Free To Be Poet Critic; theory of poetry Forum poetry theory

whatever poetry is not, it seems to me that what it is is the most honest use of words and wording. the creating of the poem is what's real about being a poet. when i'm not writing poetry i'm not a "poet".

i'm am in it to learn.... the idea of what i am or am not, as poet is theoretical. i would hasten to add that the alacrity, the vision and the leitmotif or theme a person is being, i.e., their life story unfolding, is the juice behind the written words the poem itself may present.

The dance, the dancer and the environment that the dancer is dancing in, all create the effect of the dance itself... so that the poet would be dancing like this, you see...

the skill of the dancer would be related to these other two aspects, and the poem would be the context of the poet and her life becoming... these three aspects together would even change the rythm of the poem and the poet...

theres that trianry interchanging of positive, negative and neutral all dancing together in change... 

My Rule: It Must Be GREAT and Original.

I am going to be brutally honest here because this group will be very special.  I have not even tried to seriously critique anyone's writing on this site or elsewhere, because I find almost everything lacking.

If I must unleash my literary disappointment upon others, I am certainly up to the challenge. But I always ask myself, would this be of help?  I could certainly critique the canonical literary greats, but I have long surpassed that desire by being more obsessed with creating myself.

I absolutely love reading great writing--to be filled with another's palpable incendiary presence on the other side of a page as a sublime extraordinary kindred! To learn!

So my philosophical question becomes: How can I possibly be of service as a critic of other writers' work? All this time, I considered my writing enough--that it should stand on its own; and it certainly always will.

I do admire the work of the great critics as well--but surprise, surprise: Some of the greatest writers are the greatest critics!  It is ALL experience and the writing of it.

So I ask: What compels one to critique a work?  What are the myriad reasons? 

How can I approach this in a different way?

yes, but what does "great and original" really mean? how does it translate into poetry, if it's a technique or attitude? that we like something isn't really the question -- since it's not up to us to make the poem real -- the poem is always real for the poet. at the critical level of observation, it's just up to us to learn to play the poem, as a musician plays a score -- to figure out the poet's moves and gestures and "language". but, beyond that, there's something called a "poem", and, in spite of the waffles it isn't the same thing as a slice of ham. what is it that makes a poem a poem, do you think? that's the idea i'm trying to figure out: a theory of poetry.

if you put to words together on a page, under what circumstances might that paring be a poem? and, supposing that the noun/ verb division is what we're working with, how is it that both words seem to become verbs when you read it as a poem? isn't it something about the "time projection" onto the noun object? that "looking at a rock" makes the rock into our time space, laces it as a time object within our consciousness?

the silliness of "haiku" is the wonderful sillyness of the "cosmic pun", that there's descretion in the world, that objects really "exist" outside our noticing them.

red bed.

It appears you are seeking a unified objective within a post-modern framework. As irony would have it, the two are irreconcilable opposites. I’m unsure of how an agreed upon theory of poetry can be established when there is no agreed upon "method" of poetry. If there were confines to the method, then a theory behind the structure could be analyzed... but as it stands, there is not.

I think I have to agree with Carol in this case. The individual critic will recognize greatness and originality within the subjective limitations of their own world view and experience.

umm, "post modern"? and i think it's really more medieval than not -- i'm suggesting that there are dualities which allow both conscious writing and unconcious. but this forum would be for hearing other points of view argued out. what is "subjectivity"? where did you learn this concept and what is the you that is subjectively saying, "this is subjective"? not to mention, "greatness" nor that "greatness" might seem paltry after lunch.

it's not that i'm inventing or trying to invent a "method", it's that i'm trying to figure out how much of what i write is me and how much is you or maybe even hermes, the poetry pup.

If the purpose here was to evaluate medieval prose on the basis of its aesthetic, then I would understand where you are coming from. However, the contemporary tendency is to reject aesthetic all together... without this antithesis, what is there to measure? Other than one’s own subjective response?

By subjective I simply mean that what you seek is a principal that can only vary by the individual. I do not deny a duality in poetry... or in any kind of art. However, the level of that duality does not seem to be a fixed element. Others will find more of themselves in your work than say I would, and vice versa.

With this I’m more inclined to favor the thoughts expressed by others in this forum. Pema’s cumulative grouping of context and environment, Carol’s perceived greatness on a level relevant to her... or even Yoav’s views on what gives poetry music and emotion. I understand these because they are operating within their subjective confines.

I have much more difficulty understanding you. I do not mean to say that I don’t believe you have a valid idea of what you are saying. I sincerely believe you are passionate about finding a theory of poetry, and I would like to contribute if possible. However, we seem to be stuck on the foundational level of what that means.

You seem to be of the opinion that poetry becomes valid based on some arrangement of structure and technique... you mentioned you delight in "God’s Grandeur" despite a disagreement with it’s message. While on the other hand, I’ve been moved by pieces that were situated very roughly but presented profound ideas. I do not think you can reduce poetry to pattern and texture... just as you cannot reduce art to pattern and texture.

The only defining universal I find in poetry is that of the merchant. And it’s quite appalling. A persons work is taken and capitalized upon by a publisher. This in turn makes it valid. Pragmatism has no place in poetry in my opinion... just because it sells does not make it poetry...

What does make it poetry is the sincere individual reaction of the reader. The reader finds in it something to identify with... weather it be the content of the message, or the structure of the words. This is subjectivity.

supposing that it is simply my opinion, and i'd never say that it wasn't, why would my simply posting that opinion stop the dialog? and the subjective -- substituting it for "individual" doesn't define the subject -- contrasts define, and i'm looking for consistant contrasting opinions to my own. there is subjective -- is there an "objective poetry", for instance? that's sort of your "merchant" -- what i would call "transactional" to understand it as a presentation for some kind of acknowledgement.

but, the great fun is your comment on "medieval" -- now, looking at what you've written i'm stuck with thinking that you've thought that there was a medieval and a prose, and that the two were so linked that you couldn't talk about a "medieval state of mind" -- a state of pre-rationalism to my mind, and what i was jokingly suggesting was my point of view -- i have to say things like that here because you'd posited a "post-modern" mode, and i don't need to think that there is such a mode.

If objective poetry exists, I don’t know that it can be defined... but perhaps it can be theorized... and maybe that is what you are after in this dialogue... in which case, my apologies for my slow come around.

I don’t believe it belongs to either the reader or the writer... it is fixed in it’s own realm that the mind has no access to, the reader is subjective in their interpretation and the writer is subjective in their meaning. If the writer wanted to be objective in their meaning, they wouldn’t be writing metaphor.

The question now arises as to weather or not a piece need be objectively poetic to invoke any subjective reaction. Duchamp took a porcelain urinal and stuck it in a gallery calling it "art"... and people saw it as brilliant.

Can we even define 'objectivity' with any useful relevance? I agree that 'economic' value is another form and ritual of wounded reason and has no usefulness to the human dance of evolution. and the dance of evolution may be the pattern of usefulness we are 'looking' for in our evaluation of objectivity.

I'm looking beyond the 'Darwinian' constructs here. Usefulness to the evolution of the Earth may be outrageous mutations and experiments that only last a breath of time, as some:most Poetry does. Usefulness of Poetry may be the wings it gives the reader to new and wondered meaning.

the eye sees a glittering on the waves of a pond, let's say
glittering
synaptic resonance,
neurons colesce in flower
mind makes meaning, fractal:eyesed
dendrites a:muse:singing
making many reflections,
entice the lungs to
sigh into eternity.

perhaps then, Poetry, like 'glitterings' seeks to compel (imbue) a 'sympathetic resonance' through 'word/images' that colesce to a 'flower' of meaning in the observer.

perhaps if the reader stops and ponders the 'flower' then the Poetry has created meaning and the value is the liberation the observer 'feels' at getting out of his/her tunnelvision space/time reality construct. Thus bringing them 'up' above the 'Darwinian' mono-culture of economics and wounded reason.