Evaluative Criticism

[Jim]

The other day I came upon this quote from the poet Vernon Watkins:

"I consider destructive criticism worthless as far as poetry is concerned, and evaluative criticism worthless too. Out of the vast body of poetry that exists I recommend you to read what you like most. Read one poet at a time....Poetry deserves concentration, and it cannot get this in an anthology where different talents jostle for a place in your mind."

I think he's saying it doesn't matter whether a poem is 'good or bad' (evaluative criticism), but whether a poem strikes a cord with us and we like it. That's the true test, the touchstone, and we all have different tastes and different touchstones.

Jim

[Macavity]

Hi Jim,
I have learned from responses to poems. I have used those responses to experiment. However, we are all different and tastes are subjective.

best

Phil

[Leaf]

Yes, I've learned a few things too

Jim, which poets do you like?

Best wishes,
Fliss

[JJHenderson]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't received more responses in the recent months... maybe this subforum isn't frequented much? Anyway, I almost agree with Watkins's quote. Here's my view on the role of evaluative criticism: there's a lot of poetry (and other art) out there. People's time is limited, they can't read it all. Evaluative criticism, especially when it comes from people who share your tastes/standards, is a good short-hand for finding things you'll like. Evaluative criticism, whether explicit or implicit, is largely what's behind the formation of canons, and canons matter as they shape the poetry people are exposed to, which shapes the kind of poetry that's written and liked.

That said, I agree that as criticism evaluation is meaningless. A critic's role is, first-and-foremost, understanding of what a poem or any work of art objectively is. In very broad strokes, they should know what genre it belongs to, what are the techniques being used, how does it compare/contrast with similar examples, what is being said an how does the way in which it's said contribute to that. This is not an easy task, and is as much a skill as the creation of art is. That's the other thing; evaluative criticism is easy and everyone can do it. It's no more difficult than making a yum or yuk face after trying a new food. Real criticism requires knowledge, patience, practice, experience, insight, and something of a scientific mind-set towards breaking down art into its constituent pieces and understanding how it functions.

I also agree that the best way to experience poetry is time dedicated to our favorite poets. All my favorite experiences with poetry were days/weeks/months spent immersed in a poet's oeuvre. Anthologies are valuable as samplers in pointing a reader towards the poets they may like. I also think that great critics can help point you to favorite poets, those you want to model yourself after. I discovered James Merrill thanks to Helen Vendler, and reading him instantly made him my primary model for my own poetry. Of course there's the classics from Milton to Yeats to Blake to Shelley to Stevens to Dickinson to (more recently) Ashbery, but I don't know if I would've ever come across Merrill if not for Vendler as he's not a fixture in most anthologies. That's a shame as his Lost in Translation (not to mention the book-length The Changing Light at Sandover) is as good as anything else I've read from the last century of poetry.

[Leaf]

Hi JJ,

Yes, this area of PAT tends to be fairly quiet, on the whole. As you know, I'm not blessed with much time I can dedicate to favourite poets, otherwise I might be minded to give it a proper go. Before I worked in Economics, I regularly took on jobs in the field of Literary Criticism; of course copyediting and proofreading isn't the same as being a critic myself, but it's possible I picked up a few things. I've also edited poetry, which was about figuring out the poet's aims and making suggestions based on what they want to do rather than what I think they ought to be doing. As I've never had much in the way of a back catalogue, I've just relied on intuition and/or simply asking the poet about their aims where this has been possible

Best wishes,
Fliss

[Macavity]

'what they want to do rather than what I think they ought to be doing'

Exactly Fliss. I think we've agreed on the 'empathy' approach in reading. Some readers fear to misunderstand and default to 'tick-box' critique.

[Leaf]

Yes, great minds, MacPhil

After quite a few years on workshop sites, I've come to recognise certain ways of critiquing poetry that do a little disservice to the poem at times, I think. I should add that PAT is different in that respect, which is a relief

Bw,
Fliss

[JJHenderson]

Short on time today, but one thought on this that occurred to me is how many mistake a narrowness of tastes for good taste. There's a difference between discernment and blind-spots, and many (probably most) don't know how to tell the difference; nor how to distinguish "good tastes" from "contemporary/majority tastes." Empathetic reading/criticism, if it's genuine, knows the difference, and doesn't hide its own failures behind check-boxes. Likewise, many mistake jaded cynicism for being cool. It's not, it's just sad.

[Leaf]

No worries about being short on time, JJ; I know the feeling! Those are interesting thoughts on taste, especially re. discernment and blind-spots. I suppose check-boxes might provide a safe way to respond where a person isn't entirely confident about being themselves, in any environment.

I can't think of a time I've been cynical; to me, it just looks like a pose, or a retreat from engagement. Perhaps it's another check-box in itself, if that makes sense at all

[JJHenderson]

Hi Fliss,

In response to your older post, I think I took for granted that many who write poetry would have as much time and energy to spend on reading poetry. Back when I was sewing my cinephile oats and writing film criticism daily it often seemed to me that those who made films were often as much cinephiles themselves (especially those like Tarantino and Scorsese) as they were filmmakers. It's been surprising to find how that might not always hold true for poetry (though I very much sympathize with a lack of time! Even with my sometimes-abundant free time I have but a fraction that I would need to fully pursue all my interests).

It's cool that you picked up on criticism from reading it in your copyediting/proofreading. To me, I can't remember a time I wasn't seriously engaged in criticism of some sort, even from my earliest childhood of reading "reviews" of films in the back of the TV Guide and wondering who had the authority to rate films on a 4-star scale and how they managed to cram a 120-minute plot into a 20-word synopsis. My critical engagement has both informed and grown alongside my other engagements in the art, including writing poetry.

As to your latest post, yes, I think we're in agreement. I do think cynicism can be genuine, but I wonder how healthy it is. I've often said that most things in art boil down to the two very abstract poles of expectation and novelty (or pattern and surprise), and that people radically different tolerant levels for both. I seem to have been blessed (or cursed, I can't tell) with an extremely high tolerance for both poles, capable of appreciating art that works primarily in either mode. it's another thing that makes me feel like a very odd duck among the badling of art appreciators and enjoyers. Anyway, that's a tangent to say that I think cynicism often stems from a low tolerance for too much pattern, too much familiarity. Of course, that familiarity of patterns is also relative to how experienced we are in something, and many will assume the "pose" of cynicism to make it seem as if they have that experienced and are (to turn valley girl for a moment), "like, soooo over it."

But I agree with the spirit of not being cynical, no matter how much experience I gain. I hope to always have the same passion for the arts I had when I first started my journey and everything was brand new and fresh. There's so much out there in such variety to enjoy and it's awful to lose the spark of that passion to cynicism.

Sorry for the novel.

[CalebPerry]

This is an interesting topic. I wonder why I didn't see it last December.

Like Phil, I have been helped by criticism, but it must be criticism given by someone who has tried to see my vision for the poem I have written. I have spent a lot of time on forums over the years, and there was one incident in particular that I remember (not on this forum). Another member started out his critique by saying that I still didn't understand [yada yada yada]. I don't remember what it was I didn't understand, but clearly he meant his idea of what good writing is. He was one of those poets who believed that as much of a poem as possible must be implied. But I just don't write that way. I like to say what I mean, but to say it in a way which is beautiful.

On my blog, I wrote an article on current poetic trends. Obscurity is such a trend, and when I say "obscurity" I mean poetry which may not be much more then gobbledygook. In order to critique a poem, you have to have references that you can use to make your criticisms. Writing gobbledygook is one way that some poets protect themselves from criticism -- I mean, how can you criticize something that is totally incomprehensible? That is why I have so much admiration for poets like Fliss who work very hard to make their poems comprehensible (despite my recent comment on one of your poems which was not so complimentary). Writing clearly leaves you open to criticism because your objectives in your poetry are immediately obvious to everyone, since everyone can understand it. It's also why all my favorite poets write in an utterly clear style. Writing a beautiful poem that is clear AND good in all respects is very hard.

In terms of giving criticism, I don't usually weigh in on a poem if I don't understand the poet's intentions in the poem, and if I don't like the poem at least a little. That's why some poets don't get few critiques from me -- I don't grasp their poems well enough.

[Leaf]

Hi JJ and Caleb,

Just a quick response for now, to say thanks for your responses, which are very interesting to read. Unfortunately I've left it too late to comment now, and i'm on my way to bed in the next 5 mins or so, but I'll try again soon!

Best wishes,
Fliss

[Leaf]

Back again, back again...

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan! Now, writing and reading poetry. It's possible that I'm unusual in my practices and non-practices. If I didn't have to work such long hours, I would definitely spend more time reading poetry. Ah well.

Yes, I've been a bit of a sponge with my work, I think. But the criticism element in copyediting and proofreading has always felt more like mentoring to me. I enjoy looking after authors, making sure I do my best for them. It's often an anxious time, going through all the stages of book production. My role is to smooth the way.

I like those abstract poles, expectation and novelty. My mum has a book titled The Shock of the New; it's about art, but I imagine there are parallels with poetry etc. I just love patterns, I suppose, and I don't feel a need to pose in any way; life really is too short for that sort of thing. I like the valley girl moment there!

There is a lot out there now, so much variety. If I had time to read poetry, I think I'd enjoy shifting between met and non-met, but I'll always prefer my rhythm 'n' rhyme. No need to apologise for the novel! I've written one myself

- - -
Caleb

Hi Caleb! Perhaps you didn't see the thread because it just slid down the board.

Often I get the impression that people comment just to be contrary, to bring others down. I'm not talking about here, of course. I do my best to get inside a poem, to figure out how I can best help. I don't always succeed, but the effort is there.

I'd really like to read that article on your blog, as I'm interested in the thought that obscurity can protect against criticism. Thanks for your appreciation of my poetry! Clarity just seems to come naturally to me, rooted in the aim to make my poetry accessible. When I come across an obscure poem in a workshop setting, I use a bit of intuition to try to understand it, to find my way in


Best wishes,
Fliss

[JJHenderson]

Hi Caleb,

I agree with you that for criticism to be helpful it come from those sympathetic to your aims and willing to help you get it to where you want it rather than from them imposing their own tastes/standards.

I think it's fine that you have a preference for clear and beautiful poetry. Much of the poetry I love best is clear and beautiful too, but I also think there's room for obscurity. Obscurity can come from many sources; it can come from originality, in which audiences simply aren't used to what's being written or how. It can come from authors writing on rather erudite subjects, like Geoffrey Hill often does. It can come from styles more concerned with unconscious aesthetics of effect than clear meaning, like most surrealism is. It can can come from authors having very unique perspectives and wrapping them up in rather dense metaphors/allegories. Sometimes obscurity can come from mixing many/all of the above. I've been reading Ashbery and I think most of his obscurity stems from all of these sources; though once I keyed into many of his themes I started finding him much less difficult. Wallace Stevens was similar.

Personally, and I've said this before elsewhere, I think there's a beauty in both the discovering of meaning and in what's discovered. It often mirrors, for me, the truth/revelations one comes to in life from thinking about things. I don't think people should feel obligated to like difficult/obscure poetry, but I would like to quote this from an interview with Geoffrey Hill where he spoke eloquently on why difficulty (which I think is synonymous with obscurity) is often warranted:

INTERVIEWER

What comes up often in reviews of your work is the idea of an overly intellectual bent; in recent reviews of The Triumph of Love, often the word difficult comes up. People mention that it’s worth going through or it isn’t worth going through.

HILL

Like a Victorian wedding night, yes. Let’s take difficulty first. We are difficult. Human beings are difficult. We’re difficult to ourselves, we’re difficult to each other. And we are mysteries to ourselves, we are mysteries to each other. One encounters in any ordinary day far more real difficulty than one confronts in the most “intellectual” piece of work. Why is it believed that poetry, prose, painting, music should be less than we are? Why does music, why does poetry have to address us in simplified terms, when if such simplification were applied to a description of our own inner selves we would find it demeaning? I think art has a right—not an obligation—to be difficult if it wishes. And, since people generally go on from this to talk about elitism versus democracy, I would add that genuinely difficult art is truly democratic. And that tyranny requires simplification. This thought does not originate with me, it’s been far better expressed by others. I think immediately of the German classicist and Kierkegaardian scholar Theodor Haecker, who went into what was called “inner exile” in the Nazi period, and kept a very fine notebook throughout that period, which miraculously survived, though his house was destroyed by Allied bombing. Haecker argues, with specific reference to the Nazis, that one of the things the tyrant most cunningly engineers is the gross oversimplification of language, because propaganda requires that the minds of the collective respond primitively to slogans of incitement. And any complexity of language, any ambiguity, any ambivalence implies intelligence. Maybe an intelligence under threat, maybe an intelligence that is afraid of consequences, but nonetheless an intelligence working in qualifications and revelations . . . resisting, therefore, tyrannical simplification.

A final thought on this is that I think both clarity/simplicity and obscurity/difficulty have different virtues, challenges, and pit-falls. I'm not against either, but in either case I have different standards for judging them. In clear poetry it's often just a matter of how well the technique accomplishes the goal; while with obscurity it's often a matter of whether there's something there that stirs my intuitive imagination to try and decode it. I'm also not sure I agree that obscurity protects against criticism. Ashbery has been lambasted by many critics for his obscurantism, and I get the feeling reading much of his poetry that he often wants to be understood but that he's often merely writing about very difficult things like the ambiguities of time and being, things that are often very counter-intuitive to humans.

***

Hi Fliss,

One thing I've tried to make it a habit of doing is always having a book of poetry near me so even if I have a spare minute or two I will read a poem or two, doing it on bathroom breaks, while waiting at doctor's offices, etc. You might be surprised by how much you can get read by filling these "waiting times."

I love that you've gotten to be a mentor to aspiring writers. I've often felt the one thing lacking in my life has been a good mentor. My parents are good people but they were ill-equipped to mentor such a strange child/teenager as myself.

One book I do know on that pole as it relates to poetry is "Structure and Surprise" by Michael Theune. I own it but haven't read it yet. It's a priority though.

I agree that rhyme and rhythm poetry will always hold a special place in my love for poetry, probably because of my love for music.

[Leaf]

Hi JJ,

Well, I don't tend to spend much time on bathroom breaks, lol. As I think I've mentioned, I can listen to audiobooks while attending to some work tasks, but my mind gets fired up about poems I could write myself, which is a bit of a distraction! I do usually take a book to medical appointments, but there's always at least one person in the waiting room who wants to chat to me, and I'm happy to oblige.

The people I work with probably wouldn't describe themselves as aspiring writers. They're academics and not short of confidence, even as they make a complete mess of things, lol. Well, they're not all like that, of course. One Bill Dembski came pretty close to perfection, I recall. I have worked as a mentor in copyediting and proofreading, though, for people hoping to enter the profession. And my mother oversaw my first attempts in publishing when I was in my mid-teens. Other aspects of my existence were rather impossible

I hope you enjoy your book. I think there's a strong connection between r 'n' r and music, and mathematics as well as patterns in languages, and so on. It all fits for me.

I am going to TFT (The FInishing Touch) soon, with another r 'n' r poem

Bw,
Fliss

[CalebPerry]

Fliss, here is the article on my blog. I am not an academic, so I'm sure more educated people will find problems with the article. I put no research into it -- it is pure opinion:

https://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2017/ ... rends.html

JJ, I can tolerate some obscurity when a writer is speaking from his or her emotions. Of course, to write good poetry, you have to write from your emotions, but there are degrees. Writing from one's emotions can result in stream-of-consciousness type poetry, but can also result in highly creative language which speaks to the emotions more than the intellect. I tend to see poetry as being a close cousin to prose. I like to call it "beautiful prose". For me, the one thing that prose must always be is clear. Thus, clarity for me is central to all writing. Frost was always clear, except for those moments when he was purposely obscure in order to convey a double meaning. I strive to be as clear as Frost (without, of course, imitating him). When I'm reading a poem, and I have to stop and figure it out, I tend to think that the poet has failed.

Here is a poem by Rhina Espaillat which requires some interpretation, and is therefore a little obscure, but she was employing a particular technique:

Evan Breathing

Evan, nine months old, round eyes
still wavering from brown to gray,
interrogates the telephone
without a syllable to say.

His father pleads for us who wait,
eager, invisible, all ears,
two hundred thirty miles behind
the world that Evan sees and hears.

“Say ‘Hi’ to grandma and grandpa,”
our firstborn coaxes for our sakes,
as if his love could galvanize
some tenuous wire that absence breaks.

Astronomers who comb the sky
for signs that this or that is true
live on the static of the stars,
and tabulate, and make it do.

Evan, your breathing is all we sense,
minutely bridging, puff by puff,
the miles, the days, from there to here.
It isn’t much. But it’s enough.

Rhina P. Espaillat

It takes a little bit of reading to figure out what's happening in the first few stanzas.

[Leaf]

Fliss, here is the article on my blog. I am not an academic, so I'm sure more educated people will find problems with the article. I put no research into it -- it is pure opinion:

https://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2017/ ... rends.html

Thanks, Caleb! I've bookmarked the article and I look forward to reading it

Bw,
Fliss

[JJHenderson]

Caleb,

I read your article. My issue is that I feel like you're trying to project your personal tastes into what you feel should be objective standards for poetry, and that just doesn't work either for poetry or any other art form. It's similar to the debate that exists in modern classical music between the "conservatives" who love most pre-Modern classical music because it was "clear" and "easy to follow" and contemporary classical that's "obscure" and "gibberish." The problem is that in both classical music and poetry that isn't true. There's been difficult, obscure examples in both for almost as long as each has been around. In some cases, it's just old enough and been copied enough that we don't feel it as much now. In some cases we do: William Blake's visionary works are as difficult to parse now as ever without a guide, as is Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. It may be the case that "obscurity and difficulty" are much more common/dominant now, but that's just the trend/fashion. Trends/Fashions come and go, which is why I always try to take broader views.

As I said in my last post, it's perfectly fine that you like clear, relatable poetry as a matter of personal taste, but that's all it is: a personal taste. I guarantee that much of what you read as "gibberish" has meaning to the poets that wrote it; and that there's actually a place for a lot of gibberish poetry as well, even accessible gibberish like The Hunting of the Snark, Jabberwocky, and much of EE Cummings's poetry, but also including a lot of surrealism. Yes, Eliot was massively influential in popularizing much obscure poetry, but even Eliot doesn't seem as obscure now as he was a century ago; there's so much commentary out there that's unraveled much of The Waste Land and Prufrock and The Four Quartets. Ditto for someone like Wallace Stevens. I don't think it's wise to move from "a poem's meaning is obscure" to "that poem is gibberish and lacks meaning." My attitude is that when I encounter poetry whose meaning/purpose I don't understand is to assume the fault is with myself (it's not even really a "fault;" all humans are limited in what we know and can know); and then whether or not I decide to take the time to work at understanding the poem will entirely depend on how much it fires my intuitive imagination about doing so. Blake, Merrill, Stevens, Ashbery... all poets who do precisely that. There are plenty of obscure poets/poems that don't do that for me, but every time I've endeavored to better understand a poem/poet I've liked I'm emerged the richer for the effort. I understand many don't care to put in that kind of work, preferring poetry that's accessible, instantly gratifying, and yet still long-term gratifying as well. Many of my own favorite poems are like that as well.

I also fundamentally disagree that good poetry comes from the emotions: not even the romantics thought that. Wordsworth said (paraphrased) that poetry was emotion reflected through contemplation, ie, not the emotion but what comes after. There's also the problem that you can't write "from" emotions sans technique, because there's a gap between feeling something and expressing that something so that someone else feels it; and that expression can be effective or ineffective whether or not the poet feels the emotion themselves or not. There's also plenty of poetry that appeals more to the intellect, and I think that's fine too. I'm often more inspired by intellectual ideas than emotions and feelings, though I certainly think there's room for both. I also think poetry is more than "beautiful prose," because the only real key difference between prose and poetry is the form. Sometimes that form is beautiful (like with the "music" of rhythm and rhyme), but not always. Prose can be just as beautiful as poetry, and it can be just as difficult as poetry: Henry James Joyce, Henry James, Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner... just some examples of people who wrote beautiful but often very obscure prose.

As for that Espaillat poem, I honestly don't see much obscurity there. It's all about how Evan, the son, is the link between the father and N, the mother, who are separated from each other. My only issue is that the "galvanize / some tenuous wire that absence breaks" is hard to parse since galvanize can have three different meanings and they don't all cooperate here: either "excite to action" (doesn't work literally with the wire), "electrify" (would work with wire, but not if the wire is broken), or "coat with zinc (doesn't really work with wires, but might work in the metaphoric sense of "make stronger"). Maybe it's meant as something like "coat in order to make stronger so that it can be electrified," which is nice but it requires a lot of work on the reader to put together. Regardless of how obscure it is/isn't, I do agree that rhyme and rhythm like she employs can make poetry, even when obscure, more fun; but I also think "surprising images," which you lambast in your article, can do that too, and DO do that for many. Personally, I think the imagist dictum is a bit played out by now. I love images but I do think poetry is capable of much more than just painting striking word pictures.

I have a theory that as societies have trended more towards safety and the knowledge of science art has tended more towards difficulty because people feel rather comfortable/safe in their own lives that art, for them, serves as a balance, as the "surprise," to life's more predictable nature. Before the 20th century, life for so many was brutish, chaotic, and short. Art was valued because it produced an order, even if it was an artificial one, to be an oasis among the chaos. The further we move towards safety as a society, the less we need that sense of order and security from art. Obviously, not everyone will feel like that, but I do think in terms of why the larger trends are what they currently are, that might be one reason why. Still, I don't think you need to try to denigrate obscure poetry in order to elevate clear poetry. I do share your frustration in wishing there was more clear poetry that was more popular in major literary publications, but even major literary publications are but one very small part of all the literature that's out there, and there are other places that are publishing clear poetry. Fliss I know is publishing in many of them.

[CalebPerry]

As I said, I'm not an academic. I don't have a formal education, never having gone to college. If I were interested enough, I could re-read my article and then debate you point for point, but it wouldn't accomplish much. However, I will say this in defense of my article: If a poet is using a gimmicky technique the purpose of which is obvious, so much so that the technique stands out like a sore thumb, then I think the poet has written poorly. I explain why I think each author used gimmicks in writing their various poems, and to the extent that I can identify the gimmicks, I think their writing is poor. And when I say "gimmicks", I don't mean normal techniques like rhyme and meter. Always changing your indentation from one poem to the next in order to give the impression that each poem is unique (as Graham does), that's a gimmick. I also see Bruce Bond's penchant for unusual images to be a gimmick because of the obvious ways he employs them.

Having had Covid early in the year, and now having had a cardiac event when I lifted my a/c, I don't have the energy for a long debate, and don't really care for long intellectual debates anyway.

When I first read Rhina's poem, I had to read it several times before I understood it, so that's why I included it as an example of a poem which is a bit obscure but for a good reason. (But then, my comprehension isn't the best. Maybe to someone of superior intelligence, it is clear from the first word.)

[Macavity]

Samuel Johnson blasted the "whole race of metaphysical poets": "The most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together; nature and art are ransacked for illustrations, comparisons, and allusions; their learning instructs, and their subtlety surprises; but the reader commonly thinks his improvement dearly bought, ..

Yep, 'obscurity' has long had a negative press. As always, just a matter of differing tastes.

Phil

[JJHenderson]

Caleb,

I'm not an academic either. Everything I know about poetry I've learned on my own. When I read a poem and don't understand it, I assume the fault is mine and then either try to understand it (if it makes me interested enough to), or move on if it doesn't and say it's not for me.

I will say that the more you read and analyze poetry, and read others analyzing poetry, the better you get at understanding poetry, even obscure poetry; it's a skill like any other that can be trained. It's not about IQ, it's about experience. To take an example, much of Ashbery isn't all that obscure to me. Why? Not because I'm a genius savant, but because I've read Wallace Stevens, whom Ashbery was influenced by; and I've read critics/academics writing on Stevens so I could understand him better, and I see the same themes (and even similar techniques sometimes) in a lot in Ashbery.

Nobody should feel obligated to train that skill, but I just don't like it when people condemn things they don't understand. Maybe Jorie Graham's formal techniques are gimmicks, or maybe she has a reason for all of them that you (and maybe I) simply don't understand.

I also understand if you don't want to to debate, all I would urge is that I think it would be better if you focused on extolling the virtues of clear poetry (which I would agree with) rather than denigrating obscure poetry, and those who like it and write it. The latter just makes it sound like a case of sour grapes. Live by the old cliche "be the change you want to see in the world," and maybe find journals who like/accept clear poetry if you want to publish. I'm sure Fliss could make some good recommendations on that front.

[Leaf]

Hi Caleb,

I enjoyed reading your blog; tastes do vary a lot in poetry world, and I'm sure there are plenty of blogs in favour of obscure poems too. People have different types of brain, different cognitive abilities, and some types are just better suited to understanding obscure things. I emphasise 'different' because I don't think there's a superior type; it's just a spectrum. It interests me that you describe yourself as 'literal-minded'; I think that could be key?

And yes, you and I aren't in the best health, let's say, and of course that impacts upon our energy levels. I'm sure I've mentioned that I'm on morphine, which is notorious for causing drowsiness. There's also the matter of how people like to spend their time. I'd much rather spend a spare hour writing poetry than debating it; that's just a taste thing too

Bw,
Fliss

[JJHenderson]

Hi Caleb,

I enjoyed reading your blog; tastes do vary a lot in poetry world, and I'm sure there are plenty of blogs in favour of obscure poems too. People have different types of brain, different cognitive abilities, and some types are just better suited to understanding obscure things. I emphasise 'different' because I don't think there's a superior type; it's just a spectrum. It interests me that you describe yourself as 'literal-minded'; I think that could be key?

And yes, you and I aren't in the best health, let's say, and of course that impacts upon our energy levels. I'm sure I've mentioned that I'm on morphine, which is notorious for causing drowsiness. There's also the matter of how people like to spend their time. I'd much rather spend a spare hour writing poetry than debating it; that's just a taste thing too

Bw,
Fliss

All very well said, Fliss, and I 100% agree. "Different strokes for different folks."

[CalebPerry]

I wrote that article five years ago. I was in a mood to criticize. If I went over it today, I might decide to revise the article. I've never been the most open-minded person, and I'm happy with that. However, hearing that you don't find Ashbery too obscure because of your familiarity with Stevens does strike me as interesting.

My problem is that I am old and tired. I'm exhausted most of the time. I got irritated with your previous comment because I don't have the energy for esoteric debates. Even when I was young, I didn't have much energy for that, especially when I'm debating someone I'll never meet. I'm not a person who questions all of my assumptions. I admire people who do that, but all my energy has been focussed on finding happiness in an otherwise unhappy life. Clear poetry is one of my great loves and makes me happy. Poetry that I have to work hard to understand does not.

That article was a rant. I see now that referring to the kind of poetry I was describing as "gibberish" may have been a mistake. To intellectuals, that is name-calling, which is poor form in any debate. I was showing my contempt in that article, not trying to be fair. I must say, however, after skimming through it right now, I am still contemptuous of the authors whose poems I quoted.

I did name Ashbery once in the article, but I didn't analyze one of his poems, so perhaps we shouldn't spend too much time debating him. And I didn't name Stevens at all. I've read poems by Stevens that I like, "Sunday Morning" in particular.

Fliss, I am so sorry to hear that you are on morphine. I'm sure that must affect your writing. Your life is full of challenges.

[Macavity]

I emphasise 'different' because I don't think there's a superior type; it's just a spectrum

I like your word spectrum Fliss!