Favorite Modern/Living/Non-English Poet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

It's not that one mentions Shakespeare that I find so telling, but rather that one does not mention someone more modern. I would also point out that this discussion largely concerned modern poetic technique, which would, presumably, entail a discussion of modern poets.

---

1. Modern poets were mentioned; you (and perhaps others) just glossed over them.

2. One reason I mention canonical authors more so than contemporary ones is simply because I'm less likely to be met with blank stares. I'd just as soon talk about Hill and Ashbery, but so few people have read them compared to Shakespeare or Keats or whomever, so my mentioning them is more likely to generate a conversation. It does no good to use analogies if the other side is unaware of the referent.

3. That other thread wasn't about "modern poetic technique" or poetic technique at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

whether the point of devoting oneself to such aged varieties of literature was, much as I see this point of this thread, simply a means of demonstrating publicly one's sophistication.

---

:rolleyes: This is a literature forum, I don't think one is going to stand-out in sophistication by having read Shakespeare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

After all, this thread, like the other one, seems mostly a vehicle to "prove them wrong," as you say, while simultaneously excusing everyone from a substantive conversation of the pertinent issues. I can't count the number of threads I've seen on this forum where one is invited to list one's favorite novels, favorite lines or favorite writers, and these sorts of threads constitute a sort of non-conversation in which the responses are mostly uniform and differ only insofar as to how one fills in the blanks.

---

Now THIS is something we can agree on. I usually dislike these "list" threads precisely because they are an invitation to "opinion vomit" without ever actually discussing anything, and I'll always take discussion over just random people expressing their opinions. But, hey, these threads CAN turn into discussions themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

This is to say that one must LEARN to love Shakespeare, with concordance and lexicon in hand... I suppose I am saying that love of Shakespeare results most often from a formal education in Shakespeare or a desire to pretend that one has had such an education.

---

I have no formal education in Shakespeare and never even encountered him in school. My love for Shakespeare came with my love for literature and language, period. Reading Shakespeare in footnotes is pretty easy and hardly requires learning another language like reading Chaucer in ME does. Either way, I will pretend to no such education except my autodidactic one that was done entirely out of my passion for literature and poetry. I never saw the point of paying people to teach me what I could learn myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I suspect people with no real interest in poetry are acquainted only with the stuff in the Norton anthologies. Surely, persons who have an extra-academic interest in poetry would discuss, I don't know, the last poem they saw in this or that journal, the last edition of Best American, a reading given by Billy Collins--something that demonstrates a genuine interest, rather than simply hopping on a bandwagon of sophistication.

---

The people I know with no real interest in poetry have never even read the Norton anthology, and even the few literature students I know that studied poetry in college sold theirs because they were mainly interested in prose writing. Anyway, I'll take you up on your offer: What poem from the last few issues of Poetry Magazine, APR, Ploughshares, Tin House, etc. would you like to discuss? In fact, name any poem from any other magazine and I'll get online and buy the darned thing (I have a subscription to the others).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

What, do you take some sort of petty pleasure in pointing out a simple mistake even after their person admitted he was wrong?

---

That, and completely misreading people's posts by ignoring context are Stunt's specialties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

1. Modern poets were mentioned; you (and perhaps others) just glossed over them.

2. One reason I mention canonical authors more so than contemporary ones is simply because I'm less likely to be met with blank stares. I'd just as soon talk about Hill and Ashbery, but so few people have read them compared to Shakespeare or Keats or whomever, so my mentioning them is more likely to generate a conversation. It does no good to use analogies if the other side is unaware of the referent.

3. That other thread wasn't about "modern poetic technique" or poetic technique at all.

---

1. The conversation largely concerned dead poets.

2. This is perhaps one of the first reasonable things I have seen you say.

3. The other thread concerned whether one was born or became a poet; you quickly made the point that poets required close study of poetry in order to become technically proficient. The conversation then became a sort of semantic investigation of how one might become so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

This is a literature forum, I don't think one is going to stand-out in sophistication by having read Shakespeare.

---

It's not that I think persons are trying to "stand-out" as you say, but rather "fit-in." I think persons are trying to adhere to some preconceived notion of a connoisseur and are really just sort of dilettante admirers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I have no formal education in Shakespeare and never even encountered him in school. My love for Shakespeare came with my love for literature and language, period. Reading Shakespeare in footnotes is pretty easy and hardly requires learning another language like reading Chaucer in ME does. Either way, I will pretend to no such education except my autodidactic one that was done entirely out of my passion for literature and poetry. I never saw the point of paying people to teach me what I could learn myself.

---

Although a "formal education" isn't strictly necessary to appreciate Shakespeare, a specialized lexicon generally is--if one is to actually comprehend the text. Often, persons THINK they've understood the text while having actually misunderstood it. For example, readers generally think the line "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thought Romeo?" means something like "O Romeo, Romeo, where are you Romeo? when it really means something like "O Romeo, Romeo, why did you have to be Romeo?" This is closer to the meaning of other such lines as "Thou art thyself." There's no modern reader that understands what a "fardel", an "eater of broken meats," or a "worsted-stocking knave" is without looking it up. These sorts of complications occur SEVERAL times on every page of every Shakespearean text.

My point isn't that persons MUST learn Shakespeare in a formal setting, but rather that they often do. Thus Shakespeare isn't something persons examine naturally from encountering it in the culture, such as one might do with some episode of a modern television show or a recent novel. Most persons examine Shakespeare either because they have to for school or because they think that's how one becomes cultured. Thus does one acquire an artificial taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

That, and completely misreading people's posts by ignoring context are Stunt's specialties.

---

If you'd occasionally retract some of your more bizarre statements, then I wouldn't have to harp on your mistakes. I'll let the whole ironic statement about my reading slide for now.

The above statement is precisely the sort of "sour grapes" attitude that is likely to lead to a conversation of your past mistakes. Can you not see the irony of pretending to ridicule me for harping on the mistakes of others while simultaneously pointing out my supposed mistakes?

Let me just explain why I have harped on your mistakes. We had a discussion concerning whether a PhD philosopher's argument, which has been the focus of a number of scholarly examinations, had "serious flaws." You issued some insulting rhetorical challenge to me about explaining something to a physicist, and I redirected the rhetorical challenge to you about explaining the "flaws" to a philosopher. Then, strangely, you addressed the challenge as though it had been a literal one.

I think you misunderstood the nature of our discussion in that you seemed to prosecute it as though I were actually defending the conclusion of the argument rather than the absence of serious flaws in it. It quickly became obvious to me that you lacked the requisite background to assess whether an argument had flaws of any sort and when I tried to point this out to you in what I thought was a relatively polite manner, you began to try and confuse the issue so that you could, presumably, pretend to be right. The only way I could see to impress the point upon you was to repeatedly point out the deficits you had unequivocally demonstrated. Of course, when I did this you became even more combative, even more obfuscatory in your statements, and so I resorted to rudely calling attention to all the mistakes of logic in your posts, simply to try and demonstrate that you were not capable of assessing logical soundness. You seemed rather impervious to this, and so I continued doing it.

I think any reasonable person would have realized that he had perhaps overstated his case, and that would have been the end of it. But it seems to me that you are more concerned with appearing to be right than actually being so.

Of course, you might choose to again debate the above issues, and the only thing I could think to do would be to remind you of those deficits in particular, which I have, out of courtesy, thus far mentioned only in the abstract.

You see, I don't care whether you agree with the Kalam, nor do I care whether you think poets are born or made. What I do, in fact, care about is whether you mischaracterize the debate surrounding the Kalam or whether you misappropriate language to defend your belief that poets are made. I am perfectly willing to let you have your opinion. I am not at all willing to let you bully the terms of the conversation on the basis of a rudimentary misapprehension. If calling attention to all your mistakes is what that requires, then so be it. But such a thing would generally not be necessary, unless you, yourself, required it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

1. The conversation largely concerned dead poets.

2. The other thread concerned whether one was born or became a poet; you quickly made the point that poets required close study of poetry in order to become technically proficient. The conversation then became a sort of semantic investigation of how one might become so.

---

1. Yes, for the exact reason I mentioned in number 2. I merely wanted to point out that contemporary poets were mentioned, and more than once.

2. Right, so I'm not sure why you said the thread was about "modern poetic technique"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

It's not that I think persons are trying to "stand-out" as you say, but rather "fit-in." I think persons are trying to adhere to some preconceived notion of a connoisseur and are really just sort of dilettante admirers.

---

Well, I would think "fitting in" on a literature forum would require having read some of, if not a lot of, the canon. Anyway, "connoisseur" VS "dilettante admirers" isn't really another distinction I want to get into, but give it a shot if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Although a "formal education" isn't strictly necessary to appreciate Shakespeare, a specialized lexicon generally is--if one is to actually comprehend the text. Often, persons THINK they've understood the text while having actually misunderstood it. For example, readers generally think the line "O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thought Romeo?" means...

---

It's absolutely necessary for modern readers to have a well-glossed, well-footnoted version of Shakespeare, absolutely, but once they have that I'm not sure where the difficulty is. In my Oxford Edition I know it has "wherefore" glossed as "why/for what reason." So, really, the most work it requires is glancing from the texts to the glosses or footnotes and perhaps occasionally at a glossary if a word/passage isn't covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Most persons examine Shakespeare either because they have to for school or because they think that's how one becomes cultured. Thus does one acquire an artificial taste.

---

Wait... so these are the only two options? Either one encounters Shakespeare in school or they encounter him because they want to acquire an "artificial taste" by becoming cultured?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Can you not see the irony of pretending to ridicule me for harping on the mistakes of others while simultaneously pointing out my supposed mistakes?

---

I would stop harping on your "supposed mistakes" if you'd quit harping on others even after they admit they were wrong on a certain point. It's like you get stuck on that level and utterly refuse to move forward, even after the point has been clarified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

you began to try and confuse the issue so that you could, presumably, pretend to be right.

---

Did you ever once stop to consider that it was not I that was confusing the issue but rather you who were simply confused? Given your repeated proclivity for ignoring the context around what things are said in, and the numerous mistakes that this has lead you into, it shouldn't be surprising that you'd find yourself confused, and mistake that confusion as being the fault of the other person rather than your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

you misappropriate language

---

Yes, by using a word in one of the ways by which it is defined in several dictionaries. Oh, misappropriate me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

2. Right, so I'm not sure why you said the thread was about "modern poetic technique"...

---

Surely, you understand that being "technically proficient" involves technique, right? If you are making the point that the discussion wasn't about "modern" poets, then I will concede that was not a necessary component of the discussion, but rather an important one that was put into relief, I thought, by modern persons largely discussing former poets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

It's absolutely necessary for modern readers to have a well-glossed, well-footnoted version of Shakespeare, absolutely, but once they have that I'm not sure where the difficulty is.

---

Look, you've missed the point. My point was that great effort must be expended to appreciate Shakespeare, and not so much effort is required with, say, Bukowski. So if we have an instance where persons have approached authors that include cultural impediments to understanding them, yet these same persons do not demonstrate an awareness of more culturally immediate authors, I have difficulty understanding how this could result from something other than education or snobbery. It sort of like someone who claims to be a fan of film but doesn't talk about anything other than Fellini films. Of course, it is not a logically necessary fact that they have never seen modern films, but it is, I think, a sort of conspicuous problem since the real film buffs I have known have wildly varied tastes that stretch from Fellini to Kung Fu movies from the 1970s. It's only the film SNOBS I have known who restrict their viewing to these sorts of art films. Because that has been my experience, I think I am justified in making the inference although I am certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Wait... so these are the only two options?

---

No, which is why I used the word "most". I do, in fact, think there are persons with a genuine interest. But I have to wonder why MOST persons are more familiar with, say, Keats who is not at all present in the current culture, as opposed to Billy Collins, who is somewhat present. The only conclusion I can come to is that this results from education or snobbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I would stop harping on your "supposed mistakes" if you'd quit harping on others even after they admit they were wrong on a certain point. It's like you get stuck on that level and utterly refuse to move forward, even after the point has been clarified.

---

This is a mischaracterization. Did you ever admit you were wrong about the Kalam having serious flaws? I mean, I had to demonstrate your obvious deficits in understanding logic and philosophy and accomplished this absolutely. Yet all you did was move the goalposts and try to change the subject. The conversation would have been over if ever you had said "Okay, perhaps the argument doesn't have flaws, but there are some things I disagree with." If ever you had said, "Okay, perhaps I shouldn't have called people anti-intellectual, but what I meant to say was....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Did you ever once stop to consider that it was not I that was confusing the issue but rather you who were simply confused?

---

It's not about ME confusing the issue when I can demonstrate your errors with certainty. If we can, for instance, show that your objection is a particular type of fallacy, then we can reasonably conclude that I am not confused about it being a fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Given your repeated proclivity for ignoring the context around what things are said in, and the numerous mistakes that this has lead you into, it shouldn't be surprising that you'd find yourself confused, and mistake that confusion as being the fault of the other person rather than your own.

---

Okay, idiot, I'm completely done playing around with you. Here's some things we have established with certainty.

1. You don't understand what makes an argument valid.
2. You don't understand that everyone makes metaphysical statements.
3. Even when specifically trying make a reasonable argument, you fail by using fallacies and invalid logical structures.
4. You make absurd pronouncements about logic that would require someone fairly familiar with the subject, and considering we have established that you're not at all familiar, then you're statements are generally unimpressive.
5. You don't understand what most persons mean by "intellectual".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Yes, by using a word in one of the ways by which it is defined in several dictionaries. Oh, misappropriate me.

---

No, stupid you, for not even understanding the definitions you, yourself, cited.

Your narcissistic delusions are tiresome. I guess I'll just go back to pointing out all the errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Surely, you understand that being "technically proficient" involves technique, right? If you are making the point that the discussion wasn't about "modern" poets, then I will concede that was not a necessary component of the discussion

---

Fair enough. Honestly, I was a bit disappointed that the discussion never moved more into the direction of discussing how important technique was in terms of separating the "born" from the "made." Technique seemed to get passed over in favor of a more critical/academic approach, which I don't think anyone ever had in mind when discussing "made" poets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

My point was that great effort must be expended to appreciate Shakespeare, and not so much effort is required with, say, Bukowski. So if we have an instance where persons have approached authors that include cultural impediments to understanding them, yet these same persons do not demonstrate an awareness of more culturally immediate authors, I have difficulty understanding how this could result from something other than education or snobbery.

---

A few things here:

1. I think you oversell how difficult it is to appreciate Shakespeare. For me it took a well-glossed version of his plays, some ear-plugs, a comfy chair, and several hours of quiet reading. I wouldn't call that "great effort."

2. I think if you really wanted to juxtapose "writers that require great effort" with "writers that require no effort" then it isn't really an issue of old/canonical VS contemporary at all, because a poet like Ashbery is contemporary, but I consider him more difficult than Shakespeare. Likewise, Blake is extremely difficult, moreso than Shakespeare, but not because he's old, rather because he writes in elaborately developed allegories with a lot of complex and obscure allusions that nobody in his own time understood. So, essentially, the issue of "difficult writers VS accessible writers" is different than the issue of "canonical writers VS contemporary writers." Some canonical writers like, say, Edgar Allan Poe, aren't that difficult at all.

3. Likewise, I'm not sure how mentioning, say, Shakespeare, would make one look more educated or snobbish than mentioning, say, Ashbery, who's more obscure. Wouldn't snobs get their sense of superiority by having read authors most others haven't read as opposed to reading one, like Shakespeare, that most (at least, most on a literary forum) would've read?

Besides, stlukes answered a lot of these questions. A lot of people who love poetry simply don't like modern poetry, the same way many classical music fans don't like modern classical music, or classic rock fans don't like modern rock. I don't think the reason is one of snobbishness so much as it is familiarity. Most who are introduced to poetry is more likely to read the classics rather than what's contemporary. If from reading those classics they begin to like poetry, then what they like is best represented in those classics, and modern poetry may not represent what made them like poetry to begin with. Much the same with classical. I discovered classical through Mozart, particularly the film Amadeus. Now, I've branched out since then, but most modern classical just turns me off. Not all modern poetry turns me off, but a lot of it does. Even subscribing to several lit magazines there are usually only a handful of poems in each issue that stand out at all and inspire me to reread them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

It sort of like someone who claims to be a fan of film but doesn't talk about anything other than Fellini films.... It's only the film SNOBS I have known who restrict their viewing to these sorts of art films. Because that has been my experience, I think I am justified in making the inference although I am certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise.

---

Well, I'd consider myself a cinephile as well, but most of the film fans I know are of the type you described, those that watch everything from Fellini to kung-fu films (King Hu and Tsui Hark are awesome!)... I don't know of many film snobs personally that only talk about art-house films (though Fellini is as close the mainstream as art-house gets, really). I won't discredit your experience, but I'd merely say I don't think they're the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

But I have to wonder why MOST persons are more familiar with, say, Keats who is not at all present in the current culture, as opposed to Billy Collins, who is somewhat present.

---

Think of it as a numbers game. The canon are those artists that multiple generations have deemed worthy of attention and interest. When people are first introduced to serious literature it's usually going to be through that canon simply because more people have experienced it and have passed it on for future generations to discover. There's simply more ways to encounter/read Keats than there is to encounter/read Collins. That may change one day, and maybe Collins (or, at least, some of his poems) will be featured in enough anthologies that just as many will read him as will read Keats.

Personally, whenever I first started getting into literature (and film, and music) years ago, my method was to seek out decent representations of the canons first and work from there. Like, I would start out watching Hitchcock and then find that Hitch was inspired by the German Expressionists and Soviet Montage, that he inspired The French New Wave and Neo-Noir, and my experience would branch out from there. Likewise, I read Keats, discovered Keats was influenced by Milton, that he influenced Wilfred Owen, and my experience would branch out from there. By doing that, one gets a more complete picture of the network of associations in which poetry is created in, rather than just certain writers in isolation, but everyone has to start somewhere, and starting with the canon isn't the worst idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Did you ever admit you were wrong about the Kalam having serious flaws?

---

I admitted several times that it was valid, I merely didn't feel it was reasonable to accept its propositions as true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Here's some things I have established with certainty within the confines of my very confused noggin.

---

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Oh, and, by the way, I understood perfectly well what J meant by "intellectual" as he stated it quite clearly the minute the confusion arose, the same way I stated quite clearly that's not what I meant by it. We understand each other. No harm, no foul; unlike you who wants to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I admitted several times that it was valid, I merely didn't feel it was reasonable to accept its propositions as true.

---

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You're trying to obscure the disagreement by conceding a point that I'm not making. I wasn't simply making the point that the Kalam was valid. I was making the point that someone ignorant of logical validity, most logical fallacies, how to construct a proper statement, etc. is, in no way, qualified to make pronouncements on ANY argument.

You see, the real concession you need to make is that you cannot rightly say the Kalam has serious flaws because we have demonstrated that you do not possess the requisite capacities to render such a judgment. For Chrissake, you thought metaphysical statements were absurd, which means you're completely unaware that the major development in philosophy in the last hundred years was the realization that metaphysics was absolutely necessary. You tried to cover this up by saying I was using some old or antique definition, but I was using the modern definition! You don't even know what metaphysics is, and yet you pretend to be qualified to make pronouncements on a metaphysical argument that is currently being examined in scholarly journals.

You haven't the first clue about how to construct an argument, and when you actually try, you commit the most elementary blunder of impeaching the reasonable standards that allow you to make ANY argument, which is the sort of stereotypical blunder committed by people who haven't a clue about logic. Yet you propose to know what constitutes a good argument. Hilarious!

If you would just concede the point, the argument would be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Oh, and, by the way, I understood perfectly well what J meant by "intellectual" as he stated it quite clearly the minute the confusion arose, the same way I stated quite clearly that's not what I meant by it. We understand each other. No harm, no foul; unlike you who wants to make a mountain out of a molehill.

---

LOL! Except when you accused J of bringing up intellectual in the first place, and he had to point out that was a lie. I don't think J is being as agreeable are you pretend. I think J understands that you're wrong but doesn't want to pursue it.

And they've hijacked another thread with their petty bickering! Bravo.

Maybe it's time you guys take this to PMs. I doubt anyone reads, nor cares, about the same points and insults you've been rehashing for a couple weeks now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

And they've hijacked another thread with their petty bickering! Bravo.

Maybe it's time you guys take this to PMs. I doubt anyone reads, nor cares, about the same points and insults you've been rehashing for a couple weeks now.

---

Look, M, I understand your frustration; I really do. I also understand that I am a large part of that frustration. It is, of course, inappropriate for me to get into a fight in a public space. I get it.

I just get frustrated that there can't be any resolution to any disagreement between me and Morph. Perhaps we are equally to blame. I am just really frustrated with Morpheus in general, which of course, does not rescue me from the error. I feel like the only way to end the discussion is to say "You're right Morpheus," and the problem is that I think he is demonstrably wrong. Perhaps that doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Look, M, I understand your frustration; I really do. I also understand that I am a large part of that frustration. It is, of course, inappropriate for me to get into a fight in a public space. I get it.

I just get frustrated that there can't be any resolution to any disagreement between me and Morph. Perhaps we are equally to blame. I am just really frustrated with Morpheus in general, which of course, does not rescue me from the error. I feel like the only way to end the discussion is to say "You're right Morpheus," and the problem is that I think he is demonstrably wrong. Perhaps that doesn't matter.

---

Oh, I get it. Trust me. I've been in such arguments . . . probably with you, even. Though I don't think I've ever been in one as verbose as this, or the other, you're in with Morpheus. Frankly, I don't know how you two keep going. It's exhausting just reading it, which is why I've stopped.

I'll make this easier, Stunt: I'm not going to reply to your last post since none of it has to do with the subject of this thread. In my last post I made several points directly related to the topic concerning canons, modern poets, snobbery, and all of the issues you raised in regard to this thread. If you want to continue, you can address those relevant points, rather than those that referred to other topics on other threads.

I do find it humorous, though, that in my post of around 1000 words you pick the 80 that just happen to have nothing to do with this thread to respond to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I'll make this easier, Stunt: I'm not going to reply to your last post since none of it has to do with the subject of this thread. In my last post I made several points directly related to the topic concerning canons, modern poets, snobbery, and all of the issues you raised in regard to this thread. If you want to continue, you can address those relevant points, rather than those that referred to other topics on other threads.

I do find it humorous, though, that in my post of around 1000 words you pick the 80 that just happen to have nothing to do with this thread to respond to!

---

You have missed the point of the post. I did not mean simply to respond about one little thing. I was pointing out what seemed to be a problem in discussing anything with you. If I plainly demonstrate the error of one of your statements, you simply ignore it, deny it, move the goalposts or change the subject. I wasn't strictly addressing the validity of the Kalam, but rather your fundamental incapacity to admit an error. This relates not only to one discussion we've had, but to all of them.

And, of course, you reply in typical Morpheus fashion. It seems to me that you care not a bit about the actual subject, but simply about being right about something. This discussion doesn't seem to me to be about the Kalam or modern poets, but whether Morpheus is right.

Well, I admitted an error in the other thread. The reason I ignore so much of your posts, Stunt, is that so often you go off on these completely unrelated tangents. My ignoring the tangents is my attempts to try and keep the discussions focused and on topic. Since this thread is about modern poets, I'm trying to limit the discussion to that--not the Kalam, not my supposed logical errors, not mine and J's debate, not me being right. If I responded to every point made in just your last post this thread would spiral out of control. I'm trying to prevent that.

So, modern poets... GO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Well, I admitted an error in the other thread. The reason I ignore so much of your posts, Stunt, is that so often you go off on these completely unrelated tangents. My ignoring the tangents is my attempts to try and keep the discussions focused and on topic. Since this thread is about modern poets, I'm trying to limit the discussion to that--not the Kalam, not my supposed logical errors, not mine and J's debate, not me being right. If I responded to every point made in just your last post this thread would spiral out of control. I'm trying to prevent that.

So, modern poets... GO!

---

I really have little interest in having another discussion with you for the above described reasons. A debate with you over topic X is simply a debate with you over you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

And they've hijacked another thread with their petty bickering! Bravo.

Maybe it's time you guys take this to PMs. I doubt anyone reads, nor cares, about the same points and insults you've been rehashing for a couple weeks now.

---

I agree completely.

1. Your favorite 20th century poet

A hard one for me. Maybe Dylan Thomas or Robert Frost

2. Your favorite 20th century poem

Too difficult. At the moment, I'm caught between Edna St. Vincent Millay's Sonnet 42 'What lips my lips have kissed', Henry Reed's 'Naming of Parts' and 'Prayer Before Birth' by Louis Macneice for a choice of favorite.

3. Your favorite living poet

Don't really have one. I like New Zealand's Michael Harlow and David Eggleton. I also like Mark Strand, Wendy Cope and Simon Armitage, and many others too.

4. Your favorite poem by a living poet

Maybe 'Gooseberry Season' by Simon Armitage.. or 'Not for Human Consumption' by David Eggleton.

5. Your favorite non-Anglo poet

Probably Li Bai.

6. Your favorite non-Anglo poem

I like Li Bai's poem on drinking alone with the moon and his shadow: http://clatterymachinery.wordpress.c...2-translators/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

A debate with you over topic X is simply a debate with you over you.

---

Says you. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Ariano Suassuna or Manoel de Barros

Brazilian? Portuguese? Unfortunately, contemporary poetry outside the languages which we can read, is quite limited in terms of accessibility. Only a few major poets from contemporary France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, etc... find their way into descent translations.

---

Unfortunately there are still plenty of renowned poets not yet translated into English ... as the magnificent Syrian poet Adonis 2nd place after the last Nobel Prize poetry winner T.Transtrommer.
He (Adonis) is an expert in turning water into wine that is doing wonders despite the simplicity of his vocabulary...so if you know some french...

As for portuguese ( or portuguese-Brazilian - there is no such thing as "Brazilian") there are 250 million people speaking it.

Adonis (sometimes spelled Adunis) and Transtrommer are both accessible in English translations. I have come across both poets on any number of occasions.

By the term "Brazilian" I was referring to the nationality ("brasileiros" according to Wiki) and not the language. Portuguese (Brazilian or otherwise) seems to be one of the least translated languages into English... although one would suspect this will change over time with the growing importance of Latin-America in the US.

StLukesguild:"“although one would suspect this will change over time with the growing importance of Latin-America in the US.”


God hears you- as we say in my country. And why not start right away with my almost painful* translation of “I CANNOT POSTPONE LOVE” from Antonio Ramos Rosa, one of the icons of contemporary Portuguese poetry (recently deceased):
(*So many pirouettes between Portuguese, English & French!)

I can not postpone love for another century
I cannot
even if the cry dies in my throat
even if hate burns explodes crackles
under gray mountains
and gray mountains
I can not postpone this embrace
This double-edged blade of love and hate
I can not postpone anything
even if the night weighs centuries on my shoulders
even if the dawn is late and undecided
I cannot postpone my life to another century
nor my love
nor my cry for release

no I can not postpone my heart

I've recently come across Transtromer in English translation in APR and Poetry and I agree that he seems to be a very good poet. What I read was very much a throwback to the Romantics without the formal verse.

I came across Transtrommer and Adunis pratically at the same moment and after some deliberation I decided to deepen Adonis instead of T.T. ...perhaps because of the presence of the Arabs (10th - 11th century) in my country?

And can I ask you what's your opinion about Antonio Ramos Rosa poem ?

All the best

St. Lukes, I's sure you know many of my choices. Great question, one that has tough choices instead of answers. The poets you selected, especially, Rilke, come close to my own. Lately been re-evaluating Plath in "The Collected Poems, Sylvia Plath" edited by a least favorite writer: Ted Hughes, who I imagine has all the rights to her poetry. The current thread about Plath is ill-informed, in my not so humble opinion. Also been attracted to Tomas Transtromer but this opinion is still in the making. ("The Great Enigma, new collected poems" translated by Robin Fulton.) Arrivederci, q1

I agree with Silas.

It's Frost. Not only a good poet, but a good teacher (in his prose) of poets.