Reviewed
By: |
Flatland
Modern Life by Matthea Harvey. Graywolf Press, 2007. 85 pp. |
Despite strenuous
and awe-inspiring acts of imagination, impish acrobatics of diction, high
jinks of imagery, large dollops of wordplay and death-defying high wire
walks from sense to nonsense without a net, the poems in Matthea
Harvey’s Modern Life land with a thud. It is impossible not to
admire their ambition and marvel at their colorful performances, but while
these poems give the impression of being chock-full of every sort of
happening, they are constructed by stacking one declarative line on top of
another and often end up sounding like a page from Ripley’s Believe
it or Not: The man with the metal detector hovering over the elm’s elephantine roots has no idea he just missed a buried paint can (color: beige bal- let) containing six letters and an engagement ring. Pug owners are 90% more likely to deny that they look like their pets than other dog owners. The girl in the woolen hat holding her camera out to capture herself and her pug on the bench is in the 10% minority and cherishes her own buggy brown eyes. Mittens on strings are only metaphorical to people without children. A jogger sees a small child with red mittens dangling from her sleeves and thinks memory, then imagines running around the park next Sunday with a big pair of silver scissors, tiny mittens blossoming from the mud puddles in her wake. Mothers Beware the Mitten Marauder! reads the headline in the Post. Truly it’s exhausting how many minds there are to swoop in and out of. Thoughts criss-cross the paths like branches; kites get caught in them. Birds collide with dreams and are found dead on the road. Sometimes a storm is the only answer. I stir up such a wind it blows them all out of the park. Then I pour down so much rain that the park sparkles with puddles, a thousand YOU ARE HERE signs blinking up at me and only me, until some intrepid soul comes stomping through with his loud thoughts of dinner.
(“Once Around the Park with Omniscience”) This
poem has its moments (“. . .running around the park next Sunday with a
big pair of scissors, tiny mittens blossoming from the mud puddles in her
wake”, “Thoughts criss-cross the paths like branches; kites get caught
in them. Birds collide with dreams and are found dead in the road.
Sometimes a storm is the only answer.”) and it contains nicely nascent
story elements and an overall whimsical tone. It puts me in mind of a
children’s story in early stages. But as a finished poem for an adult,
especially for one who is an experienced reader of poetry and who is both
intelligent and ready to engage with it, the poem is of slight interest.
It is thin, then thinner. In fact, there is a shallowness throughout this
book that is not necessarily a commentary on the author’s inner life
(obviously teeming), only on the author’s choices (or lack thereof), her
apparent inability or unwillingness to signal what’s more or less
important in these lines. This flat line phenomenon—the presentation of
novelty in a dull way—turns up frequently in the work of some
contemporary poets, and it’s a phenomenon worth examining. If one
believes, as I do, that writing well includes, may even be predicated on,
the higher-level ability of employing tonal shift, syntactical variation
and pacing in the service of building suspense and interest for the
reader, then the only conclusion I can draw is that Modern Life is
not well written. Even as a form of reportage it is too dull. In fact, the
most surprising thing about the book as a whole is its lack of surprise,
line to line, poem to poem. The effect, or affect (as described in
schizophrenia), stays flat, the language disconnected and tangential—not
to the point, and what was the point, anyway? This style, in ascendance
for the past decade, may also be viewed as a symptom. As there is no one
out there to talk to, the poet may as well be talking to him or herself,
and the reader has the sensation of being stuck on a train and forced to
listen to the wildly tedious monologues of someone whose last concern is
how you feel about it. Contemporary American poetry is like that train.
Nearly everyone except the poets got off at the last stop, yet the train
barrels on. If,
on the other hand, one believes that writing such as Harvey’s
constitutes a “project” whereby the text is in service to some
political or aesthetic idea (cf Kenneth Goldsmith’s “boring, boring”
and “unboring, boring” project), is happy with the driving idea and
has no need that the actual writing be of any interest, they may read her
work as exemplary without expectation of either pleasure or understanding.
Not this reader. The
sections of Modern Life that tend toward something deeper, that
have a unity of tone and that have received some critical attention as
poems that successfully engage the modern life of the title (“The Future
of Terror” and “Terror of the Future”) are also populated with
line-stacks, resulting in poems with little syntactic variation. A
preponderance of lines in these poems exemplifies the syntactically
coherent, semantically incoherent character of much post-language poetry
and finally, for all their ambition, defeat any hope of interest or
surprise as handily as the other poems in the book: The generalissimo’s glands directed him to and fro. Geronimo! said the uber-goon we called God, and we were off to the races. Never mind that we could only grow gray things, that inspecting the horse’s gums in the gymnasium predicted a jagged road ahead. We were tired of hard news— it helped to turn down our hearing aids. We could already all do impeccable imitations of the idiot, his insistent incisors working on a steak as he said there’s an intimacy to invasion. That much was true. When we got jaded about joyrides, we could always play games in the kitchen garden with the prisoners. Jump the Gun, Fine Kettle of Fish and Kick the Kidney were our favorites. The laws the linguists thought up were particularly lissome, full of magical loopholes that spit out medals. We had made the big time, but night still nipped at our heels. The navigator’s needle swung strangely, oscillating between the oilwells and ask again later. We tried to pull ourselves together by practicing quarterback sneaks along the pylons, but the race to the ravine was starting to feel as real as the R.I.P.’s and roses carved into rock. Suddenly the sight of
a schoolbag could send us scrambling.
(“The Future of Terror/1” While
this poem has been cited in some reviews as emblematic of Harvey’s
“Terror” sections, and while it is cohesive by comparison to others in
these sections, it still posits the reader as a lost traveler receiving
anonymous, monotonously declarative announcements over a megaphone hidden
somewhere in an unfamiliar landscape, none of which turns out to be
directions to familiar ground. Nothing finally comes to anything, though
there are moments of possible accretion (for example, starting with “We
were tired of hard news” would give the poem some traction), and the
poem remains on one plane, in the reportorial style of the declarative
sentence, a collection of needles without a haystack, a flock of bats
without a cave. What is the intent—or is it merely lack of intent—that
creates such tedium? The diction is lively enough, the imagery often
startling. Why is it ultimately boring? Let’s try another version: We were tired of hard news— it helped to turn down our hearing aids. We could already all do impeccable imitations of the idiot, his insistent incisors working on a steak as he said there’s an intimacy to invasion. That much was true. When we got jaded about joyrides, we could always play games in the kitchen garden with the prisoners. Jump the Gun, Fine Kettle of Fish and Kick the Kidney were our favorites. But night still nipped at our heels. The navigator’s needle swung strangely, oscillating between the oilwells and
ask again later. Removing
the generalissimo’s glands, the horse’s gums, the uber-goon and other
portions of the poem that seem pointless or silly and unnecessary, and
beginning with a statement that piques curiosity (what is the “hard
news”?) and ending with an intriguing quote, in an interesting
syntactical position, enables a certain cohesion or structure and reveals
a serious and frightening poem inside, one that may or may not benefit
from another good line or two: “The sight of a schoolbag / could send us
scrambling” (without the “Suddenly” of course) or “Never mind that
we could only grow / gray things.” There is at least one good poem here,
one that bears re-reading and takes its reader seriously enough not to
strew red herrings around for the hell of it. Glands,
gums, and uber-goons are not the real problem, of course, only symptoms.
If “to read” means to follow with your eyes, one word after another,
until a text becomes comprehensible, then I cannot say I’ve read Modern
Life. If, on the other hand, “to read” means to scan, in the sense
of reading labels, like a grocery store’s optical reader, or if it means
to observe various-sized and colored containers without being able to see
what’s inside, or if it means to skim, admiring the typeface design and
visual placement on the page, or if it means to obtain data from a storage
medium (the page), and transfer said data to another storage medium (the
brain) via the movement of eyes, then I can say I have read this
book. But what does such a reading mean? I can’t say I enjoyed it, nor
can I say I didn’t enjoy it, since each word, then each poem,
overwrites the previous one. Was I changed by the experience? I don’t
know. I don’t think I had an experience. With
only other poets left to read poets, with critics at a loss to read or
evaluate poems (how to read or evaluate a poem not meant for a reader of
the first type, above?), and with a blurb-storm that blows over the
landscape with such force the landscape is itself is in danger of being
obliterated, poetry has entered its Golden Age of Logorrhea. So: I
put on my coat of pastilles and glass and hit the road with a Phillips
screwdriver. Dog Pants. The way out is in, cried a newly promoted
magpie. Look inside me, Trojan the Horse said. Someone succumbed to
a shape of stars. Someone folded in like an Robo-accordian. Someone
smelled a herd of centipedes. Someone wondered why poetry so publicly
acclaimed could be so barren of life. |
|||