Calling for a Poetic Resurrection

[Psiko]

Friends and colleagues of TFF, I wanted to share my final essay from my comp class because I am selfish in wanting to share this stuff with all of you. It was perhaps my best writing this year. I am anxious to hear your feedback, those of you who have written with me over the years!

------------

According to Percy Bysshe Shelley, "Poetry, in a general sense, may be defined to be 'the expression of the imagination': and poetry is connate with the origin of man" (Shelley). For a great many centuries poetry was one of the main forms of writing utilized by authors, and as Shelley mentions it began at the same time as man. While it is not an extinct art form, the popularity of poetry as a medium for expression has declined. With the emergence of the Victorian Era in the mid nineteenth century, the novel rapidly gained footing with its popularity. When was the last time you heard about a book of poetry breaking sales records? The New York Times has an article listing the top 100 books of 2009 (NYTimes) and it features two poetry collections. Once hailed as the primary method for writing, poetry has now taken a backseat to all genres of fiction novels, young adult novels, memoirs, biographies, self-help books, and more.

Curious as to just how far it has fallen I explored two major bookstores in West Des Moines. My first destination in each was the magazine section where, much like Stephen King mentions in his essay “What Ails the Short Story” (King), I found myself on the floor to look at the small collection of writing magazines and literary journals. In both stores I was able to find a copy of the latest issue of Poets and Writers magazine, and in one I found a Poetry Collection anthology, but nothing else that screamed poetry. The next place to check was in the Reference section, mixed with books on the art of writing itself. In one Barnes and Noble store I found only a copy of the 2009 Poet's Market on the shelf. In the other store I counted seven books out of hundreds of writing-related books. There were more books on how to write a bestselling novel in 30 days, and other similar gimmicks. Dejected, I moved on to my final destination: the poetry section. Twelve shelves of poetry books in one, fourteen in the other. Many copies of great works like The Illiad, The Oddyssey, Beowulf, Paradise Lost, Inferno, and more. The selection of anything current was almost nonexistent, although there were a few exceptions to keep any aspiring poet hopeful, much like dangling a carrot in front of a horse to keep it running.

Many other specialized non-fiction sections had a better representation, including New Age, Self-Help, and Cooking. Has the value of a great piece of poetry truly fallen so far? Is it seen as nothing more than the idle hobby of those who can throw together a few rhyming words? There was a time, long ago, when a poet was seen as something great. These days it seems the vast majority of would-be writers aspire to piece together the next great novel to hit the New York Times Bestsellers listing. Novels have grown in length over time, as well. Take a look at the Fantasy genre for perfect proof of this, starting with the Wheel of Time series. When a series breaks the 10,000 page mark, that is a sign of its epic nature.

Poetry used to be able to manage the epic scope as well. Look at Paradise Lost, Beowulf, The Oddyssey, and many others. The difference between a poem like Beowulf and a novel like The Eye of the World is the trimming of the unnecessary “fat”. The words and descriptions and actions that are not vital to the plot and character development are cut, leaving behind a more elegant, simple reading. Anyone can sit at a computer with a thesaurus and throw together five words that have similar meanings to describe something. Anyone can give a play-by-play coverage of the main character's dinner with his blushing bride. A true poet will leave all that aside and utilize precision in their diction. They will not only get to the point without making you read through thirty pages of fluff, but will also have a more powerful command of evoking strong emotions from their reader.

Socrates was a philosopher best known for his teachings that were passed on through the writings of Plato. In the dialogue known as “The Ion”, he claims that true poets get their best writing in moments of divine inspiration, rather than through forced writing. “In like manner the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who take the inspiration. For all good poets, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed” (Plato). He also goes on, a little later in this dialogue, to mention that a poet is not truly a poet until he hits this moment of inspiration from his Muse. “And the soul of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles” (Plato).

Moving further in history we have another great philosopher who hails poetry as being a form of expression. "Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular" (Aristotle). He speaks of universality, yet is that what poetry still contains? Can any reader pick up some form of universal meaning within a "poem" that was simply copying down the exact words printed on a sign? I have seen this passed off as being poetry, and it is this sort of loose application of the word "poetry" that, perhaps, has helped the degradation of poetry in today's world.

So if this is an example of what poetry is not, then what exactly should poetry become defined as? For assistance in answering this question I turn to two of the great poets from the Romantic Era: WIlliam Wordsworth and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Both men fought to revolutionize poetry itself, breaking free from the strict metrical restrictions on form and to step away from the same overused techniques. They sought to alter the way people judged poetry, which they hoped would ultimately force critics and scholars to review the poems of the past and thus purify poetry. Wordsworth, in his Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, writes, "For all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: and though this be true, Poems to which any value can be attached were never produced on any variety of subjects but by a man who, being possessed of more than usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and deeply" (Wordsworth). Shelly rises up and expresses what separates a poem from a story in his A Defence of Poetry, "A poem is the very image of life expressed in its eternal truth. There is this difference between a story and a poem, that a story is a catalogue of detached facts, which have no other connection than time, place, circumstance, cause and effect; the other is the creation of actions according to the unchangeable forms of human nature, as existing in the mind of the Creator, which is itself the image of all other minds" (Shelley).

According to these two men, poetry is not something that can be forced, and holds some form of an eternal truth. Whether it be love, pain, joy, beauty, or any other great truth that each man and woman experiences, this is the realm in which true poetry touches. I've witnessed an example of this spontaneous overflow. It took a year for the words to form after my wife left me, but when they finally came my heart poured out into my most powerful poem so far. Had I sat down to try and write that immediately after, would it have been as strong? Would the emotion have seared through the words, expressing the heartache and despair? Good poetry cannot be forced.

This poses a bit of a problem for those who wish to be poets. No one has time to sit and just wait for a good poem to finally tear through the mind and explode onto the page. After all, many writers agree that the key to writing good is to write often. Ray Bradbury puts it well in his book Zen in the Art of Writing, "Quantity gives experience. From experience alone can quality come" (Bradbury). So does this mean we should force bad poetry out? Once again I shall turn to Bradbury's sage advice to writers in that same book, "Work. Relaxation. Don't think" (Bradbury). My advice, to which I shall continue to hold myself to for as long as I can read and write: just write. You don't have to sit down and say "I'm going to write a poem about Spring" or "I'm going to write a story where two people fall in love", just simply begin to write. Who cares what comes out, whether it be a poem or a story or just random nonsense. I've done this with fairly reasonable consistency for a few months and, in the process, have had some of the best poetry burst forth at unexpected moments.

This unforced, spontaneous poetry is what those Romantics fought for, seeking for that to gain acceptance with not only the general readers, but also the critics of poetry. Undoubtedly, that was the point in time where free verse poetry gained its roots, and ever since this form of poetry has done a lot for poets. It enabled new groups of people to enjoy and understand poetry, eliminating the depth of metrical form and the specific poetic diction that was predominant. Throughout the twentieth century there were a great number of poetic movements, each of them helping to build the poems we can find today. By the end of the twentieth century, free verse and avant garde poetry had become popular styles. Would poetry benefit from the complete removal of these, going back to strict restrictions on form and rhyming schemes?

Free verse, in itself, is not a detriment to poetry. There is, perhaps, a mindset among people these days that anyone can write this style of poetry. They would be right, yet there is a large difference between poetry and good poetry. The responsibility of the reader, the poet, the editor, and the publisher is to ensure that the good poetry is pushed forward, while the flood of average poetry can remain popular on forums and blogs and individual websites. Bookstores should have a section where new poetry, good poetry, can be found with ease. Local poets should be featured, a benefit to both the starting poet and the art of poetry itself. Without a change in the way we handle poetry, it is unlikely we'll find a resurgence of poetry. It will never regain its popularity over the novel, yet perhaps it could reclaim a growing niche among readers and critics. The black scythe of death hovers nearby, waiting for the day that poetry loses its pulse. We can't allow that to happen. Poetry is art. Life is art. Poetry captures the essence of life.

[DragonHeart]

You forgot line breaks between paragraphs. Wall o' text crushes eyes.

What kind of feedback are you looking for, bro?

True, poetry is not something you can make a living from anymore, but it's far from a dead art. You can say the same thing of short stories and even novels. The average writer cannot make a living from writing fiction. Freelance and nonfiction is where the money is, these days.

By the same token, judging the importance of any one form of writing based solely on how much it sells is misleading in itself, especially with the advent of the internet and more recent digital technology. There may be no money in poetry, but it doesn't stop people from writing it or from publishing it in "4theluv" markets. Not to mention the homework, notebooks and blogs of every emo teen in the country. Poetry has expanded, if anything.

~DragonHeart~