I mentioned a few weeks (?) ago that I had recently read a fair amount of Williams and not found all that much that I really liked--not the majority of what I read anyway. I'm finding that I really have a certain impatience with some modernist practice.
I have always been puzzled by, and now in my old age am annoyed by, some of the habits of free verse poets. This poem is mostly free, despite the sometime rhymes--I don't consider "what" and "bat" to be a rhyme. And I do like it, though not passionately. But in particular the practice of indentation that seems to be purely a visual device annoys me. As do some of the "awkward" line breaks. Is there really a good reason to break "base
ball"? Syllable count maybe? But if so, given how much that varies, what difference does it make?
One of many things that made me laugh in Flannery O'Connor's letters was "If it looks funny on the page I don't read it." She was talking about "experimental" fiction but it has an application to poetry as well. That a poem looks funny on the page won't keep me from reading it and maybe liking it, but it's definitely not a plus. (Those poems that are deliberately meant to be a picture, like Herbert's "Easter Wings" are okay as an occasional stunt. There's a word for that but I can't remember it.)
It's startling to see how far down she boiled this poem over the years. I think I prefer the long one. The short one resonates though, like an aphorism.
In my Intro to Lit classes, I always started the poetry unit with several poems about poetry, and I always included this one if it were available in my anthology. This version is only slightly different from the one I am familiar with: "autocrat" leapt out at me, and "in defiance of their opinion." I love the way she begins with the sentiment so many of my students held, but takes you to an admiration for the thing she claims to "dislike," while showing the marvels of it and how it permeates all of life (unless "dragged into prominence by half-poets," of course!).
I mentioned a few weeks (?) ago that I had recently read a fair amount of Williams and not found all that much that I really liked--not the majority of what I read anyway. I'm finding that I really have a certain impatience with some modernist practice.
I have always been puzzled by, and now in my old age am annoyed by, some of the habits of free verse poets. This poem is mostly free, despite the sometime rhymes--I don't consider "what" and "bat" to be a rhyme. And I do like it, though not passionately. But in particular the practice of indentation that seems to be purely a visual device annoys me. As do some of the "awkward" line breaks. Is there really a good reason to break "base
ball"? Syllable count maybe? But if so, given how much that varies, what difference does it make?
One of many things that made me laugh in Flannery O'Connor's letters was "If it looks funny on the page I don't read it." She was talking about "experimental" fiction but it has an application to poetry as well. That a poem looks funny on the page won't keep me from reading it and maybe liking it, but it's definitely not a plus. (Those poems that are deliberately meant to be a picture, like Herbert's "Easter Wings" are okay as an occasional stunt. There's a word for that but I can't remember it.)
But the toads of course are priceless.
It's startling to see how far down she boiled this poem over the years. I think I prefer the long one. The short one resonates though, like an aphorism.
Yes, it's a nice aphorism.
The final edition could be almost a Buddhist take on suffering, and a place for its ending, which is genuine.
not a poem
I disagree but am sympathetic.
In my Intro to Lit classes, I always started the poetry unit with several poems about poetry, and I always included this one if it were available in my anthology. This version is only slightly different from the one I am familiar with: "autocrat" leapt out at me, and "in defiance of their opinion." I love the way she begins with the sentiment so many of my students held, but takes you to an admiration for the thing she claims to "dislike," while showing the marvels of it and how it permeates all of life (unless "dragged into prominence by half-poets," of course!).
I really like this as an explanation of Moore's poetics: "the tension between language as idea and language as image."