Are Poets Born Not Made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Hence the claim that understanding art or his precussors is trait of all the best poets is false.

---

I'd say it's true of the majority of the greats, but now it seems we've shifted to discussing exactly what constitutes an intellectual artist. You'd claim Keats wasn't one, I think he was one, even if he was not as much of a critic in the manner of Coleridge or Eliot. But, anyway, more on this below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I have no problem if you want to use the word intellectual for every product of our minds or a replacement for intelligence. I see it as pointless, as obvious this make no relevant distinction between all forms of thinking, when intellectual can and is used with a more specific form. But I do find strange you use "innate intellectualism', mixing one word related to instinct and another to reason... Innate is something which is born with the individual...

---

I think the distinction I've been trying to make is between intellectual and academic/critic, but another distinction would have to be drawn between intellectual and just "everyday thinker" or "every product of our minds" as well. I see an intellectual as being someone more in between those extremes. Someone who spends more time thinking on intellectual, theoretical subjects (even if they're aesthetics and poetry), but perhaps does not solely make their living at it in a formal setting. Wikipedia says of an intellectual that:

Quote:

---

An intellectual is a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity. As a substantive or adjective, it refers to the work product of such persons, to the so-called "life of the mind" generally, or to an aspect of something where learning, erudition, and informed and critical thinking are the focus...

"Intellectual" can denote three types of people:

An intellectual is a person who uses thought and reason, intelligence and critical or analytical reasoning, in either a professional or a personal capacity and is

1. a person involved in, and with, abstract, erudite ideas and theories;
2. a person whose profession (e.g. philosophy, literary criticism, sociology, law, political analysis, theoretical science, etc.) solely involves the production and dissemination of ideas;[1]
3. a person of notable cultural and artistic expertise whose knowledge grants him or her intellectual authority in public discourse

---

I think one reason it's tempting to consider most of the great poets as intellectuals is that poetry, being the art of language and form, is an inherently intellectual pursuit. You can not utilize language without having learned language, and you can not utilize form without having learned form. But, what's more, one can't use either if they have no thoughts, nothing the least bit intellectual, to write about in the first place. I don't think it would be difficult to fit most of the great poets into one (or more) of the three categories listed above.

As for "innate intellectual," perhaps a better term would've been "half-intellectual," which is stranger, but is perhaps open to more of a new definition. What I meant was that in reading and absorbing poetry, Keats was "innately," or perhaps "intuitively" would've been a better term, learning from it. One doesn't necessarily have to sit down with the conscious intent of "I'm going to learn," and then drill facts into their head through repetition. I think most great artists have that ability to transform even cursory reading into a kind of intuitive, instinctual knowledge, the kind of knowledge that they may not be completely aware or conscious of themselves, but is nonetheless in them simply from what they've absorbed. But that absorption still required them to read and to think on what they read to some extent, and Keats' theories are a reflection of his reading and his reflecting on that reading, which is an entirely intellectual pursuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Yes and Negative Capability is exactly what I say: poets do not need to understand all to access their poetic capacity. That is what Keats says and he even goes onwards to say Coleridge need to explain and rationalize all that exists.

---

Yes, but surely you can see that Negative Capability in itself is a very intellectual concept. It's a theory that a lack of conscious knowledge is better than complete conscious knowledge because, amongst other things, it allows artists to mimic the moments of life where we simply don't understand what's happening to us and we have more questions than answers. So even in its argument against not completely understanding everything poetic, Negative Capability is still a thoroughly intellectual concept.

In general, one simply can't read Keats' letters and say that he was not someone who thought a great deal, and thought quite deeply, about poetry. His odes are an amazing testament to his aesthetic theories, even if they're expressed through abstraction and metaphor. Grecian Urn is as potent a revelation of how our reaction to art is one both of conscious curiosity and unconscious experience, and how experience in one state necessitates an exit from the other. Which, while perhaps not a brand new concept (even in Keats' age), is still one that your average thinker wouldn't grasp (and certainly wouldn't have been able to express with the power of Keats' Ode).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Again, Study as something naturally and daily is like kicking out all teachers, pedagogy, schools of the map. Experience is something that happens naturally everyday.

---

I meant "study for autodidacts is just something that happens everyday," meaning people that are self-tought. One does not NEED teachers and schools to learn. It is perfectly allowable to buy and read textbooks and teach one's self, especially on subjects that aren't too mind-bendingly technical (it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I know posting something by a performance poet isn't likely to win me many friends here, but I find this hilarious and appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK2Z7uQkag0

---

Pretty funny, but the best part was the "Aramaic, b!tch!" someone in the crowd screamed! :lol:

Although, Shakespeare probably parodied intellectuals better than anyone in Love's Labour's Lost because he actually could write like they wrote and spoke. What Mali wrote doesn't actually sound like any poetry by any academics I know of, and it is helpful if what you're parodying actually resembled your parody! :D

Will it help my education if I watch these links Morpheus?

I guess this one is not modern because it is expressive and confessional:

A Lament for the Dead Pets of Our Childhood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

Will it help my education if I watch these links Morpheus?

---

No, but it will probably give you a good laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I guess this one is not modern because it is expressive and confessional:

---

It's not confessional as it's miles away from, eg, Sylvia Plath. Expressive? Eh, I guess it would depend on how you want to define the term. But modern? Well, in the sense that it's contemporary, yes, but in the sense that it resembles recent aesthetics, I'd say not. Stallings is not one to use as an exemplar of modernistic tendencies. Try Ashbery.

Anyway, I was only joking with that last comment. But it is true that modernism tended towards detachment and depersonalization more akin to the metaphysical poets as opposed to the Romantics. The Confessional school was, in one respect, romanticism pushed to an extreme, and I think there's been an uneasy tension ever since between those extremes of extremely personal poetry and extremely impersonal poetry. That you prefer the personal is fine, but don't assume that it's innately better or more modern than that which is "affected, contrived, and conscious." Your entire poetic freedom was earned by people like Pound and Eliot who were very much these things. That Eliot provided scholarly notes to his revolutionary The Waste Land was proof that he wanted the reader to be consciously aware of his "borrowings" and "affectations". Or, to quote Clive James:

Quote:

---

the whole of English poetry’s technical heritage was present in Eliot’s work, and never more so than when it seemed free in form.

But since that time, there has been a big shift in belief, and we are living with the consequences now. Ezra Pound might have insisted that only a genius should excuse himself from traditional measures, but he soon decided that he was a genius, and several generations of his spiritual descendants either felt the same about themselves or—much more likely—took the new liberties more and more for granted as time went on.

---

We have certain people on these forums that have clearly "decided they are geniuses," or "more likely" have just "took the new liberties more and more for granted."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

No, but it will probably give you a good laugh.

---

You mean like all the beer comments too? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: you intellects, you're not only highly educated but so hilarious too!

I'm clutching my side, so my guts don't spill out onto the floor of the forum

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

You mean like all the beer comments too? you intellects, you're not only highly educated but so hilarious too!

---

A poet and a critic walk into a bar. Bartender asks what they want to drink. Poet says "give me a beer." Critic says, "Ahh, notice how he uses the imperative speech-act, beginning with the command to "give," followed by the 2nd person pronoun "me," the article "a" and the noun "beer." He could've specified what "beer," but by leaving it vague he leaves it open to interpretation what kind of beer he wants." The bartender says: "Yeah, but what do you want to drink?" Critic says: "Drink? I don't drink."

Read how Irving Howe defines and argues what confessional poetry is.

A confessional poetry to me is the use of I to reveal memories repressed or unsaid. A poet who shares a part of his childhood is doing a confessional poetry.

Another one by Stallings:

Fear of Happiness

Looking back, it’s something I’ve always had:
As a kid, it was a glass-floored elevator
I crouched at the bottom of, my eyes squinched tight,
Or staircase whose gaps I was afraid I’d slip through,
Though someone always said I’d be all right—
Just don’t look down or See, it’s not so bad
(The nothing rising underfoot). Then later
The high-dive at the pool, the tree-house perch,
Ferris wheels, balconies, cliffs, a penthouse view,
The merest thought of airplanes. You can call
It a fear of heights, a horror of the deep;
But it isn’t the unfathomable fall
That makes me giddy, makes my stomach lurch,
It’s that the ledge itself invents the leap.

I've been on and off following this forum with detached interest, since I'm more interested in thinking about poetry rather than deciding on whether poets are 'born with it' or not.

So, glancing at the recent developments in this thread, and operating purely out of personal bias, I have this to say:

1. Beer is wonderful.
2. So is Monty Python.
3. MorpheusSandman is making a criticism of people that write poetry in a particular way, saying that they consider themselves 'geniuses,' by using Clive James' views on Ezra Pound.
4. I don't really like most 'intellectual' poetry, apart from the stuff I like. Some other people do like really intellectually complex and challenging intertextual poetry that requires a lot of research though. I'll leave them to squint over the lines I use for toilet paper.
5. Not all academics write 'academic poetry'.

I dislike most of Clive James' poetry, but like Ezra Pound's. I love ee cummings. I also like chocolate, but the good stuff mind you, none of that Hershey's crap.
Beer anyone? I have Guinness. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

You talk about “the establishment” as a hive mind and, believe me, it’s not. Christopher Ricks talks about the thing that lead him to write his excellent “Milton’s Grand Style” is that two academics of the establishment that he respected disagreed strongly on the quality of Milton’s work (I know FR Leavis was the academic he referred to that disliked Milton). That Milton is a pillar of the canon is undeniable, but that he has always had his detractors in the establishment is also undeniable. If anything, one thing that’s kept him in the canon is that dynamic tension created between those who think he’s up there with Shakespeare, and those that think he’s the most overrated poet who ever lived. Canons aren’t always created out of the hive-mind agreement of the establishment.

---

Yes, academics often disagree but like you stated, Milton is firmly lodged within the canon of English literature so I'm not sure what this proves. And I don't see "the establishment" as necessarily reactionary or hostile but perhaps overly conservative and too slow to recognize new voices. Maybe there is no other way to preserve what is worthy and exclude that which has little worth.

Quote:

---

Wow! Way to admit doing something is unfair and then in the very next clause (not even separated by a period!) do the thing you claim is unfair! Having read many of those poets Luke listed (though mostly just the English language ones), allow me to say that they are radically different in style and content, so to find all of them “dull and unappealing” would likely mean you don’t like poetry to begin with. Any list that includes writers as diverse as Heaney and Ashbery is bound to find something to appeal to a lover of poetry.

---

Yes, I said it was unfair then went ahead and did it anyway. I guess what I was trying to say was that I find most of the poetry that is admired by critics to be rather effete, dull, and tepid. So I went ahead and made an assumption about these poets (which I admit was wrong). Which of these poets do you suggest I try? What I am looking for is subject matter that is at least a little bit controversial, or shocking. Offensive, even.

Hershey's is ****ing awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

Yes, I said it was unfair then went ahead and did it anyway. I guess what I was trying to say was that I find most of the poetry that is admired by critics to be rather effete, dull, and tepid. So I went ahead and made an assumption about these poets (which I admit was wrong). Which of these poets do you suggest I try? What I am looking for is subject matter that is at least a little bit controversial, or shocking. Offensive, even.

---

More and more it seems people are confusing their own singular opinion as 'right' and everyone elses, including people far more well read, as 'wrong'.


Why should we take your singular opinion on the canon seriously, but ignore people who've read more than you know more than you as well the authors influenced by other work and the general common educated reader who have loved and read the classics for hundreds of years (in some cases).

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

---

This, I suspect, plays a large role in the anti-canon crowd's thinking (though they'll never admit to it). I knew a guy whose favorite poet/author was Bukowski and, surprise surprise, he was completely against the canon.

So Paradoxical, the upshot is this, if you're going to claim to have a spiritual self in search of something refreshingly different, at least read, appreciate and agree on the f ucking bible first will you? :chillpill:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

More and more it seems people are confusing their own singular opinion as 'right' and everyone elses, including people far more well read, as 'wrong'.


Why should we take your singular opinion on the canon seriously, but ignore people who've read more than you know more than you as well the authors influenced by other work and the general common educated reader who have loved and read the classics for hundreds of years (in some cases).

To be honest, after reading that you want shocking and offensive I'm starting to believe that it's simply a case of 'not enough of my favourite new writers are in the canon therefore it's wrong'.

---

Good Lord, I'm not asking anyone to take my opinion seriously. I'm just thinking out loud. And I never said that I was right and everyone else was wrong. Far from it. I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new. I also said there may be no other way. Read my last post. Like the comment made by Morpheus, you skipped over the part where I mentioned that I am a fan of T.S. Eliot, Blake, Shakespeare, Wordsworth. Surely they are part of the cannon? I also like Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath, and many others. But I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid. Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason. Look at how much resistance there has been to allow Black voices, women, or queer writers. Look at the visceral reaction it causes. Many are entrenched in their beliefs and take things personally if you dare question the cannon.

So I don't qualify as a "general common educated reader"? I did study English literature at university, for what it's worth. How do you know how much I have read? And notice the comment I made at the end of my reply to StLukes, where I acknowledged that is very well-read and educated. He has obviously read more then I have and I told him that I respect his opinion. But yes, I prefer something along the lines of Bukowski, William S. Burroughs, or Kerouac. I'd rather read Henry Rollins pathetic "poetry" then most of what is considered fine and good by most. I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up. It has to be at least a little exciting. Not more boring middle-class and upper-class white people droning on about the same subjects. Not all of it is like that, of course. But that element is certainly there. Sorry, but I feel that it is true. Call me wrong. Ignore what I say. Hell, I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

This, I suspect, plays a large role in the anti-canon crowd's thinking (though they'll never admit to it). I knew a guy whose favorite poet/author was Bukowski and, surprise surprise, he was completely against the canon.

---

Whatever. This thread is getting tiresome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

So Paradoxical, the upshot is this, if you're going to claim to have a spiritual self in search of something refreshingly different, at least read, appreciate and agree on the f ucking bible first will you? :chillpill:

---

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The bible?

edit: Ah, never mind. Now I get it. LOL.

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The bible?

---

Och dinna worry ye wee hede aboot it! Oh no! I've turned all Scottish! Must mean it's time to read Rabbie Burns - I will have to locate him in Seven Centuries of Poetry in English. Phew! I will now carry my intellectual nobody to bed with a mug of hot milk and ponder, For A' That...

Is there for honest poverty
That hangs his head, an' a' that?
The coward slave, we pass him by
We dare be poor for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
Our toil's obscure, and a' that;
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,-
The man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin' grey, an' a' that?
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine,-
A man's a man, for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their tinsel show an' a' that;
The honest man, though e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts an' stares an' a' that,-
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that;
For a' that, an' a' that
His riband, star, and a' that;
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak' a belted knight
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's aboon his might,-
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that;
Their dignities an' a' that,
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth,
Are higher ranks than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,-
(As come it will for a' that),-
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree an' a' that.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,-
That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

---

How can one know one from the other? It's such a personal issue. Most writers are not poets and most poets are not made. You either are or you're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

(it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).

---

Oh, I don't know. With algebra, one need only follow the directions. Of course, I suppose that's how some approach poetry too.

Maybe you have an instructive quote handy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I think the distinction I've been trying to make is between intellectual and academic/critic, but another distinction would have to be drawn between intellectual and just "everyday thinker" or "every product of our minds" as well. I see an intellectual as being someone more in between those extremes. Someone who spends more time thinking on intellectual, theoretical subjects (even if they're aesthetics and poetry), but perhaps does not solely make their living at it in a formal setting. Wikipedia says of an intellectual that: I think one reason it's tempting to consider most of the great poets as intellectuals is that poetry, being the art of language and form, is an inherently intellectual pursuit. You can not utilize language without having learned language, and you can not utilize form without having learned form. But, what's more, one can't use either if they have no thoughts, nothing the least bit intellectual, to write about in the first place. I don't think it would be difficult to fit most of the great poets into one (or more) of the three categories listed above.

---

Well, like i said It is ok if you define intellectual as the use of intellect, but even wikipedia rules out keats (it is a person who is analytical, use reason, etc), so some poets would be like this and Keats, one that use primary emotion not. But we could avoid it and move on, as we agree on something enough to discuss, does not matter if we do not agree how we name it.

Quote:

---

As for "innate intellectual," perhaps a better term would've been "half-intellectual," which is stranger, but is perhaps open to more of a new definition. What I meant was that in reading and absorbing poetry, Keats was "innately," or perhaps "intuitively" would've been a better term, learning from it. One doesn't necessarily have to sit down with the conscious intent of "I'm going to learn," and then drill facts into their head through repetition. I think most great artists have that ability to transform even cursory reading into a kind of intuitive, instinctual knowledge, the kind of knowledge that they may not be completely aware or conscious of themselves, but is nonetheless in them simply from what they've absorbed. But that absorption still required them to read and to think on what they read to some extent, and Keats' theories are a reflection of his reading and his reflecting on that reading, which is an entirely intellectual pursuit.

---

Mostly fine. I would just say innate genius, could be easily understood. Then we have a guy like Keats, which poetic method is based on emotion. A different claim (I say claim because it may be possible they claim it different and pratice it alike) is the one of Poe, which method is based on reason. So, maybe they are actually talking about how to construct a poem (poe) and how to find poetic inspiration (Keats), and we may say a poet is born, but poetry is crafted. What probally make a great poet is not explaning the craft, maybe it is the famous: the rules and models are not jails, not rigid, but mallable, so it is when the innate traits (which we may extend to every writer) is able to deal with the materials he have. Even a critic is good when his insight is able to change what he studies and he have the capacity to explain it and make it "believable".

And yes, I agree much about Keats natural critical insights. Maybe the great difference if he lived longer would not be better poems, but a critical body organized and original that would be a work of genius... Anyways, I also think there was a huge mistake when they related his failures, specially the long poems or dramatic poems as failures in attempts of intellectualization. I think it was just not the best suited form, one he needed more pratice.

Quote:

---

Yes, but surely you can see that Negative Capability in itself is a very intellectual concept. It's a theory that a lack of conscious knowledge is better than complete conscious knowledge because, amongst other things, it allows artists to mimic the moments of life where we simply don't understand what's happening to us and we have more questions than answers. So even in its argument against not completely understanding everything poetic, Negative Capability is still a thoroughly intellectual concept.

---

If intellectual meant product of his tought, i would just say all concepts are, so I would not use the word. But yes, a great concept that shows someone with a sharp capacity to feel poetry.

Keats certainly presents something else beyond what romantic poets were thinking.

Quote:

---

I meant "study for autodidacts is just something that happens everyday," meaning people that are self-tought. One does not NEED teachers and schools to learn. It is perfectly allowable to buy and read textbooks and teach one's self, especially on subjects that aren't too mind-bendingly technical (it's probably easier to teach one's self poetry than, say, algebra).

---

Yes, sure. Learning can be done everyday, in many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

---

And how do you distinguish between the two? By what you like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Read how Irving Howe defines and argues what confessional poetry is: A confessional poetry to me is the use of I to reveal memories repressed or unsaid.

---

Then I am a confessional poet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

---

So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

================================================== =

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silas Thorne

3. MorpheusSandman is making a criticism of people that write poetry in a particular way, saying that they consider themselves 'geniuses,' by using Clive James' views on Ezra Pound.

---

More like I'm criticizing people that choose to dismiss/ignore the poetic tradition while (ironically) being allowed to do so because of that tradition. James' point was that the moderns who "freed" everyone were steeped in that tradition, and everyone now that chooses to ignore it have only been given that liberty because of people that actually DID learn it and DID work hard at it. What I'm really criticizing is the anti-intellectual attitude (which I think is born out of xenophobia and laziness, more than anything) that poets are just these divinely inspired creatures that don't need to work at or learn their craft.

================================================== =

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new... I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid.

---

Canons have ALWAYS been slow, though. It's not as if those in the 17th Century considered Shakespeare as the greatest writer ever in the English language. He owes much of that reputation to the 19th Century and, especially, the German intellectuals. So criticizing the canon for being slow is bizarre to me, because all canons are formed via a "consensus" of what emerges out of criticism over a long period of time.

But your "much of what is considered good/great... is dull and tepid" is a really, really, general and vague statement. You've admitted you like some of the canon, so what part of the canon is "dull and tepid?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason. Look at how much resistance there has been to allow Black voices, women, or queer writers.

---

The reason is because for centuries it was primarily white men that were writing poetry. A good chunk of poets from the 20th century that are, let's say, eligible for the canon are black, female, and queer (Paul Lawrence Dunbar, Langston Hughes, Rita Dove, Adrienne Rich, Yusef Komunyakaa, WH Auden, James Merrill), and they have predecessors like Whitman and Dickinson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paradoxical

I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up.

---

Hey, I dig Burroughs, but it seems like what you're hankering for is some kind of sensationalist shock. It's been done and, quite frankly, I feel more "awakened" by Blake than I do by Bukowski (whom I don't like) or Burroughs (whom I do).

================================================== =

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Well, like i said It is ok if you define intellectual as the use of intellect, but even wikipedia rules out keats

---

Wikipedia rules out Keats? Did I miss that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Then we have a guy like Keats, which poetic method is based on emotion.

---

What I'd say it's based on eliciting emotion via a very learned craft and technique. Keats' placing emphasis on imagery over philosophical statements came out of his reading of Shakespeare's sonnets, and loving those parts where Shakespeare carried the meaning through metaphor and imagery. In fact, Keats' rejection of the couplet ending was partly due to his distaste for how Shakespeare would often restate what he had already said in a more appealing way in the first 12 lines. Something like To Autumn is very much the pinnacle of using imagery that is very much symbolic, and it's an allegorical mode that he developed throughout his earlier poetry and through his reading of Shakespeare. So it was not something that came strictly innately, it was something that was made out of his reading and reflection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I also think there was a huge mistake when they related his failures, specially the long poems or dramatic poems as failures in attempts of intellectualization.

---

I don't think it was a failure of intellectualization as much as it was a failure of presenting intellectual concepts. The Odes are, in their way, MORE intellectual in how they carry their intellectual concepts through imagery, allegory, and dramatic development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

If intellectual meant product of his tought, i would just say all concepts are, so I would not use the word..

---

I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just "everyday learning" and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Then I am a confessional poet.

So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

---

That was my thinking also when I read that. The fact that some people think certain poetry is inferior to their own, speaks of presumptuous righteousness on their part.

We all are different writers with different skill sets. I never went to writing school, nor did I finish college. Does that mean I suck because I don't write like the Harvard grads? Or that my style is more narrative and not modern enough?

If I comment on their poetry but they don't even acknowledge me as a writer, then why should I care about their writing?

This is why I wrote what I wrote before (A Certain Snobbery in Poetry). Some people come off high on their rocker! And it stinks to high heaven!

I would hope that we're all here to improve and none of us think that we've really "made it." If we had arrived we be getting published in Poetry and APR and Tin House and Ploughshares and getting selected for anthologies or being up for awards and having decent selling books and probably be getting paid to teach (or lecture or something). Most of the work I post here is work that I know is incomplete and needs work, and I'm open for suggestions on how to do it better. Others, though, seem to have this attitude that they're infallible, their work can't be improved upon, they don't need to learn anything new, they don't care about reader's reactions or criticism... and to them I can't help but wonder why they're posting their poetry here in the first place. If they're all that and we're just bad readers, go find better readers that will actually pay you for your work. This SHOULD be a place for learning and improving and helping others do the same, more than anything else, not a place for being above that, either as a writer or as a critic.

And this is why I have utmost respect for the following posters. In no particular order:

Twota - Always good natured, willing to learn, a solid poet and has something positive to say.

Silas Thorne - Another who is a solid contributor. Leaves a positive impression. Professional. Superb writer.

MystyrMystyry - A writer of the highest order, filled with imagination.

Hawkman - Is willing to break down your poetry and leaves no punches. In a good natured way. And writes superb stuff.

Delta - The first lady of poetry of the highest order; who is a stunning poet and solid all around. Very humble!

Jack of Hearts - Another who is willing to take the time to comment. Tells you what he likes and don't like. A superb writer himself.

Bar22do - Another all around great contributor and a solid writer in his own right!

Jerrybaldy - A superb writer and also contributes, helping others.

hillwalker - Though he don't post much anymore, is still remembered as a learned master of the art of writing. And is missed. Superb writer.

Bewlay Brother - Another solid writer who gives his time in sharing and commenting on other poetry.

Dark Muse - An interesting writer with a fresh prospective on the art of writing.

paradoxical - Ditto

PrinceMyshkin - Ditto

DocHeart - Ditto

Kittypaws - Ditto

Cacian - Ditto

Bookbeauty - Ditto

Yes/No - Ditto

Tah - A major contributor to the poetry boards. A solid writer in his own right!

Mutatis-Mutandis - A willing participant and knows the genre. Is willing to lay it on the line. Knows the art well and writes top notch too.

Buh4Bee - A very good character, who is always willing to share his assessment of your writing. A very good writer.

And you Sandman, though we don't always agree on stuff, you know your stuff (I can't deny) and you're as good as they come.

And them too: Paperleaves, blank|verse, Alexander III, Qimi, and firefangled.

I certainly can't disagree with anyone on that list, Shadows, and I'd add your name to it as well, as well as others that haven't been around as much lately, like Paperleaves, blank|verse, Alexander III, Qimi, and firefangled.

No MystyrMystyry? I love his stuff.

And thanks for the nod, Shadows, though I'm not sure its warranted. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

No MystyrMystyry? I love his stuff.

And thanks for the nod, Shadows, though I'm not sure its warranted. :D

---

Good point. I hope no one thinks I'm kissing butt here LOL. Just my assessment and humble opinion.

Thanks!

But I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid.

And that's but a personal opinion that may say more about you that the poets you question. Let's look at this "canon". Ultimately the "canon" is some abstract ideal not some simple list made up by this critic or that university. The "canon" is something that is ever-changing and fluid. Essentially, it is constructed of the writers whose work has survived and continues to resonate with an audience. You seemingly assume that this audience is made up solely of dry academics. Even if it were true that academics were the sole arbiters of what survives, you cannot argue that all academics are dry (hell, a great deal are quite passionate about literature that they have invested so much time and effort into studying). Nor can you find a clear consensus of agreement by such academics.

But the canon is not constructed solely upon the opinions of academia; it is also the product of subsequent generations of writers. A critic like Samuel Johnson was able to dismiss Lawrence Sterne, but writers such as Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, J.L. Borges etc... counter this. You also must consider the opinions of what Virginia Woolf called the "common reader"... the well-read passionate reader. Tolkein and Bram Stoker and Arthur Conan Doyle and Alexander Dumas survive more upon the opinions of common readers than critics.

Ultimately, if a work of literature has survived for a great period of time there is probably a reason for its survival. This does not mean that we MUST like every book that is deemed a classic... but it does mean that there are obviously more than a few among those who have invested a good deal of time and effort into reading that feel the work is of real merit and to suggest that all those readers are of of some lock-step mentality (unable to think for themselves) and merely glom onto whatever academia has deemed to be a "classic" is unrealistic... if not insulting.

Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason.

The primary reason is a misguided notion that we can effect social change by rewriting history... even the history of the arts. There aren't more women in the history of art and literature because men in power are hiding their existence from us. They simply aren't there because women were rarely afforded the education or the opportunity to even consider a career in the arts. Why aren't there more Blacks in the history of Western Literature? Is that really a serious question. Why not ask why there aren't more Germans in the history of Asian art. My God! It's an obvious conspiracy! And why aren't there more Jewish writers included in the history of Middle-Eastern literature? It must be antisemitism! Let's use the grey matter a bit here. What percentage of the population of Europe was black? Until recently how many Blacks were afforded an education in the United States? Over the last century just how great has the Black contribution to literature been? I don't think anyone in their right mind would even begin to suggest that it in any way approaches the Black contribution to music... which is in no way denied in academia.

This is combined with a warped notion that art is or should be a democratic... or even an egalitarian endeavor, when the reality is that art has always been elitist. Yes... all cultures produce human beings of exemplary intelligence in the same proportion... but not all cultures have produced achievements in the arts and culture at the same level. The Germans and Austrians have produced more great music than any other culture in history. The Italian Renaissance resulted in far more painting and sculpture of real genius than any other European culture. Much of this has to do with access to education, financial support, the access to the time and materials. Much of this has to do with the simple reality that life isn't fair.

As for "queer" voices. Again I must say... "Really?" "Really?" No major homosexuals in the arts... locked out by entrenched beliefs, eh? All except for Michelangelo, Leonardo, Caravaggio, Donatello, Sappho, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Walt Whitman, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Hart Crane, Tennessee Williams, Herman Melville, Allen Ginsberg, etc... One could certainly go on for quite some time.

The fact is that there isn't so much a resistance to women-writers, Hispanic-writers, Jewish-writers, homosexual-writers, etc... Rather there is a resistance to politicizing the arts in an attempt to enforce some notion of egalitarianism: so many Black writers, so many Jewish writers, etc...

But yes, I prefer something along the lines of Bukowski, William S. Burroughs, or Kerouac. I'd rather read Henry Rollins pathetic "poetry" then most of what is considered fine and good by most.

That's well and fine. Some people prefer Pink Floyd and Aerosmith to Mozart and Bach... but how likely is it that Pink Floyd and Aerosmith will survive another 200 years? It's more that a good guess that Mozart and Bach will still be recognized as classics

I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up. It has to be at least a little exciting. Not more boring middle-class and upper-class white people droning on about the same subjects.

How does it wake you up? Any half-literate buffoon can string together a stream of profanity, sexually graphic imagery, and the sad ramblings of an alcoholic. Shock value is cheap. The real excitement comes in shaking up our perceptions of those same boring subjects and our notions of the use of language. Seriously, considering what I have read over the years I can't even begin to fathom what you mean when you speak of writers harping on over the same "boring, middle-class, white subject matter. Please do inform me as to just what these are?

Poetry, at least to me, is an acquired taste. In my case, I want it raw. I prefer sashimi over the trendy california roll. Besides, dildoes are too artificial and mechanical and made of plastic or silicone.

This is my favorite poet before he went to Amherst to study literature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaBX7_g5KMQ

This is him already a student at Amherst. The raw before, it seems, has been cooked.

http://vimeo.com/6902718

His earliest works are even better:

the zoo

My words, indifferent as a gray tortoise,
remind me of an old woman
smoking tobacco by the window.

My words are as invisible
as the old kitchen rag
I use to wipe the grease off the cages.

My words are clumsy
as a frog saturated with mud
wishing to hibernate.

My words have the deliberate solitude of lizards,
their tongues unfold like a royal carpet
straining to hear the inward music
of distant saxophones.

I come in and find abundant thick hairs,
droppings, and tangerine peels,
a familiar scent fills my nostrils.

My words have escaped.
I’m too tired or too wound up
to go after them.

THE IRREVERSIBLE WORD

In endless seas of words I struggle,
barnacles of distraction
cling idle to my boat.

Me alone with my images
like fish riding on the water
or coral reefs deep below the surface.

I pull on the oars,
but why do I struggle if I know
I will never reach the shore?

My poem still incomplete, I am a bird
knowing I will never reach the sun's round perfection.
Why then do I struggle
trying to weave these threads of words?

Beyond, beyond, always beyond
sailing to the horizon,
no boundaries on the sea nor in the sunlit sky.
My journey is always beginning,
that in itself keeps me content.

If one day I reach the shore
or fly like a phoenix to meet the source of light
or make my poem complete
and weave my words into a cloak of patterns
and go back to the Irreversible Word
from which all words came forth,
then I'd be silent
for fear of staining
the delicate silk of its totality.

In the meantime here I come!
pulling on the oars,
and there's plenty of songs
to keep me going.


I just hope he finds his voice back. I'll wait for it. I want to fall in love with his words again like before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Some people prefer Pink Floyd and Aerosmith to Mozart and Bach... but how likely is it that Pink Floyd and Aerosmith will survive another 200 years?

---

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:

Aerosmith has almost no chance. Floyd, on the other hand, has a better than average chance, if only because they seem to keep finding passionate, devoted fans with each new generation. But, really, The Beatles and Dylan would be a better comparison to Mozart and Bach, as I believe both of them will survive another 200 years (and, personally, I'd take both over Bach, though not Mozart... preferences, preferences).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Poetry, at least to me, is an acquired taste. In my case, I want it raw. I prefer sashimi over the trendy california roll.

---

Which is just fine, but all we ask is that you recognize that this IS personal taste and not some objective comment on the quality of "fully cooked" poetry.

That was a well written and very patient post St Lukes but I think The Beatles might last 200 years

It's always, at best, a semi-educated guess about what will enter the canon long-term, but we should probably realize that SOME things from each century will get there. I'd say The Beatles and Dylan are our best guess as far as last century's pop music goes.

But, is it just me, or does the classical music canon seem to change much faster than the others? Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Bartok, Strauss, et al. from the last century are already canonical...

miyako73- born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

MorpheusSandman- So you get to arbitrarily decide based on subjective reaction of what is 'exciting' and 'boring' whether a poet was born or made? So, if I think your poetry is boring, then I get to call you a 'made poet'?

Well... actually it would seem that if her poetry is boring then we simply must assume that she's not a born poet... and as poetry is something either one was born with or not... then it seems obvious that she's simply not a born poet and thus never has the least chance of becoming a poet... regardless of effort, education, etc...

Of course the very notion of a "born artist" in any genre is naive... if not sophomoric. All art forms involve a language... and all languages must be learned. Certainly, studies of the human brain have proven that certain individuals are more predisposed toward rapidly mastering a given set of skills or knowledge than another... but to rise to the level of true mastery in any art form a degree of discipline... study and practice is involved.

The idea that one might become "too learned"... "too well practiced" etc... is simply moronic... and in all likelihood based in a degree of envy... and/or laziness. The idea that the well-informed or scholarly artist is more likely to follow some lock-step mentality while the intuitive "natural" artist is willing to break the rules is little more than Romantic claptrap... and surely not supported by the examples of cultural history. Was Cervantes illiterate? It seems to me that he was more than well versed in the traditional Romances that his novel parodied. Was Michelangelo just naturally talented? from what I recall, he had one of the most intense formal training and education possible.

Silas Thorne- MorpheusSandman is making a criticism of people that write poetry in a particular way, saying that they consider themselves 'geniuses,' by using Clive James' views on Ezra Pound.

More like I'm criticizing people that choose to dismiss/ignore the poetic tradition while (ironically) being allowed to do so because of that tradition... What I'm really criticizing is the anti-intellectual attitude (which I think is born out of xenophobia and laziness, more than anything) that poets are just these divinely inspired creatures that don't need to work at or learn their craft.

Exactly!

paradoxical- I didn't say the cannon was necessarily wrong, just too conservative and slow to acknowledge what is new... I stand by my statement that much of what is considered good poetry, or even great poetry is rather dull and tepid.

Canons have ALWAYS been slow, though. It's not as if those in the 17th Century considered Shakespeare as the greatest writer ever in the English language. He owes much of that reputation to the 19th Century and, especially, the German intellectuals. So criticizing the canon for being slow is bizarre to me, because all canons are formed via a "consensus" of what emerges out of criticism over a long period of time.

The notion of "the canon" or the "classics" is based upon something which has survived for a reasonable period of time and garnered the continued admiration or consensus of those who have invested the most into the study of a given art form. The idea of a "contemporary classic" or the "contemporary canon" is an oxymoron. This is not to say that none of the literature of here and now has any worth... nor that none of it will eventually rise to the status of a "classic"... but how is this process too conservative? Of what value is gushing over every best-seller and proclaiming equal to Shakespeare?

I think we need more poetry that disturbs people, that wakes people up.

Hey, I dig Burroughs, but it seems like what you're hankering for is some kind of sensationalist shock. It's been done and, quite frankly, I feel more "awakened" by Blake than I do by Bukowski (whom I don't like) or Burroughs (whom I do).

I quite agree.

ShadowsCool- The fact that some people think certain poetry is inferior to their own, speaks of presumptuous righteousness on their part.

Some people might just be right.

We all are different writers with different skill sets.

This is merely cultural relativism... the notion that there is no good nor bad art... merely "different" art. No artist of any real ability believes this to be true even of his or her own work.

I never went to writing school, nor did I finish college. Does that mean I suck because I don't write like the Harvard grads? Or that my style is more narrative and not modern enough?

No... it doesn't inherently mean that your work sucks or is less modern than the Harvard grads.

If I comment on their poetry but they don't even acknowledge me as a writer, then why should I care about their writing?

I'm confused here. Where do you get the idea that the poets championed as part of the "canon" or admired by academia are all graduates of some elite university or college? I suspect this is more about envy than about anything else.

This is why I wrote what I wrote before (A Certain Snobbery in Poetry). Some people come off high on their rocker! And it stinks to high heaven!

Again... this seems to be more about an inferiority complex than a response to some real prejudice directed toward those lacking certain formal credentials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Another thing, they refer to it as Dead White Men for a reason.

The primary reason is a misguided notion that we can effect social change by rewriting history... even the history of the arts. There aren't more women in the history of art and literature because men in power are hiding their existence from us. They simply aren't there because women were rarely afforded the education or the opportunity to even consider a career in the arts. Why aren't there more Blacks in the history of Western Literature? Is that really a serious question. Why not ask why there aren't more Germans in the history of Asian art. My God! It's an obvious conspiracy! And why aren't there more Jewish writers included in the history of Middle-Eastern literature? It must be antisemitism! Let's use the grey matter a bit here. What percentage of the population of Europe was black? Until recently how many Blacks were afforded an education in the United States? Over the last century just how great has the Black contribution to literature been? I don't think anyone in their right mind would even begin to suggest that it in any way approaches the Black contribution to music... which is in no way denied in academia.

This is combined with a warped notion that art is or should be a democratic... or even an egalitarian endeavor, when the reality is that art has always been elitist. Yes... all cultures produce human beings of exemplary intelligence in the same proportion... but not all cultures have produced achievements in the arts and culture at the same level. The Germans and Austrians have produced more great music than any other culture in history. The Italian Renaissance resulted in far more painting and sculpture of real genius than any other European culture. Much of this has to do with access to education, financial support, the access to the time and materials. Much of this has to do with the simple reality that life isn't fair.

---

I think I'm going to copy and paste this so I remember to bring up these points next time complains about the lack of diversity in the canon, which I hear all the time, especially when it comes to education: "Why aren't there more black/women/Hispanic/etc writers in textbooks? That discrimination." No, it's because there've been more good white male writers (in the western canon, of course) than anything else. Just the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowsCool

I never went to writing school, nor did I finish college. Does that mean I suck because I don't write like the Harvard grads?

---

Yeah, but you have to go both ways with this statement, right? The answer is obviously no, and I don't think any college grads would disagree. If the question was switched, "I went to writing school and completed my masters in creative writing. Does that mean I such because I write like a Harvard grad?" For this, too, obviously no (and I'm not entirely sure what writing is like from a Harvard grad--I'm assuming the assumption is it's akin to 200 year olds poetry or something). Yet there are a lot of people saying exactly that--learning about writing poetry in a formal setting diminishes the quality of that writer and his/her poetry, which is preposterous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

That was a well written and very patient post St Lukes but I think The Beatles might last 200 years

---

:iagree:

I think he pointedly didn't use the Beatles as an example because he would agree, the chances of their music lasting a very long time is definitely possible--he is a huge Beatles fan, if I'm not mistaken.

How he could put Pink Floyd and Aerosmirh in the same category is a huge faux pas, though. Aerosmith is horrible.

I think I need to add St. Lukes on the list of contributors. :p

As for the Beatles lasting 200 years, I'd put my money on it.

Top 10 Artist of the Rock era:

1. Beatles**
2. Dylan**
3. Presley*
4. Stones*
5. Hendrix
6. James Brown
7. Ray Charles
8. Bob Marley
9. Michael Jackson
10. Led Zeppelin

A list I kinda put together, determining many factors; like importance, impact and lasting impression on the industry.

* A 100 year impression
** 200 year impression

Top Poets of all time:

1. Shakespeare
2. Dante
3. Chaucer
4. William Wordsworth
5. John Keats
6. T.S. Eliot
7. John Milton
8. William Blake
9. W.B. Yeats
10. ?

I hope the Stones don't last that long, but they probably will.

I actually don't think Pink Floyd would be too unreasonable for the hundred year bracket. I saw plenty of Pink Floyd shirts when I student taught high school. There's something about their sound that appeals to youth.

Another band I think is going to stick around for a long, long time is Nirvana.

Oh, and, uhhhhh, no one is born a poet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

I hope the Stones don't last that long, but they probably will.

I actually don't think Pink Floyd would be too unreasonable for the hundred year bracket. I saw plenty of Pink Floyd shirts when I student taught high school. There's something about their sound that appeals to youth.

Another band I think is going to stick around for a long, long time is Nirvana.

Oh, and, uhhhhh, no one is born a poet.

---

Please don't get me wrong. I'd love to put Floyd in there. They to me belong in there. But this is a purely objective list determining many factors. I saw Floyd in concert many times and it was an experience of a lifetime. I also saw the Wall a couple of years ago and was blown away. So I'm a huge fan. Perhaps, people will realize how important they were.

As for Nirvana? I personally like em. But their niche didn't carry on too long. In the long wind of it, I don't think they will be remembered that long.

As for the Stones? I'm not a huge fan but all things considered, they do belong in there. Even though, I personally think they are a tad overrated.

As for the poet statement? I don't know about that. Aren't some athletes born to be great? Why should it be different with poets?

The only reason Nirvana has a chance is because of Kurt Cobain. Grunge is dead, true, but Nirvana isn't.

All athletes have to train and practice for their sport. No babies come out of the womb poll-vaulting . . . though that would be pretty ****ing awesome.