by Michael Hall
Historically, poetry has left an impression on human society. But now with alternative forms of entertainment and enrichment, is poetry’s position in society secure? These concerns about the public’s reception to poetry have left many poets critiquing the ways they compose, and many movements have been created in response. However, not all poets view the situation with the same seriousness. In his article, “Personism: A Manifesto,” O’Hara addresses concerns about the composition of his poetry, the reception of poetry in general, and introduces his theory of poetry which he dubs Personism.
The first section of the article is O’Hara’s response to attacks about the composition of his poems. He introduces a statement made by a contemporary poet who believes that the inability of the reader to understand the poem reflects the inability of the poet to compose (O’Hara 1072). O’Hara responds to the attack by stating that he disregards the technical rules of poetry, such as scansion and other musical devices, and prefers to “just go on your nerve” (1072). He believes that composing poetry should be natural, instinctive, and based more on content, and that adhering to the rules robs the poem of its authenticity.
The next section of the article voices O’Hara’s opinion about the reception of poetry in general. It appears that O’Hara’s views contrast from many of his contemporaries in this area. He seems to imply that many of his colleagues are concerned with the public’s declining interest in poetry, and are trying to coerce the masses into liking the material by making poetry more appealing and more understandable to read. O’Hara, on the other hand, believes that poetry is not for everyone, and therefore it is not necessary for everyone to understand its meaning. He then states that there are many other mediums, such as the cinema, that are equally enriching. Also, in regards to his contemporaries’ attempts to make poetry more appealing, O’Hara attacks the technical rules of poetry by implying that “measure and other technical apparatus” is used solely for that purpose (1073).
The final section of the article is used to introduce O’Hara’s theory of poetry which he names Personism. I personally believe that the term Personism is used mockingly to poke fun at other “-ism” movements, while at the same time voicing his own theory of poetry. In the article, O’Hara seems to be distancing himself from new views concerning abstraction in poetry which requires “personal removal by the poet” (1073). Instead, he believes that poetry should mirror life in being more emotive than logical. Basically—stop thinking about it and do it. We should act more naturally and instinctively when composing poetry, and not view the poem as some sort of project. And above all, the poem should be focused to somebody, and not impersonal. For example, O’Hara states “I was realizing that if I wanted to I could use the telephone instead of writing the poem” (1073). So instead of viewing the poem as the end product, he views the poem as a medium between the poet and the person.
Overall, O’Hara’s article humorously relayed his views on the situation at the time. He dismissed negative views about his writing style and the public’s reception to poetry. The article also voiced O’Hara’s own ideas about how to compose poetry. O’Hara uses his article to respond to attacks about the composition and reception of his poems, while at the same time championing his theory of composing poetry.
O’Hara, Frank. “Personism: A Manifesto.” The Norton Anthology of Modern and Contemporary Poetry. Ed. Jahan Ramazani et al. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Norton, 2003. 1072-1074.
