Toward a Poetry for People Who Have to Pay the Rent
Yet another entry in the “Is poetry relevant?” neverending debate/discussion. This one courtesy of Paper Cuts, which includes this interesting bit from Lipsky’s DFW tapes/interview/book.
Put it this way, there are a few really good poets who suffered because of the desiccation and involution of poetry, but for the most part I think American poetry has gotten what it’s deserved. And, uh, it’ll come awake again when poets start speaking to people who have to pay the rent.
What do you think? Has poetry gotten so cloistered, so far from the people, that it’s mostly irrelevant today? Can today’s poets make a comeback? I’m curious, and concerned, about this possible irrelevance and about fiction maybe sliding down the same path. I was a poet until I had a writing professor who asked me if I could write fiction. Sure, I said. I write both. The professor told me, Write fiction if you can. Someone may actually read it someday. Write poetry and the only people who’ll read it are other poets. Is that true? And why? Should you need a MA in poetry to read it?
Comments are closed.
I wonder if writers have difficulty thinking like readers sometimes. Or rather, like readers who don’t also write. Writers are readers, too, but I have a feeling that writers approach a text differently than people who aren’t do. Maybe not. Is there something different about books that “writers” like and books that “readers” like? But even at that, there are probably different kinds of writers and readers.
Even if David Foster Wallace was right about American poetry, it can’t be said that his own writing had whatever relevance it would have taken to be read like he thinks poetry needs. That’s not to say that Wallace isn’t read, but that he’s not even on the same radar screen as Dan Brown and such.
Are there people reading literary fiction that aren’t also writers (or trying to be writers) themselves? I guess I ask this because I don’t really know many readers and the readers I do know certainly aren’t as voracious about it as I am. I think it would be really nice if there were some examples of relevant poetry and fiction, because surely relevance can’t be measured by readership. Maybe the deal is that literature/poetry really aren’t very entertaining. Entertainment makes more money than art, surely. I have to admit, though, that I don’t really “get” poetry. I get fiction more, but I’m trying to get more acquainted with poetry.
These are really good questions you raise, Hank, and I guess I don’t know the answers either. I think you’re write about DFW–although his stuff is certainly read and embraced in a very literary circle, I don’t think it’s read outside of that circle. I guess when you ask are non-writers reading literary fiction, it depends what you mean by literary fiction. If you mean indie fiction, then I’d say, no, probably not many. If you mean the stuff on the Discover new readers shelves at Barnes and Noble, I’d say, sure, lots of people. Well, not lots. But many that aren’t writers.
What you say about poetry is what I think a lot of people, even in a small indie lit circle, probably say. I come from the poetry side of things originally, so I have a background in poetry and very much love it, but that doesn’t mean I “get” all of it or even most of it today. I feel like modern poetry a little like I do about modern art–you don’t really “get” it or not get it, so much as you take it in, and get a feel for it. It evokes not an understanding of what the author intended, but rather tries to provoke a reaction which the reader/viewer hopefully examines. And I do love both. It’s probably no coincidence that Frank O’Hara and John Ashbery are some of my favorite poets.
But that said, modern art is often just as hard for modern audiences as modern poetry is. You have to want to get acquainted with it, as you’re trying to do. Most people don’t care, because they don’t see it as having anything to offer them. I struggle with whether this matters or not, and I think I come down on the side of it not really mattering. It’s art. Art never appeals to the masses. It probably wouldn’t have much value if it did, except as entertainment. As someone who works for a union and cares deeply about class issues, I realize that’s a snobby way to look at it, but I guess when I talk to workers, it’s not like they’re upset that experimentalist poets are “leaving them out” somehow. It’s all relative. Hi, low, who’s to say what’s good for people–that art is “better” than entertainment? I believe it is, but I don’t necessarily feel that people “need” poetry. I want them to need it, but I know that’s probably not going to happen for 99 percent of the population.
Sorry for the incoherence of this post. This issue is something I constantly go back and forth on, even in the course of a comment reply.
To clarify, my “not getting” of poetry has less to do with the state of modern poetry than just the fact that I haven’t been exposed to poetry of any kind. All poetry is inherently more obscure than fiction, because fiction — at the novel length, at least — takes up time and keeps you busy. Poetry, as far as I know, tends not to do that, though that isn’t to say it never does. But I live in a very isolated rural area, so what there is, is almost always fiction and usually novel-length. Browsing the used bookstore I go to does not yield much in the way of poetry, modern or not, so my preferred method of finding books to read (aimless browsing) doesn’t really work when it comes to poetry.
I don’t think much about distinctions between high and low brow art or whatever. I have a bias against, say, a lot of things that play on television, but that’s mostly because I think that with a lot of that comes a lack of engagement (it’s good to disengage now and then, though). I’d say it’s better to build model airplanes or rebuild cars or whatever thing that isn’t really considered art, but still requires engagement on the part of the person doing it, than it is to vegetate in front of the TV. I don’t have any problem with the prospect of serious reading being a niche activity that only “writers” engage in as long as everybody else who isn’t doing that reading is doing other things that they are equally engaged with. Isn’t engagement with certain books the reason why writers write in the first place?
I don’t know if you read Dan Green’s blog “The Reading Experience,” but some time ago he had a post that I found interesting. It’s not entirely relevant and might be kind of common sense, but this is it: http://noggs.typepad.com/the_reading_experience/2010/03/jonathan-mayhew-affirms-the-notion-that-poetry-aspires-to-the-condition-of-music-arguing-specifically-that-poetry-is-closer.html
Incoherency can be forgiven, because I’m sure I’m not the most coherent either.
I understand what you mean. And I like your thoughts on engaging–and yes, I do tend to agree. Absolutely. I’ll have to check out that post–it sounds interesting.
Also, as I wear out my welcome on the comments section of this blog post, I think I’ll point out that I’ve got a story out.
http://www.moonmilkreview.com/2010/05/10/visions-through-the-glass/
This is great! Thanks for the link.
Sent from my iPad