Ars Poetica
Of the entire piece called "Ars Poetica" by Horace, there are a few quotes that yanked my attention. That's HARD to do, believe me.
"It is not enough for poetry to be beautiful; it must also be pleasing and lead the hearer's mind wherever it will."
From this I understand that it must spark the attention and imagination of the reader/hearer. A poem that can induce a daydream is quite a freakin' poem, I must say. That is quite a feat; a hard thing to do. There aren't many of those around (at least in my opinion; not a lot of poems have made me daydream, in fact, no poems that I remember have made me do so in the recent past).
"Choose a subject that is suited to your abilities, you who aspire to be writers; give long thought to what you are capable of undertaking, and what is beyond you. A man who chooses a subject within his powers will never be at a loss for words, and his thoughts will be clear and orderly."
This is quite obvious. For example, it would be beyond my capacity to write about the Second World War since I have never even lived during the era. I would be relying on famous war movies to fulfill my writing. However, it would be really easy for me to talk about, say, guitars, since I am well capable of talking about guitars and different techniques and what kind of bands I like and hate. The same applies to literature/poetry. It's easier, in my opinion, and more interesting, to write in the first person since we get a better grasp of what the writer is thinking and how his or her thought process works.
"Deus ex machina should not be introduced unless some entanglement develops which requires such a person to unravel it. And there should not be more than three speaking characters at the same time." (mentioned in lecture)
Oh crap. I've been guilty of this kind of ending in my "creative" writing once before. What a cop-out ending it was now that I look back at it. My grade 12 teacher (writers' craft) was so disgusted with this ending. I am too, in retrospect. Point WELL taken, Horace. I would also like to take this opportunity to tell Hollywood to stop with the freakin' happy endings! Have some closure, but it doesn't have to end in a guy-gets-girl-ending! It gets repetative and boooooring. (As you can see I am very opposed to the typical Hollywood formula of film making. I'll keep that to a minimum from here on out. This is afterall a poetry journal.)
"Wisdom is the starting-point and source of correct writing."
How interesting. This is how I think art should be like. If you have nothing of use to say or express, just don't bother. Be wise. A piece of art that says nothing of value is, well, valueless. Anything that can spark my interest by using wise sayings (NOT CLICHéS or fortune cookie/Christmas cracker sayings) are well worth my time. Every piece of art/literature should have a wise meaning behind it, wheter it is implicit or explicit, but at least easy to grasp so that anyone can appreciate it.
This next passage is just amusing. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Men of sense are afrain to touch a mad poet and give him a wider berth. He's like a man suffering from a nasty itch, or the jaundice, or fanaticism, or Diana's wrath. Boys chase him and follow him round incautiously. And if, while he's belching out his lofty lines and wandering round, he happens to fall into a well or a pit, like a fowler intent on his birds, then, however long he shouts 'Help! Help! Fellow citizens, help!' there'll be no one to bother to pick him up. And if anyone should trouble to help and let down a rope, my question will be, 'How do you know that he didn't throw himself down deliberately? Are you sure he wants to be saved?' And I shall tell the tale of the death of the Sicilian poet. Empedocles wanted to be regarded as an immortal god, and so he jumped, cool as you like, into burning Etna. Let poets have the right and privilege of death. To save a man against his will is the same as killing him. This isn't the only time he's done it. If he's pulled out now, he won't become human or lay aside his love of a notorious end.
It's far from clear why he keeps writing poetry. Has the villain pissed on his father's ashes? Or disturbed the grim site of a lightning-strike? Anyway, he's raving, and his harsh readings put learned and unlearned alike to flight, like a bear that's broken the bars of his cage. If he catches anyone, he holds on and kills him with reading. He's a real leech that won't let go of the skin till it's full of blood."
*** *** ***
So there's the wise and cynical Horace reduced to 4 quotes. Take from it what you will. That last quote makes him seem like a jester, out to make a few laughs. It really takes away from his previous points about effective writing, or "correct" writing. But at least I walked away from his writing with some advice on writing, and that's the point, really.
"It is not enough for poetry to be beautiful; it must also be pleasing and lead the hearer's mind wherever it will."
From this I understand that it must spark the attention and imagination of the reader/hearer. A poem that can induce a daydream is quite a freakin' poem, I must say. That is quite a feat; a hard thing to do. There aren't many of those around (at least in my opinion; not a lot of poems have made me daydream, in fact, no poems that I remember have made me do so in the recent past).
"Choose a subject that is suited to your abilities, you who aspire to be writers; give long thought to what you are capable of undertaking, and what is beyond you. A man who chooses a subject within his powers will never be at a loss for words, and his thoughts will be clear and orderly."
This is quite obvious. For example, it would be beyond my capacity to write about the Second World War since I have never even lived during the era. I would be relying on famous war movies to fulfill my writing. However, it would be really easy for me to talk about, say, guitars, since I am well capable of talking about guitars and different techniques and what kind of bands I like and hate. The same applies to literature/poetry. It's easier, in my opinion, and more interesting, to write in the first person since we get a better grasp of what the writer is thinking and how his or her thought process works.
"Deus ex machina should not be introduced unless some entanglement develops which requires such a person to unravel it. And there should not be more than three speaking characters at the same time." (mentioned in lecture)
Oh crap. I've been guilty of this kind of ending in my "creative" writing once before. What a cop-out ending it was now that I look back at it. My grade 12 teacher (writers' craft) was so disgusted with this ending. I am too, in retrospect. Point WELL taken, Horace. I would also like to take this opportunity to tell Hollywood to stop with the freakin' happy endings! Have some closure, but it doesn't have to end in a guy-gets-girl-ending! It gets repetative and boooooring. (As you can see I am very opposed to the typical Hollywood formula of film making. I'll keep that to a minimum from here on out. This is afterall a poetry journal.)
"Wisdom is the starting-point and source of correct writing."
How interesting. This is how I think art should be like. If you have nothing of use to say or express, just don't bother. Be wise. A piece of art that says nothing of value is, well, valueless. Anything that can spark my interest by using wise sayings (NOT CLICHéS or fortune cookie/Christmas cracker sayings) are well worth my time. Every piece of art/literature should have a wise meaning behind it, wheter it is implicit or explicit, but at least easy to grasp so that anyone can appreciate it.
This next passage is just amusing. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Men of sense are afrain to touch a mad poet and give him a wider berth. He's like a man suffering from a nasty itch, or the jaundice, or fanaticism, or Diana's wrath. Boys chase him and follow him round incautiously. And if, while he's belching out his lofty lines and wandering round, he happens to fall into a well or a pit, like a fowler intent on his birds, then, however long he shouts 'Help! Help! Fellow citizens, help!' there'll be no one to bother to pick him up. And if anyone should trouble to help and let down a rope, my question will be, 'How do you know that he didn't throw himself down deliberately? Are you sure he wants to be saved?' And I shall tell the tale of the death of the Sicilian poet. Empedocles wanted to be regarded as an immortal god, and so he jumped, cool as you like, into burning Etna. Let poets have the right and privilege of death. To save a man against his will is the same as killing him. This isn't the only time he's done it. If he's pulled out now, he won't become human or lay aside his love of a notorious end.
It's far from clear why he keeps writing poetry. Has the villain pissed on his father's ashes? Or disturbed the grim site of a lightning-strike? Anyway, he's raving, and his harsh readings put learned and unlearned alike to flight, like a bear that's broken the bars of his cage. If he catches anyone, he holds on and kills him with reading. He's a real leech that won't let go of the skin till it's full of blood."
*** *** ***
So there's the wise and cynical Horace reduced to 4 quotes. Take from it what you will. That last quote makes him seem like a jester, out to make a few laughs. It really takes away from his previous points about effective writing, or "correct" writing. But at least I walked away from his writing with some advice on writing, and that's the point, really.