Tuesday, August 13, 2013

does anyone take this 'metamodernist' poetry seriously at all?

(e.g. http://www.inknode.com/piece/1881-seth-abramson-from-em-the-metamodernist-em / http://www.brooklynrail.org/2013/07/poetry/seth-abramson ) 

I'm suspicious that we've even begun to go beyond modernism--labels like "metamodernism" function as brands that let us know that the poetry is both 'new' and 'sincere' and devoid of irony, a kind of "romantic pragmatism" (whatever that means). They propose a movement "unhindered by ideological anchorage," but the proposal already functions as ideological anchorage itself--otherwise, why have a manifesto at all?

David Foster Wallace was wrong: irony is not simply a postmodern posture but rather an intrinsic part of the way in which we read every text. Modernism was not simply a movement that occurred (and which we now need to get over), but is a part of the way in which normal people function in everyday life: we go to the grocery store, we drive cars, we go back and sleep in our homes, etc.

While things like the radio, television, internet, cheaper travel, cheaper homes, "democracy," certainly make this more complicated, enough so that we might feel the need to use the word "postmodern" to describe some of these particular cultural problems or problems within modernism, I think it's a mistake to just describe it as a linear succession of movements--in a way that just falls back into the modernist agenda with its assumptions about the "progression" of art and culture. I guess don't really have any strong feelings for or against the poetry but I find myself suspicious and confused about the label.

Friday, August 2, 2013

23 People Who Will Make You Care About Poetry in 2013


1. Tan Lin
2. Tan Lin
3. Tan Lin
4. Tan Lin
5. Tan Lin
6. Tan Lin
7. Tan Lin
8. Tan Lin
9. Tan Lin
10. Tan Lin
11. Tan Lin
12. Tan Lin
13. Tan Lin
14. Tan Lin
15. Tan Lin
16. Tan Lin
17. Tan Lin
18. Tan Lin
19. Tan Lin
20. Tan Lin
21. Tan Lin
22. Tan Lin
23. Tan Lin