Good or bad&;#063; - Poetic opinions.

Poetic Opinions.

Good and Bad, Right and Wrong - Four small words which are heard time
and again in reference to poetry and writing in general. These four
words and the whole concept of 'appreciating' poetry, in particular,
remains an unfathomable mystery to me!

In spite of the fact that someone, somewhere. will argue that 2 + 2
does not necessarily equal four, I and the vast majority of the world
population know that 4 is the 'Right' answer. Anything less or more
than 4 is 'Wrong'!

Putting aside the minority who actually say they enjoy pain, I and the
majority of the world will argue that repeatedly banging one's head
against a wall does not feel 'Good'. The medical world will also concur
that it is a 'Bad' habit to adopt for the sake of one's health!

Doing my best to avoid deep philosophical discussions, applying the
terms good and bad, right and wrong, in the above circumstances, are
'Objective' statements. Or put more simply they are accepted as
facts!

My dilemma begins when I start to try and put the terms good and bad
against poetry and writing, and then justify it 'objectively'. For
those who have studied poetry and writing 'academically' and for those
who teach poetry and writing 'academically', there is not too much of a
difficulty. At least there is not if set rules and criteria are
determined and universally applied. Rather like baking a cake, where
certain ingredients must be used, and given the right scientific
'analytical equipment' to prove said ingredients were incorporated in a
finished product, the same methodology is used by many in 'academic
circles'.

My experience, however, is that there is not even any great consistency
in the academic world. Now some argue that "a 'good' poem and 'good'
poet (same for writing/writer) is "One that stands the test of time."
That's all fine and dandy if, say in 200 hundred years time, those
making that statement today, are still alive to confirm that their
'judgements' stood the test of time. There are several flaws in that
'measurement' though. Lets assume something written today, and judged
today as 'bad', is around in 200 years and then judged as 'good'. It
goes without saying that the critics were unable make an accurate
assessment in their time. And, digging the critics up and telling them
so will be of cold comfort to the poet/writer who was branded a 'bad
poet/writer', won't it?

My favourite citing of Shakespeare's unfavourable critics, when he was
alive, raises another question. The academic critics in his time (they
were later dubbed as the 'University Wits'), considered knowledgeable -
if they were right at the time, but are wrong now... hmmm..... right
can become wrong and wrong become right, based on the passage of
time!

The real truth is that 'appreciation' of poetry and writing is
subjective. What may be deemed good by one group of esteemed 'critics',
as likely will be deemed 'bad' by another. Furthermore, opinions and
'criterion', judging poetry and writing, varies from country to
country, culture to culture, and even 'class to class' of any
society.

So where does this leave a writer, aspiring to be 'good' at writing?
Equally, one can replace the word with 'successful', but much of the
same dilemma arises.
I personally consider the concept of success as having two types of
'measurement' - 'Internal success', as in setting a personal goal to
achieve, and on reaching that goal, being successful, or achieving
'External success', as in recognised or deemed successful by the
criteria of others. Of course, the two may correlate, but then again
may not.

For those of the 'academic ilk' it tends to be fairly clear-cut,
striving for and achieving institutionally recognised qualifications
and recognition by those who are deemed 'peers'. - The peer generally
measured by having 'bigger and better qualifications'. But of course,
we come full circle to the 'Shakespeare syndrome' where his supposed
'peers' took delight in heaping him with derision. The same phenomenon
holds equally true outside of the 'academic circle', and in the poetry
world it is often judged by what 'publications' one gets their work
printed in - or the quantity of work one gets into print.

The wisest words I have been offered are those by a writer who
certainly has achieved success (as in externally recognised) in the
form of awards in a number of writing fields that I or few others will
achieve. The advice being, "Compete against nobody but yourself". When
pushed by me to give some explanation as to what she personally
considered had been successful in her writing career, the answer came
as somewhat of a surprise. It was not having achieved a movie-writing
award, held by only a handful, including Steven Spielberg and George
Lucas. It was not having personally performed poetry for a former
President and First Lady of the USA and also Sir Vincent Price and Sir
William Collins. So what 'accolade or award' had she judged as her
pinnacle of success? The answer was, "That my writing has made some
connection with the lives of others - people of all walks of life -
age, education and culture."

What was the most interesting aspect of this, however, was that she had
not set out with this being a personal goal to acquire and achieve the
various awards and accomplishments she had gained, but rather that she
had set out to write the best she could, and had what it took to
'connect' - to communicate with others in many different circles. As an
aside to that - If your writing has been repeatedly deemed 'good' (or
conversely bad) by the same group / circle, but never spread beyond
that one area, you could well be in for a shock (or pleasant surprise)
if and when you spread your words further afield. This holds true for a
writers' group, a newsletter, a magazine or webzine/ezine, irrespective
of what accolades and/or status symbols they may heap upon their
'faithful flock'.

This left me further thinking about the whole aspect of writing and
what is particularly important to me. When one strips away all the
intellectual debating and schools of thought, I believe that writing is
nothing more than another means of communication and expression. There
are certain circles who argue in favour and admiration of what has been
jargonised as 'difficult' writing - that it requires intellectual
study, and that only others of the same level can understand and
appreciate it (hence 'difficult'). I, however, remain both bemused and
somewhat suspicious that one should strive to make one's communication,
be it the spoken or written word, so 'difficult' that few people can
comprehend what the author is trying to convey!

For those who are obsessed with labels and terminology, I have been
repeatedly dubbed a 'populist writer' both with my articles and poetry.
Not surprising, as I remain the overseas columnist for one of the UK's
largest hard-copy poetry-dedicated magazines - Poetry Now which caters
to probably the broadest cross-section of the general public with
subscribers in many countries around the world.

It has been described as a populist magazine (although not in the
derisory fashion that some use the term 'populist') Admittedly, only in
its tenth year of publication, it can be argued that it has hardly
stood the test of time! But I also remain bemused that being a populist
writer and writing for a 'populist publication' has attracted derision
and scorn - an elitist contempt if you will - from some quarters. In
spite of this, I still would point to a 'tenet' which appeared in one
of my earlier articles (so shoot me for having cited this in several
other articles and publications!):

"Now added to the two geographical 'worlds' - England and America -
within each there are what some see as two 'poetic worlds'. Namely the
'official academic' poetry world and then the world of 'non-academic'
poetry. It is easy to become entrenched in the world which each of us
most strongly identify with, and then dismiss the other. Sadly, many of
those in one often go beyond dismissal and develop strong scornful and
disdainful attitudes toward the other.

The seemingly never-ending accusations and exchanges between the more
bigoted of each world continue with "Unless you have been 'properly'
University educated, you can't be deemed a poet - worthy of the craft",
and "Academic education does not make a poet - it simply produces
sterile verbiage!" As if that were not sufficient, there are also the
two 'factions' of Free-verse poetry and Rhyming poetry. I never much
liked politics and 'factions' preferring, instead, to find common
ground and respect for conflicting opinions. And in spite of me
personally not originating from the 'University educated poetry world',
my love of all things poetical, combined with an insatiable curiosity,
leads me to explore both 'worlds' and all the 'factions' within. I also
hold to the saying 'Don't throw out the baby with the bath-water', for
there are babies in both tubs!"

For new and aspiring writers, I would say that Poetry (and the same
holds true for writing in general) demonstrates many niches, circles,
and schools of thought. None have a definitive universal 'truth' or
'answer' as to what poetry and writing is or should be, although I am
still of the belief it is a form of communication and expression like
any other art. Whether you believe that your expression and
communication should reach a narrower or wider audience, I leave you
with the best advice I have yet to be given - "Compete against nobody
but yourself".

Copyright David Taub (UKpoet@aol.com(link sends e-mail)), 2000

If you enjoyed reading this piece and/or have any comments, you are
welcome to email me at UKpoet@aol.com(link sends e-mail)

David Taub is a member of
The British organisation 'National Union of Journalists' (NUJ);
Columnist for the UK magazine 'Poetry Now';
Freelance writer for various UK and USA magazines;
Co-author of Language of Souls (listed on amazon.com)
Website: www.ukpoet.cjb.net(link is external)