Reading habits

[daughter]

Poets--

Whispersecret said something interesting in one of the threads. (Couldn't find it) She said she believes we all read a lot and that is what inspired us to write.

I thought the same at one time. I learned later that that's not true about a lot of poets especially those who write online. I look at my own experience. I am an avid reader of prose. When I started writing poetry, it was because my friends thought I had a way with words. When I started posting online, I wasn't seriously reading poetry. In fact, interacting with seasoned poets, I quickly realized how illiterate I was. I'm ashamed to tell you all how few books I had on poetry(Only the few required for school) And we're not talking long ago.

My interaction with better writers fueled my desire to read and study. They taught me to respect the art. Blame my mentors for my insistence on study. LOL

Anyway, I am now an avid reader and it has helped me to write better. Reading isn't osmosis for writing well, but what it does do is give me new ideas, examples of how to do things differently, it gives me images that I might not have thought of otherwise.

Whew! So my questions are: how much time do you commit to reading poetry online and more importantly off? Do you read others and try to emulate what you think they do successfully? Do they inspire you? What has reading poetry done for your own writing?

I had a friend tell me once that she wouldn't read accomplished poets for fear of having her own thoughts tainted by theirs. Ever feel that way?

Hope we have an interesting discussion. I really want to talk about poetry. Thanks.

Peace,

daughter

 

[WickedEve]

daughter

I read quite a bit of poetry when I was younger, but over the years, it's been less and less. But I find myself reading again -- not always for pleasure, though. I read a poem, and hopefully enjoy it, and then I study it. I've been reading about the mechanics of good poetry, but I need more. I need to see how other poems work.
I don't think I'm inspired that much by other poetry, at least, not lately. I have been influenced by some of the poetry I used to read a lot. I've always love classical poetry.
And I've never felt that my thoughts were "tainted" by reading other poets' words. I have my own style and come hell or high water, I'll write a poem the way I want. lol
What reading poetry has done for my own writing is that it has shown me that there is so much more I can do with my own poetry. I'm only on the bottom rungs, with a long ways yet to climb.

Wicked Eve

 

[karmadog]

just starting

When I was a kid, I played trumpet. I started playing jazz when I was nine or ten. When I listened to Bebop or progressive, I hated it. Later, after I had studied more and understood how they got to where they were, I began to love them. I think that writing, and poetry in particular, are like that. I dedicate one day a week (minimum) to randomly surfing poetry sites on the net. I discovered that I needed a better education than I currently have. I know that my prose has improved by reading extensively, I can't see how poetry would be any different.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I don't read much poetry. Perhaps one or two poems a week on a good week. Then again, I don't consider myself a poet. I "dabble" at it. I string some words together and if I think they look pretty enough I call it a poem.

Lately I've been trying to understand the structures of the whole thing. Entirely because of this place and particularly because of daughter, Red, and UP. I still don't consider myself a poet, just someone who occasionally tosses words together and thinks, "how pretty."

Prose... Now that's a different story. I'm insatiable with it. I have about 30 books on the essence of writing itself. Grammar, story construction, plots, dictionaries. That doesn't include the books I have on getting published or how to be a whackjob writer in a family that doesn't write. None of this includes the large amount of various writing that I read every week.

Prose is my passion and my avocation. Couldn't live without it, actually. I tried once, it was the most miserable two months of my existence. What I have learned about poetry and making pretty words I find myself applying to my prose and completely forgetting when I'm nibbling on a pencil and scratching words on paper.

I firmly believe this. If you ever want to be a poet, you must first eat poetry. Eat it whole and like a starving man. Don't stop until you're stuffed. Why? Reading teaches you to write better than anything else. Perhaps even better than writing itself. You are, after all, what you eat.

 

[Ded Poet]

poetry vs. prose

"I'm a failed poet. Maybe every novelist wants to write poetry, finds he can't and then tries the short story which is the most demanding form after poetry. And failing at that, only then does he take up novel writing."
--William Falkner, Paris Review interview

Interesting, isn't it, that these are the two forms we are all attempting to work at on this site?

My appreciation of poetry and the desire to study it have grown in direct proportion to my growing seriousness as a writer and philosopher in general.

Lately it seems like every week I discover that yet another poet is also a serious theorist or philosopher or social reformer.

For instance, this week I am diving into Adrienne Rich's rich body of work on feminist theory and social science. She is truly a joy to read in any form, and tracing her evolution as a thinker as well as a poet is an education in itself.

Last week I found Joseph Brodsky's wonderful 'Less Than One: Selected Essays'from which I will share a brief selection:


...The concept of equality is extrinsic to the nature of art, and the thinking of any man [sic] of letters is hierarchical. Within this hierarchy poetry occupies a higher position than prose, and the poet, in principle, is higher than the prose writer.
...With few exceptions, all the more or less eminent writers of recent times have paid their dues to verse. Some, like Nabokov, for example, have tried to the very end to convince themselves and those around them that even if they were not primarily poets, they were poets all the same. Most of them, however, after yielding to the temptation of poetry, never addressed themselves to it again except as readers; still, they remained grateful for the lessons in laconism and harmony it taught them.
...What does a writer of prose learn from poetry? The dependence of a word's specific gravity on context, focused thinking, omission of the self-evident, the dangers that lurk within even the most elevated state of mind. And what does the the poet learn from prose? Not much: attention to detail, the use of common parlance and bureaucratese, and, in rare instances, compositional know-how (the best teacher of which is music). All three of these, however, can be gleaned from the experience of poetry itself (especially from Renaissance poetry), and theoretically--but only theoretically--a poet can get along without prose.
---from the essay, 'A poet and Prose'

Last fall I was introduced to Matthew Arnold, the great 19th century educator and auther of such classic poems as 'Empedocles on Etna' and 'Dover Beach.'

And I can't seem to escape Coleridge. He is one of the most influential figures in the history of ideas, (particularly European intellectual history).

And of course there's Rilke...and Eliot...

So what I'm learning is that poets tend to be among the most serious of writers, and as a result they tend to be among the best writers...

Keep writing!

Ded Poet

Edited to say "[among] the most serious writers."

 

[Whispersecret]

Oh, my hackles are up.

Prose writers are inferior to poets? I agree that prose writers can learn from poets. I also admit that there is little about the craft of prose that a poet can learn from, but that is not because of an inherent inferiority in the medium, but in a basic difference in what is being said. (Please take into account, I talk about fiction, not non-fiction.)

When I write prose, I'm telling a story that is meant to entertain. When I (try to) write a poem, I'm trying to communicate how I see a tiny slice of life to the reader. There is no comparing possible, and therefore, it is wrong to put prose in a sub-category below poetry.

 

[JUDO]

Learn, then do...

A musician friend of mine once told me that he used to practice the solos of great jazz musicians when he was younger. Played them all the time, trying to learn how to sound exactly like the artist who first laid them down.

Many other musicians put him down for this, saying he was going to end up playing like the other players and not have his "own sound."

He told me he had to practice and learn the sound of others first, otherwise he wouldn't know how not to sound like them.

Originally posted by daughter
I had a friend tell me once that she wouldn't read accomplished poets for fear of having her own thoughts tainted by theirs. Ever feel that way?

It was for this opening statement that I posted my little tale. (In case you missed its purpose.)

 

[daughter]

Ded Poet

I could kiss you. Faulkner drove me crazy in college, but I learned a hell of a lot. I have read some of Ms. Rich's work. I will post a piece for you soon. I read a piece by her and was an instant fan. She eloquently said so much of what I have come to believe about poetry.

Your post is dear to me. Thanks so much.

Peace,

daughter

 

[KillerMuffin]

You can never compare prose and poetry. Apples and oranges. The most serious of writers are poets. *snorts in disgust*

I happen to take my writing very seriously. Far more seriously than I take anything else in my life, including my family. Wrong though that is, such is the way it is. I find poetry to be an inferior way for me to fully express myself. It leaves entirely too much unclear. It's too restrictive. It doesn't give the full depth of emotion that I am trying to convey. I can take a short story and rip emotion out of most people. I have two porno stories that consistently make people cry. I have one that consistently sends people into killing rages. And that's just pornography. My poetry doesn't do that. I would wager that there isn't a poem on this site that would consistently make readers cry. Let alone one that consistently makes people angry.

Whispersecret is an extremely serious writer. She is dedicated to her craft and she hones it constantly. She writes extremely well and she writes effectively. There is more depth and more heart in her stories than you could imagine.

Writing a good story is just as difficult as writing a good poem.

You may want to reconsider your statement. Intellectualism isn't all that and a bag of chips.

 

[daughter]

Back up ladies

Don't shoot the messenger. Faulkner made the comments and he was a prominent writer. For clarification, I was thrilled to hear someone praise poetry for the fine art it is. I believe that was DP's point as well.

Ladies, anyone who has ever read either your stories or critiques would not question your writng abilities. Let's not draw battle lines where none exist.

Peace,

daughter

 

[Ded Poet]

dodging bullets

KM, if you have not read a poem that made you cry, perhaps you should try reading some poetry beyond what is on this site. This is a playpen.

Perhaps I should have included more of the Brodsky quote (by the way, he's written poems that certainly make ME cry). Reading from the sentence that ends with the statement, "the poet is, in principle, higher than the prose writer," he goes on to say,"This is true not so much because poetry is in fact older than prose, but because a poet in narrow circumstances can sit down and produce a piece; whereas in similar straits a prose writer would hardly give a thought to a poem. Even if the prose writer has what it takes to write a decent verse text, he knows full well that poetry pays a lot worse, and more slowly than prose."

He does have a point. Any REAL poet (by that I mean one of those incredibly rare creatures who is actually able to make a LIVING with their craft) can, if need be, write an article, essay, or review (there is ample evidence of this--see my post above for just a few examples). A starving novelist or short story writer, on the other hand, doesn't think, "I know how I'll pay the rent this month--I'll write a poem!"

Very few people take poetry seriously. They think it is just a matter of pretty words or cute rhymes. Poetry is HARD. Writing well in general is HARD. Writing a great short story (something not only publishable but of literary merit) is PRETTY DARN HARD. Writing a great poem is REALLY REALLY FUCKING HAAAAAARD!

Why is this? In a word, concision. The more constrained the form, the more mastery is required.

Poetry is the most constrained form, hence the most mastery is required (which, incidentally, is why the vast, VAST majority of what passes for poetry on this site is so baaaaaaad. I include my own paltry attempts in this sweeping assessment, of course). We are playing! This is not poetry.

The short story, being the next most constrained form, is thus next most difficult.

Etc.

There is, you must admit, a hierarchy of hardness here.


The more seriously you take writing in general, and poetry in particular, the more you realize these fundamental facts.

So sue me!

DP

 

[KillerMuffin]

This is a fundamental fact that I recognize. Do with it what you will. I am a writing genius. I am not a poet.

Poets are NOT better than prose writers. This is not only what you inferred, this is what you stated.

This is what is in dispute, not the difficulty of writing a poem.

I find writing poetry to be a frivilous pastime that I really enjoy.

Economy of words doesn't make difficulty. Mastery of form makes difficulty. You're missing the fundamental thing here and that's the word "form." You've taken concision and put it in place of form. Concision is one of the aspects of form, but it is not form. Following your logic the absolute best literature in the world is haiku and Poe's "The Raven" is vastly distant. Form dominates. When one writes fiction one thinks of not only genre but form. What is one good at? Novels? Essays? Short stories? Novellas? Flash fiction? Epics? There is a general truism that I read in several books written by editors and agents alike. People who master one form do not necessary write well in another form. Most short story writers cannot write essay of the same quality. Why? Same word length. Different form. Difficulty is NOT measured by the number of words. Difficulty is measured by how a writer deals with form.

Can the best poet in the world write a fabulous novel? Doubt it. Can the best novelist in the world write a fabulous poem? Doubt it.

Mary Oliver is an fine example. She writes poetry to make one weep. She writes bland books. Stephen King writes epic novels that enthrall thousands. He hasn't written a short story in years because, in his own words, he can't. On a local level, take daughter. She can handle it, I think. daughter's poetry is the cream of the Lit crop. daughter's stories aren't. They're not bad, but they're not nearly as great as her poetry. Following the model put forth in the heirarchy of difficulty, daughter's stories should shine just as brightly as poetry.

The heirarchy of difficulty has jack shit to do with length or form. It has everything to do with the writer his or herself. And you damned well know it. You aren't dealing with concrete, unwaverable things like gravity and E=MC2. You're dealing with entirely subjective things based entirely on humanity.

In short, you're wrong. Utterly and completely. Moreover, you're confused about fundamentals in writing.

I think I'm going to go and do some deep breathing exercised to calm down now. Drat. I have a test in thirty minutes, too.

 

[daughter]

KM, breathe

Thanks for the compliment, too. Well, you know where I invest my energy. I write non-fiction, too. That story stuff, well, it is new terrority for me.

Good luck on you test.

Peace,

daughter

 

[KillerMuffin]

girl, you write the best poetry here. I'm calm now. Nothing like getting on a soapbox and preaching to the unconverted heathens to get the old ticker revvin'. And that was just to the guy across the way who was trying to get me to lend him five bucks.

 

[Whispersecret]

*points to KM* I agree with everything she said.

(except for the part where she raves about me, cuz that would be like patting myself on the back in public)

 

[alltherage]

Writers who can write well are as rare as ducks without feathers. I see no point in argueing if poets are better writers than prose writers. I write both, mostly badly. I hope to get better at writing prose because the stories I have to tell don't lend themselves to the poetic form. I write poety from a deeply emotional and private place and when I have written something that seems good to me it seems to come from places I did not know I had. I stumble through and keep trying. I write poems for me most of the time and if I am lucky I learn something about myself. I write prose because I feel the need to tell the story. I find writing prose to be painful and always hard work.

I used to read 4 to 5 books a week for pleasure in addition to the reading I did for school. I find that if I find an author I love I devour their work hungrily until I have read it all. With kids, school, work, etc etc etc, my reading has decreased. I hate sleeping. It seems such a waste of time when there is so much more to life that I want to learn about and experience.

I do know this. My love of writing came from reading.

 

[daughter]

how much time do you commit to reading poetry online and more importantly off?

Read online daily no less than 3 hours a day. Too much I know. I surf probably 4 sites. When you read as voraciously as I do, you come to see quickly why critics harp on cliches. I see 'soul' at least 10 times a day. A steady reading diet shows you how what you thought was unique is really pretty standard of hobby writing.

When I first started writing online, I used #'s only and I wrote what I termed 'clipped' lines. The really short lines. I thought I was doing something. Every novice on the net uses short lines and often with no real impact. And the #'s. Well, how many times do you see that?

Read a lot and you'll be able to easily draw a template of the noveau poet. Not so funny, when you realize your work fits the description. It certainly gave me a dose of humility.

I have a good collection of anthologies now and it's growing. I read something by an accomplished poet every day. I even read reference books.

Do you read others and try to emulate what you think they do successfully? Do they inspire you? What has reading poetry done for your own writing?

I read a lot of Sanchez, Giovanni, Clifton, and other modern black poets. They've mastered syntax free verse. They shun flowery descriptors. They maximize the power of simple, select word choices. They're all well-read. They write free verse, but they've studied them all. That's the model I'm following.

They inspire me. Sometimes, though I read an accomplish poet and ask myself "Who am I kidding"? I'm a writer. It's who I am so I stay with it.

Diversifying my reading habits has exposed me to a variety of techniques, images, devices, and philosophies about writing. I can't remember the last time I wrote a 2 word per line poem. I no longer plop images on a page and foresake crafting a complete thought. We don't talk in single words or a succession of words ending in 'ing'. I haven't abandon these practices totally, but I no longer rely on them. They don't dominate my work. I've learned to develop metaphors and to use sound to create rhythm without relying on rhyme.

Writing is a process. I'm committed to it.

Peace,

daughter

 

[Ded Poet]

holy shit!

KM,whisper, why are y'all taking this dialogue so personally? First of all, I think you are confusing my own words with those that I quoted.

KM wrote,

Poets are NOT better than prose writers. This is not only what you inferred, this is what you stated.

This is neither what I implied nor what I stated (although it is obviously what you inferred).
What I said was:

So what I'm learning is that poets tend to be the most serious of writers, and as a result they tend to be among the best writers...

Perhaps I should have added 'among the most serious' and I would be happy to go back and edit my post to say as much, if that would make you happy. I certainly meant no offense. But it seems your gripe is with Faulkner and Brodsky, not me.


KM also wrote,

I find writing poetry to be a frivilous pastime that I really enjoy.

This would help to explain your opinion...


Hope I'm not making enemies here. I'm really not trying to pick a fight.

DP

 

[KillerMuffin]

Changed my mind.

I'm not going to beat this into the ground anymore. I swear I'm not. If I do, someone hit me.

 

[Ded Poet]

Killer,

I sincerely apologize if my words were interpreted as an insult. You'll notice that I revised my statement. Perhaps I can can clarify.

First of all, I do not consider myself a poet, for what that's worth--I consider very few people to be poets.But that's beside the point.

In my opinion, a hierarchy of difficulty is NOT tantamount to a hierarchy of accomplishment. I agree with many of your points, particularly that just because someone has mastered one form does not automatically guarantee that they are a past master of another. But, I would refer you back to the original Faulkner quote (who, as well as Brodsky, was a Nobel laureate). HE said, not me, that poetry was the most difficult form. I am not trying to be insulting! It was just his opinion, after all.

For the record, I do not think poets are better than, or superior to, other writers.

The intent of my original post was to illustrate how my understanding of poetry as an art form and discipline has grown of late. Like you (judging by what you have said here) I tended to think of poetry as a rather frivoluos diversion. The more I learn, study, and read, the more I understand the complexity of the form, the very metaphysical difficulties involved in even understanding and articulating what poetry IS (forming a poetic), and the incredible intellects and erudition of the great poets I am discovering and learning to admire.

Any impression above and beyond that was unintentional and again I apologize.

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Sincerely,
DP

 

[KillerMuffin]

You just missed one. That would be why I blew it all out of proportion in the first place. *sighs* Arrogance. Pure and simple.

 

[Ded Poet]

oops

too late, I already responded.

KM, I think I could use diplomacy lessons from daughter!lol

I am just a lowly aspiring writer myself...

 

[Ded Poet]

wha'd I miss? who's arrogant?

I swear I didn't mean to start a freakin war!

 

[WriterDom]

I don't think there are walls between poets and novelists. There are poets who write only poems, and novelists who write only novels. There are also plenty of prolific poets who are known by the general public as novelists. If you set up a poll in a mall and asked people to name 10 contemporary poets and novelists, I doubt you'd find many who could name a living poet. Go to a major bookstore and you'll find that poetry books make up about 1% of the floor space, and probably.01% of the sales.

Stick to your novels, KM. Poetry is overrated. Perhaps a children's book about wizards? No, that would never sale.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Quit stirring shit, WriterDom.