I think there's a difference between "new" and "original." Of course, as Alicia said (more or less), any poem that any of us may write is "original" in the sense that no one else could have written that particular poem. But it may not be the least bit "new" in the sense of poetic tradition and technique, e.g., it might be just another Shakespearean sonnet in iambic pentameter promising that the poet's lover will live forever in his verses, etc. And, I think, a poet can be "great" by merely being original and writing brilliantly within received traditions. Though some poets bend and "advance" tradition through bold and successful experiments --e.g., Whitman, Hopkins-- most just seem to "make it new" through their own individual voice and stylistic command.
|