At what point in our foojed-up history did poetry become about alienating your audience completely? I swear, this poet reminded me of Joseph Conrad.
At one level, I understand there’s a desire to generate and read a text that is densely packed with layers and symbols, to be decoded and interpreted in a variety of ways. But when it gets to the point where anything could mean literally anything, and it takes ten times as long to make sense of the poem than it did for the poet to actually write it, then it begins to remind me of two things: religion, and bullshit. Yes, despite their similarities, I’m keeping those two things separate today. I have enough to rant about.
I just believe that things should make sense as you read them. It’s all well and good that it can make MORE sense later, after much cogitation and reflection, but for the love of Jebus, and all that is Boly, it should make SOME sense when you first read it. But no – it’s about that feeling you get when you hear the words. The sights matching the sounds, and the sounds matching the sense and all that. Those associations you may, or may not have. In my case I almost never have them. I’m all for the sound matching the sense, but my question is: Where did the sense go?
I think, in the end, I did find his poetry inspiring, (as seen in the poem published a half hour ago, but perhaps only in spite of it. Actually, there is one thing in his poem that I liked. He compared the 9/11 terrorist attack on the twin towers to the circumcision of a baby’s penis. That’s right. Osama circumcised New York!