This entry was posted
on Tuesday, January 5th, 2010 at 4:11 pm and is filed under CNQ Blog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Ouch, this “Cage Match” was a bit of a blood bath.
Certainly one of the two contestants was out of his weight-class–Starnino was KO’d at the first fore-arm smack. A little painful to watch his defeat, surprising really, considering the written bile he has directed at many poets of all stripes–I would have hoped for at least one or two original, well-formed, and clearly stated ideas from him that didn’t have to be pre-written and delivered from the safety of his office. After many years picking this fight, I CAN NOT believe he came in so unprepared! It looked like even he was tired of his own cliche-driven, “hard-boiled” one liner- responses, culled: “Pays its way… “Elephant in the room…Dry as dust…Stack the Deck…Free Rides”? Regardless, not pretty.
Also surprising was Bok’s recurring points on the market as goal, inspiration and legitimization. I soon guessed that this debate wouldn’t be much about passion and potential of poetry, its promise, but rather a battle about how the two see poetry, rightly or wrongly, in terms of how it is perceived by the public as well as the the taste-makers of their own respective camps.
Inevitably some interesting opportunities for both more passion–as well as the shedding of more of the competitor’s blood–were missed.
Some ironic overlaps and similarities arise:
While Starnino may seem to have ideas about what *kind* of poetry we should be reading (”Good Poetry” says the Good Platonist), but he is unable to offer a reason *why* we should be reading it. First, he presents no sociological importance for poetry here (he says from the beginning of the lecture that social context is of no importance to him, as if, perhaps, Celan’s “Death Fugue” can be judged as “good or bad” outside of context or setting of the poem, outside of the conditions of it own creation). But, interestingly, Starnino doesn’t even give what might be considered a conservative defense poetry: it’s potential for emotional or intellectual insight or pleasure, its gift of music or delight. Nothing. “Good is somehow good,” is his underlying message, and therefor should be read. Empty. Oddly too, he didn’t even fight for his own side; he seemed strangely supportive of Bok’s program, the gate-keeper and protector of something he longer believes in or perhaps can no longer aesthetically or ideologically stand behind. Where was his fight?
For Bok–partly to do with his recurring emphasis on the relative financial and popular successes of Eunoia–it seemed ironic that often his own avant-gardist agenda came across as so populist, centrist, liberal: his likening of poetry to Twitter, advertising, science, the cultural syntax of social phenomena, book sales. While I agree with and support the idea that cultural phenomena is integral to contemporary poetry (and that the poet’s job is to extend what’s most vital in the poetic gesture, the evolution of the imagination, into other realms, social discourses and cultural fields–unseen aspects of contemporary life), I was still, like, “Man, where’s your edge, your criticality?”–certainly there are some reasons to challenge these phenomenon and structures, and not just by “fucking shit up from the inside.” I don’t know; I didn’t buy it. Sounded at times like passive acceptance.
Starnino seemed like a closeted jazz-tap freak who for reasons he doesn’t understand is stuck defending classical ballet. My psychoanalytic side imagined him dying to Come Out, go a little “crazy.”
Like an aging revolutionary, Bok seemed to want more “success,” as if, at least for the moment, the monarchy has fled the castle and he is happy to extend his residence there for as long as possible, enjoy the fine cutlery.
Final thoughts: I eagerly await Bok’s new work, and hope it will indeed go beyond his earlier work in scope, scale, sure, but also in its transformative potential. Keep up the good work.
I wish Starnino the best of luck in continuing to find and develop his own voice and creative space.
Ouch, this “Cage Match” was a bit of a blood bath.
Certainly one of the two contestants was out of his weight-class–Starnino was KO’d at the first fore-arm smack. A little painful to watch his defeat, surprising really, considering the written bile he has directed at many poets of all stripes–I would have hoped for at least one or two original, well-formed, and clearly stated ideas from him that didn’t have to be pre-written and delivered from the safety of his office. After many years picking this fight, I CAN NOT believe he came in so unprepared! It looked like even he was tired of his own cliche-driven, “hard-boiled” one liner- responses, culled: “Pays its way… “Elephant in the room…Dry as dust…Stack the Deck…Free Rides”? Regardless, not pretty.
Also surprising was Bok’s recurring points on the market as goal, inspiration and legitimization. I soon guessed that this debate wouldn’t be much about passion and potential of poetry, its promise, but rather a battle about how the two see poetry, rightly or wrongly, in terms of how it is perceived by the public as well as the the taste-makers of their own respective camps.
Inevitably some interesting opportunities for both more passion–as well as the shedding of more of the competitor’s blood–were missed.
Some ironic overlaps and similarities arise:
While Starnino may seem to have ideas about what *kind* of poetry we should be reading (”Good Poetry” says the Good Platonist), but he is unable to offer a reason *why* we should be reading it. First, he presents no sociological importance for poetry here (he says from the beginning of the lecture that social context is of no importance to him, as if, perhaps, Celan’s “Death Fugue” can be judged as “good or bad” outside of context or setting of the poem, outside of the conditions of it own creation). But, interestingly, Starnino doesn’t even give what might be considered a conservative defense poetry: it’s potential for emotional or intellectual insight or pleasure, its gift of music or delight. Nothing. “Good is somehow good,” is his underlying message, and therefor should be read. Empty. Oddly too, he didn’t even fight for his own side; he seemed strangely supportive of Bok’s program, the gate-keeper and protector of something he longer believes in or perhaps can no longer aesthetically or ideologically stand behind. Where was his fight?
For Bok–partly to do with his recurring emphasis on the relative financial and popular successes of Eunoia–it seemed ironic that often his own avant-gardist agenda came across as so populist, centrist, liberal: his likening of poetry to Twitter, advertising, science, the cultural syntax of social phenomena, book sales. While I agree with and support the idea that cultural phenomena is integral to contemporary poetry (and that the poet’s job is to extend what’s most vital in the poetic gesture, the evolution of the imagination, into other realms, social discourses and cultural fields–unseen aspects of contemporary life), I was still, like, “Man, where’s your edge, your criticality?”–certainly there are some reasons to challenge these phenomenon and structures, and not just by “fucking shit up from the inside.” I don’t know; I didn’t buy it. Sounded at times like passive acceptance.
Starnino seemed like a closeted jazz-tap freak who for reasons he doesn’t understand is stuck defending classical ballet. My psychoanalytic side imagined him dying to Come Out, go a little “crazy.”
Like an aging revolutionary, Bok seemed to want more “success,” as if, at least for the moment, the monarchy has fled the castle and he is happy to extend his residence there for as long as possible, enjoy the fine cutlery.
Final thoughts: I eagerly await Bok’s new work, and hope it will indeed go beyond his earlier work in scope, scale, sure, but also in its transformative potential. Keep up the good work.
I wish Starnino the best of luck in continuing to find and develop his own voice and creative space.