Ron Silliman: the poets, there are too many of them, yes?
As numbers overwhelm, the post-modern panic continues. Marjorie Perloff began the stampede with her recent essay, “Poetry on the Brink.” Ron Silliman is the latest to weigh in on the subject of “Too Many Poets?” In his 2/15 blog post, Silliman mourns the fact that Paul Hoover’s Norton Anthology of American Post Moderns had to chuck 47 poets for its 2nd edition, as it added 59, and is still far short of being representative. Even as he suggests a “wikipoets” website to include tons of contemporary poets, Silliman ruefully admits it would fail to hold interest due to its size.
How “Quietist” of the Avant-Garde!
“Include-Everything-Crackpot-ism” bows to reality!
The “open” is becoming “closed!”
Silliman’s dire report makes the usual distinction between “post-moderns” and “quietists.”
Silliman dutifully lists names, and it would seem—is it possible?—that names are all he is really interested in.
As he grappled with the logistics of “too many poets,” not once did Silliman, in trying to ascertain how we might manage the glut, not once was there the slightest suggestion that perhaps we might ask: how many representative poems belong to all of these “names?”
Perhaps that’s asking a lot. But when Silliman, assessing the Norton anthology choices, assured his readers several times that these poets were all “totally qualified names,” how does he know this—except by knowing their poems? When Silliman makes his distinction between poets who are “good”—opposed to mere ”politics and taste,” this ”good” surely is determined by the poetry?
How trustworthy is the critic who ranks poets, but is unable to rank poems? Not very, we would say. We will grant that Silliman knows poems as well as poets, and he focused on poets simply because of space requirements—but we may be excused if we shift the focus a little bit in our limited space here.
We know that avant-garde critics prefer poetry to poems, since the latter implies (horror!) ”Quietist Anthology,” but even the wooliest of the avant-garde cannot escape the question: is this X’s poem, or is it not?
Denying a desire for canon or anthology is like denying a desire for sex. We submit the avants have raging hard-ons as much as the ”quietists” do.
Silliman, getting all gloomy on the glut, counts 56 poets (that doesn’t seem that many to us) who are in both editions of Paul Hoover’s Norton Post-Modern anthology.
There were 47 poets removed from the second edition (Bill Corbett, Charles Bukowski, David Lehman, David Shapiro, Jack Kerouac, Jerome Rothenberg, James Laughlin, Robert Kelly, Russell Edson, Tom Clark, Barrett Watten, John Weiners) and 59 added (Bin Ramke, C.D. Wright, Cole Swensen, Don Revell, Fanny Howe, Forrest Gander, G.C. Waldrep, Noah Eli Gordon, Peter Gizzi, Susan Wheeler) so that’s a grand total 162 “totally qualified names” of post-modern poets for Silliman, excluding about “500 Quietist Poets.” Then Silliman provides a long list of poets—just off the top of his head—he thinks worthy of inclusion in the Norton post-modern anthology (Cid Corman, Curtis Faville, Dorothea Lasky, Joy Harjo, Juliana Spahr, Kent Johnson, Leonard Cohen, Margaret Atwood, Patti Smith, Rachel Blau Du Plessis, Robin Blaser) and so we end up with roughly 300 Post-Modern and 500 Quietist “totally qualified names” for Ron Silliman.
Eight hundred (or a thousand poets) is a big book, but we don’t see how the numbers should be cause for despair.
After all, hasn’t there always been more poems published than we can read at our leisure?
Further, shouldn’t we admit that there will always be this division: 1. Major Canon, 2. Minor Canon, 3. Anthology, 4. Critical Inventory, 5. All Published Poets, 6. All Poets?
Avants like Perloff and Silliman complaining of a “glut” are simply waging war on Anthology-ism and Quietism, while at the same time excusing their own “quietist” activity: ‘well, after all, there must be some kind of gleaning process! (psst! avants want to be famous, too).’
But let’s be clear.
1. Yes, there are many poems being published, but there is no poetry glut.
2. Critics are still responsible for assembling a canon—just like always.
3. The canon should be based on poems, not names or cliques.
4. Silliman’s ”post-modern” poets are really not that different from the so-called “quietists.” All poets write poems to be read, enjoyed and judged.
You’re welcome.
