Tuesday, May 09, 2006
A read-through of Bay Poetics, Stephanie Young’s new anthology of Bay Area poetry, leaves one with a distinct impression that one possible impact of online typesetting is that the next generation in poetry is becoming much more hesitant about leaving the safe anchor of the left margin. While there are clearly exceptions to this – Chris Chen, Logan Ryan Smith & Dennis Somera stand out – most of the poets here who treat the left-hand margin as an option rather than a requirement are the likes of Joanne Kyger, Nate Mackey, Kathleen Fraser (working now also in variable type sizes as well), Larry Kearney, Susan Gevirtz.
One wonders what the longer term implication of all this might be. It’s conceivable that in ten years’ time the web will prove as resilient and easy to set type with the sort of point-by-point variations that Paul Blackburn adapted for his late work, but right now, frankly, it’s a pain & one cannot guarantee that what looks good in Firefox will look the same in Internet Explorer or Opera or what else have you. So younger poets are doing what seems obvious enough, which is returning to the margin or else never thinking really about departing therefrom. I sometimes have the sense of a generation of swimming students, afraid to let go of the edge of the pool.
But I’m clearly of the age of the typewriter. Ezra Pound was the first U.S. poet to make this machine – which evolved from an experimental piece of machinery to a much more standardized piece of equipment during the Civil War because it made reports from the field more readable and reliable (and no accident here that Remington, major manufacturer of rifles, was likewise one of the first major producers of this military product) – his normal mode of composition. Nor that Pound was the one who led American poets away from the left-hand margin. Make what you will of the fact that his finest single work, The Pisan Cantos, was written by hand on scraps of paper in a wire cage in the mud of a prison camp in
The New American poets – from Olson to Ginsberg to
I first learned to write poetry on a heavy manual
When I got my first grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, I immediately went out and bought a $800 IBM Selectric, a machine I had coveted for some time. This, I was sure, was going to last me for decades. I made a point of getting a three-year service contract and carefully selected three font-balls of type. Within four years, I had stopped using it for my poetry (tho I continued to do so for correspondence), heading in to my office at the California Institute of Integral Studies to use a PC there. When I finally got my own PC in 1986, I held on to the Selectric for awhile, tho I found myself using it only to fill out grant forms once a year or so. At last I gave the Selectric to my mother, until a combination of her failing eyesight and some necessary repairs caused her to junk it.
I don’t think of myself as a poet-of-the-typewriter, tho there are clearly sections of The Alphabet, in particular, that reflect the impact of the New Americans on my own sense of the verse stanza. But I can escape what I see in Bay Poetics: poets who treat the lefthand margin as an option are almost always “of a certain age.” And I wonder what the Norton anthologies of two hundred years from now will look like – will poets have all moved back to the margin? Or will the idea of writing for two-dimensional surfaces have become obsolete? The possibilities are worth contemplating.
The invention of the typewriter changed forever the way people write, just as the printing press changed the way people thought about language.
The same way the computer has changed our conception of print. The seemingly unlimited data memory has cheapened the value of the word, to such a degree that books will never catch up; they've fallen too far behind. Speed and capacity beyond our dreams.
But quality is still a fixed form. It's not a fluid. Homer was to his audience, but we don't have "Homer"--we have our version. We may never have Emily Dickinson's version. We may never be able to "go back" to recapture the feel of the older technologies. It's sort of like riding in a pick-up, watching the world going away from you. Facing the past.
A somewhat longer look is available over at my blog today.
In the meantime, you can use things like en and em dashes colored white (or whatever) or the old to space stuff out.
But then what about curved lines, or overlapping lines? Those are things a computer can do pretty easily, with a layout app, but it’s pretty hard to get it onto the web unless you go to PDF.
Maybe we should have a discussion among poets of new text tools? The digital arts types talk a lot about tools, but maybe more letterary people should starting talking about moving beyond word processors for our work.
It was hard to get the left margins to line up completely, so that's why I thought the margins were so wobbly in contemporary poetry from that period. It's only recently that I realized that people were actually choosing to goof up the left margin on purpose.
I'm kidding about this last paragraph, Curtis.
Personally I think that marginal leftists should be more highly prized than they are by this blog's author.
or you could just post a cropped screen shot as an image. (erica kaufman does this on her blog, for instance, as do many online journals.)
i use a manual typewriter (never liked electrics--too spastic), but mostly for revisions. i write longhand first (usually, this is slowly changing to writing directly on the computer). then type, retype, and retype on a manual olivino until the poem "feels" right physcially. i need the impressed paper and the process of striking the keys with more pressure than a computer keyboard. (altho, i am a self-identified margin hugger, so mostly i'm feeling my way through the line breaks & syllable/sound distributions with my fingers on the ollie. manual typewriting = enforced slowness, deliberateness.)
i noticed something interesting yesterday. in ernesto priego's book *not even dogs* (just out from meritage) he has a sequence that appears in reverse numerical order, 10-1, instead of the usual 1-10 way. he posted the poems on his blog 1-10, but i wonder if later he just got used to looking at them in blog-style reverse chronology?
maybe that's coincidental.
i do think, like you seem to ron, that the tools used make a difference in what is made on them/with them. a painter that prefers a fine brush makes very different images than one who wields a palette knife.
Justified Left OR Justified Right makes the opposite side of the poem the gift. So much can happen on the right side of the lines falling catching falling catching DROPPING off catching again. One side sheer drop the other brutal leap, but the beauty in that.
And, is this perhaps a help to someone, this is a cut and paste map I've made to refer to for adding space for online poems. It's only a matter of time before this is obsolete.
SPACING FILE:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I vowed to NEVER print out that little bastard code again, just copy and paste the damn thing!
CAConrad
hOOtamizah azSay DEVIANT PROPULSION
oh well,
Conrad
Help build THE PHILADELPHIA POETRY HOTEL
Conrad
Help build THE PHILADELPHIA POETRY HOTEL
but i think there is something to that
does the machine become the form?
in an age of verbal and printed excess we would do well
all of us
to limit our poems
to moments of desperation
read recently oscar wilde's comment to the effect that the best poets are the most unpoetical of people...it is the lesser poets who are fascinating...they live out the poems they are unable to write
oscar's final poems are
his most poignant
perhaps poetry is like religion
in the sense of mercia eliade's
judgment of man as a ritual being
..either we find a home in a tradition (or a form)..or...often to our own detriment, we create our own rituals (forms)
Lately I've tried signaling where the words are with my body. Lean to the left, upright for center, and then to the right. Very exhausting. I tried hiring a mime to do this but every one I have tried is impertinent.
Anybody know of a good mime near St. Paul? Thanks.
that seems to imply that all of the great poets of this generation will be spawned from internet blogging. which is a slightly too hubristic view for my liking.
"The New American poets – from Olson to Ginsberg to Duncan to Whalen to Blackburn to Snyder to McClure – were the ones who really moved away from the margin."
perhaps this is merely me reading into this, but this seems to imply (vaguely in the tone) that poetry should continue to build upon itself--what has come previous. perhaps that is the case as one would not want to continue to do the same, but i see ginsberg reaching back to whitman, gleaning over elliot/pound/crane. and if that is the case (i am quite sure that i am not nearly as well read as all of you) then there really should be nothing wrong with reaching past what has become the past for something else... as long as what is now and then is not ignored.
so. basically. i'm trying to suggest that perhaps this is not a result of the form and perhaps a refusal to adopt what is new. given. does it have any legitimacy?
it is an interesting question. and i apologize for my inability to truly make any case for what i attempt to say as i struggle to hold upon every reference.
-a very obvious first post.
zach.
Then they equate all muslims with Osama bin Ladens and call it a day.
They never discuss the role of Zionism in their poetry lives even though the whole scam of this type of 'marginalization' is what it is...a way of keeping out people who do not conform to their horrible hypocritical standards. Why, they have even learned how to encrypt their messages!
Discussing the margins is a way of pretending that they actually know what makes good poetry great and lousy poetry lousy. The peons (as John Hanson has pointed out) must either conform to their idiotic play or get out and live in anonymity. Here we have a perfect example of several people who enjoy the game because let's face it, there aren't that many great poets. No more than any other time on the planet but there are a lot of people 'who would like to be'. It isn't something you can learn you know. It is a gift. Ron forgot to mention that...as is his usual. The GIFT for writing doesn't figure into the 'x,y,z' of his peculiar alphabet which is known not only for its arrogance but also for its hostility to humans "who don't measure up" to his glaringly high standards of accuracy and attunement to truths and facts (which exist no where in his posts and in fact, he is constantly being caught misrepresenting well known facts).
It is like yes no day as a kid. We used to call it a game and now it is a business. That you Zack find yourself at a loss for words is what I like to call:
The result of being bullshitted into submission to a false ideal.
OY! AH! HU! OY! AH! HU!
SHALOM! SHANTIH! SALAAM!
(Jawah and Allah Battle)
So in other words there’s no excuse to not read stuff..
He was thinking about converting to the Anglican church also until discouraged by what he saw as the corruption that set in with the Restoration.
The post avant, in general, is an anglophile movement. As is well known ...ever since Clark Coolidge was spotted in Picadilly Circus walking his civit and laughing roguishly when questioned as to just why the poor cat or whatever was wearing a monocle and looked like he might vote Tory.
i didn't mean "not to read" but merely to refuse, rebel against.
apologies for not making it clear.
<< Home

