Modern Poetry

[TheFifthElement]

From the Long Sad Party

Someone was saying
something about shadows covering the field, about
how things pass, how one sleeps until morning
and the morning goes.

Someone was saying
how the wind dies down but comes back,
how shells are the coffins of wind
but the weather continues.

It was a long night
and someone was saying something about the moon shedding its white
on the cold field, that there was nothing ahead
but more of the same.

Someone mentioned
a city she had been in before the war, a room with two candles
against a wall, someone dancing, someone watching.
We began to believe

the night would not end....

(excerpt)

Mark Strand (1978)

[TheFifthElement]

Poem

And if it snowed and snow covered the drive
he took a spade and tossed it to one side.
And always tucked his daughter up at night.
And slippered her the one time that she lied.

And every week he tipped up half his wage.
And what he didn't spend each week he saved.
And praised his wife for every meal she made.
And once, for laughing, punched her in the face....

...Here's how they rated him when they looked back:
sometimes he did this, sometimes he did that.

Simon Armitage.

[stlukesguild]

stlukesguld - The poets you listed are mediocre at best compared with representatives from other ages.

JBI - That is an argument used by the practitioners of modern poetry, but does it hold up? I do read modern poetry, and most it has no rhythm, no theme, no invisible clockwork to speak of. These people are working on decades of poetry like theirs, they have no understanding of traditional poetry even if they evoke its name. They have no connection to tradition at all. Really, some of the poetry on this site even is better than popular poetry.

JBI... I somewhat question why you carry on the argument in the face of such a dismissal. 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, etc... are all but mediocre poets at best? Of course only time will tell... but it must surely be quite a feat for such poets... in spite of the piddling scale of poetry in contrast to the whole of contemporary literature... to have pulled the wool over the eyes of so many critics and discerning readers. I actually question how much of any of these poets Leabhar has actually read... one or two works required in a survey of Modern and Contemporary Poetry? I ask this especially when one considers the surprise he/she expressed for existence of such formalized structure in the Gutteridge poem. Richard Wilbur, W.S. Merwin, Seamus Heany and Geoffrey Hill are all known for their abilities at composing very structured poetry... often utilizing very traditional poetic forms (sonnets, ballads, etc...). This ability, no doubt, has helped to make them some of the most respected translators of older poetry... which they somehow don't understand. Anne Carsen is a respected classical scholar fluent in Greek who has built poetry in dialog with classical Greek poetry. Richard Wilbur is one of the best living translators from French known not only for his ability to maintain both meter and rhyme in his translations of French lyrical poetry, but also as THE translator of Moliere. W.S. Merwin has uncovered and given new life in the English language to endless poets... especially many from Spain. Heany has produced one of the most respected translations of perhaps the poetic work signaling the birth of English poetry: Beowulf... a translation that clearly shows an understanding of the rugged language and the internal mechanisms of repetition and sound from which this work was constructed. And yet none of these poets has the least understanding of or connection with traditional poetry?! Are you an apt judge of the same? The majority of the greatest innovators and iconoclasts in the arts are those with the greatest understanding, respect... even love for the achievements of the past. They also realize that one doesn't show this respect or admiration by simply mimicking what has already been done. If any art form is to remain a living language it must speak to the present as well as the past... it must not merely copy, but build upon the past... even tear the achievements of the past apart in order to re-imagine them... to bring them to the present new and afresh. Again... the broad statements and claims as to the formlessness and meaninglessness of contemporary poetry suggest either but a passing familiarity with the best that poetry currently has to offer or an inability to recognize form and meaning when it exists anywhere beyond the literature of the past where such form has already been well digested and analyzed for us, and absorbed into the culture as a whole.

[stlukesguild]

...We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.

from More Light! More Light, Anthony Hecht
complete poem: http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/Anthony-Hecht/2345

No discernible form or meaning, eh?

Piazza di Spagna, Early Morning (The Spanish Square in Rome)

I can't forget
How she stood at the top of that long marble stair
Amazed, and then with a sleepy pirouette
Went dancing slowly down to the fountain-quieted square;

Nothing upon her face
But some impersonal loneliness,- not then a girl
But as it were a reverie of the place,
A called-for falling glide and whirl;

As when a leaf, petal, or thin chip
Is drawn to the falls of a pool and, circling a moment above it,
Rides on over the lip-
Perfectly beautiful, perfectly ignorant of it.

Richard Wilbur
from: http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/kag...ly.Morning.htm

[Leabhar]

And I question how much of anything you have read when you can't even form paragraphs so your post is readable. I think you should stop the insinuations.

[mayneverhave]

For some reason I find this thread hilarious

[Leabhar]

...We move now to outside a German wood.
Three men are there commanded to dig a hole
In which the two Jews are ordered to lie down
And be buried alive by the third, who is a Pole.

Not light from the shrine at Weimar beyond the hill
Nor light from heaven appeared. But he did refuse.
A Luger settled back deeply in its glove.
He was ordered to change places with the Jews.

Much casual death had drained away their souls.
The thick dirt mounted toward the quivering chin.
When only the head was exposed the order came
To dig him out again and to get back in.

No light, no light in the blue Polish eye.
When he finished a riding boot packed down the earth.
The Luger hovered lightly in its glove.
He was shot in the belly and in three hours bled to death.

No prayers or incense rose up in those hours
Which grew to be years, and every day came mute
Ghosts from the ovens, sifting through crisp air,
And settled upon his eyes in a black soot.

from More Light! More Light, Anthony Hecht
complete poem: http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/Anthony-Hecht/2345

No discernible form or meaning, eh?

Did I say these poets didn't have form or meaning? I don't think so, I said the poets you listed were mediocre compared with representative poets from the past. Btw, I dislike this poem, it relies on holocaust and war imagery to get peoples attention.

[stlukesguild]

Listen to the fool's reproach! It is a kingly title.

-William Blake
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Simple enough for you?

[Leabhar]

Listen to the fool's reproach! It is a kingly title.

-William Blake
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Simple enough for you?

It is your problem you appropriated my post to JBI to yourself. You misunderstood me, that is your foolishness, not mine. I will be polite and reply to your straw man type post anyway later.

[JBI]

I assure you, in addition, that every major poet these days is quite capable, and knowledgeable of closed form work than of free-verse. Free-verse, as it is practiced by poets today, is far more difficult to write than Iambs. Even Shakespeare didn't adhere to strict metrics, and went under criticism from his contemporary Jonson for his revolutionary use of metre.

The question of whether or not there is a poet to equal Yeats or not in this generation is a difficult one. In English, I personally feel the best working poet now is Seamus Heaney, from what I have seen. I would say he rivals, in terms of development of style, the majority of canonical writers. As to whether or not he is as good as Yeats, I would say time can only tell.

But that is just in English, who is to say Adunis won't be held as the standard poet, or some other poet no one has yet heard of? For all we know, there is an Emily Dickinson writing today, who is too reserved to reveal her work, and may, one day, be dug up, and stagger the world. We cannot know.

From what I have seen, poetry is far from dead, and is quite enjoyable. Keep in mind that the canonical poets have been sifted from their contemporaries, and even they are not known for all their poems, but a handful, or a cycle of poems. Even Shakespeare's sonnets are not all "superb" and he has the odd boring one in there (relative to the rest of the stack). All we can do, is just wait for the superb work to cross our paths. They are still being written, people are not less creative today than they were in the past.


As for StLukes, were you addressing that to me? It seems to not be, but starts with JBI... so I am a bit confused.

[stlukesguild]

It is your problem you appropriated my post to JBI to yourself.

This is an open discussion forum. Your comments to JBI concerning modern poetry as a whole are open to discussion by anyone... but obviously I should have made it more clear that the opening sentence alone was directed solely toward him.

As for the rest of your declarations... Judgment is but one part of criticism. It is usually dependent upon the critic to present a degree of proof through example, interpretation, and analysis. When one makes a sweeping judgment such as to proclaim that the whole of Modern and Contemporary poetry is bad... or mediocre at best when compared to the poetry of the past such criticism seems to speak more of the abilities and inabilities of the critic than of that which is being criticized. This becomes even more obvious when all counter-arguments and proofs are but repeatedly rebuked or dismissed with more proclamations of the same. Simply stating that something is so enough times is not proof that it is true, even if in the end it results in wearing down one's opponents. Logical dialog assumes that both parties are open to logic.

We all have our personal tastes and preferences. There are artists, musicians, and writers whom I prefer to certain others in spite of the fact that I will openly acknowledge that they may not be on the same level. I personally prefer Kafka and Borges to James Joyce... in spite of the fact that I will freely admit that Joyce is quite probably the superior writer. Examples of some exemplary contemporary poetry (but just a minuscule portion of that which is out there) were put forth as proof that not all contemporary poetry is poor... or mediocre at best. Again... in an act of omnipotence... they have been swept aside as having little value... without any explanation. They don't read easily... they "read like immature diddies compared with past poetry... They use imagery as rhythm, they have no natural rhythm". Really? And Donne and Dickinson and Milton and Holderlin read so much more easily in comparison? And even if it were true, what has such ease to do with quality. The simplest ditties, as you term it... a nice dirty limerick... actually read far easier than many great poems.

But then you do offer some reason for your rejection of Anthony Hecht... "I dislike this poem, it relies on holocaust and war imagery to get peoples attention." You personally dislike the use of this subject matter? Fair enough. But then it would seem that as a Jewish poet of his generation Hecht must certainly have been deeply affected by the Holocaust and (excuse me if I am wrong) Art is usually the product of that which most deeply concerns a given artist. So Victor Hugo should be equally taken to task for "capitalizing" on the Napoleonic Wars, and Yeats for responding to the violence in Ireland, and Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owens for responding to the horrific experiences of the First World War.

[Leabhar]

And yet none of these poets has the least understanding of or connection with traditional poetry?! Are you an apt judge of the same? The majority of the greatest innovators and iconoclasts in the arts are those with the greatest understanding, respect... even love for the achievements of the past. They also realize that one doesn't show this respect or admiration by simply mimicking what has already been done. If any art form is to remain a living language it must speak to the present as well as the past... it must not merely copy, but build upon the past... even tear the achievements of the past apart in order to re-imagine them... to bring them to the present new and afresh. Again... the broad statements and claims as to the formlessness and meaninglessness of contemporary poetry suggest either but a passing familiarity with the best that poetry currently has to offer or an inability to recognize form and meaning when it exists anywhere beyond the literature of the past where such form has already been well digested and analyzed for us, and absorbed into the culture as a whole.

Modern poetry speaks to the present? How exactly? It has never been so distant, poetry has never had so few readers (in relation to the amount of people, I mean). Modern form has been digested and analyzed, too. It amazes me you equate not liking modern poetry with never having read it. What a bizarre insinuation. I don't like bananas either, but I've eaten them. Like I've been saying, the best poetry has to offer now is mediocre compared with past poetry, putting aside forms and content for a moment, it is still mediocre. Btw, to "tear the achievements of the past apart in order to re-imagine them" is called corruption.

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 [a strange thing since modern English is such a simplified language] for so long you stop caring. The reason you stop caring is because the words themselves, even if they convey imagery, or even complexity, etc, don't have a lasting effect on the mind. Name one modern metered poem you can recite and remember like Kubla Khan or something? Modern poetry doesn't have the right language to go far enough in the mind. It simply fizzles and dies.

This is an open discussion forum. Your comments to JBI concerning modern poetry as a whole are open to discussion by anyone... but obviously I should have made it more clear that the opening sentence alone was directed solely toward him.

As for the rest of your declarations... Judgment is but one part of criticism. It is usually dependent upon the critic to present a degree of proof through example, interpretation, and analysis. When one makes a sweeping judgment such as to proclaim that the whole of Modern and Contemporary poetry is bad... or mediocre at best when compared to the poetry of the past such criticism seems to speak more of the abilities and inabilities of the critic than of that which is being criticized. This becomes even more obvious when all counter-arguments and proofs are but repeatedly rebuked or dismissed with more proclamations of the same. Simply stating that something is so enough times is not proof that it is true, even if in the end it results in wearing down one's opponents. Logical dialog assumes that both parties are open to logic.

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.

We all have our personal tastes and preferences. There are artists, musicians, and writers whom I prefer to certain others in spite of the fact that I will openly acknowledge that they may not be on the same level. I personally prefer Kafka and Borges to James Joyce... in spite of the fact that I will freely admit that Joyce is quite probably the superior writer. Examples of some exemplary contemporary poetry (but just a minuscule portion of that which is out there) were put forth as proof that not all contemporary poetry is poor... or mediocre at best. Again... in an act of omnipotence... they have been swept aside as having little value... without any explanation. They don't read easily... they "read like immature diddies compared with past poetry... They use imagery as rhythm, they have no natural rhythm". Really? And Donne and Dickinson and Milton and Holderlin read so much more easily in comparison? And even if it were true, what has such ease to do with quality. The simplest ditties, as you term it... a nice dirty limerick... actually read far easier than many great poems.

Actually, they read much more easily, because their poems last in the memory. They use vivid language. They use memorable words and sentences and strings of sentences, which is what poetry is. When your poetry doesn't even conform to grammar, or is written like prose, how is someone supposed to remember it long enough for them to form a favorable opinion? That was one of the main points of meter and rhyme. When you use free verse as it is used today or even meters with too simple a language, it isn't really poetic anymore imo. Really, take the most famous Heaney poem and the most famous Donne, what is more easily remembered and easier to recite? Even though Donne's are more complex and written in old language, they are more memorable. Using Heaney as an example, one can even describe his use of language in his poems as sort of stagnant and simple. Modern poetry goes along with the decline of intelligent language.

But then you do offer some reason for your rejection of Anthony Hecht... "I dislike this poem, it relies on holocaust and war imagery to get peoples attention." You personally dislike the use of this subject matter? Fair enough. But then it would seem that as a Jewish poet of his generation Hecht must certainly have been deeply affected by the Holocaust and (excuse me if I am wrong) Art is usually the product of that which most deeply concerns a given artist. So Victor Hugo should be equally taken to task for "capitalizing" on the Napoleonic Wars, and Yeats for responding to the violence in Ireland, and Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owens for responding to the horrific experiences of the First World War.

There never were as many people using the emotions of the Napoleonic Wars or the violence in Ireland or anything quite as much as the holocaust is capitalized on. Countless films, novels, poems, etc. It is kind of sick. The holocaust garners and immediate emotional knee jerk response.

[JBI]

Metrics have nothing to do with the memory in the sense that you use it. Many parts of Crane's Bridge are metrically perfect, but good luck memorizing them, or understanding them. "All free verse is bad" is the silliest argument I have ever heard. Free-Verse as it came to English, is far older than metric verse. It stems from biblical metaphor, and was used continuously through the Bible. It came back to English through Whitman, who borrowed its sense of simple to metaphor pattern, which helps to keep the idea in memory.

Donne is hardly, also, a poet who should be held up for metric perfection; he was well known for jerking his metre around, and throwing out random trochaic patterns. Take his "Song" which starts "Go and Catch a falling Star" as example. The poem blends Trochees and Iambs into an inconsistent pattern.

Have you ever scanned free verse? have you ever read contemporary poetry? Tell me some of the poets and poems you have read, and maybe I will be able to understand your association with contemporary and bad. As it is, you seem like someone who talks without knowing.

You would also note, that poets like Elizabeth Bishop are far more metrically perfect than almost any example you can really bring up. Every word of every line in Bishop's published poems was carefully chosen for both meaning and sound, sometimes taking her months of revision for one poem.

On topic more however, you still haven't acknowledged the poets writing today who use metre and closed form. What do you have to say to them? From what I have read, the New Formalism school, which seemed to hold your views on poetry, died out because they realized it was boring.

And just so you note, poetry has never been a "popular genre". Lord Byron and perhaps Tennyson are the best examples of "popular poetry", yet how many people read Emily Dickinson in her life time - trick question, the answer is less than 20, and none of them more than a handful of her poems.

[Dark Muse]

When did we let random words and psychotic babbling become mainstream poetry and when did real poetry become "outdated"?

In some ways I see where you are coming from. There is a large chunk of contemporary poetry that I really have no stomach for. Though I am glad that poetry has become more "free" and is not as rigid as it once be, and allows for a greater freedom of thought and expression. On the other hand there are many contemporary poems that really do come off as just sounding like diary entries with line breaks. And a lot of it does sound like gibberish nonsense, and just a random collection of words and images that just sound cool if you put them together.

Typically most of my own poetry though is what is considered free verse because it is not rhymed and does not follow a particular structure, tends to reflect more the romantics than contemporary.

But their are some contemporary poets whom I really do enjoy, and with my own writing I have been known when the feeling struck me, to do some really very experimental type of stuff.

So a portion of it, does make me groan, and I do think is garbage, I think there is still value within it as well.

[mortalterror]

Surprise, surprise, I'm siding with Leabhar on this one. I also felt that JBI's earlier examples were weak and if he weren't on some hobbyhorse about the cultural superiority of Toronto, that city on a hill, that Athens of North America, crown jewel of western poesy and cultural gateway to the world he would have used Czeslaw Milosz or Derek Walcott instead of the poets he did pick.

In addition, StLuke has a nasty habit of insulting the intelligence of people he disagrees with. Leabhar doesn't sound foolish to me at all, and neither do JBI, or StLuke. You all make good points, whether your opponents choose to admit them or not.

Modern poetry isn't my specialty but as a person who just a few hours ago was reading Keat's Endymion and Hyperion, those verses looked like dogmeat. Try again. Every age has got somebody. I'm not sure who is on top right now, but I'm sure that poetry was alive and breathing at least as late as the sixties and seventies with people like Akhmatova, Neruda, and Auden.

P.S. Billy Collins wrote a nice poem on a related subject in 1991 called The Death of Allegory, which I quite admire. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/arch....html?id=26904