Talk:Poetry

okay stuff moved here from the Poetry page on August 9th, 2001 - Jimmy Lo

What makes something poetry?
- Jeff Harrison called it "better than nothing."

aside from the inescapable timebound (faddish) criteria, these two seem to be permanent: 1. "yugen", or mysterious beauty; i.e. resonance with the subconscious. (in the 18c.--often called the least poetical time for english-- this was not expected nor sought.)

2. "calliditas", or concise aptness. some--a very few--good poets lack this (Whitman, Jeffers) but there will always be those who refuse them the first rank for this reason.

Poetry is describing something perfectly.

i would also add: "melopoeia" or phonetic coherence (for some time now, in eclipse); "phanopoeia" or visual imagery; & "logopoeia" or conceptual originality (these are Pound's coinages).

"poignancy" belongs in here somewhere, but since every age draws the line between pathos & bathos differently, i can only suggest that poetry must be about the human feelings & situations which are thought to be worth exploring at that time. nowadays bad childhoods & famous artists appear frequently, while epics on the founding of political dynasties would be a very hard sell.

The poet and critic William Empson identified the quality of ambiguity as fundamental to poetry, i.e. that the response which poetry evokes is conditional to an extent upon the uncertainties within the language. His book 'Seven Types of Ambiguity' details the different forms in which ambiguity can manifest itself.

having one of these excellences is sufficient; but having many of them is still better.

What about the state of poetry today?

i see "Poetry" (in english) balkanized as seldom before, with three mutually-ignoring, self-aggrandizing factions, Language Poetry, NeoFormalism, & Zeeps (free verse lyrics in the first person about mundane eventicles--aren't you glad this has a name?); with their immediate "godfathers" being Stein, Frost & Williams. (myself, i follow Mallarme if anyone, which puts me under the radar. so i guess there is a fourth group: STEALTH POETS...) --graywyvern

What passes for poetry these days is mostly in a sorry state, and even those who may have something to say are not saying it in the language most people can appreciate. Remember that in previous centuries, most of the best poets did not barricade themselves inside a "high art" dungeon.

I would say the popular musicians (pop/rock/grunge/rap/all the rest) and maybe even more so the musicians who work in styles that are popular within their own region or ethnic group, have for the most part taken over from those who call themselves poets. Most of it is crap, of course, but most of 19th Century poetry was crap. Only a few of the best or most lucky are remembered.

I think the best of the popular music lyricists are genuine poets who measure up well against previous centuries.

I used to agree with that last paragraph - Dylan being the prime example - but now no longer now what to think. Take away the music, in most cases, and the rhythm disappears. Its a form of poetry that requires a particular performance to be effective, which I don't think _real_ poetry requires. Milton, or Spenser, or Eliot, or Whitman, or anyone you care to name, functions dramatically well without the crutch of music. just a thought. Atorpen

Checked out Zack de la Rocha? Or maybe Maynard James Keenan? -- Sam

I've just redirected poem here, because I couldn't think of a way the two could avoid duplicating each other in large part (poem was only a stub in any case). Poem had an interlanguage link to the Dutch 'pedia's article on "Gedicht" - I don't know if putting it here is the best match, or if there's a Dutch article on "poetry" rather than "poem". Somebody might want to check that. --Camembert