Universal interest vs. topical poetry

Hey everyone,

I've often wondered about the way in which we read and enjoy 'universal', as opposed to 'topical' or 'individual' poetry (my own terms, for lack of better ones, for what I will try to describe below).

By 'universal' poetry I mean poetry that is more 'general' in formulation, can be applied to a variety of situations, and lots of people identify with. The best example would be those highly quotable -and quoted- love lyrics, such as Byron's, or certain of Shakespeare's sonnets for example. Anyone could 'appropriate' this kind of poem, to send to a beloved or a friend. They are printed on cards and recited at weddings and funerals. They endure in part because of their 'adaptability' (and of course also because of their quality, but that's not what I'm aiming at here).

On the other hand there are poems which are not easily quotable, at least in full, and which refer to issues and situations so topical or 'specific' that they are not easily understandable without some background information or knowledge. Those poems are not usually familiar to 'ordinary' people, even good readers, unless they are scholars or students of literature. If they are old, they may also feel 'dated', or not relevant to our own times. In short, they are not 'universal'.

The funny thing is, sometimes the latter poems really move me and appeal to me, maybe for their very specificity --- I feel closer to their authors or to the (often forgotten) context that inspired them. A good example is the Earl of Surrey's 'Epitaph on Thomas Clere', an elegy on his dead friend which is so full of references to his friend's family and military exploits that it is hard to understand it without some basic knowledge of who the now obscure Clere was. Another example would be Quevedo's sonnets to the Duke of Osuna. In both cases, the poems largely deal with issues outside the human relationship of the writer and the subject... but, despite the constraints of form and symbols, and the military imagery, the feeling shines through. And that makes them all the more moving.

Do any of you think about these issues? Which poetry do you love that others find obscure, or which you could never send to a Valentine? :)

People are writing poetry for an audience, if the audience feels the poems are no longer necessary, then the poem should not be read. The "universal" is a mere word to describe a fallacy of inherent truth.

That being said, some poems are better than others, but it generally has to do with the ability for the topic to be enjoyed, or thought over by a wider, enduring audience. Writing about how crappy you feel that your girlfriend dumped you generally does not work, unless it is being read by people "going through" that same stage. Nostalgia Poetry, as Frye used to call it, generally doesn't work, unless it touches on themes relevant to people other than the poet, and even then it generally doesn't work, unless brought into a sense of wider scope, such as Tintern Abbey, or The Prelude.