[Nick McRae]

Here are the beginnings of a conversation that started in the non-metrical forum. Hilary suggested bringing it to general discussions and I thought that'd make for an interesting topic so here it is.

Is the purpose of poetry and more broadly, art, to affect those consuming it? I'll leave it at that, and leave the floor open.

Edit: I'd originally titled the thread 'the purpose of creating art' but I think the conversation is more along the lines of the purpose of art itself. Which is a subtle distinction.

Originally Posted by Nick McRae

It's not so much that I think you're ignoring the advice you've been given, but based on a few of your comments you seem to be happy with the writing style you've grown into. What I'm saying is that, if so, there's nothing wrong with that. What you do with your writing is your call.

There are a lot of great poets here, and they've given you good advice, but in another light there isn't really a right way to write poetry. It can be tempting to follow all of the different leads and threads of advice and through that all lose sight of who you are as a writer, and what you personally want to say with poetry / how you want to say it.

But if your hope is to transform your style into something that's going to thrill readers, family, or whoever, then a lot of the feedback you've been given is very good and worth studying.

Originally Posted by Hilary Biehl

Personally, my goal in writing poetry has never been to "thrill readers, family, or whoever" ... I am well-aware that many poetry readers and editors don't like what I write, and the vast majority of the general literate public doesn't care one way or the other. So I don't like the idea that the feedback we give is only valuable if one wants to "thrill readers". Actually if you want to thrill readers I am probably the last person to ask and a serious poetry forum is probably just not a good place to ask in general ....

Originally Posted by Nick McRae

I guess that may not be the best way of putting it, but poetry is art, and the goal of art is typically to evoke some kind of reaction in someone consuming that art. 'Thrill' might not be the right word for that, maybe 'affect' is better.

Unless a poet isn't concerned with how their writing reads at all, where it's more for expression.

Originally Posted by Hilary Biehl

Is it? I will have to think about whether I agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I think serious art is meant to be shared with others. I'm just not sure that those others' reactions are the goal.

Edited to add - we could take this discussion to General Talk if you're interested in continuing. I don't want to distract anymore from Trevor's poem.