Bad poetry

I've noticed a trend in fiction that always seems to go the same way (hence, I suppose, calling it a "trend"). Since taking poetry this semester, I've seen at least three characters in fiction that are, for lack of a better word, "bad poets." These characters keep their poetry hidden from others, and when it is revealed it is always cringe-worthy. It is never said out-loud that the poetry is bad, but heavily hinted at with context clues, the characters' reactions, and of course the fact that the poetry is pretty bad.

An example of one such poem is from a video game wherein the poems are read out loud, slowly, and unskippable, but I'll just give you the text:

But I couldn't help but feel that while, well, goofy, the poetry wasn't terrible. Everything surrounding the poem was people going "..." and "...." but I've certainly written worse. A lot. I guess the above example is actually one of the better ones. Here is another:

These both are meant to be poetry kept to the writer, though. Who can't say they haven't written something private and forgotten that would be cringe-worthy if brought out from the pages of your notebook/computer files?

I meant this post to be like, 40 words because I wanted a lazy week. Damn.

Disclosure

I posted this on Goodreads too. If you have an account there, and are going to write about the book anyway... why not do the same? I

f you're looking for a response to the VV reading then scroll down one, yo.

A view on how the world sees the individual, rather than an individual's view on the world, Disclosure defies being placed in any genre. Dana opens herself up to the reader using documents and papers about her, but doesn't address herself... herself. Unlike many authors, Dana does not seek to unburden herself, or tell a story, or create a narrative, etc. with her own words, but instead uses seemingly unrelated documents that only do one thing: they disclose (roll credits) information about the author.

Where I might have expected another few pages of poetry wherein the author presented their pain as prose, instead I was given a chapbook that stripped the author naked more than simple words. The book opens with an epigraph from Robin Blaser:

'you’re not allowed to say
"kiss my ass" to anyone unless
you mean it sincerely and drop
your pants quickly to show what
you know exactly of this nakedness'

Which, I think, sums up the book perfectly in the final word: nakedness. Dana opens herself (drops her pants, if we want to take the epigraph to heart) to the reader, relying on empathy and shared experiences. It is my opinion that what the reader comes away with it going to be very different from person to person: I immediately focused on the documents presenting her earnings, while also stressing out about the medical diagnoses she was receiving, wondering if she could afford them at her wages. This says much more about me than the author. This isn't the same reaction I've heard from others, and I think the personal shaping (and really, the creation of) a narrative in this short book of images will disclose (roll credits) more about you the reader than it will about Dana.

Poetry in Performance — Gillian Wigmore

Hearing a poem read aloud (out loud? "aloud" is a weird word) is more than just the emotion put into the words, more than the stressing of syllables, and more than the reaction of an audience. How much life does a poem get from a reading?

Part of it, I think, comes from things outside of the readings themselves. The audience gets to hear contextual comments answered, answers about the poets inspirations, and such. Knowing what the poet feels about their poems changes or challenges the understanding of the audience because it allows them to see what the poet is like. Knowing the poet's "voice" (and I mean that in its multiple clever implications) lends clarity to meaning. If you had read any of the poet's poems before seeing them live, you already had a clear set of expectations set up for who that poet was, how they thought, and all that. I have to wonder — in our case, did any of you have your expectations shattered? Confirmed? If you had any preconceptions, they were either met (and thus reinforced) or not met (and thus subsequently replaced).

In my case, seeing Gillian perform her poems made me reevaluate how I felt about them. The tone of the poems changed, if not their substance. I left with more questions than I did answers — not because I don't think she wouldn't have been able to clarify, but because the ambiguity I felt was a part of the experience. For example:

In one of her poems (and I wish I'd bought one of her books for reference now), then narrator says that he hid a bottle (of booze). I wanted to know: who was he hiding it from? Himself? Someone else? He said he hid his pen too — did that mean he hid the pen with the bottle? Did he only write drunk? When the narrator refers to the two girls working at the liquor store and then says "Cold beer, wine," is he applying these labels to each girl? Am I meant to apply these labels to the girls' personalities, or is that literally what each girl just happens to sell? Is the narrator... and so on. I had pages of questions that I didn't want to be answered, and in a couple of cases I felt like having them answered for me would be missing the point.

Roland Barthes (name drop) says that when any text is written it is a multifaceted manifestation of different ideas and philosophies, so when a writer puts their ideas to the paper the work is their own. However, the text only gains meaning when interpreted, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. This is where the audience comes in, after all. Reader-response theory and all that; the voice of the author, the text itself, and the audience's reception all come into play in any reading.

I don't really have a way to wrap this up, so instead of closing properly, I'll say that if anything in the above paragraphs has interested in, check out some Barthes. You can find a pretty okay summary here:

If you are anyway familiar with Barthes, skip that video because it is heavily simplified. If you watch it, think on how to apply what Barthes is saying to a live performance of — or just the normal reading of — poetry.

Poetry of a poetry reading

This is in response to the poetry reading we attended, though not "the" response to it. Just a small thing.

I was taking down notes for the reading, and they were fragmented with a lot of line breaks.

This writing suggests that I might, in fact, be a doctor.

"Could these notes be made into a poem?" asked a hypothetical person who didn't actually exist.
"Yes." I replied.
"You spelled 'sermon' wrong."
"I know."

I just watched some really bad slam poets

"Poetry is better than prose because it has beauty because it unlocks the subconscious and plays our feelings in ways we can't completely understand." — Someone on the internet, probably.

Its not a soapbox, a whine fest, a weapon, a liberal wank job against made up threats, and its not a racist or sexist platform. Its supposed to have nuance and shades of colour.

We'll never get anywhere by attacking, mocking, or criticizing the sacred, ritualistic catharsis meetings of morally vain hipsters. Doing this will make people defensive. They will bunker down.

Instead, why not drown it in a sea of its own deformed siblings and copies? Make so many things "like it" but "not it" that it is no longer notable, no longer relevant, no longer sacred, no longer new and progressive but instead is old and backward, etc. Every movement has a shelf life.

Make bad poetry on purpose. Watch them scratch their heads as they wonder whether to cheer you or if they're being mocked. Maybe we can sing over the ashes.