Poetry and the Masses

[Leanne]

The cantos? That's like saying "the sonnets" or "the haiku".

I said no, by the way. If someone wanted to pay me for poems I'd already written, then I probably would have said yes, but I believe that art must be created for its own sake. Introducing payment into the equation means that the focus shifts, even if it's an unconscious thing, and you're writing to please a market.

[clemonz]

The cantos? That's like saying "the sonnets" or "the haiku".

I said no, by the way. If someone wanted to pay me for poems I'd already written, then I probably would have said yes, but I believe that art must be created for its own sake. Introducing payment into the equation means that the focus shifts, even if it's an unconscious thing, and you're writing to please a market.

no, no it isn't like that at all

click this?

[Leanne]

Then you mean The Cantos by Ezra Pound -- otherwise, a canto is just a section in a longer poem, eg an epic. We aren't mind readers.

[clemonz]

ok so did you click the link?

every one of the hits on the first page on google is for pound's poem. it's not asking for mind reading powers, or at least, not worth getting annoyed about.

with no explanation about what poem i was talking about, you can be sure that it was pound's poem.

[Leanne]

Not really. Almost every romantic poet wrote cantos. I'm not annoyed, I'm asking you to clarify. Again, that's like saying "sonnets" and expecting me to just assume Shakespeare.

---

PS. Not everyone gets their poems from google.

[clemonz]

a bit like if we were talking about Elizabethan poetry and i said "the sonnets", but Shakespeare's sonnets aren't really known as just "the sonnets" so it's not a perfect analogy

---

PS. Not everyone gets their poems from google.

you're not annoyed? then why are you being sarcastic?

it's a pointless discussion, but the google page reflects the importance of pound in modern poetry.

[Leanne]

and when were we talking about Pound, that the leap should have been instinctual?

[clemonz]

and when were we talking about Pound, that the leap should have been instinctual?

we weren't talking about pound, no.

but difficult poetry and classicism. plus his cantos are by far the most popular and important since like dante. again, if you could be bothered, you probablby would've figured it out

[tectak]

and when were we talking about Pound, that the leap should have been instinctual?

Hrmphhzzzzzzz.
Don't forget to put the cat out......

[Leanne]

"plus his cantos are by far the most popular and important since like dante" --

Too bored now. Please, continue making ignorant statements. Others might be amused.

[clemonz]

"plus his cantos are by far the most popular and important since like dante" --

Too bored now. Please, continue making ignorant statements. Others might be amused.

being really nasty to the new guy - and probably wrong, too.

Famous poems that employ the canto division are Luís de Camões's Os Lusíadas (10 cantos), Lord Byron's Don Juan, Valmiki's Ramayana (500 cantos[1]), Dante's The Divine Comedy (100 cantos[2]), and Ezra Pound's The Cantos (120 cantos).

which of these are more important / popular than pound's?

moreover, you suck - i had no idea you would struggle to work out convention so much.

---

and it is convention - isn't it??


PS you suck at the internet AND are unpleasent

---

a canto is just a section in a longer poem

ummm, this isn't actually true, is it?

one of the sections into which certain long poems are divided.

emphasis added.

[Todd]

I think we're getting off track and devolving into personal attack. I'd like this to stop now please. Leanne please refrain from continuing this discussion. Clemonz, if you could too?

Thank you both. Everyone else don't pile on /admin

[milo]

Milo, unfortunately, in my experience a lot of writers do consider that making a lyric or poem intelligible is tantamount to dumbing it down. I've had a couple recently who even used that expression when I - and several other reviewers - suggested that the message they were hoping to convey was incomprehensible.

Perhaps they should visit here so I can tell them they are wrong? Then they can go away.

You're right about a lot of people - including those who write poetry or lyrics - not being interested in learning the skills, mastering the craft, and applying the tools. A pity, because then everyone misses out - the writer and the potential reader/listener who might have been moved by the piece of writing.

Regarding the hypothetical payment question: Yep, I absolutely would write x number of poems/lyrics for a substantial - even an insubstantial - amount of money.

Interesting thread, this.

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.

---

The cantos? That's like saying "the sonnets" or "the haiku".

I said no, by the way. If someone wanted to pay me for poems I'd already written, then I probably would have said yes, but I believe that art must be created for its own sake. Introducing payment into the equation means that the focus shifts, even if it's an unconscious thing, and you're writing to please a market.

yah, of course it shifts!! I said I would include obvious references to coca-cola or chevrolet if they wanted. There is nothing wrong with deliberately writing for a market for money.

I am the opposite, I would feel a little weird accepting money for something I already wrote - it wasn't written for money.

[Leanne]

Of course there's nothing wrong with writing for money -- someone has to do it, but it's just not me. I admire people who can maintain their artistic spark in the face of capitalist acquisition. A bit.

And Donna -- I'm with you on that a poem need not be difficult to understand, but that's not the same as dumbing it down. A good poem, one that endures, will have a surface meaning and then layers that reveal themselves with each reading. This is why Frost in particular is so amazing -- you can read his work on just that superficial level and marvel at his control of meter and sound, and you will not be disappointed. However, letting it sink in and reading it from different angles only enhances the poem. If you try to do that with inferior, deliberately obscure writing it will not stand up.

(I really, really hate Billy Collins -- but that's purely a preference thing, not because he's necessarily a bad poet)

[milo]

(I really, really hate Billy Collins -- but that's purely a preference thing, not because he's necessarily a bad poet)

he has some good and some bad, like everyone. I would think you would love:


Introduction to Poetry

Billy Collins

I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem's room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author's name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

[Truerenigma]

Of course there's nothing wrong with writing for money -- someone has to do it, but it's just not me. I admire people who can maintain their artistic spark in the face of capitalist acquisition. A bit.

And Donna -- I'm with you on that a poem need not be difficult to understand, but that's not the same as dumbing it down. A good poem, one that endures, will have a surface meaning and then layers that reveal themselves with each reading. This is why Frost in particular is so amazing -- you can read his work on just that superficial level and marvel at his control of meter and sound, and you will not be disappointed. However, letting it sink in and reading it from different angles only enhances the poem. If you try to do that with inferior, deliberately obscure writing it will not stand up.

(I really, really hate Billy Collins -- but that's purely a preference thing, not because he's necessarily a bad poet)

I feel the same way about Frost (although milo would probably say he was a hack), and I think he's a great example for the discussion: he felt the same way about how poems should be understood, and paid a great deal of attention to the idiom, and the way people spoke, on top of his careful attention to meter ("the sound of sense" and all that) as well literary tradition—a poet for the "everyman" and scholars alike.

[milo]

Of course there's nothing wrong with writing for money -- someone has to do it, but it's just not me. I admire people who can maintain their artistic spark in the face of capitalist acquisition. A bit.

And Donna -- I'm with you on that a poem need not be difficult to understand, but that's not the same as dumbing it down. A good poem, one that endures, will have a surface meaning and then layers that reveal themselves with each reading. This is why Frost in particular is so amazing -- you can read his work on just that superficial level and marvel at his control of meter and sound, and you will not be disappointed. However, letting it sink in and reading it from different angles only enhances the poem. If you try to do that with inferior, deliberately obscure writing it will not stand up.

(I really, really hate Billy Collins -- but that's purely a preference thing, not because he's necessarily a bad poet)

I feel the same way about Frost (although milo would probably say he was a hack), and I think he's a great example for the discussion: he felt the same way about how poems should be understood, and paid a great deal of attention to the idiom, and the way people spoke, on top of his careful attention to meter ("the sound of sense" and all that) as well literary tradition—a poet for the "everyman" and scholars alike.

he called me a hack first so it really is just revenge now.

[Leanne]

he has some good and some bad, like everyone. I would think you would love:


Introduction to Poetry

But that's one of the ones I like the least -- maybe because it's too bloody obvious I'm fairly sure part of the reason I dislike Collins et al is a cultural thing. I very much prefer understatement and allusion, which doesn't manifest in more recent US poetry very often. That's not to say not at all (after all, your own stuff is pretty subtle).

I would rather a good bit of Larkin.

---

It's true, milo, I heard Frost say that about you. He also said you wear your underpants too low.

[milo]

he has some good and some bad, like everyone. I would think you would love:


Introduction to Poetry

But that's one of the ones I like the least -- maybe because it's too bloody obvious I'm fairly sure part of the reason I dislike Collins et al is a cultural thing. I very much prefer understatement and allusion, which doesn't manifest in more recent US poetry very often. That's not to say not at all (after all, your own stuff is pretty subtle).

I would rather a good bit of Larkin.

---

It's true, milo, I heard Frost say that about you. He also said you wear your underpants too low.

yah, I think you may be right about the obvious thing, this one may have been a bad choice, though I do love the ending. Let me think on it a bit, I am certain there were a couple by that chap that I like.

---

As for Frost - he is just jealous I am on the road less traveled while he ended up the most famous fucking American poet in history. Like I couldn't sell out . . .

[Leanne]

Collins seems to have had a bit of a thing for demystifying poetry -- but I tend to feel he went too far with that, and ended up dumbing it way down. You don't have to beat your audience over the head with a meaning, you don't have to use blatantly obvious metaphors and it doesn't matter if the reader doesn't get it first go.

He might not have meant this, but that seems to be where people have taken it.