Comments on: Is this the end for poetry? http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/ Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:40:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-9983 thomas brady Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:46:58 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-9983 Mairead, I missed your April 2 comment until now! It thrilled me no end to mingle with the poets in that nail-biting tournament and to bring the results to you all. Millay finally beat Plath in the final. It was one of those games that was so close it should have been a tie. Fans were screaming and weeping when the two women hugged each other at the end. Thomas Mairead, I missed your April 2 comment until now!

It thrilled me no end to mingle with the poets in that nail-biting tournament and to bring the results to you all.

Millay finally beat Plath in the final. It was one of those games that was so close it should have been a tie. Fans were screaming and weeping when the two women hugged each other at the end.

Thomas
Report this comment

]]> By: Katie G. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-9976 Katie G. Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:02:37 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-9976 Robert Smithson put it nicely I think: "Poetry is always a dying language but never a dead language." Robert Smithson put it nicely I think: “Poetry is always a dying language but never a dead language.”
Report this comment

]]> By: Mairead http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8413 Mairead Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:16:53 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8413 Thomas, here's a comment for you: fantastic, this made my day. And my money's definitely on Plath, she's on fire. I hear she's been dishing trash talk: "I am too pure for you or anyone." Take that, Louis! Thomas, here’s a comment for you: fantastic, this made my day. And my money’s definitely on Plath, she’s on fire. I hear she’s been dishing trash talk: “I am too pure for you or anyone.” Take that, Louis!
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8405 thomas brady Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:25:08 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8405 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN POETRY FINAL FOUR: PLATH, MILLAY, SIMPSON, AND SHAPIRO Louis Simpson Continues Wild Run, Joined In Final Four By Karl Shapiro Louis Simpson’s poignant, mid-length lyric “The People Next Door” fought off a stubborn John Crowe Ransom-authored “Vanity of the Blue Girls” in another shocking upset as the Jamaican-born Simpson advanced to the North Finals. Ransom, no. 2 seed in the North Division, giant in this tournament, with a sterling reputation as Classical/Romantic Modernist, Academic power and New Critical master, fell to the elegant Simpson, known for his insouciant urbanity and heartbreaking hooks. Simpson then advanced to the Final Four by beating Archibald MaCleish’s haunting, fireworks of a sonnet, “End of the World.” First seed Sylvia Plath, joining Simpson in the final four, thrashed Billy Collins to win the South, as “Forgetfulness” never had a chance against “Daddy.” As Collins put it, “my poem looked flat besides hers.” March Madness 2009 saw the suicide of Plath’s son; mom is playing like a demon in this tournament. Stephen Dunn’s “Letting the Puma Go” almost out-ran Plath in the South’s semi-final round, but "Daddy" finally took care of "Puma." T.S. Eliot, another no. 1 seed, lost in a squeaker to Karl Shapiro, in a shocking East Final. “Prufrock” had proved too much for Etheridge Knight’s “The Idea of Ancestry,” a loose but strong evocation of family and faith, in the East semi-final. Eliot’s lyric formalism was too much for Knight’s strongly felt observation. But Karl Shapiro’s “Interlude III,” a gem of a lyric, fresh off an upset against Auden’s “The More Loving One,” nipped “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” to make the final four. Karl Shapiro shed tears of joy on beating Auden and Eliot back-to-back. “I can’t believe this!” Shapiro cried. Edna St. Vincent Millay had no trouble knocking off Ogden Nash in the West semis. Gallway Kinnell would not go down easily, however. “When One Has Lived A Long Time Alone” and “What Lips My Lips Have Kissed” went back and forth in perhaps the closest contest in the tourney. Millay’s artistry finally prevailed. An exhausted Galway Kinnell, said of Millay, “she doesn’t waste a word.” This year’s 20th Century American Poetry Final Four features two favored women, Plath and Millay, and two upset-minded men, Louis Simpson and Karl Shapiro. The money is on Plath and Millay, who “eat men like air.” There was a brief scuffle outside the arena yesterday, when Hugh Kenner, carrying a placard protesting the fact that Pound was out of the tournament and Millay was still in, was hit by a pie. Ashbery, Auden, Ginsberg, and O'Hara were seen in a nearby bar getting quite intoxicated with Anne Sexton and Mark Strand. 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN POETRY FINAL FOUR: PLATH, MILLAY, SIMPSON, AND SHAPIRO

Louis Simpson Continues Wild Run, Joined In Final Four By Karl Shapiro

Louis Simpson’s poignant, mid-length lyric “The People Next Door” fought off a stubborn John Crowe Ransom-authored “Vanity of the Blue Girls” in another shocking upset as the Jamaican-born Simpson advanced to the North Finals.

Ransom, no. 2 seed in the North Division, giant in this tournament, with a sterling reputation as Classical/Romantic Modernist, Academic power and New Critical master, fell to the elegant Simpson, known for his insouciant urbanity and heartbreaking hooks.

Simpson then advanced to the Final Four by beating Archibald MaCleish’s haunting, fireworks of a sonnet, “End of the World.”

First seed Sylvia Plath, joining Simpson in the final four, thrashed Billy Collins to win the South, as “Forgetfulness” never had a chance against “Daddy.” As Collins put it, “my poem looked flat besides hers.”

March Madness 2009 saw the suicide of Plath’s son; mom is playing like a demon in this tournament.

Stephen Dunn’s “Letting the Puma Go” almost out-ran Plath in the South’s semi-final round, but “Daddy” finally took care of “Puma.”

T.S. Eliot, another no. 1 seed, lost in a squeaker to Karl Shapiro, in a shocking East Final.

“Prufrock” had proved too much for Etheridge Knight’s “The Idea of Ancestry,” a loose but strong evocation of family and faith, in the East semi-final. Eliot’s lyric formalism was too much for Knight’s strongly felt observation.

But Karl Shapiro’s “Interlude III,” a gem of a lyric, fresh off an upset against Auden’s “The More Loving One,” nipped “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” to make the final four. Karl Shapiro shed tears of joy on beating Auden and Eliot back-to-back. “I can’t believe this!” Shapiro cried.

Edna St. Vincent Millay had no trouble knocking off Ogden Nash in the West semis.

Gallway Kinnell would not go down easily, however. “When One Has Lived A Long Time Alone” and “What Lips My Lips Have Kissed” went back and forth in perhaps the closest contest in the tourney. Millay’s artistry finally prevailed. An exhausted Galway Kinnell, said of Millay, “she doesn’t waste a word.”

This year’s 20th Century American Poetry Final Four features two favored women, Plath and Millay, and two upset-minded men, Louis Simpson and Karl Shapiro.

The money is on Plath and Millay, who “eat men like air.”

There was a brief scuffle outside the arena yesterday, when Hugh Kenner, carrying a placard protesting the fact that Pound was out of the tournament and Millay was still in, was hit by a pie.

Ashbery, Auden, Ginsberg, and O’Hara were seen in a nearby bar getting quite intoxicated with Anne Sexton and Mark Strand.
Report this comment

]]> By: Colin Ward http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8377 Colin Ward Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:19:05 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8377 "Poetry isn't dead," Ms. Zuk wrote in a rare editorial, "it's comatose. Unfortunately, working under the cover of obscurity, the hospice staff are rendering the wrong cures in the wrong forms, the wrong dosages and in the wrong circumstances. Worse yet, oral remedies are being administered rectally." - from <a HREF="http://www.firesides.net/thebigez.htm" rel="nofollow">"The Big E.Z."</A> “Poetry isn’t dead,” Ms. Zuk wrote in a rare editorial, “it’s comatose. Unfortunately, working under the cover of obscurity, the hospice staff are rendering the wrong cures in the wrong forms, the wrong dosages and in the wrong circumstances. Worse yet, oral remedies are being administered rectally.”

- from “The Big E.Z.”
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8375 thomas brady Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:02:57 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8375 SHOCKER IN THE NORTH REGIONAL LOUIS SIMPSON UPSETS FROST TO REACH SWEET 16. "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening" was the favorite to go all the way. But after Frost walloped Paul Engle in the first round, Louis Simpson's "The People Next Door," a 14th seed, fresh off a major victory over a 3rd seeded Carl Sandburg work, up-ended one of the most beloved poems in the language by hitting 10 straight free throws in the clutch. "I thought 'Miles to go before I sleep' would close the deal," Frost said, "but give credit to Lou; his lines kept coming up big in the end." "My poem was longer than Frost's," Simpson opined, "and I thought it might have been a tad rambling, but I guess it's emotional punch had just enough to win." Simpson's poem is beautiful. Beautiful enough to take down a no. 1 seed. In another major upset in the South, 13th seeded Stephen Dunn's "Letting the Puma Go" knocked off Allen Ginsberg's "A Supermarket in California" at the buzzer. The other no. 1 seeds, Plath's "Daddy," Eliot's "Prufrock" and Millay's "What Lips My Lips Have Kissed" coasted into the Sweet 16. Edna Millay did have trouble, though, with a hard-charging Robert Pinsky and his marvelous "At Pleasure Bay" in second round action. Pinsky led buy 5 going into the final two minutes, but Millay's sonnet stayed strong and came back. In other upsets, a smooth and relaxed Mark Strand, with "Reading In Place" got by an emotional Ezra Pound's "Canto XLV." "I think it helped that I chose that canto for my recent anthology," Strand (calmly) said. "I knew what to look for. But I'm still just so amazed right now." Strand fell to another giant, however, in the second round: T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock." No one thought Strand had enough to beat Pound and Eliot back-to-back, and they were right. So here's who made it to the Sweet 16: Louis Simpson, John Crowe Ransom, Louise Bogan, Archibald MaCleish, Sylvia Plath, Stephen Dunn, Billy Collins, Kenneth Koch, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, Etheridge Knight, Edna Millay, John Berryman, Galway Kinnell, and Ogden Nash. SHOCKER IN THE NORTH REGIONAL

LOUIS SIMPSON UPSETS FROST TO REACH SWEET 16.

“Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening” was the favorite to go all the way.

But after Frost walloped Paul Engle in the first round, Louis Simpson’s “The People Next Door,” a 14th seed, fresh off a major victory over a 3rd seeded Carl Sandburg work, up-ended one of the most beloved poems in the language by hitting 10 straight free throws in the clutch.

“I thought ‘Miles to go before I sleep’ would close the deal,” Frost said, “but give credit to Lou; his lines kept coming up big in the end.”

“My poem was longer than Frost’s,” Simpson opined, “and I thought it might have been a tad rambling, but I guess it’s emotional punch had just enough to win.”

Simpson’s poem is beautiful.

Beautiful enough to take down a no. 1 seed.

In another major upset in the South, 13th seeded Stephen Dunn’s “Letting the Puma Go” knocked off Allen Ginsberg’s “A Supermarket in California” at the buzzer.

The other no. 1 seeds, Plath’s “Daddy,” Eliot’s “Prufrock” and Millay’s “What Lips My Lips Have Kissed” coasted into the Sweet 16.

Edna Millay did have trouble, though, with a hard-charging Robert Pinsky and his marvelous “At Pleasure Bay” in second round action. Pinsky led buy 5 going into the final two minutes, but Millay’s sonnet stayed strong and came back.

In other upsets, a smooth and relaxed Mark Strand, with “Reading In Place” got by an emotional Ezra Pound’s “Canto XLV.”

“I think it helped that I chose that canto for my recent anthology,” Strand (calmly) said. “I knew what to look for. But I’m still just so amazed right now.”

Strand fell to another giant, however, in the second round: T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock.”

No one thought Strand had enough to beat Pound and Eliot back-to-back, and they were right.

So here’s who made it to the Sweet 16:

Louis Simpson, John Crowe Ransom, Louise Bogan, Archibald MaCleish, Sylvia Plath, Stephen Dunn, Billy Collins, Kenneth Koch, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, Etheridge Knight, Edna Millay, John Berryman, Galway Kinnell, and Ogden Nash.
Report this comment

]]> By: Gail White http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8344 Gail White Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:55:58 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8344 Well, two weeks ago I won a free ice cream at a glacerie in New Orleans by knowing that the author of a poem written on a blackboard was Dorothy Parker. So I would say that poetry is neither dead nor unrewarded. Well, two weeks ago I won a free ice cream at a glacerie in New Orleans by knowing that the author of a poem written on a blackboard was Dorothy Parker.

So I would say that poetry is neither dead nor unrewarded.
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8337 thomas brady Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:00:36 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8337 NO ONE is going to comment on my March Madness Brackets??? What a bunch of party-poopers!! Show some life, people! Muse in Heaven! And we wonder why poetry isn't popular... NO ONE is going to comment on my March Madness Brackets???

What a bunch of party-poopers!!

Show some life, people!

Muse in Heaven! And we wonder why poetry isn’t popular…
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8288 thomas brady Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:12:05 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8288 Henry, Labor precedes contemplation? I always thought it was the other way around. How in the world is one to avoid labor, otherwise? Thanks, I'll look for the Honig. Thomas Henry,
Labor precedes contemplation? I always thought it was the other way around. How in the world is one to avoid labor, otherwise?
Thanks, I’ll look for the Honig.
Thomas
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8287 thomas brady Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:37:16 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8287 I think we ought to bring more competition into poetry, like the old Greek Play Festivals, very public, very competitive-- Dead poets can compete, too. All we needs are brackets; put poets across the country into big halls with big screens and everyone who comes gets to vote, with electronic voting devices, so it's a big, clamorous, public, democratic, voting spectacle, and we can all feel at once the real popular will re: poetry. For example: Welcome to the 20th Century American Poetry Brackets!!!!! THE ROAD TO THE FINAL FOUR STARTS HERE!!! Here are the Rankings of the 4 Divisions... and the 64 Seeds are... North 1. "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening " Robert Frost 2. "Vanity of the Blue Girls" John Crowe Ransom 3. "Grass" Carl Sandburg 4. "Resume" Dorothy Parker 5. "Papa's Waltz" Theodore Roethke 6. "End Of The World" Archibald MaCleish 7. "We Real Cool" Gwendolyn Brooks 8. "Evening In the Saniturium" Louise Bogan 9. "In The Naked Bed, In Plato's Cave" Delmore Schwartz 10. "Miniver Cheevy" Edwin Arlington Robinson 11. "Dream On" James Tate 12. "Lucinda Matlock" Edgar Lee Masters 13. "The Wellspring" Sharon Olds 14. "The People Next Door" Louis Simpson 15. "For Allen Ginsberg" X.J. Kennedy 16. "Chinese Courtesy" Paul Engle South 1. "Daddy" Sylvia Plath 2. "One Art" Elizabeth Bishop 3. "Supermarket In California" Allen Ginsberg 4. "Why I Am Not A Painter" Frank O'Hara 5. "Marriage" Gregory Corso 6. "Those Winter Evenings" Robert Hayden 7. "Forgetfulness" Billy Collins 8. "Some Questions You Might Ask" Mary Oliver 9. "Bored" Margaret Atwood 10. "Prospects" Anthony Hecht 11. "One Train May Hide Another" Kenneth Koch 12. "Utopian Melodies" Stephen Dobyns 13. "Letting the Puma Go" Stephen Dunn 14. "What I Heard At The Discount Department Store" David Budbill 15. "The Marriage" Yvor Winters 16. "My Father At 85" Robert Bly East 1. "The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock" T.S. Eliot 2. "Canto XLV" Ezra Pound 3. "The Red Wheel Barrow" W.C. Williams 4. "Poetry" Marriane Moore 5. "Anyone Lived In A Pretty How Town" e.e. cummings 6. "Patterns" Amy Lowell 7. "The More Loving One" W.H. Auden 8. "Wakefulness" John Ashbery 9. "Interlude" Karl Shapiro 10. "Otherwise" Jane Kenyon 11. "The Game" Stanley Kunitz 12. "Idea Of Ancestry" Etheridge Knight 13. "The Groundhog" Richard Eberhart 14. "Dance Lessons Of The Thirties" Donald Justice 15. "Reading In Place" Mark Strand 16. "Poems" Tom Disch West 1. "What Lips My Lips Have Kissed" Edna St. Vincent Millay 2. "Emperor Of Ice Cream" Wallace Stevens 3. "Dream Song #4" John Berryman 4. "The Truth the Dead Know" Anne Sexton 5. "For My Daughter" Weldon Kees 6. "When One Has Lived A Long Time Alone" Galway Kinnell 7. "I Know A Man" Robert Creeley 8. "Love Under the Republicans (and Democrats)" Ogden Nash 9. "The Ball Turret Gunner" Randall Jarrell 10. "Two Voices In A Meadow" Richard Wilbur 11. "Not So Good Night In San Pedro" Charles Bukowski 12. "My Confessional Sestina" Dana Gioia 13. "The Immortal" Charles Simic 14. "For William Stafford" Henry Taylor 15. "At Pleasure Bay" Robert Pinsky 16. "Walt Whitman Bathing" David Wagoner Stay Tuned For Exciting Playoff Results!!! I think we ought to bring more competition into poetry, like the old Greek Play Festivals, very public, very competitive–
Dead poets can compete, too.
All we needs are brackets; put poets across the country into big halls with big screens and everyone who comes gets to vote, with electronic voting devices, so it’s a big, clamorous, public, democratic, voting spectacle, and we can all feel at once the real popular will re: poetry.
For example:
Welcome to the 20th Century American Poetry Brackets!!!!!
THE ROAD TO THE FINAL FOUR STARTS HERE!!!
Here are the Rankings of the 4 Divisions…
and the 64 Seeds are…
North
1. “Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening ” Robert Frost
2. “Vanity of the Blue Girls” John Crowe Ransom
3. “Grass” Carl Sandburg
4. “Resume” Dorothy Parker
5. “Papa’s Waltz” Theodore Roethke
6. “End Of The World” Archibald MaCleish
7. “We Real Cool” Gwendolyn Brooks
8. “Evening In the Saniturium” Louise Bogan
9. “In The Naked Bed, In Plato’s Cave” Delmore Schwartz
10. “Miniver Cheevy” Edwin Arlington Robinson
11. “Dream On” James Tate
12. “Lucinda Matlock” Edgar Lee Masters
13. “The Wellspring” Sharon Olds
14. “The People Next Door” Louis Simpson
15. “For Allen Ginsberg” X.J. Kennedy
16. “Chinese Courtesy” Paul Engle
South
1. “Daddy” Sylvia Plath
2. “One Art” Elizabeth Bishop
3. “Supermarket In California” Allen Ginsberg
4. “Why I Am Not A Painter” Frank O’Hara
5. “Marriage” Gregory Corso
6. “Those Winter Evenings” Robert Hayden
7. “Forgetfulness” Billy Collins
8. “Some Questions You Might Ask” Mary Oliver
9. “Bored” Margaret Atwood
10. “Prospects” Anthony Hecht
11. “One Train May Hide Another” Kenneth Koch
12. “Utopian Melodies” Stephen Dobyns
13. “Letting the Puma Go” Stephen Dunn
14. “What I Heard At The Discount Department Store” David Budbill
15. “The Marriage” Yvor Winters
16. “My Father At 85″ Robert Bly
East
1. “The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock” T.S. Eliot
2. “Canto XLV” Ezra Pound
3. “The Red Wheel Barrow” W.C. Williams
4. “Poetry” Marriane Moore
5. “Anyone Lived In A Pretty How Town” e.e. cummings
6. “Patterns” Amy Lowell
7. “The More Loving One” W.H. Auden
8. “Wakefulness” John Ashbery
9. “Interlude” Karl Shapiro
10. “Otherwise” Jane Kenyon
11. “The Game” Stanley Kunitz
12. “Idea Of Ancestry” Etheridge Knight
13. “The Groundhog” Richard Eberhart
14. “Dance Lessons Of The Thirties” Donald Justice
15. “Reading In Place” Mark Strand
16. “Poems” Tom Disch
West
1. “What Lips My Lips Have Kissed” Edna St. Vincent Millay
2. “Emperor Of Ice Cream” Wallace Stevens
3. “Dream Song #4″ John Berryman
4. “The Truth the Dead Know” Anne Sexton
5. “For My Daughter” Weldon Kees
6. “When One Has Lived A Long Time Alone” Galway Kinnell
7. “I Know A Man” Robert Creeley
8. “Love Under the Republicans (and Democrats)” Ogden Nash
9. “The Ball Turret Gunner” Randall Jarrell
10. “Two Voices In A Meadow” Richard Wilbur
11. “Not So Good Night In San Pedro” Charles Bukowski
12. “My Confessional Sestina” Dana Gioia
13. “The Immortal” Charles Simic
14. “For William Stafford” Henry Taylor
15. “At Pleasure Bay” Robert Pinsky
16. “Walt Whitman Bathing” David Wagoner
Stay Tuned For Exciting Playoff Results!!!
Report this comment

]]> By: Michael http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8286 Michael Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:43:00 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8286 Alright... I only dived into the posts above about 6 or 7 deep, so if I'm repeating anything excuse I. Poetry has declined. In the sense of when Ginsberg and Cummings were doing their things. We're not superstars like that. We're stars, sure. I've met many talented poets on the circuit, heading overseas to read. People "in the know" know their name, and those "in the know" aren't all secret society. It's not a handshake and a nose wiggle type of thing. Musicians know 'em, but the people who know the musicians may not. See the difference? I think I understand why this is. It's kinda obvious, I think. I'm going to use Ginsberg as an example. He affected people. And the reason he did was because he ignored their sensibilities when writing yet included our internal self in his writings. He used poetic/literary techniques to, perhaps, center his writing for hisself, but that came second nature, he more so wanted to 'speak' to 'someone'. The writing was to be performed, which means, to be received. Billy Collins syncs into this, as does Karl Elder, but neither has achieved Ginsberg's spotlight. This is also the same with Nabokov. Why was he such a literati? No playing it safe. We're too safe. And by safe I am not trying to say... for the sake of. It is removing this MK-Ultra type haze sweeping over our true selves. Speak from a pure place, and that pure place is usually dark, happy, bright, conflicted, and all the very multitudes expressed by HOWL and LOLITA which caused such an uproar. "You're not supposed to say that" --- that type of sentiment, which hooks into the 'you're not supposed to *THINK*' that either. Or FEEL it. And this causes a spark to become an ember to become a firebulb. This is not about whether literary techniques or formal education alienates, because we have Ashbery as an example, although he hails from the aforementioned generation. And back then there was crowd, not those hovering over a trashbin spitting flames in the cold of night. They were in the sun with sunglasses and martini's and beers. Trying to block the photographers. I kinda think we need to start saying how we really feel in our poems, and not what we may subconsciously feel we should say. This is not done on purpose. It's something which requires us to dissect our selves. To ask if what we're doing is what we actually doing. Or if it is shaded in the wrong direction. Shake the wet off our fur. Alright… I only dived into the posts above about 6 or 7 deep, so if I’m repeating anything excuse I.
Poetry has declined.
In the sense of when Ginsberg and Cummings were doing their things.
We’re not superstars like that. We’re stars, sure. I’ve met many talented poets on the circuit, heading overseas to read. People “in the know” know their name, and those “in the know” aren’t all secret society. It’s not a handshake and a nose wiggle type of thing. Musicians know ‘em, but the people who know the musicians may not. See the difference?
I think I understand why this is.
It’s kinda obvious, I think.
I’m going to use Ginsberg as an example. He affected people. And the reason he did was because he ignored their sensibilities when writing yet included our internal self in his writings. He used poetic/literary techniques to, perhaps, center his writing for hisself, but that came second nature, he more so wanted to ‘speak’ to ‘someone’. The writing was to be performed, which means, to be received. Billy Collins syncs into this, as does Karl Elder, but neither has achieved Ginsberg’s spotlight.
This is also the same with Nabokov. Why was he such a literati? No playing it safe.
We’re too safe. And by safe I am not trying to say… for the sake of. It is removing this MK-Ultra type haze sweeping over our true selves.
Speak from a pure place, and that pure place is usually dark, happy, bright, conflicted, and all the very multitudes expressed by HOWL and LOLITA which caused such an uproar.
“You’re not supposed to say that” — that type of sentiment, which hooks into the ‘you’re not supposed to *THINK*’ that either. Or FEEL it.
And this causes a spark to become an ember to become a firebulb.
This is not about whether literary techniques or formal education alienates, because we have Ashbery as an example, although he hails from the aforementioned generation. And back then there was crowd, not those hovering over a trashbin spitting flames in the cold of night.
They were in the sun with sunglasses and martini’s and beers. Trying to block the photographers.
I kinda think we need to start saying how we really feel in our poems, and not what we may subconsciously feel we should say.
This is not done on purpose. It’s something which requires us to dissect our selves. To ask if what we’re doing is what we actually doing. Or if it is shaded in the wrong direction.
Shake the wet off our fur.
Report this comment

]]> By: Ian http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8285 Ian Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:26:19 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8285 It should be obvious why the vast majority of people do not read poetry. You should know it instinctively. It should be obvious why the vast majority of people do not read poetry. You should know it instinctively.
Report this comment

]]> By: Ange http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8284 Ange Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:12:27 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8284 Hi Daisy! ;-) Hi Daisy! ;-)
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8283 Henry Gould Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:11:34 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8283 Great statements, Tom Brady. Worth pondering. But I'd hesitate to place the poet strictly on one side of the divide between work and play. Work and play are in a kind of mutual relationship. Labor precedes Contemplation (see Pound, even). Work week & Sabbath day. See Virgil's Georgics. The Poet, remembering or anticipating the Golden Age, laboriously plowing his versus, expresses pity for the victims of the violent Iron Age - but sees something beyond the perpetual strife, & so provides hope. As for the crisis in American poetry, see Edwin Honig's intro to one of Oscar Williams' much-maligned anthologies, the Mentor Book of Major American Poetry (1962). Just about every paragraph of this essay is focused on the problems you raise, & responds to them. "Who in this bowling alley bowled the sun?" - Edward Taylor Great statements, Tom Brady. Worth pondering. But I’d hesitate to place the poet strictly on one side of the divide between work and play.
Work and play are in a kind of mutual relationship. Labor precedes Contemplation (see Pound, even). Work week & Sabbath day.
See Virgil’s Georgics. The Poet, remembering or anticipating the Golden Age, laboriously plowing his versus, expresses pity for the victims of the violent Iron Age – but sees something beyond the perpetual strife, & so provides hope.
As for the crisis in American poetry, see Edwin Honig’s intro to one of Oscar Williams’ much-maligned anthologies, the Mentor Book of Major American Poetry (1962). Just about every paragraph of this essay is focused on the problems you raise, & responds to them.
“Who in this bowling alley bowled the sun?”
- Edward Taylor
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8282 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:33:39 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8282 Another thing to think about is that America has always been a pragmatic nation, a kind of Plato's Republic that does not trust poetry. Our most popular poets, like Longfellow, are not taken seriously today because they are considered mere European imitators. America's Longfellow chapter was simply to show Europe, 'we can do this, too' and after that, except for Frost, there hasn't really been a popular American poet. The Modernist school, led by Eliot and Pound, was mostly European. The Fugitives, the American school of modernism, produced New Criticism as a sort of science in the universities, but as actual poets, produced almost nothing. We are a country of Ben Franklin (who did just about everything except write poetry) not Byron. Academia rescued poets like Whitman who were not popular during their day. Otherwise America is just not a country of poets. Here is an interesting take by Arthrur Clutton-Brock: "Prose is the achievement of civilization, of people who have learned to discuss without blows or invective, who know that truth is hard to find and worth finding, who do not begin by accusing an opponent of wickedness, but elicit reason and patience by displaying them. You cannot say in poetry what the best prose says, or accomplish what the best prose accomplishes. Civilization may not surpass primitive society in heights of rapture and heroism, but it is, if it be civilization, better for everyday life, kinder, more rational, more sustained in effort; and this kindness and reason and sustained effort are expressed and encouraged in masterpieces of prose. If a writer continues long in this style (the poetic prose-style of Carlyle) he wearies us like a man talking at the top of his voice..." I think modern poetry has attempted to listen to this complaint, and thus become more plain and modest than 19th century poetry, which tends to exclaim and shout and fall into raptures. But has this helped poetry today? The more poetry becomes like prose, the more it loses its identity and loses an audience. What can it do? It can't rant like Pound, it can't sound like Longfellow, if it sink into quietude it becomes too much like prose, if it attempt to wink and laugh, it turns into jokes... Poetry is facing a lose-lose situation. I don't want to use this word... Poets are facing a... Crisis! Another thing to think about is that America has always been a pragmatic nation, a kind of Plato’s Republic that does not trust poetry.
Our most popular poets, like Longfellow, are not taken seriously today because they are considered mere European imitators. America’s Longfellow chapter was simply to show Europe, ‘we can do this, too’ and after that, except for Frost, there hasn’t really been a popular American poet.
The Modernist school, led by Eliot and Pound, was mostly European. The Fugitives, the American school of modernism, produced New Criticism as a sort of science in the universities, but as actual poets, produced almost nothing.
We are a country of Ben Franklin (who did just about everything except write poetry) not Byron.
Academia rescued poets like Whitman who were not popular during their day. Otherwise America is just not a country of poets.
Here is an interesting take by Arthrur Clutton-Brock:
“Prose is the achievement of civilization, of people who have learned to discuss without blows or invective, who know that truth is hard to find and worth finding, who do not begin by accusing an opponent of wickedness, but elicit reason and patience by displaying them. You cannot say in poetry what the best prose says, or accomplish what the best prose accomplishes. Civilization may not surpass primitive society in heights of rapture and heroism, but it is, if it be civilization, better for everyday life, kinder, more rational, more sustained in effort; and this kindness and reason and sustained effort are expressed and encouraged in masterpieces of prose.
If a writer continues long in this style (the poetic prose-style of Carlyle) he wearies us like a man talking at the top of his voice…”
I think modern poetry has attempted to listen to this complaint, and thus become more plain and modest than 19th century poetry, which tends to exclaim and shout and fall into raptures.
But has this helped poetry today? The more poetry becomes like prose, the more it loses its identity and loses an audience.
What can it do? It can’t rant like Pound, it can’t sound like Longfellow, if it sink into quietude it becomes too much like prose, if it attempt to wink and laugh, it turns into jokes…
Poetry is facing a lose-lose situation.
I don’t want to use this word…
Poets are facing a…
Crisis!
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8281 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:27:45 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8281 To take a more philosophical approach: “Why should I do work for poetry?” This is the question. Before the New Critics, poetry was equated with leisure, not study. Poetry was a way in which brilliant thoughts could be made immediately and quickly accessible to everybody—this was poetry qua poetry’s whole point. The mystery of life could fit in a sonnet. All that was superior in thought and feeling could speak in a poem to any literate person without any indoctrination into what was ‘superior;’ the peasant could see for himself what the ‘superior’ was, and whether it was something he needed or wanted, as long as some vague idea of what was ‘superior’ lived in his aspirations, and if blood flowed in his veins. Poetry was the complex put simply, and ‘put simply’ does NOT, as some may assume, imply complex issues do not abound. Science studies the complex to get at the simple; no one seeks the complex for its own sake; complexity exists in nature until, simplified, it resolves into science on one hand and art on the other. Tackling complexity is the act of the scientist, and the goal is that non-scientists will not be defeated by complexity; the simplicity the science has found saves us, whether from back-breaking labor, or superstition. Poetry is the leisure activity of the scientist, in which the difficulty is drained out of the complex in a cheerful and cheering act, for the sake of all those burdened with complexity which is back-breaking, heart-breaking, or mind-clouding. Non-scientists, too busy with ordinary work to see through the complexities scientists unravel, enjoy poetry that serves up understanding, not complexity. Poetry has no commerce with difficulty in terms of its readership, for work overcomes difficulty, by definition, and poetry—the result--stands opposed to work in an absolute manner. Work overcomes difficulty as a social aim, but not as a social act. Poetry is a social act, without social aim; poetry is free of social aim, which belongs to work. Poetry resides entirely in the social sphere. Morale and social cohesion are poetry’s goal, shared understanding is poetry’s goal, not the studious overcoming of a difficulty, for this is how we define work, and to make poetry similar to work is to defeat poetry’s whole reason for existence. To take a more philosophical approach:
“Why should I do work for poetry?”
This is the question. Before the New Critics, poetry was equated with leisure, not study.
Poetry was a way in which brilliant thoughts could be made immediately and quickly accessible to everybody—this was poetry qua poetry’s whole point.
The mystery of life could fit in a sonnet.
All that was superior in thought and feeling could speak in a poem to any literate person without any indoctrination into what was ‘superior;’ the peasant could see for himself what the ‘superior’ was, and whether it was something he needed or wanted, as long as some vague idea of what was ‘superior’ lived in his aspirations, and if blood flowed in his veins.
Poetry was the complex put simply, and ‘put simply’ does NOT, as some may assume, imply complex issues do not abound.
Science studies the complex to get at the simple; no one seeks the complex for its own sake; complexity exists in nature until, simplified, it resolves into science on one hand and art on the other.
Tackling complexity is the act of the scientist, and the goal is that non-scientists will not be defeated by complexity; the simplicity the science has found saves us, whether from back-breaking labor, or superstition.
Poetry is the leisure activity of the scientist, in which the difficulty is drained out of the complex in a cheerful and cheering act, for the sake of all those burdened with complexity which is back-breaking, heart-breaking, or mind-clouding.
Non-scientists, too busy with ordinary work to see through the complexities scientists unravel, enjoy poetry that serves up understanding, not complexity.
Poetry has no commerce with difficulty in terms of its readership, for work overcomes difficulty, by definition, and poetry—the result–stands opposed to work in an absolute manner.
Work overcomes difficulty as a social aim, but not as a social act.
Poetry is a social act, without social aim; poetry is free of social aim, which belongs to work.
Poetry resides entirely in the social sphere.
Morale and social cohesion are poetry’s goal, shared understanding is poetry’s goal, not the studious overcoming of a difficulty, for this is how we define work, and to make poetry similar to work is to defeat poetry’s whole reason for existence.
Report this comment

]]> By: michael robbins http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8280 michael robbins Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:13:27 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8280 Fifty years ago Jarrell wrote: "One of our universities recently made a survey of the reading habits of the American public; it decided that forty-eight percent of all Americans read, during a year, no book at all." So few people read poetry: a startling development if it weren't also the default condition of the art since it was invented. In Poland people read a lot of poetry, I hear. Worldwide, however, throughout history the percentage of people who read any poetry in the preceding year has hovered around zero. I'm supposed to be shocked by an alleged fifty-percent decline in such reading over a decade & a half? Fifty years ago Jarrell wrote: “One of our universities recently made a survey of the reading habits of the American public; it decided that forty-eight percent of all Americans read, during a year, no book at all.” So few people read poetry: a startling development if it weren’t also the default condition of the art since it was invented. In Poland people read a lot of poetry, I hear. Worldwide, however, throughout history the percentage of people who read any poetry in the preceding year has hovered around zero. I’m supposed to be shocked by an alleged fifty-percent decline in such reading over a decade & a half?
Report this comment

]]> By: michael robbins http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8279 michael robbins Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:51:27 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8279 >>Isn't the root cause the current state of society? Why would someone give a hoot about poetry when there's profit to be made elsewhere, or new material goods to consume, or obnoxious forms of entertainment to easily amuse? Um, you've described "the current state of society" for the last four hundred years, so yr explanations are obviously either wrong or incomplete. Or do you believe profit, material goods, & obnoxious entertainment to be exclusively contemporary phenomena? Let's think a bit harder, people. >>Isn’t the root cause the current state of society? Why would someone give a hoot about poetry when there’s profit to be made elsewhere, or new material goods to consume, or obnoxious forms of entertainment to easily amuse?
Um, you’ve described “the current state of society” for the last four hundred years, so yr explanations are obviously either wrong or incomplete. Or do you believe profit, material goods, & obnoxious entertainment to be exclusively contemporary phenomena? Let’s think a bit harder, people.
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8278 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:46:08 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8278 Sorry about the post above to Michael--that's a thrashing-out which belongs in another thread. Iain, The 92% of the population which does not read--and does not want to even appear to read--poetry, reject poetry, I would assume, for the following two reasons: 1. It is socially irrelevant to them. 2. It gives no pleasure. It's too bad the survey didn't ask about dirty jokes. I suspect the percentage for those who say they read dirty jokes would be close to 92%. A friend emailed me a terrific joke called 'The Hippie and the Nun' today which worked on many levels: social, sexual, religious, plot, character, surprise, form, etc. The author was anonymous. It gave pleasure and it felt socially relevant. Here's the thing. This vulgar joke, 'The Hippie and the Nun,' is actually more complex than almost anything a New Critic typically touches. Yet it appeals instantly to a wide, non-literary audience. So, is poetry actually defined in a sense, for us in the 20th century, as what REQUIRES a New Critic to help us with it? If it doesn't need criticism, it isn't poetry? Thomas Sorry about the post above to Michael–that’s a thrashing-out which belongs in another thread.
Iain,
The 92% of the population which does not read–and does not want to even appear to read–poetry, reject poetry, I would assume, for the following two reasons: 1. It is socially irrelevant to them. 2. It gives no pleasure.
It’s too bad the survey didn’t ask about dirty jokes.
I suspect the percentage for those who say they read dirty jokes would be close to 92%.
A friend emailed me a terrific joke called ‘The Hippie and the Nun’ today which worked on many levels: social, sexual, religious, plot, character, surprise, form, etc. The author was anonymous. It gave pleasure and it felt socially relevant.
Here’s the thing. This vulgar joke, ‘The Hippie and the Nun,’ is actually more complex than almost anything a New Critic typically touches.
Yet it appeals instantly to a wide, non-literary audience.
So, is poetry actually defined in a sense, for us in the 20th century, as what REQUIRES a New Critic to help us with it?
If it doesn’t need criticism, it isn’t poetry?
Thomas
Report this comment

]]> By: Dan http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8277 Dan Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:28:55 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8277 I don't understand the questions in Travis' post. Isn't the root cause the current state of society? Why would someone give a hoot about poetry when there's profit to be made elsewhere, or new material goods to consume, or obnoxious forms of entertainment to easily amuse? I don’t understand the questions in Travis’ post. Isn’t the root cause the current state of society? Why would someone give a hoot about poetry when there’s profit to be made elsewhere, or new material goods to consume, or obnoxious forms of entertainment to easily amuse?
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Chinaski http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8276 Henry Chinaski Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:16:42 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8276 <i>Do you think there is a woman in America who could "relate" to Bukowski?</i> Charles Bukowski was the greatest lover in the history of the world. Women threw themselves at him with reckless abandon, literally dozens at a time. It may have been this constant sexual activity that finally pushed him, prematurely, into the afterlife. It is the remainder of the male gender that women have trouble relating to. Do you think there is a woman in America who could “relate” to Bukowski?
Charles Bukowski was the greatest lover in the history of the world. Women threw themselves at him with reckless abandon, literally dozens at a time. It may have been this constant sexual activity that finally pushed him, prematurely, into the afterlife. It is the remainder of the male gender that women have trouble relating to.
Report this comment

]]> By: Daisy Fried http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8275 Daisy Fried Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:26:49 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8275 Just trying to call out the person least likely to impersonate Bukowski's alter ego, Ange : ) Feeble head-cold driven attempt at humor. Also to say hello. Hello! Just trying to call out the person least likely to impersonate Bukowski’s alter ego, Ange : ) Feeble head-cold driven attempt at humor. Also to say hello. Hello!
Report this comment

]]> By: Iain http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8274 Iain Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:54:08 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8274 Thomas, I think you're spot on when you say that most people don't want to appear to like poetry. On several occasions, I've had people, upon finding out I love poetry, wildly denounce all poetry, only to corner me later asking me who to read. I mean, I don't want to sound like this happens all the time, but it's happened more than a couple times. I'd be very interested in a poll that asked people what stereotypes they associate with poetry and poets. Martin, You said "How poems actually work, the mechanics behind their construction makes for much more interesting copy." I really don't think this can be emphasized enough. I'm very much interested in what any poem is <i>doing</i>, and not so much interested in why someone thinks a poem is "good" or "bad". I'm perfectly capable of placing poems into reductive categories myself, and don't need any reviewers' help. Thomas,
I think you’re spot on when you say that most people don’t want to appear to like poetry. On several occasions, I’ve had people, upon finding out I love poetry, wildly denounce all poetry, only to corner me later asking me who to read. I mean, I don’t want to sound like this happens all the time, but it’s happened more than a couple times.
I’d be very interested in a poll that asked people what stereotypes they associate with poetry and poets.
Martin,
You said “How poems actually work, the mechanics behind their construction makes for much more interesting copy.”
I really don’t think this can be emphasized enough. I’m very much interested in what any poem is doing, and not so much interested in why someone thinks a poem is “good” or “bad”. I’m perfectly capable of placing poems into reductive categories myself, and don’t need any reviewers’ help.
Report this comment

]]> By: Ange Mlinko http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8273 Ange Mlinko Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:47:37 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8273 Me, Daisy? LOL! But I must admit if there were a contemporary poet I would nominate as "relatable" to someone "who lives an average American life" it would be you -- I say that with good-natured envy. But as to why Daisy Fried books aren't flying off the shelves any more than idiosyncratic Ashbery books are -- well, I don't know. What I do know is that the artform my husband has loved very much -- jazz -- is in much the same place as poetry, and the other art form I'm thrilled by other than poetry -- dance -- is equally obscure and tenuous. If we stopped beating up on poetry for a moment, we could maybe admit that poetry is not exceptional. I do think something should be done about its teaching in the schools. I knew a h.s. teacher in one of the best magnet schools in NYC who told me other English teachers simply left poetry out of their syllabuses. They either hated it, didn't understand it themselves, or didn't know enough about it to teach it. <i>That</i> was breathtaking. Me, Daisy? LOL! But I must admit if there were a contemporary poet I would nominate as “relatable” to someone “who lives an average American life” it would be you — I say that with good-natured envy. But as to why Daisy Fried books aren’t flying off the shelves any more than idiosyncratic Ashbery books are — well, I don’t know.
What I do know is that the artform my husband has loved very much — jazz — is in much the same place as poetry, and the other art form I’m thrilled by other than poetry — dance — is equally obscure and tenuous. If we stopped beating up on poetry for a moment, we could maybe admit that poetry is not exceptional.
I do think something should be done about its teaching in the schools. I knew a h.s. teacher in one of the best magnet schools in NYC who told me other English teachers simply left poetry out of their syllabuses. They either hated it, didn’t understand it themselves, or didn’t know enough about it to teach it. That was breathtaking.
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8272 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:04:40 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8272 Michael, John is correct. You are rudely forcing together Hercalitus and Plato, attempting to reconcile 'never step into the same river twice' with an ideal stream. Look at the history of the sonnet. Through the ages they still sound like sonnets. You might argue, well, sonnets are not really poetry... But then, where would you be? Thomas Michael,
John is correct.
You are rudely forcing together Hercalitus and Plato, attempting to reconcile ‘never step into the same river twice’ with an ideal stream.
Look at the history of the sonnet. Through the ages they still sound like sonnets.
You might argue, well, sonnets are not really poetry…
But then, where would you be?
Thomas
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8271 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:55:57 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8271 Martin, You wrote: "For me, you’re comment recalls to mind Cleanth Brooks’s chapter in the The Well Wrought Urn, “The Heresy of Paraphrase” and the whole notion of the irreduciblity of poetry. The new essay by Mathew Zapruder featured on the main Foundation page (is it from the print version of Poetry?) doesn’t really call for a “new kind of poetry criticism” at all, but rather a return to Brook’s nuts and bolts approach." Cleanth Brooks, as you probably know, belonged to John Crowe Ransom’s New Critical, formerly Agrarian/Vanderbilt U. group which invaded the Academy between the wars, turning literary criticism into a “science.” The New Critics wrenched poetry away from its old role of uniting people through art and put it to a new use: the creation of a professorial elite who carved scientific words in the tree of old song. The intimidation factor, which Cathy raised, and which Henry brilliantly illustrated with his ‘sitting too close to the stage’ remark, begins its rise with Brooks and his ‘nut and bolts approach.’ We should call Brooks’ approach the ‘nut who causes audiences to bolt’ approach. Or, 'The Over-Wrought Urn.' Thomas Martin,
You wrote:
“For me, you’re comment recalls to mind Cleanth Brooks’s chapter in the The Well Wrought Urn, “The Heresy of Paraphrase” and the whole notion of the irreduciblity of poetry. The new essay by Mathew Zapruder featured on the main Foundation page (is it from the print version of Poetry?) doesn’t really call for a “new kind of poetry criticism” at all, but rather a return to Brook’s nuts and bolts approach.”
Cleanth Brooks, as you probably know, belonged to John Crowe Ransom’s New Critical, formerly Agrarian/Vanderbilt U. group which invaded the Academy between the wars, turning literary criticism into a “science.”
The New Critics wrenched poetry away from its old role of uniting people through art and put it to a new use: the creation of a professorial elite who carved scientific words in the tree of old song.
The intimidation factor, which Cathy raised, and which Henry brilliantly illustrated with his ‘sitting too close to the stage’ remark, begins its rise with Brooks and his ‘nut and bolts approach.’
We should call Brooks’ approach the ‘nut who causes audiences to bolt’ approach.
Or, ‘The Over-Wrought Urn.’
Thomas
Report this comment

]]> By: thomas brady http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8270 thomas brady Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:08 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8270 The almost neglible response to 'have you read any poetry in the last 12 months' is troubling, I think, because it would be easy for respondents to lie and say yes. Not only do people not read poetry, they don't even want to appear to a be someone who reads poetry. I think we need to look at such data full in the face and not run from it with hypocritical, elitist dodges. Why don't people even want to appear to like poetry? The almost neglible response to ‘have you read any poetry in the last 12 months’ is troubling, I think, because it would be easy for respondents to lie and say yes.
Not only do people not read poetry, they don’t even want to appear to a be someone who reads poetry.
I think we need to look at such data full in the face and not run from it with hypocritical, elitist dodges.
Why don’t people even want to appear to like poetry?
Report this comment

]]> By: Daisy Fried http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8269 Daisy Fried Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:48:06 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8269 Aw, Chinaski--Go back to your job at the Post Office. Anonymous: Henry Chinaski is the name of the Bukowski-type narrator in Bukowski novels. As you can see, yes, there is a woman in America who can "relate" to Bukowski. Though I prefer his fiction to his poetry. Daisy P.S. So who is pretending to be Chinaski? Is that you, Ange? Aw, Chinaski–Go back to your job at the Post Office.
Anonymous: Henry Chinaski is the name of the Bukowski-type narrator in Bukowski novels. As you can see, yes, there is a woman in America who can “relate” to Bukowski. Though I prefer his fiction to his poetry.
Daisy
P.S. So who is pretending to be Chinaski? Is that you, Ange?
Report this comment

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8268 Anonymous Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:07:50 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8268 "Since the death of preeminent American poet Charles Bukowski, there hasn't been any poetry written in America that anyone who lives an average American life can begin to relate to. Perhaps that is the problem." Henry Chinaski, I address you directly: that is a pretty big statement. Do you think there is a woman in America who could "relate" to Bukowski? Actually there are dozens of female poets average women could relate to. “Since the death of preeminent American poet Charles Bukowski, there hasn’t been any poetry written in America that anyone who lives an average American life can begin to relate to. Perhaps that is the problem.”
Henry Chinaski, I address you directly: that is a pretty big statement. Do you think there is a woman in America who could “relate” to Bukowski?
Actually there are dozens of female poets average women could relate to.
Report this comment

]]> By: Iain http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/03/is-this-the-end-for-poetry/#comment-8267 Iain Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:38:52 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=1318#comment-8267 Martin, What I mean by saying "obsolete" is merely that it is technologically obsolete. Portrait painting will never be obsolete in the eyes of a contemporary portrait painter (or those that continue to appreciate it), but for good or for worse, our culture has moved on, and we no longer value it the way we did in an era when the making and distribution of images wasn't instantaneous. This is the fact. As an aside, I think it both far too simplistic to say that this is "bad" as new media offers us very different but just as rich possibilities, and too simplistic to say it is "good" as the best work done in a medium can often be done long after that medium is "dead". It's just the way things go, and this certainly isn't the first time a medium has completely changed the way we approach art. As far as the question "how can poets continue to make a living", I think it's an important question. But I don't trust the answer that print gave us. The Internet destroys the business models that went with print, but I think the free-speech benefits that it offers far outweigh the decline in profit margins that publishing companies are experiencing. And who knows, perhaps I'll feel differently the day I receive payment for a poem. I hope not though. To bring TAPP back in to it: I think if we poets truly cared about the American poetry audience, we'd just stop making poetry, as they clearly aren't interested. But we won't. Because that isn't even remotely why we do this (or at least this goes for those of us who will continue with poetry after the mountains of money we're rolling in dries up). James, Not to promote myself (sort of a odd expression, since that is exactly what I'm about to do), but I've recently tried to discuss (<a href="http://pathologos.blogspot.com/2009/03/4-d-reading.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) the new reading challenges presented by the Internet. A few of the things you've said about the effect of electronic media on our culture seem pretty reductive. Reading poetry doesn't just happen at one speed (and it shouldn't). And the Internet has complicated the way we read far more than just speeding it up (which also isn't precisely what it's done). Poetry (or whatever it's called these days) is very much alive and well on the Internet. Martin,
What I mean by saying “obsolete” is merely that it is technologically obsolete. Portrait painting will never be obsolete in the eyes of a contemporary portrait painter (or those that continue to appreciate it), but for good or for worse, our culture has moved on, and we no longer value it the way we did in an era when the making and distribution of images wasn’t instantaneous. This is the fact. As an aside, I think it both far too simplistic to say that this is “bad” as new media offers us very different but just as rich possibilities, and too simplistic to say it is “good” as the best work done in a medium can often be done long after that medium is “dead”. It’s just the way things go, and this certainly isn’t the first time a medium has completely changed the way we approach art.
As far as the question “how can poets continue to make a living”, I think it’s an important question. But I don’t trust the answer that print gave us. The Internet destroys the business models that went with print, but I think the free-speech benefits that it offers far outweigh the decline in profit margins that publishing companies are experiencing. And who knows, perhaps I’ll feel differently the day I receive payment for a poem. I hope not though.
To bring TAPP back in to it: I think if we poets truly cared about the American poetry audience, we’d just stop making poetry, as they clearly aren’t interested. But we won’t. Because that isn’t even remotely why we do this (or at least this goes for those of us who will continue with poetry after the mountains of money we’re rolling in dries up).
James,
Not to promote myself (sort of a odd expression, since that is exactly what I’m about to do), but I’ve recently tried to discuss (here) the new reading challenges presented by the Internet. A few of the things you’ve said about the effect of electronic media on our culture seem pretty reductive. Reading poetry doesn’t just happen at one speed (and it shouldn’t). And the Internet has complicated the way we read far more than just speeding it up (which also isn’t precisely what it’s done). Poetry (or whatever it’s called these days) is very much alive and well on the Internet.
Report this comment

]]>