Poetry is Dead

[predicate]

Poetry is pretty much dead. Any contemporary attempts are merely nudges to the now rotten corpse of poetry. After T.S. Eliot's time, only a handful of poets are worthwhile (Auden, Frost). Look back to the 19th century, and people loved poetry, because poets were good. Byron sold 18000 copies of his poetry the day of its publication. Now, poets push out common sludge - formless and unchecked - and continue to give poetry a bad name, and continue to lose readers and potential lovers of poetry.

This tirade against modern poetry is merely my disappointment. I read those 19th century poets daily, and when I read the poets of today, professional or not, I am disgusted with how weak and shapeless their pseudo-poems are.

Pyuck.

[Mind~$oul]

If you say so man.

[Xero Satsujin]

Originally Posted by Mind~$oul

If you say so man.

Basically...opinions, some people shouldn't have one...lol, j/k

[Mind~$oul]

It's the 21 century now though. Alot has changed since the the 19th century man. Poetry or should I say life then wasnt like it was now. So of course things changed. Poetry will never be dead...it's life.

[Clarksvegas_Dan]

^^^ agreed. People say Latin is dead too, but I'm thinking that depends on who you ask. So it's really not dead at all. In fact it's on a comeback.lol.
I love poetry and personally I prefer it without the forms. But that's just me. later.

[Quotive]

*shakes his head*

Welp I guess I should stop writing....... lol

[allnakey]

We should investigate this and convict everyone who writes poetry now of days, cause they are beating a dead horse, and that is illegal in all 67 states

[predicate]

Wow, this is far different than what I expected.

I was anticipating screaming and shouting, but received quiet disregard. I don't know what to say to that...

Not that I wanted to infuriate anyone. If anything, I want poetry to be written as it once was - with a rich vocabulary, meaningful use of form, relevance in scansion, memorable themes, even more memorable lines. People will always be quoting the poets of the 19th century and before, but now, a poem is forgotten as soon as it is read. But I don't blame the reader for this; I blame the reckless author.

So, sure, poetry is still alive. It's just so incredibly shitty that I would rather it be dead and we respect its memory, rather than trample on it. Any new poet should spend most of his time reading the old ones, and practising and understanding their form, instead of pumping out his own garbage without understanding what it is or how he is doing it.

[allnakey]

Why emulate poetry that was written back 125-200 years ago, this is our time, this is what we as poets write about. Langauge has changed over those years as well and poetry has evolved to a more everyone type thing, rather then there being a few stand out poets. There are a lot of good poets, they may not write like the ones before them, but that's not a bad thing. Poetry is a voice...

[tooshort21]

*shakes head in disgust*
puts down pen and walks away*

[predicate]

Actually, there are not a lot of good poets. You'd be lucky to find a few GOOD poets. Like I said before, nobody remembers today's poets. Back when Tennyson wrote "In Memoriam," people memorized its lines almost as much as they memorized passages from the bible.

And, by the way that you're thinking, you'll never do anything successful in literature. You'll write poetry that is a product of your time, and it will be forgotten soon afterwards or looked at as merely a historical reference to your day. Any good work of literature is timeless. We don't read Shakespeare for a history lesson, point blank. We read him because he's a good writer.

If you people don't know how to write well (and you learn how to write well by understanding the mechanics of the great poets, then melding a style of your own out of that knowledge), then your poetry will simply continue to stink. Do you know how to use or misuse iambs to enhance your meaning? Is there any reason for your enjambment or lack thereof? Why use that rhyming couplet?

Not only the words of a poem, but the FORM of a poem bears great meaning. Today's poetry is formless and, at best, only half meaningful.

[allnakey]

I think people put to much into form and all of that. The message will be just as meaningful with out all of those literary techiques. Some people just get so fixated on what poetry should be they lose track of what it is. Poetry is a free from of expression, much like a painting or music. it changes with it's time, and you can't tell me Tennyson didn't write in his time, cause he did and much of the poetry from his time was written that way. You look a 50years before and after his time, poetry was written differently. SO dont try to classify the right way poetry should be done, cause there is no right way. Poetry is freedom of expression and im sorry you are missing that point.

[predicate]

Tennyson wrote great poetry that is not read for its historical context. It is read because it is beautifully written. That is my point. There is a difference between being a product of your time, and producing in your time. Understand that difference and you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

Here we come to a fundamental difference. You want to be free from form, and spew out whatever you feel uninhibitedly. I want people to show talent as poets, while you want people to show talent as emotional beings.

And, really now, poetry was NEVER freedom of expression. "No vers is libre for the poet who wants to do a good job," said T.S. Eliot. And, trust me, his opinion is far more valid than yours is or ever will be.

If you want to express yourself, write prose, but don't randomly indent your lines, throw in a rhyming end stop here and there and attempt to pawn that off as good poetry. Poetry sucks now because poets are not doing a good job, as Eliot would say.

[Quotive]

Idiot.

[Clarksvegas_Dan]

I disagree with predicate.lol I think what makes good poetry is not the techniques a poet uses so much as, how that poem affects the reader, or listener. Poetic techniques as far as I'm concerned have evolved. The iambs no longer carry the same weight that they once did. If it's designed to enhance the meaning, but nobody gets it, then it's purpose goes unfulfilled. If Tennyson was my audience, then certainly he would expect me to use the tools he was familiar with. However, my audience is living in a new world, so I write poetry that expresses what new world living is like, at least from my perspective, and I do so using techniques that I learned from my audience. That in my opinion makes at least a good poet, if not a great one.

[predicate]

T.S. Eliot's an idiot? I'm basically arguing everything that he's said, so accusing either one of us of being idiots says more about yourself than it does of us.

And this argument about poetic techniques being antiquated is weak. The Modernists originated that claim, but they only discarded the older techniques for a stronger use of counterpoint. Still, even in "Free Verse" you will find that form is what give the poem great meaning.

Admit it: you don't want to use form because you don't know how to use it properly, and don't WANT to be inhibited by it. You would much rather write your poem at one go than labour harder and achieve greater expression. Stop claiming that poetry is free from form because, really, for hundreds upon hundreds of years is wasn't, and your disregard of technique isn't trailblazing, but laziness or ineptitude.

[Clarksvegas_Dan]

Originally Posted by predicate

T.S. Eliot's an idiot? I'm basically arguing everything that he's said, so accusing either one of us of being idiots says more about yourself than it does of us.

And this argument about poetic techniques being antiquated is weak. The Modernists originated that claim, but they only discarded the older techniques for a stronger use of counterpoint. Still, even in "Free Verse" you will find that form is what give the poem great meaning.

Admit it: you don't want to use form because you don't know how to use it properly, and don't WANT to be inhibited by it. You would much rather write your poem at one go than labour harder and achieve greater expression. Stop claiming that poetry is free from form because, really, for hundreds upon hundreds of years is wasn't, and your disregard of technique isn't trailblazing, but laziness or ineptitude.

Okay, now I feel personally insulted. I admit nothing.
I don't like Forms based on philosophical principles. I believe they are constrictive and convey no valuable meaning in and of themselves. I think T.S. Elliot, based on your comments, can go F himself. He sounds like a true jackass and the only thing that makes his poetry worth anything is the fact that he memorized set Forms. Without his precious forms his poetry would be worthless and no one would know his name. You are correct in saying that my poetry isn't trailblazing, but then again I never claimed that it was. I like it. You don't have to. Laziness? ineptitude? F that. You don't know me.
Get your nose out of the air and realize that your shit stinks too.
I recognize no obligation to honor the memories or works of past poets.
In my mind, they may all suck until I'm convinced otherwise.
I am not impressed with mr elliot.

[Clarksvegas_Dan]

I apologize to predicate. Honestly, I'm sure T.S. Elliot is an excellent poet. But it offends me that you would turn a conversation about the nature of poetry into a judgement of my character, without sufficient evidence. So I retaliated.
Please accept my apologies and understand that I have been drinking.lol.
I'm not actually mad, I just wanted to make a point and lowered inhibitions has allowed me to do that. Sorry.

[predicate]

Easy, my man, easy.

This is not a judgment of character. When I said "laziness" and "ineptitude" it was in reference to poetic writing style, not life overall; and not you in particular, but a universal "you," directed at many contemporary poets.

But, yes, forms are very constrictive, but they convey HUGE meaning in and of themselves. If you doubt this, read up on Free Verse, particularly, "Free Verse: An Essay on Prosody" by Hartman, or any other book on the mechanics of poetry. In the Hartman's book, you'll find that counterpoint gives the poem its meaning, and not understanding the counterpoint would lead to total misunderstanding of the poem altogether.

Your understanding of Eliot is wrong, of course, but I won't hold it against you, because you're drunk.

[Xero Satsujin]

You seem to have a case of Napoleon's Complex. Not so much that, but it's there, but rather you seem to share his belief that the only true immortality is within the memories of others. I won't bother to explain it because you seem smart enough to understand it. I'm not even going to get into your arguement because it's fruitless...