For two of the introductions, a woman acted crazy and used props to communicate. She spoke about the immense influence Ezra Pound had on the reader she was introducing while making a soup in a bowl consisting of a book by Pound, some foods, and some milk. She seemed to be, like many readers and attendees, a bit drunk. This was fun.
Another introduction included a woman impersonating the teenage self of the reader she was introducing. “He” read some of his “older poems,” which were overtly graphic, and which included coarse language and long, detailed descriptions of vaginal farts. This was funny. It turned out to be a kind of extreme exaggeration of the typical voice taken on by the introduced poet.
The combination of long introductions and sheer number of readers made for a three hour poetry marathon. Each poet read for about five minutes. There was an impressive range of styles. Many poets read pieces with high diction, making it a bit difficult to follow along and actually understand the poems. This is often a problem with poetry readings. An ethereal, airy tone accompanied about 60% of the poems read, so dramatically different readers like Jeff [last name] were a welcome change of pace.
Jeff read one poem that seemed to be a dialogue about, among other things, cookies, that was very funny. Another poet read a piece she had written about her experiences with her friends at David Bowie concerts when she was younger. Though these were lighthearted and less intense than many of the poems read, most were serious, almost urgent. In this vein, no one was better than Seth Abramson, the last reader of the first half of poets.
Seth’s introduction included the phrase, “But seriously, Seth is better than all of us,” which prompted a roar of laughter from the audience. Seth is a graduate of Dartmouth College, Harvard Law School, and soon will have his MFA in poetry from Iowa. He is a widely published and highly decorated poet. His final poem addressed the homeless and the meek, ending with an extremely moving, powerful line that went something like “Please god, let us be good to each other.”
Another poet shared a story as a preface to his poem entitled “Sword Swallowing.” He explained his first day being workshopped at Iowa. He had brought the poem in, which he explained was about marriage. He wrote it after his divorce. Another poet in the workshop, a woman from South America, asked, “Isn’t a sword, like, a phallic symbol?” This was funny.
In conclusion, it was funny. Everyone did a good job. A+. Candy.
By Tony Flesher
This is truly a terrible (and a terribly-written) review. As for many poems sounding "ethereal," I would simply suggest that poetry is an art which demands attention and listening. Not hearing. Listening. To those who have had their expectations set by television and video games, I would imagine that the lack of visceral manipulation would be very difficult to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteWhen one states that poems are "difficult to follow," one must be aware that this is a subjective response. Leaving aside the fact that difficulty can be interesting / productive / diffusive, what one finds difficult, another may find elegant, subtle, or even simple. Not everyone in that room, I assure you, had this problem. It is telling when Mr. Flesher than goes on to state "This [difficulty in following along] is often a problem with poetry readings. Whose problem? His problem. And we might also engage the rhetorical presumptions that "following along" entails: is this a privileging of narrative? Syntactical recognition? Cultural reference? Slapstick? It seems to be all of the above.
Even more telling are the moments that Mr. Flesher chooses to highlight: with few exceptions (Seth's line, which, presumably, Mr. Flesher seized upon because it is a straightforward rhetorical device that operates on an emotional level which [almost] so trite as to be cliched), this "review" of a lng poetry reading turns out to be a review of theatrical atmospherics; the slapstick, the absurd. "This was fun." "That was funny." "This was funny" (BOTH of the latter two are actually in this piece. Seriously).
I have been reading this review blog all semester, and it has been an absolute shame to see such thoughtless journalism. Professor Chasar: you should be working with your students to provide a healthier, more professional style of writing in your class. BASIC RULES OF JOURNALISM SHOULD APPLY. For example: when quoting or characterizing someone, GET THEIR NAME! Geoff (actual spelling) Hilsabeck is an incredibly gracious fellow and fantastic poet. He would not only be forthcoming if a student approached him and said "Hi, I'm writing a review about this reading for my English class and I was wondering if I could get your name and ask you a question or two about your work," he would bedelighted to know that he was being represented fairly and accurately on a public-access site which is accessed by the Iowa community.
I have also seen QUITE a lot of misquoting. This is unacceptable. I hope this class works harder at delivering a professional level of critical discourse in the future: otherwise, why even maintain this site?
Hi dronemaedwe,
ReplyDeleteThis is Tony. I know the review is ridiculous. I mostly just wrote until I fulfilled the length requirement. I did not take it seriously.
I'm not a professional journalist, and I don't want to be treated like one. I had hoped my tags for this article ('poor journalism', 'sloppy writing') made it clear, if the writing itself didn't, that I felt in no position to do the reading any sort of journalistic justice.
I know it's all subjective. I don't care. I went to the reading and enjoyed it. I had to write a review for a class, so I used this reading because there were a lot of things I remembered.
I agree with you that if a blog like this is to exist, it should be held to higher standards. For this reason, it bothered me when I had to post this, and I hoped the 'This was funny' stuff, the tags, etc. would help anyone who might read this seriously understand that I'm a clown or something.
Yes, the 'difficult to follow along' thing is because I don't have a good attention span/have been ruined by TV, etc. It's just something I felt when I was there, so I wrote it down in the review. I actually love poetry, if you can believe that.
Basically, I was sorry when I had to post the review knowing people might take it seriously, was sorry when I realized you took it seriously, and am sorry because it still exists.