[New-Poetry] Best poetry books of 2010
alexdickow9 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 13 19:52:20 EST 2010
I'm not sure about useful, but I do think Bob's Wilshberia category is a
stimulating tool for discussion, in spite of its (to me) excessively broad
contours. And more generally, I find that his categories have a sort of odd
beauty of their own: I think of it as a sort of poetic form by itself, along the
lines of a spidery system invented by an odd, abrasive yet charming entomologist
(with a bit of Melville's Ahab thrown in for extra flavor). And yes, that is a
compliment, Bob, although a slightly bizarre one. Returning to the subject of
our present sheep, to borrow a six-hundred-year-old French expression, I wonder
if Ashbery's Three poems would be included as part of Wilshberia? It's by
Ashbery, but (I think) fairly different from his other work, and fairly singular
in the tradition, it seems to me (ie I don't think the neonecropets (sp?) are
writing like Three Poems). But I think the names of Wilbur and Ashbery have a
kind of indexical value, rather than an absolute one: ie, they're convenient
markers for a dominant style, but that may not mean that all Ashbery or all
Wilbur (maybe) fall within such a category.
les mots! ah quel désert à la fin
merveilleux. -- Henri Droguet
From: David Graham <grahamd at ripon.edu>
To: NewPoetry <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
Sent: Tue, December 14, 2010 12:12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Best poetry books of 2010
On 12/13/10 5:06 PM, "Bob Grumman" <bobgrumman at nut-n-but.net> wrote:
My challenge to you, David, is to find another way of splitting up kinds of
>For me it's about as useful as a scheme dividing all music into (a)Tuvan
>throat singing and (b) everything else.
>I think you've got it backwards. For you it's like splitting poetry into (a)
>poetry you're comfortable with because it hasn't significantly changed in sixty
>years, and (b) poetry only I and a few other strange people like--the equivalent
>of Tuvan throat singing.
>And my challenge was not to you, Bob, but to the rest of the list: is there
>ANYONE who finds your bizarre divisional scheme useful or meaningful?
>As I've said many times, my problem with "Wilshberia" is that it elides all
>differences and treats a huge range of poetry (in fact, most poetry read by most
>people) as "the same." As a categorical scheme that's just nutty. It's like
>seeing no difference at the zoo between a starfish, a tree frog, and an
>Hell, even *Ashbery's* poetry has changed markedly in the past 60 years. . . .
> But you see no difference worth discussing between *The Tennis Court Oath* and
>*The Beautiful Changes*.
grahamd at ripon.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the New-Poetry