Douglas Barbour wrote:
> I suspect it's many things, & changes with whoever is making a
> definition, yet, somehow or other, this sloppy set (or whatever the
> term is) still has a hold on us, & we each of us thinks we know what
> 'poetry' is.
>
> Every time I thought I had a definition that fit, I'd find something
> that was outside the wall yet struck me, as yes, poetry.
The problem is ultimately the definition of "definition." I define it
as a description of some X such that every sane person agrees that it
absolutely fits some n number of items in reality, and absolutely does
not fit some A minus n minus q number of items in reality, A being equal
to the number of all items in reality, and q being equal to some
/extremely /small number. I just made up that definition. I certainly
hope it can be substantially refined. But it reduces to the idea that
definitions should not be rejected because there will always be case of
things they ought to be definitions of but aren't.
I don't know of anything that anyone should consider a poem that my
definition doesn't cover, by the way. But I do know that propagandists
will resist all definitions, because set definitions make lying difficult.
Lots of problems, too, that are specific to poetry, such as the belief
of many that only texts they like can be considered poetry. If you
don't like The Wasteland, it's not a poem. A definition must be as
objective as possible. Of course, complete objectivity is impossible.
But that which is effectively object IS possible, in my view.
Just throwing out dogma I've come to hold over the years. I shouldn't
because I'm too busy to expand on them. But . . .
--Bob
|