Rendezvous
06 August 07 : 01.01 AM
I waxed lyrical about the concept of perfectible poetry and my take on structure and form (or the lack of it) in poems. Then I brought out some examples of Ginsberg and cummings' poems, both lacking structure of any sort, and in that conveyed a sense of chaos and freedom. Then next I mentioned how I didn't mind any subject matter in poems; I can be moved by the likes of Pablo Neruda yet snicker with cynicism reading Plath. I mentioned that because I wanted to show how I could be objective to a large extent (large extent, not completely). All in all, I was just trying to say that poetry should not be so critically analyzed and perfected.
But then there are poems like To Autumn. Keats. That must be a favourite among many a young child. I liked it too because it conveys such pretty imagery. Then I had to write a critical piece on it in College. Turns out, there was more to it than just a pretty and pleasing poem. It uses such a rigid and formal structure (a Horatian ode), and by using that, rounded up the season in its entirety, and helped to further segment Autumn into its different processes. More deeply, it has segmented life itself. This is an example by which we see that structure had actually added to the poem's beauty, and has given it a greater underlying meaning.
But then, I was bullshitting. Completely and surely so I decided not to post it.
Although if any of those great writers I just mentioned had a Friendster/Myspace/Facebook, none of them would put "Writing Poems" as their hobby. Such cheese.