Ian: I certainly don’t want to argue you out of enjoying a poet you obviously admire. I agree that Seidel writes some excellent individual lines and stanzas. For me, though, a little bit of what he does goes a long way. I can see why you and others might like him, though.
As far as I can tell, he and Robbins have taken the next logical steps beyond the Modernists. Poets like Pound or Apollinaire tried to build their poems on surprise. Seidel bases his on shock.
One thing I do like about the technique is how he gives each of his lines room to breathe. He knows what his best lines are and tends to gives them space, adapting his lineation to them, and even repeating them within a poem or in another poem. He does use enjambment at times, and the effect is often momentarily disorienting:
I don’t believe in anything, I do
Believe in you.
Down here in hell we do don’t.
I can’t think of anything I won’t. (“December”)
I can now see what you were trying for in a few of your recent poems here. It is hard to do what Seidel does: it takes a good sense of timing and a good handle on what the audience will think.
At any rate, I hope that you’ll post your further thoughts on Seidel here or elsewhere. It’s always enlightening to see what poets have to say about the influences that are most important to them, whether I share that enthusiasm or not.
|