[Julie Steiner]

A few folks seemed eager to discuss this, so I've started the thread.

Is poetry rooted in the poet's personal experience more likely to be tiresome? Or does it depend on the ability of the first-person narrator to spin a yarn, rather than a yawn?

Personally, I get sick of reading my own dismal stuff, which is usually on the same damn themes and in the same damn tone. Which is the main reason I don't have a book yet. Every time I try to put a bunch of my stuff together I get too bored to fini

But I find others' revelations—some intentional, some not—fascinating, if the language is fresh, and if the point of view is not exactly what I'd expected. (That was the problem with some of the early COVID anthologies. The viewpoint of well-educated, financially comfortable white retirees was ridiculously well-represented, even more so than in a typical poetry magazine.)

[Susan McLean]

I can gladly listen to Emily Dickinson on any subject, whether it is an "I" that may or may not refer to herself, or a snake, a flower, God, or the weather. Some poets are happiest when inventing narratives; some, when they are drawing on situations that they know to be true because they experienced them. I think poets should play to their strengths, once they know what those are, but trying new things just to see where they lead can be productive, too. On the whole, I don't think others should try to dictate to writers about what they should or should not write about. The content should come from within. Are writers ever really happy when they try to follow what is trendy or popular instead of following their own interests?

Susan

[Shaun J. Russell]

Glad you created the thread, Julie!


I largely agree with everything Susan says above (full stop). That being said, as a reader (and teacher) of poetry, I do get quite weary of poems that treat the writer's own experience as exceptional. From a subjective standpoint, of course it's exceptional, and should be. But from a readerly standpoint? Variations on themes of one's struggles etc. get stale after awhile. What's been interesting for me after having just finished teaching my poetry survey again this semester (sampling from the Renaissance to two years ago) is seeing when this tendency took hold. I really do think it was Plath. I'm certain that's a highly arguable assertion, and I have little doubt that twenty other posters could name twenty other poets who really set the "magnificent moi" trend in motion, but re-reading "Daddy" and "Lady Lazarus" after many other 20th century poets, it struck me that the dominant strain of poetry remains "Plathian." I have no particular dislike of Plath (truly), but I was thinking about the sheer gall of comparing her father to a Nazi (he wasn't) and herself to a Jew (she wasn't) because of her personal feelings toward her upbringing.

Sometimes those personal experiences are fantastic to read on the page. Reading Li-Young Lee's "Persimmons," for example, draws you into the difficulties of adaptation, and it's hard to not marvel at the difficulty of cultural assimilation (and the terminological slippages that accompany it...). And yet, it seems that compelling, original experiences like that are far less common than ones that feel pat, stale, even normal. Naturally this is a very subjective take, and I have my own preferences and biases when it comes to poetry, but I think about how Auden frames "Musee Des Beaux Arts." He manages to channel something deep and meaningful about being human (and how other artists did the same) without having to constantly refer the fact that he is walking through an art museum and he is having these insights. He takes himself out of direct sight, and the poem is all the better for it. With a lot of modern poets, I just want to shake them lightly and earnestly whisper "not everything is about you!"

Anyhow, my two cents on the matter for now.

[Susan McLean]

Shaun, I don't for a moment think that Plath believed she was setting down a factual account of her experiences. The poems you mentioned are sheer mythmaking, and brilliant in their images and imagination. Myth was always created as a way to make sense of reality, but it is not the same thing as realism.

Susan

[John Riley]

I started a similar conversation in the wrong thread. Shaun suggested I continue it but I haven't felt well the last few days.

My single, central point is I am exhausted reading "Me" poetry. I understand people need to write what moves them and know that English 101 classes everywhere remind students that an "I" narrator isn't necessarily the poet. But anyone reading the vast majority of poetry published today knows the narrator is the poet. It's clear and if the poet comments or is interviewed they say so. I recently read Diane Suess saying her primary strength as a poet is "memory."

While I understand and appreciate that much of it comes from personal stories of societal oppression and contempt, and I in no way am not sympathetic and in agreement with reality, it doesn't automatically result in good poetry.

Inevitably, it'll be said or thought I don't understand the struggles of anyone because I'm a white male, which makes it impossible to have compassion and anger at the tragedy of other people's lives. All I can say to that is Whatever.

As a reader as much as a writer I am simply tired of self-centeredness and poetry as an appendage to politics. We have all written Me Poems, I've written several and will write more, but I am aware there are other directions poetry can go, and one of them the is use of the imagination.

I have two words to say to make my point: Ocean Vuong. Go read his poetry, which has been praised everywhere, and tell me what you think.

I have to say blaming Plath isn't correct. Ginsberg was before her and Lowell was her teacher. Don't forget Snodgrass and others who came out of Iowa in the fifties. Besides, as Susan says, Plath turned her life into a myth. If more Me Poets could do that I wouldn't be complaining. People can say what they want about Ashbery but I find it refreshing to go to him at times and read about ideas.

I deleted my thread because ultimately it's me complaining and who cares. I've recently been frustrated by this but others may thrive in it.

Finally, it doesn't only apply to poetry. The thousands of memoirs and novels are most often drawn from lives. This thing they call autofiction which I can't understand how it is different than Thomas Wolfe or Kerouac or many other earlier novelists.

We live in a very self-centered era is my conclusion so I suppose it can be said literature is merely reflecting the era so I should shut up which I will finally do now.

[Julie Steiner]

M.A. Griffiths had a lot to say on the subject. Here's a snippet:

~~~~~

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:42:25 +0100; From: grasshopper; To: The Pennine Poetry Works; Subject: Re: New sub: No (Sue)

C,

     I’ve mentioned before my notion of the Magnified Moi that spoils so much poetry – the assumption that whatever Moi, the author thinks, feels or whatever, is automatically fascinating because it’s embodied in a poem – as if a reader has a duty to be interested.

     I think a lot of people need to be reminded of the obvious truth that it is an author’s task to entice, entertain, delight a reader. I think reading poetry should be a pleasure, not a chore.

     Moi often forgets that. Moi often goes off on one.

     Moi needs to be sat down in a corner occasionally and given a good talking to.

     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

~~~~~

Most of Maz's grumbles relate to the phenomenon of poets who are not only writing poetry about mundane details of their own lives, but about just how difficult that noble undertaking of memorializing it all in verse really is. It's just more reinforcement of the attitude that because they are poets, whatever they do in their personal lives (including struggling to write poetry during a dry spell) is inherently riveting subject matter.

~~~~~

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:27:39 +0100; From: grasshopper; To: The Pennine Poetry Works; Subject: Discussion topic? Poems about writing poems

     I’m surprised, reading various poetry lists, about how many poems are about poetry and writing poems. It leads me to wonder what the expected audience of these poems is.
     I suspect the majority of people do not write poems – so why should they be expected to connect to the writing process? Is is not rather solipsistic to expect a general reader to be as fascinated by this subject as an author is?
     I’ll confess my personal feeling about this. I think Art should mainly be about life, not about art. Poems about poems can get very incestuous and inbred – frankly I think it’s rather an unhealthy trend.
     I’ve found most people don’t respond that readily to poems about poetry, but about things they can relate to more strongly – about living life, rather than the process of writing about it.
     Could this be why often people feel alienated from poetry these days – they feel much of it is aimed at fellow writers rather than the general public?
     I’d be interested to know what others think.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

Dear S—,
     I’m all for lighthearted poems, and I think they usually go down well, regardless of the subject. What I was thinking about are the endless earnest poems about writing poems and being a poet, unleavened by any humour.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

Response to G—’s quotation from a recent anthology of poetry about poetry:

Dear G—,
     The poem you quoted tends to prove my point, I think.
     It begins and ends with the poet – it frankly doesn’t concern me.
     What would we think of a doctor who told us how poor a doctor he was, and what a mess he made of his last cases?
     This sort of poem is ultimately about self-aggrandisement to me. It assumes whatever Moi, The Poet, writes is automatically fascinating to everybody else.
     Nah, I’m not convinced, sorry. LOL!
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

Dear A—,
     It seems to me that often an author forgets that an important function of poetry is to entertain, to give pleasure to the reader. I agree with you that often obscurity is thought of as a virtue. I’ve lost count of how many poems I’ve read that seemed to be written to demonstrate how clever/erudite the author was, rather than to communicate anything else.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

Dear B—,
     If writing poems about writing poems was like painting self-portraits, I’d have no reason to complain. But it isn’t. It’s more like Rembrandt faffing on about the difficulties of mixing pigments and choosing the right brush, and the mental strain of it all – rather than getting down to paint a self-portrait.
     In a way, every poem is about poetry – but the process shouldn’t overwhelm the product. Of course, we will sometimes write a poem about writing poems, because that’s what concerns us – and there are some good poems about writing poems – but I think that in general, the impulse should be avoided as much as possible.
     If we want to express the difficulty of writing about a certain subject, say, there are ways to do this subtly, while writing ABOUT the subject.
     I remember years ago seeing Laurence Olivier being interviewed. Melvin Bragg began to ask him reverently about how he approached a certain role. “Oh, goodness me,” the Great Man replied, “I can’t be bothered with all that. I’m an actor. I act. It’s my job. You don’t ask a baker how he makes bread.”
     I thought this was a refreshing change from the usual pretentious attitude – and it’s what I think about poems. Writing them is an author’s job. So just do it, don’t witter on about the technicalities, unless you want to poke fun at your pretensions.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper


R— had said “You’re way too hard on your fellow poets in this stance grassy,” and related the positive reception of such poems at his readings.

      Oo, R—, yes, I’m hard, dam’ hard.
     Perhaps the people you mentioned have had less exposure to poems about writing poems than I have over recent months. As a novelty, it’s fine; as a constant diet, it palls – LOL.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper

Dear B—,
     You write: “It might be that the impulse behind the poems you (and probably I) don’t like is that they’re written by people who’re more into being a poet than into making poems.”
     This put the finger on it for me.
     I’m all for the people who write poems, but spare me from the people who spout Poetry, and feel that they exist in some refined dimension where they access higher truths and more profound truths than the rest of us.
     What writing good poetry boils down to, if you render it down, is having a way with words. That may be pretty magical – much magic is done with words – but it doesn’t automatically raise a poet into a higher sphere. What all artists have to be careful about, I think, is being pretentious and taking themselves far too seriously.
     Kind regards,
          grasshopper


~~~~~

The Four-eyed Git Addresses Poets

I wish you would not write poems On Poetry,
particularly about your Poems and Poetry. I find
myself blushing for you, fidgeting in my reading chair,
adjusting my poem glasses because sweat has pooled

beneath the rims. I have to blink – it is Moi mist
that fogs the ground plastic. My literary lenses flinch
like a lemoned oyster. Write about anything, Dear Author,
except Poetry. Adopt any tone, except the self-reverential,

except melting appreciation of your poethead & poethood,
narcissusness reflected in your own words. Echo. Ecce.
Don’t wallow in your ultra-sensibility. Swallow your primp
and pomp. Watch a rolled cat – how it spreads its back legs

and licks its arse with a rough fastidious tongue, without self-
conscious spittle. Watch the busy little digits of monkeys
delving in their nether fur. It is not my place to draw
comparisons. I threw away my mirrors years ago.


Posted 2006-01-16 to The Gazebo.
Source: private copy saved by B.J. Preston.

~~~~~

Me again. (heh)

Sorry you're not feeling well, John. Your exasperations are good food for thought (although I'm probably incorrigible in this regard).

I try to remember that just because I've put a lot of time and work into writing something on any topic, personal or not, that doesn't necessarily make it something of particular use or interest to anyone but myself. I'm a great believer in the notion that 99% of everything is crap, and that that's perfectly normal and okay. Manure is necessary for the production of more fruitful stuff. The trick is to recognize that something is crap before I post it for workshopping, or (worse) spend a week defending my own mediocrity from good advice that I don't want to hear. Still working on that....

[Jack Land]

deleted, January 11

[Nick McRae]

One of the challenges is that inspiration isn't something we consciously control, and a lot of what we know or which resonates to us is rooted in our own experiences.

So to have discovered an interesting theme AND have the writing skill to present it well isn't something that happens too often. I think you could go as far as saying that this takes a near mastery of poetry.

To me this is why so much poetry is rooted in imagery. The focus is usually on beautiful language rather than a resonant idea, because we can control the former but not the latter. And really, I think most readers are in it for the language.

But if you can hit the language and concept that's usually going to be a more enjoyable poem.

[Maryann Corbett]

For what it's worth:

I recently read Joshua Mehigan's essay in Literary Matters about the poetry of the late David Ferry, and I was struck by how often Ferry's poems observe other people in compassionate ways. They're about his own experiences, but the focus is not himself.

Of course Ferry does write those more interior poems too, but it seemed worth pointing out that writing about what one has experienced doesn't have to produce moi-poems.

[Roger Slater]

I think we can all come up with examples of both good and bad poems rooted in personal experience, as well as good and bad poems not rooted in personal experience. Where a poem falls on the "personal experience" spectrum, I would suggest, has little or nothing to do with whether the poem is any good. I agree, though, that writing from personal experience (by which I mean specific biographical or familial situations that many or most readers have not experienced themselves) has its own pitfalls. Perhaps it's no different than normal conversation. Sometimes we are fascinated by hearing another person tell us his experiences, sometimes we are bored. All the fun's in how you say a thing?