Because understanding our social and historical context is an important part of who each of us is. Denial of the existence of the School of Q has been the foremost of its tools trying to erase the majority of other poets off the map.

That the simple process of naming makes some people uncomfortable is a good thing, not a bad one.

But please note that I have written positively about any number of such poets, from Merwin to Jack Gilbert to (most recently) Jean Valentine. And that I have never denied that the phenomenon was not complex and quite varied. There is an important history to be written if only someone will acknowledge it. Indeed, there are quite a few neglected poets who might be resurrected by just such a project.

Ron

I know, J9, it drives me crazy, too.

There’s a socio-psychological term for this sort of behavior, by the way, but I can’t recall what it is now. I think it’s in the DSM-III.

What I can say is this: Westerners have a real problem with binary thinking. Either it’s 0 or it’s 1. That sets up this idea of polarity that simply isn’t useful. It also generates this idea that “if you’re not with me you’re against me.” I get that a lot from my sister in law. She just simply can’t get past the idea that we’re just two different people, but with equally valid interests and lifestyles. Everything I do is wrong because she doesn’t do it. Period. Gadz.

Of course, the Eastern philosophy is not self-centered at all (or maybe I should be more specific: The “classic” Eastern philosophy; it seems as if Easterners are trying so hard to be like Americans that some of that perspective is falling by the wayside).

To reduce to a simple description, Eastern thinking is not binary at all, but this v. that v. the other. There are always at least 3 perspectives. That eliminates the possibility of self-centeredness when matched with the widely accepted belief that the individual is just an insignificant speck in the universe.

I still remember when I first learned about Eastern art and philosophy in an art appreciation class back in 1984, how the world is viewed so differently than it is in the West, and how individuals are far more humbled and accept that humility graciously in the East. That profoundly changed my view of the world.

I’m sure your ongoing interest in Eastern literary forms has provided you with the same broad perspective, J9.

I, too, read all over the map. I am mystified that some people only read one thing (say, just mysteries) or that some people discount entire categories of writing because they simply aren’t interested in them (poetry gets this a lot).

Anyway, I appreciate the rant and want to high five you for sticking your neck out.

Hi J9–

Congrats on the good news out of the blue.

Great post!

I think it makes humans feel safe to label things, whether it’s poetry or other human beings. By doing it, there’s a certain aspect of control, of math: Because X=X then Y.

The problem for me is, when we generalize or label, we miss the individual or in this case, the poem. We say Categories A,B,and J are good, while C, D, and M are bad. Instead of searching deeper, for understanding why a poet writes the way s/he does, we write them off.

It’s in our history. Think about whenever an artist started painting differently. Think about Picasso’s Blue Period.

I like it when poets focus on the specific poem, not a specific category. It’s too big. It’s like saying everyone in America who owns a _______ is a selfish greedy jerk. Yes, there will be some who are and some who aren’t.

The only association I’d like to have as a poet is by region. To be a NW poet because yes, I live in the NW. But I don’t want to fall into any “group.” I think if I do, then I’m not doing my job as a writer. My goal is to avoid any labels. I’m not a can of soup.

Quickly, I’m with you, Jeannine. And some of my favorite poets write entirely differently than I have written so far. And some poets’ work is quite simply beyond my comprehension and experience. I get that. I don’t think that makes them or me bad (although I hope I’ll catch up at some point, so that I can enjoy what that work has to offer).

Thanks for the comments, all! A good discussion.

Ron – I’m not trying to Ron-bash here, just to let you know that I still think your “SOQ” label is too broad to be worth anything, and also seems mean-spirited and old-fashioned. Just the snark factor alone – looking down at folks who, because of education may not even be aware of the post-avant movement – isn’t productive or populist. I think the future is about the melding of styles – already younger poets have inherited post-avant and language techniques (as well as traditional form etc) and adapted them into their work. Post-avant doesn’t have the “outsider” status it used to, and therefore pointing fingers at a non-existent enemy just seems a little…forced. Thanks for your input.

I occasionally read Ron’s blog, but as one of his commenters said, the ongoing “poetry war” thing gets a bit old. Half of what he posts is so outside my sphere of interest when it comes to poetry, that I just don’t find it entertaining. Poets of a certain age and academic level are forever going to try and place younger, educationally diverse poets into a box, and it’s usually labeled “bad.” History is for perspective, not pigeonholing. Read who you love, love who you read, write what brings you joy. Let the curmudgeons wallow in the past.

I would love to be more open-minded than I am. When it comes to music I can listen to, and enjoy, almost all kinds of music from Gregorian chant to atonalism – I still struggle with most opera though – but I find I’m not as tolerant when it comes to poetry. I want to be. I’ve just bought the two huge volumes of Poems for the Millennium published by The University of California in an effort to refine my tastes but I look at so much of it and just scratch my head. I’m not prejudiced – I genuinely want to get it – but it’s frustrating when I don’t know the rules for reading a particular type of poetry; what is the poet expecting from me? What frustrates me more is an unwillingness to explain, not necessarily a specific poem, but their style of writing, their philosophy of poetry.

I have to confess that there’s a little narrow-minded individual inside me that believes any poem that you can’t read and get something out of it a bad poem. I think he’s wrong but he does have quite a loud voice and a good case.

What annoys me more than anything is an attitude, especially prevalent in exponents of so-called experimental poetry, that if you don’t get a certain poem then the fault lies with the reader. Experiments fail more often than they succeed but how does one know if an experimental poem has failed? Surely this is for the reader to decide not the poet. I think a lot of people have the same fear that exists in the art world, no one knows enough, or is brave enough, to call a lot of modern art crap.

“Never explain” Basil Bunting advised fledgling poets “your reader is as smart as you.” No we’re not, not by a long chalk. Is a poem that’s technically brilliant but at the same time so esoteric that it can only be understood by those few scholars willing to put in the hours actually a good poem? I don’t think so. I’ll keep reading them, I’ll keep trying to understand them (I’ve just sent off for E E Cumming’s six nonlectures) but I am so often disappointed.

Hi Ron:

I assume you realize what a fallacy it is to claim something is good because it makes people uncomfortable. But maybe you don’t.

I also assume you realize that “School of Quietude” is a snide, patronizing name equivalent to referring to all avant poetry as something like “The Nutty Nonsense Style.” But maybe you don’t.

Your positive advocacy for some writers and styles is thorough, well considered, and amazing to behold. The negative dogma you propagate under the guise of bullshit sophistry like “the simple process of naming” is ugly, stupid, and unfortunate. There certainly are ugly dogmatists with opposing views to yours, but I’ll damn well bet you know one can’t use someone else’s wrongdoing to justify one’s own.

Sincerely,
Whatever I Am, It’s not “SoQ”

So if there is a School of Quietude, I’m pretty sure I’m a member–and I would very much like a T-shirt.

This comment has been removed by the author.

This is an interesting debate. What I find fascinating is how poetry commentary is probably more “classifiable” than poetry, and I think the minidebate here is pretty representative.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think we tend to miss our own use of categorization in refuting the application of “labels” to our work. For example, Yokel makes reference to a diagnostic label, and Collin uses age and academic history to define a particular group of people. Mind: I don’t think anyone’s really _wrong_ in this thread, but I think we’re not really trying hard enough to each other’s points.

Maybe this is a perspective that comes naturally to me from 20+ years of processing all kinds of data for a living, but I really believe this can be explained quite simply using a statistics analog: To rationally discuss any set of data as a group, it is necessary to define its tendencies and its limits, and to assume these define the population with sufficient confidence (measured in %) to be meaningful. However, the tendencies and limits do not in any way permit the evaluation of a single data point within that population, except to say that it “probably” is part of the population or “probably” isn’t. So whatever anyone may say about the tendencies of a poet or poetics, each poem, by definition, remains individually describable.

Geeky take on the topic, I know. And I do accept that the term “SoQ” carries with it a connotation unattractive to those who feel it applied to them (as I’m sure it would be to me, if I were accomplished enough as a poet to merit the review of my work). However, the more information you attempt to process in a single argument, the more classifications are not only helpful, they are required.

And I’ll take an XL after you hook Joanie up with that T-shirt.

(I think labeling of poetry, if done properly, is all to the good. It’s when the label is inaccurate and/or carries a value judgment that it becomes problematic.)

Social and historical context is important in poetry when you’re writing a thesis, but when reading poetry, it’s hopefully far less vital. Good poetry transcends time and place, at least as long as it’s written in the same language as the reader’s, or near it. Thus, we still read Shakespeare and Whitman and Dickinson. One can argue about schools and styles and which is better than another, which neglected and which politically predominant at the moment. Context is everything in such discussions. Because if it’s about choosing what to read next, a school is a pretty meaningless appellation. If it’s about reviewing a book and trying to place it in a context, it’s vital. Ron is trying to establish a critical framework, but I think a dismissive and vague label as “School of Quietude” does his own endeavor a disservice. It’s not penetrating in any way. I would like to see some forgotten poets resurrected, but not by being stereotyped.

And I do think it’s a competition-based thing, perhaps belonging to the academic frenzy for pre-eminence that dominates American poetry at the moment.

And only for the moment. That moment is fast passing. Perhaps online, non-academically based critics like Ron Silliman will help change that paradigm.

Rachel

In the house of poetry there are many mansions.

I want a T-shirt, too.

Although, I am rather fond of my “Fear the Poet” T-shirt.

But sometimes it’s in the laundry.