erything
eral
stantly
ined
ards
cal
nize
by Clark Coolidge
Contrary to popular belief, the 1970s weren’t only characterized by strange clothing and funky music. Amidst the talk of bell-bottoms and jumpsuits continued a style of language and creativity which existed long before the invention of formal writing: poetry – specifically, Language Poetry.
Despite the name, Language (or L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E) Poetry has nothing to do with the languages of the world – that would be too easy. And what does L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E even mean? How important are the equal signs in the name that they’re worth the time it takes to write it all out? Suman Chakroborty claims that the equal signs are used to show the equality of letters, “because every letter carries the power of expression and communication, when it is tied with another letter from the same Language and forms words, sentences and a written text”. He goes on to explain the school’s belief that words hold power, which is stored as energy that can be transferred from the writer to the reader2. (Whether or not this is accurate or mumbo jumbo is up for your interpretation.)
The poets associated with this new school of poetry started to grow in San Fransisco and New York City (apparently these are the only 2 places that anything interesting happens) around 1971 with the publication of This, a magazine which focused on avant-garde poetry written by many of the school’s poets5. More notably, the poets prospered in a magazine titled L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E (from which they got their name), published by Charles Bernstein and Bruce Andrews in 1978 and 19812. And surprise surprise: both Bernstein and Andrews were Language poets.
These two men stated that the poems they chose to publish highlighted “a spectrum of writing that places its attention primarily on language and ways of making meaning, that takes for granted neither vocabulary, grammar, process, shape, syntax, program, or subject matter … and to develop more fully the latticework of those involved in aesthetically related activity.” The magazine published the works of a variety of poets, but several re-occurring individuals turned up through the publications: Bernstein (surprise again), Andrews (surprise.. again), Watten, Hejinian, and Silliman1.
Ronald Glenn Silliman in particular is an American-born poet who, during the 1980s, was a “crusader for the cause” and helped to put many of his fellow poets’ works into the spotlight. He strongly argues that poetry is a “collaboration between the writer and reader,” a principle upheld by other Language poets4. Silliman claims that what connects the writers of this school “is not any particular style or practice but a community of concern for language as the center of whatever activity poems might be”3. Long story short, language lovers make up the language poets. How many more surprises are there?
A major point of divergence between the poetic styles of the Language poets with other poets during this time was the stigma surrounding voice-poems; what is voice poetry, you ask? George Hartley explains the driving force behind voice poetry as the idea that “the poet (a self-present subject) transmits a particular message (“experience,” “emotion”) to a reader (another self-present subject) through a language which is neutral, transparent, “natural.”” The Language poets challenge the socially-constructed norms of poetry by rejecting voice-poetry as the “natural” way to write. Bernstein especially comments on the fact that poetic forms and styles are all social constructs that should be challenged.3 Like most poetic schools, being formal and going with the flow is a tragedy; being yourself is the new style (spoiler: that’s a lie).
Additionally, Bernstein argues that the poet is not the most important or most substantial driving force behind poetry. Instead, “a poem exists in a matrix of social and historical relations that are more significant to the formation of an individual text than any personal qualities of the life or voice of an author”1. What do you know – poets who don’t write poetry just to impress other people with their completely useless-in-life poetry skills. Language poets also take into consideration the social and political happenings that are affecting the world – especially the Vietnam War, which took place during this time5.
According to Chakroborty2, the Language poets “force the readers to take active participation in the production of meaning – they are the players, who want to open up different possibilities of interpretation by placing some words / letters in the blank space of a paper as a part of their play with Language.” Have you ever been so lazy that you got someone else to do your job for you? Chakroborty uses a piece written by Clark Coolidge – which is provided at the beginning of this post – to exemplify this thinking.
The problem (or genius) with Coolidge’s work is that it appears rather incomplete. The words aren’t words at all – instead, they are fragments, as if the first half of the words has been cut off. In order to understand the poem, the reader must supply the letters to change these fragments into words. But how is the reader supposed to know exactly what the poet was intending these words to be? Simply, he isn’t (wtf?). This poem – as well as others written by the Language poets in a similarly collaborative fashion – challenges traditional poetic views of meaning and intentionalism2.
tl;dr The Language poets started a movement that called for the breaking of poetic norms and an increased importance on the relationship between the poet and the reader by taking grammatical ideas and using them in new ways (while also not being donkeys about it).
Teagan Crist
Introduction to Poetry
Saxton
14 February 2017
1Bartlett, Lee. “What Is ‘Language Poetry’?” Critical Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 4, 1986, pp. 741–752.
2Chakroborty, Suman. “Meaning, Unmeaning & the Poetics of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E.” The Indian Review of World Literature in English 4.1 (2008): 16-27. Web. 1 Feb. 2017.
3Hartley, George. “Textual Politics and the Language Poets (excerpts).” University of Pennsylvania, 1989. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.
4“Ron(ald) (Glenn) Silliman.” Contemporary Poets. Gale, 2001. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Feb. 2017.
5Williams, Tyrone. “Language Poets.” Salem Press Encyclopedia (2016): Research Starters. Web. 1 Feb. 2017.