You by Cassiopeia
Thu, 2006-06-15 11:15
#1
You by Cassiopeia
Now this will ignite the debate about poetry, constructively I trust.
Normally I would have cherried this piece as it is simple and direct. It uses the most charming images and I can imagine it becoming a 'classic'. Yet it says nothing that hasn't been said a million times before, it doesn't use complexity of language to convey more than the words and it isn't innovative in any way, shape or form.
So, it's accessible, it's romantic and it's charming. It speaks eloquently of love. Yet it is not 'original' or 'challenging'.
So, and I ask a genuine question here, is it any good?
The simple answer I would be compelled to give is 'No.'
I agree that this is a charming poem - in fact it is exactly the kind of thing greetings cards have inside them (not an insult - many many people buy greetings cards BECAUSE they like this kind of verse, and feel it conveys what they want to say).
You said, 'Yet it says nothing that hasn't been said a million times before, it doesn't use complexity of language to convey more than the words and it isn't innovative in any way, shape or form.'
And these would be my own personal reasons as to why it is not 'good', if my idea of 'good' is something that says something in a new way.
Phrases like
'A calm after my storm'
or
'The warmness of the sun'
have been used so many times... The thing that would make this 'good' (to me, and let's face it, 'good' is subjective) would be the specifics... what is it about this particular person that makes the writer feel this way?
I agree that 'a calm after my storm' is a lovely trait in a potential mate, but I want to know more about the storm... and how it has been calmed.... I want to feel I understand another human being a bit more, get something universal from it, think, 'Yes - that's what it is... I recognise that. But I could have never said it that exact way.'
I want to recognise the voice in the poem as something distinctive, something that only that particular poet could write. I want the imagery to startle me, but to make a clear picture or feeling in my head.
I find with poems like this, the imagery is too far away from the individual and it ends up with me feeling nothing. There is no risk in it.
I mean none of this cruelly or judgementally - am purely talking about it from my perspective of what makes a 'good' poem - and answering Tony's questions about whether it is good or not.
For me, for a poem to be good, it has to be a complete world within it's form - has to hold me there, be a beginning middle and end.
There is a great quote from Emily Dickinson that goes,
"If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry."
I agree with her.
('its form' - darn extraneous apostrophes)
Here's my long-winded and thoughtful answer.
Depends on your criteria for 'good', of course. You list three traits that you think of as positive - accessible, romantic and charming. Of these, I'd only agree that 'charming' is a positive, rather than neutral, trait.
Accessibility is too slippery an issue to have any bearing on quality - something can be 'inaccessible' if the reader is thick as two short planks, unaccustomed to English or regional idioms, or in a can't-be-bothered sort of mood. So saying a poem is accessible is like trying to defend someone's character by saying you get on OK with them.
'Romantic' is just a sort of genre qualifier, and is thus only a positive trait if you're a total sucker for romantic stuff.
So that leaves us with 'charming', as the positive trait. And on that, I feel I disagree. I think that's because I feel the voice of the poem is too serious, while charm involves an element of playfulness.
Onto the negative things you suggest. I don't think a poem has to be either 'original' or 'challenging'. Nor do I think it has to possess complexity of language. In fact, that again, is more of a neutral trait. I guess the things I'd ask of this poem, and which lead me to rate it poorly, are thus:
Is it interesting?
Not to me, because the territory is too well worn. I feel like I've heard these lines - and this voice - many times before.
Does it show skill?
It displays a grasp of rhythm, but the rhymes and images are all old hat. You've got the trick of each stanza addressing a different sense, but again, I feel this is well trod territory. The poet may have imagination - it may be that she came up with all of these ideas herself - but it's kind of like someone who's never seen a sandwich inventing one - however clever it is within the context of their experience, it's hard to be impressed.
Does it hit on some kind of Universal truth, something that connects my experiences with the poet's?
I guess this is where other people end up charmed. I don't, because I just don't think love is ever like this - kisses sweeter every time? Our bodies become one? A simple truth? This stuff doesn't hit the spot for me at all.



