why do you write poetry?
this was a trick question on my part, and i refuse to answer it.
when did you start?
around the age of 8. the musicality of language had already made an impression on me, having been exposed to a pretty broad range of music and some excellent children's poems. in the 3rd grade, i read poe for the first time, and suddenly had a deep appreciation for the narrative power of poetry. that wasn't to last, really.
from there, i sought out the romantics first, and being something of a world book encyclopedia junkie, i was soon threading together some interesting chains of names and work... this person influenced that person, who collaborated with that person, etc.
by high school, i had formed a pretty significant mental image of the timeline of poetry dating back to ancient greece and rome, through the medieval work of european and eastern writers, and into the modern work of the early 20th century poets. the first couple of years of high school were spent in careful study of various types of formalism.
by the time i was 16 or so, i discovered a wealth of outlaw poets, rimbaud and apollinaire, the beats, bukowski. i rebelled (pretty much permanently) against formalism at this time, and moved into a useful period of experimentation (useful in what i learned, not in what i produced).
in my 20s, i wrote stuff that was highly personal, full of the vanity and myopia of youth. this is a shame, really, but a rite of passage, i suppose; the good thing that came out of it was that i achieved some balance between totally rejecting formalism and some ability to inject it in such a way where it served, rather than governed, the work.
in my 30s, i moved into another period of experimentation, this time closely examining the function of poetry, the effect on the reader. this became an obsession of sorts, and something i ultimately became extremely conflicted about. the theory that implicitly motivated me was that the poem is a quite separate thing when written from what it is when read.
the easiest way to explain this is the methodical, even mechanical approach of someone who makes those "optical illusion" paintings. there is no real transfer of inspirational energy, no pure emotional connection. the painter is a cynic. he is creating something to be seen in a quite different way than the elements of his "art" provide. if successful, he can short-circuit your consciousness, and make you see a mirage.
this is where the conflict comes in because it is, at the end of the day, a highly manipulative way of creating. but if the artist is content to pull this trick and the viewer is content to see the illusion (he has to know there's a "man behind the curtain" but he is willing to suspend his disbelief), then no one's hurt, and it's an entertaining relationship they've established.
fairly recently, i've moved away from this approach and tried to move into something that's more purely shared between writer and reader, but it's like taking baby steps again.
who are some of your favorite poets, and why?
t s eliot (because of the waste land)
robert graves (because of his grasp of mythology)
dylan thomas (because all poets have a streak of the mountebank in them, and he wore his as a badge of honor)
emily dickinson (morbidity is an important aspect of sanity)
e a poe (see above)
sylvia plath (*flutter*)
arthur rimbaud (sacriligious and bold and angry)