Poetry Criticism and Democracy

Abstract

Every poetry critic, public or self-proclaimed, must have some underlying concepts as to the nature of poetry. That these critics often are in violent disagreement is a matter of record. Even those who share similar opinions (Coleridge and Wordsworth, for example) find distinctions they consider of prime significance. A general definition, more illuminating in the exploration than in the mere statement, may be that poetry is largely concerned with the arousing of emotions within a reader, or, poetry is art expressed through the medium of the written word. To communicate a value judgment of a particular poem, however, one must do more than bluntly state the degree of emotion aroused within, and the judgment would be equally unconvincing if the critic or teacher did no more than rate a particular poem on a numerical scale. Surely the parts should be examined; and this consideration may reveal originality, perfection of rhythm, good rhymes, appropriate figures of speech, exquisite sound combinations, a compelling plot, a message. Yet, the perfection of the work cannot be found in the analysis of its parts. Kubla Khan has no proved meaning; Garden of Proserpine has a message surely antagonistic to many readers who enjoy the poem. Browning often has quite the reverse of good rhymes and beautiful sounds. Perhaps Donne's outstanding quality is his ability to avoid perfection of rhythm. Poems, obviously, do not depend for their value upon the presence or absence of any one or several attributes. In fact, is it not frequent that one recognizes the beauties of the individual parts only after the poem as a whole is adjudged good? A more sophisticated approach might say that the quality of a poem is organic and depends upon the relationship of the various parts (In September 1, 1939, Auden's cliches are effective and even display originality because of the skillfully worked-out context in which they appear). The problem, however, remains, for an organic concept requires not only a judgment as to the nature of the parts but an even more subjective judgment as to the quality of the relationship. The question-what poetry is good?-becomes something not to be answered merely by an analysis of poems admittedly good, the anthology favorites. New poets and new poems are always destroying old categories. Some may agree that poetry cannot be judged totally by analysis, but then they go on to state the end the poem seeks to attain is of paramount importance. One says that all good poetry must be classconscious; another maintains that there must be no connection with the sordid details of living. Actually, both the art for life's sake and the art for art's sake adherents are not critics but propagandists. There is no poem that cannot have an effect on living and no human action that cannot be used in the production of a work of art. C. S. Lewis wrote, Life and letters are inextricably mingled. Poetry cannot be equated with morality or any other subject favored by the reader. Doubtless, many kinds of values appear in a work of art. But none of these has a necessary connection with the worth of a specific poem, that is, the value that manifests when emotions are aroused. Moreover, it is to be expected that, as all people do not like strawberries, the same poem cannot appeal equally to all readers, because some extraneous value in a