Folks,
As I’ve been doing lately, I will be keeping this short. This blog post will serve as a springboard for actual conversation. More often than not, we – the authors – are usually opening up a discussion board to the readers of our blog rather than reporting on our own insights; however, I’ve noticed that – again, more often than not – discussions don’t really happen. That’s ok, I suppose; after all, I’m assuming the readership of this blog is composed mainly of English majors and literature aficionados – many of which are introverts. Today is different, though. If you are reading this, I implore you to comment on the question I will pose today.
I read two articles today about the role of the poet and the role of the reader in “witness poetry.” I’m not going to get into what the article had to say, but I am wondering what you all think about the role of the poet and the reader. I know most of you all have read Roland Barthes and the structuralists, (haha, that sounds like an 80s pop band) so I’m sure most of you are familiar with the whole death of the author thing. For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that the author has a purpose aside from writing poetry. Let’s also assume that the reader is not the creator of the meaning behind the poetry. In short, let’s assume there is a sort of symbiosis between the poet and the receiver of the poetry.
So, what is the role of the poet? What is the role of the reader of poetry? What is the nature of the relationship between pet and reader? Does poetry in a historical context change the role of the poet and the receiver of poetry? I’m sure you all have thought about this to some extent, but if not, now’s the time. Please let me know what you think about these sorts of questions. Are they even worth asking? Who knows.
I’m looking forward to your responses.
J
I believe that the poet should have some motivation behind what she is writing. There should be a sub-level of meaning.
ReplyDeleteI guess if I were to use an analogy it would be one that has been used by many writers over the centuries.
Words and style are to poetry what clothing is to the human body. With the meaning, the moral conclusion, the thing that makes a poem stand up and say "I'm fucking here, hear me ROAR (or whisper)!" being the body, i.e. the soul.
I've always found it curious that the most respected poets (the ones read in anthologies) are the ones with literary degrees behind their names. I've also had the fear that by choosing not to pursue these degrees and titles, I am in effect removing myself from the rat race which is canonical writing.
But I have come to see that the reason those poets with credentials are respected and published to a mass audience is because they have been trained to tailor the best clothing.
I mean, duh, the woman who has been studying the English language and reading tons of poetry and has her Ph.D, is going to be the one who’s the best amongst others without similar training; the one who knows all the tricks of the trade and writes poetry with great style and a strong message i.e. she has a great looking body.
This brings up an interesting point. That is, that it is not just the style/clothing that is important in poetry.
The body and soul of a poem are just as important when deciding whether something should be included in the canon or in serious literary discussions (like the ones that occur in the classroom).
Thus a poet must "workout" her meanings such that they appeal to a large audience and have all the definition of a finely chiseled bodybuilder. This in my opinion, is how we get 'A'rt rather 'a'rt.
A flabby man is less attractive, less impressive, than a man with defined arms and abs.
And I find this encouraging, because even though I am not going to have titles behind my name which would give me literary credibility, I do believe I am working out my “creative body” and developing a “literary soul” worth dressing up.
Now I know most of you who are reading this are probably going to grad school and earning those degrees which will give you creditability and will cause you to probably feel more qualified to write than those we don't have these formal titles. This may even come across as snobbish. (I don't believe Literature people are inherently snobby, just that they can tend to be insecure about the value and tangibility of their work in society and this causes them to separate themselves from those who don't value the written word and don't have titles).
My purpose is not to say that those degrees are not worthy or that there is no value in learning and reading literature. I'm just saying that maybe someone with an outside opinion can have something just as meaningful to add to the conversation, and critics should not cast out these people just because they are not highly-trained tailors,because at least for me,
Brad Pitt in rags, is still Brad Pitt.
What is most important to poetry is the meaning/body, which the poet crafts and transfers to the read. However one must look presentable or the first impression you give off will not accurately reflect what lies underneath and your readers will not want to discuss and share your work with others.
With Friendship and Love
-Barb