Okay, I'm going to be a bit cross here.
No, I'm not suggesting in any way that generational concerns are the be-all and end-all of any art. A statement that sweeping would be a bit stupid. But surely, we do discuss eras in poetry, the currents in Elizabethan or Jacobean or Augustan or Romantic poetry, for example, even while recognizing that the struggle with the weight of tradition, even language itself, is an intensely personal one. And the notion that certain broad themes or concerns might arise from a group of writers of the same nationality rather close to one another in age, even while, yes, each retains a great deal of individuality strikes me as not being terribly far-fetched. I just saw too many questions from David Rosenthal, Chris Childers, and others revolving around these matters to think that the matter is irrelevant, that time and place have no effect on what one expresses and how one expresses it are of no moment. (And I agree with Philip that when one comes to the art in one's own life can be quite important, though I think that's a question of a somewhat different order.)
Why am I interested, Terese? Not because I think it will make a lick of difference in what I write next. But perhaps as a form of self-knowledge, or, in some way, a bit of understanding of what seems problematic, or worth exploring, to at least a few of us with at least a few things in common, even if our experiences--and how we react to them in poetry--are not identical.
The characteristics I've identified may well be off-base. But human beings, even those delicate, sylph-like creatures known as poets, are social creatures. And I'm rather surprised (or, perhaps, I wish I could be more surprised) that this point has been so controversial throughout this discussion.
Quincy
|