Silliman's Blog

Ron,

Your link to Kenny Goldsmith's Harriet post on "Flarf vs. Conceptual writing" (whose comment stream you state is not as interesting as the comment stream at Kasey Mohammad's blog on same topic) actually cuts-off most of the discussion there, which includes a link sent in by one Noah Freed to Don Share's blog, where the comments under *Share's* post on the matter [this is getting complicated] are, I dare say, much more interesting than the members-only cocktail banter at Lime Tree!

Here's that link again:
http://donshare.blogspot.com/2008/12/flarf-gives-you-more-bang-for-your-buck.html -

Kent

# posted by

Kent Johnson : December 11, 2008

your link like that 2/3rds of the way down sent me here

http://www.oberlin.edu/student/jrowell/

was that intentional?

# posted by

James : December 13, 2008

William Logan may whine, but he reads close the poetry books he reviews. Also, while his jibes are often cheap shots, I fully agree with his critique of Mary Oliver, in the set of reviews linked to here.

# posted by

Steven Fama : December 14, 2008

Chime chime.

Whatever Ron may say about Logan--I echo--he (Logan) is right about these poets.

He's snide, and crass, and cutely rude, but right on.

We need angry, grouchy critics. They put us back in touch with ourselves.

# posted by

Curtis Faville : December 17, 2008

No, Curtis, he's not. He mostly takes easy shots at people. You may agree with him about one or more of these (I'm not that far from him in his assessment of Mary Oliver, for example), but none of these is really a reading. Especially the one of Cole Swensen, which could politely be called a hatchet job.

Here's my most recent review of a Swensen volume, which will give you a better idea of what I think of her work, which I've been reading carefully for 25 years.

And we don't need angry, grouchy critics. We need insightful ones. The problem is confusing one for the other.

# posted by

Ron : December 18, 2008

Ron:

We need both.

Your most serious reviews seem to me to be either extended paeans, with little discrimination, or sardonic tirades against poets you despise (mostly).

But I do believe that culture is well served by a skeptical, suspicious, resistant, somewhat mannered curmudgeon who feels personally responsible for the state of the language. Not "best"-served, but well-served.

We need different kinds, but without the skeptics, we're at sea.

Because there's so much meretricious trash--Jorie Graham, Anne Carson, Mary Oliver, Sharon Olds (just to mention a few of the ladies)--out there that you need a reliable shit-detector (not sure who coined that, but whatever).

The Logan review actually made me want to read the Swenson book. I hardly ever feel the same about new books you praise highly--I have the feeling I'm going to be appalled by them. Anything that made it past Logan's shit detector probably is worth at least a look. I can usually tell which ones are just Quietist (I wonder who made that one up?) twaddle.

Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal were two parts of a whole reality--not the only parts, but useful parts. Logan isn't Hugh Kenner, and you aren't Kenneth Rexroth.

These comparisons are invidious, but you get my drift.

The books you like that your enemy also likes, are probably worth reading. It's a kind of triangulation.

Yes?

# posted by

Curtis Faville : December 18, 2008

Silliman's Blog

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Silliman Sites

Email

Books in Print

Poetry

Memoirs & Collaborations

Criticism

Anthology

Archives

Blogs

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Z