Thingness: A Little Leslie Scalapino

I've been reading an earlier series by Leslie Scalapino, hmmmm. I'm finding myself falling into her work more and more, after a brief hiatus. There is something quite tangible about this writing, where I can simultaneously relate to the emotion in the work while at the same time be strangely freed of its inherent heat. She utilizes decidedly biological symbols in this series (the water lily, the fish, and, like George Oppen, the anemone) that act to objectify and thus cool narratives that arise from “extreme” emotional or socio-economic states.

Or, as in covering a contortionist with a blanket, allow one to see the shape discarded of the uncomfortable and unflattering tangle of the body.

The narratives are folded. I read first the happening - say, of searching frantically for someone in a park at night - and then the symbolic overlay brings me away from the intensity of the first-hand experience. With Scalapino often acting as a conduit of another's reflection on an historical (personal) action, there is a further distancing of the narrative by degrees, further cooling it, giving it a certain solidity, tangibility, and "thingness."

It is a hunk of obsidian.

The series is available via the linked site above, the Electronic Poetry Center at Buffalo.

Dual, Divergent Influence: Objectivism and Surrealism

Recently I’ve been thinking quite a bit about my divergent tastes in 20^th-century poetry and what that may mean for the writing I produce. On the one hand, I enjoy the wild, fantastical power of the Surrealist movement, and on the other hand I have a great respect for the reserved, particular Objectivist school and its affiliates – George Oppen in particular, on whom I will be giving a lecture at the Cambridge Center for Adult Education in a couple weeks. Oppen seems to always be searching to get to “the heart of the matter” – that is, his poetry, his language is always a most economic distillation of experience. To put it in physical terms, he packs an incredible density in the relatively small volume of his poems. It is a poetry that is not designed to dazzle but rather to accomplish what he would call “clarity.” From a reader’s perspective, the “object” of the poem may not be incredibly clear (at least upon the first reading), as this clarity is incredibly personal, and in fact goes to such a great depth that it is pushing each word on the page to perform a massive duty. No word, no matter how small, is insignificant. There is no “filler.” It is, to my mind, the poetic form of implosion.

The surrealist attitude is in some ways the diametric opposite of objectivist works. I’m going to speak in broad strokes here: surrealist art is post-romantic, decadent, expansive, highly symbolic, and gives the most “speaking power” to the dream. To say that the difference between surrealism and objectivism boils down to “the psychological vs. the physical” is dangerously over-general. But perhaps it is the objectivist who views his/her psychological state as a physical fact that reveals its humanistic and “spiritual” aspects. I believe the surrealist moves in the opposite direction – the spiritual manifesting itself into objects and symbols. Through automatic writing, the surrealist poet is exploring the psyche by allowing all that is hidden in the brain to rise to the surface, free of scrutiny. Oppen, I think, would rather scrutinize each thought, each droplet of language that forms from the brain. As Williams said “A chance word, upon paper, may destroy the world.”

I’m sure I’ve made a number of miscalculated assessments, but I nonetheless find this perceived dichotomy [of objectivism vs. surrealism] problematic. Surrealism and Objectivism, as movements, are no longer active, but their influence has been inescapable in the world of innovative poetics. In fact, aspects of these styles have already been successfully merged (Leslie Scalapino comes to mind – especially her series “Instead of an Animal”). It looks like I will need to research more contemporary poets in order to get some fresh ideas.

A book was recently published on the subject (Poetry and Language Writing: Objective and Surreal, by David Arnold), which I plan to pick up in the near future.

Gregory Corso and "Seeing Something New"

…or you could see something new. And by seeing that something new that’s here that nobody sees, and you illuminate others, then you’ve got it made.

- Gregory Corso

I am particularly taken with the “seeing” aspect of this quote. It implies, to me, that whatever you are creating is not only a creation but an act of observation, of giving credence. The World is the subject, a place we are in disbelief of, though it occurs again and again without regard for our ability to understand it. What Corso is speaking about here is something like a prophetic act.

Here is the url for the video from which the above quote is spoken: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z1LkYLDCrg