[New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List

[Judy Prince]

Bob, forgive your poor volunteer, Judy.  I don't want to read this new
version of WEPD.  Having skimmed it at warp speed, I've determined that it's
like the second draft of most of my poems; i.e., worse than the original
because it's TOO thorough, TOO explainy, TOO boring----and most important,
it's TOO lengthy.  Did I mention boring?
If I actually need to read, understand, and apply m'sel' to USING the new
WEPD, then I resign my position as volunteer of our wonderful little WEPD
experiment.

Unless, of course, you send me a check [or cheque] for $50 a week throughout
our experiment.

carpe diem Judy

2009/2/1 Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>

> A poem is excellent if judged at any time ten years after its publication
> to be so by a
> hundred or more poetry experts using the following check-list--if no more
> than ninety-nine
> such experts can be found to disagree with that judgement within ten years
> of that
> judgement, a poetry expert being defined as someone who has seriously
> engaged the
> works of ten or more poets (which means having read at least fifty poems by
> each)
> including the works of at least one solitextual poet (poet whose works are
> solely textual)
> and one pluraesthetic poet (poet whose works make significant use of more
> than one
> expressive modality such as a visual poet) and has either composed fifty
> pages of poetry or
> one hundred twenty pages of poetry criticism or who has been accepted as a
> poetry expert
> by twenty or more poetry experts.
>
> An Excellent Poem:
>
> (1) expresses something importantly true or represents of something
> centrally beautiful--
> assuming it doesn't do both;
>
> (2) is at least somewhat complicated by Thematic Misdirection, or something
> that makes
> its ultimate meaning or effect difficult quickly to ascertain, but
> eventually achieves Clarity;
>
> (3) has a Unifying Principal, or some meaning or image or the like which
> pulls its elements
> reasonably close together;
> (4) contains few or no superfluous words;
>
> (5) boasts some constituent of substance that few or no other poems have
> such as
> uncommon diction, grammar, expressive modality (e.g., mathematics, visual
> art), and imagery;
>
> (6) avoids excessive use of inappropriate Cliches of diction, imagery or
> thought; too overt
> Sentimentality and hackneyed use of some technique or form;
>
> Comments: I added the panel of Poetry Experts after thinking over Michael's
> assertion
> that "we know that Emily's little poem is excellent because a significant
> number of people
> are still willing to give their time to reading it and thinking and writing
> about it."  I agreed
> at first with this, but then decided that popularity is no real evidence of
> quality.  Look at
> the religious sects still incredibly popular, for instance.  And there are
> poems that have
> stood :the test of time" that most genuine lovers of poetry don't think
> much of, like some
> of Poe's.  I think Poe is badly under-rated, myself, but I can't believe
> that all the poems still
> in anthologies and greatly enjoyed by many people are excellent.
> Note that I have proclaimed that any poem that is approved as excellent by
> my hundred or
> more experts keeps its rating forever, however later generations look on
> it.  My reasoning
> is that it possible, even probable, that contemporaries will find a poem to
> be excellent for
> something about it later generations are no longer sensitive to, just as
> the reverse so
> frequently happens.  But I do require ten years to pass for a poem to
> become eligible for
> evaluation to prevent fashion or prestige from being too quickly
> influential.
>
> Note, too, that I have ordained that a mere hundred experts can pronounce a
> poem
> excellent.  That means that even if ten thousand pronounce it crap, the
> hundred win.
>
> My six desiderata seem objective enough to me--the way laws in a democratic
> society are.
> In each case something objective is examined and judged by professionals or
> the
> equivalent for excellence the same way deeds are examined and judged by
> professionals or
> the equivalent for lawfulness.  Some subjectivity is unavoidable, but it is
> minimized by
> having specifics to judge, and expertise to counter-balance empty
> enthusiasm or unfair
> antagonism.
> I added "central beauty" to number one to take care of poems that have no
> easy "truth" to
> latch onto, haiku being a good example of that, and so many poems since
> 1900 that I feel
> the evolution of poetry has been toward greater and greater implicitness of
> meaning since
> its origin and especially recently.  Side-comment: I believe poetry as a
> whole has been
> improving, possibly on pace with science--because of its broadening, not
> necessarily
> because of any qualitative improvement in individual poems; we have more
> words to work
> with and more techniques--any more expressive modalities, so we have an
> ever-increasing
> range of possible poems, which is a Good Thing.
>
> I think I could find something importantly true in every poem I thought
> excellent, but in
> many cases--"lighght," for instance--it doesn't seem worth the effort and
> representation of
> central beauty is usually much easier to demonstrate (I think few could
> disagree that light
> is not a central beauty of existence however little they like the poem
> celebrating it).
>
> Number two is an addition because the constituent, suggested by Barry
> Spacks, makes
> sense to me.  Number three is also an addition, because important in my own
> poetics, and
> often--especially by otherstream poets--given short shrift.  Number four is
> "Compactness"
> which I improved, I think, to "Conciseness," and someone else to "Economy
> of
> Expression" or the like before I finally settled on the words here as doing
> the best job of
> pinning it down.  Number 5 is the same as it was originally, I think.
>  Number six is new
> because I realized in the discussion so far that we were ignoring flaws
> that should keep a
> poem from being excellent.
>
> --Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090201/67bde409/attachment.html