Dear Sally,
This is so true. I am on one particular poetryboard where there are a few
authors whose merest trifles are fondled and agonised over in minute detail
and generally treated as if they are Holy Writ. I call it Sucky Sucky --I'm
sure we've all seen it in action.
Kind regards,
grasshopper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Evans" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] New sub: Something about Poets
yes and it's the poem that's the thing - not making mythology of a few
poets, who once they are established cannot put a foot wrong. A lot of us
just put a foot right now and again...
bw
SallyE
on 27/2/04 2:59 pm, grasshopper at [log in to unmask]
wrote:
> Dear Mike,
> It isn't meant to sound like a lecture -more a pondering upon ideas of
> poets. It's clearly signalled as opinion - I do not think', not as a
> statement of fact. In particular I was thinking about the idea that seems
to
> be widely-held that poets feel things more strongly than other people. I
> think this is rubbish, -they just have a way with words so they can
> communicate their feelings expertly in the form of poetry. In other words,
> there are all sorts of poets -the only common factor being their skill
with
> words. I actually find that so obvious, it shouldn't need to be expressed,
> but it's as if people prefer to think that poetry must be about higher,
> rarer thoughts and feelings, and that poets might be ultra-sensitive to
> experience. Nope, I think it's only in the articulation and structuring of
> experience in the form of poetry. Also, alas, being able to write a poem
> doesn't make a person wise, or mean they have any new or important
> philosophical insights to impart. Line-breaks don't impose any
intellectual
> authority on a poem, though some people seem to feel they do.
> Because I've written like this about poets in a poem -that apart from
their
> way with words, they are not a sort of caste - obviously there's a bit of
> irony at work.. And I chose to describe the poet's gift with words in a
very
> undignified - but affectionate way. Perhaps the underlying message of the
> poem is that we should take our poems seriously, we should never take
> ourselves as authors of poems too seriously.
> Kind regards,
> grasshopper
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] New sub: Something about Poets
>
>
>> Hello Grasshopper,
> I feel that you adopt something of a haranguing tone in
> the opening lines of this poem and the diction and rhythm sound rather
like
> a dissertation or lecture. As for the thesis you present, I think that
> whether the notion that poets are just like everyone else would meet
general
> acceptance, depends very much on what we mean by `just likeī. If we mean
> they are human, I guess thereīs no cause for dissent. If we mean they all
> have black hair and grey eyes then the blue-eyed, blond(e) poets will be
up
> in arms, if no one else. The feelings you specify, love, loss, ecstasy etc
> are maybe a bit too variable to support the thesis of everyone being the
> same. Did Byron love in the same way as Mother Theresa? I understand that
> your comment `no need for a cape or swept back hair...` is aimed at poets
> who are posers, though I may have misread your tone, but as you go on to
> say, `poets may be as silly or wise as the rest of usī so presumably if
> silly poets want to dress up in a cape etc itīs their prerogative, though
> the wise among us may point a finger and say, `Look at that silly poet`.
In
> the second part of the poem you present a view of the poetīs relationship
> with words and some of what you say I can go along with - nuance, history,
> for example - but the image of words as playful puppies strikes me as an
odd
> one though that may well just be me.
> If I might digress into wider issues suggested by your poem:
> You donīt make a direct statement here, though I read it between the
lines,
> and we have sometimes discussed it on the list, that poets should not
issue
> proclamations about Life, or philosophise, or present grand opinions about
> this and that. I remember youīve described it as the Moi principle. Itīs
an
> interesting question, I think, and as you know we differ on it. I
certainly
> would not want to say that I think poets should pontificate on the meaning
> of life. Like a good post-modernist, I donīt believe in grand narratives.
I
> do, however, think that a poet can treat of ideas and even personal views
or
> opinions. And I also believe that of the poets who do that, some will be
> more interesting than others, partly because of their skill with words
(here
> I think we agree) and partly because some people have more
> interesting/stimulating ideas than others and itīs worth considering those
> ideas (here I think we part company). Your poem seems to imply, and
yourself
> have sometimes argued (if I have understood you right), that poetry is not
> the place for the poet to set out their ideas. I would agree with you that
> poets as a group are not necessarily different to any group of
individuals,
> but would add, in both group there can be those who have very dull ideas
and
> those whose ideas are fascinating. They can put them into poetic form, why
> not? In fact, isnīt that what you do here?
>
>
>
>
> Best wishes, Mike
>
|
