I really want to go to this. I don’t know Geologic aka Prometheus Brown personally, but have been following and enjoying his blog for a few months now. I also especially appreciate his position as a Filipino American artist, that is, an actual practitioner of art, and a cultural critic. This is something I talk about all the time, how as Filipino American artists, we create the bodies of creative work, the cultural productions which come to be consumed by our fellow community members, activists, academics. Also, we come to take on the responsibility of generating the critical writing on said cultural productions due to the dearth of published community generated critical writing.
This is a hard position to occupy, if only for the very practical reasons of workload. If I am writing books, and then working to find publication, I don’t always have the energy to also write reviews. I do look to poet, novelist, critic, educator Rigoberto González and a few others like him as role models. So here I am blogging, and over time, this has become a frequently referenced and quoted critical space. Of course I could do more. We could all do more. I am slated to start writing for the Hyphen magazine blog, which I will do after Prometheus Brown’s event. So it looks like I’ve got a more official venue than this blog in which to place my work.
But as tensions are rising quite high right now over Steven Schroeder’s review of Richard Vargas’s books (this review appeared in the latest installment of the Latino Poetry Review), here is something plain as day that we can all think about: as I have stated and restated, I do not believe that only POC can and should review the cultural productions of POC. I do, however, believe that the reviewer should try to understand the contexts in which the artist is creating his/her art. What are the artist’s political, historical, cultural concerns, who are the artist’s models?
A long time ago, Manila-based author, editor, and critic Alfred “Krip” Yuson reviewed my first book, Gravities of Center alongside Paolo Javier’s first book, The Time at the End of This Writing. Yuson reviewed these books for a Philippines-based publication, and his review was less than glowing. It turned out that he lacked the understanding of the contexts in which Paolo and I were writing. Of our generation of Filipino American poets, Paolo and I were considered for a while to be two of the few “experimentals,” and so there seemed to be a rift in aesthetics and reference points between Yuson on the one hand, and me and Paolo on the other hand. Yuson brought up a couple of American poets whom he deemed as “experimental,” as a basis for comparison, and still, that didn’t help him contextualize our work, its disjunctiveness, its use of white space. My first reaction was to be hurt by his unflattering albeit very sincerely written review, though at least he did try to understand. Then something pretty cool happened: dialogue.
Patrick Rosal continued the dialogue Yuson started by saying that perhaps the poet Yuson had referenced (and I apologize now for not remembering who this is) wasn’t the best basis for comparison. Knowing a thing or two about my and Paolo’s work, Patrick brought up a couple more apt poets as points of reference. Then, other Filipino writers, USA-based and Philippines-based, started contributing to the dialogue. What are the purposes of disjunctive text and white space in Filipino American poetry and in poetry in general? How does a poet firmly rooted in narrative approach a radically different text? The dialogue became less about Philippines versus USA, elders versus youngbloods, though these points did arise, and appropriately so. What also arose was the necessity of our own community writing book reviews of Filipino-authored works. This would not guarantee all positive, glowing reviews, but that there would be a reviewer there who would attempt to contextualize the work and to discuss it constructively.
I have to restate just to make it perfectly plain that I do not believe all book reviews of POC authored work must be positive. Among Filipino American authors, we have debated this is the past, and we are divided on it, which is fine. Here is what I believe: “Negative” reviews should not just be tolerated, but also encouraged, not in order to spread hateration and bad blood, but because I believe we should all strive for well-written, well-conceived bodies of work/works of art, and well-written criticism. A “I totally loved this; it was so awesome,” doesn’t help us gain any understanding of the body of work in question. This is all subjective, obviously, but what this means to me is that there is space for dialogue.
–
From Prometheus Brown:
Daly City’s KALAYAAN SCHOOL FOR EQUITY proudly welcomes Seattle, WA hip-hop icon and cultural critic, Geologic aka Prometheus Brown, as he shares his overview of Philippine Cinema. Special emphasis is placed on films and filmmakers who have used the artistic medium as a tool to address the socio-political conditions of the country. Geologic will share many examples of Philippine cinema as sites of resistance and lead participants in discussions regarding the history and present state of Filipinos in the film industry.
Film clips screened include the works of Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal, Kidlat Tahimik, Lamberto Avellana, Mike De Leon, Auraeus Solito, Brillante Mendoza, Laurice Guillen, Marilou Diaz-Abaya and several others.
This presentation kicks off the KALAYAAN SCHOOL FOR EQUITY’S summer workshop series offering the local community free programming to explore Filipino community issues, history, artistic traditions, and culture.
For more information on this event or upcoming Kalayaan School for Equity events, please call (650) 641-2891 x573 or email LKCrobledomaderazo at gmail dot com.
Got Facebook? Check the Facebook Event Invite:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=655567653&ref=ts
Tags: Alfred Yuson, Prometheus Brown
16 June 2009 at 2:01 pm |
The problem of poor poets reviewing books of poetry in an agressive manner seems more of a legitimate concern. I look at the work of a reviewer in question. Does it stand on its own? If not, I tend to look askance at the review in question. Similarly, I look carefully at who is saying what and tend to base my decisions about work on my own ideas of what makes a poem well crafted, engaging and intellectually stimilating yet simultaneously emotional in terms of movement. I have received damning reviews coupled with glowing ones. The good thing about being reviewed is someone might actually read the book. Hopefully this will be the case with Richard Vargas.
The difficulty with reviewing work by an ethnic community is the tendency for a community to think positively of someone’s work based on their connections and apparent “influence” rather than the work itself. This is in my opinion a legitimate factor in lessening my own opinion about some review venues and some “communities” of writing. It is moreso bothering me that this has turned into a white/non-white issue. The issue is simple, some people don’t know what constitutes good work and yet consider themselves experts on it. Others consider their opinions about what is good paramount. Their work sometimes doesn’t foot the bill. I mean how in the hell some books get the ratings they do on goodreads is beyond me.
As LDC says, the proof is in the pudding, but for many the proof is in if someone is known or connected to some institution or other means of providing revenue or publicity. Usually this is just ignorance at work rather than ill will is what I am starting to see. People base things on internet commentary rather than the books themselves. As much as I disagree with a review, at least the person read the damn book! It would be good if more people did the same before commenting on the whole thing.
People just aren’t honest with themselves about work and/or taste vary radically. The fact that people still think ethnicity means one is supported by a particular community is just wrong. Much goes into play and everything is more complex than it appears on the surface.
You say you appreciate dialogue, but I can’t say this is truly what goes on on the internet, as most of us have scrounged up a desire to be noticed.
More and more I’m recognizing my own envy, jealousy and petty frustrations have kept me blocked, and yes, I don’t like some of the stuff LPR dishes out, particularly by young inexperienced poets, but that’s just me. They seem to get a lot of attention online. That’s what they want. Good on them. Maybe that is what matters more than the work in the long run, but I doubt it.
The Parnassus Review was a joke to me in that it praised a particular book. But the reviewer must have seen some merit there. Where, I can’t fathom, but he’s allowed his bizarre opinion, but I’d suggest he read more contemporary Latino poets that aren’t part of the clique, because a community is not a clique. I don’t know, maybe it is.
You tell me.
16 June 2009 at 2:21 pm |
HI Sheryl, A lot of good things here, so I will try to address as much of it as I can. First, thank you very much for this thoughtful comment.
Re: “The problem of poor poets reviewing books of poetry in an agressive manner seems more of a legitimate concern. I look at the work of a reviewer in question.” Yes I agree with this. I think this is related to the dearth of critical writing in our “communities” which compels many artists to take on reviewing. Whether or not they are good at reviewing is the question. On the flip side, I’ve seen some lit crit folks who’ve attempted to write poetry, and while their lit crit is the jam, their poetry not so much.
Re: connections vs. actual quality of work. Yes absolutely. This is a little harder to discuss without naming names, though I will say that these are not two mutually exclusive categories. I value very much well written poetry, but as you probably know from reading my blog, I also value being able to hustle to place my work. I think the problem is when those seeking to connect with the “right” people mistake this as a substitute for the actual writing of good poetry. So let’s hope that these younger poets you reference are indeed figuring this out: being well-connected is good but it isn’t the primary thing.
Re: dialogue, in an ideal world this is what is happening. The example I give of the dialogue that followed this not so favorable review of my book – I wish this would happen more. And I know it doesn’t.
And finally, as for clique: it’s similar to community in that where one group of insiders is formed, that means there are outsiders too. I like to think of communities as multiple ans shifting. I know that as my generation of Fil Am poets was slowly coming up, finding publication for 1st then 2nd books and so on, winning one prize or another, the more we supported one another and publicly congratulated one another, the more I felt a sort of resentment breeding from poets who found themselves on the “outside” of that. But even this ‘barkada’ (Tagalog for peer group) was open and constantly expanding even though others perhaps didn’t see it that way.
Maybe it’s a clique and not a community when those perceived as “inside” don’t share that space with others, or don’t try to open the doors for others to enter?
Finally finally, yes I am interested in reading Vargas’s books more so than I was before. I have heard a couple of other readers say the same thing, so yes let’s hope this means more readers for him.
Thank you again for your comment.
16 June 2009 at 6:03 pm |
1st, i’d like to thank ms. reyes for raising some very relevant questions regarding the review mr. schroeder so graciously wrote about my work. i’ve always written with the belief that if everyone liked my poetry, then i was doing something wrong. i’ve been waiting for someone like schroeder to sit down and “review” me for quite a while. it was due. he has his right to his opinions, his agenda, and to pursue his professional goals in whatever way he sees fit. but to do so while expecting the target of his criticism to turn the other cheek is ridiculous. schroeder did not write a book review. he combined my 1st book (published in 2005) with my 2nd book (published 2007) and proceeded to make it clear he has a problem with my poetry, period. this turned into a smear job of my entire body of published work. my response to his review is posted on his website, as well as a cute parody he decided to write, totally dismissing my concerns about his expertise to comment extensively on my “machismo.” as i stated in my response, no one, not family, friends, enemies, ex-wife, ex-girlfriends… NO ONE, has ever used my name and macho/machismo in the same sentence in the 54 yrs of my existence! i feel this is a big clue about the reviewer’s lack of understanding about me as a chicano male writing about an experience of which he has no understanding.
my real question is for the LPR, and why they thought this guy was on the up and up? what statement does this make about their literary agenda?
again, thank you, ms. reyes, for facilitating what i consider to be an open minded and rational approach to this subject.
rvargas
17 June 2009 at 6:56 pm |
Thanks for your comment Richard. I think the best thing that can come out of this is hopefully more people are interested in reading your work. That’s really all we can ask for from a review in the end.
18 June 2009 at 12:11 pm |
I’ll be short & sweet. I have a difficult time with book reviews BECAUSE I believe context is everything, not just culturally or ethnically speaking. The time frame of the work, the structure, the contemporaries of the author, etc. all impact what an author writes and readers’ perceptions. So, I’m thinking that some reviewers do need to be more mindful of that. I like how Patrick pointed that out for you & Paolo.
18 June 2009 at 12:52 pm |
Hi Tara, thanks for this comment. I am thinking also that teaching a book of poetry is also all about providing context, writing a paper about a book of poetry is also about providing context. So then the same should be true about book reviews. Not sure why reviewers would not do this, try to understand a work’s context. That, I think, would just be a poorly written review.