Viewing Thread:
"Poetry"

There's enough poetry on this forum. It's a fact, I'm not complaining about it. Nice to see that people aren't afraid to write it, considering what some people think of writing poetry. The thing is that the famous poets were mostly drunk womanisers (and that applies to some of the women poets too).

When you first come across poetry it's usually at school, where you write limericks, then later learn about different types of poem. Once you have progressed far enough, you begin to learn about the poets behind the poems, including Lear and his wonderful gift of the limerick, why they wrote them and then eventually start disecting poems to find out what they mean. Now, this is the bit that puts a lot of people off.

So, why do it? Well, it helps to understand the thinking behind the poem and unlock the hidden meanings. This can, of course, depend on the teacher and their own thoughts about the poem. What I would say is, unless there is a realistic amount of evidence (and I don’t mean speculation) don’t take these meanings as facts. A poem can be as personal as you want and who knows what was going on in those poet’s minds, especially the drunk ones.

Don’t let any of this put you off though, poetry is a great way of letting out your feelings, and you can disguise this as much as you want or let it all out. Just try it.

SHEEPY wrote:
> So you wouldn't melt if er-no started reading some poems?
>
> hoho

She would... Mystique has a lot of front, but don't listen to what she says, she is like all the rest. Just wants to be cared for.

I like Simon Armitage. So there.

RM18 wrote:
> Talking of rubbish poetry, I hate hearing teachers extolling the
> virtue of certain poems that they think are amazing because a certain
> poet wrote them, or spout pseudo-intellectual rubbish, i.e. reading
> between the lines that simply aren't there.

I don't think that's fair.
Inevitably there will be some poets who you hate, as poetry is a personal thing, but by and large, the majority of poets taught in schools are extremely good.

The problem with some poetry, and it is a problem in a negtive sense, is that too great a level of knowledge is required to make head or tail of the poem. Sure a poem like T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland is acknowledged by experts and critics as being incredible, but to those who have not studied it, it can appear, well crap.

This is where to schools of thought branch off from each other. One says that you should critically appreciate a poem by following a number of steps that essentially comprise detailed line-by-line and contextual research. Only then can you appreciate a poem. The other school of thought, reader-response theory says, if I can't understand this poem then screw it, it's not appealed to me. And by the same token, a poem's message is whatever I think it is because the reader's response to a poem/novel is all that really matters. Exam marking goes some way down the middle of these two; all answers are acceptable (reader response) so long as they show some critical appreciation, or just plain criticism of the poem.

So what I'm rambling on about, is that the teacher probably makes more of a poem than you because they have a wealth of knowledge and poetry against which to compare and analyse any given poem. For instance a person who has seen a thousand films will be able to rate a new film better than someone who has only ever seen one film. But equally, if you don't like the poem and can justify your reasons for not doing so, then your interpretation is equally valid.

Personally, I think they should teach interesting poets in schools. Ones whose poems mean something and are relevant to children. You could read Elizabeth Barret Browning's stupid count the ways I love thee poem to me a million times and I would still hate it because it's a clumsy poem filled with empty imagery. But we had to be taught it because it was on the syllabus. When, however, my teacher showed us some stuff that wasn't on the syllabus, mainly Beatles-era Liverpudlian poets, they were interesting.

Problem is exam boards try and force classics on you.

I have read Dickens. I understand Dickens. I hate Dickens. I find him incredibly tedious because I was forced to pick through several of his books with a fine tooth comb instead of reading them for enjoyment. They are no longer classics in my eyes. Reading things because you want to is what makes a classic, not because you are told it is a classic by the exam board ergo you must read it a lot.

Contradictions abound in my argument, but I don't care..

So you wouldn't melt if er-no started reading some poems?

hoho

er-no wrote:
> Poetry is brilliant, girls love it
******
You keep telling yourself that love.

Poetry is brilliant, girls love it and when they ask you if its about them you just say 'Yeah! Of course'. Then you smile and know you have wrapped her around your finger.

Sorry.. I am just trying to cheer myself. That girl is still in my heart.

In my mind I am with her.

Argh! I will be normal one day.

Don't worry Stryke.

I think in many ways poetry is a personal thing only. The most emotive poems are ones that come from the heart, or are derived from individual thoughts or experiences, not manufactured rubbish that you see in some poem books.

Talking of rubbish poetry, I hate hearing teachers extolling the virtue of certain poems that they think are amazing because a certain poet wrote them, or spout pseudo-intellectual rubbish, i.e. reading between the lines that simply aren't there.

Sometimes in class I used to think to myself 'If I'd handed this in as coursework, I would have got an E, yet because a certin poet's name is attached to it, it suddenly becomes great'. That mentality is something I found surprisingly prevalent whilst studying A-Levels - poetry should be a personal thing.

Mr. Happy wrote:
"And I like Sylvia Plath. She's at the Grix Thraves end of the poetry spectrum."

I'm on a spectrum? Cool.

I like Poems that are meant to be read out loud.
I found out about this guy called Saul Williams, who took hip hop as his inspiration and wrote poems in the same rhythm, like Langston Hughes did with the jazz and blues rhythms.

And his poems are absolutely incredible.
He was in a film called Slam, where as well as playing the main character, he read three of his poems. One was in a prison yard when he was about to get decked, which sounds corny, but it wasn't because he has such a great reciting style. And then the final one was in a slam poetry competition, and it was this explosive, ranting, lightning fast poem that was just mind-blowing.

He made a hip hop album a couple of years ago, and that's damn good as well.

Other poets I like are Charles Bukowski, because he writes personal poems (that don't rhyme) which are of a consistently brilliant quality. And he wrote hundreds of them, seven large books-worth. Then every once in a while he writes something that's really special.

And I like Sylvia Plath. She's at the Grix Thraves end of the poetry spectrum. And she writes alternately mad, sad and beautiful poems. Mad Girl's love song is probably my favourite.

Rhyming poetry is (IMO) the lowest form.

In fact, poetry is just a posh way of saying 'story', but if you rhyme it it is automatically a poem.