Sherman Alexie Apologizes and Agonizes

Kylabelle said:

No. It got in despite his whitey mcwhiteyness. Alexie clearly stated that he chose it because he thought it was worthy of being chosen and that he was not willing to go back on that choice even though the poet's dissembling drew him into what he must have known would be a shit storm.

Click to expand...

i don't think alexie is a liar, but there's something strong in human nature that would make it tough to walk back your credibility as an editor/reader by suggesting that once he took off his race goggles he saw it as a steaming pile.

i would also suggest he doesn't have much of a problem being at the center of this particular shitstorm.

Giving my own opinion as a not-poetry person...I don't think it's bad. I kinda like the first three-fifths, before the part about pooping tigers and whatnot. (Mostly because I don't have any clue what any of that's supposed to mean...) I don't get what's with the spacing, but frankly I've read far more incoherent, incomprehensible, and pretentious poetry than that.

Alexie does state, "I paid more initial attention to his poem because of my perception and misperception of the poet's identity. Bluntly stated, I was more amenable to the poem because I thought the author was Chinese American." Alexie's blog post does assert that he liked all of the poems he chose, though I've seen articles describing Hudson as a mediocre writer who only got his mediocre poem chosen because of using a Chinese name. Which makes me wonder how often the writers of those articles believe mediocre work by non-white/non-male people is chosen over more deserving work by white/male people merely because of their race/gender.

In Kublai Khan's immense courtyard there bloomed a stately crocus;
'Twas the focus!

Albedo said:

In Kublai Khan's immense courtyard there bloomed a stately crocus;
'Twas the focus!

Click to expand...

its care and upkeep nearly broke us,
but with a bit of hocus-pocus
we found the plant another locus...

wait...what's this thread about again?

ETA:

heh. at least a mod did it, too.

lilyWhite said:

Giving my own opinion as a not-poetry person...I don't think it's bad. I kinda like the first three-fifths, before the part about pooping tigers and whatnot. (Mostly because I don't have any clue what any of that's supposed to mean...) I don't get what's with the spacing, but frankly I've read far more incoherent, incomprehensible, and pretentious poetry than that..

Click to expand...

Yeah, same here -- I honestly quite enjoyed the poem, though it got too overwrought and scattered for me once I hit the italics at the end.

I do think Sherman did the right thing by making a conscious effort to find underrepresented writers. And I still think Derrick is a bit of a git to manipulate those good intentions.

Now, I'm off to hunt down some of Kuwi's poetry.

Kylabelle said:

....
Alexie was editor of this year's Best American Poetry. He reveals his process and how challenging and difficult it was to make choices.

...

Click to expand...

First, why in the world would he be selected as editor of a poetry collection. I admire his prose and his memory and acting ability (when doing a reading)....but poet?

Maybe they're trying to change the aesthetic....which would be a good thing....and from reading the first few lines of that article....I'm agreeing....

I have a love/hate relationship with that annual collection. I've read it for decades and often come away thinking there are only 3 or 4 worthy poems in the entire book. I gave up reading Poetry Magazine ages ago for some of the reasons he mentions in the opening of that article. "Good ol' Boyism" and non-comprehendable poetry attempting to be 'literary.'

I guess I'll have to get/read this one just to see what I think of it.

I first heard of him and saw him do a reading in Denver at The Festival of the Book (no longer running) and was totally gobsmacked by his theatrical reading from memory.

Interesting essay in light of the racial tensions and his stance on 'non-indians' writing about indians, some thing like - 'what could they possibly know?' His somewhat strange stance abhorring ebooks in the past.

Interesting that the 'controversy' revolves around the poets name -- perhaps cause for evaluating poems/submissions without author information eh? (like the contest here was).

And on that note, when I first heard of Sherman Alexi I assumed he was Russian given that last name.


Just got the ebook will begin reading today...

Damn you Sherman Alexi you continue to haunt me!

kuwisdelu said:

I looked at it, and like I said, it's not enough for me to say I like it or dislike it.

Click to expand...

(cross-posted from poetry forum thread)

That link I posted with those 20 lines of the poem? I assumed from a vague heading at the top of the page (which included several poems from an issue of a journal called the Prairie Schooner) that it was only an excerpt from a longer poem. (well, that and the fact that the damn thing feels like an incomplete fragment.) But I've seen a few articles now saying the entire poem is 20 lines long.

So, assuming those articles are right, that's it. No additional genius to be had. No stroke of genius at the end tying the thing together.

ETA:

oh! and according to the Washington Post, the poem is about "the absurdity of desire"! Well! who knew?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...is-poem-published-then-he-became-yi-fen-chou/

or as Yi Fen Chou would say, "huh!"

to the extent it results in extra attention to poetry, I doubt it is beneficial. I cannot imagine new readers being turned on to poetry through this piece. The poem itself reinforces every stereotype about poetry being incomprehensible, pretentious gibberish that cannot be parsed or judged by any sort of rules or standards. And the controversy only enhances that impression.

kennyc said:

First, why in the world would he be selected as editor of a poetry collection. I admire his prose and his memory and acting ability (when doing a reading)....but poet?

Click to expand...

He started out as a poet and is well-known as a poet. I like his poetry.

EMaree said:

Now, I'm off to hunt down some of Kuwi's poetry.

Click to expand...

Check AW Chapbook here and here rather than the critique section.

/shameless

Kylabelle said:

You have an interesting definition of "limit", then. And an extremely unforgiving stance toward a damned hard task, which was acknowledged quite clearly in rule #11.

Click to expand...

I don't think my definition is interesting at all, given that it's just standard fare. See:

Kylabelle said:

I think one fact that's missing from this discussion is that it simply is not physically possible in a year to read every single poem published in a year in the US. So therefore there will be "limits" to the field from which any anthology of "best" poems is chosen.

Click to expand...

That's right. There are strict limits based on both time constraints and access. As such, any reviewer necessarily has some limits, even before establishing their own rules/guidelines.

But you know, common sense says--at least my common sense--that word of mouth has a big role to play here. Rule #6 suggests he scoured the internet in search of diamonds in the rough, but come on. No one is really going to do that, search site after site in search of great poems. I'm sure he looked here and there, but lets not suppose it was anywhere close to an exhaustive effort in this regard.

So again, word of mouth. It's a factor, it has to be, despite no mention of it in the rules.

And in that regard, I think you're misreading me. The anthology that has been put together here is probably a fine collection of poems (for the most part). It's probably a much better one than would have been selected by someone like me, in terms of quality and originality. I have no problem with his rules as a means of selecting such an anthology. What I take issue with is the idea that such a set of rules are legitimate for selecting a very general "best American poetry" anthology. They're not. Because--again--authors are being marginalized or ignored based on rules that have nothing to do with the quality of their poetry. Others are being considered based solely on their names and the assumption of what those names say about the authors, themselves (an assumption that is of course tragically flawed, as everyone including Alexie now knows).

Kylabelle said:

The post following yours might serve to disprove your assertion. Extra attention to poetry doesn't follow in a straight line from the poem in question. Or, to be brief, "Pfft."

Click to expand...

!!

Because someone who is already a writer, already a member of AW, and already interested enough in poetry to read a thread about a poetry anthology expressed interest in seeing Kuwi's poems after I praised them, and Kuwi posted a link to make it easier?

Pfft.

Let us go then, you and I, down to the nearest pub with this poem and this controversy and see how many converts we make. I'm sure if a million of us go to a million pubs with a million copies of it, we will eventually turn up a new poetry fan...

robeiae said:

And in that regard, I think you're misreading me. The anthology that has been put together here is probably a fine collection of poems (for the most part). It's probably a much better one than would have been selected by someone like me, in terms of quality and originality. I have no problem with his rules as a means of selecting such an anthology. What I take issue with is the idea that such a set of rules are legitimate for selecting a very general "best American poetry" anthology. They're not. Because--again--authors are being marginalized or ignored based on rules that have nothing to do with the quality of their poetry.

Click to expand...

The rules are attempting to combat the bias that usually goes into such a selection, perhaps making them more legitimate for selecting a very general "best American poetry" anthology.

The rules about being very circumspect when looking at friends poetry is about trying to prevent inclusion of less-than-worthy poems based on personal bias.

The rules about looking at previously-underrepresented demographics is about trying to find examples of "best" poems that may have been overlooked in the past, not about excluding examples of "best" poems that would have been included nonetheless.

CassandraW said:

!!

Because someone who is already a writer, already a member of AW, and already interested enough in poetry to read a thread about a poetry contest expressed interest in seeing Kuwi's poems after I praised them, and Kuwi posted a link to make it easier?

Pfft.

Click to expand...

The funny part is immediately after posting my links, I clicked on them, and then thought "Well that one's crap, and that one, and... dear god I hope they read past these to the good ones! I don't want to be responsible for turning another reader off poetry forever!"

Kylabelle said:

!!



The issue is certainly generating a lot of press and commentary but I stopped seeing any new information or insight early on. As one of our local poets might say, >click<, rewind, play again....

Is the poem only 20 lines? And does this whole flapadoodle result in a beneficial surge of attention to poetry? Alexie seems to think so, given one of his often quoted tweets.

!!??

Click to expand...

I just read it.....meh....it's delineated, but would work better as a prose poem.

kuwisdelu said:

The funny part is immediately after posting my links, I clicked on them, and then thought "Well that one's crap, and that one, and... dear god I hope they read past these to the good ones! I don't want to be responsible for turning another reader off poetry forever!"

Click to expand...

don't be ridiculous.

William Haskins said:

don't be ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Being ridiculous was the point.

kuwisdelu said:

Being ridiculous was the point.

Click to expand...

so, if I have this right, it's about the absurdity of being ridiculous?