Skip to main content

Ideas In Poetry?

Much has been made, in the 21st century, in Britain, of the intersection of
"Science" and "Poetry".
Any number of known mainstream British poets are interested in science, the environment, and rational thought. Images and ideas gleaned from physics, math, and genetic science are interwoven into the writing of some of the best poems of respected, serious poets. Poets are expressively engaged with the dialogue between the varied fields of art, and science. Anthologies, books and collections of essays have begun to be published, studying, or at least discussing, how it may be that poetry can fruitfully interlink with the rational, intelligent progress of human "civilisation".

What, then, is the link, if any, between an idea, and a poem? In economic terms, what is the value added, by an idea, to a poem?

There is a rude fascinating paradox at the heart of these genuine questions - on the one hand, without a governing idea, or set of ideas, a poem (or text for some) can become merely vague, even lost, in something like pure language (or nonsense for some), So, some sense seems needed. But sense is not an idea, it is merely coherent argument. Ideas, in poetry, as in general life, can be good, or bad.

Let us consider a Cholera epidemic. The idea that the disease might be spread by a contaminated water supply is a good idea, in that, medically speaking, it is verifiable, and, if acted on, can save lives (by finding a new source of uncontaminated water).

Poetry doesn't work like that. Yeats had many "silly" ideas, Auden tells us, about gyres and history, and the occult, that seem outdated and basically useless. Auden's ideas, strained through Marx and Freud are of historic interest, but are not entirely sound, today. Wallace Stevens had ideas about the imagination that may not be correct. Claudel, too, had offensive political ideas, as did Pound. No banker using Pound's economic ideas would get a City Bonus in 2007. In short, the ideas contained in poems cannot be used to cure people of disease, or plan or man trajectories to any planet, cooling or otherwise. But, these poets wrote great poems. Poems may play with, elucidate, explore, or dance around, ideas, but they do not, in themselves, constitute ideas.

Poems, in short, are not ideas, but things.

And yet, poets, being human, sometimes have ideas. Where to put them? It would be a strange poet, indeed, who never considered introducing a poem to an idea. The odd thing is, it seems apparent that, it doesn't matter what the idea is, in terms of the success of the poem, so long as the idea is strongly-held, and presents a rich field of symbolic possibility. Ideas, as far as poetry goes, are interchangeable, so long as they add interesting words, and allow the mind, and emotion, to enter into those words, charging them with vitality.

So is it the case, then, that ideas are a delivery system for whatever it is - the green fuse? - that keeps poems moving, long enough for them to succeed. In this way, poems are (metaphorically?) like strands of DNA - facilitators that aid in the continuation of some greater, living thing. Just another idea, of course.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more