I don’t know how to put this, but what has happened to poetry?

First of all, I would like to say how lucky I am to have this platform to express poetry in its entirety. Poetry will always be an avant-garde, no matter if you are a specialist or a simple Sunday poet. The Desinstagration is not far and we must look for this pauperization of poetry, already by the vision of what is the poet, in his posture always tortured, who lives only in Paris, London and under the rain. I would like to write this manifesto: Poets! Let's corrode conformity, mediocrity of polished verses of varnish.

Instapoetry has welcome new comers,and lend a chance to be heard.

Well,as long as monetary gain isn't goal,and long term wise,anything extrinsic is lousy anyway.

Problem here tends to be when people think "statements" are poetry.

When they're really just statements.

If studying poets is a hassle(can be as there are just so many),recommend setting foundation of poets to study under and when ready,branch off to new foundation.For me,Shakespear only because my first poem was a Shakespearan Sonnet and,Allan Ginsberg,my first poetry book was Howl and anyone from the Cove.

There's really nothing wrong with industry per se,just evolve.

I think people kinda miss point.

Poetry along with any art form has to evolve in order to sustain itself.

Otherwise,poetry would be deem archaic.Industry is current as history is to past,that's why its our jobs as Poets(Or Cover,if you want to sound cool) to educate via discussions,written and spoken(if thats your cup of coffee).

Poetry,no matter how we consume,can be very difficult to grasp.

Because very great poets "Show,don’t Tell" very well that deciphering intent,meaning,points out these verses as puzzle pieces.In otherwards,reading stanzas,take apart of lines,understand what poet mean when they intended to make their point?If it's abstract,its in clouds.If its concrete,one sees dirt.If both,rain comes from sky to ground.

Another thing I find is Insta poetry appears to be most relatable.Because they're mainly statements,they're not as complicated to break down.Which gets them to get into poetry easier,doesn't mean they're reading of better quality.Unfortunate,

popular doesn't mean truthful,such as unknown doesn't always mean scary.

Tradition wins over modern.

Almost all the time.I like to think because this industry is fill with blanket statements,they seem to forget how to state a line on blank page.If Instapoetry bother one another,disrupt industry.

As much as I enjoy being in Cover Daddys palace,its going to take more than one Cover to disrupt poetry industry.Which is why a Cove army,along with other poetry communities I'm unaware of,transform poetry for next generation.

Not so much combating Instapoetry,redefining it,HELL,call it Coventry,as one is reinventing poetry.

And I will gallantly scream when reinvention of poetry happens.

Veterans and newcomers,

Youth and elder,

Archaic and Modern,

All free to ignite and reignite superpower in form of POETRY.

Cliched and repetitive stuff is not new nor limited to instapoetry. Lines like these written in the late nineteenth and twentieth century, although before the internet the money grab was with novels, have been buried and you don't hear of them. My concern is how we are phrasing our criticisms, there is nothing wrong with making your work accessible: writing on themes those not involved in writing can understand, developing a market in cliche etc. The challenge for those of us who don't want to be buried by sands of time, which seem to flow quicker in 21st century than in 19th, is to work out what meanings people who read Gabby Hanna etc are creating from her texts and capturing those meanings in our writing. I hope you can follow my meaning, my ideas are based on spending time in lunch rooms when'days of our lives' was on and watching the reactions of others who were into this program. I would be gob smacked because all I could hear and see were tawdry lines badly acted on the one hand, but quite rich and developed comments from those around me. The basis to money grabbing is to provide triggers and the audience does the literary work.

I confess that I came to poetry late in late, my mid-fourties. Before I started to go to open-mics and heard the poetry of the day, I thought of poetry only in old-fashioned forms developed two centuries ago in another country. My mind was blown by the formless poems of today. They were a new way to look at poetry, with the power of the ideas and emotions at the forefront and went beyond the approved topics of those long dead poets.

While I do not like all the new poetry out there, I have come to appreciate it. The gatekeepers are no longer in charge. The words of the people, young and old, are what is seen. This is a good thing and I hope it continues.

I am glad to have found a community that are a little, sceptical shall we say, of insta-poetry and some modern poetry being produced today. Not saying all of it is bad, of course (I mean, many of you peeps have produced fantastic stuff!) but take the below:

"we are all born

so beautiful

the greatest tragedy is

being convinced we are not"

I'm sorry. That's a statement, not a poem. And there are people out there monetarily profiting off cliche, repetitive stuff like this. Not to mention, i feel like I have heard this phrase a thousand times over. The same goes for the below:

"You are allowed

to take your time

to grow in your

own beautiful way".

Nice message, sure. But that is all it is. There is no depth, no extra dimensions laboured into the words, no real showcase of techniques and images.

If we're talking about the popularity of insta-poetry specifically, aside from 'relatability' or perhaps laziness, I also think something else is going on here... a lack of Romance in the modern age (yep, that's Romance with a capital R). A lack of exploring the mundane in every day, a lack of exploring the intense and gory depths of tragedy, a lack of curiosity and fixation on the weird and the random (we need to celebrate poems about pretending to be Katherine Mansfield's best friend (shout out to @Rachel Glass) or poems about snooping in people's medicine cabinets... Just an example...) It's poetry- explore and experiment with everything! And never be afraid to revisit the past and revive traditional poetry styles. After all, they're unforgettable classics for a reason.

If it is something you haven't already noticed, people like Gabbie Hanna have openly admitted to finding Shakespeare and Homer's Iliad too long and boring. (not Hanna's exact words, but she did say something like "they're great works, but no one is scrambling to read [them]... we want something more instant which is why vine was so popular". Ok, she acknowledged that these are 'great works' but also alleged that no one gets "excited about it". (if you're wondering where I got these quotes from, Gabbie uploaded a video titled 'Talking about my bad poetry' on YT. I don't think the video exists anymore but many people including Rachel Oates made comprehensive videos about it).

But... excuse me? No one gets excited about Shakespeare? Is that why we're still taking about him after 400 hundred years?!

The irony is, countless insta-poets such as Atticus, Dhiman, Lili Reinhart, Cherie Avritt, Amanda Lovelace, etc. will appropriate (or just blatantly copy) not only Kaur's style, but her illustrations, and then people within that community will regard the works of Shakespeare, Plath, Atwood, Frost, as cliche, outdated and overdone, even though none of those latter poets mentioned write the same way! You see where I'm getting at here...

But may I also say, as a woman, I definitely feel like there are invisible restrictions on what I can and can't write in order to be taken seriously. But it's probably not in the way you think... for example, an associate at a poetry magazine (which i will not name but they are based in the UK) heavily implied that my poetry will not be considered for publication as I have not addressed social and gender concepts in my submissions (feminism, colonialism, sexism and racism, etc.)

Now, these are *very important* topics, without a doubt. I have written quite a few theses on the detrimental aftermath of British colonialism, so it is a subject I am passionate about. But all you need to do is Google 'feminist poetry' or 'poetry about colonisation' to find countless works out there on the topic. (Maya Angelou is a good start). Confining me to write exclusively on these topics is not only insulting to me as a writer, but it's insulting to me as an ethnic woman! (That's right, i'm not a natural blonde, lol) and to be honest, I feel like I am being dictated to write something that will fit with another person's or society's agenda, which, sometimes, can be sketchy. Even though I have explored my culture and my relationships with men in my poetry, let me write about whatever I want! Do publishers honestly think as women, we only have the capacity to talk about issues attributed to our gender? Or worse, we *should* only discuss these topics? (By all means, this kind of poetry is very important but there is room for variety, also. Please, please stop telling us what to do, even if you think you're being subtle about it). It's also a really gross underestimation of our abilities.

Thank you, Adam. Thank you, I finally got this off my chest.

And thank you to whoever has reached the end of what I fear this to be a good ol' fashioned rant.

I truly don’t understand gate keeping. I see it in photography and as a new poet, I see it in poetry. Things change and evolve. Just because we don’t understand why the change happened, doesn’t mean it’s bad. I still have zero idea of who Gabby Hannah is. But I picked up her book a few years back and I liked it.

This new age of poetry sells because it’s relatable to the audience it was written for. This new poetry sells because it matches the culture and climate of today’s world. So what’s happening to poetry??? It’s changing and evolving just like the language and culture are changing and evolving.

My favorite poem of all time is Renascence by Edna St. Vincent Millay https://poets.org/poem/renascence

This is lyrical piece takes the reader on a spiritual journey through nature, death, boundaries, longing, and freedom. The words, the message, the rhythm, the images, and the musical nature of the piece transport the reader through multiple emotions, and by the poem's end, the reader will have experienced a range of emotions from neutral, grief, wonder, joy, wisdom etc. It's all there. When I compare this magnificent piece to the lazy work of people like Rupi Kaur, I cringe. True, she is laughing all the way to the bank, but she is laughing. We have gotten lazy in our lust for quick soundbites that sound meaning full. If you look at some of the driveling "words of wisdom", they are merely platitudes, cliches, and not much more. I hate to say this because I love young people and want to be supportive of novel ideas and approaches -when they are genuine. Edna St. Vincent Millay was 20 years old when she wrote Renascence....she was young and innovative in her day. She was also bold and gifted with the words and images and she used them to convey a point of view (also bold for one so young at the time of the writing). I love her poetry because it makes me feel while it fills my mind with rhythm, imagery and music.

As a "youth" I have to agree. I did English Literature at GCSE and A Level and although we did read modern poets like Carol Anne Duffy and Phillip Larking there is definitely a concentration on older literature. I didn't mind it and eventually "got it" but then again I am a massive nerd. Or I felt like a massive nerd compared to everyone else in my class; even at A Level.

I am also afraid of my poetry becoming "insta-poetry" because what we are showed in school is this 'Pinnacle of Poetry' that I can't achieve yet so I am confused on what my poetry 'should' look like. The only poem that I have written that I am confident is poetry is "Poetry is Dead". Anything else feels like this uncomfortable middle ground where technically my poetry isn't anything like Rupi Kaur but it doesn't mean it is any better.

The instant gratification era we are in can be worrisome. It's not that I write riddles constantly, but is it nice to throw in 1-5 Pieces that take a little bit of breaking down. Maybe not even that, just a few more bigger words than I usually use. When I write a poem that has bigger words and great metaphors for a past feeling; I'm really proud of it and I want others to enjoy it. Having fun, making whatever they can out of it. Having them appreciated. As some do take time and lots of creativity. Instead of them seeing it as a too much work to read. Anyone else feel this way?

Also, on the teaching bit. I had heard from near folks who had attended a college for writing and when asking for help or mentioning any personal work to professors, They wouldn't help. To get much worse, the professor would mention to several students that they would never make it as an author.

@Ken Merchant @Chris Scott @Matthew Hutchins

This is by far my favourite thread on the Cove right now! Love the insightful thoughts and opinions. I've updated my initial post slightly but Matthew has really hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say about people feeling good when they discover the accessible work on the gram. I also think living in the ''instant'' age that we do plays a huge role!

In my opinion it'll be a case of finding that middle ground of 'I get this! What a revelation' poetry that instagram provides, combined with the tradition and 'cipherable poetry that the academics love to boast about.

I definitely can see what you’re getting at. Why are people like Gabbie Hanna or Trish Paytas getting published by legitimate presses? Well…as much as it befuddles me…it’s because there’s a market for their poetry, so these presses stand to make a buck or two on their work regardless of quality.

So the next question is “why is there such a market for the kind of poetry these people write?” Of course folks like Gabbie or Trisha already have followings who will buy anything they put out, but I think there is more to it than that. To some extent, I think it’s similar to why there’s so much money to be made with shitty pop-country music. It’s accessible.

You make a good point addressing the stuffy way most schoolteachers go about teaching poetry. Let’s be honest here - most public school teachers don’t know shit about poetry. They don’t know how to teach the analysis/appreciation of it, and they definitely can’t teach the process of writing it. This is where you get these misconceptions about “finding out what the poem means” or “all poems have to rhyme.”

So many people have been put off of poetry by English classes that seem to think no decent poetry was written after 1850, so you have kids attempting to “decipher” a poem written from a time period they can’t relate to. Not only that, but the focus is so much on analyzing the damn thing like it’s algebra and not literature.

People leave school with this misconception that poetry is stuffy and dry. That it’s some kind of shitty art form that “makes no sense” because they’ve had it drilled into their heads that it’s supposed to make sense. They see reading poetry as a puzzle solving process and not an emotional process.

So when they finally encounter poets like Rupi Kaur or (gag) Gabbie Hanna, they think “Wow…I get this.” So they gobble it up. The stuff that we as poets would appreciate is the stuff that most people see as “stuffy” or “hard.” They’re so concerned with “getting it” on first read that they’re just totally off put from (dare I say it) good poetry.

I am a die hard opponent of the need to “get” poetry. A poem isn’t a riddle. It’s not a puzzle or a math problem or a cipher to be cracked. It’s an expression of what we as human being feel. It’s the most masterful and honest and playful method of using language to paint pictures. So many readers and poets are sacrificing language at the altar of “what does it mean.”

My first pass (and sometimes my second and third) pass of a poem is always purely to appreciate language. To taste it and mull it over. I don’t care about “getting it” until I’ve read it several times. Then the experiences it conjures for me inform my interpretation of “what it means.” But people aren’t taught to read poetry this way. So they continue to read the stuff they “get” because the think “getting it” is the goal.

and /rant

Wow! I don't really remember posting this, I was so sleep deprived haha! But this are fantastic replies both @Ken Merchant and @Chris Scott ! So thought provoking and inspiring. Will sit on this and reply again soon! Thanks so much lads!

2 A.M. here,

Very well said, Ken @Ken Merchant. To take on this depth I think life is so close anymore. It feels shoulder to shoulder and I truly believe the access to medias is a huge distraction for artist and consumers. The negativity has reached a high level where we are all just stagnant. Instead of making our own moves a lot of people are waiting for a move from the world we share. Whats the next trend? We are all told we are born unique, but the outbreak of constant exposure ironically leads life into a race to conformity.

Poetry is the experiences in our life and the ability to live multiple through rightfully caring observations. I think we are living less and less everyday. We are missing out on so many connections. In my environment people are losing purpose daily. They don't see gain from the arts bc it doesn't involve modeling for instant opinion. I hope we all start to fall in love with feeling real again, soon. Because we are VERY real. Poetry today feels too needy or maybe hurried. I hope that we start setting journeys to find the words that mold ourselves again. Exposure being the last step to think about.

I'm sure the burning is the many thoughts broiling in your head as of late. This of course being me halfheartedly joking.

To answer your question though bud, I think it is all relative to the company we keep. If I've learned anything over the years its that the news/social media news likes to highlight the heart wrenching and less desirable stories. That is because annoying and painstakingly aggravating stories sell.

I also think that there has been a lot of negative energy over the last couple of years, and since poetry serves as a conduit for the human experience, certain individuals take it upon themselves to utilize that advantage. Lets be honest here though. Out of all the wretched poets that have climbed out of the gutters recently, how many of them are there really? Five or six? Which when you put it into perspective, is literally nothing compared to the mass majority of poets that remain. They just happen to draw all the attention because that is how news and media works these days. Attention getters. What is the best way to combat attention seekers? Don't pay them any attention.

I'm sure everything will settle in time my friend. Like most things in life. It rises quickly and falls just as fast. Poetry isn't dead. It's just in the middle of a revolution. Those who honor the art will be the ones left standing in the end. Names like Gabbie Hanna will eventually become just as forgotten as PewDiPie. I think those who are smart enough will see through the ruse.

Don't worry bud. I'm sure there are many who share in your thoughts. Also, since you mentioned you were writing this out around 2:15am, I'm sure a lot of it is those 3am thoughts rounding the bend. We've all been there for sure. Though I will say one thing, a lot of my best work has come from writing late into the night and early morning.