I haven’t even bothered to look in for quite awhile and now it’s even worse than before. I’ve got a headache anyway. I mean, who needs this?

Like losing a friend!
Report this comment

Terreson
Report this comment

Another feature that hasn’t, to my knowledge been mentioned: Since Harriet can track who votes how for what, there’s an incentive built in to Vote Up the P-Foundation staff’s comments, and Vote Down those critical of P-Foundation staff or of the institutions of poetry in general, since the P-Foundation is such a major institution. After all, P-Dation staff can see how everybody’s voting! Very interesting to become aware of this on a post about Contests. Oh, the Agon! (Don’t know whether it’s Harriet’s spellcheck or my computer’s spellcheck that doesn’t recognize this word from classical poetics. If it’s Harriet who don’t know “Agon,” please add it to her lexicon.)
Report this comment

It’s Sheila Chamber’s analogies that are disingenuous, Tere, not mine. I never said any activities of poets should be compared to harrassment with a bullhorn outside an abortion clinic, or with rape. Indeed, I said just the opposite. Rachel used the analogy of $5.00 and $500.00 to imply that Thomas Brady’s praise of a poem by his wife was still on the scale of crime, even if it was a very small crime. I said no, that’s chalk and cheese — and went on to explain that it would be like arguing there was something in common between an adolescent shouting at his parents and the fanatic’s bullhorn outside the abortion clinic, that there is, in fact, no comparison whatsoever. I also said it would be like comparing the damage a baby does to the vagina at birth to what a rapist does to the same organ in a rape. I hoped that that over-the-top hyperbole would shock the reader into realizing there was no analogy between Thomas Brady and Bin Ramke whatsoever. They’re not on the same scale!

Such a twisting of the logic of the opposition in a formal debate would have gained both of you nothing but thumbs-down at the Oxford Union, Sheila and Tere, yet here it gets garlanded with green!

Ditto Greenpeace, Tere. I said the angry attack of the Japanese on Greenpeace was parochial and self-interested, not that it was in any way similar to the abuses in poetry. I used that example because Greenpeace is such an effective environmental opposition that most of us admire so much. I suggested that the ugly attacks on Foetry as a protest movement today in America were also parochial and self-interested. Indeed, it’s a very good analogy for the protests themselves, not for the causes they espouse — because the Japanese are willing to accept the slaughter of the noblest creatures on earth just for a little slice of sushi! (You can carry through that anlogy with Foetry on your own.)

Finally, Tere, your analogy with James Agee’s “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” cuts just the opposite from what you want it to. Because what Agee was describing and Walker Evans was photographing was not what Americans wanted to see either, and when the book finally did get published a decade later it was scorned as socially disturbing, badly written, neurotic and exaggerated. Nobody wanted to hear that sort of bad news at the time. Then the Japanese arrived over Pearl Harbor and the book was shelved altogether.

So this wonderful piece of dissension, one of the greatest works of social protest ever put together in America, was dismissed in much the same way as you dismiss Foetry. When I say that I’m not making any anaolgies between the devastating effects of poverty and the abuses of poetry at all, just saying the two protest movements were equally both in our backyard and equally both invisible!

You see, you all don’t want to hear about Foetry any more than Americans wanted to face up to white poverty.

White poverty! Poetry business as usual!

Christopher
Report this comment

Hopefully, no. But I agree, your ‘well-known online expert’ does seem smart–she got the ‘thumbs down’ message right away.”

The attitude expressed here stuns me and not in a good way. The expert referred to, one Dmanister, I know to be an honest broker. She and I agree on next to nothing when it comes to poetry. But she speaks straight and poetry, in and of itself, matters to her. That Ms Chambers hopes a participant will not darken the door again, then gets the explicit approval of Don Share, bothers the beejesus out of me.

F**k me running. Maybe Mr Brady is right after all.

Terreson
Report this comment

Nice, Matt. Good one. You rock, dude.
Report this comment

You wrote:

“I think you’re holding Thomas Brady’s feet a bit to the fire here, aren’t you? After all, that’s not his real name but just a sock-puppet appellation for someone who may be the re-incarnation of yet another sock-puppet, Monday Love, who seems to have had a wife that he loved, and with whom he may or may not have had children. Just because in the midst of all that this so-called ‘Monday Love’ praised a poem that may or may not have been by his wife in a totally unofficial, unpaid for, un-solicited, anonymous, back-water, on-line riff with no connection whatsoever to any contest or advancement, that’s hardly a moral lapse.”

Although I can’t find your original post (or my first response to it), you were the one who posted a link to foetry and encouraged people to go there and take a look at the good work “Thomas Brady” aka “Monday Love” did on that site. I followed your suggestion. I’m sorry if you don’t like the results.
Report this comment

Moving on here, Shiela Chambers’ most recent comment brings something to mind. She writes:

“Your analogies are startling to say the least. Even with the most egregious of poetry sins (e.g. the Jorie Graham contest debacle of years ago–or maybe the “grooming” of the modernists and resulting banishment of Shelley from the canon) it goes without saying that there is nothing in even the deepest, badest, most connected activities of poets that compares to harrassment with a bullhorn outside an abortion clinic, or rape, or any other real-world problems. Equating Foetry and Greepeace? This is why you (and other Foetry-ites) finally come across as ludicrous. The Foetry “cause” is really quite a trivial one by any measure. And those involved are unconvincing, finally, because real poets don’t spend their mental energies on these matters for years or even days or even hours. They write. Unless, of course, they can’t.”

It was years ago when I read what I suppose is a minor, maybe not so minor, American classic. Agee’s “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.” It is his report on Deep South poverty during the Great Depression. His report and Walker Evans’ photo essay on the same group of sharecroppers they covered. Agee’s introduction makes it clear he is grappling with a similar worry: how much does art matter when there is so much suffering in the world. The message that comes through is that it matters precisely because there is so much human suffering in the world. I pretty much agree, especially when it comes to poetry. By extension I also feel that the exposure of any scandal in the poetry world matters too.

Terreson
Report this comment

It makes me larf: how the reds and greens have played out.

Great idea Trav, I’d love to hear the genus of this ‘handy’ add-on you crazee intellectuals here at Hairy ‘Ed thought was a cool kinda carry on – yeah – real dudz ee innit.

What’s the score with the two hundred million? How best can you lot get yer mits on it? Who does the dishing up the dough, please? I mean, who’s in charge of the lolly?

Just asking: no probs if it’s ATS code no we don’t want to tell you that Dear Reader.

It’s just I am wondering if i can get a few Jacksons for time earned, please Hair ‘Ed?

~

I reckon the instigator’s will be remembered for the red and green gig, because it’s so simple: over eight and in the seal goes. For some reason, the scene – yeah – as/is t/here, is really vibrant and the ones who will be remembered for their contribution to the world of Letters on Hair ‘Ed, for poetry per se: aint gonna be me or anyone redded to the max; but those inoffensive y’alls who know what being dead cool is, because they know the here and now is only of a modo see.

Thanks very much, it’s all a load of bollix anyway: we’re all gonna die, as Jack told America on Allen when asked why he wrote poetry.
Report this comment

Yes, you are indeed “The Establishment”.

And you are completely out of touch.
Report this comment

You do make a good point.

We’re all tempted, aren’t we? I guess that’s what we mean by ‘a society of laws, not men.’

Thomas
Report this comment

Yea, Sheila’s right. Every ‘real-world problem’ eclipses whatever we might have to say about poetry. How can we dare to address issues in poetry when there are so many ‘real-world problems?’ Bullhorns outside of abortion clinics, rape, the War of 1812, the Lisbon Earthquake, hunger, poverty, auto insurance, tooth decay, death.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here…

(Bullhorn) MOVE ALONG. SHEILA HAS SPOKEN. THOSE WHO RESIST WILL BE DISLIKED.

I REPEAT: THOSE WHO RESIST WILL BE DISLIKED. DON’T MAKE US DISLIKE YOU.
Report this comment

There’s a story in the UK that Anthony Thwaite once rang up Douglas Dunn and said “This is the London Literary Establishment calling” — and that Dunn believed him. (When asked about this in an interview, Thwaite said, “I don’t really want to get drawn into that, if you don’t mind.”)

Here’s another: when John Gross took over at the TLS, one of the first things he did was call William Empson to ask for his services as a contributor. Empson said: “Oh, it’s you. Are you in the chair already?’” Gross answered, “Yes.” A long pause. Then Empson said: “Does it swivel?”

In other words – sure, I’ll take the blame!

Sincerely,

The Poetry Establishment
Report this comment

Your analogies are startling to say the least. Even with the most egregious of poetry sins (e.g. the Jorie Graham contest debacle of years ago–or maybe the “grooming” of the modernists and resulting banishment of Shelley from the canon) it goes without saying that there is nothing in even the deepest, badest, most connected activities of poets that compares to harrassment with a bullhorn outside an abortion clinic, or rape, or any other real-world problems. Equating Foetry and Greepeace? This is why you (and other Foetry-ites) finally come across as ludicrous. The Foetry “cause” is really quite a trivial one by any measure. And those involved are unconvincing, finally, because real poets don’t spend their mental energies on these matters for years or even days or even hours. They write. Unless, of course, they can’t.

Christopher, you imagine there’s an establishment in poetry, one that has engaged in nefarious acts in order to advance their chosen people. And some of them are connected in some ways through school or work or friends–you know, like in the rest of the world–and some of them write positive reviews of their wife’s poetry to help advance her career. But if there is an establishment in the poetry world, well, you’re at its doorstep here at the Poetry Foundation. So where is it? Is it Don Share? Hey, Don, are you to blame for all this?

Re: “Do you think she’ll be back anytime soon?”

Hopefully, no. But I agree, your “well-known online expert” does seem smart–she got the “thumbs down” message right away.
Report this comment

Well said, my man! Well said.

Gary
Report this comment

It’s like condemning a vegetarian as a hypocrite because he uses bug spray on his skin, or a pacifist because he admits he would use force on an intruder who was threatening his family, or a conservationist because he’s willing to praise a social program financed by Shell or by Chevron. It’s not $5.00 and $500.00, Rachel, it’s chalk and cheese! It’s like comparing what an adolescent shouts at his parents with violent harrassment with a bull-horn outside an abortion clinic, or what a baby does to his mother at birth with what a rapist does to his victim!

And there are a ton of other important points to be made in response to you, but I don’t want to miss the wood for the trees.

The fact is that in any democracy an opposition is essential, but nobody ever said that would be easy. When I was at Saint Paul’s School in Concord New Hampshire in the 1950s, out of the 450 boys there were only a handful of Democrats, and to have worn an Adlai Stevenson button would have earned you scorn and probably a beating. Only two out of the entire school body had the courage actually to vote Democrat in the mock election the school held And for what did they hold that election? To help the boys gain in civil awareness!

I’m so shocked to find that I have to be careful now when I travel in America not to say I’m a liberal. I mean, a liberal! Is that a political position Americans, of all people, should be be ashamed of? And as I understand it there are many Americans who really hate Greenpeace, and think that calling yourself a Socialist means you must be a Communist!

And look what you’re doing on Harriet? You’ve just had a visit on this thread from a well-known on-line expert, ‘Dmanister’ — as well-informed and as dynamic a literary historian as I’ve ever encountered on the net. And you plaster her all over with red?

Do you think she’ll be back anytime soon?

You’re fear of Foetry needs some hard re-examination, dear Harriets. Foetry was a movement that benefitted you all, you know, just as breaking into that ship in Boston Harbor and kicking all that expensive tea over the sides into the harbor benefitted you too. The Greenpeace activists in the Southern Ocean are detested in Japan; would you be proud to be compared with them in your destestation of Foetry, that you were as self-interested and paroichial as that?

Christopher
Report this comment

Upthread you wrote: “but simple literary connections don’t have to be hidden, do they?”

Then why hide your connection to your wife while pretending to be objective while praising her poems? You say you would never do what Robert Penn Warren did or what Jorie Graham has done. Okay, I’ll take you at your word, but I hope you can see why some might be skeptical. If you steal $5 (I’m speaking metaphorically here as Christopher admonished I should), why would anyone trust you with $500?
Report this comment

I would never ‘officially’ praise my wife’s work, nor would I attack it anonymously in an under-handed way to generate sympathy and publicity.

Where do we draw the line in tricking the public to get them to read (favorably) poetry we like?

I thought my remarks were rather casual. I do think her poems are the best in that entire issue, but this, of course, is what ‘we can’t talk about,’ the fact that her poems are good, and I understand why, but I do find the whole thing fascinating for that reason.

An added factor is that I knew the people who published her and I knew they knew that I knew they did so, and I also knew she published their first book, and they turned out to be my accuser–which is fine, I have no problem with that, though I do think it was a bit cowardly when they told her she couldn’t read at the reading for the issue in question simply because of the very minor controversy; it was some tit for tat thing, but it was a very, very minor issue; if I know X who publishes me, that shouldn’t be such a bid deal, but I guess I don’t understand the secrecy and the defensiveness; so my wife was barred from the public reading by them for reasons that were no fault of her own; I do think we can all be a bit more honest and open about these things, but I understand how poets don’t like to have certain things known. But that’s all behind us now–we’re all still friends and I don’t want to stir things up again; it’s petty and it’s not worth it. God forbid we invade each other’s privacy, but simple literary connections don’t have to be hidden, do they?

The worst offense, by far, is what Robert Penn Warren did, his Pultizer Prizes be damned, publishing and praising his living friends in an influential school text book for young people–I find that inexcusable, and rotten poetry, too. That’s what I want to focus on. Of course it wasn’t just Robert Penn Warren; his associates and colleagues were doing it, too, and he was just going with the flow. It was the system that was to blame, finally.

The “Jorie Graham Rule” is important, but there’s a fascinating history to this, and getting indignant and riled up about it gives me pleasure; it’s the most important thing in poetry right now, in my opinion.

Thomas
Report this comment

I have no problem with you praising your wife’s work in your review. “Tacky” is the word that comes to mind, however, for the way you praised her poems without disclosing the fact that she is your wife. I already acknowledged that there is a difference between awarding a contest prize and writing a review, but, as I also stated, I think the difference is one of degree not of kind.
Report this comment

And no, I’m not sexually aroused about it. (That’s what “hot and bothered” means, I’m pretty sure…)
Report this comment

Not all of them say ‘final,’ though, do they?

Why get so hot, bothered and defensive about it?

Geez…

Making the issue clear and fair for everyone…

Well, how do you do, what a concept!

Thomas
Report this comment

No one likes a wise-ass, G&T in hand, pontificating
in a New boy-man toy emporium, Tom ‘n Matt a hooting:

..this poem goes back to Nat Cole King

Two coal’s ridge

clung toys and scattered trains
phat visits to a commuter-store

belt, visiting Roaches Stores
offering toddlers money off a tank
plenty of ‘em all over the shop

…nothing in new forms, on the critical lam
from FM Kilmainham. Escape, as always, at Elsinore
Tao-men tragedies from a merry dark marsh, mein
ghost

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

on a swollen party blog barging across to a Joker
rheumy-eyed, we speak a somewhat sullen poker voice,
sotto faced, smashed to the jam of what first
appearance at Brooklyn’s tao-man store, in front
of Carruthers bailed to null point..

..was a melancholy occasion: growing younger, getting on one, both being old and y’all

“..gotta do diz, gonna be da
owing,” we said.

No scam !
however commonplace, wherever stolen;
then died somewhat: no fanfare nor flim-flam,
just obnoxiously dropped, as always
- to our nees.

s/he was a felon,
A brute, a drunk, a sob-sister
we sung there in paradox our whole life long

Anon check/s bailed to a null point clique: Laura Riding, Robert Graves, Iowa Paul Engle, chosen for the Yale Younger by a New critical log-jam spreading it about – blockages stopping professional love expressed successfully by our source party στο λεωφορείο της αγάπης on the bus of it, as we did you know, in a Big Sur l’autobus de l’amour – all that jizz yizza givin ow, de wah ‘n ohmm:

Ford Madox Ford..hung..with Pound when first (pound) got off the boat from America..(who) stayed with Allen Tate in Tennessee when Robert Lowell went to see me dearest deepest darling pal T: Tate and Lowell way back, as we who study new Rhode critic John Crowe Ransom and the sweetest scholar’s FA Daly, grandson of a pre-poetry painting expert R picked up at

Whitman, when nobody who was really reading him, in America‘s sheer Noh poetry stores Karl M Jah reckons,

got William James so influential at Harvard

Tommy Stearns, Gertrude Stein, Wallace Stevens – all a William James clique. John Ashbery’s only Gertrude Stein in drag and ewe jay who, we’re talking a dozen, maybe twenty four people defining 90% of poetic thought. from America’s literary beginnings until now

..iT’s our position: that Modernism is a knowable body of scholarly directed group calisthenics, as a form of synchronized physical training – is the poetic subject – in college for the last 60 years New Critics upped ‘emself to know-con ideas in which anything goes and faction is the old fiction, in a somewhat relaxed mode of knowing perhaps, but one knowing what’s going on in the field of expert poetic/s.

Are you kidding me? we may ask

The air they breathed Matt, but we cannot avoid it because poetry is back in and on the self-as-programme shelf where all’s y’all da Cajun Jah we don’t reject, not consciously, or unconsciously at least; because as we enact our Modernist agenda, hopelessly out of touch and old and behind the times i agree; Ashbery is actually M@T, knowing who Jah is not – like – now man.

..y’all gonna get crowned king of PC Technical College Homecoming Pardre Parade 1973. Some great new poetic posts come along, coz s/he as/is was the culmination of nice home of our polite philosopher, Jah and, thus Ashbery wasn’t just the future–he was the past also, which made Jah Ashbery da Man, avoidable souljah Sir John, still avoidable to most I know, i’m afraid – where poetry lives after Ashbery, and frankly, Ashbery has been ‘it’ for over 30 years. Think about that.

The ‘Age of American dworbs’ doom where we all grew up and live in, unknowing we’re merely the next chapter of as/is it is; 200 half-centuries for our Curruthers Emerson James Eliot Ashbery-Hayden heights, down the pan, and now, where The real new criticism livesm, is a handy guidebook to it all. New Criticism isn’t some small window of specialized poetic knowledge; it is THE doctrine of THE triumphant line – my American poetry, stretching back to the original don, Donald Emerson Shakespeare, duckie luvs and dickie dworbs tweeting at the fleet above ‘em, fighting for what cause the music makes happen, A.

Ovid Yeats.
Report this comment

And the poems you both chose were spot on as well–and of course we needed that detour about music.
Report this comment