/lit/ - Literature

>>13987277
I think that >>13987292 is right, so you should read poetry for the soulless and cynical.

>We seem to be producing a new kind of bad poetry, not the old kind that tries to move the reader and fails, but one that does not even try. Repeatedly he is confronted with pieces that cannot be understood without reference beyond their own limits or whose contented insipidity argues that their authors are merely reminding themselves of what they know already, rather than re-creating it for a third party. The reader, in fact, seems no longer present in the poet's mind as he used to be, as someone who must understand and enjoy the finished product if it is to be a success at all; the assumption now is that no one will read it, and wouldn't understand or enjoy it if they did. Why should this be so? It is not sufficient to say that poetry has lost its audience, and so need no longer consider it: lots of people still read and even buy poetry. More accurately, poetry has lost its old audience, and gained a new one. This has been caused by the consequences of a cunning merger between poet, literary critic and academic critic (three classes now notoriously indistinguishable): it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the poet has gained the happy position wherein he can praise his own poetry in the press and explain it in the class-room, and the reader has been bullied into giving up the consumer's power to say "I don't like this, bring me something different."

If he's right, is it true that market value determines a poem's worth? Would Larkin approve of Rupi Kaur?

Should you let the private views of authors (like Philip Larkin's boast that "we don’t go to cricket Test matches now, too many fucking niggers about") have an effect on the way you read their work?

Philip Larkin writes a lot about Plath and Hughes in his Collected Letters. He didn't seem to have much time for Hughes, who he considered an overly sober, self-adoring bore. And he didn't think much of Plath's work either, saying that she presumably figured out that writing about mental illness would get her attention, and so allowed that to become her "thing".

Who will capture Britain the way Larkin did?

To me his work was "British" in a way few works of literature are, although his hatred of the working class irks me somewhat as he hadn't first done the decent thing and emerged from the working class to then turn around and stick out his tongue at it.

If anything, Earl is more like pic related than BEE or any brat pack member lol