Oh dear. From what you quote and from your description it seems as if judgment, i.e. criticism, is basically absent? And of course there is no wit without judgment. I like Ruby as a book reviewer, and love a good ars poetica, but this seems deeply misconceived.
In addition to the Dunciad, Imitations of Horace comes to mind:
Shakespeare (whom you and ev'ry playhouse bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
And grew immortal in his own despite.
Ben, old and poor, as little seem'd to heed
The life to come, in ev'ry poet's creed.
Who now reads Cowley? if he pleases yet,
His moral pleases, not his pointed wit;
Forgot his epic, nay Pindaric art,
But still I love the language of his heart.
"Yet surely, surely, these were famous men!
What boy but hears the sayings of old Ben?
In all debates where critics bear a part,
Not one but nods, and talks of Jonson's art,
Of Shakespeare's nature, and of Cowley's wit;
How Beaumont's judgment check'd what Fletcher writ;
I’m sure this book is bad, but is this dude even powerful, rich, or famous? Or is the book some kind of big success? It doesn’t strike me as quite fair to write such a savage review of an obscure book by an obscurity
This indeed looks execrably bad. The amusing thing to me was that I read your post on my telephone, so all the lines of your text were automatically constrained by the screen to a length barely any longer than Ruby's - and I accordingly and automatically read Ruby's work as prose without noticing any dissonance.
My one question relates to Pound, whom you mention early on. It looks obvious to me from some of the things you quoted that Ruby is riffing off the Cantos at least as much as the Dunciad, and there are many parts of the Cantos that could carelessly be read as prose broken up into lines. Yet I love Pound, who (to me) is infinitely superior to this, and I was sent back to my much-read copy of the Cantos to try to think out the difference in my head. It's partly the rhythm issue, I think, but also the way that even the most "prosaic" parts of the Cantos are so unexpected in the way they will throw in oddities of word-order, of metaphors, or words and lines that send the poem in a new direction. Even the "prosaic" parts of the Cantos are so intensely engaging the reader's attention in poetic ways. Whereas Ruby, at least to judge by the parts you quote (and I've no intention of wasting my time reading the whole thing, unless someone can really persuade me otherwise!), is as predictable as any bad critical writing is predictable.
this is a petty complaint, but I became determined to loathe this book long before its publication, when Ruby posted this excerpt from it with all the Arabic text mangled (https://x.com/_ryanruby_/status/1793997161778286869). small thing, but extremely emblematic of the lack of sincerity and care in the production of this document — the inclusion of this foreign text out of Wikipedial thoroughness rather than out of understanding. certainly think also that if he couldn't even read it, he certainly couldn't try to get it to scan, could he?
Isn't it also (or would have been, not sure about its source text -- does it have one) a not-that-great an essay? So the prose there lacks lift and grace and all the qualities that good academic writing, especially in humanities, can have (no, honestly, it can).
But it seems to work as a form of dada effort, a urinal/fountain of poetry? Perhaps?
It's funny how absolutely divergent from yours is my own substack review of this poem, from a few days ago. I don't think a poem is automatically bad if it doesn’t sound like Pope or some other paragon of the 18th century; nor do I think a poem is necessarily bad if it lacks the genteel polish and refinement of canonical texts. As you can see from my review, I rather liked the brash over-the-top anti-poetical *plainness* of Ruby's goofy-grad student lingo. My real argument with his poem comes only in the second part of the review. I can't accept the fundamental axioms he proposes, which structure the poem's whole argument.
I think it was in Don Paterson’s The Poem that I read that words with Anglo-Saxon roots lend themselves to the rhythm and sounds of English poetry in a way that the dainty syllables and sounds of Greek-rooted words don’t.
Eg. technological and quantitative are challenging to fit into good poems
Yes I think so. Those words can work of course. There were one or two moments when he could have made such words into acrostic lines, had he so wished.
I recommend reading or re-reading Macaulay’s review of ‘The Poems of Mr Robert Montgomery’ - for me, one of the funniest and most devastating pieces of criticism. Your piece is in this tradition
What was that dumb-ass snarky "paper" that was all about how postmodernism in science was essential, and it was accepted and then the author was like "surprise! As a reactionary I planted this to show how vapid the academic discourse is!" but it wasn't funny, not even in a Curb Your Enthusiasm cringe way, it was just that reactionary and his gotcha, with no one who he wanted to offend caring and only those who already were on the train with him, cheering it on? That's what this sounds like. As a joke, flat indeed, but the joke is that you wrote this review and acted as if he wasn't transparently joking in every syllable of every line and I think you took the bait and now you are the punchline.
Are you talking about Alan Sokal's paper in Social Text in 1996? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair). If so, it isn't surprising that it wasn't funny, because it wasn't meant to be: it was meant to expose the lack of intellectual standards in certain disciplines if their prejudices were flattered. We can debate whether or not Sokal succeeded in his aim, but its lack of humor is really beside the point.
For the same reason, I don't really see an analogy to Henry's criticism of Ruby here. If you think that Ruby is like Sokal, deliberately writing badly in order to expose critics who take it seriously, then Henry, entirely unlike the editors of Social Text, isn't taken in: he is properly critical of it, in the way those editors should have been of Sokal's paper.
On reflection "prank" is a better word than "joke." And no, taking it seriously and giving it attention is not what anyone should have done. They should have allowed this to sink like a stone and promoted some actually good and interesting poetry in its stead.
Oh dear. From what you quote and from your description it seems as if judgment, i.e. criticism, is basically absent? And of course there is no wit without judgment. I like Ruby as a book reviewer, and love a good ars poetica, but this seems deeply misconceived.
In addition to the Dunciad, Imitations of Horace comes to mind:
Shakespeare (whom you and ev'ry playhouse bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight,
And grew immortal in his own despite.
Ben, old and poor, as little seem'd to heed
The life to come, in ev'ry poet's creed.
Who now reads Cowley? if he pleases yet,
His moral pleases, not his pointed wit;
Forgot his epic, nay Pindaric art,
But still I love the language of his heart.
"Yet surely, surely, these were famous men!
What boy but hears the sayings of old Ben?
In all debates where critics bear a part,
Not one but nods, and talks of Jonson's art,
Of Shakespeare's nature, and of Cowley's wit;
How Beaumont's judgment check'd what Fletcher writ;
How Shadwell hasty, Wycherley was slow;
But, for the passions, Southerne sure and Rowe.
These, only these, support the crowded stage,
From eldest Heywood down to Cibber's age."
All this may be; the people's voice is odd,
It is, and it is not, the voice of God.
I love this!
I’m sure this book is bad, but is this dude even powerful, rich, or famous? Or is the book some kind of big success? It doesn’t strike me as quite fair to write such a savage review of an obscure book by an obscurity
He’s quite significant yes you don’t need to worry I’m not picking on unknowns
This indeed looks execrably bad. The amusing thing to me was that I read your post on my telephone, so all the lines of your text were automatically constrained by the screen to a length barely any longer than Ruby's - and I accordingly and automatically read Ruby's work as prose without noticing any dissonance.
My one question relates to Pound, whom you mention early on. It looks obvious to me from some of the things you quoted that Ruby is riffing off the Cantos at least as much as the Dunciad, and there are many parts of the Cantos that could carelessly be read as prose broken up into lines. Yet I love Pound, who (to me) is infinitely superior to this, and I was sent back to my much-read copy of the Cantos to try to think out the difference in my head. It's partly the rhythm issue, I think, but also the way that even the most "prosaic" parts of the Cantos are so unexpected in the way they will throw in oddities of word-order, of metaphors, or words and lines that send the poem in a new direction. Even the "prosaic" parts of the Cantos are so intensely engaging the reader's attention in poetic ways. Whereas Ruby, at least to judge by the parts you quote (and I've no intention of wasting my time reading the whole thing, unless someone can really persuade me otherwise!), is as predictable as any bad critical writing is predictable.
Does that make sense?
I’m not a Pound enthusiast, but he does have a marvellous ear yes.
this is a petty complaint, but I became determined to loathe this book long before its publication, when Ruby posted this excerpt from it with all the Arabic text mangled (https://x.com/_ryanruby_/status/1793997161778286869). small thing, but extremely emblematic of the lack of sincerity and care in the production of this document — the inclusion of this foreign text out of Wikipedial thoroughness rather than out of understanding. certainly think also that if he couldn't even read it, he certainly couldn't try to get it to scan, could he?
many such examples in the book, imo; cosplay TS Eliot
I just think you are a bit unfair to Crabbe.
This is poetry only as a Duchampian gesture, if I may imitate the Ruby that I see in this review.
Yes I should have been clearer I do like Crabbe
Isn't it also (or would have been, not sure about its source text -- does it have one) a not-that-great an essay? So the prose there lacks lift and grace and all the qualities that good academic writing, especially in humanities, can have (no, honestly, it can).
But it seems to work as a form of dada effort, a urinal/fountain of poetry? Perhaps?
It's funny how absolutely divergent from yours is my own substack review of this poem, from a few days ago. I don't think a poem is automatically bad if it doesn’t sound like Pope or some other paragon of the 18th century; nor do I think a poem is necessarily bad if it lacks the genteel polish and refinement of canonical texts. As you can see from my review, I rather liked the brash over-the-top anti-poetical *plainness* of Ruby's goofy-grad student lingo. My real argument with his poem comes only in the second part of the review. I can't accept the fundamental axioms he proposes, which structure the poem's whole argument.
I think it was in Don Paterson’s The Poem that I read that words with Anglo-Saxon roots lend themselves to the rhythm and sounds of English poetry in a way that the dainty syllables and sounds of Greek-rooted words don’t.
Eg. technological and quantitative are challenging to fit into good poems
This seems relevant here
Yes I think so. Those words can work of course. There were one or two moments when he could have made such words into acrostic lines, had he so wished.
I recommend reading or re-reading Macaulay’s review of ‘The Poems of Mr Robert Montgomery’ - for me, one of the funniest and most devastating pieces of criticism. Your piece is in this tradition
Good call thanks
hald( half)
loved these phrases
unravelling jumper sleeve
exhaustingly dull
mock mockery
X a Jesus
they've all gone
to Bluesky
Hi Henry magnificent bit of writing
Many thanks!
I've seen that cover somewhere before...
Where?
On the spines of "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons. A 1946 edition featured the design.
Always good to go bold Henry! Always!
:)
I think im too dumb to understand both sides 😭✋️
What was that dumb-ass snarky "paper" that was all about how postmodernism in science was essential, and it was accepted and then the author was like "surprise! As a reactionary I planted this to show how vapid the academic discourse is!" but it wasn't funny, not even in a Curb Your Enthusiasm cringe way, it was just that reactionary and his gotcha, with no one who he wanted to offend caring and only those who already were on the train with him, cheering it on? That's what this sounds like. As a joke, flat indeed, but the joke is that you wrote this review and acted as if he wasn't transparently joking in every syllable of every line and I think you took the bait and now you are the punchline.
I’m not obliged to accept the terms of the joke when it is such a colossal failure — what we have here is not a clever prank but merely bad poetry
I didn’t say anything about it being clever or you having to accept it; just that reviewing it at all was more attention than it deserves
Are you talking about Alan Sokal's paper in Social Text in 1996? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair). If so, it isn't surprising that it wasn't funny, because it wasn't meant to be: it was meant to expose the lack of intellectual standards in certain disciplines if their prejudices were flattered. We can debate whether or not Sokal succeeded in his aim, but its lack of humor is really beside the point.
For the same reason, I don't really see an analogy to Henry's criticism of Ruby here. If you think that Ruby is like Sokal, deliberately writing badly in order to expose critics who take it seriously, then Henry, entirely unlike the editors of Social Text, isn't taken in: he is properly critical of it, in the way those editors should have been of Sokal's paper.
On reflection "prank" is a better word than "joke." And no, taking it seriously and giving it attention is not what anyone should have done. They should have allowed this to sink like a stone and promoted some actually good and interesting poetry in its stead.
Not sure this is what we have here no