Artikel
Is popularity the mark of bad poetry?
18 januari 2006
How popular can a poet become in his own day before he begins to be suspect in the eyes of the cultural elite? According to Lars Hermansson, in the Western world the general definition of a good writer or poet is that he should have very few readers. If you are a living author, that is. Dead poets, say Shakespeare or Eliot, can have many readers and still be great. But alive, a poet with a readership of ten or fifteen thousand is regarded with suspicion. Gus Ferguson sees an analogy in jazz. Jazz as dance music was widely popular.Then came bebop, the music became esoteric and audiences shrank. Then came avant-garde and audiences dwindled, and the smaller the audiences, the bigger the reputations of the musicians. Until, suddenly, jazz virtually disappeared, and the musicians who were jobless then became involved in fusion and retro stuff. Of course it is ridiculous that poets should aim for small readerships. Maarten Asscher sees it as a “cultivation of marginality”. As soon as a poet becomes very successful, the margin shifts to exclude him or her.
Gus Ferguson: “There is a word for it: envy.”
Sweden’s most popular poet to date is Thomas Tranströmer, who has editions of 10,000 copies, whereas in Sweden 1,000 is normal. Tranströmer writes about his inner life, religious views and also on social matters. One could label it metaphysical poetry. Göran Sonneri is also a very good poet, though less translatable. He is regarded as a master, but he has far fewer readers. His handicap may be that he comments on everything, from metaphysics to mathematics. He is a gifted mathematician, well-versed in biology, modern music and, not least, politics. He can discuss politics in relation to modern biological research or any subject, in a very straightforward language, without metaphors, but very musical, which makes it hard to translate. It’s no coincidence that his poetry is not widely read, because it could be used for political purposes, which Tranströmer’s never could be. Tranströmer can be said to have changed Swedish poetry as well as the Swedish language, in subtle ways, for instance in the use of metaphors. Today he is read on television, in church, at gravesides, providing comfort and food for thought to many. Is this the best a poet can achieve?
Maarten Asscher: “It doesn’t seem a very attractive position to me, but perhaps it’s the best one can achieve. There is a cosiness, a homeliness about it — the unspectacular result of so many years of struggling with words.”
Lars Hermansson: “But that’s what people want from poetry. They have no use for provocative statements, political statements, not in Sweden anyway.”
K. Michel: “Maarten, what do you consider to be “spectacular” results? What are you dreaming of?”
Maarten Asscher: “I think a spectacular result would be an achievement of real consequence in the field of language. If a poet succeeds in changing people’s linguistic consciousness, or alerting them to detrimental linguistic habits, or hidden meanings, or activate them towards cleaning up their linguistic behaviour, as we discussed earlier, those would be some concrete “spectacular results” that a poet could achieve. In that respect I would myself speak of historical influence. Celan’s Todesfuge is perhaps an example, in which the language can be said to be the subject. The subject of Todesfuge, I think, is the language of destruction. But there are no spectacular practical results, I mean, if you expect practical results, there are the battle cries and the national anthems, that have worked that way in the recent and distant past. Do you agree?”
K. Michel: “Yes, I agree, but I think it also applies to Tranströmer. His work has been translated into Dutch, and has been quite influential here, in its own way. I for one have been influenced by him, and several other poets I know. His use of metaphor, his use of short lines alternating with very long ones. He has had an impact here, on poets at least.” For a further account of the round-table discussion, click on the subjects below:
What is good poetry?
Can poetry be political?
Poetry: a bad influence?
Poetry and the internet
Participants
Gus Ferguson: “There is a word for it: envy.”
Sweden’s most popular poet to date is Thomas Tranströmer, who has editions of 10,000 copies, whereas in Sweden 1,000 is normal. Tranströmer writes about his inner life, religious views and also on social matters. One could label it metaphysical poetry. Göran Sonneri is also a very good poet, though less translatable. He is regarded as a master, but he has far fewer readers. His handicap may be that he comments on everything, from metaphysics to mathematics. He is a gifted mathematician, well-versed in biology, modern music and, not least, politics. He can discuss politics in relation to modern biological research or any subject, in a very straightforward language, without metaphors, but very musical, which makes it hard to translate. It’s no coincidence that his poetry is not widely read, because it could be used for political purposes, which Tranströmer’s never could be. Tranströmer can be said to have changed Swedish poetry as well as the Swedish language, in subtle ways, for instance in the use of metaphors. Today he is read on television, in church, at gravesides, providing comfort and food for thought to many. Is this the best a poet can achieve?
Maarten Asscher: “It doesn’t seem a very attractive position to me, but perhaps it’s the best one can achieve. There is a cosiness, a homeliness about it — the unspectacular result of so many years of struggling with words.”
Lars Hermansson: “But that’s what people want from poetry. They have no use for provocative statements, political statements, not in Sweden anyway.”
K. Michel: “Maarten, what do you consider to be “spectacular” results? What are you dreaming of?”
Maarten Asscher: “I think a spectacular result would be an achievement of real consequence in the field of language. If a poet succeeds in changing people’s linguistic consciousness, or alerting them to detrimental linguistic habits, or hidden meanings, or activate them towards cleaning up their linguistic behaviour, as we discussed earlier, those would be some concrete “spectacular results” that a poet could achieve. In that respect I would myself speak of historical influence. Celan’s Todesfuge is perhaps an example, in which the language can be said to be the subject. The subject of Todesfuge, I think, is the language of destruction. But there are no spectacular practical results, I mean, if you expect practical results, there are the battle cries and the national anthems, that have worked that way in the recent and distant past. Do you agree?”
K. Michel: “Yes, I agree, but I think it also applies to Tranströmer. His work has been translated into Dutch, and has been quite influential here, in its own way. I for one have been influenced by him, and several other poets I know. His use of metaphor, his use of short lines alternating with very long ones. He has had an impact here, on poets at least.” For a further account of the round-table discussion, click on the subjects below:
What is good poetry?
Can poetry be political?
Poetry: a bad influence?
Poetry and the internet
Participants
© Ko Kooman
Sponsors
Partners
LantarenVenster – Verhalenhuis Belvédère