My Approach to Poetry

         Up until about three years ago, I had a consistent dislike for poetry. I had been exposed to a lot of poetry that I termed "I think deep thoughts poetry" where the speaker would talk about their soul being the universe, or how they loved someone with "all encompassing love."

         Alternately, the other poetry I was exposed to was the old glob of "classics" everyone must deal with through the course of public education. Yeah, you've heard of those "dead white guys," right? What made it worse was that it was beaten into me what geniuses they all were and how a bell in the poem really meant a whole essay's worth of symbolism. Yay.

         It wasn't until I began attending college level classes that my bias began to fall away. I had a couple of really enthusiastic and knowledgeable professors who would offer the mechanical tools of poetry, like rhyme, meter, metaphor, etc. and let us decide for ourselves what the poem meant.

         It was also at this point that I was allowed to dislike the "greats" if I chose. My professors understood that even the famous poets had their flaws. I was also exposed to contemporary poets, at first in my Ethnic Literature class, and later in poetry courses.

         After going through the "theory" classes and examining others' work, it was time for me to create my own. It was time for a poetry workshop course (and then another).

         Let me give you an idea of how workshopping works. Each class we start by discussing the assigned reading, this includes both essays about writing poetry and actual poems. After discussion comes the workshopping. When it's your turn, you read the poem you've written for the class and then the rest of the class critiques the poem. During the critiques, you're not allowed to speak. The critiques are a remarkable thing because people talk about your work and they talk about what worked for them in the poem, and what fell flat to them. You have to silently listen to them say things like "I think that you should just cut the first stanza, it doesn't really fit with what you're saying." They don't hold punches.

         So, in the course of studying all this poetry, what have I learned? What separates good poetry from bad? My definition is as follows: Good poetry is not about the poet, nor is it about the poem itself, a good poem is about the reader. For me, a good poem does what a good short story does. In a sense, it says "now you see what I see."

         While that definition works on a theoretical level, it lacks a bit when it comes to the concrete, or practical, level. So, let me get a bit more down-to-Earth. How does a poet make their verses about the reader? How do they communicate so the reader can see what they see? By necessity, we have to look at the poem itself.

         One professor I know well is the poet who teaches the poetry "genres" course and the creative writing workshops. He is published and award winning poet. His favorite poetry quote is, "There are no ideas but in things." It's a great quote which can be explained as: If you're going to give me a poem, don't talk about ideas themselves because I've already heard every description of love you could possibly give me, instead, give me something I can see.

         If you give me an image that is vivid and well thought-out, it'll capture my imagination. If you want to talk about an idea, talk about it through the image. There's a lot that can be said about someone/something through describing them/it. Don't tell me what you're feeling, let me see it in the images you use.

         Abstract poetry really doesn't do anything for me. Talking about "the void" or "your love" is uninspiring. It puts the focus on the poet because we have to figure out what the abstractions mean to them. Think about it, when you look at the best poems, those which have withstood the test of time and which people still love today, for the most part, they are very concrete in the "things" that the poem uses.

         Think of Robert Frost's poem, "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," it's crammed with visuals and the very feeling of the cold night. He doesn't have a single word about what he's feeling, but instead says it in the description of the scene. Another great poem is "Silhouette" by Langston Hughes, in describing the silhouette of a black man lynched against a white moon, he says volumes about the history, emotions, and hatred that were behind these violent acts.

         Personally, my writing background is rooted in the principles of fiction. This background colors my approach to poetry in the fact that I demand from poetry the same things I demand from fiction: something I (the reader) can grab onto. Showing vs. telling is important in fiction, and vital in poetry.

         So how do you write killer poetry? Pick your "things" (images, sounds, scents, textures, tastes, etc.) carefully, and be exacting in your word choices (it's all about connotation), and focus on the "things" of your poem and let the ideas come through them. Poetry should be a painting in words.

         Some other great examples of painting with words are:

Joy Harjo: Take a look at the poem, "She Had Some Horses," http://www.hanksville.org/storytellers/joy/poems/Horses.html

Garrett Hongo: You can find some information about him, and some poetic exerpts here: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/hongo/hongo.htm.

Sherman Alexie: Here you can find information about him, and some critical commentary of his work: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/alexie/alexie.htm.
Here you can find some samples of his writing: http://library.spokanefalls.edu/ShermanAlexie/Alexie_webpage.htm#writings

         Another point I'd like to address about poetry is that it should be poetry. By this, I'm talking about some specific pieces I've recently encountered: prose which the writer calls poetry. I've asked different writers who've done this about the issue, with the main point that if it's written in paragraph form, it is not, by default, poetry. Their replies were to the effect of "I'm independent enough to do what I like." A response which doesn't satisfy me.

         I'm a big fan of taking risks in writing, and pushing the envelope in respect to what you can "get away with." However, I draw the line at what I call mis-using the genres/item categories. Calling prose poetry is just like writing a piece set in 312 B.C. and calling it an autobiography, writing a short story and calling it an editorial, or writing a recipe and putting it in the "suspense" category. If it's poetry, it needs to have the characteristics of poetry.

         The first time my genres class met, we spent some time defining poetry. My professor asked us all what poetry was, and wrote our answers on the board. Some of the answers were that poetry:

         Is concise
         Has strong imagery
         Rhymes
         Creates an emotional response
         Has precise wording and word choice

All of these answers can be said to describe poetry. However, none of these are precisely accurate:

         Poetry is concise-What about epic poems?
         Poetry has strong imagery-So do many short stories or novels.
         Poetry rhymes-What about free verse?
         Poetry creates an emotional response-So does an autobiographical account
         of a traumatic event.
         Poetry has precise wording and word choice-So do political speeches.

         In the end, what is one thing you can say about poetry that is always true, and that doesn't apply to other types of writing? Poetry has line breaks. "Ah-ha!" some say, "What about prose poetry?" My answer is that the existence of prose poetry doesn't contradict the definition of poetry as a form that has line breaks.

         Prose poetry is prose first, poetry second. It is something written in paragraph form which, due to its style of imagery and word choices, and its brevity, is compared to poetry. It shares many of the characteristics people frequently associate with poetry, but as the name itself implies, it isn't true poetry. Another note about prose poetry is that many people also call it flash fiction, not paragraph poems. How does this apply to writing.com? If you write prose poetry, classify it as prose. The item type is, obviously, the type of writing. It's prose first, poetry second.

         If you'd like to read about other people's thoughts on poetry, here are some articles to look at:

         -Remember my comments earlier about staying away from abstractions and generalities? Here are a few more reasons why.

Invalid Item  This item number is not valid. #908609 by Not Available.

         -I consider this an excellent discussion of the poet's responsibility to the reader, and of a good poet's understanding of their form.

Invalid Item  This item number is not valid. #610986 by Not Available.

         -Though I don't necessarily agree with each of the points this writer makes, due to my own personal preference, I do think this is a well-written article which makes great points about what poetry is and is not.

Thoughts On Poetry  (E) Why is a poem different from prose? #982499 by edgework

         -Read the appropriate section of this great article. I abosolutely agree with the points the author makes about what poetry should and should not be.

Invalid Item  This item number is not valid. #910451 by Not Available.

         -Here you can find a great collection of quotes about poetry from some of the great poets.

Poetry Refreshes the World  (E) What do famous writers and poets say about poetry? #951984 by Kenzie

         -Here is an item which shows a wide range of opinions:

Poetry Survey Results  (E) Results of my Poetry Survey - Updated 7/16/07 10:47 am #888708 by spidey