I wasn't feelin' it. I walked in a little late (I suck) and she was talking about semi's and capitalism and I liked that stuff. But gradually, it got, I don't know, bogged down. I know I'm supposed to have posted this beforehand, but I thought I'd try an experiment and hear her read before I posted. Thee things I read of hers beforehand, a few poems and two critical essays (one about starting her own press, which was kind of cool) were interesting. I went in and out on them. And tonight, she had my attention for some of it, like when she talked about stepping off a curb and the holding on to a dissappearing line and somehow being glad it might all come to ruin- that was very affective.
Two main problems I can put my finger. First, too many adjectives. I don't like it in prose, don't like it in poetry. Gertrude Stein says a lot of cryptic things about adjectives in Poetry and Grammar, and to the extent that one can sensibly agree with shwat Stein writes as if it were propositions in the traditional sense, I think I do. They don't ever actually say much. I know 'sayijng something' is a pretty provincial criterion, but there's my prejudice.
Second. She titled a poem "Categories" and opened with a line something like: "The empiricists decided, true and not true create a non-truth" os something like that, and it just sounded like bullshit to me. If she's talking about an historical moment in philosophy, she's got me (and I'm pretty up on my empiricists, but you never know). If she's doing something else with the word, than I don't know what that is. I think I take an opposite tact than Meg here, and instead of throwing up my hands, I get a little pissed. I'm trying to take her at her word, and if that isn't the game, if these words aren't referring to their customary referents then I'd like some indication that a different game is being played (like some quote marks, or more non-sense surrounding the words). I'm not saying you have to use the traditional referent of whatever word you put in a poem, but I do feel like you should let the reader/listener know what game is afoot.
I guess I'm being harsh because I just got the sense she was throwing around words she liked the sound of (this is tied to the adjective complaint above). That sounds like a funny complaint to make about poetry, but I'm kind of weird that way. There's enough non-sense in the world to be adding to it willy-nilly with empty verbiage (although that might be an over-the-top comment), as sometimes I thought she was saying very meaningful things). Also, there's enough beauty. That's probably the most controversial thing I'll say here, but really: beauty is cheap. And I don't mean manufactured beauty, beauty I would call beauty without irony- there's too much of it, and it's readily produced. Some of Billy Collins' lines are actually beautiful, as are some moments in Hollywood dramas (even the ones with explosions). There's even beauty in some Christian hard rock. I think only in architecture is there nothing beautiful being made these days, and that's just because it's regulated by the government and so expensive to realize that no one really thinks of aesthetics anymore (just gloss on top of shit).
Beauty bores the fuck out of me these days. Why not produce something ugly? I'm going to think about all this and then read her again, because any time I hate a poet I have to go read them to make sure I'm not just being a dick (which is often). I thin kI may have some extrinsic reasons for feeling like this at the moment. But before I go, I'm wondering what folks think of the politics of her stuff and her statement about politics in poetry in Invective Verses: that "Instead we should annoy the power mongers by using poetic propaganda to launch a ruthless critique of them and their buddies and to expose the world of contradictions surrounding us. For poetry, my friends, is like a sit-in at the luncheonette of language, and we should refuse to get up and walk across the street to the "poets only" diner. Poetry is the insistence that we partake in the expression of our lives,"
Again I thought it was bullshit, but how 'bout someone smarter, and less ugly, than me says something.
G'night
Two main problems I can put my finger. First, too many adjectives. I don't like it in prose, don't like it in poetry. Gertrude Stein says a lot of cryptic things about adjectives in Poetry and Grammar, and to the extent that one can sensibly agree with shwat Stein writes as if it were propositions in the traditional sense, I think I do. They don't ever actually say much. I know 'sayijng something' is a pretty provincial criterion, but there's my prejudice.
Second. She titled a poem "Categories" and opened with a line something like: "The empiricists decided, true and not true create a non-truth" os something like that, and it just sounded like bullshit to me. If she's talking about an historical moment in philosophy, she's got me (and I'm pretty up on my empiricists, but you never know). If she's doing something else with the word, than I don't know what that is. I think I take an opposite tact than Meg here, and instead of throwing up my hands, I get a little pissed. I'm trying to take her at her word, and if that isn't the game, if these words aren't referring to their customary referents then I'd like some indication that a different game is being played (like some quote marks, or more non-sense surrounding the words). I'm not saying you have to use the traditional referent of whatever word you put in a poem, but I do feel like you should let the reader/listener know what game is afoot.
I guess I'm being harsh because I just got the sense she was throwing around words she liked the sound of (this is tied to the adjective complaint above). That sounds like a funny complaint to make about poetry, but I'm kind of weird that way. There's enough non-sense in the world to be adding to it willy-nilly with empty verbiage (although that might be an over-the-top comment), as sometimes I thought she was saying very meaningful things). Also, there's enough beauty. That's probably the most controversial thing I'll say here, but really: beauty is cheap. And I don't mean manufactured beauty, beauty I would call beauty without irony- there's too much of it, and it's readily produced. Some of Billy Collins' lines are actually beautiful, as are some moments in Hollywood dramas (even the ones with explosions). There's even beauty in some Christian hard rock. I think only in architecture is there nothing beautiful being made these days, and that's just because it's regulated by the government and so expensive to realize that no one really thinks of aesthetics anymore (just gloss on top of shit).
Beauty bores the fuck out of me these days. Why not produce something ugly? I'm going to think about all this and then read her again, because any time I hate a poet I have to go read them to make sure I'm not just being a dick (which is often). I thin kI may have some extrinsic reasons for feeling like this at the moment. But before I go, I'm wondering what folks think of the politics of her stuff and her statement about politics in poetry in Invective Verses: that "Instead we should annoy the power mongers by using poetic propaganda to launch a ruthless critique of them and their buddies and to expose the world of contradictions surrounding us. For poetry, my friends, is like a sit-in at the luncheonette of language, and we should refuse to get up and walk across the street to the "poets only" diner. Poetry is the insistence that we partake in the expression of our lives,"
Again I thought it was bullshit, but how 'bout someone smarter, and less ugly, than me says something.
G'night
<< Home