RIP Adrienne Rich (1929-2012)

[mortalterror]

^ What I love about that is it's wonderful ambiguity, how it effortlessly and naturally plays off the idea of her looking up at the constellation, while also offering herself sexually to it. So there's that wonderful juxtaposition of meanings, one that implies a distant voyeurism, the other that implies an intimate relationship, which echoes even more so when describing her domestic life. That feeling of living your life while being outside of it and looking in. It's a great poem, methinks.

It's a five or a six at best. There are no giants here. I liked that first poem you posted better.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've never really been a fan of her poetry. It's to conversational.

I don't know if Rich believed her poetry could effect political change. She certainly believed her activism (and that art was part of that activism) could achieve political change, which they did. Her view of art I think has to do with that mantra of "the personal is political," in that because she believes art comes from a personal place she believes art is inextricably related to politics. She primarily viewed her poetic mission as giving voice to an other, in the hopes that those reading would be able to achieve greater understanding of others or some would find solace in the expression of similar experiences they have not seen represented before. I think when we look at it in this way, rather than saying she believed a poem would change the world, it is a reasonable position. I don't agree that poetry has to speak to the experiences of the marginalized to be good, but there is something engaging about Rich's perspective.

"Jane Alexander
The National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington 20506

Dear Jane Alexander,

I just spoke with a young man from your office, who informed me that I had been chosen to be one of twelve recipients of the National Medal for the Arts at a ceremony at the White House in the fall. I told him at once that I could not accept such an award from President Clinton or this White House because the very meaning of art, as I understand it, is incompatible with the cynical politics of this administration. I want to clarify to you what I meant by my refusal.

Anyone familiar with my work from the early Sixties on knows that I believe in art's social presence--as breaker of official silences, as voice for those whose voices are disregarded, and as a human birthright. In my lifetime I have seen the space for the arts opened by movements for social justice, the power of art to break despair. Over the past two decades I have witnessed the increasingly brutal impact of racial and economic injustice in our country.

There is no simple formula for the relationship of art to justice. But I do know that art--in my own case the art of poetry--means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of power which holds it hostage. The radical disparities of wealth and power in America are widening at a devastating rate. A President cannot meaningfully honor certain token artists while the people at large are so dishonored. I know you have been engaged in a serious and disheartening struggle to save government funding for the arts, against those whose fear and suspicion of art is nakedly repressive. In the end, I don't think we can separate art from overall human dignity and hope. My concern for my country is inextricable from my concerns as an artist. I could not participate in a ritual which would feel so hypocritical to me.

Sincerely,
Adrienne Rich

cc: President Clinton"

That takes some balls to write, no doubt. It's always admirable when an artist can stick to their principles in light of what would have probably gained her a lot of attention, at least in comparison to the normal amount of attention she received.

[JBI]

Meh she isn't Jean Paul Sarte, and anyway, that just reads as pretentious. Take your god damn award and quit being so full of yourself. Seriously, that just reads like a whiny angry *****.

I would respect her more if she accepted the award and then did something with it that was productive - that is what poets should do, instead of praise themselves by how much they are "political".

As for giving voice to the marginalized, that is just hypocritical nonsense. It automatically emphasizes the "marginalization" of its creator, so much so that the marginality becomes the centre of the poetics.

Don't get me wrong, it is sad when anybody does, but lets be honest, how many people can actually enjoy reading someone that self-possessed reject an award because "That is what us artists do" type nonsense. Whiny to say the least, and a deliberate ploy to keep herself within the "margin" and not to accept the fact that she isn't so discriminated against as she wants to show, as to earn herself more "street credit." I heard once Harold Bloom when he was editing the best of the best of American poetry lamenting how he had to throw out the anthology she edited, because it only meant to showcase "marginalized" voices. I am not a fan of the big man, but he has a point. How much does marginality have to do with the power of poetry? Is something lost when a fat white person instead of a lesbian black woman writes?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

And if she accepted, she would've been criticized for that, too.

[JBI]

And if she accepted, she would've been criticized for that, too.

Well, she could have declined quietly, or used her award to further her own political agenda. Either one of those would have been the better option.

[/dev/null]

Well, she could have declined quietly, or used her award to further her own political agenda. Either one of those would have been the better option.

That's odd. Why would you just shut up instead of saying "no thanks, you evil *****"? And accepting and award you don't want for long term political purposes is just crazy.

[JBI]

That's odd. Why would you just shut up instead of saying "no thanks, you evil *****"? And accepting and award you don't want for long term political purposes is just crazy.

You are looking at a poet who was always a product of the administration. Just read her biography - rich parents who were successful academic minds, top school educations, grants and scholarships, academic teaching positions, basically someone preaching to the choir of the establishment.

Sure she made some cases for Lesbians, but of her lesbian poetics, how much of it came at the cost at already established traditions in lesbian works? For instance, French Feminist authors, and French lesbian authors, or even African-American lesbian authors who had already influenced literature.

Secondarily, her work about reproduction seems to have been a flawed argument basically lifted from French thinkers that came before her, such as Whittig.

If we want to talk about decorating the dinner table of the administration, look at her academic career. It was doing just that. Playing to all those little self-indulgent academic people in the establishment of her time, and making money to boot. She wasn't some poor impoverished lesbian, or somebody coping with any real traumas - if anything, she was the picture of an American success story.

Which does not discredit her voice, except that her voice stems from her own self-entitlement as "marginalized" - but the question remains, marginalized where? I mean, we can see other far more marginalized groups - Black authors, for instance, not to mention black Lesbian authors, or even just standard mainstream working class authors, or Western American authors, or non-American authors.

It is not rude to suggest she could have better displayed a commitment, by using her money and honor associated with the prize to further a different course of action.

[OrphanPip]

That's a rather weak criticism though, JBI. You are essentially saying that anyone with a voice within the establishment cannot speak from a position of marginalization. And if any marginalized voice manages to be heard within the establishment they no longer have any claim to having spoken from a position of marginalization.

Besides her reason for refusing the prize is quite clear. Clinton's recent actions taken against gay rights and recent bombing campains, while simultaneously trying to give a prize to an anti-war lesbian. She says it in a roundabout way, but she refused the prize precisely because she is too much a part of the establishment, too safe, and was being reduced to a token lesbian that makes the mainstream liberals feel good about how much they accept them (despite doing absolutely nothing to forward their equality).

[JBI]

That's a rather weak criticism though, JBI. You are essentially saying that anyone with a voice within the establishment cannot speak from a position of marginalization. And if any marginalized voice manages to be heard within the establishment they no longer have any claim to having spoken from a position of marginalization.

Besides her reason for refusing the prize is quite clear. Clinton's recent actions taken against gay rights and recent bombing campains, while simultaneously trying to give a prize to an anti-war lesbian. She says it in a roundabout way, but she refused the prize precisely because she is too much a part of the establishment, too safe, and was being reduced to a token lesbian that makes the mainstream liberals feel good about how much they accept them (despite doing absolutely nothing to forward their equality).

The whole point of being within the establishment is not being marginalized, actually. That is what it means to be part of the establishment. Her rejection of the medal was just a move to try to overplay her own marginalization, after realizing I guess that she is a rather bland staple and a commonplace item.

As for protesting, well, that goes without saying. However, she could have done it in a much better way than in the manner she did, or even accepted the award and used it to further lesbian causes if she so wished.

[mortalterror]

While visiting Plato's home one day, Diogenes, disgusted by its exquisite and costly carpets, contemptuously wiped his feet upon them. "Thus do I trample on the pride of Plato," he declared. "Yes," replied Plato, "with greater pride!"

Not many poets have been awarded prizes by the President, but how much rarer is it for a poet to reject a prize offered by a president? Which is more prestigious? It's a total prima donna move and I read it the same way JBI did.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Prima Donna move or not, it takes a massive set to give the president essentially a verbal middle finger.

[Loganm]

I can't help but feel that JBI is a critic and scholar in the classic sense...

A poet died. And instead of using this thread to honor her poetry or life work, you use it to rag on some of her decisions and offer advice for what she should have done. Jesus Christ man, how can someone read as much as you supposedly do and not realize what you're becoming. Sure in your first post you consul others that its sad to see her go, but qualify it by calling her a mediocre poet. Do you even like poetry? Or do you just like the egotistical knowledge masturbation that you can get from it? You're allowed to like or dislike her poems however much you want, but its beyond you to classify her as a good or bad poet. Especially to do so from the basis of rejecting an award.

Maybe she was part of the class of academic poets that are a dime a dozen these days. Maybe she did try to "marginalize" herself or whatever BS you're trying to spout. She did a hell of a lot more for poetry than you are doing by criticizing her. Don't try to fool yourself otherwise.

I'm being harsh, but I have trouble communicating any other way.

Anyway... Adrienne Rich wasn't one of my favorite poets, and I haven't read much of her. I did read a few of her poems in some anthology or another and thought it distinguished itself above the great mass of contemporary poetry. She undoubtedly wrote from life. I loved 'Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law'. Unfortunately, copyright withholds me from pasting the text.

[MorpheusSandman]

It's a five or a six at best.

To each their own. Sustaining that kind of ambiguity throughout the centrality of a poem and then using it to suggest something about what comes after is not something you come across everyday.

[JBI]

I can't help but feel that JBI is a critic and scholar in the classic sense...

A poet died. And instead of using this thread to honor her poetry or life work, you use it to rag on some of her decisions and offer advice for what she should have done. Jesus Christ man, how can someone read as much as you supposedly do and not realize what you're becoming. Sure in your first post you consul others that its sad to see her go, but qualify it by calling her a mediocre poet. Do you even like poetry? Or do you just like the egotistical knowledge masturbation that you can get from it? You're allowed to like or dislike her poems however much you want, but its beyond you to classify her as a good or bad poet. Especially to do so from the basis of rejecting an award.

Maybe she was part of the class of academic poets that are a dime a dozen these days. Maybe she did try to "marginalize" herself or whatever BS you're trying to spout. She did a hell of a lot more for poetry than you are doing by criticizing her. Don't try to fool yourself otherwise.

I'm being harsh, but I have trouble communicating any other way.

Anyway... Adrienne Rich wasn't one of my favorite poets, and I haven't read much of her. I did read a few of her poems in some anthology or another and thought it distinguished itself above the great mass of contemporary poetry. She undoubtedly wrote from life. I loved 'Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law'. Unfortunately, copyright withholds me from pasting the text.

She lived a long life, it isn't tragic to see her go. It is sad when somebody died, but it wasn't premature or a sudden shock.

As for celebrating her life, well, why? What makes her so special, other than that she yelled louder. Her work tried to push poetry around and make only voices she thought mattered heard amongst a generation of semi-literate failed poetry readers.

Basically she and her colleagues split the reading of contemporary poetry in two - one camp centered completely on political poets, based primarily on the poets' own backgrounds and lifestories, and one camp centered on poetics from reading poems. This set back the departments by about 15 years through a slow process of argumentation, theoretical nonsense and yelling. In the end, none of her "marginalized" poets really seemed to have emerged as great poets, unless they were great poets regardless of their marginality.

This idea of hers that we need to liberate poetics from normality is just ridiculous. Her goal was to promote her own normality, meanwhile pushing a double standard that encouraged people to see her as above them because of her marginality.

Lets let alone her verse, which is mediocre at best, and owes more to the better poets of the previous generation, the confessionals, particularly Bishop, Rilke and Lowell, all of whom emerged as excellent poets, Bishop herself being a lesbian, though not writing as lesbian, since her lesbianism does not have any bearing on her poetry. The idea that Ms. Rich was somehow better entitled to being read because of her lesbianism being forground in her poetry is ridiculous. It matters to the extent that it matters, which, if made matters, matters. Poetry is not the vehicle to sorting out the wrongs of a society out of poetry.

So yes, I may seem like a terrible critic, but as I said, let the family mourn the loss of a loved one, and let the rest of us enjoy the fact that a voice against poetry has evaporated. As it is, she hardly has been a big voice in poetry in the last 20 years from what I can tell, and she reached a peak in her career before most of us posting were even born. She had to live with the realization that I guess she, and poets like her have not mattered much in poetry for at least 20 years. She had to cope with the fact that the reason why Sappho is a beloved poet, and she isn't, is because Sappho had fire written in her verse, whereas she didn't.

That is what poetry is about. The idea that poetry marginalizes is complete nonsense - it has been the vehicle for minority voices since Ancient Greece - is has traditionally been the most liberal of all discourses, and had a long history of lesbian, and gay poets, as well as unmarried and childless authors long before her, and in a better guise.

Why should we care that she decides to showcase her failure outside the world of poetry through a poetic vehicle aimed at showing you how terrible you are and how unfair the world is. Forgive me for sounding pessimistic, but quite frankly, she didn't write verse that was particularly moving, and the lack of a big enough splash when she died only articulates the antiquated nonsense that her ouvre is. As I said, her philosophical/political works are better represented in French thinkers that came before and after her. She is irrelevant, and has been almost completely irrelevant for the past 20 years.

[OrphanPip]

Not many poets have been awarded prizes by the President, but how much rarer is it for a poet to reject a prize offered by a president? Which is more prestigious? It's a total prima donna move and I read it the same way JBI did.

Again, I'd bring up the context that Clinton was trying to award a poet whose life and work was at complete odds with the actions of his administration.

Her poetics aside, I think it's perfectly reasonable to refuse an award from the representative of a party that supported anti-gay legislation like DOMA, and was engaging in bombing of Iraq the year before, if you are an avowed lesbian and pacifist. Why would you accept an award from someone who shows complete disregard for your values and who you are?