[Siham Karami]

From R. Nemo Hill:

I think it is a mistake to consider poetry is a vehicle to deliver or convey something other than itself, be that comedy or philosophy. Poetry is its own thing, sui generis, and can be found even in places where there are no words. Poetry that purports to be merely the carrier of something distinct from it is a mechanical construct, a verse-mobile.

But this in itself doesn't preclude poetry from touching on anything or everything. This reminds me of a call for submissions to Rattle for Feminist Poets (initial caps important), for those who identify as Feminist Poets, and "often use poetry to advocate for women’s rights." I wanted to submit to this issue, but balked when I read the word "use...to advocate"... I can never write poetry "to advocate for" something, to set out with a purpose, a sole purpose, and "use the muse." Poetry encompasses all levels and should not be deliberately, consciously confined to a purpose. Or so I believe. Which, again, means that it can touch on philosophy, feminism, ethics, etc. but cannot defined and confined by them. Poets who write about philosophy, such as Dante (and I defer to Andrew on this), it seems to me have incorporated philosophy (and ideas generally) into their overarching worldview which in turn drives their creative response, so that the subject is not imposed or artificially sought as a "subject." Indeed any subject, if not integrated into the poet's "heart," can inspire a certain artificiality. If that makes sense.