I want to discuss the means of poetry—the ways in which poetry functions and the means by which it is produced.  Unconventional means are especially of interest for discussion, as I don’t think they’re talked about quite enough.

How do you go about writing poetry?  This is certainly a common question that poets are asked, and perhaps they are expected to give an answer that exposes a singular, ritualistic manner of getting in the “mood” or “habit” for writing.  The expectation may be that they go about it with one method that is “true” to the poets’ personalities.  The expectation may be that method and aesthetic remain constant.

But poets are human, and, as the saying goes, the only thing that’s constant is change (even if that change seems minor).  While a poet will certainly have an aesthetic, that aesthetic is entitled to change, to be broad or broaden, to even be a case of depending on the writing of a poem itself.  In other words, poems are the specifics, while an aesthetic is a general summation/average of the functions of the poems.

Using the same exact writing formula eventually results in writer’s block (or, forgive my odd joke, perhaps this formula would result in a mad scientist due to the connection between repetition and insanity [only hope and humor, not offense intended]).

The bottom line is, going about writing, the same way, again and again, will eventually result in a dry spell or a spell of suboptimal work.

My friend, I suggest this solution: explore other means of poetry.  And this bit of web-space intends and hopes to do this.

In discussing the means of poetry, thoughts on poetics must also manifest.  At times, epistemology and metaphysics (and perhaps ’pataphysics) shall arise.

If you are interested in the concerns of Means of Poetry and wish to contribute more than offering comments, please let me know (via the contact form page), and you could contribute a guest blog post (or perhaps a series of posts).