(no subject)
Mar. 30th, 2004 12:59 amI had a response to
juniperjune's post of March 23. Sadly, though, the clipboard ate it horribly. There was blood and gore everywhere. I shall attempt to put it back together again.
Poetry is not often read because it is seen as "difficult." This perception has everything to do with the highschool canon mentioned in the above post. While nearly everyone can get behind Beowulf to some extent (in a good translation), since it's basically an action movie, a lot of poetry is specifically designed to be... less accessible. I remember, for example, being forced to read some short poem by T.S. Eliot, I think it was. Out of the entire class, only two students could so much as sound the thing out, since that was the number that knew the Greek alphabet. Oddly enough, this snobbery is not welcomed by the general public. Since people are trained from early ages to think of poetry as snobbish, foreign, and rarefied, it will not become popular for the foreseeable future. Nor will it receive much more attention in academic circles (at least in English). For some reason, English is almost solely spoken and written in prose. Perhaps we like things more factual, more definite than other cultures, abstraction is often seen as weak mindedness, or more intelligent than God, neither of which is something which is likely to become popular. Academia, in this case, follows the world. Since prose makes bigger splashes and attracts more material than poetry, it follows that more people would study prose. But fear not. Poetry is not dead. I have a young friend who, I believe, when angry, recites poems form the T'eng Dynasty to calm herself.
Of course, those of you who know me well will remember that I like prose much more than poetry. And so does the majority of the Anglophone world. I wonder when that change came about. I mean, in the early 1600s, poetry was still at the top of the heap in England. Now, though, it's certainly not. Any thoughts?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-29 11:03 pm (UTC)What about song lyrics? Where do they fit? I suspect poetry's become "trendy" - it's fit itself to music. I mean, really - how many teenagers do you know who can recite five poems? How many can sing five songs? Admittedly some lyrics are more poetic than others - "The Real Slim Shady" is, in my opinion, less poetic than "Stairway to Heaven" - but almost all of them have some poetic aspect. If nothing else, the words are fit to music, so there's a definite meter and rhythm. Most rhyme, and often repeat phrases or lines. The subject may not be one that classical poets would expect to find in poetry, but lyrics are a product of our times. Some of them even include direct cultural references - "We Didn't Start the Fire," for instance. Just try and argue that that doesn't have any poetic merit! It's hard to recite the lyrics without falling into the rhythmic pattern of the song, because the stress patterns are tailored so well.
Yeah. Poetry's not dead, just transformed. It's as popular as it ever was because it bred with music to create a wild child.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-30 09:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-30 01:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-30 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-30 10:29 pm (UTC)I remember reading that for junior year English and totally not getting it. Mostly because the ending comes suddenly and with no explanation whatsoever.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 08:28 pm (UTC)He has me on his friends list, I have no clue who he is...
no subject
Date: 2004-03-31 08:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-13 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-13 11:22 pm (UTC)"Horrible Impossible Possibilities"
Date: 2004-05-17 01:31 pm (UTC)The focus of my own concern is music, and I think there is no cure for it without resorting to the dissolution of the classical music establishment as it is now. Oddly, musical civilization may well in the end get saved by a horde of less snobbish, middle-class versions of Charles Winchester from "M*A*S*H". Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing happened to music. Of course, it might also come to pass that much more serious versions of Sondheim or Zappa will replace the preceding establishment, working from the ground up. Although, once again, it wouldn't be the first time for that sort of thing either.
Whatever it is, I can't wait; anything else would suck less than this. Although, to be fair, it's gotten a lot better than it used to be. People ranging from Steve Reich to Marc Adamo are busting a lot of the old, stupid restrictions and producing great things; it's in the nature of music, I suppose, that people can't get away with Cage-like masturbation for long. Unlike as with a painting, where you can hang it in a hallway in your house and get your pretension cred on even if it's a ghastly thing you'd never want to look at twice, it's a lot tougher to get away with foisting awful music on people, because their ears will rebel before long. So I suppose that things could be lots worse; but how long will music audiences continue to mutter things at performances like "Oh shit, it's something by somebody who's still ALIVE"?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-15 06:59 am (UTC)Sorry if you wanted something intellectual, but I've reached the end of my tether with the whole intelectual thing today, and I'm ready to really hate poetry...