Marcus Bales wrote:
> > I'm criticizing the notion that poetry is an honorific so that it's not
> > territory
> > worth defending iam by iamb. What makes something poetry ought not
> > be whether it's good or not but whether it meets the criteria for being
> > poetry or not that are not hard to agree on: such as, for example, that it
> > is written in metered language. That's easy and simple enough to be
> > non-controversial, isn't it?
> > The controversy seems to start when people who write in non-metered
> > language want to call themselves poets because they think that being
> > known as a poet has some value, but they don't want to have to do
> > anything particular in order to make a valid claim. They don't want to
> > have to meet any standards at all. They want to claim they're poets
> > because ... well, because they want to claim they're poets! Yeah, that's
> > the ticket. We'll just say we're poets!
Joanna Boulter wrote:
> This seems to me to be a very arrogant statement. What gives you the right
> to assume that anyone who writes what does not fit into the template (I use
> that word advisedly) you approve, has unworthy reasons for thinking of his
> or her work as poetry? What gives you the right to assume that they don't
> want to have to put in any work or meet any standards at all, and yet be
> known as poets? How can you know what goes on inside their heads, when you
> you don't seem able, or willing, to appreciate the amount of work that goes
> into a successful piece of free verse?<
What's a successful piece of free verse? What distinguishes a
successful from an unsuccessful piece of free verse? What _are_ the
standards that free verse writers use to distinguish good from bad free
verse?
> Will you let me say 'successful' rather than 'good'? What is wrong with
> 'good'? Can you possibly be saying that a piece of writing which fits the
> template (tick, tick, tick on all points) is good --counts as poetry, and
> one that doesn't fit properly (tick, tick, cross -- oh dear, missed one
> there) is not good -- does not count? And can you even be saying that
> whether or not a piece of writing -- do please note that I am not calling it
> a 'poem', as a point of tact -- is good is not only impossible to judge
> without such reference, but that good or otherwise has no bearing on the
> matter?
Here, again, you're conflating the honorific with the descriptive, and are
outraged that I'd dare to say that something isn't the honorific when I
aim to make it purely descriptive.
But to answer directly, yes, because I hold that meter is the measure of
poetry, I hold that that which is not written in meter is not poetry. But I
don't say it's not art, or that it's not good. I only say it's not poetry. It is
the interpretation of "poetry" to mean "the good stuff" that prompts the
outrage. You hear me say "It's not poetry" and you think I'm saying "it's
not good" -- but the distinction I'm making is between poetry and prose,
not between good and bad.
It is YOUR determination to ascribe an honorific value to the word
"poetry" that makes you take what I say in a way that I've been very
clear I do not mean it.
How do I know that? What gives me the right to get inside your head
and declare that I know what you're thinking? Why, it's what you say, it's
what you write and how you write it. You're _trying_ to give me
information about what you're thinking, and I'm inferring like mad, trying
to understand.
Marcus
|