Petrarchive – contemporary poetry

Also, why is the state of poetry so bad? I understand the argument that there is so much production in the contemporary, whereas all the classics have already been filtered, so the slop has been left behind.

At the same time, it just seems like (English language) poetry has greatly degenerated so to be basically meaningless words with random line breaks or enjambments sprinkled in.

Poetry today is so bad because the average degree of literacy among English language speakers has largely declined. In times past, we either had a robust aristocracy that would patronize the arts and provide at least somewhat of an incentive structure to produce good poetry. Nowadays while things like patreon do exist, it largely is funded en-masse by people who lack a solid education in the arts and literature.

This isn’t some sort of profound tragedy, there are still decent journals that stick to more conventional styles of poetry if you look for them, and there are still decent poets out on social media trying to make their voices heard amidst all the midwittery and identity politics of traumatized minorities who will never understand how to write good. Not because they are minorities, but because of the harsh environment they grew up in will never even come close to emulating the space that someone like Percy Shelley grew up in. Check out Savannah Brown’s YouTube for somebody who grew up in the right environment, and who has enough of the artistic/bohemian mind virus to actually write moving poetry. She definitely can be too wokey at times, but has some seriously short and sweet gems. She serves as a nice representation of what contemporary poetry can be, that does include a lot of unorthodox techniques, but which I find profound and novel at its best.

At the end of the day, even the greats of the romantic and modern eras labored in obscurity and died depressing and early deaths. The reason you cannot find the Ezra pounds and Shelley’s of today is because you lack the wherewithal and the patience to look for them yourself. Go read the classics, talk to people irl, dredge the search engine, do the due diligence. Go fuck ya self

fwiw I like Robert Hass

>>8114
The English-speaking "old" aristocracy has been in decline for a while, and in fact, it's probably completely collapsed now. Or, we now have neo-aristocracies (the "new rich," i.e. bourgeoisie, the federalists, etc), unconnected to the "old money" and original capital which engineered their own creation. Mid-20th century poetry, I think, was in reaction to it. You either fled to Europe, a la Eliot, and tried to salvage what was remaining, or you joined the proletkult. Excellent poetry obviously still arose from those conditions. So, I do not think poetry can solely arise from the conditions of correct education and correct benefactors. There is something of the "troubadour" and "minnesanger" in the English-language tradition, too. That is, unconventional poets who write verse. I believe American poetry took up this tradition especially because of the breaking with British aristocracy, but maybe that is for another topic.

Now, the point about English literacy being shot is interesting. Basically, nobody has ever spoken English more and had complete access to the entire history of the most lauded poetic works. Evidently, more English does not mean better English and there has been a diluting effect. Okay, I buy it. Anyone who has been around education these days has seen this.

Let me rephrase my question from "why is poetry bad" to "why has verse been abandoned"?

>even the greats of the romantic and modern eras labored in obscurity and died depressing and early deaths.

While this is true for some, and definitely not others, my question is mostly directed at how we interact with poetry collectively. Maybe poetry has been cast to the sidelines, since prose became the dominantly read form of writing.

I guess maybe it is just about trawling, like mudlarkers, through the swamp of unfathomable production, until you find something which resembles beautiful verse.

I mostly just asked because I was hopeful someone here might have an interesting poet on hand.

>>8161
>how we interact with poetry collectively. Maybe poetry has been cast to the sidelines, since prose became the dominantly read form of writing.
I have been reading Catullus lately, and I figured he had a great use of poetry. Instead of boing your friends with your stories about your latest fight with your lover, you take the time you would spend on the phone telling details to craft a witty sonnet or something and send them.
I tried, and this is not easy. But it's like coming up with a good joke. It makes for good memories.

>>8162
I have a copy of Catullus (in translation) I got at a college book sale and have been meaning to read.

He does seem to have an interesting combination of beautiful verse (though I don't really know what the Latin is like), and the more comedic aspects of poetry.

Aside: I have been reading Tristram Shandy, and specifically a chapter more recently, wherein Sterne argues that judgement and wit are really one, not separated. I think the idea of judgement and wit being separated has led to poetry, especially comedic poetry, being relegated to novelty. And as a whole, probably also led to poetry being sidelined. That is, if wittiness does not enhance a judgement, then the medium is no matter: pick whatever is the most efficient way of saying something. Poetry, being hard to interpret at times, or silly, or whatever, cannot compete with the literalness of prose.

Maybe that idea makes no sense.

>you take the time you would spend on the phone telling details to craft a witty sonnet or something and send them.

I like this, and it reminds me of the classical attitude on poetry, too. At least, thinking of accounts by Augustine and maybe some other ancients I don't remember, poetry was taught as an "applied" art. You didn't just read poetry and interpret it, your teacher said, "make a poem in this meter" and that was your task. It gives a new way of interpreting events and being able to compose one's words. Which, as you note, can be interesting and enhance the subject. That, though, seems to be gone.

>>8164
>Poetry, being hard to interpret at times, or silly, or whatever, cannot compete with the literalness of prose.
I kinda disagree. Look at this famous one (Catullus_85):
>I hate and I love. Why I do this, perhaps you ask.
>I know not, but I feel it happening and I am tortured.
The brevity gives it weight. And rather than think of it like a poetic text competing with prose, think of it like a communication act. What does it replace, but a long phone call to a friend? In two lines (that, I guess, took a long time to craft), he gets the release of talking to a friend and expressing his feelings. And a long phone call has been replaced by long composition time. This is more efficient.
Give it a try: reading Catullus does feel like you're reading e-mails or text messages (or even SoMe posts or status) from that one Roman guy sending jokes, gossiping, or sharing the latest news regarding his sentimental life.
>That, though, seems to be gone.
Yea, but that's my point: just do it and send it to your friends, and then we're so back etc.

>>8167
>I kinda disagree. Look at this famous one
I should have conveyed better that I didn't entirely agree with the idea of poetry being harder to interpret inherently. Or, if it is, it's because it requires interpretation on the part of the reader, whereas low-tier prose is basically hand holding the reader. And many people now are resistant to the idea of their own interpretation (I don't think that is entirely their fault; English classes have basically all decided that literature is a matter of "I Spy" with symbols and bringing your own ideas to the text is verboten).

And I also think thinking of the two in competition is an unfortunate way to view things too. Obviously, they do different things with their subjects and medium, so I don't see a reason to hold them up under scrutiny together.

And I think that Catullus' poem being in verse does enhance the subject; I don't think I would have put your interpretation in your exact words, but I agree with the gist of it. That is, its brevity makes the emotional weight gives the poem's subject a more interesting perspective. I like how he cuts to the bone of the "phenomenal" aspect of emotion, especially in admitting that he doesn't know the cause of this contradiction or tension, but knows it happens regardless.

>Yea, but that's my point: just do it and send it to your friends, and then we're so back etc.
I do wholeheartedly agree with this.