Friday, June 04, 2004

Trillin is just harmless dogerrel (sp?), although the sad thing is I'm sure people out there read his little political poems and say to themselves, "Damn. That's poetry."

And about the draft: luckily I think we're all past draft age or within months of passing it. Unfortunately, Congress could revise the draft age when (and if) they reactivate it. I'm crossing my fingers.

To return to the "Exorcism" thread. I guess my question to you Nate and Joe is this: if somebody is working out their trauma/fears/demons/emotional tragedy/what-have-yous by writing poetry, and ends up writing some good work which is, to all who see it, not the gut-wrenchingly bad stripe of poetry we normally identify as "therapeutic", does it matter? I grant you, if we have a stinkingly bad poem about somebody's personal tragedy losing their pet hamster in a bizarre catapult malfunction, that's no good. But what if somebody has some seriously nasty stuff they're working out, and as they try to work it out in their work they actually make good poetry. Does that disqualify it? Who cares how poets produce their work, as long as it's good? Who cares how a sincere poet produces his or her work if it's artless, sappy pap? The Confessional has wrecked poetry somewhat, but is what Auden writes true: that "no bad writing is undeservedly remembered, but there is good writing that is undeservedly forgotten"?


Post a Comment

<< Home