hello,
i have seen this in the 'recent' sidebar and haven't clicked on it till now, and so my first suggestion (possibly my only suggestion, i am writing this 'live', as it were) would be to change the title. firstly it is just boring and implies a stodgy old poem (which it isn't - it is light and whimsical), and secondly, it kind of says too much; or, alternatively, it says just enough to make the poem itself redundant.
as for the content, i find this question fascinating, ie. would we recognize genius if it hadn't already been determined as such by this or that critic (or worse, the general public)? my thought is, it is too cynical. it implies that we are influenced by the majority opinion, which i optimistically, don't think is the case. for example, i actually do think Dylan is great, but the first time i heard one of his songs was, well, the first time i had heard one of his songs. the fact that he is regarded by many as great is only really relevant if i want to give some kind of retrospective validity to my opinion. you see, when we hear something or read something by someone, it is the first time, and it is at that time we make a judgment. i have never heard anyone say "oh, i have heard Dylan's stuff's great, therefore it is great." the line "if our heroes showed up / as poets unknown. . . etc." sums this up, because the answer to this question is, they do show up unknown. i remember hearing 'shelter from the storm' for the first time at a house party and thinking 'that's the best thing i've ever heard. . . who's it by?' (the next day i bought the first 4 Dylan albums).
i also think, again maybe optimistically, that art is objective (but this is contentious, even to me, so i'll leave it there.
anyway, your poem asks a very interesting question but in a simple easily digestible way. it begins a conversation, which is something. is the question original? no. but it poses it in a relatively charming little way.
oh, i read another comment up there, and must agree that the names you have chosen may rub some people up the wrong way (the more pop names - for example i think mccartney is the most overrated hack, and must admit that when i saw you had included his name i rolled my eyes), and detract from the general question. you would imagine people (especially poets) would understand allusion, but. . . well, quite frankly a lot of them don't, so
*
oh, and you use a lot of inversion and forced rhyme. you should sort that out.
*not the people on this site, of course, just in general.
i have seen this in the 'recent' sidebar and haven't clicked on it till now, and so my first suggestion (possibly my only suggestion, i am writing this 'live', as it were) would be to change the title. firstly it is just boring and implies a stodgy old poem (which it isn't - it is light and whimsical), and secondly, it kind of says too much; or, alternatively, it says just enough to make the poem itself redundant.
as for the content, i find this question fascinating, ie. would we recognize genius if it hadn't already been determined as such by this or that critic (or worse, the general public)? my thought is, it is too cynical. it implies that we are influenced by the majority opinion, which i optimistically, don't think is the case. for example, i actually do think Dylan is great, but the first time i heard one of his songs was, well, the first time i had heard one of his songs. the fact that he is regarded by many as great is only really relevant if i want to give some kind of retrospective validity to my opinion. you see, when we hear something or read something by someone, it is the first time, and it is at that time we make a judgment. i have never heard anyone say "oh, i have heard Dylan's stuff's great, therefore it is great." the line "if our heroes showed up / as poets unknown. . . etc." sums this up, because the answer to this question is, they do show up unknown. i remember hearing 'shelter from the storm' for the first time at a house party and thinking 'that's the best thing i've ever heard. . . who's it by?' (the next day i bought the first 4 Dylan albums).
i also think, again maybe optimistically, that art is objective (but this is contentious, even to me, so i'll leave it there.
anyway, your poem asks a very interesting question but in a simple easily digestible way. it begins a conversation, which is something. is the question original? no. but it poses it in a relatively charming little way.
oh, i read another comment up there, and must agree that the names you have chosen may rub some people up the wrong way (the more pop names - for example i think mccartney is the most overrated hack, and must admit that when i saw you had included his name i rolled my eyes), and detract from the general question. you would imagine people (especially poets) would understand allusion, but. . . well, quite frankly a lot of them don't, so
*oh, and you use a lot of inversion and forced rhyme. you should sort that out.
*not the people on this site, of course, just in general.
(06-25-2016, 08:26 AM)rhymeguy Wrote: If for a moment we
forgot all we know
about Whitman, Frost,
Tennyson and Poe,
McCartney, Lennon,
Dylan and Simon,
Eyeda, Saul Williams
and Andre 3000.
If our heroes showed up
as poets unknown
and offered us seeds
as yet unsown;
How would we critique?
What would we say?
Would we suggest
a better way?
Would we realize
the way it would go?
When we first read them
would we know?
Around us each day
in these threads we entwine
are destinies poets
awaiting their time.
We have the dream,
though obscure it may be.
Perhaps it is you.
Perhaps it is me.