Writing the same poem.

[bogusbrig]

I was reading a poetry book by Carolyn Forche the other day, I mentioned her in the 'Share A Poet' thread and I got the feeling she had written a book full of all the same poems. It's not the first time I've had this feeling about a poet. For that matter I've been to art exhibitions and thought the painter had painted a room full of the same paintings, or listened to an album and thought it was full of all the same songs.

Now I'm beginning to think I have the problem in so far that I keep trying to write different poems or in my dailly work, I keep trying to make different prints and this is the reason I never really get enough coherent work to put together a collection of anything.

Has anyone ever felt the same and has anyone got any thoughts on this?

 

[Angeline]

Good morning my dear. I'm on my first cup of coffee of the day so we'll see if I make any sense.

Anyway, yes. Yes to poets who do this. Even if a poem is well written, when its essential qualities are repeated ad infinitum across a body of work, it can get verrrry tiresome. And it's not even just a matter of voice because there are poets I love, like WB Yeats for example, whose voice is unchanging and who writes on a limited number of themes but is utterly wonderfu to mel. No, there are some writers, famous and not, a few of them here (though I'd never say who) who seem to me to repeat and repeat and repeat. And the overall effect is tedious. Maybe people feel that way about my poems lol. Who knows?

And I don't notice it so much in visual art but I'm not as responsive to it as I am to poetry or music. I definitely notice it in music. For example, I love Motown music and I've always loved the Four Tops, but every song of theirs sounds the same to me, almost as if the lyrics should be interchangeable across songs. And yet I like that one sound they have, so it doesn't bother me.

I'm not sure how one would break away from the practice. We write best about what we know, so one can't stray too far from that to change the tune so to speak. And one can attempt to disguise one's voice, but that usually doesn't work so well. So maybe if you do it and that thing that sounds the same isn't so exciting to begin with, you're uh doomed.

That's what I think. I also think I need more coffee lol.

 

[wildsweetone]

when i was writing prose, i had a character who kept coming back. he would sit on my shoulder and breathe down my neck until i wrote more about him into whatever story i was writing. eventually i cottoned on to the idea that he was bugging me, nudging me along because i hadn't yet written what i needed to write about him.

i think maybe there's a chance it's similar with the sameness of poems from some poets. perhaps those poets have unfinished business with a certain theme (lots of poets write only 'dark' poems, lots write only 'love' poems etc).

i believe it to be a subconscious process of creators that manifests itself in the end result of art.

 

[Tathagata]

The best way I know to break out of it is to read someone or something else.
Maybe pick up a poet you didn't like a few years ago and see how you feel now.
Read prose, look for phrases or paragraphs that strike you as remarkable, listen to dialog in movies, and remember you can write about anything, anyone.
Experiment, put yourself in someone else's shoes, imagine how they feel, write from a different point of view.

There is nothing worse than reading the same 3 or 4 themes over and over.
We all do it occasionally but I know what you mean about buying a book or reading a poet who basically has two or three things to say and says it over and over.

It's the same with music.
Nothing is worse than hearing a song that really grabs you and listening to the album and finding out they are a one trick pony.
Anyone remember the band " Boston"?
The first album was a million seller, the second album sounded as though they took the first album and just sang different words to the same music tracks.

Remember that every poem doesn't have to be an epic.
Get an idea down in 10 words instead of 50


Just my 2 cents

 

[champagne1982]

Y'all have got my insecurities all tuned up and ready to think that you're talking about me. I know, I know... It's not always about me; but a girl can dream.

I agree with WSO though. As writers we need to analyze why we're stuck and oh, how I love the monkey! Those are brilliant strategies M'sieu L'Affe, merci.

So, let's go and read and make sure they're not talking about US and if we have cause to believe they are, then let's try to write outside of our comfort zone.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Y'all have got my insecurities all tuned up and ready to think that you're talking about me. I know, I know... It's not always about me; but a girl can dream.

I agree with WSO though. As writers we need to analyze why we're stuck and oh, how I love the monkey! Those are brilliant strategies M'sieu L'Affe, merci.

So, let's go and read and make sure they're not talking about US and if we have cause to believe they are, then let's try to write outside of our comfort zone.

I do find I go through phases with some topic or style or idea. But no one has to know that, because I don't actually make books out of them. I have at least two dozen pieces that I've written about this One Thing that happened to me a long time ago. I still haven't used any of them. I may write about that One Thing for the rest of my life and never come up with something that works.

I have this one journal in which I became obsessed with hexameter. I dunno, I was possessed by Alexander Pope or something. It's ridiculous. I don't think i've gleaned a single piece out of that one. And then there are the journals when I'm busy falling in love with someone, which are generally godawful. I've got one journal in which every piece starts with the phrase "People Who..." No idea why that happened.

I'd say keep writing the same thing over and over again IF you need to keep talking about it. Maybe somewhere in there is the One piece that will really say that thing to someone else. Making words on paper is never wrong. But the monkey is also right, as usual: there are some great ways to break out if you're just in a rut and need new juice.

I find getting flogged helps a great deal.

Hey, let's talk about Champy. I'll start.

this:

You ask me to feed the hungry?
It's better that they forget
The taste of fat.

rocks.




bijou

 

[bogusbrig]

Hey Ange. My elder brother and sister were Motown fans and they bugged the whole of my teenage years with that 100 versions of the same song. Myself being the more erudite of the three, preferred the blues.

Interesting thoughts. I've been wrestling with this question about writing the same poem but I guess only the writer knows when they are exploring a theme and style and when they are hiding in their comfort zone. Hmm. Maybe they don't know. I think the problem arrives when their readers become bored of their work for being much of a muchness.

Finding my writing and critical eye having deserted me or at least that is how it feels, I've been reading a lot of poetry lately and I couldn't help but notice that some poets have a very narrow field in which they work and this is so noticeable when having read one of these poets to pick up a book by a poet who has a broad palette. Carolyn Forche kept my attention with the quality of her writing but in the end it lacked something, maybe I felt that because her work to me is so earnest. I have to say I like invention, wit, humour and an eye for the ridiculous. I enjoy a serious and earnest tone as well but not through a whole collection of work, life and writing has more than one dimension.

 

[Rumpleteazer]

yeah

ive always secretly feared this subject but never heard it voiced before

i think im like that

write only sick dark depressing shit

but i think that maybe just where i am in my life *shrugs*
im not very good at being upbeat or celebratory

(and um privately im not one of the opinion that thats what this dreadful rock needs right about now anyways)

 

[ishtat]

I think we all do it to some extent but some much more than others. you have only got to read Shakespeare's sonnets to ask how many really different ones did he write. But on the other hand despite their limited themes and strict forms there is still interest even for the sonnet haters.

In visual art there are some terrible repeaters of a theme style, form, subject etc. I cannot look at anything by Dali without being convinced that the man was a con- artist who committed the same fraud over and over all his life. To me his work is intellectually and emotionally dishonest .I detest it - and I'm not a good hater at all!

 

[anonamouse]

I think we all do it to some extent but some much more than others. you have only got to read Shakespeare's sonnets to ask how many really different ones did he write. But on the other hand despite their limited themes and strict forms there is still interest even for the sonnet haters.

In visual art there are some terrible repeaters of a theme style, form, subject etc. I cannot look at anything by Dali without being convinced that the man was a con- artist who committed the same fraud over and over all his life. To me his work is intellectually and emotionally dishonest .I detest it - and I'm not a good hater at all!

God! I love Andy Warhol.

 

[Rumpleteazer]

lol

i think im having campbells for supper for now

 

[twelveoone]

I think we all do it to some extent but some much more than others. you have only got to read Shakespeare's sonnets to ask how many really different ones did he write. But on the other hand despite their limited themes and strict forms there is still interest even for the sonnet haters.

You must forgive though, free verse wasn't invented yet.

 

[bogusbrig]

I think we all do it to some extent but some much more than others. you have only got to read Shakespeare's sonnets to ask how many really different ones did he write. But on the other hand despite their limited themes and strict forms there is still interest even for the sonnet haters.

In visual art there are some terrible repeaters of a theme style, form, subject etc. I cannot look at anything by Dali without being convinced that the man was a con- artist who committed the same fraud over and over all his life. To me his work is intellectually and emotionally dishonest .I detest it - and I'm not a good hater at all!

I have to admit to not being a fan of Shakespeare's sonnets and I'm in total agreement with you about Dali, his work lacks any substance whatsoever and just feels contrived to me. He is a conjuror who's so kack handed everyone can see his tricks.

 

[bogusbrig]

God! I love Andy Warhol.

Yep, he made a virtue out of repetition. His images are as interesting as wallpaper and no doubt he would agree with that. He appeared to be in tune with the zeitgeist in the sixties but everything after that was just dull as dishwater. I guess he wasn't bothered as long as it brought in the money.

 

[twelveoone]

I have to admit to not being a fan of Shakespeare's sonnets and I'm in total agreement with you about Dali, his work lacks any substance whatsoever and just feels contrived to me. He is a conjuror who's so kack handed everyone can see his tricks.

Disagree - with both you and ishtat, regarding Dali. Since when has lack of substance or contrivence had anything to do with not being great? I've never seen ants portrayed as well as Dali has done, and he had a good eye for colour.

As a conjuror, and a bit of a con man, par excellance.
Plus he had a nice suit of flies.

 

[bogusbrig]

Disagree - with both you and ishtat, regarding Dali. Since when has lack of substance or contrivence had anything to do with not being great? I've never seen ants portrayed as well as Dali has done, and he had a good eye for colour.

As a conjuror, and a bit of a con man, par excellance.
Plus he had a nice suit of flies.

I have to concede that in the visual arts, ones ability to convince through the visual is not necessary to be acclaimed as a great artist. Concepts and being a third rate philosopher are much more important nowadays. Rembrandt despite his undoubted brilliance as a painter and etcher would be passed over in today's world as someone who is purely optical and without depth because he lacks any verbal soundbites and shallow philosophical detrious to sure up his work. Visual art is too contemplative and quiet for today's world, both Dali and Warhol understood that.

I'm stopping and getting off my soap box before this rant goes any further but I would like to know of a poet that has been crowned as great and can't write poetry or a novelist that can't write a novel that has been acclaimed as great or a musician that can't play an instrument that has been crowned as great. I can think of quite a few artists who can't paint and not even draw a straight line or sculpt a simple shape that have been crowned great. It is sad but true, western artists shy away from imaginative imagery and rely on the banal. It is a delight to see visual art from other cultures, Japan, China and India, to name a few, on the whole the west doesn't come near to them but then the west doesn't appreciate the visual. We prefer our artists to be third rate philosophers. My guess that is largely to do with art education and the enphasis on the written word and influence of critics who are there every night, see it every night but can't do it. The amount of art critics and art theorists the art world supports, far out strips the amount of artists the art world supports. The west gets what it pays for.

Yikes! Sorry. I'm still ranting!

 

[twelveoone]

I'm stopping and getting off my soap box before this rant goes any further but I would like to know of a poet that has been crowned as great and can't write poetry

check the laureate lists. that should set off a ranting. at least 50% aren't great, merely good, but took the job. I'll go out on a limb here, 10% can't write anything of interest. I'll leave it to you to indentify.

But not one of them had the balls to wear a suit of flies.

 

[bogusbrig]

check the laureate lists. that should set off a ranting. at least 50% aren't great, merely good, but took the job. I'll go out on a limb here, 10% can't write anything of interest. I'll leave it to you to indentify.
But not one of them had the balls to wear a suit of flies.

I've got to concede on that one. Banality, not upsetting anyone, knowing the right people and stroking egos is a better career option than trying to do honest new work that has something of interest to say and which might upset the applecart.

 

[twelveoone]

I've got to concede on that one. Banality, not upsetting anyone, knowing the right people and stroking egos is a better career option than trying to do honest new work that has something of interest to say and which might upset the applecart.

I've been working real hard on these two. I saw a laureate position opening. Better make that three.

Ever been to Alice Springs, Bog? Shooting for that one. Poet Laureate of Alice Springs, nice ring to it., huh? Competition has me worried, two drunks and a kangeroo. Kangeroos don't drink much do they, Bog? Three sonnets and three rounds in a ring takes it. I'm worried Bog, you know how iambic drunks can get, all rhymey too. Kangeroos are murder in the ring, but can't rhyme for shit. But I know, if I try I can win.




And then you could my name on this list.

 

[champagne1982]

I would like to know of a poet that has been crowned as great and can't write poetry or a novelist that can't write a novel that has been acclaimed as great

I can think of a few right here on the top lists . Just sayin'.

 

[ishtat]

I've never seen ants portrayed as well as Dali has done, and he had a good eye for colour.
.

LS. Lowry did ants best.

 

[anonamouse]

Bog,
all surfaces are shallow, and as 1201 I lay claim to have written the most shallow, and I would luv to post it, but I lost it, quasipoetryriddle that in the end was a mirror, can't get more shallow than that.

 

[Rumpleteazer]

question

what do you mean by banality?

this is an interesting thread please clarify

 

[Rumpleteazer]

of course that might be part of the fun if you like said poet

seeing how may creative ways they expound on the same subject

wether or not its interesting to you i guess is the only real test i guess


like how many ways can you say 'i feel like shit'

 

[bronzeage]

This thread reminds me of a legal case between John Fogarty and his originial recording company. When he wanted to go independent, he discovered he had signed away rights to his early music and could not play it in concerts without paying a licence fee. He went on tour with a new song book and was quickly served by the record company, who charged him with changing the titles and the lyrics, but using the same music.

Fogarty's defense was simple. "All my songs sound the same because they are the same."

The judge listened to him play about 4 songs in the courtroom and agreed. The judge's ruling said, in effect they knew about Fogarty's limited creative range when they originally wrote the contract and had no one to blame but themselves.

I have been accused of writing the same poem a couple times, but its really a case of the same inspiration.
We develope our particular style and voice as we mature. I know poets who can spin out 6 lines describing the sunset everyday and never repeat themselves, but find it impossible to write a ballad or a narrative.

I don't think there is anything bad in writing the same poem over and over. I kind of like the idea someone might read enough of my work to notice.