The Poet and the Poem


                                                              
By Judson Jerome


                                                              
Completely Revised and Updated


                                                              
To Jenny -- whose poetry has no language


                                                              

          Acknowledgments

          Most of this material appeared in Judson Jerome's monthly column in WRITER'S DIGEST.
          Other material, in slightly different form, has appeared in YALE REVIEW, COLORADO
          QUARTERLY, WRITER'S YEARBOOK, THE ANTIOCH REVIEW, and CONTACT.
          Poems by Judson Jerome have appeared in BELOIT POETRY JOURNAL, COASTLINES,
          A HOUYHNHNM'S SCRAPBOOK, and SHENANDOAH.

          "The Fish" by Elizabeth Bishop, Copyright Houghton Mifflin Co.; "The Second Coming" reprinted
          with permission of the publisher from Collected Poems by William Butler Yeats, Copyright 1924
          by the Macmillan Co. Renewed 1952 by Berthta Georgie Yeats; "Leda and the Swan" and "Among
          School Children" reprinted with permission of the publisher from Collected Poems by William Butler
          Yeats, Copyright 1928 by the Macmillan Co. Renewed 1956 by Georgie Yeats; "For Once, Then,
          Something," "Mowing," and "Directive," from Complete Poems of Robert Frost, Copyright 1916,
          1921, 1923, 1934, 1947 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., Copyright 1936 by Robert Frost.
          Copyright renewed 1944, 1951, @ Copyright 1962 by Robert Frost. Reprinted by permission of
          Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.; "Naming of Parts" by Henry Reed reprinted with permission of
          Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.; "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," "The Waste Land," and
          "Gerontion" by T. S. Eliot reprinted with permission of Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.; "For A Dead
          Lady" and "Miniver Cheevy" reprinted with permission of the publisher from The Town Down the
          River
by E. A. Robinson; Copyright Charles Scribner's Sons; "Fern Hill," "Altarwise by Owl Light"
          and "Light Breaks Where No Sun Shines" by Dylan Thomas, Copyright 1957 by New Directions;
          "anyone lived in a pretty how town" by E. E. Cummings; Copyright Marion Cummings; "The Red
          Wheelbarrow" by William Carlos Williams; Copyright 1938, 1955 by William Carlos Williams.
          Reprinted by permission of New Directions Publishers; "Blue Girls" from Selected Poems, revised
          edition by John Crowe Ransom; Copyright 1927 Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Renewed 1955 by John
          Crowe Ransom; "The Return" Copyright 1926, 1954 by Ezra Pound. Reprinted by permission of
          New Directions, Publishers; "Digging For China" by Richard Wilbur reprinted by permission of
          Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Howard Moss, "Waterfall Blues" lst and 2nd stanza, Modern
          Poetry, American and British
, Appleton-Century Crofts 1951; James Tate, "Amnesia People"
          first 8 lines, Yale U. Press; W.S. Merwin, "The Animals," from The Lice, Atheneum, 1967; James
          Dickey, "The Beholders" 1st stanza, Poems: 1957-67, Wesleyan U. Press, 1967; Peter Viereck,
          "Kilroy Was Here" 1st stanza, Terror and Decorum, Scribner, 1948; John Crowe Ransom,
          "Equilibrists" Selected Poems, Knopf, 1963; E. E. Cummings, "plato told," Poems 1923-1954,
          Harcourt, Brace & World, 1959; Robinson Jeffers, "The Purse-Seine" Collected Poems, Random
          House, 1965; Amy Lowell, "The Taxi," Selected Poems of Amy Lowell, Houghton-Mifflin, 1927;
          John Ciardi, "Thoughts on Looking Into a Thicket," As If, Rutgers U. Press, 1955; Gerard Manley
          Hopkins "Spring and Fall (To a Young Child)," Collected Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins,
          Oxford U. Press, 1931; Stephen Spender, "The Express" Poems by Stephen Spender, Random
          House, 1954; W. B. Yeats, "Easter, 1916," lines 17-20, "Sailing to Byzantium," The Collected
          Poems of W. B. Yeats
, Macmillan, 1951.

                                                              

          Contents

          (Webmaster's Note: Page numbers shown are those in the book. This Web page is continuous.)
                                                              

          PREFACE............................................................................................................................... viii

          PART ONE: FOOTHILLS OF PARNASSUS --- or WHY BOTHER................................... 1
          Poet . . . and the world don't know it........................................................................................... 2

          CHAPTER ONE: ARE YOU A POET?...................................................................................... 5
          an ear for poetry.......................................................................................................................... 7
          rivalry with madmen................................................................................................................... 10
          amateur, tradesman, professional................................................................................................ 16

          CHAPTER TWO: THE VANITY 0F PRINT............................................................................. 21
          enter the critic............................................................................................................................ 26
          the publisher's role...................................................................................................................... 32

          CHAPTER THREE: SOME PERSONAL NOTES..................................................................... 39
          the search for form and meaning................................................................................................. 39
          the use of experience.................................................................................................................. 47

          PART TWO: MAKING POEMS............................................................................................ 55
          first, stretch a cable across the canyon........................................................................................ 56

          CHAPTER FOUR: SIX SENSES OF THE POET..................................................................... 58
          sense of self................................................................................................................................ 58
          sense of fact............................................................................................................................... 60
          sense of language....................................................................................................................... 62
          sense of art................................................................................................................................. 64
          sense of the age.......................................................................................................................... 69
          sense of mystery......................................................................................................................... 70

          CHAPTER FIVE: METER........................................................................................................ 74
          the strain of stress...................................................................................................................... 74
          some definitions......................................................................................................................... 77
          feeling your pulse....................................................................................................................... 85

          CHAPTER SIX: LINE UNITS................................................................................................... 90
          where to draw the line................................................................................................................. 90
          the use of silence......................................................................................................................... 94
          free verse.................................................................................................................................... 99
          blank verse.................................................................................................................................104

          CHAPTER SEVEN: RHYMES.................................................................................................113
          rhyme or reason.........................................................................................................................113
          off rhymes...............................................................................................................................117
          bad rhymes..............................................................................................................................120
          feminine and comic rhymes......................................................................................................121
          some exercises for review........................................................................................................124

          CHAPTER EIGHT: DICTION................................................................................................128
          words, words, words................................................................................................................128
          poeticisms................................................................................................................................130
          obscurity..................................................................................................................................135
          clouds of meaning....................................................................................................................141
          the visible voice.......................................................................................................................144

          CHAPTER NINE: SOUND VALUES.....................................................................................149
          the isness of the art...................................................................................................................149
          the dancer and the dance...........................................................................................................154
          he who has an ear.....................................................................................................................159

          CHAPTER TEN: IMAGERY AND SYMBOLISM.................................................................164
          doublevision and doubletalk.....................................................................................................164
          shadows of heaven...................................................................................................................170
          varieties of logic.......................................................................................................................174

          CHAPTER ELEVEN: TONE..................................................................................................181
          shades of humor.......................................................................................................................181
          dramatic complexity.................................................................................................................190
          wit and tragedy........................................................................................................................196
          counterstatement......................................................................................................................202

          CHAPTER TWELVE: STATEMENT.....................................................................................209
          the pain of amputation..............................................................................................................209
          how to stop a war.....................................................................................................................216
          the philosophic impulse.............................................................................................................223

          CHAPTER THIRTEEN: LIFE AND ART...............................................................................229
          experience and significance.......................................................................................................229
          from thing to thought...............................................................................................................234
          born dead.................................................................................................................................239
          expression and communication..................................................................................................243

          CHAPTER FOURTEEN: THE WHOLE POEM......................................................................252
          starting in the middle.................................................................................................................252
          man bites dog............................................................................................................................258
          false starts and new beginnings..................................................................................................264
          revision and re-vision................................................................................................................269

          CHAPTER FIFTEEN: POETRY AND THE MARKET...........................................................276
          how it looks from here..............................................................................................................278
          the mail bag..............................................................................................................................279
          how to read a rejection slip.......................................................................................................284

          PART THREE: POETRY AND CULTURE........................................................................295
          tradition and the individual talent..............................................................................................296

          CHAPTER SIXTEEN: METAPHYSICAL AND CAVALIER.................................................299

          CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: CLASSIC AND ROMANTIC........................................................311

          CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: TYPE OF THE MODERN..............................................................328

          CHAPTER NINETEEN: THE NEW ERA..............................................................................338
          alternative futures....................................................................................................................338
          language..................................................................................................................................340
          form........................................................................................................................................342
          the social context.....................................................................................................................343
          the new romanticism................................................................................................................345
          toward a new poetry................................................................................................................349

          CHAPTER TWENTY: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?.................................................354
          our bruised and battered middle class.......................................................................................354
          the next great American poet...................................................................................................359

          Preface

          Books, conferences, magazines, courses, even degree programs in colleges, intended to teach people
          how to write are a peculiarly American phenomenon. Perhaps this has something to do with the value
          Americans place on individual experience. We seem to believe each person has a book in him, and
          we set about helping him get it out. If we stopped searching out and encouraging writing talent, our
          literature might lose much of its breadth and depth and crazy vitality.

          It would be interesting to know what percentage of those who eventually make a name as writers
          have been helped by the plethora of "how to" resources available. I know I had courses in journalism
          and creative writing in college, subscribed to a writer's magazine for a while, and though I never went
          to writers' conferences until I was invited to them as a staff member, I can see how they would have
          helped at critical stages of my career. First-hand contact with established writers, even in brief conver-
          sations, was immensely influential in my development. Some writers dismiss such help as useless--but
          that may be like climbing up on the barn and kicking the ladder away, making it seem that one flew.

          Most who read such books and magazines and attend conferences and take courses never, of course,
          publish a thing, but their time and energy are not necessarily wasted. One teacher said that in any of his
          creative writing classes there might be four or five learning to write and another fifteen or so learning to
          read--a valuable end in itself. Similarly, I hope this book will be useful for readers as well as for writers
          (and that it will help writers become better readers). Another often disguised motive is personal therapy:
          many study writing as a means of psychological development, a way of coping with inadequacies they
          cannot name. Some simply enjoy reading and talking about literature, and find the workshop atmosphere
          less stultifying than books of literary criticism or courses in literature. Some like to associate themselves
          with the glamour and gossip of writers (as others read movie magazines). Some are escaping a vacancy
          and weariness in their lives. Such motives are neither superficial nor ignoble.

          Some, especially some writers, repeat too glibly that cliché that writing cannot be taught. They may
          feel honestly guilty about participating in exploitation of the lonely housewife in Duluth who retains her
          grasp on dignity by believing that after the diapers, after the dishes, after the vacuum that trails along
          the floor, she will somehow discover meaning in her life and express it in poems to go on the shelf
          alongside those of Keats and Miss Millay, evidence that she, too, lived and felt and mattered. But the
          myth that talent is purely God-given is also part of the writer's bag of tricks. As the ballet dancer
          learns through long and sweaty hours to appear at ease, so the poet labors to seem spontaneous,
          possessed of a mystery beyond his comprehension. A magician might say magic cannot be taught.
          He for damned sure doesn't want it taught to all and sundry. Someone has to sit out in the audience.

          I call it the myth of talent because the innate differences between people are remarkably slight, once
          we correct our measurements for whatever cultural bias or snobbery colors the test and makes it
          easy for the privileged to come out on top. Whether writers are born or made, they are at least
          susceptible of growth.

          When the Editor of Writer's Digest asked me, in 1959, to begin a monthly column on writing poetry,
          I suffered most of the misconceptions I have mentioned here. I accepted the offer in what I now
          recognize was a spirit of defiance. I couldn't quite believe that the magazine really wanted an honest
          discussion of what writing poetry involved--writing good poetry, I mean. I thought such magazines
          were concerned only with breaking into markets, with gimmicks, trends, slickness and success.
          Well, I would show them. I'd write a column or two which did not show you how you and your
          Uncle Ebenezer could write poetry and sell it, but which argued, instead, that to write good poetry
          was nearly impossible and offered almost no chance of success and less of profit. I thought a dose
          or two would be too much for the editors and readers, and I could resign with a fine gesture, my
          cynicism intact.

          To my astonishment, both the readers and editors showed an appetite for these bleak views; and
          as I warmed to the task, I became, if not less bleak, at least passionately concerned to discover
          whether it were possible to say anything really sensible about the mysteries of the art. I had read
          handbooks giving verse forms and the rest; but how do you get from knowledge of what iambic
          pentameter is to Lycidas?

          I am not likely ever to know; but the opportunity offered by the column, eventuating in this book,
          has allowed me to explore rather unremittingly the highest standards we can bring to bear on poetry,
          assuming my readers to be in some sense in competition with Shakespeare. No one sets out to be
          second-rate, but many exposed to success and disappointment learn to accept that limited objective
          as not only sufficient but even itself beyond all reasonable hope of fulfillment. For the poet, adjustment
          to his own insignificance can be chastening--if it is not absolutely debilitating.

          But modesty allies itself with realism and sloth to encourage us to settle for publication rather than
          poetry. Consider the second-rate poets--the Surreys and Shelleys, the Patchens and Pounds--and
          tremble. Which of us thinks he has more to offer the world than these, and that he has the energy,
          skill, connections, luck, and vision to hope ever to measure himself against them? Why go on?
          I find myself tucking my manuscript back between my legs and asking the way to the third-class
          compartment.

          Curiously, the prospect of the heights is not so discouraging. We can live in the shadow of Chaucer,
          Shakespeare and Milton (so old, after aIl, and so permanent), of Keats and Yeats and Frost, with the
          fond indifference of Alpine peasants for their surrounding peaks. It is hills that make us nervous--or
          even hummocks like the poet next door. Someone (worst of all we ourselves) might expect us to work
          at such altitudes. You can break a leg in a ten foot fall--never mind the crevasses beyond the timberline.

          We know the conventional responses. "I do it for money," one says, disclaiming thus any responsibility
          for quality (and ignoring for the moment that there is no more inefficient way to make money in the
          world). Or, "I want an audience," as though the way to get one were by speaking through a garden hose
          into a tomb. Or, "Look at the junk that gets published," as though the domains of poetry were best
          conquered by contempt. Or, "Poetry, after all, is just writing," as though it were. Or, "I'm not a poet;
          I just write verses," as peeping Tom said when he was hauled down from the lamp-post. Or, with
          endearing giggle, "I just write light verse," as though your squibbles were not to be compared (they
          will not be) with comic masterpieces such as "The Miller's Tale," or "Absalom and Achitophel,"
          "The Dunciad," or Byron's "Don Juan"--or even with the work of Phyllis McGinley or Ogden Nash,
          whose brows were sometimes threateningly high. In abysmal states of self-hatred one utters the most
          pathetic rationalization, "I don't write for anybody--just for myself," (demonstrably true: look at the
          rejection slips).

          I have lived with these attitudes both as poet and editor. As the first I know the temptation to let a line
          go which "will do," a word which may fit but suggests little, a lame rhythm which I know most readers
          won't hear anyway. On the other hand, as editor, I have waded in the sea of manuscripts to which we
          all contribute, and I have wished that stamps cost even more than they do. I suppose that one should be
          astonished that sheer creativity manages to make verses from nothing, that so many thousands of people
          can start with a blank page, without an idea, observation, emotion, or cleverness, without a sense of
          language or knowledge of technique, without even the skill to come out of a complex sentence right
          side up, and emerge some moments later (I can't believe it takes long) with a composition they are not
          embarrassed to post successively to every professional judge of poetry in the country. But astonishment
          wears off. I wish poets would apply one minimal criterion: that they refrain from sending poems which
          they themselves would not be interested in reading, if the poems had been written by someone else.

          People believe what Edison said about genius--that it is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
          perspiration--and think they might be willing to put in the perspiration if they could be assured they have
          the essential one percent inspiration--or what is commonly called talent. They come to us asking to be
          told: "Have I got it?" I think the most painful thing I have to say might as well be said at the outset.
          I do not believe in that one percent. I believe it is all perspiration--but of a quite different sort than
          Edison meant.

          To become a poet a person must change--radically, to the roots. The sweat required is the cold sweat
          of terror, among other things. At times it is a more passionate sweat of love. By dint of application you
          may learn to write verse that meets all technical specifications, but the difference between published and
          unpublished poets (aside from luck) and, more importantly, the difference between merely published
          poets and those who have some lasting significance in literature, has to do with their most intimate
          personal psychology, their world view, their social and political attitudes, their willingness to take risks,
          to explore, to permit their imagination to pursue the anguishing and difficult and forbidden.

          The term vision describes that complex of personal outlook and style and grasp of wide significance
          which characterizes the work of a Dante or Whitman or Emily Dickinson or Sylvia Plath. It is not
          necessarily what the world regards as a state of sanity or health (though it is not necessarily insane
          or unhealthy, either). It is what is meant when we speak of a person as being "very together," which
          does not mean "well-adjusted." It means having discovered some source of inner coherence which
          enables one to function--minimally to survive in an all too intensely vivid world, maximally to achieve
          greatly, as in great art.

          Such vision cannot be deliberately acquired, yet, paradoxically, it can arise from work, thought,
          suffering, ecstasy, willing surrender, courageous engagement, and solitary facing of self. When
          achieved it may impel a person to reject all I say here--and that may be exactly the route one must
          follow to become a poet. When people say that writing cannot be taught they mean that one cannot
          give another person vision. It must be discovered in and wrought of self.

          What one can do--and what I have tried to do here--is continually raise the kinds of questions
          which lead to (perhaps the word is provoke) such metamorphosis. In discussing poetry I have
          tried to show that there is no way it can be separated from philosophy, faith, politics, social
          criticism, personal and social psychology, individual experience and commitment, from all the
          rest of human culture. Simultaneously I have tried to offer specific, realistic, and practical advice
          about how to make poems work once one has achieved something like personal vision.

          Nothing in this book is elementary. My fear is, rather, that I haven't sufficient profundity to
          respond to the staggering question of what it means to be a poet and thus to participate in
          building the most towering yet most delicate edifice in human history. I have sat spellbound
          contemplating the imagination, technique and expenditure of resources involved in sending our
          astronauts into space. Yet when I see those intricate craft drifting beyond gravity I want to ask
          the spacemen, have you read Shakespeare's Sonnet 129?"
                                                              

          PART ONE: FOOTHILLS OF PARNASSUS--OR WHY BOTHER?
                                                              

          Poet . . . and the world don't know it

          Horace drew attention in verse to a problem which has existed as long as there has been such a
          thing as a literary reputation and a horde of aspirants desiring one: the plague of nonprofessionals
          descending on professionals in search of attention, advice, and promotion (much more of the first
          and third than of the second). Along with tales of losing one's virginity or learning about Pearl
          Harbor or the assassination of President Kennedy, almost anyone might tell about his experiences
          trying to get well-known writers to read and comment on work. It seems that everyone has at one
          time or another thought he might be a writer; in some fashion he tried to get an authoritative judgment
          on his chances of success. On one hand are the stories of the rudeness, vanity and fallibility of the
          professionals; on the other are the complaints (such as that of Pope in his "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot"
          about the naivety, persistence and self-centeredness of neophytes who line up outside the homes
          of writers like bill collectors.

          There is no way to avoid the problem, for, surely, everyone must start somewhere, and that means
          getting someone to read his work. The opinions of family and friends are eventually unsatisfying (no
          matter how encouraging). Rejection slips are uninformative. Teachers of English are undependable as
          sounding boards. Inescapably beginners haunt published poets with their sad and desperate question:
          "Shall I go on?" Dryden told his cousin Swift that Swift would never be a poet (and, in spite, Swift
          became a good one). But no matter how confident we may be of negative predictions, they serve little
          purpose. The question permits only one answer--and one may give it without ever seeing the beginner's
          work: "Of course you should go on, if you really want to. But do you know what you're in for?"

          To be a poet is, of course, to transcend such categories as "amateur" and "professional." A professional
          poet is, in a sense, a contradiction in terms. In the first place poetry is not something at which one can
          make a living. There is no agreed-upon body of knowledge, no set of methods or principles, nothing
          much to profess. But it is possible to make a career of sorts out of writing poetry and engaging in the
          activities which pertain to or grow out of writing poetry--giving readings and lectures, editing, teaching,
          engaging in scholarship and other kinds of writing. A reputation as a published poet opens doors
          which lead to other things which generate a little income. And in spite of coy denials and the lack
          of absolutes, there is more agreement than we often admit about necessary knowledge, techniques,
          bases of judgment, goals and steps of advancement. Knowing all that will not make one a poet, but if
          one becomes a poet there is a high probability that he will learn these things.

          Becoming a poet is, however, another matter. Experienced writers talk a lot about discipline, but they
          do not often talk about the motivation which underlies discipline. A young man shared my study
          recently for a couple of days and marveled at my capacity for staying right here at my typewriter hour
          after hour. I said it was easy--easier than doing anything else--because I loved it. It is like fly-fishing
          or skiing or sailing or making love: one does not do it primarily to get somewhere. One does it out of
          commitment to the activity itself. Getting results is satisfying, of course, but one learns (particularly
          in writing poetry) to minimize that motivation. The time and uncertainty between writing a poem,
          revising it, sending it out, having it accepted, seeing it in print, and having it read by others, and the
          goal--having it influence their lives--all this is too tenuous to operate effectively as a driving force.

          The questions one must ask himself open up chasms: Why am I doing this? What am I looking for?
          How will I know when I have found it? What would I consider success? What relation has my opinion
          to that of others? Those who become poets find ways of answering or coping with such questions
          which motivate them to dedicated work. They discover appropriate stances toward themselves and
          their art. All the practices and lore and rewards of the nonprofession are secondary to discovering
          motivation.

          At a writer's conference I heard John Frederick Nims tell how to become a poet. "It's easy," he said,
          "to tell you. It's like teaching you to ride a bicycle across the Grand Canyon on a cable, balancing
          bowls of fish on either end of a long pole. First, stretch a cable across the canyon. Get a bicycle which
          will roll on the cable. Balance the fish bowls on the pole and mount the bicycle, being careful not to
          spill the fish . . . ." The audience was breaking up with painful laughter. "No," he said, "that's wrong.
          To become a poet, get a bottle of whiskey and go off in the woods and drink it in one evening. Have a
          tragic love affair. Converse with God . . .." Though both lines of advice are reductions to absurdity of
          the question, both contain much truth. There is no formula. It sounds impossible, but clearly it is not.

          It is perhaps a dangerous habit of mind for anyone, ever, to think, "I am a poet." You are a poet at
          the time you are writing a poem. The next moment you may be a carpenter or diaper-changer or movie-
          goer or something else. The announcement, "I am a poet," may lead to dark nights of the soul in which
          you wonder whether that is really true. What if you are not? What if someone should find out? The
          panic during dry periods--when no poems come, and you are not sure whether they ever will again--
          leads to bottomless despair if you have fastened your identity to the label. Whether (or not) you are a
          poet is not, after all, for you, but for the world to say. But it is true enough that in order to write with
          a certain confidence, submit work, evaluate rejections and acceptances, set goals for future work,
          some kind of poetic stance, some way of regarding yourself and your work, is essential.

          Part One explores the questions surrounding that discovery of stance (and distinguishing it from mere
          posturing--as those would-be poets engage in who buy their wardrobe and start practicing their autograph
          without undertaking the preceding steps). How does one acquire the readiness, the strength, the serious
          purpose? I can't tell you--but I can say something about what these questions have meant to me and to
          others I have dealt with.

                                        
                                

                                                                        CHAPTER ONE

          Are You a Poet?

          Of course, you think you are.

          I have never met a person who has never written a poem.

          Scratch your cowboy, you will find a Sandburg; scratch your engineer, you will find Hart Crane;
          scratch your mother, you will find Millay. The bourgeois gentleman may have spoken prose all his
          life, but he writes poetry, saves it for years and then sends it to me. He goes at it like Don Quixote
          at the windmill or, in a more American spirit, he gets in there and tries.

          He doesn't write jingles, by the way. Jingles require too much skill. He writes, almost invariably, free
          verse. He isn't superficial; he is always fantastically profound, as he will explain, and what looks like
          foolishness is simply more advanced than the reader. He isn't childishly simple; he is always obscure
          and difficult. No poetry is more obscure and difficult than amateur poetry. He has unshakeable faith
          in the validity of his thought and the significance of his emotion; if he writes it down it must be so.

          And he has faith in the value of expression for its own sake. He doesn't save his nail parings in his
          jewelry box. If he expresses himself into a Kleenex he doesn't hang it on the wall. If he belches, he
          does not record it and play it on hi-fi. But if he finds what seem to him verbal equivalents for internal
          exudations, he has a touching confidence that he has produced something to be revered and shown
          in public. I speak of the amateur, but there should be a more accurate word. Amateur comes from
          amare, to love, implying, true, that there is more infatuation than wisdom, more enthusiasm than
          skill, about what he does. But, unfortunately, many amateur poets hate poetry, never reading any
          except their own, never thinking about it, hearing it, seeing it, above all never buying it. Poetry is
          their personal vengeance on the world of literature, or, more specifically, on their high school
          English teachers. Such a poet preserves his amateur standing with vicious jealousy. Poetic license,
          for him, is tacit permission to indulge in an emotional range from infantile display to adolescent
          sentiment. His inspiration excuses all; he believes Art is Divine--by which he means it is free from
          the ordinary considerations of common sense, utility, improvement by practice, decency, relevance
          and intelligence. Poetry is, by definition, thus: lacking in common sense, impolite, useless, of no
          conceivable importance to human life, and produced by a half-wit without much preparation,
          effort or care. An amateur of this kind does not want to lose his inalienable right to participate
          in such an orgy.

          An exceptionally able pianist I know practices for pay in bars. He hears there some of the premises
          ordinarily suppressed or more carefully disguised. He recognizes two basic attitudes toward his
          profession. The first goes, "I took piano lessons when I was a kid. Wish I had kept it up, but you
          know how it goes--no time." This can be translated or expanded: "If I were to practice I would be as
          good as you are. But I have important things to do." The second attitude is expressed as, "You don't
          know how lucky you are to be given a talent like that." This means, roughly, "The only difference
          between you and me is luck. You got it; I didn't. I am not too lazy to practice six hours a day for
          fifteen or twenty years, nor too dedicated to other satisfactions to give my time to so unprofitable
          a pursuit. Only the rare person is gifted--as it were like a divine teacher's pet. We normal folk can
          be thankful we aren't queer."

          The first of these attitudes underrates the natural differences between people (I am avoiding the
          abused word talent, which smacks of the mysterious); the second underrates the slow, onerous
          development of skill. Neither, notice, gives any credit to the artist nor to his art. Both are rational-
          izations of nonartists, and they are born of a curious but common mixture of envy and contempt.

          But these are the ways many amateurs look on professionals. They consider their own innocence and
          spontaneity as at least the equivalent of knowledge, probably superior in the long run. Moreover, they
          feel there is something corrupt or evil in art if one knows what he is doing. They look on professionals
          as sweethearts look on courtesans. (And, actually, the analogy is illuminating in many ways.)

          A hack is more nearly a poet than that kind of amateur. Like courtesans, poets come in all degrees
          of competence and natural endowment; only a few are great. But the hack, unlike the amateur, has
          cleared his mind of basic distortions of the artistic process. He knows, for example, that his first
          obligation is to make himself understood. He does not confuse carelessness with creativity. He
          recognizes external demands on his work, the necessity of making his product fit into a pattern of
          needs and interests outside himself. He values sensitivity less than sense. He is not an intellectual
          hoodlum, attempting to browbeat his audience with pedantry or haughty subtlety. He would rather
          be wrong than be dull. He may have more craft than conscience--but that hardly matters, for, above
          all, he is an artisan, concerned with doing a job well. He has little interest in expressing himself.

          So far, his qualifications are exactly those which were essential to Homer, Dante, Chaucer,
          Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden or Goethe. Our hack may lack the largeness of mind of the great
          ones, their depth and scope, their dedication, their capacity for hard work, their capacity for life.
          But he is straight on many of the basic principles; he differs more in degree than in kind.
                                                              

          an ear for poetry

          Aside from these essential attitudes, the most important qualification you must have as a poet is
          what is called "an ear"--a sense of rhythm and sound relationship. Like most talents, your ear for
          poetry is partly gift and partly acquisition. The best training for it is analysis of great poetry. Much
          of what I have done in this book consists of analyzing passages of poetry in great detail, as I hope
          to encourage readers to insist upon a sensitive and detailed understanding of what goes on in poems.
          At this point perhaps the nonconformist rebels. He wants to do something different. But he would
          probably not be concerned with poetry at all unless he had developed a love--based on knowledge--
          of the fine points of the art. Analysis (which is sometimes seen as the opposite of creativity) can be
          tender as well as penetrating. It requires learning to care about the right things.

          When you sense that something about a line or a passage is particularly compelling, that its effect is
          indelible, stop, take it apart and examine the pieces.

                         Was this the face that launched a thousand ships
                         And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
                         Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.

          Listen to the sounds one by one in their interweaving patterns: the s's, l's, t's, the nasals, but, above
          all, the short i's in this, ships, Ilium, immortal, with and kiss. The powerful climactic effect of that
          word kiss arises partly from this repetition of the vowel sound, particularly as it rhymes with the
          first beat in the passage, this, and strongly echoes the last word of the first line, ships (which, by the
          way, suggests lips--but more of that later.) Outright alliteration (topless towers, make me immortal)
          is a rather obvious device, but much subtler are the modulations from one sound to another and the
          playful and minute echoes. For example, in the last line, the long e's in sweet and me, subdued because
          me is unaccented, or the consonance of the k in make with that in kiss, or the movement from the high
          bright vowel in sweet down to the dark o in immortal back up the scale to the two short i's at the end
          of the line.

          Now look at the rhythm. It is perfectly regular through the first two lines until the last light beat
          in Ilium (and note how the light beat on um pulls against the voice which is rising to complete the
          question). Then the astonishing third line:

                         SWEET HEL/en, MAKE/me imMOR/tal with/ a KISS.

          In conventional terms, the five feet are a spondee, iamb, anapest, pyrrhic and iamb--not a particularly
          unusual line of iambic pentameter.

          Don't panic at these terms, which will be explained in Chapter Five. For now just listen to the interplay
          of accents with unaccented syllables, the dramatic appropriateness of the initial surge, the stagger of
          unaccented syllables before "MOR," then the succession of three unaccented syllables.

          One's ear for rhythm is not an ear for regularity: anyone hears a metronome's steady throb. Rather, it
          is the ability to hear the dance of variation, the pulse and lag of beats syncopating over the established
          base. Poetry is order threatening to become chaos--just as the best prose is chaos threatening to
          become order. You have an ear if you hear both the order and artful disorder simultaneously.

          These lines, of course, are spoken by Marlowe's Dr. Faustus at his moment of triumph before his
          commitment to Hell begins to press its horror to his heart. No amount of management of vowels,
          consonants and metrics could make the lines as imperishable as they are if it were not for their
          dramatic setting, for their tone of exuberance shaded with poignant irony. This is the face for which
          the towers were burnt, the Greeks were embroiled all those years, and for which Faustus will
          willingly go to damnation. Immortal he wants to be? He cannot avoid an immortality of punishment.
          With a kiss? That briefest of experiences is cast against the yearning for timelessness--and, additional
          irony, the kiss does make him immortal, for the fictional Dr. Faustus steps with these three lines into
          the permanent memory of the world and assumes a reality no actual magician could ever achieve.
          He goes on to say (and notice here the double occurrence of the word lips for which the previous
          lines have prepared us):

                         Her lips suck forth my soul; see where it flies!
                         Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
                         Here will I dwell, for heaven be in these lips,
                         And all is dross that is not Helena.

          The meaning of the play is crystallized in this passage: he does indeed lose his soul for Helen, and
          for the other pleasures which he has bought by his contract with Mephistopheles. But the moment is
          exquisite--and Marlowe almost convinces us that for such a moment we would also sell our souls.
          How much (given the situation) that experience owes to the handling of the short i sound, to the
          surge and limp of a meter in a single line!

          That is a poetic ear--the ability to hear and select language for its sound--not pretty sound, but
          right sound; not stability, but pattern always seeming to dissolve.

          I have suggested other aspects of poetic talent which are just as essential as the ear, but they are
          equally essential in all writing. I mean control of language, drama, of idea, of tone, of fictional
          reality. The difference is that in poetry every element is so much more intense, has so much
          attention thrown onto it, that the demands are incomparably heavier on the poet than on the
          writer of prose. Unless you care as much or more for your syllables and sounds, for your beat,
          for your line shape, for the details of your pattern, as you do for your meaning, you may as well
          write prose. You are not a poet.

          Form is the poem; form cannot be paraphrased. And form is as simultaneously rigid and supple
          as a skeleton. Nothing about the poet can be soft: poetry is the toughest of arts, and you must
          be tough to practice it. Lines will go dead on you if you relax, your words will drown if you
          water them. The plunk of hard syllables, knuckles of sound, ribs of meaning--these are the stuff
          of verse. You must yearn for the solid, the irreducible, for the hard and lasting. I am not speaking
          of hardness in the sense of being difficult to comprehend: such difficulty grows more often in
          fuzziness, confusion, the smog of thought, than it does in the weathered language of poetry. Your
          concern is not to be difficult, but rather, to give to airy nothing a local habitation and a name, to
          put real toads in imaginary gardens, to discover bone and build outward. Have you the courage
          to be a poet? To step beyond the easy answers?
                                                              

          rivalry with madmen

          I take that title from Plato, who, in the Phaedrus, speaks of "the madness of those who are
          possessed by the Muses." This madness, he says, "enters into a delicate and virgin soul, and
          there inspires frenzy, awakens lyrical and all other numbers; with those adorning the myriad
          actions of ancient heroes for the instruction of posterity. But he who, having no touch of the
          Muses' madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by
          the help of art--he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man is nowhere at all
          when he enters into rivalry with madmen."

          If what I write is poetry, if my experience is that of a poet, what I say may have some relevance.
          But there is a risk in the assumption; my frenzies do not produce poetry; when not frenzied I am,
          I hope, sane--which is to say, if Plato is right, I am nowhere at all as a poet.

          No one sits down to give a public performance on a piano unless he has had some instruction and
          practice, unless he has learned something about the craft. Seizure, frenzy, he considers not enough--
          just as it is not enough to enable one, for example, to pilot an airplane. I used to sneak into cockpits
          of airplanes at an airfield near home and pretend to fly. I wanted to fly, as badly as can be. I was
          inspired to fly. But I had so little faith in my inspiration that I would not turn the switch. Faith about
          poetry comes more easily, though. Thousands of people turn the switch every day producing
          writing ranged irregularly down the page, and preparing any captive reader with the proud preface
          that he never wrote poetry before, doesn't know anything about poetry, and, in fact, doesn't read
          and doesn't like poetry. Unembarrassed, proud of their innocence (or, as Plato says, their delicacy
          and virginity), such poets consider ignorance positively a recommendation. The results are usually
          comparable to what would have happened if I had turned the switch in the airplane, or if I were to
          sit before you in my musical ignorance and attempt to entertain you on the piano.

          A character in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men says something to the effect that one should never
          fight with little guys; they are excused if they lose and get too much credit if they win. The novice
          approaches art, I think, as a little guy, knowing he is insured either way. If he loses, he expects
          patience, understanding, and praise for a noble attempt. If he wins, he expects immediate immortality.
          Although no art is immune from him, he usually tries poetry.

          That a little child shall lead us is one of the great delusions of Western civilization. Idiots, dogs,
          children, monks, and condemned men share with poets and other artists a reputation for uncanny
          wisdom. It is our favorite story: how one learns about life by being cut off from it. God appears to
          the blank mind. It is popular to praise the barefoot or backwoods artist, the unspoiled child of
          nature, because it is assumed he has a freer access to his subconscious than other people; that is,
          that he lacks the controls of behavior and expression which are induced by civilized commerce.
          He is like the child, untarnished, nearer truth than those of us who have labored to discover it.

          The popular view is that intelligence is regarded as an absolute disadvantage to emotion; whereas,
          in good art they are not only compatible but intensify one another. Art, insofar as it is a celebration
          of or uncritical indulgence in feeling, is one of the most attractive forces of anti-intellectualism at
          loose in the world. We may be glad so few people pay attention to it.

          Most poets--indeed most artists--begin their careers with a spurt of talent which is somewhat
          mysterious even to them. One of my early published poems was of this sort. It appeared in
          The Nation in 1955:

                                        AUBADE

                         That is dawn, that light in the west,
                         brighter than lead dropped scalding on the eye,
                         breaking the day of silence on the nest
                         untenanted--and strewn from the naked tree

                         or atomized. Across the new white land
                         no bough holds any dew, nor leaf, nor must
                         any angled arm of wood make shadow; wind
                         must not stir the unreflecting, hanging atom dust

                         in that white land of final dawn. If we,
                         my loving flesh, could but prolong our night!
                         But no cloud crosses the coming of the light;
                         no birdsong shrieks that instant breaking,

                         that day of terrible mind. In a granule, borne by
                         a wheel grunt? Shield clank? Clatter of chariot wheel?
                         on covert piston slipping steady lechery?
                         Will silver hollow whistling sky fish carry it?

                         Or will some draftsman, coat on a nail,
                         switching his steel-beaked compass, setting a thumb-screw,
                         drain the last black drop? What bestial hand, like mine,
                         will turn the last dial to the point marked TRUE--

                         searing the skyline with a flameless fire,
                         powdering all the antique ways of blood,
                         cauterizing bed and loin and mire
                         and drying dark in dawn's pure, pure still flood?
                                                  (The Nation, September 10, 1955)

          Some years later, writing for The Yale Review, I tried to reconstruct the impulses which led to it.
          I explained that the poem is about the atomic bomb--a deep concern of intellectuals of those days.
          Light is a familiar symbol for intelligence or reason. The West is not only the Pacific bomb range;
          it can be taken as both death and the Western world. The speaker is singing a traditional love song
          on parting from his mistress at dawn. In this case his mistress is his flesh. The dawn which separates
          them is the enlightenment of Western culture, which reaches its apotheosis in the explosion of the
          bomb: both the height of achievement and the end. For it is still a bestial hand which turns the dial
          of the machine produced by the mind; enlightenment cannot come to the body. The results are
          inevitable as truth. The body, when products of intelligence have final sway, is obsolete, antique,
          and the landscape is that of a waste land, without foliage, shadow, or dew. Life is, as it were, a
          darkness, a disease, an imperfection, which enlightenment will cauterize. The speaker sees the end
          of life tragically, preferring the disease to the cure.

          We were discussing inspiration. Was I seized to become the mouthpiece of the supernatural?
          Did I plumb my subconscious, ripping through the barriers of my civilized overlay? Well, I
          remember very clearly that I was scrubbing my back in the shower when it occurred to me that it
          would be amusing to see the sun rise in the west rather than the east. I began, soap in hand, orating
          to the shower curtain, "That is dawn, that light in the west," delighting in the absurdity of the
          pronouncement. Then I began to take myself seriously, as I frequently do when absurdities engage me.
          "Brighter than...," I added, and tried to think of intense brightness, blinding brightness, and imagined
          the sensation (note: sensation) of burning out an eye. With a poker; with boiling oil; finally, with
          molten lead. My notion was of something like a prisoner in a movie thriller tied to a table with
          Chinese pirates dropping hot lead, drop by drop, into his eye. What is that bright? An image came
          to me of people watching a bomb test through smoked glass, and then I was off. All the humanitarian,
          social concern of the poem came as an afterthought. I needed a "subject" strong enough to justify the
          startling beginning I had conceived. Still dripping I began working on the poem. Although I wrote
          the poem very quickly (it was substantially as it stands in half an hour), I was not, I underline,
          inspired. I was working, consciously and carefully on the symbolic meanings of light, darkness,
          flesh, dawn, the West; consciously varying meter, searching for discordant rhymes, hunting for
          dramatic hesitations for line endings--all the conscious concerns of craft. If I worked quickly it was
          because I had been preparing for the job for several years: reading, analyzing poetry, and practicing
          its composition. I had a reservoir of skill to draw on. A farmhand milks a cow faster than I do
          because he has developed the muscles, and, besides, he knows how. I do not accuse him of
          inspiration. It is an activity of sanity, not of madness.

          The emotion is approached, I think, rationally. For example, there is throughout a conscious,
          careful imitation of oracular statement, the rhetoric of prophecy, vision, dire revelation. I did not
          have such a vision; I created it. Let me call your attention to some of the details of organization
          you might not have noticed. The poem opens with a paradox stated as a simple fact. Dawn
          usually has good connotations, but these are immediately reversed by the second line, and an
          ominous sense is (or should be) created by the phrase "day of silence" and the stark images. The
          final word of the first sentence, atomized, comes, I hope, as something of a surprise, dropping
          down into the second stanza. This word suggests the meaning of this dawn, at least on the level of
          the bomb. There follow more stark images, negatives, in the next sentences, and repetitions of the
          word must, suggesting "do not disturb"--as though things were as they should be, or inevitable, final,
          and to be respected.

          The title has suggested a love song, but it is not until the third stanza that the theme of love emerges,
          and then in a single, futile apostrophe. No use. And the next line, beginning with a series of heavy
          stresses and ending with a hard and sudden rhyme, hinges the poem, turns us immediately back to
          desolation. In the fourth stanza a series of short questions is meant to suggest the steady implacable
          steps of progress, stages of civilization, one means of war after another. The third line, the machine,
          the combustion engine, is associated with sex; not love but lechery, and with the cyclical untiring
          movement with which machines replace human functions. The final horror in this gallery of horrors
          is the jet, with its spinning turbine, deadly in the sky, and associated with a fish, another sexual
          symbol. If this stanza works, in evoking the full sweep of civilization and progress, the poem has
          moved to another level of abstraction; it is no longer merely the bomb we are talking about, but
          all civilization which threatens "my loving flesh." "That day of terrible mind," we see now, means
          not only "terrible to think of," but the day when our mind triumphs over flesh entirely.

          The fifth stanza suddenly drops back several notches of emotion. The word draftsman is quite
          different from those used so far in the poem; it is more familiar, more technical, more specific,
          closer to everyday experience, and "coat on a nail" reinforces this homey tone. We should relax
          for a moment with that line, but "steel-beaked" in the next line sounds sinister, and, though a
          draftsman's compass has a "thumb-screw," that term should recall a device of torture. Innocent ink
          in the next line becomes "the last black drop," suggesting the last drop of blood, and the significance
          of this relaxation to a conversational level now should be clear. The innocent act of the technician
          in a complex, interlocking, impersonal civilization may, with no one's knowledge, be the final detail
          in the blueprint of disaster, as a sailor punches a button in the belly of a battleship, firing a gun on
          deck which destroys a plane in the air, a plane the "gunner" never saw. Another function of the
          draftsman image is to imply a fellow like you or me; and this is picked up by "bestial hand, like mine"
          which in its hairy-fisted way turns some scientific knob, and bang: truth is horribly, inevitably upon
          us. The last stanza employs closed lines, complete (that is) in themselves, describing the results
          1, 2, 3, 4, recapitulating the themes, symbols, and ironies established earlier in the poem. The
          rhyme pattern which has been trying to assert itself in the other stanzas materializes here, and the
          assertive, final lines work against the question-mark; is there, at this point, any question at all?

          I still like that poem--like reading it aloud, making it thunder. But it offers two serious problems.
          One is that it makes no sense to most readers. Like many other poets who emerged in the fifties, I
          was then in love with what is called "explication," elaborate analysis of difficult poems. We picked
          apart, in those days, poems by Donne or Eliot, finding treasures overlooked by the ordinary reader,
          and then wrote poems to be explicated--conveniently forgetting that ordinary readers were not
          about to take the time and care with our work that they might with poems by Donne or Eliot, if,
          indeed, they bothered to look twice at Donne or Eliot. The second problem is for the poet--one
          that you may have faced yourself. It is a hard act to follow. One of the difficulties presented by
          those early spurts of talent in an artist's career is that they are not easily repeated. Many writers, as
          they age, look back on their earlier published work with a kind of poignant fear and regret. The fear
          is that they can never again approximate that early surge of power. The regret is that they set up such
          a dazzling standard for themselves--and, if they have any following, for their readership. Robert
          Frost ruefully admitted in his old age that most of the work published throughout his long career
          had been written when he was a young man--before his first published book--and then dribbled out
          in volume after volume as "new" collections. It took a certain amount of critical acceptance before
          he could get the public to look at what he was writing as a young man. But his own regret was that
          he no longer had it in him--at least not often--to write as he wrote then.

          If you depend upon inspiration to strike, as many poets do who adopt and try to maintain a style of
          violent intensity (e.g., the work of Sylvia Plath), you may find yourself moving toward suicidal despair
          and disillusionment, a sense of impotence. Some have put real heads into real ovens (e.g., Sylvia Plath)
          when life and maturity do not measure up to one's expectations. The public has a romance with art as
          tragedy, with the 1ives of artists as burning themselves out by living in unbearable intensity. Dylan
          Thomas may have died as a result of trying to live out his image. Others decide, as Marianne Moore
          did about poetry, "there is something important beyond all this fiddle." If Plato is right, they move
          away from rather than toward art.

          I can't imagine that Chaucer or Shakespeare or Milton or Dryden could have afforded to have
          what is called artistic sensibility. They were busy turning out useful products for which, like
          professionals, they were sometimes hired. They could tell a story you wouldn't mind reading, or
          damn or praise or comfort or unsettle or advance ideas or defend values. They learned their craft
          and worried less, I think, about their integrity as artists than about the integrity of their products;
          if the damned thing won't hold together it won't sell.

          Now, of course, craft isn't ever everything. There are differences among people. Shakespeare had
          something I haven't got. Whatever it was, I suspect it was more nearly intelligence than madness.
          He was smarter than I am, and worked harder than I do. How much easier would it be for my ego
          to pretend that he was more inspired.
                                                              

          amateur, tradesman, professional

          I have talked about three kinds of poets--amateurs, hacks (or, more kindly, tradesmen), and
          professionals. All, of course, start as amateurs--but some aspire to no other status and, in fact,
          associate their integrity with their freedom from the contamination of trade or the profession. Many
          amateurs publish--in newspapers, organizational publications, or in the many little magazines
          sponsored by "poetry lovers," appearing and disappearing like seasonal flowers. If they decide
          to go into the trade or the profession (and there is a distinct difference), they begin to seek
          remuneration or honor in ways that are fairly clearly established.

          There is little help or guidance one can give an amateur, since his own satisfaction with his work
          is the only relevant criterion of judgment. If a poet wants to go into the trade, there is much
          material available about writing light verse, greeting-card verse, and other verse for remunerative
          markets. The only relevant criterion here is whether--and how much--it pays. This book may interest
          all three, but I assume that the reader's primary concern is with the profession. Professional poets
          publish in the quarterlies and periodicals read by literary intellectuals, bring out books which will
          be reviewed in those periodicals, and seek recognition by other professionals and by the reading
          public through the medium of anthologies. To put it operationally, a professional might aspire to
          be represented in the next anthology of modern American poets--those efforts to sift out the poets
          who will make up the literary canon in years to come.

          I do not mean to imply that the professional route is the only valid one; it simply has a different
          destination from the other routes. One cannot make a living from it, for the most part. To get
          some perspective on this problem, note what David Perkins says in A History of Modern Poetry
          (Harvard University Press) about the turn of the century:

               Payment for poetry in the quality magazines seems to have compared favorably with
               English standards. A dollar a line was high, but the rate could go much higher. Kipling
               was paid nine dollars a line for some poems. The average short poem seems to have
               been sold for five to twelve dollars. These sums may seem picayune, but they are not
               despicable. Cawein told the Louisville Courier-Journal that his returns from "magazine
               verse from the year 1900 were about $100 per month," at a time when the salary of
               university professors was likely to be $1,500 to $2,000 per year.

          Madison Cawein was a popular poet of the time. In the early decades of this century quite a number
          of popular poets such as James Whitcomb Riley, Eugene Field, Edgar Guest and a smaller number
          of literary poets such as Amy Lowell, Vachel Lindsay, Carl Sandburg, Edgar Lee Masters, E. A.
          Robinson, Robert Frost, Edwin Markham, Stephen Crane, Sara Teasdale, Elinor Wylie and Edna
          St. Vincent Millay, earned enough from poetry through book sales, magazine sales and readings to
          sustain at least a modest life-style. (Some, such as Amy Lowell, didn't need or live on this income.)
          Poetry had a broad public before the so-called "modernist" movement. One of the "little magazines"
          of the era bore as its motto, "the public be damned." And the public responded in kind.

          As a result, most serious literary publication moved over to the little magazines and small presses,
          most of which paid nothing at all. (Many were--and are--supported by the writers themselves.)
          Far from "picayune," the rates cited by Perkins are almost the same as today's, when the salaries of
          university professors run ten times higher. Few poets today earn as much as a dollar a line. None that
          I know of earns a hundred a month from magazine publication. First editions of new books of the
          poets listed above were likely to run ten to twelve thousand copies; those of Robert Lowell, by
          comparison, were likely to run five thousand or less. In the 1960s I was publishing about as widely
          as any poet in America--and I was lucky if the proceeds from poetry ran $200 per year. Many of
          my poems--perhaps a half-dozen per year--were in the highest-paying magazine markets, such as
          Harper's, Saturday Review, Atlantic, Mademoiselle, Ladies' Home Journal, and the checks ran from
          $10 to $100 per poem at best. The rates are not substantially higher today. If a poem is picked up by
          an anthology, the poet may reap another $10-$50 as a permission fee. If a major publisher brings out
          a book (professionals tend to publish a book about every five years), the poet may get an advance--
          say $500. But he is unlikely to get any royalties, as few poetry books sell enough copies to make up
          the advance. On the other hand, his publications may bring him grants (e.g., a Guggenheim award,
          enabling him to live for a year), may bring him advancement in a professorial job, may bring him
          reading engagements (at $200 or more per performance). Most poets write prose as well--e.g.,
          criticism, personal essays, fiction--which brings them more than their poetry, but it may be their
          stature as a poet which brings good prices for their prose. Many of them today are or have been,
          in one way or another, professors; the academy thus supports creative work in the way the Church
          supported creative monks in the Middle Ages. I do not pretend that this is how it ought to be; I am
          telling you how it is. If you are thinking of becoming a professional, that is what you will be getting into.

          And, of course, the profession is riddled with corruption. Because the number of poets who are
          more-or-less "recognized" at any given time is very small (perhaps a hundred in the United States
          might claim that status today), they tend to know one another and to favor one another, to prejudge
          one another, to give their critical attention--which helps, even when abusive--to one another. Thus,
          whether they like the idea or not, they constitute an informal Establishment. It is their opinions which
          are sought when awards are given, books are published, appointments are made.

          I am sure the same conditions exist in professional music, art, theater--and, indeed, in professional
          medicine, law, teaching and the ministry. But where the numbers are smaller, as in poetry, the effects
          of personal relationships are likely to be more intense--and more bitterly resented by those who are
          not "in." In a gathering of poets there is likely to be enough buttering up and putting down, jockeying
          and back-stabbing to make the National Association of Manufacturers seem a convocation of saints.

          Nor does the Establishment do its job really well--i.e., the job of selecting and promoting poetry of
          enduring merit. The world of poetry is very nearly as subject to fads as the world of fashion. In
          market lists, magazine editorial statements, contest rules, criteria for grants, you will continually hit
          upon the term "good poetry" as the most specific indication of what the Establishment is looking for.
          The term seems to come from Plato's Heaven of Absolutes, but it actually refers to what is fashionable
          or what is recommended by those recognized as having made it. When poets go out marching and
          demonstrating, suddenly "statement" is "in," and the poetry in the literary quarterlies takes on a clearly
          propagandistic edge. The next year some cultural leader retreats into surrealism--and the code word
          becomes "strange" for the most acceptable style. Later generations will have to sort out the quality in
          our changing fashions--and, alas, judging from the history of poetry, they will do that according to
          their own fashions. One of the greatest poems in American literature--and certainly most materially
          successful--was Edwin Markham's "The Man With the Hoe," first published in the San Francisco
          Examiner in 1898, reprinted to popular acclaim in papers all over the world. It is said to have earned
          the author over $250,000 during his lifetime. And is it some piece of stodgy Victorian pomposity? No,
          it is a radical poem of social protest calling for worldwide revolution. Just try to find it in anthologies
          of American poetry edited in more recent eras, when taste has been running to obscurity, irony,
          artiness, indirection and sensational imagery.

          All these disclaimers are intended to help you feel better if you do not really care to join the
          professional rat race. If that is the sort of thing you like--or can tolerate along with your private
          search for excellence--the professional route may interest you. But I would not be surprised if many
          find it too repugnant to undertake it.

          I know very little about writing verse for "the trade," as opposed to "the profession." Most of the
          trade market for verse is in greeting cards and posters. I know there are many competent and
          clever versifiers who make good livings at this work--mostly on salary, working in offices (not
          freelancing). The trade is to the profession as commercial art is to fine art, or as pop music is to
          classical. The lines dividing them are never very distinct, and high quality is possible in either.
          Sometimes the same practitioners produce both. But the aims are quite distinct. Verse writers
          are often talented verbal craftsmen; often better craftsmen than are the professional poets. But they
          do not expect verse written for trade markets to appear on the library shelves alongside Keats
          and Chaucer.

Go to Chapter Two