In a time when so many poets make their living giving workshops and craft lectures, this post is especially important. Thomas Hardy was very careful to hold off from revising too much because he worried the poems would lose their "freshness." To me, that's a good point. I have seen friends' poems homogenized by workshopping revisions. Can you imagine what a workshop might have recommended for "Howl"? My favorite poets, of all sorts of varieties, are idiosyncratic. They don't sound like anybody else but themselves. A "perfect" poem all too often means the oddness has been surgically removed. (I am aware such wounded creatures are not truly "perfect.") I suppose I favor the "perfectly broken," the poems whose brokenness perfectly embodies our own.
Thought provoking post about poetry. Thank you. The one line that threw me was the first one: "Some say that all perfect households are the same whereas all broken households are fragmented differently."
I don't actually think there are ANY perfect households. Maybe perfect poems, but not households.
I must know the opening line as a aphorism since, notably, Anna Karenina is not a Tolstoy text I have read. I'm sure it's been partly absorbed into our collective unconscious societal knowledge.
Mark, your article triggered a couple reflections. One during a workshop recently a comment was made that poems often answer some questions and leave others unanswered (for the reader to or for another poet to pick up. In that sense they are imperfect. Separately, I always prefer live music to a studio recording; they are raw, real, authentic and one of a kind. Poems written by humans are/can be that way too.
Reminds me that poems are living artifacts. They can and do transform and iterate.
I like to say that poems published in ONE ART are publication-ready and good enough for now; but, with that in mind, an understanding and expectation that these are not necessarily the final version.
As well we know, poetry collections often mention in the Acknowledgements something like — "This poem appeared in an earlier form in ONE ART."
If I reach perfection in any aspect of my life I might as well be dead.Nothing more to look forward to.I have reached my nirvana.As we debate what is good and what's not in poetry I'm reminded of one instagram poet in my city with huge following.To them she was writing poems they liked.It was good for them.We will keep chasing perfection for our own good.
In a time when so many poets make their living giving workshops and craft lectures, this post is especially important. Thomas Hardy was very careful to hold off from revising too much because he worried the poems would lose their "freshness." To me, that's a good point. I have seen friends' poems homogenized by workshopping revisions. Can you imagine what a workshop might have recommended for "Howl"? My favorite poets, of all sorts of varieties, are idiosyncratic. They don't sound like anybody else but themselves. A "perfect" poem all too often means the oddness has been surgically removed. (I am aware such wounded creatures are not truly "perfect.") I suppose I favor the "perfectly broken," the poems whose brokenness perfectly embodies our own.
Well said, George. Thanks for weighing in!
Thought provoking post about poetry. Thank you. The one line that threw me was the first one: "Some say that all perfect households are the same whereas all broken households are fragmented differently."
I don't actually think there are ANY perfect households. Maybe perfect poems, but not households.
It’s a rephrase of the opening line to Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. It frames this essay perfectly.
I must know the opening line as a aphorism since, notably, Anna Karenina is not a Tolstoy text I have read. I'm sure it's been partly absorbed into our collective unconscious societal knowledge.
Yeah no worries. It’s been a few hundred years since it came out. I just happened to be reading it.
Yes, it's a good opening to this essay. Mark always comes through with thought provoking writing!
Thank you, Susan!
Mark, your article triggered a couple reflections. One during a workshop recently a comment was made that poems often answer some questions and leave others unanswered (for the reader to or for another poet to pick up. In that sense they are imperfect. Separately, I always prefer live music to a studio recording; they are raw, real, authentic and one of a kind. Poems written by humans are/can be that way too.
Reminds me that poems are living artifacts. They can and do transform and iterate.
I like to say that poems published in ONE ART are publication-ready and good enough for now; but, with that in mind, an understanding and expectation that these are not necessarily the final version.
As well we know, poetry collections often mention in the Acknowledgements something like — "This poem appeared in an earlier form in ONE ART."
If I reach perfection in any aspect of my life I might as well be dead.Nothing more to look forward to.I have reached my nirvana.As we debate what is good and what's not in poetry I'm reminded of one instagram poet in my city with huge following.To them she was writing poems they liked.It was good for them.We will keep chasing perfection for our own good.
Just for today, the only thing I want to read about the art of poetry is Frank O'Hara's ""A True Account of Talking to the Sun at Fire Island."