I’ve been thinking. (granted, a hazardous occupation for one so poorly equipped.) Drawing from some of the other (really rather good) recent discussion threads, and from blog comments, there’s something puzzling me (not unusual I assure you.)

We’ve had threads about poems/poets being memorable, political poetry – and its dearth (surprisingly perhaps, in these straitened times), whether we like our own outpourings etc.
All these were brought into sharp focus by recent remarks re someone being “brave” to tackle a subject.

Does it require bravery to write about something/anything; maybe, if you’re Salman Rushdie, or live in North Korea. Are there subjects, which are perceived as too difficult to tackle - poetry taboos? Do we go for the easy/comfortable options?

I know we don’t all always tag our poems on the blogs, but the top 6 tagged subjects for 2011, according to site statistics, which I’m presuming are reasonably accurate, were:

love (130)
poetry (78)
poem (54)
life (53)
death (52)
War (42)

This was obviously only a small sample from the total (4807) blog posts. I don’t think there are any big surprises in that list, although poetry/poem is perhaps a trifle “in your face.” (Mmm, a trifle in your face . . .) So that leaves love, life, death and war. The first three are things we all share; war is thankfully not too common ground, but something we all, hopefully have fairly strong ideas about.

Many of the blog posts seem to be about the “self.” Again, unsurprising, since we probably know more about ourselves and how we relate to the world than any other subject. Although I have written semi-autobiographically, it’s a subject I tend to shy away from; why would anyone be interested in reading about me?

So (and here come the inevitable questions) how and why do we choose our subjects?
I suspect there’s probably a little plagiarism at work here; poems we have read inspiring us to contribute our own thoughts; the on-paper exploration of subjects that we are drawn to.
Are these conscious choices, or do they just come to us? Do we set out to write on a particular theme and let our minds wander through its nuances, or do we set out to convey a conscious message?
Perhaps more importantly, do we consider who might be interested in what we write and how it might be received? I know the idea of writing for a target audience has been ridiculed here in the past, but would anyone honestly turn up to their local open mike/slam/poetry group without considering the reaction of their audience/peers? It seems pretty selfish not to. And, if you’re not considering the reactions of the intended recipients, why bother exposing the work to them?

Are there subjects which we ought to write about?
Dave Bradley’s “Desert Island Poems” thread provided interesting reading, and a fair chance of discovering the kind of poems which resonate with WOL contributors. So, if we want to be read/remembered maybe we should look to these?

The BBC book “The Nation’s Favourite Poems”, still lists Kipling’s “If” as the UK’s number one, while a trawl through various poetry websites reveals an eclectic plethora of styles, subjects, forms and poets. In short, there is probably no definitive top ten.

If we think of the poems that have stayed in our minds (not necessarily our favourites), what is it that causes them to be memorable? And why are our favourites our favourites?

If we are seeking literary immortality should we attempt to imitate these qualities, or stick with our own instincts? Whose poetry will be remembered in fifty, a hundred or a thousand years – and why?

I realise that I’m asking a lot of questions here, but it really just boils down to one; perhaps the most basic one that poets ever ask:

“What should I write about?”

I can only write about what is in my heart. Except for funny stuff!

There are so many questions and issues in this Anthony – just where does an opinionated/speechless poet from Wigan begin?

Firstly, I believe it was me who said you were brave to write a poem about Ian Brady and the moors murders. I think I said that because it was such a big (and for many) traumatic case. Often, cases like those hold an almost ghoulish/voyeuristic attraction for certain members of the public. In writing about them you have to steer that difficult course of not profiting artistically from the lurid nature of the crimes. I found your poem quite chilling cos it was a discourse with Brady himself – taking you into the psyche of a killer – scary stuff, whilst at the same time sad and moving, cos the reader could identify with the mother and child. You manage to tread a difficult path, but get it right.

I never meant to say that difficult subjects should be avoided; just to infer that they needed to be handled with extreme care.

I don’t think there is an answer to the question you raise, as you well know – only opinions. For as long as I’ve known you, you’ve been moaning about the preponderance of ‘self’ in modern poetry. I would actually like to read some ‘I’ poetry coming from you – I think it might be quite interesting to see how you really tick. I doubt that you will ever go down that route because you are probably too proud a man, to let it all hang out in public. Our poetry reflects our personality, don’t you think?

I write lots of ‘I’ poetry because I relate to the world through my own experiences of it. I don’t mind ‘I’ poetry, so long as it is well written and moves me in some way.

I do agree that poets should try to seek some balance. It is a bit insular just to write about yourself all the time, without any connection or thought for others or the outside world. I’m not sure that all poets can do that though – cos not all are endowed with strong empathetic genes, or a wonder about the world and a penchant for philosophy.

Re poetry being remembered, I would love to think that one day I might write something top notch that resonates well enough to be remembered but it isn’t a Holy Grail for me. I write for many reasons – one is just to engage with other poets and have a laugh. A lot of my poetry is expendable therefore – and that doesn’t concern me.

I would suggest that we all read Adele Ward’s comment in the Hill v Duffy news article. She expresses something of what I would like to express here. Poets should be allowed to mix it up – write about the big stuff and the little stuff, in varying styles, without recrimination.

I do take the point that you are making though Anthony. Looking through blogs at times, there does seem to be a blindness to the world beyond ourselves.

It goes without saying that you need to tailor your writing to your audience; that’s a drum I’ve been banging for ever such a long time. It’s not so critical when it’s on a poetry site – because your audience will be vast and varied. There will be people who love classical/abstract/deep/superficial. It becomes far more critical when you are performing it live though – in my opinion anyway.

LOL - just took a quick look through blogs and was amazed by how many 'I/Me' poems there were. You should do some statistics on it Anthony! x

Interesting area of discussion. Poets write about almost anything. So is it not easier to identify topics that poets are reluctant to write about or 'shouldn't' write about?

'Shouldn't' might arguably include attacks on individuals, and incitement to violence or other seriously anti-social activity. Stuff that might upset a reader should perhaps carry a health warning and posted where children aren't likely to see it

There was a discussion thread -
'Things we don't write about'

http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/newsgroupview.php?NewsThreadsID=1039

I helped Izz out a couple of years ago by posting the WOLOP March 2010 competition result, and included a list of topics for one month -

http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/blogentry.php?blogentryid=9773

"Being asked to mind WOLOP for a month made me think about what we are actually posting. Was the superficial impression that we are sex-mad correct? Are we interested in political issues? What about Nature? The figures below arise from going into 'stato' mode on this month’s blogs with those questions in mind. The categories are subjective and poems were allocated according to my no doubt contentious view on what was their most prominent feature. But hopefully it gives a rough feel for what we are up to.

Romance/Romantic relationships 44
Other Important Relationship 34
Sensual/Sexual/Erotic 14
Broader Individual Human Experience 43
Society/Politics/War 22
Tributes / Eulogies 5
Stories 21
Observations/ incidents which r less than stories 33
Making a statement on a specific topic 20
Self-Revelation 20
Expressing a Mood 10
Philosophical / religious 13
Whimsy / Flights of Fancy / Looking at Things Differently38
Animals / Nature / the Natural World 35
Science 2
Death 17
The dark side 3
Supernatural 4
Prose 5
Words to Music 6
Items posted a second time 4
Unclassifiable 3
News/Info/Reviews/Links 18

I wrote
"I found it interesting that we are just as likely to write something of the whimsy/flight of fancy sort as to write about romance. And death is more popular than the erotic. Though perhaps 'popular' is not the best word

It seems we aren't very interested in being outright philosophical or religious. We'd far rather tell a story or make an observation or record an incident or get worked about a topic and use a poem to make a statement about it. Our philosophising tends to be buried in poems which are ostensibly about something else."

As an ancient old so and so, I`m very surprised that there are not more (any?) poems commenting on the aging populations of the developed countries and the necessary rises in immigration needed to supply the lack of people.

Also, why no poems about the row over the piddling increase in our contribution to the worlds poor?

There have been a few about our definition of our own `poverty` but some powerful satires could be written by comparing it with what happens in other parts of the world.

Political stuff should not be only about who gets what, but primarily about guarding a notion of national self -respect.

I always found tagging something to be a bit dogmatic, though the temptation still often arises to do so. Poetry (for me) should be about deducing your own meaning and understanding just as much as the author's intentions when writing it - both are of equal importance. Putting tags as sort of 'themes' down ruins that experience in my opinion, sort of gives them the biscuit without the tea to dunk it in.

Tagging some poems is a little difficult sometimes I'll admit - but it does have the benefit of making them easy to find for anyone who's looking for poems on a specific theme, or when reviewing one's own posts. I seldom tag, but realise it's maybe more for the benefit of the reader than the author.

"Poetry (for me) should be about deducing your own meaning and understanding just as much as the author's intentions when writing it - both are of equal importance."

Granted, but not too helpful if you have no idea what the author's intentions were (and I've seen plenty of poems like this.) Many dunked biscuits break, and end up as a foul slurry in the bottom of the mug . . . yuk!

Surely what interests us and moves us is what interests us enough to make us want to write?

I agree with you, M.C. but certainly as my writing has developed - what I want to write about has changed.

In my earlier blog stuff here for example, mostly they were stories with a funny twist at the end (my first book 'Return to Kemptown' contained some of these) but when I did my second book with Jeff Dawson last year (A means to an End), the focus had changed to memory, and the stuff I am writing now for my next book 'The End of Summer' - it's all about atomsphere and mood, but then again what I want out of it has changed, and will change again no doubt.

Certainly, the perspective might
change, but the motivation still
remains - in line with the changed perspective.

Agree with Rory - I used to tag mine a lot more than I do now, but think it directs readers to one or two ways to read the pieces, when quite often there are more ways and I don't want to bog it down in one meaning. I always tag a haiku, but quite a lot of the time now I don't bother. I stopped bothering with images a while back for the same reason.

I wonder if we "tag" poems for our own reasons rather than for the convenience of locating them. Are we identifying them or indicating perhaps the main priority in our writing and perceived understanding by others? I have tagged a few when the subject matter is "high concept"... e.g. death, loss or whatever - but like Laura I don't bother a lot of the time now.

Taking up Harry's point about subjects like immigration, this was tackled by me once in a poem called "Strangers" which I sent to a range of MPs. It is, in my view,one of the most important subjects to affect the U.K. since WW2 and needs to be rigorously addressed by those in a position to do something about it. When "England" and "English" are missing from official documents and rarely used for reference purposes, then there is something sinister happening. The "face" of England, and these small islands in general, has been politically doctored in mylifetime and I am uneasy about its long term effects on such a small country with a historically homogenous population and social identity determined over centuries of warfare, compromise and negotiation - NOT the few decades that have accompanied the vast numbers who have been allowed to change their own countries for the U.K....and, in some cases, attack us with murderous results from within. We lost millions of our own fighting for a free world - the freedom,it seems, not to make one's own land better but to move here instead. The "race industry" has seen its duty to stop any proper discussion but poets should not be deterred from going where politicians and others fear to tread. Good and bad, for or against...how about it? Do you feel strongly enough to pen some words on the subject from whatever viewpoint?

"I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry" (John Cage)

I wonder if this site would exist as a platform for this discussion if my parents had not both been immigrants?
Interesting to reflect that we ostensibly went to war to protect Poland, then handed it to Stalin after promising Polish pilots like my father that they were fighting for the liberation of their country. It was worse for the Cossacks: Churchill sent them back to their deaths. At least the Poles were allowed to stay. Coming over here, taking all our jobs as fighter pilots. Disgusting.
Yep, loads to write about there.
And as for those homogeneous Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans, Norsemen, Huguenots, Spaniards, Italians, Irish, Welsh, Kernows; and the Yanks! That bloody T. S. Eliot... At least the Royal Family is pure, er, German.

Julian - you cite your personal situation for your POV. Butthese days, if I cite mine - with a father who survived the trenches of the Western Front and the Italian Front in WW1 and who was in uniform again in WW2 - in both cases fighting beyond these shores to defeat aggressors - then I am taken to task as a "Little Englander", as if I had a cheek to express a view from my own hundreds of years of English ethnicity. No one doubts that over TIME a small population can absorb and adjust to a given number of incomers and both benefit accordingly. This is not comparable to what has occurred within the past few decades. It is also true that not so recent immigrants have also protested about the policy of successive governments and their failure to regulate our national borders. Why should silence be expected from those who have something to say in the process of raising important matters that affect the well being of all of us? If poetry adds to the debate, for oragainst, then it has a value of its own to enlighten or give a voice.

My point about immigration was about the cause (aging populations which are getting richer - not replacing themselves with enough of their own children - and therefore needing immigrants to fill the voids and service the new-found prosperity)This - in our own case certainly - is obvious.

The increase in immigration has been enormous in - comparatively- a very short spell.

Whether we like it or not this ingress will have to be absorbed.It contains concentrated religious and ethnic groups different to those of our country. (assuming that Britain still has a significant religious group) This at a time when the religious troubles in the middle east are becoming a serious problem.

We must - of course - assume the loyalty of our old and recent immigrants, and accept - among others - the integration of what is a fairly homogeneous religious section of our population (Muslims)
into what I would say is a largely
secular society.

I would have thought that this would be a good subject for poetry.

But what if the immigrants adopt our own habits reproduction - wise?
Will the forecast population of eighty millions in 2025 be forced to rely on never-ending mmigration?

Just a few thoughts.

Immigration is a touchy subject, but, as MC says, why not write about it? I'm heavily involved in a charity helping asylum seekers and as such might be expected to disagree with what he says, above, but don't - I do recognise the force of what he is saying. Immigration has to be well managed. The policies have to be ones that command support, and the administration has to be efficient and humane (both often lacking with respect to asylum seekers).

I do like an open, liberal approach and believe it has been good where well run. Immigration has added very much to the wealth and wellbeing of this country. Refugee doctors alone have brought hundreds of millions of pounds worth of free training into the NHS. Immigrants are usually young and vigorous, and often skilled. We need them - someone has to work to make the wealth for the pensions for our ageing population, and in the knowledge economy it will be young, clever, vigorous people who do that.

So if the inward flow is managed in a sensible humane way, it then becomes a question of assimilation. Do immigrants become part of the English way of life - hopefully without denying their heritage or losing their roots. I've just today visited the Victoria Museum & Gallery in Liverpool - a fascinating building. There is an exhibition about the Hittites on the second floor. The Hittites came from Turkey, so the exhibition includes a section on the experience of modern Turks living in Liverpool. It is heart-warming to read their words. They feel well-accepted, integrated and happy in Liverpool, and their life-stories show they have contributed much to the city, with many English friends. But they also value their Turkish heritage, friends and culture. Isn't that what we want? Doesn't it add to the experience of living in a modern, diverse, cosmopolitan city? If we had stopped them coming, how much poorer Liverpool would be, culturally and economically.

Time and numbers. They constitute
the bedrock of sensible and
acceptable social adjustment. But,
as in all things in nature, there is a limit.

Isn't it strange where we draw our boundaries? I remember, as a child, feuds with kids from the next hamlet. Later, in my teens, it was scrapping with lads from the next town - or fans of another football club. Streets have rivalries, towns, cities and countries have cultures and beliefs which vary enormously. Because of these we go to war with each other, famines start; diseases which can be easily treated spread and the poor and disadvantaged die in their millions.

This is Earth. We all have the same address.

The problem with discussing immigration is that people invariably end up falling out - or bandying about inaccurate insults to each other; the desire to establish a balanced and sustainable policy,often being translated as racism...

We are a small island. We are a growing population. You can't go on forever pouring water into the bath tub - particularly if sea levels rise and less areas become habitable. That might seem ludicrous now - but the time will come. For me it isn't about wanting to maintain a particular national identity, so much as wanting a healthy future for my children to look forward to - a bit of green and pleasant land that isn't built on. On that note, I see that green belt promises are now being broken.

It is true that immigrants are considered to be hard working, punctual and reliable. A friend of mine knows a factory owner who complains that English workers just can't be relied on. That is something I find worrying. It's not to say that the 2nd or 3rd generation Poles will be any different to today's English though... Clearly we are going wrong somewhere culturally.

I do think that we are a bit of a soft touch with our welfare benefits though. I married a Pole. His grandparents came over in the 70s, never having worked or paid a stamp here. They were both given pensions and a council house, even though they had plenty children back in Poland. I'm not sure if the rules have been tightened up since then. Clearly, when we are up to the neck in debt, tough decisions need to be made somewhere. To me, that isn't racist - it's being pragmatic - for the good of all current residents of the UK - be they white, black, muslim, catholic - I could go on...

Should we write poetry about immigration? I suggest not. It becomes more of a debate or a soap box for one faction or another. I like to read and hear poetry that leaves behind anger, stress and entrenched opinions.

Speaking as a little Englander who has not one drop of English blood in him. There is a vast difference between seeing my farm swamped with flood water and healthily irrigated with a controlled amount. Unfortunately with political poetry it is difficult not to produce an unconstructive rant if it tries to be too specific.

We are all 'Out of Africa' and are the sons and daughters of Immigrants. And those that complain about 'foreigners' should go look at the 'Pink Map of the British Empire' to asses the gift that those foreigners brought and took in return. The British (especially the English)murdered, raped, branded, displaced, enslaved and stole the mineral wealth of dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories.
I have a friend who knows someone else and he said that a friend of his said that most people talk a load of bollocks when it comes to immigration, just sayin' that's all.

I don't think anyone would deny that the English have been bastards in the past, throughout their whole period of colonisation. All nations are capable of cruelty as it seems to be a human trait.

As far as I'm concerned, this debate isn't about that though. It's about managing the population and resources of a small island.

Izz, I agree that at the level of policy that is what it is about. And very few people advocate a free for all. The real debate is about what restrictions the UK should have, and how humanely and intelligently those restrictions should be operated.

However, poets can do something else other than engage in the policy debate. We can help people to see other angles, and to see PEOPLE. I tried to do that with 'A Walk with Asylum Seekers'. http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/blogentry.php?blogentryid=22414

Many people have never even met an asylum seeker or refugee. The media encourage us to see them as threatening bogey-men (and women). It's not a great poem but it tries to say that asylum seekers are nice people you can go for a walk with.

It's also a reminder that many of them are destitute. And it highlights that the knee-jerk hostility of the media is a constant threat, and something which may not be helpful in thinking straight about the issues. The right-wing press is so malevolent. Just as one example - how often is there an article ennumerating the skills that refugees have brought to this country, or celebrating the achievements of a refugee?

Just to clarify, MC: I do not think you have a cheek to express your point of view; I think that your point of view is wrong.
I don't think having had a relative fight in both wars in any ways justifies your stance. Where is the logic in that? My father fought for this country and his original one. My grandfather was a decorated hero of WW1, but suffered racism from his sergeant major: though "English", he had dark skin from his (southern) French mother. He was as English as any of us. If we follow the logic of your argument, that justifies my position, too, does it?
The thing that is most wrong about what you wrote above, MC, is your disingenuous use of emotive language in matters that are important and do affect us all, yet which need to be discussed with clear logic and lucid persuasion.
This is the United Kingdom, of which England is a part, not the whole. The problem of "Englishness" has less to do with immigration than it does to how the UK is currently constituted. Governmentally, you are British. Your passport will be British. So, it is disingenuous of you to complain that the word "English" does not appear in official documents, and mischievous of you to describe that non-problem as "sinister". This fans the flames of paranoia for the conspiracy theorists.
Of course numbers are an issue. So let's talk about numbers and not "sinisterly" relate that to some mythic Englishness and thus fuel some people's fears.
It is a subject that needs to be written about; and written well rather than with lazy assumptions and dangerous elisions.

Home Thoughts on a broad, arriving on the Dover ferry.

Oh to be In April
Now that England's here

Cheers.

''As far as I'm concerned, this debate isn't about that though. It's about managing the population and resources of a small island.
'' well Isobel how come 60 or so German immigrants own the following 125 properties(some 5000 very spacious rooms)and 1000's of acres of spacious gardens and 10,000's of woodland and lakes?

Buckingham Palace
Windsor Castle
Holyrood house
Sandringham
Balmoral Castle
Kensington Palace
St James's palace
Gatcomb park
Craigowan
Dehadamph
Clarance house
Highgrove house
Birkhall
Llwynwormwood
Tamarist
Barnwell Manor
Thatched House Lodge
Hillsbourough Castle
and 105 other Palaces, Lodges' Houses, Castles etc...I rest my case

As a member of a Cheshire multicultural organisation I have had some experience of meeting immigrants at various meetings (including inter-faith meetings) They are very nice people and presumably good citizens.

But the `people thing` only comes after the demographic thing (which no one seems to have taken up on).It seems that as nations become richer then their birth rate goes down and they need immigrants to service the `goodies` that the increase in wealth brings. This -in its turn - causes problems. (the recent moans about lack of children from Russia and Japan)...and the startling prediction that China (of all countries) will eventually have a huge aging population problem.

It should be remembered that movements in population - in either
direction - are exponential.

But to get back to the `poetry` bit.
We are very proud of being British, but in these days of blurring the edge of everything we should be about making some things a bit more distinct. Particularly in exposing the root of where some of those desireable things the immigrants come for started out.

This thread seems to be going ever more circular.

Yes there is a lot of Germanic blood in the royal family - I don't believe I ever disputed or regretted that fact... Maybe you should look at what I am actually saying Tommy, rather than what you would like to hear.

Or maybe you are making the point that the answer to all our problems would be a communist state? All those stately homes and land sold off to make council houses perhaps. Why not write a poem about it?

Funny, I thought this thread was "What should we write about?" It seems we have drifted off-topic slightly.

I see no reason why immigration - or any other subject for that matter, can't be written about - from any angle anyone wishes to pursue. Whether the finished product finds favour with readers/audience is quite another matter. I guess that depends on a. their politics and b. their humanity.

There are a few things we all tend to conveniently dispense with when discussing such emotive subjects. For starters we are all human beings. Whether black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jew, gay, straight or whatever permutation of the aforementioned or any other "tag" we wish to apply, we have the same basic needs and, like it or not, are genetically related.
So when we differentiate by using words like immigrant/asylum seeker/economic migrant we are attaching labels - to people. Given the opportunity don't we all strive for a better life for ourselves and our families, irrespective of colour/religion/culture?
The labels are not helpful, their history fosters inherent prejudices.

One day, in the far distant future, if our species is to survive, it is inevitable that we will have to "slip these surly bonds of earth" and reach out for new homes beyond our solar system. I only hope that any "natives" of suitable planetary habitats haven't hung out the "no immigrants" sign.

Well, if nothing else, this post has seen people "discussing". When we have nothing to call our own, we look to that which belongs to others...whether in peace or war - and that includes a sense of identity. The British may have left their mark in the world for good or bad, but so did the Spanish, Italian, Greek, Russian,French, German...ALL EMPIRES...their legacy still very evident.
Julian - I don't object to being wrong in your opinion. I am as entitled to see myself as English/British - just as a Nigerian/African or a Jamaican/West Indian is in their respective identities. It may be laudable to preach an ideal but humanity and the animal world are having to live on rapidly decreasing resources wherever the former chooses to move and basic common sense indicates that without control the endgame will be chaos. Whatever the personal viewpoint, the wider scenario surely requires a robust and pragmatic approach to the subject. If nothing else, we have seen contributors make an effort to take part here - even if poetry seems likely not to on present evidence.
OK - that's my lot!

Benefit scroungers: If we need more space for us all-then take all the land and properties off those who have had them kept in sumptuous condition by working people and taken into common ownership.

"Benefit scroungers: "

You mean like the royal family?

That one's already been done - about 5 comments back.