• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

MAYDAY

  • Culture
    • Interviews
    • Reviews
    • MAYDAY:Black
  • Nonfiction
  • Translation
  • Fiction
  • Poetry
  • About
    • Submit
      • Contests
      • Contest Winners
    • Masthead
    • Open Positions
    • Contributors

BARRY SCHWABSKY’S RESPONSE TO “SOME DARKER BOUQUETS”

April 1, 2009 Contributed By: Barry Schwabsky

I like Kent’s idea of unsigned reviews because I like the unspoken idea that would necessarily have to go in tandem with it: substantial monetary remuneration for the reviewer. Because, after all, there are two main reasons to publish. One is vanity, the desire for kudos. The other is the possibly nobler Grub Street need to put food on the table. Without being able to satisfy one of these motivations it’s hard to see why a writer would be interested.

And where’s the money for that going to come from? The Poetry Foundation, maybe.  But otherwise, it’s hard to see how it could be possible. For the simple reason that there is, to state the obvious, no mass market to support it. Everybody’s interested in movie reviews; lots of people who aren’t novelists are interested in reviews of novels; but very few people who are not poets are interested in poetry reviews.

So the realistic thing is to assume that there is no basis for poetry reviewing to be very different than it is at present, mostly the expression of poets’ enthusiasm for each other’s work. Incidentally, this kind of criticism seems to have a much purer motivation than the occasional zinger that sees print. Kent sees an enthusiastic review as “sycophantic” but I can assure him that if I were to take it upon myself to articulate in writing my fascination for his work there would be no sycophancy involved. What can he do for me, beyond produce more good work? Give me tenure? I don’t think so. Be my pal? Maybe, but the distance makes it unlikely. Write an equally flattering review of my next book? Ok, that’s possible, but I can’t say I’d bother to write something I didn’t believe in just on the off chance of that happening. Basically I would write the review because the writing gives me good ideas to work with—what I don’t mind calling inspiration—and because I imagine that if I do something worthy with that inspiration, a few people whom I respect might do me the honor of acknowledging that I have enlightened them, just a little bit at least. Whereas with a slash-and-burn review, usually there’s no desire to enlighten anyone, just to get a rise out of the likeminded. With all respect for Eliot Weinberger, an outstanding writer (stop that, you sycophant!), does anyone really believe he changed anyone’s mind about Frederick Seidel? No, he merely gave a thrill to all the people who vaguely despised or just ignored Seidel’s work anyway. (I am one of them.) The effect of Weinberger’s review was certainly to ingratiate himself with his fellow poets, that is, with the ones in his camp—far more than would have been the case with a rave for one of his friends.

What I miss are not negative reviews, but what I guess have to called—although I know it sounds kind of boring—judicious ones. Where is the critic who understands the value of the work of, say, Clark Coolidge, but can explain the difference between a great work by Coolidge and just an average one? Because the fact is that Coolidge has written some amazing books but has also issued others that simply seem evidence of his unwillingness to edit himself. (Something similar, of course, could be said of most poets who are fairly prolific, except of course for those who never write anything good.) I think I know the difference when I read them but I find it hard to say where the difference is. I’d be grateful to someone to help me think the matter through. Who knows, it might even help Coolidge to read that.

But chances are he wouldn’t like it. It can be all the more wounding, after all, to have one’s weaknesses pointed out by someone who clearly does understand. The judicious review is the one that is probably bravest—and intellectually most difficult—to write. That must be why these are, if anything, even rarer than those manifesting the “smart crankiness” Kent calls for. So if you catch sight of one, let me know.

 

Read more responses here.

Return to table of contents for Issue 1 Spring 2009

Filed Under: Nonfiction Posted On: April 1, 2009

Further Reading

The Great Frost (After Virginia Woolf’s Orlando)
by Kevin J.B. O’Connor

So the birds turned to stone mid-air and fell on the Earl’s head, is that right? On the oxen’s rumps and the palanquins. Or was it the apparitions hanging in the ice— shagged osiers that struck them dead, a current livid among the roots, transmogrified by the black sun, itself frozen—like a dark cherry, a […]

Tesserae
by Hedy Habra

When I close my eyes   I see the child in me hug the hour hand   licked by the flame of memory emerging   in stark darkness   a faint light filters   through cracks a half-open door   frames a shadow tiptoeing to make   the moment endure   some nights fired   tesserae reassemble the father who left too […]

Cool Uncle
by Emmett Knowlton

This story was nominated for a Pushcart Prize. All summer long Gideon’s nephews had been terrorizing him, waking him with wet willies, reminding him what a loser he’d become. “Do a flip!” they shouted at him in the mornings as he watched them by the pool. “Do some push-ups!” they barked whenever he came back […]

Primary Sidebar

Recently Published

  • Ligatureless [an Anatomy]
    by David Greenspan
  • The most punk thing you can’t remember
    by Gion Davis
  • Review: Time Stitches by Eleni Kefala
    translated from the Greek by Peter Constantine
  • Revision
    by Lior Torenberg
  • Two poems
    by andie millares

Trending

  • Eight Contemporary Female Irish Artists to Fall In Love With Immediately
    by Aya Kusch
  • I Know Who Orville Peck Is
    by Robin Gow
  • Villain
    by Holly Laurent
  • George Saunders on A Swim in a Pond in the Rain
    by Brianna Di Monda
  • Sam Cohen Interviewed by Raki Kopernik: Queer Jewish Writers
  • 3 Poems
    by Cho Ji Hoon, translated from the Korean by Sekyo Nam Haines
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Footer

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Business


Reprint Rights
Privacy Policy
Archive

Engage


Open Positions
Donate
Contact Us

Copyright © 2023 · New American Press

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.