[New-Poetry] What I witnessed

[Chris Lott]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 06:07, John Jeffrey <jjeffreymail at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- "Now, was that applause for me, for the poem, or for the sentiments in
> the poem? You know, applause can be so ambiguous."
>
> THAT is what (at least) I am talking about, that sentiment makes many people
> raise their opinion of a poem, praising flabby, bland poems to the status of
> "powerful" if they agree with the point of view put forward by the poet.

No doubt. But the complications are obvious: bad poems can still do
good things... and denigrating good poems because one *doesn't* agree
with the position being taken is at least as common as artificially
elevating them (when anyone cares at all). Then again, past a pretty
basic level, I'm not at all sure that aesthetic appraisal-- as
relative and individual as it is-- can really be so neatly
disentangled from other cultural and philosophical understanding.

I've only seen three poems (one of them incomplete) from this book by
Wright, but none of them struck me as bland and flabby. On the other
hand, I lost all credibility in not being entranced by much of O'Hara.
And I have an inordinate number of family members who have been in the
prison system (and some who still are) so, for reasons stated above,
my view comes from a different place than some others. The implication
in some of the discussion is that I should be more sensitive to
"exploitation" because of that.. .and I think I am, but then we get
back to the fact that even bad poems can do good things, like giving a
problem most constantly and happily ignore even a little exposure.

c