It's the Subject Matter, Stupid

From the irresistably titled "Poesy Galore" blog of Emily Lloyd--whose last name, thanks to my daughter, I now know to pronounce with the proper Welsh soft "th"--this reminder about why most of us read poetry in the first place.

We lose poetry consumers (or readers, depending on your beef) after elementary school. If we want masses of people to love (and buy) poetry into adulthood, we need to change the way it's often taught in middle and high schools. And to be honest, while I'm all for exposure to the classics, I think it's often their subject matter (and yes, some inaccessibility) that turns young adults off. Very few kids are going to give a flying fuck about some ancient mariner, however archetypal. Does this mean we have to replace Coleridge with Tupac, as some are now doing? Absolutely not. This means, instead of focusing on Poe's "The Bells"--maybe even "The Raven," at this point--focus on his "Alone." Sheesh, I copied that poem into my diary as a preteen. Crane is great for teens, but stress "In the desert," not "War is Kind." My heart is bitter; I'm eating it--yippee! Frequently-taught poems often seem Other to kids--do not speak to them--and that's what dulls them on it, I bet, before the accessibility of the language or the "tie the poem to a chair and torture it" (according to Collins) method. A teaching listserv I belonged to gave good evidence that pretty much ALL high school kids dig "Richard Cory" (he's popular; he's gorgeous; he's rich; he hates himself)--great. But must the lesson continue on with "Mr. Flood's Party," which almost none of them like? (Note to self: propose anthology of dead people's poems with teen-friendly subj matter to educational publisher for teachers who want to teach canonical verse that doesn't deaden kids' nerves forever)

Now if only I could find that "teaching listserv" she mentions....

--E