ANNOUNCING NEW WORKSHOP PLAN (you heard it here first...)
I was coming home on the plane from Seattle/Vancouver trip and I was thinking about how I had read this piece in Vancouver and afterwards we had this discussion about it. This discussion was helpful (and at moments I admit not that helpful). But when it was helpful it was helpful because a number of hard to answer questions were asked and even when they were at moments too weird for me to answer, they made me think about how I was writing. And I was thinking on the plane about how as a result of these questions I was going to have to go home and work on this piece some more. The questions were big ones. Like “are you saying that Language poetry is the equivalent of Liberalism?” And “what is the relation of your work to Realism?” And I was trying to think how to get that sort of questioning into the workshop more rather than the sort of here is what I would do to fix it or I really think you need to move section two to section three advice which I feel we keep resorting to in workshop. It isn’t that I don’t think that sort of information can be useful, but rather that I want it to come out of those big questions rather than out of us as readers just needing to have something to say during workshop. Some of the impulse here might also be Scott always grumbling legitimately “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And I guess I would add, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it; but be sure you know how it matters because if it doesn’t matter (to you/to friends/to loved ones/to strangers), then why do it.
So I am changing the plan for part two of the workshop. You might celebrate if you find yourself tiring of the procedures or you might continue to grumble if you hate any direction of any sort and just think you should be able to do whatever the hell you want for workshop or if you just prefer to do things like discuss where the comma should go because that feels easy and safe. I’m trying to go for a certain productive and supportive dis-ease here. I’m interested less in smoothing out the poems that get brought to workshop. I’m interested more in all of us trying to think together about larger issues in our work or just in poetry in general. To me, the workshop will be “useful” if the Poet feels they know how to take their project to another, perhaps larger, level or when the Poet decides that this piece is what it is (it ain’t broke) but they’ve got some ideas for another piece of writing that perhaps might have even more ambition or is in another form.
New plan…
Two Poets will continue to present each week as we’ve been doing (schedule remains the same).
Each Poet will have two readers, Reader A and Reader B. Readers A and B will each write up a page response to the work and bring 13 copies for the class.
(The rest of the class will just read the work and be smart about it…so less work will be required of you each week under this new plan overall. However, if anyone is freaking out about the change in plan, please come by my office and talk about it.)
Reader As will describe the work formally. They will notice at least six to ten things about the work. They might notice tense and they might notice form and they might notice structure. They might also notice content but the emphasis should be on how this intersects with form (in other words, Reader A would not summarize what the Poet might be saying except how content intersects with form). They might list what sorts of things are in the work and what sorts of things are not in the work. They might talk about the value systems of the form (such as the Poet values clarity and clearly sorted data thus they embed their narrative in the sonnet form or the Poet values chaos and disorder thus they tear apart the sonnet form). Any sort of formal analysis. At moments Reader A might feel s/he is being too simple but s/he should not worry about this because his/her observations might be transparent to the Poet. Reader As might imagine themselves as Russian formalist critics of the 50s. Those with ambition and interest might refer to work by Roman Jakobson for some insane suggestions here. Reader As will not say things like I like this (or not) in this piece of writing (although they may well want to say this in the workshop and should).
Reader Bs will describe the stakes of the work. They will address why the work matters (and they will assume that it does matter). They might place the work in a tradition and discuss how it differs from or agrees with that tradition. They might hypothesize about influences. They might provide context for the piece. They might recommend reading to the Poet. They, like the Reader As, will avoid evaluative critique. Reader Bs might find it helpful to think of themselves as writing a poetic statement for the Poet.
Poets should submit work that will benefit from this sort of analysis. And they should come to class with some notes that answer these questions also. Poets might want to think of these questions as a gentle sort of pressure on the writing hand and not as anything else. If a Poet finds that these questions make their mind spin and disable the writing hand, then Poet should forget them. They are not worth any anxiety that leads to the avoidance of writing (on the contrary, they should produce more writing). Maybe the Poet will find that someone else in workshop might be able to answer them anyway.
3/24
Dennis (William)
(note: we will respond to Dennis in the traditional manner of the workshop so far; then flip over and start this new response method with Scott)
Scott
reader A: Angie
reader B: Dennis
3/31
Romney
reader A: Dennis
reader B: JoNelle
Kristen
reader A: Scott
reader B: Angie
4/7
Padcha
reader A: Romney
reader B: Scott
William
reader A: Kristen
reader B: Meg
4/14
Jessea
reader A: Padcha
reader B: Romney
Dan
reader A: William
reader B: Kristen
4/21
Meg
reader A: Jessea
reader B: William
JoNelle
reader A: Dan
reader B: Padcha
4/28
Angie
reader A: Meg
reader B: Dan
Dennis
reader A: JoNelle
reader B: Jessea
I was coming home on the plane from Seattle/Vancouver trip and I was thinking about how I had read this piece in Vancouver and afterwards we had this discussion about it. This discussion was helpful (and at moments I admit not that helpful). But when it was helpful it was helpful because a number of hard to answer questions were asked and even when they were at moments too weird for me to answer, they made me think about how I was writing. And I was thinking on the plane about how as a result of these questions I was going to have to go home and work on this piece some more. The questions were big ones. Like “are you saying that Language poetry is the equivalent of Liberalism?” And “what is the relation of your work to Realism?” And I was trying to think how to get that sort of questioning into the workshop more rather than the sort of here is what I would do to fix it or I really think you need to move section two to section three advice which I feel we keep resorting to in workshop. It isn’t that I don’t think that sort of information can be useful, but rather that I want it to come out of those big questions rather than out of us as readers just needing to have something to say during workshop. Some of the impulse here might also be Scott always grumbling legitimately “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And I guess I would add, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it; but be sure you know how it matters because if it doesn’t matter (to you/to friends/to loved ones/to strangers), then why do it.
So I am changing the plan for part two of the workshop. You might celebrate if you find yourself tiring of the procedures or you might continue to grumble if you hate any direction of any sort and just think you should be able to do whatever the hell you want for workshop or if you just prefer to do things like discuss where the comma should go because that feels easy and safe. I’m trying to go for a certain productive and supportive dis-ease here. I’m interested less in smoothing out the poems that get brought to workshop. I’m interested more in all of us trying to think together about larger issues in our work or just in poetry in general. To me, the workshop will be “useful” if the Poet feels they know how to take their project to another, perhaps larger, level or when the Poet decides that this piece is what it is (it ain’t broke) but they’ve got some ideas for another piece of writing that perhaps might have even more ambition or is in another form.
New plan…
Two Poets will continue to present each week as we’ve been doing (schedule remains the same).
Each Poet will have two readers, Reader A and Reader B. Readers A and B will each write up a page response to the work and bring 13 copies for the class.
(The rest of the class will just read the work and be smart about it…so less work will be required of you each week under this new plan overall. However, if anyone is freaking out about the change in plan, please come by my office and talk about it.)
Reader As will describe the work formally. They will notice at least six to ten things about the work. They might notice tense and they might notice form and they might notice structure. They might also notice content but the emphasis should be on how this intersects with form (in other words, Reader A would not summarize what the Poet might be saying except how content intersects with form). They might list what sorts of things are in the work and what sorts of things are not in the work. They might talk about the value systems of the form (such as the Poet values clarity and clearly sorted data thus they embed their narrative in the sonnet form or the Poet values chaos and disorder thus they tear apart the sonnet form). Any sort of formal analysis. At moments Reader A might feel s/he is being too simple but s/he should not worry about this because his/her observations might be transparent to the Poet. Reader As might imagine themselves as Russian formalist critics of the 50s. Those with ambition and interest might refer to work by Roman Jakobson for some insane suggestions here. Reader As will not say things like I like this (or not) in this piece of writing (although they may well want to say this in the workshop and should).
Reader Bs will describe the stakes of the work. They will address why the work matters (and they will assume that it does matter). They might place the work in a tradition and discuss how it differs from or agrees with that tradition. They might hypothesize about influences. They might provide context for the piece. They might recommend reading to the Poet. They, like the Reader As, will avoid evaluative critique. Reader Bs might find it helpful to think of themselves as writing a poetic statement for the Poet.
Poets should submit work that will benefit from this sort of analysis. And they should come to class with some notes that answer these questions also. Poets might want to think of these questions as a gentle sort of pressure on the writing hand and not as anything else. If a Poet finds that these questions make their mind spin and disable the writing hand, then Poet should forget them. They are not worth any anxiety that leads to the avoidance of writing (on the contrary, they should produce more writing). Maybe the Poet will find that someone else in workshop might be able to answer them anyway.
3/24
Dennis (William)
(note: we will respond to Dennis in the traditional manner of the workshop so far; then flip over and start this new response method with Scott)
Scott
reader A: Angie
reader B: Dennis
3/31
Romney
reader A: Dennis
reader B: JoNelle
Kristen
reader A: Scott
reader B: Angie
4/7
Padcha
reader A: Romney
reader B: Scott
William
reader A: Kristen
reader B: Meg
4/14
Jessea
reader A: Padcha
reader B: Romney
Dan
reader A: William
reader B: Kristen
4/21
Meg
reader A: Jessea
reader B: William
JoNelle
reader A: Dan
reader B: Padcha
4/28
Angie
reader A: Meg
reader B: Dan
Dennis
reader A: JoNelle
reader B: Jessea
<< Home