Abstract lyric appears again, this time at K. Silem Mohammad's Lime Tree. (He was a participant in the discussion at Ron Silliman's blog.) After some comments defining the uses of the term--"conspicuous opacity of reference in marked distinction to other poems written by other poets in and before its historical period," for instance, or "a fundamental approach to linguistic reference, within the deep structure of the utterance"--he adds this final remark:
There is still plenty of "non-abstract" lyric out there, of course. But the tables have turned to a great extent, so that now that is the work that looks least "like poetry." There is currently no visibly thriving tradition, for example, of discursive satiric verse in the tradition of Pope or Swift* against which one might mark the departure of lyrics with floating signifiers and unhinged periods; everything is disjunctive or opaque in some way, or if it's not, it's not in either a or unconscious (e.g., Billy Collins?) way. This, as far as I can see, is the extent of how form can take on social meanings: by designating broad political/aesthetic camps, with very broad strokes. And even here the designation can and does fail at times.
This all seems deeply wrong to me. To whom do these "non-abstract" works (I love the definition by negation of what has always been at the center of English language poetry) appear least like poetry? I'm not a particular fan of Billy Collins's work--but he's the closest thing to a best-seller American poetry has, and he is Poet Laureate. Both the public and at least a significant part of the arts establishment think his work is very much like poetry. Poetry Daily posts at least as much metrical verse (New Formalist or old) as langpo or utterances from the children of Ashberry. It may be that I am the only New Formalist blogger, but, for poets interested in how to make "abstract lyrics," there is nothing on the web remotely resembling the mainly formalist Eratosphere, where novices can ask serious questions of and get advice from masters like Richard Wilbur, Sam Gwynn, Alicia Stallings, Annie Finch, Robert Mezey, and Tim Steele. Just who is this community of people for whom the "abstract lyric" defines poetry?
There are clues in the last 2 sentences quoted above: "reactionary (e.g., New Formalist)," and "form can take on social meanings: by designating broad political/aesthetic camps." Even though "the designation can and does fail at times," it seems clear where he's coming from.** The "non-abstract" lyric ain't on the side of the Engels.
It's true that some of the New Formalists I've met are Republicans, and some are libertarians, and some may be to the right of Newt Gingrich. But what about these poems from Sam Gwynn?
I had no right to post the poem which was here. My copy came from a private mailing list. I have apologized to Sam Gwynn by email (he didn't ask for the apology or the removal of the poem--he probably won't know the poem was here until he gets my email), and I apologize here. And buy his book, No Word of Farewell.
He may well belong to the NRA (he's a founding member of the Gun and Couplet Club), but reactionary he ain't.
*He ought to take a look at the formalists for this, especially Charles Martin, Wendy Cope, J. V. Cunningham, and Sam Gwynn. Here's a quickie from Martin's Starting from Sleep:
Deconstructing the Zebra
"Watch out for flailing hooves," hyenas swarm,
Whose one rule is, "Dig in while it's still warm."
**I've sent a copy of this to K. Silem Mohammad, and he may have a different story. If he does, I'll tell it here in a future post. BTW, my own politics are complicated. My problem with Clinton was that he was only barely (and not always) to the left of Richard Nixon, but it seems to me that was a result of Marxist hijacking of liberalism.
9:38:09 PM 
|
|
