I'm Still Alive (Barely)
Man, thank you Sandra for linking me up to your great blog. I need to put a link to yours, I know. Well, what have I been thinking about poetry-wise? Mostly about how my surrealistic style is basically the establishment style of poetry. I mean, John Ashberry, weirdo, surrealist. James Tate interviewed in The Paris Review. But mostly, the whole culture is tuned into odd ball stuff and dreams; watch any commerical and the rapid cuts, the weird juxtapositions, all surrealist style. So, in order to create something new, against the negative ideas/actions/expectations of our world (Iraq War anyone?), do we go back to formalism, earnestness, etc? David Foster Wallace in his essay on TV and postmodernism stated that we needed new "earnest" writers, unafraid to look at emotion and problems, not caring if they're accused of being corny or un-hip. But isn't that idea already co-opted too? Look at a TV show like "Seventh Heaven" or the Christian music/book industry. Sincerity always carries with it the idea of The Truth, authority, which I'm usually against; there are lots of meanings in this world. Is it possible to be sincere, to really mean things, without it seeming like a pose or naive? What would a true rebellion against our systemn (its culture, language, and images) look like in poetry?
posted by Don at 12:43 PM
2 Comments:
If one thinks of the main aesthetic dichotomy as Sincere vs. Ironic--or even Realist vs. Surrealist--I don't think you'll have luck making space for the "new." Modern marketing and publishing methods have created a pop culture free-for-all: there's no one dominant aesthetic paradigm suppressing the other (at least, not to the extremity of days past). And that's not a bad thing.
We write as individuals (ok, occasionally in small collaborative groups), so I think the key is to aim for originality on the scale of each poem. For me, the notion of "making it new" involves writing a poem that claims certain formal or tonal tenets of a poetry "school," yet introducing elements slightly beyond the comfort zone of the style as I understand it. I'm not always successful--I blogged about growing pains earlier today. = )
I've noticed, in recent poems published by a few contemporary people with surrealist bents, a nod toward self-identification and reflexive-address of the speaker (in some cases, outright invoking the poet's first name). It has an interesting affect: not a total swerve toward sincerity--the speaker's emotional stance is rarely elaborated, nor does it overtake the surrealist narrative--but certainly a puncturing of an otherwise distanced, ironic tone.
I think the question I had in my blog entry reached for too much. The concern about how to write poetry that doesn't fall into line with the dominant culture (writing or otherwise) is too high-level. Like Sandra said, we all just write as individuals, in certain traditions, trying to add to it and maybe even add something "new." The idea of novelty used to not be as important hundreds of years ago as it is today. I think now, because of capitalism and romanticism, creating a product that's new and improved, "individualistic," is much more important.
I guess I'm just trying to push myself, or would like to push myself, beyond my comfort zones. I'm suspicious about how certain ways of writing come easy to me, and I fear my writing will never truly get to ideas like the greats -- Eliot, Frost, etc. For some reason, I don't feel I have enough rigor, discipline, etc. Maybe I want punishment in some way? Yes, S&M poetry, that's my way! (-:
I can wait until Tony Hoagland's essays come out.
Post a Comment
<< Home