Too Young--Too Talented

A while ago on this site I read poetry written by a fourteen year old that I thought was really out there compared to the standards most poems on this site seem to compete with. It was like finally reading something that had their own originality and their own voice. I've read another young poet here that at the moment I can not remember her name but it was amazing how the topics were never cliche.

The thing is how do you feel about these young writers ( 18 and under) that might be too talented too soon--too fast?

Do you feel as though it is a curse to write so well or a blessing?

How do you think you compare to some of these writers?

Why would it be bad? I'm 15 and I'm a better writer than most of you. It's not arrogance, it's objectivity. I don't get the downside of it?

I'm scared that i'll die young because i have already accomplished things greater than some people will ever accomplish. I believe that it is a curse, bad karma, whatever you may call it. Truth is, i'm kinda scared. Lol, mostly because my parents told me that most people who do too much good and leave nothing left to accomplish or something like that die young.

I reread this and it seems like i'm full of myself... believe me, i'm not. My work can improve greatly, but i'm just stating what i myself believe.

Bob, he^ might have been just referring to the original post - I too was confused about why there would be a drawback. I do think you have a very valid point, about the young poets. Although.. it's not as though their poetic skill is a negative outcome... you're just saying it's their negative life that could have led to the creativity? So it would really just be an unfortunate starting point, not a bad effect of the poetry, as I understood the topic. (If that made any sense to you... I would be impressed.)

I do see another way in which awesome creative talent in a young person might have its dangers. Those who have the conscientiousness to write real, true poetry are probably those who have a better understanding of the world. This is probably a good thing, but.... the world can be a terrifying place, and to those 'tender, idealistic poetic souls...' I guess what I'm saying is that both poets and young people stereotypically have the tendency to take things sensitively and passionately- invest themselves totally into their loves; and when those two identities are combined, the resulting human could perhaps be over-sensitive and easily broken.

but again, that would be bad not -because- of the talent. just the ones who have that talent, might be like those i've described.

Also - a lot of people tend to look down on young writers because of their age, despite their talent. Or else they think "you couldn't have written that!" Of course, this can have the opposite effect, as well, where people are MORE impressed because they are so young.

I'd like to hear what the topic-poster had in mind when s/he was posting this. Any thoughts, O Topicster?

'I'd love to see you, Kaylee and Sondos go head to head'

I'd love to too. Perhaps we should organize something? From what I remember of the girls, Kaylee excels in aesthetic beauty and rhythm, though her poems are tenuous, whereas Sondos excels in creativity, imagery and depth, though her immaturity shines through sometimes with erraticism and lack of hard techniques.

Note that is based on a very faint memory of reading about 2 of their poems ages ago.

Um no that is arrogance. Being objective would require looking at everyone's poetry without bias and judging fairly. Clearly you're so full of yourself you're blinded to other's work, I would never dare call any of my pieces the best on this site. That's a very high claim and I really don't think you can back it up. So by the way, it would be "subjectivity" in your case.

^Firstly I apologize for addressing about none of the points above. Secondly, Abby, your poetry is very mature, and is what I define as good poetry: poetry that can only be judged subjectively, i.e. not objectively.

Hence, you should be included in our little young'uns battle. What about Musicality? Or has she changed her name?

your profile says 99, but you can't be a day over 80.

Probably 15-20.

If you hadn't opted for a convenient ending, you would have written that age is not judged directly from words alone - for instance, you spend too much time here to be an adult, ceteris paribus.

I think you are about 14 because of your verbal demeanour. Specifically, you try to impress because you have the ability to impress, and older people tend not to do this because they are expected to have that ability with age.

Actually, there are a myriad reasons and hints within conversations that have probably imbued a gestalt hypothesis.

Note: age 99 is clichéd. I haven't reached primary school yet. Yah baby.

Yes, no age listed (an incorrect age) implies you wish to be judged by your words alone, not expected maturity level. This surely means you are young. Otherwise, you are older and have few friends, therefore list no age in attempt to make friends based on shared interest, rather than shared age group. I stick to my original assumption, but whether you are 12 or 50, I will not be overly surprised.

How old are you?

^ er... "gestalt" was a much more succinct way of expressing the idea to those who know it, rather than "every little thing you've said, when added together, makes me kind of understand the larger picture of your personality..."

"hypothesis," however was overkill ; D

And myriad shouldn't need an A in front of it, I think.

And I do like the word imbued, but it didn't work as well as, perhaps, "implied" or "suggested."

hee hee hee

Anyway, young poets.

Hahaha, you guys are nuts.

Abby, so you are 24. That is believable. You are intelligent and witty, and your heart is young. That much shines through.

I don't think writing good poetry necessarily has to do with a hard life, it has to do with maturity yes. But maturity is a choice in every aspect. Even those who have "hard" lives can still be immature. The good writer is good at not writing about their own lives, or their points of view, but encompassing others. A good poet should should be able to write about what bothers others better than what bothers him/herself. (Note on the s in others) This has to do with perception and being aware of what is around you, toddlers can do it quite well.

Yes, listen to Cory, he's a dude. I believe he would qualify for a young poet too...just.

'And myriad shouldn't need an A in front of it, I think.'

I know! Because it's a verb and a noun. But I had this conversation with my respectably-knowledgable English teacher two years ago, and I couldn't appear to defeat him in debate. I wonder if it's an English/American difference?

Abby - the word fluidity is as subjective as my butt. I agree with your point about maturity but disagree with the tenuous conclusions derived from it, because they are tenuous and subjective statements:

'A truly mature poet laughs at his poems.'

Did Shelley, Yeats, Stein, Shakespeare, Heaney, Beaney, Meanie (ad infinitum) laugh at their poems? Hmm. Very tenuous.

'And myriad shouldn't need an A in front of it, I think.'

"I know! Because it's a verb and a noun. But I had this conversation with my respectably-knowledgable English teacher two years ago, and I couldn't appear to defeat him in debate. I wonder if it's an English/American difference?"

Well, now I'm confused! I looked it up, and the example sentences used it both "a myriad of" and just plain "myriad." The first one, I thought was totally wrong. Because doesn't it technically mean 10,000? So you wouldn't say "a ten-thousand of"...At least, I've had it red-lined in essays before... eh, well...

Bob, what I was trying to say is that good poetry doesn't mean hard life. Shakespeare wrote great poetry and didn't neessarily have a hard life. Petrarch didn't necessarily have a hard life (granted I don't like his poetry, but many think it is great) There are tons more though who could be clumped into good poetry, not hard life.

I think the first step is to be aware of humanity. Then I was using maturity, in a literary sense, and somewhat mental, to be able to transfer those observations and awareness of humanity onto paper. What makes Shaespeare the best writer of the english language: emotional and psychological realism. (obviously this is mixed with universal themes and entertainment and so forth), but if you have emotional and psychological realism, you will have the stuff in parenthesis. He did it better than anybody else because he knew people, how they worked and what they were like. He was the first playwright in the western culture to begin adding psychology to his plays. It is all about capturing the human.

To throw something else in here - I do agree that conflict is often the root of the most blazing creativity (see Poe, for example)... but there are some people (and I see where they're coming from) who would say that those with terrible lives will not be able to artistically express themselves.

People mired in abject poverty, for example, will probably more concerned with eating and finding a place to sleep than with writing some good poetry. People can also be mentally stifled, if they have to face overwhelming intellectual opposition - as women writers had to do for centuries. Yes, I know some famous poets were not rich... but for the most part, historically, they were. Poetry was a pasttime of the well-off man, something to do in times of leisure. Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I'd add a couple of reactions to this

1. Modern times seem to be changing this idea. More universalized forms of education offer most people at least the basic tools with which to pursue poetry.

2. There are exceptions to every rule, and there have been examples throughout history into the present age that would show that poverty/terrible lives are no restrictions to art. (Perhaps we are just not familiar with them.)

Any thoughts? Die Gedanken sind frei...

Hah, Education provides nothing. I've learned more about poetry from video games than from school.

Also,
Experience is not the sole beginning of poetry, in that case, most everyone would be writing poetry. Experience simply adds more material to work with.

It appears to me that the majority of users on this site are young, and it amazes me that 95% of the poems written are either depressing or sad poems.

Hah! Education limits the mind, rather than open it!
Education provides absolutely NOTHING.

Also, have you tried not being an asshole?

^Are you referring just to the educational institutions? If so, then you may be able to build yourself a case.

But education in general? The processing of the information that floods our bodies - the way we put that knowledge to use to solve problems... that's a basic form of education. It's not always "no more classes, no more books, no more teachers' dirty looks." Education, in it's most basic principle, is simply training yourself how to deal with information. All branches of education are some proof of that.

But I'd like to hear more of the reasoning behind your argument, if you have any.

Im referring to the actual institution. At best, school teaches that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to do poetry. I found poetry on my own, the only poetry school provided was properly written, "Right" poetry.

Ok, that's better. I have to say that it really, really depends on the individual case, however. I've had some awesome teachers over the years... they tend to be the ones who open up lots of options before you, and let you choose what's right for yourself. I'm glad you discovered your poetry, that's awesome.

As they say on the streets "Age ain't nothing, but a number." You're never too old or too young to be talented in anything and that's a fact! Talent comes naturally. And if you don't believe me, just take a good look at my poem "Talents"! Peace and love to all!

Review your post Abby, your attitude wasnt exactly friendly. ddavidd, I dont understand your post.

Lets review the word Oaf you used-
Oaf-
1. a clumsy, stupid person; lout.
2. a simpleton; dunce; blockhead.
3. Archaic.
a. a deformed or mentally deficient child.
b. a changeling.
www.dictionary.com

Thanks for the friendly words, Abby. Take a quick glance at your post and tell me you are sending your message in a polite manner.

Thanks,
Patrick

Why isnt that nice,
Such a kind one you are, Abby.
Your right, Oaf is such a fine word, isnt it?

"And I wish you would post a photo of your butt on your profile."

^I second that.

I wish you had know the name of this person who writes poetry so well.
I'm 15 not that much good of a poet though I love to express myself through poetry and art.
My poems may not be good but at least they set free the inner me!
xx Roxy

Curious abby,
"Hope you didn't learn anything at your school today. (I was just like you.)"

From the casual judgement of a stranger, you now deem, you were just like me! How so?

so glad to note that was once an insightful topic has now turned into atwo people bashing each other, but trying to figure out who does it better with intelligence and rhetoric.

hmmm im gonna keep it simple and blunt, im 17 and I still dont know what kind of writing I am, but that's ok because I think im decent but if you have the talent to write and it's what your passionate about then all you can do is grow and learn in it and what you choose to do with the talent and how you treat it is up to you.

David,
Please, show me where I attempted "To show up" using my "accumulated knowledge." Slowly, yet surely, you've proven yourself a true "Oaf", as Abby would say. Congrats, a few laughs later, I started to enjoy your mindless posts.

I dont understand you people... From what I have learned here is that poetry is everything... there is no talent.. no good nor bad... just different..

Age has no relevance... nothing has relevance its just writing what is on your mind... Some write their feelings... some thoughts.. some just write for the mere fun of it... But nothing that is writen is good nor is it bad.. its just poetry... nothing else..

Well that might be just me though =D

To the above poster: you are absolutely incorrect. If poetry is just poetry, and there is no good or bad, then why do we, P & Q have a place for comments--to help people get better. Practice makes perfect. I don't know how many times i have read other advice on here to young writers to keep writing so they get better. You know what that means? There is good and better, and bad and worse. Let's not be silly. Of course there is bad writing. Here is an example. U ppz, Holla @ me wen u get a chance.

Sorry dude I can not agree.. since poetry in my opinion lacks a defenition there is no right or wrong.. which leads to that there is no good or bad... There is OPINION... YOU might think that a poem is bad but that does not mean that it is.. its just what YOU think
And to me its sad that people see poetry as just writing

And also its not like you can say that Im incorrect.. Im incorrect ONLY IN YOUR OPINION AS I AM CORRECT ONLY IN MINE...

Pleas people do not overestimate yourselves because to state something outside ones opinion takes more knowlage then you might think...

I would guess that im one of those "too young too talented" types ive won two poetry contest by 13but im not very depressed or any thing like that :)

Yes, practice makes good, but perfection has occurred in certain areas.

Perfection.. You sadly miss teh concept of anything in this world outside of abstract ideas. Poetry.. As must bedefined, has to use language, has to. There is a right and a wrong to language. My friend and I is correct, me is my friend is bad english; therefore due to the constrictions there must be bad and good poetry. The only poetry that can't be bad is the poetry that isn't written down, the poetry that stays inside your head, but that isn't poetry. Poetry is a physical, tangible thing that uses real world constructions, whether those constructions be abstract or physical, they have rules or goods and bads. These constructions can be broken which makes it bad.

Oh my god don't mention obvious things... WE all know that afjjkjvbfbnj is not a poem.. I was refering to people that ARE capable of writing with some sense..
And yes in reality poetry is a physical combination of words... However thease words are easy to correct if they are misspelled... And EVERYONE makes mistakes since nobody knows the language to 100%....
But according to what you wrote just now "There is a right and a wrong to language. therefore due to the constrictions there must be bad and good poetry. " and Im going to be very detailed now, you say that if someone would accidentaly write "Hell" instead oh "Hello" that poem would be a bad poem despite of the rest of its content...
Yes I did exagurate but you did that as well so we are even now however you cannot judge a poem as bad just because of a spelling misstake that is very easy to correct..
But you are correct in stating that there is a limit of language knowing that must be achieved to actually write a poem that makes sense..

But then again I could say that then it is not the poem that is bad... it is the writer that is bad.
And that would be true since I did argument for poetry itself and not the writers. Yes as you see language has its flaws as well... Since I never mention Writer I can now use this crazy argument to rest my case...

Anyways Im not going to discuss this further.. We all think differently so there is no real point in this.

I suppose that it can be good for young people to be talented but i also believe it's bad too in a lot of cases. Because i'm 16 and i've written my best in the past two years during which i've been going in and out of depression. it's usually all of the negative aspects of my life that give me a desire to write anything