Paul Vermeersch Considers Intent
November 21st, 2009 § Leave a Comment
It seems that poet and editor Paul Vermeersch has been following the reviewing fiasco and has decided to throw his own opinion into the hat. Thus far his argument seems to engage more with the nature of criticism and the actual text of a book than the person of the author or reviewer. When a review strays from this he sees it as lacking in good critical practice. Vermeersch’s take on the idea of authorial intent is much as I see it: not about getting in the writer’s head (which is inevitably impossible), but assessing the work’s message, meaning, and purpose as presented in the text itself. The intent of a well written work should be discernable and supported by the writer’s craft, style, technique, and creativity. How these are used, or misused, can be assessed, not what magical series of thoughts (what s/he was “trying to do”) had circled in the author’s head at the time of writing.
Poetry is more than mere building blocks; it’s communication, and all communication has a purpose, which to say it has intent. In critical discourse, engaging with “intent” has more to do with understanding how the poetry works within its given mode, understanding how a text has been assembled and reading it with an eye towards understanding its purpose, its message, and its content. For example, one would not (should not) measure a poem by E.E. Cummings with the same material yardstick one would use to measure a poem by Robert Frost, or whichever two dissimilar poets you might choose. The two poets have a different ethos, a different project, a different way of communicating, a different “intent” that is expressly manifest in their work.
Anyway, quite a good post that I recommend you read if you haven’t yet seen it. You can find the entire post here.
Nature of Criticism
November 20th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
I’ve been getting wrapped up in this issue of reviewing and criticism lately. It’s a big debate right now in the Canadian poetry scene and one that, due to the various levels of disagreement and animosity, needs to be discussed. I’ve posted on another blog, in some limited way, my own opinions on reviewing and have tried to avoid slipping off the issue and into the gutter-talk on the side. Some people I’ve read have managed this while others have not.
My good friend Jake Mooney has been following from the sidelines as well. He’s become quite concerned about these talks, not so much for the people involved, but what it’s doing to criticism in the Canadian sphere. He’s posted what’s almost a plea to those involved hoping that however this polarization in the writing world is resolved (if that’s even possible) it be done in a professional way. The debating has, at times, sunken into the pits of insult and nastiness, which to my mind negates the arguments of those involved. How can these sides be taken seriously if they throw all decorum out the window?
Jake’s post is likely to ruffle some feathers on all sides, but it’s coming from a well intentioned place, that of fair and progressive criticism. I for one can’t fault him for that.