Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Hart's avatar

Great analysis, Nic. I appreciated your thoughts on form in particular.

If I could offer this: I think part of the problem is that there are, roughly, three poetry communities. Academic poetry (lit journals, university presses, etc.), popular poetry (Rupi Kaur, etc.), and everyone else. I would suggest that the first two groups haven't really been great stewards of the art form. I say that because it doesn't seem to me that they've done anything to increase popularity, interest or overall enthusiasm. In fact I'd say they've done a great job creating echo chambers.

That's why, bad poetry or not, I place my faith in that third group. After all, it's the oldest. It was around long before the publishing industry, capitalism or societies as we know them. Could be naive thinking, but it's my belief that if poetry has any hope of having a future, it's going to come from its oldest group of practitioners: no-name poets who inspired from the ground up.

Expand full comment
erniet's avatar

I wonder how much bad poetry the great poets wrote compared to the ones that they thought publishable?

Perhaps the problem is the ease with which people today can publish whatever comes out of their "pen" without filter, so to speak...and so posterity will separate the wheat from the chaff?

Then there are those who reveled in doggerel...Kipling and Nash come to mind...

Lots of good stuff here, and some practical things to think about as I seek to improve my own poetry (even if I continue to revel in doggerel...😁).

Expand full comment
24 more comments...

No posts