Commenting upon George
Stanley’s excerpt from Vancouver
in The Poker turned out to bring
goodies in time for the holiday season. Kevin Davies sent me a copy of another excerpt from Book One and I was directed to yet another
shining example in the new issue of Shampoo by editor Del
Ray Cross. This last piece has two different descriptions of the late Angela
Bowering that make me envious of those who knew her, as well as further
confirmation of my theory of Vancouver
& the poetry of transit. The poem also has
a wonderful dictum that I suspect Stanley would like to believe – write carelessly – tho in fact he is one
of the great careful writers of our time.
All of which made me think
of how we begin the longpoem, those of us who do write them, and that one of my
New Years Resolutions for 2003 is to read Rachel Blau DuPlessis’ Drafts 1-38, Toll with
the kind of long, slow, luxuriating attention that I believe it deserves. So I
got a jump on the new year and sat down & read (reread, really) Draft 1: It, first in the large Wesleyan
University Press edition, then in the even larger (at least in terms of page
size) Temblor 5 where I first
encountered this poem back in 1987. Way back when, I don’t think it struck me
how one of the keys to Drafts was
(or, really, back then, would be) how
each section always links to a title, most often (but not always) a single word. “Links to a title” may seem a funny
way of phrasing this, yet I sense that these are not titles in the same way
that, say, “The Multiversity” is the title for Passages 23 for Robert Duncan or Paradise is the title of one section of my own Alphabet. As I think becomes clear when reads DuPlessis, every word
for her is always provisional. The monumental aspect of poetry titles seems
something very different – and yet, these aren’t “captions” either, at least
not in the way that Benjamin distinguishes between those two categories, one
name the work, the other pulling out a highlight or foregrounding some element
within. My own sense here at least at this point, is that DuPlessis uses these
words & phrases to identify territories in the vicinity of which the poems
then work.
In 1987, I knew DuPlessis as
one of several poets whom I might characterize as post-Objectivist, a grouping
as diverse as John Taggart, Michael Heller & Armand Schwerner. DuPlessis
was notable also for being the one woman who seemed actively drawn to this
literary tradition. But nothing in her (first?) book Wells (Montemora Supplement, 1980)
prepared me for this suddenly expansive use of the page. Perhaps if I had read Gypsy / Moth (Coincidence Press, 1984) more attentively, I would
have realized that its title page, assigning the two poems of that volume to a
longer project, the “History of Poetry” (and with the word Keats both
printed and X’d out right in the center of the page),
was in fact announcing DuPlessis’ taking on of something of greater scale, not
just in size but also in intellectual ambition.
DuPlessis is more explicit
in Tabula Rosa (Potes & Poets,
1987), which includes 17 pieces from the “History of Poetry,” including the two
David Sheidlower had published in the earlier book. The section – it forms the
first half of the book – has an epigram that is telling: “She cannot forget the
history of poetry / because it is not hers.” That was the clearest statement
yet of DuPlessis’ own sense of herself as writing as an outsider, a position
that will very much inform Drafts. The
second half of Tabula Rosa is, in
fact, entitled “Drafts,” & reprints the first two from Temblor. But it also contains a serial poem, “Writing,” that, with
commentary, runs 30 pages, longer than the two sections of DuPlessis’ new
longpoem.
“Writing’s” ultimate
relation to Drafts isn’t self-evident
– it’s not included here in the Wesleyan edition. Reading it, it feels (very
much as the “History of Poets” does for me also) as a necessary step for DuPlessis
to clear the ground on which she could begin the true longpoem. Already in
“Writing,” DuPlessis is moving away from standard type-driven forms.
Handwritten in one section are these sentiments: “wanting to have her book
virtually nameless / what is the most transparent name?” Tabula Rosa, in spite of its pun, “Writing” and Drafts all seem possible responses to
that question.
Between Tabula Rosa and the Wesleyan edition, DuPlessis will publish three
more collections of Drafts:
<![if !supportLists]>§
<![endif]>A volume from
Potes & Poets entitled Drafts,
containing numbers 3 through 14
<![if !supportLists]>§
<![endif]>A large &
wonderfully designed Singing Horse Press edition of Draft X: Letters
<![if !supportLists]>§
<![endif]>Another volume
from Potes & Poets entitled Drafts
1-XXX, The Fold.
“It” is as contra-auspicious
a title one might propose for the opening of a longpoem, which is the point.
The poem itself begins with an initial “N.” that is then repeated, followed by
two hand drawn Ns, large &
asymmetrical, giving the page as much a sketch of a mountaintop (my immediate
thought, seeing them, was Wordsworth’s alps – Bunting’s version of same also –
although to a later reader the use of the hand here would no doubt call up Bob
Grenier’s own “scrawl” texts*), followed by a section divider, which in this
piece is a pair of equal signs. Thus signs & sounds are all that we are
given in the very first section. There is not even one vowel. & the
consonant chosen (no accident here) comes more than halfway through the
alphabet itself. There’s no way to make a word out of this, the way one could
stretch “m” into “mmmmmm.” The use of the period with
each “N” reinforces its “vocal but subverbal”
qualities, just as the mountain tops carry us back to a time when language is
as much picture as conventional representation of sound.
Think of every longpoem you
have ever read – none has an opening passage even remotely like this. No jewels
& diamonds, no round of fiddles, no going down to the ships. The closest I
can imagine is Duncan ’s reference to a cat’s purr, but that is at the
start of the second Passages, not the
first. So, even if we buy the scrawled Ns
as mountain tops, any allusion to The
Prelude is at best an echo that tugs ever so faintly in the work.
The second passage is
everything the first one is not:
and
something spinning in the bushes the
past
dismembered sweetest
dizzy chunk
of song
Here
suddenly we have miracles, memory, history, fragmentation, qualities, the whole idea that song, for example, might be
characterized as a “dizzy chunk.” When I get to this moment, I do in fact hear
an echo from the start of a longpoem, but on a very different order:
I thought that if I could put
it all down, that would be one way. And next the thought came to me that to
leave all out would be another, and truer way.
clean-washed
sea
The flowers were.
John Ashbery’s “The New
Spirit,” the start of Three Poems (which
I will always read as one), presents a very similar opposed pair – but note
that DuPlessis has reversed the order, or at the very least suggested that
possibility.
One
image or theme that runs through this passage is light: “all the sugar is
reconstituted: / sunlight” or “light this / governed being: it?
that?” This question of embodiment leads to the
section’s last stanza, which transforms a Zukofskian
moment of closure that is almost stunning in how directly DuPlessis gets to it”
plunges into every object
a word and then some chuck
and
pwhee wee
half
tones
have tune’s
heft.
There
are no half measures in these two passages – DuPlessis takes you right smack
into the heart of writing with all of its epistemological & ontological
questions in what amounts to a “take no prisoners” directness. The ambition of
the moment is both sweeping and brea th-taking. We are ind eed at the cusp of a great adventure.
* I’m not sure whether any of Grenier’s scrawl works, which
I believe existed by the mid 1980s, had appeared anywhere that DuPlessis might
have seen them at this point in history. My guess is not.