'm surprised you waited until there to post it. And it contradicts your earlier "LOL poetry isn't creative" posts. I can agree with you that there is a lot of bad poetry, but I wouldn't say, of published work, there is any real higher percentage of poetry that is terrible then there are books that are terrible.

everything about grasshopper

The grasshopper poem is interesting, but I'd say that it is the same as modern art, in that it was progressed so far down the smugness lane that only other poets/artists can understand it.

Sure, explaining Grasshopper gives you more meaning, but it's still, at the end of a day, simply one line that's broken up into somewhat-random pieces.

And all that you are saying is just letters thrown together. Seriously, man, that type of description doesn't work for on pieces of art, good or bad.


There, I answered all of your quotes that are I found to be debatable, comment-able, or related to the poetry topic. By and large, does this make much of a difference? No, I basically said the same thing earlier

 

[Crimson King]

Correct. But had I not beat you to the punch and revealed that it has no intention to it, people would legitimately try and find my meaning. Am I right? Had you not known, you would not have had the extreme insensitivity to post that it means absolutely nothing, as that could crush a man.

Understand, everyone, that I did not present my poem to my audiences the way I did now. When it was finished, I put on an extremely sincere disposition, and didn't reveal that it was bull****.

In correct, if you read my earlier post, you'd see I didn't read any of the posts except to add that I am poet personally so I didn't want to post. I regularly have to critique poetry so this is nothing new.

Honestly, I think one of the major factors in some of these criticisms on the poem is due to this reveal. And I think it's pretty upsetting that just because I have no intention, the level of awareness goes down dramatically. CK, you just posted saying you didn't read it. I'm assuming you skipped over it the first time solely because I said it was bull**** and didn't care. This is an interesting observation that must be noted.

NoSurprises, read the thread next time before posting.

Incorrect. I skipped over it because I did not agree with the topic as I posted earlier.

 

[Deleted member]

Alright. CK, for the purpose of sheer psychology and observations on biases, help me conduct an experiment.

If you regularly critique poetry, submit to me a poem that I can write down on a piece of paper. Give me a poem that you really enjoy. This isn't to prove whether or not my teacher is bad at judging poetry. Give me something obscure, that he probably won't know, or if he has read it before, forgot about it.

If it's a personal piece of work, I will not take credit for it. I will reveal the true author in any scenario.

This is to prove what will happen if I take the poem to him and flat out reveal that I bull****ted it, before he even reads it, which is what I did to you guys.

I'm going to assume that he will inadvertently tell me it's not a good piece because of the reveal. Let's try it. No? PM me, please. I'd really like to see what happens.

Also CK, the fact that you didn't read it because you were offended is evidence my teacher will behave the way I expect him to, in any regard. You took offense to the title and immediately ignored it. The attention level dropped dramatically.

 

[Crimson King]

Offended? No, I wasn't offended. I just avoid taking part in topics that affect me directly because of such a strong personal bias against it. I have a poetry topic in the Creative Minds. I suggest using the Sestina in there. If you click my profile, click "Topics by user" it's Poetry.

 

[Deleted member]

That's rather long, mind if I just take a couple paragraphs? Stanzas? Whatever?

 

[Crimson King]

Preferably not. The Sestina only works when viewed completely. It'd be better to use another, I forget which was my second favorite, so let's say one of the Sonnets.

 

[Wikipedia]

Oh, yes, I keep forgetting when reading this thread that Delorted's contention seems to be that poetry fails because his high school teacher can't tell when is trying on a poem or not. Seriously, your teacher has nothing to do with this debate and I'd ask you again to provide some support for why the whole entire genre of literature known as poetry hinges on the performance of your high school English teacher.

Why do we need professional training or schooling to analyze a subjective art form? We don't. Consider this. Andy Warhol is still alive, and for another one of his art pieces, he takes a dump on a piece of paper, puts a flag in it, and presents it formally as art.

Yes, I agree that you only need elementary training to analyze elementary art/literature. But you would be much harder off trying to analyze a much deeper work of art. Do you really think art historians are all a bunch of fakes? What a silly argument.

And that's where I disagree.

Take Halo 3 for example. I've never been one for Halo, but it's retardedly popular. Clearly, the millions of people playing and creaming themselves over this game is not for nothing. It's a good game, but I can't seem to get into it.

If something is popular, generally it is good at what it does or what it is aimed at.

We associate good with popular all the time. That's why brand advertising works so easily.

You disagree that popular and good have different meanings? That's not something you can disagree with, and what is in the quote box only proves that you truly don't understand the difference. Yes there are cases where good and popular line up but it is entirely possible for something to be popular but not good. I don't see how that his hard to understand.


And no, I don't need an explanation for your epic poem. It doesn't even follow the standards for an epic poem. I assume you have read Homer's The Odyssey. That is a great epic poem. It is because your poem is meant to be read sentence by sentence and make sense that the Grasshopper argument doesn't apply. The Grasshopper poem isn't meant to be read at face value and make sense, it is a different type of poem.

EDIT:

Wait I just realized that you just claimed that not only does poetry fail but art does too. Honestly, do you really think that it is a real argument that if a well known author or artist does something that seems to be shallow then the whole genre fail? Way to go, Delorted.

EDIT2:
I never noticed this;

What's that? Grasshopper is just an exception?

An exception to what?

 

[Eight Sage]

Poetry is the lowest form of serious literature.
[...]
Poetry is the modern art of literature.
[...]
My point is that poetry is the easiest to bull****, and thus is the inferior style of writing.

I'll take these statements to give you my opinion.

Poetry was well seen by the high class people back then, so there's no way poetry is the lowest form of serious literature. Now poetry isn't that relevant or important like it was, just look at paintings, sure the value of some of them are really high, but if someone tries to attempt to make that kind of expensive paintings, no one would buy it (unless it's really cheap).

Poetry isn't the inferior style of writing. Is really that inferior? inferior than a novel? Let me ask something, what's the difference between a novel and poetry? novel entertains you, yes, but poetry leaves you a message, that kind of learning that it keeps you wondering and wondering. I feel that kind of writing more attractive than a novel.

Maybe bad done poetry is useless, but well done poetry is the best expression of literature, and thus the best thing to read. Go read Paulo Coelho, Pablo Neruda or Jorge Luis Borges poetry. There's no way that kind of poems are the lowest form of serious literature.

 

[Falco&Victory]

ok, that poem sucked. A lot

I couldn't even form a mental image of anything in that poem in my head
Your teacher is just over-awed by your epicy words

I would not have passed that poem at all, there is NO understanding to be had in it

Poetry doesn't fail, just the people who pretend to understand it

PS: was there any form of good elaboration in that poem?

 

[Snaaaake!]

My dad's a Language poet. He's really, really good, and his stuff, he spends a lot of time writing and re-writing. He's one of the better-known Language poets, too. Ron Silliman. So when I saw and read this thread- he're the thing- that poem in the first post is a pretty good satire of bad poets, and not much else. And that your english teacher loved it, well, that's not a sign that all poetry is bad- far from it- it means your english teacher is easily impressed by epicy words. In the world of serious poetry, you can't add-lib a poem you did like in your english class. My dad might think that that earlier "grasshopper" poem was one of the great poems of our time. He might think it's not that good at all. I really can't tell- I respect poetry hugely, but I can't understand some of it. But what I've read of my dad's books rules, and Edgar Allen Poe is also incredibly good.

 

[AltF4]

Poetry + Music = Songs
Music > 0
Thus, Songs > Poetry

And by extension, math > poetry.

 

[Deleted member]

I re(ad)
   r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r
	PPEGORHRASS
		gRrEaPsPhOs

						!a-g-n-i-a-v!

			eXoTiC b(
east)wasusedt

									NAGVIA

					!ode_scribe! 

ginava

				!;grasshopper), ithoug----->

								tsaebcitoxeeromafot<-----

									avigan 
			than:GrAsShOpPer;)

			mill(10^6)ions of WaY!
	S to write

[font="Arial Black"]v[/font]agina aswell;

Tell me what you guys think of the poem I just wrote

 

[Mediocre]

I re(ad)
   r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r
	PPEGORHRASS
		gRrEaPsPhOs

						!a-g-n-i-a-v!

			eXoTiC b(
east)wasusedt

									NAGVIA

					!ode_scribe! 

ginava

				!;grasshopper), ithoug----->

								tsaebcitoxeeromafot<-----

									avigan 
			than:GrAsShOpPer;)

			mill(10^6)ions of WaY!
	S to write

[font="Arial Black"]v[/font]agina aswell;

Tell me what you guys think of the poem I just wrote

At this point, it seems more like you're trolling than debating.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, I got nothing else to say until my experiment results come back. I wanted to have a nice debate about things in art like poetry and modern art that have been criticized for being effortless, so we can continue with that. Like modern art.

 

[Delphiki]

Don't attack poetry on the grounds of modern poetry. Of true poetry I have read only the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Faust, and some of Nietzsche's short poems.

They all represent an idea first and poetic form second. Moreover, most of these were given to me in terrible form - English. Hellenic dactylic hexameter is leagues above modern American 'poetry'. I read Faust in both German and English, and even though my German was terrible at the time, the depth and profundity of the words went much deeper than in the English version. Also, it kept it's form as written music - something a translation never does.

Your argument is stupid. Not because of your poem, or the opinions of the people you asked. It's dumb because it's subjective to personal opinion, and you're incredibly biased - first of all you haven't the insight to enjoy a true epic, and you'd rather generalize and belittle them based on a stupid high school class/teacher and an arrogant child.

I don't know where you got your ideas from but try thinking a bit slower next time. And I mean no malice in that - when you think quickly and don't reinspect the justifications behind your reasons (as if justice should ever be thought of in the realm of truth!) your answers will always be ill-developed.