Henry:
> But rather than asserting a desire for lyric as opposed to philosophic
> statement, I think what I'm pointing to here is one of the basic
> complications of making poetry: the transmutation of both a worldview
> or "philosophy" on the one hand, and the realia of actual experience
> on the other, into poetry itself. And if the philosophical assertions
> seem forced or overloaded, seem layered in a facile way over a set
> of specific "poetic" images, then the thing will come across as
> some kind of rhetoric perhaps, but not as convincing poetry. For
> it to work as poetry, the reader needs to be moved by the actual
> fusion of the actual & its intellectual/emotional reflection
> (its philosophical formulation, if you will).
Yes, I see, Henry--and I wouldn't argue with most of what you say in
general here, except maybe "the reader needs to be moved," etc., which
suggests an emotional response that's not perhaps what Graham is soliciting
from the reader--but which also may not be what you mean by "moved"(?).
Where I find it more difficult to agree with what you say here in general is
on the grounds of its generality per se. You say (unobjectionably) "if the
philosophical assertions seem forced or overloaded, seem layered in a facile
way over a set of specific 'poetic' images, then the thing will come across
as some kind of rhetoric perhaps, but not as convincing poetry," but that
all turns on "if," doesn't it, relative to Graham's poems in particular? In
"The Surface," the "fusion" you need for the poem to be successful (and I'm
not arguing against its necessity) happens for me but not for you,
apparently. Is the lack or failure here for you related to what you mean by
"moved"? I guess I'm asking if the rupture between you and the poem is more
the result of an expectation you bring to the poem as a generalization of
your reading practice (leaving aside writing practice) and which the poem
fails to meet either because it wants to but can't or because that's not
what it's about--not the business it's about.
Henry again:
> If you want to argue that my statements are part of a general anti-
> philosophical trend, or an ungenerosity toward ambitious poetry,
> that is one thing. Perhaps you're right. But your argument would
> be strenghened by looking at the poems themselves, which is
> the site from which I drew my conclusions. I could be wrong!
> We all find different things in poems.
Nope, not arguing that at all. I'm raising a question about
philosophical poetry and I was struck by some degree of convergence between
your position and Logan's in those specific statements by each of
you--obviously, the common perjorative "bombast," which suggests a similar
value judgment on the same poet, but also the interesting spatial-value
implications of a size-matters claim that both of you seemed to be making.
I'm so far from having an argument to make (yet) myself that I wouldn't even
say you're wrong about that. Your critical discourse there, however--in
marked contrast to Logan's--inclines me to keep an open mind on these
questions as they arise for me. The terms Logan employs are totally
unpersuasive relative to Graham's work for me because I find them so
grossly inappropriate, so distasteful.
Thanks,
Candice
|