A highly controversial article in which the author argues that “poetry is pointless”.
“To summarise, poetry can offer nothing music or books cannot. It is less creative and analysed to a point of mind-numbing repetitiveness. Poetry is extremely
boring and one dimensional and it often comes across as confusing and obscure. It does not carry the same complexity as music and is unenjoyable for most
audiences. Poetry in contemporary society merely a forgotten relic of Shakespearean times”. (https://medium.com/@diofer225/poetry-is-pointless-46b08731e95a)
As a poet, I disagree profoundly with the contention that “poetry is pointless”. However, I think the author of this diatribe against poetry has a point when he states that children can come to dislike poetry owing to them being forced to analyse poems. Whilst I firmly believe that the analysis of poetry is valuable, if such analysis is done in the wrong manner (I.E. the student being told that the poem has only one meaning, and that his/her own perspective on the poem is irrelevent) then I can completely understand why students are put off poetry. Students should be encouraged to furnish their own perspectives on poetry (and, of course back these up with evidence), thereby enhancing both their interest in poetry and their ability to think critically.
As for the view that poetry is less complex than music, anyone who has read “The Wasteland” knows this perspective for the nonsense that it patently is. The truth is that both music and poetry can be complex, but neither art form is necessarily so.
I am amused by the author’s view that poetry can offer nothing which books can not. Does he not know that many poems are printed in books!
In conclusion, ultimately the author of the article dislikes poetry and in support of his/her anti-poetry stance picks a few articles which, he/she claims, support his perspective. The article is more a diatribe against poetry rather than a serious piece of argumentation.