Subject
"Pale Fire" CHW to MR
From
Date
Body
Dear Charles,
I found your post (see below) quite fascinating and self-assured.
I wish, however, that you could help me out by actually defining
how you separate verse from poetry. If, as you say, it is not a
question of quality (what is good or bad), there must be other
defining characteristics. It's simply not a distinction I've
encountered before.
Matthew Roth
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:08:18 EST, Chaswe@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>Matthew wrote:
>â*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.â
>
>Matthew,
>Aware though I am that â*verseâ may assume meanings unfamiliar to us
English
>across the Atlantic (Iâ*m assuming you teach at Messiah), and that our
common
>language may be dividing us, I still think a distinction between verse
and
>poetry should be maintained. There is verse, good and bad; and there is
>poetry, good and bad. Johnson of course noted that it is easier to say
what is not
>poetry than to say what it is.
>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 canâ*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. Grayâ*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 Wolffâ*s comment on Pale Fire the poem: a â*virtuousic foray
into
>deep metapathosâ 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 Iâ*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.
>Joyceâ*s Ulysses is craft of a very high order. If Iâ*d had Joyceâ*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
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
I found your post (see below) quite fascinating and self-assured.
I wish, however, that you could help me out by actually defining
how you separate verse from poetry. If, as you say, it is not a
question of quality (what is good or bad), there must be other
defining characteristics. It's simply not a distinction I've
encountered before.
Matthew Roth
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:08:18 EST, Chaswe@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>Matthew wrote:
>â*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.â
>
>Matthew,
>Aware though I am that â*verseâ may assume meanings unfamiliar to us
English
>across the Atlantic (Iâ*m assuming you teach at Messiah), and that our
common
>language may be dividing us, I still think a distinction between verse
and
>poetry should be maintained. There is verse, good and bad; and there is
>poetry, good and bad. Johnson of course noted that it is easier to say
what is not
>poetry than to say what it is.
>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 canâ*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. Grayâ*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 Wolffâ*s comment on Pale Fire the poem: a â*virtuousic foray
into
>deep metapathosâ 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 Iâ*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.
>Joyceâ*s Ulysses is craft of a very high order. If Iâ*d had Joyceâ*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
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm