Wednesday, March 14, 2007

From the NYT

This is an exerpt from the New York Times article, "Annals of Poetry." It is a response, of sorts, to the Dana Goodyear/New Yorker article, which criticized the Poetry Foundation. But I think it's very telling (and very accurate) about the upper eschelon organizations of poetry. Yik.

(You may have to register with the NYT to read the entire article, dated March 11, 2007.)

Indeed, The New Yorker now treats poetry almost exactly as Goodyear suggests the Poetry Foundation does — as a brand-enhancing commodity. Rather than actual discussions of poetry as an art, The New Yorker offers “profiles” of poets, which are distinguishable from profiles of, say, United States senators only in that the poets’ stories potentially include more references to bongs. That’s not to knock the authors of those profiles — often they’re a pleasure to read. They just have nothing to do with poetry.

And then there’s the question of the poems the magazine chooses to run. Granted, picking poems for a national publication is nearly impossible, and The New Yorker’s poetry editor, Alice Quinn, probably does it as well as anyone could. (Quinn is also liked personally, and rightly so, by many poets.) But there are two ways in which The New Yorker’s poem selection indicates the tension between reinforcing the “literariness” of the magazine’s brand and actually saying something interesting about poetry. First, The New Yorker tends to run bad poems by excellent poets. This occurs in part because the magazine has to take Big Names, but many Big Names don’t work in ways that are palatable to The New Yorker’s vast audience (in addition, many well-known poets don’t write what’s known in the poetry world as “the New Yorker poem” — basically an epiphany-centered lyric heavy on words like “water” and “light”). As a result, you get fine writers trying on a style that doesn’t suit them. The Irish poet Michael Longley writes powerful, earthy yet cerebral lines, but you wouldn’t know it from his New Yorker poem “For My Grandson”: “Did you hear the wind in the fluffy chimney?” Yes, the fluffy chimney.

The second issue with The New Yorker’s poem selection is trickier. This is what you might call “the home job”: the magazine’s widely noted fondness for the work of its own staffers and social associates. The most notorious examples were the three poems The New Yorker published by the Manhattan doyenne Brooke Astor in 1996-7 (one more than Robert Creeley managed in his whole life). Some representative lines: “I learned to take the good and bad / And smile whenever I felt sad.” Even more questionable, however, is the magazine’s preference for its own junior employees. In 2002, for instance, the poet who appeared most frequently in the magazine was the assistant to David Remnick, the editor — that assistant’s name, coincidentally, was Dana Goodyear. In fact, since 2000, Goodyear (who is 30) has appeared in the New Yorker more than Czeslaw Milosz, Jorie Graham, Derek Walcott, Wislawa Szymborska, Kay Ryan and every living American poet laureate except for W. S. Merwin. She’s already equaled Sylvia Plath’s total.


Carolee said...

how disheartening when interpersonal politics and commercial interests interfere with writing and publishing!

January said...

Seems like the odds are against poets right now.

Why can't we all just get along?

poet with a day job said...

I wrote about this on my blog too. "yes, fluffy chimney" just made me laugh so hard. They are so catty!

The whole thing is just rich. Poet's been fighting since the dawn of time. Sadly, I think its inevitable in a niche as small as ours. We all want poetry to be considered important in the art world, in the academic world, in society in general - but we can't agree on a unified front to present to these places, so we fight about it. But I actually think this is a good thing - it shows a diversity among our writers, of voices, styles and opinions - as it should be in poetry. I say, as long as we keep fighting with each other, we're doing okay. When it stops, that means we've reached apathy, and we should worry, then, about the state of poetry.

DewyKnickers said...

Hi January,

This seems to prove your column's point st PT the other day. Politics and patronage determine who gets published. I guess we all will just have to publish our own work then. :)

I posted early this week.



January said...

Rose, you're right. This is exactly why I think places like Poetry Thursday will succeed--because it's poetry by, for, and of the people. And if PT is successful, it benefits the poetry community as a whole.

The New Yorker and Poetry Foundation could learn a few things from us.

January said...

PWADJ, very true. If poetry wasn't worth fighting for, then it would quietly go away and no onw would notice.

Susannah said...

Hmmm, this makes for some interesting reading.... Jan, i loved Night Work so much, and i quite like the fish plate too - so kitsch! ;-) x


Related Posts with Thumbnails