I'm new here, but wanted to bring this up for civil discussion (I've seen some of the opposite). My personal view is that for the most part, politics and poetry don't mix very well because (again, in my view) they seem like oil and water, and therefore aren't meant to blend together. I'm not so sure that a "political poem" is indeed not an oxymoron. It seems best to utilize prose for politics and not in some ways reduce poetry to something it is not meant to be.
All opinions welcome, but no assaults/altercations necessary.
This is what I have been saying all along. Every political poem I have had the misfortune to read has been rank rotten. Writing a poem is a very solitary, individual act whereas politics is for the collective and the weak. Political poems get praised for what they say and not for how they say it.
You will likely receive a pm warning you I am a troll and urging you to ignore me, that's what they've been doing to new members.
I sadly disagree with this.
Just read anything by our Poet Laureate Juan Felipe Herrera or by Carolyn Forche to see that poems can be both beautiful and political.
Here's one that also comes to mind by Rigoberto Gonzalez (whose recent collection I just finished reading):
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/57875
Another one by Ocean Vuong:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/detail/56769
But those are not political poems.
Thanks, Samuel and Arturo.
I do think it possible that politics CAN be infused into poetry, but it does require that poet to mine the poetics, if you will, from the politics. However, I don't believe that a "poem" centering solely on a political figure or stance is much to be revered.
At least not to me.
A poem literary about paying attention to politics:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/58028
Dave, you should read the 2 poems Arturo linked and tell me if you consider them political poems.
That last one linked is awful.
Political (and brilliant):
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/58377
Also political (and beautiful and brilliant):
https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/everyday-we-get-more-illegal
I'm going to read it again.
This section of the If You Are Over Staying Woke poem is decent:
"White the hydrangeas
Drink the white
Waterfall the
cricket songs
Keep a song mind"
The rest of the poem is crap.
I disagree, Sam. I think it's awesome.
On the larger point, the best way to approach politics in poems is "slant-wise." Come at the topic from the side or from behind. If you come at it straight on, you are likely to lose the battle. But that's what poetry does best, anyway -- poetry talks AROUND subjects, never ABOUT them.
I really don't consider the poems linked by Arturo political poems. What I am referring to are "poems" that, again, focus on a political stance or figure. To me, these smack of diatribe and propaganda, not what I consider the true concept of poetry.
The Riot poem is not particularly good (and anyone can start a riot and use that Luther King quote to try to justify it)
The Everyday We Get More Illegal poem has pretty turns of phrase but again I am not so sure it is a political poem, the title is political but the content isn't necessarily so. Take out the references to Indian and Mexican and you have this:
Yet the peach tree
still rises
& falls with fruit & without
birds eat it the sparrows fight
the desert
burns with trash & drug
it also breathes & sprouts
vines & maguey
laws pass laws with scientific walls
detention cells husband
with the son
the wife &
the daughter
they stay behind broken slashed
un-powdered in the apartment to
deal out the day
& the puzzles
another law then another
spirit exile
migration sky
the grass is mowed then blown
by a machine sidewalks are empty
clean & the Red Shouldered Hawk
peers
down — from
an abandoned wooden dome
an empty field
it is all in-between the light
every day this changes a little
yesterday homeless &
w/o papers Albert
left for Denver a Greyhound bus he said
where they don’t check you
walking working
under the silver darkness
walking working
with our mind
our life.
It has very little political content, it is more about banishment, rejection, isolation, alienation, these are not explicity political themes.
I'm enjoying this thread, it is an interesting discussion. I haven't enjoyed anything on Fictionaut for quite a while.
You don't think an migrant's feeling of isolation is political? You're joking right? o.O
I like this section of the RIOT poem:
The earth is a beautiful place.
Watermirrors and things to be reflected.
Goldenrod across the little lagoon.
The Philosopher says
“Our chains are in the keep of the Keeper
in a labeled cabinet
on the second shelf by the cookies,
sonatas, the arabesques. . . .
There’s a rattle, sometimes.
You do not hear it who mind only
cookies and crunch them.
You do not hear the remarkable music—‘A
Death Song For You Before You Die.’
If you could hear it
you would make music too.
In fact that could be a whole poem in itself, it's title could be In The Keep Of The Keeper.
"ou don't think an migrant's feeling of isolation is political? You're joking right? o.O"
Only if you mention migrant, feeling of isolation is not exclusive to migrants, that is where the poem would let itself down, that is what would make it political.
Found a great quote in a Poetry Foundation article about how all poems in some way are political:
"Plato wanted to banish poets from his Republic because they can make lies seem like truth."
Yes, the EWGMI poem as presented here is quite poetic.
I guess I feel the same way in general concerning those (very well-meaning) folks who strongly believe that sing-song "poems" are true poetry. I recently read some of this written by a good friend and had to refrain from being overtly critical. My response was very generic; I wanted to let them know how I really felt but knew that if I did their feelings would have been gravely wounded -- and that would not have served any good purpose. So it's fine for anyone to write "poetry" and to believe with no doubt that it is "poetry" -- it then depends on what happens next, e.g., a response.
And make it a lesser poem, because it singles out a particular group of people either for the purpose of sympathy or for the purpose of condemnation.
So this may beg a larger question: WHAT THE FUCK IS POETRY?
And: WHAT THE FUCK IS A FUCKING POEM??
"found a great quote in a Poetry Foundation article about how all poems in some way are political:
"Plato wanted to banish poets from his Republic because they can make lies seem like truth"
I understand this and have considered it myself but that is not the kind of political we are talking about.
Poetry is a spoken event -- hence the narrator of poems are called speakers. So just because the writer feels he has created poetry, doesn't make it so. Poems, if a spoken event, require a listen to engage with it to create meaning. So in that way I agree with you, Dave. But I disagree that poems can't be political. I don't see how anyone can read any of the poems I've listed here and not see politics.
And with that final post, I'm exiting the conversation, because, like poetry, I feel like I'm talking around a topic, and not quite breaking through.
Arturo, I have to again say that what I am referring to is a "poem" that centers on a political figure or partisan stance. Anyone can write about that -- and very well, in fact -- using prose. I just don't think it needs to be expressed via poetry. Let's reserve that for the arts not the politicians and their feverish followers.
Just a little anecdote:
I attended a "poetry" reading a while back in the west end of Glasgow, some middle class white female who was either a bank teller or a school teacher stood up and read out a "poem" about how much she was against racism, and it was just so cringe inducing , more so for the fact that she won some little prize for it, apparently at some poetry readings they give out a little prize for what they think was the best poem of the night. I had earlier read out a poem about the Bhudda and I just could immediately sense the collective hostility directed my way. I thought afterwards that if they had given me the prize I would have then thought there was something wrong with my poem.
I've attended a few readings like that as well. It seems that many times what is expected is "poetry" that pushes some sort of stance or movement. Isn't that what essays are for? Isn't that what people do at rallies and marches? So when someone gets up and reads (what at least I consider to be) a POEM about something other than the aforementioned, the response is many times rather one of apathy, and the "applause" is only given to be "polite".
When I say political poetry I am talking about the kind of crap you come across on Ted Speaks. Ted Speaks comes across a little like Jonestown minus the cyanide, unfortunately without the cyanide.
I just googled TS -- yeah, that's NOT poetry at all.
Also -- just because something "looks like a poem" and/or "sounds like a poem" doesn't necessarily make it poetry. That is the intrinsic debate. A duck isn't a fucking goose.
"I've attended a few readings like that as well. It seems that many times what is expected is "poetry" that pushes some sort of stance or movement. Isn't that what essays are for? Isn't that what people do at rallies and marches? So when someone gets up and reads (what at least I consider to be) a POEM about something other than the aforementioned, the response is many times rather one of apathy, and the "applause" is only given to be "polite""
EXACTLY, at last, someone who has had the same experiences as myself. The better the poem you read out the less likely they understand it, it is like you are talking in tongues and then you start to feel like one of the non-pod people from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Yes, and I think it's moreso true here in America than anywhere else. Americans, for the most part, have no fucking idea what POETRY really is, should be, or could be. And it's not necessarily anyone's fault, but instead is because we really have never fully understood the true meaning of it. Therefore, it's a lot easier to write something political, sing-songy, etc. and be satisfied that, alas, a poem has been written. And when this is met with any amount of criticism -- even the constructive kind -- the "poet" can typically become utterly insulted: "What do you mean this isn't a poem?"
But I do like Billy Collins. He takes everyday situations, emotions, etc. and somehow mines them for true poetics. I realize he has a lot of detractors, but let's face it, he was a US Poet Laureate, and has, I believe, contributed to the change (or beginning of change) in American poetry.
I worry constantly about whether what I write is poetry but I try not to let it get in my way. You get the feeling these kinds of people we are talking about never worry about stuff like that.
And I don't know about you but I find that the vast majority of stuff that gets printed and published is more like the stuff you hear at these "poetry" readings. People these days all write about the same things in the exact same way, there is no individuality in them. I'd rather try to write something different and fail at it rather than write something workshoppy and have it be printed. Most of the people who get their shit printed have MFAs in creative writing, I wrote a poem that got accepted in a magazine and I allowed myself a shot of pride when I saw in the bios that I was the only one that didn't have an MFA and my poem was the only one that rhymed, not that rhyming is a good thing, in fact it is often a bad thing, but that's exactly what made me feel good about it.
So now we're attacking people with MFAs?
I have an MFA.
I worked damn hard for it.
I agree, Samuel. I used to subscribe to Poetry Magazine. But as time went on I saw that they primarily published MFA-ers, professors, the academia crowd, editors, publishers, those who have a literary resume longer than my arm. Rarely do you see something by a nobody. I cancelled my subscription and let them know why. No response, of course. So I also don't care much for this either. I am a nobody.
And that is fine, Arturo. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I could never accomplish it.
Also, Arutro, no one is attacking anyone here. I certainly am not.
But apparently the people who have worked hard studying and writing in the medium you're critiquing aren't a good judge of what is or isn't poetry. I find this thread remarkable in the arrogance that neither of you (or anyone for that matter) get to say what is or isn't a poem. You can say it doesn't appeal to you. Or that you don't write in that particular fashion. But you don't get to say it isn't a poem.
What I am saying as to MFA folks: It doesn't take an MFA (or any other degree) to be a great poet. Some of the world's best poets have little or no formal education.
The definition of poetry is indeed very subjective. That is unfortunate but, sadly, true.
It's the elitists vs. the nobodies. I root for the latter.
Arturo, calm down, I like your work.
No one is saying having an MFA means a lack of talent.
Not getting to say what you think is a crap poem is part of the problem we are talking about. The PC crowd are in charge of what gets printed and what doesn't.
Just because someone took their writing serious enough to study for an MFA doesn't make them elitist.
Again, the arrogance here is astounding (especially for someone who cited Billy Collins, who has spent his entire life in academia).
"What I am saying as to MFA folks: It doesn't take an MFA (or any other degree) to be a great poet. Some of the world's best poets have little or no formal education"
Some? I'd say most.
I never said that an MFA is an elitist inherently. But some of them are, or can be. I'm glad you're not one. As for B.C., you are correct, but do you not agree that one would never know he came from academia by reading his work? I see him as one of the nobodies who happened to become very fortunate. And let me say this, Arturo -- there is no arrogance coming from me on anything here. I am very sorry you have misinterpreted my meaning and position.
"just because someone took their writing serious enough to study for an MFA doesn't make them elitist"
The publishers are elitist, not necessarily the writers themselves.
"Some? I'd say most."
I stand to be corrected.
Although a lot of them are.
It frightens me to realize that, as we speak, there are possibly millions of "nobodies" out there who are writing amazing poetry and fiction, yet are being drowned out via publishers by those who have "better resumes/bios".
So since I only have a B.A. and will never obtain an M.F.A., does that mean I am now doomed to inferior writing? I fucking hope not.
Arturo, do you think your writing would not have been very good had you not obtained the MFA?
If you want to know about arrogance Arturo I could tell you about the poetry night I myself organized and financed back in Sept last year, a little evil feminist harpie Germaine Greer lookalike turned up and tried to sabotage it, aided by her leftie friends. She was rude to me, tried to overtake proceedings, complained all night, stormed around the room and when it was her turn to read she demanded some old guy at the back of the bar shut up so she read out her little pearls of wisdom, he shut up and then she proceeded to announce in very smug tones that she was going to read out a poem about Edinburgh, a female member of the audience made a joke about how you can't read a poem about edinburgh in glasgow and she stormed off and refused to read it. At the beginning of the night she demanded that I change the running order so her transgender friend could read out a poem earlier than planned, her transgender friend (male btw in anatomy) turned up and read out a long monologue about she/he stood on the side of the sisterhood and how his/her "poem" was dedicated to the little evil harpie aforementioned. My neighbour friend stood by their little group and overheard them complaining all night, saying all sorts of stuff behind my back. They complained of a low turn out and accused me of not promoting the event well enough, even though I spent a day going around Glasgow putting up posters in bars etc. They obviously thought because they'd been published by their little leftie friends magazines that they had some kind of celebrity status and the low turnout must have been due to neglect. These people are published constantly (whereas I have had very few published) win poetry competitions on a regular (most likely because their pals are the judges), get held up like they are poetic geniuses etc and they are still not fucking happy, they are the epitome of smugness and arrogance. The poetry world, like the theatre world, is incest, and very few writers, if any, get printed on merit alone.
That is definitely sad and unfortunate. Arrogance in the name of Poetry, that most sacred endeavor. I fail to understand why folks like this seemingly insist on killing it without even knowing what they're doing.
I really do not wish to give this guy any kind of publicity but I am going to post this link to prove what I am saying is true, the people I mentioned ie my poetry night are the same people who push this guy as some kind of genius, he constantly wins competitions and has actually had 2 books of his "poetry" published:
Here is another
Slam poetry is for spastics, in fact I may use that for a title for a slam parody.
Slam poetry is for spastics
The draculas and the drastics
The organics and the plastics
The ghosts in the dusty attics
The lords and their semantics
The restless and the frantics
The impotents and the mantrics
The midgets and gigantics
The junkies and romantics
Slam poetry is for spastics
How's that for a first draft/start off point?
I will check these out later...the current powers to be would frown upon my partaking of such.
Slam poetry -- we purists all know that those two words are 100% oxymoronic. And moronic as enjoinders.
Slam poetry deserves nothing. The bottom line? IT IS NOT POETRY.
The vegans and the gastrics
The tropics and the arctics
The beatniks and the convicts
The rustics and their thumbsticks
The drumsticks and the lipsticks
The cowslicks and the deep-six
The metrics and the fabrics
The sidekicks and the psychics
The picnics and the pinpricks
The atomics and the bolsheviks
The italics the islamics,
The plumbers, the mechanics
Interior designers, pnuematics
Cryonics and ceramics, cathartics
and didactics, the acrylics
and arthritics, cock-eyed mystics
and their statistics, the gothics
and their gimmicks, the pedantics
and their panics, the anals
and the elastics, slam poetry is for
spastics
So here it is in full:
Slam poetry is for spastics
The draculas and the drastics
The organics and the plastics
The ghosts in the dusty attics
The lords and their semantics
The restless and the frantics
The impotents and the mantrics
The midgets and gigantics
The junkies and romantics
The vegans and the gastrics
The tropics and the arctics
The beatniks and the convicts
The rustics and their thumbsticks
The drumsticks and the lipsticks
The cowslicks and the deep-six
The metrics and the fabrics
The sidekicks and the psychics
The picnics and the pinpricks
The atomics and the bolsheviks
The italics the islamics,
The plumbers, the mechanics
Interior designers, pnuematics
Cryonics and ceramics, cathartics
and didactics, the acrylics
and arthritics, cock-eyed mystics
and their statistics, the gothics
and their gimmicks, the pedantics
and their panics, the anals
and the elastics, slam poetry
is for spastics!
I think it is right up there with the best of Stephen Watt.
Sekou Sundiata, a brilliant, in my view, poet of the slam world though that was only one aspect of his work. A reading/performance- "Blink Your Eyes". Also a political poem.
This is like Maya Angelou after a sex change operation with a glass of watered down Ginsberg and a sprinkle of Ted Speaks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P--wXaBpqgw
Compare it to Hart Crane's Brooklyn Bridge and Atlantis poems, not very good readings but still:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CbhHhG_FU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XchbjALQHwc
I think if Hart Crane had been African American he would be ultra famous today, atm he is and for a long time has been grossly neglected.
I'll try to look for better readings, it almost seems people are deliberately giving bad readings of Crane, if only he himself had made recordings.
More Sundiata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLyJ-kEjick
If he only resisted using the race card his "poetry" would be much better. There are actually great black poets but have been neglected due to the fact their work steers away from the fact they are black.
The work of ethnic poets suffer much in the same way as female poets do due to their fixation on on their gender, they are far too concerned with their colour of their skin, and I think they do it because it is easy, it's a cop out. They make a big deal about transcending cultural barriers and yet they make a living out of those same barriers.
Hart Crane was tortured due to his homosexuality and he ended up diving off a ship and drowning himself, yet read his work and there is no overt reference to his sexuality, this is why his work was great.
And there are a million Sekou Sundiatas out there being published and given publicity, Sundiata just happens to better than most.
I'm going to check out more of Sundiata's stuff though, see if I can find something that wows me.
This is quite good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0wX0ysrUg
Although it does have a hint of Ted Speaks about it.
This reminds me of my Slam poetry parody except Robbins makes it better because he doesn't race through it like the slammers usually do, video somewhat spoilt by the view of the leftie/feminist freaks in the background all pathetically trying to give the impression they understand the words and occasionally laughing at the parts they think they're supposed to laugh at:
Robbins should read out one of my poems and the poems of some other writers on here, he would be great reading my Intermission: New York City poem.
This is a creepy video, looks like it was filmed at the headquarters of some communist cult, quite a dull poem and at times I cringed, especially at the part about the car keys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su99Q1iM5Fw
This is the description beneath the video:
Split This Rock's mission is to call poets to a greater role in public life and foster a national community of activist poets; to build the audience for poetry of provocation and witness from our home in the nation's capitol; and to celebrate poetic diversity and the transformative power of the imagination.
Poetic diversity? They must be joking. And activist poetry? I have to laugh when I hear that term. All they are doing is wallowing in the pool of their own collective narcissim.
By all means these people should go on marches and scream until the cows come home, they can riot in the streets for all I care but they should stay away from poetry.
I think that most of them are mentally ill.
Until the Left (and it is something more than the Left, it is something a lot more sinister that doesn't have a name) stop getting art funds this will never stop, there needs to be something done about this because right now truly talented writers are being left out in the gutter in favour of these retards.
This is rotten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6OdK2pgXg
This is even worse than rotten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkUZ_ICKYNU
And check this piece of excrement:
A fucking awful reading of Plath's worst poem:
There are millions and millions of these examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxGWGohIXiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGzMUzrgzA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Tb_bZZDv0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wJl37N9C0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYAiYMlOCI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6CCePrJlaU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQucWXWXp3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPWwx96Kew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLSnNSqs_CQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJnJNcNKmC8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHJz8lxYaSA
If Sundiata had written this and read it out and it was put up on youtube people would be calling it genius, and there are parts of this I now cringe at this a little, that I would have written it a tad differently if I were writing it now, most likely because it does resemble slam in some way, and it did not receive even one comment here on FC:
Intermission: New York City
The liquid cognizance of this wide green sphere
makes my eyes water, my conscience cheer,
mademoiselle meridians swapping their places,
this is the moment when no one praises
and praxinoscopes like gods are at once everywhere
beyond the beyondness where dead minds stare
at transmitters transmitting an otherness that spills
a morality that drives its own engine of ills,
and all the houses of dolls with all their lights on
deny categorically an inescapable dawn,
mouths are closed, hands withdrawn.
Overdosing on certainty could destroy one's physique
says the Statue of Liberty (our tongue in her cheek)
Peering out at the music and architecture of chance,
from a distance she looks like she's dreaming of France.
The Bowery Park rats piss on newspaper print,
the evening dissolves, shades of primordial mint
scatter across the Hudson, in almost perfect pitch
immigrant ghosts sing, serenade Brooklyn Bridge,
even the souls of the Indians sing to Brooklyn Bridge.
Kaleidoscopes gather in the playground of elves,
where we are no one, other than ourselves,
and all the little girls and all the little boys
celebrate their pains, bemoan their joys.
Whispering amnesties and a dead demise,
monoliths invade arcades of eyes,
vagabonds on Broadway vomiting silence,
fear neon fatality, political science,
and all the Philip Marlowes and all the Mona Lisas
read the Wall Street Journal, drink margaritas.
Sub-electric sorrows masquerading as love
unanimous renounce below and above.
The Fifth Avenue poets say there's nothing to dread.
The ordeal is over, King Kong is dead.
As still down below as she is up above,
Manhattan waits like a mistress in love
with the waiting, her suitors fixating on the number 7,
believe heaven is hell, that hell is heaven,
that there are no intentions, only mistakes,
amid the roar of lions and the hiss of snakes.
To the strains of Walt Whitman and Thelonious Monk,
a voice discarnate vows to debunk
physical laws, mute premonitions,
cyclopean legend, Medusa like visions,
realities that plunge in un-whispering rhyme.
This is not history. This is not time.
This is the place where the fool must mime.
No eye sees these strategies of mirrors.
No eye sees what a truth disfigures,
it sees only itself, in a crystal chaos,
an explosion of privilege, a burst of pathos.
Babylon to Babylon. Atlantis to Atlantis.
Let us become like the praying mantis
or let us be hushed, pay homage to the sun,
bask in the brilliance of the number 1.
I also cringe at it a little because it is a bit too rhyme driven.
Youtube comment on one of the poems:
Mati_azz1 year ago
Where the fuck has poetry gone... Holy shit
It is disappointing -- and surprising -- that this topic has not garnered a lot more discussion on this site.
Are there only three people here who think it's relevant?
Might I nicely suggest not bashing other people's poetic expression? It's not productive.
Let folks be folks.
Spend more time worrying about your own writing, rather than complaining about what other people are doing.
Well, Arturo, I am most certain you have directed this to someone other than myself, seeing that not once have I "bashed" anyone at any time. I also have not "complained about what other people are doing." More precisely I have expressed my personal opinion as to 1) whether or not politics should or can be part of poetry and 2) what exactly "poetry" is. In doing so, I have not "bashed" anyone's "poetic expression." Evidently you still do not understand the point/thrust of this topic. Why don't you go ahead and remove yourself from this one and comment on something else? Or create your own thread?
Really? You haven't bashed someone else's poetic expression?
And I quote: "Slam poetry deserves nothing. The bottom line? IT IS NOT POETRY."
Arturo -- do you honestly believe that slam poetry is really poetry? You have an MFA. Don't you think that someone who writes/performs this and touts it as "POETRY" is at the least a bit confused and misled? Let's face it: Anyone can write something that "slams" something.
My point is this: Poetry in its most pure sense is not easy to write. If someone has no difficulty writing what they consider a "poem," then in my view it's merely drivel; anyone can do it. To echo Wallace Stevens: "(Poetry) can kill a man."
Arturo: Would you actually write a "slam" poem and go somewhere to read it?
It's fine that some folks defend themselves as to what they consider to be "poetry". But I think we all know that everything "poetic" or "poetic-sounding" is not necessarily poetry in its purist form.
Many wonderful younger poets started in slam or continue in slam.
Danez Smith
Wendy Xu
Morgan Parker
Again, you are not the arbiter of what is or isn't poetry.
And I have never heard of any of them. I am sorry, but it is still my opinion that "slam poetry" has no direct relationship to what poetry truly is, or can be.
And whoever said I was arbitrating anything? You seem to be doing just that yourself.
Another example of a performative poets would be Robert Pinksy or Langston Hughes. They all wrote with their poems to be HEARD first, not read. Slam is the same -- it's meant to be heard.
Please tell me, Arturo: What is poetry?
Then you need to read more.
And focus on writing.
No. Slam is NOT the same. Slam is NOT poetry. Slam is basically rap without the backup beat.
I read plenty, thank you. Just not pretend poets.
My answer to what is poetry is way up above. Poetry is a spoken event. It is a written piece that requires a listener (or reader) to help create meaning. As William Carlos William said, poetry is a small machine made out of words.
Danez Smith is not a pretend poet. Two books and a widely published: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/detail/58645
Morgan Park is not a pretend poet. Two books and widely published:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/detail/58052
Your writing is not impressive enough for you to make such a nasty declaration of someone being a pretend poet.
Well, then, I guess you and I will, as they say, agree to disagree. I am beginning to feel a little like James Wright.
And neither is yours, believe me.
It's amazing, too, since you have an MFA!
Hey -- you attacked me first.
Let me guess ... you hate Trump.
Can we PLEASE get SOMEONE ELSE to comment here?
I will add -- Do you think William Carlos Williams or Wallace Stevens or Robert Frost would approve of "slam poetry"? I truly think not.
Well, everyone, it appears I just got slammed by Arturo. What a way to greet a newcomer.
I would say most poems are meant to be read aloud/recited but Slam is something else entirely, Slam gives poetry a bad name.
SDR -- Yes.
And I truly do not think any well-intentioned MFA-er (except Arturo, evidently) would argue this point. Well, maybe a few would.
Many wonderful younger poets started in slam or continue in slam.
Danez Smith
Wendy Xu
Morgan Parker
Phrasis by Wendy Xu is pretty good I think.
Stilled as in image, at dawn sliding into
blue harbor, boats clang, where does he
the man I imagine gripping several ropes
return from. Is he conflicted, does he
perceive the sky oscillating like
a dimmer machine, a mouth, a war, language
not declaring its most
effective self, bellum grazing ever
nearer to beauty, a possible apotheosis how
what is left of sense
is comfort. Not inebriated much anymore,
I rented a lawn to stand in with you, crueler
was always singing to our mutual forks,
knives. Our translation
of a subject drones
on unblinking, something black for him
returning, his forearms there laid
themselves down, ships gone out another
pale-plated night.
Morgan Parker and Danez Smith on the other hand.........
"any wonderful younger poets started in slam or continue in slam.
Danez Smith
Wendy Xu
Morgan Parker"
was meant to be in quotation marks.
This is just self empowering therapy shit masquerading as something else:
Let Me Handle My Business, Damn
By Morgan Parker
Took me awhile to learn the good words
make the rain on my window grown
and sexy now I’m in the tub holding down
that on-sale Bordeaux pretending
to be well adjusted I am on that real
jazz shit sometimes I run the streets
sometimes they run me I’m the body
of the queen of my hood filled up
with bad wine bad drugs mu shu pork
sick beats what more can I say to you
I open my stylish legs I get my swagger
back let men with gold teeth bow to my tits
and the blisters on my feet I become electric
I’m a patch of grass the stringy roots
you call home or sister if you want
I could scratch your eyes make hip-hop die again
I’m on that grown woman shit before I break
the bottle’s neck I pour a little out: I am fallen.
I like it's reference to Whitman but I suspect her target audience know nothing of greats like Whitman, her target audience are those that would listen to/read her because of the simple fact she is black.
To me, these are like throwaway tunes by a band that only has one "good" song.
Fluidity is what I love most about poetry. It's never static because the writer and the reader will never interpret the poem exactly the same.
I think "Riot" is an extraordinary poem. It's full of passion and it excites. I see it as more a commentary on society than political but I understand how some may label it political. IMO, that's perfectly ok.
I do not care for blatantly political poetry because I read and write poetry for pleasure. I want to escape the constant bombardment of politics and protest. I don't want to read "protest" poetry. But that's me. I understand why others thrive on it.
As to what poetry is? It's whatever the poet and reader want it to be. I don't like "rules". I also believe a poet without formal education can write great poetry, even greater than one with higher education. Life experience is just as important. One of my fave quotes is by Patti Smith: "Technology has democratized self-expression." I say hallelujah to that.
Welcome, Dave.
And this is an example of the creepy leftie workshop templating:
alternate names for black boys
By Danez Smith
1. smoke above the burning bush
2. archnemesis of summer night
3. first son of soil
4. coal awaiting spark & wind
5. guilty until proven dead
6. oil heavy starlight
7. monster until proven ghost
8. gone
9. phoenix who forgets to un-ash
10. going, going, gone
11. gods of shovels & black veils
12. what once passed for kindling
13. fireworks at dawn
14. brilliant, shadow hued coral
15. (I thought to leave this blank
but who am I to name us nothing?)
16. prayer who learned to bite & sprint
17. a mother’s joy & clutched breath
Something anyone could do.
What the Left have done is they have given the reins over to the so called oppressed, women, transgenders, homosexuals, and people from ethnic backgrounds. They have become their enablers and hijacked the arts so such things as "poetry" are used as weapons to brainwash people, to make the young believe they are somehow more disadvantaged than everyone else, that their sexuality or their gender or their clubfoot or their cockeyedness has importance.
Their main perogative is to create political movements against their perceived enemes by means of the abuse of the arts.
Or under the guise of promoting the arts and diversity within the arts.
SDR is an asshole. Politics is certainly the purview of poetry as is any human experience.
SDR, don't agree, of course, with your view of Sundiata, but how everyone receives and views poetry is too individual to catalogue. We all like, we don't like, and so forth. No particular type of poetry - as in slam - gives poetry, as you say, a bad name. Bad pietry is bad poetry, but that will never be determined by form or genre. That, in my view, would be impossible, pointless. It's taste - not an absolute.
I will agree with you - call and raise, in fact, on your view of Hart Crane... but let me add that the US has only produced three or four other poets equal to the greatness of Crane.
And, David, "Slam is NOT poetry. Slam is basically rap without the backup beat." is really too much of a limiting over-simplification of your own poetic taste ... I can understand someone not enjoying certain works or writers. That's fine and expected, but saying slam is not poetry is a bit of a bridge too far.
Some might even argue that prose poems are not poetry. That's much too blind a view as well. Here are some prose piem collections I like: The World Doesn't End by Charles Simic, Poeta en San Francisco by Barbara Jane Reyes, and The Tunnel: Selected Poems by Russel Edson, Paris Spleen by Charles Baudelaire. Just thought I'd add prose poems to the mix.
Without politics, there'd be very little Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Sophocles, Euripides, or Aeschylus. All great, dead, white poets.
Sam,
I think Sundiata is very charismatic, I'll give him that. I agree poetry is subject to taste but I think the politics Dave and I are talking about is different from the politics everyone else is talking about. What would be your other 3 or 4 great US poets? Dickinson surely has to be one of them?
Dickinson - yes. Elizabeth Bishop. Jack Gilbert. William Stafford.
Natasha Teethewey is very close. James Wright and Charles Wright, also close.
That should be Trethewey. Sometimes my Kindle conspires against me.
What about Millay and Whitman? Wallace Stevens?
I'll check those out you mentioned, I need some poetic inspiration because I feel like I've been stuck in the same groove for quite a while.
Wallace Stevens is a pillar- strong, strong voice. Love his work, and could see him on my short list. Millay's poetry never appealed to me. Have read Whitman many times. Fascinating, though his voice and lines are loud - the polar extreme of Dickinson. I'm firmly in her camp.
Three poets I continually turn to - Lynda Hull, Larry Levis, Jane Hirshfield. Each of these could easily be near the top. They are as good as Stevens.
I spent years reading Pound and Eliot. I should add WC Williams. Strong poets - especially Williams. Also Adrienne Rich and Mary Oliver.
The most underrated, under-read US poet? Frank Stanford. He died young. For me, he was to poetry what Faulkner was to the novel & O'Connor was to short fiction. He is their equal.
I am on board with everyone Sam has named, especially Jane Hirshfield. I would add:
Frank O'Hara
John Ashbery
Frank Bidart
Edward Hirsch
Sylvia Plath
Anne Sexton
I go to all of these frequently, especially the latter two.
Due to being attacked here for simply expressing an opposing viewpoint, I will refrain from any further posts on this topic. One would think that a newcomer to any site would be treated in a fair manner and not be told to fuck off.
You might take a good hard look at the thread and the attitude you brought as a "newcomer." Presuming to be the arbiter of poetry is at best arrogant, and worst offensive, especially to those of us who may write in the mode you are disparaging. You might also realize that there is a wide spectrum of poetics and poetry schools that may not be in the genre you prefer to read or hear, but are just as valid as any other form you like.
The best way to talk about poetry is not to question whether it is or isn't poetry. Instead, you should look individually at the piece and question what the poet is doing or trying to do. Ask yourself, who is the speaker of this poem, what mask is he or she wearing, and for what ostensible purpose? Then maybe, once you get the bottom of what the poet is trying to accomplish on a high level, look at it on the micro level -- the music of the line, the music of the stanza, does the poem take any specific form or scheme, etc. But approaching a conversation about poetics by claim there is a "purest form of poetry" (whatever that means) and then claiming some other form isn't pure or valid isn't a productive or intelligent way to approach a discussion. Hence, the reaction you've received.
Thanks, Arturo, for your MFA-based bias.
And I do not recall asking YOU for a response in the first place.
Also, what is with the word newcomer in quotes?
Because someone you think being new to a site is a pass for your impertinence.
somehow*
Again, your MFA is parading itself. It appears now that this site has a clique, and that you're part of it. Too bad Jurgen couldn't have warned me of this beforehand.
Bravo, Arturo!
Ah, another clique member, I see.
We outnumber you, but we're not predatory. We just turn our backs on pompous assholes.
No one's pompous here but you and your pompous little band of predatory, pompous assholes.
This place is like no other -- once someone expresses an opposing viewpoint it is met with asshole remarks. People like this don't like it when someone disagrees with them, even in a civil manner.
Says the pissant who started all this by coming here and telling us all what's what, and then playing the Jurgen card when the blowback got a little too heated. Jurgen might have let you in, but he's laffing his ass off in Senegal. You're on your own now, baby blue.
I didn't start anything except a formal, civil discussion. You and another turned it into assholery.
Try reading the opening post.
And just who are you defending here?
Arturo,
Great additions- especially Bidart, Plath, and O'Hara. Yes.
Here's my favorite Frank O'Hara poem - though it's not included in his Collected Poems. It didn't surface until 12 years or so after his death. Apparently, O'Hara was notorious for writing then losing poems. John Ashbery had this poem, a folded piece of paper in a book, if I remember correctly. He sent to American Poetry Review in the late '70s.
Windows
This space so clear and blue
does not care what we put
into it Airplanes disappear
in its breath and towers drown
Even our hearts leap up when
we fall in love with the void
the azure smile the back of a
woman’s head and takes wing
never to return O my heart!
think of Leonardo who was born
embraced life with a total eye
and now is dead in monuments
There is no spring breeze to
soften the sky In the street
no perfume stills the merciless
arc of the lace-edged skirt
Holy cow, that's gorgeous. Thanks for sharing. I've never seen it before.
My favorites are his more "talky" poems, like Having a Coke With You or Lana Turner or Ave Maria.
It's breathtaking. Mature, too ;) Thanks, Sam.
The Windows poem is just ok, it is certainly not a bad poem but it seems to me unfinished, like it is short of a few more lines.
Dave,
I am surprised at Arturo because he was never part of the clique and was for a large part underappreciated on this site until very recently, it saddens me a little because I still like his writing.
Paust maybe was always an asshole (he seems to have turned into Hardonaway's identical twin) but he and I were at one time simpatico.
Someone else whose poetry I liked sent me a pm recently instructing me to stay away from her work.
I think the MFA thing touched a few raw nerves, but the best thing to remember is that it's only the internet.
Not only staying away from work but stop sending me your work for feedback. It is alright SDR, you can say my name. And I don't have an MFA but that has nothing to do why I sent you a PM.
The only reason I sent you my work was not so much for feedback, it was more for your edits, I liked your economy.
I myself enjoy editing/restructuring the work of others, not because of any ego trip but because I think it helps me with my own approach to my own stuff.
Thanks for clarifying, SDR.
If you enjoy editing the work of others, then you should keep it to yourself, unless they ask for your opinion.
SDR,
Rest assured I am part of no clique, on this site or in real life. I simply will not tolerate (or stay silent in the face of) arrogant writers who have nothing better to do than disparage the mode of other writers. If you don't like what a certain set of poets are up to, move on. Why even engage in a conversation to discredit their work?
I stick to myself on this thing. But when your friend felt it necessary to call certain talented poets "fake poets" and to say certain forms are not poetry, I decided to respond. As if he's so exalted that he gets to be the ultimate judge of other poets. Give me a break. Moreover, I'm disheartened by the blatant racism and sexism you have espoused on this thread.
Certain set? It's the whole set. Maybe you are ignorant of the fact that there is a political bias in who/what gets published and who/what does not get published?
Arrogant? I think you need to look elsewhere for arrogant.
As for the blatant racisim and sexism accusation, I knew that was coming, I just thought it would have come sooner.
As for Dave, he is not a friend, he is just a guy who happens to share some of the same opinions and some of the same complaints.
He has experienced the same things I have. And I will admit the hostility that has come his way is not because of what he is expressing but because of the fact he is agreeing with me, the Fictionaut pariah, the quintessential outcast, and let's face it, any site worth its salt needs at least one.
Arturo, I believe there's a maturity issue at play here, too. Precocious youngsters who haven't lived enuf to have any real insight to the human condition. They learn the vocabulary and do some reading and then strike out as if they're now journeymen, if not masters. It can be cute at a certain age, but eventually life intervenes and they must learn to handle the depths. These two, I'm afraid, are nowhere near that point yet.
SDR,
Write what you write. Some people will like it. Others will hate it. Others will have no opinion. But spending so much time arguing about whose poetry is "pure," (again, what does that even mean) or whether a certain kind of poetry is valid or not, is the black hole of criticism. It gets you no where.
As I said earlier, let folks be folks.
If you don't like what someone is up to, move on. As far as I'm aware, no one on this site has been appointed the judge and executioner of poetry.
I think you'd all appreciate this poem by a dear teacher of mine, titled The Critics
I like "islands of shadow".
Arturo, thanks for sharing Kathleen's poem. I really like it. Now I'll have to look for more from her.
Also enjoyed your share, Sam.
More of this, less bickering, please.
Come on, Charlotte- everybody enjoys a shit storm every year or so. SDR needed help to start one but was ably assisted by Dave. Yes?
Kathleen Ossip's book "The Do-Over" is a must have. She's brilliant.
Enjoyed The Critics. Here's an Osip poem - deep and slow, impossible to forget:
"I'm afraid of death"
I’m afraid of death
because it inflates
the definition
of what a person
is, or love, until
they become the same,
love, the beloved,
immaterial.
I’m afraid of death
because it invents
a different kind of
time, a stopped clock
that can’t be reset,
only repurchased,
an antiquity.
I’m afraid of death,
the magician who
makes vanish and who
makes odd things appear
in odd places—your
name engraves itself
on a stranger’s chest
in letters of char.
That should be Ossip.
Yes!! That's in her newest collection, The Do-Over. Telling you, the book is brilliant.
I do like that poem. It feels like there should be 4 stanzas though, it ends a bit obscurely.
love rejected
hurts so much more
than love rejecting;
they act like they don't love their country
no
what it is
is they found out
their country don't love them
--Lucille Clifton
Amen.
Political poems, four of my favorites - And to be clear, it's impossible for me to separate politics from social or ethical. This may or may not be correct, but it is, however, my view.
"At the Un-National Monument along the Canadian Border" by William Stafford
This is the field where the battle did not happen,
where the unknown soldier did not die.
This is the field where grass joined hands,
where no monument stands,
and the only heroic thing is the sky.
Birds fly here without any sound,
unfolding their wings across the open.
No people killed—or were killed—on this ground
hallowed by neglect and an air so tame
that people celebrate it by forgetting its name.
~
"What Kind of Times Are These" by Adrienne Rich
There's a place between two stands of trees where the grass grows uphill
and the old revolutionary road breaks off into shadows
near a meeting-house abandoned by the persecuted
who disappeared into those shadows.
I've walked there picking mushrooms at the edge of dread, but don't be fooled
this isn't a Russian poem, this is not somewhere else but here,
our country moving closer to its own truth and dread,
its own ways of making people disappear.
I won't tell you where the place is, the dark mesh of the woods
meeting the unmarked strip of light—
ghost-ridden crossroads, leafmold paradise:
I know already who wants to buy it, sell it, make it disappear.
And I won't tell you where it is, so why do I tell you
anything? Because you still listen, because in times like these
to have you listen at all, it's necessary
to talk about trees.
~
"Incident" by Natasha Trethewey
We tell the story every year—
how we peered from the windows, shades drawn—
though nothing really happened,
the charred grass now green again.
We peered from the windows, shades drawn,
at the cross trussed like a Christmas tree,
the charred grass still green. Then
we darkened our rooms, lit the hurricane lamps.
At the cross trussed like a Christmas tree,
a few men gathered, white as angels in their gowns.
We darkened our rooms and lit hurricane lamps,
the wicks trembling in their fonts of oil.
It seemed the angels had gathered, white men in their gowns.
When they were done, they left quietly. No one came.
The wicks trembled all night in their fonts of oil;
by morning the flames had all dimmed.
When they were done, the men left quietly. No one came.
Nothing really happened.
By morning all the flames had dimmed.
We tell the story every year.
~
"Of the Thread that Connect the Stars" by Martin Espada
Did you ever see stars? asked my father with a cackle. He was not
speaking of the heavens, but the white flash in his head when a fist burst
between his eyes. In Brooklyn, this would cause men and boys to slap
the table with glee; this might be the only heavenly light we'd ever see.
I never saw stars. The sky in Brooklyn was a tide of smoke rolling over us
from the factory across the avenue, the mattresses burning in the junkyard,
the ruins where squatters would sleep, the riots of 1966 that kept me
locked in my room like a suspect. My father talked truce on the streets.
My son can see the stars through the tall barrel of a telescope.
He names the galaxies with the numbers and letters of astronomy.
I cannot see what he sees in the telescope, no matter how many eyes I shut.
I understand a smoking mattress better than the language of galaxies.
My father saw stars. My son sees stars. The earth rolls beneath
our feet. We lurch ahead, and one day we have walked this far.
Outliers.
What in your view, Dave, is a political poem? An example?
As I've stated too many times -- a "poem" centering solely on a political figure or stance. But yet again, a "political poem" in my opinion is an oxymoron. The ones you have posted are not political poems in this sense. If one was not informed that they were "political" I think the poems could be taken as anything else.
But as it has been expressed, I am now the pariah on this site. What a way to treat a new member who has merely shared his own views about a topic. When someone disagrees they immediately enter attack mode. That's how it is with political zealots.
I'm trying to understand your view here, and it does seem to be a personal view as opposed to a literary view. Since, Stafford and Rich, for example, spoke often about their political statements. So, the writers certainly politics in mind when these two pieces were. Many editors, readers, classrooms... also read them as political poems.
You've stated many times in the thread - a "poem" (and I'm not certain as to why the quotations, but they are important to you) centering solely on a political figure or stance. And I'll stop there for a moment, so you can see where I'm coming from. The next part of your explanation, which doesn't give me an example, that a political poem is an oxymoron. Extend that idea in a logical fashion and religious poems, just to name another subgroup, would be an oxymoron. Then it would follow that science poems or ekphrastic poems - music, art, cinema - would also be examples of the oxymoron. Surely this isn't what you mean.
Ok - political figure... Here's another poem by Trethewey that in my view is a political and certainly does focus on a political figure. [Fictionaut has a limited posting platform that will not include italics here. Some of this poem is italicized. Here's a link: www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/57697 ]
"Enlightenment"
In the portrait of Jefferson that hangs
at Monticello, he is rendered two-toned:
his forehead white with illumination —
a lit bulb — the rest of his face in shadow,
darkened as if the artist meant to contrast
his bright knowledge, its dark subtext.
By 1805, when Jefferson sat for the portrait,
he was already linked to an affair
with his slave. Against a backdrop, blue
and ethereal, a wash of paint that seems
to hold him in relief, Jefferson gazes out
across the centuries, his lips fixed as if
he's just uttered some final word.
The first time I saw the painting, I listened
as my father explained the contradictions:
how Jefferson hated slavery, though — out
of necessity, my father said — had to own
slaves; that his moral philosophy meant
he could not have fathered those children:
would have been impossible, my father said.
For years we debated the distance between
word and deed. I'd follow my father from book
to book, gathering citations, listening
as he named — like a field guide to Virginia —
each flower and tree and bird as if to prove
a man's pursuit of knowledge is greater
than his shortcomings, the limits of his vision.
I did not know then the subtext
of our story, that my father could imagine
Jefferson's words made flesh in my flesh —
the improvement of the blacks in body
and mind, in the first instance of their mixture
with the whites — or that my father could believe
he'd made me better. When I think of this now,
I see how the past holds us captive,
its beautiful ruin etched on the mind's eye:
my young father, a rough outline of the old man
he's become, needing to show me
the better measure of his heart, an equation
writ large at Monticello. That was years ago.
Now, we take in how much has changed:
talk of Sally Hemings, someone asking,
How white was she? — parsing the fractions
as if to name what made her worthy
of Jefferson's attentions: a near-white,
quadroon mistress, not a plain black slave.
Imagine stepping back into the past,
our guide tells us then — and I can't resist
whispering to my father: This is where
we split up. I'll head around to the back.
When he laughs, I know he's grateful
I've made a joke of it, this history
that links us — white father, black daughter —
even as it renders us other to each other.
I dropped a word or three in that opening paragraph. Sorry about that. Let try that part again-
Stafford and Rich, for example, spoke often about their poems as political statements. So, the writers certainly had politics in mind when these two pieces were.
No, I simply mean -- and I fail to fathom why this is so difficult to understand -- that poetry and politics do not mix very well (as I have stated earlier). I just do not feel that mixing politics and poetry works. To me, politics not only muddies poetry, it defiles it. And with that, I am done with this discussion.
When I hear someone say that there should be no politics in anything what I think they really mean is that there shouldn't be any politics that aren't conservative politics. Anything left of the right is seen as political, while anything that sits squarely on the side of the right is seen as a self-evident truth devoid of any political significance, and hence benign. That's my opinion anyway. Feel free to fling some kind of pejorative my way or question my masculinity. That seems to be the order of this particular argument, anyway.
Chris, you ignorant slut...Matt, you pompous ass...
Dave
I agree. It is more to do with people abusing poetry in order to further their own cultural marxist agenda, same with the feminists, they use poetry as a means to further their own propaganda.
They are not in it for the art.
Dave, you are the pariah because you agreed with me, that is why you were attacked. However, roughly 90% of "people" on here are Marxists and feminists so it isn't any wonder people who are not inclined in that way will experience hostility.
The lefties seem to be quite adept at bullying.
I also agree those poems Sam posted are not political poems, at least not the political we are talking about.
Samuel, maybe you can explain. I asked Dave a couple of times to give me examples of his view of a political poem, and he reiterated what a political poem is not. The idea I'm left with is that he believes a poem shouldn't be political because a good poem, however that may be defined, can't be political.
I won't ask to explain Dave. But, could you explain to me why Adrienne Rich's "What Kind of Times Are These" is not in your view a political poem? I realize some of this purely personal view. I know Rich stated this to be a political poem and wrote it as a political poem. I'm interested in why you don't view it as a political piece.
Sam, you're trying to reason with a tape loop.
Too much.
Sam wrote
"Samuel, maybe you can explain"
Sam, I already have.
Politics in art means How Shit is Stacked (or who has stuff, who doesn't, and who gets to decide). A story like "My dad got fired from his job and started drinking and beat my mom and we had to leave home," for example. What you do or don't address, causally, is *your choice* and a question of how alert, informed, and/or curious you are about what sort of options people have available to them in the world we live in today, and why.
It reminds me of an interviewer who said to Olivier Assays (about the time of "Boarding Gate,"[*] I think), "You seem to have a preoccupation with globalization" to which he replied: "It's not a preoccupation. It's an observation." Exactly. You choose your x- and y-axis, your puppet show, your stage, whatever ... whether you omit or include elements is, at least, *telling*.
Make sense?
-----------------------------------------------
[*] One of my particular favorites of his, along with "demonlover" (lowercase for the website in the movie) and the current "Personal Shopper": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYRfW6zJvM
Grouchy: I am huge fan of Irma Vep and Boarding Gate, but then again, I would love anything with Maggie Cheung and Asia Argento. I even like Ferrara's New Rose Hotel, although I shouldn't really qualify my love for anything Ferrara, because I think he's the great underrated American filmmaker of his generation. As far as I'm concerned, Ferrara has been making better movies than Scorsese for over twenty years now.
Too bad these threads can't have more discussions about film.
Maybe this thread can get back to some interesting discussion, the way it was before Arturo and his pals derailed it.
Dave, return and discuss.
Adrienne Rich's "What Kind of Times Are These" is not a political poem because it doesn't take a political stance, it is really a nature/metaphysical poem, a very complicated one.
The kind of political Dave and I were discussing is not the same thing, that kind of political I have provided countless links to, for anyone to know the difference all they have to do is check out some of the links I have given and compare the drivel in those links to the poems that Sam and Loren/Arturo have cut and pasted.
Some of the lines in the Rich poem (it is merely a good poem, not a great one) could be interpreted from a political standpoint BUT it doesn't have a political slant, she could easily have written it from the point of view of a rabbit or a robin or a sparrow or a grizzly bear.
Okum, Bokum, Boh-bokum, Banana-rama-mee-Okum: I agree about Ferrara. New Rose Hotel was great; even Gibson himself quite liked it. Sadly, he hasn't seemed to get a fair shake.
OTOH, Scorsese's Silence is really really good though (I walked out of "The Wolf of Wall Street"; at three hours and nothing but hoots inspired from the audience, I felt like it didn't need my presence).
Maybe we should start some threads dovetailing film/fiction talk. Thoughts?
There is nothing, including politics, that can not be elevated or diminished through poetry.
except maybe bacon
Sifre, are you trying to start a cyberriot?
Fight the power. Fight the crispy.
Pork bellies rule.
The No Good Poetry Podcast, Episode 2, Politics and Poetry Part II: http://www.nogoodpoetry.com/episode-2-poetry-and-politics-part-ii/
Paraphrase:
" Writing is about bringing into the open what's hidden and that's always a political act."
Grace Paley