One of the common generalisations and misconceptions that students of literature are routinely subjected to is that in the Platonic Utopian Republic, there can be no place for poets and their craft. This claim tends to over-simplify Plato’s discussion on poetry.

In the kind of Orwellian state that Plato imagines, with absolute control and intervention from the state, he does not unequivocally banish poetry. After all, what sort of a society could possibly survive without the twin delights of poetry and music?

Plato, in fact, argues for poets to mould their craft to the needs of state ideology. He believes that certain idols and heroes must never be humanised in poetry, and that poets must write poetry that corresponds with the agenda of statecraft. What this discussion establishes is Plato’s acknowledgment of the great subversive and revolutionary power of poetry. Bulleh Shah, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Pablo Neruda, and Federico Garcia Lorca are some prominent examples of poets who were perceived as socio-political threats in their lifetime, but whose words are venerated well beyond the grave.

Given that the edifice of poetry has always had to be defended in the face of criticism from scripture and state, it is not surprising that apparently less fearsome threats to its existence are not highlighted as often. Examine the case of the Pakistani poet writing in English. His audience is scarce to begin with. Publishers are far more interested in Urdu poetry because it generates higher demand.

Read also: Editorial 

With the post-9/11 focus on Pakistani English fiction, writers have managed to market themselves to publishers in India and the West. Very few such avenues, if any, are available for poetry. Young poets do not find patronage in the few anthologies of Pakistani writing that are being published due to the editors’ interest in writers who are already established and published widely. For the very few lucky poets who are able to find willing publishers, the poet has to bear the cost of publication.

All these factors appear to have squeezed the space for the survival of poetry in a society where liberal views are already suffocated. Imagine allowing poetry, with its inherent dissent, to remain functional in such times. Social media, however, has provided the much-needed outlet for poets to publish their work free of cost, and to acquire a following among readers.

The fact that a very large number of people read and ‘like’ and share and quote poetry they find on online social media forums is heartening because it indicates that a large populace is still thirsty for poetry. The downside is that with most of the poetry published online, lack of poetic training and absence of editorial and critical insight results in low-quality poetry gaining popularity over good poetry.