Scribble

I really enjoyed reading this clever post from Nada Gordon’s blog. I’ve also been perturbed by “lineated prose” in poetry, mostly because I think it’s boring, more often than not. In my mind it’s the polar opposite of more extreme “out there” experimental poetry – Jackson Mac Lowe, for example. “How is this poetry?” some skeptics may ask of his work and the work of other experimental poets. Although I feel it’s a double standard, I often want to ask that of the so-called “docu-poetry,” bringing me back to that sticky question of what, then, is our criteria for poetry?

In a “Forms of Poetry” class a couple of us did an experiment as a presentation, passing out various poems we thought pushed the limits of what is typically understood to be poetry. A nonsense blurb that we made up with all sorts of vulgar and naughty imagery made the cut, but Chelsey Minnis’ “Anti Vitae” – a poem in the style of a CV – did not. But why?

I think it ultimately comes down to what you believe poetry is (or should be) for and what it should do. Obviously this is something that must be determined at an individual level, which at least in part may explain the great diversity of kinds of poetry found all across the spectrum. I agree with Nada’s trepidation about docu-poetry because I do not believe that poetry should be used for the transfer of information, even if it concerns personal details (and thus, might be loosely termed “lyric”). Mallarme said it best: “I become obscure, of course! if one makes a mistake and thinks one is opening a newspaper.”  Then the question arises, what is poetry for, then, if not the transmission of information? Can its definition only be found in negation? In the words of a Supreme Court Justice explaining the parameters of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Ha.