You are going to get into so much trouble for this essay, but I stand with you. As with all things, most writing is mediocre. In the publishing industry -- or in the social media sphere -- most of the readers want mediocre writing and a for-profit model has to respond to the market to stay in business. The most popular writing is the most popular writing and that's what's easiest to find.
Self-help books are the biggest sellers. It's not surprising that self-help poetry -- with its almost toxic positivity -- is what you find on IG.
I frequently wish that we could carve out our own niche, speak only to those few readers who want good poetry and can recognize it. I'm not a poet, but a literary fiction novelist, and I believe that a good novel has many of the characteristics of poetry, at the sentence level as well as at the larger structural level. Over a decade ago, I started the Dactyl Review, where only literary fiction authors can review other literary fiction authors, so that together we could create a sympathetic environment for ourselves.
I had hoped that, by designating myself literary fiction novelist, I would discourage all those fans of airport fiction from taking up my books. So far, I've been pretty successful. Reaching those readers who appreciate poetry in narrative has been harder.
You will be charged with elitism, as if hard work and talent are shameful. So be it. Take your knocks. Know that there are more people who agree with you than are willing to say so.
Alas, to the uninitiated poetry often seems to be the easiest of all the arts. Because it seems to require no skill. Think of Yeats with his
'A single line may take us hours, maybe,
But if it doesn't seem a moment's thought
Our stitching and unstitching has been nought.'
From this we see we positively labour to seem easy. And it is important that we do so.
But in actual fact poetry is the most difficult of all the arts. Why? Because we are using a debased medium. We are using the medium that the most powerful people in the land use to tell lies to tell the truth. And this is difficult.
'For all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare,' concluded Spinoza when he was writing his Ethics. As Yeats once entitled - and began - one of his poems 'The Fascination Of What's Difficult'
Poetry has always been both elitist and democratic. Indeed it's out of that very tension that poetry is born.
Shakespeare wrote for two audiences: the nobles and the groundlings. And managed to communicate to both. 'I would The multitudinous seas incarnadine Making the green one red' is the most famous example of the Bard's bearing his double audience in mind.
But even as a Rilkean 'object in itself' each poem reflects this conflict. Every poem presents us with a democracy of words because every word plays its part and is of absolutely crucial importance. Even the most insignificant 'do-nothing' word has to be carefully selected if the poem is to achieve its full effect. And very often these are the most recalcitrant.
And yet at the same time we all know that poems often take their inception from just one word. Or on the other hand that there is only too often one word that remains obstinately difficult to get right. So much so that the poem must only too often be subjected to a Valéry-like abandonment... So that that word almost bears a monarch-like to the rest of the poem. It rules over it either by its presence or by its absence. Is it any accident that Plato, himself a poet, came to think, towards the end of his life, that the best government would consist of some combination of monarchy and democracy? Certainly that's what we find in the best poems. A naturally emergent order - as opposed to an artificially imposed order - that leads to an easy-going accommodation of the democratic to the elitist. A generous and benevolent elitism in combination with a grateful and vibrant democracy. What can beat that?
'Would that all God's people were prophets,' sighed Moses. As Luther talked of 'the priesthood of all believers'. And yet thank God that isn't the case! Though nearly all are would-be prophets. One prophet for each nation in each age is surely more than enough.
For me though the great thing about poetry is that it makes full use of all the resources of the language, in a way that prose, even at its best, can simply never do. And it makes me weep to see these idiots so far gone in their asininity that they can't even make full use of the resources of prose, little own anything beyond that. Alas, their work, far from being good poetry, even fails to achieve the status of being bad prose. It simply remains illiterate muck.
As for e.e. cummings, he was special; so let the way I write his name reflect his special place in my affections. If ever anybody ever made full use of all the resources of the language it was he. I like to show that.
Opera is another of those arts whose proponents say it's inaccessible to the pedestrians who prefer the piazza to La Scala. Too bad for opera and its librettists, its composers, its sopranos, its tenors, its stage managers, its linguistic coaches. Pedants can and do eviscerate the art forms they purport to love. I wonder if your excellent essay could be stated in 14 lines of iambic pentameter.
This is a fine polemic on poetics by Johnny Payne, and I am happy to see it here at The Chained Muse. I strongly agree with what is written here, and one of the things about this essay that really stood out to me in particular is the following statement:
“The idealistic fallacy is that anyone can write a poem.”
I don’t recall ever reading such a statement before, and is it any wonder, given the age of excessive political correctness—you know, the kind that insists everyone must receive a trophy irrespective of merit and skill—that we currently find ourselves in? As another commenter noted, I’m sure some (if not many) will complain that Johnny is displaying elitism here. I disagree. The reality is that anyone can string together groupings of words and use line breaks to make their banal, insipid prose look like poetry, with the end result being no more poetic than a message concealed within a Chinese fortune cookie. Should we claim that anyone can create a work of art merely because they are capable of drawing stick figure trees? It is asinine.
Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that our modern-day western society tends to view the arts as mere entertainment, while preeminence is consistently given to STEM subjects. Poetry seems to no longer be widely regarded as a serious discipline—a craft that must be honed and perfected. By way of contrast, the ancient Greeks held competitions in poetry and athletics alongside each other, and they didn’t see the arts as being inferior to other disciplines such as science. I don’t say these things as someone who regards herself as a great poet, as I haven’t been writing poetry for very long and I have so much to learn. With that being said, I do try to hold my own work and that of others to a very high standard, as I believe that is the responsibility of anyone who sees poetry for what it is—namely, the highest form of human expression.
Thank you for this insightful essay. I confess not to have known that "Instagram poetry" even existed before now. I've never been an athlete, but I appreciate the fact that sport allows us to sort out very quickly who has no skill, who has some skill, and who is truly gifted; moreover, after the Little League/Pop Warner stage, there's generally not much pushback from those in the first two categories when they aren't picked for the starting lineup, nor are they likely to go on considering themselves good enough for the big leagues (alas, the same can't always be said for their parents).
I don't think poets writing bad poetry in normal upper-and-lower case makes their bad poetry "better," nor do I think poets writing good poetry in lower case makes their poetry worse. Would it make any difference, really, if E. E. Cummings wrote his name in lower-case? Wouldn't the sound be exactly the same, and the identification?
Most poetry in every era is bad, so it's no surprise that a lot of bad poetry is being written today. The capitalization or lack of it makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. I write 99% of my poems with conventional capitalization, but when I want to poke fun at people who consider themselves the "Chosen Few," I sometimes use unusual capitalization to make a point:
Professor Payne,
You are going to get into so much trouble for this essay, but I stand with you. As with all things, most writing is mediocre. In the publishing industry -- or in the social media sphere -- most of the readers want mediocre writing and a for-profit model has to respond to the market to stay in business. The most popular writing is the most popular writing and that's what's easiest to find.
Self-help books are the biggest sellers. It's not surprising that self-help poetry -- with its almost toxic positivity -- is what you find on IG.
I frequently wish that we could carve out our own niche, speak only to those few readers who want good poetry and can recognize it. I'm not a poet, but a literary fiction novelist, and I believe that a good novel has many of the characteristics of poetry, at the sentence level as well as at the larger structural level. Over a decade ago, I started the Dactyl Review, where only literary fiction authors can review other literary fiction authors, so that together we could create a sympathetic environment for ourselves.
I had hoped that, by designating myself literary fiction novelist, I would discourage all those fans of airport fiction from taking up my books. So far, I've been pretty successful. Reaching those readers who appreciate poetry in narrative has been harder.
You will be charged with elitism, as if hard work and talent are shameful. So be it. Take your knocks. Know that there are more people who agree with you than are willing to say so.
Alas, to the uninitiated poetry often seems to be the easiest of all the arts. Because it seems to require no skill. Think of Yeats with his
'A single line may take us hours, maybe,
But if it doesn't seem a moment's thought
Our stitching and unstitching has been nought.'
From this we see we positively labour to seem easy. And it is important that we do so.
But in actual fact poetry is the most difficult of all the arts. Why? Because we are using a debased medium. We are using the medium that the most powerful people in the land use to tell lies to tell the truth. And this is difficult.
'For all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare,' concluded Spinoza when he was writing his Ethics. As Yeats once entitled - and began - one of his poems 'The Fascination Of What's Difficult'
Like you I am a literary novelist. I agree heartily with everything you are saying. I will check out the Dactyl Review.
Poetry has always been both elitist and democratic. Indeed it's out of that very tension that poetry is born.
Shakespeare wrote for two audiences: the nobles and the groundlings. And managed to communicate to both. 'I would The multitudinous seas incarnadine Making the green one red' is the most famous example of the Bard's bearing his double audience in mind.
But even as a Rilkean 'object in itself' each poem reflects this conflict. Every poem presents us with a democracy of words because every word plays its part and is of absolutely crucial importance. Even the most insignificant 'do-nothing' word has to be carefully selected if the poem is to achieve its full effect. And very often these are the most recalcitrant.
And yet at the same time we all know that poems often take their inception from just one word. Or on the other hand that there is only too often one word that remains obstinately difficult to get right. So much so that the poem must only too often be subjected to a Valéry-like abandonment... So that that word almost bears a monarch-like to the rest of the poem. It rules over it either by its presence or by its absence. Is it any accident that Plato, himself a poet, came to think, towards the end of his life, that the best government would consist of some combination of monarchy and democracy? Certainly that's what we find in the best poems. A naturally emergent order - as opposed to an artificially imposed order - that leads to an easy-going accommodation of the democratic to the elitist. A generous and benevolent elitism in combination with a grateful and vibrant democracy. What can beat that?
'Would that all God's people were prophets,' sighed Moses. As Luther talked of 'the priesthood of all believers'. And yet thank God that isn't the case! Though nearly all are would-be prophets. One prophet for each nation in each age is surely more than enough.
For me though the great thing about poetry is that it makes full use of all the resources of the language, in a way that prose, even at its best, can simply never do. And it makes me weep to see these idiots so far gone in their asininity that they can't even make full use of the resources of prose, little own anything beyond that. Alas, their work, far from being good poetry, even fails to achieve the status of being bad prose. It simply remains illiterate muck.
As for e.e. cummings, he was special; so let the way I write his name reflect his special place in my affections. If ever anybody ever made full use of all the resources of the language it was he. I like to show that.
Opera is another of those arts whose proponents say it's inaccessible to the pedestrians who prefer the piazza to La Scala. Too bad for opera and its librettists, its composers, its sopranos, its tenors, its stage managers, its linguistic coaches. Pedants can and do eviscerate the art forms they purport to love. I wonder if your excellent essay could be stated in 14 lines of iambic pentameter.
This is a fine polemic on poetics by Johnny Payne, and I am happy to see it here at The Chained Muse. I strongly agree with what is written here, and one of the things about this essay that really stood out to me in particular is the following statement:
“The idealistic fallacy is that anyone can write a poem.”
I don’t recall ever reading such a statement before, and is it any wonder, given the age of excessive political correctness—you know, the kind that insists everyone must receive a trophy irrespective of merit and skill—that we currently find ourselves in? As another commenter noted, I’m sure some (if not many) will complain that Johnny is displaying elitism here. I disagree. The reality is that anyone can string together groupings of words and use line breaks to make their banal, insipid prose look like poetry, with the end result being no more poetic than a message concealed within a Chinese fortune cookie. Should we claim that anyone can create a work of art merely because they are capable of drawing stick figure trees? It is asinine.
Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that our modern-day western society tends to view the arts as mere entertainment, while preeminence is consistently given to STEM subjects. Poetry seems to no longer be widely regarded as a serious discipline—a craft that must be honed and perfected. By way of contrast, the ancient Greeks held competitions in poetry and athletics alongside each other, and they didn’t see the arts as being inferior to other disciplines such as science. I don’t say these things as someone who regards herself as a great poet, as I haven’t been writing poetry for very long and I have so much to learn. With that being said, I do try to hold my own work and that of others to a very high standard, as I believe that is the responsibility of anyone who sees poetry for what it is—namely, the highest form of human expression.
Thank you for this insightful essay. I confess not to have known that "Instagram poetry" even existed before now. I've never been an athlete, but I appreciate the fact that sport allows us to sort out very quickly who has no skill, who has some skill, and who is truly gifted; moreover, after the Little League/Pop Warner stage, there's generally not much pushback from those in the first two categories when they aren't picked for the starting lineup, nor are they likely to go on considering themselves good enough for the big leagues (alas, the same can't always be said for their parents).
I don't think poets writing bad poetry in normal upper-and-lower case makes their bad poetry "better," nor do I think poets writing good poetry in lower case makes their poetry worse. Would it make any difference, really, if E. E. Cummings wrote his name in lower-case? Wouldn't the sound be exactly the same, and the identification?
Most poetry in every era is bad, so it's no surprise that a lot of bad poetry is being written today. The capitalization or lack of it makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. I write 99% of my poems with conventional capitalization, but when I want to poke fun at people who consider themselves the "Chosen Few," I sometimes use unusual capitalization to make a point:
-----------------------------------
gimME that ol’ time religion!
by michael r. burch
-----------------------------------
fiddle-dee-dum, fiddle-dee-dee,
jesus loves and understands ME!
safe in his grace, I’LL damn them to hell—
the strumpet, the harlot, the wild jezebel,
the alky, the druggie, all queers short and tall!
let them drink ashes and wormwood and gall,
’cause fiddle-dee-DUMB, fiddle-dee-WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee . . .
jesus loves and understands
ME!