tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6360167919886596728.post7014499307541696203..comments2024-02-05T04:41:02.489-05:00Comments on Pansy Poetics: On the Debate of the Need for "Accessibility" in Poetry (Part One)Steve Fellnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11383222975171349962noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6360167919886596728.post-12649485849362529632009-08-31T19:35:04.458-04:002009-08-31T19:35:04.458-04:00Steve - you and Matthew seem to be on the same pag...Steve - you and Matthew seem to be on the same page. You can write as accessibly as you want, and obviously there's a level of intention in the choice, but if the reader doesn't take the requisite number of steps in your direction you could be writing nursery rhymes and he wouldn't get it. I read a bit by Don Paterson the other day that about summed it up. "We read according to an undeclared handicap system, to the specific needs of the author. We meet the novelists a little way, the poets at least halfway, the translated poets three-quarters of the way; the Postmoderns we pick up at the station in their wheelchairs." Presumably the converse is true and the most 'inacessible' poem can be broken into by a determined or dedicated reader. He might not take away everything the poet put into the piece but with patience he'll at least get the something Matthew refers to as making it worth his while.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11908332538776254864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6360167919886596728.post-60855099383896029082009-08-31T18:49:14.690-04:002009-08-31T18:49:14.690-04:00Steve, do you think accessibility is defined by th...Steve, do you think accessibility is defined by the poet or the audience?<br /><br />I think a lot about that idea of "access" in my own work. I have purposefully written manuscripts that excluded heterosexual readers (or, most of them) and manuscripts that allowed them in. I am always writing to create an accessible space for my queer audiences, or, at least, I strive to.<br /><br />I feel safer experimenting with form more than language. I don't want to be misread.<br /><br />It's a metaphor for my real life.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05222297450888695352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6360167919886596728.post-57734228014229764232009-08-30T14:23:22.646-04:002009-08-30T14:23:22.646-04:00Hi,
Thank you for your comprehensive, useful, gen...Hi,<br /><br />Thank you for your comprehensive, useful, generous comment.<br /><br />I disagree with your thesis. One can choose to write accessibly or not. One is aware of the vast array of aesthetic, political, personal consequences, good or bad, no?Steve Fellnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11383222975171349962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6360167919886596728.post-2160677940060027592009-08-28T16:57:34.075-04:002009-08-28T16:57:34.075-04:00Steve:
I think accessibility has more to do with ...Steve:<br /><br />I think accessibility has more to do with how we read poetry rather than how poets write, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. People expect a text to be readable (i.e. at least follow loose standards of written grammatical conventions) and to have at least an understandable surface meaning that they can easily grasp.<br /><br />This mean, essentially, that while poets should use all the linguistic tools at their disposal to create multi-layered and intricately rich works, they also must realize that if they want to sell books and get their work out before an audience, they have to at least make the audience feel that they are getting something out of the reading experience, even if the reader entirely misses the point the first, second, or nth time they read the work. If poets are only writing to impress other poets, then sure, be inaccessible, be inscrutable, be closeted, and write only in code that some ideal reader can decipher. But if poets want their work to be more widely read and appreciated, they need to at least leave the door a bit open so the reader is drawn into the piece and wants to spend time figuring it out rather than simply being dismissive of verbal ingenuity and linguistic feats of poetic excellence that confuse the living fuck out of them.<br /><br />I think every single question you raise is important, but not just for gay poets. Gay poets writing poems about gay issues to a gay audiene doesn't make the poems less accessible to a hetero audience--in fact, it makes the gay experience more accessible. The question is whether gay poets want to make that experience more accessible. Yes, I'm hetero, but if all I do is stay locked in my own world and don't consider the views and experiences of others, that doesn't make me a very good human being. And I think that is an aim of poetry we often overlook: it humanizes us in ways we don't appreciate but should. Students miss this all the time because they are always trying to figure out what a poem means instead of experiencing the poem as an opportunity for inner reflection. Poetry makes us slow down and realize we are not the center of the world. Poetry tells us that we aren't the only ones who struggle with making sense of the beauty and unfairness of the world.<br /><br />Damn. I re-read that and I sound all new-age-wishy-washy. But I stand by it.Matthew Schmeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11348372645986806502noreply@blogger.com