In my opinion, the 'intellectual' poem is chiefly characterized by allusions. It is a poem by a writer who presumes that the reader has as wide a range of similar, in-depth knowledge as he/she does, in order to 'get the point'. Is this, then, the elitist element of poetry, targetting a particular audience of shared background? If so, why is it frequently denigrated as snotty? Why do so many poets bend over backwards to deny a little scholarship? To me, this seems ridiculous. "Birds of a feather .... and all that"

Well expressed.

News of the World and the Observer both write for their readers. I write for a monthly magazine that is targeted towards the over-50 age bracket and the style needs to reflect their likely receptivity.
Rap music leaves me cold so could never convey a message to me etc etc.

Sometimes I find it off-putting if someone knows something I don't know and expects me to know it! But if the poem is engaging enough, it would make me want to find out. We can all have knowledge which to others is a bit obscure, but if the poem is good enough and you don't get the feeling that the poet is showing off, that's OK in my book. We can't expect people to pretend not to know about something at the expence of their poem ,just so they can dumb down and make some of us feel good.

I'm interested in this topic, Cynthia. I will admit straight away that the more allusions there are in a poem, the more likely it is to exclude me - although, of course, it depends what the allusions are to. If they were associated with football, or pop music from the 1960s or 70s, that would be good for me, but would leave many others cold. I enjoyed the Rev Two Sheds' recent epic effort about Maggie Thatcher, but you need to be a bit of a politics anorak - and a certain age - to get some of the references. I suppose I would like my poetry to be enjoyed and understood by as many people as possible. I'm not a great fan of crossword puzzles. But I do understand and accept that much of the pleasure we take from poetry is uncovering different levels of meaning, beyond everyday language.

Among my favourite poets are people like TS Eliot, who was very fond of allusions - but none of them actually detract from the power of the poetry.

He also said that poetry should be difficult if it's going to deal with difficult times. And I agree - though not all the time or in every poem. Sometimes simplicity can be beautiful - as in Blake, for instance, where the simplicity hides a great deal of depth.

I think where it detracts is where the allusion is just a form of showing off - "look at my subtle allusion to Dante", for instance. Poetry isn't a newspaper article, so it doesn't have to be plain as a pikestaff - some of my favourite poems are ones I keep returning to because I can't get to the bottom of them. They resonate with meaning, sparking off in all kinds of directions. They're not like crosswords (they don't have a solution as such) but they do stimulate thought.

Interesting topic. The trouble with the "intellectual" poem involving allusion is that it seems too tied to an old view that knowing primitive (and in my view idiotic) stories of ancient greece and rome (and other primitive cultures) is somehow a sign of intelligence. That view was propagated and nurtured as a way to keep particularly the romans and greeks at the forefronts of the minds of anyone wanting to run a fascist or imperialist regime along the same lines.

In the "best" schools the clever kids had to study the classics and the less bright had to study woodwork etc. Politicians, college professors and high court judges frequently used allusion to the classics in their speeches (even as late as Enoch Powell).

The trouble is, the classical cultures they referred to were primitive people and mostly superstitious eegits but with the odd notable bright spark. Today, we are a modern high tech people comprising mostly superstitious eegits but with the odd notable bright spark (you can verify this by sitting in a public space and mentally asigning roles to the passers-by). Our stories aren't full of self-evindently daft stuff like sea monsters, minotaurs and people parting the sea. If you tried to publish that sort of stuff as adult fiction today people would just tell you to grow up and get real. So, why allude to it?

Why, indeed? Most of it is no longer known about by the majority of the population and we have stories that are current and that move us in ways that ancient rubbish never can. Allusion to things that are current (I am including ancient stories that are still cared about by modern people in this bracket) is indeed (moderately) clever. Doing this last can provide a really good shorthand way of evoking what you are looking to evoke in your reader. Using allusion this way has a point to it in ways that making mention of persiphylis' and herpes' dinner party that passed off without incident in the underworld doesn't.

Lastly, knowing obscure ancient myths is no cleverer than any other OCD geekery one might possess. If I alluded to all of the trains I've spotted over the years (and, trust me, my knowledge of these is just about as encyclopaedic as my enthusiasm for them is insatiable), nobody would think the poem any the more worthy or me intellectual. So why do it with classical allusion. If anything, people who know a lot of classical myths have been stupid enough to fall for the lie that wasting your time reading such things is a sign of intelligence.

I don't know about classical i(a)llusions, but I do know that some of those Greeks and Romans actually wrote some damn fine poetry. I don't know much, but I do know a bit of Ovid goes a long way. And as for that rude boy (in both senses of the word) Catullus...

Personally, I'm more likely to allude to Elvis Costello though than Homer. I also like old words in poetry.

I don't see why poetry shouldn't engage us at all levels, including challenging our intellect, though maybe a few more allusions to Nils Bohr rather than Homer...?

I find allusion to the Classics,in any form, such a turn off. There are far more indirect significant references available,to well known events and people in this century.
Literature had moved on and resurrecting the same old boring cliché into poetry may not work anymore.

'Resurrecting' is an allusion to classical myth, Val! One has to choose the thing alluded to with care. Not everything lingers. Work relying on allusion becomes obsolete at the speed of cultural forgetfulness -- which is sometimes extremely rapid.

Myths and legends linger because what drives, beguiles and fascinates people, despite scientific, technological and societal advances, remains remarkably unchanged over time. War, matricide, patricide, infanticide, fratricide, sex, wealth, morality, grief, joy, anger, love, beauty, youth, age, illness, religion, suffering, exploration, innovation and cunning are all found in the myths and legends of every race and culture. Those people currently on fame's VIP list, and most events flagged by the news media, may not be capable of carrying such a payload.

Quote "Myths and legends linger because what drives, beguiles and fascinates people, despite scientific, technological and societal advances, remains remarkably unchanged over time. War, matricide, patricide, infanticide, fratricide, sex, wealth, morality, grief, joy, anger, love, beauty, youth, age, illness, religion, suffering, exploration, innovation and cunning are all found in the myths and legends of every race and culture."
But its not for everyone Hatta,plus its so predictable at times.

I happen to love myths of all cultures, for all the reasons so aptly given in the prior comment. I have several quite comprehensive books. Mostly I enjoy the similarities which thrill me in expressing the 'sameness' of people in all global regions and eras of human development. So I personally consider myths to be timeless.
I find the Greek myths so complex that I wouldn't dream of ever alluding to one or another. I'd be sure to get the wrong one, and look a fool. I'm not sure I understand the shorthand of allusion with very many of them. But then, not all 'experts' agree as to what was intended. Quite understandably, because I don't think the original writers/collaborators were always sure either.

But, I am having a fascinating browse though Charles Gayley's 'Classical Myths in English Literature and in Art', a book I picked up on a sidewalk table, published in 1893. Such a find is exciting! And two days later there was a direct reference to this very author in a current Literature textbook. I was gob-smacked. Such instances make you feel so 'connected'.

'Predictable'?Surely it's what you do with them? Part of the fun of writing is in making unexpected connections. If you enjoyed Harry Potter, for example, you're being retold The Orestia but with wonderful odds and ends and resonances added. And it's hardly the fault of the myths that they were misused by fascist dictators (heck, Hitler believed he had the Spear of Destiny and actually committed suicide within half an hour of having the spear seized by the invading Russians). Nor is it the myths' fault they were flagged up as part of the curriculum for swots. Hollywood and Bollywood recreate these same myths and they're a big part of popular culture.
'Predictable'? There's a super book by Joseph Campbell called The Hero With A Hundred Faces (yes, about myths) and it led directly to a book regarded as the script writer's bible called The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories by Christopher Booker ( although his interpretation of women characters is wanting, but hey ho, feminism continues to fight the fight). There are two main narratives in all stories everywhere. Comedy and Tragedy. In comedy, the status quo is restored and the self conquered and subdued. In tragedy, things fall apart so catastrophically and irredeemably that the hero/heroine is destroyed/dies and the natural order of things is restored (again, it's all about reclaiming the status quo). These tales end in murder/suicide/execution or nuptuals/love. And, yes, 'predictable' can be good. Bet you haven't wanted to listen to your favourite song just once and no more? Ditto read your favourite poems, books, see your favourite pictures and films?

Of course, you have surrealism which, it could be argued (and according to Georges Battailles) was an attempt at being mythless. Look what that did to narrative and predictability.

Surely myths exist because they sum up the human condition, tho often in a larger than life, heroic way. We are all our own heroes and heroines, as are the people we know in our lives, whether they are heroes or vilains. The seven plots or whatever sum up all our lives. We are what myths are made from. But allusion can be something totally other. I recently put a very minor blogg on the site regarding the death of a daytime tv presenter. He will be doubtless forgotten by all but his nearest and dearest any day now, and if anyone on here read the poem they may have wondered who on earth he was. I guess I was making an allusion (to him) that many would not have "got" (and probably they'd be proud not to have got.) But I was using him and the reaction to his death as an allusion. Or I think I was. To make a point. But it would have been meaningless to many (probably they are too busy reading Ovid to watch daytime tv!) ;-)

YES! It's about US! We peoples. We crazy, profound, brave, silly, complex numpties and noodles -- the human condition (sounds like some vitamin pills now).

Ms Foxglove how did you know I was too busy reading Ovid to watch daytime TV and therefore pick up on your allusion to Christian Digby? Had you gone and fixed that nannycam in my front room again?

Cynthia, sounds like you found a real treasure there. Have you tried Frasers' The Golden Bough or Robert Grave's The White Goddess? Chewy volumes but not without some beguiling content.

Surely there is a difference between allusion to some text, fable so forth, in order to convey those themes that are universal, timeless, part of the human condition; and allusion worn as a badge: if you don't get this you are a numpty and I am superior to you, ha ha!

And the way to allude is in a way that either is readily understandable to your audience/reader - thus enabling them to engage with it - or, better, is just slightly beyond their allusive comfort zone (be there such a thing?), sufficient to stretch them, make them feel they have worked for it, or at least been stretched somehow. I think I am agreeing with Steve here?
I love Guardian crosswords, but never actually went to any secondary school for more than a few days at a time, so I struggle. If I manage to complete an Araucaria puzzle on a Saturday I feel that I have earned it.

By the bye, my mother once bought a dictionary for us on Oldham market, as she thought it would be educational.

It was a Funk and Wagnalls, and was in two parts and she only had enough money for the first volume. So my vocabulary is US (and u.s.) but otherwise perfect, up to the letter "L". Beyond that is unexplored territory.

Surely there is, Mr Jordon! You can allude to anything and in umpteen assorted ways. It's part of your writing toolkit. Your work and mine is limited (or liberated) by our references, though.

There just seemed to be a bit of a glitch when myths were mentioned which seemed a shame. Heck, isn't Jaws (and sequels) based on Beowolf? Not Greek or Roman but a cracking good, scary myth.

In his "I have a dream...' speech Martin Luther King Jnr alluded to Abraham Lincoln's speech on the gaining of American independence. The reference wasn't lost on his original audience, but it might be missed by some people coming to it now.

No, ancient myths are childish rubbish - they don't so much document the human condition as document gibberish and then people use the human condition thing as a defence of them and go dead metaphorical and basically lie. Now this last IS a major part of the actual human condition (which I use as a separate term from "the human condition" because so many people use the latter term to denote something far more noble and worthwhile than most of us really are)., but only the modernist writers acknowledged that we are basically quite unpleasant in their stories.

I would agree that humanity in its actual condition is worth writing about though, but it ought to be remembered that ancient writers used to reference other ancient writers fairly contemporary with themselves. It's hard to stir emotions by poetry alone, whereas music and dramas can do that in a "here, eat this" kind of a way that is instant but ultimately less satisfying.

In poetry (ancient or modern), you can ride on the coat tails of the emotions people got from their favourite dramas and songs by alluding to them. And in that way, the clever thing about allusion is the recognition that most of your audience are a bit feeble minded (we all are) and need that teletubby repetition thing. In order to be effective though, enough of your audience must know the song or drama and feel some sort of connection with it. If it's an ancient drama there are academics who like such things but their liking of it is usually mostly put on and untrue. The rest of us just aren't moved by ancient dramas because we can't relate to them in the same way as we can relate to ET dying because the characters are too fake and conventionally heroic.

Dermot, you can't be serious about making such a judgmental statement about 'academics' and 'ancient dramas', 'their liking of it is mostly put on and untrue'. On an academic scale of 1-10 (10 high) I'm a 1, maybe a nudge into 2; but I wouldn't dream of being contemptuous of those scholars who have studied with RESPECT and LOVE the ancient stories and dramas. Not all classical education was force-fed.

This discussion sounds like an ongoing BATTLE OF THE BOOKS from the late 1600's, which argument was not new then. The protagonists then thought themselves very 'modern'. They propogated or challenged the 'contempt of the common man for scholarship'. My credentials to contribute are almost zilch. I don't know about yours, or others who are participating. But how terrific, to take up the same spirited, often downright acerbic, interchange. It is so old hat. But maybe enough to resurrect some honour for myths!

I've found that Dermot's never entirely serious but is usually mischievous and always very clever, just like Hatta really.

Back to the discussion...

When I studied Elliot in the late 60s I became disillusioned with the academics who, at that time certainly, seemed to revel in discovering ever more esoteric allusions and obscure references in his work which, in my view, did little to aid understanding of, or add any value to the poetry. In fact, almost ignoring the poetry - academia disappearing up it's own fundament. So in that sense I agree with some of Dermot's pontification.

On the other hand, I agree with Hatta that allusion is a fantastic tool kit that can be used in many ways in ones poetry. So, for instance, it can be used as an effective shorthand to express a great deal using very little. And surely, with the advent of the web and Google, any allusion is but a quick search and a little research away, isn't it? Perhaps, if the allusion is very obtuse then, for on-line poetry, the poet could create a hyperlink to an area of explanation on the web (e.g. wikipedia) for the reader to investigate further should s/he wish to do so.

With regard to the seven basic plots. There maybe only seven basic plots but surely there are thousands or more stories aren't there?

I once went to a lecture by Kurt Vonegut who suggested that the indigenous American people told stories that started and ended with nothing much happening and there was nothing much happening in between either - I've heard Irish folk stories like this.

He went on to describe the seven basic plots and the kind of variants one could have using a chart to show the flow - the highs, lows, reversals, resolutions etc. He then suggested that Kafka's 'Metamorphosis' changed all that, as it started with the protagonist in a bad situation which immediately got incredibly worse and concluded with no explanation or resolution.

Nothing more fake than ET. Just a lot of semi-digested Campbell, if you ask me. Even more rubbish than Star Wars.

It ought to be noticed that there's nothing to stop anyone from alluding to the lyrics of Elvis Costello or Johnny Rotten. It's still allusion.

Practically everything could be classed as allusion. I posted a poem in which I mentioned Martin Brothers pottery. This was an allusion. I decided that to use a photo of a Martinware pot would help explain the allusion. I am not showing off my knowledge of ceramics, probably anyone who has ever watched Antiques Road show would know what I was on about. So Maybe "allusion" means just about anything that we, the poet, know about and the reader (if we are lucky enough to have such a thing) might not.

The 'success' of any particular allusion relies entirely on cultural determinants. To feel excluded or alienated by classical or intellectual allusions is really an incorrect response. Either find out what they refer to or don't read that kind of poetry. There is plenty of demotic poetry out there that can be enjoyed by anyone.

Personally, I tend to shy away from too much allusion in my poetry. Partly because I don't want to get it wrong and have some professor pull me up and tell me that; partly because I want my poetry to be read by as many people as possible.

Without the grounding of ancient myth much of Dermot's poetry (and his stories) would not exist. He knows this but insists on wearing a contrary coat when he visits this site.

Poetry is the shadow of speech.
Speech is the shadow of thought.
Thought is the shadow of emotion.
Emotion is the shadow of impulse.
Impulse is the remains of the beast in us.

Myth is our link to the beast. That is why it survives, and always will do.

I have beaten the drum for appreciation of mythology. However, I find allusions to legends, folktales and fables even more pertinent than those to mythology. The crunch is: Just what exactly is what? Definitions can be so confusing, depending on the 'current expert in power'.

Siren, I do not know the poem quoted. I think I should, but, regardless, it is marvellous.

Hi Cynthia.

Er, that wasn't a poem. I just made it up as I was writing the post. But seeing as you like it, I might turn it into a poem...

I watched this thread with interest until it prompted me to write my latest. I suppose I should explain my thinking on the subject.

I think allusion runs right through everything from art to everyday speech - often without us even being aware of it.

How much is too much - is a matter of individual taste. Whether you enjoy allusion often depends on whether you get it - it seems so obvious when you do - a bit like 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' where all the questions you have answers for are so easy...and all the rest are too obscure.

There may be a small number of poets who use allusion to display their greater general knowledge (I wouldn't say intelligence) but I can't think of one on WOL. If they really need to do this then Allusion must be fulfilling some deep seated insecurities in them - so what's the harm in that? No-one needs to read it....

I like poetry that can work on several levels. Take for example Dave Carr's recent 'Do Not Bend Forward In those Jeans so Tight'. The poem was an echo of Dylan Thomas's 'Do not go gently into that goodnight'. You didn't need to know that to enjoy the poem though. It was well crafted - comprehension of the allusion, just helping you to enjoy it on another level.

I would much prefer to read a poem steeped in allusion that I struggle to understand, than a poem with words real and made up, that are just slung together for the sound alone.

Having said all that - this is just my opinion - there are so many different tastes on here - thankfully WOL accommodates them all.

I have no problem with allusion; well almost none.

It isn't the mechanism/device of allusion per se that irks me, but the attitude of some who choose to use it. I have come across poetry in the past apparently stuffed with allusion; allusion which I, and apparently many others, failed to "get." These were not "common circulation" allusions, but allusions which might only be spotted by those with a very specific and narrow interest/knowledge. On having to have the allusion explained to me (this always spoils the poem for me; rather like having to have a joke explained) to fully enable me (and, no doubt, many others) to appreciate it, the allusion was so tenuous and insignificant as to add nothing of any artistic value to what I thought was a poor and ill-conceived work in the first place.

On questioning this further, the author offered no explanation or justification for the allusion, except to triumphally quote references to fairly obscure and, in my opinion equally poor, original texts and their translations.

I felt I was being sneered at by the author, and he personally cited my "lack of education" and ignorance. I wanted to know, not only from him, but from those who apparently appreciated the poem what was good/clever/appreciable about it. No explanation was forthcoming.

It almost seemed to be an exercise in group mentality - with a flaw. Those who liked it couldn't offer an credible explanation as to why they did; except perhaps for the obscurity of the allusion. In fact it was fairly obvious that the vast majority didn't get it, but were tagging along on the coat tails of elitism.

There is nothing clever or artistic about allusion used in this way. It is simply "I know something that you don't, and I'm going to exploit that to ridicule you." It could be likened to intellectual exclusion - or playground bullying of the "ner-ner-nener-ner" variety. It's a cheap, and not very good trick, used by poets who often don't know any others.

Should anyone feel ridiculed, excluded or inadequate for not having a small area of highly specific knowledge or experience when reading a poem? Is this a worthy aim for a poem?

If I were to give you say three skills/tasks:

1. Designing a nuclear reactor.
2. Cooking a gourmet standard meal for 80+ people from various raw ingredients.
3. Performing succesful invasive surgery on the human central nervous system.

One of those three tasks I can do, but I would certainly fail at the other two. I would applaud experts in the other two fields. But, and here's the but, I would certainly not use a lack of knowledge or experience in my own field to attempt to make others feel somehow inadequate.

Allusion is fine, except whe it's used purely to prove how smart someone is - and how dumb everyone else is. In that case it becomes pure and simple vanity.

Regards,
A.E.

I know it’s early in the morning - but I had an early night!

From a purely selfish point of view - I don’t give a hoot to what degree a writer smears their poetry in those oils of allusion. I interpret a poem exactly how I want to interpret a poem - to my level of understanding. Whether this level is deeper or much more shallow and superficial than a writer intended - I care not a fig. What I don’t want is the writer saying that my interpretation of their work is wrong. This smacks of both an inexperienced writer and a naïve individual.

I genuinely don’t feel that there is a ‘wrong’ as far as interpreting a piece of poetry is concerned - just be prepared to explain or detail how you arrive at your own conclusions. Much more discussion has been generated from poetry whose author’s intended allusion has gone unexplained than poetry that we are certain about their meaning or theme. Even this poetry though often finds itself re-emerging for the next generation to interpret as they see fit. More often than not with the same themes being discussed, but occasionally, a comment or an opinion will be thrown into the mix that is both refreshing and exciting
which makes you hold a poem back up toward the light and marvel again at its beauty.

Personally, I enjoy ‘challenging’ poetry. I don't want to say 'Hi' to a poem and later that same night find myself in bed with it". I want to 'wine and dine' it - get to know it a little better before I find myself having to hang its dead carcass on a large ’S’ shaped meat-hook after beating it with my own distorted definition of sense.

Which, rather unashamedly, I find very liberating.

For gawd's sake, looksee. Poetry is akin to advertising, the poet chooses their demographic and targets it with allusion, reference, images, language, subject, style. Simples. If a poet chooses to exclude you, fine. If a poet chooses to include you, fine. You can write a poem that wittingly does the same -- strategically place your literary/oral bouncers and have them turn away the inappropriately 'genned up' at a point decided by your own poetic conscience.

Or go educate yourselves, learn the references, grab the chance to expand your mind if you feel the tickle of what's promised to the knowing. Otherwise accept it's not worth the effort and walk away. The poem won't mind, it's indifferent.

Hatta...are you 'LM' in disguise? ;-)

The question to ask of a poem, it seems to me, is not, do I understand it? but, in what way do I not understand it?

Good poetry, says TS Eliot, can be appreciated before it's understood. In fact, if you understand it all at first go, will you ever be likely to read it again? Conversely, if it's so difficult that you can't even get anything from it the first time, are you likely to revisit it? There has to be something that makes me want to read a poem again.

Now sometimes, as with Eliot, or WS Graham or Dylan Thomas, it's the language that does that; its strangeness; its mystery. Some poems I can read again and again and never get to the bottom of; but I love them because of that. I think I've got it; but then it slides away like a David Lynch movie. Sometimes, a writer can use the simplest language, and I still don't know precisely what it's about. But I get something: a feeling, a glimpse, a mysterious presence of meaning just through the next door.

That, to me, is when poetry is at its best. If it's just showing off about what it knows, it's boring; if it's just telling me what I already know, I'm not interested. But if it's taking me along on a journey to somewhere I've never been, then that is poetry.

Steven, this is an excellent comment. I take it to heart, or maybe brain is better -- or maybe both, actually.