[Shaun J. Russell]

An interesting discussion has arisen in the Light Verse Bakeoff up at Distinguished Guest. One of the poems is, in my view, and the view of a few others, decidedly NOT "light verse", though others contend that it is. I love the poem -- it's full of dark cynicism and it casts a rather pointed light on human nature. It's done in a slightly bemused, slightly accusatory tone, but has a fairly jaunty meter with a few amusing rhyme pairings. But overall, I think the poem isn't light verse, due to the depth of subject matter.

Ultimately, I'm now a bit perplexed as to what one would consider "light verse". I've always thought of light verse as humorous and without a lot of depth -- geared more towards snickers and guffaws than deep contemplation; slapstick comedy versus satiric drama. I don't see how heavy / deep subjects with cynical tones can be considered "light", regardless of the meter or rhyme scheme.

I should point out that this is by no means a criticism of John selecting this particular poem for the Bakeoff...I'm just curious as to where folks draw the line between "light verse" and other forms of poetry.

[Richard Epstein]

The best place to view the possibilities is in the Auden-edited version of The Oxford Book of Light Verse, which includes such surprises as "Danny Deever" and "Upon Appleton House." Auden suggests there are 3 kinds of light verse--poetry written for performance, poetry meant to be read, but having for its subject everyday social life, and nonsense poetry with general appeal. I am glad he included that last qualifier. I read a lot of nonsense poetry without general appeal.

RHE

[John Whitworth]

Well of course Auden was trailing his coat. See Kingsley Amis in his ppreface to his own Oxford Book of Light Verse. But if Auden is (perhaps) too inclusive, KA is too exclusive. Anyway, certain bastards over here say I am a Light Verse poet. This used to piss me off but now I go with the flow. If I am a Light verse Poet then anything I write must be light verse. Which means Auden rules.

[Shaun J. Russell]

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.

[Quincy Lehr]

Or are we pretty much setting our definition of light here in order to justify the banal tripe that so often gets published under that banner? Where's Lord Rochester when you need him?

Sheesh.

[W.F. Lantry]

I'm with Quincy on this one. If someone asked me to make a list of Light Verse poets, it would start with Herrick, Ovid, Catullus, Chaucer and Martial.

Sheesh is right!

Thanks,

Bill