What do you think?
Rate this book
You, Too, Could Write a Poem
A collection of reviews and essays by David Orr, the New York Times poetry columnist and one of the most respected critics in America today, his best work of the past fifteen years in one place
Poetry is never more vital, meaningful, or accessible than in the hands of David Orr. In the pieces collected here, most of them written originally for the New York Times, Orr is at his rigorous, conversational, and edifying best. Whether he is considering the careers of contemporary masters, such as Louise Gluckor Frederick Seidel, sizing up younger American poets, like Matthea Harvey and Matthew Zapruder, or even turning his attention to celebrities and public figures, namely Oprah Winfrey and Stephen Fry, when they choose to wade into the hotly contested waters of the poetry world, Orr is never any less than fully persuasive in arguing what makes a poem or poet great or not. After all, as Orr points out in his introduction, Poetry is a lot like America, in the sense that liking all of it means that you probably shouldn't be trusted with money, or scissors.
Orr's prose is devoted to common sense and clarity, and, in every case, he brings to bear an impeccable ear, an openhandedness of spirit, and a deep wealth of technical knowledge to say nothing of his shrewd sense of humor. As pleasurable as it is informative, Orr's journalism represents a high watermark in the public discussion of literature. You, Too, Could Write a Poem is at heart a love note to poetry itself."
Poetry is never more vital, meaningful, or accessible than in the hands of David Orr. In the pieces collected here, most of them written originally for the New York Times, Orr is at his rigorous, conversational, and edifying best. Whether he is considering the careers of contemporary masters, such as Louise Gluckor Frederick Seidel, sizing up younger American poets, like Matthea Harvey and Matthew Zapruder, or even turning his attention to celebrities and public figures, namely Oprah Winfrey and Stephen Fry, when they choose to wade into the hotly contested waters of the poetry world, Orr is never any less than fully persuasive in arguing what makes a poem or poet great or not. After all, as Orr points out in his introduction, Poetry is a lot like America, in the sense that liking all of it means that you probably shouldn't be trusted with money, or scissors.
Orr's prose is devoted to common sense and clarity, and, in every case, he brings to bear an impeccable ear, an openhandedness of spirit, and a deep wealth of technical knowledge to say nothing of his shrewd sense of humor. As pleasurable as it is informative, Orr's journalism represents a high watermark in the public discussion of literature. You, Too, Could Write a Poem is at heart a love note to poetry itself."
400 pages, Paperback
Published February 7, 2017
18 people are currently reading
444 people want to read
About the author
David Orr
34 books43 followersDavid Orr is the poetry columnist for the New York Times Book Review. He is the winner of the Nona Balakian Prize from the National Book Critics Circle and the Editor’s Prize for Reviewing from Poetrymagazine. Orr’s writing has appeared in Poetry, Slate, The Believer, and Pleiades magazine. He holds a B.A. from Princeton and a J.D. from Yale Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 4, 2017
Herein a collection of essays from Orr's New York Times gig as a poetry columnist (I know, I know--they HAVE such things?). Some of the pieces fit under the category "On Poetry" and some "On Poets." I'm not sure even Orr knows what to make of the state of poetry, but at least he has a sense of humor, acknowledging that poetry is a rare and fragile bird considered by most readers to be "exotica" of a sort.
As for the poets section, I enjoyed his takes on Ted Hughes' letters, Jack Gilbert, James Franco (who doesn't count, though his name does), Zbigniew Herbert, Jorie Graham, Robert Frost's notebooks, and Marie Ponsot. In the general category there's much ado about his favorites (Philip Larkin and Elizabeth Bishop, for instance) and some consternation about the act of creating a "Best of" series for American poetry every year.
More on that (along with a long quote from Orr) can be read here (https://kencraftpoetry.wordpress.com/...), where I riffed on it because, well, it's riffable. Especially the part about the poetry world being a combination of "odd institutions, personal networks, hoary traditions, talent, and blind luck."
I'll take Blind Luck for $500, Alex.
As for the poets section, I enjoyed his takes on Ted Hughes' letters, Jack Gilbert, James Franco (who doesn't count, though his name does), Zbigniew Herbert, Jorie Graham, Robert Frost's notebooks, and Marie Ponsot. In the general category there's much ado about his favorites (Philip Larkin and Elizabeth Bishop, for instance) and some consternation about the act of creating a "Best of" series for American poetry every year.
More on that (along with a long quote from Orr) can be read here (https://kencraftpoetry.wordpress.com/...), where I riffed on it because, well, it's riffable. Especially the part about the poetry world being a combination of "odd institutions, personal networks, hoary traditions, talent, and blind luck."
I'll take Blind Luck for $500, Alex.
September 3, 2017
I just finished David Orr's new collection: You, Too, Could Write a Poem. A collection of essays and reviews from his poetry columns in the New York Times.
I hated to finish it -- I wanted to live inside his head forever. I wanted him to have more of these conversations with me. Apparently, I could have had this all along by actually reading the New York Times on a regular basis, but I didn't. I realize that I have spent very little time since undergrad really thinking about poetry and poems and poets in this way. There was a brief poetry book group I belonged to where we talked about a Robert Haas collection at one point and I felt like I had missed the point -- the poems just didn't live up to the reputation. Now David Orr (apparently my new lit crit crush?) suggests that Haas's early work contained more greatness than his later -- and not only that, not even really a statement that this is somehow a "truth," but meditates on what is different and why (maybe... always room for maybe and other perspectives in these essays) more recent Haas doesn't read as powerful or crisp as earlier work. I'm left actually wanting to read more Haas... not something I ever thought I would say.
There is the wonderful essay "The State of Contemporary American Poetry: An Allegory," which should be ridiculously pretentious but somehow wasn't, somehow was more like a set of fairy tales. And, a series of thoughts on how Robert Frost out-avant-gardes the avant garde. Perhaps we should think of Donald Justice as an "ironist of nostalgia" (that was the sound of my head exploding) and I feel like I have permission to not be in love with Jorie Graham as some icon of modern poetry greatness. ["Graham's work combines two qualities not generally found together - first, it's often sumptuously "poetic" ("a scintillant fold the fabric of the daylight bending"); second, it's ostentatiously thinky (typical titles: "Notes on the Reality of the Self," "What is Called Thinking," "Relativity: A Quartet). The former quality appeals to lovers of operatic lyricism; the latter quality not only pleases certain parts of poetry's largely academic audience, but it soothes the art form's nagging status anxiety (anything involving this much Heidegger must be important). ... Yet there's always been something strangely bleary in Graham's writing - as if she's just noticed something interesting and motioned the reader over, only to stand in his light, blocking his view with her own viewing."]
Now, for all I know, those who have been paying more attention and who are much better read both of poems and literary criticism, may think of David Orr as an ass (very much the way I think of Harold Bloom much of the time despite his obvious intelligence). But when he writes of some of the poems by Marie Ponsot (and I admit I have never heard of her, or read her work) that "Reading a lot of this can be like eating a bucket of peanut butter," I know exactly what he means. His later reference to her "baroque tendencies" would not have been as clear without the earlier peanut butter reference. And this is not at all to say that he states this as something wrong in her writing...
Now, I want to buy myself a copy of this book (the copy I just finished belongs to the Library and they probably want it back) and have a book group where I/we read the referred to poets, collection(s), style in each essay, then read the essay, and then see what I/we think. I just want to.
I hated to finish it -- I wanted to live inside his head forever. I wanted him to have more of these conversations with me. Apparently, I could have had this all along by actually reading the New York Times on a regular basis, but I didn't. I realize that I have spent very little time since undergrad really thinking about poetry and poems and poets in this way. There was a brief poetry book group I belonged to where we talked about a Robert Haas collection at one point and I felt like I had missed the point -- the poems just didn't live up to the reputation. Now David Orr (apparently my new lit crit crush?) suggests that Haas's early work contained more greatness than his later -- and not only that, not even really a statement that this is somehow a "truth," but meditates on what is different and why (maybe... always room for maybe and other perspectives in these essays) more recent Haas doesn't read as powerful or crisp as earlier work. I'm left actually wanting to read more Haas... not something I ever thought I would say.
There is the wonderful essay "The State of Contemporary American Poetry: An Allegory," which should be ridiculously pretentious but somehow wasn't, somehow was more like a set of fairy tales. And, a series of thoughts on how Robert Frost out-avant-gardes the avant garde. Perhaps we should think of Donald Justice as an "ironist of nostalgia" (that was the sound of my head exploding) and I feel like I have permission to not be in love with Jorie Graham as some icon of modern poetry greatness. ["Graham's work combines two qualities not generally found together - first, it's often sumptuously "poetic" ("a scintillant fold the fabric of the daylight bending"); second, it's ostentatiously thinky (typical titles: "Notes on the Reality of the Self," "What is Called Thinking," "Relativity: A Quartet). The former quality appeals to lovers of operatic lyricism; the latter quality not only pleases certain parts of poetry's largely academic audience, but it soothes the art form's nagging status anxiety (anything involving this much Heidegger must be important). ... Yet there's always been something strangely bleary in Graham's writing - as if she's just noticed something interesting and motioned the reader over, only to stand in his light, blocking his view with her own viewing."]
Now, for all I know, those who have been paying more attention and who are much better read both of poems and literary criticism, may think of David Orr as an ass (very much the way I think of Harold Bloom much of the time despite his obvious intelligence). But when he writes of some of the poems by Marie Ponsot (and I admit I have never heard of her, or read her work) that "Reading a lot of this can be like eating a bucket of peanut butter," I know exactly what he means. His later reference to her "baroque tendencies" would not have been as clear without the earlier peanut butter reference. And this is not at all to say that he states this as something wrong in her writing...
Now, I want to buy myself a copy of this book (the copy I just finished belongs to the Library and they probably want it back) and have a book group where I/we read the referred to poets, collection(s), style in each essay, then read the essay, and then see what I/we think. I just want to.
August 17, 2019
It is 9pm when I am writing this review. I hope it all makes some sort of sense and I am not just stringing words together into incoherent thoughts.
I really enjoyed this collection of essays more than I expected for some reason. I found myself getting into this collection and thinking deeply about what was being written. The analysis of the poems was enjoyable to read, taking me back to high school, stripping the poems down to understanding.
Even when David was reviewing poets that I haven't read before, I enjoyed it, he did so in a way that also spoke on the subject of poetry as a whole. Which was both something that I liked, but also had its downfalls. I have some new poets to check out. I found that if people wanted to seriously read a review on a certain poet or book, that David often got off-track, musing about poetry or other things that sort of related to the poet, but not entirely. David did tend to get off-track often in this collection, I found it kind of unnecessary. I also didn't like the abrupt ending, this book could have worked with a conclusion and not with a review. I felt like at times, David seemed really negative about certain poets in a way that might come off as biased, maybe a little more subtlety or seeing both sides of things would have made him more professional. It could just be me picking up on things that aren't there.
David has this very distinct voice that is funny and thoughtful, intelligent and poetry-like at times. I liked reading his thoughts on poetry and poets, there were interesting discussions in here. He had me thinking deeply about the subject. I could tell that he was well-versed and knew a lot about the industry. Some of what he said went right over my head, in terms of understanding.
I really enjoyed this collection of essays more than I expected for some reason. I found myself getting into this collection and thinking deeply about what was being written. The analysis of the poems was enjoyable to read, taking me back to high school, stripping the poems down to understanding.
Even when David was reviewing poets that I haven't read before, I enjoyed it, he did so in a way that also spoke on the subject of poetry as a whole. Which was both something that I liked, but also had its downfalls. I have some new poets to check out. I found that if people wanted to seriously read a review on a certain poet or book, that David often got off-track, musing about poetry or other things that sort of related to the poet, but not entirely. David did tend to get off-track often in this collection, I found it kind of unnecessary. I also didn't like the abrupt ending, this book could have worked with a conclusion and not with a review. I felt like at times, David seemed really negative about certain poets in a way that might come off as biased, maybe a little more subtlety or seeing both sides of things would have made him more professional. It could just be me picking up on things that aren't there.
David has this very distinct voice that is funny and thoughtful, intelligent and poetry-like at times. I liked reading his thoughts on poetry and poets, there were interesting discussions in here. He had me thinking deeply about the subject. I could tell that he was well-versed and knew a lot about the industry. Some of what he said went right over my head, in terms of understanding.
December 21, 2017
You, too, can write poetry and read it too.
March 6, 2020
This book had me laughing on the bus! At points mean or snarky, at others just curmudgeonly, but most of the time fair and considerate, David Orr makes writing poetry criticism seem like a cool job. Which is quite the achievement!
It also made me want to read a lot more poetry and think more carefully about what I read, which is a better and more important achievement.
It also made me want to read a lot more poetry and think more carefully about what I read, which is a better and more important achievement.
April 11, 2017
I won a free copy of this book as part of a Goodreads First-reads giveaway. I am offering my honest review.
David Orr’s You, Too, Could Write a Poem takes its title from its opening essay which explores the ways in which American Poetry is simultaneously democratic and a “closed system.” What makes this book great is that, for the most part, it is democratic – the average reader, interested but not steeped in poetry, will enjoy and understand what Orr is trying to say. This is no small achievement for a book that spans the scope of “capital p” Poetry.
The book is roughly divided into two parts – essays about poetry in general, and essays about specific poets. The former section is incredibly strong; it is well argued and accessible. Aspiring poets, students of literature, and readers in general should read this work.
The second part of the book is more of a mixed bag. For readers interested in specific poets or with a significant knowledge of contemporary poetry, these latter reviews will be interesting. However, some reviews will be of little use to readers unfamiliar with his subjects. At his best, (to borrow one of Orr’s favorite phrases) Orr can compassionately and clearly explain a poet’s craft while also illuminating greater trends or conflicts in poetry – often with a dose of humor. At other times the more casual reader may feel left out of a conversation addressed to the “closed system.” This is not necessarily a criticism of Orr and his work, but a book entitled You, Too, Could Write a Poem would benefit from different selections.
David Orr’s You, Too, Could Write a Poem takes its title from its opening essay which explores the ways in which American Poetry is simultaneously democratic and a “closed system.” What makes this book great is that, for the most part, it is democratic – the average reader, interested but not steeped in poetry, will enjoy and understand what Orr is trying to say. This is no small achievement for a book that spans the scope of “capital p” Poetry.
The book is roughly divided into two parts – essays about poetry in general, and essays about specific poets. The former section is incredibly strong; it is well argued and accessible. Aspiring poets, students of literature, and readers in general should read this work.
The second part of the book is more of a mixed bag. For readers interested in specific poets or with a significant knowledge of contemporary poetry, these latter reviews will be interesting. However, some reviews will be of little use to readers unfamiliar with his subjects. At his best, (to borrow one of Orr’s favorite phrases) Orr can compassionately and clearly explain a poet’s craft while also illuminating greater trends or conflicts in poetry – often with a dose of humor. At other times the more casual reader may feel left out of a conversation addressed to the “closed system.” This is not necessarily a criticism of Orr and his work, but a book entitled You, Too, Could Write a Poem would benefit from different selections.
June 8, 2017
Opinionated, smart, hilarious
No one writes about poetry quite like Orr, who conveys both informed discussion of great poems (as in his essay about the poetic use of shorelines) as well as populist skepticism about poetry, period (captured, I would say perfectly, in his review of James Franco). He is always interesting, sentence to sentence, and as someone who is alternately obsessed with, and yet often frustrated by, modern poetry, Orr makes me feel I'm not alone. I even have a Virgil to guide my way.
No one writes about poetry quite like Orr, who conveys both informed discussion of great poems (as in his essay about the poetic use of shorelines) as well as populist skepticism about poetry, period (captured, I would say perfectly, in his review of James Franco). He is always interesting, sentence to sentence, and as someone who is alternately obsessed with, and yet often frustrated by, modern poetry, Orr makes me feel I'm not alone. I even have a Virgil to guide my way.
December 29, 2016
I admit I picked this up on a whim at the Strand (did you know that advanced reader's proofs are only $2.50 there?) But it was a delightful surprise. I'm sure I've read Orr's work before in the NYT, but this collection will make me seek his stuff out more actively. A wonderful glimpse into the "poetry world," and a great introduction for me to a bunch of poets to add to me "To Read" list. (Though after a while I did feel like screaming, "OK we get it, you like Elizabeth Bishop."
November 26, 2017
I did not enjoy You, Too, Could Write a Poem as much as I enjoyed the other book I've read by Orr, Beautiful & Pointless. Orr is at his best when he is using poets and poetry to explore a concept -- "Virtuosity" (57-73) was probably my favorite essay in the collection -- and at his worst at what should be his strength, writing about individual poets.
The first two sections of the book You, Too, Could Write a Poem -- "On Poetry" and "Volta" -- were strong and filled with interesting ideas. There was a lot to think about in them and his references to poets I'm not familiar with -- some of whom I should be familiar with, like James Merrill -- made me want to go out and buy those collections. Through the first section in particular I found myself intrigued as he used poems to illuminate larger ideas.
The real weakness of this collection of essays was the third section, "On Poets", which was comprised of 25 essays on individual poets, 2 essays that pair poets, and 1 essay that looks at four poets. Almost all of these pieces are 6-pages long and they become formulaic and blend together. He writes frame essays: he starts with a paragraph or two that usually left me wondering, "Where is this going?" or "How is this connected to the poet he'll eventually be talking about?" (After several of these openings, I felt like the characters in Monty Python and the Holy Grail shouting, "Get on with it!") My confusions were rarely resolved: Orr then transitions without only a tenuous connection to the focus of his essay. He gives his observations, sometimes clinical, sometimes impassioned, sometimes mocking. Then the essay sort of just stopped and he returned to his framing device to make one final comment.
While there is nothing wrong with this style in and of itself -- just as there is nothing wrong with, say, a villanelle -- there is little surprise or creativity in these. After the first few essays, I found myself wanting to skip to the second or third paragraph and move to the next before I read the final paragraph. Isolated the form might work, but reading 25 of them back to back shows the weaknesses of each and of all.
The first two sections of the book You, Too, Could Write a Poem -- "On Poetry" and "Volta" -- were strong and filled with interesting ideas. There was a lot to think about in them and his references to poets I'm not familiar with -- some of whom I should be familiar with, like James Merrill -- made me want to go out and buy those collections. Through the first section in particular I found myself intrigued as he used poems to illuminate larger ideas.
The real weakness of this collection of essays was the third section, "On Poets", which was comprised of 25 essays on individual poets, 2 essays that pair poets, and 1 essay that looks at four poets. Almost all of these pieces are 6-pages long and they become formulaic and blend together. He writes frame essays: he starts with a paragraph or two that usually left me wondering, "Where is this going?" or "How is this connected to the poet he'll eventually be talking about?" (After several of these openings, I felt like the characters in Monty Python and the Holy Grail shouting, "Get on with it!") My confusions were rarely resolved: Orr then transitions without only a tenuous connection to the focus of his essay. He gives his observations, sometimes clinical, sometimes impassioned, sometimes mocking. Then the essay sort of just stopped and he returned to his framing device to make one final comment.
While there is nothing wrong with this style in and of itself -- just as there is nothing wrong with, say, a villanelle -- there is little surprise or creativity in these. After the first few essays, I found myself wanting to skip to the second or third paragraph and move to the next before I read the final paragraph. Isolated the form might work, but reading 25 of them back to back shows the weaknesses of each and of all.
May 21, 2020
I have a love-hate relationship with this book. I hate it, as David used obscure (read: complex) words that are littered within lengthy sentences (sometimes more than 50 words). For example:
They often begin with slightly off-kilter observations ("I'll tell you all about the battle of Copenhagen"), frequently drift into aphorisms ("The man who stepped out for a paper/ and never came back/ lives inside us all"), and generally have identifiable if quirky subjects: children's grames, the Glasgow come scale, the word "marasmus", oubliette, peacock feathers.
His essays decimated my ability to read his words speedily, and the complex words forced me to use the forgotten dictionary function on the Kindle.
Yet, I love this book for precisely the same reasons too. Instead of trying to absorb his essays, that seems to be addressing largely to poets and MFA graduates, I'd turned the reading experience as if I'm playing a word-game. I obsessively copied and checked the definition of words I'd not seen before or words I'd come across but never bothered to check on.
His long sentences also forced me to slow down at such a pace that I can savour his arguments, much like how one read poetry out loud (or at least out loud in one's mind).
As a non-poet, this book may be a little over my head. Even still, I am glad to gain a bit of insight from the author on American poetry. If nothing else, at least I get to know more than the usual bestselling poets/brands (e.g. Plath, Frost, Larkin). Definitely going to try and look for works from Stevie Smith, Frederick Siedel, Donald Justice and Elizabeth Bishop next.
They often begin with slightly off-kilter observations ("I'll tell you all about the battle of Copenhagen"), frequently drift into aphorisms ("The man who stepped out for a paper/ and never came back/ lives inside us all"), and generally have identifiable if quirky subjects: children's grames, the Glasgow come scale, the word "marasmus", oubliette, peacock feathers.
His essays decimated my ability to read his words speedily, and the complex words forced me to use the forgotten dictionary function on the Kindle.
Yet, I love this book for precisely the same reasons too. Instead of trying to absorb his essays, that seems to be addressing largely to poets and MFA graduates, I'd turned the reading experience as if I'm playing a word-game. I obsessively copied and checked the definition of words I'd not seen before or words I'd come across but never bothered to check on.
His long sentences also forced me to slow down at such a pace that I can savour his arguments, much like how one read poetry out loud (or at least out loud in one's mind).
As a non-poet, this book may be a little over my head. Even still, I am glad to gain a bit of insight from the author on American poetry. If nothing else, at least I get to know more than the usual bestselling poets/brands (e.g. Plath, Frost, Larkin). Definitely going to try and look for works from Stevie Smith, Frederick Siedel, Donald Justice and Elizabeth Bishop next.
August 16, 2017
From the title I was under the impression that this book would be some encouraging stories of poets with unusual histories or how they reached to "poetic greatness" at least in the eyes of Orr. However I was delightfully wrong on this one. Instead, however this is (if someone would read past the title would easily discover) a collection of essays and reviews of shorts on first theories/ideas/thoughts on poets, poetry, poetics and themes and then a section on various poets themselves and the tools or poetics in which they use (successfully or not). I would not recommend this to someone looking for some encouraging word to get them writing, it did however stir in me the dialogue I missed from poetry classes at university. Orr tedious examples provoked me to start writing again (HA, maybe the title is somewhat true after all) Great read all in all, but took a long time to finish as it is packed cover to cover with references and poems that take time and dedication to get through.
June 9, 2019
This collection of short pieces mostly from the New York Times is all over the place in terms of accessibility, but all feature Orr's distinctive voice, which is casual and clear even when discussing the most abstruse subjects, and peppered with memorable comparisons, aphorisms, and witticisms (example: "Poetry is a lot like America, in the sense that liking all of it means that you probably shouldn't be trusted with money, or scissors"). There's a review of a volume by Billy Collins written entirely in the style of a Collins poem. There are two pieces on James Franco, sometime poet, which are easy to understand, and quite a few pieces on poets you may not have heard of, and may have trouble understanding. Orr is a little glib, but he uses it to offset his essential seriousness. His book won't help you understand more about poetry, except accidentally, but you'll probably find a lot to like in it if you already like some poetry. Not all of it.
July 10, 2017
Interesting insight and a wealth of information, but often the author relies on comparisons to other poets. Understandable, as it is a book of critiques more or less, but it can be confusing at times if you're unsure of or not schooled in the writers and collections cited. Worth a look for anyone interested more in the artistry of poetry and some of today's works stand up next to older and more acclaimed poets. Also an excellent source of reference...upon finishing I immediately went to check out some of the poets written about in this book. I don't think it's something for beginners or the casual reader; it's more for someone with a bit of background in writing or just enjoying poetry.
February 12, 2018
I've read David Orr's poetry and criticism. I was hoping for more heart from this collection of essays about poetry. Instead it was all "head," much of it quite snarky. I'm going to copy his spoof of Billy Collins' poetry, simply because it is hilarious (although snarky) and my brother attended Holy Cross College when Billy was there ( a few years older). When I need poetry to give me a chuckle, I read Billy Collins. Usually I go to poetry to be moved.
Orr's essays disappointed me because of how cerebral they were. It felt as though he was just trying to be smarter than every poet or critic he knew.
Orr's essays disappointed me because of how cerebral they were. It felt as though he was just trying to be smarter than every poet or critic he knew.
May 16, 2017
I think the title is terribly misleading. It's his columns about poets and their craft. I don't see it as instructional in any sense.
However, moving on to the book itself -- these are a variety of essays about the state of poetry today in the United States. I enjoyed most of these columns. Orr is about as erudite a commentator there is today on poetry.
This is the second book of his I have read. I will continue to read him.
However, moving on to the book itself -- these are a variety of essays about the state of poetry today in the United States. I enjoyed most of these columns. Orr is about as erudite a commentator there is today on poetry.
This is the second book of his I have read. I will continue to read him.
October 5, 2017
Each essay is a delicious and well turned. Each is funny and informative. I wish learning about poetry (or anything) could always be so filling and painless. I didn't mind that the pattern was consistent because it is a great pattern. I read two of these each day all summer and into fall, with a notebook to transcribe great explanations, and my to-do list to write down poets, poems, and critics I wanted to read. I'll miss this blue book on my porch.
January 8, 2018
It was with great sadness that I turned the last page in this collection. How am I going to start my morning tomorrow?
David Orr’s “You, Too, could Write a Poem” is deep, insightful, and often laugh-out-loud funny. Yes, it’s a book of critical essays on poetry (the narrowest of narrow genres!) but this is one of the best books on art and artmaking that I’ve ever read. An outstanding book, and a must-read for any writer.
David Orr’s “You, Too, could Write a Poem” is deep, insightful, and often laugh-out-loud funny. Yes, it’s a book of critical essays on poetry (the narrowest of narrow genres!) but this is one of the best books on art and artmaking that I’ve ever read. An outstanding book, and a must-read for any writer.
May 10, 2017
This is honor's poetry 101 by IV, straight to the dome. My advice? Purchase it, don't borrow it from the library. It's a book to which you'll wish to refer long after the date it's due.
November 28, 2017
Really funny
January 8, 2019
Buy the book - not the digital version of it - because this is the kind of text you want to re-visit, leaf through, dip into now and again.
July 16, 2019
Why am I still surprised by good criticism? This book was so much more fun than I expected. I should raise my expectations.
December 22, 2020
"No contemporary poet is famous, but some are less unfamous than others." --David Orr.
February 5, 2017
I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
I will be the first to admit I thought this book was going to teach me how to write poetry..haha Far from it. What it did teach me was : Scotch gives you courage!
Joking aside, David Orr has written a fascinating book; one that can be enjoyed by poetry lovers and those that "Don't get it." I fall somewhere in between. While Mr. Orr's reviews can be quite blunt, there is none as harsh as that written by the Poet August Kleinzahler who threatened that Garrison Keillor be "locked in a Quonset Hut and tortured to convince him never again to stray from Lutheran bake sales into the realm of art" over his book collection titled "Good Poems." Omg, how does one live that down? The Essays? The best part of the book.
I will be the first to admit I thought this book was going to teach me how to write poetry..haha Far from it. What it did teach me was : Scotch gives you courage!
Joking aside, David Orr has written a fascinating book; one that can be enjoyed by poetry lovers and those that "Don't get it." I fall somewhere in between. While Mr. Orr's reviews can be quite blunt, there is none as harsh as that written by the Poet August Kleinzahler who threatened that Garrison Keillor be "locked in a Quonset Hut and tortured to convince him never again to stray from Lutheran bake sales into the realm of art" over his book collection titled "Good Poems." Omg, how does one live that down? The Essays? The best part of the book.
December 21, 2022
This is exactly what I was looking for. A New York Times level book that wets the appetite for contemporary poetry. Orr is the NYT's poetry columnist and keeps his writing on that level - not too academic for the amateur, but not to dumbed down and it's mostly non-technical language. His pieces are crisp and well written.
I got a lot reading list books from Orr's series of columns or essays that take on contemporary issue in poetry and profile living poets and a few dead ones like Frost and Nabokov.
Is Nabokov a poet? What is poetry? Is it still relevant? Are there any great poets after Frost? Was Frost a traditionalist or experimentalist? Could Robert Lowell and Elizabeth Bishop be joined in poetic matrimony? What does fashion, James Franco, and Oprah have to do with poetry? Name five living poets.
Read this and find out.
I got a lot reading list books from Orr's series of columns or essays that take on contemporary issue in poetry and profile living poets and a few dead ones like Frost and Nabokov.
Is Nabokov a poet? What is poetry? Is it still relevant? Are there any great poets after Frost? Was Frost a traditionalist or experimentalist? Could Robert Lowell and Elizabeth Bishop be joined in poetic matrimony? What does fashion, James Franco, and Oprah have to do with poetry? Name five living poets.
Read this and find out.
February 21, 2019
This is a poet's book, for poets about poets.
Who would think a book delving into the life and history of poets fascinating? Somehow, Orr accomplishes this with intelligence, wit, and warmth. When reading Orr, he becomes a critic, a fan, and a mentor.
This is a book to buy, to hold onto, to return to again and again.
Who would think a book delving into the life and history of poets fascinating? Somehow, Orr accomplishes this with intelligence, wit, and warmth. When reading Orr, he becomes a critic, a fan, and a mentor.
This is a book to buy, to hold onto, to return to again and again.
April 1, 2017
The introduction was really annoying. The rest was a bit up and down. I'm just glad there's a book about poetry out there in the semi-mainstream.
April 23, 2017
Oops, I thought it was going to, you know, encourage me to write poetry. Instead it encourages me to read poetry, by presenting a collection of Mr. Orr's reviews of poets and poetry.
July 26, 2017
A surprisingly fast and fun read. Funny with clever turns of phrase. (I especially liked the essay about Stevie Smith.)
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews