Robert Frost, Nobel Prize winner, went to his home in New Hampshire: walked his famous Mending Wall, right into the woods beyond his house, in the back. A Poet friend of mine, well educated, and can spell better than I, and is from Europe, and that is all I will say of him, except what he told me, which was: Mr. Frost once made a statement, said something to the effect: the poets nowadays are not worth their salt, that they left their structure, and rhyme schemas behind, for the newer free verse style. First of all, free verse has been around a long time, they just called it by a different name way back then. I don't know if this is true, nor do I hold anything against him for that. He was worth his salt, and he was a good poet, as far as his style went. Did he get the effect he wanted out of his poetry, perhaps he did, I'll never know, perhaps someone else does, I mean I never asked him. Could he have gotten a better effect had he used a mixed design in his poetry; perchance he could. Would he have liked poets like Plath, or Sexton, or even George Sterling? I'm not sure, but maybe this statement was for such people, again, I don't know. But the point being, did Plath get what effect she wanted out of her style of poetry? I think so. If you read her it can be hard, but if you read her for what she wanted to tell you, you might get a lot. Do I like Plath? She's ok; is she great? I don't think so. Is Frost Great? I don't think so. Is George Sterling Great, yes; why, look at his style, his emotions, expressions, and his effect, his design doesn't stop at what one says he breaks the standard mode... Let me shift gears a bit. William Faulkner is hard to read, most of his stuff, so manly people have said. Yet, not things like "The Big Woods," easy reading, or his book called: "The Unvanquished," again, easy reading. Now go read: 1) "The Sound and the Fury," or 2) "The Wild Palms," or 3)"Absalom! Absalom!" not so easy. And why is this? I have my own views of course. Faulkner was a poet, and in these three books, especially the first and third, he is on a roller coaster, he is into poetic prose. Why? for effect. It is why the bible is written in prose, and poetry: for effect. It is why he takes out his punctuation, and thus leaves the reader with a few capitol letters to see a transformation into the next sentence, or thought. He does not want you to stop, just slow down. That his why he shifts from present tense to past tense in a clap of an eye, all in one paragraph"effect; he can't get it the standard way, so he breaks the cast. And why does he make so many mistakes, or did: that's another area that I'd like to leave alone for now, but it doesn't matter, he got his effect. So I've also heard the one who makes the most mistakes, is doing the most work. And he wants share his work with him. He was never famous until after he won the Nobel Prize in l949. Other than that, he had a hard time selling copies of "The Sound and the Fury," took him 18-months to sell 1600-first edition copies; let along the several books before that. The prize gave him a kick start, and now he is the second most studied author in the world. Earnest Hemingway wrote some poetry, I have it, and is it good? I don't think so. Kind of ego-ridden; kind of sarcastic; kind of bent on the human race; but why did he write it then? First of all, he got the effect he wanted, plus he got whatever he wanted out of his system by writing it. Did he think I'd read it? First of all, it wasn't published until after he won the Nobel Prize, then the Paris Review republished it, and the prize put him so high, that it didn't matter, plus there are only a few copies of this little pamphlet. So in the world of many, this is just a few. Will it be reprinted, who knows. Again, it shows the poet out of his emotions"the world is a joke to him in it. But I like a few of his books; it doesn't take away from that: plus he was young when he wrote them. His poetry is similar to Allen Ginsberg [nasty, but not that nasty]. Did Ginsberg get what he wanted out of his poetry? Yes, yes, indeed. Did his readers? I would think so. Poetry can be used for slamming, or political reason, Ambrose Pierce used it for that; as did Ginsberg and Hemingway. So the question may arise, or the dilemma. Does the poet remain true to himself, or the standard? Does he stick with the holy, or allow the greasy stuff in? Elvis said, "I'm not a poet, I just a singer," and complimented the poet who wrote a poem for him, and he had it framed, then went back to his singing. |
Home
