Transcribe
Translate
Last Testament, issue 18, December 1941
31858063105013_009
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
We Declaim on Poetry ---- "Now the reason I like Prose better than Poetry-" he sez, "is -"; but he didn't get any furthor. I got up and walked very quietly out of the room, then slammed the door hard. The only reason I didn't sock him in the Puss was that he's bigger'n me. The reason? There ain't no such distinction and I consider that remark as one of the surest possible signs of utter imbecility. Prose is a literary (?) form: verse is a literary (?) form. Poetry is not and never was a form of anything. According to the best of the generally accepted definition, poetry is what goes into the form we create of words. It is thus abstract. It is the thought, the idea, that comprises the Poem and it is the words that comprise the verse or prose. See? --- Poetry is really a personal matter, isn't it? Every good poet advances his own definition of poetry. They all differ superficially, yet all seem to be groping toward the same idea. not that this central idea restricts their theories to identities. Most poets have genuine differences in their ideas of proper subject matter and the mechanics of bringing this matter to life in words. Yet these ver differences seem to stem from a common-source: a fundamental similarity in the difference connections of poetry. I have found the search for this source quite fascinating and have arrived at an answer that I will now pass on. It is not necessarily the correct answer but it is fairly satisfying to me. ---The first step in an investigation of this sort is a complete acceptance of the abstractness of poetry. It may be regarded rather in the light of a QUALITY of the forms in which it makes its concrete appearance. In this light we can appraise its effects on the human mind without regard to the closely related yet distinct effects of the mechanics of the form. I found, on examining the works of the poets which have lasted the longest, several recurring themes and again, on examining the definitions each of these poets give, there appeared the same themes- still differing on the surface yet seeming to have a common source. Poe and Keats stress a beauty of the senses, both as a means and as an end. Shelley's "Beauty", in its pure form, is an ethereal, impalpable object lying wholly within the mind of the poet. Wordsworth's themes were emotion (recollected in tranquillity) and Imagination, which I prefer to call Fancy to distinguish it from Coleridge's Imagination, which is a Power to create certain effects, particularly through the Emotions. Coleridge was also a great master of Fancy, but this is still another thing. There is also pleasure and hate and love and fear and despair etc., as long as there is poetry. But all these poets, when they eliminate the confusion of form from their considerations, seem to be discussing poetry essentially in terms of a power to accomplish something. This power may be directed toward creating an effect of establishing an idea either in the poet or in his audience. Poe and Keats both wrote to create, in the reader, an impression of a beauty of the senses, yet at times derived a personal ecstatic pleasure from the writing that few, if any, readers can ever feel. Shelley used this power to express his feelings of Intellectual Beauty and found consolation in so doing. He also used it to advance his political doctrines, annoying Keats, who brought Shelley insufficiently devoted to Art. Coleridge seems to have had one of the clearest conceptions of this side of the nature of poetry that we can find in the Romantic, English Language poets. He stated, on several occasions, that all true poetry possessed the power to create some deliberate effect largely through the emo-
Saving...
prev
next
We Declaim on Poetry ---- "Now the reason I like Prose better than Poetry-" he sez, "is -"; but he didn't get any furthor. I got up and walked very quietly out of the room, then slammed the door hard. The only reason I didn't sock him in the Puss was that he's bigger'n me. The reason? There ain't no such distinction and I consider that remark as one of the surest possible signs of utter imbecility. Prose is a literary (?) form: verse is a literary (?) form. Poetry is not and never was a form of anything. According to the best of the generally accepted definition, poetry is what goes into the form we create of words. It is thus abstract. It is the thought, the idea, that comprises the Poem and it is the words that comprise the verse or prose. See? --- Poetry is really a personal matter, isn't it? Every good poet advances his own definition of poetry. They all differ superficially, yet all seem to be groping toward the same idea. not that this central idea restricts their theories to identities. Most poets have genuine differences in their ideas of proper subject matter and the mechanics of bringing this matter to life in words. Yet these ver differences seem to stem from a common-source: a fundamental similarity in the difference connections of poetry. I have found the search for this source quite fascinating and have arrived at an answer that I will now pass on. It is not necessarily the correct answer but it is fairly satisfying to me. ---The first step in an investigation of this sort is a complete acceptance of the abstractness of poetry. It may be regarded rather in the light of a QUALITY of the forms in which it makes its concrete appearance. In this light we can appraise its effects on the human mind without regard to the closely related yet distinct effects of the mechanics of the form. I found, on examining the works of the poets which have lasted the longest, several recurring themes and again, on examining the definitions each of these poets give, there appeared the same themes- still differing on the surface yet seeming to have a common source. Poe and Keats stress a beauty of the senses, both as a means and as an end. Shelley's "Beauty", in its pure form, is an ethereal, impalpable object lying wholly within the mind of the poet. Wordsworth's themes were emotion (recollected in tranquillity) and Imagination, which I prefer to call Fancy to distinguish it from Coleridge's Imagination, which is a Power to create certain effects, particularly through the Emotions. Coleridge was also a great master of Fancy, but this is still another thing. There is also pleasure and hate and love and fear and despair etc., as long as there is poetry. But all these poets, when they eliminate the confusion of form from their considerations, seem to be discussing poetry essentially in terms of a power to accomplish something. This power may be directed toward creating an effect of establishing an idea either in the poet or in his audience. Poe and Keats both wrote to create, in the reader, an impression of a beauty of the senses, yet at times derived a personal ecstatic pleasure from the writing that few, if any, readers can ever feel. Shelley used this power to express his feelings of Intellectual Beauty and found consolation in so doing. He also used it to advance his political doctrines, annoying Keats, who brought Shelley insufficiently devoted to Art. Coleridge seems to have had one of the clearest conceptions of this side of the nature of poetry that we can find in the Romantic, English Language poets. He stated, on several occasions, that all true poetry possessed the power to create some deliberate effect largely through the emo-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
