I enjoyed this. Made me chuckle. I’ve had a long aversion to ´after’ poems and you’ve helped explain why I might have felt this way. About 60 years ago a witty school friend wrote a Pied Piper parody which she prefaced ‘with apologies to Robert Browning’. I rather liked that ‘with apologies’ and am now wondering what other prepositions might work in an epigraphs…. ‘Between Walt Whitman and J.H. Prynne’….’As per Plath’… ‘Beyond The Beats’…..’Towards Tennyson’… ‘Far from Hardy’…. ´Regarding The Wreck of the Deutschland’……Sorry. Getting silly now! Good fun tho…….Maybe Keats started it with ‘On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer’… but that’s a title not an epigraph….actually I think ‘On…’ titles are annoying too! 🥴
I use 'after' a lot because I often use other poets' work as a jumping off point. I don't do it for ANY of the reasons Helena suggests but purely to give the poet concerned credit and avoid the imputation of plagiarism. Increasingly, I will be more specific (e.g. 'first line after' (and name the poem) or 'structure suggested by' again naming the poem. It never occurred to me that people would think it showing off or spend a lot of time googling the poem concerned. With poems based on paintings it's probably a good idea to provide a google link if there is one - and perhaps with poems too.
Thank you Rosemary. As I made the comment from the Friday poem page and am not part of the Substack group I didn't see your previous comment - apologies. I don't normally comment on anything online but I really felt I had to reply to last week's article
What about epigraphs that don't use the phrase "After"? Eliot does this all the time, with the same intention: the epigraph gives the meaning of the poem (e.g. Villon in "The Cooking-Egg")
Apologies for the self-promotion but here is an "After..." poem. I give the epigraph in full to allow the reader to understand the exact context:
I’ve always just seen ‘after’ as a courtesy to the poet or artist who inspired you rather than a code to frustrate the reader with… Sometimes it leads readers back to that person’s work too. I agree it’s a little frustrating if the reference is hard to find e.g. I read Terrance Hayes sonnet for ‘Wanda C’ and wondered who that was, then found Wanda Coleman’s poetry through it but thought he could’ve used her full name 🙂
I have always understood it to mean that the poem to which one applies the 'after' is one's own take on another poet's work – heavily influenced by, a sort of variation on it, as in same style or form, similar pattern of allusions, etc.; something which might otherwise be considered a copy with fraudulent intent. The 'after' is good-mannered, ethical acknowledgment of the original.
What I want having read a poem is a feeling of satisfaction that I’ve understood it, not to feel stupid or inadequate because I haven’t and have to waste time googling it. So when I see a poem that’s “after” someone I’ve never heard of, I just don’t read it.
I enjoyed this. Made me chuckle. I’ve had a long aversion to ´after’ poems and you’ve helped explain why I might have felt this way. About 60 years ago a witty school friend wrote a Pied Piper parody which she prefaced ‘with apologies to Robert Browning’. I rather liked that ‘with apologies’ and am now wondering what other prepositions might work in an epigraphs…. ‘Between Walt Whitman and J.H. Prynne’….’As per Plath’… ‘Beyond The Beats’…..’Towards Tennyson’… ‘Far from Hardy’…. ´Regarding The Wreck of the Deutschland’……Sorry. Getting silly now! Good fun tho…….Maybe Keats started it with ‘On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer’… but that’s a title not an epigraph….actually I think ‘On…’ titles are annoying too! 🥴
I use 'after' a lot because I often use other poets' work as a jumping off point. I don't do it for ANY of the reasons Helena suggests but purely to give the poet concerned credit and avoid the imputation of plagiarism. Increasingly, I will be more specific (e.g. 'first line after' (and name the poem) or 'structure suggested by' again naming the poem. It never occurred to me that people would think it showing off or spend a lot of time googling the poem concerned. With poems based on paintings it's probably a good idea to provide a google link if there is one - and perhaps with poems too.
A C Clarke
Thank you Rosemary. As I made the comment from the Friday poem page and am not part of the Substack group I didn't see your previous comment - apologies. I don't normally comment on anything online but I really felt I had to reply to last week's article
All good wishes
A C Clarke
Oh, this is like what I just said! Didn't read this first, sorry; you have said it so well.
What about epigraphs that don't use the phrase "After"? Eliot does this all the time, with the same intention: the epigraph gives the meaning of the poem (e.g. Villon in "The Cooking-Egg")
Apologies for the self-promotion but here is an "After..." poem. I give the epigraph in full to allow the reader to understand the exact context:
https://jbars.substack.com/p/after-mimnermus
I’ve always just seen ‘after’ as a courtesy to the poet or artist who inspired you rather than a code to frustrate the reader with… Sometimes it leads readers back to that person’s work too. I agree it’s a little frustrating if the reference is hard to find e.g. I read Terrance Hayes sonnet for ‘Wanda C’ and wondered who that was, then found Wanda Coleman’s poetry through it but thought he could’ve used her full name 🙂
I have always understood it to mean that the poem to which one applies the 'after' is one's own take on another poet's work – heavily influenced by, a sort of variation on it, as in same style or form, similar pattern of allusions, etc.; something which might otherwise be considered a copy with fraudulent intent. The 'after' is good-mannered, ethical acknowledgment of the original.
interesting subtlety to know./ remember thanks.
What I want having read a poem is a feeling of satisfaction that I’ve understood it, not to feel stupid or inadequate because I haven’t and have to waste time googling it. So when I see a poem that’s “after” someone I’ve never heard of, I just don’t read it.
Oh. I thought this was a poll. Fame and fortune.
I would argue that Sylvia has many ‘After’ poems, irrespective of if she wrote ‘After’ before them. She has plenty of Ekphrastic poems.