greatest US poet of the 20th century?

...Robert Zimmerman!

krldffoldfllfllf wrote:

plath deserves to be mentioned as well.

Thank you. I came here to mention Plath.

I love Eliot and he probably deserves the vote, but someone more read in poetry could analyse this better than me.

If Eliot were deemed an American, then far and away, he's it. Most often, though, he's considered English even though he was born here.

Of true-blue Americans, Frost, Hughes, Plath, Pound, Bukowski (controversial) and, yes, Silverstein, are all up there, Frost and Hughes being the better of those.

As someone noted before, it is very difficult to compare a poem from 1900 to one from 1999. Almost impossible. But if we look at their impact on poetry at that particular time, we can get a general idea.

Another vote for Eliot. I like Frost too. Can't comment on the others..

2Pac

End of thread

Eliot. "Let me show you fear in a handful of dust." One of the all-time bada@@ lines ever!

You can hear Eliot read The Wasteland here:

http://town.hall.org/radio/HarperAudio/011894_harp_ITH.html

Hearing the poet himself read for me really brought this poem alive.

PS I like Frost too but he's a bit like Vangelis, pedestrian. He writes pretty but he doesn't go very deep. I haven't seen Plath or Sexton mentioned much here. That's too bad, they're pretty amazing along with Bishiop, H.D., and Hughes of course.

Convict

Johnnie Cochran

restauranteur wrote:

If Eliot were deemed an American, then far and away, he's it. Most often, though, he's considered English even though he was born here.

Of true-blue Americans, Frost, Hughes, Plath, Pound, Bukowski (controversial) and, yes, Silverstein, are all up there, Frost and Hughes being the better of those.

As someone noted before, it is very difficult to compare a poem from 1900 to one from 1999. Almost impossible. But if we look at their impact on poetry at that particular time, we can get a general idea.

Why is it difficult to compare poetry from 1900 and poetry from 1999? For instance, I think that one can definitely say that Virgil was a better poet than, say, Allen Ginsburg.

And isn't using a poet's impact on their contemporaries sort of a suspect method of criticism? That strikes me as just the opposite of what it means to be "great," i.e. great means being enjoyed by a wide variety of people across time and space. If we used impact on contemporaries as our metric of greatness then Ben Jonson would be greater than Shakespeare!

Someone who enjoys running wrote:

Why is it difficult to compare poetry from 1900 and poetry from 1999? For instance, I think that one can definitely say that Virgil was a better poet than, say, Allen Ginsburg.

This is a trolling attempt, right? As I said earlier in the thread, comparing poets over a 100-year span is like comparing Herb Elliot to Alan Webb. The attitude of poetry is completely different now than it was for Frost. Influence could be used as a measurement, but it's not always valid. For example, Bukowski is a great success in terms of the "folks", but Eliot owns the academic arena. who wins? Their poetry is also wildly different.

How could you compare a post-modern realist with a modern romantic?

Hows about it wrote:

...Robert Zimmerman!

You're the second person to mention Robert Zimmerman.

You are correct.

Poetry can be pretty like Frost's blueberries or fierce like Plath's Daddy and sultry like Sexton, but great poetry goes beyond this to contextualizing an epoch or perfectly summarizing human wisdom and aesthetics or feeling. T.S. Eliot did this as Dante did in his time, Milton in his, Hafiz, Petrarch, Ovid and Virgil in theirs. Great poetry stands on its own over the ages. Bukowski will be a minor poet but Eliot will tower forever like Shakespeare in the English language and beyond. That's the difference. H

krldffoldfllfllf wrote:

Someone who enjoys running wrote:

Why is it difficult to compare poetry from 1900 and poetry from 1999? For instance, I think that one can definitely say that Virgil was a better poet than, say, Allen Ginsburg.

This is a trolling attempt, right? As I said earlier in the thread, comparing poets over a 100-year span is like comparing Herb Elliot to Alan Webb. The attitude of poetry is completely different now than it was for Frost. Influence could be used as a measurement, but it's not always valid. For example, Bukowski is a great success in terms of the "folks", but Eliot owns the academic arena. who wins? Their poetry is also wildly different.

How could you compare a post-modern realist with a modern romantic?

How are we seeking to define greatness? The quality of one individual poem? A line from a poem? A body of work over time? Influence on those who followed?

Edward Arlington Robinson gets a nod from me. I think he should be up in the top dozen or so and hardly anybody reads him anymore.

"Hughes" mentioned above refers to? Ted was English.

If you want to talk about influencing future generations, Theodore Geisel certainly deserves a mention.

Could someone explain Plath being mentioned on a list that contains people like, say, Elizabeth Bishop? Are people just remembering reading "Daddy" for the first time and being shocked by a poem so they think she should be on the list? She really was a narcissistic, solipsistic, whiny poet whose best work gets anthologized because of her mythology, not the quality of her writing.

Edgar Lee Masters?

biggie smalls

bob dylan

What he said. No, I was not attempting to troll. Comparing poetry from different eras is different thancomparing runners from different eras.

Can't narrow this down, so I'll name some favorites:

Agree with many others here: T.S. Eliot; admire Frost's mastery, yet somehow respond more to Eliot

Also ...

(in no particular order)

Langston Hughes

Theodore Roethke

Marianne Moore

Edna St. Vincent Millay

Richard Wilbur

Denise Levertov

... and a poet/runner, Grace Butcher. Here's one of hers I like:

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2005/01/27/thursday-short-poem-grace-butchers-do-we-need-an-ambulance/

Hoser, eh wrote:

How are we seeking to define greatness? The quality of one individual poem? A line from a poem? A body of work over time? Influence on those who followed?

Edward Arlington Robinson gets a nod from me. I think he should be up in the top dozen or so and hardly anybody reads him anymore.

"Hughes" mentioned above refers to? Ted was English.

If you want to talk about influencing future generations, Theodore Geisel certainly deserves a mention.

Could someone explain Plath being mentioned on a list that contains people like, say, Elizabeth Bishop? Are people just remembering reading "Daddy" for the first time and being shocked by a poem so they think she should be on the list? She really was a narcissistic, solipsistic, whiny poet whose best work gets anthologized because of her mythology, not the quality of her writing.

I think greatness usually would refer to the total body of work.

I like Edwin Arlington Robinson too. Around about this time of year I start thinking about "Luke Havergal."

"Hughes" probably refers to the African American poet Langston Hughes (1902 - 1967), often associated with the "Harlem Renaissance."

I think that Dr. Seuss is not really a candidate because he is children's literature.

I agree with you about Sylvia Plath.

On a related note, what do you people think of Billy Collins? (I am not nominating him for the title, just curious.)

I find it hard to believe that Robert Lowell hasn't been mentioned as a nominee. If I could nominate, I'd raise Robert Lowell, Elizabeth Bishop (she's been mentioned), Frost (obviously) and Richard Wilbur.