{"id":3516,"date":"2017-11-04T00:58:32","date_gmt":"2017-11-04T00:58:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/?p=3516"},"modified":"2017-11-04T00:58:32","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T00:58:32","slug":"royce-lit-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/2017\/11\/04\/royce-lit-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Royce Lit Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Royce Chen<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Churchill<\/span><\/p>\n

English 394<\/span><\/p>\n

3 November 2017<\/span><\/p>\n

Frank O\u2019Hara Literature Review<\/span><\/p>\n

Critics seem unequivocally unsure what to make of Frank O\u2019Hara; he was a man of great complexity and depth, an enigma to most. Readings of his poems vary from heartfelt and poignant to satirical and tongue-in-cheek; thus, his casual and cavalier \u201clunch poetry\u201d has delighted some and frustrated others. One issue of particular contention, though, is just how much of himself O\u2019Hara really puts forth: is O\u2019Hara a personal poet or an impersonal poet? Many critics point to O\u2019Hara\u2019s most personal tools–his tone of voice and his casual and intimate allusions–as the very creators of distance between O\u2019Hara and his readers, but the consensus is never black or white.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his article \u201cThe Contradictions Of Frank O\u2019Hara,\u201d once again as evidenced by the title, James Breslin attacks some of O\u2019Hara\u2019s dichotomies head-on. He prefaces by warning readers that there may be no clear answer to their questions: \u201cO\u2019Hara\u2019s poems are filled with signals that . . . interpretive procedures are not appropriate to them,\u201d writes Breslin (Breslin 8). He utilizes O\u2019Hara\u2019s \u201cPersonal Poem\u201d as one example, writing, \u201c[T]he reader may be tempted to stop and to metaphorize the \u2018old Roman coin\u2019 and the \u2018bolt-head\u2019–the one rare and the other plain–but he is not given enough clues to justify such a procedure\u201d (8). While he describes O\u2019Hara\u2019s style of Personism as a \u201cpersonal poem . . . that is spoken in a casual, intimate tone,\u201d Breslin also notes, \u201cMany of the same features that make the poems seem so direct and immediate–absence of connections and depth–also estrange and conceal the speaker from us\u201d (9). One prime example is O\u2019Hara\u2019s use of personal names in his poetry. Breslin writes, \u201c[The] use of the names of his friends, as if they were just as familiar to us as to him (“First\/Bunny died, then John La touche”), creates a tone of intimacy while pressing upon us the reality of O’Hara’s difference and distance from us. It is this sense of estrangement that makes these light, casual poems quietly unnerving and adds another voice to their rich, contradictory play of tones” (9).<\/span><\/p>\n

Ira Sadoff would likewise say that he gives off the impression of being personal, while remaining distant. In Sadoff\u2019s article \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara\u2019s Intimate Fictions,\u201d Sadoff particularly notes the close names the O\u2019Hara references in his poems. The first line of her article starts with the first line of O\u2019Hara\u2019s \u201cFor Grace I after a Party\u201d: \u201cYou do not always know what I am feeling.\u201d Sadoff writes, \u201cImplied in the richness of that rhetoric: a long-term closeness between the speaker and Grace, his peevishness about being misunderstood, [but] at the same time his implied disappointment that he can usually be \u2018read\u2019 so easily\u201d (Sadoff 49). Like Breslin, Sadoff points to the nickname \u201cBunny\u201d in Frank O\u2019Hara\u2019s \u201cA Step Away From Them\u201d as one of the interesting tools of intimacy. Sadoff also acknowledges that it reveals \u201cthe speaker\u2019s intimate connections,\u201d but conversely declares that the lines immediately following retreat back into the \u201cimpersonal and absurd\u201d (50). To this, Breslin might respond, nodding, \u201cThe self in O\u2019Hara is . . . at once transparent <\/span>and<\/span><\/i> opaque–perhaps his deepest contradiction\u201d (Breslin 9).<\/span><\/p>\n

Elaine Equi takes perhaps the most intimate stance with O\u2019Hara. She warmly reflects, \u201cWith Frank, there is always a feeling that he\u2019s encouraging you, the reader – and that the poems were, in a very real way, written to have you write back and respond\u201d (146). As justification, she adds one caveat: \u201cHis poems ask to be read as genuine, even as they retreat into [distance]\u201d (Equi 149). Why? \u201cIn depth, as in life, a poet\u2019s reputation is not dependent simply on the quality of the work, but rather on its relevance to the historical moment,\u201d writes Equi (151). Drawing upon the climate of the 1950s, she notes that at the time, \u201c[T]he autobiographical \u2018I\u2019 was celebrated (by groups like the confessional poets) and also . . . was beginning to unravel and become aware of its artifice\u201d (149). Thus, she contends, \u201cFor many of the more conservative critics of his era, the high degree of self-consciousness and irony in O\u2019Hara\u2019s poems made it hard to take him seriously\u201d; a periodic interpretation that she does not believe we should necessarily inherit today (149). She declares that the \u201cshift from the \u2018age of the artist\u2019 to the age of the cultural critic — and a rather somber culture it is[–]\u201d is largely responsible for this (151).<\/span><\/p>\n

Still, Breslin perhaps said it best: \u201cO’Hara . . . complicates the relation between poet and reader; the gap between the two becomes a space in which familiarity, awkwardness, estrangement, delight, and hostility all coexist\u201d (Breslin 9). Thus, O\u2019Hara is full of contradictions. Any argument that can be made for intimacy becomes a counterargument, and then a rebuttal. He is \u201calways bursting forth\u201d in his poetry, and \u201c[w]e see things through his eyes but we can never step back, surround, [or] frame him\u201d (9). He is a poet of intimate fictions, but always full of contradictions and with nothing personal about him.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

Breslin, James. \u201cThe Contradictions Of Frank O\u2019Hara.\u201d <\/span>The American Poetry Review<\/span><\/i>, vol. 12, no. 6, 1983, pp. 7\u201316, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/27777276<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Equi, Elaine. \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara: Nothing Personal.\u201d <\/span>Conjunctions<\/span><\/i>, no. 29, 1997, pp. 145\u201355, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/24515725<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sadoff, Ira. \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara’s Intimate Fictions.\u201d <\/span>The American Poetry Review<\/span><\/i>, vol. 35, no. 6, 2006, pp. 49\u201352, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20683351<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

———–<\/p>\n

Royce Chen<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Churchill<\/span><\/p>\n

English 394<\/span><\/p>\n

3 November 2017<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cFrank O\u2019Hara\u2019s Intimate Fictions\u201d by Ira Sadoff (SSR)<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Citation: <\/b>Sadoff, Ira. \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara’s Intimate Fictions.\u201d <\/span>The American Poetry Review<\/span><\/i>, vol. 35, no. 6, 2006, pp. 49\u201352, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/20683351<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Thesis: <\/b>\u201c[H]is best work is intricately structured and foreshadowed; even the digressions serve as metaphorical parallels and contrasts for the poems’ obsessions, which in poem after poem reveal O’Hara’s . . . romantic quest for both constancy and surprise\u201d (49).<\/span>
    \n<\/span>In short, O\u2019Hara\u2019s poetry deceives, bamboozles, and surprises with its propensity for paradox and contradiction.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Structure: <\/b>Sadoff begins by giving his clear stance that O\u2019Hara\u2019s \u201cbest work is intricately structured and foreshadowed; even the digressions serve as metaphorical parallels and contrasts for the poems’ obsessions, which in poem after poem reveal O’Hara’s . . . romantic quest for both constancy and surprise\u201d (49). He shares the legacy of O\u2019Hara\u2019s influence, from poets like Ashbery to Koch in order to interest of the reader and express thes cope of O\u2019Hara\u2019s importance. His primary means of evidence is a close reading of O\u2019Hara\u2019s poetry: going through almost stanza by stanza, Sadoff lists some of the most surprising twists and turns in O\u2019Hara\u2019s poetry. In \u201cThe Day Lady Died,\u201d the central dichotomy is between the \u201cexperience [being] both communal and isolating\u201d and the \u201ccounter desire of the poem[, as] the speaker\u2019s attempts to thwart and and defer uncertainty and contingency keep him dislocated and alone\u201d (49). \u00a0\u201cA Step Away From Them\u201d–a faux-romantic poem that apparently bemoans the death of a close friend, nicknamed \u201cBunny\u201d–O\u2019Hara actually chooses some of his most distant and callous language. The poem itself is titled \u201cA Step Away From Them,\u201d implying a distance or barrier, and ends with \u201cA glass of papaya juice \/ and back to work\u201d (O\u2019Hara). Sadoff states the effect of such a unique style of writing: \u201cFew poets arouse such extreme responses as devotion or disdain as O’Hara. Attachment to O’Hara’s sensibility depends to some extent on a reader\u2019s feelings about irony and tone\u201d (52). Thus, Sadoff concludes that O\u2019Hara is defined in his contradiction and utilizes it to reach a higher emotional plane: \u201cPerhaps [O\u2019Hara] wrote \u2018you do not always know what I am feeling,\u2019 not only because feeling is private and defended, but because the many poetic strategies of Frank O’Hara allowed him to feel many, often conflicting, feelings at once\u201d (52). <\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Rhetorical Strategies:<\/b> I actually did not like the way that this article operated rhetorically at all. It was logically convoluted and full of complex ideas expressed in unnecessarily complex terms. It had no subsections or blocks, and was instead one long and painful wall of text to swim through.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    ———–<\/span><\/p>\n

    Royce Chen<\/span><\/p>\n

    Dr. Churchill<\/span><\/p>\n

    English 394<\/span><\/p>\n

    3 November 2017<\/span><\/p>\n

    \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara: Nothing Personal\u201d by Elaine Equi (SSR)<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Citation: <\/b>Equi, Elaine. \u201cFrank O\u2019Hara: Nothing Personal.\u201d <\/span>Conjunctions<\/span><\/i>, no. 29, 1997, pp. 145\u201355, <\/span>http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/24515725<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Thesis: <\/b>\u201cO\u2019Hara is an ideal figure on which to project our fantasies about the life of the artist, though . . . I can\u2019t help feeling uneasy over the possibility that it\u2019s the man and not the poems they\u2019ve canonized\u201d (155).<\/span>
      \n<\/span>Equi contends that, in spite of all the personality that he puts into his poems, there is more to O\u2019Hara poetry than immediately apparent, and his poems ought to be more respected as a part of his legacy.<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Structure: <\/b>Equi opens by discussing her interest and \u201coverlap\u201d in O\u2019Hara with an interesting hook – a dream she had about seeing, but not having the chance to meet Frank O\u2019Hara. In her dream, she watches the poet at a poetry event from a distance, but does not get to approach him personally. Here, she presents an allusion to the thesis: \u201c[E]ven if the ghost of Frank O\u2019Hara does ignore me, his poems and mine have been carrying on the most intimate of conversations for the last twenty years\u201d (146). She continues to describe the sincerity of O\u2019Hara\u2019s poetry, but also acknowledges some of their distancing qualities. For example, her second section, \u201cMeditations on an Exclamation Point\u201d addresses O\u2019Hara\u2019s ironic, satirical punctuation as a tool of obvious excitement that seems to delve into the realm of ironic sarcasm. She acknowledges both sides of the arguments, stating, \u201cThe answer, of course, is always both. His poems ask to be read as genuine even as they retreat into irony\u201d (149). She supports this dichotomy by providing historical context on the skepticism of \u201cautobiographical \u2018I\u2019\u201d and its the \u201c1950s . . . becom[ing] aware of its artifice\u201d (149), in addition to comparing the trains of thought from the \u201cage of the artist\u201d to a more New Critical view of O\u2019Hara (151). She concludes by thoughtfully distinguishing O\u2019Hara the man from his work, and declares: \u201c[I]f O\u2019Hara is to remain a vital influence, then his words must belong to everyone — and not just those who knew him best\u201d (155).<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. Rhetorical Strategies:<\/b>\n
        \n
      1. Equi brought in historical context and different veins of criticism, for example noting how New Criticism neglected the influence of O\u2019Hara\u2019s life on his poetry, while the \u201cage of the artist\u201d likely overstate it (151). She herself paints the ballroom in her article, as she deals with different views of Frank O\u2019Hara.<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Equi\u2019s use of subsections (with creative titles–for examples, the \u201cMeditations on an Exclamation Point,\u201d which alludes to O\u2019Hara\u2019s \u201cMeditations in an Emergency\u201d) made her argument logically digestible and clearly traceable from one step to another.<\/span><\/li>\n
      3. I like that Equi used a readable, almost story-like form of writing while still progressing an argument and quietly weaving together strands of history and scholarship. Her opening hook, \u201cI never met Frank O\u2019Hara, and in a way, it\u2019s a relief. Secretly, I\u2019ve always suspected he wouldn\u2019t be terribly impressed with me\u201d reminded me of the start of a novel, and was actually what drew me to the article in the first place (145)!<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Royce Chen Dr. Churchill English 394 3 November 2017 Frank O\u2019Hara Literature Review Critics seem unequivocally unsure what to make of Frank O\u2019Hara; he was a man of great complexity and depth, an enigma to most. Readings of… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":188,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ag-lit-rev"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3516","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/188"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3516"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3516\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3517,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3516\/revisions\/3517"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}