and other poetsphere kerfuffles
- Denunciations elicit more responses than nuanced criticism. While at first this seems unfortunate, it reflects a very good thing: that poets are emotionally invested in poetry.
- When such denunciations repeat familiar complaints, rebuttals are easier (and faster) to write.
- Precisely because neither the complaints nor the responses are anything new, poets’ replies allow them reaffirm their memberships in various poetry communities.
- Meta responses like mine allow their authors to reaffirm their positions as outsiders in what (I hope) is a kind of hip way.
- Acknowledging the identity that this kind of response reaffirms my having positions me as an exceptionally honest and perceptive critic (I hope).
- [Let’s just pretend I’ve gone down all the infinite steps in the rabbit hole that last point opens up.]
- The more replies poets write to the original article, or to the replies to it, the more necessary it becomes to respond if one wishes to appear au courant.
- This becomes a process of canon formation if it goes on too long.
- Authors of later responses can depict themselves as especially reflective.
- But the fear of being the last one to speak eventually causes the discussion to die down.
- The Backlash is in for Mark Edmundson’s Harper’s Article on the Decline of Am. Verse(poetryfoundation.org)
- Susan Schultz Adds to ‘Contemporary American Poetry’ Debate(poetryfoundation.org)
- In Defense of –(poetryfoundation.org)
- Much Ado About Nada: Harper’s “Poetry Slam”(seapoetry.wordpress.com)
- It’s That Time Again: ‘The Decline of American Verse’ at Harper’s(poetryfoundation.org)
- Notes on Poetry II (on ‘The Decline of American Verse’)(danielnester.com)
- Why is Contemporary American Poetry So Good/Bad?(poetryfoundation.org)
- New reviews, dead poetry & other news(collinkelley.blogspot.com)
1 comment for “10 Ways of Looking at the Reaction to Mark Edmundson’s “Poetry Slam” in Harper’s Magazine”