Friday, 20 August 2010
Describing and classifying poetry
I've noticed that a couple commentators on The Tethers, knowing of my "experimental work," seem to struggle with TT's "mainstream" qualities, but where they see a vast difference between the two areas, I see continuities, a spectrum. Asked by an interviewer about the difference between his poetry and prose, Gary Snyder responded, "I don't really think of them as different so much--I adopt whatever structure seems to be necessary to the communication in mind." I feel much the same way. Just as a poet may choose among such forms as the sestina, the sonnet, etc. in composing a poem, I think about modes of expression, degrees of tension or fragmentation, lines versus prose, etc. and may in one day write poems that would be classified as "mainstream" and "experimental." Is such an approach so hard to comprehend? Is it so unusual?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is politics. I explore this a little here...
ReplyDeleteHi, Paul. I read the post on your blog and wonder what you think might help break this problem down, might alleviate/mitigate it. That is, what do you think individuals can do about it?
ReplyDeleteHi Carrie, intriguing post. I think that readers, including critics, are sometimes unnerved by a poet's compositional agility. There's comfort in labelling. It's also easier to "sell" or "understand" a writer or artist if s/he can be bundled into a category. Not that it's any excuse... An exploratory approach to writing seems crucial to me for a poet's continued relevance. I'm not sure what can be done about the reading of it though - except to carry on.
ReplyDeleteDenied! I tried to leave a comment but was told it was too long. I've posted it on my blog, instead. ....
ReplyDeleteSorry.
Just as a poet may choose among such forms as the sestina, the sonnet, etc. in composing a poem, I think about modes of expression, degrees of tension or fragmentation, lines versus prose, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt might help them if you take a poem of yours and list the tensions (what's being withheld, why the reader should feel motivated to feel, or even resolve, the tension). Do the details of the fragmentation matter, or could the piece be fragmented in many other ways to the same effect? Why is each line-break and indent positioned the way it is? What mind-states might an ideal reader pass through?
It's a tall order, but at least then there'd be points to discuss. For example, there may be perceptual problems (not noticing effects) rather than conceptual ones.
Is such an approach so hard to comprehend? Is it so unusual? - I don't think so. However, my guess is that those who write across the spectrum have more luck with readers when each piece they write stays within a fairly narrow range of that spectrum. If such pieces are put at the start of a book, maybe the readers will be better prepared for more wide-ranging pieces later on.
Thanks for your thoughts, all. They've been helpful.
ReplyDelete