bobbyburns
New Member
my guilty pleasure is natalie imbruglia.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Fav Poets
- Thread starter Wabbit
- Start date
Thea,
Very well said! One can read my favorite Buk poem (". . . Alarm Clock") and be titillated by it's sexual content. But, one can also read it as a profound and novel expression of Buk's isolation and loneliness, etc. To my mind, he had a real gift for showing his readers every day emotions and occurences in new and lyrical ways (which is what poetry is all about).
But, the same can be said of his prose. In Notes of a Dirty Old Man (I think), he writes about seeing angry, bitter women in the supermarket and writes "Beware the sharp knives of their shopping carts; they are the mad women of the universe." It captures the essence of a very real fact of urban life for many "down and out" folks.
Having said all that, I also doubt if I would have liked the man personally; and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have cared much for me. But, like I said, when he was "right" (not correct, but right), he had a real gift imo.
If you haven't yet, I urge you to read his collected letters. The first volume especially is marvelous.
Very well said! One can read my favorite Buk poem (". . . Alarm Clock") and be titillated by it's sexual content. But, one can also read it as a profound and novel expression of Buk's isolation and loneliness, etc. To my mind, he had a real gift for showing his readers every day emotions and occurences in new and lyrical ways (which is what poetry is all about).
But, the same can be said of his prose. In Notes of a Dirty Old Man (I think), he writes about seeing angry, bitter women in the supermarket and writes "Beware the sharp knives of their shopping carts; they are the mad women of the universe." It captures the essence of a very real fact of urban life for many "down and out" folks.
Having said all that, I also doubt if I would have liked the man personally; and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have cared much for me. But, like I said, when he was "right" (not correct, but right), he had a real gift imo.
If you haven't yet, I urge you to read his collected letters. The first volume especially is marvelous.
novella
Active Member
Just to clarify, I am not making any assumptions, just asking the question. By gap in taste, I'm offering no "quality" judgment, just observing that it's possible that these poets I mention do not suit posters' tastes, hence a "gap in taste." That is, for some reason, these poets have been read and rejected, rather than assuming they have been unread.
The discussion seems to have quickly devolved into accusations and arguments when none were intended. I was making an observation and asking an open question.
I certainly would never reject a poet because of personal habits like drunkenness. If that were the case, Lowell, Roethke, and Dylan Thomas, to name a few, would be rejected out of hand. Rather let's refer to the work. Isn't that enough?
Can the question be taken for what it is?
Novella
The discussion seems to have quickly devolved into accusations and arguments when none were intended. I was making an observation and asking an open question.
I certainly would never reject a poet because of personal habits like drunkenness. If that were the case, Lowell, Roethke, and Dylan Thomas, to name a few, would be rejected out of hand. Rather let's refer to the work. Isn't that enough?
Can the question be taken for what it is?
Novella
bobbyburns
New Member
it's time for some international coffee.
Thea
New Member
I'm pretty sure that's what I was doing, but if you're suggesting this argument be over and done with, I'm all for it! I don't feel the need to justify my taste to someone who thinks it is of "dubious merit". Let's stop arguing and you can go back to reading authors that you think are "all deserving" of your praise, "no doubt".
novella
Active Member
Thea,
I don't know why you're so offended. Aren't we all making qualitative judgments here? Isn't that the point? I sure don't take it personally if everyone doesn't like what I like.
I see this as a discussion, not an argument. Without some rationale behind one's taste (maybe you could call it justification, but I don't think that's accurate), isn't it as facile as discussing one's favorite color? People could go on all day saying, I like blue, I like red, but what is the point, unless there is substance to the discussion? All I'm trying to do is figure out and discuss, openly, why these particular choices are made. What's wrong with that?
Novella
I don't know why you're so offended. Aren't we all making qualitative judgments here? Isn't that the point? I sure don't take it personally if everyone doesn't like what I like.
I see this as a discussion, not an argument. Without some rationale behind one's taste (maybe you could call it justification, but I don't think that's accurate), isn't it as facile as discussing one's favorite color? People could go on all day saying, I like blue, I like red, but what is the point, unless there is substance to the discussion? All I'm trying to do is figure out and discuss, openly, why these particular choices are made. What's wrong with that?
Novella
Thea
New Member
There is nothing wrong with it until you start making assumptions as to why, such as thinking that people who like Bukowski must be younger with little to no other exposure to poetry.
What is seen as "quality" writing is highly subjective, and you seem to believe there is an objective measurement that makes some writers more valuable and deserving of attention and praise than others.
You've also assumed that I'm offended, which is incorrect. I'm not easily offended at all, and I would jump to get involved in a similar discussion about a writer I'm not particularly fond of, because I think it is ridiculous to make quality judgments and assumptions of the people who like a certain type of writing. However, your statement that you would not get offended by someone disliking a writer that you like is not relevant to this discussion. You're not simply stating that you dislike Bukowski; you are implying that his writing is of "dubious merit" and that the people who like him are too young and inexperienced to recognize "quality" writing.
Of course there is probably some substance behind people's tastes beyond "I like Bukowski" but approaching such a discussion by asking the things you did is not going to get you very far. You're asking a question that cannot be answered by the people you are asking it of. You want to know why people have skipped over the poets you find valuable and prefer ones that you find of "dubious merit". Such a question implies a request for justification.
I personally consider Charles Bukowski the greatest poet who ever lived, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pester a Yeats fan as to why he finds a poet that I find to be utterly boring to be so fascinating. "Why do you like this poet when I think he is so boring?" - Wouldn't you find it somewhat pretentious? That is how I find your implied question "Why have you skipped over all these poets I think are great and decided to like this one whom I think is of dubious merit?" It's simply laughable. Why did I not mention them? Because I don't like their stuff, that's why. It has nothing to do with having little exposure to poetry. As Wabbit said, sometimes the simplest reason IS the reason.
I co-edit a small internet literary mag that publishes fiction, art and poetry, and our submission guidelines have always included a disclaimer that states we do not pretend to know what "good" writing is. We publish what we like, what moves us in some way, and not what we think is written well but has very little substance. There are many publishers out there who seem to think they are publishing "good" poetry, but really we are all only publishing what we like.
Next time you want to know why I like Bukowski, approach the subject without any assumptions about the lack of quality in my taste, my age, and my exposure to writing, and then maybe I will feel like discussing it with you.
What is seen as "quality" writing is highly subjective, and you seem to believe there is an objective measurement that makes some writers more valuable and deserving of attention and praise than others.
You've also assumed that I'm offended, which is incorrect. I'm not easily offended at all, and I would jump to get involved in a similar discussion about a writer I'm not particularly fond of, because I think it is ridiculous to make quality judgments and assumptions of the people who like a certain type of writing. However, your statement that you would not get offended by someone disliking a writer that you like is not relevant to this discussion. You're not simply stating that you dislike Bukowski; you are implying that his writing is of "dubious merit" and that the people who like him are too young and inexperienced to recognize "quality" writing.
Of course there is probably some substance behind people's tastes beyond "I like Bukowski" but approaching such a discussion by asking the things you did is not going to get you very far. You're asking a question that cannot be answered by the people you are asking it of. You want to know why people have skipped over the poets you find valuable and prefer ones that you find of "dubious merit". Such a question implies a request for justification.
I personally consider Charles Bukowski the greatest poet who ever lived, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pester a Yeats fan as to why he finds a poet that I find to be utterly boring to be so fascinating. "Why do you like this poet when I think he is so boring?" - Wouldn't you find it somewhat pretentious? That is how I find your implied question "Why have you skipped over all these poets I think are great and decided to like this one whom I think is of dubious merit?" It's simply laughable. Why did I not mention them? Because I don't like their stuff, that's why. It has nothing to do with having little exposure to poetry. As Wabbit said, sometimes the simplest reason IS the reason.
I co-edit a small internet literary mag that publishes fiction, art and poetry, and our submission guidelines have always included a disclaimer that states we do not pretend to know what "good" writing is. We publish what we like, what moves us in some way, and not what we think is written well but has very little substance. There are many publishers out there who seem to think they are publishing "good" poetry, but really we are all only publishing what we like.
Next time you want to know why I like Bukowski, approach the subject without any assumptions about the lack of quality in my taste, my age, and my exposure to writing, and then maybe I will feel like discussing it with you.
novella
Active Member
Thea said:
You are the one making assumptions, and I don't see what this one is based on.
Do I believe that some writers are more deserving of attention and praise than others? Yes, of course I do. Don't we all? Do I believe there is an objective metric of that worth? Absolutely not.
The fact is this is a long thread with many posts and barely a mention of 20th century poets, aside from CB. I questioned why. If you construe that as an accusation of poor taste, so be it. It wasn't my intention, but I can't change your perception.
IMO, there are many many great poets in the 20th century--some of whom I've listed-- whose work shows how elastic and precise English can be and how delicately or profoundly the human experience can be expressed. For me, CB is not one of them. IMO, great artists temper their medium with grace, which I find his work lacks in spades. Does your love for CB exclude all other contemporary poets?
Novella
Thea
New Member
I'm not the only one in this thread who has noticed the assumptions you've made about what makes quality writing. I also don't see "grace" as a pre-requisite for someone to become a "great artist", especially when it is false. I would prefer writers to be honest in their work, and not all "great artists" are graceful.
No. If you'd read through all of the posts in this thread you'd notice that a couple of us also listed Seamus Heaney, one of the poets you claimed that nobody had mentioned. In fact, all five of the favorites I listed in my post are 20th century poets.
No. If you'd read through all of the posts in this thread you'd notice that a couple of us also listed Seamus Heaney, one of the poets you claimed that nobody had mentioned. In fact, all five of the favorites I listed in my post are 20th century poets.
bobbyburns
New Member
does your love for CB exclude your love for pizza?
bobbyburns
New Member
in a way, I love poetry for the same reason I love pizza. both make me feel good, though I have absolutely no idea why.
novella
Active Member
Thea said:
I agree that not all great artists are graceful, however I do think that all great art has a measure of grace--which is what I said. How do you define honesty? What do you understand grace to be?
If honesty is the exposition of a kind of emotional or psychological truth, albeit not a literal truth, then I agree with you. If it's the favoring of some perceived reality over an imagined one, then it's overrated.
To me, grace is not pretty, but difficult and generous and human. Honesty and grace are not mutually exclusive.
Novella
Boy, I feel a bit like Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
In any event, Novella, I think that if anything would tend to explain why more 20th Cent. poets weren't named here, it is that most people start out reading poetry in school. So, generally, they start with the usual canon of "dead white guys". So, to an extent, it's just a matter of exposure.
Having said that, though, I would also echo what Thea (and many others) have said here; i.e. that the relative "quality" of poetry is a highly subjective determination. I don't remember anybody mentioning Rod McKuen here, but that doesn't mean that somebody out there couldn't think that he's a great poet (or that they necessarily shouldn't).
In any event, Novella, I think that if anything would tend to explain why more 20th Cent. poets weren't named here, it is that most people start out reading poetry in school. So, generally, they start with the usual canon of "dead white guys". So, to an extent, it's just a matter of exposure.
Having said that, though, I would also echo what Thea (and many others) have said here; i.e. that the relative "quality" of poetry is a highly subjective determination. I don't remember anybody mentioning Rod McKuen here, but that doesn't mean that somebody out there couldn't think that he's a great poet (or that they necessarily shouldn't).
novella
Active Member
You feel like a well done steak, funes? Baked potato with that?
I agree (and have never disagreed) that all kinds of qualitative judgments are subjective. But where there is a common culture and a common language, there is a also a consensus, hence that canon of dead white guys.
That doesn't invalidate any individual opinion or taste, but it is worth discussing whether the consensus is shifting and why.
Novella
I agree (and have never disagreed) that all kinds of qualitative judgments are subjective. But where there is a common culture and a common language, there is a also a consensus, hence that canon of dead white guys.
That doesn't invalidate any individual opinion or taste, but it is worth discussing whether the consensus is shifting and why.
Novella
Thea
New Member
novella said:
This discussion will only further get convoluted if we start getting into how each person individually defines "grace" and "honesty". It's the same thing I've been saying over and over in this thread. Everyone has their own definition. As Timothy Leary would say, we see things through our own "reality tunnel" and because of this I don't engage much in discussions about "reality" because I don't think it objectively exists in the same form for everyone, which is why some books seem more realistic to some people than they do to others. Discussing reality is like discussing the definition of "normal".
bobbyburns
New Member
novella said:
what do you mean by that?
novella
Active Member
Thea said:
I'm bemused. I don't think this discussion is convoluted at all.
Further, if the terms by which you judge a person's art are not open to discussion, why do you post here? Isn't that exactly the intention of this site? Falling back on this "everyone has their own definition" of everything stuff is pretty lame, n'est-ce pas?