I'm probably going to be sorry I got into this. But having gone on record (in TNB) as saying I wanted to try to state a poetics, I now think I have to add that I've found it very hard.
First, doesn't your poetics have to take in more than your own poetic practice? Doesn't it also have to describe what you think works in other poetry? I think it does. I think that's why this thread started; some people looked at a species of poetry and said, Uh, no.
Second, so many statements of poetics seem to rule out some other kind of poetry that I find effective--at least sometimes. Will all respect to Bill, "never make stuff up" rules out way too much other poetry for me, however well it works to produce his poems. Can we imagine Maz living by "Never make stuff up"? Some poets insist that all poems have got to have multiple layers. I'm not persuaded; I think lots of one-layer expository poetry works just fine. Some poets seethe at "prose chopped into short lines," but occasionally there's a piece like this that I find effective. No matter what doctrinaire statement is made, I seem to find exceptions. I grow hesitant to rule out too much; I'd just like to understand it better.
Third, as many times as I've said "I like poetry that does thus and so," I've found books of poems that seem to satisfy all my requirements but that I still don't find satisfying. I happen to be wrestling with one just now. If this happens, obviously the statement of criteria was inadequate.
Fourth, for most of us here it might be too soon to nail ourselves down. I can't find it now, but some time back I once found a personal web page for Amit Majmudar. There was a statement on it to the effect that the poems were all being replaced because the author found that he kept reinventing himself as a poet. If a statement of poetics cut off that process of reinvention, it might not be a good thing.
I'm not equipped to see any value in the KG approach. I've always believe poets should be "makers," and the KG approach is just finding. But I also know there are holes in my theories.
Simply by talking about KG, though, we're probably producing the value he most wants: attention. That's why I think my response to it should be silence.
|