how we talk about when we talk about poetry

poetry night is tonight & this is a post about discussing poetry fruitfully

so first off. poetry night is tonight & i really hope to hear from you there!

sympathetic opposition @sympatheticopp

poetry night is back :3 wednesday 8:30 est/5:30 pst, @0x1e96fc will host & moderate a space dedicated to alice oswald. anyone who's interested can come & discusd the three poems in the thread below. i can't wait to gear what you think!

i don’t want you to take the advice i’m about to give overly seriously. i don’t want you to follow it if it keeps you from talking, i don’t want you to judge yourself by this post. i am writing this bc i have noticed that a lot of ppl are excited to participate in poetry night, but clam up a little when the time to discuss actually comes, feel a little unsure what to say, how to start. this advice is only meant to jumpstart you if you want to discuss but feel unsure how.

that being said. my general advice for poetry discussions is to start with establishing objective facts about the poem, move on to establishing objectiveish facts outside-but-connected-with the poem, & then once everyone is kind of grounded in what’s actually on the page, or tied to what’s on the page, it’s most fruitful to move on to interpretations.

1. inside the poem: i think ppl think this is too basic to talk about but it’s actually really helpful. the rhyme scheme, the number of lines, where the lines break, rhetorical & poetic techniques that are in play, the form of the poem, doing a gloss of the poem (which is to say, re-saying the poem in plain language so as to be clear what the poem is actually talking about)—this is what the poem actually is, this is what the poem is actually doing. it’s so useful to draw attention to this, because any higher-level discussion of meaning or whatever needs to be backed up by this stuff. plus it’s kind of an icebreaker bc it’s easier to notice/point out what is on the page than it is to make interpretations.

2. outside the poem: there isn’t a totally clear distinction between these first two points. but here i’m thinking of stuff like where the poem refers to other work, biographical details about the author, where the poem fits in to whatever school or movement, how the poem was generally received by Big Poetry (if anyone noticed it at all lol). sometimes ppl say this stuff first but i think it’s very slightly better for it to come second.

3. now we interpret: again i’m expressing this as if it’s a discrete step in a process, but that is purely for convenience. once the facts on the ground are established it will feel very natural for everyone to move into talking about what they mean. you’ll feel more confident that ppl will see where you’re coming from even if they don’t agree with you; you’ll feel more confident in responding to ppl bc you’ll more easily see where they’re coming from.

i wonder if anyone will find this post helpful at all lol. i’m still worried it sounds more authoritative/demanding than i want it to. this is a huge simplification of how great poetry discussions actually work—there tends to be a lot of looping—BUT it is still good advice if you’re not sure what to say at all. & if it helps anyone feel more comfortable talking at poetry night i will be so happy!