Poetry and the Masses

[milo]

Just before Christmas I had an interesting conversation with a couple of friends we rarely see. He's some kind of high ranking sales executive (I don't know what he sells, exactly, but he's awesome at bullshitting) and she's a PR rep for a whisky company -- so they're both quite good at making money. They were asking me about my writing -- why do I not market it more, why do I not produce more, why am I not more aggressively selling myself? She posed this question: If you were offered an advance of $100,000, would you write a book of 100 poems?

She was quite serious, and quite prepared to take on marketing. So, what did I answer, and why?

I would write 100 poems for $1000. While the enormous amount of $100,000 sets off my distrust meter I would still do it. I could even be persuaded to slip no-so-subtle references to coke or chevrolet in there.

---

Yes, I know what he means. But I still wonder what he (sorry this is behind your back, rowens ) - or anyone - thinks of works by the poets I mentioned.
Are they considered 'boring'?

My question first.

Donna

I would think that most people interested in poetry would find at least something of interest in your list-of-the-most-popular-poets of the previous century. Hence, their immense success an popularity.

---

Perhaps it's because I've mainly been writing lyrics over a number of genres for the past several years, but I don't feel that making a poem intelligible to a reader/listener is by definition 'dumbing down'. (With the exception of most pop music, of course. )

Donna

I think the original assertion was that focusing on the craftsmanship of poetry doesn't appeal to the masses. Making it intelligible is certainly not dumbing it down and I don't think anyone would make that claim.