PN Review Print and Online Poetry Magazine
News and Notes
Digital Access to PN Review
Access the latest issues, plus back issues of PN Review with Exact Editions For PN Review subscribers: to access the PN Review digital archive via the Exact Editions app Exactly or the Exact Editions website, you will first need to know your PN Review ID number. read more
PN Review Prize winners announced
Carcanet Press and PN Review are delighted to announce the winners of the first ever PN Review Prize. read more
Most Read... Vahni CapildeoOn Judging Prizes, & Reading More than Six Really Good Books
(PN Review 237)
Drew MilneTom Raworth’s Writing
‘present past improved’: Tom Raworth’s Writing

(PN Review 236)
Alejandro Fernandez-OsorioPomace (trans. James Womack)
(PN Review 236)
Rebecca WattsThe Cult of the Noble Amateur
(PN Review 239)
Eavan BolandA Lyric Voice at Bay
(PN Review 121)
Kei MillerIn the Shadow of Derek Walcott
1930–2017

(PN Review 235)
Poems Articles Interviews Reports Reviews Contributors
Gratis Ad 1
Gratis Ad 2
Next Issue Peter Scupham at 85: a celebration Contributions by Anne Stevenson, Robert Wells, Peter Davidson, Lawrence Sail

This review is taken from PN Review 207, Volume 39 Number 1, September - October 2012.

We Are All gertrude stein, Stanzas in Meditation: The Corrected Edition
(Yale University Press) $22
juliana spahr, Well Then There Now (Black Sparrow) $17.95

In his treatise On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry (1800), Friedrich Schiller famously divides poetic sensibility into two modes of perception: the naïve, which 'is nature', and the sentimental, which 'will seek her'. According to Schiller, naïve poets operate unselfconsciously within the natural order, creating artworks in untroubled unity with the world around them, while sentimental poets reflect nostalgically on their alienation from nature and make art out of their yearning for an originary simplicity of experience and expression. The ancient Greeks were naïve, we moderns are sentimental.

Though we may question the rigour of Schiller's binary on a number of counts (it problematically feminises nature, it idealises the primitive, it sets modern poets up to fail, etc.), his theory does continue to pose relevant questions about the immanent vs. transcendent aims of art. Should a work of art strive to be all of a piece, a formally and thematically unified, self-sufficient thing? Or should it be prepared to take up a position 'outside' its own formal and thematic precincts, even to the point of undermining itself? Should art somehow embody its subject matter, or should it reflect on it? Can it do both? What are the political implications of these strategies? Is there even a real difference between them?

As an intellectual exercise (and let us here suspend our disbelief), we might ask what the quaint Romantic categories of naïve and sentimental poetry would look like in our own time - that is, after the ...


Searching, please wait... animated waiting image