Customer Reviews

The Best American Poetry 2004

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Series editor David Lehman says in his engaging forward to this book, "A poem must capture the reader before it can do anything else, and to do that it must give pleasure." But that's exactly where this volume falls short. I doubt that many people will derive much pleasure out of this book, regardless of their educational background, cultural perspective, or literary tastes. The few exceptions will likely be graduate writing students and professors, who will read the book to figure out what they must do to have a chance of getting into a future volume in the series. As a life-long reader of poetry from a whole variety of poetic schools and styles, I'm disappointed that this volume makes little attempt to recognize the rich diversity of poetry that is being written today. Most of this is from the school that holds that if it's unlike anything else (even if it has no discernible meaning), then it must be good.

One line of Bob Perelman's poem "Here 2" (one of the few poems in the book I found interesting) refers to "the studied refusals of cliche." And that sums up the book pretty well. Some highly educated people here have spent years of study and effort learning how to write poems that they hope no one will ever accuse of being cliched. And all their study and over-intellectualizing has sucked all the juice out of their writing. Does the poem use a phrase that anyone has used before in the last 200 years? Trash it--it's a cliche. Does the poem evoke a recognizable human feeling that anyone has ever felt prior to, say, twelve minutes ago. Cliche--get rid of it. Does the poem have a meaning that can be discerned after three or four readings? (Not necessarily a deep or profound meaning but, as Frost said, just "a momentary stay against confusion.") Well, meaning--the thought that a writer can or should briefly impose some order on the chaos of life--is so cliche! (I won't even go into the book's general disregard of old poetic techniques like rhyme and meter, the lack of which will be offputting to some readers. While I enjoy those things, I don't think they're essential to a good poem...a poem that might inspire feeling or reflection in many people if they found it.)

Ironically, the writing here isn't so new or avant-garde as its proponents may think. The average age of the 75 poets in this book is about 54, and over two-thirds of the poets were born in 1954 or before. There's nothing wrong with age--I'm 50 myself. My point is that the supposed meaningfulness of meaninglessness has been part of the literary and artistic scene for decades now...and has become a cliche itself. This isn't really all that fresh.

A few of the poets here do write understandable verse and have written wonderful poems elsewhere, among them Rita Dove and Yusef Komunyakaa (both of whom did a much better job of presenting the diversity of modern poetry when they guest-edited earlier volumes in this same series) and Billy Collins. But they seem represented here by less than their best work. Kim Addonizio, one of my favorite poets, has written many striking poems, alternating between burning, abrasive intensity ("Glass," "Theodicy," "For Desire") and quiet grace ("Conversation at Woodside," "At Moss Beach," "Dance"). Frankly, it's sad to see her represented here by a sub-par effort--a variation on the joke about why the chicken crossed the road.

I'd recommend passing on this year's volume and instead buying a collection by Dove, or Komunyakaa, or Addonizio, or Collins, or any of a couple dozen other poets not included here. (If you like rhyme and meter, you could pick up a book by Richard Wilbur, or Timothy Steele, or Rhina Espaillat, all masters in that.) And, David, I hope next year's volume shows more of the "pleasure" principle you advocated in the foreword!

I read the 2002 and 2003 editions, and though obviously I would not have purchased 2004 if my curiosity had not been sparked by some of the poems, they are some things that irk me about the series:

Do you really need to have two or more advanced degrees from Ivy League institutions and eight volumes of poetry to your name to be recognized for an American poem? Because, that's what the selections imply. I mean, it strikes me sometimes that poetry has become so obscure in its meanings that the only way to judge it is via the resume and distinction of the poet. So, once again, what you have in the 2004 BAP is a collection of the work of ivory tower intellectuals. Almost every selection is heavily informed by 'critical theory' tropes and studies of other avante-garde poets.

That said, I love difficult poetry, and a lot of the poems this year are absolutely mesmerizing. Also, in year's past, the poems have not necessarily fit together very well, and this year, I was able to read 5 or 10 in a row without being made to cringe by a self-concious stinker or feel like I was cruising on a rumble strip of nonsense.

I guess the nation's tiny poetry audience is somewhat attracted by the cache of hyper-educated poets. I sense that many of poems are missing that hardcore grit that I look for, but all the same, this is very intelligent poetry and the process of seeing through some of it may be valuable to poets and readers.

i agree with the reviewer who missed poems speaking to the heart and mind of the reader ... i don't think it's necessary for all poetry to do that ... i wouldn't object to a few of these expirimental poems being in an anthology, as i realize it's valid and important for people to play with the language and perception of it ... it is valuable work to perform, but this book goes overboard in the space it's been given

on my blog, as a joke and experiment, i took some of the nonsense phrases i got in spam e-mail to defeat anti-spam filters, put a few together and made a poem out of them because i liked the sound of the words ... that poem wouldn't have been a bit out of place in this anthology ... most of the poems here make a little more sense than that ... but only a little

what i'd really like to know is how does one tell a "good" one of these language poems from a "bad" one? ... the strangeness of the words? ... the sound? ... the distance from logic and sense? ... the avant-gardeness of them? ... how do we tell what the "best" language poems are? ... for this is what this anthology seems to be ... not the best poetry, but the "best" language poetry

readers who are expecting an overview of the year's poetry will be surprised at this ... and many won't understand it ... it's the same academic experimentalism that's been going on since the 60s ... and it hasn't changed much ... a few of the poems communicated to me ... most of them didn't

I must agree heartily with the last reviewer, except to say that the majority of academics probably wouldn't like this book either. It's fundamental fallacy is an assumption that a) L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Poetry is new, and b) There is an active "Avant-Garde." Maybe in New York, but not in the rest of the country, and this is the best *American* poetry. So many journals seem to be stuck in an "I (heart) NY" groove these days, and it makes for dull, formulaic reading. The Language movement has been over for a decade or more, and the most "avant garde" writing is coming from poets who are actively trying to actually reach readers, not alienate them, Billy Collins and Rita Dove being the best examples here. I personally have nothing against "experimental" writers - I studied them in grad school, extensively. What disturbs me is that some readers, maybe even of high school age, might pick up this book and think that this is what American poetry looks like. It's not. Even in New York. Hejinian seems to be subconsciously (I'd never accuse her of doing it purposefully) enacting an "Avant Garde revenge" with her choices, foregrounding minority literature to make a not-so-subtle point. The fact that she had to reach back to 2002(!) and journals not normally associated with BAP to construct her list seems to bear this out. I stopped being an academic a few years ago, and I don't really need to pull out books of 20th-Century criticism to read a poem anymore (or to write one). This is a volume aimed at a more or less "mainstream" audience, people who we might be able to convince that poetry isn't dead, that it's worth reading, and that it can mean something to our lives. The majority of the work here is far, far from the "mainstream" of American poetry, and a lot of strong voices are ignored for what seem like political reasons. I loved the 2002 Creeley volume because of the balance struck between a lot of different types of work going on in America then. This volume can't say the same, not by a long shot. And before you think it, no, I don't think I should be in it, nor am I foolish enough to think I ever will be. This is about readers, and I am one. I'm also very, very disappointed I spent money on something that looks like what I read in grad school - and that was ten years ago.

don't buy this. I'm sure these poets are very good at what they do, but I derive no pleasure from this volume. I usually dust this book off when unsuspecting undergraduates gripe about Yeats or B.H. Fairchild. After I dropped "State of the Union" on them, they were much more appreciative of my syllabus content.

I'd heard of "langauge poetry" from some literary friends and picked this up to see what one of its advocates was up to. Prof. Hejinian may be a fine teacher and person, but most every time I waded into this volume, the results were disappointing. Many of her selections seemed to like the sound and juxtapositions of certain phrases, but their meaning often escaped me, overall. Without that, this reader wondered what was the point.

I have loved poetry ever since childhood; my first favorite poem started, "Once there was an elephant who tried to use the telephant." As I've matured, so has my taste in poetry. Rather than ranting against this poetry as I've done on another review I've decided to accept that this poetry is cutting edge and a little over my head right now. A book of The Best American Poetry should seek out poems that are the highest state of the art and not put out a book of the best liked poems. So, -feeling some envy of those who can enjoy such poems, I will spend my time, as I have for years, on those poets in between the Best and the Worst.

Remember about 10 years back when Nirvana broke open the mainstream for acts like Pavement and Built to Spill? Remember when you could hear their songs on the radio? This year's BAP is like that, with Lyn Hejinian playing Nirvana to a host of thrilling underground acts. You've still got your Billy Collinses and Robert Pinskys assuming their customary air space, but there's a bunch of new names--new names!--from smaller journals that have to give anyone bored with respectable workshop verse some spark of hope.

The 'Best American' title's always been a bit of a gimmick: how can a few dozen poets, picked by one person, represent the entire U.S. of A. in all its diversity? And at its best to boot? What's interesting about the series to me is the guest editors, who play tug-of-war every year over what 'best,' 'any good,' or just plain 'poetry' might mean in a field so shy of consensus on these questions. Hejinian's given Lehman's rope a harder tug than usual and deserves big hugs for it. I'm guessing a lot of these poets will end up back underground again next year. That's not necessarily a bad thing; not sure I'd want to see Pavement rubbing elbows with Britney at the Grammys anytime soon, either. But we had 2004.

There's difficult poetry, and then there's unreadable poetry--most of this book is the latter.

With a few exceptions (about five of the seventy-five poems), the poems in the anthology revel in extreme post-structuralist, avant-garde, or Language poetry obfuscation, resting largely on the philosophy that language conveys no meaning, so therefore any attempt by a writer to impart something other than meaninglessness to the reader is futile.

Obviously, one can debate such a philosophy, but I don't have the space for it here. However, there's nothing novel about such an approach to poetry; it's been done for over thirty years.

For a more scholarly assessment of such poetry, I recommend Joan Houlihan's "Three Invitations to a Far Reading" on the Contemporary Poetry Review website.

I was disheartened to see the negative reviews of the Creeley BAP of 2002, and fear this volume might get a similarly chilly reception. It contains substantial poems by notables such as David Shapiro ("A Burning Interior") and Kenneth Irby. It is weighted toward Language Poetry and New York School, and short of the mediocrities that normally populate this series. If you believe that poetry should be intellectually and artistically challenging, not just inane anecdotes told in warmed-over, flat, clichéd language, this is the book for you. It might be the most avant-garde anthology marketed toward an essentially middle-brow public. I hope this time it makes the connection.