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
One might have expected Weiner to have been closer, in fact, to the first round of the
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
Patrick Durgin here has accomplished something major. It makes you realize just how much a poet like
¹ Paul Mariah, Lew Ellingham, Lori Chamberlain, John Granger, Steve Abbott, the editors of Acts, even Kevin Killian, just to name a few.
Labels: Hannah Weiner
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.
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
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!)
<< Home
