I KNOW! I KNOW!


NOTE: Well, as usual, the poet will read (mostly) poems
she has not already read (I mean out loud, in class). But
on occasion it is usual to read certain poems again . . . case
by case basis . . .

I blame Lucas for me falling behind tonight, since I
obsessively spent an hour listening to music in YouTube
videos by The Pancakes. Also, Thank you J for kind words
about "Benzene"--a dictionary sonnet I posted earlier
(a couple weeks back).

If you can not make it to class LET ME KNOW AS
SOON AS YOU KNOW you will not be attending,
ESPECIALLY if we are going to (possibly) looking
at your poems . . .

Order:

Nick Arzola's poems, followed by Lucas Burkett's, followed
by Niall Garvin's poems, followed by Stevy Erdman's, then,
if there is time, poems by Jessica Johnson (or Derwood C.
Palmetto-Johnson).

***

It's all kind of a lot of reading . . . a suggestion: do
not feel like you have to deconstruct and / or explicate
every line in the packets (obviously). Read the work
as if you are reading one of our texts, not exactly with
anything like disinterestedness, but with attention to the
WHOLE at first, the SWEEP of the work. Imagine the
manuscript as a long, smooth road, now and then broken
up a little bit by winter. As you are reading (driving) along
identify the potholes and bumps in the stream of things . . .

Ok, that is really corny . . . but simply read the WHOLE
and give your general impression (write it down). And
tell the poet what to cut, perhaps. Is the order working?
What feels exceptional (and is it somehow SO exceptional
it draws energy from surrounding poems (more about this
in class), or seems to STOP the reader in her tracks, or
creates a slight bit of DRAG in its place in the manuscript).

(In this space I'd written a paragraph about editing, but it now
seems more likely I'll hand you a paragraph, because it seems
to be the way to address the things listed below . . . )

Also, I want to focus on these things:

Is the persona interesting (believable, somehow, something
other than A person telling us the story of his or her days,
or offering opinions, like the dude who wanted to tell us
about his wife, her gynecologist, and her vagina)?I think, for
instance, we can all say without a doubt that Ruefle's
PERSONA in Trances of the Blast is, well, interesting, a
construction that is more HONEST and TRUTHFUL than
FACT . . . So, how is this true for your manuscript?

Can you "glimpse" a narrative, or feel a progression, or feel
yourself rocketing through space on some continuous arc
as you read the poems? Is there an inevitability building
as you read?

When the poet simply TELLS us stuff (rather than
SHOWING) is it interesting?

Do the poems feel urgent? Necessary? Do some of them or
all of them, or is it hard to separate them and the whole ball
of wax feels necessary?

Does the table of contents tell you something about the poet?
Would it make you want to read the book?

Is the current form necessary? Does it matter? Sometimes it
does, I would say, more than at other times . . .

Is there comedy, or a sense that the poet is able to laugh at
himself (many ways to achieve this--one does not have to be
traditionally FUNNY to give the reader a sense of NOT
TAKING YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY).

Do we care about what's in these poems? Why? Are we, the
reader, somehow included? Think of Ruefle again. We are
very much included. Is this true for Dean Young. It's very true
for John Gallaher. (Further, Gallaher's PERSONA is nothing like
Ruefle's, yet it is equally winning. Why?)

What about the tone? Does something about the tone grab
us?

Just some things to think about both as you critique mss. and
as you consider your own ms.

**

Here is an interesting lit mag having to do with disability.