The Mad Poets Blog

news & chatter from the Mad Poets Society

Posts by Ashraf Osman

Reading Howe Backwards

To Marie Howe:

What the Living Do

I am writing this now, at the end of the night, with the cat asleep over the comforter folded off to the side of the bed, the dog sprawled on the hardwood floor absorbing the cool, and Wojtek passed out over his Harry Potter tome, dreaming of the strategic and the tactical in long calibration meetings… I am writing now, just as my wet face is drying from reading your book again. It haunts me… I am writing now before the insanity that possesses me when I read it dissipates, as it is doing already.

I got up, after I’d shut down the computer, and locked the door, and turned the right lights on and the others off, I got up and pulled it out again, your book, from the low black shelf in the study, back to the stack by my bedside. I start from the end, from “What the Living Do”, read about the clogged sink, and the dangerous smelling Drano, and the coffee spilling on your sleeve, and your chapped face reflected in the glass… And despite that nagging comment that I read in an interview with you once, about how irritated you are by readers who assume that your poems are autobiographical, and how the I in them is not you—despite that I ignore you and chose to cry. Not for you, but for the release. “That yearning”…

And then I read backwards. I read “The Visit”, and “Yesterday”, and “The Memorial”. And I sob at the Memorial, at when you throw the ashes, and some are blown back at you, and how you didn’t think it was him, his bones and his skin and his cock… I stop after that. I want to read back to “Separation” and “The Gate”, but I must stop, write this, before it’s gone… I must stop now, because it’s gone.

Recommended Link:
In a Dark Time … The Eye Begins to See

Skin Radio Poetry Slam

On Thursday night, Skin Radio had a poetry (and music) slam at the Manayunk Brewery that several members of this blog were part of. It is perhaps only appropriate that I write the report on this event; not only was I the only member of this blog in attendance that wasn’t reading, but it was also an opportunity for me to genuinely exorcise this blog from the cynicism of my last post. (And having a digital camera in tow didn’t hurt either, though it didn’t exactly help, as you can see from the mediocre results.) See, somehow this event was all the reassurance I needed, beyond words, that poetry is alive and well. For, after all, it seemed to me that it doesn’t matter much who cares about poetry, poetry does pretty well by itself. I got the kind of reassurance that statistics can’t provide, the kind that you can only get after a couple of beers, with the big hall emptying of people, but the words still hanging in the air, pregnant and heavy, and somehow self-sufficing. No wonder it was difficult to wipe that huge grin plastered on my face.

First, however, allow me to say that more poetry events should be held at more adult venues, where not only is alcohol flowing, but more importantly where poets feel more at ease to speak like adults, to adults. Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t happen that often, given that our more traditional habitats tend to be bookstores and cafes, many of the readers pounced on the chance to read their more risqué poems: from Autumn Kanopka’s dirty, dirty ponies and Anna Evan’s meticulously metered expletives, to Arlene Bernstein’s freewheeling ride through Jersey and Eileen d’Angelo’s delicate sensuality, to Mike Cohen’s food fetish and Rachel Bunting’s explosive ending. There was enough skin in the poetry to justify the name of the radio station (not that that’s the intention of the station’s name). And even though the event was recorded and parts of it will be broadcast later, if you missed it live unfortunately you won’t be able to hear those naughty bits on air.

But it’s not just the rare naughty bits, or the venue, that made the event the pleasure that it was. The music was a good mix (especially the second act, by the Matt Gauss Band); though I could certainly have used less music and much more poetry. I am sure the fact that I knew most of the readers didn’t hurt either, but there was a certain feeling of glee in the air, not exactly justified by the attendance (which dwindled remarkably towards the end, thanks perhaps to the late start and the lengthy music segments). Still, there was something undeniably vivacious about the round-up. Perhaps it was the variety of it—which is one of the stated goals of the radio station—as there was truly something for everybody.

Anna Evans Eileen d’Angelo Autumn Kanopka Rachel Bunting

Women certainly dominated the scene, as you’ve probably already figured out by now, with Mike Cohen being the only male poet hanging on till the end. But hang on he did, making up for the under-representation with a bubbly liveliness and exuberance that was nothing less than contagious. Still, the women stole the night. Being a minority in color, Lynn Blue tackled the subject head on in her poetry. Aided by a voice velvety enough to get away with murder, Lynn delivered the most direct and refreshingly upfront thoughts about race without being in the least bit jarring or clichéd, renouncing the insincere “color blindness” for a more genuine “color acknowledgment”.

Anna Evans was perhaps a minority in accent (okay, so maybe I’m pushing this whole minority theme a bit further than it can reasonably go). Even though disguised by a new hairdo, there was no mistaking that lush British accent. Few guilty pleasures are as enjoyable as hearing the F word in that accent, and there was quite a number of occasions to do so in her second poem, “The F*** You Triolet”. Opening with “Mothers Boys“, a poem about ex-mothers-in-law, Anna (like Mike) made me think of metered and rhymed poetry as hip again, but perhaps more importantly as relevant still. Her closing down-to-earth sonnet, titled cheekily enough “Not a Sonnet“, is all a sonnet needs to be in the twenty-first century: cynical, self-effacing, highly aware of its artifice, which makes it all the more immediate.

My good friend Arlene Bernstein opened her act with a trip going on the platform, and it made me think of what I love about her poetry: it is consistently adorably off. There is something simply rebellious about it (and her). You are immediately aware of Arlene’s great command (and appreciation) of the language, as only a stolid long-time teacher of it has. You can tell she savor’s the words as she says them, ever so gingerly. But it is that facility with the words that enables her to juggle them playfully, push them to their limits, because she know very well when they break. It is like a roller-coaster, thrilling but trustful.

There is a certain delicacy about Eileen d’Angelo’s poetry that I don’t realize how much I’ve missed until I hear her again. It is perhaps because she never shies away from showing her fragility, her humanity in it. But it is a tender humanity, not in-your-face. I am always reminded of the feeling of a light fabric fluttering against the skin in the breeze: sometimes it takes only the lightest touch to remind us how lucky we are to live through another spring.

I always think of Eileen and Autumn Kanopka as counterparts; not only because I always tend to see them together, nor because they are diametrically opposite. But perhaps it is because I think of Autumn’s poetry as savage—in the most impassioned sense of the word—as Eileen’s is delicate. Not opposites, but sides of the same fragility, same humanity. There is something incredibly powerful about the awareness born of our close encounters with our breakability. And that is that “hush” in Autumn’s poetry: furious, overpowering, but also amazingly mature (like the most beautiful of sadness) and empowering.

It is that same breakability that overwhelmed me in Rachel Bunting’s closing poem. I had been acquainted with the earthy humanity of the mundane, the everyday in her work (as in her opening poem, “Finding the Root in San Francisco”), always with an undertone of that frailty that surfaces only in the company of our selves. But I was happy to witness that amplified into a scream, if not a howl, in her second poem, “Acceptance”, the anger turned almost sadistic in the acuity of its insight. It is that sense of profound hurt, coupled with the awareness of the poignant absences we leave behind, that is perhaps the biggest demonstration of the potency of poetry, and of us, poets.

But it wasn’t that heady realization that I enjoyed most. It was, as clichéd as it may seem, the company of such kindred spirits, laughing, acting, and sharing such good poetry. Who cares then if anybody cares?

Who Cares?

I have been weighed down lately by this feeling of disillusionment with the very tangential place of poetry in today’s world, not to say its futility. It seems very few arts can claim a more marginal status in today’s culture, or could matter less for that matter. And the whole endeavor is so close-circuited that it seems incestuous at times, in the sense that the main audience for poetry tends to be poets, poets that are often more interested in hearing themselves than anybody else. Everybody is so eager to get published in journals that they’ve never heard of before (and hardly know where to acquire); and there certainly is more supply than demand. I am the first to admit that I haven’t read most of the other poets’ work in the few journals I have been published in; and I am sure I’m not alone. There is an ever-increasing plethora of little venues for poetry (or shall we just call it “self-expression”?): from the myriad literary journals littering the shelves of bookstores (and those are the ones that do make it to the shelves), to blogs and the infinite variations of online publication. But is anyone reading? The Poetry Foundation tried to answer this question with an admirable “scientific study”, the conclusion of which was, basically, what we’ve known all along: that almost nobody reads poetry, but those who do are essentially “better” people than the rest.

And yet, we are all here obviously for more than our love of our voices. We are here for a love—a perhaps idealized one (as all the best kinds of love are)—of a medium that we believe in, one with an ancient and profound history in perhaps every culture on the face of this slowly-simmering earth. We are here because, obviously, poetry has worked, at least for us, at one point in time. All of this reminds me of an excellent essay by Dana Gioia titled “Can Poetry Matter?” The essay is published in Gioia’s book of the same title (and which I have yet to buy/read). If you haven’t read the essay, I highly recommend it (and you can find it online at the link above). It is a very coherent and ambitious essay, and ultimately very optimistic (with its suggestion of a work plan and all). I first read it two years ago, and I don’t know if I was simply in a better mood, but the bulleted recommendations at the end of the article seemed feasible, if hopeful. Now… I obviously don’t feel that way anymore. Yes, it was a historic moment when poetry made it to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the form of Robert Pinsky; but it was also, to say the least, severely cringe-inducing. Maybe poetry is more at home on NPR, and in poorly attended readings at cafes and bookshops. Maybe that is why we are into poetry in the first place.

In conclusion, and in the spirit of true cynicism and self-absorption, here is my poetic riff on the matter, if anybody cares…

Food for Thought: Politics, Autobiography & Money

Between feeling guilty that I’ll be leaving for 2 weeks just when this blog is getting started, and things being a bit “slow” at work, I have been doing more on-line reading about poetry than usual. I came across two articles about two different topics that I thought would be a good springboard for further discussion here, and a third that I read a few weeks ago.

The first is a not-so-recent one that I found on About.com, about one of my favorite poets, Mark Strand, and politics. The article, titled Stranded: Poet Mark Strand Preaches Political Indifference at UCI, is actually not so favorable of Strand, but raises some very valid points about the detachment and apathy prevalent in much of academic and “recognized” poetry. Still, I have to admit that I agree with Strand that “There’s no connection between rap and poetry. . . I can’t listen to it. It’s like being blasted up against a wall.”

The second article is a longer more recent one from Slate.com on Autobiography and Poetry, and the impulse to “confess”. It is actually in the form of a dialogue between Dan Chiasson and Meghan O’Rourke. The dialogue raises a lot of good questions, but like most of Slate’s article on poetry, gets a bit academic, dense, and tedious (at least for me). Yes, yes, I know Slate is mainstream reincarnated, but when it comes to poetry they’d like to think they are as haughty as the New Yorker.

Speaking of which, the third article comes from the New Yorker; it’s by Dana Goodyear and is titled The Moneyed Muse. It is, as the title suggests, about a topic that seems to be somehow taboo in poetry: money. It examines the effects of Ruth Lilly’s historic two hundred million dollars endowment to Poetry magazine on the publication, and poetry in general.

Aside from being interested in reading your thoughts on the topics that these articles discuss, I am also interested in what you think about the writing of the articles themselves: the language, the references, etc. Am I alone in feeling that the Slate article is symptomatic of writings on poetry in most literary journals these days: self-involved, self-referential, and somehow indulgent? And the bigger question: do you think this is partly behind the current marginalization of poetry in general?