http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/ A blog from the Poetry Foundation where contemporary poets debate classic and contemporary poetry from America and around the world. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:56:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/#comment-3281 Ronshelle Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:27:53 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=770#comment-3281 I apologize. Duh, Harriet is the name of the blog... lol I apologize. Duh, Harriet is the name of the blog… lol

]]> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/#comment-3280 Ronshelle Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:25:27 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=770#comment-3280 My name isn't Harriet. My name isn’t Harriet.

]]> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/#comment-3279 Ronshelle Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:23:23 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=770#comment-3279 YOU say "read this and tell me what IT says." It says validate me. It says give me significance. It says I will tell you how to validate me and give me signifigance. Tonight is my very first time being introduced to this blog and I've given my opinion. YOU say “read this and tell me what IT says.” It says validate me. It says give me significance. It says I will tell you how to validate me and give me signifigance. Tonight is my very first time being introduced to this blog and I’ve given my opinion.

]]> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/#comment-3278 Joan Steptoe Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:16:43 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=770#comment-3278 Here is a principled disagreement with your opinion about reviewing. Even when some say that they cannot or do not, descriptions encode perspectives and biases through diction, phrasing, and all sorts of rhetorical structuring. Human beings are always signifying their biases even when they fallaciously pertend to be objective or descriptive. Criticism of books may well be one of the greatest examples of such inescapable bias, however merely descriptive the prose claims to be. You signify your intellectual biases <i>all the time</i> and sometimes bristle when you are challenged or when someone disagrees with you. You say that you were actually <i>angry</i> when you read that review of your second book and you mentioned parenthetically that you felt that the reviewer was condesdending. Angry? Where does such anger come from within you? Is it necessary to be enraged about a review, or about anything of the sort? And about the presumption of condescension: You seem to have no idea how much <i>your own</i> bluntly presented, seemingly intractable opinions and pronouncements about how you think reviews should be written and about intentions actually may condesend to others who may disagree. You forestall conversation and enlightened, reasoned response in the very manner in which you voice your biases. Auden is not always correct. Some opinionated, carefully argued reviews of weak books are extremely necessary--especially reviews that explain how some books that are praised in some quarters may actually not live up to such praise. <i>Exaplantion</i> is as important as description. In fact, your extremely narrow needs for reviews sidestates a host of quite worthy processes other than description--processes like 1) interpretation; 2) explanation; and 3) evaluation. I once read a review by Margorie Perloff of an Adrienne Rich book--a very harsh assessment of the near-sentimentality of Rich's feminism in that book, according to Perloff. Since I admire each writer's prjects I wrestled intellectually with the force of the review and then decided that such a negative assessment was actually worth it because the care taken to examine the artistic character and worth of the book helped me to see the book in new ways. I don't always want my opinions or ideas validated. I want to be challenged, to grow beyond my current state intellectually, and to discover fresh points of departure in the criticism that I read. And since you brought up intentions , let me say that I want to hear writers speak about their intentions. It helps me as I contend with what's on the page (and what's on the page <i>is</i> the most important thing. You may not want to but I very well do. I learned a great deal about unfamiliar aspects of Audre Lorde's lesbian poetics when I read her account of her intentions as they fluctuated across her work. I disagree with you and my disagreements are not an attack. They come with just as much discernment and engagement with the artform as you and other great writers have. On the evidence of your comments on this blog and in this post, I believe that taking account and dialoguing with principled, reasonable people with whom you disagree is an under-examined part of your practice as a commentator. Here is a principled disagreement with your opinion about reviewing.
Even when some say that they cannot or do not, descriptions encode perspectives and biases through diction, phrasing, and all sorts of rhetorical structuring. Human beings are always signifying their biases even when they fallaciously pertend to be objective or descriptive. Criticism of books may well be one of the greatest examples of such inescapable bias, however merely descriptive the prose claims to be.
You signify your intellectual biases all the time and sometimes bristle when you are challenged or when someone disagrees with you. You say that you were actually angry when you read that review of your second book and you mentioned parenthetically that you felt that the reviewer was condesdending.
Angry? Where does such anger come from within you? Is it necessary to be enraged about a review, or about anything of the sort? And about the presumption of condescension: You seem to have no idea how much your own bluntly presented, seemingly intractable opinions and pronouncements about how you think reviews should be written and about intentions actually may condesend to others who may disagree. You forestall conversation and enlightened, reasoned response in the very manner in which you voice your biases.
Auden is not always correct. Some opinionated, carefully argued reviews of weak books are extremely necessary–especially reviews that explain how some books that are praised in some quarters may actually not live up to such praise. Exaplantion is as important as description. In fact, your extremely narrow needs for reviews sidestates a host of quite worthy processes other than description–processes like 1) interpretation; 2) explanation; and 3) evaluation. I once read a review by Margorie Perloff of an Adrienne Rich book–a very harsh assessment of the near-sentimentality of Rich’s feminism in that book, according to Perloff. Since I admire each writer’s prjects I wrestled intellectually with the force of the review and then decided that such a negative assessment was actually worth it because the care taken to examine the artistic character and worth of the book helped me to see the book in new ways.
I don’t always want my opinions or ideas validated. I want to be challenged, to grow beyond my current state intellectually, and to discover fresh points of departure in the criticism that I read.
And since you brought up intentions , let me say that I want to hear writers speak about their intentions. It helps me as I contend with what’s on the page (and what’s on the page is the most important thing. You may not want to but I very well do. I learned a great deal about unfamiliar aspects of Audre Lorde’s lesbian poetics when I read her account of her intentions as they fluctuated across her work.
I disagree with you and my disagreements are not an attack. They come with just as much discernment and engagement with the artform as you and other great writers have. On the evidence of your comments on this blog and in this post, I believe that taking account and dialoguing with principled, reasonable people with whom you disagree is an under-examined part of your practice as a commentator.

]]> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2008/03/read-this-and-tell-me-what-it-says/#comment-3277 Michael Robbins Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:20:11 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=770#comment-3277 Reginald, Very, very sorry to hear about your pneumonia, & very, very glad to hear your surgery went well. I agree with your stance on reviews, so no drama in this thread! Best wishes for a full recovery, mr Reginald,
Very, very sorry to hear about your pneumonia, & very, very glad to hear your surgery went well. I agree with your stance on reviews, so no drama in this thread!
Best wishes for a full recovery,
mr

]]>