Essay — From the July 2013 issue

Poetry Slam

Or, The decline of American verse

Download Pdf
Read Online

Leafing through a volume of Robert Lowell’s poetry not long ago, I came across some lines that I couldn’t help reading over and over. They were from “Waking Early Sunday Morning” (1967), and they ran this way:

Pity the planet, all joy gone
from this sweet volcanic cone;
peace to our children when they fall
in small war on the heels of small
war — until the end of time
to police the earth, a ghost
orbiting forever lost
in our monotonous sublime.

I was taken by the artistry of the lines, by their subtlety and their melancholy grace. I was impressed by the rhymes: “ghost” and “lost,” for instance, create exactly the right haunted and haunting sound. But it was Lowell’s ambition that impressed me; he was looking at the world as though from outer space, like a graying weary seer, and pronouncing judgment. He was calling things as he believed them to be not only for himself but for all his readers. And he was looking into the future.

His prophecy about the filth-ridden state of the planet and the sad, endless “small wars” has turned out to be more or less true. But poets almost never do this sort of thing anymore, at least not prominent American poets. Our most highly regarded contemporary poets — the gang now in their fifties, sixties, and beyond, who get the major prizes and the plum teaching jobs and appear from time to time in the pages of The New Yorker — write in a much blander, more circumscribed mode. Granted that there’s no end of poetry being written and published out there: one can’t generalize about it all. Still, it’s palpably the case that the poets who now get the balance of public attention and esteem are casting unambitious spells.

Mainstream American poetry now often sounds like this:

For some time I thought there was time
and that there would always be time
for what I had a mind to do
and what I could imagine
going back to and finding it
as I had found it the first time
but by this time I do not know
what I thought when I thought back then

That’s W. S. Merwin from the December 12, 2011, issue of The New Yorker. At the close the poet hears a thrush at dawn “singing the new song.” A freshness in nature registers as an ironic reproach to the poet’s fruitless ruminations. “The New Song” is about the unlived life: chances neglected, deeds undone. It also seems to be a poem about how hard it is to write a poem. (Going back to “what I had a mind to do” suggests not only deeds undone but poems unwritten.) The lines are melodious, the voice warm and sympathetic — but there’s too little at stake. We’re sitting in on a small-time game.

Most of our poets now speak a deeply internal language not unlike Merwin’s. They tend to be oblique, equivocal, painfully self-questioning. They not only talk to themselves in their poems; they frequently talk to themselves about talking to themselves, as Merwin does here. (“But by this time I do not know / what I thought when I thought back then.”) Lowell speaks directly of our children, our monotonous sublime: few are the consequential poets now who are willing to venture that “our” or, more daring still, to pronounce the word “we” with anything like conviction. At a time when collective issues — communal issues, political issues — are pressing, our poets have become ever more private, idiosyncratic, and withdrawn. Their poetry is not heard but overheard, and sometimes is too hermetic even to overhear with anything like comprehension.

Contemporary American poets now seem to put all their energy into one task: the creation of a voice. They strive to sound like no one else. And that often means poets end up pushing what is most singular and idiosyncratic in themselves and in the language to the fore and ignoring what they have in common with others. The current poet may give a certain sort of pleasure by his uniqueness, but no one reading him will say what Emerson hoped to say when he encountered a poet who mattered: “This is my music; this is myself.”

Previous PageNext Page
1 of 7

You are currently viewing this article as a guest. If you are a subscriber, please sign in. If you aren't, please subscribe below and get access to the entire Harper's archive for only $45.99/year. Or purchase this issue on your iOS or Android devices for $6.99.

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Download Pdf
teaches English at the University of Virginia. His book Why Teach? will be out this fall from Bloomsbury.

More from Mark Edmundson:

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

  • Beard Steel

    Al gore rhythm

    I struggle to legalize my third eye

    And wish to insure it

    May it marry itself and serve openly

    As a patriot carrying a sword of transparency

    We have travel destinations reenacting atrocities quaint

    To the bleeding addicts chewing on their heart leather

    Cathartic calluses rubbed, picked, scratched, and pinched

    Or burned clean by alcohol derivatives

    We can find peak oil at the freshest layer

    Analytically rendered into all forms of moveable pink slime

    My time and my people fear most

    Of shadow that doesn’t follow

    When what we want is to be heard or however listened in on

    So we can lament upon our watchmen but if are watcher is


    I wish to be there like a search result

  • Jerry

    Great article. He’s not in the mainstream by any means, but the writer Emile Benoit seems to be someone you might be interested reading

  • Frank Gaik

    The poet W. B. Yeats did not always “hedge,” especially when he called nearly all of Ireland “base-born products of base beds,” but if Mark Edmundson is looking for oracular clarity, he won’t find it in “Easter 1916.” “Wherever green is worn” is a restrictive modifier; the Easter rebels carried the tri-color, not the green flag of the more radical IRB. And how can anyone parse the advocacy out of “a terrible beauty is born,” certainly one of the most oxymoronic phrases in poetry? That’s why Maud Gonne called it a tepid drip.
    Edmundson might find a D’Annunzio or Jean Paul among his contemporaries who share a cultural pessimism (and feed it?), but lines from Yeats and Lowell, who joy in dismissing the common herd, will never attain greatness. Neither Homer nor Shakespeare did that. Robert Haas, so easily dismissed, articulates the tentative epistemology of our time; we Americans lack indignation because we lack enemies. That’s no loss.
    Frank Gaik
    Long Beach, CA.

  • HobbyArtist

    A discussion of quality requires a framework of analysis. The framework I learned at the University of British Columbia is:

    1. What is the MOOD of the poem? i.e., sad, happy, angry?

    2. What is the THEME of the poem? i.e., what does the author have to say?

    3. What is the STRUCTURE of the poem? i.e., sonnet, or freestyle etc.?

    4.What are the CLEVER DETAILS of the poem? i.e., similie, metaphor,etc?

    5. Is the work SCALABLE? i.e., Are all of the above EASILY UNDERSTOOD, IMPORTANT and considered WELL DONE by both the average person and the scholar?

    A work needs to pass all 5 of these tests to be called good. In this context,

    I read Mr. Edmunson’s article as arguing that the works of acclaimed American poets, and their respective publishing houses, fail most of these tests. And I think he may be correct, if we ask whether most of the works of America’s most lauded poets are scalable, while presuming that they should be.

    In the Huffington Post, Seth Abrahmson, challenges Mr. Edmunson, but fails to address the issue of quality analysis with much depth. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Abrahmson’s point I think, is that despite the group think and nepotism that grips many of our incumbent poetry establishments, people continue to write poetry and enjoy it for its own sake. Again, I don’t think Mr. Abrahmson addresses the matter of quality analysis by simply listing all the many ways people participate in poetry, but I do concur that so much participation feels good. His article is here:

    Cordially, EP Tangas,

    Author of the Epic Fantasy Poem, Poepi & the Giant, which is on the kindle and free online.


  • Moshe

    I found this essay remarkably well argued.

  • wwillis
  • lulu

    Edmundson’s article on poetry sparkled for me because I needed to hear another person say what happened to poetry in the U.S.? I read the two poems in the New Yorker dutifully and I think with the exception of a rescued Brodsky who is it that chooses these dull bits of internal digressions written as though something of consequence is being uttered. I think he is a courageous man because you have to whisper the truth lately behind closed doors almost about everything.

  • disqus_aO4KJtxZtF
  • Michael Boughn

    This piece can only make sense if you ignore completely the history of art (assuming Mr. Edmunson considers poetry an art) in the 20th century. He seems to think of poetry as a genteel exposition of ideas for people of good taste (and, presumably, breeding). Harpers should be ashamed for aligning itself with such reactionary nonsense.

  • tedburke

    The “out of touch” accusation is
    legitimately up for debate, especially what that nondescript thing it is poets
    are supposed to be in “touch” with to begin with, but the charge that
    poetry is obscure misses the point. Edmundson sounds repulsed that modern in
    this country has become more difficult in many ways , that the clear
    vision of someone who can truly sees as they are, without filters, is instead
    beset by clouds. It’s the other way around because when it works, poetry is a
    case of the thing that was formerly being seen finally being given definition
    although, in the initial perception, that set of elements, the newly
    connections between items that were unknown until the poet’s discovery of them,
    is unrecognizable. Piety is about giving names to things that refuse, so far,
    to have them.

    Poetry is poetry precisely because it is
    more obscure in expression than even the most knotted prose style; it’s safe to
    say that poetry from as early as we decided to subject it to critical agendas
    has been praised for its ability to avail the poet and thus the reader to
    witness connections between things–human kind and its experience in the world,
    whatever ideological or spiritual dogma informs the monologue– that clean
    syntax and standardized reason would not.

    The trick Edmundson
    tries to pull is Intimidation through Erudition–the sheer speed and volume of
    the writers he cites as evidence of his perceived trend toward obscurity and
    “being out of touch” and those he mentions favorably are located in
    the essay to impress, not substantiate. The problem is basically that his
    subject is too large–American Poetry has a rich and praiseworthy tradition of
    “difficult” poets and poetry who require more contextualized
    discussion, and that it is the tendency of serious poets, generally speaking,
    to address their ideas in ways that challenge conventional language use. He
    speaks of “us” and other tropes of so-called “real world”
    touchstones that are ignored in too much modern poetry, proceeding blindly (and
    blandly) under the assumption that everyone’s experience of the world is popped
    from the same mold. This amounts as an insult to poetry itself and speaks to
    the limitations of Edmundson’s imagination. He makes me think of someone who
    grabbed too many things from Supermarket aisles who thought he could shop
    without a basket; the results is that half of what he tries to bring to the
    cashier is dropped in his carelessness and haste.

    The irony of the long battle for concrete
    and clear expression in poetry only gives rise to new forms of obscurity, for
    the most part. For all the modernist talk of addressing objects directly, free
    of literary baggage and abstraction–no ideas but in things, etc–we have
    instead new forms of obscurity. But obscurity is a loaded word and I think what
    Edmundson objects to is ambiguity; whichever one you choose and whatever kind
    of poetry you’re dealing with, whether light bulb bare or elephantine and
    dressed in relentlessly hard to place analogies, a reader still needs to work
    through the poets filters and conceits and put the pieces together. The cry
    against obscurity, per se, is a straw man–what really counts is discerning and
    judging how well one uses that innate ambiguity/obscurity, and that is a
    discussion that needs an actual frame work.

    My basic criteria is how well the poet
    uses this freedom, this allowance to be off center and slightly vague in his or
    her argument; does the writer give us a sense of what they are getting at in
    terms of the memorable, the truly unforgettable, are they original in metaphor
    and simile, are they a pleasure to parse, or are they merely another slog
    through trope-heavy ineptitude? Edmundson’s point is a non starter since he
    insists that obscurity ought “never” to be part of a how poetry is defined,
    and that the principal aim of any valid poetry is to bring “clarity”
    to its subject. This is a plainly, baldly, stupidly reductionist argument that
    denies that the world has changed dramatically since the era before prose forms
    usurped poetry’s standing as the dominant narrative form, and that the ways of
    thinking of the world, of perceiving the bigger picture hasn’t been effected by
    the ongoing flux of new technologies, economic orders, long and bloody
    wars, natural disasters. Where role of art, poetry included, was to reconcile
    the human race’s bad fortune with religious dogma and the like (which promised
    both purpose and coherence if a subtly and not so subtly shackled population
    remained complacent and accepted the status quo), the influx of
    rapid change, due, perhaps, with the invention of moveable type and the
    increase of literacy and the general rise of expectations among workers and
    middle class in their lifetime, not the ones waiting for them in a theoretical
    heaven, the world came to seen as less definite, less clear, in need of a more
    subjective response in order to connect the raw edge of one’s experience
    against their expectations. Art changed in turn, a natural and right response
    to the general dialectic that I believe history orders itself as. Edmundson
    wants the world to remain fixed in the old Platonic notion that there is an
    immutable reality behind the mere appearances of

    This world and that poetry must continue
    to seduce us to describe an Ideal that is more perfect, more real (for that
    matter) than what we have in front of us. This default metaphysics is wishful
    thinking and a strained argument for the dominance of the sort of window-pane
    clarity he insists on–it is a dangerous argument because rather than doing the
    real intellectual spade work of discussing, dissecting, digressing and
    discerning what is valuable, interesting, notable, entertaining, awful,
    ordinary, clichéd, trite , contrived among the many varieties of poetic forms
    available to us, he would simply wish that the last four or five hundred
    years of the modern era never took place; it is a dangerous idea to try to roll
    back people’s thinking back to before the 16th century. I hardly like
    every “modern” and “obscure” poem I read–I dislike most poems
    I come across–but the point is to develop an ongoing critical response where
    qualities of worth and mediocrity are made clearer with regards to the
    way the diverse majority of us actually live. What Edmundson proposes is taking
    us to a land where dead things and ideas, so called, carry more weight than
    what is alive, witty, interesting because of the élan that makes it
    unpredictable. Edmundson doesn’t want to start discussions, he wants to end

    A localized, qualitative criticism would
    be better for getting people interested in poets and their work; this debate,
    about the vitality or sterility of American Poetry, speaks broadly, too broadly
    on either side. So broad that much is much is undisguised and the point finely
    lost. Who are these people yelling into their cell phones about the price
    of multigrain bread? What does the bread taste like?


October 2015

Lives by Omission

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Lifting as We Climb

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Cattle Calls

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Getting Jobbed

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

Please enjoy this free article from Harper’s Magazine.