Sharon, please re-submit your snap poem that this discussion turns on.
 Somehow I'm unable to locate it.  I found it stunning, and intended to
comment on it, but got sidetracked with talking to Fred.
Thanks, Judy

2008/7/13 sharon brogan <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Frederick Pollack <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "sharon brogan" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: another snap -- July 11, 02008
> >
> . . .
>
> >
> >
> >>  Sharon, this question is hard to answer because the only earlier poem
> of
> > yours in my inbox is your 4th of July poem.  (Don't take that personally;
> I
> > had something like 5000 messages and I recently cut them down to 2000.)
>  All
> > I can give is a vague impression, and those are unfair; one should be
> able
> > to cite lines and passages.  With that proviso I have to say yes; my
> > impression of your work is that it makes the reader look at you (the "I")
> > rather than providing an image-world he or she can inhabit.  Let me
> stress
> > that this is an extremely widespread shortcoming.  Many poets spend their
> > entire careers talking ABOUT their grandparents, parents, childhoods,
> > marriages, divorces, children, politics, gardens, etc.  They do so with
> more
> > or less wit or soulfulness, more or less fresh metaphors and stylistic
> > economy.  They criticize each other, and perhaps improve, in style alone,
> > never aware that there is any deeper issue.
>
>
> I really am at a loss -- what is this 'deeper issue' you speak of? Is it
> not
> what we are nearly always seeking, in the writing?
>
>
> > And there are many readers who enjoy, or even recognize, no other form of
> > poetry.  Such readers want to feel, Oh I've been there; the same thing
> > happened to me; I really feel I know her, etc.  But as far as I'm
> concerned,
> > these predictable agonies and ecstasies and this sentimental
> > pseudo-relationship aren't poetry; they're Oprah.
>
>
> I do not believe that my readers think they have a 'relationship' with me,
> sentimental or otherwise; no more than I believe I have a 'relationship'
> with any poet whose work I read and like, but whom I do not know.
> [Interesting -- I've found it easier to push through my defensiveness on my
> own behalf than that I feel for those who read, and like, my work -- or
> that
> of others like me. I resent the assumption that they (we) are foolish.]
>
>
> > At the level, not of style, but of inspiration, what makes poetry poetry
> is
> > 1) One tries to go beyond one's comfort-zone (which includes one's
> > comfortable lifelong griefs).  To probe the unconscious until one is
> truly
> > scared of what one emerges.  Baudelaire: "Au fond de l'abime de trouver
> le
> > nouveau."  That "new" is what counts, for oneself and the non-Oprahish
> > reader.
>
>
> And this is where I have been lacking -- not always, but lately. The -- oh,
> you would not even call them poems, would you? -- have come too easily.
> I've
> not been doing what is needed, the daily writing, the pushing through, the
> 'practice'.
>
> Although -- I am not persuaded that '"new" is what counts...'
>
>
> > 2) One renounces the most pervasive ideology of our society and of
> ordinary
> > language: the assumption that there is a Private Life - of "personal
> > feelings" and immediate relationships - distinct from the big "abstract"
> > world of politics, history, science, etc.  In reality, reality is ONE
> thing.
> >  It contains one's least admissible dreams, other galaxies, the future,
> > hydrangeas, etc. etc.  As Forster said of prose, the point is to connect
> -
> > but more relentlessly, rapidly, and bravely than prose can.
>
>
> Now, since I do not share this assumption ("Private Life" &) I hardly know
> what to say. And, I suspect that those who have read my work for awhile
> would know that I don't share this assumption.
>
> However, I also do not believe that one can escape oneself; whatever
> persona
> I may adopt, for the sake of a poem or anything else, can be nothing but
> me,
> really. It may be a persona I dislike, or aspire to but cannot reach -- but
> it can't be other than me. I can see this world, this reality, through only
> my own eyes. So I may be scolded for not adequately educating those eyes,
> challenging them, stretching them -- but I must be guiltless for not being
> someone else.
>
>
> >  The paradox of Mainstream poetry, which is all I'm accusing you of
> > writing, is that on the one hand it's narcissistic, even solipsistic - it
> > assumes that one's tsurris (Yiddish: pains, troubles) and petty
> epiphanies
> > are interesting.
>
>
> Solipsistic. I looked it up, just to be sure. See above.
>
> "... all I'm accusing you of ..." is, if I have this right, narcissism,
> solipsism, narrowness, and boring. But then, I asked for it, didn't I?
>
>
> > But on the other it's utterly timid; it confines itself to the narrowest
> > ghetto of insight and subject-matter.  I recently encountered two reviews
> > that praised two different poets for being "humble."  I don't think good
> > poetry or poets are ever humble.  I'm not.
> >
>
> I doubt that I'm humble. I may not be sufficiently ambitious. But it's
> possible that I'm merely realistic -- I recognize that I haven't the talent
> to be a 'great' poet. I could, though, be a more skillful one. That, I'll
> grant you.
>
> You have, however, defined me right out of the possibility of being a "good
> poet", or of writing "good poetry". Did you mean to do this?
>
> *********************
>
> Finally, I actually wrote this first, but then decided to go back and
> respond bit by bit:
>
> Having chewed on it, slept on it, and discussed it with a mentor, I sit to
> write/think this through.
>
> My inclination is to separate my thinking into three threads: this
> particular poem; my work in general; and poetry, it's purpose, its
> function,
> its pleasures.
>
> It is a challenge for me to respond thoughtfully -- rather than defensively
> -- to this critique, because of some of the
>
> This particular poem:
>
> ... should not have been posted without further revision. I think the
> critiques specific to this poem are fair.
>
> My work in general:
>
> Well. Words like 'narcissistic', 'solipsistic', 'Oprah', and 'mainstream'
> are tough to jump over. 'Mainstream' is certainly not, in itself, insulting
> -- it's just that I've never encountered it in any description of me before
> this, so am left a bit befuddled by it. And your definition of 'mainstream
> poetry' is unlikely to make me happy to embrace it.
>
> While not an Oprah fan, and quite understanding your indictment, I do feel
> defensive of her use in this (and some other) contexts. Here is a person
> who
> has overcome several major obstacles to become one of the most wealthy and
> influential people of our time, and her name is used to connote the
> trivial,
> and, of course, the female, emotional, "narrow ghetto of ...
> subject-matter."  I suggest that, if you truly don't want to be dismissed
> to
> your own narrow ghetto of white male chauvinism, you reconsider using her
> name in this way.
>
> I feel a bit as I do when "accused" of being a lesbian -- do I deny it,
> thereby giving the "insult" credibility? Or do I claim it, thereby refusing
> to buy into the premise?
>
>
> --
>
>
> ~ SB | http://www.sbpoet.com | =^..^=
>