Talk:Jack Gilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents 1 Undo of last known revision 2 Criticism of Perception of Gilbert 3 more misinformation 4 Pulitzer Prize

[edit] Undo of last known revision

Although the content of the previously removed section seems biased, it gives two differing perceptions concurrently, not favoring one over another. Either aspect of Gilbert's post-first book career is plausible as seen by critics and biographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus of old (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to here? What is this content specifically? Could you point out the passage? Thanks. 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to the edit made closest to the time of my original comment; now it doesn't matter, I guess. Icarus of old 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Perception of Gilbert

Davidrr1 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Jack Gilbert certainly was not and is not an alcoholic. He was and is a teetotaler. I have known him since he taught at San Francisco State in the 60s and from the time he met Linda Gregg (a classmate of mine). I have never known him to touch a drink.

Yes, but this is not even mentioned in the article. (Icarus of old 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree. One must not confuse comments made in discussion with the article itself. I have never heard anything on record about Gilbert's habits one way or another-- it could be relevant though if it were supported by facts. 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more misinformation

Davidrr1 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)No question that JG is a Romantic and Romanticizes his experience but it is absolutely false to claim that he was not with Michiko as she died and did not know she was dying.

It's interesting-- when you dig into the archives for this discussion page, you can find all kinds of meaty gossip which is later deleted. Who knows what is actually true? More to the point, how relevant is it to the poetry? The item you are remarking on makes as its main point that the Michiko of the poems is different from the real life Michiko Nogami-- whatever the biographical facts are, this is almost certainly true. We are hearing Gilbert's views, Gilbert's words, Gilbert's imaginative rendering of his biographical material, 100% filtered through Jack's "gaze", and the woman in question is.... well, completely silenced. She is after all dead-- and there is no muse like a dead muse. We can never in fact know her point of view; she exists in the poetry only through Gilbert's perceptions; within his poetry, she is absolutely an imaginative construct serving a specific need for the poet (a need which might be different from what it seems on the surface). This is of course very macho-male romantic, very retro, and deeply flawed-- in ways that Gilbert himself appears to be completely unaware (I don't think he ever questions his perceptions). A theorist could have a field day, but it would kind of be like shotting fish in a barrel. For what it is worth, I know Jack and many of the people he is close to, though I never knew Michiko, and this is not the first time I have heard someone observe that they were not in fact as close as his poetry suggests. It's all hearsay though-- until there is actual documentation, it is correct to not include this in a Wikipedia article, and it is ultimately not very relevant to his poetry (even if it does carry with it the not-very-radical, not-very-new suggestion of narcissism on Gilbert's part, to which most people I know would say "Duuuuuuuhhhh"). 66.150.206.1 14:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulitzer Prize

To address an earlier point I made in revising: It turns out that the Pulitzer prize does in fact name poets who were finalists for the prize. Jack Gilbert however was never a finalist. I checked. As I stated earlier, his book jacket copy only states that he was "nominated" for a Pulitzer. This could be true, but means very little because anyone can nominate anyone for a Pulitzer Prize. Its not the type of award where it is a distinction to be nominated.

Book jacket copy tends to be just that-- puff and press, and sometimes things are stretched a little. This is a perfect example. In Gilbert's case, the editor who wrote the jacket copy was Gordon Lish, who is quite famous for doing everything possible to stir up interest in a writer he wishes to promote, and who has a taste for hyperbole and drama. Anything that comes from Lish has to be taken with a big grain of salt-- he is not above taking liberty with facts to make the product sound sexier, more colorful, and more dramatic.

Lish incidentally is the editor who made Raymond Carver's reputation, though they eventually parted ways. He was the founder and editor of The Querterly in the 1980s and was famous for being difficult, eccentric, horribly offensive at times, but absolutely devoted to writers whose work he favored. Eventually someone should write a Wiki article about his editorial career which truly did walk the creative edge.

Cheers,

TR

Some other things maybe need to be said or not said. I dunno. Gilbert's reputation tends to be highly romanticized, especially with that bit about him alienating himself from mainstream literary culture as some sort of aesthetic statement. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but his reason was actually pretty ordinary and common among poets: he was an alcoholic. He disappeared into that cloud for years.

When his first book came out, he became very famous very fast and didn't handle it well. Gordon Lish made him poetry editor of Genesis West, and Gilbert quite frankly blew it with his histrionic behaviour. This is well documented. Lish then fired him as poetry editor, Genesis West folded shortly thereafter, and Gilbert stormed off. Lish's strong devotion to his work was really the only reason he ever published again. 24.128.3.223 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting to read the above comments about Gilbert and Lish. The last paragraph on Gilbert should not have even been written. It straddles the line between envy and idiocy. Genesis West is still available for anyone to read. There are copies around. It is clear that Gilbert, as poetry editor, was overly passionate about what he would accept at the magazine as "good" work. Lish reprimanded him in the pages of the magazine, as Gilbert was too hard on one of the beat poets who has already been mostly forgotten. I don't remember his name. The funny thing is Lish published Gilbert's honest responses to the crappy poet who had his feelings hurt. Gilbert was far from being histrionic. He simply would accept nothing less than good work. The poems he did publish is proof, for he did accept some, though few. I have no knowledge of Gilbert ever storming off, and those types of comments seem unnecessary and unfair. As for Lish, and the very top comments about him as an editor, I can tell you from personal experience that he is a brilliant editor. The Lilly Library at Indiana University houses the Lish Papers, and in those boxes of pure gold, one can read the revisions Lish made to "make" Raymond Carver. And then Lish championed him, as he does all the writers he works with. In the same library are many lovely letters from Jack Gilbert to Lish, and it is in them that one learns that Lish published Gilbert on his own in Esquire without Gilbert's permission. Jack did not complain. What followed those published poems was Gilbert's greatest book MONOLITHOS. Today, Gilbert is reaping some of the praise and benefits of being accomplished and old. He lived his life the way he wanted to. And then he wrote about it. Fact is, there is a lot of jealousy and hurt feelings in this business of writing and publishing. I personally enjoy reading something that feels in my body to be true. The vindictive, or envious person, simply feels false.Mewlhouse 01:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment you are referring to is the author's opinion, but honestly, you sound just as opinionated (e.g., "crappy poet") which of course is your right. You also assume an awful lot. For example you say "Jack did not complain."-- do you know this to be true, or are you just assuming it to be so? (Personally I don't know why Jack would complain-- perhaps he did in fact want his work to be published.) Everything you are writing, and your very strong personal reaction, kind of suggests that there may be something to this, and that a reasonable person may come away with a different take that you have, and that at the very least there is a controversy. The main part of what you wrote that I would take exception to, though, is your assertion "The last paragraph on Gilbert should not have even been written". Come off the high horse, please. Are you trying to suggest that there can be only one point of view about Gilbert's work and his history with Lish and Genesis West or that nobody may breathe a word to the contrary of received opinion? the article itself must of course be kept factual and encyclopedic, but in the discussion forum there is room for different POVs. We all "enjoy reading something that feels in (our bodies) to be true" but you can't assume or require that everyone feel the same thing, nor can you expect us to reject information just because it "feels" false to you. That's just solipsism. Thanks for your comments.  :-) 66.150.206.1 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, and as can be verified if you read the Wikipedia entry about the Pulitzer prize "The Pulitzer Prize Board distinguishes between "entrants" and "nominated finalists": An "entrant" is simply someone whose publisher has formally entered his or her work for consideration according to the Boards "Plan of Award". "Nominated finalists" are those selected by the juries and (since 1980) announced along with the winner for each category." Anyone can be nominated for a Pulitzer-- it's not a distinction at all. Anyone can make that claim. Winning is a distinction, as is being a "Nominated finalist" since an actual jury is involved at that point. Stating that a poet was "nominated" for a Pulitzer doesn't belong in Wikipedia, book jacket copy not withstanding, unless that person was at least a finalist. 66.150.206.1 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's listed on the Pulitzer website, no matter what. http://www.pulitzer.org/cyear/1983w.html Right there. Simply click on the button at the bottom of the link that clearly reads "Nominated Finalists for 1983" and go up to Poetry, where Monolithos is listed. Personal distinctions aside, the book and Gilbert are mentioned in the nominated finalists for 1983; the Pulitzer committee makes the distinction as the prize-awarding institution. If you wish to make this fine-lined distinction, please consider it for all books nominated for the Pulitzer Prize mentioned on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think this mention of a nomination is factually-based, informational, and valid. Icarus of old (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)