In these essays, Charles Bernstein addresses the attitudes and the way in which postmodern poetry is received. He preserves a critical and lamentable tone toward what seems to him devastating and demeaning views that intellectuals, poets and organizations and institutions interested in poetry versification express toward the new form of poetry. Attacks on this poetry stem from its assumed complexity which makes it hard for readers to enjoy reading it. This in return affects the marketability of this poetry which cause recessions in the presses’ and publication houses’ business. What is notable in these attacks is that they are encapsulate the poem as a commodity, not interested in its aesthetics effects or value. Thus, a good poem is that one which easy to read and by which the reader can the reader can experience joy and ecstasy. However, the new emerging poems is called “debt-poems” and “illiquid, insolvent, and troubled poems.” All the adjectives used to describe this poetry are usually used in business context to describe the ineffectiveness of a certain to generate much profits, and so does this poetry in the poetry versification industry. One more thing about this poetry is that it deviates from the norms and conventions of traditional poetry. This trend is problematic in the sense it causes “a massive loss in the confidence in the part of readers.”
In “Against National Poetry Month As Such” Bernstein maintains the same tone. He also addresses the idea of the poem, the reader and the marketability of the poem. The disingenuous thing here is that the poem is valued in terms of its sellability and its competence in winning the interests of more readers. Therefore, Bernstein expresses his contempt to what seems to be an institutionally organized movement against “unpopular poetry,” or unsafe poetry for the sake of the more “safe” and “mainstream” conventional poetry. This trend is justified on the grounds that this new emerging poetry, besides its economic failure, articulates negative morals for the readers. On the other side, Bernstein sees that good poetry is what offers something unconventional and different. Good poetry has not necessary to be readable or accessible by wide range of ordinary readers. The whole thing for Bernstein is the idea of innovation and merging poetry with media and in this way poetry becomes really “matters”
I think Berstein is against the simple and easy accesible poetry. However, what he offers as a solution to atract the mass readers does not match the idea he suggests. He wants to lift the dignity of poetry, by erasing dome other “bad” poetry. But, How can he decide that some poems are good but some of them are bad? Bernstein reminds me Pluto who banishes the poetry for some irrational reasons centuries ago. I think it is okay if you dislike some forms of art, but you cannot banish them or ignore their presence.
Hediye,
I completely agree with you. he rails against a simple and readable poetry and the sort of poetry he aspires is a more complex one no matter if readers understand it or not. I think you are also right by questioning the ground of his judgment. however, I think that his repudiation of marketable and easy poetry is for ethical and taste reasons, that this poetry demeans poetry and poets in general.
Issam and Hediye, I believe that Charles Bernstein is concerned about the political and economic power that takes control over everything including poetry. Bernstein’s attack, I think, is not on specific kind of poetry but on politics behind it. I’m not sure if this would make any difference in Hediye’s argument against him but I believe we should take this into consideration when reading for Bernstein.