So I thought it might be a good opportunity to discuss each poem here. How it is or can be read apocalyptically. Jeff and I get asked a lot to clarify Apocalypticism. It, like most things that are grand and potentially mystical, is very difficult to explain with a language that is so limited to coherence, logic, and words. Peter's essay really does the best job which is why we just point to it over and over. But even his essay is still limited by language. Jeff and I can read a poem and tell immediately whether it is alive or dead. A dead poem is limited by language. Its layers/meanings/content/form/etc are all closed either to one or to a very few. An alive poem will foremost, feel alive. Like touching an animal that is dead, you know immediately. It is cold, lifeless. It feels dead. A poem has a similar feeling. If a poem is alive, it can be read apocalyptically. It doesn't matter what the poet intended, how it's supposed to be read, which meanings the poet laced through the work. A poem, by nature, is an apocalyptic medium. If it's alive, it's apocalyptic.
So, first, the feeling.
Second, everything else.
A wise man told me, first you are. Then everything else. Most of the people enrolled in the ModPo class would argue this is egotism. I argue that it is being. And a poem is a mirror of being. It is a microcosm of being. Everything that was and is and will be should be found in a poem that is alive. This is why writing poetry is not easy. You are making life. Otherwise you're just making dead poems; you're just writing words.
So, over the next couple of weeks, my response to the poems from the course will be posted here. Hopefully, it will give everyone who's interested a sense of the everything else part of things. But you have to feel it first.