Matthew
wrote:
“I'm not sure that the
distinction between "well-crafted verse" and "poetry" is any distinction at
all. One can argue whether or not a
poem is good, but you seem to be saying that in order for something to be called
a poem at all, it must be a great work of art.
By this logic, there is no
such thing as a bad poem, since the terms are mutually exclusive.”
Matthew,
Aware though I am that
“verse” may assume meanings unfamiliar to us English across the
Wordsworth wrote reams
of verse, some of which is great poetry. Some of his greatest poetry is not
verse. Much of his verse is poor. I can’t comment on Goldsmith, Wordsmith or
Goldsworth. Marvell wrote some of the most marvellous poetry in the English
language. He also wrote many excellent verse satires. The one was not the other.
Gray’s Elegy is verse which is also poetry. Ogden Nash wrote superb verse: none
of it is poetry. Much of Pope is verse, but some of it is poetry. Dryden wrote
much verse which is also poetry. Not all Shakespeare is poetry, but enormous
amounts of him are; almost all of Dylan Thomas is poetry. The former long
preceded Roget; the fact that the latter thumbed his well is of no relevance at
all.
Rebecca Wolff’s
comment on Pale Fire the poem: a “virtuousic foray into deep metapathos” does
not seem to me to address this issue. It even seems to dodge it. I am aware of
scholars of distinction who do not consider Pale Fire the poem to be poetry, but
I’ll withhold their names to protect their innocence. Personally I consider Pale
Fire the book to be poetic.
The distinction seems
to me to resemble the difference between craft and art. Craft can be learned and
acquired by diligence and application; art cannot. Joyce’s Ulysses is craft of a
very high order. If I’d had Joyce’s obsessive dedication I might have produced
something similar within my lifetime. I could never have produced Pale Fire the
book, not if I lived for a thousand years.
Regards
Charles