Thanks for this, Sue. Re your complements, you are too kind and I
blush.Arthur.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Scalf" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Sue's reply to Arthur's reply to Grasshopper (confused?)


> this is an article of mine appearing in Jocundity
> Good, Bad, and  Mediocre Poetry
>       No subject can get college students so immediately riled as this
one.
> In an egalitarian society where moral relativism reigns, how dare anyone
to
> presume he can make the distinction? The student reaction is, "If I like
it,
> it is good and that is enough."  It is hard to batter down such self-
> defensive walls, but  I expect time and education and more varied reading
> will do the job for me. Teaching the difference is part of the educational
> process and since I have the podium, I refuse to remain silent, although I
> try not to be obnoxious (and that is not always easy). I also try not to
take
> away the students' pleasure of discovery.  I give the map, but the student
> has to find the gold. And despite the tone of this article, I am humble at
> heart.  Honestly.
>      Let me start with an example from my own life, one concerning a
> painting.  Now I am not an artist and find it hard to draw anything much
> above the faces I put on my dishwasher to show if the dishes are clean or
> dirty.  A relative gave me a painting she had done. She had in the past
done
> some pretty good pictures under the guidance of a teacher.  I took it with
> the love and affection she intended, but I knew it was not very good.  It
was
> a copy of a postcard and none of the colors were "right." In fact it was
> difficult to tell the sky from the land from the water.  When my plumber
came
> to fix water pipes and saw it, he raved about how good it was, literally
> raved.  I thanked him, but I knew better.  When a friend who was actively
> involved in painting, and who was trained saw it, she said, "Oh, Sue, that
is
> awful." I would tend to trust the one who had the training.  It bothers me
> today that so much poetry that is not poetry at all is being passed off as
> such.  Not only that, but because of the politics of poetry and the
> networking that exists much of this bad poetry is being published.  If it
is
> obscure enough that is very good for the critics because obscure poetry
keeps
> them in business. But this is a digression.
>      I used to say that one way one can tell a good poem from a bad or
even
> mediocre poem is that a good poem will stay in the mind long afterward.
That
> is not true, however.  Some of the worst poems around are not forgotten
and
> in fact are easily memorized and often quoted. We remember the bad just as
> easily as the good.  A more valuable distinction would be to say that a
good
> poem resonates, and another distinction would be to say that a good poem
taps
> into human experience. It is universal. Good poems are carefully crafted,
but
> they are far more than the product of craftsmanship. They say old things
(The
> number of themes in literature is limited) but they say them so
convincingly
> that the old themes take on a new luster.  It may be the language, its
> richness or even its simplicity.  It may be the images.  Emily Dickinson
said
> she could recognize a poem when it made her shiver.  Some of what I see
today
> though makes me shudder. Public taste has brought us some of the worst
music,
> and frequently public taste picks the pop poem of the day or even of the
> century.  But the fact remains that a pop poem remains just that, a pop
poem.
> Mediocre poetry is like mediocre music.  It is imitative and finally just
> dull.
>        Okay, so what does my diatribe mean to you?  Only this: poems have
> meanings; they won't deconstruct.  They are the sum of their parts: sound,
> image, figurative language. And in a final analysis good poetry will last
far
> longer than the shudderingly bad or the lukewarm mediocre. I found a book
not
> long ago featuring the best known poets of the 1920s. There were not over
six
> of two hundred or more whose work still survives. Time does win on this
one.
> Wish I could be around to see if I am right.
> See my comments continued after Arthur's below
>
>  I enjoyed your response( riposte *grin*) but you leave much up in the air
>  and undefined such as good and bad as applied to poetry. In the context
and
>  temper of your message I would interpret good and bad as well or badly
>  crafted for you seem to see it as a craft only or that is the way I read
>  your submission, I think, however, that you think it is more than this.
>  I would be the first to agree that craft is an important element and
craft
>  is a virtue acquired through practise and study. You cannot write good
>  poetry without craft. The more you write and read and debate and study
the
>  art and craft of poetry the more finely tuned that craft becomes and the
>  better facilitated is the impulse to write poetry, wherever or from
whatever
>  source that impulse or inspiration originates. That facility empowers and
>  releases. But surely it is more than just craft, isn't it
>  I may wax lyrical about it but that is only because of the depth of
feeling
>  I have for it.. I hope I always remain coherent. Regards Arthur. >>
>
> Arthur, you are far above coherent.  You are one of the most sharp-witted
and
> deepest thinkers I have known.  I like to say that poetry is not just a
way
> of saying: it is a way of seeing.  That is the part that can't be taught.