EXPECT ADDITIONAL POSTS


Which is to say, always read down more than what's right
on top--to be safe. Also, sometimes I ADD text to a post.

Anyway, another thing you want to think about for this
round of poems (and, I mean, as we comment on our class-
mates' work) is any possible trajectories the poem seems
to suggest, INTENTIONAL or not. Maybe you read what's
THERE and immediately HOPE the poet does X--for
instance, create something stable (like a series of short,
simple poems) as a sort of counterweight for more chaotic
(but effective) material (or, if the work is too controlled,
you could suggest the poet LOSE CONTROL for a page
or two). These are the kinds of suggestions that, believe
me, cause little lightning flashes in the poet's brain--
little bursts of inspiration. Just like you might go running
and listen to some sort of music you dig and have an
epiphany. Should the poet continue to create pieces similar
to the pieces that have come already? Should she shake it
up a little? Shake it up a lot?

So, you want to consult the criteria sheet (I will expect
to see it beside you in class) and you want to read each
ms both for what's there as well as for the potential the
manuscript seems to promise . . . If you can FEEL it it
is probably within the poet's grasp.

It goes without saying most breakthroughs come from
forcing yourself to move out of your comfort zone. If you
write very accessible narrative poems, try jazzing things
up with some real crazy ambiguity--an erasure or just
some disconnected phrases that SOMEHOW suggest
something, even though you might think I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE HELL IT MIGHT BE . . . On the
other hand, if you like tossing out language reflective
simply of various fields of consciousness, indeterminate
and willfully refusing to tell a story (because, you know,
who needs more f*cking Narrative in the world), toss in
a little (now radical) poem in ten lines that is as lucid
as anything you've ever written. Ruefle certainly writes
poems that are pretty straightforward as well as others
that definitely are not. Check out a few Dean Young
poems. Gallaher's book rambles but he IS pretty much
telling stories (his poems are like little essays) . . .

By the way, each of you will be EMAILING John
Gallaher a question or two. He's totally into it. So
read ahead. The book is brand new. I've read it twice.
I'm also thanked in the notes, I think, because I read
the manuscript when it was a baby manuscript and
gave some advice. That was, well, like seven years
ago, which might tell you something about LAG TIMES
in publishing. John had to wait a long time for this to see
the light of day . . .

Now, I just dissed narrative up above, but I actually
think any book worths its salt becomes a NARRATIVE
if it is successful, just not one we are TIRED OF. It
becomes the story of how we create, how we
think, how we move from anger to sadness (etc) . . . it
tells the story of how words SOUND rather than how
they MEAN denotatively, though, of course, words
always MEAN denotatively a little, don't they . . .

In class tomorrow we will look at the Ruefle poems
you dug, and have you explain what you dug about them a
bit (this is not a test, just give us your idiosyncratic take
on the matter). I'll add a bit more of my endless wisdom
(it sometimes goes on and ON, unfortunately) on
these poems, many of which thrill me. I must say, that
as a POET, my response to these poems is to refuse
ordinary interpretations. It is to write an answering
POEM (though no one may know I am doing so; it all
depends on whether or not I decide to add this info in
my endnotes).

Anyway, there you go. More crap to mull over. Though,
as far as crap goes, this is pretty good crap? (Yes?).