JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  2003

POETRYETC 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Sparrow&Spider, Poem Six

From:

Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 May 2003 10:26:19 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (163 lines)

Let's agree to differ about the muse. I think we're really talking about
two different things anyway.

So let's talk about women being excluded because they're women. As a
decidedly obscure poet who's been around for what begins to be a very long
time, on the left margins but somewhat connected to what passes for a
mainstream, I've never seen it. I'm talking about the US, where the
complaint is also made, and I'm talking of course about the present and the
near-present.

First to some specifics. A comparison of the careers of Rukeyser and
Stevens isn't quite fair as an example. By 1923, when he was 44, his
reputation had been established with the publication of Harmonium. That was
during the brief springtime of modernism in the US, after which the
dominant culture went back to sleep. Muriel didn't publish her first book
until 1939. Stevens stayed out of politics. Muriel was an activist.

And of course back then the professoriate and the critical establishment
was almost entirely male. Now women faculty are plentiful in both lit and
creative writing programs. And criticism is dominated by two women, Helen
Vendler and Marjorie Perloff.  So what rewards poetry offers in the real
world are being redistributed.  But women in these positions of power
haven't rallied to Muriel. If they did her relative (relkative to Stevens)
obscurity would be erased overnight.

To digress for a moment, Sandra Alcoser, a decidedly conventional poet,
happened upon the poetry of Lorine Niedecker, a truly obscure poet until
very recently, a couple of years ago and fell madly in love with it. It
seems an improbably passion for her, but there it is. She's since written
articles, appeared on panels at conferences, and presented the work to her
students. Nobody stopped her because she was promoting a woman poet.

OK, back to Rukeyser. In 1975 I put together an enormous reading (huge
audience, live radio broadcast) of six poets, four of whom were and are
major figures: Muriel, Joel Oppenheimer, Rochelle Owens and Charles
Reznikoff.  Rezzie, then I think 81 (he died the following year), had been
"rediscovered" a couple of years earlier by Black Sparrow, in those years
before Bukowski a decidedly marginal affair. For decades he had been
self-publishing his books--he couldn't give them away. Like Muriel he had
been a victim of the red scares. Understand that nobody talks about these
things except in relation to the movies, academia, and the state
department. It's even dropped out of the history of organized labor except
for specialists. So it's not surprising that it's rarely brought up in
relation to poets, real or obscure. While he was self-publishing Muriel was
publishing with Harper, Scribners, etc, and Rezzie, who, like Muriel, has a
devoted following, is hardly common knowledge, even among poets. Joel,
despite a pretty bad biography a couple of years ago, remains obscure.
Rochelle, who I think is one of the most interesting poets around, couldn't
find a publisher for her selected until I came along, and Junction Press
isn't likely to make anyone famous.

Gerald Stern is, in the manner of poets, famous. Adrienne Rich is famous (I
agree with you about her poetry, by the way. I once heard her at a reading
bemoan the fact that her sons, the older then 15, were not daughters.
Warmed the cockles of my heart). Neither are fit to wipe the shoes of any
of the above.

I have no explanation, but I doubt that now, at this moment, gender is the
determinative factor in the making of reputations. If it is I want to see
the mechanism. Let's say I remain skeptical, but wouldn't mind being convinced.

Where it has functioned is in the makeup of groups self-named for the sake
of promotion. Some reputations (none of the above) have been fostered in
this manner, and women haven't seemed to form these as readily as men.
Black Mountain, New York School, Language, etc.  I've remained outside
these myself.

By the way, except in her sex life (we didn't know each other well enough
to talk about it, but let's assume that she was 100% straight) Muriel was
as "masculine," as the term is used, as Stein.

Mark




At 06:55 PM 5/5/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>At 11:55 PM -0700 5/4/03, Mark Weiss wrote:
>>Alison: I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you exaggerate some.
>>Men and women have tended to use the imagery of feminine fertility for all
>>sorts of things for a long time--fecund nature, for that matter Mother
>>Nature. The idea of giving birth to art is hardly dependent upon the idea
>>of the muse, nor is it necessarily theft.
>
>Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that, Mark.  I am not
>exaggerating, but it would take a book to say why.  The idea of
>giving birth to art is an idea which was seized on and used by the
>Romantics and, yes, it is closely connected to the idea of the Muse,
>and it is closely linked to the idea of the exclusively male artist.
>(The appropriation of female fertility into a male figure is much
>older than the Romantics, but I am talking about that).  I am not
>seeking a "victim" status for women.  I am trying to make clear a
>particular paradigm, which is quite specific and very well
>documented, that has been used against women poets, both in their
>lifetimes and afterwards, for some hundreds of years.  The only
>reason for it that I can see is to preserve poetry as a male province.
>
>At 11:55 PM -0700 5/4/03, Mark Weiss wrote:
>>Mary Shelley doesn't seem to have been
>>a victim of the muse. Only idiots buy the ubermensch stuff at this date,
>>and not too many of those.  Many are edited out of the picture for a time
>>or forever, for a variety of reasons or just because of dumb luck--to
>>ascribe this in the case of women to some kind of male conspiracy seems a
>>bit over the top, especially in the modern period. Muriel Rukeyser, for
>>one, never lacked for major publishers (the editors were almost invariably
>>male). In the wake of the early days of the feminist movement she became a
>>very minor celebrity--at readings (she read in various of my reading
>>series' several times in her last decade) a small group of younger women
>>>would gather around her--but she had never been invisible. Neither
>>>was I think you
>>>get my drift. I don't think any one of them worried a lot about the muse.
>
>
>You are of course talking about exceptional women; but let's look at
>them.  Mary Shelley was Mary Wollstonecroft's daughter, which gives
>her a rather unusual heritage for the time: she was unusually aware
>of the issues of gender.  Muriel Rukeyser is by no means listed as
>one of the "greats" of 20C American poetry (in the way for example
>Wallace Stevens or Robert Lowell or any other number of recognisable
>names are) despite the fact that the best of her poetic achievement
>places her there squarely.   It is said of Rukeyser that her poetry
>suffered because she was a single mother; I have often wondered why
>her simultaneous persecution as a communist in the McCarthy era is
>never considered as a factor in her years of silence.  If a man was
>in the same position, a sole father and a persecuted political
>activist, the focus would be on the presecution; the emphasis because
>she is a woman is to focus on her personal life and to forget to
>mention her public life.
>
>HD is considered a minor and often eccentric figure compared to her
>contemporaries and suffered from some (to say the least) harshly
>dismissive reviews from Randall Jarrell, whom I otherwise admire,
>because of the female focus of her later poetry (Trilogy and so on).
>HD was most certainly concerned with the idea of the woman poet and
>the muse.  Gertrude Stein could be admitted through the paradigm
>because she was a "masculine" woman.  Adrienne Rich (who doesn't
>compare with Rukeyser, imho, not that it's any disgrace) rose on the
>wave of feminism, and much of her work, both poetic and theoretical,
>deals with the dilemma of the female subject and its relation to the
>male gaze.
>
>Yes, men too suffer from obscurities, but not just because they are
>_men_; it is because they embrace a then unfashionable mode of
>writing, or some other thing to do with their work.  What I'm talking
>about is not a conspiracy so much as a cluster of prejudices or
>predelictions which are sadly still extant and in some places still
>dominant, and which affect both the perception of women and women's
>perception of themselves.
>
>Best
>
>A
>--
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>Editor
>Masthead Online
>http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
>
>Home page
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager