January 17, 1956

[Donna Ferentes]

It's the fiftieth anniversary of Allen Ginsberg's great poem, America.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Suit yerselves. This is why I think it's great.

 

[blamblam]

Nah this is what was great about 1956

 

[phildwyer]

Suit yerselves. This is why I think it's great.

Well, I've read your analysis and I *still* think the poem's rubbish. Sorry. I met him once, Ginsberg. Very friendly.

 

[tangerinedream]

Thanks for that Donna. A real treat was that. I didn't know the poem previously I have to admit.

I like your line about a generation with no direction, in thrall to the poets of fifty years ago.

I love the way Ginsberg seems at once castigating America and castigating himself and the way it leaps, rather unpredictably is quite empowering for the reader in the sense that it suprises and pulses and fluctuates with occaisional moments of savage disection. It is not a coherent and logical argument, let seems to carry some kind of distilled truth. It presents the world with a mess, yet is more than a mess.
It is the opposite of slick, persuasive and structured and is all the more powerful for it.

A few naive undereducated thoughts

 

[Lava]

It's a good poem, I remember studying it at school. Admittedly it was somewhat lost on me then.

 

[gnoriac]

A million Trotskyites? Is that metaphorical rather than intended as literal?

 

[phildwyer]

A million Trotskyites? Is that metaphorical rather than intended as literal?

Literal, that'd be about right for 1956. That's the trouble with the poem IMO, its *too* bloody literal. Like "Howl." Its all a bit simple-minded innit?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, a few simple truths can be a good idea at the right time.

But the style of the poem is fantastic.

A million Trotskyites though? I doubt it. But there probably were a million communists.

 

[Fong]

Suit yerselves. This is why I think it's great.

I didn't really like it as a poem. I found it difficult to read with no lead going through it to give it any body or weight as anything other then a staccato sentence barrage. To me it was more prosaic then poetic.

I liked your deconstruction of it, more then i liked the actual poem, tho I do wonder whether that is you or the author of the poem. I wonder if I read someone elses deconstruction of the peice, it wouldn't be entirely different but just as interesting.

 

[phildwyer]

Well, a few simple truths can be a good idea at the right time.

But the style of the poem is fantastic.

A million Trotskyites though? I doubt it. But there probably were a million communists.

I bet Trotskyites outnumbered Communists in the USA by 1956. And I can't agree about the style, which reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of stoned queens gossiping away in some loft on Avenue B, which is probably exactly what it was. "Burroughs is still in Tangiers, he's not coming back" indeed. Self-indulgent. Actually that was the key with the Beats, self-promotion, making these strange people into myths, it was Ginsberg's PR genius that made them famous. Well that's only my view obviously, I know you like it and all.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I wonder if I read someone elses deconstruction of the peice, it wouldn't be entirely different but just as interesting.

I'd hope there were as many different interpretations as there were readers. That's one of the things that make poetry great - its ability to shoulder different meanings according to the experiences of the reader. It's one of the things that make Shakespeare great.

I bet Trotskyites outnumbered Communists in the USA by 1956.

I'd be amazed if that were true. The largest Trotskyite organisation never numbered more than about 1500 people, if I recall correctly.

 

[Fong]

I'd hope there were as many different interpretations as there were readers. That's one of the things that make poetry great - its ability to shoulder different meanings according to the experiences of the reader. It's one of the things that make Shakespeare great.

I'd be amazed if that were true. The largest Trotskyite organisation never numbered more than about 1500 people, if I recall correctly.

Not sure that works so well. I read Shakespeare and some of it is poetry, whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...forgotten the rest offhand, but hte fact is this sentence will instill into each reader a certain thought, a certain feeling.

If you have just written something so vague, so non-descript that any reader will likely find any feeling, any thought....then is that really good poetry?

I would have thought good poetry was the sort that could pass on a feeling or a thought, rather then just being so odd-ball that anything could be derived from it given the time.

 

[tangerinedream]

Not sure that works so well. I read Shakespeare and some of it is poetry, whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...forgotten the rest offhand, but hte fact is this sentence will instill into each reader a certain thought, a certain feeling.

If you have just written something so vague, so non-descript that any reader will likely find any feeling, any thought....then is that really good poetry?

I would have thought good poetry was the sort that could pass on a feeling or a thought, rather then just being so odd-ball that anything could be derived from it given the time.

But your experiences and feelings are not the same as others and even within yourself responses to poetry change over time and depending on your state of mind. You can read a poem at 15 and think 'I like that, it is about x' and 10 years later, it is about different things.

I think the joy of the 'beat' poets is precisely that they were so happy to dispense with the idea of crafting a poem on certain subjects and so carefree with their expression, that what we have is a collection of unfiltered writing, that genuinelly reflects the human experience in a very intense way.

Probably

 

[Ryazan]

Nah this is what was great about 1956

It ended in tears (well a lot more).