Well I could type out the dictionary definition of 'reject' but
I'm sure you have one at hand. Maybe it is what Carlo calls
'cruel censorship'. But I don't intend to quibble over a word.
The point I was making is that I know
nothing of what goes on or went on with the Buffalo list and
I don't want to know. If I did I would join it. But there does
seem to be evident resentment among some of you in
regard to that list in general and Charles Bernstein in
particular. That is a matter between you and him.
I was merely pointing out that public space is not always
the most apt setting for private feuds which concern very
few of us here. The fact that Carlo felt compelled to
mention the 'cruel censorship' of Bernstein seems to
bear this out and then to call his work 'drivel' - well that's
his personal opinion and I do not intend to argue with his
personal opinion as it seems to me a rather cheap form
of criticism best saved for conversation with ones cronies
in the pub.
I hope you can all appreciate what I am trying to say.
G.
-----Original Message-----
From: kent johnson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 29, 2000 05:36
Subject: Re: Report on Bridge Street Books MLA Group Reading
>
>
>Dear Geraldine,
>
>Could you provide an objective definition of a "reject"?
>
>Kent
>
>>To have one insipid reader at a poetry reading is
>>a misfortune, to have two is careless but to have
>>twenty two is truly miraculous.
>>I think it a great pity if the britpoet mailbase is being
>>used as an overseas base for American internal
>>back-stabbing. O.K. the readings may/may not have
>>been insipid - I wasn't there so I can only take your
>>word for it but the general tenor of this account seems
>>anything but objective. The only good guys being
>>rejects from the Buffalo list?!
>>We are all interested in what is going on in the rest of
>>the world of poetry but not this sort of petty
>>poetry politics - please. Was anyone at this reading
>>who can give a more objective account?
>>G.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: R.Gancie/C.Parcelli <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Friday, December 29, 2000 01:48
>>Subject: Report on Bridge Street Books MLA Group Reading
>>
>>
>> >Their Bark Had No Tree:
>> >
>> >If the group reading of 22 poets staged at the Four Seasons Hotel last
>> >night is endemic of American poetry today, then American poetry is dead.
>> >Barrett Watten read a long poem On Friendship clearly designed to be
>> >flagged by the Oxford Book of Poems on Friendship and torpid enough to
>> >make it in. My apologies to the Metaphysicals. Watten's meditation was
>> >obviously a product of too many idle moments in his lit department
>> >office.
>> >
>> >Bob Perelman did him one snoozier with an interminable, 5 minute piece
>> >punctuated by reports of his frequent flyer miles. With a lot of these
>> >folks, rebellion seems to have gone the way of their hair, if one can
>> >believe they ever had any fire in them to begin with.
>> >
>> >Johanna Drucker read her "hygenic hardware" poem in a spectaular
>> >monotone that resembled HAL the computer in 2001. The poem beats to
>> >death a single metaphor and then compounds the felony by having a book
>> >designed around it.
>> >
>> >Juliana Spahr read two poems that rather mechanically and
>> >unimaginatively morphed one word into another in bland and fatuous
>> >association. Then she grafted an appendix to each poem that by fiat
>> >insisted upon the above exercises grave consequences. Very sterile.
>> >
>> >It was clear that Jerome Rothenberg's contribution to poetry does not
>> >come from his own work. And one learns that Loss Glazier and Susan Howe
>> >are nervous, frail creatures that one should not stand up and hoot at at
>> >poetry readings, no matter how bereft there presentation is of substance
>> >or talent. Somewhat the same can be said of the Waldrop's who seem to at
>> >least to muster a little intensity for their work even if its not
>> >actually in the work.
>> >
>> >There's no Sturm und Drang in young Faust, Graham Foust that is.
>> >Likewise for the others who if they knew anything at all were powerless
>> >to communicate it in their poetry.
>> >
>> >With all the enthusiasm that Pope John now musters for the Confiteor,
>> >moderator Rod Smith of Bridge Street and Ariel Magazine kept waking up
>> >the audience with his own monotone recital of "what a great reading this
>> >is." But a "great" reading it was not. And from audience reaction, it
>> >seems certain that if you caught any of them in an honest, Guinness
>> >soaked moment they would have communicated their shock at the amateurish
>> >nature of the proceedings especially in light of the "all-star" cast.
>> >But in the back of the audience's minds rests two concerns; do I write
>> >any better? And do I want to offend any of these guys when I might need
>> >a job reference? This was the tone that informed the evenings poetry.
>> >This is what people mean when they refer to "academic" poetry.
>> >
>> >The readers went in reverse alphabetical order, so that the grand poobah
>> >and frightfully insipid poet, Charles Bernstein could read last. When
>> >Charles made his way to the podium, most of the FlashPoint staff made
>> >its way to the exits. This was in no way intended as a protest of
>> >Bernstein's cruel censorship of the eloquent Henry Gould, the sheepish
>> >Gabe Gudding and, now, the endearing and totally innocent, Kent Johnson.
>> >We just couldn't stand even 5 more minutes of the poetic drivel. Carlo
>> >Parcelli
>> >
>> >Bob's Big Boy, Bob's Burger Barn, Bob's Brazen Bestiality, Bob's Broad
>> >Buttocks, Bob's Billiards and Barbecue, Bob's Bluffalo Bamboozle,
>> >Bob's....
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
|