Skip to main content

Alien vs. Predator, review of a review

The Financial Times doesn't review poetry all that often, but it had George Pendle review Alien vs. Predator by Michael Robbins (Penguin, 2012), a book I have not yet read, and intend to.  This is a review of that review - or rather, a brief lament at so many of the assumptions and lazy claims made in it.  The main problem for me is Pendle's claim is that this collection "could take poetry to a new readership" because of its "ephemeral appreciation of pop culture" and that this pop culture poetry, that references "rap", is like "Wallace Stevens playing Xbox".  Paul Muldoon and John Ashbery and Ginsberg are cited as presiding spirits. Blogs and tweets are mentioned.  It is a "gory B-movie mash-up" with a "bouncing, colloquial firestorm of pop and poetical reference".  Sigh.

Where to begin?  Firstly, there is nothing new about this sort of pop reference in poetry.  Gargoyle has been publishing work like this for two decades.  Most slam poets have mined this.  David Trinidad in America, and David McGimpsey, in Canada, are geniuses at this combination of TV, film, and poetic reference.  Indeed, I edited a "B-poetry" anthology of pop sci-fi poems half a decade or more ago. In fact, the default position of most poets born since 1976 is to include or reference, pop culture with their poetry.  It is true that few such earlier books have been marketed with quite the brazen simplicity of this new one, which wears its sleeve on its heart, as it were.  However, from what I have seen of "new readerships" for poetry, they don't exist.  This is for two reasons: 1) the nature of poetry is that, however much it seeks to, or seems to, pander to pop culture desires, it always, if actual poetry, exceeds those pleasures and makes demands that prove resistant to mere consumerist impulse; and 2) the nature of readers is that those who love poetry inevitably seek more and deeper pleasures than mere surface pop culture skits and pastiche; and those who don't move on to books, games, TV, films, and other online entertainments, instead.

Canny readers will see these are the same coin, two sides.  What I mean to say is this - poetry can't sell out - even when it tries, it fails.  No slam poet, no comedian poet, no sex poet, no stripper poet, no movie star poet, no model poet, no rock star poet, no TV poet, has ever become truly famous, and critically loved, as a poet qua poet.  The poets who resonate, who last, who quicken us, who signify, in the end, the integrity and deep vocational labour of poetry, are those who plough their furrow, without heed of "new readership".  Poetry readers are few and far between - there is no mass market for poetry - and never will be.  It is a dream of marketing teams, and it cheapens poetry to think it might even be desirable, or possible, to have a poetry that could effortlessly appeal to millions.  Poetry is the hook that must catch a little in the throat, and whose bait is the sweetmeat of the gods.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".