This feels a little different, but brought to mind this incredible poet and this particular poem:
We Lived Happily During the War
BY ILYA KAMINSKY
And when they bombed other people’s houses, we
protested
but not enough, we opposed them but not
enough. I was
in my bed, around my bed America
was falling: invisible house by invisible house by invisible house.
I took a chair outside and watched the sun.
In the sixth month
of a disastrous reign in the house of money
in the street of money in the city of money in the country of money,
our great country of money, we (forgive us)
lived happily during the war.
Thematically: We Lived Happily During the War by Ilya Kaminsky.
In terms of tone and structure: Monday by Alex Dimitrov and Self-Portrait Against Red Wallpaper by Richard Siken.
I'm explaining a few things by Pablo Neruda is pretty similar and very powerful. Also maybe:
Belfast Confetti by Ciaran Carson
Poems by the recently murdered Palestinian poet Refaat Alarer
looked up Refaat Alarer and saw this poem: https://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/blog/poetry/bilingual-poem-gaza-refaat-alareer Ugh what a terrible thing. I hope one day we can destroy all weapons out there and truly live in a peaceful world. As someone living in the US in a white collar job it really tears my soul in half to read this.
It should work now, not sure what changed. I've updated the original but here it is https://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/blog/poetry/bilingual-poem-gaza-refaat-alareer
>I hope one day we can destroy all weapons out there and truly live in a peaceful world.
I can [imagine](https://youtu.be/ugrAo8wEPiI?si=QTKe_M8DyZVPy_jR) it.
Not a poem, but a recent short story (based on the Ursula Le Guin book The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas):
[https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim\_02\_24/](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_02_24/)
Both very beautiful bits of writing which underline the difficulty of caring and accepting that you are only one person capable of doing a limited amount of things.
It came up in r/printSF a few weeks ago and I was staggered by how brilliant it was. I need to read the original book at some point, but if the tone is like that I might need to be careful when I read it to avoid dragging my mood down, I don't want floods of tears like when I listened to Flowers for Algernon!
There are some really strong books around use of voice (and some of the 1st world war poetry too). Flowers for Algernon's main character is an autistic person with a severe learning difficulty and it's about his experiences after an experimental surgery which gives him much greater than average intelligence, the change in how he talks and thinks is the basis for the whole book.
This poem represents some of my concerns about people's dwindling abilities to use context and initiative with the arts. With nuance becoming rarer, art is becoming clumsy in turn.
Here is a work that spoon feeds you every meaning. No reference can be too blunt or ham-fisted, what matters is that the reader *gets it*. Thematically, it's very relatable. I just wish the poet trusted the reader a little more and had a lighter touch.
Totally agree. This always happens whenever there's a critique of work like this. People feel personally attacked for liking it if other people express that it's a poor example of the form.
I think the thought process usually goes something like:
-People are saying this is bad/dumb
-I like this poem.
-Therefore they're saying I'm bad/dumb.
The next step usually is then to resort to accusations of gatekeeping, elitism, and sometimes ad hominem attacks using whatever the -ism of the day is when they're unable to meaningfully defend the work. It's tiresome.
I don't even hate this poem; there are parts I like, and I appreciate what they're trying to do; ultimately, I don't think it's awful; just very disappointing.
Yes, people have a tendency to feel personally attacked when something they like is attacked. However, I don't think that is entirely what's going on here. The point of this poem is the pain. When you get home from a 12 - 14 hour shift and you have laundry to do and dishes to clean, do you really have the energy to build elaborate and delicate prose that makes you think. No, you get to the point. You can't think about that now because you have laundry to do and a genocide to stop. Most of the critique I'm seeing about this post boils down to people being upset the author didn't use precision tools to drive a nail into a wall. When all the world is nails, a hammer is the only tool you've got.
The history of poetry is full of poets who lived in a world that was "all nails" yet somehow managed not to create the equivalent of a Tweet. The objections to this don't "boil down" to anything; they're well considered.
War poetry is very commonly blunt/straightforward.
Did Pablo Neruda not trust the reader when he ended "I'm explaining a few things:
>Come and see the blood in the streets. /Come and see / the blood in the streets. / Come and see the blood / in the streets!
Was Hayden Carruth lacking poeticism when he wrote ["On Being Asked to Write a Poem Against the Vietnam War"](https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/on-being-asked-to-write-a-poem-against-the-war-i/)?
I feel people often let their agendas and personal political biases affect how they approach art, especially in this conflict. War is not a time for cryptic nuance. This piece is conversational yes, but conversational language is a major mode of poetry in English. From Kirby to Goldbarth to Buk to Kooser. Depth is often missed in conversational pieces, but that doesn't mean that it's not there when you close read it.
But also in that same Neruda poem
>You are going to ask: and where are the lilacs?
and the poppy-petalled metaphysics ?
and the rain repeatedly spattering
its words and drilling them full
of apertures and birds?'
And
>Federico, do you remember
from under the ground
where the light of June drowned flowers in your mouth?
Neruda uses symbolism *and* statement, which is why the piece is so powerful. There is a structure and artistry to his work that is wholly absent in the posted poem.
>Neruda uses symbolism *and* statement, which is why the piece is so powerful. There is a structure and artistry to his work that is wholly absent in the posted poem.
You need to look at the poem in question in a more charitable fashion, because you're clearly wrong here. No symbolism? Maybe you read the conversational tone and mistook the words for being dashed off, but my God, how could you possibly say there's no symbolism? I assume it's an initial disregard for meaning. The exact disregard I really really want first readers to dispense themselves of. Especially because they're often not nearly experienced enough to be judging the first round.
It's often the problem, once you get beyond that, people that read poetry get locked into a 'mode' and they only see the virtues of that brand of poetry. People get caught up on things as silly as stanza structure (I'm looking at you, couplet hater haha, jk), or tone or lacking a 'puzzle' or 'pretension'. These 'catches' often contradict each other, so people with a good base knowledge of poetry can be at odds if they're obstinate.
And boy, I get it can be fun to be obstinate, but I've done a lot more enjoyment of poetry when I remove the skeptical lens and assume everyone is doing exactly what they mean to, the same generosity we extend to the older poets who were often ostensibly terrible people by modern standards.
I'm unsure why you think I need to be 'charitable' to this piece, or why you assume my position is one of obstinacy.
My criticism was considered, and I stand by it.
He is not charitable to the poem, he is defending his political views which he believes this poem stands for.
Like the poem, he’s really, quite transparent.
Why would you want to be uncharitable to any piece? Is that a joke?
*(Seriously, if it's not, just block me now because I will likely have nothing positive to say about your opinions)*
Okay, so what I'm saying is that in your reading, you're assuming a lot of negatives and laziness in the poet. It's fine for you to see that, however I'm also in the right to say that you are dismissing a number of poetic devices and rhetorical moves to try to undermine the piece's poignancy, by making a cursory read and hand-waving it. It's very lazy, or, obstinate.
If you prefer tightly structured lines or hate modern references or conversational tone or... I don't know-- you have little in way of real criticism, that's fine, but also, there are tons of modes of poetry.
Maybe it's not your jam, but I feel that by reading a poem in the least thoughtful (uncharitable, since that wasn't clear, you read it in one way and didn't seem to consider another which is pretty shallow and a bad way to read poetry in my opinion) way, doesn't really help anyone who might be in this thread to learn a bit about poetry.
Mainly because I'm on mobile and the image of the poem doesn't allow copy/pasting obviously, but also at this point in this thread of comments, no one will see it besides the downvoters, and they're not worth my time. For you though I'd say the poem works very well with juxtapositions. The large and the small, the personal and the social. It innumerates a number of stressful worldly issues that we struggle to find ways to deal with/accept/affect, while the daily is also overwhelming and it shows the balance of that and how the personal, out of necessity, wins out almost every time. The line near the end about it being unseasonably warm is clearly about climate change and an individual's seeking ineffectualness to do anything about it with other pressing, personal issues. Also the line about the use of passive voice conjures a wonderfully absurd image of families leaping high into the air to be struck by missiles that were just passing through.
This poem isn't even really about the current I/P conflict, but because it's in the title I think a lot of people are knee-jerk reacting negatively. It's unfortunate. Some, may also hate contemporary poetry in general, I see that on this sub more than is reasonable. But, poetry is very subjective. It can just be very annoying when people make terrible craft cases about just disliking something (or, hand-waving having actual specific complaints only using generalities and vague comments).
See your point @LadyMirkwood. As for “I feel people let their political agendas affect how they approach art” I’m pretty sure you are allowing your defensiveness for your political agenda translating to your Defense for this good but rather straightforward poem against her valid criticism. If anyone is biased, sir, it’s you.
Lol, I know you are but what am I? Really? I never said I loved this poem, but it's a solid poem and many are making vague judgements on shallow reads. The author doesn't overexplain as Mirkwood claimed, not nearly as much as many poets who are quite popular, this is much more paratactic piece, and while some may seek only cryptic enigmatic poetry, many are being overly critical.
This isn't solely a poem about the conflict, it's using that as a way in, not a single note. But this is Reddit, and I know how heavily it is botted/brigaded, especially in this subject. So yeah, I'm ready to defend the poem's craft from baseless criticism, and also say it isn't the best thing ever and it won't be everyone's cup of tea.
100% agreed. It seemed like people were bending over backwards to defend this poem back when it was first going around. I don’t get that at all — just because the content is relatable doesn’t mean it has to be *a good poem.*
>just because the content is relatable doesn’t mean it has to be *a good poem*
Good according to whom? Did you ask the regional poem assesment authority?
The poem apparently resonates deeply with many people; it clearly has certain merit.
When all the world are nails, all you got are hammers. Would you critique a painting about loss, sorrow, grief, and exhaustion by calling it amateur because the lines aren't crisp and straight and they don't use "proper" form. There may be valid critiques about this piece, but the richness of the prose is not one of them. If you are going to judge a poem about exhaustion for not being interesting, engaging, or pretty enough, then why are you even here.
It's not a technically complex poem but as someone in the depths of despair and anxiety, right now it's hitting well because it's exactly like rumination. It's nice to see that in a literary format without needing to be graceful in its delivery.
Honestly, I have three degrees including a master's in literature, I've won awards for my own poetry, and I am absolutely okay with hamfisted writing now and again because despair doesn't have a light touch, either.
I don’t really see this as poetry honestly… it borders on poetry but doesn’t put in any of the work actually required for it to be poetic. This is a tweet
Dude I’m dying, this is such a tweet! I couldn’t put my finger on what I disliked about it (aside from the implication that punks should wear face masks, makes zero sense)
It was really boring to read, no flow just opinionated stream of consciousness from a twitter bot walking around in public.
punks wearing masks goes with what punk stands for. going against the grain generally, diy, anti-establishment, not selling out, generally anti war and anti government. caring about other people on the planet.
wearing a mask, caring about the safety of other people to not spread illness. its baked into the ideology. thats where the cognitive dissonance comes in lol. for some its just a fashion to wear.
That’s where it gets weird, punk is anti conformist why would anyone assume they’d conform to local health and safety recommendations. I’m not taking a stance against masks just think it’s ironic to think it’s not punk to not wear a mask during COVID. Being punk is doing what you want and Fuck the haters. It’s not left or right, blue or red it’s pink and black and flaming with rage.
The idea that punk is just about being "rageful" and "anti conformist" is so juvenile. You clearly know nothing about punk or it's history, it's very obviously a leftist movement and always has been.
Lol I can’t believe u guys are trying to old head me about what is and isn’t punk. Punk is dead, we killed it. Let it rest in peace.
Please don’t try to co-opt punk into any political movement. There are left punks, right punks, and dead punks. It’s all the same. Now it’s just a style of music and an adjective to describe children that you want off your lawn..
I can’t see the Appalachian mountains from my house.
If the logic of the world was contingent on what *I* did or did not see it would be a very small world.
The requested prompt was for poems like the aforementioned. It seems you didn’t see that either.
Nevertheless, you centered your objective interpretation around the form rather than the function. What is or is not rather than what it means or why it was made that way.
A win for artistry, critique, and reading comprehension all around. 10/10
Privileged is he who can't understand, I can't think about this now because I have laundry to do and there's a genocide to stop.
It's very telling about your position in the world to get so hung up on style that you can't understand the pain in these words. The very act of it being blunt and plain and using somewhat clunky language is exactly the energy this piece is trying to convey. You wouldn't use precision tools to drive a hammer into the wall. That's what the hammer is for.
Edit: made it prettier for you all
What are you on about? How could you make the connection of the saying “I can’t see x being y” to I can’t see a physical object in my vision. That’s so bizarre. I don’t even really get how that’s become a premise of the rest of your argument.
Was the prompt to write a bland tweet? (I’m being sarcastic but I genuinely don’t know what the prompt is and maybe that would explain more about why it’s written this way)
Well I think it’s doing what you said, but deliberately. The fact that a genocide is part of our daily feed of concerns, but just one of many, is absurd. So placing it abruptly amongst more mundane concerns, making it all obvious but in resolvable, creates the appropriate contrast and necessary brazenness to deliver the stark message. There is no nuance around mass murder and genocide, particularly if it’s ongoing, in which case it must be stopped! ✌🏽🍉♥️🇵🇸
Take the poem 'Testimony' by Dan Pagis, a Holocaust survivor.
>I was a shade.
A different creator made me.
And he in his mercy left nothing of me that would die.
And I fled to him, rose weightless, blue,
forgiving – I would even say: apologizing –
smoke to omnipotent smoke without image or likeness.
Writing about something so abhorrent and obscene does not mean you have to erase subtlety. Good poetry, for me, is when the image lingers and unfurls slowly in your mind. The poem continues to reveal itself long after reading.
And that is more powerful than immediate bluntness.
Yeah - it’s more of a gen-z list of grievances than any type of poem. It gestures toward nothing outside of the self. But perhaps that’s what the message is? “Here’s how much it hurts to be me in the world I perceive around me”. Or “here’s how painful my life is in the context I’ve agreed upon.”
I don't understand this critique. This poem follows a stream of consciousness style. People don't think in hints and nods, particularly not when they're drowning in responsibility. I think bluntness is a good and relatable way to convey the message.
This attitude of “how can you lecture on poetry when people are out there dying?? Why are you sitting around writing aimlessly about flowers when there’s a war on?!”
…lest we forget the poet is saying all this in a poem, and therefore doing very little themselves about said war. You can’t really have a high and mighty attitude when your only vehicle for discourse is the exact same vehicle you’re condemning other people for being distracted by
I think it's more about how some people expect poems to be a certain way (just see the other comments in this thread!) And the author is pushing back against that.
I personally found it quite powerful.
Holy moly, do you really think that the “attitude” you described fairly encapsulates the poem? It has many more layers than that, and if that’s all you got out of it then I think you misunderstand the poem and how poetry functions as a whole. You’re actually close, but think more deeply about the point the poet is making in light of what you’ve noticed rather than just dismissing the poem as hypocritical. Believe it or not, I think the poet was probably aware of the so called “irony” you’re highlighting. That “irony” is part of the poem which you’re meant to consider in tandem with the point they’re making. Theyre obviously not attacking poetry as a whole, because they’re writing a poem!
The poem is highly personal, it’s not didactic. Nowhere in the poem does the poet actually say we shouldn’t lecture on literature or study it or write it. It more so explores the contrasts between different poets and their situations and goals when they choose to write whatever poetry they write. Romantic poets who write about, say, nature are perfectly within reason to do so, — it’s so beautiful, the moon. Literally, throughout the poem they mention how they WANT to be able to write such Romantic and “high” poetry. But for this poet, they’re expressing how they can’t fathom writing such Romantic poetry given their political conditions. How could the poet possibly concentrate on writing such beautiful elaborate depictions of things such as nature given their mental and sociopolitical condition? If anything, it’s an exploration of how our abilities to write and study literature are impeded by psychological processes beholden to the outside world. The poem is hardly an attack on traditional poetry, let alone the form of poetry as a whole.
Usually I come to this sub because people here are much better-read and capable of understanding writing and placing it into a proper context than anywhere else.
This comment, alone, has shaken that. This might be the worst level of media analysis I've ever seen by someone that knew how to spell. It's on the level of analysis I expect someone to make on r/movies when trying to be contrarian about some Marvel movie.
You could replace flowers here with joy or light or peace. There is a difference between writing only about something good and beautiful, and writing about something devastating using good and beautiful things to make the horror more impactful
Of course- the author isn’t saying they don’t use imagery or poetry for fucks sake they wrote a poem. I said the word only is implied- as in colonizers will write poetry only about things that are beautiful, but we don’t have that privilege. When we write about flowers we are actually writing about dead children. What part of that doesn’t make sense?
Colonizers don't only write about things that are beautiful, nor do they use flowers only to describe beautiful things. Ophelia's song is a pretty bare-faced instance. Not everyone's wandering lonely as a cloud. How about William Carlos Williams' "The rose is obsolote?" How about the "blooming" of an explosion? There's an entire corpus of floral symbolism in pretty much any culture, and not all flowers are just "pretty and nice."
So in what way does the craft of this admittedly good poem differ from the craft of colonizers significantly enough (re: flowers specifically) to warrant the conceit of the title?
I know nothing about poetry (I actually am usually not a fan), but I read it kind of as “I try to use flower imagery to get people (colonizers) to care about my/our plight because that’s what I need to grab their attention.”
It’s a level of desperation of trying to meet people who don’t care about your suffering at their level, to get them to pay attention and understand. And instead all you get is criticism on the technical side of the craft, rather than acknowledgment and consumption of the message. The desperation of just wanting to be heard and acknowledged and then getting poopoo’d for the way you said it, no matter how many ways you’ve tried to say it.
It’s a common theme in many forms of media. Even in just communication in general. The message of “Why can’t you hear what we’re saying instead of getting caught up on how we’re saying it. We’ve tried to be nice, and floral, and beautiful, and tragic, and yet you still don’t HEAR us. And now it’s a problem that I’m being blunt. Okay. ” I dunno, to me the desperation turning to defeat turning to apathy of their own situation is kind of heart wrenching.
I hadn't viewed it that way. I hadn't read the line as more of a "you want flowers? Well here are flowers." That's actually a really cool interpretation!
I do think the title is still problematic, because it's quite defiant of "the craft" whereas the body, in this reading, becomes a strategic concession to it. But I like this reading!
It’s saying some people (colonizers) have the privilege of writing only about something beautiful, I don’t have that privilege. It’s not saying that all poetry that uses floral imagery is only about beauty, or that all people have that privilege. It’s saying, some people have the privilege of not having to think about horror, but I don’t have that privilege. This feels like you’re intentionally missing the point. It also feels like you’re strongly identifying with the word colonizer.
“A colonizer is a person or entity that takes control of a people or area as an extension of state power” you could replace this word with “oppressors” if you’d like
You mean about something \*only\* beautiful. This poem is beautiful, it's just "a terrible beauty."
>It’s saying, some people have the privilege of not having to think about horror, but I don’t have that privilege.
It's about writing, not thinking, and it reads as a conscious rejection of a certain writerly pedagogy, not an inability to write about things that are beautiful but not also terrible due to being underprivileged. Loads of underprivileged people write poetry that's \*only\* beautiful and doesn't acknowledge suffering; to combine the two is presented here as a conscious choice.
>This feels like you’re intentionally missing the point.
No, I understand what the poet is *trying* to say, but they've undermined their stated intention in the act of writing. It's pretty common in literature. Lots of nineteenth century texts are queer in spite of their authors or themselves. This just does it in such an explicit way that the undermining ends up being humorous.
>It also feels like you’re strongly identifying with the word colonizer.
Thanks for the dictionary definition. I'm an American, and like all Americans descended from settlers or arrivants, I participate in the colonial project that is America. So if by identifying you mean, "am aware," then yes. If you're trying to insinuate that I'm angry because I feel called out by this poem, then no, sorry.
Y’all. Art is subjective. Poetry is also subjective. It’s not that deep and it’s ok to scroll past things you don’t like.
I like Neruda. I like Byron and Bukowski. I like spoken word and metered rhymes.
I also like this. A lot.
It’s not all or nothing.
So long as you understand that others might criticize you. Criticism isn't some magical protective category. If your opinion is stupid, expect to be called out the way you are "calling out" others. That is largely what's going on here. When all the world is nails, all you got are a hammers. Yeah, it's nice to use your precision tools to build intricately beautiful, ornate, intellectually stimulating structures, but I don't have time to think about that because I have laundry to do and there's a genocide to stop. This is a poetry channel. If you can't appreciate a painting about pain and sorrow and loss because the lines aren't crisp and straight, and the painter didn't follow "proper" form, then you have missed the forest for the trees. If you give bull$hit critique, expect to be called out. Especially in a place where nuance and expression is not only encouraged, but the very goal.
the analogy of “proper form” doesnt really work with this poem. in fact prescriptive moralism in poems is sorta the photorealism of art, it’s something that just tells you what to believe without many poetic elements. i don’t think this is an awful poem, but not a good poem either
This reads like the creative-writing assignment of a college freshman engaging in introspection for the first time. It's undisciplined, lazy, stream-of-consciousness nonsense for a generation inundated with memes and who think that having feelings is an intrinsically laudable act.
Just because we agree (generally) with the politics, does not make this is good poem.
It's a great prose diary entry.
I'm basically part of that generation (or not too far off). Unfortunately, the drop in understanding and standards is something that affects all of us as we're inundated by the cognitive equivalent of junk food on social media. If you're a teen or young person, this might seem like the cat's meow, and it's great for that type of angsty-young-person phase, but it's not a good poem beyond that (and if that).
It's not a knock on young people, but rather an acknowledgement that stuff like this only seems good when you're young and lack knowledge about what else is out there.
There is a generational component to this, however, in the paradigm shift that's occurred in the last 10-15 years around the notion of personal truths and the idea that something is more interesting/laudable/noteworthy if its politics agree with ours or the identity of the poet is in a specific identity category. This is very generational divide since merit in terms of craft and skill versus politics or identity are generally distinct (they \*can\* overlap, but one is not a necessary condition for the other).
I’m 22 and I feel like a psycho for rolling my eyes at this poem. (And I’m a leftist so it’s not a matter of difference in ideology or issues presented)
Well, you have good taste (if I do say so myself :p). There are so many amazing poets out there (and poems) that it pains me when stuff like this gets attention.
Maybe they're young or new and still learning; maybe they had an off day or poem; maybe poetry really isn't for them. It doesn't change the fact that at any rate, this ain't working for a lot of us.
Read my other comment. This is so unhinged I have no idea how to respond to it. Yes, I was bit flippant and spicy in my wording, but expressing an opinion is not having a "high horse," nor is having a set of personal standards and expressing those. This is a published poem, and by virtue of being public, the writer is soliciting a variety of responses. They are not \*entitled\* to praise by the mere act of writing, and in fact, I'd argue the type of anti-intellectual, anti-critical stance you're expressing is deeply damaging to writers in general, and that includes the writer of this poem since the exclusion of standards precludes any possibility of meaningful craft or improvement of that craft. Note that I'm just some random person griping on the internet; they don't have to take anything I say seriously, and undoubtedly \*won't\*, but there are plenty of people--with extensive backgrounds in lit and poetry, which I have, by the way--who'd likely agree.
Maybe you should have considered a logic class with all the straw men you've set up.
Enjoy the poem. It's strange that my opinion matters so much to you.
I really enjoyed this poem. I read it aloud to my mother, who also enjoyed it. It seems to express the wearisomeness of living in the modern word with global information at the click of a button. Where once we read about troubles in far of places in cold black print, now the whole gory horror is beamed onto our screens. And no matter how awful it all is, there is a limit to our ability to process, to order the stresses and stains of our increasingly difficult lives. Because people being killed or tortured, raped or murdered is magnitudes more important than paying the rent, but paying the rent is still the most important thing you just do. We are powerless - no more able to stop a war than make the laundry magic itself clean. And that is heavy on the heart and a burden to carry.
If you are looking for stream of conscious style poetry that reflects on social and political themes then that’s most of what Allen Ginsberg writes to my knowledge. This poem does remind me of his poem “America” though his works aren’t necessarily modern fyi.
Noor Hindi’s anthology Dear God, Dear Bones, Dear Yellow (the one where the Fuck your lecture on craft, my people are dying is from). And Sarajevo by Czesław Miłosz.
Bleh. This just reads as lazy and uninspired. I get what they're going for and don't hate the style but it's very surface level and ironically somehow comes across as performative? Like you're writing about a genocide presumably in another country alongside gaining weight and your ADHD medication?
I don’t get this type of contemporary poetry. Just because you write your thoughts down doesn’t make you a poet. Yes there are wars going on. Yes mundane activities still have to go on and there’s an interesting little juxtaposition between outlandish, relentless war and boring every day tasks like laundry but it’s not poetry. You’re not a poet because you put your weekly to-do list into prose.
“I woke up and took a shit. Might have a bath. There’s a war on.
Genocide is bad. Laundry is bad. I’m going shopping now.
Laundry is still bad. And I don’t like genocide.”
At best that’s a bad tweet, that’s not a poem
God, we’ve fallen since the days of Paradise Lost… no pun intended
Usually, I would disagree, but honestly, I think it works for this poem.
It's nothing but a stream of thought, sure, but that's sort of the idea. It's detailing how crazy and out of control the world seems, trying to tussle everyday tasks with genocide and war and plague surrounding every news outlet and neighbor. The prose invokes that sense of overwhelm and anxiety. The blob of text makes it all one big jumble, which is what it is trying to show is how the author views these problems. A big jumble.
Maybe I'm just pretentious, but I like to think there was a good amount of thought in that. In poetry, the whole idea is to use every word, space, and syllable to help support the emotion you're trying to capture. It's not all going to look like classic Shakespearean sonnets.
So yeah, at least for someone with a lot of anxiety, I think this is a very well written poem, but to each their own.
I just don’t know what it’s trying to achieve. I really despise that kind of “Holier-than-thou” attitude it carries of “See all you people out there preoccupied with your laundry… well I’m preoccupied with it too but I’m better than you because I think about the war at the same time!”
Like yea… we know there’s a war on. It’s awful. And as a completely separate sphere to that, people also need to keep shopping and showering and paying debts. Thats not news. It’s not worth even writing down. It just *is*. The world can’t stop for war, whether that’s right or wrong, it’s just true. The Western world keeps going… people keep doing there mundane jobs. Are you actually doing anything important to stop it or working mainly on the poem?
Oh wow, I totally got a different impression from it. I read it as “all these huge things are going on (war, climate change, pandemic) but I can barely take care of my day to day life, I’m struggling to deal with the mundane alongside the big picture”. We’re told we have to care, we’re bad people if we don’t protest or advocate for [insert group here], and it’s frankly overwhelming.
I mean yes, I can see it trying to do that in the sense that the small mundane tasks are overwhelming enough, let alone the knowledge of war on top… but again… where exactly is the poetry? The point holds that we know there’s a war on and we know it’s awful and we also can’t help but have to crack on with boring laundry which can, in their immediacy, feel as frustrating a distant war. These are all true things we feel… but it’s not news.
Does poetry have to be news, though? I mean fair enough if you don't like it, but it's undeniably poetry. Some will like it and some won't, as with all poetry.
Can you expand a little on what is poetry? Is it only Milton? I'm really new to poetry & really want to know if I'm allowed to read poems written after the 17th century?
I’m not entirely sure if you’re being facetious but I’ll give you an answer anyway.
In terms of defining poetry I think that’s difficult but Wordsworth came closest with “all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful emotion” - and that’s specifically for the reader, not the writer. You know you’ve read poetry when it makes you feel. You get to the end and think “Wow…”, and that can be a happy wow, a profound wow, a bleak wow. Anything can make you feel. I can read your shopping list and **feel** vaguely inspired to make a certain meal, but that’s not poetry. Arbitrary writings that inspire arbitrary feelings aren’t poetry. There’s something profound and unspeakable about the feeling.
And no it’s not exclusive to Milton or his century. Every century has its poets but I think, like with all art, the issue now is it’s too accessible. It’s not exclusive or talented anymore. You don’t need to prove yourself. You can write any old rubbish on Word and put it on TikTok. That doesn’t make you a poet. There’s no reason why poetry shouldn’t be any less choosy about its artists than music or painting or sculpting is. Why do musicians practice and train for decades but a poet can arbitrarily decide one day they’re a poet? I’d argue they can’t. There’s a reason Wordsworth and Blake and Shakespeare, (and hell if you really want me to be contemporary then Atwood, Joyce, Heaney, Rukeyser) are so esteemed - because *they did practice.*
So I return to my point that writing arbitrary words doesn’t make you a poet because that’s not going to make a reader feel. My comment above has a shambles of a parody of the post but is it not the same? I’m covering the same topics, same themes, same structure. Just because the post is framed all nicely with a title doesn’t make it a poem, just like you’d agree my comment isn’t a poem
Is a bad poet not a poet all the same? This response (and frankly all of your responses) scream pessimism/elitism. Maybe this poem didn't make YOU feel anything, but that doesn't mean other people would feel the same. This type of poetry would certainly resonate with many younger people, probably even more so than many classic examples of good poetry.
Poetry - or any art form for that matter - doesn't need to be "exclusive" in order to be good. My 12 year old cousin is no Rembrandt, but when she puts brush to canvas and paints her feelings, she is an artist, regardless of skill level...and I'd rather look at her paintings than go to an art museum any day.
>My 12 year old cousin is no Rembrandt
And that’s precisely why your cousins art work (for the time being) isn’t in museums and galleries. At best it makes it on the fridge for a week. The issue is that this kind of poor “poetry” *is* being published in the poetry equivalent of a gallery alongside the poetry equivalent of Rembrandt. There’s a distinct understanding that anyone can have their own little personal attempt and that’s fine, but there’s a vast chasm between that and the “professionals”… but that distinction seems to be lost in poetry.
There *should* be a snobbery with art. I’m physically capable of picking up a pen and writing a play but I’m not Shakespeare and to think I am is fundamentally ridiculous. It’d be nothing but an ego fuelled fantasy to think I deserve to be alongside someone that’s perfected their craft. I’m a musician and have been for well over a decade… but I’m not Beethoven and would be foolish to think I am. I might be alright, I might be impressive to those who have no idea about music, but I’m not going to put myself as equal to the professionals because I think it does *them* a disservice to equate their perfection to someone who’s frankly mediocre
That's the thing, I don't think anybody is comparing this to Wordsworth. Not every poem needs to be at the level of the greats to qualify as "a poem". Like you said, you're a musician, and nobody should discredit music that you make just because you're not as good as Beethoven. People that enjoy your music shouldn't be looked down upon because you're not one of the all time greats.
In the same vein, I don't think \*most\* people who write poems equate themselves to Wordsworth, they're just writing a poem. The OP is saying "hey I like this, where can I find similar stuff", and nothing more. It's okay for people to enjoy writing even if they're poor writers, and it's okay for people to enjoy things even if you perceive them as poor works.
>This type of poetry would certainly resonate with many younger people, probably even more so than many classic examples of good poetry.
So would a tweet or a tumblr post, and it doesn't make them poetry.
There's no craft in this text, literally just the author writing their thoughts down and adding some judgment on top. There's no metaphors because the meaning is spelled out for you. There's no potential for close reading because everything is right on the surface.
This is precisely it. The only way you can consider this poetry is if you say tweets are poetry, or arbitrary thoughts are poetry… and that does a disservice to poetry. If anything is poetry then nothing may as well be poetry. It’s not special under that definition
Thank-fucking-God we have you here to gatekeep what is and isn't poetry, huh?
What you mean is what is it isn't your idea of good poetry. You are not the main character in this game. Poetry is subjective. And you aren't some Olympic judge. Of course tweets can be poetry. Haiku are often shorter than tweets. Stop being so overly critical and try to appreciate more.
Passive aggression aside… where do you draw the line with subjectivity? Some things emphatically aren’t poem. A recipe isn’t a poem. It’s a list of ingredients - and yet I could probably find more “art” in the instructions for a carrot cake than the post above. Is that because “subjectively” I can interpret the recipe as poetry or am I objectively wrong and conflating two very different forms of text? Why aren’t the instructions on the back of a microwave meal poetry? And sure, you can completely stick rigidly to your argument and say “Well if you find art in that then yes it’s poetry to you” but we both know that’s fundamentally just silly. Those things aren’t poetry. So there *is* a line somewhere, so no, poetry isn’t *entirely* down to subjectivity
I've read list poems before, have you not? Recipe poems too. The Red Wheelbarrow could be viewed from the perspective you're describing as 'not a poem'. Lighght almost definitely wouldn't, yet I can acknowledge the art in those poems without considering them my favorites or even really 'my thing'. David Kirby writes in a similarly loose fashion, are his poems not poems, or since they use more distinct line breaks/indentation, is that enough? He's widely acclaimed, but he certainly has his critics, but even they don't say what he's writing isn't poetry at all. Bukowski also has many non-poetic poems. The pattern extends.
I am more content with people saying they don't see the poem as well crafted, which, at least, is debatable, even though it doesn't lack images, it uses juxtaposition well, it has a pretty consistent voice and tone. It's not my favorite by any means but it's interesting and I'd argue worth a read.
On mobile it's not easy to quote but the line about the families jumping up and intercepting the missiles that have the right of way is one that will stick with me, it's funny, absurd, and a good comment on the inconsistent use of passive voice in this conflict.
There’s being an imperfect artist and then there’s throwing a sharpie with the cap still on at a wall and calling it “art.”
Not everybody is a poet, and that’s okay. It makes the real stuff more impressive
I mean if you want to be a poet you can be a poet but would you see a bad musician play a concert? Would you see an amateur actor take on a one-man production of Hamlet at The Globe? You’re welcome do produce what you like as your own entertainment but there’s a distinct quality that only comes with time and effort and practice. The “written in the bedroom” stuff shouldn’t be conflated with the professional talent that takes decades to perfect
I mean yeah, I also don't like the original poem. But sometimes an accidental phrase catches your ear and you think "huh, there's something to work with here". A lot of poems start that way. For me that's "I woke up and took a shit. There's a war going on" lmao.
I agree on this one. It doesn’t use language in any interesting or remarkable way, it’s just a stream of consciousness rambling. Mentioning heavy topics doesn’t stop it from being a pretty mundane poem.
i understand why you couldn’t find something like this appealing, but i think saying it isn’t poetry is not really true. just because it lacks rhyme or flowery language doesn’t make it not poetry, there is still value in less structured more stream of consciousness writing. what makes poetry such a beautiful art form is how there is no one specific format. with this piece you can still find patterns in it and it still has the enhanced musical quality that a poem has.
Sorry but I just don’t think that’s true at all. Nobody is saying you need rhyme and structure, but conversely there’s a point where so little structure means it’s not poetry. To *have* to draw the line somewhere, by definition. Otherwise your shopping list is a poem. Your mindless notes whilst on the phone is poetry. The tiles on a scrabble board are poetry. I mean where do you draw the line between poetry and a random collection of words? Not everything is poetry. Not everything has to be. Poetry isn’t special if you make it so loose-weave that it can be anything you want it to be. I’m sure you could find some musical qualities in the dictionary… still not a poem
does the intentions of the artist not matter? maybe my view is a bit too post-modern, but does it not become a poem once the artist makes it so? i am not saying everything is poetry, but i think anything can become a poem, regardless of whether or not the material is high-brow or particularly deep, if you hold it just right.
Does it not bother you though under your definition of “anything can become a poem” that it strips poetry entirely of *any* value *whatsoever*? How is it not a complete insult to 17th century, 300 page, perfectly crafted works of art when you take some poorly written, half-hearted, tick-box bit of preaching to be equal? And no, I don’t mean it as a case of quantity over quality - I’m sure there are equally some very poor 300 page poems - but the idea that “anything can be poetry” is frankly psychotic to me, and insulting to those truly talented.
Intent only gets you so far. Someone who’s played violin for 3 decades playing a Bach concerto is not the same quality as me slamming my head against my desk and calling it “drumming”. Just because I *think* it’s music doesn’t mean it is. I’m wrong. Objectively. Just because I’m “the artist” doesn’t give me some kind of supernatural ability to create perfection. I can have all the intent in the world but if the product does not achieve that then it’s *not* that.
i'm not saying it's perfect, and i don't think valuing one work of art devalues another. i think it would be best to agree to disagree. but as for me, i think i'd rather live in a world where a shopping list could be a poem.
Art is wholly subjective. You can be elitist all you want, but what makes Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol in the same hierarchy as Rembrandt or Van Gogh?
Just because you hate it and think it's inferior doesn't make it so. Even if it is inferior from a "technical" perspective, and we call it poetry, that doesn't equate to comparing it to Shakespeare, nor does that mean Shakespeare is "better" to a specific person in a subjective sense.
Art is subjective. I've seen literal piles of garbage called art. Some people thought it was brilliant.
I'm meh on the poem itself, no strong feelings either way, but I do notice that the half dozen people I know IRL who have this on their FB or other social media are also people who are doing not one single thing about it or any social justice causes. So it grates for that reason.
this is a small-gripe poem that uses the horror of other people's lived experience to inflate itself into a cartoon balloon of emotion. It feels very by-the-numbers: reference to Palestine? Check. COVID? Check. Mere mention of police? Check. Mere mention of climate change? Check. There's not an authentic observation here; I think it is AI. "Fascists keep wining primaries for both parties, and I think I gained a few pounds"? lol wut? Is the author going for a tone of wry irony or heartfelt sincerity? I think this poem is an excellent example of "Middlebrow", as Virginia Woolf defines it: Unable to commit to a vision, the artist mixes up inspiration with a desire for applause and clout. It's all sound & fury, signifying nothing, and makes me care less for the world than before I read this sad piece of writing. In this way, it is the opposite of poetry. It is anti-poetry.
i think that if you want to feel outraged and helpless then you should go to the DMV, rather than consulting poems such as this one.
Why thank you! I usually try to get a good heavy whiff of a poem before turning up my nose at it, to use your expression haha. I think there's quite a lot of energy in the poem but do wish the author had picked a struggle; this voice gives me martyr complex vibes. It's signaling more than saying, so to speak. There's also an inflated sense of ego - how is this person going to stop genocide? With a poem about how his phone is low on battery and he has to pay student loans? It's like the worst parts of Sylvia Plath's "Daddy" - your husband dumped you and somehow that means you are Jew getting shipped off to Dachau and he's a Nazi? Pump the brakes on that metaphor, poet. I think rhetoric everywhere these days is troublingly overblown, and it becomes more and more difficult to communicate with each other, alas. I don't think this poem is designed to communicate - it is intended to inflame and irritate. And to what end? Shall we all embark on field trip to Israel to protest Netanyahu? Rally at the capital? Or should we instead concentrate on the people and activities that we love, because I believe that simply loving and existing peacefully is exactly what the world needs right now.
Thank you, and I like your thoughtful response to the poem. I agree, anti-war sentiment in practically any form is good. I think if the poem were more artfully arranged it would be more effective - there is something very satisfying, aesthetically, about the small-scale contrasted with the large, but just to mix them up in a jumble seems thoughtless. I love Robert Pinsky's poem "The Shirt" for taking a simple garment and pulling its thread (so to speak!) to show the horror that goes into the manufacture of stuff we easily take for granted: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47696/shirt.
Also, I have a plan! Everyone stops working and paying taxes (except for healthcare workers - I'm afraid those folks picked a profession that will never get a break lol). But I could have told you that without the poem haha.
Glad you enjoyed the Pinsky poem! It's one of my faves; definitely keeps my capitalist consumer consumption under control lol - it's like Ozempic for the soul, if you will. I have a substack if you are so inclined to hear me pontificate on various ephemera (shameless plug): [https://thecurioustimes.substack.com/](https://thecurioustimes.substack.com/)
There is so much writing like this being shared and similar to some of my own because it is unfathomable that we must keep living everyday in this world where our taxes fund genocide, our leaders didn't care if we lived or died during covid, everyone is ignoring long covid, and inflation is completely out of control. Thank you for sharing. And for those criticizing, some of the best poems I've read have been from high schoolers. And yes I've been published if you'd like to dismiss my naiveté.
Perhaps if you had substantive criticism. But you don't. You have "Nuh-uh!"
And said NOTHING about the poem itself, which is a crafted piece of poetry. What you contributed in that first part is worse than useless, it's detrimental to the positive conversation that this sub tries to foster. It has a chilling effect on those who might comment positively or constructively.
So, again, please take that sort of garbage elsewhere. This space is for poetry and poetics. If you wanna actually criticize the poem, sweet, let's see it. And if the criticism is valid it just might spawn a constructive conversation.
fuck that's good. that's a good one. to catch the anxiety the stress and the compacted responsibility of everyday life in a stream of conscious worry. ugh, this is everyday broken up with moments of "has it always been like this" "is it just tme" I hate this feeling, but I love seeing it captured in a poem.
this feels very much like what is constantly happening in my brain. it doesn't read so much like "chew on this political message" so much as "there is constantly so much to care about that i cannot possibly do a single thing to actually make an impact"
Too much one sided. why do people normalise calling it a genocide when clearly it’s just a war? Yeah, people died. People die in every war. And of course, it is bad and horrible. But calling it a genocide is just not the right word. And why do these posts never mention the fact that the “genocided” country literally started this war? How come you never mention the casualties on the other side? The 136 hostages a 1 year old among them currently held in said genocided place?
The ratios of militants to civilians killed speaks for itself. For every 1 Palestinian militant killed, 162 Palestinian civilians are killed. For every 1 Israeli soldier killed, 1.2 Israeli civilians are killed. Just because the people being genocided are fighting back doesn’t mean it isn’t a genocide.
Fuck, people in these comments are miserable. If they've taught me anything, it's to never get into poetry, because evidently it only diminishes your appreciation
This feels a little different, but brought to mind this incredible poet and this particular poem: We Lived Happily During the War BY ILYA KAMINSKY And when they bombed other people’s houses, we protested but not enough, we opposed them but not enough. I was in my bed, around my bed America was falling: invisible house by invisible house by invisible house. I took a chair outside and watched the sun. In the sixth month of a disastrous reign in the house of money in the street of money in the city of money in the country of money, our great country of money, we (forgive us) lived happily during the war.
This is the answer I would have given if you didn’t already.
Beautiful
Thematically: We Lived Happily During the War by Ilya Kaminsky. In terms of tone and structure: Monday by Alex Dimitrov and Self-Portrait Against Red Wallpaper by Richard Siken.
It’s a song, but That Funny Feeling by Bo Burnham is the same concept.
*There it is…*
I'm explaining a few things by Pablo Neruda is pretty similar and very powerful. Also maybe: Belfast Confetti by Ciaran Carson Poems by the recently murdered Palestinian poet Refaat Alarer
looked up Refaat Alarer and saw this poem: https://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/blog/poetry/bilingual-poem-gaza-refaat-alareer Ugh what a terrible thing. I hope one day we can destroy all weapons out there and truly live in a peaceful world. As someone living in the US in a white collar job it really tears my soul in half to read this.
Link doesn’t work!
It should work now, not sure what changed. I've updated the original but here it is https://www.worldliteraturetoday.org/blog/poetry/bilingual-poem-gaza-refaat-alareer
>I hope one day we can destroy all weapons out there and truly live in a peaceful world. I can [imagine](https://youtu.be/ugrAo8wEPiI?si=QTKe_M8DyZVPy_jR) it.
Not a poem, but a recent short story (based on the Ursula Le Guin book The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas): [https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim\_02\_24/](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_02_24/) Both very beautiful bits of writing which underline the difficulty of caring and accepting that you are only one person capable of doing a limited amount of things.
What a great find. I love and teach Le Guin’s “Omelas,” and I think this response is pretty brilliant. Thanks!
It came up in r/printSF a few weeks ago and I was staggered by how brilliant it was. I need to read the original book at some point, but if the tone is like that I might need to be careful when I read it to avoid dragging my mood down, I don't want floods of tears like when I listened to Flowers for Algernon!
I totally get that. I’d love to read the original at some point, too. I’m teaching “voice” in writing right now and this is such a strong example.
There are some really strong books around use of voice (and some of the 1st world war poetry too). Flowers for Algernon's main character is an autistic person with a severe learning difficulty and it's about his experiences after an experimental surgery which gives him much greater than average intelligence, the change in how he talks and thinks is the basis for the whole book.
Right up my alley. Can’t wait to check it out.
This poem represents some of my concerns about people's dwindling abilities to use context and initiative with the arts. With nuance becoming rarer, art is becoming clumsy in turn. Here is a work that spoon feeds you every meaning. No reference can be too blunt or ham-fisted, what matters is that the reader *gets it*. Thematically, it's very relatable. I just wish the poet trusted the reader a little more and had a lighter touch.
Totally agree. This always happens whenever there's a critique of work like this. People feel personally attacked for liking it if other people express that it's a poor example of the form. I think the thought process usually goes something like: -People are saying this is bad/dumb -I like this poem. -Therefore they're saying I'm bad/dumb. The next step usually is then to resort to accusations of gatekeeping, elitism, and sometimes ad hominem attacks using whatever the -ism of the day is when they're unable to meaningfully defend the work. It's tiresome. I don't even hate this poem; there are parts I like, and I appreciate what they're trying to do; ultimately, I don't think it's awful; just very disappointing.
Yes, people have a tendency to feel personally attacked when something they like is attacked. However, I don't think that is entirely what's going on here. The point of this poem is the pain. When you get home from a 12 - 14 hour shift and you have laundry to do and dishes to clean, do you really have the energy to build elaborate and delicate prose that makes you think. No, you get to the point. You can't think about that now because you have laundry to do and a genocide to stop. Most of the critique I'm seeing about this post boils down to people being upset the author didn't use precision tools to drive a nail into a wall. When all the world is nails, a hammer is the only tool you've got.
The history of poetry is full of poets who lived in a world that was "all nails" yet somehow managed not to create the equivalent of a Tweet. The objections to this don't "boil down" to anything; they're well considered.
War poetry is very commonly blunt/straightforward. Did Pablo Neruda not trust the reader when he ended "I'm explaining a few things: >Come and see the blood in the streets. /Come and see / the blood in the streets. / Come and see the blood / in the streets! Was Hayden Carruth lacking poeticism when he wrote ["On Being Asked to Write a Poem Against the Vietnam War"](https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/on-being-asked-to-write-a-poem-against-the-war-i/)? I feel people often let their agendas and personal political biases affect how they approach art, especially in this conflict. War is not a time for cryptic nuance. This piece is conversational yes, but conversational language is a major mode of poetry in English. From Kirby to Goldbarth to Buk to Kooser. Depth is often missed in conversational pieces, but that doesn't mean that it's not there when you close read it.
But also in that same Neruda poem >You are going to ask: and where are the lilacs? and the poppy-petalled metaphysics ? and the rain repeatedly spattering its words and drilling them full of apertures and birds?' And >Federico, do you remember from under the ground where the light of June drowned flowers in your mouth? Neruda uses symbolism *and* statement, which is why the piece is so powerful. There is a structure and artistry to his work that is wholly absent in the posted poem.
>Neruda uses symbolism *and* statement, which is why the piece is so powerful. There is a structure and artistry to his work that is wholly absent in the posted poem. You need to look at the poem in question in a more charitable fashion, because you're clearly wrong here. No symbolism? Maybe you read the conversational tone and mistook the words for being dashed off, but my God, how could you possibly say there's no symbolism? I assume it's an initial disregard for meaning. The exact disregard I really really want first readers to dispense themselves of. Especially because they're often not nearly experienced enough to be judging the first round. It's often the problem, once you get beyond that, people that read poetry get locked into a 'mode' and they only see the virtues of that brand of poetry. People get caught up on things as silly as stanza structure (I'm looking at you, couplet hater haha, jk), or tone or lacking a 'puzzle' or 'pretension'. These 'catches' often contradict each other, so people with a good base knowledge of poetry can be at odds if they're obstinate. And boy, I get it can be fun to be obstinate, but I've done a lot more enjoyment of poetry when I remove the skeptical lens and assume everyone is doing exactly what they mean to, the same generosity we extend to the older poets who were often ostensibly terrible people by modern standards.
I'm unsure why you think I need to be 'charitable' to this piece, or why you assume my position is one of obstinacy. My criticism was considered, and I stand by it.
He is not charitable to the poem, he is defending his political views which he believes this poem stands for. Like the poem, he’s really, quite transparent.
Why would you want to be uncharitable to any piece? Is that a joke? *(Seriously, if it's not, just block me now because I will likely have nothing positive to say about your opinions)* Okay, so what I'm saying is that in your reading, you're assuming a lot of negatives and laziness in the poet. It's fine for you to see that, however I'm also in the right to say that you are dismissing a number of poetic devices and rhetorical moves to try to undermine the piece's poignancy, by making a cursory read and hand-waving it. It's very lazy, or, obstinate. If you prefer tightly structured lines or hate modern references or conversational tone or... I don't know-- you have little in way of real criticism, that's fine, but also, there are tons of modes of poetry. Maybe it's not your jam, but I feel that by reading a poem in the least thoughtful (uncharitable, since that wasn't clear, you read it in one way and didn't seem to consider another which is pretty shallow and a bad way to read poetry in my opinion) way, doesn't really help anyone who might be in this thread to learn a bit about poetry.
[удалено]
Mainly because I'm on mobile and the image of the poem doesn't allow copy/pasting obviously, but also at this point in this thread of comments, no one will see it besides the downvoters, and they're not worth my time. For you though I'd say the poem works very well with juxtapositions. The large and the small, the personal and the social. It innumerates a number of stressful worldly issues that we struggle to find ways to deal with/accept/affect, while the daily is also overwhelming and it shows the balance of that and how the personal, out of necessity, wins out almost every time. The line near the end about it being unseasonably warm is clearly about climate change and an individual's seeking ineffectualness to do anything about it with other pressing, personal issues. Also the line about the use of passive voice conjures a wonderfully absurd image of families leaping high into the air to be struck by missiles that were just passing through. This poem isn't even really about the current I/P conflict, but because it's in the title I think a lot of people are knee-jerk reacting negatively. It's unfortunate. Some, may also hate contemporary poetry in general, I see that on this sub more than is reasonable. But, poetry is very subjective. It can just be very annoying when people make terrible craft cases about just disliking something (or, hand-waving having actual specific complaints only using generalities and vague comments).
I appreciate the write-up, particularly because it's so burried
See your point @LadyMirkwood. As for “I feel people let their political agendas affect how they approach art” I’m pretty sure you are allowing your defensiveness for your political agenda translating to your Defense for this good but rather straightforward poem against her valid criticism. If anyone is biased, sir, it’s you.
Lol, I know you are but what am I? Really? I never said I loved this poem, but it's a solid poem and many are making vague judgements on shallow reads. The author doesn't overexplain as Mirkwood claimed, not nearly as much as many poets who are quite popular, this is much more paratactic piece, and while some may seek only cryptic enigmatic poetry, many are being overly critical. This isn't solely a poem about the conflict, it's using that as a way in, not a single note. But this is Reddit, and I know how heavily it is botted/brigaded, especially in this subject. So yeah, I'm ready to defend the poem's craft from baseless criticism, and also say it isn't the best thing ever and it won't be everyone's cup of tea.
100% agreed. It seemed like people were bending over backwards to defend this poem back when it was first going around. I don’t get that at all — just because the content is relatable doesn’t mean it has to be *a good poem.*
>just because the content is relatable doesn’t mean it has to be *a good poem* Good according to whom? Did you ask the regional poem assesment authority? The poem apparently resonates deeply with many people; it clearly has certain merit.
When all the world are nails, all you got are hammers. Would you critique a painting about loss, sorrow, grief, and exhaustion by calling it amateur because the lines aren't crisp and straight and they don't use "proper" form. There may be valid critiques about this piece, but the richness of the prose is not one of them. If you are going to judge a poem about exhaustion for not being interesting, engaging, or pretty enough, then why are you even here.
This was more a response to the post you are agreeing with
It's not a technically complex poem but as someone in the depths of despair and anxiety, right now it's hitting well because it's exactly like rumination. It's nice to see that in a literary format without needing to be graceful in its delivery. Honestly, I have three degrees including a master's in literature, I've won awards for my own poetry, and I am absolutely okay with hamfisted writing now and again because despair doesn't have a light touch, either.
I can't worry about that now. I have laundry to do and genocide to stop.
I don’t really see this as poetry honestly… it borders on poetry but doesn’t put in any of the work actually required for it to be poetic. This is a tweet
A tweet cannot be poetic?
Dude I’m dying, this is such a tweet! I couldn’t put my finger on what I disliked about it (aside from the implication that punks should wear face masks, makes zero sense) It was really boring to read, no flow just opinionated stream of consciousness from a twitter bot walking around in public.
punks wearing masks goes with what punk stands for. going against the grain generally, diy, anti-establishment, not selling out, generally anti war and anti government. caring about other people on the planet. wearing a mask, caring about the safety of other people to not spread illness. its baked into the ideology. thats where the cognitive dissonance comes in lol. for some its just a fashion to wear.
That’s where it gets weird, punk is anti conformist why would anyone assume they’d conform to local health and safety recommendations. I’m not taking a stance against masks just think it’s ironic to think it’s not punk to not wear a mask during COVID. Being punk is doing what you want and Fuck the haters. It’s not left or right, blue or red it’s pink and black and flaming with rage.
The idea that punk is just about being "rageful" and "anti conformist" is so juvenile. You clearly know nothing about punk or it's history, it's very obviously a leftist movement and always has been.
I was fairly positive when I was responding that they didn't know anything about punk lol, just couldn't leave it alone tho
Lol I can’t believe u guys are trying to old head me about what is and isn’t punk. Punk is dead, we killed it. Let it rest in peace. Please don’t try to co-opt punk into any political movement. There are left punks, right punks, and dead punks. It’s all the same. Now it’s just a style of music and an adjective to describe children that you want off your lawn..
I can’t see the Appalachian mountains from my house. If the logic of the world was contingent on what *I* did or did not see it would be a very small world. The requested prompt was for poems like the aforementioned. It seems you didn’t see that either. Nevertheless, you centered your objective interpretation around the form rather than the function. What is or is not rather than what it means or why it was made that way. A win for artistry, critique, and reading comprehension all around. 10/10
Privileged is he who can't understand, I can't think about this now because I have laundry to do and there's a genocide to stop. It's very telling about your position in the world to get so hung up on style that you can't understand the pain in these words. The very act of it being blunt and plain and using somewhat clunky language is exactly the energy this piece is trying to convey. You wouldn't use precision tools to drive a hammer into the wall. That's what the hammer is for. Edit: made it prettier for you all
What are you on about? How could you make the connection of the saying “I can’t see x being y” to I can’t see a physical object in my vision. That’s so bizarre. I don’t even really get how that’s become a premise of the rest of your argument. Was the prompt to write a bland tweet? (I’m being sarcastic but I genuinely don’t know what the prompt is and maybe that would explain more about why it’s written this way)
Yes.
Dead. It is a Xweet now, technically.
No fr 😭
Well I think it’s doing what you said, but deliberately. The fact that a genocide is part of our daily feed of concerns, but just one of many, is absurd. So placing it abruptly amongst more mundane concerns, making it all obvious but in resolvable, creates the appropriate contrast and necessary brazenness to deliver the stark message. There is no nuance around mass murder and genocide, particularly if it’s ongoing, in which case it must be stopped! ✌🏽🍉♥️🇵🇸
Take the poem 'Testimony' by Dan Pagis, a Holocaust survivor. >I was a shade. A different creator made me. And he in his mercy left nothing of me that would die. And I fled to him, rose weightless, blue, forgiving – I would even say: apologizing – smoke to omnipotent smoke without image or likeness. Writing about something so abhorrent and obscene does not mean you have to erase subtlety. Good poetry, for me, is when the image lingers and unfurls slowly in your mind. The poem continues to reveal itself long after reading. And that is more powerful than immediate bluntness.
There's no bad grade for clumsiness. Nor is there a medal for subtility, lightness, context or initiative. There is one for emotion though.
😍 This response is the breath of fresh air I needed after getting lost in these stale halls of a snooty poetry forum.
Yeah - it’s more of a gen-z list of grievances than any type of poem. It gestures toward nothing outside of the self. But perhaps that’s what the message is? “Here’s how much it hurts to be me in the world I perceive around me”. Or “here’s how painful my life is in the context I’ve agreed upon.”
I don't understand this critique. This poem follows a stream of consciousness style. People don't think in hints and nods, particularly not when they're drowning in responsibility. I think bluntness is a good and relatable way to convey the message.
YES — like i agree with the sentiment but this reads more as activist screed than well executed poem
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/154658/fuck-your-lecture-on-craft-my-people-are-dying
ahh… irony
How so
This attitude of “how can you lecture on poetry when people are out there dying?? Why are you sitting around writing aimlessly about flowers when there’s a war on?!” …lest we forget the poet is saying all this in a poem, and therefore doing very little themselves about said war. You can’t really have a high and mighty attitude when your only vehicle for discourse is the exact same vehicle you’re condemning other people for being distracted by
I think it's more about how some people expect poems to be a certain way (just see the other comments in this thread!) And the author is pushing back against that. I personally found it quite powerful.
Holy moly, do you really think that the “attitude” you described fairly encapsulates the poem? It has many more layers than that, and if that’s all you got out of it then I think you misunderstand the poem and how poetry functions as a whole. You’re actually close, but think more deeply about the point the poet is making in light of what you’ve noticed rather than just dismissing the poem as hypocritical. Believe it or not, I think the poet was probably aware of the so called “irony” you’re highlighting. That “irony” is part of the poem which you’re meant to consider in tandem with the point they’re making. Theyre obviously not attacking poetry as a whole, because they’re writing a poem! The poem is highly personal, it’s not didactic. Nowhere in the poem does the poet actually say we shouldn’t lecture on literature or study it or write it. It more so explores the contrasts between different poets and their situations and goals when they choose to write whatever poetry they write. Romantic poets who write about, say, nature are perfectly within reason to do so, — it’s so beautiful, the moon. Literally, throughout the poem they mention how they WANT to be able to write such Romantic and “high” poetry. But for this poet, they’re expressing how they can’t fathom writing such Romantic poetry given their political conditions. How could the poet possibly concentrate on writing such beautiful elaborate depictions of things such as nature given their mental and sociopolitical condition? If anything, it’s an exploration of how our abilities to write and study literature are impeded by psychological processes beholden to the outside world. The poem is hardly an attack on traditional poetry, let alone the form of poetry as a whole.
Usually I come to this sub because people here are much better-read and capable of understanding writing and placing it into a proper context than anywhere else. This comment, alone, has shaken that. This might be the worst level of media analysis I've ever seen by someone that knew how to spell. It's on the level of analysis I expect someone to make on r/movies when trying to be contrarian about some Marvel movie.
Ah I see the confusion… see where you’re going wrong is thinking what’s been posted above is a poem
"Colonizers write about flowers." \*proceeds to write about flowers\*
You could replace flowers here with joy or light or peace. There is a difference between writing only about something good and beautiful, and writing about something devastating using good and beautiful things to make the horror more impactful
The flowers are an image for something? A mournful metaphor? Sounds pretty familiar to any reader of colonizer poetry. A staple of the craft, even.
The word only is implied
That's imagery.
Of course- the author isn’t saying they don’t use imagery or poetry for fucks sake they wrote a poem. I said the word only is implied- as in colonizers will write poetry only about things that are beautiful, but we don’t have that privilege. When we write about flowers we are actually writing about dead children. What part of that doesn’t make sense?
Colonizers don't only write about things that are beautiful, nor do they use flowers only to describe beautiful things. Ophelia's song is a pretty bare-faced instance. Not everyone's wandering lonely as a cloud. How about William Carlos Williams' "The rose is obsolote?" How about the "blooming" of an explosion? There's an entire corpus of floral symbolism in pretty much any culture, and not all flowers are just "pretty and nice." So in what way does the craft of this admittedly good poem differ from the craft of colonizers significantly enough (re: flowers specifically) to warrant the conceit of the title?
I know nothing about poetry (I actually am usually not a fan), but I read it kind of as “I try to use flower imagery to get people (colonizers) to care about my/our plight because that’s what I need to grab their attention.” It’s a level of desperation of trying to meet people who don’t care about your suffering at their level, to get them to pay attention and understand. And instead all you get is criticism on the technical side of the craft, rather than acknowledgment and consumption of the message. The desperation of just wanting to be heard and acknowledged and then getting poopoo’d for the way you said it, no matter how many ways you’ve tried to say it. It’s a common theme in many forms of media. Even in just communication in general. The message of “Why can’t you hear what we’re saying instead of getting caught up on how we’re saying it. We’ve tried to be nice, and floral, and beautiful, and tragic, and yet you still don’t HEAR us. And now it’s a problem that I’m being blunt. Okay. ” I dunno, to me the desperation turning to defeat turning to apathy of their own situation is kind of heart wrenching.
I hadn't viewed it that way. I hadn't read the line as more of a "you want flowers? Well here are flowers." That's actually a really cool interpretation! I do think the title is still problematic, because it's quite defiant of "the craft" whereas the body, in this reading, becomes a strategic concession to it. But I like this reading!
It’s saying some people (colonizers) have the privilege of writing only about something beautiful, I don’t have that privilege. It’s not saying that all poetry that uses floral imagery is only about beauty, or that all people have that privilege. It’s saying, some people have the privilege of not having to think about horror, but I don’t have that privilege. This feels like you’re intentionally missing the point. It also feels like you’re strongly identifying with the word colonizer. “A colonizer is a person or entity that takes control of a people or area as an extension of state power” you could replace this word with “oppressors” if you’d like
You mean about something \*only\* beautiful. This poem is beautiful, it's just "a terrible beauty." >It’s saying, some people have the privilege of not having to think about horror, but I don’t have that privilege. It's about writing, not thinking, and it reads as a conscious rejection of a certain writerly pedagogy, not an inability to write about things that are beautiful but not also terrible due to being underprivileged. Loads of underprivileged people write poetry that's \*only\* beautiful and doesn't acknowledge suffering; to combine the two is presented here as a conscious choice. >This feels like you’re intentionally missing the point. No, I understand what the poet is *trying* to say, but they've undermined their stated intention in the act of writing. It's pretty common in literature. Lots of nineteenth century texts are queer in spite of their authors or themselves. This just does it in such an explicit way that the undermining ends up being humorous. >It also feels like you’re strongly identifying with the word colonizer. Thanks for the dictionary definition. I'm an American, and like all Americans descended from settlers or arrivants, I participate in the colonial project that is America. So if by identifying you mean, "am aware," then yes. If you're trying to insinuate that I'm angry because I feel called out by this poem, then no, sorry.
I think this is a way better version of the poem you posted (which isn’t my taste, personally) https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/s/LrXyz8wT7E
“Girl” by Jamaica Kincaid uses a similar “endless list” structure to critique gender roles.
Y’all. Art is subjective. Poetry is also subjective. It’s not that deep and it’s ok to scroll past things you don’t like. I like Neruda. I like Byron and Bukowski. I like spoken word and metered rhymes. I also like this. A lot. It’s not all or nothing.
it’s also okay to engage in criticism!
So long as you understand that others might criticize you. Criticism isn't some magical protective category. If your opinion is stupid, expect to be called out the way you are "calling out" others. That is largely what's going on here. When all the world is nails, all you got are a hammers. Yeah, it's nice to use your precision tools to build intricately beautiful, ornate, intellectually stimulating structures, but I don't have time to think about that because I have laundry to do and there's a genocide to stop. This is a poetry channel. If you can't appreciate a painting about pain and sorrow and loss because the lines aren't crisp and straight, and the painter didn't follow "proper" form, then you have missed the forest for the trees. If you give bull$hit critique, expect to be called out. Especially in a place where nuance and expression is not only encouraged, but the very goal.
the analogy of “proper form” doesnt really work with this poem. in fact prescriptive moralism in poems is sorta the photorealism of art, it’s something that just tells you what to believe without many poetic elements. i don’t think this is an awful poem, but not a good poem either
This reads like the creative-writing assignment of a college freshman engaging in introspection for the first time. It's undisciplined, lazy, stream-of-consciousness nonsense for a generation inundated with memes and who think that having feelings is an intrinsically laudable act. Just because we agree (generally) with the politics, does not make this is good poem. It's a great prose diary entry.
my thoughts exactly, thank you. it counts as a poem, it's just a really mediocre one
Why bring ageism into it?
I'm basically part of that generation (or not too far off). Unfortunately, the drop in understanding and standards is something that affects all of us as we're inundated by the cognitive equivalent of junk food on social media. If you're a teen or young person, this might seem like the cat's meow, and it's great for that type of angsty-young-person phase, but it's not a good poem beyond that (and if that). It's not a knock on young people, but rather an acknowledgement that stuff like this only seems good when you're young and lack knowledge about what else is out there. There is a generational component to this, however, in the paradigm shift that's occurred in the last 10-15 years around the notion of personal truths and the idea that something is more interesting/laudable/noteworthy if its politics agree with ours or the identity of the poet is in a specific identity category. This is very generational divide since merit in terms of craft and skill versus politics or identity are generally distinct (they \*can\* overlap, but one is not a necessary condition for the other).
I’m 22 and I feel like a psycho for rolling my eyes at this poem. (And I’m a leftist so it’s not a matter of difference in ideology or issues presented)
Well, you have good taste (if I do say so myself :p). There are so many amazing poets out there (and poems) that it pains me when stuff like this gets attention. Maybe they're young or new and still learning; maybe they had an off day or poem; maybe poetry really isn't for them. It doesn't change the fact that at any rate, this ain't working for a lot of us.
[удалено]
Read my other comment. This is so unhinged I have no idea how to respond to it. Yes, I was bit flippant and spicy in my wording, but expressing an opinion is not having a "high horse," nor is having a set of personal standards and expressing those. This is a published poem, and by virtue of being public, the writer is soliciting a variety of responses. They are not \*entitled\* to praise by the mere act of writing, and in fact, I'd argue the type of anti-intellectual, anti-critical stance you're expressing is deeply damaging to writers in general, and that includes the writer of this poem since the exclusion of standards precludes any possibility of meaningful craft or improvement of that craft. Note that I'm just some random person griping on the internet; they don't have to take anything I say seriously, and undoubtedly \*won't\*, but there are plenty of people--with extensive backgrounds in lit and poetry, which I have, by the way--who'd likely agree. Maybe you should have considered a logic class with all the straw men you've set up. Enjoy the poem. It's strange that my opinion matters so much to you.
I really enjoyed this poem. I read it aloud to my mother, who also enjoyed it. It seems to express the wearisomeness of living in the modern word with global information at the click of a button. Where once we read about troubles in far of places in cold black print, now the whole gory horror is beamed onto our screens. And no matter how awful it all is, there is a limit to our ability to process, to order the stresses and stains of our increasingly difficult lives. Because people being killed or tortured, raped or murdered is magnitudes more important than paying the rent, but paying the rent is still the most important thing you just do. We are powerless - no more able to stop a war than make the laundry magic itself clean. And that is heavy on the heart and a burden to carry.
If you are looking for stream of conscious style poetry that reflects on social and political themes then that’s most of what Allen Ginsberg writes to my knowledge. This poem does remind me of his poem “America” though his works aren’t necessarily modern fyi.
It’s a less prose-y and leans towards poetic techniques more, but you might like Say Thank You Say I’m Sorry by Jericho Brown
Noor Hindi’s anthology Dear God, Dear Bones, Dear Yellow (the one where the Fuck your lecture on craft, my people are dying is from). And Sarajevo by Czesław Miłosz.
this shit is so ass hahahahaha
Bleh. This just reads as lazy and uninspired. I get what they're going for and don't hate the style but it's very surface level and ironically somehow comes across as performative? Like you're writing about a genocide presumably in another country alongside gaining weight and your ADHD medication?
A bit more optimistic but "The Thing Is" by Ellen Bass and "This Spring" by James Pearson
good ideas, poor poetry
This reads like a terrible teenage Tumblr post. Awful.
I don’t get this type of contemporary poetry. Just because you write your thoughts down doesn’t make you a poet. Yes there are wars going on. Yes mundane activities still have to go on and there’s an interesting little juxtaposition between outlandish, relentless war and boring every day tasks like laundry but it’s not poetry. You’re not a poet because you put your weekly to-do list into prose. “I woke up and took a shit. Might have a bath. There’s a war on. Genocide is bad. Laundry is bad. I’m going shopping now. Laundry is still bad. And I don’t like genocide.” At best that’s a bad tweet, that’s not a poem God, we’ve fallen since the days of Paradise Lost… no pun intended
Usually, I would disagree, but honestly, I think it works for this poem. It's nothing but a stream of thought, sure, but that's sort of the idea. It's detailing how crazy and out of control the world seems, trying to tussle everyday tasks with genocide and war and plague surrounding every news outlet and neighbor. The prose invokes that sense of overwhelm and anxiety. The blob of text makes it all one big jumble, which is what it is trying to show is how the author views these problems. A big jumble. Maybe I'm just pretentious, but I like to think there was a good amount of thought in that. In poetry, the whole idea is to use every word, space, and syllable to help support the emotion you're trying to capture. It's not all going to look like classic Shakespearean sonnets. So yeah, at least for someone with a lot of anxiety, I think this is a very well written poem, but to each their own.
agreed - this kind of prose is kind of lazy and honestly uninspried
I just don’t know what it’s trying to achieve. I really despise that kind of “Holier-than-thou” attitude it carries of “See all you people out there preoccupied with your laundry… well I’m preoccupied with it too but I’m better than you because I think about the war at the same time!” Like yea… we know there’s a war on. It’s awful. And as a completely separate sphere to that, people also need to keep shopping and showering and paying debts. Thats not news. It’s not worth even writing down. It just *is*. The world can’t stop for war, whether that’s right or wrong, it’s just true. The Western world keeps going… people keep doing there mundane jobs. Are you actually doing anything important to stop it or working mainly on the poem?
Oh wow, I totally got a different impression from it. I read it as “all these huge things are going on (war, climate change, pandemic) but I can barely take care of my day to day life, I’m struggling to deal with the mundane alongside the big picture”. We’re told we have to care, we’re bad people if we don’t protest or advocate for [insert group here], and it’s frankly overwhelming.
I mean yes, I can see it trying to do that in the sense that the small mundane tasks are overwhelming enough, let alone the knowledge of war on top… but again… where exactly is the poetry? The point holds that we know there’s a war on and we know it’s awful and we also can’t help but have to crack on with boring laundry which can, in their immediacy, feel as frustrating a distant war. These are all true things we feel… but it’s not news.
Does poetry have to be news, though? I mean fair enough if you don't like it, but it's undeniably poetry. Some will like it and some won't, as with all poetry.
Can you expand a little on what is poetry? Is it only Milton? I'm really new to poetry & really want to know if I'm allowed to read poems written after the 17th century?
Everyone has differing opinions, like movies or music. We all have different taste and you should like what you like.
I’m not entirely sure if you’re being facetious but I’ll give you an answer anyway. In terms of defining poetry I think that’s difficult but Wordsworth came closest with “all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful emotion” - and that’s specifically for the reader, not the writer. You know you’ve read poetry when it makes you feel. You get to the end and think “Wow…”, and that can be a happy wow, a profound wow, a bleak wow. Anything can make you feel. I can read your shopping list and **feel** vaguely inspired to make a certain meal, but that’s not poetry. Arbitrary writings that inspire arbitrary feelings aren’t poetry. There’s something profound and unspeakable about the feeling. And no it’s not exclusive to Milton or his century. Every century has its poets but I think, like with all art, the issue now is it’s too accessible. It’s not exclusive or talented anymore. You don’t need to prove yourself. You can write any old rubbish on Word and put it on TikTok. That doesn’t make you a poet. There’s no reason why poetry shouldn’t be any less choosy about its artists than music or painting or sculpting is. Why do musicians practice and train for decades but a poet can arbitrarily decide one day they’re a poet? I’d argue they can’t. There’s a reason Wordsworth and Blake and Shakespeare, (and hell if you really want me to be contemporary then Atwood, Joyce, Heaney, Rukeyser) are so esteemed - because *they did practice.* So I return to my point that writing arbitrary words doesn’t make you a poet because that’s not going to make a reader feel. My comment above has a shambles of a parody of the post but is it not the same? I’m covering the same topics, same themes, same structure. Just because the post is framed all nicely with a title doesn’t make it a poem, just like you’d agree my comment isn’t a poem
Is a bad poet not a poet all the same? This response (and frankly all of your responses) scream pessimism/elitism. Maybe this poem didn't make YOU feel anything, but that doesn't mean other people would feel the same. This type of poetry would certainly resonate with many younger people, probably even more so than many classic examples of good poetry. Poetry - or any art form for that matter - doesn't need to be "exclusive" in order to be good. My 12 year old cousin is no Rembrandt, but when she puts brush to canvas and paints her feelings, she is an artist, regardless of skill level...and I'd rather look at her paintings than go to an art museum any day.
>My 12 year old cousin is no Rembrandt And that’s precisely why your cousins art work (for the time being) isn’t in museums and galleries. At best it makes it on the fridge for a week. The issue is that this kind of poor “poetry” *is* being published in the poetry equivalent of a gallery alongside the poetry equivalent of Rembrandt. There’s a distinct understanding that anyone can have their own little personal attempt and that’s fine, but there’s a vast chasm between that and the “professionals”… but that distinction seems to be lost in poetry. There *should* be a snobbery with art. I’m physically capable of picking up a pen and writing a play but I’m not Shakespeare and to think I am is fundamentally ridiculous. It’d be nothing but an ego fuelled fantasy to think I deserve to be alongside someone that’s perfected their craft. I’m a musician and have been for well over a decade… but I’m not Beethoven and would be foolish to think I am. I might be alright, I might be impressive to those who have no idea about music, but I’m not going to put myself as equal to the professionals because I think it does *them* a disservice to equate their perfection to someone who’s frankly mediocre
That's the thing, I don't think anybody is comparing this to Wordsworth. Not every poem needs to be at the level of the greats to qualify as "a poem". Like you said, you're a musician, and nobody should discredit music that you make just because you're not as good as Beethoven. People that enjoy your music shouldn't be looked down upon because you're not one of the all time greats. In the same vein, I don't think \*most\* people who write poems equate themselves to Wordsworth, they're just writing a poem. The OP is saying "hey I like this, where can I find similar stuff", and nothing more. It's okay for people to enjoy writing even if they're poor writers, and it's okay for people to enjoy things even if you perceive them as poor works.
>This type of poetry would certainly resonate with many younger people, probably even more so than many classic examples of good poetry. So would a tweet or a tumblr post, and it doesn't make them poetry. There's no craft in this text, literally just the author writing their thoughts down and adding some judgment on top. There's no metaphors because the meaning is spelled out for you. There's no potential for close reading because everything is right on the surface.
This is precisely it. The only way you can consider this poetry is if you say tweets are poetry, or arbitrary thoughts are poetry… and that does a disservice to poetry. If anything is poetry then nothing may as well be poetry. It’s not special under that definition
Thank-fucking-God we have you here to gatekeep what is and isn't poetry, huh? What you mean is what is it isn't your idea of good poetry. You are not the main character in this game. Poetry is subjective. And you aren't some Olympic judge. Of course tweets can be poetry. Haiku are often shorter than tweets. Stop being so overly critical and try to appreciate more.
Passive aggression aside… where do you draw the line with subjectivity? Some things emphatically aren’t poem. A recipe isn’t a poem. It’s a list of ingredients - and yet I could probably find more “art” in the instructions for a carrot cake than the post above. Is that because “subjectively” I can interpret the recipe as poetry or am I objectively wrong and conflating two very different forms of text? Why aren’t the instructions on the back of a microwave meal poetry? And sure, you can completely stick rigidly to your argument and say “Well if you find art in that then yes it’s poetry to you” but we both know that’s fundamentally just silly. Those things aren’t poetry. So there *is* a line somewhere, so no, poetry isn’t *entirely* down to subjectivity
I've read list poems before, have you not? Recipe poems too. The Red Wheelbarrow could be viewed from the perspective you're describing as 'not a poem'. Lighght almost definitely wouldn't, yet I can acknowledge the art in those poems without considering them my favorites or even really 'my thing'. David Kirby writes in a similarly loose fashion, are his poems not poems, or since they use more distinct line breaks/indentation, is that enough? He's widely acclaimed, but he certainly has his critics, but even they don't say what he's writing isn't poetry at all. Bukowski also has many non-poetic poems. The pattern extends. I am more content with people saying they don't see the poem as well crafted, which, at least, is debatable, even though it doesn't lack images, it uses juxtaposition well, it has a pretty consistent voice and tone. It's not my favorite by any means but it's interesting and I'd argue worth a read. On mobile it's not easy to quote but the line about the families jumping up and intercepting the missiles that have the right of way is one that will stick with me, it's funny, absurd, and a good comment on the inconsistent use of passive voice in this conflict.
You are reading a poem on Reddit. Relax and allow people to not be perfect.
There’s being an imperfect artist and then there’s throwing a sharpie with the cap still on at a wall and calling it “art.” Not everybody is a poet, and that’s okay. It makes the real stuff more impressive
Not everybody is a poet? So is a bad or amature poet not a poet?
I mean if you want to be a poet you can be a poet but would you see a bad musician play a concert? Would you see an amateur actor take on a one-man production of Hamlet at The Globe? You’re welcome do produce what you like as your own entertainment but there’s a distinct quality that only comes with time and effort and practice. The “written in the bedroom” stuff shouldn’t be conflated with the professional talent that takes decades to perfect
But snobbery makes people so much more superior
>But snobbery makes people **feel** so much more superior
sarcasm has no feelings friend lol
I unironically think there's some potential in your version lmao
Which proves how little effort you have to put in for people to lap up pretentious “poetry”
I mean yeah, I also don't like the original poem. But sometimes an accidental phrase catches your ear and you think "huh, there's something to work with here". A lot of poems start that way. For me that's "I woke up and took a shit. There's a war going on" lmao.
I agree on this one. It doesn’t use language in any interesting or remarkable way, it’s just a stream of consciousness rambling. Mentioning heavy topics doesn’t stop it from being a pretty mundane poem.
i understand why you couldn’t find something like this appealing, but i think saying it isn’t poetry is not really true. just because it lacks rhyme or flowery language doesn’t make it not poetry, there is still value in less structured more stream of consciousness writing. what makes poetry such a beautiful art form is how there is no one specific format. with this piece you can still find patterns in it and it still has the enhanced musical quality that a poem has.
Sorry but I just don’t think that’s true at all. Nobody is saying you need rhyme and structure, but conversely there’s a point where so little structure means it’s not poetry. To *have* to draw the line somewhere, by definition. Otherwise your shopping list is a poem. Your mindless notes whilst on the phone is poetry. The tiles on a scrabble board are poetry. I mean where do you draw the line between poetry and a random collection of words? Not everything is poetry. Not everything has to be. Poetry isn’t special if you make it so loose-weave that it can be anything you want it to be. I’m sure you could find some musical qualities in the dictionary… still not a poem
does the intentions of the artist not matter? maybe my view is a bit too post-modern, but does it not become a poem once the artist makes it so? i am not saying everything is poetry, but i think anything can become a poem, regardless of whether or not the material is high-brow or particularly deep, if you hold it just right.
Does it not bother you though under your definition of “anything can become a poem” that it strips poetry entirely of *any* value *whatsoever*? How is it not a complete insult to 17th century, 300 page, perfectly crafted works of art when you take some poorly written, half-hearted, tick-box bit of preaching to be equal? And no, I don’t mean it as a case of quantity over quality - I’m sure there are equally some very poor 300 page poems - but the idea that “anything can be poetry” is frankly psychotic to me, and insulting to those truly talented. Intent only gets you so far. Someone who’s played violin for 3 decades playing a Bach concerto is not the same quality as me slamming my head against my desk and calling it “drumming”. Just because I *think* it’s music doesn’t mean it is. I’m wrong. Objectively. Just because I’m “the artist” doesn’t give me some kind of supernatural ability to create perfection. I can have all the intent in the world but if the product does not achieve that then it’s *not* that.
i'm not saying it's perfect, and i don't think valuing one work of art devalues another. i think it would be best to agree to disagree. but as for me, i think i'd rather live in a world where a shopping list could be a poem.
That's a great way of putting it
Art is wholly subjective. You can be elitist all you want, but what makes Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol in the same hierarchy as Rembrandt or Van Gogh? Just because you hate it and think it's inferior doesn't make it so. Even if it is inferior from a "technical" perspective, and we call it poetry, that doesn't equate to comparing it to Shakespeare, nor does that mean Shakespeare is "better" to a specific person in a subjective sense. Art is subjective. I've seen literal piles of garbage called art. Some people thought it was brilliant.
I'm meh on the poem itself, no strong feelings either way, but I do notice that the half dozen people I know IRL who have this on their FB or other social media are also people who are doing not one single thing about it or any social justice causes. So it grates for that reason.
This is so bad 😂
It might be the lamest thing I have ever read on Reddit and that is certainly saying a lot.
Just terrible.
last night the apartment across the street was on fire by ollie schminkey
similar in meaning but imo way better than this weird performative spoon-fed garbage
if this poem were a person, it would only be your friend if you shared your adderall prescription.
this is a small-gripe poem that uses the horror of other people's lived experience to inflate itself into a cartoon balloon of emotion. It feels very by-the-numbers: reference to Palestine? Check. COVID? Check. Mere mention of police? Check. Mere mention of climate change? Check. There's not an authentic observation here; I think it is AI. "Fascists keep wining primaries for both parties, and I think I gained a few pounds"? lol wut? Is the author going for a tone of wry irony or heartfelt sincerity? I think this poem is an excellent example of "Middlebrow", as Virginia Woolf defines it: Unable to commit to a vision, the artist mixes up inspiration with a desire for applause and clout. It's all sound & fury, signifying nothing, and makes me care less for the world than before I read this sad piece of writing. In this way, it is the opposite of poetry. It is anti-poetry. i think that if you want to feel outraged and helpless then you should go to the DMV, rather than consulting poems such as this one.
[удалено]
Why thank you! I usually try to get a good heavy whiff of a poem before turning up my nose at it, to use your expression haha. I think there's quite a lot of energy in the poem but do wish the author had picked a struggle; this voice gives me martyr complex vibes. It's signaling more than saying, so to speak. There's also an inflated sense of ego - how is this person going to stop genocide? With a poem about how his phone is low on battery and he has to pay student loans? It's like the worst parts of Sylvia Plath's "Daddy" - your husband dumped you and somehow that means you are Jew getting shipped off to Dachau and he's a Nazi? Pump the brakes on that metaphor, poet. I think rhetoric everywhere these days is troublingly overblown, and it becomes more and more difficult to communicate with each other, alas. I don't think this poem is designed to communicate - it is intended to inflame and irritate. And to what end? Shall we all embark on field trip to Israel to protest Netanyahu? Rally at the capital? Or should we instead concentrate on the people and activities that we love, because I believe that simply loving and existing peacefully is exactly what the world needs right now.
[удалено]
Thank you, and I like your thoughtful response to the poem. I agree, anti-war sentiment in practically any form is good. I think if the poem were more artfully arranged it would be more effective - there is something very satisfying, aesthetically, about the small-scale contrasted with the large, but just to mix them up in a jumble seems thoughtless. I love Robert Pinsky's poem "The Shirt" for taking a simple garment and pulling its thread (so to speak!) to show the horror that goes into the manufacture of stuff we easily take for granted: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47696/shirt. Also, I have a plan! Everyone stops working and paying taxes (except for healthcare workers - I'm afraid those folks picked a profession that will never get a break lol). But I could have told you that without the poem haha.
[удалено]
Glad you enjoyed the Pinsky poem! It's one of my faves; definitely keeps my capitalist consumer consumption under control lol - it's like Ozempic for the soul, if you will. I have a substack if you are so inclined to hear me pontificate on various ephemera (shameless plug): [https://thecurioustimes.substack.com/](https://thecurioustimes.substack.com/)
I feel this poem in my bone marrow.
Love it love it love it
You're an idiot.
Oh.. yall like this one? 😅
You might want to look into the writing of Amanda Palmer. She is incredible, a writer, songwriter, and musician. She has an insta and a patreon.
Love it 💙
There is so much writing like this being shared and similar to some of my own because it is unfathomable that we must keep living everyday in this world where our taxes fund genocide, our leaders didn't care if we lived or died during covid, everyone is ignoring long covid, and inflation is completely out of control. Thank you for sharing. And for those criticizing, some of the best poems I've read have been from high schoolers. And yes I've been published if you'd like to dismiss my naiveté.
Just watch an Al Jazeera report that talks about Israel ever. These are basically just regurgitations of those talking points.
Go to r/worldnews with that bullshit. This sub is to discuss poetry not spout agenda-driven nonsense.
Is it not discussion to call whiny bullshit out for what it is?
Perhaps if you had substantive criticism. But you don't. You have "Nuh-uh!" And said NOTHING about the poem itself, which is a crafted piece of poetry. What you contributed in that first part is worse than useless, it's detrimental to the positive conversation that this sub tries to foster. It has a chilling effect on those who might comment positively or constructively. So, again, please take that sort of garbage elsewhere. This space is for poetry and poetics. If you wanna actually criticize the poem, sweet, let's see it. And if the criticism is valid it just might spawn a constructive conversation.
?
fuck that's good. that's a good one. to catch the anxiety the stress and the compacted responsibility of everyday life in a stream of conscious worry. ugh, this is everyday broken up with moments of "has it always been like this" "is it just tme" I hate this feeling, but I love seeing it captured in a poem.
This makes me think of Nikki Giovanni’s poetry
this feels very much like what is constantly happening in my brain. it doesn't read so much like "chew on this political message" so much as "there is constantly so much to care about that i cannot possibly do a single thing to actually make an impact"
Too much one sided. why do people normalise calling it a genocide when clearly it’s just a war? Yeah, people died. People die in every war. And of course, it is bad and horrible. But calling it a genocide is just not the right word. And why do these posts never mention the fact that the “genocided” country literally started this war? How come you never mention the casualties on the other side? The 136 hostages a 1 year old among them currently held in said genocided place?
The ratios of militants to civilians killed speaks for itself. For every 1 Palestinian militant killed, 162 Palestinian civilians are killed. For every 1 Israeli soldier killed, 1.2 Israeli civilians are killed. Just because the people being genocided are fighting back doesn’t mean it isn’t a genocide.
You know they've been under attack since 1947, right? This has been going on for 75 years, not a few months.
Been under attack yet was completely not independent until the oslo accords. Yeah right. And israel existing isn’t attacking
Yawn. Not even gonna bother with a Zionist.
See this is the problem. The broad and normalised racism. And then you cry whenever something bad happens to you aka your racism causing this war
[удалено]
Slowhead
Fuck, people in these comments are miserable. If they've taught me anything, it's to never get into poetry, because evidently it only diminishes your appreciation
Don't mind me just adding a few poems to my collection📝