#things*

as in like

Enjoys the game and tech in it and improving. so on and so forth

Also likes nerding out sometimes over tf2 fan-created content (Emesis Blue, Serverblight, tf2 youtuber content) and knows the comics lore

I have been thinking about writing and poetry lately and i wonder if all poetry out there or most of the writings are from the writer's personal experience and suffering/pain/joy i mean do u think some writers just write (aside from fiction stories ofc) about a thing they don't truly feel it resembles them or they haven't gone through (or not going through) but they heard about it or liked the idea of it so they write about it?

In general, I do, but I also think it really depends on the poet, the subject and the poem itself. A lot of the time though, I think it's probably a mix of both. Keats had this thing he called "negative capability" which, if I remember correctly, is about a poet's ability to be receptive to the world and objects around them & express an emotional landscape or reality separate from the poet's own identity & life as an individual person. It's what allows you, as a writer, to put yourself in an alternate experience and imagine the world from a completely different point of view.

I don't think everything a poet writes about pertains directly, or literally, to events in their actual lives--I do believe, though, that a lot of poets have particular themes, questions, ideas and images that move them and that they often come back to or examine in different ways, from different perspectives. But not all of those perspectives relate to something happening to them specifically (do you have to go to war to write an anti-war poem, for example?). Some poets are more personal & intimate in their poems; some aren't. Some poets weave the personal and non-personal in so tightly the question of literal biography is a pointless venture. It really depends on the writer and what the poem, as a space, as an act of engagement, means to them.

I think the whole "sit at a typewriter and bleed" mantra has made autobiography seem like something that is inherent to every poem, but I don't believe that's true; I think the only way you can address the question of "was this real?" is on a poet by poet basis, by looking through their work and their recurring preoccupations, their life and what they themselves have said or explained. But as a default, I don't think it's a fair reading because so much can be happening in an individual poem (emotionally, structurally, linguistically) and it runs the risk of obscuring the larger questions we could be asking about the poem or missing where it's trying to take us. At the end of the day I think framing it as "what is this poet curious about" rather than "did this actually happen to them?" is a far better way of getting acquainted with the world of a particular poem, if that makes sense?