5 thoughts on “Company of Moths

  1. I knew I was going to like this book just from the cover: three moth-eaten holes that expose the white space beneath what looks like human skin just visible around the edge where the black cover is also eaten away. They almost look like cigarette burn marks, and the Jackson Pollack-like white strings of paint (if they are paint) look like smoke (if they are not smoke).

    What I appreciate here is Palmer’s innovative syntax coupled with his line breaks, how the two in tandem really slow you down at

  2. Michael Palmer’s *A Company of Moths* reads like a reading on your palm or using cards and there is the titling of things and repetitions to cradle something. What I don’t know. At some point I did feel eulogic but then again, not.

  3. Two stars always feels so harsh to me, but I’m taking the literal meaning, “it was ok.” It didn’t really astound me or locate some gem of hidden truth inside me. I’m sure that there are many people out there that would like his style, but I really wasn’t one of them.

    Repetitions in poems can be quite good, but I felt like some of the lines and especially his key words were just pounded in time after time to the point of losing their flavor and meaning. It was a continual stream of: eyes, books, g

  4. It’s not every day when you read a new poet who is able to at once craft some incredibly striking poems, and who is also willing and capable of making some major claims about poetry. But Palmer does both– his poems are strung together of received language, to a large degree, but his poetry-mojo is enough to redeem it in a way that makes it seem not only possible, but almost an obligation to fashion something valuable out of the current condition of language.

    And then, he’s able to go on and theo

  5. I really like the analogy Palmer draws where he compares language to a group of moths attracted to a flame. And if an image like this had been drawn in a single poem, I probably would have found great pleasure in it. But to stretch that analogy over the course of an entire book feels just a little dull. In fact, using poetry to claim that language is an uneven enterprise seems like something I’ve heard before. Is it really necessary to repeat it? I still value the book for individual poems, whos

Leave a Reply