This is nice to see because it bolsters an argument I was making elsewhere, earlier today, about the difference between "religious poetry" and poetry that is infused with an experience of that which leads to the invention of religion: the experience of the numinous, of awe, etc.
What doesn't work in political poetry is the same thing that doesn't work in religious poetry: when the poet turns to lecturing rather than evoking. Or when the poet uses easy catch-phrases that are supposed to trigger a set response—the very definition of cliché, by any other word—rather than evoke the experience of awe or anger directly.
Ah, Art, of course, you're a true writer, you know what I am communicating and that, My Friend, is so gratifying, you have no idea. The points you raise in your second 'graph are of such importance to me, I would like to frame my response to them properly; that is, rise to the occasion. But, till later, for now, it is exactly what I wanted to express: What makes poetry poetry (and not preachery and not propaganda); thus, I think you've hit the nail on the heart of the matter. It has to do with "flow" and originating points of express transport. Intrinsic, not extrinsic, and so much more. So, hold that thought and I'll be back (preferably in a Leer Jet :)).
Quite right, Art. Which is why you don't have to be Catholic to appreciate Hopkins, or Muslim to appreciate Rumi. The writers of "religious poetry" approach both subjects - religon and poetry - from the wrong direction.
Natch, caught napping (literally, doctor's orders!), Frank in-butts and says it all so succinctly, he's thrown down the gauntlet, Art, ain't he? LOL.
Poetry with a message, IMO, isn't poetry. The poetry is the message, and it is the medium, both synchromeshing beyond beautiful belief and restorative relief. You cannot take the content out of the form nor the form out of the content, period, IOW. Thus, my insistence on its intrinsic nature as opposed to its extrinsic motives (which partially explains why, during the doctoral daze, I had such problems working with Olson, as Vermont's Middlebury College now-retired lovely librarian, Bob Buckeye, explains in his essay linked above).
Geez, Frank, you really up-briefed me, huh? Next thing I know, I'll be shopping for thongs (OMGasp!).
J/kiddin' . . . (Since I don't wear underwear, I ain't gonna start to satisfy my poetic brevities, eh? AND? If you look at a map of Northern Ontario, you will understand why I live down the road from a place called Commanda; I mean, c'mon, what dame could resist it, *it* being very close to the Distress River?)
Whew . . . Got to go on and on after off :).
p.s. Where elsewhere were you arguing this earlier today, Art? Just nosey . . .
Thank you FaveDave and Frank-o-Flâneur. For what? For not asking me to tell you what I really think, I think :) . . .
ReplyDeleteSmooooooooch!
p.s. Thanks due to Jess, too (but, I don't smooooooooch grrls . . . yet, hrmmm . . .)
This is nice to see because it bolsters an argument I was making elsewhere, earlier today, about the difference between "religious poetry" and poetry that is infused with an experience of that which leads to the invention of religion: the experience of the numinous, of awe, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat doesn't work in political poetry is the same thing that doesn't work in religious poetry: when the poet turns to lecturing rather than evoking. Or when the poet uses easy catch-phrases that are supposed to trigger a set response—the very definition of cliché, by any other word—rather than evoke the experience of awe or anger directly.
Ah, Art, of course, you're a true writer, you know what I am communicating and that, My Friend, is so gratifying, you have no idea. The points you raise in your second 'graph are of such importance to me, I would like to frame my response to them properly; that is, rise to the occasion. But, till later, for now, it is exactly what I wanted to express: What makes poetry poetry (and not preachery and not propaganda); thus, I think you've hit the nail on the heart of the matter. It has to do with "flow" and originating points of express transport. Intrinsic, not extrinsic, and so much more. So, hold that thought and I'll be back (preferably in a Leer Jet :)).
ReplyDeleteQuite right, Art. Which is why you don't have to be Catholic to appreciate Hopkins, or Muslim to appreciate Rumi. The writers of "religious poetry" approach both subjects - religon and poetry - from the wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteNatch, caught napping (literally, doctor's orders!), Frank in-butts and says it all so succinctly, he's thrown down the gauntlet, Art, ain't he? LOL.
ReplyDeletePoetry with a message, IMO, isn't poetry. The poetry is the message, and it is the medium, both synchromeshing beyond beautiful belief and restorative relief. You cannot take the content out of the form nor the form out of the content, period, IOW. Thus, my insistence on its intrinsic nature as opposed to its extrinsic motives (which partially explains why, during the doctoral daze, I had such problems working with Olson, as Vermont's Middlebury College now-retired lovely librarian, Bob Buckeye, explains in his essay linked above).
Geez, Frank, you really up-briefed me, huh? Next thing I know, I'll be shopping for thongs (OMGasp!).
J/kiddin' . . . (Since I don't wear underwear, I ain't gonna start to satisfy my poetic brevities, eh? AND? If you look at a map of Northern Ontario, you will understand why I live down the road from a place called Commanda; I mean, c'mon, what dame could resist it, *it* being very close to the Distress River?)
Whew . . . Got to go on and on after off :).
p.s. Where elsewhere were you arguing this earlier today, Art? Just nosey . . .