The Trouble with Poetry

The Trouble with Poetry
by
Robert Jaunsen

I love poetry, yet I hate it as well. That's because it is either
reader friendly or too esoteric to enjoy*and plenty boring. That fact
brings me to wonder why so many poets write the way they do. There is
no valid reason for poetry to be uncongenial unless the poet doesn't
care if his or her work is universally accepted or not. That certainly
seems unlikely. At its highest level poetry is considered by those in
the academic community to be the most intense use we can make of a
language. So what? If the language of poetry cannot be understood and
its message cannot be deciphered, then what good is it? Still, I
contend that poetry can be profoundly meaningful and extremely powerful
even if it isn't written abstractly.
It annoys me that some of the most popular poems ever written are
criticized by our academic language masters simply because the work
isn't considered deep enough. I suspect any poetry not coming from the
academic ranks gets criticized automatically. "Trees" by Joyce Kilmer
is a case in point, as is "High Flight" by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.
Maybe, poetry should be divided into categories like music: classical
and popular. The intellectual, abstract stuff that no one can figure
out would be categorized as classical or better yet just label it
academic. Understandable poetry would, of course, fit into the popular
category.
The fact is, our brains have a somewhat limited ability to process
complicated information quickly. And when the majority of us possess
limited attention spans as well, the result is our no longer wanting to
continue the struggle of figuring out the meaning of some ethereal
poem. Frequently, when I begin to read a poem my brain suddenly rebels,
no longer allowing me to continue. It's akin to drinking mud to quench
my thirst instead of clear water. On the flip side, I have read simple
poetry so beautifully written that I savored each image and thought
provoking line. The trouble with poetry is that poems like that are so
rare. Or is it that really great poetry has become isolated from
us?
The art of poetry should be more about creating mental images that
stir our souls and awaken our emotions. As I see it, from the point of
view of an average reader, there's too much conceptualizing and not
enough imaging. It's no wonder that my neuron-depleted, aging brain has
fits trying to understand most of the poetry out there in academia
land. Plausible reasoning relies on intuitive recognition of the
similarities or analogies between things. When I don't recognize what
I'm reading my mind blows a fuse and it would be futile for me to
continue. Concentrating on the importance of an image is easier for me
to handle since thinking in images is a more primitive and basic form
of mental activity and more suited to me than trying to conceptualize.
I'm sorry, if I can't understand what a poem is all about after reading
it a few times then it's the poet's fault, not mine.
Straightforward descriptions, metaphors, similes, oxymorons and so
forth are the meat of a good poem. The images created determine which
emotion gets provoked and are the spice. I don't know about you, but I
can't eat something like a plain potato. To be edible I need butter or
gravy and some salt and pepper. Sorry again*for the lame
comparison.
Since the purpose of poetry is to do what ordinary language cannot do,
poetic language differs mainly in its intensity and compression. This
can also make understanding difficult. That makes it even more
important for a poet to communicate with the greatest possible
directness using images based on our human senses of touch, taste,
smell, sound and especially sight, our master sense. For example, how
would the brain visualize the words "wine-dark sea" by Homer? Are these
complex, hard-to-understand words? Obviously not. Are they simple, yet
image evoking words? Absolutely.
I may get stomped on by a lot of modern poets for saying anything
negative about free verse, but they should have some empathy for a
reader's point of view. Because free verse may exist without any rules
controlling it whatsoever it lends itself to corruption and laziness by
the poet. Its lines are usually irregular and rhyming is rarely used.
The poet attempts to let the content of his or her work shape the poem
rather than fitting the content to any particular poetic form. Line
length and meter are changed in an attempt to emphasize certain words
and/or sounds. Rhythms are usually indicated by using line-breaks. The
rhythmical and syntactical effects, if present, become too complicated
for the human brain to process easily, if at all.
I believe free verse should be enjoyable to read without taxing the
brain. It's no wonder why I can't understand so much of it with the
complexity involved. Often I can't even tell if it's complicated or
gobbledygook. What does a poet writing unfathomable verse think of
people like me who can't appreciate or even read their poetry? Do they
think they are creating a word puzzle to be solved and understood only
by those geniuses among us? If that's not the motive then why not keep
it simple. Free verse can be beautiful and meaningful without tripping
up the mind of the reader.
Free verse has become, in my opinion, too free. When lines are placed
all over a page, a formidable barrier has been constructed to block any
hope of understanding. I'm sure that no genuine poet actually desires
to be misunderstood so what's the purpose? Chaos takes away from, not
adds to, a poem's reason to be. So what's wrong? Is it that there is
too much conceptualizing and not enough thinking in images? Has free
verse become so free that it has entered into the realm of absurdity?
Or, as I suspect, it is easier to write poetry without restrictions or
rules of any kind. After all, haven't you heard the trite expression?
"A poem should not mean, but be."