Thursday, June 30, 2005

Alli Warren
K. Silem Mohammad has an extravagant mini-review of Alli Warren’s Hounds, a chapbook that arrived recently with a publication date – Spring 2005 – but no identifiable publisher: “Contact Alli Warren immediately and force her to sell you a copy. It is worth a thousand dollars,” says Kasey. Jack Kimball & Jordan Davis have also taken note. I’m here to agree.
The poem “Unitarian” is dedicated to Robert Creeley & has an epigram from Steve Benson: When we love each other the war ends.
With bees exhumed
what possibilities therestill –
foreheads / are public
space upon which you kiss
the speaker
Court the willing
notoriously hard
to impress – bone
fragments in the mouth
the air is
not breath-
able here
though I can see
women crawling out
crawdad infested
oceans, remnants of a few
apple turnovers swishing
about their guts
Not to mention words
Dead In
There are not homes there
are not hands
to warm and feed there
are syllables which the
night surrounds
Pigeons up
in the boughs
tracing outsides
footing treetops
oxygen feed
figure across
a cross – walk
writhing on the concrete
”Mourning cloaks the world”
“I drove my car into a tree”
There was
an ant
on the table
I put out
the light with
a small finger
This poem – and several others in this short book – have me rethinking how younger poets are making use of abstraction & figuration. Because at one level, this poem & most of the others here, could be characterized as an abstract lyric. But it operates on a very different level than most other poems I would use that phrase around. Typically, such poems focus in on phrase or line & tend to follow an overall aesthetic, often one that harkens back to roots in the New York School (and if not the NY School of Ashbery or O’Hara exactly, then at least the 2nd gen. one, say, of a Bill Berkson, adapting Ashbery’s palette to the lyric). Here, however, we find that abstraction has shifted toward a higher level – the stanza – and that almost every stanza here approaches its language from a different perspective. Maybe this is how a poem would appropriate the part:whole sensibility of a David Salle. But that still seems too NY Schoolish to capture what
In particular, I love what
there is no rent control
why don’t you sit on my face
and imagine
if only I didn’t occupy this penis
full of integrity
it could be snowing
But that’s the thing about Hounds & Schema both – they’re going to send you seeking out everything Alli Warren has written & published. Because until we get that first Big Book, this is the only way we’re going to be able to find her poetry. & she’s one of those poets who, once you read her work, instantly becomes a necessity.
Anyway, FWIW, here's my translation into Dutch (and yes, as of yet it misses some subtleties).
I assume it would start:
Unitarier
voor Robert Creeley
Als we van elkaar houden houdt de oorlog op - Steve Benson
And the poem would go:
Met opgegraven bijen
welke mogelijkheden ernog -
voorhoofden / zijn publiek
een ruimte waar je de spreker
op kust
Vlei de gewilligen
berucht moeilijk
te beindrukken - bot
stukjes in de mond
de lucht is
niet adem-
baar hier
maar ik zie
vrouwen kruipen
uit oceanen
vol rivierkreeft, restanten van enkele
appelflappen die rondzoeven
in hun darmen
Om maar te zwijgen van woorden
Dead In Texas
Er zijn niet huizen daar
zijn niet handen
te verwarmen en te voeren daar
zijn lettergrepen door de
nacht omgeven
Duiven hoog
in de takken
de rand schetsend
de top kuierend
zuurstoftoevoer
gedaante een kruis
kruisend - loop
kronkelend op het beton
"Rouw kleedt de wereld"
"Ik reed m'n wagen een boom in"
Er was
een mier
op de tafel
ik doofde
het licht met
een pink
The Dutch version damned fine.
I didn't get the poem otherwise. Unitarian? It just wasn't ACCESSIBLE.
I wonder how Billy Collins would rewrite it.
Also, is she holding a medicine bottle in the mirror? Or a bottle of poison?
I'm glad always to hear of these entirely new poets, or at least new to me.
My condolences to your spouse.
I don't think there is anything inaccessible about this poem at all, to be honest, whether or not one gets some of the more literary references. Cf. Coolidge discussion of awhile back.
What she is holding is a camera phone -- your imagine is more florid than we give you credit for.
Ron
Is it an argument for something?
Unitarianism? Geez. Is somebody Unitarian? I thought the Unitarians believed in reason. I sometimes think you guys here in the poetry world might just as well use telepathy as phones or words. These words to me are completely opaque and have no coherence much. But I suppose if there is a Unitarianism in here then it makes sense that she thinks that love is some kind of answer. Love? Love is actually a kind of panic state that has nothing to do with reason. Well, actually, i don't know what love is. I don't think it's universal. It's probably individual and personal and sort of like a fingerprint, even though the Unitarian Universalists argue that we can think alike. I don't think we can.
Do people still talk like this poem does when they ask for bread at the bakery and do they still get the bread? This isn't like any known language to me.
Allie doesn't look like a happy person. Am I misconstruing that, too? I mean, in spite of the festive lights, they're off, and there's a kind of overly serious look on the face, or is that frivolity gone around the bend back to irritation? Looks almost like she's ready to kill somebody with a vial of poison -- as I see it it's like it's off one of those Lifetime half-hour specials and she's the babysitter who's out to get the baby.
But then I guess everybody looks that way. Come to think of it I look that way. Come to think of it, YOU look that way, Ron, in your picture.
But only a little.
I would bet if you put 20 geniuses into different rooms and asked them to paraphrase the poem into a Billy Collins type singalong that you would have 20 completely different poems.
Maybe that's ok. Phone camera. Radiator pants.
I think I need to tinker with the dose and check out for a few mental tests. My brain just doesn't work.
I think with Ms. Warren we have a style that is better characterized as "fragmented" or "atomized" or "disjunctive" or "by chance" or "non-syntactic" or "exploring the outer limits of meaning" etc., etc. Take your pick.
I wish someone would come along and write another book like Ashbery's Tennis Court Oath, i.e., someone who could show a genius for the magic of disjunctive (but somehow still "logical") sound construction on a surreal plane, which would have a weird "correctness" to it. All of these recent experimenters don't quite get it--it isn't just about breaking up colliding phrases and tones, but putting them together to make multi-leveled connections. There has to be an underlying, secret stream of association that is "expressed" on the surface, even when ordinary syntax has been allowed to be completely elliptical. Like "Leaving The Atocha Station."
I saw the big Max Ernst exhibition at the Met in New York last month, and it expressed perfectly what I'm describing, albeit in a slightly canonical way. Improbable constructions in perfect perspective, or illogical scale achieved through a mixture of expected and unexpected size or placement.
I'm intrigued by the photo. Alli looks a little like Alice Notley in it. Or maybe a young C.D. Wright.
Quick, now, everybody go out and buy her first book before it goes out of print and becomes collectible.
www.webdelsol.com
Your characterization of the style in your second paragraph is closer to what I'd think.
I think the problem with women poets is that men can't criticize them and neither can women. It's just one more thing that the feminist movement did perhaps inadvertantly. If men criticize them -- or even fail to praise them effusively and at the limits of all reason -- they are considered patriarchal or just plain misogynistical, and if women criticize them they are considered male-identified, or perhaps even self-hating.
The incredible snit over some SF poet whose dad was marginally centrist in Berkeley was what originally drew me to this board as it attracted an almost national outpouring of sentiment in favor of the Berkeley poet. Mention of her father was considered tantamount to treason.
I found it so amusing that I just had to check in, and still haven't checked out.
I think that men have to go ga-ga now and then over a woman poet in order to prove their credentials politically. Even I do this. I did it over Marianne Moore -- but then of course she's a very conservative Christian and was a supporter of Nixon (she wore his button), so I did it sarcastically.
I wish I could be more of a supporter of this diversity thing, but it's just so damned unctuous. And also it's drilled into you from the day you were born that you'd better get with the program or you will never be invited into any party, communist or otherwise.
So who's to know what anybody really thinks about Alli.
There has to be some coherence in a poem and I didn't see any.
Moore has always been a favorite of mine. But I don't think it's fair to characterize her as a conservative, just because, towards the end of a long life, she found herself on the Republican side of the aisle. It's that lady writing right after WWI that interests me--how did she come up with that fascinatingly complex style? She was just a banshee!
Besides, I don't much like her work after 1955 or so, except for the La Fontaine translations. It gets pretty soft. What does a serious, careful, quiet lady poet do when she lives long after her "time"? It's a question.
Lady poets need our encouragement. Except the really ambitious ones, like Jorie Graham--she doesn't need anyone's help, thank you very much. But then, for my money, she's bogus.
What about Bernadette Mayer?
As with much of today's thought, the concept comes from the U.S. where it is often used in the short form P.C. (politically correct - the points sepatate it from the most common abbreviation for a personal computer). A typical politically correct american opposes nuclear weapons, racism, sexism, industrial meat-production, whale-fishing, shopping-malls and ruthless capitalism. They have a lifestyle that signals alternative values - they, for example, wear clothes made of flax or cotton, sandals or correctly-fitting shoes, they use little make-up, they want things to be "authentic", they go on alternative holidays (that is, they avoid Disneyland and the beaches of Florida), often they are vegetarians and they like literature, art and music made by blacks, hispanics, homosexuals or other inorities. Their adversaries claim that they don't like these cultural products due to their intrinsic value, but because they can be tied to the freedom-struggles of repressed groups, that is for ideological, not artistic reasons.
The problem at this point with male criticism of female writers is that even if they do like a poet it will just come off as having to pay lip service. For instance, I actually am interested in Marianne Moore, but the only way I can justify it to myself is that she is a conservative Presbyterian (I am Lutheran and can't generally stand Presbyterians but there are exceptions) and she was a Nixon supporter. Even in her early youth she was a Taft supporter. She never wavered in her politics. And I don't find myself feeling very sympathetic to her politics or to her religious denomination, and therefore I think I might actually really like her poetry. Unlike Curtis I prefer the late work -- Camperdown Elm, The Arctic Ox, A Carriage from Sweden, and see the turning point toward an accessible poetry in the poem In Distrust of Merits written during WWII and which is a defense of our involvement.
I don't hate the earlier stuff just find it to be an awfully crabbed style and you have to work like hell to get anything from it.
As for the politically correct stuff, it is hard to understand why it should be so. And yet in France it is similar with their baba culs (is that the right spelling?). And I sensed in Finland that in Helsinki the young people were forced more or less to think alike for fear of ostracization.
The problem when you are forced to think alike is that no one is sure if you really think what you think, or if you are simply going along with the crowd. You pay heavily for iconoclasm of any kind in any country. This is just part of a situation that Ron inherited -- he can't change it any more than anybody else can. We're stuck with it.
The people who really go with it -- professors on this side of the Atlantic like Ward Churchill -- tend to move right to the top of large universities. Churchill is now suggesting that American GIs shoot their commanding officers in the back. I haven't heard any leftists at all make any complaints about this suggestion so there appears to be a tacit agreement. One of the reasons that I no longer wish to be associated with any kind of left is that you can't tell the difference between those who counterfeit in order to get along, and those who really mean it. To be a feminist today is just like jogging was in the 80s. Everybody did it. And to be anti-military is also de rigueur.
And so what's it mean? I suppose it would be like praising Ceausescu in Romania in the 70s. You had to do it. Maybe you wanted to do it, but you also had to do it, or you would be out of a job. The situation is similar. Maybe you wanted to do it and really though tthat Ceausescu WAS the genius of the Carpathians but you had to say it, so what difference did it make if you said it truthfully or while biting your tongue. Perhaps someone really feels like praising Toni Morrison. So they do it. And maybe they really meant it, or maybe they didn't. But the fact remains that since they had to do it anyway, what's the difference?
It's the coin of the realm, and has been so flooded with counterfeit, that the currency is without any kind of value. Oy vey.
I wish you had given a slightly longer sense of what this anarchist Norwegian wanted to say with his criticism of pc. What does he suggest?
And at any rate Alli may be a great poet, or she may just be a woman and it's time to pat the women on the back again. I can't really tell the difference any longer and maybe it doesn't even matter.
"it's time to pat the women on the back again"
hehe! I'd have to ask for mine on the rounded end, not too hard, just a light sting to let me know you care.
Potching is not my style. Try Italy--they're fairly brazen there, and take their women's sex lives for granted. Maybe we should do that here, too? Quite un-PC, but iconoclastic, as Kirby would say.
Kirby: I'm not trying to save Alli's poetry by saying she deserves our encouragement because she's a woman. I'm saying that because for 2000 years, we've had very few women writing, or composing, or trying law, or conducting diplomacy--and I think they deserve a chance--not "reparations"--just an opportunity, to see what they can do. They ARE different, I think, and have another vision to offer, another nimbus of sensibility. If Alli's poetry isn't very good, then so be it. People say Jorie Graham's this big major voice now, I just can't see it; I try reading her poems and it's like the worst kind of garbled, gnarled nonsense. Am I being fair yet?
The passage I quoted was brief because although it's fun writing long comments, it's not always as fun reading them. But here goes. What he did was examine the concept of political correctness to see if there is anything substantial behind the term and how a scandinavian interpretation of it differs from the american one. He also examines those who excel at being politically incorrect and their critique against the P.C. people. He finds (this is a brief article, mind you, so he can't really dig deeply into it) that although the concept can denote what he calls sleep-walker radicalism, it is mostly a meta-concept in that it is used as a critique not of content, but of style. He also suggests that people not be so easily provoked by people who think differently than themselves.
Does that make it any clearer? His website, all in English, is at:
http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/
You are right. Women and men are different. But women DO have the opportunity to see what they can do. If they’re not doing it, it’s not necessarily because they are woman. Perhaps just because they can not. I suppose I'm rather spoiled in the sense that I've never had to "suffer" as a woman. I often don't understand how being female or talking about female/femininity requires a political correctness. If my poems suck, they suck, maybe because I'm a woman, but maybe just because I'm bad poet. There are times when I want to be noticed, as a woman, and I make it noticeable. There are times when I do not and so do not. I would also make a very bad lawyer, because I’m a woman? I doubt it.
I don't think any of the so-called New York School poets were actually poets except for O'Hara. I think O'hara wrote poems. Ashbery didn't. Koch didn't. Padgett didn't. Or at least not great poems. If you didn't write a great poem at least once in your life I don't think you can call yourself a poet.
I'm not sure about Larry Fagin. He's an ambiguous case and anyway he didn't write much, but a couple of his lines really sent me -- I love this one -- "Civilization and its discoteques" -- there has to be many layers of feeling and miagery and symbolism in a poem -- not just one layer, and for constitutional reasons very few people can do this, and of those very few probably half are women at least. Out of American 19th century there are only three poets, for instance.
At any rate, I don't know if we'd know today if a woman wrote a poem as anything women write is gnarled over with so many layers of dopey criticism and feminist thought that who cares?
Maybe Camille Paglia can remain honest in the face of it but she argues in her book Break Blow Burn that Joni Mitchell's Woodstock is a poem, but it isn't. It's not even good journalism. It's just a mindless anthem.
Lars, I 'm looking up the Norwegian. Thanks for this. I'm also going to look up somebody named Oriani Fallaci. And I'm going to try to keep my posts as short as I can, or disappear altogether for a minute but I loved the openness and humorous responses to my last post so I may be tempted to continue this conversation. But I will cork it for 24 hours.
It should be unremarkable that someone talks about a woman or a man's poetry. Why are only women poets suspect? I'd say in this day and age the chances of any given poet being good are roughly equal, whatever the gender of the poet. And Curtis with his "encourage the ladies" condescension is almost as bad as Kirby with his pose of ignorant yahooism. Or is it even a pose?
That seems like a false irony to me. Tell it to the Feminists. They do have a point, wouldn't you say? Or are you a new Turk who thinks feminism is bullshit, let the bitches pull their weight?
I hate PC opinions as much as anyone. In my personal opinion, your attitude about my "condescending" is about as PC as one can get.
Got'ya, dude!
I read Schema and was fascinated -and stranged- by it.
I look forward to reading Hounds soon.
Kirby, beware of Oriana Fallaci, from my perspective she reads like Fox News and the Klan rolled into one, not surprisingly her crusade since september of 2001 has been for the complete annihilation of arabs and muslims.
Curtis and Jonathan, shouldn't we give the poor serious male poets a chance to have a little more fun with poetry? I'm sure they could do it
I'm with the ladies on this issue of privilege and equal opportunity. Just as a principle, you understand. I'm not a knee-jerk liberal looking for historically disadvantaged groups to save. The battle's far from being over, yet.
Look at how women are treated in popular music--"You ho's get down and do me!"--not exactly the attitude I'd credit, no matter where it comes from (the ghetto?).
Thinking back on it, we fell into this disagreement when I joked about Ron's fetish for lady poets, and then Kirby cranks up his Rube Goldberg machine and we're off to the races.
I would take on your last post point by point--it's wrong from beginning to end--but let's let it pass--I'm not really The Grump.
I can admire women like that. Camille Paglia, too.
I don't think there are too many people like this. But they make life possible, and the sheep make life impossible.
I'd heard about Fallaci before but saw this article in the Wall Street Journal the other morning --
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tvaradarajan/?ID=110006858
Fallaci's at least as interesting as the North Korean writer Sei Shonagin. They both had something to say and said it clearly instead of hiding behind of wall of opacity.
Camille Paglia is rather cool, though. She states her case well.
<< Home

