Replies below...

> I must say I agree with Rupert on the topic of good/bad writing.
>
> my father used to tell me much the same, "there is no such thing as good or
> bad poetry". this is something I have always kept with me, not only in
> connection to my own writing but also in life in general.
>
> for me good and bad is all about taste, not only personal taste but cultural
> as well. this relates to all forms of art.

I think this is almost certainly true, at least in the most general
sense. I have a fondness for universals and so there is a part of me
that would like to think that there is some sort of abstract thing
called "Great Art". I'm a mathematician (well, currently studying
toward a Masters degree in the area, hoping to make mathematical
research my career) and I'm rather used to provable truths. Still, I
think it's true to say that even if there were an independent abstract
measure of art we would never see clearly through our own cultural
preferences in order to see it.

So, "good" and "bad" as applied to art are primarily cultural (and
personal, depending on how swayed you are by your culture) artifacts.
But what then should the poet do? I see three options:
1) He should strive to aim toward what is perceived as "good" by his
own culture?
2) He should aim toward what his own opinion tells him is "good" even
if that goes against or subverts the cultural understanding of good.
3) He should abandon the notion of "good" and write whatever it is
that appeals to him on a given day (paying little attention to the
gradual improvement of his life's work) and hope that it appeals to
somebody else too.

If I might overgeneralise crassly, I have the feeling that option (1)
is that of those poets I read in poetry, option (2) is what might be
called the "avant garde" option and option three is that of those who
have grown tired both of the "mainstream" and the "avant garde" and
are forced to forge a more independent route.

I think option two is my own preference at the moment. I would like
to think that I could bring something new to the art. I would like to
think that there is an "art" that I can bring something new to. I
would like to think that even if I fail to innovate there are others
who will whom I can read and be excited by.

(Disclaimer: I understand that terms like "avant garde" and
"mainstream" as used above are far too general. I hope that my
meaning will be understood.)


> what is good/bad changes depending on place/time/economics and probably a
> million different variables. all I know is what I like and what I want my
> poetry to be like.

Option 3?

> yeah some poets have a better command of certain skills but personally I
> don't think that's all poetry is.

Of course not. But why will nobody define poetry in the positive? I
am fully aware that a definitive answer is quite likely impossible but
I am all for manifestos. We are often quite happy to say what poetry
is 'not'. If we were to say what it is, even if we were wrong, we
would have an ideal to strive toward. I think this is OK so long as
we are willing to change our ideal as we learn.
>
> I could go on and on but it is only what I think. I could be wrong but hey
> ho I could be right. all I know is that if you stand steadfast with a
> certain idea about right/wrong moral/immoral good/bad etc. that's what is
> called a fundamentalist. *shock horror* there are fundamentalist poets? be
> afraid, be very afraid!!!
>
> but then again maybe the fundamentalist route is the way to go.

I am awfully fundamentalist in many ways. I am also slow to give up
totally on "progress" (in the arts, if not always elsewhere). I'm
sure the very mention of the word progress raises some hackles, it
does on me!

> all in good fun

Also in good fun, and much interest.

bob