It took me a while to figure out which forum to post/ask this -- is it an ethical, formal or inspirational question?? Well, here it is -- a quote from poet Selima Hill, which could have come from the mouth of any kind of writer:

"The only energy we have is the energy of our own lives. But sometimes autobiography is not true enough. In order to be ruthlessly accurate (which is my aim) it is sometimes necessary to fictionalize: in this way I feel free."

I'm posting this to ask other writers (fiction, nonfiction, poetry, memoir) -- how much does your autobiography affect your work?

I ask because I have notice that with poets, everyone assumes that what we write is personal or autobiographical -- people rarely assume we can and do create characters, do dialogue, ventriloquize voices and personalities, or craft dramatic situations. It can be frustrating, because it can be limiting to the poet's imagination. I have rarely, if ever, written a poem that was "about me" -- even though, it must come from soemthing inside me.

Yet others may think differently ... which is why I ask...

Smith

Smith, I often (not always) use autobiography and real events in my writing, but find they can never be employed 'straight', they always need fictionalizing to feel believable. Odd. Perhaps truth is stranger than fiction.

Re. the reader's perception of the poet, there is a tendency to take the poem as autobiographical; it's to do with the intensity of feeling that comes across so strongly in a poem, but I guess that whatever we write we must put a lot of ourselves into the work, whether it's autobiographical or not. One gets a very vivid perception of an author's psyche through reading a few of their works, and I have a gut feeling that this is probably accurate.

I don't think I disagree with you here, Nell:

One gets a very vivid perception of an author's psyche through reading a few of their works, and I have a gut feeling that this is probably accurate.

I guess I'm just afraid you're right -- it's scary to feel exposed.

But, also, from the perspective of getting feedback and criticism (and here, my ideas grew out of reading through Geoff's 'dilemma' post) that it can be a bit disappointing and stultifying if a poet (not just myself) puts out a piece of work and never gets comments on their art, how to improve their craft, or become a better writer, etc. -- but only gets comments that address the "I" of the poem and not the writer him/herself -- (such as "Hope that you didn't cry too much after the breakup" if the poem was about a man being divorced by his wife...)

Smith, part of my problem about construcive criticism for poetry is that I know too little about modern poetry to know what to suggest. I could say how the poem works for me, but any suggestion I make might work to the detriment of the poem for someone else. Have you read Michael Mackmin's analysis of the Andrew Waterhouse poem about the comet on the Rialto site? Beautiful. That really opened my eyes to what modern poetry is all about - I keep going back to it and reading both it and the poem again. So what I'm saying is that at the moment I need to know more, and learn to 'see' deeper - much as an art training teaches one to 'see' twice - before I'd risk a constructive comment. I'd imagine that many members feel the same. Will find the URL and add it below this - it's a revelation.

http://www.therialto.co.uk/01_books.html

Nell, that is a great article. A lot for me to learn from there about how a poem is written and read... thanks!

Hi Smith,Poems are told in an intense personal veiwpoint so they do reflect yourself. If you write in the first person and your story bears a passing similarity to you people will think it is autobiographical.
My stories stem from my, and others expeareances and although changed and added too poeple close to me still think its me I'm writing about, and it isn't.
All the best, Pete

Hi Pete,

I think you've hit at least one nail right on the head -- that poetry is nowadays almost exclusively defined as being written from an intensely personal viewpoint. But I think that's where a problem comes in...

That's really only one kind of poetry. What about epic stuff like Milton's [u]Paradise Lost[/u], a story about the creation of the universe, heaven and hell, Dante's [u]Inferno[/u], the science fiction poems of Kingsley Amis -- or poetry with a communal voice, about war, death, science, ecology... etc.

To quote Marge Piercy, "One of the functions of poetry has always been to articulate for people, to give dignity to people's experiences, their sufferings, their pleasures, the dramas of their lives" -- but that is very different from always assuming the poet is writing about his or her actual acts and beliefs.

I definitely feel that good writing is written out of one's passions and observations -- but people are passionate about many things, not just their own lives and loves.

I guess all I'm trying to do is get folks to remember that a poet has as much of a range as a fiction writer, travel writer or journalist. We can create out of our imaginations not just out of our life experiences.

All poetry is lyric or love.



<Added>

sorry, I meant to write: NOT all poetry is lyric or love.

Smith,
I completly agree with your reply, Isn't poetry a versatile language.
Regards Pete

Pete, I do agree -- you're right, versatility is the key. That's our freedom...

Best,

Smith