Pop Culture and Poetry

[greenmountaineer]

In the latest weekly challenge I was reading an excellent poem, “How to Say Goodbye,” by Angeline which has as an opening line, “There must be 50 ways.”

It made me think of the Paul Simon song, “50 Ways To Leave Your Lover,” which made me further think about how references to pop culture enhance the understanding of a poem. I’ve used them myself and have mixed feelings about their use.

Several years ago, a co-worker and I were discussing the Billy Joel song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” which has numerous iconic references to the Fifties and Sixties that were very meaningful for me (Billy and I are both babyboomers). The co-worker, who was fifteen years younger, commented, “Nice beat. We dance to it in aerobics class.”

So I’m thinking Joe DiMaggio, McCarthyism, Jack Kerouac, Vietnam, etc. and Rhonda’s thinking jazzercise.

What do you think? Do they mostly add to the enjoyment and understanding of a poem or create confusion on the part of the reader?

 

[bronzeage]

It depends upon the reader's experience and education. A poet cannot be expected to take things like that into account, unless the work is aimed at children.

 

[Angeline]

In the latest weekly challenge I was reading an excellent poem, “How to Say Goodbye,” by Angeline which has as an opening line, “There must be 50 ways.”

It made me think of the Paul Simon song, “50 Ways To Leave Your Lover,” which made me further think about how references to pop culture enhance the understanding of a poem. I’ve used them myself and have mixed feelings about their use.

Several years ago, a co-worker and I were discussing the Billy Joel song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” which has numerous iconic references to the Fifties and Sixties that were very meaningful for me (Billy and I are both babyboomers). The co-worker, who was fifteen years younger, commented, “Nice beat. We dance to it in aerobics class.”

So I’m thinking Joe DiMaggio, McCarthyism, Jack Kerouac, Vietnam, etc. and Rhonda’s thinking jazzercise.

What do you think? Do they mostly add to the enjoyment and understanding of a poem or create confusion on the part of the reader?

I'm glad you (and Chip!) like the poem. When I was thinking about what I wanted to say, the Simon song kept running through my head--even though I was not strictly writing about how to leave your lover. I decided to go with it, but just that one reference, which I hoped would add to the tone I was trying to establish: its gentle insistence and soft surety if that makes sense. I do think to use more would have been too much and made the poem about the song instead of about saying goodbye.

I do use bits and pieces from songs or other poems, plays, etc., sometimes because others' words and ideas for poems often get mixed together in my thinking. It usually enhances a poem for me (depending on the poem's raison d'etre), and I enjoy catching something similar in someone else's poem.

 

[Tzara]

In the latest weekly challenge I was reading an excellent poem, “How to Say Goodbye,” by Angeline which has as an opening line, “There must be 50 ways.”

It made me think of the Paul Simon song, “50 Ways To Leave Your Lover,” which made me further think about how references to pop culture enhance the understanding of a poem. I’ve used them myself and have mixed feelings about their use.

Several years ago, a co-worker and I were discussing the Billy Joel song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” which has numerous iconic references to the Fifties and Sixties that were very meaningful for me (Billy and I are both babyboomers). The co-worker, who was fifteen years younger, commented, “Nice beat. We dance to it in aerobics class.”

So I’m thinking Joe DiMaggio, McCarthyism, Jack Kerouac, Vietnam, etc. and Rhonda’s thinking jazzercise.

What do you think? Do they mostly add to the enjoyment and understanding of a poem or create confusion on the part of the reader?

I like references, whether to pop culture, high culture, art, other poems, whatever. One of my favorite things to do is wander about the Internet following references from one topic to another. I learn at lot of interesting things that way. If a line in someone's poem sends me off somewhere to look up a word or a name or a topic, then I am interested enough to chase it down. When I don't care much about the poem, I usually don't bother with looking up the reference.

That being said, it's easy to overdo it, or use an overly obscure reference, which is something I'm probably guilty of all the time. But then, I kind of like dropping odd little references about--it's kind of like leaving Trivial Pursuit cards laying about to pique the interest of passers-by.

And that generational thing goes both ways. My newspaper has a little feature each morning listing what "famous" (living) people were born on this date, and I usually know who everyone is only down to about age 40. Under that, it gets kind of dicey for me unless they are really famous (Lindsay Lohan) or really notorious (Lindsay Lohan).

As Angie says, it is something best used with subtlety, and especially if the reference can be missed without losing too much of the sense of the poem.

 

[Angeline]

I like references, whether to pop culture, high culture, art, other poems, whatever. One of my favorite things to do is wander about the Internet following references from one topic to another. I learn at lot of interesting things that way. If a line in someone's poem sends me off somewhere to look up a word or a name or a topic, then I am interested enough to chase it down. When I don't care much about the poem, I usually don't bother with looking up the reference.

That being said, it's easy to overdo it, or use an overly obscure reference, which is something I'm probably guilty of all the time. But then, I kind of like dropping odd little references about--it's kind of like leaving Trivial Pursuit cards laying about to pique the interest of passers-by.

And that generational thing goes both ways. My newspaper has a little feature each morning listing what "famous" (living) people were born on this date, and I usually know who everyone is only down to about age 40. Under that, it gets kind of dicey for me unless they are really famous (Lindsay Lohan) or really notorious (Lindsay Lohan).

As Angie says, it is something best used with subtlety, and especially if the reference can be missed without losing too much of the sense of the poem.

The best is when you can use a reference in such a way as to prod the reader's memory but without their really noticing it. Kind of a subliminal thing. Course you can't really do that when you start the poem with the ref, as I did, but it's a fun game to play for me. And I see it played out often in others' writing, too. Yours, sometimes.

 

[greenmountaineer]

I like references, whether to pop culture, high culture, art, other poems, whatever. One of my favorite things to do is wander about the Internet following references from one topic to another. I learn at lot of interesting things that way. If a line in someone's poem sends me off somewhere to look up a word or a name or a topic, then I am interested enough to chase it down. When I don't care much about the poem, I usually don't bother with looking up the reference.

That being said, it's easy to overdo it, or use an overly obscure reference, which is something I'm probably guilty of all the time. But then, I kind of like dropping odd little references about--it's kind of like leaving Trivial Pursuit cards laying about to pique the interest of passers-by.

And that generational thing goes both ways. My newspaper has a little feature each morning listing what "famous" (living) people were born on this date, and I usually know who everyone is only down to about age 40. Under that, it gets kind of dicey for me unless they are really famous (Lindsay Lohan) or really notorious (Lindsay Lohan).

As Angie says, it is something best used with subtlety, and especially if the reference can be missed without losing too much of the sense of the poem.

Because of the Internet, I think the nature of poetry is undergoing a monumental change (like so many things because of the Internet.) An age doesn't have a full grasp of the significance of the change it experiences. Historians are much better at that because of the longer view.

In another thread there was discussion about spoken poetry and written poetry. As I recall it, Epmd607 made some pretty persuasive arguments (at least for me) about how written poetry has superseded spoken. I'm sure those who favor recitation and slam will continue to argue the point. However, if you accept the premise that poetry as art has evolved to more written expression and combine it with the Internet, the change is even more profound.

I used to hesitate before putting some pop culture reference into a poem, anticipating a blank stare by the reader; however, with Windows and the Internet, Wikipedia or Google is a click or two away.

Nonetheless, too much of that wouldn't be advisable, so I agree with the point about subtlety. It would disrupt the music of the poem (sorta like watching the Red Sox with the bases loaded and cutting to a commercial.)

 

[Remec]

It depends upon the reader's experience and education. A poet cannot be expected to take things like that into account, unless the work is aimed at children.

Or for a specific demographic, such as a publication catering to a particular readership or work designed to be read (and/or heard) by an audience who would understand particular phrases, allusions, references, and jargon.

 

[Tzara]

The best is when you can use a reference in such a way as to prod the reader's memory but without their really noticing it. Kind of a subliminal thing. Course you can't really do that when you start the poem with the ref, as I did, but it's a fun game to play for me. And I see it played out often in others' writing, too. Yours, sometimes.

I think my style is more to whop the reader over the head with the reference and then stuff a printed copy of the Wikipedia page on the subject under their nose while they're still woozy in hopes that they'll notice it when their vision refocuses.

I am not a subtle person. Shy, at least in what PG calls "meat{a term automatically elided by Literotica for reasons unknown}space," but not subtle.

 

[Tzara]

Because of the Internet, I think the nature of poetry is undergoing a monumental change (like so many things because of the Internet.) An age doesn't have a full grasp of the significance of the change it experiences. Historians are much better at that because of the longer view.

In another thread there was discussion about spoken poetry and written poetry. As I recall it, Epmd607 made some pretty persuasive arguments (at least for me) about how written poetry has superseded spoken. I'm sure those who favor recitation and slam will continue to argue the point. However, if you accept the premise that poetry as art has evolved to more written expression and combine it with the Internet, the change is even more profound.

I don't remember much about that argument (I suppose I could go look it up, but I'm using a laptop in the basement at the moment, which sits on a shelf and isn't easy to type on, so I'm being lazy), but when was poetry primarily a spoken art? Before Gutenberg?

Epic poetry--Homer and Vergil and the skalds and stuff--well, maybe OK. But even by the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe, it seems to me that poetry is primarily experienced as a written art. I don't really see quite how Eliot and Pound and Zukofsky could be "fully experienced" (quotes 'cuz I for one can't claim to have fully experienced them) as a spoken art.

I think the Internet has made the potential audience larger for the amateur poet. My poems here, for example, are read by people in various corners of the USA, Canada, and the UK, at least. The group might not be any larger than the River City Poetry Appreciation Society (<--Oh, look! A Reference!), but the geographical and cultural audience is much broader than just reading poems for neighbors in the library.

I used to hesitate before putting some pop culture reference into a poem, anticipating a blank stare by the reader; however, with Windows and the Internet, Wikipedia or Google is a click or two away.

I don't worry much about it myself. If I've written something that interests someone, I assume they will look up anything they don't understand. That is, as you indicate, very easy now.

It isn't ideal--ideal would be you wrote something that the reference would enrich the reader's appreciation of the poem, but not kill its meaning if the reference were missed. The reference in Angie's poem is like that--it recalls echoes of the song if you know the song, but serves perfectly well as a statement if you don't.

 

[bflagsst]

On wikipedia I used to play a game against my buddy where we'd see who could get to a certain article in the fewest clicks. Start on Corporal Punishment and try to follow the hypertext to lepidoptery. Written poetry often resembles a natural hypertext. It can contain the high minded and pop low brow in the same breath. I don't know that it has the same quality when spoken. Can't pack as much information into something that can't be studied/googled on the fly, even with iphone and mobile internet. Middle Ages matched written poetry with religiousity. Religion became centered in a textual universe, everything else just followed suit. Dante wrote a gospel, pop culture gospel mixed with high art, jokes and irony throughout...

 

[Angeline]

I think my style is more to whop the reader over the head with the reference and then stuff a printed copy of the Wikipedia page on the subject under their nose while they're still woozy in hopes that they'll notice it when their vision refocuses.

I am not a subtle person. Shy, at least in what PG calls "meat{a term automatically elided by Literotica for reasons unknown}space," but not subtle.

I can go either way, subtle or in your face with a reference. Obviously (to me anyway) starting a poem with "There must be 50 ways" ain't subtle because if you're at all familiar with the song, that line should put it in your head. But I do like the more subtle ref because of the way it can unobtrusively add to the tone or color overall. That's harder to do, but effective when done well.

And like bflagg I don't concern myself with whether or not readers will get a reference. It's easy enough to look things up online--I do it all the time when I don't know a word or get the reference. Also I'm mainly writing for me, and putting my little private references into poems pleases my weird Gemini secretiveness.

 

[EroticOrogeny]

Its so nice to be able to look things up online. In the past you had to know the reference, having to go to quite some trouble to research things (other than the dictionary - not much different now than then). True for academic references, too - no longer have to hunt for something in the stacks and check it our or xerox it. Now can just download pdf of an article (assuming you're associate with an institution which pays the subscriptions). I noticed this transition over the last 10 years - used to be paper methods, now electronic. May still need to check out specialty books, but able to renew online.

 

[nerk]

When you write with allusions and references, you accept that you're limiting the number of people who will "get it"

You can use them in ways where the poem is effective without them, or you can write it so that if people don't know the lyrics to that one song, they completely miss the point.

T.S. Eliot knew he was going to be studied by scholars, so he littered The Wasteland with allusions in various languages, living and dead, that I am assured add layers of depth and importance to the poem. Still, most of it's in English, and I can read it and take a lot from it, without looking at the footnotes.

 

[champagne1982]

When you write with allusions and references, you accept that you're limiting the number of people who will "get it"

You can use them in ways where the poem is effective without them, or you can write it so that if people don't know the lyrics to that one song, they completely miss the point.

T.S. Eliot knew he was going to be studied by scholars, so he littered The Wasteland with allusions in various languages, living and dead, that I am assured add layers of depth and importance to the poem. Still, most of it's in English, and I can read it and take a lot from it, without looking at the footnotes.

Yep, nerk. I think you and I agree.

Write references and interesting obsurity into a poem and layer it up with an icing on top that is timeless and I believe your audience will be happy. I often read comments on my own work that amaze me since I hadn't included the point my audience grasped from it, in the piece. At least I hadn't done so consciously. So, include whatever references you want, make them beautiful and I'm pretty sure any reader will take what that reader knows, wants, and understands to be there, out of it.

 

[nerk]

Yep, nerk. I think you and I agree.

Write references and interesting obsurity into a poem and layer it up with an icing on top that is timeless and I believe your audience will be happy. I often read comments on my own work that amaze me since I hadn't included the point my audience grasped from it, in the piece. At least I hadn't done so consciously. So, include whatever references you want, make them beautiful and I'm pretty sure any reader will take what that reader knows, wants, and understands to be there, out of it.

that's a really good point champagne (can I call you bubbly?)
a lot of the time, the "it" that a reader "gets" from a poem isn't at all what the poet intended. I think that makes the poem just as successful, as (in my little world, anyway) the purpose of poetry is to express something much larger than what it actually talks about. The writer brings the details, and lets the reader pick their own devil.

 

[champagne1982]

that's a really good point champagne (can I call you bubbly?)
a lot of the time, the "it" that a reader "gets" from a poem isn't at all what the poet intended. I think that makes the poem just as successful, as (in my little world, anyway) the purpose of poetry is to express something much larger than what it actually talks about. The writer brings the details, and lets the reader pick their own devil.

Especially since the poet ceases to own the piece once they give it to the world to read. Each listener or reader will insist on seeing a good poem their own way, unmanageable devils that they are.

Bubbly is fine but I prefer ◦°spåгkly·º˚

 

[nerk]

Especially since the poet ceases to own the piece once they give it to the world to read. Each listener or reader will insist on seeing a good poem their own way, unmanageable devils that they are.

Bubbly is fine but I prefer ◦°spåгkly·º˚

sparkly is so close to shiny .. and then i get all distra .. oooo, look!

I think the toughest thing for a poet must be to allow readers to make the poem their own. I remember hearing the phrase "This poem is about...." a lot at readings, and it always bugged me. I thought at the time that if you needed to explain what it was about, then you probably needed to rewrite it so you didn't need to explain it. Now, I think the problem is that the poets weren't ready to trust their audience enough to let them decide what it was about. Probably a bit of both. It must be hard being a poet.

 

[bflagsst]

sparkly is so close to shiny .. and then i get all distra .. oooo, look!

I think the toughest thing for a poet must be to allow readers to make the poem their own. I remember hearing the phrase "This poem is about...." a lot at readings, and it always bugged me. I thought at the time that if you needed to explain what it was about, then you probably needed to rewrite it so you didn't need to explain it. Now, I think the problem is that the poets weren't ready to trust their audience enough to let them decide what it was about. Probably a bit of both. It must be hard being a poet.

This is really it for me. It's insulting telling an audience what your poem's about, assuming they're rubes, if they have questions they can ask. Most of the time I try to write poems that are crystal clear. Dylan Thomas claimed that he never used words that someone with a high school education couldn't understand, he wanted the average person to do some work, but they didn't have to do research. TS Eliot was prodded into including some explanation in the appendix of WasteLand. He did it really sly, he doesn't answer very much and leads you into asking more questions about the text--which gives an erudite late 20th century editor self-important work, explaining Eliot's pseudo explanations.

There's plenty of scholarship on what Eliot, Ezra Pound(Cantos) and James Joyce(Finnegans Wake) were up to. They certainly weren't writing for the everyman reader/poet. Most likely pissing contest between the three. Joseph Campbell was probably the only guy on the planet that could read each of their works and enjoy what they were doing on their level of intellect.

 

[nerk]

This is really it for me. It's insulting telling an audience what your poem's about, assuming they're rubes, if they have questions they can ask. Most of the time I try to write poems that are crystal clear. Dylan Thomas claimed that he never used words that someone with a high school education couldn't understand, he wanted the average person to do some work, but they didn't have to do research. TS Eliot was prodded into including some explanation in the appendix of WasteLand. He did it really sly, he doesn't answer very much and leads you into asking more questions about the text--which gives an erudite late 20th century editor self-important work, explaining Eliot's pseudo explanations.

There's plenty of scholarship on what Eliot, Ezra Pound(Cantos) and James Joyce(Finnegans Wake) were up to. They certainly weren't writing for the everyman reader/poet. Most likely pissing contest between the three. Joseph Campbell was probably the only guy on the planet that could read each of their works and enjoy what they were doing on their level of intellect.

I'm willing to bet Joseph Campbell isn't the ONLY guy on the planet who could. But I'm not willing to bet very much. I mentioned Eliot because he's sort of lingering down in the stratosphere where a sub-genius like me can at least partially understand what he's talking about. When Joyce gets going I just want to smack him.

But I think the same concepts hold true if your poetry relies on Twisted (oh no, we ain't gonna take it) Sister lyrics instead of Euripides. If the poem doesn't work without explanation and/or footnotes, you better be happy writing for academics and/or hair metal fans.

 

[greenmountaineer]

So what I'm getting from the thread so far is that most believe pop culture references work if the poem is good enough to begin with and you trust your audience to do the research or make their own intuitive leaps of abstraction to create meaning.

Fair statement? Or am I missiing something?

 

[bflagsst]

So what I'm getting from the thread so far is that most believe pop culture references work if the poem is good enough to begin with and you trust your audience to do the research or make their own intuitive leaps of abstraction to create meaning.

Fair statement? Or am I missiing something?

lol. A conversation like this usually just comes down to someone saying, "A good poem is a good poem. You know it when you see it." Doesn't count for much, but anything that you can put into words can be part of a good poem. Maybe you're really into math or physics and you write a great poem that your math and physics buddies can understand and appreciate, while the rest of us just assume it's a hot mess. Most of the best poems are fairly easy to understand, but it doesn't exclude uber complicated poems from being great because only a handful of readers can decipher the meaning. Or you have uber contemporary references that the well read poets don't get because they're less invested in pop culture, they pass over those poems but the kids love 'em.

 

[ishtat]

There's plenty of scholarship on what Eliot, Ezra Pound(Cantos) and James Joyce(Finnegans Wake) were up to. They certainly weren't writing for the everyman reader/poet. Most likely pissing contest between the three. Joseph Campbell was probably the only guy on the planet that could read each of their works and enjoy what they were doing on their level of intellect.

Nah, Robert Graves could have told all three where they were wrong (and did, at least in Eliot's case)

It has always surprised me that Eliot went out of his way to ensure Graves' "The White Goddess" was published when Graves was so critical of his (Eliot's) work. I suspect that it was because Eliot realised that whilst Graves may not have been his equal as a poet, Graves was his intellectual superior and Eliot knew it.

 

[champagne1982]

Nah, Robert Graves could have told all three where they were wrong (and did, at least in Eliot's case)

It has always surprised me that Eliot went out of his way to ensure Graves' "The White Goddess" was published when Graves was so critical of his (Eliot's) work. I suspect that it was because Eliot realised that whilst Graves may not have been his equal as a poet, Graves was his intellectual superior and Eliot knew it.

Nah, I think like all curmudgeons, Eliot and Graves were stewing in their credentials and TSE decided that Graves' poem best get read so that the public could decide.

TSE: Your poem sucks.
Graves: Well, mister-suck-wind published guy, you should let the mere mortals decide.
TSE: No one's gonna publish that crap without a reference.
Graves: Then you are afraid that if my work was out there, you'd lose your fans.
TSE: Poppycock, sirrah.
Graves: Get me published and we'll see.
TSE: Ok, I will. I'll give you the bullets to shoot yourself in the foot with.
Graves: More like, to put you out of your misery...

 

[Angeline]

sparkly is so close to shiny .. and then i get all distra .. oooo, look!

I think the toughest thing for a poet must be to allow readers to make the poem their own. I remember hearing the phrase "This poem is about...." a lot at readings, and it always bugged me. I thought at the time that if you needed to explain what it was about, then you probably needed to rewrite it so you didn't need to explain it. Now, I think the problem is that the poets weren't ready to trust their audience enough to let them decide what it was about. Probably a bit of both. It must be hard being a poet.

Not really hard at all imo. But one needs to recognize that a poem, once created, lives in two worlds. One is that which the poet created when she wrote it, and the other is the one the readers put it in with their various interpretations. I know what I'm trying to say when I write something, and I also know that when someone else reads that same piece of writing they'll likely see something very different from what I intended. This used to bother me, as if I could only be clearer or more metaphoric or more something, every reader would get exactly what I intended. I now know that was wishful thinking, fantastical thinking because we each bring such different experieinces and perspectives to what we read, So now I'm satisfied if I like what I've written, if it works for me in terms of saying what I've wanted to say and in the way I want to say it. I still need to try my best, of course, but I'll never get into anyone else's head and see the world their way.

 

[butters]

... As Angie says, it is something best used with subtlety, and especially if the reference can be missed without losing too much of the sense of the poem.

the words need to make up an integral part of the write, firstly, imo, and those who'll notice the reference and get the extra layer/benefit is a secondary consideration. the voice of the poem must be the voice that counts.

... ideal would be you wrote something that the reference would enrich the reader's appreciation of the poem, but not kill its meaning if the reference were missed. The reference in Angie's poem is like that--it recalls echoes of the song if you know the song, but serves perfectly well as a statement if you don't.

yes

I can go either way, subtle or in your face with a reference. Obviously (to me anyway) starting a poem with "There must be 50 ways" ain't subtle because if you're at all familiar with the song, that line should put it in your head. But I do like the more subtle ref because of the way it can unobtrusively add to the tone or color overall. That's harder to do, but effective when done well.

And like bflagg I don't concern myself with whether or not readers will get a reference. It's easy enough to look things up online--I do it all the time when I don't know a word or get the reference.

double yes

I think the toughest thing for a poet must be to allow readers to make the poem their own. I remember hearing the phrase "This poem is about...." a lot at readings, and it always bugged me. I thought at the time that if you needed to explain what it was about, then you probably needed to rewrite it so you didn't need to explain it. Now, I think the problem is that the poets weren't ready to trust their audience enough to let them decide what it was about. Probably a bit of both. It must be hard being a poet.

you make a lot of sense here. of course, it depends on the audience as to whether or not they can be trusted and, like champers, i often get told about stuff in my poems i didn't even notice till they did. which is a little embarrassing but good at the same time, as it often makes me look a bit smarter than i really am

So what I'm getting from the thread so far is that most believe pop culture references work if the poem is good enough to begin with and you trust your audience to do the research or make their own intuitive leaps of abstraction to create meaning.

Fair statement? Or am I missing something?

they will work if placed well, and not just dropped like some gauche name-droppers litter their conversation in order to impress.