Mike,

There is more that I could throw in at this point. However I will hold
myself back. I should really devote more time to commenting on some of the
interesting-looking poems that have come flooding in recently. I've printed
out your comments and will look out for E.S. Have you ever read the poems of
Kathleen Raine? Here's an extract :

Everywhere the substance of earth is the gate that we cannot pass.
Seek in Hebridean isles lost paradise.
There is yet the heaviness of water, the heaviness of stone
And the heaviness of the body I bring to this inviolate place.
Foot sinks in bog as I gather white water-lilies in the tarn,
The knee is bruised on rock, and the wind is always blowing.
The locked gates of the world are the world's elements,
For the rocks of the beautiful hills hurt, and the silver seas drown.
Wind score deep record of time on the weathered boulders,
The bird's hot heart consumes the soaring life to feather and bone,
And heather and asphodel crumble to peat that smoulders on crofters' fires.


I don't sign up to the ideas behind this poem or expect you to (though I do
find them life-enhancing). It is just an example of the poetry of ideas. You
would not say that it's purpose was to describe the Hebs for those that
haven't been. (Which is not say that if poet X,Y,Z wrote a poem that was
that it should be held against them or not be admired as a fine thing in
it's own right.) A day or two later you might be looking at a painting by
Poussin in a gallery in Liverpool and line 1 comes back to you and a day or
two after that you might be talking to a mother who has lost her daughter in
an accident and line 8 comes back. It is is such times that the
significance of the poem becomes manifest (in the process, making it easier
to stay
 with the extremities of primary experience).

Incidentally, the distinction between the poetry of ideas and the poetry of
descriptions
 is more arbitrary and tenuous than we have made it sound. In recent weeks,
I have read a fair number of poems on the list that are satisfying in both
respects.


Colin




----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:08 PM
Subject: Show or tell - Grasshopper


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