> I don't think I understand your point here. It appears to be saying that
> one puts aside content (patriotic idealism) and tone (sentimentality) and
> intellect (intelligent views), then the "poem" is good or better than it
> I do not understand what a "poem" is--as distinguished from rhyming
> if we do not attend to content, tone, and intelligence.
I'll try to illustrate the point with an obvious example: Yeats. He is, of
course, better than Brooke - not quite in the same league. But Yeats was
also patriotic, sentimental, and silly, in turns or at the same time. Does
that mean he is not one of the greatest poets in the language?
Cf. Auden's Elegy and 'The Public vs. Mr W.B. Yeats'. Not that I agree with
all that Auden says in there, but I do grant many of his points.
It's not content, tone (a vague enough term), or intelligence that make
Yeats superior to Brooke. Neither do they explain why 'The Soldier' is
much better than a lot of patriotic doggerel.
[log in to unmask]