 |
 |
I think Celan put the problem better than anyone else: (from Weggebeizt) das bunte Gerede des An- erlebten — das hundert- züngige Mein- gedicht, das Genicht. Full text : http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000997.php On 19 February 2010 16:14, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Robin, you could put it that way; though I don't like much of the > Romantics either. > > > > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:52:06 -0500, Robin Hamilton > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > ><< > >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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- David Bircumshaw "A window./Big enough to hold screams/ You say are poems" - DMeltzer Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/