Quote:
Originally Posted by Yves S L
Nick, you do this move/gesture with "there isn't really a right way to write poetry", as if poetry does not consist of a very large collections of well established small and large scale patterns and techniques, some of which are based on enhancing memorability, some of which are based on making poetry more emotionally evocative, some of of which are based on making poetry more information dense than prose, some of which are based on making poetry more parallel than prose, some of which bring words closer to dance, closer to music, closer to painting...
|
I tried to allude at this without saying it outright. I'm in full agreement with you that there are established patterns and techniques. That's what I was trying to hint at when I mentioned that 'you've been given great feedback'.
Maybe going as far as saying 'there is no right way to write poetry' is too strong, but what I was getting at is that if you take a macro view of poetry there is no concrete definition of what it is, and how it should read. Wallace Stevens mentioned this view in his book The Necessary Angel. Poetry, broadly speaking, is whatever we think it is, and however we want it to be.
If a ten year old paints a picture that doesn't show any type of technique do we tell them they're painting
the wrong way, or are they just painting, producing art? If a poet passionately produces hundreds of poems with middling technique is it really accurate to say '
they're doing it wrong'. To me it'd be more accurate to say something like: 'they're doing it wrong if they have any interest in an audience'. On another level there's nothing wrong with
not chasing technique, and indulging in art for its own sake without expectation.
In my view people should be encouraged to express themselves regardless of quality, and IMO it's the obsession with being good or doing it right that stops many people from trying. But if they want to do it
well, then yes there are guidelines.