#1
I seem to feel like everything in every piece (not so much mine but rather everyone else's) is forced.

What makes things forced in poetry and how do you (personally) make something feel less contrived?
#2
watch the vocab, definitely - big words don't have much value in poetry because the meaning is beneath the surface.
Quote by archerygenious
Jesus Christ since when is the Pit a ****ing courtroom...

Like melodic, black, death, symphonic, and/or avant-garde metal? Want to collaborate? Message me!
#3
just dont think about it, let it flow.

edit: also, if its not coming naturally, i usually dont bother. however, sometimes i will just create a totally different atmosphere for myself (get rid of distractions and noise, mainly), and see if i can come up with anything. if nothing comes, then i just wait till next time or later on to try to write.
Last edited by Guitar_Poet at May 11, 2008,
#4
Smile once in a while.

I really don't have an answer to this. If you're really starting to believe everything is forced (do you mean all poetry? or just on UG) then perhaps you need to change your perspective a bit.
#6
Quote by we have sound

You're so fucking down, synth.


hmm?

...
well... really... I just...

****ing hate Shakespeare. I think he's a no talent hack that wrote a lot (because of course that means he's a genius) and was lucky. Thats more or less what this thread is about.

Oh, and it just hit me that writing itself, the process, everything like that, by definition, is contrived. It doesn't really take away from anything. I was just wondering what people thought on the subject. Coincidence is interesting.

And I don't really know what I was going for with the "(not so much mine but rather everyone else's)". Shrug.

And I write plenty of funny things, it's just more fun to post things that aren't because those are much harder in my opinion and thats what I need to work on.
#7
Quote by #1 synth

****ing hate Shakespeare. I think he's a no talent hack that wrote a lot (because of course that means he's a genius) and was lucky. Thats more or less what this thread is about.


I don't really have any clue what you are taking about in this thread, as all writing is forced, as its never "necessary" to write, just something people do. BUT I do agree with the above sentiment, wholeheartedly x2. He's a bit like the Beatles... I can appreciate that fact that his work opened up the field for a lot of the more "modern" writing, but it doesn't change that fact that his work sucked horribly.
#8
Eh, it's a personal opinion on Shakespeare.
I for one love "Much Ado About Nothing" and some other one I can't remember... but I didn't like "Macbeth".

And, yeah, Dyl you confuse me sometimes. Go read some light verse.
#9
Having played Macbeth (Macbeth), Sir Toby Belch (12th Night), and an executioner in measure for measure, I can honestly say that too many people dedicate their lives to a man who produced phenomenally good, witty, groundbreaking work in his day, but whose work should not still be preformed.

Sylvia Plath still fucking pwns n00bs though.
^unrelated
#10
Quote by #1 synth

Sylvia Plath still fucking pwns n00bs though.
^unrelated


I agree, Plath rocks.
#11
Quote by #1 synth
Oh, and it just hit me that writing itself, the process, everything like that, by definition, is contrived. It doesn't really take away from anything. I was just wondering what people thought on the subject. Coincidence is interesting.
Pretty much that. If it isn't OTS/Stream-of-Consciousness, it's necessarily contrived. We shape it, bend it slice and dice and reassemble the bits into something hopefully cohesive and that has some sort of flow and rhythm. If we're lucky we force it into something that doesn't sound forced.

Quote by #1 synth
well... really... I just...

****ing hate Shakespeare. I think he's a no talent hack that wrote a lot (because of course that means he's a genius) and was lucky. Thats more or less what this thread is about.
I'm no judge of talent, but his shiz makes my ears and my brain hurt. I'm told there's greatness beneath. But I can't get past the language clutter.


Quote by ZanasCross
He's a bit like the Beatles... I can appreciate that fact that his work opened up the field for a lot of the more "modern" writing, but it doesn't change that fact that his work sucked horribly.
Zack, I swear if I ever hear you liken the Beatles to Shakespeare again, I'll track you down, break into your house, take a dump on your keyboard, and piss on your monitor.

You're free to hate the Beatles all you want, but the Shakespeare thing is over the line.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#13
I actually quite like Shakespeare's Halmet.
I really liked Hamlet's character and persona.
Though nowdays you've got a million characters much more and complex and well described like his, its still a good story imo.
Very simplistic but good work of characters.

So i wouldn't say Shakespeare sucks.

Though i really think the Beatles are over hyped. It sorta feels more like the bandwagon effect than anything else where everyone would praise the Beatles and their music. There are much better bands out there than them.

Now is this all quite on topic??!
#14
people who say shakespeare sucked are very very silly. very silly.

anyway, i think ultimately you have to accept that writing is contrived by definition. accept it and move on you can get too involved in questioning it; i mean, those poems which don't seem so contrived are often more contrived, because there's a lot of artifice gone into making them seem non-artificial. enjoy the artifice.
my name is matt. you can call me that if you like.
#15
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I'm no judge of talent, but his shiz makes my ears and my brain hurt. I'm told there's greatness beneath. But I can't get past the language clutter.


i don't get this. shakespeare's diction and syntax is pretty straight up and direct; in fact, i'd say its actually much clearer than plenty of modern poets.
my name is matt. you can call me that if you like.
#16
Quote by vIsIbleNoIsE
watch the vocab, definitely - big words don't have much value in poetry because the meaning is beneath the surface.


Bull****. For one the statement is fundamentally sophistic for the simple reason that out of the 2 words 'fundamentally' and 'sophistic' I know what is bigger and what one you do not know the meaning of, probably.

Secondly, reading and writing is about expanding your knowledge, so without people using unique words you'll be using the same words to say the same crap for years to come. It goes for anything, if you know the word, understanding is easy, if you don't, you lose the meaning; now really whose fault is that, the writer, or the reader?

And Thirdly, if there is a single - perhaps unusual - word that can cover that of many words, really what version is simpler?

Have a think about that.


Shakespeare is a good writer that is over-hyped. The trouble is, rarely does any writer get so much exposure for such a great volume of their work, with those odds you're bound to be hit and miss, usually more-so the latter.
Filth, pure filth... That's what you are.
#17
because you're thinking too much about the process of a piece of writing becoming something rather than the piece that it has become.