To read, or not to read...

[wildsweetone]

(...prompted by a comment on another thread.)

I put it to you that to read, read and read some more is likely going to influence your own writing either consciously or sub-consciously.

This does have benefits, but from the Bad Thing perspective, how does it help you to hear your own voice?

 

[Liar]

It doesn't help you hear your own voice, but it gives you the tools to speak it, one you've found it.

 

[Angeline]

I'm sorry to bring up Lester Young because I always do and it must be getting boring, lol, but I love this analogy.

He said you start out by listening to other musicians and you hear things you like and you practice playing like those things you heard in others and from that your own voice emerges.

Which echoes what Liar said.

 

[wildsweetone]

I think you're both right, but there's something to be said for simply sitting and writing and writing and writing without letting poetry written by others influence you.

After all, if you're writing the way you like to read, is that not a form of copying?

Okay I'm kind of thinking along the devil's advocate lines here... but I believe that one can write truely great poetry simply from listening to one's own self.

Wasn't it Emily Dickinson who write poetry from within the seclusion of her own home?

Did all classic poets read the poetry of others before knowing what they wanted to say?

Which brings me to another thing that's been bugging me lately... I obviously haven't been immersed in enough poetry because when I read some poetry from classic poets, it comes across as if they wrote perfect end copies without the need for drafts. lol I'm sitting here looking at my myriad of drafts and shaking my head. lol

 

[Rybka]

I think you're both right, but there's something to be said for simply sitting and writing and writing and writing without letting poetry written by others influence you.

After all, if you're writing the way you like to read, is that not a form of copying?
. . .

If you believe that about "style". What about the basic rules, spelling, grammar, even the meanings of words? Where can you justify drawing the line?

 

[Angeline]

I think you're both right, but there's something to be said for simply sitting and writing and writing and writing without letting poetry written by others influence you.

After all, if you're writing the way you like to read, is that not a form of copying?

Okay I'm kind of thinking along the devil's advocate lines here... but I believe that one can write truely great poetry simply from listening to one's own self.

Wasn't it Emily Dickinson who write poetry from within the seclusion of her own home?

Did all classic poets read the poetry of others before knowing what they wanted to say?

Which brings me to another thing that's been bugging me lately... I obviously haven't been immersed in enough poetry because when I read some poetry from classic poets, it comes across as if they wrote perfect end copies without the need for drafts. lol I'm sitting here looking at my myriad of drafts and shaking my head. lol

But they all read. They were all, at some point, influenced by other writers, no? Even if one is not currently reading, everything ever read that made an impact has been an influence already.

And I think poets have always been aware of one another. After all, there were schools of poets: the English Romantics, the American Transcendentalists who sort of wanted to influence each other.

Anyway, I think the big limitation of form poetry especially is that if you follow every rule, it's hard to sound unique. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you don't know rules you don't know what to break.

 

[twelveoone]

I think you're both right, but there's something to be said for simply sitting and writing and writing and writing without letting poetry written by others influence you.

After all, if you're writing the way you like to read, is that not a form of copying?

Okay I'm kind of thinking along the devil's advocate lines here... but I believe that one can write truely great poetry simply from listening to one's own self.

Wasn't it Emily Dickinson who write poetry from within the seclusion of her own home?

Did all classic poets read the poetry of others before knowing what they wanted to say?

Which brings me to another thing that's been bugging me lately... I obviously haven't been immersed in enough poetry because when I read some poetry from classic poets, it comes across as if they wrote perfect end copies without the need for drafts. lol I'm sitting here looking at my myriad of drafts and shaking my head. lol

and I'll play devils advocate right back,
probably all of the great poets read others, most of them lifting pieces, stories, ways of wording from others, this is not copying, it can either be looked at as either laying the foundation, or cross fertilization of ideas.
Is your foundation that good, are your ideas that good, that you feel it will sustain you. DO you watch television? Won't this perhaps influence you in a way that is deterimental, what will you do for a counterbalance?

Now when you read the great poets, what you read is the finished product, how many times do you think they sat there shakiing there heads. How many scraps where saved. There are three different published versions of Marianne Moore's "Poetry", Dylan Thomas changed a few after publication. T.S. Eliot's "Wasteland" was over twice the size before publication. Edison (the light bulb guy) was right when he said genious is 99% perspiration; (least I hope it was Edison)
One of the reasons you may not percieve this is because, good poetry looks so perfectly natural, as if no effort was spent in writing it.


Speaking for myself, it took me 6 weeks to write three lines once, no one was happy with it, but it did what I wanted. Another time, 20 lines of crap distilled to one line, that alot of people where happy with that one.
Edit
Revise
Edit
Revise

 

[twelveoone]

But they all read. They were all, at some point, influenced by other writers, no? Even if one is not currently reading, everything ever read that made an impact has been an influence already.

And I think poets have always been aware of one another. After all, there were schools of poets: the English Romantics, the American Transcendentalists who sort of wanted to influence each other.

Anyway, I think the big limitation of form poetry especially is that if you follow every rule, it's hard to sound unique. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you don't know rules you don't know what to break.

Right on.
Some poets where also critics, Poe, Eliot. I'm sure Emily Dickenson read, I don't know who, but I'm sure she read, perhaps the bible, probably the King James Version, one of the high points of the English Language,

I will defer arguements about Rules here, as it it not germaine to the discussion.

 

[twelveoone]

I'm sorry WSO, I feel very strongly about this, I apologise, if I came across as too strong, too much crap on the radio, too much crap on the television, the only counterbalance, the only way to determine your position, to grow is to read, is to think critically.
Again, I aplogise, if it looked like it was personally directed, it was not my intent.

 

[Liar]

I think you're both right, but there's something to be said for simply sitting and writing and writing and writing without letting poetry written by others influence you.

After all, if you're writing the way you like to read, is that not a form of copying?

Here's an experiment: Replace the bolded words with "inspire" and "inspiration".

 

[Angeline]

Right on.
Some poets where also critics, Poe, Eliot. I'm sure Emily Dickenson read, I don't know who, but I'm sure she read, perhaps the bible, probably the King James Version, one of the high points of the English Language,

I will defer arguements about Rules here, as it it not germaine to the discussion.

No arguments.

I can follow rules or break them. For me, the best writing happens when I break em, but not always.

 

[wildsweetone]

If you believe that about "style". What about the basic rules, spelling, grammar, even the meanings of words? Where can you justify drawing the line?

Lines, boundaries, rules... why are we so intent on having to know all the rules? Whatever happened to free creativity, unrestrained writing? These forms didn't always exist, they were created. It's cool to know how they work and how to achieve them ourselves, but I don't feel that it's necessary for each one of us to have to know them to be able to write our own poetry.

How many potential poets are put off by 'having to know the rules of poetry before breaking them'?

Some poetry is based on experience. All we have to know is how to write and convey our thoughts. But even then, what we want to convey, can be mis-read or have another meaning attached to it by a reader.

 

[wildsweetone]

But they all read. They were all, at some point, influenced by other writers, no? Even if one is not currently reading, everything ever read that made an impact has been an influence already.

And I think poets have always been aware of one another. After all, there were schools of poets: the English Romantics, the American Transcendentalists who sort of wanted to influence each other.

Anyway, I think the big limitation of form poetry especially is that if you follow every rule, it's hard to sound unique. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you don't know rules you don't know what to break.

Isn't part of being unique, making your own rules up? So long as we can convey our own thoughts, then isn't that all that matters?

It's nicer to imagine that poets are strong people who endure much and who are capable of writing every emotion they feel. Perhaps it's more poetic to think along those lines than to think they only wrote because of wanting to mimic (through form) another poet's words/style.

 

[PatCarrington]

How many potential poets are put off by 'having to know the rules of poetry before breaking them'?

no good ones, i'm quite sure.

 

[wildsweetone]

and I'll play devils advocate right back,
probably all of the great poets read others, most of them lifting pieces, stories, ways of wording from others, this is not copying, it can either be looked at as either laying the foundation, or cross fertilization of ideas.
Is your foundation that good, are your ideas that good, that you feel it will sustain you. DO you watch television? Won't this perhaps influence you in a way that is deterimental, what will you do for a counterbalance?

Now when you read the great poets, what you read is the finished product, how many times do you think they sat there shakiing there heads. How many scraps where saved. There are three different published versions of Marianne Moore's "Poetry", Dylan Thomas changed a few after publication. T.S. Eliot's "Wasteland" was over twice the size before publication. Edison (the light bulb guy) was right when he said genious is 99% perspiration; (least I hope it was Edison)
One of the reasons you may not percieve this is because, good poetry looks so perfectly natural, as if no effort was spent in writing it.


Speaking for myself, it took me 6 weeks to write three lines once, no one was happy with it, but it did what I wanted. Another time, 20 lines of crap distilled to one line, that alot of people where happy with that one.
Edit
Revise
Edit
Revise

In this day and age, if I copied or 'lifted' another poet's wording then I would feel I was in breach of copyright or forgery or something, which is quite apart from the fact that I wouldn't feel like I'd written anything unique.

I think everything around us influences us, as do our experiences and what we see others experience. Do you think that perhaps we don't get enough from actual experiences to kick start our own writing?

 

[wildsweetone]

I'm sorry WSO, I feel very strongly about this, I apologise, if I came across as too strong, too much crap on the radio, too much crap on the television, the only counterbalance, the only way to determine your position, to grow is to read, is to think critically.
Again, I aplogise, if it looked like it was personally directed, it was not my intent.

Apologising? Whatever for? Oh! Was it because I was so long replying??? Never fear, I love discussions. I work during the middle part of my day so I wasn't able to be online to answer you right away. Please don't worry.

The only thing that upsets me is when people go for other people's jugulars because of misreading intent/tone online. (For some strange reason that happens a lot. )

So, don't worry, everything's cool bananas.

 

[wildsweetone]

Here's an experiment: Replace the bolded words with "inspire" and "inspiration".

Inspiration is a great word! I've been inspired by many things, events, sights, words, authors, attitudes, yes inspiration opens up the world of words. I think it's up to each one of us to ensure that we use that inspiration to our own best ability without falling back on the need to borrow a style that we've read elsewhere.

 

[wildsweetone]

Originally Posted by wildsweetone


How many potential poets are put off by 'having to know the rules of poetry before breaking them'?

no good ones, i'm quite sure.

*raising one eyebrow*

I feel like disagreeing with you there. Those potential poets are unlikely to post publically their own writing if they are unsure of rules or if they know the reception of their writing is going to get them admonished (harsh word, sorry).

To give an example... I have worked with dyslexic children who couldn't spell and had difficulties remembering the rules of grammar and punctuation. Several of those same children wrote simply stunning stories and poetry.

 

[PatCarrington]

*raising one eyebrow*

I feel like disagreeing with you there. Those potential poets are unlikely to post publically their own writing if they are unsure of rules or if they know the reception of their writing is going to get them admonished (harsh word, sorry).

To give an example... I have worked with dyslexic children who couldn't spell and had difficulties remembering the rules of grammar and punctuation. Several of those same children wrote simply stunning stories and poetry.

what writer who cares about writing could possibly not want to read everything others have written, or musician not want to hear the music of all others, or cook, or mason.....or...or...or....

could one possibly think that only their words matter, or no one's before have any potential worth or anything to teach them?

that would be not only the height of arrogance, but a sign of someone who cares little about the craft they claim to hold dear.

i don't even begin to understand what you are driving at. you do not become a good writer by tossing words onto a page, nor a mason by tossing bricks onto a pile.

there is learning involved. where do you propose to get it from, if not from others who have done it?

 

[wildsweetone]

what writer who cares about writing could possibly not want to read everything others have written, or musician not want to hear the music of all others, or cook, or mason.....or...or...or....

could one possibly think that only their words matter, or no one's before have any potential worth or anything to teach them?

that would be not only the height of arrogance, but a sign of someone who cares little about the craft they claim to hold dear.

i don't even begin to understand what you are driving at. you do not become a good writer by tossing words onto a page, nor a mason by tossing bricks onto a pile.

there is learning involved. where do you propose to get it from, if not from others who have done it?

I think that our own style is best learnt in this way (keeping in line with the original thread intent). By simply tossing words onto a page and figuring out for ourselves what feels right for us.

I'm not saying never read. But I am saying reading other's work is not everything and can sometimes be detrimental to new writers who don't know their own style or voice well enough to overcome the even sometimes sub-conscious copying of style.

(Sorry I have to go and collect my son, I'll be back later.)

 

[PatCarrington]

I think that our own style is best learnt in this way (keeping in line with the original thread intent). By simply tossing words onto a page and figuring out for ourselves what feels right for us.

and what basis do you use to make that determination?

you have been taught spoken language, by the people who spoke to you. that is how you know how to talk.

you have been taught written language, by the people who wrote for and to you. that is how you know how to write.

why is advanced writing, which good poetry is, any different? how do you learn to use language in sophisticated ways without examples?

you would not have learned to speak alone in a cave. you could make all the sounds and noises you like. NO ONE will ever understand them, nor find them more than mildly amusing, nor see any real worth in them.

is written language different? if you had never been taught to write by others who already knew how, could you put a sentence together? you could make marks on the cave walls, marks you invent yourself. who will be able to read them, or care?

you learn language from others.

that is how it works. isn't it?

I'm not saying never read. But I am saying reading other's work is not everything and can sometimes be detrimental to new writers who don't know their own style or voice well enough to overcome the even sometimes sub-conscious copying of style.

you don't copy, you learn.

you learn to discriminate, and evaluate. you learn what you think is correct, and effective, and profound, and also what isn't.

(Sorry I have to go and collect my son, I'll be back later.)

you must be on the other side of the earth from me.

i'm going to sleep....we'll continue. i still don't get your point.

zzzzzzzzzzzz..............

 

[wildsweetone]

zzzzzzzzzzzz..............

sleep well dear.

I guess I'm not making myself clear. (Maybe I should read more so that I can emulate other's way of communication to get my thought across properly *wicked wink* )

Yes, we need to have been taught how to read and write in order to be able to read and write ourselves.

Let me ask this way... have you ever felt yourself writing in similar style to another person whose work you have read? (I'm not talk now, because you have found your own voice and style. I'm meaning back in the early days of your poetry writing.)

 

[Liar]

Inspiration is a great word! I've been inspired by many things, events, sights, words, authors, attitudes, yes inspiration opens up the world of words. I think it's up to each one of us to ensure that we use that inspiration to our own best ability without falling back on the need to borrow a style that we've read elsewhere.

I'm not talking about borrowing a style. I'm certainly not talking about reading only one author and adopting his/her voice. I'm talking about the exact opposite - developing a style of your own. What you get from reading other people's writings is better tools to do that, tools to express those feelings you talked about.

A bigger vocabulary is just the tip of the iceberg. What you as a writer need is a big toolbox of writing techniques. I'm talking about technique here, not style. If you observe an artist puts paint on a canvas in a new way, that doesn't mean that your painting will be a copy of his, just that you have aquired yet another way to express your own style. Same thing with laguage devices, the little building blocks that makes up a text. You observe how one author use ellipses in a awy that you weren't aware of, and wouldn't be aware of if you adn't read it. THe next time you have one more tool in your belt. It's your choice to use it or not. If it doesn't work with what you want to say, discard it. But every now and then you find a device or a word that helps you define yourself and your identity even stronger than before.

#L

 

[bogusbrig]

What makes one write poetry, the love of poetry or the love of language?

For me it is the love of language. The concrete sounds, the ambiguity and the absolute meaning of words and how context can change and corrupt language into new forms of expression. The synthesis of the attributes of language can bypass the left side of the brain and create new intuitive experience.

Rules are learnt to be broken. How many good poets become masters of their craft only to bore the reader by being so competent within accepted conventions they never surprise and excite, you just end up admiring their skill and nothing else. Give me a bad poet that dares and keep the good poet that daren't.

English was at its most exciting when new words and meanings were being formed, when it was a peasant language and before rigorous grammar was imposed by an academic hierarchy.

I rarely buy poetry books anymore, simply because I know what I can expect. The same old rigorous academic language, written within the same old conventions that bears no resemblance to the exciting language I hear everyday. I suppose all the editors have been through the same old university system and have internalised all the same old conventions. If you are boringly competent in your craft you have more chance of being published than if you are exciting and fresh.

Poetry like any other art form has to be comprehensible to its intended audience. That does not mean it has to be acceptable to them or does not challenge them. If no one throws out the rules and dares to be different we end up with a very tired art form with a very skilled and competent hierarchy that will assume it has ownership and is keeper of the artform. Language belongs to us all and so does poetry and anyone can make up their own rules.

What am I doing on my soap box. Get me down!!!

OK My conclusion. One has to be aware of poetry or one would not be indulging in poetry but the love of language is far more important than the love of the craft of poetry. If one doesn't read poetry I guess one will retread so many trodden paths and miss so many new ideas as well as create new paths. However one doesn't need to be and shouldn't be, deferential to poetry, language is far more important.

 

[twelveoone]

In this day and age, if I copied or 'lifted' another poet's wording then I would feel I was in breach of copyright or forgery or something, which is quite apart from the fact that I wouldn't feel like I'd written anything unique.

I think everything around us influences us, as do our experiences and what we see others experience. Do you think that perhaps we don't get enough from actual experiences to kick start our own writing?

You are confusing plagarism and or copyright violation with using pieces:
An extreme example from http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem790.html

Eliot's Notes with source text for the Wasteland

(editted out- bandwrith reduction, and copyright concerns)
material can be found on web-address