Comments on: Anthology Spoiler

By: Daniel Nester

Daniel Nester — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:55:48 +0000

Nobody’s a narcissist here, Mr. Matt. You’re a wonderful person, as far as you know. I was only speaking to Doodle and his caricature. A man’s allowed to rant. That’s what comment boxes are for.
Seriously, though: do you really think the point of Issue 1 is that the editors could recognize names only from the Silliman blogroll? Have poets become that inside baseball and hermetic that we sample ourselves?
If so, this only goes to prove that current American poetry is in its big hair phase–any Skid Row knockoff in their second year in grad school thinks if they work hard enough, and write as faux-enchantment enough, they will get a pullout section in APR. My point: that doesn’t make it any good.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:07:14 +0000

Wow. Thanks Daniel Nester. You just made me realize what a horrible person I am for not giving to charities. I wonder why I haven’t…–oh, wait a second, maybe it’s because I make 9.25/hr with no insurance of any kind and can barely pay the rent…. Nah, I’m probably just a narcissist.

By: Daniel Nester

Daniel Nester — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:36:16 +0000

A shave will do you good, doodle. I have a few non-Pitchfork-approved mixed CDs to loan you. And there’s plenty of charities out there to give to as well.

By: Doodle

Doodle — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:42:44 +0000

I see I’m going to have to grow out my beard a little more to distinguish myself from the caricature above. Not much I can do about my race or class at the moment, though. Sheesh.

By: Daniel Nester

Daniel Nester — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:33:59 +0000

The Issue 1 thing comes from a certain strand of poets I have grown sick of–a cohort of mostly white, male, middle-class, bored, mostly with short beards and self-imposed poverty; poets who must, by virtue of their own aesthetic self-improvement programs, mock the idea of poetry itself while calling themselves poets.
An aside: One of the points of the Sokal Hoax was to expose a certain stripe of academic’s lack of rigor in the sciences–what CP Snow referred to famously as the “Two Cultures.” The academics lambasted are a kind of community, I guess. I will admit the Sokal Hoax is not a complete equivalent example, but at least Sokal published an article in Lingua Franca that “exposed” his hoax article, and explained his point.
But to refer to shoddy research as sending up shoddy research without any commentary of point afterwards–that is *a* point, I suppose. By reading that much into it we engage in an intentional fallacy that’s not a very compelling or resonant, let alone smart.
The Issue 1 editors’ email letter to Kenneth Goldsmith flaunts and flutters that these young men are still grasping for some sort of sensibility, some point or idea now that they have the technology to put something together, to make a conceptual poetry-art project that bigger, stronger, faster. There is an excitement there, but little more.
Conceptual writing and art depends on the process note, the manifesto, the make-it-new statements, to help us understand, appreciate, and learn from a piece.
And I am afraid the case here with Issue #1 reflects the very same poverty of ideas and inchoate frames of reference they are trying to send up.
Now, what are the implications of this for poetry?
What’s missing, I think, is a compelling self–any self–at the center to make this interesting. There’s always a voice somewhere in art. Even if it’s disembodied, it’s a voice.
Well, if we are to take the Issue #1 sensibility–this knock-off of real conceptual writing that has a point, here’s what we end up with. These process note-less, non-self-lyrical poets, who depend on Silliman et al for their own sensibilities, end up as
–not very interesting as selves–say goodbye to the lyric, f-f-f-folks!–and so have to look elsewhere for inspiration;
– They–the non-self process-noteless poets–have the luxury (education, comfort, support) to move beyond the self, and by so doing conclude that this is a higher-minded pursuit;
–They are much more prone to the seduced-by-technique quandary that’s afflicted poets since time indefinite;
–A peculiar self-imposed poverty of the self, following up on the view that an American/decadent/capitalist/middle class self cannot adequately express the capital I Ideas that the poem “needs” to get across; and by so doing we end up back at square one, or Issue #1, as is the case here.

By: rod

rod — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:35:36 +0000

dont think it has much in common with the sokal hoax at all. that speaks of editorship, sure, but nothing of online community, search technology, etc. there plenty ‘point’ to the issue, the feathers its riled everywhere thus far are testament enough. matt’s right, sillimans blogroll being a source is the point. and it wasnt the only source. was a slapshod search, a slapshod list, like some slapshod online research going down every moment by students or anyone in this world. THAT is the value in it, THAT is the point. if you looked for ‘poets’ thats what youd find. the names in bulk gain that ‘flat’-ness, even the most revered names become less impactful in this context. thats what the artist here did, that is what he accomplished and in that sense i find it an apt bit of social commentary.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:03:13 +0000

“That the compiler-editors’s frame of “name” recognition reference is Ron Silliman’s blogroll just brings me down.”
Isn’t that the point?

By: Daniel Nester

Daniel Nester — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:25:15 +0000

Many of today’s situational conceptual poetry projects, Issue #1 included, bear out a certain poverty of ideas. And I would include much of the discourse following it.
Can’t read DuChamp’s mind from the grave, but I think why I would bring it up vis-a-vis this Issue 1 thing is that his execution and ideas behind it are far more clever and innovative than this thing, almost 100 years later. Better examples might be the Sokal hoax, heteronymic exercises that are happening now that we won’t even know for years–all of which have a point, rather than a collection of “flat names.”
That the compiler-editors’s frame of “name” recognition reference is Ron Silliman’s blogroll just brings me down.
People aren’t even taking their faces and brains away from the screen to come up with cockamamie third-hand situational art. It reminds me of when I saw Yanni on 60 Minutes say he was only influenced by the music in his own head, rather than, say, Mozart.

By: rod

rod — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:58:49 +0000

maybe i dont know what im talking about BUT, i dont think its a commentary on ‘poetry’ or ‘poets’ or any of that. best comment i seen so far was famous poet over here saying, ‘it’s fairly obvious that most of you don’t read anything unless it has your name attached to it.’ sure it sounds harsh, but isnt there a bigger picture here? its not as trivial as saying ‘everybodys poetry sucks’, wouldnt that be similar to saying duchamps ‘fountain’ went into the exhibit with the intent of saying ‘all these paintings suck’. that, to me at least, was obviously not the point. sure theres ethical issues raised, privacy issues, etc. but to focus ones attention there does a disservice. even to write the whole thing off as a ‘conceptual’ piece.
this interweb deal does a whole lot for leveling the playing field in plenty arenas, media, music, art, poetry, everything, thats fairly obvious. why im drawn to ‘issue 1′ is its tendency to flip this poetic community, to expose frailties of self-concerned artists when the ‘artworld’ theyre used to putting their feet down on is turned upside down. what makes one a ‘poet’ anyway? because of who you associate with? because of where youve been published? what if someone dug around a bit online and put together a list of names and titled it ‘poets’, anyone associated with ‘poetics’, hell it doesnt even have to be ‘anyone’, much less anyone ALIVE, and associated the names with self-less poems created by algorithm? oh wait! is that what the story is? does all this sharing of information build to the dissolution of the self? but the google-alerted selves used in this juxtaposition, the ones writing up petitions and threatening legal action, are those the ones with a dangerous, community-driven false sense of self? im not sure, im not sure.

By: Daniel Nester

Daniel Nester — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:14:30 +0000

Let me use a
political speech
trope, NEG, and
say Let me be
clear: I be bemoanin’
the state of American poetry
on- or off-
line. Both hands
dip into far too
shallow waters. There’s
no nowhere there.
The current scenes do
nothing to advance the
art, any art. Granted,
I may be a new
convert to this
view, or this was
my view all while.
Either way, some
thing needs to stop
or start or some
one needs to tell
the truth–it’s a wide
puddle, not deep,
and it don’t matta
if it’s from a browser
or on your shoes.