Sestina! or, The Fate of the Idea of Form Citation Burt, Stephen. 2007. Sestina! or, the fate of the idea of form. Modern Philology 105, no. 1: 218-241. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/587209 Permanent link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3426325 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA Share Your Story The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Submit a story . Accessibility Sestina! or, The Fate of the Idea of Form STEPHEN BURT Harvard University There seem to be a lot of sestinas lately. James Cummins and David Lehman have just published a book of them; the online version of the journal McSweeney’s ran, until 2007, a poetry section that published nothing else.1 At least one sestina (sometimes three) appears in first or second collections from the past fifteen years by (among others) Brian Blanchfield, Timothy Donnelly, Ben Doyle, Jenny Factor, B. H. Fairchild, Joanna Fuhrman, Noelle Kocot, Randall Mann, Laura Mullen, Geoffrey G. O’Brien, Ethan Paquin, Anna Rabinowitz, Jendi Reiter, Catie Rosemurgy, Prageeta Sharma, Spencer Short, Heidi Lynn Staples, Matthew Thorburn, A. Van Jordan, and Jonah Winter.2 Well-known 1. James Cummins and David Lehman, Jim and Dave Defeat the Masked Man (Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull, 2006); McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, Sestinas, 2003–6, http://www. mcsweeneys.net/links/sestinas/. 2. Brian Blanchfield, Not Even Then (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 34–35, 68–69; Timothy Donnelly, Twenty-seven Props for a Production of “Eine Lebenszeit” (New York: Grove, 2003), 50–51; Ben Doyle, Radio, Radio (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001), 62–63; Jenny Factor, Unraveling at the Name (Port Townsend, WA: Copper Canyon, 2002), 6–7; B. H. Fairchild, Local Knowledge (New York: Norton, 2005), 29–30; Joanna Fuhrman, Ugh Ugh Ocean (Brooklyn, NY: Hanging Loose, 2003), 25–26; Noelle Kocot, 4 (New York: Four Way, 2001), 40–41, 48–49, 61–62; Randall Mann, Complaint in the Garden (Lincoln, NE: Zoo, 2004), 6–7; Laura Mullen, After I Was Dead (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1999), 76–77; Geoffrey G. O’Brien, Green and Gray (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 73–74; Ethan Paquin, The Violence (Boise, ID: Ahsahta, 2005), 20–21; Anna Rabinowitz, At the Site of Inside Out (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), 14–15, 33–34, 63–64; Jendi Reiter, A Talent for Sadness (Cincinnati: Turning Point, 2003), 54–55; Catie Rosemurgy, My Favorite Apocalypse (St. Paul, MN: Graywolf, 2001), 95–96; Prageeta Sharma, Bliss to Fill (Honolulu: Subpress, 2000), 4; Spencer Short, Tremolo (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 50–51; Heidi Lynn Staples, Guess Can Gallop (Kalamazoo, MI: New Issues, 2004), 12–14; Matthew Thorburn, Subject to Change (Kalamazoo, MI: New Issues, 2004), 30–31; A. Van Jordan, M-A-C- N-O-L-I-A (New York: Norton, 2004), 80–82, 117–18; Jonah Winter, Maine (Raymond, NH: Slope, 2002), 53–58. ç 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0026-8232/2008/10501-0017$10.00 218 Stephen Burt „ Sestina! 219 periodicals and Web journals have, even more recently, offered sestinas by such poets (all widely published, all with first books out since 1995) as Geoff Bouvier, Joshua Clover, Brian Henry, Ange Mlinko, and Chris Stroffolino.3 Few of these poets use much rhyme or regular meter; some never rhyme at all. Their names, as a group, would make poor evidence for anyone who wanted to argue that American poets were now embracing inherited forms in general. Why, then, are they writing so many sestinas? Introduced into English by Sir Philip Sidney, the sestina got little use until the end of the nineteenth century. David Caplan has described a sestina revival beginning in the 1930s, led (though he does not quite say so) by W. H. Auden; James Breslin called the 1950s—derisively— “the age of the sestina.”4 Edward Brunner, in his important recent study of fifties poetry, writes that during that decade collections “seemed incomplete without a sestina.”5 Donald Justice, W. S. Merwin, William Meredith, and John Ashbery all published more than one.6 Brunner suggests that “in a time of professionalization . . . that form which requires a heavy investment in labor is bound to be in ascen- dance.”7 Yet the more whimsical sestinas of the present, as we will see, seem to question or mock what Brunner dubs “guild skills,” even as they demonstrate those skills. If the fifties sestina reflected pro- fessionalization, the contemporary sestina perhaps notes dissatisfaction with professionalization, even as it still finds value in craft. The sestina has served, historically, as a complaint: Does it still? Caplan writes that “the sestina’s demands are so harshly arbitrary that they ask to be used metaphorically,” as signs for deprivation or duress.8 Rather than complain about unrequited love (as in Sidney), material 3. Geoff Bouvier, “Sestina,” New American Writing 20 (2002): 100; Joshua Clover, “Das Kissenbuch,” McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/sestinas/ 13JoshuaClover.html; Brian Henry, “A Fake Sestina for Hayden Carruth,” McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/sestinas/20BrianHenry.html; Ange Mlinko, “A Wrinkle in Time,” McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/ links/sestinas/8AngeMlinko.html; Chris Stroffolino, “In Memory of My Rock Band,” Shampoo 24 (2005), http://www.shampoopoetry.com/ShampooTwentyfour/stroffolino.html. 4. Breslin is quoted in David Caplan, Questions of Possibility (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2005), 20. 5. Edward Brunner, Cold War Poetry (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 161. 6. Donald Justice, New and Selected Poems (New York: Knopf, 1995), 35–40; W. S. Merwin, The First Four Books of Poems (New York: Athenaeum, 1975), 30, 42; William Meredith, Partial Accounts (New York: Knopf, 1987), 25; John Ashbery, The Mooring of Starting Out (Hopewell, NJ: Ecco, 1997), 40, 54. 7. Brunner, Cold War Poetry, 164–65. 8. Caplan, Questions of Possibility, 23. 220 MODERN PHILOLOGY poverty or orphanhood (as in Bishop), bad weather or the problem of evil (as in Anthony Hecht), contemporary poets, I will argue, use sestinas to lament their diminished or foreclosed hopes for their art.9 The miniboom in sestinas has a contributory cause in the failure of nonformal kinds of poetic ambition, in the nonviability—for writers whose careers began relatively recently—of various programs from the fifties, sixties, and seventies that purported to show poets how to make something happen. Recent sestinas not only reflect but describe that failure. At their best, they meditate on the limits and frustrations of any model of poetry based in technique or in entertainment, and they complain that no other model fits. * * * Poets who began publishing in the 1990s arrived at the end of a long chain of disappointments: one might even say a line of failed promises. They could look back, if they chose, to academic formalists of the 1950s, who claimed (following, loosely, T. S. Eliot) that American poetry represented a continuously valid tradition of reconciling existential contradictions and making sense of experience through verbal craft. Rejecting such now frequently stigmatized models, they could look back on the schools of sixties poetry (later anatomized, with varying severity, by Charles Altieri, Paul Breslin, and Alan Williamson), which claimed an organic warrant or a natural connection to a preverbal reality, and on generations of confessional verse—the first led by Robert Lowell, the second avowedly feminist—that promised models through which both poets and readers could escape familial or patri- archal oppression. Many recent poets might find, with Paul Breslin, that these schools, for all their supposed rivalries, reflect “a sentimental greening of the unconscious,” with a “common origin in the desire to recover a self disentangled from acculturation and its burden of guilt.”10 Poets who began in the nineties could also look back on claims about social critique and social justice advanced in connection with language writing, which, according to its most ambitious advocates— 9. Philip Sidney, “Ye Gote-herd Gods,” in his Poems, ed. William Ringler (Oxford University Press, 1962), 111; Elizabeth Bishop, “A Miracle for Breakfast” and “Sestina,” in her Complete Poems, 1927–1979 (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1983), 18, 123; Anthony Hecht, “Sestina d’Inverno,” in his Collected Earlier Poems (New York: Knopf, 1990), 135, and “The Book of Yolek,” in his The Transparent Man (New York: Knopf, 1990), 73. 10. Paul E. B. Breslin, The Psycho-Political Muse (University of Chicago Press, 1987), 21. Stephen Burt „ Sestina! 221 such as Ron Silliman in The New Sentence—might loosen the shackles of instrumental reason, raise heretofore unavailable questions about “the social dynamics of capitalism,” or decommodify culture itself.11 “Mainstream” writers throughout the 1980s—Robert Pinsky, for instance—implied that a suitably democratic poetry could represent and reinforce a revival of civil society. In the same years, Jorie Graham’s “Self-Portraits,” and the autobiographical poems that followed, evi- denced what James Longenbach called Graham’s “Big Hunger”—her desire for a new understanding of history, meaning, knowledge, and time and her hopes that her poems might construct it.12 We can still find such claims in writers of Graham’s own generation; Donald Revell’s recent prose strikes a positively Emersonian note: “We must not look for poetry in poems,” he declares. “Poetry has further to go and greater occasions. As energy it outspeeds the mass and manners of art. . . . It is itself alive, and bursts from poems in actual ecstasy.”13 Yet it is no insult to Revell to note that his claims sound anachro- nistic, even provocative, and that few of the other contemporary writers named in my first paragraph would make them. Young poets now tend not to believe that the poetry they publish in books and journals can disclose organic preverbal truths, invigorate broad movements for social justice, validate individual writers by linking them to a singular tradition, or strip away social falsities so as to empower or absolve an authentic self. When these ethical, spiritual, political, and historical ambitions fall away, what is left is entertainment and craft or, to put it another way, technique and fun. The sestina is a favored form now as it has not been since the 1950s, I contend, because it allows poets to emphasize technique and to disavow at once tradition, organicism, and social or spiritual efficacy. The sestinas I will consider here explore, embody, and worry about such disavowals. To see how they work, and how some other contemporary poems that are not themselves sestinas answer them, is to see a problem that a generation of poets seems to find central to the practice of their art now. I Why this form, rather than others? Caplan writes that contemporary poets tend to “use conspicuous rules but deny the rules’ authority.”14 11. Ron Silliman, The New Sentence (New York: Roof, 1995), 8. 12. James Longenbach, Modern Poetry after Modernism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 175. 13. Donald Revell, Invisible Green (Richmond, CA: Omnidawn, 2005), 27. 14. Caplan, Questions of Possibility, 25. 222 MODERN PHILOLOGY Marjorie Perloff has suggested that contemporary poets in search of formal constraints, but alienated from any particular tradition, turn either to satire of inherited forms (as in Ashbery’s poem “The Songs We Know Best”) or to arbitrary procedural constraints: the sestina now fits both these purposes.15 Unlike the two-part, thesis-anti-thesis structure of the sonnet, for example, or the aab structure of blues, the six-words seven-times structure of the sestina corresponds to no prominent process in human conversation or in the logic of discursive prose. The less a strict form can be made to look natural, the less it looks like an inevitable consequence of a poem’s apparent content, the more it looks like a conscious choice—or a game. Moreover, sestinas, as the form exists today, require neither expertise with inherited meter nor facility with rhyme. Daniel Nester, the sestinas editor for McSweeney’s, writes half-jokingly: “The sestina is, to my mind, the one form that poets from all camps can write and appreciate. Formalists love the sestina for its ornate, maddening word repetition; avant- gardists love the sestina for its ornate, maddening word repetition.”16 This sense of artificiality, even arbitrary constraint, has fueled the sestina’s appeal and suited it to describe poets’ sense that their art as a whole corresponds to nothing much. Consider Joanna Fuhrman’s “Stable Self Blues”: the poet or speaker identifies herself as “just another pizza delivery girl,” “a raconteur with nothing / To recount,” adding “Mina Loy / Is my favorite video game. / I love blowing up those enemy nouns.”17 Fuhrman admires Loy but discounts her destructive goals, imagining Loy’s modernist project as exciting but self-enclosed and harmless, without immediate ethical consequence. Fuhrman con- tinues, almost flirtatiously: “Nothing / Could really be better than this game // In which nothing feels like it is a game . . . Don’t think I’m putting down all games.” “Stable Self Blues” not only defends a rela- tively inconsequential (and feminized, even girlish) poetry but further- more defends inconsequentiality, flimsiness, foolishness, helplessness, and lightness, as such. “The stuffed rabbits on the pillow sleep like the sweetest smallest girl.”18 Furhman’s sestina anticipates Sian Ngai’s claim that “as a literary genre . . . associated with small and compact texts,” modern lyric poetry must “negotiate its relationship to cuteness,” which is to say childlike- 15. Marjorie Perloff, Radical Artifice (University of Chicago Press, 1991), 138–39. 16. Daniel Nester, “Confessions of a Sestinas Editor,” Poets and Writers, January 2005, http://www.pw.org/mag/0501/newsnester.htm. 17. Fuhrman, Ugh Ugh Ocean, 25. 18. Ibid., 26. Stephen Burt „ Sestina! 223 ness, softness, helplessness, portability, purchasability, and femininity: “the commodity aesthetic of cuteness,” Ngai continues, can help poetry to consider “the social effeteness of its small and all too easily fetishized texts.”19 For Fuhrman, contemporary poetry appears doomed to cute- ness. It must give pleasure, and it must change; other than that, there is nothing much it must do, even nothing much that it can do, and the ses- tina—which goes round in circles, displays obvious craft, and mimes a kind of futility—matches those reduced (or realistic) ambitions. Some poets present those ambitions in harsher tones. Joshua Clover’s self-satirizing sestina “Das Kissenbuch” depicts the poet and his poem as impotent latecomers among a cast of dead authors who include Lao Tze, Sun Tzu, Marx, Lucretius, and Hesiod: “The wave of work / Keeps going like a sentence keeps going, gathering material as it goes, and / One lives among this jetsam, is of the jetsam, is quizzical at being a capital / I at this late date.”20 Clover also imagines “gentlemen of business” reading, without necessarily understanding, Hesiod’s Works and Days, which stands to Clover’s short poem in the relation of didactic to mock-didactic. Clover’s poem is a “work” in the sense that he has made it but not a substantial “work” in the sense of Works and Days, nor does it, in a Marxist’s (nor perhaps a physicist’s) sense, do work. By mixing his labor with words, the poet has produced nothing useful or special. A similar sense of inutility dominates Matthew Thorburn’s sestina “Just You, Just Me,” which plays on “justice,” on the name Donald Justice, and on the deflating phrase “just us,” seeking (but not quite finding) “a new / poem” with “a new / way to remember the old things.”21 Other sestinas describe other sorts of futility. In Jendi Reiter’s “Regis- tering Bliss” the difficulties in planning the poet’s wedding suggest (and deflate) the difficulties involved in modernist plans to make it new: “Who’d be ready / to smash a whole set of porcelain // just to choose . . . a different pattern of porcelain?” Reiter asks, adding, “Things are made fresh, but never new.”22 Shanna Compton’s “The Remarried Again Sestina” suggests a kind of appalled irritation, both with the sestina form and with the form of life that its bored protago- nists enact: At first, everything was lovely. He courted her, fresh as a rose. As a mate he seemed competent. 19. Sian Ngai, “The Cuteness of the Avant-Garde,” Critical Inquiry 31 (2005): 815, 838. 20. Clover, “Das Kissenbuch.” 21. Thorburn, Subject to Change, 30. 22. Reiter, Talent for Sadness, 54. 224 MODERN PHILOLOGY Turns out, he was actually a cock. But what the hell—she was still young, the house was hers, the kids were good, and the divorce final. Good riddance.23 “Competent,” if never “lovely,” the poem challenges its readers to pro- pose some other course of action for “her” life and expresses some- thing near despair about the uses of its own form, in which the same end words, the same life choices, recur without improvement. Noelle Kocot’s first book, 4 (2002), included three sestinas; a fourth appears in the new (and enormous) anthology Legitimate Dangers, whose coeditors advertise it as the successor to Paul Carroll’s generation-defining 1968 Morrow Anthology. Kocot’s “Gypsy Summer” takes as its end words “moonlight,” “floor,” “lake” (or “lack”), “addition” (or “ad”), “credit,” and “cards”: the sestina equates credit in the sense of credence, belief (in Kocot’s powers as a poet), the credit on credit cards, and the dubious predictive power of tarot cards. None of the three sources of “credit” pan out: I spoke in the vocabulary of lack When I told the Brooklyn gypsy three months later of my spanking credit And how, if she removed my god-awful curse, I would renounce reading Tarot cards For good.24 The fortune-teller in the poem charges the speaker $45,000 to “prevent all my friends’ souls from dispersing in the moonlight.” The friends will die anyway, the fortune-teller’s promise is a fraud, and only the speaker’s mental illness lets her get taken in: “the credit- / Ratings of manic-depressives get so fucked up.”25 Kocot’s overwrought tone creates a parody, in part, of the self-importance common to ambitious poets fresh out of expensive colleges; her fortune-teller becomes a pseudo-vates, a ridiculous version of the poet’s once-respected role as seer or prophet, now issuing words whose force no sensible adult should credit. If you believe in poetry, Kocot’s sestina implies, you will believe anything. That sestina not only suggests but, in its claims and tones, describes contemporary poets’ frustration over the apparent inefficacy of their art, over their inability to justify the time and the intellectual invest- 23. Shanna Compton, “The Remarried Again Sestina,” McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/sestinas/remarried.html. 24. Noelle Kocot, “Gypsy Summer,” in Legitimate Dangers: American Poets of the New Century, ed. Michael Dumanis and Cate Marvin (Louisville, KY: Sarabande, 2006), 226. 25. Ibid. One Line Long Stephen Burt „ Sestina! 225 ments it requires. We readers may cherish their poetry on no other grounds than that beauty is its own excuse for being, or that any well- made poem adds to the stock of available reality, but these poets seem only uneasily satisfied—if not outright exasperated—with how little they believe their poems can do. Other sestina writers make the uselessness of verbal craft a positive ethical reproach, either to poets or to the rest of the world. A. Van Jordan’s book M-A-C-N-O-L-I-A (2004) focuses on MacNolia Cox of Ak- ron, Ohio, the first African American finalist in the national spelling bee, prevented from winning when white judges bent the rules. “Al- most / the national spelling champ” in the 1930s, Cox returned to Ohio and became “the best damn maid in town.”26 Her verbal skills did not much improve her life, and her life story calls into question the idea that art, intellect, or verbal skills of any sort can assuage social injustice. The book’s first sestina (properly a double sestina) versifies a negative review, in Time magazine, of Josephine Baker’s performance in the 1936 Ziegfeld Follies: This was not the time For a poor Negro girl to find applause When she had given up her one true race— America—for filthy France . . . This is not about her race But her choice of song, her need for applause.27 Baker responds, in part: I got a man, He stays with me when I take off the paint, And he doesn’t care about this whole race Hoopla; he loves Josephine for me. Time Magazine just started taking the time To acknowledge Negroes, and now applause From them is supposed to predict racial Equality on stage?28 Van Jordan’s book—here and in the many poems about Cox— concerns displays of conspicuous skill by African Americans, children and adults: Where, how, and how justly are such displays rewarded? Poetry becomes, at least by implication, another such display: Cox’s spelling bees and Baker’s vocal performances relate to the ancient idea of poetry as making—of poets as colleagues and competitors, of 26. Van Jordan, M-A-C-N-O-L-I-A, 35. 27. A. Van Jordan, “Time Reviews in Ziegfeld Follies Featuring Josephine Baker, 1936,” in his M-A-C-N-O-L-I-A, 80. 28. Ibid., 81. 226 MODERN PHILOLOGY poems as displays of skill—almost as the fortune-teller’s flimflam relates, in Kocot, to the idea of poetry as prophecy. For Van Jordan, poems are like dances, and dances are like spelling bees—displays of specialized talent: we want them to do more symbolic and cultural work than we can fairly ask the contestants or performers or poets to pull off. No wonder a performer like Baker (in Van Jordan’s poem) refuses the mission: no wonder the reporter who speaks in “Covering the Spell- ing Bee”—Van Jordan’s other sestina—concludes: In Akron, I’m proud To say, she [MacNolia] did have a chance, Which, when you think about it, should Be plenty, but it’s only enough When having a fair deal is enough To win.29 Verbal skills, technique, and art cannot make the world—or even a spelling bee—fair for Van Jordan; those skills benefit, at best, the artist, and at worst, no one: his sestinas, too, pursue art’s failure to find further use. My hypothesis concerns both particular (and particularly accom- plished) recent sestinas and sentiments among younger poets, some of whom responded when I posted that hypothesis on a blog.30 Compton wrote that sestinas “are terrific to read aloud because there’s a built-in way for the audience to participate/anticipate. Even someone unfamiliar with the form’s rules can tell by the end of the second stanza . . . what’s going on. . . . It’s fun to hear the audience reacting at the end of each line.”31 Compton’s account of audience influence recalls Robert Lowell’s descriptions of how West Coast audiences moved him to reject his early Miltonic style, though for Compton the pressures of performance point in the opposite direc- tion—toward an emphasis on the poem as a technical achievement and away from its resemblance to unpremeditated speech. Chad Par- menter of Southern Illinois University agreed: the sestina, he wrote, has “been revived as a sort of post-form form, that can both show a poet’s virtuosity and, through its intense stricture, make fun of form as a whole.”32 Finally, a respondent calling himself Arnaut Daniel (after 29. A. Van Jordan, “Covering the Spelling Bee,” ibid., 118. 30. Stephen Burt, “Trial Run,” post to Accomodatingly blog, December 27, 2005, http://www.accommodatingly.com/?p=293. 31. Personal communication. 32. Chad Parmenter, comment on “Trial Run,” post to Accommodatingly blog, December 30, 2006.