Why Not Poetry?

[JBI]

Don't have time to read all the responses, I will tomorrow.

Poetry simply isn't taught like it used to be. In my very small experience as a student teacher, I devoted three weeks to poetry, and I still didn't feel like it was enough. When I asked the other major teacher of sophomores (whom I was working with) what she did with poetry, she said, and I quote, "I only teach one week of poetry because i don't like it."

I just kind of stood there, dumbfounded, mouth agape. I just shook my head and walked away. I wanted to yell, to reprimand, to scream, "Who gives a **** if you like it or not, you NEED TO ****ING TEACH IT, YOU LAZY PIECE OF ****!" But, in hopes of future employment at the school, I didn't (though shaking my head and walking away wasn't a good idea, either). Her attitude wasn't seen as a problem by anyone, especially the principal, a "math guy," who loved her because she pushed failing students through and worked on all kinds of extra-curricular projects (which, of course, meant neglecting her students--she never bothered doing discussion or anything).

Teachers like this are the problem, and there is no shortage of them. I'm not a huge fan of poetry, but I taught it, and pretty well, I think. I take solace in knowing that at least my forty-or-so students were exposed to poetry and how to analyze it.

Environment is a good question, with two traditions pretty much conflicting in my mind - one the Jewish classical example of everyone crowding around one Torah and arguing about the meaning of certain passages, and the other the Chinese tradition I am glued into now, of sitting at your desk and memorizing the book word for word with the commentary.

The question then is, what are the two uses? One gets the job done, the other only brings in doubt - how can you get to one without the other, and which one is more affective - to know enough to discuss, you must first memorize, to discuss, you must dissect what you have memorized - with some many subjects, what time is there to either memorize, or discuss?

[Alexander III]

Are you trying to say poetry isn't gay? Damnit, if it isn't I've wasted hours of my life on it!

I assure you poetry isn't gay, it's bi-winning.

[YesNo]

...nor do I think it would be hard to come up with any number of poems from the last 100 years that exhibit a great mastery of poetic form and language... and still resonate with an audience beyond academia.

I'm not disagreeing with you with this post, but it gave me an idea.

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students? And what famous poets would you explicitly exclude?

My list would include Joyce Kilmer's poem about trees which I think just might fit the 100 year constraint. Although I don't particularly like this poem, it is famous and resonates with non-academics. There would also be Robert Frost's Fire and Ice poem.

I guess I would also like to include poems by poets who are not recognized by academics because I am tired of hearing the same names dropped. One would be Tanith Lee's love poem: http://www.poemspoet.com/tanith-lee/untitled Another would be Mattie Stepanek: http://www.mattieonline.com/ I can still remember a poem he wrote about the day his brother died. It beats most anything Billy Collins wrote. The only thing I remember about Collins is his "paradelle" prank.

I would not include anything by Pound or Plath or William Carlos Williams or anyone whom I thought even remotely imitated them.

[OrphanPip]

But I like Pound and WCW...

And WCW isn't even all that difficult, he's plenty accessible. (at times)

The Tanith Lee poem is cute, but it's nothing special or all that original.

Honestly, even Plath is better than that. She's way overrated, but was still a competent poet.

[mortalterror]

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students?

1902 The Rain in the Pinewood by Gabriele D'Annunzio
1905 To Roosevelt by Ruben Dario
1910? Brahma, Visnu, Siva by Rabindranath Tagore
1910 If by Rudyard Kipling
1911 Ithaca by Constantine P. Cavafy
1913 Mirabeau Bridge by Guillaume Apollinaire
1914 Mending Wall by Robert Frost
1917 The Young Fate by Paul Valery
1918 The Black Heralds by Cesar Vallejo
1919 The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats
1920 Hugh Selwyn Mauberley by Ezra Pound
1922 The First Elegy by Rainer Maria Rilke
1922 The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot
1923 The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
1924 Anabase by Saint-John Perse
1925 The Lemon Trees by Eugenio Montale
? Lovely and Lifelike by Paul Eluard
1934 Message by Fernando Pessoa
1937 Lament for the Death of Ignacio Sanchez Mejias by Federico Garcia Lorca
1938 The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel by Nikos Kazantzakis
1940 Requiem by Anna Akhmatova
1944 A Song on the End of the World by Czeslaw Milosz
1948 Death Fugue by Paul Celan
1950 The Heights of Macchu Picchu by Pablo Neruda
1951 Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night by Dylan Thomas
1952 The Shield of Achilles by W.H. Auden
1954 Sunstone by Octavio Paz
1955 The Emperor of Ice Cream by Wallace Stevens
1974 The Envoy of Mr. Cogito by Zbigniew Herbert
1975 Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror by John Ashberry
1990 Omeros by Derek Walcott

[sixsmith]

What would be, say, the top 5 to 10 poems from the past 100 years that exhibit great mastery of poetic form and language and most especially still resonate with an audience beyond academia that you would put on a reading list for the Comedian's students? And what famous poets would you explicitly exclude?

Mending Wall - Robert Frost
In the Station of the Metro - Ezra Pound
The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock - TS Eliot
One Art - Elizabeth Bishop
The Second Coming - WB Yeats
Aubade - Philip Larkin
Banal Sojourn - Wallace Stevens
Punishment - Seamus Heaney


I'd simply exclude what I consider weak poetry. Thus, Plath and Sexton, for example, are basically out, as is much of Roethke.

[Paulclem]

It is precisely the form aspects of poetry that are the most difficult to teach. In the hands of a poor teacher, it can really be the most boring stuff. So you have a conundrum: do you teach less formal poetry, that is more accessible, or do you look at the formal styles which without a good explanation can't be appreciated in respect of the degree of craftmanship involved?

Making links between the two by teaching formal and more informal styles side by side helps. Enthusiasm helps - as Mutatis noted, but also the school management. The teacher who was reluctant to teach poetry is at least not doing a bad job of it. It does need someone who enjoys the stuff, and this is where a bit of team teaching can help.

In the end though, I bet all the people on this forum pursue poetry themselves through their own volition, sometimes because and sometimes in spite of the teaching they had on the subject.

[MorpheusSandman]

This has been a fascinating thread, as have been many other threads on this similar theme that have cropped up on Litnet... To simply relate my own story and feelings on this subject:

I don't think I read my first poem until I was in my early 20s. It simply wasn't taught in public schools from grade school to high school, my parents never read me a poem, none of my friends read poetry, and I likely couldn't have named you a poet other than Shakespeare. Yet, I devoured novels from the time I was young until the time I was in my early teens. Then I went through nearly a decade-long health problem, and didn't really pick up literature again until my early 20s. Well, let me correct one thing: my mother infrequently wrote "joke" poems and gave them to my family on birthdays, and it was actually one of those that indirectly "drew" me to poetry. She showed me one she'd written, and even though it rhymed I couldn't get past the wonky, uneven meter. Being a lover of music and lyrics, I guess I intuitively "knew" that the meter was wrong. I told her that it didn't sound right and that I'd work on it. This lead me to Wikipedia where I began reading about poetry, meter, forms, and other linguistic aspects. From that rather serendipitous beginning that happened when I was about 21 my interest in poetry began. I think when I originally found it, I looked at it as an interesting intellectual creative challenge; how to utilize these elements and forms to say something striking? When Neil Gaiman's Sandman rekindled my interest in literature, I also found Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer, all three of which ignited my interest in poetry even more so. Ever since I think I've been drawn to it more than prose.

Although, I find it difficult to say what it is about poetry that draws me in more than prose... I think there are three main things:

1. The formal aspect of poetry

I don't merely mean "forms" like Sonnets et al., but the idea that how you arrange words in a line, especially how you begin and end lines, whether you use end-stops or enjambment, how you use punctuation, rhythm, etc. adds both a musical and aesthetic effect that typically isn't present in prose. When I read the poet masters, I'm frequently stunned at the impact that they can make with one word situation at the right place in a line, especially when juxtaposed with a previous word/line. There are moments in Paradise Lost when the first word (or few words) of a line will hit like an unexpected gut punch. I guess it's possible to do that with prose through periods and sentence beginnings, but I think the "look" of prose as merely strings of connected sentences and paragraphs provoke a more monorhythmic reading where as every new line in poetry forces you to readjust.

2. The "small" aspect of poetry

Obviously, this isn't the case with epic and narrative poetry, but lyric poetry has the ability to capture the smallest moments of life and create an entire work out of that. While novels often have "moments" where the story slows down to revel more in aesthetics and these aspects, I think it's easy for them to get lost in the whole, not add to the whole, or even merely just be part of a grander scheme. Poetry is much more flexible, though. Because it doesn't need a story, it can support any theme, any feeling, any subject, no matter how small. I think we're so used to focusing on the "big" moments in life that we often forget the small pleasures, and I think poetry revels in those small pleasures and captured moments much better than prose. Maybe it's the difference between a snapshot and a movie, in a way.

3. The emotional, aesthetic, intellectual, and musical aspect of poetry

I guess this rather relates to both elements above, and I hesitated to list this because, obviously, all of these elements are present in prose, but I think the way poetry handles them is, in a way, much more direct. In most prose, all of these elements are dominated, dictated by, and even delivered through the context of a narrative. Now, I love narrative art, but I also think there's a limit to narrative art, especially in its ability to capture things outside the imitative aspects of life, even if those imitative aspects are related to thought. Poetry doesn't have these restraints, and it can go directly to certain emotional states, intellectual themes, aesthetic feeling, or the musical enjoyment of language without having to be mediated by a narrative, characters, events, or anything else that might be connected to it. But, because of this more "pared down" approach, I also think every aspect used in poetry becomes emphasized more. Prose can get away with ignoring certain aspects of language to relate its narrative, but in poetry you don't have this safety net to fall back on, so everything superfluous gets spotlighted much faster. But, likewise, I think poetry is much better at spotlighting feelings, emotions, and thoughts because the effective use of languages galvanizes what's being expressed. I think that's why most famous sayings contain poetic concepts, especially those found in rhetoric. In fact, even if prose and novels are more popular, there are probably more known quotes from poetry than from novels.

My passion for poetry has certainly lead me to reflect on its unpopularity and relative obscurity. For me, it's rather difficult, because I would like for others to be able to read poetry and "feel" it like I do, but most don't. I guess most read it, balk at the frequently difficult language (especially with olde(er) poets/poetry), the metaphors, and the elliptical, suggestive, indirect way of relating something, and their own misunderstanding leads to confusion, which is construed negatively, which is then taken out on the poetry for "causing" this problem, so it's dismissed as something negative in general. After all, the arts, to most people, are an escape. As one person said elsewhere in this thread, music and film CAN BE very passive art forms, while you always have to engage with literature, but poetry even more because of its increased indirectness of expression. I even wrote about this in my last poem I posted on LitNet titled "Blink, Blink", basically saying that because music and the visual arts can be appreciated simply be experiencing it, they hit at something more primal in us than literature that requires understanding a "medium" (language) to connect with the object's meaning, and especially poetry that requires an even more in-depth knowledge of that medium. So, I guess I'd conclude that it's sad but inevitable. Poetry can be enjoyed, but I think it necessitates more work on the part of the individual to enjoy. I mean, I've always been the type that appreciates an intellectual challenge, and reading Shakespeare, Donne, Chaucer, and Milton (especially as an "introduction" to poetry) was by no means EASY, yet I'm also a believer in the adage that "you get out what you put in", and that which requires no effort eventually fades, but that which you work hard for has a lasting significance. I think this has worked in practice as well, as all of the art that has moved me and affected me the most are those that I've had to work the hardest in order to understand, and I think the deep and immense pleasures followed from that understanding.

[poetindisguise]

But that's just it isn't it? the excuse "it's to hard to understand" speaks volumes about the youth of today. If it's not written in plain blunt language, people refuse to make the effort to understand this. It's weird or odd and how stupid it would be to try to understand this when i can just ignore it. Right? I also agree that it just isn't taught the same way. Hearing peers make comments such as "poetry is the death of my soul" and groan and whine when we have to read a poem or write one for class goes to show that real poetry has not been properly introduced and taught in our schools. These kids have had no positive experience with the art of poetry because typically people would never write when not required. Creativity is a dying trait in todays generation which is horribly sad.

P.s. Didn't have time to read responces. Will read tonight.

[blazeofglory]

Why not poetry?

Of course we will have to revisit poetry. Let us reinvent a linguistic craft. Now we are writing poorly.

There is no fault with poetry. Poetry is eternal and the fault line is lurking in our capacity to understand the beauty of it.

If we can redecorate it beauty poetry is likely to die out.

A day will come poetry will be a thing of the past the way the erstwhile soviet union.

Who cares?

From amongst us a new person must stand out and reinvent poetry.

[poetindisguise]

i don't see why poetry must be reinvented. Why conform to societys demands of simplicating poetry so people can be lazy and not appreciate what poetry truely is? Why do that? Its ridiculous.

[blazeofglory]

i don't see why poetry must be reinvented. Why conform to societys demands of simplicating poetry so people can be lazy and not appreciate what poetry truely is? Why do that? Its ridiculous.

You are narrowing down the realm of poetry and this is injustice to poetry.

you have wrongly used the word "simplicating". Use the word "simplifying". Poetry can be written for self gratification at times, but in general you write for others to read.

Then poetry cannot be incarcerated by loners like you. It must be targeted for the mass, not just for the class only.

Poetry is reclassified or reinvented at different intervals.

[Paulclem]

I think you make some great points Morpheus - especially about the emotional impact, the gut feeling and the little events that are poignant but too small to be covered by a prose narrative.

I also think your story shows that some people often find poetry despite their conditions. Often it's just pot luck. I remember one particular teacher who asked us to write a poem, (this was the 60's), and it was a bit of a revelation for a nine or ten year old that you too could write your own poetry. It's not like that in school today of course, but it was then. It was even worse for the generations before me who had to memorise poems they perhaps didn't like or get the cane. (A fine teaching method if ever |I saw one). If I had been in a different class, or off school that day, I would never have written one at that point. (Yes we did this activity once! and I can't remember being asked to write a poem again after that!!)

[Paulclem]

But that's just it isn't it? the excuse "it's to hard to understand" speaks volumes about the youth of today. If it's not written in plain blunt language, people refuse to make the effort to understand this. It's weird or odd and how stupid it would be to try to understand this when i can just ignore it. Right? I also agree that it just isn't taught the same way. Hearing peers make comments such as "poetry is the death of my soul" and groan and whine when we have to read a poem or write one for class goes to show that real poetry has not been properly introduced and taught in our schools. These kids have had no positive experience with the art of poetry because typically people would never write when not required. Creativity is a dying trait in todays generation which is horribly sad.

P.s. Didn't have time to read responces. Will read tonight.

I'm not sure that it is altogether fair to label the youth of today. (I was - many years ago - a youth and at that time I remember a lot of labelling going on in the 70s). For one - how do you know? For two, doesn't it depend upon individual conditions, teachers etc. For three, as Morpheus has pointed out, some will come to it when they are no longer youths and distracted by youthy things.

[JCamilo]

Where do your facts come from?

Poetry did, or songs did? Where is your distinction - many people have many songs in their memories - I could probably sing along with a thousand if not more. Those same mnemonics are still there.

Poetry does, we cann't equate every oral experience with music. But the truth, is that is only true if we are talking about an oral society. Dante didn't wrote in rhymes so people could remember and recite him. And the mnemonic aspects of Poetry (the truth is the mnemonic aspects of Homer are open to improvisation, rather than 100% perfect recitation) is found in the Quran or many Bible passages. Heck, Law is organized with mnemonic devices (listing) which Homer used.

Anyways, it is rather obvious, the lack of status is because prose writers also got quite good. From the XIX they worked hard after the application of poetic principles in prose. That is pretty much what guys like Tchekhov, Poe or Flaubert demmanded. The development of the first person narrator helped to created the subjectivism that poetry could achive. It is not just that the commun idiot could write, or be the theme, etc. It is that the great guys did it too.

But rambling about XX century authors... heck, Spanish language have their best poets since the Gold Century. Portuguese Since Camoes. And nobody can complain about the addition of a new perspective for english poetry coming from america.