While what you say about "real" poets is true - those who are genuinely moved by a poetic impulse and struggle to make that difficult craft their own . . .
. . . a lot of these so-called "poets" are simply people who have found that adopting a radical attitude and some sort of "marginalized" status - i.e. feminist, black power advocate, etc. - is an easy meal ticket. Just look at the spoutings by that so-called "N.J. Poet Laureate" at the top of this thread. I called it logorrhea, and that's really what it is -- just undisciplined (and FAR too long) gouts of words excreted more or less at random.
That's not poetry. And I have nothing against free verse per se - it just has to have SOME sort of structure.
Now, based on this thread, you can't really defend that. "A lot" ?? Show me. Most contemporary poets today don't want this war, it's true. I don't want it either. But that doesn't mean they're bad poets or living off of politics. Ursula K. Le Guin isn't exactly a bad writer. Adrienne Rich? W. S. Merwin? It's true that Rich delves into the "political," but that's because she is who she is. It was a natural thing for her to do. This happens with most artists. Critics pick up on these things sometimes and write about them.
Just look at the spoutings by that so-called "N.J. Poet Laureate" at the top of this thread. I called it logorrhea, and that's really what it is -- just undisciplined (and FAR too long) gouts of words excreted more or less at random.
Are you talking about Baraka? I looked a the top of the thread but couldn't figure out which poet you meant.
That's not poetry. And I have nothing against free verse per se - it just has to have SOME sort of structure.
What do you think of this poem? -- http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0207.htm