Rebecca:
I was really injecting a comment at a convenient moment, directed more at
the whole discussion. I'd imagine that any journal anywhere could be
parodied similarly in snippets.
Most of what's published is pretty awful. But I think Simic was talking
about what Ron Silliman calls "the quiet tradition." I'd say much the same
about it, except that I'm also aware of a great deal else that's written,
as I'd guess is everyone else on this list is. Simic seems content to
ignore all of that.
There was a lengthy discussion of the anthology from the point of view of
the excluded half of british poetry on Britpo some months ago. The archive
is available at the jiscmail website.
Mark
At 12:17 AM 1/2/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>Yes, I did think your point was that there was 'no most prestigious mag';
>I was
>just playing along with the sort of ridiculous premise of the question;
>yakking
>basically, since obviously we'd all have our favorites. Though I don't
>consistently, finding only something from time to time in various issues. And
>agreed about the litter box,
>
>happy New Year
>
>---- Original message ----
> >Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:02:09 -0500
> >From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: The suckableness of contemporary American poetry
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >The point of my question is that there is no "most prestigious" mag--we
> >each have favorites, depending on what kind of poetry we take seriously.
> > From my perspective Poetry isn't worthy of lining the litter box, for
> >instance, and APR has no editorial position at all, so occasionally it
> >prints something decent. Others will differ, which is fine with me--there's
> >no reason there should be unanimity. Tho I suspect that Simic's reading is
> >on the conservative side. But it would be interesting to know what mag Jon
> >was selecting from.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >At 11:22 PM 1/1/2005, you wrote:
> >>Well, Ken, if we're playing guess the magazine, I'd guess _American Poetry
> >>Review_ is the most prestigious, though _Poetry_ has the most money since
> >>that humongo grant and Jon's examples sound more like _Poetry_ poems
>which
> >>has always had a particular editorial taste. And, yes, _Triquarterly_ is
> >>still in
> >>business but it's a dimn third to these other two, I'd guess, and has
> >>revolving
> >>editors, or a lot of guest editor issues so the taste is always changing.
> >>
> >>I thought Doug's response was to the point; Simic is basically ignoring a
> >>great
> >>deal of work here, and it seems in that sense to me the standard anthology
> >>introduction, which is where the editor posits himself and 'other work' in
> >>opposition to a level field that he has himself first levelled,
> ignoring whole
> >>bodies of work.
> >>
> >> I don't get the 'political correctness' bit either or who's the
> >>poetry police that enforce it or why poets in the UK are 'free' to be
> >>politically
> >>incorrect in comparison. Where is that list of 'forbidden words, topics,
> >>attitudes'?
> >>
> >>Bbut then I'm just back from a writer's gathering
> >>where there was one poet who wrote entirely in various forms without 'i',
> >>another who wrote very funny and witty third person/ persona poems that
>had
> >>everyone laughing, another who read some political poems that were all over
> >>the place in forbidden words, topics, attitudes, and a fourth that did an
> >>extended sequence in many voices about Bosnia. So none of the work fit
>within
> >>Simic's criticism, though perhaps it wouldn't make it into the 'most
> >>prestigious
> >>poetry magazine', I don't know, I didn't check the credits, though these
> >>poets all
> >>have books published somewhere. There is work and editorial policy that
>does
> >>seem to fit within Simic's criticism but it's not the only work around,
> >>and the
> >>work that does fit in some sense, "the first person realistic narrative'
> >>is often
> >>funny, witty, irreverent like Tony Hoagland's _Donkey Gospel, or full of
> >>metaphor, imaginative extremes, and incorrectness of all sorts. But
> >>basically I
> >>guess I don't care, since as you note, one does one's work, however
> that is.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>
> >>Rebecca
> >>---- Original message ----
> >> >Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:40:56 -0500
> >> >From: Kenneth Wolman <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >Subject: Re: The suckableness of contemporary American poetry
> >> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >> >
> >> >At 10:02 PM 1/1/2005, you wrote:
> >> >>What's the most prestigious American poetry journal?
> >> >
> >> >I'll bet we get 10 different answers to Mark's question. My guess is
> >> >"Poetry" out of Chicago. Or Triquarterly, if it's still in
> >> >business. Or...or...or.... I also have to ask a snotty but absolutely
> >> >serious question: who the hell is Charles Simic? I know who Charles
> Simic
> >> >IS, I have read and enjoyed his work, but when did he ascend to the Chair
> >> >of St. Ezra and turn himself into an authority figure?
> >> >
> >> >For the claim:
> >> >
> >> >>The favorite kind of poem was a
> >> >>first-person, realistic narrative that told of some
> >> >>momentous or perfectly trivial experience. It was
> >> >>written in free verse often barely distinguished from
> >> >>prose. Audacious flights of the imagination and use of
> >> >>metaphor were rare. In the age of political
> >> >>correctness and the evr-growing lists of forbidden
> >> >>words, topics, and attiftudes, irony and wit became
> >> >>suspect. And so did humour. The chief strategy of
> >> >>these poems was to conceal that they were poems by
> >> >>avoiding anything taht seemed too imaginative or
> >> >>irreverent. . . ."
> >> >
> >> >>I have no
> >> >>doubt that those members of the list whose approbation for
>contemporary
> >> >>standards of poetic excellence has led them to complain that Simic's
> >> >>criticisms are insulting hogwash will have instantly spotted which ones
> >> >>they were.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't regard Simic's comments as "insulting hogwash" so much as I
>found
> >> >them irrelevant. He seems to suggest that American poets have been
> >> >"timidized" by an army of nonartistic censors who will jump on their work
> >> >for not being PC. Uh...isn't this thing about Political Correctness
> >> >getting old by now? and therefore suspect as a WhippingPerson?
> >> >
> >> >As for the implied comments pointing at self-absorption...and your point
> >> >is? If my subject is "me," that is what I have to work with. People
> will
> >> >do what they will do. It may evolve over time. It may evolve into
> >> >artistic dead ends. It may flower. It is their work. Is Simic's
> >> >tear-down supposed to give contemporary writers an attack of guilt that
> >> >they don't write like Europeans and endeavor to change their
> styles? I am
> >> >not you, I am not Transtromer or Zbigniew Herbert, I am not even me
>much of
> >> >the time. I do what I do from where I am. It changes. Fine. To whose
> >> >liking?
> >> >
> >> >Ken
> >> >
> >> >-------------------------------------------------
> >> >Kenneth
> >> >Wolman <http://www.kenwolman.com>http://
>www.kenwolman.com
> >> > http://kenwolman.blogspot.com
> >> >"Death is a young poet's romance, and an old man's business."--Richard
> >> >Avedon, photographer, 2002
> >> >
> >> >________________
> >> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >> >Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
|
