Fjords Reviews

HOME | BOOK REVIEWS | Verse for the Averse: a Review of Ben Lerner’s The Hatred of Poetry
Verse for the Averse: a Review of Ben Lerner’s The Hatred of Poetry
Share Button

 

Fjords Review, Verse for the Averse: a Review of Ben Lerner’s The Hatred of Poetry

September 07, 2016

LITERARY CRITICISM THE HATRED OF POETRY By BEN LERNER

Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016
86 pages
ISBN: 978-0-86547-820-6

 

by Robert Detman

 

Verse for the Averse: a Review of Ben Lerner’s The Hatred of Poetry

The health of an art form is the fortress which invites attack, and is often the precursor of proclamations of its demise. Assessing the forces against contemporary poetry, award winning poet and MacArthur genius Ben Lerner, in his book length essay The Hatred of Poetry, offers a critique and a defense of poetry, as well as a rebuke to those who would herald poetry’s decline. The expansive essay offers a welcome discourse on contemporary poetry with Lerner admitting, with some winsomeness, that he has no love for the discipline himself.

Lerner takes on cultural commentators from George Packer in the New Yorker, to Mark Edmundson, in Harper’s, who in their own polemics have slighted contemporary poetry’s relevance for a mass public. For roughly half the long essay, Lerner thrills in going after these figures who want to limit the notion of the poet to something like the anachronistic voice of a prelapsarian America. These are the critics whom, Lerner explains, believe Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass to be “a kind of secular bible for American Democracy.”

Lerner attempts to disabuse this strain of Whitman centric culture of its shallow calculus. At the same time, by abandoning stale and limiting notions of American poetry and poetics in general, Lerner reveals he’s an ur-Feminist who embraces the no less beloved Emily Dickinson and her emphatic dashes, as well as the subtleties of Claudia Rankine and her consciously mislabeled “lyric poetry”. Built into Lerner’s critique is the intensive formal analysis of several poems, including a psychological survey of Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” and a merciless deconstruction of William Topaz McGonagall's feeble "The Tay Bridge Disaster."

Having grown up in the shadow of the “politically correct” culture wars—he was born in 1979–Lerner embodies a generous spirit and openness in his essay, as he attempts to update how poetry should be received. Curiously, though Lerner feels uncomfortable with the muddying of poetry with politics, so many of his examples bear out how poetry and politics seem inextricably fused, while the whimsy of the book’s title points at more glancing personal issues.

Highlighting the hypocrisy of Mark Edmundson’s insistence in Harper’s that contemporary poets should speak with a universal voice, Lerner defends the idiosyncrasies of individuality. “You can hate contemporary poetry—in any era—as much as you want for failing to realize the fantasy of universality, but the haters should stop pretending any poem ever successfully spoke for everyone.”

As in his poetry, Lerner infuses the autobiographical into his essay. He admits to making the uncomfortable admission to semi-strangers that he is a poet, and then confronting their skepticism (his dentist narrows his eyes at Lerner’s profession, revealing that the man wouldn’t recognize a poem if it was in front of him). One might surmise that the embarrassment Lerner faces is at not merely being a poet, but an eminently successful one—try explaining that to your dentist.

Like a bad conscience, the skeptic’s voice peppers the essay with asides: “Couldn’t you get a real job?” These weaken Lerner’s argument, potentially undermining them with too much self-deprecation. “I, too, dislike it,” Lerner says, to quote the many times quoted Marianne Moore, in regards to poetry. Rather than buttressing his argument, this musing functions as if a reminder to himself to not take this all so seriously.

Lerner is a Rock Star of the literary world. And by the standards of poetic renown, he is on par with the figures he discusses. His unprecedented popularity as a novelist, and as a legitimate, highly lauded, poet, makes him unique. To use a parlance more befitting of pop stars, he’s a “triple threat.” Lerner might want to speak for everyone, and here the poet as populist becomes the voice of poetry nation, the village explainer. Yet Lerner’s discussion can read as if it is more academic than populist. Still, Lerner is aware that poetry should be, and is—the writing and the consumption of it—available to all. And the paradox of poetry’s eminence provides Lerner much opportunity for analytical hand-wringing.

To situate Lerner’s polemic within the tradition of poetic discourse, one can turn to The Norton Anthology of Postmodern American Poetry (which, incidentally, includes a section on Lerner) and notice that over the decades that make up the post-modern era, roughly from the 1950s until the present, poets have been inclined to write formal accounts of poetics. To the mildly curious, these writings can appear cryptic; to the initiated, the exhortations within can seem as if manifestos to the most extreme of dogmas. Lerner’s essay works a conservative and populist variation of one of these statements. Though firmly entrenched in a contemporary tradition, even experimental, in his poetry, he offers straight up discussions of the mechanics involved in understanding poems.

As bad as a poet may be, Lerner will defend their right to produce poetry. But he takes no prisoners. Ever the professor, Lerner shows his poet's education and details, humorously, just how bad a bad poem can be. Discussing "The Tay Bridge Disaster", he says: "There are a million ways to attack McGonagall's attempt at elegy, but crucial for me is how, just as he seems incapable of counting prosodic stresses, there is something disturbingly (and yet comically) off about his strategy for measuring lives and time. "I am very sorry to say" is a very sorry expression of sorrow [...]"

In its purest manifestation, Lerner writes, “Poetry arises from the desire to get beyond the finite and the historical—the human world of violence and difference—and to reach the transcendent or divine.” Nonetheless, the reader feels the barrage of Lerner’s doubts in being up to the task.

Lerner is ambitious, and probably feels the irony of his bona fides just enough to voice doubt that poems, and poets, transform, and transcend, the ordinary. “Most of us carry at least a weak sense of a correlation between poetry and human possibility that cannot be realized by poems.” A poem is a form of aspiration. What is any art but the aspiration to what is possible? That transcendent impulse, the moment of inspiration that the poet covets, draws him back to the page to try again.

Throughout the essay, Lerner returns to the notion of the virtual, how poetry in its ideal form, is an impossible goal. He admits:

Reading in my admittedly desultory way across the centuries, I have come to believe that a large part of the appeal of the defense as a genre is that it is itself a kind of virtual poetry—it allows you to describe the virtues of poetry without having to write poems that have succumbed to the bitterness of the actual.

As a final mild concession, Lerner says, echoing his own essay, of course: “Hating on actual poems, then, is often an ironic if sometimes unwitting way of expressing the persistence of the utopian ideal of Poetry, and the jeremiads in that regard are defenses, too.”

It’s as if Lerner—who wanted his work to be revolutionary, as noted in a reflection about his youth discovering poetry in Topeka, earnestly believed the early clichés of his teachers (That voice again, pre-skeptic: “You’re a poet and you don’t even know it”). But he is already so far removed from the legion of poetic everyman, that his essay can’t help but seem an unexpected artifact, and yet a welcome and invigorating discussion, and one to be duly charmed by. It may even be revolutionary.

Archives

Dear Everyone by Matt Shears

Magic City Gospel by Ashley M. Jones

Intimacy by Stanley Crawford

Lunch Poems by Deborah Kuan

The Best American Poetry 2016

One with the Tiger by Steven Church

Crosstalk by Connie Willis

The King of White Collar Boxing by David Lawrence

They Were Coming for Him by Berta Vias-Mahou

That Other Me by Maha Gargash

Simone by Eduardo Lalo

Swimming by Karl Luntt

Ghost/ Landscape by Kristina Marie Darling and John Gallaher

Enchantment Lake by Margi Preus

Bad Light by Carlos Castán

Diaboliques by Jules Barbey d’Aurevilly

Staying Alive by Laura Sims

Core of the Sun by Johanna Sinisalo

Fireflies by John Leland

Maze of Blood by Marly Youmans

Tender the Maker by Christina Hutchkins

Little Anodynes by Jon Pineda

Conjuror by Holly Sullivan McClure

Someone's Trying To Find You by Marc Augé

The Four Corners of Palermo by Giuseppe Di Piazza

Now You Have Many Legs to Stand On by Ashley-Elizabeth Best

The Darling by Lorraine M. López

How To Be Drawn by Terrance Hayes

Watershed Days: Adventures (A Little Thorny and Familiar) in the Home Range by Thorpe Moeckel

[INSERT] BOY by Danez Smith

Demigods on Speedway by Aurelie Sheehan

Find Me by Laura Van Den Berg

Singing Bones by Kate Schmitt

Knuckleball by Tom Pitts

Wandering Time by Luis Alberto Urrea

Teaching a Man to Unstick His Tail by Ralph Hamilton

Domenica Martinello: The Abject in the Interzones

Control Bird Alt Delete by Alexandria Peary

Twelve Clocks by Julie Sophia Paegle

Love You To a Pulp by C.S. DeWildt

Even Though I Don’t Miss You by Chelsea Martin

Women by Chloe Caldwell

Fifteen Dogs by Andre Alexis

ESSAY 2:12 A.M. by Kat Meads

Revising The Storm by Geffrey Davis

Quality Snacks by Andy Mozina

Midnight in Siberia by David Greene

Strings Attached by Diane Decillis

Down from the Mountaintop: From Belief to Belonging by Joshua Dolezal

American Neolithic by Terence Hawkins

The New Testament by Jericho Brown

You Don't Know Me by James Nolan

Phoning Home: Essays by Jacob M. Appel

Words We Might One Day Say by Holly Karapetkova

Murder by Danielle Collobert

Sorrow by Catherine Gammon

The Americans by David Roderick

Put Your Hands In by Chris Hosea

I Think I Am in Friends-Love With You by Yumi Sakugawa

Third Wife by Jiri Klobouk

box of blue horses by Lisa Graley

Review of Hilary Plum’s They Dragged Them Through the Streets

The Sleep of Reason by Morri Creech

The Hush before the Animals Attack by Carol Matos

Regina Derieva, In Memoriam by Frederick Smock

Review of The House Began to Pitch by Kelly Whiddon

Hill William by Scott McClanahan

Seamus Heaney Aloft

The Bounteous World by Frederick Smock

Review of The Tide King by Jen Michalski

Going Down by Chris Campanioni

Review of Empire in the Shade of a Grass Blade by Rob Cook

Review of The Day Judge Spencer Learned the Power of Metaphor

Review of The Figure of a Man Being Swallowed by a Fish

Review of Life Cycle Poems by Dena Rash Guzman

Review of Saint X by Kirk Nesset

Review of Jessica Treadway's Please Come Back to Me

Eve Asks by Christine Redman-Waldeyer