The Mad Poets Blog

I still need to catch up on Ashraf’s & Anna’s posts below… but I came across this article today, via Poetry Hut Blog, and it really made my blood boil. Although it doesn’t particularly relate to the previous discussion, its somewhat tangentially related considering both Ashraf & Anna talked about the nature of criticism and the quality of the writing in the articles they discussed — and those are my main bones of contention with the article in question.

In this “Poetry Browser,” the writer suggests that “Major presses still publish poetry… But much of the poetry is incredibly simple…” then goes on to “illustrate” this point with 3 examples, with the mention of the “major presses” is relegated to the article’s sidebar. From my vantage point, this saves the writer from actually having to point fingers at the publishing houses and, instead, allows him to take pot shots at the poets themselves. 

I’m all for getting back to the good old days, as Anna mentioned, when poetry reviews were actually honest, not just exercises in ego stroking. But, although I agree with the writers assessment of the examples offered, one could easily find “simple” lines in even some of those most esteemed poets’ work. My problem is that I’m not sure why he targets these poets? Because of who published them? There are ALOT of books being published — many that are excellent, and many that are quite crappy. So what. If the major publishing houses are putting out more crap than quality, then lets talk about that — *really* talk about it. For instance, I think it might be more valuable and interesting to look at several poets being published by one of the major publishing houses… or discuss why and how poets are selected by these publishing biggies. Perhaps part of the reason that the “simpler” work is being published is because of that sense of poetry’s contemporary irrelevance, which the writer mentions at the beginning of the article — perhaps publishers feel that by publishing work that uses more layman’s language they might attract a broader audience of readers. I don’t know. The article doesn’t consider this at all.

In fact, the writer actually defies his own thesis that much of what’s published is “simple” by including Sheck. By his own admission Sheck’s work isn’t simple at all and “tends to alienate the average reader.” How can he posit that poetry is dumbed down and then say that people don’t get it? Perhaps, Sheck is being published to appeal to a certain group — the young avant-garde sect. Maybe so. And maybe that’s his point. I’m not sure. The writer only sort of alludes to this in a very backhanded, passive aggressive way. But that’s an entirely different point from the one he began with and one that he doesn’t seem willing to really own. Again, there’s no consideration of the hows or whys of publishing. No discussion of Sheck’s, or any of the other writers’, previous accomplishments (except to mention that Dennis is a Pulitzer Prize winner). No mention of how these books rate next to the poets’ previous works.

Finally, I also have to wonder why the three targets are all women, while the two standouts are men? And the writer should have considered this himself. I’m not really saying that its some kind of sexist conspiracy. I honestly doubt that he meant any harm. But I also doubt that these three women are the only poets being published by major presses who have written lines worth questioning. Nor do I believe that Ashberry and Dennis stand alone as the only poets published by the big houses who are worth paying any attention to. And the writer should have considered the implications of this precarious imbalance in his criticism.

Unfortunately, this essay doesn’t consider much of anything. Thankfully, by the writer’s own admission, most lay people aren’t paying much attention to poetry. Let’s hope they weren’t paying attention to this.