Having recently discussed the direction that Modern Poetry might take in the 21st century with several poets and writers I picked up a weighty volume entitled “The 20th Century in Poetry” from my local library and was surprised to find few references to major events such as the Atomic bomb at Hiroshima or the first Man in Space or the first Moon landing in that particular anthology. Not that there are no poems on those subjects available today or that I think all poetry should reflect or be inspired by temporal events particularly disastrous or celebratory ones, but that practice has oft been visited by many poets in the past. I was in effect disappointed that this 20th Century poetry anthology did not include any poems about Hiroshima, or for that matter the First Moon Landing? Anyway, it did include that undeniable classic of modern poetry entitled “so much depends” and even Bob Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind”. If the 20th century was not inimical in poetic style or subject what directions and what subjects will poets adopt in the 21st century?

In an attempt to understand poetry from a purely technical or academic standpoint I also acquired a rather critical view of English Poems/Poets-largely from a metrical viewpoint, a small volume entitled “Prosody in England & Elsewhere” by an Italian born writer and scientist-Leonardo Malcovati. He was quite scathing of several English Poets from the past including Shakespeare, Spenser, & Marlowe and has very little praise for modern English Poets either who might be inclined to ride rough-shod over accepted continental poetical practices. He is a fan of Provencal poetry and the rather formal continental styles developed during the Italian Renaissance and later imitated in England and elsewhere.

Generally speaking, Poetry is divided into lyrical and narrative forms or genres; Anglo-Saxon and Celtic forms were largely alliterative and narrative (stories or epics, historical records, legends, or gothic fairy tales). Roman and Greek forms are usually inspired by lyrical and personal expressions of soulful woe and are useful in drama. But technically "Poetry" is more correctly a term identifying a body of work. Poesy is the correct term for describing the sublime art of the poet itself and Prosody is a term used to describe the various techniques or components employed in poetry.

Poetic forms or styles and the use of these traditional techniques are a huge bone of contention even today. Some argue there is no need to follow conventions and others that they are the backbone of genuine poetry. However, we are told that poetry is distinguished from other forms of everyday speech or written communication as follows:

1. Rhetorical: Used in everyday conversation, a persuasive argument, declaration, proposal or extravagant use of language. Public oratory often prone to drama or exaggeration. If someone is being rhetorical it suggests that they are only too aware of the answers to their questions that their words might evoke.

2. Prosaic: (Prose) Use of ordinary spoken language which may be described as dull, very matter of fact, boring, long-winded, devoid of beauty or unromantic. In poetry a monologue devoid of metre, rhymed accentual verse often lyrical in style and sung between other more serious religious sermons or gospels. A frivolous and entertaining interlude or cameo.

3. Poetical: (Prosodic) Skilful use of rhyme, vocabulary, metre, verse & composition. However, the word "poetic" has become perverted into that more correctly meaning prosaic or prosodic.

Allegorical, Symbolic, Surreal or Metaphorical use of language whether in lyrical or narrative forms is usually found in verse or prose, but it is also found in many works of fiction.

One is tempted to think that these literary contentions are largely about the hijacking of the terms ie: “Poet” or “Poetry” by modern experimental writers who themselves were probably influenced by experimental writing in the middle 20th century when the conventional visual arts were also being challenged for their orthodoxy and stagnating realism. It is extremely odd to think that the Metaphysical poets of the 17th century were considered “experimental”, way out or modern by the conventional poets of the period. But who in the final analysis is entitled to call themselves a poet and who can truly declare that what they have written is poetry? Are there any final arbiters or judges in verse save the public themselves and possibly other poets who are nevertheless subjective in their opinions and choice. This fundamental distinction becomes even more problematic and insoluble when one compares poetry intended to be sung and written or spoken poetry.

In poetry there are an almost infinite number of verse expressions as there are in moods, forms and rhythms with music because poets can employ visual as well as aural patterns. In effect Poets are constantly modifying existing ones and also inventing completely new forms whenever they abandon others. Some poets have decided to abandon all previous forms and genres regarding them ostensibly as “literary straight-jackets” and take a radical leap into what could only be termed “unchartered territory”. Traditionally, the verse in poetry is often strongly affected in form or pattern by its origins, the language it is written in and the stressed or unstressed syllables employed. Technically of course it is also recognised by other elements such as the foot, metre, rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, assonance and consonance. Forms or styles are created largely to accommodate or resonate with these elements. However, in reality poets are rarely conscious of these abiding elements when writing their own poetry-its styles, forms and genres belong to the post-episodic state that a poet often finds themselves reflecting on.

Poésie, or Poesy, are different from Prosody, the latter is defined in the dictionary as the theory, techniques and methods employed in the construction of poetry, the former being the art, style and composition of poetry. Northern European poetry (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon & Nordic), especially the great epics or sagas, concentrated on producing reams of alliterative, half-line verse while Southern European poets (Greek & Roman) featured short collections that concentrated more on rhythm, rhyme, and metre, that is if we exclude their own well-known national epics, the Aeneid, Odyssey & Iliad. Strictly speaking, the term Poetry means the collected works of any poet, but the art of poetry is essentially the ingenious or inspired use of metre, syntax, verse with a thorough understanding of grammar, usually embroidered with an extensive vocabulary. Subjects or objects are secondary to the mood and tone of the poet which is also very important in defining his personal style. What we can say is that poetry is made up of the following elements:

1. Grammar

2. Syntax

3. Rhyme

4. Metre or Rhythm

5. Vocabulary

6. Composition

7. Aural or Visual Patterns

8. Creative Symbolism

And it is embellished with the aid of certain phonetic tricks such as:

1. Alliteration

2. Consonance

3. Assonance

4. Repetition

 Many poems are written in prose or verse and usually express a subject and theme. Unfortunately for the layman the distinction between verse and prose has become rather vague over the last century, especially with the introduction of contemporary and experimental forms of poetry. In contemporary sense one tends to borrow from the other until it becomes a popular form of expression.

However, it would appear that Leonardo Malcovati has only part of the story. The sonnet is an Italian import as is the villanelle. The pantoum is from Thailand and free verse owes a great deal to Chinese and Far Eastern ideas via the American poet Ezra Pound. Nevertheless, English poets have always been greatly influenced by European and at times oriental movements or perspectives. The poetry of Omar Khayyam and the vast corpus of Japanese and Chinese poetry are typical examples from the past. The present crop of poets owe a lot to the German and East European movements and the  anti-heroes of Russian work. In the more recent 20th century American poets did have a major impact. Nevertheless, American literature has lost some of its spark with readers and writers of this century. The New York school seems to have run out of steam or its appetite for revolution has moved elsewhere. English poetry (that is poems written in English), in my humble opinion, has had major achievements in the last century.  I’m sure Leonardo himself would be the last to advocate a slavish aping of precise continental poetic techniques!

In response to the perennial contentions among poets, Walter Dain prompted a simple definition:

“I think poetry should be about the response of the personality to the ‘human condition’. That means poetry can be about anything, even about nothing if that’s not a contradiction. Emily Dickinson wrote many poems about waiting for something to happen while Stevie Smith is witty and moving on idle reverie. In effect “Nothingness” is a state of being with its own enigmatic content. Edna St Vincent Millay wrote brilliantly about the humdrum of lovemaking and managed to find in it existential keys neatly compressed into sonnets.  W.H. Auden was deeply concerned about moral issues, T. S. Eliot about his own existential hang-ups. But I cannot agree with Leonardo Malcovati’s crude assessments. English poetry in the 20th century has actually got a lot to boast about. I would refer poetry buffs to Keith Douglas on WW2. However, as far as form goes, many poets cast round for new ways to write poetry, particularly the Americans, and some have abandoned form altogether, mostly to bad effect”.

Or as W. H. Auden sums up as follows:

What poets feel not, when they make,

A pleasure in creating,

The world in its turn, will not take

Pleasure in contemplating.

One is reminded therefore not to place form or style, however challenging or stimulating they appear to be, above actual content. Consider instead what is the poet trying to say, how they are saying it and why? One should consider that from the time of Coleridge and perhaps even from that of Shakespeare, the Romantic Aesthetic works of art were even then thought to be wholly original, and complete in themselves being without any ulterior motive or even practical utility, their only raison d'être was "to be".

However, for many years a whole corpus of rational critical analysis has sprung up from what poets, dramatists and authors have themselves created. All in the hope perhaps that it may shed some light into the author’s intentions and literary style. Although many people would naturally disagree it becomes irrelevant to speak of or question a poems' structure, composition or intrinsic meaning (if there is one) and the only really valid question to ask is whether it works as an organic or creative whole. The growing conviction in the Renaissance was that the active imagination, linked to an extreme sensibility, of any literary, musical or visual artist endowed them with a certain visionary perception or apprehension that allowed them to intuitively express their ideas in a unique and individual way. Drawing cunning analogies either by comparison, similitude or distinction inevitably leads to metaphorical and allegorical reflection and with time or place permitted to some degree of poetical expression.

In actual fact poetry is composed in the mind, written on paper and when complete is usually performed aloud to an attentive audience or read to oneself in silence.

If a piece of poetry contains a measure of prosody, the poem is merely poetic in a purely literary sense, but if it is devoid of some deeper conceptual meaning or symbolic vision then it cannot be truly defined in the strictest sense of the word as poesy per se. In other words, the visceral or phonetic components and metrical effects produced by some poets may not be sufficient to identify or differentiate an inferior from a superlative work. We currently live in an age where anything that remotely rhymes is called poetry and anyone who can produce two lines in blank verse is called a poet. Where the words or sentences are verbal topiary, neatly clipped and arranged in regular verses so that they could be regarded even by the illiterate as poetic. However, many people enjoy poetry at a conscious or unconscious level because of what in a syntactical sense is being communicated to them through the innovative and creative use of spoken words. This is partly because what is being communicated “rings true”, perhaps strikes a deep emotional chord that resonates or coincides with their own personal experience or heightens their intellectual appreciation and finally contributes to their appreciation of creative writing.

This is especially true whenever a poem seems to sum up a personal dilemma or perfectly describes an emotional viewpoint at any particular time and what they might find most enjoyable when a particular poem is being read to them. Aside from which some poetry may even open the doors of perception to feelings and thoughts that previously seemed obscure or distant to the average person.

Writers and researchers into literature have identified the five basic forms that a poet or writer would employ in dramatic or literary works.

1. Romance
2. Tragedy
3. Comedy
4. Satire
5. Irony

Any poem, play or novel would automatically fall into one or more of these five categories. Despite the voluminous quantity of so-called “poetry” being produced in the 21st century we should not lose sight of poetry’s enduring qualities and its formal traditions cultivated over thousands of years. Time, the great winnower of wheat from chaff, will undoubtedly decide who might be considered a temporal (forgettable) poet and who succeeds in the final analysis in becoming a memorable poet. Unfortunately, and very often it is pundits of the educated elite, such as academics, lecturers, booksellers, printers, editors, authors, publishers, critics, and perhaps other established poets who decide who has earned the veritable accolade of Poet. The gullible, and often impressionable public take on a secondary role in determining the cultural or aesthetic standards to be admired and elevated in society. Many popularisers of poetry tend towards the comic, ironic and satirical as the most digestible.

 

Generally speaking, a great number of poetic anthologies are collected and published solely for this purpose, just as the fine wines of France or Spain are chosen and marketed to suit a particular taste-regional or international. Aesthetic taste is very often key to what is generally considered “good” or “bad” in poetry, although other factors tend to influence that fluctuating critical standard. But the poet may not be saying anything at all but conveying a mood, a general disposition, or tone that resonates with his audience or readership. Comedians and entertainers also employ this approach, they are equivalent to the “modes” in music. In his book “Reading Modern Poetry”, Michael Schmidt writes:

 

“The pleasure that the best poetry gives is different from “entertainment”. It is a pleasure of enhancement and extension, and it can be a durable pleasure if the poem finds its way into the memory.”

Seeing poetry simply as amusement (“make me laugh or cry!”) does not necessarily help to popularise or democratise what is good about poetry. It is patronising and demeans or “dumbs-down” the value of the word itself and this illustrious vocation. Clearly, the practice or pursuit of poetry has assumed the mantle of fashionable entertainment or “amusement” for the many (like a thousand flies eat shit!) in our day and age. Many poets who are aware of trends or tastes can often exploit and to a certain extent manipulate the “literary market”. Some poets may be able to promote their work better than others and some may have an intuitive connection on how best to promote themselves or their work. Likewise scriptwriters may know what works best on a live audience, on TV or radio and what kind of audience they wish to be exposed to in the first place and where that audience can be found. Others may cultivate a readership whereby the technology and social networks are out there capable of lending grease to their “wheels”. Consequently, many of these “popular poets” (as I prefer to call them) have decided to make their living from poetry and therefore their work relies heavily on personal and often undetected financial concerns. But to be realistic, an unknown or poor poet (perhaps something of a stereotype anyway) is hardly likely to “make the grade” today; while someone who is well-known, rich, educated and influential will inevitably become famous for their poetry overnight.

However we would like to define the term poetry it is equally a literary or psychological quagmire to reach some working definition of the term poet. The word is somehow wrapped up in numerous arcane misconceptions, preconceptions and presumptions. The word poet, as it was employed in the past, could therefore be either obsolete or misleading and at worst a lazy catch-all term to describe someone who uses words creatively or eccentrically. In actual fact distinctions and definitions are not essentially difficult and can even be supported by numerous examples. The public it seems bears all with equal measure and tolerate a broad definition according to their individual or social taste. To academics in the field there is a basic distinction between verse and poetry, which possibly few modern poets appreciate, and that between say a balladeer, troubadour and a rhymester or versifier. Today there are several popular genres of poetic or lyrical expression such as slam, hip-hop and rap and there is the ranting antics of stand-up performers, railers etc.. There is a uniquely determined role between the performance poet and the literary poet just as there is a difference in role between a dramatist, a lyricist and a comedian. And in numerous fringe festivals there are a myriad of cross-overs from one particular style of performance or creative format to another.

Performance poetry is pandemic today and is somewhat akin to a psychological high-wire act. In fact some performers or “poets” are literally battling with their nerves and struggle to maintain their levels of self esteem as they enter the arena to lay bare their soul. Artists have acquired a reputation for expressing a natural or instinctive tendency or unconscious inclination to taking risks. They gamble and take great risks with an audience which is rather thrilling in an egocentric sense. This is nothing new. Poets and writers in the past went on lecture tours to promote their books or to satisfy the demands of an existing fan base. Some of us, but not all, may wonder why a poet should seek such fawning adulation from any random audience or social group; or what motivates them to write poetry in the first place? Could it be the rejection of the Muse herself? The Jewish mystic and theologian, Maimonides was recorded to be very suspicious of the role and profession of poets in his lifetime, he was of course referring to “troubadours”. Perhaps then as now poets led controversial, challenging and perhaps ignominious lifestyles. Conversely, do popular stand-up poets simply like the sound of their own voice? Some poets are known to be outspoken, some cynical, some romantic, some satirical and others ironic. Yet these apparently clear distinctions become blurred when we take for example someone like Pam Ayres. She is a natural storyteller who recites her poetry with comic overtones and uses her own life experience to reach out to a particular audience, more often than not to amuse and entertain. In contrast there are poets such as Ted Hughes and Sheamus Heaney who have retained the calibre and status which reflects what many people understand to be the common conception of poetic genius and literary standing. Both of course have written books and anthologies of what many people understand as being poetry. Perhaps some of the more enduring qualities of a poet are, as Rudyard Kipling remarked as possessing “the common touch”, or being the embodiment of a tradition, institution or national establishment. Here the poet has the ability to unite many disparate groups under one banner. After all, the poet who reaches the inner depths of our hearts and minds can often shake us out of our sense of alienation, disconnection and “autonomous sleep”. The poet who can bring his awareness and state of mind with words and then to project it to such a degree that it awakens us to a new reality, in all honesty deserves to be called a Poet.  

That is the poet who can leave us with a memorable thought or insight, relieve our pain, enlighten the darkness of our existence or transform our life is worthy of the title Poet. Moreover, the Poet can make us appreciate the value of creative expression via the elasticity and continuity of speech, the compound subtlety of words, phrases and their syntax generally. We are no longer “tongue-tied”, isolated or inarticulate but have a spokesman in the poet. Here the poet lends or donates his voice to the masses, but not specifically to one individual. The rhyme, metre and tonal patterning generally are merely embroidery on the main garment. These techniques should work invisibly on the psyche of an audience, who are generally in a passive or receptive state. Although it would be true to say, like any other quality in poetry, that they remain an intrinsic element that cannot be separated, altered or removed without damage to the whole corpus. It is quite obvious that the majority of people think things which they dare not put into words and often feel things which they cannot put into words. The law,  society or convention forbids them! The role of the poet is to find a release or channel for those esoteric thoughts and exoteric feelings through a mesoteric medium.

Therefore the person who can make an everyday ordinary experience or observation into a onetime extraordinary event deserves to be called a Poet. For many poets, words no longer hold the same meaning as they did in everyday speech, they have lost their prosaic or rhetorical applications and, truly inspired with the ambrosia of magical synaesthesia, the poet uses words in a wholly individualistic and original manner. In recent times the gulf between drama, fiction and poetry has also diminished if not merged so that we have elements of parody, melodrama, pantomime, farce and burlesque that have been considered channels for if not intrinsic poetic forms by themselves. I welcome this “cross-over” or fusion in styles and recognise they are not always easy to identify and categorise. Clearly innovative in style but I would seriously dispute they are poetically inspired.

I realise of course that a poet is not necessarily striving for meaning or rational communication in the conventional sense but renders his words with polysemantic traits through abstraction, allegory, symbolism, metaphor and allusion. Furthermore, a good poet is not speaking to the rational or logical portion of our auditory apparatus, he may be appealing to or attempting to engage our heart, our soul or our spirit. But many poets, songwriters and writers rely on a particular kind of “elusive magic”.

As I have mentioned previously, poetic inspiration often stems from a subtle or peculiar awareness of paradox, incongruence, ambivalence, ambiguity, congruence, equivalence, and logical absurdity. Words, charged with these rather unstable properties tend to literally explode instinctively out of some poet’s minds. For other poets the effusion of words is a long grind, a milling-stone through which their poetry gradually and painfully evolves. Modern poetry may appear “new” but it invariably has a finger on the pulse of what proceeded it; or as William Shakespeare once expressed it in Sonnet 59: 

 "If there be nothing new, but that which is

Hath been before, how are our brains beguiled,

Which, labouring for invention, bear amiss

The second burden of a former child!"

Yet should any of my ardent and informed readers be inclined to show me the man, then I would be happy to show them the child. Wordsworth defined  poetry as “emotion recalled in tranquillity”, an observation in my view that does not really do justice to the craft either in a general or universal sense. A poet does more, or rather should do more than merely recollect in contemplative mode an experience-this role is the goal of any journalist or writer of fiction. Thereby we have arrived at what can be defined as individual content and style in poetry. Alongside the purely technical aspects of traditional and modern poetry previously discussed there is the rather elusive qualities of content and style that are associated with the poet themselves. More correctly these elements have more to do with the attitude and experiential background and current foreground chosen or elicited by the poet. Those elements in fact that have contributed and influenced the poet’s mood, inspiration and linguistic maturity. Poetic attitude is indirectly linked to tone, and that combines with the technique to formulate what we know and understand as style. Linguistic maturity or should we say literary evolution and provenance is dependent on an ongoing education and some inherent talent in communication skills. These elements, which can be developed naturally, in turn would influence the forms, grammar, vocabulary, and syntax chosen by the poet. But what is personal to the poet is often invisible to the reader, it is often veiled or hidden although the work is there for all to see. In some cases it is even invisible to the poet themselves-those who are by nature instinctive writers or performers. Specifically, it is the subjects chosen, the type of figurative language, types of phrases or metaphorical language employed that defines their individual style. Knowing the poet and “knowing” the work is the work of the audience or readership, and once “known” they become accepted. In many instances the poet may remain “hidden” while their work is exposed to occasional scrutiny and then exhumed as “nuggets of literary gold”. Others are inclined to judge content and style by virtue of the types of simile, hyperbole, valid personification, and metonymy employed by the poet and easily recognisable by them. That is whether he is inclined to some influence from the masters of the past or whether he is a trail-blazer in a new age with a new voice.

But let us not forget that originality, which is often difficult to define in literature, is often indicative of considerable talent and in some rare cases to pure genius. Conversely, some would argue in the final analysis that there is no such thing as originality-all is acquired consciously or unconsciously from past endeavour. I have myself seen some modern poetry which is similar if not identical in some respects to experimental writing from the past. Whereas there might have been a spiritual or metaphysical undertone in poetry in ancient times, contemporary poetry tends to bear a psychological component alongside a secular or popular vision especially in subject or theme. According to one critic we have moved from the age of national conflict (War Poets) to the age of inner conflict.

This invariably places poets at war with social and political trends. Nevertheless, a trend towards confessional or romantic styles still persists but has been replaced by many poets who are eager to experiment with new forms because they are bored by the repeated sentimental clichés of poetic expression and seek to undermine, if not totally annihilate existing structures or genres.

But before we examine in greater detail these modernist forms and what they have to offer let us briefly take stock of the role poets have consciously or unconsciously played in society. In a rational or formal sense the poet in society may assume one or more of the following roles or vocations:

1. Visionary/Mystic/Prophet
2. Psychologist/Healer
3. Commentator/Advocate
4. Critic/Repudiator/Spokesperson
5. Counsellor/Adviser/Supporter
6. Analyst/Auditor/ Evaluator
7. Romantic/Artist/Sympathiser
8. Messenger/Herald/Storyteller
9. Educator/Entertainer
10. Comedian/Performer

Consequently, the rather common and familiar word “poet” has been cloaked in numerous unspoken vocations or professions depending on our outlook and is in need of re-definition for the times in which we now live. For example, I welcome the term “street-poet” or “jazz-poet” to describe a certain improvisational style, or the “karaoke-poet”-to a person who performs other poet’s work in their own inimitable style. There are out there numerous experimental wordsmiths, rhymesters and modern writers who have created literary forms, styles and mediums through which elements of poetry can still be seen to work-but I would not describe them essentially or primarily as poets in the conventional sense. I suggest that since they are so good with words, that they find a suitable word to describe what they are actually doing with them. I realise of course that my rather formalist opinions or views may offend many of those “experimental writers” bathing in the limelight of surreal or dada style performance poetry and that my adhering to a traditional perspective in defining the term poet or poetry might be perceived by many modern poets as simply outdated and pedantic. Nevertheless, this is my current viewpoint and remains so unless otherwise convinced or persuaded.