Comments on: David Lerner

By: doug anderson

doug anderson — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:34:25 +0000

He would like to be Bukowski, but he isn’t. Merely attempting to shock (the poem shocks no one except perhaps the hysterically politically correct) and there is little evidence of craft or imaginative discovery. The rebellious pose is only conventionally unconventional. The anaphora is merely repetitive and does not vary its recurrance or wind up the pace.
My suggestion is that the poet, 1) go have a life, 2) learn craft.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 15 May 2007 02:47:18 +0000

Hi Robert,
Thanks for your insightful comments about Lerner’s poem. Lerner has a number of poems about poetry, and his poems seem to echo one another, often using anaphora, (maybe over-using). He’s a raw poet, but his best poems, his top dozen poems are strong, powered by the combination of rage and imagination that you touch on.
The place to go for Lerner’s work is Zeitgeist Press
http://www.zeitgeist-press.com
They put out a selected last year, The Last Five Miles To Grace.
best wishes, Jeffrey

By: Robert Cantoni

Robert Cantoni — Sun, 13 May 2007 20:11:33 +0000

I’ve been a fan of this poem for some time but I’ve never seen other Lerner poems or been able to find his books.
I agree that the lines that attempt to shock me aren’t very convincing, and I’m also generally wary of poetry about poetry, but this is the exceptional poem that does, by the end, enact what it preaches, and the individual images (”bullet-proof pair of rose-colored glasses” and “how many ambiguities can dance on the head of a machine gun”) are cogent critiques of some contemporary poetry. Those images are presented with such rage and strength that they’re really hard to resist. I like that the rant feels out of control at some points.
Thanks for sharing this poem. I’ll have to try to find more of Lerner’s work.

By: Brian Hadd

Brian Hadd — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:31:35 +0000

[sic] made soul more airy, is [sic] originally present? I'd be amazed, but I like it! The Hood Company

By: Mark Eleveld

Mark Eleveld — Thu, 10 May 2007 19:10:46 +0000

Wonderful Jeff, thank you for sharing this. A brief history on the idea: In the first ‘Spoken Word Revolution’ Jeff McDaniel and Jack McCarthy were introduced by poet Thomas Lux. For the sequel, I asked Jeff to offer some suggestion on poets and if he would offer an introduction. He did both. His introductions to David Lerner, Derrick Brown and Matt Cook are spot on. Fun to read. Important to know of … memorable. I knew a little bit of Derrick Brown’s work prior, I had heard one Matt Cook poem live, but Lerner was unknown to me. With help from Lerner’s publisher, Bruce Issacson, I spent several nights reading and listening to David Lerner’s work. I was taken by the raw power of the work. To hear Lerner perform it on mic at the fabled Cafe Babar–people yelling in the back, asking him to read Mein Kampf, offering matches for his cigarettes, goating him, echoing his lines with him–the piece drools with power. (I wish the written version on this site could include an audio of it.)
I enjoyed reading J. Bryan Shoup’s comments…I don’t think I agree with them. No. I don’t agree with them at all. I have had ample time to be around poets, philosopher, truckers, teachers, etc., to suggest that they never talk about the conditions they are part of seems a bit absurd to me. If Shoup wants to suggest that talking to much about an art form and investing that time into the art might be harmful, fine. I’d probably agree. Maybe not. (What are we doing now?) But I’d be hard pressed to believe Rollins (by the way, I think Lerner closer to Bukowski than Rollins, but we’re both probably far from the truth) or Frost or Brooks or anyone for that matter wouldn’t consider the conditions closest to them as vital to them–art included. And, I think if we start digging a little deeper into Lerner’s piece, all of this might pop up; the reference, the contradiction, the futility, and, by god, the fire.

By: J. Bryan Shoup

J. Bryan Shoup — Thu, 10 May 2007 16:51:06 +0000

I really like the rhythm of this piece, but there’s more posturing than there are memorable lines here, at least in my humble opinion. I hope my generation is far enough removed from the pressures of Lerner’s poetic scene that we can write poetry, not just rants about poetry.
Some of the images are a bit non-sensical when it feels he’s actually trying to be direct. However, I did enjoy: “it is a savage sideshow/about to move to the main arena.” Subtlety, or at least brevity, seems to work best when threatening someone else in your art (isn’t Obadiah an easier read than Jeremiah? Though Jeremiah is varied in topic, I hope/assume the same is true of Lerner).
The last two lines were a perfect end, and superior to the majority of those that preceded them. Foreboding instead of bludgeoning. There’s a vibe here akin to Henry Rollins’ poetry and poetic rants, only Rollins has never spent a poem or paragraph discussing poetry, and I think he would laugh someone out of the room if they suggested he did. It seems harder, or at least more risky, to actually ignore the scene that some poets pick apart for lack of acceptance and instead just write outsider poetry with little awareness of its outsider status.
Sometimes when a poet tries to shock, by writing lines like “the literary world/sucks dead dog dick,” I wonder if they are trying to offend or impress and if they’d be hurt if vulgarity just makes me eyes move a bit quicker to get to something with more meat.
That said, your introduction was an engaging commentary, and your third paragraph especially laid out a common issue of poets who receive their glories in this life. Someone ought to make an anthology (or point me to it) that collects forgotten poets who were once literary darlings or best-sellers. It’s be interesting to see if their work has aged well.