Sturgeon's Law needs to be modified for poetry: 99% of poetry is crap. I believe I am being overly generous with that estimate.
I have found that prose is consistently better at expressing ideas and at generating genuine emotions. The emotions poetry conjures up tend to be meaningless, vacant, trite and prosaic- the true definition of platitude. Poetry is a manipulation and not that of an honesty. The best of poetry cannot compare with the best of prose as poetry uses the element of rhetoric rather than statement and poetry does so in the form of creating shallow and vague expression. And there's the simple fact that poetry is an unnatural means of expression because modern human beings do not communicate in verse.
The form places restrictions on the content of expression - the choice of using words as to how they sound rather than making a clear and direct statement- and those restrictions make poetry something less than real human communication. There is no piece of poetry that is in the same class as the finest prose works. A large part of that is due to the limitations of the poetic form: at no time can you ever forget you are reading a piece of poetry. The cadence, the sentence and line structure, the choice of language, the sometimes forced-seeming word usage is a constant reminder that in poetry you are dealing with an artificial construct created only for the sake of itself- it's not a natural means of communication and in being artificial it is inferior as a means of communication. Even older historical and literary works do not suffer as poorly as any piece of poetry. Nor do novels and literary works have the limitation poetry does, and writers use clear and direct methods of communication to get their stories across. A good novel has none of the problems of cadence, structure or enforced word usage that plagues poetry. Worse is when poetry attempts to use some cliche that lacks originality in an attempt to give it credibility in an attempt to present it as if it were significant and original. The use of making profound statements - using rhetoric, often is used to deceive by attempting to cover up lack of originality and shallowness (which in effect by doing so creates more):
"What can kill you only makes you stronger." That's just an outright dangerous view. What can kill you, can kill you. However I suppose some may feel that I am "looking at the glass half empty rather than half full."
Someone- probably a poet- once said "it is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." That's rhetoric also- it's also arrogant and patronizing to those who may never have experienced something. If someone never experienced something how would he or she even know? I stuck my fingers in an electrical socket one time when I was a kid. I learned that this wasn't a good idea. So I learned not to do it anymore. Would I have gone through life wondering "just what it would feel like" to stick my fingers in the electrical socket had I not done so? See- I told you a poet had to have wrote that.
Some people may argue that songs are simply poetry put to music, and since songs are an effective means of communication, all poetry should be considered such. Bullshit- a singer in a song is another instrument. The singer Jewel tried to write poetry books using her song ideas. The books flopped. She fared much better as a singer. Anybody ever read the lyrics to a Mariah Carey song? This womans views of relationships are just outright dangerous as her views border on servitude. There's a few Mariah Carey songs I like and I will confess I have some of her CD's however I sure as hell ain't gonna take her advice and some of those songs would stand up well as instrumentals without her.
Some expect music to adhere to a particular set of conventions and forms, when historically music never has upheld any conventions and forms whatsoever. When a person's voice is used it becomes just another instrument. In other words, song lyrics are not experienced as language, they are experienced as music. Just as music can be expressed with various instruments, music is not dependent on any one certain instrument. Poetry isn't really intended to be a "means of communication," but rather as an artistic expression. However it sucks at that, too.
I remember having to take this high school class in this thing called American Literature. What does poetry have to do with American literature and history? It really irritated me that historical and literary works are lumped together with poetry- it's a discredit to historical literature. It's like a Led Zepplin song in a Cadillac commercial.
The experience gave me a pretty good insight not into poetry but into the minds of poets. I wonder how much damage has been done to distorting US History because of poets. I also learned something else from the experience- the 17 year old girl next to me always got better grades on her poetry works- even after we swaped papers before turning them in. But that's ok- I thought my "Concrete Cinderblocks in Flaming Fields of Corn" sucked anyway. She got an A off of it. So I truly believe poetry is in the eye of the beholder and substance is not important in poetry unless the substance happens to be a 17 year old female student in the eyes of a middle aged male Literature teacher.
As someone once said "Truth hurts." It's really not a statement either- it's rhetorical. Truth can hurt or may not hurt and that's not important- I choose truth over platitude. I have more respect for the someone who expresses honesty and clarity than I do for someone who chooses to use platitude as a means of communication. And platitude is just outright dangerous when people choose to believe in platitude rather than believing in truths based of facts and honesty over that of distortions using lack of substance. The words just sound nicer and more pleasant to hear. Just like a bird singing outside on a sunny morning..
And between truth and platitude, I'll never get the former from a poet.
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|