Printable View
She was not a personal favorite poet of mine, but there's no denying her stature and influence. The poetry world certainly lost one of its giants, and I felt like she deserved a memorial thread. Here's a link to one of her more widely read and anthologized poems, Planetarium.
Her contributions to theory and criticism can't be overlooked, either.
I haven't read any of her criticism. Any suggestions?
My suggestion? Don't read it. I hate theory and criticism, but I had to read it for classes. I'll haul my Norton anthology of criticism and some other books and see which essays are listed. She dealt mostly with feminism and gender/sexuality issues.
Edit: Looking through old syllabi, I found this essay, which I actually did find interesting: "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." I'm sure you can find it on the internets somewhere.
MorpheusSandman: Thank you for the link. Enjoyed the poem very much. And just to tweek the noses of my betters I'll wiki, wiki, wiki,...
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
I like Rich, she reminds me a lot of Bishop in some ways. I think her work is characterized by an aesthetic that privileges first-hand experience and a kind of Romantic obsession with the power of describing surging (or spiralling) emotions.
"Diving into the Wreck" is quite a good poem, you can listen to Rich read it here:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15228
Alas, sad to see her go, though I will confess I find her poetry rather mediocre. It's hard to take someone who believes so soundly in the political power of his/her verse very seriously. Still, it is sad to see anybody died, and perhaps those who remember her as a person will find solace in the fact that she didn't seem to compromise her political positions and desires, even in the face of setting back her poetic development.
Thanks for the suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
My favorite of hers that I've read is Orion, but seeing as it's under copywrite I can't find it online...Quote:
Originally Posted by tailor STATELY
Found it here: http://mooochelle.tumblr.com/post/35...-adrienne-rich
A very simple form, yet grand in its simplicity.
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
^ 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.
I've never been one much for politics, but is believing in the political power of her poetry any sillier than Blake believing in the philosophical power of his poetry?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
How much did Blake believe in his own poetry's power to change the world? Perhaps in his early career, but by the time he published Experience, I would wager he became a very interior and private poet. He didn't expect his cryptic poems to change the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The closest one could come in that era would be Shelley I guess, but even he seems to have been a loud yeller who would change his ideas every 20 minutes.
Fair enough. Maybe it's just because Blake seems so forceful in his convictions it's hard for me to believe that he believed his efforts were completely futile. It seems like every time he had a set back he just dug deeper into his revolutionary thoughts and personalized allegory. Maybe we might say that he secretly held out hope that it might make a difference somewhere along the line, but probably knew it was too late to happen in his own lifetime.
I'm thinking if we want to name poets who had a naive belief in the power of their poetry, Walt Whitman would be very high on that list. He thought his poetry was going to, quite literally, change America.
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"
It's a five or a six at best. There are no giants here. I liked that first poem you posted better.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I've never really been a fan of her poetry. It's to conversational.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by /dev/null
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
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.
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.Quote:
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!"
Prima Donna move or not, it takes a massive set to give the president essentially a verbal middle finger.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loganm
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
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?
She gives too much credit to her. From my understanding, she was mainly protesting the decision to cut on the National Endowment of the Arts, and for various anti-gay legislation. The vote, ironically, was proposed by Newt Gingrich of all people, who is a Republican, and not the Clinton administration. As for the wars in Iraq, well, why don't we throw all of the country into that equation?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The kids she teaches in her classes are educated in the universities and public schools funded by programs run by state administrations, and governing boards of directors. The country itself generates income and spends money in regard to the military machine, the same thing which pours tons of funding into the arts, as well as keeps private universities like the ones she taught at afloat with huge funding grants.
Clinton himself is the example of a marginalized person working through the power of American success to achieve the impossible, even more so than the more credited Obama seems to have been, and is not responsible for all the ails of the world. If you want to protest, you accept your award, and you tell the public, I accept it because I hope that my presence will make the administration change for the better, and because I think for change, like everybody knows, you need to work on all levels from within as well as from outside.
There is nothing wrong with accepting a reward by the government for artistic contribution, it is actually a great honor, and can be used for the betterment of these so called marginalized voices. The woman is overrated, and addicted to the sound of her own voice. She died, and nobody heard, good.
Besides which, this isn't the problem, she is dead now, the question is, whether or not such marginalization and melodrama warrant us appreciating her poetry. As it is, I feel there is very little inside her poetry to make one want to read it. There are far better examples of poets working within the same vein and generation.
I don't really care about most of this thread, but can you give some examples of people you think are working in the same vein in her generation that have better work? Just cause I think it'd be interesting--not saying I disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Well, Gwendolyn MacEwan, Elizabeth Bishop to an extent (Especially in Rich's earlier career), Margaret Avison, Phyllis Webb, etc. For feminist poetics, there are numerous other ones, from all races and creeds, many of which come from far more marginalized backgrounds than Rich, and yet offer much richer poetics, such as Rita Dove.
"Adrienne Rich, a poet of towering reputation and towering rage, whose work — distinguished by an unswerving progressive vision and a dazzling, empathic ferocity — brought the oppression of women and lesbians to the forefront of poetic discourse and kept it there for nearly a half-century, died on Tuesday at her home in Santa Cruz, Calif. She was 82." --- obituary -- by
MARGALIT FOX
Published: March 28, 2012 --- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/bo...pagewanted=all
WAIT by Adrienne Rich 1929–2012
In paradise every
the desert wind is rising
third thought
in hell there are no thoughts
is of earth
sand screams against your government
issued tent hell’s noise
in your nostrils crawl
into your ear-shell
wrap yourself in no-thought
wait no place for the little lyric
wedding-ring glint the reason why
on earth
they never told you { http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/180085 }