Dustbury calls my attention to this article, which bemoans the "sidelining" of poetry. One of Second Terrace's paragraphs called to me:
"This is distressing, because – I think – poetry is the threading of meaning, and thus a little bit of poetry is necessary to the work of belief. And if you think that there is no work to belief, then you will never be able to read a poem."
All of this gives me an excuse to post one of my favorite poems, by Marianne Moore. It pretty much sums up my feelings on poetry, which has been eulogized at least once per generation. I particularly like the line about "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," because poetry is the imaginary garden, and the toads are the critics and poets who take themselves entirely too seriously.
"Poetry"
I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond
all this fiddle.
Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one
discovers in
it after all, a place for the genuine.
Hands that can grasp, eyes
that can dilate, hair that can rise
if it must, these things are important not because a
high-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because
they are
useful. When they become so derivative as to become
unintelligible,
the same thing may be said for all of us, that we
do not admire what
we cannot understand: the bat
holding on upside down or in quest of something to
eat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless
wolf under
a tree, the immovable critic twitching his skin like a horse
that feels a flea, the base-
ball fan, the statistician--
nor is it valid
to discriminate against "business documents and
school-books"; all these phenomena are important. One must make
a distinction
however: when dragged into prominence by half poets, the
result is not poetry,
nor till the poets among us can be
"literalists of
the imagination"--above
insolence and triviality and can present
for inspection, "imaginary gardens with real toads in them,"
shall we have
it. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand,
the raw material of poetry in
all its rawness and
that which is on the other hand
genuine, you are interested in poetry.
Well. There is poetry, and there is, um, "poetry." Or what's sometimes referred to as "poetries."
ReplyDeleteI've lately enjoyed a little pissing match between James Campbell ("J.C."), who writes the NB column for The TLS, and a group known loosely as the "Infinite Difference" poets, published by Cambridge Literary Review.
The bit that started it all is helpfully reproduced here; I agree with Campbell that it's difficult to derive meaning from lines like this (by Marianne Morris):
not knowing anything or her name. Rich
sussuration of words at soil's thumby reach
as he gluey gibbers, love is here ...
The words are English, but she's not reaching me. Perhaps I'm just too gendered to get it. As a professor of English, can you help me out here?
I never got poetry even though I love to read. Occasaional a line or two might be nice but whole poems were boring and many seemed out-there/pretentious. My Grandmother moved to FL last month, and in cleaning out her books she gave me some Ogden Nash, now I'm hooked :)
ReplyDelete