Poets - is it a competition?

[David]

A propos of something like the title of this thread, Ben (Johnson) said:

I know this is going way off topic, but surely there must be comparison between poets and their output. I know I will pick up a book of poems by one poet knowing I will enjoy every line and pick up a book by another knowing I will struggle to find one poem I like. I will therefore rate one poet as better than another, obviously other people will disagree with my judgement, but I will never be able to judge all poets and poetry as equal.

I think I agree with him. Brian, I know, doesn't. Bri, if you feel inclined, the floor is yours.

Or anyone else's, who cares to chip in.

In the meantime, there is a Harold Bloom quote that is apt, so I'll try to find that.

[Ros]

I shall be interested to see how this discussion goes, as I feel I'm rather stating the obvious if I say that:

There are various types/genres of poetry (split it up as much as you like), and for each type some poets are more accomplished than others - I suppose there is a consensus about this that rises above personal views.

And in addition, there is the personal opinion - I like some poets better than others. As I grow to know more about the technique and breadth of poetry, I hope I grow to appreciate the 'better' writers more than the poorer ones.

So, yes, some poets 'beat' others - either in the general consensus view, or from my personal view.

[David]

Just to throw another log on the fire, which is admittedly barely smouldering at the moment, here's what Harold Bloom said:

"The literary imagination is contaminated by the zeal and excesses of societal competition, for throughout Western history the creative imagination has conceived of itself as the most competitive of modes, akin to the solitary runner, who races for his own glory."

[BenJohnson]

And in addition, there is the personal opinion - I like some poets better than others. As I grow to know more about the technique and breadth of poetry, I hope I grow to appreciate the 'better' writers more than the poorer ones.

What I really enjoy is discovering the wonder in a poet I had previously written off. For that reason I am always willing to have another look at poetry. Equally I discover that poets I previously rated highly have not lasted over time with me.

[BenJohnson]

Just to throw another log on the fire, which is admittedly barely smouldering at the moment, here's what Harold Bloom said:

"The literary imagination is contaminated by the zeal and excesses of societal competition, for throughout Western history the creative imagination has conceived of itself as the most competitive of modes, akin to the solitary runner, who races for his own glory."

Not sure I have fully grasped his point, but if he is saying what I think he is saying then I don't fully agree. Through history there have been schools of writers who strive together for a common goal. There have been writers who build on or reference other writers, making it more a united climb than a solitary run.

[David]

Just to throw another log on the fire, which is admittedly barely smouldering at the moment, here's what Harold Bloom said:

"The literary imagination is contaminated by the zeal and excesses of societal competition, for throughout Western history the creative imagination has conceived of itself as the most competitive of modes, akin to the solitary runner, who races for his own glory."

Not sure I have fully grasped his point, but if he is saying what I think he is saying then I don't fully agree. Through history there have been schools of writers who strive together for a common goal. There have been writers who build on or reference other writers, making it more a united climb than a solitary run.

That's interesting. Who are you thinking about as the schools of writers, Ben? I think that even with the likes of Coleridge and Wordsworth it came down to competition in the end, but I stand to be corrected.

[nar]

hmmm...

My view on this is the same for poety as it as for almost anything. Summed up by the Horses for Courses cliché.

I've tinkered with a number of hobbies from the strictly disciplined (trampolining, diving, computer games) to the free spiritied (juggling, anagramming, poetry). I think in almost all these things, there must be room for formand also creativity.

The entry point to such things differs from person to person, and that entry point will always define where the individual goes, and what their preferences are. It's the old intellect/talent or nature/nurture arguement.

Back to the point. I have no interest in poetry as a competitive pusuit, but I accept that it is for others. If there is competition, there will be rules. Those rules must be defined and agreed. That will always cause discussion and dissent. Especially over a personal and boundless art form. For me, the issue is that in sporting activities, rules/standards/gradings are easier to establish, as they are based on more quantative measures. Any artistic form is far more hard to quantify (an obvious point perhaps).

- Neil

[BenJohnson]

Just to throw another log on the fire, which is admittedly barely smouldering at the moment, here's what Harold Bloom said:

"The literary imagination is contaminated by the zeal and excesses of societal competition, for throughout Western history the creative imagination has conceived of itself as the most competitive of modes, akin to the solitary runner, who races for his own glory."

Not sure I have fully grasped his point, but if he is saying what I think he is saying then I don't fully agree. Through history there have been schools of writers who strive together for a common goal. There have been writers who build on or reference other writers, making it more a united climb than a solitary run.

That's interesting. Who are you thinking about as the schools of writers, Ben? I think that even with the likes of Coleridge and Wordsworth it came down to competition in the end, but I stand to be corrected.

I was thinking more Eliot and Pound, I don't get the impression from Eliot at least that they were competing.

[a. gray]

I think, at its highest, poetry, like any other art, is an expression of or, at least, a hunt after the self.

Obviously most of the poetry that is written today is merely a dilution of Larkin, Hughes, Heaney, Plath etc. but there have, in the past, at least, been individuals (Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, Andre Breton) to whom the writing itself is an act of transcendence. I would equate the work of such artists to the sweat on the forehead of the runner; out of context, not of any great importance (to them). Another good example of pure literary sensibility would be the life and work of Franz Kafka.

Why write? Well, I've mentioned one reason, competition is another. The visionary will chase his visions, those without sight will pursue him; some will try to learn from him, others damage him. For what purpose? To stake a claim on literature, for applause, for gratification, to simply say: "I'm worthy." Writers from this second school will tend to write to be understood, rather than to express. Their work will, often exclusively, be an effort of the intellect and the conscious mind. Broadly inoffensive.

I think what characterises modern writing, certainly in its lower echelons, is self-indulgence (in the very weakest sense) mixed with a 'have a go' mentality. In that environment, unhealthy competiton will always have an important role to play.

[brianedwards]

Obviously most of the poetry that is written today is merely a dilution of Larkin, Hughes, Heaney, Plath etc. .

A bold assertion there, and one that is certainly not obvious!

The literary landscape is increasingly driven towards notions of "competition" as publishers become sensitive to a dwindling marketplace. Not a new phenomenon by any means, nor one exclusive to the world of writing and publishing.

Writers have always "competed" with one another and often for the greater good. An idea here, a turn of phrase there, from Coleridge and Wordsworth to Stevens and Williams from Eliot and Pound to Ginsberg and Kerouac and on and on and on, and without all of that, without those efforts to create something new and exacting, real and exciting, poetry, the world, would be a much poorer place.

I appreciate David starting this thread and I do agree it is a rich one for discussion, but my original statement has been slightly decontextualised. My point was that, as a writer, I can't imagine how a writer could think of one writer as beating another writer.

Are these the same things?

Apologies for not making any sense.

B.

[Travis]

My point was that, as a writer, I can't imagine how a writer could think of one writer as beating another writer.

Is a writer an artist? Art is art and who's to say and so on? Like two gods (who being gods, know better) looking at each other and admitting that their universe is no better than the other's?

I know a successful novelist, and the last time we talked about writing or whatever, he listed off a bunch of names in response to me talking about a particular name. Now the context of this conversation isn't the point, his list is. Why did he choose them? If he named six writers, why not a different six? Why those six?

Let's assume that it was simply a matter of him pointing out that these writers are not "better" than the one I was talking about, but that subjectively they speak more to him. Even then, his six have a minimum level of inherent quality, wouldn't you say? Else, how could their words effectively reach out and touch another human being? And in this case, one of their own?

[brianedwards]

Interesting points, yes, and I would mostly agree. But, with all respect, your comment reduces the discussion to a question of personal tastes and that is too tedious to even discuss.

This thread sprung from David claiming that Elizabeth Bishop "beats" John Ashbery. Although I (obviously) have some poets I prefer over others, I never think of them in terms of beating, winning or losing, and was curious as to how or why another writer might think of writers in such a way.

Yes, I think perhaps we are discussing different things. The question I am interested in is: Can one poet beat another? I don't see how they can.

Excuse yet more rambling. Bloody hot here.

B.

[ray miller]

Can one poet beat another? Of course they can. The crowning of the new Poet Laureate was a perfect opportunity for poets to do just that. To haul poetry into the modern world with the creation of a democratic and populist contest to be screened on prime-time Saturday TV presided over by a panel of worthies, let's say, Roger McGough, Melvyn Bragg and Germaine Greer.The poets would do their stuff, the panel would pick it to pieces and a public phone-in would decide who progressed into the next round etc.Obviously the tenancy would have to be reduced from 10 years to 1 year to maintain momentum and interest. Yes We Scan.

[Travis]

Interesting points, yes, and I would mostly agree. But, with all respect, your comment reduces the discussion to a question of personal tastes and that is too tedious to even discuss.

Well I suppose it depends on how you took it and how you break it down from there. My intent was simply to point out that objective quality exists, even in the face of subjective choice.

Now "objective quality" can be discussed if you wish, but assuming it exists to even a small degree, its very nature dictates that an axis of better & worse must also exist. And so in a measurable way, yes, one poet can beat another. At least in theory.

[BenJohnson]

Yes, I think perhaps we are discussing different things. The question I am interested in is: Can one poet beat another? I don't see how they can.

Ever been to a poetry slam? A literal poet beating.

[David]

Seeing I triggered this whole thing off, I ought to say that when I said that Elizabeth Bishop "beats John Asbery into a cocked hat so far as I'm concerned" (or something like that), I was just using an idiomatic construction to say that I think EB is better than JA. That's all.

I wasn't actually advocating Poet Wars.

[Jasper]

He whom reads too much always becomes confused, whereas he whom reads just enough doesn't (Walter Benjamin)
In other words, objectivity relies on nothing more than gut instinct, not memetic bliss/arrogance (dah-dah-dah Da-Vinchi and Aristotle)

Of course it's a competition... vindictive and two faced lil buggers too - I might add (Wilde, Eliot, Blake, Shakespeare, Homer, Plato)....why else would such a hedonistic race of myopic swamp rats do it FURRRR in the first instance-eh?

Self satisfaction...phfffttttttttt, and I suppose pigs fly nowadays too!

J