Friday, May 19, 2006
That's Progress!
I've signed up as a blogger for Asian Pacific Americans for Progress, the spinoff of the Asian American organization within the Howard Dean campaign. I'll be making occasional posts (with a couple other bloggers) over there on politics and Asian Americans. This may protect all of you from having to hear so many political rants from me. Unless of course you like that sort of thing, in which case come on over.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
A Few Good Fences
The Senate...backed construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday...Perhaps the gentleman from Alabama should read a bit more closely.
The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence'' - as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation - was 83-16. The fence would be built in areas "most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens,'' as determined by federal officials. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., estimated the cost at roughly $3.2 million per mile, more than $900 million for 300 miles...
"Good fences make good neighbors," Sessions said.
"...Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me--
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
"Chinese Restaurant Syndrome"
I was kind of hoping that this was a joke, but apparently it's not.
Don't worry, though.
Chinese restaurant syndrome is a collection of symptoms that some people experience after eating Chinese food.Following this logic, I propose that obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer be relabeled American food syndrome.
Don't worry, though.
Most people recover from mild cases of Chinese restaurant syndrome on their own. Their prognosis is excellent.
Reviews, Resurrected
The second issue of Galatea Resurrects is up, including a reprint of my review of Victoria Chang's Asian American Poetry: The Next Generation. It's a good opportunity for me to try to respond to the interesting discussion around reviewing--particularly of Asian American poets--that's been going on the past couple weeks.
Barbara Jane Reyes has been asking some tough questions (parts 1, 2, and 3) about the function of criticism: in particular, what happens when an Asian American critic reviews an Asian American writer.
I tend to take the same approach to thinking about reviews of Asian American writing, although the stakes may be somewhat different. This is, after all, as much a political category as it is an aesthetic one, and the promotion of Asian American writing is often seen as part of the broader cultural and political struggles of Asian Americans. The critic Sau-ling Wong puts this point powerfully: just as the category "Asian American" is a political coalition, the category "Asian American literature" is a "textual coalition," whose interests it is the professional task of the Asian American critic to promote. Or as Barbara Jane puts it:
I don't particularly enjoy writing negative reviews. I'm more likely to follow mom's advice on this one: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. We all know that when it comes to books there's no such thing as bad publicity (cf. runaway sales of James Frey's A Million Little Pieces or the brisk eBay trade in now-illict copies of Opal Mehta). Particularly when it comes to a poetry book--which is not likely to get noticed by a large number of reviewers--the nastiest thing you can do to a book you don't like is to ignore it. For me, this is less a question of intellectual honesty or fearlessness than a question of the best use of my time, and yours: I'd much rather discover what is interesting and productive in a book than spend time bashing it. Nor do I think it's my job as a critic to explain to a writer what they're doing wrong and how to do it better: that's a role better approached as a colleague or a friend.
All that said: so under what circumstances does it become necessary to write a negative review? I use the word "necessary" because that seems to be my own standard: such a review has to be written when the book in question is potentially going to have a significant impact, and when that book--I don't know what other way to put this--puts forward an argument that seems to me wrong or even pernicious. It may seem strange to characterize a book of poetry as having an argument, but I think most do: they argue in favor of a particular aesthetic, a particular politics, a particular way of looking at the world, in a way that goes beyond some simple judgment about whether they are good or bad.
I think this is especially true of books we put into the category of "Asian American poetry." Because to do that to a book is to make some kind of claim about it, about what it is for and what it is doing in the world. I do not say that there is only one kind of way in which to make this claim, or even that I can say with any precision what I would mean by it myself. But it's important to recognize that it is a claim, not just a neutral category. Sometimes this claim may be made quite directly by the author; sometimes it may be made by an editor or publisher; sometimes it may be made by a reader, critic, or teacher. But because it is a claim with some ostensible political substance, I think we have a responsibility to evaluate its relationship to the work at hand.
When we start doing this kind of evaluation, I think we're less in the realm of reviewing than in the realm, more broadly, of criticism: a kind of writing that steps back from a work, views it in its historical, aesthetic, and political contexts, and tries to understand why we might value certain things in it and not others. That's what I tried to do in my review of Asian American Poetry (and why the thing ended up so darn long). Call a book that and you clearly are making a certain claim: that there is such a thing as Asian American poetry and that what's between the covers shares its characteristics. But what troubled me was that the anthology itself seemed to undermine even that claim, suggesting that Asian American poetry had little about it that was distinct at all. I think that was because the anthology didn't cast its net widely enough, either historically or aesthetically. There was no sense that the anthology was entering into a four-decade-long debate about Asian American poetry and politics, and the anthology's position seemed to me to come perilously close to the argument that Asian American poetry is just poetry written by those who "happen to be" Asian American: in which case why have the category at all? That's the point, I think, where the critic needs to get involved.
Barbara Jane Reyes has been asking some tough questions (parts 1, 2, and 3) about the function of criticism: in particular, what happens when an Asian American critic reviews an Asian American writer.
...the question came up of whether we ought to be even writing these critical reviews, non-endorsing reviews, stating that a book written by one of our community members does not appear to be well-written, does not appear to accomplish what it has set itself up to accomplish. Then citing the text in order to explain why we think this is the case. Perhaps then proposing alternatives, what do we think would make the work work...So, should we be doing this to books written by "our own"?I'd venture to say that this is a question not just for Asian American writers but for almost any poet today: the reviewer is likely to be part of the same, relatively small "community" as the author being reviewed. As I argued a while back in saying "death to reviews" (a command I obviously haven't heeded myself), the print-culture model of the critic as objective gatekeeper, sorting the wheat from the chaff, would seem to have little relevance in an era where major book reviews ignore poetry and most critical discussions of poetry take place in relatively specialized zones (little magazines, blogs, academic articles). It's increasingly unlikely that a writer will be asked to review a book of poetry by someone he/she doesn't know and in whose work he/she has absolutely no stake. This might seem like a rather cynical view. But I think it can also be rather liberating. Reviews, in this model, are less a Siskel-and-Ebert-style thumbs-up-or-down and more a way of keeping a certain kind of aesthetic conversation going, an engagement with and response to a book as much as an evaluation of it.
I tend to take the same approach to thinking about reviews of Asian American writing, although the stakes may be somewhat different. This is, after all, as much a political category as it is an aesthetic one, and the promotion of Asian American writing is often seen as part of the broader cultural and political struggles of Asian Americans. The critic Sau-ling Wong puts this point powerfully: just as the category "Asian American" is a political coalition, the category "Asian American literature" is a "textual coalition," whose interests it is the professional task of the Asian American critic to promote. Or as Barbara Jane puts it:
there appears to be so little F/Pilipino American literature "out there," that we ought to be calling people's attention to the work, writing reviews to convince readers to read the work, ultimately, buy the work. The rationale is solid, I think: we F/Pilipino American authors need our books to sell. Otherwise, we are constantly crippled by statistics which show that F/Pil Am authored books do not sell, and that F/Pil Am's do not read.These certainly seen like reasonable goals. But it's also true that under this logic, the negative review is going to become an increasingly endangered species, and a positive review risks being seen as mere boosterism.
I don't particularly enjoy writing negative reviews. I'm more likely to follow mom's advice on this one: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. We all know that when it comes to books there's no such thing as bad publicity (cf. runaway sales of James Frey's A Million Little Pieces or the brisk eBay trade in now-illict copies of Opal Mehta). Particularly when it comes to a poetry book--which is not likely to get noticed by a large number of reviewers--the nastiest thing you can do to a book you don't like is to ignore it. For me, this is less a question of intellectual honesty or fearlessness than a question of the best use of my time, and yours: I'd much rather discover what is interesting and productive in a book than spend time bashing it. Nor do I think it's my job as a critic to explain to a writer what they're doing wrong and how to do it better: that's a role better approached as a colleague or a friend.
All that said: so under what circumstances does it become necessary to write a negative review? I use the word "necessary" because that seems to be my own standard: such a review has to be written when the book in question is potentially going to have a significant impact, and when that book--I don't know what other way to put this--puts forward an argument that seems to me wrong or even pernicious. It may seem strange to characterize a book of poetry as having an argument, but I think most do: they argue in favor of a particular aesthetic, a particular politics, a particular way of looking at the world, in a way that goes beyond some simple judgment about whether they are good or bad.
I think this is especially true of books we put into the category of "Asian American poetry." Because to do that to a book is to make some kind of claim about it, about what it is for and what it is doing in the world. I do not say that there is only one kind of way in which to make this claim, or even that I can say with any precision what I would mean by it myself. But it's important to recognize that it is a claim, not just a neutral category. Sometimes this claim may be made quite directly by the author; sometimes it may be made by an editor or publisher; sometimes it may be made by a reader, critic, or teacher. But because it is a claim with some ostensible political substance, I think we have a responsibility to evaluate its relationship to the work at hand.
When we start doing this kind of evaluation, I think we're less in the realm of reviewing than in the realm, more broadly, of criticism: a kind of writing that steps back from a work, views it in its historical, aesthetic, and political contexts, and tries to understand why we might value certain things in it and not others. That's what I tried to do in my review of Asian American Poetry (and why the thing ended up so darn long). Call a book that and you clearly are making a certain claim: that there is such a thing as Asian American poetry and that what's between the covers shares its characteristics. But what troubled me was that the anthology itself seemed to undermine even that claim, suggesting that Asian American poetry had little about it that was distinct at all. I think that was because the anthology didn't cast its net widely enough, either historically or aesthetically. There was no sense that the anthology was entering into a four-decade-long debate about Asian American poetry and politics, and the anthology's position seemed to me to come perilously close to the argument that Asian American poetry is just poetry written by those who "happen to be" Asian American: in which case why have the category at all? That's the point, I think, where the critic needs to get involved.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Geeky Bumper Sticker of the Day
Seen on a pickup truck parked in front of my house, printed on a red background:
If this sticker is blue, you're driving too fast.
If this sticker is blue, you're driving too fast.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Lyn Hejinian, May 10 and 11 @ U of C
POEM PRESENT
Reading and Lecture Series
University of Chicago
Wednesday, May 10
LECTURE by Lyn Hejinian: "The Return of Interruption"
Rosenwald 405, 1101 E. 58th Street
5:00pm
FREE/OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Sponsored by POEM PRESENT & THE PROGRAM IN POETRY AND POETICS
Thursday, May 11
READING by Lyn Hejinian
Social Sciences 122, 1126 E. 59th Street
5:30pm
FREE/OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Sponsored by POEM PRESENT & THE RENAISSANCE SOCIETY
Lyn Hejinian was born in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1941. Poet, essayist, and translator, she is also the author or co-author of fourteen books of poetry, including The Beginner (Spectacular Books, 2000), Happily (Post Apollo Press, 2000), Sight (with Leslie Scalapino, 1999), The Cold of Poetry (1994), The Cell (1992), My Life (1980), Writing Is an Aid to Memory (1978), and A Thought Is the Bride of What Thinking (1976). Description and Xenia, two volumes of her translations from the work of the contemporary Russian poet Arkadii Dragomoshchenko, have been published by Sun and Moon Press. In 2000, the University of California Press published a collection of her essays entitled The Language of Inquiry, and she was Guest Editor of The Best American Poetry 2004. From 1976 to 1984, Hejinian was editor of Tuumba Press, and since 1981 she has been the co-editor of Poetics Journal. She is also the co-director of Atelos, a literary project commissioning and publishing cross-genre work by poets. Other collaborative projects include a work entitled The Eye of Enduring undertaken with the painter Diane Andrews Hall and exhibited in 1996, a composition entitled “” with music by John Zorn and text by Hejinian, a mixed media book entitled The Traveler and the Hill and the Hill created with the painter Emilie Clark (Granary Press, 1998), and the experimental film Letters Not About Love, directed by Jacki Ochs, for which Hejinian and Arkadii Dragomoshchenko wrote the script. Her honors include a Writing Fellowship from the California Arts Council, a grant from the Poetry Fund, a Translation Fellowship from the National Endowment of the Arts, and a Fellowship from The Academy of American Poets. She lives in Berkeley and teaches at the University of California.
Reading and Lecture Series
University of Chicago
Wednesday, May 10
LECTURE by Lyn Hejinian: "The Return of Interruption"
Rosenwald 405, 1101 E. 58th Street
5:00pm
FREE/OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Sponsored by POEM PRESENT & THE PROGRAM IN POETRY AND POETICS
Thursday, May 11
READING by Lyn Hejinian
Social Sciences 122, 1126 E. 59th Street
5:30pm
FREE/OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Sponsored by POEM PRESENT & THE RENAISSANCE SOCIETY
Lyn Hejinian was born in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1941. Poet, essayist, and translator, she is also the author or co-author of fourteen books of poetry, including The Beginner (Spectacular Books, 2000), Happily (Post Apollo Press, 2000), Sight (with Leslie Scalapino, 1999), The Cold of Poetry (1994), The Cell (1992), My Life (1980), Writing Is an Aid to Memory (1978), and A Thought Is the Bride of What Thinking (1976). Description and Xenia, two volumes of her translations from the work of the contemporary Russian poet Arkadii Dragomoshchenko, have been published by Sun and Moon Press. In 2000, the University of California Press published a collection of her essays entitled The Language of Inquiry, and she was Guest Editor of The Best American Poetry 2004. From 1976 to 1984, Hejinian was editor of Tuumba Press, and since 1981 she has been the co-editor of Poetics Journal. She is also the co-director of Atelos, a literary project commissioning and publishing cross-genre work by poets. Other collaborative projects include a work entitled The Eye of Enduring undertaken with the painter Diane Andrews Hall and exhibited in 1996, a composition entitled “” with music by John Zorn and text by Hejinian, a mixed media book entitled The Traveler and the Hill and the Hill created with the painter Emilie Clark (Granary Press, 1998), and the experimental film Letters Not About Love, directed by Jacki Ochs, for which Hejinian and Arkadii Dragomoshchenko wrote the script. Her honors include a Writing Fellowship from the California Arts Council, a grant from the Poetry Fund, a Translation Fellowship from the National Endowment of the Arts, and a Fellowship from The Academy of American Poets. She lives in Berkeley and teaches at the University of California.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
"Where Are You From?"
Why can't I go out for lunch in Chicago without getting asked this question? There I am, sitting in a Hyde Park restaurant, minding my own business, when this elderly white man comes shuffling toward me and strikes up a conversation.
Elderly White Man: I guess these are the high-class seats!*
Me: Yeah, I guess so.
EWM: I've never been in here before! I had no idea it was so luxurious!
Me: Yeah, it's pretty nice.
EWM:: You look like a regular customer.
Me: I guess I come in here occasionally.
EWM:: So! Where are you from?** Some other country?***
Me: ...**** [shaking my head]
EWM: This one?
Me: [nodding]
EWM: Oh! I never would have guessed!***** But your ancestors must have come from some faraway place.****** Japan? Korea?
Me: ...******* China.
EWM: [utters something incomprehensible]
Me: Excuse me?
EWM: [repeats previous utterance]
[At this point I realize that the man is actually speaking Chinese. Not the usual "ni hao, ching chong" stuff: I distinctly make out the word "zhongwen" at the end of his sentence.]
Me: [laughing nervously] Well, your Chinese is better than mine.
EWM: It should be! I had a good teacher! The American government! You ever been to China?
Me: A few times.
EWM: Well, that's more than I have! But when I did go I stayed a long time!
Me: [packing up my stuff] Well, enjoy your lunch.
EWM: See ya.
---
Notes
*I was sitting next to the windows. I should note that at this point the man was actually hovering over my table, as if he were going to sit down with me; over the course of the conversation he gradually backed away.
**Notice the weird way in which this question is almost always used as a conversational entree, like asking about the weather. "Say, it's a beautiful day! Hey, did you notice that your skin isn't the same color as mine?"
***This oddly pointed clarification prevented me from using the usual response to "Where are you from?" which is to say something disarming like "Chicago" or "California" and look at the questioner blankly.
****This is the slightly stunned silence that you retrospectively fill with comebacks like "Why? Where are you from?" or "Same as you, jerk." At the time, though, one part of your brain is saying Is this really happening? and the other part is saying Yes, it's happening, again, which makes it a little difficult for your mouth to work.
*****I will admit that I was entirely clad in olive, which perhaps the man mistook for the uniform of the People's Liberation Army.
******This is, of course, a slightly more sophisticated variation on the usual follow-up, "No, where are you really from?"
*******Here I'm weighing the desire to just stop talking to the man against the realization that that would just prolong this further. Anyway, what was I going to do? Lie?
---
I've gotten the hostile version of this question, i.e. "Why don't you go back where you came from," only once that I can remember, on the subway in Boston.
I have never been asked this in California.*
Once, in Toronto, a guy on a park bench called out to me as I was walking to work, "So what about you? Are you from this country?" I just laughed, because the answer, of course, was "No, I'm an American."
*After I told Robin this story, she reminded me that this had, in fact, once happened to me in California, when a guy in a bookstore in San Luis Obispo decided to harass me (and my people) for being short.
Elderly White Man: I guess these are the high-class seats!*
Me: Yeah, I guess so.
EWM: I've never been in here before! I had no idea it was so luxurious!
Me: Yeah, it's pretty nice.
EWM:: You look like a regular customer.
Me: I guess I come in here occasionally.
EWM:: So! Where are you from?** Some other country?***
Me: ...**** [shaking my head]
EWM: This one?
Me: [nodding]
EWM: Oh! I never would have guessed!***** But your ancestors must have come from some faraway place.****** Japan? Korea?
Me: ...******* China.
EWM: [utters something incomprehensible]
Me: Excuse me?
EWM: [repeats previous utterance]
[At this point I realize that the man is actually speaking Chinese. Not the usual "ni hao, ching chong" stuff: I distinctly make out the word "zhongwen" at the end of his sentence.]
Me: [laughing nervously] Well, your Chinese is better than mine.
EWM: It should be! I had a good teacher! The American government! You ever been to China?
Me: A few times.
EWM: Well, that's more than I have! But when I did go I stayed a long time!
Me: [packing up my stuff] Well, enjoy your lunch.
EWM: See ya.
---
Notes
*I was sitting next to the windows. I should note that at this point the man was actually hovering over my table, as if he were going to sit down with me; over the course of the conversation he gradually backed away.
**Notice the weird way in which this question is almost always used as a conversational entree, like asking about the weather. "Say, it's a beautiful day! Hey, did you notice that your skin isn't the same color as mine?"
***This oddly pointed clarification prevented me from using the usual response to "Where are you from?" which is to say something disarming like "Chicago" or "California" and look at the questioner blankly.
****This is the slightly stunned silence that you retrospectively fill with comebacks like "Why? Where are you from?" or "Same as you, jerk." At the time, though, one part of your brain is saying Is this really happening? and the other part is saying Yes, it's happening, again, which makes it a little difficult for your mouth to work.
*****I will admit that I was entirely clad in olive, which perhaps the man mistook for the uniform of the People's Liberation Army.
******This is, of course, a slightly more sophisticated variation on the usual follow-up, "No, where are you really from?"
*******Here I'm weighing the desire to just stop talking to the man against the realization that that would just prolong this further. Anyway, what was I going to do? Lie?
---
I've gotten the hostile version of this question, i.e. "Why don't you go back where you came from," only once that I can remember, on the subway in Boston.
I have never been asked this in California.*
Once, in Toronto, a guy on a park bench called out to me as I was walking to work, "So what about you? Are you from this country?" I just laughed, because the answer, of course, was "No, I'm an American."
*After I told Robin this story, she reminded me that this had, in fact, once happened to me in California, when a guy in a bookstore in San Luis Obispo decided to harass me (and my people) for being short.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
ChiPo
New link (well, new to me): Chicago Poetry, a group blog by Ray Bianchi, Kerri Sonnenberg, Jeremy P. Bushnell, and others.
(Not to be confused with ChicagoPoetry.com, "The Center of Chicago's Cyberspace Poetry.")
(Not to be confused with ChicagoPoetry.com, "The Center of Chicago's Cyberspace Poetry.")
Vote 4 Me!
What is the origin of the political phrasing: "[Name of politician] for [name of state or country]"? I was thinking about this when looking at the banner at the top of Ron Silliman's blog entry yesterday: not "Pennacchio for U.S. Senate," for instance, but "Pennacchio for Pennsylvania." (I imagine in this case Pennacchio is taking advantage of the fact that "Penn" is part of his name.)
The first time I remember seeing this locution was "Dean for America," and I remember thinking it was really weird at the time. (Actually, living in Hyde Park, I still see those words looking at me from every other bumper.) Was Howard Dean running for the position of "America"? Was there an implied ellipsis: "Howard Dean [is best] for America"? Or was Dean "for" America in the same way that you might be "for" the Cubs or the White Sox?
After that, though, it seemed like everyone was adopting the "for..." Barack Obama's website, if I recall, was obamaforillinois.com. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign site is called, um, "Rod for Illinois."
So is this a new phenomenon? I don't remember "Dukakis for America" or "Arnold for California" or anything of that ilk. And is it a largely Democratic phenomenon? A random troll of political sites doesn't turn up any Republicans using this formula.
A note on the actual content of Ron's post: What Ron calls the ideological incoherence of Democratic tickets this year seems, perversely, to be an effect of a national campaign effort that is more centralized than any time in recent memory, with the national party deciding well in advance of primary season who can win--based almost entirely on biography and name recognition rather than on ideology--and then sinking huge resources into getting that person on the ballot in the general election. The best example around here is "Fighting Dem" Tammy Duckworth, an Asian American officer who lost both legs in Iraq and who (with a lot of national funding) edged out a more established (and possibly more progressive) local candidate who had come with striking distance of victory two years before in a heavily Republican district. National concerns (the desire to reclaim credibility on Iraq and the military) and Duckworth's compelling story clearly trumped the grassroots here.
This isn't to say that Duckworth isn't a great candidate, and she has a good shot at winning a seat formerly held by Rep. Henry Hyde--in another parallel, Hyde has long been the House version of Santorum in the vehemence of his opposition to abortion (most prominently through the infamous Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions). But it's hard to say what the ultimate result of this centralizing strategy will be: we're watching a large, diverse, decentralized party that loses trying to make itself more like the small, disciplined, centralized party that wins.
The first time I remember seeing this locution was "Dean for America," and I remember thinking it was really weird at the time. (Actually, living in Hyde Park, I still see those words looking at me from every other bumper.) Was Howard Dean running for the position of "America"? Was there an implied ellipsis: "Howard Dean [is best] for America"? Or was Dean "for" America in the same way that you might be "for" the Cubs or the White Sox?
After that, though, it seemed like everyone was adopting the "for..." Barack Obama's website, if I recall, was obamaforillinois.com. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign site is called, um, "Rod for Illinois."
So is this a new phenomenon? I don't remember "Dukakis for America" or "Arnold for California" or anything of that ilk. And is it a largely Democratic phenomenon? A random troll of political sites doesn't turn up any Republicans using this formula.
A note on the actual content of Ron's post: What Ron calls the ideological incoherence of Democratic tickets this year seems, perversely, to be an effect of a national campaign effort that is more centralized than any time in recent memory, with the national party deciding well in advance of primary season who can win--based almost entirely on biography and name recognition rather than on ideology--and then sinking huge resources into getting that person on the ballot in the general election. The best example around here is "Fighting Dem" Tammy Duckworth, an Asian American officer who lost both legs in Iraq and who (with a lot of national funding) edged out a more established (and possibly more progressive) local candidate who had come with striking distance of victory two years before in a heavily Republican district. National concerns (the desire to reclaim credibility on Iraq and the military) and Duckworth's compelling story clearly trumped the grassroots here.
This isn't to say that Duckworth isn't a great candidate, and she has a good shot at winning a seat formerly held by Rep. Henry Hyde--in another parallel, Hyde has long been the House version of Santorum in the vehemence of his opposition to abortion (most prominently through the infamous Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions). But it's hard to say what the ultimate result of this centralizing strategy will be: we're watching a large, diverse, decentralized party that loses trying to make itself more like the small, disciplined, centralized party that wins.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Greetings, with Shameless Plug
Hello all. I'm rather amazed to report that the U of T's spring term is over, which might mean--could it be?--occasional reappearances in blogland by me over the next few months.
If you're wondering what I've been up to, you might check out the new issue of Chicago Review, which in addition to much fine work by and on Canadian poet Lisa Robertson, contains my rather lengthy and belated review of Victoria Chang's anthology Asian American Poetry: The Next Generation. (Please note that the belatedness is entirely my fault, not CR's.)
And in more belated news, thanks to wood s lot for the notice of "The Badger," widely interpreted as a chronicle of my struggle with Canadian identity, but really an ode (thanks Cassie) to this.
If you're wondering what I've been up to, you might check out the new issue of Chicago Review, which in addition to much fine work by and on Canadian poet Lisa Robertson, contains my rather lengthy and belated review of Victoria Chang's anthology Asian American Poetry: The Next Generation. (Please note that the belatedness is entirely my fault, not CR's.)
And in more belated news, thanks to wood s lot for the notice of "The Badger," widely interpreted as a chronicle of my struggle with Canadian identity, but really an ode (thanks Cassie) to this.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Glencoe's Favorite Son
Why this should stir me out of my shell, I don't know. But so I get this email announcement:
And he "managed to leverage his versatile talents..." Ugh. Forget the MFA; I think the poetry degree of the future is the MBA. Leverage those talents! Stage hostile takeovers of Ploughshares!
Poetry Foundation PresentsWell, thank goodness those Poetry Magazine folks are leading the long-overdue MacLeish revival. But a few quibbles about that biography: "a son of Glencoe, Illinois"? Oh dear. If anyone ever leads a biography of me with "a son of Wilmette, Illinois," at least tell them I was born in Evanston, so there's some hope of salvaging my street cred.
Archibald MacLeish’s JB
A Staged Reading Produced by Bernard Sahlins
CHICAGO —The Poetry Foundation, publisher of Poetry magazine, is pleased to announce a staged reading of Archibald MacLeish’s JB produced by Bernard Sahlins. This is the fourth production in the Foundation’s Poetry on Stage series and runs from March 4-5.
What: Archibald MacLeish’s JB: A Staged Reading
When: Saturday, March 4, 3:00pm & 7:30pm; Sunday, March 5, 3:00pm
Where: Steppenwolf Upstairs Theatre, 1650 North Halsted Street, Chicago
Tickets: $20.00 adults; $15.00 students & seniors.
For reservations, call Steppenwolf Audience Services. Phone: (312) 335-1650.
JB ambitiously retells the Book of Job, transporting it to a modern circus setting. It renews God’s wager with the Devil, raising the still urgent questions of why a righteous man should suffer and how a God that is good can abide evil.
“We are pleased and excited by the enthusiastic response to the Poetry on Stage series,” said Stephen Young, Program Director of The Poetry Foundation. “These lively productions have helped further the Foundation’s goal to bring the best poetry before an ever-wider audience.”
JB won MacLeish his third Pulitzer Prize when it was staged on Broadway in 1958. MacLeish, a son of Glencoe, Illinois, managed to leverage his versatile talents as a writer into multiple careers: in law, teaching, publishing, diplomacy, and public service as Librarian of Congress. This production stars Poetry on Stage veterans Nicholas Rudall, Greg Vinkler, and Scott Jaeck. Richard Christiansen, former Chief Theater Critic for the Chicago Tribune, will lead audience discussions following the performances.
And he "managed to leverage his versatile talents..." Ugh. Forget the MFA; I think the poetry degree of the future is the MBA. Leverage those talents! Stage hostile takeovers of Ploughshares!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Hats Off
Wherever We Put Our Hats # 3 docks this week.
Dana Ward
Clayton A. Couch
Heather Brinkman
Rodrigo Toscano
Valzhyna Mort
Matt Turner
Kristin Prevallet
Anne Boyer
4, 5, or trade
Dana Ward
Clayton A. Couch
Heather Brinkman
Rodrigo Toscano
Valzhyna Mort
Matt Turner
Kristin Prevallet
Anne Boyer
4, 5, or trade
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Contemporary Poetry: Write That Syllabus!
Look out world: next year they're letting me teach contemporary poetry. Here's your chance to write my syllabus.
Okay, more precisely: The course is called "Contemporary Poetry in English," which would seem to include writing from any country except Canada--not that Canadians don't speak English, but that there is already a separate full-year course on modern Canadian poetry. It's a one-semester (13-week) course, so figure at most one short collection of poetry per week.
"Contemporary" I would usually interpret to be post-1945, but most of the "modern" courses here run to 1960, so perhaps we should think post-1960; in any case, it seems likely that I'll emphasize much more recent writing. Given my own interests, it also seems likely that I'll focus on American poetry.
I've got plenty of ideas of my own. But I'm interested in hearing suggestions, either just of what you all think would be important or that you've taught before. Also, has anyone ever found a contemporary poetry anthology that would work for a course like this? All the ones I can think of have various drawbacks, but let me know what you think.
Okay, more precisely: The course is called "Contemporary Poetry in English," which would seem to include writing from any country except Canada--not that Canadians don't speak English, but that there is already a separate full-year course on modern Canadian poetry. It's a one-semester (13-week) course, so figure at most one short collection of poetry per week.
"Contemporary" I would usually interpret to be post-1945, but most of the "modern" courses here run to 1960, so perhaps we should think post-1960; in any case, it seems likely that I'll emphasize much more recent writing. Given my own interests, it also seems likely that I'll focus on American poetry.
I've got plenty of ideas of my own. But I'm interested in hearing suggestions, either just of what you all think would be important or that you've taught before. Also, has anyone ever found a contemporary poetry anthology that would work for a course like this? All the ones I can think of have various drawbacks, but let me know what you think.
From the Reader's Guide
Americans are often criticized for being ignorant and indifferent to cultures that exist beyond their own. To what extent do you believe this is true?
Where does the tension in this story lie? Did you guess the outcome?
Have you ever witnessed or participated in this kind of aggression against a group of people in your community? What was the outcome?
Do you think she has learned from her mistakes, or is she becoming mixed up in her own?
In what ways do the characters in these stories reject Western ideas and culture? In what ways do they buy into the American ideal?
Where does the tension in this story lie? Did you guess the outcome?
Have you ever witnessed or participated in this kind of aggression against a group of people in your community? What was the outcome?
Do you think she has learned from her mistakes, or is she becoming mixed up in her own?
In what ways do the characters in these stories reject Western ideas and culture? In what ways do they buy into the American ideal?
Thursday, January 05, 2006
APIA Blogs
New link: the APIA Blog Network, which collects feeds from a range of Asian American blogs.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Happy New Year, all. Seems the holidays aren't really so good for blogging: even less likely than usual that I'll be sitting in front of my computer for more than 15 minutes at a time.
The first week of term is perhaps not the best time to go into the Seminary Co-op Bookstore, whose basement warren is claustrophobic enough on a slow day; I kept getting poked by elbows and handbags. Still, I managed to do plenty of damage: the big offender being Ted Berrigan's Collected Poems, which I've been eyeing for weeks in two countries. You know you're at a good bookstore when the woman at the register (despite the crowd) says how much she loves Berrigan and that she'd given the book as a gift to an old teacher of hers.
I feel more or less professionally obligated to at least glance at any new book by an Asian American writer. The Seminary Co-op is remarkably cooperative (ha) in this respect; the new-fiction shelves surrounding the main table (always groaning with the latest scholarly hardcovers) always have a remarkably good selection of Asian American writing. I took a pass on Gish Jen's new novel--a line on the first page, something like "My Asian--or, should I say, Asian American--children..." struck me as a little too knowing--but did pick up Aimee Phan's story collection We Should Never Meet; the day before I'd gotten another collection, Sightseeing, by Thai American writer Rattawut Lapcharoensap.
I also picked up Tibetan American poet Tsering Wangmo Dhompa's second (!) book, In the Absent Everday. I haven't had a chance to read through it yet, but I think this is probably the first time I've seen a blurb on a book that's taken straight from a blog: it's from Ron Silliman, of course.
The first week of term is perhaps not the best time to go into the Seminary Co-op Bookstore, whose basement warren is claustrophobic enough on a slow day; I kept getting poked by elbows and handbags. Still, I managed to do plenty of damage: the big offender being Ted Berrigan's Collected Poems, which I've been eyeing for weeks in two countries. You know you're at a good bookstore when the woman at the register (despite the crowd) says how much she loves Berrigan and that she'd given the book as a gift to an old teacher of hers.
I feel more or less professionally obligated to at least glance at any new book by an Asian American writer. The Seminary Co-op is remarkably cooperative (ha) in this respect; the new-fiction shelves surrounding the main table (always groaning with the latest scholarly hardcovers) always have a remarkably good selection of Asian American writing. I took a pass on Gish Jen's new novel--a line on the first page, something like "My Asian--or, should I say, Asian American--children..." struck me as a little too knowing--but did pick up Aimee Phan's story collection We Should Never Meet; the day before I'd gotten another collection, Sightseeing, by Thai American writer Rattawut Lapcharoensap.
I also picked up Tibetan American poet Tsering Wangmo Dhompa's second (!) book, In the Absent Everday. I haven't had a chance to read through it yet, but I think this is probably the first time I've seen a blurb on a book that's taken straight from a blog: it's from Ron Silliman, of course.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Via angry asian man: a review by Marianne Villanueva of three Asian American poets: the cool restraint of Chang, the impetuous rush of Linmark, the searing honesty of Lee.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
The A.C.M.
Just catching up to this post from Ivy: Do southeast Asian-Australian writers write partly to challenge the Anglo-Celtic mainstream by bringing to life their personal renditions of their Australian identity?
(Question from a dumb American: What is this "Anglo-Celtic mainstream" of which you speak?)
(Question from a dumb American: What is this "Anglo-Celtic mainstream" of which you speak?)
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Speaking of Asian Guys...
...anyone seen the Old Navy "Scarves" commercial that parodies an awards show? They show the winner for "Best Reaction to a Scarf": a couple: "Kate" and "Jeff," are opening Christmas presents. Kate pulls an Old Navy "shimmery scarf" out of a box, looks at Jeff and says, "Are you asking me to marry you? YES!" and throws her arms around him, the scarf flying in his face. A stunned-looking Jeff can be heard muttering, "It's...a scarf..."
Oh, and: Jeff is an Asian guy.
So I can interpret the look on Jeff's face in one of two ways.
Guy reaction: It's...a scarf...
Asian Guy reaction: Oh my god, a white woman is hugging me...on television...
Oh, and: Jeff is an Asian guy.
So I can interpret the look on Jeff's face in one of two ways.
Guy reaction: It's...a scarf...
Asian Guy reaction: Oh my god, a white woman is hugging me...on television...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)