Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
I shouldn’t whine. Whenever I complain that the School of Quietude has held something close to a monopoly position on American poetry’s institutional awards, in spite of just being one scene among many – and an insistently derivative & conservative one at that – I have to at least admit that there have been breakthroughs, particularly over the last decade, poets who have won awards (Nate Mackey, say) or been on notable shortlists (Alice Notley, Harryette Mullen), gotten teaching jobs at significant schools from Mills & UC San Diego & Berkeley to Ivy League bastions Penn & Brown. The walls may once have seemed impregnable but now surely they’re coming down. Indeed, that seems to be precisely what has Charlie Simic’s knickers in such a twist.
But I’m looking at all this from a particular perspective, a position that can be historically located along the long arc of generative poetics that stretch from Wordsworth, Blake & Baudelaire to the present. The marginality that characterized Walt Whitman & Emily Dickinson, the first two American poets to completely abandon the Anglophile notions of the
Consider then this same literary history from the vantage of visual poetry. From that perspective, it still must feel like 1940. There are major practitioners, a significant and growing critical discourse & the institutions of poetry have thus far paid almost zero attention. No volume of vispo has ever made a major prize shortlist. No visual poets sit as chancellors at the
I’m sure that from some neophobe perspective, the deeper question might be what makes vispo poetry? As if one pass through the works of William Blake doesn’t silence that dubious line of argument forever. When I gave my talk on recognizability at the
I’ve been looking for the past two weeks at the breath-taking work of Peter Ciccariello in his book Uncommon Vision, which I heartily & unreservedly recommend to anyone who has even the slightest doubt as to the potential value of vispo. The image at the top of this note, Language as Authority, actually doesn’t appear in the book itself, but it’s representative of Ciccariello’s best work and what you will find in those pages. Uncommon Vision divides Ciccariello’s work into two groups, images that don’t incorporate texts and those that do, the latter section (appropriately designated “Word”) headed off with a one-page appreciation by Geof Huth, tracing writing back to the very idea of drawing letters¹ and talking about the experience of confronting these as texts without actually discussing in any great detail how Ciccariello does all this & only starting to suggest its implications for the process we think of as reading.
a digital collage containing a number of photographs and fragments of text all merged with an underlying structure of geometric forms texture mapped with additional photographs and rendered in Bryce. Postwork is done in Photoshop and Painter.
Don’t you just know this is how Charlie Simic characterizes his writing process also? Not likely. But then again, me neither. I’m still drawing words in notebooks, but they don’t especially look any different once I type them up from other text-ridden (or written) poetry.
What you read when you read a visual poem differs markedly from poet to poet, poem to poem, just as with any other genre of verse. What you’re not going to get, here or most other places (George Starbuck & the shaped poems of John Hollander excepted perhaps), is persona or the old, cold verse form conformities of an earlier century. In fact Ciccariello’s work is not that far from the scrawl texts of Robert Grenier where the task of the reader is ultimately to fathom out what it says. Where Grenier gives you nothing but the hand of the poet, using marker or even crayon, Ciccariello offers landscapes that recall the works of Dali or sci-fi book jackets across which texts are stretched & folded much as they are on the figure above. Letters are discernable, words less so, themes – well, themes are really a balance between what the landscape itself tells us and what few words come across, or even what font. There are, for example, multiple layers to the text above with its image of a ghost warrior & giant lower-case g foregrounded as it is. Both Language as Authority and the landscapes of Uncommon Vision remind me of passages of Claude Levi-Strauss’ great Tristes Tropique where Levi-Strauss compares reading to the visual inspection of a field, whether that of a contemporary geologist’s or a pre-modern hunter. Where does reading begin works like this beg of us. How do we even think to make sense of the visual field? Grenier and Ciccariello have very different responses to this – I can’t imagine Grenier engaging the concept of depth perception as part of his project, while it feels close to central to Cicciarello’s – I’m tempted to say that his work is all about seeing depth on a two-dimensional plane, tho I know that’s an overstatement. And where Grenier deploys fairly rudimentary colors to distinguish word from overlapping word (thus this reads “I saw it where is it”), the real process of Greier’s poem the coming to recognition of the word, Cicciarello is far more about effects that are at the edge of language, one of which is his obsession with the color brown (it can’t just be that he lives in Providence, home to a university by that name), which is “off the charts” on the old color wheel & which brings forth a whole terrain’s worth of connotation – in most of his works, the text is lighter than its background. What changes when you read it like that? Is that, or is that not, a mode of meaning? And which meaning is that?
If Grenier then offers us a poetry of coming into language, of recognition, Cicciarello seems far more a poet going in the other direction, concerned instead with the moment things pass into unintelligibility, the instant of rupture. Several of the texts in Uncommon Vision speak to this in their titles as well: Our own vestigial language shuddering toward obscurity or Proposed monument to the language of rupture.
All of which is to note that I’m persuaded, completely, by this work. Ciccariello would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable candidate for any major book award you might think of, and would certainly be far less of an embarrassment as PLOTUS than that position’s current appointee. So, let me ask you again, why the total exclusion of visual poetry?
¹ Anyone who has ever tried to make their way through my own pathetic penmanship will recognize that drawing letters is exactly what I do and no amount of Palmer method script training ever has been able to break me of this primal habit.
² Bird in a Basket also won first prize in the Donnie 2007 Award of the
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Shanna Compton, For Girls (& Others), Bloof Books, no location given, 2007
John Crouse, Monodys, Small Chapbook Project,
Sarah Hannah, Inflorescence,
Mary Rising Higgins, Borderlning: Pieces from R & B, Small Chapbook Project,
Jukka-Pekka Kervcinen, Paragraphs, Small Chapbook Project,
Jennifer Knox, Drunk by Noon, Bloof Books, no location given, 2007
Tony Lopez, Covers, Salt, Cambridge 2007
Chris Martin, American Music, Copper Canyon, Port
Helen Mirra, Cloud, the, 3, Christoph Keller Editions, JRP Ringier, Zurich 2007
Brian Mornar, Repatterning, Punch Press, Buffalo 2007
bpNichol, The Alphabet Game: a bpNichol Reader, edited by Darren Wershler-Henry & Lori Emerson, Coach House Press, Toronto 2007
Brian Strang, Dark Adapt, Small Chapbook Project,
Ken Edwards, Nostalgia for Unknown Cities, Reality Street,
Tony Lopez & Anthony Caleshu, editors, Poetry and Public Language, Shearsman Books,
Matt Marinovich, Strange Skies, Harper Perennial, New York 2007
Chicago Review, 53: 2/3, Autumn 2007,
Damn the Caesars, vol. III, 2007, Buffalo. Includes Thomas Meyer, Steve McCaffery, Karen Mac Cormack, Dale Smith, Bill Griffiths, Thom Donovan, Sotère Torregian, Michael Kelleher, Richard Deming, Jonathan Levitsky, Jonathan Greene, Contemporary Korean Poetry feature, more.
Modern Review, Issue III.1, Fall 2007,
Richard Owens, from Bel & the Dragon, no date or location given.
All items received since Halloween
Labels: Recently Received
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Photo by Steve McNamara, courtesy of Jacket
poetry & community
“Numbers trouble” –
women & publishing
(Essays all in response
to Spahr & Young (PDF)
in the new
on the subject of gender,
Jennifer Ashton (PDF)
”Poetry Magazines & Women Poets”
by the editors of
The Chicago Review
Mlinko’s blog archives
A review of
Varieties of Disturbances
At a slam
in Kuala Lumpur
six of the seven contestants
isn’t slowing down
A portrait of
Jackson Mac Low
“Is the avant-garde
Christian Bök’s blogs
receives Czech prize
One Kansas Poet Laureate
looks at a predecessor
But the Irish
is doing okay
“But is it poetry?
I can answer positively
in the negative.”
What parts of the bookstore
to kill next
Visit to a rare book shop
& the witch of
The Marine poet
A review of
of global English
The T.S. Eliot Prize shortlist
School of Snoozy-tude
from bad to verse
in a bad economy
Is there anyone
who can report
on the reading
of Robert Grenier
& Aram Saroyan
at Beyond Baroque
Monday, November 05, 2007
Where is the body? In the North American version of the old game of Clue – Cluedo in its original British setting – Mr. Boddy, two Ds, is the only given in the game (in the U.K. he’s Mr. Black) – you have to puzzle out who did it, where they did it & with what weapon. It might even have been yourself. Playing the game as a kid, it was always a mystery to me how we could always know there is a body without actually knowing where the crime occurred. Nowadays, with the benefit of CSI, such possibilities proliferate into a cornucopia of potential false clues & wrong turns. Even when the body is present & fully opened up on the morgue slab – such a far cry from the tales of viewers vomiting as they fled Stan Brakhage’s film The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes mid-screening – it’s narratively rich, capable of telling any number of different stories.
Where’s the body in the text? That’s a recurrent question in poetry, one that I think is at least implicit in the “Preface” to Lyrical Ballads over two centuries ago & which turns up explicitly at last in the work of Charles Olson & the Projectivists. They are, after all, the first writers I can think of who actually theorized the text’s relation to the body that created it. The whole idea of the line as a tracking of the poet’s breath, the break that pause needed to inhale only to set forth again anew, very much suggests that each set of lungs will beget something different. In recordings, you can hear Olson’s scale, all 6’8” of him, wheezing as he reads into the mic. A much smaller man, Robert Creeley had shorter more hesitant lines. You can hear the tobacco clouds in his lungs as well – decades of smoking brought him to emphysema.
Among the Projectivists, Robert Duncan was different. He emphasized not the lung, but the hand & often employs the figure of the dance as an allegory for his own creative process. I must say that I never saw him truly dance, and can’t quite imagine him actually doing so. My own memory is of a man most at home sitting down. Even when he wore his cape publicly, its effect was to enshroud the body. The one period in which he did emphasize the line in his readings – the presentation of the complete, at least to that point, Passages over a couple of readings in Berkeley in 1970 or ’71¹ – Duncan audibly counted to three between each line of text, whispering the numbers as he went.
My own personal image of the Projectivists & the body is of Denise Levertov, the MC at a large, vastly overcrowded anti-war reading at Glide Church in San Francisco, getting genuinely hysterical onstage at the sight of The People’s Prick, an attendee who turn up in a six-foot tall bright pink terrycloth dildo costume. She threatened to shut the evening down on the spot and it took several of her peers to talk her down from this position, her own body visibly trembling with anger. She did not view this little bit of agitprop attendance – a direct antecedent, I suppose, of the panda who showed up at my reading last month in Ashland – in the spirit of women going topless at rock concerts, common enough at the time, but rather in the sense of the penis as an ever-present assault on women. Where is the body in this sense fragments almost instantly into questions of which body, where body, how body, and ultimately whose body is it? What might have happened had The People’s Prick been any other color, even blue?
In 1967, in an undergraduate writing class taught by Jack Gilbert at San Francisco State, two dancers suddenly burst through the door stark naked, did a short duet that was only vaguely erotic & dashed back out across the hall where presumably their clothes were waiting in another classroom. Jack had us each write down what we saw. The remainder of the class consisted of a demonstration of how different the experience was for each, that the eyewitness version was hardly neutral or objective.
That same year, in another course taught by George Hitchcock, he argued repeatedly that any author of a play needed occasionally to act, if only to understand that you had to write from the perspective of the actor, that you couldn’t give the actor things to do that were physically impossible. In 1970, I heard that same argument being made in an undergraduate drama class at UC Berkeley – I forget that teacher’s name – but this was a class in which some students actually had sex on stage. This was, I suppose, a logical next step after Michael McClure’s The Beard, which had been prosecuted a few years earlier largely because of the simulated act of cunnilingus that occurs during the play’s climax. The one time I saw The Beard performed – at the Fillmore Auditorium to a sizeable audience – the performers had mics, which rendered the physical & practical process of Billy the Kid proclaiming his lines from between Jean Harlow’s thighs problematic, to say the least. The class at Berkeley may have been notorious, but it was never busted, tho perhaps that was because, in the year of Kent State & the way UC, among so many other campuses, responded by transforming into fulltime antiwar machines canceling all else, teenagers having sex in front of their peers was the least of anybody’s problems.
I’m reminded that Steve Benson once played Billy the Kid in a production of The Beard, tho it’s not clear to me quite where or when. Before I knew him certainly. Steve is the person I think of first when I hear the question where is the body asked in connection with language poetry. All of his performance pieces seem rooted in the body, such as improvising onstage while listening to a work of classical music over headphones. So much of what actually occurs, way beyond what you can see in the later printed text, has to do with his own body language, full of hesitation & literal twitches, even tho he is one of the most graceful men I’ve ever known. As wonderful as Steve’s texts are, those that replicate his performances function to my mind as documenta – the “real” occasion is the performance itself, in real time, not replicable as such.
One step – and only one step – removed from this is the work of the language version of Poet’s Theater, and especially the writing of Carla Harryman, both there and in her other work that continues to this day.
Hardly any accusation about language poetry makes me more furious than the one that it had (has) no relation to the body. One hears this in different forms – two that I’ve come across recently were that the language poets never mention sex and “language poets can’t dance” – neither claim is even remotely true. It is no accident that the first poem in The Age of Huts, Ketjak, alludes both in its title & formal structure to the Balinese “monkey chant” by that name, nor that Ketjak is the name of the larger cycle of which The Age of Huts, Tjanting, The Alphabet, and Universe are parts. One need only hear the David Lewiston recording to find out exactly where I’m coming from as a poet. On the question of sex in my poetry, just spend a few pages reading Sunset Debris (PDF), also in The Age of Huts. Nor is it coincidental that the vast majority of my poems are originally written by hand, in notebooks. In The Alphabet, only my collaboration with Rae Armantrout, Engines, was first composed entirely on a keyboard.
One could, I think, go through the entire roster of contributors to The Grand Piano and discover much the same all through the list. Indeed, I responded to an earlier generation of this same insinuation about the lack of eroticism in language poetry, in that instance from Jeff Hansen, with the following on February 10, 1996:
I think there's lots of eroticism in most all of my langpo friends. Carla Harryman and Lyn Hejinian's collaboration The Wide Road would be an obvious place to start, but Bob Perelman's early 11 Romantic Positions wouldn't be bad either (tho it's a more fugitive work). I've been criticized for having too much in my own writing. So your question puzzles me
Nor was I alone. Douglas Messerli, Rae Armantrout, Joe Amato & Rod Smith all offered their own suggestions. Rae’s brief note pointed out that
Carla Harryman and Ron Silliman’s work (just for starters) is very much engaged with the erotic.
I’m reminded of this today because of reading in the big pink anthology, The noulipian Analects, which is an anthology that might be said to report on, cover, and/or have been provoked by, Noulipo: The Conference, held October 28-29, 2005, in Los Angeles. The anthology itself describes the event (on p. 149) as follows:
The purpose of noulipo was to examine the legacy of Oulipian constraint-based writing among Anglophone writers. Organized by Matias Viegener and Christine Wertheim, the event consisted of five discussion panels, a summary panel, and two evening readings.
I just happened at this same moment to be reading a series of reports about the Politics of Constraint panel at this same event, specifically Juliana Spahr & Stephanie Young’s attempt to spell out what they called Foulipo, which must stand for Feminist Oulipo, much in the way that noulipo signifies an Oulipo + n, at least theoretically an unknown, a supplement, a transformation to a new stage. The conference itself appears to have been interesting, even if hijacked to some degree by the success by scandal of Spahr & Young, who stripped during their presentation & were joined by three other naked performers, and who made claims made about the nature of Oulipo & the body, especially women’s bodies, that turned out to be controversial. A lot of this was documented in the eighth issue of Drunken Boat, one of the better webzines around. Of particular interest are the text of the event itself, Kenneth Goldsmith’s scolding response, which begins (not inaccurately)
Stephanie Young & Juliana Spahr’s “Foulipo” is awash in nostalgia….
Also worth noting here are Young’s brief report of the event, which she uses as a lead-in to the paper itself, and Joseph Mosconi’s far more reportorial essay, presented on his blog. An edited version of Mosconi’s piece appears in The noulipian Analects under “Politics of Constraint: The Panel.”
I have to admit that I concur with Goldsmith’s judgment here – Spahr & Young had taken some potshots at Fidget – and that the whole conference as presented in this anthology reminds me of Rae Armantrout’s joke that she has to bring her very worn copy of the Rolling Stones LP Let it Bleed to school at least once each year to let certain undergraduates know that they did not invent nihilism, punk, dressing in black, whatever. Oulipo itself represents but a minuscule fraction of constraint-based literature – one can trace it back well past the trobar clus of the troubadours to the invention of rhyme itself – and to note that a conference on constraint-based literature that so fetishizes Oulipo, as this one did, has already gone off the tracks avant la lettre.
In the actual instance of Young & Spahr, the constraint placed on their piece on the body & writing was not the omission of the letter r from portions of the text nearly so much as it was historical amnesia. They’re permitted to discover that they have bodies by virtue of forgetting that everybody else got there first. At one level, this is not unlike children who cannot imagine the erotic lives of their parents.
By comparison, the body in language poetry occurs not only in Steve Benson’s performances or Poet’s Theater – they’re just the obvious places. Steve Benson once wrote a work that was composed in a notebook while he waited for his computer to boot up each date. How can anything that entails time not entail the body? What else is there, after all, through which to experience this? In
Language poetry came into being in San Francisco within a literary community that had included Kathy Acker (Noulipo conference co-convener Matias Viegener, Acker’s literary executor, must know this) and that her works were as important for their use of procedures as they were for her formula that pornography plus plagiarism equals autobiography. Acker went so far as to work in the sex industry, making low-end porn flicks that would play in the Tenderloin back when I still worked there. Her work in that context has to be seen in the broader historical framework that included, for example, the existence of both the Cockettes & the Angels of Light, the post-Stonewall pre-AIDS explosion of gay sex-positive culture, a large infrastructure of bath houses in San Francisco where relatively anonymous sex was not uncommon, including one or two bath houses aimed at least partly at the straight community. It’s in this frame that I would argue, happily, that what was/is revolutionary about Kathy Acker was not that she was a writer who was willing to fuck onscreen, or to kiss & tell in her writing, but that she breached the bad girl, post-Burroughs genre of the novel using procedures. This is, after all, a dozen years after works like Carolee Schneeman’s Meat Joy.
It’s true that in the 1970s poets who were then younger & single, or at least not yet fixed in their life partnerships, did more, and more various, things than these same people do today turning 60. When I first met X, that
Caroline Bergvall, Christian Bök, Johanna Drucker, Paul Fournel, Jen Hofer, Tan Lin, Bernadette Mayer, Ian Monk, Joseph Mosconi, Harryette Mullen, Doug Nufer, Vanessa Place, Janet Sarbanes, Juliana Spahr, Brian Kim Stefans, Rodrigo Toscano, Matias Viegener, Christine Wertheim, Rob Wittig, Stephanie Young
are much more interesting to think about not for what they’re doing that’s oulipian, but rather what’s new.
¹ I’ve donated my tapes of those events to PENNsound, but much remains to be done digitizing them, making them audible, getting permission of
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Jackson Mac Low
look at the impact
of their first books
& a dreadful review
On the Edge:
Collected Longer Poems
On the Road
Noah Eli Gordon
Is an MFA
the first chimp
to use sign language,
on online journals
& its discontents
Talking with Philip Corbett,
the man in charge
of grammar & style
at The New York Times
(one should be
poetry & poets
in the same sentence”)
literature vs. hate
Alice Corbin Henderson’s
New Poetry anthology
digitized by Google Books
Microsoft will scan
& the myth
is like eating
on teaching English
Michael Ondaatje’s answers
to questions posed
of the Giller Prize shortlist
A profile of
A review of
Gertrude and Alice
almost as unsympathetic
to Stein’s work
as Malcolm herself
“How to Get Your Poetry Published”
with the least appropriate
The Tales of
Beedle the Bard
Cries in the New Wilderness
blames his obscurity
more from readers
A profile of
Where retro meets metro:
with the Paris Review
what’s wrong with
Why Latin lives
& modernist architecture
we’re around numbers
6 through 8