• 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

MARK HALLIDAY’S RESPONSE TO “SOME DARKER BOUQUETS”

April 1, 2009 Contributed By: Mark Halliday

The experience of reading a thoughtful and responsible critic who severely questions the value of certain poems is crucial for anyone seeking a deeper relation to poetry.  This is true whether the poems are by Milton or Wordsworth or our contemporaries.  If you float along year after year reading poetry without encountering any severely demanding and sternly skeptical critiques of poems, your appreciation of the art is bound to be mushy and anemic.

For the young poet trying to get her or his bearings in the chaos of the poetry scene, and for the older poet wanting not to feel drowned by the successive waves of younger poets (all announced as daring, exhilarating, tender, fierce, bold, stunning, heartbreaking, luminous, fiery, passionate, unforgettable), to open a journal (or book of essays) and find a critic who intelligently and openly and incisively challenges the value of a recent book of poems is intensely healthful—even if you disagree with the critic’s judgment.  Suddenly you feel that justice might eventually prevail, and true merit might win recognition without depending on boosterism; and that contemporary poetry is not merely a swamp of partisan subjectivity.  What I have in mind is not hit-and-run criticism that relies on hostile generalizations and tiny out-of-context quotations, but conscientiously substantive, argumentative criticism.  Such criticism has probably always been rare, but it seems especially rare in our contemporary MFA-ized universe—for reasons drearily familiar to participants in the present roundtable discussion.

Most of us probably agree that the constant din of puff-positive reviews is regrettable, and tends toward absurdity.  None of us (unless maybe Kent Johnson?) is innocent.  We have all enjoyed the benefits of a po-culture that is effervescently uncritical—in which it is guaranteed that several hundred books of poems will be published each year, and be greeted only by a few short easygoing reviews.  The priority we implicitly accept is that we (“we”—perhaps two thousand of us, in the USA?) will have and keep the teaching jobs for which po-credentials (books, fellowships, awards) are required.  In order to insure that some poets we like (our friends, our former students, ourselves) can get such jobs (and get promoted), we’re willing to play along with the publication of hundreds of mediocre or bad books each year.  We feel we must nod politely when mediocre or bad books are published and hyperbolically praised (in blurbs, and in blurbish reviews);  indeed, we frequently get caught in situations where we ourselves have to praise the mediocre, even blurb it—because to abstain from enrollment in Mutual Praise Networks is to risk isolation.  Isolation is halfway to being forgotten, and to be forgotten is a kind of death.

To be attacked can be scary, and painful—or perhaps invigorating!  To be utterly ignored is hell.  As you wander around the AWP Book Fair, moments come when you feel intensely how ignorable you are.  Then you think “I need more friends!”  And you prepare to tell someone “I love your work.”

Okay, so we’re complicit in the culture of Mutual Assured Praise.  When it gets sickening, we remember how seldom we read (or write) seriously skeptical criticism.

Kent Johnson’s idea of anonymous reviews, in which reviewers would feel free to be “derisive,” doesn’t interest me.  There are too many possible abuses in that game;  and it would always tend toward a hit-and-run spirit.  I admit that some hit-and-run sniping is better than a total feather-storm of admiration and bland tolerance, but it’s not seriously interesting; there’s something adolescent about it.  What William Logan does in his quicky put-downs in The New Criterion is not serious work (as he himself has more-or-less acknowledged).  Meanwhile, most of us covertly relish his salvoes of insults, even while knowing that he’s usually unfair.  He offers these little boxes of sour candy, welcome as an escape from the pusillanimous porridge of prudent praise, but not nourishing.

One source of the sustenance that is full-scale independent hard-edged reviewing has been Parnassus, ever since I started caring about all this in the early Seventies.  Looking at issues of Parnassus I’ve kept since 1973 and 1974, I find pages of tough-minded, argued-out criticism that helped me think harder, helped me get going on the long journey toward seriousness.  Parnassus ought to have funding that would keep it alive and visible (and save it from the cronyism that is always trying to infiltrate any journal);  and it should have several (at least) strong vigorous rivals, journals devoted to reviewing that is ambitious, seriously skeptical, and abundantly substantiated.  Such reviewing would often deal with whole poems, not just with bits of poems.  (Such reviewing would be different from what we often see in The New York Review of Books, a journal I’m grateful for but which is sometimes a home for the Higher Toothlessness.)

Some editors do try to promote and publish serious extensive reviews.  But they need a lot more support in this than they get.  Foundations ought to sponsor annual awards for Tough-minded Criticism.  There should be big annual prizes for Long Severe Reviews.  But of course it all depends on courage.  We need reviewers brave enough to live outside of Mutual Praise Networks.

If smart severe criticism—not necessarily negative, but not afraid to be negative—criticism that has room to make a case (in Michael Theune’s phrase) through argument—were to appear more often and more visibly, and to be rewarded, then serious individuals in our po-world would feel their po-lives to be less absurd, and less lonely; and our conversations would tend to be more honest and interesting.

 

Read more responses here.

Return to table of contents for Issue 1 Spring 2009

Filed Under: Nonfiction Posted On: April 1, 2009

Further Reading

Driving Through Alabama
by Katherine Riegel

Spring has dropped purples and yellows like someone with so much abundance they’re careless of loss. Hot pink azalea bushes crouch round across lawns and I dream they wander, peaceful as cows but wiser. I’m not   from here, but even I know the movies get it wrong. No, I don’t believe everyone who voted […]

After the Parade by J. R. Longfellow

This was when Carl had two cats. They weren’t his cats. The woman he’d been living with had gone to Colorado for what she called an “indefinite period of time.” Said she’d return when she wrapped her head around what the hell they were doing in Chicago. It was beyond Carl how living in one […]

Queer Writers in Memoir:
Casey Parks interviewed by Raki Kopernik

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. About Casey Parks’s new book, Diary of a Misfit: When Casey Parks came out as a lesbian in college back in 2002, she assumed her life in the South was over. Her mother shunned her, and her pastor asked God to kill her. But then Parks’s […]

Primary Sidebar

Recently Published

  • The Best Short Films of 2022
    By: Lisa Ströhm Winberg and Clement Obropta 
  • 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

Trending

  • Eight Contemporary Female Irish Artists to Fall In Love With Immediately
    by Aya Kusch
  • Three Ai Poems
    by Chandra Livia Candiani
    Translated from the Italian by Elisabetta Taboga and Roy Duffield
  • Villain
    by Holly Laurent
  • I Know Who Orville Peck Is
    by Robin Gow
  • You’d Just Be Different, That’s All: Revisiting Catcher in the Rye in 2020
    by Sam Rebelein
  • The most punk thing you can’t remember
    by Gion Davis
  • 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.