Why does contemporary poetry suck?

[SFG75]

When I think of great poets, I think of ones who are dead and long gone. Why is that?

[Sybarite]

Because you haven't actually read any modern ones?

Your thread title talks of "contemporary poets". Okay. So who have you read and why did you dislike their work so much?

To say that "contemporary poets" (per se, therefore) "suck" is a sweeping generalisation.

What would you think of a thread that posited the view (without any critical analysis to support it) that 'poets who wrote before the 20th century suck'?

[Heteronym]

So what is the contemporary poetry that you have been reading?

[SFG75]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

So what is the contemporary poetry that you have been reading?

Great points one and all. Perhaps I should've been more clear. How about anything written after 1980?

[Occlith]

SFG75, who do you consider great poets and what make them great? What is it about poetry written after 1980 that you dislike?

[LawnTamer]

I have thought about this too; here are some ideas I have had:

1. The poetry that has survived through generations was the cream of the crop of its generation. Chances are that much of what has been written and published through the ages wasn't all that great, but only the good ones keep making it into new compilations and printings.

2. People used to write and speak more. OK, now everyone will think I'm being stupid, but it is true. Before the advent of TEEVEE and movies, people spent their time in actual conversation. I am often amazed at the eloquence found in the writings of 19th century American farmers, I've read quite a bit of pros, poetry and even simple journal accounts from this demographic. The absence of telephones, caused people to communicate more in writing, evenings were spent reading and speaking, parlors had not been replaced with TEEVEE rooms and home theaters. Also, more people worked in an agrarian atmosphere, or in other manual labor, where the mind was free to devote huge swaths of time to thought and composition.

3. It is a LOT easier and cheaper now to publish. In the mid 1800s it took 2-3 man days to produce a quality leather bound book. Printers and publishers took a huge risk in running 5,000 copies. A 5,000 copy printing would cost the printer about the same as a nice home and a working farm.

4. You may just be partial to certain styles of poetry which are no longer popular.

On the whole, there is probably a lot of good poetry being published today, but I think there are 100 poor works published for every really good one, and perhaps 500 for every GREAT work published.

[Heteronym]

Originally Posted by LawnTamer

Also, more people worked in an agrarian atmosphere, or in other manual labor, where the mind was free to devote huge swaths of time to thought and composition.

I think only city folks who've never had to dig holes in hard soil, milk cows, collect eggs, toil the ground, plant seeds, etc., would think that farm work allows time for idle philosophical reflections

I'll have to ask again, what poets are we talking about here? This thread is so vague. SFG75, have you just decided contemporary poetry sucks, or have you actually read any?

[LawnTamer]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

I think only city folks who've never had to dig holes in hard soil, milk cows, collect eggs, toil the ground, plant seeds, etc., would think that farm work allows time for idle philosophical reflections

Having grown up on a farm, I disagree. The farm life is hard, but the labor is mostly physical, leaving the mind somewhat free to roam. There is a saying where I grew up, "Farmers have an opinion on everything." The thought behind this is that farmers are able to form complex opinions while spending 13 hrs plowing a giant field, or planting, harvesting.

I composed my first novel while working. I would form complete scenes, including the actual texts, then type them in when I got home at night.

[Heteronym]

That's certainly not how I remember my childhood summers on the farm

I don't see any relation between agriculture and poetry. I'm sure in the agrarian 19th-century America, literature inevitably came from some farmers. But I don't think TS Eliot, Fernando Pessoa or Pablo Neruda ever saw much of farming.

I see here explanations as to why classic poetry was great and contemporary sucks, but I'll have to ask again: who are we talking about here? Ondjaki, Andrew Motion, Adonis? Or are we just talking about strawmen?

[SFG75]

Originally Posted by LawnTamer

I have thought about this too; here are some ideas I have had:

1. The poetry that has survived through generations was the cream of the crop of its generation. Chances are that much of what has been written and published through the ages wasn't all that great, but only the good ones keep making it into new compilations and printings.

2. People used to write and speak more. OK, now everyone will think I'm being stupid, but it is true. Before the advent of TEEVEE and movies, people spent their time in actual conversation. I am often amazed at the eloquence found in the writings of 19th century American farmers, I've read quite a bit of pros, poetry and even simple journal accounts from this demographic. The absence of telephones, caused people to communicate more in writing, evenings were spent reading and speaking, parlors had not been replaced with TEEVEE rooms and home theaters. Also, more people worked in an agrarian atmosphere, or in other manual labor, where the mind was free to devote huge swaths of time to thought and composition.

3. It is a LOT easier and cheaper now to publish. In the mid 1800s it took 2-3 man days to produce a quality leather bound book. Printers and publishers took a huge risk in running 5,000 copies. A 5,000 copy printing would cost the printer about the same as a nice home and a working farm.

4. You may just be partial to certain styles of poetry which are no longer popular.

On the whole, there is probably a lot of good poetry being published today, but I think there are 100 poor works published for every really good one, and perhaps 500 for every GREAT work published.

Wow, some good insight there Lawn Tamer. Perhaps a lot of garbage was written previously, easily forgotten. Who knows, perhaps once the sifter of time passes, the cream of the crop in our day will rise to the top! I could also see the writing style and my partiality for certain poetry being a relevant thing. I can appreciate beat stuff just as well as Keats and even colonial American stuff like Anne Bradstreet.

SFG75, who do you consider great poets and what make them great? What is it about poetry written after 1980 that you dislike?

A short list-Keats, Yeats, Whitman, Thoreau, Kerouac, Frost, Bierce, among others. I just noticed that after say 1980..........I really can't think of any writer or material that is really that impressive. Now this isn't the case with literature, as there are some great writers out there. Just not poets. Any suggestions to perhaps help me change my mind?

[Peder]

Just to kick this into a slightly different groove and name names, does anyone have any thoughts about A.R.Ammons or, Seamus Heaney, let's say, or maybe Ted Hughes? Charles Bukowski?
Or was Whitman the cutoff? Or maybe Ezra Pound? T.S. Eliot? Boris Pasternak? Dylan Thomas? Or Sylvia Plath?
I have thought enough of Pound, Thomas, Ammons, Plath and Heaney to buy their works after browsing them.
And Whitman.

[Snork Maiden]

I love the work of Simon Armitage and Carol Ann Duffy - they're fab contemporary poets imho.

[MagnaMater]

Hm, when I think about contemporary poetry, I think of lyrics of songs, mainly metal and there are really good ones, though you have most likely to read the booklet, because you don't understand them when sung/growled/screamed

*humming Cradle of Filth's 'Her Ghost in the Fog'*