Leonard Cohen strikes me as one of few modern poets not tied into academia, but who found financial success. And not having to answer to anybody, his writing is some of the most interesting I've read.

I'd think that what you can say and how you can say it is definitely going to be limited by a salary.

I don't think it's necessarily boastful, or has to be, but it can definitely be construed that way, and to me that's the problem.

I've mostly told other artistic people because they get it, but even then it's been a one-off 'I do this', not shouting to the roof tops.

To others poetry can be a political statement - 'I'm cultured, smarter, better'. Some might see it as a threat, or if it's advertised too much, pretentious.

Somebody mentions Wallace Stevens up there. Can anybody name a 20th century Connecticut insurance executive or New Jersey ob-gyn who wasn't, moreover, a poet? I wouldn't call Stevens or Williams professional poets any more than I'd call Eliot, Moore, or Pound professionals. The poetry part is on another level. Mostly on Sundays.

.
I do believe there are things we are predisposed to be. As someone said early on in the thread, quoting Robert Frost, "Being a poet is a condition, not a profession."

I have always been and always will be a poet. I never say I am a poet when asked "What do you do?". I assume what they mean is "What do you do to make a living?" Now, if they said "name something that you could not live without", that's a different question.

.

It can be construed as boastful to say "I'm a doctor" as well, but that doesn't mean doctors shouldn't tell you they're doctors.

In my experience, most poets don't feel that being a poet is anything to boast about. I hate to break it to you, but most non-poets are not particularly impressed by someone being a poet. In fact, a lot of non-poets will take a person less seriously if they say they are a poet. To say you are a poet these days is more of a confession than a boast.

I seldom tell people I’m a poet because it makes them uncomfortable. It doesn’t matter if I say I write poetry or that I’m a poet.

When someone asks I say that I write poetry, not that I am a poet. Unless I am in the Arab world, in which case I call myself a poet, because it does have an elevated status there. My avoidance is because I don't think I write the sort of poetry that comes to mind when one thinks of a poet.

That's along the lines of what I mean. The impression many people have of poetry is that it's full of high-minded, elitists. So, to some, advertising yourself as a poet implies you want to be a part of that group. An air of arrogance and pretention can come across.

It's like going out of your way to advertise a Mathematics PhD. It's cool if you have one, to those who care, but not cool to go out of your way to make it be known.

In my experience, quite a few people are impressed by writing skill, but they'll roll their eyes if you try to force it on them.

I said nothing about "forcing" it on anyone. In fact, I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't go out of my way to collar everyone I meet and tell them I'm a poet, nor do I actively try to bring it up in conversation. But if someone asks me if I'm a poet, it would be dishonest of me to say that I'm not, given that I have spent decades of my life writing and publishing poems, and I'm about to publish a book that dares to claim it has poems inside. Do you think I should I demur and say, "No, I am a writer of poems, but I'm not actually a poet"? Or is that also too immodest, since who am I to say that what I've written are "poems" in the exalted sense you insist upon?

You're a poet, too. Own it.

Right, I'm not arguing with your point, just adding to the conversation. If someone asks me if I write poetry, sure, totally normal to tell them.

My addition (not argument) is that like any other vocation, it's not really normal to advertise stuff like poetry to the general public, or people you don't know well. Unless you're specifically trying to sell poetry to an already existing audience. So this is likely why many keep some level of secrecy, in the same way a doctor wouldn't go around introducing themselves as a doctor.

But FWIW, I don't think poetry is as disrepected as you imagine. I've run into plenty of people who were impressed. But like any other vocation or occupation, opinions will vary.

In North America I think we can be a bit anti-intellectual, as opposed to cultures in Europe. Which likely speaks to why Cohen was so successful over there, but had a hard time breaking into the U.S..

I read a story that said James Dickey wore a jacket with the word 'Poet,' written in glitter, on the back.

That's proof positive. Even poets can be ironic.

I don't self-identify as a poet, because that would defeat the purpose of having a pseudonym, which is to prevent people I know in real life from objecting to my portrayals of them, or to my political and religious views.

But I don't think self-identifying as a poet is pretentious. Unless, of course, you feel the need to upgrade that to the self-congratulatory terms published poet or award-winning poet. Ugh.

RC, in his defense, I think his students in South Carolina had the jacket made for him, and Dickey wore it to oblige them.

I love that, Tim. His students I'm guessing didn't have to push him too hard. And what Ralph said. Christ that's funny, and pretty cool.

Ha! I also believe that profession is good for the soul.

It's good to teach, keep connected. It has to be beyond classroom management. But there's real energy there. Dickey obviously connected.

I only encountered Dickey once in person, but believe me that if he wore a jacket saying "Poet" it wasn't to be polite to anyone. I never witnessed a poet so full of himself. His patter between poems was entirely to prepare us for how wonderful the poem would be, and I recall that he assured us his latest novel was superior to Moby Dick. So no one had to twist his arm to wear that jacket.

Was that novel better than Moby Dick about the dicks in Deliverance?

It didn't travel, or alternatively I'm ignorant. I need to google Dickey, sparkly jacket notwithstanding.

I've been thinking about Julie's point about publication. I'd take that one step further, because one thought that struck me is what counts as worthwhile publication depends on the tiny world you live in.

I know poets in the UK who really don't rate anyone (including Merwin/Hass/Yeats) if they haven't been part of their particular 'set'. I don't think these poets in their groups actually read any poetry, tbh, but that might be my bias talking.

And then I work with students who read, read, read and (imo) write amazing things but don't self-identify as a poet, but if they posted their work on here I think you'd take them seriously.

Oh, I have nothing useful to say, beyond that having thought about this, I think poetry is a practice, like art, rather than a profession. Poets are active practitioners of a craft. How far their work travels depends on a number of different reasons, though (maybe).

Sarah-Jane

What in the world does that have to do with his work, or the effect he had on his students, Roger? Did you meet Bobby Dylan? What a gem he was in person.

James and RCL, there is no better novel than "Moby-Dick." Nothing rewards random and repeated reading like the quest for the great white whale. The language, the poetry, the prose-poetry, can be measured against the language of "Macbeth," which is considered the nonpariel, the ne plus ultra.

Julie Steiner, it's good to not self-identify as a poet, because the muse may abandon you. But what's the difference between a published poet and an unpublished one?

Joyce Carol Oates is a staggering talent, well deserving of a Nobel Prize. I find Gluck unreadable, but I love the short stories of JCO. Some of them are perfect.

I agree, Sarah-Jane, that there is a lot of talent out there. much of it untapped. Not everyone is equally gifted, though. Time and chance happeneth to us all.

I don't know much about Dickey's poetry, but I do know that I didn't like the movie.

I won a scholarship to an MFA program. maybe because I was the only formalist and maybe because the English Department, not the Director of the Writing Program, selected the winner. I took solo aim at Greensboro, searching for the ghost of Randall Jarrell. My talent, such as it was, had evaporated before the first semester. So I read promiscuously for the year. It was great

No, it wasn't. I don't recall what it was. I think he said something like "Melville wrote the great novel of the sea, and I have written the great novel of the air."

PS-- Sorry, I misread your comment as a real question, but I see it was a joke.

I've been thinking about this thread again, and it seems to me that when we're discussing poetry as a profession, it's important to define the way we're using our terms. For instance, I can think of four common meanings for "a professional":

(a) Someone who has earned a professional-level degree qualifying them to Do The Thing

(b) Someone who Does The Thing as their occupation or career

(c) Someone who has achieved a high level of skill and mastery in the Doing of The Thing

(d) Someone who is paid money to Do The Thing

So which do we mean? There can be overlap between all four of them with any of the others, but of course there isn't always.

I've been paid money, sometimes very good money, by people who want to publish or use my poems, but I don't have an MFA (if we consider than a 'professional' degree), don't look to poetry as my primary occupation, and I certainly wouldn't claim to have mastered the genre. So, am I a professional poet? Maybe not; but maybe.

(And this doesn't even touch any of the mental subdivisions of "professionalism" we might have in terms of poetry in particular: having other people publish your work for free; having other people publish your work for pay; publishing a chapbook; winning a contest; publishing a collection; being named poet laureate; blah blah blah etc.)

I realize that this is a digression from the main topic of the thread, but James, I think it's safe to say that Dickey's effect on his students—especially his female and gay male students—was influenced by the narcissistic sense of entitlement that Rogerbob glimpsed.

(And before someone whines about Cancel Culture, I'll contend that this essay is NOT unfairly applying contemporary standards to the sexist and homophobic behavior of a Great White Man. Predatory and bullying behavior has never been okay, even if the predators and bullies of the past could formerly get away with it more easily. And I'm not trying to cancel anyone, just to advocate for not letting artists' fame and/or artistic merit excuse their serious misbehavior. Personally, I found that that context added a lot to my reading of Dickey.)

Dickey read at my college. He was drunk and slobbering over the female students.

I wasn’t closely involved with arrangements but the old white male poet I got the best vibe from was W.D. Snodgrass. But what do I know? He may have been a Dick too.

The reader who touched me most was Muriel Rukeyser. She was elderly by then and while she was reading the lamp attached to the podium gave way and swung around. It only slightly touched her face but this whoosh of upset swept the room.

Edited back in to say that although he wasn’t a poet the grossest most disgusting writer I was around, and granted there weren’t so many, was Ken Kesey. It was in Boulder and apparently he came by occasionally for the girls. I saw him twice a year apart and he read the same story each time. Ginsberg would play his squeeze box and then he’d read and off to the party. Buddhist money well spent.

Dickey didn't say anything particularly sexist or homophobic when I saw him, so it's hard to explain just how repulsive the man came across nonetheless. His repulsiveness, however, may have changed my life. The Dickey reading was the first "date" I had with the woman who is now my wife. At one point during the Dickey reading, she leaned over and whispered in my ear, "The man is a pig." I was so relieved to hear her echo my thoughts that I think we permanently bonded at that instant! But really, you have to have been there to get a true sense of just how horrible he was.

And it wasn't just my own judgment. One of the first poetry gatherings I attended in college at someone's house had Phil Levine as a guest. One of the other guests complained about Dickey, and Levine answered something to the effect of, "You can still be a great poet even if you're a prick."

Yes, Julie, that's horrible and, even before I read (skimmed) the article, but read your comment, I was going to correct myself. There is a big difference between one's behavior and the effect that might have on one's students (including behavior that's not nearly as extreme as Dickey's) and separating the art from the artist. Two very different things and I shouldn't have lumped them together. When it comes to the latter, I firmly believe that's the only way to go, though (and I've said this before here) I'll never take issue with anyone about that when it comes to extreme cases. Woody Allen is quite the extreme case, but it doesn't take away from my appreciation of his films (including Manhattan). But if someone can no longer watch his movies, I understand completely. (I'd still think this would be hard to resist

https://youtu.be/3KZ6mIsbDc4

but, you know, I will be the last to protest such a stance. It was some really, really bad stuff.)

James, I think we're in agreement. In most cases, providing context about the artist does more good than depriving people of the right to make up their own minds about the art.

In my opinion, Doing the Thing is what makes someone a poet.

Not credentials. Not payment. Not publication history, or other forms of fame and glory.

Not even whether someone Does the Thing well.

Consider the Greek word for "poet":

     ποιητής

     I.one who makes, a maker, Xen., etc.
     II.the maker of a poem, a poet, Hdt., etc.
          2.generally, a writer, Plat.

The noun is derived from this verb:

     ποιέω

          Used in two general senses, make and do.

That suggests that when you're in a dry spell, you're not a poet. It doesn't mean you are more or less worthy as a person. Just that you are not Doing the Thing on a regular basis, at this particular time in your life.

Which is another reason why I'm not in a hurry to have business cards made. More often than not, it's not true that I am Doing the Thing.

Regarding Dickey, I had a couple of undergrad classes with his biographer (and eventual poet laureate of Virginia) Henry Hart. Henry is a very polite man -- genteel in the New England sense. He would occasionally tell the class stories about trying to connect with Dickey for the biography, and Dickey would hang-up on him, call him names, or otherwise be incredibly rude. It was quite clear that it was very difficult to get anything other than boorishness out of Dickey. It's a wonder the biography was even finished at all.

He sounds like he was an all-around horrible person. And yet "Falling" is a masterwork, in my view.

"That suggests that when you're in a dry spell, you're not a poet. It doesn't mean you are more or less worthy as a person. Just that you are not Doing the Thing on a regular basis, at this particular time in your life.

Which is another reason why I'm not in a hurry to have business cards made. More often than not, it's not true that I am Doing the Thing."

Not sure I agree with this logic, Julie. All poets have had dry spells. I guess I should ask how long the dry spell has to be in order for a poet to forfeit the title. Certainly we're allowed to take a week or two off now and then? How about six months? A year maybe? Perhaps it also depends on your intent during the dry spell, and whether the dry spell ever ends.

Etymology is not a very good way to prove the point, however, since it could equally prove that no one gets to call themselves anything if they haven't done it for a long time. If you're an unemployed plumber, you're not a plumber after all even though you know how to fix pipes and are prepared to resume doing so if anyone hires you.

It's odd that this is a frequent source of discussion among poets, yet the answer to the question changes absolutely nothing, as is the case with most "arguments" that ultimately boil down to semantics.

But Rogerbob, no one is a plumber anymore, because lead pipes are passé.

Seriously, though, if poets aren't allowed to argue about semantics, who is?

"Woody Allen is quite the extreme case, but it doesn't take away from my appreciation of his films"


James, it feels extreme in terms of its hold on the popular imagination, but in terms of actual validity I would say he's the opposite of an extreme case. Unlike Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Jimmy Savile or R Kelly or Kevin Spacey, who all had multiple accusers following suit as soon as initial allegations were made, Allen seems to be the peculiar disgraced celebrity for whom only one single, isolated incident of abuse is alleged. No other women or children, or now grown-up children, have since made any complaints against him. Lots of actors, both male and female, say they now regret working with him but none actually have a bad word to say about his conduct, and this is a man who has been working in showbusiness for over 60 years. I am inclined to believe he's innocent.

Mark, I sort of agree with you, but there's also the matter of his sleeping with the teenage daughter of his then lover, a daughter he had known since birth and played with since her infancy. At least borderline incestuous, though even without the incest angle he would still raise eyebrows marrying her when she was 21 and he was 56. And you can add to that the reports of several women who have worked with him. Mariel Hemingway, for example (in a movie that took for granted it was okay for a middle age man to date a teenager), says that he came onto her on the set when she was pretty much just a kid.

But I agree that he is no Harvey Weinstein. And I wouldn't boycott his movies if they were any good, but it's been a long time since that's been the case.

I haven't heard about the "reports of several women who have worked with him". Certainly, I'm not suggesting sainthood for him, though he and Soon-Yi's seemingly very happy 25 year marriage must count for something. Basically, from everything I've read, I just don't believe he is guilty of the thing that has seen him vilified, that of abusing his 7 year old adopted daughter. I think he was stitched up.

Woody Allen ran off with his long-time partner’s daughter. That wouldn’t fly in hillbilly country. His daughter says he put his fingers in her vagina when she was a small child. I guess because I went through the same sort of experience as a child, and people chose to not believe me because it was too much hassle, I tend to believe the children. His son changed his name and cut ties. But the most convincing evidence of Allen’s attraction for underage girls is “Manhattan.” It’s a confession on film. I‘ve admired his films for years but have no doubt he’s a sexual predator. All predators aren’t alike. Some use power, others a sick charm, others humor.

Also, Roger, as far as this goes "there's also the matter of his sleeping with the teenage daughter of his then lover, a daughter he had known since birth and played with since her infancy", it just isn't true. Firstly, Allen and Mia Farrow never lived together and Soon-Yi was already 10 when Allen and Mia Farrow first met in 1980. And according to Wikipedia

"Previn has said that Allen "was never any kind of father figure [to her]" and that she "never had any dealings with him" during her childhood. The findings of the judicial investigation carried out during the custody trial between Farrow and Allen determined that before 1990 (when she was 20), Previn and Allen had rarely spoken to each other".

Again, not saying it isn't a peculiar and disturbing set-up but facts are important.

I think Moses Farrow's statement is worth reading.
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018...arrow.html?m=1

I'm agnostic on his guilt. On the one hand, there's only the one accusation. On the other hand, you and I may disagree on this, but even with your correction, it seems a bit suspect when a 45 year old man meets a 10 year old girl who happens to be the daughter of his lover, and a few years later (she says she was 21, but few people take that at face value) he is carrying on a secret affair with his lover's daughter behind her back.

Sun Yi has reason to insist she never looked at him as a father. But he was a frequent presence in her life when she was still a child, and he was presented to her as her mother's sexual partner, so I think Freud would have a different view. And Woody was a grown-up and knew that he was choosing the one near-child that would cause Mia the most hurt.

I disagree with that too, Julie. For me, down time has been, more often than not, a period of growth. Not quite the same as a mechanic (or plumber), where constant hands-on sharpens your skills. There are mechanics as poets. But that's not what I'm in it for. If you're constantly churning out poems, I think you narrow your vision.