Poetry is meant to be read and performed!
Perform classics, contemporary works, or something of your own!
>That blend of modern white noise in the background with your performance.
>The frontal post-modern sexual themes.
>The ephemeral nature of your short words on an internet message board.
Truly a genius walks among us.
>yfw you will never dance with the daffodils.
If you have microphone boost turned on you might want to turn it down by 10dbs or so.
how did it kill your family? if you don't mind me asking?
I knew exactly what I was going to hear before i even opened the link
Again, rare to find someone who likes Hill here, and prefers good Hill.
Is there anything tastier than those crunchy Anglo-Saxon rooted words in Annunciations?
I'm writing poetry and Hill is currently one of my fixations.
To my knowledge, Hill is very obscure, despite interviews and articles from well-known sources. I sort of stumbled into Hill early in the year, and I haven't been able to dismiss him so easily--this coming from a Mexican-American. I just love his sense of outrage and his strong attachment to English history.
>Hill is very obscure
in more than one way, so to speak. though the poem you read is accessible
It's not reliable, but I think he has 30 goodreads ratings for his collected poems last time I checked. I occasionally check to see how many a poet has for their works to get an idea of who's read and how much so. To get an idea, Ezra Pound probably has 10,000ish ratings for works, Eliot 30,000ish, Stevens has 7000ish (?), H Crane has 2000ish, Hill has 30ish. So yes, rather obscure.
Most academics know who he is though, and Bloom says he's the best living English poet, which I can get behind. English as in England, that is. I'm not sure what Bloom would think between Ashbery v. Hill. Probably Ashbery.
I entertained that idea at one point, to pit Ashbery against Hill. But their respective styles are different and of a different vision altogether. I think the idea is to stack one's grand sublime power against the other's.
Absolutely, they're almost polar opposites. Hill is very in line with the modernist tradition, and while he has those American roots with Tate, he is a very British poet, and his outlook on religion is very British, as are his on war.
Ashbery is very much a consequence of Whitman and Stevens and is about American as poetry gets nowadays.
The difference is that Hill is still writing good poetry
(and yes I know this is all very reductive of both of them, but really I'm not good about talking poetry unless it's about a specific poem, in which case I can go on for hours. Early Hill has many I am enthusiastic about.)
>The difference is that Hill is still writing good poetry
There's no doubt about this. I read some of Ashbery's recent stuff, and like the oeuvre of most (not all, mind you) acclaimed American writers, quality starts waning in later works, essentially becoming parodies of their earlier work. That's my opinion on Ashbery on the moment, although he is still stronger than most American poets nowadays.
I'm honestly very skeptical about American poetry after Ashbery, with all those wacky Language hacks and all. I've heard about "elliptical" poetry and "the new thing" poetry and it really seems to be laughable -- really, any poetic tradition that hails Williams and Olson as "great poets worth study" is no tradition of mine. It just seems like a movement that wants to produce profound poetry but lacks the collective talent and hence groups together under a label to promote each other with kudos and publishing deals and professorships at MFA mills. You know, except a made-up label that lacks the genius of an Ezra Pound to actually give it any weight at all.
I was a fan of Merwin but then read past his first four collections and into his "free verse period" and found that a lot of it is fluff. And he's like 90 anyways.
anyone young and fresh worth reading?
Jealous. Pic related are the only poetry books I own for myself other than a few Dante's, Whitman's, a troubadour anthology, and some Latin stuff. I'm still looking for the right edition of Hart Crane to buy, since I like to annotate my copies even though I take notes on the side. I have a ways to go.
True. I read an occasional "contemporary poetry" collection and that's about it myself, no names have really stood out to me yet. Besides, I'm reading more and more poetry both in English and other languages from the canon (and outside of it) and there's a lot there already. Not to mention that even pic related could take a lifetime to read.
Just get the Modern Library edition of Hart Crane's poetry. It contains his poems, prose, and letters. You can't go wrong with that. But since you like to annotate, get some paperback copies. Hart Crane comes complete in any edition.
>I meant Library of America edition.
thinking about it, but the only problem is that LoA is fucking expensive. This Pound one I have, I only have it cuz it was a gift. I'll consider the LoA though if it includes his letters. I know the Stevens one is pretty good, has all the poems and many other of his essays and lectures. Wonder if Crane is similar.