We Didn't Start The Fire
Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 12:35PM Michael Schiavo has posted a very long and scathing critique of Matthew Dickman’s prize-winning first book, All-American Poem. Although some of the actual deconstructions are a little thin, he quotes extensively from the poems, which reveal their own weaknesses pretty evidently. I’ve had some personal/political issues with the meteoric rise of the Dickmans, only because of the blatant and obvious cronyism at play. Both twins get published in the New Yorker multiple times in one year and no one cries foul on Paul Muldoon? Seems a bit odd. The New Yorker fiasco was the most noticeable to me, but as I looked deeper there were numerous suspect instances in the success and narrative of the two. We all know bullshit happens, but that doesn’t mean we can’t shine a prefigurative light on it when it does...
I think Schiavo goes overboard, but it’s understandable; when so much praise has been heaped on such a mediocre poet it’s hard not to boil over, and Schiavo does so with entertaining swagger. Here are some gems from Schiavo’s blog entry:
“The collection is so very bad and the method by which the Dickmans have foisted themselves upon the American poetry establishment—and, in turn, by which the poetry establishment has foisted them upon the American public—should be looked at closely.”
“Everything about All-American Poem is insulting and self-centered, from the content of the work to its (lack of) style or perspective to the very manner by which it was brought into the world.”
“His imitation patriotism is what allowed George W. Bush his eight years in the White House, is the shadow that lurks behind “Freedom Fries” and the “War on Terror,” is the thing that labels any attempt to help our neighbor as Socialism. Empty phrases meant to sound like something fierce but in fact are more ephemeral than steam from a sewer grate.”
“It’s Emo-lite: twee poems for broken-hearted navel-gazers that say, ‘You too can write ‘poetry’ (and get laid).’ No wonder people are excited about this book. If you saw that someone got paid $3,000 to defecate on a piece of paper, you’d be a sucker if you didn’t stock up on Benefiber.”
All that aside, I’m actually a fan of Matthew’s brother: Michael Dickman. His first book (which ALSO came out this year ALSO with Copper Canyon), The End of the West, is really solid. I highly recommend it.
Reader Comments (8)
This is my favorite line from the review: "These are poems written by a personality, not a person." And I too think the other Dickman's work is better.
Janaka:
Thanks for the praise and the critique on tone. As I say in the piece, I've yet to read Michael's book, and that's why I don't go into his work. I have read some of his stuff online and it seems to differ in style, yes, but not very in lack of substance or connection to the reader. That's just from the handful I've read, and it's often the case that the really unique work doesn't get published outside of the book. Maybe it's just me, but "Seeing Whales" which appeared in The New Yorker -- and a poem whose ending is quite beautiful -- reads to me like a poem which would appear in The New Yorker. It seems like the imitation of an imitation rather than being its own thing. That famous T.S. Eliot quote about good poets and great poets comes to mind.
As for Matthew's work and the essay/review, I think it's important for any review, positive, negative, or apathetic, to quote the work at length and show concrete examples, no matter what its tone is. I'm no professional critic, just a well-read poet and editor giving his passionate opinion on the work with examples to back it up. I could have quoted more but the idea was to give a thorough sampling, not a poem-by-poem analysis. Here's the entire second half/page of "American Standard," which appears on pages 66-67:
There's a woman standing inside the bathroom,
against the door, which is unlocked,
and I am standing against her
and the party outside is standing against the walls of the house
and she is engaged to a nice man
from Colorado and I am lifting up her dress
with my teeth. No one gets her like the dress gets her
and that is why men want to pull it off.
It's jealousy. It's moving in on the conversation she's been having
with the fabric all night
and that conversation, the one you are
not a part of, is getting hot and heavy
so now there are half-moons of sweat appearing
beneath each breast and maybe
that is why you end up in the bathroom
next to a toilet with a candle on top,
a handful of her hair,
and her head reaching back
toward two shoulder blades that have been scratched by her fiancé
the night they fought about whatever it is
people fight about so that later they can throw each other around
without their clothes on. I have her underwear off now
and now she is sort of half-sitting on the edge of the sink
and I'm reaching for the door
because when she pulls me out of my jeans
I decide to lock it. I hear it click
and then I hear someone knocking, yelling
hurry up! but I don't want to hurry up
so I start thinking about the time
I almost went to Africa
and how I imagined Ethiopia
was going to be, and how the people there
were probably the kindest in the world.
Michael, thanks for chiming in here. I've heard a few people say similar things about Michael Dickman's work--how it's enjoyable but very derivative. That's probably true but I think that could be said about many good poets, especially younger ones early in their career. In my mind, the book is still worth reading and makes me eager to see what he'll do next, which is a good sign to me. I think the problem is that--as you point out--everyone is treating these two like they're the next "great voices" of American poetry, which is an absurd statement in and of itself.
When such grandiose statements are made, such buzz is created, and the poets themselves do nothing to mitigate the hype (because, really that's what it is), then they deserve to be scrutinized--and I was glad to see you take a bold step in that direction with Matthew's book. While I do think you stretched it a little far, I was really entertained and you pointed out enough glaring flaws to spark a real debate on this "prize-winning" book.
Dear Janaka,
Fuck you I don't need "fans" like you.
Did you say a "personal" issue?
Really?
Good luck,
Michael Dickman
ha...fans. wow.
Michael Dickman,
Just because you don't "need" me to be your fan won't make me think less of your poems.
In the meantime...
I know you and your brother are from the streets and all, but I'd like to maintain some decorum on this blog; please save any acts of aggression for a face-to-face meeting. Internet bravado seems more like Matthew's bag and I'm sure we'll be in the same room at some point soon enough.
mchael you are a very good at your poetry from maggie
Oh, Michael.
I guess "Wendy" isn't here to protect you from this one.
Tell your dear mother I said hello.