Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
46 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Aging Trendies, September 11, 2004
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!
|
|
|
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Ivory-tower intellectual fireworks, April 14, 2005
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.
|
|
|
26 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Genuine disappointment, September 24, 2004
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by David Lehman
by Heather McHugh
by Robert Creeley
by Billy Collins
by Rita Dove
See all Editorial Reviews
