Printable View
This is due to the fact that poetry is no longer a viable product to book sellers, and all of you are ignoring the small presses, where most poets have to cut their teeth. Try buying a subscription to The Indiana Review:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Try doing the same with contemporary literary novels though - poetry is only one wall - it not containing any of the goods has no bearing - that is what the small shop is for, and the internet. You'd be pressed to find much value in a Barnes and Noble, outside of the classic section.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
You really need to read periodicals, and order books from poets who are reviewed there, or who are published there, in order to get anything of value. That is relatively the same for prose, though the literary-novel section in a library tends to be a little decent, though most of them are mainstream novels with perhaps a little bit more depth, like the Hossieni novels that are popular these days.
Seriously though, specialty bookstores are the only places to find good books, without having to go through too much of a pain. It's the same with prose too for the most part.
Just think though, of the amount of sales Lyrical Ballads, or even Leaves of Grass got. Wordsworth and Coleridge weren't at all popular after their initial publication, and were saved by a slowly growing cult status that evolved by fluke around them, with fantastic prose writers like Lamb and Hazlitt there to champion their works. Whitman got a little luckier in that he caused controversy, and therefore had that for advertisement, though his sales were rather mediocre as well, and he suffered losing his job.
Barnes and Noble is what it is - a store designed to make money, by providing the most sought after texts, in the most convenient location. Poetry isn't sought after, and therefore hardly appears in said bookstore.
Tell me about it. I get most of my books either at used book stores... including one that purchases entire estates and sells them all at $1-$2 per book (of course they are all just shelved at random... no logical order at all... but that makes the great finds all the more exciting:lol:) I seriously think that my own poetry collection would take up more linear shelf space than that at Borders... and I don't have a single Bukowski or Maya Angelou (although I do own Ginsberg's Howl... signed by the author, even). There was actually more shelf space devoted to Buddhism (mostly new age crap) and Judaica (in a very un-Jewish side of town) then there was to poetry as a whole.
It's a hard question to answer when you don't define what you mean by "modern" and "real poetry".
I can vouch that not all current poets try to mimic James Joyce. Many of them are very accessible. Those who imitate the experimental mentalities of say, Cummings are not always drivel.
Try reading Louise Gluck. She is one of my favorite current poets. Her imagery may sometimes be quite abstract, but it's emotional impact is very real, and so are her poetry's merits, whether she writes in iambic pentameter or not.
I hate to see someone shut themselves off from potential new literary loves by making broad assumptions.
Leabhar, where are you? Concession is nigh!:DQuote:
After a visit to my local Borders I find myself almost agreeing with Leabhar.
I have a suspicion that Bukowski has some great deal going with Barnes and Noble. Angelou, I know is pretty popular (though, still, 21 volumes?!), but I haven't, actually met enough people who read, or have even heard of Bukowski, to convince me that there's actually a big enough market for the 20 + volumes that adorn every B&N store (maybe his publisher gives discounts for buying in bulk).Quote:
21 different volumes by Maya Angelou, 22 by Charles Bukowski, 11 by Ginsberg... and one volume (an older one at that) by Ashberry, nothing by Wilbur, nothing by Heaney, nothing by Hecht... in fact only a single volume by Yeats. I was actually amazed to find 4 volumes by Anne Carson.
I agree that the poetry selection in most Barnes and Noble/Borders stores is no good. I'm guessing I must have more volumes of poetry in my own collection than the poetry section of the B&N near me in California (not counting the Shakespeare, which is not too shabby there). The one here in Chicago has a slightly better selection, I think because they're in a University neighborhood and are trying to compete with all the truly fabulous bookstores around the U of C. Your estate sale store sounds fabulous. I didn't know there were any used book shops that just randomly shelved things anymore, allowing for great finds. I thought they all meticulously combed through and organized stuff in an attempt to make a killing on e-bay. :pQuote:
I get most of my books either at used book stores... including one that purchases entire estates and sells them all at $1-$2 per book (of course they are all just shelved at random... no logical order at all... but that makes the great finds all the more exciting) I seriously think that my own poetry collection would take up more linear shelf space than that at Borders... and I don't have a single Bukowski or Maya Angelou (although I do own Ginsberg's Howl... signed by the author, even). There was actually more shelf space devoted to Buddhism (mostly new age crap) and Judaica (in a very un-Jewish side of town) then there was to poetry as a whole.
Too many posts to respond too. :D
When I was talking about the five year old thing, I believe I said something like "a lot of people think..." before that, which indicates to the reader that it wasn't my own opinion... The Emperors New Clothes thing was used in a poem and was referring only to the type of free verse it was imitating. And you accuse me of sweeping statements? Also, the attempted lambasting of your opponent as dumb or simple minded is just going to work against you when you're proven wrong on some detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I'm telling you Petrarch there is a real constituency for Bukowski. You should see some of the arguments I've had here and elsewhere over him. You may be shocked but he will make the college classroom one day, if not already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
My Borders is not bad and neither is the Barnes and Noble on Staten Island is not too bad either. But the Barnes & Noble in up town Manhattan is excellent! You can find almost anyone. I guess I'm lucky living in New York. But why don't you people order from Amazon or one of the other on line book stores? If you know what you want you can find it at a reasonable price.Quote:
I agree that the poetry selection in most Barnes and Noble/Borders stores is no good. I'm guessing I must have more volumes of poetry in my own collection than the poetry section of the B&N near me in California (not counting the Shakespeare, which is not too shabby there). The one here in Chicago has a slightly better selection, I think because they're in a University neighborhood and are trying to compete with all the truly fabulous bookstores around the U of C. Your estate sale store sounds fabulous. I didn't know there were any used book shops that just randomly shelved things anymore, allowing for great finds. I thought they all meticulously combed through and organized stuff in an attempt to make a killing on e-bay. :p
Yes... I remember that Barnes and Nobles from when I lived in NY (well actually Jersey City). They may have to compete with various other stores with quality collections that supply the demand of college students, etc... Ne York has some great amenities. Unfortunately, the cost of living isn't among them. I couldn't lease a decent parking space for the month for what I pay for a 1500 square foot studio space plus woodshop... and the lease on my garage in NY would probably pay my mortgage twice over.
I absolutely agree, the cost of living sucks!! :lol: So allow me to enjoy the bookstores. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I never said "modern poetry sucks", (as stlukesguild is saying in other threads now) or even anything like it. What I said can be easily read in this thread by anyone, even on the first page:
This thread is named Modern Poetry because it is about modern poetry, but if I thought all modern poetry sucked I would've named it "Modern Poetry Sucks". One needs to look no further than the first and third posts of this thread to find the truth of the matter. I referred to "most modern free verse" in this poem when JBI asked to what type of poetry I was referring, which is apparently a blanket accusation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
This type of poetry was actually what I was referring to, if anyone in the argument bothered to read my first and second posts in the thread before typing up essays to rebuke me. Supposedly I made "blanket" and "sweeping" statements, even while I said I liked certain poets out of other modern poets, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Funny that he is lamenting there being no Wilbur or Heaney, when I said they were some of my favorite of modern, living poets (they came up in the discussion because they are obviously representative, laureates and such). People misappropriated what I said, put words into my mouth, etc. Then came the "you're too lazy to read" and quotes accusing me of being a fool, etc. These people cannot have a decent debate or discussion for the life of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, there is no point in debating with these people when they resort to ad hominems, like mortalterror said (by the way, his post #63 I think, was spot on). Feel tree to continue the discussion without me.
Angelou doesn't really write free verse, just so you know, if that is anything. Her verse is a mix of classical patterns with unstylized lines, and inconstant metre.
This thread is about modern poetry (better termed contemporary poetry), and I think the conversation got over your sweeping statements and moved on. There doesn't seem to be any more need of you to make yourself seem avant garde, as no body, I would think, really is going to continue this argument any longer, as it isn't get anywhere.
Instead, it would appear the thread is shifting towards lamenting the unsophistication of bookstores, and a shared discussion on particularly touching, or excellent poets working today.
The debate does indeed seem to have petered out, and it's probably best to put all the misunderstandings to rest for now. Just a finisher for me on the subject of Bukowski and big bookstores:
Oh, I know he has a following, and I was, of course, joking about his publisher having to sell volumes off in bulk discount (though I really do think that Angelou is probably more generally recognized). I'm also almost certain he's already been/being taught in a college classroom somewhere but, in terms of being taught as a major figure a several decades down the line, I don't think he's one that's going to have that kind of sticking power. In all fairness, though I personally can't stand his stuff, I've read a few things by him that had a certain degree of talent and intensity, but I don't think his verse has the sound to it that's going to make him stand out as time goes on. Could be wrong though. Someday I may find myself having a violent argument at a faculty meeting because they're trying to nudge my Milton class off the schedule in favor of my colleague's Bukowski course. :eek2::lol:Quote:
I'm telling you Petrarch there is a real constituency for Bukowski. You should see some of the arguments I've had here and elsewhere over him. You may be shocked but he will make the college classroom one day, if not already.
Yeah, the Barnes & Noble downtown here in Chicago actually has a pretty decent poetry section. I actually like both Borders and B&N. Their selection in general is pretty good, and the B&N near me in CA used to have a better poetry section. It's only been in the last year or so that there's been both less shelf space given to poetry there, and an entire shelf (I do not exaggerate) dedicated to the works of Bukowski. I do order books online all the time: from Barnes and Noble online, Amazon, etc., and I also have a great array of truly wonderful new and used book stores here in Hyde Park, so I don't really have any complaints about not being able to find what I want. It's just disappointing to one day wander over to your local B&N poetry section and find it the victim of a hostile Bukowski takeover. :DQuote:
My Borders is not bad and neither is the Barnes and Noble on Staten Island is not too bad either. But the Barnes & Noble in up town Manhattan is excellent! You can find almost anyone. I guess I'm lucky living in New York. But why don't you people order from Amazon or one of the other on line book stores? If you know what you want you can find it at a reasonable price.
Except I made no "sweeping statements", as I described in my last post. Why does everyone love that term? Even if I had used "sweeping statements", that wouldn't make them any less defensible, that's a logical fallacy. You put words in my mouth and used ad hominems as an attempt to win the argument, which I think was low class even anonymously online. I don't care about seeming avant garde, why would someone care about their reputation on an internet forum? Besides, insulting the avant garde isn't avant garde, its an attempted return to "normality".
The fact that you persist so adamantly in arguing is rather disappointing, as the thread, and the attention, has clearly departed. The discussion of poetry isn't about arguing to be right, but arguing to gain insight into the works, and nature of things, and gain new perspectives, and new ideas. As it is, you still persist on considering yourself the center of the thread, which you seem no longer to be. As you have stated, the thread isn't about the modern poetry being crap, but modern poetry. Therefore, stop pushing an argument which has now become irrelevant to the thread. The thread isn't about Leabhar, it's about poets, who happen to be modern (or better phrased, contemporary). Winning the argument isn't the main point anymore, as it has been surpassed with a more interesting conversation, not on the "merits" of contemporary poetry, but on certain contemporary poets, and our thoughts and feelings regarding their works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
The thread ceased to be about the argument because I was away for a day and it drifted into a different discussion. I'm back and had to respond to a whole page or more of posts. I also responded to your post because you continue to say misleading things about me. To think I shouldn't respond to a whole page of posts regarding me only because you think the thread isn't about me anymore (?), or because another discussion is going on, is ridiculous.
Supposedly I made "blanket" and "sweeping" statements...
Flash Back:
When did we let random words and psychotic babbling become mainstream poetry and when did real poetry become "outdated"?
Most modern free verse is just writing put into lines
They just stole the name "poetry"
And made all other poetry nonexistent
The poets you listed (Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Richard Wilbur, Charles Simic, Anthony Hecht, Wislawa Symborska, Adam Zagajewski, Czeslaw Milosz, Seamus Heaney, Homero Aridjis, Anne Carson, W.S. Merwin, John Ashberry, Yehuda Amichai) are mediocre at best compared with representatives from other ages
These poems, while better than the majority, still read like immature diddies compared with past poetry...
Modern poetry...has never been so distant, poetry has never had so few readers...
...the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry...
The most common argument people have against modern poetry, rhythmic or otherwise, is that it almost sounds like a five year old could write it. And why not? Modern language is too simple and ugly, and modern poetry, like a five year old's writing, is convoluted and requires sitting there trying to think what the writer was trying to say...
Modern poetry doesn't have the right language...
Modern poetry is bad though, according to a lot of people, poets and readers alike. When one thinks even the most widely recognized and revered poets of the times are bad than you know something is wrong.
Modern poetry goes along with the decline of intelligent language.
The root of poetry and all literature is in language, and any historian of English or any linguist will tell you, or even a discerning reader, English is declining and becoming simpler.
High art is high art for a reason. Tradition is traditional for a reason. Modern poetry is anything but musical or lyrical to me, it is bland and dry... we use the most simple and dumbed down version of English yet to exist?
How exactly do we make sense of these two statements:
...the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry...
Supposedly I made "blanket" and "sweeping" statements, even while I said I liked certain poets out of other modern poets
The majority here have bent over backward to be diplomatic... in spite of what might be seen as a statements that were rather intentionally inflammatory. One would not expect that one could walk into a group of contemporary artists or contemporary art connoisseurs and make declarations about psychotic babbling, the dumbed-down vocabulary, and the mediocrity of the best artists of today that appear as but immature scribbles without expected a response... perhaps even a heated one. Why did you expect to walk into a group who value literature... some of whom even value contemporary literature... and expect to make such statements without also raising some Cain?
You dislike Modern or Contemporary poetry. I have no problem with that. We all have our likes and dislikes. There is a difference between declaring that you dislike Modern poetry and declaring that "the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry..." or that it "reads like immature ditties..." When you make declarations of judgment that seemingly go against commonly-held opinions (and we are not speaking of the opinions of the man on the street... we are talking about opinions of those who seriously invest time and effort in reading modern poetry... and about modern poetry) then it is assumed that the burden of proof rests upon the accuser. Mere repetition of personal opinion does not make it fact.
After a period of time it became clear that no such attempt at "proving" that your opinions were fact was forthcoming, and the discussion moved on. And now you return and want to pick up the fight again where you left off... without offering anything new? I'm sorry... there are some people whose opinions on this or that genre or form of literature I will seriously consider without evidence of proof... because they have established well and clear that they have a good deal of knowledge of what they speak. You do not fall into this group. Perhaps you have an advanced degree from Harvard or Oxford and are well known for your critical acumen in certain circles. From what you have posted here I get more of the sense of the all-too-common sophomoric student of literature with a smidgen of exposure to poetry who is deeply disconcerted by the challenges presented by contemporary literature, and lashes out blindly at those who may disagree with him... regardless or mindless of what their experience may or may not be. Again... I may be wrong. But it takes more than repeated declarations as to the mediocrity of modern poetry and the decline of the English language for one to be taken as something more than a crank.
On another subject that came to mind re-reading the post, is more complicated language necessarily better? I think of my personal poetic favorite right now, Giacomo Leopardi, the noted Italian classicist/romantic (he seems to fall in between there, and contain elements of both), whose poetics only became simpler as his career matured. The poem in my quote, features more idyllic qualities, and more fancy language than his later poems allow. Yet he matured as a poet, and didn't get worse. Why is it that we associate flowery language (the ones that come to mind first are Milton, Pope, and Tennyson) with good, as we can clearly see, poets like Shakespeare in his plays seem to have abandoned this flowery neo-classical mindset in their later works.
Of course, this is all surmising, as we all know, many poets simply only wrote a handful of good poems anyway, but is something as simple as Wordsworth's daffodils less beautiful than Tennyson's Lady of Shallot? I think what modernism, and now post-modernism are trying to do, is get beyond that. We are allowed to use flowery language, and structure, but in truth they aren't necessary. That isn't what the poem really is about; metre and form are only one aspect.
I don't think saying that past poetry had more vivid language, etc is a blanket statement. A lot of people agree with me on this, as I've said in plenty of posts. I also do not think I didn't back up my statements. I compared well known past poets to well known modern poets in a number of posts, I think you simply failed to overcome your conceited attitude to people who disagree with you.
Again, your attempted degrading of your opponent does nothing to promote your argument. Nor does your cry for more evidence or proof hold up to the evidence I've already given. Anyone can clearly see modern poetry uses a more simple language than even was in use a few decades ago. Posting a few poems as examples is almost pointless when anyone can go on Google and find almost infinite amounts of modern poetry. Your demands are quite ridiculous.
Hypocrisy has been discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
No it hasn't. Should we burn all of Bronzino's paintings because the Renaissance came before him? Or perhaps we should out with Victorian literature, since Romantic literature is more fun. Just because there was such a big dumping of extremely good art before, doesn't discredit today's art. It just means that we aren't as successful right now, not completely unsuccessful. And who knows - StLuke is only guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
JBI, I would still quibble that modern poetry and contemporary poetry can be bracketed off, with overlap, but none the less. Frost is modern, but really cannot be deemed contemporary. Vassar Miller, who is the goal I one day hope to match (no, not surpass, but match) it can be argued, can go either way--but I would argue she is falling into *modern* even though she falls within living memory of President Bush, who was supposed to award her an honor in Texas before she passed:
Vassar Miller
Subterfuge
I remember my father, slight,
staggering in with his Underwood,
bearing it in his arms like an awkward bouquet
for his spastic child who sits down
on the floor, one knee on the frame
of the typewriter, and holding her left wrist
with her right hand, in that precision known
to the crippled, pecks at the keys
with a sparrow’s preoccupation.
{excerpt}
Whereas I am her contemporary, occasionally a reflective image, and I assume I will not get into trouble for posting myself, as I own the copyright to all my published work:
Joanne Marinelli
The Blue Dressed Black Girl I Was Rolling Behind
Or a variant of turquoise in an hourglass of rhyme,
the sun danced and praised her and sparkled and spangled–
the cloak of an armor to win every battle:
the flash of a lance,
the sheen of a halo,
a spectrum of color caught in surprise–
the gold green of a peacock spread out in display
who shimmers and struts on a jingle of heel,
how afresh I could find wonder in the magic a
woman could hold, a confidence with grace in every
gesture, every curve,
made ready to climb and conquest the world,
like tortillas from Tucson rolled just the right
way,
all sizzle, all dazzle,
she commanded that day.
The corner we came to would bring us to part,
a silent separation she would never turn to see,
the wheelchair rolling from her who held a
woman who was me.
from Coloring Book, An Anthology
Hopefully, the comparison makes the point.
Since this thing does in fact seem to be going on :rolleyes:, I thought I'd put in my two cents as a relatively dispassionate observer:
1. Did St. Luke's allow his indignation/impatience to get the better of him, leading to some condescending sounding lines in some of his posts to Leabhar?: Yes!
2. Was Leabhar making some rather broad sweeping statements in the parts of his post that St. Luke's quotes above?: Absolutely!
I think from the start the crux of the debate has been less about modern poets people do or do not like and more about how one views history. Leabhar, I'm sorry, but the lines St. Luke's quoted above were also the ones I found problematic in your statements. You do seem to be making a very large generalizing claim in those statements about modern language (and thus modern poetry) being inferior to the history that preceeds it. The impression such claims give is that your view of literary history is one with a peak about a hundred years ago and an inexorable decline continuing into the present day, with our own age in a rather hopeless mess. You may believe that this generality about the past versus the present is true, which is fine. In that case you need to debate in terms of defending this particular view of history. However, even if they are viable opinions, you do have to at least acknowledge that statements like those quoted are general and sweeping statements about contrasting time periods. If you did not intend them to come across as such, then you need to clarify that a bit more.
Everyone seems to be agreeing that poetry is not at some great peak in this day and age. The main question seems to be about the view one takes of literary history. One way imagines it like a continuous series of waves in which there is consistently a certain amount of good and a certain amount of bad stuff produced in any age, with slight dips and swells that make certain ages a little more stand out than others. In this view the High Renaissance, for example, might be a crest of productivity, while the period that followed might be considered a slight dip. Yet this still wouldn't mean that there was no great artistic production in the period following the Renaissance (clearly there was a fair amount!). Similarly, this view would indicate that there may have been a slight swell in poetic output in say, the late 19th, early 20th century (just for the sake of argument) and a slight dip in, perhaps the last few decades, but it would not indicate that there is anything intrinsically wrong with our present period, just that we are experiencing the natural and continuous flow of artistic innovation.
Another way to view history would be to think that there was something particularly special happening in the past that led to great stuff being produced, and that there is something particularly wrong with our current culture, which is setting us in apart from the rest of history and the artistic traditions associated with that history. This view would suggest, not that we are part of ongoing and continuous sets of historical waves, but that we've broken this continuity in some fundamental way, which is impairing our ability to produce great verse. This struck me as the view that Leabhar was taking (please elaborate and correct me if I'm wrong, Leabhar) in the broad statements he was making. I actually think there are some things to be said for some aspects of this view in that it recognizes a certain dynamic that does propel art through the ages, namely a series of both breaks with the immediate past and attempts to reconnect with that past. However, I would set these moves toward rebellion and imitation within the context of the first model of history outlined above. In other words, while there certainly was a break with certain past traditions in the 20th century, this doesn't really mean a break with the past itself, but rather a repetition of a dynamic that has worked throughout the history of literature in which multiple small breaks, or innovations rebelling against the immediate past, combined with multiple small reconnections with or immitations of past periods have propelled the waves of continuous artistic production.
Of course there does need to be a balance between the innovative and the imitative, and Leabhar may have a point in that his underlying suggestion seems to be that poets should move in a more imitative direction, reconnecting with some of what worked in past poetry. If this is what he is trying to suggest (is it, Leabhar?), the main question then seems to be whether the break with the past, or the innovation which came between then and now, should be rejected in favor of a return to the past, or whether this would be an unproductive way of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and instead any imitative tendency needs to work within the framework of the current innovations.
I'd opt for the latter, but what is upsetting my digestion in this discussion is any lack of examples from you, luke, or JBI, for that matter, about what contemporary poets are less than their progenitors, and why this is so. I think this is highly debatable, even easily refuted. Allen Tate's modernism is nearly breathtaking. Vassar, whom I love, has been critically acclaimed for making silence palpable. luke just introduced me to Carson, who--at least from his samples--has a distinct voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love
Poetry evolves, just like anything else, and a modern or contemporary introspective occupation doesn't mean this kind of poetry is less than its didactic public forebearers.
Honestly though - the last time poets tried to appeal to "classical models", and the trend took, we got the enlightenment - not a very good poetic output. Of all the centuries so far, in English poetry, from the 16th century, the 18th seems to be the dullest, as everyone seemed to be fixated entirely on neo-classicism, and couplets, to the point where creativity was compromised. Poetry needs to be innovative, and new, not classical.
Jozanny--I'm a bit confused by your confusion, and perhaps was not clear enough in my previous post. My own stance, and even more forcefully that of JBI and St. Luke's, is that contemporary poets are not noticeably less than their progenitors. I took the claim that they are to be part of the stance Leabhar was advocating. What St. Luke's, JBI and I have been trying to suggest is that there are good and bad poets today, just as there were good and bad poets in the past. The very good poets of the past were better than both the so-so poets of their own time, and are better than the so-so poets of our time. Similarly, a really excellent poet writing today is producing work that is better than the mediocre poets of the 19th century. What I'm mainly trying to sort out right now is a fundamental difference in the way these posters are viewing our time in relation to the past, since that seems like an important thing to settle before moving on to which poets are the best or the not so great of our time. To be absolutely clear, I do not believe that there is anything about contemporary poetry that is particularly lesser than much of the poetry that has been produced before now. This is what I meant by using the metaphor of waves throughout history. There is a consistent body of artistic productivity, just as there is consistently water in the ocean, but there are then certain especially high periods of productivity, like the crest of a wave, and certain periods that, when viewed historically, are less stand out artistically speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Perhaps I should have been more clear in the part of my post that you quoted that I was trying to say that Leabhar may be right that we are due for a shift toward the imitative in poetry. Usually when an era is in one of those less productive times--at the base of the "wave"--it tends to be either an innovative break with the past or an attempt to reconnect with the past in new ways that stimulates renewed creativity. If we are indeed in one of these less peak times, then one possibly invigorating approach could be to take a closer look back at some of the past traditions that may have been abandoned in the fervor of innovative rebellion and to incorporate a little of those past approaches to poetry into the contemporary mode. This is, of course, something that many poets do, and I do not mean to suggest that contemporary poets all fall neatly into the block of "innovative rebels," since clearly things are much more complicated than that. I'm also not stating absolutely that we even are in a particularly low ebb state poetically, though it is my sense that history won't be looking back at this time as one of the great heights. It is, however, very difficult to be completely accurate in one's assessment of the current day, and hindsight is always 20/20. ;)
It has. He hasn't brought that viewpoint to light in this thread, probably because it is almost the same thing I was thinking. I don't know why he keeps up the argument if he almost agrees with me. I like how he ignored the fact that he has been arguing with himself and lying about me for pages, saying I said "modern poetry sucks" etc, when I never said anything like that. Or when I was speaking of "most modern free verse" when I talked about the emperors new clothes fable, he took it out of context and propped up a nice straw man he further used to accuse me of being a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Wording it different doesn't make it any different. We're in a relatively poor age of poetry compared to the past, which was what I've been saying since page 1:Quote:
Should we burn all of Bronzino's paintings because the Renaissance came before him? Or perhaps we should out with Victorian literature, since Romantic literature is more fun. Just because there was such a big dumping of extremely good art before, doesn't discredit today's art. It just means that we aren't as successful right now, not completely unsuccessful. And who knows - StLuke is only guessing.
stlukesguild started the entire argument, basically. Look at page one. You asked me what type of poetry I was referring to, this was my response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
Most modern free verse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
Once again, stlukesguild likes to take things out of context. He propped up a straw man and claimed/assumed I was referring to all modern poetry, which is just absurdly false. Hell, was it the second page you posted a poem as an example of how some modern free verse has a sort of rhythm? I agreed with you, didn't I? stlukes has been arguing with himself for a while now, I've basically just been saying to stop with the ad hominems as responses to his posts.
@ Petrarch's Love: Taking quotes out of context doesn't prove anything, really. Its just a trick, its called a straw man actually, basic logical fallacy. I'm surprised with all his talk about logic he hasn't heard of it. stlukesguild has been doing that this whole thread. See post 91:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...3&postcount=91
Its really not my problem if someone takes my post the wrong way, because as stlukes said earlier, this is a public forum. Its really ridiculous, claiming I have the burden of proof when he's misappropriating the entire argument. I'll admit he was winning for a moment there with his straw man, until I came out of it and realized I was arguing something I never even said.
A perhaps regrettable loss is that poets no longer have a place in the public square. Browning was one of the last (second tier?) greats who did--and by this I do not mean a reputation so much as a public argument. The epic masters had it, as does Dante, but it breathes its last in the Victorian era. I am not sure if Whitman is a very brief American version of this, as I am not well versed in Leaves of Grass and the more I learn about Whitman's life-- (to be continued)
I wouldn't call that exactly true - only true of American verse, and probably most English verse in general. However, Arab poets, for instance, have huge cultural followings and influence, as do many other poets. Either way though, that has nothing to do with poetry. Emily Dickinson didn't leave her house, and I would wager she is probably the best American artistic contribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
There is really know way to tell how good this age is right now, since there is no way to tell without examining it, and quite frankly, that isn't available to us.
Of the major American poets of last century, both Crane and Stevens went pretty much unnoticed. Eliot was huge, of course, as was Frost. Pound was loud, but even he acknowledged his own failure as a poet. But there were hundreds of other modernists, some of which very good, who are still read, but for the most part, they all, even most of the popular ones, disappeared into time-specific classrooms only.
Modernism was a huge artistic movement, but so was Victorianism, and so was Romanticism. That's really a one and a half century long string of highly contributory movements in English verse. Not to shabby.
Either way though, we cannot say for certain that our own age is quiet. Seamus Heaney, to me at least, is a major poet. There are probably many others who will be major poets. Certainly there is bound to be at least a couple sleepers (I.E. the George Herbert, John Donne, Marvell, Dickinson, Hopkins, etc. type) amongst us. We need to wait to make sure that our assumptions are true.
Either way though, there hasn't been a particular period where good literature wasn't really produced. Even the medieval times produced some great masterworks.
On the other hand... as much as I admire certain artists/writers/composers of today, I have more than a sneaking suspicion that we are not living in an era to match that which preceded us.
Hypocrisy has been discovered.
If you spent less time in just trying to win an argument at whatever cost and more time fleshing out your point of view we might be able to have a serious dialog. As it is now, it has devolved into a defensive game of "who said what and when" that offers little by the way of solid defense of your point of view.
As JBI suggested there is no hypocrisy in my suggestion that we may not be living in an era to match the past. The Renaissance was clearly a far greater era (at least in the visual arts) than that of Mannerism. That does not mean that Mannerism... as pale of an echo of the Renaissance as it may have been... did not produce any number of marvelous artists: Bronzino, Rosso Fiorentino, El Greco, Veronese, Tintoretto, Parmagianino, etc... I declared that I did indeed wonder whether a similar claim cannot be made of Contemporary poetry (and of course my comments upon what was shelved at my local Borders was all tongue-in-cheek as I am more than aware that Borders in pandering to the mass audience does not represent the best of poetry today). I do not proclaim it to be a fact that poetry today is a pale echo of that of high Modernism (Crane, Stevens, Frost, Montale, Pasternak, Eliot, Yeats, Rilke) because I must acknowledge that my knowledge of Contemporary poetry is limited by language, and other barriers. In spite of this, I completely reject the notion that the best of today's poets "read like immature diddies (sp.) compared with past poetry"... "the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry"... "Modern poetry goes along with the decline of intelligent language."... "Modern poetry is anything but musical or lyrical to me, it is bland and dry... we use the most simple and dumbed down version of English yet to exist" I have come upon more than a fair share of Contemporary poets whose work seriously resonated.
Are these quotes taken out of context? Certainly. One can easily return to read the entire posts at will and it will be more than clear that the change in context has not distorted the original meaning... only intensified it by collecting similar sentiments into a single group.
We have repeatedly asked for proofs in this argument not because we feel it cannot be done (I would certainly have no problem finding plenty of bad poetry by Modern and Contemporary poets), but rather for clarity. It seems quite obvious to me that what was being suggested was that poetry as a whole had suffered some great decline... that even the best work by Modern and Contemporary poets was but a joke in comparison with older poetry. This is what we speak of when we mention "sweeping statements". You cannot damn the whole of Modern/Contemporary poetry in one statement and then admit to liking Yeats or Auden or "Do Not Go Gentle Into that Good Night" in the next. Modern poetry is all bad... except when I like it? What exactly are we speaking of when we speak of Modern Poetry? You have dismissed Heaney, Wilbur, Hecht, Montale and others who frequently work in a rather traditional manner, as well as the more clearly Modernist and experimental poets... and then you turn around and claim that your intention was never to dismiss the whole of Modern/Contemporary poetry? After a while it becomes impossible to continue a dialog arguing with someone who uses only abstractions... and leaves us guessing as to who or what you are talking of.
We have put several poems forward as examples of the solid poetry to be found among Modern/Contemporary poets only to have them dismissed as "mediocre" with the wave of a hand... with statements as to how this one "isn't really usual or modern", and that one is about the Holocaust and you don't like art about the Holocaust. Then clarify things for us. You continually accuse me of taking you out of context or attributing viewpoints to you that are misleading. Then why not simply make things clear and tell us what you are saying about Modern poetry... and who or what you imagine that includes... and who it does not.
Wording it different doesn't make it any different. We're in a relatively poor age of poetry compared to the past, which was what I've been saying since page 1
Stating that "We're in a relatively poor age of poetry compared to the past..." is not the same as stating:
"the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry..."
"Modern poetry doesn't have the right language..."
"Modern poetry is bad though, according to a lot of people, poets and readers alike. When one thinks even the most widely recognized and revered poets of the times are bad than you know something is wrong."
"Modern poetry goes along with the decline of intelligent language."
"The root of poetry and all literature is in language, and any historian of English or any linguist will tell you, or even a discerning reader, English is declining and becoming simpler."
"The poets you listed (Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Eugenio Montale, Richard Wilbur, Charles Simic, Anthony Hecht, Wislawa Symborska, Adam Zagajewski, Czeslaw Milosz, Seamus Heaney, Homero Aridjis, Anne Carson, W.S. Merwin, John Ashberry, Yehuda Amichai) are mediocre at best compared with representatives from other ages."
stlukesguild started the entire argument, basically. Look at page one. You asked me what type of poetry I was referring to, this was my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar View Post
Most modern free verse is just writing put into lines
Like this, is this poetry?
They just stole the name "poetry"
And made all other poetry nonexistent
The emperor has no clothes.
Most modern free verse.
Once again, stlukesguild likes to take things out of context. He propped up a straw man and claimed/assumed I was referring to all modern poetry, which is just absurdly false.
"the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry..."
"The poets you listed (Yves Bonnefoy, Geoffrey Hill, Eugenio Montale, Richard Wilbur, Charles Simic, Anthony Hecht, Wislawa Symborska, Adam Zagajewski, Czeslaw Milosz, Seamus Heaney, Homero Aridjis, Anne Carson, W.S. Merwin, John Ashberry, Yehuda Amichai) are mediocre at best compared with representatives from other ages."
If you had actually ever read anything by Geoffrey Hill, Eugenio Montale, Richard Wilbur, W.S. Merwin, and many others that you dismissed as mediocre at best you would have known that they often write in a manner employing traditional forms/themes/subjects, etc... But you dismissed them and any other poets we suggested just as rapidly as you dismissed "most modern free verse". Personally, I have no problem admitting that most modern free verse is bad. But so is most modern classical verse. And if you explored any era at any time in history in some real depth you would discover that most all art from any time/place/culture is/was mediocre at best. But free verse has also been the basis of some of the most brilliant poetic creations from the Biblical writings to Shakespeare, Whitman, Rimbaud, Pessoa, Neruda, etc...
So again... Let us start fresh. What exactly are you saying?
Sum it up like this - most verse is mediocre. Pope wrote a poem about it, it's called the Dunciad. In the same way, Austen wrote a novel mocking gothic fiction, and George Eliot wrote essays about mediocre women novelists.
There has always been bad stuff written - the same way there has always been bad music composed, bad paintings painted, wasted pieces of marble, etc.
Well, if we are moving on to what the current state of poetry needs, I think that one is something of a stumper. We cannot reclaim the epic voice (I disagree with JBI about what this is and how it was lost, but Frost, craftsman that he was, could not engage his public the way Dante does with the Divine Comedy; Dante was having a national conversion with Italy about maintaining imperial power through Roman Catholicism... Frost certainly had a dialectic going with what we'd now call American Exceptionalism, but a contemporary reader can see the introversion and insular interpretations coming; it can be traced from Frost straight through Susan Wheeler, who tries to return Frost to the public through imitation...) I don't know.
I understand what Petrarch means--movements which produce great poets tend to have some sort of discourse with tribalism or empire to say something about his or her own age--but this new century doesn't have that ease. The last empire, which is this one, the American, may or may not be fading, but it is certainly rumbling uneasily at its core, and its literary arts gets traded in ivory towers among the gatekeepers, but that doesn't mean those with the keys aren't producing intricate and even extraordinary work--but it is work for consumption among the high priests and priestesses themselves.
Jozanny, This has to be the most incisive, intuitive position of the state of American poetry that I've read to date. ..."The last empire, which is this one, the American, may or may not be fading, but it is certainly rumbling uneasily at its core, and its literary arts gets traded in ivory towers among the gatekeepers, but that doesn't mean those with the keys aren't producing intricate and even extraordinary work--but it is work for consumption among the high priests and priestesses themselves."
I know of a poet currently writing an epic, of which I have sampled some passages. I won't say more, as he wouldn't approve, but I will say that the epic mode is not really a factor. The last 'epic' in the classical sense (Homer, Virgil, Beowulf, Roland, Niblung, etc.) as I see it was Dante, though Petrarch may argue something like Milton. The mode has been dead for years, yet the long poem variation of it continues to be written today. I know Merrill wrote one not long ago, as did Walcott, and other poets. That isn't really a problem.
However, if I understand you correctly, you are hinting at the fact that poets do not have the same prophetic status. I would disagree, and say that is only for America. If one looks at a poet like Darwish, we can clearly see that culture status is still being rewarded to poets today.
Shakespeare wasn't viewed like a prophet in his day, and in fact, I think Pope was the first poet fully supported by his poetic output (I am distinguishing between poetry, and other forms such as drama). Cult statuses only really establish later into a poets career, or after their death. With the exception of Byron, most poets don't achieve economic wealth purely from their work.
JBI, let me check some source material, and then maybe *we*, the defenders against the barbarians :), can start a new thread--as maybe I am not being entirely clear about what I mean, and what I mean is not aesthetic success, or self-support, which Pope was one of the last to achieve.
Yes, you are right, the epic mode is *dead*, and maybe that is as it should be, but poets lost the moral prerogative that coupled with the epic voice--and Browning was, arguably, one of the last to try to keep his grip on that prerogative. I don't know Darwish, and I am not sure *cult following* is the same thing as the *moral* authority Dante and Milton et al claimed--but let me chew on this a bit.
quasi: thanks. Will get back to you.
Leabhar--My response was not solely to the quotes that St. Luke's pulled out above. I have read all of your posts in full on this thread and one view or attitude that I, independently, got out of those posts was well represented by the quotes he posted. Just quoting a person is not necessarily a straw man, and in this case I thought they were statements of your point of view on the issue. It isn't just because St. Luke's has magically misappropriated the entire argument, but because I, and I think a few others on this thread really don't understand what you are trying to say when you talk about the language of today being worse than that of the past and there being no "real" poetry, if it isn't that you are contrasting an ideal past with an inferior present. No, you don't have to take on a "burden of proof" when someone misinterprets your post, but it would certainly be both polite and helpful to clarify for that person how he/she was wrong in their reading of your intentions and what your actual stance is when he/she remains confused. This is all I was trying to get you to do in my post. I outlined some ideas regarding how one views history, wrote what I thought was your stance, and invited you more than once in the post to elaborate or clarify what you were actually trying to say, and what you meant by some of these statements that you keep claiming are being taken out of context. Instead I get a response about straw men and you not having to explain yourself to anyone, which is hardly going to help to clear things up.Quote:
@ Petrarch's Love: Taking quotes out of context doesn't prove anything, really. Its just a trick, its called a straw man actually, basic logical fallacy. I'm surprised with all his talk about logic he hasn't heard of it. stlukesguild has been doing that this whole thread. See post 91:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...3&postcount=91
Its really not my problem if someone takes my post the wrong way, because as stlukes said earlier, this is a public forum. Its really ridiculous, claiming I have the burden of proof when he's misappropriating the entire argument. I'll admit he was winning for a moment there with his straw man, until I came out of it and realized I was arguing something I never even said.
So let's just wipe the slate clean for a moment, temporarily forget all the back and forth that is clouding the issue, and I'll ask you again what your view of the contrast between past and present is. Do you believe that there's something uniquely bad about present language in contrast to the past? Are you of the opinion that there has been a bad break in our current day with the former literary tradition that has led to unusually bad poetry, and that the only "real" poetry would be a return to that past? Do you feel that past poetry is better than modern poetry by virtue of a certain special quality that our current society lacks? Or, was this not what you wanted to convey in your contrast of past and present, in which case could you please state what that was?
These questions and the thoughts in my post above are not an attempt at winning anything (indeed, very few intellectual debates worth having can ultimately be thought of in terms of "winning"), but an attempt to get at the heart of this matter and to give you the opportunity to straighten out any misinterpretation that has occurred.
Leabhar: This is your first post, and I have to join the moderately confused chorus of not knowing what you mean, which is why I have ignored you up to this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leabhar
I do not care about certain literary styles, and the comic wit of Alexander Pope doesn't much appeal to me. I *studied* him under a professor who read aloud from the text for 40 minutes and felt that she had performed her teaching duties adequately thereby. This may have something to do with my lack of enthusiasm for Pope and his age.
However, I think most members of this forum can grasp that if I don't like Pope, I have my reasons and am willing to provide them.
What is *psychotic babbling*? Who has babbled psychotically? Can you give me the name of said poet with psychosis? And a sample excerpt? Have you studied poetry with an instructor?
Jozanny, I'm with you on not liking the pope, and for the most part, not liking the 18th century in English lit. I wouldn't go so far however, as to suggest it is all trash. That would be rude to poets like Gray, Goldsmith, Pope (who I don't personally like), Swift (who I also don't particularly like), and others.
Makes me wonder if "the greatest Shakespearean on the east coast" moved to Canada;). He refused to teach the Enlightenment.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I have not consulted my source material yet, but did look up Darwish. Thank you for that JBI.
I haven't done anything today except close my mutual fund and fight my fear by consuming every article I could read today about national politics. My sister is frightened too and I can't help her if she and her husband lose their house. I have some slight protection due to presumptive disability--slight, but she has none.
Procrastination has always been the worst enemy to my ambition, my young friend, :), but paralysis? I never bargained for it. Thought I'd model the Shakespearean. Never managed.