Monday, December 12, 2005

 

When I first glanced at C.D. Wright’s “Rising, Falling, Hovering” in the new Chicago Review, my first thought was that this might be a text around which to build a discussion here of the uses of variable line spacing in contemporary poetry, since Wright changes her mode from passage to passage, sometimes from stanza to stanza. Reading it later, I was overcome with a different sense – that this 30-page poem could easily be the basis for a major motion picture. That is not a thought that has come to me often before, save maybe long ago in reading Ed Dorn’s ‘Slinger, which I’ve always imagined as an animated text, sort of Heidegger meets Scooby-Do. “Rising, Falling, Hovering,” however, would have to be some combination of El Norte, Syriana, The Sheltering Sky & just maybe The Ice Storm, and would require the skills of a Wim Wenders or Tarkovsky or Ang Lee at the top of their game. It’s a sad, thoughtful, even wrenching poem. I would call it Wright’s masterpiece, tho I’ve thought that of other, earlier pieces, and she keeps making these great leaps forward. I would call it a beautiful poem, but I think Wright distrusts beauty & it shows – rather, it is a profoundly crafted, searingly imagined piece of work.

Reading “Rising, Falling, Hovering” reminded me that Wright has used Evan S. Connell, Jr.’s Notes from a Bottle Found on the Beach at Carmel, which can only be described as a verse novel, when teaching the American long poem. The verse novel is a form that has been favored of late by some new formalist types, such as Vikram Seth & Glynn Maxwell, but where Golden Gate & Time’s Fool simply pour plots like so much syrup into regular patterns – the basest conceivable concept of form – Connell, a novelist by trade (Mr. Bridge, The Connoisseur, Mrs. Bridge, The Diary of a Rapist, Points for a Compass Rose) who came to the project, as it were, from the other direction, understands Pound’s dictum that poetry should be at least as well written as prose:

Listen! There are sapphires,
garnets, amethysts, and many another jewel in
Ceylon
where the king Sendernam wears a ruby
larger than a plum;
and we have seen it, my brothers and I,
and have shielded our eyes from its opulence.

What should I say next? I am held in thrall
by a thousand things.

As I walk past a woman’s window
I hear someone whisper,
Lhurda, the dawn is breaking! It will soon be day.
My love, the dawn is here.

I have concealed myself.
I listen
while she remembers
mysteries of birth and creation.
I see her
entering the water,
who is
more wholly precious to me than wading animals,
or the swift iridescence of shark fins flecked with spume.

Like Notes from a Bottle, “Rising, Falling, Hovering” occupies that middle kingdom of the genres – neither fully poem, nor fiction, nor memoir, nor philosophy & yet at once all four. “Rising” is more scenic than Connell’s work, with passages functioning almost as if they were chapters:

Calla lilies limp in their buckets
The obligatory pariah dog
Concentrates its starved mass on a step
Blowflies battling the head
The casket seller checks
For occupancy before locking up
Monastery deep in shadow
Worker urinating into a box
Under the Bridge of Martyrs
Disposition of small limbs
A face dark and deadish
The petal of one eye shutting
In Hidalgo’s courtyard
The pomegranate tree spreads
Into its memory of a future
For the next ones to forget
Ink of the padre’s letters
Gone to vinegar
For the next ones to drink
Desk clerk mesmerized
By the new media-borne war

Yet, in contrast with fiction, there are large swathes of text whose purpose could not possibly be called narrative in the usual sense, unless an aspect of light in a shadowy hotel lobby be imagined as an action:

Across the river       is a whole other world:

      hotel (once grand) with a ballroom called Starlight

A lobby that smells like assisted-living dinner

     smoke-discolored chandelier

Aloe vera and bromeliad felted with dust

And toenails of the truly old painted
     for twirling across polished floors

And one of the old ones in a camphoric gown
     says she wore this when she was smaller

Spotlights on the fountain tinted for travelers
     in the time of terror        color of the koi

There are little things here – the choice of the word discolored, the choice of the word felted – that bespeak a commitment to accuracy that supercedes all other possible pleasures of the poem. Even what at first appear to be excessive touches such as the rhetorical structure of that second line, or the suddenly too-pretty prosody of the time of terror, come precisely into focus, necessary to a more thorough realism that governs the work: color of the koi indeed, the pun in the last word exactly at odds with the scene’s present circumstance.

There are multiple story-lines here, none of which of reach closure. Nor is it always clear whose scar belongs to whom, only that scarring is very much the point. One sees both operating in the poem’s last punctuation, a period at the end of to be cont. A phrase that is itself repeated over the course of this text.

I read “Rising, Falling, Hovering” in a single sitting – an almost unheard of practice for me with a poem this long – then did so again six days later. It made me realize that the only other poet now writing whom I do this for, feel both driven & motivated to do so at such length, is Rachel Blau DuPlessis. In both cases, I think it’s because Wright & DuPlessis are writing the most complex poetry anywhere in this language, and both do so in total mastery of their tools, and in total surrender to the demands of the poem. Reading this poem is a major life event.


comments:
And once again C.D. has taught me hows to finish something...well, at least shape it, since none of these damned things is ever "finished." She taught me this in 1996, she's teaching it again, and it's the same effing poem, a monster that has followed me around since an Arkansas workshop, like the creatures in my anxiety closet. THANK YOU, C.D.
 
Ç.D. Wright's work, for me, flows through and back across itself, becoming, in its totality, a single demonstration with many occasions. The poems seem to me to be first about a mood, of a place, deeply Southern, with its "scrawny" details, its elegant and lush decay, its demons and ghosts, and wonderfully trivial details--surfaces, fleeting and delicate sensations, which demand their own eccentric lyricism. I don't know anyone else who catches these stray but distracting moments with as much fey imPULsiveness, on the edge of control, the precipice of perception.
 
i learn a lot from this blog and i don't mean to pick on every detail of it as if Ron has to be *perfect* all the time, having said that, there are times when the rhetoric here is SO over-the-top that it is hard to take seriously. a statment like
"Reading this poem is a major life event" seems so hyperbolic that it undercuts the validity of what would otherwise be a perfectly informative review of wright's poem. I mean, what qualifies as "a major life event?" Do you mean on par with, let's say, getting married or having your children, or the death of a parent, or what?
i find it hard to believe that that's true, though of course, if that's what you mean, you're perfectly entitled to feel this way. as a frequent, long-time, reader of this blog and its comment box, it seems to me that you, Ron, have a tendency to do this near the end of your entries. by "do this" i mean, reach for some kind of concluding (conclusive) sentence/statment that will drive home your feelings about your entry in such a way as to make sure that everyone "gets it". if i had more time, i could go through your archives and dig up lots of these sorts of concluding statments. the irony here is that instead of making me "get it", this hyperbole ensures that I don't get it, that i'm left wondering whether I should even take you seriously. this desire to be definitive seems to encourage those who write in the comment box to likewise write definitively in an effort to match the hyperbolic rhetoric. it also strikes me that this desire to be conclusive runs counter to what we I percieve as your general sense of poetry and language. which means, sometimes, in the end, again, i just don't get it.

pete davis
 
True dat, yo. If you can't parse the rhetoric from the reportage, probably best not to take any author too seriously.
 
I've read poems that changed my life, changed the framework for my decisions about it, what I wanted to do with the rest of it... long-term, weighty stuff. Not to mention the poems that change one's entire view of writing--which, if your very existence as who you are is based in some significant way on being a writer, is also a life-changing event.

I'll bet others could, quite honestly, say the same.
 
The implication of anon's piece above is that Ron's hyperbole is excessive, not just to the case, but in general.

I get the feeling that Ron wants to praise post-Modern works to raise the ante to a level equal to the hyperbole assigned previous models of previous generations. The Waste Land is routinely assigned the honor of a "great" poem, the watershed of a generation, and yet for most readers in the 1920's, it was more of an "in-joke" than a holier-than-thou work of art.

We need to remember that the works that appear in our midst are vying for an indeterminate expectancy equivalent to that which we regard as the established canon; in other words, potentially great works are being written RIGHT NOW, though we can't tell which ones they are, and/or we're not even aware of them yet, because they're hidden (unpublished, unfinished). This is the challenge of criticism. Can it reveal to us what is qualitatively superior in our estimation, in advance of posterity's hindsight? Ron often goes out on a limb to praise work which he feels deserves our attention. Is there a modicum of "publicity" in it? I do think so, yes. You could say Ron is a champion of the kind of writing he prefers. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you come to distrust everything he says on that basis.

Ron tends to confirm judgments about works I've already read, but I sometimes tend to take with a grain of salt his high praise for someone I've not yet sampled.

"Language writing" is very difficult to discuss precisely, to show how and why it succeeds, or even if it does. It takes fancy footwork.

Ron's blog isn't serious criticism. It's blogging, and as such it doesn't aspire to the highest standards of exegesis and estimation. It's more publicity than serious crit. Taken that way, it's clearly very successful and nearly unique in its breadth and reach.
 
I know the impulse to hyperbole very well. In defense of Ron, when you encounter a good poem, it really does feel like it has changed your life. And why can't that happen every week? Or every day? Plenty of hacks use the phrase to imply that some minor dude with a sonnet is a genius or at least deserving of tenure, and they viciously want to restrict the number of great poems to maintain the value of the coin. But who cares? I don't think Ron here is trying to push some POV; I think he geninuinly feels this way, and we should respect that.
 
Damn right. Appreciation is the key in any case and life is short.
 
I think some of the critcism is serious, some publicity that helps promote one's point of view (which we all engage in to some extent when we recommend a book to a friend). Overall, though, Just because this blog doesn't employ scholarly apparatus, doesn't mean it's not serious. Many of us fall asleep when reading criticism adhering to the highest standards of exegesis; or, we don't have access to it like we do this.
 
jesus, i just spent some time responding to everyone and i just lost it somehow so i'll type this again very quickly.

i stand by my intial post.

andy, i ain't saying poems can't change your life. i'm just saying if you say that stuff all the time you're going to undercut the value of such a statement.

i agree with your post curtis, though i'm not anon and signed my name last time and will again. i just think a line like "reading this poem is a major life event" is not the fancy footwork you describe as necessary for good writing. instead it seems like a club, one that ron weilds frequently, and one that, again, strikes me as counter to ron's professed view of langauge.

joe, yes aprreciation is very nice. i'm just saying hyperbole loses its effect if not used in *some* moderation.

simon, i'm not trying to restrict the canon or anything like that. that's not what my post was about, or, at least, that's not what i meant it to be about.

likewise, anon, i'm not asking for some "scholarly apparatus" i'm just saying ron sure says things like "best" and greatest" and "major" alot.

there's the whole boy who cried wolf thing happening a little bit.

again, ron's got the right to feel and respond to poems anyway he wants and, by and large, i appreciate the way he does so. it just struck me this morning reading this post that when I think of "major life event" i think of things like births and deaths and etc. surely this phrase can mean much more than that which is why i asked ron to clarify what he meant.

pete
 
in what way is cd wright's stuff not school of quietude, [a term -- it's not a term actually but a slur label, but even as such it's never been defined. I believe RS is incapable of doing so and I believe that he also cannot explain the difference between wright and the quietists.
 
I can see why that comment was anonymous. SoQ is not a slur, but a term chosen to reinforce not only the historical connections between "mainstream" American verse and its predecessors who share a sense that American literature is a tributary of British letters. Term itself was chosen & first used by Edgar Allan Poe in 1844. But naming is important. It's important for people to realize that the division of the world is not between poetry and avant-garde or some other kind of always alreadly labled poetry, but rather between two (or, in fact, more) kinds of poetry, and that there is no such thing as poetry without a kind.

The writers who Steve Burt & others have termed the elliptical writers -- CD, Ann Lauterbach, Forrest Gander -- all poets I like enormously, could be categorized as an attempt to create a 3rd way, identifying a space that is either between the post-avant & SoQ traditions. Whether you see it as a blending or a middle ground, it's a complex position to hold and involves having to think through one's commitments very thoroughly. Which may be why these poets tend to be so good.
 
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
The categories as such are pretty meaningless and are applied ideologically. So what's new? Nothing. Necessary? Maybe -- if one wants to write against prevailing attitudes embodied in this or that place that creates ways for poets to be known, get university jobs and so on. But, really, there are poems that are dull and poems that are not.

Explicating why some poems are exciting -- are "real" poems always interesting and can be done by showing what tyrannies and orthodoxies are overcome. These T's and O's include the "givens" of both schools or whatever schools.

For example, Ron's take here:


"Yet, in contrast with fiction, there are large swathes of text whose purpose could not possibly be called narrative in the usual sense, unless an aspect of light in a shadowy hotel lobby be imagined as an action."

is caught up in the imagined and false contrast between poetry and fiction. Fiction driven by narrative and so excluding these moments. But the truth is that these moments are everywhere in fiction. Proust. Melville...etc.

So these attempts to classify inevitably lead to simplifications -- narrative versus nonnarrative -- and so a poem (or poetry in general) that overcomes "narrative" is valorized if you are on a certain side.

Interesting poems sometimes transcend or ignore or laugh lightly at the orthodoxies on both sides.

And it is so very peculiar -- this specific sort of take. Very British.
 
Pete:
I am the anon who mentioned scholarly apparatus, not the one who mentioned "soQ" as a slur. (although I'd like to say to that anon that Ron certainly has defined it numerous times on this blog). And, I can see how this anon business is getting to be an inconvenience. Nevertheless, my comment wasn't directed toward you, but towards Curtis's "serious" remark. I agree with you on the hyperbole issue. Yet, I can understand why Ron uses it to try to get people to read when reading is undervalued nowadays, let alone the reading of poetry. (and yeah, it's weird talking about the man on his own blog). The other day I read an interesting novel that I thought that others should also read; I bought said novel for a few people and exaggerated profusely about its brillance so they would read it, knowing a. that was the only way they'd read it; and b. they'd recognize its flaws, come back and call me on my shameless advocation. Then, I'd admit the flaw and we'd have a productive discussion about the work. You have to lie to get people to read sometimes.
Think about it that way.
Although the aim of the Poundian proselytizing here isn't as clear and there is (as with all conversion narratives) probably some mission behind it other than to get people to read poetry, in the end, it's still just rhetoric.
 
This is direct from the E.A. Poe Society of Baltimore's site, from Text: Claude Richard, "Arrant Bubbles: Poe's 'The Angel of the Odd'," Poe Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 3, October 1969, pp. 46-48.]:

"Tuckerman should also be remembered as the editor of a literary journal who rejected "The Tell-Tale Heart" with the following commentary: "If Mr. Poe would condescend to furnish more quiet articles, he would be a most desirable correspondent." Poe's response was, "If Mr. Tuckerman persists in his quietude, he will put a quietus on the magazine of which Messrs. Bradbury and Soden have been so stupid as to give him control"."

*

One has to ask a couple of questions here. Why would Poe send "A Tell-Tale Heart" to a place that he thought was already a place of quietude? One can only surmise that he didn't, and that all that followed was based on a rather basic rejection letter, explaining what Tuckerman wanted. Poe took it personally, obviously, and used the term "quietude" as a satirical device, and certainly a mocking slur. And, as is usually the case, because of wounded pride. Not much has changed.
 
Ron also wrote this:

"It is a classic hegemon position to have no name for whatever it is one is doing, but very specific names for everything else you want to mark as different. Thus there is Poetry Magazine, not Traditional Poetry Magazine. And there absolutely have been, and no doubt will continue to be, those who act as though there continues to be poetry and language poetry or poetry and avant-garde poetry or poetry and postmodern poetry, or however they imagine to configure it. But if the question is reversed — in the same way that you have to reverse your idea of listening when confronted with 4’33” or stand facing a Pollock canvas up close for the first time — and we ask instead what is it that connects all these modes of traditional or mainstream poetries, then Edgar Allen Poe’s joke in response to Henry Theodore Tuckerman 160 years ago seems at least a place to begin.** There is poetry, I want to argue, and there is the School of Quietude. Let’s try it that way for the next few hundred years."

Here "poetry" contrasted with the stuff produced by the SOQ.

The above hard to reconcile with:

"SoQ is not a slur, but a term chosen to reinforce not only the historical connections between "mainstream" American verse and its predecessors who share a sense that American literature is a tributary of British letters."
 
The ...problem... that I have with Ron's approach to this weblog isn't the hyperbole (hyperbole is necessary and useful (well, perhaps it's just easy...but this is a blog, remember) to make people interested in what you're saying, and create in them a response, be it positive, negative, or, that one which is hoped-for: to go out and buy a book or journal or magazine).

The ...problem...that I have with Ron is that all of this hyperbole tends to go only in the direction of praise. Now, being as the purpose of this weblog may be the promotion of worthwhile poetry, that narrowness is somewhat expected and excusable. Still, though, whilst reading, I tend to get a picture of Ron in my little head of a sort of Roger Ebert of the post-avante. Let me explain.

'Tis a phenomenon well understood among cinephiles that Mr. Ebert Loves every movie that has naked women in it. Whatever his intelligence or lack thereof as a critic and film-viewer, he always loves movies with boobies. Similarly, it can seem, on this blog, that Ron loves all the new, post avantish poetry that he reads. Unlike Ebert, who is forced by convention and his newspaper to watch boobless flicks, Ron gets to choose what he reads and, perhaps more importantly, what he comments upon. What the situation is, I don't rightly know:

Does Ron only write about the poetry that he enjoys and admires?
Does Ron only read poetry that he thinks he will enjoy and admire based upon its seeming nonSoQness?
Is Ron just an ideologue who can't tell quality post-avante poetry from crappy post-avant poetry? Does he judge based upon style/aim as opposed to substance/effectiveness?

I think...and would hope...that the first is the likely reality. It may be of use, however, for Ron's format of the blog to change from merely promoting good poetry and explaining a bit the reasons behind its goodness, to also denouncing bad poetry and explaining a bit of the reason behind its badness.

I would be very happy to see Silliman state that a reading a certain poem was an 'intelligence-destroying experience...'


I have only been reading this Blog for a short while, and in a scattered fashion at that, so perhaps this incessant positivity is a relatively new characteristic of this blog...

If so, then Ron should start drinking his Hater-Ade again.
 
We still stand at the relative beginning of a period of experimentation whose near-terms developments are difficult to predict. It's been less than a century, after all, since the birth of psychology, linguistics and the philosophy of language, computer language, atonal music, abstract expression in the plastic arts, the new media including radio, TV and the Internet, non-syntactic verbal composition, Dada, automatism, mass propaganda, streamlilned advertising, and so forth. Joyce's Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, Mac Low's and Coolidge's experiments with free variation in language, happened, really, "only yesterday."

Ron's catholic appreciation of all forms of poetry seeks to embrace the new possibilities fostered by the cultural and scientific revolutions of the previous century. We have by no means "exhausted" the possibilities inherent in a literature that is no longer yoked to the formal restraints dictated by history. Ron's hunger for and pleasure in these experiments seems boundless. He is not interested in ranking. Who is? It's a waste of time. Ron's lack of interest in, and ignoring of, writing that does not repay his effort, is its own criterion.

You could say Ron is a Poet's Blogger--for and by and about poetry. The blog isn't written for the man in the street, but for others of similar obsession and interest. Also, he fills a gap. Very little of the "new writing" gets much attention in the media. Where else? Within the context of Ron's universe of new writing, C.D. Wright is certainly a major figure, and her long poem may be her major work. It could be the new "Waste Land". Or, maybe, it's the new The Maintains or Polaroid.

Maybe Larry Eigner's collected poems will be the new Leaves of Grass--as seen through the eyes of Wittgenstein.
 
dear RS

first of all i dont understand what you mean by saying you can see why teh comment was annonymous.

in the nature of things, that would not be someting you could see.

you speak of mainstream verse, but do not define what you mean by that. you speak of historical coneections, but this is equaly vague, and in any case beside the point; since my question dealt with aesthetic qualities. what are the characteristics -- in a line by line analysis -- that make the work of CD and the others [ no doubt your personal friends] ok, whereas that of someone else, say Lowell is not ok. The reference to Poe, likewise is not relevant. You are attempting to evade the issue which is --- that i challenge you to produce a close analysis showing a substantive difference between CD (and the others), and someone of the SofQ. to be honest I feel that this latter is, as I have said, a pseudo critical term you aply to the work of those whom you perceive as rivals in the ever-uncertain business of gaining publication and attention. and then, hypocritically, you grant special dispensations to those who, for whatever reason, you think of as allies. as such, your critical opinions stike me as neither right nor wrong but simply spurious, in that they are motivated by oportunism, lit politics, back-scratching and the like. they are fundametnally dishonest and have, so far as i can tell, negligible intelectual content. but in this you are of a piece with most contemporary commentators on american poetry -- including those two constipated dowagers Helen V, wicked witch of the east, and Marj P, wicked witch of the west.
 
Anonymous - Ron said that because your original comment was particularly unpleasant. This comment box is a place for debate, yes, but you seem to be attempting armed combat.

Ron - I'm a bit more curious about the term "post-avant," which seems to be nearly ubiquitous now. I don't understand the difference in implication of this term and the term "avant garde." Are they two different things? Has "avant garde" been deemed obsolete, inaccurate, simply unfashionable? Does the current idiom reflect a belief that nothing is really new? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, or missing something perfectly obvious, but I would appreciate some insight.
 
dc -- well, I'm not Ron, but from my position, the "post-avant" term was coined to describe people adopting styles of writing that in a previous era might have been called avant garde, but at the same time consciously avoiding any of the grand and sweeping manifestos or claims to universality associated with previous avant garde movements.

YMMV.
 
Ron has attempted several times to lay out the camps of style that differentiate SoQu from avant and post-avant, though the critical materials to back up those distinctions can get a little blurry. In his defense, I don't know that anyone has yet done it adequately. Is it worth doing?

The interesting part is to try to understand how to fit various writers in history--in the 20th Century, say--into respective groups/groupings. This can get all confused with the political issues in history (which clouds things up). How does one, for instance, "place" George Oppen? --assuming, again, that that's a worthy effort. A Thirties radical who published one fascinating experimental book (Discrete Series), then abandoned writing for a decade or more, only to return as a seasoned sub-rosa Quietist full of "wisdom" and "sentiment" (winning a Pulitzer Prize and praise from the Right).

Personally, I find these distinctions invidious. Except when I need to fling an insult or condemn someone I find spurious--then the gloves come off--or do the gloves go on?--I'm not sure which image works anymore. (Wasn't that Joe Lewis thing on American Masters the other night terrific?--narrated by the same voice that did the narrative for the Joe Dimaggio thing--"but Joe swallowed his pride and kept on slugging").

Those overachieving and oversexed "Joes" of the world. Or Wieners's "Joy"--just a guy named Joe.
 
"It's important for people to realize that the division of the world is not between poetry and avant-garde or some other kind of always alreadly labled poetry, but rather between two (or, in fact, more) kinds of poetry, and that there is no such thing as poetry without a kind.

The writers who Steve Burt & others have termed the elliptical writers -- CD, Ann Lauterbach, Forrest Gander -- all poets I like enormously, could be categorized as an attempt to create a 3rd way, identifying a space that is either between the post-avant & SoQ traditions."

there are two major topics of this comment box. one is the issue i raised of ron's hyperbole and two is the issue of ron's boxing of american poetry into the camps of soq and post avant. it seems to me these are related. it's hyperbolic of ron to suggest that there are, as he said above, "two(or, in fact, more) kinds of poetry". clearly, as curtis points out, this is an extremely problomatic way of looking at poets like oppen. of course ron seems to protect this relatively wild claim by saying that there may be "in fact, more" kinds of poetry, but then he goes on to suggest that wright represents a 3rd view, one that sits squarely between the two camps. this seems to say that instead of seeing poetry as just a fight between two camps, there are ACTUALLY three camps, as if three choices is more liberating. don't we all know there are millions of camps, one for every writer of worth? that no two people represent the exact same thing? this is where it gets back to my intial point. ron's hyperbole, in this case in regards to some sort of distilling of american poetry into 3 camps, is over the top and distracting. it's interesting and it promotes discussion and it's fun to witness the way ron throws these terms around, but it's a rough way of viewing the world--a world where a cd wright poem can't be just really, really good, but has to be called a major life event and a world where everything is either "good" or "bad", "major" or "minor", soq or post-avant (or "the 3rd way"). it makes for a black and white world and i just don't think that's what ron means to promote. ain't that the old world of binaries, not the new world of relativety and language poetry? couldn't we solve some of this by toning down the absolutism of the rhetoric?

pete
 
Here's a fine answer from a Joe of the kind Curtis digs.

The panoramic view of Wallace Stevens’ wake was easy to imagine even in advance.
Aging gentlemen with the same silver manes and Florida tans.
The blue guitar.

One could one see the florists of Queens delivering six-foot displays designed
as a martini glass, a racehorse, a royal flush or a Cuban cigar.
The Blue guitar.

His Best Poem, arrived at 12:30 p.m. in a smart black dress, her long blond hair cascading down her back.
She was swept through Papageno's glass-front doors by ushers, who nodded a silent greeting, then clasped their hands respectfully at their waists.
The blue Guitar.

There were, for instance, the five poets from the neighborhood who stood around trying to figure out if they recognized any of the mourners. Their names were Donald, Donald, Donald, Ron and Jim. It was a common occurrence yesterday that people asked that their last names be withheld.
The Blue Guitar.

"If he could walk out with me and say hello, he would. He's doing it through me. . . . `Hello.' "
Donald said.
Synesthesia of a dull sort prevailed.
Donald was wrong.

The Guitar Blue
 
Things that are
Are changed upon the blue guitar.

Strum.

Slinger, I said, as he carefully folded his glove to make his knock,

clue me in to the utter of the nth. I's so blinded by unreason that my bowels is all a-quake.

How shall I distinguish the true from the fake?

Youse got to look under the feathers,

he replied,

to discern which sex the white bird is.

Then he dialed,
carefully,

using his finger.
 
Hi Pete and various anon,

re: the camps

I had written some on this topic last year and I appreciate the discussion now. Saying something new and challenging can shift the paradigm for the best, and I read your comments not as adversarial or divisive but instead offering a genuinely other POV. Unfortunately, shifting the paradigm is sometimes not desirous to those benefited most by existing paradigm. I got a feeling you're not gonna get any special dispensations, but maybe that's not so bad. I like the debate. It feels more "community"- , less huddled-members-of-school- like. And speaking of Wright and long poems, I read a very good one by Franz a New Yorker or two back. Blaspheme or just staying open to good poetry. I haven't yet read CD's poem. I will. Some of the passages cited by Ron seem very cutesy; others seem to me to cover very similar ground to Franz's poem but with less skill. What-t-f-ever. I'll take them on their merits instead of updating SOQ mastheads.

http://pornfeld.blogspot.com/2005/01/k.html

Michael Hoerman
 
People get very exercised by labels and "camps". Fact is, people who write read, and they have tastes. It's like on amazon, "people who liked X also bought Y." Take it or leave it. Does it define the unique consciousness behind an authentic poem? No. Does it help when discussing a poet to refer to people who sound -- even on a superficial level -- like her? Sure, a little.

Taking it too far, and suggesting that to name a school provides the same level of info as naming a politician's political party, is setting up a bit of a strawman. Nobody is seriously making that case here. I think Ron inadvertently went a little bit too far in calling Wright a "Third Way," bringing up all sorts of Tony Blair associations.
 
Hot damn -- one is grateful that Curtis is still kicking!
 
I'll say before I know the above...because really, this is one of the best reviews of something I've seen here so far.

First..she is older. You know in Jorge Luis Borges' The Sand of Time...he looks like the same old Borges but the editor of the collection admits that it is the work of a much more mature Borges..a completed Borges if you will.

It is good to appreciate a gender specific poet (a girl) in such a way. I'm sure she must be honored however...HOWEVER Ron...you get yourself into some problems as a male when you say such things as:

"It made me realize that the only other poet now writing whom I do this for, feel both driven & motivated to do so at such length, is Rachel Blau DuPlessis."

Wow. Her true greatness (and I'd say she is right up there with the monster hits from this tiny piece you have provided) is so diminished by your male egotism and MIND YOU...I am an antifeminist.

Feminism has such a limiting effect on the notion of criticism..that it has it's OWN school (i.e. SoQ, Quietists, etc.) only adds to the validation that women have a certain place in your book and furthermore you relate her to another female poet to boot!

This is nit picking I know but it does seem to be a general trend in your way of critiquing the work of other poets. Grading them, placing them in juxtaposition which in reality is more a function of marketing than actual criticism. No offense of course..just the way I see it.

I wish I had the book. It looks like a tremendous life changing read. Like Alice Notley, born in my old funky hometown. Boy I wish I could meet her too. I have a feeling we'd have lots to talk about regarding the old bones in a Paris museum and the mysteries of her old small houses in Bisbee and Needles.
 
Dear lilac:

"It is good to appreciate a gender specific poet (a girl) in such a way."

It sure is. I'm glad I'm gender-specific too, because CD looks like a a very pretty lady. Maybe I'll meet her in Providence one day and strike up a conversation.

(wink)
 
simon-
Sounds reasonable. Thanks for responding.

lilac -
I failed to see the "male egotism" in that sentence you isolated. Are you offended because he talked about his own reading habits? Or because he compared a female poet to a female poet? (Is it impossible that he just likes multiple female poets?)

everybody -
Given that most of what Ron seems to do here is speak generously and enthusiastically about things he finds interesting, doesn't it seem a bit inappropriate that all some of you seem to wish to do is hurl insults him, the people he talks about, and each other?
 
I agree that lilac's comments are incomprehensilbe. But her comments always are [to me].

It is true that RS enthusiastically about certain things. generously? i'm not sure.

He always has an agenda, however, I think.
 
what is supoosed to be the connection betwen the first quote from the novelist Connel and teh one from CD Wright?

the first seems to me absolutley terrible, full of cliches, really awful. Wrights is far superior, though she has a totally conventional view of "poetry"; she writes "poetry" and knows exactly what it si and should be and can be "in these our times". but it seems to me these two passages have nothing in common; their jusxaposition is a typical example of RS's pseudo-criticism.

steveintaipei
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    
   
   

 

Blogs

A

Seth Abramson

Katie Acheson

Nasra al Adawi

Adeaner

Deborah Ager

Serena M. Agusto-Cox

Adam Aitken

Martin Aitken

Neil Aitken

Alcoholic Poet

Charles Alexander

Jenny Allan

Scott Allen

William Allegrezza

Eric Alterman

Ivy Alvarez

Lisa Alvarez

Sam Amadon

Indran Amirthanayagam

R.J. Anderson

Stephanie Anderson

Michael Andre

Nin Andrews

Arlene Ang

Cecilia Ann

Tiel Aisha Ansari

Nikheel Aphale

Aaron Apps

Stan Apps

Francisco Aragón

Robert Archambeau

Bob Arnold

Claire Askew

Amanda Auchter

Chinwe Azubuike

B

Derik Badman

Frank Báez

Sheena Baharudin

Jeffery Bahr

John Bailey

Sirama Bajo

Alan Baker

John Baker

Teresa Ballard

Anny Ballardini

Alixandra Bamford

Clay Banes

Emma Barnes

Susan J. Barbour

J. Mae Barizo

Rusty Barnes

Zach Barocas

Richard Barrett

Jennifer Bartlett

Gary Barwin

Thomas Basböll

Margaret Bashaar

Zio Bastone

Robert J. Baumann

Eric Baus

Michelle Bautista

Sandra Beasley

Sam Beckbessinger

Clair Becker

Tom Beckett

Mike Begnal

Lynn Behrendt

Douglas J. Belcher

Lindsay Bell

Dodie Bellamy

Maria Benet

Melissa Benham

Natalie Bennett

Stephen Berer

Zackary Sholem Berger

Oscar Bermeo

D.J. Berndt

Jasper Bernes

Amy Bernier

Charles Bernstein

Mark Bernstein

Jake Berry

Simeon Berry

Charlie Bertsch

Hassan Beyah

Harvey Bialy

Raymond Bianchi

Mary Biddinger

Jed Birmingham

Meredith Blankinship

John
Bloomberg-Rissman

Ann Margaret Bogle

Emma Bolden

Lindsay Boldt

Sean Bonney

Dave Bonta

Bill Borneman

Gherardo Bortolotti

E. B. Bortz

Tim Botta

Jenny Boully

James Bow

Rus Bowden

Kristy Bowen

Mark Cameron Boyd

Anne Boyer

Ana
Bozicevic-Bowling

Daniel Bradley

Joseph Bradshaw

Allen Bramhall

Mary-Anne Breeze
(Mez)

Susie Bright

Ross Brighton

Poppy Z. Brite

Brian Brodeur

Sharon Brogan

Dustin Brookshire

Brandon Brown

Christina Brown

Pam Brown

Sarah Browning

Sommer Browning

Franklin Bruno

Nick Bruno

Elizabeth Bryant

Michelle Buchanan

Timothy Buckwalter

Rob Budde

Simmons B. Buntin

Alex Burford

Andrew Burke

Ted Burke

Kariann Burleson

Miriam Burstein

Stephen Burt
& Jessica Bennett

Zachary C. Bush

Jeremy Bushnell

Blake Butler

David Buuck

Kathryn Stripling Byer

Bobby Byrd

David Byrne

Edward Byrne

Mairead Byrne

C

David Caddy

Amir Brito Cadôr

Jennifer Calkins

Sean Callender

Trevor Calvert

Lex Camena

Jason Camlot

Brian Campbell

Pris Campbell

Guile Canencia

Mike Cannell

Steve Caratzas

Nick Carbo

Reyes Cardenas

Mackenzie Carignan

Claudia Carlson

Su Carlson

Tim Carmody

C.S. Carrier

Rudolfo Carrillo

Ivan Carswell

Julie Carter

Jessie Carty

Roberto Cavallera

Michael Caylo-Baradi

Lorna Dee Cervantes

Natalia Cecire

C.E. Chaffin

Edward Champion

Jill Chan

Sherry Chandler

Mike Chasar

Zachary Chartkoff

Geoffrey Chaucer

Don Cheney

Matthew Cheney

David Baptiste Chirot

Tom Chivers

Andrew Christ

Tom Christensen

Matt Christie

Robert Chrysler

Christy Church

Peter Ciccariello

Paula Cisewski

Cheryl Clark

Jillian Clark

Tom Clark

Maxine Clarke

Adam Clay

Loretta Clodfelter

Bryan Coffelt

Bill Cohen

Julia Cohen

Todd Colby

Ed Coletti

James Collins

Chris Collision & Kim Gek Lin Short

Shanna Compton

Anna L. Conti

Amanda Cook

Dave Cook

James Cook

Juliet Cook

Dennis Cooper

Michaela Cooper

Phil Cordelli
& Brandon Shimoda

Josh Corey

Alfred Corn

Eduardo C. Corral

A.M. Correa

Chris Corrigan

Chella Courington

Matt Cozart

J.P. Craig

Ray Craig

Jason Crane

Jen Crawford

Phil Crippen

Jessica Crispin
(BookSlut)

Tara Rose Crist

Del Ray Cross

John Crowley

Henry Crush

Peter Culley

Alex Cumberbatch

Gary Cummiskey

Brent Cunningham

Nathan Curnow

D

Stacy Dacheux

Rachel Dacus

Lyle Daggett

Rita Dahl

Matt Dalby

Ryan Clifford Daley

Catherine Daly

Kristine Danielson

Jane Dark

Uttaran Das Gupta

Philip Davenport

Jenny Davidson

Malcolm Davidson

David Alexander Davies

Jeff Davis

Jordan Davis

Peter Davis

Bill Day

Charles Deemer

Rachel Defay-Liautard

Shannon deJong

Oliver de la Paz

Alan de Niro

Susan Denning

Brittany Dennison

Thomas Devaney

Jennifer K. Dick

Julie Dill

Mark Dingemanse

Linh Dinh

Laurel Dodge

Thom Donovan

Kevin Doran

Dolores Dorantes

Tyler Flynn Dorholt

Mark Doty

Julie Doxsee

Jehanne Dubrow

Joseph Duemer

Clifford Duffy

Laurie Duggan

Berenice Dunford

Marcella Durand

Patrick Durgin

Art Durkee

Jilly Dybka

E

Amanda Earl

Ryan Eckes

John Ecko

Martin Edmond

AnnMarie Eldon

Stephen Ellis

R.M. Engelhardt

Julie R. Enszer

Scott Esposito

Phil Estes

Maggie May Ethridge

Carrie Etter

Anna Evans

Justin Evans

Kate Evans

Steve Evans

Bernadine Evaristo

F

Caterina Fake

Noah Falck

Roberta Fallon
& Libby Rosof
(Philly Artblog)

Steven Fama

Patricia Fargnoli

Michael Farrell

Curtis Faville

Sina Fazelpour

Dan Featherston

Raymond Federman

Andrew Feindt

Steve Fellner

Rona Fernandez

Rosana Fernández

Cherilyn Ferroggiaro

Adam Fieled

Luc Fierens

Al Filreis

Annie Finch

John Findura

James Finnegan

Jon Paul Fiorentino

Ryan Fitzpatrick

Sean Flannagan

Juan Jose Flores

Sandy Florian

Cherryl Floyd-Miller

Melissa Fondakowski

Marissa Forbes

Adam Ford

Michael Ford

Paul Ford

Dominic Fox

Erik Donald France

Patry Francis

Gina Franco

Jon Frankel

Kari Freitag

Ben Friedlander

Nancy Friedman

Deborah Fries

Suzanne Frischkorn

Chris Fritton

G

Elisa Gabbert & Kathleen Rooney

Michaela A. Gabriel

Jeannine
Hall Gailey

Neil Gaiman

John Gallaher

Peter Ganickz

Kyle Gann

Drew Gardner

Susana Gardner

Bob Garlitz

Geoffrey Gatza

Molly Gaudrey

Michael Gause

Marie Gauthier

Kurt Geisler & Reb Livingston

Eric Gelsinger

Bernadette Geyer

Damyanti Ghosh

Alex Gildzen

Kelly Ginger

Marco Giovenale

Elizabeth Glixman

Jim Goar

Brent Goodman

Johannes Göransson

Nada Gordon

Julia Gordon-Bramer

Daphne Gottlieb

Henry Gould

K. Lorraine Graham

Mark Granier

Jason Gray

Daniel Green

Timothy Green

Tony Green

Susan Kaiser Greenland

Paula Grenside

Andy Gricevich

Peli Grietzer

Bob Grumman

Gabriel Gudding

Carol Guess

Paul Guest

John Guzlowski

H

Dust Congress Hackmuth

David Hadbawnik

Anne Haines

Shafer Hall

Steve Halle

Forrest Hamer

Chris Hamilton-Emery

Nathan Hamilton

Christine Hamm

Evelyn Hampton

Elisabeth Hanscombe

Jefferson Hansen

John Hanson

Josh Hanson

Ellio Harmon

Joseph Harrington

Reggie Harris

Vicky Harris

Matt Hart

Pam Hart

F. James Hartnell

Stu Hatton

Lars Haugen

Mike Hauser

Woody Haut

Bob Hazelton

Virginia Heatter

Jamey Hecht

Bob Heffernan

Laura Heidy

Chris Heilman

Michael Helsem

Kris Hemensley

Christopher Hennessy

Matthew Henriksen

Liz Henry

Colin Herd

Scott David Herman

David Hernandez

Lee Herrick

Chris Higgs

Crag Hill

Owen Hill

Jeff Hilson

Laura Hinton

Dylan Hock

Ron Hogan
& Sarah Weinman

Doug Holder

Jane Holland

Cathy Park Hong

Paul Hoover

Billy Jno Hope

Tom Hopkins

Mark Horosky

David Harrison Horton

Yuri Hospodar

Joan Houlihan

Javier Huerta

Rolf Hughes

Carrie Hunter

Cindy Hunter Morgan

Lacey Hunter

Weldon Hunter

D.J. Huppatz

Maureen Hurley

Joseph Hutchison

Geof Huth

N.F. Huth

I

Luisa Igloria

Don Illich

Jozef Imrich

Glenn Ingersoll

Ronald D. Isom

David Raphael Israel

Jamie Iredell

Doug Ireland

J

Beverly Jackson

J.E. Jacobson

Michael Jacobson

Russell Jaffe

Elizabeth James

Lisa Jarnot

Birdie Jaworski

Lesley Jenike

Philip Jenks

Charles Jensen

Christian Jensen

Maggie Jochild

Halvard Johnson

Stephen (not Berlin) Johnson

Steven Berlin Johnson

Amanda Johnston

Andrew Johnston

Billy Jones

Dick Jones

Jill Jones

Jonathan Jones

Kismet Jones

Miriam Jones

Sam Golden Rule Jones

Sasha Frere Jones

Pierre Joris

Howard Junker

Gene Justice

K

Pirooz M. Kalayeh

Insani Kamil

Meena Kandasamy

Bhanu Kapil

Steven Karl

Sophia Kartsonis

Kirsten Kaschock

Justin Katko

Sara Kearns

William Keckler

Ian Keenan

John Keene

Scott Keeney

Anne Kellas

Michael Kelleher

Caroline Kelley

Collin Kelley

Charmi Keranen

Michael Kerr

Jukka-Pekka Kervinen

Nick Keys

Jennifer Kilgore-Caradec

Chris Killen

Sean Kilpatrick

Jack Kimball

Amy King

Stephanie King

Dylan Kinnett

Matthew G. Kirschenbaum

Matthew Klane

Rauan Klassnik

Becca Klaver

Bill Knott

Rodney Koeneke

Jee Leong Koh

Karri Kokko

Leonard Kress

Haidee Kruger

Donna Kuhn

Patrick Kurp

L

Sven Laasko

Lewis LaCook

Larissa Lai

Leah Lakshmi

Laila Lalami

Michael Lally

Mark Lamoureux

Matthew Landis

Seth Landman

Language Hat

Maryrose Larkin

Martin Larsen

Darby Larson

Dorothea Lasky

Irene Latham

John Latta

Amy Lawless

Katy Lederer

David Dodd Lee

Jim Leftwich

Shawna Lemay

Rebeka Lembo

Amy Lemmon

Raina Leon

Michael Leong

Lawrence Lessig

Levari

Cassie Lewis

Michelle Lewis

Mark L. Lilleleht

Ada Limon

Tao Lin

Jow Lindsay

John Litzenberg

Reb Livingston

Emily Lloyd

Troy Lloyd

Eric Lochridge

Diane Lockward

Rachel Loden

Nathan Logan

Sam Lohmann

Alan Loney

Richard Long

Manuel Paul Lopez

Richard Lopez

Tony Lopez

Lisa Lorenz

Helen Losse

Cynthia Lotze

Rebecca Loudon

B.J. Love

Patrick Lovelace

Valerie Loveland

Denise Low

Aaron Lowinger

Christopher Luna

Sheryl Luna

Andrew Lundwall

François Luong

Paul Lyons

M

Rebecca Mabanglo-Mayer

Bonnie MacAllister

Jude MacDonald

Ryan Alexander MacDonald

David MacDuff

Aditi Machado

Pamela Mack

Carl Macki

Rob Mackenzie

Majena Mafe

Ted Mahsun

Evgeny Maizel

Esa Makijarvi

Taylor Mali

Rupert Mallin

Rachel Mallino

Kendra Malone

David Maney

Nicholas Manning

Sharanya Manivannan

Chris Mansel

Douglas Manson

Jennifer Manzano

Jan Manzwotz

Djelloul Marbrook

Bob Marcacci

Ezra Mark

Justin Marks

Iain Marshall

Colin Martin

Tim Martin

Juan José Martinez

Andy Martrich

Kaz Maslanka

Joseph Massey

John Matthew

Clay Matthews

Tom Matrullo

Kristi Maxwell

Steven May

Jonathan Mayhew

Adam Maynard

MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick

Carol McCarthy

Geoff McCarthy

Tom McCarthy

Aaron McCollough

Jim McCrary

Gary McDowell

David McDuff

Michelle McEwen

Missy McEwen

Michelle McGrane

Jim McGrath

David McKelvie

Rod McKuen

Rob McLennan

Erin McNellis

Matt Merritt

Sharon Mesmer

Douglas Messerli

Philip Metres

William Michaelian

Kate Middleton

Brian Mihok
& Jeannie Hoag

E. Ethelbert Miller

Cathleen Miller

Joe Milutis

Lloyd Mintern

Stephen
Mitchelmore

Ange Mlinko

Monica Mody

K. Silem Mohammad

Ron Mohring

Tatiana Molinar

Harvey Molloy

Vic Monchego

Veronica Montes

Mazie Louise Montgomery

Alan Jude Moore

Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore

Steven Moore

Jack Morgan

Travis Jay Morgan

David Morley

Simon Morris

Stephen Morrissey

Jonathan Morse

Joseph Mosconi

John Most

Derek Motion

Allen Mozek

Irv Muchnick

Matthew Muldar

Matt Mullins

Brother Tom Murphy

Miguel Murphy

Chris Murray

George Murray

Gene Myers

Gina Myers

Jess Mynes

N

Christopher Nelson

Dave Nelson

Stephen Nelson

David Nemeth

Daniel Nester

F.A. Nettelbeck

Jeff Newberry

Bryan Newbury

Richard Newman

NEWSgrist
(Joy Garnett)

Maud Newton

Aimee Nezhukumatathil

Mel Nichols

Andy Nicholson

Mike Nicoloff

Aldon Lynn Nielsen

Teresa
Nielsen Hayden

Marko Niemi

Jeroen Nieuwland

Eirikur Örn Norðdahl

Carol Novack

Edward Nudelman

Graham Nunn

O

Wanda O'Connor

Adrienne J. Odasso

Scott K. Odom

Obododimma Oha

Marco Alexandre Oliveira

Charles Olson

Kirby Olson

Daniela Olszewska

Iamnasra Oman

Heather O'Neill

January O'Neill

Kevin Opstedal

Alexis Orgera

Kristen Orser

George Orwell

Ashraf Osman

Scott Owens

P

Maria Padhila

Danielle Pafunda

Shin Yu Pai

Lars Palm

G.M. Palmer

Shann Palmer

Brian Palmu

Chad Parenteau

Ishle Yi Park

Frank Parker

Michael Parker

Budd Parr

Guillermo Juan Parra

Gary Parrish

David Patton

Mark Pawlak

Robert Peake

Christian Peet

Peter Pereira

Craig Perez

Emmy Perez

John Perrault

Greg Perry

Bill Peschel

Carol Peters

Mark Peters

Evan J. Peterson

Tim Peterson

Edward Pettit

Michael Peverett

Nicole Peyrafitte

Andrew Philip

Rachel Phillips

Tom Phillips

Peter Philpott

Michelle Naka Pierce

Scott Pierce

Bill Piety

Sam Pink

Nick Piombino

Pearl Pirie

Chris Piuma

Deborah Poe

Niina Pollari

Jan Pollet

Alessandro Porco

D.A. Powell

Shelley Powers

David Prater

Ernesto Priego

Ross Priddle

Daniel Pritchard

David W. Pritchard

Jayne Pupek

Q

Lanny Quarles

Sina Queyras

 

R

Russell Ragsdale

J.P. Rangaswami

Chamko Rani

Greg Rappleye

Rauno Räsänen

Sam Rasnake

Clancy Ratliff

a. rawlings

Tom Raworth

Sean Reagan

Robin Reagler

C. Allen Rearick

Kathryn Regina

Allan Revich

Barbara Jane Reyes

D.M. Rich

Tad Richards

Chuck Richardson

Helen Rickerby

Jack Ridl

Paul Rigolle

Dee Rimbaud

Sara Quinn Rivara

L.M. Rivera

Christopher Rizzo

Joshua Robbins

Adam Robinson

Sophie Robinson

Katrina Rodabaugh

Evelio Rojas

Jon Rolston

Nicholas Rombes

Rik Roots

Lee Ann Roripaugh

Patrick Rosal

Eric Rosenfield

Pam Rosenthal

Jay Rosevear

Jack Ross

Stuart Ross

Matt Rotando

Jerome Rothenberg

Jess Rowan

Rochita Ruiz

Ken Rumble

Jacob Russell

Jenni Russell
& Jack Hughes

Layne Russell

Harry Rutherford

S

Carly Sachs

Sarojini Sahoo

John Sakkis

Brian Salchert

Christopher Salerno

Michael Salinger

Jenny Sampirisi

Miguel Sánchez

Erik Sapin

Selah Saterstrom

Gary Sauer-Thompson
& Trevor Maddock

Larry Sawyer

Ed Schenk

Michael Schiavo

Kyle Schlesinger

Brenda Schmidt

Christopher Schmidt

Jessica Schneider

Zachary Schomburg

Steven Schroeder

Morgan Lucas Schuldt

Susan M. Schultz

Scoplaw

Eric Scovel

Mark Scroggins

Doc Searls

Nic Sebastian

Laura Sells

Anindita Sengupta

Craig Shaffer

Firoze Shakir

Girish Shambu

Don Share

Steven Shaviro

Felicia Shenker

Reginald Shepherd

Robert Sheppard

Charles Shere

Frank Sherlock

Bill Sherman

Carolee Sherwood

Andrew Shields

Reza Shirazi

Adrian Shirk

Larissa Shmailo

Evie Shockley

Bill Shute

John Siddique

Jeffrey Side

Paul Siegell

Siel

Martha Silano

Dan Silliman

Sandra Simonds

Luc Simonic

Nancy Simpson

Natalie Simpson

Jared Sinclair

Sarah Sarai

Natalie Simpson

Justin Sirois

Lizzie Skurnick

Adrian Slatcher

Ron Slate

Susan Slaviero

Marcus Slease

Barbara Smith

Brian Smith

Dale Smith

Jessica Smith

Larry Smith

Logan Ryan Smith

Lytton Smith

Owen Smith

Patricia Smith

Rod Smith

Steve Smith

Susan Smith Nash

Cheryl & Janet Snell

Danny Snelson

Mike Snider

Juliana Spahr

Corey Spaley

John Sparrow

Litsa Spathi

Brian Spears

Ken Springtail

Tommasina Squadrito

Levi Stahl

Matina Stamatakis

Harry K Stammer

Heidi Lynn Staples
(formerly
Heidi Peppermint)

Ron Starr

Brian Kim Stefans

Julia Stein

Leigh Stein

Suzanne Stein

Jordan Stempleman

Torrance Stephens

Brian Stephenson

Bruce Sterling

C. Harris Stevens

Kyle Stich

Robb St. Lawrence

Bianca Stone

Jeneva Stone

Patricia Storms

Brian Strang

Zoe Strauss

Donna Strickland

Leny Strobel

Chris Stroffolino

Charles Stross

Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino

Jeff Stumpo

Gary Sullivan

John Sullivan

Todd Suomela

Mathias Svalina

Nina Svenne

Todd Swift

Elizabeth Kate Switaj

George Szirtes

T

Eileen Tabios

Michelle Taransky

Bronwen Tate

Allen Taylor

Andrew Taylor

Richard Taylor

Terry Teachout

Craig Teicher

Andrew Terhune

Michael Theune

A.D. Thomas

Celeste Thompson

Clive Thompson

Jeremy James Thompson

Henry David Thoreau

Matthew Thorburn

Maureen Thorson

Philip Thrift

Kevin Thurston

Aaron Tieger

Steve Tills

Mathew Timmons

Miia Toivio

Chris Tonelli

Andrew Topel

Mike Topp

Tony Tost

Bethan Townsend

Sara Tracey

Davide Trame

Tony Trehy

Tony Trigilio

Monique Trottier

Steven Trull

Mark Truscott

Mark Tursi

Ashby Tyler

Jen Tynes

John Tyson/Kelly Conway

U

Sumaila Isah Umaisha

Amy Unsworth

V

Guga Valente

David Valentinovia

Gerard Van der Luen

Jeff VanderMeer

Skye Van Saun

Lourdes Vázquez

Jean Vengua

Dan Vera

Benito Vergara

Paul Vermeersch

Aaron Vidaver

Santiago B. Villafania

Rich Villar

Stephen Vincent

David Vincenti

Dan Visel

Rick Visser

Anna Vitale

Chris Vitiello

Lina ramona
Vitkauskas

Professor VJ

W

Karen Wagner

James Wagner

Ryan Wakem

Steven Waling

George M Wallace

Mark Wallace

Louise Waller

Chicky Wang

Shanxing Wang

Njeri Wangari

Jeff Ward

Alli Warren

Bill Walsh

Amanda Watson

Jessica Watson

Barrett Watten

Phoebe Wayne

Les Webb

Loren Webster

Curtis Gale Weeks

Holly Wehmeyer

David Weinberger

Brandi Wells

Michael Wells

Zachariah Wells

Don Wentworth

Andrew Wessels

Jessamyn West

Sean Whelan

Ann White

Ross White

Gail D. Whitter

Rick Wiggins

Dan Wilcox

Remy Wilkins

Ben Wilkinson

Joshua Marie Wilkinson

Colin Will

Edward Williams

John Moore Williams

Frank Wilson

Juliet Wilson

Dave Winer

Leslie Winer

D'Anne Witkowski

Robert Wodzinski

David Wolach

Kayin Wong

Jonathan Wonham

Alysha Wood

Mark Woods

Erica Wright

Tim Wright

Brennen Wysong

X

Y

Esmail Yazdanpour

Jake Adam York

C. Dale Young

Mark Young

Mike Young

Tim Yu

Z

Vassilis Zambaras

Natalie Zed

Ivan Zemtsov

Renee Zepeda

Sharon Zeugin

Magdalena Zurawski

 

Collective Blogs

2Blowhards

3by3by3

Albany Poets

As/Is

Atlanta Poets Group

Atonalist

The Barnyard

Best American Poetry

Calgary Blowout

Chicago Poetry Calendar

Columbia College

de Contrabas
(6 Dutch poetry blogs)

Contrariwise Literary Tattoos

Corresponding Society

Crackt Poeticks

CutBank Reviews

Design Observer

Dumbfoundry

Dusie Reviews

The Flux I Share

Fluxlist

Fluxlist Europe

Forward Text

Fringe

Galatea Resurrects

Give a Fig

Gramatologia

Grand Text Auto

Great American Pinup

Green Apple Books

Harriet

Here Comes Everybody

Home Video Review of Books

HTML Giant

Institute for the Future of the Book

Intercapillary Space

International Exchange for Poetic Invention

Literary Kicks

Madame's Walls of Shake

Mad Poets Society

Malaysian Poetic Chronicles

Molten Language

Naropa SWP

Next Objectivists

Nonsite Collective

Now What

Olde Quietude

Omnidawn

Open Space (SFMOMA)

The Other Room

The Philly Free School

The Philly Sound

Plumbline School

Poetry Project

Poets On Fire

Post-Neoabsurdist Anti-Collective

Puisi-poesy

Scottish Poetry Library

SFMOMA

SPD Today

Switchback Books

Temple Poetry

Textsound

Thrownnest

Tobacco Road

Ubuweb

Urdu Poetry

Vanitas

Verse Mag Blog

Woodland Pattern

Word of Mouth Coalition

X Poetics

Zswounderground




Portrait by Didi Menendez

Ron Silliman has written and edited over 30 books to date. Silliman was the 2006 Poet Laureate of the Blogosphere, a 2003 Literary Fellow of the National Endowment for the Arts and was a 2002 Fellow of the Pennsylvania Arts Council as well as a Pew Fellow in the Arts in 1998. He lives in Chester County, Pennsylvania, with his wife and two sons, and works as a market analyst in the computer industry.


© 2002 - 2009 by Ron Silliman


   http://www.wikio.com
   
   
   Blogarama - The Blog Directory
   Blog Flux Directory
   Locations of visitors to this page