What Would Charles Olsen Say?

Stephen Colbert certainly has a knack for putting a comedic twist on something that otherwise would not be very funny. During his interview with inaugural poet Elizabeth Alexander, he asked her questions pertaining to poetic style and literary techniques. Through her responses to these questions, a clear contrast becomes apparent between the literary outlook and style of Alexander, and that of the famous Gloucester poet Charles Olson. They differ in both their application of literary techniques, and their personal opinions about what makes these literary techniques important when used in poetry.

Towards the very beginning of Stephen Colbert’s interview with Elizabeth Alexander, he questions her views on poetry as a whole, asking “Poems aren’t true, are they?” While in the context of the interview this is interpreted as a humorous question, he does in fact pose a valid question. Alexander answered Colbert’s question by stating that poems are true in the sense that people “connect” with poems because it “feels true” to them, this would only be accomplished by utilizing a type of closed verse that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. A poem that utilizes a simple structure will be easily connected to by a variety of different people, allowing a variety of different personal connections to the poem. True to her personal beliefs, Alexander’s poem “Praise Song for the Day” uses a strict form with many 3-line stanzas, of about equal length. This allows for it to not only be interpreted on many different personal levels, but it also makes it fairly easy to comprehend. Had Olson been the one to answer this question, I believe that he would have stressed that a poem is ENTIRELY true, that a poem IS a wholly factual and true expression. In his essay “Projective Verse,” Olson states that a poem “is energy transferred . . . By way of the poem itself . . . To the reader.” (Olson) This transfer of energy, in the form of imagery, emotion, and phonetic qualities, is accomplished most accurately by the form of the poem, which the poem “declares, for itself.”(Olson) Olson would respond to Colbert’s question in stating that poems are inherently completely and utterly true, if written in his own personal style of projective verse, because the content and form of the poem is deliberately and precisely constructed to transfer the energy imbued by the poem by the poet. The poem, therefore, is a pure and completely “true” representation of the energy combined with the intent of the poet. These factors, present in Olson’s poetry, are meant to generate a SINGLE interpretation of the poem - the poem’s true meaning - for the reader to comprehend. On a more superficial level, Olson’s poetry centered greatly around the urbanization of Gloucester, and the way that this emotionally impacted him. He analyzed human society, culture, history, and his own personal views on said topics through his poetry. In this sense, his subject matter was entirely true and factual.

Another important question that Colbert asked Alexander was the humorous, but thought-provoking, “What’s the difference between a metaphor and a lie?” He elaborates by asking, “Why not just say what you mean instead of dressing things up in . . . flowery language?” According to Alexander, metaphors are simply modes of “comparison” that add more meaning to the text, or add multiple layers to an otherwise mundane text. Olson, on the other hand, would most likely have disagreed with this statement. According to Olson, “flowery” language impacts the reader through the interaction of the phonetics, the syllables of the words, with the breath of the spoken word when the poem is read aloud. Using flowery metaphors, for Olson, adds a whole new dimension to his poetry. He says in “Projective Verse” that syllables “juxtapose [words] in beauty,” and that the power of a specific verse of poetry is dependent on wether or not the poet “manages to register both the acquisitions of his ear and the pressures of his breath.” Instead of using mundane vocabulary, the introduction of flowery language can create splendid patterns of syllables, and can give the poem a wonderful feeling when read aloud by the musicality of the spoken words. This is referenced by Alexander earlier on in the interview, where she explains that the importance of language that is “de-centered enough” from the normal application of language that it makes you “stop and think” about the meaning behind the words.

Based on the difference between Olson’s and Alexander’s writing styles, it is safe to assume that had Olson been in Alexander’s place during this interview, there would have been a distinct difference in the way that he answered Colbert’s questions. His ornate but precise writing style would have shown through, as opposed to Alexander’s more mundane and freely-flowing style of poetry.