September 11, 2013 at 10:25 pm (Adam Fitzgerald, Alan Cordle, Alexander Pope, Ange Mlinko, David Kirby, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Mark Edmundson, Michael Robbins, Todd Boss, Wyndham Lewis)
Ange Mlinko: The Critic Should Never Have A Muse
Michael Robbins has disappointed us in his attempt to make a Scarriet-like, sweeping definition of poetry: “Where Competency Ends, Poetry Begins.”
Robbins has intelligence and wit, and we like his writing, but the jury is still out on whether he will fall into dyspeptic Pound-ism or soar like an Alexander Pope and laugh with silver laughter at the dunces.
We still have high hopes for the critic Michael Robbins—we have no hopes for any poet today—critics need to quiet the noisy poets before poetry can be heard again.
In his latest piece for the Chicago Tribune, Robbins drops the ball—he decries “competency” by selecting for laudation a quintessential piece of competency by Ange Mlinko, a “friend” of his, Robbins confesses to his readers, but a friendship, he insists, based on an “admiration for her work,” and not (as he attempts to drive the stake into the heart of Foetry) the “other way around.”
Since Alan Cordle’s Foetry.com ceased publication and Scarriet sprang up to take its place, we like to think we have kept the flag waving above the beleaguered fort of common sense.
Robbins cannot see how his friendship with Mlinko has blinded him. So it follows he cannot see his tribute to Mlinko is the epitome of competency.
Robbins‘ article begins with that old trope: the view from the “slush pile” from the sneering, condescending poetry editor’s perspective, as if “slush” wasn’t finally published in the editor’s magazine, anyway.
Robbins is doing something clever, though, moving from “slush” to “competency” to the apex of the imagination which is…Mlinko.
This would be funny, but Robbins, blinded by both “slush-pile”-experience professionalism and his “friendship,” is serious. Too bad. Robbins is best when he’s a little silly.
As he is a good critic, Robbins does give us an extra: slush pile poetry is mocked with quotes by Wyndham Lewis.
Wyndham Lewis? If you thought Ezra Pound was a creep who wrote mediocre, Modernistic poetry, wait to you read Wyndham Lewis!
Hemingway thought Lewis the most physically repulsive human being he ever met (with Ford Madox Ford a close second) and we are not surprised.
Robbins’ Mlinko-nod to foetry, his faint damning of MFA “competency,” plus his singling out as ludicrous the same passage of Adam Fitzgerald’s (from a David Kirby review) which we found risible three weeks ago (#81) would seem to indicate Robbins is keeping his finger on the pulse of Po-Biz via Blog Scarriet. Good for him. Lists are currently the rage in po-biz and Scarriet’s Hot 100 series got that started. Anyway, we are flattered.
For Robbins’ argument, a couple passages from the “crushingly banal” “Apple Slices” by Todd Boss is presented, with concessions to its sonic effects, as ‘workshop competent’:
— eaten right
off the jackknife in
I spent as my dad’s
so many waned and
waxed moons later,
bred paper-pusher, I
wonder that I’ve never
labored harder, nor
And here is the Fitzgerald, which Robbins and Scarriet agree, was over-praised by the excitable David Kirby:
I was shipwrecked on an island of clouds.
The sun’s pillors bored me though, so I
set foot on a small indigo place
below orange falls and hexagonal flowers.
I was able to stay there a fortnight,
restlessly roaming the buttered air
inside tropical rock enclosures,
caves of foliage that canopied darkness.
Robbins calls these lines “unmusical and undistinguished,” but he is being kind. These lines are clumsy, ponderous, free verse Dr. Seuss.
But now Robbins turns to his standard for greatness, Ange Mlinko:
You never hear of Ixion, tied to a revolving wheel
but it’s an axiom that, sooner or later, a hurricane’ll hit here.
For starters, Mlinko uses “axiom,” incorrectly, a philosophical term; we never say, “It’s an axiom that it rains.” But it seems axiom’s similarity in sound to the mythical “Ixion” was too much for Mlinko to resist.
The rhetoric is wanting: the vagueness of “You never hear of…” How is this dramatically interesting? It is not. It’s a fact-driven idiom. Poets need to be aware of this. And just in terms of pure sound, “tied- to- a- revolving- wheel” is ugly, and even worse is “but- it’s- an- axiom- that,- sooner- or- later…” The logic is not worth pursuing in prose; it’s safe to say it’s not going to do anything for poetry: Because a hurricane will eventually arrive somewhere, it is worth noting that one never hears of Ixion.
Robbins thinks he is praising Mlinko’s poetry. He’s not. He’s simply agreeing with a banal piece of logic: 1) “you never hear of Ixion” 2) Ixion symbolizes the “guests” of our “planet” who have met “their host’s hospitality” with “rapine.” Robbins claims this is not “climate change didacticism” but this is, in fact, all he is admiring—and all one could admire in this passage. Surely it’s not the sonic chiming of Ixion and axiom.
Since rhyme fell from grace among the modernist sophisticates, assonance and alliteration have rushed in to fill the vacuum in all sorts of horrible, excessive and stupid ways.
Here is Robbins explaining to us what hurricanes are:
Mlinko is often delightful: “You never hear of Ixion, tied to a revolving wheel, / but it’s an axiom that, sooner or later, a hurricane’ll hit here.” But there’s more here than a Rube Goldberg spillage of phonemes modifying one another, irresistible as such sonics are. Contrast the insubstantiality of Fitzgerald’s cloud islands with the sense Mlinko packs into this couplet: the story of Ixion, bound to a spinning wheel by Zeus for betraying a guest, reveals an axiom, a self-evident premise, which in this case is that the weather, in its cycles and revolutions, will always, eventually, manifest itself as a revolving wheel of air, which a hurricane is. And hurricanes arrive ever more frequently, deadly to human life and its built environment: in a reversal of the myth, the revolving planet binds its guests, who have met their host’s hospitality with rapine. A little parable of climate change, then, with none of the didacticism you’d expect.
So here is one of the better critics writing today (a published poet, as well), Michael Robbins, and after dismissing “slush” and “competency,” holds up for apotheosis, “sooner or later, a hurricane’ll hit here.”
This is one more example of how bad the world of poetry has become.
And this is why Mark Edmundson was right to attack contemporary poetry. It has become so bad that any attack is good, by default. And we mean this seriously. Something is wrong: that’s where we have to start. The inarticulate nonsense proffered by professor Edmundson still trumps every weak defense, and they are all weak, by default. They are weak, first of all, because they are making so much of Edmundson’s ludicrous piece in the first place. Secondly, they are weak because they are anxious to show Edmundson is wrong, but in a manner that is even more deluded. Edmundson wants poetry to be socially and politically relevant and the poets cry, “It is!” But social and political relevance isn’t poetry.
We only raise this matter because Robbins, satisfied that Mlinko is the standard, finishes up his piece with a diatribe against Edmundson. Robbins: “Edmundson cites not a single contemporary poet under the age of 59. Think about that for a second.” But unfortunately that says more about the sorry state of American poetry than it does about Edmundson. You see what we mean? The Edmundson of omissions and lapses is truer than Robbins on Mlinko.
Edmundson triumphs without trying. That’s how bad it is.
April 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm (Bin Ramke, Foetry, March Madness, Margaret Atwood)
Bin Ramke: forever linked to Foetry.com and poetry contest favoritism?
Neither Bin Ramke nor Margaret Atwood are in Dove’s anthology of 20th Century American Poetry: Atwood, no. 4 seed in the North, because she’s Canadian, and Ramke, 13th seed, because life has never been the same since he was brought down by Foetry.com. Life must have seemed good when Mr. Ramke won the Yale Younger in 1978. He teaches at the University of Denver and edits the Denver Quarterly. He published the following in 1989:
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER
I was young once, at least, if not beautiful.
And what is beauty anyway? The light off snow
is pretty. I was young once, as young as any.
After all, she thought, to know the edge
of truth or of mountains, you need to lie or fall.
Everyone has an inner life, O careless love,
it’s as simple as that. That’s why they hurried
to marry before the month ended—fear of June.
She would avert her eyes from the magazines’
special issues with brides on their creamy covers.
He worked to replace her money he’d squandered.
Then came a time of last intimacy, her injections,
when once a week he’d puncture with the silken needle
her arm, her condition worse with age, her pain
made him wince and call her Dear; her alluring allergies.
From where they retired all views were distant,
nothing true or tender at hand. Mountains to the west
like pets kept for good weather or loneliness
and the need for cold to gloat upon.
They would sometimes think of history together,
of the choked passes which killed, of the grasses of summer
when water was rare and expensive as illicit love.
With the interstate smooth as needles gleaming beneath
the snow-slick peaks, they would think of pioneers
lost and together, alas, two by two, with beds as baggage.
Another edge to be cut on. She loves the little
line of houses or trees in landscapes, the thin
horizons hugely bearing the weight of drama
and of sky with its tooth of cypress or steeple.
And he, while he turned the wheel and tuned the radio,
what was on his married mind? He remembers often,
these latter days, the cousin he first loved,
her marriage to an ugly man when he lit the candles
and wore the little suit his mother made,
and he cried for her because she was only beautiful.
He remembered riding in the car from the library,
having taken a book on Freud because his cousin
was studying Freud, and such studies were forbidden
his Catholic childhood. And riding in the back seat
as his father drove he read about the fountain pen
as phallic, the ink seed of Onan spilled, and he
grew sick and felt the frisson of guilt and glory.
And she was married to an ugly man, but the world
conspires to avert its eyes, and the needle-sharp
peaks hover behind them as the little dashes of white
lines spurt out beneath their car on the highway home,
a little line like spoor marking their path, so easy
to retrace, ready made, like everyone’s. So there’s
no need to look, just live long, since youth is truer
than beauty, Love; long life and many children.
We can only say this poem is strange, with moments of interest. Poems either cohere or they do not. This one does not. Poets in that absurd and genocidal century, the twentieth, decided—a great many of them—that to make a poem cohere, one needed only to add details of a somewhat unique nature, slightly connected to each other in some odd manner, in prose that depended on a certain amount of dazzling alliteration, and that was it. It was—and is—a very odd practice. It is almost psychotic—a poetry that defers to experience, which, in order to be articulated, has to feed on the poetry, as if experience were something meant to suck in the reader in a perplexed state and devour him. To read Bin Ramke is to be eaten alive—by a psychological anecdote in a landscape.
Let’s see if Margaret Atwood can slay the monster, Bin Ramke, with his “ink seed of Onan spilled:”
A SAD CHILD
You’re sad because you’re sad.
It’s psychic. It’s the age. It’s chemical.
Go see a shrink or take a pill,
or hug your sadness like an eyeless doll
you need to sleep.
Well, all children are sad
but some get over it.
Count your blessings. Better than that,
buy a hat. Buy a coat or pet.
Take up dancing to forget.
Your sadness, your shadow,
whatever it was that was done to you
the day of the lawn party
when you came inside flushed with the sun,
your mouth sulky with sugar,
in your new dress with the ribbon
and the ice-cream smear,
and said to yourself in the bathroom,
I am not the favorite child.
My darling, when it comes
right down to it
and the light fails and the fog rolls in
and you’re trapped in your overturned body
under a blanket or burning car,
and the red flame is seeping out of you
and igniting the tarmac beside your head
or else the floor, or else the pillow,
none of us is;
or else we all are.
We don’t know what to make of this poem, but Atwood is not coy like Ramke—she has something to say to the reader—in this case a child who is sad. It is a piece of advice in images out to prove sadness cannot exist. Atwood deserves credit for attempting to bring good into the world.
Atwood 70, Ramke 68
December 31, 2011 at 6:27 pm (Abigail Deutsch, Adrienne Rich, Alan Cordle, Anis Shivani, Ben Mazer, Billy Collins, Bin Ramke, Camille Paglia, Dan Chiasson, Dana Gioia, David Lehman, David Orr, Dean Young, Derek Walcott, Foetry, Garrison Keillor, Gary B. Fitzgerald, Harold Bloom, Helen Vendler, James Tate, Jim Behrle, John Ashbery, Jorie Graham, Joy Harjo, Landis Everson, Louise Gluck, Lyn Hejinian, Marcus Bales, Marjorie Perloff, Mark McGurl, Mark Strand, Michael Robbins, Poetry Foundation, Rita Dove, Robert Hass, Seamus Heaney, Seth Abramson, Sharon Olds, W.S. Merwin, William Logan, Yusef Komunyakaa)
All ye need to know?
1. Rita Dove—Penguin editor reviewed by Helen Vendler in the NYRB
2. Terrance Hayes—In Dove’s best-selling anthology, and young
3. Kevin Young—In Dove’s anthology, and young
4. Amiri Baraka—In Dove’s anthology
5. Billy Collins—in the anthology
6. John Ashbery—a long poem in the anthology
7. Dean Young—not in the anthology
8. Helen Vendler—hated the anthology
9. Alan Cordle—Time’s masked Person-of-the-Year = Foetry.com’s once-anonymous Occupy Poetry protestor?
10. Harold Bloom—you can bet he hates the anthology
11. Mary Oliver—in the anthology
12. William Logan—meanest and the funniest critic (a lesson here?)
13. Kay Ryan—our day’s e.e. cummings
14. John Barr—the Poetry Man and “the Man.”
15. Kent Johnson—O’Hara and Koch will never be the same?
16. Cole Swensen—welcome to Brown!
17. Tony Hoagland—tennis fan
18. David Lehman—fun lovin’ BAP gate-keeper
19. David Orr—the deft New York Times critic
20. Rae Armantrout—not in the anthology
21. Seamus Heaney—When Harvard eyes are smilin’
22. Dan Chiasson—new reviewer on the block
23. James Tate—guaranteed to amuse
24. Matthew Dickman—one of those bratty twins
25. Stephen Burt—the Crimson Lantern
26. Matthew Zapruder—aww, everybody loves Matthew!
27. Paul Muldoon—New Yorker Brit of goofy complexity
28. Sharon Olds—Our Lady of Slightly Uncomfortable Poetry
29. Derek Walcott—in the anthology, latest T.S. Eliot prize winner
30. Kenneth Goldsmith—recited traffic reports in the White House
31. Jorie Graham—more teaching, less judging?
32. Alice Oswald—I don’t need no stinkin’ T.S. Eliot Prize
33. Joy Harjo—classmate of Dove’s at Iowa Workshop (in the anthology)
34. Sandra Cisneros—classmate of Dove’s at Iowa Workshop (in the anthology)
35. Nikki Giovanni—for colored girls when po-biz is enuf
36. William Kulik—not in the anthology
37. Ron Silliman—no more comments on his blog, but in the anthology
38. Daisy Fried—setting the Poetry Foundation on fire
39. Eliot Weinberger—poetry, foetry, and politics
40. Carol Ann Duffy—has Tennyson’s job
41. Camille Dungy—runs in the Poetry Foundation forest…
42. Peter Gizzi—sensitive lyric poet of the hour…
43. Abigail Deutsch—stole from a Scarriet post and we’ll always love her for it…
44. Robert Archambeau—his Samizdat is one of the more visible blogs…
45. Michael Robbins—the next William Logan?
46. Carl Phillips—in the anthology
47. Charles North—What It Is Like, New & Selected chosen as best of 2011 by David Orr
48. Marilyn Chin—went to Iowa, in the anthology
49. Marie Howe—a tougher version of Brock-Broido…
50. Dan Beachy-Quick—gotta love that name…
51. Marcus Bales—he’s got the Penguin blues.
52. Dana Gioia—he wants you to read Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, so what r u waiting 4?
53. Garrison Keillor—the boil on the neck of August Kleinzahler
54. Alice Notley—Penguin’s Culture of One by this Paris-based author made a lot of 2011 lists
55. Mark McGurl—won Truman Capote Award for 2011’s The Program Era: Rise of Creative Writing
56. Daniel Nester—wrap your blog around my skin, yea-uh.
57. Yusef Komunyakaa—in the anthology
58. Adrienne Rich—in the anthology
59. Jeremy Bass— reviewed the anthology in the Nation
60. Anselm Berrigan—somebody’s kid
61. Travis Nichols—kicked us off Blog Harriet
62. Seth Abramson—poet and lawyer
63. Stephen Dunn—one of the best poets in the Iowa style
64. Philip Levine—Current laureate, poem recently in the New Yorker Movin’ up!
65. Ben Mazer—Does anyone remember Landis Everson?
66. Reb Livingston—Her No Tells blog rocks the contemporary scene
67. Marjorie Perloff—strutting avant academic
68. John Gallaher—Kent Johnson can’t get enough punishment on Gallaher’s blog
69. Fred Viebahn—poet married to the Penguin anthologist
70. James Fenton—said after Penguin review hit, Dove should have “shut up”
71. Rodney Jones—BAP poem selected by Dove riffs on William Carlos Williams’ peccadilloes
72. Mark Doty—no. 28’s brother
73. Cate Marvin—VIDA and so much more
74. Richard Wilbur—still hasn’t run out of rhyme
75. W.S. Merwin—no punctuation, but no punk
76. Jim Behrle—the Adam Sandler of po-biz
77. Bin Ramke—still stinging from the Foetry hit
78. Thomas Sayer Ellis—not in the anthology
79. Henri Cole—poetry editor of the New Republic
80. Meghan O’Rourke—Behrle admires her work
81. Anne Waldman—the female Ginsberg?
82. Anis Shivani—get serious, poets! it’s time to change the world!
83. Robert Hass—Occupy story in Times op-ed
84. Lyn Hejinian—stuck inside a baby grand piano
85. Les Murray—greatest Australian poet ever?
86. Sherman Alexie—is this one of the 175 poets to remember?
87. Geoffrey Hill—great respect doesn’t always mean good
88. Elizabeth Alexander—Frost got Kennedy, she got Obama
89. A.E. Stallings—A rhymer wins MacArthur!
90. Frank Bidart—in the anthology
91. Robert Pinsky—in the anthology
92. Carolyn Forche—in the anthology
93. Louise Gluck—not in the anthology
94. Keith Waldrop—his Hopwood Award paid her fare from Germany
95. Rosmarie Waldrop—her Hopwood helpled launch Burning Deck
96. C.D. Wright—born in the Ozark mountains
97. Forrest Gander—married to no. 96
98. Mark Strand—translator, surrealist
99. Margaret Atwood—the best Canadian poet of all time?
100. Gary B. Fitzgerald—the poet most likely to be remembered a million years from now
September 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm (Alan Cordle, Aristotle, Bin Ramke, Foetry, Horace, Jorie Graham, Plato, Poets & Writers, Robert Pinsky, Seth Abramson, Tony Hoagland)
Poetry MFA graduates
The recent hubbub over the respectable poetry press which demanded their authors pay for the cost of producing their own book struck a real nerve.
Why? Because an uncomfortable truth was brought into the open: U.S. poetry market inflation is so severe, a book of new poems not only has no value–it has a negative value.
In today’s marketplace, a new book of poems represents not growth, but a grave—new poetry not only does not add wealth, it takes wealth away from the world.
The truth will be argued away by some, convinced their poetry is worth something.
But this rationale fails, since the economic fact of this uncomfortable truth is no less true for being a general truth.
At least when a publisher asks you to pay for your book’s publication costs, it’s better than the contest system—where you pay for the publication of someone else’s book, and unethically so, in the crooked contest system judged or run by once respected poets such as Jorie Graham and Bin Ramke, who were exposed by Alan Cordle’s Foetry.com.
The press which asked its own authors to pony up did so because it couldn’t stomach the contest system. Ironies such as this will breed when a market collapses—and the market for new poems has collapsed big time.
Hence, it is no wonder that financial aid is the chief criterion in rating MFA programs.
What other criteria could there possibly be? Earning an MFA degree in poetry is nothing more than an individual poet’s desperate gamble against inflation—even as MFA numbers add to that inflation.
The poets swim in the sea of their own doom, unable to be a poet unless they get wet.
A bunch of MFA profs and administrators have signed a letter of protest against the Poets & Writers rankings of MFA programs put together by Seth Abramson.
It’s unfair, say the protestors, who include relative titans such as Robert Pinsky and Tony Hougland, to weigh financial aid so heavily; there are other criteria, they protest, such as teaching methods.
Really? What teaching methods? Even the MFA programs themselves admit they don’t teach anyone to be a poet—the programs only give one time to make the attempt, with varying degrees of informal contact with peers.
Classical criteria, based on quantity and measurement, never did grace Poetry MFA curricula. The aesthetics of Plato, Aristotle and Horace would seem horribly old-fashioned in today’s MFA. Classical learning is not even included in a hybrid. It is the enemy. It is out. Byron is out, because he may have read a classical author once. The exclusion of the old is total. Intelligence is the only hallmark: intelligence left to swim on its own. This is poetry education: We can’t teach you is what we will teach you.
Modernists outlawed quantity about 90 years ago, and these same gentlemen established the MFA programs 60 years ago. The result? Inflation as the world has never seen.
Scarriet’s MFA Poetry program criterion is simple. Find one book of poems published by administration or faculty in the MFA program which has been purchased freely by a general reader. Then, check out the financial aid package.
June 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm (Aidan Wasley, Alan Cordle, Allen Ginsberg, Allen Tate, American Poetry Review, Arthur Vogelsang, Best American Poetry, Billy Collins, Bin Ramke, Chester Kallman, David Lehman, Eileen Myles, Foetry, Frank O'Hara, Janet Bowdan, Jeopardy!, John Ashbery, Langston Hughes, Reb Livingston, Robert Frost, Stephen Dunn, W.H.Auden, Wallace Stevens)
Poetic reputation: do we want to know how the sausage gets made?
Last year, the Scarriet Final Four, using David Lehman’s Best American Poetry volumes 1988 through 2009, was “That’s Not Butter” by Reb Livingston, “Composed Three Thousand Miles From Tintern Abbey” by Billy Collins, “The Year” by Janet Bowdan, and “The Triumph of Narcissus and Aphrodite” by William Kulik.
This year, using Berg and Vogelsang’s American Poetry Review’s anthology, The Body Electric, we got “Aubade” by Philip Larkin, “litany” by Carolyn Creedon, “Eileen’s Vision” by Eileen Myles, and “What They Wanted” by Stephen Dunn. How the Brit Larkin slipped in, we’re not sure, but he was included in the APR, and won his games fair and square to advance to the Final Four. Creedon, Dunn, and Myles are not exactly household words.
Last week Jeopardy! had an American Poetry category: Ogden Nash, Robert Frost, Langston Hughes, Wallace Stevens, and Allen Ginsberg were the five answers: Stevens‘ most famous poem, “The Emperor of Icecream,” drew a blank, as did Ginsberg and Hughes; only Frost and Nash were recognized by one of the three Jeopardy! contestants.
As we have watched a field of 64 get reduced to four, and then one, for two years now, we wonder if Scarriet’s March Madness Tourney is the only such competition in the world.
There are many who sneer at poetry and competition. But look, when a poet wins a major prize today, when a poet wins recognition, should we really be so naive or hypocritical in convincing ourselves that the renown of someone like John Ashbery is not the result of poems and poets competing against each other?
And if not, what the hell is it?
What pushes someone like Ashbery to the top?
I ask this, because to win a March Madness Tournament, you have to have a poem entered that’s good enough to beat other poems, in match-up after match-up, and I don’t know that Ashbery has one poem that has that ‘breakthrough’ quality to win against “litany” by Carolyn Creedon, for instance. Ashbery’s poems all read like clever jokes, and such poems don’t tend to win against the really accomplished poem of poignancy and beauty. I doubt an Ashbery poem could go very far in a March Madness Tournament, under the scrutiny of refs and rabid fans.
Ashbery defeated O’Hara for the Yale Younger Poetry Prize—one judge, Auden, played his own “March Madness Tournament,” after smoking a few hundred cigarettes, and Ashbery won that Tournament. From a just issued review:
Wasley’s book [The Age of Auden: Postwar Poetry and the American Scene, Princeton U. Press] vividly catalogues Auden’s social connections, friendships and influence among East Coast, Ivy League-educated, formal, emerging poets. Ginsberg and Ashbery wrote college essays on Auden; the pre-Ted Hughes Sylvia Plath adored Auden’s “burlap-textured voice”. We’re taken to parties and table talk, and to theatres where Auden explains a play’s reference to the entire mezzanine: “Shelley, my dears!” Still, must we learn who drilled the peephole to the toilet? Who looked?
This lineage study is redolent of smoking-jacket, anecdote and club. Auden dislikes the Yale Younger Poets submissions; he asks Ashbery and Frank O’Hara for manuscripts (or Chester Kallman, Auden’s lover, does); Ashbery’s poems are selected. Nowadays, if a public university manages its competitions this way, it will be exposed and condemned (as in the case of the University of Georgia Contemporary Poetry Series). Nearly everyone – poets, critics, even Wasley’s back-cover blurbers – is from the universities of Harvard, Yale, Columbia or Princeton.
Did you catch that? Both Ashbery (Harvard) and Ginsberg (Columbia) wrote Ivy League college essays on Auden.
Iowa wasn’t the only place where the U.S. Poetry Workshop formula was being pushed in the 1940s; Allen Tate, one of the leading figures in the Anglo-American Modernist Clique—which got its ultimate marching orders from Pound and Eliot—started the ball rolling at Princeton, and Auden was Eliot’s chosen trans-Atlantic successor.
Maybe Chester Kallman ran into Frank O’Hara, or John Ashbery, or Allen Ginsberg in a men’s room, and the rest is history?
Anyway, the point is, there’s always going to be competition—winners and losers—and to pretend this is not the situation, is silly. To pretend ignorance only make the “winning” that much more dubious, and perhaps, unfair.
Note, also, how the work of Foetry.com (which exposed the U.GA Poetry Series when Alan Cordle caught Bin Ramke cheating) is now part of the normal poetry dialogue these days. We hope you caught that, too.
Everyone in their hearts knows there are winners and losers in poetry; the question is, do we have the courage to make the process as transparent as possible?
June 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm (Alan Cordle, Anis Shivani, Brian Turner, christopher woodman, Foetry, Huffington Post, Lory Bedikian, Monday Love)
Will this dubious po-biz hustle one day be a thing of the past?
Get used to this name: Anis Shivani.
Anis Shivani stirs the poetry pot like no one else these days, and bad news for foets: he’s coming after you. In a comment beneath his recent Huffington Post article on how poetry contests ought to be done away with, Shivani writes:
After publishing this article, I was happy to be contacted by Al Cordle, who ran the Foetry.com website in the mid-2000s (see info. about Foetry’s exposure of rigged contests here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetry.com). Al suggests pursuing legal action against demonstrably corrupt contests where a relationship between a judge and a contest winner can be shown. I think this is an excellent idea, and maybe the only way to bring down the contest model, delegitimize it, and replace it with a better alternative. Aggrieved poets who know of clear conflicts of interest or improper means of selection should consider pursuing for damages through legal means. I’m all for it.
Meanwhile, still waiting for a direct response from Brian Turner and Lory Bedikian as to whether there was a prior relationship/friendship/connection of some sort which helped Lory become the winner of the contest, despite the fact that both judge and winner attended the same MFA program at Oregon, when entries must have been received from all over the country.
—Anis Shivani, Huffington Post
Why is Foetry.com still making itself felt in po-biz after Alan Cordle’s site closed four years ago? The front page story in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Stephen Burt hit piece in the Boston Globe, the Joan Houlihan attack in Poets & Writers have apparently made Foetry famous forever.
Foetry is an attractive theory because in a poetry world of crackpot theory—a legacy of Modernism’s clique-y, reactionary, manifesto-ist, post-war takeover of the university (think: Ezra Pound, a core of associates, and their associates)—Foetry effectively reifies a number of tropes at once, bringing persons back into the poetry mix in an accessible post-Romantic manner. “Naming names” was Cordle’s cry on the old Foetry.com, and this is what makes Foetry so volatile (and exciting): it may have begun as Cordle asking poetry contest moderators to play fair, and, in many ways, Foetry.com was simply a consumer protection site causing cheaters to howl; but a serendipitous expansion has occured in which Foetry is coming to stand for an explanation of all aspects of poetry, if not for life itself.
What is foetry? Foetry is not just a noun, but a verb: it refers to a whole range of things which persons, on behalf of poetry, do. Foets are poets who are foes of poetry in various ways, insidious foes of poetry because they appear to be friends of poetry, chiefly acting in the paradoxical manner of either making poetry more expensive, and because of this, cheapening it, or cheapening it, and thus making it rare.
There are two basic kinds of Foets: the social kind, who secretly pick their friends in public poetry contests, and the theoretical kind: the windbag theorist who makes poetry more “difficult” and ends up making poetry an elaborate game for simpletons.
Foetry is more concerned with persons than poets or poetry, but then every theory on poetry is a sly attempt by the theorist to stack the deck in his or her favor: please read poetry the way I write it. But since Foetry is concerned with sly behavior in a reified manner to begin with, it ends up self-reflexively hitting the jackpot of a method that historically, socially, and psychologically is able to see through the rubbish of post-modernist, theoretical over-kill, to arrive at inclusive, grounded, practical answers to what poets as human beings are doing.
Read Scarriet, the sudden, inspired brain-child of Alan Cordle. Watch and learn. Monday Love of Foetry.com is now Thomas Brady.
Censorship, bullying and banning by Blog Harriet produced Scarriet.
Former Scarriet editor Christopher Woodman’s pocket was being picked by Tupelo Press when he read about the scam in Foetry.com.
Woodman ditched Scarriet a year ago because he could not stomach attacks by his Scarriet co-editor on Red Wheel Barrow modernism. Woodman has a weak stomach. He ate too much fallen High Modernist fruit. He got high on High Modernism and lost his way. But the point isn’t whether you like the Red Wheel Barrow or not—it’s whether you can handle criticism.
Poetry is not a lame feel-good exercise. You may find things you like in poetry, but poetry itself is not a feel-good exercise. The coterie-mind thinks: “you are a poet, so you must be my friend.!” The coterie-mind sucks Criticism out of poetry. The most boring (and most tyrannical) people are those who won’t accept Criticism. Development requires Criticism. The world needs Criticism—not censorship.
If Foetry can be summed up as a philosophy it might be this way: Art is not an object, poetry is not a text; art and poetry are what people do to each other in the widest sense.
Brian Turner and Lory Bedikian, what do you think?
April 17, 2011 at 11:51 am (Alan Cordle, Bin Ramke, christopher woodman, David Orr, Desmond Swords, Foetry, Jorie Graham, Monday Love, Stephen Burt)
David Orr, a refreshingly smart, honest, and independent critic—and kind of sexy, too.
Scarriet’s Thomas Brady used to be Monday Love on Foetry.com, Alan Cordle’s poetry consumer protection site that warned poets against rigged poetry contests.
Foetry.com came to my attention in a Boston Globe piece by Stephen Burt in 2005. Despite Burt’s attempt to discredit Cordle’s site, I knew immediately that Foetry.com was something new and different, and as soon as I began reading the site, Cordle impressed with his honesty and tenacity. Po-biz corruption obviously meant something to Cordle, and he was doing something about it by ‘naming names.’
A few thought it was wrong that Cordle exposed ‘foets’ anonymously—but I thought of Foetry.com’s anonymous nature as similar to an anonymous suggestion box in a workplace: the anonymity of Foetry.com was simply a method to uncover deeply entrenched wrongs: poetry contest cheating.
Academic poetry contests were important. Why? Because a public for poetry no longer existed, academic ‘fame’ was the next best thing, and winning an academic poetry contest was not only the step to academic renown, but contest entry fees paid for the publication of the winning manuscript. Judges were choosing their friends and their students. It was easy to find this out, and it was easy to see this wasn’t fair.
The self-righteous, indignant responses made it easy to see that a nerve had been struck.
The art of poetry was never supposed to be about private contests and academic awards. It was supposed to be about fame and genius. I had sent my poems to magazines and had some published, I had an advanced degree and had taught, but reading contemporary reviews, criticism and poetry and comparing it to the way poetry used to be, I knew, from a critical point of view, that something was rotten; Alan Cordle’s work—which quickly made him famous in po-biz—made sense to my whole way of thinking. I knew there were ambitious poets who mailed out more poems to magazines than anybody else, who earned advanced degrees and got to know the right people and were shaping po-biz through personal influence. I knew that I was probably lazier than these people. But poetry was poetry and truth was the truth.
And the truth, it seemed to me, was this:
1) Poetry was still an important academic credential.
2) Reaching out to the public (‘selling books’ the old-fashioned way) was no longer possible.
3) An art form once popular and prestigious was now only prestigious.
4) The game was now controlled by a relatively small number of networking academics.
When opponents of Foetry.com uncovered Alan Cordle’s identity, it turned out the ‘masked crusader’ was a librarian. His wife was the published, contest-winning poet (uneasy in fact, with his crusade, and not signed on to it) and this only confirmed that Foetry.com’s crusade was indeed a chivalrous one.
Complaints against Foetry.com inevitably took three forms:
1. The Witch Hunt Charge.
Foetry.com’s investigations were mild—they used documents in the public record: who judged a contest, who went to what school, the contents of a mass-mailed letter to potential contestants in a poetry contest. Perhaps the guiltiest foet, Jorie Graham, didn’t lose her job at Harvard, or any prestige, really, and she probably gained a few book sales from all the excitement; Bin Ramke stepped down from a Contest Series (that was crooked) but life goes on the same for every foet. Public awareness was raised—and this was important, because of the very issue that made Foetry.com necessary in the first place—poetry has a small public, and so: Alan Cordle’s consciousness-raising and public shaming was huge. The net amount of ‘pain’ was the moral humiliation of those who were guilty. If the anonymous Foetry.com was the Dark Knight, he was gentle, and performed a much-need service for poetry.
2. With all the wrongs in the world, why focus on pettiness in poetry?
But this question is unfair. If a wealthy, corporate criminal, for instance, gives to charity, are they the moral authority in every other sphere? If a person with little means wishes to do some small good, should this be resented?
3. Haven’t the great poets always networked and helped each other?
Not really. Byron and Shelley were companions, but neither judged the other a winner in a poetry contest, or wrote fawning notices in the press for each other—their pride would have found this abhorrent. Poe and Alexander Pope attacked puffery, mediocrity and self-serving cliques with glee.
Pound, Eliot and their friends at the Dial Magazine, however, did give each other (Cummings, Williams, Moore) annual Dial Prizes of $1,000 (equal to a year’s salary for Tom at Lloyd’s bank).
American poets Edgar Poe, Amy Lowell, and Edna Millay were attacked by the Pound clique, and naked ambition was the cause, even historical revenge, as Eliot’s New England roots trace directly back to the hatred between Poe and “English Traits” Emerson. Scarriet is the first to investigate this.
Scarriet has moved closer to solving Poe’s probable murder.
Scarriet is Foetry.com with a highly historical and critical perspective.
And Scarriet will not ban or censor or silence anyone for their views.
Foetry.com closed down and was archived in 2007. One day in September of 2009, without warning, Thomas Brady, Alan Cordle, Desmond Swords and Christopher Woodman were banned from making comments on Blog Harriet. The always amusing, ‘don’t-get-mad-get-even,’ Alan Cordle set up Scarriet.
So we can’t help but celebrate the publication of Beautiful & Pointless by the NY Times Poetry Critic, David Orr. From the Slate review (4/14):
So who are these poets, anyway? Orr says they suffer from the fact that “even if most people don’t know what poets do, the average person feels that whatever it is, it must be spectacular.” Orr cuts them down to size, an exercise that turns out to be bracing for all concerned. Poets spend an inordinate amount of time sitting in front of computers typing, or else reading, or else worrying over the fact that they can’t muster the concentration to read or write. When not writing, poets also preoccupy themselves with “sending dozens of envelopes filled with poems to literary magazines read by, at most, a few hundred people,” mostly fellow poets.
No wonder their world is what Orr calls a “chatty, schmoozy, often desperate reality.” There are, as you’d expect, the drunken book parties and the annual Association of Writers and Writing Programs annual conventions, which are more like returning to college—or is it high school?—than anyone would like to admit. And Orr reports at length on a full-blown scandal, “the Foetry eEpisode,” capitalizing on the gossip while also issuing a cautionary tale: Inbred cultures beware! Between 2004 and 2007, the Web site Foetry.com, run by a man named Alan Cordle, took aim at corruption in the supposedly anonymous book contests that land many poets their small and university-press-publishing contracts. Orr describes the site “stocked with outraged allegations of favor-trading, creepy insinuations about people’s personal lives, and buckets of name-calling (including my personal favorite, ‘foet,’ which referred to careerist poets).” People got hurt, at least one prize was shut down, and targeted poets like Jorie Graham basically stopped judging contests. It was ugly, often petty, and it made headlines outside of Poetryland. It was enough to make you forget that what poets really are is craftspeople: They make intricate little things out of very carefully chosen words, presumably at least in part for other readers to examine.
Alan Cordle has come a long way since he got mad and decided to do something about it.
The art of poetry has been treated shabbily by “the new.” It sometimes seems the dollar has been replaced by the Pound. But we can always find some good in the new: we have the internet now, and it wasn’t all that long ago that all the news came from sources like Walter Cronkite, or Understanding Poetry by a couple of crotchety old Southern Agrarians turned New Critics.
We celebrate the new, too.
August 19, 2010 at 9:18 pm (Dave McNair, Foetry, John Casteen III, John Casteen IV, Kevin Morrissey, Ted Genoways, Thomas Jefferson)
Ted Genoways, the alleged glory hound, bully
Danielle Steele, get out your typewriter. This will be your best novel yet, and you won’t have to make anything up.
Setting: The University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, UVA founder, modeled UVA’s architecture on Rome. Violence and chaos reigned on campus when the nation’s first nonsectarian university opened in 1824.
Edgar Poe, one of the first students due to the fact that he was the charge of wealthy guardian John Allan, experienced first-hand the madness, writing to Allan, “You have heard no doubt of the disturbances at the College. Soon after you left here the Grand Jury met and put the Students in a terrible fright—so much so that the lectures were unattended—and those whose names were on the Sheriff’s list traveled off into the woods & mountains, taking their beds and provisions along with them. There were about 50 on the list, so you may suppose the College was very well thinn’d. [the college had 135 students].”
And, again from Poe in the same letter: “Dixon made a physical attack upon Arthur Smith…he struck him with with a large stone on one side of the head, whereupon Smith drew a pistol (which are all the fashion here) and had it not miss’d fire, would have put an end to the controversy.”
So much for Thomas Jefferson’s self-governing experiment.
Poe quietly learned what he could at the UVA, leaving without a degree, and left rural and aristocratic VA for the metropolitan north, where he earned fame in Letters, rejecting greased palms and superficial prestige, earning his bread the old-fashioned way, with genius, honesty and hard work. Poe had no degree, and is remembered for what he wrote, not for prizes or awards. What an odd idea!
Thomas Jefferson, the gentleman farmer (and slave-owner) liked the fact that Virginia had no cities—he liked things aristocratic and rural, except when he was shopping in Paris; never one to visit the north, the soft-spoken Jefferson would no doubt have smiled knowingly to himself had he lived to see Virginia leave the Union in 1861.
But the UVA did eventually go on to glory, though one of its bumps in the road was hosting T.S Eliot’s infamous speech against the Jews in the 1930s.
Kevin Morrissey, who took his own life on July 30, was, by all accounts, an honest and hardworking managing editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review. Morrissey had a job which he could not give up; he had a mortgage to pay; UVA was his ticket in a Virginia landscape of UVA and little else. Morrissey had expertise and experience, but he was a man without a degree in the very heart of the credentialing industrial complex, the University of Virginia, whose president, John Casteen III, brought in a salary close to a million, and where everyone in town, it must have seemed to Kevin, had a masters degree. Kevin’s position was sort of like one of the servants who ran Monticello…you run Monticello, but you’re a…servant. You are a servant because you don’t have an MFA. These are strange times in which we live; the analogy is a strange one, but true.
Outgoing UVA President John Casteen III was an English major at UVA in the 1960s, earning a Ph.D., where he moved on to be an English professor at U Cal, Berkeley in the 1970s. Casteen traded in that heady experience to be admissions dean back at UVA; in the 80s, Casteen worked as Education secretary under VA governor Chuck Robb during the Vietnam vet and future intelligence committee senator’s ‘cocaine and playboy bunny affair’ days. In 1990 John Casteen became the president of UVA. He and his staff raised a lot of money for the college.
In 2003 Ted Genoways was hired as editor of the VQR as president Casteen gushed that the 31 year old had “energetic intelligence and visionary thinking.” Mr. Genoways has an MFA from UVA and the masthead cites his poetry prizes first and foremost. Using half-a-million dollars of $800,000 that was sitting in a VQR fund when he arrived, Genoways added color photography and splashy graphics to the magazine. He also tapped into international crisis journalism with the extra cash, to give his magazine a prize-winning look, as well. I’m not just a poet, I also report on Afghanistan. The “on-the-ground” reporting in the VQR is hardly blockbuster; the magazine reads like dull AP wire, with strategically placed photos of the posed natives in crisis, taken by young, attractive photographers for their CV’s, who then fly around as heroes to plush speaking engagements at universities sponsored by media corporation clubs, such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, for which Genoways spoke in 2007 at U Cal Berkeley. The VQR’s readership is tiny, and trying to turn a school magazine into a National Geographic or a Washington Post with a temporary influx of cash, plus a big salary for Genoways playing ‘great poet plus ace reporter’ on the taxpayer’s dime, is quixotic at best, and corrupt, at worst.
John Casteen IV, the president’s son, is also a poet, and a friend of Genoways, and Ted Genoways published himself and his friend John in the VQR Poetry Series, formerly the University Georgia Press Series, the competition series which Foetry.com exposed as corrupt; Genoways taking over the disgraced press to disgrace it in his own way.
The bullying by editor Genoways no doubt stems from his missionary, megalomaniacal quest to manufacture credentials out of thin air and create importance out of nothing.
Grab for the brass ring, if you must, but should you step on people while you do?
The president’s office failed to respond when Genoways treated Morrissey like a servant, ordering Kevin to stay home for a week and not speak to his fellow workers. This is barbaric, and should have resulted in Genoways’ immediate dismissal.
After Morrissey’s death, Genoways hired a high-powered lawyer named Lloyd Snook, who has been debating former VQR employees on-line, charging there is a grand conspiracy to punish Genoways.
In 2009 Genoways befriended a wealthy 24 year old UVA donor, Alana Levinson-Labrosse, who recently became VQR staff and Genoway’s office buddy.
Are you still with me, Ms. Steele?
Maria Morrissey, the late managing editor’s sister, is defending her brother’s memory and called Genoways to clarify whether he (Genoways) did indeed email Kevin right before he died to berate him (which seemed to be his usual practice) for endangering the life of a reporter in Mexico. Genoways, too busy to answer his own emails, pawned that task off on Morrissey.
How is that reporter in Mexico doing, I wonder?
Has Genoways saved him yet?
This tale of woe, reported by Dave McNair in a well-researched article, began with foetry—and became something far worse.
Prediction: Ted Genoways will continue his career as a successful editor. Because… he has the creds. And that’s just the way it works these days.
February 15, 2010 at 12:01 am (Foetry, Jorie Graham, Uncategorized)
……..THE BALLAD OF JORIE GRAHAM
……..I love poetry, but it depends
……..If the manuscripts are my lovers’ and friends’.
……..If they are my friends’ my heart sings
……..With the joy sweet poetry brings.
……..How easy it is to decide to love
……..What poetry and friendship thinks is enough.
……..I am lonely without friends.
……..Poetry? It all depends
……..On the joy and the happiness of my friends.
……..My friends write poetry and poetry depends
……..On something beyond itself.
……..Do not talk to me of abstract things.
……..Why do you think poetry sings?
……..Why do you think it is?
……..Why do you think I write things new?
……..Do you think it is for him? Or you?
……..You may read what I write.
……..But he is my day and my night.
……..If you could be one of my friends
……..You would understand how even genius depends
……..On love. If you were holding my hand
……..Now, hypocrite reader! you would understand.
February 4, 2010 at 12:58 am (Aleister Crowley, Dial Magazine, Ezra Pound, Foetry, John Quinn, Modernism, Scofield Thayer, T.S.Eliot, Uncategorized)
“I was neither living nor dead.”
“One must be so careful these days.”
“That corpse you planted last year in your garden, has it begun to sprout?”
“Footsteps shuffled on the stair.”
“What is that noise?”
“Are you alive, or not?”
“bats with baby faces in the violet light”
……………………………………………………..T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land (1922)
The successful Broadway version of Dracula, which opened in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in his first English-language role, was produced by Horace Liveright, the first book publisher of T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land.”
Unfortunately, Liveright couldn’t pay royalties to Bram Stoker’s widow, Florence Balcombe, due to the poor performance of the publishing side of his business.
Modernist writers were not big sellers.
Liveright orignally made his fortune marrying into International Paper (a marriage that didn’t last due to his philandering and drinking) and he founded Modern Library in 1917, which published cheap imprints of European modernists.
Florence, who out-lived her husband Bram Stoker by 25 years, sued the German makers of Nosferatu (1922) for stealing Bram Stoker’s story, won, and had nearly every copy of the film destroyed.
Liveright struck an unusual deal in publishing Eliot’s scary poem. The negotiations were led by the pointy-bearded Ezra Pound and his influential, modern art collector, lawyer, John Quinn, British spy (and friend of ‘The Beast,’ Aleister Crowley, who also worked for British intelligence against German and Irish interests — have a look at this).
Eliot didn’t like how much his friend Scofield Thayer, who ran The Dial, was going to pay him for “The Waste Land,” so here’s what Pound and Quinn came up with for the grim banker.
Before Pound had even begun editing the poem, The Dial agreed to award Eliot its annual, $2,000 Dial Prize for “The Waste Land.”
The Dial then also agreed to purchase 350 books at a discount from Liveright—who would then use the publicity generated by The Dial Prize to help publicize “The Waste Land” and market the books at full price.
Eliot also published the poem in his magazine, The Criterion, in October 1922. The Dial version came out in the same month, and Liveright’s book a little later in December. Eliot’s earnings from “The Waste Land” in 1922 exceeded his salary at Lloyd’s. Friends Leonard and Virginia Woolf published the poem at their press in 1923.
Bram Stoker was rumored to belong to the Golden Dawn which also housed “the wickedest man in the world,” Aleister Crowley. Bram Stoker, a Protestant Irishman and monarchist, believed Ireland should remain with the British Empire—the greatest vampire of all?
Was it the spirit of FOETRY which hovered over the birth of “The Waste Land…?”
January 16, 2010 at 3:55 am (Alan Cordle, Byron, Dante, Edgar Allan Poe, Foetry, Franz Wright, Harold Bloom, Helen Vendler, Joan Houlihan, John Keats, Longfellow, Monday Love, Philip Sidney, r perlman, Robert Creeley, Scarriet, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
Pardon us as we take a fanciful page from the book of George Gordon, Lord Byron.
……………………….WHO KILLED ROBERT CREELEY?
……………………….Who killed Robert Creeley?
……………………….Twas I, Foetry. Yes. Really.
……………………….Now exiled here by the site that bans
……………………….We’ve dealt a mortal blow to Franz.
……………………….You cannot know where your reputation’s laid,
……………………….Or who pays you, at last, and who finally is paid.
……………………….Beware, you swaggerer, with cred and name
……………………….Who comes to quell: first, you lose, then, you swell our fame.
Franz Wright’s recent visit to Scarriet reminded us of the time when Robert Creeley came calling on Foetry.com shortly before he passed away in March of 2005.
John Keats was treated so rudely by the press a rumor began that a harsh criticism had killed him. The poet is the most vulnerable to criticism since the poet and the critic both use words. Poetry, by its very nature, has a It is so because I say it is so existence. Words are cheap, and the poetry world is small. Poetic reputations are fragile and can disappear overnight.
Longfellow was a wealthy titan whose poems were widely read in expensive and beautiful volumes. Poe was a poverty-stricken, contentious critic who insulted and berated poets like Longfellow; Poe was reviled by many literary elites of his day. Poe, however, now towers over Longfellow and poets who are utterly forgotten. Those who ‘go about their business’ and who are ‘above’ the sort of battles Poe indulged in usually sink into oblivion. The trouble-makers survive.
Alan Cordle’s revolutionary Foetry.com turned po-biz on its head almost overnight with his controversial claims. Controversy is catnip to fame. Perhaps Creeley and Wright knew what they were doing when they jumped in the Foetry dirt.
Flowers (and fame) need dirt to grow.
Thomas Brady of Scarriet was obviously out of his mind, temporarily, let’s hope, when he wrote the following as Monday Love on Foetry.com:
And what’s this crap about how a “librarian” [Alan Cordle] can’t express an opinion on poetry or the poetry world? Jeez, what a lot of snobby rot. Since when did degrees and publishing creds and ‘official poet’ stamped on the forehead decide who can or cannot speak on poetry? Did Keats have an MFA? Philip Sidney, one of the world’s most prominent poets, never published a poem. And what of Harold Bloom and Helen Vendler? I can’t find any of their poems, but the world bows to their opinion. If some twit gets an MFA and publishes a few books of obscure poetry scribbles, that twit should then have some kind of authority because of his CV?
No, poetry is naturally fitted for something more democratic and honest. R. Perlman [since discovered to be Joan Houlihan] disgraces himself [herself] when he [she]indulges in this ‘poetry-cred’ nonsense–99% of the time such a gambit is merely an attempt to paper over stink. I have never asked what his [her] creds are, nor do I care. Those who come here trailing the glory of their creds in their wake tend to get slaughtered. We don’t care who they are. Robert Creeley came here and was treated like anyone else–in other words, a bit roughly. We don’t care for that phony ‘respect,’ which the pompous desire. Only the argument you make here counts.
Poetry was invented so that the learned could speak to the unlearned. Poetry is for the unlearned ear, because it had its origins, as Dante points out in his Vita Nuova, in the following circumstance: the learned fop was mad for some illiterate serving girl and therefore had to remove all that was phony and elevated in his speech to reach her heart. The opinion which the poet craves is always the simplest and heart-felt one. The ‘learned’ opinion is not to be trusted, finally. Every poet in secret knows this. This does not mean the poet writes simplistic twaddle, for the poet still must impress in a powerful manner, but that manner is not learned fops stroking each other’s learned egos, which only ruins the art.
—Monday Love, Foetry.com 2007
It is not our intent to dance on anybody’s grave.
We salute Mr. Creeley for not going gentle into that good night.
And God bless Franz Wright, too.
December 16, 2009 at 1:47 pm (Anne Sexton, Broadway Journal, Dial Magazine, Edgar Allan Poe, Edna Millay, Elinor Wylie, Emily Dickinson, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Frances Sargent Osgood, Harvard University, Hilda Dolittle, Imagists, Jorie Graham, Marianne Moore, Marilyn Chin, Modernism, POETRY, Scofield Thayer, Sharon Olds, Sylvia Plath, T.S.Eliot, Uncategorized, William Carlos Williams)
Elinor Wylie. Lyrical, with a dash of madness.
Where have they all gone? Not only does the candle no longer burn at both ends, the one end is hardly flickering.
Great power for the poem, and for the woman, resides in the femme fatale poet. What killed her, and why has she been allowed to die?
Even if the femme fatale is not the ideal state of things, it elicits a powerful interest in poetry. Moral objections are moot, since femme fatales will exist and all the negative associations of that genre will exist, whether we want them to or not, and poetry’s involvement can mitigate the unfortunate aspects and also give to the world a heroic and social character for poetry which today it lacks.
In the 1920s, when school chums Pound, H.D., Marianne Moore and William Carlos Williams, together with Harvard friends Scofield Thayer, E.E. Cummings and T.S. Eliot, bound together in their modernist ‘Little Magazine’ coterie, which gave itself Dial Magazine Awards, published in Poetry and tooted its tin manifesto horn, Dorothy Parker and Edna St. Vincent Millay were best-selling poets, continuing a tradition from the previous century–when the poetess out-sold the poet.
Before academic solipsism, women’s poetry reflected breast-heaving life: Osgood bitterly reproaching a gossip’s judgment on her friendship with Poe in the pages of the Broadway Journal, Dickinson dreaming of hot romances, Barrett thanking the wooer who snuck her out of her father’s house, Millay hotly turning a cold eye on past sexual flings.
The brittle, sexless poetry of Marianne Moore, the wan, affected imagism of H.D. put an end to the reign of Femme Fatale poetry.
The suicides of Plath and Sexton were sacrifices on the altar of femme fatale poetry, a reminder of what had been crushed by Pound and Eliot’s modernism.
In Eliot’s wake, Bishop has emerged as the most important female poet of the 20th century, but she’s sexless in comparison to a poet like Millay.
Contemporary poets like Sharon Olds present a domestic, intricately examined sexuality, a far cry from the femme fatale; Jorie Graham had an early opportunity to be a femme fatale, but transformed herself into a foet instead. Marilyn Chin embraced ethnicity. Mary Oliver has gone the ‘fatalistic love of nature’s creatures’ route. No femme fatale there, either.
The forgotten Elinor Wylie (d. 1928) wrote wonderful poems. In “Now Let No Charitable Hope,” one can hear distinctly the frightening yet delicate voice of both Plath and Sexton, the confident whisper of the femme fatale:
Now Let No Charitable Hope
Now let no charitable hope
Confuse my mind with images
Of eagle and of antelope:
I am by nature none of these.
I was, being human, born alone;
I am, being woman, hard beset;
I live by squeezing from a stone
What little nourishment I get.
In masks outrageous and austere
The years go by in single file;
But none has merited my fear,
And none has quite escaped my smile.
December 14, 2009 at 4:17 am (Alan Cordle, Bin Ramke, christopher woodman, Colrain Manuscript Conferences, Contemporary Poetry Series, Dorset Prize, Foetry, Jeffrey Levine, Joan Houlihan, Jorie Graham, Poets & Writers, Poets.org, Tupelo Press, Tupelo/Crazyhorse Graduate Program at Charleston, Uncategorized)
An Open Letter from Alan Cordle.
This just arrived in the Scarriet inbox, and I’m still confused. Initially, Jeffrey Levine drew up the most ethical guidelines of them all, yet he still slipped up terribly, and hurt a lot of people. I also don’t get the “non-profit” angle. So the Tupelo Press gets 1,000 manuscripts at $25.00 each, that’s $25,000 for each contest, right? So how can this be called “non-profit,” even when you subtract $3,000.00 for the prize?
And did Tupelo Press actually manage to match that $30,000.00 matching grant this year? I know some people offered to contribute to the fund if Jeffrey Levine would just clear up some doubts about his ethics, but I don’t think he did. Also, why do you only get $3,000.00 now for winning a Tupelo prize, whereas it used to be worth $10,000.00? Yes, things are getting more expensive as Tupelo says, but nothing like that much more. It makes you wonder how they managed to pay that astonishing sum when they were first just getting started?
And what happened to Jeffrey Levine’s sister-in-law, Margaret Donovan, I think her name was, the advertising executive who used to be Tupelo’s Managing Editor? Why is she no longer an officer at the Press?
It shouldn’t be forgotten that it was, of course, Foetry.com that pressured contests into specifying in their Guidelines that no “former students” of the judge are eligible. It’s hard to believe, but there was even a time when Foetry.com was derided for insisting upon just this, and now it’s routinely part of all poetry-contest guidelines. “The Jorie Graham Rule,” it’s called, for obvious reasons.
Tupelo Press Guidelines
I’m still confused about the Tupelo Press Guidelines. This is what they say. “Readers” reduce the 1,000 submissions to 175, but as to who those “readers” are we are told nothing by Tupelo. The “readers” also put comments on the manuscripts they like, and then “the editors” take the roughly 175 manuscripts and reduce the pile to 25 which are “ranked” for the Final Judge along with the supporting arguments from the “readers” and “anonymous” editors, so it’s hard to know who is who when it comes to responsibility for following the guidelines.
It could even be argued that the Final Judge makes no judgment at all, theoretically speaking. For if the 25 manuscripts presented to the Final Judge are “ranked,” no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, etc., “editors” have essentially picked “the winner,” haven’t they, and the Final Judge, who is in the employ of Tupelo as well, presumably, is under no obligation to do anything more than automatically choose No. 1 as the winner of the contest.
What bothers me is that there are no clauses in the Guidelines that address the relationship between the poets who submit their manuscripts and the “readers” and “editors” who are so crucial in choosing the winner.
Still, in perfect keeping with the published Tupelo Guidelines, couldn’t a personal friend, even a spouse of a “reader” or an “editor,” submit their manuscript to the Dorset Prize competition and “win”? The Final Judge, who does not personally know the wife, let’s say, of a Tupelo editor, and who receives the manuscript anonymously, sees that the manuscript is ranked No. 1 out of the whole slush pile sifted by the “editors” before him. So what’s wrong with that?
Well, Bin Ramke selected winners at Georgia who were known only to Jorie Graham, and in at least one well-documented case who hadn’t even entered the contest. And, of course, there was that other well-documented case of someone else’s otherwise unrelated almost husband who still managed to win and is now also a professor at Harvard.
Yes, I do worry that a published, well-known poet who submits to a Tupelo contest, and is known to a “reader” and/or “editor” at Tupelo, will have the same advantage. The “anonymous” character of the judging is suspicious, isn’t it, since the Tupelo editor winnowing the manuscripts down to a “ranked” 25 can “know” the poet who is submitting, and Tupelo can have an overriding wish to declare “a known poet” the winner? Isn’t that exactly what was also done year after year by Graham and Ramke at Georgia? Indeed, there’s nothing in the Guidelines that says the Tupelo editors can’t directly let the Final Judge know which manuscripts they (the Tupelo “editors”) “admire.” It doesn’t take a corporate lawyer to set that one up!
Colrain Manuscript Conferences & Crazyhorse/ Tupelo Press Graduate Program: Matters Arising
I’m also concerned about the students who have paid such a lot for the intimate editing services offered in both the Colrain Manuscript Conference retreats and the Crazyhorse/Tupelo Press Graduate Programs — they even advertise what a large number of their graduates get published. Hasn’t the work of these poets been discussed in fine detail by some of the same people who will winnow down the field in other contests? Does it say anywhere that these “students” are ineligible for the contests, because it ought to, shouldn’t it?
The only interdiction is they can’t be a personal friend or student of the Final Judge. But the Tupelo or other editors can easily make sure that all 25 or so manuscripts the Final Judge reviews are submissions by 1.) their friends, 2.) well-known poets they are keen on recognizing, and 3.) their own Colrain/Crazyhorse students. So it becomes a fait accompli, doesn’t it? The 999 other contestants who have paid their $25.00 fee, or more, and including you and I, won’t have a clue that the game has potentially been rigged as described above—even while observing the rules set out in the guidelines.
And don’t forget that Joan Houlihan, the director of the Colrain Manuscript Conferences, was published by her colleague in the business, Jeffrey Levine, just as she was defending Jeffrey Levine and Bin Ramke in Poets & Writers — and of course trashing Foetry.com as “losers.” (A lot of us are still waiting for her to address that horrendous indiscretion, and until she does, it’s likely to go on haunting her.)
Also Robin Beth Schaer, the On-Line Editor at The Academy of American Poetry, was shortlisted for a Tupelo prize just weeks before Christopher Woodman was banned for mentioning Joan Houlihan’s P&W Letter about Jeffrey Levine in a comment on the Poets.org Forum. (Robin Beth Schaer appears to be no longer in the job, whether because there was an actual or perceived conflict of interest will probably never be known. The Site Administrator also resigned during the scandal — she was quietly reinstated after all the threads involved were deleted and there was no one and nowhere left on Poets.org to discuss the matter.)
And of course, Carol Ann Davis, the editor of Crazyhorse, was published by Jeffrey Levine just as Carol Ann Davis announced a new course, The Crazyhorse/Tupelo Press Publishing Institute graduate program at the College of Charleston — taught by Jeffrey Levine. The program also selects the Tupelo Press First Book Prize, and awards yet another $3000.00, and of course, gets you the cred that will really get you the job — which explains why you bite the bullet of the bill!
Ouch, that last one is particularly gratuitous. We addressed it in some detail on Foetry.com, but apparently students still continue to sign up for it, which is disturbing.
Do Jeffrey Levine and Joan Houlihan Care For Poetry?
Of course Jeffrey Levine and Joan Houlihan care for poetry, and both believe they are working hard on behalf of the art—I don’t deny that. But obtaining money from, or for, poetry is simply not an act in which the end can ever justify the means. Faith must finally reside in the public’s reception of that poetry, whether one is a poet or an investor. If you are producing a product no one wants, put it out there with private money. If you have to defraud part of the public to put that product out there, you shouldn’t be putting it out there at all.
December 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm (Aimée Nezhukumatathil, christopher woodman, Dante, Expatriate Poet, Foetry, Galileo Galilei, John Donne, Modern Poetry, Monday Love, Newton, Plato, Shakespeare, Simone Weil, Socrates, Stonehenge, Uncategorized)
..Look around?.………………..Look in?……………………………..Look out?
A lightly edited version of a real time discussion that took place right at the end of the original ‘watchdog’ website, Foetry.com. ‘Expatriate Poet’ is Christopher Woodman, the 70 year old poet who lives in Chiang Mai in northern Thailand and is active on Scarriet. Although ‘Monday Love’ posing as Scarriet’s ‘Thomas Brady‘ has given permission to reprint his contribution to this dialogue, he prefers to remain (sort of…) anonymous.
Scarriet takes full reponsibility for the obscenity in this article, and understands that there will be many readers who won’t know where to look. We apologize for any offense given.
Dear Monday Love,
A few days ago you wrote, “If I want to convey to you right now some truth, I will do everything I can to put the argument before you as nakedly and clearly as I can possibly present it.”
There’s a poem I’ve been working on for some time—or rather, I should say the poem’s been working on me, so much so that when I read what you just wrote I immediately thought of the poem and wanted it to work on you too! Like this:
THE MEANING AND VALUE OF REPRESSION
………..Who’s this naked giant then
………………….peering in at your window
………..with the huge brown phallus
………………….pressed up against the pane,
………..the half-tumescent glans
………………….like some rude Cyclops’s tongue
………..or thick-set paleolithic fruit
………………….in puris naturabilis displayed
………..and mounted on the slippery
………………….slide the shocked members
………..gape at as their meals
………………….get laid upon the table?
………..He has no shame, this sly
………………….weighted thing towering
………..above the high tree tops—
………………….the great trunk of his gnarled
………..sex and trumpet foreskin
………………….making all the cultivated
………..thoughts that dine in private
………………….so much fast-food small-talk.
………..But oh, how the air out there
………………….shines attendant with delight,
………..hiking up those warm kirtled
………………….skirts to reveal Galileo’s secret
………..so profound only such obscene
………………….dimensions ever fathom it!
Posted by EXPATRIATE POET: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:23 pm
(…yet still it moves!)
“Huge brown phallus pressed up against the pane”
Best image in poetry ever!
Posted by MONDAY LOVE: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:16 am
Whisper and eye contact don’t work here.
But that’s not even the best image in the poem, so how could it be the best image in poetry ever?
I know I’m a fool, and I always rise to your bait, but now I’m thinking about what you said yesterday about Aimée Nezhukumatathil’s new book, Miracle Fruit.
Aimee N. definitely has it going on. Hot chick w/ erotic poems. Naughty, yet sensitive; sexy, yet learned; chatty, yet profound; worldly, yet academic; with her third-world traditionalist family hitting on her American singleness, freedom and sass. . . You go, girl!
But I predict she’ll get bored with the kind of chatty lyric she’s writing now. She’ll beat a hasty retreat towards more serious forms. The little dog will give way to twelve or thirteen kids, metaphorically speaking.
Dear Monday Love–you do such good work on this site, and we’re all so fortunate to have the chance to read so much of you–which goodness knows is certainly never dull! But much too often it’s your private Big Boy that gets dropped on our threads, and the ashes keep piling and piling up. Well, I’m an old man and I have no reputation at all, and partly for that reason you should listen to me. You can’t step on my toes because I don’t have any, it’s as simple as that, nor can you open my closet living as I do in a place that has none. But I’m serious about poetry all the same, and I can talk to you if you’ll listen.
And I say you not only have an issue with poetry but with girls!
That’s why I posted the poem for you, and not surprisingly you ignored the WOMAN in it altogether and chose rather to celebrate the PHALLUS–just like you poked fun at the girl!
I felt the woman in the poem was so overwhelmingly attractive and uncomplicated that she would have to illuminate you and quicken your being, that she would speak to who you were and where you were going. Now I begin to think you never let poets speak to you at all–even the dwindling handful you regard as o.k.
Because what I’ve never seen you do is listen to what a poem actually says that might be of value to you personally. You read with such disdain and critical detachment, almost as if you were judging a small town dog show that neglected to shovel up its poop. But even a common poem can talk to you, you know–it mustn’t be asked just to stand up on its hind legs and rhumba, or jump through a hoop to please you.
That’s what the little poem might have been trying to tell you, in fact–that like the average scientist you restrict yourself to the empirical evidence before you, as if the universe could tango without the human value that gives meaning to it.
Posted by EXPATRIATE POET: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:41 am
(…yet still it moves!)
I have no toes to step on either.
Do I have an “issue” with “girls?” Perhaps, I do. “Girls” is a big topic.
I loved Aimée’s poem. I summed up her schtick in a few words, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t dig it.
Also empirical evidence is all we have. The rest is speculation.
But I must say, I’m not good at riddles. What specific ‘evidence’ am I missing?
Posted by MONDAY LOVE: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:48 pm
Whisper and eye contact don’t work here.
CLICK HERE to continue reading this article.
November 17, 2009 at 9:51 pm (Alan Cordle, christopher woodman, Foetry, Monday Love, Scarriet, Thomas Brady, Thomas Graves, TomWest, Uncategorized)
Thomas Graves, a.k.a., Monday Love, a.k.a. Thomas Brady–poet & oxygen-sucking blogger.
Alan Cordle was the mind of Foetry.com. Christopher Woodman was its heart. Monday Love was its soul. Monday Love’s anonymous poems on Foetry.com have received over 74,000 hits–and counting. The impulse of the true poet–who cares who wrote them?
The following poem, in which ‘telling all’ destroys the poet, is more than just a confessional poem; in the new post-foetry climate, the paradoxical reigns: self-pity turns into a boast; anonymity is the way to be more revealing.
…..Poetry Is Where You Tell All
…………Poetry is where you tell all.
…………It takes no talent or skill.
..……….Make yourself small
…………By telling all.
…………Poetry does not take learning.
…………It is but a fury, a burning,
…………A passion which makes you small
…………By telling all.
…………You enter rooms watching your back,
…………Your life in place, your pride intact.
…………But you must burn, crash and fall
…………By telling all.
November 17, 2009 at 8:50 am ("Make it new", Ezra Pound, Foetry, Jim Meddick, Modern Poetry, Modernism, Poetry Foundation, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
We know we’re very near the edge of copyright infringement here, but hope Jim Meddick will allow us to make a point that’s so hard to get over without getting someone like him involved. For Jim Meddick’s satire is truly rare, and his angles on our contemporary prejudices and ugly little blind spots so invaluable. We have so few allies who have the wit and courage to explore the inexplorable today, which after all used to be the province of our poets too until they took the vow to make it new!
As a frontline artist, we feel sure Jim Meddick will forgive us in the hour of our need!
………………………………..copyright Jim Meddick/dist. by NEA, Inc.
So this is who we are at Scarriet and what we stand for:
Frequently in human discourse, the tenets of faith provide a sacred style and language which survives long after the contents have ceased to make sense or to convey any comprehensible message — if indeed there ever was one. At that point all societies, even developed ones, create the myth of a golden age when the truth was recorded, and the style and language of those “scriptures” are situated beyond enquiry what is more reproach.
When Thomas Brady opens the door, this is what he hears. The Poetry Establishment, which looks and sounds just like Jim Meddick’s little Ezra Pound at the door, also speaks of “the way of truth… and self-esteem… and personal fulfillment… and Uh… um…”
But the punch line today is a little different, because we now believe in anything “new.” When Thomas Brady asks, as he does in his previous article on William Carlos Williams, for example, “You’re making all this stuff up, aren’t you?” the poetry establishment gets very angry and dismissive. “How dare you!” they shout. “Why, this is modern scripture! This is what Ezra Pound laid down for us to make us modern! This is what we are and why we’re truly New!”
Then they beat him with -32 Dislikes, and when even that doesn’t discourage him, just pull the plug.
What’s so tragic is that human beings can always talk about things, exchange ideas and brainstorm, but even at a noble not-for-profit arts organization like The Poetry Foundation, if the material has become the stuff of faith, forget it. Then the dissenting voice is drowned out by the furious congregation and censored by the priests, and only when the dust has settled can something fresh, old or new yet equally crying in the wilderness, be heard.
November 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm ("Make it new", Cezanne, Cubism, Curtis Faville, Dial Prize, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Imagists, Marianne Moore, Modern Poetry, Modernism, Paul Bunyan, Picasso, Robert Browning, Ron Silliman, Scarriet, Scofield Thayer, Surrealism, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized, William Carlos Williams)
Do American poetasters love their William Carlos Williams, or what? They dream William Carlos Williams. Their tails wag when they hear the name, “William Carlos Williams.” At the end of their lives, with their last breath, they cry out, “William Carlos Williams!”
William Carlos Williams is both naked and covered in –isms. He’s everything!
Here’s a typical gushing paean from Curtis Faville on Silliman’s blog— the whole sentiment expressed has become a ritual repeated ad nauseam:
“Williams began as a very traditional poet, writing rhymed poems about Spring and love and delicate ironies. But by the mid-‘Twenties he had pushed into formally challenging constructions influenced by Cubism, Surrealism and the speech of the common people. Hardly anyone had thought to make poems out of the simple vocabulary and inflections of conversational speech, he was really the first to do it well.
In addition, he managed to throw out all the fluff and lace of traditional cliches and make little naked constructions from the raw timber of American life. They look like scaffoldings, their structure plain and unadorned like a newly framed house. “The pure products of America go crazy”–who else would have thought to write a line as accessible (and telling at the same time) as Williams? Their deceptive simplicity masks a complex kinetic energy which the line-breaks and stanzaic pauses and settings underscore.”
—Curtis Faville, July 2008, Silliman’s blog
Among the chattering classes, sprachgefuhl will take on a mind of its own, but Williams-worship is unconsciously ingrained to the point now where a healthy curiosity on these matters has been bottled up completely.
Faville and his somnambulant ilk are apparently too sleepy to see the contradictions here. We count 13 in Faville’s brief post alone:
- ‘Williams began as a very traditional poet.’ He did, and he was being published in ‘Poetry’ as a very traditional poet with his friend Pound. All but the very gullible will quickly assume Williams was an item not because of his groundbreaking poetry, but because of his membership in a clique. Why would his hack rhymes be published, otherwise?
- ‘By the mid-‘Twenties he pushed into formally challenging constructions.’ Ahem. The Dial Prize in 1926 was Williams’ first real public recognition; the editor of ‘The Dial’ in 1926 was Marianne Moore. The content of the ‘The Dial’ was mostly European avant-garde: Picasso, Cezanne & T.S. Eliot (who won the ‘Dial Prize’ in 1922). Williams was not ‘pushing.’ He was being pulled. He was 43 years old and had known Pound for years—he was finally ‘getting with the program’ and doing what the clique required. Moore won the Dial Prize in 1924—she had known then-Dial editor Scofield Thayer (T.S. Eliot’s old schoolmate at Milton Academy), as well as Pound and William Carlos Williams for years at that time.
- ‘Influenced by Cubism, Surrealism and the speech of the common people. How nifty. ‘Cubism’ (!) and ‘Surrealism’ (!) ‘the speech of the common people.’ Yea, they go hand in hand. Maybe in some pedant’s dream…
- ‘Hardly anyone had thought to make poems out of the simple vocabulary…’ This is utterly false. Compare any century of poetry with Williams–his vocabulary is not simpler.
- ‘Hardly anyone had thought to make poems out of the inflections of conversational speech.’ Again, false. Robert Browning is far more conversational than Williams. Williams’ poetry is actually less ‘conversational’ than examples from the 17th century.
- ‘He was really the first to do it well.’ Another whopper.
- ‘He managed to throw out all the fluff and lace of traditional clichés…’ Oh-kay… William Carlos Williams personally threw out ALL the so-called ‘fluff and lace’ which centuries of poetry is burdened with. Every so-called ‘traditional cliché’ evaporated before Williams’ magic touch.
- ‘Little naked constructions.’ What are these? Elf robots which dance in poetaster’s dreams?
- ‘raw timber of American life.’ William Carlos Williams as Paul Bunyan…
- ‘They look like scaffoldings’ We are not sure what ‘they’ are. Ideas? Poems? Fragments of poems? By now, of course, it doesn’t matter…
- ‘their structure plain and unadorned…’ Ah, yes. They’re ‘raw.’ They’re honest.
- ‘Who else would have thought to write a line as accessible (and telling at the same time) as… “The pure products of America go crazy.” This is accessible? And telling?
- ‘Their deceptive simplicity masks a complex kinetic energy…’ OK, we’ve heard enough.
Egad! We can quote from this hyperbole no longer.
What’s that? WC Williams’ ghost is a Martian! and he’s beaming radio transmissions of kinetic energy to selected earthlings like Curtis Faville?
Why didn’t someone tell me?
This explains everything!
November 15, 2009 at 8:47 am (Academy of American Poetry, Alan Cordle, AWP, BAP, Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Colrain Manuscript Conferences, David Lehman, Foetry, Joan Houlihan, Modern Poetry, Poetry Foundation, Poets & Writers, Poets.org, Pw.org, Scarriet, Seth Abramson, Travis Nichols, Uncategorized)
It’s like all attacks on orthodoxy — if a criticism contradicts a tenet of faith it’s not only inapplicable but invalid!
Ask Barack Obama about that one right now, ask any Israeli or Palestinian, ask a Urighur or even the Dalai Lama. But hey, why not ask yourselves about your Poetry Faith too, the cards you carry as a Poet, the cabals and clubs and cartels you belong to, the schools, schedules, scores, deals, bonds and promisory notes you honor, even as poets? Ask around your Department, for example, or ask down the corridors of poetry power. Because even when there are such good people involved in such good work, so much good will and so many good reasons to make sense out of such good, good intentions, in Alabama, Chicago or the Upper West Side — oh, watch the Big Sheriff in you take over, the Travis Nichols right under your big cowboy hat and the “peacemaker” strapped to your hip.
Let’s look at this.
If the tenet of faith is that guns make you free, then guns are a non-negotiable matter. If it’s a tenet of faith that sex is bad then sex-education is a non-negotiable matter. If it’s a tenet of faith that men have a much higher sex drive than women, as it is in a great many cultures in the world today, including where I live, and that true men are truly driven by sex, then you get boys taken by their fathers to brothels at 14 while the mothers wait at home with the daughters until they can be married off as pure virgins–and the crowning irony of that absurd tenet of faith is that in addition to brothels on every street corner you get men who are butterflies and women who run the whole show!
The tenet of faith in American poetry is that the true poet is the product of not just higher but higher and higher and even higher “learning,” and that the more a poet pays (or gets paid) for it the more right he or she has to be called “successful,” and the final arbitrator in doctrinal disputes!
Anyone who suggests that the poets, critics, editors or publishers who are running this extravagant industry are self-interested, or even, God-forbid, in it for profit or life insurance, is considered not a real poet. Indeed, I myself have been mocked as a jealous “loser” a number of times, and dismissed as “the product of a willful misunderstanding of the process of editing and publishing poetry in America!”
And you know who used those specific words? A famous contemporary “poet” and “critic” who is also involved in the business of getting poets published. [click here]
And you know where she spoke those words? In Poets & Writers magazine, that bastion of our contemporary Faith in exactly what sort of training you need to get published in America today, plus the retreats, conferences, camps, travel groups, summers abroad in castles and wine tastings and weekends you have to attend– and what they cost!
But you say you think the son should at least wash the dishes before he goes out to the brothel at 14 with his father?
Just ask the mother for an answer to even that question. “You must be joking,” she’ll reply. “Any true mother would keep her daughter carefully cleaning as well as clean at home so she can attract a true man for a husband!”
Ask David Lehman about Stacey Harwood. Ask Stacey Harwood about Seth Abramson. Ask Joan Houlihan about me!
So that’s a problem, both for the sex where I live and for poetry in America.
Yes indeed, ‘tenets of faith’ always polarize, always lead to intolerance, always lead to abuse.
There’s nothing wrong with virginity per se, of course there isn’t, any more than there’s anything wrong with sex. But oh the heart-ache when too much stock is placed in either!
There’s nothing wrong with training poets either, even in castles, it’s just when you make a religion out of it, install priests at all the altars, and charge an entrance fee not only to get into church but heaven!
And, of course, excommunicate those who say it ain’t necessarily so or, God forbid, come up with some statistics that don’t quite fit in like Seth Abramson!
November 14, 2009 at 6:21 am (Alan Cordle, AWP, David Lehman, Foetry, Poets & Writers, Scarriet, Seth Abramson, Stacey Harwood)
Poets and Writers magazine published Seth Abramson’s (middle left) MFA program rankings in the last issue of 2009 [click here]. Stacey Harwood (bottom left), wife of Best American Poetry series editor, David Lehman (top left), wrote on the BAP blog that Abramson’s ratings are “based on bogus research methods. The author of the rankings has no credentials as a pollster.”
In the comments field she says, “we have received several comments from Mr. Abramson, which we cannot post not only because they are far too long but because they are inappropriate and defamatory.”
One wonders if the “inappropriate” comments mentioned that Lehman published Harwood as one of the best American poets without acknowledging their relationship.
AWP sided with Lehman and Harwood.
Now Seth Abramson’s blog is missing.
Luckily, I saved his response to Lehman, which reads in part,
Three years ago I objected (as an artist) to the editorial work of David Lehman on the Best American Poetry series on the grounds that habitually and indisputably publishing your friends, co-workers, students, assistants, and family members in a nationally-publicized, highly-selective annual anthology is not a creditable editorial policy per se–and is therefore an affront to art . . . more than two years ago–I became embroiled in a Wikipedia-editing debate with Mr. Lehman’s wife (Stacey Harwood) about whether the Wikipedia entry for Best American Poetry should acknowledge that, historically, the series has been criticized in the poetry community for cronyism.
November 5, 2009 at 9:47 pm (Alan Cordle, Blog:Harriet, Camille Paglia, Edgar Allan Poe, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Jorie Graham, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
Since Alan Cordle’s Foetry.com got major media attention and made Foetry a household word, a quiet revolution has taken place. Publishing and prizes are no longer assumed to be pure. The ‘Cred Game’ has been exposed.
Here’s a random example from the world of poetry bloggers: http://irasciblepoet.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-makes-me-want-to-vomit.html
From the list of 10 things that makes this poetry blogger “want to vomit:”
Vomit #4: I want to vomit when presses that are vanity exercises continue to publish their friends and exclude new voices.
We think it’s wonderful, thanks to Alan Cordle, that new understanding and outrage exists, but further education is needed.
What made Alan Cordle so dangerous and hated, was that he named names. He was not content to just bellyache. Foetry.com named, and brought low, big names, because, as more and more realize today, “vanity” in po-biz goes all the way to the top.
Big names intimidate, allowing foetic practice to continue where ‘the gods’ play.
But not everyone is intimidated by big names. And the word is getting out that Foetry did not begin with Jorie Graham. The word is getting out that many of the icons of Modernism–which so many people worship because they learned about them in school–were foetic frauds.
It takes critical acumen to detect foetry in history, foetry in the canon, and foetry in contemporary big names.
This is what Scarriet is here for.
All that juicy and critically acute stuff.
The poetry blog which I quoted at random is called ‘The Irascible Poet,” with the following quote on its masthead:
“I Have Never Met a Poet Worth A Damn that was Not Irascible” —Ezra Pound
Here’s what we mean by education. Our blogger needs to be educated. The foetic Modernists really brought very little new to the table that was not merely crackpot. We really hate to keep going back to Poe, and making this an issue of Pound v. Poe, but this did fall into our lap.
Before Pound recommended “the irascible poet,” Poe wrote the following:
That poets, including artists in general, are a genus irritable is well understood, but the why seems not to be commonly seen. An artist is an artist only by dint of his exquisite sense of Beauty – a sense affording him rapturous enjoyment, but at the same time implying, or involving, an equally exquisite sense of Deformity or disproportion. Thus a wrong – an injustice – done a poet who is really a poet, excites him to a degree which, to ordinary apprehension, appears disproportionate with the wrong. Poets see injustice – never where it does not exist – but very often where the unpoetic see no injustice whatever. Thus the poetical irritability has no reference to “temper” in the vulgar sense, but merely to a more than usual clear-sightedness in respect to Wrong, this clearsightedness being nothing more than a corollary from the vivid perception of Right, of justice, of proportion. But one thing is clear -–that the man who is not “irritable” is no poet.
This is from Poe’s Marginalia. Is it not a rapturous paean against foetry? And as we close this post, let us quote Poe again from his Marginalia, and this, too, could be a pledge against all foetic affliction.
Take heart, my friends!
Literature is the most noble of professions. In fact, it is about the only one fit for a man. For my own part, there is no seducing me from the path. I shall be a litterateur, at least, all my life; nor would I abandon the hopes which still lead me on for all the gold in California. Talking of gold, and of the temptations at present held out to “poor-devil authors,” did it ever strike you that all which is really valuable to a man of letters, to a poet especially, is absolutely unpurchaseable? Love, fame, the dominion of intellect, the consciousness of power, the thrilling sense of beauty, the free air of Heaven, exercise of body and mind, with the physical and moral health which result, these and such as these are really all that a poet cares for. Then answer me this: why should he go to California?
November 3, 2009 at 12:06 pm (Amelia Earhart, Barren Virgin, Bleeding Mother, Camille Paglia, Edgar Allan Poe, Foetry, Harold Bloom, Horror, John Keats, Monday Love, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Scarriet, Socrates, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
WHAT HAPPENED TO CAMILLE PAGLIA?
ALL communication is a warning.
The more articulate a person, the more they are experiencing what they are warning us about.
All information presupposes danger. The menu cries out against the horror of starvation–the diet warns of the menu. The chef who starves cooks best.
Priests are unable to warn directly, since the more articulate the priest, the more that priest personally knows the very sin against which their sermon is a warning.
The dilemma of the articulate priest is at the heart of all moral philosophy and its intellectual, political, cultural, and pedagogical conflicts.
Loyalty is the quality which attempts to stave off this conflict. Loyalty to group or tribe warns against the dilemma of the articulate priest. The truly articulate priest disrupts loyalty and its certainties; this is why prophets are hated in their own land.
Camille Paglia is an articulate priest who smashes loyalites. She offends all groups. All have reason to despise her: Democrats, Republicans, independents, feminists, conservatives, gays, Catholics, and scholars.
Paglia is the Barren Mother and the Breeding Virgin of intellectual culture.
She is a lustful Socrates, whose questing, intellectual advocacy is centered on ecstatic pleasures and sexual beauty–hers is a warning against what she, personally, has secretly suffered: chastity.
Obviously it’s nobody’s business how much someone gets laid, but my thesis is based on a guess that during Paglia’s development as a young person, she didn’t get laid. This was both her strength and her weakness.
Paglia fell in love at a very early age with Amelia Earhart’s lone flights—the poem “Alone” by Edgar Poe probably best sums up her soul. Paglia was a virgin during the 60s and adopted the brazen lesbian role as a graduate student to hide the shame of her uncool virginity.
Paglia, the scholar of sex, shone, as the scholar, herself, remained virginal, or, if not virginal, deeply ashamed of losing out to more successful schmoozers in sex and career.
The virgin is alone more profoundly when surrounded, and not barred from, sexual activity. For whatever reason, actual sex wasn’t a fit, so Paglia became an artistic fan of pornography—but not out of a feeling of deficiency, for she was an Amelia Earhart in her soul, flying above the boorish crowd.
We warn of what we know—the awed, hurting mind produces what the sensual, happy mind cannot.
Sexual Personae marked the start of a brilliant career. Her gadfly presence in magazines and the lecture circuit, in the wake of the success of her historical treatise, was truly exciting. But the promised second volume of Sexual Personae never arrived. Then she began to write on politics, speaking of presidents and secretaries of state as if she were making snarky judgments at a high school dance. It never quite rang true.
Paglia also boxed herself in as a hater of ‘French Theory;’ it was always obvious to me this prejudice of hers was linked to her mentor, Harold Bloom, who, like many academics, is explicitly pro-Emerson/anti-Poe, and this Anglophone school can never forgive the French for loving Poe.
Then she took five years to write Break, Blow, Burn, her book on poetry, a tepid close-reading exercise of some of her favorite poems.
How in the world did the author of Sexual Personae morph into Cleanth Brooks?
And five years…think of it. That’s the writing career of Keats, the recording career of the Beatles (almost), the entire career of the Doors, to take a few dozen short poems, many loved and adored since childhood, and riff on them…this took five years?
Couldn’t most of us do this in a week?
Paglia still blogs on Salon and most readers hate her; the consensus of Salon readers seems to be, I HATE THIS B***, FIRE HER!!!
Which is great. We at Scarriet understand. But what happened to you, Camille?
November 1, 2009 at 2:41 am (Alan Cordle, Annie Finch, Blog:Harriet, Catherine Halley, christopher woodman, Desmond Swords, Eileen Myles, Foetry, Kenneth Goldsmith, Martin Earl, Poetry Foundation, Scarriet, Thomas Brady, Travis Nichols, Uncategorized)
Today on Blog:Harriet, November 1st, 2009, marks The 60th day After the Banning of Thomas Brady, Desmond Swords, Alan Cordle and Christopher Woodman. To commemorate the occasion, we take the opportunity to examine the only thread in that period that has attracted more than a handful of desultory comments, and that is Kenneth Goldsmith’s rip-roaring, The Digerati Strike Back with a staggering 55 Comments!
But don’t expect much about poetry, as even the posters themselves acknowledge it’s just shoveling, and because they are Travis Nichols‘ friends and colleagues, they’re obviously proud just to snip, snap and snuggle. Because that’s how you comment if you’re really on the ‘in’ in the poetry establishment, unlike Thomas Brady, Desmond Swords or Christopher Woodman who actually read and write it, or Alan Cordle, so passionate and well-informed on the ethical and social issues, and a well-trained librarian.
But no passion please, we’re Blog:Harriet — no risk, no commitment, no challenge, no outrage or devotion, no Annie Finches, no Martin Earls, no Eileen Myles, no one who posts poems because they actually love them like Catherine Halley, or poets they would like to understand better like Joel Brouwer, and who give others both the space and the encouragement to explore difficult subjects in depth. Excellent Contributing Writers, and there are still some of those left, deserve better respondents — not just cynics and academics and a handful of groupies, insiders and glad-handers.
How sad, and nobody at The Foundation seems to care that Harriet is vacant. I guess that’s the way the Management likes it, though how that serves Ruth B. Lilly’s larger mission remains to be seen!
October 28, 2009 at 3:07 am ("Make it new", Alan Cordle, Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Desmond Swords, Edgar Allan Poe, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Modern Poetry, Poetry Foundation, Scarriet, Stephen Burt, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
I never had a chance to see your draft before you pulled it. Don’t be too self-critical — I sort of like it when we post a howler. It’s part of our style, isn’t it? I mean, we don’t even know what we’re going to post next ourselves!
I like the ‘LangPo v. Official Verse Culture’ just up because that’s IT in a nutshell for lots of poets these days. We’ve got to simplify it like that if we’re going to be popular at all. We’ve got to mine this whole Modernism thing–it’s pertinent, it’s relevant, it’s got legs, it’s known, it’s familiar to many, it’s sexy, and it’s Foetry-city, and it’s horribly sexist, in my opinion, and fascist, to boot, so if we can get people stirred up about it, we’ll have a huge audience.
I’m not a ‘knee-jerk’ leftist, Christopher; I like to think I transcend political labels, but right now I’ll do anything to get a discussion going. People who would otherwise be horrified at the true politics of the Modernists have given it a pass for the sake of ‘experimentalism’ and ‘aesthetic radicalism’ but I want to prove to the next generation of good people that we’ve been ‘had,’ and open up their eyes and tie it all into Foetics and then see where it leads, in a kind of Socratic manner: don’t know where the truth is exactly, but we’re looking for it…
You were at Cambridge, and I want to do an in-depth look at how American Modernism came out of the U.K. It’s really exciting…Bloomsbury and the Cambridge Apostles and the Aristotelian Society…all the New Critics were Rhodes Scholars, including Paul Engle…I’m sure the Plan was formulated in comfortable, cozy rooms above the green lawns of Cambridge University…some British Empire planner took a moment from his busy schedule of running the world…”Oh, what to do with Poetry? Well, let’s see…give me a moment…How about this and this and this?…very good, then!…carry on…”
So what was the Plan for Poetry? What is the Plan for everything? Consolidate power among elites, and I’m guessing the take-over works this way:
1. First, sow confusion in a ‘crisis’ atmosphere (Oh gosh what the hell is poetry, what is reality, anyway?)
2. Hand-pick those who are best equipped to respond to the ‘crisis’
3. Let these hand-picked be of two kinds: conservative and radical and let them feign disagreement while working towards the same end.
4. Stamp the hand-picked crisis-responders as the ‘new thing’ and have hand-picked associates in the press and in academia sound the alarm, but with grudging respect.
5. Relevance established, the ‘new thing’ is crowned savior and becomes the new status quo.
The whole thing ‘works’ precisely because the role of poetry no longer exists as poetry, but has been narrowed down into a kind of ‘movement’ which is ‘managed’ by a subsidized group; it is this ‘narrowing’ which provides the ‘energy’ that gains them advantage; they use poetry, instead of the other way around, they tie it into the current ‘crisis,’ and so the mere passive ‘appreciators of poetry’ don’t stand a chance–they’re slaughtered like cows.
I wanted to make this point to Des in our recent comments exchange on Scarriet. Destroying culture is like killing people. It’s serious business. Our mission to save poetry is not just about one’s individual right to write without criticism–it’s deeper than that
Alan’s got to be happy at how Scarriet is doing.
A poet friend of mine from Canada who I only talk to occasionally just sent me an enthusiastic message re: Scarriet. I’ll quote a part:
“Hi Tom, the Scarriet is amazing! we need something like this in Canada as its pretty lame here and no one is “kicking against the pricks” (sorry for my rather off colour language but this is an actual phrase that was popular in Canadian literary circles years ago) And I am not someone who can speak up unfortunately due to being shy! So congrats again on your feisty spirit and thats a lot of good work.”
Terreson & Gary are united by their ‘love of the earth’ which is OK, but it’s not finally interesting…eco-awareness has been played as much as it can possibly be played in the mainstream press, and now it’s become a matter of policy and implementation. Poets playing it up seems a little beside the point, like saying education matters…
October 26, 2009 at 11:09 am ("Make it new", Alan Cordle, Blog:Harriet, Charles Bernstein, David Ignatow, Delmore Scwartz, Don Share, Edgar Allan Poe, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Ford Maddox Ford, Fugitives, Gerald Stern, Harold Bloom, Helen Vendler, Iowa Writers Workshop, John Ashbery, Jorie Graham, Louis Simpson, Modern Poetry, Monday Love, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Poetry Foundation, Stephen Burt, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized, Wallace Stevens, Yvor Winters)
BAMA PANEL IV: SURVIVAL OF THE DIMMEST?
The Alabama Panel 25 years ago this month was essentially a high-brow rumble: LangPo taking on Official Verse Culture.
Two heavyweights of LangPo, 53 year old USC Comparative Lit. professor Marjorie Perloff and 34 year old L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E editor Charles Bernstein took on U.K. poet Louis Simpson, 61, former Nation poetry editor and Black Mountain associated poet, Denise Levertov, 60, David Ignatow, 70, poet and poetry editor of The Nation, Harvard professor Helen Vendler, 51, and Iowa Workshop poet Gerald Stern, 59.
Perloff and Bernstein were on friendly turf, however. 35 year old Hank Lazer, the ‘Bama professor host, was in Bernstein’s camp, as was 30 year old Gregory Jay, punk ‘Bama assistant professor.
Charles Altieri, 41, professor at U. Washington and recent Fellow at Institute for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto, ostensibly had a foot in each camp, but you could tell his heart was with Perloff and Bernstein. The match-up was actually 5-5, so LangPo should have counted itself fortunate.
Also at the table 25 years ago was the elder statesman, Kenneth Burke, 87, a coterie member of the original Modernists–winner of the annual Dial Magazine Award in 1928 (other winners of the Dial Award in the 1920s: T.S. Eliot in 1922 for ‘The Waste Land,’ Ezra Pound, WC Williams, E.E. Cummings, and Marianne Moore.) Burke, chums with figures such as Malcolm Cowley and Allen Tate, was an editor at The New Republic 1929-1944, a radical Marxist, and a symbolism expert–if such a thing is possible.
The poet Donald Hall had been invited and could not attend–submitting in writing for the conference his famous ‘McPoem’ critque of the Workshop culture.
We already looked at how Gerald Stern embarrassed Bernstein by asking him to ‘name names’ when Bernstein raised the issue at the 25 year old panel discussion of ‘poet policemen’ enforcing the dictates of ‘official verse culture’ and Bernstein only coming up with one name: T.S. Eliot.
Then we looked at Vendler asserting the crucial modernist division between timeless criticism and “abrasive” reviewing–with Simpson retorting this was nothing but a status quo gesture on Vendler’s part, with Vendler weakly replying she was fighting the status quo in working to make Wallace Stevens more appreciated. Then in Part III of this series, we saw how Levertov roared ‘you parochial fools are ignoring race/unprecedented crisis/human extinction.’
Levertov, taking a no-frills Leftist position, and Simpson, with his no-frills aesthetic of pre-interprative Vision, proved too much for the LangPo gang.
Levertov became incensed with professor Jay’s post-modern argument that human language and interpretation are at the heart of human experience: “Bullshit!” Levertov said. Levertov and Simpson (with Ignatow) argued for universal feeling as primary.
Levertov argued for universal access as the very nature of language; Perloff countered that a small group of people might find meaning in something else.
Louis Simpson came in for the kill, asking Perloff:
“Suppose you found some people who were using bad money and thought it was good money. Would you be mistaken to point out then it was all forged?”
The audience roared appreciatively with laughter.
Bernstein, with his training in analyitic philosophy, was shrewder, finally, than Perloff.
Rather than confront the dinosaur Levertorous head-on, the furry little Bernstith sniffed around and devoured her giant eggs:
Bernstein: “We’re not going to to resolve philosophical & theosophical, religious differences among us. Religious groups have these same disagreements. I think the problem I have is not so much understanding that people have a different veiwpoint than I have–believe me, I’ve been told that many times (laughter) and I accept that.”
Here’s the insidious nature of Bernstein’s Cambridge University training–he seeks disagreement as a happy result; he embraces difference as a positive quality in itself. Bernstein gives up on universals sought by pro and con argument. Now he continues:
“What I do find a problem is that we say ‘poets’ think this and ‘poets’ think that–because by doing that we tend to exclude the practices of other people in our society of divergence.”
What are these “practices of other people?” He doesn’t say. But we can imply that these “practices” are radically different and reconciliation is impossible. Now Bernstein goes on to make a stunning leap of logic:
“And I think it’s that practice that leads to the very deplorable situation that Denise Levertov raised: the exclusion of the many different types of communities and cultures from our multicultural diverse society, of which there is no encompassing center. My argument against a common voice is based on my idea that the idea of a common voice seems to me exclusion.”
Bernstein’s Orwellian thesis is that the One does not include the Many; the One is merely a subset of the Many. Bernstein rejects the universalizing social glue necessary for Levertov’s democratic commonwealth of social justice; Bernstein promotes inclusion while positing inclusion itself as exclusion(!). Multiculturalism interests Bernstein for its severing qualities–Bernstein wants to break but not build. Logically and politically, he is unsound, and later on in the discussion–after Vendler breaks from ‘official verse culture’ and goes over to Bernstein’s side (thus giving Langpo a numerical 6-4 victory) with her ‘poetry makes language opaque’ speech–Levertov strikes the following blow:
Bernstein: My poetry resists the tendencies within the culture as a whole. What poetry can do is make an intervention within our language practice in society.
Levertov: I disagree. Language is not your private property. Language has a common life.
October 24, 2009 at 1:52 am ("Make it new", Abigail Deutsch, Blog:Harriet, Charles Bernstein, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Helen Vendler, Marjorie Perloff, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, Stephen Burt, Uncategorized, Wallace Stevens, Yvor Winters)
October 21, 2009 at 12:51 pm (Annie Finch, Charles Bernstein, Foetry, Gerald Stern, Helen Vendler, Iowa Writers Workshop, Louis Simpson, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized, Wallace Stevens)
BAMA PANEL III: Indeed, Denise Levertov is increasingly appalled…
The third in a series of 5 articles on the 1984 University of Alabama Poetry Conference by THOMAS BRADY.
A perception of Wallace Stevens as participant in the “common life” was all Helen Vendler had in her defense against Louis Simpson’s charge that she (Helen Vendler) was a living embodiment of the staus quo. Vendler’s “aim in life,” she said, was to “change the status quo,” and the example she produced in Alabama that morning was that she was on a life-long quest to find some way to convince people that tubby Wallace Stevens was not a wealthy, racist snob who wrote show-offy, goofball verse. (Good luck with that, professor Vendler. You might want to check out William Logan’s review of the new ‘Selected Stevens’ in this month’s New Criterion.)
Charles Bernstein, with his back against the wall, finally…after a ‘Stern’ grilling…named… T.S Eliot.
Hendler Vendler…zonked by the poet Louis Simpson…attempted to save herself… with… Wallace Stevens.
Both Eliot and Stevens were students of the aesthetic philosopher George Santayana at Harvard.
Vendler was a full professor at Harvard.
Bernstein studied under Stanley Cavell at Harvard.
Denise Levertov, poetry editor for The Nation in the 1960s and Mother Jones in the 1970s, had heard enough. She exploded. She hit the ceiling. She yawped.
“I’m getting increasingly appalled…”
“OUR DISCUSSION KEEPS GETTING MORE AND MORE PROVINCIAL, PAROCHIAL…”
A feeling of shame moved through the panelists…
“WE KEEP IGNORING…”
“The Crimson began to turn red…”
“THERE IS A WHOLE BODY OF LITERATURE…”
Sweat trickling down the faces of every professor in the room…
“VERY EXCITING LITERATURE…”
Panelists frozen in horror…
“DEVELOPING AND BEGINNING TO FLOURISH WILDLY AND WONDERFULLY…”
“Wildly and wonderfully?” Denise, get this over with! Kill us now!
The panelists and the audience (all white) were suddenly drained of color.
“AND CHICANO POETS.”
Damn! Not Chicano poets, too!
(Maybe she said Chicago poets! no…no…Chicano poets. We’re cooked.)
Denise Levertov wasn’t finished.
The panelists didn’t move.
“All this is totally ignored and perhaps even more important…”
No one breathed. Not even Louis Simpson, the WW II vet, batted an eyelash…
“we are talking away here…talking about prizes and naming names…”
Bernstein and Stern looked at the floor…Vendler began to chew on her lip…
“and all this is absolutely parochial irrelevancy and IGNORES THE FACT…”
The panelists, one by one, began to slowly hide under the table…
“THAT AS A SPECIES WE ARE STANDING ON THE VERY BRINK OF EXTINCTION…”
Vendler, under the table, drank a glass of water very fast…
“THAT WE LIVE IN A TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS.”
Louis Simspon, WW II vet, is now weeping into Vendler’s shoes…
I MEAN…TALK ABOUT FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS!!
It brings the house down. Furious applause. Papers, books, flying everywhere. Spontaneous suicides.
Alabama has never seen anything like this.
End of Part III.
Part IV will examine everything else you’ve wanted to know about how American poetry got to be where it is but didn’t know how or what to ask.
STAY VERY FINELY TUNED…
October 20, 2009 at 2:19 pm (Annie Finch, Charles Bernstein, David Ignatow, Delmore Scwartz, Foetry, Gerald Stern, Helen Vendler, Iowa Writers Workshop, Jorie Graham, Louis Simpson, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized, Wallace Stevens)
BAMA PANEL II: Foetry covered up in leaves, Vendler style.
The second in a series of 5 articles on the 1984 University of Alabama Poetry Conference by THOMAS BRADY.
..Helen Vendler,…………Louis Simpson,…….Simpson, Vendler and Bernstein
There were more fireworks at Hank Lazer’s 1984 Tuscaloosa Conference.
The distinguished poet Louis Simpson, steely, feet-on-the-ground, World War Two veteran, rebuked panelist Helen Vendler’s attempt to take the high road above the foetic mire.
Simpson to Vendler: “The status quo. If the establishment ever spoke, it would say exactly, I’m sorry, what you just said.”
What did Vendler say to elicit this response?
Vendler was obviously taken aback by Simpson’s remark. She had just addressed what she termed the panel’s “ill feelings” (especially those of Bernstein’s) with a long speech.
Simpson’s reply must have felt like a slap in the face.
The distinguished poet Louis Simpson was like knight royal at the conference; he was the only male U.K. member, rather elderly, and he was also the best poet there.
In her speech, Vendler, the plumpish bird of Keats/Stevens plumage, played her ‘Tenured Queen of the Criticism Priesthood’ card, obviously an attempt to 1) restore order to the proceedings, 2) give dignity to the proceedings, 3) soothe hurt feelings as a mother might and 4) impress everyone.
Simpson’s remark was so wounding that all Helen of Harvard could make in the way of reply was that she had worked hard all her life to make people realize Wallace Stevens was no snob, but a real man, and…and…if that wasn’t using the High Road of Criticism to challenge the status quo, then, what was?
Simpson, silent and unmoved, must have thought to himself, ‘Wallace Stevens? Is that all you’ve got?’
All Bernstein had was T.S. Eliot.
Now all Vendler had was Wallace Stevens.
O O O O that Official Verse Culture-
It’s so elegant
Vendler began her speech by juxtaposing the practice of high and beautiful Criticism with the practice of low and necessary Reviewing.
Contemporary reviewing, like the game of love, was bound to make people unhappy; rejected by a lover because you are not a beautiful blonde, rejected by a tenure committee because you are not Helen Vendler, rejected by a prize committee because you are not Jorie Graham, are just parts of life and it’s best not to nurse grudges and throw stones at tenure committees and call them old fogies because, dear Charles, you just have to be patient, OK, sweetie? What really matters is how we feel about the dead, with all personal jealousies and animosties removed, time and death fostering a love of what is true.
Foetry covered up in leaves, Vendler style.
“When we are all safely dead…”
“Temporary abrasiveness between prize committees & reviewers and the poets they’re judging or giving prizes to shouldn’t be confused with differences between poetry & criticism.”
Ah, but Helen, this sort of abrasiveness isn’t temporary.
It lasts forever.
One can hear the anger even in the playing of that blue guitar.
Vendler: “Milton cannot feel bad that Dr. Johnson didn’t think well of his poem, ‘Lycidas.'”
Stern: “He’s furious.”
End of Part II.
Part III will deal with multicultural wrath in Alabama.
Sound good? STAY EVEN MORE TUNED…
October 19, 2009 at 12:40 pm (Alan Cordle, Annie Finch, Charles Bernstein, David Ignatow, Foetry, Gerald Stern, Helen Vendler, Iowa Writers Workshop, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
BAMA PANEL I: Charles Bernstein does NOT name the ‘Official Poetry Policemen.’
The first in a series of 5 articles on the 1984 University of Alabama Poetry Conference by THOMAS BRADY.
Charles Bernstein, Gerald Stern, and T.S.Eliot.
Gerald Stern: “Names…of the policemen.”
If this October 20, 1984 panel discussion had taken place in London or Paris, or one of America’s major universities, it might have struck a mythic chord in American Letters. If poetry mattered more to the American public, we might still be discussing the poetry session which took place 25 years ago this month.
Helen Vendler, Marjorie Perloff, Charles Bernstein, Denise Levertov, Kenneth Burke, Louis Simpson, David Ignatow and Gerald Stern put on a show in sleepy Tuscaloosa, as post-modernism faced off against modernism in a throat-ripping dog fight
Modern poetry’s factions exploded in the flesh, as po-biz insiders erupted in a spontaneous public quarrel.
The more dignified members of the panel probably regret their trip to U. Alabama in those controversial days of the 1980s culture wars. I’m guessing most of the participants would prefer this conference be forgotten, but we at Scarriet would hate to miss an opportunity to see big players like Helen (of Coy) Vendler and (Prince) Charles Bernstein naked.
We want to thank Annie Finch for finding the transcript of the panel discussion–we would have missed it otherwise.
Scarriet will do a series of posts on the ‘Bama Panel, as we observe its 25th anniversary. There’s too much great stuff here for just one post.
So here we are back in 1984. When asked a bland question by the conference host:
“What do you perceive the function of poetry to be, Charles?”
Bernstein, the unemployed ex-editor of the magazine, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, quickly got himself in a foetic tangle:
“[it] has to do with audiences, distribution, jobs, professional networks, things like that, which I think we tend to underrate. It seems interesting to me that professional academic poets are making this particular issue apparent in this context…”
“I think it’s unfair not to realize that it’s actually poets who are the policemen of official verse culture in the United States. And so from the perspective of a poet outside the academy and from the perspective of many people that I know who are not associated with academics, cannot get teaching jobs…”
Iowa Poetry Workshop teacher and poet Gerald Stern broke in:
“I don’t think you’re right, Charles. Who? What poets are the policemen? Would you like to name some poets who are the policemen?”
This was the defining moment of Bernstein’s career. Had Bernstein “named names,” backing up his claim that ‘policemen poets’ were oppressively enforcing ‘official verse culture,’ he might never have found a job in academia.
Bernstein replied, “Yeah, I’ll give you a group, I’ll give you a group.”
Stern was a bulldog. He would not let the matter drop.
“Names…of the policemen.”
Bernstein: I’ll give you a group. You want me to? No, I’m not going to, I’m going to give you institutional groups, I’m going to say those poets, those poets who…
Stern: I’ve got the names of thirty-seven hard, fast Communists in the State Department…McCarthy never named one…
Hank Lazer, ‘Bama host, and friend of Bernstein, attempted to smooth things over by leading the discussion back to the ‘function of poetry’ question. Lazer must have been thinking: ‘My conference is going to destroy the career of my friend!’
But Stern wouldn’t quit: “Would you tell me who the policemen are, please, Charles? Would you give me a list of names?”
Bernstein answered foetically: “Yeah, I’m talking about those poets who are involved in the award networks, the creative writing programs, and the major reviews.”
Charles Bernstein was explicitly talking foetry 20 years before Cordle and Foetry.com.
The only difference between Cordle and Bernstein was Bernstein was not naming names–and not naming names was, to the poet Gerald Stern, an even worse McCarthyist offense.
Stern had won the Lamont Poetry Selection 7 years prior, when Stern was 52: judges Alan Dugan, Phil Levine, and Charles Wright. Doors had obviously opened for Stern since then, leading to his job at Iowa, and his invitation to this conference.
Did Stern think Bernstein was going to name Dugan, Levine, and Wright? Who did Stern think Bernstein was going to name? Who did Bernstein have in mind back there in 1984?
In the end, after more McCarthyism talk from Stern, Bernstein saved his career and meekly mentioned one poet, a dead one:
Bernstein used another dead poet to save himself:
“I would give you as a central instance the person that William Carlos Williams called the great disaster for our letters, T.S. Eliot…”
Bernstein made a non-answer.
Eliot’s “officalizing role” as a poet is a truism.
Everyone knows Williams and Eliot shared many mutual friends, including Pound. Williams and Eliot both gained credentials by their accentuated differences: Williams’ obscure career was made to seem more ‘popularly American,’ while Eliot was assured high-brow points in the comparison to the Jersey scribbler. The whole matter is the very opposite of the played-out platitude in the po-biz press. Rather than shedding crocodile tears for Williams, was Bernstein instead playing on the opposition between revolutionary secular Jew and conservative Christian? This is more likely.
To the Eliot v. Willams charade, Ignatow said, “You’re right there.”
Bernstein: “Thank you.”
End of Part I.
Part II will examine Helen Vendler’s role in the same 1984 panel.
October 17, 2009 at 1:15 am (Alan Cordle, Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Desmond Swords, Foetry, John S. O'Connor, Poetry Foundation, Thomas Brady, Travis Nichols, Uncategorized)
CLICK HERE to continue reading John S. O’Connor’s fine article, “The Tree Inside My Head” — I chose it to illustrate my point because it is so direct yet sensitive and subtle, and I thank him for it:
CLICK HERE to continue reading Travis Nichols’ ill-conceived and boorish “Like/Dislike” presentation;
CLICK HERE to open Alan Cordle’s Comment to see what he said that got -67 Red votes;
CLICK HERE to read Christopher Woodman’s final comment on the Like/Dislike thread and to see how many votes his proposal actually got! (I mean, if you had read that plea, would you have passed it by in silence? And should I have been banned for that sort of writing and attitude?
Do you think I look frightening like a Mexican? Do my metaphors threaten to cut Travis Nichols’ grass or to wash his car? Does my language threaten his English Literature establishment?
Well of course it does, all of the above, but do you not think Harriet is the healthier for it?
Finally, do you think Martin Earl, Annie Finch, Joel Brouwer, and Eileen Myles, such wonderful Contributing Writers, felt limited by my presence? Did they feel cramped or threatened by my contributions? Did they feel the management needed to put me on censorship for almost 2 months and then to banish me altogether?)
CLICK HERE to go to The Poetry Foundation Contact Page to register your dissatisfaction with Blog:Harriet’s discriminatory policies and editorial mismanagement.
October 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm ("Make it new", Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Colrain Manuscript Conferences, Delmore Scwartz, Ezra Pound, Foetry, Fugitives, Joan Houlihan, Jorie Graham, Modern Poetry, Scarriet, T.S.Eliot, Thomas Brady, Uncategorized)
Christopher, I remember how you tried to reach out to Joan Houlihan, how you even tried to join one of her Colrain Manuscript Conferences and talked about how you would like to have a coffee with her, that you were sure you would in fact find you had lots in common. But you forget how vindictive she remains, aloof, a figure, lurking, ice-cold in her sad attempt at superiority–a coverup for plain old insecurity and fear — reminding us of the nasty state of current American poetry, where all poets are essentially alone, moving in a miasma of cred-hunting, ego, and truism shaped by facile modernist scholarship.
Delmore Schwartz, who traveled on the edges of the “in” circle of the mid-century modernist revolution, but was finally too sensitive to fit, published an essay in The Kenyon Review in 1942 which reveals the terrifying Foetic state of American poetry–see how the curtain slips, and for a moment in Schwartz’s essay in John Crowe Ransom’s magazine, we see the true horror:
“He [the modern poet] does feel he is a stranger [Schwartz had just quoted Baudelaire’s poem ‘The Stranger’], an alien, an outsider; he finds himself without a father or mother, or he is separated from them by the opposition between his values as an artist and their values as respectable members of modern society. This opposition cannot be avoided because not a government subsidy, nor yearly prizes, nor a national academy can disguise the fact that there is no genuine place for the poet in modern life. He has no country, no community, insofar as he is a poet, and his greatest enemy is money, since poetry does not yield him a livelihood.”
I’m not saying there is not a trace of paranoid, Baudelarian, self-pity going on here, and Schwartz’s personal disintegration was due not a little to this bathos, but there, is, in fact an ‘objective correlative,’ the Foetic fact, the ‘government subsidy, the yearly prizes, the national academy,’ trying to ‘disguise’ the truth, and of course what Schwartz meant by this was the ‘cred hustle’ which he obviously felt as early as 1942. This is more proof that Foetry did not begin with Jorie Graham. It was going on in the world of John Crowe Ransom, Ezra Pound, and T.S. Eliot.
October 16, 2009 at 5:53 am (Academy of American Poetry, Alan Cordle, Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Desmond Swords, Foetry, Poetry Foundation, Poets.org, Pw.org, Scarriet, Thomas Brady, TomWest, Travis Nichols, Uncategorized)
Click Here to continue reading this GUARDIAN article.
Why are we doing this? Is this just more watchdog barking, is this just Foetry II? Indeed, what do we hope to achieve on Scarriet?
Because it comes at a price, this work of ours, and if you read the comments following the last article just below you can see how much. Desmond Swords is ready to move on because he feels we’ve achieved a lot, and isn’t willing to limit his own huge creativity to such a parochial little struggle. Tom and I are veterans, on the other hand, we’ve been banned from Poets & Writers, The Academy of American Poets, and now The Poetry Foundation, so we’re running out of legitimate space to write in as legitimate travellers. I mean, we’re writers, not Black Panthers — and if you don’t understand how depriving creative people of their voices creates that sort of nightmare, you know nothing about the history of protest. Nor how tragic it can be, and particularly for those who have the gifts to be heard — how that hurts, how that rankles and drives them on!
The previous article just below, The State of the Onion, was posted to help anyone who cared to re-examine what happened last year on Poets.org, and we may or may not choose to comment on that ourselves. We’ll see. But whether we do or not, it’s up to all of you to decide about each one of us individually, and add your voices to ours if you feel what we’re saying deserves to be heard.
As to myself, do you feel I’m a libellous cad whom any self-respecting on-line venue ought to shun, indeed worse than Jack Conway [Lola] — as Kaltica [Pirvaya] suggested? [click here — passim] Or am I simply uncontrollable in any other way than banning. Is that why the lights went out for me so quickly on Blog:Harriet? I mean, I was placed in the hands of the Foundation Censor way back on July 14th, just days after the Like/Dislike function was introduced, and Thomas Brady, who writes twice as much as I do, and is far more influential, survived until September 1st!
And just look at those accusations levelled at me — yes, yet again that I wrote “abusive letters to the staff” and “hi-jacked threads,” exactly the same accusations as Chrissiekl, the Site Administator at Poets.org, had levelled at me the year before — even though Kaltica admitted it was really because I spoke about people who “weren’t there.” [click here —passim]
So who were those people, and why couldn’t the Academy Administrator just ban me for libel? I mean, that’s clear, isn’t it, if I attack others in a groundless slur, the Academy just steps in to protect them? So why was I dismissed for writing abusive letters to the staff instead of for libel? Why the smoke screen?
Was it that my remarks were already well-established in the public domain, that I was referring to material that had already been published in Poets & Writers, for example, that everybody knew what I was talking about but that the individuals involved still had enough clout on the inside to hush me up? [click here]
Copycat or what, “abusive letters” and “hi-jacking?” I mean, everybody knew there were no abusive letters at all on either venue, and none has ever surfaced, or ever will. And there are no hi-jacked threads either. Or is there something else, perhaps “clique and manipulation” as John Sutherland calls it in The Guardian article. And if so, what are those towering pillars of the poetry establishment going to do about it? Because Scarriet has no bones to pick with The Poetry Foundation or with The Academy — except that both seem to turn a blind eye when special interests are so obviously able to manipulate some of their employees’ editorial decisions, and that’s where it matters!
So where does that buck stop?
October 12, 2009 at 4:00 pm (Academy of American Poetry, Alan Cordle, Amber Tamblyn, Blog:Harriet, christopher woodman, Foetry, Poetry Foundation, Travis Nichols, Uncategorized)
Alan ‘Foet-eyes’ Cordle
You all know by now about my little incident with the Poetry Foundation. In addition to deletion of politely written and signed posts by me at Harriet, a staffer banned several other posters, without explanation, and finally trolled my personal site, searching for my name, along with the words “dumbshit” and “asshole.”
One suspect, Travis Nichols, has more reason to hide his tracks than the second. The second suspect turned our inquiry about Harriet policy into his own little pity party. Reluctantly, I took his name off of my blog . . . for now. If he’s truly not involved with what happened, he should have, at the very least, advocated for us. As far as I know, he didn’t. Not all librarians are proponents of free speech.
I’d admired Poetry (the paper version) for its willingness to print negative reviews and dissenting views. Harriet is the party-line opposite, the super-suck-up-fest. And it’s dying. I mean, come on . . . Amber? Shall they invite poets Leonard Nimoy and Ally Sheedy to guest blog too?
It’s no surprise that Scarriet‘s been getting substantial traffic since its launch. It’s even less of a surprise that the Poetry Foundation person is monitoring our every move. As you can see below, on October 8 he visited my personal blog, and bungled his effort to mask his identity with a web-based proxy called “hide my ass.” Sorry dude, it didn’t.