I have wondered for some time now
whether modern poets care about
being remembered. Do they write
stuff that lingers in the mind and
finds its place in the memory? On
the evidence I've seen, there isn't
much sign of that. Most of what is
quoted across the age groups is older than your mother and her mother! Why is that? I suspect that many topics chosen are ill-
conceived for longevity; that many
poets are navel-gazing and ego-tripping, with little on show that
deserve to slot into the category of "memorable" - to persuade us
to commit the words to memory.
In short, have we lost our way in
the greater scheme of things when
it comes to handing down stuff that
future generations will want to
remember and recite?
Who can quote in full any poem written in the past couple of
decades? Or - to put the proverbial cat among the pigeons -would want to, with the same affinity and affection felt for established older poetry. What
do these have that continue to strike a chord with succeeding
generations. Is modern poetry
in danger of being obsolete and
forgotten before its time?

What a great subject for a thread. I think part of the reason for modern poetry being less resonant is the change in emphasis within schools. Anyone aged 50 and upwards now, would probably have been exposed to far more at school - been made to learn and recite it even. If you take a look at the Nations's Favourite Poets, many of the top ones are those you read at school - the one that polled the most (written anonymously) being made famous by the 'Three Weddings and a Funeral' film. For the masses to really enjoy poetry they have to be introduced to it. I think they also have to see its relevance - understand it even - but I won't stray onto that subject again...

For something to be remembered well enough to be quoted, for me it would have to be constructed musically, which would rule a lot of modern stuff out - because it is haphazard in its construction - something with a regular beat is far easier to commit to memory. It would also have to be striking in its message or content - look beyond the self to the bigger picture.

The point about emphasis in schoolsis well taken. I have no personalknowledge of how the subject istreated there these days. Kids arenotoriously peer orientated andresistant to poetry for variousreasons but what a difference aninspirational teacher can make whenputting across poetry with loveand conviction....opening up a worldof imagination that can last a lifetime. But it is beholden on ALL of us to pass the torch andpromote poetry as something foreveryone whenever possible. In Isobel's phrase "the bigger picture". The medium of film/television has occasionally brought a poem (or piece of music) to theattention of an unaware public - tothe huge benefit of both. Thismixing of mediums is to be encouraged at every opportunity inmy view if we are to spread the word in an age dominated by electronic entertainment, but are modern poets acting against that
interest by the nature of their "product": and it is,
after all, a product no matter how laudable the motive.

I can identify with both MCN and Isobel's comments here. Another factor to bear in mind perhaps is quantity - i.e. the sheer volume of poetry that's out there today and the ease of access to it. Go back a century or so and publishing was a much more expensive business. Publishing houses would be very reluctant to print poetry which they had to take a gamble on, purely due to cost. Nowadays anyone can self-publish for a relatively modest outlay (free, if one includes sites like WOL.)

Sorting the memorable from the disposable is not as easy in today's multi-media environment. Poetry does need promotion, but while it moulders in books and pamphlets I can't see much hope of advancing its profile beyond that of other poets. As has rightly been pointed out it needs to embrace other media - TV/cinema/theatre/smart phones etc.

When did anyone see a "poetry show" in the West End for instance? I believe that there is enough "quality" work out there - both ancient and modern, to justify this. The trick would be imaginative and professional production techniques and the high-profile publicity given to other art forms.

Sir Cameron Mackintosh where are you?

Regards,
A.E.

Perhaps in this throw-away society we don't care if we are remembered? And how do we know that those poets from the past actually wanted to be remembered? I think that in days gone by people thought poets were clever souls - now, we can all be poets. Is that good or bad? Good maybe? It does provide a voice for all I guess.

When you write something I don't think your first thought is to be remembered. Otherwise, you would probably try to hard and not let it bleed naturally!
If you are remembered for whatever, then so be it!
But it would be nice however.

You may have a point there Anthony. You could write the best, most perfect poetry ever but who would care to remember it in this current culture?

Whether you see the current decline in the written/oral skills of the english language as a decline or a natural development - poetry will definitely be affected by it. How can teachers get children to appreciate poetry when many struggle to read basic english. And I don't think the english skills of many graduating teachers are that up to snuff either.

So maybe it is a question of finding new ways to present poetry - making it come alive off the page.

If you wanted to put a positive spin on all this, it would be to say that contemporary styles allow everyone to have a go. Much as Ann says - we can all have our own voice. I can remember someone coming up to me after performing at a venue, telling me how much he'd enjoyed my act. He'd never 'got' poetry at school but had loved mine. Perhaps by bringing performance poetry to people, we can demonstrate the fun to be had with language - not being memorable as such, but worthwhile.

Performance poetry is fairly widespread these days; you only have to browse WOL's gig guide to see that regular events are taking place all over the country. I suspect most of these are "amateur" events, and I don't use the term in any kind of disparaging sense. By amateur I mean that the poet/performer writes/prepares/performs their own material, having little or no say over the venue and all other external factors. Of course they can usually muster a few props, such as costume and maybe a few effects, but that's about as far as it goes.

Imagine if the performer could enhance that experience and have total control over how their work was presented - and not necessarily for live performance. Take some of the poetry used in TV adverts for example, e.g. some of the successful Guinness adverts of the past. If you had a budget like that to spend, professional camera/sound teams, a creative director, costume department, location managers, extras, archive footage and all the rest of the tricks that go with it. What would you do to present your poetry to its best effect?
Similarly on stage - if you could choose the backdrop (a film maybe) the intro and accompanying music, a cast - if you needed one (dancers maybe), sound effects, lighting etc, etc, etc.

As far as I am aware, poetry has never been presented in this way. A DVD of these "enhanced" performances would probably be a great way to introduce poetry into schools - books simply aren't going to have the same impact.

Poets utilise(I would hope) their imaginations as the primary tool in creating their work; why then dump that imagination in the presentation of it? Perhaps it just needs someone - or a group of people, to drag poets, albeit kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

Educational standards do worry me, although for kids to want to read and write well I feel they need to be inspired. Would great poetry professionally presented give them something to aspire to? Who knows, bur surely it's worth a shot?

Regards,

A.E.

Some years ago there was a violinist used to come to my venue. I have a poem called `Susan` which usually performs well, but on one occasion she did a violin accompaniment to the poem while her sister did a simple ballet sequence.

It brought the house down! and I thought fame was just around the corner...Unfortunately, the violinist ran off with a married policeman and I never heard from her again...Just shows, though, what a little `tarting` up can do.

I have a strong suspicion that the teaching of poetry has suffered as has the quality of written and spoken English in my lifetime. It says something dire about society when this situation has been allowed (and "allowed" is on the money!) to happen. Teaching has become politicised with a view to influencing young minds instead of practising its honoured profession without being tainted, intent on imparting knowledge and the right to be aware of its many treasures. Poetry - always the poor relation in many untutored minds - is a victim of the modern Philistines but manages to survive nonetheless,like a flower beneath a rock: there for anyone who cares to look. As James Elroy Flecker wrote in his poem "To A Poet A Thousand Years Hence":
'Since I can never see your face,
And never shake you by the hand,
I send my soul through time and space
To greet you. You will understand.'
That is what poets of any era shouldbe aiming to do.

I'm not sure anybody writes 'to be remembered' not even the poets of the past. They wrote about the concerns of their age in language that was appropriate for that age. That some of it is more memorable is possibly to do with things like rhythm.

Shakespeare wrote for the theatre; and his words had to reach across the pit to the balconies and engage both. I don't think he was thinking about being remembered in the future; more about being heard in a noisy theatre: that was his bread & butter.

Oh, and teaching has always been 'politicised.' It used to teach the dubious values of imperialism and empire, not to mention 'muscular Christianity'; now it teaches something much more diverse, and frankly a lot less Tory. And that's a good thing.

The much maligned ""Empire" brought
a prosperity and awareness of the world that was unmatched and when
one examines the history of empires
- be they Roman,Persian. Greek, Spanish, German et al, they have
been a fact of life in the course of
humanity. The fashionably maligned
British Empire's legacy produced
some of the finest poetry written
anywhere, and England in particular
is recognised as virtually the home
of poetry.
Who knows what was in WS's mind but
his awareness of the future is
encapsulated in his lines -
"So long as men can breathe, or eyes
can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee."
If one does not write to reach out
and touch our fellows, present and future, then it is a sterile exercise in words, worthy of being
whispered into a cupboard!

The much maligned Empire was a murderous, evil thing, like all empires, including the Roman, Persian, Greek, Spanish. Empires kill people. Fuck the British Empire and the fucking monarchy.

SW - but the poetry from the Elizabethan age onwards is unmatched. And nothing "modern"
has yet to come close.

I will mention that there is hope
when a poem like "In Her Passing"
(see recent WOL blog) appears. This
is heartfelt, well-crafted and memorable!

~Bollocks. The poetry of the Elizabethan age (or some of it) was no doubt 'great' but there are plenty of poets around now who are the equal of it. Just because you like to sit around in a nostalgic little bubble for times gone by doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Also, the idea that the poetry of Britain was/is the best in the world is nothing but chauvanist nonsense. There are great poets all over the world, from the Bengali poets of India to the great Japanese haiku poets, to European greats like Rilke, Lorca, Appollinaire; to the Spanish poets of Latin America. Dante could match Shakespeare for his poetry; without Petrarch there would be no English sonnet tradition. American poetry has been consistently more adventurous than British mainstream for decades.

"Bollocks".
One thing have have learned in 60 years is to weigh lightly anything anyone says who has certainty on their side.
I agree with MC - go whisper it in a cupboard.

SW - we agree to disagree. But I
imagine that is no surprise. In the
meantime, let us consider the chance
of W.S. being thought inferior to anyone from anywhere - either for
his poetry or his plays. Hmmm.
Then let us consider the paucity of
what is likely to be remembered from
your generation of scribblers.
That worries me...which gets back to the point of this blog.
Cheers.

There are some fantastic writers at the moment. I suspect we're in - if not a golden age, then at least a silver age. Equal of Shakespeare? Does that even make any sense? Shakespeare was a great and very innovative writer in his day; but I don't think there's any point in comparing writers of different ages in some kind of league as they're all doing different things, using different forms and with different concerns.

Apart from Shakespeare, who else in the Elizabethan has lasted? Ben Jonson perhaps - Christopher Marlowe - anyone for George Gascoigne?

Whilst I can admire Shakespeare's work and achievements I can agree with Steven that there are some seriously good writers around today. WS was one of the first to make theatre and poetry accessible to the masses, which probably gives him an unfair advantage in terms of precedent and status. There is also that "If I criticise Shakespeare then I'll look thick" element to it. I'm certainly not going to hold him up as an example of how everyone should be writing.

As a poet Heaney holds up pretty well I think - Nobel prize etc. As a playwright Paul Abbot is creating a superb legacy of social comment, just as WS did in his day.

I think it's quite dangerous to go down the "good, better best" road; especially when it's almost impossible to compare like with like. Different times, styles, tastes and media will produce very different work. And different doesn't necessarily mean better - or worse.

For me there are no absolutes in writing and I'm delighted to discover and be exposed to new writers and ways of looking at life.

I don't want to be stuck in the rut of writing about the same subjects in the same style ad infinitum. Tolerance and an inquisitive mind are fairly useful tools, but seem to be in short supply sometimes. We all think we know how and what we ought to write, but do we know what any potential audience might like to read? If the two don't match up then maybe we're out of step somewhere . . .

Regards,

A.E.

A.E - you write a lot of sense. Certainly W.S. had an advantage insofar that except for Chaucer perhaps, there was no precedent of
such sustained quality in either
prose or poetry. But the thing about W.S is that he reaches across
the ages - words for all time. Will
poets of recent years be able - or
care - to achieve that? The poets
that followed - down to the last
century - had a hard act to follow BUT a supreme inspiration to encourage them. The wealth of
English poetry between the 17th and
20th centuries is a testament to
what high ideals can achieve. The
imagination was reinforced by a control of, and discipline in the
unrivalled glory of the language.
Modern poets have a matchless
inheritance yet can seem - like ungrateful offspring - set on
squandering it on unworthy priorities/tastes that have no "shelf-life". Is it any wonder
that the main audience for poetry is all too often other poets in an
age when it could be said that it has everything going for it: with
an audience potential that has found a partial response in a programme like "Poetry Please" that calls beyond the door of a closed shop.

One never knows who - among poets and creative artists generally - succeeding generations will appreciate. Gerard Manley Hopkins wasn't published till 29 years after his death. Van Gogh was a failure in his lifetime. There are many examples. Conversely many stars of their day don't shine for those who come later. You just never know.

MCN has modestly not mentioned that he's neatly distilled his thoughts on this subject in the Chit Chat 'clerihew' topic - http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/newsgroupview.php?NewsThreadsID=1339&NewsGroupsID=33

Dave - there is no hiding place from the PIS - poets' intelligence
service!
I may have to claim absolution under
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

There is a piece of conceptual poetry by the poetry Caroline Bergvall called Via which consists of 47 different translations from 1800 to 2000 of the first verse of Dante's Inferno. Whatever one thinks of the piece Bergvall made of it, 47 translations in 200 years is pretty remarkable, and it probably isn't all of them. I suspect you'd find a comparable number of translations of Homer's Illiad and Odyessey. Goethe, Heine and many other poets are still being translated all over the world.

It ain't just the British that produce great literature that gets remembered.

SW - point taken. It is certainly the position of English as the most widely used language among the nations of the world that may aid
the belief that Western poetry is
(mistakenly?) seen as taking pole
position in such things. By all means let us acknowledge the richness from elsewhere but it has
to be understood, accepted and enjoyed by the wider world.
Nation should speak unto nation,
rather than poet to poet. The
universality of the human condition is not always reflected in the
poetry from a given country. And
it is hard enough to make oneself
understood in plain English sometimes. One might make a fair
fist of translating prose but it's
another thing entirely to "convert"
verse from language to language with
any likelihood of success in imparting its meaning or emotion to
equal effect.

i would like to be remembered:
when im dead
you can say
she was great
she gave good head
cos all my words inconsequential
no one remembers
the existential
apart from kierkegaard and nietszche of course
but even clever men they have their whores
so dont forget
the best of poetry was writ by those
whos gotting never get
and giving never got.

Rachel oh Rachel
(my word is my bond)
In three generations
(no need to despond)
your touch will have gone,
like the tread that you leave
and only a name's left
for those that will grieve.
But along with your thoughts
(that furnish your lines)
there's a sigh that is written
so your voice echoes betimes .
Tommy

Steve W. Well said on several points.

...Also: (and I don't mean to personalise the issue- but I will) When I read M.C.'s post's I envisage him with a foot rested on the hearth of a blazing fire in a sumptuous drawing room, dressed in an evening suit, with, in one hand, a cigarette in its holder and gazing at a painting of Oscar Wilde- sounding like Noel Coward.

Fogey Mansions
London W1
Dear Mr Carroll,
My butler has gone to bed but I will
not let his absence affect my desire
to respond in prompt and considered
fashion.
My thoughts are often with dear W.S.
when he wrote so perceptively...
"For we, which now behold these present days,
Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues to praise".
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must
dampen the fire and put the cat out.
(You just can't get the staff these days).
Yours ever,
:-)