Give a man or an organization $175,000,000 and they think they can save the world.
Hey, I think even with $1.75, you can save the world. It all matters what you're going to do with it.
In the January 8 issue of Boston Globe, Poetry Magazine editors mention a couple of their proposed projects. There's enough flak on the interwaves, so I'll not take the space to comment on them.
I would argue: spend the money in the schools (I remember the California Poets in the Schools program of the 1980s). Teachers K-12 are beleaguered by the current testing frenzy; arts education -- including time for creative writing -- has been left behind. To counter this, I say every poet who cares about creating new readers, volunteer in your local schools. Read a variety of poems to one student at a time, to small groups, to entire schools.
Current Poetry Magazine editor Wiman argues that more "poems should rhyme. More poems should have meter. More poems should tell stories in accomplished ways. More poems should do the things that people like poems to do," he said. ''There is great stuff that's being written in an insular and esoteric vein. But there should also be a broad band of poetry available to common readers."
I doubt he's been in a K-12 classroom recently. Yes, students K-12 appreciate rhyme and meter (who doesn't like a good beat?), are engaged by narrative poetry, but we would sell these budding readers short by simply bringing rhymed, metered, narratives to them. I know from experience that they also are capable of loving B. P. Nichol, The Four Horsemen, Lyn Hejinian's My Life, Ron Silliman's Tjanting, Score's "Laughing Song for William Blake," Michael Basinski's sound poems, the visual poetry of Nico Vassilakis, Karl Kempton... Poetry that their parents might find difficult.
The educational system simply does not have many teachers who read a wide-range of poetry (we can thank their universities for that). I modestly propose that every poet give them a hand and an eye and an ear in their classrooms.