Blogcritics Comments on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Comment by Doug A. on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:06:39 EST

Dan Tessitore asks about Billy Collins. He is one of our contemporary poets that I love to read. Yes, his work is uneven- who would expect otherwise- but IMHO poems like FISHING ON THE SUSQUEHANNA will be read 100 years from now. I remember the first time I read it, I immediately thought of ARS POETICA, one of my favorite poems. It's very difficult to write a good poem about the art of writing poetry, and both succeed. Collins' best poetry, though written in a deceptively plain style, does have elements of beauty and cleverness- no, not the in-your-face cleverness of a Dorothy Parker- a poet I love to read, but that subtle cleverness of levels of meaning that much great poetry exhibits. Besides cleverness, Collins also writes with humour. I like ON TURNING 10 less well and agree that the ending is too predictable and almost a cliche. Doug A.

Comment by Doug A. on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:35:25 EST

Before discovering this blog, I had spent a couple of hours at Duotrope links, reading poetry from several journals. Poet after poet sounded the same- that "plain style" and "ummediated voice" to which reviewer Edward Hirsh compaired vanilla ice cream. I agree that a plain style is more suited to prose. When a poet writes about ordinary themes, plain style is insufficient. I want beuaty, style, or cleverness- maybe all three. And since nothing is new under the sun, all themes are ordinary. And beauty, style, and/or cleverness is always essential, but usually missing from the contemporary poetry I find in the journals I read. Mike Finley tells us that there are hundreds of thousands of poets writing today. Make that millions, Mike. Poetry.com (no, that's not where I read poetry!) claims over 6 million subscribers. If, in Elizabethan England, 10% of the the population were high school or college educated and most of them wrote poetry, today most of our enormous population is high school eduated (perhaps half having spent 2 years or more in college). Possibly 5% of those write poetry. My numbers are just guesses, but the total number of poetry witers is probably 100 times that of Elaizbethan England. Do we have 100 times the number of "Shakespeares?" I seriously doubt that an unpublished authentic Shakespeare sonnet, equal to his best, and found in some dusty Avon attic and submitted to contemporary poetry journals would be published. What do you think? Doug A.

Comment by Blackangelfish on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 2 Jun 2006 10:48:33 EDT

Gentleman: I am a self-published author who is in the process of working on a complete book of poems. Your exchange has convinced me of earlier suspicions, "One appreciates what he understands." Here is a few lines from one of my own. LOST IN KNOWLEDGE A choice has been given to unite, can you hear it? It's moving closer. To be a sign is formed into being out of molten rocks like dreams spiting coal from red mines with diamonds caged in hearts, unpolished, raw and spectacular. Brilliantly bright he begins to move between borders across fences guided by past truths, revelations, amazing personal discoveries and "I can" affirmations to ease the streaming mind like traffic road signs, the wise takes notes of life happenings, records changing, green lights, children playing, beating hearts, the pulse, the finger and the tongue, the weapon or the tool uses the wise and abuses the fool-hearted everywhere, everything is beautiful; we all dispatch it, package it and then manufacture it off to a Mother and or friends far away out in space, a black hole of sorts out in inner space the lonely space rider seeks the camera, the photographers, the stage, the painter, the writers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, Muslims, Jews and Africans are just ordinary people hoping to be. Should the armies stay or showed they go, how is it possible for any one man to know? Heavy is the weight of the world on any man's shoulders even to the great artisans whose history reveals a need for intense focus on happiness, your inner happiness, your inner peace less the ego that calls to fleshly needs of war. Can you hear it? It's getting closer. I wish you all the best.

Comment by Shark on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 06:43:26 EDT

Dirtgrain: "...Fuck categorization. Let each poem stand for itself." Poetically well said. A poem either strikes the heart or it doesn't. Words are magic when placed in the right order. I tend to enjoy explosions in distant synapse villages, but my heart is large enough to encompass anything that creates a spark, from Tzara to Collins and everything inbetween. I guess I'm lucky that way -- and I pity those who are so smart or cynical that they can't feel a deep, legitimate moment of humanity.

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:01:25 EDT

People liked Reagan because he had a philosophy, an ideology, and he stuck with it. People liked Reagan because of his character, more than his accomplishments. People don't like Clinton because of what they perceive his character to be. People like Bush, because he is standing firm on his principles and on what he believes it takes to win the war on terror. Never mind the fact that his ideology is taking us all down the toilet, his determination and preseverence make us willingly swirl in the bowl. - signed lemming #6,732,345 I write poetry. Never been published, never even tried. What do you all think? ******* melody of the marsh ******* One thousand miles from what I once knew as home, my song flows like child's laughter above the water. Cattails obscure the edges of the marsh's bank, the water is serene, lingering, yet receptive to the melody. I approach the edge, only stopping when my sneakers are dark green ripples, broken and quivering. They call to me, their voices swirling in the stratosphere, "Come home, come home" they cry, "sing to us your sorrow." Despair and anguish weigh down the words, until they come crashing down around me like a torrent of grief. I push the cattails aside. Like Alice, full of curiousity and awe, I stare into the looking glass. Eyes, dark as pitch black night, pierce my soul as a hummingbird pierces the flower. I reach forward until my hands like a nest hold them gently. I choose to sing here.

Comment by Dirtgrain on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:19:55 EDT

"Popeye chuckled and scratched His balls" (John Ashberry's "Farm Implements and Rutabagas in a Landscape"). I can't think of a more poetic line--it just works on so many levels. I'm making fun here, but the poem is one that I like, and it's a challenge, and it's poetic. Fuck categorization. Let each poem stand for itself. It doesn't have to be sifted through a context sieve. You don't have to situate a poem within a greater movement in poetry to appreciate it. In a similar way, you should not throw away a bulk of poems and poets simply because they fall under somebody else's labels. Percy Bysshe Shelley wouldn't have stood for it (so long as he wasn't under the influence). Howard: "Reagan was probably the most nuanced politician in memory. . ." You must mean "nuanced puppet." Popeye scratches his balls.

Comment by Mac Diva on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:05:51 EDT

I don't recall saying all that, Howard. Furthermore, I don't think 'nuanced' is the adjective needed in regard to Reagan. 'Manipulative' and 'deceptive' come to mind. As best I recall, he could always be counted on to do great harm while looking jovial. NPR took a look behind the Reagan smile today.

Comment by Howard Owens on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:19:34 EDT

Love it when people resurrect very ancient threads ... just wanted to say, though, for the BC poem above ... loved it until the last couplet. It all fell apart there. Too obvious. If conservatives are so closed off to nuance, Mac, how come they love Ronald Reagan, while liberals hate him? Reagan was probably the most nuanced politician in memory ... espoused conservativism, but legalized abortion in California, raised taxes while governor, approved MLK day, pushed a recession to erase inflation, proposed the first treaty to cut back nuclear weapon stockpiles, proposed meeting Grobachev half way ... all policies and actions that conservatives at the time abhorred, yet forgave in Reagan while liberals spewed (and still do) venom. Just a point to contradict the thesis "liberals all good; conservatives all idiots."

Comment by Shark on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:42:19 EDT

Poetry analysis from the Tin Woman from Oz. Why do I even try?

Comment by Mac Diva on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:17:50 EDT

Actually, I think that poem is representative of what Joseph, Dan and I are wary of. (Well, I shouldn't speak for others. So, just me.) It is an easy sell -- looking back on childhood from an adult viewpoint. (What's next, a poem about his grandfather's gnarly hands?) It is too heavy-handed. And, audience directed. Everyone can go, 'Yes, I used to be 10.' There is no challenge in it. Or complexity. Of course it would appeal to someone stuck in the 1950s.

Comment by Shark on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:56:47 EDT

re: Billy Collins (As always, writers on Blogcritics should pratice the caveat: you have the right to an INFORMED opinion.) If anyone writes a poem as good as the following, you will have been extremely lucky. On Turning Ten by Billy Collins The whole idea of it makes me feel like I'm coming down with something, something worse than any stomach ache or the headache I get from reading in bad light--- a kind of measles of the spirit, a mumps of the psyche, a disfiguring chicken pox of the soul. You tell me it is too early to be looking back, but that is because you have forgotten the perfect simplicity of being one and the beautiful complexity introduced by two. But I can lie on my bed and remember every digit. At four I was an Arabian wizard. I could make myself invisible by drinking a glass of milk a certain way. At seven I was a soldier, at nine a pirate. But now I am mostly at the window watching the late afternoon light. Back then it never fell so solemnly against the side of my tree house, and my bicycle never leaned agatinst the garage as it does today, all the dark blue speed drained out of it. This is the beginning of sadness, I say to myself, as I walk through the universe in my sneakers. It is time to say good-bye to my imaginary friends, time to turn the first big number. It seems only yesterday I used to believe there was nothing under my skin but light. If you cut me I would shine. But now when I fall upon the sidewalks of life, I skin my knees. I bleed. == by billy collins == from "Sailing Alone Around the Room"

Comment by Mac Diva on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:21:31 EDT

Should I even wade into this controversy? Well, y'all know the Diva dares do such things. Howard, what struck me in reading your entry is that there is a strong nostalgia for the good old days, even fictional good old days. (Come to think of it, all good old days may be fictional.) I believe your politics is influencing your take on contemporary poetry. Much of it focuses on the the complexities and contradictions of living in a modern technological society. People on the Right often don't like complexity and contradiction. So, they harken back to some golden age when they think it did not exist. Your preference for poetry may be influenced by that. As for your mockery of angst and alienation in poetry, we live in times of great angst and alienation. I'm not sure that writing about it should be derided. Billy Collins? Have read some, but not a whole lot of his poems. Encountered him at a writers' conference so I got to hear him recite some. Wasn't impressed. His poems strike me as audience directed, a bad thing for poetry. Still prefer Philip Larkin. What Dan said about Collins is true of any writer who sells -- they are needed as icebreakers. Those of us who are pigeonholed 'literary,' piggyback on the more commercial poets and writers. (I've been at readings with Terry McMillan and had to fight grimacing when she read. But, one of us is a millionaire and the other can't afford a new laptop.) The masses read people they find accessible. Accessibility and the best quality rarely go together. There's more to this that I suspect Dan will reach in his piece.

Comment by mark on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:02:39 EDT

i like poems that rhyme dat is wot i like billy collins is just a slime he can get on his bike

Comment by Howard Owens on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:20:45 EST

Joseph -- name a poet or two (or better, a poem or two) that's worth reading. Make it something that is accessible on the Web and I'll let you know what I think. As for peddling dishonesty -- who's peddling dishonesty? I would say it's the guy who has had nothing better to do than post ad hominem attacks on me. You haven't posted any critique of my post that has any substance to it whatsoever. So who's being dishonest? Rather than defend po-mo poetry with examples, you expect us to just take your word for it because you're an "editor" of a poetry magazine, as if being an editor of a poetry magazine in this day and age is anything to brag about. As for mixing up the authors, It's bullshit to claim "it's late and I'm tired" because you made the same friggin' mistake in two different posts on two different days. Go ahead and continue to try and squirrel out of the totally embarrassing corner you've painted yourself into by attacking me, if you like, but the truth is pretty obvious. You can't defend po-mo poetry, so you would rather attack its critics.

Comment by Dan Tessitore on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:18:16 EST

Joe: No problem. Have a good holiday and end-of-semester crunch. Write when you can. Dan

Comment by Joseph Duemer on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:27:53 EST

Hey Dan! Sorry not to have answered your email yet. Busy round here. I agree with you about Collins--no risk, little payoff. A poet for people who don't like poetry.

Comment by Joseph Duemer on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:27:31 EST

Hey Dan! Sorry not to have answered your email yet. Busy round here. I aqgree with you about Collins--no risk, little payoff. A poet for people who don't like poetry.

Comment by Dan Tessitore on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:32:35 EST

Joe: If you mean by "technically proficient" that Collins' music (or lack of it) does not offend the ear, then I would agree. However, in nearly every poem of his that I've read (at least a couple books' worth), he avoids the risk by refusing enjambment, non-grammatical line breaks, or anything that smacks of conscious formal innovation. I said as much in the review of "Picnic, Lightning" I wrote for Poetry International a few years ago. Admittedly, shortcomings glare in direct proportion to success, and Collins has plenty of success, which makes him an easy mark. Still, his popularity is disturbing not so much for the quality of the work itself but for what it says about reading habits among Americans generally and certain aspects of our poetry culture specifically. I'm working up some of these ideas into an essay, but I'll share a few points here. It is interesting, and somewhat confounding, to note that there has not been a great deal of negative criticism leveled at Collins' work. Wars have been fought over less visible contributions to the art, specifically the experimental poetries that have arisen during the past three decades, and more specifically, Charles Olsen, Allen Ginsberg, and John Ashbery – to name but a few of our more adventurous poets. Even Dana Gioia's "Can Poetry Matter?," not poetry at all but commentary, ignited a storm of debate over contemporary poetry since its publication in 1992 that has still not subsided. Yet Collins, despite a suspicion of seriousness in poetry that borders on condescension and a painfully clear lack of formal skill or innovation, has seemed to dodge the critical bullet. There are two different but related possible reasons for this. The first is simple economics. Billy Collins is a poet who sells books and fills auditoriums with people who buy them. That fact alone might cause the reviewers in the wider-circulation periodicals (if and when they review poetry at all) to forego condemnation in favor of mercy, much the same way people muster an appreciation for endangered animals – even ugly ones. The second is careerism. Many of those who write reviews are themselves poets, and most of them with nothing like the reputation of Collins. Why risk offending the editors of magazines one aspires to publish in by skewering a poet regularly featured there? That may seem a paltry reason to withhold judgment, but artists and academics since time immemorial have been ostracized for less than an unpopular opinion. In my "googling" of reviews on Collins, I found only two less-than-glowing critiques, neither of which was from a national publication. I had to go to Amazon.com and bn.com, not exactly strongholds of literary criticism, to find but two negative blurbs (of the vitriolic type). What was more telling was the general tenor of the "5-star" reviews, which were more damning than the overtly negative ones. One blurb was titled "Wonderful poetry for people who are ambivalent about poetry." Another contained this: "...this is a new breed, a style more like that of paragraphs broken up into stanzas." And another: "I am not a huge fan of poetry and I seldom take the time to analyze it deeply, but Collins is the finest and most interesting contemporary poet I know of and would highly recommend his poetry to anyone who likes a good laugh...[sic]" In other words, if you do not like poetry, you'll love Billy Collins. The sentiments expressed in these web-posts are echoed in the "serious" literary reviews offered up by reviewers who are paid to write about poetry, which goes a long way to demonstrating they don't know much about it. But what these assertions (most poetry is difficult, we want easier poetry) really show is that it's not poetry most readers are looking for, its easy reading. All best, Dan

Comment by Joseph Duemer on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:07:04 EST

Howard, I'm certainly interested in picking a fight with the sort of dishonesty you're peddling. I did mis-write, confusing Hirsch's review with Howard's book. It was late & both begin with H & etc. You're probably going to be disappointed by Howard, by the way, he's pretty po-mo. The American poet Winfield Townley Scot wrot in his journal many years ago that he was amused by people who rejected contemporary poetry, the implication being that they spent every eveing reading Shakespeare & Milton. He's skewering the same sort of b.s. you're peddling in your little review of a review. As for having read hundreds of bad contemporary poems, so have I--thousands, in fact, since I'm a poetry editor. But I also continue to find poems that repay my attentions as a reader. I'd guess you haven't looked very hard for good contemporary poems, or that you've looked in the wrong places, or that you have just defined the category of contemporary as bad & so dismissed it through an act of definition rather than as the result of acts of reading. And I'm not embarrassed by the central point I've been trying to make here: that there are fine contemporary poets who write good poems that will repay a reader's honest attention.

Comment by Howard Owens on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sun, 1 Dec 2002 00:06:03 EST

Joseph, I can see that you are more interested in picking an argument than discussing issues. How many bad contemporary poems do I have to read before I conclude that the trends of post-modern poetry are all downhill? Hundreds, which I've done, or thousands, which I haven't? You obviously don't read too closely, because I didn't write a review of Hirsh's book. I don't even know if Hirsh has a book out, but I assume he does, since he's a poet of enough note to write a review for the L.A. Times Review of Books. What I blogged was a response to Hirsh's review in the LAT of a new book of poems by Richard Howard. And my response was entirely positive, because it sounds like Howard bucks the trend of po-mo poetry by writing in a style that has some substance. Now that I've explained how you've thoroughly gotten the facts of my blog post wrong (not, I should note, a scholarly essay in a Lit Crit journal, but a friggin' blog post), aren't you embarrassed?

Comment by Joseph Duemer on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:27:06 EST

S, Howard, you don't follow contemporary poetry but you feel qualified to criticize it? And you feel qualified to write a fake poem to illustrate your argument? A poem that reveals you know about contemporary poetry what someone who "doesn't follow" it would know. Not much. And you feel confident about reviewing a book by contemporary poet Edward Hirsch? Aren't you embarassed? As for Collins, he is a technically proficient lightweight. But I've read quite a few of his poems before making that judgement--you've "googled" him. I can tell you're a serious scholar.

Comment by Howard Owens on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:35:01 EST

Frankly, I don't follow contemporary poetry closely because so much of it SUCKS, so I hadn't heard of Collins. So I just did a google on him, found some of his stuff. And yes he is the very sort of contempoary poet I'm referrering to. "I have never been fishing on the Susquehanna / or on any river for that matter / to be perfectly honest." Is how one of his poems begins, and it never gets better. Even were it attempts to be intelligent, it achives nothing more than a pastiche of profundity. Though, he doesn't seem to be the total sap that McKuen is. Even if he isn't to my taste, I have no objection to people who think this sort of crap is poetry taking him seriously. He fits in well with that crowd.

Comment by Dan Tessitore on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:28:28 EST

Glad to find another public poetry discussion. I'd like to know what readers in this forum think of Billy Collins, who strikes me as one of those special cases (much like Robert Bly) whose readership extends well beyond the academy. Being a poet myself, I'm hard pressed to begrudge another poet his/her success. It's hard to come by. But with the exception of a sense of humor and a facility for the image, he reads often enough like Rod McKuen. I would probably not give Collins a second thought were it not for his near omniscient presence in some of the most respected poetry journals and his role in academia, which help send the message that an easy-going, plain style and a high level of accessibility are the preferred goals of the art. Thoughts? Dan

Comment by Howard Owens on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:40:31 EST

Why? Because it's fun. Try it. it's the new parlor game.

Comment by Joseph Duemer on Contemporary poetry and real poetry

Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:02:31 EST

Uh, why do you have to invent a hypothetical "straw poem" to make your point? Aren't there plenty of crappy poems out there that you could have used? I'm a poetry editor for The Wallace Stevens Journal & a "contemporary poet" I can tell you that there are indeed millions of bad poems. But there are good ones too. I find them & I publish them. Sometimes I even write them. Your review is a piece of intellectual dishonesty from beginning to end--& Hirsch would say as much. It's one of those "positive" reviews an author is ashamed of.