Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Because she is one of our smartest, as well as one of our finest, poets, Jennifer Moxley always offers her readers much to think about. At the end of her new book, the dazzling Often Capital, she’s appended a note that reads in part:
Most of Often Capital was completed by 1991 (though a few scattered poems were composed a little later than that). Why then have I not published it until now? Why then did Imagination Verses and The Sense Record come out in its stead? There are many reasons. For one, though these poems received early support in magazines and chapbooks through the generous auspices of friends, they never secured more than a small readership, perhaps in part because of the relative obscurity of [Rosa] Luxemburg outside of leftist circles. Once Imagination Verses was published, I was hesitant to bring out Often Capital for fear it would be perceived as my second book when in fact it had preceded the first. It was Steve [Evans] who suggested, while I was putting together the manuscript for The Sense Record, that, when finished, I turn my attention to finding a permanent home for this earlier work.
What one sees here is the trace of Moxley unfolding the public life of her poetry every bit as if it were the sequencing of a narrative. Literally, she is writing it, as such. And that she wants us, her readers, to understand this is indicated quite clearly not only by alluding to the earlier chapbooks (The First Division of Labour, 1995, and Enlightenment Evidence, 1996, represented here as the two sections of Often Capital), but by literally reminding us that this should be understood as first in a sequence, regardless of the order through which we actually encounter her books.
This of course fits my own personal bias for poetry over poems, with the concomitant notion that one’s lifework is best understood as a single overarching project, within which this or that individual poem is a component, never the whole. What’s not spoken in the passage above is that Moxley might perfectly well have chosen to issue Often Capital first, had a publisher actually offered to do so at the time. But she faced the very same issues of how to get the work out as a relatively new & unknown poet just like everyone else. It was only with the deservedly great response to Imagination Verses – the Salt Publications volume is a reissue, the original Tender Buttons edition having long since sold out – that Moxley found herself in the enviable position of being able to control, at least to some degree, what gets out & where with regard to that permanent archaeological record that grows up around books. Often Capital may be her third volume, but it is also the one that, being designated here as first, establishes that there will be narrative unfolding, the lifework of J. Moxley, poet.
Contrast this with Peter O’Leary’s description the other day of Ronald Johnson’s travails constructing ARK (all caps, O’Leary notes, a typographical insistence that one suspects will prove far harder to enforce than even the quotation marks Zukofsky always placed around “A”). Not only do we find Johnson initially plotting out a version of Radi Os that would have been 2,250 pages long, as the final dome over a project initially called WOR(L)DS, that only later comes to be known as ARK, and which appears sans canopy, excised now into the four-section project we know as Radi Os. O’Leary suggests that Johnson never intended to publish the five completed (but never printed) additional sections of the excised Paradise Lost project, even as he notes just two paragraphs above that it was part of the original project that was already ongoing when Johnson dug into Milton. Even tho O’Leary writes that
One of Ron's strengths as a poet is that he knew when to stop - that he was a stringent editor of his own work
the process his email portrays is that of a poet floundering, revising, struggling not only to write and complete the project itself, but to do so in some format that will cause somebody somewhere to publish the darn thing. And, unlike Moxley, Johnson’s work was never greeted in his own lifetime with the sort of reaction that enabled him to have much control over this part of the writing process. Indeed,
This is, I think, one of the hardest aspects for a poet to control. When I first published The Age of Huts in 1986, I told pretty much anyone who would listen that Ketjak, published eight years earlier, was itself a part of the original sequence. Yet between those two books came Tjanting, the project that was written after I completed Huts. So that when I tell people now that The Alphabet is really the third stage in a four-stage project, the first two of which are The Age of Huts & Tjanting, I know that it’s nigh on impossible for many readers to visualize. Unlike Moxley, I wasn’t smart enough at the time to note in the Roof edition of Huts its relation to Ketjak, let alone the relation of both to Tjanting. I still have hopes eventually of getting this all squared away, but the process alone makes me completely sympathetic to Johnson’s own struggles, and makes me heed – indeed, almost envy – just how well Jennifer Moxley has gone about setting the ducks in a row.
On another front, I've decided to use your post from Monday in a poetry class I'm teaching to highschool students. I'm bringing in the Coolidge texts, too. Thanks for the help.
Sometimes I feel that scrupulous editing of work guts it of an organic, 'real' quality that confounds, that is neither smooth nor holds together. Obviously the boundaries of artifice have to be drawn somewhere, but need they be so goddarn narrow all the time?
Webster's Dictionary defines "successful" as "the state of having success" and "poet" as "a person who writes poetry." In the circles I've had the honor of hovering outside of, it seems "successful" "poets" tend to have a few common traits:
Black apparel (certianly no fucshia or turquoise! that would be poetical suicide!)
Wistful, somber, or intense photographic depictions of themselves (no full blown toothy smiling)
The love of Bob Dylan and or jazz music (they are our Gods for God's sake - have you *seen* Masked and Anonymous?)
When hunting or mating, tend to travel in herds (marking territory whenever necessary)
If the alpha poet is injured (say, while bunjee jumping), the others will devour him or her and a new alpha poet will emerge
The love of baseball or other sports that would surprise their colleages
The composition of verse in speedboats, either while driving or mental composition while waterskiing
But then I wonder, which of these traits is a definition of "successful" and which is a definition of "poet?" How do the two terms interact with one another? Where do they converge? Or diverge? Working toward the definition of "successful poet" tends only to yield more questioning.
My experience, however, has been this: one must cling to a group of other poets, either through academics or "poetic schools," and network to no end. Individualism is rarely rewarded. If you do not fit into the category of "experimental" or "school of quietude" you are destined for failure. New ideas are placed in a tin box and ignored, then buried.
Ron
www.webmaster-sites.com
I wasn't aware that unabashed praise, gratitude and reverence were the only appropriate responses to the news of a new publication. It seems Ron is doing a fine job discussing the many comely features of the book. I enjoy Ron's blog and may even go pick it up. However, the poets discussed on this blog are not yet my colleagues or close personal friends, and I feel no sacral duty to honor their names in electronic type. Unfortunately all sorts of riffraff have access to the internet, and occasionally they may work against the model of assumed comity and propriety.
Um no, they aren't. There's also looking at, discussing, critiquing the publication itself. Moxley's note is part of that. My point is that too often when an author photo is made public the discussion veers off into commentary on the appearance of the author over the work-- especially if (and as far as I've experienced, only if) the author is a good-looking woman.
That said, Brigham Young, my original complaint was spurred more by the comment of another than by yours, which I think does bring up some valid food for thought. Like the excessive or "difficult" personality vs. the polite or corporatized personality which observes all the implicit "rules" of the writing community. That, more than wearing or not wearing black, is the relevant point here. Personally I feel being "difficult" is warranted in certain situations, to breathe some life into and bust through the hypocrisy of stifled artificial conduct; if your "difficulty" is close to the truth, I think people will respect you more for expressing it. Though they might feel constrained by the "rules" from telling you so.
Slghtly more seriously, and looking back at JM's spirited piece from early '90s as per the buffalo site's connection, I do want to ask, 'where ARE we with rosa luxemburg' these days?
It would be immensely sad to say 'nowhere' (as per the Economist I think one liner, 'the long march from capitalism to capitalism') but do we as writers have any grasp on an 'old left' that matters, now?
been thinking of this is the light of marjorie perloff's dissing of Taggart for being a commie woman who 'couldn't write', I do think that if mp is right she might have SOME problems about LZ politically
would she notice and does it matter?
"Branding" is a process involves presenting oneself in a specific "package". It may be that all artistic presentation is, alternativey speaking, a form of self-advertisement in which the "product" placement (or "book" or "poet") is conceptualized and delivered with greater or lesser degrees of mercenary ("marketing" ) zeal. We have Ron to thank for the emphasis I place on this aspect of the practice.
In the early 1970's, established poets John Ashbery and James Schuyler chose to publish books with Larry Fagin's Adventures In Poetry, in preference to placing them with a major New York publisher, which, given their well-established reputations at that time, they could easily have done. In the sense in which I am speaking, these were fashion statements not separable from the purely "literary" contents of the works themselves.
Is the way that works originally appear a determining factor in their permament valuation?
Yes.
Is the way that poets present themselves--I.e., between, say, Paul Metcalf's eccentric country "squirrel", and Mark Strand's soigne fashion mannequin--a factor in the way we "read" them?
Yes.
But we need to exercise great care in collating the two aspects of presentation. The way someone dresses, or acts, or behaves in allied or non-literary settings (spheres) should not automatically be conflated with their writing (or art). In fact, we're often surprised by the disconnect between the two. Poets rarely "look" the way we thought they would from their work. And visa versa.
So, a big Yes to Ron's fashion world analysis. But a big No to the notion that it's a failsafe measure of the socio-political significance of one's art.
As an antidote to the potential misapprehension of the "social"--and, by implication, to my "art"--my strategy has come to be, as much as possible, to avoid the social arena, where chaos reigns.
Art is, to a degree, the practice of the control of aesthetic effects through singular formal arrangements and strategies. "Performance" and "behavior" and "politics" tend to cloud them up, sometimes fruitfully, sometimes not.
It's a risk.
<< Home

