about 20 minutes ago i was reading a book of poetry (my index of slightly horrifying knowedge by paul guest, if you were interested) for my workshop. apparently english professors think that by reading poetry we can learn the theory behind poetry (and this honestly just sounds to me like a fifth year defense against the dark arts class with umbridge). they also believe, to my further surprise, that by mimicking poets we like we can develop our own voices and our own poetic styles - funny story, after sharing a poem in class (comic book genius, which i may post later) the professor asked what poets i was reading, i told him i didn't read poetry, i read comic books. whatever. anyway, what i wanted to get at, was during my reading i couldn't shake, kick, or impale the growing fear that this is all completely useless. i don't mean reading other poetry for the sake of learning poetry, i already have issue with that, but more like what makes a good poem? why is this classified as good poetry? i can see the writer using poetic devices like alliteration and anaphora because he's enjoying the flow of language but everything is bunched up and hogtied together in a somewhat awkward melée of diary-entry style poetry. i'm not sure i like it.
i think the main problem i have with it is that i'm supposed to hold it up as a model for publishable poetry but all i see is the poet doing the exact thing i do - haphazardly playing with poetic devices and pretty language without actually doing anything great with it. i maintain that in order to write a great poem, a writer has to, at once, embrace the poetic tradition she or he is emulating as well as rewrite it - there is no way to strike readers unless the words are unique and vital on their own and gift-wrapped in what's already been done to soften the blow. does that make any sense? it's 2:22 AM here and i will play the sleep deprivation card with this posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment