I have to write on this subject (Why are verses made?)

I have recently been reading an essay by the Russian poet Mayakovsky that follows his sentiments towards the act of writing poetry; namely detailing the things needed to begin writing and following this with how he actually constructed his verse.

He sets out five basic propositions that he believed were indispensable when beginning poetical work:

1. "The presence of a problem in society, the solution of which is conceivable only in poetical terms. A social command."

2. "An exact knowledge, or rather sense, of the desires of your class (or group you represent) on a given question..."

3. "Words." He believed that the broader your lexis the more materials you would have for poetic construction, and therefore the richer your work would be.

4. "Equipment for the plant and tools for the assembly line." I guess this is equatable with Woolf's idea of requiring 'a room of one's own' etc in order to write properly. As well as pens and paper, the writer requires time, provisions, space to write in, transport to a publisher and so forth.

5. "Skills and techniques of handling words...which come only with years of daily work..." Practice makes perfect.

The three latter points were already ideas that I was comfortable with, but during this morning's seminar the first two instigated much probing which I was a little uncomfortable with. They brought into question my very reasoning for writing. Why do I write? What "social command" am I, or should I, be obeying?

We begun to look at class a bit as the seminar progressed, and as discussion swayed between individuality and how the economic model for society affects broad groups of people I began to lose sight. I don't know if it's the early starts (9am, although 1 hour later than I usually start work), the intellectual intimidation (there's one or two very capable chaps who carry most of the debating), or my own ineptitude, but I've not really been able to break into the heat of the seminar and contribute too much thus far.

Looking back over at the points now, my current feeling towards Mayakovsky's propositions is one tempered by own personal feelings. Indeed there is a difficulty in identifying a social problem that can only be solved through poetical terms. My way of looking at it is through looking at events that are played out at a much grander scale than the group I represent.

Bankers' bonuses. The gross speculation game that to me makes up a lot of the financial sector and stock exchange is something that renders money into an abstract toy for psychological horseplay. This abstraction is not something that a person of my standing is able to physically contend with, and so a more abstract form of contention is required. I guess you could compare tackling this issue with poetry to Mayakovsky's sole example in the essay of answering a social command; where he sets out to oppose the sentiments expressed in his contemporary Esenin's suicide note with a poem of his own.

Mayakovsky mentions "group you represent" in his second point, which allows him avoid claims of reductionism with regards to social grouping. I feel it leaves his tenets open to individualistic interpretation - a group can be as all-encompassing or as exclusive as you like - which may not necessarily be what he was aiming for at the time, but in today's more pluralistic society it is more useful to have that flexibility.

I haven't really set out for myself why I actually write yet. I'm still trying to solidify Mayakovsky's ideas and several counter-arguments, so this entry is more of a revision exercise then an illumination. So far.

Why do I write? I guess I am compelled to write when an idea comes in to my head that I am unable to properly express through alternative means. Looking back at my previous pieces, this seems to have been the main reason for the work. This captures the necessity of writing that Mayakovsky was keen to stress, but doesn't really touch on the social side of things. Is it important that there be a social side to writing, and the necessity to write? After all, writing will always require a reader, that surely is its purpose.

Enjoyment of writing is another thing. I've always considered it a favourite past-time of mine, even when I haven't actively been following up on it, ever since I was a wee bairn. I started my MA in Creative and Critical Writing in order to improve and gain direction. Why do I find it enjoyable?

Perhaps, as is the case with a lot of Freud's ideas I've found, it is a question of agency. For me creative writing is a form of expression and an outlet for ideas that I am unable to do anything with in any other way. Being creative in general is a way of gaining control, much in the same way that cleaning a house is, but the level of agency is different in that it is a performative act. When writing I guess you are putting a distance between yourself and other people which gives you protection. Agency and protection, all in one fun package. That must appeal to me as someone that doesn't like putting themself "out there" in the flesh as it were. Very little of what I have written in the past is serious, and that there again is another form of escapism, if one is to consider that the real is serious business.

Mayakovsky's essay was a joy to read. I don't think I've read an essay that has both informed me and amused me equally to such lengths. I hope that his poetry is equally stimulating.