who can write good poetry?

because i need alot of help

Hey. You can write good poetry. Everybody can write good poetry. If I can do it, you can to. Anywho, why don't you post what you need help with. I'm sure you'll get the help you want.

I disagree with Timothy on this one, not everyone can write GOOD poetry.

If everyone could write good poetry there would be more good poets out there- and there arent very many compared to the amount of people who claim the title of "poet."

There's so much pomposity when it comes to poetry - as with literature. we're taught at school what's good and what's not good. The majority of this work is supposed to teach us good morals within society (like the classics in literature). Strange how what's regarded as 'good poetry' often talks of nature and life in its positive light or seeks a solution to it (like the Hollywood movies and the good guys winning in the end etc). Let no rules be your rule and remember that if it's set out on the page in stanzas or with a few margines, then it becomes poetry by its 'look', regardles of a rhyme, beat or whatever. Just say it how you think it is. *He steps down off his soapbox, ah*

here here Mel *claps*

Ah, the debate turning to the philosophical as ever...

justplainme

In answer. (i) I refer to 'classics' as the canon of work that's deemed fit for consumption by the masses and particularly for consumption in schools - hence the moralistic nature of works by, say, Dickens and the Brontes. The work is ideologically sound - and it had to be for publication for the middle classes and we shouldn't forget this. (ii) Not all literature, especially modern, is moralistic; nor does it have to be these days for publication 'A Clockwork Orange', is an example and there are many many more if you'd care to look. (iii) As for the bit about Shakespear, I havn't got a clue what you're talking about. (iv) If I become a published author of 'high' literature and go on to write the word fuck sixteen times around a single page, it becomes art. Where would the morals be in that, my friend?

You miss my point. The so called 'classics' do indeed have the immoral as well as moral characters and plot: as does mythology etc etc. There has to be binary oppositions to make the story work. But the point is, that the immoral is present only so that the moral can eventually shine through and win the day. I say 'moral' and 'immoral', I might as well just say 'good' and 'evil'- it works just the same. Hollywood will not let a film on to the so called big screen unless it deems it ideologically sound - not much changed there, then, in the last couple of hundred years, eh. Check out the work of F.R Leavis (literary critic), who was so far up his own arse in 'high literature' that he discredited anything if it wasn't loaded in moral output. He, like many, regarded the so called 'classics' as the finest pieces of fiction on the planet (not my thoughts). They are well written, yes, but many are merely attempts at a realistic snapshot of society at the time of writing - hence the cute little orphans in Dickens and the 'character grotesque'. Look at the art (paintings) at that time - the roadside peasants and the poor all look extremely healthy. Only the rich consumed art and literature and so the producers did not want to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people who bought up their work, and so they bent the truth or shielded over it all together. Why do you think the modernist movement came to fruition? (thank god) They tried to turn things upside down (and did) and said bollocks to the middle class consumers, who they saw responsible only for two things: greed and war. So now signing a piss pot 'R mutt' and cutting up words for poetry gave us the free expression we have today; and yes, the immoral does have a voice in art now, but not then - which is what i was hinting at above.

By the way, your 'For instance, Romeo and Juliet strives to teach us about powerful, passionate love. There is not much that is moral in that sonnet'. You'll find that R & J was actually a play and not a sonnet. Check dictionary definition of sonnet. Cheers.

I guess that the play shows the destructive force of love and what that can lead to. The character, Romeo, is intelligent but also both immature and impulsive (not seen as a good trait at the time). Fuse this with the love force and maybe the moral message is that within society it's not just hatred that leads you to the graveyard, but its antithesis: love - as with religion.

JPM:

You've got to remember that in our country we are stifled by jaded views and beliefs. Our curriculum in schools for literature looks like a who's who for long dead authors and poets! Some of these people who decide what is taught in schools and colleges actually think that with good literature there is a chance to salvage kids who are going off the straight and narrow. They tend to forget that the majority of these kids who they intend to salvage have come from a fucked-up background, and so the lyrics of Eminem or the works of more modern authors and poets would probably act more as a catharsis to them. The so called classics, I agree are important in understanding the literary heritage; but for those who struggle on a daily basis just to survive, beautiful language and characters from an age gone by, just won't cut it for them. I've dropped myself into a class thing here, and I didn't want to. Anyway, I guess that's the beauty of all art, it's subjective and open to interpreatation, as long as we have the techniques and the inclination to do so. But some never get the chance to learn that, due to the fact that they think that all literature belongs in the 'classics' and the rest is worthless and so avoid the subject all together.

Here's a couple of authors who, in my opinion, are absolutely amazing writers;
Shædow Poet
Missing Angel Juan
Shadowmaker
Masaki Ito

Michael:

It's properly spelled "e.c.t." Just saying...

michaela:

sorry...