Re: “Poetics” in the Goofball Name of This Blog. . .

(Mighty) Shelley said, in A Defence of Poetry:

…The life of Camillus, the death of Regulus; the expectation of the senators, in their godlike state, of the victorious Gauls; the refusal of the republic to make peace with Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, were not the consequences of a refined calculation of the probable personal advantage to result from such a rhythm and order in the shows of life, to those who were at once the poets and the actors of these immortal dramas. The imagination beholding the beauty of this order, created it out of itself according to its own idea; the consequence was empire, and the reward everlasting fame. These things are not the less poetry, quia carent vate sacro [because they lack a sacred bard]. They are the episodes of that cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of men.

More

Poetry criticism? Or tendentious culture warfare?

In an otherwise interesting and intelligent piece in The New Criterion, reflecting on the work of some contemporary British poets, and deeming it superior to the work of many contemporary American poets, David Yezzi makes what seems to me a characteristically tendentious NC move:

A poem can only be truly American, they [i.e., many American poets] would argue, if pushed to some stylistic extreme, to a radical innovation of some kind …

Yezzi then goes on to say that, by contrast to those who would supposedly argue the above, British poets have long incorporated radical experiments into a more cohesive tradition. From which follows his entire essay, intriguingly exploring the work of Armitage et al.

But really: Who are those “many American poets” who “would” argue that unless a poem be “willing to break through boundaries of precedence and even of sense,” it isn’t “truly American”? Have our poets recently been manning and womaning the barricades in order to label, in the mode of Sarah Palin’s followers, some poems “real Americans,” and others not, based on how willing those poems are to be radically inaccessible? Or is Yezzi arguing with — and misconstruing, possibly deliberately — William Carlos Williams (d. at eighty in 1963)? Or what?

It’s a straw man. He invents a vaguely described, unsupported characterization of attitudes of American poets in order to present a general view of some comparative virtues of the British poets he wants to discuss — and the aesthetic values he wants to promote. Let’s say I’m wrong — let’s say many American poets, instead of writing poems, are busy condemning accessible poems as un-American — he’d still need to show at least a glimpse of what he’s talking about.

The real problem with this gambit is that it gives the sense that Yezzi is writing the piece mainly to rope certain British poets into a condemnation of some supposed errors of American poets. Which makes a possibly compelling essay on trends in British poetry seem sophomoric. And there’s way too much of that kind of immature/precocious crap thing in The New Criterion.

Der Bingle and the Lucy Poems

According to the Romantic Circles blog (not what it sounds like, but a site dedicated to scholarship on the English Romantic period), Bing Crosby’s final album is to be re-released soon, with formerly unreleased bonus material, including settings of works by well-known poets, including Wordsworth’s “Lucy Gray.” Weird, yet for some of us (or one of us?) a must-hear. Here’s the poem itself, with its direct sampling of British-isles folk ballad (and along with other Romantic and Victorian poems in this style, it had its own influence, in turn, on American country music): Continue reading