Here’s Why Rupi Kaur’s Poetry Sucks

Rupi Kaur is an Indian-Canadian poet who rose to fame for short enjambed poems, usually with themes about sexual abuse and self-love, posted on instagram accompanied by an original illustration. She is the frontrunner of a new culture of “insta-poets”, taking her success on the internet to ground-breaking commercial success in bookstores all around the world. For her readers, Kaur is a brave young woman speaking fearlessly and simply about extremely difficult themes. And I can see the appeal as someone who, too, has scoured social media like Pinterest and Tumblr for some light poetry reading, but to think that Kaur’s poetry is good poetry– that its writing is actually adding merit to the literary canon– is a gross overration of Kaur’s talent as a poet. If anything, her poems are visually stunning, give the illusion of depth, and she’s willing to give voice to the suffering of young women– but they are not actually good. Here are some of her poems:

Image result for rupi kaur poetryImage result for rupi kaur poetry

Kaur has mastered the art of making her poems seem profound, especially by capitalizing on the lazy technique of lines breaks. She writes moderately interesting sentences– usually about something taboo and difficult, like rape or confidence or being a woman of color to give an extra sense of thematic intensity– breaks them apart, strips them of punctuation, and adds an appealing image to compliment it to give the sense of a verse form. I can do it here:

a flower

grows sprouts bursts

in my heart

every time i

contemplate the

garden of

our love.

The original sentence: A flower grows, sprouts, bursts, in my heart every time I contemplate the garden of our love.

Kaur’s lazy use of line breaks has been ridiculed by many Twitter users:

Image result for rupi kaur meme

Kaur’s poetry states obvious, mildly interesting stream-of-consciousness shower thoughts in visually appealing ways. For a young audience who wants to read something about their problems about love or being a woman, Kaur is a championing figure who doesn’t shy away from these intense themes. Her poetry is extremely accessible and readable. You don’t have to read it multiple times in order to understand it, don’t have to crack open a dictionary in order to know what the words mean, don’t need an english degree to unknot the mess of allusions and symbolism and critical theory– it just means what it means. Doesn’t this make it good?

Well, no. Poetry isn’t good because it’s simple, and it’s also not good because it’s complex. Poetry is good because it says something interesting in an interesting way, that it is rich in meaning, and that it contributes to something about a larger poetic narrative. Consider William Carlos Williams’ poem “This is Just To Say”, which follows much of the structure and line-break pattern that Kaur does, but is wildly different in its quality:


I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold


There is a chaotic energy in this poem, a powerful subtext that needs to be unpacked, something playful and intriguing between the tension of its conversational tone and the almost murderous delight of stealing someone’s plums. This interest and interaction with form is utterly lost in Kaur’s work. Her poems are expected, obvious, and vacuous, painting an illusion of depth where there is none.

And perhaps you didn’t like William Carlos Williams’ poem about the plums. Maybe you’re someone who prefers Rupi Kaur’s poetry, and maybe you think it’s pretentious of me to decide that it’s actually quite bad. Perhaps you’re thinking that this whole poetry thing is extremely subjective– who gets to decide what poetry is good and bad, anyway?

If all literature was subjective, then, there would be no point to literary criticism and an entire discipline dedicated to the study of good literature. Poetry is not subjective. There is good literature and there is bad literature. Your experience of either can be subjective— as in, you can like bad literature and hate good literature, but your preferences don’t change the fact that it’s bad or good. There are certain measures for what it means for poetry to be good, and rupi kaur’s poetry simply doesn’t cut it. Of course, it’s great that a whole new wave of people are enjoying poetry and it’s been made accessible to them. It’s just really bad poetry, vacuous, full of lackluster language and the illusion of profundity, all set on the background of simple type font and a cute line drawing. That’s all.

(Images from Google Images)

Fareah Fysudeen

An English and Philosophy student trying to find her way in this big, big world. Aspiring writer, scholar, showtune belter, ardent hater of tomatoes.

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Here’s Why Rupi Kaur’s Poetry Sucks"

3 months 9 days ago

I thought your post was very well articulated. This argument comes up a lot: “who is anyone to decide what poetry is good and what is bad?”

I agree that it’s not a good thing if poetry (or any art, for that matter) remains relegated to an ivory tower, and I’m glad Rupi Kaur has managed to popularize the idea of poetry with a new audience. But, as they say, you can’t break the rules if you don’t know the rules. If you throw out the rules and adapt the stance that “all art is good, it’s just subjective”, then you lose the point of literary criticism. I’m not an art theorist, but I don’t think it makes sense to justify lazy thoughts and cheap platitudes with “it made me feel good, so it’s good art”.

My take is that we need to be aware of the difference between our subjective reactions to poetry and an objective reality that takes into account historical knowledge of the field, has depth, and conveys meaningful messages without pretentiousness.

3 months 17 days ago

yes, you DON’T get to decide that Rupi Kaur sucks. Perhaps all these academic departments that get to sit and decide who is REAL poetry and who is NOT sucks. Maybe they’re all haters because nobody wants to read boring shit that takes too long to untangle.

2 months 29 days ago

ah dear.

Alan Wagstaff
3 months 21 days ago

Rupi Kaur

The poems of Rupi Kaur might well be prose.

With syntax fit for greeting cards, they sound
like self-help adages or diary woes.
Her self-obsessive mutterings are drowned
in ‘I’ and ‘me’: this ketchup makes them worse.

The salt and pepper words are strewn across
an artless page; they barely rank as verse.
In short, her candid* lines are dross.

They’re full of ‘sound and fury’ – but lack point.
If this is verse – ‘the time is out of joint’.

Alan Wagstaff

* I toyed with ‘candied lines’ but puns like this
might not connect; I gave the joke a miss.

3 months 29 days ago

I loved how you cleared up the subjective part of it and glad I’m not the only one who thinks her work isn’t great!

a sad rupi fan :(
4 months 19 days ago

This is actually so sad.
Someone took so much time out of their day to share why a young person expressing themself sucks.
If I wanted, I could make a whole webpage about why you suck, but guess what? I have a SOUL!!!
I understand why you might not enjoy her poetry, but for many, it is calming and uplifting. You showed the worst of the worst poems that she has written, instead of the ones on serious topics that are interesting and thought out.
Poetry doesn’t need to be a certain way. She writes it the way she feels is best, can people respect that?
Have a good day though.

3 months 3 days ago

did you not read the passage? rupi kaur’s poems are subjectively bad, and maybe your experience with them isn’t bad and you perceive them as good, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re fake-deep poems presented in a fake-profound way. if every piece of literature ever written was considered good because it’s a ‘young person expressing themselves’ then what’s the point of classifying books as good or bad? what’s the point of the concept of ‘classic novels’? i agree with you, poetry doesn’t need to be a certain way, but it should at least be good if it wants to escape criticism.

3 months 27 days ago

I think what the author of this page means is that her poems are all very relatable and delve into serious topics which of course is amazing. However, Rupi Kaur misses the definition of poetry. I would call it art- I love her works. The first I picked it up I related to it so well. But upon realising she calls it “poetry” I began to shy away from her works. She is the definition of an artist. Not a poet.
There are different types of poems. Yes. Hers is probably free verse. BUT there is something about poetry that is really intriguing which she doesn’t have. The sad thing about this “instapoetry” is that it breaks the best part of poetry- perspectives. There are so many interpretations to a good poem. Rupi Kaur’s works doesn’t. She has no ambiguity which is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of poetry. I love her topics but she is not a poet. She is an artist.