Hello Grasshopper,
                  Well, here we are again, on somewhat familiar territory. I can certainly agree with everything you say about changes in the way poets are regarded. Similar points can be made concerning changes in literary theory and the content and language of poems. And of course, a poet writes out of their own culture and historical period. Thus far I can happily go along with the generalisation that nowadays poets show, rather than tell, as long as it remains a generalisation. This is for why. What happens if someone is a prophet? And what happens if that prophet writes poetry? And even more perplexing, what are we to do if that poetry is actually extremely good? I should perhaps add that I am no very great friend of individuals who think they´ve found the meaning of life and are going to save the world with that knowledge. I can´t imagine that the didactic poetry of such an individual would be worth a moment´s notice. And it is really not for such poetry that I am arguing. What I´m arguing foris really the possibility of a poetry of ideas. I don´t believe that one has to agree with the idea to find such poetry valuable, one only has to believe that the subject is worth discussing in the first place. It´s always much easier to take examples from history because hindsight provides a clearer perspective. My example is the Finnish-Swedish poet, Edith Södergran. She may fairly be described as a poet with a mission. One of the important elements in her poetry is the role and point of view of women. During her lifetime (she died in 1923) she was considered by much of the literary establishment to be mentally unbalanced, if not outright mad. Nowadays, perspectives have changed and women´s studies have begun to investigate the works of women who had previously been marginalised and ignored. All of that has brought Edith Södergran into the forefornt of modern Scandinavian literature. Her reputation is now very high. People find the ideas she wrote about interesting and relevant. But that does not alter the fact that her poetry is still a poetry of ideas. It´s also extremely good poetry. It is poetry like this that I am arguing for. David McDuff´s comment in his introduction to the Bloodaxe edition of Södergran´s Complete Poems is revealing. He writes: `Her poetry, though imagistic in expression, is primarily a poetry of ideas. As such, it may remain alien to the majority of English-speaking readers.´ One of the reasons for such wonderful writing being so alien is, I think, the current unwillingness to read what a poet thinks. 
What do you think? Is there any sense in this? By the way, I hope I´m not out of line if I mention here that I was very impressed with your Bum. What am I saying? It´s time to stop.


best wishes,   mike


 


--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
My own feeling about showing, not telling, reflects a change in the way
poets are viewed now. I think we tend to regards a poet as Everyman these
days, rather than a teacher,or a prophet or a sage, so we don't want to be
lectured, basically.
It means authors have to be more diffident in pronouncing upon things, in
imposing their opinions or interpretations as the only ones.
If we regard a poem as an argument, then the author has to provide evidence.
It's no use telling us a scene is beautiful ,or a person is two-faced, or
assuming that your musings are fascinating - give us the evidence. And while
you doing it, don't forget to entertain and/or delight us in the process.
Kind regards,
   grasshopper