Earl Gray

Earl Gray
"You can argue with me but, in the end, you'll have to face that fact that you're arguing with a squirrel." - Earl Gray
Showing posts with label Mark Edmundson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Edmundson. Show all posts

Monday, September 9, 2013

Competence?

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #71
     In his September 6th, 2013 Chicago Tribune article, "Where competency ends, poetry begins", Michael Robbins mentions how only 1% of the Chicago Review's poems come from unsolicited submissions.  This preamble was hardly the point of the article but it did raise a few eyebrows...and a few hackles, since it suggests that 99% of the final product was solicited.  While that may be higher than the norm, most objections came from those who have never glimpsed the horrors of a slush pile--at least not Chicago Review's slush pile.  It is the flip side of the Watermelon Problem:  what do you, as an editor, do if you don't receive enough memorable poems?

    Why, you go out and acquire them, of course!

Armin Shimerman plays "Quark"
     If poetry is about poets, as the print world insists, you approach producers:  recognized poets.  This makes perfect sense.  In theory.  In practice, it results in a lot of "New Yorker"¹ poems  and the dull homogeny of a clique.

     If poetry is about poems you seek out specific recommendations from consumers:  critics, bird dogs and readers.  This approach gives us eclectic sources like The Hypertexts.  Editors might be surprised to hear how many interesting poems people have encountered in workshops, open mics or elsewhere. How can it hurt to ask your readership for tips?  To paraphrase Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #111"Treat subscribers like family.  Exploit them."

     I enjoyed Michael's article.  However, it seems that Mr. Robbins and I have very different definitions of competence.  For example, regarding "Apple Slices" he writes:

"Now, this is crushingly banal (and, at the end, questionably grammatical). It's not just that this scene of adolescent wholesomeness is textbook workshop pablum, but that it has been platitudinized. It's trite and conservative.

"But it's eminently competent."

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #11
     Yes and no.  As an exercise in sonics it is downright excellent.  It fails as a poem because, in addition to imagination, it lacks everything else we might hope to see in free verse, starting with thoughtful linebreaks.  Shouldn't competence include more than assonance, spellchecking and an overactive ENTER key?

     Then there is this:

     "The merely competent should study Mlinko's work with envy."

     I appreciate the bold statement.  In my time I may have made a few, myself.  The problem is that this sample illustrates what Michael is bemoaning, not what he is championing: 

You never hear of Ixion, tied to a revolving wheel,
but it's an axiom that, sooner or later, a hurricane'll hit here.

     Before we pursue that, though, we must make the same detour Mr. Robbins did in considering Mark Edmundson's "Poetry Slam" article in Harper's Magazine:

Mark Edmundson "Contemporary American poetry speaks its own confined language, not ours. It is, by and large, pure. It does not generally traffic in the icons of pop culture; it doesn't immerse itself in ad-speak, rock lyrics, or politicians' posturing: it gravitates to the obscure, the recondite, the precious, the ancient, trying to get outside the mash of culture that surrounds it."

Michael Robbins "This is just not true..."

     "Not true?"  The Ange Mlinko excerpt was not obscure?  Not recondite?  Exactly how many anglophones do we think will know who Ixion was?  Greek mythology isn't ancient and "outside the mash of culture" here in North America?  What could be more precious than speaking of Ixion using quaint contractions, the last of which breaks voice and rhythm?

     In an era when few MFAs grads know whether "Prufrock" is verse or free verse competence is a far greater and rarer accomplishment than some seem to think.



Footnotes:

¹ - "New Yorker" poems = throwaway poems by celebrated poets.



    Your feedback is appreciated!

    Please take a moment to comment or ask questions below or, failing that, mark the post as "funny", "interesting", "silly" or "dull".  Also, feel free to expand this conversation by linking to it on Twitter or Facebook.  Please let us know if you've included us on your blogroll so that we can reciprocate.

    If you would like to contact us confidentially or blog here as "Gray for a Day" please use the box below, marking your post as "Private" and including your email address;  the moderator will bring your post to our attention and prevent it from appearing publicly.

    We look forward to hearing from you.



Sunday, June 30, 2013

"Why is modern poetry so bad?" - Part IV

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #51
     The cheerleading in opposition to "Why is modern poetry so bad?" and the underlying Harper's article, "Poetry Slam, or, The Decline of American Verse", has become more exuberant, as evidenced by copious blurbs like Katy Waldman's "Who Are You Calling Opaque?".  In fact, even the froth itself is spouting foam, as demonstrated so blatantly in Michael Theune's review, "Critical Alchemy: On Seth Abramson's 'The Golden Age of American Poetry Is Now'".  One wonders when this "Golden Age" will produce a single line of verse recognized by a sizeable subset (10%?) of poets, let alone the public.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #35
    At the heart of the "Why is modern poetry so bad?" "debate" is a fundamental flaw in logic.  Even if Mark Edmundson could prove that every poet he lists, along with all of those mentioned by his detractors, is the second coming of William McGonagall it still wouldn't touch on the quality of contemporary verse.  What does?  The fact that no one listens to it.  If a team hasn't won a game and the league hasn't sold out a section, let alone a stadium, in fifty years how productive is it to argue about who is the greatest failure?  When I say that no contemporary poet or publisher has done what Dylan Thomas and T. S. Eliot did in creating widely recognized verses I'm not talking about degrees;  today's poets haven't done it at all.  Not one poem.  Not one performance gone viral on YouTube.

    All of this luscious fruit is dying on the vine.

    Worse yet, many of the avenues have closed:  newspapers (online or print), television, and magazines no longer show much interest in poetry.  The circulation of the most successful poetry magazine adds up to about 1/400th of the English language poets in the world.  Prospects are remote for us ever being able to discuss an unincluded poem with our friends, as we can a news event, favorite song, movie or television show.

    "Hey, did you see the Red Wedding on 'Game of Thrones'?"

    "Sure did."

     Start of conversation.

    "Hey, did you read "Auditing the Heart" in Rattle or see it on Vimeo or YouTube?"

    "Nope." 

     End of conversation.

Auditing The Heart (by Frank Matagrano) from Earl Gray on Vimeo.


    Even stalwarts like humor and nursery rhymes are in decline.

Earl the Squirrel's Rule #57
    At this point you are probably thinking that the situation couldn't get worse.  After all, nothing could be more devastating than a 0% success rate over half a century, right?

    Not so fast, Kowalski!

    I have news that is substantially more catastrophic than anything you've read so far.

    It isn't just the "Prufrocks", "Red Wheelbarrows" and "In a Station of the Metros" of today that are being ignored (assuming they're being produced).  Everyone is also overlooking today's "In Flanders Fields", "High Flight" and "Trees".  We have no Edgar Guests.  You see, it's all poetry that has died, literary and popular (or, if you must, good and bad).

    Put another way, if the Mary Olivers, Amiri Barakas and Carol Ann Duffys of this world can't give us a broadly recognized poem, good or bad, what chance is there for a Derek Alton Walcott, Seamus Heaney or Margaret Ann Griffiths?

    "It seems the canaries are dead, too."