There have been some good "What is poetry" threads on here. There's been debate, and some disagreement, but over all, the quality of the discussion was pretty high.
and this is the question i ask myself quite often. how does one define poetry.
There were two Marxist critics called Etienne Balibar and Pierre Macherey, who in 1974 wrote this essay called "On Literature as an Ideological Form." They were far too sophisticated ever to make the vulgar Marxist statement that literature is a direct replication of a dominant ideology. However, they did consider the relationship between aesthetics and ideology. Is dominant taste about what is good and what is bad, dependent on dominant codes of representing the world through language? If people come to agreement about what is bad poetry, are they using an aesthetic viewpoint that is tied up with how The Man wants you to assess what is worthy and commendable? Perhaps what is bad in poetry is that obsession with formalism or "saying something new". After all, the elite usually have the education and linguistic tools to play with language, and impress their posh publisher friends with it.
and what about you fins? do you believe that certain types of poetry, or literature for that matter, reflects a certain ideology? is it possible just by studying the piece of work itself, without any context whatsoever, to determine where the author is coming from. can you make judgements, for want of a better word, about what it is the author is trying to say? or do we trully understand a work, only through full disclosure of its origins? and why do we feel the need to do so?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"is it possible just by studying the piece of work itself, without any context whatsoever, to determine where the author is coming from. can you make judgements, for want of a better word, about what it is the author is trying to say? or do we trully understand a work, only through full disclosure of its origins? and why do we feel the need to do so?"
There was a school of formalist critics who practiced something called Practical Criticism. They'd read poems "blind", knowing nothing about a composition's author, or date. Of course, their own training was grounded in certain aesthetic and ideological judgements about art, poetry and language, so in seeking to find out the universal meanings in poems, they'd miss a lot of nuances of language that might only be appreciated with a bit of historical, cultural and linguistic context.
So I do think you need to read poems in their historical, social and linguistic contexts (ie, in terms of how words were used to represent ideas in their time as opposed to in another period). I do also think some biographical knowledge of the author is useful too. Although, okay, what an author intends to say is only really discernible if it's actually in the text at some level, I do think that by considering the author in his or her society (through letters, essays, anecdotes by others etc.), we can pinpoint some of their assumptions, opinions and ideas, through careful comparison between biography and the poems.
But I must stress, the goal of this sort of criticism, for me, isn't to get inside the writer's head as a way of understanding the text. Language is unstable, and it changes all the time from reader to reader, from one use of a word to the next. The author can never limit the scope of meaning to their intention, because a reader figuratively writes a text in their imaginations, by reading it on its own and in relation to both their society, their experiences and their outside reading. And often the best works of literature are a ground of ideological conflict, where the author's intention, stated in a work, is undercut by contradictory elements.
For example, take the novel "A Passage To India." The authorial narrator seems to be intent on making a liberal imperialist commentary on the pitfalls of miltarised Raj life (especially in the descriptions of the arrest and trial of Aziz). But then the novel contradicts its own intention by creating the Orientalist caricatures of Professor Godbole, and the mysterious Marabar caves. I don't think the aim of studying that novel is to get inside Forster's head when he was writing it, but, rather, to see how his ideological assumptions conflict and reflect contradictory attitudes amongst his class to the question of Empire.
"and what about you fins? do you believe that certain types of poetry, or literature for that matter, reflects a certain ideology?"
I think all literature reflects an ideology, not just in its themes but even in the way it's produced. If it's web poetry, it declares a different readership and mindset to rural, oral poetry. To quote an old philosopher, ideology can be something lived, and material, rather than something abstract, like an airy idea. Ideology can be present in the physical infrastructures of streets, houses, running water, the use of print and virtual literature. It speaks of a certain kind of world view and way of life, whether the content is inentionally critical of this way of living or not.
You had me until this part. I'm not certain that literature can, if it is to say anything new, operate strictly within the formal and ideological confines of genre. For example, critics often criticised "Jane Eyre" as an imperfect example of a novel within the realist genre (because of its Gothic elements). Literary critics over more recent years have employed historical data and feminist theory in suggesting that, because male domestic terror was silenced and never articulated in dominant representations of reality, then women writers had to find non realist ways of expressing it.
Writers adapt genres, and often I do wonder whether a scholarly knowledge of the technical conventions of a genre is necessary in the production of art, since society itself operates to perpetuate narratives of history, community, identity, nation, the home, sexual and gender difference: writers have the social stuff, the crux of the material in their everyday lives to use in their art. It is always handy to go to college and learn form too, and to have that extra grasp of the materials.
But whereas I think, not without admitted arrogance, that one needs to be trained academically to be truly judicious, and knowledgeably theoretical, critic of literature, I think that on the other hand, one doesn't need to go to school at all, to be a great poet. One just needs to live, feel, and use words to subvert dominant ways of seeing self, others, and the big old universe.
All I'm saying is that if you want to write, you have to read. Very simple. If you've never read any poetry, chances are, you aren't writing very good poetry, same with fiction. I'm sure there are exceptions, of extraordinarily good natural writers our there somewhere. Plenty of people listen to depressing music and spew out poetry without ever having cracked open a book of it, and more often than not, they're producing something so rehashed and unremarkable that it's almost unreadable.
All I'm saying is that if you want to write, you have to read. Very simple. If you've never read any poetry, chances are, you aren't writing very good poetry, same with fiction. I'm sure there are exceptions, of extraordinarily good natural writers our there somewhere. Plenty of people listen to depressing music and spew out poetry without ever having cracked open a book of it, and more often than not, they're producing something so rehashed and unremarkable that it's almost unreadable.
Yes, there are exceptions. They tend to be driven by a comic impulse. In superior forms of tragedy, there's macabre, ironic comedy, and in comedy there's a skilful sense of ironising the tragic predicaments we face as human beings. I think a writer with a natural ear for dialogue and situational writing, who sees the structure of a poem like a funny story or a joke, will have grasped key elements of how composition works: exposition, suspense, anticipation, climax, a twist in the tale or a subtle use of language to make you see the composition from more than one viewpoint. A lot of more self-absorbed poetry lacks this sense of the communal, traditional power of storytelling or sharing human feelings in verse, prose or theatre.
Yes, there are exceptions. They tend to be driven by a comic impulse. In superior forms of tragedy, there's macabre, ironic comedy, and in comedy there's a skilful sense of ironising the tragic predicaments we face as human beings. I think a writer with a natural ear for dialogue and situational writing, who sees the structure of a poem like a funny story or a joke, will have grasped key elements of how composition works: exposition, suspense, anticipation, climax, a twist in the tale or a subtle use of language to make you see the composition from more than one viewpoint. A lot of more self-absorbed poetry lacks this sense of the communal, traditional power of storytelling or sharing human feelings in verse, prose or theatre.
When you stop taking yourself seriously, drop the messiah complex, which is easy to pick up, since you are the god of your own work, you gain an amazing degree of freedom as a writer...or comic writer
When you stop taking yourself seriously, drop the messiah complex, which is easy to pick up, since you are the god of your own work, you gain an amazing degree of freedom as a writer...or comic writer
I wonder if the evolution of print-capitalism and copyright has been the material basis, for writers thinking they're messiahs. Literature was much more of a social product, before then. It still is, really, with literary editors, publishers and readers involved in part-ownership of "meaning,"
Which begs the question: is internet poetry anywhere near interactive enough?
Has it ever really been about the poetry here? Or about fulfilling the need of getting someone, anyone to read it and "comment." It seems like it's always been about the relationships you make with the people on the board than anything else. Maybe that's just me though.
Has it ever really been about the poetry here? Or about fulfilling the need of getting someone, anyone to read it and "comment." It seems like it's always been about the relationships you make with the people on the board than anything else. Maybe that's just me though.
Good question. However, I couldn't question matters of authorial intention, unless they're apparent enough in the text itself.
Good question. However, I couldn't question matters of authorial intention, unless they're apparent enough in the text itself.
no doubt that this forum has been a way for me to share my poetry and other writings. i like to play with words and their meanings. however, i have no delusions that anything i have ever writ, spit, split or otherwise shit has any literary value. if some have found my letters ok, i am pleased. if not, i am still pleased.
the best poetry, in my humble opinion, is that which grabs my attention and enables me to empathize with, or to understand, to some exent, the author's emotions, desires, and/or aspirations.
there are many great poems. i have read many good poems on this board.
this is a fun forum and i don't take it too seriously.
i have enjoyed reading this discussion.
thank you
Down the street you can hear her scream youre a disgrace
As she slams the door in his drunken face
And now he stands outside
And all the neighbours start to gossip and drool
He cries oh, girl you must be mad,
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green
no doubt that this forum has been a way for me to share my poetry and other writings. i like to play with words and their meanings. however, i have no delusions that anything i have ever writ, spit, split or otherwise shit has any literary value. if some have found my letters ok, i am pleased. if not, i am still pleased.
the best poetry, in my humble opinion, is that which grabs my attention and enables me to empathize with, or to understand, to some exent, the author's emotions, desires, and/or aspirations.
there are many great poems. i have read many good poems on this board.
this is a fun forum and i don't take it too seriously.
i have enjoyed reading this discussion.
thank you
I go along with that. Though I didn't care for the first, hit and run post in this thread, we turned the whole thing around and made something of it: perhaps because of our communal nature and fondness for posting with a view to receiving comments in return. I value discussion. Lighthearted or "serious", if it shows some good attempts to discuss what makes poetry good or bad, critical debate can be better than - and not the poor, parasitic relation of - creative writing, since it gets people stimulated and thoughtful about the relationships between writing and society.
I enjoy this message board environment for writing and reading. I enjoy the trivial, social banter on here, especially if it produces some entertainingly ephemeral, daft verse; I also acknowledge that many threads, dealing in poetic form, with issues such as depression and suicide, might not be to some people's literary tastes: but if they save lives, they serve the most profound, humane purpose.
I've my fingers in a few pies, creatively and academically. But in spite of that, these days, the forum here is, for me, a delightful distraction and still a useful sounding board for ideas.
it's just when people rhyme and can't come up with a word to complete the thought they are trying to put on paper and so they write a word that makes no sense to the rest of it just to have a word that rhymes
I think you will find there is a name for what you describe it is known as AKS, Anthony Kiedis Syndrome.:)
For example, take the novel "A Passage To India." The authorial narrator seems to be intent on making a liberal imperialist commentary on the pitfalls of miltarised Raj life (especially in the descriptions of the arrest and trial of Aziz). But then the novel contradicts its own intention by creating the Orientalist caricatures of Professor Godbole, and the mysterious Marabar caves. I don't think the aim of studying that novel is to get inside Forster's head when he was writing it, but, rather, to see how his ideological assumptions conflict and reflect contradictory attitudes amongst his class to the question of Empire.
having never read 'a passage to india' i can't comment. and i'd be interetsed to know fins what you thought of 'wuthering heights' if you've read it. for so long i was under the impression that this was a 'chick's book'. some sort of classic romance. last year my eldest daughter was assigned to read it for school and for some reason i figured i should read it. if only so i could discuss it with her. anyhow, i was suprised to discover that all these years i'd been misled, maybe by myself, maybe by other's opinions. that whole heathcliff/catherine thing, i didn't see it as a romance.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
having never read 'a passage to india' i can't comment. and i'd be interetsed to know fins what you thought of 'wuthering heights' if you've read it. for so long i was under the impression that this was a 'chick's book'. some sort of classic romance. last year my eldest daughter was assigned to read it for school and for some reason i figured i should read it. if only so i could discuss it with her. anyhow, i was suprised to discover that all these years i'd been misled, maybe by myself, maybe by other's opinions. that whole heathcliff/catherine thing, i didn't see it as a romance.
Oh, Wuthering Heights is an immensely complex and multi-layered book. It's a tale of madness, obsession, control-freakery, domestic terror and psychic trauma. The portrayal of the maniacal, obsessive, paranoid control-freak Heathcliff, with his amorality, superstitions, and supernatural visions, also has some racist, imperialist overtones. Personally, I find the book a little too bleak to work. It's a pity Emily didn't live to write more novels, though.
hell, I have rhymed many many times in writing......
it's just when people rhyme and can't come up with a word to complete the thought they are trying to put on paper and so they write a word that makes no sense to the rest of it just to have a word that rhymes
That's why a lot of my stuff doesn't rhyme. You can't force words to fit.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Oh, Wuthering Heights is an immensely complex and multi-layered book. It's a tale of madness, obsession, control-freakery, domestic terror and psychic trauma. The portrayal of the maniacal, obsessive, paranoid control-freak Heathcliff, with his amorality, superstitions, and supernatural visions, also has some racist, imperialist overtones. Personally, I find the book a little too bleak to work. It's a pity Emily didn't live to write more novels, though.
i found heathcliff to be quite vampiric in his behaviour. from his vague beginnings you were just never sure about him. i was so pleasantly surprised with wuthering heights.
explain the racist overtones to me as you see them..
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think it's great that people here basically took what seemed to be a mean-spirited, nonsense thread and turn it into a great discussion! Just goes to show that creative minds are at work and wish to rise above.
On the subject, for me, I find that poetry gives voice to many thoughts and feelings that I sometimes have a hard time trying to express in any other form. I share here because I like Pearl Jam and think that people here seem to enjoy sharing their thoughts creatively with fellow fans.
I find a poem to be good if it hits a nerve or expresses something that I can relate to. I enjoy works that seem to come from the heart, even if they're not neccessarily good examples of poetry. I feel that if someone has taken the time to pour their heart out, tried to give to us a little bit of thier soul, tried to reach out, that they deserve to know if I enjoyed what I read or how they made me feel...(when I am able to respond as sometimes, I just don't have the time).
I think we can all agree that we write for the love of writing and being creative, not for any monetary reward (as if! ) or an ego boost. I mean, after all, it's a band's message board. If someone comments on a post, that's great! If not, well, hey, at least the poem didn't just rot in a drawer, maybe a few people read it, and that's great too! That's why I'm not a harsh critic of anyone's work (even if I had the credentials to be, which I do not ). I just want to feel what other people on this planet are feeling through their words. I want to feel that connectedness, that closeness that some poetry makes me feel. To know that, even with all our differences, we're all the same, "all just breakin like waves".
To me, good poetry evokes strong emotions and vivid pictures, even if it's trying to be elusive. Bad poetry is that, "roses are red, violets are blue" tripe because it's a cop-out and feels like it's trying too hard and failing miserably. ---And even then, I can usually find comic relief in it!!! I guess I just like to try to see the best in everything and I want people to feel good about themselves.
Finally, on the subject of rhyming, I also agree that it cannot be forced. Some of the best poems are ones that rhyme, but only because it's like they don't even know it!
Also, it's great to see everyone's thought and opinions on the subject and get a feel for where they're coming from. So, even though the original post was silly, it sure blossomed into a wonderful discussion.
And to you, quagmire---GIGIDY, GIGIDY!
Forget your perfect offering, there is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen
hmm. so when you speak of the racial overtones of wuthering heights, is that an opinion you personally hold or not?
sometimes i find that other people's interpretations of texts colours my own judgement.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Oh darling Rachey, aka Pasta
There's no earthy alabaster
shinier, more monumental
than your beauty, heaven-sent. All
poesy's nonsense, hardly artsy,
if not offered to Ms Nazi.
Ahem. Can I go now?
it's a bleedin' masterpiece, finsistrue
;D
(you're not talking about my butt, are you? it's pretty alabaster and stuff, shy thing that i am)
hmm. so when you speak of the racial overtones of wuthering heights, is that an opinion you personally hold or not?
sometimes i find that other people's interpretations of texts colours my own judgement.
My approach to novels is often as a trainee in post-colonial criticism. I will often home in on how a book written by a canonical British author, on the one hand, makes a seemingly liberal discussion criticising racism, but on the other unwittingly endorses a lot of the ideology of imperialism: in the narrative construction of the Other, the predatory, irrational, amoral baddie. You can also see this kind of contradiction happening in that famous book by Emily's sister Charlotte, "Jane Eyre." Jane imagines herself as a rebel slave seeking emancipation, but at the same time, Bertha Mason and even her brother Richard are described as somehow degenerate because their "phrenological propensities" - the shapes of their heads - are somehow inferior to the preferred (Causasian?) model.
One might want to know, what were dominant attitudes to race and difference around 1847-8, when these two novels were being written? Bronte country - Howth, in Yorkshire - was much more industrial than it is today: are there documentary sources from the period that reflect any anxiety about colonialism and racial identity? How might these ideas have leaked into the texts?
It's good though, isn't it, that other people's opinions change your approach to a text? Even when Hollywood botches a classic, we can analyse the ideological reasons why they made certain editorial choices in cutting out potentially subversive material, or foregrounded certain themes because of their relevance to a contemporary audience.
Comments
and this is the question i ask myself quite often. how does one define poetry.
and what about you fins? do you believe that certain types of poetry, or literature for that matter, reflects a certain ideology? is it possible just by studying the piece of work itself, without any context whatsoever, to determine where the author is coming from. can you make judgements, for want of a better word, about what it is the author is trying to say? or do we trully understand a work, only through full disclosure of its origins? and why do we feel the need to do so?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There was a school of formalist critics who practiced something called Practical Criticism. They'd read poems "blind", knowing nothing about a composition's author, or date. Of course, their own training was grounded in certain aesthetic and ideological judgements about art, poetry and language, so in seeking to find out the universal meanings in poems, they'd miss a lot of nuances of language that might only be appreciated with a bit of historical, cultural and linguistic context.
So I do think you need to read poems in their historical, social and linguistic contexts (ie, in terms of how words were used to represent ideas in their time as opposed to in another period). I do also think some biographical knowledge of the author is useful too. Although, okay, what an author intends to say is only really discernible if it's actually in the text at some level, I do think that by considering the author in his or her society (through letters, essays, anecdotes by others etc.), we can pinpoint some of their assumptions, opinions and ideas, through careful comparison between biography and the poems.
But I must stress, the goal of this sort of criticism, for me, isn't to get inside the writer's head as a way of understanding the text. Language is unstable, and it changes all the time from reader to reader, from one use of a word to the next. The author can never limit the scope of meaning to their intention, because a reader figuratively writes a text in their imaginations, by reading it on its own and in relation to both their society, their experiences and their outside reading. And often the best works of literature are a ground of ideological conflict, where the author's intention, stated in a work, is undercut by contradictory elements.
For example, take the novel "A Passage To India." The authorial narrator seems to be intent on making a liberal imperialist commentary on the pitfalls of miltarised Raj life (especially in the descriptions of the arrest and trial of Aziz). But then the novel contradicts its own intention by creating the Orientalist caricatures of Professor Godbole, and the mysterious Marabar caves. I don't think the aim of studying that novel is to get inside Forster's head when he was writing it, but, rather, to see how his ideological assumptions conflict and reflect contradictory attitudes amongst his class to the question of Empire.
"and what about you fins? do you believe that certain types of poetry, or literature for that matter, reflects a certain ideology?"
I think all literature reflects an ideology, not just in its themes but even in the way it's produced. If it's web poetry, it declares a different readership and mindset to rural, oral poetry. To quote an old philosopher, ideology can be something lived, and material, rather than something abstract, like an airy idea. Ideology can be present in the physical infrastructures of streets, houses, running water, the use of print and virtual literature. It speaks of a certain kind of world view and way of life, whether the content is inentionally critical of this way of living or not.
All I'm saying is that if you want to write, you have to read. Very simple. If you've never read any poetry, chances are, you aren't writing very good poetry, same with fiction. I'm sure there are exceptions, of extraordinarily good natural writers our there somewhere. Plenty of people listen to depressing music and spew out poetry without ever having cracked open a book of it, and more often than not, they're producing something so rehashed and unremarkable that it's almost unreadable.
Yes, there are exceptions. They tend to be driven by a comic impulse. In superior forms of tragedy, there's macabre, ironic comedy, and in comedy there's a skilful sense of ironising the tragic predicaments we face as human beings. I think a writer with a natural ear for dialogue and situational writing, who sees the structure of a poem like a funny story or a joke, will have grasped key elements of how composition works: exposition, suspense, anticipation, climax, a twist in the tale or a subtle use of language to make you see the composition from more than one viewpoint. A lot of more self-absorbed poetry lacks this sense of the communal, traditional power of storytelling or sharing human feelings in verse, prose or theatre.
When you stop taking yourself seriously, drop the messiah complex, which is easy to pick up, since you are the god of your own work, you gain an amazing degree of freedom as a writer...or comic writer
I wonder if the evolution of print-capitalism and copyright has been the material basis, for writers thinking they're messiahs. Literature was much more of a social product, before then. It still is, really, with literary editors, publishers and readers involved in part-ownership of "meaning,"
Has it ever really been about the poetry here? Or about fulfilling the need of getting someone, anyone to read it and "comment." It seems like it's always been about the relationships you make with the people on the board than anything else. Maybe that's just me though.
Good question. However, I couldn't question matters of authorial intention, unless they're apparent enough in the text itself.
no doubt that this forum has been a way for me to share my poetry and other writings. i like to play with words and their meanings. however, i have no delusions that anything i have ever writ, spit, split or otherwise shit has any literary value. if some have found my letters ok, i am pleased. if not, i am still pleased.
the best poetry, in my humble opinion, is that which grabs my attention and enables me to empathize with, or to understand, to some exent, the author's emotions, desires, and/or aspirations.
there are many great poems. i have read many good poems on this board.
this is a fun forum and i don't take it too seriously.
i have enjoyed reading this discussion.
thank you
As she slams the door in his drunken face
And now he stands outside
And all the neighbours start to gossip and drool
He cries oh, girl you must be mad,
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green
I go along with that. Though I didn't care for the first, hit and run post in this thread, we turned the whole thing around and made something of it: perhaps because of our communal nature and fondness for posting with a view to receiving comments in return. I value discussion. Lighthearted or "serious", if it shows some good attempts to discuss what makes poetry good or bad, critical debate can be better than - and not the poor, parasitic relation of - creative writing, since it gets people stimulated and thoughtful about the relationships between writing and society.
I enjoy this message board environment for writing and reading. I enjoy the trivial, social banter on here, especially if it produces some entertainingly ephemeral, daft verse; I also acknowledge that many threads, dealing in poetic form, with issues such as depression and suicide, might not be to some people's literary tastes: but if they save lives, they serve the most profound, humane purpose.
I've my fingers in a few pies, creatively and academically. But in spite of that, these days, the forum here is, for me, a delightful distraction and still a useful sounding board for ideas.
I think you will find there is a name for what you describe it is known as AKS, Anthony Kiedis Syndrome.:)
having never read 'a passage to india' i can't comment. and i'd be interetsed to know fins what you thought of 'wuthering heights' if you've read it. for so long i was under the impression that this was a 'chick's book'. some sort of classic romance. last year my eldest daughter was assigned to read it for school and for some reason i figured i should read it. if only so i could discuss it with her. anyhow, i was suprised to discover that all these years i'd been misled, maybe by myself, maybe by other's opinions. that whole heathcliff/catherine thing, i didn't see it as a romance.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Oh, Wuthering Heights is an immensely complex and multi-layered book. It's a tale of madness, obsession, control-freakery, domestic terror and psychic trauma. The portrayal of the maniacal, obsessive, paranoid control-freak Heathcliff, with his amorality, superstitions, and supernatural visions, also has some racist, imperialist overtones. Personally, I find the book a little too bleak to work. It's a pity Emily didn't live to write more novels, though.
That's why a lot of my stuff doesn't rhyme. You can't force words to fit.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
i found heathcliff to be quite vampiric in his behaviour. from his vague beginnings you were just never sure about him. i was so pleasantly surprised with wuthering heights.
explain the racist overtones to me as you see them..
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.imperiumjournal.com/0pages/30013.html
On the subject, for me, I find that poetry gives voice to many thoughts and feelings that I sometimes have a hard time trying to express in any other form. I share here because I like Pearl Jam and think that people here seem to enjoy sharing their thoughts creatively with fellow fans.
I find a poem to be good if it hits a nerve or expresses something that I can relate to. I enjoy works that seem to come from the heart, even if they're not neccessarily good examples of poetry. I feel that if someone has taken the time to pour their heart out, tried to give to us a little bit of thier soul, tried to reach out, that they deserve to know if I enjoyed what I read or how they made me feel...(when I am able to respond as sometimes, I just don't have the time).
I think we can all agree that we write for the love of writing and being creative, not for any monetary reward (as if!
To me, good poetry evokes strong emotions and vivid pictures, even if it's trying to be elusive. Bad poetry is that, "roses are red, violets are blue" tripe because it's a cop-out and feels like it's trying too hard and failing miserably.
Finally, on the subject of rhyming, I also agree that it cannot be forced. Some of the best poems are ones that rhyme, but only because it's like they don't even know it!
Also, it's great to see everyone's thought and opinions on the subject and get a feel for where they're coming from. So, even though the original post was silly, it sure blossomed into a wonderful discussion.
And to you, quagmire---GIGIDY, GIGIDY!
hmm. so when you speak of the racial overtones of wuthering heights, is that an opinion you personally hold or not?
sometimes i find that other people's interpretations of texts colours my own judgement.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
it's a bleedin' masterpiece, finsistrue
;D
(you're not talking about my butt, are you? it's pretty alabaster and stuff, shy thing that i am)
xox
My approach to novels is often as a trainee in post-colonial criticism. I will often home in on how a book written by a canonical British author, on the one hand, makes a seemingly liberal discussion criticising racism, but on the other unwittingly endorses a lot of the ideology of imperialism: in the narrative construction of the Other, the predatory, irrational, amoral baddie. You can also see this kind of contradiction happening in that famous book by Emily's sister Charlotte, "Jane Eyre." Jane imagines herself as a rebel slave seeking emancipation, but at the same time, Bertha Mason and even her brother Richard are described as somehow degenerate because their "phrenological propensities" - the shapes of their heads - are somehow inferior to the preferred (Causasian?) model.
One might want to know, what were dominant attitudes to race and difference around 1847-8, when these two novels were being written? Bronte country - Howth, in Yorkshire - was much more industrial than it is today: are there documentary sources from the period that reflect any anxiety about colonialism and racial identity? How might these ideas have leaked into the texts?
It's good though, isn't it, that other people's opinions change your approach to a text? Even when Hollywood botches a classic, we can analyse the ideological reasons why they made certain editorial choices in cutting out potentially subversive material, or foregrounded certain themes because of their relevance to a contemporary audience.