Thanks so much for yours (kissing and making up - please).
To me, your "electricity" is it.
I think it is very difficult to have an identifiable measure for all
poetries - and near impossible when considering sound/concrete/performance
poetry. The frame, the medium is different and is not the page - but relates
entirely to the page. Indeed, everything relates to the page - drama, visual
art, a musical score.
I too get that electricity from John Clare's poetry, from Shelley's 'Ode To
The West Wind' and thousands more. I get that electricity too from Aborigine
'creationist chants,' etc.
Perhaps I'm looking at this entirely the wrong way round: rather than
good/bad perhaps the essentials are - building participation and thereby
audience? I don't imagine the inspiring poets of the 60s and early 70s had a
criteria as to 'good' poetry, 'bad' poetry - they did it and created
interactive audiences around 'doing it.'
'Doing it' doesn't negate previous work - the classics et al - but could
provide a way forward.
The reason why the Quill Writing Group is the fastest growing writing group
in the UK is a) they're doing it for themselves and b) writers/artists like
myself have never been judgemental about their work - though I've personally
thrown a hundred writing options at them!! While I totally understand your
mention of 'inhouse' publication with a specific group, my task here is to
let them find the 'electricity.' I have that faith.
When - not if - the lightning strikes, we all gain.
Electricity is it.
All best wishes, Rupert
> Dear Rupert,
> This is very sweet of you and I think we should all now kiss and make up -
> metaphorically speaking of course. These hiccups happen. I have them all
> the time so I think you're allowed the odd one now and again. But this is
> much appreciated.
> And not for one moment should you apologise for the good/bad poetry
> debate, in fact you get a gold star from bringing that up. That's
> something that needs talking about. In fact I think Peter agreed with you
> on this point whereas I don't so it's a debate that doesn't have clearly
> defined enemies or allies which makes it much more meaty.
> I've certainly been persuaded by some of the arguments that good/bad is
> far too loaded with moral rectitude and in that sense I can actually find
> myself agreeing with your statement. But if we're saying that there is no
> difference whatsoever in the standard (the electricity?) of writing
> between, let's say, my hospice patients (some of whom became close
> personal friends before departing for the Pearly Gates) and, let's say,
> John Donne or Marianne Moore then I absolutely 100 per cent disagree. If
> I'd thought any of my hospice patients had come anywhere near these
> writers I'd have gone out my way to try and get their stuff published or
> publish them myself. But they didn't. I published them 'in house' at the
> hospice for their friends and families. I still have all the publications.
> They are amongst my most treasured possessions but that's because of my
> memories not because their writing was worth preserving for posterity - to
> be honest quite a lot of it was atrocious by anyone's standards.