Episode 4b - Poets Say the Funniest Things

     When we last left our hero, Juan Vidal amused us with the notion that virtually nothing written before the death of poetry in the 1920s constituted poetry because it wasn't political.

     You may need to reread that last sentence for comprehension and effect.

     Believe it or not, this was not his punch line.  No, he saved that for last.  To fully appreciate its silliness in all its glory we need to bear in mind two indisputable facts:

1.  There is more poetry¹ being published today than ever before; and,

2.  Nobody Reads Poetry.

     This is news to no one.

Marc Bolan

     Mr. Vidal prattles on about the disappearance of "political poets¹".  You know, the kind we see in the millions at slam and open mic soirées.  The kind that cause those of us in attendance to mutter "Bob Dylan knows (and I'll bet Alan Freed does) there are things in the night that are better not to behold."

     With no hint of irony or self-awareness, Juan Vidal ends his argument with the most ridiculous question ever posed in earnest:  "Did they stop speaking, or have we stopped listening?"

     Mr. Vidal missed his cue [by generations] and his calling [as a sitcom writer].

---

Footnotes:

¹ - I rarely use the term this loosely.

---

Links:

Episode 1 - Poets Say the Funniest Things

Episode 2 - Poets Say the Funniest Things

Episode 3 - Poets Say the Funniest Things

Episode 4a - Poets Say the Funniest Things

Episode 4b - Poets Say the Funniest Things

---

Episode 4a - Poets Say the Funniest Things

DPK's "Beans"

      In "Where Have All The Poets Gone?" Juan Vidal wrote:  "For centuries, poets were the mouthpieces railing loudly against injustice."

      Actually, no, they weren't.  Not the poets we remember from when poetry had an audience, at least.  Drama, comedy, romance, elegy?  Sure.  Philosophy and religion?  Maybe.  Polemics?  For niche publishers, perhaps, but not as a general rule.  To be clear:  Mr. Vidal isn't saying "political" in the usual reductionist sense that everything is political (or dramatic, romantic or even humorous--whatever the pseudointellectual wants to argue).

      His example of "for centuries"?  "From Langston Hughes to Jack Kerouac..." leading to other contemporaries:  Pablo Neruda, Allen Ginsberg, and Amiri Baraka.

Garcia Lorca in 1914

      You couldn't guess his other example:  Federico del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús García Lorca (5 June 1898 - 19 August 1936).  In none of the theories about Lorca does anyone describe his body of work as "overtly political".  Lorca didn't consider it so, else he might never have left Madrid.  His Falangist friends and hosts didn't seem to have a problem with it.  Indeed, if the nationalists considered his poetry "overtly political" would it have taken them more than 30 minutes, let alone more than 30 days, to arrest and execute him?

      Needless to say, Mr. Vidal doesn't list examples of political pieces by Lorca.  Nor can anyone explain how badly one would have to misread Lorca's poetry before describing it as "overtly political".  Are we supposed to view "Llanto por Ignacio Sánchez Mejías" as...what?...a diatribe against bullfighting?

      Mr. Vidal continues unabated:  "At its root, poetry is the language of protest."

      Yes, that would explain the paeans, love sonnets, praise poems, non-satirical comedies, commercial jingles, bawdy limericks, and just about every canonical poem written before WWI.

      Do people actually think before they write these things?

=======================================================

     "I want to die decently in my bed." - Lorca, in "Romance Sonambulo"

=======================================================