Dear Arthur,
    It seems to me that often an author forgets that an important function
of poetry is to entertain, to give pleasure to the reader. I agree with you
that often obscurity is thought of as a virtue. I've lost count of how many
poems I've read that seemed to be written to demonstrate how clever/erudite
the author was, rather than to communicate anything else.
Kind regards,
 grasshopper

----- Original Message -----
From: "arthur seeley" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] Discussion topic? Poems about writing poems.


> Its a bit of a general condemnation really, Insect. There are good as well
> as bad. How about Heaney's " Personal Helicon", Dylan's " In my craft or
> sullen art"?? Excellent poems surely! but at the end I can agree that they
> are essentially incestuous as a genre, of interest to the poet, certainly,
> to other poets, perhaps, to the general reader, doubtful.
> But I would not blame the genre for the general disinterest in poetry,
might
> even question the ' general disinterest' statement, anyway. I think there
> has been a turning- off of the general reader because most poetry on offer
> is obscure, often deliberately so because to be obscure endows the poet,
at
> least within his own lights, with a sort of intellectual superiority. The
> same is true of some of the conceptual art, applauded and prize-winning
but
> generally ignored or laughed at. Some 'serious' music is ridiculous
> cacophony and beyond enjoyment or appreciation, generally. It takes
> intellectual arrogance to 'write' a piece of music called '2 min 35
seconds'
> and be silence, it takes an audience bewildered by their own ignorance to
> sit and listen to it. Really 'The Emperor's New Clothes' is a fit analogy
of
> the silliness involved. Why is it that 'The Wasteland' needs copious notes
> dictated by lecturers to be well understood and yet it is considered as
> seminal to English modern poetry. Write a poem that is about something,
and
> clearly about something and well written and layered with meaning and it
> will be generally enjoyed and appreciated. Betjeman sold poetry, Larkin
was
> well and widely liked. Heaney sells. Why??
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:27 PM
> Subject: Discussion topic? Poems about writing poems.
>
>
> > I'm surprised, reading various poetry lists, about how many poems are
> about
> > poetry and writing poems. It leads me to wonder what the expected
audience
> > of these poems is.
> > I suspect the majority of people do not write poems - so why should they
> be
> > expected to connect to the writing process? Is is not rather solipsistic
> to
> > expect a general reader to be as fascinated by this subject as an author
> is?
> > I'll confess my personal feeling about this. I think Art should mainly
be
> > about life, not about art. Poems about poems can get very incestuous and
> > inbred-- frankly I think it's rather an unhealthy trend.
> > I've found most people don't respond that readily to poems about poetry,
> but
> > about things they can relate to more strongly -about living life, rather
> > than the process of writing about it.
> > Could this be why often people feel alienated from poetry these
days--they
> > feel much of it is aimed at fellow writers rather than the general
public?
> > I'd be interested to know what others think.
> > Kind regards,
> >   grasshopper
>