Monday, August 14, 2006
I respond positively to ambitious work. Not every twenty-something who sets out to change the world into his or her vision manages to make much headway, but over time, watching the evolution of a Barrett Watten, a Kathy Acker, a Robert Grenier, a Judy Grahn or a Clark Coolidge as they set out to do so is a tremendous way to spend a life in writing. I find Charles Olson’s earnestness winning, although I know others who find (or, especially, found, during his own day) it overbearing & more than a little obnoxious. For my money, that’s just the price of admission & a very small one to pay to gain all the riches you can find there. Ditto Ginsberg or Duncan. Or Jack Spicer, who intended to change the world, but didn’t plan on informing anybody outside of a small cabal of drinking pals at Gino & Carlo’s.
One of my great complaints about younger poets over the past 20 years has been that far too few are trying to do as much as they might. The very absence of literary group formations is a sign of same, given that one of the primary consequences of any literary movement is that it gets all of its participants’ adrenaline running, so that everyone is performing at the peak of their potential, precisely because they feel challenged to go beyond their comfort zones. If you had told me, in 1969, that by 1974 I would be writing something like Ketjak, in which sentences repeat obsessively & the content of one deliberately avoids flowing smoothly into the content of the next – and that it would be prose – I would have thought you were nuts. But, surrounded as I was in San Francisco by the likes of Kit Robinson’s Dolch Stanzas, Rae Armantrout’s crystalline structures of lyric, Carla Harryman’s theatrical prose, David Bromige’s deep dive into syntax, Bob Perelman’s talk series, Steve Benson’s improvisational poets – they terrified me, because I knew I could never do that, let alone do it with the brilliance & grace that appears so effortless to Benson – not to mention Acker, Watten or Grenier, writing Ketjak was the very least I could do in 1974 – it was (still is) a work filled with caution, because that’s my nature.
So when I see attempts to go further – whether it’s the prose of a Taylor Brady or even a wrongheaded coterie of iconoclasts like the Apex of the M moment circa 1990, I’m predisposed to approve, because I can sense the reach that’s being made. And reach is at least 80 percent of what it takes – quality being the other 20 (and the iceberg lurking to many a Titanic effort). In fact, this is why the well polished variations of important work that come along a generation after whatever raw innovation might take place never is nearly as significant as the groundbreaking work itself. It’s not about making it perfect, but making it new, which is to say equal to the world we live in, which is never the same one we inhabited last week. Do it well enough & you get to be Ted Berrigan or John Ashbery. Do it perfectly 20 years later & there just might be a rural state college out there for you somewhere.
One new book that sets off all of my sensors – it is flagrant & cheerful with its ambition, which strikes me as enormous – is Jessica Smith’s Organic Furniture Cellar: Works on Paper 2002 – 2004. OFC might not be the best written book of 2006, but it almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most. And that means that it just may be the most important book this year as well.
Put simply, Smith is making the argument here for what she call plastic poetics, a concept she means more or less literally. I call it an argument because, in order to read Smith’s work intelligently – perhaps even sympathetically – she wants you to rethink your ideas of the role of space in the text itself. This she accomplishes by means of a nine-page introduction – the most serious theoretical discussion I’ve seen at the front of a book of poetry in some time. You can find what I take to be a preliminary draft of this document tucked away on one of Smith’s several websites here in a PDF format. Both versions are worth reading. In each, Smith begins by describing the experience of viewing a work by Japanese Architect Arakawa and his partner, poet Madeline Gins, a “house” – Smith uses the scare quotes –
that consists of 2400 square feet of cloth lying low to the ground. Entering the house, the visitors find that in order to do anything—move, sit on furniture, cook—they must constantly lift the fabric “roof” of the house high enough over their heads to slither through the space. One of them observes, “Rooms form depending on how we move. If I bend down, I nearly lose the room.” This interdependency of agent and architecture is characteristic of Arakawa’s work, which consistently explores the theoretical problems of being a body in space. Questions of how one occupies space, how one affects and is affected by
architecture, move to the fore. A building is no longer a dwelling-space, but a site of reciprocal becoming.
This is not unlike the process of viewing sculpture – I recall Barney Newman’s definition of same as “what you bump into when stepping back to view a painting” – an analogy Smith likewise notes. Indeed, the contrast Smith is after is that distinction between painting & sculpture that alleges¹ one views a painting all at once, while having to then walk around a sculpture. The poetry Smith is after is far closer to sculpture, but it is not simply or only that:
Historically, “plastic poetry” has been conflated with terms like “concrete poetry,” “calligrams,” and “visual poetry.” The term most often denotes poetry that has simply been made of materials other than paper, like the poem inscribed in concrete on bp nichol lane in Toronto, or the sculptural poems of Ian Hamilton Finlay. However, the material three-dimensionality of poems should not automatically grant them the status of plastic poetry. This term must be reserved for works that disrupt the reader’s virtual field in the same way that architecture and sculpture disrupt an active person’s real, physical field. A plastic poem must change the reading space in such a way that the one who reads is forced to make amends for new structures in his or her virtual path. The words on a page must be plastic in virtual space as architecture and sculpture are plastic in real space. In other words, plastic arts disrupt an agent’s space: to have plastic poetry we must disrupt the reader’s space. I will argue that this rupture does not stem from, as in the ordinary plastic arts, a real physical occupation of space, but rather from the disruption of the virtual space that one moves through when reading a poem.
(Both of the above quotes come from the draft version.)
A skeptic might argue – check out the comments stream in a day or so – that it’s a weak poet who puts a theoretical defense in advance of the work itself. However, the precedents of Wordsworth & Coleridge in Lyrical Ballads, of Whitman, of Baudelaire all demonstrate that this is hardly the case. Rather, critically savvy authors have always felt the responsibility to prepare the audience for what’s to come. Here is, crudely reproduced from a screen capture, an example of what Smith is getting at, an excerpt from “Hades” in OFC’s “Exile” section:
Whether one focuses on this poetry’s roots in the work of nichol & Finlay, as in the excerpts I quoted above, or in Apollinaire’s Calligrammes & Steve McCaffery’s legendary Carnival, as the intro to the book does, Smith’s concerns & roots both strike me as quite clear. It’s really about renegotiating the reader’s role in determining not just the meaning of the poem (something readers have done forever) but even the path of the poem. Meaning here doesn’t form & wait for the reading mind, but rather offers clusters of potential, some more straightforward than others, some more subtle than others. The reader’s role is not only to determine what is going on in any cluster, but the order & relationship between them as well. For example, what is the relation of the word “hegel,” presumably the philosopher to the text on its left? The capitalized letters forming a spine running vertically through the lefthand clusters appear, at first glance, to be some sort of acrostic, but if so, then they must anagrams as well. If not, then their
motivation is spatial & not content-driven. For me, the most powerful sequence in this excerpt runs along “water-worn / soft dirt paths // white / marble / of flowers,” tho I know I’m putting those lines together – even putting the left most word “white” ahead of “marble” even tho it’s down a line. Whereas the lefthand clusters to my ear sound like a reiterated, virtually stammered phone conversation, maybe a generation removed from the overhead diction of Eliot’s “Waste Land,” (hurry up please it’s time) but hardly on a different order. And I suspect that anyone’s negotiation will be, if not similar to my own, at least of a similar order of decision-making, of taking responsibility for pulling texts into context, assigning or even infusing meaning.
Ultimately, I think the question of whether or not a text like this works comes down to your sensibility as to how much responsibility you want the author to hold onto, how much you yourself are willing to take on, and whether that matters. There is, in any text (even this one) invariably a one-sided relationship – only the author gets to determine which words appear on the page. You can play with this a lot (and I have over the decades, ranging from the disjunctions between sentences of Ketjak and Tjanting to the intrusive-to-the-edge-of-sadism questioning in Sunset Debris), but my own sense is that I want – indeed, I want to argue that I think readers in general want – the author to err on the side of control.
Which, at this point at least, is the difference I see between OFC & a project like Carnival – if you look at any detail of McCaffery’s, the individual words may not demonstrate more control (they seem to alternate between found materials & pure lettrism), but visually they do:
In a way, Smith’s text is far more readerly – it’s all about the text, ultimately – but it places much more of the responsibility for meaning onto the reader than does McCaffery, even if his sense here of “meaning” isn’t necessarily linguistic.
Overall, my sense of Organic Furniture Cellar is that it isn’t (yet anyway) the revolution that Smith wants to televise, tho her aim here is sharp & she’s already marshaling some of the heaviest weaponry available. But I don’t think you can disrupt reader’s expectations without more control of them than she wants to have here. So I’m interested to see just what Jessica Smith will be coming up with next.
¹ Smith acknowledges that the allegation is false. Even the flattest all-over painting is, ultimately, read in time – indeed there are studies of eye movements around visual fields that are widely used these days in setting up the allocation of information in display ads. In general, the eye in a “portrait” starts above center slightly, the curls down & to the left, then up to the upper left corner & then down across the page toward the lower right, before pulling back and taking in the whole. The portion of the page that is least likely to be closely scrutinized is the lower left corner – a good place to put the mouse type you don’t want consumers to read too closely.
Labels: Jessica Smith
comments:
<< Home
Thanks for spreading the word, Ron.
If folks are interested in obtaining a copy of OFC, it can be had from Outside Voices or simply from my blog.
If folks are interested in obtaining a copy of OFC, it can be had from Outside Voices or simply from my blog.
i think the acrostic is german? DIE LIEBE HOERRET NIMMER, if you read the OE as an o w/ umlaut could translate "love never listens" or "the lover never listens"--it's hard to know with everything in all caps. and "nimmer" also has a conotation of greed or gluttony so it's a kind of double entendre. (if my german is not tooooooo rusty.)
AH, got it. the mesostic is from Luther's translation of 1 Corinthians 13:8? "Love never fails." = "Die Liebe höret nimmer auf."
"One of my great complaints about regional sales mangers over the past 20 years has been that far too few are trying to do as much as they might. The very absence of winning sales teams is a sign of same, given that one of the primary consequences of any winning sales team is that it gets all of its participants’ adrenaline running, so that everyone is performing at the peak of their potential, precisely because they feel challenged to go beyond their comfort zones.
And reach is at least 80 percent of what it takes – quality being the other 20 (and the iceberg lurking under the surface of many a Titanic effort). In fact, this is why the well polished variations of sales techniques that come along a generation after whatever raw innovation might take place never is nearly as significant as the groundbreaking work itself. It’s not about making it perfect, but making it new, which is to say equal to the world we live in, which is never the same one we inhabited last week. Do it well enough and you get to work in the New York office. Do it perfectly 20 years later and there might be some vending machines for you to re-stock in East St Louis."
And reach is at least 80 percent of what it takes – quality being the other 20 (and the iceberg lurking under the surface of many a Titanic effort). In fact, this is why the well polished variations of sales techniques that come along a generation after whatever raw innovation might take place never is nearly as significant as the groundbreaking work itself. It’s not about making it perfect, but making it new, which is to say equal to the world we live in, which is never the same one we inhabited last week. Do it well enough and you get to work in the New York office. Do it perfectly 20 years later and there might be some vending machines for you to re-stock in East St Louis."
Shanna's right: 1 Corinthians 13:8. A common text for funeral services (or gravestones).
The lines Ron quotes evoke a cemetery: "soft dirt paths / marble / of flowers". Bracketed by "fic / tion".
Memorials. Remember, remind, remind, remember. A phonograph [reminds you of voices] like a photograph reminds of faces.
"gwfh / Hegel" and Goethe's "ottilie"? Hence the German text?
Are we or Ottilie (for instance) to "act otherwise"? (Than keep a gramophone in the house to remember lost voices?)
Some wisdom: love never fails. Some lives. (Ottilie starves herself to death in the fiction.)
Otherwise, for instance: "I remember everybody, [my] beloved".
But: an elegy in a country churchyard? Dense and difficult to resolve, but it wants to be read.
The lines Ron quotes evoke a cemetery: "soft dirt paths / marble / of flowers". Bracketed by "fic / tion".
Memorials. Remember, remind, remind, remember. A phonograph [reminds you of voices] like a photograph reminds of faces.
"gwfh / Hegel" and Goethe's "ottilie"? Hence the German text?
Are we or Ottilie (for instance) to "act otherwise"? (Than keep a gramophone in the house to remember lost voices?)
Some wisdom: love never fails. Some lives. (Ottilie starves herself to death in the fiction.)
Otherwise, for instance: "I remember everybody, [my] beloved".
But: an elegy in a country churchyard? Dense and difficult to resolve, but it wants to be read.
Ron, I think you are confusing ambition with privilege, i.e. having enough disposable income to spend thousands of dollars publishing one’s own book. I guess financial privilege plus unchecked egomania equals ambition.
Andy,
I find that comment gratuitous & unproven. If you don't like the work, you have lots of opportunity to say why & how, but this sort of comment adds nothing to the world's stock of information.
I find that comment gratuitous & unproven. If you don't like the work, you have lots of opportunity to say why & how, but this sort of comment adds nothing to the world's stock of information.
Right on Shanna--the "auf" got cut out of the screen capture, but yes, you're right about the translation. Ok, so the next puzzles are:
- what do hegel, ottilie, and another philosopher whose name is in there (fichte) have in common? (hint: it has nothing to do with hegel and fichte's work, and everything to do with Kirk's comment about Ottilie)
- where does this section of the book take place?
- from where is the material in the mesostic drawn?
Kirk, you're getting warm. Thanks for engaging with the text, guys!
Andy, you know nothing about me, so stuff it.
- what do hegel, ottilie, and another philosopher whose name is in there (fichte) have in common? (hint: it has nothing to do with hegel and fichte's work, and everything to do with Kirk's comment about Ottilie)
- where does this section of the book take place?
- from where is the material in the mesostic drawn?
Kirk, you're getting warm. Thanks for engaging with the text, guys!
Andy, you know nothing about me, so stuff it.
Ron, my comment is based on the on-going study in egomania and self-delusion that is Jessica Smith's blog, which at first I thought was some kind of a joke because it so perfectly encapsulates the ridiculousness of most poetry blogs (from the hundreds of photos she takes of herself to the endless discussions of what kind of medications she's on, etc.).
This is a book with a nine page introduction that she self-published, and she's what 25-years old? Who could ever take this seriously? Who would ever read it other than you, Ron. Well, now I’m going to go buy her juvenilia which she self-published on Lulu! Peace!
This is a book with a nine page introduction that she self-published, and she's what 25-years old? Who could ever take this seriously? Who would ever read it other than you, Ron. Well, now I’m going to go buy her juvenilia which she self-published on Lulu! Peace!
i hope you don't disable the comment stream over this ron...
anyhow...the review was quite interesting...
anyhow...the review was quite interesting...
I love that Ron writes about the "new," as in new poetry books. And I hope to read Ms. Smith's book.
But I am puzzled by Ron's assertions that "'Organic Furniture Cellar' . . . might not be the best written book of 2006, but it almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most. And that means that it just may be the most important book this year as well."
Ron, I gotta ask: how do you know that this book "almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most"? You educated us (me) a few weeks ago regarding the relatively large number of poetry books published each year, including hundreds of post-avant titles. Surely you haven't read all those books so far published this year, and more surely you can't foresee what will be published in the remaining five months of this year.
As such, the statement that Ms. Smith's book "almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most" is premature and much too conjectural. To me, it sounds way too much like Hollywood hype or commercial puffery. Your review would have been just as interesting without this claim. You obviously got a positive charge reading the book, and maybe you like Ms. Smith in general, or know people who know her, or whatever, but I think for this particular part of your review your enthusiasm got the better of you.
But I am puzzled by Ron's assertions that "'Organic Furniture Cellar' . . . might not be the best written book of 2006, but it almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most. And that means that it just may be the most important book this year as well."
Ron, I gotta ask: how do you know that this book "almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most"? You educated us (me) a few weeks ago regarding the relatively large number of poetry books published each year, including hundreds of post-avant titles. Surely you haven't read all those books so far published this year, and more surely you can't foresee what will be published in the remaining five months of this year.
As such, the statement that Ms. Smith's book "almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most" is premature and much too conjectural. To me, it sounds way too much like Hollywood hype or commercial puffery. Your review would have been just as interesting without this claim. You obviously got a positive charge reading the book, and maybe you like Ms. Smith in general, or know people who know her, or whatever, but I think for this particular part of your review your enthusiasm got the better of you.
I've never met Jessica Smith to my knowledge, so it's the work that enthused me, and you're right -- I see at most maybe a quarter of 4,000 poetry books published each year. But I will gladly wager that a book as ambitious as this one isn't published every year. And that feels like a very safe bet.
Ron
Ron
If we're talking about ambitious work, on the other side is Lara Glenum, the exact opposite to the kind of work here. Smith put a huge amount of work onto the reader's side of the fence, while I see Glenum doing the exact opposite: sort of reaching of the fence and taking a whole bunch of stuff back.
The footnote about how the "eye" sees paintings or other flat objects deserves a comment. Ron writes that studies show that the viewer's eye generally takes in a painting by looking first just above center and then moving down left, up left and lower right before taking in the whole.
I think the science of this is even more interesting than perhaps suggested by the studies alluded to by Ron. Vision - close vision of the kind used when looking at a painting -- is done by the fovea within the eye, and because the fovea can only focus narrowly, we see in a series of saccadic movements, jumping from point to point on the surface we are looking at.
Great artists understand saccadic movement, and exploit this universal method of seeing. For example, they'll purposefully establish the points between which the eye will tend to focus and jump, or deliberately trick the eye to jump (or not) to a particular part of the work. Some of Bruce Conner's engraving collages, with "hidden" (not seen at first) elements do this in a masterful way, but lots of artists through time have done it (just as advertisers do, as Ron mentions).
Poetry set up on the page in a non-linear way -- some of "Organic Furniture Cellar" appears to do that -- has intriguing possibilities for exploiting the eye's saccadic movements. But with the written word we readers are so damned trained to read left to right or down the columns that any writer has a tough task to get us out of those habits. I don't think I see a page, even one with a jumble of words, in the same way I see a work of art. Reading is a peculiarly limited way of seeing, yes?
I think the science of this is even more interesting than perhaps suggested by the studies alluded to by Ron. Vision - close vision of the kind used when looking at a painting -- is done by the fovea within the eye, and because the fovea can only focus narrowly, we see in a series of saccadic movements, jumping from point to point on the surface we are looking at.
Great artists understand saccadic movement, and exploit this universal method of seeing. For example, they'll purposefully establish the points between which the eye will tend to focus and jump, or deliberately trick the eye to jump (or not) to a particular part of the work. Some of Bruce Conner's engraving collages, with "hidden" (not seen at first) elements do this in a masterful way, but lots of artists through time have done it (just as advertisers do, as Ron mentions).
Poetry set up on the page in a non-linear way -- some of "Organic Furniture Cellar" appears to do that -- has intriguing possibilities for exploiting the eye's saccadic movements. But with the written word we readers are so damned trained to read left to right or down the columns that any writer has a tough task to get us out of those habits. I don't think I see a page, even one with a jumble of words, in the same way I see a work of art. Reading is a peculiarly limited way of seeing, yes?
Although I have no desire to be associated with the hurtful and quite unnecessary personal attack directed at the author above –- after all, if she wishes to discuss with readers of her own blog whether she is on medication or not that is surely her prerogative –- I must confess I do not find the (admittedly) few extracts I have read of her poetry all that convincing.
I also feel that Ron is wrong to draw so quick a comparison between the preface to OFC and such 19th Century innovators as Wordsworth, Whitman, or Baudelaire. While Ron quite rightly anticipates the charge "that it is a weak poet who puts a theoretical defense in advance of the work itself", I cannot help but suspect that the preface to OFC (at least based on the version I have seen) is primarily designed to lend the work a specious, and specifically Academic legitimacy; a desire very much at odds with the (once) revolutionary poetics proposed by a Wordsworth or Whitman.
I also feel that Ron is wrong to draw so quick a comparison between the preface to OFC and such 19th Century innovators as Wordsworth, Whitman, or Baudelaire. While Ron quite rightly anticipates the charge "that it is a weak poet who puts a theoretical defense in advance of the work itself", I cannot help but suspect that the preface to OFC (at least based on the version I have seen) is primarily designed to lend the work a specious, and specifically Academic legitimacy; a desire very much at odds with the (once) revolutionary poetics proposed by a Wordsworth or Whitman.
Steven, that's very interesting. I've read a lot about this from the history of aesthetics and painting, and even in some strains of poetics, and I've played around with, for instance, how much one can separate letters before they become illegible (or how to vary speeds of recognition). But I didn't know this term "saccadic." Thanks for extending my vocabulary; I will have to look into this further.
Kirk, I wanted to thank you for introducing the word "evoke." This is exactly what is supposed to happen-- the poetry "evokes." Rather than tells, convinces, rails, etc. I'm happy to see that you got into the text so quickly.
Paula, the comparison with other poets-who-write-their-own-poetics could, of course, also be extended to the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets (as well as everyone else--Eliot, Pound, Zuk, Stein, etc.). I think that crafting one's poetics is an essential part of writing good poetry, because it makes you have to think about and justify everything. The preface is indeed intended for an audience that wants to interact with the text like that, but it's just as easy to skip the preface and simply read the poems. I hope that you will try reading more of my work; if OFC is too much of a commitment, you might consider purchasing a copy of Shifting Landscapes from my Etsy store.
Kirk, I wanted to thank you for introducing the word "evoke." This is exactly what is supposed to happen-- the poetry "evokes." Rather than tells, convinces, rails, etc. I'm happy to see that you got into the text so quickly.
Paula, the comparison with other poets-who-write-their-own-poetics could, of course, also be extended to the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets (as well as everyone else--Eliot, Pound, Zuk, Stein, etc.). I think that crafting one's poetics is an essential part of writing good poetry, because it makes you have to think about and justify everything. The preface is indeed intended for an audience that wants to interact with the text like that, but it's just as easy to skip the preface and simply read the poems. I hope that you will try reading more of my work; if OFC is too much of a commitment, you might consider purchasing a copy of Shifting Landscapes from my Etsy store.
I'm not sure what she means by "virtual space." I guess she doesn't mean the sorts of virtual spaces (palaces, mostly) involved in the classical art of memory (or, for that matter, in shamanistic vision trance...). Does she just mean the flow of information / meaning-construction along different paths, nets, cyclings etc. across and through the text, even through other texts (allusion... hypertext... the dictionary)?
The materiality of concrete poetry interests me most insofar as the material informs (has conceptual power, or in its particular plasticity alters the flow of information...).
"A plastic poem must change the reading space in such a way that the one who reads is forced to make amends for new structures in his or her virtual path."
The problem of achieving constant novelty and constant disruption? Avoiding easily recognized, easily "read" and categorized, forms? Anarchy too quickly devolving into the expected pattern, easily imbibed. Ditto constant novelty for novelty's sake (or is this the form at the utmost limit of deformation? how to keep the form densely charged with meaning and so disruption?). Another solution being to try to play with forms by verging on recognizable forms but preventing or at least problematizing resolution---setting up zones of indeterminacy (not exactly duckrabbits, something messier, not just oscillating between two immediately distinctly perceived forms---seems to be what the excerpt you show is doing).
So "hte" connects with the "fic" on the line below it to the far right. Interesting---so used to reading left-right and top-down that I wouldn't have thought of that on my own (though "tion" is easier to spot). I wonder what could be done with deformations (manic fractalizations, multidimensional twistings, spirallings, cuts holes burns and blank (or luminous stuffed) gaps within) on a crossword puzzle's matrix. though crossword puzzles hold next to no interest for me, oddly enough).
The overarching visual and syntactic form of the three columns a dialectic at first glance(most crudely: most conventional-connected / middle anarchic-disjunctive with more gaps and almost arrowlike triadic undulating form / in-between starting ironically with Hegel---then cycling back to the mesostic as the most conventionally/strictly formed determining the far left margin of the column, arrowlike triads emerging in the opening lines of the left column w/ every second line jutting out first to left then to right the pattern shifting, reversing and modulating itself in a complex play---with stray particles of words to the left and the normative beginning notice far to the topmost right / ambiguously seeming within the third column and likely to be noticed after "heart" which they appear to leap to then the blockage of "g w f h"---explained far down and in the next column by "hegel"... the third column and the ambiguous second quasi-column likewise interlocking the eye cycling and looping indeterminately between them---Hegel's initials themselves a play on the mesostic form).
A few years ago I think there was an MFA student at Brown working with multiple more-or-less chaotic columns and the ambiguous interplay between them / q. of order of reading / meaning-making. (It seemed intriguing and for a while I was trying to take it to its limit, filling almost all of the page---trying to see how much information, ambiguity, and complexity could be packed into a single page by the use of multiple columns.) I forget his name (for some reason I think it sounds like John Fredrick Nims, but that's obviously wrong), but I remember two of his lines went something like: "and shallow ripples, verily, / [something something] the grammar of halcyon"
Not "awake unto you" but "a wake unto you" (a, wake unto you? a. wake unto you)
Maybe this is just a personal association, but I'm reminded of Celan's poem on meeting Heidegger, "Todtnauberg"---particularly die in dies Buch / geschriebene Zeile von / einer Hoffnung, heute, / auf eines Denkenden / kommendes / Wort / im Herzen,
njyaw
The materiality of concrete poetry interests me most insofar as the material informs (has conceptual power, or in its particular plasticity alters the flow of information...).
"A plastic poem must change the reading space in such a way that the one who reads is forced to make amends for new structures in his or her virtual path."
The problem of achieving constant novelty and constant disruption? Avoiding easily recognized, easily "read" and categorized, forms? Anarchy too quickly devolving into the expected pattern, easily imbibed. Ditto constant novelty for novelty's sake (or is this the form at the utmost limit of deformation? how to keep the form densely charged with meaning and so disruption?). Another solution being to try to play with forms by verging on recognizable forms but preventing or at least problematizing resolution---setting up zones of indeterminacy (not exactly duckrabbits, something messier, not just oscillating between two immediately distinctly perceived forms---seems to be what the excerpt you show is doing).
So "hte" connects with the "fic" on the line below it to the far right. Interesting---so used to reading left-right and top-down that I wouldn't have thought of that on my own (though "tion" is easier to spot). I wonder what could be done with deformations (manic fractalizations, multidimensional twistings, spirallings, cuts holes burns and blank (or luminous stuffed) gaps within) on a crossword puzzle's matrix. though crossword puzzles hold next to no interest for me, oddly enough).
The overarching visual and syntactic form of the three columns a dialectic at first glance(most crudely: most conventional-connected / middle anarchic-disjunctive with more gaps and almost arrowlike triadic undulating form / in-between starting ironically with Hegel---then cycling back to the mesostic as the most conventionally/strictly formed determining the far left margin of the column, arrowlike triads emerging in the opening lines of the left column w/ every second line jutting out first to left then to right the pattern shifting, reversing and modulating itself in a complex play---with stray particles of words to the left and the normative beginning notice far to the topmost right / ambiguously seeming within the third column and likely to be noticed after "heart" which they appear to leap to then the blockage of "g w f h"---explained far down and in the next column by "hegel"... the third column and the ambiguous second quasi-column likewise interlocking the eye cycling and looping indeterminately between them---Hegel's initials themselves a play on the mesostic form).
A few years ago I think there was an MFA student at Brown working with multiple more-or-less chaotic columns and the ambiguous interplay between them / q. of order of reading / meaning-making. (It seemed intriguing and for a while I was trying to take it to its limit, filling almost all of the page---trying to see how much information, ambiguity, and complexity could be packed into a single page by the use of multiple columns.) I forget his name (for some reason I think it sounds like John Fredrick Nims, but that's obviously wrong), but I remember two of his lines went something like: "and shallow ripples, verily, / [something something] the grammar of halcyon"
Not "awake unto you" but "a wake unto you" (a, wake unto you? a. wake unto you)
Maybe this is just a personal association, but I'm reminded of Celan's poem on meeting Heidegger, "Todtnauberg"---particularly die in dies Buch / geschriebene Zeile von / einer Hoffnung, heute, / auf eines Denkenden / kommendes / Wort / im Herzen,
njyaw
I am not quite sure where the commentator named Paula saw references to Wordsworth, Whitman or Baudelaire. The reference to Apollinaire, on the other hand, is quite appropriate since a chunk of modernist poetry considered visual (from *cough*John Hollander*cough* to Haroldo da Campos to Öyvind Fahlström) can be traced back to him.
This stuff looks quite interesting. On first skimming the surface of the pages that smith offers on her own website, what I find immediately intruiging is how word fragments sprawled over the page set up relations between spots, and so they actively seem to get you to let your vision wander - in the example here it's "ac" or "fic" and "tion", which are very far apart, that opened up my reading. It seems to work well because the densities and the amounts of fragments that you as a reader could combine seem to be quite controlled. If it would have been lots and lots of word fragments like that, I might actually perhaps be less seduced into jumping around - actively I mean, with trying to make sense of haphazard connections and all that. But by the time my reading eye has made 1 such jump successfully, I feel already out of the left->right up->down habit. (Less sure about the typo in german on pdf page 2 - durcchscheinende? can't parse the double c there. or is that some kind of faux italification? especially with this sort of writing that's so broken up anyway, such questions are a bit annoying)
Steven --
I've always wanted to get a bunch of critics, chain them to a desk, project a poem on the wall and track their eye movements. I don't think left-to-right top-to-bottom reading lasts very long with a poem, especially anything after Pound.
My guess (anyone?) that someone enocuntering a poem begins at top left but very soon starts jumping around, collating the poem in fragments and organizing them in the brain without the page as guide.
I've always wanted to get a bunch of critics, chain them to a desk, project a poem on the wall and track their eye movements. I don't think left-to-right top-to-bottom reading lasts very long with a poem, especially anything after Pound.
My guess (anyone?) that someone enocuntering a poem begins at top left but very soon starts jumping around, collating the poem in fragments and organizing them in the brain without the page as guide.
great sleuthing, shanna! i could immediately see it was german but never would've made the reference to corinthians...
paula's comments strike me as intersting in some respects: yes, perhaps ron's comparisons of OFC's preface to those of canonic giants like wordsworth et al are a bit hasty and could be moderated by ones to contemporaries, but few contemporaries immediately come to mind. (jennifer moxley's imagination verses?) also the language of weak/strong poet is a bit too bloomian/oedipal for my taste.
but i also question paula's term "specious," which suggests smoke-and-mirrors or appearance-over-substance. quite the contrary, the argument/case for plastic poetry strikes me as quite sound and substantial. its discourse may be academic, but i don't immediately equate that with a bid for academic legitimacy.
paula's comments strike me as intersting in some respects: yes, perhaps ron's comparisons of OFC's preface to those of canonic giants like wordsworth et al are a bit hasty and could be moderated by ones to contemporaries, but few contemporaries immediately come to mind. (jennifer moxley's imagination verses?) also the language of weak/strong poet is a bit too bloomian/oedipal for my taste.
but i also question paula's term "specious," which suggests smoke-and-mirrors or appearance-over-substance. quite the contrary, the argument/case for plastic poetry strikes me as quite sound and substantial. its discourse may be academic, but i don't immediately equate that with a bid for academic legitimacy.
ron, you wrote:
"One of my great complaints about younger poets over the past 20 years has been that far too few are trying to do as much as they might. The very absence of literary group formations is a sign of same, given that one of the primary consequences of any literary movement is that it gets all of its participants’ adrenaline running, so that everyone is performing at the peak of their potential, precisely because they feel challenged to go beyond their comfort zones."
...which reminds me of remarks you've made before (in your 1998 philly talk with jeff derksen for example), but i'm here struck in this most recent formulation by the way you align the "adrenaline" of group activity with "peak performance." this implies to me that when the group is feeding of mutual energy and excitement that they're all also producing their best work, no? (unless by performing at their peak you don't mean doing their best work exactly...)
because as much as i admire your work and that of your language poety peers from, say, 1976-1988, i think a case could be made that many of them (yourself included) have produced their "best work" or moved into their "mature work" since that time -- far more than during the above-mentioned years, the peak of langpo's group activity.
i'm intrigued by these notions of reach over quality, new over perfect too, and am trying to fit them together with peak performance as you describe it, the opposite of which might be longevity or stamina or duration or something. clearly these are not seamlessly overlayable oppositions, but i'm wondering, as opposed to a model of production where group energy fosters reach and innovation,... are there any models you admire that favored the individual laboring for quality consolidation over the long haul? (oppen immediately comes to mind maybe, or celan...)
curious,
tom
"One of my great complaints about younger poets over the past 20 years has been that far too few are trying to do as much as they might. The very absence of literary group formations is a sign of same, given that one of the primary consequences of any literary movement is that it gets all of its participants’ adrenaline running, so that everyone is performing at the peak of their potential, precisely because they feel challenged to go beyond their comfort zones."
...which reminds me of remarks you've made before (in your 1998 philly talk with jeff derksen for example), but i'm here struck in this most recent formulation by the way you align the "adrenaline" of group activity with "peak performance." this implies to me that when the group is feeding of mutual energy and excitement that they're all also producing their best work, no? (unless by performing at their peak you don't mean doing their best work exactly...)
because as much as i admire your work and that of your language poety peers from, say, 1976-1988, i think a case could be made that many of them (yourself included) have produced their "best work" or moved into their "mature work" since that time -- far more than during the above-mentioned years, the peak of langpo's group activity.
i'm intrigued by these notions of reach over quality, new over perfect too, and am trying to fit them together with peak performance as you describe it, the opposite of which might be longevity or stamina or duration or something. clearly these are not seamlessly overlayable oppositions, but i'm wondering, as opposed to a model of production where group energy fosters reach and innovation,... are there any models you admire that favored the individual laboring for quality consolidation over the long haul? (oppen immediately comes to mind maybe, or celan...)
curious,
tom
Andy, sweetie, Ron's comment still holds. You got to look at the work before you make the judgment call.
Now as far as self-publishing and Lulu, I have self-published since I was 19. I have not ever had a problem with the DIY style of things or going through publishers or record distributers. I am open to it all. And, for me, it's good to get work out to the world in all ways possible, whether it's in little zines, mags, mix tapes, or national campaigns. It's all nutritious and delicious, and has nothing to do with whether something is good or not.
I also deal with art like I deal with people - openly.
Like you, for instance, I get what you're saying. You don't think people should self-publish. You think people who are 25 can't produce good poetry. That's cool. It hasn't been my experience though. I've met great artists in every genre at every age who publish in zines, show in galleries, or have major label deals.
There simply aren't absolutes in anything. You'd be surprised how many wonderful artists are young throughout history and also self-published to boot.
I wish you the best with everything.
Sincerely,
Pirooz
Now as far as self-publishing and Lulu, I have self-published since I was 19. I have not ever had a problem with the DIY style of things or going through publishers or record distributers. I am open to it all. And, for me, it's good to get work out to the world in all ways possible, whether it's in little zines, mags, mix tapes, or national campaigns. It's all nutritious and delicious, and has nothing to do with whether something is good or not.
I also deal with art like I deal with people - openly.
Like you, for instance, I get what you're saying. You don't think people should self-publish. You think people who are 25 can't produce good poetry. That's cool. It hasn't been my experience though. I've met great artists in every genre at every age who publish in zines, show in galleries, or have major label deals.
There simply aren't absolutes in anything. You'd be surprised how many wonderful artists are young throughout history and also self-published to boot.
I wish you the best with everything.
Sincerely,
Pirooz
Ah, ombilic--you've zeroed in on an exact location! I think this book will be fun for those who've lived, or live, in Buffalo, Boston, Berlin, Birmingham, etc. for that reason--that the text is a path of crumbs, but you might have your own feelings/memories to bring on the trail too (a la Cage's Europeras).
Samuel, in general, spellings are correct and there aren't typos, at least in this text. In others of my texts, like "Evolocution," there are typos (on purpose).
Samuel, in general, spellings are correct and there aren't typos, at least in this text. In others of my texts, like "Evolocution," there are typos (on purpose).
another for ombilic--memory palaces interest me, and are a part of my imagination, but here i mean virtual in a very easy sense, as in "virtual reality." if you read the entire essay, there's a substantial paragraph explaining what I mean by virtual (I point this out because I worked on the paragraph with Ming-Qian Ma for months... so I refer you to the text).
Missed that "hte," yup. A lapse.
The graveyard of German Idealism: I suspected, but Ombilic got there afore me.
Our fact-checkers confirm that the mesotic is Joyce, on a similarly grave topic.
Jessica: Does it bug you that this passage actually confirms some habits of reading I have (rather than disrupt or rupture them)?
Put another way: integritas, proportio, claritas: the old Catholic trio. Plus faith (on internal evidence, but) the author ain't just kicking up her heels.
O sure, this passage. I suspect there are others.
The graveyard of German Idealism: I suspected, but Ombilic got there afore me.
Our fact-checkers confirm that the mesotic is Joyce, on a similarly grave topic.
Jessica: Does it bug you that this passage actually confirms some habits of reading I have (rather than disrupt or rupture them)?
Put another way: integritas, proportio, claritas: the old Catholic trio. Plus faith (on internal evidence, but) the author ain't just kicking up her heels.
O sure, this passage. I suspect there are others.
Jessica -- Have you ever read any of the plastic poems in your new book aloud at a reading? If you were to do it, would it take more than one person? Would you use the poem as a score? Or is the form only possible visually? Forgive me if you addressed any of this in the preface that ron linked us to -- I haven't had a chance to read it in its entirety yet.
Incidentally---Ron's first excerpt from Doyle a few posts back reminded me of Arakawa and Gins (on life, on Immortatility (su de O makaira meidiaisas' athanato prosopoi ere' otti deute popontha kotti deute kalemmi kotti moi malista thelo genesthai mainolai thumoi. poikilo' thron' athanat' Aphrodita pai dios doloploka, lissomai se
me m'asaisi med' oniaisi damna
potnia thumon. alla tuid' elth' ai pota katerota tas emas audos aioisa peloi eklues, patros de domon lipoisa chrusion elthes arm' updeuxaisa. kaloi de s'agon okees strouthoi peri gas melainas pukna dinnentes pter' ap oranothe--ros dia messo--)---against death).
"(I point this out because I worked on the paragraph with Ming-Qian Ma for months... so I refer you to the text)."
Without even a pee break?
That's intense.
You are a true poet.
Or as Harold Bloom (since he's come up again, withered and ridiculous as he may be) would say (his flabby palm (tremulous as the bloodswollen shaking-on-the-verge-of-exploding(honey)-at-the-end-of-the-mind) slipping sweatily down your thigh in his kitchen as you teeter on the verge of being as politically savvy as bush sr. and puking in his lap) might say: [this proves] You're one of the Elect (of the uber-populist, unelected variety...).
Your explanation of what you mean by "virtual" in that essay seems to make clear sense, though I pairing it with "virtual reality" is a little misleading (and calling it a "virtual space"---hmmm... since you're dealing with the flows / interconnections of letters which can be mapped onto spatialized words in the mind's eye I guess you're right, though there's certainly a tension between words/sentences as spatial configurations of more basic graphemic units / visual syntactic flows and the concept abstracted from / on the open edge of visualized words (the deep Word is imageless?). I wonder how it relates to Deleuze's distinction between the virtual and actual....
Are you familiar with the work Robert Coover's been directing in Brown's virtual reality Cave? (actual virtual reality...)
evqiu
me m'asaisi med' oniaisi damna
potnia thumon. alla tuid' elth' ai pota katerota tas emas audos aioisa peloi eklues, patros de domon lipoisa chrusion elthes arm' updeuxaisa. kaloi de s'agon okees strouthoi peri gas melainas pukna dinnentes pter' ap oranothe--ros dia messo--)---against death).
"(I point this out because I worked on the paragraph with Ming-Qian Ma for months... so I refer you to the text)."
Without even a pee break?
That's intense.
You are a true poet.
Or as Harold Bloom (since he's come up again, withered and ridiculous as he may be) would say (his flabby palm (tremulous as the bloodswollen shaking-on-the-verge-of-exploding(honey)-at-the-end-of-the-mind) slipping sweatily down your thigh in his kitchen as you teeter on the verge of being as politically savvy as bush sr. and puking in his lap) might say: [this proves] You're one of the Elect (of the uber-populist, unelected variety...).
Your explanation of what you mean by "virtual" in that essay seems to make clear sense, though I pairing it with "virtual reality" is a little misleading (and calling it a "virtual space"---hmmm... since you're dealing with the flows / interconnections of letters which can be mapped onto spatialized words in the mind's eye I guess you're right, though there's certainly a tension between words/sentences as spatial configurations of more basic graphemic units / visual syntactic flows and the concept abstracted from / on the open edge of visualized words (the deep Word is imageless?). I wonder how it relates to Deleuze's distinction between the virtual and actual....
Are you familiar with the work Robert Coover's been directing in Brown's virtual reality Cave? (actual virtual reality...)
evqiu
The first example shown reminds of me of nothign so much as Cage's experiments with chance-deteremined typographic spacing, such as in "Empty Words," or the late mesostics, or some of the performance texts in "Silence" and "A Year from Monday," in which the spaces are part of the performance, reading as silence.
It's very interesting, quite ambitious, and I find the second exceprt that Mr. Silliman poste to be quite striking, and I plan to go look at it in detail—but at the moment, it seems to me very familiar rather than innovatively new. I have d.a. levy's concrete poetry collection from the 70s on my shelves, and see some debts there, as well as in Cage.
It's very interesting, quite ambitious, and I find the second exceprt that Mr. Silliman poste to be quite striking, and I plan to go look at it in detail—but at the moment, it seems to me very familiar rather than innovatively new. I have d.a. levy's concrete poetry collection from the 70s on my shelves, and see some debts there, as well as in Cage.
Jessica -- Glad to have possibly helped or at least interested you with my mention of the fovea and saccadic movements.
For you or anyone else who is curious to read more about saccadic movements, see Noton, David and Stark, Lawrence, “Eye Movements and Visual Perception,” in Image, Object, and Illusion: Readings From Scientific American (San Francisco: H. Freeman and Co., 1974), page 113 (or you can find the article in the June 1971 issue of Scientific American).
For you or anyone else who is curious to read more about saccadic movements, see Noton, David and Stark, Lawrence, “Eye Movements and Visual Perception,” in Image, Object, and Illusion: Readings From Scientific American (San Francisco: H. Freeman and Co., 1974), page 113 (or you can find the article in the June 1971 issue of Scientific American).
Kirk: "Does it bug you that this passage actually confirms some habits of reading I have?" -- What a good question. No, it doesn't. I like all the various awarenesses that come out of trying to read it. It reminds me of the pleasure of first learning to read (when one was very young)--stumbling over words, the exuberence of "finding" one--like a treasure hunt! It's not that I want to disrupt the reader's habits to force him or her change them, necessarily; I'm interested in the awareness. Yes, the mesostic text throughout this section ("Exile", it's the 4th chapter) is from Joyce. Often the context of the allusions is useful, or the use of the text afterwards (this specific text was used in Derrida's essay "Ulysses Grammophone"). (I promise that I thought about these poems.)
Nate: The free online version was up till December 2005, when I decided to publish it myself. Since there's lots of debt now on my credit card from funding the thing, it'll be awhile before there's another free version. If you go to a university you can speed up this process of debt-reduction-->free-.pdf by asking your university library to order the book. Eh?
Sam, Om, Art- thanks. Art- I love Cage.
Ombilic-- Yes, Coover, he's awesome, huh? I don't have the skills for that, sadly. But I kind of like having to work within the constraints of my tech knowledge. Constraints can be useful.
LBehrendt - great question. I'm still experimenting with different ways to read the text, and haven't found a way with which I'm completely satisfied. I've long been fascinated by the tension between score and performance, so perhaps it's appropriate that I'm never satisfied. I didn't address the problem of performance in OFC, but there are a couple of short essays on my website about it. Anyway, I'll be doing some readings this fall (Buffalo, Toronto, DC, and SF, it looks like) if you're near those places and want to check it out. I'll probably even make you participate, so wear clothes that you don't mind getting dirty.
Steven--thanks for the reference. I'll "look" into it.
Thanks for your questions and comments, guys. It's much more fun to be a live author than a dead one. I hope that some of you will get to read the text, and I hope you'll have fun with it.
Nate: The free online version was up till December 2005, when I decided to publish it myself. Since there's lots of debt now on my credit card from funding the thing, it'll be awhile before there's another free version. If you go to a university you can speed up this process of debt-reduction-->free-.pdf by asking your university library to order the book. Eh?
Sam, Om, Art- thanks. Art- I love Cage.
Ombilic-- Yes, Coover, he's awesome, huh? I don't have the skills for that, sadly. But I kind of like having to work within the constraints of my tech knowledge. Constraints can be useful.
LBehrendt - great question. I'm still experimenting with different ways to read the text, and haven't found a way with which I'm completely satisfied. I've long been fascinated by the tension between score and performance, so perhaps it's appropriate that I'm never satisfied. I didn't address the problem of performance in OFC, but there are a couple of short essays on my website about it. Anyway, I'll be doing some readings this fall (Buffalo, Toronto, DC, and SF, it looks like) if you're near those places and want to check it out. I'll probably even make you participate, so wear clothes that you don't mind getting dirty.
Steven--thanks for the reference. I'll "look" into it.
Thanks for your questions and comments, guys. It's much more fun to be a live author than a dead one. I hope that some of you will get to read the text, and I hope you'll have fun with it.
There seems to be an interesting new phenomenon going on here--the comment list is hijacked not by crazies but by the person whose book is under review/discussion. This is like every novice creative writer's dream--to have a public forum to justify what should stand on its own and be at least somewhat self-evident. I'm so reminded of my beginning creative writing students who make the rest of the class guess what's going on in the poem, making a game of it....thus avoiding real criticism.
To me, this seems like one of the more productive and interesting discussions to ever occur in Ron's comment fields, spicergirl. Since you have not read the book, I don't think you have any grounds for "real criticism" yet. I'm so reminded of my beginning English Lit students, who go off half-cocked without textual evidence to back them up.
Jessica - cangratulations on (what appears to be - from here -I can only see the excerpt) a fascinating book - a lot of the theory evades me (and i dont know any German and haven't read much of either Hegel or of Derrida -I read one sentence from a book once that I have, by Derrida -then I shut the book... but the point is what is useful to the writer - it doesn't necessarily matter if you didn't "think about" your poem (obviously you did)) but/and I was as interested in that Japanese house - and I can see the link to McCaffery (that's fascinating thing he did also) how it goes more toward the random - toward noise - I find a lot of the theory difficult but I have no problem with that - this comes from the "language" tradition and adds a lot from the look of it. There is nothing wrong with self publishing.
Some of the Langauge poets and others have intergrated theory and practice in what are kinds of "poessays". My regards. Richard Taylor (NZ)
Some of the Langauge poets and others have intergrated theory and practice in what are kinds of "poessays". My regards. Richard Taylor (NZ)
The ‘exile’ section of OFC was intended as a riff off Cage’s Roaratorio, a work specifically named in the acknowledgments section, which used mesostics of the name ‘James Joyce’ along with fragments of Finnegan’s Wake determined by chance operations to make a text free of intention. It’s not hard to see how this approach would be an opening for Plastic Poetry, since Roaratorio not only theoretically handed the reins of interpretation completely over to the reader (or the listener), with the guarantee of no intervention from an author who says ‘this is what I really meant,’ but is in practice a work that holds up to everyday listening and interpretative resonance that is both light and weighty in turns.
‘exile’ from which ‘Hades’ is excerpted utilizes texts from Joyce’s Ulysses and its corresponding chapter headings, with the other difference that instead of Cage’s horizontal mapping of the Finnegan’s Wake text, ‘exile’ uses the Plastic Poetry method of trying to steer Cage’s methods closer to the workings of the mind. The texts don’t seem to come from chance operations but have the same end result, so it follows naturally that the vispo ‘node’ of vertical reading would have the same Cagean connotive system.
Also interesting is that she said recently that the Plastic Poetry preface is not directed at readers versed in her direct influences, perhaps not wanting such readers to regiment their perception of the page strategy. Both in Roaratorio and in OFC, the open-ended interpretation of the text is accompanied by the author’s very painstaking elucidation of the form, method, and the expectations of the reader, but these explanations are essential because of the prodding readers need to experience a text free of manipulation.
Jessica’s interest in representing the workings of the mind in vispo lead her to a section of mappings (Archipelago) that she likens in her preface to a riddle of literal topography rather than existing within the descriptive tradition of Apollinaire’s calligrams. Where this appears to lead her in successive years is to a mapping of the brain through vispo, leading her closer to creating pictures of the universal thought-experiences of place, memory, love, nature and mutability. Though OFC doesn’t often reference memory, perhaps the mental process most conducive to painterly manipulation, a Proust phase led thereafter to ‘butterflies,’ a limited edition chapbook that needs to be reprinted, that creates a page-image of memory’s flows and fragility.
Jessica founded and edited ‘name’ at Buffalo which was partially bankrolled out of the pockets of Creeley and Bernstein and is by far the best college magazine I have ever read, and I still have never heard a Buffalo grad say (1) self-published work is suspect and (2) young people shouldn’t write manifestos. A majority of new ideas in poetry have come from some form of self-publication and the fact that people consider themselves authorities on literature while disputing this shows how parallel, self-perpetuating mythologies have taken shape at other more expensive schools that bear no relation to the vital history of literature. To my knowledge, this is the first book-length effort published by that group including Chris Fritton, Tarwin Baker, Matt Chambers, Kevin Thurston, and several others and self-publication was precisely what it took to get a book of this quality, which was sent to various presses, out amongst the ‘trees killed for dead wood’ poetry industry.
For those who love art for the experiment, OFC both produces its own and builds on clearly referenced experiments of the recent past, and is very economical in this way: there’s nothing in this work that doesn’t in some way relate to experiment. As such it’s relatively devoid of confession and self-reflection, but her blog and memoir ‘Discourse Networks’ take the confessional mode of reportage to levels that involve gut-wrenching candor that out-confesses the confessional school. Ron’s review lends his precision to where OFC is new and where it is working off influences of recent experiments, and also confirms that I wasn’t hallucinating when I began to think last weekend that this book I ordered last January is a seminal work.
‘exile’ from which ‘Hades’ is excerpted utilizes texts from Joyce’s Ulysses and its corresponding chapter headings, with the other difference that instead of Cage’s horizontal mapping of the Finnegan’s Wake text, ‘exile’ uses the Plastic Poetry method of trying to steer Cage’s methods closer to the workings of the mind. The texts don’t seem to come from chance operations but have the same end result, so it follows naturally that the vispo ‘node’ of vertical reading would have the same Cagean connotive system.
Also interesting is that she said recently that the Plastic Poetry preface is not directed at readers versed in her direct influences, perhaps not wanting such readers to regiment their perception of the page strategy. Both in Roaratorio and in OFC, the open-ended interpretation of the text is accompanied by the author’s very painstaking elucidation of the form, method, and the expectations of the reader, but these explanations are essential because of the prodding readers need to experience a text free of manipulation.
Jessica’s interest in representing the workings of the mind in vispo lead her to a section of mappings (Archipelago) that she likens in her preface to a riddle of literal topography rather than existing within the descriptive tradition of Apollinaire’s calligrams. Where this appears to lead her in successive years is to a mapping of the brain through vispo, leading her closer to creating pictures of the universal thought-experiences of place, memory, love, nature and mutability. Though OFC doesn’t often reference memory, perhaps the mental process most conducive to painterly manipulation, a Proust phase led thereafter to ‘butterflies,’ a limited edition chapbook that needs to be reprinted, that creates a page-image of memory’s flows and fragility.
Jessica founded and edited ‘name’ at Buffalo which was partially bankrolled out of the pockets of Creeley and Bernstein and is by far the best college magazine I have ever read, and I still have never heard a Buffalo grad say (1) self-published work is suspect and (2) young people shouldn’t write manifestos. A majority of new ideas in poetry have come from some form of self-publication and the fact that people consider themselves authorities on literature while disputing this shows how parallel, self-perpetuating mythologies have taken shape at other more expensive schools that bear no relation to the vital history of literature. To my knowledge, this is the first book-length effort published by that group including Chris Fritton, Tarwin Baker, Matt Chambers, Kevin Thurston, and several others and self-publication was precisely what it took to get a book of this quality, which was sent to various presses, out amongst the ‘trees killed for dead wood’ poetry industry.
For those who love art for the experiment, OFC both produces its own and builds on clearly referenced experiments of the recent past, and is very economical in this way: there’s nothing in this work that doesn’t in some way relate to experiment. As such it’s relatively devoid of confession and self-reflection, but her blog and memoir ‘Discourse Networks’ take the confessional mode of reportage to levels that involve gut-wrenching candor that out-confesses the confessional school. Ron’s review lends his precision to where OFC is new and where it is working off influences of recent experiments, and also confirms that I wasn’t hallucinating when I began to think last weekend that this book I ordered last January is a seminal work.
JS sezzz
"To me, this seems like one of the more productive and interesting discussions to ever occur in Ron's comment fields, spicergirl."
well, no shit, jessica--its about you.
"To me, this seems like one of the more productive and interesting discussions to ever occur in Ron's comment fields, spicergirl."
well, no shit, jessica--its about you.
Since Artaud’s oatmeal has already lowblowed against Jessica this month, I was afraid that the other anonymous cowards who degrade the legacy of the writers names they use would miss out, so it’s good to see Spicergirl hasn’t missed a beat, except that I feel sorry for her creative writing students. Spicer would have a lot to say to you, none of it nice.
DF Bradley, whose chauvinism is well documented and has already spawned petitions, is an example of how low-tech anti-erudition rebel poses can be used in the service of traditionalist reaction to literary experiment. Again, I feel sorry for the students that pay to learn English spelling and grammar and get excuses from DFB instead.
If one of you would like to demonstrate that the poet interview should be abolished, and therefore should not be mimicked in a comment field, that would be relevant, but I don’t expect either of you to expand much from the core theme of petty bitterness.
DF Bradley, whose chauvinism is well documented and has already spawned petitions, is an example of how low-tech anti-erudition rebel poses can be used in the service of traditionalist reaction to literary experiment. Again, I feel sorry for the students that pay to learn English spelling and grammar and get excuses from DFB instead.
If one of you would like to demonstrate that the poet interview should be abolished, and therefore should not be mimicked in a comment field, that would be relevant, but I don’t expect either of you to expand much from the core theme of petty bitterness.
I can only speak for myself with respect to how we see paintings and pages, but I think my eye typically goes to the highest intensity area of an artwork: I.e., to the brightest or most formally disjunctive portion of a flat field, such as an area of light against dark, or the obverse. I think that’s instinctual—like looking for an animal’s head first, then at the rest of its body. Then comes recognition of the familiar shapes held in memory’s wax museum. Then our contexts of association and meaning, and we’re 90% of the way home. With text pages, my eye first of all perceives the SHAPE of the text (words) on the page. That queues me into the initial context of the content: Poetry is usually not presented as paragraphic blocks. Look at the way poetry was published in the 19th Century, with those neat rectangular stanzas with enlarged first letters at the initial lines, the “sticky” typographic fonts, almost like classical architectural structures (pillars and lintels, etc.). Modern poets need to be sensitive to all these things, now that we can “choose” our fonts and the visual parameters.
I agree with Andy Mr. with respect to the suspicions of capital and vanity. I have said before that I totally respect the tendency to engage one’s audience through one’s own means—without relying on an editorial authority or granting body to legitimate one’s work. But the danger lies in presuming that the “quality” of the presentation somehow influences us to privilege its content beyond its inherent value. This is a pretty point, given that I also tend to believe the form and content are intimately linked, but the critic still has to make that separation, if possible, and imagine the alternate contexts in which work might appear. We had a big argument here some months back about Jeff Clark’s trade book, and it struck me that the work was being judged on its having been presented inside the traditional book context, rather than on its actual content (which I thought was bad writing at its worst). Had it been published by a small fugitive press, I think it would have been totally ignored as just another bit of apprentice work. IOW, we would have been thinking in terms of a painting being displayed as part of a major museum’s selection committee, rather than as hung in a dingy back alley gallery devoted to obscure toilers. I’m not saying Ms. Smith’s efforts are good or bad, since I haven’t had enough exposure to judge, but we need to be sensitive to the contexts of its production—but then, we need to do that always, not just with “vanity” productions.
I agree with Andy Mr. with respect to the suspicions of capital and vanity. I have said before that I totally respect the tendency to engage one’s audience through one’s own means—without relying on an editorial authority or granting body to legitimate one’s work. But the danger lies in presuming that the “quality” of the presentation somehow influences us to privilege its content beyond its inherent value. This is a pretty point, given that I also tend to believe the form and content are intimately linked, but the critic still has to make that separation, if possible, and imagine the alternate contexts in which work might appear. We had a big argument here some months back about Jeff Clark’s trade book, and it struck me that the work was being judged on its having been presented inside the traditional book context, rather than on its actual content (which I thought was bad writing at its worst). Had it been published by a small fugitive press, I think it would have been totally ignored as just another bit of apprentice work. IOW, we would have been thinking in terms of a painting being displayed as part of a major museum’s selection committee, rather than as hung in a dingy back alley gallery devoted to obscure toilers. I’m not saying Ms. Smith’s efforts are good or bad, since I haven’t had enough exposure to judge, but we need to be sensitive to the contexts of its production—but then, we need to do that always, not just with “vanity” productions.
hi ian - i love how the little pupils of the system think cuz i put education on my profile it means i teach this shit to people - did i mention you should see my penis? i use this great product i found on the internet - i can sell you some - if you want to talk about poems pal that is free as in i ain't selling you shit (like a parent-funded book) but i bet you already have paid too much for your poet decoder ring
any way gotta go now – i have chauvinism endowed
any way gotta go now – i have chauvinism endowed
not really much of "danger" there, tho, is there curtis? i mean, no matter who puts the thing out it's pretty much guaranteed some or even (gasp!) lots of people aren't going to like. some of them will even feel the need to be jerks about it. one can't really control the response, but one can control the presentation.
really that's the same risk we all face just getting out of bed every morning.
i only rec'd my copy of OFC yesterday, so i'm gonna reserve comment on the poems for now. hell, maybe i'll even keep it to myself. i'm sure nobody's *dying* to know what i think. ;)
really that's the same risk we all face just getting out of bed every morning.
i only rec'd my copy of OFC yesterday, so i'm gonna reserve comment on the poems for now. hell, maybe i'll even keep it to myself. i'm sure nobody's *dying* to know what i think. ;)
Discourse on vanity publishing presupposes that the work is a vain gesture of dubious merit, but Curtis, we’re talking about a book that has been rejected by the poetry presses but has been praised by Ron Silliman, Charles Bernstein, Lisa Jarnot, Juliana Spahr, Christian Bok, etc etc, none of whom own a press.
There is no question that there is a class divide in the arts, but your friend Andy Mr.’s main point is not class but rather that this book, written by an author that is more politically sympathetic to the poor than you, is not deserving of publication. What about that dilettante Oppen, should Discrete Series not have come out?
Anyone who owns a computer can read the pdf sample of this book, as well as other works of hers, on her site for free and thus grapple with the text rather than an abstraction of the economic circumstances of publication.
There is no question that there is a class divide in the arts, but your friend Andy Mr.’s main point is not class but rather that this book, written by an author that is more politically sympathetic to the poor than you, is not deserving of publication. What about that dilettante Oppen, should Discrete Series not have come out?
Anyone who owns a computer can read the pdf sample of this book, as well as other works of hers, on her site for free and thus grapple with the text rather than an abstraction of the economic circumstances of publication.
I don't see that money has much to do with it, since there's POD. Anyone with $10 can make a perfect-bound book.
Ian, don't forget Blake, Whitman, Berrigan, Pound, (Wyndham) Lewis, Hejinian, the Waldrops, and gee I'm tired. All self published, and as far as I know, they used real money to do it.
there is no need to hate on jessica's blog / poetic project, or to be belittle her self-publishing endeavors as "egomania." on her blog, she says that she is sometimes worried that editors/presses might not represent her work in a way that allows the full vision of the work to manifest...so she did it herself...so it's not egomania, but a deep concern for the work and its vision that drives the endeavor. APPLAUD THAT. and really, imagine the work and anxiety that goes into this "DIY" approach...not "egomania" at all, but passion and determination.
on the other hand, let's not conflate a "DIY" approach with automatic "importance." The fact that Jessica shows ambition should not make us "predisposed" to responding positively. As much as Ron fetishizes ambition, i am hardly convinced that poetry is or ever should be 80% ambition and 20% quality.
*
"OFC might not be the best written book of 2006, but it almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most. And that means that it just may be the most important book this year as well."
IF this is a review, i want to know why Ron thinks OFC "might not be" the best written book of 06. why not? is it only because "it places much more of the responsibility for meaning onto the reader"?
*
ron is disappointed that younger poets are not as ambitious as they "might be" and they don't have "literary formation" and lack adrenaline (since when do you need adrenaline to write poetry?)(oh wait, poetry is 80% adrenaline and only 20% quality). this doesnt strike me as true...just surfing through blogland and e-journals there are many many "formations" and manifestoes -- that's the thing, though, there are SO MANY that their powers are so diffuse and inconsequential. Seems to be a generational gap here.
*
so, i wanted to say something about the poems themselves. i enjoyed reading OFC because it disrupted my virtual field in the same way that architecture and sculpture disrupt an active person’s real, physical field. It changed my reading space in such a way that the one who reads (me!) is forced to make amends for new structures in his or her virtual path.
Essentially, i like the work because i like being forced to do things. and i have a deep dark fetish for being disrupted and making amends. which is to say, Ron is right: it does come down to one's sensibility (yeah, what doesnt!).
*
I agree that the preface works in parallel with Whitman / Wordsworth, etc...but i also agree that the tone is quite different. OFC's preface/intro is an academic essay that attempts to differentiate OFC from being mistaken as plain old Vispo. it is sooooo much more. i actually like it as an essay, but think it might go better at the end of the book, just because the tone is so pedagogical (like i have to listen to a lecture before reading the poems) and doesn't leave anything for me to "experience"...the poems already perform much of what the essay argues...so that makes it feel like the essay does not arise organically from the cellar of the poems, but instead is there to historicize and academically legimatimize the poetry. Jessica's poetry is strong enough to not need either.
*
Ron says:
"Meaning here doesn’t form & wait for the reading mind, but rather offers clusters of potential, some more straightforward than others, some more subtle than others."
with a few people trying to figure out the connections between hegel, ottilie and fichte, and jessica playfully saying they are getting warmer, highlights both the playful puzzleness of the work, and that THERE IS a meaning, already formed, WAITING. in this sense, no "clusters of potential" but either HOT (right meaning) or COLD (wrong meaning).
enough, BUY THE BOOK not only because it is engaging poetry (i would say it's 80 % quality and 20% essay)...BUT ALSO BECAUSE IF JESSICA MAKES ENOUGH FROM IT, OUTSIDE VOICES CAN PUBLISH MORE BOOKS!
peace & quietude
on the other hand, let's not conflate a "DIY" approach with automatic "importance." The fact that Jessica shows ambition should not make us "predisposed" to responding positively. As much as Ron fetishizes ambition, i am hardly convinced that poetry is or ever should be 80% ambition and 20% quality.
*
"OFC might not be the best written book of 2006, but it almost certainly is the one that wants to do the most. And that means that it just may be the most important book this year as well."
IF this is a review, i want to know why Ron thinks OFC "might not be" the best written book of 06. why not? is it only because "it places much more of the responsibility for meaning onto the reader"?
*
ron is disappointed that younger poets are not as ambitious as they "might be" and they don't have "literary formation" and lack adrenaline (since when do you need adrenaline to write poetry?)(oh wait, poetry is 80% adrenaline and only 20% quality). this doesnt strike me as true...just surfing through blogland and e-journals there are many many "formations" and manifestoes -- that's the thing, though, there are SO MANY that their powers are so diffuse and inconsequential. Seems to be a generational gap here.
*
so, i wanted to say something about the poems themselves. i enjoyed reading OFC because it disrupted my virtual field in the same way that architecture and sculpture disrupt an active person’s real, physical field. It changed my reading space in such a way that the one who reads (me!) is forced to make amends for new structures in his or her virtual path.
Essentially, i like the work because i like being forced to do things. and i have a deep dark fetish for being disrupted and making amends. which is to say, Ron is right: it does come down to one's sensibility (yeah, what doesnt!).
*
I agree that the preface works in parallel with Whitman / Wordsworth, etc...but i also agree that the tone is quite different. OFC's preface/intro is an academic essay that attempts to differentiate OFC from being mistaken as plain old Vispo. it is sooooo much more. i actually like it as an essay, but think it might go better at the end of the book, just because the tone is so pedagogical (like i have to listen to a lecture before reading the poems) and doesn't leave anything for me to "experience"...the poems already perform much of what the essay argues...so that makes it feel like the essay does not arise organically from the cellar of the poems, but instead is there to historicize and academically legimatimize the poetry. Jessica's poetry is strong enough to not need either.
*
Ron says:
"Meaning here doesn’t form & wait for the reading mind, but rather offers clusters of potential, some more straightforward than others, some more subtle than others."
with a few people trying to figure out the connections between hegel, ottilie and fichte, and jessica playfully saying they are getting warmer, highlights both the playful puzzleness of the work, and that THERE IS a meaning, already formed, WAITING. in this sense, no "clusters of potential" but either HOT (right meaning) or COLD (wrong meaning).
enough, BUY THE BOOK not only because it is engaging poetry (i would say it's 80 % quality and 20% essay)...BUT ALSO BECAUSE IF JESSICA MAKES ENOUGH FROM IT, OUTSIDE VOICES CAN PUBLISH MORE BOOKS!
peace & quietude
The increasingly negative tone which this comments stream has begun to take on, makes me hesitant to contribute further for fear that my remarks will inevitably be misconstrued.
As someone who is self-confessedly undecided about the merits of OFC, however, I do not believe that the strident way in which some of its more vociferous supporters have attempted to defend it do the book any favors. While I can well understand the desire to protect a friend -- and I am not blind to the fact that a number of regular commentators on Jessica's blog have now added their thoughts here -- such gestures may simply alienate those outside this circle.
François: I'm sorry you misunderstood my reference to Whitman, Wordsworth, and Baudelaire, but am also slightly puzzled. It was Ron who first introduced these names in his initial post as examples of "major" poets who had chosen to preface their work with explanatory materials. I therefore took it as read that at least some comparison between OFC and these writers was intended.
Tom: You are right to see "specious" as too severe. At the same time, I worry that an over reliance on academic discourse may be having a detrimental effect on how we think and write (about) poetry. In my time I have read large numbers of academic publications and am therefore only too aware how often the same theories are applied to writers of every stripe in order to reveal how supposedly transgressive their texts are, how well they interrogate issues of Otherness, etc. etc. Given how ingrained such tendencies now are in the Academy, I naturally become suspicious -- perhaps too much so -- when I encounter language of this type being used to introduce new poetic work. In the case of OFC -- a text which because it is self-published risks being dismissed as a "vanity" project out of hand -- it might be argued that the preface seeks to add some kind of legitimacy to a work which is otherwise "illegitimate" (at least in the eyes of some) because of its method of production.
Jessica: Thanks for responding to my earlier comment. I think you're absolutely right to argue that crafting one's poetics is essential to learning the craft of poetry, and I hope my misgivings don't strike you as unduly pessimistic or hostile.
As someone who is self-confessedly undecided about the merits of OFC, however, I do not believe that the strident way in which some of its more vociferous supporters have attempted to defend it do the book any favors. While I can well understand the desire to protect a friend -- and I am not blind to the fact that a number of regular commentators on Jessica's blog have now added their thoughts here -- such gestures may simply alienate those outside this circle.
François: I'm sorry you misunderstood my reference to Whitman, Wordsworth, and Baudelaire, but am also slightly puzzled. It was Ron who first introduced these names in his initial post as examples of "major" poets who had chosen to preface their work with explanatory materials. I therefore took it as read that at least some comparison between OFC and these writers was intended.
Tom: You are right to see "specious" as too severe. At the same time, I worry that an over reliance on academic discourse may be having a detrimental effect on how we think and write (about) poetry. In my time I have read large numbers of academic publications and am therefore only too aware how often the same theories are applied to writers of every stripe in order to reveal how supposedly transgressive their texts are, how well they interrogate issues of Otherness, etc. etc. Given how ingrained such tendencies now are in the Academy, I naturally become suspicious -- perhaps too much so -- when I encounter language of this type being used to introduce new poetic work. In the case of OFC -- a text which because it is self-published risks being dismissed as a "vanity" project out of hand -- it might be argued that the preface seeks to add some kind of legitimacy to a work which is otherwise "illegitimate" (at least in the eyes of some) because of its method of production.
Jessica: Thanks for responding to my earlier comment. I think you're absolutely right to argue that crafting one's poetics is essential to learning the craft of poetry, and I hope my misgivings don't strike you as unduly pessimistic or hostile.
Wow, I've never been called oatmeal before.
I wonder what Artaud (living perhaps in a largely virtual world (Virtual Reality and Schizophrenia?)) ate in the asylum after his teeth were gone. Yoghurt? Fruit juice? Thin soup, custard, and ice cream, no doubt. I wonder what type of soup. A nice chilled creamy bisque? did they love him that much? or lukewarm gruel? did they respect his genius enough for that? maybe salted pig's blood gotten for free at the local butcher, or chicken's blood from the nearest koshering center? (the duck blood I've had at Chinese restaurants is one of the tastiest foods I've ever had---I'd recommend Lakeside Chinese Deli in Philly, which is also gloriously cheap)
Hopefully they gave him some V8 juice---he definitely needed his veggies.
He also could have eaten firmer foods swallowed whole. The Vietnammese delicacy of a still-beating cobra heart cut out right in front of you (when
I saw it, the snake was pinned down and stretched out with long poles).
Sea urchin genitals also require minimal chewing. The Japanese eat them like candy.
Bone marrow is also soft and luscious.
Would oatmeal require too much chewing?
I can't honestly remember whether Artaud remembered to include taste in the actual engagement of all the senses in
the Theatre of Cruelty.
Every caress is a modified blow.
Honestly, I don't think I was being that harsh. There's a tradition (particularly in French and Scottish culture) of showing
respect and affection through mild mockery. (Some of the comments by other people are another story entirely, and actually meanspirited. Funny that she lives in the city of philos. Her fellow Philadelphian C. A. Conrad has always struck me in person as one of the nicest men I've ever met.) And even if all those medications she's on are psychiatric, her ego hardly seems fragile (and that's a good thing).
hajao
I wonder what Artaud (living perhaps in a largely virtual world (Virtual Reality and Schizophrenia?)) ate in the asylum after his teeth were gone. Yoghurt? Fruit juice? Thin soup, custard, and ice cream, no doubt. I wonder what type of soup. A nice chilled creamy bisque? did they love him that much? or lukewarm gruel? did they respect his genius enough for that? maybe salted pig's blood gotten for free at the local butcher, or chicken's blood from the nearest koshering center? (the duck blood I've had at Chinese restaurants is one of the tastiest foods I've ever had---I'd recommend Lakeside Chinese Deli in Philly, which is also gloriously cheap)
Hopefully they gave him some V8 juice---he definitely needed his veggies.
He also could have eaten firmer foods swallowed whole. The Vietnammese delicacy of a still-beating cobra heart cut out right in front of you (when
I saw it, the snake was pinned down and stretched out with long poles).
Sea urchin genitals also require minimal chewing. The Japanese eat them like candy.
Bone marrow is also soft and luscious.
Would oatmeal require too much chewing?
I can't honestly remember whether Artaud remembered to include taste in the actual engagement of all the senses in
the Theatre of Cruelty.
Every caress is a modified blow.
Honestly, I don't think I was being that harsh. There's a tradition (particularly in French and Scottish culture) of showing
respect and affection through mild mockery. (Some of the comments by other people are another story entirely, and actually meanspirited. Funny that she lives in the city of philos. Her fellow Philadelphian C. A. Conrad has always struck me in person as one of the nicest men I've ever met.) And even if all those medications she's on are psychiatric, her ego hardly seems fragile (and that's a good thing).
hajao
I look forward to reading the book. Seems interesting and controversial. Thank you, Ron, for letting us know about it.
Nevertheless, no matter how much I appreciate the democratic possibilities of critical/poetical exchange that blogging permits, I still think that the author should (at the most) witness what's being said without being so, say, "present" in the discussion. It surprises me to read that she herself says it's better to be "a live author" instead of a "dead one" and boast at the same time having read Derrida. Barthes, Foucault and Derrida had a specific idea of what "the dead of the Author" mant and that was not, in any way, what Smith seems to imply. (I suppose we are taking things seriously here).
It's just hilarious that she should say this is the best comment thread she had read here when the discussion is, precisely, about her book. Doesn't help much for her eager beaver, egomaniac reputation.
It's also funny she should refer to her experience with undergraduates (I have taught undergraduate textual analysis for six years, by the way) and their lack of "textual evidence" when being critical. The evidence quoted by Silliman here should be enoough, methinks. (I thought we were in a deconstructive context here, and that, seemingly, her "experimental" poetic work requires a great deal of readerly competence and interpretive work.) I was reminded of Paul de Man's anecdote of Derrida being corrected once about a text by Walter Benjamin he was misquoting in a seminar (the one on the Task of the Translator). Jacques Derrida's response was "doesn't matter; it means the same".
I am completey supportive of DIY publishing and admire young writers who have the courage to print, promote and distribute their own work. But, as csperez notes above, ambition alone should not be the only reason to value the work of a young poet.
Maybe she should let the work speak for itself (since she seems to believe that meaning lies in the text itself), instead of being so "alive". Some of us would rather stick to Foucault's idea of an Author.
Nevertheless, no matter how much I appreciate the democratic possibilities of critical/poetical exchange that blogging permits, I still think that the author should (at the most) witness what's being said without being so, say, "present" in the discussion. It surprises me to read that she herself says it's better to be "a live author" instead of a "dead one" and boast at the same time having read Derrida. Barthes, Foucault and Derrida had a specific idea of what "the dead of the Author" mant and that was not, in any way, what Smith seems to imply. (I suppose we are taking things seriously here).
It's just hilarious that she should say this is the best comment thread she had read here when the discussion is, precisely, about her book. Doesn't help much for her eager beaver, egomaniac reputation.
It's also funny she should refer to her experience with undergraduates (I have taught undergraduate textual analysis for six years, by the way) and their lack of "textual evidence" when being critical. The evidence quoted by Silliman here should be enoough, methinks. (I thought we were in a deconstructive context here, and that, seemingly, her "experimental" poetic work requires a great deal of readerly competence and interpretive work.) I was reminded of Paul de Man's anecdote of Derrida being corrected once about a text by Walter Benjamin he was misquoting in a seminar (the one on the Task of the Translator). Jacques Derrida's response was "doesn't matter; it means the same".
I am completey supportive of DIY publishing and admire young writers who have the courage to print, promote and distribute their own work. But, as csperez notes above, ambition alone should not be the only reason to value the work of a young poet.
Maybe she should let the work speak for itself (since she seems to believe that meaning lies in the text itself), instead of being so "alive". Some of us would rather stick to Foucault's idea of an Author.
hi ernesto. i think jessica said it was more fun to be alive than dead. gosh, i hope that's true!
imagine this as a big room if you will. all the poetry blogosphere. we're all standing in it, milling around, taking in little knots and clusters. hey, there's ron's in one corner, or maybe he's in the middle of the room, or near the hors d'oeuvres (he's not at the bar, he doesn't imbibe). anyway, clears he starts talking about a book, adressing the room, knowing full well the author is probably in the room. (everybody knows the author is in the room. she's in the room.) should we gag her and put her in the corner till we're through, ask her to go step outside for a while, or do we maybe turn to her at various points in the conversation to ask her questions (which folks have) or listen to her corrections/redirections (which she's given) in a kind of give and take, as things flow?
isn't that how conversation works?
i don't need to defend jessica against anything you've said because i don't think it's offensive (and even if i did, that's kind of pointless; she does fine). i'm just sort of puzzled by the idea that somebody who is the subject of a discussion *can't* participate in that discussion. in a "real" room it probably wouldn't work that way, and we wouldn't expect it to. we'd expect the discussee to pipe up at some point, if the discussion went wonky, or maybe if she got excited because she was pleased that people were reading her work.
to return to something paula said above (who's disagreed so politely and effectively at the same time) some of "us"--like me--are regulars at jessica's blog too, it's true. (j and i haven't met yet, but i'd call us friends.) still, i think we're all aware there are more people tuning in when we talk here. this might be ron's comment box, but we're all in here making gabbing noises. (& so are the vituperators, which is why they say what they say *here,* instead of at jessica's or on their own blogs, often under the cloak of anonimity. a wet-world experiment for those peeps: try that at a party! show up in a mask and see how many people will want to engage with you, particularly if you're extra grumpy. just sayin.)
obviously i am procrastinating today when i should be working.
imagine this as a big room if you will. all the poetry blogosphere. we're all standing in it, milling around, taking in little knots and clusters. hey, there's ron's in one corner, or maybe he's in the middle of the room, or near the hors d'oeuvres (he's not at the bar, he doesn't imbibe). anyway, clears he starts talking about a book, adressing the room, knowing full well the author is probably in the room. (everybody knows the author is in the room. she's in the room.) should we gag her and put her in the corner till we're through, ask her to go step outside for a while, or do we maybe turn to her at various points in the conversation to ask her questions (which folks have) or listen to her corrections/redirections (which she's given) in a kind of give and take, as things flow?
isn't that how conversation works?
i don't need to defend jessica against anything you've said because i don't think it's offensive (and even if i did, that's kind of pointless; she does fine). i'm just sort of puzzled by the idea that somebody who is the subject of a discussion *can't* participate in that discussion. in a "real" room it probably wouldn't work that way, and we wouldn't expect it to. we'd expect the discussee to pipe up at some point, if the discussion went wonky, or maybe if she got excited because she was pleased that people were reading her work.
to return to something paula said above (who's disagreed so politely and effectively at the same time) some of "us"--like me--are regulars at jessica's blog too, it's true. (j and i haven't met yet, but i'd call us friends.) still, i think we're all aware there are more people tuning in when we talk here. this might be ron's comment box, but we're all in here making gabbing noises. (& so are the vituperators, which is why they say what they say *here,* instead of at jessica's or on their own blogs, often under the cloak of anonimity. a wet-world experiment for those peeps: try that at a party! show up in a mask and see how many people will want to engage with you, particularly if you're extra grumpy. just sayin.)
obviously i am procrastinating today when i should be working.
ernesto, you're way out of line. find out something about me before going off. my reference to live/dead authors was meant jokingly.
it *was* a good comment stream, yes of course i'm happy that it's about my book, but what I was happy about yesterday was that we were talking about the book, analyzing specific texts, which rarely happens here.
it *was* a good comment stream, yes of course i'm happy that it's about my book, but what I was happy about yesterday was that we were talking about the book, analyzing specific texts, which rarely happens here.
Paula, no, I don't feel that you're being hostile, and considering the thread's current state I think you're doing an admirable job of trying to have a real discussion. Such a discussion about "legitimacy" and its relation to academia, prose, self-publishing, etc. would be useful, without it involving personal attacks on me, my past, or my character (all of which are unknown to most of you). Maybe that discussion will have to happen elsewhere.
ombilic--I don't think Ian's calling you "oatmeal" (Ian?) Anyway there's no need to feel embattled.
Ian, Shanna, Craig, Curtis, Richard, thanks. I'm glad that those of you who have read the book feel that the experience has been in some way "worth it."
ombilic--I don't think Ian's calling you "oatmeal" (Ian?) Anyway there's no need to feel embattled.
Ian, Shanna, Craig, Curtis, Richard, thanks. I'm glad that those of you who have read the book feel that the experience has been in some way "worth it."
It surprises me to read that she herself says it's better to be "a live author" instead of a "dead one" and boast at the same time having read Derrida.
There's a difference between having written Derrida and absolutely agreeing with Derrida.
In past pots Ron has seemed even more dismissive of Derrida than most now are. Something about how Derrida's unfair and dishonest critique of Jakobson tipped Ron off early on that Derrida was a jackass. (I'm not quoting him exactly, but "it doesn't matter 'cuz it means the same,"---to quote your quotation of D.)
Maybe she should let the work speak for itself (since she seems to believe that meaning lies in the text itself), instead of being so "alive".
"There is nothing outside the text" doesn't mean you should attend only to a singular work. It means that textuality encompasses everything, including the discourse of the author.
He wasn't just discussing the decorum of analysis; he was talking about life. A text may resemble a vacuum, but it's not a vacuum in a vacuum: it's a vacuum in the world, within our interactions, full of it all. Though I think Deleuze's conception of a positive, immanent becoming is better.
Beyond absolute madness, texts exist only as social constructs (anchored at the limit in biological probabilities and possibilities wrt the relation between what Jay-S might call "actual" and "virtual" form).
Funny how you still refer to "the death of the Author" through the author functions Foucault, Benjamin, and Derrida. Even imply an unproblematic continuity of "Derrida" shining even through spontaneous remarks at a singular conference. Ever thought of thinking for yourself?
It's also funny she should refer to her experience with undergraduates (I have taught undergraduate textual analysis for six years, by the way) and their lack of "textual evidence" when being critical.
A lot of academic papers (the ones published in major journals, not the ones written by undergrads) involve very little (primary) textual evidence.
Foucault hardly stuck to Foucault's (at least, popularly bowdlerized) idea of an author.
Sticky is icky. I'd rather flow like lube,
Break out of my cells by bustin a move,
My brain is cut like a fresh scratch o'er a record's grooves.
He who binds to himself a Joy
Doth the winge\d life destroy;
But he who kisses the Joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity's sun-rise
oxwcfpgg
xglbevn
There's a difference between having written Derrida and absolutely agreeing with Derrida.
In past pots Ron has seemed even more dismissive of Derrida than most now are. Something about how Derrida's unfair and dishonest critique of Jakobson tipped Ron off early on that Derrida was a jackass. (I'm not quoting him exactly, but "it doesn't matter 'cuz it means the same,"---to quote your quotation of D.)
Maybe she should let the work speak for itself (since she seems to believe that meaning lies in the text itself), instead of being so "alive".
"There is nothing outside the text" doesn't mean you should attend only to a singular work. It means that textuality encompasses everything, including the discourse of the author.
He wasn't just discussing the decorum of analysis; he was talking about life. A text may resemble a vacuum, but it's not a vacuum in a vacuum: it's a vacuum in the world, within our interactions, full of it all. Though I think Deleuze's conception of a positive, immanent becoming is better.
Beyond absolute madness, texts exist only as social constructs (anchored at the limit in biological probabilities and possibilities wrt the relation between what Jay-S might call "actual" and "virtual" form).
Funny how you still refer to "the death of the Author" through the author functions Foucault, Benjamin, and Derrida. Even imply an unproblematic continuity of "Derrida" shining even through spontaneous remarks at a singular conference. Ever thought of thinking for yourself?
It's also funny she should refer to her experience with undergraduates (I have taught undergraduate textual analysis for six years, by the way) and their lack of "textual evidence" when being critical.
A lot of academic papers (the ones published in major journals, not the ones written by undergrads) involve very little (primary) textual evidence.
Foucault hardly stuck to Foucault's (at least, popularly bowdlerized) idea of an author.
Sticky is icky. I'd rather flow like lube,
Break out of my cells by bustin a move,
My brain is cut like a fresh scratch o'er a record's grooves.
He who binds to himself a Joy
Doth the winge\d life destroy;
But he who kisses the Joy as it flies
Lives in Eternity's sun-rise
oxwcfpgg
xglbevn
There are many good things about DIY publishing, first and foremost the dissemination of works that otherwise might never see the light of day. As has been said, that is a separate question from the discussion of artistic merit of that which is DIY-published. Ego can indeed be a factor, in some cases—think about Kenneth Patchen, in fact, since Mr. Silliman recently posted about him, as well. (As interesting as some of Patchen's attempts at "visual poetry" are, I in general find his work uninteresting to read, so far. "Albion Moonlight" I tried several times before eventually giving it away.) As has also been said, many poets we now regard as essential were originally self-published, such as Blake, Whitman, etc. It's a valid means of getting work into print that no mainstream publisher will touch—which is most eperimental work, in any era, since publishers are inherently conservative in what they present. This is only natural, as most publishers are require to make money at what they do, and that tends to make them take fewer risks on radical products. Nothing new there. Presses that DO release avant-garde or experimental work are often independently-funded, and are not required to make a profit, for whatever reason. This was as true for the Bauhaus and de Stijl books of (then-radical) experimental typography, as it is still true for modern grant-funded presses such as Copper Canyon (who I respect very much, actually, as they maintain a fairly DIY ethic).
So, condemning OR praising something that's DIY published is totally irrelevant. Only time will judge the merits of what survives. The measure of artistic merit and quality of the work is independent of the means of publication, and that too is nothing new.
So, condemning OR praising something that's DIY published is totally irrelevant. Only time will judge the merits of what survives. The measure of artistic merit and quality of the work is independent of the means of publication, and that too is nothing new.
Ernesto, I enjoy your blog but I wish that
(1) when you insult someone, as you often do, don’t pretend you are not insulting them;
(2) you made your own points rather than cling to quotations of critics you feel are universally unassailable. Like, ‘It is wrong to want to be alive because of French critics.’ ‘I don’t need to read the text because of a line by Derrida that has nothing to do with anything but Derrida’s quaint ego.’
Curtis, you like to play devil’s advocate and we were a bit hard on you (or I was).
Ombilic, I don't know what it means subconsciously to confuse oatmeal with the umbilical chord, but I wasn't talking about you, as much as I enjoy making you paranoid.
(1) when you insult someone, as you often do, don’t pretend you are not insulting them;
(2) you made your own points rather than cling to quotations of critics you feel are universally unassailable. Like, ‘It is wrong to want to be alive because of French critics.’ ‘I don’t need to read the text because of a line by Derrida that has nothing to do with anything but Derrida’s quaint ego.’
Curtis, you like to play devil’s advocate and we were a bit hard on you (or I was).
Ombilic, I don't know what it means subconsciously to confuse oatmeal with the umbilical chord, but I wasn't talking about you, as much as I enjoy making you paranoid.
To shift focus to another element of this discussion, I think that if we are going to talk about "great prefaces" we should include the liner notes Bill Evans wrote for Miles Davis' Kind of Blue.
I don't know if it is truly a "theoretical defense," as Ron calls it, but it is some of the most succinct, well-written theoretical discourse on any art form that I (in my relatively limited experience) have ever read.
I pulled it down from the shelf to look at before I wrote this post, and it is blowing my mind now.
ewvlh
I don't know if it is truly a "theoretical defense," as Ron calls it, but it is some of the most succinct, well-written theoretical discourse on any art form that I (in my relatively limited experience) have ever read.
I pulled it down from the shelf to look at before I wrote this post, and it is blowing my mind now.
ewvlh
Ian---ah, sorry. My name derives from Artaud's title Ombilic Des Limbes, so I hastily assumed "Artaud's Oatmeal" was some sort of jab at my mildly (but affectionately!) snarky comment. Seemed bizarre that my playfulness would get lumped in with Spicergirl etc.. But at least one good question came out of this confusion---what did Artaud eat after he lost his teeth?
And how did he feel about it?
ffweq
And how did he feel about it?
ffweq
The Perfect Author? The one whose afterlife says "Hush!" the loudest.
As brought to you by the perfect Moderator: a keyword-seeking virus.
And the readers? To match. On horseback, with cold eyes. And general: all over Ireland.
In unison now, chums: No one listens to poetry.
As brought to you by the perfect Moderator: a keyword-seeking virus.
And the readers? To match. On horseback, with cold eyes. And general: all over Ireland.
In unison now, chums: No one listens to poetry.
P.S. Can one quote Bill Evans and be untrue? Brad Mehldau to the contrary, I say no. One cannot quote Bill Evans and be untrue.
Well, I meant no offence. (I truly mean this, Ian). My sincere apologies if I offended. I think that this whole discussion can make us all think about the role of the "Author" in the 21st Century. If I dropped the names of Benjamin, Barthes, Foucault and Derrida was because they were invoked/suggested by Jessica herself and/or other commentators here.
Cheers.
Cheers.
And Shanna, (hi!) I agree with you. I just took it too seriously and did not get the joke. My fault. I also agree with you re: anonymous/pseudonym comments. I did not mean to offend, and my comment was signed by my real name and a link to my blog. I would probably had said the same at a party... that's just the way I am, maybe because of my cultural background. I honestly meant no offense.
Cheers, again.
Cheers, again.
jessica -I haven't read the book -I would like to - it looks interesting - I can see the links to Cage and Joyce etc - what I am interested in is your long critical inroduction (whether I agree with it or understand it or not) - Iwas considering doing that -well in a sense it is what my "The Infinite Poem" is -it is basically conceptual - I have Blog on which I am doing a long poem ("Eyelight") (so I am kind of self-publishing myself - I will keep doing it whoever does or doesn't look at it BTW - but appreciate it if more do look!) - my "theory" is maybe not as sophisticated as yours - but I can see what you have added here to the Language methods is the theoretical input as Ron says - Ron is very astute in these matters.
Another use it seems to me - say in art - one hears hundreds of statements and comments by artists and they don't always "make sense" and they even condtradict themselves -but it is interesting as it is the artist working his/her ideas toward some result or some procedure - it may not matter if the theory is "correct" or nay as long as some ideas are thrown around...any ideas can then be disputed; the 'idea' being some kind of dialogue is set up with the author - alhtough this may not be an actual conversation - the reader may take notes or get irate or mutter virulently - but at least some ideas are being generated which deepen the actual work -this is perhaps a value of a theoretical introduction. The old idea was this mysterious set of (often near impossibly sybilline) poems with no notes - no comments. (Counter to that against is such as Empson's notes! These are more mysterious than his poems!) Perhaps that is also valid. (Notelessness or commentlesness I mean). A kind of neo-Modernist neo-Romantic approach - but as RS says we have the other Romantic example of (various) and Coleridge of his Biographia et al.
Others - I am an admirer of RS (especially of say Tjanting and Paradise etc)(but not all his work of course) but in no way are we close friends or agree on everything (or anything as far as I know!) and I don't know Jessica - I was being supportive - the "new" thing about the text -which is similar (on the face of it) to (other language poets) and e.g. the work of New Zealand poet Will Joy Christie (google "Reading the Maps" and NZ) -and scroll back - my friend had a piece about her) - although the difference is she doesn't write any (long introductory) theory as far as I know - and different as she writes on a typewritter - I like the typwriterely look -I know it (OFC) wasn't done on one - - Jesicca etc what do you think of John Tranter's use (a computer programme) to generate a text that he then works on etc - that is in I think the next (Silliman) post? I know there is British poet (is it Roy Fisher?) who used computers a lot but I was not that impressed with the result (I admired the idea) - but John Tranter uses a programme to generate things he would not think of (I suppose he wants to be surpised) and this leads him into new ideas etc. ?
And I was very influenced by the theoretical writings of the Language poets especially in the book "In the American Tree" which is a book I still have and I value greatly - Bernstein's and RS's and others' essays I found very influential -didn't make me a Language poet but it taught me a lot ... mind you I am an "older" poet and came back into poetry late so everything was new -this was in 1992...BTW nothing wrong with confessionalism (as such) (at a deep level was not Zukofsky a confessionalist? - but I realise that it is a path that is fraught..hmm..every person and their humour!) - just another way. But this work is not neccessarily on Jessica's Blog -no? - is it not a separate work? (I can understand a concept wherby it is integrated tho)...
Another use it seems to me - say in art - one hears hundreds of statements and comments by artists and they don't always "make sense" and they even condtradict themselves -but it is interesting as it is the artist working his/her ideas toward some result or some procedure - it may not matter if the theory is "correct" or nay as long as some ideas are thrown around...any ideas can then be disputed; the 'idea' being some kind of dialogue is set up with the author - alhtough this may not be an actual conversation - the reader may take notes or get irate or mutter virulently - but at least some ideas are being generated which deepen the actual work -this is perhaps a value of a theoretical introduction. The old idea was this mysterious set of (often near impossibly sybilline) poems with no notes - no comments. (Counter to that against is such as Empson's notes! These are more mysterious than his poems!) Perhaps that is also valid. (Notelessness or commentlesness I mean). A kind of neo-Modernist neo-Romantic approach - but as RS says we have the other Romantic example of (various) and Coleridge of his Biographia et al.
Others - I am an admirer of RS (especially of say Tjanting and Paradise etc)(but not all his work of course) but in no way are we close friends or agree on everything (or anything as far as I know!) and I don't know Jessica - I was being supportive - the "new" thing about the text -which is similar (on the face of it) to (other language poets) and e.g. the work of New Zealand poet Will Joy Christie (google "Reading the Maps" and NZ) -and scroll back - my friend had a piece about her) - although the difference is she doesn't write any (long introductory) theory as far as I know - and different as she writes on a typewritter - I like the typwriterely look -I know it (OFC) wasn't done on one - - Jesicca etc what do you think of John Tranter's use (a computer programme) to generate a text that he then works on etc - that is in I think the next (Silliman) post? I know there is British poet (is it Roy Fisher?) who used computers a lot but I was not that impressed with the result (I admired the idea) - but John Tranter uses a programme to generate things he would not think of (I suppose he wants to be surpised) and this leads him into new ideas etc. ?
And I was very influenced by the theoretical writings of the Language poets especially in the book "In the American Tree" which is a book I still have and I value greatly - Bernstein's and RS's and others' essays I found very influential -didn't make me a Language poet but it taught me a lot ... mind you I am an "older" poet and came back into poetry late so everything was new -this was in 1992...BTW nothing wrong with confessionalism (as such) (at a deep level was not Zukofsky a confessionalist? - but I realise that it is a path that is fraught..hmm..every person and their humour!) - just another way. But this work is not neccessarily on Jessica's Blog -no? - is it not a separate work? (I can understand a concept wherby it is integrated tho)...
good morning, ernesto. that part of the comment (the anonymity/mask part) wasn't directed at you, obviously! (maybe i should say i think there's a benign way and a harmful way to use pseudonyms and pen names, just like there are benign and harmful ways to use kitchen knives or big rocks. sometimes i feel like "shanna compton" is a pseudonym too.) and if i see you at a party, you'll please have to sign my copy of *not even dogs.*
Ombilic:
Your recitation of unusual foods reminded me of a bizarre thing I read about way back in the 1970's. I used to read these ecological magazines then, and one had an interview with a family "living off the land" in Alaska. They limited their menu pretty much to what they could harvest, gather or kill on the land (their only nod to civilized life being the snowmobile they kept for emergencies--they lived 50 miles from any town). Anyway, the big delicacy they dined on was moose eye fat, a pocked (or chunk) of fat about the size of half a cube of butter, obtained from behind the eye cavity of a slaughtered moose, which they described as tasting like garlic pate. I was not revolted, just amused that anyone would deliberately limit their access to all the desserts of the world in an attempt to be thoroughly, consistently pure and rural. I wonder what happened to that family. I must confess to a weakness for Hagen Dasz Coffee, myself.
Your recitation of unusual foods reminded me of a bizarre thing I read about way back in the 1970's. I used to read these ecological magazines then, and one had an interview with a family "living off the land" in Alaska. They limited their menu pretty much to what they could harvest, gather or kill on the land (their only nod to civilized life being the snowmobile they kept for emergencies--they lived 50 miles from any town). Anyway, the big delicacy they dined on was moose eye fat, a pocked (or chunk) of fat about the size of half a cube of butter, obtained from behind the eye cavity of a slaughtered moose, which they described as tasting like garlic pate. I was not revolted, just amused that anyone would deliberately limit their access to all the desserts of the world in an attempt to be thoroughly, consistently pure and rural. I wonder what happened to that family. I must confess to a weakness for Hagen Dasz Coffee, myself.
I, Spicergirl, having been dubbed the evil-one (and even worse, hated by Spicer himself)am thoroughly chastened and promise never to insinutate myself into this blog again. I do insist, however, that if you did meet me, you'd find me sexy $ sweet and fun to cuddle with. To all those I offended--I offer my humble apologies.
Hi, Shanna. I know your comment was not directed at me, but I still wanted to say something about it because I found it very interesting. And sure, it will be my pleasure to sign it! Will you please also sign my copy of Down Spooky and Gamers? (Actually, I never got around to tell you that I recommended Gamers to a group of students of mine who are interested in video games as narrative discourse).
Cheers to all.
Cheers to all.
At least you were honest and in the process Organic Furniture Cellar had its fifteen seconds worth of fame.
Spicergirl writes:
"I do insist, however, that if you did meet me, you'd find me sexy $ sweet and fun to cuddle with."
A friend of mine in Cali keeps joking about being in love with you. He insists on referring to you as "spicegirl". I fantasize about introducing you to CAConrad. Though unless you're a queen your feminine charms won't work on him. If you've really had three children I'd suppose someone probably considers you sexy. As we're both anonymous I might be willing to have a drink with you (you can wear a mask if you like, just make sure to show off your hot body as advertised---I'm sure it will make your comments far more interesting... in fact, you ought to start using a good body shot as your icon (maybe also flaunt a bit of unrecognizable face): you could become the veritable Ann Coulter of the comments box). Are you into whips, paddles, and suspension?
rfvusjiz
"I do insist, however, that if you did meet me, you'd find me sexy $ sweet and fun to cuddle with."
A friend of mine in Cali keeps joking about being in love with you. He insists on referring to you as "spicegirl". I fantasize about introducing you to CAConrad. Though unless you're a queen your feminine charms won't work on him. If you've really had three children I'd suppose someone probably considers you sexy. As we're both anonymous I might be willing to have a drink with you (you can wear a mask if you like, just make sure to show off your hot body as advertised---I'm sure it will make your comments far more interesting... in fact, you ought to start using a good body shot as your icon (maybe also flaunt a bit of unrecognizable face): you could become the veritable Ann Coulter of the comments box). Are you into whips, paddles, and suspension?
rfvusjiz
Ombee:
She's already done that.
Her avatar was a white haired nude shot from the back.
Quite tantalizing.
I asked her about it, but she deflected.
Internet romances are very dangerous--the thought police are watching!!
She's already done that.
Her avatar was a white haired nude shot from the back.
Quite tantalizing.
I asked her about it, but she deflected.
Internet romances are very dangerous--the thought police are watching!!
Curtis, you're mixing Spicergirl up with Suzanne. Spicergirl is much more mysterious (in the sense that she doesn't have a blog). I'm curious about her.
I'm glad that this discussion will finally get me to look more at Jessica's work; I've had Birdbook downloaded for months now, and haven't attended to it... oh, so busy.
It's rare that I state things as bare facts. Here are some:
The ideas that:
"(1) self-published work is suspect and (2) young people shouldn’t write manifestos"
are total bullshit.
Getting published is a pain in the ass. Why should anyone wait around to see if they fit someone's tastes, or if those whose tastes they fit will/can preserve the intentions of the work? Fact: there's no problem whatsoever with self-publishing. It's good. Everyone should stop worrying about it, forever.
Fact: a lot of people, myself included, like to hear writers talk about their own work--especially in conversation. Sometimes the "dead author" game can be good, too, but in the published poetry world that's the rule rather than the exception. Though I'd never have the guts to risk seeming vain the way Jessica did in pointing to the substantiality of the early part of this stream, I think she's right--it is unusual to see such sustained discussion of a specific work in Commentsville.
It's pleasant to see people actually apologize for offending each other here (even when they may not have said anything offensive). Usually everybody's too self-righteous to put the discussion before their personal status. You're all a bunch of cuties.
I'm glad that this discussion will finally get me to look more at Jessica's work; I've had Birdbook downloaded for months now, and haven't attended to it... oh, so busy.
It's rare that I state things as bare facts. Here are some:
The ideas that:
"(1) self-published work is suspect and (2) young people shouldn’t write manifestos"
are total bullshit.
Getting published is a pain in the ass. Why should anyone wait around to see if they fit someone's tastes, or if those whose tastes they fit will/can preserve the intentions of the work? Fact: there's no problem whatsoever with self-publishing. It's good. Everyone should stop worrying about it, forever.
Fact: a lot of people, myself included, like to hear writers talk about their own work--especially in conversation. Sometimes the "dead author" game can be good, too, but in the published poetry world that's the rule rather than the exception. Though I'd never have the guts to risk seeming vain the way Jessica did in pointing to the substantiality of the early part of this stream, I think she's right--it is unusual to see such sustained discussion of a specific work in Commentsville.
It's pleasant to see people actually apologize for offending each other here (even when they may not have said anything offensive). Usually everybody's too self-righteous to put the discussion before their personal status. You're all a bunch of cuties.
Ok, I've just read Smith's "Butterflies," and so far it seems to me that her writing does just what she says it does. Things aren't just spaced around the page to "allow for" multiple readings; she seems to have carefully considered how many paths there should be at a given point, how many forks there should be in a given path (by "path" I mean a connection, or series of connections between parts), and--most importantly--when the reader is likely to settle into a mode of reading the text; at that point she shifts in various ways (which directions on the page are implied/available, how much fragmentation there is at the level of the word, whether implied word endings seem to fit perfectly with their beginnings, etc.). The cognitive aspect of her work is quite elaborate and well-considered, it seems to me... and much more attentive to the phenomenology of its reading than is, for instance, Cage's stuff.
If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.
The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.
I certainly had no feeling (much less genius) for harmony, and Schoenberg thought that that would make it impossible for me to write music. He said, 'You'll come to a wall you won't be able to get through.' So I said, 'I'll beat my head against that wall.'
ywwvven
clltbk
The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.
I certainly had no feeling (much less genius) for harmony, and Schoenberg thought that that would make it impossible for me to write music. He said, 'You'll come to a wall you won't be able to get through.' So I said, 'I'll beat my head against that wall.'
ywwvven
clltbk
I've listened to nearly all of Cage's recorded works, and read 90% of his published texts. A perspicacious, inquiring mind, original, cheerful, friendly, decent, and sensitive. But boring.
A popularizer of the banal. Champion of the quotidian. Cage was probably the greatest "audience" there ever was, but as a creator--an abject and mediocre charlatan. Right up there with Timothy Leary and Carlos Castenada and Minor White. (Cast of thousands.)
Creativity is not about doubting. Creators create, are "swooned" by their inspiration, delighted by their discoveries. Intrigued by the problems. Cage was none of these.
But those early keyboard pieces--noticing as I write this the mugshot of Steve Reich on the window below....
Post a Comment
A popularizer of the banal. Champion of the quotidian. Cage was probably the greatest "audience" there ever was, but as a creator--an abject and mediocre charlatan. Right up there with Timothy Leary and Carlos Castenada and Minor White. (Cast of thousands.)
Creativity is not about doubting. Creators create, are "swooned" by their inspiration, delighted by their discoveries. Intrigued by the problems. Cage was none of these.
But those early keyboard pieces--noticing as I write this the mugshot of Steve Reich on the window below....
<< Home
