ARTICLE

On May 13, 2009 at 1:32 pm mozart wrote:
Poetry is all those mentioned above and more...great post

On May 13, 2009 at 1:49 pm K. Silem Mohammad wrote:
"Poems ... generally ... do not include musings about porpoise dreams or photographs of one's cat."

Clearly you haven't read much contemporary poetry.

On May 13, 2009 at 2:05 pm Don Share wrote:
As Kasey says... see here:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=183537

& perhaps:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=180175

Etc.

On May 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm Jake Adam York wrote:
Is it wrong to wonder now what kind of
blog Allison would keep? I feel robbed
somehow not having an
allisonglock.blogspot.com.

On May 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm tao lin wrote:
hehe:

"How easy it is to tap tap tap your indignation and post, post, post into the universe, where it will velcro to the indignation of others, all fusing into a smug, sticky mess and not much else in the end."

On May 13, 2009 at 3:04 pm Reb Livingston wrote:
Hah hah, stupid, average people thinking
they or what they write have any significance! Stick it to 'em!

On May 13, 2009 at 6:24 pm mAnny cArtolA wrote:
oh i loved this until you wrote "Poems are like diaries too" and i almost threw my computer out the window. but... i do know what you are getting at so i didn't throw it out.

and this: "nothing unites—author and reader, reader and world—more than a poem" outlines a poetics that not everyone follows as well... not sound too silliman or something, but have you ever drowned in a group-hug?

But what about those deep-fried poems that leve all the skin on and even beer-batter it up with guinness?

and what about the fact that every teenager in the world has a blog filled with "emo-poetry?" what about these "group-blogs" going around calling themselves "online journals?"

On May 13, 2009 at 6:26 pm manny again wrote:
oh and isn't it all about twitter now... though we should check back in about an hour...

On May 13, 2009 at 7:59 pm edward mycue wrote:
when is a blog not a blog: when a post?

i start telling about cars:

cars those old muscle cars and dogs in them cars with rumble seats the mid 1940's they were old then and

guys back from world war II had them cheaper then and old old. we loved them. you could duck down under
and into the space inside if it got to windy or cold or you were afraid --or my dad and the guys were worried

abt us as we bounced over potholes and bumps heading down to the river. but I don’t remember what river i

remember 2 guys lived down there after/back from the war and the one had a leg off and he used to grab me up

haul me over obstructions blondhaired hunk with the missing leg but some replacement that kinda worked (my first crush on a guy) maybe in his 20's who my dad used to play baseball with and the other guy

was my dad's buddy from boyscout days or from the tuscarora reservation or both where dad was half raised

by those old indians when his dad william oliver mycue had left --well booted out by margaret powers mycue his wife my dad's mom who from ireland came down the erie canal to buffalo/niagara falls and somehow met

grandpop william oliver mycue in his shop where he made cars and invented and innovated. later called mycue autoparts and repairs. that my grandmother took over. she ran it with the girls, my dad's 4 sisters while

my dad and uncle harold worked in back. until dad became the salesman outside. margaret powers mycue didn't trust men at all and to her william oliver was a

dirty damn protestant, drunk, whore monger (he's been discovered keeping a woman in the apt over the repair shop on pine street). and so margaret powers (my dad's name full is john powers mycue--being the second son

just as i am edward delehant mycue, second son also, named after my mother ruth taylor delehant's father and

just as my nephew is john mycue mcgaha, second son of agnes second of my sisters) found william oliver

drunk, kept him drunk for 3 weeks confined by her and her older daughters possibly marguerite and evelyn

until she got a church separation through her priest and papers signed that the business was then hers and then william oliver mycue was history: my dad was 7 then.
william oliver mycue back from mille lacs, minnesota

area in 1946 when i was 9 when i got to know him. he would buy me a coke after school if i wandered that way to the crystal cafe where he was with his cronies. he'd spin me stories about the mycued past--not the

getting dumped part--new france quebec city and its dispersal into the new england usa and then in 1863 w/a land grant (signed by abraham lincoln HIMSELF who signed all that stuff in those days) to an area known as

"lake vivian" in east central minnesota. my greatgreat grandfather and his son age 12 who became william oliver mycue's dad went there to the parcel next to the harmon’s and who married the harmon girl the mom of

my grandfather william oliver (and not telling me the story of who died this mom in nebraska where she'd fled to her sister--and when he heard this great grandfather went behind the barn blaming himself for something lost in the mists of the past shot himself: and: that is why the family dispersed so that when

william oliver came back, 18 or 19, from spanish-american war in late 1890's with the family scattered)

and that he went onto buffalo and set up an engineering/car making and repairing shop. he told me tales of way back to the sixteenth century, of intermarriage with indians and it seemed like one of

those jeff chandler movies of rapine and violence and the adoption of the boy in the tree surviving the indian

raid that itself was a response to the white people's murders and boys love these stories, i know i did how'd this start’s a thread unbroken to this day as i tell my brother dave the historian (who i don’t think ever listened to grandpop) and have told to

my late brother pete and my sisters margo and agnes and jane and gerarda--who have poopood these stories.
maybe some truth. my cousin richard mycue san antonio architect, grandson of lester my grandfather's

brother (who went to texas with his son roger about the same time as us--1948--we not knowing of them until dad on his brake-lining salesman travels heard that in seguin south of san antonio some mycues were there).

Richard found another story and a name “mique” who was architect of quebec and son of the french king’s architect. from there over a couple of centuries mycues moved into new england and the land grant in 1863.

Grandpa’s stories to me had them coming from near toulouse near yquem (thus the mycue eventually after the french & indian wars when the english won and we were by then still yquems but the conquering officer

reassigning land said there was no name that started w/a y and that we half breeds were ignorant and illiterate –

which we may have been in the conquerer’s language and culture, but grandpa said that they our ancestors

could sign their own name but in the end accepted the new spelling along with title to our rightful land.

grandpa say the french king henri of navarre , who’s mom marguerite had been queen of Navarre when it

was a country half in modern france and half in modern spain; & when he became the big king of france and took the roman catholic religion as a condition of that sent as many of his old protestant cavalier supporters to

the new world in early 17th century i think partly to get them out of his hair and not interfere with henri’s medici wife and partly to save them from her; they went as explorers—protestant one and not the catholic jesuit

ones they make all the noise about in schools—and that

these men married with american indian women and thus were probably halfbreeds and a good thing.

and there is more. but this is not a blog.
it is a story of sorts i call 'cars' to begin with and 'i fled him' here at this close.
something sprung from thompson's "the hound of heaven" & hughes' "dreams".

Edward Mycue

On May 13, 2009 at 9:04 pm Adrian Eve Revenaugh wrote:
That I should find this tasty morsel two hours after calling up a stout wind to drive away the cobwebs and dust from year one of a my social networking/blog.

Providence?

Poetry crawls down under the skin; helps to validate and prod.

Thanks for the sass and three cheers for discretion.

On May 14, 2009 at 1:44 am Paul Squires wrote:
And then there are those of us whose blogs are poetry. You seem to have a very old fashioned and limited idea of what blogging is, an electronic diary or soapbox. I have seen blogs which were themselves works of art, blogs which were multidimensional, nonlinear texts. I have seen blogs in which the writing was the equal of anything I've read on paper, written by shy retiring types who had given up any hope of being published. Perhaps you shoud read more of them before you criticise. By the way, I found this sentence very revealing, "Problem is, most of us are insignificant." In my world, everyone is significant.

On May 14, 2009 at 5:48 am Amy Kane wrote:
I wonder, do people read more or less poetry now because of blogs?

On May 14, 2009 at 6:03 am pauline wrote:
"No, blogs are diaries the way American Idol is “reality,” carefully pruned to present a version of life we all wish were the truth."

Well... yes and no. Blogs are pieces of writing that can be read or not. If one objects to what is written, one has only to not read. The problem with clumping all blogs into one category is that, like labeling "most people" with terms such as "insignificant," there is no effort made to winnow the grain from the chaff. A pity - much that is good goes unnoticed or is silenced when collective labels are slapped on individual efforts.

On May 14, 2009 at 8:56 am jc wrote:
a response

On May 14, 2009 at 11:52 am Enzo Surin wrote:
I think there is room for both. I use a blog to promote poetry, both the craft itself and the writing of it; all to promote literacy. We can easily channel poetry through these forms of media and take advantage of the technology. A text message or a twit could easily be a haiku like piece if pushed to that. I see ample opportunities for poets to be as creative as can be with the technology. As long as the poet keeps writing poetry, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world is writing. "Nothing is new under the sun..." and poetry has managed to remain a strong voice, a time stamp if you may, of the times we live in. No blog will ever replaced that.

On May 14, 2009 at 11:58 am Chuck Keys wrote:
The writing captured me, like I was inside Allison's head moving with her thoughts and words. I was disappointed when I finished, I wanted more. Blogs can be used for poetry. Blogs can be used for anything - the owners choice. My Blog is entirely poetry. I speak my thoughts through my poetry (which I could call my diary).

The bottom line, I was with Allison on her blog journey. I feel very much the same and only hope Allison continues writing. I felt good inside of it.

On May 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm 1979 wrote:
Allison,

I'm a little perplexed at how poetry and blogs seem to be distinct in your thought. Are you implying that Kasey M, Ron S, Tao L. and all the other thousands of blogger-poets are using their blog just to network?

But beyond that minor sticking point. What do you think a blog is? I'm asking because you never really say; you use the word as a touchstone for pretty old-fashioned rhetoric. You seem to long for the "good old days," but were there ever any?

Here's the pattern:

production of form (writing) gets cheaper -> form gets democratized -> lots of crappy writers -> a few good writers conversant with the new form transform/transcend it.

Making publishing easier (which seems to be a perpetual movement since Gutenberg, paperbacks, small presses, blogs, etc...) always leads to bad writing, but the good writing always comes. Don't worry about it!

On May 14, 2009 at 12:51 pm Terry wrote:
I find it ironic that one has a place to "comment", after all that...

On May 14, 2009 at 2:54 pm 1980 wrote:
Blaming the technology of publishing for bad writing is like blaming food for obesity.

On May 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm 1981 wrote:
Blaming the technology for publishing bad writing is like blaming burning oil for releasing dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere.

What kind of an idiot names himself as a year anyway?

On May 14, 2009 at 7:59 pm April L. wrote:
I think the big picture here is about what qulaifies as "connection". Some may use blogs to become connected with others & however shallow or unshallow that connection is-- is dependent upon an individual's interpretation of the blog and what it means to them. Of course, poetry connects folks as well, but on a different level, (according to my interpretation)-- each have their place.

On May 14, 2009 at 8:42 pm Justin wrote:
Poetry is still just words on a page. Poetry will not tuck you at night, will not love. Poetry is not real in the sense you're describing it. More like a good practical joke, as Vonnegut once mentioned.

On May 15, 2009 at 2:03 am martin wall wrote:
That's like going up to a fat, like me, and telling them to eat health bars instead of potato chips. People like blogging because it is an open form, a new form that is being explored by a bunch of newbies all at once.

Blogs are an interesting form, too. You described them as things that people prune to make the best version of themselves. This is like improvisational editing. It tells us things that are interesting.

I don't know anyone that has sea life sexy things in the dreams, and if I did I hope they tell me about it, and if they don't tell me I hope they blog about it.

I feel like a workshop does the same things you say a blog does. Vanity, narci-crisis.

Don't get me wrong, I love poetry, I live by it, and I have stood by it. But that has not kept people close. Sometimes I am in a room for all my free time for a week. And boom, someone facebooks me. I guess I just think this is an unrelated argument. It is like saying Airplanes are awesome, but Batman is better!

Thanks guys!
Martin Wall

On May 15, 2009 at 5:31 am ANA wrote:
I would like you to take a look at my
poetry blogs on myspace because I feel
that they do make a difference in peoples
lives everyday I hope I can change your
mind on "blogs". :)

www.myspace.com/catdogwas

On May 15, 2009 at 11:07 am Jesus wrote:
Let me describe to you, Allison, why you are wrong. Perhaps it is the overall feel of hypocrisy that occurs numerous times while reading this blog that really irked me enough to reply to this.

Now, it occured to me that unless you were some kind of brain dead vegatable, you would have to realize how you sound like a hypocrite in your writing. Which leads to my next conclussion, which is that you did this for a mere stylistic point. Now thats fine and dandy when your creating a piece of art, but it doesn't work when applied here.

If you really desired to make your point, perhaps you should've done it by writing this in poetic form. And one would think, with your obvious love of poetry, you would do so. However, if it was a poem, I'm positive that some idiot with a symbology complex would come up with how it relates to socialism as a whole. I digress, my original point is, seeing as this is from a poetry website, bias should obviously be taken into consideration.

In the process of trying to make a stylized point, you only further alienated yourself and made people like myself feel hypocritical. So I guess in one last, chauvinistic remark I shall write a poem of my own.

Poetry;
a boundless sea of meaning
in which people,
make their stupidity obvious.

On May 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm Oscar wrote:
No, Ms Glock, poetry is not the antidote to blogs. Good poetry is the antidote to bad blogs. And good blogs about process, teaching, and developing relationships with readers, audience, and (gasp!) other bloggers goes hand-in-hand with strong poetry.

The assumption that blogs are first drafts, that bloggers can't actually be writers who care about the content they are sharing with the world demeans the efforts of excellent poets who also happen to blog.

I also disagree with your statement about the "reality" behind blogs. Am I also supposed to question the honesty behind Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet? Is this not also content that presents a “reality,” carefully pruned to present a version of life we all wish were the truth.?

As for my reality, I'll keep reading good poetry and compliment my reading selections with essays like this that by virtue of being on a public website and having an open comment stream is, in effect, a poetry blogpost.

On May 15, 2009 at 8:55 pm blog wrote:
what is a blog? who am I... inside?

On May 16, 2009 at 1:47 am Kevin wrote:
Paul Squires is correct when he says that Glock has "very old fashioned and limited idea of what blogging is." She is, according to her Random House "author spotlight," 33. This would account for it. Glock grew up in a generation in which the internet was primarily the province of sci-fi geeks and pedophiles. Those stereotypes stick even if they soften, and so now everywhere we look we see people over 30 or so writing pieces that premise themselves on an argument about the internet that is fundamentally misguided. Another excellent example of this would be Robert Darnton's NYRB pieces on Google Books over the past year or so.

It's not Glock's fault, really. She is not only biased toward poetry and against blogs in ways that don't seriously account for the complexities of either, but she lacks the generational sense to see it. This, for instance, is simply absurd:

"Instead of fostering actual connection, blogs inevitably activate our baser human instincts—narcissism, vanity, schadenfreude. They offer the petty, cheap thrill of perceived superiority or released vitriol. How easy it is to tap tap tap your indignation and post, post, post into the universe, where it will velcro to the indignation of others, all fusing into a smug, sticky mess and not much else in the end. You know those dinners at chain restaurants, where they pile the plate with three kinds of pasta and five sauces and endless breadsticks and shrimp and steak and bacon bits all topped in fresh grated cheese? Blogs are like that: loads of crap that fill you up. With crap."

Wow, man. Really? I mean--are you kidding with this? Is Poetry's editorial staff this technologically behind? Is there no one there who can think in both poetry and social media? How is this possible?

Ms. Glock, the only thing filled with vitriol here is you. You need better taste in blogs, not protection from them. The overloaded buffet metaphor is also a bit strained here, and vaguely offensive in that you nonchalantly equate working-class food with shitty, meanspirited (low...?) writing--and, again, you're patently incorrect about that to begin with. But granting your loaded metaphor: you can get up and leave the restaurant whenever you'd like. Perhaps you should speak with some younger, more technologically-attuned colleagues more familiar with "the blog world" in order to diversify your range and further your education. Blogs are often shitty. So is poetry. Neither is any sort of antidote to the other. Neither is an antidote to anything.

On May 16, 2009 at 8:31 am Rich Villar wrote:
Kevin, I take it you would like us to agree with your argument that Ms. Glock generalizes liberally in describing what blogs are. That's a pretty decent argument, given the tone of this article...and the irony that it is, essentially, a rant being tossed out into the universe...but then you complement it with a generalization about people over 30 and what THEY think the internet is.

For one thing...since when 30 become the new 90? I'm over 30. So are a number of Glock's detractors on this (GASP!) blog post here. I can assure you, we listen to T.I. too, and we own Blackberries, and we Tweet and we Facebook and we blog. We also remember Prince and the Revolution. I wonder, are YOU over 30? Because, well, you sound like an undergrad to me. (See how generalizations can be wrong?)

It's all about CONTEXT. That's what age and experience can lend you. And it's a tool that both you and Ms. Glock could use a little more of.

On May 16, 2009 at 8:51 am Craig wrote:
A snarky, indiscreet, whining blog post objecting to snarky, indiscreet whining blog posts--how very pomo!

On May 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm Kevin wrote:
Rich, sorry about that generalization--I'm sure there are many people over thirty who can talk about social media intelligently, and in saying that there's a lot of shit out there from older people, I don't mean to imply otherwise. Thirty was an entirely arbitrary number. Nonetheless, the generalization holds extremely well in my experience working in both the humanities and in social media with people from highschoolers to old cooty luddite intellectuals. The older one gets, the less likely one is to be able to have any idea what one's talking about. (I'm not saying anything about how often anyone in any generation uses the internet--that's not the question here. Someone can use Twitter and have a Blackberry and still inept when it comes to thinking through technology in society.) Darnton is an extraordinary example of this. Whether Glock's myopia is best explained by my generalization is another question, but the relative weakness of my generalization--older people talk less intelligently about the internet and all its shit--is about 1/20th the stretch of Glock's thesis.

So I see what you're saying, but my generalization has the advantage of actually fitting the situation--running through her argument and pointing out how it fits the outlook of someone mired in outmoded internet stereotypes would be fairly simple--whereas hers is patently absurd to anyone who has spent any serious time with both literature and social media...and isn't old. Generalizations aren't as good as specific arguments, duh, but that doesn't mean they're perfunctorily incorrect by virtue of being a generalization. And at least in my world--I'm a graduate student, writer, editor, and social media something or other in Silicon Valley--my generalization is quite correct. Which doesn't mean there aren't 60-year-olds who can talk more intelligently about it than Glock or me (whether they use facebook or not--again, not the issue). Haven't met too many yet, and I'll have to stick with that generalization until some social scientist sits down with all this shit in 40 years and tells us all what to think about it. If you'd like to impugn my experience in the meantime, I suppose, that's your choice.

On May 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm Rich Villar wrote:
Oh, yes, Kevin, I am wholly in agreement with you about Glock. I'm also wholly in agreement with Oscar earlier. Similar arguments arise when one discusses self-publishing. It's always the elite foofoos of the world trying to wall out the hordes approaching the gate. Ironically, when the hordes come approaching, there's places like Harriet to come running to. Online!

I was just pointing out your generalization, is all. I generalize a bit myself when I say you sound like an undergrad, but well...you did give me a specific number to get offended by. I suppose there's something to be said, some scholarship, for early child development in the internet age. Now THAT'S hella interesting. Our kids don't know anything BUT the interconnected digital world. But still, assimilation of the older generations by the digital age IS possible. Hell, for some things, you literally can't avoid it. My dad hasn't seen a physical check from Social Security in ten years. Weak comparison, I know, but all I'm saying is, not all older generations are unable to think of themselves in context with the brave new world around them.

Which is where you and I may have common ground: Dude, can we talk about scholars and writers who CAN think of themselves in the context of the digital age, and then choose to box out the new intelligentsia rising from it? This article, to me, does not ring ignorant: it sounds like an attempt to quash something new and interesting, something that can help poetry's popularity and acceptance, and keep the readers of poetry browsing in vain through the half-shelf at Borders.

Sigh. I hate articles like this. Makes me feel ornery. And a little old. Over 30, even!

On May 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm Allen Butt wrote:
While blogs are often problematic, to say that poems are like diaries is equally, if not more so, problematic.

On May 18, 2009 at 7:22 am Flabber wrote:
Kevin, you're saying that if Allison were younger, she'd think blogs were better. I'm sure the college crowd (apparentlly their faorite book is Harry Potter) appreciates your efforts. I couldn't agree with Allison more. The rage, vitriol and egomania in this comment stream backs her up. The more lanes you got on a road, the more bad drivers are going to be trying to kill you. The more microphones, the more bad writers blabbing into them. "This one goes up to 11!"

On May 18, 2009 at 1:54 pm Anthony wrote:
Flabber -

You have the same myopic view that Glock does - that the ubiquity of blogs is also the death knell of substance and quality. You conveniently forget the thousands of bad poets, publishers, and poetry books published every year. I fail to see how one medium of expression INHERENTLY supercedes or outperforms the other.

On May 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm APoet wrote:
Do bad blogs outnumber good poems? Perhaps. But there are good blogs and there are bad poems too.

Blogging and poetry can co-exist. They fulfill different roles, even if they sometimes answer similar needs -- to be heard, and loved, and to connect.

I prefer Facebook.

On May 19, 2009 at 1:02 pm michael wrote:
If this were my essay to write, I'd have said we should read more good poetry and read more good blogs, and I'd opine and report on how the two, as forms and processes, link up to each other and can reinforce what's good and compensate for what's not so strong in the other. But that's because I'm a sensitive, reasonable person, not an overgeneralizing, elitist provocateur, and there wouldn't be any comments on my thread.

On May 20, 2009 at 11:58 am Lynne Downs wrote:
as for the blog...you may as well blame the demise of civility, or more the repudiation of everything our mommas taught us about civility...as for the poetry...for those of us who agree or might at least consider...the connection is as enduring as Gilgamesh...

On May 20, 2009 at 2:31 pm Aaron Clegg wrote:
I occasionally poetry on my blog as a way of helping me connect my experiences to others, and to be more transparent and authentic.

http://aaronjclegg.blogspot.com/2009/05/art-heals-broken-heart.html

Happy reading!
Aaron.

On May 21, 2009 at 12:27 pm Brenda Skinner wrote:
"You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?"

Talking Heads

Pro Blogger
Pro Poetry Person
Pro Social Networking Sites

On May 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm Juan wrote:
This is a ridiculous post. The conception of what a blog is and does is either misinformed or misguided, to say the least, especially because this is a blog post.

As for poetry being a substitute for blogs, that's like asserting that poetry can be a substitute for newspapers or magazines. I blame "The New Yorker!"

You know, poetry can be a substitute for fiction, too. In fact, why ever read anything else besides poetry? The stillness and solace that poetry offers should be enough for anyone. And what are all these blog posts? Noise, that's what! Lists and headlines! Egospheres in print! Why read Deadspin when you can read "Ode to a Nightingale"? We should only ever have one need! We should only ever want one thing!

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

On May 22, 2009 at 8:38 am CalGodot wrote:
Let's see...

A poet using webspace to complain about blogs? Check. Creating a "straw man" she can pound relentlessly, an imaginary thing that fits her argument, without posing even one blog as an example? Check. Confusing Facebook with blogs, demonstrating deep ignorance as well as lack of experience? Check. Ranting about something which she obviously knows little to nothing about? Check.

Congratulations Allison: you ARE a blogger!

On June 1, 2009 at 2:06 pm Stroll wrote:
I am a blogger, an amatuer poet, and I post my poetry on my blog, along side cliche details of my life that probably no one either reads or cares about. This article hits the nail on the head.

On June 9, 2009 at 2:25 pm Tyler David Sherman wrote:
Bemoaning the proliferation of what I
will call instant communications holds a
curious place in communicative
discourse. Voicing a disdain for these
methods of communication can (as far
as I can tell) serve either or both of two
possibilities: 1) informing people of the
vapidity of instant communications,
and/or 2) attempting to affect a
change.

It would be hard to find anyone who
knows what the portmanteau 'blog'
portmanteaus that doesn't already
know of the inanity instant
communication seems to automatically
produce. And yet, Glock spends half of
her essay expounding upon just that
fact. Perhaps she believes it will reach
an audience unaware of instant
communication—though why these
people need to be dissuaded from a
form of communication they are still
astoundingly unaware of (and thereby
will almost certainly never come into
contact with) I'm not sure.

It seems then that Glock can only be
trying to affect a change in personal
expression in the age of instant
communication, namely to excoriate
the resultant degenerative qualities
where (I suppose) the essential human
spirit, or at least Glock's moralist
sensibilities are concerned.

Here Glock proffers poetry as a
solution, in effect to take our lascivious
porpoise dreams, obfuscated them,
liniate them, blend them with equal
parts rhyme and meter, and finally
(and hopefully) a healthy dose of
revision (read: 'consideration', or
'restraint'). I will simply ignore the fact
that revision in and of itself could be a
perfectly viable solution to the
aforesaid problem, if for no other
reason than Glock herself does.

I love poetry, I can't imagine that
anyone reading this essay (or indeed
this response) doesn't. As such I'm
willing to foist any verse, my own or
any other's, on friends and family at
the most unwelcome and inopportune
times (through blogs, even). They don't
much care for it. I don't think it is a
difficult argument to make that poetry
has a definitively limited appeal.
Whatever the reason or ramifications,
poetry has successfully failed to gain
admiration in the public at large. Blogs
and twitter, however stupid, don't share
that problem, as indeed Glock points
out in epigraph.

So then, Glock's essay has ultimately
done two things: 1) informed us of a
problem of which we were already
aware by belittling what's popular for
what we all hate about it, and 2)
proposing an impossible solution to a
problem that will never go away and is,
if anything, getting worse.

So, in review, yes, poetry is great (we
know), and no, it is not the solution to
any problems (at least not this one).

On June 17, 2009 at 2:45 pm Steven Miller wrote:
"Problem is, most of us are insignificant." This is a grass-roots fallacy. As a fellow journalist, writing for the Manhattan "Mercury" (Kansas, not New York), I must point out that the author is writing for Poetry, Esquire, GQ. Glock is not "undiscovered," she is exposed, successful, widely read and appreciated. Four people complimented my last article; I handed three of them the clipping myself. This is not a complaint, but do remember who you are.

Blogs, for the small town writer, ARE a way of connecting, connecting with other writers. They are the home of rejected but loved poems, of creative nonfiction essays-in-progress, of musing that haven't found the right creative shape yet. Narcissistic, yes, but where are these writers who are signing their works anonymously?

On June 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm Benjamin Harrell wrote:
This article is very true. Great post!

On June 28, 2009 at 12:27 am Dena Rash Guzman wrote:
Hi. I'm a poet. I read poetry. I sometimes post my poetry on the internet. I've had the misfortune of reading some pretty awful blogs and poems. I don't think people write bad blogs and poems on porpoise, but on the other hand, sometimes lit happens.

My point boils down to this, Ms. Glock. This offering reads like a sanctimonious blog about bloggers blogging. Blog blog blog. Snore.

On June 29, 2009 at 6:57 am ebbortz wrote:
another sanctimonious "blog" from the academy about a phenomena they can't control...such generalizations...
such assumptions...well you know what is said about assumptions.

On July 16, 2009 at 1:49 am Slimer wrote:
Oh how I miss the 18th century, when we had no blogs, quality poetry, and slaves. I wish blogs had never come along and ruined poetry and slavery.

On September 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm Bill Bartmann wrote:
Great site...keep up the good work.

On January 14, 2010 at 1:14 pm Davide Trame wrote:
I agree with the marvellous words on poetry and I can understand the attack on blogs and blogging.
I write on a blog http://tommasogervasutti.blogspot.com/ I have created almost by chance and I try to keep it avoiding most of what of negative is expressed on blogs in this article and I think many others can do and are doing the same. In other words a blog can "serve" poetry and not at all be in such a violent contrast with it.
Let's not fight monsters who don't exist!