Poets Have Harsh Words for Times

“Picketing” may be stretching it a bit. Call it poetic license. But a demonstration it was, nevertheless, as three dozen Los Angeles poets marched in front of The Times on Thursday in support of their avocation and their passion.

The poets were upset about the decision by Times Book Editor Jack Miles to curtail critiques of collections of poetry in the newspaper’s Book Review section.

Miles’ reasoning, in a quatrain, was (1) space is limited; (2) not that many people read poetry any more; (3) “Poetry discussed in ordinary language almost inevitably descends to cliche”; (4) ergo, with exceptions, The Times will cease to publish poetry reviews, but will publish one poem a week and let it speak for itself.

“That’s just the point,” said poet Dennis Phillips. “. . . If The Times put its energy behind reviews of poetry--a legitimate, ancient art form from which The Times itself has sprung--more people would read it.

“The media make audiences, the media destroy audiences, all by their attitude,” Phillips added.

“A man can live three days without water but only one day without poetry,” Oscar Wilde said. Wilde, however, was talking about poems , not reviews of poems. Why not simply print the stuff straight? one might ask.

“Tokenism,” Phillips huffed. “That’s just Jack Miles showing what he thinks poetry should be, rather than a forum for critical dialogue.”

“I don’t think The Times will publish poetry from L.A. poets anyway,” said Laurel Ann Bogen, an L.A. poet. “The first one they printed is by a New York mainstream poet. A good review calls attention to the environment, the whole Zeitgeist . . . “

“I can understand the difficulty in finding someone qualified to review poetry,” conceded poet Bob Crosson, who moonlights as a carpenter. “But ultimately, I find The Times position irresponsible. We’re very much alive, thriving and publishing.”

Commenting on the poets’ protest, Miles said, “First, we will continue to publish critical discussions of poetry, even if we publish fewer of them. Second, the poems we print will come from newly released books of poetry and will often assist those books just as much as any review would. Third, payment . . . will go to the poets and their publishers rather than to reviewers. I am surprised that poets do not find this good news. Fourth, this Sunday’s poet comes from Fresno.”

Some of the protesters may not be mollified.

“Can you imagine the outcry,” asked Harry Northup, ad hoc demonstration organizer, “if The Times, instead of giving fewer reviews of poets, did the same thing about women?

“Women are difficult to understand too. So I suppose the rationale would be, ‘Instead of trying to understand a woman, let’s just print a picture.’ ”

Northup’s protest sign, straightforward if cumbersome, read, “We Want Poetry Consistently and Thoroughly Reviewed in the Book Review.” Others, in the tradition of the trade, were more succinct: “Poetry for the People”; “Poets for Poetry Reviews”; “Poetry, Not Pasta, Jack,” and a crowd favorite, “L.A. Times: Bad to Verse.”

Some passersby, though, were more puzzled than enlightened.

“Y’know something,” said a Times printer, returning from lunch break. “The signs didn’t even rhyme.”

I think that I shall never see

A picket line for poetry

Like that which graced

The Times’ front door

Demanding more reviews--and more!

For poems are made by fools like us

But only pickets make a fuss.

Anon.