As the political divisions in this country seem
more contested and irreconcilable than ever, the scene in American
poetics seems to be revealing itself as equally divisive. In the
political realm, there is, of course, the divide along ideological
and party lines, as well as along religious beliefs and secular
values. These conflicting paradigms seem as tense and dialectical
as ever. In some ways, it is an atmosphere that is reminiscent
of America in the 1950’s replete with a growing social conservativism,
an increase in government control (e.g. the Patriot Act, the Academic
Bill of Rights), and a manipulative leadership obsessed with creating
an overall feeling of fear throughout the country (e.g. of communism
and homosexuality in the 50’s and terrorism and homosexuality
today). In poetry, there is a divide, as there was in the 1950’s,
between so-called academic writing on one hand and writing outside
of institutions of higher education on the other. In the 1950’s
it was the academic formalism of the New Critics like John Crow
Ransom, Allen Tate, Cleanthe Brooks, et al. and the Black Mountain
Poets, the Beats, the San Francisco poets, and New York School
on the other. However, is the divide in American writing today
the same as it was then?
We would argue that a schism does exist, but it
comes through in a completely different guise. On the surface it
seems to be a divide between academic or, even, so-called ‘workshop’ poetry,
and poetry that exists outside of this, whether as performance
or through independent writers unaffiliated with any university.
Although these labels seem inadequate, there remains a clear gap
between writing that is deeply interested in the processes of language
and a poetry more interested in drama: e.g. the MTV-style performance
poetry of Russell Simmons’ Def Poetry Jam on one
hand and avant-garde writers concerned more with craft and the
nuances of language on the other. There is also a rift today between
writers who have been influenced by theory, philosophy and other ‘intellectual’ thought
(esp. deconstruction, post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc.),
and writers who tend to reject this kind of thinking. This schism
is among poets who absorb and celebrate the indeterminacy and uncertainty
brought about (at least in part) by postmodernism and the social
realities of postmodern society, and writers who reject it. Perhaps
this gap is not really a division between academic and non-academic
poets, as much as it is a divide within the academy itself. Or,
perhaps the divide is really multiple divides?
In a survey in The Bloomsbury Review last
summer, various poets were asked the question: “What recent
trends in American poetry do you find troubling or worrisome?”[1]
As you might imagine, the responses present often bitterly divided
ideas about what poetry is or should be. There are complaints about
Postmodern Language Poetry on one hand and confessional narrative
poetry on the other; or, academic experimentalism versus performance
poetry; or, avant-garde writing versus writing with more depth
and meaning. But, perhaps, Paul Hoover’s insight is most
telling: “I don’t find much that is worrisome in poetry;
it’s the political life of the country that scares me.” Hoover’s
assessment seems right on here, yet there still remains a concern
about the way in which competing paradigms and varying trends contribute
to and participate in the ongoing conversation over poetics – some
are simply sophomoric and juvenile and quash any real dialogue,
while others seem to inspire and provoke evocative and worthwhile
discussion. Quite possibly, the new avant-garde may do the opposite
of previous avant-garde movements throughout literary history (e.g.
Dada, Surrealism, Objectivism, the Beats, Language) have done.
That is, instead of subverting or undermining previous sensibilities,
they actually absorb them. David Barbiero suggests something similar
in his essay “Avant-Garde without Agonism?” where he
claims there is more openness to a “plurality of influences” within
the avant-garde today than ever before. There are poets in this
issue of Double Room, for example, who have accepted the
kind of influences presented by movements as diverse as Surrealism
and Language or Imagism and Symbolism, and have adopted strategies
from both. Consider Joyelle McSweeney’s sprawling and eclectic
mix of surrealist impulses and disturbing syntactic disruptions.
Or, read Tom Whalen and Gene Myer’s comic, idiomatic anecdotes
that borrow from the dream world as well as absurdities from quotidian
reality. On the other end of this swinging pendulum—Paula
Koneazny, Martha Ronk and Matthew Cooperman—are writers who
continue to remind us of the dangers of language and the instability
of narrative. Or, the poetry of Robert Gibbons and George Kalamaras
whose dense metaphysical explorations are tempered with wildly
imaginative figurative language and irony. We are also happy to
feature several translations of French poet, Jean-Michel Malpoix,
whose work is imbued with twisting philosophical ruminations, as
well as airy images. And, we’re of course, pleased to feature
several poems from prose poet master, Russell Edson who we interviewed
in our previous issue. You will certainly find an eclectic mix
of voices from poet to poet, writer to writer. Our Special
Feature this issue includes a a digital essay on Jen Bervin’s
wonderful text, Nets. W. Scott Howard puts forth a largely
debatable claim that this book of ‘deletions’ can be
read as a prose poem. Certainly, as Howard notes, the book demands
various interpretations and readings, but is it prose poetry? We
leave that for you to decide.
And, of course, there is our Discussion on
the Forms section, which brings us to our final point. George
Kalamaras, one of the poets published in this issue who responded
to the same question in the The Bloomsbury Review noted
above, said this: “I find troubling a continuing distrust
of imaginative and surrealist poetries, as well as a seemingly
strict adherence to more strictly defined genres in which genre-bending
forms like the prose poem are often suspect.” We largely
agree and hope to explode that mistrust with the work included
here and with our ongoing discussion on these forms. We remain
dedicated to furthering and promoting the discussion about what
constitutes prose poetry or flash fiction, and resist the urge
quell the dialogue with weird and, often, unfounded suspicions.
We think the work here provides its own legitimacy and creates
its own space in this burgeoning movement we call pp/ff.
We also want to point-out that the January/February
2005 issue of American Book Review, guest edited by Double
Room co-editor Peter Conners, highlights some of the same
issues we have been discussing in the last five issues. One reason
we point to this is that the journal includes reviews of numerous
books from the pp/ff genre that are certainly worth reading. It
also includes an article by Jamey Dunham that highlights many of
the other journals devoted to exploring pp/ff, including Sentence, Cue, Minima and
more. A perusal of this will undoubtedly expand your ideas of this
genre. It is becoming increasingly clear that the pp/ff community
of writers is beginning to constitute a new kind of avant-garde,
or, at least, a voice somewhere among these multiple poetic movements.
And, it is voice that seems to be gaining momentum everyday.
----------------
[1] Davis, Jon. “A Survey by Ray Gonzalez.” The
Bloomsbury Review Vol. 24/Issue 3 (May/June 2004).
|