Response to Podcast and Introductions to the Best American Poetry

Podcast:

                The speakers, Al Filries and Shawn Walker, in the recording say that poetry should be created in such a way that the point of the piece is expressed through its form.  I think that is probably the most important thing which I learned during the course of the class.  I had known what to call some of the most common poetic devices, but I had always thought that they were used at the whim of the author.  I had never before analyzed the way in which the devices might in some way add to the expression of the poem.  This may be because examples from which I tried to learn about the devices tended to be incidental, such as assonance in the form of “lit” and “sip” or something else of the sort.

                Another view which is discussed in the recording is that poets might as well not try to convey anything deep, because it wouldn’t really be any deeper anyway.  I guess that might be possible.  Especially in this time, if someone tries to sound wise, they are much more likely to succeed in sounding pretentious.  Al Filries mentions the idea that anything can be the topic of a poem, and that cause and effect is created by writing. This appeared to be the point of one of the poems by Daniil Kharms from Against Forgetting, which we discussed in class.  The latter speaker, Shawn Walker,  read of some of the suggestions which poets made for how to use letters differently such as using letters like “l,” “f,” “t,” and “h,” all in a row.  I am not sure how frequently that particular device could be used.  If other letters were still being included and the message still came across it might be well-used.

Lynn Hejinian:

                It would seem that the thesis of Lynn Hejinian’s introduction is that there can be no particular definition of poetry because people are always coming up with new ways to create it. She discussed the problems of trying to decide on which poems to publish for various reasons including that she doesn’t wants to try to balance the various positive aspects of different poems from the time period.  She admits that she is inclined towards those poems which reacted strongly to the political events of the time.  She discusses the idea that poems should be interconnected.  She says that the collection is full of the world. She rejects the idea of poetry becoming too intertwined with aesthetics because it would make a person feel like they had never lived.

Yusef Kominyaaka:

                He says that some of the poetry after the fifties was created through specific attempts to confuse meaning.  I have certainly come across this sort of poetry so far.  It tends to be very effective in confusing me.  When I see a poem which doesn’t make sense, I don’t generally try to go far beyond that, and I tend to simply assume that the lack of organization to the poem encompasses the entirety of its meaning.  There was an excerpt of writing from Edward O. Wilson which said that art is a representation of moods from one person to another. He says that the topic and form must be used equally.  I didn’t understand the comment about poets writing dead hairs.  He also speaks out against using poetry as “erasure.”  I tend to agree with this.  I become very frustrated by works which do not apparently make any point.  I don’t understand how the poet intends to get across his or her point if no one can understand what they are saying.