Ross Brighton writes:
Thoughts on this:
Poetry is not functionless. It has many functions, as address, as connector, as trace, as “energy construct.” (I always liked that collocation.)
It is exactly as superfluous as everything else in the universe and perhaps as superfluous as the universe itself. That would make, conversely, everything equally essential.
Poetry is ornamental, but ornament is neither functionless nor superfluous. This is a very common misconception.
I also am biased against what is sparse and laconic, for the most part, (because it’s not my thing) as well as against the boring (although this, too, has a place in art). My point is that the type of poems that Ross is describing do not actually mirror “real speech..” Or real colloquial writing. Everyday language, colloquial language, is rich, varied, and crazy interesting, crazy poetic.
The problem with the sort of poems Ross is describing is their failure to enact that, as well as their slavish conformism to the most bland notion of what poetry can or “should” be. There is little or no invention in such poems.
Poets, be receptive.
Poets, be inventive.