The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Ann Burlingham — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:03:43 -0000

"...Kennedy has no experience as an elected official."

Many people run for - or are appointed to - fairly high offices with no experience as elected officials. I don't recall Hillary Clinton running for any more local office (mayor, say, or town supervisor, or even State Assembleywoman), before becoming our (quite good) US Senator.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Bea — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:43:07 -0000

I am apalled that Packer would compare Alexander and Kennedy. There is quite a difference in being asked to write a poem and being asked to serve in the Senate. And even if there weren't, Alexander is a veteran poet whereas Kennedy has no experience as an elected official.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

hwickline — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:30:17 -0000

Kevin Drum, who is usually one of my favorite bloggers, had a post yesterday similar to Packer's-- basically hating on poetry generally, and using an excerpt from one of Alexander's poems to hate on her specifically. It's confusing to me why these people whose opinions I usually respect could be so far off on this issue. It seems to be wrapped up in some kind of anti-intellectualism mixed with disdain for symbolic activities lacking in empiricism.

But ceremony is important; symbols are important. They clarify the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. Denying that just seems foolishly literal-minded.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

storm — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:36:46 -0000

I was hoping that Obama would invite Toni Morrison to do a reading. She's not a poet but she is one of our best American writers -- and she was one of O's earliest endorers.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Claudia — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:42:55 -0000

What is the goal of Packer's ridiculous commentary? It seems pointless to argue with people like this about the value of poetry. We shouldn't have to "defend" the rights of artist or the right of the President-elect to want to commemorate this national event through art. So much of the inspirational force of Obama's candidacy came through creative artists, poets, actors, etc. Alexander is a great poet and a great person (I also took a class with her) and I think Packer's personal criticism of her work further invalidates his argument about "presidential poetry" - is it the act of writing a poem for this occasion that bothers him so much? or the style and content of her particular work? Arg.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Mike T — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:07:12 -0000

I'd hate to be in Alexander's shoes, but that's because it once took me 13 years to get a haiku where I wanted it. I can't imagine I'd be able to produce anything decent in just a few weeks. At that point, I'm usually just at the stage where I hate what I've written.

So, TNC, who would you pick if it were your inaugural? I'd probably want B.H. Fairfield or David Bottoms, but that's because they speak to the particulars of my experience, which might not be the right way to go for an inaugural.

Not that it'd ever come up.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Gramsci — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:28:32 -0000

To be fair, Packer's main point isn't Alexander. It's not even poetry. It's the idea of poetry on-demand. Hence the quote from Derek Walcott about how few poets rise for a predetermined occasion. And in terms of artistic creation, that makes some sense. It's the same reason that I don't think John Williams's composition, even while played by Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma, is going to equal his other stuff-- music isn't a take-out order.

I'm still looking forward to Alexander.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Alyson — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:11:02 -0000

These alone seem like the kind of qualifications that entitle Caroline Kennedy to a Senate seat.

Am I the only one who sees this and thinks: "He asked her to write him a poem. He's not giving her a Senate seat! He's not inviting her to start making policy in his administration."? Am I?

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:23:21 -0000

"And no hip hop recorded after 1996?"

The Doom line is from 2004-05ish.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

GSK+ — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:22:51 -0000

"Well, one really bold move would be to invite Adrienne Rich.

That would begin to balance out Rick Warren,

and I'm sure she'd be memorable.

But I'm not sure she'd accept the offer."

I agree -- on all counts. Thanx for mentioning her.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

The Foulness — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:54:50 -0000

No poets born after 1874?

And no hip hop recorded after 1996? Ha ha...

That Elizabeth Alexander stuff sounds pretty good, and as the other commenter said, perfectly in sync with what Obama is trying to do.

And I have to say that even though Robert Frost may have flubbed his lines at the Kennedy inaugural, who really knew that? I grew up not knowing about the flub, but knowing that Frost played an important part in the Inaugural. And that recognition - as opposed to the performance, which is basically forgotten - has been very important in keeping Frost (an often misunderstood poet who is more complex - and cynical - than given credit for) alive, and with Frost, poetry.

I still remember hearing about Maya Angelou when Clinton picked her to do his inaugural. Am I a big fan of hers? Not really. Not sure why, what I read of hers always seemed a little dopey. But I still read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and you still had Ben Stiller in Reality Bites making a joke using those very words, which means Bill Clinton gave poetry a forum, and it seeped into the popular culture, which is important.

This coming from someone who believes that Nasir Jones might very well be the greatest living American poet. Imagine if Obama let him get up there and he dropped something like this?

"Dear people of the globe

I hoped you in good health

By the time my voice hit you

I hope in all wells wit you

My mission is to bail wit you

Touch upon some real issues

Senators, Government Officials

Sit at the conference and listen

Have a Coke and a Mineral water

And say I'm reminiscing, George L. Jackson

Malcolm X last win when I'm rappin

Americans, Africans, Asians, Russians, and Arab men

Send your clergymen to journey wit Nas from Queens projects

I promise unforgettable experience

compare me wit, Imhotep get M.O. Dep

History was stolen, get in my zone

what makes the power that beef? less gangsta then Al Capone

The Rosetta stone was stolen like Chicago was

Think I'm a thug?, lets talk about some conquerors

Napoleon, Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan

Hitler, Edi Amin, I'm Attila the Hun

Let's bring back to the cat that invented the gun

From the Indians all the way to the Pentagon

I'm sittin on Capitol Hill

I'm composin this rhyme, guaranteed to make all of y'all feel

The beauty that was trapped under siege

Believe in yourself you'll be free, take it from me"

- Nas, "We March As Millions"

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Persia — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:14:26 -0000

Robert Frost, while not my favorite poet by a long shot, was one of the best and most influential writers in American letters. How dare he lose his place at the Inauguration! Jesus.

Alexander was on NPR talking about the poem yesterday, and what it's like writing a poem for An Event. She seems prepared, and thoughtful, and suitable.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Pesto — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:14:21 -0000

What's the alternative -- John Ashbery?

Well, one really bold move would be to invite Adrienne Rich. That would begin to balance out Rick Warren, and I'm sure she'd be memorable. But I'm not sure she'd accept the offer.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

David — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:13:05 -0000

I've emailed a version of this to a couple people, but I think it bears repeating:

I found Packer's implication that Alexander only got the slot because she "knows" Obama to be incorrect and insulting. First, more than a cursory glance at her credentials will show her to be eminently qualified in her own right. Second, while it surely helped that he knew who she was in the first place, would someone who understands the power of words as deeply as Obama really give THIS platform to someone if he didn't understand and believe in what she was saying?

I took two African American Literature classes from Alexander while I was an undergrad at Yale; she was a wise, caring teacher, and she has been more than willing to stay in touch with students even after they leave. In addition to that, though, and in addition to her fine writing ability (she has multiple books of poetry as well as essays; the examples on her website are indicative but not fully representative of her range), she is a consummate literary historian. She is deeply steeped in the history of African American arts and letters, looking far beyond the "usual suspects" (Hughes, Brooks, Morrison, etc.) to their more obscure predecessors, their unpublished or unknown contemporaries, and their modern "heirs" whose more challenging work remains out of the mainstream. She sends her students into archives to research their context and correspondence, in an effort to show us the vibrant, holistic experience that lies behind the words on the page. She has fantastic connections all over the literary scene, she oversees workshops, festivals, and anthologies, and she mentors young writers.

It is for these reasons that I believe her selection is a further nod to the history that has allowed Obama to be where he is, especially coming from a man as conscious of the cultural and literary past as he has shown himself to be. She is no dilettante: rather, she is someone who has earned her understanding of what this moment represents, and how it will be expressed and remembered. I am sure she will only make it better for being there.

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:10:43 -0000

Well first don't say you don't understand poetry. You almost certainly do. Frankly, the poetry I like the best is generally pretty accessible. People trying to confuse you and shit are showing off, and often not saying anything particularly deep. I'd ask you to search through this blog. We've done a poem every Friday for a while now. Look at some of those. Buy a nice anthology. Read through it. You won't like everything--in fact you'll hate most of it. But some of it you will like. Go buy the books of those authors. Then read up on those authors, if you like their book and find out who they like and who influenced them. And so on...

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

GSK+ — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:09:22 -0000

I went to her website. Damn, she writes just fine! Her voice is clearly resonant in places with Obama's (as were, despite their ages, Frost's & JFK's), reason enough to pick her. What's the alternative -- John Ashbery? Let her be, let her speak -- I agree, it will be a highlight of the day.

& Thanks, TNC, for posting her!

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

sv — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:08:22 -0000

rhythm

Re: Sweeping statements are the enemy of poetry

elmo — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:59:46 -0000

I don't understand poetry. I wish I did, because I think I would be a better writer if I could understand what makes one poem decent, another good, and yet another worthless doggerel.

Imagery I understand. Meter I understand. But modern poetry, while rich in imagery, doesn't have a meter that I recognize. I just can't tell for the life of me why Poem A breaks its lines there, and Poem B breaks its lines there.

TNC, how can I learn to understand?