Posts Tagged ‘ poetics ’

Non-Canonical

Is it a coincidence when an article bemoaning the disintegration of the poetic canon names only white male poets? Perhaps, in the case of this piece written by Sean Bishop, it is; he does, after all, manage more diversity when it comes to fiction and pop music.

Let us, however, consider it at the very least an illustrative coincidence. Canons often leave out whole populations for reasons that have nothing to do with the worthiness of the work they produce, and when a canon is supposed to function as the common core for an entire nation, then citizens of that nation who find that they have been left out because of their gender, race, or any other such factor must come to identify not merely with but actually as what they are not. As Judith Fetterley noted in The Resisting Reader,

To be excluded from a literature that claims to define one’s identity is to experience a peculiar form of powerlessness—not simply the powerlessness which derives from not seeing one’s experience articulated, clarified, and legitimized in art, but more significantly the powerlessness which results from the endless division of self against self.

Fetterley argued specifically that with American fiction’s canon being coded male, despite certain exceptions, women reading that canon have to identify as male while, simultaneously, being reminded that they are not. VIDA’s count reveals that any canon of poetry formed today would almost certainly have the same kind of effect. Even if a conscious effort to avoid the exclusion of women writer were successful, certainly other groups would be excluded. This is because canon formation is a political process.

There are worse things for “common ground” to be than a “trash heap.”

Not a Poetic Canon

What Bishop fears from the death of the canon is the loss of that common ground (whether or not it smells of mildewed french fries), or perhaps more precisely, the loss of a common language. He asks:

is there even one collection of poetry published in the last twenty-five years that most poets have read, and could discuss with one another, unprompted?

But I am unclear as to why it is so important that any random selection of poets should be able to discuss a particular collection. How much more exciting it would be for a random selection of poets (and other readers of poetry) to engage in conversation by reading each others’ favorite texts! How much more we could learn from each other if we taught each other the language we use to talk about our schools and our work—even if that mean engaging in the poetics equivalent of a Berlitz lesson (and why not? the realia would be right there in the form of the poetic work that should be the center of such discussion anyway).

In that space, there would be the equivalent of a canon, yes, but it would be provisional and temporary. Its arbitrariness would be recognized.

We do not need homogeneity, or a single might canon, to talk to each other.

The Concept of Consent: A Note on Poetics(elizabethkateswitaj.net)
A Classics Club Discussion: the problems with the Western Canon.(jillianreadsbooks2.wordpress.com)
Poetry and Depression(ohmygoodnessrae.wordpress.com)
The Fisher King, the Grail and the Goddess: Ted Hughes’s aquatic myths(supersededotcom.wordpress.com)
Poetics: Duty Calls!(dversepoets.com)
You are a writer because you write(lisachebyblog.wordpress.com)

The Concept of Consent: A Note on Poetics

One of the quickest ways to get attention in the poetry world is to create a “movement”, call it ____ Poetics or Poetry. If a few people catch on and write in accord with what you say, then you’re a superstar. If critics can use it to write about your work, then you get more reviews faster. If neither of these things happen, then it’s merely forgotten in an archive somewhere.

Sometimes I’m tempted to use a random word generator and write up a different ____ Poetics each month until one catches on.

Julie Carr at the Poetry Foundation’s Harriet Blog does not appear to have chosen her term quite so randomly but, rather, to have gone in for sound quality. “Consensual” shares most of its syllables with “Conceptual”, the term she is writing against. Unfortunately, in contrasting these terms, she drains any real sense from the idea of consent as it might apply to poetry.

The manifesto portion of Ms Carr’s post begins with thus:

Consensual Poetry makes a pact with the reader, a pact that, unlike that of “conceptual poetry” (in some of its purist manifestations), includes the idea that the reader will actually read the work. As in consensual sex, both parties, reader and writer, must be willing to show up. And both must show up with respect. The writer respects the reader by writing something that is engaging, challenging, and exciting. The reader respects the writer by being willing to be challenged, disoriented and surprised, and by bringing her full intelligence and curiosity to the task of reading.

So far, so good. The problem comes after this paragraph, when she tries to define Consensual Poetry purely in terms of the qualities of a poem, assuming a universal reader with universal desires and a universal ability to consent to a poem. She writes that Consensual Poetry must be “involved with the ear and eye” which seems obvious enough but excludes any audience that does not use ears or eyes. After a bit of etymological play (“con sense”), she states that Consensual Poetry must also still demonstrate an interest in making sense, even if it struggles against or plays with the boundaries of meaning as we know it. I don’t know about anyone else, but sometimes I like a bit of nonsense; pure play can be a relief. Saying Consensual Poetry cannot involve unadulterated nonsense is like saying consensual sex cannot involve bondage.

Informed Consent (Photo credit: Kevin Krejci)

Ms Carr also discusses the relationship of Conceptual Poetry with its sources, stating that it must be in harmony with them rather than representing a rupture with them or attacking them. This sounds more like Nice Poetry than Consensual Poetry. I suppose it could fall under the heading of consensual if the poet contacted living writers and asked for permission to use their work as sources in a particular way. The examples Ms Carr mentions as sources, however, are dead; dead poets cannot consent.

So what would a real Consensual Poetics look like? Consensual Poetics happens whenever someone picks up a poem or a book of poetry out a of a real desire to read that work. It happens when the reader is not constrained by the requirements of a syllabus, by an assignment to write a review, or by any PoBiz considerations. To define a Consensual Poem in terms of the qualities of that poem is to go against, not with, the useful sense of Consent.