I’m not sure that CA Conrad‘s work deserves such extensive treatment (I’ve read maybe a dozen of his poems and can’t remember a thing about them except a sort of free-floating fatuity), but Curtis Faville’s consideration of the Philadelphia poet’s The Book of Frank is an intelligent exploration of Conrad’s negative example. By that I mean that it’s less about Conrad than about the poetic values that Conrad’s work fails to engage. This failure isn’t personal; it’s cultural. It springs from a certain mindset that can’t distinguish between poetry and stand-up comedy—or, more accurately, which doesn’t recognize that such a distinction exists. As a result, we are awash in poetry like Conrad’s—a kind of hipsterized entertainment that the atomized publicity engine of the Internet can easily position as art.*
Let me suggest that this mindset can be and is active in other dimensions of our culture. For example, a recent survey of GOP voters in Alabama and Mississippi revealed that half of those surveyed believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The response by pundits is to say that “Obama has a problem.” No, these voters have a problem: they suffer from a mindset that can’t distinguish information from propaganda—or, more accurately, which doesn’t recognize that such a distinction exists.
In any case, Faville’s assessment is subtle and honest, and I highly recommend it to all Perpetual Birders.
_________________
* Let me note that the Pew Center for Arts and Heritage doesn’t share my low opinion. Conrad is a recipient of one of the Center’s 2011 fellowships. This may sound disingenuous, but I have to say that I don’t begrudge Conrad this windfall. There are precious few rewards in our culture for poets, and even if it seems to me that Conrad’s poetry is bad, it’s heartening on a human level when any poet is acknowledged. Of course, I would prefer to have my tastes affirmed by elite institutions, though such judgements are often ephemeral. In a hundred years, Conrad may be seen as the 21st century Rimbaud, and readers of poetry, if there are any, will be glad to know that some prescient entity saw him for what he was.
any further and forth-with<br />dis cussion on this subject<br />via email, letter or smoke s<br />ignal<br /><br />Frank's letters to LZ in the charge of Claudia<br />so no problem, me-thinks, there.
Thanks for the heads-up on Zukofsky, Ed.<br /><br />But I'll just about pay anything to include Samperi's 50s letters to Zukofsky. They're priceless.
Conrad<br /><br />you won't be able to get permission to anything of LZ's…<br />Paul pulled-the-plug on using anything of his father's<br />(& mother's)<br /><br />even things in various archives have been "frozen" by Paul<br />who is, to say the least, difficult to work with.<br />I think that you have to pay him a fee to use anything.<br /><br />and, I offer this
Conrad, I am completely intrigued by your project. No "other shore" without <i>this</i> shore, I imagine. There is a depth of compassion and tenderness for <i>this</i> shore in Samperi that is utterly absent from the Objectivists. Assuming, of course, that I understand your terms! Anyway, I'm looking forward to the details….<br /><br />Dale—what is it with us? Those of us, I mean,
Joseph, I find this work of which I was unaware mildly encouraging. It suggests that, rather than <br />missing something relevant in so much American poetry, some much of it is irrelevant auldnd I can sleep just a bit more easily. I did talk a look CA Conrad, long as I could wth time great wings of impatience at my back, but what I came back with was, wow, really? <br /><br />Your blog,
Joseph,<br /><br />I'm working on a Samperi monograph with a view to exploring what I call the "other shore" poetics, a development of the Dantean journey to the empyrean but one told in almost the Objectivist 60s and 70s vernacular and style of the period: which is not to say Samperi's an Objectivist, far from it. What he does is turn it on its head and it's for this reason
regarding Zukofsky<br />and any possible exchanges via letters between LZ and Frank<br />well<br />Paul has pulled the plug on anyone looking over any thing of LZ<br />that was archived. Paul is very difficult to deal with.<br /><br />anything re: LZ you gotta pay him $$$ for.<br /><br />might as well drop the Lorine N / Frank S link to LZ and take their work as it is.<br /><br />I cld say more,
I once connected with this guy<br /> CA CONRAD<br /><br />I made this old joke via WC Fiels' <br /><br />Philadelphia is a nice place to visit<br />but I wouldn't want to be buried there<br /><br />and CA replied "Die here and we'll give you a big funeral"<br /><br />anyway<br /><br />who cares about this guy and his crap-oh<br /><br />when I just read the Silliman blog<br
You deserve kudos for your work on Samperi. He's a major voice, an original, far and away better than Zuk. The others you mention—well, the less said. Your dedication is admirable, swimming in those waters! What exactly are you cooking up re: Samperi? My theological ignorance would prevent me from doing anything of the kind. It's funny—he gives me a feeling similar to the feeling Ammons
Honestly, Joseph I think it's just (imo)a large-scale collective sticking of the poetical head up the arse. The dirtier, the smellier the better the chances of getting a favourable review at Silliman's blog (The man actually praises CA Conrad!) Culture used to be a 'navel gazing' now it's been purposely lowered redirected and sodomized.<br /><br />Forgive the tone: it's
In my paranoid moments, I wonder if there isn't a secret protocol that aims to neuter the arts by making them subservient to cults of personality. How else to explain Kenny Goldsmith at the White House?
"It springs from a certain mindset that can't distinguish between poetry and stand-up comedy—or, more accurately, which doesn't recognize that such a distinction exists."<br /><br />Well said, Joseph.<br /><br />Look at what a circus Poetry Foundation has become. But you know we saw this coming, didn't we? The shambles can (indeed, must) be traced to the freak show the