Milk & Honey was decent. I'm looking forward to the

>Milk & Honey was decent
Nice try amateur, but this could only be bait because no real person would think that

>>9869424
No, she's more like Bukowski, in that she's writing 'free verse that's blandly confessional and seems to think cliches are folks or something.

>>9869424
>I seriously think that the hate on this board is because /pol/ and /r9k/ became stagnant and unfunny, so they flooded (and ruined) /lit/. She is a younger Rimbaud.

t. retarded /pol9k/ moron who wants another excuse to talk about things he wants others to pat him on the back for.

Well done. Genocide and SJW. redpill and Jews. Cucks and whiteness! Vult and Kek

I really dislike her work because I see it as mediocre and hackneyed images that seem to really lean into the "Tumblr" aesthetic and the same four metaphors about art and stars and cigarettes, rather than do anything new (and I say this being an 18 year old girl who's been using Tumblr since she was 12. I know that culture pretty well, and I have no disdain for it, but I don't think it makes for good poetry) why do you like her work? What do you see in it?

>>9869424
I refuse to believe that anyone besides uneducated women unironically like this garbage.

>>9869424
I dislike /po/ and their intrusion is evident, but you have no fucking taste if you liked Milk and Honey, that shit is bottom of the barrel banal dull emptyness.

bait

>>9869455
>why do you like her work? What do you see in it?
How dumb are you? Fucking retard

File: rupik.png (35KB, 597x595px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 597x595px

>>9869424
I agree with you, OP. Remember that the majority of people on this board are white teenage shut-ins who despise women because they've had zero success with them in real life. Of course they will refuse to admit that there are any redeeming qualities to the writings of a woman their own age who has managed to write a best-seller. They are bitter and scornful, it is impossible to argue with them. Honestly, the ones they really hate are themselves. They will never be able to fully appreciate the world--which includes the appreciation of Rupi Kaur and her phenomenal poetry-- before they purge their own self hatred.

>>9869503
are we mostly shut ins with little to no experience with women? yes, but the female hate is mostly a meme. There are good threads
and posts about female writers now and then. Rupi is not good.

>>9869503

I can tell you're baiting but I basically agree because this is what the poetry in the /lit/ threads looks like except basically less direct and more verbose. They do hate themselves in hating Kaur. Kaur is at least direct and sincere, which is quality even if her sincerity and her directness lack technical distinction. There is a real reason she's popular.

>>9869424
>She is a younger Rimbaud.
But she's older than he was...

>>9869528
Op is b8an

I just don't really get into female authors. That's pretty typical of males I think.

youre the same person starting all the rupi threads. your existence is sad

>>9869516
>Rupi is not good.
You say that as if it were some absolute truth, yet I have not seen a single person on this board try to explain what makes Kaur's poetry bad. I believe all posters have been infected with some form of Bloomsian muh aesthetics-virus that has infiltrated their brains and which they are unable to fully reflect on because they do not actually know what makes good poetry -- or bad poetry for that matter. It is just there, whispering sinister remarks in their ears every time they see something that is, for other reasons entirely, hard to swallow. And so they use it to justify their irrational hatred, for example towards Rupi Kaur (which stems from the no attention from women/the longing to be a succesful writer but not having the set of skills required for it to ever happen).

Finally, Rupi Kaur's poetry is phenomenal precisely because it is what some people would call banal. It is no longer neccesary for poetry to be some intricate maze of allegories resting on a solid stanza-foundation. Our society is changing in much the same way, doing away with foundations seemingly set in stone. Society is no longer deep or mysterious. It is no longer effective to view society through unnecessarily hard to read poetry or prose, instead what is needed is quite the opposite, and that is were Kaur comes in. Her banality is a mirror of our own society, and that is what makes her phenomenal.

>>9869596
It's bland, juvenille, technically and creatively bankrupt, and cliche.

>society is banal and boring so art has to be banal and boring

Fuck you. Fuck you and your inferior and defeatist way of thinking. Society shouldnt change art, art should change society.

>>9869596
To say that a poet is justified in employing a disintegrating form in order to express a feeling of disintegration, is merely a sophistical justification for bad poetry, akin to the Whitmanian notion that one must write loose and sprawling poetry to "express" the loose and sprawling American continent. In fact, all feeling, if one gives oneself (that is, one's form) up to it, is a way of disintegration; poetic form is by definition a means to arrest the disintegration and order the feeling; and in so far as any poetry tends toward the formless, it fails to be expressive of anything.

>>9869424
I know you're baiting but please, anon, and I mean this:

Please kill yourself. Please.

>>9869596

>Her banality is a mirror of our own society.

Can't tell if you're trolling or just a total pleb.

>>9869596
dude even at the line level, hell word level, she's boring and cliched.

>>9869609
>Society shouldnt change art, art should change society.
They are intertwined and both change one another. How is my thinking defeatist? Society is cyclical, it will not always be like this. But like it or not, no other poet depicts the stunningly sincere and unadorned 21th century that we are currently living in better than Rupi Kaur.

>>9869460
Why don't you like papercraft? They're a nice, quiet board that's never hurt anyone.

>>9869424
>She is a younger Rimbaud

hahaha please try again with a another bait

>>9869596
the only thing that her poetry mirrors is her lack of skill as a writer and normie's ignorance of and inability to undertake higher literature.

>>9869664
They're always talking shit about Bond and I'm not about that.

File: mkk.png (115KB, 819x455px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 819x455px

>>9869458

>>9869596
>It is no longer neccesary for poetry to be some intricate maze of allegories resting on a solid stanza-foundation.

Anon, that's BAD. Don't just fucking state that and treat it like gravity or thermodynamic. It SUCKS. I hate that that's the state of modern poetry and I hate all poetry that contributes to the decay you describe. Ergo, I hate Rupi's poetry. I don't even consider unmetered poetry to be legitimate poetry, for that matter.

Truly a "poet" for people that can't and don't read poetry

>>9869424
do we need to see this nigger's ugly mug everyday just because she is le SUPERBAD poet?
get a grip

>>9869596
>You say that as if it were some absolute truth, yet I have not seen a single person on this board try to explain what makes Kaur's poetry bad.

Literaly every single thread that says how bad Milk & Honey is, always shows why. Read them, lier.

> And so they use it to justify their irrational hatred, for example towards Rupi Kaur (which stems from the no attention from women/the longing to be a succesful writer but not having the set of skills required for it to ever happen).

Stop baiting you mongoloid. No one hates the person, we hate her terrible work.

>ociety is no longer deep or mysterious. It is no longer effective to view society through unnecessarily hard to read poetry or prose, instead what is needed is quite the opposite, and that is were Kaur comes in. Her banality is a mirror of our own society, and that is what makes her phenomenal.

Literaly no poet ever taught their society was mysterious. If anything, today is the time we have more questions about society than ever. Not only that, but this bullshit you say of art is the same reason so much bad art keep getting into New York best selling list, while other real works never see the light of the day.

Kys after that, troll

>>9869503

>ur, day hate wumem, ur, muh ad hominem

>>9869710
I find marinating in anger lends a nice spice to my psyche

>>9870099

protip: as long as aspie faggots like you continue to rage at these threads they will continue to be posted. have you learned nothing?

>>9869455
Please be in London.

>>9869424
And you know bothers me the most? Is that I had high hopes for Milk & Honey. I want to like it, but I cant, because it's so poorly written, fucking boring and the most self-indulgent garbage that I read in a long time. So fuck off, you garbage supporter.

>>9870099
Go back to /pol/.

>>9869438
At least Bukowski never took himself seriously. Edgy teens took Bukowski seriously, he didn't

>>9869424
I know this is b8, but just in case it wasn't, I've read enough "poems" of this shit "book", and I can tell you that is only made by edgy "muh feminism" sentences who sound more like the arrogant thoughts of a frustrated housewife. That said, I'm not against feminist (well, I am when they become idiotic SJWs with no rational thought), and the fact that this woman is considered to be a good poet is a shame for the whole female sex