experiment
Yesterday a number of recent poetry acquisitions arrived in the mail. First was the launch issue of the new Journal of British and Irish Innovative Poetry in what can only be described as discreet packaging. Almost any neutral observer would have imagined there was hardcore pornography inside. The other package was a bundle of the first three books from Knives, forks and spoons press - Earthworks by Alec Newman, Little Machines by Simon Rennie and London§tone by Alex Davies. The intention is to write about both the journal and the booklets at some point, though whether this will be realised is another question.
One of the quotes on the rear of Simon Rennie's Little Machines appeared immediately questionable. Michael Symmons Roberts writes that Simon Rennie's poems are 'full of assurance, skill and wit. His formal range demonstrates a willingness to experiment, but never for its own sake. At their best, these are poems of beauty and tenderness, carried by a distinctive new voice.' There are two questions this prompts for me. First, what's wrong with experiment for its own sake? Second, how in the hell are you supposed to distinguish between experiment for its own sake and any other sort of experiment? Presumably that would be purposeful experiment. But this prompts a third question of what 'experiment for its own sake' might be.
Let me be clear before I start that this is not intended as a reflection on Simon Rennie, on Alec Newman or on Knives, forks and spoons. My remarks are restricted to the quoted comment of Michael Symmons Roberts.
'Experiment for its own sake' might be a number of things. Even before I start to look at anything else I have to establish where the experiment might take place. Most obviously it might be in the presentational properties of the poem. This is extremely broad, it not only incorporates simple things like the shape of the poem on the page (which also relate to formal properties), but to visual poetry, sound poetry, poetry in translation, poems performed at a reading, and a range of other poems that have either been written in an 'unconventional' form or which have been altered from their 'original' iteration. It will also incorporate questions of the medium used to convey the poem, the font, size, colour, and so on.
Experiment might also take place in the formal properties of the poem. What rules of prosody are or are not applied. Whether the writer chooses to apply other limitations to their writing not present in traditional prosody, either created by them or borrowed from another source.
Experiment might be in the language used, in the broadest sense. Including the actual language(s) used, specialised and technical vocabularies, specific limitations on grammar and syntax, use of non-alphanumeric symbols, whether words used are easily understood, neologisms, anachronistic usages, colloquialisms, etc.
These are just the three most obvious areas where experiment might take place though far from the only ones. I don't propose to methodically explore every possibility, it's not the purpose of this essay to identify every form of experiment in poetry, just to demonstrate how problematic (and I would argue ideologically motivated) the original contention is.
To simplify matters let's assume that experiment means to write in a way that deviates from established norms in a significant and obvious way. How do we then judge whether a particular experiment is 'for its own sake' or purposeful? Presumably it's not possible to look at whether the poem 'works' in the general consensus. This route would surely lead us to presume that every 'successful' experiment is purposeful, and every 'unsucessful' experiment is for its own sake. Can we then look at whether the poem could have been written any other way? I don't think we can, in most cases there will be a huge range of alternative options. At best we might be able to look at notebooks and perhaps even interrogate the poet (assuming their honesty and co-operation) to determine what other options were considered. But this tends to presuppose that the experiment is purposeful, or at least that there is reasoning behind it, which is close to being the same thing.
The very way that 'experiment... for its own sake' is identified in the comment implies that Michael Symmons Roberts regards it as a negative quality. It's probably apparent that I would dispute this. I think that experiment for its own sake is desireable and often necessary. I believe that the comment is intended both as a positive endorsement of Simon Rennie, and as a way of contrasting his (acceptable) poetics with other poetics which foreground experiment 'for its own sake', presumably poetry that might describe itself as experimental (or linguistically innovative, post avant, formally innovative etc.) which by extension is less acceptable.
There's certainly more to be said about this, and I may return to the subject.
One of the quotes on the rear of Simon Rennie's Little Machines appeared immediately questionable. Michael Symmons Roberts writes that Simon Rennie's poems are 'full of assurance, skill and wit. His formal range demonstrates a willingness to experiment, but never for its own sake. At their best, these are poems of beauty and tenderness, carried by a distinctive new voice.' There are two questions this prompts for me. First, what's wrong with experiment for its own sake? Second, how in the hell are you supposed to distinguish between experiment for its own sake and any other sort of experiment? Presumably that would be purposeful experiment. But this prompts a third question of what 'experiment for its own sake' might be.
Let me be clear before I start that this is not intended as a reflection on Simon Rennie, on Alec Newman or on Knives, forks and spoons. My remarks are restricted to the quoted comment of Michael Symmons Roberts.
'Experiment for its own sake' might be a number of things. Even before I start to look at anything else I have to establish where the experiment might take place. Most obviously it might be in the presentational properties of the poem. This is extremely broad, it not only incorporates simple things like the shape of the poem on the page (which also relate to formal properties), but to visual poetry, sound poetry, poetry in translation, poems performed at a reading, and a range of other poems that have either been written in an 'unconventional' form or which have been altered from their 'original' iteration. It will also incorporate questions of the medium used to convey the poem, the font, size, colour, and so on.
Experiment might also take place in the formal properties of the poem. What rules of prosody are or are not applied. Whether the writer chooses to apply other limitations to their writing not present in traditional prosody, either created by them or borrowed from another source.
Experiment might be in the language used, in the broadest sense. Including the actual language(s) used, specialised and technical vocabularies, specific limitations on grammar and syntax, use of non-alphanumeric symbols, whether words used are easily understood, neologisms, anachronistic usages, colloquialisms, etc.
These are just the three most obvious areas where experiment might take place though far from the only ones. I don't propose to methodically explore every possibility, it's not the purpose of this essay to identify every form of experiment in poetry, just to demonstrate how problematic (and I would argue ideologically motivated) the original contention is.
To simplify matters let's assume that experiment means to write in a way that deviates from established norms in a significant and obvious way. How do we then judge whether a particular experiment is 'for its own sake' or purposeful? Presumably it's not possible to look at whether the poem 'works' in the general consensus. This route would surely lead us to presume that every 'successful' experiment is purposeful, and every 'unsucessful' experiment is for its own sake. Can we then look at whether the poem could have been written any other way? I don't think we can, in most cases there will be a huge range of alternative options. At best we might be able to look at notebooks and perhaps even interrogate the poet (assuming their honesty and co-operation) to determine what other options were considered. But this tends to presuppose that the experiment is purposeful, or at least that there is reasoning behind it, which is close to being the same thing.
The very way that 'experiment... for its own sake' is identified in the comment implies that Michael Symmons Roberts regards it as a negative quality. It's probably apparent that I would dispute this. I think that experiment for its own sake is desireable and often necessary. I believe that the comment is intended both as a positive endorsement of Simon Rennie, and as a way of contrasting his (acceptable) poetics with other poetics which foreground experiment 'for its own sake', presumably poetry that might describe itself as experimental (or linguistically innovative, post avant, formally innovative etc.) which by extension is less acceptable.
There's certainly more to be said about this, and I may return to the subject.
Comments