Thursday, March 19, 2009

Rewriting Dickinson is a Dickensian Dialogue

That is, poor and shabby.

Over in the Anti-Verse, Silliman is talking about these poets using Emo-ly's poems as "empty vessels" for this purpose or that.

In a nutshell, folks are (getting published by!) taking Emily Dickinson's poems & structures and either erasing parts of them or replacing them syllable for syllable with other crap.

First, the erasing thing was done in Radi Os. It was avant-garde and vaguely interesting then. Now it is just derivative and stupid.

B, using Emily's verse as a received form is using received forms. Don't knock New Formalists for being from the "school of quietude" and then think it's all bitchin because some Joe K. with an MFA fills the sound of Emily with empty-headed Hollywood baubles.

What the hell is up with all of this rewriting anyway?

Shouldn't we be MAKING IT NEW for versesake? I mean, should we not be creating new work?

What is the point of gilding the lily? Do these people think they have something to add to Emily's oeuvre?

Moreover, do they expect ANYONE to read their crap when the same person could just crack open the internet's full offering of Emily's reworked lyrics to "The Yellow Rose of Texas?"

Why do Silliman's poets hate readers?

1 comment:

Jeff said...