tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post7103452481015390122..comments2023-05-16T06:32:28.469-07:00Comments on Speaking of Poems: Who's Guarding the Guards?David Godkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16263084959362933039noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-70976926373194970672010-04-03T13:11:56.983-07:002010-04-03T13:11:56.983-07:00Poems are about ideas. Poems are ideas. The abst...Poems are about ideas. Poems are ideas. The abstract is illumined by the concrete, which is why the image can embody the ideal.<br /><br />KenStange.com/manfridlayUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313915191430243568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-42037318214539550822010-04-03T13:09:05.165-07:002010-04-03T13:09:05.165-07:00Poems are about ideas. In fact, poems are ideas. ...Poems are about ideas. In fact, poems are ideas. There is no conflict between the concrete and the abstract, between the concrete image and the abstract ideal. For the former, in both cases, illuminates the latter.<br /><br />Ken Stange<br />http://www.kenstange.com/manfriday/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313915191430243568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-50225084121193256802010-03-06T21:59:27.078-08:002010-03-06T21:59:27.078-08:00Thanks, John. A very thoughtful, sensitive respons...Thanks, John. A very thoughtful, sensitive response to my entry on critics. If you're writing here is anything to go by, I'm betting you write very good reviews.<br /><br />I am not a poet; I am a reviewer (yes, like a few others I'm not quite comfortable with the title "critic"; one of these days I'm going to sit down and try to sketch out the differences). So, naturally, I do think the non-poet has something to offer criticism; they bring a different kind of personal and professional investment to poetry criticism, a kind of non-attachment, which I think can be helpful; more particularly, they lack the fear of retaliation which bedevils poet-critics, worried about how their own work will be received.<br /><br />To answer your question, this blog is for readers, i.e. poets, critics, non-poets, non-critics, everyone. That means it's for you, if you've a mind to keep on reading. And I hope you do.<br /><br />Thanks for the pieces by Wells and Williams. I shall take a look. If you'd like to read what others have to say about reviewing, check out Lemon Hound under the "Great Links" section of this blog. There's a very good piece by Marjorie Perloff who speaks directly to the issues that have been raised here.<br /><br />Cheers...<br /><br />DavidDavid Godkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16263084959362933039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-84071498371356468262010-03-06T08:53:16.111-08:002010-03-06T08:53:16.111-08:00I'm one of those few non-poets reviewing poetr...I'm one of those few non-poets reviewing poetry. While I have certainly gotten much food for thought from your post, I don't know how I now feel about the reviews that I've written, nor if you'd think I'd any business doing so in the first place. Would it be fair to say that the point of your post is to suggest that more non-poets need to review poetry but they need to do it better? That's a question, by the way, not a condemnation of a lofty goal. <br /><br />I'm more often than not guilty of some of those weak reviews you mention. I use "seems" quite often. Not a great strength of conviction, but then, as a non-poet I'm not always confident in my abilities to review poetry, nor to even to read it sometimes. Maybe it doesn't suffice to say "This seems formulaic. I can't put my finger on what the formula is, but there's something about it that sounds by numbers." But, I enjoy reading poetry, I read it with the limited understanding that I have, and my thoughts on a poem may be those of someone else with my amateur reader/reviewer status. If I'm lucky, the two of us will discuss it, understand it better, and alter our opinions if warranted.<br /><br />I don't always spend a lot of time reading my books of poetry. I'll go through them, read each poem once, if it catches my eye, triggers something in my memory bank, stirs an emotion, I read it again. If the 2nd reading holds my interest, I spend a lot more time dissecting it. The suggestion that "only the writer who invests the same effort and imagination and linguistic skill to their analysis as the poet brings to the poem is worthy to be called critic" is a tall order (then, I also think there's a huge distinction between critic and reviewer). Again, I'm not throwing out the idea that tall orders should be placed, but it makes me nervous. I enjoy reading poetry. I enjoy reviewing the poetry books that I read. Do I want to spend forever on it or take a masters course in poetry to analyze it? No. Poet reviewers can do that. I'm a reader reviewer. <br /><br />Perhaps I'm not the target of your post. I review on a blog, just for the hell of it. Anyone reading it probably takes my opinions with a grain of salt. I wasn't hired to write reviews based on expertise or writing ability, I've simply volunteered my views on my own. Really, what I do offers little than what those customer reviews are at Amazon or Chapters. (The little more is the invitation to discuss the book-- an invitation that sometimes gets taken up, but more often than not, gets brushed aside with a casual, "sounds interesting" type comment). My readers can judge whether or not they value my opinion, for that's all I offer. <br /><br />I submit two of my reviews for your consideration:<br />1. <a href="http://bookmineset.blogspot.com/2008/02/poetry-friday-readers-diary-zachariah.html" rel="nofollow">Unsettled</a> by Zachariah Wells<br />2. <a href="http://bookmineset.blogspot.com/2009/10/readers-diary-531-william-carlos.html" rel="nofollow">Postcards from Brueghel</a> by William Carlos Williams.<br /><br />Your post brought to mind a stance I decided to take a couple years ago after chastising myself for writing bad reviews. I used to ask myself, what business had I to review a book when I wasn't an author myself? It then occurred to me that authors write books for readers, not writers, so I have every right to do review those books. Of course, you haven't suggested that I, or other people like me, shouldn't. By my understanding, you've suggested the opposite. I suppose any of us reviewers should aspire to write better reviews, and you've offered some good suggestions. I wouldn't want a manual telling me how I should read or review a book, but I don't see that as what you've done here.John Mutfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08730205221787092204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-32850195610230485322010-02-21T05:40:07.211-08:002010-02-21T05:40:07.211-08:00David,
I do not think that the state of Canadian ...David,<br /><br />I do not think that the state of Canadian poetry is any worse than that of poetry elsewhere in the language. Problems universally abound, but the problems are not universal. Embracing American or British critical styles, or their poetic styles, is no solution, because those are no healthier than those in Canada. As for criticism, well, that's not doing well, either, but, really, who is the audience? Poetry and criticism are largely academic pursuits now. They are endeavours with certain social rules. When one steps aside to gain a larger perspective, one is outside of the conversation. Societies have rules. The particular rules of Canadian poetic society are scarcely different than those of our society as a whole. <br /><br />best, HaroldHarold Rhenischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239771117696480737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2495397553353290645.post-54715744459014313822010-02-19T17:00:55.107-08:002010-02-19T17:00:55.107-08:00David,
a very sympathetic treatment of criticism ...David,<br /><br />a very sympathetic treatment of criticism and critics in Canada. But mine won't be.I hope you'll tolerate from me (perhaps this one time only) a radically opposing point of view.<br /><br />I've always been disappointed with the quality of criticism in this country (as I have been with its poetry) both for its elitism and its subservience to the dictates of mainstream lit mag. format and philosophy: both of which cater for easy popularity and creative writing classroom-appeal.But elitism and the most narrow-minded views never do constitute literary excellence anyways. I've seen some pretty shoddy writing (particularly from people like Starnino,McLellan et al). As any two Canadian poems today so any two literary essays sound virtually the same, seemingly written by the same hand.<br /><br /> Magazines like Arc, Fiddlehead, Malahat,Open Letter et al are notorious for their reluctance to publish anything that doesn't conform to a certain, fairly identifiable 'type' of CanLit writing that's sadly had the effect of discouraging and marginalizing a lot of talented people.I've written a series of blog posts on poet Andreas Gripp, for example, a fairly typical example of a marginalized poet whose gifts have found a limited market because of the blinkered publication policies of Canada's mainstream mags.<br /><br /> It's the reason I started my "Word-Dreamer" blog: primarily as a forum for critical discussion about the pretty dismal scene in Canadian poetry.And I've found (typically enough)a reluctance on the part of most Canadian writers with academic and publishing connections to engage in the sorts of critical discussions I'm hungering for. The apathy & sycophantic instincts of a lot of the writers I've encountered in the blogosphere are not to be believed.<br /><br />Adhering either to strict nationalist (Canada Council)dictates of literary suitability or decidedly academic biases, most literary critics (and their work) seem all to swear allegiance to the same League of Writers club.Writing that springs from state-funded, legislative fiat is bound to be mediocre, second-rate and not very relevant to a global literary market. A system that makes literary acceptance a function of academic and governmental control in this way produces a nation of literary lackeys.<br /><br />It's perhaps the reason Bok made the statement that most poets he knows (presumably in Canada) are stupid and lazy. A harsh indictment of the Canadian literary scene to be sure but probably fairly close to the way things are. I'm not an admirer of Bok's work, probably as typical as any other of the mediocre (in my view primarily 'imitative') quality of literary productions as compared to what's going on elsewhere.<br /><br />What do I like? I've always admired the true 'otherstream' publications of the more daringly innovative chapbook,or e-chaps or other visual or language poetry experiments: I admire work, in a word, that's located outside of academic and governmental control (as it is in Canada), never relying on established ideas of literary worth and suitability, never afraid to condemn work that's been made-to-order (as it too often is in Canada).Conrad DiDiodatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312831623791642286noreply@blogger.com