But+What+About+Beauty?

Shepherd's essay focuses on the importance of difficulty in writing poetry. I agree with what he has to say to a point. But I think that easy poetry can be just as interesting as the difficult if we add on one facet that Shepherd almost entirely neglects: taste. Let me define my definiton of taste. Taste is the ability to craft words, and thus ideas, in such a way that many people will find them pleasing and enjoyable. Taste is also mainstream; I am not discussing cult poetry that must exist as assuredly as cult films do but widely popular works. Consider these two sections of poetry, one by Shakespeare and the other by Cope

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shale the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hat all too short a date;

Daddy looks very cross. Has he a gun? Up milkman! Up milkman! Over the wall! Here is Peter. Here is Jane. They like fun. Look, Jane, look! Look at the dog! See him run!

As you no doubt see, neither of these is particularly difficult. But Shakespeare's poem has tasteful beauty while Cope's poem is a tasteful use of humor and style. My question is, How valid is this theory? To what extent is beauty a good substitute for difficulty? 1204250369

To an average reader, Shakespeare's poem appears to be more difficult because of his style of writing, and I think that it is partially due to the beauty of it. Because it has a more gentle, tender, and soothing sound to it, the poem seems to be at a higher level of difficulty, even though the actual plot or message is fairly simple. Thus, beauty does constitute as somewhat of a substitute for difficulty. However, in Cope's poem, the message is also easily understood, but because it sounds like it is narrated by an animated small child, it seems as if the level of difficulty is much lower than that of Shakespeare. So, I guess in short, I think that you're theory is valid, TRu, that beauty can appear to be difficulty, even if the point of the poem is easily understood. I wonder though if Cope's poem was meant to have a deeper meaning than what we see -- maybe it wasn't meant to seem so easy. Does it have more to it than we think? Is Cope's poem at a higher difficulty level than Shakespeare's? 1204254446

I believe that this is a good comparison, because even though Shakespeare's poem has larger words and more beauty, I honestly found myself puzzling over the second poem more. It could be because of it's obscurity, but could it actually difficult? I thought the second poem was a bit more clever, even though Shakespeare's poem is definitely more refined and more beautiful. In Cope's poem I found myself asking questions, while I just had to read Shakespeare's poem once and I believe I understand it. After reading Cope's poem I asked myself, "Is the Dad shooting the milkman and the dog?!" Because Cope's poem does not smoothly progress, we are forced to fill in the missing pieces on our own--reading between the lines. Don't both poems contribute something? 1204255369

I'm not sure if I see the correlation. When a poet writes a poem, (s)he is thinking about how to best express what is to be said. The poet could be writing something, wanting to make it beautiful. But if it is to be a good poem, the poet is not sitting there trying to make it as difficult as can be, hoping that maybe if nobody understands it, they will think it beautiful. Nor is the opposite true. The more beautiful it gets, it does not necessarily get harder. Shakespeare's could be considered more beautiful by some because of the subject matter. It could be considered more beautiful simply because Shakespeare wrote it.

Everyone has a different idea of what beauty is. And if a poem is so abstract that nobody can see a rhyme or reason to it at all, they rely heavily on their experience with the words (not necessarily the meanings) to classify it. Is this what you speak of, TRu? People mistaking the meaning of the poem to be beautiful or the form of the poem to be beautiful because they can not understand? 1204500432

Not exactly. My point, to put it simply: an easy poem can be good. In Pope's essay, he says that "True wit is nature to advantage dress'd./ What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd". But that wit of which he speaks is not necessarily difficult to understand. It may be extremely simple and the meaning may be crystal clear, but it could be extemely poignant. If a poet can write a poem that explains something perfectly, then it is enjoyable. Difficulty is not a requirement. This is the proposition that I am making. But that is just my opinion. I want to know if such a thing is a possibility. Can a poem be extremely easy and at the same time extremely beautiful? 1204517455

I think that KLe makes a good point. What I think is beautiful may not be what everyone else thinks is beautiful. We all have our own ideas as to what the word beauty means and what it brings to our lives. I think that some of the most beautiful pieces can be beautiful. It doesn't matter how long it is or how hard it is to understand what the writer is saying, it's how the poem speaks to me that gives the poem beauty. If the words of the poem can touch your lives and leave you with a fulfilling feeling then yes, TRu, I think that extremely easy poems can also be extremely beautiful. 1205269063

I agree that it certainly is all about taste. Not just the differing tasteful uses but what is tasteful to the reader. Yes, difficult poetry is interesting, and yes, easy poetry is interesting. Both take wit, and I don't see either as simple by any means. It is seriously true that everyone has their own sense of what is and is not beautiful. Some argue that beauty is objective, and that we should stray away from the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I cannot seem to. Maybe we should heed this advice with people, because all of God's creation is beautiful, but I just can't get past it when it comes to this. What appeals to different people is not going to be the same! And I think that that is the real beauty of it all. We are not robots who view things in black and white, but we realize there are shades of grey and that our black can be another's white. I love that. It's diversity, and it's something that really can't be taken away. Beauty certainly should not be substituted for difficulty, because then you'd place a definition on beauty, and as we all know, it is pretty subjective. 1205275622

We all need some sort of challenge in order to be engaged in something. If there is no challenge or intellectual stimulus then it becomes really hard to actually force yourself to do that action unless you are forced to do so. For instance, take the game pacman. A very fun but tough game that can keep people spending quarters there for a long time because as you play the difficulty of the level increases thus giving you extra challenge and a reason to go on. If the game consisted of the first level repeated over and over again then no one would have anything to do with it because once it is mastered there is no initative to play. Now apply this to poetry and you begin to see Shepard's point. Poetry has to become more complex because the simple things have been done ages ago and in order to keep their core audience of intellectuals interested there has to be challenges to finding the meaning or reason of the poems being. Poems are just another form of a word puzzel but one that isn't supposed to be mainstream. The point is that since poetry will never become mainstream why take out the things that make its target audience of people enjoy poetry to appeal to people who will probably never read poetry on their own? user:DGr-c

I see DGr's point in that the awesome thing about poetry is its beauty, which comes from the immense challenge that poets have writing it, and reads have interpreting it. The only fun thing that I like about poetry is this pacman challenge of increasing difficulty to interpret and try to understand what the author is saying. In kindergarden, we read Dr. Seuss. Was that poetry? Well, everything did rhyme, but I do not qualify that has respectable poetry. Where's the challenge? What is there to interpret? I doubt that Dr. Seuss had a deeper meaning behind much of his "poetry." Thus, throughout the years we have advanced in our pacman game of poetry and have increased our challenge. To us beauty is in the difficulty of the poem, in its aesthic qualities, in the emotions it provokes, not in the simple words it uses to entertain us. 1205408980

No, no. Difficulty doesn't make or break a poem at all. It isn't the difficulty that determines the poem's worth. Nor is it about the theme, although that may play a part. A writer may choose to write about something very simple, or a very complex emotion. That's great, and can mean a whole different poem, but still, that's not what makes a poem good or not. It's the way the author expresses themselves or their subject with words, that's what really makes a poem worthwhile or not. Shakespeare could have written about peas, and everyone would still consider his works notable if he'd done it very eloquently. But it's not the difficulty here that makes it good or bad. A good writer can still convey himself well by using very simple means of expression. It's the truth or beauty of the expression. So don't say that the others are arguing for difficulty, it's that difficulty just often happens to come across when mediocre readers read awesome works. Even some of the more simple-worded ones carry meanings we won't easily discern. Difficulty's just an accident based off the writer's style. 1205446097

I most definitely agree that the worth or quality of a poem is not defined by the difficulty of it at all. We are reading a Kreeft book in religion class and one of the sections of the chapter on Song of Songs is about how love is simple. The poetry used in Song of Songs is extremely simple, yet it is tasteful, beautiful, and most definitely of a high quality. I do believe that at times though, some poems are just too "simple." I say this because Song of Songs and the poem that TRu quoted are great examples of beautiful poetry in a simple form. But even "difficult" poetry can be simple, just as this simple is difficult. I am confusing myself, but what I'm trying to say is that I agree with Shepherd's essay to a point in that some poetry does not have enough thought put into it. Cope's poem, although fun and simple, had a lot of thought put into it. Therefore, maybe what Shepherd means is really how much thought was put into the poem, and not the actual reading difficulty. 1205454485

I agree that the challenge of difficult poetry is beautiful in that the reader experiences the poem while trying to decipher it. There is beauty in struggling to interpret the meaning; there is beauty in which lines the reader is drawn to.

However, I do see PTr's point that simple poetry can be beautiful and worthwhile as well. Simple poetry does not always equate to boring poetry, though, does it? I don't think so. Shepherd would much rather be baffled than bored (which I admit that I agree with). Anyways, like Ptr mentioned, Song of Songs' love poetry is simple, elegant, profound, and vivid in every way. Particulary the imagery of a lover's eyes being like doves (chapter 6 I believe) draws a beautiful picture in my mind. So, just because some people find Song of Songs and other such poem not to be difficult does not mean that the poems/songs should not be read! Rather, the poem, even if relatively simple, should have something to say. Song of Songs certainly does; it offers the reader a new experience.

So, poetry--simple versus difficult--the showdown. (dun dun dun). I cannot say I prefer one over the other because poetry in its vast forms is to be appreciated and explored. 1205459111