[Glenn Wright]

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

.


It was new to me, too, when Glenn Wright referenced it in another thread. So thank you, Glenn : ) Or should I simply say, "Thank you W.H. Auden"?!"

You’re very welcome. I’m glad you liked it, Jim

By the way, I found out Auden died in a hotel room in Austria after a poetry reading. That's a satisfactory way of dying, in my book.

.

Apropos of nothing, Dylan Thomas died in the White Horse Taven in New York City in 1953. His last words were, “I’ve had eighteen straight whiskeys! I think that’s the record!” Apparently poetry readings and whiskey can be deleterious to your health.

[W T Clark]

I must be undeveloped — I cannot but hear a cuteness that I wouldn't want in a "ladybird" book: sacharine. And so much spelling out, such bland, oozing rhyming: with no mystery or compression, just an affable fellow exercising his rhymes in his garden. I guess this is what they call "Charming".

[W T Clark]

Originally Posted by Yves S L

On Auden's intellectuality, how much more work would one typically have to do than that involved in learning all the intricacies of the Lamer vs Drake rap beef (yes, I am deliberately choosing an example which would not normally be considered "intellectual" with different cultural backgrounds having different prestige among different populations relative to different interests and group affiliations). Some hip hop fans go deep into the lore to uncover the meaning of every line of lyric, going back decades into hip-hop folklore, even going back to the beginnings of the slave trade in Atlanta and whatnot. The likes of Auden and Eliot are just enfolding meanings relative to their own academic backgrounds, and it is less intellectuality than familiarity with the suitable cultural background: it is the life of men who devoted themselves to a particular bookish culture.

I, myself, am not particularity impressed that some folk have a vague memory of the contents of many books (which is typically the definition of what folk consider being educated consists of), or are able to recite other people's concepts (as what is involved in passing school exams at every level). I think intellect has more to it than memorisation of a cultural background, which is mostly a matter of [1] accepting that cultural background to be something worth one's time and energy to spend learning it, and [2] immersion, and [3] have some ability to memorise (which is highly variable to [1] because levels of interests influence memory), whether you are talking about knowing the ins and out of "The Wasteland" or a beef between two rappers.

Indeed: I like that. That is why I am not discouraged by references as some say: calling poems "difficult". It is the sensation: not facts, that convinces me or does not convince me of a poem. "Accessibility" and "difficulty" seem to me empty holes.

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by W T Clark

It is the sensation: not facts, that convinces me or does not convince me of a poem. "Accessibility" and "difficulty" seem to me empty holes.

But the “sensation” I often get from a “difficult” poem is one of buried treasure. So I either do the digging—and there are poems that take whole books to excavate—or I stay with the frustrating sense of unplumbed depths.