“Socio-economic factors are of limited explanatory power.” -NYT 3/26/06
It has come to my attention lately that a question concerning my poetry practice needs to be addressed: I write poetry, or do I write souped up narrative, getting lost in brambles by design. It would seem that largely, as long as I am simply removing chunks of my notebook and reworking them into appropriate forms, forms that look like poetry, borrowed forms and forms half filled, I think an argument would have to be made that I am not writing poetry because I am not engaging in challenging my means of communication, to say something I haven’t said before. There are times that I have done so, and do so, but I think if I err, I err on the side of presenting a mystical narrator rather than writing a poem, in love with myself as I can be.
Perhaps there is some merit in this, this engagement with the self (an idea of the self) that falls outside of narrative, and back into the category of new language, found or noticed or created. I think this is what Liz was known for, challenging these ideas of self specifically through language, as if talking to yourself on the boundary of self. In terms of prose, self appearing in or as or creating a mythic narrator and openly questioning the legitimacy of that myth. Poetic prose, prose poetry: challenging our ideas of narrative. Is this less than or equal to pure poetry? Where does it belong?
Thinking about Tod and Forest, to a degree, their work is very much about the language interaction and intersection with itself, a persons’ idea of the poem. However not everyone can be T.S. Eliot, and as much as I respect his writing, I usually do not choose to engage with poetry on a such a personal level. And by this I mean I usually do not take poetry as the primary “topic” of my poem, or say take poetry as a thing as my motivator for writing. Sometimes yes, but there are stories I need to tell and jokes I want to make. What is unfortunate that my multi-interest in poetry and writing, is not seen as a serious engagement with poetry, and this is true, it’s not a serious engagement with language but an interest in mediating my own personal narrative. Is this poetry? Not always, but sometimes.
So I guess I can’t blame them for not taking my writing seriously. Nor can I blame Jon Kinsella for ripping to shreds “The Revisionist” or Ed’s insistence that she doesn’t understand my poems. After all, the majority of what I write does not qualify as poetry on a literary level, and so many times have I noticed that a person’s interest in my work is tightly bound to a person’s interest in my person. Without that, I’m not sure the majority of my poetry makes any difference to anybody. It’s simply pop music or something that exists for entertainment purposes, and they’ve got to call it like they see it and we don’t mind.
If poets weren’t so intent on impressing their peers and instead were writing for themselves, than maybe more people would read poetry that doesn’t manipulate them in obvious ways. I do believe that the nature of engagement within language is a relative phenomenon in that what is new for some is not new to others. Professionals, I suppose, make it their business to know what is new, and old.
It has come to my attention lately that a question concerning my poetry practice needs to be addressed: I write poetry, or do I write souped up narrative, getting lost in brambles by design. It would seem that largely, as long as I am simply removing chunks of my notebook and reworking them into appropriate forms, forms that look like poetry, borrowed forms and forms half filled, I think an argument would have to be made that I am not writing poetry because I am not engaging in challenging my means of communication, to say something I haven’t said before. There are times that I have done so, and do so, but I think if I err, I err on the side of presenting a mystical narrator rather than writing a poem, in love with myself as I can be.
Perhaps there is some merit in this, this engagement with the self (an idea of the self) that falls outside of narrative, and back into the category of new language, found or noticed or created. I think this is what Liz was known for, challenging these ideas of self specifically through language, as if talking to yourself on the boundary of self. In terms of prose, self appearing in or as or creating a mythic narrator and openly questioning the legitimacy of that myth. Poetic prose, prose poetry: challenging our ideas of narrative. Is this less than or equal to pure poetry? Where does it belong?
Thinking about Tod and Forest, to a degree, their work is very much about the language interaction and intersection with itself, a persons’ idea of the poem. However not everyone can be T.S. Eliot, and as much as I respect his writing, I usually do not choose to engage with poetry on a such a personal level. And by this I mean I usually do not take poetry as the primary “topic” of my poem, or say take poetry as a thing as my motivator for writing. Sometimes yes, but there are stories I need to tell and jokes I want to make. What is unfortunate that my multi-interest in poetry and writing, is not seen as a serious engagement with poetry, and this is true, it’s not a serious engagement with language but an interest in mediating my own personal narrative. Is this poetry? Not always, but sometimes.
So I guess I can’t blame them for not taking my writing seriously. Nor can I blame Jon Kinsella for ripping to shreds “The Revisionist” or Ed’s insistence that she doesn’t understand my poems. After all, the majority of what I write does not qualify as poetry on a literary level, and so many times have I noticed that a person’s interest in my work is tightly bound to a person’s interest in my person. Without that, I’m not sure the majority of my poetry makes any difference to anybody. It’s simply pop music or something that exists for entertainment purposes, and they’ve got to call it like they see it and we don’t mind.
If poets weren’t so intent on impressing their peers and instead were writing for themselves, than maybe more people would read poetry that doesn’t manipulate them in obvious ways. I do believe that the nature of engagement within language is a relative phenomenon in that what is new for some is not new to others. Professionals, I suppose, make it their business to know what is new, and old.
**
The division of labor continues.
