01-26-2022, 03:25 AM
Full marks for making a sufficiently outlandish claim as to wake people -even me - up!
My immediate thoughts were a ) that I have looked and looked for modern poetry which had just something, without success; and b ) I am not modern, so perhaps, that would account for much.
Being of a pernickety nature, I was instantly drawn to examine the claim about modern athletes and cricketers being better than their sporting forbears. I looked at records for cricketers: Hobbs still stands, Bradman, for runs, and although wiki does not say so, I recall that at least until recently, WG Grace, in addition to his batting heroics, held the all-time record for catches. Then again, the pitches were more rough, matches were of varying lengths, and bats nothing like what is available today. When Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile, he had nothing like the footwear now worn. For me, it is impossible to make the comparison.
So much for the stuffiness! In truth, I was raised on 19th century poems at home, and early 20th century ones at what passed for school. In addition, one teacher introduced us rather oafish boys to Coleridge's 'Ancient Mariner' - he would read so much, and then at another lesson, these same oafs (dont moi) would be begging for him to continue. It was good rolling stuff, as so much of the poetry we had was. It had been written, after all, in times when there was no radio, TV or gramophone. To read was an 'accomplishment' and anyone who has heard people who read badly, will know what a useful one it was. (I would advise anyone, modern or not, to listen Richard Burton reciting the 'Ancient Mariner' - and read).
The imp of the perverse on my shoulder is egging me on to remind anyone who reads this of the old dictum: ''Nothing dates so much as modernity''.
PS I did read a couple of poems by the man you mentioned 'Mulberry' and 'Artichoke'. No need for me to trash them: but they did not seem to overwhelm Shelley Keats, Tennyson and co. Or Chaucer.
My immediate thoughts were a ) that I have looked and looked for modern poetry which had just something, without success; and b ) I am not modern, so perhaps, that would account for much.
Being of a pernickety nature, I was instantly drawn to examine the claim about modern athletes and cricketers being better than their sporting forbears. I looked at records for cricketers: Hobbs still stands, Bradman, for runs, and although wiki does not say so, I recall that at least until recently, WG Grace, in addition to his batting heroics, held the all-time record for catches. Then again, the pitches were more rough, matches were of varying lengths, and bats nothing like what is available today. When Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile, he had nothing like the footwear now worn. For me, it is impossible to make the comparison.
So much for the stuffiness! In truth, I was raised on 19th century poems at home, and early 20th century ones at what passed for school. In addition, one teacher introduced us rather oafish boys to Coleridge's 'Ancient Mariner' - he would read so much, and then at another lesson, these same oafs (dont moi) would be begging for him to continue. It was good rolling stuff, as so much of the poetry we had was. It had been written, after all, in times when there was no radio, TV or gramophone. To read was an 'accomplishment' and anyone who has heard people who read badly, will know what a useful one it was. (I would advise anyone, modern or not, to listen Richard Burton reciting the 'Ancient Mariner' - and read).
The imp of the perverse on my shoulder is egging me on to remind anyone who reads this of the old dictum: ''Nothing dates so much as modernity''.
PS I did read a couple of poems by the man you mentioned 'Mulberry' and 'Artichoke'. No need for me to trash them: but they did not seem to overwhelm Shelley Keats, Tennyson and co. Or Chaucer.