[R. S. Gwynn]

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/p...er_lo ngpoems

[John Whitworth]

These long poems are all FAR too long for me. I like 'The Testament of Cresseid' by Henryson, 'Absalom and Achitophell' by Dryden, 'The Rape of the Lock' by Pope, 'The Vanity of Human Wishes' by Johnson and 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner'. Middle-sized poems?

I sort of like 'Don Juan' but I wouldn't dream of reading it through. Ditto 'In Memoriam'. Does 'The Waste Land' count? It's OK being in bits. And that's true of 'The Idylls of the King'. And 'The Canterbury Tales' come to that. But I haven't read ALL the Idylls nor ALL the Tales. Who has? Come on. Hands up.

[Maryann Corbett]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

But I haven't read ALL the Idylls nor ALL the Tales. Who has? Come on. Hands up.

John, it's been a long time, but I can honestly put up my hand for the whole Canterbury Tales. Even the godawful Melibee and Sir Topas.

I think it's useful to remember that the mode of delivery Chaucer had in mind for them was probably reading aloud to a court group. A performance of that sort doesn't make quite as many of the demands pointed out in the article Sam links to. I wish I could have taken them in that way.

I should say something more responsive to that article. This summer I read both Ludlow and Omeros, so I can testify to the truth of the points about wandering attention and the confessional elements. But today's 3quarksdaily.com links to a Guardian article on our diminishing ability to concentrate on reading anything at length, and I can testify to the truth of that one too. I'm sure that reading at length on the desktop screen is a losing proposition. I'm curious whether e-readers are better.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Maryann Corbett

[T]oday's 3quarksdaily.com links to a Guardian article on our diminishing ability to concentrate on reading anything at length. . .

I’m amazed at the faith of those who write long poems that their work will find an audience today, especially when there aren’t that many who read any sort of poetry whatsoever. I remember when people used to shake their heads at the attention span of the MTV generation; they almost seem like slowpokes now, however, in the Age of Twitter. People may be just as serious as ever, but their lives are quick, quick, quick, and they've adapted to that pace.

Long poems might repay the effort required and can be very readable – Mullin’s Huncke is a recent example – but I sometimes think they are behemoths from another age.

[David Mason]

Well, I've just rewritten Ludlow as an opera libretto, and it's a LOT shorter.
Also changed the plot considerably.
Dave

[Maryann Corbett]

I hope I get to hear it, Dave. I'll miss the sections in which the author reflects on his own past, though. (Or are they in there, somehow?)

[David Mason]

There is a "poet" figure, possibly a female (mezzo)--we shall see what comes of this... It would be a great role, I think.

[R. S. Gwynn]

I'm talking about "Hymn to Life," "A Few Days," and "The Morning of the Poem," all by James Schuyler. I'm talking about The Descent of Alette, by Alice Notley; way, by Leslie Scalapino; Midwinter Day, by Bernadette Mayer; Autobiography of Red, by Anne Carson; My Life, by Lyn Hejinian; "Howl," by Allen Ginsberg; "Song of Myself," by Walt Whitman; Model Homes, by Wayne Koestenbaum; David Antin's talk poems; "Not a Prayer," by Heather McHugh; "A Poem Under the Influence," by David Trinidad; Paterson, by William Carlos Williams; Iovis, by Anne Waldman; Tender Buttons, by Gertrude Stein; The Angel of History, by Carolyn Forché; The California Poem and The Book of Jon, by Eleni Sikelianos; Plot, by Claudia Rankine; Deepstep Come Shining, by C. D. Wright; "Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror," by John Ashbery; Jane, by Maggie Nelson. These are just a few of my favorites.

Somehow I don't think we're talking about the same long poems . . .

[Quincy Lehr]

Fun article. I love the automatic condescension toward the long poem here, hence Shacklee's "I’m amazed at the faith of those who write long poems that their work will find an audience today, especially when there aren’t that many who read any sort of poetry whatsoever." (Though he does mention Mullin's magisterial Huncke, at least.) When we lose the long poem, we lose a lot--though with (by quick count), a dozen poems of three pages or more in print, I suppose I have a vested interest in saying so. Length allows a great deal of sonic variation, mood shift, structural complexity, and (dare I say it?) plain old depth that cutting off at the twenty-line mark fails to allow. (The short poem has its virtues and profundities, too, but it cannot replace the long poem.)

Some of the most effective poetry readings I've ever done have evolved around long poems. While my book was mostly critically ignored in the U.S., the long poems were singled out for praise elsewhere, and they actually helped drive sales. The prejudice against long poems seems to mostly exist among poets, really.

And as for the long-term influence of the internet, Maryann, it really is too early to tell.

[Ed Shacklee]

Originally Posted by Quincy Lehr

Fun article. I love the automatic condescension toward the long poem here, hence Shacklee's "I’m amazed at the faith of those who write long poems that their work will find an audience today, especially when there aren’t that many who read any sort of poetry whatsoever." (Though he does mention Mullin's magisterial Huncke, at least.)

Quincy,

My comment -- and those of others, I suspect -- had nothing to do with the quality of contemporary long poems, and everything to do with the quality of the prospective audience's span of attention.

To a lesser extent, and for somewhat different reasons, I feel the same way about people who still write in rhyme decades after free verse has displaced it in so many journals and in the eyes of so many critics. I'm not taking a whack at free verse here; it just seems that formal poems, and long poems in particular, have limited appeal these days, no matter how appealing they may be in fact.

I am amazed at the faith of those who write long poems that their work will find an audience: actually, I'm generally amazed at faith. I'm afraid that the age of the long poem has passed, and that admirable poems like Huncke are throwbacks. From what I've read by Disch, Gioia, Steele and the rest, it seems that all formal poets are throwbacks in terms of modern taste and the diminished size of their potential audience; contemporary long poets are simply throwing farther. If you've found this isn't the case, that's good news. Perhaps it's your love of the long poem that makes you over-eager to defend it; but if you're looking for "automatic condescension" in a comment, you'd best keep looking.

Ed