tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post6667801892568613277..comments2023-12-16T02:44:20.427-06:00Comments on Reginald Shepherd's Blog: Readers WantedReginald Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11965170916626482963noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-71548144412048662412008-01-25T22:38:00.000-06:002008-01-25T22:38:00.000-06:00Kirsch's position still just doesn't make sense to...Kirsch's position still just doesn't make sense to me, whether he says that writer X wrote for posterity or whether the poem *seems* it was written posterity. What would that be exactly? That the poet didn't discuss local politics (Dante) or forms of combat that might become outmoded (Homer)? The problem is that saying such and such a poem was "written for posterity" is a statement nearly empty of content. <BR/><BR/>Now if Kirsch would have said "these are the elements of this poem that have made people want to read it for the last 500 years" or "here's why this poem has been read for since 200 BCE" then that would have some purchase on writing for posterity.<BR/><BR/>So what's the first principle of literature being postulated here? That poems 500 years old that we still read are good? That seems pretty tautological for a first principle.mgushuedchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10116858669590406909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-19752809017334077322008-01-24T10:35:00.000-06:002008-01-24T10:35:00.000-06:00Mr. Shepherd,Just poking in to express my exciteme...Mr. Shepherd,<BR/><BR/>Just poking in to express my excitement that you're joining the folks at Harriet.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>CarterCuitlamiztli Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05863824806635908996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-47858277283796059532008-01-23T17:17:00.000-06:002008-01-23T17:17:00.000-06:00Dear Reginald,Thanks for your blog comments.I'm su...Dear Reginald,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your blog comments.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you've come across such a statement from your students: "I only write for myself." Of course, they do so after they've gone to the trouble of making copies of their works for you and their peers in various workshops.<BR/><BR/>The only people who write for themselve are those who literally never share their poems with others and don't save them for posterity (for you're right about Dickinson: Not only did she crave publication and an audience, she made sure to save her work).<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>RobertRobert Vasquezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02815492384866215659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-65785407546869910702008-01-23T08:30:00.000-06:002008-01-23T08:30:00.000-06:00Keep in mind that Kirsch is a professional critic....Keep in mind that Kirsch is a professional critic. His analysis of literature is about discerning the merit of a poet or collection or poem – one does not need a degree in literary theory to know what a difficult task that is in today's double-post-everything enviroment.<BR/><BR/>When he makes claims about what poetry ought to be, or poets ought to think, he is really saying that, from his perspective, many poets who have been Great have produced work that seems to be written for posterity. This says nothing about the true approach of the poet (Ezra 'Look At Meeee' Pound anyone?), only about Adams' semi-occluded view, and his desire to ennumerate a first principle of literature.Daniel Pritchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02171613044501024248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-63826406174014029572008-01-21T16:27:00.000-06:002008-01-21T16:27:00.000-06:00I have to chime in and say what a great post that ...I have to chime in and say what a great post that I could not agree with more, though I could not have put it as eloquently or as succinctly.<BR/><BR/>What does Kirsch hope to gain by taking such an obviously untenable position? His criticism seems well written to me but also aggressively conservative (I do not mean politically). What disturbs him about writing to be heard?mgushuedchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10116858669590406909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-90985543808687784132008-01-20T21:15:00.000-06:002008-01-20T21:15:00.000-06:00Dear Joseph and Joseph,Thanks for your very smart ...Dear Joseph and Joseph,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your very smart and articulate comments.<BR/><BR/>I agree that to attempt to write for "posterity," to achieve some notional "timelessness," is in effect to write for no one. One has to be of one's time before one can outlast or transcend one's time.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that a poem, like a piece of music, only comes alive when it is performed, even if only in the mind of a reader. Luckily, however long a poem slumbers, so long as it survives materially, it can be awakened by a reader or listener's kiss.<BR/><BR/>As Joseph Duemer notes, Peter Gay's marvelous book <I>Modernism: The Lure of Heresy</I> repeatedly points out that modernist artists in all fields wanted an audience--they just wanted that audience to come to them on <I>their</I> terms.<BR/><BR/>Gay also points out that the philistinism of the bourgeoisie who were always to be shocked (<I>épater le bourgeoisie</I> and all that) was not nearly so thoroughgoing or so monolithic as modernist propaganda and retrospective history would have it. If it were, modernism would never have been accepted, let alone institutionalized.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Adam Kirsch is indeed a poet, or at least he's been published as one. I find his work rather stiff and dull.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your kind words about the blog and about my poems, which are much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>peace and poetry,<BR/><BR/>ReginaldReginald Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11965170916626482963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-61936978327714195632008-01-20T19:50:00.000-06:002008-01-20T19:50:00.000-06:00Though I've read your poems, I didn't know you has...Though I've read your poems, I didn't know you has a blog until recently. Glad I found it.<BR/><BR/>Is Adam Kirsch a poet? I can't imagine that he is, given the views you describe. I'd go so far as to say that a poem doesn't fully exist until it is published. Doesn't necessarily have to be in the New Yorker, just sending it to a friend will do. As for the notion that the modernists were not interested in having an audience, it's hogwash. Peter Gay's recent book <I>Modernism</I> gives the lie to any such notion.Joseph Duemerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650314132179290321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-20862182522259324102008-01-20T17:29:00.000-06:002008-01-20T17:29:00.000-06:00I just wanted to second your observations, especia...I just wanted to second your observations, especially your rejection of Adam Kirsch's silly position. Clearly we write for readers who share our own historical moment; if I reject that moment and con myself into writing for some future reader (a fantasy, that is), then my poetry is bound to be phony—a product already derivative of the "posterity" which, as you point out, has been created by others. All good writers have an audience in mind, and almost every great writer—Modernists included—are on record with descriptions of their ideal readers. I defy Kirsch to find a single important writer who ever said, "My ideal readers haven't been born."<BR/><BR/>By the way, I want to thank you for your blog and your poetry, both of which are continually exciting and challenging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com