It may just be my current mood, but I seem to be reading a lot of poems on the site, that although impeccably penned, just leave me cold, except to admire the workmanship.

This reminds me of the 'big question' that I believe we should all ask ourselves before inflicting our stuff on others. It isn't 'is this the right form?' or 'should I have used punctuation or caps?' even 'are the line breaks the best I can do?'. No, it is simply 'is this boring?'.

It's important to remind myself of this.

Cheers

milner

milner, you hit the nail right smack dab on the head.  lately, that's the majority of what i'm seeing...people more concerned with form than content.  and, like you, the bulk of it leaves me absolutely stone cold bored.  people more concerned with showing their technical expertise than in reaching into their soul.  cold cold cold pointless stuff.
john

Agree that this the bouncer at the door. Nobody has written anything that interests everyone, most good writing still bores most people, and someone's interested in pretty much everything -- some people avidly consume chess moves, for example. So one thing is to find out who our audience may be -- then, make sure our opening lines are as good as the later lines, or we lose them too! Tom

you seriously don't believe that, do you?  seriously?  that smacks of elitism and that feeling that "the masses can't understand MY work because it's just too FINE for them to understand".  never underestimate your audience.

Of course, John. That includes your best, and my best, and all the writers whose best is a lot better. Same is true of music, painting, any art. None of it is for everyone.
Which writer do you think most people find fascinating?

I don't think there's anything wrong with readers at all. I think that's the way it is and the way it should be.

(p.s. EXCEPT Gaga, of course.)

i think both the question and Tom's
answer have merit.  more importantly,
we must ask what do readers find
boring or stimulating.  for instance,
i would gather that i have a different
reader than Lynn, or Dax, or the recently
departed Anna.  i think this is because
different readers have different requirements.

i also think it could be that most readers and
poets have a sanitized view of poetry. for most,
if it doesn't contain a flower or a bird, the mention
of stars, and a heart in some shape or form, it's
missed its mark.  then, you have the minority,
like John, Milner, and Rob who ardently require
a split bone and marrow spoon.  can the two
coexist?  can one live with the other?

as it relates to my own writing.  i wonder sometimes
after it's written "do people really enjoy this shit,
or is it just me?", "do they find it interesting"?  i've noticed
most of my work is commented on by editors, and i've
been told that to some degree what i write isn't accessible.
how do you balance that, giving the people what they
want without becoming the next incarnation of Menudo?

who matters most?  which reader do you write for?  
can the other readers be trained?  should the writer
forsake himself for the reader?


tiko


*the response doesn't include readers like Tom, who can
appreciate both.  but, i find he's the greatest minority.

i would also attribute it to churn,
to a great degree.

So I guess you found me at the Menudo fan site, Tiko. Busted.

the churn of stale words in the heart again
love love love thud of the old plunger
pestling the unalterable
whey of words
- Beckett, "Cascando"

Tom

If you're churning the milk, don't forget to put salt in the butter.

milner

ah, salt - so essential - just not too much!  lol- M

art

as
the
spirit
wanes
the
form
appears.     
                .....C. Bukowski.....

butter makes it better!!

an important question
that's begging to be asked:

what makes the poetry boring?

tiko

My inspiration (borrowed from Schopenhauer) has always been to understand what you're writing, why you're writing it, and to whom you're writing it for.  To which I add, always strive to write it well.  If have you have a clear understanding of what, why, and for whom, you can concentrate everything on writing it well.  I will often write the same poem/story/essay/book many times, always starting at ground zero.  I have quite literally dozens of variations of the same idea.  So many writers think revision is just subtituting words, breaking lines differently, adding a stanza here and there, when really if the idea works in your head but not on paper, throw the paper out.  Tell the same story to different readers, because your audience will influence how your story is told.  I wouldn't explain something to my young children the same way I'd tell the story to my peers.  The most striking example of this kind of revision is Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil and his Thus Spoke Zarathrustra.  These two books represent the same ideas (and arguments) but the books are as different as night and day.  Also, the same kind of revision is found in Hemmingway's short stories.  When the original stories were stolen from his apartment, rather than try to remember how they were and reprint them, he started from ground zero and rebuilt them.  These are the lessons young writers need to embrace.  Saying all of this, contrary to the old saying, sometimes the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.  And sometimes somebody should take a sledge-hammer to the bathtub as well :)