There are two kinds of poetry, for some of my Spanish friends. One is super-explicit political poetry, or banal realism, the other is minimalist metapoetry in the Valente tradition. Those who do the second option want to be considered just as left-wing as the others. Yesterday we were reading a poet I thought was derivative of Valente, who is already a derivative poet to my mind. I was told he or she was unique, a rarity in contemporary Spanish poetry, but in terms that could be applied to any number of poets in the Valente school. I feel I have some authority to opine, because I specialized in the Valente school for years. I've written the equivalent of a book on Valente (several book chapters and articles).
The work I really value now is the kind of "cutting through" aesthetic I see in Vallejo or William Blake. It just cuts through the bullshit on a visceral level. Perhaps my zen practice comes in here, though I am a novice. We say "delusions are endless, we vow to cut through them all." Humor is also common in zen. There can be nothing over solemn in a false way there.
5 comments:
So I have decided there are two types of modern poetry.
1/ Following Paz and his predecessors, like JRJ. Contemplative, declaring, narrating, remembering, other speech acts, but voice is located outside the material of the text even when speaker claims to be melting into the environment or something like that.
2/ Following Vallejo and WHO would the predecessor be on this? It's not just "poetry in pieces" (Clayton), it is the location of voice and I guess also visual perspective, inside the material of the poem, not after or outside.
Shockingly, I've decided most modern poets are of type #1. I came to this by thinking about the bad poet I've been complaining about, and who has fortunately abandoned project. The ONE thing that's really interesting about him is that he is of type #2. I'm not saying type #2 well done, or of great attractiveness, but he is of type #1 and that in itself is worth noting. Most bad poetry is of type #1 and tries to seem profound and wise.
This is my theory in formation, we'll see what I come up with about it.
That's good. You can have a lot of fun starting off with that disembodied voice that isn't in the poem at all, and then having the voice enter suddenly. Or poems that deliberately make fun of that false speaking voice.
I have a typo above, the bad yet somewhat interesting poet is interesting precisely insofar as he is of type #2.
I am trying to figure out who is of type #2 before Vallejo and my tentative list is Góngora and Mallarmé but I'm not sure yet. It would be interesting to come up with a Comp Lit course like this, type #2 poets. I was going to say that per the realism of surrealism the surrealists could not be in it, but I think some surrealist work is. Lorca is type #2 and this is what makes him interesting. Especially in his really avant-garde stuff. And the interesting point in all of this is that much technically or ostensibly avant-garde stuff is really type #1.
OK, here is more:
Poetry of ideation (JRJ-Paz line, strong emotions recollected in tranquillity, etc.), corresponds to Platonic world
Poetry of thought-action (Vallejo and similar), pre- or post- Platonic. Like Funes el memorioso. In this world subject and object aren't divided, categories aren't separated, etc. And no hay tal yo de conjunto.
I like this "cutting through" idea. It goes well with your ideas about "receptivity".
It reminds me of Pound's "radiant world where one thought cuts through another with a clean edge." (Ezra Pound, "Cavalcanti," LE, p. 154)
Post a Comment