Thursday, December 31, 2009

Galloping Gallimaufry

Zach Wells kindly reminds me that the poems in Jailbreaks: 99 Canadian Sonnets had to be written in English, which leaves out Faludy's Hungarian-composed sonnets, as well as those of other deserving Francophone poets.


-----------------------------------------------------



From Kevin Connolly, in a CBC interview: "There's always a part of the poem that stays stubbornly foreign to the poet. In a sense, it wouldn't be an interesting poem to write if it didn't. Somehow summing up what you meant to do in one particular line seems like a betrayal of the whole impulse which most poets don't care to admit. But it's largely intuitive. At least at the start, the urge is intuitive. If we [Connolly, A F Moritz, Jeramy Dodds] could give you a straight answer and say what our intentions were from day one, I don't think we would have written the poem."



------------------------------------------------------



I'm a big believer in setting the bar low so's to easily succeed in acing my New Year's resolutions. Who am I kidding? There's no bar at all since I don't make any. But this year, I've promised myself to be less tolerant, so I'll not read as many books of poetry that don't grab me even at one read part way through the volume. Those I don't finish I won't blog at all. I suspect there'll still be a lot of negativity, though, since (among those finished) there's often a lot of bad or indifferent verse mixed with the good.



------------------------------------------------------




AWAY IN A MANGER


Those three wise guys and the dim, dull star,
The cattle bowing in years'-honed boredom,
Innkeeper belching to the rhythm of wind
Bunting ornaments against the inn bar.

The present, the promise, the cradle: the scent
Of pine and cane sugar and after shave
Overwhelm that snow circle with mocking
Of Lent. Hands up. Who here cares about sin?

Monday, December 28, 2009

Longer Notes On All Books Of Poetry Read in 2009

A more detailed record than last year of every poetry book I read in 2009. Only 44 books were read cover-to-cover, at least once, this year, down from last year’s 83. That’s because I read more novels, essays -- poetic, but also political, historical, environmental, cultural -- plays, and pre-WW II poetry. In no particular order:



Catherine Owen, The Wrecks Of Eden. I reread this recently after my first encounter with it in April. On my last pair of contact lenses before heading into town for a refill, the words blurred, and I read the following, from “First lines [3]”: “or a moose skirmishing in my ear”. (The actual version is “or a mouse skirmishing in my ear”.) That 1/32 inch umbrella arc I imagined between “o” and “s” is indicative of how my imagination failed me throughout this collection. A phantom woodbug’s leg pops up, and a cat’s toy becomes an ornery half-ton antler-lowered charging salt-licker breaking free of my hearing. Writing of extinct species is a monumental problem: how to infuse believability and particularity into lifelike elegies for animals, birds, and insects one has never seen, and will never see? Even more problematic was a poem on arguably the most seminal environmental (and wo/man-made), cultural extinction on record: Easter Island. I simply couldn’t formulate these worlds. Imagination can’t do the entire work of reality, no matter how arresting some of these images turned out.

A. F. Moritz, Early Poems. (already blogged). Spurred on by an impenetrable wall put up between the poems in Rest On The Flight Into Egypt and my own understanding, I devoted a lot of time to this volume last December-this January. Usually, such an effort doesn’t pay off, but behind the prominent allusions and surreal reworking of merged fantasy and history was a seeming cohesive visionary framework. Moritz’ first four books of poetry, compiled here in one volume, pare those allegorical signposts down to common elements. Ideas remained on the page much of the time, but when anecdotes or recognizable landscapes were drawn -- in what would have been a short road to boredom and redundancy in the underworked fingers of a lesser talent -- Moritz shone with profound insight in a number of startling poems.

Jay Ruzesky, Painting The Yellow House Blue. Conversation with oneself which goes on and on and on. Line breaks were so arbitrary and distracting that, by the second half of the book, I read quickly so’s to make the prosy chat (however intimately felt and translated) more seamless. There are an awful lot of Canadian poetry books in this period (1992 - 1996) which seem transcriptions of stream-of-consciousness talk. However witty some of these poems are, the efforts don’t rise above the slightness of their reminiscences of mild teenage confusion. And another failing of the time (and continuing to today): the vague meaningless moods which try to effect suggestive profundity, as in a waitress “pictur[ing] herself/on a Greyhound bus moving/like a pike in the/windows of buildings/steadily on toward/some former life” from “She Draws a Calendar”.

Adam Getty, Reconciliation. “Unpainted” has provoked the strongest anger in me of any poem read this year. Especially the last stanza. But even this early passage is infuriating: “It was as if the box/of earth I sat on,/dwarfing the purples and blues on unknown flowers/(probably toxic -- /all brightly colored, naturally occurring phenomena/are), had become/a blocky mountain or pedestal overlooking the psychedelic earth”. Yes, it’s probably toxic, (actually, why “probably”?). Fruits and vegetables, even back in the ‘good ole days’ were/are treated with toxic oil derivatives, the meat with hormones and steroids, those animals we ingested themselves having ingested offal and filth, and having their own hormones altered by fear. The grass was sprayed -- walk into any cheery garden retailer, even today, and count the octosyllabic words and triple Xs. Potential melanoma dozed and was pricked through layers of epidermis by midday sun when we were eight. So what? That doesn’t cancel imagination’s beauty, but more to the point, it doesn’t make a reverential authentic pleasurable experience suspect simply because it seemed joyous. Getty makes a hierarchy of the elements (where’s the missing fourth -- fire?), water getting the number #1 slot, serenely authoritative and original. But it is that much maligned element, air, (in this poem, as well as in popular unthinking parlance -- “airhead”, “airy nothing”) which is responsible for the creative force. Fire emboldens air’s creation and makes intelligent distinctions, and water/earth (in comprehensive Ayurveda, having the same properties, not the false and hierarchical dichotomy as Getty relates) refines and completes the process (be it the growth of a poem or a potato). But without air, nothing happens. “Always/obscured”? No! One can have a transforming experience, later doubt or forget it (consciously, at least), and then deny the veracity of all present moment transformations. But that says more about that one’s present confused state than the original experience (or “non-experience”, if you want to frame it in the reverential negative tradition). When the present doubts the past, then we have the postmodernist nonsense with the unreliability of all language, which, in certain circumstances is justifiable, but which solidifies into a religion with them. (Even free verse lyricists like Tim Lilburn subscribe to this view.) Yes, happiness can be a trick of the memory (Irving Layton), and is even impossible out of the present moment (Jean Klein). It can be distorted by both fading of original experience and the filtering mutable psychology of the seer. But though the memory of the original experience is faulty, the first imprint is often not also a memory. The powerful impression is not “psychedelic”, a mirage. Else why is Getty at such great pains in Reconciliation to transcend drab existence? Is the memory only cellular, anthropologic? There has to be a vivid memory of an actual transformation, a transformation in the present moment, or else the longing wouldn’t be powerful and persistent. I loved the book’s closer, “The Maid Of The Mist”, in which Getty’s oracular flourish is finally matched by a corresponding scope. A sameness of tone pervades the book. I think the long poem would suit Getty’s painstaking, patient, searching, thoughtful narrative underbelly probing procedure better than the numerous shorter pieces where the conversational, flatter tone is cut off without much chance for propulsive development.

Adam Getty, Repose. “Song For The Fallen Leaf” is a lovely turning dream ballad, drenched by the slow waters of … well, repose. Heavily indebted to early Yeats. Also, touches of Blake: (“fearful symmetry” -- “servile symmetry”). Rereading Repose after a ten month absence, I’m exhilarated. I was wrong regarding Getty’s strengths perhaps being exclusively the long poem. He’s hooked multiple musical instruments to his previously a capella plaintive voice, and he plays them with sure hands. Rhythms, surprising waves, rather than the isochronal, slight variations on a hidden lake. And that voice! It’s been freed. I love gritty, mood-moribund poems as much as the next steelworker, but, unlike early Bly and Kinnell (and their supporters), if the subject matter is bleak, I especially want it to sing and dance with multiple colours and rhythms. The contrast between subject and procedure highlights either pole. Too often poets fall into the trap of joining content and form in like manner, forgetting that effective meshing doesn’t always mean homophonic faithfulness. “Hamilton” owes a left thumb, if not a left lung, to Blake’s “London”. Hide the theft better! We can see your hand in the cookie jar! Perhaps the five intervening years between his first book and Repose have seen Getty incorporate lessons from the Romantics who -- not just Blake -- often get an unfair rap for talking of “feelings”, for being effeminate. But the masculine sounding Percy Bysshe Shelley, no less than womanizing, channel-swimming, civil war fighting Byron, turned a brave and cold eye on (then) current politics, psychological depravity, and social unrest. Of course, they also churned out longish masterpieces, so maybe there’ll be a social tour-de-force poem from Getty yet. Yes! Listen to this rhythm from “Reply To A Caseworker”: “If I was pissed I let one fall, meant/to see it splatter.” The accented beats are loud, unflinching “fuck you” retorts to the boss. Anyone who’s worked in a soul-destroying job or twenty knows this isn’t just wish-fulfillment, but commonly plotted, creative sly responses to thwart inhuman productivity. I like Getty’s patience combined with the confidence (personally and stylistically) in this book. “Snapshot” is wonderfully condensed; gone, here and elsewhere in Repose, are the even-paced long walk of pronouns, connections, participles, and articles that often marred his first book. After reading the title poem, I wonder whether I was completely off base in my critique of “Unpainted” (was it ironic?), or whether Getty has done a 180 spin. Memory is now a prod for fond reveling. And the focus here and in much of the volume, against that in “Unpainted”, is that memory belongs to a constantly voiced “I”, an I with a distinct, compelling personality, thankfully.

Mary Dalton, Merrybegot. Slang, vernacular, lexical curiosities steeped in regional history aren’t ushered into this Dalton volume to act as a pick-me-up, but are inseparable from the thought-and-feeling processes of the speaker. Wonderful name-calling! Similes and direct, compressed metaphors that can bite your head off, or at least the head of the one they’re directed to. Sexual description is always a minefield of potential embarrassment, especially now in our ultra-self-conscious postmodernist precautionary mode. Here’s how a suggestive line or two can still infuse power into what should always be a primary topic of poetic exploration: “Our quilts the most rumpled. …. Our sweat on his shoulders.” (from “First Boat”). And when much of our poetic characterization favours the contemplative, the regretful, the sad, the diseased, the shamed, the stuck, the guilty, the fearful, the alienated, it’s more than refreshing to encounter not only exuberant sketches of individualized characters, but to have those people celebrated rather than as a target for mocking, anger, or ironic distancing.

George Bowering, Kerrisdale Elegies. I first read this shortly after it came out in 1984. Recently rereleased by talonbooks, I tried again since it’s often been called Bowering’s best. Well, the audacity of a reviewer who pretends to deal with a 127-page sequence with short sound bytes. Joyce’s Ulysses deserves as much respect as Homer’s epic, and Rilke’s Duino Elegies should get no greater supplicatory scraping of the knees than …. But, to continue. “The ones who left dont need our voices.” This is a book of elegies? “Taking that pitch/and standing still in the batter’s box is nowhere.” What if the pitch is a ball, unhittable? And a batter who takes a pitch is not a passive observer “standing still”. Whether a pro or not, the batter is all coiled tension and concentration when the ball sails over the plate. The best decision is often a non-decision. But of course, even in the “emotionally naked” Kerrisdale poems, “subtle irony” can always and still be used as an excuse to any argument. (What would Rilke say about that?) Baseball metaphors are as stale as my attic-hidden science-experiment high school gym bag. Or maybe it’s just Bowering’s and Donald Hall’s obsessions with the baseball-poetry connection that bores me when reading page after page of pretentious prosy fragments. ”Only by watching the birds fly do we know/there is sky between the trees.” Oh, yeah, sensei Bowering! Substitute “I” for “we”, and I’ll buy it. After all, as Bowering says, “someone/has to pay for it.” Not I, alas.

Shannon Stewart, The Canadian Girl. Rooted in the flesh, Stewart’s concerns highlight the hypocritical gentilities still rife in sexual attitudes. Like Mary Dalton, Stewart doesn’t apologize for discussing sex and the decaying flesh. In fact, half the point is to rub the reader’s nose in it, or more exactly, the noses of those Mrs Grundys who not only haven’t retreated but who have become more powerful by clever, intellectual association. (The other half of the point is to rejoice.) Unfortunately, Stewart doesn’t show Dalton’s concision. Power is deflated by expositional filler, especially in the first part of the book, so that various phrases and lines are unnecessary and cumbersome. As a first book, this is typical, but Stewart shows an intelligence and capacity for the strong image, metaphor, and pithy conclusion frequently premised on curious and fascinating fantastical scenarios. (How many poems -- or poets -- can make you feel sorry for the fate of a fart?)

John B. Lee, Totally Unused Heart. Rampant similes in Lee’s The Pig Dance Dreams (which I blogged last year) are still prominent in this volume. From “My Wife at the Window Watching”: “slow flurries falling/ … in the dark/and people are pausing/like chess moves/under street lamps”. Haunting, stimulating association! But why not up the ante? I think, here, of David Solway’s excellent “The Powers Of The Pawn” from Chess Pieces. I realize that Lee’s poem has a different focus, but a good poem should be as specific as possible. The pausing king suggests much different meaning than the pausing queen. It’s frustrating because, as I noted for a few poems in The Pig Dance Dreams, Lee can craft stunning metaphors. My own supposition is that his successes are so hit and miss (mostly miss) as a result of his prolific desires. 61 poems, many two pages or longer, score this trade volume, which now total 30 +. That’s a lot of composing, and, dare I say, not so much time refining. It also doesn’t help that this was published under the aegis of Black Moss Press, whose editorial negligence is disgraceful. (More on that later, reviewing another poet.). A terrible simile enters the ledger in “At Heaven’s Pleasure”, “the tip of a purple star has pierced the pavement/like a ghost with a headache”. Ugh! How can a bloodless emanation have a headache? Surprising effects don’t cover for fallacies. It’s OK if you don’t have a book (or more) out next year, John. There are many other poets to read and reread in 2010. The poetry readership will manage just fine.

Patricia Young, Here Come The Moonbathers. I enjoyed Young’s More Watery Still (blogged last year). I can’t say the same for her most recent volume. In MWS, the images are (wait for the eye-rolling word!) beautiful, but more importantly, apt for the sunny emotions combined with mild nostalgia. HCTM is much more ambitious, but she’s not up to the task. The tone often strains to profundity by way of cute, cross-narrated detail, and it’s a combo I have problems with. Connections may be clear for the author, but whether one story is a direct metaphor to the other (within one poem), subordinate to it, purposely fragmented so’s to “illuminate” by randomness, part of a larger allegory I’m deaf to, or just gives up in vague intonations in lines such as “my eye cocked/toward Paradise” (from “Deluge”) or “[t]his one’s whole life a backdrop behind him --” (from “September Train”), I felt a huge shift between the immediacy and honesty of More Watery Still and the laboured, congested efforts here. Literary and cultural references make frequent appearances, narrative detail is at times exhaustive, but this makes for bulky, toned-down poems. Humour, thankfully, hasn’t disappeared, and the reader is treated to “Tormenta”, about border authorities trying to threaten while handicapped by a language barrier. And Young tries out many different forms, including, but not limited to, pantoums, free verse, prose poems, disjointed dialogue-splashed anecdotes, long stanza structuring in a long poem, couplets, and a longish sequence. But what could have been a cause for celebration of diversity becomes, instead, a symbol of a lack of focus and necessity. Speaking of a lack of necessity, some of the poems relating reminiscences of mild angst reminded me of those of another Islander, Jay Ruzesky, reviewed earlier in this long listing:: “Wait and wait while inside the inn our father drinks beer.” (from “Camp-Out”). As Young’s speaker says in the book’s long closer, ironic or not: “i became distracted/i am distracted still.”

Edited: Zach Wells, Jailbreaks: 99 Canadian Sonnets. “What’s left out?” is usually the first question asked of an anthology. It’s a strange reverse take, especially in this case, since the title doesn’t include “The Best” before “99”. Hey, I would have liked something by George Faludy. But the initial question should always be “what’s in?”, and what’s in is very fine, indeed. A various, quality-saturated volume, surprising when considering that 99 poets (actually 100 since one poem is co-written) are included. Absolute favourites are hard to pinpoint, but perhaps my three top picks would be Eric Ormsby’s frightening “Childhood Pieties”, George Johnston’s moving “Cathleen Sweeping”, and the piece to which the volume owes its name, Margaret Avison’s gift-packed “Snow”. Lest these three point me out as a fossil (if praising the work of 50 years ago makes me such), I was both surprised and delighted to discover recent poems (and some poets) unfamiliar to me. Peter Norman’s “Bolshevik Tennis!” was delightful, especially so as a political sonnet immediately brings to mind message-stuffed solemnity. Here, Norman’s stripped-court conceit is fun, and the reader doesn’t have to choose different sides of the missing net to laugh. And there’s also a funny existentialist poem! I haven’t perused a thirty-pound tome of them, lately. David O’Meara’s “Postcard From Camus” lifts the philosophical weight from that polarizing author with the paraphrasable defence, “it was the sun!” Wells’ notes on the poems include intelligent historical context, but are also highly personal, and in that spirit, I’d challenge his take on Adam Sol’s “Sonnet With The Morning Paper” in which he claims a “suckerpunch” at the turn, “[b]y toying with the reader’s expectations”. The hints are more than subtle, though, in the development: “stealing morning” (the first word bringing out the homophone in the second); “enmeshed in … wire”; “raucous tribe”; “conspire”; “spooking”; “mesh fences”. As for “enmeshed”, a few duds were nestled in amongst the firecrackers -- David McFadden’s “Country Hotel In The Niagara Peninsula” and Mike Barnes’ “First Stab” -- but in a book covering one hundred years of sonnets, limited to Canada, from traditional subjects and form to any subject in forms at first hard to identify with the grand(ma)pappy (isn’t being politically correct cute?) of them all, Wells has worked hard to provide a living repository that colourfully fills a neglected alcove in our national literature.

Frank O’Hara, Selected Poems. Since O’Hara’s approach is flauntingly autobiographical, I’ll take the liberty of choosing to run from the circular New York school, large though it was (and is, in its present reincarnation), since friendships or cold shoulders are mysterious and need not be defended. When a poet litters his work (or fast-typed sheets) with references from and to the circle his world encompasses, it shouldn’t be a sign of disdainful impatience if the reader outside that milieu turns away in boredom and confusion. I’m not up to speed on the Impressionist painters, Hollywood B-movie stars and starlets, and O’Hara’s personal friends, and I don’t find that the poems often transcend their circumstances. Yes, I realize that the poems’ exuberance can be seen as blowing fresh air into the Eastern seaboard guilt-and-silt corpus, but they evaporate after the initial fizz. And one assumes that this Selected is chosen as a reasonable representation of his best.

Sharon McCartney, The Love Song Of Laura Ingalls Wilder. (already blogged). A creative fantasy on the people (but mostly the inanimate objects!) in the popular Wilder (and Lane) Little House On The Prairie series, McCartney’s sequence breathes life into neglected corners of pioneer life. It’s unfortunate that with such a wide cast of “characters”, the tone is often similarly rueful (though sonically joyful), but it acts as an excellent counterpoint to the wish-fulfillment, the sentiment masking the grinding hardships of prairie life during the Depression period.

Tom Wayman, High Speed Through Shoaling Water. (already blogged). Abysmal in its condescending “working”man moral assumptions, in its political naivety, in its uncrafted blather, and in its unintentionally hilarious preciousness, this interminable volume quickly sinks to the bottom of the lake. The cover sure was purty, though.

Allan Safarik, All Night Highway. As foreshadowed in the review of John B. Lee, some poets are undermined by specific publishers who, either by ineptness or unconcern, release works filled with typos, misspellings, and with little if any other actual shaping, sequencing, or critical correspondence with the poet. This shows to damaging effect with Black Moss Press’ publication of this Safarik work. I feel for Safarik. I’m not high on the book: it’s of a piece for the period (1996), which is to say prosy, anecdotal without pointing to anything beyond its personal occasion, and slapdash in construction. There are exceptions, however. From the title poem: “flutter/on my liver when I tried/eating the hamburger steak/Blood leaking from the bandage/on the cook’s bad hand.” Safarik’s lack of respect for punctuation, though, puts him in league with the publisher, and compounds the problem of lack of clarity. “[H]otest”, “Connie Chun”, “Michael Jordon” (the last two from the same poem), “flash light”, and other boo-boos (not recalled here), worse for making meaning, such as it is, unintentionally ambiguous, pepper the pages. If the publisher, editor, and poet don’t care, why should I?

Allan Safarik, Blood Of Angels. With tongue only half in cheek, I’ve long thought there should be a moratorium on certain words in poetry. “Angels” would be at the top of the list. Appearing in the title of this later Safarik book (2004), I was immediately on guard for spiritual soft soap and/or soft focus (usually one and the same). Despite Safarik’s failures in All Night Highway, they could at least be compensated for (to a degree) by an occasionally engaging narrative. Here, with the reliance on interior detail and suggestion, the author’s limitations in diction, rhythm, colour, syntax, and metaphor are more exposed. From the opener, “The Sowing”: “warm sun on the earth, cold water thirst/Wind shaking laughter in the trees”. This says nothing unique or vivid about the natural surroundings, but does say quite a bit about the poet’s wish-fulfillment or current mood. Surroundings should change or spur mood, not act as chintzy backdrop to enhance the poet’s persona. And this is a “spiritual” book, a supposedly questing one. Here’s the conclusion to “Storyteller”: “now it shakes every hand/offered as if the hand of God/on judgment day.” This is using a biblical parallel to affix an ineffability as divine balm. “Winter’s Tale” should be prefaced by a Shakespearian disclaimer. We actually arrive at “lingering death” in line 8, and the superfluity “Then the thought came into my head” as line 15. Mr. Safarik has written a book which seems important to him; I can’t join him on the pew or on the meditation mat.

Edited: Allan Safarik, Vancouver Poetry. (already blogged). This is a finely selected edition of poetry from Canadian Confederation through to the World’s Fair. Safarik takes many chances with obscure poems and poets, and what makes it more remarkable is that quite a few of these “outsider” efforts are winners. There are clunkers and fillers, to be sure (it’s hard to avoid the Simon Fraser-TISH-UBC dominance of the 60s to 80s), but the good, or at least curious, robustly competes with the mediocre. Safarik’s intro is also caring and well-researched, framing a historical perspective for each selection.

Karen Solie, Short Haul Engine. “Signs Taken for Wonders” is the best in the book, a wonderfully mobile delayed analogy. I also like “Anniversary”, a clever, humorous take on love’s ambivalence. Solie has many interesting things to say, and it almost always starts with a rural or grubby urban observation, reminiscent of Ken Babstock. Scattered phrases are needlessly heightened, but this is a first book, and it’ll be interesting to see how things proceed in her next two (which I haven’t yet read).

Robert Duncan, Bending The Bow. (already blogged). Garnering a lot of blog hits to my first review of it (and a few spirited antagonistic defenses), this Viet Nam diatribe checks off many irritating procedures at the near-start of the postmodernist era: typographic epilepsy, messages encoded in faux-profundities, fragmented accusation, theoretical wankery. One effort, “My Mother Would Be A Falconress”, is remarkable, and BTB is then all the more frustrating since it shows how theory and group, collegiate excitation and doctrine can destroy what otherwise could have been a fascinating poetic career contribution.

Adam Sol, Jeremiah, Ohio. Poetic book sequences and book-length narratives now seem to be the norm rather than the exception in contemporary CanPo. A lot has been written lately about the whys, and there’s been some interesting debate (Zach Wells, Michael Lista, Stuart Ross) on the phenomenon. Of course, it’s not a new development -- Ondaatje’s The Collected Works Of Billy The Kid helped things along. I side with Wells and Ross on preference. Many sequences rest on the page-turning what-happens-next desire, and when individual poems don’t have that “prop”, the lack of self-containment often shows. But onto the poems. Sol largely manages to avoid the aforementioned pitfall, concentrating on well-considered and idiosyncratic diction and dialogue, and sending its protagonists on a spiritually exploratory (in Bruce’s case) and surprising peripatetic journey through the contemporary US of A. The ending, in tone and circumstance, reminded me of the great movie, Midnight Cowboy. Keeping with the conclusion, it takes a sure hand to craft sorrow from spare experience quickly enacted, and Sol’s to be applauded for the consistent quality here and throughout.

Edited: Tom Wayman, Going For Coffee. After slogging through Wayman’s dismal High Speed Through Shoaling Water, I decided to read this much earlier anthology of work poetry. If you remove Peter Trower’s efforts, the book is a cypher, a staggering non-achievement since this is a round-up, with many poets, not a vanity press release from one non-talent. Of course, under Wayman’s tutelage, “work” poetry becomes an excuse for “hey, everyone, I’m oppressed and this is my chance to stick it to the Man!” The many qualities that make for good poetry -- scratch that, make that “for poetry” -- are at shop-floor level. Self-pity seems to be the major criterion. Work fails as a topic and as a procedure.

Heather Spears, Required Reading. Based on actual court trials on the murder of young Reena Virk by bullying teenagers, the subject matter deserves great crafting and long consideration to do the material justice. Unfortunately, the entire project is troubled from its outset. Spears, in her intro: “I was to make a presentation of the drawings with poems, and was booked to do so even as the trials dragged on. I realized I had no poems, so they were written in haste.” This is the perfect illustration of how content trumps craft in many poets’ concerns. Spears could have just said “no”, respecting her own talent, the reception of the audience for the poetry, and the memory of Virk. Instead, these poems read as transcriptions, jotted notes on the physical appearances of those in court along with poorly structured reenactments of the murder and its aftermath. Spears defends the lack of psychological and emotional depth in her work by stating she respected Virk and her grieving friends and family enough not to insert material into her book which went beyond her capacity. That’s fine, but what we have, then, fails as either poetry or hard-hitting journalism.

Earle Birney, Ghost In The Wheels. By any considered measure, Birney is a major figure in 20th century Canadian poetry. In the 1940s, when the release of a book of poetry was rare, an event, Birney burst onto the scene with David and Other Poems, the title piece widely acknowledged today as a classic. This characterized Birney’s career, that of quality forerunner. The excellent verse-play, The Damnation Of Vancouver, came out in 1977, the same year as this Selected, and Birney also provided criticism, two novels, he taught, edited, wrote essays, and changed personas (organically) as successfully as his work under different hats. GITW is Birney’s own selection, and it represents his eclectic technical desires and experiments. Lines leap with images; there’s a quick and restless physical sweep to much of it. Allusions are thick. Unfortunately, so is the meaning, often. It’s not that one can’t follow the history, but rather that those stories - many times -- aren’t skillfully integrated with the rhythms. Birney tackles nettlesome subjects, and does so with a genuine curiosity, as well as an insouciant, irreverent dash. I’ve heard and read for some time how Birney’s works are “dated”. Whenever people use that word, I note how explanation is usually either missing or a variation on “it doesn’t speak to me, man.” But if Birney’s dated, so, too, is much written before WWII. Instant classics are desired, but, following logically from that mindset, are quickly discarded. That works in pop music, at least.

Carmine Starnino, This Way Out. (already blogged). An entertaining, aurally exciting work. More bold in content and thought than his previous three volumes, and a vision is emerging, clear of polar simplicities. Reminiscences are lovingly etched, and also point to contrasting moods between past and present. There’s a wonderful lack of fear in accurately depicting the spiritual kernel of the past, while still maintaining a skeptical distance from hazy or nostalgic epiphany (contrast with above comments on Getty’s Reconciliation, and note Starnino’s title poem.)

Anne Sexton, The Complete Poems. Confessionalism has received an increasingly dismissive reaction, well-deserved, to the cheap wealth of narcissistic verse populating contemporary poetic procedure. Robert Lowell has often been fingered as the chief seminal surge, but Lowell hated the term as it applied to him. Lowell’s poetry uses personal torments in order to depict universal problems, he also uses those torments to extrapolate them for historical or socially contemporaneous issues, and in any event, he strictly and openly alters the “truth” of his biography in order to point to a larger story. Sexton is less ambitious, but she, too, transcends the personal, speaking boldly to a number of specific issues, using “I” as dramatic representative for psychological violence and depression. The confessional tag is also used as a put-down for Sexton since her late poetry -- harshly compromised by her increasing downward spiral of pills and drink, as well as a lack of sharp editing by others -- is voluminously unfocussed and unworked, and does often succumb to self-pity and a constricted world view. But her first several books are often shocking in content, execution, and voice.

Roy Miki, Surrender. (already blogged). A self-important exercise in the contemporary theory of language suspicion, the theory subbing as poetry.

David McGimpsey, Dogboy. The following quatrain is actually what’s good about McGimpsey’s 1998 follow-up to Lardcake, a volume of which I had good things to say: “I used to have a girl/Who went by the stage name of “Monique”/But she left me when I told her/I was kind of in love with her shoes.” (from “One Man Band”). “Good”, because the passage aces the modern propensity to toss away everything for a “better” reproduction: mashed potatoes, shoes, and relationships. There’re no hierarchies, no priorities, no values. But the lines are flat, and the poems, in toto, become redundant to the point of weariness. (Dogboy is long, and the self-flagellating loser persona schtick gets especially old since McGimpsey has covered the same territory -- more effectively -- in his first book.) A section on baseball is included in the first-person television-besotted satiric thrust. I’ve already mentioned my boredom with Donald Hall’s and George Bowering’s baseball poems, and these do nothing to change my perception of this mini-tradition. The sentiments in “Spit, Robbie, Spit” are obvious, and’ve been voiced more effectively by sports journalists.

Peter Richardson, A Tinker's Picnic. Unfortunately, I leant this book to a friend a half-year ago and it hasn’t as yet been returned. This could be good news or bad. She could be busily and secretly organizing a lobby push for the Nobel Prize for Mr Richardson, or she could have inadvertently dropped the volume down a storm drain. If it ever comes back, and if ants haven’t devoured the contents, I’ll report on a few of the poems therein, but Richardson’s strengths lie in concrete vivacity of speaker, others, and situations, so a sketchy round-up here wouldn’t do the book justice. I’ll just state that there are quite a few small gems in this first effort.

Peter Richardson, An ABC Of Belly Work. “Packet” is a wonderful poem, typical of a favourite Richardson procedure. Holding his demanding infant after broken sleep, the scene plays out in fantasized allegory with a drunk being welcomed back to his home of beery, cheery confreres. Babies and the old or otherwise compromised: helplessness but not completely so because not abandoned. This latter sentence stops me since it reveals another Richardson strength: not succumbing to grandiose, out-of-experience conclusion. Yes, many people are helpless, without hope. And in another circumstance, in another character study, we might see that. But poems of experience and assimilation don’t lend themselves to easy, sweeping conclusions, that lazy trick of the psychologically and technically simple. Similarly, “Rogues” juxtaposes the noises from air cargo removal to memories of “a flagpole cord knocking against metal/as she and I try to get our kiss right,/solve the riddle of its stolen quality.” This poem brings back a flood of memories of my own memories when performing brain-somnolent drudgery. Henry Miller once said he preferred unskilled physical labour to intellectual routine (though he turned out to be a money sponge), since it allowed him all kinds of time for reverie and creative gestation. And here’s another passage from “Rogues”, eliciting the sounds inside the plane: “knocked loose now by the rattletrap//thrashing of wind in an aircraft’s turbines.” A deft metaphor surfaces in the anguished “At Hotel-Dieu”, the speaker’s fire alarm battery replacement acting as impotent warning. That poem is sandwiched between two humorous evolutions. Humour is always welcome, especially in today’s English-written poetry world of hushed profundity and self-regarding gloom. But Richardson’s lightness and comical bite acts beyond its release of laughter: satirical-personal, or social, pokes are played with a subtler density than at first surmised. Whether the reader laughs in recognition of the larger point, or at his or her own clueless expense, the levity proves that wit, lightheartedness, even “low” humour can, at its best, be more meaningful than groove-repeated sober respectability. Recounting his rebound fling, the speaker of “Ten Week Shiatsu Affair” confidently concludes, “Who cared if it was doomed to failure?/I was learning about Earl Scruggs,/his string of chart-topping Ozark tunes.”

Peter Richardson, Sympathy For The Couriers. (already blogged). The best book of contemporary poetry I’ve read all year. There are many excellent poems in SFTC, and very few fizzlers. More accomplished than his first two volumes, Richardson successfully matches his ambition with stimulating multiple voices and experiences. The narration cuts many ways. Don’t forget to add the (often) seemingly benign narrators into the mix of those observed and assessed.

Lorna Crozier, Everything Arrives At The Light. (already blogged, sort of). One of the belaurelled Canadian doyennes responsible for creating more time for the next generation of back yard landscape theopneusty-peddlers, and proving Blake’s “the cistern contains” and “standing water” proverbs, Crozier’s EAATL is a paean to her own spiritual observational powers. This is not only not poetry, but would be poor prose if offered without the ragged line breaks. “Light” is important, and Crozier wants us to know it. Unfortunately, the lock-and-loaded students will continue to ride roughshod over blank paper with confessional superiority or negative witnessing.

Stanley Kunitz, The Testing-Tree. “My conviction is that poetry is a legendary, not an anecdotal, art." These words of Kunitz’ serve as a cutting moral reminder to those who mistake personal intuition and fact for poetic authority. Kunitz died a few years ago, just shy of his 100th year; he waited roughly 14 years between releases of new work. Can you imagine how many books some of our present dynamos will pile up should they cross the centenarian tape? Kunitz’ work in TTT is pared, highly emotional, searching and anguished, scarily honest, set in a deceptively carefree form (he favoured conversational trimetre rhythms by this period, yet there was nothing negligent about the finished product). The title poem, in particular, is a standout.

Terence Young, Moving Day. What’s with Vancouver Island poets and the concentration on memoirs of the teen years? Like Patricia Young and Jay Ruzesky, T Young explores personal memories, mildly vexing or mildly serene. We get brought up to date, as well, but things aren’t any more revelatory with a poem about the joys of stolen naps, and a fantasy of the ball-and-chain domestic life-as-house sailing through the sky. There’s little tension, here, formal or not, in the poems’ construction, and the lines serve only to hurry along the narrative.

Kildare Dobbs, The Eleventh Hour. (already blogged). Abstract sexual depiction is like a report on virtual sunbathing. You get not the idea of heat, but the filtered-through-allusion-and-irony idea of heat. The last, brief section bursts out of its protective sheath, but there may not be many receptive minds to impregnate, by then.

Lionel Kearns, A Few Words Will Do. (already blogged). Culled from Kearns’ long career. The nature lyrics are ruined by clich├ęd abstraction; the people poems are drably formed, but emotionally affecting and without trowel-slathered bathos, especially impressive considering their grim subject matter; the language-persona poems are a clever idea on the exhausted and wrong-turn fussing over the inadequacies of language.

Catherine Owen, CUSP/detritus: an experiment in alleyways.
Shannon Stewart, Penny Dreadful.
Sachiko Murakami, The Invisibility Exhibit.
All three reviewed for an upcoming edition of CNQ.

Jeff Derksen, Transnational Muscle Cars. (already blogged). This volume could easily have been sliced by 90 %, and not only would it not have bled, but it would have benefited from spikier associations. Redundant banner-ads (yes, modern architecture is ugly -- yes, advertising gurus should be ashamed of themselves -- yes, big business is evil) aren’t any more clever or lasting when couched in cute, altered anagrams or word-substituted blues songs.

Sean Virgo, Selected Poems. “Sin” is a terrific poem, an unspooling of lust at the pale sermon, where all eyes are on a different god(ess), and “[t[he muttering priest goes unheard.” Unfortunately, this long Selected -- from Virgo’s first four books of poetry -- is henceforth stuffed with oracular Native transcription (not transmutation, as Virgo would have it). Actually, I’d think Natives -- now, First Nations people-- would be more offended by an assumed transmutation. Spiritual merging is a true effrontery in that overworked accusation of voice appropriation. The tone is short, flat, solemn, oracular, declarative. There’s a lot of dreaming, in and out of human and animal and elemental states. Ruskin’s pathetic fallacy becomes a wimpy Eurocentric lack of imagination, or at least that’s the proud implication. In “Trouble Song”, “I did not ask for this,/I looked for many things/That were not secret.//Your spirit comes/Out from your heart/With white tent wings.” The terse lines begin to mimic hyperventilation in (at least) this reader. Even if transmission of dreams through inexperienced (in the reader) cultural and religious linguistics were possible, the poems still have to work as poems, not bare prophecies or faithful image-linked transcription. And, in any event, as D H Lawrence said in a review of Melville’s Typee and Omoo, we can’t go back to a past conscious state. For better or worse, we always progress (the word not used as a value comparative, here), and whether the desire for union with pre-rational Native spirituality, in BC life or in Rousseau’s philosophy, is fetishistic or genuine, the enterprise is doomed at birth. Respect? Of course. Reenactment? No. Virgo stopped writing poetry after this release, concentrating on fiction which (as he says elsewhere) allowed him more room for his narratives. But narratives don’t have to be Spenserian in length. Every day, I appreciate more the value of the lyric, and I find it sad that many poets can’t seem to reconcile and join other modes into that great voice bedrock.

Sue Wheeler, Habitat. (already blogged). Less than enthusiastic about reading this collection (the back synopsis praised its observation of nature), I thought it might follow competently or falteringly in an overcrowded field. Instead, Habitat proved that overcooked subject matter can still evoke surprise, in both practitioner and reader, of this fine art if the images are fresh, the personal connections are seamless, and the metaphors unusual and sharp. An excellent -- and to my knowledge, overlooked -- volume.

George McWhirter, The Anachronicles. This recent effort from McWhirter traces his usual strengths and weaknesses. To the former: felicitous soundplay; impish humour; occasional satiric bite; a rollicking narrative. To the latter: shaggy-dog narrative in the worst sense -- too much shagginess, not enough bones to chew on; allusion included more for accumulation and not concison; clumsy connections, in lexical elegance and metaphor; superfluous witticisms. Historical characters are brought to life, a difficult achievement in long, poetic sequences, but I still would have preferred paring and more concentration on an aphoristic approach the material seemed to encourage.

Zach Wells, Track & Trace. If there are more than a handful of Canadian poets currently writing better music in which the poems are meant to be heard as cadence, dynamic shift, and sonorous repetition and variation, I haven’t chanced upon them yet. I could fill a lot of space here with examples, but that would be longer than a trailer, and would defeat the surprise, the discovery in the context of an entire poem. But here’s a few: “Tender tight fists of fiddleheads/fronding into bitter-leafed ferns.” (from the opener, “What He Found Growing In The Woods”, a fine metaphorical study of birth and death); “chunks of trunk thunking like dud munitions” (from “Nimble & Poise”); “[t]he sudden stink of mussel mud drifting” (from “Mussel Mud”). In fact, mud stink is a sensory motif wafting through T&T, decomposition as difficult beauty, the rot in life not only natural and inevitable, but strangely transcendent, at times. I’m not partial to Wells’ anaphoral poems; the procedure distracts from the back end listing, and the insistence dulls rather than amplifies. And there’s still a straightjacketed concision, at times, which strangles feeling. That those feelings are strong and honest makes this a greater frustration. I was delighted by the often subtle meaning, only apparent in elementary form after several readings, and that the meaning cohered in a curious winterized vision, creatively enacted in Seth’s specific sequence of drawings.

Les Murray, Learning Human. A large Selected, even this book doesn’t capture Murray’s incredible range of tone and subject. I’m awed by the lexical voluptuousness, the evocative mind- and land-scapes, the brave biography, the Hughesian micro-sensitive nature reverence.






































































Saturday, December 19, 2009

Neo-Formalists and Confused Lyricists

http://chrisbanksy.blogspot.com/2009/12/poetry-and-intention.html


"if we are to expect other nations to take an interest in the poetry produced in Canada, the aesthetic stances of our nation’s critics need to be pushed aside and a more objective approach that takes into consideration a poet’s intentions needs to be adopted."(Banks)

That's right. Those dolts outside our own borders need to have their hands held before they can appreciate good or great poetry. Condescension hidden behind "sensitive guidance".

Banks, of course, is too busy drifting mist into the readers' eyes to relate the critical history of CanPo, and how it gets written and disseminated in the first place. Until he quits being a hypocritical cheerleader for the "lyric" (hidebound, tribal tic-scratcher!) and criticizes (which is to say, examines with proportion, noting successes and failures) the many volumes in front of him, his vague pronouncements and generality-laden denouncements hold as much weight as a flea's fart. Of course, before anti-Monsignor Wells, myself, and others (Banks typically won't name names beyond this point) came along less than a decade ago, Canada's status as an international poetry backwater was well established. Are we to blame for that, too? Or perhaps the gulf can be explained by the promoted poetry itself, and by the ecstatic blurbs of condescending explanation substituting for serious analysis. Just, you know, my own take on it. It's true, after all, because this is what I intend to say! Oh, non sequitur of joy! Tautology of smugness!




"To my mind, we have far too many critics dismissing books under review based not on the poetry’s substance but on the poet’s style."(Banks)

Then you haven't been paying attention, which is par for the course. I've repeatedly stated otherwise, but you're too busy decorating your hobby horse to actually listen with discernment instead of tribal stance and ideological blinkers.

Substance is very important in a book of poetry. But substance without aesthetic joy, and just as importantly and to the point, without aesthetic wedding, is journalism, or worse, message-mongering. Simplistic, arrogant, unmusical ..... in other words, non-poetry.

Got a "message"? Bury it. Read Shelley's "Ozymandias". Stevens' "Anecdote Of The Jar". Vallejo's "The Spider". Layton's "Boys Bathing". Dickinson's "Because I Could Not Stop For Death". More critics got those poems wrong -- on substance -- back in the day, but so what? Eventually, if the music is joyful, and the meaning is teasing, people get it, or get a part of it (which is often good enough). Even those maroons living across the Atlantic who can't figure out what all the fuss is about if chancing upon Roy Miki's "make it new". (But Miki's not a lyric poet, so perhaps Banks agrees with me, here? I don't recall a postmodernist rave yet at his blog.)

Style and substance can't be separated. Banks teaches poetry?



"Zachariah Wells, a critic who puts the Neo in New Formalism, and several of his more ardent supporters"(Banks)

If one label fails to stick, try another one. Has Banks considered that poets can write in, and critics applaud, traditional forms without being "neo-formalists"? And that a single book of poetry can contain the strictest of metrical patterns, the most widely shunning of the same, and various fascinating meetings between both poles, and still be praised by myself?

To be absurdly obvious (though, apparently, needfully so), one can prefer poetry in metre, and/or in rhyme, strong rhythms, and musical and metaphorical ordering, and still be sympathetic if the work is good to poets who write in free verse (however you see that problematic term). Gee, kinda like Wells and myself and other unnamed boogey(wo?)men. But don't let facts -- on record -- stand in the way of a good conspiracy.




"followed hard on that initial post of mine with a willful misreading of the word “intention” suggesting I wanted critics to somehow divine a poet’s thoughts which they see as being divorced from the actual poetry."(Banks)

No. Again, you misunderstand. You take a sentence I (or Wells) have said , sever it out of context with the larger argument, and construct your rebuttal based on a faulty premise.

I said, and will patiently say again, that it doesn't matter what the poet's intention was if:

1) it's not transmitted, either clearly or (the same thing) aesthetically of a piece with the idea;

2) the intention/meaning is, itself, shallow or wrong or redundant;

3) it's so closed to further possibilities that the poet can see no future refinements or breakthroughs when he/she or a critic encounters it.



“When we appreciate style as the subtle medium of sense, we can see how the way works are written also discloses the meanings these works of art intend. Meaning in poetry is imbedded in the saying."(Kinzie)

I've said as much. What's the problem?


"Such meaning in poetry does not just happen: It is the product of a trained writer’s strength, all of which in one way or another is formed and fueled by intention. In art, it is only by intending a saying, with all of its effects of meaning, that a work in words can become a coherent piece of literature. Similarly, it is only by imagining how artistic intention grows through the work that a reader can get inside it” (34)."(Kinzie)

Again, no quarrels. I'm scratching my head (no fleas). This is only contentious, vis-a-vis my own critical ideas, if one enshrines "intention", wrenches it out of its suggestive elbowing with all sorts of poetic tropes, syntax, sound patterning.

Between an author's intention and the author's realization is often a sad divide. That the peacock poet accepts the former as the initial spur and last stop in worthy poetic creation is bizarre.

As to the rest of Banks' "argument", again, its church-related broad-brush finger wagging misses the boat by an ocean or two.

By the way, I believe the CNQ review challenge is still a go. Silence on the matter is puzzling. After all, what an opportunity for a corrective to the tribal elite!

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Sara Teasdale's "The Kiss"

THE KISS

I hoped that he would love me,
And he has kissed my mouth,
But I am like a stricken bird
That cannot reach the south.

For though I know he loves me,
To-night my heart is sad;
His kiss was not so wonderful
As all the dreams I had.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Cesar Vallejo's "XXVII" from TRILCE

from Trilce
XXVII
(translated: Clayton Eshleman)

That spurt frightens me,
good memory; powerful master, implacable
cruel sweetness. It frightens me.
This house pleases me perfectly, a perfect
spot for this not knowing where to be.

Let's not go in. It frightens me, this permission
to return by the minute, across exploded bridges.
I push no further, sweet master,
courageous memory, sad
songskeleton.

How the content, that of this enchanted house,
gives me quicksilver deaths, and plugs
with lead my outlets
to dry actuality.

The spurt that doesn't know what we're up to,
frightens me, terrifies me.
Courageous memory, I push no further.
Blond and sad skeleton, whistle, whistle.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

What They Say, And What They Mean

"The comments feature on this blog has been turned off for the moment. Partly this is because of the holidays and a need to *not* be checking in so often, but also because LH is not convinced that comments streams are doing much to foster discussion." (LH)

--I comment to more blogs than I can count, but when others comment on streams, either here or elsewhere, and I disagree with them, it pisses me off.



"Nor in fact, that they are the place for such discussions. The appropriate response to a poem is usually another poem." (LH)

--Traditional poets, or those who just read poems, should just shut up and appreciate the brave, hard work the visionaries provide.



"What is the appropriate response to a blog post? To be honest, the knee jerk reactions (and everyone has them) aren't helpful."(LH)

-- 'Knee jerk reactions' are my own code for substantive rebuttals which make my own one-line drive-bys look picayune.



"Mostly these streams (not only here but other places) seem to be draining energy not creating it."(LH)

--I gain a lot of energy by pontificating my biases and self-defensive manoeuvers. But when others naturally challenge the wisdom in such pronouncements, my energy seems to, indeed, drain.



"And how much time do people have to be crafting long attacks and defenses in comments streams?"(LH)

--Substance and nuance are bogus. As are well-considered angles which put an argument in historical perspective. Long live the withering drive-by!



"There have been some fine discussions (here and elsewhere) and for those I am thankful."(LH)

--I like people who not only agree with me, but whose responses are minor variations of 'excellent post, LH!'.



"Otherwise, I look forward to posts, and poems, and more time to think about them. More time to reflect before hitting save, send, publish."(LH)

--Especially when my false you tube analogies come back to bite me.



"Happy Holidays and welcome incoming bloggers."(LH)

--Especially those who challenge the Eastern based, male, comspiratorial tribal aggressive negative reviewers who control all the poetic discussion in this country.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Anne Sexton's "Somewhere in Africa"

SOMEWHERE IN AFRICA


Must you leave, John Holmes, with the prayers and psalms
you never said, said over you? Death with no rage
to weigh you down? Praised by the mild God, his arm
over the pulpit, leaving you timid, with no real age,

whitewashed by belief, as dull as the windy preacher!
Dead of a dark thing, John Holmes, you’ve been lost
in the college chapel, mourned as father and teacher,
mourned with piety and grace under the University Cross.

Your last book unsung, your last hard words unknown,
abandoned by science, cancer blossomed in your throat,
rotted like bougainvillea into your gray backbone,
ruptured your pores until you wore it like a coat.

The thick petals, the exotic reds, the purples and whites
covered up your nakedness and bore you up with all
their blind power. I think of your last June nights
in Boston, your body swollen but light, your eyes small

as you let the nurses carry you into a strange land.
. . . If this is death and God is necessary let him be hidden
from the missionary, the well-wisher and the glad hand.
Let God be some tribal female who is known but forbidden.

Let there be this God who is a woman who will place you
upon her shallow boat, who is a woman naked to the waist,
moist with palm oil and sweat, a woman of some virtue
and wild breasts, her limbs excellent, unbruised and chaste.

Let her take you. She will put twelve strong men at the oars
for you are stronger than mahogany and your bones fill
the boat high as with fruit and bark from the interior.
She will have you now, you whom the funeral cannot kill.

John Holmes, cut from a single tree, lie heavy in her hold
and go down that river with the ivory, the copra and the gold.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Georg Trakl's "Sunny Afternoon"




SUNNY AFTERNOON
(translated: Jim Doss & Werner Schmitt)


A branch rocks me in the deep blue.
In the frolicking, autumnal leaf-tangle
Moths flicker, intoxicated and crazy.
Ax blows resound in the meadow.

My mouth bites into red berries
And light and shadows sway in the foliage.
For hours golden dust falls
Crackling in the brown ground.

The thrush laughs from the bushes
And frolicking and loudly the autumnal leaf-tangle
Strikes together above me --
Fruits detach bright and heavy.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Robert Duncan's BENDING THE BOW

I always leave the comment stream open going back to the first posts of this blog. Robert Duncan clearly has a lot of fans and admirers since I continue to get hits of my review-post I made in January of his book of off-the-mark arrow-thocks. Another Duncan supporter has joined the fray, and I'm interested in his further response, or in any other response from anyone -- pro or con -- on BTB.

Problems again with Blogger. Or more than likely my own tech obtuseness. In any case, to get the Duncan post, hit January's post on 'Blog Archive' at right sidebar-- it's Jan 27.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Gottfried Benn's "Little Aster"

LITTLE ASTER


A drowned beertruck driver was lifted on the bench.
Somebody had stuck a dark-and-light purple aster
between his teeth to clench.
As I cut out, from within the chest,
under the skin,
with a long knife,
tongue and palate,
I must have touched it, for it slipped
into the brain lying beside.

I packed it into the thoracic cavity,
between the excelsior filling,
when they sewed up.
Quench your thirst in your vase!
Rest in peace,
little Aster!



(trans. A W Tuting)

Friday, December 4, 2009

Bok vs Starnino

http://vimeo.com/7963755

Some off-the-cuff thoughts after I just finished viewing the debate and discussion between Christian Bok, Carmine Starnino, the moderator, and several audience participants.


Bok, in making his case for relevancy, in his challenge to poets, argues that the abysmal state of poetry in the larger cultural world would be ameliorated if poets were to quit talking about their pastoral experiences, and instead comment on contemporary concerns, in contemporary language and contemporary forms.

Broadly, I agree with Bok. The more current CanPo I read, the more I'd be willing to lay 3 to 1 odds that there will be multiple mentions of "toads", "falling light", and "blackberry vines" (or their neighbourly equivalents) in the volume I'm about to read. If the content and music are fresh, with new and interesting angles, I love reading it. But too often the landscape is just a backdrop for the poet-"I" to investigate his or her own interior profundities which don't translate to anything more than "I looked at the afternoon light falling on the rose petal and the world was transformed". Redundant and irrelevant, says Bok, and I applaud his view.

I also agree with Bok's assertion that a big reason for this sad state of repetitious bucolic epiphany is that many poets don't have any expertise or experience in any other field. I underline this view: many poets don't have the expertise because they don't care about more "prosaic" topics. They're incurious. I forget who to attribute the idea to, but it's been said that a good poet is a generalist: an expert in perhaps one or two areas, but also knowing something, or more than something, in a lot of widely separated fields. This also explains the appalling redundancy in the content (and so, form and mood, usually) of their poetry. Page after page is filled with slight variations on painterly description in the woods, for example.

So where's the real exploration that Bok calls for? It's not, as he hopes, by projecting scientific discoveries into the future, and commenting on the supposed ironies and absurdities of the collisions with our "settled" world (whatever that may mean-- we're already living in the fastest paced society in history). To be fair, Bok also laments the fact that recent history hasn't been explored. Where are our epics on the moon landing?, he sincerely asks.

But there's a problem with this prophetic (in the first instance) or contemporary (in the latter case) call. First, as I wrote in my last post, contemporary stances are plagued by guesswork and (often) misdirection, even blatant wrong turns. And when the imagination drifts into the future, all kinds of incorrect scenarios can be solidified, made into an inevitability, at least in the minds of those predisposed to the conclusions. That's not to say that prophecy should be avoided: prophetic vision, denunciation, and admonition have long been a higher staple of poetry. But, getting back to Bok's assertion of incuriosity among our current collective crop of Canadian versifiers ("avant-garde" and "traditional"), how many have the wide scope of reading, experience, integrated understanding, flexible thinking, and original forming of options, backed up by an equally complex (needed for the increased demands made by the content) formal (not understood as "tradition") shaping? The gulf between the ambition and the capacity in realizing that higher resposibility would be laughable among most of the avant-garde poets currently writing today, so I don't see as to how Bok can single out the "entrenched" "traditonalists" for this lack. The 20- and 30-somethings in Shift & Switch are going to create a compelling and highly complex argument, exploring multiple issues in our midst, rooted in historical precedent and understanding, when they've gone from high school to grad school (increasingly sequestered in creative writing programs), to academic careers, and without much in the way of work, life, or wide-ranging intellectual experience, talking to a like-minded social group within their academic circles? It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of curious and careful and serious thinking-- alone--, a lot of discussion, friendship, and alliance, in work and play, with all kinds of people, and only then a lot of patient crafting of poetry, to even begin the process of having a glimmer at the revolutionary appeal and accomplishment that Bok impatiently wants to see match the challenge of our times.

As I say in my Dec 2 post, would that the personal anecdote were done in an interesting-- if not exciting-- way first before the Grand Canyon overreach takes hold. Luckily, many poets agree with me since they're still trying hard to get it right how sunlight falls on the wings of the butterfly.

Prophetic poets, highly realized, are in short order for a reason. It takes more than an avant-garde trick of mangled syntax or deleted lexical category. We're lucky to have Shakespeare, Blake, Vallejo.

Still, sometimes I tire of those microscopic studies of spiders and waving wheat. (Hughes and Vallejo wrote microscopically of the spider, but in the first case, it was gorgeous language with frightening suggestion, and in the latter case it had very little to do with the spider at all.)

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Nature Poetry

Interesting post by Zach Wellshttp://zachariahwells.blogspot.com/2009/12/nature-poetry.html

I have no problem with poets entering all kinds of current political, environmental, cultural issues into their work. There're three main problems with doing so, though:

1) The "message" typically overwhelms the more artful aspects of the verse: rhythm, sound, e.g., and especially subtlety.

2) Following from (1), poetry isn't an excuse to proselytize, or to prove what a generous soul the author possesses. This parallels rather well with my own personal peeve: poets (ironically) flaunting ever-so-quietly their own spiritual sensitivity.

3) If you're gonna speak to complex issues, and climate change certainly fills that sink, then you'd better be intimately aware of all sides of the argument.

Speaking to #1, Shakespeare, Shelley, and Homer wrote well and profoundly on politics, Jeffers and Hughes on the environment. But their poetry sung, and their opinions would have been lost forever, just as quickly as will the article LH links to (I agree with the emotional tenor of Monbiot's column re Alberta's Tar Sands, but from a different perspective altogether), if those views were announced artlessly. Poetry's effects, when good, usually help the reader to ask further and better questions rather than to hammer home a group-solidified opinion.

As for #2, this oratory comes from the secular pulpit. There's a time and place for position-taking essays, and for journalist slant, but again, that's a far call from poetry's richness.

#3 is amply demonstrated by LH's confident but dubious view that "at a moment when people are in fact willing to face the reality of climate change and the urgency and complexity of environmentalism we need to have a variety of complex representations and assertions."

Well, first off, climate change is a given. That's what climate does. The question becomes: how much of it is person-caused, and how much of it is a natural fluctuation, seen and recorded throughout the centuries? Back in 1990, this "urgency"LH wants to express was new and dramatic; lately, much evidence and bureaucratic and scientific revelation has revealed multiple cracks in the "humans are to blame" climate change mantra. But you see what I'm helping to perpetuate here: the great unwashed heave of peopledom love to argue and declaim over the environment, politics, religion; not too many are willing to explore a poem as a poem, though.

This changing of popular views -- shown here in a mere 20 years -- speaks to another danger (#4, actually) in bringing current issues to the writing table. If and when the ideas expressed are shown to be not only outdated, but based on wrong premises, well, then, there goes your "content". If I want to learn more about global warming (oops, I mean climate cooling or climate change) I sure won't leaf through contemporary CanPo to get my info. (Or is this just another chapter in "tribal aesthetics"?) Those poets are more than likely not looking to--as LH would have it-- the "complexity of environmentalism". I've read enough contemporary verse, both here and abroad, to know that, more often than not, sloganeering and sanctimonious declaration substitute for and destroy complexity, nuance, and a concern with language and rhythm and sound.

Again, I greatly admire anyone who can insert important contemporary events into their poetry. But it's extremely difficult, and poets who've shown a lack of talent for composing a simple "I walked down the street today" anecdote would be better off tackling that "project" first before the hard organic shaping of poems on climate change.

I disagree somewhat with Zach's final point on the complicity of poets leaving their carbon footprints all about like a consuming Sasquatch. Just by being born, we have a negative effect on the environment. But I'm not one of those lugubrious haters of "manunkind" who would cheer -- could they see it -- the extinction of homosapiens from gentle Gaia. It's a matter of degree. Yes, I agree that most volumes of contemporary CanPo, including most of those from the "ecological" genre, will be dumpster filler or recycled into reusable bumpaper. But "man does not live by bread alone" is the key, here. We need pine beds and walls, but we also need good books of poetry (emphasis on the adjective). (Besides, hemp isn't just for smoking.)Those good books will often have little to do with contemporary news always in the headlines. Some will be exceptions, though .... I'd hope.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Addendum

Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with everything in Knott's rant-review. His first remarks misunderstand hair-styling procedures of the 80s-90s. When I had hair -- last century -- it was commonplace to get a pre- rinse and shampoo as part of the cut. And it was cheap. So there is certainly misreading of objectives or meaning, but that in no way makes the case for there always being clearly understood intent. (Just look at all the other valid confusions of the figures in the poem, for example.)

Spread the Snark

Roughly edited (if altered at all), this single poem review eschews dispassionate "objectivity". It's a highly personal take, an exasperated unscrolling of the reviewer's thoughts on the poem's intent. But whatever the intent of a poet is, however accurately measured, the next and more important two questions become: do we care about the poem simply by recognizing its intent?; and how is that intent executed?


http://knottprosepo.blogspot.com/2009/11/repostthis-appeared-here-in-may-09.html

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Further Comments on Snark

I was rather naive on the meaning of the word "snark". I'd thought it was a short, dismissive review or comment, extremely negative in tone. In other words, an honest, damning comment on what one has engaged with. But I haven't given myself enough credit. Since my several dictionaries, including the on-line versions, either have no entries, or the lone meaning is pertaining to Lewis Carroll's animal, I had to go to the "source", as it were, and discovered that it was coined (from Paul Vermeersch's link) by Heidi Julavits in her March 2003 essay. The essay itself is very unfocussed, but towards the end comes the vague, theoretical definition. Not much to base a definitive understanding on, and the subsequent discussion of the word's meaning, and hence its more serious ramifications, are problematic, and need to be entertained with a preamble on how the word is to be employed for purposes of a particular conversational framework. Those later definitions will be outlined perhaps in a later blog post, but for now let's focus on Julavits. (Bolding is mine.)

http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=article_julavits

"I don't know what many critics believe when it comes to literature; at worst, I fear that book reviews are just an opportunity for a critic to strive for humor, and to appear funny and smart and a little bit bitchy, without attempting to espouse any higher ideals—or even to try to understand, on a very localized level, what a certain book is trying to do, even if it does it badly. This is wit for wit’s sake—or, hostility for hostility’s sake. This hostile, knowing, bitter tone of contempt is, I suspect, a bastard offspring of Orwell’s flea-weighers. I call it Snark...."(Julavits)

The bolded qualifiers shift the emphasis away from unsubstantiated emotional reaction to a hoped-for rarified aura, a virtue self-placed by easy, cherry-picked quotes and anecdotes. She ushers in this line by a fallacious and rather unseemly guise of falsely planed contrasts, the reviewers who fail to emulate Edmund Wilson, James Wood, and Lionel Trilling all made to look feeble by the logical fallacy of the call to authority. But "snark", so-called, is, even by the definition of anti-snarkers David Denby and Julavits, exclusively negative and sarcastic. The two lamentable reviewers currently under the gun from the "Save Canadian Poets From Hurt Feelings" campaign (last one in the pool is the most oppressed!) have, on more than one occasion, championed not only many individuals and many individual books of poetry, but furthermore have championed the rationale behind those positive reviews, and have even spoken in specific poetics of how and why those books made the grade while others fell short.

That's strike one, against just the definition of snark, and how it's made up from vague notions, changeably conducive to one's emotional predilection. To go on, in this vein, with more Julavistas:

"I call it Snark, and it has crept with alarming speed into the reviewing community, infiltrating the pages of many publications, and not only the The New York Observer, or the The New York Press, the possible laboratories of this disorder."(Julavits)

Now I realize that New Yawkers think their city's the centre of the universe, but has Julavits perused widely-known poetry and the canonical crit issueing from those books' immediate publication, as well as reaction to those (early) books centuries later? Horace, Catullus, Pope, Shakespeare (that canny Bard-- just who was Timon?), Layton, generated proof of the physics law of equal reaction to every action with those authors' critical counterparts.

David Denby (I haven't read his book, so I won't respond to its larger argument) bases his anti-snark views largely on Teh Internets and on pop-culture snipes, but of course Banks and Vermeersch are talking not only of CanLit "culture", in general, but to the specific reviewing style of Zach Wells and of this writer. This is strike two, and is a clear example of another popularly deployed logical fallacy:

a) reviewers these days write a lot of snark (however that's defined-- see strike #1)

b) Palmu and Wells write reviews expressing negative opinions

c) therefore, Palmu and Wells are snarkists

"If snark is a reaction to this sheer and insulting level of hyperbole, fine; but should the writer, who is a pawn in this system"(Julavits)

What system? Julavits has set up her strawperson with detailed cheerleading blurbs, but it has nothing to do with the motivations of her supposedly unfair snarkists. As in:

"who is a pawn in this system, who has negligible say over the design of his book jacket or even his title, who would never be so presumptuous to compare himself to Dickens, should this disdain be delivered unto him?"(Julavits)

I quoted Emily Schultz giving what I thought to be ridiculous claims for Banks' books; that's a reflection on Schultz, not Banks. Of course the author isn't responsible for blurbs, but it's useful to point out (where necessary) the discrepancy between a blurb's specific attributes for the book under review and what the reviewer's experiences of that book were. After all, many a time a reader's first found commentary on what a book might contain is on that very book-flap, and certainly not on what a relatively obscure blogger has said about it.

"(Writers also become pawns of the “call and response” reviewing that occurs between competing publications; Time magazine runs a glowing review, and Newsweek answers with a pan.)"(Julavits)

Ah, yes. Or to tweak the conspiracy just a bit: Internet "warriors" are the hoi polloi, the great unwashed plebs just trying to get a break through (over?) the walls of academe, and the publishing levers they control. (Vermeersch publishes, Banks teaches -- we're just competing for their positions. Isn't that just answering the reviewers' obvious intentions, objectively?)

"Here’s another theory about snark. Maybe snark was a critical attempt to compete, on an entertainment level."(Julavits)[bolding mine]

Objectivity. I love well-researched essays. I have a theory, too. Has Julavits perhaps been given a .... "snarky" review, too? And we can't have entertainment! (And I love the very subtle Queen's put-down-- entertainment level!)

"the giggling, minuscule minority. We also see those movies. Book reviewers who adopt this tone when reviewing literary fiction are about as humorous as cow tippers"(Julavits)

Which is it? For objectively subjective theory-based, emotionally driven disingenuous-linked argument, this is further richness. Are we bitter and angry, or just having some sporting fun? Or both? Or have those on the receiving end of this nebulous term also been by turns bitter and reactively sarcastic?

"as a result, they guarantee a book that might have sold 4,000 copies, will now sell 800. And nobody will read that book, not even the literary types, who are off watching Titanic with a knowing smirk"(Julavits)

Aha, power to the downtrodden reviewer! But Banks would have it that no one listens to us. Again, I'm confused. Are we two-handedly bringing down the House of CanLit, or are we mere annoyances?

"Most frightening is how easily snark is perpetuated by snark bytes—fragmented portions of essays, articles, interviews, taken out of context in order to make the author appear in the worst possible light— those little bonbons of malice favored by The New York Observer, New York magazine, The New York Post. Unfortunately, most readers don’t return to the source to determine what the article in question was striving to say. The snark byte supplants the original article; the author’s intent is reduced to the periodical equivalent of gossip."(Julavits)

Again, to direct this to the matter at hand (remember, it's fair game since Vermeersch linked to this article to damn Wells' and my own procedures), the opposite is overwhelmingly the reality: positive tidbits in an otherwise negative or at least mixed review will be wrenched out of context or predominant assessment in order to boost a book's perceived reception.

"Wood makes people hopping mad, yes, but despite his grumbly excoriations there’s usually room for a dialogue with Woods, which indicates there’s something to wrangle over, i.e., his claims are based on a strongly-held (and felt) belief system, and he’s an intellectual, which means he likes to be forced to defend that belief system."(Julavits)

Good for Woods. And my comment stream is always open. But when Julavits says "dialogue", I take that word seriously, not interpreted as drive-by smears, back-stage whispers as deflected sniping to "you-know-who", glossing over substantive posts or ignoring them altogether, bringing up repeated arguments to points I've already answered and which haven't been properly and directly refuted or even addressed, original thought in the debaters' own words, not cutting-and-pasting portions (sometimes out of context) of some other authority figure in lieu of the debater's own opinion. You want communication? Go for it. But it takes two.

"snark, I suspect, is a scornful, knowing tone frequently employed to mask an actual lack of information about books."(Julavits)

Scornful and knowing. My, my. And the "lack of knowledge".... yes, of course it's lack of knowledge, I suspect, when the author is getting panned, otherwise the review would have been filled with superlatives, but why is it I've never heard an author complain about a positive review if said review is misinformed or poorly written?

"This is because a lot of books are reviewed by people who don’t read books unless they’re reviewing them."(Julavits)

I wish I had a loonie for every modifier this outer of snark has composed. And a lot (including moi) of people read books because we love books, and because we hope to be surprised and delighted by every book we first encounter. But that's like having season's tickets to the Toronto Maple Leafs: you hope every game is going to be a win, but you know that's not often going to be the case. You can't celebrate, though, unless you're at the game.

"The real question then becomes: If you don’t believe in this, what do you believe in? What do you care about? What is the purpose of this destructive clear-cutting, if you don’t have anything to suggest in its place, save your own career advancement?"(Julavits)

Leaving aside, once again, the repeated ad hominem charge, from Julavits (here at the quote's end) and from others in this internet page-burner, I agree with Sessions here (generally-- again, I haven't read Denby's book)--

"When snarkers do attack, it’s not because they’re purveyors of an angry form of discourse that values cruelty as an end. Rather, it’s a means for expressing defeated idealism, for raving at the absurdity of entrenched institutions that insult our intelligence and sense of fairness."(Sessions)

http://www.patrolmag.com/times/1356/the-art-of-being-nasty

If you want a positive review, read a review I've done of another's book. Ah, but it's not at all about "objectivity" and the "author's always-to-be-respected intent", is it? It's personal. Are those positive reviews similarly deformed, then , too? And if not, why not, since they issue from the same "snarky" mindset? Am I praising them out of insincerity? Is every motive so suspicious to you? And, if so, isn't that rather a joyless, rather a faithless and emotionally tainted and (wait for it) snarky approach to my work?

To be paradoxical for a moment (though the fundamentalists can't seem to hold two opposing views in mind at the same time-- Blake would have found the views ironical), one of many reasons I snark from time to time is that I agree with D H Lawrence's view that 90% of creation is first concerned with tearing down rotten edifices. Egalitarians often miss that part of the natural world, though. "If we welcome every view, respect everyone's view equally, support each others' efforts, we'll all learn and grow together." No. I'm a Nietzschean, here. As to art, it surprises me that any serious artist would take the communal common denominator view. Or is this view just held for public consumption? For oiling the public connections? Well, Vermeersch's and Banks' hypocrisies have now been exposed, put on record. But, unlike Banks, I wouldn't want to speculate on the answer to that last question above. (If Banks ever decides to post a "negative" review on a specific author on his positive-reviews-only site, someone let me know.)

"Besides, I have that three lousy cents burning a hole in my pocket—and I’m eager to place my bet on the latter horse."(Julavits)

The minimun bet in horse racing is $2. Pony up and name names, Julavits.


(More later.)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Chris Banks Switches From Attack to "Content"

I missed this Banksian doodle from last week, but it's no less enertaining than his previous entries.

http://chrisbanksy.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-s-burroughs-from-review-of.html


He links to one of my earlier posts, wherein I chide the author of yellow bitchiness (is it a snark if it's a rearrangement of her preferred persona? After all, she revels in the oh-so-clever throw-it-back-in-yer-face "ironical" self-promotion of her own negativity) for her utter lack of substance in her post on her equally vapid (oops, except for one drive-by snark) contribution in the bookninja post on Packer-Danner, as well as chiding Trailing Clouds Of Glory Banks defending the poets-huddled-in-comment-stream-hovels. This is all so mature, isn't it, "high seriousness" Banks? Please continue; I notice, with increasing pleasure, the gathering tribal solidarity forming, as well. Can you always be accused of aesthetic tribalism, especially now that the writing seminar doors have been closed for the day? (I won't tell Hoaglund, I promise.)

No response at all to that post except for the linked highlight "personal prejudice".

That's it. A two-word response instead of a rebuttal.

Following that, though, as I say in the header, we have a surprising switcheroo! Banks has finally realized that embarrassing ad hominems only work in the schoolyard, and has now re-entered the "debate" with an astounding array of substantive material! Oh, wait .... he's using some other fellow's intellectual dick -- er, actually, Arnold through Burroughs, so I guess it's thrice-removed -- to make his "case". The content?


"Matthew Arnold set up three criteria for criticism: 1. What is the writer trying to do? 2. How well does he succeed in doing it? (...) 3. Does the work exhibit "high seriousness"? That is, does it touch on basic issues of good and evil, life and death and the human condition."(Banks, or rather, Arnold, as channel-wikipediaed through Banks)

That's it.

Thank you so much. I'd never seen this reviewer's creed before!

Just a subtle hint: I'm not a freshman creative writing seminar student, hanging on your every word so's to make the hoped-for tribal connection a year before my premature poemlets arrive on your writing desk for dissemination. Do you really want to talk about Arnold, and his incredibly complex and contradictory contributions to the literature of reviewing? Is Arnold your boy? Because you set down these three criteria as if ..... oh, I don't know, they were (to use Paul Vermeersch's word) fundamental or something. I'm just trying to follow the bouncing ball, but all I get is eye strain.

As to the Arnoldian precepts you trumpet, I've already dealt with the first two. Please pay attention. If you wish to discuss what I've already said, it helps the "debate" to become a true, give-and-take engagement with one another's material, and from becoming redundant. I'm sure you'd agree, entertainment and clarity and compression beat rounding the roller-derby floor for the hundredth time. (And what does Lemon Hound have to say about the blatant sexism contained in rule #2?!)

Reviewing, reading, writing poetry, life observation are all more simple and more complex than you and Paul Vermeersch seem to have it. And more elegant. (Don't you find it interesting, if not amusing, to read so many of Arnold's denunciatory calls on abstraction, while much of his own prose rolls on like a document missing six senses?). A person, in any of the above four roles, is simultaneously subjective and objective. Neither is ever eliminated, and never can be.

I remember a second-year English course I took on the Romantic poets. The prof handed out two poems, one by Shelley and one by Byron. The former was a demonstration of a subjective mood, the latter of objective assessment. We were given a fair amount of time to read them (all this is in-class, remember). He then asked for a show of hands on how many preferred Shelley's entry. Myself and two or three others put up our hands. Byron got the remaining 20 + votes. The prof then noted that this wasn't a surprise; Shelley's subjective slant was out of style. (Shelley's reputation has vacillated wildly these 200 years.) And if we're informed at all about literary history, we'll see that the objective/subjective see-saw has swung up-and down continually. Wyatt to Sidney to Greville to Milton to the Romantics to the Victorians to the Moderns to the Postmoderns and to the Kitchen Sink. Of course, there are many anomalies, many movements I've purposely missed, many ambivalences, many syntheses. As Chris Banks would appreciate, a Zen Master was asked for the basis on which he gave advice when in satsang: "when a pupil is too extreme one way, I say 'go left, go left!'; when (s)he is too extreme the other way, I say 'go right, go right!' ". Again, elegant (in theory, at least), while being both simple and difficult.

I'd just add that Shelley and Byron, of course, were good friends. And that I love the poetry of both. Most good poets are objective and subjective, available for alternate approaches or closed to certain ones, or to all other takes, and, thusly so, either simultaneously (with multiple meanings in ordered or singled-out diction in the same poem, e.g.) or in different poems. Ah, fundamentalism. And the Arnoldian wrenching of meaning onto a higher plane, making a prosaic two levels instead of the reversed and altered Blakean three-pronged higher third.

Rule #3? Well, Arnold struck Chaucer off the list because of this "failing". Of course, he was wrong in both assessment (so much for "understanding the author's intention") and snobbish belief. Again, a fundamental failure of imagination, a failure to balance opposites in joyous contradistinction.

Damn it, just what is that poet thinking about on line 32? Or to correctly credit Arnold in one of his astute critical notes, paraphrasing: as the complexities build, so too does (or can) the overestimation.

Gradations of Snark

Ahhh, if I only had a tenth of the talent of these blurbers. After these quotes, the legacies of these poets told of the effect.

------------------------------------------------------

"A pig rooting among garbage."
--on Walt Whitman

"A blandly inoffensive barns and farms poet, suitable for use in seducing blue-haired old ladies."
--on Ted Kooser

"Pinsky wants to dance with his poems. The problem is, he has a lead ass."
--on Robert Pinsky

"It's hard to say what's worse, his milquetoast attempts at "the uncanny" in his profoundly overrated "crow" poems, or his tepid early nature poems. Brother should have stuck to children's books."
--on Ted Hughes

"Like the Platte River, a mile wide and an inch deep."
--on Alfred Lord Tennyson

"A hack with a tin ear, ....should have been forgotten long ago."
--on Edgar Allan Poe

"A humorless fraud, cold and toady."
--on Seamus Heaney

"The praise she gets for [her poems] is the same kind of praise I give to my undergraduate creative writing students when they make one good word choice in a ten-page story. I cringe every time I read a Dickinson poem."
--on Emily Dickinson

"Keats. Fucking Keats and his fucking Grecian Urn."
--on .... John Keats

"This will never do."
--on William Wordsworth

"Boring conversational lines."
--on Chris Banks

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And to close with a snark so damning, the unfortunate recipient has been expunged from history:


"You small and runny pile of encephalitis. "American Literature is dead." Where'd you get that insight, the LaBrea fucking tar-pits? Keep raving in your forest, pal, but you are a far, far cry from earning any love/cred from us real snarkers. Your own yawn is bored with you. God knows you're not worth the gurney they'll inevitably strap you down on."




Who says reviewers don't have influence?

Monday, November 23, 2009

Complexity Of Interpretation Is Not Optative Authorial Depth

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-sovereign-ghost-of-Wallace-Stevens-4283

For me, a timely piece on Wallace Stevens by that "King of Snark", William Logan.


(The prefaces here are my own subjective interpretations on the quotes that follow, in mind of the recent discussions on intent, fundamentalism, objectivity, and the reviewer's "job". I realize, and admire, that there are also many other ways to take Logan's words.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Robert Hilles' assessment of Chris Banks' (at the time) just-released Bonfires: "Rarely has a first book been this impressive"; and on the Globe & Mail's take on Tom Wayman, after the recent publication of High Speed Through Shoaling Water: "a contemporary 'Homer' " (he or she wasn't referring to the Simpsons, or to Canadian nationalism):

"It’s easy to underestimate this moment in American letters, when certain boundaries and stock notions about poetry were, in geological terms, erased almost overnight. Between 1909 (Personae) and 1923 (Harmonium), there was a tectonic shift in what a poem had to do to be called a poem."(Logan)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the limits of technical antecedents and expectations when faced with a unique voice:

"In short, [Stevens'] poems are so strange, so unlikely, sometimes they don’t seem poems at all."(Logan)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the fact that spiritual evolution has little, if anything, to do with a poet's worth:

"This is responsive observation coiled around casual racism (the black draftees are perhaps still absurd animals to him—his benevolent feelings seem provoked more by the draft)"(Logan) [italics in the original]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the dangers of making premature cementlike canonical declaratives, pro or anti, -- or on making descriptive "objective" authoritative conclusions -- on recent publications:

"The poems are so peculiar, critics were a while catching up."(Logan)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On making a strong case for a poet even if he or she has written abysmal poems, or poems from abysmal stances (weak philosophy, in one of Logan's negative-side views of Stevens):

And on using comparisons with other poets appropriately:

"To love Stevens, you have to love his deformities and even his monstrosities, as you do the wretched, self-conscious lines in Whitman."(Logan)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the forgiveness of those weaknesses in the case of a great poet (or a poet a reader or reviewer thinks has a chance at lasting value):

"The poems are diminished and even ruined by such oddities, but without the arterial energies they solicit and unleash, the better poems might be nothing. The license of exaggeration and exorbitance is the guilty evidence of the pressure of imagination elsewhere."(Logan)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the unimaginative mistakes of later poets issueing from the same approaches from great forbears:

" "When this yokel comes maundering,/ Whetting his hacker” .... (The preposterousness of such lines has licensed a lot of freakish language since.)" (Logan)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the checking of awed mystery that attends heady reviewers even when reviewing a specific poem, the latter reviewer giving it authoritative scope and depth where a (perhaps) stronger case and plaudit could be set down from a more "pedestrian" take on it:

"[Blackmur's] argument is unsatisfying in a number of ways. The poem isn’t nearly so mysterious."(Logan)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On not confusing the importance, exactitude, and heightened separateness of meaning with guessing the author's intention(s) through an affective fallacy, or through a wrong premise (consider Logan's discussion of the "loge" in this context):

"The astonishing thing is that Blackmur, as close to a genius as American criticism ever produced (excepting only Poe), gave up on meaning so easily"(Logan)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On sound (or any other device) when effectively deployed becoming the possible meaning where diction and/or syntax makes meaning difficult:


"No man writes phrases like “fubbed the girandoles” who doesn’t want to be taken as a bit of a dandy, an aesthete in yellow kid-gloves—but, unless he’s also a kook, he has something precise in mind. I’d quarrel with Blackmur that the words Stevens used in Harmonium (“diaphanes,” “pannicles,” “carked,” “ructive,” “cantilene,” “buffo,” “princox,” “funest”) were always the most exact or exacting available, but, even if so, words have an effect beyond their meaning."(Logan)

It's also a difficult topic in poetics. Does the effort justify the end? Each reader or reviewer has to make the call, alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've included the following extended passage, because taken as is, or even with the rest of the essay, there are those who'll still see it as "snark". If that's the case, then Logan would be a waffler, or the intellectual equivalent of a manic-depressive, because he loves Stevens as much as most.

"Much of Stevens is tedious, refractory, pompous, or ponderous; even his masterpieces are full of bombast and puffery. As he got older, he fell into blank-verse philosophizing no less like boilerplate than the reams of legal documents that presumably issued from his office. He’s a poet whose words you want to get behind: the language is as much an obstacle as a pleasure. But, when you parse those phrases, when you go to the Palaz of Hoon and come back again, you’re often a little disappointed. The philosophy of his poems, the grand ones as well as the pleasingly trivial, are those of a freshman class in ontology, epistemology, or aesthetics. Stevens had a high opinion of his philosophical gifts—he was prickly and childish when a late lecture was rejected by the Review of Metaphysics. Eliot, who was a trained philosopher and possessed the subtlest mind among the moderns—perhaps the subtlest mind in all American poetry, if you exclude Melville—knew enough to leave the philosophy out, or to bury it deeply."(Logan)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is my highlight of the piece. I love it. I'm reminded of Stevens' "gloomy grammarians", and I think his wild wordplay was often a purposeful ploy to trip up those academics who pedantically stumbled and puzzled over reconciling wit and nonsense with "deep thots". Logan, though often showing humourous discrepancies between an author's lines and reach, hasn't much of a sense of play. And Stevens may be successfully playing him, too, at times self-satirizing philosophical overreach:


"The critical response to Stevens has itself so often been abstract, so full of critic’s legalese, it has made him more a great cloud of being than a man who at times played with words."(Logan)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On not trumpeting a solidified "vision", especially for poets contemporary or from the same clique or poetic school, or within a friendly relationship.

"Like Swinburne, like Hart Crane, like Ashbery, Stevens is reduced by explanation."(Logan)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the assertion and inevitability of individual taste:

"If I prefer poems more complicated the more their effects are exposed (consider Eliot, or Lowell, or Hill—and think of Shakespeare), that is a preference armed as a prejudice."(Logan)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a reviewer knowingly contradicting him- or herself if the context justifies it, or even if the reviewer's own mood is temporarily changed (see above: "the poems are diminished and even ruined by such oddities...."):

"It’s a pity that you have to wade through a great bog of minor work to get at poems that sharpen the responses of the imagination."(Logan)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On "oh my! more snark":

"The magnificence of Stevens comes at a cost, the same cost we pay for Whitman: logorrhea of an uncharming and embarrassing sort, absurd notions, passages too private with their own pleasure, tone-deafness, lofty ambitions insufficiently grounded, and gouts of gimcrack philosophy. The longer the poems, the more likely they were disfigured—even defeated—by these defects."(Logan)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the curious fact that I don't see too many Canadian poets of the anecdotal lyric even attempting to review postmodernists:

"Stevens requires the condition of taste merely to begin, because he’s not well served by his weaknesses"(Logan)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On humility, when genuine and appropriate:

"But Stevens is so capacious a poet, he has room for my obtuseness."(Logan)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On evaluative audacity:

"[Stevens] remains one of our great poets."(Logan)