Avoiding Oblivion

Todd Swift wonders about the future life of poets:

At the point where [poets] enter into the world of publication, two roads diverge. One of those roads is marked The Canon; the other is marked Oblivion. Canons are problematic, and disputed, and there are currently at least three: Mainstream, Innovative, and Outlaw. These three canons are all represented by serious publishers of real merit. However, only a poet published by a Mainstream, large press, has any chance of avoiding "oblivion".

The problem with this assertion only begins with the fact that it's self-contradictory. Doesn't the very existence of the other two canons demonstrate that non-mainstream poets do survive? If only mainstream poetry survives, how is that innovative and outlaw poetry have also survived?

A second problem is that Todd defines "mainstream" entirely in economic terms: "the large presses have marketing budgets, and the clout to distribute the work to bookstores, and critics, in major cities, around the world. It really is almost as simple as that - get published by a large press, and your work will be sold and reviewed in many more places than if you are published by a small press. . ."

I don't visit bookstores as much as I used to, but the last time I was in Barnes & Noble, or Borders, or even the local "independent" store, I didn't see many volumes of poetry on display, and certainly not many by living poets, even those one could plausibly label "mainstream." As Ron Silliman recently put it, "The days when major publishers brought out poetry as a “loss leader” (or because some poet might turn into a profitable novelist) are almost entirely behind us. The number of trade publishers who even touch poetry are so few, and their collective aesthetics so very narrow, that they have largely relegated themselves to irrelevance. And book sellers are under profound pressure from the rise of alternate channels of retail distribution, including big box retailers and the web. Each week in America two new bookstores open, but five others shut down. . . ."

Perhaps it could be argued that there is a heirarchy among publishers of poetry, certain publishers on whose list many poets would like to be included, but this is a heirarchy of community esteem, as Silliman might put it, not a heirarchy based on "marketing budgets" and "clout" with bookstores or newspaper book reviews. For all the "marketing" a book of poems gets, it might as well be hand-sold by the poet's mother in the Wal-Mart parking lot. And while publishers of poetry no doubt already "distribute" copies to book review editors, getting those editors to print reviews of them has less to do with "clout" than with happening upon an editor who actually likes poetry to begin with. (Good luck with that.)

In my opinion, the biggest problem in Todd's analysis is his very use of the term "Canon" to identify successful or important writers. Canons are neither made nor maintained by publishers, mainstream or otherwise. "Canon" was the term adopted to identify those works of literature that should be included in curricula of literary study--after literary study was itself made respectable as an "academic" subject, a process that wasn't really complete until after World War II. Thus the "canon" refers to those works that should be taught, that aided the canon-makers in their self-assigned roles as gatekeepers of our Literary Heritage. A canonical work is not necessarily one that has met the test of time, or stays in print, or continues to be a source of inspiration for other writers. It is merely one that the academic study of literature has made "great" enough to deserve placement on a college syllabus.

The poetry--or the fiction, for that matter--that will survive will do so because poets and readers of poetry continue to read and to use it, not for separate agendas on literature syllabi but for their revelation of poetry's still untapped possibilities, of what poetry might still become if approached with this or that author's courage or insight or, as I put it in describing what I look for in works of fiction, dedication to "adventurous" freedom. The world of online publishing and the literary blogosphere will only make it more possible for more poets to avoid immediate "oblivion" while this encounter between present and past plays itself out. (Here are the "hundreds of very serious people" Todd is looking for who can give poetry its proper audience and make the New York Times irrelevant.) Todd thinks that the lack of "public recognition" makes the future of poetry a bleak one, but it seems to me that the only recognition worth having is that which is forthcoming from other writers and from readers who take poetry (literature more generally) seriously to begin with. Recognition from those who don't like poetry, who have to be cajoled and manipulated into noticing it, doesn't seem worth the trouble.

Comments

[bdr]

"Recognition from those who don't like poetry, who have to be cajoled and manipulated into noticing it, doesn't seem worth the trouble."

Recognition from those who LIKE poetry who need be to cajoled and manipulated into liking a particular poet aren't worth the trouble either.

[Daniel]

'The Canon' is affected by anthologies and textbooks though, so publishers, agents, etc. come in to play for reprint permissions. It has more of an affect than one would think. I worked at a high school textbook company for a time and it was serious issue; permissions was always the first part of the budget to be cut when a project went over. We regularly had to leave out good writers who ask larger fees to reprint a passage of fiction or a few lines of poetry (nevermind the whole piece!).

[Lloyd Mintern]

Ron Silliman represents with a fierce and relentless determination one thing: bad writing fobbed off as poetry.

[Dan Green]

Lloyd: Your salvo against Silliman's poetry seems a little off topic.

[touchstone]

off topic, but funny.

[Lloyd Mintern]

It is not a salvo against Silliman's own poetry, but against Silliman's championing of bad writing, as poetry; and his constant lament over the lack of status it has. I thought you were citing him as an authority on this issue. Silliman's own poetry is illiterate, yes, but also irrelevant, since no one reads it. His posturing as an educated critic, as in the piece you link to, though, seems actually influential--and I am surprised you are drawn in by it.

[Dan Green]

I was quoting him on the current state of poetry publishing. If you think his assertion is incorrect and have other evidence to prove it, by all means provide it, and we'll discuss that.

Although I wouldn't hesitate to quote Ron Silliman as an "authority" on contemporary poetry, either.

[Luther Blissett]

"Canon" is certainly an outmoded concept when it comes to the actual survival or shelf-life of the printed word. What is taught at the college level is very much a function of the methodologies dominant at the time. What is taught at the K-12 level is more tied to mainstream social forces. What is considered "high culture" is often a separate sphere from both of those. And then there's finally the realm of what people actually read. A Bourdieu-ian analysis of the social field of literary production and consumption is needed to replace the idea of a canon, except insofar as the canon has become a sort of Desert Island Discs list for cocktail parties (usually coterminous with the list of "Things I Haven't Read").

Experimental poets have in reality scored a major coup by taking up tenure-track positions in English departments rather than in creative writing departments. This way, they have far more influence over the poetry that gets taught in colleges, even if they have less influence over the poetry that gets written by budding college poets. This has led to a mini-canon of adventurous poetry -- Lyn Hejinian's *My Life*, Harryette Mullen's *Muse & Drudge*, etc.

I have my issues with Ron Silliman's blogging and poetry, but Lloyd's know-nothing soundbyte critique strikes me as far more illiterate than any but Silliman's own worst doctrinaire moments.

[Lloyd Mintern]

Pardon me, Luther, but I do not make soundbytes. My opinions are thoughtful and fully informed--though as Dan knows they are opinions. But this is an area that is controversial. So don't be defensive. You are right that "experimental" (trash, in my view) poetry has made inroads into creative writing departments; which just gives it away as not experimental at all. It is a game on the level of crossword puzzles. My point is exactly that illiterate, nonsensical bad writing is not poetry; and that Silliman promotes such stuff right and left, and tries to tag in on to a minor movement of street poetry which was in fact radical back in the 60's. He is essentially sentimental. There are superior poets at work, writing highly original material that is descriptive of the contemporary world, and that is crafted beyond even the modern canon poets--which he hasn't heard of. I will check out the two poets you mention.

Dan, I thought I was on point; I don't see the difference between complaining about the state of poetry publishing and bewailing the status of poetry (so-called)itself, if the topic is "canon." Unless you also are hoarding a knowledge of some new poetry out there. (Of course you so have rather a knack for launching an ambiguous and unresolved issue, and then telling people who try to make comments they are not addressing the issue.)

[Dan Green]

I don't see what is ambiguous about the post. It's about framing the future of poets and poetry through the concept of "canon," which I think is mistaken. You used it as an opportunity to belittle Ron Silliman's poetry. You're entitled to your opinion, but I simply pointed out, accurately, I think, that you were ignoring the post in order to launch your attack on Silliman.

[Lloyd Mintern]

Either that or using Ron Silliman to launch a question on the post. For after all, Dan, what is it about? When, in your critical acumen, which amounts to fatigue, you have no poetry? I mean everyone seems to agree that there really is no poetry being written, and probably never will be any again. So what is the issue?

[Chris]

Consider this a verbal double-take: no poetry? didn't Lloyd just say there were superior poets at work, doing the valuable and inherently poetic job of describing the contemporary world? Or is there some irony at work I'm unaware of (entirely possible given this tongue-in-cheek precis of the function of poetry)?

[bdr]

You all could have just agreed with me without making my point, but thanks.

[Lloyd Mintern]

No irony. I said Ron Silliman was unaware of the superior poets, and that the whole discussion between all of them, including Dan, seems to indicate he believes there are no superior poets; I was hoping he would deny it. Instead, we have the mockers chiming in. The fact that Silliman and Green, et. al. continue talking about tradition and canon, etc. while covertly believing poetry is dead all the while, speaks only about them, and their ignorance of what is really going on. You can rest asssured, mockers, I know what I am talking about when I say there are superior poets at work.

[Steven Augustine]

"You can rest asssured, mockers, I know what I am talking about when I say there are superior poets at work."

One need only wear a mask and green tights while saying such a thing...

[Dan Green]

"The fact that Silliman and Green, et. al. continue talking about tradition and canon, etc. while covertly believing poetry is dead all the while"

In what conceivable way am I saying poetry is dead? My post says exactly the opposite. With every comment, you continue to demonstrate you haven't really understood my point at all.

[Imani]

You're doing it covertly. I think you said in the blank, illimitable spaces between your point about the errors in assessing poetry's vibrancy solely on economic terms and the last bit that addressed its future.

(Sigh. What's been up with your comment section lately? I get all excited when I see 10+ responses only to find...)

[Jeff VanderMeer]

Poets have no future. Almost all will be used as mortar to shore up walls.
JV

[Luther Blissett]

The walls of the Voss Bender Memorial Post Office?