As Oxford Professor John Wain puts it in his 1986 introduction to The Oxford Library of English Poetry, “[this poetry is usually no more than a matter of writing it as prose and printing it to look like verse… The individual poems are like flowers that are cut and put in a vase of water; they have no roots and no soil clinging to them.”
While this quote specifically targets the “internationalist” and “culturelessness” of contemporary poetry, I believe that this analogy applies rather well to modern, 21st century verse, and in particular (as her work is often the punching-bag of all traditionalist poets) Rupi Kaur and her 2015 collection Milk and Honey.
I might initially add that I don’t wish to simply contribute to an age-old chorus of identical criticisms of Kaur’s poetry- that would be a waste of ink and time; and I greatly respect and admire Kaur for getting anything published in 2024, let alone a poetry collection at a time where the art is so underappreciated.
However from even the most liberal of critical viewpoints her work is simplistic at best, and downright harmful at worst.
To get the most obvious of criticisms out of the way: Kaur’s poetry- on the surface- all exudes similar subjects: love, heartbreak, cheating ex’s etc. repeated again and again for 204 pages and, in my opinion, blending together; one cannot pick out one or two poems as being extraordinary or unique in any way in the way you might easily decide on your favourite Keats’.
Again to quote Wain: “poetry [is] the verbal expression of a national tradition,” and while not a requirement in any case the traditionalist poet may look at Kaur’s hundredth, shallow four (or even two!) line poem about missing her ex and be left simply wanting more; not out of some pompous pretentiousness and yearning for the tired verse of old dead white men, but out of wanting to consume poetry that makes full their minds, poetry that has meaning to be deciphered, metaphors and analogies, slight references to the poet’s culture and experiences; and why by no means are these things a necessity for good poetry, they simply leave many leaving Milk and Honey disappointed (though in truth it may be perfect for one simply wanting to relax to something undemanding).
I am sure to Kaur and many hundreds of thousands, Milk and Honey (and Kaur’s subsequent poetry) really does speak to them- and this: meaningfulness to the personal, is something that makes all poetry, whether you personally enjoy it or not, beautiful.
I don't enjoy Milk and Honey, I make that clear, it’s irrelevant subject matter (to myself) and uncomplicated verse simply don’t appeal to me, but if it reaches out and touches your soul, if it makes you feel seen and understood, then who am I to criticise Kaur and her work? Are we not all fledgling artists?
I leave you with Wain:
“The true poet was ‘like a valley cheese: local, but prized elsewhere.’” - W.H. Auden.
