[Jayne Osborn]

More narrowly, taking up a position within the "duopoly" without some signal of awareness of the freight of disingenuousness that involves does not do one much credit with a critical audience. It can still be authentic in its assertion of allegiance regardless of arguments pro and con.

Bill,
Like Don, I'm struggling to understand this. I read it a couple of times before I could get the that involves bit in the right context . . . but I'm still floundering. (Maybe Don and I are tired )

Jayne

[R. Nemo Hill]

Personally, Bill, I am not able to separate a person's politics and their poetry. Of course, it is possible that both can be merely "recreational", and neither may spring from a very deep place. But in that case, I am not particularly interested in either anyway. If I do not pour enough of myself into my poetry for the general gist of my politics to be reflected, than I question my own personal poetic integrity. Likewise, if I do not invest enough of myself in my political views, than I am merely a tenuous knot of opinions, and not a human with a conscience.

I suppose politics can be more predominantly a matter of pragmatism, but surely the poetry should then, at the very least, reveal something about the particular poet's relationship to the nature of pragmatism itself.

I very much disavow the exclusively "literary" view that the poem is some sort of entity of its own, that its disassociation from the poet is something to be striven for, that it exists in a vacuum—whether that be a political one, a psychological one, or an aesthetic one. For me the "work" is indeed the thing; yet the "work" is not the product, but the process: the working. And that process goes on in the same place where other ways of interacting with the universe go on, including political ones. Thus I, personally, cannot separate a poem from the rest of a poet's being, nor do I think that I should strive for such a separation as a literary ideal. I crave a poetry that is expansive, inclusive, not one that shrinks and hardens to mere aestheticism.

Of course, I am not saying there there may not be vivid contradictions between poetic output and political expression, but those complexities merely beget closer scrutiny, rather than divorce one from the other. I will admit that I love Lovecraft, Celine, Heidegger (to name a few) all of whom have had cogent cases made against their political stances. It's not that I automatically reject the work of someone whose politics I am suspicious of: but I certainly reject the notion that such a connection does not exist or should be ignored. To say "I despise your politics, but I love your poetry without question" seems almost a form of literary nihilism to me.

Personally I seek to harmonize my political opinions and my poetic intuitions; and given that I have more of a talent for the latter, I insist that those poetic intuitions inform my politics as much as possible.

Nemo

[Michael Cantor]

What Don and Jayne said. I'm lost.

But I can understand Nemo's remarks, and agree with them entirely. I don't write - or live - in a vacum. If somebody reads one of my poems and decides that I'm a liberal, or an atheist, or a Jew, or a libertine, or a dedicated Mormon - or all or any of the above - and that becomes part of the experience of the poem - so? That's why I write much (I wish it were "all", but I'm not that good) of my stuff - not to create some precious little work of art in a vacuum. To me that is so basic that all I can think is that possibly I misunderstood you. If you believe in something - you write about it. What am I missing here?

[Jayne Osborn]

Nemo said:
I am not able to separate a person's politics and their poetry.

I'm going to stick my neck right out and say what I know for a fact others think:

With the exception of John.

Sorry, but someone had to say it. John's poetry can easily be separated from his politics. The latter's lousy while the former's brilliant.

John and I are good friends but he knows how I feel on this score. (Sorry, mate!)

Jayne

[John Whitworth]

Good Heavens, Jayne, don't you feel the same about Yeats (Fascist), prewar Auden (Communist), Eliot (anti-Semite), Shelley (violent revolutionary). I like your poems too but your politics are a sentimental muddle.

I'm trying to think of a poet who hates/hates gay people but is good al the same. Pope perhaps?

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

As to politics what does it matter beside the private joys of family and friends? It is amazing, looking back, how things that seemed very important at the time turned out to be not important at all. Doubtless a Trump Presidency, should it come to pass, would not result in the collpase of the world order.

I guess you don't realize how callous and clueless sentences like this make you look. For people on the bloody end of politics, all private joy is at risk when the political tables turn. That you can manage to write with such disdain for the individuals on the dark side of the divide only underlines how unqualified you must be as an observer. Here on this site you have some very kind readers. I read the kind of flippant, selfish tripe you spout and I figure the poetry must be smoke and mirrors with no depth and move on from it as worthless. I am not alone. Some of us don't believe it is all mere craft, just machines made from words as much as we believe wiping the breath of the glass of the windows to Under seeing through to meaning, myth, and the measure of the soul. For the sake of your art, stop. Seriously. You can take this as some rude scoff but your on public record with some rather sad proclamations that can be read by anyone passing by. I have no skin in this game. Feel free to feign insult, incredulity, or any in-thing you wish. Your friends should be more direct with you. Maybe they are.

[John Whitworth]

Poems are word machines, Andrew. Of course they are. What is your position on Yeats and all? My position is that of Dr Johnson, whom you doubtless loftily despise. Also of Horace, whom you have doubtless never read. He fought on Anthony's side in the civil war and ran away. But iof course that was a long time ago and politics were less important then, weren't they?

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill

Personally, Bill, I am not able to separate a person's politics and their poetry. … If I do not pour enough of myself into my poetry for the general gist of my politics to be reflected, than I question my own personal poetic integrity. …

I very much disavow the exclusively "literary" view that the poem is some sort of entity of its own, that its disassociation from the poet is something to be striven for, that it exists in a vacuum—whether that be a political one, a psychological one, or an aesthetic one.

I understand and follow your argument, Nemo, but I do not see the matter in the same way. For most poems I read, whether in a book, a journal, or online, I have no idea whatsoever about the author’s politics, personal background, psychological make-up, or religious and spiritual beliefs. Some poems are obviously and intentionally political, but many others, because of the subject or approach, are not.

Any work of art is the creation of an individual, and therefore that individual’s character and beliefs inform the work. True, poetry does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it spring fully formed from a vacuum. A good poem, however, can be much more than a personal sociological or political testament. To employ a paradox, all art is autobiographical but not autobiography. In my view, although a good poem is the creation of a particular person, it most importantly communicates something significant about the universal human condition rather than presenting something restrictively idiosyncratic.

The best example I can think of is William Shakespeare. In his poetry he has given us all of humanity, but we know virtually nothing of the man, nothing of his personal politics, his religious beliefs, or his character and personality. And I might add that although scholars have combed through his works for centuries to find the man and the individual behind the poetry, Shakespeare the person remains a mystery.

Richard

[Jayne Osborn]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

I like your poems too but your politics are a sentimental muddle.

John, once again you are making a bold statement based on ignorance. You have no idea what my politics are - I don't spout my views in these threads in the way that you do.

Andrew said: Your friends should be more direct with you. Maybe they are.

We are, Andrew, we are, but to no avail.

Jayne

[Bill Carpenter]

Don, to your # 40. No, your post was not a diatribe in the least. I was appreciating your appreciation. The hypothetical you quote was not related to you. I was generalizing about this kind of thread, which we see a lot of, and which ranges from good sport to Rollerball.

Does that help you with the second quotation? It wasn't directed at you. It is a reflection on the "grossness" of partisan positioning which so easily includes bad faith with respect to oxen being gored beyond the margins of the party platform.

Thanks for engaging with the question, friends. I was not addressing the idea of a wall or a vacuum between someone's politics and his or her poetry, so much as how desirable it is to create an interpretive context for poetry with totally different language artifacts such as political banter, reasoning, or vituperation. I think Michael confirmed one of the possible answers, i.e., the hell with it, that's who I am, deal with it. I don't think Nemo's and Richard's views are at odds with each other: poetry and politics both should be an authentic expression of the soul/life/person. Unless one is unusually surefooted, that kind of authenticity is hard to achieve in the round-robin Ping-Pong game of a political thread, which is probably why you two hardly ever comment. Delightful to hear bits of your poetics. Bill