When Emotions Get in the Way

[WickedEve]

Sometimes emotion gets in the way of writing a good poem and making a constructive comment. We've read poems that read like the poet was emotionally gutted and their wordy viscera was splattered across three stanzas. I can understand where the poet's coming from, but he must get control and focus that energy, if he wants a truly successful poem.

As far as comments, some readers are so outraged, disgusted, aroused, saddened, etc. that they can't properly comment on the poem itself. They comment on their own emotions, which is fine. I've been guilty myself. But it would benefit the poet, if the reader could move past emotions and really look at the work.

I've felt this way about poetry and comments for years now. I guess the reason I have comments on my mind is because of one I recently received.

I wouldn't have the courage to write some of these lines. Initially I was overwhelmed and yes shocked by the image. But then it dawned this is fine poetry of a kind I couldn't write. I didn't 'love it' but this commands respect. Thank you.

This reader was able to express how the poem made him feel. Then he went beyond emotion and really looked at the poem.

Anyway, share your thoughts, discuss it, rant, etc.

 

[Angeline]

Sometimes emotion gets in the way of writing a good poem and making a constructive comment. We've read poems that read like the poet was emotionally gutted and their wordy viscera was splattered across three stanzas. I can understand where the poet's coming from, but he must get control and focus that energy, if he wants a truly successful poem.

As far as comments, some readers are so outraged, disgusted, aroused, saddened, etc. that they can't properly comment on the poem itself. They comment on their own emotions, which is fine. I've been guilty myself. But it would benefit the poet, if the reader could move past emotions and really look at the work.

I've felt this way about poetry and comments for years now. I guess the reason I have comments on my mind is because of one I recently received.

I wouldn't have the courage to write some of these lines. Initially I was overwhelmed and yes shocked by the image. But then it dawned this is fine poetry of a kind I couldn't write. I didn't 'love it' but this commands respect. Thank you.

This reader was able to express how the poem made him feel. Then he went beyond emotion and really looked at the poem.

Anyway, share your thoughts, discuss it, rant, etc.

I have a rule that I've pretty much stuck to when I've reviewed poems here, and I think it has served me well. If I don't think a poem can be saved, I don't say anything. If the verbiage so exceeds the poetry that I can't see how a poem can be winnowed out from all those words, it's just not a keeper. And I try to follow that in my own writing, too. And I think there's a significant relationship between how emotional the writer feels when he or she produces the poem and how well the poem works. If I write when I'm in the throes of big emotion, of whatever kind, I tend to produce crappy poetry. That's why I've never bought the argument that "I write when my emotions tell me to write a poem." I think anything other than thoughtfulness and focus while writing produces kaka. You know. Cocky doodle. Right. I'm done ranting. I have to go back to work now.

 

[WickedEve]

That's why I've never bought the argument that "I write when my emotions tell me to write a poem."

I hate when someone says "I write from the heart." They'd produce a better poem by ripping out the heart and writing with it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I have a rule that I've pretty much stuck to when I've reviewed poems here, and I think it has served me well. If I don't think a poem can be saved, I don't say anything. If the verbiage so exceeds the poetry that I can't see how a poem can be winnowed out from all those words, it's just not a keeper. And I try to follow that in my own writing, too. And I think there's a significant relationship between how emotional the writer feels when he or she produces the poem and how well the poem works. If I write when I'm in the throes of big emotion, of whatever kind, I tend to produce crappy poetry. That's why I've never bought the argument that "I write when my emotions tell me to write a poem." I think anything other than thoughtfulness and focus while writing produces kaka. You know. Cocky doodle. Right. I'm done ranting. I have to go back to work now.

Now I know why you have never commented on any of my poems.

 

[lorencino]

Sometimes emotion gets in the way of writing a good poem and making a constructive comment. . . .

I too was struck by the dignity of that thoughtful commentator who could see the beauty of your poetry through the clouds of her emotional response. There is a measured sobriety behind everything I have read of yours that allows the world of each poem to manifest completely undiluted by any intrusions of your emotions. Plainly, you are in control of what you write.

When I am motivated by a powerful emotion to write something, I have learned that it takes a minimum of two hours before I can write effectively. On the other hand, it is nine years after the suicide of my son and still an eerie chill numbs my mind when I try to write about that bullet that pierced his palette and liquified his neurons. My notes are littered with unfinished poems blocked by my emotions.

Yet emotional response is one of the three pillars of poetic appreciation. To fully succeed, a poem has to work on your intellect, your emotions and your body. The rhythm engages your body as the meaning engages your mind, and both combine to creat the emotion that is the pith of the experience of the poem. Or so I'd like to think.

Anyway, whatever you have to say on writing, Wicked Eve, is always of great interest to me for you are rather exceptionally good at writing.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. Sometimes, I write poetry as a form of therapy. I think it's a wonderful tool, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting poems are keepers. Most likely, they belong locked in my journal. They served their purpose.

Recently, I find myself writing too much emotionally-based poetry. While I think it's healthy, it's not necessarily conducive to poetic growth. So, I decided that for the time being, any poetry that I'm going to write that is rooted in emotion is also going to be anchored by metaphor such as yesterday's poem in the 30/30 thread.

This is my attempt at moving away from feeling like I just vomited my emotions on the reader.

 

[lorencino]

I have a rule that I've pretty much stuck to when I've reviewed poems here, and I think it has served me well. If I don't think a poem can be saved, I don't say anything. If the verbiage so exceeds the poetry that I can't see how a poem can be winnowed out from all those words, it's just not a keeper. . .

If only more people followed your rule it would free up more time to be pleasant with each other. Personally I find it somewhat abusive to go into great detail about how pathetic someone's work is. And if it really is so worthless, why waste time on it. I imagine it's a case of the mediocre finding that they can really pump up their sense of their own value when they can cleverly expose someone else's inadequacies.

On the other hand, a pointed refusal to criticize can be more devastating then any amount of criticism. Forty years ago, a journalism I worked with was sent to do a review of the first performance of some fellows musical composition entitled Bible Cantata. Next morning all I found in the paper was: "Name-of-composer's Bible Cantata was performed at City Hall last night." The viciousness of that terse sentence so impressed itself upon my mind that I'm using it forty years later to illustrate a point.

We cannot be too careful when people are so tied up in their creations, yet we cannot be paralysed into ignoring the truth of a literary offering's merits. Literary criticism, like life, is not for the faint-hearted.

 

[lorencino]

. . . This is my attempt at moving away from feeling like I just vomited my emotions on the reader.

It's OK, I'm wearing my bib.

 

[MickNasty]

As a novice of literary creation, I can honestly say that it isn't a thick skin I need. Rather its the ability to appreciate that my tastes and needs don't always coincide with the reviewer's. I, for instance, can't do free verse to save my life. I liken it to my first beer, which I promptly spat out and ran to the cooler for a lemonade. Now, the only beer I'll drink is when I'm in Germany - total beer snob. I'm sure that someday I'll enjoy certain types of prose that right now I cannot fathom... but I digress.

The point being, when someone reviews something that I've written and it obviously isn't their cup of tea, if the criticism applies to the work then I can learn from it. If the criticism is simply opinion that the piece is tripe, it offers me nothing therefore it means nothing. If there is no criticism because its so desperately bad that the critic feels the need to shame, then that too means nothing since it offers nothing. In those cases, if there is no critique, then there is no critic.

As to the creation of something, I would rather write tripe and feel the high of creation than try to placate the critics by writing sublime verse if it meant feeling nothing. For me, at this infant stage, emotions are a very powerful tool to use to help me develop. If the writing isn't appreciated because of the content, at least tell me what was wrong with the mechanics. There may be another infant out there who relates to the verse, and therefore, it could still be successful.

And, in the context of this rant, "reviewer" and "critic" would be any audience of the work that felt compelled to comment (or omit comment where one was expected).

 

[WickedEve]

That's why I've never bought the argument that "I write when my emotions tell me to write a poem." I think anything other than thoughtfulness and focus while writing produces kaka.

Now I know why you have never commented on any of my poems.

I think it's okay to let your emotions guide you. Just don't let them completely control the poem. You've been writing some good stuff.

 

[WickedEve]

I was just thinking about this yesterday. Sometimes, I write poetry as a form of therapy. I think it's a wonderful tool, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting poems are keepers. Most likely, they belong locked in my journal. They served their purpose.

I use it for therapy, too.
I agree that some poetry doesn't need to be shared. It's too personal, too emotional, and there's no need, usually, to share it with an audience.

 

[WickedEve]

When I am motivated by a powerful emotion to write something, I have learned that it takes a minimum of two hours before I can write effectively. On the other hand, it is nine years after the suicide of my son and still an eerie chill numbs my mind when I try to write about that bullet that pierced his palette and liquified his neurons. My notes are littered with unfinished poems blocked by my emotions.

Maybe those poems are meant to be left unfinished. I'm so sorry about your son.

I like what you said about waiting before writing, when you're inspired by emotion.

 

[WickedEve]

I, for instance, can't do free verse to save my life. I liken it to my first beer, which I promptly spat out and ran to the cooler for a lemonade. Now, the only beer I'll drink is when I'm in Germany - total beer snob. I'm sure that someday I'll enjoy certain types of prose that right now I cannot fathom... but I digress.

You need to write free verse in Germany!

 

[MickNasty]

You need to write free verse in Germany!

all of it would be about beer

 

[lorencino]

You need to write free verse in Germany!

very droll, my dear, but probably right on the nail with good advice.

 

[Angeline]

I hate when someone says "I write from the heart." They'd produce a better poem by ripping out the heart and writing with it.

This is the Eve I know and love!

Now I know why you have never commented on any of my poems.

Well I also don't comment on poems because I don't read them. And I usually don't read them because I don't have time or there's something else I'd rather do. So my lack of commenting usually (probably mostly) doesn't have anything to do with the quality of a poem.

But on my review day, for example, I only comment on poems that I think are really good or can be really good after some editing. But even that statement needs to be qualified because if there are a lot of poems on a given review day, I'll be more likely to comment on the very few best ones--even though some of the others could be improved with editing. I just won't notice them as much or feel I have time to get into them if there are a lot of poems to go through.

If I have time I'll always comment on a poem if someone asks me to review it. And if I think it needs work I'll say so. And if I think there's no way to make it better--or that making it better would require more work than it seems to be worth--well, I'll find a nice way to say that, too. But I won't usually put that much effort out unless someone specifically asks me for it.

As a novice of literary creation, I can honestly say that it isn't a thick skin I need. Rather its the ability to appreciate that my tastes and needs don't always coincide with the reviewer's. I, for instance, can't do free verse to save my life. I liken it to my first beer, which I promptly spat out and ran to the cooler for a lemonade. Now, the only beer I'll drink is when I'm in Germany - total beer snob. I'm sure that someday I'll enjoy certain types of prose that right now I cannot fathom... but I digress.

The point being, when someone reviews something that I've written and it obviously isn't their cup of tea, if the criticism applies to the work then I can learn from it. If the criticism is simply opinion that the piece is tripe, it offers me nothing therefore it means nothing. If there is no criticism because its so desperately bad that the critic feels the need to shame, then that too means nothing since it offers nothing. In those cases, if there is no critique, then there is no critic.

As to the creation of something, I would rather write tripe and feel the high of creation than try to placate the critics by writing sublime verse if it meant feeling nothing. For me, at this infant stage, emotions are a very powerful tool to use to help me develop. If the writing isn't appreciated because of the content, at least tell me what was wrong with the mechanics. There may be another infant out there who relates to the verse, and therefore, it could still be successful.

And, in the context of this rant, "reviewer" and "critic" would be any audience of the work that felt compelled to comment (or omit comment where one was expected).

I can't think of a bigger waste of time than going into great detail about why I think a poem is beyond saving. (Well I can but those reasons aren't relevent to this conversation lol.) To me that's trying to teach on the basis of negative reinforcement: if I can make you feel lousy enough about your creative effort, you won't do *that* next time you write a poem. To me, that kind of thinking seems antithetical to promoting good writing. If my critique does nothing but make someone feel bad and/or afraid to write, I don't see that as helping anything but inflating my own ego. That's why I also don't believe in the "tough love" school of writing critique (which gets at some of what dear Lorencino was saying in one of his posts).

And saying I don't believe in tough love doesn't mean I also think a review should be nothing but praise. I know that doesn't help someone trying to learn. Good critique has to be objective and specific. It shouldn't matter if I don't like what someone has chosen to write about or even if I don't like their particular style of writing. A critique that focuses on how things like organization and word choice, line breaks and use of images and metaphors and analogies--all the elements that effect quality--is a good critique. It shouldn't have anything to do with my likes and dislikes. And if it does, then that means I'm writing a critique for me, not you. Too much of the whole "tough love" school of critique seems to me a smoke screen for the real purpose of that sort of critique, which is for me (the reviewer) to show you (the writer) that I know more than you do. And that is a style of reviewing (if you can even call it reviewing) that I abhor.

 

[normal jean]

poetry with zero emotion ( on either end) is fiction. I, personally, do not waste my time on fiction, I would rather prop myself up with a good thick book on physics or geology. Poetry that doesn't make me feel something, is a waste of my time.

 

[lorencino]

It's like, ahm, well, would you really want to criticize the aesthetics of the baby someone spent nine months creating. It's only when my poem stops being my baby that I can let others have their way with it. It is only when it is no longer my baby that criticism is of any value to me. And it is only when it stops being my baby that I can be truly mature.

 

[lorencino]

poetry with zero emotion ( on either end) is fiction. I, personally, do not waste my time on fiction, I would rather prop myself up with a good thick book on physics or geology. Poetry that doesn't make me feel something, is a waste of my time.

Yet it is only through fiction that we derive certain truths about the human condition, truths that science and mathematics cannot describe yet which we recognize in their fullness from a fictitious construction that is like a pointer the writer has fashioned to guide our eyes to truths within ourselves. The pointer may be fictitious but it points to what is not fictitious. Good fiction is not fictitious in the area that really matters.

 

[normal jean]

It's like, ahm, well, would you really want to criticize the aesthetics of the baby someone spent nine months creating. It's only when my poem stops being my baby that I can let others have their way with it. It is only when it is no longer my baby that criticism is of any value to me. And it is only when it stops being my baby that I can be truly mature.

Good to see you back.

And no, I have never said, "gee, you have an ugly baby." But I have said, "spell check should be required" and poetry with 2 word lines is usually not that great. I don't think poetry should be all mushy, that isn't what I mean when I say emotion, but on the opposite end of emotional, is sterile and who wants to read poetry that doesn't "do" anything for the reader?

Hell, I see poetry in mudslides and volcanoes, in string theory, eclipse and yes, even in funerals, like Evie. It's all in how you word it when you spill it from your heart or your gut.

 

[champagne1982]

It's like, ahm, well, would you really want to criticize the aesthetics of the baby someone spent nine months creating. It's only when my poem stops being my baby that I can let others have their way with it. It is only when it is no longer my baby that criticism is of any value to me. And it is only when it stops being my baby that I can be truly mature.

It's all subjective but I really believe that if the baby isn't weaned then it shouldn't be set free without adult supervision...

 

[normal jean]

Yet it is only through fiction that we derive certain truths about the human condition, truths that science and mathematics cannot describe yet which we recognize in their fullness from a fictitious construction that is like a pointer the writer has fashioned to guide our eyes to truths within ourselves. The pointer may be fictitious but it points to what is not fictitious. Good fiction is not fictitious in the area that really matters.

You use an important word here--

good

.

I read so much, for so long, that something finally happened, I felt nauseated atthe sight of another work of fiction, for fiction's sake. I don't, ever, now, never will again, ever, sit down with a book like that for my own "enjoyment."

Poetry, good poetry, uses the tools that language has given us and we are able to construe truth out of fiction, confabulation, or just our own fears and/or observation.

I didn't say that fiction was unnecessary, or evil, no, it is a necessity, it transports us, somewhere, some time, somehow. I cannot imagine I could have written some of my stuff if I had never gorged myself on tons and tons of books when I was younger. Maybe I'm just jaded, who knows.

But I see some people write, work their asses off, take a perfectly good poem and edit the life out of it and then it becomes fiction, it is ruined. I have done it and seen it done. and I am sure I will do it again and see it done, again. And, I have seen work that had the mush removed and it benefited greatly. Too far on either extreme is a poetic danger zone, lol.

I was just expressing my own preferences, that's all. I happen to think that when the ultimate truth is discovered, if you want to call it God or whatever, he or she might just be sitting there reading a book of poetry, amidst all the how-to's for creation.

 

[Angeline]

Good to see you back.

And no, I have never said, "gee, you have an ugly baby." But I have said, "spell check should be required" and poetry with 2 word lines is usually not that great. I don't think poetry should be all mushy, that isn't what I mean when I say emotion, but on the opposite end of emotional, is sterile and who wants to read poetry that doesn't "do" anything for the reader?

Hell, I see poetry in mudslides and volcanoes, in string theory, eclipse and yes, even in funerals, like Evie. It's all in how you word it when you spill it from your heart or your gut.

I get what you mean. Poetry written when I'm very emotional is usually overwrought and ineffective. But poetry that evokes emotions (of whatever kind) in readers is usually very effective.

 

[normal jean]

[...............

 

[normal jean]

................