Enjoyed this, gleaned from today's Globe & Mail Books Section...
A 'poet of the people' is not some guy or gal in an oilskin / leather / flannel jacket, writing in the lowest possible vernacular about what happened on the coast/street/logging track down which he was piloting his dory/Harley/dog. Nor is he some desperate loser reading to passersby, nor on a stage making follow-what-I'm-saying hand motions to bongo accompaniment (the finger-puppet show of the art world)....from poet/blogger/critic George Murray's review of Don Coles' How We All Swiftly: The First Six Books.
A poet of the people is someone who appeals to and reaches a wide audience by manipulating language in skillful but subtle and casual ways to allow common access; not the widest access possible, but the greatest number of access points, in hopes that one may invite the interest of any given reader.
I think I could situate myself somewhere between 'some desperate loser' and 'any given reader' and wander, quite cheerfully, for decades.
Beautiful light, this morning.
1 comment:
Thanks for posting this. I missed it. Not that it's accurate thinking, whatever it may be as journalism. But it's interesting to hear what sort of arguments are going on about the ideal poet's persona. The article seems to take its position in the long shadow cast by Milton Acorn's "people's poet" role. On the other hand: T.S. Eliot once remarked to Stephen Spender something like this: "I can understand your wanting to write poetry, but I don't know what you mean when you say you want to be a poet."
highbrow
Post a Comment