'To Become Any Kind Of Poet, You Must First Read As Much Great Poetry As You Can. Get Poetry In Your Bones.'

'To Become Any Kind Of Poet, You Must First Read As Much Great Poetry As You Can. ' Get Poetry In Your Bones.' Do You Agree?

How do we define 'great poetry?' It is, to some extent, a subjective and a politicized matter. Are we to think in terms of those 'elevated in [..] rank' or 'highly gifted?1 Is it the relatively small numbers of poets literary historians have decided are so? Type the words 'great poetry' into an internet search engine and one will be deluged with lists of poems and poets, the bulk of which will consist of work by privately educated, English speaking, white men. Most, if not all, will be dead.

We could easily form the impression that poetry is an elite pursuit. These great works are professed the valid voice of all human experience. The male voice is considered the universal in a Hellenistic/Christian society, whereas the female voice is just the female. This has swayed opinion over the centuries, and there is a consensus that many writers have been silenced over the years—or considered marginal—due to factors such as gender, race, economic circumstances, or political inclination. All writing is political, and that extends to how much a writer is valued and supported within an established social order. This can be seen in how the poets of the USSR were expected to follow the party line or wither away in a gulag. Consider, for example, Sappho, a woman poet pushed into obscurity by a patriarchal establishment. It is shameful so little of her poetry remains. Even now, her reputation rests more on her sexuality—also against the prevailing order—than her poetic accomplishments.

There are exceptions on these lists, such as self-taught farm labourer's son John Clare, or Benjamin Zephaniah—apparently the only living poet to make it onto a recent poll of the 'greatest' poets. Mostly though, one can observe the perpetuation of the myth of poetry's exclusiveness. Contemporary writers and performance poets are ignored; women appear to be a mysterious perversion against the norm: non-English speaking poets may as well not exist, and where they are acknowledged it is as 'other' and comes tagged with the prefix 'female' or 'black' or 'LGBT' or 'Russian' or 'twentieth century' etc. Jan Montefiore has this to say—in relation to performance, race and gender and an attempt to define a 'core tradition' of feminist poetry criticism:

It is clear now that critics need to return to the range of particular histories that were marginalised […] and examine the connections between […] different particular traditions.2

In addition, Montefiore says (explicitly in reference to poetry by women):

For to say that women's poems have only been granted a marginal status in poetry Criticism is simply to state the obvious. […] women poets are frequently undervalued. If recognized, they are often misread – as with those studies of Emily Dickinson and Sylvia Plath which read their poems for evidence of the poets' eccentricity and/or neurosis; or they get dismissed because women are supposed to have produced few or inadequate 'great poets' (an assertion now relatively seldom made in print, but familiar in the classroom); or they are simply ignored […]3

That is not to say one must automatically give literary merit to bad or mediocre poetry just because it does come from the margins. Montefiore voices

[…] suspicion […] that feminists overvalue bad or mediocre work simply because it is written by a woman. […] Feminist critics often argue – rightly – that conventional scholarship and criticism has because of its masculine bias either ignored classic texts by women or so misread them as to obscure most of their meaning. […] But it has to be admitted that sometimes the 'buried treasure' does turn out to be just old iron.4

Thinking in terms of my own experience, I do feel that a focus on the voices of a handful of people from a distant time or position is pernicious to the fledgling writer, and could serve to inhibit and dispirit rather than encourage. I required words I could empathize and identify with. As Sylvia Plath said, in 'A Comparison' (admittedly, at the beginning of a discussion regarding the novelist): [...] it is the women I look to for a parallel.'5 Performance poets such as Benjamin Zephaniah and John Hegley grabbed my attention, not the GCSE curriculum of the late nineteen eighties. Indeed, Zephaniah's official website asserts

"The mission was to take poetry everywhere, he hated the dead image that academia and the establishment had given poetry and proclaimed that he was out to popularise poetry by reaching people that did not read books, those that were keen on books could now witness a book coming to life on stage."6

For this reason, and speaking as a person who sometimes writes for performance, I consider the hearing of poetry of equal importance to reading it. All poems should be read aloud and be as good as, or better than on the page. The feel, the musicality of the poem will be illuminated and bring insight as to how the poet has structured the work. It is all too easy in our times to lose the weight of poetry's roots in the oral/aural tradition; even as it is accepted that poetic nuances emerged as much for aids to memory as for aesthetics. I do feel also, that the criteria for poetry written primarily for performance—as differentiated from a poetry reading—is somewhat removed from the written word.

Contemporary ideas such as Leicester's Word! and various workshops have been an invaluable to aid my developing voice. These mediums have exposed me to a variety of new and established writers. They provide a fresh angle, as well as a supportive inclusive environment. Workshops are particularly good as experienced writers share their ideas and ways to find a poem. I do use these methods outside of the workshop environment with mixed results. Some produce a voice I can barely recognize as my own, such as an attempt at Petrarchan sonnet, although a piece influenced by the seven-syllable-line of the poem 'Considering the Snail' by 20th Century poet Thom Gunn, worked well for me.

Given all this, I do not agree with the title statement. Take, for instance, the volume 'Anglo-Welsh Poetry 1480-1990'. I suspect that of all the poets contained within this volume, Dylan Thomas will be only one the majority of English people will have heard of, but I do not believe reading this, over a collection of nineteenth century romantic greats, would make anyone any less of a poet. The Welsh poetic approach appears to differ from the Oxbridge model. Thomas was, apparently, 'an outrageous exception' for having written so much so young, as the norm of the Welsh tradition is for older people to take up the poets pen and write of life's experience.7 Perhaps it is because of the druidic tradition and the much stronger importance of social inclusion in Wales.

On the other hand, I do not completely disagree with the title statement. One can still be captivated by, say, Blake or Shelley, and there is nothing wrong with enjoying work from this period, and it is certainly useful to be familiar with those works considered great—there is much to learn from them, but this is only a part of the process. There is plenty of debate on the process of becoming a poet from poets themselves, and it is their opinions I value, Elizabeth Bishop, in her reply to Miss Pierson's request for advice on what makes a poet, and seems to agree with the essay title:

Read a lot of poetry—all the time—and not 20th-century poetry. […] Pope, Tennyson, Coleridge—anything at all almost that’s any good, from the past—until you find out what you really like, by yourself […] read ALL of somebody. Then read his or her life, and letters, and so on.

Then admits:

[…] but I really don’t know how poetry gets to be written.8

We do not know whether Miss Pierson took Bishop's advice. It does not seem to be a universal viewpoint of poets: Opinions as to what does make a poet vary as much as a poet's work varies. He we have Phillip Larkin's reply to a request for a brief statement of his views on poetry for the publication 'Poets of the 1950s' (published in Japan in 1956):

It is fatal to decide, intellectually, what good poetry is because you are then in honour bound to try to write it, instead of the poems that only you can write. […] every poem must be its own sole freshly created universe, and therefore have no belief in "tradition" or a common myth-kitty or casual allusions in poems to other poems or poets, which last I find unpleasantly like the talk of literary understrappers letting you see they know the right people. A poet's only guide is his own judgement; if that is defective his poetry will be defective, but he had still better judge for himself than listen to anyone else.'9

I tend to favour Larkin's outlook, if only for his grumpy humour, and for the fact that he used to live in Loughborough, which is inspirational in itself and worthy of anyone's sympathy.

So what should one do to become any kind of poet? Read poetry, of course, and read widely, but is not essential to wait until one has read X amount of Tennyson or Wordsworth before placing pen to paper. Poetry is more than an intellectual pursuit, and an intellectual appreciation of poetry is not necessarily of any use to the writer. It is about life, feeling, experimentation and authenticity: a poem should tell a truth of a situation. When a poet's work does speak to you—and here I agree with Elizabeth Bishop—read all you can find of their work, read about them, investigate their influences, read them too, and read the influence's influences. Nevertheless, do not follow blindly, for what room is there for that, if we are to speak of our own experience and times? If a poet stirs nothing within you then do not coerce yourself to spend time studying them. Find work that resonates with your psyche. Do not pretend to like what you do not like.

Consider the poet already has poetry in her bones. She or he will gravitate towards extensive consumption of poetry without coercion, and possess a natural inclination to foster an authentic voice to the best of her ability at any given time. I do not dispute the intellectual process, or the technical aspects of poetic writing but a poem needs to be fresh–-to talk to and of the times we live in—if this aspect is not present it will be as apparent as a technically unaccomplished work, and the reader will respond accordingly. The poet needs to speak of now, of events as experienced, not the distant past, a chronicle of one's own times. In chapter one of 'Writing Poetry and Getting Published' the authors' Matthew Sweeny and John Hartley Williams write:

[…] it's impossible to write poems if you don’t read them. It's surprising how many people don’t seem to appreciate this. Anybody who's ever judged a poetry competition can tell you that most of the poems entered haven’t a chance of winning. Why? Because it's obvious that the writers haven’t read anything written since the mustard gas attacks of the First World War.10

The poet will not find resonation with everything she reads - or writes, but the inspirational will be that which fosters delight, and helps chip away at all that is unnecessary and discordant to the self. As we have seen, it is desirable to read contemporary poetry, new voices included: familiarizing oneself with current issues of poetry journals is a good way to do this and they would appreciate a wider readership. Poetry can appear in the most unexpected places: a postcard, a pamphlet in the doctor's waiting room, the weekly poem in Saturday's Guardian or a chance find in a second hand bookshop, browse poetry pages and forums on the internet. Look out for poetry, and it will manifest.

Read without prejudice. Know that you can learn from that which does not necessarily move you and remain aware of this, so allow yourself to be surprised, but do not coerce yourself to spend too much time on what you do not love. If poetry is the most difficult form of creative writing to assess, then with equal force it must be the most difficult form of creative writing to write, and read, but as the reading of poetry is an active experience, it is an inescapable thing that one's writing will grow as one's reading grows.

Participate in as much poetry related activity as you are able, attend events, readings and workshops. Engage in conversation with fellow poets, and among them you will find kindred spirits. Experiment, play, enjoy, and find hero's amidst the living. I also think it is essential to recognize a social duty within ones work, and therefore I will emphasize the importance of seeking and hearing voices from less privileged backgrounds. An understanding that The West's traditions and values are not the only way of looking at the world is more important than ever. Hear the voices from the margins without delegating them to marginal.

To become any kind of poet you will have poetry in your bones. Poetry comes from the soul, not in a religious sense, but from the self. How much time and effort the individual invests to nurture that inherent quality is up to them. It should not be a chore. If it is, find another way to occupy your time.

References

1 The Chambers Dictionary Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd, Edinburgh 1993 p732

2 Montefiore, J, Feminism and Poetry Language, Experience, Identity in Women's Writing Pandora Press, London 2004 pxxvii

3 Montefiore, J, Feminism and Poetry Language, Experience, Identity in Women's Writing Pandora Press, London 2004 p1

4 Montefiore, J, Feminism and Poetry Language, Experience, Identity in Women's Writing Pandora Press, London 2004 p64

5 Plath, S, A Comparison (1962) from the collection Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams Faber and Faber Limited, London 1977

6 Zephaniah, B, Biography benjaminzephaniah.com/biography/ 2014

7 Garlick, R, & Mathias, R, Anglo-Welsh Poetry 1480-1990 Seren, Poetry Wales Press Ltd, Bridgend (Introduction) 1982 p41

8 Bishop, E, Letter to Miss Pearson (1975/1994) from the collection Strong Words Modern Poets on Modern Poetry edited by W.N. Herbert & Matthew Hollis Bloodaxe Books Ltd, Tarset 2000 p105

9 Larkin, P, Statement (1956) from the collection Strong Words Modern Poets on Modern Poetry edited by W.N. Herbert & Matthew Hollis Bloodaxe Books Ltd, Tarset 2000 p150 & 151

10 Sweeny, M, & Williams, J H, Writing Poetry and Getting Published Hodder Headline PLC, London 1997 p1