The Three Dimensions of Poetry

     In my previous post I asked: "What is your impression of this?"

     If you would like to comment on this video please go to that blog post and do so now. Your response will be appreciated. In any event, I invite you to view the piece and formulate an opinion of it before scrolling further.

---

     The responses here, on social networks and in my own live surveys have been mostly negative. What is more telling, though, is how the remarks have reflected which poetry dimension that critic claims as his or her own. Commenters ignored aspects of the presentation that were not definitive to their realm. To wit:


The First Dimension

Dennis Hammes

     Chances are, the poets you know reside in the Print and/or Pixel World, the latter of which is divided into Usenetters and Webbers. For North Americans, at least, knowing names such as Christian Wiman or Marjorie Perloff identifies you as being from or familiar with the Print World. Similarly, if you know who Dennis Hammes was you can count yourself a Usenetter. Familiary with Margaret A. Griffiths or Jaimes Alsop during their lifetimes would qualify you as a Web poet.

     Taken together, these worlds form the Text dimension, relying as it does on the written word. This reality involves books, magazines and webzines. Performance is limited to a poet giving a reading from a written text.

     As an example of a Text poet commenting exclusively on the text, one Usenetter remarked on a friend's Facebook page:

     "I tell you when I heard 'swallowing the electricity of our lives' my mind went to sleep..."



The Second Dimension

     Performing poets are not merely a separate community that rarely interacts with text poets. They are a different species entirely, one with few if any icons. Open mics, slams and spoken word or performance events are not their venues, they are their media. Even the physics of their environment differ: poetry is seen by text fans, heard by performance afficionados.

     For better or worse and for what little it matters, the performance world has won the battle for the public's attention.  Witness the parody, Tom Hanks Performs Slam Poem About "Full House" (Jimmy Fallon):

     In commenting on Michael Lee's "Pass On" Performing poets invariably focused on the narrator's performance: tone, timing, gestures, etc. "Danish Dog", a rare crossover, was the only respondent to mention both dimensions:  

Text:  "I found the content banal and over-sentimental bordering on cliché."

 Performance: "I found the presentation melodramatic bordering on the hysterical..."


 The Third Dimension


     Once we have our text and can perform it we need to produce it, as with pictures, still or moving, and, perhaps, other effects. It can be a narrative with or without a visible narrator. It can be a documentary or the poetry equivalent of a music video.  It should probably be something more than a performer at a microphone.  Above all, we have to be able to watch it.

      "Pass On" by Michael Lee is a peek at poetry's future. At the same time, it is everything its critics say it is: crude in design and execution.

      Prototypes always are.

---

Next: Poetry 'n Politics

---

What is your impression of this presentation?

"Pass On" by Michael Lee

Apples and Orange Juice

Willard Spiegelman

     The story begins innocently enough.  Southern Methodist University English Professor and Southwest Review editor in chief Willard Spiegelman published a fluff piece, "Has Poetry Changed? The View From the Editor's Desk", in Virginia Quarterly Review.

      Naturally, it contained nothing of note except for a peculiar view of this medium.  Under the subheading "The State of American Poetry" Mr. Spiegelman wrote:

---

One earnest woman raised her hand. "Don’t you think that the Internet is a wonderful thing, because it allows more voices to be heard?" she asked hopefully.

"Not at all," I shot back. First of all, there are too many voices. Dr. Johnson complained more than two centuries ago that more people were writing than reading. And, besides, I retorted, "How much time do you spend reading the work of other poets you find on websites, rather than reading your own postings there?" She sat down, saddened and abashed. I did not mean to offend, but rather to make some obvious points.

---

     I would encourage Mr. Spiegelman to compare the sales of VQR to the hit counts on a popular webzine.  Even accounting for looky loos and repeaters, common sense dictates that the economy and convenience of online writing leads to greater readership.  I invite you to put this to the test:  send emails to half your friends encouraging them to buy a magazine in order to read an article.  Provide an online link to the other half.  See who bothers to read the underlying piece.  Thus, the dilemma of insufficient numbers of readers is far more acute in the print rather than the pixel media.  In short, that "earnest woman" was correct.

     The treatise rambles on anecdotally without ever touching on its theme:  changes in published poetry.  End of non-event, right?

     Not quite.

William Childress

     Enter William Childress with "Is Free Verse Killing Poetry?"

     If you've been reading this blog for a while your problems begin with the first word in the title.  "Is...Killing Poetry"?  This "news" comes (2012-1922=) 90 years--and counting--too late.  As you know, poetry received a mortal blow when the first note was sent out over public radio.  This is but one of many ironies:  poetry died not for lack of metered poetry (as Mr. Childress argues) but for a glut of it [in music].  The popularity of song, not of vers libre, supplanted that of poetry.  As I've pointed out many times here, the average person today can sing along to thousands of contemporary tunes but cannot cite a single line of poetry written in the last half century.

        A cynic might say of these two men's theses:  "No one can kill a corpse.  Of course poetry has changed.  It's decomposing."

     The examples Mr. Childress chose don't help his case.  As "Jason" points out in the comments section, the free verse example is, in fact, iambic trimeter.  The sample from  "Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter" is non-descript.  That both he and Mr. Spiegelman say they "don’t read much modern poetry" inspires no confidence.

     "Who determines what’s poetry and what’s not?" Mr. Childress asks.

     The audience, of course!

      Oh, wait...

      "Poetry needs readers, not writers," he continues, "but how many poets read any poetry but their own?"

      This is a non sequitur.  Yes, poetry needs readers as opposed to writers, so what does it matter what writers read?

      I can't address his comments about Poetry magazine beyond confessing that, despite Christian Wiman's statements, if Poetry publishes significantly more verse than other print outlets it has escaped my notice.

      After blasting blurbing--a target that never goes out of season around here--he lurches into Content Regent territory, implying that poets have an obligation to agree on and champion political causes.

      He finishes on an interesting note, albeit one that I would [and] have expressed differently.  The dominance of any single form (of which free verse is but one) during an era is limiting.  If 95% of the turn-of-the-17th-century poems were sonnets we might never have seen Shakespeare's dramatic poetry.  And vice versa.

      While I am naturally inclined to agree with much of his argument, as sloppily as it is presented, I cannot shake the feeling that Mr. Childress is comparing apples and orange juice.  While they share the same obscurity, poetry written for a non-existent public audience and that written for an indifferent literary reader are two entirely different art forms existing in two entirely different containers.

---

Entertaining Boredom

Earl the Squirrel's 25th Law

"Leave it all and like a man,
come back to nothing special,
such as waiting rooms and ticket lines,
silver bullet suicides,
messianic ocean tides,
racial roller-coaster rides
and other forms of boredom advertised as poetry."

   - Leonard Cohen, "Field Commander Cohen"

---

Boredom

    What is more boring than watching paint dry?
   

Alexander Fleming

Watching mold grow.  Nevertheless, that is precisely how Alexander Fleming developed penicillin.

    Who among us hasn't attended a dull performance, let our minds wander, and come up with a fruitful idea?  Okay, our brilliancies don't necessarily change the world the way wonder drugs did but their source is often no more exciting than [Archimedes] watching bath water rise.  A hundred attendees at a mordant council meeting can, depending on their occupations or interests, ponder a hundred problems ranging from mathematics or clothing design to plumbing or beating a Tampa-2 defense.  As the performer prattles on and we float in our mental miasma, random juxtapositions conjure strange analogies and metaphors, provoking lateral thought.  I'm told the Four Point Principle was created while the innovator was trying to avoid listening to an ear-gouging rendition of "Four Strong Winds" (not this one, certainly).  Speaking for myself, I came up with my most successful thesis while watching--or not watching, really--a television show so vacuous I refuse to divulge its name.

    Without unbearable reality television, the neighbors' holiday slides, our niece's school play, senseless lyrics on the radio, information overload and serendipity human progress might come to a standstill.

     You cannot live forever but if you want it to seem so watch a lot of C-Span.  Ignore those rumors about it permanently lowering your metabolism. 

    Currently, then, the poetry reading serves as a cornucopia of boredom--a vital if common resource.  Nota bene:  a performance doesn't have to be remotely competent or interesting in order to inspire great thoughts or accomplishments.  Indeed, a terrible product can be more inspirational and influential than a classic;  the viewer sees a mess and says:  "Hell, even I could do better than that!"  And they're often right!

    The challenge is to either synthesize the byproduct (creativity) without being forced to undergo the treatment (boredom) or to find a more palatable treatment.  For example, if worried about rickets would you rather take cod liver oil or a vacation in sunny Rio de Janeiro?

Enter Entertainment
   

Max (Kat Dennings) and Caroline (Beth Behrs)

For fans, sitcoms such as "Two Broke Girls" or "Mike and Molly" can provide welcome "veggie time":  half an hour of freedom from our worries and obsessions.  While tedium slows time to a crawl entertainment causes it to blur past.  None of us glanced at our watches the first time we watched "Star Wars" or "Casablanca".  In every sense, then, entertainment is the antipodal opposite of the typical poetry reading.

At the end of this "time well wasted", though, what do we have to show for it?


Art/Poetry

    If we have monotony to stir creativity and entertainment to satisfy an audience where is the need for art?  Or, more specifically, poetry?

    Art/Poetry combines the worst aspects of boredom and entertainment:  the need to escape from the former and the time-collapse of the latter.  In essence, it multiplies two significant minuses to produce a profound positive.

    If you are a frequent reader of "Commercial Poetry" you know that poetry is verbatim:  a quoteworthy product that survives not on book shelves but in our memory and speech.  It inspires various endeavors, including its own replication.  Poetry's medium is entertainment and its currency is, at once, time and timelessness.  It is what remains.  As such, while boredom may provoke thought once, well-written and well-performed verse can do so forever, and without causing the adverse reaction that "poetry" readings do.

     It's not just the real deal.  It's the Rio deal.

---

This is not about politics.

    Imagine a man who is never criticized.

    Perhaps he is a Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler whose wont is to shoot messengers.  Perhaps he is a tycoon surrounded by yes-men or simply a spoiled enfant terrible whose applecart friends and family don't wish to upset.

    Such an individual would, predictably, be unable to inspire or entertain, having relied on coercion, money or familiarity for support.  He would not be aware of any need, means or talent to appeal to anyone beyond his circle of enablers.  He may be a great businessman but he'll be a godawful marketer.  A skilled haggler but a lousy negotiator.  A horrible speaker and a horrendous listener.  A voice without an audience, oblivious to oblivion.

    Such an individual would, even if he went through law school, find it difficult to string together convincing arguments.  This reflects a lack of practice.  Who among us bickers with a tyrant, a boss or someone we know will never change?

    Such an individual would have difficulty with empathy.  Many of us did stupid and cruel things as teenagers, perhaps including bullying.  While we learn to regret our behavior this person won't.  Unlike his friends, this man continues such treatment of others, perhaps including pets, into adulthood.  He may even joke about it, oblivious to how this looks to the world at large.  He does not improve because no one has pointed out the need to do so.

    Such an individual would be utterly self-absorbed, perhaps seeing himself as the only source of perfection in an otherwise flawed universe.  So say his reviews!

    Such an individual might seek, purchase or even usurp the spotlight, confident that everyone will be dazzled by their brilliance.  Under no other circumstances would people notice the utterings of so profoundly uninteresting a character.

    Such an individual would be compelled to socialize, if at all, with others of his ilk.  Over time, these people and their following (if any) would create an echo chamber of mutual praise, a bubble entirely separate from reality.

    Such an individual would disdain both government and the public it serves yet would be the first in line for state handouts.  His interest in politics, if any, is usually related to economics or ego, occasionally ideology, but never public service or altruism.

    Is this the morality, model or mindset that we should use as an exemplar? 

    If not, then why would any of us support the blurbosphere?

---

    (I told you this wasn't about politics.)

---

Facebook Poetry

    Verbal entertainments range from word games (e.g. Boggle, Charades, Scrabble, etc.) to books, plays and video.  The two most popular forms are television sitcoms and romantic comedy films.  The second least appreciated are home movies;  who among us doesn't dread an invitation to watch vacation slides?  The least popular?  Why, poetry, of course.

    As it continues to develop, the social media promises to be a boon for anyone bright enough to avoid referring to their work as "poetry".  No doubt we've all seen full or partial poems or links to them on Facebook.  This includes videos--performances and slide shows--on sites such as Vimeo and YouTube.  We've also seen photographs with poems, stories, and witticisms written on them.  These may be a couplet taken from a larger work:

     ...or a complete poem:

    Recently we are beginning to see verse on or beside pictures in a series.  If you'd like to see a complete example please "Friend" me, Earl Gray, on Facebook.  Look for "Lover's Will".

    Here is how to create and post a Facebook Poem:

• Write or select a poem, preferably a vivid one.
• Collect still pictures or video clips for each image, phrase, line or sentence.
• Collect an introductory/title image and a coda ("The End") picture.
• Ideally, use a graphics package to print the title, text and endnote on these images.
• Write down the names of these image files in the order that they appear in the text.
• In your "Post" window on Facebook click on "Add Photo / Video".
• Hit "Create Photo Album" then, if necessary, "Create Album".
• Select "Only Me" so that no one can see what you're working on.
• Hit "Browse" to upload your pictures, beginning with your title picture and ending with your coda image.  It's okay to load, say, five at a time, hitting "Upload Photos" (twice, if required) after each batch, Hit "+ Add Photos" to begin the next batch.
• Give your slide show a name and description (e.g. "A photo story") at the top left.
• Once it's ready, make it "Public".
• Hit "Done".

    Your readers will learn to select the largest picture first and then click on the Right Arrow to peel through the remainder of the slide show.

    Here is a sample of photos comprising the public domain poem, "Lover's Will":

---

     We can, of course, wish for better poetry than this example. Feel free to right click on these images and save them if you wish to practice uploading a Facebook photo album.

      Plan B is to post a link on Facebook to a slide show like this one:

  Lover's Will from Earl Gray on Vimeo.

---

---

Squirrel Sex

Female Sciurus Carolinensis

     It has come to my attention that humans, including scientists (who should know better), are spreading the myth that it is difficult to tell male from female gray squirrels.  This is outrageous enough, without mentioning the fact that there doesn't seem to be much consensus as to what to name our genders.  The dispute seems to come down to "buck and doe" ("Oh, deer!") versus "boar and sow".  If I dared to call my sister, Pearl the Squirrel, a "sow" I would never be able to sleep with both eyes closed again. 

    For what it's worth, we prefer "studs and vixens", thank you very much.

   

Male Sciurus Carolinensis

     Male squirrels are fashion plates.  We groom ourselves much more than our sisters and no self-respecting male sciurus carolinensis would ever be seen in public without a tuxedo.  Note the smooth fur and the clean lines between the white and gray--the shirt and the jacket--on our chests.  Note how we keep our cylindrical shape, at least until we reach my age and have eaten too many peanuts.

    Stud squirrels are typically more independent, less sociable.  If you find a squirrel eating from your hand it is far more likely to be female.  During courting season we boys will challenge each other but will avoid physical conflict as much as possible.  We chase the females until they let us catch up to them.
   

Pearl Gray

     By contrast, even before pregnancy, adult female squirrels tend to be more pear-shaped.  As my sister says, "we don't remain tubular belles for long".  More telling, though, is the fur on their bellies:  far less defined or napped, more swirly and expansive.  If you see a squirrel from the side and a lot of white peeks out on the underside it is almost certainly female.

    Vixen squirrels are slightly smaller but tend to have more "personality".  They are more adventurous than their relatively skittish male relatives, although this difference narrows as we all enter our dottage.

    Hey, if you think discerning the gender of squirrels is a challenge, when was the last time you went downtown on a Saturday night?

---