General Poetry Discussion

[rousseau]

Okay. But why weren't the rest of these playwrights (all contemporaries of Shakespeare, and not nearly all of them, only the only ones who made the list, which means they had at least some claim to fame) touted and praised as much as Shakespeare? What happened?

I've already addressed this somewhat, I do consider Shakespeare a master of his craft and era, and that he wrote the right plays at the right time. I'm not trying to detract from his work, I'm saying that the name recognition he's achieved causes a lack of objectivity, as such. The magnitude of his cultural relevance is partly luck (he nailed all the right themes at the right time, and there was an incentive for his work).

This is basically to say that I feel many other writers are in the same ballpark as him. Would you agree with that? Or do you feel he's on another level?

 

[WAB]

Okay. But why weren't the rest of these playwrights (all contemporaries of Shakespeare, and not nearly all of them, only the only ones who made the list, which means they had at least some claim to fame) touted and praised as much as Shakespeare? What happened?

I've already addressed this somewhat, I do consider Shakespeare a master of his craft and era, and that he wrote the right plays at the right time. I'm not trying to detract from his work, I'm saying that the name recognition he's achieved causes a lack of objectivity, as such. The magnitude of his cultural relevance is partly luck (he nailed all the right themes at the right time, and there was an incentive for his work).

This is basically to say that I feel many other writers are in the same ballpark as him. Would you agree with that? Or do you feel he's on another level?

I stressed in the other thread (Shakespeare Controversy) that I believe Shakespeare's superiority rests on his genius as a poet. As a playwright: excellent, but (again I mentioned this in the other thread), I like George Bernard Shaw better as a playwright; as far as the Bard's themes, characterization, the general quality of his work with reference to sense rather than sound: I do not think he was on another level than everyone else.

It is as a poet, in his technical skill, and mainly in the beauty of his lines, that I regard him as on another level. In other words, I can't name you a single poet in English who matched him in that regard. But AGAIN: this is just my opinion! Hey, I'm a Jethro Tull fan, and most people hate Jethro Tull, so what do I know?

If we're talking ballpark: sure, Alexander Pope came very close (he actually matched the Bard in technique but his poetry lacked beauty: Pope was cold and satirical to a fault); Tennyson, Keats, and of course Milton.

There are modern poets who are in the ballpark, so many it would be futile to name them.

Before I end this post I just want to say that I agree with your basic points, and I agree that there are people who go on about Shakespeare who just do it because of the name and don't really have much appreciation. It's like those people who will stand in front of a touted work of modern art and nod along to the accolades and pretend they are "in the know", when in reality they don't know what they're looking at.

My opinions are just that, opinions.

***

 

[rousseau]

Okay. But why weren't the rest of these playwrights (all contemporaries of Shakespeare, and not nearly all of them, only the only ones who made the list, which means they had at least some claim to fame) touted and praised as much as Shakespeare? What happened?

I've already addressed this somewhat, I do consider Shakespeare a master of his craft and era, and that he wrote the right plays at the right time. I'm not trying to detract from his work, I'm saying that the name recognition he's achieved causes a lack of objectivity, as such. The magnitude of his cultural relevance is partly luck (he nailed all the right themes at the right time, and there was an incentive for his work).

This is basically to say that I feel many other writers are in the same ballpark as him. Would you agree with that? Or do you feel he's on another level?

I stressed in the other thread (Shakespeare Controversy) that I believe Shakespeare's superiority rests on his genius as a poet. As a playwright: excellent, but (again I mentioned this in the other thread), I like George Bernard Shaw better as a playwright; as far as the Bard's themes, characterization, the general quality of his work with reference to sense rather than sound: I do not think he was on another level than everyone else.

It is as a poet, in his technical skill, and mainly in the beauty of his lines, that I regard him as on another level. In other words, I can't name you a single poet in English who matched him in that regard. But AGAIN: this is just my opinion! Hey, I'm a Jethro Tull fan, and most people hate Jethro Tull, so what do I know?

If we're talking ballpark: sure, Alexander Pope came very close (he actually matched the Bard in technique but his poetry lacked beauty: Pope was cold and satirical to a fault); Tennyson, Keats, and of course Milton.

There are modern poets who are in the ballpark, so many it would be futile to name them.

Before I end this post I just want to say that I agree with your basic points, and I agree that there are people who go on about Shakespeare who just do it because of the name and don't really have much appreciation. It's like those people who will stand in front of a touted work of modern art and nod along to the accolades and pretend they are "in the know", when in reality they don't know what they're looking at.

My opinions are just that, opinions.

***

I appreciate your comments and the recommendations you've scattered throughout these posts, I'll have to go through them and save a few.

All things considered you've been in the game much longer than I have, so I imagine you have much more of a frame of reference than I do. I've read Shakespeare and absolutely loved it, but can't even really comment on his technical skill.

 

[Tharmas]

Do great men and women create history, or does history create great men and women? That’s an age-old debate.

I think the truth is: both. History draws out the greatness in some people.

In the Elizabethan Age the English language was boiling over, and poets and playwrights abounded. Nevertheless, Shakespeare stands out. How many plays by his many contemporaries can you name? There’s Marlowe’s “Faustus.” How many of Ben Jonson’s plays can you name? He was recognized as second to Shakespeare in his time.

How many common English words did Shakespeare invent? Here’s a conservative list of 420, including “zany,” “skim milk,” “bare-faced,” as well as many really commonly used ones like “circumstantial.”

LIST

Here are some common English phrases that the Bard invented:

PHRASES

One that isn’t mentioned is “All’s well that end well,” which I like because our local basketball commentator on TV uses it all the time whenever a screwed up situation nevertheless has a positive outcome.

So arguing about “who’s the greatest” is kind of pointless IMHO, but you have to hand some gold medals to Shakespeare for contributions to the language that may never be surpassed.

 

[WAB]

Well, poetry is easily as subjective as one's choice of music -- and strikes many of the same emotional notes. (Still, of the ones I listed, I find sonnet 73, the Marvell, Ozymandias and Dover Beach speak with an immediacy and sharpness that get right to the theme and eschew decoration.)
Anyway, you can have fun with some of the English poetic porn from the old days. Lord John Wilmot's Signior Dildo (1673) goes on a few too many stanzas, but some of it would fit on the bathroom wall of any respectable junior high of today. Jonathan Swift's The Lady's Dressing Room (1732) is equal parts disgusting and amusing, but it's also a convincing portrait of a sexually confused prig (the narrator.)
Amazing that Wilmot's dildo poem is going on 350 years old.

Egads! You had to lead me to that.

James Joyce has similar passages. Ezra Pound criticized Joyce for his scatalogical proclivities.

From the Swift poem:

And Strephon bids us guess the rest,
But swears how damnably the men lie,
In calling Celia sweet and cleanly.
Now listen while he next produces
The various combs for various uses,
Filled up with dirt so closely fixt,
No brush could force a way betwixt.
A paste of composition rare,
Sweat, dandruff, powder, lead and hair;
A forehead cloth with oil upon’t
To smooth the wrinkles on her front;
Here alum flower to stop the steams,
Exhaled from sour unsavory streams,
There night-gloves made of Tripsy’s hide,
Bequeathed by Tripsy when she died,
With puppy water, beauty’s help
Distilled from Tripsy’s darling whelp;
Here gallypots and vials placed,
Some filled with washes, some with paste,
Some with pomatum, paints and slops,
And ointments good for scabby chops.
Hard by a filthy basin stands,
Fouled with the scouring of her hands;
The basin takes whatever comes
The scrapings of her teeth and gums,
A nasty compound of all hues,
For here she spits, and here she spews...


Egads!

 

[ideologyhunter]

I did warn you, right? But you were as curious as I was, when I heard there was a filthy Swift poem and tracked it down, pre-internet, in the BGSU library. It was somehow even more forbidden, in that it wasn't a click away, and I searched for it alone in the neglected stacks of English lit. The part you quote is just as I remembered, unbearably specific. The dildo poem, by contrast, could be set to music and used as a rugby song.

 

[WAB]

I remember reading Lord Rochester when younger. Here's a good'un:

By All Love's Soft, Yet Mighty Powers

By all love's soft, yet mighty powers,
It is a thing unfit,
That men should fuck in time of flowers,
Or when the smock's beshit.

Fair nasty nymph, be clean and kind,
And all my joys restore;
By using paper still behind,
And sponges for before.

My spotless flames can ne'er decay,
If after every close,
My smoking prick escape the fray,
Without a bloody nose.

If thou would have me true, be wise,
And take to cleanly sinning,
None but fresh lovers' pricks can rise,
At Phyllis in foul linen.

 

[rousseau]

Necromancing this thread to see if we can pull WAB out of the woodwork. If you're out there, hopefully all's ok.

I've barely written anything in a few years for lack of time, but I've been considering getting back into poetry to an extent. I was reading Cal Newport's Digital Minimalism recently which discussed mastering a craft, and really - writing is my craft. So it was a bit of an inspiration. I don't think 'discouraged' is the right word with the book I published, more like 'bored', 'pointless'. It's hard to get much give and take with writing, which is really what I'm after. When there aren't many people out there with interest, or who don't just think poetry is weird, it feels like a waste of time.

In any case, I pulled out my copy of Jerome Judson's Poet's Handbook to see if I could glean any further advice, but every time I pick it up I just find the book dull. Eratosphere, same thing.. I was debating lurking to try to pick up some pointers but I just find the place dry. Most of the time I'd rather open up Notepad and mess around for an hour.

A while back WAB described a few of my poems as 'brilliant', and I'm still curious which ones those are. I have my favourites, but I'm curious which ones resonate with the experienced. Likewise, Tharmas, no need for an in depth review, but if there are any that stand out to you it would be interesting to know.

 

[WAB]

I will look at your book again, Rousseau, and see if I can identify which poems I really liked. It's been a while and my reading and comprehension skills are not as they should be, but I will do the best I can. Give me some time.

 

[WAB]

"You Will Leave Me in Autumn" strikes me as one of the best in the book, as I read it again.

I have mentioned your remarkable facility with important repetitions. The poem I mentioned is a good example of that.

Also, you have the intelligence to avoid cliche and sentimentality - the two destroyers of genuine poetry.

More later...

 

[WAB]

I will be making an effort to discuss Rousseau's book in future. I am currently reading it again. I also recommend that any of you people here who are interested in poetry should get a hold of his book.

For now, since I have been out of the picture for a long time, I want to post an old poem of mine which I particularly like. If I have posted this before, my apologies:

Making​

To make love: it sounds
as if something
should be there,
like a clay pot

baked, cooling, but there
is nothing. I catch
my breath like a man
boarding a train, and think,

that's what it's like:
a stunned tempering
of the knees, a warm,
unbalanced arrival.

 

[rousseau]

I will look at your book again, Rousseau, and see if I can identify which poems I really liked. It's been a while and my reading and comprehension skills are not as they should be, but I will do the best I can. Give me some time.

Much appreciated. Definitely at your leisure if you have other priorities.

I've had a few years to digest it now, and there are a number of decidedly weak poems, but I've found a lot of that is time. There came a point with it that I couldn't rightfully spend any more time editing, and had to move on to real, material problems in my life.

Which in retrospect, is likely the issue many writers have. When there's no profit in it, it doesn't end up making sense writing masterful poetry.

Nice to see you back, by the way. And do you mind sending me your blog URL?

 

[rousseau]

"You Will Leave Me in Autumn" strikes me as one of the best in the book, as I read it again.

I have mentioned your remarkable facility with important repetitions. The poem I mentioned is a good example of that.

Also, you have the intelligence to avoid cliche and sentimentality - the two destroyers of genuine poetry.

More later...

That makes sense. 'You Will Leave me in Autumn' strikes me as a poem where I relied a little bit on cliche, but when I've tried to revise those parts I find that what I nailed is it's rhythm. The poem flows really well, and sometimes the cliched word choice was conducive to that.

That was one of the poems in the book that I spent quite a bit of time editing.

 

[rousseau]

I finally found a hard copy of Meditations from Marcus Aurelius yesterday, and was surprised to see that in the very first few pages he admonishes 'poetry and fine writing', and then encourages simple communication. An interesting thought.

It brings to mind someone I've come across in my city who just released a book, and who is going to great lengths to promote himself as a poet. He's travelled pretty significant distances to do readings, and in the end he's likely lost money. So what is the incentive to promote himself? Why is he doing it? Self-image?

And I think this is what most people sense in writers, that they can be a little self-indulgent. This is why I haven't gone to great lengths to publish my work seriously. I write because I like doing it, and not much else.

Then I look at my career where I spend forty hours a week writing absolutely unsexy computer language, that nobody cares or asks me about. And yet it's this part of my life that's had real impact on (a lot of) people's lives, many who will never know who I am. I once wrote in a blog post that I find myself attracted to people quietly doing unsexy, hard work for the betterment of others, and I think that's still true. You look at Leonard Cohen's early career and he got laid pretty often, but what meaningful impact, if any, did he make?