There really isn’t a place for the middlebrow in poetry publishing.
I don’t like ranking people’s tastes by their supposed expanse of forehead. First, it’s mainly marketing, defining us by how we spend. Second, we’re all more mixed than that. I’m more adventurous about food than music, for instance: I like edgy vegetables and songs with round corners. I am attracted to weird art but have zero interest in experimental novels. I don’t even know how to describe my taste in poetry. Yet an artist-friend has been sending me links to articles on middlebrow art, including the recent New York Times piece. And at the same time I’ve been helping an acquaintance with a poetry manuscript and thinking, “in fiction, there would be a place for this.” Her book retells a politically complicated historical episode in a straightforward style, shifting from speaker to speaker with nary a qualm about appropriation. No lacunae, ellipses, apologetic verbal hedges about the fundamental inaccessibility of the past. Yet the writer, while not versed in the politics of contemporary verse, is ultra-competent, with a long multigenre publishing resume. It’s not that she’s writing badly. She’s just not writing for me.
Fiction does this all the time: storytelling depends on imagining points of view one person can’t truly access. Fiction I’d call literary does this very persuasively, with psychological and intellectual sophistication, in prose full of surprises. Fiction I’d call popular is more predictable, from its similes to its characters and plot, but I read my share of it and I’m glad it’s out there.
There is some range in recently published poetry collections. Some are much, much more abstruse than others, yet even the most approachable are still literary in their values. And unless you’re a former US Poet Laureate, you’re probably finding it increasingly hard to publish narrative verse in a straightforward, grammatical style.
My poetry predilections are probably highbrow, because I’m nerdily delighted when I cut my fingers on the edges of a stanza. But among the poets I meet through publishing and conferences and festivals, I feel kinda lowbrow. I’m attracted to story, and if a poem doesn’t show the author’s attention to potential readers–eagerness to be interesting, willingness to come clean about what’s at stake–I put it down and go back to poetry that seems to want my company. My own feeling of resisting certain avant-garde pieties, however, is relative to a tiny, poetry-obsessed readership, because there isn’t much of a general audience for contemporary takes on this particular art form.
It’s different for Dickinson, Frost, Eliot, Hughes, etc–non-poetry-specialists do read older verse. I’m talking about print, too, and books in particular. Poetry readings can have big, open-minded audiences–I hear accessible, middlebrow poetry more often than I read it. In slam, there’s plenty of popular stuff a professor might deem bad, and that’s good. When an art’s healthy, there’s a big enough range in contemporary practice that there’s no way one person would appreciate all of it. For instance, I can go to an art house film if I want, or sink into a high-box-office 3D noisefest, because the movies are still for everyone.
I wish there were more room for poetry books that might be called middlebrow or lowbrow or accessible or populist, stuff you don’t have to be an insider to get. My own favorite field, as in the novel, is crossover stuff: literary fiction that flirts with mystery or thriller; fantasy that’s smart and well-written. I want more poetry that works at both levels, too–highly readable but sharp and worth lingering over. But how likely is that, when the poetic equivalent of popular fiction can’t find a friendly curator or a book-buying audience? Everything is aimed at the cognoscenti.
Well, that’s enough big-foreheadism. The advance of August always lowers the hairline, but it’s worse for the woman resigning herself to a stint as department head: I have advising sheets to revise, after all, and capstone sections to sort. Time for the mid-career middle-aged medium-height poet to muddle back in the midden of middle management.
8 responses to “No middlebrow for poetry”
My lovely wife Ann forwarded this to me; it saddened me. I don’t divide poetry by brow, nor try to write high brow poetry, but only good poetry. Because I stay current, I know we are in a golden age of contemporary poetry, much of it by feminists who are making poems in genius machines. One is linked below.
All good poetry is narrative. The poet follows a trail he/she discovers in a line to come, and the end, as Karl Shapiro said, explodes into meaning. If the work isn’t understood by every reader, from plumber to professor, the poet–not the reader– has failed.
I’d qualify the point that all good poetry is narrative by countering that yes, most of it is, but some of it is argument instead. Those seem to me like unavoidable rhetorical structures, if you want to sustain reader interest.
Funny I should see your post today, because I was just recently describing my new book to someone as “Uni-brow poetics”
I love this. I posted mine last night. We obviously came to similar conclusions.
Sent from my iPad
Post a link, Carolyn! I just went looking for your blog and couldn’t find it–I had some kind of problem when I tried to follow it after the first post.
Interesting. As a poet, I am probably middlebrow writer (I am told my work is ‘accessible.’) As a blogger and reader, I tend toward the highbrow, I suppose. What does that make me, I wonder?
I’m not even sure where the boundaries are, though. Is Stephen King high-middlebrow, and Stephanie Meyers middle-middle? If so, I don’t know how to be–I have some skills, but not the ones necessary to write a poetry book with mass appeal.