Published by Sean on 13 Jul 2005
Wednesday July 13, 2005 at 10:02 pm
In case anybody hasn’t heard of the band “The Killers” or only know one
or two of their songs, I strongly recommend discovering their album
called “Hot Fuss.” They are absolutely amazing! If you know
them, and hate them, well, to each their own.
I’ve been delving into poetry lately. I remembered a phrase from
my music teacher. “If you want to be a good trumpet player, you need to
start listening to famous trumpet players.”
Sure, it sounds like good advice, and it is, but seriously, how many
people out their study poetry before becoming a self-proclaimed genius
of poetry? I think most people assume they’re good, start
writing, discover they have mild talents, get carried away because
people compliment them, and then they start diving into the
professional stuff seriously. At least, this is what I see from
my recent escapades into poetry places like pathetic.org.
My point, anyway, is that I’m discovering my voice a little bit.
For the longest time, I thought that in order to be a great poet you
needed to study a dictionary and thesaurus. You needed to be able
to impress people with all the wierd and crazy words you’re able to
work into your stuff. I always found I didn’t like this style so
much. It just seemed like random, far-fetched, impossible words
put toger in order to make the poet look smart. Granted, it’s
amazing to discover new words, and to read beautiful sentences made out
of them, and especially the ingenious new way of saying something in a
refreshing way. But, you need to be very skilled in order to do
this without crossing the line.
I hope my rant makes sense, and my point is that I have found some
beautiful poetry that matches more my own style. I have
discovered a style in which very plain speech is used–almost as you
would hear in daily conversation. It is used in such a way that
is deceptively simple, but hides an inner truth.
For example–what I see in pathetic.org and other sights are some poems like this:
Your calculus of corpuscle is
the verisimilitude of
dyspereunia and jingoism.
Whereas the professional published poems I see look more like this:
Your hardened bloody globule of body fluid
only appears to be true like
painful sex and excess nationalism.
Now, both of these poems mean the exact same thing pretty much.
But can you tell the difference between the poem in which I just used
the biggest words I could think of, and the one using accessable
language? I find the second one much more interesting–the images
are there, and sharp, and vibrant–and and they are less egotistically
boring. However, the poem still doesn’t seem to make sense.
And I’m finding that most of the poets I like use even simpler
language. They give you a feel like there are character’s and a
plot to your poem.
Take a look at this:
You have blood clotting on your leg.
It is mixed with body fluids.
This all seems to be too real.
Was the sex painful?
Were you thinking of the government while it happened?
Maybe I’m alone here, but I find the simplicity of the words in this
third example of pretty much the exact same poem much more
powerful. It’s more three dimensional too–It leads to more questions like: who’s talking?, who is
he talking too? what? where? why? when? There’s depth, not
just fancy words. Some would argue that the third
example is too much like a novel. And if they wanted to read a
novel–they would. And I think they are right, the third poem is
starting to tread close to the line between poetry and prose. So you have to be careful.
Ok, so this is probably basic for most of you amazing poets out
there. But seriously, it’s an amazing discovery for me. I
can write my thoughts out as I hear them in my mind–without
“decorating” them just to impress.
If you’re writing poems only to impress, you’re doing them for the wrong reason.
Anyway, with all the poetry reading I have been doing, this is what I’ve been thinking about.
End of Rant
**********************************************************




