Agenda:
1. Review of article
2. Poem based on review of article (if you feel inclined to skip)
***
Just picked up my copy of the May/summer Writer’s Chronicle, thankfully provided gratis by the University of Michigan — though based on the date, obviously under-read by us here, well, me at least.
Some interesting and not-so interesting articles/interviews/essays. But what did catch my eye was entitled “A Poet’s Anti-Rule Book,” by Steve Kowit.
I’ll profess my ignorance: I have no idea who that is. However, reading it was confirming — I would say insightful, but unfortunately I can relate to the painful lessons that unfold within its sections.
First off: criticism. While Kowit rails against recent categorical developments and the in-group/perceived critic’s stance on what constitutes good poetry, he does advance his own agenda, which if taken too literally, would produce it’s own set of terrible poetry-problems. His early deployment of Shakespeare, besides the very tone and snarky attitude of this section, is unnecessary — and there is definitely a consistent theme of cherry-picking throughout. That is, he ends up sounding a bit categorical himself — which might be a disaster were it not for the intended audience, i.e. people who want to write poetry that doesn’t suck.
He could have spent more time explaining and deconstructing why the current perceptions and attitudes toward over-arching rules of poetics are unwarranted — and he also glosses over the fact that much of the practices he denounces have had overwhelmingly positive impacts, and much of what he advocates is perilous. In short, and as usual, more of a middle-ground could have been sought…
pictured: fun.
but then, where would the fun be in that? Basically, his attempt to un-demonize certain aspects of directness and communicative writing, and to sweep away prescriptive advice is well-intentioned, and because of the position he is arguing from, he doesn’t really need to address all of the problems his advice might bring about,
e.g.
you can tell, not just show
sometimes, cliches work
it’s perfectly okay, and occasionally genius to just come right out and say what you mean
passive voice and -ing and adverbs have a definite place in poetry as they do in speech
why be difficult? why “trust the reader?” why not write a political poem? why always rely on free-verse and spontaneity? etc., etc.
The way I see it, the problems of constructing a poem or poetics based solely on the above approaches is quite self-evident (as anyone who has ever written or heard high-school poetry is well-aware).
Ultimately, the point is well taken that poetry should be accessible, and that being all mysterious and oracular and a clever wordsmith about it are susceptible to the same self-indulgence and just plain bad-writing when lack of intention/attention comes (too much) into play.
For my part, and though I hate to rely on anecdotal evidence, I wrote a lot of very terrible poetry leading up to and even during my first year in grad school because I was under such entrenched impressions of what a (professional?) poem should be, do, and perhaps more to the point, not-do.
***
I’m not going to convert or shed all of my prior conceptions, but based on reading Kowit’s article I hastily penned the following. (A Friday almost freewrite.)
***
“the hobby”
like knitting — the apartment
should be empty tonight.
The dishes, finally, all being done,
put away and stay put — they
seem to have their place; for the time being,
I’m alone here. I’m giving myself permission
to try and get a little drunker than usual. And if something
miraculous should happen:
fine. The styrofoam
clam-shell — put in there
what you will — steaming on the nightstand.
What it doesn’t know: the world’s
still pretty fucked up, as it is, and I’ve fucked absolutely
nothing up tonight — puttering about
even with a basement I’d probably, stubbornly
still be lonely — a habit — like a kind-hearted father’s way
of saying it is what it is — thoroughly
unconvinced.
