The Fighting about War Poetry - Neal

Poetry, much like its literary counterpart prose, is a section of literature that is wide-reaching, encompassing a cornucopia of different subcategories and subgenres which can be generally classified under an umbrella term, “poetry”. But one of the most confusing and debated categories of poetry is war poetry. Ranging from the obvious to the near-incomprehensible, war poems can relate to virtually anything about war: being in war, on the front lines, in combat, being active in support of or opposition to war, the aftermath of war, the death correlated to war, the effects on the home front, etc. Essentially anything conflict-related can be and often is classified under the war genre of poetry. Nearly anything could be a war poem, as generally as it seems to be categorized. This has made many readers of war poetry either confused or skeptical, or as was with my case, both. Why, many ask, why is war poetry such a large and looming category, why does it have so many qualities that allow poems of ranging diversities fall under its title? I was one of those very skeptics who questioned this definition and sub-categorization, and after contemplation and dialogue, this is my conclusion to the enigma of war poetry.

Obviously enough, “war poetry” suggests that the poems classified as such are about war. The problem then lies in what war involves, for war poetry is a vast concept and one would expect some correlation, perhaps. Indeed, this is the case with war and its subgenre of poetry. War incorporates many things, ranging from abstract and intangible ideas such as victory or defeat and freedom or oppression to very tangible, and often sensory concepts such as pain, fatigue, and death. So it then becomes reasonable to assume that poems encompassing such concepts could arguably be categorized as poems of war.

Furthermore, if one considers the term “war” by itself, and if one detaches from the term any connotations to the word and then breaks it down to its most integral and basic core, it becomes evident that “war” could be about pretty much any conflict in existence, tangible or intangible, exterior or interior. The “wars” on terror, racism, sexism, poverty, and domestic abuse are all examples of this view on what war really is. It is fairly unreasonable to consider having armed soldiers attempting to fight intangible ideas, and while it is more possible it is also more ridiculous to consider having such soldiers battle the physical advocates of those concepts such as terrorists, members of the KKK, bigots, rich people, and abusers in a “conventional war”. So one of two things have happened: either the term “war” is essentially misused nine times out of ten when it is used at all, or the term “war” no longer only means prolonged physical detrimental conflict.

Going off of this more modernized and broader definition of “war”, it hence becomes more reasonable to categorize poems dealing with such concepts as terror, racism, etc., as “war poetry”. Using the definition of “war” that I have given, the war on terror is just as much a war as the Iraq War or the Persian Gulf War, and the “war on poverty” throughout the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s was no less a war than the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Even in a sense, possibly a facetious one but one nonetheless, there is a “war” of language, denotation, and connotation, and I’ve presented that idea in this blog post. In conclusion to all of this, I would say that “war”, in correlation to “war poetry”, is a vast and vague term and it is suitable for its subgenre of poetry to follow along the same path. As they say, all is fair in love and war, so why not?

Responding to Waldrop - Neal

One of the many theses presented by Rosemarie Waldrop in Alarms and Excursions is that “poetry has social relevance” and “can make the culture aware of itself, unveil hidden structures”. Waldrop argues in her second thesis that poetry, even of the most personal kind, is not simply for personal use; instead, poetry is useful for society as a whole, even if the subject or content of some of that poetry is extremely personal or subjective to a singular identity within that society.

In order for we readers to understand exactly what Waldrop means by this thesis, we must both distinguish the definitions she puts to or implies with her terminology as well as simultaneously delve into her excursions and alarms on the thesis. Waldrop clarifies what she means by poetry having “social relevance” in the second part of her thesis: poetry enlightens a society about itself, puts to words what seems otherwise inexpressible, and is indicative of social change. In her excursion on this thesis, she contemplates “the borderline between private and public”, and comes to the conclusion that it is indeed “very elusive”. She explains her dilemma, saying that one thought is that something must have a measurable effect upon a public society in order to have public or societal importance, but an opposing thought is that essentially anything that a person does has a social effect, given that said person is a member of a society.

She ultimately decides that poetry does indeed always have public, societal importance. She compares it to love: “what could be more private than making love – but if you are not careful, and the couple is heterosexual, it may produce a citizen”. She continues that even if poetry initial seems utterly personal, such as poetry written about personal emotions, that poetry still maintains societal importance because even personal emotions and feelings affect a society’s actions and functionality.

The second part of Waldrop’s second thesis, that poetry illuminates “hidden structures” and unknown facts about a society to itself, is also helped by this thought. If even the most personal of thoughts or ideas in poetry help society as a whole, then certainly those thoughts help members of a society to understand themselves and their part within the society as well. Simply “acknowledging the importance of the emotions” helps to make a society more cognizant of itself. The acknowledgement of emotions, in addition to other concepts, can often lead to a questioning of certain norms or ideas held by a society and/or a deeper understanding of the relationship between those emotions or concepts and the society to which they are tied.

Waldrop even goes so far as to quote a man, Edmond Jabes, so as to present the idea the poetry of this questioning nature is not merely questioning but actually very subversive. She backs up this idea of poetry being subversive by citing Jabes further in her first alarm of the thesis. His ideas present that nearly any, possibly every, single act we commit is a subversion of something else. Therefore, to write or read poetry becomes a challenge to “every sentence written”.