poetry and the passage of time(?)

<<Okay, this might come across as controversial, not intended and it shouldn’t if you’re willing to discuss, I’m not trying to piss anyone off. That said, I’ll proceed>>

I was watching a documentary about the poetry of Dylan Thomas the other day and how it has survived the passage of time and is still as powerful today as it was when written…this, I believe, is crap! I know, shock horror. I don’t think it’s true to say that any poetry lasts forever. Although, relatively speaking, a fairly modern poet, Thomas was a child of his time, and his time was still very different to now. His influences were different, the world he saw was different. This is all apparent in his poetry. The imagery, sights, sounds and smells of Dylan Thomas’ work are by large industrial and very much significant to the time, and where those influences are not automatically identifiable, the course away from them, in retraction will always lead back. The nature within his poetry is symbolic for how his mind worked and processed his environment, as should be the case for every poet, but our understanding of not only the world around us but also of self has shifted to a new area. Although we could argue that human emotion, love, fear etc., etc. are relative to any time, I’d have to counter by saying that while that may be true, the drive is different. Such poetry as that of Dylan Thomas and others (Poe, for example) are so out of context when injected into today’s climate. The essence of the poetry is still, perhaps, there, but do we really see it now that almost every piece of that work has been dissected and analysed? We read the poetry of the greats as if doing an autopsy – and this has killed the original intent. Even those of us who have no academic concern with relation to the poetry don’t really ‘get’ the perspective because our society, values and personal identity have evolved beyond what is on the sheet. And look at today’s ever popular über-reactive poetry, will that withstand the passage of time?

Passages and sections are, as you say, indeed the parts that withstand and continue onward, but is it for the reason that it was back when written? And, let's take Poe for a second; Poe was never really accepted into the literary community...but now he's dead he's suddenly a master? If it was mediocre then, why is it good now?

KTC said:

Poetry will stand the test of time if you read it blindly. Not poets, but poems. If you get wrapped up in the trash that comes at the front of these books of poetry... the work of pompous asses who like every tom dick and harry to feel their wind... you might not see the words of the poets.

Click to expand...

Here, Here!!

This is entirely my point. I believe that the only reason Dylan Thomas had a documentary dedicated to him, and soon a biopic, is because of his name and not his work...which is contradictory reall when you consider that his name came from his work. anyway, must people who know of poets do not or have not read their work. So how can you say it withstands?

Good point. I enjoy Thomas' work and he's one of my favourite, even named my son after him, but as you said, his work is antiquated...and very visibly so.

What happened here? Why so many posts deleted?

hmmm...

As I was saying - with regards to sales of the greats -- some poets will always sell, forever or as near as to forever is possible. That's not my point - whether Thomas, Poe, Shakespeare, Keats, Tennyson, Shelly, Byron, Boroughs or anyone else of the past and present will sell in the future is irrelevant, my point is are they selling for the same reasons? Are we still in tune with the poetry or are the classics selling as academic status symbols, the early 20ths selling as marks of our intellect and ability to think outside the box - is the artiness and intellectual the overtone that sells - or do we still get what is written, do they still emote in a way we understand?

Every poet is a child of their time - even in universal thematic terms, unrequited love, sorrow, grief etc. -- the way we respond and react nowadays is somewhat different from the Victorian era for example because of social and cultural evolutions that effect us as individuals.

Fair comment William and one I agree with fully - but Chuck Berry and indeed all 50's RnR is also no longer in touch with modern times - stylisation and musical value perhaps, but lyrically - no. Values change, perceptions change...as with poetry. I guess what I'm getting at more than anything else is whether my own poetry or that of anyone will be received for it's actual weight and original intention in years to come or merely for its poetic value of style, form and ultimately period.

P, I get what you're saying - but can you really connect with the attitudwe and intrinsict emotive value of Thomas' aesthetics and themes? With all our modern attitudes that lean away from faith and more toward the science of societal worth and monitary gain - our break from the human condition as a core part of our existense and motion toward a dissconnected and multi-facetted supposition? Do you understand the import of the force that through the green fuse grows? The welling mouth that sucks the mud and engulfs the heart? Do you realy believe that the glow and the passage are the mercy of your your soul in rippling ponds?

William Haskins said:

there's a big difference between acknowledging roots and being bound by them.

Click to expand...

True. So what you're saying is that for all his fame and accolade, Thomas no longer speaks to the modern world as he once did? Ergo, his poetry has stood the test of time, but his intentions and actual themes/content have not?

That's more or less my view William, I don't mean to keep picking on Thomas as he is one of my favourites - there is a great strength to all his work and a typical and unshakable Welshness - can I understand what he's saying? Yes. It's not that I feel no connection, but that the connection I do have is through modern eyes looking back. I concur that he was a transitional poet as were several of his period - but he is also a very urban poet in certain sense. I love the abstraction and psychological deployment of phrasing and - let's face it as I'm sure it's overwhelmingly clear to see, in all my surrealism and experimentalism, he has a prominent influence of voice in my works.

As I said, the content and themes do still stand, as you say, but the connection and value have devolved further today than to have the same weight. In 50 years this will be greater again -- what about in a few centuries' time? Will there still be poets as myself that feel the draw and influence?

poetinahat said:

Why must one be 'in touch with modern times'? Some art is temporally rooted, and that's great; the times need to have their voices.

Click to expand...

Rob, that's true - but to a degree the intention should still be not only accepted as identifiable, but also to the original intention.

>>batting the ball to DT again...

This line 'the force that through the green fuse drives the flower' is beautiful beyond the meaning of the words - wonderfully identifiable despite metaphor and the overbearing abstract surrealism in it. Why does he write it this way when so many, if not all his period contemporaries would have written that exact same line as simply 'the force that drives the flower' or 'the flower's driven force'? It's the green fuse that equates to nature, the conceptualization of nature through industrial language while at the same time, within itself and the entirety of the piece is juxtaposed against inversions that were archaic even for the time this poem was penned. That's the academic beauty of Thomas' work - the perfect and seamless marriage between modern understanding and the ancient or classical ethos of (eternal/immortal) entity. This is the same beauty the peer reader read into the work, that marriage symbolised a cross-over in identities - the same identities that the world found themselves questioning. When we read Thomas now, we don't see that as they did then, we don't identify with the same lost social identity, the turbulence of a world rapidly evolving and passing past the immortal Earth Eden that it once was -- because we are there, where for them was still unknown, what they feared, anticipated and deliberated over. When we read Thomas, we read his words through intellectual empathy. The world today and society is also undergoing a similar transition into a less industrial and more technological and virtual era - we can identify with themes and concepts in a suitable way, but through reflection and not direct identification/connection.

If poetry or art doesn't stand the test of time and in future years becomes questionable to its purpose it becomes throw-away...whether we can immediately connect to it, find a direct perceivable reality that speaks to us as the poet originally intended is another matter. It can still speak to us, the poet can transcend time and let us feel or hear his/her words, but the effect diminishes with time and becomes something different until it eventually fades to a state somewhere above throw-away and submits to derivative academic deconstruction and description.

How long does it take for a poem to reach this point? Shakespeare is already the territory of the haughty for most - and academia loves a bit of Keats and Shelly between their bread. What causes a poet's work to last longer than others?

Priene said:

You use 'we' way too much. Just because you don't identify with this or that and only connect intellectually, doesn't mean others don't.

Click to expand...

DO you then? Please elucidate how you do...rather than snark at my comments and leave vague opposals - that's the point of discussion.

WE is a term to suggest generalisation - that's the point of it in this context - I'm sure if you'd read my posts properly you'd understand that I do feel a connection to the works of Dylan Thomas and others. I'm playing devil's advocate in order to progress the discussion beyond my own personal opinions -- again the actual intention of WE in this context.