i think all the political poems i like are essentially
occasional poems by non-political poets* (with the
possible exception of Vallejo); those by poets who
were always writing them, i seldom can read.

i'm not going to generalize on this. just an
observation.

---
*"On the Repeal of the Mccarren Act" by Richard Wilbur, for example

Agit-prop? Advertising? You're using the wrong terminology, folks. Aren't we supposed to be poets here? The word missing from this discussion is polemic.

Polemics are as old as poetry. They weren't invented just for the purpose of recycling leftist slogans. Just as flyting is the art of personal insult in verse, polemic is the art of political argument in verse. The main reason we hear mostly leftist polemics these days is that the other side has written off poetry as a lost cause.

Alan

I highly highly doubt Alan that ANYONE reading through the threads of Erato would find this site to be a hotbed of LEFTIST polemics. ROFLMAO. But thank you for the hearty laugh. And in this heat too.

Thanks, Alan, I'm sure that word will help, but I don't believe the word alone deals with my concern. Plato tried to distinguish between the sophist and the philosopher.
Looking at it his way, the advertiser (and the lawyer) would be our modern sophists. I wanted to suggest that some of our standards for good poetry are moral -- specifically an allegiance to truth and some kind of fair persuasion (we speak of tear-jerking poems and novels and movies as "manipulative").

Perhaps this question is more a philosopher's question than a poet's, but I studied philosophy and can maybe be excused for this.

I am glad to be reminded of the less loaded word 'polemic' to replace "agit-prop" -- I just took over Nigel's word from the ewrgall thread. And my dislike of treating poetry as propaganda, may have led me to treat all polemics as if they were propaganda.

What set me off initially was the fact that ewrgall's poem was clearly pretty defective by ordinary poetic standards (e.g., triteness), but Nigel seemed to regard these defects as irrelevant.

On a separate point, it strikes me that political poetry might be divided into (at least two):
1.Descriptions of political reality with very little prescription for what to do about it (e.g., Auden's Shield of Achilles).
2. Polemical poems -- poems aimed at prescribing one course of action over another.



[This message has been edited by ChrisW (edited July 29, 2002).]

Here's what I think.

Poetry is about human beings and, in various senses, the predicament of being born human and trying to make sense of the universe and one's own existence. It's not about being a Jew or an Arab or a Catholic or a Lutheran, except as it relates to a shared and universal humanity. You don't have to be Christian to love George Herbert and to be moved by his verse. He wrote about people and the struggle for faith and meaning, and he did not espouse his beliefs in a way that excluded or criticized others. Even among political works of art, "negro spirituals," for example, the best and most moving examples are those that sing about freedom and not those that demonize the enslavers. Songs and poems address us in our common ground, or at least the best and most enduring ones do.

Either an Arab or a Jew could write a poem about struggle, sacrifice and the desire for peace, and I am likely to favor whichever poem better expresses the hardship and the longing and not be influenced by whether an Arab or a Jew wrote the poem. In fact, both the Arab and the Jew can write wonderful poems about the same struggle and the same longing, and people on both (or neither) side of the political struggle may admire both poems and not feel any sense of contradiction when they do so.

But if there's something in a poem that disqualifies large segments of humanity, then there's a problem with the poem. If a poem oversimplifies, accuses, distorts, refers to facts that aren't true (or that many good people see in a different light), if it is anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Jew, anti-Arab, anti-women, etc., then my objection to the poem isn't that it is "political" or that I disagree with its sentiment (in fact, I may be prejudiced and agree with some of these poems, though I hope not). My objection is that the poem fails to live up to the job of poetry in cutting through the noise and locating the reader in an undeniable region of shared humanity.

Maybe it all comes down to what Keats said. "We dislike poetry that has a palpable design upon us." (Not an exact quote).

If "political" poetry in the "taking sides" sense of the term is worthwhile poetry, so are advertising jingles that try to convince us which laundry detergent to use. No matter how genuinely sincere the author of the jingle may be that Tide is better than Joy, and no matter how he can marshall the facts and figures to prove it, ultimately the jingle is telling me what to buy. I don't like poetry that tells me what to buy. That's why I fast-forward through commercials.

Footnote for Tom: my frame of reference was this thread, where a series of leftist polemics were quoted. You can stop laughing now. We all know that the Sphere has been comparatively polemic-free, and it is probably best for it to remain that way. As I have said many times, there are plenty of places on the web for debating politics, but very few for furthering verse-craft.

Alan

oh you know, one pinko equals Total Subversion.

excuse me, i have to pass out some leaflets now.




[This message has been edited by graywyvern (edited July 29, 2002).]

LOL!
Just leaflets, gray? I'm going to storm the Whitehouse with the revolutionary army. We're going to assassinate Karl Rove.

And Big Brother...I mean Bubba...I mean, JOHN: if anyone sends you a TIP about this -- it's a JOKE.



[This message has been edited by ChrisW (edited July 29, 2002).]

[quote]Originally posted by Alan Sullivan:

"We all know that the Sphere has been comparatively polemic-free, and it is probably best for it to remain that way."

That's true, you're absolutely right.

Bob