And I watch my friends, most of whom are in academic life because most poets have to be in academic life, there aren't so many other ways to survive.
And one of the odd things about it is that poetry is now fleeing from the academies to another institution, which is the performance poetry.
And there are a lot more people reading poetry, but there are not so many people reading an individual poet.
But for me, being an editor I've been an editor of all kinds of books being an editor of poetry has been the way in which I could give a crucial part of my time to what I love most.
But nobody can write poetry all the time.
But poetry is my life. Poetry is what matters to me.
But there is some way in which poets believe that and this is dangerous, too believe that their calling gives them a certain freedom. A certain freedom to live in a free way.
Dealing with poetry is a daunting task, simply because the reason one does it as an editor at all is because one is constantly coming to terms with one's own understanding of how to understand the world.
Every so often I find some poems that are too good for the readers of The Atlantic because they are a little too involved with the nature of poetry, as such.
For instance, it's a little better now than it was two or three years ago, but something like 70% of the poems I receive seem to be written in the present indicative.
Frost is the most sophisticated of poets.
However, in 1950 there might have been 150 books of poetry published in a year. In 1997, there are probably about 1,500.
I just think that some version of the past in our culture is going to rise up and become dominant.
I like poems that are complex.
I like poems that are little games.
I think poetry has lost an awful lot of its muscle because nobody knows any. Nobody has to memorize poetry.
I would like to be proud of having written some poems that will be remembered, but I will never know whether I will have any reason to be proud of that.
If I were brave enough to say so, I'd like to think that I had written some poems that people are not going to forget.
If poets were realistic, they wouldn't be poets.
If they want to know anything about poetry, they simply have to go out and learn it.
In my youth, I found that I was quite often inspired and pushed forward by what I read.
In order to understand what they need to understand, in order to write what they write, they have to be free. And yet, they aren't ever free. They are not free because they are not free of the constrictions their art puts on them.
It is a way we reassess our past. We can do that in poetry in ways we can't do in prose.
It is very difficult for people to come in contact with their own emotions and their own sensibilities.
My friends never talk to me about my poetry because they're embarrassed that I write it or they're embarrassed by what I write about which are not such extraordinarily terrifying things, but they are the state of human existence.
Obviously, there is a connection between the outer face of the poet and the persona that emerges in his or her work.
People are talking about the Internet as though it is going to change the world. It's not going to change the world. It's not going to change the way we think, and it's not going to change the way we feel.
Poetry is composing for the breath.
Poetry should be able to reach everybody, and it should be able to appeal to all levels of understanding.
Poetry was invented as an mnemonic device to enable people to remember their prayers.
The more poetry you have in the head, the more poetry you will understand because you will be getting to the roots of what it is that makes people write poetry at all.
The problem, for me, with the writing programs is that they produce a terrible uniformity of product.
The reason one writes poems is so that your poem will be remembered.
The relation between a poet and audience is really insignificant. What matters is the poet is hearing something that he is broadcasting. And whether there is anybody with a receiver isn't the reason he does it. He hopes there is somebody receiving it.
The trouble with the performance poets is that they don't seem to have read anything. So there is not a real sense of the poetic tradition in their work.
There are so many things that poetry is about, one of which is memory.
There are some poets, and some of the good ones, who really act as careerists and go out and make a career, make sure they're well regarded.
They need to learn poetry. They don't need to learn about poetry. They don't need to be told how to interpret poetry. They don't need to be told how to understand poetry. They need to learn it.
Very often, what I find newest is something very old. It's just a little jingle, a little rhythm, a little turn, a little trope.
Why is it that the industrialization of poetry in the educational process has made the language become so squinched, narrowed down?
Peter Davison never liked Mathew Waterhouse.
Peter's daughter Georgia auditioned for the role of Rose Tyler in the new Doctor Who series.
Peter still plays Dr Who in a series of Dr Who in a series of audio plays.
Peter's final story of Dr Who was season twenty-one's story The Caves of Androzani.
Peter greatest acting success came when he played Tristan in the BBC's All Creatures Great and Small (1978).
Davison's first professional acting work came in 1972 when, after leaving drama school in the July of that year, he secured a small role in a run of Love's Labour's Lost
He played Dr Stephen Daker, the ingenuous hero of A Very Peculiar Practice
Divorced American actress Sandra Dickinson in 1994
Youngest actor to play Doctor Who.
Wrote TV theme music for "Mixed Blessings" (1978) and "Button Moon" (1980)
His real name is Peter Moffett
Appeared in Dimensions in Time with other Doctors
You can share a link to this page with your friend!