Stephen Fry on Modern Poetry: A grumpy posh man or does he have a point?

Stephen Fry is unquestionably my favorite posh and a very smart man. If he's says modern poetry is a state, so be it. I bow to his knowledge and once Wildean decadent lifestyle. He needs to stop doing bloody adverts though. Style and form are essential in all forms of art and in life. That's why I only wear hoodies during the day and pink Hackett T-shirts when out in popular hot-spots at night. Ben.. www.thedevilbetweenus.com

some people say the difference between life and art is form. Form is important. Sometimes it doesn't have to be. Stephen Fry is, obviously, one of my heroes. He is doing a talk at UEA tonight and I haven't got a ticket and I am so upset because his book The Liar changed my life when I was 15. I know what he means... form in poetry is what trains the ideas and focusses the language. I'm not sure. I know when I write a 'poem', I actually give it no credence at all because I don't write it in any kind of form. I think Fry is a bit elitist - but he wants everyone to know about the forms of poetry, so that's more universalist isn't it? To break down form, you need to know it exists, or something. When Van Gogh painted in his style, he already knew how to paint 'life like' - but then did something with it. He knew the tradition and where he came in it. I'm all for that. But I'm also for sensitivity towards those who don't use it.

I'm not much of a 'poetry person,' myself. This issue does, however, touch on my views on art in general. Personally, I create what I enjoy creating, and if someone else gets something out of it... great! If lots of people do, then even greater (?), coz it means I'll hopefully be able to make some money out of it. I tend towards thinking there's no such thing as 'Good Art' & 'Bad Art' - it's all pretty much subjective & down to personal opinion. Like Stephen King said, in my 'What is talent?' thread, if you're communicating, then you're succeeding in doing what art is meant for, therefore you are talented. Love Stephen Fry, though! Look forward to QI all week!! :-) * P * :-)

I think he has a point. I wrote some arse dribble about being drunk - that used to be my normal state. I was drunk when I wrote it and it is - um - arse dribble.

Going to see him tonight as part of the UEA literary fesitval. Will report back. Span x

I'm with SF on this one.

>>> Writing anything, in any form, that anyone else will want to read is quite difficult. ...I think this is what it all comes down to, really. :-) * P * :-)

I think that Stephen Fry suffers from the same thing that lots of writers (male?) suffer from, which is a fear of putting any of themselves into their work. It is seen as somehow 'unwriterly' to actually write something that means something to you. I don't mean self-confessional stuff, but I mean stuff that digs into the deep dark places in your brain. My perfect example of this is Martin Amis. I am trying to get to then end of Yellow Dog at the moment, but do you know what? It is utter tripe. Really really bad. His characters all have silly names like Clint Smoker and things like that, and he writes lots of East End dialogue and weird stuff about porn and gangsters and do you know what I think? I think he is afraid. Afraid of putting anything he truly feels anything about onto a page. Instead he comes up with this unreadable drivel. And it pains me to say that because a) he came and spoke to the MA lot when I was at UEA and I found him a humble and interesting man and b) I read his autobiography 'Experience' and it was so good, and so real, and so cleverly and beautifully written, that I cried - real tears - at least five times throughout. If you're listening Martin (which I know you're not) please write something that's as good and as genuine as your autobiography. And stop giving your characters names which are keys to their personalities. The Liar, by Stephen Fry is, ironically, the most moving and interesting of his novels. I suppose I'm not as interested in his work now as I used to be. If he is saying Free Verse is no good, then that's silly. Free verse is great. And quite frankly I'd rather read a bible length book of free verse than rhyming poetry about jellies and ice-cream.

Gah. I'm with Pesky and Bobblehat. Almost everyone who cares about poetry thinks that most of what is written is crap. Those that attempt to explain what it is that makes the crap crap and the rest so wonderful almost invariably make a total prat of themselves, especially if they do it in an arrogant and impatient manner, as Fry has done here. Jeez. As if adhering to forms will magically make bad writers better. That's an even worse theory than the one that all modern writing is too self-conscious. I don't even believe there *is* a dominant trend in writing. It's just that you're bound to think there's too much of whatever you don't like. By the way, best *ever* poem written on the subject of the state of modern poetry: THOUSANDS Leonard Cohen Out of the thousands who are known, or who want to be known as poets, maybe one or two are genuine and the rest are fakes, hanging around the sacred precincts trying to look like the real thing. Needless to say I am one of the fakes, and this is my story

I've largely moved from writing short stories to poetry recently because a) I've run out of story ideas and b) there's plenty of poetry events around with open-mic slots where I can read aloud. But the frightening thing is that I've really no idea whether the stuff I write is good or crap or a bit of both - the writers' group often suggest major surgery though! The deliberate crap Stephen Fry wrote would have got past my radar if only for the line "loaded against yourself" which I rather like and whilst I also like Leonard Cohen isn't there a case for saying that the above poem is merely a prose sentence chopped up and arranged vertically? And the vaunted slam poetry I hear often consists of alliteration and multiple rhyme punctuated with swearing to give street cred. The whole area's very subjective!

Guess there's always a case for that, Neil. What I'd say though is that something like that has a right to be a poem *if* it just doesn't do the same thing as prose. And I don't think it does. If you write it out as a couple of sentences, it just doesn't work as well. And what is it then anyway? An even more obscure form. Splitting something into lines emphasises particular sounds, words, pauses etc. and that *does* make a difference. Making it effective one of those things that's supposedly very simple, but actually very hard. Like haiku, I guess. Or ice skating. By the way, what fucker decided to ask Stephen Fry to judge a poetry competition? I thought judges had to have some kind of qualification in the thing they're judging.

* non-poetry-appreciating pleb alert * First up – I do find Stephen Fry entertaining. I also find him an unbearable intellectual snob at times (as in the case of SF and John Sessions fawning over each other’s intellects on QI – eugh). But since the subject’s come up... whilst I don’t think poetry needs to rhyme or have a specific form and I’m sure 99% of rhyming poetry written is both incredibly cheesy and forced, I do sometimes get the impression that rhyming poetry – full stop – is now considered cheesy, even when it is well done. If that’s the case, then I would consider it just another trend that could easily reverse and then we’d have the opposite problem. The elitist thing is funny though, as, for once, I reckon SF is arguing for the other side. As far as readers outside of poetry circles go, I'd bet a vox pox would produce mostly rhyming poetry in the top ten. There is a tiny audience for poetry in the general population, but a huge audience for song lyrics, which, by their nature, have structure, rhythm and rhyme. Granted a lot of them are complete shite – but when they work, they work incredibly well and thousands of people know them off by heart (Alison by Elvis Costello springs to mind, although I’m sure I could come up with some more profound examples if pushed). As to Leonard Cohen’s poem, in my opinion it IS just chopped up prose, and reads far better without the chopping – or was that exactly what he was getting at?

Oh, sorry Jack, didn't see you up there (took me so long to write above post). Re. Leonard Cohen's poem - it was the word 'precincts' being on its own. I just couldn't find a justification for that. Figured it read better read as a succinctly put opinion.

Unlike the above, obviously.

Ha! I like it when people start off their posts warning us that they know/appreciate nothing about the subject, then turn out to have really good points! I'm not sure there *is* a huge audience for song lyrics - there's a huge audience for pop music, but, as evidenced by the amount of shite lyrics, I don't think people really care that much what they're singing about. The words just make the tune easier to remember, and thus catchier. In some cases (like Costello, or indeed Cohen,) we do care about the lyrics, but I imagine Cohen and Costello fans are likely to read poetry as well. The other reason, a mon avis, that there's a tiny audience for poetry is that it's very easy to acquire for free. Most famous poems can be found online, and you can get through them quite quickly. There are also plenty of sites (ie. here,) where you can find quite a lot of quality poetry. It may not always blow your mind, but there's plenty that do the job. There's also the fact that, like literary fcition, poetry is mostly marketed as something 'important' rather than interesting, which is a big turn-off for non-intellectuals. And it's just not something that lends itself to modern notions of success - hit parades, best-sellers etc. It's too personal for that. We'll have to agree to disagree on the LC thing though. I just don't think it has the impact without the pauses and structure he's implemented.

Now you mention it though, I do wonder about that 'precincts' line.

Fair enough. As you've given me Precincts, I'll give you Agadoo.

personally i think the poem isn't that good anyway.. would our peers bless it with a cherry?

Sorry, couldn't resist... http://www.abctales.com/story/pepsoid/a-se-dribble :-) * P * :-)

I know nothing about poetry. I'm a scientist. So I just know what I happen to like and don't expect everyone to agree with my tastes. I think Bobblehat hit the nail on the head - whether or not a poet uses free or form is largely irrelevent - it depends on how good they are at poetry. We probably have a tendency to cringe a little from what seems overly familiar to us. a couple of years ago "If" by Rudyard Kipling was voted the nations favourite poem and I confess to liking it. All the overly famailiar verses I grew up with - Tennyson, Keats, Blake and de le Mare - i still feel the thrill of battle when I hear "The Charge of the Light Brigade" and the creepy stillness when I hear "The Listeners". Over-familiar but I likes! Moving to much more modern work; I tend to like poets like Michael Donaghy and Alain Presencer - who don't always use form and rarely if ever rhyme, but there is something rhythmic and musically lyrical about their poetry. I think Fergal has a point -if a talented writer puts what they genuinely feel into their work they will acheive poetry that "feels" good.

Oh and that ice cream poem is just plain dreadful. Maybe he should stick to making adverts. Though dismal, I think his "Twinnings tea" is a small step up from the agony of set jelly and flipped pancakes.

this is all starting to get a bit 'emperor's new clothesy' for me. I tend to over simplify at times but if you're about to respond to this by claiming that's what I'm now doing then PLEASE have something useful to say and don't just get all "oh you don't understand" on my ass and then reel off a list of people I've never heard of. Poetry to me is just creative writing. The difference between it and just normal descriptive writing is its form and what drives its creation. Now, the form of a poem- be it rhyming or not, should be dictated by the way the poet wants to communicate and if a rhyming pattern supports the mind set and the creative flow then so be it. I've read a lot of poems that seem to break up perfectly good lines for no apparrent reason, or, for the sake of looking more like a poem. Surely the reason to end a line and begin another should be clear to the reader. The reason for every single word and why it was chosen over any other word should also be clear to the reader, that's (FOR ME) the difference between poetry and creative writing. You're trying to get as much out of every word as you can, be it the sound, or a double meaning or whatever, preferably both and more to warrant its place in the poem so it becomes a crafted thing, more akin to a work of art than a written thing. If anyone were to ask me the reason for any given line or word in any of my poems I could give one, maybe two. Why did I stop that line there? why did I choose that word over another? I will have reasons for all of it other than "It just looks/felt right" etc. Will somebody please ask the emperor just exactly what is wrong with rhyming? p.s 'cheesey' is relative term, remember one man's stilton is another man's dairy lee triangle.

Again, with Floyd. The point is that some things read better split up, with emphasis on particular words, or in particular places. The idea that, in doing this, you're attempting to raise a dull thing onto a high plateau of 'art' is rather fanciful, in my opinion, and presumes that 'poetry' can only be something divine and wonderful. Anyone who thinks like that is buying into the elitist book of rules. You're worshipping a false idol. Poetry is a mellifluous term, and describes a lot of things that are irrelevant and dull. You might as well say that a tune can't be called a tune if it isn't on Classic FM. And the 'Emperor's New Clothes' argument is tired and silly. The point of that parable is that no one could see any clothes. They just pretended they did so as not to look stupid. I think it's pretty obvious that advocates of free verse are not pretending they think it's great to impress their peers. They genuinely like it. I enjoy more free verse than I do rhyming poetry. Clearly, lots of people do. Why should we have to give precise reasons why we prefer it? That said, I do disagree with Bobblehat about villanelles. I've read plenty of good ones, here and there. I generally read a lot of good poetry. Am I right in thinking there's some kind of common presumption that the less things you like, and the more you pronounce as crap, the better your taste is? Come on.

Pepsoid's Potted Philosophies #942... Write what you like. Read what you like. All art is subjective. Fin. :-) * P * :-)

I think Fry's poem works quite well for what it is. It gets its point over that sometimes the mundane has joys of its own. Hence jellies, frozen ice-cream and taps that do not drip... Everything is at right with the world and the fridge door has stopped sticking - so to speak. I don't think Fry has put this up as a great poem but merely to show the simple contentment of one of those days when God is with you and... everything goes right. On those days it IS the joy of the little things going right. The traffic lights all turn green as you approach etc. He just chose to set it in the kitchen where his heart lies. I think the gentle style is perfect for its subject. Much better than, say: I haven't climbed up Everest, nor written a great play but then the fridge-door hasn't stuck... such a lovely day - today :O)

I’ve just posted a poem about rain, and then remembered this discussion on poetry. So I thought I should make a comment. My poems are really just to allow me to write something quickly. I love writing and at first I didn’t like writing poems at all, but now I realise that by writing something light hearted and rhyming, it helps me release some tension. The dafter the poem the better in my opinion, but that’s because I don’t take it so seriously, which brings me to my point. I think poetry is about what you get out of it, and not necessarily about what others do, unless that’s what you want i.e. unless you want to be a published poet. I’m sort of cringing at some of the daft ones I’ve posted about frogs etc, and god only knows what you ‘proper poets’ think, but they make me smile, and if one other person smiles at them because they are daft or otherwise, then I’m happy! Em.

I read somewhere that for rhyming poetry to work, the words chosen should appear inevitable, in that only those particular words could acurately convey the meaning. The fact that the words also fit the rhyme should appear a happy coincidence. When poetry does work like that – I find the fact that it rhymes extra satisfying. I don’t know why I do, but I do.

Daft poems make me smile, Emma... Be happy! :-) * P * :-)

Chopped up prose? CHOPPED UP PROSE? Grr. I have sometimes spent hours (other times it seems to occur naturally), as I'm sure many others here have, in deciding exactly where the line break should be. Partly for effect and partly to encourage the readers eye onto the next stanza - call it what you will. I've stopped reading many a poem on here and elsewhere due to a 'halt' half way through. And as for rhyming poems, I agree with bobble wobble.