 |
 |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Bales" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> > 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! 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? 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? Excuse *me, I can't be doing with that sort of 'argument'. Joanna Boulter