Here is my shot at tackling the issue of politics and poetry.
First, I wonder about the parameter of both terms. Is there one? Does politics mean the White House, Iraq, Oakland's cutting buses, sweat shops, worldwide corrupted politicians? Does politics mean writing without the lyrical "I"? And "poetry" seems to be taking part in the inability to get defined. It's like the world is too diverse to get defined. Whatever one does in the world, whatever one thinks, is going to be different. And that's a good thing. It will be boring otherwise. Thank god for all human to think the same thing is impossible. But when it comes to specific issue like this one, the lack of common, clear, agreed understanding makes things a bit wobbly. This might be a partial reason for the variety of incongruous comments. When uttering that notorious comment that younger poets weren't political enough, what exactly did Ron Silliman want to mean by political? Who knows. Maybe he does.
Another word to join the cannot-be-defined gang might be responsibility.
As poets, we'd like to think about writing as our life and responsibility. We want to write responsibly. But now, what does responsibility really mean? Are there kinds of responsibilities? Political responsibility (voting/protesting/marching/activism)? Literary responsibility (trying relentlessly to write the best of one's ability/self/intellect)? Do the two (or more) necessarily have to combine and be demonstrative in the writing? Nothing's blameworthy either way, if you ask me. Say, do scientists researching plankton have to start researching Nuclear because it is more political and plankton is too personal and self-indulgent? I mean the plankton scientist should learn about the Nuclear and other way around. But does that mean the person must abandon his/her insights on plankton??? Or maybe the scientist will argue that plankton is political in its own way.
Maybe I am too idealistic, what I think matters is that one does what one sees as important responsibly and sincerely. Trask might believe in poetry as a tool of resistant. Stein might see hers as importantly subverting normative language. Cha might believe in the importance in making complication of immigration known. Creely thinks love poems are important. Poets in other countries around the world possess their devotion to the arts whether or not it is "political." The world is never one thing, being political is never one thing. So maybe we should do what we know best--personal "political" belief--better.
I am not arguing against political poems here. I am arguing for good poetry, responsible poets.
First, I wonder about the parameter of both terms. Is there one? Does politics mean the White House, Iraq, Oakland's cutting buses, sweat shops, worldwide corrupted politicians? Does politics mean writing without the lyrical "I"? And "poetry" seems to be taking part in the inability to get defined. It's like the world is too diverse to get defined. Whatever one does in the world, whatever one thinks, is going to be different. And that's a good thing. It will be boring otherwise. Thank god for all human to think the same thing is impossible. But when it comes to specific issue like this one, the lack of common, clear, agreed understanding makes things a bit wobbly. This might be a partial reason for the variety of incongruous comments. When uttering that notorious comment that younger poets weren't political enough, what exactly did Ron Silliman want to mean by political? Who knows. Maybe he does.
Another word to join the cannot-be-defined gang might be responsibility.
As poets, we'd like to think about writing as our life and responsibility. We want to write responsibly. But now, what does responsibility really mean? Are there kinds of responsibilities? Political responsibility (voting/protesting/marching/activism)? Literary responsibility (trying relentlessly to write the best of one's ability/self/intellect)? Do the two (or more) necessarily have to combine and be demonstrative in the writing? Nothing's blameworthy either way, if you ask me. Say, do scientists researching plankton have to start researching Nuclear because it is more political and plankton is too personal and self-indulgent? I mean the plankton scientist should learn about the Nuclear and other way around. But does that mean the person must abandon his/her insights on plankton??? Or maybe the scientist will argue that plankton is political in its own way.
Maybe I am too idealistic, what I think matters is that one does what one sees as important responsibly and sincerely. Trask might believe in poetry as a tool of resistant. Stein might see hers as importantly subverting normative language. Cha might believe in the importance in making complication of immigration known. Creely thinks love poems are important. Poets in other countries around the world possess their devotion to the arts whether or not it is "political." The world is never one thing, being political is never one thing. So maybe we should do what we know best--personal "political" belief--better.
I am not arguing against political poems here. I am arguing for good poetry, responsible poets.
<< Home