Roger, you wrote something about the poem failing as propaganda because it makes not even the slightest effort to convince.
I think you're overlooking the "agit" part of "agit prop".
A poem like that is quite effective for stirring up the passions and giving a voice to the people who already agree with the poem at some level. It gives them something to chant, something to put on bumper stickers and posters,
something to email each other, something to mobilize around. It can potentially convince a person who was undecided, or who didn't care that much, to become more active. It can even cause a person who didn't *realize* that they identified with a cause or a group, to begin to identify with the group, if the poem tapped some hidden anger or depth of feeling. I have had this latter experience myself, although it was a song, not a poem.
As far as "real poetry" is concerned, I personally see no value in identifying certain pieces, let alone whole styles, as "real poetry" and "not real poetry". That was part of the point I tried to make in "13 Ways of Looking at a Poem". Clearly many of those 13 ways would not be welcomed here, and are not appropriate here. Does that mean they aren't "real poems"? Some here obviously would say (and have said) yes. I disagree. I think poetry has many valid modes. Erato is devoted to only some of them, and quite properly so.
It seems to me that discussions of "real poetry" and "what poetry ought to be" are essentially elitist, and only result in making some people feel good and other people feel bad about what they write. I do not mean this as an accusation or an attack: simply as an observation. I have never seen any other product of such discussions. I would be interested in hearing any observations to the contrary.
I would much rather frame the discussion in terms of "what does poetry have the *potential* to be", or "What does poetry do when it is at its best?"
Victoria Gaile
|