My Apology for Poetry

Jessica Pocha
Dr. Sexson
English 300
24 November 2008
My Apology for Being an English Major
"How do I know what I think until I see what I say?" was a wise question, which I think drives me as an English major. My mind is formed and reformed by the words of others, and I think it is entirely a good game plan to learn from geniuses foremost in respect to what I've seen and will see in order to know what to think and say. Poets, the madmen and liars of the literary world according to Plato, may seem like the worst lot to trust. Poets, however, have much to say to those who choose to see, so they may actually end up being the ones to go to in order to gain knowledge and wisdom. I suppose it would be wise to move in somewhat linear fashion, for if nothing else, it will help to not slide or digress into chaos and turn my paper into purely chaos language.
According to Aristotle, imitation is an instinct of our nature. Even for this paper, I am forced into the mode of mimesis, so that I might pass this course in literature. English majors learn how to write by imitating those who have come before them, such that emulating their favorite authors becomes a way in which to learn how to learn. It becomes acceptable, and somewhat of a necessity, to imitate the style, voice or turn of phrase of a particularly "good" poet. What's "good" is completely a value judgment in the eyes of each literature student, with each successive choice being a reflection of each individual's set of personal favorites. I tend to love Chaucer, Milton, the Romantics like Blake and Wordsworth, Keats and Shelley, and also some poets from the time of the Renaissance, like Shakespeare, Marlowe and Donne. I do also like the postmoderns, with my taste ranging from Ginsberg, Craig Raine, Adrienne Rich to Eliot and Pound. All of these poetry tastes tend to mean that my mimetic style ranges from very loquacious to very succinct.
M. H. Abram's idea of the universe, audience, world and artist informs how I think about everything. I think of my style of thought as procedural, incorporating what the artist may have intended, audience reaction, participation and appreciation, the time period and impact of each work and how each element interacts with another and also gauging an importance of each aspect. For example, it's hard not to laugh when I read the New Frontier series by Peter David. He's a fan of the original Star Trek and The Next Generation, which causes him to include seeming endless references to both series (it is a spinoff Star Trek book series), and to make jokes at the characters' expense. He knowingly plays into the fact that pretty much all of his readers are Trekkies and writes for our enjoyment and edification. By knowing the characters, back story, ST plot conventions and something of authorial intent, a reader gains much enjoyment from reading in this fashion. This kind of procedural reading is like watching The Matrix and being able to know and appreciate that it as a retelling of the allegory of the cave.
Shelley's notion that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world really strikes me. Can I ever think of banned books without thinking about Fahrenheit 451? Or critiques of 9/11 without Fahrenheit 911? Can you ever extricate Shakespeare from English drama? Can Machiavelli be separated from notions about political rule? Can you think about dreaming and nostalgia without thinking of Don Quixote de la Mancha? I think the answers to all are No, because poets have everything to do with how people perceive the world. There are so many notions that seep into the consciousness, that after a certain point, certain comparisons and opinions are inevitable. The best example is that Shakespeare will always be the one and only major master of Elizabethan drama, or God as I call him as an English major. Hardly a class goes by that at least one of my professors reference one of his works, even beyond the single one focusing on 17th century drama. (He's even in Bloom's introduction to Don Quixote!) I don't think that his reputation will diminish, as his words have captured certain truths which are true for the human condition and therefore, for all time.
According to Arnold in his Study of Poetry, his "one great contributory stream to the world-river of poetry", the criticism of poetry is criticism of life. We find that the classic poets have much to say about how we live, but also what to take away from poetry, for "[i]f he is a dubious classic, let us sift him; if he is a false classic, let us explode him." My favorite touchstone lines of John Donne, "Moving of th' earth brings harms and fears / Men reckon what it did, and meant / But trepidation of the spheres / Though greater far, is innocent" are such, as I think they sum up how I think about poetry. The earth can move and inspire fear, and we can ponder what it all means, but the earth itself won't say anything. Poets must. We must reckon what anything did and meant, because people are natural critics. Criticism is the mode by which everyone functions. We need poetry to define and shape our observations of the world and without which, all is lost. I am an English major because I am compelled to reckon what I've done and meant.

Works Cited
Aristotle. Poetics. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/resources/poetics/poettran.htm
Arnold, Matthew. The Study of Poetry. http://www.bartleby.com/28/5.html.
David, Peter. Star Trek: New Frontier series. Pocket Books.
Donne, John. A Valediction: Forbidden Mourning. http://www.eliteskills.com/c/4546
Shelley, Percy. A Defence of Poetry. http://www.bartleby.com/27/23.html