On Zapruder’s behalf (if I have him right) let me add that he’s talking about visible critics, not K. Silem Mohammad, Mark Wallace, The Constant Critic, Coldfront, Jared White, Elisa Gabbert. Silliman, if his blog statistics are accurate, may be visible but is certainly not part of the mass media.

–Bob G.

On Zapruder’s behalf (if I have him right) let me add that he’s talking about visible critics, not K. Silem Mohammad, Mark Wallace, The Constant Critic, Coldfront, Jared White, Elisa Gabbert. Silliman, if his blog statistics are accurate, may be visible but is certainly not part of the mass media.

–Bob G.

“to take a really basic and important decision the poet makes, and to ask oneself as a critic what the possible effects of that decision are on a reader. That strikes me as a lot more interesting than whether or not Vendler “likes” Merwin’s new book or not, or whether she thinks it’s as good as his last one or better than someone else’s new book, etc. ”

i’m basically with him there, but i’m not sure how what this paragraph argues for is anything other than a sound critical exploration of a poem. that it’s couched in the idea of a new or reinvigorated call to action for critics is odd.

i’m not saying there isn’t a need for more rigorous critical discussion of poetry. in theory, there always is, because really, the more the better, but i don’t feel like zapruder has really done the work of showing that there is a lack of the kind of discussion he’s calling for. to simply say, as he does, that “Today, in American poetry, very few critics take it upon themselves to examine the choices poets make in poems, and what effect those choices might have upon a reader” isn’t enough, and also not true to, say, my reading experience. K. Silem Mohammad, Mark Wallace, The Constant Critic, Coldfront, Jared White, Elisa Gabbert; hell, even Silliman himself–these are just a few of the people and places doing the kind of work (and more) that zapruder is calling for.

i’m not trying to pick on zapruder, or belabor the point, but is, it seems to me that zapruder has this idea about criticism but is ultimately out of touch with his subject.

“to take a really basic and important decision the poet makes, and to ask oneself as a critic what the possible effects of that decision are on a reader. That strikes me as a lot more interesting than whether or not Vendler “likes” Merwin’s new book or not, or whether she thinks it’s as good as his last one or better than someone else’s new book, etc. ”

i’m basically with him there, but i’m not sure how what this paragraph argues for is anything other than a sound critical exploration of a poem. that it’s couched in the idea of a new or reinvigorated call to action for critics is odd.

i’m not saying there isn’t a need for more rigorous critical discussion of poetry. in theory, there always is, because really, the more the better, but i don’t feel like zapruder has really done the work of showing that there is a lack of the kind of discussion he’s calling for. to simply say, as he does, that “Today, in American poetry, very few critics take it upon themselves to examine the choices poets make in poems, and what effect those choices might have upon a reader” isn’t enough, and also not true to, say, my reading experience. K. Silem Mohammad, Mark Wallace, The Constant Critic, Coldfront, Jared White, Elisa Gabbert; hell, even Silliman himself–these are just a few of the people and places doing the kind of work (and more) that zapruder is calling for.

i’m not trying to pick on zapruder, or belabor the point, but is, it seems to me that zapruder has this idea about criticism but is ultimately out of touch with his subject.

–Bob G.

–Bob G.

>>>
On March 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm Matthew Zapruder wrote:
Hi Everyone, I’ve been following this conversation with great interest and appreciation. I thought I would wait to jump in for a while … I think with the mention of penis enlargers I can (somewhat) safely conclude everyone has had his or her say. First and foremost, thanks to everyone here and elsewhere who has taken the time to read and think about and comment on this essay. I had hoped it would be a catalyst for discussion, and I’m very pleased about how it’s worked out. There are way too many interesting points for me to respond to in this discussion, but I just wanted to make a couple of points. My choice of Hillman and Armantrout to discuss was not in any way an attempt to support one particular so-called “school” or “type” of poetry over another. In fact, my point in the essay is that while they are often considered of the same “school,” in fact their poems are (often) very different. Perhaps an unfortunate and inevitable consequence of choosing to write about two poets who are so often pigeonholed is that it appears as if I am arguing for so-called “avant-garde poetry” (whatever that is) over the “mainstream,” when in fact I don’t believe that distinction is particularly meaningful or interesting, nor do I support one side of this imaginary distinction over another. Really, the essay isn’t about those two poets at all in particular, or what “type” of poetry is better. I could have picked Tao Lin and John Ashbery to talk about, or Elizabeth Bishop and Bill Knott for that matter. In fact, that’s what I hope other people will do. It hopefully is also clear from the essay that this distinction I am making is but one possibility; while it is I think useful in some cases, people will come up with other and better rubrics. The discussion about New Criticism is an interesting one. Because of my use of close reading in the essay, I can see why it might seem to Tony and other people as if I am advocating a return to New Critical practice. While I do value close reading as a method, the purpose that I advocate using it for in the essay is really different from that of the New Critics, who were primarily interested in the text itself as a linguistic field of conflict and paradox for its own sake. While I think close reading is extremely useful, New Critical goals do not resonate for me as a poet or reader. As far as critics who are doing good work, apparently there is a very interesting review of Merwin’s most recent book by Helen Vendler, in the New York Review of Books. I haven’t read it, but I have heard that it focuses a lot on lack of punctuation in his poems, and what effect that has on a reader. If that’s the case, that seems like the kind of thing that would be very useful: to take a really basic and important decision the poet makes, and to ask oneself as a critic what the possible effects of that decision are on a reader. That strikes me as a lot more interesting than whether or not Vendler “likes” Merwin’s new book or not, or whether she thinks it’s as good as his last one or better than someone else’s new book, etc. Thanks again to everyone for reading, for pointing out where I fell short, and for taking the ideas and pushing them much further and in interesting directions.
<<<