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.

This Is The Impossible

Or at least it is how this feels, because poetry is beautiful, but at times so difficult to understand. Though, in Charles Olson’s case, it’s not possible to understand any of his poems completely, because it seems as though he does not even understand them. Since the poems are the ones writing themselves. The writer is just a puppet being controlled by the poem. So of course it’s not completely possible to understand them, but there are parts in his poems that seem possible. Like, for example, this stanza:

“this

is the abstract, this

is the cold doing, this

is the impossible” (5).

This stanza alone is its own entity in a larger entity which is the poem In Cold Hell, in Thicket. It’s so strong on its own, and can have so many different meaning. So many that is has been haunting me. I have been writing this one stanza all over my walls, my papers, and even my arms. Questioning what is “this.” Is “this” life, hell, living in America at the time, love or an infinite amount of other things? This is probably why these three lines are so strong and haunting, because they have an INFINITE amount of meaning. But the thing is Olson did not write with a certain meaning in mind. Olson wrote it because the poem wanted it.

This little stanza follows all the rules he pointed out in his poetics. First,”the kinetics of the thing” (614). This stanza has a beat, a “breath.” The writer’s energy is being transferred to us because of the juxtaposing syllables of these lines. Second, “is the principle, the law which presides conspicuously over such composition, and, when obeyed, is the reason why a projective poem can come into being.” Which is still a confusing statement for me, but it is alluding to the poem’s control over everything. And how everything you add to a poem, like this stanza, is only a “an extension of content.” Thirdly, and lastly, “the process of the thing.” Which is saying that “one perception must immediately and directly lead to a further perception.” This is what that stanza is doing. It moves line from line in both a kinetic and musical way. Each line is a deeper perception into the line before. This stanza is the perfect example of all the stanza in In Cold Hell, in Thicket, because they all follow these three rules and they all feel somehow alive. Since just like a living being they have breath, heart, movement, and energy. All of these stanzas, lines, and poems by Olson remind me of a human. Always changing its mind, and filled of infinite of possibilities.