[Jim Moonan]

.

The NYT published an article entitled, “Will You Fall in Love With This Poem? I Did.” (I've used a "gift link" so it should open for everyone everywhere — or maybe not )

I'm impressed with how interactive the article is for the reader, functioning as much like a tool to deliver a lesson in analyzing poetry as it does a straight read. I’ll leave the rest to the reader to digest and comment as they see it. Keep in mind, the poem is watching you.

(At one point while reading the article I turned my attention to the bio of the author of the article, A.O. Scott, and discovered he had written a book entitled, Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty and Truth.)



.

[Christine P'legion]

The gift link works, Jim. Thanks for passing this on!

[Roger Slater]

I wouldn't have liked Keats because he was short and lived before proper toothpaste and deoderants were invented? And he had the temerity to smell bad on his deathbed? Okay. But what confuses me more is the idea that he was an inveterate liar. I've read bios, and his letters, and I never got a whiff of dishonesty, whatever other whiffs he might have emitted. In fact, I find the poem rather odd because Keats is the one poet from the past that I'd most like to meet. How can you read his letters without being drawn to his personality? The nightingale was just a bonus. And the urn. And more.

[Matt Q]

Roger,

The poem doesn't say anything about liking him, though.

I wonder if the "lying" somehow has to do with him saying "truth is beauty, beauty is truth" -- a way of saying: he is not beautiful, or he does non-beautiful things. Or is it saying his poems are lies, maybe? Artifice?

[Jayne Osborn]

I have to say, Jim, that I enjoyed the article by A. O. Scott more than I enjoyed the actual poem.
To put it another way, I think Scott's analysis makes the poem appear much better than, in reality, it is.
So... er... no, I didn't fall in love with the poem, being brutally honest. However, like you, I feel like reading more of Scott's writing, so thanks for the introduction.

Jayne

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Roger,

The poem doesn't say anything about liking him, though.

It says I wouldn't have loved him. I've always felt I would have, though in view of what the poem tells me I might not have wanted to sit right next to him.

[Matt Q]

I'd read it as romantic love, so that physical intimacy and desire would be involved. That the N is being advised that she wouldn't fancy him.

[Roger Slater]

OK, so that makes the poem even sillier. "You may think he was a good poet, but I doubt you'd be physically attracted to him" is a pretty silly comment to be making in a "serious" poem. This one is supposed to be serious, right?

[Matt Q]

Roger,

Is it supposed to be serious?

I enjoyed it. It made me smile. It's well-paced: the long somewhat over-the-top set-up, the one-line turn / punchline. Structurally, it's a bit like a joke, or a piece of stand-up. I found it funny.

I wouldn't quite gloss it as you have, but never mind: if it didn't amuse you, that's fair enough.

Matt

[Yves S L]

Ugliness for ugly sake, popular because it brings everyone down to the basic level of bodily functions, even world famous poets.