Well, after two weeks of thinking about bad poetry, how about good poetry?What is good poetry? -- or is there nothing more to it than just, good poetry is poetry that isn't bad poetry?
One can just go with Archibald MacLeish, I suppose, who told us that "a poem should not mean, but be."
But I find this rather useless advice: any bit of tripe can be said to "be" (whatever other lack of virtues a poem may have, "failure to be" is not often enough one of them). That worn-out excuse "it doesn't have to mean!" is justification for far too much bad writing. --although I gotta admit that the poem in which he said it is actually pretty good. (Archie, I disagree with what you say... but I love the way you said it.) Sometimes an empty doorway and a maple leaf is just an empty doorway and a maple leaf-- if you want me to feel grief here, you'd better do a little more than that.
Kim Addonizio's list of what makes good poetry (from Ordinary Genius) is:
- Surprise
- Music
- Sufficient thought
- Syntax
- The parts contribute to the whole
- Mystery
Is that is? Is she missing anything?
