Thursday, April 20, 2006

Seething in the primordial

Well, I finished something, not so much in the "oh look, I never have to work on that again" sort of way, but in the, "I'm too tired to work on this anymore," sort of experience. All I can do now is sit back, make a few phone calls late at night, and hope that in the end there is some sort of parade. Oh I love a parade.

So being done, I get to do my favorite thing in the whole wide world. Take a day off before starting something else. So that was today. I took a shower, and then tried to brush my teeth. Unfortunately, I was still pretty tired and my toothpaste tube quite strongly resembles my shaving lotion tube. Mango-vanilla shaving lotion just does not leave your mouth feeling all that fresh. So Wednesday, for all its humpy promises, would prove askew.

I did make one insight which i am pleased with however, regarding an earlier post which I cannot remember the name of. Anyway, I rant a bit against the New Yorker for publishing a good too many poets of reknown, and I want to amend that, because it seems harsh, but I still think its fair(fair as a criticism, unfair that they do so). The problem is one of appreciation. We've a bit too much of it. I know Frank O'Hara is a great poet. Anyone who knows anything about poetry knows Frank O'hara is a great poet. What I don't know, is who the next cornerstone of the next peotic school is going to be (actually I sort of do, its Jonathan Skinner with his Ecopoetics).

What The New Yorker's brutal insistence on not publishing more new poetry and less old poetry is they are not really interested in poetry. They don't have that feel for finding what is new, and more importantly, having the stones to say what is good and what is not. There are not many people today who are willing to say anything is either too good or too bad. When the New Yorker chooses to offer Elizabeth Bishop as a selection, it isn't because they are making this revolutionary case that her work should be read, the vast number of books of and about her work does that, it is because they don't know what's good today, and are unwilling to hang their hat on judgement of new work. They're just going to wait 30 years for todays classics to be regarded as classics.

No comments: