Thursday, September 13, 2007

 

Perhaps the most shocking revelation in Hannah Weiner’s Open House, out this past spring from Kenning Editions, comes in the very last sentence of Patrick F. Durgin’s excellent introduction. It’s not the fact of just how many of Weiner’s books are out of print, nor how lucid & unpsychotic Weiner’s pre-“clairvoyant” writing is, nor even how lucid & unpsychotic some of her later work is (Cf. “If Workshop,” a proposal it would seem from the late 1980s), not even how little actual space, just ten pages from 156 given to her work, that the excerpt Clairvoyant Journal, Weiner’s signature volume, takes up in this impeccable version of a selected works.

The real shocker is that Patrick F. Durgin never met Hannah Weiner, who’s been gone now for only ten years. This is a shocker because Durgin would appear to have become the best friend Weiner ever had. Durgin has done more than anyone to make her writing accessible, thus to enhance her reputation. Now with Hannah Weiner’s Open House, he gives us the big picture, the book that shows the overall arc of this remarkable poet’s entire career. It’s a wonderful collection, even tho (or perhaps because) it’s going to send many of its readers to AddAll or Abebooks.Com to find whatever remains available of the original texts.

In the past I’ve characterized Weiner as a militant & precise realist of a distinct reality, one conditioned by her schizophrenia. Nothing in HWOH makes me want to step back from that description, tho this volume does a far better job than any of her previous books in placing Weiner’s writing and its development into a larger framework, one that includes the downtown Manhattan performance scene of the 1960s & ‘70s, and the New York School, particularly its second generation.

One might have expected Weiner to have been closer, in fact, to the first round of the New York School poets, born as she was in 1928, just one year younger than John Ashbery, two than Frank O’Hara. But with the exception of Barbara Guest & Bunny Lang & a few painters, that was never a generation particularly open to women as such. And Weiner appears to have been a late bloomer, first performing her Code Poem works at the age of 40. A Brandeis grad who had gone through a marriage to, I believe, a psychoanalyst, Weiner was a successful lingerie designer when she performed the first work documented here, “Hannah Weiner at Her Job,” at the A.H. Schreiber Company on West 33rd Street, room 1200. She was successful enough that Simeon Schreiber, her boss, participated in the event, which included one pair of bikini bottoms “made especially for this show by August Fabrics and A.H. Schreiber.“

Weiner was even slower to begin publishing, with her first book, Magritte Series appearing in 1970. Clairvoyant Journal, the volume that made Weiner famous (or at least notorious) with its claim to have had portions of the text transcribed from language Weiner saw on people’s foreheads, on walls, or simply hovering mid-air, at times in elaborate textures, such as dog fur, is published by Angel Hair in 1978. It’s only her second book – Weiner was already 50.

This is a problem as much of the performance art scene as it was a question of the difficulty women still had getting into print in the 1970s. Jackson Mac Low, Weiner’s friend in that scene who likewise later gravitated toward language poetry, didn’t publish his first big book, Stanzas for Iris Lezak, until he was 48. It was only his fourth book.

Happily, both writers are now acknowledged as the major poets they were, and with HWOH, we finally have a good first step toward presenting her work in print in the same kind of comprehensive & intelligent fashion that has so transformed Jack Spicer’s influence & reputation in the four decades since his death. Durgin has done an especially good job dealing with the typographical challenges presented by Weiner’s texts, which can included many an undotted i and uncrossed t, can slide down the page or over other type. He treats the page as Weiner did, as a compositional field, reproducing some texts directly from books where Weiner herself had an opportunity to approve the final setting, and setting others “with comparable but uniform typefaces.” It’s the antithesis of the disaster than Duncan’s setting of Ground Work: Before the War was in its original edition, using a typewriter to set the page, tho in fact both books are attempting to accommodate the same dynamic, a page where the visual dimension is crucial but created with a technology that doesn’t translate well to contemporary standards.

Patrick Durgin here has accomplished something major. It makes you realize just how much a poet like Duncan could also benefit from his own Patrick Durgin. Weiner’s Durgin is not likely to get any rewards for this, just as the first generation of Spicer scholars¹ discovered that a specialization there was a ticket to adjuncting sans benefits for life. At best. But poets do, I think, recognize just how vital, even world-changing, such labor can be. For this, we must bow deeply in the direction of Patrick Durgin & offer our thanks.

 

¹ Paul Mariah, Lew Ellingham, Lori Chamberlain, John Granger, Steve Abbott, the editors of Acts, even Kevin Killian, just to name a few.

Labels:


Comments:
"Durgin has done an especially good job dealing with the typographical challenges presented by Weiner’s texts, which can included [sic] many an undotted i and uncrossed t, can slide down the page or over other type. He treats the page as Weiner did, as a compositional field, reproducing some texts directly from books where Weiner herself had an opportunity to approve the final setting, and setting others “with comparable but uniform typefaces.” It’s the antithesis of the disaster than Duncan’s setting of Ground Work: Before the War was in its original edition, using a typewriter to set the page, tho in fact both books are attempting to accommodate the same dynamic, a page where the visual dimension is crucial but created with a technology that doesn’t translate well to contemporary standards."

There are a number of whole presumptions behind this assertion, which I think need to be explored before they can be left as is.

First, I havn't seen the Weiner book, so I don't know quite what you're addressing here. Is the Weiner book in varying typefaces? Is some of it in typewriter face? Equivalently faced?

If Duncan approved the typewriter face edition of Ground Work, in what sense is his decision a "disaster" if "both books are attempting to accommodate the same dynamic, a page where the visual dimension is crucial but created with a technology that doesn't translate well to contemporary standards."

Clearly, poets who compose with a dynamic perception OF, and interaction WITH, the page, cannot be dismissed if their media--through choice or necessity--gets bound up with the aesthetic. In Eigner's case, he composed with the vertical dimension clearly in mind every time he typed a poem. Unable to write adequately in long-hand, he "set" his poems in both dimensions, on the typewriter, using equivalently spaced type, and was meticulous about their placement. (What might Larry's work have developed INTO, if he had not been thus limited?) Duncan, we know, had an impressive freehand script which has often been reproduced holographically in his various textual publications. Would you have preferred this to a typeface? Perhaps Duncan was exploring the effect that typewriter face would have as being a more nearly accurate version of his original autographic script pages? As poets of the avant garde, these writers brought us closer to an apprehension of the page as a fluid dimension, not restricted to historical standards of page size, font design, or other established or evolving technologies (such as computer software parameters). And what are these "contemporary standards" referred to? Are they not a fashion statement, a marketed product intended to generate commodity movement?

Interestingly, I note that each time I make a post to a blog, I'm required to type the so-called "word verification" scramble (I see below now "zjqzqjs" printed in odd twisted, bent, distorted letters, which must be typed in a form that the computer system(s) can "read".

The idea that writers' works are conceived in one form, and then offered up to the gods of "translation" to be "interpreted" by designers, typographers and binders is a trifle old-fashioned these days. There is no such thing as a cliche "book" for authors who engage the creation of the text at the level of the visual.

We can't demand of these writer/artists that they submit to our program in order that we may appreciate them in the way that WE want to. We don't own texts. We don't dictate to writers what their products should look like. That's the old paradigm of the publisher handing the writer a series of requirements "do this do that and keep the bugs out" as a contractual requirement. As publishing, as an act, moves away from traditional publishing procedures, the writers will increasingly be on their own, without galley proofs, editors, copyreaders, and marketing departments. Those who want all those decisions and requirements laid down for them have deliberately abrogated their responsibility to the text. Some may regard it as a necessity dictated by economic considerations, or the convenience of "community" or some other pretext.

If Weiner's texts do not "fit" "cxontemporary standards" then they shouldn't be made to. It's that simple.
 
nor cld Larry move the paper
re the little lever lease
what was in mind

just go 'horizontal' ly and vErtical-ly make punctuate meaning s variously..and precisely!

I got tears in my eyes the both of them simultaneously

pulls me from my LE "stash":

THINGS STIRRING TOGETHER OR FAR AWAY

along time ago right now ..

or shld I be so conditional and bring up Ball/Arp/ et 'al' ?

etc. Ed Baker
 
Another is the one-armed photog genius Sudek the Poet of Prague. Genius and near casualty of WWI.
 
If you want to really get technical, there should just be videos on youTube of Hannah's reading her work since that was one of the most vital ways she used to get her "poetry" out to others. I hate it when editors fuck with original uses of punctuation and even grammar and all that shit (as in Charles Ives beautifully musical notebooks and essays that were thoroughly revamped for publication to adhere to academically (at the time) "accepted usage" punctuation grammar etc. But the main point is, as Ron stated I think, that Hannah's work is now more accessible to a wider audience, published exactly in some cases and as close as possible in others to the ways she originally intended (although she, like many others using similar pre-"langpo" (see, I'm learning guys) methods, including chance etc. were quite amenable and even dug "mistakes" caused by typos, etc. (not imposed by editors). Hannah was a terrific presence on the downtown scene for so many years, and I for one was always happy to read her work or listen to her read/perform it as well as just to see her and listen to her and be with her, even when I had no idea what she was talking about (and even when I thought I did).
 
There is no way (no way?) of controlling the (artist's/writer's/maker's) product as such - one struggles to do so. Eigner yes - his form conditioned by what he was and where he was and what he worked on (Blake gets closer to "uniqueness" and authorial control) etc and Olson working as he did perhaps more deliberately - the language poets taking it all further perhaps - I first saw Weiner's works in "in the American Tree" - fascinating - be great to have been able to hear her live (as person above did) - that's the immediacy the immediacy gets mediated and so on.

At what point is the editor the poet - was Eliot;s Waste Land his only or was it done by Pound-Eliot -Wiener and Eigner by Typewriter-Them and so on (how much is Olson Vincent Ferrini? or Creeley etc) (are the Creeeley-Olson letters a greater work than any of their other works and who created them -them and Epistolary and the US Postal sytem etc??) the typewriter and also how much is he ... no way to keep (one) unique thing. One struggles. The author struggles not to be the death of himself/herself. Weiner looks as though she was a beautiful woman.

Is madness, is great suffering - leading through great joy perhaps - necessary? (Romantic faddle?

"Is it better with a blue pen?" (Ron Silliman I think!)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    
   
   http://www.wikio.com
   MetaxuCafe
   
   
   Blogarama - The Blog Directory
   Blog Flux Directory
   Locations of visitors to this page
   

 

Blogs

A

Seth Abramson

Katie Acheson

Nasra al Adawi

Adeaner

Deborah Ager

Adam Aitken

Alcoholic Poet

Charles Alexander

Jenny Allan

William Allegrezza

Tanya Allen

Susan Allspaw Pomeroy

Eric Alterman

Ivy Alvarez

Indran Amirthanayagam

R.J. Anderson

Stephanie Anderson

Michael Andre

Nin Andrews

Arlene Ang

Cecilia Ann

Tiel Aisha Ansari

Nikheel Aphale

Stan Apps

Francisco Aragón

Robert Archambeau

Claire Askew

Amanda Auchter

Nathan Austin

Chinwe Azubuike

B

Derik Badman

Frank Báez

Sheena Baharudin

Jeffery Bahr

Daniel Bailey

John Bailey

Alan Baker

Andrea Baker

John Baker

Arjun Chandramohan Bali

Teresa Ballard

Anny Ballardini

Alixandra Bamford

Clay Banes

Emma Barnes

Stephen Baraban

J. Mae Barizo

Zach Barocas

Brandon Barr

Richard Barrett

Jennifer Bartlett

Gary Barwin

Thomas Basböll

Margaret Bashaar

Robert J. Baumann

Eric Baus

Michelle Bautista

Sandra Beasley

Sam Beckbessinger

Clair Becker

Tom Beckett

Mike Begnal

Lynn Behrendt

Jim Behrle

Douglas J. Belcher

Dodie Bellamy

Maria Benet

Melissa Benham

Natalie Bennett

Stephen Berer

Zackary Sholem Berger

Oscar Bermeo

Jasper Bernes

Amy Bernier

Charles Bernstein

Mark Bernstein

Jake Berry

Charlie Bertsch

Tara Betts

Harvey Bialy

Raymond Bianchi

Mary Biddinger

Jed Birmingham

John
Bloomberg-Rissman

Ann Margaret Bogle

Emma Bolden

Lindsay Boldt

Sean Bonney

Bill Borneman

Cecilia Borromeo

Gherardo Bortolotti

E. B. Bortz

Tim Botta

Jenny Boully

Malika Boustol

James Bow

Rus Bowden

Kristy Bowen

Mark Cameron Boyd

Anne Boyer

Ana
Bozicevic-Bowling

Flynne Bracker

Daniel Bradley

Joseph Bradshaw

Allen Bramhall

Jennifer Bredl

Mary-Anne Breeze
(Mez)

Susie Bright

Poppy Z. Brite

Sharon Brogan

Dustin Brookshire

Brandon Brown

Christina Brown

Pam Brown

Tony Brown

Sarah Browning

Sommer Browning

Franklin Bruno

Nick Bruno

Elizabeth Bryant

Michelle Buchanan

Timothy Buckwalter

Rob Budde

Simmons B. Buntin

Andrew Burke

Ted Burke

Kariann Burleson

Miriam Burstein

Stephen Burt
& Jessica Bennett

Jeremy Bushnell

Blake Butler

Bobby Byrd

David Byrne

Edward Byrne

Mairead Byrne

C

David Caddy

Amir Brito Cadôr

Jennifer Calkins

Trevor Calvert

Lex Camena

Jason Camlot

Brian Campbell

Pris Campbell

Guile Canencia

Mike Cannell

Steve Caratzas

Nick Carbo

Reyes Cardenas

Mackenzie Carignan

Claudia Carlson

Su Carlson

Tim Carmody

C.S. Carrier

Ivan Carswell

Julie Carter

Laura Carter

Sean Casey

Roberto Cavallera

Lorna Dee Cervantes

Natalia Cecire

C.E. Chaffin

Edward Champion

Jill Chan

Sherry Chandler

Zachary Chartkoff

Geoffrey Chaucer

Terryanne Chebet

Chelsea Hotel

Don Cheney

Matthew Cheney

Staceyann Chin

David Baptiste Chirot

Andrew Christ

Matt Christie

Robert Chrysler

Christy Church

Peter Ciccariello

Paula Cisewski

Cheryl Clark

Jillian Clark

Adam Clay

Loretta Clodfelter

Bryan Coffelt

Bill Cohen

Julia Cohen

Lindsay Colahan

Todd Colby

James Collins

Chris Collision & Kim Gek Lin Short

Shanna Compton

Anna L. Conti

Amanda Cook

Dave Cook

James Cook

Juliet Cook

Dennis Cooper

Michaela Cooper

Brooklyn Copeland

Phil Cordelli
& Brandon Shimoda

Josh Corey

Alfred Corn

Eduardo C. Corral

A.M. Correa

Chris Corrigan

Chella Courington

Matt Cozart

J.P. Craig

Ray Craig

Phil Crippen

Jessica Crispin
(BookSlut)

Del Ray Cross

John Crowley

Peter Culley

Alex Cumberbatch

Gary Cummiskey

Brent Cunningham

Nathan Curnow

D

Stacy Dacheux

Rachel Dacus

Lyle Daggett

Rita Dahl

Ryan Clifford Daley

Catherine Daly

Maria Damon

Kristine Danielson

Jane Dark

Jenny Davidson

Malcolm Davidson

David Alexander Davies

Jeff Davis

Jordan Davis

Peter Davis

Ray Davis

Bill Day

Simon DeDeo

Charles Deemer

Rachel Defay-Liautard

Oliver de la Paz

Alan de Niro

Susan Denning

Brittany Dennison

Michelle Detorie

Thomas Devaney

Debra Di Blasi

Jennifer K. Dick

Julie Dill

Mark Dingemanse

Linh Dinh

Kevin Doran

Laurel Dodge

Thom Donovan

Dolores Dorantes

Mark Doty

Julie Doxsee

Jehanne Dubrow

Joseph Duemer

Clifford Duffy

Laurie Duggan

Berenice Dunford

Marcella Durand

Patrick Durgin

Art Durkee

Jilly Dybka

E

Amanda Earl

John Eberhart </