Skip to main content

So Which Is It?

Only in England would the literate (if not literary) media still be bamboozled about Paul Muldoon (pictured) or rather, flabbergasted or then again puzzled - by his command of word-play, puns and other linguistic paraphernalia in his writing.

How else to explain the contrasting versions of Muldoonland displayed in recent issues of The Economist (October 21st-27th) and The Guardian? The Guardian's Saturday book section (The Review) has rightly selected his latest collection from Faber, Horse Latitudes, as Book of the Week, snatching it from the ghetto of the poetry review demi-page. James Fenton, himself a former Oxford Professor of Poetry, and major English poet, welcomes the book, Muldoon's tenth, as "an event". But over at the (more conservative) Economist, the unidentified reviewer is more economical with their praise of another new Muldoon publication, his Oxford lectures, The End of the Poem.
The reviewer of these 15 lectures seems slightly overwhelmed: "He dives into the etymology of words, and then relates these discoveries to far-flung biographical and historical fact. At times, his insights can be acute, at others far-fetched and almost outrageously fanciful. ... Mr. Muldoon's literary method, for all its delightfully readable questings, seems to add hurdles rather than eliminate them ... undermining the the notion that poetry has a universal appeal."
There is almost nothing insightful in these remarks, and it staggers the imagination to consider this was likely written by a leading (if anonymous) London critic or poet. The first question is 1) what is far-flung about historical context?; 2) when did reference to the etymology of words in a poem become in any way part of a fanciful methodology?; 3) since when was the reading of poetry a race, or rather, a race that was meant to be short of hurdles?; 4) The Economist seems to want as unrestricted access to the "meaning" of a poem as it does to markets; 5) "Poetry" does not - and never had had - a "universal" appeal - and only the worst sort of bumbling Liberal Humanist from 1904 would want it to (say in some proto-Kipling way).
Rather, poetic language has always been separated from the language of commerce, trade and politics (the quotidian) by precisely its recourse to what Veronica Forrest-Thomson famously called poetic artifice. One does not have to go as far as her in excising external expansion to realize that interpretation of poetry is best when it starts with some idea of the poem as a unique construct of signs and strategies, and moves on from there. It is true that this chafes against Muldoon's interest in the fallacy of the author, but only until one stops to recall the reasons why he wants to tie life and times in to the lingo - to show how poets only refer to the world that resonates with the playful, formalist elements their art ultimately relies on to thrive.
So-called "mainstream" British poetry still tends to suspect any poem or poet that does not wear its metaphor on its clear-as-glass sleeve. It would be far more useful to consider that both the concepts of "lyric ego" and "poetic artifice" form part of a spectrum of culturally-established aesthetic options and opinions, and could be just as interestingly conjoined as opposed, in quite the right poetic setting. Indeed, Muldoon's work is a superb example of such a place, where the innovative and the lyric join hands. It is this that puzzles those that want their poems universal, not in the university.
Meanwhile, Eyewear keeps its lemon-coloured Muldoon Collected close at all times, as an Arnoldian touchstone of bon mots, and considers Muldoon one of the great poetic stylists of the last 50 years, along with Ashbery, Charles Bernstein and a few others. Few other poets have so successfully made their eccentric signature tone and rhythm so seemingly inevitable (Dickinson, Auden and Larkin come to mind as precursors) in the process making a world. Of the great Irish word-wits, he seems to have become part of the list that includes Swift, Wilde, Shaw and Joyce.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…