Reading “In Particular,” the
first of the four poems gathered into Let’s Just Say, an intensely
beautiful chapbook by Charles
Bernstein just out from Chax Press, I remembered listening to Charles read
the poem aloud last fall at The New School
as part of the launch activities for Short Fuse: The Global Anthology
of New Fusion Poetry, edited by
At the time I remember being
struck, as I have on other occasions when I’ve heard Charles read, especially
over the past decade, at the degree to which Bernstein reminds me of the late
Allen Ginsberg. They’re very different people, poets & readers, of course,
but what they share in common is a fundamentally satiric approach to their art,
an approach that, it seems to me, is not always understood or appreciated as
such. In part, I suppose, that’s because our culture – Official Verse Culture
as Charles would say (OVC), tho the issue extends beyond just that slice of the
aesthetic torte – tends to devalue satire. But this similarity also is because each poet ultimately has proven so
important to the history of American letters that their presence &
influence can’t be understated. One way not
to understate their importance, by this convoluted logic, is to understate
the role of the comedic in their work. They’re hardly the first writers to
suffer this misimpression – you have to wade through a lot of critical
worshipfulness to reach the clowning in Pound or Joyce as well & a lot of
readers still don’t get it in Olson.
Bernstein has inoculated
himself from this problem partly by approaching the problem as Stein did,
foregrounding humor. But he has also inoculated himself from the one problem
that Stein in her lifetime never solved – not being taken seriously – through
as judicious a management of OVC institutions as any poet in my generation.* Bernstein Amid the Bureaucracies will
someday make for a fascinating exploration of the social structures surrounding
verse at the end of the 20th century & start of the next. And it
should be noted that Charles was careful not to foreground humor too often too
early in his career. Whether one reads the narrative of publication as one of
evolution, Bernstein becoming more of a comic over time, or one of the careful
sequencing of disclosure as to just how funny he is, Bernstein is now clearly
in a position to do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. For an artist,
that is as close to a perfect situation as one could imagine.
“In Particular” is a poem of
107 lines, virtually every one of which consists entirely of a complex noun
phrase involving a person. Here is the opening passage, revised slightly from
the version that appeared in Short Fuse:
A black
man waiting at a bus stop
A
white woman sitting on a stool
A
Filipino eating a potato
A
Mexican boy putting on shoes
A
Hindu hiding in igloo
A fat
girl in blue blouse
A
Christian lady with toupee
A
Chinese mother walking across a bridge
A
Pakistani eating pastrami
A
provincial walking on the peninsula
A
Eurasian boy on a cell phone
An
Arab with umbrella
A
Southerner taking off a backpack
An
Italian detonating a land mine
A
barbarian with beret
A
Lebanese guy in limousine
A Jew
watering petunias
A Yugoslavian
man at a hanging
A
Sunni boy on scooter
A
Floridian climbing a fountain
A
Beatnik writing a limerick
A
Caucasian woman dreaming of indecision
A
Puerto Rican child floating on a balloon
An
Indian fellow gliding on three-wheeled bike
An
Armenian rowing to Amenia
An
Irish lad with scythe
A
Bangladeshi muttering questions
A
worker wading in puddles
A
Japanese rollerblader fixing a blend
A
Burmese tailor watching his trailer
The last two lines of the
poem reiterate in inverted form (but with the gender of the figures switched)
the first two above.** While each line presents a complete image, if not
statement, there are no predicates here – essentially the same formula as Sitting Up, Standing, Taking Steps. But
where my 1978 prose poem focused on the question of what happens to predication
& action when the verb is absent, Bernstein, by virtue of a much stricter
parallelism, focuses instead on the construction of figures, one might say of
social personhood.
Bernstein first begins to
reveal his strategy to the reader in the fifth line, an incongruous
juxtaposition of a Hindu “in (article absent) igloo.” The lines aren’t
depictive, but representative, specifically of categories & structures. It
very quickly becomes evident that each element in these seemingly simple
ensembles is built up out of a repertoire of social codes that can fit together
with the substitutability of a child’s toy – insert your favorite image of
Legos, Tinker Toys or Mr. (or Mrs.) Potato Head here. Yet the humor rises
precisely where (& how, & why) terms aren’t infinitely interchangeable.
The presumed social neutrality – the “purity” – of syntactic structures becomes
clotted, clouded & lumpy as the real world, with all of its biases &
complex schema of race, class, age, body type, religion or what have you
attempt to pass through it. This literally is the content of the two epigrams
that head up the body of Bernstein’s text, the first from his son Felix:
I admit that beauty
inhales me
but not that I
inhale beauty
& the second ascribed to
“the genie in the candy store”:
My lack of nothingness
Bernstein’s point, to the
degree that a comic poem can be characterized as didactic, is that Chomsky’s
infamous impossible sentence, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously,” becomes
such in the everyday world – the sentence has long been shown to be meaningful
within the realm of poetry – not for reasons of grammar, but reasons of
society.
*
Admittedly, Bernstein has not had as tough a problem in this regard. Stein
seriousness was discounted because she foregrounded humor, but also because of
her gender & sexual orientation.
** It would
be a whole other discussion, although one worth having, to consider whether
such a gesture toward symmetry – really a bracketing effect – constitutes real
closure, a gesture toward closure or even possibly a satire of it.