Don't I Know It

It's tough to tell people who ask me what I'm doing that I go to graduate school for poetry writing. Mainly because people don't realize that you can go to school for poetry writing, I guess. Or because people don't believe that anybody in their right mind would even want to go to school for poetry writing (they're probably right). Usually the way the conversation goes is something like this:

Person: So Glenn, what do you do now?
Me: I go to the University of Houston for graduate school.
Person: Really? What do you study?
Me: Poetry writing.
Person: Oh. Poetry writing. *pukes everywhere*

This scenario is the general reaction of most people. Most people do not read contemporary poetry, and therefore think poetry writing is kind of lame. Middle school girls do that shit all the time and they don't have to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to do it. They just have to get their pigtails pulled or something, I don't know. But I can't blame people for this attitude because nobody reads contemporary poetry. Even my good friends at this blog I bet don't read contemporary poetry. In fact, I would be astonished if one reader (and most of our readers seem extremely well educated) could name off the top of his or her head five living literary poets (ie not Jewel or Billy Corgan or Fantasia). Unless Melanie pops back in again, because she knows her stuff.

None of this is the fault of readers (or non-readers) of poetry, though. If your high school was like mine, then you probably only read three or four poems from the 20th century. Something like "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" by Randall Jarrell, "Grasshopper" by e. e. cummings, "Richard Cory" by Edward Arlington Robinson, and some awful shit about not drinking on prom night.

Anyway, those first three linked poems were the only 20th century poems I was ever exposed to in high school. And while I can understand the merits of them (now, not then), they basically all suck. So I hated poetry for many years, until as a senior in undergrad at FSU I couldn't get into a fiction workshop class and had to take poetry workshop class. Anyway, I got exposed to poetry that was actually written (mostly) during my lifetime, and I was really blown away. Though I don't really like most of these people now, poets like Ai, Billy Collins, David Kirby, and Sylvia Plath were really what drew me into poetry. I guess they all worked as introductions. (I don't really like Ai or Billy Collins anymore, but I can't ignore what their poetry did for me).

I sort of feel like anybody who claims to hate contemporary poetry just hasn't read the right contemporary poetry. Sort of like people who claim to hate country music or rap I guess. Maybe it's ridiculous, but I feel like I was in the same boat as a lot of haters. And maybe people just think poetry is dumb because of all the lame prom poems we had to read in high school. I would recommend to people just to check out Poetry Daily once a day. There's a different poem up there every day, it's free, and sometimes there's even a good poem. Then maybe one day you guys will actually like poetry and stop puking on my shoes whenever I say I go to grad school for poetry. Seriously, they're nice shoes.

Or maybe you'd even see a poet you really like and buy his or her book? Ha, who am I kidding?

PS - Coda:

I've made my main point, but here's a side note. If the person who is asking what I do is from Houston, here's how the conversation goes:

Person: So pardner, what do you do?
Me: I go to graduate school.
Person: Oh, at Rice University?
Me: No, the University of Houston.
Person: Oh. UH. *pukes everywhere then stabs out own face*

Oh well. People think UH is lame here, because it is a public school. Although it is the most racially and ethnically diverse campus in America, which is pretty great. But I guess rich snobs who send their kids to Rice (private school) probably hate all those ethnic types. Sometimes I try to explain that the writing program at UH is nationally recognized as the second best in the nation (after Suckowa, I mean, Iowa), but then I sound like a big pretentious douche.

PPS - That coda was my way of saying UH is nationally recognized as the second best in the nation without sounding like a big pretentious douche.

PPPS - If it helps, the last time they rated writing programs was 1997. So that doesn't really matter anymore I guess.

PPPPS - Also, I can think of nothing more fun than teaching poetry to college students, which is why I'm getting the degree, also.

this is your brain on drugs...

Hi everyone, new guest blogger Laurie here. I don't think anyone has introduced me yet (where's the love, people?), but I thought I'd intro myself so I could weigh in on this topic. Obligatory blurb about me: Like many of the kiddos here on BSG, I grew up in L.C. Florida, but left after high school for college, subsequently earning a BA in English Lit and a BFA in Studio Art from Florida State University. I relocated to Brooklyn two years ago, and have loved every second of it. I currently work in business development at a mid-sized tv network that I promise you've never heard of, but I'll be starting as a student at Brooklyn Law School in the fall. You can check out my personal blog, Sleeping in Brooklyn, here. So on to the topic at hand!

Just last week I read a story in Elle (yeah, I know sorry but that's where I read it) that basically argued that most people who try or even regularly use narcotics and/or other drugs won't become addicts.* This of course, flies in the face of decades of "Just Say No Dare Common Sense" public education, but it's also much closer to the truth of drug and alcohol use than any of the terror filled edicts we're normally bombarded with by various drug "authorities." Having been around the block with a pretty wide range of drugs from alcohol to opiates I can attest than no, the average person won't become a raving drug fiend the moment they take a bump of blow at a party.

Traffic offers a great example. The pretty upper middle class WASP girl chases the dragon once and is whoring herself to her big black (so much to say about the race depictions here, but that's a topic for another day) dangerous drug dealer in the ghetto 45 mins later. I'd have to argue that this is an extremely unrealistic picture of addiction. I'd also have to argue that there is an inherent danger in miseducating the public with regard to addiction.**

The real trouble with drugs is when the tiny percentage of people who have "addictive personalities" get their hands on them. The New York Times had an interesting article recently about what personality traits are commonly found in addicts and it's worth checking out before they make it TimesSelect. One thing that I find strange is how difficult it is to find statistical evidence on the internet that indicates what percentage of the American population is actually addicted to drugs. An extensive internet search this morning turned up all kinds of "drug abuse up X%" kinds of things, but they always fail to establish what the benchmark was before the rise. If heroin abuse is up 50% but it still represents only .67% of the population then that's worth noting. The aforementioned Times article simply says "many millions." I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere I came across a figure that stated that 20 million people in the U.S. Even if the number was actually 20 mil then that's only 6% of the population. However, I have the impression from other websites that even this is a gross exaggeration (that number probably includes cigs and alcohol, too). I found an interesting little blurb about this here where the author states that "obviously, the government can't say how many genuine addicts there are, and the 3.6 million number seems like a tremendous overestimate based on counting anything approaching regular use of heroin, crack, cocaine and other drugs, both actually measured and estimated."

So what's my big point, right? Well, my point is that we need honest facts about addiction in order to have an honest public debate about it's dangers. Slate has several articles about this topic that are worth a read, especially this one about "the best anti-pot ad ever." Do a keyword search for "drugs" to turn up more like these.

A couple of concerns here that I won't get entirely into (this is a blog after all and I've already written WAY too much here), but that I'd like to throw out there to get you thinking a bit:

- "Dangerous" things entice people, especially teens, and when you convince people drugs are super dangerous it only entices them more.
- People who choose to use drugs cannot protect themselves if they don't understand what the actual dangers of using those drugs are. This is related to...
- When people know you are lying to them about some things, they will assume you are lying to them about everything else. With drugs, this could lead some people to assume all the bad things they hear about drugs are false or exaggerated.

*They cited studies and I would throw in quotes here were it not for the fact that I left my copy of the magazine at a friend's place and he's in California all week and there doesn't seem to be a copy of the article anywhere online. Sorry but that's life.

**Actually I'm of the opinion that there's an inherent danger in miseducating the public on any topic. Educate your citizens well, give them the facts, and let them make their own decisions, I say. Don't get me wrong, I haven't become a Libertarian. I firm in the belief that the people should be governed, but I also think that the people should decide how they are governed, not the elite ruling class (hello almost exclusively rich, white, male Congress).