In a surprising "comeback kid" moment that may have been partly inspired by the show of human tears (in an artificial way), Hillary Clinton has narrowly beaten Barack Obama into a winding, wounding second place (thought it should be recalled Bill only came in 2nd in New Hampshire himself, before going on to the presidency). What this seems to show is that Clinton has the machinery to get votes on the night. Looking at the numbers, Obama still appeals more widely, especially to Independents, who may yet decide the overall race for the White House - the question is, will the Democratic party take the risk and go with the attractive outsider, or opt for the safer route and back Clinton (thereby handing the final outcome to McCain). Then again, McCain, who also won for his party last night, has problems of his own. His age, for instance. But his experience, and bravery, are second to none. The race remains close, and intriguing, even exciting. I am just sorry Obama was deprived of a defining, historic, Kennedy-style moment.
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. What do I mean by smart?
Comments