In "The Great Short," there was a quotation about someone saying, "Truth is like poetry, and most people hate poetry." Obviously that person has not been in Russia or in France. As for the reasons that so many people in America hate poetry, probably the biggest one is the fault of poets themselves. The "avant garde" and postmodern directions in poetry have been absolute rubbish. When I attended a DC Poets reading with a woman who is a magnificent visual artist, she told me, "I hope you never write that way." Not only do these people produce absolute rubbish, but they are viciously abusive to people who produce poetry that is better than theirs. When Jewel came up with a poetry book, she was attacked very badly by these people. In fact Jewel's poetry is far better than anything that has come out of these movements; and it is completely wrong that she be getting subjected to that kind of treatment from people whose work is in every way her's inferior. On a Google Groups forum called rec.arts.poems, someone claimed that my poetry was "so 1972." In 1972, people in America actually read poetry. That has not been the case in recent decades; and the reason, once again, is that poetry championed by media and academic movements of the time has been complete trash. In Russia, on the other hand, people actually read poetry. And the poetry that is produced is poetry that is worthy of the name. I have put in a lot of effort and time into translating Russian poetry and songs into English, while retaining the original style and feeling. I have had a lot of good reviews of my translations. Even people who do not like contemporary American poetry have had good things to say about my work. The solution to this problem is to produce - and disseminate - poetry that people actually want to read. Poetry that is actually poetry. Poetry that aims at such things as beauty and passion. Poetry that is poetic rather than cynical or cold. Poetry that actually inspires and moves. I have seen very good poetry in several unlikely places, such as the Open Mike readings in DC and the Dan O'Connell readings in Melbourne. These people's work has beauty and meaning. If you don't like poetry, the most likely reason is that you haven't seen real poetry. Real poetry exists. But you won't find it in avant garde or postmodernist or academic poetry or anything of that sort.
I saw Eternity the other night, Like a great ring of pure and endless light, All calm, as it was bright; And round beneath it, Time in hours, days, years, Driv’n by the spheres ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but with a whimper. I don't hate poetry.
I've seen a lot of poetry, been to plenty of readings, and one thing that stands out in my mind is that what one person loves, another hates. If we insist on limiting poetry to simplistic and inflexible definitions, then we limit who will like it. We also tend to flood the audience with the same thing from poet to poet. Whitman shattered the old notions of what poetry should look and sound like. But even he becomes monotonous after a while. I like poems that are dense, filled with meaning and possible meaning. I love that a writer can create something that on the surface seems simple, and yet can have layers of meaning. Poetry should deal with the beautiful and not so beautiful. It should leave us pondering possibilities and opening doors to new ways of thinking. Let the poem open a door to something we did not expect.
I think it is often the way they are exposed to poetry in school. I don't think schools do a very good job of teaching poetry and the students blame the poems.
You saying I didn't do my job properly? I tended to stay away from poetry, mostly because all the recommended and approved stuff was b-o-r-i-n-g. I only used it to reinforce skills like understanding metaphors, etc. As for schools teach poetry, I have to ask, what is the purpose and what are the goals?
Well the first thing I'd change is that 'recommended and approved' strait jacket. Very hard to engender a passion for poetry, without the teacher enjoying what he is doing . The purpose here is to connect the sounds and the rhythms of the language with the meanings and themes you are trying to communicate. That is what makes poetry unique from other literature. Somewhere between Dr. Seus ( poetry) and 9th grade Middle school with Romeo and Juliet we have stopped having fun and engaged in the equivilant of educational water-boarding . Therein is the problem.
I wish we could burn those straight jackets, but we're living in the age of data worship and it's all about the test. The aesthetic approach to teaching is history. My sarcastic side sees a day when we will have poems written in text talk. Lol.
You are the educator not me, but wouldn't the best way be to use those winter and spring music concerts and all those songs schools teach in between ? Why is the singing part taught in grade school, taught apart from the poetry in the lyrics? If you actually had these taught as dual concepts in those early years and we just isolated the lyrics of some class time. There are some simple but beautiful lyrics with all those forms of rhyme, metaphor, several forms of meter etc, that you can read, and look at while learning that music. I took choir in middle school. Not once did the choir teacher teach anything about how that lyric was designed and structured to do its job.
that, my friend, is poetry.... or close enough for this moment. personally, I never read poetry or go to poetry readings. These days It seems like poetry is often pretentiously obscure.... or simply pretentious but let’s take the best case that Adfundum elegantly laid out above It takes significant effort to extract and contemplate multiple layers of meaning, intonation, overtones, suggestions. In order to appreciate beautiful writing you have to hold it in your mind and patiently savor. In most most cases, we are like a vacuum cleaner..., voraciously, endlessly, indiscriminately sucking things up. Nuance and beauty are impediments in our overeager rush to get to the bottom line. Poetry is not perceived as a cost effective use of our attention.
Most education today ignores the arts and other electives. If you live in an area that still encourages such things, you're lucky. Budget cuts kill off much of that. Reading books? Other than short children's books, novels are increasingly dropped from the curriculum. It's really bad.
@ibshambat Poetry changed a lot in France. Old style poetry is not alive anymore, but there still a high place for musical poetry. The big master of the game was obviously Brassens, but still there is people like Grand Corps Malade, MC Solaar, Orelsan is well reputed aswell. I don't know a lot of people who still read Appolinaire or Rimbaud in France however.
Guess who taught me how to read a poem out loud for my class and how the punctuation was supposed to function. My Grandmother, who used to teach in a one room schoolhouse in Canada. Sad that my own fifth grade teacher never thought to before she had me try in front of the class. That was an unpleasant experience for most of the students.
Yes, and there are so many ways to read a poem out loud. I was always hypnotized by Eliot's "The Hollow Men" until I heard him read it. He read in an old style that was flat and withdrawn. I found a reading of the poem done with a bit of life in the phrasing and with background music that really drew out the hypnotic appeal that I had read into it. If you have an interest... Here is Eliot reading the poem: Here is the reading I described: There is so much to what you say about reading out loud that can really make all the difference. Edit--it works better if you don't look at the video--just listen.
I am not sure that there is just that one problem, or a straight forward solution. Even if there were a supply of poetry, I am skeptical that people would be interested. That said, I have a reflection about music that I would like to share. Long ago I attended a lecture on some random subject, it happened that there was a decent piano sitting in This hotel ball room. The speaker began his presentation by briefly And unexpectedly playing this piano, At the time, I had a hobby of trying to play rag time piano... Scott Joplin. The music the speaker played was very simple. My technical skills were such that I certainly could have played the Music that this speaker played. But, importantly, I recognized that I could not play with the same beauty as he achieved. It was a conundrum that has fascinated me ever since that time: Where does beauty come from? If two people accurately press the same piano keys..... why is one version beautiful and the other pedestrian? And, there is a further question: how do we learn to perceive beauty? I am virtually certain that I was the only person in that ball room who noticed the beauty of this lecturer’s simple music. How is it that? I heard the music, and everyone else just heard the sound (While they waited for the lecture to begin)? and the meaning of the beauty? The meaning I derived from this simple piece of music has continued to emerge over years, and decades. In order to fully extract meaning and beauty... you have to let it linger. And what makes a person open to such an experience? Can it be taught, or mentored?
Actually I like them both. Eliot provides a flat affect that mirrors much of the theme, the hollowness , and a lack of vibrancy, but when he picks up the tempo almost a brief gallop on two occasions towards the end it is more effective as a contrast. On the other hand the second reading does not have that sharp contrast in tempo, but as you say a richer phrasing throughout. This reminds me of the virtue of having more than one reading. It also reminds me of a serious generational problem that poetry faces now. Its the lack of attention span that we are producing in youth due to the constant sensory stimulation provided by videogaming and the internet that generations which were used to reading longer forms such as literature or narratives as a form of entertainment simply did not struggle with. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/attention-span-book_n_4151059. https://webwisewording.com/shorter-attention-span-technology/ Its the difference between communicating via a letter in the mail and a series of text messages. As someone who bridges these generations, I know I struggle staying focused with longer formats more now at 60 years old than I did as a youth because so much required sustained concentration back then, than today. I did enjoy this poem, and had forgotten how good Eliot was with metaphor, but I found I had to rewind more than once when my mind wondered, when 10 or 15 years ago or 20 years ago, this would not have happened. Its a problem for teaching poetry or or anything originally designed to be read in a single sitting if we have trouble managing it now because our brains have been altered by technology.
Poem by Maya Rich Angelou I'm filthy rich But a black woman discriminated against My whole black life By whitey. It's divine being a victim And filthy rich. In your face, white racists. -------------- "Poetry" only a Leftist could love. Racism not even set to rhyme or meter but rather to victimhood and socialism. Maya has been largely replaced by Non-Indian Pocahontas who laments "the high cost of education" while pocketing $400,000 for teaching a single class at Harvard.
Why So Many People Hate Poetry Perhaps people just hate bad poetry. Good poetry creates an image in the readers mind. I'm reminded of a very short poem by EE Cummings: Shake and shake the ketchup bottle None will come and then a Lot'll. Nothing fancy, of course, but Cummings certainly paints a picture with his words here.
And that brings up the point that what constitutes good poetry is deeply personal. I tend to favor poems that either have a philosophical undertone or are those short imagery poems--especially if they can take me beyond just the superficial. Not all poetry is pretentious, but I do agree that much of it is. Some try hard to sound important, and the biggest impression they give is pretentiousness. There is a lot of really good poetry out there, but like most things, it's personal. I liked Bukowski's take on things: Poetry Reading poetry readings have to be some of the saddest damned things ever, the gathering of the clansmen and clanladies, week after week, month after month, year after year, getting old together, reading on to tiny gatherings, still hoping their genius will be discovered, making tapes together, discs together, sweating for applause they read basically to and for each other, they can't find a New York publisher or one within miles, but they read on and on in the poetry holes of America, never daunted, never considering the possibility that their talent might be thin, almost invisible, they read on and on before their mothers, their sisters, their husbands, their wives, their friends, the other poets and the handful of idiots who have wandered in from nowhere. I am ashamed for them, I am ashamed that they have to bolster each other, I am ashamed for their lisping egos, their lack of guts. if these are our creators, please, please give me something else: a drunken plumber at a bowling alley, a prelim boy in a four rounder, a jock guiding his horse through along the rail, a bartender on last call, a waitress pouring me a coffee, a drunk sleeping in a deserted doorway, a dog munching a dry bone, an elephant's fart in a circus tent, a 6 p.m. freeway crush, the mailman telling a dirty joke anything anything but these. Bukowski hated our tendency to romanticize everything. It causes us to ignore life.
Elliot's reading is interesting, as you say, in that he changes that tempo in a couple of places, but I was not sure if we were supposed to assume that was supposed to create some kind of manic moment or distress about the end of the world. He is quite gloomy with both the spoken and written words, and yes, the metaphors are rich. One of the things I always liked about him. There is also a recording of him reading The Wasteland that has the same kind of monotone quality along with some changes in voice. I'd read the poem dozens of times before I heard it, but after hearing it, I realized the importance of other speakers jumping in (literally, in the linked version) almost like a disordered stream of consciousness. This understanding of the other voices made quite a difference. But then again, every poet I've heard read, reads differently each time.
