Showing posts with label Threads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Threads. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Forum Thread: In 2111, What 2011 Poets Will Our Academic Descendants be Reading and Assigning?



Bump.

This post originally appeared on this site on April 9, 2008, when Poets.net was still very young. I believe this question is worthy of another look.

As Bugzita on Foetry (Reply #34, November 28, 2006), I posted the following:

Quite frankly, most poetry published today would not pass "The Uncle Lyle Test." My Uncle Lyle is an ordinary Joe who likes to read, which I did not know until he read my first book (which sort of passed the test, but not entirely--oh, well).

Say what you will about bestsellers, but they are bestsellers because they pass the test imposed by the Uncle Lyles of the reading world. Now if your work is so rarified that it leaves most readers scratching their heads, that's fine, and there's something to be said for creating work that excludes all but a few insiders--academia does it all the time. That's a choice, and I respect that.

But I have a problem when these rarified poets start whining and moaning because no one wants read or buy their books. So some of them resort to dishonest methods to drum up bogus awards, which, from what I can see, are based less on quality of work and more on how well-connected they are. So everyone sets up a "press," and poets publish each other's poetry, no matter the quality: "Wink, Wink." To those not in the know, it all looks very respectable.

The problem is: the published work itself becomes insular and not all that interesting to the average reader. And because most readers are average in terms of intellect and tastes, the rarified poets' books sell, perhaps, one or two hundred copies, sold to other poets. Of course there are always exceptions, but, unfortunately, this insularity seems to be the norm.

And you wonder why poetry no longer matters? :?:

Bugz

So, then, in 2008 (2011), as Jennifer, I pose the following questions for your consideration and opinion:

In 2111, what 2011 poets will be considered as literary representatives of our era, their works published in The Norton Anthology (2111 edition) and assigned by our academic descendants to school children and college students? If you wish, support your supposition with details.

Conversely, what 2011 poets will slide into obscurity? If you wish, support your supposition with details.

Related thread: "Is Poetry Dead?"

Monday, June 16, 2008

Thread: Smackdown!

(The comment feature for this topic has been turned off and moved here. All comments have also been moved. To comment on the new forum, you will have to join the forum, which is fast, easy, and free.)

*

This is the place to vent about any topic related to the writing community.

Enough said.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Thread: Writing Forum Survey

Please post your comments here.


You may answer this survey anonymously:


  1. Have you ever felt stifled on a writing forum? If so, how? (Feel free to name names and specific writing forums).


  2. Have you ever been banned from a writing forum? If so, why? (If you're not sure why, offer your best guess.)


  3. On some forums, does the application of forum rules/guidelines seem to offer more leeway for administrators, moderators, and forum "pets"? If so, offer some examples. (Feel free to name names and specific writing forums).


  4. In your opinion, should some forum topics be off-limits? If so, what topics should writing forums avoid altogether?


  5. Should forums allow for anonymous (for example, with no name or alias) discussion? Why or why not?


  6. Should forum members be allowed to discuss the policies and behaviors of other forums? Why or why not?


  7. Should forums that accept government funds be required to follow at least a limited "Public Forum Doctrine" policy*? Why or why not?


  8. How would you define "libel"?

_______________________________________

Please post your answers on this thread. This survey is being conducted on a public thread because we feel no need to censor any opinion.

* From Public Forum and the Internet (1997):

We can conclude that the Internet is in some respects public and for other features private. The First Amendment does not extend its guarantees to the private property. Only a public electronic forum--owned, operated or sponsored by the state--would obtain protection by the First Amendment. Therefore, only a regulation in this sector could be scrutinized accordingly to the rules applied to traditional public forums.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Thread: The Cult of Celebrity

UPDATED 5/7/08

In his or her comment in A Second Open Letter to Tree Swenson, President and Executive Director of the Academy of American Poets, "Anonymous" posed this question:

How is poetry being affected by Jorie Graham? I did indeed see the interview on the main page of poets.org and I don't agree with it being there; but that seems to just be Jorie tooting her own horn so to speak.

Is this more than politics? Is [Graham's] self-idolatry changing poetry?


My questions: If so, HOW is such self-adulation changing poetry for the better or worse?

Overall, how has the "cult" of high self-esteem (whether earned or not) affected the literary arts?

Athena answers "How is poetry being affected by Jorie Graham?":

How poetry, in the widest possible sense, is ultimately viewed and judged—or not, by critics, poets, English departments, the poetry establishment, and society at large, is monumentally crucial, and affects not only whether poetry publications get reviewed by the New York Times, but the lonely creative act itself, even the obscure poem written by the poet in obscurity.

No poet can escape Jorie Graham’s influence, and her influence is not confined to herself, but vibrates within the critical medium which mutually strikes the creative medium, causing all poetic thought and all poetic social interaction to vibrate as well. What the greater orchestra plays really does determine what notes YOU play. This may not be apparent to the individual poet, since the scale and complexity of the influence is vast, but if it cannot be easily traced to the satisfaction of the isolated consciousness, it certainly does not follow that the phenomenon does not exist.

We long to write what is loved, with no detour into criticism; almost every poet fears criticism. This fear, however, should never blind us to the arc which every public poetic act completes: a poem is conceived, written, published, read, and, here is all that most people think needs to happen; but, here’s the crucial point: the poetic universe cannot exist without criticism, without feedback, without review—without reviewing, poetry would not exist in society, for the critical medium which exists as a result of this feedback, influences, in turn, the creative medium and the poetry universe as a whole.

How poems and poets are received, rated, ranked, judged, applauded, censored, discussed, sold, hyped, denigrated, and to what extent, and in what manner, is as crucial an element as any in the whole process, but it becomes even more crucial when this final necessary step in the cycle of poetic birth, reception, and influence, is short-circuited by crass business interests, selfish, non-poetical reasons, or just neglect. If the circular flow of poetry-in-society is interrupted, or even partially clogged, the wounded cycle of the poetic process will hinder the way poetry thrives in society at-large.

Criticism and biographies of poets long dead may continue to expand, but if living poets are not reviewed critically, and their reputations exist only in bookseller-blurb-islands of boosterism, the contemporary poetic process, as a socially valid process, will falter. Helen Vendler can write all the books on William Butler Yeats she wants. William Butler Yeats cannot help contemporary poetry—at least not in the manner we are discussing here. Without living critics writing honestly on living poets, contemporary poetry will gradually cease to exist.

--Athena


From ACommoner, paraphrasing TomWest on poets.org:

[Jorie Graham] ...the very queen of our contemporary poets walks into the room looking relaxed and happy and begins reading from her new book of poetry. "I cannot even begin to tell you how stunning and alarming it is," writes a young poster in [the same] thread. “Within this collection, Graham explores the devastating problems facing the environment and our humanity with profound urgency and grace.”

Questions:

Has the "Cult of Celebrity" infiltrated the polite community of poetry?

In other words, in 2008, do personality/charisma, social skills, and physical beauty trump art, in this case, the words on the page?

Or must the text somehow rise to the "stunning" physical presence of the person wrote it?

In 2108, when scholars and students will be looking back on 2008, will any of this even matter?

Related to this topic, Matt K. adds,

Nowhere today is the myth of the Great Poet more disbelieved (and even ridiculed) than in the heart of the PoBiz. The Great-Poets-For-A-Day that the PoBiz indoctrinates and raises up are never afforded the status of the greats of old. They represent a dream that is being sold to other poets like self-help cure-alls and other snake oil. It's just advertising. It encourages more poets to keep paying for their shot at fame...a fame that is manufactured by the PoBiz machine. But it's like a kid going to Chuck-E-Cheese for a birthday party (I just went to one of these for one of my son's friends): they hang a medal around your neck, sing you a song, turn on the animatronic puppets for 5 minutes...and there's your celebration. And this routine is what people pay for. It's the imitation or fantasy of temporary status and prestige. It's a pageant, a costuming where the consumer pays his or her money for a brief lie of their greatness. And then the animatronic puppets grind to a halt, the song ends, and the next customer's birthday arrives. It's all product. Greatness, even talent, is never a factor.

Friday, May 2, 2008

Thread: What is Legitimate Academic Publishing? (Athena)

I'd love to go from Hunger Mountain right into a piece on Colrain--which is the same deal, really, except people spend much more money, and Joan Houlihan and Jeffrey Levine are editors who can publish their "students" and perhaps eventually judge them in a "contest," thus providing incentive for the aspiring writer to pay the "manuscript doctor" fees.

Most of these poets would never pay a thousand dollars, or whatever it is they have to pay, for a vanity publication, and Levine and Houlihan would vociferously deny they are in the "vanity publication" business, but if they collect money to edit a person's manuscript, become acquainted with that person and their work in the process of taking their money, and then subsequently publish them in a magazine or a book--how can any objective viewer not reach the conclusion that this is, in fact, vanity publishing?

If an editor receives an manuscript out of the blue and says, "Wow, I must publish this," fine, wonderful.

But if an editor takes hefty fees from a poet for "manuscript doctoring" services and then subsequently publishes that poet, one has to be rather naive not to know what's going on.

And then, of course, the "students" and the Colrain manuscript "doctors" trumpet the "success" of the "manuscript doctor" retreats.

Okay, now we just put a headline on it:

HOW MUCH "LEGITIMATE" ACADEMIC PUBLISHING IS ACTUALLY VANITY PUBLISHING?

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Guest Writer: PAULA ABDUL = JORIE GRAHAM? (by Monday Love)

The popularity of "American Idol" would seem to confirm that large swaths of pop music audiences prefer "Judging/Competition/Win-Lose/Survivor" thrills to the actual music, and why is it no surprise that a major judge on "American Idol" has no clue and doesn't even know what she's judging?

When "the Contest" (the elated winner, the bitter loser) becomes more important than what is actually being judged, it is inevitable that we have "judges" like Paula Abdul, who, like Jorie Graham, are mired in big, stinky, judging scandals.

There are other similarities, too; both Graham and Abdul are "good people"; they are kind, they love giving praise, and they adore crowning "winners," but if the judge shows no responsibility to what is ostensibly being judged, all this "nice" is merely a cover for damaging incompetence which hurts everyone in the long run.

Both Graham and Abdul have been judged favorably for doing (poetry, singing) what they in turn, "judge," but it's been a long time since Abdul has had a genuine hit, and it's been a long time since Graham has written a good poem.

Abdul was caught on live TV, this week, "judging" a number which hadn't even happened yet.

Graham has been caught (most notably by Foetry.com) giving poetry prizes to students and lovers rather than actually judging contests.

Graham holds the highest academic poetry position in the world at Harvard, and yet she's a scandal-ridden judge, and her actual poetry credentials are weak: she can't write verse like the bards of old, or even write verse like living versifiers, she's never published an essay of note on poetry: theory, history, or any aspect of the art, and today Ms. Graham has been reduced to waging a cynical campaign to save her poetic reputation--by showing how much she cares about the planet. Jorie Graham cares more about global warming than you do, and this makes her not only the best poet, but a terrific judge of poetry, it seems.

After her poetry contest judging scandals, Graham said she would never judge poetry contests again. But now Graham is back as a judge, signing on to judge a big poetry contest. Maybe Graham envies Paula Abdul and all the attention and power judging confers.

Who knows? Hey, you go, girl!

--Monday Love

___________________________________

(Foetry friends and foes will remember Monday Love as being a regular on the now-archived Foetry forum.)

Friday, April 25, 2008

Guest Writer: Matt Koeske Offers a Message to Christopher Woodman and Other Poets Outside of the Po-biz

Dear Christopher,

I'm very sorry that this has happened to you. The trumped up charges are a pretty clear indication that your banning was less a matter of what you wrote on Poets.org than what you represent in contrast to the ideology and tribal participation of the PoBiz establishment. You are an incompatible element with the "Utopian" ideal of a place like Poets.org. I know you from back in the Foetry days, and I see you as one of the most honorable, considerate, and affectionate people I've ever met. These qualities stand out in what I suspect is an online poetry world where most forum posters are in their 20s or maybe 30s (i.e., a post-adolescent peer competition environment). You have a sense of grace this is fully adult and very wise . . . and this quality is sadly not recognizable in the very adolescent poetry world today.

Equally foreign to the PoBiz (and one of its minor "cells" like Poets.org) is the attitude that holds ethics, honor, and integrity above ambition, undisciplined/unconsidered expression, and status-mongering. Again, this kind of honor comes from maturity. Although to the adolescently-minded poets of Poets.org and the PoBiz establishment today, your humanity must seem anachronistic, this really reflects a distinct lack of vision, depth, and mature perspective on their part. This lack of maturity (in the Jungian world, we might say it's a lack of initiation) has enormous impact on and implications for today's poetry. The Old Soul that was long a staple of poetry (just as much as its essential half, the New Soul or daring innovator) has become utterly alien to the poetry coming out of the PoBiz today. Your experience with the Poets.org forum has merely made you into an example of this great loss to the most ancient (and once sacred) literary art form.

Although I fully support you and Jennifer and agree that you should acknowledge and record all of these goings on for posterity or at least for public knowledge, I worry that the root of this unfair and adolescent usage of power in the Poets.org forum administration lies in the very ideology (or impaired ideology) I described above. It is good to stir up support and focus outrage on incidents like this, but I don't think it will change the attitudes and opinions of the people that run Poets.org or its forum. My recommendation is that we who care try to direct our outrage from incidents like this into a deeper and more detailed (and above all, well documented and absolutely fair) criticism of the PoBiz mentality. That is, we need, I feel, to take our energy and drive it into the investigation of the question "Why?" Why do so many PoBiz cogs and tools and "nobles" and "peasants" alike behave and think the way they do? Why do they have such a minimal grasp of ethics? Why are they so tribalistic, cronyistic, status-hungry? Why do they hold the various (never questioned) dogmas about poetry and poetry publication and poetry community that they do . . . and why do they refuse to question them? Why has the experience of "initiated" or mature adults with adult experiences and feelings and ideas eroded away from today's poetry?

I think that in the investigation of such questions, we will (or at least should) find that the poets who have gathered under the wing of the academic PoBiz establishment are, despite their misdeeds and apparent lack of fully evolved ethics or consciousness, really not much different than those who find themselves opposed and embattled with them. What I mean is that, poeting today involves a number of standard choices. Like, do I go to an MFA program or don't I? Do I seek publication by any means necessary or do I bide my time and hope to be "discovered" without networking or favor trading? Do I associate myself with people that are perhaps slightly "corrupt" and may require that I think and write more like them or do I go it alone and follow my own artistic vision? Do I dare to love and learn from writers who are not on the academic approved lists? There are hundreds, maybe thousands of questions like this that everyone seeking to write and publish (and maybe make at least part of a living off of) poetry faces. Most of these questions can and must be satisfied with Yes or No answers. At every fork in the road, taking one path excludes the possibility of taking the other (unless we are willing to backtrack, and that can be a whole new kind of grief).

I think that poets like some of the Poets.org forum staffers have made a number of choices in their quests to "become poets" that led them to their current state of impaired ethics and adolescent grasp of both complex ideas and relationship with others. When you or anyone else ask them now to consider ethics more closely or whether a poet's behavior matters, you are not asking them something that they have ready access to. They are not like you, a mature adult who has wandered up and down and around and through the various labyrinths of life. Rather, they are like rats in a maze that have kept moving forward on the impulse of short-term thinking and immediate gratification and lost site of the innumerable branching options that there are in life and in the evolution of a human personality. To ask them to consider ethics in a complex, long-term fashion is to ask them to go back to some very early part of their maze and start over.

And the truth is that back when they made those early decisions, they were children (at least psychologically), they were afraid and fragile and sought immediate rewards like comfort and protection. They had no idea that as they continued down these paths, this initially embracing and seemingly unconditional comfort and protection would cut them off from so much that is human. So when they are asked (as you have asked them) to look back to these early forks in their poeting road, they are terrified of what they might lose and of how fragile and confused they were back then. Essentially, you are asking them to individuate, to "grow up", to get initiated, to evolve . . . and from their perspective, you are asking them to do this just so a particular grievance or notion of yours can be validated. They don't understand that your particular grievances and interests have more-universal implications, implications that even would be meaningful to these PoBiz tribe members and also to human beings beyond the "small" (small in intellectual, emotional, and spiritual scope, more so than in actual population) world of poetry.

It is easiest for them to say, "Christopher Woodman is just a foolish and selfish old man who doesn't speak for anyone. He's an insignificant nobody and a nuisance. We, on the other hand, are a tribe, a group, a community, a society. We are right and Woodman is wrong, because we are numerous and connected and he is singular and disconnected." If they didn't say this (and of course, to say this is very childish, very prejudicial, and very offensive), then they would have to go back to the kindergarten of their rat maze and stick their thumbs in their mouths and still whimper for the Great Mommy of an institution like the PoBiz to swaddle them up and suckle and stroke them. And to face and rise above that would require them to be, like you, like Christopher Woodman, an individual who like all real individuals is forced to stand alone, to stand with integrity and honor (which must have first been hard won and painstakingly cultivated).

This kind of individuality, this dread of loneliness and lack of protection from the group is foreign to them. They are terrified of it (just as preadolescent children are terrified of the burden of adult responsibility when they begin to get a whiff of what that really means). The predicament you are in when trying to engage in ethical debate with these people is that, in order to face you, individual to individual, they would have to acknowledge their infantile fragility, fear, and smallness. Regrettably, one of the most attractive lures of poeting today (in the PoBiz age) is the potential to not be "small" or alone. The romantic notion of the poet is that, by force of individuality alone, s/he overcomes his or her initial smallness. Vision, talent, genius . . . are the romantic's medicine for the "disease" of smallness and anonymity. The PoBiz has developed an alternate system and branded its own "medicine" for the same disease poets have always struggled to overcome. This PoBiz "cure" is tribalistic aggrandizement and status-sharing. One has only to sacrifice to the tribe's specific gods and totems, accept its taboos, and stay in line, and a certain portion of medicine is handed out. All who abide can partake of the ritual of "status" to at least some small degree. Those who can work this system to their advantage (who have a talent for being able to do this), can get more of the curative PoBiz drug for the "dreadful condition of smallness and anonymity".

But, of course, it is this entire totemic, tribalistic system that affords these portionings of status medicine. And the old romantic notions of individualistic vision, talent, and genius are anathema to the totemic system of the PoBiz. The PoBiz system is really not fundamentally different than the situation of modern business in which we see conflict between corporate giants and small, independent businesses. What is sacrificed in actual integrity by corporatism is "made up for" with PR, with spin. In business this is generally a conscious decision . . . but the decision itself is totemized and considered an unquestionable Good. In poetry (where philosophies for living have not real need to be non-fanciful), it is perhaps less conscious, but true-believers in a lie are always the best liars.

All of this is terribly regrettable for the state of today's poetry. The qualities of poetry (and poeting) that you (and I and many others) admire and are outraged by the absence of today are not accidentally left out of the PoBiz dogmas and ideals. They are overtly and intentionally excised. They are the only real dangers to the power of the established PoBiz system. Their exclusion and elimination and tabooing are the first and greatest Commandment of PoBiz Law. Like true scapegoats or taboos, once the tribal elders drove them off into the Wilderness, any further mention of them was strictly forbidden and punishable in the most vicious and absolute of ways. So your simple questions about ethics are, for people like the Poets.org administrators (and all devoted members of the PoBiz) actually traitorous, sacrilegious, religious violations, sins . . . deadly sins and heresies. That is absurd, of course, even somewhat laughable . . . but that absurdity stands as one of the great pillars of the PoBiz and its pledge of allegiance.

For these PoBizzers to grant you the right of a voice (in their kingdom), the status of valid humanness, they would have to question the makeup of their entire totemic belief system, the entire structure on which they have risen or which has sheltered them from their infantile fears. Telling true believers that their god is a sham, a phony, a delusion is never going to win them over to your perspective. They have far too much riding on the unquestionability of their beliefs. If they are contented believers, they will mock, ignore, and/or swiftly reject you. If they are slightly more uncertain believers, they will feel compelled to destroy and make an example of you and your heresies . . . because questioning themselves is radically dangerous and likely to cause an inner rupture. There is no room in their minds or in their beliefs for tolerance and consideration of your Otherness.

I feel and worry that your attempts to introduce these ideas into PoBiz bastions (regardless of their tact, honor, or foundational correctness) cannot succeed. And I worry that, this failure being inevitable, you will be unnecessarily hurt and defiled by the way you have been and will be treated. And even as my blood boils, my heart also sinks to recognize this. It is unjust, but this particular injustice cannot be directly or linearly combated. You will never win a case against a PoBiz credo when the judge and jury are determined by the PoBiz. You cry out for justice, but justice will never be given to you . . . because the system of power the PoBiz uses and is, is not just, is not constructed with any sense of justice in mind. The only justice you will find is that which is inside you, that which you make. And you can bring it to the PoBiz, right up to its bejeweled gates, but I don't think you will be allowed to bring it inside the kingdom.

And I don't think you actually have to. Right on the outskirts you can hang your protest signs and raise your pickets and pass out your fliers . . . because there will always be a steady influx of potential PoBiz inductees trudging hungrily and longingly right through your encampment. And even if these inductees still choose to go inside, the seed you wish to plant can sometimes be planted with them. Not with the already-indoctrinated (who have too much to lose and to whom you are too alien). Some you will even persuade not to go in at all. And inside the walls of the PoBiz kingdom, occasional dissatisfaction will lead people to peer down into the outskirts and wonder if your ongoing protest and campaign might have some merit. Additionally, the occasional seeds you managed to plant (probably unconsciously) in the new inductees might find ways to take root and sprout inside the PoBiz walls, increasing dissent in a grassroots, evolutionary fashion. That is, by planting these seeds (or by devoting yourself to such seed planting outside the PoBiz kingdom) you increase the chance that even poets that pass through the indoctrination and perhaps even find their way to PoBiz success or status might someday be struck with a deep feeling of dissatisfaction or even disgust. A kind of "midlife crisis" of the poeting life, and these empowered individuals may be able to disrupt the inner structure of the PoBiz in ways people like you and me never would have the opportunity to do. So, it is of the greatest importance that these seeds have strong genes that can grow deep-rooted, resilient trees. When the dissident thought awaken in a PoBizzers mind, they have to be pernicious and impossible to entirely dismiss.

And this perniciousness is not impossible to create, because it is also the quality of all great poetry. Even if poetry isn't its medium, it is a poetic thing essentially. These seedling ideas need to be able to truly endanger the sanctity of the PoBiz mindset and conditioning. They can't be merely selfish wishes. To be truly dangerous and effective, they must be true.

It's a long-term strategy, but I think it is more functional than trying to forcibly convert those who are already deacons of the kingdom or more functional than trying to shame the high priests into submission from our esoteric, little pulpit in the excommunicated wilderness. At the very least, I suggest that this kind of long-term strategy be given equal energy and time as those shorter-term strategies that currently prevail among the PoBiz resistance.

Whatever the tack taken, let us always remember to keep our dignity and self-possession and honor and not throw them before hungry dogs like some unwanted table scraps. We can't do this and then convince the dogs it would be unethical to devour them. Don't let the fools and goons of the PoBiz shame you or take advantage of your immense decency and integrity.

My Very Best,
Matt Koeske

______________________________________________

(This post has been elevated, with permission from the author, from the comment section.)

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Thread: From Poetry to Prose--Derivative Works ("The Smile of Accomplishment")

.

Night descends upon the city. The moon rises higher and higher as if trying to get a better look upon the city's inhabitants. As night creeps on, there are still people out and about. Men sneaking behind their wives' backs, even some women sleeping around being unfaithful to their husbands. None of this is new to the moon, for she has risen night after night. She has seen many a betrayal, and often the fights that ensue. She has seen mothers tending their children, who can't sleep because of nightmares. The moon is rising, watching over her domain. Nothing seems out of place; everything is as it should be. But then something catches her eye. It is a mother, wandering about her kitchen, seeming to fret over her children.

The rest of Jennifer Butts' "The Smile Of Accomplishment" (with background and explanatory notes)

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Forum Thread: Has "Confessional Poetry" Debased Poetry?

"Confessional Poetry" (From Wikipedia):

Confessional poetry traffics in intimate, and sometimes unflattering, information about details of the poet's personal life, such as in poems about illness, sexuality, despondence. The confessionalist label was applied to a number of poets of the 1950s and 1960s. John Berryman, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Lowell, Sylvia Plath, Theodore Roethke, Anne Sexton, and William De Witt Snodgrass have all been called "Confessional Poets." As fresh and different as the work of these poets appeared at the time, it is also true that several poets prominent in the canon of Western literature, perhaps most notably Sextus Propertius and Petrarch, could easily share the label of "confessional" with the confessional poets of the fifties and sixties.

Development of definition

In 1959 M. L. Rosenthal first used the term "confessional" in a review of Robert Lowell's Life Studies entitled "Poetry as Confession," [1] Rosenthal mentions earlier tendencies towards the confessional but notes how there was typically a "mask" which hid the poet's "actual face." "Lowell removes the mask. His speaker is unequivocally himself, and it is hard not to think of Life Studies as a series of personal confidences, rather shameful, that one is honor-bound not to reveal."[2]

Life Studies broke new ground: the reviewer in The Kenyon Review saw clearly what new thing had been achieved: "For these poems, the question of propriety no longer exists. They have made a conquest: what they have won is a major expansion of the territory of poetry."[3] Nevertheless there were clear moves towards the confessional mode before the publication of Life Studies. Delmore Schwartz's Genesis had been published in 1943, and John Berryman has written his Sonnets to Chris in 1947, although they were not to be published until 1967 (and then as Berryman's Sonnets).[4] Berryman's sonnet sequence fits in the long tradition of highly personal sonnet sequences, stretching back through George Meredith's Modern Love to William Shakespeare's sonnets and the sonnets of Petrarch. The difference between the long tradition of intimate, personal, lyrical poetry and the confessional approach, lies in the shameful confidences that Rosenthal identified, it goes "beyond customary bounds of reticence or personal embarrassment". [5] In his 1955 poem Howl, Allen Ginsberg wrote "[To] stand before you speechless and intelligent and shaking with shame, rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head,..."

The impetus towards more personal, more autobiographical writing, dates back at least a century and a half before Life Studies. In February 1797 Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote in a letter to Thomas Poole: "I could inform the dullest author how he might write an interesting book—let him relate the events of his own life with honesty—not disguising the feelings that accompanied them."[6]

Constructed self

In a letter to The Guardian on 20 April 1989, Ted Hughes wrote that there was a "Fantasia about Sylvia Plath". [7] Plath's life and poetry have been constructed in such a way as to perpetuate particular fictions about her marriage, mental illness, and "autobiographic" writing, and although this may in part be due to a mythologizing tendency among critics and biographers, it can be shown how Plath fictionalizes herself in her writing. [8]

Later writers such as Denise Levertov, Adrienne Rich, and Audre Lorde present personal difficulties in a socio-political context. For example, Lorde's poem, "Coal" reflects on such personal problems within a given cultural context. Levertov's "Life at War" presents something inextricably personal bound in the conflict of the age.

What defines poetry as confessional is not the subject matter, but how the issue represented is explored. Confessional poetry explores personal details about the authors' life without meekness, modesty, or discretion. Because of this, confessional poetry is a popular form of creative writing that many people enjoy not only to read but to embark upon. Another element that is specific to this poetry is self-revelation achieved through creating the poem. This passes on to the reader, and a connection is made.

Reasons behind writing confessional poetry

Poets whose writing is classified as confessional (it has been argued) use writing as an outlet for their demons. Writing and then re-reading one's work changes the cognitive processes with which one's brain processes this information—it offers perspective. Anne Sexton famously said, "Poetry led me by the hand out of madness." But she also argued against this perception in her interviews. In an interview with Patricia Marx, Sexton denies that writing “cured her”:

“I don’t think [that writing cured my mental illness] particularly. It certainly did not create mental health. It isn’t as simple as my poetry makes it, because I simplified everything to make it more dramatic. I have written poems in a mental institution, but only later, not at the beginning”.[9]

Reaction

Confessional free verse poetry seemed to have become the dominant approach in late 20th-century American poetry[citation needed]. Robert Bly in the preface to his 1983 translation of Antonio Machado's poetry, Times Alone, praised Machado for "his emphasis on the suffering of others rather than his own".[10] The reaction to confessional poetry has sparked new movements such as that of the Language poets and New Formalism.

References

Kirsch, Adam: The Wounded Surgeon: Confession and Transformation in Six American Poets, W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Rose, Jacqueline, The Haunting of Sylvia Plath, Virago Press, London, 1991. ISBN 9781853813078.

Rosenthal, M. L., The Modern Poets: A Critical Introduction New York: Oxford University Press, 1960 ISBN 0195007182

Rosenthal, M. L., Our Life in Poetry: Selected Essays and Reviews, Persea Books, New York, 1991, ISBN 0892551496.

Notes

1. The Nation, September 19, 1959), reprinted in Rosenthal 1991, pages 109–112. Rosenthal somewhat reworked the review into an essay "Robert Lowell and the Poetry of Confession" in his 1960 book The Modern Poets

2. Rosenthal, 1959.

3. Thompson, John, "Two Poets," Kenyon Review 21 (1959) pages 482–490.

4. Kirsch, page 2, makes this observation in his reassessment of the historical context of Life Studies

5. Ian Hamilton, "A Biographer's Misgivings," collected in Walking Possession, Essays & Reviews 1968–1993, Addison-Wesley, 1994. ISBN 0201483971

6. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Volume III, 1854, page 601.

7. Reid, Christopher, editor, Letters of Ted Hughes (Faber & Faber, 2007 ISBN 9780571221387), pages 552–556. The letter is a response to an earlier letter to the newspaper complaining that Plath's grave was hard to find and poorly maintained; Hughes is most angered by a false assertion that Plath and he had divorced, and he attributes this to the "fantasia" generated by the academic Plath industry; the issue of the fantasia is explored in Chapter 3 of Jacqueline Rose's The Haunting of Sylvia Plath (1991)

8. Rose, page 5

9. “Interview with Patricia Marx,” Hudson Review 18, no. 4, Winter, 1965/66)

10. Bly, Robert (translator), Machado, Antonio Times Alone, Wesleyan University Press, 1983, ISBN 978-0819-56081-0, page 1.

Available under Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation License

Version: Modified on 15 April 2008, at 01:46
_________________________________

Of course, this Wikipedia article is not the definitive word on confessional poetry, but merely a jumping off point for a discussion about the place of confessional poetry in the academy.

Since this is a thread on confessional poetry and its affect on poetry, I have a confession to make:

I love Sylvia Plath's poetry, for it is a mirror into her short life and offers the reader a voyeuristic view of the darker aspects of her psychological makeup; I fear her work appeals to the baser side of my personality.

However, I often wonder if the "confessional movement" has, somehow, debased "Poetry" itself.

Feel free to post your thoughts.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Thread: What Makes Meaning?

.

(The poet, who wishes to remain anonymous, originally submitted this poem for critique, which appears in its own critique thread. He/she has graciously granted permission to Poets.net to repost it as a starting point for a discussion thread.

The poet believes that the meaning of the following poem should be "obvious," but is it? If not, should it matter?

When do confusing images and allusions blur the artistic qualities of a poem?

On the other hand, what if the meaning of a poem is too obvious? Does that, too, subtract from the artistic qualities?

In the end, what makes meaning?

This is a discussion thread. If you wish to critique this specific poem, click here)


_______________________

A superfortress glides

the catwalk,

head high, torpedo chest--patent

black punctuates a bomb-

shell, a sleek silhouette.

A power walker well-heeled.

The stiletto elongates the leg,

raises the arch.

Hips thrust hereafter

sway like a pendulum.

Flash!

It’s Barbie,

prize on a pedestal,

dolly style.

Bally style.

Versace, Prada, Chanel, Dior, Uggs, Gucci–

D-squared is not a formula.

Coach. No

she never does coach.

Connections.

Power.

Early morning.

A-Bomb in the morning.


_______________________

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Thread: When an Esteemed Poet Writes a Bad Poem

.
During poetry month, I usually open the daily poem email from poets.org, glance over it, and move on. Today, I was compelled to respond to James Tate's Father's Day:

A Non-Poet’s Lament

The poet has lived in a dusty tower since the twentieth
century. He speaks of Michelangelo–the women, too–
and the academy concurs. Royalty, a man with no robes
or under shorts. He lives on celebrity and a few sips
of kudos. He dreams of past book awards. His iconoclastic
child lashes out at his noted conversational surrealism.
Yellow cats rub sleek torsos against his trouser legs.
I detect a whiff of a putrid peach, the poet’s conceit.
I opened my email, trying to quell the mind-numbing
poetic assault. I, too, have written a drawer full of prose
but not to the State Department. They would have never
written back, for I am not a poet–and know it. I
never listened to his nuggets. I was always tapping
away. I never called him anything–I already know
my shortcomings–and he will never know of me.
Chickenshit: this–his–poem’s middle name.


Note: I am never surprised when a poet or writer creates a bad poem--writers are notoriously bad judges of their own work. I have drawers full of questionable work.

What surprises me: when editors fall all over themselves to publish anything by a famous writer, no matter how mediocre.

I do not know James Tate, nor do I have an ax to grind with him personally; I was just struck by the mediocrity of this particular poem.

Of course, you are free to respond, tell me how lousy my imitation is--which I already know. I spent less than one hour on it and don't have time for revision. I have to move on and grade papers.

But could someone please tell me (and others) why Tate's poem is worthy of being the poem-of-the-day for April 16, 2008? Am I missing something? If so, what?

Monday, April 14, 2008

Forum Thread: Does the Difficulty of Modern Poetry Mask Its Underlying Superficiality?

In 2008, The Writer's Chronicle published a timely article: "On Difficulty in Poetry," by Reginald Shepherd. In his introduction, Mr. Shepherd says, "It's been the fashion at least since the Modernists to complain that contemporary poetry has become difficult, and that this difficulty has alienated the readers who used to flock to poetry as they now flock to John Grisham novels and American Idol" (8).

Then he refers to enduring difficult poets of the past: Shakespeare and Donne--though I would contend that these poets were not considered difficult back when they were writing their plays and poems. They're considered difficult now because their works are written in English not commonly used today.

Shepherd believes that poetry ought to challenge the reader and that total understanding of a poem is not necessary. Sometimes it's enough to appreciate the language, allusions, and structure, even when meaning eludes. He even says, "...the poem that alludes frequently eludes" (10). In other words, meaning is secondary to how a reader experiences a poem, intellectually, emotionally, and sensually.

Up to this point, I agree. "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is definitely an elusive poem worth reading and rereading and pondering because underneath all the fancy language, allusions, metaphors, there is substance, a universality of human experience and mortality.

However, as I read some modern poems, I get the distinct feeling that they hide their underlying superficiality behind difficult language--that a poet's walk down Fifth Avenue, during which his contemplation of his grocery list has been interrupted by an ill-timed bomb by an overhead bird will not be enhanced by complicated allusions to Prometheus.

Shepherd says, "Poems considered difficult often allude to material outside the common literary or intellectual frame of reference. Modern poetry is particularly difficult in its wide range and idiosyncratic, often inexplicit, deployment of allusion" (13).

Perhaps that is debatable; what I see in modern poetry is a tendency toward sameness, a flat affect, a self-indulgent contemplation about nothing masked by high-toned literary language: all style, little substance.

The question posed here: "Does the Difficulty of Modern Poetry Mask Its Underlying Superficiality?"

Feel free to comment.

___________________________________

Shepherd, Reginald. The Writer's Chronicle," May/Summer 2008, Vol. 40, Number 6, 8-14.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Forum Thread: Good News and Bragging Rights!

This happy thread is reserved for your good news and bragging rights.

Enjoy!

Monday, April 7, 2008

Open Thread: What Happens When A Thread is Locked?

A Commoner (as he was known on the Speakeasy thread) was banned (and remains banned) from the P & W Speakeasy forum. After a week of heated discussion (March 17-March 14, 2008) The Posting Related Question Thread (under"Mediation"), which I have archived, was locked after this message from motet/Dana, a moderator, appeared:

If you want a pulpit for your conspiracy theories and other extraneous conversation, you'll need to find it someplace else.

The Speakeasy is a private message board and a free service to patrons who post in a civil and respectful manner, are topical with their posts and follow the stated guidelines for posting original work. More than 99% of patrons who come to the Speakeasy easily meet or exceed those standards. It really isn't difficult to do....if you actually want to do it. However, when those standards for participation are not followed, that person is no longer welcome here. You may not like it but while the Speakeasy is a place for most people, it is not the place for everyone.

As Jason has already said, you may not like that answer but that's the only answer there will be. You can either live with those parameters or find some other board on which to participate. It's pretty simple and this conversation is over.

Dana


Well, Dana, this conversation is NOT over. It has just moved somewhere else. If anything, the conversation has become more urgent than ever. Speakeasy may be a private forum, but let me remind you: The Poets & Writers organization feeds at the public trough, and your banning of free speech may raise a few bureaucratic eyeballs.

Also, Poets.net is NOT afraid to take this conversation on, especially when the issue of free speech is at stake--even on a so-called private board. "Poetry" has too long been a place where outsiders have not only been "politely" silenced but also ridiculed.

I see nothing in A Commoner's posts and others that warrants a banning of anyone; your moderation and administration are heavy-handed and petty.


Re: Alan Cordle/Bluehole's statement and question to Dana, "I assume Jason's IT position is paid. Is Dana's moderator position paid?" These are very valid issues to probe because if these positions are paid, then Jason and Dana are simply puppets, and we must question everything they post. It also suggests that freedom of speech is simply a commodity to be bought and manipulated.

In any case, the literary field is much too polite especially when it comes to squashing anti-establishment ideas.

"The river glints, a knife in the land."

Indeed, JoanneMerriam.


More like, "The river glints, a knife in hand."

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Thread: ACommoner Responds to "Rotten Grapes"

(Corrected entry)

Evidently, freedom of expression at Poets & Writers is afforded to some poets and writers and not extended to others, taking literally the Orwellian notion that "All pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

Poets & Writers pretends to represent its subscribers and membership, but, in fact, it represents only the politically sanctioned viewpoints of the the power structure: those who hand out prizes and keepers of the status quo.

Dissenting viewpoints not welcome.

Christpher Woodman, a.k.a. ACommoner, a
Poets & Writer reader, wished to respond to the following Joan Houlihan letter to the editor, which appeared in Poets & Writers Magazine Nov/Dec 2007):

A STUDY IN DENIAL

ROTTEN GRAPES?

Craig Morgan Teicher's profile of Bin Ramke ("Noble Rider," September/October 2007) referred to the now-defunct Foetry.com as a "poetry watchdog," with a legitimate point of view in a "squabble." But thanks to that "watchdog," one of the best poetry series in America has been dismantled (the Contemporary Poetry Series), an independent press was smeared (Tupelo Press), and Ramke, one of poetry's most dedicated editors, chose to retire. Any influence that Foetry wielded came about through its bullying tactics and sensationalist accusations, which were far more serious than what Teicher calls "sour grapes." They were the product of a willful misunderstanding of the process of editing and publishing poetry.

So on November 2, 2007, Mr. Woodman wrote directly to P & W editor Kevin Larimer:

Dear Editors,

I couldn't believe my eyes when I came upon Joan Houlihan's letter "ROTTEN GRAPES" in your current issue. I've admired her too, a lot. So how could she be so blind as to defend the extinct Georgia Contemporary Poetry Series against the very fair and detailed accusations leveled against its editor, Bin Ramke, NOT against the Series? After all Bin Ramke never dared to defend himself--which he could have done so easily by revealing the records voluntarily. When those records did get into the public domain everything Foetry had said about his bias proved to be 100% correct, and he resigned, he didn't "retire!"

Of course there were fine books published in the Series--but the question has to be what even finer and more original, grass-root or autodidact, books were never even looked at? And how sad such a distinguished series should have had to be closed down too--I submitted no less than TWELVE m.s. to Bin Ramke over the years, and would have continued to do so had it not been for his self-serving sleights-of-hand and cronyism. Bin Ramke took something away from me when he fell too--he deprived me of something so valuable in my life. Bin Ramke did that to me, let's be clear about that, not the Series!

I've been reading P & W for years--sometimes I subscribe but at the moment my postal service is so erratic I don't receive it if I do. I've also written to you a number of times, including twice before about Jeffrey Levine. Now you've published this letter of Joan Houlihan--surely you've got to let me be heard at this point too. Because I really am the real thing--the poet unattached, unfettered, uncompromised. Indeed you can check me out at my wife Homprang's website, www.homprang.com (is my e-mail address p.c. or is it p.c?).

I wish I could have made the following shorter--I've tried for days and days and just can't say what needs to be said any more succinctly. If you can prune it more do feel free to do so--but be sure it continues to say what it says. Foetry did wonders for me--and I suspect it has changed things for all of us more than we can possibly see at the moment.

With many thanks too for your good work--you can't imagine what a wonderful resource P & W is for isolated writers like myself!

And one last point, dear P & W Editors--do you hear any sour grapes in my voice--or my verse?

All the best, Christopher Woodman


ACommoner added an ATTACHED LETTER TO THE EDITOR, November 2nd, 2007

WILLFUL MISUNDERSTANDING!

Your grapes are truly rotten, Joan Houlihan. As a start, Bin Ramke didn’t retire, he resigned—under relentless pressure from the public and from the University of Georgia Press. Secondly, the dispute wasn’t about the Contemporary Poetry Series but about the selection process. In top-flight poetry book contests all the finalists are the very best, and for that reason it’s even more important they all get an equal hearing. If a judge favors a friend or someone connected to an institution he likes, then another equally gifted but different finalist doesn’t get recognition—and when that happens over and over again for years it’s destructive to the whole poetry environment. If only one species of poetry is propagated the art ends up as dead as any other ill-adapted species, a dinosaur, a haemophiliac crown prince, or an emperor with inadequate clothing!

The third of Houlihan’s distortions is the worst--to suggest the whistle-blower is a “bully” and the message just “sensationalist accusations.” No, the “willful misunderstanding of the process of editing and publishing poetry” was not on the part of the watchdog but on the part of the editor/publisher with the secret agenda. It was Bin Ramke who destroyed the Series, not Foetry--and the proof is it’s coming back so quickly without him!

Like a teacher, a priest or an elected representative, an editor has an almost sacred responsibility to the public, especially in the high art of poetry. Bin Ramke was in a position to help American poetry to evolve honestly and naturally, not to foist on it his own claustrophobic hothouse variety!

And Jeffrey Levine? If the Watchdog was rabid then so was P &W, because all the facts were repeated in the magazine too and nobody challenged them. Levine was also given the space to refute the charges, and his excuse was not that Foetry was wrong but that the mess was all due to pressure and fumbling, and he just wished the whistles would stop blowing! Perhaps they will, but not if you try to bully them with your rotten gripes, Joan Houlihan. That will just make them shriller and more frenzied, and suspect that you too have your interests!

Christopher Woodman
Chiang Mai, Thailand


These letters were never published in the print or the online versions of P & W, effectively silencing Mr. Woodman. On March 17, 2008, Mr. Woodman, posting as ACommoner, brought his plight to poets.org, and started a lively 2-page thread called "The First Amendment & Forums." There he posted the above unpublished letters. He also posted the following (among other entries):

I was very struck by a letter which appeared a few months ago in Poets & Writers Magazine (ROTTEN GRAPES, P & W Magazine Nov/Dec 2007) in which a well known critic and poet defended the conduct of two equally well-known editors and publishers who had been caught red-handed abusing the trust of those who had placed their work in their hands. One of the editors had systematically undermined the integrity of a well-known poetry series for 20+ years, bestowing the bi-annual awards on his friends and cronies and sometimes not even bothering to read the other manuscripts, including 12 of my own along the way. The other editor sent xeroxed "personal reviews" to 100s of hopeful poets, including myself, all of whom had entrusted him with their best and most precious work. Even worse, the editor in question suggested to us all that he might be able to lift us “up a level” (his exact phrase) if we sent him an additional $295.00, checks made out to him personally. “But will we get published this time?” I'm sure we all asked ourselves.

“I don’t rule out the possibility in some cases…” went the classic come-on spiel.

What upset me more than anything about the ROTTEN GRAPES defense of the two compromised editors was that it accused the whistle blowers, myself among them, of a “willful misunderstanding of the whole process of editing and publishing poetry.” We were all “losers,” the letter suggested, clueless incompetents who had nothing better to do than to “smear” their betters, and even if some mistakes had been made by the two editors, what we had done was far worse!

So I want to know what the process of editing and publishing poetry entails that we didn’t understand? The answer seems to go like this—I’ve heard it hundreds of times. If a publisher’s “lists” are “good,” that’s all that really matters. The taste with which the “lists” get drawn up is what the process is about, not who is left unread or whose feelings get hurt, which is inevitable. If the “lists” are "good," it doesn’t matter what fees are collected, for example, or who knows the judge or is just about to marry her or is baby sitting for her right now on the campus where the decision is being made. Great editors and publishers are above such venal concerns. They devote themselves to such a high art in such a selfless way and for so very, very little money, why trouble them with your small-minded obsessions?


On March 25, 2008, poets.org site administrator chissiekl posted:

Christopher (ACommoner),

If you wish to continue to debate this topic, you are free to create your own blog or website to do so. If you wish to discuss poetry, poems, the po-biz in a non-defamatory manner, you are free to start a new thread in this section. Any more defamatory content will be locked and further warnings will be issued. Thank you for your cooperation.


"The First Amendment & Forums" thread was locked, and, for a time, ACommoner was banned from the forum. He was later reinstated with a warning.

An interesting side note: both
Poets & Writers and poets.org feed at the government trough. Perhaps shutting down an exchange of free ideas and factual information might give those who dole out free money for the arts pause in awarding future grants.

In any case, ACommoner's thread has been reopened here.

Bring it on!

Jennifer

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Book Review Thread: Drama/Playscripts

Have you recently read a playscript that you absolutely loved or hated?

Here's the thread for you.

This thread is open to those of you who want to review the written version of plays (in other words, no reviews of performances), traditional or experimental.

The first signed (not anonymous) and quality review (negative or positive), will be elevated into this post.

Some Guidelines and Caveats:

  • No Self-Promotion. There is another thread for self-promoting your work. However, you may add an link to where one can buy and/or see more information about and other reviews of the book.

  • You may use this thread only; book reviews in other comment or incorrect genre threads will be moved or deleted.

  • By posting a negative or even neutral review, you do leave yourself open to attack by unhappy and angry authors about your review, and these comments will not be deleted.

  • Anyone may comment on your review, including reviewed authors. If you are an author, you are welcome to respond to the review, but you may not self-promote in this thread. Instead, go to the self-promotion thread. Self-promoting comments will be deleted from this thread.

Questions? Email me

Book Review Thread: General non-fiction (Autobiography, Biography, How-to, Informational, Political, etc.)

Have you recently read general non-fiction that you absolutely loved or hated?

Here's the thread for you.

This thread is open to those of you who want to review non-fiction targeted to a general audience: autobiography, biography, how-to, informational, political etc.).

Academic non-fiction has its own thread.

The first signed (not anonymous) and quality review (negative or positive), will be elevated into this post.

Some Guidelines and Caveats:

  • No Self-Promotion. There is another thread for self-promoting your work. However, you may add an link to where one can buy and/or see more information about and other reviews of the book.

  • You may use this thread only; book reviews in other comment or incorrect genre threads will be moved or deleted.

  • By posting a negative or even neutral review, you do leave yourself open to attack by unhappy and angry authors about your review, and these comments will not be deleted.

  • Anyone may comment on your review, including reviewed authors. If you are an author, you are welcome to respond to the review, but you may not self-promote in this thread. Instead, go to the self-promotion thread. Self-promoting comments will be deleted from this thread.

Questions? Email me

We are Indies




If you are an Indie writer,

please consider joining



on Facebook.