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

[JforJames at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/3/2007 2:23:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
queenmouse at gmail.com writes:

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.



I side more with Major Jackson's view. Because poetry is made of only  
word-stuff,
unlike the other arts, it has a way of simply and readily connecting  
directly with the lives of artists
and non-artists alike. It's song without the support of music per se.  
Certainly there isn't a 
requirement that any poet use their art for social good or social  
engagement...but they're likely 
to get more satisfaction from the practice of their art if they do so.  
Poetry is really 'poetries', 
of course (as Billy Collins aptly noted in his intro to his BAP that David  
Graham posted here
recently), yet I think a lot of us came to this art because it  was still a 
place where 
genuine human connection, through deep thought and emotions, were still  
valued over flash and blare, 
and where the medium was just some skillful conveyance of  words spoken or as 
text. In terms of poetry's 
social function, doing a poem for a wedding or funeral or for another  person 
(be they lover or friend) 
might be one of the most rewarding experiences a poet is ever likely  have in 
his/her 'craft or sullen art'.
 
"A poem is a stone fallen from heaven. No one can judge it."  Mandelstam said 
something to this
effect. So in that way I agree with Daisy Fried who seems to be invoking  the 
old dictum of
Archibald McLeish that a 'Poem should mean not, but be'. But be what? I  ask, 
be what? Aren't
there better and worse, lesser and greater things it can be?
Finnegan
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20070103/cab8d335/attachment.html