24 Oct 2016

Ben Lerner: The Hatred of Poetry (A Review)



Ben Lerner is a very clever man: a poet, a novelist, and a professor of English. And so it's no real surprise to discover he's written a very clever little book on the hatred of poetry, which, he argues, is essential to the practice of writing poetry; a practice that is also destined to failure, no matter how successful certain poems might appear. For whilst it aspires to be an art of transcendence, poetry is ultimately as mortal and as mundane as everything else. Thus, as Lerner points out, the poet is always a tragic figure.

Discovering this, however, is a bitter disappointment to many practitioners and readers and it makes them rather resentful. But hate, as Lawrence says, is more often than not only love on the recoil. And so as much as Lerner claims to dislike poetry and to read it, like Marianne Moore, with a perfect contempt, he remains of course devoted to it and his book is a defence of poetry (as a space of authenticity), not an assault upon it, nor another tedious and premature announcement of its death. 

Unlike those who feel in some manner betrayed by poetry's failure to deliver on its promise, Lerner seems to rejoice in the impossibility of writing a genuinely successful (or successfully genuine) poem, i.e. a virtual as opposed to an actual verse. He has - in part at least - reconciled himself to the fact that "There is no genuine poetry; there is only, after all, and at best, a place for it." [18]

And Lerner remains determined to defend this place; not merely as an individual writer struggling with his own unique demon, but as a member of a wider human community, despite the latter often being no more than a privileged white male political fantasy - the myth of universality - as he exposes and concedes.  

Following his introductory remarks, Lerner provides fresh and insightful readings of two great poets, Keats and Emily Dickinson, who, although very different writers, nevertheless "make a place for the genuine by producing a negative image of the ideal Poem we cannot write ... [and] express their contempt for merely actual poems by developing techniques for virtualizing their own compositions ..." [51-2]

More controversially perhaps, he also makes a case for reconsidering the work of William McGonagall - thought by many to be the world's worst poet. Lerner doesn't wish to challenge this critical consensus, but, more interestingly, argue that it's the abysmal nature of his verse that gives it value:

"The horrible and the great ... have more in common than the mediocre ... or even pretty good, because they rage against the merely actual ... in order to approach ... the imaginary work that could reconcile the finite and the infinite, the individual and the communal, which can make a new world out of the linguistic materials of this one." [51-2]

Lerner then discusses Whitman. And, to his credit, he does so with the same relaxed brilliance as he discussed the other poets mentioned, concluding that Walt's great utopian project has never been - and can never be - realised.

Whitman thought he could personally embody all differences and all contradictions, could speak for one and all. But he couldn't. And Lerner's discussion of the black female poet Claudia Rankine, whose work "reflects many of the contradictory political demands made of poetry while providing a contemporary example of how a poet might strategically explore the limits of the actual" [87], explicitly tells us why this is so.

Poems, Lerner concludes, "can fulfil any number of ambitions ... can actually be funny, or lovely, or offer solace, or courage, or inspiration to certain audiences at certain times; they can play a role in constituting a community" [101-02], no matter how restricted in scale and provisional the latter might be.

But they can't rise above time, express irreducible individuality, achieve universality, defeat the more powerful language games of society, or bring about a revaluation of all values. Thus we need, if you like, to curb our enthusiasm for poetry; if we stopped expecting too much of it and persisting in our idealism, then we may possibly learn how to stop hating it too.

Indeed, if we strive in a Nietzschean fashion to consummate our hatred and perfect our contempt, then, who knows, "it might come to resemble love" [114].  


Ben Lerner, The Hatred of Poetry, (Fitzcarraldo Editions, 2016). Page numbers given in the text refer to this edition.

This post is gifted to my friend Simon Solomon as a slightly premature birthday present. 

2 comments:

  1. The desire of/for perfection/ism, self-evidently, (be it of love, hatred or anything else) betrays an idealism that risks falling on the sword of its own self-punishing ideology, even as it is, for me, also the driver of every excellence. Another question is why failure should be linked to hatred, rather than greater (and perhaps more forgiving) love. In my love for the BBC TV show, Dr Who, I don't love it any less, for the director's hilarious failure to edit out an assistant's hand supporting the chair of the evil god Sutekh in the Tom Baker story Pyramids of Mars (1975) - in fact, if anything, I love it more! 'Fail again, fail better', as Beckett famously put it.

    At the same time, however unfashionably, I would not want to assume, let alone insist, that great poetry, like all great art, cannot evoke or entertain a spirit of timeless transcendence. Classic works are classic for a reason, despite the attack on such by what Harold Bloom calls the School of Resentment. In this marvellous poem by W B Yeats, for example, we enter an aesthetic space, I would suggest with shining eyes, that is marvellously neutral as to time, which is why it can move us as much as it does the best part of a century and a half after its composition in 1893. (In other words, 'When You Are Old' just doesn't get old. The lump in the throat at the end doesn't get any less lumpy either just because human society got older.)


    When You Are Old

    When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
    And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
    And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
    Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

    How many loved your moments of glad grace,
    And loved your beauty with love false or true,
    But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
    And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

    And bending down beside the glowing bars,
    Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
    And paced upon the mountains overhead
    And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

    Source: The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats (1989)

    Curbing 'enthusiasm' [en + theos] means an attack on the gods, on fervour, on passion, i.e. everything that drives the best artists. In short, it implies, at best, signing up for the 'cult of cool', at worst, the pursuit of resentment, of hubris. Who wants that? The best works stay warm to the touch, and that's what keeps them alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid this verse by Yeats leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, rather than a lump in the throat.

      The poet is asking a beautiful young woman to imagine herself old and grey and full of regret for not reciprocating the love he offered her.

      It's thus ultimately a form of threat and an attempt to instill guilt or bad conscience: 'You'll be sorry when your looks have gone and you're all alone - I was the only one who ever truly loved you!'

      Delete