[New-Poetry] Ultra-Talk

Tue Jun 26 15:59:34 EDT 2007

I realize that I've been referring to ultra-talk poetry as "slacker poetry,"
which signals my regard. But the predecessors mentioned, O'Hara and Koch,
_are_ very interesting to me. As is Meyer and, of course, Coleridge.

By the way, Coleridge's conversation poems usually fell into a structure
referred to as the greater Romantic ode or the Romantic meditative ode by M.
H. Abrams. Sounds like a boring place to look, but in fact it's particularly
interesting in terms of what a semi-conversational poetry is now doing.

The Romantic ode, was structured in a way that went from observation, to
meditation, to observation, back into meditation where it culminates with a
transcendent understanding. Coleridge at times would "go one further," by
ending on a combination or fusion of perception and thought, as in "Frost at
Midnight" which bends earth and thought into this new
realization/understanding. The movements from observation to meditation were
to go from relatively relaxed states of energy to heightened states.

Thus you could graph the movement--observation to meditation to observation
to meditation to a blend-as a double wave beginning in the first relaxed
trough of observation with two peaks of meditative energy and ending (with
"Frost at Midnight" at least) in a falling energy "blend" corresponding to
the satisfaction of consummate understanding or a resolution. (I wish I knew
how to draw a double wave here.)

There are all types of things we might understand about these poets and
their views of the world and their places in it by simply seeing such a
structure.

I love Finnegan's questions. I felt he was suspicious of this type of work
as I am, but instead of attacking it, he asked beautifully sensible
questions that might help him understand the quality of such work.

I would like to add to his question, in the same spirit I think he asked
his. Mine (finally) is there some like what Abrams wrote about in the
Romantic ode which might give us as much access to this work as he increased
mine into the Romantic poets? Is there a structure that reflects a world
view? (I might not like: "Its desultory drift reflects an existential
ennui,"  but I'd understand it and start looking for that . . . and if it
did it well . . . great. I might even find new appreciation.) 

It needn't be just structure (though this is a telling place to look). I'm
merely looking for a key. I've been in workshops where students wrote what I
identity as this and I try to help them as best as I can, but I'd probably
be more effective if I knew some of the main artistic principles or
underlying thought.

(Or will we have to buy the book of essays? . . . Actually whetting our
tastes with a rationale or three might send more of us _to_ the book instead
of simply replacing its usefulness.)

-----Original Message-----
From: new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu
[mailto:new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu] On Behalf Of jforjames at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:14 PM
To: new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Ultra-Talk

David,
How about Marcia Southwick? 
http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/ncw/southsel.htm
Tony Hoagland and Dean Young?

The bigger question is: What gets the poem up to the level of ultra; what
raises it above some random ramblings on/about insignificant aspects of
one's life? (You didn't say what you thought of the example poem from the
chapbook prize winner?) 

Certainly there is generally an 'effusive' or a 'frenetic' quality about the
poetry, with lots of unexpected segues and digressions, and usually some
humorous/askance takes on the various things within the poet's wide-ranging
purview, and sometimes a heady mix diction.

Is 'ultra talk' always humorous or 'breezy'? Is there jaded or dour ultra
talk?

Is 'ultra talk' ever short? Or does it need a certain length to really get
itself revved up?

Finnegan
http://www.ursprache.blogspot.com/

On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:58 AM, jforjames at aol.com wrote:

I've overheard better poetry at Starbucks than this...

Someone coined that term 'ultra-talk' poetry, so maybe
we need a new classification, 'infra-talk' poetry.
Finnegan

=======================

Always happy to talk Ultra-Talk. . . .   Mark Halliday coined the term,
applying it to the poems of David Kirby in a review in *Parnassus*.  I wrote
an essay about the concept, centered around Halliday's work but meditating a
bit on a mode of poetry that seems particularly interesting these days.  It
appeared in Ed Byrne's wonderful *Valparaiso Poetry Review*, which I am also
always ready to plug:  

http://www.valpo.edu/english/vpr/grahamultra.html

>From my perspective, ultra-talkers would include poets such as Halliday,
Kirby, Barbara Hamby, Albert Goldbarth, David Lehman, Denise Duhamel, Billy
Collins sometimes, Bernadette Mayer, and many others.  Antecedents in Frank
O'Hara & Kenneth Koch, and before that, way back to Coleridge's conversation
poems.

Most recently, David Kirby adopted the term for his collection of essays,
*Ultra Talk:  Johnny Cash, The Mafia, Shakespeare, St. Teresa of Avila, and
17 Other Colossal Topics of Conversation* (U Georgia 2007).  I highly
recommend this book, which is not for the most part about ultra-talk, but is
the most entertaining and bright set of essays I've read in years.  One of
the best pieces on Whitman I've ever seen, among other delights.

Kirby is also at work on a forthcoming feature in *TriQuarterly* that will
present a spread of ultra-talk poems including a few by yours truly.

========================================

David Graham

grahamd at ripon.edu

  _____  

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at  <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> AOL.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20070626/b9187405/attachment.html