One always has to aim-off when considering any critical response to the
work of Rudyard Kipling, because the general adverse reaction to political
aspects of his work has left even those critics who are unable to deny his
great qualities with the apparent necessity to apologise for that
recognition. I think this has particular influence on the poetry/verse
discussion as it applies to him.
Leaving Kipling aside for a moment however, I suggest that a working
definition would involve both form and content. I suggest that poetry deals
in universals, and in a heightened form of language which may or may not be
regular in metre or rhyme scheme. Verse deals with less elevated
subjects, or does so in a less subtle form and style. One can then
confidently call Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome verse without in any way
denigrating them or denying their great qualities. The Sonnets are poetry.
In my view therefore, Kipling was a matchless master of verse who
occasionally rose to the quality of poetry. He would have done so more
often if he could have restrained his besetting sin of overegging the
detail, being too knowing. I think that this is what led to the accusation
of vulgarity, though again such accusations had other sources than
aesthetic disapproval.
What do others think?
JW
|