[W.F. Lantry]

Siham linked a nice piece, on this very subject, to her Facebook wall the other day. It's really a counter argument, and I find it persuasive. Forgive me, John, but it's from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30939668

"I believe in what we might call unnecessary beauty, in art. And an artist would say that, but then again, individuals and groups who have sought to control, or extinguish populations, to marginalise or demonise this or that type of human being - they seem to believe in the power of art even more than I do. They ardently seek out and restrict those intimate, idiosyncratic joys we find in the songs we sing, the stories that travel with us, the verses that sustain us, the paintings and drawings and sculptures, windows and buildings, voices and performances, images that lift us and give us dignity - the things that show us the light in our world and in ourselves, the things that show us individual human beings have the power to create wonders which outlast them and which transcend every classification of gender, race, religion, nationality, age.

Art is a power, and much of its true power is invisible, private, memorised and held even in prison cells and on forced marches, so you can see why totalitarians of all kinds dislike it. You can see why Soviet Russia and Bible Belt America had to resist rock and roll, why Nazi leaders would ban the work of decadent artists, Jewish artists, black artists, of all the untermenschen - while secretly appropriating its glamour and comfort for themselves - or why suspected communists would be prevented from making films in McCarthy's Hollywood, why the Bamiyan Buddhas had to be destroyed, why the Dubrovnik world heritage site had to be shelled, why it would seem amusing and powerful to compel musicians to play while people screamed in gas chambers, why in most years, somewhere books are burned, or why the Khmer Rouge would ban the word for sleep, or kill a girl - as it was put - "because she was too beautiful". The control of our art is very often to prevent us from being too beautiful, independently sustained by beauty from uncontrollable sources - beautiful for ourselves, beautiful for others."

There's much more to the article, of course. But it's perhaps best left to others to discover.

Best,

Bill

[Julie Steiner]

I'm enjoying all these thoughts, and hesitantly offer a few of my own. Or Auden's.

I'm always tempted, when I hear people quote "poetry makes nothing happen," to remind them that Auden goes on from there to make the following claim for the power of art, in the third section of the same poem. (And perhaps he's not only addressing the deceased Yeats.)

Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice;

With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress;

In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountain start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.

[John Whitworth]

Yes, Bill, you've guessed it. I'm not a fan of A L Kennedy. Her books are designed to make people miserable, and I'll bet you've never read one, though she does say somewhere that Scotland is 'continually festive' which is good to know, isn't it? Does that mean they are drunk ALL the time?

About the Buddhas, you will not be surprised that the Taliban say it's all our fault. We should hve given them a lot of money. So now you know.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

Does that mean they are drunk ALL the time?

Maybe they're just following Baudelaire's advice?

"Pour n’être pas les esclaves martyrisés du Temps, enivrez-vous; enivrez-vous sans cesse! De vin, de poésie ou de vertu, à votre guise."

Thanks,

Bill

[Stephen Hampton]

" ...the hopelessness of trying to make money at poetry."

A false premiss, I think. People have been making money (a living) at poetry since language was invented. If its a business, it requires sound business practice, persistence and a lot of hard work. However, even a damn good poet can sometimes get stuck in Lodi.

Just about a year ago
I set out on the road
Seekin' my fame and fortune
Lookin' for a pot of gold
Things got bad and things got worse
I guess you know the tune
Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again

Rode in on the Greyhound
I'll be walkin' out if I go
I was just passin' through
Must be seven months or more
Ran out of time and money
Looks like they took my friends
Oh Lord, I'm stuck in Lodi again

A man from the magazine
Said I was on my way
Somewhere I lost connections
Ran out of songs to play
I came into town, a one night stand
Looks like my plans fell through
Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again

If I only had a dollar
For every song I've sung
Every time I had to play
While people sat there drunk
You know, I'd catch the next train
Back to where I live
Oh Lord, stuck in a Lodi again
Oh Lord, I'm stuck in a Lodi again

JOHN C. FOGERTY

[Maryann Corbett]

Another article relevant to the topic:

Is Being a Writer a Job, or a Calling?

[Michael F]

I have to say that I think that is one of Auden's great poems, and the last couplet for me was instantly memorable.

(And I don't have a particularly good memory for verse.)

[Adam Hughes]

Just a quick interjection - Bill, it's hardly only right-wingers who are anti-MFA programs.

Read Raymond Hammond or Anis Shivani just to name a couple who are (rightly in my opinion) railing against a model of poetry that claims to professionalize (and by that I mean professorialize) poetry. These MFA programs by their very nature necessitate the churning out of annual poetry collections from their students and graduates in order to show their worth. Many also function on the well-intended but thoroughly flawed idea that anyone can be taught to be a poet.

Anti-MFA polemics stretch across the political aisle. Call it bipartisanship if you'd like.

[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Adam Hughes

Read Raymond Hammond or Anis Shivani

Adam,

I think of Shivani as a bad joke. He's got his schtick, and he's been riding his cardboard cutout hobby horse for several years now. More power to him, I guess, but we shouldn't forget that most of his audience are members of the field he's complaining about. It's like a self-energized feedback loop.

Haven't read Hammond's polemic, but the two seem to be buds, or at least fellow travelers. Check out this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-s...b_1142497.html

It's actually kind of hilarious: this guy who has a reputation of cursing the po biz talking about how he's now immersed in the po biz, and how interesting it is. Please note: a few pages in he says he's not anti-MFA. As for the politics of it, look at the list of people he cites in one of those paragraphs.

By the way, I don't have an MFA. But I have many friends who do. And I respect them deeply: some of them are truly excellent poets.

Thanks,

Bill

[Adam Hughes]

I certainly won't argue the point that there are some excellent poets with MFA's, I don't want to denigrate anyone for having or not having one.

The only point I'm making is that there is critique of the MFA model from all sides, not simply a right-wing sort of thing.

And in the interest of full disclosure, Raymond Hammond is the publisher of my first two books so perhaps I'm not being totally objective there. That's certainly fair enough.

Adam