I'd like to take this time & space to address the poetic community about some important issues facing writers in today's world. I intend to ask a lot of questions, and leave many unanswered, as fodder for the thinking processes of the readers.

These thoughts were sparked in part by a "letter from the editor" on Carrie Berry's former website Iguanaland, entitled Pencilled in Blue. Her intriguing comments brought to mind some other articles that I've read, including Dana Gioia's piece, "Can Poetry Matter?" (reprinted on Arthur Mortensen & Claudia Gary Annis' website, Expansive Poetry and Music Online). [both sites no longer exist, but the article originally appeared in The Atlantic which still has it archived: Can Poetry Matter?] Also on my mind, bearing on this subject, was the op-ed NY Times piece Poetry's Sorry State by Jonathan Adam Munk.

Gioia's essay, something of a classic on poetry, claims that "its intellectual and spiritual influence has eroded" and that "poetry's audience has declined." He blasts modern poetry readings as little more than "celebrations of the author's ego." In short, poetry is too personal. He makes his point with painstaking research, in great detail and with a lot of name-dropping.

Munk's mean-spirited editorial (all of two paragraphs long) takes aim at no less a target than "The People's Verse," an article written in defense of National Poetry Month, from no less of an author than Robert Pinsky, poet laureate of the United States (op-ed, The New York Times, 4/10/97). Munk writes, "Poetry is largely unread in this country not because it is poetry, but because it is not very good."

Say what?!? First of all, I'd like to see the statistics that support the grandiose claim that nobody's reading poetry. Second of all, I'd like to know who died and made "Jonathan Adam Munk" God. Debates have been going on for centuries, concerning what constitutes good, and what constitutes bad, poetry. I very seriously doubt that a two-paragraph rant is going to settle this question.

Both of these articles - the long and the short - the well-written and the merely spiteful - purport to proclaim the ultimate value of poetry. Both want to tell us how to evaluate our poetry, and consequently, our worth as poets.

Let's examine this issue and first see how these pieces stand up in the light of reason. In reading "Can Poetry Matter," I am made painfully aware that this is a pre-cyberspace-revolution essay. Gioia goes on to say, among other things, "Forty years ago, when Dylan Thomas read, he spent half the evening reciting other poets' work." This fact is cited as evidence of Thomas' humility, and of the lack thereof in modern performers. I see it more as evidence that today's poets are more sensitive to respecting the copyrights of others' works. Or wary of litigation. Or maybe they're just afraid of being hung up by their toenails on the Usenet ; )

Witness the circumstance and context of the appearance of the Munk piece. What was its purpose? According to the date, it was written upon the appearance of Pinsky's gentle and humane essay, "The People's Verse." The poet laureate writes that "Poetry is a part of our shared, communal life, as surely as is the Internet." The well-rounded Pinsky points out at the conclusion of his article, that poetry is both an outward and an inward craft, both deeply personal and broadly civic. Why does Munk's letter take such a cheap shot at Pinsky? Why does "The People's Verse" evoke such a rant against the "bland and marginal" nature of national months in general, and poetry in particular?

What I really want to ask Gioia is: why does poetry necessarily have to have mass-appeal or be political to have any validity? And the question I would like Munk to answer is: why would "insistence on issues of personal identity" entail some kind of damage to our culture as a whole? In my opinion, the richness and worth of the individual is the supreme value in a civilized society.

I realize that there's a very ancient tradition of troubadour poetry, going all the way back to the Celtic age and farther (see The Celts, by Nora Chadwick), in which the poet is seen as a speaker responsible for raising public awareness. If folks want to take these ideals onto themselves, this is just fine by me. In fact, I encourage this. I'm thrilled to see the revival of ancient arts today, to see them once again being used as tools for raising our personal and cultural awareness (see The Cauldron of Poesy by Erynn Rowan Laurie or The Wounded Prophet by Sally Clay, for examples).

However, I don't think this is the only good reason for writing, and apparently, neither did the ancient Celts, for that matter. Chadwick writes in her chapter on Celtic Literature, "It must not be supposed, however, that Old Irish poetry is all, or in fact mainly, concerned with nature or the world of the spirit, with the lives of monks and recluses. Much of it is occupied with the experiences of the common people, with everyday occurrences and objects...." (p. 261 in the 1991 Penguin Books paperback edition)

Poets need freedom to express themselves. So what if their poems are not always overtly political? Does everyone have to be this way? What if I tried to write a poem about every headline ... wouldn't this be considered somewhat artificial? Simply put, my experiences don't really qualify me to comment on all these issues. Does this mean I shouldn't write?

Maybe some people think so, but I refuse to go along with this absurd and rather stuck-up philosophy. I'll bet there are a lot of folks on the Poetry Webring who would feel the same way. Witness this remarkable phenomenon, encompassing no less than 2429 websites. Some are more professional, some less so, but that doesn't mean that some tight-assed self-appointed judge needs to come along and lambaste the ones that don't live up to his or her personal standards. Doesn't anybody remember the First Amendment? Without freedom of speech, our beautiful democratic system could degenerate into an autocracy in no time flat. The keepers of the Webring are to be commended for including a wide variety of styles and colors.

Even Media Mogul Tim Haight, editor of NetGuide magazine, has the temerity to recognize the importance of "the silent majority" (a term he claims to dislike, but nevertheless wields with great effectiveness). In his article, Media Bias, Internet Gloom, and the Silent Majority (February 1997 NetGuide), he says, "Most people live their lives, do their best, and maybe--maybe--get 15 minutes of fame. But they're still there, and in the long run they really matter." Although this article was primarily directed at commercial interests on the Internet, I have to send up three cheers for Mr. Haight. His point applies across the board.

Can't there be any room for diversity in this world? Do we have to dole out verbal beatings to everyone who disagrees with us? What about the fact that journal writing and poetic dalliance has helped to keep a lot of people alive? Besides, isn't the personal also political? My personal struggle with bipolar disorder has been well-documented in the poetry I've written over the years. Now, on the web, I see that a lot of folks are doing the same. See Writings about Bipolar Disorder / Manic-Depression and Mental Health Net - Art & Poetry Place, for a couple of relevant sites. Is the inclusion of these links going to be a red flag for the elitists to go and pick on some people who are hurting?

We've lived too long in a culture where emotions are practically banned, where self-expression is seen as nothing more than whining. Henceforth, people are afraid to speak out, even when there is a real need to do so. Poets can take the lead in demonstrating the necessity and beauty of self-expression, which is an important path to the broader view. That's what I do. And a lot of people seem to need and appreciate this.

Without an understanding of our own needs as human beings, how can we ever achieve compassion for others? I believe that this is a critical question for our age. Our culture can be so cold, so unfeeling. Something is wrong with our hearts when we can't see that this is harmful. I want to help put the soul back into our world. It's a tall order and I may not succeed, in the end, but you won't catch me giving up. It's too important. The White Wings Project is my small contribution to this aim. I view White Wings as a sort of web message board for poetry and short prose, as well as a haven for an ever-changing, evolving group. White Wings is more about community, and less about pickiness. I feel I can confidently leave that to Carrie Berry, Tim Scannell, and other dedicated webmasters and publishers, who apply very high standards of selection. Now, this is not to say that I'll include a poem which I feel is lame, any more than the aforementioned folks, however, it is important to me that I provide each contributor with the opportunity to present works that are important to them.

For gawds' sakes yall, can't we quit playing the highbrow snobs, and let everybody have their say? Is this really going to hurt anybody? The Web is not much different than the AOL message boards where many cyberpoets got a start. If you don't like a particular poet's work, for cryin' out loud DON'T READ IT! Nobody's forcing anybody else to read sappy poetry. And if writing sappy poetry helps even one person to feel better about themselves, find the courage to reach out, or learn a new skill, I say "so be it." Human beings are not disposable commodities.

In conclusion, I have to say this notion that "nobody reads poetry anymore" is ludicrous. I've personally been witness to a tremendous Renaissance in this area. And if the only audience is other poets, could this not indicate that there are more poets and they are reading more? Even if this is not the case, then the problem is not with the poets, but with the mainstream media. If Gioia or Munk think they can write poems that will capture the imagination of the public-at-large, then they may be my guest and try to get their works printed in a major, non-literary magazine or newspaper. They are welcome to fight to get their creations featured in movies or TV. Perhaps this would be sufficient validation of poetic worth.

As for me, I propose the use of different criteria. These criteria should be obvious to anyone who has read this missive with attention.