I think it fair to say that poetry needs controversy. Alicia has told me she thinks her negative review by Richard Moore sold more Archaic Smiles than the positive ones, and Rhina certainly relished the response here to Salemi's sandbagging of her new book. And let's not forget the reaction to Hardy's first book, published at age sixty, when one reviewer suggested that a great novelist should not endanger his reputation by straying into an art form in which he had no competence.

Well, there's "criticism" and then there's "entertaining bitchiness."

As I learned long ago with movie reviews, the folk who specialize in entertaining bitchiness don't offer any real perspective on whether something is good or bad, or even any real knowledge of genre or conventions of form. What they do offer is an entertaining read, best savored after you've seen the movie, read the book, or experienced whatever other form of art they're being catty about.

Unfortunately you're never going to get a publisher to put "entertaining bitchiness" on a book cover in place of "criticism," but you eventually learn to recognize the style and can peg the reviewer yourself.

Kevin

I heard Billy Joel discuss the fact that no one was buying his records until the Catholic Bishop of St. Louis (if I remember correctly) tried to ban the song "Only the Good Die Young." Sales immediately skyrocketed and Joel wrote the bishop to thank him and encourage him to ban any other records in the future. A negative review doesn't necessarily have the same effect, but it is true that poetry gets little attention, and that an entertaining review (even if negative) can call a poet to the attention of readers who would otherwise never have heard of him or her. So I'm not writing to defend Logan, but just to say that the effect of a negative review isn't always what the reviewer had intended.

Give me a break, Nigel. I didn't set out to
be funny or comic or bitchy.
I simply said that a rather long essay
could be written about Logan's empty vocabulary
disguising his personal taste. God knows I didn't
have the time or energy to do an essay on Jorie Graham.

And just because I pointed out that I don't like her work doesn't mean that it can't be attacked in substantive detail, so there is no contradiction or inconsistency in any of this. If you'd like an essay on Graham that does go into considerable detail, try Jan Schreiber's brilliant piece written last year for EP & M. If you like, I can go look it up and type the reference here for all Sphereans.

Neither does claiming that Logan is wrong require snippiness or any "double standard." We all of us understand that some people like Graham and some like Dick Davis. But if it were to come down to a contest between the diligence of say, Alan Sullivan's criticism--its specificity and exactness--on the Sphere and Logan's bitchy similes in the Criterion, there's no contest. Alan wins hand down. The difference is that Alan is blunt but has some content to his critical counters, while Logan is virtualy impossible to answer. What DOES "soullessness" in verse MEAN?

And of course nothing I say (who the hell has ever heard of me?) is ever going to affect anyone's opinion of Graham
or dampen the sale of her books or reduce the honors
that continue to rain down on her.

__________________


Footnote on dangling and misplaced modifiers:

From the New Republic, June 17, 2002, page 16 (an article by Michael Rubin on the Kurds--and he probably gets paid for this sort of thing):

"And based on past U.S. behavior, they aren't convinced...."

Richard Wakefield has proposed continuing or supplementing this discussion, or part of it, in "The Discerning Eye" forum. This strikes me as a good idea, because I think that there are two discussions going on here at once and the result is some avoidable punchiness. Some of the posts are specific responses to Logan's review of Dick's book. Others (although the two groups are not mutually exclusive) are using this occasion (quite appropriately) to make general comments on the nature, purpose and effect of criticism. The first group is engaged, while the second is more detached, and I think the result, for good or ill, is that the emotional stakes in posting here have been raised. In any case, I just wanted to call attention to Richard's post before I rush off to compose my monograph on The Critic's Endeavor.

So much talk about such a little thing. I like Dick
Davis' work and I agree that Logan is almost always
negative, but Gresham's Law is as true of poetry as
of money and I say, better negative reviews even if
wrongheaded or heavyhanded than the usual thing one
sees, one friend washing the other. Even better if
the reviewer is especially witty, as Randal Jarrell
was, or Moses Hadas. (Hadas once began a review:
"This book fills a much-needed gap in the literature.")
Alicia is right that this sort of thing is good for
the health of the art, however little you might like
the individual judgment. And yes, a bad review is far
better than none at all---I'd happily accept a few,
and I'm a little disappointed that Logan hasn't bothered
to trash my book.

Dick Davis read "Teresia Shirley" at West Chester this year, and I thought it a masterwork. His subtle reading contributed to that. He also happens to be quite modest, as I saw when I praised him in person.

Terese

RM >> Gresham's Law is as true of poetry as of money. . . <<

Ain't that the truth. I liked Logan's article. I'm not very current & was otherwise unaware of him, but based on this, he's very witty, intelligent, knowledgeable, and he cares. And he comes up with some great sayings. "satire is a form of forgiveness, too," says he, and (next sentence!) "Nihilism is too rare in contemporary poetry, where sentiments are sold on the sidewalk." These are the type of thoughts that, right or wrong, plunge you into a subject. You don't see that too often.

I haven't read the Davis book so I can't comment on the overall justice of Logan's review. I do think he takes some cheap shots. A matter of style, though; the sophisticated reader takes it in the appropriate spirit. More importantly, he isolates an aspect of Davis's poetry, that exhibited in the "astringent epigrams," for praise. He says: "A poet who can write epigrams shimmering with such wit, ragged with such despair, has no business writing anything else." Presumptuous, perhaps, but the epigrams he quotes are convincingly good.

RM >> Hadas once began a review: "This book fills a much-needed gap in the literature." <<

Sublimely funny.


[This message has been edited by AE (edited June 13, 2002).]

After taking a couple months off the internet to do some reading, I come back to this very interesting thread. I’ve read the review, but I haven’t read Belongings and don’t have it, so I don’t know how much of what Logan says I would agree with. I did hear Davis read the monorhyme shower poem at WC, which I loved. I’ve heard a great many poets say how the watered down reviews are doing more harm than good for poetry. They talk about the good old days where there were critics like Jarrell, who weren’t afraid of hurting anybodies feelings. Now, I’ll say that Logan is no Jarrell, and yeah, a lot of these little quips he says are pointless, and meant to further his image, but at least he’s not afraid to write a negative review. Though from what I’ve heard of him, he seems afraid to write a positive review. Still, it’s William Logan. It’s what he is known for. I don’t know him that well, and I know him for that. You have to know that if he is reviewing your work, odds are you’ll get a review like this. Now, I haven’t read enough reviews by Logan, or read the books of those he’s reviewed, so I’ll have to ask those of you that have: how often is he right about what he says? Regardless of whatever unnecessarily cruel things he say. Tim Murphy said, “I always relish Logan's "acidulous rhetoric" when he's trashing poets like Graham whom I despise. From the little I've seen of his own work, I regard him as a middling poet, not really worthy to shine the shoes of a Davis, a Wilbur or Hecht.” Seems to be a bit of a double standard. These types of reviews are ok if it is a poet who we don’t know or like their work? But if it is a poet we like, well then that’s unnecessary and he’s a hack? And you have to keep in mind that there are different tastes in poetics. Nobody I know likes Jorie Graham, but there are people out there who think she’s a genius. Or at least I keep hearing that there are people out there who like her work. I mean just looking around here, the way free verse is treated by some. Part of any review is going to be personal opinion. And one other thing, isn’t one of the first things a young poet is taught is to develop a thick skin? Not to take it personal? Learn from it or get over it. I know it’s one of the things I had to learn. Some people will like your work, but some people aren’t going to like your work. There’s really no point in pouting about it. Sorry if this all sounds a bit disjointed, but I’ve been away for a while.

jason

Welcome back, Jason. You'll find a lively discussion on criticism over at the Discerning Eye board.