Comments on: Hail, Ichneumonid Redux!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:11:49 +0000

> Why do…
Gresham’s Law.
Report this comment

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:06:58 +0000

Why do discussions of poetic programs, movements, and controversies, conducted at fairly high levels of generality, provoke plenty of further discussion, as measured by comment threads online, reponses in journals, and chatter at such venues as AWP, while discussions of individual poems, poets and artistic accomplishment provoke (by comparison) almost none?
What if the real ichneumonid is represented by such articles as Fenza’s, and by such dramatic position-takings as some of Bernstein’s, infiltrating bodies meant to hold, nurture and test poetry and criticism, and replacing them by attacks on, and defenses of, enormous ideas,s amid which the individual poems and poets and books are barely distinguishable, forming one big digestible lump?
“All poetry is experimental poetry.” Including poetry that labels itself as such. And, as in any experiment, negative results are still results.
Report this comment

By: Reginald Shepherd

Reginald Shepherd — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:40:45 +0000

Dear Christian,
I am honored that you have now devoted two blog posts largely to me, and I appreciate the spirit of dialogue. In that spirit, I offer two responses, and then I at least must put this whole business behind me, as it has occupied too much of my time and energy for too long.
It is true that satire and parody are not my favorite aesthetic modes. It seems to me a waste to devote so much creative energy to something that one hates. But given that, I was quite aware that Bernstein wsa engaging in parody and caricature, and said so in my post. I just object to the terms and means of his satire. I don’t find jokes about Stalinism, Nazism, or McCarthyism to be funny, nor do I think those terms are so emptied of meaning that they can used as all purpose slurs. Given the suffering and death these phenomena caused, I find such use of the terms to be intellectually and ethically irresponsible.
I have a similar response to the use of the word “fascist,” let alone “hyper-fascist,” to describe contemporary America, which is indeed quite degraded in many ways. But at the very least, if we were living in a fascist state (I know people whose parents did), we wouldn’t need an article by Naomi Wolf to tell us so. Nor could such an article be published in such circumstances.
I have no issue with Bernstein attacking the AWP, though obviously I don’t agree with him. But I think that even satire and parody should be done in responsible, and accurate, terms. To modify something someone said on The Simpsons, it’s only funny if it’s true.
My second point is simpler. I do understand what Bernstein was saying and what you are saying. I just don’t agree. Comprehension does not require agreement, and a person is not lacking in understanding simply because they don’t share one’s viewpoint. The assumption that they must be is simply condescension.
Thanks again for the attention, and for the spirit of dialogue.
Take good care. If you are in Calgary right now, stay warm!
Reginald
Report this comment