Watup WCW: A Letter
Watup WCW!!?,
This is just to say I have read the poems that are in the nice book my teach has assigned us this semester. Forgive me for not writing sooner, they were delicious, so sweet, and so bold. Your style intrigues me as a fellow poet and scientist, for those two aren’t often represented in a single being. While Elliot and Pound incorporate diction of a scientific nature, that of the heavily Latinate, I agree with Bill Zavatsky when he said “an Elliot or a Pound may drive readers away with their difficulty.”[1] And even if ‘other poets,’ which implicitly includes you, and incidentally me, “find themselves dismissed as ‘unpoetic’ because of their straight forward clarity” what can be done, eh? Life is a workshop, and everything encountered is an invitation to perfect our art of science and science of art, wouldn’tcha agree? Bill Z goes on to say that you “[see] no line dividing [your] activity as a poet from [your] life as a human being.” That’s refreshing, as line drawers often draw lines on lives other than their own, which creates confusion for everybody. It all makes sense really. How can one express themselves with a “poetic line [that reflects] the rhythm of everyday speech”[2] if one isn’t intimately familiar with the ‘everyday’ that that speech is used?
The straight verbiage of the streets
is exposed in the everyday
when we look and listen
with the eye and ear awake.
I’m struck by your 1934 letter about the plums, and Jessica Gleason’s analysis is incredible! She calls it ‘sneaky poetry,’ saying “This poem sneaks up on the reader, he/she looks and is inquisitive because at a glance this doesn’t seem like much of a poem at all. Then, all of a sudden the readers’ mind is shooting off in all directions trying to interpret… the situation surrounding the image.”[3] Readers often project their personal philosophy and ontology onto a poem, especially one as straight forward as the plum piece, which is fine and all, in the long run, for the point is to inspire, but they should be recognized as projections. What strikes me most about Jess G’s analysis is the idea of ‘sneaky poetry,’ how sometimes poems sneak up on the poet , not just the reader. It’s interesting how a quick scribble can be so undeniably poetic, and yet so far beyond conventions of the poetic. Marjorie Perloff quotes you saying, in reference to the plum piece, “it’s metrically absolutely regular… so dogmatically speaking it has to be a poem.” To which Ms. Perloff responds: “again, he mistakes sight for sound.”[4] I see the regularity of both sight and sound… well sort of. The three stanzas’ syllable counts are 12, 12, 13 which makes them, I suppose, slant regular: dozen, dozen, baker’s dozen…:) I’m of the inclination to liken poetry to truth in the context of Schopenhauer’s saying: “all [poetry] goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed; second it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” For me, your work, and in fact your life in general, for a life of linelessness is a life united, is self-evidently poetic, and a manifestation of Truth.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
And in the meanwhile, enjoy your time
Amongst the families your life touches
In the little big town of your birth & heart.
Inspired by yours,
Steven J. Caylor

Help


