[Rose Novick]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Rose, I think by the death of poetry, he means the death of poetry as a popular art form, something that the general reader once read and enjoyed, but no longer does -- readers in the "suburban households that once contained popular anthologies". In which case, for him, you pointing to a great work of modernist or post-modern poetry, wouldn't negate his argument, if that work had little appeal among the general public. Obviously, it would be useful if he said what he meant by the death of poetry in his article. It's a big thing to leave undefined.

That's part of what he meant, but his argument for that is so unbelievably stupid and implausible that I just ignored it. I focused on the part of his essay that possessed a grain of truth—though he did not see it clearly himself—and tried to contextualize and draw out that truth.

[James Brancheau]

Yeah, that's right, Matt. And I think I misunderstood where you were coming from there. Anyway, I of course don't mind at all the discussion, but I do think you're being a little too hard on Michael.

[Max Goodman]

Yes, Rose and others, it's an astonishing thing to say.

It's equally astonishing that anyone would dispute, as you do, Roger, that modern life alienates us from nature. I don't insist that this makes poetry impossible. That poetry might require writers and readers who are connected to nature is an idea that's new to me--one I find worth thinking about.

So is your point about Williams, Rose. Thank you. What should I look for in his poems? The standard harping on "the thing itself" has never helped me much appreciate them.

Susan, your post is eloquent.

Originally Posted by James Brancheau

I do think you're being a little too hard on Michael.

I hope it's not unkind of me to point out that Michael, by people who claim to know him offline, is frequently accused of being amiable.

[Rose Novick]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

So is your point about Williams, Rose. Thank you. What should I look for in his poems? The standard harping on "the thing itself" has never helped me much appreciate them.

Have you ever read the complete Spring and All? If it doesn't speak for itself to you I don't know that I have any secret key, because all I'd say is to repeat less beautifully what Williams says there...

But, in brief: Williams is (alongside, and differently from, Stevens) the great 20th century poet of the imagination. Spring and All is a great paean to and treatise on the imagination, an overflowing maximalist masterpiece.

That "maximalist" is important. Read the wheelbarrow poem out of context, and you'd think Williams is a minimalist. But in the context of Spring and All it's wholly different: a dense condensation and crystallization of numerous lines of force stretching into and out of it from the rest of the poem.

I never "got" Williams until I read Spring and All last September. But now it's among the 5-7 books I consider truly sacred.

[Roger Slater]

Of course the focus should be on writing (for those of us who write). I am certain that everyone here agrees with that proposition. However, that doesn't mean we cannot sometimes have discussions that do not involve our focus. Every single one of us often engages in activities and conversations that are not the absolute focus of our lives, but focusing on one thing does not require us not to notice or discuss other things. To say that we shouldn't discuss poetics because our focus as poets should only be on our own writing presents a false choice. Most of the poets I have admired also write about poetry and enjoy discussing it. A bit of thoughtfulness about one's craft may also help us better focus on the writing itself.

And Max, my main point was that poetry does not inevitably depend on a connectedness to nature, even if modern life has made us less connected. But I think the extent of our so-called disconnectedness has been exaggerated. Wordsworth thought our ties were severed two hundred years ago, but plenty of wonderful nature poetry has ensued. The city/country divide has long been a subject of poetry. Yes, I suppose we would be more "connected" to nature if we all slept in caves and had to club our dinner entrees to death before tearing them apart with our teeth and roasting them on a fire, but countless millions of us still visit parks and beaches on a regular basis, go bird watching, garden, sail, surf, meditate, jog, etc. I don't see sleeping on a mattress or having a roof over your head as a disconnect from nature.

But even if it were a disconnect, why would it be impossible to write a poem about lying in bed under a roof? Who decreed that poetry must always be about a connection to nature? Whoever it was, I guess, didn't have me on their mailing list.

[Max Goodman]

Thanks, Rose. The only Williams on my shelf is a Selected I've never spent much time with. A copy of Spring and All is on its way to me. I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by Quincy Lehr

Walther ... essence HERE.

Blech.

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

I don't see sleeping on a mattress or having a roof over your head as a disconnect from nature.

Common ground. But if you feel the same about computers, say, or cars, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[James Brancheau]

Yes, I agree, Cameron. I should have been more precise. I really did laugh out loud when I read that. You have a talent for being blunt and making it resonate.

Speaking of which, my apologies to Sarah-Jane. While I stand by the gist of my post, it was mean-spirited and you didn't deserve that. I have deleted it. And I like your work, btw.

Happy New Year everyone (I'll get there first *)

*(Except for maybe Cally?)

[James Brancheau]

"But the New Formalists, of course, don't read enough poetry to know that." Hahaha, I fell off my chair reading that, Cameron. Yes, true. Wowza. To be fair, poetry has become too much of a niche culture generally. And more cross-pollination, and appreciation has to happen. I'm fv, but extremely sympathetic to formal verse. I like music, and there's not a poem I write that ignores that.

*And Sharon Olds is terrific.

*I think Sylvia Plath was shafted. Yes, Sylvia. She gets a certain designation. Read her again. Incredible technician.

[Sarah-Jane Crowson]

Oh Lordy, here too?

Well, for such a dead art-form, all I can say is that wherever I've tuned in on social media and in real life the last day or so has been full of poets debating this, some more eloquently than others, some verging on WWE-style brawls. Down the pub last night I thought one poet of more advanced years was going to have a heart-attack and we'd need to find the nearest defibrillator (which would have meant a five mile drive down dark lanes under the influence).

I'm with Neil Gaiman and Chris Riddell, I think. We just need to keep writing. I've lent my copy of Why Art Matters to yet another student (it's my fault, I push it into their hands, insistently) but here's a blurry link to one of my favourite images in the book:

https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/com...i/26646409.jpg

(Alt text - line drawing of female holding up a pen. text on image reads: Make Interesting Amazing Glorious Fantastic Mistakes. Break Rules. Leave the world more interesting for your being here. Make Good Art).

Sarah-Jane

[James Brancheau]

Withdrawn.