Take Yourselves Seriously: Creating Young Poets by Honoring Old Ones
01 March 2010 at 10:2 EST | John Robert Ladd 
Image courtesy Flickr user Extra Ketchup via CCBy Sarah-Hazel Jennings
A story came across my desk, and when I say that, I mean John sent me an email about a New York English teacher, Robin Currin, using the social network creation tool Ning to create a network he calls the Global Poetry Project. It allows English students from all over the world to self-publish their poetry and receive feedback from their peers across oceans and national boarders.
The obvious story for a blog about the meeting of technology and poetry is that a Mr. Turner [Boy Meets World... Duh!] teacher is connecting with the urban beat of the young kids these days and connecting with them on their level. Fantastic. But, allow me to be a voice of old-woman caution here. I wear cardigan sweaters: I have a right.
Do you remember raising your hand and straining at the shoulder to be called upon and proudly declare to your fellow 8th graders that no, poetry does not need to rhyme? I'm sure you can still smell the cigarettes and cheap coffee brewing at the local diner as you and your faux-literary 10th and 11th grade comrades passed around “Song of Myself” by Walt Whitman [always paying close attention to the sexual sections, as those were the most forbidden]. And, of course, as your love of poetry progressed, your stumblings across Gertrude Stein and Allen Ginsberg proved that poetry knew no bounds of structure or verse.
Whitman, Stein, and Ginsberg are among my favorite poets, and I respect them for pushing the boundaries of form to create compelling art. But, the publishing processes of the time necessitated their mastery of poetry, their deep understanding of classic poetry, and their developed ability to twist, form, and re-mold the accepted structure in order to successfully redefine it. Without this mastery, they would not have been able to break down barriers the way that they did. Their grasp of the core fundamentals of poetry is what lead them to be published, and what allowed their published work to change literature.
An embrace of the ever-evolving, changing definition of poetry is one of the many facets of the form that make it so notable. I remember sitting in a poetry class and constructing 'prose poems' that don't contain any meaningful line breaks or senses of verse and stanza. What makes this poetry? What makes a splashing of words on a page poetry if not held together in some long-held, definable way? I am not attempting to answer that question, but I acknowledge that the question should be asked and considered.
And what makes a work credible? We used to be able to depend on the status of a work as 'published' to ensure its authority. But, after John posts this on the PT Blog, it's a published piece, and I would hardly consider myself an expert in anything not related to pie.
What kinds of writers are these networks creating? Those that jump to be published, heard, focused on, praised, and exposed before they commit to study, understanding, and practice? Despite being the cool English teacher that probably rides a motorcycle to school and tells his students how much he likes Metallica on the first day of class, does Currin encourage his students to publish and gain feedback more than to learn the basis, history, and accepted forms of traditional poetry? At one time, an author had to be an expert before his work was published to the world. But now, social media allows literally anyone to publish content.
I'm, of course, not criticizing the advances in social media, the strategy of this teacher, or the enthusiasm he's created in his students. All are dependent on one another and on our progressing society, and none of these things by themselves is necessarily bad or damaging to the future of literature. But it's already bad enough that the majority of our youth think Shakespeare is stupid and hate studying his brilliance of language. With a continual push for student-writers to publish earlier and earlier, before education, discipline, and proficiency in the field, is it too much of a slippery slope to fear that soon these students won't even know who Shakespeare is?
Poetry will be pushed, challenged, changed, and reconstructed throughout the next generations. This is a given and is incredibly exciting. But I'm concerned for its value if the form's earliest education is focused on creation and distribution rather than study and understanding.
All of my poems in high school were depressing and dark, poorly constructed, lazily executed, and solely focused on the boys that never loved me the way I obsessed over them. Without being blown away by the works of Whitman, Stein, Ginsberg, Dickinson, Shakespeare, Pope, and Byron, I don't think I would have ever improved.
On the Global Poetry Project site, Robin Currin explains that 'The true purpose of this space is to provide writers with validation--it isn't a forum where writers seek constructive criticism.' So, really, these writers aren't even growing through the writing of their own work. They're just feeling good about it and, perhaps, believing that they've mastered the entire practice already. A 10th grader with nothing left to learn? Scary. Currin's also a football coach. Does he take the same approach with his athletes? 'C'mon boys! We don't need to practice or learn the rules: let's just get out there and play however we want to!'
No, technological is not at all antithetical to poetical. And no, I am not attempting to assert that the work of children is not valuable or good. I am simply asking, is this the best way to use advances in technology to create better poets?
There is a better way to be using social media to discuss poetry and its future, though much to your [and John's] disappointment, I don't know what that is exactly. We're starting to tackle a much bigger problem than simply when students should be publishing: we're sidestepping into the realm of how westernized families should raise their kids. And, until I can get together Sarah Palin, James Dobson, Michael Jackson, and the crazy lady next door that uses more profanity with her ten-year-old than can be heard in The Boondock Saints, I think the question will stand as a controversy rather than a solvable issue.
What about this lesson plan that has students choose a scene from any of Shakespeare's plays, update it to a modern setting, film it, and then [here's the good part] add commentary explaining why they chose the scene, why they performed it the way they did, and why they chose the setting that they chose. Imagine this on a global level: students from all over the world re-creating Shakespearean scenes, then putting it on a YouTube-type network.
This would accomplish more than just a few things. First, students would learn the incredibly valuable skill of evaluating literature to the point that they understand it on a conversational level. By having to justify their setting and their scene, there's no way to shortcut the understanding. Secondly, it will foster a worldwide discussion that will lead to learning more than just Shakespeare. For example, the literature lessons will be clear in Australia's depiction of Macbeth's final scene, but their setting in Melbourne will also catapult instructors to teach more about world cultures and geography. Furthermore, once teachers and students on a global stage vote for which interpretation they find most well-done, schools can use more than just Baz Luhrmann's 'Romeo + Juliet' to translate Shakespeare into something the younger crowd will understand and enjoy.
Of course, this could be broadened to all kinds of literature. What if the network also featured Flash animated shorts of scenes from great literature? It would provide students interested in computer animation a way to showcase their expertise. How about interpretations of Walt Whitman's work a la that Levi Jeans commercial? Even one of American media's greatest English teachers, John Keating [C'mon guys... Dead Poet's Society...] focused on appreciating and deep understanding of published work more than writing new work.
There is no "magic age" or point when a student is ready to start showcasing her own work. But, our emerging technologies should focus high school English teachers on teaching great literature; not creating a "safe space" for children to publish their poems featuring the word 'abyss' at least twelve times for the purpose of validation and warm-fuzzy feelings. And, until our writers take themselves as seriously as doctors spending years in medical school before ever performing surgery, the poets, novelists, and essayists of the future will never be considered as vital as they really could be.
Hazel Jennings is a contributing writer that understands the basis of this blog in a pretty monstrous way: she makes her living as the copywriter and social media manager for an on-line designer furniture company. She's mixing the art of writing with advancing technologies all the work-day long. When not at work, she enjoys dinosaurs, writing and telling stories about non-furniture related topics, hanging out with her two terriers, and spending as much time outside as physically possible.
Walt Whitman, Web 2.0, education, poetry, shakespeare in Hazel Jennings 
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
I think the missing piece here is that "publishing" has a different meaning in a web 2,0 world. While everybody seems to have at least a miniscule audience of "followers" or "friends," there is still a high bar before a poet/writer has put in enough time and study to be networked at a truly respected level. What has shifted is the medium, not the status.
While I do not defend a project that discourages feedback as part of writing process (and pain), I do agree that web-based publishing is a good thing for young authors, even those who are not well-versed (excuse the pun) in the canon. The web today is a cheap piece of paper and far easier to circulate. The concept of the wisdom of crowds -- in theory-- should drive these writers to improve and perfect, even go out and learn about poems of the Greats. The fact that they are able to throw a piece of electronic paper onto the web without maturity and vision does not offend me. It is the medium available today. I am sure that when people first learned to pick up a pen there was discussion about who was deemed good enough to have parchment--just the monks?
The bigger question to me is the push-pull of competition vs wisdom of crowds. In a competitive world of literary accomplishment, publishing is the prize and positive reviews of the published work the uber-prize. In a web-wise-world, the presence of readers is supposed to drive each of us closer to the prize in a collaborative frenzy of oneness. But the real world is still competitive. They just publish the rules on the web now. And everyone has what they hope will be the definitive place to "share" and "collaborate," hoping that someone will locate their web-nook. There is a project and a network for everything, but that does not make everyone a "winner" in real competition.
It won't be long before the young writers realize that their web home has no more authentic an audience than their school hallway's tackstrips, just a slightly bigger one. So I have no problem if they publish their works on web paper. Everyone can still see the lines of the notebook paper showing through. And if it motivates them to at least WRITE, more power to them and their teachers. The writing and the reading go hand in hand, just as they did for you. Everybody needs to crumple a lot of embarrassing notebook paper if they ever hope to move beyond it. I am just glad there is lots of room on the web for all that refuse. It saves trees, at least.
Candace, thanks for such an in-depth response. Personally, I think you and Hazel are both right. Kids need to do two things in order to become better writers: they need to write and they need to think. Projects like the one reviewed here help kids to write, but as Hazel points out they don't always help kids to think. I am with you 100%: kids should by all means be using the web as a way to hone their writing skills. But they should be using the web in such a way that allows them to think about their writing as more than just an instantly gratifying pursuit.
The only thing I wish to add to the previous comments (which I agree with) is that the 'problem' of art (here writing poetry) not being considered a serious activity has been around far longer than the internet. Apart from practical solutions for educators, which I am not qualified to comment on, one can have some comfort in knowing that human nature itself sees to it that there are individuals who are driven to excel. Sometimes the best poets are those who work hardest, just because they want to. There does not always have to be an Authority or an Expert standing over them spurring them on, nor an Ultimate Standard-bearer, conferring legitimacy on every effort.
Hello,
This is Carlene Miller, the 18 year old author of the aforementioned article. I was quite surprised, and slightly flattered, by your in depth interest in my article. The discussion on this site has been phenomenal!
To lend a voice to some of the discussion about Robert Currin's purpose for the Global Poetry Project, I think there's been some over-analyzing. Never did he intend the site to be a place for someone to post a poem, and receive a pat on the back or 'Good Job!' sticker. He intended the site to be a place where students, largely AP English Lit students who do have some knowledge of poetry, (though not the poetry doctorate you are suggesting we be equipped with), to post their poems for further discussion. Students and teachers post poems, they talk about their structure, and meaning, and tone, and poets use this feedback to create better poems next time. Contributors to the GPP don't believe that one needs to be awarded some special decoration from a higher power in order to write poetry, and to have others read it. Yes, we are teenagers. No, I have yet to take intensive poetry courses in college. Does that mean I'm unqualified to have my poetry read and discussed? We don't think so.
A lot of people share the same ideology. In fact, the GPP has become so popular that we've moved to our own, new site at www.globalpoetryproject.ning.com.
I encourage you to investigate it further!
And not to be snarky, but I do find it entertaining that with all your disbelief in teen publishing, and distaste with teen writing for that matter, my article is the one published in a hard copy, major regional newspaper, and yours exists solely on this blog. Just an observation!
Hey Candace,
I agree that the word "publish" has changed dramatically in the last decade. And, teenagers posting their high school work to a community for feedback is not at all a bad idea. In fact, John and I had a similar experience our senior year of college. When working on our capstone graduation research and writing projects, we were encouraged to post research notes, drafts, inspirations, and sources onto a "wiki" network of other classmates working toward the same goal. We could peruse each others projects, as could professors both inside and outside our major. This collaboration and system of feedback was quite effective, and a really great teaching tool. But, everyone earning a creative writing degree and, therefore presenting a creative writing piece for their final graduation project, was required to write an extensive forward on their influences, why they chose to write it the way that they did, and how their influences affected that. I fear that with this new "publish before you read and learn" philosophy, that future writers won't be able to do that.
I suppose the point that I was trying to make is, on the high school level at least, students should be more focused on learning the craft than executing the craft. Without more time spent on learning the ins and outs of poetry, without learning how to form opinions on established poets, it doesn't matter how much these kids receive feedback, they'll never grow to be as great as they could be.
P.S. I used to work for you. My mother is Peggy Jennings and I spent the summer after my sophomore year of college doing research for TeachersFirst. Glad to see we've crossed paths again!
Thanks for your comment!
Hazel.
Hi Carlene,
I congratulate you on your publishing. While I don't know the qualifications of the other comment-ers, I do know that both John and I have been published in hard copy, documented, reviewed, and published mediums. Candace Shively is a very well-known education advocate and has certainly been published across several areas. Remember, that just as you publish to one online space, you also have published work elsewhere. Most writers are this way.
I'm glad that you're receiving feedback and improving your writing. I hope you continue to study established and expert poets and writers to help you develop your craft, as I continue to do myself.
Good luck in college!
Hazel.
I'm feeling compelled to offer up this question:
What kind of writers and thinkers do ANY of our networks create when we are unable to embrace certain protocols for professional discourse?
Conversations like the one you've started here are important ones. They are the kinds of conversations that might even inspire teachers like Rob and writers like those in the GPP to reconsider the purpose of the project and the unintended consequences of limiting peer-review.
I have to wonder how productive it is to make assumptions about who Rob is, how he teaches and coaches, and what sort of vehicle he drives to school, though. I also have to wonder if people would be more willing to hear us and consider our perspectives better if we framed our criticism in ways that are constructive, grounded in evidence, and focused on the learning and the work itself rather than people.
I kinda think that regardless of how accomplished any of us are, we're all learners. We're all learning. Doesn't matter how often we've been published ....or where... or how long we've taught. Learning can only happen inside of safe spaces. We all need scaffolds and supports as well. I admire those who have the courage to share their works in progress. It's important and scary stuff. I also admire those who are courageous enough to question and criticize in ways that will be heard.
It's difficult to validate your arguments when your article contains so many false assumptions and insults. First off, his name is not Robin, it is Robert. Secondly he is probably one of the best English teachers I have worked with in over twenty years of education. I applaud him for utilizing the Global Poetry Project as a safe haven for students to express their poetry. It opens the door for further interaction and instruction. It is only a small facet of his instructional approach. His poetry units in class are interesting, stimulating and educational. He teaches the finest of classic literature and encourages his students to embrace the works of Shakespeare. His evaluation and constructive feedback of student writing is to be applauded. By the way, he is not a fan of Metalica and he does not own a motorcycle. He does in fact wear a dress shirt and tie every day. Robert is a professional in every sense of the word and did not deserve your negative, unfounded, insensitive personal attack.
A further point:
Who decided that publishing in this manner (the Global Poetry Project) is an end unto itself? Could it be (is it not?) possible that the simple act of GETTING THE NERVE to publish something that is very personal to you (poetry, prose, etc.) acts as a door-opener? Perhaps that student, in publishing to the GPP or any web-based network, breaks down the barrier that has PREVENTED their hand from going up in class to analyze a poem, or perhaps even offer up their own to potential criticism.
Furthermore, many writers find it interesting and even inspiring to be able to read what other "noteables" wrote PRIOR to becoming famous or published. Sometimes the author's own personal journey is further revealed/understood by reading these unpolished works.
Writing, as we all know, is an evolving process. I see inititives like the GPP and similar ones as a further step in that process.
The asides about the kind of music Robert might listen to and the type of vehicle he drives to school were meant to be humorous and not grounded evidence for argument. It was never my intention to insult anyone, but rather me just dying to make a Boy Meets World reference. As I did not, nor ever claim to, do any research on his personal life, I was not using it as part of some "bashing post" against an English teacher. Rather, I was making a point on the metaphorical English teacher many schools and students find irresistibly attractive on the outside, but is not doing much to further quality education in the long run. I feel the need to clarify this: I am not implying that Robert is not furthering quality education in the long run right now. I am making a point on education and English instruction as an entire idea... not a concrete criticism of any one person.
I want to make it known that I also believe that it takes courage to share works in progress. I think that this is probably a good idea, in fact. I also know that no writer is ever, nor ever will be, above the importance of learning. The point about only being able to learn in a "safe space" is a valid one. I hope nobody mistook my post to believe that teachers should be unfairly criticizing student work, nor should they allow students to unfairly criticize each other.
It seems that many of you have taken my post as some sort of hate statement against high school students posting poetry to an online network. At the risk of sounding too much like a left-leaning sex education advocate... they were going to do it anyway. It's not something that we're going to be able to stop them from doing.
Another misunderstanding seems to come right down to what I was concerned about in the first place. Remember this paragraph?
On the Global Poetry Project site, Robin [Robert] Currin explains that 'The true purpose of this space is to provide writers with validation--it isn't a forum where writers seek constructive criticism.' So, really, these writers aren't even growing through the writing of their own work. They're just feeling good about it and, perhaps, believing that they've mastered the entire practice already.
The problem was not that students were posting work and certainly not that students were exercising peer review. My issue is that a classroom should be a place for learning and growing educationally. And, while I understand that students need a safe place in which they feel validated to truly learn well, these kinds of networks and web 2.0 approaches to poetry education on the high school level could be done better. As far as education goes, a classroom should be spending more time on research and learning, than validation.
By all means, students should publish their work, encourage people to discuss it without giving any constructive criticism (is this possible? "I really liked it." "I really like it too" "I liked it also"), and feel good about it... outside of the high school English classroom. While writing poems and publishing them without criticism builds confidence and makes happy students, it doesn't further their understanding of English literature. (I said it).
Plus, when some of these incredibly talented students become famous and respected authors... they'll want to have some early poems and works that have never been published or seen by anyone to release in a highly acclaimed anthology (you're totally right Jerry.)
I had a livejournal in high school. True story. I posted all kinds of writing to it, and I don't even regret it. I think it was a good idea. It helped me formulate as a writer. However, I do not think I should have been doing it during my high school English class.
You make many wild assumptions about Rob Currin both as a teacher and a person. Not only do you typecast him based on a fictional TV character, but you presume to know his curriculum in its entirety. I have no problem with critical thinking and your right to express your opinion, but you invalidate everything that you say when you choose to personally attack a complete stranger by name. You also presume to know the motives of the myriad of individuals who share their writing online.
Instead of criticizing those who take action and make a difference, get out there and do something constructive. Anyone can sit back and criticize those who are doing. You propose replacing the Poetry Project with a Shakespeare network. Put your money where your mouth is and make it happen.
Rob would give the shirt off his back for anyone, and probably you. Watch what you say before you know or in your case, meet someone. Get over yourself.
Can we all look at how, exactly, I personally attacked Robert Currin?
-I compared him to Mr. Turner from Boy Meets World. Mr. Turner is probably the coolest English teacher, with the exception of John Keating, that has showed up in modern media. I mean, he took Shawn, the charming young man with a rough family life, into his own home to live after Shawn's father left.
-I raised caution against the mission statement he wrote for the Global Poetry Project. This is a perfectly respectful academic pursuit.
-I called Currin a cool English teacher. Now, that’s actually quite nice.
-I furthered my comparison of Currin to Turner by referencing two very well-known points about Boy Meets World. Mr. Turner rides a motorcycle to school and listens to Metallica.
-I compared this mission statement to how it might transition to the athletic field. Often, people understand sports analogies over academic ones. If expanding a point using a sports analogy is insulting, I have a lot of bones to pick with a lot of people.
On the other hand, I said these things about myself:
-I wear cardigan sweaters like an old woman
-I was that annoying 8th grade student that thought I was smarter than you, when I wasn’t.
-I was a pretentious 11th grader that sat in diners and drank coffee, even though I hated it coffee.
-I am not an expert in anything besides pie. (that's a double insult: stupid and fat? Wow, I'm pretty unkind.)
-“All of my poems in high school were depressing and dark, poorly constructed, lazily executed, and solely focused on the boys that never loved me the way I obsessed over them.” (straight from the post)
It would seem that if I was personally attacking anyone, my myriad of self-deprecating comments would take the prize. Obviously, I was not setting out to insult Robert Currin.
Plus, I laid out the point of this post pretty clearly:
“I am not attempting to assert that the work of children is not valuable or good. I am simply asking, is this the best way to use advances in technology to create better poets?”
I don’t think that the Global Poetry Project is the best way to use advances in technology to create better poets.
I am incredibly interested in all reasonable, academically and thoughtfully grounded conversations or disagreements on this point. But to pretend that I have posted slanderous material so everyone has something to rally around and get angry about seems a little (dare I say it?) juvenile.
To say the least, the internet is a place for students to do something along the lines of what has been done with the Global Poetry Project. I'm not going to bash you as some others may have, but instead just state the facts. The internet is place for people, who may not be a professional author, poet, musician, actor, or anything, to still show themselves to the world. Infact, several huge sites today based themselves off this notion. For example, Youtube. Both musicians, actor, and comedians alike can post themselves to this site. They may not be trying to get the attention of huge publishing companies (although it does happen).
However, how do you know that a major poetry publishing company may not spot this project Currin has created? If one does, it's very plausible they will support his work, and possibly support some of the young poets by publishing them just as what has happened to people on Youtube. Also, just to clear this up, this project is not apart of Alden's curriculum. It's a thing that students can do outside of school if they wish. So another good point, it supports the writing of poetry.
As much as i can't bash you for expressing your own opinion, i do believe you're not looking at the GPP correctly. Just as you are expressing yourself and your opinion on this blog, students express themselves on the Global Poetry Project. Are you saying that encouraging kids to share the work they've created should be frowned upon? I, as a writer myself, rather enjoy seeing what others have to say about my own poetry, whether it be compliments or constructive criticism, Why does it have to be like Shakespeare and other poets? Students can't write original work that reflects them and their own style? Who cares if it rhymes and why compare it to others? Maybe what that student is doing is trying to do something of their own, and the GPP allows anyone to do just that. I think you should look further into the GPP before you say such things. You even got Currin's name incorrect. The Global Poetry Project has encouraged kids to come out of their shell, and break down the wall in front of them. Nobody should be able to tell anyone that they cannot share their work. Sure, i can agree that researching other poetry and works can possibly help improve their writing, or maybe inspire them,, but maybe a student who has never really read into other poets is inspired by something, and writes a brilliant poem, should they not be able to share it because they "don't know what they're talking about"? I have never had, or met any english teacher that has discouraged their students from sharing their writing. I don't mean to come off rude but maybe if you really read some of the poems that the kids on the GPP are writing, and the emotions they are pouring out, you would see that it's a very brave and commendable thing, and that the GPP is a great idea! I hope i have changed your perspective on the GPP.
Sarah, I don't really know you beyond your Facebook updates, but I think you had at least half an intention to cause trouble when you wrote this piece. So in that respect, your work is instantly successful. People are talking, and you've sparked some passionate comebacks, so kowtowz to you.
The commenters have made the points I think you need to hear...first, you can't really knock the idea of the open-social-network-internet-machine-blahblah on a BLOG POST, it's just straight-up hypocrisy. Second, I get a feeling from this post that if a high school kid doesn't look and act like Daria Morgendorffer you would probably assume they aren't as knowledgeable and passionate about reading and writing as you. Third, Whitman Ginsberg and Stein?? WTF? These are respectable writers, fo sho, but students should not be scolded just because they aren't interested in the most mainstream, popular, dare I even suggest cliche poets. In college I felt like I was teabagged by these names on a daily basis, I mean really, what's so wrong with me reading everything by Rainer Maria Rilke I can find and love it instead of read something just because I'm supposed to, or it will equip me with a (as someone else put it earlier) "decoration from a higher power" and gain me a fake reputation? Read what you love, and screw the canon. The world would be depressing if we all read the same writers and had the same muses, inspirations, etc. At least that's what I say. Then again I only have one poem published. Then again, I'm a lazy fuck.
The last point is something Jerry said earlier, and I think it's the most important point of this whole issue: GETTING THE NERVE. If you're a writer just starting out, the internet is hella intimidating, and I was definitely more of a shy, reserved student (not person), which I blame on my parents not giving their middle child enough encouragement, by the way. I would've jumped at the opportunity to have a safe place where I could receive feedback and come out of my shell, and you shouldn't worry about the implications behind it, because that's the direction the world has taken and it's our job as writers to depict it, for better or worse.
Your concern is great though, and all of this was a blast to read. FUEL THE FIRE baby, and rock on.
Sarah,
Your opinions and beliefs are not of any importance to us. Our students are not writing for you. They are writing for themselves :)
PS – Please do not bother to respond as this has already exhausted any motivation I have to address this post.
Wow you guys are ridiculous talk about childish actions. So maybe robin is not the best teacher but he still may be a nice guy. Relax, everybody's opinion of each other are different. Lets just put this aside and focus on HELPING the students succeed. Teaching should be done in a fair way between one class and another.