tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post289747324858289017..comments2023-06-01T12:02:03.935-04:00Comments on Poets.net: Can There Be Poem Criticism Without PoBiz Criticism?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-37040464847512852602008-08-07T12:23:00.000-04:002008-08-07T12:23:00.000-04:00Mr. Owens:Poets.net has now evolved into a full-fl...Mr. Owens:<BR/><BR/>Poets.net has now evolved into a full-fledged Forum. You will probably find most of the action (including, I believe, this very thread) over there.<BR/>When you first come into this (Poets.net) site, click on 'Poets.net Forum' in the big blue text just over the green words 'New posts:'. This will take you to the Forum.<BR/><BR/>See you there.<BR/><BR/>GaryGary B. Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17919492445467135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-83900898624557442452008-08-06T22:14:00.000-04:002008-08-06T22:14:00.000-04:00To Athena and DELUX, with all due respect to Matt ...To Athena and DELUX, with all due respect to Matt and company--I’m closely following your fascinating and charged discussion as well: <BR/><BR/>I’d like to add to your debate by briefly discussing Shakespeare’s Henry V and both Olivier and Branagh’s dichotomous (thus flawed) cinematic performances of it, both of which are well worth the viewing, by the way. After reading the play I think most people would agree that the original text makes it impossible to say that Henry is EITHER a charismatic Machiavellian ruler OR god’s minister on earth, a meaningful and irresolvable ambiguity in keeping with the best of Shakespeare’s other efforts. Through the acting, the directing, the casting, the costuming, the set, the camera work, the musical score, and so on, Olivier seems to exclusively portray the king as god’s minister, as glorious England embodied, whereas Branagh presents his audiences with a Machiavellian killer, a blood-soaked colonialist. Branagh’s is a post colonialist, a post peace-movement version of the play, while Olivier’s 1944 performance may have been made, in part, to boost the moral of British troops during WWII. <BR/><BR/>Separately, each film amounts to less, much less, than the original text. It’s only after both films (performances) have been experienced and then when both films are carefully considered together that viewers begin to experience that beautiful, irresolvable ambiguity of the original text. Perhaps a newer rendition that tells the story more holistically (thus faithfully) using a Pulp Fiction rewind-and-replay-differently esthetic to capture that irresolvable ambiguity would successfully avoid the making of the play into a propaganda piece (exactly what both Olivier and Branagh either consciously or unconsciously did to it). <BR/><BR/>So, I say read, and reread differently; perform, and perform again differently. Dueling performances anyone? I go further and invite those who would publically perform poems and other texts to take creative license and boldly rework the original text if you want to. Make it into something yours (of course while crediting the original author). The more lenses we read texts through, the more varying performances we have of the same work, the better. I recently enjoyed a very liberal theatrical reworking of Michael Ondaatje’s genre-defying masterpiece The Collected Works of Billy the Kid by our very gifted and quirky local Pittsburgh theatrical group, Quantum Theater. To give you an idea of how Quantum made the piece their own, at one point during the performance, the actors violate the proscenium barrier to pass out shots of whiskey (yes, real whiskey) to everyone in the audience. Did they leave the world of the play or bring us into it with them? I still don’t know. How interesting and entertaining not to be able to say for sure on way or the other! <BR/> <BR/>By the way, Matt, Ondaatje’s masterpiece might be an example of, as you put it, “outsider poetry of literary quality,” or a work “that really progressively transcend[s] the inheritance and indoctrination of our PoBiz era.” What is this book of Ondaatje’s? Is it a long poem, a fictionalized biography, a novel, all of these things at once? Who says I have to write “poetry,” whatever that is? I think the real revolution will be in the putting aside of the concern over what poetry is and is not when that concern limits our creativity, although I will always believe in the value of asking ourselves what poetry is and is not. It’s one of those beautiful over-weaning questions like “what’s the meaning of life.” I especially love meta-poetry, like Elizabeth Bishop’s “Poem,” by the way, just so long as the next Eliot never comes along and makes Bishop’s answer to what a poem is the law of the land.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-69475249727859226402008-06-20T09:59:00.000-04:002008-06-20T09:59:00.000-04:00I wrote this response to Monday Love's first comme...<I>I wrote this response to Monday Love's first comment in this thread, but forgot about it in the ensuing melee. As it is actually on topic, I'll post it now with apologies for the delay.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>You bring up the key questions, I think, Monday. From what I've seen, you are entirely correct to anticipate the "socialist paradise" response. I've heard that coming from some PoBiz pulpits already. The answer to the commodity/paradise argument is that there is no easy answer. There is no simple truth to plop down on the table and prove utterly and instantly convincing.<BR/><BR/>One of the difficulties (before we even begin to address the "reality" of the situation) is that those poets who believe they are basking in a socialist paradise and "Golden Age of Poetry Publication" are true believers in the tribe that accepts them and grants them status. We can't, let's say, turn to Jorie Graham in the hope of receiving a fair appraisal of the system that so wonderfully empowers her. But even in some of my previous posts on this website, I mentioned some of the loopholes in the "true belief" of PoBiz acolytes. One we most commonly see is the excuse of a more universal ethics and regard for others in favor of a tribal ethics that sees the behavior and beliefs of those in one's tribe as sound and "good" and the behavior and beliefs of those in another tribe as unsound and not good (even when these behaviors and beliefs are exactly the same).<BR/><BR/>At Foetry.com, we would always hear the mantra, "But this is just how things are" as justification of impropriety that essentially preys upon others ( others who conveniently are not considered part of the same tribe as the apologists). Cronyism, favor trading, awarding prizes to friends, students, colleagues, lovers, and those who are likely to be able and willing to reciprocate the favor . . . "This is just the way things are in the poetry world." What Foetry.com was trying to do was show that this is not the way things have to be at all, and that there are real consequences, "externalities" for this common PoBiz attitude. The least abstract (and therefore easiest to articulate) argument Foetry.com raised was that, when it comes to contests with submission fees, this "acceptable" attitude or belief in the validity of the system actually results in the defrauding of those people paying to submit their manuscripts to these contests with the reasonable expectation of a fair and merit-based chance at winning. Many contests (even ones whose improprieties were exposed), wave the flag or their proclaimed "fairness" as eagerly and bogusly as Fox News.<BR/><BR/>This is, technically, a crime . . . but the regulation of contests was (and remains) negligible. That lack of regulation necessitated grassroots action . . . and as soon as someone was pissed off enough about it to do something organized, "outsider" regulation (which must consist of shaming and consciousness-raising) was born. That someone was, of course, Alan Cordle.<BR/><BR/>The reply from many poets was, "Yeah, well, poetry is small potatoes." Well, that is not an argument that will hold up in court. Fraud is fraud . . . and doesn't have a monetary qualifier. Another common argument against Foetry.com was, "Well, everybody knows that the contest and poetry publication system works like this, so if you get screwed, you're just a dope." Again, this doesn't make the practice either right or legal. And of course, most people submitting to contests have every expectation that their work will be critiqued and considered fairly. Take Christopher Woodman, for instance. He still, after all that he has been through and raged about, expects to be treated fairly by judges, editors, and poetry forum moderators alike. And he is absolutely entitled to feel this way.<BR/><BR/>So, the kick-off in my answer is that the PoBiz system can't be truly socialist when it is clear that it is taking in money capitalistically. Not only is this unarguably being done through contests (the number of which has exploded in the PoBiz in the last decades . . . and obviously because they are the only means of making a profit in poetry publication or even publishing the amount of poetry that is currently published at all) . . . but it is more subtly (but much more profitably) done through the taking of college and graduate school tuition from thousands of students. What are these students purchasing? Clearly it is not a very sure career path. It is well worth questioning the ethics of a university system that offers an educational track in something that has no job market value. Even many of the most prestigious universities offering writing programs cannot bestow BA degrees on poets that will help them become gainfully employed. A few universities notably refuse to offer creative writing majors for this very reason.<BR/><BR/>So if students aren't purchasing professional training and advantage with their poetry writing degrees, what are they purchasing? I think it's evident and would not be much contested that they are purchasing a specific kind of experience and academic knowledge. The experience of practicing and aspiring to be a poet in a group of like-minded aspirants . . . essentially a tribe. A significant number of students want this kind of "education" . . . and many universities realize this and therefore provide the product the market demands. Part of the providence of this product involves the hiring of poets to teach poetry writing (as opposed to literature or the history of poetry). These poetry writing professors are thus granted professorial and professional status in order to satisfy a market demand.<BR/><BR/>There is no socialism here. I believe that the semblance of socialism within the PoBiz is an (often self-deceptive) illusion paid for by capitalistic means. What this means is that the illusion can be deconstructed if one chooses to "follow the money". Why is so much poetry published today? Because of the pervasiveness and increase of the contest system that facilitates easy publication, the ease and affordability with which a journal or press/imprint can be created (especially with the internet and POD), and because the availability of a university education in poetry writing channels consumers into the first two practices (where "consumers" here are both the purchasers of poetry journals and books . . . and educations . . . and also the paying contest manuscript submitters). Vigorously pursuing the academic track in poetry is likely to increase one's chance of publication (because it grants one access to empowering connections and insider information and "etiquette"). This is precisely what the university education in poetry writing is meant to purchase. Just as a university education in another professional field is meant to purchase access to that field.<BR/><BR/>The main difference is that, in poetry, "access" doesn't usually mean career and financial sustainability . . . and this has been increasingly accepted (and deemed acceptable) by students, professors, and university administrators. Why? Because it helps money flow. It's profitable (for universities). The socialist paradise is subsidized and sustained by this profitability for universities, and if the universities pulled the rug out, not even the contest system could sustain the kind of poetry publication the PoBiz is currently engaged in. After all, winning contests is what has become the essential credential for poets that would teach. Two book minimum for many universities. If you couldn't get a professorship by winning contests, contest submissions would go down. Equally, without the indoctrination and access granting of the academic education system, fewer and fewer aspiring poets would bother submitting to contests.<BR/><BR/>This wouldn't rob poetry contests of all their revenue (people still want to be able to call themselves "poets" no matter how little that means status- and career-wise), but it would very likely have a major effect. For instance, fewer submissions would mean smaller purses . . . and smaller purses would lead to still fewer submissions. Fewer submissions would mean that fewer (or only "lower caliber") "celebrity judges" could be purchased. Again, that influences submissions. Fewer submissions and less revenue would mean fewer books published by these presses each year . . . and less advertising for them.<BR/><BR/>This is just a tiny example of what I meant before about the nature of complex systems (like economic markets). The socialist poetry paradise hinges on the coherence of this complexity . . . which is a purely capitalist complexity.<BR/><BR/>More subtly, I think the illusion of a socialist paradise in the PoBiz also hinges on the manipulation of the capitalist foundation on which the PoBiz rests its laurels. That is, how would the PoBiz fare if the contest system was effectively regulated, allowing more and more unaffiliated and unindoctrinated poets (poets who hadn't purchased "access" at all or by white market means) to disseminate their poetry? How might this change the character of poetry today? I don't know, but I would expect at least a small but noticeable effect. And it could begin to challenge the conformation that the PoBiz system relies on. If you can't award all the poems to "academic" poetry and poets and "keep the money in house", then you can't guarantee that poetry, poets, and poetic styles that are overtly or indirectly challenging to the system won't gain exposure and start people thinking "outside the box".<BR/><BR/>This is abstract, but, for example, I like the weirdo poet, Russell Edson. Can people be taught how to write like Russell Edson . . . and to still write well? Is Edson's aesthetic conducive to either academicization or to conforming others to a poetic standard? I think Edson's individuality and Freudian wackiness is harder to commodify than the wellmadepoems championed in workshops everywhere. There is a reason that a certain kind of poem thrives in the PoBiz system and another kind doesn't . . . and the reason is not a matter of its literary quality. There is a specific definition of poetry (and of "literary quality") that the PoBiz insists upon . . . but for reasons that are not verifiably "true". But is it possible to question these definitions within the PoBiz or to publish poems that effectively question the PoBiz definition of poetry? Perhaps, but such questioning is going to severely limit any poem's chance of every seeing print in a PoBiz rag.<BR/><BR/>I think it is reasonable to assume that (as in any complex social system) there are levels and aspects of indoctrination that serve to support the entire system that we are not and cannot be entirely aware of. The way a complex system coheres is intricate beyond our comprehension. That's why we don't usually understand how complex things are put together until we can understand how they break (i.e., by breaking them). Foetry.com essentially made an effort to break or throw a wrench into the PoBiz system. It didn't jam the gears for very long, but for the brief time the machinery ground to a halt, a lot of ugliness and fear spewed out of the PoBiz establishment. In my opinion, the true colors of the PoBiz were revealed in its reactions to Foetry.com. And I was also surprised to see how insecure many of the PoBiz pundits were despite the relatively large amount of power they had (compared to the people who made Foetry.com what it was).<BR/><BR/>I know I didn't have any understanding of the PoBiz and how it worked until I saw how Foetry.com rattled it and exposed its seams and connections. In my opinion, Foetry.com showed us all that something could be done about the PoBiz. It was not merely "the way things have to be". But the hardest work is yet to be done.<BR/><BR/>-MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-64739221559200827272008-06-20T03:29:00.000-04:002008-06-20T03:29:00.000-04:00Please do join, Robocop.Please do join, Robocop.Bugzitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535457965143420999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-35281855710402742492008-06-20T02:45:00.000-04:002008-06-20T02:45:00.000-04:00I do feel partly responsible for what happened her...I do feel partly responsible for what happened here, and would like to say something a little in the same vein as Christopher. My advantage is that I'm anonymous, and that means my comments are probably easier to accept if you find them sympathetic and easier to dismiss if you feel they're unfair. Indeed, in the end the affair seems to have been something about rivalry, and of course nobody from the outside can judge what lies behind such feelings, or how they might be resolved.<BR/><BR/>As I said in a recent comment on another thread, I do think Christopher's attempt to cast light on the argument with a poem was appropriate, and despite it's slightly preachy, R.D.Laing "Knots" type rhetoric, it is a very probing exploration of how the good things we do are tied up with self interest as well--a painful subject if there ever was one. That's a little what I meant when I introduced the example of Gandhi, someone I admire enormously, needless to say. On the other hand, Gandhi was clearly someone whose "evangelical success,/ even in death" (!) was precisely what he didn't believe in but which at the same time troubled him the most. I mean, he was intolerant, he was also a moral bully!<BR/><BR/>In the same comment I just referred to I said that I felt there was often (if not always!) something"patronizing" about a poem that tries to "preach," i.e. to speak in public with a public voice about an important public issue. My own feeling is that both Christopher and Matt tend to try too hard to change the world with the thrust of their words, and like two jousting knights who have accidentally found themselves on the same side of the tournament fence have crashed into each other and the weight of their rhetorical armor has sent them crashing to the ground.<BR/><BR/>So, keeping with that epic (forgive me!) simile, we all have to pick the two up, brush them off, and get them back into the saddle again. We can't spare such worthy warriors, nor can we allow whatever that rivalry was to destroy the whole camp.<BR/><BR/>Because I'm in your camp too, Christopher and Matt--and indeed I'm even aware of the big change coming up in your site and will certainly be joining you all if I can.<BR/><BR/>And I say that because I so much hope I'll be joining you all. And if I don't I'll go blaming myself.<BR/><BR/>RobocopAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-11271422194663388492008-06-17T03:14:00.000-04:002008-06-17T03:14:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Christopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-26035106752991385442008-06-16T13:34:00.000-04:002008-06-16T13:34:00.000-04:00I'm a much simpler person than you think, Matt, an...I'm a much simpler person than you think, Matt, and I live in a much narrower and more constrained world than living where I do would suggest. You may be right about the <I>puer aeternus</I> aspect of my psyche too, and I know I do jump about and take far more risks than is appropriate for a man of my age. But I can assure you that I don't regard you or anyone else anywhere as a rival anymore, and I certainly haven't engaged in this dialogue with you to gain advantage or lead the pack or for any other competitive motive. I'm just too far away, slow and confused to get back to any sort of ascendancy in life, and just like to talk about poetry.<BR/><BR/>I like to talk about poetry and feel sure that talk about poetry can be poetry. Indeed, I think that's probably my main disconnect with you, dear Matt--I just haven't got the intellectual stamina to hang in there with such massive arguments. It may well be true that I turn some of the frustration against you I feel when you push me so hard with your rhetoric, and for that I must apologize. I just believe that what we are doing here is so important and that it should be able to include everybody. If I have the sense that if I can't follow you, then who can?<BR/><BR/>So there's my arrogance, obviously. I should accept better the limitations of my age and my comprehension. I will do so too, I promise.<BR/><BR/>Please be well, dear Matt--as I said before, you are our inspiration and our standard.<BR/><BR/>ChristopherChristopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-58616334789473528182008-06-16T12:34:00.000-04:002008-06-16T12:34:00.000-04:00All,I'm done responding to any personal comments o...All,<BR/><BR/>I'm done responding to any personal comments or criticisms publicly. If anyone wants to address any more replies regarding my motives and personal psychology to me, whether attack or question or anything in between, please do so via e-mail.<BR/><BR/>-MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-64347834185698793112008-06-16T12:30:00.000-04:002008-06-16T12:30:00.000-04:00Christopher Woodman wrote:I find your last respons...Christopher Woodman wrote:<BR/><I>I find your last response to Gary and Robocop very troubling, Matt, and wonder if you have been reading the same comments I have. For example, I thought that Robocop used Gandhi, Robert Frost, and Solzhenitsyn to show how even the most gifted, conscientious and elevated of souls have to re-examine themselves at the end, and if they don’t they become self-absorbed just like everybody else-- an extraordinary thought. Because all three of these men, a great spiritual leader, a great poet and a great political dissident, were among the wisest human beings who have ever lived, and ones who transformed the whole world with their extraordinary perceptions, talents and vitality. But I think Robocop’s point was that they never understood just how the ego worked either, that the ego is also inflated by great thoughts, great images, and great statements, and that as a result all three of those great souls quite simply lost touch. Sure, if one is satisfied with accomplishment alone in judging the ‘success’ of a life, perhaps this is no great matter. I myself would judge each of these great lives on the personal level as also a very sad failure.</I><BR/><BR/>If I have misunderstood anything, then I sincerely apologize (to Rob and any one else who feels its owed them). My interpretation of Rob's statement (which I think was a fine one and filled with valuable insight) was that he felt I had been stating that I no longer needed to learn anything, that I had become enlightened, and now I was just going to crawl into my cavern of nirvana and thumb my nose at the "plebs". He expressed this very kindly, I thought (showing a great deal of sensitivity to my previous complaints about being unjustly disrespected . . . and I appreciated his sensitivity in this). And he is, I think, correct in stating that we should never stop self-examining. I also adhere to this philosophy, and I can only try to assure you that there is absolutely no chance at all that I will ever stop self-examining. I am extremely compulsive in this department, and prone to guilt and shame (one of the reasons I was attracted to poetry, I think, and that I try to speak out critically about this trend in poet psychology so forcefully). But such compulsion is no guarantee of "righteousness", as I can certainly attest. I can only promise that everything that is said to me here, even the most disrespectful dismissals, is something I consider intensely and take very seriously.<BR/><BR/>But I also feel that there is an implication (or simply a direct accusation) that my attitude toward my poeting is self-absorbed and, as you say, solipsistic. Perhaps, and that is my cross to bear to the degree that it is true (and certainly it is true to some degree, another quality that allowed me to pursue poeting, no doubt). But I can't help but wonder if there is a "motes and beams" issue going on here. On what basis is my self-absorption so great as to put me on trial in this thread? To take this stance is to assume that everything I wrote about my experience and feelings regarding poetry is disingenuous. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but let's say for the sake of argument that what I wrote was entirely genuine and absolutely honest. What then is the basis for interpreting it as dishonest and hypocritical?<BR/><BR/>I see two most likely options. 1.) I am completely delusional and entirely unaware that I am a raving hypocrite . . . and so I think I am being honest when I am actually the world's biggest fool. 2.) My accusers see in my transparent stance and self-reflection something of themselves that they are frightened of . . . and so take the opportunity to attack me in order to protect themselves. Whichever of these two options is generally correct, I can only see it as the latter . . . either by genuine insight or by delusion.<BR/><BR/>Let me note something that has not been addressed. I am not anonymous. I hide nothing here. I have no aliases that I also write under. I impersonate no one. I have written in detail about my own experience, confessing my feelings and confusion and desires baldly. No one else has done this here (nor do I want or expect them to). And now, is it any surprise that I am on trial? This is a scapegoating, and you Christopher, of all people, have been around too long and should be too wise to jump on this bandwagon. And let's be honest, Christopher, you have legitimate reasons to be afraid of me as a "model", because you have great aspirations as a poet. You continue to desire the approval and attention of PoBiz publishers and powers that be.<BR/><BR/>From my perspective, it seems like this is something that has control of you and not the other way around. So, of course you don't "believe" me when I talk of renunciations of the PoBiz and retiring from poeting. My guess is that such a stance is unfathomable to you. And I suspect that you are reacting as you have, because you assume I have claimed to do what is actually impossible. But such an assumption is based on a complete failure to understand me, my personality, and how I feel and think about my experience. If I am wrong, then I apologize . . . but this is my intuition.<BR/><BR/>Christopher, you know a great deal about Buddhism . . . more than I do. Why is a renunciation of a desire so troubling and unbelievable to you? Doesn't this make sense to you? I am not claiming some kind of nirvana, merely that I have found myself better suited to prose writing than poetry writing. Is this such a shocker? Is this some kind of sin or reason to assume I am the most heinous of hypocrites? Maybe I'm fooling myself into "bliss" (bliss, ha!), but it seems to me that the reaction you and, to some degree, a couple others are taking toward me and my interpretation of my experience is very extreme. And is it any wonder that people who are and identify as poets (and depend desperately on that identification) would be disturbed by a once-poet swearing off the stuff? This is how I interpret the extremity of the reaction I'm perceiving.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Christopher Woodman wrote:<BR/><I>I also don’t think Robocop was suggesting that you found some sort of enlightenment when you abandoned poetry—that on the contrary, you experienced, not unlike me, take note, an enormous, life threatening disappointment, and that that disappointment came about partly because you tried too hard to be true to your principals and ended up grinding your own talents into the ground of your flight. You say, “so the transition was in no way a sacrifice or a loss for me. It was no Gandhi-esque asceticism, no heroic martyrdom.’ But that’s not what he meant, is it, sacrifice or asceticism or heroic martyrdom? He meant self-satisfaction, self-delusion, self-absorption—and he didn't mean more so than in you, Matt, any more than in me, he meant in Mahatma Gandhi!</I><BR/><BR/>But the implication is that "enlightenment" does not eradicated the danger of self-delusion and self-absorption. And Rob is totally correct. You know, I run a psychology website called Useless Science (a reference to Remedios Varo's painting <I>Useless Science, or the Alchemist</I>). I named it this to be a constant reminder that, although one devotes himself to the self-examined life, the spiritual life, the path of individuation, he never, ever reaches "enlightenment" or nirvana or an escape from self-delusion or the responsibilities of being human and living in the world. The fruits of inner labor are small and subtle and do not translate into status, power, wisdom. But they are their own reward. That is the point of doing this kind of inner work. To do it so that others will think one is wise or brilliant or transcendent is itself a failure to observe the web of Maya, the spiritual disease. And this same approach I take to spirituality is one I take to my poeting experience. I felt I had to renounce my desire to be seen and credentialed as a poet . . . because that was not the real reason I was driven to write poetry. I realized that the reason I was writing poetry was essentially spiritual, it was an inner discipline. And yes, I wanted something to be born from this work, some new identity, some kind of bridge built that extends from my inner world into the outer world of others. But this bridge of selfhood was not something that anyone could bestow upon me. It was entirely up to me to determine . . . and if I let anyone else determines this for me (whether oppressively or grandiosely), I would have remained in Bad Faith, living and being a lie.<BR/><BR/>What my poetry gave me was a reason to be that was unaffiliated. And that is something I am satisfied with. For me, it just doesn't have to be more than that. Now as for my Jungian writing, I have more ambition. I want to have an impact on the field and on the Jungian community. And maybe, years down the road, I will also feel some degree of renunciation here is not necessary. Who knows?<BR/><BR/>But please don't tell me that I have to be a poet just because you and other people here are poets. There is no reason I have to be a poet. And please try to recognize that your ambitions and mine are not the same, nor do they have to be . . . nor do my differences need to be a reflection of your sense of self and purpose. What I think and feel doesn't have to directly fit in with what you think and feel and want. We are allowed to be on parallel paths that don't intersect. You don't have to interpret my poeting experience through yours . . . although doing so is perfectly understandable, maybe even unavoidable. I just mean, in an absolute sense, there are other ways to see this.<BR/><BR/>Another point: self-satisfaction is not inherently "wrong", nor does it have to connote delusion. Again, this should be comprehendable to anyone so knowledgeable about Buddhism, in my opinion. It's hardly an extravagant arrogance to be satisfied with simple things. It is not smug or grandiose to say, "You know what, I really don't need all that stuff I had convinced myself I needed. This little bit here is enough." This doesn't have to be a lie . . . and it doesn't need to indicate any enlightenment or great wisdom. We make these realizations numerous times throughout our lives and remain perfectly normal and fallible human beings. I am quite surprised to hear you implying (and assuming) my realizations and renunciations cannot be genuine. To me that suggests that it is you (and not me) that has a great deal of unrest regarding these issues. Which is perfectly fine. If I felt I still wanted and needed poetry and the PoBiz to approve of me in order to have my identity as a poet confirmed, I would also feel that unrest. I feel that unrest as a Jungian writer and thinker. I don't mean to scold you about it. <BR/><BR/>But I feel similarly about poetry as I do about baseball. I was a very good baseball player when I was younger, but I had some bad experiences with coaches and convinced myself I didn't need baseball (I had started writing by this time and felt this could be my new identity). I probably could have gone on to be a successful baseball player in college and maybe even in the minors (if I continued to develop). I really don't know. I realized after it was too late how much the game meant to me, and sometimes I regretted quiting prematurely (i.e., when I went to college, I chose not to try out). But I look back now and accept that I didn't need to be a baseball player. I even appreciate the Fall I experienced through baseball as a kind of initiation wound that helped me move into adulthood. I don't lie awake at nights yearning for the game and kicking myself for not sticking to it. I recognize that I am better at other things, that baseball is not my calling. But I still love the game, still appreciate my experiences of baseball and consider the lessons I learned from it to be eternally valuable to my sense of self. I don't resent it.<BR/><BR/>And so I see any accusations that I am being disingenuous about making my peace with poetry much as I would see any accusations that I am embittered and stunted (and delusional) because I didn't become a professional ball player. I realize I made my own choices with baseball, and I accept that. I don't regret that my life took another direction. I don't blame baseball or my coaches for not credentialing or boostering for me enough. Baseball did not fail me, I simply moved on . . . at first with a good bit of pain, but eventually with full acceptance and satisfaction. If an aspiring baseball player heard what I just said about baseball, he might find it impossible to believe, because he desires baseball to bestow his identity on him. He might assume that either I was really talentless but couldn't accept this or that I was only pretending to not be in great pain about losing baseball. But these are projections. This fellow is only seeing my life and my feelings from his own perspective, as if they were his.<BR/><BR/>And this is precisely what I see in some of the responses I've received here from poets. I have been reconstructed here by some of you based on your understanding of yourselves and your own desires. But that reconstruction isn't really me. Nor do I have to conform to these projections.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Christopher Woodman wrote:<BR/><I>What I find most difficult to understand of all is your insistence that if someone disagrees with you they have an obligation to come up with an opposing statement so fierce and principled and complete that it has to convince you, and that you feel that this would be impossible. But even worse than that, where I really get floored, is when you suggest other people also know it’s impossible to defeat you, and that that’s why they turn on you and attack you in person. Because isn’t that what you imply Gary is also doing, attacking you personally like everybody else who doesn’t grasp what you’re saying?</I><BR/><BR/>Christopher, this is patently absurd and in no way reflects what I think or have written. I think that argument about theories is and should be argument about theories. I see the dragging in of my personal life as inappropriate to the conversation. I expect that my ideas can be addressed as ideas without attributing them to psychoanalytic assumptions. I also feel that any psychoanalytic assumptions about my personality and motivations in this venue are unwarranted and that no one here is even remotely qualified to make these assumption based on what I have written on this site . . . let alone ignore my theoretical arguments based on these premature and inadequate psychoanalyses.<BR/><BR/>I ask no one to convince me (as if I actually <I>want</I> to be the center of this argument! All I have done is express my annoyance at being placed at this center), and I certainly have never said that it would be impossible to do so. The fact that you would dare to put those words in my mouth is, well, suspect to say the least. I completely expect to have to revise my theories based on legitimate counter-arguments. I see this as the very point of arguing about such things. What I am expecting and asking for is simply the nature of argument itself, that nature that strives toward a mutual goal of increased understanding of opposing viewpoints. Dialectic. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Since my goal is to argue toward a synthesis (an improved understanding for every party involved), I see anything that is not an antithesis to my arguments (on poetry and the PoBiz) as irrelevant and probably a misdirection (whether intentional or not, I don't know).<BR/><BR/>Now, am I a good arguer? I think I can hold my own, and I will happily do so. But the important thing is that, engaging in argument over theories helps us all think about the subject we wish to understand. If we just declare truth and then scurry away (and <I>that</I> is delusional self-satisfaction, by the way), then what have we achieved or can we possible achieve? That merely results in the narcissistic spew that we poets are so prone to and here on Poets.Net are perhaps trying to hold up to the light and move beyond. If we do not consider what we say to one another and what is said to us, then we have become legitimate solipsists. This kind of debate is what I expect from intelligent people who claim to have something to contribute on this subject. I have never asked anyone to agree with me or celebrate my "genius" . . . and to the degree that such things have been implied, I again, can only think that this is more projection than actual observation.<BR/><BR/>I have no expectation that I cannot be "defeated" in argument, as you say. I don't argue to win. I argue to learn. For you to accuse me of this kind of arrogance is unwarranted and rude. As far as anyone grasping what I have said (initially, in the first post of this thread), I had every expectation that what I said was comprehended until the topic of conversation was redirected to my personal motivations. This redirection (or misdirection) struck me as suspicious. My hypothesis as to why this not only occurred but has been harped upon even after I complained about it is simply that some people involved in this conversation, people who are poets and identify as poets, must have found my stance on my own poeting alien and terrifying to consider. At least, the reaction I have received is fully supportive of this hypothesis. This is exactly how poets would react if they were stung by the implication that poeting was not worthy of totemic admiration and was therefor divinely unquestionable. I see this hypothesis as, by logic alone, the most likely reason that this conversation would be steered away from poetry and the PoBiz and redirected into personal accusations against me.<BR/><BR/>And I may very well be wrong. I am ready to admit that . . . but I see no overt and viable explanation for why this personal redirection has occurred, so I am inclined to see subtextual or unconscious psychological explanations as the most viable. Moreover, if you or any other poet is in any way insecure about your relationship to poeting (and I think all poets are and should be), then a reaction like I have received, and as I have interpreted it, is entirely logical and predictable. Still, I am a bit surprised, because I expected people to be able to see beyond this and stick to a discussion of the actual topic at hand.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Christopher Woodman wrote:<BR/><I>Dear Matt, I simply don’t see how any human being can justify such assumptions about other people when it comes to one’s own personal theories—I mean, that’s completely solipsistic, isn’t it? I know you don’t mean that, but that’s certainly the way it comes over. I’ve gotten to know Gary a bit, and I can see why he felt he had to address you as he did at the end—he just couldn’t hold it back any longer, and of course, as these things tend to, it came out in a genius vein. “I am flattered and honoured to get the ‘Koeske’ treatment,” Gary wrote. “You are a very profound thinker and a good writer. I enjoy your posts immensely. Then, after a brief pause-- “You are also basically full of shit.” And of course in a sense you are even at the moment you share your genius word-hoard so generously with us all on this site, and make the whole thing fly!</I><BR/><BR/>Christopher, you are talking with your heart and not your head. And I admire your heart and all it has to say. But this is something you need to turn back onto yourself. This is not about me. Gary's comment doesn't seem genius to me, because it fails to understand that he has not received the "Koeske treatment", but rather an honest and human reaction. In his words and in your admiration for them, there is a great deal of arrogance that assumes I have been "treating" you both and not simply trying relate to you genuinely. I never "treat" people this way, and I see such treatments as extremely dishonorable. But I ask you, a man of much theater and many aliases: who is it that really offers a "treatment" in lieu of straight talk and honesty. Let's not throw these kinds of accusations around, Christopher. I don't know Gary, and he can think of me whatever he wants. But you, Christopher, are playing with fire . . . and frankly, you think that because you have gotten away with this dance 1000 miles above the heads of some others both here and on those poetry forums, that you are the prince of ballet. But you only dance above my head because I tolerate you doing so. I accept it as an affectation. And I have wanted you to keep dancing up there because your fall would hurt you personally as well as this site . . . and I, believe it or not, do genuinely care and worry about you. Do not get smug about your own slippery skills. You are a very bright man, and I respect your experience as my elder. But part of genius is stability. It isn't all flourish and curtain calls. Don't overestimate yourself based on what people do not say to you.<BR/><BR/>And I'm sorry to be even this mildly blunt with you, but I have considered you my friend . . . and that means that I don't appreciate the "Christopher Woodman treatment" bestowed upon me or the implication that the river flows the other way. Your opinion of me is what it is, and I accept that. But your decision to take up this theatrical attitude toward me in public in all your regalia and from your trapeze in the sky is a betrayal of our friendship and an insult to my intelligence. That you felt you could do this in the way you did is sad and petty.<BR/><BR/>I'm not asking for any apologies from you and I'm not even saying I'm terribly surprised (I <I>am</I> disappointed). You are a butterfly (a puer aeternus, in Jungian lingo), and I like that about you. It's enthusing. You are fun to watch and communicate with. But I know all your moves. I love to watch you and I like you personally <I>because</I> I know all your moves. I laugh along with the act when others ooh and ahh with each swoop and bow. But don't try to sell me your costume on eBay like I'm some kind of gullible fan in your audience. You seriously underestimate me.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, Christopher. And I really won't hold this against you. Your nature is that of a boundary tester extraordinaire. It's a wonderful thing to be. I really do admire and respect you for it. But you were wrong to try this latest trick with me. I know full well that I am the person in this group who is most dangerous to you . . . and I have not abused that privilege in any way. But I expect mutual respect. Thinking that you can play me is not respectful. Don't get cocky. Let's just move on.<BR/><BR/>-MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-13349560749419551042008-06-16T06:49:00.000-04:002008-06-16T06:49:00.000-04:00In a similar situation I posted this poem on Pw.or...In a similar situation I posted this poem on Pw.org, but by then I was such a pariah it was read as a show off. I think on Poets.net it's possible:<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>TO THOSE FROM WHOM ALL BLESSINGS FLOW</B><BR/><BR/>What we offer to the world<BR/>is also what <BR/>we think the world has got<BR/>and what we really mean belongs to us,<BR/>our sense of what we have to give<BR/>so distorted by our sense <BR/>of what we're owed<BR/>it masks, or dresses up as lost,<BR/>the gentle gift!—<BR/>two sides of the mighty self<BR/>so jealously defined and<BR/>finely pampered they become<BR/>our <I>cause célèbre</I> and <I>raison d'étre</I>—<BR/>the only thing a man would die for<BR/>in a public war, after all,<BR/>yet stoops to hide in private,<BR/>locks-up, launders—then, phew, just in time<BR/>trots out as life's sweet truth<BR/>painfully discovered<BR/>in some dry dead-sea cave<BR/>or lent us, rent from an old saint's<BR/>threadbare life or wholly-<BR/>other gazer!<BR/><BR/>Listen, <BR/>that delicate young monk<BR/>sitting cross-legged on the funeral mat<BR/>with coke and fan under <BR/>the cartoon clock <BR/>is just announcing on his microphone<BR/>what the Once-Born taught<BR/>to save you time! <BR/>Refrain from lies and too much sex,<BR/>he says, for evangelical success, even in death, <BR/>that's how we sell ourselves,<BR/>rushing to establish<BR/>what we're not<BR/>and will not stand for <BR/>but, of course, expect to stand <BR/>us in good stead!Christopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-19828201664898883842008-06-16T06:34:00.000-04:002008-06-16T06:34:00.000-04:00Dear Matt,As an after thought I want to take back ...Dear Matt,<BR/>As an after thought I want to take back that word "disappointment." That isn't what happened to you at all, I know it isn't. It's that you wanted success that included the ultimate clarification of your principals, that you wanted success to be universal, archetypal--pure gold like a god. But poetry is not about principals, it's about images. Principals always lead to confrontation and then so often on to bloodshed--like you and Gary. Indeed, I'd say unassailable positions are inhuman, and as such entirely unpoetic. <BR/><BR/>Speaking as a poet, dear Matt, I think you tend to put the cart before the horse in your demand that the ideas must be worked out first and then you start writing. Because true poetry goes way beyond beyond principals and statements. A great poem doesn't take up a position at all, I'd say, and doesn't exclude anything or make anybody feel excluded<BR/><BR/>Like laughter, all that exhalation, good poetry cleanses.<BR/><BR/>ChristopherChristopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-75644430755818347622008-06-16T05:50:00.000-04:002008-06-16T05:50:00.000-04:00I find your last response to Gary and Robocop very...I find your last response to Gary and Robocop very troubling, Matt, and wonder if you have been reading the same comments I have. For example, I thought that Robocop used Gandhi, Robert Frost, and Solzhenitsyn to show how even the most gifted, conscientious and elevated of souls have to re-examine themselves at the end, and if they don’t they become self-absorbed just like everybody else-- an extraordinary thought. Because all three of these men, a great spiritual leader, a great poet and a great political dissident, were among the wisest human beings who have ever lived, and ones who transformed the whole world with their extraordinary perceptions, talents and vitality. But I think Robocop’s point was that they never understood just how the ego worked either, that the ego is also inflated by great thoughts, great images, and great statements, and that as a result all three of those great souls quite simply lost touch. Sure, if one is satisfied with accomplishment alone in judging the ‘success’ of a life, perhaps this is no great matter. I myself would judge each of these great lives on the personal level as also a very sad failure.<BR/><BR/>I also don’t think Robocop was suggesting that you found some sort of enlightenment when you abandoned poetry—that on the contrary, you experienced, not unlike me, take note, an enormous, life threatening disappointment, and that that disappointment came about partly because you tried too hard to be true to your principals and ended up grinding your own talents into the ground of your flight. You say, “so the transition was in no way a sacrifice or a loss for me. It was no Gandhi-esque asceticism, no heroic martyrdom.’ But that’s not what he meant, is it, sacrifice or asceticism or heroic martyrdom? He meant self-satisfaction, self-delusion, self-absorption—and he didn't mean more so than in you, Matt, any more than in me, he meant in Mahatma Gandhi!<BR/><BR/>What I find most difficult to understand of all is your insistence that if someone disagrees with you they have an obligation to come up with an opposing statement so fierce and principled and complete that it has to convince you, and that you feel that this would be impossible. But even worse than that, where I really get floored, is when you suggest other people also know it’s impossible to defeat you, and that that’s why they turn on you and attack you in person. Because isn’t that what you imply Gary is also doing, attacking you personally like everybody else who doesn’t grasp what you’re saying? <BR/><BR/>Dear Matt, I simply don’t see how any human being can justify such assumptions about other people when it comes to one’s own personal theories—I mean, that’s completely solipsistic, isn’t it? I know you don’t mean that, but that’s certainly the way it comes over. I’ve gotten to know Gary a bit, and I can see why he felt he had to address you as he did at the end—he just couldn’t hold it back any longer, and of course, as these things tend to, it came out in a genius vein. “I am flattered and honoured to get the ‘Koeske’ treatment,” Gary wrote. “You are a very profound thinker and a good writer. I enjoy your posts immensely. Then, after a brief pause-- “You are also basically full of shit.” And of course in a sense you are even at the moment you share your genius word-hoard so generously with us all on this site, and make the whole thing fly! <BR/><BR/>So this is how it works then after that, Matt—take it from me, an old wrecker of a man if there ever was one. Having received such a bear hug with a kiss on the other cheek you simply start laughing, and I mean rolling on the floor in hysterical, drowning, unmitigated weeping and back thumping, gnashing of teeth-like insane laughter! <BR/><BR/>Forgive me if that’s too rough. I’m always writing for myself--but then you know that.<BR/><BR/>ChristopherChristopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-45381142076019472012008-06-15T22:24:00.000-04:002008-06-15T22:24:00.000-04:00Athena,My comment was more for an example and not ...Athena,<BR/>My comment was more for an example and not literally my performance.<BR/><BR/>"the division between the written and the spoken word--a division which I think is overplayed."<BR/><BR/>I can definitely agree with this statement. I don't think one is superior to the other. I feel a "distinction" is valid but not a division to be used further divide poetry.<BR/><BR/>Don't worry my feelings aren't hurt in the least. Everything is cool.<BR/><BR/>One,<BR/><BR/>DLUX: THE LIGHT<BR/>The Spoken Word Hip Hop Poet<BR/>www.dluxthelight.comDeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17844658537042084394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-48013164342030253212008-06-15T21:08:00.000-04:002008-06-15T21:08:00.000-04:00Matt:You not only made me smile by what you said b...Matt:<BR/><BR/>You not only made me smile by what you said but also by what you did not say. You have made a friend for life.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat long-winded, I suppose, but brilliant!<BR/><BR/>Your humble servant,<BR/>GaryGary B. Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17919492445467135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-83135921632722783532008-06-15T20:16:00.000-04:002008-06-15T20:16:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-35611736441462180752008-06-15T15:32:00.000-04:002008-06-15T15:32:00.000-04:00Matt:I am flattered and honoured to get the ‘Koesk...Matt:<BR/><BR/>I am flattered and honoured to get the ‘Koeske’ treatment. You are a very profound thinker and a good writer. I enjoy your posts immensely.<BR/><BR/>You are also basically full of shit. :-)Gary B. Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17919492445467135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-13727535075014774322008-06-15T12:35:00.000-04:002008-06-15T12:35:00.000-04:00Matt hates po-biz on a personal and visceral level...Matt hates po-biz on a personal and visceral level. Plus, because he's a student of Jung, he seeks ways to understand tribal and universal and personal behavior, so he's not motivated to 'let go' of his hatred of po-biz on a personal, or a psychological, or a symbolic, or a philosophical level. This is going to make for some interesting insights--and for some rants.<BR/><BR/>Poetry should always be at the center of our discourse; if po-biz or Jung take over, we're likely to get lost in the woods.<BR/><BR/>What is Poetry? Poetry, when significant, engages with universal human pains and pleasures in a unique manner. The chief problem with po-biz is that is has nothing to do with universal human pains and pleasures, but with day-to-day administrative and commercial aspects of what poetry has become in our day--and what has it become?<BR/><BR/>Does poetry today serve the audience of a Homer or a Dante or a Shakespare or a Milton or a Pope or a Byron or a Tennyson or a Frost? No, it does not.<BR/><BR/>"Star Wars" serves the Homer audience. The Bible serves the Dante and Milton audience. Chick-lit serves the Byron and Tennyson audience. Self-help and naturalist non-fiction serves the Frost audience. Pope's audience has simply withered away, or is scattered here and there among the other audiences.<BR/><BR/>Why should a "Jung person" or a Christian or a "Star Wars" fan read poetry?<BR/><BR/>In most people's homes today, there is refriderator poetry and there are discussions around the table in which 'poetry' of the kind that is published today can be said to exist. <BR/><BR/>Poetry emerged after the dark ages as a substitute for religion, but that role has pretty much run its course. Poets are no longer sages or revolutionaries anymore. They have a very local existence, and they don't provide what can not be easily found elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>Po-biz adherents will simply shrug when they are accused by those like Matt who say they are not 'up to task.' They will say, "Look at what poetry has become. That's not our fault."<BR/><BR/>Monday LoveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-21493572877304481492008-06-15T12:12:00.000-04:002008-06-15T12:12:00.000-04:00Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:But, Matt… you are, inde...Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:<BR/><I>But, Matt… you are, indeed, a hypocrite. You complained about personal attacks on you by Robocop and myself yet responded with significantly more personal and vindictive remarks. I thought we were all companions in this cause, friends and fellow soldiers.</I><BR/><BR/>Gary, I'm not sure my response was anything other than heartfelt and honest. I also thing that it's entirely fair to say that my response judged you both by the words you had written to or about me. In my opinion, those words, that rhetoric, was unwarranted and disrespectful. The problem is that this rhetoric made an attempt to set you each (albeit in somewhat different ways) in a position of power over me, where you could look down and make personal judgments based on whim without having to consider what I really said. This is the kind of rhetoric that tries to rob another person of their voice. It doesn't belong in conversations like this or on websites that want to do what this one does.<BR/><BR/>I see such rhetoric as infinitely more offensive than my replies exposing and complaining about it.<BR/><BR/>So, when you write above that you "thought we were all companions in this cause, friends and fellow soldiers", I have to respond that it was you who broke this "contract" . . . and yet you clarify your declaration that I am a hypocrite. I don't think you are seeing me at all. I can only assume you are holding up a mirror to yourself.<BR/><BR/>I would like us to be friends and fellow soldiers, but in my perhaps simple set of personal codes, friends and fellows don't dismiss each other for being human. I would never say the things to you that you have said to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:<BR/><I>You also said that you didn’t have time to review all the replies to your comment.</I><BR/><BR/>I said I hadn't yet had the time to read the whole thread. That you took this as a pompous statement that I felt I didn't need to read the whole thread because I am so special is ludicrous, and once again doesn't at all reflect my actual attitude. I have simply been very busy at work and with family matters lately. Also, writing at Poets.Net is for me a second priority project. I devote most of my writing time these days to my Jungian site. I apologize for being behind, and I can only assure you that I will do my best to catch up and have every intention of reading the posts in this thread that I haven't gotten to yet.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:<BR/><I>This is obviously true. Apparently you missed this:<BR/><BR/>“What I'm attempting to do, Christopher, is add the one missing ingredient to this delicious stew: a sense of humour."<BR/><BR/>Oh, yes...you mentioned it but you didn't get it.</I><BR/><BR/>You assume in saying this that I saw what you said as an actual attempt at humor and that it was actually humorous. What you said only seemed disrespectful to me, and not truly funny. Perhaps we just have different tastes in humor.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:<BR/><I>And this:<BR/><BR/>“And apparently you didn't catch my little Jungian quip back there. I read Matt's comments to Robocop in their entirety. I think my reply was appropriate.”<BR/><BR/>I, at least, had the respect to not only read everything you wrote but also reply to your Jungian diatribe with a Jungian response.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I saw it the first time and heard you reference it a second time, too. This is now the third time by my count. Again, I just am less stunned by your cleverness than you think I should be.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Gary B. Fitzgerald wrote:<BR/><I>Don’t be offended (as it appears you so easily are), but your decision to forsake poetry was probably a good one. Apparently you have a greater skill for writing textbooks. After all: "Brevity is the soul of wit" (W.S.)<BR/><BR/>You're running with the big dogs now, son. Keep up.<BR/><BR/>“Physician, heal thyself.” </I><BR/><BR/>Gary, this is so profoundly arrogant and ugly. And it makes you look bad. When I mentioned previously how much subtext there was in your initial dismissal of what I had written, this is what I meant.<BR/><BR/>I hope we can get back to a more interesting conversation (about poetry, for instance) and manage to put this sort of thing behind us.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-22576263466816297522008-06-15T11:22:00.000-04:002008-06-15T11:22:00.000-04:00DLUX,"And while you may consider the performance o...DLUX,<BR/><BR/>"And while you may consider the performance of my work to be artificial..."<BR/><BR/>I don't consider the performance of your work 'artificial.' I don't know your work, nor have I experienced a 'performance' of your work. My remarks are not aimed specifically at you, though I am enjoying this discussion with you on the division between the written and the spoken word--a division which I think is overplayed.<BR/><BR/>I hope we are friends.<BR/><BR/>AthenaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-81044474268832045272008-06-15T06:33:00.000-04:002008-06-15T06:33:00.000-04:00There are two major themes on this thread, and a w...There are two major themes on this thread, and a whole lot of minor ones. The Performance Poetry theme has thrown up some wonderful writing, and I quite agree with Christopher in his last Comment that this is some of the most exciting "new stuff" we've seen, and indeed does set Poets.net aside from other poetry sites. I move around a lot and can testify that there's not much more fun around than right here, and I agree Poets.net does model a fresh and vital new approach to criticism.<BR/><BR/>The other major theme is very introspective, painful almost, and I have to take some of the responsibility for that myself, I know. I did "put some feet to the fire," as Monday Love said, and a lot of soul searching has been the result. On the other hand, I would say that at this point in the development of a movement like this one there has to be re-evaluation, and that's never easy. Matt Koeske is obviously about as fierce a self-examiner as you can find, and he's stripped himself way beyond the call of duty in answering my queries. And I would say that whether or not this has been helpful to him it certainly has been helpful to me, because he's examined so many of my own sensitivities, and indeed has made me think even harder about what I myself might be able to contribute not only to this site but to the movement.<BR/><BR/>The one area in which I disagree with Matt is when he states so confidently that he has done the work, that he has freed himself from his past, including his poetry, of course, and is now ready to move on. I would say from my own experience that it is never as simple as this--in my own experience every advance in understanding has been accompanied by it's own, intrinsic blindness and even willful distortions--that every type of vision, however elevated, has distortions that are peculiar to its own dynamics. Indeed, the one thing for certain is that the examined life is not only worth examining as well but has to be examined all over again--and if you don't you end up a Gandhi who serves his nation so well while losing touch with his friends and family, or a Robert Frost, or saddest of all, a Solzhenyitsin (neighbors, I believe!). The more you know the more you suffer, for sure--at least if you're anything like me. The wiser the more ignorant.<BR/><BR/>So what I would like to do now is thank Matt from us all for the extraordinary diligence, integrity and courage he has shown in the essays he has written for us on this thread, and to assure him that he is our conscience and standard bearer, that he has shown the way that we must take too.<BR/><BR/>But I would also like to encourage him to get back to his original purpose. He speaks about his "aptitude to make sense out of the system," which is manifest in every word he writes, and that this talent "obliges" him above all "to try to raise the consciousness of the cause." He has done this so well, but what interests me as well is the first paragraph of his initial essay entitled, "Can there be Poem Criticism Without PoBiz Criticism?" in relation to how the thread ended up--in a Comment that says that "Poem Criticism" has reached its apotheosis right here! So I'd like to know if Matt still feels so certain that "the discussion of poetry cannot stand in the place of a discussion about the current social and psychological behaviors and attitudes of poets or the PoBiz?"<BR/><BR/>Couldn't one refresh the other, and aren't we likely to achieve a lot more if we can have fun doing it by setting the world on fire with our writing? <BR/><BR/>I do hope this helps. I've still got a lot of things on my mind arising from this whole discussion, including "self-consciousness," "negative capability," and some thoughts about how a new kind of thinking altogether might rise like a pheonix from the ashes of contemporary American poetry.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Matt--thank you for giving us so much.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-57219608943008060502008-06-15T02:10:00.000-04:002008-06-15T02:10:00.000-04:00But, Matt… you are, indeed, a hypocrite. You compl...But, Matt… you are, indeed, a hypocrite. You complained about personal attacks on you by Robocop and myself yet responded with significantly more personal and vindictive remarks. I thought we were all companions in this cause, friends and fellow soldiers.<BR/><BR/>You also said that you didn’t have time to review all the replies to your comment. This is obviously true. Apparently you missed this:<BR/><BR/>“What I'm attempting to do, Christopher, is add the one missing ingredient to this delicious stew: a sense of humour."<BR/><BR/>Oh, yes...you mentioned it but you didn't get it.<BR/><BR/>And this:<BR/><BR/>“And apparently you didn't catch my little Jungian quip back there. I read Matt's comments to Robocop in their entirety. I think my reply was appropriate.”<BR/><BR/>I, at least, had the respect to not only read everything you wrote but also reply to your Jungian diatribe with a Jungian response.<BR/><BR/>Don’t be offended (as it appears you so easily are), but your decision to forsake poetry was probably a good one. Apparently you have a greater skill for writing textbooks. After all: "Brevity is the soul of wit" (W.S.)<BR/><BR/>You're running with the big dogs now, son. Keep up.<BR/><BR/>“Physician, heal thyself.”Gary B. Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17919492445467135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-72248418024017004932008-06-15T02:08:00.000-04:002008-06-15T02:08:00.000-04:00"I'm talking about poetry in its ideal, doing what...<I>"I'm talking about poetry in its ideal, doing what the medium can do as well as the medium allows."</I><BR/><B>Athena</B><BR/><BR/>I don't know if Athena has bothered to notice it or not in the sense of allowing herself to be bothered by it, but there is a controversy raging over at Poets.org about 'Prosody.' The question is, is a mastery of the Science of Prosody, i.e. the Rules of Metrical Analysis as laid out in modern, on-line tracts, going to become essential to the reading and writing of poetry today? <BR/><BR/>There are two camps engaged in the dispute, the Academy of American Poets 'Academicians' on the one hand, and a small group of irreverent 'Irridescent Harlequins' led by the critic, Tom West--who also appears from time to time on this site. <BR/><BR/>The argument is about the role of Prosody today in the definition and evaluation of poetry. The AAP Academicians, whose livelihoods, needless to say, depend on teaching the stuff, want everybody to promise to agree that unless you know the <B>On-line Rules of Prosody</B> and apply them correctly, any critical pronouncement you make is invalid--no "anacrusis" no line, no line no poetry, no poetry no poet, no poet no prize, no prize no job--as simple as that. <BR/><BR/>Opposing the AAP <I>Magister Ludis</I> are, as I said, the <I>Irridescent Harlequins.</I> Essentially critical carpet baggers, or at least that's how they appear on the site, they feel like most tent-show magicians that every trick in the critical bag is valid as long as it works. More than that, and much more threatening to the <I>Magister Ludis,</I> needless to say, the <I>Harlequins</I> feel that obsessively clinging to just one tool at a time is boring, that it's aesthetically extremely limited and wrong, and that it leads to cruelty and tyrannical obsession. <BR/><BR/>Needless to say, the <I>Irridescent Harlequins</I> are a scarcely tolerated intervention on a Forum based specifically on tool-control, and in the past weeks two of my close friends have been quietly banned from the discussion on the grounds they were actually me! Oh, and the thread on which all this is transpiring is called "On Aspiring Writers Becoming Successful Writers," a TomWest formulation, of course, and oh yes, which was started by 'ACommoner'--i.e. me.<BR/><BR/>20,000 visits too!<BR/><BR/>Got it, then? You make the tools essential to poetry, for reading it as well as for writing it, so that you actually own the tools. You've got them and you've patented them, and the Laws of Po-Land decree that without them no one can get certified as a "Successful Poet." Like lawyers, the AAP Para-Critics control access to the Laws of Poetry by making them so complicated and abstruse, and expressed in foreign languages too, of course, that you have to pay the Para-Critics if you want them to protect you, or to assure your security, or to intimidate other poets as you gradually work your way over their heads and all the way on up to the top. <BR/><BR/>I wanted to pause for a moment to remind you that this Big Fight is in progress over there at Poets.org-- I thought you might want to go and see it. Here at Poets.net we've got something as well, I mean, we've got the World Championship in Poem Critcism between Athena and DLUX--which cuts all the Gordian knots of control in one sweet, two-handed swoosh. I wanted to be sure you noticed this beautiful exchange, and that you realized what a powerful example it is of "Poem Criticism without PoBiz Critcism"--which is, in case you've forgotten it, the title of Matt's essay that opens this thread. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of criticism I would like to see modeled on Poets.net as an alternative to the School-room Capitalist Criticism at Poets.org--"School-room Capitalist Criticism" because it functions like a modern Law School (Medieval Guild?) which owns the subject and then sells it to the highest bidder, so to speak--and then inducts that highest-bidder in turn into the Cartel that controls the Racket! <BR/><BR/>There have been a number of truly brilliant moments in the exchange on this thread, culminating in Athena's extraordinary evocation of a cracked recording of Edna St Vincent Millay reading her poetry as an example of..... well, I'm not quite sure of what, not wanting to hurt anybody's feelings, but certainly of something pretty "universal!" DLUX hotly proclaims it's "Performance Poetry" but Athena equally passionately proclaims "Performance Poetry doesn't exist." And what is so refreshing about this irreconcilable <I>amour</I> is that it gives us an insight into the very heart of the process of activating a poem in such a way that it's not just a commodity, that it actually IS something and MEANS something of great value--which in poetry today is extremely rare. Yes, these two very fine Royal Roustabouts, one semi-human (Athena) and the other semi-divine (DLUX), have played out for us what I would regard as the finest performance of "Poem Criticism" yet on this site!<BR/><BR/>So stay tuned!<BR/><BR/>ChristopherChristopher Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03122544949410411452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-37684295658832199172008-06-14T19:03:00.000-04:002008-06-14T19:03:00.000-04:00Matt,You've unmasked my identity! :) Anyway....."I...Matt,<BR/>You've unmasked my identity! :) Anyway.....<BR/><BR/>"I'm talking about poetry in its ideal, doing what the medium can do as well as the medium allows."<BR/><BR/>I agree with your overall statements. I also think again that the challenge is relative based on the poets individual abilities. I hate singing the same tune of relativity but I believe this is the truth.<BR/><BR/>Our experiences colors our perspective so there is no true objectivity. You are coming at poetry from the written prospective. I from the spoken prospective. It would make sense that we each think our way has the advantage. Both can be right and wrong depending the audience you face, written or on stage. <BR/><BR/>From my prospective, I have experienced a deeper understanding of poetry once I heard it. It triggered a thought process which led to intense introspection of myself. When I read (or read in general) poetry often my mind wonders and the point of the poem is missed. I may not get the meaning of your work until I hear you speak it or recite it for myself. I am forever a student of all poetry because I would like to know all the ways which communicate my poetry. So I won't knock the benefits of the written word and would hope poets like yourself would not knock the benefits reciting your words (spoken word).<BR/><BR/>I also teach. When I teach I try to take into account that some are visual learners and others are oral learners. In teaching a poem I read aloud and write it down. To make sure I reach everyone in the room.<BR/><BR/>One,<BR/>Desmond<BR/>DLUX: THE LIGHT<BR/>The Spoken Word Hip Hop Poet<BR/>www.dluxthelight.comDeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17844658537042084394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-23459427388184918222008-06-14T18:06:00.000-04:002008-06-14T18:06:00.000-04:00Hi All,I apologize for not being able to keep up t...Hi All,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for not being able to keep up the pace here. Too many other obligations at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Let me offer some preliminaries (I still haven't read all of the posts in this thread, including Robocop's reply to my long comment).<BR/><BR/>First, Christopher's comment on my behalf to Gary is pretty accurately representative of my feelings. As my time is limited for participation on this site, I don't really desire to particpate unless I feel like real exchanges are going on. Anyone can snipe and cast out lazy thoughts. I know this is considered acceptable in the PoBiz and on many poetry forums (including Foetry.com, when it was operative), but to me (and from the perspective of intelligent adults in other fields, I think) this is a rather childish waste of time. And as I already give of my time as generously as I possible can, I really don't want it wasted.<BR/><BR/>There is this common belief (a product of PoBiz indoctrination) among poets today that "people who take themselves seriously "are like "old geezers from another era" to be scoffed at. This is just the biggest load of crap, and it dismays me to see so many poets proclaiming this bit of dogma unthinkingly. <BR/><BR/>It is HUMAN to take oneself seriously . . . and to expect those humans you communicate with to do the same. A failure to take oneself seriously when debating something that matters (in this case poetry and ethics) is a failure to be human. A failure that is the product of feeling ashamed of oneself (as a poet and a human being). Additionally, no one take themselves more seriously than poets, even lousy and stupid poets . . . so any insinuation on behalf of one poet that another takes him or herself too seriously is unbelievably hypocritical, hypocritical to the point of absurdity. The fact that these criticisms are so often exchanged among poets is, from an outsider's perspective, farcical.<BR/><BR/>There is more subtext in the "humor" of dismissive quips than there is in my enormous post above . . . and that subtext is a declaration of pride in ignorance and massmindedness.<BR/><BR/>When I see this sort of thing, although it doesn't surprise me any longer coming from poets, I just think, "Why do I bother trying to communicate with these people at all?" This is one of the significant factors in my retirement from poetry.<BR/><BR/>I treat other people with respect and hear them out. I consider their opinions seriously, even if I disagree with them. I do my best to put myself in their shoes. I expect only a small reciprocation of this respect in return. If I didn't expect and feel I deserved this mutual respect, I would be the victim of my own sense of shame and devaluation.<BR/><BR/>Generically, I see any response to a well-considered argument that attempts to ignore that argument in favor of personal attacks and quips as dishonorable and unproductive.<BR/><BR/>But I believe in the value of a genuine debate and exchange of ideas. In such an arena, I have no problem having my ideas either contradicted or disproved. If anything I theorize can be disproved, then I have learned something useful . . . which is the reason I enjoy debate. I will do my best to be here for debate, but I have better things to do than hang around to be psychoanalyzed without justification or skill.<BR/><BR/>. . .<BR/><BR/>Desmond, I find that I agree with much of what you are saying about performance poetry and communicating directly to an audience. It was my intention to note this as a positive in my earlier post, and I'm sorry that you did not see my intention as such. My experience of poetry is as a writer. I have only had a few occasions to read my poetry to others, and when I was able to orate it, I felt it was slightly better comprehended than it was, for instance, in workshops in universities. But my writing is very complex and multi-layered. What a live audience seemed to respond to was the voice . . . but the more subtle content and structure of the poems was not ascertained in the way it could have been if it were read. And I wrote these poems to be both heard <I>and</I> read, not merely one or the other. My personal aesthetic as a poet is to write the meat of the poems into the subtext of the language. This is harder to "get" than a more overt intellectual or emotional statement. It requires a certain degree of meditation . . . and I crafted these poems to invite the reader/listener into such meditation by laying down difficult subtextual questions that are not often considered. I approach the audience through their unconscious, and so consider myself a poet of the unconscious (similar in this respect to one of my favorite poets, Russell Edson).<BR/><BR/>Like Edson, I can read my poems aloud as voice-forward, quirky surrealism, but also like Edson, there is a deeper layer. It's that deeper layer where the real art happens, in my opinion. That's where I live as a poet and as a human being. I enjoy quiet and thoughtful meditation and subtle complexities that are not always initially apparent. This is not impossible with performance poetry, but it is not the performance poet's favored aesthetic.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, I question the possibility of performance poetry truly challenging its audience, risking putting them off and breaking conventions that they expect, just to be able to plant a seed that might not begin to take root until long after they leave the performance. Can the performance poet do this and not get booed off the stage? Maybe, but if you tell me that this sort of challenging poetry is not difficult to take into the performance poetry venue, then I wonder if you are not being disingenuous. It's difficult in any venue to challenge the expectations of your audience. I think we need to acknowledge this as part of our method of relating to the audience. I also think today's written poetry fails such tests at least as miserably as performance poetry does, so please don't think I am comparing performance poetry to PoBiz academic poetry. I mean only to bring up the pros and cons of reading to an audience live vs. being read by a single individual reader at a time. I'm talking about poetry in its ideal, doing what the medium can do as well as the medium allows.<BR/><BR/>In general, I am a strong advocate of reading poetry aloud and have little interest in poetry that lacks oral sophistication and listenability. Poetry that can't be read/heard, that has no physicality, for me, has no soul and can't move me.<BR/><BR/>. . .<BR/><BR/>Robocop, I haven't had the chance to read your reply to my long post yet, but for now, I'd like to apologize if I seemed short-tempered with what you originally said. Although I did feel like your approach was a somewhat offensive and uncalled for misdirection away from any real argument, and this took me a bit by surprise, because I felt your previous comments were pretty astute (and thus, that such an appraisal of my ideas was beneath you) . . . my reaction, though I think fair, was also excessive. I was writing my reply to what you said based not only on your comments, but on similar things I've heard said as misdirections to me and to others many times before. Hearing these things so many times (not necessarily directed at me, but at Foetry.com and its members) eventually contributed to my loss of faith and feeling that poets weren't really worth any attempt at argument or capable of much consciousness.<BR/><BR/>If poets don't want to fight for better circumstances and better poetry, if they want the PoBiz as their kingdom, then they can have it. But many people simply can't take this cultic silliness seriously. That's why non-poets don't read poetry. I'm on the fence about this. I don't give up on people easily . . . and I have seen a great deal of dissatisfaction from those indoctrinated into the PoBiz. Dissatisfaction, but an inability to address this dissatisfaction with courage, to suffer the consequences of dissent or even dangerous thinking, and an inability to articulate this dissatisfaction or to propose a remedy. This is what I have directed my PoBiz criticism toward. <BR/><BR/>But I have found that the poets who hate the PoBiz the most and suffer the most for its tendency to disempower them can be just as (in my opinion) cowardly and incapable of recognizing and combating their PoBiz indoctrination as those privileged by the PoBiz. If poets who want help can't help themselves, then what can I do to benefit them? So I tend to get frustrated and feel that poets deserve the dystopia they have made for themselves. Elsewhere, life goes on . . . and I'd rather devote my energy to living then "raising the dead". I have no desire to be a savior or miracle worker for poets. They are not my tribe, and I am not any kind of member in theirs. I hope that what I write can be taken as useful articulation of dissatisfaction with the PoBiz and that my arguments make sense. But I don't have any desire to lead a movement or even really be part of a movement of new poetry and poetics. When I say I am retired from this game, I mean it. My Jungian writing is much more satisfying to me than my poetry is or was. I see the Jungian intellectual realm as the place were I belong. Not poetry. Not academia. What I have written for this site, I have written because I felt it could do some good to help raise consciousness in the way Poets.Net wants to do, because I recognize that my analyses and opinions on some of these things are unique, and that if I don't say them, they will not be said (at least, I have yet to hear much of what I have written articulated elsewhere).<BR/><BR/>And I think that my assessments, even when stated to irk somewhat, are valid, and valid on their own terms (not as personal resentment or sour grapes). They are analytically valid for a distinct majority trend in the PoBiz, which we all embrace to varying degrees and with varying levels of success. This is not the world that I would want to practice poetry in, and I suspect that many others feel exactly the same way . . . although they may be less likely to stand up in protest or to risk their admission to the game by boycotting the PoBiz or even sacrificing their own stake in the gamble entirely.<BR/><BR/>Again, for channeling my frustration at many poets, insider and outsider alike, into my last response to you, I apologize. As a "retiree", I'm no longer as willing to stick around to trade barbs or tolerate what seems to me mistreatment and disrespect.<BR/><BR/>-MattMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673989290048344335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5749059681475538860.post-41550262202593027622008-06-14T16:16:00.000-04:002008-06-14T16:16:00.000-04:00Thanks for the kind words Christopher.Athena, I th...Thanks for the kind words Christopher.<BR/><BR/>Athena, I think there is an assumption about performance poets you are making. That performance has to be over the top, a hyperbole of poetics. Your assumption is not far off, but the best spoken word artist don't contrive a performance. It just happens.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you seek truth, Athena. I'm glad you seek to speak the truth as you see it. Again, I pose argument that there are many truths. That truth can be harsh and beautiful. It makes 100% certainty impossible to achieve.<BR/><BR/>"I am not dismissing you. I am saying I don't care for the artificial side of you, but the real side of you will be all the artificial side of you tries to be, and more."<BR/><BR/>I was told the kind of love that truly last is unconditional love. This statement is full of conditions. While we don't strive to be artificial in any way we are as people. That is part of the human condition. And while you may consider the performance of my work to be artificial, and determine that to be realest part for me. I try to live up to the words that I declare in a public. I am more than just me words. I am the sum total of my words, actions, thoughts, emotions, and the energy that is felt when I am experienced live in person.<BR/><BR/>Again, it goes back to relativity and personal judgment. It seems that my point was made. Not conceded, but made.<BR/><BR/>One,<BR/><BR/>DLUX: THE LIGHT<BR/>The Spoken Word Hip Hop Poet<BR/>www.dluxthelight.comDeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17844658537042084394noreply@blogger.com