Comments on: My New Anthology

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:24:45 +0000

Actually, Bluejay (the exotic character in question) is the bastard child (engendered, like Athena, from the head) of Herman Melville. But my sister Cara (who is African-American) thought the book was was OK, anyway…

By: Reginald Shepherd

Reginald Shepherd — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:26:04 +0000

Dear Henry,
Thank you for your apology and your congratulations, which I very much appreciate. And you are correct regarding my earlier comment. What I wrote, or at least what I meant to write, was that from what you yourself wrote about it, it sounded as if the book was another in a long line engaging in the exoticization of black people by white authors. I did not mean to imply that I knew this for a fact, having not read the book. I apologize if it came across that way.
peace and poetry,
Reginald

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:46:33 +0000

p.s. & I would also like to remind you, Reginald, of something I just now remembered myself – that you also made a dismissive remark, in a comment stream on this blog, about a book of poetry you hadn’t read.
It was my book, Stubborn Grew (Spuyten Duyvil, 2000).

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:39:50 +0000

Dear Reginald,
please forgive me if my comments about the cover endorsements implied anything other than “legitimacy and honesty” on your part. I meant no such thing. My cynicism about blurbs in general may be unfair and misguided – you may be right about that. But there it is. I will have to refuse all blurbs myself, if any are ever offered…..
John’s comments above have some truth in them. & perhaps my attack deserved the “attack dogs” who dogged it in turn.
I certainly plan to read your anthology, and see if my speculative analysis, about the general trends it represents, holds any water.
In the meantime, I hope you will accept my very clumsy congratulations on the completion of this difficult project.

By: Reginald Shepherd

Reginald Shepherd — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:57:52 +0000

I should probably stay out of this brawl (and out of brawls in general), but Henry Gould’s comment raises a legitimate question I would like to respond to.
Marjorie Perloff and Charles Altieri are two critics of poetry whose work I have admired for many years. Altieri, in particular, has been crucial to my writing and my thinking about writing. It means a lot to me personally that they admire a project on which, as John points out, I worked very hard for a long time. It is easy to take pot shots at such work, but not so easy actually to do it.
Do Perloff’s and Altieri’s endorsements also mean something professionally? I certainly hope so. Having done the work on this anthology, I want it to be read. Any writer or editor wants his or her work to be read, and if their endorsements make someone pick up the book, including someone reading this blog, who might not otherwise have done so, I am happy. Given the huge number of books that are published each year and simply fall into oblivion, it would be foolish to refuse any legitimate and honest opportunity (I emphasize legitimate and honest) that might draw attention to one’s work. I assume that Perloff and Altieri wrote their endorsements because they genuinely admired the book. They have no reason to obsequiously praise or effusively flatter me.
Though I am hardly without my own bitternesses and resentments, I don’t have such a cynical view of the world. And I would caution that just as one doesn’t want others turning assumptions about one into certainties, one should be careful not to let one’s own assumptions about others turn into such certainties either.
Along the lines of not being led by one’s assumptions, if one is going to discuss a book, certainly if one is going to publicly criticize it, it would be best to read it first.
peace and poetry,
Reginald

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:16:38 +0000

John,
Regarding my comment about praise, flattery etc. – I wasn’t referring to the offers of congratulations & thanks to Reginald in this comment stream, but to the blurb advertisements which Reginald quoted. I should have made that clear. Yes, I was being irascible – which was wrong. But I get tired of the legitimizing function of blurbage – especially when one has doubts about the whole premise of the period style itself.
As for being rude – I apologized more than once to Reginald for the intrusion of my polemic on his announcement post. But perhaps you’re right, maybe it was all a mistake. You’re the first one to respond, without sarcasm, to the actual issues I raised.
As far as Michael Robbins & Derek Catermole – I disagree. Robbins makes a point of trying to bait me with false questions, which of course I tried to answer, only to be told by him that he was only kidding. Then he explains how well-versed he is in the Chicago School (which I suppose means I should not have posted anything?) . Catermole simply engaged in sarcastic put-downs. Both of them exaggerate the number & repetitiveness of my posts (Catermole : “50 posts”. Robbins: “obsessive rehearsal” – what does he mean by this? I posted a number of times because I was responding to different people – Paul Hoover, “Jane”, etc., as well as to Robbins’s repeated fake questions).
Thanks for your note -

By: john

john — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:48:30 +0000

Henry,
The rituals of celebration are human rituals. They enact social uses of language in pleasant ways. They embody your theoretical ideas in pleasant ways.
There has been very little, if any, “obsequious praise, effusive flattery, and so on” going on here. Some people read the book and dig it and say so (and I say THANK YOU to anybody who shares their enthusiasm for just about any art whatsoever); some people admire Reginald’s endorsers and have congratulated him; some people are simply happy for him to have completed a project he worked hard on. If you think this is all bullshit, I pity you. If you are bound and determined to upset rituals of CELEBRATION — which are NOT those nasty things you imply — why are you surprised that people resist?
Or maybe you aren’t surprised, and are only enacting a false outrage to continue the unpleasantness.
I find your commentary on language and poetry worthwhile and intriguing and relevant to my own concerns, and I thank you for it, but you have been rude. Rudeness embodies your theory too, but not in a way designed to win converts — that’s pretty much all Michael said. You are simply wrong that that makes him an ignorant, arrogant, complacent attack dog.

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:34:05 +0000

Michael,
apparently your presitigous institutional credentials over there in Cottage Grove certify you for arrogance and complacency. You’ve managed to dismiss the bizarre notion of actually getting into a debate about the substance of my comments here – in other words participating in these blog comment spaces in a productive way – in favor of the simple sarcastic put-down. And you boast about it. Congratulations, and thanks for the conversation.

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:18:57 +0000

Dear Reginald,
it became an imbroglio because the publication announcement appeared in a popular semi-collective blog-space – the kind of space which, in case you hadn’t noticed, lends itself to rather free-flowing & often contentious (& often ridiculous) dialogue & debate. Somethimes these debates raise substantive issues – but I don’t want to rock the postmodernism boat.
Nevertheless, clearly, it’s still possible to maintain the rituals of ceremonial display, obsequious praise, effusive flattery, and so on, which attach to the Poetry-Biz we have come to know & love, in these late post-modern days.
All it takes is a few ignorant attack-dogs.
That is all.

By: Michael Robbins

Michael Robbins — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:07:34 +0000

Well, Henry, as someone well versed in R. S. Crane & Elder Olson, who attends & teaches at the very institution in question and on whose dissertation committee one of their former colleagues serves, I’d like to think I have a very clear idea what you’re talking about. Out here on Cottage Grove it matters. And I haven’t said a word in defense of Reginald, who certainly doesn’t need my help. If he’s interested in responding to you, he’ll respond. As I’ve said, it is not your ideas but your obsessive rehearsal of them in every single comment stream you haunt that I find a bit obnoxious. But my hat, for this conversation, it up I hang.