<<
Robin, you’re right. But I’ve never rated the poets you mention as poets
anyway.  Great prose writers, yes.
>>

Gosh, Jeffrey, how admirable to see the spirit of Matthew Arnold's dismissal 
of Pope as a masterpiece of prose still alive and well!

Now I know where to go to find the spirit of the current zeitgeist 
incarnated.  And just as Arnold was so right in abolishing such a mass of 
writing as irrelevant to poetry, and leaving only a few sprigs 
retrospectively illuminated by the bonfire created by the Romantic movement, 
confidently and prophetically predicting that in a hundred years time, no 
one would read anything *other than the Romantics (and those few writers 
before them who palely foreshadowed their coming), so I'm sure that you will 
be proved equally right.

Robin



On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:49:27 -0500, Robin Hamilton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>
><<
>The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or
>vignette. Everything else is allowed.
>>>
>
>Oops -- there goes every single Browning dramatic monologue.  And
Chaucer
>...  For starters ...
>
>The demolition derby would extend as far back as Archilochus.  Lucky
Homer
>wrote such a long text (or texts), otherwise the very foundations of
Western
>Literature would be trembling in their ... foundations.
>
><<
>“You systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you
>find in various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps
>because it allows you to happily free-associate.”
>
>I think most people free-associate at some point when reading poetry.
I
>always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for
this.
>Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry.
>>>
>
>"My name is Ostentatious, King of Kings.  Look on my works in a
strictly
>post-modernist subjective fashion, or else."
>
>As Shelby might have said in her well-known 14 line vignette.  Or was
it
>Humpty Dumpty?  Pound (if one may be allowed such an appeal to
authority)
>said that poetry should be *better written* than prose, not simply
vaguer.
>
>Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:48:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff,  I think once again we've reached an impasse.
>>    You have very specific, lexical rules for determining the quality of
a
>>poem, and yet seem to me often tone deaf to, or just uninterested
in,
>other
>>elements that I consider equally or sometimes more significant. You
>>systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you find
>in
>>various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps because it
>>allows you to happily free-associate. Stuff you're not interested in
you
>>refer to as "technique" and as merely "formal", by which I take you to
>mean
>>inessential or secondary. I've tried on more than this occasion to
>suggest
>>why I find these criteria reductive and unhelpful, but you only seem
to
>>understand a small portion of what I'm saying. Otherwise I can't see
>why you
>>should need to instruct me with comments like "Bad poetry can
rhyme
>also you
>>know", adding again that "the presence of technique shouldn't always
>be the
>>deciding factor for quality". "Technique" per se doesn't really interest
>me,
>>as I've already said  - even the term bores me though I guess it
could
>be
>>resuscitated - and I'm quite aware lots of bad poetry rhymes.
>>
>>  No need to apologize for your assumption that "simple, non-avant-
>garde
>>language" would please me. But to clarify it's not just that I've never
>>stated such a preference: I've never had it. Neither now - nor in the
>past.
>>(The poets I began doing some soon-abandoned, academic work on
>were John
>>Berryman then Hart Crane, neither of whom write what I would
>consider
>>"simple" language. The poets I've written on at some slight length
>over the
>>last years have been Montale and Dante, again far from simple,
>though you
>>could find some lines here and there that are powerfully so. Still
more
>>recently I've translated and written briefly on Valerio Magrelli whose
>>language is often deceptively simple, in other words achieving
>complex
>>effects with plain language, though, again, some of his poems
employ
>a
>>formidably technical vocabulary. These last months I've been
>translating the
>>Mexican poet David Huerta whose poems are densely metaphoric and
>>linguistically complex. Excuse this biographical detour, but it's
>>frustrating to be so consistently misconstrued. I'm only guessing
>these
>>misunderstandings arise because you consider me a "mainstream"
>writer - and
>>because you think you know exactly what that makes me.)
>>
>>   Because I don't subscribe at all to the rules which you apply to
poet
>>after poet, I feel quite at liberty to like and enjoy many whose
>language
>>would appear to you "lexically" plain or dull.
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:56 PM
>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>
>>
>>“Since you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd
>>have thought these things might have interested you more.”
>>
>>My point in such comparisons is to point out the contrast between
the
>>lexical differences rather than the formal ones. Bad poetry can rhyme
>>also you know, so the presence of technique shouldn’t always be the
>>deciding factor for quality.
>>
>>“Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>>schmaltzy.”
>>
>>And you didn’t Armitage’s poem?!
>>
>>“Speaking of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-
>>garde language" would please me? I don't think I've ever stated
such a
>>preference.”
>>
>>Perhaps not expressly, but your vigorous defense of the Armitage
>poem,
>>here, and, at other times, mainstream poetry in general has led me
to
>>believe this.  If I’m wrong, my apologies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:01:08 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff,
>>>  I fear you haven't really considered my point about technique -
that
>>sound
>>>and rhythm are not decorative extras for a poem but integral to it.
>>Since
>>>you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd
have
>>thought
>>>these things might have interested you more. As for the poem's
>>imagery, I've
>>>already said why I think it works.
>>>   Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>>schmaltzy. It
>>>is not at all on a similar theme and it's linguistically inept, though
>>>despite his reverential mention of Wordswoth and Browning "who
all
>>seem to
>>>be saying the same thing" I don't suppose he'd think it was a
poem.
>>Speaking
>>>of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-garde
>>language" would
>>>please me? I don't think I've ever stated such a preference.
>>>Jamie
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:11 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>
>>>
>>>Jamie, technique in itself does not make a poem. It is the
>combination
>>>of that with imagery, allusion, metonymy, a certain mystery, etc.
The
>>>Armitage poem has little of the latter aspects. That’s why I am
>>>criticising it. I find the poem’s sentiments and execution of them
>one-
>>>dimensional.
>>>
>>>If you want to hear a better rendition of a similar theme then listen
>to
>>>Clifford T. Ward’s song“Home Thoughts from Abroad” which does it
>>>better, in simple, non-avant-garde language (which should please
>>you).
>>>Here is a link to it on YouTube:
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9G0ENZJLI8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeff,
>>>>   I'm not sure why what I've written should seem " mostly
technical
>>>points"
>>>>or exactly what it would mean if they were.
>>>>   Surely technique, in which sound-effects play a large part,
should
>>be
>>>>relevant in describing why it's a poem rather than "perhaps, good
>>prose
>>>>fiction" as you call it. I've also mentioned a complex of imagery
>that
>>is
>>>>tightly worked, and to spell out a bit more what I called the
>vaporous
>>>>elements in the poem, the 'st' sounds which begin with "missed"
>>>(homophone
>>>>'mist'), which leads to 'steam' in the next line, then is heard again
>in
>>>>just, dust, lipstick, lost, upstairs, understanding, lipstick,
>>>>stowed...just
>>>>to take one thread of sound through the poem (and there are
>>others) -
>>>>suggest to me that Armitage has, even at this very early stage of
>his
>>>>writing an acoustic sense that can be a central part of the way we
>>>hear a
>>>>whole  poem - rather than a mere technical point, or even as "the
>>>measure of
>>>>poetic accomplishment" which you bring out of nowhere. What I'd
>>>argue is
>>>>that these are effects, including the rhythmic ones which (I agree
>>with
>>>>Robin) are a marked and positive aspect of Armitage's work, that
>>>make a flat
>>>>paraphrase an utterly insufficient means of describing (and
>>>intentionally
>>>>negating) the poem. This poem or any other. It seems to me that
>>your
>>>>obsessive concentration on 'empirical markers' means you ignore a
>>>whole
>>>>range of other features integral to a poem.
>>>>  (Your Jacket article makes it clear, as I'd guessed all along, that
>>your
>>>>zealotry on behalf of this term "empirical" is deeply indebted to
>>>Easthope,
>>>>in particular to his dim and philistine reading of Edward Thomas's
>>>>'Aldlestrop'. But perhaps we oughtn't to get into that again.)
>>>>Jamie
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:23 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jamie, these seem mostly technical points you like about the
poem.
>>>But
>>>>the poem is still like a thousand other poems expressing similar
>>>>sentiments. It is, perhaps, good prose fiction writing; the sort
that
>is
>>>>esteemed in some creative writing classes, but is this to be
>>considered
>>>>the measure of poetic accomplishment?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:55:09 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>>><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's a poem written when Armitage, I'm guessing, was 25, or
>>younger.
>>>>There's less fizz and word play in it than in many of the poems of
>his
>>>>first book: it's quieter and maybe not that ambitious. That said, I
>like
>>>>the vaporous sweep of the poem from its first image of
>>>>what's "missed...by moments" , the steam of the "just-boiled
>kettle"
>>>to
>>>>the final images of "the air, still hung with spores of your
>hairspray;/
>>>>body-heat stowed in the crumpled duvet."
>>>>>    The lines:
>>>>>  "and in this space we have worked and paid for
>>>>>   we have found ourselves and lost each other"
>>>>>stand out for me, and I think will have "cost" something to
write.
>>>>>   Its handling of the pentametre looks to me more
>>than "adequately"
>>>>skillful, as does the subtle "st" and "sp" sound-patterning that
runs
>>>>through it
>>>>>
>>>>>   It's easy to make a crushing equivalence between the
domestic
>>>and
>>>>the bourgeois, but most of us live our lives in domestic settings
>and
>>>>interiors, and I see no dishonour in their inclusion in a poem. As
>>both a
>>>>love poem and a poem about a relationship in crisis, I think it
has a
>>>>kind of tenderness and integrity.
>>>>>  (I doubt, though, that this account will tear Robin away from
his
>>>>admiration for David's post and the "specific points" he has
>>somewhere
>>>>found in his and Mark's dismissals.)
>>>>>Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>  From: Mark Weiss
>>>>>  To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:11 PM
>>>>>  Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  And aren't paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>>  At 06:02 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     "How's that?"
>>>>>    I'd say it did quite well on the nastiness scale.
>>>>>    Though it doesn't distinguish itself from 20,000 other bits
>>>>of "criticism" posted every day that cost nothing to write.
>>>>>    Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>    To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>    Sent: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010 22:51:43
>>>>>    Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>
>>>>>    Shall I try? Probably 20,000 poems a day are posted or
>>published.
>>>>Most are skillful and nothing more. Most take no risks whatsoever.
>>>Most
>>>>want to be liked. Most are crashingly boring. This is one of those.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The problem is, this sort of waste makes it harder to fight
>>through
>>>>to find the good stuff, the stuff that's cost the poet something to
>>write
>>>>and that will cost the reader something to read.
>>>>>
>>>>>    How's that?
>>>>>
>>>>>    At 05:46 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      >It's adequate. Could I be nastier?
>>>>>      I dunno, Mark. Could you be?
>>>>>      Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>>    Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>(University of California Press).
>>>>>    http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>
>>>>>    "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random
House
>>>>Book of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology
>so
>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the
United
>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>English.
>>>>There is nothing else like it."   John Palattella in The
>>>>Nation
>>>>>  Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>(University of California Press).
>>>>>  http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>
>>>>>  "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House
>>>Book
>>>>of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so
>>>>effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the
United
>>>>States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>English.
>>>>There is nothing else like it."   John Palattella in The
>>>>Nation
>>>>>
>>>>>