Sherry Chandler » Literature’s stepchild
Literature’s stepchild
Todd Swift was in a bitter mood when he wrote the following about media coverage of poetry and poets, but I think he articulates something all us poets feel:
…like parents who favour one sibling over another to an outrageous extent, novelists are showered with praise, attention, and - yes, this does matter - support - financial, logistical, cultural and otherwise. This magnitude of difference, in terms of public reception and recognition, between the poet and novelist, is so vast, as to beggar belief. It is made worse by prizes, which accentuate the have and have not poets. The greater public has near-zero tolerance for poets, but can muster a minimal shrug of spasmodic interest in a prize-winner. Ask the public to name poems they really love, then why. They really can’t.
We’ll put Robert Pinsky’s Favorite Poem Project to the side for the moment as a sort of artificial exercise. It is of the United States anyway, whereas Swift is a Canadian living in the United Kingdom (still United for a while). Other indicators are not so good, not just for poetry, but for all genres published in book form. Many papers are choosing not to run book reviews of any kind, and poetry reviews are non-existent. The NYTimes runs an occasional review of a poetry collection, but only those of the most established of poets.
I have a friend who thinks mediocre poetry read badly is what is killing us. But I’d say poetry readings are too sparsely attended for that to be the case. And I don’t have much faith in the Poetry Foundation’s ideas of popularizing poetry by bribing magazines to publish it. Or in Poetry Out Loud or the efforts of Robert Pinsky.
Even poets, those I know personally, seem to think novels are more important. Nearly all of them have to try their hand at writing a novel sooner or later. I suppose they’re desperate to make some money.
I have no resolution to these fairly gloomy Monday-morning musings. No schemes for saving poetry, though I rather suspect it will survive. Poets may not. But I suspect they will keep on, too.
For myself, as I get older, I find fewer and fewer novels that I consider worth my time. I turn more and more to poetry.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Good on Barney Frank; he has impressed me lately, although my only previous knowledge of him was through...
9 Comments
1. Rosalie replies at 14th May 2007, 10:09 am :
“For myself, as I get older, I find fewer and fewer novels that I consider worth my time. I turn more and more to poetry.”
As do I, Sherry, also essays and non-fiction written by poets. Two of my favorites are Adrienne Rich’s What Is Found There, and my current favorite, Alice Walker’s We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For. I recommend both to you and your readers.
As to why poetry is not available in the media: Poetry is dangerous; it’s tugs on deep truths and strong feelings, and that is dangerous in these times (see Rich’s essays especially for more on this). Poetry doesn’t fit with our currently popular American amusements. You know, if it’s not on TV, it doesn’t exist.
Current poets on my bedside table: Todd Davis’ Some Heaven, and Judith Barrington’s Horses and the Human Soul.
2. sherry replies at 14th May 2007, 10:48 am :
Charlie Whitt writes (and I post with permission:
3. Alan Bender replies at 14th May 2007, 3:59 pm :
Poetry is a word puzzle that does not number the clues like the daily features in the NYT. Poets have too much respect for the readers and they are not so egocentric as to believe there is but one answer or a categorical formula (genre) for delivering a message. Most of what poetry says is not …
4. sherry replies at 15th May 2007, 12:26 pm :
Rosalie — Thank you for the titles to add to my booklist. I sure do hope poetry continues to be dangerous. I have read the opinion that the United States defangs its poets and dissidents not by imprisoning or banning them but by trivializing them (like putting protesters in free speech zones out of sight and sound of the protested event) and making them objects of fun. The election of George Bush seems to me the pinnacle of the U.S. contempt for literacy. Still, I would like to think, however, that we still have a bit of power.
5. Rosalie O'Leary replies at 16th May 2007, 9:51 am :
Yes, marginalization. They’ve been doing that to the women’s movement for years now. Silly Women. Silly poetry.
And, yes, we are powerful — women and poetry! That’s why we’re so dangerous,and have to be trivialized. Ha! The joke is, they think they have taken our power away.
Heh, heh, heh.
We know better
6. sherry replies at 16th May 2007, 10:52 am :
A follow-up in the form of a snapshot to Charlie’s post about the 4-H teaching gun use. The white sign on the left says “Reserved for 4-H, 2nd & 4th Saturdays, 1—4 pm”
Says Charlie:
7. sherry replies at 16th May 2007, 11:03 am :
Alan — I am too slow in saying thank you for the thoughtful comment and welcome to the conversation here. I am afraid, though, that you got cut off in mid-sentence and that’s too bad because I’m really interested in what you have to say.
I’m pleased to discover your blog Cornfedtrouble & look forward to getting to know you.
8. Alan Bender replies at 16th May 2007, 7:16 pm :
… said.
ad infiKnight’em
4 uMan being
Cut off in mid sentence
like a center dot
caught between thoughts
save for a couple
independent
periods with a clause
not worth repeating
her uKnit vitriol
direction
points uKnow where
his magnitude
“defined”
in a moment of momentum
turned elip(sic.)
to origins
translated in2
bytext uAll parts
9. sherry replies at 17th May 2007, 10:28 am :
Duh! Alan
…..brain
…………is
…………..slow
old neurons
snared
in SPAM
and other protein tangles.
Actually, speaking of Wilde, I’ve often thought I’m just way too earnest (and possibly self-important) for my own good.
Leave a comment