Meet Srikanth Reddy, a visiting poet at the University of Chicago who --by his own admission-- has always been open to meandering ... one never knows where the rabbit hole will lead...
Reddy finished his dissertation last year ( 2008), a study of digression in 20th century American poetry, a topic near and dear to his heart. It took him a long time to hit upon his topic because, ironically, he kept changing the subject of his project. Who does Reddy claim is " the father of digression " in American poetry?
well... there is a puzzle for you...along with the soft gee...
His most recent collection of poetry, Voyager, has been described as a region of radical unlikeness where inspiration and disorientation travel hand in hand...
sounds like a rabbit hole I might want to explore.... in good company!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Define digression...all schools of though think that what follows is somehow a diminished version of the present era.
let me find a suitably coherent rendering of the word...
I shall return!
as for the question posed...
Walt Whitman
ok...digress, to stray from the main topic of focus in writing or speech; protract, extend, spin out, string out, draw out, stretch out, drag out, drive into the ground, pad, fill out, speak at length, chatter, wander, get off the subject, get side-tracked,ramble, maunder,depart, deviate, turn aside, jump the track, go off on a tangent, go up blind(sic) alleys,circumlocute, talk in circles, say in a roundabout way,beat around the bush...ha ha ...this is so much fun...
I read an essay by a Justin Spring yesterday...
http://augment.sis.pitt.edu/jms/articles/relev-as.html
that wondered at the relevance of poetry today; the regression of the art form and its subsequent burial by the louder musical troubadour styles of Guthrie, Dylan, rap, et al.
I have had a long standing love affair with words...and a long in coming understanding of how to use them poetically. I questioned the definition of regression and now I wonder, now that a definition has been presented, how do we as poets stop the regression? The point of poetry is to...?
and in order to accomplish that purpose the poet must...?
Definitions lead to understanding and good understanding leads to questions to further dialog.
But the dialog has to not stop in the poet's circle of poets because...?
Ah but now I digress.
walking man,
thinking about some of the ideas you bring up... and though perhaps I'm walking into a minefield I want to try and respond...
how do we as poets stop the regression?
I don't know that I'd call it regression. The poetic has moved into many different forms, and it still seems true that the most beautiful poetry is found when the form and the content compliment one another (ie Guthrie (Woody or Arlo???), Dylan, rap (have seen some amazing DUB poetry at avant garde readings -- Lillian Allen as an example)). I find the poetic in film and on the internet... I find the poetic is more relevant now than ever, but I'm not one who says that poetry must be words on a page. That's what I most often work with... but I don't think that one way of working is better or anything. It's just being expressive. Poetry unfolds around us all the time, in the wind and the trees, in a stroke of lightening, in the words that others speak to us...
The point of poetry is to...?
One time I asked a philosopher what was the meaning of life. She smiled and shook her head, "Ah, but you've asked the wrong question. You must not ask what is the meaning of life. Instead you should ask, What is the meaning of life for me?" Same answer here. For me, poetry is an intrinsic part of human culture. People began matching form and content as a way to pass on information orally and to entertain the listener. Often this was the work of bards, telling long rhyming narratives of the history and beliefs of a people. People would remember these stories, which often contained information about resources, important places, and customs. The main vehicle for transmission was metaphor, allegory, symbolism etc.-- a cipher of sorts. For the most part, bards retold stories that had been taught to them, but added a piece of themselves and also brought the current age into the story... made it relevant to the audience. I think of the kinds of Greek epic, and also of recitation more common to Norman and Celtic peoples. The stories were always changing in subtle ways and so was the languages people spoke, but with the coming of writing and print media a kind of stable system of language began to emerge. The role of poetry then took on another task: to constantly destabilize language and the notions of common sense that logic and rationality sought to control; satire, parody, irony. Poets seem to have long been aware of the instability of language, how the words can break down into meaninglessness, or can be appropriated by unspeakable evil to justify unspeakable ends. To criticize and reinterpret what is taken as reasonable, to ask the reader to re-evaluate their own stance, becomes a part of the poetic project, and a dangerous one... it seems to me that now more than ever, those who cling to power realize the explosive potential of ideas and words... explaining to me why so many voices are silenced and censored, and why governments are always so keen to cut funding to the arts (they're not as stupid as we think!). Again the poets strive to make the form and the content work together, and again rely on metaphor to carry the message. The purpose of poetry is manifold, and here I'm going to make a broad generalization: poetry (and indeed all the arts) want to create pause, a moment for reflection and inward looking... I know lots of people who will attest to having been affected by a song, or a photo, a painting or a movie, a poem. It need not be anything profound. But sometimes the change that's wrought can remake a person in the image of something better, so that which is good may flourish...
and in order to accomplish that purpose the poet must...?
again, this answer goes for me but probably not for everybody else... the poet must be present in the moment, not concerned with the past or the future, but only the now, to see that one moment encompasses everything possible and to find the secret meanings hidden under stones or in the sound of the water. We must let poetry make us rather than us trying to make poetry. We should let loose what language can be. Poet's must not write only beautiful lines. Poets must write words covered in blood and shit, must be a cracked looking glass on the world, must take away rose colored glasses... More than anything, the poet must believe in the power of language and imagination, even if unquantifiable, to make change in the most important part of people...
the dialog has to not stop in the poet's circle of poets because...?
The dialogue continues both within and around the poetic. Poets feed from one another, learn from and teach one another. The dialogue is built into the craft. Poets speak to one another through their work, refine the craft and discover new forms. The content evolves. Voices resonate and merge, move apart. It all seems to me very organic. It could be the most vital part of the poet's life, those connections with others through word...
I read though the article you recommend and I think he and I are thinking along many of the same lines... though he doesn't seem to think that poetry is supposed to destabilize normal ways of thinking about commonsensical things... he must have no sense of irony (poor guy)
And I too digress. Sometimes how these things go...
Would love to hear any thoughts on this...
Jon
In first looking for the coherent definition of regression I was pointing to much of what you said. In the asking the questions, like an attorney, I knew what answers I wanted and you gave them light.
It is the through the ability in using words that poets must "take the rose colored glasses away." It is why we are born, our own duty and destiny to stand out front.
I think Spring was wrong in one thing. His thinking that the oral traditions of poetry have been shunted to a wayside in favor of the lyric or movie because of their mass appeal. The very nature of the oral traditions do not cohabit with mass audience, but rather a small group gathered at a fire or microphone that takes the principles away with them to a larger world.
As I have ever heard, there is poetry in everything but it is there only to a poet. It is in that sight of the poet where the poetry is born, and where the true work of the poet begins. Bringing the sight to others that they may, perhaps, see the poetry encased within pain and pleasure, darkness and light.
The success of any particular piece is not so much in how many people see it but rather what impact it has on them who's destiny brought them to a particular piece of writing.
In using the definition Harlequin brought forward I would have to agree that good poetry is, and very much should be regressive.
"to stray from the main topic of focus in writing or speech; protract, extend, spin out, string out, draw out, stretch out, drag out, drive into the ground, pad, fill out, speak at length, chatter, wander, get off the subject, get side-tracked,ramble, maunder,depart, deviate, turn aside, jump the track, go off on a tangent, go up blind(sic) alleys,circumlocute, talk in circles, say in a roundabout way,beat around the bush"
By straying the poets not only stays the course but charts it as well.
Lately though, in my own writing I am looking at a different attitude. I will present the image, the door if you will and then allow the audience to open it and let them decide what they see beyond it. There is no right or wrong, nothing there that can be interpreted for the individual. I am asking my audience to work for the answer that is right for them singularly. If the piece fails to present an image to the individual then the failure is mine, not the readers, in the my choice of words.
I am beginning to call this "Relevant Poetry" because it is not necessarily relevant in the same way to all hearers. But it is becoming apparent that any particular piece of writing is relevant individually to the individual. I believe this an offshoot of the Dadaist school of thought. Let the viewer decide what the logical conclusion of the art is.
As for poets having other poets for an audience I agree that in those groups there can be new work emerge but if that is the only place the ideas emerge then those poets fail as a group. Maybe not so much as craftsmen but in the other role as bards and storytellers.
But then what the hell do I know? I don't do groups of poets often. I have been known to not play well with others who seem to me to trivialize the verbal art. Give me function before form then I will help you or allow help to the form.
Now I have digressed enough for today...well here at Interiority anyway, it is almost daylight and someone has to make some noise to wake the wife up so she can go to work...and I am that one, not to work, mind you, but rather to make noise.
It was a privilege to read these most recent two posts... I am filled almost to the brim right now and I have so much and nothing I want/need to say...perhaps for now, I will leave a stone as a small tribute to attentive wonder
(o)
thank you
Post a Comment