I do not agree with this any more than its original, 'poetry is what gets
lost in the translation'. That poetry began to get lost with the invention
of writing, is just as true.
But really, many authors acknowledge that an admired English teacher (in
addition to discovering literature itself) was at least highly influential
in arousing or encouraging their commitment to becoming writers, and even
poets. It certainly was a key factor for me at the time when I made career
decisions.
But is this really about the desire to hog the merit for one's own
accomplishments. Plus echoes of Wordsworth's warnings about the deadly
influence of the classroom upon 'the growing boy' and his developing
imagination. Yes, schooling had many negative influences and there are good
and bad schools (or schooling). Yet in all 'developed' cultures it is in the
school (including seminaries I suppose) where exposure to each culture's
poetry and literature generally occurs on a significant scale. (in Italy or
China, awareness of the literary heritage is not a matter of cultural
cringing.) A book not set for study in schools often will not otherwise be
sought out or discovered by most citizens. Surely the background works of
poetry are part of the making of the poet? So why sneer at the school for
taking some of the responsibility for that part of the poet's preparation?
Sheer genius of the individual poet is something the school can lay no claim
to, but humankind has not apparently invented a more appropriate means of
providing a supportive learning environment for large numbers of citizens
than schools. Tribal situations with their lower numbers are another matter,
as indigenous minorities can demonstrate.
I have noticed a tendency for poets among all the other kinds of artists to
take their own literacy for granted, yet it is just as much a part of
learning about their chosen (?) art form as the basics of playing or
composing music, studying principles of drawing and painting or the basics
of any art form. Why should poets put themselves above their fellow artists
as not having dirtied their hands (or fingers at least) with the mere craft
of poetry? Painters and pianists seem happy enough about admitting to
'training'.
I agree that schools have much to answer for in blunting genius and turning
literature (and poetry in particular) into the equivalent of laboratory dead
specimens for dissection! Yet, to dismiss any association between art and
schooling because not all classrooms are good ones, or because so few
teachers have an idea of what is really going on in the making (or reading)
of poetry, is unfair at best.
If you cannot read or write you eschew some pretty basic skills for being a
poet. Yes, I have seen the bumper stickers saying 'if you can read this
blame a primary school teacher'. I think I would have learned to read and
write by myself but it was a lot more efficient to go to school. And so
visual artists generally do go to art school and musicians generally do have
music teachers. Surprisingly, perhaps, among performers very few poets think
themselves in need of a voice coach, let alone a full performance coach.
More's the pity I sometimes think as I sit in some suburban poetry reading,
doing penance.
Or maybe 'poetry is what gets lost in the classroom' was just a bit of
gentle witticism? Ok, ok.
On 27/7/09 3:46 AM, "Jon Corelis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Poetry is what gets lost in the classroom.
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided. CRICOS IPC 00279B
|