No one has authority over what is and isn’t poetry. To speak toward what you like to see in a poem is fine; to explain how you or others produce poetry is fine; to proclaim what makes poetry good or worthwhile is a complete overstep. Poetry is an artistic, cultural, and personal activity which does not yield to universal categorizations of value or merit.

I would even go so far as to say this article is reckless and irresponsible.

It sounds to me like you are shaming people for the poetry they produce, how they produce it, or why they produce it and then putting up a guise of helpfulness.

You have no dominion over other’s art, so rant all you want about poetry you don’t like, critique it if you want to, but knock yourself down a peg and realize you aren’t the arbiter of any experience except for your own.

How many of those “great poets” you mentioned were breaking the rules of poetry at the time? Was that not part of what makes them great? How many musicians, novelists, and painters dared to produce artwork in their own way, that people didn’t like, and then went on to achieve great influence?

This article makes me wonder: did you write it because you wanted to advance poetry as an art form, or because you knew people would click on it and boost your stats?

Human being living in Orlando. Background in physics, PR, living systems design and education. 303–304–4659 |