What is good poetry? What is bad poetry?
I have to begin by saying that these questions, to me, at first looked academic, but have become a mystery. Both "good" and "bad" are comparative adjectives, and as such, need to be defined using a benchmark. I have been thinking about what this benchmark would look like, because I don't know. The questions themselves are presumptuous in assuming there is a benchmark. (Since I cannot imagine Professor Kuin being presumptuous in asking these two questions of this class, I need to assume I am missing something. Perhaps I am only missing my mind at this point in time.) The benchmark would have to have specific parameters of self-description, i.e. it would contain qualities that could be used on some sort of scale that would lead to a definition.
Floundering around in the dark eventually becomes tedious, and this is where I have been this week. This is also why I picked up my Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms and read what was said about poetry, as follows:
"poetry, language sung, chanted, spoken, or written according to some pattern of recurrence that emphasizes the relationships between words on the basis of sound as well as sense: this pattern is almost always a rhythm or METRE, which may be supplemented by RHYME or ALLITERATION or both. The demands of verbal patterning usually make poetry a more condensed medium than "PROSE or everyday speech, often involving variations in SYNTAX, the use of special words and phrases (POETIC DICTION) peculiar to poets, and a more frequent and more elaborate use of FIGURES OF SPEECH, principally METAPHOR and SIMILE. All cultures have their poetry, using it for various purposes from sacred ritual to obscene insult, but it is generally employed in those utterances and writings that call for heightened intensity of emotion, dignity of expression, or subtlety of meditation. Poetry is valued for combining pleasures of sound with freshness of ideas, whether these be solemn or comical. Some critics make an evaluative distinction between poetry, which is elevated or inspired, and VERSE, which is merely clever or mechanical. The three major categories of poetry are NARRATIVE, dramatic, and LYRIC, the last being the most extensive." [words have been made bold by this author]
After reading this, I recognized that I needed to do some more research on these capitalized terms, just to ensure that I understood what they were when they are used. I flipped the page back to see what else began with the word "poet". I found a new word (to me). It is poetaster. A "poetaster is a writer of verse who does not deserve to be called a poet, despite his or her pretensions; an inferior poet lacking in ability. Trivial or worthless verse may sometimes be called poetastery." (ODLT) AHA! Bad poetry must come from an inferior poet, and is trivial and worthless; therefore, good poetry must come from a superior poet, who writes of things that are meaningful and valuable. But this only leads to the circle beginning all over again! It does not answer the questions that have been asked.
These words are all beginning to look to me like personal perspective has everything to do with poetry being considered either good or bad. And I don't want to believe this! I want to think that good poetry can be recognized as just that - good. I also want to think that bad poetry can be recognized too. I am also beginning to believe this is improbable. Although I have heard it said that it is not in good form to answer a question with a question, I will end by asking three questions. Perhaps someone who reads this may be able to shed some light into my darkness. Is there any such thing as good and bad poetry? If there is such a thing, can't we just live with both "good" and "bad" poetry co-existing in the world? Can't we just let poetry be?
Floundering around in the dark eventually becomes tedious, and this is where I have been this week. This is also why I picked up my Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms and read what was said about poetry, as follows:
"poetry, language sung, chanted, spoken, or written according to some pattern of recurrence that emphasizes the relationships between words on the basis of sound as well as sense: this pattern is almost always a rhythm or METRE, which may be supplemented by RHYME or ALLITERATION or both. The demands of verbal patterning usually make poetry a more condensed medium than "PROSE or everyday speech, often involving variations in SYNTAX, the use of special words and phrases (POETIC DICTION) peculiar to poets, and a more frequent and more elaborate use of FIGURES OF SPEECH, principally METAPHOR and SIMILE. All cultures have their poetry, using it for various purposes from sacred ritual to obscene insult, but it is generally employed in those utterances and writings that call for heightened intensity of emotion, dignity of expression, or subtlety of meditation. Poetry is valued for combining pleasures of sound with freshness of ideas, whether these be solemn or comical. Some critics make an evaluative distinction between poetry, which is elevated or inspired, and VERSE, which is merely clever or mechanical. The three major categories of poetry are NARRATIVE, dramatic, and LYRIC, the last being the most extensive." [words have been made bold by this author]
After reading this, I recognized that I needed to do some more research on these capitalized terms, just to ensure that I understood what they were when they are used. I flipped the page back to see what else began with the word "poet". I found a new word (to me). It is poetaster. A "poetaster is a writer of verse who does not deserve to be called a poet, despite his or her pretensions; an inferior poet lacking in ability. Trivial or worthless verse may sometimes be called poetastery." (ODLT) AHA! Bad poetry must come from an inferior poet, and is trivial and worthless; therefore, good poetry must come from a superior poet, who writes of things that are meaningful and valuable. But this only leads to the circle beginning all over again! It does not answer the questions that have been asked.
These words are all beginning to look to me like personal perspective has everything to do with poetry being considered either good or bad. And I don't want to believe this! I want to think that good poetry can be recognized as just that - good. I also want to think that bad poetry can be recognized too. I am also beginning to believe this is improbable. Although I have heard it said that it is not in good form to answer a question with a question, I will end by asking three questions. Perhaps someone who reads this may be able to shed some light into my darkness. Is there any such thing as good and bad poetry? If there is such a thing, can't we just live with both "good" and "bad" poetry co-existing in the world? Can't we just let poetry be?
posted by maggiesong at 9:46 PM
1 Comments:
Wow! You did some excellent research on the topic of poetry. I have just learned a few things in reading your blog...thank you!
To your questions, the ones that you hid way at the bottom of the blog =) I'll address each in order. Here goes:
1. Like we discussed outside of tutorial on Monday, I really don't feel that there can be a classification between good and bad poetry. Everyone's opinion is personal and totally irrelevant from the next persons. To me, even the view of the most stringent critic, who also happens to be an very scholarly chap in poetry, means very little! I do realize that I have probably offended someone, somewhere in the cyber world, but that will happen when posting personal opinion! So "good" and "bad" to classify poetry is too narrow of a constraint with no lateral movement possible.
2. We can most definitely live with both "good" and "bad" poetry! We're doing it now, aren't we?! As mentioned above, those classifications are restricting and so on.
3. I think that part of the human condition is to pick apart something from now until judgment day! It doesn't matter what it is, someone can analyze it and try to "make sense" of whatever it is. Poetry is no different. Take this class for example. Aren't we as a class harassing poor poetry as she stands on display for all to see, and hear. We're meant to enjoy her talent and gifts. Instead we torment her with poking and prodding questions about meaning and whys? I don't think that it is fair to put something called art under a microscope.
sv
Post a Comment
<< Home