Just following this discussion occasionally and caught on this latest set of
comments.

There seems to be fair slice of presumption in the discussion - about who is
likely to be a reader of poetry, who is likely to comment on use of familiar
words and phrases, the significance of that comment and the remedy for it
(ie wider reading). That there is a relationship between good writing and
wide reading.

Just wanted to say that whenever I read wide-sweeping genarilisations I'm
immediately on my guard. There are many ways to develop sound use of
language in writing, and I personally have the view that it's more due to
comfort and confidence with one's own voice and purpose than to be found in
'wide reading'.

At the risk of leaving myself wide open, I'm happy to confess that I avoid
such wide reading like the plague, on the basis that it will not help me to
write what I need to write any better, and may indeed hamper my own
development and derivative drivel.

Cheers,

Frank

> The problem remains, not only of identifying whether the
> familiar/hackneyed combination of words actually functions as the
> writer wishes (which is just to ask whether the writer is a good
> poet or not), but also of identifying how the reader will react to
> a given combination. Since the reception of poetry is so subjective
> this seems to be a hopeless task. And the danger is always present
> that the writer´s `original´ use of words may strike the reader as
> `familiar´.<<

Well, the reception of poetry is not as subjective as you posit, I
think, because most of the people who would mis-read a poem in any
significant way just don't read poetry at all. People who are reading
a poem in the first place have self-selected themselves as readers
with an interest in the sort of use of language that poetry provides.

It seems to me it's pretty unlikely that within the small group of
people who read and write poetry that any given phrase will be
interpreted by one portion of that group as "original" and by another
portion as "familiar", except perhaps among the least experienced
readers in the group. My advice to them is to read more widely.

> .. Is there,
> then, a further danger that the writer might become over-critical
> if she/he tries to anticipate every charge of using `the familiar
> word´ and eradicates it?<<

No, not if the writer is reasonably widely-read. If the writer is not
reasonably widely-read and finds that more widely-read readers are
regularly pointing out familiar phrases or cliches, perhaps the
solution is wider reading before more writing.

> If the writer wants to express the sense
> of nervous tension familiarly conveyed by the phrase `with a
> pounding heart´, is it okay to use the phrase in the poem or is it
> sheer laziness and/or lack of skill on the part of the poet. <

I'd say it is the latter. My rule is to read to the first cliche and
then turn the page, put down the MS, close the book, or click on the
next icon. There are too many good and interesting poems I haven't
read for me to waste my time reading poems by poets who can do no
better than "with a pounding heart".

> I felt
> that at the start of your comments you were suggesting that such
> language was undesirable in poetry, but in the comment above I
> wonder if you would accept it in the right context.

Well, if you make it clear that "with a pounding heart" is meant
ironically, or even sarcastically (so that, in fact, the person was
really calm), or some other context in which the context makes clear
that the use of the cliche is not meant in the same old way the
cliche commonly means (using such "language of love" cliches to
describe exercising on a treadmill, perhaps?), well, maybe. But if
you're just talking about how to make it clear to the reader that the
narrator or a character in your poem is fearful or in love, that is
to say, the same old way that the cliche has been used innumerable
times before, well, it's the poet's job, in my view, to convey that
information without using cliches because I can get cliches anywhere
and from almost anyone. Why bother to go to the trouble of investing
time and energy in seeking out and reading a poem only to get
cliches?


Marcus Bales

[log in to unmask]
http://www.designerglass.com