I have asked myself this question many times, Erik, and the answer I've come up with is this: to be a poet - a real poet, not a fake one seeking a career, fame and money - is primarily to be an agent of the divine, and that is enough of a reward for anybody. Poetry, as I see it, is the soul of the world. And true poets are its priests, serving something profoundly bigger than themselves.
Thank you, my friend. You've just proved to me that there is a lot to be said for saying what we instinctively know in our souls to be true - even though the world and its manipulators wants us to believe that life is all about winners and losers and adoring a big, vacuous blowhole of a leader, rather than something truly profound like Poetry, which is our link to the eternal.
Looks to me the vacuous blow hole is a funnel to Hell for any who adore or even side with him to their own perceived gain. Alas, I have little affection for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, ditto their predecessors in the White House, Democrat and Republican. I can't recall ever sitting down with the intention of writing a poem, but many times I was sat down and a poem came up out of me, which I would never have dreamed up with my mind, and it was my Muse, for I was the paper, the ink my blood, the pen my soul, and the poet was God- that fell out of me one day and I cried my eyes out.
Sloan, the ending of this comment is truly poetic. It reminds me a bit of D. H. Lawrence's poem about what real poetry is and where it comes from: "Not I, not I, but the wind that blows through me! "
I lived in Key West a good while, and I joined The Key West Poetry Guild and attended and recited and read my own poetry at monthly meetings. Some poets' poems were intrinsic, came from somewhere deep or beyond; some poems were crafted, came from what felt to me like their minds.
I recited this one quite a few times, it had hatched out of nowhere in early 1994.
Who, yes please tell me who, just who, invented the rule that poetry must rhyme, have pentameter, be cast into verse? Surely is wasn't the maker of the first stone- otherwise, there'd be no stones to break all those slaving rules!
I attended several poetry writing workshops and poetry slams in Key West, and listened to how to write poetry, and how not, and my poems kept coming when they wanted to come, despite me, in spite of me.
I love the idea of poetry being the opposite of the win/lose culture we seem to have created. As if poetry transcends the idea of competition in order to show us how we are all one.
I'm sure that isn't what you were saying, but the feeling came from what you wrote.
You are right, my friend, that exact feeling is central to what I said. But, ultimately, the best poets compete with themselves to produce the best work possible - something that will positively serve the human race.
I think it will be difficult to serve humanity though, if all we are is mocked by those who don't have the words to truly express it.
What I have found in poetry is a connection to others I can't otherwise match. I will never know what it is to live as a Black man, but Langston Hughes, I, Too gets me half there.
“The essence of all true poetry lies in its ability to transcend the mask of the self, to rise above the facade of personality, and speak from the eternal soul within. It bridges the creator's solitude and humanity's infinite spirit, carrying the secret flame of one heart into the boundless unity of all.”
To me this is transformative healing. Transcendence of the self. The world needs more poetry!
Who said poetry belonged in the English department? Or to the english speaking world? Poeisis means to create. How does it not belong in physics or mathematics, in biology or philosophy. Poetry is all of this .Yes it uses words. It touches upon language. The failure of language is what allows poetry to exist. It leads us into understanding in the metaphor of wisdom. It lives outside of the literalization of prose. Are we truly writing poetry? Is it writing us?
Poetry has always been a part of us. Poetry appears to be built into the hardwiring of our brain. We are all poets. Unfortunately, many of us were introduced to a different approach to poetry. We were asked to analyze and interpret poems whose meanings were dressed up in the myth, the mystery, the metaphor, the rhythm, the sound, the tone and the context of the writer. We were asked to separate the subject and the object like we do in everyday language and prose. Poetry lives outside these dualistic limitations and lives in the space that may reside beyond mere consciousness. We enter into a poem. We are not separate from it. In poetry we enter into our own experience. Poetry is a mirror. The teaching of poetry in school often left out the most important piece. The missing ingredient in poetry is us!
In the end, poetry is what poetry does. It will bring different meaning to every reader who interacts with it, where it meets them. Whats good? What’s bad? As a writer we only truly write for ourselves. Thats healing. So the more people who enter into poetry the better. Bring on the poets!
Robert Bringhurst- The Tree of Meaning- gets all the credit but so true. Poetry is not a part of language. It enters into it. Using words to say what words cannot. 🙏❤️
Some great quotes and great intentions here but perhaps missing the point a little. "The missing ingredient in poetry is us" is the problem with our current creative writing schools, which teach precisely that, resulting in the narcissistic poetry now prevalent. I had a Siksika Blackfeet indigenous counsellor once who told me they view the creation of all art as "being the hollow bone the universe sings through." In order to do that, you have to get your ego, yourself, out of the way so the song can come through clearly. It is NOT about you. You are merely the conduit for the universal song, like an instrument.
And the classical method of teaching students to tease out metaphorical and mythological implications of poetry was not, as you suggest, to sunder body and spirit, but to plumb the deeper depths those poets laboured to work into their poems. Mythology, like poetry, has been with us from the beginning. Myths, as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell pointed out, are the archetypes of consciousness. An understanding of them enriches the soul, as myths are designed to do.
Yes and that is my whole point Sean. It is NOT about me lol. Transcendence of the self. We will all travel that journey. Poetry is a portal. An act of resilience that opens the door to transformation. Through the looking glass.
It's interesting though, isn't it, how easily it is to conflate the message with the messenger. Probably as poets mature they learn this distinction. Helps if you ignore celebrity culture, which occurs in literature as much as film or music.
Well said. Leads us to the bigger question. What is poetry? In my heart, the more people that read it, enter into it and create through it the better the world becomes. Nice to see a fellow Canadian here. Happy new year. Meet you in the spaces between the words. Blessings. 🙏❤️
My friend, probably millions of words have been spilled in ink over the centuries trying to answer that question, "what is poetry?" I think like much creativity it's ultimately a mystery, which is as it should be. Unfortunately that doesn't go down well with the university mindset, which needs a curriculum to teach. Cheers to you in the New Year!
It reads to me as bitter and out of touch. In every generation there are people tirelessly making some kind of version of this claim of why the art of present is inferior to the past instead of seeking to understand. It’s lazy to me. Perhaps dig deeper to understand the zeitgeist instead of writing it off as simply narcissistic- I find this take shallow and dull. Do better.
You have food to eat and boredom to brag about. Outlaws also have pain and I hope you have a lot to keep to yourself and stop being a social bully for those who have difficulties with reading and mental health being the one that gives what you write their lives a feeling of being a victim when your not anything better than the negative you give as a definition. Piece of shit.
"Do better" is precisely what the author is encouraging contemporary poets to do. If you wish a more in-depth, point-by-point analysis of one particular poet to illustrate these issues of lyrical narcissism, read Brooke Clark's essay in The Walrus, "The Narcissism of Contemporary Poetry." https://thewalrus.ca/the-narcissism-of-contemporary-poetry/
A critique of lyrical narcissism (and in particular, one specific Canadian poet), as he, Brooke, writes about is not the same as disregarding all of modern poetry because it deals with "identity politics."
We are indeed in an age of identity. Identity art, identity literature, identity commerce, identity politics. They are all a sign of the times. The first two are a sign that the many repressed, abused and disillusioned are trying to set themselves free from the crowd, the latter two are a sign that there are powers willing to capitalize on the former for their own benefit; in essence creating a new crowd. The fashion will, like all fashions, pass. It is hoped that in passing, it leaves in its wake, the litter of free thinkers.
My first controversial statement: Rupi Kaur will be admitted into the Anglo-American canon before Rebecca Watts.
The reason is as simple as it is obvious: Kaur represents a lived life—she is painfully present in all of her work. She and the other “instapoets” have, without a doubt, inspired broad and deep emotion. This is not just to say that she connects with a certain type of reader, but also that she has inspired visceral reactions. An artist could not dream of greater success. Can we say the same of Watts? Ocean Vuong? We cannot, precisely because there is nothing controversial to talk about. Watts is barely present in her poems at all, and when she is, she feels like an intruder. Ocean Vuong, a talented poet without a doubt, utterly meets expectations. Kaur is not an intruder in her poems, she's an intruder in the reader's reading. She refuses to let geriatric expectations stand. In this respect, Kaur is more deserving of the title “poet” than most proper Anglo-American poets. The proper poet has become risk averse and so has lost the capacity to inspire.
My second controversial statement: The proper poet reads too much poetry.
Or, more precisely, they read too much poetry they wish they had written. The real challenge of our time isn't the poets who are exploring "unpoetic" forms, but rather the poets who, exulting their predecessors beyond reproach, can only produce well-workshopped pieces intended to impress other poets of like mind. The workshop is where talent goes to die; young poets find themselves in hospice before their career has begun. Is it any surprise that the public cannot stomach an extended verse from the proper poet?
My third controversial statement: Nobody wants to mix metaphysics with their poetry anymore. And I sort of get their point.
I think of all the money I’ve invested in drugs so that I could create my poetry. Nobody cares. They want clean poetry, so they curl their lips, furrow their brow, and with the vapid intonation of the valley proclaim, “I don’t get it.” And this vacuous response does not come from Kaur’s readers, it comes from those who consider themselves proper poets. Even though my poems are about as far removed from Rupi Kaur as one can get, her fans, far from being inclined to “quick consumption,” are the only ones willing to sit with my work, to read it two, three, thirteen times. They are unburdened by professional expectations; being less inclined to identify misprision, they allow idiosyncrasy to stand. More than that, Kaur’s readers are emotionally available, unlike the proper poet, who is afraid of deep water. The proper poet makes a terrible reader.
Anglo-American poetry has become stagnant and incestuous, stunted by its own self-referential conceit. This much we agree on. But this malaise does not originate with poets that defy the expectations of the workshop; it arises because the proper Anglo-American poet has elevated their work so far above common discourse that their only option is to converse with dead gods. It is in the pursuit of an arbitrary and misguided sense of “craft” that Anglo-American poetry has drunk itself dry.
As is often the case in life, when we decide to play diagnostician, it is most helpful to make sure our eyes are good. There are few things more offensive than a doctor who refuses to see his own sickness.
While, I disagree with you about the state of American poetry, I like your post very much. Thanks for writing it. One thing I do agree with wholeheartedly: workshops are only workshops, and no poet ought to give too much weight to any but the most trusted, and even then, a poet ought to use her own judgment. After all, it’s her name on the page.
I appreciate you saying so. And, just to soften the edge a little bit, I don't think Anglo-American poetry is completely devoid of value, or in a hopeless situation. It's just that the traditional publishing channels seem to be playing it overly safe.
But there definitely are definitely some strong poets out. She's quite unlike what I write, by I've recently discovered Hera Lindsay Bird whose got this sort of post-confessional/post-ironic-adjacent vibe that I think is really cool.
Seriously, though, I really appreciate that you enjoyed reading. Thank you :)
Damn this is a hot take. When I first read this article, my first thought of “insta-poet” was Kaur. I’ve read little of her work, and I wasn’t floored by the work I did read. Maybe I need to read more. What do you recommend?
My point about Kaur was more that she will be remembered long after someone like Rebecca Watts or even Ocean Vuong have been largely forgotten. I think it would be very hard to make the case that she hasn't inspired passionate responses. Her fans will shank anyone who talks smack about her, and most "serious" poets feel she heralds the end of Anglo-American poetry. It's all very ridiculous and over the top. She's different and most "serious" poets envy her fan base, so they belittle her work.
For my part, if I were to recommend any poetry, I would say go look up Hera Lindsay Bird. At the risk of being maudlin, she sets my heart a-flutter in a way no poet has set it a-flutter in a long while. Kaur is a bit like Taylor Swift to me: I can respect her artistry within her aesthetic, but she's not a "go to" poet for me. Regardless, I do think that a lot of the vitriol around Kaur is tied to the fact that people don't know how to read her, and you can see that by the fixation on the "three line sentence poem." This fixation, of course, entirely misses the point.
I don't think that everyone should be in love with Kaur, but I do think something people miss, not just with Kaur, but with poetry in general, is that the poem must be read on its own terms. We are allowed not to like things, but we don't get to shit on them to the point that we're shitting on people who do enjoy it, and that's what's happened with Kaur—it's not just Kaur that people go after, but they attack her readers and editors. The seem to be insinuating the the former are ignorant and the latter are liars. We are no obligated to enjoy every piece of art, but nobody, especially no artist, should disparage someone's work by questioning its right to be called art.
Thanks for getting me thinking! If you're interested, I'm actually working on an upgraded version of this comment. I'll be publishing it on my substack, Synapse Soufflé.
I feel with this article you merely act as a gate keeper. Are you the poetry police?
There are so many other aspects of poetry that make it a language accessible to so many. If more people have found joy in expressing themselves through the language of poetry I find this something to be celebrated and not criticized or ridiculed.
If poetry was just something for a small select number of poets and poet enthusiasts then it would lose its purpose. It would be a sad thing.
At the end of the day there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who copy or make mediocre art, but then you go to an art gallery or a museum and you enjoy the masters. But either way people felt inspired to share something and celebrate art and their desire to do so didn’t remove anything from the great artists. So why should you have a stab at them?
Nice cope. Modern poetry is in desperate need of a slap in the face. It's been drying up for years. Criticism is the very opposite of "gatekeeping." The academic "gatekeepers" have been killing poetry for decades.
"I don’t think there could ever be too many poets.
By writing poetry, even those poems that fail and fail miserably, we honor and affirm life. We say ‘We loved the earth but could not stay.” ~ Ted Kooser
I'm with you, @Pietro, and poet Ted Kooser. Why criticize those who at least try? That's what will kill poetry for good.
Imagine a child learning to draw and saying, "You aren't deep and dark and creative and and gifted enough; you should just quit before ruining the art form."
Criticism is what keeps poetry alive and breathing. It keeps it from suffocating in the sea of egocentrism and pretentious nonsense. What passes for poetry today would be laughed at by Auden and Dylan Thomas. Poetry isn't something that one "tries." It's a calling from within. The poet is merely the vessel of this mysterious calling. The worship of identity these days is killing all art forms. It deserves a little pushback.
As much as I found your post interesting, this idea that the real poet is a "vessel of a mysterious calling" proves the point as to the elitism in poetry (as someone above already pointed out). The assumption that "Instapoetry" is a product of narcissism and made by people who will never be fortunate enough to have received the divine (or something like that) is merely an assumption (and quite a non-compassionate and narcissistic tclaim in itself, if you don't mind me saying so.) What if... What if all this need for poetry is rebellious act to the consumerism society we live in? What if it's the complete opposite to what you're claiming? What if it's just human beings trying to connect? What of poetry is taking a new shape, evolving, into a new function in people's lives? There is no more beautiful, in my opinion, than people who reach towards their heart and try and find authentic words to express them. Let them do so without judging them from the lense of elitism.
Hm interesting view point. I simply don't agree. Shame is where depression happens. Shame is where suicide happens. Shame has no place in this world. I simply believe we need encouragement and compassion in this world, and I believe poetry can lead a way in that. That's why I believe that encouraging all people who want to write poetry, instead of shaming them, to dig deeper, meet their hearts, to dare to feel within : is the best way for poetry to evolve.
"Reach towards their heart and try and find authentic words to express them." I love that idea. We are entering a space where we are letting AI speak for us (to the point where actual voices are often AI now), the idea that we would now, of all times, choose to stop people from using their voice to create is disheartening at the very least.
I will never get over this essay using Bukowski as an example of how we should all strive to get our heads out of our own ...navels.
Criticism is one thing; judgment and shame are another. A true artist inspires all to uncover their calling from within, not prove they are somehow the only chosen one.
Ó Tuama posted this yesterday - Whatever Gets Us Through on Poetry Unbound, celebrating "pretentious nonsense" and "egocentrism" and inspiring the less gifted to try.
Erik, The New Stylus published three poems of mine here on Substack on Christmas Eve. Take a look at the third one called 'Stardust'. In it I'm saying exactly what you are saying here about the worship of identity being bad for poetry - that real "Poetry has a touch of stardust." This is the link: https://thenewstylus.substack.com/p/a-christmas-card-for-mum-and-other?
Critiques should at least be specific and not glorify those who do exactly what the critique purports to be about, aside from the fact that those glorified are white men.
I was friends with a poet for a few years. He was caught up in his ego at an exponential level. He wanted advice on what antidepressant to take, which I could not offer. I realize that art and the artist need to be considered separately, but this guy was both a bore and a narcissist. These traits and outcomes have repeated themselves with academics I have known.
This is beautiful, and thank you. Poetry oozes through me so I will return here often to drink from this well. My first poetry collection UNRULY debuts soon and the ancestors and I have been doing good work to tell what cannot be told well. <3
This is my favorite Poetic Outlaws post to date and one that will no doubt inspire repeated readings. A truly blessed and sacred note on which to transition into the New Year--thank you Erik! As a hewn-from-the-womb artist contentiously contending with the capitalistic script of how to define myself over the course of my 62 years, I ardently believe that I make my films to become the best version of myself. I daresay that all of us should endeavor--whether or not they feel inclined to identify as a poet/artist--to engage whatever helps them become the best version of themselves.
You talk of the unlettered crowd as if a simple man such as myself is incapable of producing worthwhile poetry. This kind of elitist attitude is what is killing interest in poetry. It may very well be part of the reason bloodless poetry is being written. An encouraging word or two goes a long way my friend.
You missed the point. Entirely. As one great contemporary poet said recently: "99% of poetry is the reason why most people hate poetry. There's no life in it. No light. No music. And when it gets published, trees weep."
(Also, I think someone should take Poetic Outlaws quotation books from him. If he can't answer this comment from you in his own words, maybe he shouldn't answer at all.)
Exceptional analysis, Erik. A friend of mine writes haiku and discusses the haiku as a practice. I've recently taken it up, too, because the haiku is an antidote to much of what you rightfully criticize above.
For example, a haiku can't be planned - it's an 'in the moment' expression of insight. It shouldn't be written ahead of time. It actively eschews the cleverness of the poet, producing meaning from capturing something unexpected by juxtaposing something common in the surrounding area with a flash of insight. Language must be as simple as the observation deep. And the presence of ego and self-focus is criticized mercilessly.
I understand the sentiments behind writing a haiku, but I have to say the quoted haiku means nothing to me. It's far too cryptic, as is a lot of poetry that tries to be 'clever'.
I have asked myself this question many times, Erik, and the answer I've come up with is this: to be a poet - a real poet, not a fake one seeking a career, fame and money - is primarily to be an agent of the divine, and that is enough of a reward for anybody. Poetry, as I see it, is the soul of the world. And true poets are its priests, serving something profoundly bigger than themselves.
All true artists are agents of the divine. We exist simply to create, to conjure, to mold, to be. 🩷
I love this. Well said, Deana.
Thank you, Martin.
lovely, amen
Thank you, my friend. You've just proved to me that there is a lot to be said for saying what we instinctively know in our souls to be true - even though the world and its manipulators wants us to believe that life is all about winners and losers and adoring a big, vacuous blowhole of a leader, rather than something truly profound like Poetry, which is our link to the eternal.
Looks to me the vacuous blow hole is a funnel to Hell for any who adore or even side with him to their own perceived gain. Alas, I have little affection for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, ditto their predecessors in the White House, Democrat and Republican. I can't recall ever sitting down with the intention of writing a poem, but many times I was sat down and a poem came up out of me, which I would never have dreamed up with my mind, and it was my Muse, for I was the paper, the ink my blood, the pen my soul, and the poet was God- that fell out of me one day and I cried my eyes out.
Sloan, the ending of this comment is truly poetic. It reminds me a bit of D. H. Lawrence's poem about what real poetry is and where it comes from: "Not I, not I, but the wind that blows through me! "
Yes.
I lived in Key West a good while, and I joined The Key West Poetry Guild and attended and recited and read my own poetry at monthly meetings. Some poets' poems were intrinsic, came from somewhere deep or beyond; some poems were crafted, came from what felt to me like their minds.
I recited this one quite a few times, it had hatched out of nowhere in early 1994.
Who, yes please tell me who, just who, invented the rule that poetry must rhyme, have pentameter, be cast into verse? Surely is wasn't the maker of the first stone- otherwise, there'd be no stones to break all those slaving rules!
I attended several poetry writing workshops and poetry slams in Key West, and listened to how to write poetry, and how not, and my poems kept coming when they wanted to come, despite me, in spite of me.
Thanks for sharing your poem. Nice chatting with you.
I love the idea of poetry being the opposite of the win/lose culture we seem to have created. As if poetry transcends the idea of competition in order to show us how we are all one.
I'm sure that isn't what you were saying, but the feeling came from what you wrote.
You are right, my friend, that exact feeling is central to what I said. But, ultimately, the best poets compete with themselves to produce the best work possible - something that will positively serve the human race.
I like that.
I think it will be difficult to serve humanity though, if all we are is mocked by those who don't have the words to truly express it.
What I have found in poetry is a connection to others I can't otherwise match. I will never know what it is to live as a Black man, but Langston Hughes, I, Too gets me half there.
Great article Erik! Great quotes.
“The essence of all true poetry lies in its ability to transcend the mask of the self, to rise above the facade of personality, and speak from the eternal soul within. It bridges the creator's solitude and humanity's infinite spirit, carrying the secret flame of one heart into the boundless unity of all.”
To me this is transformative healing. Transcendence of the self. The world needs more poetry!
Who said poetry belonged in the English department? Or to the english speaking world? Poeisis means to create. How does it not belong in physics or mathematics, in biology or philosophy. Poetry is all of this .Yes it uses words. It touches upon language. The failure of language is what allows poetry to exist. It leads us into understanding in the metaphor of wisdom. It lives outside of the literalization of prose. Are we truly writing poetry? Is it writing us?
Poetry has always been a part of us. Poetry appears to be built into the hardwiring of our brain. We are all poets. Unfortunately, many of us were introduced to a different approach to poetry. We were asked to analyze and interpret poems whose meanings were dressed up in the myth, the mystery, the metaphor, the rhythm, the sound, the tone and the context of the writer. We were asked to separate the subject and the object like we do in everyday language and prose. Poetry lives outside these dualistic limitations and lives in the space that may reside beyond mere consciousness. We enter into a poem. We are not separate from it. In poetry we enter into our own experience. Poetry is a mirror. The teaching of poetry in school often left out the most important piece. The missing ingredient in poetry is us!
In the end, poetry is what poetry does. It will bring different meaning to every reader who interacts with it, where it meets them. Whats good? What’s bad? As a writer we only truly write for ourselves. Thats healing. So the more people who enter into poetry the better. Bring on the poets!
"The failure of language is what allows poetry to exist." Boom
Robert Bringhurst- The Tree of Meaning- gets all the credit but so true. Poetry is not a part of language. It enters into it. Using words to say what words cannot. 🙏❤️
Some great quotes and great intentions here but perhaps missing the point a little. "The missing ingredient in poetry is us" is the problem with our current creative writing schools, which teach precisely that, resulting in the narcissistic poetry now prevalent. I had a Siksika Blackfeet indigenous counsellor once who told me they view the creation of all art as "being the hollow bone the universe sings through." In order to do that, you have to get your ego, yourself, out of the way so the song can come through clearly. It is NOT about you. You are merely the conduit for the universal song, like an instrument.
And the classical method of teaching students to tease out metaphorical and mythological implications of poetry was not, as you suggest, to sunder body and spirit, but to plumb the deeper depths those poets laboured to work into their poems. Mythology, like poetry, has been with us from the beginning. Myths, as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell pointed out, are the archetypes of consciousness. An understanding of them enriches the soul, as myths are designed to do.
Yes and that is my whole point Sean. It is NOT about me lol. Transcendence of the self. We will all travel that journey. Poetry is a portal. An act of resilience that opens the door to transformation. Through the looking glass.
It's interesting though, isn't it, how easily it is to conflate the message with the messenger. Probably as poets mature they learn this distinction. Helps if you ignore celebrity culture, which occurs in literature as much as film or music.
Well said. Leads us to the bigger question. What is poetry? In my heart, the more people that read it, enter into it and create through it the better the world becomes. Nice to see a fellow Canadian here. Happy new year. Meet you in the spaces between the words. Blessings. 🙏❤️
My friend, probably millions of words have been spilled in ink over the centuries trying to answer that question, "what is poetry?" I think like much creativity it's ultimately a mystery, which is as it should be. Unfortunately that doesn't go down well with the university mindset, which needs a curriculum to teach. Cheers to you in the New Year!
To transcend in words the singular, immeasurable smallnes connected to the immeasurable vastness, is the true art of poetry.
Well said 🙏❤️
It reads to me as bitter and out of touch. In every generation there are people tirelessly making some kind of version of this claim of why the art of present is inferior to the past instead of seeking to understand. It’s lazy to me. Perhaps dig deeper to understand the zeitgeist instead of writing it off as simply narcissistic- I find this take shallow and dull. Do better.
You bore me.
You have food to eat and boredom to brag about. Outlaws also have pain and I hope you have a lot to keep to yourself and stop being a social bully for those who have difficulties with reading and mental health being the one that gives what you write their lives a feeling of being a victim when your not anything better than the negative you give as a definition. Piece of shit.
"Do better" is precisely what the author is encouraging contemporary poets to do. If you wish a more in-depth, point-by-point analysis of one particular poet to illustrate these issues of lyrical narcissism, read Brooke Clark's essay in The Walrus, "The Narcissism of Contemporary Poetry." https://thewalrus.ca/the-narcissism-of-contemporary-poetry/
A critique of lyrical narcissism (and in particular, one specific Canadian poet), as he, Brooke, writes about is not the same as disregarding all of modern poetry because it deals with "identity politics."
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw this.
There is some special magic in accusing someone of being bitter and out of touch, just to then bark the order: “Do better!”
This post absolutely shook me this morning—so well done!!!
We are indeed in an age of identity. Identity art, identity literature, identity commerce, identity politics. They are all a sign of the times. The first two are a sign that the many repressed, abused and disillusioned are trying to set themselves free from the crowd, the latter two are a sign that there are powers willing to capitalize on the former for their own benefit; in essence creating a new crowd. The fashion will, like all fashions, pass. It is hoped that in passing, it leaves in its wake, the litter of free thinkers.
what a beautiful and complex thought.
My first controversial statement: Rupi Kaur will be admitted into the Anglo-American canon before Rebecca Watts.
The reason is as simple as it is obvious: Kaur represents a lived life—she is painfully present in all of her work. She and the other “instapoets” have, without a doubt, inspired broad and deep emotion. This is not just to say that she connects with a certain type of reader, but also that she has inspired visceral reactions. An artist could not dream of greater success. Can we say the same of Watts? Ocean Vuong? We cannot, precisely because there is nothing controversial to talk about. Watts is barely present in her poems at all, and when she is, she feels like an intruder. Ocean Vuong, a talented poet without a doubt, utterly meets expectations. Kaur is not an intruder in her poems, she's an intruder in the reader's reading. She refuses to let geriatric expectations stand. In this respect, Kaur is more deserving of the title “poet” than most proper Anglo-American poets. The proper poet has become risk averse and so has lost the capacity to inspire.
My second controversial statement: The proper poet reads too much poetry.
Or, more precisely, they read too much poetry they wish they had written. The real challenge of our time isn't the poets who are exploring "unpoetic" forms, but rather the poets who, exulting their predecessors beyond reproach, can only produce well-workshopped pieces intended to impress other poets of like mind. The workshop is where talent goes to die; young poets find themselves in hospice before their career has begun. Is it any surprise that the public cannot stomach an extended verse from the proper poet?
My third controversial statement: Nobody wants to mix metaphysics with their poetry anymore. And I sort of get their point.
I think of all the money I’ve invested in drugs so that I could create my poetry. Nobody cares. They want clean poetry, so they curl their lips, furrow their brow, and with the vapid intonation of the valley proclaim, “I don’t get it.” And this vacuous response does not come from Kaur’s readers, it comes from those who consider themselves proper poets. Even though my poems are about as far removed from Rupi Kaur as one can get, her fans, far from being inclined to “quick consumption,” are the only ones willing to sit with my work, to read it two, three, thirteen times. They are unburdened by professional expectations; being less inclined to identify misprision, they allow idiosyncrasy to stand. More than that, Kaur’s readers are emotionally available, unlike the proper poet, who is afraid of deep water. The proper poet makes a terrible reader.
Anglo-American poetry has become stagnant and incestuous, stunted by its own self-referential conceit. This much we agree on. But this malaise does not originate with poets that defy the expectations of the workshop; it arises because the proper Anglo-American poet has elevated their work so far above common discourse that their only option is to converse with dead gods. It is in the pursuit of an arbitrary and misguided sense of “craft” that Anglo-American poetry has drunk itself dry.
As is often the case in life, when we decide to play diagnostician, it is most helpful to make sure our eyes are good. There are few things more offensive than a doctor who refuses to see his own sickness.
While, I disagree with you about the state of American poetry, I like your post very much. Thanks for writing it. One thing I do agree with wholeheartedly: workshops are only workshops, and no poet ought to give too much weight to any but the most trusted, and even then, a poet ought to use her own judgment. After all, it’s her name on the page.
I appreciate you saying so. And, just to soften the edge a little bit, I don't think Anglo-American poetry is completely devoid of value, or in a hopeless situation. It's just that the traditional publishing channels seem to be playing it overly safe.
But there definitely are definitely some strong poets out. She's quite unlike what I write, by I've recently discovered Hera Lindsay Bird whose got this sort of post-confessional/post-ironic-adjacent vibe that I think is really cool.
Seriously, though, I really appreciate that you enjoyed reading. Thank you :)
Damn this is a hot take. When I first read this article, my first thought of “insta-poet” was Kaur. I’ve read little of her work, and I wasn’t floored by the work I did read. Maybe I need to read more. What do you recommend?
My point about Kaur was more that she will be remembered long after someone like Rebecca Watts or even Ocean Vuong have been largely forgotten. I think it would be very hard to make the case that she hasn't inspired passionate responses. Her fans will shank anyone who talks smack about her, and most "serious" poets feel she heralds the end of Anglo-American poetry. It's all very ridiculous and over the top. She's different and most "serious" poets envy her fan base, so they belittle her work.
For my part, if I were to recommend any poetry, I would say go look up Hera Lindsay Bird. At the risk of being maudlin, she sets my heart a-flutter in a way no poet has set it a-flutter in a long while. Kaur is a bit like Taylor Swift to me: I can respect her artistry within her aesthetic, but she's not a "go to" poet for me. Regardless, I do think that a lot of the vitriol around Kaur is tied to the fact that people don't know how to read her, and you can see that by the fixation on the "three line sentence poem." This fixation, of course, entirely misses the point.
I don't think that everyone should be in love with Kaur, but I do think something people miss, not just with Kaur, but with poetry in general, is that the poem must be read on its own terms. We are allowed not to like things, but we don't get to shit on them to the point that we're shitting on people who do enjoy it, and that's what's happened with Kaur—it's not just Kaur that people go after, but they attack her readers and editors. The seem to be insinuating the the former are ignorant and the latter are liars. We are no obligated to enjoy every piece of art, but nobody, especially no artist, should disparage someone's work by questioning its right to be called art.
Right on, thank you for your thoughtfulness!
Thanks for getting me thinking! If you're interested, I'm actually working on an upgraded version of this comment. I'll be publishing it on my substack, Synapse Soufflé.
Hell yeah!! I’ll check it out
Thanks!
I feel with this article you merely act as a gate keeper. Are you the poetry police?
There are so many other aspects of poetry that make it a language accessible to so many. If more people have found joy in expressing themselves through the language of poetry I find this something to be celebrated and not criticized or ridiculed.
If poetry was just something for a small select number of poets and poet enthusiasts then it would lose its purpose. It would be a sad thing.
At the end of the day there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who copy or make mediocre art, but then you go to an art gallery or a museum and you enjoy the masters. But either way people felt inspired to share something and celebrate art and their desire to do so didn’t remove anything from the great artists. So why should you have a stab at them?
Nice cope. Modern poetry is in desperate need of a slap in the face. It's been drying up for years. Criticism is the very opposite of "gatekeeping." The academic "gatekeepers" have been killing poetry for decades.
"I don’t think there could ever be too many poets.
By writing poetry, even those poems that fail and fail miserably, we honor and affirm life. We say ‘We loved the earth but could not stay.” ~ Ted Kooser
I'm with you, @Pietro, and poet Ted Kooser. Why criticize those who at least try? That's what will kill poetry for good.
Imagine a child learning to draw and saying, "You aren't deep and dark and creative and and gifted enough; you should just quit before ruining the art form."
Criticism is what keeps poetry alive and breathing. It keeps it from suffocating in the sea of egocentrism and pretentious nonsense. What passes for poetry today would be laughed at by Auden and Dylan Thomas. Poetry isn't something that one "tries." It's a calling from within. The poet is merely the vessel of this mysterious calling. The worship of identity these days is killing all art forms. It deserves a little pushback.
As much as I found your post interesting, this idea that the real poet is a "vessel of a mysterious calling" proves the point as to the elitism in poetry (as someone above already pointed out). The assumption that "Instapoetry" is a product of narcissism and made by people who will never be fortunate enough to have received the divine (or something like that) is merely an assumption (and quite a non-compassionate and narcissistic tclaim in itself, if you don't mind me saying so.) What if... What if all this need for poetry is rebellious act to the consumerism society we live in? What if it's the complete opposite to what you're claiming? What if it's just human beings trying to connect? What of poetry is taking a new shape, evolving, into a new function in people's lives? There is no more beautiful, in my opinion, than people who reach towards their heart and try and find authentic words to express them. Let them do so without judging them from the lense of elitism.
YES. Judgment shames creativity into dust.
Bad art deserves shame. As Umberto Eco once said: "All poets write bad poetry. Bad poets publish them, good poets burn them.”
Hm interesting view point. I simply don't agree. Shame is where depression happens. Shame is where suicide happens. Shame has no place in this world. I simply believe we need encouragement and compassion in this world, and I believe poetry can lead a way in that. That's why I believe that encouraging all people who want to write poetry, instead of shaming them, to dig deeper, meet their hearts, to dare to feel within : is the best way for poetry to evolve.
I want to steal this. I won't, but I hope you'll use it somewhere else.
"Reach towards their heart and try and find authentic words to express them." I love that idea. We are entering a space where we are letting AI speak for us (to the point where actual voices are often AI now), the idea that we would now, of all times, choose to stop people from using their voice to create is disheartening at the very least.
I will never get over this essay using Bukowski as an example of how we should all strive to get our heads out of our own ...navels.
Criticism is one thing; judgment and shame are another. A true artist inspires all to uncover their calling from within, not prove they are somehow the only chosen one.
Ó Tuama posted this yesterday - Whatever Gets Us Through on Poetry Unbound, celebrating "pretentious nonsense" and "egocentrism" and inspiring the less gifted to try.
The Committee Weighs In
I tell my mother
I’ve won the Nobel Prize.
Again? she says. Which
discipline this time?
It’s a little game
we play: I pretend
I’m somebody, she
pretends she isn’t dead.
—Andrea Cohen
https://substack.com/home/post/p-153650865
Thank you fro the reminder that ÓTuama is on here. I miss listening to him on his podcast.
Erik, The New Stylus published three poems of mine here on Substack on Christmas Eve. Take a look at the third one called 'Stardust'. In it I'm saying exactly what you are saying here about the worship of identity being bad for poetry - that real "Poetry has a touch of stardust." This is the link: https://thenewstylus.substack.com/p/a-christmas-card-for-mum-and-other?
I like you.
Critiques should at least be specific and not glorify those who do exactly what the critique purports to be about, aside from the fact that those glorified are white men.
Beautifully said. I'm glad more people on Substack seem not to be taken in with this screed that is more than half quotations.
I was friends with a poet for a few years. He was caught up in his ego at an exponential level. He wanted advice on what antidepressant to take, which I could not offer. I realize that art and the artist need to be considered separately, but this guy was both a bore and a narcissist. These traits and outcomes have repeated themselves with academics I have known.
I recommend the sinsemilla
This is beautiful, and thank you. Poetry oozes through me so I will return here often to drink from this well. My first poetry collection UNRULY debuts soon and the ancestors and I have been doing good work to tell what cannot be told well. <3
This is my favorite Poetic Outlaws post to date and one that will no doubt inspire repeated readings. A truly blessed and sacred note on which to transition into the New Year--thank you Erik! As a hewn-from-the-womb artist contentiously contending with the capitalistic script of how to define myself over the course of my 62 years, I ardently believe that I make my films to become the best version of myself. I daresay that all of us should endeavor--whether or not they feel inclined to identify as a poet/artist--to engage whatever helps them become the best version of themselves.
You talk of the unlettered crowd as if a simple man such as myself is incapable of producing worthwhile poetry. This kind of elitist attitude is what is killing interest in poetry. It may very well be part of the reason bloodless poetry is being written. An encouraging word or two goes a long way my friend.
You missed the point. Entirely. As one great contemporary poet said recently: "99% of poetry is the reason why most people hate poetry. There's no life in it. No light. No music. And when it gets published, trees weep."
(Also, I think someone should take Poetic Outlaws quotation books from him. If he can't answer this comment from you in his own words, maybe he shouldn't answer at all.)
Hear, hear! I would rather read 100 poems from someone connecting me to their lives than 1 more complaint using the term "unlettered."
Although, I would have read those poems regardless. Modern poetry is actually pretty great.
Very poetic prose! Thank you Erik!
Thank you, Erik! This is one of the few I've saved to go back and read again and again. You offer a lot to consider.
Wow Erik
exquisite writing, perspective and thoughts
Exceptional analysis, Erik. A friend of mine writes haiku and discusses the haiku as a practice. I've recently taken it up, too, because the haiku is an antidote to much of what you rightfully criticize above.
For example, a haiku can't be planned - it's an 'in the moment' expression of insight. It shouldn't be written ahead of time. It actively eschews the cleverness of the poet, producing meaning from capturing something unexpected by juxtaposing something common in the surrounding area with a flash of insight. Language must be as simple as the observation deep. And the presence of ego and self-focus is criticized mercilessly.
A delight from Issa:
Don’t weep, insects –
Lovers, stars themselves,
Must part.
- Kobayashi Issa
I understand the sentiments behind writing a haiku, but I have to say the quoted haiku means nothing to me. It's far too cryptic, as is a lot of poetry that tries to be 'clever'.
I thank you for saying all of this.