I respect anyone that tries to improve their poetry by working on the technical side, it shows you have respect for the form and the medium. However, it's entirely possible that what one person will judge as amateurish and shite, another person will really enjoy, and respond to, simply because it connects with them in some way. For example, I can read "The Poet at Seventeen" and enjoy it as a technical exercise, but I don't connect with it on an emotional level. On the other hand, an English teacher of mine once showed us an entry by a 10 year old in a poetry contest:



which is technically simplistic in the extreme, but which I enjoy on an emotional level. It challenges the way you look at or think about the subject, it adds another dimension to it, and that, as far as I'm concerned, is the whole point of poetry. To take the ordinary, banal or mundane, and do something creative with it. So while I respect anyone's attempts to 'better themselves', I don't agree with the point that poetry can only be enjoyed if it's 'sophisticated' and technically perfect. It's written by humans, and sometimes bum-notes in the technical execution reflect that humanity, to great effect.

[/2 cents]

I don't see how this 10 year old is helping us see a tortoise in a new light. I know tortoises move already. However, it's cute, and clever for a 10 year old.

I'm completely fine with people liking what they like. There are plenty of very skilled poets who I'm not a fan of, it doesn't take away their skill. I connect to some, and I don't to others. That's just a matter of taste.

And there is no such thing as a perfect poem. But there is definitely such a thing as a more accomplished poem. The 'Poet at Seventeen' poem might do nothing for you, but I could show you another skilled poem full of craft that you might like. Some, you will definitely like. It all depends on your style and what really grabs you by the heart. Because poets vary.

But really, this argument is a bit like saying that you'd rather go and see a 10 year old kid play guitar in an auditorium for 50 bucks, than go and watch your favourite skilled musicians. There is a massive difference. If you appreciate listening to a lot of music, you'll be able to tell that difference straight away. Similarly, if you enjoy and read a lot of poetry, you become quite picky about what you like, and what you want to read more of. It's nothing to do with pretention, and all to do with which poets grab you by the heart.

The problem is that the general public doesn't really buy poetry anymore. If you can sit and enjoy reading good poetry books regularly, and then come back and tell me that this tortoise poem still affects you 'emtionally', then I'll accept your argument.

Other than that, you probably enjoy this poem for sentimental reasons. This 10 year old won a poetry competition, which is a massive achievement. You're happy for him, find it amazing that a guy that young could do this, so you appreciate the poem. You're not looking at its merits as a piece of writing, but as a piece of writing by a 10 year old.

Just my take.

I agree with Harmless--he pretty much hit all the major points, other than the fact that you have the emotional depth of a seashell if you think the Tortoise poem is better than the Levis poem. It challenges the way you look at the subject? Let me get this straight: before this poem, you were unaware that tortoises could move?

The universalist, democratic view of poetry is absolute shit, and anyone who has read poetry extensively knows that. Anyone who hasn't read poetry should probably stop talking about poetry. Oh it's just about your feelings. Oh, it's supposed to show you another dimension. Blow a dick.

Say, Mickey, do your views about objective measures for poetry apply to music as well?

Suck a dick. If you bothered reading, you'd realize that nowhere in here did I say that poetry is objective. It is not subjective appreciation that I take issue with; it's the naive idea that all poetry is good poetry if it expresses emotion (and variations on that idea). There's no denying that there's a huge area of subjective appreciation in poetry, as in any form of art. But in any form of art, there are also objective standards, and if a poem doesn't operate within these objective standards (creative use of line, creative use of metaphor, creative use of language, multiplicity of meaning, authenticity of voice), it's usually drivel.

I repeat: you have the emotional depth of a seashell if you think the Tortoise poem is better than the Levis poem. It challenges the way you look at the subject? Let me get this straight: before this poem, you were unaware that tortoises could move?

It's that line of thinking that I take issue with.

YOU SUCK THE DICK. If you had bothered to read, you'd realize nowhere in my question to YOU did I suggest you were saying poetry is objective. You did say there are objective standards (I called them objective measures), all I asked was whether those also existed for music. Now you have said they do ("in any form of art, there are objective standards"), so I'll just store that in my memory bank and whip it out next time we debate the merit of certain musicians.

Yeah..of course there are. Such as the ability to play an instrument. What are you driving at?

And we've been over this--I don't READ posts by other people here.

Yes. In order to be a good guitarist, you must be able to play chords. And it helps if you're a great guitarist, because then you've spent decades mastering the art.

The same principle applies with other instruments. I'm a drummer, so I would not pay 50 bucks, and then line up all day, to go and watch this 10 year old kid in an auditorium play drums. I appreciate a good drummer.

Do you not like great musicians Jorge?

He does like Backspacer.

Sorry for barging in again but you're missing the point. You can debate about taste, and who you like more, but it doesn't take away from the fact that everyone you debate about will be a professional musician who has 'earned their crown' so to speak, by rising from being a nobody to someone with a following, and a reputation in the music business.

There are skills involved to become that. Me and Mickey (and correct me if I'm wrong mate) aren't talking about TASTE. What we ARE talking about is the fact that it IS possible to judge good poetry objectively, as it is to judge good musicianship objectively, whether you 'like' their style or not.

There are as many different styles of good poetry as there are good music, and I don't like them all. But I can't take away from how good they are. I think Carol Ann Duffy is rubbish, but she's isn't, objectively. No way. She knows her craft.

It seems to me that everyone who says 'poetry is all subjective, there's nothing objective about it' doesn't actually read any. Doesn't enjoy going into a bookshop and getting 5 collections of poetry in one go, and then going home and breathing it like air. Maybe if more people did that, there would be less of this anti-snobbery of 'Poetry should be anything that makes you FEEL MAN, even if it's a Tortoise going movey movey!'

Breathing it like air.

But Harmless is right--It's not "taste" that's being debated here. I think Robert Frost is a steaming pile of shit who had nothing interesting to add to American poetry, but on an objective level, I can't dismiss him entirely.

Seriously though, what I want to know is if that girl didn't know that tortoises could movey movey.

Two poetry threads movey movey-ing at the same time.

I think I just came!

First of all,

Of course I fucking knew tortoises moved you knobheads, you're being retarded for the sake of being retarded.

And I read a lot of poetry, not that I have to qualify myself to you shower, so I take offense at the idea that I like this piece because it's 'cute' and sentimental, and because I'm a philistine. I read, and write poetry, so I know what I'm talking about.

And the idea of starting an anti-snobbery movement is ridiculous. Poetry is despised by a lot of people primarily because it's seen as the arty-farty wankers art-form, haven for elitist tosspots that like to feel they're above the plebs that just don't 'get' their art. I'm all for recognising technical expertise, but not at the expense of alienating readers. Poetry should be universally accessible and enjoyable, not an exercise in wankerhood. And this idea that it's bad to respond to a piece simply because it's not a technical masterpiece is bollocks - I'm not saying 'poetry is all subjective', I'm just saying subjectivity is a huge part of art, and shouldn't be dismissed as inferior to objectivity.

And Mickey, using "I don't READ posts by other people here" as a line of argument is pathetic. Get over yourself and stop being a dick.

Poetry should be read, and enjoyed, by absolutely everyone. Agreed. I'm not one of the elitists you're talking about. Great poetry can also be read, and understood, and enjoyed, by any reader. But great poetry is crafted, and has taken skill to write. If you think that all great poetry is hard to read and enjoy, I have to wonder what you're reading.

And neither have I said 'subjectivity' is inferior. There is always an element of 'taste' in any art form. But to dismiss the amount of skill it takes to produce good poems, is to be a bigger knobhead than I've been. 'Taste' and 'objectivity' are two different things. So, like what you like, I don't care. You have your own taste, I have mine. But don't just think that any old thing shat out on a piece of paper equates to excellent poetry. It doesn't.

That's all I'm saying. If you think that 'objective skill' is inferior to 'subjective taste', chances are you're probably not applying any objective judgment to your own poetry either.

I'm not saying great technical poetry is impossible to read and enjoy either - my annoyance is with the view that poetry is only great when it obfusticates and rates technical skill higher than connection with the reader. Similarily, shit poetry is shit, and I agree that if it's a pile of bollocks it shouldn't count as poetry. There has to be some kind of middle ground, so that it's not an exercise in 'ooh-look-at-me-no-one-understands-my-poetry-because-I'm-a-high-minded-artist-blah-blah-wank-wank', nor is it a pile of shite which shows no respect or care for the form or technique. Happy mediums, for the win...

Again, when you're talking about the reading and enjoyment of poetry, that's an absolutely fine view to have. Pearl Jam aren't the epitome of musical brilliance, but they are, and have always been, my favourite band because of their sound. They are mediocre poets, to say the least.

But my points have been about objectively judging poetry from a writing point of view. If you know enough about what technical aspects go into the writing of poetry, you can judge it. Which doesn't say a great deal about the enjoyment (unless you also enjoy analysing a poem's craft, which I do). But it DOES say everything about why the majority of poems which are sent to reputable poetry magazines get rejected. It's why I've just been rejected, and why Mickey has been. We're still learning our craft, and we're still learning to hone our skills in using the tools which poets use to craft poems. My first submission was rejected (and so will many more be in the future) not just because my poems didn't suit the editor's taste or didn't get him/her going in a vague 'touchy feely' way. It was rejected because they weren't good enough on an objective level.

Because I know something about how to analyse poetry, I can put the poems away for a while, and come back to them knowing exactly what I should do to improve them. Without that perspective, and if I just thought everything about poetry was 'subjective', then I wouldn't know whether I was 'getting better.'

Just as a guitarist knows when he's 'getting better', so can a poet.

Enjoy what you like, but I'm talking about the writing of it, not the enjoyment.

So if you knew that tortoises could movey-movey, and it wasn't cute or sentimental, what value do you see in it? Of course, it might appeal to your grade school reading level, since it's pretty clear to people who are literate that nowhere in this thread did I ever say that subjectivity was inferior to objectivity. You're coming up with this elitist view of poetry that we have here that really hasn't been expressed at all. There's a huge difference between saying, "Of course you can judge poetry; as an art form it has objective standard," and "Poetry is only good when its obscure and radically technically inventive." I have a hard time believing that you actually read poetry if this is what you think is the argument. Even the best "simple" poems fulfill objective measures. There's a reason WCW is better than the movey-movey Tortoise, or rather, there's multiple reasons that are at least in part objective, and that I've stated here before: creative use of line, economic use of language, purity of image, multiplicity of meaning. WCW's poems, which, to the unlearned, probably seem the most simple and least technically complex, are perfect examples of poems that succeed on an objective level. Objectivity in poetry does not mean that everyone should write like T.S. Eliot. It means that there are ways to quantify why a poem is a success or not that are additional to the emotional resonance that it has with the reader. Further, I'd really like you to explain how a poem that does not succeed in any objective manner can be subjectively resonant (although not really, since I don't think you know your ass from assonance). The fact is that it can't, just like a movie can't be emotionally resonant if it's shot on a camera phone, just like a song can't be if the artist can't play their instrument.* The subjective and the objective are intrinsically linked.

*There are truly great experimental works that do away with objective standards entirely, but even in these examples, they are almost exclusively created by those who are already aware of the objective standards and who are willfully disregarding them for effect.

All of this is not to say that a poet sits down and thinks, "Well, I have to use a good line here. Wait, are my images pure enough? Oh shit, I don't think I have a second layer of meaning," because that's not the creative process. I'm not saying poetry is a science. I'm saying that there are ways of judging if a poem is accomplished or not. Furthermore, what you're saying completely ignores the fact that simply technically accomplished poetry sucks. There's an element of poetry--psychic weight (Bly) or duende (Lorca)--that would be missing if the poem were simply about the words and the lines (see: bad Language poetry). In no way am I arguing for a clinical view of poetry--simply an acceptance that there are objective measures that couple with the emotion in the poem, and that the best poets are the best poets not simply because they have the best emotion but because they are the best at expressing sentiments through beautiful language.

Finally, as to the view that poetry is for artsy-fartsy wankers, as you so delicately put it:
One--what I'm saying will in no way increase this point of view any more than someone saying that musicians should play instruments will increase the prevalence of the thought that music is an elitist art form.
Two--It's no more destructive to the art form than the thought that anyone can write poetry and that all poetry is good. If I had to choose between people thinking I'm an elitist and people thinking that anyone can do what I do, I'd choose the first.

Poetry should be universally read and enjoyed, but not because it dumbs itself down to the level of a sixth grader's notebook.

The thing is, no one expressed this view here. Thanks for not being able to read.

Great posts Mickey.

I was briefer because I just couldn't be arsed anymore. Some people can't be convinced and should continue to enjoy what they enjoy, Hallmark cards or whatever.

You're also nicer than I am.