He seems to be a man after my own heart--though somewhat of an absolutist. I haven't read a lot of either his poetry or criticism. Langdon Hammer of The American Scholar (and Yale) casts Kirsch in the New York Times Book Review as prejudiced against non-formal, non-"Modern" poetry. His new book of criticism, The Modern Element, is hit for only dealing with five women, of which only A. E. Stallings is praised. Hammer puts him in the tradition of Eliot as a poet/critic--Kirsch also has a new book of poetry called Invasions. But you read .

Kirsch is OK by me. His criticism could use a wider frame of reference but it is astute and well written. I haven't read his new book of poems but there was much in his first book that I thought was good. His challenge, especially as a critic, will be to break his own molds.

Hammer's review should please his friends at Yale. He even managed to get in a scare exclamation point after the name "Boethius." Kirsch must be so old-fashioned, turning to a source that was popular for a thousand years.

Thanks for posting this, Rick.


[Edited back in for clarity.]


[This message has been edited by Andrew Frisardi (edited August 31, 2008).]

Looked like a hatchet job to me. The article, unusually for an article in the gray lady having to do with poetry, is not a review of the collected poems of someone dead or a review of Jorie's latest, but rather a general attack on a critic on a hot streak who tends to buck the conventional wisdom, and, indeed, the attack on Kirsch's latest book of poetry was the standard-issue condemnation of metrical work. It's clearly a counterattack of some kind, but I somehow doubt Kirsch is the ultimate target. Rather, I suspect (and if I'm reading too much into this, rein me in) that the broader target was the whole Dana Gioia/West Chester thing, given that those dastardly metricists are starting to get some press, some faculty positions, and even a bit of dosh here and there.

As far as Invasions - Kirsch's new poetry book - is concerned, I don't think the poor review has anything to do with either a hatchet job or an attack on the metricists. I read the book, and it was soporific: one droning, slightly stilted line dissolved into the next; one droning, slightly stilted poem dissolved into the next. The book was devoid of humor, devoid of personality or any voice beyond a slightly labored fustiness, devoid of excitement, high or low points, challenges, or any change of pace - intelligent, but colorless and odorless. I ordered it because I liked his first book (which won the New Criterion, and I unfortunately can't find now, because I'd like to refresh my judgement), but the latest one was just deadly. Haven't read the book of criticisms yet (ordered that as well), but the Times review of the poetry book is spot on.



[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited September 01, 2008).]

I was thinking along those lines, too, Quincy. I once worked for, and am in touch from time to time with, Robert Olen Butler. He is a novelist not beloved of a certain editor that worked at the Time Book Review, and he insists that person contracted Jane Smiley for a hit on him with a review of I-forget-which-book. Smiley choked, as it turned out--after lambasting Butler for whatever political incorrectness of the past, she had to admit she liked the book. I guess it's no secret that this kind of thing happens, and I can certainly see it happening with a formalist poet and critic as a target.

We cross-posted, Michael. One thing I wondered about with the poetry book is the subject matter. I wonder if that had anything to do with the problems you see with it.

I'm not sure the Times critic knows shoot from Shinola. He says the "poet-critic" is a 20th-century invention? Let's see: Dante, Petrarch, Samuel Johnson, Coleridge, Arnold . . . And the guy teaches at Yale. Yikes.



[This message has been edited by Andrew Frisardi (edited September 01, 2008).]

Well, it seems quite possible that Kirsch just wrote a crappy second book, but again, the attack was far broader than that, which, per Rick's comments, did look like a hit. And given Kirsch's position outside academia and his general critical leanings, it does look like someone was trying to take him down more generally.

(And Dr. Johnson comes to mind as another pre-twentieth-century poet-critic.)

Rick - agreed that post 9/11 New York (which is only a portion of the book) is not a fun subject matter, but I don't think that was behind my objections. It's primarily that - while some of the individual poems succeed, and the level of "discussion" is very high indeed - the piling of similar slow, thoughtful, rhetorical droning (I know I said that before, but it comes back whenever I browse through the book) poem on poem leads to accretive boredom.

Stylistically/technically, I think the following contribute:

- Relentless IP, with very few deviations, relatively few breaks or caesuras, no rhythm beyond the repetitive thrum of a well educated person speaking well-educatedly.

- Over-dependence on modifiers. Many of the poems seem saturated with modifier-noun combinations, and although some are clever, none are spectacular, and their steady presence (damm - there's another!) encourages the drone.

- Essayism. Too much presentation, not enough attention to sonics or imagery, at times more like a paper than a poem.



[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited September 01, 2008).]

I went to look up some of his poetry at the PF, and saw this review . I thought it might be of interest, as it parallels the NYT review in some ways, but is more favourable.