I agree.

“The entire post is about understanding and appreciating the written word (and ourselves as writers) to a level that they can be quantified.”

Suddenly, I like this post. Good luck finding that quantifiable level of understanding.

The demonization of poetry that I am referring to is based on my experience (a wide experience) of general readers who liken poetry to a journal entry or psychiatrist-couch chatter. Of course, in groups of people who already like poetry, this demonization may not be so apparent (which may be your position; I don’t know you, so please don’t take this as anything more than an assumption). Contemporary poetry is often represented as an immensely personal style, where I argue that if it is to gain traction, then it needs to be better understood. It is easy to not care about a personal diary. It is harder to not care about a personal diary that engages an audience due to its use of understood literary concepts. And this understanding is exactly what I argue for.

I see what you mean by intangible concepts now. However, the entire post is about understanding those intangibles to a level that they are no longer intangibles. In the formula Xword causes Yreaction, I am arguing in favor of finding out exactly what these variables are. You say that this is not something that can be quantified. Currently, yes, this is true. The entire post is about understanding and appreciating the written word (and ourselves as writers) to a level that they can be quantified.

Well, I beg your pardon for going on your turf with my harsh opinions. I have never read The Book of Lazarus, but the passage you quoted actually made me want to read it. I think that description of poetry is brilliant. I’m curious what you mean when you say “it seems this flowery style is exactly what demonizes poetry in the mind of the casual (possibly conservative) reader.” and “I don’t write poetry off completely, but the way it is represented with the general public brings me close to doing so.” Who exactly are the casual readers and the general public? Are you defending these people or feeling sorry for them? I guess I assume,(by your tone) you feel sorry for them?

As for the intangible concepts, I was referring to your formula. You’ve got reaction as part of the formula, which is not exactly something you can quantify or touch for that matter.

If someone was to come up with some kind of mathematical formula to define poetry for the masses…wouldn’t that just pave the way for even more clogging of the airwaves with plebian drivel? Or would we then have poetry rock stars?

“No amount of hyperbole will convince a board to give money to artists; they have to see exactly what they are getting out of it.”

That is as it should be. It doesn’t make sense for anyone to have to invest in something with no value. I believe Poetry can take care of itself. In my opinion, people are going to recognize its value when they see it. It has always been that way, and I don’t think any amount of therapeutic hippy garbage can dilute the reaction people have to something of real artistic value.

As for your point b), your comments are a harsh opinion. The Book of Lazarus is not thematically, structurally, conceptually, nor linguistically (as represented by the above-quoted passage) good. I’m not sure what intuition has to do with recognizing the passage as flawed and unconvincing.

As for point c), could you mention specific uses of my intangible concepts?

Giving a monetary value to art doesn’t cheapen art. I’m not going to say that it makes art better, but when dealing with university and public arts funding (as I referenced in my post; the only mention of money), putting the benefit in terms of money is about the only thing that level of decision-makers understand. Anyone who has worked in the education arts field knows this. No amount of hyperbole will convince a board to give money to artists; they have to see exactly what they are getting out of it.

Regarding your comment about “writing off an entire form of literature,” I don’t agree with this at all. I’m not sure where you got this. In summary of my post, poetry’s (art in general) elusiveness connotes a level of non-credibility that could be helped by applying a more scientific method to its understanding and creation. I don’t write poetry off completely, but the way it is represented with the general public brings me close to doing so.

I agree that diluting the art of writing with “anything goes” does cheapen it. But I also think that once you boil “arts” down to an algorithm that can predict monetary results you have tangibly cheapened “the craft”. Limiting the self-expression of the author to a specific audience is an odd kind of self-censure. To me, writing off an entire form of literature is just as lazy as relying on interpretation to give meaning to your work.