I
become disheartened when I read negative comments from editors or renowned
poets about what they feel poetry is or should be. I don’t think personal
aesthetics have any place in an editor or an influencer’s role. One long-term
editor of a literary journal recently said they didn’t like poems that they
felt were cold and clever. This, to me, reflects a lack of a sense of adventure
when it comes to the type of writing that the journal would be open to
publishing and doesn’t really serve readers very well. A well-respected writer
and thinker dismissed word play as not important. What these kinds of flippant
comments do, in my mind, is to place limits on experimentation and
exploration.
In
my opinion, an editor should be open to all types of poetry, including forms
they have themselves never made as a poet or dreamt of. They should be willing
to expose readers of poetry to all kinds of variety and risk. If not on a
printed page, then where?
Word
play can be a way of mining the subconscious to reveal what has long been
buried in the psyche. Also, not every poem has to make an important statement
about the state of the world. A humble, playful poem by one person might
inspire another person to create something and so on. I treat the derision and
narrow-minded attitudes I hear about poetry as a challenge. Defiance of the
status quo is one of the reasons that I need poetry, both as a
reader/viewer/listener and as an artist.
No comments:
Post a Comment