The more poems I read in magazines the more I am disappointed by their specific occasion. Whether it's the "I have an imagination so let's celebrate" occasion or the "I have found this new way to relate to my past" occasion, the depth is limited and predictable. And what upsets me most is how it seems the more senior the poet, the more efficient the poem is at fitting into either of these occasions. I understand the pressures at a magazine to feature poets who will be recognized by their subscribers, and then might attract new readers. I understand why these poets' poems are appearing. I just don't understand who can read those poems and not get cynical about those poets, and this editing system that keeps ushering these kinds of poems to publication.
The new poems by Derek Walcott in the new issue of A Public Space (Issue 09) are intriguing to me. On one side I admire the poems because I admire Walcott's poetry, and his deep consideration of citizenship, and place, and how identity weaves and conflicts with these elements. On the other side, I feel as though every book of his I've read is dealing with this issue, using very similar approaches (the larger forgiveness offered by nature by virtue of her obliviousness, the invasive nature of what Walcott terms the "enemy" in "21" from APS). And so then I wonder if Walcott is showing mere competence in these poems, an ability to write another Walcott poem, or if I should recognize and appreciate the continuing nature of his project. What does it mean to continue writing poetry?
This is probably a larger issue than I can address in these brief-ish blog posts. It's mystery enough that keeps people writing, and I suppose what I'm asking here is what obligation a poet has to his subject, and his evolution as a writer. Is Walcott still evolving? With someone of his stature, accomplishments, and, of course, accolades, this is a tricky question to pose.
Related Links:
A Public Space
Omeros
Selected Poems
Comments