Emotion and poetry

[PoetGuy]

This thread originates with a comment by twelveoone (click on the link box to see his original context):

I thought poetry had something to do with getting other people to "feel" something, and the craft was a tool for that purpose.

This statement raises a number of questions in Poet Guy's mind about the nature of poetry and poetry writing. For example,

• Must a poem attempt (not all poems are successful, of course) to induce some kind of feeling in the Reader, i.e. an emotional response?
• Assuming that one could be written, would a poem that induced a purely intellectual response not be a valid poem? What would it be, then?
• What about a poem whose focus was more or less purely sonic? Is that not a poem? For example, a nonsense poem or something like a silly Dr. Seuss-like poem--if these are not poems, what are they?
• What of light or humorous verse (e.g., limericks, double dactyls)? Is laughter or amusement sufficient "feeling" for these to be poems? What if a limerick isn't funny? Is it then not a poem?
• Must the Author share the feeling he or she is trying to induce in the Reader? If the Author does not share the feeling, is the poem false?
• If the poem induces a feeling, but that feeling is a common one (sadness, for example, in a poem about a dying loved one) is that better than a poem that conveys understanding (or even questioning) of an abstract concept (something political, perhaps)?
• Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?

There have been a variety of arguments/discussions on the forum recently about various topics concerning the nature of poetry and what constitutes good poetry. Poet Guy would like this thread to focus on questions of emotion and feeling in poetry and whether they are necessary components of "good" poems. This initial list of questions is rather off the cuff, so he will go off and think about the topic and then return with his feelings on it that he will attempt to induce in you Readers.

Or something like that.

 

[Angeline]

Good topic, PG.

My favorite poems are the ones that invoke some kind of emotional response in me though I've liked poems that seem more purely sonic or just make me think. I don't believe there's anything wrong with those kinds of poems: they can certainly be as good imo as "feely" poems. I just don't personally respond to them as strongly. And I think my best poems are those that make the reader feel something--positive or negative, though I believe they are most likely to evoke a wistful, yearning feeling or a sadness in readers. I don't really try to write em that way--it's just how they come out.

Amusement in a poem is fine, too, but my experience is that poems that have nothing (or little) more than funny to them (like limericks, for example) aren't substantive, and so don't hold much interest for me. That doesn't mean they're not good. They're just not typically nuanced--although some examples like certain double dactyls I've seen written here and the wonderful wry "grooks" by Piet Hein seem to have more substance to me. In general though I suspect that a poem needs to be a certain kind of funny--like ironic funny--to have more to it.

As for a poet saying (in essence) "this is how I feel" in a poem, well lol my opinion is that usually will not make for good poetry. Any kind of explanation, to me, is not effective. One of my all-time favorite poems is Yeats' The Wild Swans at Coole. There is not a thing in that poem that says outright what the narrator is feeling, and yet all the metaphor and imagery work to evoke strong feelings in me as a reader. When I write, that's the sort of thing I'm aiming at.

Do poems have to communicate? How are we defining communication? Every poem says something, even if it says it badly. Some poems (like Browning's dramatic monologues, for example) seem like they're really trying to communicate, to tell the reader "listen to what I'm saying to you." But they don't have to be so clearly trying in order to achieve that. But some poems won't communicate to me: my experience as a reader is subjective relative to yours or anyone else's. A poem that communicates to you may do nothing for me and vice versa. So this communication thing seem very subjective to me.

 

[twelveoone]

[*]Must the Author share the feeling he or she is trying to induce in the Reader? If the Author does not share the feeling, is the poem false?

Right here. During the composition, the author must live what he trying to induce, if not, elements of falsity creep in. During that time, and particularly in editing, a more colder rational editor must emerge. That in effect should sum up my response to most of the above.

 

[bronzeage]

First of all, poetry does not have to do anything. Poetry is the guy who wears a shirt with "You're not the boss of me" printed across the front.

If poetry has no imperatives, it ought to have a purpose. It is enough purpose to say poetry should communicate. "Should" is a purposely vague word. A poem should tell the reader something. It maybe something new, but it does not have to be new.

I have my own working definition of the purpose of poetry (notice how skillfully I avoided defining poetry). The purpose of poetry is to transform images and ideas into words which maybe reconverted to images and ideas by a reader. There is no arbitrary way to measure success in this kind of thing, but there are times when the satisfaction is reward enough.

 

[twelveoone]

[*]Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?
[/list]

This question does not belong here, communicate is a strange word for a poem. A more apt analogy may be a one way diplomatic mission.

 

[twelveoone]

First of all, poetry does not have to do anything. Poetry is the guy who wears a shirt with "You're not the boss of me" printed across the front.

If poetry has no imperatives, it ought to have a purpose. It is enough purpose to say poetry should communicate. "Should" is a purposely vague word. A poem should tell the reader something. It maybe something new, but it does not have to be new.

I have my own working definition of the purpose of poetry (notice how skillfully I avoided defining poetry). The purpose of poetry is to transform images and ideas into words which maybe reconverted to images and ideas by a reader. There is no arbitrary way to measure success in this kind of thing, but there are times when the satisfaction is reward enough.

I like this. But not this:
It maybe something new, but it does not have to be new.
something has to be new

trying my best to avoid communicate, the really good ones keep talking to you.

 

[bronzeage]

I like this. But not this:
It maybe something new, but it does not have to be new.
something has to be new

trying my best to avoid communicate, the really good ones keep talking to you.

Talking is communication. There is no shame in that. There is no shame in repeating oneself, or someone else. If every poem had to bring something new, no poem could be read twice.

 

[twelveoone]

Talking is communication. There is no shame in that. There is no shame in repeating oneself, or someone else. If every poem had to bring something new, no poem could be read twice.

it's a quibble
we are probably close to meaning the same thing

 

[bogusagain]

I would say a poem that produces any emotion other than polite indifference is to a certain degree, successful.

In my eyes, nice poems are the greatest crime. I have bookshelves full of them and wish I could have all my money back.

 

[Angeline]

I would say a poem that produces any emotion other than polite indifference is to a certain degree, successful.

In my eyes, nice poems are the greatest crime. I have bookshelves full of them and wish I could have all my money back.

But not the Billy Collins book! (Wait--you didn't pay for that one. )

 

[softsmile]

Interesting thread! Good thoughts to ponder. As for me, I prefer a poem that evokes an emotional response of "some kind" as I read it.

I've read "technically correct" poems that seemed bereft of any life, so cold and exacting that I felt it a chore to get through all the stanzas. To me, a good poem will flow. It's rather like music played well. Sometimes the musician will seem "detached" from the piece he is playing, although he may be hitting every note with unarguable precision. And it may be a highly challenging and intricate piece as well. Then along comes a musician who chooses the simplest of melodies, and yet it may achieve a sense of depth and emotion the first song never could. Why? I believe it may have something to do with the musician "connecting" and conveying his/her emotion through the music.

Similarly I enjoy watching figure skating. Sometimes the skaters are "technically correct" in every way, but when they are unable to find an emotional flow with the music they are skating to, I'm not as "caught up" in watching as I might be otherwise.

 

[softsmile]

quibble

it's a quibble
we are probably close to meaning the same thing

good word, quibble... smiles me

 

[bogusagain]

But not the Billy Collins book! (Wait--you didn't pay for that one. )

I have to admit, I have a certain affection for Billy, despite how his book came into my possession!

Have you been hiding under the table for the last week or so?

 

[bronzeage]

I would say a poem that produces any emotion other than polite indifference is to a certain degree, successful.

In my eyes, nice poems are the greatest crime. I have bookshelves full of them and wish I could have all my money back.

If anyone is dissatisfied after reading one of my poems, I will happily share half what I earned from the work.

 

[Angeline]

I have to admit, I have a certain affection for Billy, despite how his book came into my possession!

Have you been hiding under the table for the last week or so?

I've been involved in a big editing job that is sucking up a good part of my life right now. Also my son has moved to North Carolina recently to live with us. That makes me very very happy as I've missed him terribly, but he has also taken up a lot of time: helping him get settled, find a job (which he did), etc. But between the work and him I've been a busy bee lately.

I miss you poets and I'll be around again more when I meet the deadline on this book I'm editing.

 

[bogusagain]

I've been involved in a big editing job that is sucking up a good part of my life right now. Also my son has moved to North Carolina recently to live with us. That makes me very very happy as I've missed him terribly, but he has also taken up a lot of time: helping him get settled, find a job (which he did), etc. But between the work and him I've been a busy bee lately.

I miss you poets and I'll be around again more when I meet the deadline on this book I'm editing.

Well, positive things robbing one's time is no bad thing. Look forward to you having more time here.

 

[PoetGuy]

My favorite poems are the ones that invoke some kind of emotional response in me though I've liked poems that seem more purely sonic or just make me think. I don't believe there's anything wrong with those kinds of poems: they can certainly be as good imo as "feely" poems. I just don't personally respond to them as strongly. And I think my best poems are those that make the reader feel something--positive or negative, though I believe they are most likely to evoke a wistful, yearning feeling or a sadness in readers. I don't really try to write em that way--it's just how they come out.

Amusement in a poem is fine, too, but my experience is that poems that have nothing (or little) more than funny to them (like limericks, for example) aren't substantive, and so don't hold much interest for me. That doesn't mean they're not good. They're just not typically nuanced--although some examples like certain double dactyls I've seen written here and the wonderful wry "grooks" by Piet Hein seem to have more substance to me. In general though I suspect that a poem needs to be a certain kind of funny--like ironic funny--to have more to it.

As for a poet saying (in essence) "this is how I feel" in a poem, well lol my opinion is that usually will not make for good poetry. Any kind of explanation, to me, is not effective. One of my all-time favorite poems is Yeats' The Wild Swans at Coole. There is not a thing in that poem that says outright what the narrator is feeling, and yet all the metaphor and imagery work to evoke strong feelings in me as a reader. When I write, that's the sort of thing I'm aiming at.

Do poems have to communicate? How are we defining communication? Every poem says something, even if it says it badly. Some poems (like Browning's dramatic monologues, for example) seem like they're really trying to communicate, to tell the reader "listen to what I'm saying to you." But they don't have to be so clearly trying in order to achieve that. But some poems won't communicate to me: my experience as a reader is subjective relative to yours or anyone else's. A poem that communicates to you may do nothing for me and vice versa. So this communication thing seem very subjective to me.

An intelligent, well-conceived, and largely unassailable response to Poet Guy's original questions, haphazard as they might have been. You pass, with honors.

Graduate, even. Here's your processional. Accept the diploma with your left hand, shake with your right, and swing those pumps left, right, left, right onto a central line and you'll do fine.

 

[PoetGuy]

Must the Author share the feeling he or she is trying to induce in the Reader? If the Author does not share the feeling, is the poem false?

Right here. During the composition, the author must live what he trying to induce, if not, elements of falsity creep in. During that time, and particularly in editing, a more colder rational editor must emerge. That in effect should sum up my response to most of the above.

Does that mean that, for example, Snodgrass has to become, say, Goebbels or Speer or Goering in The Fuehrer Bunker? If he/she is trying to mock someone, or parody them, or make them out to be horrors of some kind, but writes the poem in their first-person voice, does he or she have to try and live their awfulness?

That seems an extreme demand to Poet Guy, but perhaps it is what is required.

Poet Guy does not think it is required, but acknowledges that he may be wrong.

 

[Angeline]

Does that mean that, for example, Snodgrass has to become, say, Goebbels or Speer or Goering in The Fuehrer Bunker? If he/she is trying to mock someone, or parody them, or make them out to be horrors of some kind, but writes the poem in their first-person voice, does he or she have to try and live their awfulness?

That seems an extreme demand to Poet Guy, but perhaps it is what is required.

Poet Guy does not think it is required, but acknowledges that he may be wrong.

Thank you PoetGuy for your kind and perhaps even laudatory response, but PoetChick does wonder whether 1201 or any of the other males who've responded will be considered to have "passed" and "graduated" if you like what they have to say.

 

[PoetGuy]

First of all, poetry does not have to do anything. Poetry is the guy who wears a shirt with "You're not the boss of me" printed across the front.

If poetry has no imperatives, it ought to have a purpose. It is enough purpose to say poetry should communicate. "Should" is a purposely vague word. A poem should tell the reader something. It maybe something new, but it does not have to be new.

I have my own working definition of the purpose of poetry (notice how skillfully I avoided defining poetry). The purpose of poetry is to transform images and ideas into words which maybe reconverted to images and ideas by a reader. There is no arbitrary way to measure success in this kind of thing, but there are times when the satisfaction is reward enough.

This response has so many qualifications as to foil counter-arguments (except, apparently, from twelveoone).

Are you a lawyer?

Poet Guy does like your response, all jesting aside, as it tends to highlight the problem with attempts to define poetry--it simply ain't easy, or even a theoretically practical thing, to do.

Your comments, though, exclude emotion and its role in poetry, comments on which topic was an explicit request for this thread. Image? Yeah. Ideas? Yeah.

What about emotion?

 

[PoetGuy]

Thank you PoetGuy for your kind and perhaps even laudatory response, but PoetChick does wonder whether 1201 or any of the other males who've responded will be considered to have "passed" and "graduated" if you like what they have to say.

Poet Guy did not mean to imply that he agreed with what you had to say, only that it was expressed in such a manner as to be (at least at first glance) impervious to argument.

Your phenomenological experience is not something Poet Guy can argue. On the other hand, with twelveoone, one can argue anything. Probably not to any mutual profit, but sometimes the argument is the point.

 

[PoetGuy]

Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?

This question does not belong here, communicate is a strange word for a poem. A more apt analogy may be a one way diplomatic mission.

From dictionary.com:

com·mu·ni·cate   
[kuh-myoo-ni-keyt]
verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to impart knowledge of; make known: to communicate information; to communicate one's happiness.
2. to give to another; impart; transmit: to communicate a disease.
3. to administer the Eucharist to.
4. Archaic . to share in or partake of.

–verb (used without object)
5. to give or interchange thoughts, feelings, information, or the like, by writing, speaking, etc.: They communicate with each other every day.
6. to express thoughts, feelings, or information easily or effectively.
7. to be joined or connected: The rooms communicated by means of a hallway.
8. to partake of the Eucharist.
9. Obsolete . to take part or participate.​

Surely this seems a normal, and understandable, usage of the word for poetry, for one of the supposed purposes of a poem?

If you still object, perhaps you could clarify. The phrase "one way diplomatic mission" is charming and evocative, but to Poet Guy seems an overly complicated way of saying "communicate."

 

[PoetGuy]

something has to be new

Why?

And, more to the point, is it even possible to be "new?"

 

[PoetGuy]

I would say a poem that produces any emotion other than polite indifference is to a certain degree, successful.

This statement reminds Poet Guy of a friend of his who owns an art gallery. This friend has said (this is very paraphrased, out of context, and probably filtered through Poet Guy's selective memory) something like "[a]rt must generate a strong reaction; even the viewer's revulsion means it's good."

Polite indifference is probably not a reaction many artists, even poets, would much care for. The emotion Poet Guy himself most dreads is boredom. He can read a poem that has some technical interest (or, for that matter, one written by someone he feels some kinship with) even if it evokes polite indifference.

He really cannot read poems that bore him. That's the killer.

 

[softsmile]

First: pinches herself to make sure she is really here. Ouch! Ok good, onward then.

It may be there are as many definitions for poetry as there are poets. I loved Angeline's thorough response and find I agree with her.

The question you posed that I find most interesting is:
"Must a poem communicate? If it does not communicate, is that the Author's or Reader's fault?"

In learning to write, we are taught to always consider our "audience". Does this mean our communication must be "received"? Must there be a "receiver" at all? I keep a journal and have many poems scrawled there which I don't necessarily plan on sharing. They are like diary entries. (Of course, whenever someone puts "pen to paper" they must realize what they've written might/could/probably will be found and read someday.) But is that always taken into consideration when one begins writing?

Didn't Emily Dickinson's sister find nearly 1000 poems in her bureau after she passed away? Did Miss Dickinson intend for those poems to be read? And even if a writer IS addressing an audience, might they, at times, never intend for their words to be read?

If a poem is written in a forest, but no one ever reads it, is it still a poem?

Just some thoughts swirling around in my noggin,
~softsmile