Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill
Poetry that has no trace of incomprehensibility (no areas of darkness) doesn't interest me in the slightest. I would call poetry that is utterly comprehensible not light verse, but thin verse.
|
I'm guessing you're not a light poet.
But seriously, I think we are defining comprehensibility differently. Nothing stops a comprehensible poem from being dark and complex, as Roger expressed so eloquently.
Quincy, I'm not attacking academics, I'm just saying they have a better chance than the general public at untangling the meaning of a wilfully-obscure poem. And the sad truth is that almost no one reads poetry nowadays because of the mistaken perception that
all of it is wilfully obscure. I didn't read it myself until I started writing it last autumn. (Except for Susan's of course, but I knew she was different).
The essay linked to by Frank is a great education about how these ideas of light verse have evolved. The view I expressed, cribbed from Steven Fry, was cribbed from Auden (as he acknowledged). I like the idea of civil vs vatic verse as another way to think of it.
I sympathize with the people asking why it matters what light verse is. It matters to me because I've written a bunch of poems which seem to me to be too dark for the light verse journals but too light for the mainstream journals. Any suggestions what I should do with them? (No obscenity, please).