A Poet Against National Poetry Month

I've never really liked his work.

Having said that, I disagree with the notion that accessible poetry is condescending or somehow intellectually inferior. What the hell is wrong with wanting your reader to understand and take away meaning from the text? It's hardly easy for any writer to convey a difficult idea in a way that can be understood by most. Anyone can write obscurely. It's not difficult. But clarity is what the greatest writers accomplish with an almost effortless effect (though hardly without strenuous effort). And what's more safe? Writing in such a way that people understand what you're saying, or writing in a way where they don't? In the former, we've got the writer's very opinions on the line, their deepest thoughts out into the open. The latter hides behind "difficulty," is never truly vulnerable to criticism, and therefore, safer.

I've twice started and twice trashed a response. Mr. Bernstein's complaint is both true and bullshit. Poetry, I'm finding, is so very tricky to quantify.

I appreciate accessibility (although I'm starting not to like that word) right up until the point it becomes facile. Then again, I'm easily frustrated when it seems that the poet is talking only to himself, perhaps while stoned out his gourd. I want rhythm and a point. Since poems are relatively brief compared to the prose I read, I'll allow only a line to three to make me stay or I'm on to the next thing with my ADD.

Asking a poet to jump through those narrowing hoops makes me a very difficult customer. And I think that's what you get in poetry aficionados. I'm well aware that the free verse I write is not well-received by a few people who claim to be fans of my other writing. That's just the way it is.

Many people don't even bother, because it does take time and soul plumbing to get what you want out of a poetry read. Like chess and puzzles, it's a more specialized avenue of appreciation. It is good for you, however that may rankle Mr. Bernstein, but only if you get your itch scratched. And sadly, you could toodle through your whole life never realizing you had that rash in the first place.

I don't have a problem with National Poetry Month trying to cast the widest net. It's also valuable to rail against it, as Mr. Bernstein has, to let people (who'll listen) know that some people care very, very much about the state of poetry in our culture.

It's a better campaign poster than anything the National Poetry Month people could manage without their detractors.

I don't think that can happen. By its nature, poetry and its devotees include a high percentage of focused and passionate people. This is not always to poetry's mainstream advantage, but it does ensure a stripe of purism that at its worst alienates less diligent readers, but at its best keeps the deep end deep.

The revival or the ultimate dilution of poetry as an art form?

Another thing to consider with Bernstein is that he's a L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet. The whole point of lang-po is to have no point, to fracture meaning, obscure the text. There's very few lang-poets I can tolerate -- Rae Armantrout is the only one. So when he speaks of this "dumbing down" it's because his poems have no real subject matter (lang-po rarely does). I love the sounds of words as much as the next writer (and being a poet myself makes me love them even more) but words also have meaning. If I want a puzzle, I'll do a crossword.

National Poetry Month is sponsored by the Academy of American Poets, an organization that uses its mainstream status to exclude from its promotional activities much of the formally innovative and "otherstream" poetries that form the inchoate heart of the art of poetry. The Academy's activities on behalf of National Poetry Month tend to focus on the most conventional of contemporary poetry; perhaps a more accurate name for the project might be National Mainstream Poetry Month. Then perhaps we could designate August as National Unpopular Poetry Month.

Click to expand...

So what do you think he's referring to when he says "formally innovative" and "otherstream"? This is the guy who wrote the manifesto for lang-po. And he don't have an agenda? If he's not defending lang-po, than why didn't he give ONE specific example of this 'safe poetry'? Who is he talking about? Ted Kooser, Billy Collins, Louise Gluck, Donald Hall, Sharon Olds, James Tate, Mary Oliver, Maya Angelou -- those are the names that come to me when I think of mainstream or accessible poetry.
I think his essay doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not only does he use generic terminology to describe "the heart of poetry," he also doesn't bother to give any examples of safe poetry or hard facts that poetry is becoming easier to digest besides the fact that the Academy of American Poets (which lang-poets have been bitching about for YEARS) gives away "generic" poetry books (again unspecific) and doesn't acknowledge "formally innovative" and "otherstream poetry" -- ie lang=po

If one of those otherstream or formally innovative works was the first poetry I was exposed to, my complete incomprehension might well keep me from seeking out anything else poetry related.

Mainstream, safe art in all its forms can serve as an introduction. A person getting their feet wet could easily be baffled by the more esoteric meanderings of the avante-garde, but once acclimated to less complex, more easily accessible forms, could in due course become an afficionado of the truly experimental.

In this way, I think National Poetry Month can do a world of good by introducing poetry to people who otherwise wouldn't give it a second glance.

My 2¢

Poetry

Charles Bernstein is full of chocolate pudding, and so is his "poetry". He's a prime example of why so few read poetry today, and I think he likes it this way.

I thought Bernstein was kidding. I agree that sanitising poetry doesn't teach anyone anything about poetry, but otherwise, how is it bad to engage people?

I understand the desire for exclusivity or elitism, but it's extremely selfish.

Sure, teach people about jazz. But don't start them off either with Kenny G or Ornette Coleman. Louis Armstrong and Dave Brubeck would work, though.

His article reminds me of the Little Britain character who is The Only Gay in the Village. He trumpets his persecution and isolation, but he is horrified when anyone expresses like thought or sympathy.

Jamesaritchie said:

Charles Bernstein is full of chocolate pudding, and so is his "poetry". He's a prime example of why so few read poetry today, and I think he likes it this way.

Click to expand...

On my random sample of three of his poems, I agree. I can name ten people here, without looking, who kick his poetic ass based on what I read.

Sure, teach people about jazz. But don't start them off either with Kenny G or Ornette Coleman.

Click to expand...

Well certainly, if you want people to read more poetry, don't show them my stuff first.

His article reminds me of the Little Britain character who is The Only Gay in the Village. He trumpets his persecution and isolation, but he is horrified when anyone expresses like thought or sympathy.

Click to expand...

That character is hysterical, and a perfect example, Rob.