Comments on: Ann Lauterbach on Wealth, Fame and Power:

By: Rosalind Vanderpeas

Rosalind Vanderpeas — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:54:41 +0000

Since when did they remove cafeteria debates to the world wide web?
You poets, damn you! Get a change of atmosphere, go outside!

By: Steve Tills

Steve Tills — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:24:45 +0000

Kent wrote:
was surprised to read these comments. Such claims of insidious correspondence between normative grammatical relations and false ideological effects were, of course, a staple of early Language poetry politics. But I hadn’t seen the “grammar principle” repeated anywhere for a long time, and I assumed it had more or less been abandoned as a naive, quasi-Skinnerian or Tel Quelian holdover from the late-60s, when Langpo theory was taking its baby steps. After all, other hyperbolic notions from Langpo’s utopian phase (ending ca. first Gulf War) that made claims for linguistic structures reflecting and reproducing “capitalist” categories (e.g., the equivalence between “reference” and “commodity fetishism”) have pretty much been left behind in a quiet that would make a Quietude poet blush. Even as the poetry, in its generic contours, has remained little changed, and even as the scorn for poems written in “the language of social and linguistic norms” has gone on… [1]
I agree that there is really no true “equivalence between ‘reference’ and ‘commodity fetishism,’” though anybody can say adherents to conventional and strictly unself-conscious grammar and reference DO surely tend to produce more “commodity fetish” quietudinienoidate poming, and I am sure that we could prove this to be a statistical fact. (And shoot, it goes to reason that if yer paying close and serious attention to the particulars of form, then yer probably also getting a little deeper and more serious in yer particulars of content, too.) AND I also believe that the most radical SUBSTANCE and radically change-producing poming of the future could easily come from a poming that does not break new and groovy form at all (I’m not going to bet on that happening, but I firmly believe it’s possible). AND, finally, I also believe that another incredible “commodity fetish” is that which takes shape in pure, unadulterated, utterly vapid “formal innovation.”
It’s still, I think, an eternally on-going process of stretching into new territories of either FORMAL or MATERIAL relevance and depth and salience. One day it’s new “formal” that’s needed and another day it’s new “material” that’s needed (by any given cultural/historical moment/people requiring what they eternally require from lanuage use, or poetry). The terms “formal” and
“material” are, of course, Michael Palmer’s. I think that it could be argued that the BM poets and the Beats, AND maybe even the NY School poets brought into being essentially a new MATERIAL, albeit by unshackling form from meter and giving into a greater fluidity of Process, instanter and instanter, to a jazz beat, and going on nerve, etc. I think that the Lang Po’s went further in the other new directions that then developed (it may be “a cyclical thing,” this general re-directing between the extremes of/from the “material” to the “formal”), namely a greater exploration they believed needed in the “formal” directions, down to the actual media of language and “grammars,” themselves. I believe both extremes are sometimes worthless when pursued too earnestly and naively and fanatically and narcissistically.
I believe a lot of different things, and hopefully I’ll believe a whole bunch of new things tomorrow and some of the same things I believed yesterday. I.e., just joining in the discussion with some humble bs and modest comments… Blah blah…
Steve

By: Don Share

Don Share — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:10:18 +0000

“I hate the critics of poetry when they are themselves the brutal policemen of what they think is a game.”
– David Shapiro, from Kent Johnson’s forthcoming interview with him

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:04:27 +0000

Thanks, Gary.
I’m sorry if I sounded heartless in the debate about Gaza, on Linh Dinh’s previous post here. I have complete respect for anyone’s desire to speak out, on any matter of conscience & politics. It’s a basic right, obviously. What bothers me is when I hear only one side of a many-sided debate.

By: Gary B. Fitzgerald

Gary B. Fitzgerald — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:43:12 +0000

Very well put, Mr. Gould. In fact, I find it unusual that I actually agree with you. I want to make clear that I have never read Mr. Goldsmith’s poetry so I don’t want to imply any judgement of his work, but I basically agree with your point of view and philosophy here.
Since I have you on the line, though, I wanted to make an observation pertinent to an earlier, now defunct, post. What the hell…this thread is more like Myspace that a poetry blog, anyway (I forgot…what time was I supposed to meet you at the reading in Chicago?). I forget…what was the topic?
At any rate, I just wanted to note that in Gaza there are close to 400 children who won’t be around anymore and so not have the opportunity to enjoy your glorious words.
GBF

By: Michael Robbins

Michael Robbins — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:53:57 +0000

Gee, Jordan, that NY Times article sure seems to describe Kent, doesn’t it? I mean, think of all the irreparable harm Kent has caused over the years! Oh, wait, the only thing Kent has ever harmed is egos. My bad. Or yours?
I’ve said before that there is a huge distinction to be made here, & that the weirdly sensitive representatives of Flarf & like technologies are out of their minds to believe that their overreactions to a bit of online rib-poking are in any meaningful sense commensurate to the harmless satire Kent engages in. Kent writes witty aperçus intended to puncture a few overinflated egos, & those egos respond with threats of litigation, bans, mean-spirited diatribes, condescension, passive-aggressiveness — anything except a sense of humor. Which is rather hilarious, given Flarf’s raison d’être.
Perhaps the folks over on that side of the fence could stop taking themselves so seriously. This might enable them to see, at long last, that the fence is in their minds.

By: Henry Gould

Henry Gould — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:06:26 +0000

I can’t figure out Kenneth Goldsmith’s comments here. Am I just being obtuse, or what?
I can’t tell if he’s being tongue-in-cheek or not. Is this simply a KG mask : the persona of the literary sell-out, taken to its comic Machiavellian limit?
Or does he “really mean it”?
It’s an interesting plan : to borrow the (Bernsteinian?) notion that the value of poetry per se (in terms of both economics or social prestige) is absoutely nil – and to conclude therefore that we can & should strictly divide poetry per se from the professional perks of the literary chicken farm, such as it is – & pursue the latter with gusto & relish.
One could view this (Ponzi-esque) scheme as a bitter burlesque on a perceived actual state of affairs, in which the gamesmanship of careerism exists in a strict ratio with the immeasurable valuelessness of the products (the chips, the counters) of the game.
But as I say, I can’t tell if Goldsmith is being ironic in this way, or straightforwardly crass. Maybe that’s the genius of his performance. It’s a choice between simple cynicism on the one hand, or simple opportunism on the other. I guess. I’m confused!
To answer my own confusion, then – it SEEMS to me that Kenneth’s inability, or lack of faith in his ability, to actually MAKE poems which harbor some minimal degree of aesthetic or social value, lead him 1) to devalue, in turn – with a sort of absurdist bravado – the value of any and all contemporary poetry, and 2) to justify to himself, as a result, the happy (& amoral) acquisition of all the little perks of the literary-poetry life, such as they are, which he can obtain… ?
As I say, it’s funny… one has to admire the vaguely Soviet-era expressiveness of this kind of bleak gesture….
Or am I getting it all wrong, Kenneth?

By: Kent Johnson

Kent Johnson — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:00:30 +0000

Sorry, Tom, I thought you were Tom as in Raworth! Apologies.
Good arguments, there.
And Jordan. You score and win! Enough said. I’m sorry you can’t come to the reading. Another time, perhaps.
Kent

By: Tom Harr

Tom Harr — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:09:20 +0000

Matt, if she didn’t want to “play” why did she blog publicly about not wanting to do so? I’m just saying that what she did was a little disingenous – was she not being a scold, herself? To continue your schoolyard analogy, she was talking behind the backs of people who comment and blog here, that’s all.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:54:57 +0000

“Unless one’s perspective is to take one’s ball and go home, I guess.”
Tom Harr, to “take one’s ball and go home” implies that one wanted to play in the first place. Boyer didn’t and doesn’t. Scolding her for that is like a schoolyard bully telling another kid, “Come here! Why don’t you come here so I can beat you up? I can’t beat you up if you won’t come outside and stand here! That’s not fair!”