Regulars here at Banjo52 know I’m concerned about prose
masquerading as poetry. In youth, I was dunked in a vat of serious poetry flavored
with Keats, Hopkins, and Yeats; I can’t shake them and don’t much want to.
So, if you know their work a bit, you can see why I have a
knee-jerk suspicion about Billy Collins, Denise Duhamel, Mark Halliday, Barbara
Hamby, Tony Hoagland, David Kirby, to mention only a handful of poets now
writing in a chatty, easy-going manner that many readers love. It’s been called
“The School of Accessibility” (SOA), and people of my orientation tend to label
it cop-out, sell-out, dumbed-down pandering. But I’m here to say that’s too
easy, as most sweeping generalizations are, especially the harping, negative
sweeps.
(If you become interested in this topic, you could revisit
my post on January 31, 2010 http://banjo52.blogspot.com
There’s some repetition, but
also some different samples.).
What usually happens in SOA poems is something like a prose
poem, but with more storyline. There is often such a dominant narrative thread
that we might wonder why the writer didn’t simply choose the short story (or
“flash fiction” if he wants to grab the newest trend) as his genre.
Also, there’s usually more wit and hominess in SOA poems
than there is in tighter, more lyrical work. They can be or seem too cute,
merely clever. In both theme and manner, the SOA poem tends to be more obvious
than traditional lyrical poetry. As the “Language Poets” (see Rae Armantrout
here last March 11, to name one) have tried to be new by boiling language right
down to bone so bare that it’s perhaps incomprehensible, the SOA poets might be
putting extra meat on the bone to make sure we can taste its juice. The most
severe critics of SOA might say it’s so much message-meat that we gag on it.
In any case, these SOA poems are broken into lines, sometimes
with a discernible logic, and in the best of them, there is from time to time
enough density and richness of image, thought, and emotion, along with deftness
of phrasing, for the work to have earned the title of Poem with room to spare.
But at other times, the power and ingenuity of a piece are
so dependent on its whole rather than stunning words, lines, short passages
and ideas along the way, that the work can seem to drift comfortably, even lazily,
to a bland conclusion. There’s an overall Whoosh at the end rather than a lot of Whishes along the way, perhaps in every line, as well as a big Whoosh at the
end.
The traditional lyric is so condensed and crystallized that
it’s a shotgun shell containing individual pellets, each of which could have
blown off the top of Emily Dickinson’s head. (Hey, that shotgun metaphor is
E.D.’s, not mine; and she often lives up to it).
Put all these issues together, and what rears its ugly head
is slick entertainment supplanting the high art we’ve been given in the
twentieth century by Stevens, Eliot, Roethke, Bishop, Williams and others (most
ironic of all might be E.E. Cummings).
However, those of us who find poetry to be an important
richness in our lives want others to find it so too. Maybe we have messiah
complexes, but don’t we all want others to love what we love, to be saved the
way we were saved? I don’t mean that sarcastically; I think it’s a pretty human
orientation. And if more and more folks like and are shaken into greater awareness by this new, strolling, wandering, loitering SOA, isn’t that better
than reading no poetry at all?
Isn’t that more soul-enlarging than Reader's Digest?
When I like and respect an S.O.A. poem, and I often do, I
feel it as a guilty pleasure. I feel and even think—if suspecting is thinking—the
poet and I have both gotten away with something. We’ve had our minds and souls
stirred in a way that was probably more pleasure than challenge.
To see the world anew is by definition a change, and change
is threatening; a poem challenges what I thought I knew—about poetry, life,
history, politics, science, you name it.
But if change menaces, it also refreshes and expands. If I
allow myself to receive the poem, on its terms, I might learn something new—a way
to see deer, or to kill rats, or a more scientific, less trite transformation
of landscape into a cleansing wave (see Hudgins).
To my surprise, there are good SOA poems; they are not as
simplistic as gossip or reading a comic book or watching porn for the same period
of time. Now and then a new kind of bastard comes along and seems legitimate,
which feels all wrong. It goes against everything I was taught and came to
believe I believed.
Now consider how many significant topics that last sentence
could fit.
I suspect that’s more than enough prep for Andrew Hudgins’
“Praying Drunk,” but as a tease I’ll also offer a few passages from the poem,
which might reveal why I find the piece a shotgun shell that’s also full of
pellets. Never mind that in a more traditional poem, I’d be offering single
words and short phrases to admire, while it’s passages of several lines in this
case. It’s still true that I like, envy, and respect the following images,
ideas, and phrasings, especially the last two quotations, which offer the best
new twists I’ve seen on the meaning of “religious experience” since Raymond
Carver’s masterpiece of a story, “Cathedral.”
But do please read Hudgin’s whole poem; surely you want the
Whoosh and not just these wonderful Whishes.
deer drift from the dark woods and eat my
garden.
They’re like enormous rats on stilts
except,
of course, they’re beautiful. But why? What makes
them beautiful? I haven’t shot one
yet.
I might.
It’s
hard
to kill your rats, our Father. You have to
use
a hollow point and hit them solidly.
A leg is not enough. The rat won’t
pause.
Yeep! Yeep! it
screams, and scrabbles, three-legged, back
into the trash, and I would feel a little bad
to kill something that wants to live
more savagely than I do . . .
I’m sorry for the times I’ve driven
home past a black, enormous, twilight ridge.
Crested with mist, it looked like a giant
wave
about to break and sweep across the
valley,
and in my loneliness and fear I’ve
thought,
O let it come and wash
the whole world clean.
Forgive me. This is my favorite sin: despair—
Dear Lord,
we lurch from metaphor to metaphor,
which is—let it be so—a form of praying.
I want a lot of money and a woman.
And, also, I want vanishing cream. You
know—
a character like Popeye rubs it on
and disappears. Although you see right through
him,
he’s there. He chuckles, stumbles into
things,
and smoke that’s clearly visible
escapes
from his invisible pipe. It makes me
think,
sometimes, of you.
sometimes, of you.
I like what you say about the perils of classifying things you don’t like and then finding an example of one you like, thereby changing (or at least challenging) your world view.
ReplyDeleteExcept for a few accidental whiffs of Billy Collins, I’m not familiar with any of these poets you mention. I suppose it’s not news to point out that the poem you refer us to violates every traditional precept of poetry: it uses demotic rather than poetic language, it has no form or recognizable music, it has no point (metaphysical, emotional, intellectual or otherwise), and its shaggy-dog structure is so discursive you probably couldn’t even pull it off in conversation in a bar without being accused of being totally incoherent. Maybe I’m not appropriately amused, but I haven’t learned anything about prayer or being drunk or being human from this exercise other than deer look like enormous rats on stilts (which is funny enough to willfully suspend my disbelief at the utter lack of verisimilitude in the simile). Maybe I’m old school, but I want a reason to know why it’s important that elephants clean each others asses, or why someone would feel like Wile E. Coyote without even a speck of dust to mark his fall.
The danger of letting readers do all the work is that not every reader has the self-esteem and attention-span issues of this narrator. Lurching from metaphor to metaphor as a form of prayer? Isn’t this the kind of stuff that gives poetry a bad name in the first place?
And if Iknow neither sports nor poetry?
ReplyDeleteIt's a good story and very accessible.
YAY, Andrew Hudgins! He's an OSU professor (and is very beloved by his students).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, he's known around these parts as being extremely skilled with form. I see Bill wasn't a huge fan of the poem included here....but consider this one from Hudgins (which kills me):
In the Well
Andrew Hudgins
My father cinched the rope,
a noose around my waist,
and lowered me into
the darkness. I could taste
my fear. It tasted first
of dark, then earth, then rot.
I swung and struck my head
and at that moment got
another then: then blood,
which spiked my mouth with iron.
Hand over hand, my father
dropped me from then to then:
then water. Then wet fur,
which I hugged to my chest.
I shouted. Daddy hauled
the wet rope. I gagged, and pressed
my neighbor's missing dog
against me. I held its death
and rose up to my father.
Then light. Then hands. Then breath.
OK, I got around to reading the "What is Poetry?" post and comments. It's an argument probably as old as poetry itself, exemplified by the intriguingly unresolved dialogue between B52 and Brenda's Arizona. I’m big on the hypnotic power of poetry myself, which consists precisely in the systematic repetition of rhythms and sounds, as well as an elevated (or condensed) diction that would not be appropriate for prose or speech. I'm drawn more and more to this quality because it seems more of an entrée to me into the ideas specific to poetry, which tend to be deeply felt, boundaryless and fleeting. But it is the ideas I am concerned with, not the métier; whatever “catapults the propaganda” (in George W. Bush’s immortal words) is probably legit.
ReplyDelete“The Well” I think works because the steady rhythm and rhyme mimics the feeling of being lowered into a well. While the language itself is plain, it has a stateliness that elevates it (as much if not more than its narrative does) above the typical “traumatic childhood memory” poem growing like weeds in all the journals.
I am tempted to take a more fair-minded approach to the drunk poem now. If Hannah can survive such influences yet write so much better and differently, I should have nothing to fear.
Favorite SOA poet: Robert Frost. Favorite SOA poem: Home Burial.
ReplyDeleteBanjo, there is a lot to digest here. I fear I have to do it in increments... like good poetry, your posts aren't prose. Pure poetry...
I like the concept: that of Praying Drunk; my favorite part being the paragraph about the sin of despair. Maybe we've all been there? I know I have. Other than that, I can't say I am going to be a huge fan. That is to say, I don't feel compelled to track down more work by this author so as to gobble it up.
ReplyDeleteLoved the photos though; the selections, subjects, order of appearance. Especially the monks and the 2 church images. The images always enhance your posts!
Again, some fine comments. Thank you. My responses will be my next post tonight or tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWorth pointing out here, as another commenter has already done, that Hudgins is an adept formalist, and this poem is not merely prose, but blank verse.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'.
Hudgins is one of our best poets, and can handle meter and forms with the best of them. Brenda thinks Frost is just SOA, but he always employs meter, and is quite formal, even when seemingly conversational and loose, no? I don't find this to be one of Andrews best efforts. I highly recommend you get his earlier books: they sre stunning.
ReplyDeleteWow, the Hudgins' are awful! Basically one-liners. Once you get to them there's no reason ever to read the poems again. Would make really lousy prose.
ReplyDeleteMark Weiss