Poetry, like prostitution, has been around for thousands of year (though I’d be willing to bet that prostitution was probably there first). And both will continue for thousands more, despite the best efforts of zealots to promote it (as in the case of poetry) or stop it (as in the case of prostitution). However, whereas the latter is arguably becoming more prevalent (figures often quoted suggest that in the UK, one in 10 men have visited a prostitute at least once), poetry is, in many ways, a declining pastime (I suspect that far less than one in 10 adults - especially males - have actively engaged as adults with poetry).
I really do vainly hope that Andrew Motion (the current UK Poet Laureate) will not be replaced when his term of office ends.
Don’t get me wrong. I love poetry - well, at least, I did. At that for me is the problem.
Every year in the UK hundreds of examination boards set anthologies of poetry to be studied in English Literature examination, and every year thousands of English teachers strive to find ways of encouraging reluctant teenagers to understand and engage with the text. As a student I was made to study the poetry of Thomas Hardy at A Level and have been a fan of his work ever since. As an undergraduate I selected as many poetry options as I could (poems were shorter and easier to revise than novels).
As an English teacher some of my happiest memories were seeing teenagers enthused (despite their better judgement) by John Donne or Dante Gabriel Rossetti. And apart from the formal study of poetry in literature examinations, those same teachers will have been working for years with younger students, reading accessible poems to them, and encouraging them to express themselves by writing poetry.
But, despite all of the above, and despite being an ex-English teacher, I now hardly ever pick up a poetry book for pleasure, and I suspect that most of the population have never read or written a poem since they left school.
Poetry has never been a popular art form. It was hardly likely to be widely read in societies with limited literacy. The aristocrats could enjoy it and promote it with patronage, but it was never going to reach the cowsheds or the fields. It would enjoy a little resurgence before television and when literacy spread, but now it is confined to school children and a small minority of adults. I have no hard evidence to back this up, but my suspicions are that if you were to look at that minority closely, it would be predominantly female (I cite this not in criticism). And of those engaging in poetry, many would be writing it (as an English teacher working with adults I regularly encountered ladies who brought in carrier-bags full of their poems), but very, very few would be reading it, and virtually none would be buying or reading poems written by others. Be brutally honest. When did you last purchase any poetry or pay to listen to it being read?
The post of Poet Laureate is an unnecessary anachronism. In some ways, like starting the day in Parliament with prayers, having an official compose art for public occasions, reflects values from a different age in a society that has moved on. Those public occasions are now celebrated in journalism, documentaries, news broadcasts, films, digital photographs, videos, blogs, and YouTube uploads. If anyone is writing a poem about them, the chances are that it will be the Poet Laureate writing, probably not out of choice, but out of compulsion. And in comparison to the millions who will see reflections on the event in the other media, virtually no-one will be reading what the Poet Laureate has written.
Poetry will survive. People will always want to express themselves. The internet now means that poets can publish online and preserve their work in a way that wasn’t possible even 10 years ago. But let’s stop pretending that the art form is important enough to merit official status and patronage. It is time to kill the Poet Laureate - the office, that is, not the person - and to move on.
Why do anybody write or read poetry? Good question. For me- who is a bit of an oddity, I have written poems since primary school and who has a treasured 1870 Tennyson’s works, which I have hardly looked at for years, but who would never part with it in a million.
I like the creative thought process that is involved with poetry. Sadly, because I had brainless English teachers who never bothered to ask me if I liked English enough to be given another chance to study Eng lit at O-level, having failed my mocks by 1%; my chance to study poetry formally just died with that decision, along with all the other classics as well.
Having said to myself, “ok then I must be thick and dim when it comes to English”, I never bothered to really try to read many more poems. I saw the poetry book bought as an investment, a piece of art, like a painting to be looked at occasionally, not hung on a wall but priced in a book case.
Then, someone dear bought me Rupert Brooke and I understood for the first time the brilliance of the formed word in prose. Since then I have given poetry further glances.
Little mini poems are sometimes published in magazines; I always look at these. The poems published are often wriiten by amateurs, they seemed more easy and gentle to understand and had more of a charm then serious, formal pieces in heavy tomes.
I do not agree that there should not be a Poet Laureate. Why ever not? It would be good indeed if poetry was given as imprtant and equal place to small Novellas at least.
If I had another million hours in my day, I would love to go back to college, study English, creative writing and poetry, just for learning and for pleasure. Then, if those teachers of mine were still alive, I could go back to them and say I had managed not to be written off all together in the world of words.
onethoughtfulwoman
It’s interesting isn’t it, that when working as an English teacher I ‘did’ a lot of poetry. And you can contemplate going back into education to study poetry in that context, but outside of formal education, I, and even you, would admit to not reading a lot of it and to being more interested in writing it. It seems that poetry is an art form that some people try to create, but hardly anybody is paying for it or reading serious stuff written by others.
I am reminded that when trying to work out what people think is important, don’t look too hard at what they say, but at what they do and where they spend their money. It seems as a nation that we may have a partial attachment to the idea of poetry, but when push comes to shove, we don’t really think it is that important. And for that reason, for me, the concept of a Poet Laureate (someone who gets paid to write poems for others to read) is a bit absurd.
Yes, I can see your point and it would be interesting to know specific sales figures, for say Hardy’s poetry to that of one of his novels. I bet since “Tess” has been televised the sales of his work have gone up, whereas I believe Wordsworth life and works were shown as a documentary recently and this perhaps did little for his poetry sales.
I think the whole point as well for me is how does poetry relate to real life situations people actually translate and understand.
I still have much ignorance in the mechanics of poetry,ie, in a nut shell and being quite crude by saying:
” What the-hell-is-he/she-on-about” when you read some lines of prose. It is Gooble-de-goop to me some of it. Ok, lots of it.
I understand why I enjoy writing it. Because you understand what sometimes strong emotions you are creating/conveying.
What I would like to know is this. What makes a poem turn from average, neat, nice to something brilliant that would sell and for people to want to read it?
onethoughtfulwoman
You wrote What I would like to know is this. What makes a poem turn from average, neat, nice to something brilliant that would sell and for people to want to read it?
The answer to that is easy. NOTHING. Nobody is buying poetry to read of their own free will. Well, I say nobody, but there are probably a few thousand, but no more. Schools and colleges, of course, are buying them for examination syllabuses, but very, very, very few members of the public are paying money for poetry. From a financial point of view, being a poet is a worse job than being a counsellor
Thinking man, how can you compare poetry to prostitution?
One a lyrical free flow of emotion and sentiment, the other a forced chore, one dimensional and cheap. Poetry is never cheap, but rich and dense. It has nothing to do with money or value, or doing a job!
okathleen
Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you say. The comparison was tongue in cheek and meant to be limited to two points: both have been around for a long time, and both have a minority following. I accept that they are different in millions of other ways
I agree that it does not seem a good use of public money to pay a Poet Laureate.
I have always struggled to understand the appeal of poetry. I find it very difficult to read for a number of reasons. I think it is the modern art of literature. I’m sure sometimes it is just a random assortment of words chucked together by someone.
For me, the problems relate mostly to my inability to read short lines of text. My head does not allow any flow - it either reads the lines as a shopping list or it treats them like a mathematical sum and tries to calculate an answer. Hopeless.
When I feel I really ought to read a poem (when someone puts one on their blog for instance), I find I can only do it if I take the line breaks out and read it as a block of text. And I presume that destroys the “beauty” of it all.
I wonder if popular music has rather taken the place of poetry in modern living. When I think of verses it is from songs. Lyrics do capture my imagination and move me more than books often do. And that is mostly down to the way they are delivered. In times past people experienced poetry through performers, not from reading it - maybe that is where we are going wrong. On the odd occasions I have heard poetry read then it has had more influence on me. Although I am often still confused - but it is more of a pleasant state of confusion.
Reluctant Blogger
I suppose in some ways the feelings you have about struggling to understand written poems reflect my own feelings about reading mathematical equations. Perhaps part of it is about being familiar with particular conventions?
I thought your point about popular music hit the nail on the head for me. Pop songs can appeal to deep emotion and express it and lyrics can have repetition and a lyrical power of their own. And of course, poetry started out as an oral entertainment round the fire at night for the masses.
It then evolved into a semi-elitist written form that nobody now bothers to read, though there is a wistfulness amongst some for pretending that it has a bigger place in society than it actually does. A few people still pay to watch ballet or opera, but, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, nobody anymore actually pays to read poems written by others.
Oh dear. Whatever poetry you had in you at the beginning of this post was dead and gone by the end of it. For a chap who styles himself athinking man, this was rather a thoughtless post: a dreary mixture of half-baked conjecture and the type of reductionism that sees the value of anything only in terms of its price - it’s book, if you like.
You are right in one respect, of course. Lots of people would rather write than read poetry - but this is inevitable side effect of a society that values instant reward and self-aggrandisement over lasting worth and contribution to the community.
Your assertion that poetry has never been a popular art form ignores the fundamental role that oral song, poetry, story telling, lyrical celebration has played almost universally in human history. And also against the ongoing popularity of poetry compliations, competititions, National Poetry Day.
There’s some truth in your argument that, if I can paraphrase, the tradition of poetry has become ossified in Examination Boards and the Institutional role of the Poet Laureate.
But real poetry - poetry that engages with the real world, that is examining its traditions and history and moving forward, confident and enthusiastic is alive and well. You can see it all over the place: in young performers at poetry slams and music festivals, in children’s books, in the work of the National Poetry Library. And what about the hard work, enthusiasm and dedication of the Children’s Laureate Micheal Rosen? Actually, the Internet is in general one place where poetry doesn’t work so well, but check out Rufus Sewell readiing Simon Armitage’s Into the blue on You tube - and then tell us that poetry isn’t relevant.
Quite frankly, the ignorance displayed in your post is insulting to the poets and enthusiasts out there working within a vibrant tradition. The role of the Poet Laureate may be something of an anachronism but it’s value lies in its assertion that poetry is important - so by all means let’s discuss reforming the position, making it more democratic - but let’s dispense with the tired and rather cynical argument that the only thing that matters is the number of books people buy, the number of column inches they create or the position on Google they attain.
Ed Rowe
We obviously live in very different worlds.
I also think you have responded to what you think I have said rather than what I actually wrote. My basic argument was not that poetry was not powerful to people, but that as an art form is has a limited and dwindling appeal. In the light of the latter reality, it seems absurd that we have a poet laureate and not, for example, a video czar. Poetry may continue to be important to a minority indefinitely (and that’s fine by me), but let’s not pretend that in the C21st it has a greater importance than the active numbers suggest.
As somone who has written and read poetry for most of his life, with equal amounts of pleasure, engagement, frustration and joy i find it a little gloomy that, to athinkingman (ooh..er) the final arbiter of how worthwhile poetry is is its perceived popularity in current society. Even if this were a strong argument (which it is not) it simply does not hold up to, even passing, scrutiny.
Poetry continues to engage audiences young and old…it has just changed a little. Poetry ’slams’ are hugely popular throughout the world with young people writing and performing interesting and challenging work. The route into this world is no longer a close reading of texts at school (if it ever was) but via hip-hop and rap poets such as Saul Williams (look him up at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/jbdp/) and Sage Francis. Previous generations have ‘rediscovered’ poetry in this way …see the beat poets and jazz for reference.
There are places to perform poetry in all large British cities…i read at one this month and will be reading at another next month. they are generally well attended by people who like to hear poetry.
There are also more mainstream examples of poetry’s enduring appeal. The two poetry anthologies ‘Being Alive’ and ‘Staying Alive’ are vital, engaging books which were best selling publications for Bloodaxe. incidentally they also provide an excellent introduction to modern poets for people who once loved poetry but have lost their way a little…athinkingman should give them a try…
Mark Foulkes
As with other critics you seem to be reacting to what you think I am saying rather than what I am saying. I am not saying that poetry is not worthwhile. I enthusiastically taught it passionately for over 30 years (and occasionally write it). And I am very happy to agree that a minority of people feel very passionately about it.
However, my posting stemmed from an absurdity. Poetry may be important and passionately pursued by some, but it is difficult to argue that it is anything but a MINORITY interest - if you doubt that, go into a shopping centre and ask 100 people if they have bought or read a poem outside of a classroom. And given its minority status it really does seem ridiculous to have a post about it enshrined in the Establishment.
Isn’t the “minority interest” idea a bit of an Aunt Sally? Since when were the streets full of people browsing slim volumes of verse en route to work, anyhow?
The Laureate, if I’ve understood, is there to speak for, to, with, on behalf of the nation, in an art form of which the British have been the world’s finest exponents. Whether 5% or 50% of the population read poetry every day is neither here nor there. You might as well abolish the chiefs of staff because not enough people are fighting regularly since they left school.
Find me a wedding, a Christening or a funeral where no poetry is spoken. That’s why we have as laureate: because in times of great need to express the inexpressible, the British have turned to poetry- their own or someone else’s.
A nation that cannot celebrate and institutionalise new poems would be a poorer one.
What did you think of the poem yesterday at the Obamination ceremony…?
http://www.okathleen.wordpress.com
okathleen
I haven’t yet heard it. I’m sure it was great. As I have repeatedly said, my problem is not with poetry, or even poetry on national occasions. It just seems an anachronism to have a publically funded post for a minority art interest. Does America have a Poet Laureate? If we are going to have a Poet Laureate why not have a Laureate for every other minority art interest - Opera? Morris Dancing? Video? While there may be support from within the artistic community for greater funding for the arts, presumably a line has to be drawn somewhere.