I find it amusing to reflect on the idea that mankind may sometime soon grow tired of reading and writers will do so too, that the scholar will one day direct in his last will and testament that his corpse shall be surrounded by his own books and especially by his own writings. And if it is true that the forests are going to get thinner and thinner, may the time not come one day when the libraries should be used for timber, straw and brushwood? Since most books are born out of smoke and vapour of the brain, they ought to return to smoke and vapour. And if they have no fire of their own in them, fire should punish them for it. It is thus possible that a later century will regard our era as a saeculum obscurum, because its production has been used most abundantly for heating the stoves.
[T]here is nothing before language, for there is no consciousness, and therefore no world, without a system of signs. In fact, it is the speaking-being that has created this universe, even if language excludes him from it. This means that we are deprived through words of an authentic intimacy with what we are, or with what the Other is. We need poetry, not to regain this intimacy, which is impossible, but to remember that we miss it and to prove to ourselves the value of those moments when we are able to encounter other people, or trees, or anything, beyond words, in silence.
A book can be represented as a conversation with one’s demon.
A poem that doesn’t get out of hand isn’t a poem.
It used to be said that the world itself was a great book: that didn’t mean that its destiny was sealed in some kabbalistic scrawl; on the contrary, it showed that one had always, again and again, to manipulate its code, recombine its letters, and finally rewrite it.
All of these writers — the new semiautobiographers, you might call them — reject privacy and propriety for openness and provocation. In their novels-from-life they aim for a synthesis of the personal and the intellectual on the one hand, and the fictional and the nonfictional on the other. They display a skepticism about plot, an interest in intellectual work, and, in their feminist determination to confer full aesthetic legitimacy on experience historically treated as marginal, a sense of political purpose. They are self-conscious about the act of writing and often make subjects of their toil, ambition, and doubt. The most recent of their books also seem influenced by, and in the cases of Zambreno and Bellamy, fashioned from, blog posts, the ideal literary forum for a self-consciously messy performance. Never edited by an alien hand, totally under the control of the writer, the blog post refuses to be anything but what it wants to be. It will not subject itself to “some highly toned artificial neat form,” to quote Zambreno. The (ostensibly) vomiting or blog-like narrative will make the mistakes it makes; it will be as clear or unclear as the writer pleases. Most important, it will read as it was first written. The amount of time that passes between the writing and the posting is between the writer and herself, but if she wishes, there need be none at all.
Fragments of a Broken Poetics by Jennifer Moxley

sacreamour:

 Smile, if only from politeness, at the one moment of

     the world that concerns you. 

                             —Jean Grosjean, An Earth of Time

I

The poet’s psychology, visible only to the poet’s friends, floats lightly over the surface of the poem. It discolors some words temporarily, but never quite settles into them—provided those words belong together. If so, they will eventually cast off this shadow; if not, it will eventually smother them. Thus, it is the poem, not the poet, that we love. Through it the singular becomes shared, the transitory eternal.

II

The eternal, typically a conceit standing in for the hope of civilizations, acts differently in poetry. The words of the poem, once happily configured, may wait a very long time for a reader to read them as they were meant to be read. This is the eternity of the poem.

III

A poet only needs one poem, a poem only one reader. Moving from singular to shared in this instance is a rudimentary economy. It is less affecting than a mortal kiss, more than a passing conversation. The poem will always provoke an acute desire to know its creator, “acute” because hopeless.

IV

Disembodied, the poem provokes longing. Its incorporeity is inscribed in myth: the severed head of Orpheus adrift on the Aegean Sea. Though separated, the head continues to sing. The song it sings is either a lament of exile from the body or a celebration of freedom from its material prison, depending on the direction of the winds.

V

The poet’s emotional signature is retained in the poem. Aristotle, in his bipartite model of the soul, places the emotions under the obedient, illogical part, reason with command and logic. Yet both parts are cognitive and partake in the logos. Thought is the efficient cause of emotion. This is why a poem’s intelligence is more moving than its heart.

VI

Just as ideas do not precede words, content is inchoate before form. Similarly, experience is inchoate before memory. This Proustian maxim holds true for the poem. Like us, words are ever-changing relics fighting for continued relevance. The poet’s job is to preserve this “fossil language” (Emerson). In exchange, the poem returns the illusion of presence, the gift of the now.

Poetic form is the temporal conduit between the past, present, and future. It organizes the senses so that they do not hinder the intellect in its lonely quest toward understanding and, in some cases, unity with something greater than itself.

VII

What does it matter if there are poets or poems?

VIII

The idea of audience is a nuisance born of the need for spectacle. Poems haunting the precarious dialectic between existence and extinction do not need it. Their magic is dependent on the private experience of separate individuals.

IX

Poets whose readings lead us to believe ourselves part of a spontaneous and instinctive consensus have left poetry behind. Perhaps for the better.

X

The poet who foregrounds the surface qualities of the word—sound, texture, look—must be especially scrupulous when building the poem’s semantic foundation. Effects should enhance complexity, not replace it, otherwise they risk giving complexity, which already struggles to justify itself, a very bad name.

XI

In poetry, as elsewhere, nature isn’t what it used to be.

XII

The poem resists. It resists coming into being. It resists eloquence. It resists transmitting unpleasant or embarrassing knowledge. It resists grammatical constraints. It resists moving away from simple utterance. It resists revision. It resists completion. It resists success. Hopefully, the poet resists as well.

XIII

The book is the means, not the end. It should conform to the poem, not vice versa. Otherwise the imagination becomes a small box, which thinks only of the larger box it wishes to resemble. An ideal book is a bed: a comforting place in which poems can sleep while awaiting illumination. Both poem and book, however, are subject to the capricious lens of human attention.

XIV

The poem is responsible for the knowledge it proposes. It cannot account for what the reader does not know, nor should it account for what the reader desires. Any attempt to do so panders to a temporary and insufficient knowledge. The poem is not prophetic. It cannot foresee its relevance to others. And yet still it wants to be loved.

XV

The poet must understand seduction, because even capricious human attention is susceptible to courtship.

XVI

Poetry, in the abstract, offends no one.

XVII

Sleep, to whom Keats partly owes his “worthy rhymes,” has long been kin to poetry. Saint-Pol Roux affixing a sign that reads “poet at work” to his bedchamber is the most playful example of this alliance. Both sleep and poetry open a passage to the unconscious, one by nature, the other by artifice. Both create memories of astonishing wakefulness, one through dream, the other through imagination. It is almost impossible to reproduce or transmit such experiences by other means.

XVIII

There are two kinds of poetic seduction. One is quick, content-based, and will tolerate no argument. The other is slow, formal, and easily deniable. The first may create wistful memories, but never a lasting relationship. The second, if successful, will become a part of you, a quiet attendant for life.

XIX

A momentary bewilderment arouses the mind. Many words, lines, and phrases may temporarily baffle without spoiling the reading experience as a whole.

XX

Though it is true that before creation every quantum of content has infinite potential form, the successful poem will pass convincingly for the sole formal option, effectively erasing the memory of all other solutions.

XXI

A word can be a seed from which an entire poem grows, or it can be an integral part of a well-balanced formal arrangement, one leaf among many. Some words may act like birds and add a touch of color. But should they chance to flyaway the perception of the whole would not be altered.

XXII

Risks to the poet’s life: drowning from self-love like Narcissus, or becoming infatuated with death like Orphée in Cocteau’s retelling of the myth. Through the mirror lies the abyss in both cases, and thus it is impossible to tell them apart.

XXIII

The poet is buried in the obliterated whiteness beneath the dark letters of poem.

XXIV

The poem helps us to understand the mystery of the word. In the process the obvious becomes meaningless, the enigmatic revelatory.

XXV

Sometimes the poem has more friends than the poet.

XXVI

Publication, popularity, and prizes. All three are unreliable measures of value. In fact, any indicator of poetic worth that is immediately perceptible to people who care nothing of poetry is likely to be, in some part, false.

XXVII

There is a time in every poet’s life when the mention of other writers, even if dead, is intolerable. It is a necessary rejection of the known text in favor of the not-yet-written. If things go as they should, this allergy will be only temporary. The lively mind will eventually find such closed antipathy boring and opt for openness instead.

XXVIII

Poems demand a concentrated lingering to which we are unaccustomed. This is why they cause discomfort. When we stand still in one place, attempting to document and respect the details, we feel as vulnerable as a small creature in an open field beneath avian predators. Rapid and sequential page turning gives us a sense of progress and accomplishment, relieving us from the double threat of frustration and impatience.

XXIX

Language has no weather, and therefore is not, strictly speaking, an environment.

XXX

Poets who have learned a lesson write poems that teach.

XXXI

The hermetic poem is premised on a deep-held respect for an invisible knowledge already assumed to exist. It wishes to be like Hermes in Botticelli’s Primavera, shooing away the little clouds. Moving clouds with a wand, however, is a very delicate business. The poet who attempts it lightly risks becoming lost in a mist.

XXXII

Inspiration is a matter of will, Imagination of mind. The former comes from forces outside the poet, whether they be divine or mundane, issuing from the Muse or the polis. Dull, meaningless environments dry up this faculty and put too much pressure on the Imagination, which arises from inside the poet, and can, if left without outlet, collapse.

XXXIII

A collapsed Imagination results in acute neurosis. And yet while all neurotics are imaginative, many poets are not.

XXXIV

I once wrote, “those who think poetry is working, are laboring under a misconception.” By which I meant that the mental activity of writing a poem sabotages the mechanized reproduction of culturally programmed cognition: work-a-day thought is put to a stop.

XXXV

Poetry is play for very high stakes which, though the cause of an extremely competitive race, can never be collected.

XXXVI

Poets, once they reach a certain maturity, may begin to repeat

themselves. This realization can stultify, and, for a time, silence. But there is no shame in refining a well-constructed and meaningful design. Subtlety has authored many a shakedown.

The established poet who, fearing calcification, reverts to a quest for novelty, not only robs the youth of their one advantage, but risks looking the fool as well.

XXXVII

The trick with fashion is to sit it out.

XXXVIII

I have about the same interest in jewelry that I have in horse racing, politics, modern poetry, or women who need weird excitement. None.

          —Cary Grant, To Catch a Thief

You can learn a great deal about what people think of you by paying attention to the company they place you in.

XXXIX

The living language is intimately connected to poetic form. When Middle English went, so did “bob and wheel.” And yet, since in addition to floating on the air, poems now live in books, archaic words and forms can be revived and, if sparingly applied, provide a certain charm to an otherwise speech-based composition.

As with Shakespeare’s language, which is spoken nowhere but on the stage, we suspend our disbelief out of love for the fresh turns of phrase, outré diction, and elegant artifice. In this time of plain speaking some may also find that a moment away from “natural” speech can come as a great relief.

XL

I have met very few poets who are calm about or accepting of the way visual artists use language in their work.

XLI

After a point, even the poem can grow bored with its own devices.

XLII

It seems as if the able use of metaphor has precipitously fallen off since doubt was cast upon language’s ability to represent the real, and yet simile, a far less interesting trope, somehow continues to thrive.

XLIII

Poetry is not politically efficacious in countries where it is not valued as a cultural necessity by the general populace.

XLIV

The poem occupies an invisible zone between the subjective emotional utterance and the objective reporting of fact. It is relative and universal, false and true. Negotiating this contradiction with finesse is crucial to the poem’s success.

XLV

A great deal of overlap notwithstanding, the poem’s knowledge is never quite identical to the poet’s. Poets understand the intention behind their poems, and may even recognize the outcome, but there is always a remainder they cannot foresee and, indeed, may never detect.

XLVI

The poem’s life is not coeval with the poet’s.

XLVII

The novice poet uses the poem in the service of desire, while the expert pressures desire into the service of the poem.

XLVIII

Poetry can intimate the existence of forces beyond the understanding of the individual mind, and yet, as a strictly human endeavor, reliant on the individual, it is a poor substitute for religion. The fiction it provides can neither be standardized, nor significantly shape behavior. In addition, belief has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of poetry.

Still we might ask: in the absence of God is poetry the best vehicle through which to address metaphysical questions? No. It is one way among many, and has never, regardless of the relative state of God and religion, shied away from questions of the Soul.

XLIX

It is easier to eavesdrop on and denigrate the compassionate, learned, and much interrupted conversation that makes up the history of poetry than it is to participate.

L

The most mysterious thing about poetry is that poets, even when lacking any prospect of reward or recognition, continue to find it satisfying to write.

The word must have been in the beginning a magic symbol, which the usury of time wore out. The mission of the poet should be to restore to the word, at least in a partial way, its primitive and now secret force. All verse should have two obligations: to communicate a precise instance and to touch us physically, as the presence of the sea does.
It may be that living in an imaginative state is the same as living in a primitive state, one ruled by the whims of obscure gods, gusted with unassailable pleasures and torn open by corpuscular terrors, one right in the middle of the blast furnace of the sacred. But that depends upon a present overwhelming awareness of the unknowable and fabricating the knowable allows for control, survival, progress. We know now where the gazelle lie down so we can sneak up upon them. We know what this seed contains and where these waters lead and the opposite-smell of fire is snow-coming. I am not saying that the triumphs of the rational mind, of the creation of cause-and-effect relation isn’t fundamentally imaginative, nor that the glories of technology aren’t imaginative, but much of that triumph has led to the notion of the imaginary as being something that is false, discarded with maturity because it produces no material result. So after years of condemning and destroying the forest, of our war on twilight and dawn and war on night, we wonder why we’re waking up in a desert. That’s why in art the presence of the imagination has become so disruptive and primitive, engaged often in first-mindedness. The rational intellect, so evolved and rewarded with stunning successes, with footprints on the moon and cures for TB, is now fitting too snugly over our minds like a too-small helmet, and it requires antlers to get through it. Our explanations are so powerful we’re suffering from the anemia of having replaced the world with explanations of the world. We need mystery in our lives, it is the presence of love: we need the beauty of the splash. We’re not just turkey necks used for crab bait, are we? We’re not math either. The imagination is the vital extra, the extravagance of the flower’s throat as well as the poverty of the weathered barn door. It is counterproductive, insurgent, undemocratic, and unownable, but a true comfort.
Poetry Buses by Nizar Qabbani

Writing is the art of involvement. There is no real writing outside involvement. Writing is not a Persian rug on which the writer walks, as Jean Cocteau says; nor is it a seat covered in Aubusson, or a pillow of bird feathers into which our heads dive, or a private yacht on the deck of which we bask in the sunshine…and drink icy Dutch beer.

The writer has to remain in his depths a Bedouin dealing with the sun, with salt, and with thirst.

He must stay barefoot in order to feel the heat of the earth, its swellings and the pain of its stones.

He must stay naked like a wild horse, refusing all the saddles the regimes are trying to place on its back.

And once the writer loses his Bedouinness, his wildness, and his ability to neigh; once he opens his mouth for the iron bridle and grants his back to riders, he is transformed into “a government bus” forced to stop at all bus stops, and submit to the conductor’s whistle!

“Poetry’s buses” are well known in the history of ancient Arabic poetry, and the “garages” of caliphs are crowded with thousands of hypocritical poems which have, with the passage of time, become skeletons of tin plate and piles of scrap metal.

However, what surprises us is that this phenomenon persists in modern Arabic poetry, where we notice that some of our poets as well have been turning into “buses,” turning left and right to the capitals of the Arab world, carrying in their trunks acting costumes, make-up, and poems whose titles change according to “the requirement of the situation”!

The poet cannot choose ice and fire together; he cannot be in the forest and the city simultaneously; and he cannot be in survival and death at the same time!

Writing is a daily game with death. Thus Hemingway understood literature, and thus Kafka, Lorca, Camus, and Mayakovski, and others who have lived their lives and writings in the isthmus between life and death.

As for us, writing is “a government function” having all the comfort, obedience, fatalism, and discipline of an office position…

Three fourths of Arab writers are “civil servants” who write while holding in their pockets an insurance policy against poverty, illness, old age, and arbitrary expulsion…

For this reason they are unable to declare any strike, or walk in any demonstration, or distribute any poem or secret pamphlet not approved by the employer!

Thus the Arab writer is torn between his “civil position” as a man married to the government and his “artistic position” as a man yearning to cheat on his wife “the government,” but cannot carry out for the sake of the children’s future and the family honor!

Until we find the great courageous Arab writer who can tear out his certificate of marriage with the authority, and commit adultery even once, literature books will remain for us far from interdiction and confiscation, exactly like housekeeping books!

(Source: jadaliyya.com)

I am ashamed, or perhaps proud, to say how much of my time is spent in thinking, thinking, thinking about literature.
A good poem is like the space shuttle. It enters the reader’s mind and heart like a rocket. On leaving the atmosphere, it drops the launching gear of experience that served as impetus for its creation. Who wrote the poem, the life the person lived or is living, will not matter once the poem takes on a life of its own. We are familiar with the poem that has failed to rid itself of the person who wrote it. Sentiment, cloying love of the self, and damages done to the self cling to the poem like the lingering smell of body odor one sometimes encounters when entering an elevator. The doors close, and while we are inside the poem, reading it to the end (if one does not get off and take the stairs instead) is a claustrophobic experience, a forced cohabitance with a stench that is mortal. Good poems live long after their authors died. Good poems by the living make the lives of their authors cease to matter.
Text means Tissue; but whereas hitherto we have always taken this tissue as a product, a ready-made veil, behind which lies, more or less hidden, meaning (truth), we are now emphasizing, in the tissue, the generative idea that the text is made, is worked out in a perpetual interweaving; lost in this tissue—this texture—the subject unmakes himself, like a spider dissolving in the constructive secretions of its web. Were we fond of neologisms, we might define the theory of the text as an hyphology (hyphos is the tissue and the spider’s web).
Some say imperfect lines don’t belong in a museum, but I think a sentence’s shortcomings make it human. And anyway this museum is not after perfection. Perfection is not only oppressive, it’s boring. One should move through a museum at what Didier Maleuvre calls the “tempo of consciousness”:“the dreamy pause, the regress and ingress of reverie, the winding progress that is engagement.” The same should be said of a truly fine sentence. Sentences, like museums, hold everything the imagination can hold.
I write because some things can’t be buried.