
There’s a scene in Val Lewton’s The Seventh Victim where one of the characters (who eats every night at the same Village restaurant, The Dante) is a poet on the trail of a Missing Person. This poet, Jason, goes to the New York Public Library and flirts with the librarian so that she’ll give him access to the index cards listing the titles each patron has checked out.* He realizes that two characters from different worlds have checked out the same books. What do a perfume manufacturer and a psychiatrist have in common? the poet wonders.
Well, as it turns out, they are linked to the same secret society, a diabolist cult.** The perfumier’s product is called La Sagesse (wisdom), and its corporate logo is the cult’s sigil. The psychiatrist (epitome of a different kind of sagesse) is helping one of its members escape. The poet Jason serves an alternative sagesse in his detective work, and it’s no accident that it begins at The Dante and pivots on the library.
Could it be that there is a profound cultural connection between the poet and the detective?***

A few weeks ago I remarked that if I were to write a book on poetic craft, it would mainly consist of notes on craft from other disciplines like dance or music. I keep a file of such quotes (I guess this used to be called one’s “common-place book” but now it’s just an endlessly scrolling doc on a laptop). I went back to it today and saw that I had juxtaposed these two:
If I had to pinpoint the moment when I stopped feeling lonely as a poet, it would have to be the day I picked up Susan Stewart’s Poetry and the Fate of the Senses at the St. Mark’s Bookshop five years or so ago. Perhaps I am reminded of it because, looking back at my previous three posts, I feel an unacknowledged debt to it. Or perhaps because of the unusual flood of sensation that accompanies the change of seasons. The eruption of molars–my son’s—could be part of it. One can’t avoid reflecting on bodies, pain, and intersubjectivity when a baby lifts his grimacing face to you for comfort, and the burden is on you to figure out the trouble when right through the O of his groan you see the startling white gleam breaking on the swollen gums.
Let’s take a break from theorizing (or not). Let’s play the J’aime/je n’aime pas game, which I am totally cribbing from the bloggers Jenny Davidson and Ed Park, who cribbed it from Roland Barthes, who said:

Nada Gordon wrote in this comment box:
Ange writes that,”the fiercest experimental writing… has always been related to experience in some way.” Ange, could you expand on that? It seems to me like a huge statement and I’m not convinced it’s true.

I heard a fascinating piece of gossip the other day. I heard that Helen Vendler doesn’t believe good poems are ambiguous!
I call it gossip because I heard it secondhand from someone who had heard her say this at some talk or other. At any rate, it led to lively speculations about what separated good old High-Modernist Ambiguity from bad Postmodernist Indeterminacy.* And it dovetailed with this Monet show I was mulling over, which in turn spoke to issues of ambiguity that I’ve been in love with since I first read a poem I couldn’t understand.
For Monet’s Waterlilies series crystallizes the question haunting all art: What is real?

I [heart] A.E. Stallings’s post on the vernacular:
Do I think the “plain-spoken” impetus in poetry has gone to far? Yes. “Plain-spoken” often just means dull and listless and unimaginative writing. Real plain-spoken people are more imaginative than that. “Idiomatic” after all, is Greek for “individual,” for “peculiar.”
There are poets who do plainspoken masterfully, and then there are the imitators. It’s a paradox that beginning students are always struck by: poetry is made up of the language we all use, but not everyone can just toss off poems. Even the plainspoken is a style, wrested through hard-won technique. (I think of James Schuyler, who was W.H. Auden’s personal secretary in Ischia; he once said of Auden’s work, If that’s poetry, I guess I’ll never be a poet. The irony is that one could say the same thing of Schuyler’s work. It’s that peculiar.)
Stallings’s post touched off another set of associations on a parallel track. I, too, was an ex-pat for a while—just a short year—in Ifrane, Morocco, in 1999. It wasn’t long enough to miss the American vernacular, but I became keenly aware for the first time of the jeers aimed at my native tongue. “Ah, American,” a librarian told my husband, wagging her head. “The Berber English!” Berber, of course, is one of the indigenous languages of Morocco, but you know—a redneck dialect. The Queen’s English was like to Classical Arabic. That was just the Moroccan view—you don’t want to know what the British academics thought of us!

These Jeanne Moreau-ish Bourgeois eyeballs (cast upward as, we are told, is proper to champagne sipping) led me to the entrance of the Williams College Museum of Art in a faint drizzle. Autumn has a light touch here: a burgundy fringe on the roadside, gold and blush in haptic patches on the tree crowns, like the burnish on a pear.
Inside, Modernism Concentrate: a Larry Rivers, a Diebenkorn, a deKooning, a Cornell—bang bang bang. Upstairs, a perfect Pisarro. A perfect Piero della Francesca. I wandered through the exhibition on Gerald and Sara Murphy, pausing at video of a Stravinsky ballet that made the hackles on my neck rise as I recalled the quote from Edith Sitwell’s A Poet’s Notebook that I had just been reading that morning in a coffeeshop:
I wrote a comment in response to Simon DeDeo’s response to Don Share’s post below. It dovetails with Rigoberto’s call this week for more reviewing.
I don’t disagree with Rigoberto. As an author, I loved getting reviews. As a critic, I like reading them, especially if the reviewer has style. But what’s in it for the reviewer? If everything you write is positive, you’re seen as merely a booster. If you write anything negative, you’ll isolate yourself. Just to assume the critical distance, the authoritative mien of the reviewer, will isolate you.
These letters to Poetry magazine include valuable information by Eavan Boland, Mary Kinzie, Brian Phillips, Peter Campion, and our very own Emily Warn on what it means to review. I won’t try to paraphrase their considered judgments here.

A few months ago I read Toni Bentley’s and Gelsey Kirkland’s ballet memoirs, and acquired a bad case of self-pity: here was an art so unlike poetry, where the practice was excruciatingly difficult, but the reward so concrete.
As in sports, one can still speak of beauty in ballet. Brian Phillips, in his article “Poetry and the Problem of Taste,” in this month’s Poetry magazine, claims it’s been two centuries since we could speak confidently of beauty, and asks “When was the last time ‘sublimity’ was a relevant idea?” Well, it’s relevant to Barbara Guest, and John Ashbery, and David Shapiro, and dozens of poets who haven’t completely acquiesced to the literalism of society in the age of mechanical reproduction. It’s relevant, possibly, to those of us who find the pop scientism of our day—“Blondness evolved in the north so that men could tell who was young under all those clothes!” “Music evolved so men could impress women!”—so banal as to make Creationists look good. At least, they have better stories.
Thom Donovan
Bhanu Kapil
Fred Moten
Craig Santos Perez
Sina Queyras
Sotère Torregian
Cathy Halley
Michael Marcinkowski
Travis Nichols
Fred Sasaki
Don Share
Beyond Careerism? (Redistributing Poetic... (31)
On the matter of career (40)
To Sonnet, to Son-net, Tuscon Net (55)
All sides now: a correspondence with Lisa... (4)
Women’s History Month: A Salute (3)
Copyright © 2010 Poetry Foundation Contact: mail@poetryfoundation.org Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
Poetryfoundation.org article RSS.
Magazine RSS.
Blog RSS.
Poem of the Day RSS.
Glossary Term of the Day RSS.