Dialogue with Peter Schwarz, take 2:

Adrienne,

I think many poets would cringe at the thought that they are/could be differentiated from "writers", but I do believe that clout becomes a factor in various ways: in a conversation that I had with Tom last year (I forget the topic of the conversation), he said that since poetry is already an embattled literary form (and since many prose writers want money), he/the WH feels it is important to support poets and their work. Of course, this is admirable and references the undaunted spirit of individuals who coalesce into collectives of some sort whose actions and attitudes transform poetry into an indefatigable spirit. I have no objections to the support of poetry, certainly not, however, I lament the frequent absence of other literary forms that, in general, shouldn't be shunted aside.

--Peter

Hi Peter,

I wonder if there is something about a "writers house" that is somehow implicitly poetic.  Before joining, I'd always pictured everyone there to wear black pants and black turtlenecks and to have those little glasses that have no frames.  I assumed everyone spoke in a whisper, and snapped rather than clapping. I wonder if there is something about the word house that modifies "writer" in my mind, or in others' minds, in a way that has led to this disproportionate number of poets in this poets' cave.  I wonder too though about how it is that poets are separate from writers... or more, why it is that there are so few self-proclaimed prosists.  Or why my spell check just freaked out at the word “prosists.” I myself am a prosepoet (another microsoft no-no). 

Adrienne

Adrienne,

I like your characterization of your first impressions of the WH...it metaphorizes a common perspective of the WH which I have encountered not just from students but also from other scholars and intellectuals who, it would seem, are the types of individuals who would be a part of our group, and when I encounter such perspectives I want to know why they exist. What aura or attitude are we projecting?

I really can't understand the mental process that radically divides the artistic mediums into their separate (though mutually observant) elements while, at the same time, calling for and enforcing a diversity of genres and capabilities of poetic expression...as if the most fertile and provocative periods in art history, in the history of a culture, which is to mean the history of a society, were not in reality tumultuous moments when artistic categories ruptured, borders collapsed, and all artists were migrants. I find it very provincial for a "poet" or a "painter" of today to be somewhat aware of, say, the name of Picasso or for a painter to be aware of the title Howl yet neither recognizing the same currents that swept through both artists' work.
--Peter

Peter,

I disagree with you about the lack of awareness of the import of historic  art -- learning about the parallels of modernism in visual art and in poetry is Modern Poetry 101 (aka, ENGL 88, A Filreis class).  We definitely focused on the connections there -- Try O'Hara's "Why I am not a Painter" or Stein's "Portrait of Picasso," both of which I think are read by most students of modern poetry, and both of which address this issue.  I think that as students we often look at whole periods of art as being one.  What I think we ignore more is the interaction of art *now*.  Poets don't "keep up on art," or often even on prose or journalism.  And that's where this self-labeling to the nth degree becomes problematic -- when I say "Oh, I write impressionistic prose poetry," and immediately ignore all else. 

Adrienne