It seems to me that the main factor in reading poetry is the level of personal investment involved. I have my poets--mine because they inspire a level of personal identification beyond merely liking or admiring their work, or knowing a lot about it. It is not that the admiration is uncritical in this case. I know my poets have numerous flaws and shortcomings. I could also freely admit that a poet who is not mine might be superior to one who is not. Rilke is not one of my poets--just because he's not--while Creeley is. Duncan isn't and Spicer is. Huidobro most definitely isn't and Neruda is.
I would say I have about 60. I can't make a list because the act of making the list modifies the reality it's supposed to reflect.
Imagine being intimately acquainted with 60 separate towns. Each has its own "local color," its independent reality of sights and smells. These are not places where you merely visit, but all, each one of them, your "home town." There are other places you might like to visit, or that you've heard are pretty nice towns; others you've merely passed through, or lived in and hated.
This is a useful concept. I for one hope you will develop it further.
ResponderEliminarSee my post for today.
ResponderEliminar