But, if one cannot distinguish between good writing and bad writing,
what *is* poetry? If there is not an art form which can be improved
upon or developed is it not true that anything and everything one
chooses to call poetry is in fact poetry. Who can argue that it's not
if there is no standard?

I'm not really trying to propagate my own viewpoint on this, or to
create argument. I'm genuinely trying to learn. I'm new and confused
and trying to learn.

Specifically, I would like to know what motivates one to write if it
is not the improvement of the art? (Assuming one has jettisoned any
concept of 'improvement'.)

bob

On 8/25/05, Tilla Brading <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Why do I find reading through an issue of Poetry magazine painful and
> > reading through the collected works of Creeley exciting?
> Because it works for you and extends your understanding of what 'poetry' is
> might be an answer.
> Tilla's twopence
>
>
>
> On 25/8/05 2:36 pm, "Robert Heffernan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > To those who feel there is no such thing as "good writing" or "bad
> > writing" I have a (genuine) question to ask.
> >
> > What is the function of the poet if all writing is of equal merit?
> > Why should I, or anyone else, bother to write? I've always thought
> > that the role of the innovative poet is to improve the art. Am I
> > wrong? What does it mean to "improve" if there is no way one can
> > measure such improvement?
> >
> > Why do I find reading through an issue of Poetry magazine painful and
> > reading through the collected works of Creeley exciting?
> >
> > Bob
> > (A young poet who feels that the current climate of "no good, no bad,
> > just writing" has made it difficult to know where to start in his
> > art.)
> >
> > p.s. - Yet again I sent this to Mairead first before realising I
> > should have sent it to the list. Sorry Mairead.
> > On 8/25/05, mairead byrne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> I like what you say here Rupert, and what you relate of Joe Sheerin.
> >> My understanding of poetry and writing has changed greatly over time.
> >> I certainly appreciate: "there is no such thing as good writing and
> >> bad writing - there's writing." Thanks for the imagination and soul
> >> you bring to discussion.
> >> Mairead
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/24/05, mallin1 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> I'm sorry Geraldine and others if my allotment analogy to poetry/poets
> >>> offended or upset but--
> >>>
> >>> Greens have the slogan - dig where you stand (which I think is kin to
> some
> >>> poets). Truth is, 'dig where you stand' either elevates the digger or
> buries
> >>> the digger (in the grave dug). Poetry as individual on high is that
> >>> problematic. You can't do that on an allotment: what you perceive as
> your
> >>> individuality is its dialectic opposite. The richer each element of the
> >>> tapestry, the richer the whole.
> >>>
> >>> I know I sound crass but - an Irish teacher and poet, way back in the
> early
> >>> 1970s, was my mentor. We were at some folk club in an overspill town
> and Joe
> >>> Sheerin turned to me (me, headlong into Hart Crane and The Beats), and
> said:
> >>> "there is no such thing as good writing and bad writing - there's
> writing."
> >>>
> >>> I kicked like a mule then - I've kicked like a mule these years hence -
> for
> >>> surely there is 'arbitration' - there's a cannon, there are university
> >>> certificates, there are great poets arbitrating, there's a poetry God
> to say
> >>> what's 'good' and what's 'bad!'
> >>>
> >>> No. Joe was/is right: there is writing. Just writing.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to know how you arbitrate over 'good' and 'bad' writing?
> >>>
> >>> Until 1990 Shelley's 'Peterloo Writings' of 1820 were not published in
> >>> Britain. Editors of his work would not publish 'Mask of Anarchy' or his
> >>> polemic prose. The poetry/publishing world split Percey Byshe into two
> >>> people: the intellectual of 'Queen Mab' and 'Prometheus Unbound' and
> the
> >>> "juvenile" who extended Thomas Paine's writings - who was thereby, in
> my
> >>> view, the bridge between Blake, Chartism and Marx.
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> As said, what are your criteria?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Rupert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>