You can throw us poets down the stairs
catch us behind your steely glare
teach us that poetry is antiquated
and act all sophisticated
but lyrics will enter your head
dance in circles and hover over your bed
when you sleep you will dream
and your rhymes will come clean
and they will carry a theme.

You can toast a wine glass 
to your victory over rhythmic words
but time and time love poetry will fill a class
teachers know it’s not absurd
teenagers will be rebels and they will rap
to music talking over a beat 
and their poetry is not crap

poetry is all around us and we come up with it everyday
whether written or spoken
it always will be used in advertising slogans today
and when the silence is broken
remember that poetry was used to convey stories years ago
and the poetry of those stories we know 
will stick in your head 
like a needle sewing a thread.

alienpoet

what use is poetry?

Jun 6, 2026

June 2026

2026

Anger & Conflict - June 2026

Beauty & Aesthetics - June 2026

Dark & Scary - June 2026

Death & Mortality - June 2026

Drama & Tragedy - June 2026

Family & Relationships - June 2026

Fantasy & Magical - June 2026

Happiness & Joy - June 2026

Heartbreak & Loss - June 2026

Historical & Ancient - June 2026

Hope & Optimism - June 2026

Humor & Satire - June 2026

Inspiration & Motivation - June 2026

Love & Romance - June 2026

Mystery & Supernatural - June 2026

Nature & Environment - June 2026

Philosophical & Intellectual - June 2026

Political & Social - June 2026

Sadness & Melancholy - June 2026

Sexy & Sensual - June 2026

Time & Nostalgia - June 2026

Transformation & Change - June 2026

War & Heroism - June 2026

World & Travel - June 2026

removed.-f93g

You raise an interesting issue. Is poetry actually dead? No. Good singers can write poetry - and the poetry can stick in the memory, though a tiny percentage of singers are genuine poets. When we call something "poetry in motion", for example, the highest praise is implied. 

One problem, however, is that we currently lack objective critics to filter the good from the bad. Academic "critics" write reviews praising  their colleagues' work in the hope that their own poetry will be praised and propagated. Major poetry prizes are often awarded within the context of a mutual worshipful society that cares little for the actual quality of the poetry. Seldom does one see constructive criticism in any of the "reviews". The I-scratch-your-back-and-you-scratch-mine approach perpetuates a cycle of mediocrity, further marginalizing the art form. In the time of Eliot, Yeats, and Frost we had objective critics - such as Randall Jarrell, Yvor Winters, and Conrad Aiken - who could be brutally honest. And the lack of such critics who can serve as mediators between the poet and general reading public is a serious limitation. The general reading public is justifiably uninterested, because of the unbridled, unrestrained production of mediocrity.

Another problem (related to the above) is that there are countless people submitting their work online, but no there's no filter, no  standards are followed. The fact remains that out of, say, 5000 people who do, only 5, maybe 10 individuals have serious talent, enough talent to achieve greatness. Even they may fail, because of insufficient determination, application, or if undeserved misfortune befall them, such as illness or premature death. Only a handful of people are real poets, just as a few go on to become brain surgeons or physicists. Here's my point: the few talented individuals who can achieve greatness face a serious problem, because there are no discerning critics who can separate them from the rest and promote their excellence. And most readers have neither the patience nor the energy to swim in an ocean of garbage to find just a handful of pearls. Which is why many readers are apathetic towards poetry. 

I can go into the intricacies of other hindrances and obstacles, but I won't do so here. Suffice it to say, to revitalize interest in readers (who themselves aren't poets), one must go into what constitutes quality in poetry. It's important to cultivate good judgement, for without it, there will be no rejuvenation in poetry and the widespread apathy will continue. One good start is to read lots of poetry by the dead masters. And to study the mechanics of their masterpieces. One needs to understand clearly WHY they're masterpieces, how it is that they continue to have a powerful  impact. It's not enough simply to acknowledge that one has been "moved" or "inspired", because these emotional responses contribute nothing to a clear understanding of what works in poetry, and what doesn't. 

Fresh associations, metaphors, a distinct original voice, layers (or ambiguity and therefore depth), high technical skill - these are among the hallmarks of great poetry. If a given poem lacks any of these, it's deficient. So, for example, if I read a poem which appears to be simply a vehicle or instrument of a person's political opinions, I know right away that it's a bad poem, because it lacks layers. It veers toward sentimentality, naivete, or propaganda. There's no ambiguity; the person simply states his/her opinions - and often without much imagination or wordplay. Or if I see more than 3 cliches in a poem under 20 lines, I may come to a similar conclusion. If one introduces a cliche in a poem, it's the poet's task to subvert that cliche, to immerse it in a strange or unfamiliar context. Or if a poem has the germ of an interesting idea/theme, it can fall through lack of concision or development, through expressions that add nothing of significance. In short, without becoming astute critics of poetry, the strains of mediocrity will simply multiply. Revitalizing interest in poetry requires, among other things, a sharp critical intelligence.