3. Is poetry useful?

In the 4th part of the National Poetry Month blog, I ask America’s best poets to answer five more questions by readers of poetry.

1. April 23 is Shakespeare’s 450th anniversary. If you went back in time and could ask him one question, what would that question be?

David Lehman (author of The Last Avant-Garde):
Did you mean „solid“ or „sullied“ when you wrote, „Oh, that this too, too solid [sullied] flesh would melt. . .“?

Henri Cole (author of Touch):
I would ask him if he likes American poetry, and if he thinks we’re doing okay by the sonnet, and if he would like to eat a sandwich in the park next door.

4. Are prizes like Pulitzer, NBA, NBCC are good for poetry. Is there discrimination against women poets, non-white poets, gay poets?

Alfred Corn:
A big prize like the Pulitzer will certainly advance the career of the poet who wins, bringing prize money, well-paid invitations to read, and a boost in book sales. Also, the domino effect: those who win one prize are likely to win others, since committees like to make choices that seem plausible.

David Lehman:
Such prizes are good for those who win them. Their market value goes up. Otherwise, the prizes don’t mean shit.

Henri Cole:
Prizes don’t matter much if other poets don’t admire you. I’m always hoping to convert those who discriminate against me.

John Gallaher:
Prizes are fine and good things. They give newspapers a reason to mention poetry. There is discrimination of all kinds, as these things are run by people. A specific complaint I have is how narrow the aesthetic focus of many awards is. They claim to be rewarding the best, but what it seems is more that they are rewarding a kind of poetry more than a general regard for the totality of what’s being written.

Adam Fitzgerald:
Prizes are for poets, not poetry. Where there’s people, there’s discrimination.

5. Is poetry useful?

Henri Cole:
Must we ask this? Is air useful? Food? Love?

/ Huffington Post