Welcome & Raison d'Etre
Welcome to the 20th-Century American Poetry Virtual Colloquium. Our first topic for discussion is the publication, in the most recent issue of The New Yorker, of three poem-drafts or poem-fragments by Elizabeth Bishop. What mechanisms and/or reflexes govern how one evaluates and interprets these texts? It is implicit that Bishop herself did not consider these to be “good” poems. Was she correct? What’s the pleasure of reading these: is it mere voyeurism?; is it instructive to see such un-wrought urns? or are they now wrought retroactively, merely by the fact of Bishop's established reputation?
Also, as this is our first topic for discussion, here I will provide the rationale for this colloquium/blog. Two events created it. First:
The recent publication in The New Yorker of these poem-drafts or poem-fragments by Bishop (and a volume of these will be published in March) prompted my sending an email to my department’s listserv. In this email, I referred people to the drafts and asked for general reactions to the publication of these works by a poet who, while alive, guarded jealously such “incomplete” texts. I use incomplete to allude to Bishop’s own title, The Complete Poems, for a first edition of her collected works published in 1969, when she was still very much alive and indeed creating new work. So, during her lifetime, Bishop established an emphatic distinction between her “complete poems” and the “incomplete” ones, only publishing those she felt to be complete.
Well, in response to my email to the listserv came a number of very provocative responses—responses, however, sent only to me. While I was delighted for the responses, I also thought it too bad that only I could read them (according to the rules of email etiquette), for they offered thoughtful and impromptu reflections on 1) the nature of poetic texts; 2) the conventions whereby we adhere to or disregard the artistic decisions of poets after their deaths; 3) the pleasures of reading and the forces that influence these pleasures.
My first thought was to create some kind of new listserv where colleagues might muse about these issues, but then—
The second event: a colleague showed me her blog on this site, a forum for a seminar she’s currently leading at UC. These two events catalyzed, and particularly because one of the replies to my original email mentioned that these poem-fragments of Bishop’s have never been exactly unavailable—it’s just that they’ve only been available previously to a small group of people. And listservs may be available to public participation, but they don’t lend themselves to general perusal; moreover, due to the contraints of the medium, it's only those rare listservs that lead to sustained and developed lines of debate. So, my original question to my department's listserv, relating to distinctions between Bishop's "public" and "private" texts, seemed to me nicely to spark with ways that the "blog" genre itself raises similar issues.
Hence this blog: a virtual colloquium. I have invited friends and colleagues to bring up topics, reflect on these topics, bring up more topics, etc. This blog is available for public inspection; however, at this point I doubt that our topic will generate much traffic (i.e. “hits”). Nonetheless, if you stumble upon this discussion and wish to participate more substantively, send me an email.
Additionally, this blog is an experiment, and I make no guarantees how long it will continue, or indeed if it will gather any steam at all after this initial setup. For, well, so many genres, so little time.... Will those who are working to publish "hard copy" versions of their scholarship and poetry take time to contribute to this manner of raw yet public forum?
That said, I’ll repeat the first topic for discussion:
Considering these fragments by Bishop newly published in The New Yorker, what mechanisms and/or reflexes govern how one evaluates and interprets such texts? It’s implicit that Bishop herself did not consider these to be “good” poems. Was she correct? What’s the pleasure of reading these: is it mere voyeurism?; is it instructive to see such un-wrought urns? or are they now wrought retroactively, merely by the fact of Bishop's established reputation?
Also, as this is our first topic for discussion, here I will provide the rationale for this colloquium/blog. Two events created it. First:
The recent publication in The New Yorker of these poem-drafts or poem-fragments by Bishop (and a volume of these will be published in March) prompted my sending an email to my department’s listserv. In this email, I referred people to the drafts and asked for general reactions to the publication of these works by a poet who, while alive, guarded jealously such “incomplete” texts. I use incomplete to allude to Bishop’s own title, The Complete Poems, for a first edition of her collected works published in 1969, when she was still very much alive and indeed creating new work. So, during her lifetime, Bishop established an emphatic distinction between her “complete poems” and the “incomplete” ones, only publishing those she felt to be complete.
Well, in response to my email to the listserv came a number of very provocative responses—responses, however, sent only to me. While I was delighted for the responses, I also thought it too bad that only I could read them (according to the rules of email etiquette), for they offered thoughtful and impromptu reflections on 1) the nature of poetic texts; 2) the conventions whereby we adhere to or disregard the artistic decisions of poets after their deaths; 3) the pleasures of reading and the forces that influence these pleasures.
My first thought was to create some kind of new listserv where colleagues might muse about these issues, but then—
The second event: a colleague showed me her blog on this site, a forum for a seminar she’s currently leading at UC. These two events catalyzed, and particularly because one of the replies to my original email mentioned that these poem-fragments of Bishop’s have never been exactly unavailable—it’s just that they’ve only been available previously to a small group of people. And listservs may be available to public participation, but they don’t lend themselves to general perusal; moreover, due to the contraints of the medium, it's only those rare listservs that lead to sustained and developed lines of debate. So, my original question to my department's listserv, relating to distinctions between Bishop's "public" and "private" texts, seemed to me nicely to spark with ways that the "blog" genre itself raises similar issues.
Hence this blog: a virtual colloquium. I have invited friends and colleagues to bring up topics, reflect on these topics, bring up more topics, etc. This blog is available for public inspection; however, at this point I doubt that our topic will generate much traffic (i.e. “hits”). Nonetheless, if you stumble upon this discussion and wish to participate more substantively, send me an email.
Additionally, this blog is an experiment, and I make no guarantees how long it will continue, or indeed if it will gather any steam at all after this initial setup. For, well, so many genres, so little time.... Will those who are working to publish "hard copy" versions of their scholarship and poetry take time to contribute to this manner of raw yet public forum?
That said, I’ll repeat the first topic for discussion:
Considering these fragments by Bishop newly published in The New Yorker, what mechanisms and/or reflexes govern how one evaluates and interprets such texts? It’s implicit that Bishop herself did not consider these to be “good” poems. Was she correct? What’s the pleasure of reading these: is it mere voyeurism?; is it instructive to see such un-wrought urns? or are they now wrought retroactively, merely by the fact of Bishop's established reputation?
posted by jvmackerel at 3:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home