[New-Poetry] CD Wright's body count

[ts mclain]

For me, the "numbingly weak" is a constant for almost all public poetry.
Maybe that is part of its charm as well as its downfall. I agree that when
you hitch up to a cause, you can be granted more of that gravitas just
because people are so impressed you said exactly what they wished they had
said. Like bumper stickers, these poems do not age well and they eventually
reduce the value of the vehicle attached to the bumper.

Who are good issue poets? I am curious what others think on this. In my
limited readings on social issue poems, I liked many parts of Ginsberg's
"Wichita Diamond Sutra" and I just read it forty years after it was written.
Crane's "War is Kind" also has some nice sections. But both would look
different if they were edited today. How about Yeats' topical/political
poetry? I was never moved by it but it was fun to pick apart in the
classroom. Generally, if the language used doesn't move me or create some
tension, then I don't see the poem getting off to very good start.

I haven't read much of C.D.Wright, but I do find that she is always about
language. I don't see her as being as polemical as the worst of the issues
poets can be. Maybe it shows my ingnorance, but I think the whole issue
about the penal system in Arkansas is largely unexplored, as recent PBS
shows on the de facto slavery resulting from post Civil War Jim Crow laws
suggests. Having heard her talk about this book last Spring, I got the
distinct impression that she was after more than just finger-pointing or
patronizing the victims. That doesn't make for a good book, necessarily. But
I am curious. Although, the limited edition is a little pricey.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM, John Jeffrey <jjeffreymail at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Jeez.  Someone uses the term "politically correct" and gets a couple of
> "Bullshit"s thrown back at him?  And, more interestingly, the Bullshiters
> then claim that the phrase "politically correct" is the "lowest denominator
> of criticism" or that it's not "descriptive"?  Well ain't that just the crap
> calling the cliché stinky.
>
> What's the name of this list again?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>
> To: "NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News & Views" <
> new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 7:50:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] CD Wright's body count
>
>
>
> Suzanne Burns wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Bob Grumman <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Roger Day wrote:
>>
>>> "politically correct": the lowest denominator of criticism these days.
>>> Something you don't like?
>>>
>>
>> It's a descriptive term whose meaning everyone knows, Roger.
>
>
> I disagree.  It ceased to be a descriptive term a long, long time ago.
> What is became is a It's a great big rubber stamp one slaps down to dismiss,
> trivialize, and above all silence any discussion of a political or social
> issue (especially if it concerns women) one does not want to hear about.
>
> I too call bullshit. If you don't like CD Wrights work, fine, but please
> say something real.
>
> Suzanne Burns
>
>
> I can't remember exactly what I said, but it was more or less that mediocre
> poets whose political outlook mirrors the outlook of the liberal
> establishment--i.e., are politically correct (and I await a better term for
> what I meant)--are the ones who get grants, as CD Wright has.  My
> implication was that the political stance, which should be irrelevant,
> counts.
>
> --Bob G.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20080713/22651b26/attachment.html