Disruptive Juxtaposition

Friday, May 05, 2006

Emotion 98.6

This is the track # of Mylo's Destroy Rock and Roll which you should have on repeat if you want to feel like making progress on whatever creative buns you have in the oven. And by buns, I mean poems or stories or paintings or articles, or possibly yeast-based buns. Just to clarify.

*

This'll have to be short because I have aspirations of novel-related progress tonight, and this shouldn't be considered a full review, but I spent a good part of my afternoon reading Here, Bullet, a collection of poems by Brian Turner, who is an alum of my creative writing program. Quickly, Here, Bullet's poems derive from poet Turner's time in Iraq during the ongoing U.S. presence there. They are, needless to say, rooted in the soldier's experience.

By and large, I applaud these two poems, but too many of the volume's other poems seem to hew to straight reportage. In this last poem, "Caravan," there is a stronger element of the confrontational element implicit in this act of witness and presentation, what with the body parts of the dead shipped to the White House. But more often than not, there's too little of this confrontational spirit. That doesn't mean that these poems should have in them more finger-wagging at this wayward administration, or at that bloodthirsty aspect we've all got in us. Rather, these poems present themselves as accounts of events - traumatic, terrible, nightmarish events - but still just accounts, and little more. You know what they're like? They're like ledgers of figures and names and numbers; they're sketched out, granted, in orderly columns and rows. But there's no analyst teasing out what these figures might add up to and mean.

I don't discuss this here and now as a means of indicting these poems for what they might accomplish or fail to accomplish. I discuss the matter instead as a way to question the role of such contemporary artistic production. Let's cite Auden, of course, on the ol' "poetry makes nothing happen" notion. This poetry may not mean to make anything happen; in fact I think that it seeks only to represent, in terms that are cutting and stark, what has happened. Oftentimes I would finish reading a poem in this volume and feel affected by what had happened in its lines, but my feeling was just as often kindred to the feeling I have when I read effective coverage of Iraq or Darfur or any other world hotspot: it may've been a sensation of having been newly informed, saddened, and certainly moved... but lacking from the experience of reading such coverage - and, I'm sorry to say, these poems - is a sensation of enlightenment. The news tells you what happened. So do these poems. I was looking for these poems to put some sort of challenge to me: they didn't.

What kind of challenge am I in the market for when I read me some poems - regardless of how concerned they are with contemporary events? That's a great question. My best answer isn't very complex: I'm in the market to be asked to think about something in a new way. I realize that that statement is so vague as to be wholly meaningful, and it certainly amounts to nothing like a poetics. But to boil it down: a poet's got to yoke together items - images, ideas, ideologies - in such a way as to imply a new image, a new idea, a new ideology. Otherwise one is merely describing an event with the appropriate amts. of beauty, love, fright, or horror. And one has sufficient quantities of those elsewhere.

5 Comments:

  • Well put, Wil... really and truly, well put. I feel similarly about what I've read of Turner's work thus far, so I'm glad you put your finger on it. I know--at least I think I know--exactly what you're saying; if a poem doesn't wake us up somehow, it's not doing its job. But freshness seems much different than "newness" and it's the word "newness" that keeps ringing in my head. I guess I'm just struggling like a mofo these days to figure out what the other old adage--"make it new"--actually means for we super young folks struggling with craft issues right now. Frank Black and Walmart and McDonalds and silver cans of Beast Light probably won't (I won't say never) work their way into my poems anytime soon. But like those who've penned what I've been reading of "The New Sincerist" manifestos this weekend [Tony, if you read this, thanks much for the "recap"; very, very informative], I also don't like...okay, the gloves are off, let's say HATE...poems that "wink at me," that bait me with empty quips and cleverness and avoid illuminating a poem's emotional center. I'm rambling quite a bit here, but what I'm getting at is this: is it just me, or is there quite a bit of tension in the air between what's "traditional" and what's "new" these days? Why is that so, or am I just crazy? I'm also wondering what the subject matter of a poem itself has to do with that act of illumination, with waking us up, with gathering its freshness? Seems like many are connecting a poem's freshness largely with expansive subject matter (e.g., your beloved McGrath), and deliberate choices to incorporate things into the poetic lexicon that haven't been just yet, as long as those things are honest to the poet's experience. Very fine. Not complaining in the least. Just curious about how you and others view the importance of our subjects as we try to push forward poetically. Thoughts, anyone? Truly curious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:29 PM  

  • Hi Em C.,

    I don't think we konw each other, so pleased to "meet you."

    Um, let's see--no poems with Frank Black yet, but it may happen. Steel Reserve and McDonalds are in recent poems. Why? Well, because they're there. They are part of the landscape. I'm not that interested in making anything "new," whatever that means. I haven't read Turner's book yet (don't know if I will) but I imagine I might have a similar reaction to you and Wil.

    On the other hand, sometimes "mere reportage" is exactly what's needed. Reznikoff's "Holocaust" anyone?

    I think we all--no, wait a minute--dislike poems that wink. Or, I guess I'd say that I (and I'm imagining others with whom I identify) hate poems that ONLY flaunt their cleverness. There's no crime in being clever, and even winking now and then. But if that's all you got, well, then ya ain't got much.

    As for subject matter--I'm pretty old school. The subjects are the same now as they were two thousand years ago. We just have McDonald's and Popeyes and silver cans of Beast Ice now.

    When I was a young MFA wannabe, I wanted really bad to put Lou Reed into a poem but somebody ("older," "wiser") warned me that it would "date" the poem. So for a long time, I tried to avoid putting "real" things in poems because, well, y'know poetry should speak "eternal verities." Truth, etc. This, too, is another form of bullshit. If you do your work, your damn poems will speak whether they contain a monkeywrench, beer pong, or gum mastic.

    I certainly COULD do without another poem about Orpheus, however.

    (And yes, I contradict myself---I put Prospero in a poem last week.)

    I guess what I'm saying is that I view "newness" as overrated. And I think this comes from negotiating the contemporary poetic landscape for the last decade and not really finding much "new."

    (Well, I'll tell ya---and backchannel if you want the goods---there are a few books and a few poets (since, say, oh, 2000) who I'd put on my starting roster who SEEM to being doing something new only because what they do now is so different from the various period styles as to render it as innovative to those of us who maybe haven't been around long enough to identify the sources. But it's top notch stuff, nonetheless. I mean, let's face it, even Shakespeare had a pretty poor imagination...)

    Just some thinking.

    Tony

    By Blogger Anthony Robinson, at 6:43 PM  

  • Great to meet you in the blogosphere as well, Tony... I have a feeling that we probably even bumped into each other at some Eugenian parties or at least some pedagogy function of one sort or another last year. I'm part of the crew that made it through the UO MFAery last year with Wil. Anyway, good to meet you in this format as well and I just wanted to say thanks for the warm, thoughtful reply. It's nice to be reminded that there are others out there who are actually considering the same issues.

    I guess what I'm responding to is the tendency to put work into some very weird--and to me, very false-- dichotomy of "new" or "traditional"...esepcially because, as you pointed out, a hell of a lot has stayed the course over the past 2000 years. Maybe that dichotomy's all in my head? Not unlikely, trust me.

    And you're right: I do firmly believe that connecting with the material, whatever that may be, is clutch. I guess I'm thinking of Whitman in this context... new stuff (physiology, anatomy, phrenology, American democracy, ferries, and on and on and on), very old themes. And all that's really standing in between "new" and "old" is a guy who believed he could be a conduit. The experiment of Leaves of Grass wouldn't have taken off had the guy not fully believed in what he was saying; personally, even when his lines fall on their face, I still absolutely believe that he felt some magnetic energy in composition. Which is a form of truth that defies categorization. I guess that's what I'd like to aim for, no matter what actually winds up in them.

    And yeah, if one less poem about Orpheus or Prospero might do us all good, maybe one more about Robert Smith might do me some good on a personal level. I've got to get rid of my internal editor. She is hereby fired.

    Thanks much for all the thinking.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:25 AM  

  • Check it out, y'all. Listen to Turner read "Body Bags" via the link provided by Wil.

    Total POET VOICE.


    Questions? Feel free.

    By Blogger Anthony Robinson, at 11:32 AM  

  • Just a hunch:

    If we take Whitman as a somewhat arbitrary starting point, the only rean "newness" in the poetry of the last 150 years or so is the increasing acceptibility of previously thought "unpoetic" material.

    And that's it, really. Whenever a poet makes it new, he or she is most likely just allowing "nonpoetic" materials into the poems, or being "metaphysical" (which isn't new) in "inelegantly yoking with violence" disparate things together. Direct line there from Donne to Albert Goldbarth, a poet whom I don't particularly care for, but whose impulse to get a LOT of stuff into the poem I sympathize with.

    What doesn't impress me is that Goldbarth too often seems to just be trying to be smart. We know you're smart, man, but can you feel?

    So the poetry that interest me as "new" lately is the poetry that can be the most up to date in its inappropriateness.

    Examples: Gabriel Guddings "A Defense of Poetry" and Catherine Wagner's "Miss America" seem good to me precisely because they are blatantly inappropriate, in in being so, force us to interrogate our own notions of propriety, in and out of a poem. Of course, if they dont force us to do this and we respond by saying that the books are "icky" or "gross" or "juvenile" then either the book has failed or we have failed. I think it's we.

    And Em, again, good to meet you. I don't usually attend social functions or pedagogical summits, but it's possible I've run into you. Of course, not having a face to put a name to probably contributes to my amnesia.

    By Blogger Anthony Robinson, at 11:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home