William Eastlake on poets

[OscarWildebeest]

"...Poets are very lazy people who are usually found in academia. They write these little careless things between their alcoholic binges. A poet is simply a failed writer. They all, however, have a personality, which is improved by their drinking. Their poetry is so ambiguous and so vague that no one can say it’s bad because no one can say what they’re writing about. Poetry has to be one of two things; either it must be a statement of an emotion in very simple language, or it has to have the richness of our language. Our poets have neither. They’ve got a screwed-up head and they have no command of the English language. What I really resent is that they don’t have to work to produce this stuff while a prose writer must write a whole novel. A prose writer does more work in one day than a poet does in a lifetime. People say that the modern poets are fakes. They’re not fakes; they really are that stupid...."

My personal opinion? Well, with some of it I agree, with some of it I do not. However, I do say that poetry is the first refuge of a talentless writer.

[OscarWildebeest]

The complete interview with William Eastlake can be read here: http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/a-conversation-with-william-eastlake-by-john-obrien/

[MorpheusSandman]

Such massive generalizations are rarely of much value. Absolutely that paragraph describes a great many poets, as absolutely as it doesn't describe a great many poets. One could say the same thing about novelists or filmmakers or painters and it would apply equally. Most of it is falsified if we consider the best modern and post-modern poets. One only has to look at the notebooks of Auden, Yeats, Eliot, Merrill, Stevens, et al. to recognize the immensity of their learning, their craftsmanship, their work ethic. These were not lazy people or failed novelists or drunks or obscurantists or writers with no command of the English language. I don't know why poetry would be "the first refuge of a talentless writer" rather than any other form of writing. Most people today prefer prose narratives to lyrics or epic or drama, and while poetry may allow a lazy, bad writer to just dash off a couple of prose-thoughts/feelings and break them up into lines, I think most are more interested in telling stories (no matter how bad) than just dashing off such thoughts/feelings.

[OscarWildebeest]

Morpheus, excellent, and very valid, your reply. I suppose that though everyone can talk, very few would be prepared to speak in public, in front of strangers. Regarding writing, all of us can write, and about everyone and his brother/sister will write publicly, although most are not on a "public" level. Novels are a big ask, short stories are a big ask, articles are a big ask. Too easily one will be ridiculed when you produce something of a lesser quality. What is left? Poetry!

[OrphanPip]

Morpheus, excellent, and very valid, your reply. I suppose that though everyone can talk, very few would be prepared to speak in public, in front of strangers. Regarding writing, all of us can write, and about everyone and his brother/sister will write publicly, although most are not on a "public" level. Novels are a big ask, short stories are a big ask, articles are a big ask. Too easily one will be ridiculed when you produce something of a lesser quality. What is left? Poetry!

What we see of literary production seems to beg to differ though. Far more prose is published than poetry, no one makes their living as a poet, only a handful of people in the history of English literature have made a living as a poet. Becoming a published poet of repute requires decades of dedication with little to no monetary reward. It is a lot easier to be published as a novelist than it is to be published as a poet. Mediocre novelists abound in the popular presses, where the likes of Stephanie Meyer are not far off from being the norm. While terrible amateur poetry can be found all over the internet, you can also find book length fanfiction written in semi-literate prose, some of which has even been published (50 Shades of Gray). You are far more likely to meet with rejection as a poet than as a novelist.

[desiresjab]

Yeats's unpublished notebooks came to 50,000 pages at his death. How lazy is that?

Better go down
On bended knees
And scrub a kitchen pavement,
Or break stones
In all kinds of weather
Like an old pauper,
For to articulate
Sweet sounds together
Is to work harder than all these
And yet be thought an idler...

[JanVanHogspeuw]

Yeats's unpublished notebooks came to 50,000 pages at his death. How lazy is that?

Better go down
On bended knees
And scrub a kitchen pavement,
Or break stones
In all kinds of weather
Like an old pauper,
For to articulate
Sweet sounds together
Is to work harder than all these
And yet be thought an idler...

Yep. Maybe the misapprehension comes about because:

If it does not seem a moment's thought
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught

Effortlessness takes effort, it seems.

[MorpheusSandman]

Effortlessness takes effort, it seems.The appearance of effortlessness sure does. People marvel at Mozart's ability to write masterpieces with no corrections in the span of a coach ride, but ignore the already decades worth of work, time, effort, study, etc. he'd devoted to his craft. The two shouldn't be separated.

[Iain Sparrow]

What we see of literary production seems to beg to differ though. Far more prose is published than poetry, no one makes their living as a poet, only a handful of people in the history of English literature have made a living as a poet. Becoming a published poet of repute requires decades of dedication with little to no monetary reward. It is a lot easier to be published as a novelist than it is to be published as a poet. Mediocre novelists abound in the popular presses, where the likes of Stephanie Meyer are not far off from being the norm. While terrible amateur poetry can be found all over the internet, you can also find book length fanfiction written in semi-literate prose, some of which has even been published (50 Shades of Gray). You are far more likely to meet with rejection as a poet than as a novelist.


If you consider song lyrics as poetry, which I do, than poetry in that format can be quite profitable.

[desiresjab]

Mozart had a little headstart on most of us in raw talent. But Leopold made sure his life was pure music from the beginning. It has been said of both Bach and Mozart that they were the best violinists of their time, but did not play the instrument except when necessity called.

[Whosis]

I couldn't disagree more. A writer with no talent to develop? I say no. Shakespeare wrote his sonnets to develop craft I believe. Then he would sometimes write sonnets into his plays. Do we turn away from Shakespeare, who has shown what a poet could do? So I say no. I think a writer does limit himself if poetry is all he does. It raises the question if he can commit to something long, as life is.

[MorpheusSandman]

Mozart had a little headstart on most of us in raw talent. But Leopold made sure his life was pure music from the beginning. How does one know whether "Mozart had a headstart on us in raw talent" or whether Leopold making sure his life was pure music was actually the cause of said talent?

[OrphanPip]

If you consider song lyrics as poetry, which I do, than poetry in that format can be quite profitable.

Maybe, but people tend not to buy lyrics without the musical component. Also, the way the music market works, most profit goes to the performer and the lyricist is obscure or a producer who turns it out by rote. Of course, some lyrics have been published as poetry in their own right, but in general most song lyrics make for poor poetry without music.

That being said, Norton has seen fit to include Campion's lyrics in their 16th-17th century literature anthology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0k9WyU50c