Modern Poetry

Quote:

---

Petrarch's Love: I appreciate your post and trying to make me understand it, but it looks like it came from the notion that I don't understand/haven't read contemporary poetry or much poetry at all. I have read it, though. Its simple; I dislike modern poetry.

---

Hi, Leabhar--No, I didn't think you hadn't read quite a bit of poetry. You come across as a reasonably well read person. And the object of my post really wasn't primarily to convince you to read tons of contemporary poetry. I was much less concerned with the fact that you dislike a lot of modern poetry (I do too) than the way you have been making sweeping statements like those I quoted in my post, which seem to be saying that there is something better about the language of the past and something hopeless about the language of the present. Such statements made me think, not that you haven't read a lot of poetry, but that you haven't read in a certain way, looking in depth at a broad array of poetry in a certain period and thinking about the way good and bad poetry is developed, both within a particular time period and within the context of a larger poetic tradition. Your posts gave me the impression that you lacked a certain kind of historical thinking that tends to put the quality (or lack thereof) of most of today's popular poetry in perspective. It's possible that this is not the case, since these forum posts reveal only little snippets of a person and can easily lead to misjudgment. However, if I am mistaken in my judgment, and you do have a more nuanced understanding of the flaws as well as the strengths of the past, and the strengths as well as the flaws of the present, then I think you should be aware that your posts are not conveying that to some of your readers, possibly because you do have a tendency to resort to quite broad statements.

I don't blame Leabhar for not bringing out bodies of modern text to criticize. There have been a lot of sweeping generalizations on either side. If you look at any page of this thread I think you can see what happened; why this discussion hasn't gone more in depth. The multi-quote function is at fault. StLuke and JBI quoted Leabhar and engaged in so many ad hominem attacks that he's been too busy re-quoting them and defending himself that he hasn't been able to further his argument. It's happened to me before when debating with them. You get so caught up in what they said about you that you forget what you were originally there to say; or if you don't forget, then by the time you've finished refuting their claims you have already typed a mountain of text and are too drained for further explication.

I do think that some of their demands on Leabhar are a little silly. JBI wants Leabhar not to cite major known poets. But that doesn't make any sense. If we quote obscure poets without any reputation then we don't have a common reference point for debate. Also, the reason why a poet would not be well known could be simply that they are mediocre like the ones JBI already cited himself. If they are mediocre then they aren't the best examples for JBI's case, which is saying that that kind of writing is good, and they aren't the best examples for Leabhar's case either because they can be easily dismissed as non-representative.

Let's not forget the ad hominems. They don't help a case so much as they inflame and harden opposition. While pointing out the shortcomings of others is a great way to make yourself look bigger, there's no surer way to have your own intelligence questioned than by questioning someone else's. This goes double for ad hominem arguments against a relative stranger. If you are going to use them, then they should be against someone whom you have a history with and are familiar to. You don't want to get caught calling down IcythePopoMcNinja03 and finding out it's really Harold Bloom. I've seen people on this very board telling Petrarch's Love that she didn't know anything about Renaissance epic. That was rich. I love it when people tell me I don't know anything about Hemingway.

I think that the reason intelligence is so often questioned on this board is that there is not a healthy respect for differing opinions. It's assumed that if we all have the same information and education, then intelligent people will all be of like minds. My own experience tells me this is not the case.

To Leabhar: If you get a moment...I'd be interested to know just what "modern" poetry you have experienced, or maybe just the authors.

From Snails by P.K. Page:

The snails have made a garden of green lace:
broderie anglaise from the cabbages,
chantilly from the choux-fleurs, tiny veils-
I see already that I lift the blind
upon a woman's wardrobe of the mind.

Such female whimsy floats about me like
a kind of tulle, a flimsy mesh,
while feet in gumboots pace the rectangles-
garden abstracted, geometry awash-
an unknown theorem argued in green ink,
dropped in the bath.
Euclid in glorious chlorophyll, half drunk.

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/canpoetry/page/poem1.htm

Are we pulling poets out of the hat now, because this thread will get large fast if you want me to prove there are good poets writing today Mortal, which I can pretty easily, given the wide selection of work in English these days.

Mortalterror... I have no doubt that you too would (and have) grown quite heated if/when someone makes a suggestion that the whole of Hemingway was but less-than-mediocre schlock... the product that any 5-year old could do... and that anyone unable to see this was simply another example of the old "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. I again have no problem with any declaration of personal likes or dislikes (ie. "I don't like Modern poetry"). When these personal opinions turn into statement of fact... and this fact goes against my own opinion and that of common sense (ie. declaring that there are poets here at LitNet who are better poets than the supposed best poets today) then I have little fear that I am engaging into a dialog with Harold Bloom... Allan Bloom... or even Orlando Bloom.

By the way... IcythePopoMcNinja03 would be a perfect pseudonym for old Harold, wouldn't it?:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Are we pulling poets out of the hat now, because this thread will get large fast if you want me to prove there are good poets writing today Mortal, which I can pretty easily, given the wide selection of work in English these days.

---

I've already conceded that you probably know more about modern poetry than I do. It's not really my area of expertise. And I haven't said that all recent poetry is bad, which may or may not be another poster's contention. I've offered the example of Billy Collins' The Death of Allegory and I'll offer Derek Walcott's A City's Death By Fire as examples that good poetry is still being written. But like I say, contemporary poetry is not my field and you have the advantage of me.

With your admittedly superior understanding of the era, I think you are beholden to offer proof that your type of poet is indeed better than a minor poet of the past. Let's say, Edwin Arlington Robinson, an American poet of the late nineteenth century. That shall be your standard and you will have something to measure your own success by. I'm not demanding that you prove there's another Yeats, Eliot, or Tennyson currently walking about. If you can show me poems that are better than Luke Havergal, Richard Cory, and Miniver Cheevy consider your case as proven.

Do not be afraid to bring out the big guns such as Stevens, Roethke, and Crane whom I've already professed to dislike. Stop strangling me with pygmies. I won't take it amiss if you draw your comments from that other thread where I see you've already been discussing Roethke for a week now. Give me what you've got: your strongest arguments and your best examples.

If I may be so bold, and no one should take it amiss, I'd like to suggest certain stratagems to either side. Leabhar is trying to show that older writers are better; so he should be building his case with examples from the classics. JBI and StLukes haven't yet met their burden of proof for the present state of affairs. Each side can positively affirm what he sees as the virtues of his champions, in the comfort of his area of knowledge, without resorting to acrimonious taunts and insults. However, I don't think this contest would be fair without constraining ourselves within certain limits. For instance, I believe that Dante, Homer, and Shakespeare ought to be taken off the table; but I don't think that Dryden or Johnson are unreasonable standards of excellence.

Leabhar has said that he likes Frost and Auden. Are there contemporary poems to rival The Death of the Hired Man and The Shield of Achilles? I do not think that The Emperor of Ice Cream withstands that test.

Quote:

---

You don't want to get caught calling down IcythePopoMcNinja03 and finding out it's really Harold Bloom.

---

:lol::lol::lol: Haven't laughed like that in awhile. I wouldn't dream of calling down IcythePopoMcNinja03. That would be cowardly. Much more fun to criticize Dr. Bloom in person anyway.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I've offered the example of Billy Collins' The Death of Allegory

---

---

Forgot to thank you for that one earlier, Mortal. I should bring that into class when I teach my week in Spenser's allegory later this term.

Having skimmed about 20 posts in this debate, I am reminded again why the disparagement so prevalent in the network forums saddens me to the degree that it does. Perhaps this young century signifies the convulsions of aesthetic appreciation in its death throes. Even a statement like "Most of Bukowski's work is crap," is a barely reasoned dismissal of Bukowski's currency.

I am not partial to Charles, but I have been published in the same presses side by side with him, and I know something about the anti-formal gauntlet he and lyn lifshin promulgate, and I know even more than that, but don't see why I should heed the call to arms given this is the age of Xbox and Grand Theft Auto IV, which continually improves upon killing as a graphic mirror reality of ghetto culture spreading and evolving ever outward, nearly as clever as the AIDS virus itself.

Poetry is poetry, please stop with the classifying for god sake lol.

Where are we drawing the line? Crane died in 32 if my memory serves me correctly, and Roethke in, I believe, 64. Are we limiting this to poems published in the last century, last half century, last couple decades, or last decade? Of course, the longer the playing field, the easier it will be to come up with examples, and lets face it, pulling from 450 years of tradition and scholarship is a lot easier than pulling from 50, but even so, I will try, and I think StLukes will probably try as well, to deliver some poems we feel have outstanding merit, in whatever time period given.

I was actually going to ask that myself JBI, but I suppose you've saved me the trouble. To me, *modern* poetry roughly starts with Eliot and ends --again roughly--with the death of Anne Sexton.

Contemporary poetry goes from ex-Beats like Robert Creeley (and dead ones like Ginsberg) to the moderately successful like Wheeler and her vast array of still living competitors. I am too tired to list everyone I've met since the 80's, but getting the chance to meet Robert means the most to me, since it was his work which drove me to publish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Where are we drawing the line? Crane died in 32 if my memory serves me correctly, and Roethke in, I believe, 64. Are we limiting this to poems published in the last century, last half century, last couple decades, or last decade? Of course, the longer the playing field, the easier it will be to come up with examples, and lets face it, pulling from 450 years of tradition and scholarship is a lot easier than pulling from 50, but even so, I will try, and I think StLukes will probably try as well, to deliver some poems we feel have outstanding merit, in whatever time period given.

---

It depends on who you are trying to convince. I date most of the trends I don't like about modern poetry to Whitman's Leaves of Grass. I've seen professors date the post-modern movement to just after the second world war. Leabhar seems to be discussing English poetry of the last thirty or forty years himself. Since he's the dominant voice of your opposition, I'd direct my remarks to him if I were you.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the linear progressive view of art history with it's clear cut lines, dates, and movements. The tree structure, such as we see in genetic evolution, works much better for me as a model of how thought procreates, speciates, and changes on a large scale. The way I see it, what we are debating is not the whole of contemporary poetry but one of several coterminus and overlapping movements all happening at the same time. But I'm probably in the minority on this; so just use whatever time scale you think works to your own best advantage or suits the arguments you craft for it. If someone cries foul, you can redraft, or redefine the argument to keep your position as you see fit.

At the risk of seeming a Benedict Arnold to Leabhar, I would like to say a word for JBI, and StLukesGuild. I didn't adopt his position just to concede several points and then drop it. I really do see a great deal of sense in either side. The thing is, I don't consider all of contemporary poetry bad. What I dislike is a certain emphasis on free verse, nonsense verse, and various image based anti-narrative poems; basically anything you can read in a coffee shop while accompanied on a drum. Verse that is not at least tangentially related to either speech or song also raises flags for me. However, there are certain post-modern poems and writers which I do respect: Beckett, for one.

I know he's a playwright, not a poet as we've been discussing; but I'd like to use him to make a broader more general point, if I may. I like Beckett and I hate Joyce. By making this concession, or admission, however you choose to perceive it, I believe I actually strengthen my case. My case is not stengthened against post-modernism itself, with which I have no quarrel, but against certain particular abuses of specific authors and books (in this case Joyce and Finnegans Wake). I'd like to draw a distinction between the type of techniques, motifs, styles, subject matter, ideology, and execution of the two. As far as modernism goes I love The Wasteland and I hate Ulysses. I hope these small concessions can buy me some goodwill and patience from those of you who think that I hate all post-modernism, or every complicated work of literature because I hate to strain my brain. No. There are some very heinous, very particular grievances I have with sundry schools of writing, and I don't want to have them or myself dismissed out of hand as the ramblings of a crank or habitual contrarian.

You see, Leabhar said in his original post that much of the new mainstream poetry he has read is “random words and psychotic babbling “. Note how he did not say all of modern poetry. He said mainstream. Then StLukesGuild made a dismissive generalized statement about people who make dismissive generalized statements, which brings us to where we are now. I hope that by highlighting the offenses I take issue with in modern poetry, and admitting that I actually like one or two of the newer poems I won't be so easy to deprecate.

One of the few poems published within my lifetime which I enjoy is a poem by Ishmael Reed called I Am a Cowboy In the Boat of Ra. *The page I linked to misprints a word toward the bottom as boogle which should read "I do the dirty boogie with scorpions" but is otherwise a correct text. Anyone trying to argue me out of my stance on post-modernism probably ought to start there or with Beckett. Arguing the virtues of writers you already know I have a disdain for is probably a less effective route, but be my guest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Mortalterror... I have no doubt that you too would (and have) grown quite heated if/when someone makes a suggestion that the whole of Hemingway was but less-than-mediocre schlock... the product that any 5-year old could do... and that anyone unable to see this was simply another example of the old "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. I again have no problem with any declaration of personal likes or dislikes (ie. "I don't like Modern poetry"). When these personal opinions turn into statement of fact... and this fact goes against my own opinion and that of common sense (ie. declaring that there are poets here at LitNet who are better poets than the supposed best poets today) then I have little fear that I am engaging into a dialog with Harold Bloom... Allan Bloom... or even Orlando Bloom.

---

No doubt I have. My temper often gets the better of me. It's a failing. But let's call this a case of do as I advise and not as I do.

As far as idiots go I've been pretty fortunate. I ran into a sixteen year old fellow here on litnet a few months back. He'd just read The Old Man and the Sea, as well as a short story or two for a class he was taking and he was convinced that all of Hemingway was symbolism. He called me a fool, and when I went back to check Hemingway for possible symbolism I found some weird stuff in The Snows of Kilimanjaro. He was wrong about almost everything, but he helped me to a new appreciation and understanding of literature. A smart man should be able to learn from fools and wise men alike. When we shut people down, nobody benefits.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we treated everyone we met here as if they were all authorities in the field they are discussing? It would change the whole tenor of the debate. I know I'd have to double check my spelling, my grammar, work a little harder on arrangement and style. It would force me to pay closer attention to people's arguments and consider their points from all sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Forgot to thank you for that one earlier, Mortal. I should bring that into class when I teach my week in Spenser's allegory later this term.

---

Why, thank you Petrarch. You're very kind. Besides, it's a pleasure to return the favor after all of the poetry you've introduced me to.

Quote:

---

Why, thank you Petrarch. You're very kind. Besides, it's a pleasure to return the favor after all of the poetry you've introduced me to.

---

Oh, I'm very glad to hear I've been of some help. :)

Quote:

---

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we treated everyone we met here as if they were all authorities in the field they are discussing? It would change the whole tenor of the debate. I know I'd have to double check my spelling, my grammar, work a little harder on arrangement and style. It would force me to pay closer attention to people's arguments and consider their points from all sides.

---

Mortal--I appreciate your efforts at making debate civilized for litnetters everywhere. I think we can all agree that everyone should try to avoid ad hominem attacks and also try to really read and understand what the other person is trying to say.

I have to disagree, however, that we should automatically treat everyone like authorities in the field we are discussing, since most of the people discussing a given topic probably are not authorities on that topic, and some may be far from it. Not to mention, no one is an authority on everything (not even IcythePopoMcNinja03!). Though I am fairly knowledgeable about poetry generally, I am not really an authority on contemporary poetry, and so it would be misguided for someone to act as though I were. On the other hand, it would be equally misguided of me to have deferred to the person who told me it was foolish of me to regard Milton as a Renaissance poet (I honestly can't remember who that was, but you reminded me when you referred to it above) as though that poster were an authority, since in that case I really did know what I was talking about and had clearly considered the issue more fully than the person I was engaging. Not regarding someone as an authority, however, doesn't mean that you don't have respect for them as an intelligent person, which I think we most definitely should have for our opponents in debate. Though he or she was a bit misguided in calling my classification of Milton foolish or embarrassing (and clearly misguided in resorting to that slight ad hominem remark), I still had respect for that person and, as I recall, he/she was also coming from a perfectly sound, well reasoned place (there's certainly some room for debate in terms of how to classify Milton). He/she just hadn't thought the issue out fully yet, and jumped to the conclusion that there was only one answer, making me right and him/her wrong: a very small and common error.

Here are a few of the rules of engagement that I personally find useful to keep in mind:

1. Have a healthy understanding of how much you don't know. This is absolutely an essential first step to being a better thinker, learner and debater.

2. Acknowledge and respect what the other person does know. Even if you do know more (or think you do), I find it essential to really acknowledge what it is that the other person is bringing to the table and to respect what is sound in their argument (most arguments have at least one small redeeming quality). This helps because it forces you to really consider what the other person is saying and to fully understand their perspective, and if you've really mastered rule one, above, then you'll frequently find yourself learning, even from posters you disagree with for the most part.

3. Keep your opinion flexible. This is really the result of the first two points. It doesn't mean conceding your point when it comes under the least attack, but being open to revising your stance when necessary in light of the things you learn from others: either by conceding something you find you were wrong about, or simply revising the way you present your opinion.

4. When we shut people down, nobody benefits. Stole this one from your post above. Sounds like common sense to me. :)