Persons take to writing poetry without any knowledge of various kinds of poetry written the past. They often write without inspiration. To be able to write poetry, a person should not only read the poems of the past but must also have a knowledge of the poetic technique that includes diction and metre (rhythm and rhyme). Poetry is a special genre of literature where sound, sense and suggestion speak volumes. A single line often works more than a hundred pages of prose fiction. Poetry touches the chords the heart and of the mind while fiction teases the mind alone. The end of poetry being to give pleasure, a person should have knowledge of the history of poetry and that of poetic technique.
I am not a poet, but I write poetry. I am a visual artist and I made visual artefacts before I became a professional artist. Perhaps this is a matter of different audiences. As an artist during my training I had to undertake a long immersion in art history, I have continued to look at other art and acknowledge the influences of various figures from the past and expect other professionals to understand my own work in relation to that history. However, I have also seen the work of 'outsiders' who have their own unique personal vision and this can be very powerful. They have something to say and say it with a directness and power that sometimes I envy. My own sophistication and knowledge sometimes becomes a burden that can make it more difficult to shape incoming events into things that have a more universal truth. The codes of aesthetic appreciation are sometimes outdated and in need of rethinking because the world is changing and although some things will always remain the same, (life, death, love, hate etc.) the formats we encounter these in change. I am very aware that an exhibition of my work will be appreciated by other professionals in a knowing way, but others with no art training can still 'get it', but without the references. So going back to your initial question; no, poetry is not possible by an untrained writer within a certain context; you can't write for a sophisticated audience that expects to hear references to a chosen canon of writing without the necessary training, but you can have experiences and put them down directly in writing and these can move other people. As to whether this is good or bad poetry, that is another matter and this lies with who sever is given the power of judgement.
I am not a poet, but I write poetry. I am a visual artist and I made visual artefacts before I became a professional artist. Perhaps this is a matter of different audiences. As an artist during my training I had to undertake a long immersion in art history, I have continued to look at other art and acknowledge the influences of various figures from the past and expect other professionals to understand my own work in relation to that history. However, I have also seen the work of 'outsiders' who have their own unique personal vision and this can be very powerful. They have something to say and say it with a directness and power that sometimes I envy. My own sophistication and knowledge sometimes becomes a burden that can make it more difficult to shape incoming events into things that have a more universal truth. The codes of aesthetic appreciation are sometimes outdated and in need of rethinking because the world is changing and although some things will always remain the same, (life, death, love, hate etc.) the formats we encounter these in change. I am very aware that an exhibition of my work will be appreciated by other professionals in a knowing way, but others with no art training can still 'get it', but without the references. So going back to your initial question; no, poetry is not possible by an untrained writer within a certain context; you can't write for a sophisticated audience that expects to hear references to a chosen canon of writing without the necessary training, but you can have experiences and put them down directly in writing and these can move other people. As to whether this is good or bad poetry, that is another matter and this lies with who sever is given the power of judgement.
Writing poetry in its essence is the act of uttering something from existential conflict whence before there is only silent endurance at ordinary times. Technique and erudition on poetic traditions comes secondary, to a selective few that people revered as poets. That's my two cents.
Dear Susan,
Not always the pain of existential crisis and its endurance are the sources of poetic composition. A number of poems celebrate life and the beauty of nature. A person has moments of exultation side by side with mournfulness. The technique is not secondary; it is at par with the content. Unless it is technically finished, it would have little effect on the mind of the readers who read poetry for pleasure. Poetic pleasure is different from the ordinary feeling of joy. It is synonymous with appreciation.
Thanks,
Sibaprasad
Ordinary feeling of joy needs to be sharpened and expressed by observant poets. And no one should be excluded from this effort ...
I invite more posts on this issue. Please do join, my RG friends.
Sibaprasad Dutta
I would give it a qualified "yes". My thesis is that it is possible to teach how to write poetry by giving the steps for writing workable poetry. (I am busy on this project at the moment). However, my "yes" is also conditional upon being given some samples of best practice to aim for. My answer is also conditional upon the student knowing how to use Google to find out things.
Certainly a lot of time can be saved by omitting all biographies of poets. Also, a lot of time can be saved by not teaching all the technical terms. Let the budding poet rediscover what "enjambment" is, like I did. The concept does not have to be named; it is just useful to use the same name in talking to other people!
A lot of techniques are never used or usable. However it is assumed that the student will already know how to brainstorm, plan a project, research a project, seek help, write "roughs", and know how to put a poetic license to good use. Sadly, many techniques that poets use are either trade secrets, or invisible after the scaffolding has been removed and the final poem displayed. E.g., who teaches "syllable budget" or "scan plan"? My thesis is that it is better to learn to find, use and adapt such practical tools than to learn all of history.
Possible, but most likely would more often than not lead to reinvention of something already done by someone. It would also take longer time for the poet to come up with original and rich style. I think, also studying narrative philosophy, world and local history, as well as many other subjects are very important for a poet with substance in his or her creations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science
- Mind