In connection with remarks made by Tim and Kent recently--
I have done a lot of reviewing of poetry, especially recently, but one
thing I have never done is choose to write about a book purely because
I don't like it and want to attack it. What on earth would be the
point of that? If you don't like something take no notice of it. The
very fact that you don't like it means it is to you ineffective,
you're not going to learn or realise anything from it, it is inert, so
let it lie there like a lump of star jelly and pass on. And anyway,
nobody's listening. As for hiding behind anonymity in order to shoot
your mouth off...
I'm not the apostle of some moral or spiritual credo in poetry, some
hope for the future, some cultural light which is in danger of being
extinguished by inept or blind poets whose work must be stamped out.
We are not missionaries. The idea that it is part or the whole of
poetry's business to convert humanity to some new vision, some new
reach to the totality, is now out of the question, it last died with
the "new American poetry" and its adjuncts. It was killed by the poets
themselves, by Olson and Dorn and Duncan, in the frightful megalomania
and perversity of their late works (having been so brilliant as young
poets). You cannot after that collapse go on any longer spurning the
sense of common humanity.
Of course there are ways of promoting poetical quality itself, which
is very diversely defined (perceptual accuracy, technical skill,
equanimity, the "wisdom" which Olson spoke against and many other
things). This involves claiming a right, which might be difficult to
justify at large. But to me none of this entails the bombarding of
enemy fortresses.
PR
|