Did you know that Seattle has an official Poet Populist, elected by
internet vote? Did you know that Seattle’s newly crowned Poet Populist,
and the ninth person to be elected to the role, is named Mike Hickey?
Now that you know, do you care?
Here is the mission statement for the program:
The goal of the Poet Populist program is to promote the practice of
Art and Democracy, and to promote the literary arts and local arts
organizations to a general audience citywide.
On Friday, November 14, about 40 people gathered at Richard Hugo
House to watch the closing ceremonies of this year’s Poet Populist
competition, in which the top four vote getters read their work. Hickey
received a $500 check and read several celebratory poems, including one
about a door that doesn’t close properly (the introduction to the poem
was longer than the poem itself) and a prose poem about Sarah Palin
winning the presidency and becoming stricken with tarantism, a disease
caused by spider bite whose primary symptom is a compulsion to
dance.
I know mocking someone who reads poetry aloud is rather like
actively searching for someone with a weird sexual fetish—the
ardent desire to dress up like a pony, say, and then be groomed by a
member of the opposite sex—and then publicly mocking that person
for trying to fulfill his or her desire in a discreet fashion. Poetry
readers generally keep their compulsion to read poetry to the safe
confines of poetry readings, and to seek them out and poke fun at them
would be the most shameful kind of heartlessness.
But the Poet Populist program actively involves us all in this very
quest. Besides the fact that Hickey will be reading at events around
town this year as the voice of the people, the competition inspires
poets to carpet bomb their friends, and complete strangers, with
pleading e-mails for their vote. The following excerpt from a
self-promoting e-mail, which everyone at The Stranger received
from poet-in-the-running Arne Pihl on the morning of November 4, when
we all had a very different election in mind, is an example of the
delusion the Poet Populist competition inspires:
I’m pissed off. I want my language back. I want the letters R-E-D to
contain ripe fruit, blood and sunsets, and blue to make me think of
certain skies, the sea, remember the eyes of a bartender who used to
work in Wallingford, instead of signifying divisive bullshit… I want
freedom to be more than an obscure sound bite. I want it to pour from
lips until all of us, every one of us, is really, truly free. Poetry.
It’s our most beautiful weapon.
Listen: I don’t doubt that Nick Licata and Bob Redmond, the
masterminds behind the Poet Populist competition, have the best
interests of Seattle poetry at heart. Redmond programs the literary
events at Bumbershoot, bringing authors to town who would never
ordinarily get here. And thanks to Licata, every Seattle City Council
meeting now begins with the reading of a poem, which is a beautiful and
thoughtful gesture, a bow to the ornate and functionally useless before
the work of practicality begins. Having a strong poetry scene in
Seattle is, to my mind, valuable, and lord knows I haven’t done enough
to support Seattle poetry in the pages of this paper.
But here’s the thing: Public poetry is almost always very bad. Think
of Poetry on Buses, a program that consistently produces the worst
poetry any of us have ever read. Consider “Held,” by Ray Baldwin:
“Biscuit, my duckling. Lamb/whose wooly coat I comb./My own.
Nubbin,/button, seed of my leaving, you shine/pinkly, meant for my hand
to cup./Clean-licked foal, tadpole,/a push against my pull/and still/I
try to spread my fingers wide/enough to let you go.” The tiny amount of
space permitted each poem, and the bland quality of the work that is
invariably chosen, leads to a kind of tragic visual chatter that local
poet and novelist Doug Nufer describes as “snatches from one loud side
of a cell-phone conversation you can’t escape, or a bit of some
headline you misread over the shoulder of someone sitting a few rows in
front of you.”
Probably a part of the reason why so many people believe they are
good poets and deserving of public attention has to do with the fact
that they mostly deal in spoken-word poetry, which is a medium that
forgives shallow work. Very few spoken-word pieces are anything more
than a succession of images: One line, which might have some sort of
clever wordplay, has very little to do with the line before it or the
line after. No ideas are developed; nothing’s earned. Karen Finneyfrock
is a rare example of a slam poet who writes excellent poetry; for every
one of her, there are a thousand people who should be ashamed to share
their work with others.
At the Poet Populist reading, Elizabeth Austen read a short poem
about a relationship that was gorgeous and complete: “I reach for my
yellow sweater/It bursts into flame,” she read at the beginning of the
poem, and the imagery paid out winningly with the last line, “All the
old imperatives curl in the lingering heat.” But the second-place
winner of the competition, Ananda Selah Osel, destroyed all the good
will Austen earned by reading exactly the sort of drivel that keeps
people away from poetry. His poem “Black Overcoat One-Way People,”
about how men and women who work in offices downtown are conformists
(“Time wasters… the paper-faced horde… most people you pass on the
street have nothing to do with the truth… man has become what man is
never meant to be…”), is the kind of self-entitled Henry Rollins
fuck-the-system bullshit that automatically makes everyone tired of
angry young men and their viciously thin poetry. And his second-place
finish—over Elizabeth Austen!—means his dreadful work has
an implicit endorsement from the city.
These two Seattle programs, which are intended to bring poetry to
the people, are conceptually flawed. Poetry, by its very definition, is
a difficult thing to write and to comprehend. You’re not intended to
whistle through a book of poetry as though it were a paperback mystery
novel; you’re supposed to take your time with it. Both the Poetry on
Buses and Poet Populist programs are founded in a noble idea: Everyone
in this city would be a little bit improved by having regular contact
with poetry.
That’s only true if the work is good. The money for both of
Seattle’s poetry programs would be much better spent by actually
distributing good poetry throughout the city. Imagine metal plaques at
bus stops and on the backs of seats on public transit with full-length
poems by Nufer and Finneyfrock and Austen—or by better-known
Seattle poets, like Heather McHugh and Sherman Alexie—inscribed
on them. Imagine the city buying ad space in local publications to
publish poems written by the dozens of residents of Seattle who are
actively producing good work.
Redmond, in his introduction to the reading, said, “Our artists
should be beholden to their audiences.” That is not true. We are all of
us—artists and audiences alike—beholden to good work.
Nobody wins when your goal is to simply support poetry as a medium. The
point of any city program shouldn’t be to hold a popularity contest or
celebrate mediocrity simply because it exists. The idea should be to
hold up the best Seattle has to offer and let us all admire it, let us
step back and say, “How about that?” 
and you know what’s the weirdest part of the whole poetry-money relationship in this country? that bad poetry actually helps pay for good poetry.
let’s say 500 bad poets and 10 good poets all pay 15 dollars to enter a poetry contest from a literary magazine.
well, i’m a poet, so i kinda suck at math, but the short version is that the bad poets all get their complimentary copy of the literary magazine, thereby promoting good poetry, and one of the good poets wins $1000, thereby promoting good poetry.
weird, huh?
I was present at the Post Populist reading and agree with you almost totally. The only exception being the poem by Osel, who I enjoyed, and who I believe was severely misquoted in your article. But, you’re right Seattle poetry needs a makeover!
It’s not just Seattle. Bad poetry flourishes everywhere, in part because if you write a negative review, you get slammed. Then the friends of the person you reviewed won’t publish your work.
I recently quit a po-blogging gig after being told “it could be a problem” if past contributors to the associated journal were upset that I criticized their work which appeared outside the journal. Of course, the nasty ad homina attacks from one of these individuals were treated as totally appropriate responses to my calling out their limpid verse.
This is perfect, Paul.
As someone who has hosted quality literary readings and performed excellently in them yourself, your word is golden to me. But you went above-board in making this a spot-on criticism; you even gave some solutions.
You’re going to catch shit for this, but it will be from people who are full of shit, so bless you for it.
With so many different tastes, it’s hard to call any vast collection of poetry bad. To each his own.
Logan Lamech
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.htm…
I don’t find bad poetry a crime against humanity — this has been a long standing POV at The Stranger. Although I do also find a trouble with Redmond’s idea that “Our artists should be beholden to their audiences.”
The central thesis of Paul’s argument isn’t explored and he assumes it is a given. Bad poetry is bad somehow bad for the city or society. How is this so? I also find bad public art and bad poetry disconcerting, but on occasion it is also good, rarely enough that it makes you wonder if it is accident.
But how is bad poetry bad for a city?
I would say there is such things as destructive language. For instance, I would say the double talk of bureaucracies are bad (as Orwell made clear in the Politics and the English Language) and phrases such as “Extreme Interrogation Tactics” make sickeningly obvious.
Bad poetry by comparison is white noise. It has no agenda except to signify that it doesn’t suck (which paradoxically affirms that it sucks).
Our own city bureaucracy has created a democratic process for promoting and creating a civic space around poetry that didn’t exist. The existence of this space is a public good like a public green. Even though a park may in fact, as Jane Jacobs points out, be used for crime and become a dangerous negative space in the city — these things are in fact part of the fabric of our city. Just about everyone is a bad poet. A park with a healthy ecology of use in fact, such as Carl Anderson Park on Capitol Hill, can become a vital central location in the civic space of the city. Parks and ordinances are the only thing a bureaucracy is equipped to do. Bureaucracies are not known for their aesthetic stylings. The term itself, bureaucratic signifies callous, brutal, and insensitive to aesthetics. This makes for something like downtown Seattle Public Library all the more miraculous.
The city program is kind of like a park, then. It may be used by crack dealers but also sever as an important meeting ground. While the “winning” poets may be bad year after year the program provides visibility and potentially access to poets such as Elizabeth Austen, Shannon Borg, Jared Leising, Molly Tenenbaum and so on. If bad poetry is the price for good poetry, that seems like a worthwhile price of admission. I do not want or believe it possible for the city to evaluate poetry based on such abstractions as good or bad. Bureaucracies operate by flowchart, form, and checklist. I do, though, appreciate living in a city that has this program.
I agree the product is often bad poetry. But perhaps the problem is less with the program and more with the fact that when presented with bad poetry people don’t know that a poem is bad. Perhaps the program should be expanded to include educating people in reading poetry? Or you could limit the program. Only holders of a Master of Fine Arts degree or higher can vote? Then at least these degrees will have some value. You can bring your old diplomas from The Writers Workshop and UW down to the town hall.
Jesus, what a bunch of elitist drivel.
Hi Paul,
Here are some _lengthy_ notes for you to consider on the Poet Populist piece. Thanks for giving attention to the program and generating conversation about some interesting questions.
1 – The candidates. Your readers should know that the candidates were nominated by local arts organizations, including 826 Seattle, ArtsCorps, CD Forum, Cheap Wine and Poetry, Jack Straw Productions, Vital 5 Productions, and 7 others. All of these organizations want to get the work of poets and writers into the public, so your criticism of “public poetry” as “almost always bad” is quite an indictment of these organizations and their constituents, not to mention 2500 voters. (Info at http://www.poetpopulist.org)
2 – The vote. I’m glad you liked the work of candidates Elizabeth Austen and Karen Finneyfrock; I hope you voted for one of them. You could have also supported their candidacy in SLOG or in the printed paper. You could have followed up on your idea before the election started to nominate Blue Scholars’ Geologic and could have organized a write-in effort for him. If you did none of these things, especially vote, then you missed the point of the program: to offer people a way to get involved and make a difference.
3 – On “public” poetry: you say “Public poetry is almost always very bad.” What’s a logical response to this, if it were true? Either (a) poetry should not relate to the public; (b) poetry should not be read in public; or (c) only fascists should write poetry? But luckily, your assertion is not true: the history of poetry as a private practice is only a few hundred years old, while the whole history of poetry is thousands of years old, and most of that as a social enterprise.
4 – On comprehending poetry: you say “Poetry, by its very definition, is a difficult thing to write and to comprehend.” Certainly you can’t mean this, or perhaps you are simply uninformed. Since Mallarmé and especially since TS Eliot, perhaps, poetry’s hallmark is to be difficult, but again this is recent history given the history of bards: the Odyssey was the equivalent of a pulp fiction bestseller or action-adventure flick, ditto Beowulf and the Eddas. The Canterbury Tales, the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost were intended to be blockbusters, not PhD theses. Shakespeare was not looking to mystify the objects of his love sonnets, nor is the work of Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, William Carlos Williams, Langston Hughes, Adrienne Rich, Carlos Drummond de Andrade, Ntozake Shange, Sharon Olds, Saul Williams, Li-Young Lee or in fact most poets worth their salt supposed to be incomprehensible or even that difficult. As for difficult to write, that’s like saying if Usain Bolt didn’t have a hard time winning the 100m dash, then he shouldn’t really win, or if Mozart didn’t have a hard time writing an opera, then nope, not genius. Of course, practice never hurt nobody, least of all an artist.
5 – On critics: Why do literary critics (and in fact critics in all arts except music) insist on incomprehension by the public as a criterion for success? Here’s why: because maintaining such a criterion is job security for critics, who can then decode the art. First of all, the idea of “art” as a secular pursuit needing criticism and demystification is only 270 years old (since Baumgarten, Kant, Hegel, on through Lyotard). This short history is dwarfed by the hundreds of millennia that preceded it–in all cultures–and the object of art therein: as Tolstoy puts it (in “What Is Art”): “The business of art consists precisely in making understandable and accessible that which might be incomprehensible and inaccessible in the form of reasoning. Good art is always understood by everyone.”
(The same book says this about critics: “Critics are the stupid discussing the clever,” a definition, says Tolstoy, that “however one-sided, imprecise, and crude, still contains a partial truth, and is incomparably more correct than the one according to which critics are supposed to explain works of art.”)
So poetry should be comprehensible, and it is the audience’s responsibility to communicate their degree of comprehension. Conversely and necessarily, artists should be beholden to their audiences, as you correctly quoted me. If an artist can’t communicate with his or her audience, then–taking nothing away from their rights to express themselves–they don’t deserve a public audience for that expression.
6 – On Spoken Word and Kenny G: You represent the program and poets reading in public as “spoken word poets.” Five of the 13 candidates have experience doing spoken word; the rest do not. Nor do almost all of the 14 write-in candidates. I disagree that spoken word (which is a format) is qualitatively bad (in content). That’s like saying that the soprano sax (Kenny G notwithstanding) cannot produce good music, OR that, god forgive me for saying this, that Kenny G is automatically that bad. Personally, I like Rahsaan Roland Kirk or Cannonball Adderley. But I wouldn’t ban everyone everywhere from playing soprano, and if someone held an election, I’d vote for one of the good ones.
7 – On Nobility: you say that the program is a noble idea. Thanks for the sentiment, but it’s not a noble idea at all. It’s based on this regular, run-of-the mill idea: language lives among us, and like a good dog, we should treat it better.
8 – Correction: The goal of the program is not to support a medium or mediocrity, as you suggest, but to cultivate a relationship between artists and audiences, in effect instituting some accountability for public art. This actually sounds like something you would like–except perhaps that authority resides with the public. Since we live now more than ever in the age of open source and access, though–not to mention desperate times–I think you will not succeed in trying to serve as the arbiter of quality. The doors are way off those jambs…
So, yes–thanks for the coverage, however belated. See what you’re generating though? (unless this long tome kills the thread). Next time, start this dialogue sooner! You could have had a big impact on the election and education of the general public about how we are (or are not?) important to the perception/ reception/ rejection/ appreciation of art.
Man, I really respect Mr. Redmond for breaking it down for Mr. Constant instead of just calling him ignorant. Which is what I would’ve done.
Thanks for the article.
I am really moved by poetry and would like to be exposed to more of it. I am not a writer or a poet. I’m a pretty good reader. I’m not particulary knowledgeable about poetry. But, like a typical American I feel like I can weigh in with an opinion anyway. 99.9% of the Metro bus poetry is flat, hackneyed, bland. It would be nice to stumble on something good and powerful while wandering around the city.
The Austen line you quoted: “‘I reach for my yellow sweater/It bursts into flame,'” is amazing. Reading a line like that is like eating. (Like I said I’m not a poet so that’s the best I can do to describe how I felt.)
Bad poetry read aloud is excrutiating. You’ve never truly experienced cringing until you’ve witnessed a man hissing about his egg-shaped testicles to a surburban mom, seated in the front row with her preteen daughter–the mom was actually a decent poet, the best one there–or a rhyming poem about a Thanksgiving turkey.
Really good poetry read aloud is extremely moving, but hard to come by and hard to explain to people who don’t get it.
I’m going to check out the poets you mention (Nufer, Finneyfrock and Austen).
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Ignorant elitism is not useful criticism. Please try again.
Years ago someone alleged that poetry was dead. It’s tough to argue that it’s not.
I think instead we find it in a different form (or maybe forms, but I’ve only taken a stab at one).
Poetry is not dead; we just sing it now.
http://poetryforanewgeneration.blogspot.…
Mr. Constant,
You have to have to HAVE TO start writing better articles. Mr. Redmond did an outstanding job of showing how this piece was poorly conceived and poorly executed. If it was submitted to an English 101 class, I’m sure it would get no better grade than a C-. You owe it to us readers who are adults that actually read. I’m begging you. Please. Put down the Raging Angry pills and pick up the Happy Coherency pills.
That’s my opinion, dude.
Well, I’m just thrilled to heck that I have a poem riding around town on the bus. The year I won , the absolute best poem was written by an 8 year old girl. She didn’t like her poem much and told us it was her second choice.
My nephew was terrified to the point of tears because my poem was about riding the bus and he knew I rarely did. He thought I was going to prison for telling lies.
I love telling lies. And stories. Popping words together like legos, easy and bright. Not everyone can do it well but everyone should have the chance. Like fingerpainting in kindergarden, flying kites, or riding naked on your bike.
I got a call from a friend who told me about this article and I was prepared to write a defensive somewhat outraged response to it.
It is unfortunate that the article has several broad sweeping statements and decides that public poetry is BAAAD poetry, but a lot of the criticism regarding Poetry on the Bus (it is FLAT and lacks edginess, wit and cleverness–mostly)
and the Poet Populist makes some good points.
I disagree with some of the points, but they are stated clearly. Everyone has a write to their opinion.
I curate and host 3 open mic venues per month. I include 2 to 4 featured readers and often employ a round robin style of presentation. I also attend two or three other open mics per month–sometimes more. I’m on the board of PEN USA, was the executive vice president of the Washington Poets Association (and tried for over 3 years to get a Seattle writer/critic to attend the Burning Word festival on Whidbey Island).
I don’t believe Paul has ever been to an open mic that I curate, host, or one where I read something or just visited. I’ve hosted and curated over 600 during the last 8 years and even at the worst readings there were a few good poems read and usually more than half of the material read was worth listening to.
Paul could have dropped in to the Kings Books reading in Tacoma last Saturday and witnessed more than a dozen accomplished area poets in less than 5 hours.
Paul’s vision of what ‘public poetry’ is I fear is somewhat myopic. He doesn’t seem to get out much to see a lot of poetry (admits he doesn’t do enough) and the poetry he has seen has a very specific agenda (contest type poetry/ slam poetr). Contest poetry participants often try too hard to please an audience. No not all participants try to please.. some present their art and wonder if the audience will understand, appreciate or respond to it. A popularity kind of contest, sees people vying for ….(wait for it…)… the title of most popular.
Slam poets compete for MONEY–which doesn’t always bring the best poets out to the stage.
There are very specific rules for the Poet Populist contest as well. Both the poets who participate and the voting has to be done by Seattle proper residents… so some poets who live a bit outside of the city can’t participate at all.
Elizabeth and Karen don’t manipulate the audience the same way other less experienced poets do it… but they chose to enter the contest and participate. When they were nominated by organizations, they accepted the nominations and took it seriously enough to show up at readings.
Real writers and poets are indeed part of this contest.
Yeah, I wish the people who voted on the internet for the poet populist exposed themselves to all the poets in competition and voted for the best poet and poetry then out of friendship or a quick first impression—but I also wish
they would give Oscars to films and performances truly deserving–rather than just once in a while get it right.
There are dozens of brilliant spoken word poets in this city and dozens more very much worth listening to that have consistent flashes of brilliance worth paying attention to.
I’m sorry you don’t get out more and experience the richness of the poetry community. There are teacher’s and published page poets reading at open mics, as well as up and comers.
There is a lot of baaaad poetry out there…but there’s also a lot of very good poetry out there and if you are going to try to convince us that most public poetry is bad… you really should go to a few dozen open mic venues around the town before making such a declaration.
You have a hopefully widely read forum giving voice to your opinion.
Sweeping, broad generalizations based on minimal research is something I expect from Political hacks not literary critics and journalists.
And by the way… I often truly enjoy reading your columns…so please get out more.. and don’t be afraid to go to some readings where alcohol is NOT served.
Just because there is some truth in what you have written doesn’t excuse the disservice you do to spoken word poetry with your damnation of its quality based on inadequate research.
I invite you this December to check out Parkplace Books in Kirkland on December 10th at 7 p.m. or Bookworm Exchange on December 19th at 7 p.m. You might want to drop in for a very loose ecclectic open mic called the North End Forum at Bai Pai restaurant in Ravenna (it gets going at around 8 p.m. and ranges from quality offerings to the banal but I’ve always had a good time and heard something very very good when I’ve been…). Often the 3rd Saturday Afternoon reading at the Greenlake Library has excellent poets reading. Hugo House hosts some good poetry readings (not every single one.. but a lot of them).
Yeah you’ll hear some bad poetry and quite a bit of mediocre poetry too, some of which can be excused based on the age and experience of the reader–hopefully the hosts have a format that doesn’t torture the audience and allow bad poets to read for too long. However you’ll also discover and perhaps be surprised by how many very good poets exist in this city–some of them even read their poetry out-loud.
Christopher J. Jarmick
Writer, Poet.
As someone who attended the reading I am pretty put off by this article. But first, let me say that I agree that the winner, Mike Hickey, read bad poetry and I’m not sure he should have won. I did not enjoy it and thought it just seemed a bit silly. I also agree that Ananda Saleh Osel’s poem about conformists was not great, but the reviewer picked the worst one to review. He read six or seven pieces including one that was an intensely insightful frozen in time look at a summer day spent sunbathing, which was by far the best work of the night. The reviewer writes that spoken-word poetry tends to forgive shallow work but fails to mention the spoken-word performance Chelsey Richardson gave which was especially typical and awful and if anything deserved to be slammed in your article it was her work, along with Roseanne Estelle McAleese’s which was also painfully shallow. In my mind this article forgives the shallowest work of the night, and punishes those who were pushing the envelope.
I also disagree that poetry is by definition a “difficult thing to comprehend.” This is just not true and I think that another poster had it right when he said that Mr. Constant is simply uninformed about literary history in this particular aspect. But, I do agree with the reviewer in some respects, although the article does seem quite elitist.
Paul-
Bob Redmond just schooled your ass. Try not to be such a dick especially when you are spouting off your own ill-informed opinions. This coming from someone who really doesn’t like any poetry, but at least I don’t go around bashing other people’s work.
Considering what a disgraceful job the Stranger has done promoting Poetry in Seattle the last 15 years I would say they don’t get a vote on it.
It is possible that none of the thousands of poets who have read in the city in that time have done anything worthy of consideration — possible but not likely. Reading you’re hipster rag, that is the conclusion one would come to. You appear to define good poetry as ‘stuff I like’ — but only ever give a couple lines and no justification. If good poetry is really so personal and self evident then why are you writing anything at all? I would demand more of a review of a pop musician.
I could give a shit about what you have to say in the matter simply because I have never heard you actually support something good. You give your little shouts out — which for all we know is just to people you know — but you don’t have an actual opinion on a poem in this whole article.
“I like it — it was nifty.” is not an opinion, it is an assertion.
It is easy to find bad poetry — which is probably why you and your ilk are so good at it. You are lazy — your opinions are common and you don’t push them too hard. I would love just once to open a Stranger article on poetry and find an actual thoughtful review of something worth reading.
But you have made your name on drunken rants spewed out an hour before deadline and given one editing pass — so how foolish am I for expecting more?
James D. Newman
There once was a girl from Nantucket.
Got fat off that KFC Bucket…
blah blah blah.
We broke up.
Whenever I get on the 169 bus on 256st avenue and crowd into a bunch of Section 8’s with kids, junkies, mall gangbangers and criminals heading to the Norm Maeling Justice Center, I certainly appreciate being able to look up and read some fey head trip poetry from a “seattle artist”. This lets me avoid having eye contact with the rest and make the journey to transitioning to the 150 where I can ride with the DUIs — much safer.
PC got pwned. lol.
@ James D. Newman
You get real articles of criticism from writers like Jen Graves or Charles Mudede, not hacks like Paul Constant. His “writing style” seems to be only making assertations about what he likes and dislikes with absolutely no valid criticism or room for disagreement. Sometimes I may agree with his outcome, but I never agree with his superficial and chronically misinformed articles. Working at a bookstore and reading books does not make one qualified to be a books editor. Proving that one can write thoughtful critiques of the written word does. Mr. Constant writes like a man with no time for contemplation or due thought. His is a life of snap judgements, with nothing but arbitrary standards and ideals.
Perhaps you could stay as books editor but get someone else to write the criticism. It doesn’t even seem like you enjoy your job at this point.
Bravo to Redmond!
While reading your article it became obvious to me that you mustn’t have any roots or deep experience within the artist community, which settled my offense for a short while, but you quickly began to sound equivalent to an adolescent Caucasian trying to critique and comprehend the Blues.
Your article gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on.
I’m glad someone more eloquent than I was able to hand you your ass in a proper fashion and hopefully remind you to humble yourself. What you have to say about something you’re looking in on and don’t have direct experience with the process of is still legitimate, but, as you say, “That’s only true if the work is good”, that’s only true if you’re honest about your perspective.
Paul Constant is right. The money would be better spent promoting good poetry rather than anything chosen by voting. Especially the perfectly unreliable nonsense of internet voting.
The harmless, Motel-room blandness of the top-voted photos on Flickr, or the most popular news stories in Yahoo, or the most popular porn clips on Megarotic is more than enough evidence that democracy doesn’t pick the best art. And then there’s Top 40 music. Think about Top 40 music for a minute, and then tell me saturating us daily with the most popular art is good for us.
No matter how many classic zingers you quote slamming critics, I don’t even want to know what the #1 most popular book on Amazon is, let alone read it. Any critic can be wrong, and some critics are incompetent, but you can find good ones, and when you do, you should trust them. And, no, that is not fascism. Get a dictionary, please.
This voting thing is a gimmick, and after the novelty passes it will be forgotten.
So let me get this straight, Paul. You wrote about this program, and you realized that it “seems fair” to give the head of said program equal time only after the piece published and the program head had to resort to commenting on The Stranger’s Web site to give his side of the story?
That, sir, is some quality journalism!
Thank You Mr. Redmond.
I think the Stranger needs to step back and realize how influential it is in the community.
Perhaps instead of crushing amateur KOMO 4 news anchors (who’s crappy work makes very little difference) and fledgling Churches (who’s difference-making is even less) you could start developing and helping organizations that you think could be better (ie. Poet Populist)
elenchos-
You are an idiot with your frequent-commenter head so far up the Stranger’s ass, it’s pathetic. The Poet Populist is not the equivalent of poet American Idol. It’s simply meant to take poetry out of books and stuffy headspace and make it an organic, living thing. Whether it does that or not is valid debate, but you don’t even have a fucking clue what anyone’s talking about. Your opinion is about as well formed as Paul Constant’s ridiculous article.
Paul’s right. I love poetry, just not THAT poetry.
Several months ago Real Change investigated WHY the poetry signs were posted on the ad display at the rear of the bus and not at the front. Well, didn’t you know, it allows fed up passengers to scribble critical and engaging remarks about the POETRY.
I think I’ve only read one poem from the Poetry on Buses series that made sense. Many of the poems start out with interesting subjects and then end up weird. As a result, many bus passengers scribble very funny remarks on the signs. One day while riding on the #12 bus, the featured poet wrote about her summer vacation, which included smashing dragon flies on the front porch. A few days later, I got on the same bus, sat in the back and started to read the same poem. A passenger was disgusted by the poet, Tammy, and what she had done to the dragon flies. The boldly written comment said: “Hey Tammy you must be sick! You need to see a psychiatrist or something!”
Bee, that hilarious. Scroll up just a bit and get a load of some other guy who also goes by “Bee” who is pissed at Paul Constant for making assertions without supporting them. What are the odds of there being a whole other “Bee,” who likes assertions with no support? I guess if I’m an idiot then there’s no need to refute what I say. I do sort of wonder why this is different than American Idol, what with my total ignorance and all.
Anyhow, I can see we’re in for another round of the wounded The Arts Community circling the wagons. Pass the popcorn and a big box of tissues.
Any art worth existing can withstand some criticism. Criticizing art doesn’t make someone a dick. Go ahead, duke it out over issues of content and quality–people should be passionate about art, passion fuels disagreements–but attacking Constant for daring to assert that public poetry is bad comes off as grandiose and narcissistic.
I remember looking at the bus poetry when I used to live in Seattle. The best ones were invariably written by young children.
The people defending public poetry here have many good points, but in my heart I agree with Paul. I don’t think the problem is with poetry, or with poets; I think there’s something deeply broken about the way we conceive and execute public art of all kinds at this particular time in our particular civilization. Someone should write a dissertation on it or something.
Thanks Bob!
Sorry for jumping in so late.
I have myself said that spoken word has lost some of its freshness in recent years, possibly becoming formulaic.
But, as I’ve said many times, critics of spoken word and more “popular” poetry criticize these genres while all the while benefiting from them.
Its like Twyla Tharp criticizing “The Nutcracker” for not being high enough art–how do people think others get exposed to art in the first place? “The Nutcracker” was the first dance performance I’d ever seen and I’ve gone on to be a supportive audience member (and fundraiser!) for almost every major dance company performing today.
So with poetry. Accessible works can pique the interest of an individual enough for that person to want to learn more, delve deeper.
I believe the visibility, accessibility, interactiveness and immediacy of spoken word and other public poetry will insure the future of the form.
PS–
I agree with “frank.”
That the article lacks a direct quote or comment from Mr. Redmond or Licata is just a little bit (sad? dishonorable?) reflective of poor journalism.
Can someone, in very concrete, tangible terms, explain to me what’s so “bad” about “Held” by Ray Baldwin, as cited by Esteemed Journalist Paul Constant?
Thanks in advance.
i was appalled at the way you treated poetry in this town, (or anywhere). some people like picasso,some don’t. there is graffitti on the bus i like better. the stranger always misses the point of grassroots art anyhow. don’t you (mostly dumbass white men) know that while kurt cobain may have not been appealing to the masses,(we know he didn’t want to), he lived as long as he did because his art prolonged his life? don’t you know a rap song is a poem. kids write those instead of shooting people, plus it gets them to write and read. don’t you have any common sense about art at all, you of all people?as shallow as some of the poetry, songs or visual art may be to some of us, it might just save the life of the creator. lighten up you haters of poetry, it is the oldest and cheapest of most art for the masses to do… sure promote finneyrock, she’s great, but there is a huge social movement of writers, (many in their teens and 20’s )in this town who are light years ahead of what a “big” publication like the stranger knows about. art saves lives, period. and you mr. bigshot newspaper hater, don’t have a clue of the real haps in the underground writing community. there are legions of people promoting reading and writing with all kinds of people, without grades, with love… something your paper will not delve into. we seriously hope you get the help you need to understand this town. try not getting so drunk and whacking off. look into a regular creative person’s eyes and find god.
holy shit!
paula constant the fat effeminate asshole points out the obvious again….
The Stranger should hire a fucking monkey… at leaast i would enjoy it’s articles…
PLAY
Art is color play
Sculpting is shape play
Drawing is line play
Music is sound play
Pottery is clay play
Drama is pretend play
Cinema is story/visual/sound play
Singing is voice play
Writing is word play
Dance is movement play
Quilting is fabric play
Sports are game play
Chess is strategy play
It is only work when a critic ruins the fun.
Thank you, Bob Redmond.
Spoken word is a genre and, like any genre, it has its good and its completely horrible. There are a lot of elitist assholes out there who “hate spoken word,” especially slam, and have no idea what’s really out there. There are MFA-graduate, published, well-respected, BRILLIANT spoken word artists (as I live in the Bay, I’ll cite Daphne Gottlieb as an example) whose work holds up on paper.
And, of course, there are tons of really shitty poets doing spoken word. But think about ANY poetry open mic you’ve been to – most, if not all, of the poetry is bad. The question, then, is: what is the point of writing and performing poetry? Poet Populist draws its nominees from organizations that, for the most part, believe that much of the beauty is in the act.
The arts are important to public life, whether or not those making art (including poetry, music, whatever) hold up to Paul’s – or anyone’s – standards.
The attacks lobbed at Constant have been far worse than anything he’s said about public poetry and amount to nothing more than displays grandiosity and narcissism.
One of the major criticisms of Seattle’s character is that its people can’t handle conflict or disagreements. This thread certainly supports that criticism.
It’s okay that some things are better and some things are worse. It’s also okay that people disagree and argue about what falls into which category. It’s also possible to disagree and argue without assaulting someone’s character. Um, that’s what makes life interesting.
Art of all stripes may incorporate play but it’s not necessarily soley about play. Check out an Anselm Kiefer painting or Raymond Carver’s writing and you’ll see what I mean. And, please don’t read this comment to mean that playful art is necessarily bad because that’s not what I’m saying. Rather, art can incorporate a larger range of human experience than just fun.
Just another day in obviousville, overstating the obvious, obviously.
Mr. Redmond FTW, in an intelligent, funny, classy smackdown. It’s easy to be a sarcastic, smarmy cynic like Constant, broadly disparaging anything that doesn’t fit into his perception of what art should be. Mr. Redmond sounds smart, cool. Constant reveals himself as a condescending asshole.
I nominate Bob Redmond for the new Books Editor.
Not a bad idea!
My first thought was “Oh, look. The Stranger is critical of poetry for a change.”
But as I read further, I had more thoughts:
1) Thanks Paul for stimulating the conversation, it was great reading.
2) Thanks Bob Redmond for making the points that were occurring to me, but making them more eloquently.
3) Thanks everyone for illustrating that poetry is in the eyes, ears and mind of the beholder. Bad poetry – even if everyone in a society agrees that it’s bad – is just a reflection of society’s norms. Even “bad” poetry grows the culture.
Um…
“Nevermind became a surprise success in late 1991, largely due to the popularity of its first single, “Smells Like Teen Spirit”. By January 1992 it had replaced Michael Jackson’s album Dangerous at number one on the Billboard charts. The album has been certified ten times platinum (10 million copies shipped) by the Recording Industry Association of America.”
Hi, Paul,
I’ll be frank: I’m disappointed to see you following in Christopher Frizzelle’s footsteps here. As another commenter has already stated, I know that blanket critique is indeed part of the Stranger’s MO–especially, it seems, when it comes to local lit arts. But, upon your ascendancy to lit-editor, I was hoping for some diversification of this sad little meme.
Frizzelle, as lit editor, operated from a space of almost exclusive disdain for anyone not already recognized as “important” or “good”. As such, his reviews tended to fall into one of two categories: teh suck and Charles D’Ambrosio.
I really appreciate the fact that you’re willing to give more nuance (as well as more attention) than your predecessor usually allowed–even mentioning Karen Finneyfrock by name, for example–but I’m disheartened that you seem to give in to The Stranger Trap. It’s the reason I’ve stopped relying on The Stranger for arts–it’s the reason, in fact, I tend to swing wide around any Stranger-sanctioned event: the blanket negativity is toxic and destructive.
It is a bit of a reach to make a blanket statement on the Seattle Poetry scene, or even the spoken word scene based on a poet populist reading. While spoken word as a whole, can be weaker than contemporary literary works, some writers, including many in this city have risen above the standard.
Google local artists Danny Sherrard, Anis Mojgani, and Jack McCarthy, and you’ll realize that this blanket critism is simply inaccurate
#1) Everyone knows the nirvana story. The point is, without music, cobain’s writing is poetry. It may read like the bad stuff you don’t like. “smells like teen spirit” is not understood by many people, but the tag line is good, the sound is catchy. He felt very misunderstood most of his life and after fame hit, he did not like it. He felt that the fans didn’t understand what nirvana was about. He had a disdain for how phony the fame and the tours felt. He had depression and stomach pains which he self medicated. I could have used another example of “bad poetry” that has been made famous, but since the stranger only values fame and money, I tried to explain it in terms you could understand. Music can mask, “bad poetry”. All lyrics are poetry or storytelling. I sent a poem to the stranger magazine last night because the book critic continues to be a white man, (pick a name), who arrogantly critiques spoken word as some poor form of poetry when In fact he doesn’t know enough about poetry to realize spoken word just gets the words auditory. It gets it off the page. I am not a spoken word poet. In my opinion, some of the most magnificent artists in this town have painted me pictures with their verbal poems, (did you ever enjoy a story read aloud as a child?)
I regret writing while I was angry. i try not to be mean, but I got someone’s attention. I don’t mean to hurt Constant or others. I feel he thoughtlessly lobbed a turd-bomb. Critics (and their friends) can’t take criticism… big surprise. I used the term, (“mostly dumb-ass white men” to describe the staff). The stranger reflects the mostly white liberal male point of view. It’s true. PROOF: In 2004, when I addressed the “regrets of 2003” article as bigoted because writing, “dyke slam poetry” is similar to saying “asian drivers” or “all Irish are drunks”, dan savage said he ,”loves dykes, hired them”. When I again said putting “dyke” in front of “slam poetry” is bigotry, he turned a blind ear. Respect begets respect, (For the record, I adore a great many men of all colors) It is always a bigger crime to attack white men. They cry foul at the top of their lungs. The truth is, of the mostly white male staff at the stranger, the leadership is insensitive, mostly white males. When you’re from the ruling class, you don’t have to care about people different than you are. Some men are paying attention and are trying to represent the community at large.
The slamming down of the poet populist was very unkind. What if someone jumps off a bridge that you so lightly lampooned last week? If I were that poor man singled out like that, I would be very distraught. It may have been the most joyful accomplishment of his life. This man bared his writing without apology, (I don’t know him, did not see the show). I feel that you owe him an apology for not being a better, more articulate writer yourself. Your paper is not a friend of the arts. It is just another capitalistic venture that neglects/denigrates people who don’t spend money with you: the poor, disenfranchised and of color, (where the greatest art has been born.) I don’t need hundred dollar college words to know that. Do I have to spell everything out for you?
“don’t you know a rap song is a poem. kids write those instead of shooting people, plus it gets them to write and read.”
Oh, word?
First: To those of you accusing me of bad journalism: This was a piece of criticism. It was not journalism. Second: To those of you accusing me of bad criticism: there are many who’d agree with you. This is why you should read the Weekly’s literary criticism.
Here–late, I know–are my comments for Bob’s notes.
1. See (2.)
2. Honestly, for the most part, I sat out endorsing in this year’s Poet Populist competition because this is my first year as books editor here, and I wanted to see what the program was like before I got involved. I didn’t know anything about the Poets Populist Program and wanted to see it in action. So say that I did endorse Geologic. Let’s even suppose that my endorsement would somehow result in Geologic winning the title of Poet Populist. So Geologic is the Poet Populist. What does that prove? It proves that he got more internet votes than any of the other candidates. And it doesn’t make any of the other bad candidates any less bad. And next year someone else would win, in an internet vote. My complaint is not that Matt Hickey’s poetry is bad (although my very small amount of experience with Matt Hickey’s poetry has all been bad), my complaint is that you somehow getting a bunch of your friends to vote for you online does not a populist make.
3. Public poetry is almost always very bad because the people who choose it are very often bureaucrats looking for the safest or most generic poetry so as not to offend anyone. It’s the same reason why public sculpture and murals are almost always very bad. But this competition, opening it up to a popularity contest, is going to result in some very bad poetry getting chosen, too. The Poet Populist program is as flawed as the bureaucratic public art programs, but in different ways. The best way to present art to the masses is very much in the same way that you all at One Reel bring artists to the people at Bumbershoot: by having one knowledgible person, or a committee of people who really know their stuff, choosing the artists for us all to see. You all do an excellent job, year in year out, of picking artists for Bumbershoot. An ideal Public Poetry Office would use the same procedures that you all do in choosing your performers and artists. But thanks for invoking Godwin’s Law with the suggestions of poetry fascism so early on this comments thread.
4. Look: you want a populist poet? Jay-Z. Li’l Wayne. Geologic. Those are the poets who are doing the stuff that Shakespeare and Chaucer were doing. And, like Shakespeare and Chaucer, their poetry gets better the longer you spend with it. They have unreliable narrators and dense wordplay and allusions to things that you might not know unless you do a little digging. I’m not saying that poetry has to be incomprehensible. But Hickey’s poem about Sarah Palin dancing on a table didn’t deserve further introspection. Do you know why? Because it was shallow and stupid, as was most of Osel’s poetry. Jay-Z is not shallow or stupid. Shakespeare is not shallow or stupid. The best poetry sticks in your head and grows and expands—I’m still thinking about Elizabeth Austen’s poem from that night, several weeks later. So we already have a ton of Poets Populist. You can enjoy a sonnet by Shakespeare by just scanning each line, like eating corn on a cob, but it’s not until you live with that sonnet that you really get it. And that’s what a good poem does.
5. It’s ludicrous to say that I need to insist on incomprehension, and I defy you to find four book reviews of mine that demand something become more incomprehensible. I have reviewed pulp novels and a great deal of comic books, memoirs and humor books. A few of the books I’ve reviewed haven’t been for general audiences, but if everything was for general audiences, we’d be living in Mouth-breather’s World. The job of a critic is not to decode art. To my mind, the primary job of a critic is to shine a light on the works and artists that he or she determines is worthy of greater inspection. And I did that in this piece–I named twice as many good poets in the piece as I did bad poets. (The secondary job of a critic, I think, is to suggest why something is bad. I do that in my theater reviews, and I usually try to point out a way to improve the bad aspects. And when I spoke of the bad poetry in this piece, I didn’t point out why the poem was bad due to space concerns, but in the case of the Poetry on the Bus that I quoted, I put the entire poem in to let the reader decide for her or himself.) But with all due respect to Mr. Tolstoy, not everything that is understood by everyone is good art. Sometimes it’s just…well, stupid and shallow. We should rise to meet good art, and good art should come down to meet us in the middle. Otherwise, what’s the point?
6. I contend that, like almost everything else, 99% of spoken word is crap. And just because a spoken word poet makes an audience laugh doesn’t necessarily mean that she or he is a good poet. It could just be that he or she is very funny. This is the thing with spoken word: A lot of the time, artists who do spoken word are rewarded for being funny, or gross, or having a few good lines. It doesn’t mean that they are good poets until they can actually create a good poem. Many spoken word artists don’t go that far, because it’s not as rewarding as being funny, or gross, or clever. Insofar as your Kenny G metaphor, though: I loathe the saxophone, and if I had my way, I would eradicate it from the face of the Earth, Huey Louis and the News notwithstanding.
7. I love your phrase “language lives among us, and like a good dog, we should treat it better” and I will quote you at every opportunity.
8. This is really the whole point: The program doesn’t create a relationship between artists and audiences. It creates a relationship between poets and their e-mail lists. It’s an inclusive thing, like a poetry reading. I don’t believe that this internet voting is bringing anyone into poetry. And I don’t believe Poetry on the Buses brings anyone into poetry. (Although the poems written by children are often hilarious and charming, and I should’ve mentioned that in the piece.) Hip-hop brings people into poetry. And I believe that putting more good poetry out there in the world, as I suggested in my piece, would bring people in to the world of poetry. Nothing would create more good poetry than more public exposure to poetry. But if Matt Hickey somehow brings good poetry into the world, I think it will be entirely by accident. And the forty people who were there on the night of his coronation were not disinterested people, wandering into a poetry reading. They were all there rooting for their friends. There’s nothing wrong with rooting for your friend. People do it at poetry readings all the time. But pretending to be on the side of the people when you’re just creating an extended game for a tiny—2,500 votes!—segment of the population in the name of bringing poetry to the masses is not populism, either.