Here's a spicy question: what do you find disingenuous in poetry?

Don't confuse disingenuous as being unauthentic or fake, because these concepts are not the same thing. To be disingenuous is to pretend that you know less about something than what you know. Essentially not being candid or sincere. Think of a spy when he's being tortured for information in a film. We all know from the viewer's perspective that the spy knows the answer, but is refusing to tell their captor. The spy is being disingenuous. He's not lying. He's just refusing to give that particular information away.

In this sense, I don't think poetry can be considered disingenuous in itself.

Having said this, in principle, I do think that a writer can be disingenuous towards themselves and their written work. Consider how many times you've written and re-written a single piece of prose because you didn't like what it was before the change. Who's to say what the prose was before wasn't good enough? A writer only has themselves to be held accountable for. Essentially, you are the master of your demise. A writer can only hold themselves back by withholding information that they otherwise want to convey. This is why, when I mentor folks, I tell them to write down everything that comes to mind. A writer is being disingenuous by not including every possible version of the prose. For all you know, that little idea you had might be your saving grace.

Hi all, I actually needed a few days to contemplate my own question, lol. But thank you all for your responses! Once again, you've all delivered thought-provoking perspectives.

When I think of ingenuity, I think of what a few of you have already mentioned: greedy cash-grabs orchestrated by publishers with ulterior motifs that aren't about art, or pushing boundaries (artistically), or expressing individuality through the written word. I have to agree with the sentiment that S&S are losing integrity over time, especially with some of their recent 'poetry' book publications (as Elizabeth has mentioned, including cliches and skimpy drawings that ALL look the same, and ALL touch on very similar topics, and they're ALL presented the same way). I agree that this is disingenuous because there is no diversity, and no evidence of exploration beyond trends and cliches. But I will pose...

I also find that this kind of 'art' reveals a lot about society.

Lana del Rey's poetry was accused of being 'pretentious' and 'fake' but there is already an element of 'fakeness' with her persona. I don't mean that in a negative way exactly (i guess a better word would be 'fabricated' or 'stylised'). So really, her 'fake' poetry is actually quite telling of who she is, what's she trying to say, how she views the world and who she's trying to be! Whether or not I found it to be effective poetry is a whole other question. But this kind of relays to what Marc mentioned about how difficult it is to make art inauthentic because it always seems to be revealing something about the human spirit, society or nature even if it is vapid, flawed and superficial. It's actually quite difficult to be inauthentic if you really think about it. Yet at the same time, there is a reason why a lot of these 'insta' poet trends rub us the wrong way. So if being disingenuous isn't the answer, is it laziness? Maybe the intentions in art are flawed. Is that the problem here rather than ingenuity?

Well, yes and no (i feel like i'm debating against myself a lot here). It is fair to assume that some (not all) modern poets (those that follow the suit of what we understand to be insta poetry specifically) are chasing the fame and popularity their inspirations and predecessors (such as Kaur) were able to achieve, which means that this isn't about individual self-expression; it goes beyond the self, beyond the art and into the ether of being liked, 'relatable' and making scoring a book deal with S&S, in a nutshell.

So really, if you're not interested in promoting your work as art, and instead, are solely trying to get something else out of it, and you're putting in the bare minimum because your end goal doesn't coincide with how well you communicate your thoughts and ideas, it's probably not art. It's a commodity. I could go on for a lot longer, but this question has made me realise how philosophical it is. The 'art vs. capitalism' debate is at it again... thanks to me. :\

I agree with Adam about some of the "poets" pushed by Simon & Shuster. Quick grabs of repharased platitudes or cliches and skimpy drawings on empty pages should not count as poetry (in my humble opinion). People buy the books and this approach has created millionaires out of a few savvy business people who are not necessarily poets. It's an interesting phenomenon. I also agree that heartfelt attempts to create poetry are endearing. We all have our preferences. I love to see a work in progress. One of my favorite things is to read poems on the forum where people seek feedback. I don't always comment, but I love reading the posts.

This is a really intriguing question, I think we should look more to the poet, who uses words with a false purpose. It is the intention more than the poetry that seeks to deceive. I think that there are good examples among the great men of the theatre such as Molière, Shakespeare and others such as Hafez al Shirazi who have used words to mock royalty without being condemned.

well if we talk about poetry being 'insincere' I don't think that can be really possible with poetry or any type of fiction or art.

From my point of view it would only be possible to be insincere if you were writing your opinion about something or not meaning what you say. This would probably apply best to letters or some type of writing where the author is trying to express their feeling to another person.

If poetry is Art and art is an interpretation of reality then I don't understand how it could be insincere.

I'm lazy and don't have a dictionary hanging about.

What does disingenuous mean?

That's a good question!