After reading Triggering Town, "Statements of Faith," I actually came away feeling a little bit sad for Richard Hugo.
Let me preface my future comments by saying that I not only enjoyed, but took a lot of value away from the preceding chapters. However, in chapter 7, Hugo mentions over and over that to be a great poet, one must stay in a feeling of worthlessness. I am not a great poet. Heck, I'm not even a good poet, but I couldn't disagree with him more. I think this may work for him, but I am pretty sure there are poets that did not stay in a worthless state and still wrote amazing poetry.
He also mentions that writers who get to a point where they think there work is good or great, lose the ability to be self-critical. He is really generalizing here again. I am pretty sure Ezra Pound thought a lot of himself! He cranked out some pretty good poetry. Then there is Frederick Seidel, whom many consider the best living poet today, and he is extremely full of himself. I won't even get into the other fiction writers like Fitzgerald and others who were also pretty full of worth (opposite of worthless) who created masterpieces.
I actually think some people need to get away from feeling worthless! I do. To me feeling worthless is a drag. When I feel worthless, I have no energy to produce anything of value. I need to feel like I am accomplishing something, not in a pitiful state.
I also think encouragement is good for people. Hugo contends that it is better not to tell a young poet he or she is good. Again, I disagree. Without encouragement, a good writer may never become great because he or she may move on to something they think they are good at and never write anything again.
When I am feeling good, in a positive frame of mind, it affects me physically and mentally and also stirs the spirit to come up with good stuff to transfer to the page. This is when I personally write my best. When I am encouraged, I write even better! Hugo suggests just the opposite is true for writers. The over generalization really is discomforting.
After reading the chapter, I feel like he wants everybody to be miserable so they can write well. Hey, is anyone up for misery… ?
I didn't think so.
:o)
Jamie
****This is not a response to your post. This is the only way I knew how to post on the blog****
ReplyDeleteIn Hugo’s Statements of Faith, the idea of the poetic affect being on of failure particularly resonated with me. Hugo argues that “how you feel about yourself” is likely to be your most important feeling (Hugo 67). He goes on to link this feeling to the danger of dwelling in one’s success. In an artful manner, Hugo describes poetry as a summation of the process of creating it. He boldly asserts, “all art is failure” (Hugo 72). It took me a while to unpack this statement but after working through it I have come to agree with Hugo’s perspective. I don’t really believe Hugo truly means art is failure; rather art is based on failure. True art is a process of failing multiple times before reaching a pure final product. Noting the importance of failure to achieve success, Hugo’s argument about the danger of success is especially poignant. Hugo describes the successful poet as apathetic, as lacking in self-criticism “necessary to perfect [a] poem”, and lacking the “impulse to revise and perfect” (Hugo 70). In other words, poets need to watch out for pride. Pride is a roadblock to innovation and as Hugo ultimately argues a curse. Through the combination of a lack of criticism and one’s own pride, creativity is lost as there is no intrinsic desire to improve.
My Question: Given that failure is an inherent part of the poetic process and leads to good poetry, why does the idea of success plague poets like Roethke? Further, can success in art occur without causing these feelings of worthlessness described by Hugo that Jamie explored?
-Haluk Öz