Everyday Genius: Juliet Cook

Juliet Cook's poem, "Pig Trough as Concept" -- posted today in Everyday Genius -- really delights me. Give it a read. Doesn't it strike you like a Mike Young piece in the way that she juxtaposes unusual (though plainly syntactical) sentences about one thing which culminate in a sentiment that is distinctly different from those one things.

Er, uh.

I honestly didn't do a close reading to sense what happens in this poem; I just let myself associate with it and from that association comes the, what, the grist (if you will), and then I allowed that grizzle (um) to be enough in terms of "understanding," and to be part of the thing that is the poem. I guess I'm arguing for an "Against Interpretation"-type reading here, as always. And why not? Otherwise, I'd be reminded of David Orr's condescending article in the Times --

" . . . the trendiest contemporary style, which relies heavily on disconnected phrases, abrupt syntactical shifts, attention-begging titles (“The Gem Is on Page Sixty-Four”), quirky diction (“orangery,” “aigrettes”), flickering italics, oddball openings (“The scent of pig is faint tonight”) and a tone ranging from daffy to plangent — basically, two scoops of John Ashbery and a sprinkling of Gertrude Stein . . ." (link) --

And I'd think, yeah, but come on Tackleberry: it's good. Orr lists these characteristics like they're a detriment, as if to say they're cataloged, so clearly Juliet Cook didn't think of this first -- so what can the value be? A checklist of tropes employed does not strike me as a productive way to read Cook's poem, or any poem.

I don't want to know what's happening in a poem or how it derives its meaning. The fact that it's possible to recognize a good poem means precisely that it's possible to recognize what's good in a poem. Being able to language those elements, though, is a different, often superfluous matter.

In that regard, I've enjoyed reading these essays on negative reviews.