• ✍️ WORDS ✍️

    Welcome Guest!

  • Words Moderators: Shambles

not writing about oneself

A

atomic*girl*23

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
23
Location
Indianapolis
have you ever stepped out of yourself at, say, a poetry reading. when you do, you'll realize that what you hear (for the most part) is poetry about yourself. i realized this one day and then, almost in succession, realized that most of the great poetry is not about the poet. it is about a greater truth to which we all relate.
great poetry is not about how miserable i am or how miserable you are. it might describe the misery but somehow relates it in a way, to how i can relate or someone on the other side of the world can relate to it.
because, and be honest, how many people wanna sit and listen to someone else whine about his/her life? not me.
so my advice to all the writers in the group, try taking a concept or a poem that you have written and deleting all the i's and he's and she's. make it less personal and then see if the poem takes on a greater strength. sometimes it's the best move a poet can make.
 
Unless it's dedicated to someone in your family then yeah i agree with you, but if you are gonna write something that you went through try n make sure it's related to what most other people go through in everyday life, i think people can get confused with it being just your personal message rather than a message about what you've been through/a whole load of other people to, but i wouldn't like it if it's just someone moanin through the song/poem when it's just about thereself if ya get me..lol
 
yea I tottaly feel that. I posted one here called finally the trees have voices. Throught out the entire thing when I wrote it It was I, I, I. till the last few vesres. I dropped the I's and it came out much more stark. But I also think that using we, you etc drawing the reader in makes great poetry as wel.
 
i dont mind the I's being used, cos that's probs impossible to leave out dependin on what its based on like i said if its real personal and its a must to use the i's he's n she's then do so just make sure you dont use em fo the sake of it, ive got a book of poems from tupac shakur and in one of the most famous poems he does is called' in the event of my demise', he uses i a lot, that poem is freaky in a way and if u read youll know what i mean...
 
i say use all the i,o, and u's that you want. if someone is truly reaching for your words to hear something profound they already know to insert themselves in the words. using i's or me's, at least not when i do it, is not a direct reference to the writer. imagination is the key. expand minds by expounding creativity.
 
I see what you're saying, and sometimes it can be more effective just describing sensations, thoughts and feelings without centering it around and I or making it specific to the person writing the poem. However, I don't think that always makes such a difference. I once tried to make my writing sexless; meaning I may use `I' but I always dropped out `him' or `her' so readers of either sex could read my poem and relate. The honest truth of the matter is, however, that some of the greatest poems can be written from a very narcassistic standpoint. That doesn't make them any harder to relate to. As a matter of fact, I'd say it makes it easier. Anyone reading the poem automatically makes themselves the `I' in question. Poems, like everything in human life, is about a webwork of relations (to people, places, emotions, times, thoughts, etc) centered around an `I'. There are archetypal patterns that play themselves out in human relations again and again, and so just because a poem is written in a personal way does not mean that readers cannot relate to it.

The trick to good writing, in my opinion, is being as descriptive as you can so as to take the person to another place. To put them in your shoes and see the relations from the perspective of your `I'. In doing so, you can have them experience things through your writing that they have never experienced personally. You can give them the opportunity to experience things they will never have the chance to experience. That, to me, is the point of reading: to step out of yourself for a moment and journey to another situation, from a different standpoint. Perhaps from that perspective you can grasp something about life you wouldn't have been able to otherwise, being stuck in your usual position. Perhaps, from becoming immerced in that writer's standpoint, in that writer's vision of his written experience, you can look back on your usual position from a distance and see things from that perspective you would've never been able to see otherwise.

So the ego-centric, first-person perspective in poetry and prose can be very effective. I wouldn't toss it away without some second thought.
 
Hmmm... The theory behind my writing is that we are all the same inside. But for variations in our external experiences, our hormone levels, the physical shape of this suit of flesh we wear, we are all the same.

Yeah, all that stuff does make us different on one level, which is great since variety is great. But the cool thing is a person can write something entirely of their own perspective and, if they are honest and get to the core honesty of who they are, why they are, why they feel what they feel, then the reader can identify with it almost as much as the writer.

A writer switching from the first person to the third person seems like a rather superficial way of trying to make a story or poem more accessible to a reader.

On the other hand, superficial or not, if it does make a tiny bit of improvement in the accessibility of a story or poem, perhaps it is worth experimenting with. I just don't think such a minor change is particularly profound. The story itself needs core honesty and without that it will not be accessible to the reader no matter what perspective it is written from.

I guess my theory, then, is that we all deep down recognize the same core feelings, but we all also cloak those feelings in layers of unique bullshit. So if your writing is a reflection of your own personal bullshit, few people will get it. But if your writing is about your core feelings, most people will get it.

Of course, this may be like peeling an onion...endless layers with no true core, in which case perhaps the most accessible writing does not get to the core, but rather just gets to a very deep layer, which itself may still be some form of bullshit, but just a form of bullshit that more of us share in common.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

~psychoblast~
 
i think a lot of you lost my point. my original intent was not to tell you to focus on writing and then removing the "i", but rather to write about stuff that doesn't involve you. such as, don't write about seeing a man without legs chasing after a rolling orange, actually write about a man without legs chasing after a rolling orange.

what i'm saying is that too many people write about stuff in which they are principle players. remove yourself cuz most the time people ONLY WRITE ABOUT SHIT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN.

write about stuff you see and you see happen but stuff that affects you but don't write "this made me sad."
you wanna paint them a picture, you don't wanna make them color by number. i guess it's easier to show than to explain. i'll come up with some examples and get back at this.
 
atomic*girl*23 said:

what i'm saying is that too many people write about stuff in which they are principle players. remove yourself cuz most the time people ONLY WRITE ABOUT SHIT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN.

Click to expand...

heres an idea...maybe people write bout things to do with them and in their lives so easily and well is cause they can easily relate to it and make it into words. most of the best peices i have read in this forum have been stemmed from the writters own personal experience.
 
to me, good poetry is good poetry. if someone writes really good poetry that has the first person or third person it really should not matter. good poets write in many different ways. sometimes it is in the "I" and other times it is not.

i think everyone should strive to write a variety of ways. if you find you are writing to much in the first person, switch it up, and vice versa.
 
i guess atomic girl means something like:

a man with wheels

instead of

i saw a man with wheels

so that the focus it not always on the poet, but externalised.

there is no hard and fast technique to what atomic*girl*23 is trying to get at, certainly not removing all the i's, you's and all points of reference, from a written poem. that might just leave your poems lost without any form of focus or reference at all.

the way i see it, from my own experiences, there are some poems you just have to write, from your own point of view, because it is so personal, because it is cathartic, because you are consumed by what you're trying to put down. and there is certainly nothing wrong if one was to write such poems, not all poems have to be great, they just have to do what they're written for, and that, is often enough.

there are also situations when you can write from a first-person point of view, and yet, still associate/relate it to something beyond the self, to bring it in touch with something more universal, it's up to the writer how he/she does it.

and there are yet situations when you write with no references at all, because the subject matter is something universal, or something that is... not solely one person's domain. you could be describing a scene, a moment, a "truth" or an emotion which anyone might recognise.

it is entirely up to the writer how to weave his/her subject matters together and their respective associations, i think that's one of the things i enjoy most about writing! disparate threads that have the potential to form a beautiful tapestry.

as i said, i dont believe there is a hard and fast rule, removing your i's and you's is not going to guarantee a "great" poem, it is entirely up to the subject matter as to how a poem is written, and up to the writer's chosen stylistic voice.

it is certainly a mistake to think that you can write a "great" poem (such as a homeric epic, that's what i'd consider great) by simply sticking to so simple a forumla.

and what's the point of writing a "great" poem, if the writing is not true to yourself, but instead, fed through an algorhythmic machine that removes, your self.
 
Last edited:
ok that was a really good job of explaining it vurtomatic. when i read my post after i felt i had totally misread the whole thing, but it still rings true. good poetry can posses the I, but it is also important to try and use a variety of ways when writing. I think it is easy to get stuck in the trap that atomic*girl*23 is bringing up here.

i'll definently say that it caused me to be a little bit more aware of what type of voice am i using in this poem, and do i always write in this voice. i guess a good way of doing it would be to try and take out the 'I' and if it seems to stark, out them back in. you may find through that edditing process you like the starkness created in that poem, othertimes not.

personnaly i like to try doing different things to a finished poem to see what comes out. if it is better or "i" like it more then great.

anyway good post atomic*girl*23, it caused me to take a look at my work and be more conscous (sp) about it.
 
Perhaps, then, the simple message is to get rid fo a meaningless frame. If the frame of your own perception as an observer of an event does not add anything valuable to the story, take it out and write the story from the perspective of one of the characters you observed. (Or poem.)

I've heard that a lot of writers (more so than poets, I guess) try to use gimmicks to make their writing different or unique. Like telling a story in NON-chronological order. But I've heard it said (and I think it makes sense) to use chronological order unless there is really some important gain from shifting to non-chronological order. Like Memento was the best example of a great non-chronological story. Pulp Fiction was also non-chronological...I'd be curious to see it in chronological order to see if that really added anything. It may have been a wasted gimmick (but even if it was, the movie had enough other good stuff so it didn't matter).

Like temporal gimmicks or other gimmicks, framing through an observer is to be avoided unless it has a purpose in your story (or poem). Of course, I can think of many legitimate benefits to observer framing, so I don't mean to totally condemn it.

~psychoblast~
 
I know myself most of my poems have started by me pouring out my soul and reading this I got a bit embarrased about 1 or 2 whiney pieces that I have done. One thing I have always said is that there is always someone on BL who can identify with you regardless of style.

But this thread contains some valid points, its good to get some pointers - something to think about next time i write - I'm all for more tips if I can grow in my writing!
 
show don't tell

i think i see what your getting at atomic girl. one of my most profoundly influential poetry teachers once told me, "anyone can write about how they feel, but in the end, who cares how you feel? your just the insignificant poet. its all about the world out there and what's happening in it."

i was having a discussion with chaotic action man about this very topic the other day. i was complaining that i was bored of hearing about people's feelings and rather starved for interesting details.

bring on the telling details people!!!
 
thanks to those of you who could see what i was getting at. as many of you read, it's a difficult topic to discribe, but I think that vurtomatic most of it right. psychoblast, too.
my main thing i wanted people to look at was the removal of the "me, me, me" poem. yes, i think a person (if breathing) can always relate to anything they read... whether their relation be "i also had a similar situation" or down to the level of "i don't get it but at least i read it."
what i wanted to get people to think about doing was writing about a topic by stating your thoughts without the "i think ________" qualities to a poem. ex: write about a tree. NOT you looking at the tree and you being
cold outside while writing a poem or thinking about how the lonely tree relates to you in life. write:

the tree stood beside the steel barbed-wire fence.
cutting wind whipped its lashes about its fellow limbs.
the only surrounding wind-breaker on the empty Kentucky mountain
was a 5 x 5 foot outhouse --
too old to be used, too antique to break down.

etc etc. see how i didn't say, "i saw a tree stading beside a barbed-wire fence... it was too old to use and too antique to break down." it is like a photograph of a scene. while one reads about the tree and its conditions, the reader understands the sense of loneliness by word choice and compositional elements.

you don't only have to use this when talking about scenes... for example, one can pick discussion of an intangible to write on, and still acquire the same effect... tho more difficult to do:

a certain presence can fill a room with warmth,
and so does the life live inside us...
proof that a soul has a flame to feed.
that soul's fate is only determined by a sense of
choice.
choice to believe that flame exists...
and choice to acknowledge an ability to inflame
or smother...

I think it is a really difficult task to try, but it's a valid practice in the writing world. I'm NOT telling people to stop writing about what they feel. Duh, the reason we write is because it is cathartic! We like to get what we feel out. (Freud has some interesting reads, I recommend consulting, but not believing everything you read.)

To everyone who wrote, thanks for your imput. I honestly encourage writing, but I encourage personal and professional (writing) growth all the more. The better you say it, the more people will hear your exact intent and be emotionally touched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top