Okay, since no one wanted to say, I'll answer my own question, because I really do want to make a point with these poems I've posted.
This poem, "So You Thought" was written by me, as I believe everyone now knows. My personal opinion about it, is very mediocre. If I had to rate it from 1-10, I'd give it... about... MAYBE a 4 or so, 10 being "excellent" and 1 being "you should be horsewhipped for writing it".
Lots of people accuse me of being overly critical, but that's because of the state of the arts today, and because the majority of us never learn how to look at things critically. Another fruit of the diabolical revolution in the arts, is this very thing. That since we hear from the crib that "everything is art" and "anything goes" we get it pounded into our heads right down to our subconscious NEVER TO JUDGE THINGS... which, morally speaking to say the least, is a disaster, and which has been a disaster in addition in the sense that because of it, what even Catholic artists produce, or Catholics enjoy, is for most of them not tempered by the clear judgment they ought to have as such (Catholics).
Today the arts have been taken over by atheists and those who blatantly love sin and hate God. And the Catholics and Christians, if they do anything, very often end up producing works that, while they aren't always explicitly sinful, are very often utterly fruitless because of what they are objectively speaking. Since their works do no good, they are no good to us or God or the world in the fight against the sinful arts.
Since it is ever my hope that more and more of us will wake up from the lies we have been fed for so long, and since I suspect at least some of you think I was much too harsh about a certain other poem posted here recently, I decided to offer my own poems for the dissection table.
"So You Thought" is not just mediocre in my OPINION. It really is very mediocre. There IS some definite, objective good in it. There are also some technical "evils" in it. Since people were reluctant, I'd like to point them out to you.
The actual GOOD in "So You Thought" is as follows.
Firstly, it is coherent. (There's a "but" coming for this point, but... I'll save that for the "bad" section.) If something is NOT coherent, then it won't matter what you mean by it, nobody will understand it. You might as well let a 1 year old pound on your keyboard and post that, for all the difference that nonsense will make in the world, to anyone but yourself and your own ego. That is a fact, which, whether any of us likes it or not, is objectively true.
Coherence is an actual good or perfection, besides, which is a trait we can find in God and His works. God and His works were many things, but all of them good. They were NEVER incoherent, insane or anything along those lines. Incoherence, insanity, chaos and disorder, are evils. That is, they are the lack of the goods of coherence, sanity, order and so forth. (Evil being technically defined as the lack of some good.) That is why incoherence and nonsense and so forth, are at least technically both actual flaws (imperfections) and evils (a failing or lack of the good opposite to them).
Secondly, it is "good" because it is not SINFUL.
There is a point I failed (mea culpa) to make in that other person's thread, that I probably should have made. Something may be incoherent, even, and not actually sinful for us to write or read. When I speak of "evils" in the technical sense, I'm not referring to the same kind of "evil" as the sort you need to go to confession after you read or write it. When I speak of TECHNICAL evils, I'm speaking of objective imperfections that we can observe in a work, which are actual defects or bad for that work because they are a lack of some good that the work lacks. One way a work can be "evil" is to be IMPERFECT... to lack some good, or to be full of the opposites of actual good. The OTHER way is the more obvious way... the way where if you read it, or if you write it, you need to confess it. It is in this second way... the more obvious way... that this poem gets another mark for "good".
OBVIOUSLY, as Catholics, we are forbidden by God to write anything that is sinful for us or others to write or read. This poem is not sinful, thus it's second merit. It fulfills the minimum good required in the work of any Catholic... that at LEAST it is not sinful.
As a second objective, Catholics ought to have in mind not only to make their work just "not sinful" but also of some actual GOOD over and above. That is to say, whatever they intend to produce (however silly or superfluous), they should have an earnest desire to make it as beneficial and wholesome for their fellow man as they possibly can.
A silly poem that gives us a good, clean laugh, is a "good" work in this sense, even if it does not teach a moral or theological point, or impart any great truth. In this way, we can say such works are not sinful to produce, because they do SOME actual good, such as giving your fellow man a good, clean chuckle.
In the realm of technical good or evil, I think it stands to reason that we are required at least to make the specific work the best we can, given what kind of work, the subject matter and so forth. That is to say, if we write something coherent, we may give our neighbor a good, clean laugh at something that has no deep meaning. If we write something that IS nonsense, we are likely to accomplish not even that. Thus, a coherently written comedy about talking, fuzzy seals (subject matter by no means edifying), MAY still do some good (the good, clean laugh), because we can understand coherently at least that there is something there that is actually funny. Whereas nonsense, no matter WHAT the subject matter (however profound your intended subject matter) is not likely to accomplish anything, because no one will really understand it. At best they can do the ink-blot thing (assign meaning from their own heads to a thing which objectively is nonsense). In the case of coherent but silly works (coherent, well done works of no serious subject matter), a person will even bear more "ink-blot" fruit among their fellow men, because we can understand it, even if the characters or what not are silly.
Thirdly, it is "good" because it had a "moral"... a point... which was comprehensible or detectable.
Giving our neighbor a good, clean laugh is an actual good we can do for our neighbor. But the next step, is to realize it would be even better if there was a point or lesson to our work, even if not necessarily a moral (in the sense of the spiritual life, though all things concerning human behavior are objectively either good or evil) or theological one. This is to do our neighbor the good of edification, whether in matters temporal or overtly moral or theological.
Why does making a point matter? Our Good Lord, when He came, did not teach in rambling nonsense with no purpose. He taught in parables... STORIES (true or figurative)... which were coherent, purposeful, and which had a moral point. What better example can we get of perfection in something than the real example of Our Lord Himself?! Our stories can be silly fiction... but they'll be much better if there's a purpose to them!
Fourthly, the point it made was one of eternal importance.
The danger when any soul attempts to "teach" is is that you had better be darn sure you know what you are talking about (study, listen to good sermons, read your catechism, etc...) when you speak on any matter of faith or morals! We do NOT want to be responsible for spreading an error of any kind, EVEN BY ACCIDENT!
Thus why it is of utmost importance that someone doing any of the arts that impart information, and sharing them with others, should first see to it to educate themselves thoroughly on matters of faith, morals and ethics, and to have good resources they can consult about any question they are unsure of!
A Catholic should be careful enough of his neighbor's soul never to speak about things in his work that he isn't absolutely sure about, in such important matters, because if you share that work, you are corrupting minds and souls if you are wrong! They should understand, too, that even the WAY you put things in writing, can effect how people take it in terms of meaning. Thus, it is possible to lead people into error either by objective error in your work (explicitly stating something that is not true) OR by implication whether accidental or intentional... that is, something that, if we think about it, seems to imply something that is in error... OR by ambiguity that permits men to imagine errors to be true, based on what we've said and WHAT WE DIDN'T SAY.
It's not as easy as all that to keep dangerous ideas and errors (moral or otherwise) out of your work. The minute you begin to deal with definite knowledge of any kind, it will require caution and a good education in the matters at hand to avoid doing so, as well as the prudence and judgment to avoid leading people into error by the way we put things, or by ambiguity!
And this is perhaps another reason why it would be imprudent for someone who does not REALLY have a talent from God, or a calling to use that talent (however much they enjoy the art form), to publish their works. God gives talents, but to those He calls to use them (and not necessarily to others) He will also surely give the graces and lights for them to obtain the knowledge and to have the natural instinct to use those talents well.... something the average person is not likely to have.
Just like people who are not married do not necessarily have the grace to raise children well, which is a grace typically given in the sacramental marriage, so, too, I think it's reasonable to assume that those whom God calls to any other vocation, He will give adequate graces to that will enable them to avoid total disaster. But He does NOT necessarily give the same lights and graces and instinct to those He never intended to do that same calling! Another peril of modern art, that says "all men are artists!" If God has not given us the graces and natural instincts we need to do an art form without leading others into sin or error, then we will surely be in trouble trying to do so!
Additionally, those graces may be given to those who are really called to such a profession, BUT... the person themselves must ACCEPT those graces. They must have the humility to understand the gravity of the dangers they may pose to the souls of others, their responsibilities in preparing themselves for such a vocation, and the will to do whatever is necessary to protect their own soul and the souls of others most carefully in their work by a careful formation of themselves, and a very critical eye of their own work. Pride is the quickest way for an artist to fall into corrupting their fellow man or leading them into sin. The ideas that "_I_ know enough about the Faith!" or "_I_ know all about ethics!" or "_I_ would NEVER let something sinful or in error creep into my works!" are typical of artists across the board. The problem is, when we think that way, then sooner or later we will think that way when it's not true! The artist dealing with truths has to approach his work prepared ALWAYS to second guess himself if he is even remotely uncertain about where he has gotten his information, or how he "knows" something to be certainly true. Recourse to official resources, and the humility to accept when we were wrong, is the only defense against serious errors!
Returning to the point at hand, this poem, however technically flawed, deals with an eternal moral, and one which proves upon inspection to be sound in terms of truth or error. The idea that those who embrace a worldly and superficial life, and who scoff at living morally (living "by the rules") are likely to end up in a bad way eternally, and regret it. Thus this poem gets THREE points for "moral" ... one for that there IS one, and one for that it is an eternally poignant one, and most importantly, one for that the point made is TRUE!
Lastly, we come to raw technical merit. This poem almost hasn't any. It's one potential technical merit, is that 6 verses (accidental) would be a nice touch with the mention of 'six feet under' at the end. I honestly don't believe I had thought of that, so you might say this poem deserves no technical merit at all. It's a blasted mess in terms of any attempt at any of the structure of definable poetry (that is, in terms of anything rhyming, any kind of pattern and so forth). Loosely, it has four lines a verse, which is about the most basic, most pathetic kind of form (eg, the number of lines per verse) you could give to a poem (being the only "structure" it has, that is).
And now for the BAD.
This poem, as I said, is a technical basket case. It is obvious just looking at it that I am one of those poor souls that never attempted to wrap my brain around anything of the technical methods of poetry... that is, the stuff that requires talent and genius to make the thing work. The Divine Comedy, I understand, in it's native language was LOADED with it. "Four lines per verse" just doesn't count.
Secondly, it's rambling. Six verses might have been a nice touch (if I'd meant to do that), but these six are shoddy and almost a complete waste of words. They are clumsy, rather random, and utterly wasted as a rule. There are about two or three lines in the whole poem that were any good in terms of how they sounded. The rest were totally blown.
I could have used these six verses well. I could have used them in all kinds of artistically clever or pleasing ways. I could have at the VERY LEAST have made sure that every verse had some kind of point or sense to it individually. I didn't. I utterly blew it. I blew it because I was spewing out an idea in the raw, and didn't take the time to perfect it to any extent. And the lack of my effort (and talent in this particular department of writing) shows blatantly.
You could say, then, that it has the technical "evil" of being very wasteful, and of very often having repetitious meaning or moral where it might have instead advanced the meaning or moral.
It is not sinful to write or read, it HAS got a point... but as a work of art it's a complete mess.
That being said, I would like to make one final point. We may like this poem. Or we may NOT like it. But for the love of humanity, let us at least make some attempt when we read it (or any others) to know what it really IS. Let us not ignore that it has so many flaws just because we like it. And it would be better still if we not only recognized it's flaws, but if we DIDN'T like it because of them!
That is how a Catholic should train themselves to look at any and all artistic works. FIRST... look at the thing for what it really and truly IS. See it's faults and failings, and not just the one or two things you really liked about it. If the work is truly good and excellent, then no matter how closely you look, it should be at least tolerable to you, even if you don't turn off your brain (and your entire Catholic Faith.) If the work is truly good (or rarer still, if it is GREAT), you will only realize more and more it's excellence, the closer and closer you examine it. That is the hallmark of truly good art. As opposed to an artistic sham, or fraud of sorts, which falls more and more to pieces, the more and more closely you scrutinize it. (My poetry is pretty much all of this kind, even if it is occasionally nice sounding.)
If, however, you look at it, and you realize it's a blasted mess without any merit at all (or very little to speak of) then we ought to have the good sense not to waste our time with it, even as entertainment. There are countless things of every sort (humorous, serious, and everything in between) where artists that really did have talent produced works really worth enjoying. We should ask ourselves at least whether the particular work in question is easier to FORGET than it is to ENJOY, after we know all that is wrong with it. (Eg, if there is so much wrong with it, the work is ruined once we realize how bad it really is, then we can probably find better entertainment elsewhere.)
BUT... if after all of that we decide to like a work anyway (provided it is not something we need to confess having liked), that is OPINION. Whether or not the thing is excellent, that we like it or don't like, is OPINION. And this is the only place where OPINION enters in. Objectively, the work is what it is. It is happy for us if our opinions happen to coincide with that objective reality, but the reality itself is there under our noses, and we ought to see it for what it is.
As Catholics, we ought to love our souls (and that of others) enough to at least care and find out what it really is. If we want to like it anyway, that is fine, as long as we don't sin in doing it. But if we don't care what it is aside from how we like it, then we are looking at things with our brains shut off... and in this age of toxic arts, that is the most dangerous thing we can do.
Catholics should always have the good sense to know what they enjoy, for exactly what it IS. We may enjoy anything, even if it is absolute rubbish objectively, just so long as it is not sinful rubbish. But when we refuse to see things for what they objectively are, you get what we HAVE gotten: a world full of the deplorable and VERY sinful arts of the modern entertainment industry.
Topic: "So You Thought" (Read 1636 times)