love (rarely unique)

suicide

suicidal love (the WORST)

any kind of cheesy primary school depression

Really anything that can contain the phrases I love you, I cry, a tear slowly falls like rain, my heart is bleeding, crying, broken, yadda yadda. It makes me ill that people acutlly review this stuff, kindly may I add! Why do people do this. Non one responds to my stuff and I wonder why. They obviously don't mind giving reviews to truly terrible, utterly unoriginal poems.

That is my adive. Be constructive with reviews, that is what they are there for. If you hated something, thell them and spare us the pain of having to read another regurgitated cliche. It helps them.

What kind of advice/annoyance do ya'll have?

I rarely take Suicidal poetry seriously though, because if you were to write so powerfully of a subject, I'm sure you would have already gone through with the aforementioned action, therefore being prevented from writing any further.

Suicidal love seems like an oxymoron, can someone explain exactly what it is? I could name the genre if I saw it, but it's not something easily defined to me.

One thing that I would like to see variated is the poems about solitude and loneliness. It seems as if it's been 200 years since the topic has variated from "I don't like people because they're scary, and love is stupid anyways."

Hmmmm, suicidal poetry is the kind of poetry that uses the above line to make the jump to "you left me and I stare long into the bottom of a bottle/pills/razor blade"

I agree about the lonlinesss. Sometimes lonliness is a choice. I don't hate people, sometimes I am lonely, but who isn't. And who can hate love?

Suicidal poetry always sounds so self pitying and trite though. I just can't take it seriously anymore.

I can acknowledge that I used to write that stuff but I'm definitely not proud of it.

Sorry about the rambling. :-)

~Bitter Irony

How many people, after thinking about if for a few hours, truely believe that "love is eternal"? I don't, and I think I'm in good company: but half the poems in the "love" section of FP are about TRUE love.

Or broken hearts, which are another thing that means something different to each of us, and should thus inspire some unique poems.

~Bitter Irony

There are 600 000 words in the English language and thus I think that cliches of phraseology should be completely redundant. Thesaurus' are a poet's friend.

Topics wise, yes death and love are cliched but there are ways to spin them with originality so as to create something that is not horrendously cliched.

The fact these phrases contain many smaller individual meanings which can be deciphered many different ways can add another layer of symbolism and meaning to your work. These are the kinds of things you can't find in a thesaurus, or anywhere. It's why poetry is beautiful in the first place. I believe that relying on thesauruses instead of diving inside ourselves for these phrases is what is destroying poetry as a respected mediums, as they are often to blame for what many here often call "cliche".

But that's just me. Simple words and cliche won't get you anywhere in poetry. Emotion? Pffft it's secondary to language which is what poetry has been about for thousands of years, the pursuit of language. To get anywhere in creating something new you need to push the boundaries of poetry and look at language, look at the scope of the English language and think of what you could do with all these words.

Falling back on "simple words" to push forward emotion is boring, backwards and pointless. It's a fact. Those simple words have been used countless times before and to use them again, well hey aren't you just being lazy? If you fire back about emotion, look above. You're not looking at poetry in the right light.

Poetry is about the pursuit of language (yes yes it is) and a thesaurus can teach you new words. I'm not saying have it by your side and use it to deconstruct and repair every line of your poetry but yes use it to explore what you could with your words.

The fact these phrases contain many smaller individual meanings which can be deciphered many different ways can add another layer of symbolism and meaning to your work.

Did you even read your whole post? What is the whole second stanza talking about? Simple phraseology. And the best way to get to new words in a thesaurus is to find synonyms and synonyms of that and synonyms of that and then words you don't know. You don't just think oh that's another simpled cliched word but I'm going to use it because I found it in a thesaurus.

How do you propose for people to learn new language? Well apart from reading more poetry (which is fantastic all the time, you have to do it if you're serious about poetry), a way to find their own words is a freaking thesaurus. Besides which there are thousands of versions of thesauruses If you're so intent on finding a new word you won't walk back into being a cliche. Make sense now?

1. By simple I meant well simple, words that are obvious. Adjectives such as cold, hot, pretty, silent. Or phrases like crescent moon, ruby red rose. Cliched, overused simple words.

2. Learn new words. There is nothing wrong with them, big or small.

3. Meaning is secondary in poetry, it's always been the pursuit of language that is the main goal.

So, if you actually want to write something that's new and different think of the above.

If someone wrote ruby red rose in a poem would you think that was a good use of language by the way? Or are you just standing up for your viewpoint by attacking some minuscule part of mine?

(I had to reply to that by the way, you were so clearly wrong)

When somebody uses a phrase that is overused, or even cliched, I consider why they might have done so. If it adds emphasis, or allows for emphasis in an adjacent section of the work, then I would consider it a good use of language.

Of course, you're not wrong when you observe that I "attack" only part of your original viewpoint, but take it as a given that what I did not comment on I either agree with or have no interest in. There is no need to make this confrontational.

Also it's fun to make confrontation when people are stuck in using old, tired language. It doesn't emphasise unless they exploit it to portray a completely different idea (which is hard to do) or to parody it. That's the only time it's possibly valid. Otherwise it's a poet being lazy. Good use of language is actually using new language, new words. If you have to look it up in a dictionary, then so be it. Then remember it and use it yourself later. What's so bad about learning new words?

I can see we're not going to agree because you're a backwards thinker. But I get that, being lazy seems to be the new movement in poetry.

Then maybe the pursuit of language is cliché? ;-)

No offense, but I'm trying to make a point, so humor me. While you may think that poetry is and always has been about the pursuit of language, and that meaning is secondary (and this applies even if you are irrefutably right), a lot of people place meaning before language. This isn't to say that they ignore language, as that surely wouldn't produce captivating poetry, but some people simply have different priorities. To say that meaning is secondary merely because language has always been the main goal is like saying you shouldn't use uncommon words solely because they are uncommon. And as far as I see, your argument is generally *for* using more original vocabulary.

Placing Meaning first may or may not be the original goal of poetry, but is there anything really wrong with it? Like I said, if a cliché is something that is overused, can you really fault someone for trying something different?

And your example doesn't make sense at all. How do they parallel? Uncommon words have always been uncommon? Is that your point? Thus they shouldn't be used? Odd point but also incorrect as many words that are now "uncommon" once littered everyday usage of the English language.

There's nothing wrong with it with putting meaning first if you're going to do something interesting with your language but if you're going to hold up cliched and bad poetry as "well it's good because it has meaning" then that's just idiotic.

At least if you want meaning then use some interesting language to portray that.

Changing a word or two or all of a cliched phrase for synonyms doesn't make it less of a cliche (of course, in most cases). & cliches are not exclusively phrases. Cliches can be subverted or inverted or lessened/canceled by other means, but a thesaurus won't solve it.

When somebody uses a phrase that is overused, or even cliched, I consider why they might have done so. If it adds emphasis, or allows for emphasis in an adjacent section of the work, then I would consider it a good use of language.

Then you are most probably considering poor writing as "good use[age] of language". "Ruby red rose" (using your example) is a horrendous cliche in whatever context (that I can imagine) it could be used in, as long as the words "ruby" & "red" being superfluous, esp. when used in conjunction- which is bad writing in itself.

I am irrefutably right :) in that respect.

Hardly. It's both- or, at the least, for a poem to be great, it needs both. A poem can be decent or good with only one, but not great (of course, there are exceptions, but there always are). You might have a technicality in the "pursuit" aspect, but not the quantifying greatness aspect. Which, judging from aspects of your last post, we might agree upon.

I am aware of that. It can in some instances and in others the cliche is just doomed to fail no matter what. "Moon" is the best example of a cliched word I can think of and no matter which way you spin it, it's almost impossible to create an original idea out of it. Thesaurus' do solve quite a few dilemmas when you're thinking on a word that you feel is cliched but you know there's something better.

I have to agree with you completely on your second point.

As for your third. I disagree slightly. I am right in that poetry is about the pursuit of language and has been for the past oh few thousand years or so? I'm not saying anything about the quality. A poem often in it's language trips up on a meaning. Poetry built around meaning is little unless the langauge aspect of it is thoroughly reviewed. Whether a poem is good or not is quite subjective, I really wouldn't want to go into that right now.

I don't think simplicity takes away from the value of a poem. I don't clichés themselves are bad. I think it's kind of silly that a phrase can be considered of less value just because a lot of people have used it before. Granted, I don't use clichés very much, but that's more because I think it's pointless to have to explain to people why I used one every time I write something.

I'm not saying that anyone should ignore original language completely, but I certainly don't believe it's an absolute neccessity.

All I'm saying is don't use cliches, simple as that. There is no reason to unless you're parodying them or have turned them into something completely different using a twist (which is quite hard to do). If you don't think cliches are bad then great, stay mediocre. Otherwise use some original language. Don't bore your readers with the same old.

I think "sunset" is a better example; I've read a few poems that use "moon" in an effective manner.

Okay but now you're talking about the value of a poem which I don't want to get into because it's too subjective and too many people like crap amateur poetry for god knows what reason.

Cliches are bad because they lessen the quality of a poem. I think that it would be necessary to, at the least, refer to the value of a poem (as you do in posts with words like "mediocre"). & liking something hardly makes it good; there's a diff. between personal taste & quality.

One can't really generalize intent (pursuit), since some writers (good ones, even) have written with the express aim to convey something specific to an audience (meaning). Language is integral (being a major factor in seperating prose from poetry), & there've been poems written for expressly linguistic reasons (aural or otherwise), but pinning down what poems pursue is specific to the poem. Saying that poetry is a "pursuit of language" is broad, & can even be used to mean the pursuit of meaning through language, the pursuit of musicality through language, or anything else.

However, my argument has always been that intent & pursiut don't matter in the slightest, but that the result (the work produced) does.

I think it's kind of silly that a phrase can be considered of less value just because a lot of people have used it before.

They are of less value for exactly that reason.

I think it's pointless to have to explain to people why I used one every time I write something.

From this, it sounds like you don't think cliches are a problem because if they're not your own poetry is better (& you don't have to admit error).

I realize that. I just think it's a very stupid concept. Just because other people have used this phrase before, I can't? Just because other people liked that phrase and used it in their works, I can't? Obviously the phrase had merit to begin with if it has been so widely used as to become "cliché."

From this, it sounds like you don't think cliches are a problem because if they're not your own poetry is better (& you don't have to admit error).

What I meant was that I don't use clichés because I'm sick of people who criticize me for using them. Every time I use a cliché, someone calls me out on it, and I have to explain to them that I'm not an idiot and that I know it's a cliché.

Well anyway, I think I'm contradicting myself by saying this, but I like the idea of cliches... You know, that something was so awesome and great that countless other people tried to reproduce that some sort of thing... I'm saying that it's not really the idea's fault that a lot of people butchered it into oblivion. Even so, I try to steer clear of cliches. Because my logic is that if you're a little more experienced as a writer, you'll know to try to avoid red-flaggery. Which leaves the more inexperienced or ignorant to blindly continue writing about the glass heart and the shards you made of it. (Oh by the way, red flag is the slant equivalent of cliches, pretty much.) Okay, but I think red-flag poems are REALLY funny.

And responding to a kind-of tangent above about not falling back on simple words and hoping to have them carry through your feelings... Again, I contradict myself. I think that poems are used to capture the feeling of something, and not just their appearance and whatever. However, I don't think people should rely on just their feelings to make a poem work. First of all, because many words are very vague and are unable to carry your feelings along. It might sound perfect in your head, but how do other people know to read it like you do? It might work out if you're reading it out loud to people, but you can't do that all the time. Poetry is becoming a visual art. Still, simplicity can work, right? Maybe that's what you're going for. Maybe you're writing a poem about a child - a topic you might not want cluttered by obscure adjectives. And it's not like you should rely on difficult words to make you sound complex or deep or whatever. You just sound like a wannabe high-brow type, which most people won't be able to relate to.

Anyway, we should all be happy that we live in a time where we have had so many masters to learn from before us and with us. But the cons about that is that almost everything has been done before. Everybody has feelings. Many have already written about those feelings. So if you want to carry through and hope to be recognized as a *good* poet or writer, you have to be willing to try new things.

Well, that was a big, fat post. And now all of you are probably convinced that I'm some conceited person who thinks they're all that. Well, I'd just like to say that my writing is still barely above mediocre, and I hope to improve it way, way more in the time to come. I want to be *good*. Doesn't everybody want to be *good*? So, if any of you do check out my writing (hint hint, just kidding), do know that I know that I need to improve a lot... And if any of you want a massive ego boost, read some of my earlier writing that I never brought myself to delete. Seriously, those things will make you feel so much better about yourself. I can name at least three red-flag pieces I wrote off the top of my head. Heh.

theory }

opinion released and now floating down off soapbox..

No, cliches are cliches because of having an especially large numerical constancy; people identify with them on a basic level because of their familiarity- which results from their prominence.

poetry that people can identify with

"I'm so sad/feeling bad." This little piece of doggeral is able to be perfectly identified with- after all, who hasn't felt sad? And isn't it a feeling one generally would consider bad? However, this does not make it good (or even mediocre, or even sub-par poetry. Quality does not depend upon a reader's ability to personally connect with a poem; connection merely endears. Telling people to not worry about using cliches is advocating bad- & mindless- writing.

Some of the best poets used phrases everyone knows, but it's the way THEY tell it that makes it something else.

One can redeem a cliche, that much is obvious. However, if you're going to make a blanket statement, please provide examples of which "best poets" used cliches, & how they used them in a manner devoid of the defining negative qualities of cliches.

If you're writing a poem made out of cliches purely to "express yourself" then you probably aint a poet.

This is also true if one is using them to have a reader brainlessly identify with the poem, or elements therein.

Literary critics probably don't hate other people's work as much as they hate theirs.

theory }

A table with a broken leg is broken. A cliche is a cliche. Personal perception or understanding has nothing to do with quality, but everything to do with taste- & they are two distinctly different things. To argue that a problem arising from the actions of humans is not a problem & fine as long as human understanding is not applied to it is silly.

Methinks cliches ** some writers off 'cus they can't unearth new material that expresses what they want to say without using the cliche, and that's annoying and totally typical of humans. hah we're a funny lot.

Irrelevantly attacking the persons who bring forth points, arguments or criticism does not devalue the validity of the points, arguments or criticism that they bring forth. Saying what sums up to "OMG PEEPS WHO HATE CLICHES (that i incidently use) ARE JUST MAD THEY CANT RITE THEMSELVES" is bereft of even the slightest of bit of merit.

Lighten up?

I can hardly take that as an insult when that is nothing near the case (i.e., boredom- being subjective- has nothing to do with whether or not something is a cliche). If you want to claim that I take offense at cliches, that's fine, & accurate; I do, & have no qualms about accepting that. Bad writing shouldn't garner praise.

It changes, and I wouldn't be surprised if in years to come the metaphors and etc. we've so righteously defended as not cliched in fact become cliched.

Exactly, but not because of boredom, but of the amount of usage.

There is this girl that I cannot stand in school, who wrote the most cliched poem for our free style poems in english. She actually used the line, "Drowning in my tears, reaching out for help" and similar lines suggesting that she was suicidal and needed help. The fact of the matter is, this girl is NOT suicidal or even close to it, and brags about it to this day how "all the teachers were worried about me and it was so dark tee hee I seemed so depressed". I HATE that.

I find the assertion that language is secondary to meaning quite ridiculous.

It was emotion and meaning that drove many of our greatest poets, writers and artists into oursuing their art - and still do drive many young writers to pick up their pens. These cliched writers you speak of are often just such people - they're hardly aiming to create a masterpiece, are they? Most of them are just trying to word an ache of some kind, and often do it badly or mask it with projected dark fantasies such as dreams of suicide, eternal love - things they've often no real experience of, or no reason to have experienced at that age. Children and teenagers reflect adult themes that they see around them all the time; African children play out rape scenes in school playgrounds as part of their natural play. Our society happens to be obsessed with dark themes and love fantasies, and younger people reach out to these without much understanding of them and become entangled.

Striving to create a great piece of writing using the head and not the heart is why so many modern poets write utter rubbish. A simpleton will look at a word-beautiful meaning-deficient piece and be bowled over due to their own skills with words; a more serious writer will rightly dismiss it on the grounds that the well-chosen words are built on little to nothing. If meaning were so secondary to writing, then we would not be a race who has historically sought to analyse to death the meanings, contexts and geneses of our literature. It's altogether disturbing - and a sign of the times - that writers are pretentiously caught up in fabricating literature to look skilled - there's no other word for it. Although I can't say I'm surprised, it goes hand in hand with so many other tendencies of modern mentality... things done soullessly for the sake of being done.

Finally, although I detest overly cliched writing, I have nothing against cliches. This modern view that cliches are evil and to be avoided at all cost is nothing more but a symptom of our sick mentality that, in order for something to be worth noticing or praising, it must be entirely new and fresh. We would rather resort to creating senseless trash just for the sake of being able to say it's not been done before, rather than try our hand at timeless favourites. We've forgotten how to be content with the present, stuck in cultures infected with the bug of speed-living that doesn't permit the time or effort to mentally penetrate creative legacies of the past. Cliches were created due to mass needs for their creation; by dismissing them, one merely denies the nature of humans as a whole and focuses instead on the particulars of the individual.

Why must we all be so squeaky-individual and unique? Why can't we all just be human? Learn that first - and it necessarily involves studying humanity as a while including its cliches, then learn how to do it well, and only THEN will you have the makings of great poetry.

Meh... no edit option in these forums. Can't correct my typos.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)