They say you should read some really bad poetry of the past just so you realize how good the good stuff is in comparison. With the distant past, we only read the great works, whereas in the present we are inundated with endless crap.
This is true, but a little bit of bad poetry goes a long way. You only need to read one bad poem in each style to reach that kind of realization.
Do you know The Stuffed Owl; An Anthology of Bad Verse? The Introduction makes a nice (both senses) distinction:
ResponderEliminar"Bad Verse has its canons, like Good Verse. There is bad Bad Verse and good Bad Verse. It has been the constant preoccupation of the compilers to include in this book chiefly good Bad Verse... good Bad Verse is grammatical, it is constructed according to the Rubrics, its rhythms, rimes, and metres are impeccable. A rough illustration of the distinction will readily occur. Bad Bad Verse is a strong but inexperienced female child doggedly attacking Debussy's Fêtes in a remote provincial suburb on a hire-payment pianoforte from the Swiftsure Furnishing Stores. Good Bad Verse is Rummel or Lamond executing Warblings at Eve at Queen's Hall on a Bechstein concert-grand."
The Stuffed Owl is supposed to be laughably bad poetry, hilarious stuff, but what I mean is very "normal" kinds of bad but not too bad poetry. The kind of poetry that just sits there on the page without doing much.
ResponderEliminar