 |
 |
Well said, Malcolm. Hejinian might have added "a poetic isn't a set of techniques, it's a way of being in oneself and the world." Which is why those who separate out the techne tend to sound hollow. Like ballet dancers doing modern dance. When I've taught in writing programs (always as a visitor, thank god) the thought has insistently come to me that I could really accomplish something if I had these kids (of whatever age) for a couple of years. But I don't aspire to be a guru. It is what happened, apparently, at Black Mountain, and I think Robert Kelly has done much the same at Bard. It's also what happened in the informal apprenticeships that have been the education of poets since poetry became divorced from priesthood. The Sons of Ben come to mind. I remember a poem by Jane Flanders, maybe 20 years ago, describing the quite horrific accident that almost killed her husband. He was on a tall ladder picking cherries in their backyard when the ladder lost its perch. It bent like a bow and hurled him into a long arc before he hit ground. In the poem she describes his flight as an aesthetic event--it becomes decoration. It never occurs to her to question or explore the multiplicity of mind that allows for that disjunction, which is why she remains a thoroughly conventional poet. What the poem tells us is that the world as she records it is a series of decorative surfaces. There's a different kind of committment required, and techne is its manifestation. I like Spicer's last words, referring apparently to the manner of his death (I'm probably misquoting): "My vocabulary did this." Any lesser committment is just careerism, and careers are I think the primary goal of MFA programs. But let's see how Graham's poems fit into this construct. Candice? > >A question / reservation to raise about Finnegan's words on Jorie Graham's >role at Iowa. Did you do the MFA yourself, Finnegan? did anyone else here? >because I'd be interested to know what people think about langpo techniques >being 'adapted' to mainstream poetics. I seem to remember something like >this being discussed _somewhere_ a while back and someone told a story >about Lyn Hejinian getting quite upset at langpo techniques being co-opted, >saying something like 'language poetry isn't a _style_.' What do people >think about this? Can you _responsibly_ adapt the techniques of a school >without engaging with the political and social implications of the poetic >as a way of life, as a way of having poetry as part of a living continuum >rather than as a professionalised, specialised activity? if not, is there >an argument for abandoning poetry writing programs in favour of programs >that actively encourage people to develope wider notions of poetics and >approach? > >best wishes, > >Malcolm > >/ / / / / / / / / / / / > >Flat 59 room 2 >Albany Park >St Andrews >KY16 8BP >Scotland >(00 44) + 1334 427862 (internal university number 7862) >