Well, to no one's surprise, Auden is paramount to me (as if my avatar wasn't enough of a clue...), but there's not a lot of his work I'd consider "light", really. His tone is often very light, but the gravity of much of his subject matter is anything but. So I guess for me, I think of "light" in terms of subject matter, while others think of light in terms of tone and the jauntiness of meter etc.
Is Betjeman consistently light? "Slough" certainly has a jaunty rhythm, some amusing images and a remarkably tongue-in-cheek tone...but doesn't the gravity of the subject matter prevent it from being considered "light verse" as opposed to a standard, meaningful poem?
How about Robinson? Some of his character sketches make you want to laugh aloud, and yet at the same time, they delve into deep-rooted flaws in man himself. Hardly "light" stuff, is it?
I guess we all have our visions of what "light" means. But I don't blame you, John, for having taken offense at being considered a "light verse" poet. In my view, that's a dismissive categorization of any poet, basically indicating that you're a one trick pony...and you're certainly not.
|