Michael Robbins - Alien Vs. Predator (nb this book of poems is not about aliens, predators or their conflicts)

i'm not sure how i feel about its massiveness

i heard him read it before i saw it in print, so great (maybe he broke it up into two parts?). not sure if he's an arty stand-up comic or a hilarious poet.

new poem. i don't know what i think. i told him he really blew it by not working "High Tang" into it.

http://thewalrus.ca/seasons-in-the-abyss/

The "Hash-Berryman" reference is to this.

this hash-berryman person seems awful

Robbins' stance depends on everyone else playing the straight man. What will he do when his critics turn just as goofy and juvenile?

if yr referring to this 'hash-berryman' person, i think the answer is "be visibly more talented"

hash-berryman one of the worst pieces of 'criticism' I ever read. 'wah wahhh my own hangups prevent me from writing or appreciating good rhymed verse, so obviously anyone choosing to work in that medium is a "pop-poet" who values style over substance, & also why can't I use social media to harass successful people all day long'

... like, obviously "The bomb bay opens with a queef" isn't gonna un-blow-up anybody's stuff, but I think the questions surrounding political poetry are sufficiently complex that you can't just bang your fist on the table and scream "RHYMING IS REACTIONARY NOSTALGIA!!!" or w/e

it totally fits that robbins is the kind of person who refuses to vote for obama though

Flarf You!

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/article/246092

dinged marjorie perloff w/ a sic, dang

Somehow my Introduction to Poetry class managed to keep their shit together.

"Almost anything can claim to be a poem. It takes a lot of reading to feel confident about evaluating that claim," the taon Aimless vevved flarfingly.

i've read (some of) that izenberg book he exploits, it's really worth a look if you have any interest at all in post-WCW/post-Pound poetry, or in theory-of-poetics

yeah that looks interesting, hard to see on that precis quite where it departs from the silliman/hejinian/bernstein theoretical line i guess

i tried to give away my copy of the last edition of that anthology in january or so. can't recall if i got the guy to take it. also, robbins seems like he'd be an awesome guy to take Introduction to Poetry with, but i did hope "Somehow my Introduction to Poetry class managed to keep their shit together." was going to be a line from one of his

i don't know, tom, i think it may just be more conceptually perspicious/fresh, but i couldn't really say at this point. seems like izenberg's trying to pull off a basic reorientation on the critical side rather than making apologetics from within particular poetics/writerly communities.

haha well that sounds like a recommendation to me!!

oh also it takes up yeats early on (so, trying to establish something outside the objectivist/langpo circle) and one of the chapters on oppen is about crusoe and wittgenstein and 'other minds'.

font is annoying tho.

I once tried to explain my admiration for Paul Muldoon to a young poet I know, a graduate of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. I opened a book to Muldoon’s poem “Yarrow”; she immediately balked: “I don’t like poems that look like that.” She meant poems written in regular stanzas. This isn’t anecdotal evidence; it’s an anecdote. Everyone I know has one.

still, isn't there something accurate in that reaction??

i am still totally undecided as to whether that's an okay opinion to hold

i am curious to see what he does with 'other minds', seeing as i spent my dissertation trying to ignore the fact that that was a thing

i mean i tend to think that a measure of respect to a fellow practitioner would include being open to the idea that there are good and bad poems like that and that it might be a worthwhile test of sympathy to try and see what appeal they hold to other people, and other boring democratic shit like that

hey woah the izenberg book is actually affordable, i guess i will get it come payday

there is that, but i dunno, there's a certain amount of obstruction to be overcome during the process of 'poetic education' and maybe people on the teacherly/pro-democratic-sympathy side are too wishful about how readily the obstruction can be swept away by charitable receptivity when the process really more often involves (a) forced subjection to poems one finds unpleasing, under the influence of credentialing/enculturating authority, (b) years/decades-long sequences of passing things by, just not getting them at all, mutual indifference/misunderstanding.

well partly i'm wistful about it because i have spent time trying to convince myself i can get past those particular blockages myself but yeah

annoyingly i have this nagging feeling i've read 'yarrow' somewhere but i can't find it in any of the muldoon i have

hey after years of distaste for rhymey verse i read some heine and some herrick that made it seem like a thing so there's always a chance

herrick's pretty cool right? at least an 8/10 poet

ratings + c17th poets too obvious me-bait. I'm ignoring it.

7.2/10

haha please rate and rank the top 25 17th-c poets that come to mind

no oh ok then, going to be a bit literal about timeframe, so it's some significant work done 1600-1700 (so no 'Shakespeare/Donne is fundamentally a late Elizabethan sensibility' etc). I should probably exclude dramatists but f it

TEN
Shakespeare (2nd half of career)
Donne
Milton

NINE
Jonson
Dryden
Marvell
Rochester

EIGHT
G. Herbert
Webster
Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke
Henry Vaughan the Silurist
Herrick
Lovelace

SEVEN
John Oldham
Bishop King
Aphra Behn
Sir John Davies
Thomas Otway
Crashaw
William Drummond of Hawthornden
Katherine Philips

SIX
Chapman, Drayton, Cotton, Traherne, Denham, maybe Garth, Cowley I guess… gets crowded down here, & I suspect some of the dramatic ppl like Fletcher or Dekker or Middleton should be higher if I'm willing to count Webster & Shakespeare but I just don't know/read them much. & there are people who float in and out down here, like I'll read some Flatman or Cleveland or Wroth and decide they're actually pretty good, but then won't remember why I thought that the following week.

I can't believe I just did that, horribly reductive

and what's SIr John Davies doing in there? He really is Elizabethan

Also, Crashaw should be higher

how many of those did you just completely make up on the spot, w/ yr poetic faculty

no oh ok then

this is not the most convincing display of reluctance i have ever seen tbh

j. come on, how can you not want to read someone called Henry Vaughan the Silurist

when i was studying for the lit GRE (god what a waste of time) i found myself thinking i would really enjoy just reading 17th c poetry for a few months. all i managed to do tho was read rochester twice

<3 woof <3

is that a profession or the name of a pernicious tendency or a provincial locality or what

there was a point when i knew the answer to that

It's his sort of antiquarian, sort of made-up word for Welsh. So locality basically.

Herbert i think i'd push up a bit. also <3 woof obv. Marvell's going up to ten not for consistency but for what he does when he does it - tho those nines are p solid and a hard league to escape from imo. Like Herrick but too high imo. Jonson???? walking to Scotland to meet W Drummond is all i remember. (I know f' all about 17th C poetry). lol@ Vaughan twins, obv soft spot for Ths.

Rochester didn't used to get so much love 40 years ago. I'm glad to see he's rising in the world again.

maybe nothing ever happens to him so he's just gotta write about twizzlers and rappers.

― unprepared guitar (Edward III), Friday, April 5, 2013 5:28 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha this gets at it exactly

what if twizzlers and rappers are what happen 2 u hmmmm?

im glad the warning was added to the thread title, i kept accidentally clicking it

Huh, never heard of this guy, but I like the samples reproduced on this thread. I definitely get a Mark Leyner vibe, in that it provokes a similar response to how I felt when I first encountered Leyner back in the day, ie., "You can do that in a poem (novel)!?" and both make me laugh, which is always a plus.

well that was my long-ago (now) response to the seidel and robbins poems that muldoon put in the new yorker. i had forgotten that poetry could be funny. and entertaining. and still be decent poetry. i certainly forgot this reading the new yorker over the years. which is why i started the muldoon/new yorker thread. definitely refreshing. do i want all poetry to be like this? no. i think its cool that people who never buy poetry bought the robbins book though. like me. when was the last example of that? brautigan probably. ginsberg before him. unless you count rod mckuen. actually, maya angelou would be a more recent example. michael robbins and maya angelou should go on a world tour.

Sadly it seems harder to think of poets who are both funny and good than it should be. In addition to Ginsberg and Brautigan, I guess I would include Frank O'Hara, Philip Larkin, hmm... running out of names. I guess I don't find Ashbery very funny. I probably need to read more poetry.

Oh yeah, Charles Simic can be kind of funny.