Chris Lott at Cosmopoetica has been doing a great job reading his way through the latest Best American Poetry volume, edited by David Wagoner. I was so taken with his close reading of the Terrance Hayes‘s poem “A House is not a Home” that I dove into the comment stream with this observation:
I have to be honest: the first two sentences of your post led me to expect a close reading of a single poem—and sure enough, you delivered! No thumping of this or that Theory drum, just a thoughtful response to the words on the page. I’m old fashioned enough to believe that this approach is the ultimate modeling of reading well, which we (poets and readers) need more of. So much poetry commentary seems to be little more than claims based on other claims based on what some dead philosopher of language dreamed up while mincing the experience of language as if it were an onion—or not an onion, but the fantasy of a denatured onion: no surface, no layers, no core, just a cloud of thought-particles that leave criticism no task other than parsing the cloud-chamber traces. Thanks for reminding us that writing and reading are after all human activities, a give and take, ultimately a relationship between the poet and the reader. You know: those creatures with hands and eyes and breath….
I don’t know if Chris agrees with my stance on Theory, which I’ve perhaps overly documented on The Perpetual Bird (my term for it is the Poetic-Critical Complex, a distinguished from the more legitimate Poetics), but I do know he’s the kind of person most poets would love to have reading their work. I especially like that he is open enough to let re-readings change his opinion of a poem. After all, isn’t re-reading what poems are designed to inspire? In any case, his approach is one reason I placed Cosmopoetica on my dozen best blogs list!