[New-Poetry] Does Poetry Have A Social Function?

[Suzanne Burns]

On 1/2/07, JforJames at aol.com <JforJames at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> So does poetry have a social function? If so, why? If not, why
> not?
>


My first thought was to be a terrible wise-ass in reply "Well Jim,
considering how many young swains use poetry as a way to get laid...."
Seriously: do we not hear the clinking of ice in glasses as yonder poetry
reading? :-)

Then I read the discussion, and thought about it less sardonically.  I have
to say I really loved Daisy Fried's contribution, especially her question
(Im paraphrasing) "Why is it that poetry is expected to always do more than
just be what it is?"

Obviously there are plenty of poets who are deeply social in their
consciousness, and the role theiy play in a community is a huge part of
their vision (I'm thinking of Adrienne Rich and Denise Levertov here).  They
want to change the world.  Are they less as poets because they aren't
hermits on the mountaintop?  Does being a hermit on the mountaintop have to
preclude changing the world?

On the other hand, what about Emily Dickinson (everybody's favorite
recluse)?  I don't see very much that I would call "social" in her work.
Emily Bronte?  Robinson Jeffers? Han-Shan? They are all rather like looking
at "social" through the wrong end of a telescope.

So I guess my answer would be that poetry is about as social or anti-social
as people are.  That's covers a pretty wide spectrum.

Suzanne Burns
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20070103/9352faf7/attachment.html