Is there a 'greatest' poet?

[Lost&Found]

It occured to me that many people have a favourite poet. But a lot of people refer to there being 'great' poets. How is this? Surely, this is impossible as, to my mind, poets are incomparable.
I would say my favourite poet is Simon Armitage. But how can I possibly compare him to, for example, Shakespeare? It just isn't possible is it? Their styles are totally different, the tone, rhythm, metering, vocabulary are such poles apart I can't see how one could be labelled greater than the other. I believe this is also true of poets who are from the same era. Poetry is too much of a personal thing to be able to compare poems and poets in a competition for the greatest.

I would love to hear people opinions on this so please discuss!!

[JCamilo]

If you said they are different, they you compared them, right? :D

It is very hard to discern a critery for a ranking, but yes, very few poets have all that makes Shakespeare famous. His influence shows his works are very relevant. But he didn't wrote for all of us, so it is very natural and reasonable to understand there is something like our preference and sometimes it is not based on historical background. So, my advice, the competition is not for the best poet, but for a great poetry. And in this compettion, the guys from different ages, countries, etc, are helping each other and everyone is a winner.

[Lost&Found]

Yes, I have compared them by saying they are different. And I think they can be compared in a Academic sense of comparison by analysing how they are structured and the like. But I don't think that this comparison can give an answer as to whether one poet is 'greater' or 'better' than the other.
If they are writing the poems from their hearts and emotions and experiences, then each poem and poet must be taken in its own context. You can't put a ranking on someone's personal emotions in my opinion.
I think I get your point about them helping each other along for create great poetry. And I guess I agree to a certain extent that some poems are greater than others. But the poets themselves are (or should be) on an equal field as far as I can see.

[MorpheusSandman]

"Greatest" implies objective criteria, and there is none for art. There are, at best, relative criteria, many of which are agreed upon by most readers, critics, artists, etc. but these criteria are nebulous and eternally mutable. About the best we can do is ask questions about influence and what lasts. Time is a relatively objective standard for greatness.

[Lost&Found]

I really like your take on this. I agree with the idea of relative criteria and the transitory nature of them.
I think I disagree with the idea of time being a standard of greatness. If a certain poet doesn't stand the test of time, does this make him a bad poet? Is he not 'great' in his own context for simply being one of the poetical fraternity? Just a thought!

[JCamilo]

If your critery is for how long they are remembered, then your critery is simple, the oldest are the greatest. But like I said, it is not competition. Sometimes, Homer is nobody for a poet, sometimes he is everything. Sometimes a poet influence vanishes for while and return... It is just not mathematically possible to do a ranking when they guys are so very close. Shakespeare being great does not make Dante small. And of course, when Dante "grows" Virgil grows with him.

[stlukesguild]

Shakespeare... or Dante...? OK. Let's flip a coin... Shakespeare. Done. Let's move on. :yesnod:

[Sea]

Shakespeare... or Dante...? OK. Let's flip a coin... Shakespeare. Done. Let's move on. :yesnod:

lol. I would have said Homer but your take is pretty much the same as mine.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think I disagree with the idea of time being a standard of greatness. If a certain poet doesn't stand the test of time, does this make him a bad poet? This is a bit like the old "if a tree falls in the forest" question. Can a poet be great if nobody knows about them? If so, then by what standard are they great on?

[Drkshadow03]

Time is a good standard as a general assessment, but not really useful for comparing the quality of two poets.

[Lost&Found]

I entirely agree with that!!

[cacian]

I do not know I think there is a great poet in all of us only some of us let out and some don't.

[osho]

The whole idea of greatness is at issue and who is to rightly judge and who is to adhere to the judgement. Judgement cannot possibly objective and your ideas, preconditions, the things you have heard or read about the persons come as a confluence to color up it. This is subjective and if anybody tries to be conclusive it is born out of his or preconditioned mindset.

[Lost&Found]

This is a very good point, and well made. It is true that there is no consensus as to who may or may not judge and who will conform to such judgement.
I think what you are saying, is it is down to each individual as to whether they deem a poet to be great or otherwise. So can there ever be a list of 'greatest' poets, for example printed in a newspaper, or will it always be an individuals opinion?

[stlukesguild]

All opinions concerning art are subjective... but some opinions are better than others.

I think there is a great poet in all of us only some of us let out and some don't.

I rest my case.

[Ecurb]

I vote for the anonymous bard who wrote the immortal lines, "Finders keepers, losers weepers ."

[Nick Capozzoli]

Shakespeare... or Dante...? OK. Let's flip a coin... Shakespeare. Done. Let's move on. :yesnod:

The "greatest" poet?...perhaps a meaningless and unanswerable question. Assessing a poet as "great" might be more doable. The fact that poets use different languages makes comparison more difficult than it would be if all spoke the same language. And there are many forms of poetry, ranging from very short lyrics to vast epics. Most folks would agree that Shakespeare is a great poet. If you want to call him the "greatest," I won't argue with you.

[Vladimir777]

Perhaps a dumb question...if Shakespeare had only written the sonnets and his other "poems," and had not written any of his great plays, would he still be considered to be one of the top 5 poets of all time? I'm just curious what people think.

[JCamilo]

Then he would not be Shakespeare and probally much less famous or admired.

[Adolescent09]

By the OP asking this question, he/she is just begging for trolls to duke it out over the internet.

[cafolini]

We might need an electoral college to decide this. LOL. A majority of mongers not allowed.

[cacian]

I would say there no greater poet just greater words.

[Jassy Melson]

There are abot twenty "greatest poets."

[Adolescent09]

Since non-scientific literature is subjective and can never be objective (that is reserved only for statistical statements), we can never state the 'greatest' poet(s), but only our 'favorite' poet(s).

Ex. of subjective opinion: 'William Shakespeare is totally the coolest thing to ever happen to literature, dude' - (paraphrased from the vast majority of high school students reading the SparkNotes for 'Julius Caesar')

Ex. of statistically based fact: I am the only son my mother has had for 20 years and counting. (This can only be negated if my mother has been knocked up by someone without my knowledge, which I beg the SWEET LORD hasn't happened.)


I would say there no greater poet just greater words.

I see this thread has been blessed with Cacian's stroke of genius.

[stlukesguild]

Perhaps a dumb question...if Shakespeare had only written the sonnets and his other "poems," and had not written any of his great plays, would he still be considered to be one of the top 5 poets of all time? I'm just curious what people think.

What would people think if Dante hadn't written the Comedia, Milton hadn't composed Paradise Lost, Chaucer hadn't penned the Canterbury Tales... ?

[mortalterror]

Perhaps a dumb question...if Shakespeare had only written the sonnets and his other "poems," and had not written any of his great plays, would he still be considered to be one of the top 5 poets of all time? I'm just curious what people think.

What would people think if Dante hadn't written the Comedia, Milton hadn't composed Paradise Lost, Chaucer hadn't penned the Canterbury Tales... ?

They'd still have Dante's New Life to judge him by, which is about as good as Shakespeare's sonnets and poems. Milton would look better than either of them since he'd still have Comus, Samson Agonistes, Paradise Regained, Lycidas, and other poems. If you take away Shakespeare's plays you take away 95% of his work but if you take away Milton's Paradise Lost you're only taking like 25% of his output. Troilus and Criseyde is enough to put Chaucer in the conversation, then he's still got the Book of the Duchess and the House of Fame. You take away their key achievements and none of them are the greatest poet anymore, but they are still great poets.

As for the original question, "Is there a greatest poet?" That's sort of like asking if there is a greatest football player. Which position? And if you compare two quarterbacks do you give the prize to the one with more touchdowns, more championship rings, more completed passes, or more overall yardage? There are anywhere from six to a dozen different guys who've in my estimation maxed out the human potential for writing poetry but their strengths aren't all in the same areas. Shakespeare, Dante, Homer, Firdawsi, Valmiki, Vyasa, Milton, Virgil, Tasso, Aeschylus, Ovid, Rumi are probably as good as you are going to get. None of them are running too far ahead of the rest in the pack.

[Adolescent09]

Geoffrey Chaucer is the father of forced rhymes, IMO. Reading The Canterbury Tales was similar to hearing a broken record with a continued monotony of ever so slightly varied static noises.

(Brilliant satire :D)

[JCamilo]

They'd still have Dante's New Life to judge him by, which is about as good as Shakespeare's sonnets and poems. Milton would look better than either of them since he'd still have Comus, Samson Agonistes, Paradise Regained, Lycidas, and other poems. If you take away Shakespeare's plays you take away 95% of his work but if you take away Milton's Paradise Lost you're only taking like 25% of his output. Troilus and Criseyde is enough to put Chaucer in the conversation, then he's still got the Book of the Duchess and the House of Fame. You take away their key achievements and none of them are the greatest poet anymore, but they are still great poets.

Specially considering what makes Shakespeare impressive is not that he reached a peak that no other writer ever reached, but the number of times he did it. Even if we remove all and leave only Hamlet, much of his impact would be diminished, just like his sonnets are just one of the best but not only one collection of lyrical poetry in english or another language. Shakespeare needs his many plays to be Shakespeare.

[tonywalt]

Is there any room for modern poetry?-though, I know we have an affinity for the past on Litnet

[cafolini]

There are abot twenty "greatest poets."

ROFLMAO!

I wonder who was the 21st.

[Adolescent09]

Is there any room for modern poetry?-though, I know we have an affinity for the past on Litnet

I personally do not like the writings of most poets that have cropped up in the 21st century. Famous, so-called 'good' writers these days lack austerity. I believe many 21st century poets would be the subject of parody for pre-21st century poets.

This, of course, does not mean that I do not find the occasional 'diamond in the trough'.

[mortalterror]

Specially considering what makes Shakespeare impressive is not that he reached a peak that no other writer ever reached, but the number of times he did it. Even if we remove all and leave only Hamlet, much of his impact would be diminished, just like his sonnets are just one of the best but not only one collection of lyrical poetry in english or another language. Shakespeare needs his many plays to be Shakespeare.

Good call, JCamilo. Returning to my football analogy, Shakespeare would have the most championship rings. There are guys just as good who only got to the show once or twice, but when they did it was memorable.

[osho]

Why mostly we are English centric? Are not there great poets in France, Germany, India, China and in other nations? It is Americanism and sheer Americanism eclipses the rest of poets from other languages and cultures? Who can ignore if there are really sensible or well read critics here of world literature to de-list ancient Chinese poets, Tao, Sufi poets like Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat? Today Americanism or the American civilization has been a dominant force and we should not discount the great civilizations of India and China and the great literatures advanced in them at some epoch in history. Today our knowledge is narrowed down by our obsession with American Culture and British Culture a couple of centuries ago and of course we must break through our peripheral approaches and savor the great literature that can come from anywhere in the world and Take for instance most of Russian literature has been translated and we have that is why the greatest story writer as Chekhov and most choose Dostoevsky and Tolstoy from those American and British novelists. I do not mean to underestimate them. They are great but the Russians were better. So are the French writers; they are iconoclastic, avant-garde.

[Adolescent09]

Why mostly we are English centric? Are not there great poets in France, Germany, India, China and in other nations? It is Americanism and sheer Americanism eclipses the rest of poets from other languages and cultures? Who can ignore if there are really sensible or well read critics here of world literature to de-list ancient Chinese poets, Tao, Sufi poets like Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat? Today Americanism or the American civilization has been a dominant force and we should not discount the great civilizations of India and China and the great literatures advanced in them at some epoch in history. Today our knowledge is narrowed down by our obsession with American Culture and British Culture a couple of centuries ago and of course we must break through our peripheral approaches and savor the great literature that can come from anywhere in the world and Take for instance most of Russian literature has been translated and we have that is why the greatest story writer as Chekhov and most choose Dostoevsky and Tolstoy from those American and British novelists. I do not mean to underestimate them. They are great but the Russians were better. So are the French writers; they are iconoclastic, avant-garde.

Good point but... How often do other countries acknowledge American writers? Most of my creative poetry writing classes in an American University were taught by teachers who were heavily inspired by foreign literature. I myself, have mostly read foreign classics, although I do admit I have not read much foreign poetry.

[mortalterror]

Why mostly we are English centric? Are not there great poets in France, Germany, India, China and in other nations? It is Americanism and sheer Americanism eclipses the rest of poets from other languages and cultures? Who can ignore if there are really sensible or well read critics here of world literature to de-list ancient Chinese poets, Tao, Sufi poets like Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat? Today Americanism or the American civilization has been a dominant force and we should not discount the great civilizations of India and China and the great literatures advanced in them at some epoch in history. Today our knowledge is narrowed down by our obsession with American Culture and British Culture a couple of centuries ago and of course we must break through our peripheral approaches and savor the great literature that can come from anywhere in the world and Take for instance most of Russian literature has been translated and we have that is why the greatest story writer as Chekhov and most choose Dostoevsky and Tolstoy from those American and British novelists. I do not mean to underestimate them. They are great but the Russians were better. So are the French writers; they are iconoclastic, avant-garde.

Nobody in all of this thread has nominated an American for the greatest poet position. You are picking a fight with yourself. For my part, I nominated two Englishmen, two Italians, two Greeks, two Indians, two Persians, and two Romans. You name Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov but they are all prose writers. You would have done better had you named the great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, though if you sought to place him above Homer and Dante I'm afraid you would have few takers. And just which French poets would you say eclipse the talents of Tasso and Shakespeare? Victor Hugo and Charles Baudelaire are quite good but I don't know if they are that good. You name Omar Khayyam, but he is a minor poet even in his own tradition. Saadi, Nizami, or Hafiz would all be better candidates for the greatest Persian poet. Meanwhile, you didn't even name a Chinese poet such as Du Fu, Bai Juyi, Li Bai, or Wang Wei, which leads me to believe you are not as well rounded in world literature as you would have the rest of us be.

[cafolini]

Why mostly we are English centric? Are not there great poets in France, Germany, India, China and in other nations? It is Americanism and sheer Americanism eclipses the rest of poets from other languages and cultures? Who can ignore if there are really sensible or well read critics here of world literature to de-list ancient Chinese poets, Tao, Sufi poets like Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat? Today Americanism or the American civilization has been a dominant force and we should not discount the great civilizations of India and China and the great literatures advanced in them at some epoch in history. Today our knowledge is narrowed down by our obsession with American Culture and British Culture a couple of centuries ago and of course we must break through our peripheral approaches and savor the great literature that can come from anywhere in the world and Take for instance most of Russian literature has been translated and we have that is why the greatest story writer as Chekhov and most choose Dostoevsky and Tolstoy from those American and British novelists. I do not mean to underestimate them. They are great but the Russians were better. So are the French writers; they are iconoclastic, avant-garde.

We move more foreign literature in America than anywhere else in the world. Many many writers became famous in America, translated to English first, known by a few in their native language. So few that it would not pay to print their works. You are ignorant.

[Adolescent09]

By the OP asking this question, he/she is just begging for trolls to duke it out over the internet.

I hate to be the one to say 'I knew this would happen'.

[Vladimir777]

Perhaps a dumb question...if Shakespeare had only written the sonnets and his other "poems," and had not written any of his great plays, would he still be considered to be one of the top 5 poets of all time? I'm just curious what people think.

What would people think if Dante hadn't written the Comedia, Milton hadn't composed Paradise Lost, Chaucer hadn't penned the Canterbury Tales... ?

Well, I ask because I know that Shakespeare's sonnets are considered to be some of the finest lyric poems in the language, if not the world. I'm just curious how get they are considered compared to other poets' outputs if we ignore Shakespeare as a dramatist/playwright.

[JBI]

We move more foreign literature in America than anywhere else in the world. Many many writers became famous in America, translated to English first, known by a few in their native language. So few that it would not pay to print their works. You are ignorant.

Germany is pretty good as an international consumer. But yes, the US is the powerhouse of foreign works.

[cafolini]

Germany is pretty good as an international consumer. But yes, the US is the powerhouse of foreign works.

I knew we would most likely agree on that one because of statements you made about how few actual readers you can count in foreign countries, which I know to be true. In fact, in South America, for example, there are many ironic remarks from academics about the worth of publishing among the best. Of course they do publish being very careful about the risks and often using moneys that come from philanthropy and the bits that the fascist element destines for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo.

[JBI]

I knew we would most likely agree on that one because of statements you made about how few actual readers you can count in foreign countries, which I know to be true. In fact, in South America, for example, there are many ironic remarks from academics about the worth of publishing among the best. Of course they do publish being very careful about the risks and often using moneys that come from philanthropy and the bits that the fascist element destines for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo.

Still, the only place where classical education is completely political is China where classical Chinese literature has been transposed with "our great cultural legacy." The actual traditions post Renaissance in the world are often just apolitical, or ignored by anybody but academics as to render them completely useless politically.

South America in that sense has freer writers and authors than China does - take for instance the movie Skyfall that just came out. They censored the part in China where he goes to Macao because it features a shot of a Macao prostitute. If they were to publish Marco Polo here, despite his inaccuracy at times, they would censor the exact same thing, where he describes how men here are so free and prostitutes are everywhere and in the open, all for the taking. They also censored a bit where he goes to Shanghai because he kills a Chinese security guard.

Now, most countries are not this petty and weak. The US is actually rare in its approach to translating and studying all cultures. Edward Said damaged academia for about 40 years with his nonsense of how we do it for colonial purposes. The truth of the matter is most academics working in area studies are doing what they do because they love their subject matter, not for money nor for colonial purposes. The US is rare in that it has basically internationalized Japanese literature, and at least tried with several other bodies of literature. There probably is no other country short of maybe the Germanic countries of Europe that has tried or done anything of the sort.

Now, as for the other bigger markets, India, China, and even Japan, they can all be described as xenophobic at best. American literature only exists there in popular literature, not serious literature. Chinese people probably have a shallow understanding of 5 books in their entire life, and their educational careers are the product of memorizing preset answer keys to standardized multiple choice tests. The highest level test for foreigners in China (Chinese level test) ironically was passed with ease by me after barely 2 years of study. I got lucky, I am educated properly. students here after 4 years have difficulty passing the thing, and they have specific courses in universities here designed to get people through their standardized test.

The English test requirement to become either a graduate student or an English school teacher is akin to my grade 6 government test to see students development. That after 4 years of specifically studying to pass a test they cannot even make a sentence is not the point - the government does not even want them to be able to.

Lets just say the old world in general is quite xenophobic. England seems to be a bit better than the continent, but not completely. International cultures are basically restricted to the United States, because that is the only country big enough to study them, with the resources to pull it off. Certain specific literatures may be studied elsewhere, and produced in translation elsewhere, but ultimately nothing compares to the Americans, in both quality and quantity.

[cafolini]

Thanks for the reply. It has a lot of good general info to enhance this thread.

[mortalterror]

Still, the only place where classical education is completely political is China where classical Chinese literature has been transposed with "our great cultural legacy." The actual traditions post Renaissance in the world are often just apolitical, or ignored by anybody but academics as to render them completely useless politically.

South America in that sense has freer writers and authors than China does - take for instance the movie Skyfall that just came out. They censored the part in China where he goes to Macao because it features a shot of a Macao prostitute. If they were to publish Marco Polo here, despite his inaccuracy at times, they would censor the exact same thing, where he describes how men here are so free and prostitutes are everywhere and in the open, all for the taking. They also censored a bit where he goes to Shanghai because he kills a Chinese security guard.

Now, most countries are not this petty and weak. The US is actually rare in its approach to translating and studying all cultures. Edward Said damaged academia for about 40 years with his nonsense of how we do it for colonial purposes. The truth of the matter is most academics working in area studies are doing what they do because they love their subject matter, not for money nor for colonial purposes. The US is rare in that it has basically internationalized Japanese literature, and at least tried with several other bodies of literature. There probably is no other country short of maybe the Germanic countries of Europe that has tried or done anything of the sort.

Now, as for the other bigger markets, India, China, and even Japan, they can all be described as xenophobic at best. American literature only exists there in popular literature, not serious literature. Chinese people probably have a shallow understanding of 5 books in their entire life, and their educational careers are the product of memorizing preset answer keys to standardized multiple choice tests. The highest level test for foreigners in China (Chinese level test) ironically was passed with ease by me after barely 2 years of study. I got lucky, I am educated properly. students here after 4 years have difficulty passing the thing, and they have specific courses in universities here designed to get people through their standardized test.

The English test requirement to become either a graduate student or an English school teacher is akin to my grade 6 government test to see students development. That after 4 years of specifically studying to pass a test they cannot even make a sentence is not the point - the government does not even want them to be able to.

Lets just say the old world in general is quite xenophobic. England seems to be a bit better than the continent, but not completely. International cultures are basically restricted to the United States, because that is the only country big enough to study them, with the resources to pull it off. Certain specific literatures may be studied elsewhere, and produced in translation elsewhere, but ultimately nothing compares to the Americans, in both quality and quantity.

Who are you and what have you done with JBI?

[Adolescent09]

American literature only exists there in popular literature, not serious literature.

I'm assuming you are alluding to the place, "there" as continental Asia since you crudely lump the geographically close, yet culturally clashing countries of India, China, and Japan together. Think I'm going to contest the honesty of your statement? Think again. I agree with it 100%. I merely want to add to it: Many, if not most 'popular' and 'serious' Chinese literature exists in America (I put those two words in quotes since the distinction between them is ambiguous. Obvious ex.: Shakespeare. His writing is both wildly popular even in these days of rampant illiterateness and is analyzed seriously). Very little Chinese literature is actually read by Americans (excluding anime and light fiction), let alone assigned to students in American K-12 schools. I have taken nearly a dozen University literature courses and I highly doubt I read more than two required 'Asian' works (The Epic of Gilgamesh and Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War').

[mortalterror]

I'm assuming you are alluding to the place, "there" as continental Asia since you crudely lump the geographically close, yet culturally clashing countries of India, China, and Japan together. Think I'm going to contest the honesty of your statement? Think again. I agree with it 100%. I merely want to add to it: Many, if not most 'popular' and 'serious' Chinese literature exists in America (I put those two words in quotes since the distinction between them is ambiguous. Obvious ex.: Shakespeare. His writing is both wildly popular even in these days of rampant illiterateness and is analyzed seriously). Very little Chinese literature is actually read by Americans (excluding anime and light fiction), let alone assigned to students in American K-12 schools. I have taken nearly a dozen University literature courses and I highly doubt I read more than two required 'Asian' works (The Epic of Gilgamesh and Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War').

Yeah, I noticed the same thing when I got my English degree. Apparently, my teachers only wanted to teach literature from the English language, and if I wanted to read books from Russia I was forced to take a Russian class. How rude!

[Adolescent09]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing when I got my English degree. Apparently, my teachers only wanted to teach literature from the English language, and if I wanted to read books from Russia I was forced to take a Russian class. How rude!

The impertinence of these teachers transcends the obstinacy with which poison-drenched cockroaches refuse to rendezvous with death.

[Jassy Melson]

I majored in English Literature in college at a small university, and many of the Russian writers were introduced into the courses I took. So maybe it all depends on what college you attend.

[MorpheusSandman]

Is there any room for modern poetry?-though, I know we have an affinity for the past on LitnetModern as in post-Pound/Eliot modern or modern as in contemporary? As for the latter, one of the reasons you rarely see contemporary poets on such a list is that they haven't passed the test of time, which is so important in establishing ideas of "greatest" or even "among the greatest". As for the former, yes, I think there are a handful of modern poets that we could consider, including Eliot, Auden, Stevens, Ashbery, Merrill, and maybe a few others. I recently finished reading the entirety of Merrill's output and he certainly strikes me as being right up there with the best.

[roshika]

It is very hard to discern a critery for a ranking, but yes, very few poets have all that makes Shakespeare famous. His influence shows his works are very relevant. But he didn't wrote for all of us, so it is very natural and reasonable to understand there is something like our preference and sometimes it is not based on historical background. So, my advice, the competition is not for the best poet, but for a great poetry. And in this compettion, the guys from different ages, countries, etc, are helping each other and everyone is a winner.

[tonywalt]

Modern as in post-Pound/Eliot modern or modern as in contemporary? As for the latter, one of the reasons you rarely see contemporary poets on such a list is that they haven't passed the test of time, which is so important in establishing ideas of "greatest" or even "among the greatest". As for the former, yes, I think there are a handful of modern poets that we could consider, including Eliot, Auden, Stevens, Ashbery, Merrill, and maybe a few others. I recently finished reading the entirety of Merrill's output and he certainly strikes me as being right up there with the best.

I too like those named modern poets, but the reason I don't get too involved with the poetry section (as much as I would like) is the presence of a heavy lean towards metering and yearning for Keats and Yeats (both great to be sure). I especially like Auden, but I find that not only do forum members not only think that the contemporaries have not passed the test of time - they tend to not like them. Period. I like Bukowski, Levine, Philip Larkin, Plath, Billy Collins, and for language perfection Derek Walcott - of the contemporaries and all in my opinion have passed the test of time. There is a certain 'school' on the forum who like to get into metering and all different kinds of stuff that intrigues me.

I read mostly all contemporary poets, few are ever touched on here - except the occassional flogging of Bukowski and Collins (and free verse types)

[MorpheusSandman]

I find that not only do forum members not only think that the contemporaries have not passed the test of time - they tend to not like them. Period.My experience is more that they haven't even read them as opposed to they don't like them. I've mentioned Ashbery countless times and I don't think anyone has ever taken up discussing him. Charles Darnay started a thread on Merrill a while back (here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?73033-Any-love-for-James-Merrill)) to which I replied, but it died quickly since nobody else replied. It seems that the only people who've read modern poetry are other poets, poetry critics/academics, or the more extreme bibliophiles. It has no public audience, and is even little read amongst those that write poetry. I think Yeats and Keats get read so much because they're safe picks, firmly established in the canon, and they are (in general) easier to enjoy, digest, and appreciate. The uber-intellectualism and sophistication of modern poetry (the Pound/Eliot revolution, I mean) I think has permanently turned many, many people off to poetry whom now look at it as a cryptic, esoteric, jigsaw puzzle that only exists to give them a headache as opposed to pleasure. There are obvious exceptions to this, but, in general, the modern canon hasn't done much to dispel the stereotype (much as I love Merrill, Stevens, and Ashbery, there's no doubting they're difficult). I'm not a big fan of Bukowski or Collins, but I do quite like Larkin and Plath. I don't think I've read much Levine. While I'm one of those that likes to get into "metering," I'm also certainly willing to discuss non-metrical poetry.

[tonywalt]

My experience is more that they haven't even read them as opposed to they don't like them. I've mentioned Ashbery countless times and I don't think anyone has ever taken up discussing him. Charles Darnay started a thread on Merrill a while back (here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?73033-Any-love-for-James-Merrill)) to which I replied, but it died quickly since nobody else replied. It seems that the only people who've read modern poetry are other poets, poetry critics/academics, or the more extreme bibliophiles. It has no public audience, and is even little read amongst those that write poetry. I think Yeats and Keats get read so much because they're safe picks, firmly established in the canon, and they are (in general) easier to enjoy, digest, and appreciate. The uber-intellectualism and sophistication of modern poetry (the Pound/Eliot revolution, I mean) I think has permanently turned many, many people off to poetry whom now look at it as a cryptic, esoteric, jigsaw puzzle that only exists to give them a headache as opposed to pleasure. There are obvious exceptions to this, but, in general, the modern canon hasn't done much to dispel the stereotype (much as I love Merrill, Stevens, and Ashbery, there's no doubting they're difficult). I'm not a big fan of Bukowski or Collins, but I do quite like Larkin and Plath. I don't think I've read much Levine. While I'm one of those that likes to get into "metering," I'm also certainly willing to discuss non-metrical poetry.

Exactly, you are a bit open minded to contemporary, but the ones you like are much more traditionalist. Ted Hughes on the other hand, because of his complexity and traditional style is popular on this forum- with his hawks and foxes. He is good though, and loved by all poets.

The problem with having poetry that needs to be "savoured" and "read over and over to really understand"(paraphrasing stuff I see on this thread) and on and on, is that type of poetry is only read by other Poets(albeit amateur poets) and it's not accessible to non poets.

Also, prose poetry is fairly unpopular style on here, even though it's the way alot of poetry is going as time marches on. I for one loathe heavily metaphored, headache producing poetry('hm, well it could mean this or mean that) - so let others savour it. The poetry I have published is mostly prose style with some formal structure - although i will borrrow some accessible metaphors that hughes or plath may have used. I would like to see poetry accessible and popular to all readers.

[Darcy88]

John Donne.

[tonywalt]

Derek Walcott and Auden - Larkin too.

[MorpheusSandman]

The problem with having poetry that needs to be "savoured" and "read over and over to really understand"(paraphrasing stuff I see on this thread) and on and on, is that type of poetry is only read by other Poets(albeit amateur poets) and it's not accessible to non poets... I for one loathe heavily metaphored, headache producing poetry('hm, well it could mean this or mean that) - so let others savour it...I would like to see poetry accessible and popular to all readers.I get what you're saying; I've been in many discussions (on this board and elsewhere) about the need/lack of need for poetry (and all arts) that is accessible to mass audiences. I've often reiterated in those conversations that I'm of two minds about the propositions; on the one hand, I think all art gains vitality when there is a push-pull between what is popular and what is elitist. Right now, there is that dynamic in film, with plenty of films made for popular audiences and plenty of films made for cinephiles, critics, and other filmmakers. I love and hate works on both sides of that divide. Right now in poetry, almost everything published is written for critics/academics and other poets with little mind to the masses. But, as one critic once said, the masses left poetry because poetry left the masses. One reason the romantics probably remain so popular is because they were really the last poets openly writing for popular audiences. Whatever poets of the 20th century that would've been accessible to the public probably lost their opportunity to access them through no fault of their own.

On the other hand, I must admit that I probably love a lot of the type of poetry you hate; the stuff that needs to be savored, read repeatedly, that's heavily metaphorical and extremely open to interpretation. Lately I've been obsessed with Merrill's Lost in Translation (http://jeremygregg.com/quotes/lost-in-translation-by-james-merrill-poem/) which is definitely one that requires multiple readings and is open to interpretation (http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/merrill/lost.htm) (that link offers a whole page full of interpretations; I especially love Yenser's, whose whole book on Merrill is superb), but which I find to be one of the 5 or 10 greatest poems I've read in the century. What I love about these poems is that metamorphosis that can take place between a reader's first and last experience. On first experience, I may be extremely moved or provoked by certain passages, without understanding the full extent of their meaning, but then in later readings those passages (or others) will be illuminated in completely different ways by having digested more of its context and subtleties. As much as I love simple lyrics like, eg, the poems of Burns, or many of Larkin's, they tend to remain the same no matter how many times I read them. Perhaps the pleasure never wears off entirely, but it's only with those difficult poems that the experience itself can remain fresh because it keeps changing with multiple readings.

[MorpheusSandman]

It occurs to me I never gave a proper answer to this thread. My vote would be for Milton, and I'll copy/paste what I wrote elsewhere:

1. John Milton - He wrote the greatest elegy in the language (Lycidas), the greatest pastoral (Lycidas again), one of the great odes (Morning of Christ's Nativity), a handful of the best sonnets (On His Blindness, Methought I Saw...), one of the greatest closet dramas (Samson Agonistes), one of the greatest short narratives (Paradise Regained), and the greatest epic (Paradise Lost). In doing so, he practically invented his own language that nobody that came after was able to imitate without coming off as "Miltonic". No other poet in English can claim to have covered as much range with an equal amount of success.