I've not been posting for a while, but reading the posts of others. Similar questions and thoughts seem to recur in many of them. Poets examine their own writing and reading and what's happening with poetry more broadly.
One of the questions that seems to arise a lot, in one way or another, is what do we want from poetry - as readers, and/or as writers.
And why isn't poetry more widely read (as opposed to other forms of writing, or other activities - while totally appreciating the financial constraints).
These are just some thoughts about these questions (hopefully not repeating too much what I, or others have said elsewhere).
Poetry comes with many definitions - usually constructed by poets, academics and often publishers (and this is part of a much wider discussion). This is a poem. This isn't. And, in the case of publishers, this is what we want.
These definitions often seem to constrain poets in writing - because they feel the need to be doing it 'right', or what is currently 'in fashion', or, more often, it's the only way to get published.
But this, it would appear, can lead to a form of poetry being produced and published that the general public doesn't want to read.
The favourite poem in the UK (according to various sources) is 'If' - Rudyard Kipling. The bestselling living poet, anywhere (according to various sources) is Rupi Kaur. If they're not, they're certainly up there. But their position/work is questioned in many ways.
Why are they so popular? And why are they questioned?
People often want a poem at a funeral. These are not necessarily people who normally read poetry. So why at a funeral?
My husband is not into poetry (there are exceptions - including mine, at gunpoint). He says 'why don't they just write what they want to say?' He's an intelligent man. But he doesn't want to have to 'decipher' the words.
When his daughter/my stepdaughter died, way too young, her husband asked me for a poem for the funeral. She was not into poetry either. But she was a woman loved by everyone she met - there were hundreds at her funeral. I suggested Raymond Carver's 'Late Fragment'. Both my husband and hers agreed instantly.
So what does any of that mean, if anything?
I think people want to understand what they're reading. And get something from it - that more than anything. The 'something' is hard to define. Maybe something that can help them make sense of life, that expresses how they're feeling, or that brings comfort, or joy.
It's not about dumbing down. It's just about letting people in. And to state the obvious, different people want/like different things.
I don't think poets should have limits on how, what or why they write - and it's up to them whether they want popularity, acclaim or (just) pleasure from their writing. But if they want their poems to be read by more than the few people currently reading poetry, then they - sorry, we - have to try and see what people actually want to read. And how, and where. Oh, and publishers would also have to publish that kind of poetry. Which comes first?
Poets and publishers can either go along with that... or not. I don't think there's just one right answer. But if they don't, at least it'll be clearer why poetry isn't selling to, or being read by, more than just the few.
