on contemporary poetry

 

ON CONTEMPORARY POETRY

 

American society is so caught up in its obsession with poetry (poetries) that explanations of poetry are frequently hyper-subjective and a bit obtuse.

Consider this case.  A writer claims that poetry is stylized language.  That  claim is  legitimate.  On the other hand, the writer's claim that poetry has four distinguishing elements-----

1) line length

2) sound

3) meter and/or rhythm

4) metaphor and simile ------

provokes skepticism.  Is not prose also an instance of stylized language when it exceeds the limits of "The lion roars" or "People make love"?  Should not images, which may combine three of the four elements ,  be considered a fifth element that bridges poetry and prose?  And is sound not a powerful link between poetry and music?  A limited description of what poetry is at any moment in human histories is counter-productive.

In a democratic society,  just anyone can create poetry.  Democratic poetry is not necessarily sublime poetry, but it is foolhardy to say it is not poetry, to say that is merely sub-standard versification.  Obsession with poetry as privileged labor leads to brazen contradictions  regarding the principles of equity and opportunity that we claim to possess.  And labeling writing as good or bad is authorized by freedom of speech.  Poetry is not a bi-racial child to be explained by way of literary race theory.  Poetry is a multi-ethnic child that ought to be explained by history.

Jerry W. Ward, Jr.                            July 6, 2021