Both the Oswald book and the Mannheimer book have been works of liberation from the constraints of grammar, punctuation, form (though they have their own forms) and clarity that I had thought were hallmarks of good poetry (or which I think I needed to strive for, probably out of insecurity about my own voice). Mannheimer's dislocations and her omissions of detail coupled with the conversation style of her poems helped me to see that clarity and exposition are not necessary and being sparing of details and being inexact can be effective in creating a sense in the reader that they are brought into the story midway and are present there. Oswald moves into a strange place of both time and timelessness, with voices coming out of and above the deep, a sort of pre-conscious/post-conscious ominscience that just seems fascinating and primordial. Both induce a much deeper and seemingly more mystical or liminal sense that is both pleasurable in its own right and also freeing more generally. Poems that I feel emerging after reading these works seem to be both more powerful and more elusive. Maybe I'm wrong.... we are in a realm of uncertainty and confusion and trying to make sense and meaning.
I didn't get that same response in myself (so far) from reading the Mary Leader book --perhaps because her structures are powerful and seem to me imposed upon the work. This could be my own limitation in my own reading.
What are other folks in the group noticing in your own writing after reading these books? I am very curious.
I wrote two very hymnlike poems that must draw something from Oswald since we met. I will try to make these more finished and hope to post one here in the next week for comment/responses.
I really like and agree with how you describe Oswald's Nobody, and the pleasure of that mood and feeling she creates, as you say, mystical, timeless. I'm inspired by your being moved to write by Nobody. I have nothing to report, (yet at least), but I do find myself looking longer and maybe differently when I look out at the Pacific on my daily dog walks at Lands End in SF. . . It is hard for me to think of things to say about Mannheimer, Leader and Oswald that compares or contrasts them. Except that they are all amazing women poets.
Thank you, Diane, for your definition of "liberation" in Mannheimer's and Oswald's poems: "from the constraints of grammar, punctuation, form . . . and clarity . . . ," a definition I really appreciate. In our last meeting, I said that I relished being freed from the concreteness of the poetry of Mannheimer and Leader, while, from what I read here, you seem to view Mannheimer's work as unbounded from what I felt so constraining. For me, Mannheimer was concrete to the degree I was stuck in the specifics, while Oswald's work emancipates me from the details and expectations of the image (although she uses beautiful imagery) and the autobiographical specifics that Mannheimer and Leader both evoked. (Leader really straddled the line between the unconscious and the conscious, while Oswald dived into the deep waters of the unconscious and pulled me along--and I enjoyed the ride).
Oswald invites the reader into the ebb and flow of her work mid-stream, and doesn't allow us the chance to orient ourselves, thus asking us to leave our analytical minds on land. This is wonderful in the reading process (for me), but it can leave a reader a little out to sea when trying to explicate a poem. Oswald is experiential, immersing her reader into something much deeper than language itself can conjure (unless it's the language of her specific approach to poetry).
Oswald is a truly great poet, whose talent and skill I would love to be able to fold in to my own writing. We'll see what she inspires in me, and I'll share it here when that happens. I really look forward to reading your hymns. It's so interesting that she influenced your work so readily. Good for you!
"What do you think about erosion in terms of thinking through poetry?
What is the difference between poetry that prioritizes the human meaning above other meanings in the physical world and poetry that doesn’t?"
Thank you so much Sean for introducing me, us (our reading group) to Oswald and this book Nobody. Your question about erosion made me think of one of her many riffs on what the sea is/does/looks like/means, p. 5 " . . .yet it will outlast everything/because it is deep it is a dead field fenceless/a thickness with many folds in it promiscuous and mingling/which in its patience always wears away the hard things" In your comments, I really like the quote by her about poetry being a kind of "eroded thinking." I wouldn't try to say what she means exactly, but it made me think about how daily routine, headlines, slogans, ads build up on us, on our thinking, like sedimentary rock, and a poem, poems, can wear away that. As for your question about "poetry that prioritizes human meaning," for some reason I didn't feel that Oswald's Nobody prioritizes the sea or shells or water or sea-crows so much as give them voices and eyes and character. But maybe we are talking about the same thing ,the way she gives the sea a voice (really many voices) in the poem, as opposed to all "I" voices that are in so many poems that I read and write.
Both the Oswald book and the Mannheimer book have been works of liberation from the constraints of grammar, punctuation, form (though they have their own forms) and clarity that I had thought were hallmarks of good poetry (or which I think I needed to strive for, probably out of insecurity about my own voice). Mannheimer's dislocations and her omissions of detail coupled with the conversation style of her poems helped me to see that clarity and exposition are not necessary and being sparing of details and being inexact can be effective in creating a sense in the reader that they are brought into the story midway and are present there. Oswald moves into a strange place of both time and timelessness, with voices coming out of and above the deep, a sort of pre-conscious/post-conscious ominscience that just seems fascinating and primordial. Both induce a much deeper and seemingly more mystical or liminal sense that is both pleasurable in its own right and also freeing more generally. Poems that I feel emerging after reading these works seem to be both more powerful and more elusive. Maybe I'm wrong.... we are in a realm of uncertainty and confusion and trying to make sense and meaning.
I didn't get that same response in myself (so far) from reading the Mary Leader book --perhaps because her structures are powerful and seem to me imposed upon the work. This could be my own limitation in my own reading.
What are other folks in the group noticing in your own writing after reading these books? I am very curious.
I wrote two very hymnlike poems that must draw something from Oswald since we met. I will try to make these more finished and hope to post one here in the next week for comment/responses.
Thank you Sean for all of this.
--Diane
I really like and agree with how you describe Oswald's Nobody, and the pleasure of that mood and feeling she creates, as you say, mystical, timeless. I'm inspired by your being moved to write by Nobody. I have nothing to report, (yet at least), but I do find myself looking longer and maybe differently when I look out at the Pacific on my daily dog walks at Lands End in SF. . . It is hard for me to think of things to say about Mannheimer, Leader and Oswald that compares or contrasts them. Except that they are all amazing women poets.
Janice, I look forward to your piece(s) on your days with your dog on the beach in the most beautiful San Fransisco!
Thank you, Diane, for your definition of "liberation" in Mannheimer's and Oswald's poems: "from the constraints of grammar, punctuation, form . . . and clarity . . . ," a definition I really appreciate. In our last meeting, I said that I relished being freed from the concreteness of the poetry of Mannheimer and Leader, while, from what I read here, you seem to view Mannheimer's work as unbounded from what I felt so constraining. For me, Mannheimer was concrete to the degree I was stuck in the specifics, while Oswald's work emancipates me from the details and expectations of the image (although she uses beautiful imagery) and the autobiographical specifics that Mannheimer and Leader both evoked. (Leader really straddled the line between the unconscious and the conscious, while Oswald dived into the deep waters of the unconscious and pulled me along--and I enjoyed the ride).
Oswald invites the reader into the ebb and flow of her work mid-stream, and doesn't allow us the chance to orient ourselves, thus asking us to leave our analytical minds on land. This is wonderful in the reading process (for me), but it can leave a reader a little out to sea when trying to explicate a poem. Oswald is experiential, immersing her reader into something much deeper than language itself can conjure (unless it's the language of her specific approach to poetry).
Oswald is a truly great poet, whose talent and skill I would love to be able to fold in to my own writing. We'll see what she inspires in me, and I'll share it here when that happens. I really look forward to reading your hymns. It's so interesting that she influenced your work so readily. Good for you!
"What do you think about erosion in terms of thinking through poetry?
What is the difference between poetry that prioritizes the human meaning above other meanings in the physical world and poetry that doesn’t?"
Thank you so much Sean for introducing me, us (our reading group) to Oswald and this book Nobody. Your question about erosion made me think of one of her many riffs on what the sea is/does/looks like/means, p. 5 " . . .yet it will outlast everything/because it is deep it is a dead field fenceless/a thickness with many folds in it promiscuous and mingling/which in its patience always wears away the hard things" In your comments, I really like the quote by her about poetry being a kind of "eroded thinking." I wouldn't try to say what she means exactly, but it made me think about how daily routine, headlines, slogans, ads build up on us, on our thinking, like sedimentary rock, and a poem, poems, can wear away that. As for your question about "poetry that prioritizes human meaning," for some reason I didn't feel that Oswald's Nobody prioritizes the sea or shells or water or sea-crows so much as give them voices and eyes and character. But maybe we are talking about the same thing ,the way she gives the sea a voice (really many voices) in the poem, as opposed to all "I" voices that are in so many poems that I read and write.