Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Franz Wright strikes again...
...this time in a letter to the New York Times regarding Joel Brouwer's review of Charles Wright's new book. Unfortunately, since there's no profanity or threat of physical violence, he's trying to defend someone else, and the personal attacks are relatively minimal versus the substantive attack on the review, this only rates a D on the Franz Wright Jackassery Scale. I would like to add, though, that one of his central premises (that Charles Wright or any other popular poet of long standing has somehow earned the right to have his work be "disliked with some degree of thoughtful reverence") is beyond silly. I'd also like to give Joel Brouwer his due for avoiding the royal critical "we," and state from both reading and personal experience that he's far from a beginner or nonentity.
Comments:
<< Home
Profanity--imagine! What are you, a fucking Sunday school teacher? We would have had fun with you nerds in my time. Headline: the other envy-tormented jackals moved on from this subject some time ago. So you'd better hurry and catch up, otherwise you might have a spare moment to take a look at yourself and be reminded there's nothing there.
# posted by 
: October 11, 2006 10:36 AM
: October 11, 2006 10:36 AM
Hmm, your insults might have more power if you'd done enough research to make them even remotely accurate. This isn't even interesting enough to warrant a grade.
Anonymous does seem to be the real Franz or a proxy, for the other readers of my blog. At least, it's someone from Massachusetts who found the blog by searching blogs for "Franz Wright."
Hmmm...this review (and teh subsequent Letter to the Editor) interests me for a few reasons: one of which is having studied with Charles and heard him speak at some length on his own work, another of which is in my capacity as a Books editor.
I don't think this is a bad review at all--the writing in engaging and generously quotes Charles Wright's work, so that the reader has some opportunity to form his own conclusions. I think Brouwer has some accurate observations embedded here: "Wright’s paradoxical sentiments come wrapped in gently meandering lines and sentences that seem not to want to end lest they appear to conclude."...this line is a little long on adjectives, but I like the apt play on the difference between "end" and "conclude".
Some of Brouwer's jibes at Wright are ones the poet himself would not disagree with. "Sometimes it seems Wright’s project is to find ever more convincing ways to tell us he doesn’t have anything to tell us."...Fair point. So fair, this is a virtual paraphrase of something I've heard the poet say at his own readings.
That said, I've also caught traces of unnecessary sarcasm from the young-turk poets in the NYT reviewing pool nowadays. I just don't think this is the strongest example. Dan Chiasson is a very good (and still-developing) poet in his own right, but he was a little snarky and backhanded in his July review of Donald Hall. One wondered if the politics of Hall's recent appointment to Poet Laureate flavored the review.
As for Franz Wright's suggestion that reviews should be peer-to-peer (newer poets reviewing newer poets, the established reviewing the established), that's both a recipe for stagnation AND a relative impossibility in the pragmatic world of assigning book reviews.
I don't think this is a bad review at all--the writing in engaging and generously quotes Charles Wright's work, so that the reader has some opportunity to form his own conclusions. I think Brouwer has some accurate observations embedded here: "Wright’s paradoxical sentiments come wrapped in gently meandering lines and sentences that seem not to want to end lest they appear to conclude."...this line is a little long on adjectives, but I like the apt play on the difference between "end" and "conclude".
Some of Brouwer's jibes at Wright are ones the poet himself would not disagree with. "Sometimes it seems Wright’s project is to find ever more convincing ways to tell us he doesn’t have anything to tell us."...Fair point. So fair, this is a virtual paraphrase of something I've heard the poet say at his own readings.
That said, I've also caught traces of unnecessary sarcasm from the young-turk poets in the NYT reviewing pool nowadays. I just don't think this is the strongest example. Dan Chiasson is a very good (and still-developing) poet in his own right, but he was a little snarky and backhanded in his July review of Donald Hall. One wondered if the politics of Hall's recent appointment to Poet Laureate flavored the review.
As for Franz Wright's suggestion that reviews should be peer-to-peer (newer poets reviewing newer poets, the established reviewing the established), that's both a recipe for stagnation AND a relative impossibility in the pragmatic world of assigning book reviews.
My question is: Why provoke this in the first place? Is it really necessary to call him names? Why does everyone feel so justified to burn his ass at the stake for every oppertunity that presents itself? "Franz Wright Strikes Again"?! jesus mother mary of christ. Lots of writers complain about reviews! -- just read an issue of Poetry and you'll see why. Snark infested morons.
At any rate, this review will be forgotten by most within a year. They won’t even remember reading it. But those who read the book and enjoy it will remember the poems. They will go into their minds and hearts and work their miracles like poems do. Have you read the book in the review? I know I’m going to read it now. I think I’ll buy it tomorrow. First thing. Right when I wake up. smile.
At any rate, this review will be forgotten by most within a year. They won’t even remember reading it. But those who read the book and enjoy it will remember the poems. They will go into their minds and hearts and work their miracles like poems do. Have you read the book in the review? I know I’m going to read it now. I think I’ll buy it tomorrow. First thing. Right when I wake up. smile.
He carries on like an idiot in public, I'ma gonna feel free to make fun of it, thank you. He doesn't want my help or my pity, and I doubt he wants to be ignored either.
I find it odd that the question isn't "Why does he attack everyone who ever says anything about him or pushes his buttons in one of a dozen other ways?" This man assaults people in a nasty, indefensible manner. I can't comment for sure about the overall person he is, but he routinely is a prick to people who have done nothing to deserve it, so fuck him.
I wouldn't trade my life for his, Pulitzer or no. Most of us are capable of dealing with our serious mental and emotional issues in a more mature fashion (or at least we vent in private most of the time). And you know what else? The times in my life that I was an asshole to people, it was infinitely better when I got called on it.
I find it odd that the question isn't "Why does he attack everyone who ever says anything about him or pushes his buttons in one of a dozen other ways?" This man assaults people in a nasty, indefensible manner. I can't comment for sure about the overall person he is, but he routinely is a prick to people who have done nothing to deserve it, so fuck him.
I wouldn't trade my life for his, Pulitzer or no. Most of us are capable of dealing with our serious mental and emotional issues in a more mature fashion (or at least we vent in private most of the time). And you know what else? The times in my life that I was an asshole to people, it was infinitely better when I got called on it.
I agree with sentiments expressed in some of these other posts about Brouwer, but I'd like to mention that, like Sandra, I don't think Brower's review is particularly negative. Wright's poetry, of late, DOES express anxiety about it's inability to express. He actually has a wonderful sort of ars poetica in the new book, which "defends" himself against critics of his backyard-dominated ruminations. Considering that he himself, in interviews, elsewhere, makes the most repeated assertions that his poems are backyard-dominated, he's aware of this...and his "self defense" is meant, thusly, to be taken as an awareness of his limitations. Poking fun at himself. There's this richness, this amazing mild self deprecation (or recognition of self limitation) that his poems take on, especially when HE reads them with his richly textured voice. I don't think Brouwer is attacking Wright...although taken out of context some of those phrases seem negative...I think he's as aware of the limitations Wright conjures as Wright himself seems to be.
I understand Franz Wright's point, as well, though because the aforementioned seemingly negative passages from Brouwer seem like pot shots...especially considering that SCAR TISSUE makes clear that it is self aware of the tropes one uses to disguise the fact that expressing the inexpressable is impossible. Brouwer might seem to miss the point of C Wright's text, which makes this self-reflexivity clear throughout, but I don't think he misses it...I think he gets it, but the brevity of the review doesn't give him enough space to show fully why and how. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be immune from having pot shots taken at them, but it's kind of lame to use the text's purpose as a criticism against itself.
I saw a review, long ago, of Larry Levis's ELEGY in Salt Hill that did what I think Franz Wright felt Brouwer was doing. It made me really angry. The reviewer took isolated phrases from several poems (totally out of context) and claimed the book was littered with cliches. The phrases, admittedly, were cliches; however, Levis's entire purpose, with his sprawling several-page-long poems was to make these isolated moments of familiarity seem suddenly "holy" or "unfamiliar". Whether the book accomplishes that or not is obviously up to the reader, but this particular reviewer failed to even recognize the basic and very apparent aim of Levis's text before dismissing the final works of a major (and relatively underappreciated) poet. That seems unfair and irresponsible. I think rather than suggest that peers review peers, F Wright's thought might have been to have poets familiar with entire bodies of other poets work do the reviewing...educate yourself about someone before diving in to review. That's the only way to really gain authority about the observations you're making...right?
I understand Franz Wright's point, as well, though because the aforementioned seemingly negative passages from Brouwer seem like pot shots...especially considering that SCAR TISSUE makes clear that it is self aware of the tropes one uses to disguise the fact that expressing the inexpressable is impossible. Brouwer might seem to miss the point of C Wright's text, which makes this self-reflexivity clear throughout, but I don't think he misses it...I think he gets it, but the brevity of the review doesn't give him enough space to show fully why and how. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be immune from having pot shots taken at them, but it's kind of lame to use the text's purpose as a criticism against itself.
I saw a review, long ago, of Larry Levis's ELEGY in Salt Hill that did what I think Franz Wright felt Brouwer was doing. It made me really angry. The reviewer took isolated phrases from several poems (totally out of context) and claimed the book was littered with cliches. The phrases, admittedly, were cliches; however, Levis's entire purpose, with his sprawling several-page-long poems was to make these isolated moments of familiarity seem suddenly "holy" or "unfamiliar". Whether the book accomplishes that or not is obviously up to the reader, but this particular reviewer failed to even recognize the basic and very apparent aim of Levis's text before dismissing the final works of a major (and relatively underappreciated) poet. That seems unfair and irresponsible. I think rather than suggest that peers review peers, F Wright's thought might have been to have poets familiar with entire bodies of other poets work do the reviewing...educate yourself about someone before diving in to review. That's the only way to really gain authority about the observations you're making...right?
# posted by : October 13, 2006 10:12 PM
: October 13, 2006 10:12 PM
Hi, Anon. I think your points here are fair pretty much across the board. My bone of contention with Wright remains the same as it ever was: that he didn't present the case remotely as well as you did, that he made it insultingly personal without being accurate (Joel Brouwer being neither a beginner nor stupid), and that he (as seems unfortunately typical in public instances with him) was an asshole. Thank you for providing a counterpoint to my post that was none of those negative things.
Post a Comment
<< Home
