I know: The writer possesses within himself the movement of thought and the flow of his pen. I also know: The reader has the ability to overlook many things, including the authority to question the philosophy of the writer in crafting the title of the study. Thus, I do not deny the reader the right to confine me within the bounds of this question. Therefore, I must point out from the outset that the title of this study aligns with a cause. It does not break through an impervious, forbidden wall that we collectively admire and describe as neutrality and objectivity. The reader will find neutrality and objectivity in our work, thanks to God and His guidance. However, the reader will also notice a bias in selecting the appropriate entry point for engaging with the true poet in the context of a topic for an intellectual symposium with a specific goal and purpose.
This topic, as some may claim, does not qualify him to stand among its poets for reasons that neither illusion clouds nor misinterpretation misleads. Here too, I point out that my bias in this study is toward poetry itself, not toward the topic of the symposium. While the latter is undoubtedly valuable, significant, and important, the reader will see that I have responded to it spontaneously and almost entirely in both spirit and methodology. The tension between bias and objectivityif it may be thought of as sucharises from the title of an early poem by the poet under study, Sadiq al-Sheikh Jaafar, found in his collection Poetic Works (19641975). This poem, however, has no connection to the symposiums topic, as it predates its causes and motivations by more than twenty-five years.
This, in truth, is a valid objection. Yet, we say that it is an aesthetic employment of the title. We have found that Sadiq's poetic cloud, full of affectionate and compassionate rain, showers the fertile Iraqi land with loyalty, devotion, and sinceritydismissing all ideological interpretations that strip poetry of its spirit and extinguish the souls of poets. These interpretations attempt to classify, include, and exclude according to their own visions and schools of thought.
Here, once again, we must emphasize the importance of standing with the true poet, his poetry worthy of contemplation and critical analysis, and his evident national devotion reflected in his poetry in the best manner we aspire to. It suffices that all this serves as a response to the symposiums topic, first and foremost.
What has been mentioned above serves as an introduction to illuminate the stance and approach of the researcher in undertaking this humble study. What follows aims to shed light on a part of his perspective or his principle in understanding poetry. In his view, the true poet, when writing a poem, does not concern himselfas is his naturewith the impact it will have on the audience. For the process of creativity, as he claims, does not take the audience into account.
Such an approach might diminish the artistic horizons the poem aspires to and the intellectual depths it delves into, granting the poem its poetic essence and the poet his status as a creator, so long as poetry remains an art and the poet is not merely a teacher. Without this state of poetic independence, both the poem and its poet would fail miserably to fulfill the essential function of creativity in thought and life. One of the secrets of poetry lies in its ability to uncover profound insights about the human unknown within the poet's self.
Through this inclination, the poet preserves his art from falling into the pitfalls of linguistic clichs, which trivialize emotions and ideas, explaining, interpreting, and expressing them in a way that strips poetry of its artistic essence. It turns poetry into a mundane exercise in conveying emotions, pushing the poet into the role of a teacherfar, far removed from the dream of poetry.
When this fatal misstep occurs, it is not surprising that the empty teacher within the poet fails to captivate the audience, as he lacks the ability to evoke the excitement and fascination that poetry should inspire. This failure results in an empty, cold, and lifeless discourse, devoid of poetic essence and artistry, in both content and form.