Comments for CJ Evans

Comment on publishing poetry is not a favor by another weird problem with progress | CJ Evans

another weird problem with progress | CJ Evans — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:18:28 +0000

[...] ← publishing poetry is not a favor [...]

Comment on publishing poetry is not a favor by Sam Ligon

Sam Ligon — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:23:56 +0000

“Publishers are (and should be and once were even more) the ones that get to decide what goes out into the world, what is ready, what needs an edit, what should be sent back over the transom.”

I never thought I’d long for the days of the old gatekeepers, but part of me does. I know that’s not a popular opinion.

Nice post.

Comment on grumpy about people calling for clarity by Poet on Poetry

Poet on Poetry — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:01:54 +0000

Hello,
As the horrific writer of opinions that you disagree with, let me say I have no problem with any type of poem. I do have a problem with one type of poetry. If you like more esoteric poetry, that’s great. I have a problem with one homogenized view of what good poetry is that has been foisted on the poetry world by MFA programs that control the poetry world.

My blog is 3 months old today with over 70 countries and 20,000 views by people around the world. Many of these people see the US MFA view bleeding into poetry everywhere and dislike it. There is a huge disaffected group of Poet’s that don’t like the lack of diversity in poetry. By diversity I mean that the MFA view is what predominates.

Having said that I don’t think any of them want to take away your right to read that view if that is what you prefer. I think what we are all saying is there is room in poetry for more than the MFA
style. As my late father used to say that’s why they make Coke and Dr. Pepper. We would just like a little more choice.

I may be an “unknown poet” as you say but I am a massive subscriber to journals and buyer of poetry books. I think I am entitled to my opinion. I wasn’t aware that I needed to clear my opinions with a better known poet before expressing them. I am beginning to see that free speech is not appreciated in the poetry world.

I hope you continue to find poetry that you love! According to the Poetry Foundation’s study only 6% of Americans buy poetry. Why is that? I personally don’t read poetry for the riddle. I read poetry for it’s beauty, charm and power. Riddles bore and annoy me! Life is riddle enough when practicing law and making a living in a difficult world. Is there a reason why we can’t have both poems with riddles as well as poems that move the human heart?

Comment on grumpy about people calling for clarity by snavejc

snavejc — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:05:19 +0000

Hey Adriene,
Thanks for the comment, I do see your point, and to some degree agree with it—I like there to be a center, although I’d say that the center need not always be concrete, it could just as easily be a mood or emotion upon which the “action” of the poem hinges. Something like Levine’s “They Feed They Lion” (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/179089) builds by accretion rather than advancement, and Gwendolyn Brooks’s “We Real Cool” begins with the concrete but moves away from it. Both of these poems, I think, have centers, but also contain the incongruous, the moody for moody’s sake, and are, of course, real real good.
I get what you’re saying, though, and I read lots of poetry that leaves me cold for (I’d posit) similar reasons you cite. I guess I’m trying to say I’d like to give those unnamed poets of the original post the benefit of the doubt and say that they are not purposefully trying to make the reader work hard through some diabolical plan to be assholes, but that they wrote an unsuccessful poem (and/or just read some Ashbery, my only piece of advice for poets is to wait a full three days after reading Ashbery before writing). I think in this ongoing discussion, there’s too much ignoring that most poems we all write are ultimately unsuccessful at balancing all that we try to get into them, whether that means they are too clever but lack soul or are too soulful and lack the clever. Somebody told me once that each of us is just writing one poem over and over trying to get it right, and even the most lauded poets in our history are remembered for maybe 1% of their output.
That aside aside, in my estimation, the majority of canonical American poets carried in their work some level of the abstract (for lack of a better word) and abstraction or difficulty is not the enemy. Poets need not fully idolize clarity, because they’d just end up writing reportage cut into lines. This doesn’t give haphazard cobbling together of clever images a pass, but it allows the writer not to worry as much about the reader, and to worry more about what makes writing fun, playing with language, working with imagery, and trying to find the place where the center of the poem actually lives.

PS: And yes, MFA types can be shitheels, but it helps if we remember that we’re all in a very tiny rowboat together and there’s really no use in fighting over the oar when the current is so strong.

Comment on grumpy about people calling for clarity by Adriene (Sweepy Jean)

Adriene (Sweepy Jean) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:58:58 +0000

Hi, I followed the @poetsorg feed during Jericho Brown’s guest stint, clicked the link, and read the post in question. While you may have an issue with the tone of the post, I tend to agree with it in essence. It’s just my personal opinion, but as a reader and a poet myself, strings of abstractions that are not tied even loosely to something concrete leave me cold. These types of poems may intend to be emotive, but, for example, clever metaphors in isolation about being green, cobblestones, and a parsnip lumped together in verse don’t stir anything in me, personally. Is this an artistic movement? The artistic theory behind it not apparent. By the same token, I don’t have an objection to the existence of such poems, yet I feel as if poems that don’t use this approach are looked down upon, which I think feeds resentment against so-called “MFA types.” For my part, it’s not a matter of pointing fingers at particular poets, it’s just a general trend observed and an interesting discussion.

Comment on oh oprah. by emily

emily — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:41:04 +0000

Oh I’m verrrrrry comfortable with Terrance Hayes’ photo.

Comment on the paywall problem by Jered

Jered — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:03:30 +0000

Emily makes a good point. I peruse NYT Online every morning for news that, by definition, is information with which I am currently unfamiliar. A system in which one must know what one intends to find out in advance is exclusive of any “breaking news”. I don’t want to know what I want the news to tell me, I want the news to tell me what I don’t know. And what are they trying to charge, I think it’s $15 per month? I like the NYT, but I admit that I’m unwilling to pay $180 per year for content that is adequately covered by numerous free outlets. I can still access 20 NYT articles without paying and obtain the rest of my news from varied sources, a practice that is not without benefit to the reader already. I don’t see this working at all.

Comment on the paywall problem by emily

emily — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:49:27 +0000

another incentive: subscribe to the Sunday paper and get the rest for free.
Kudos to NYT. It’s necessary and well-timed. like facebook, NYT-online waited an unusually long time before adding a revenue generating system (ads, pay plan). The sites used that time to become indespensible – a habit- and then they rolled out the nuisances. NYT has done a great job making the leap from paper to online coverage –with interactive tools, videos, good links to relevant articles – both nyt and non. If news is a service (and i argue it is) and we expect good coverage, we’ve gotta support it with our wallets. the goal isn’t to make the content exclusive, so having those “work arounds” means the coverage is widely available, folks just have to be more patient or dig deeper. but if you’re like me and spend 25 minutes every morning pouring through links (often led by an interesting title or image), then a search-driven itunes-esque tools seems…..about as enticing as decaf coffee.

Comment on some good books by emily

emily — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:10:17 +0000

Oh, what a gift!

Comment on political rhetoric as fault by Naomi

Naomi — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:55:55 +0000

This is a great posting, CJ. I really like what Olbermann said, too.