When is good not enough?

[bogusbrig]

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers. Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself? I get the same feeling about several well known published poets which ruins their work for me so I shouldn't be critical of an amateur I know. But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

 

[WickedEve]

I know of many poets here who turn out the crowd pleasers and I even comment nicely on their work -- just to be supportive, I guess. Besides, the poems aren't bad, just not much of a thrill for me. I'd much rather see a poet "pushing her boundaries even if she failed."

I don't think you're harsh. It's never good enough for someone not to stretch. I'm in need of a good stretch myself.

By the way, what are you up to lately?

 

[RhymeSmith]

But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

I got my literature and psychology degrees the same place I got my medical degree - Nowhere Near U - but as people continue to observe, others are as likely to have opinions as they are to have less-than-attractive body parts.

That being said -

Observation: It seems to me that what you're expressing is disappointment that the other author isn't (in your estimation) trying as hard to excel as she could, and that is what is ruining your enjoyment of what she does produce.

Opinion: That isn't something she can, or even should have to fix. The problem you have described is yours, not hers.

Suggestion: If you want to enjoy her work (which you have already admitted is good) you need to dismiss your judgements about her level of effort, and enjoy it. If it is really that you don't like her work, because you think something is wrong with it, figure out what it is, and decide whether she should be told about it.

If as a friend, you want to encourage her to stretch, by all means do it, but don't let that impulse ruin your ability to enjoy what she is already doing.

Good luck.

Rhymesmith

 

[hmmnmm]

Why will a picker of fruits reach for the ones high in the tree, as long as ripe fruits are within easy reach and plentiful? When the ripe fruits within easy reach are exhausted, then may come the reach for the higher branches, or climb the tree, or at least fetch a ladder.

 

[Liar]

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers.

So let's be honest...

You weren't reading poems and looking for poetry.
You were reading a person and looking for progression.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, if it's your choice to have a teacher's hat on.

 

[annaswirls]

All I can say is if you are going to confront her "be gentle." She might be doing the best she can at the time. When our grounds are unsteady, we often fall onto what is comfortable. Kind of like a kid counting on their fingers for a test when they know perfectly well how to add when they are not nervous. Not the best analogy, I know.



I am, of course, speaking from personal experience. Sometimes I cannot stretch. When I am sleep deprived or lacking time, for example. I stopped writing because I could not do it well anymore. I just started writing just to WRITE without worrying about even being "good enough" and not editing, submitting, finishing anything, because I figure it is better to at least try to write something so when it all comes back to me at least my fingers will not be stiff.

Of course, it might just be a sort of laziness that we all get from time to time, or doing what works until it doesn't anymore?

Maybe just ask her what her intentions are with her writing. It sounds like you are making some assumptions (as am I of course!! hehe) And if you do not enjoy it, just stop reading it for a while. Come back, she might have broken out (which of course, is what everyone wants )

And if you have a good feel for her strength and crackibility, give her a shot. Sometimes a swift kick in the arse is all a writer needs! Praise her when she does something well.

She is fortunate to have someone interested in her work and in her growth. Best of luck!

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers. Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself? I get the same feeling about several well known published poets which ruins their work for me so I shouldn't be critical of an amateur I know. But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

 

[bogusbrig]

I know of many poets here who turn out the crowd pleasers and I even comment nicely on their work -- just to be supportive, I guess. Besides, the poems aren't bad, just not much of a thrill for me. I'd much rather see a poet "pushing her boundaries even if she failed."

I don't think you're harsh. It's never good enough for someone not to stretch. I'm in need of a good stretch myself.

By the way, what are you up to lately?

I always think stretching is good too but reading everyone elses comments I suppose this thread was a bad idea and I should just accept someone's poetry for what it is or ignore it. I just find it a shame though, you can't beat the tension in someone's writing when they are walking a tight rope and pull it off.

By the way, what are you up to lately?

I've just had an an exhibition and have another one lined up thanks to the one I've just had. Its been consuming me for about six months but now I'm free for awhile so I'm hoping to be able to hang around for awhile and post some poetry.

 

[WickedEve]

but now I'm free for awhile so I'm hoping to be able to hang around for awhile and post some poetry.

Oh, good! I know I would love that and so would a lot of others.

 

[RhymeSmith]

I wouldn't say that

... I suppose this thread was a bad idea and I should just accept someone's poetry for what it is or ignore it.

I don't think it was a bad idea - you asked for opinions and you got some. If you leave it out here for awhile, you'll probably get more. Some of them may even validate your feelings on the issue.

I would suggest that you let her know (if you feel that way) that what she's done already is "good," and rather than upbraid her about her level of effort, tell her what you'd like for her to do, and then stand back.

You need to be careful how you approach this. Admittedly, I'm and older man, but after years and years of having to meet the requirements and expectations of others, I would be not positively inclined toward suggestions that I need to "stretch." In this world, I don't even know what that means. I write for my own enjoyment, and for those I count among my friends.

You should probably try to determine and account for your friend's motivations for writing. Is she writing for recreation or amusement? Is she trying to develop as a professional? Is she more appreciative of popular acclaim, or of critical acclaim? What does she actually get out of writing? That more than anything else will likely determine how she reacts to your suggestions.

Consider the possible outcomes as well. She might gracefully accept and implement your advice and criticism - or she might decided to quit writing altogether. What would be the greater loss? To have her not live up to your expectations? Or to have killed any desire for her to write at all?

My ego is strong enough to ignore the slings and arrows of outrageously harsh criticism. Is hers strong enough to endure the disappointment of a friend? Does it matter to you?

I blather on, but you asked.

Rhymesmith

 

[bogusbrig]

I don't think it was a bad idea - you asked for opinions and you got some. If you leave it out here for awhile, you'll probably get more. Some of them may even validate your feelings on the issue.

I would suggest that you let her know (if you feel that way) that what she's done already is "good," and rather than upbraid her about her level of effort, tell her what you'd like for her to do, and then stand back.


Rhymesmith

To be honest when I started the thread I was hoping for a wider discussion than on just this particular poet and was wondering about people's general idea on the subject, maybe even considering their own work or published poets they feel stay well within their comfort zone.

 

[champagne1982]

Since I'm too close to my work, stylistically, how can I objectively analyze how well I'm doing without the crowd saying; Oh, great or Oh...? Instead, since I pretend to know what I like, I try to write about something I don't really like, in a way I haven't written recently just to see if I can like the result.

The worst part about waiting for feedback on that sort of writing is that it tends to be really slow in coming, especially if I don't show it off simply because I still don't like it.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

To be honest when I started the thread I was hoping for a wider discussion than on just this particular poet and was wondering about people's general idea on the subject, maybe even considering their own work or published poets they feel stay well within their comfort zone.

I have noticed a number of poets who have evolved and always try to point it out - rhymefairy is one - but not all poets in here can or want to improve.

This opens the door to another room, one where some of us are afraid to go for different reasons, the room where one stands naked and vulnerable to take comments and criticism from others on their body.............of work. A forum was started but has atrophied lately, perhaps it needs some CPR.

 

[Angeline]

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers. Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself? I get the same feeling about several well known published poets which ruins their work for me so I shouldn't be critical of an amateur I know. But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

No, I don't think it's good enough, but you can't really know where someone else is in the process of developing as a writer. You might see a great talent in someone they don't recognize themself. And yes I think anyone who is serious about their art will try to go outside their comfort zone, but it's a process of becoming that never really ends, imo.

If a writer is very lucky, someone else sees their potential and befriends them and lovingly pushes them to do better. I have been very lucky to have that kind of friend in darkmaas, for example, and if I haven't always lived up to his very high expectations for me, he always makes me want to try. And trying is half the battle won. Maybe this person you've mentioned needs some pushing and encouragement. That is a very good thing for a writer.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

No aggression or confrontation is intended here. It's an interesting subject. But I think I need to understand the issue better.

I have to wonder how one deduces that a poet "could be better" than what they are submitting here.

How can you tell that someone is "relying on style" and not pushing boundaries?

I mean, I try new, crazy, innovative stuff all the time but if it doesn't work, I don't tend to submit it here, because it isn't finished or because I feel that it failed. I post what I consider my successes here, for the most part, at least back when I used to actually submit work... I've been trying some dadaist forms lately, for example, really trying to stretch. But so far they have all been spectacular failures, and therefore I'm certainly not going to submit them for review: I already know what a reviewer would, and should, say about them.

Actually there seems an inconsistency here, so maybe I don't understand the assertion you're making. You say the poet is writing crowd pleasers and relying on style and that her stuff works, but you'd like to see her take more risks. But then you also assert:

Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

My work, for example, is by no means perfect, especially when you move into the subjective areas. However, I don't believe I've got too many spelling or grammatical errors there, so which sort of editing and perfection are you talking about: technical, or thematic/stylistic?

Like most in here, of course, I'm putting myself in the position of the poet you're talking about, and imagining someone telling me that they believe I'm somehow taking the easy way out, not taking enough risks, not "failing" properly and well. I would listen, I would try to understand, I would try to take the advice, but what it would sound like to me is that you'd like to see more of the pieces in which I feel like I tried something and failed. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself?

If in fact it is the case that a poet is just kicking back and relying on style and crowd pleasing, and one can prove this in some way or get the poet to admit that (if the poet even knows she's doing it) then it's appropriate to be harsh. But I just don't know how you'd deduce that, as such.

Interesting discussion though.

bj

 

[lorencino]

When the impressionists first appeared in France, they were vilified by art-lovers and in some cases attempts were made to destroy their work. Art "experts" would not accept what they were doing as art. At first it was mainly other impressionists who appreciated the work of an impressionist.

Obviously they were threatening people's comfort zone or perhaps cracking the solidified edifice of an absolutist concept of art.

To a greater or lessor degree we are all tempted to slip into making absolutist assumptions about exactly what it is that constitutes poetry. For this reason, it is good to remember that commentary on someone else's poetry is in essence an exposure of how the poem affected you. I suggest that literary criticism, in general, is a subjective response to someone else's writing. To the extent that everyone understands that, one is free to be honest about one's response to a poem.

This is not to suggest that one is then free to be abusive and personal as some commentators on this site seem to think they have a licence to be. Personally, an honest reaction to what I write is what I crave from my readers. Flattery is not going to make me a better writer and advice that I can't understand is not as successful as actually knowing what effect my writing is having on you.

Your honest reaction tells me if I am communicating what I intended and if I'm succeeding in engaging your mind, emotions and senses in the way I intended.

What I am suggesting by all this, bogusbrig, is that the best you can do is, for example, to talk about how the neatness of the form leaves you craving for more, rather then telling the person that they are not stretching themselves. The later my offend and make the person defensive, while the former frees them to take another look at what they are doing with their writing.

Show your own naked soul responding to the poem rather than guessing about whether the writer is lazy or not.

 

[RhymeSmith]

To be honest when I started the thread I was hoping for a wider discussion than on just this particular poet and was wondering about people's general idea on the subject, maybe even considering their own work or published poets they feel stay well within their comfort zone.

OK, I'll work with that.

I would posit that most people should probably stay within their comfort zone most of the time. It is within that space that you are nourished, strengthened, and prepared for those times when you venture out. Some will naturally venture farther and more frequently than others. Some will leave their "safe place" only rarely, or not at all. It's a natural distribution.

Not everyone is "destined for great things," by any measure. Certainly not by every measure. The measure you apply is a rather personal thing, whether you apply it to yourself or someone else.

Consider the heavy weight-lifter. He can approach his sport in one of two ways: He can try to lift as much as he can, as fast as he can, or he can try to maximize his performance over his lifetime. It has been demonstrated that he can't do both! The choice is his, not the coach's, not the spectator's, not the sports commentator's. They are free encourage, or to dislike and criticize, but they can't make his decision for him.

Likewise, in poetic "performance," I say "good enough" is a personal decision by the poet. Friends and critics may encourage or criticize, but they have neither the right nor the ability to decide whether the poet "takes risks."

Thank you and good night *walks his pedantic ass offstage*

 

[PandoraGlitters]

I was just reading some poems and there is one poet who writes good poetry but after reading her poems, she made me feel she (I assume) was writing well within herself and she was relying on style. That feeling ruined her poetry for me. I would have much prefered to have sensed she was pushing her boundaries even if she failed, rather than turning out crowd pleasers. Her work wasn't perfect, it could have been tighter but who am I to criticize someone for seemingly not interested in spending too much time editing.

Am I being too harsh or is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself? I get the same feeling about several well known published poets which ruins their work for me so I shouldn't be critical of an amateur I know. But I would just thought I ask for other people's thoughts.

As a few people have said, it's hard to know what someone else is feeling or doing internally. What we can know is how you react, only. She can't make you feel anything. She can only write work that you respond to one way or another. You feel that the writing is too nice, too pat, perhaps. But if it isn't perfect or tight, the person may be trying to work toward making something worth editing. Maybe she is juggling around the variables to lock in on something she'd like to hone? Or maybe she needs some lessons in grammar?

What do you mean by "relying on style?" Do you mean that she's leaning heavily on one or two poetic tools and not investigating the use of other aspects of poetry? And what makes you think she's writing well within herself? Is all of her subject matter the same? I am really curious about these two statements because they could be describing something very different from what I am imagining.

I think the best thing to do is to ask if the person is open to talking about her writing (I bet most people here are, or at least I would be) and then maybe find out what's going on in her process. Possibly suggest ways she might get out of her rut if that's what's going on? I think most people like a helping hand now and again.

I do know, however, that one can never know what is going on with someone internally. All we can do is know how their external actions affect us personally. That is, we can't know until someone tells us.

So, if I were you I might ask myself, "Am I interested in the growth of this poet, or am I interested in being able to dismiss this person's work with no qualms of conscience?"

If it is the latter, because readers' tastes and reactions are personal, I'd say dismiss away. If it is the former, I'd advise you to speak up. (If the poet is me, please do! )

Best,
-Dora

 

[Eluard]

Good responses to a highly tendentious question.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

I've just been ploughing through the poems and left my first less-than-nice comment and I feel both vindicated and nervous. I really don't want to put this person off writing but the work was not poetry or erotica in my opinion. Then I came across the poet BB is talking about and was so relieved to find something engaging and palatable I simply gushed praise. Perhaps there is so much dross out there it's hard to see the gold.

 

[Tzara]

. . . is it good enough for someone with a talent to rely on a style rather than stretching themself?

Interesting question. I might answer it "yes," "no," or "it depends," based on how I happened to interpret it at any one time.

The main problem with this kind of statement is (as RhymeSmith first pointed out) that it defines what the writer is doing in terms of how the reader perceives it. Poet X, judged to be "talent[ed]" is judged by Reader Y as "rely[ing] on a style". I think what this really means is that Y wasn't all that keen on X's poem, while recognizing that considerable verbal skill was present. That the poem, while interesting, wasn't ultimately satisfying (to Y).

That's a problem, and one the writer would probably welcome feedback on and possibly consider changes to subject to style or technique or whatever to resolve, but ultimately I think the writer has to write about things of interest and importance to his or herself in a style which he or she considers relevant. That doesn't mean a writer shouldn't pay attention to criticism, but that ultimately one has to write about things important to oneself in a manner and style that one finds agreeable (or satisfying or useful).

I think the best way for the Reader to help with this is to offer specific comments (as specific as one can be) on the relevant poem. And offer the comments as one's own perceptions as reader, e.g.: "I was confused about this. . ." or "This seems weak to me because. . .", or even "This section seems to me wooden and cliché because. . ." which present the comments as what they actually are: a particular reader's reactions to the work. If, as Reader, you want to influence the Writer to tackle a completely different subject, you might even say something like "You know, I think it would be very interesting for you to write about {whatever}. I think you have the skill and background to do that well and I would be very interested to see what you have to say about it."

The problem with implying someone is not "stretching" themselves is that the Reader seldom really knows what the Writer is trying to accomplish, or what he/she is interested in or motivated to be (or even capable of) writing about. Why did Chopin focus on the piano and not write string quartets or symphonies? Why did Barnett Newman spend the last forty years of his life painting the same basic image?

'Cuz it was important to them and they were good at it? Maybe. I dunno.

I do know I'd sure like to see bb stretch hisself a but and write some soupily sentimental Petrarchan love sonnets, but I ain't holding my breath on that.

Yes. That is a Dare. And I promise to muffle my laughter.

 

[lorencino]

I do know I'd sure like to see bb stretch hisself a but and write some soupily sentimental Petrarchan love sonnets, but I ain't holding my breath on that.

The question I keep asking myself is: To what extent is a mastery of the technique of Petrarchan love sonnets a guarantee of status as a 21st Century poet?

Which just leads me to endless questions. Do I have to spend years practicing any of the sonnet forms in order to be taken seriously as a poet? Why do I feel that it would simply be a waste of time for me to even try? What mysterious faculty do others here possess that enables them to produce these well turned gems of flawless flow that I can apprehend and appreciate, but never duplicate. Why does it seem that if I allow myself the time to practice the techniques, it will leave me no time to write poetry?

What is poetry?

Are any of the extant definitions likely to become a description of a platonic perfect form of which all poems are but an instance? Is there a sharp distinction between prose and verse or is there a continuum where the point of crossover is illusive? If there is a continuum, is the better literature located at the extremities or can an ill-defined piece be maddeningly great? If Shakespeare was able to successfully deviate from Petrarch and Auden wrote successful sonnets without rhyming, is "form" greater than the parameters of New Formalism allow.

Why is New Formalism primarily an American phenomenon? Could it be a reaction to the "fools rush in" exuberance of the boundary-smashing, baby-boomer spree exemplified by the "summer of love' and Woodstock or is it a reaction to the uncontrolled art of the Punk phenomenon?

 

[Eluard]

The question I keep asking myself is: To what extent is a mastery of the technique of Petrarchan love sonnets a guarantee of status as a 21st Century poet?

I don't know that Tzara was implying that it was such a guarantee — merely that this was something that might stretch Bogus Brig.

If you have a look back through past threads you will find many vigorous discussions of the un- or importance of form. To say that this has been hashed out would be an understatement.

BTW which non-rhyming Auden sonnets did you have in mind? Auden was the consummate master of formal poetry in the 20th Century.

 

[Liar]

Being novice artist in any field means standing in a crossfire bombardment of mixed messages.

Study a genre, understand it profoundly and become a master of that particular expression, or you're not a Real Artist.

Clear your mind from all petty influences, find you own voice, your own distinctive artistic fingerprint and hone it to perfection, or you're not a Real Artist.

Constantly conquer more range, explore new territory, reject what you've learned and re-invent yourself, over and over, or you're not a Real Artist.

This is art, says critic A. No way, THIS is art says critic B. My way or the highway says critic C.

No wonder some people stop trying.

 

[bogusbrig]

Why did Barnett Newman spend the last forty years of his life painting the same basic image?

It was something similar to this that got me on the lines of thinking about this. I might as well start at the top and criticize the best (if Nobel prize winning equates with the best). I remember reading Seamus Heaney's collection Death Of A Naturalist some thirty years ago and it blowing my mind and wishing I could write like him (although I never wrote poetry in those days). When I read his collection Seeing Things in the nineties and though the book got rave reviews, I was soooo disappointed. I thought the poems were just Seamus Heaney writing Seamus Heaney. He just bored me because I felt I had read all the poems before. OK raising this icon I am asking for trouble but I get much the same feeling when I read his later poems, though I must admit, I seldom read him now because he doesn't excite me.

I do know I'd sure like to see bb stretch hisself a but and write some soupily sentimental Petrarchan love sonnets, but I ain't holding my breath on that.

Yes. That is a Dare. And I promise to muffle my laughter.

I've tried many a time but fail miserably. Maybe I should post an attempt even if I feel it is a failure but when people reach for the vomit bag, it is your fault!

 

[bogusbrig]

The question I keep asking myself is: To what extent is a mastery of the technique of Petrarchan love sonnets a guarantee of status as a 21st Century poet?

Which just leads me to endless questions. Do I have to spend years practicing any of the sonnet forms in order to be taken seriously as a poet?

Why is New Formalism primarily an American phenomenon? Could it be a reaction to the "fools rush in" exuberance of the boundary-smashing, baby-boomer spree exemplified by the "summer of love' and Woodstock or is it a reaction to the uncontrolled art of the Punk phenomenon?

Maybe this is my problem, I love the exuberance and excitment of people smashing boundaries, even when such boundary smashing is an obvious failure because I'm optimistic that someone will produce something new and exciting that works.

As for formalism, in the Tudor times every gentleman was competent in writing sonnets, it was all part of a gentleman's education. The Tudors never left more of a legacy than other eras if one takes out Shakespeare. I never realised formalism was making a come back though I've heard quite a few voices being raised in support of it but it will only make a big impact when there is a recognizable big talent writing that way and if the talent is big enough, they would be writing good poetry in spite of the style and simply because they are good. But why dig up old styles and replough the same old furrows?