In December 2022, the same month of the hundred-year anniversary of T.S. Eliot’s magnum opus, The Waste Land, The New York Times published a guest editorial by Matthew Walther, titled “Did Poetry Die 100 Years Ago This Month?.” Walther acknowledges that while there is no shortage of poets in the postmodern literary landscape, he proclaims that the literary tradition of poetry died with Eliot. The reason? According to Walther, we are now “incapable” of writing “good” poetry due to the nature of modern life and its tendency to “[demystify] and [alienate] us from the natural world.”

Walther’s assertion seemed to disturb a literary hornet’s nest almost immediately upon its publication, eliciting responses from poets across the nation. The responses challenging Walther’s claims flooded the desks of Times’ editors, revealing a major point of literary contention that was previously rarely discussed.

Everything we know about our philosophy toward poetics, we have thus learned from great minds that could have never fathomed the technological advancements we have made today—Aristotle, Plato, and even Coleridge.

But is it that poetry has died, or has the tradition just taken on a new, more digitalized face?

What is Digital Poetry?

Digital poetry is the postmodernist answer to Walther’s premature mourning over the death of a well-loved literary tradition. The term digital poetry was coined by German poets André Vallias and Friedrich W. Block in 1992 when the men hosted an exhibition of their work titled exhibition p0es1e: Digitale Dichtkunst/Digital Poetry. Digital poetry, then, shows the tradition’s ability to adapt in the technological world.

Although there seems to be little consensus on an overall agreed upon definition for digital poetry, Christopher Thompson Funkhouser, author of Prehistoric Digital Poetry: An Archaeology of Forms, 1959–1995, credits Block with the “strongest attempt” so far, who suggests that the term “applies to artistic projects that deal with the medial changes in language and language-based communication in computers and digital networks. Digital poetry thus refers to creative, experimental, playful, and also critical language art involving programming, multimedia, animation, interactivity, and net communication.”

Funkerhouser simplifies Block’s wordier definition by suggesting that the term is a suitable label for poetic forms of literature for on-screen display with the use of computer technology or programming.

Key Features

A defining feature of digital poetry is text generation, when a digital poet makes use of code to generate randomized text to appear in their poem. An example of this can be found in Pauline Masurel and Jim Andrews’ “Blue Hyacinth,” a digital poem that uses HTML code to generate individualized experiences for the readers of their digital poetry as they hover their mouses over different lines of text.

Another defining feature of this proliferating genre is its visual and kinetic properties. According to Funkhouser, digital poets as early as the 1960s experimented with using technology to turn language into images. Unlike text generation, which delivers randomized reading experiences, visual works of poetry—kinetic or otherwise—necessitate a controlled output. At first, visual poetry was still, static, and non-moving.

However, as technology progressed, kinetic digital poetry emerged, highlighting new flexibility in a literary tradition deeply rooted in the past. “Circularities: Animated Variants,” a digital poetry collection by Mark Laliberte is a stunning example of kinetic digital poetry.

Another technological aspect used by digital poets is hypertext, which changes the text display of lines of poetry. Such a feature can make poetry more interactive and leave readers with a deeper understanding of a particular poem. “Penetration” by Robert Kendall, for example, uses the colors resulting from his use of hypertext to differentiate between the two subjects of his poem: a mother and a daughter.

With the dawn of the internet and the digital age, the consumption and publication of poetic literature has undergone an intense reimagining. Once, the only way to read a poem was to have a physical copy of it. Now, it is possible to access poetry immediately on the internet through any number of ways, and authors have new ways to be published other than in the traditional sense. One of the new methods of accessing poetry is on the social media application Instagram, where there is a niche community dedicated to posting poetry on their accounts. Some of these accounts are personal, and the owners will occasionally include poetry (by themselves or another author) as a picture or two in posts on their profiles along with regular personal content. However, there has been a recent popularization of accounts dedicated solely to posting poetry submitted by followers of the accounts. These accounts accept follower submissions through direct messages or an email form linked in the bio, and moderators of the accounts parse through submissions and select which poetry to post publicly. Through the use of these accounts, poets can be “published” in a semi-democratized manner that has the potential to surpass possible exposure provided in just about any other medium.

To Post or Not to Post

Instagram accounts as a means of publishing poems have less of the constrictions of traditional media publication, but this fact comes with an obvious caveat. Without any of the usual vetting process for publication— pitching, proof-reading, editing, etc.— there is less quality-control. On one hand, this can be a positive aspect. There is growing discourse surrounding the “stuffiness” of traditional publishing methods, and how some hire-ups of the industry can use rather outdated standards. Digital media is considered to be more cutting-edge, and as such is much less strict with vetting content. Poetry-sharing Instagram accounts like anon.poetry.submissions and poetryclub.cascade take submissions of all skill levels, advertising themselves as accepting poetry from anyone at all. However, it only takes a moment perusing these kinds of accounts to notice that quite a lot of the submissions are not, technically, “good.” Much of this poetry does not follow any kind of rhyme scheme or meter and employs mixed metaphors often. It is not all the same quality you would find in most published poetry books or even other digital poetry publications, as the owners of such accounts who pick and post the content are often just young adults with a passion for the genre but little expertise. This increased variety of quality is part of the tradeoff that comes with an informal publication process.  

Credit Where Credit is Due

One issue that may come to mind when considering poetry submission Instagram accounts is the matter of proper credit. With traditionally published media, writers are credited and paid for their contributions, even in collaborative projects like journals and newspapers. With Instagram accounts, however, there is rarely any money to be made from accounts that share poetry, even by the owners of the accounts themselves. Therefore, it is a rare occurrence for followers who submit their work to be compensated in any way except the possibility of exposure. However, most accounts are diligent to credit the writers themselves, and almost always note the name and/or Instagram username of the followers submitting their poems. One notable exception is in the case of anonymous poetry-sharing accounts. These accounts, like anon.poetry.submissions, provide a space where people can submit poetry without being credited. However, this is intentional in order to let people express themselves and share their self-expression without the pressure of their names attached to the poetry.

Poetry Appreciation in the Digital Space

As previously noted, poetry Instagram accounts do not make much (or usually any) money through their operation. Why, then, do these accounts exist and continue to publish poetry without any compensation? The answer is that they are spaces created with the intent of appreciation for the genre. Contributors and owners of these accounts alike have the same goal of sharing poetry with the world, even without the incentive of financial gain. However, one critique of the medium is that such accounts do not take poetry seriously. As previously mentioned, there are lower standards for posting poetry on Instagram than in traditional publications, and some may see this as the moderators of the accounts not caring about the quality of the work. Poetry purists might note that a sense of poeticism is not enough to qualify as poetry; there is technical skill involved in working with meter, rhyme, rhythm, and themes. Additionally, social media has a way of co-opting art as a way to add to one’s “personal aesthetic,” and some may find the publication of poetry on social media to be inherently cheaper based entirely on the platform. However, negating the passion and appreciation of the genre that goes into regularly maintaining an Instagram account without compensation is not giving full credit to a new generation with a desire to keep the art form alive.

In Conclusion

Instagram accounts that post follower-submitted poetry are, undoubtedly, part of the new age of digital publication. Social media in general has proved to be a shortcut to access audiences of sizes previously unheard of, and poetry-sharing accounts seek to utilize this resource to the advantage of amateur poets. However, like the internet as a whole, these accounts are almost wholly unregulated, and do not have the safeguards and limitations involved in traditional publishing. This kind of unregulated content may be much more accessible than traditional edited content, but has the drawbacks of more low-quality content. Overall, Instagram accounts that share submitted poetry are not hurting the poets involved and provide a safe space for beginning poets to share their work with little judgment.

The advent of social media and rise of the digital age has revolutionized the way we communicate. From the pager and T9 technology to the character limits on social media posts, the devices and applications that run our lives affect the way we use language. In fact, the use of internet slang, acronyms, and emojis that come together under a unique syntax across digital media has been classified as its own field of study: internet linguistics. As ubiquitous as this distinct form of language is online, it doesn’t appear to have an application to digital publications outside social media. The internet and digital devices have allowed people to have instantaneous written communication as though they were face-to-face. In the absence of facial cues, body language, and vocal inflections, cyber linguistics rose as a way to convey meaning, emotion, and context beyond grammatical semantics.  Because it’s conversational by nature, it’s viewed as a casual form of language expression, at home on Twitter, but not on The Washington Post. In addition, with the understood intention of two-way interaction between poster and viewer, a user on Instagram would have a justification to follow the grammatical rules and syntax that govern internet linguistics, as opposed to a journalist who has no interaction with the reader of the article. In essence, the use of emojis or internet slang seems out-of-place and too informal for an online publication.

However, any language tool can be a useful tool to a writer, no matter the platform or medium, and the elements of internet linguistics are no exception. Because internet linguistics developed as a way to communicate meaning that would otherwise be lost in written language, it can serve a purpose in even the most serious digital media publications. Something as simple as a grammatical full stop or ellipsis, can convey new meaning when taken out of the context of traditional grammar rules and implemented under the principles of internet linguistics. Betsy Reed, creator of the digital style guide for BuzzFeed, outlines appropriate instances within the publication for utilizing the acronyms, emojis, capitalization, punctuation rules found in internet linguistics. In most of the examples outlined in the style guide, the use of cyber linguistic syntax serves as a means to declare informality or humor. For instance, the style guide outlines usage for the tilde (~) when making a “whimsical emphasis” to a word or phrase in an article, a grammatical practice mostly seen in social media posts. Again, it may seem that internet linguistics should remain within the realm of social media and lighthearted publications like BuzzFeed lists and has no place in serious or academic publications. However, a writer should be aware of the rules of internet linguistics when creating content for any publication, if for no other reason than to convey the proper tone.

A lesser known application for internet linguistics as it pertains to digital publications, is as a tool for readability and reader traffic. Cyber linguistics not only pertains to internet slang and emojis, but also encompasses the algorithms used for language processing tools like NPL (natural language processing) which is a type of AI tool that can be useful for people creating content in a second language, whether it’s proofreading a manuscript or writing an article. Internet linguistic tools can also be used for the practices involved in digital marketing such as keyword targeting for search engine optimization and the algorithms used to direct content to individual readers. These tools can be useful to a writer for a digital publication when trying to boost visibility for their content.

While internet linguistics is at the forefront of every social media post, it can also be a useful language tool for writers of digital publications. Whether it’s to emphasize a meaning outside traditional syntax, convey (or avoid) a specific tone, help edit an article, or generate reader traffic, cyber linguistics is a legitimate field of language expression and can be useful to any writer across a variety of digital publications.

Do you enjoy reading fan-fiction? Or do you want to display your fan-fiction so it can be read and enjoyed by others? Archive of Our Own (AO3) was designed as a safe haven for fan-fiction free of censorship or threat of takedown.

AO3’s Creation

AO3’s site describes itself as a fan run archive for fan-fiction. Writing for The Verge, Elizabeth Minkel describes the precarious state of fan-fiction before AO3 was created. Fan-fiction was regularly taken down by host sites at the behest of complaining entertainment companies regardless of whether it met the criteria for fair use. Jennifer Knop, writing for New York University’s legal blog, mentions that fan fiction can fall under fair use when it is not for profit, doesn’t compete with the original work, and has significant differences from the original work.

Some sites banned certain types of fan-fiction like those centering around real-life people. All these forces spurred fans to create AO3, a nonprofit that Minkel describes as “free speech maximalist”, designed specifically to create a safe haven for fan-fiction.

Hugo Award

Writing for Vox, Aja Romano describes how AO3 received the Hugo award for its contribution to science fiction and fantasy writing. Naomi Novik, A New York Times bestselling author and co-founder of AO3 accepted the Hugo on behalf of the organization. This serves as a major recognition of the worth of fan-fiction and a landmark in the mainstream acceptance of fan-fiction works.

The Site

Navigating AO3, you can find fan-fiction about Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Stephen King novels, and scores of other popular works. While AO3 doesn’t censor, they do allow writers to participate in a rating system that allows readers to filter content based on their preferences. They have archive symbols for content ratings, relationships/pairings/orientation, content warnings, and whether the work is finished or not, allowing fans to avoid certain kinds of content or find their favorite themes.

While Elizabeth Minkel writes that AO3 “isn’t a social network; direct fandom conversations happen elsewhere on sites like Tumblr, Twitter, and Dreamwidth” the site certainly facilitates community. Many writers participate in a tradition called Yultide where writers create unique fan-fiction based on readers’ specific requested characters with the goal of increasing fan-fiction for rare fandoms or with uncommon character pairings. In doing so, story creators respond directly to fan wishes and create free content that caters to individual fan interests.

Free Speech Controversy

While AO3 has many supportive fans, it has also generated controversy. Elizabeth Minkel with The Verge describes how AO3 has been at the center of free speech debates: “morality, activism, and shipping have become irrevocably tangled, and it can be challenging — even impossible — to untangle them”. Minkel makes the case that arguments against a story may be subjective, artistic, moral, or all three, making it difficult to tell where censorship ends and personal preference begins. Classic debates about censorship abound, with many questioning whether depictions of violence or abuse result in similar behaviors in the real world, and even debates about how these subjects should be depicted in works of art.

The Chinese government has taken an extreme stance on this debate. Aja Romano, writing in Vox, states that AO3 has recently been taken down in China. The Chinese government announced March 1st broad regulations against sexually explicit, violent, or anti-government works. While the new regulations appear to be a straight-forward cause for the site’s removal, it hasn’t stopped rumors from growing, with some even claiming that the crackdown was due to a campaign by fans of the actor Xiao Zhan who were angry at fan-fiction written about him. Fans have denied this, and the removal of AO3 is likely coincidental.

The emphasis on free speech garners AO3 both detractors and praise, with widely differing opinions depending on which side of the debate you fall on. Should fictional works about real-life people be written and shared? Is there cultural value to works that depict sexually harmful behavior, and is its value contingent on how it’s portrayed? AO3 has already made its decision, but many others continue to weigh the worth of these controversial works.