Joan Houlihan's latest article "Best American Liturgy" once again has generated much invective. For a thoughtful, indisputably more balanced view than my own, read Jeffery Bahr at Whimsy Speaks. I'll choose to agree to disagree with Jeffery and move on after this post. I'm not beating my head against Houlihan's wall. I've only got so many brain cells (and, with a rushing-receding hairline, I ain't got any padding). In the long run, Houlihan's critique will hit like Richard Silberg's. Huh? Who? My point exactly.
One thing to add to my first post: Houlihan implies in this article that Bruce Andrews has no awareness of craft or that his craft is as esoteric as some Dark Age religious sect. If Hejinian and Silliman (can't you see him enshrouded in brown hood, scribing in the shadows of a dank castle, his nubby fingers permanently black?) and Andrews and Grenier and S. Howe and Bernstein and Watten and Armantrout and Bromige and Scalapino and Perelman and Eigner and Harryman and Davies and (just to mention the "first generation) ... have not created poetry that Joan and others want to read and re-read, they have made their poetics explicit. They have written more about craft, the why, where, when, how of the poem, than other contemporary poets. Can I chant L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, Poetics Journal, This, Hills, the "Talks" issue of Hills, the seminal listserv, poetics? Has Joan Houlihan read any of these?
The answer doesn't matter. I've read 'em. They have done much to question-and-answer what poetry does, what poets do, how poetry matters, what the matter of poetry is, what's the matter with poetry (though arguably they've been impolitic). I'm happy to move on in the multivarious/farious crafts these poets and so many others of their shadowy ilk have constructed that have made my reading life lively and helped me read my life, my living.
Here are some other thoughtful views that have come through via comments on my first post on the issue:
From Michael Hoerman http://pornfeld.blogspot.com:
I like that Houlihan makes the effort for discourse rather than ridicule, as so many poets did in response to one of her past essays, and, unfortunately, are on track for again. If she's wrong, she's wrong. Say why, that's all. She has taken some time to engage in discourse. If all we do (and some of the younger experimental poets do this) is hide in a little group and stroke each other off, dismissing any perceived "other," how does that help anything except to massage egos. There is so little criticism happening from within, especially orginitating from the younger poets, who are probably worried about cutting off future advantage. The closest thing I can find from any younger poet to criticizing the "elders" is Jim Behrle’s recent comment on his blog: “Todays Giant Realization: Ron Silliman is to Experimental Poetry as Ralph Nader is to American politics,” which goes on to say something to the effect of 'once useful, now exploiting for his own gain.' (This post appears to have been taken down and I could only get the quoted portion from Google's cache.) Less than a paragraph of pathos is not the level of crit that is needed.
From Richard Lopez
very good, and very difficult question [See "Running into Walls" post below for the question]. the simplest answer is to write as well as you possibly can. let history decide what it will keep and what it will discard. should a writer accept reading/writing as part of the processes of living, and dying, then one can do little more than make a life by writing well. but whether his/her writing will be part of the canon. . .heck, I'm not sure that should be a goal of the varied manifestations of the writing life. what is the canon anyway? shouldn't we do away with these labels and write/read because we participate, in large or small ways, in the creation of our daily and imaginative realities. because if we are serious then our lives do depend on writing/reading. perhaps that is when we enter poetry, in all its richness and definitions. if poetry be honestly wrought then it will find its
readers. just a few stray thoughts.
Thanks Michael and Richard! You've got me thinking. I can't ask for anything more.
Comments