Poetry is Dead. Also, Women are Pissed.

McIrvin, Michael. “Why Contemporary Poetry is Not Taught in the Academy.” Rocky

Mountain Review of Language and Literature. Vol. 54, No. 1 (2000), 89-99.

            As a response to the increasing denigration of poetry in the contemporary literature classroom, Michael McIrvin offers a forthright, if sometimes cynical, explanation. A poet himself, McIrvin does not wax poetic about the ways in which poetry has been discounted by the mainstream, reduced to the solipsistic wailing of those attempting to align themselves with the academic ideal.  In this critique of the modern creative writing program’s tendency toward neo-confessional inflection in poems that make form an end in itself, McIrvin admits to discovering, quite unexpectedly, hope for the future of American poetry.  McIrvin lays out two imperatives for the reformation of the MFA: to innovate and allow for mutation within the program that will reestablish an authentic literary lineage for emerging poets, and to force young poets to commit to their critical and poetical allegiances, rather than let publication dictate their creative efforts.  McIrvin argues that when language and subject becomes merely a pose, the poet’s voice too easily slips into inauthenticity and pastiche. The outcomes of most writing programs culminate in a body of contemporary poetry that, in McIrvin’s opinion, has been stripped of meaning. To remedy this problem, McIrvin calls for poets of all stripes to take an active role in the revivification of poetry, which should serve to remind us that “meaning is a dynamic, the truth the purview of individuals rather than of power, that to be actively is an act of conscience” (99).

Dowson, Jane. “’Older Sisters Are Very Sobering Things:’ Contemporary Women Poets

and the Female Affiliation Complex.” Feminist Review. No. 62, Contemporary Women Poets (Summer, 1999), 6-20.

By examining the ways in which women’s poetry has been established by their literary predecessors, Jane Dowson argues that it is possible to predict how twentieth century woman poet’s will be characterized following their tenure, and the extent with which their work is perceived to have value and authority. By looking at the legacy of poetry written by British women, one can see that just as the label “poetess,” and its incumbent handicap to self-perception hindered the efforts of nineteenth century female writers, the term “woman poet,” will have the same effect, largely due to the mythologizing of overlooked female poets, who were seen as underclass and undermined. One reason that Dowson points out to explain the consistent reoccurrence of published female poets who are absented from literary histories is the fact that they are ignored by a largely male-dominated culture of literary criticism. Although there are women in large enough numbers who are finding success as published poets in the contemporary era, there is still an argument to be made for what Dowson calls “positive discrimination.” However, positive discrimination is often resisted by woman poets because of their uneasy relationship with each other.  Dowson argues that in order for women to align themselves and build a culture of literary significance for their work, women must form bonds of connection, thereby becoming positive role models for the women who follow in their footsteps.