This is a blog.

First-Year CCA Writing and Literature Students write stuff here about what they are reading. They are forced to do this for a class, and they are being judged through a process called "grading."

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Everything’s So Far Away.

I had a wonderful idea to connect this response to my last one, by choosing a poem that contradicts with most of Olson’s ideas. This way I could compare and contrast. Of course this poem is also one of my favorites from this week’s readings. The poem is The Sadness of Leaving by Eileen Myles. Unlike all of Olson’s poems, her poems are personal. She does not write them for the poem, but for herself.

“Everything’s

so far away—

my jacket’s

over there. I’m terrified

to go & you

won’t miss me

I’m terrified by the

bright blues of

the subway

other days I’m

so happy &

prepared to believe

that everyone walking

down the street is

someone I know” (555).

So let us look at this piece of the poem compared to Olson’s rules. One, her poem does have energy, but it is the energy is from the emotions she had while writing it. She even describes herself as “photographic paper” (553). Since unlike Olson she writes about what is happening around her, and her writing allows the feelings she had to leak through the words. Two, unlike Olson who believes that “form is never more than an extension of content” (614) her poem has a form. It’s a wonderful form filled of enjambed lines that seem to just be free falling. This form is not only lovely to look at, but adds a flowly feel to it that reminds you of a train of thought. Yes, Charles would have possibly been annoyed by the form, but, for Eileen, it works. Three, it is kinetic and every little thought, detail, and word leads to the extension of it. It even has a rhythm to it that seems to be increased by the juxtaposition of the syllables.

You can even say that the poem “wrote” itself. She even states “feeling a poem coming on” (553). Meaning that the she did not just sit down with the intention of writing a poem, but instead the poem came to her. It chose her. The poem is a mixture of all that is around her. This gives the poem an entity, a soul. But the thing is, the poem is more than JUST what is around her. It’s what is going on inside of her and the things that make her her. She even says “I was the details. I was the poem.” So when Olson wrote, the poem told him what to do, but when Myles wrote, she put herself into the words that made the poem. The poet is the one that decides what the poem will be, let it be its own entity or a part of the poet, but it is reader’s job to interpret it. When I first read The Sadness of Leaving I understood everything she was saying, and felt what she was feeling. Since I have had the same experience, the only difference is that mine had been in San Francisco instead of New York. When a poet makes a poem personal you can actually feel a deeper kind of connection to the poet. A connection I could never feel while reading Charles Olson’s poems. This connection was one of major reason I loved The Sadness of Leaving as much as I did. As much as I do.

1 comment:

  1. I really like how you've structured this, Erika. Taking Olson's statements point by point and comparing/contrasting them with Myles poetry, mixed in with your own commentary, seems like a very effective strategy. And you definitely dig into the inner-workings of a poetry that you find most effective.

    However, I think you've got a few misconceptions about Olson's view on this stuff. Part of this may come from the difficulty of his work in comparison with Myles(it absolutely is very difficult). But I think part of this also comes from the fact that you don't really directly quote Olson, you paraphrase him. If you were to directly quote him, you might find that you agree with a lot of his points.

    For example: You say that "Since unlike Olson she writes about what is happening around her, and her writing allows the feelings she had to leak through the words." While I think you're right that Myles definitely does this, Olson absolutely writes what's happening around him--in fact this is kind of his thing. In his "Maximus" poems, the whole book is really just his descriptions of his hometown of Gloucester, Mass.

    You also suggest that Olson is against form. And this isn't exactly true either. He is against overly-rigid form at the expense of the content. When he says that "form is never more than an extension of content," he means that the form has to serve the content, in fact helps to produce the content. It can't be there just for itself and to look pretty. But you say the same thing about Myles poem: "It’s a wonderful form filled of enjambed lines that seem to just be free falling. This form is not only lovely to look at, but adds a flowly feel to it that reminds you of a train of thought." This is perfect example of what Olson is saying--the form helps produce a particular feeling that is specific to the content of the poem.

    I don't mean to get on your case about this--Olson certainly is difficult to decipher. But I think Myles and Olson have far more in common than you realize.

    However, besides these interpretation issues, you've written a well-organized, clearly argued response here, so good work on that end.
    =8

    e

    ReplyDelete