RIP C.D. Wright, 1949-2016

C.D. Wright was one of my--and many other poets'--heroes. Here's a brilliant overview of her work by Stephen Burt.

Poetry at Gulliver's, Manchester, 24 June 2015

We had a small, attentive audience for our reading last night at Gulliver's in Manchester. The readers were Carola Luther, Brian Bartlett, Stephen Burt and I. So many good poems and such great company! Here are some photos of the evening--unfortunately I missed snapping a picture of Peter Riley as he had to hurry off for a train.

Neil Campbell, Scott Thurston, and Evan Jones

Nearly the whole gang! (I didn't mean to cut off Carola Luther!)

Jessie Bennett and Stephen Burt

Claire Thompson and Alec Newman

Evan Jones and Carola Luther

Steven Waling carrying a copy of Imagined Sons 


  

My former student Zoë Howarth-Lowe (on the right) and her dad

Stephen Burt reviews Infinite Difference on the London Review of Books blog

Read it here.

Transatlantic (Dis)connections

"I have been making, I think, a familiar literary-historical claim about American poets and the British past: a claim that has no place, as American poets too often have no place, for the British present. Yet its largely sociological explanations seem to me insufficient - though perhaps necessary - if we are trying to explain how these bodies of literature [ie British and American poetries] diverged. American poets who settle in Britain seem to write either in a wholly British line of influence (Eva Salzman, for example, or the late Michael Donaghy) or else in a line that seems, as yet, wholly American (though keep an eye on Carrie Etter)."

Stephen Burt, 'Transatlantic Disconnections, or, The Poetry of the Hypotenuse' (PN Review 190 (36.2): 20-29)

Thanks to Andrew Bailey for bringing this passage to my notice. I'd be glad to understand how the British influence has manifested in my poetry--any takers?

A weakness of contemporary poetry criticism, and one poet-critic's suggested remedy

In the new online journal, Mayday, American poet-critic Kent Johnson considers why so little poetry criticism is critical in sense of finding fault. He comes to the conclusion that this is because so many poets are themselves reviewers and, especially when they are younger, they want to ingratiate themselves with others for the sake of their careers. There's no doubt the same thing happens in the UK. When last year I told another poet that I was going to be on a reading with a poet I'd criticized in a review, the response was essentially, "That's what you get for writing critical reviews." I couldn't respond at first; I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I was supposed to write wholly positive reviews, even if that wasn't how I felt? Nonsense. I realize I take a risk that the reviewed poet will in turn write a disparaging review of my forthcoming book or deny me an opportunity, but that kind of tit-for-tat would weaken said review's weight. 

Johnson goes on to offer the following remedy: that journals reserve a portion of review space for anonymous reviews. Editors would need to discern whether it were simply a negative review, revenge, an ad hominem attack, etc., but I think the idea generally practicable. Mayday went on to obtain responses to Johnson's essay from a range of poet-critics, and Stephen Burt makes a point I've made before: If a review is going to be wholly negative, why give it the journal space? Why not use it for a book that deserves recognition?