Monday, December 12, 2005

When I first glanced at C.D. Wright’s “Rising, Falling, Hovering” in the new Chicago Review, my first thought was that this might be a text around which to build a discussion here of the uses of variable line spacing in contemporary poetry, since Wright changes her mode from passage to passage, sometimes from stanza to stanza. Reading it later, I was overcome with a different sense – that this 30-page poem could easily be the basis for a major motion picture. That is not a thought that has come to me often before, save maybe long ago in reading Ed Dorn’s ‘Slinger, which I’ve always imagined as an animated text, sort of Heidegger meets Scooby-Do. “Rising, Falling, Hovering,” however, would have to be some combination of El Norte, Syriana, The Sheltering Sky & just maybe The Ice Storm, and would require the skills of a Wim Wenders or Tarkovsky or Ang Lee at the top of their game. It’s a sad, thoughtful, even wrenching poem. I would call it Wright’s masterpiece, tho I’ve thought that of other, earlier pieces, and she keeps making these great leaps forward. I would call it a beautiful poem, but I think Wright distrusts beauty & it shows – rather, it is a profoundly crafted, searingly imagined piece of work.
Reading “Rising, Falling, Hovering” reminded me that Wright has used Evan S. Connell, Jr.’s Notes from a Bottle Found on the Beach at Carmel, which can only be described as a verse novel, when teaching the American long poem. The verse novel is a form that has been favored of late by some new formalist types, such as Vikram Seth & Glynn Maxwell, but where Golden Gate & Time’s Fool simply pour plots like so much syrup into regular patterns – the basest conceivable concept of form – Connell, a novelist by trade (Mr. Bridge, The Connoisseur, Mrs. Bridge, The Diary of a Rapist, Points for a Compass Rose) who came to the project, as it were, from the other direction, understands Pound’s dictum that poetry should be at least as well written as prose:
Listen! There are sapphires,
garnets, amethysts, and many another jewel in
where the king Sendernam wears a ruby
larger than a plum;
and we have seen it, my brothers and I,
and have shielded our eyes from its opulence.
What should I say next? I am held in thrall
by a thousand things.
As I walk past a woman’s window
I hear someone whisper,
Lhurda, the dawn is breaking! It will soon be day.
My love, the dawn is here.
I have concealed myself.
I listen
while she remembers
mysteries of birth and creation.
I see her
entering the water,
who is
more wholly precious to me than wading animals,
or the swift iridescence of shark fins flecked with spume.
Like Notes from a Bottle, “Rising, Falling, Hovering” occupies that middle kingdom of the genres – neither fully poem, nor fiction, nor memoir, nor philosophy & yet at once all four. “Rising” is more scenic than Connell’s work, with passages functioning almost as if they were chapters:
Calla lilies limp in their buckets
The obligatory pariah dog
Concentrates its starved mass on a step
Blowflies battling the head
The casket seller checks
For occupancy before locking up
Monastery deep in shadow
Worker urinating into a box
Under the Bridge of Martyrs
Disposition of small limbs
A face dark and deadish
The petal of one eye shutting
In Hidalgo’s courtyard
The pomegranate tree spreads
Into its memory of a future
For the next ones to forget
Ink of the padre’s letters
Gone to vinegar
For the next ones to drink
Desk clerk mesmerized
By the new media-borne war
Yet, in contrast with fiction, there are large swathes of text whose purpose could not possibly be called narrative in the usual sense, unless an aspect of light in a shadowy hotel lobby be imagined as an action:
Across the river is a whole other world:
hotel (once grand) with a ballroom called Starlight
A lobby that smells like assisted-living dinner
smoke-discolored chandelier
Aloe vera and bromeliad felted with dust
And toenails of the truly old painted
for twirling across polished floors
And one of the old ones in a camphoric gown
says she wore this when she was smaller
Spotlights on the fountain tinted for travelers
in the time of terror color of the koi
There are little things here – the choice of the word discolored, the choice of the word felted – that bespeak a commitment to accuracy that supercedes all other possible pleasures of the poem. Even what at first appear to be excessive touches such as the rhetorical structure of that second line, or the suddenly too-pretty prosody of the time of terror, come precisely into focus, necessary to a more thorough realism that governs the work: color of the koi indeed, the pun in the last word exactly at odds with the scene’s present circumstance.
There are multiple story-lines here, none of which of reach closure. Nor is it always clear whose scar belongs to whom, only that scarring is very much the point. One sees both operating in the poem’s last punctuation, a period at the end of to be cont. A phrase that is itself repeated over the course of this text.
I read “Rising, Falling, Hovering” in a single sitting – an almost unheard of practice for me with a poem this long – then did so again six days later. It made me realize that the only other poet now writing whom I do this for, feel both driven & motivated to do so at such length, is Rachel Blau DuPlessis. In both cases, I think it’s because Wright & DuPlessis are writing the most complex poetry anywhere in this language, and both do so in total mastery of their tools, and in total surrender to the demands of the poem. Reading this poem is a major life event.
"Reading this poem is a major life event" seems so hyperbolic that it undercuts the validity of what would otherwise be a perfectly informative review of wright's poem. I mean, what qualifies as "a major life event?" Do you mean on par with, let's say, getting married or having your children, or the death of a parent, or what?
i find it hard to believe that that's true, though of course, if that's what you mean, you're perfectly entitled to feel this way. as a frequent, long-time, reader of this blog and its comment box, it seems to me that you, Ron, have a tendency to do this near the end of your entries. by "do this" i mean, reach for some kind of concluding (conclusive) sentence/statment that will drive home your feelings about your entry in such a way as to make sure that everyone "gets it". if i had more time, i could go through your archives and dig up lots of these sorts of concluding statments. the irony here is that instead of making me "get it", this hyperbole ensures that I don't get it, that i'm left wondering whether I should even take you seriously. this desire to be definitive seems to encourage those who write in the comment box to likewise write definitively in an effort to match the hyperbolic rhetoric. it also strikes me that this desire to be conclusive runs counter to what we I percieve as your general sense of poetry and language. which means, sometimes, in the end, again, i just don't get it.
pete davis
I'll bet others could, quite honestly, say the same.
I get the feeling that Ron wants to praise post-Modern works to raise the ante to a level equal to the hyperbole assigned previous models of previous generations. The Waste Land is routinely assigned the honor of a "great" poem, the watershed of a generation, and yet for most readers in the 1920's, it was more of an "in-joke" than a holier-than-thou work of art.
We need to remember that the works that appear in our midst are vying for an indeterminate expectancy equivalent to that which we regard as the established canon; in other words, potentially great works are being written RIGHT NOW, though we can't tell which ones they are, and/or we're not even aware of them yet, because they're hidden (unpublished, unfinished). This is the challenge of criticism. Can it reveal to us what is qualitatively superior in our estimation, in advance of posterity's hindsight? Ron often goes out on a limb to praise work which he feels deserves our attention. Is there a modicum of "publicity" in it? I do think so, yes. You could say Ron is a champion of the kind of writing he prefers. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you come to distrust everything he says on that basis.
Ron tends to confirm judgments about works I've already read, but I sometimes tend to take with a grain of salt his high praise for someone I've not yet sampled.
"Language writing" is very difficult to discuss precisely, to show how and why it succeeds, or even if it does. It takes fancy footwork.
Ron's blog isn't serious criticism. It's blogging, and as such it doesn't aspire to the highest standards of exegesis and estimation. It's more publicity than serious crit. Taken that way, it's clearly very successful and nearly unique in its breadth and reach.
i stand by my intial post.
andy, i ain't saying poems can't change your life. i'm just saying if you say that stuff all the time you're going to undercut the value of such a statement.
i agree with your post curtis, though i'm not anon and signed my name last time and will again. i just think a line like "reading this poem is a major life event" is not the fancy footwork you describe as necessary for good writing. instead it seems like a club, one that ron weilds frequently, and one that, again, strikes me as counter to ron's professed view of langauge.
joe, yes aprreciation is very nice. i'm just saying hyperbole loses its effect if not used in *some* moderation.
simon, i'm not trying to restrict the canon or anything like that. that's not what my post was about, or, at least, that's not what i meant it to be about.
likewise, anon, i'm not asking for some "scholarly apparatus" i'm just saying ron sure says things like "best" and greatest" and "major" alot.
there's the whole boy who cried wolf thing happening a little bit.
again, ron's got the right to feel and respond to poems anyway he wants and, by and large, i appreciate the way he does so. it just struck me this morning reading this post that when I think of "major life event" i think of things like births and deaths and etc. surely this phrase can mean much more than that which is why i asked ron to clarify what he meant.
pete
The writers who Steve Burt & others have termed the elliptical writers -- CD, Ann Lauterbach, Forrest Gander -- all poets I like enormously, could be categorized as an attempt to create a 3rd way, identifying a space that is either between the post-avant & SoQ traditions. Whether you see it as a blending or a middle ground, it's a complex position to hold and involves having to think through one's commitments very thoroughly. Which may be why these poets tend to be so good.
Explicating why some poems are exciting -- are "real" poems always interesting and can be done by showing what tyrannies and orthodoxies are overcome. These T's and O's include the "givens" of both schools or whatever schools.
For example, Ron's take here:
"Yet, in contrast with fiction, there are large swathes of text whose purpose could not possibly be called narrative in the usual sense, unless an aspect of light in a shadowy hotel lobby be imagined as an action."
is caught up in the imagined and false contrast between poetry and fiction. Fiction driven by narrative and so excluding these moments. But the truth is that these moments are everywhere in fiction. Proust. Melville...etc.
So these attempts to classify inevitably lead to simplifications -- narrative versus nonnarrative -- and so a poem (or poetry in general) that overcomes "narrative" is valorized if you are on a certain side.
Interesting poems sometimes transcend or ignore or laugh lightly at the orthodoxies on both sides.
And it is so very peculiar -- this specific sort of take. Very British.
I am the anon who mentioned scholarly apparatus, not the one who mentioned "soQ" as a slur. (although I'd like to say to that anon that Ron certainly has defined it numerous times on this blog). And, I can see how this anon business is getting to be an inconvenience. Nevertheless, my comment wasn't directed toward you, but towards Curtis's "serious" remark. I agree with you on the hyperbole issue. Yet, I can understand why Ron uses it to try to get people to read when reading is undervalued nowadays, let alone the reading of poetry. (and yeah, it's weird talking about the man on his own blog). The other day I read an interesting novel that I thought that others should also read; I bought said novel for a few people and exaggerated profusely about its brillance so they would read it, knowing a. that was the only way they'd read it; and b. they'd recognize its flaws, come back and call me on my shameless advocation. Then, I'd admit the flaw and we'd have a productive discussion about the work. You have to lie to get people to read sometimes.
Think about it that way.
Although the aim of the Poundian proselytizing here isn't as clear and there is (as with all conversion narratives) probably some mission behind it other than to get people to read poetry, in the end, it's still just rhetoric.
"Tuckerman should also be remembered as the editor of a literary journal who rejected "The Tell-Tale Heart" with the following commentary: "If Mr. Poe would condescend to furnish more quiet articles, he would be a most desirable correspondent." Poe's response was, "If Mr. Tuckerman persists in his quietude, he will put a quietus on the magazine of which Messrs. Bradbury and Soden have been so stupid as to give him control"."
*
One has to ask a couple of questions here. Why would Poe send "A Tell-Tale Heart" to a place that he thought was already a place of quietude? One can only surmise that he didn't, and that all that followed was based on a rather basic rejection letter, explaining what Tuckerman wanted. Poe took it personally, obviously, and used the term "quietude" as a satirical device, and certainly a mocking slur. And, as is usually the case, because of wounded pride. Not much has changed.
"It is a classic hegemon position to have no name for whatever it is one is doing, but very specific names for everything else you want to mark as different. Thus there is Poetry Magazine, not Traditional Poetry Magazine. And there absolutely have been, and no doubt will continue to be, those who act as though there continues to be poetry and language poetry or poetry and avant-garde poetry or poetry and postmodern poetry, or however they imagine to configure it. But if the question is reversed — in the same way that you have to reverse your idea of listening when confronted with 4’33” or stand facing a Pollock canvas up close for the first time — and we ask instead what is it that connects all these modes of traditional or mainstream poetries, then Edgar Allen Poe’s joke in response to Henry Theodore Tuckerman 160 years ago seems at least a place to begin.** There is poetry, I want to argue, and there is the School of Quietude. Let’s try it that way for the next few hundred years."
Here "poetry" contrasted with the stuff produced by the SOQ.
The above hard to reconcile with:
"SoQ is not a slur, but a term chosen to reinforce not only the historical connections between "mainstream" American verse and its predecessors who share a sense that American literature is a tributary of British letters."
The ...problem...that I have with Ron is that all of this hyperbole tends to go only in the direction of praise. Now, being as the purpose of this weblog may be the promotion of worthwhile poetry, that narrowness is somewhat expected and excusable. Still, though, whilst reading, I tend to get a picture of Ron in my little head of a sort of Roger Ebert of the post-avante. Let me explain.
'Tis a phenomenon well understood among cinephiles that Mr. Ebert Loves every movie that has naked women in it. Whatever his intelligence or lack thereof as a critic and film-viewer, he always loves movies with boobies. Similarly, it can seem, on this blog, that Ron loves all the new, post avantish poetry that he reads. Unlike Ebert, who is forced by convention and his newspaper to watch boobless flicks, Ron gets to choose what he reads and, perhaps more importantly, what he comments upon. What the situation is, I don't rightly know:
Does Ron only write about the poetry that he enjoys and admires?
Does Ron only read poetry that he thinks he will enjoy and admire based upon its seeming nonSoQness?
Is Ron just an ideologue who can't tell quality post-avante poetry from crappy post-avant poetry? Does he judge based upon style/aim as opposed to substance/effectiveness?
I think...and would hope...that the first is the likely reality. It may be of use, however, for Ron's format of the blog to change from merely promoting good poetry and explaining a bit the reasons behind its goodness, to also denouncing bad poetry and explaining a bit of the reason behind its badness.
I would be very happy to see Silliman state that a reading a certain poem was an 'intelligence-destroying experience...'
I have only been reading this Blog for a short while, and in a scattered fashion at that, so perhaps this incessant positivity is a relatively new characteristic of this blog...
If so, then Ron should start drinking his Hater-Ade again.
Ron's catholic appreciation of all forms of poetry seeks to embrace the new possibilities fostered by the cultural and scientific revolutions of the previous century. We have by no means "exhausted" the possibilities inherent in a literature that is no longer yoked to the formal restraints dictated by history. Ron's hunger for and pleasure in these experiments seems boundless. He is not interested in ranking. Who is? It's a waste of time. Ron's lack of interest in, and ignoring of, writing that does not repay his effort, is its own criterion.
You could say Ron is a Poet's Blogger--for and by and about poetry. The blog isn't written for the man in the street, but for others of similar obsession and interest. Also, he fills a gap. Very little of the "new writing" gets much attention in the media. Where else? Within the context of Ron's universe of new writing, C.D. Wright is certainly a major figure, and her long poem may be her major work. It could be the new "Waste Land". Or, maybe, it's the new The Maintains or Polaroid.
Maybe Larry Eigner's collected poems will be the new Leaves of Grass--as seen through the eyes of Wittgenstein.
first of all i dont understand what you mean by saying you can see why teh comment was annonymous.
in the nature of things, that would not be someting you could see.
you speak of mainstream verse, but do not define what you mean by that. you speak of historical coneections, but this is equaly vague, and in any case beside the point; since my question dealt with aesthetic qualities. what are the characteristics -- in a line by line analysis -- that make the work of CD and the others [ no doubt your personal friends] ok, whereas that of someone else, say Lowell is not ok. The reference to Poe, likewise is not relevant. You are attempting to evade the issue which is --- that i challenge you to produce a close analysis showing a substantive difference between CD (and the others), and someone of the SofQ. to be honest I feel that this latter is, as I have said, a pseudo critical term you aply to the work of those whom you perceive as rivals in the ever-uncertain business of gaining publication and attention. and then, hypocritically, you grant special dispensations to those who, for whatever reason, you think of as allies. as such, your critical opinions stike me as neither right nor wrong but simply spurious, in that they are motivated by oportunism, lit politics, back-scratching and the like. they are fundametnally dishonest and have, so far as i can tell, negligible intelectual content. but in this you are of a piece with most contemporary commentators on american poetry -- including those two constipated dowagers Helen V, wicked witch of the east, and Marj P, wicked witch of the west.
Ron - I'm a bit more curious about the term "post-avant," which seems to be nearly ubiquitous now. I don't understand the difference in implication of this term and the term "avant garde." Are they two different things? Has "avant garde" been deemed obsolete, inaccurate, simply unfashionable? Does the current idiom reflect a belief that nothing is really new? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, or missing something perfectly obvious, but I would appreciate some insight.
YMMV.
The interesting part is to try to understand how to fit various writers in history--in the 20th Century, say--into respective groups/groupings. This can get all confused with the political issues in history (which clouds things up). How does one, for instance, "place" George Oppen? --assuming, again, that that's a worthy effort. A Thirties radical who published one fascinating experimental book (Discrete Series), then abandoned writing for a decade or more, only to return as a seasoned sub-rosa Quietist full of "wisdom" and "sentiment" (winning a Pulitzer Prize and praise from the Right).
Personally, I find these distinctions invidious. Except when I need to fling an insult or condemn someone I find spurious--then the gloves come off--or do the gloves go on?--I'm not sure which image works anymore. (Wasn't that Joe Lewis thing on American Masters the other night terrific?--narrated by the same voice that did the narrative for the Joe Dimaggio thing--"but Joe swallowed his pride and kept on slugging").
Those overachieving and oversexed "Joes" of the world. Or Wieners's "Joy"--just a guy named Joe.
The writers who Steve Burt & others have termed the elliptical writers -- CD, Ann Lauterbach, Forrest Gander -- all poets I like enormously, could be categorized as an attempt to create a 3rd way, identifying a space that is either between the post-avant & SoQ traditions."
there are two major topics of this comment box. one is the issue i raised of ron's hyperbole and two is the issue of ron's boxing of american poetry into the camps of soq and post avant. it seems to me these are related. it's hyperbolic of ron to suggest that there are, as he said above, "two(or, in fact, more) kinds of poetry". clearly, as curtis points out, this is an extremely problomatic way of looking at poets like oppen. of course ron seems to protect this relatively wild claim by saying that there may be "in fact, more" kinds of poetry, but then he goes on to suggest that wright represents a 3rd view, one that sits squarely between the two camps. this seems to say that instead of seeing poetry as just a fight between two camps, there are ACTUALLY three camps, as if three choices is more liberating. don't we all know there are millions of camps, one for every writer of worth? that no two people represent the exact same thing? this is where it gets back to my intial point. ron's hyperbole, in this case in regards to some sort of distilling of american poetry into 3 camps, is over the top and distracting. it's interesting and it promotes discussion and it's fun to witness the way ron throws these terms around, but it's a rough way of viewing the world--a world where a cd wright poem can't be just really, really good, but has to be called a major life event and a world where everything is either "good" or "bad", "major" or "minor", soq or post-avant (or "the 3rd way"). it makes for a black and white world and i just don't think that's what ron means to promote. ain't that the old world of binaries, not the new world of relativety and language poetry? couldn't we solve some of this by toning down the absolutism of the rhetoric?
pete
The panoramic view of Wallace Stevens’ wake was easy to imagine even in advance.
Aging gentlemen with the same silver manes and Florida tans.
The blue guitar.
One could one see the florists of Queens delivering six-foot displays designed
as a martini glass, a racehorse, a royal flush or a Cuban cigar.
The Blue guitar.
His Best Poem, arrived at 12:30 p.m. in a smart black dress, her long blond hair cascading down her back.
She was swept through Papageno's glass-front doors by ushers, who nodded a silent greeting, then clasped their hands respectfully at their waists.
The blue Guitar.
There were, for instance, the five poets from the neighborhood who stood around trying to figure out if they recognized any of the mourners. Their names were Donald, Donald, Donald, Ron and Jim. It was a common occurrence yesterday that people asked that their last names be withheld.
The Blue Guitar.
"If he could walk out with me and say hello, he would. He's doing it through me. . . . `Hello.' "
Donald said.
Synesthesia of a dull sort prevailed.
Donald was wrong.
The Guitar Blue
Are changed upon the blue guitar.
Strum.
Slinger, I said, as he carefully folded his glove to make his knock,
clue me in to the utter of the nth. I's so blinded by unreason that my bowels is all a-quake.
How shall I distinguish the true from the fake?
Youse got to look under the feathers,
he replied,
to discern which sex the white bird is.
Then he dialed,
carefully,
using his finger.
re: the camps
I had written some on this topic last year and I appreciate the discussion now. Saying something new and challenging can shift the paradigm for the best, and I read your comments not as adversarial or divisive but instead offering a genuinely other POV. Unfortunately, shifting the paradigm is sometimes not desirous to those benefited most by existing paradigm. I got a feeling you're not gonna get any special dispensations, but maybe that's not so bad. I like the debate. It feels more "community"- , less huddled-members-of-school- like. And speaking of Wright and long poems, I read a very good one by Franz a New Yorker or two back. Blaspheme or just staying open to good poetry. I haven't yet read CD's poem. I will. Some of the passages cited by Ron seem very cutesy; others seem to me to cover very similar ground to Franz's poem but with less skill. What-t-f-ever. I'll take them on their merits instead of updating SOQ mastheads.
http://pornfeld.blogspot.com/2005/01/k.html
Michael Hoerman
Taking it too far, and suggesting that to name a school provides the same level of info as naming a politician's political party, is setting up a bit of a strawman. Nobody is seriously making that case here. I think Ron inadvertently went a little bit too far in calling Wright a "Third Way," bringing up all sorts of Tony Blair associations.
First..she is older. You know in Jorge Luis Borges' The Sand of Time...he looks like the same old Borges but the editor of the collection admits that it is the work of a much more mature Borges..a completed Borges if you will.
It is good to appreciate a gender specific poet (a girl) in such a way. I'm sure she must be honored however...HOWEVER Ron...you get yourself into some problems as a male when you say such things as:
"It made me realize that the only other poet now writing whom I do this for, feel both driven & motivated to do so at such length, is Rachel Blau DuPlessis."
Wow. Her true greatness (and I'd say she is right up there with the monster hits from this tiny piece you have provided) is so diminished by your male egotism and MIND YOU...I am an antifeminist.
Feminism has such a limiting effect on the notion of criticism..that it has it's OWN school (i.e. SoQ, Quietists, etc.) only adds to the validation that women have a certain place in your book and furthermore you relate her to another female poet to boot!
This is nit picking I know but it does seem to be a general trend in your way of critiquing the work of other poets. Grading them, placing them in juxtaposition which in reality is more a function of marketing than actual criticism. No offense of course..just the way I see it.
I wish I had the book. It looks like a tremendous life changing read. Like Alice Notley, born in my old funky hometown. Boy I wish I could meet her too. I have a feeling we'd have lots to talk about regarding the old bones in a Paris museum and the mysteries of her old small houses in Bisbee and Needles.
"It is good to appreciate a gender specific poet (a girl) in such a way."
It sure is. I'm glad I'm gender-specific too, because CD looks like a a very pretty lady. Maybe I'll meet her in Providence one day and strike up a conversation.
(wink)
Sounds reasonable. Thanks for responding.
lilac -
I failed to see the "male egotism" in that sentence you isolated. Are you offended because he talked about his own reading habits? Or because he compared a female poet to a female poet? (Is it impossible that he just likes multiple female poets?)
everybody -
Given that most of what Ron seems to do here is speak generously and enthusiastically about things he finds interesting, doesn't it seem a bit inappropriate that all some of you seem to wish to do is hurl insults him, the people he talks about, and each other?
It is true that RS enthusiastically about certain things. generously? i'm not sure.
He always has an agenda, however, I think.
the first seems to me absolutley terrible, full of cliches, really awful. Wrights is far superior, though she has a totally conventional view of "poetry"; she writes "poetry" and knows exactly what it si and should be and can be "in these our times". but it seems to me these two passages have nothing in common; their jusxaposition is a typical example of RS's pseudo-criticism.
steveintaipei
<< Home


