The new No is now. Which is to say that the
second issue of this exceptionally intelligent – but bafflingly designed* –
journal has arrived. As with its first issue, there are
several features that entirely warrant the $12 cover price. Three that immediately
come to mind are:
·
In Denmark: Poems 1973-1974, by Kenneth Irby – a 66-page book (bound on gray matte pages to
distinguish it from the glossy white of the main No), by the writer whom I’ve argued in these
pages before may have the best ear of any American poet of my time.
·
An American Primitive in Paris, a sizeable portfolio of the
paintings of Enrique Chagoya, whose artwork used to grace the page of Socialist Review back when I had the
fortune to be its editor.
·
The American Rhythm, by Mary Austin,
with an intro by C.D. Wright, returning to print this 1930 document** arguing
for an American poetic measure predicated upon what Austin calls Amerindian languages.
On top of
which there is a piece by Marjorie Perloff attempting to prove William Butler
Yeats to be Steve McCaffery before Steve was. And very healthy
selections of poets well-known (Palmer, Will Alexander, Barbara Guest, Cole
Swenson, Peter Gizzi, Elizabeth Robinson) and new at least to me (Molly
Dorozenski, H.L. Hix, Kristin P. Bradshaw among them).
What is
most interesting to me about Austin’s piece is not necessarily her
argument per se, which depends on a racial fantasy of Native Americans, but
rather its underlying premise, that the measure – I mean this in the metrical
sense – of American writing, simply by virtue of not being European, would be
different. It’s the same argument that has bedeviled
American letters from the break between the Young Americans & the School of Quietude in the 1840s right up to today. One can, of course, mount a pseudo-linguistic argument – it’s been
done more than once – claiming that iambic in particular is implicit in the
English language, though to do so is simply to ignore the vast range of
regional variations that occur even now after some 50 years of the influence of
television and job mobility has tended to flatten out local
differences.
In some
ways, Austin’s sense of the prairie in the measure anticipates Olson’s
own sense of space (or, as Olson puts it, SPACE). Implicit in both is a sense
that elements other than language impinge up on it, speak through it, are in some sense themselves articulate. Olson of course
returns measure to the body, literally, of the poet – meter becomes a kind of
pulse, as if one’s blood pumped differently according to who
& where we might be. Within 20 years of Olson’s essay on
Projective Verse we find a poetics that in practice emphasizes enjambment
centered in New England (Olson, Creeley),
one that favors the long flat lines of the prairie (Paul Carroll most clearly,
tho Lew Welch played with this possibility as well) & a verse mode that
tends to be more relaxed and open, generally associated with the American West
(Whalen, Snyder, Kyger, etc.). It’s this poetic atlas that Spicer appears to scoff at
& what, one wonders, were we to make of the likes of Kenneth Irby &
Ronald Johnson, both of whom spent substantial parts of their lives in Kansas, both of whom pay extraordinary
attention to the ear, neither of whom remotely approach the aural aesthetics of
the other?
Langpo to
some degree sidestepped the issue in good part by turning to prose, but the
issue lingers on even more acutely I think for younger poets. The failure to
create an adequate response is partly to blame for the resurrection of
patterned poetics in the guise of a New Formalism (that was – & for the
most part still is – terrified of form), always already guilty premodernists
that they are. And it’s what enables Thomas Fink to
call me on my analysis of Brenda
Iijima’s “Georgic”: I have, in his view, identified all the ways she is not
like X, Y, or Z, without really being able to describe what, in fact, her line
break is about. What motivates it? What is the positive principle that
determines that broken word stam- / pede? But as I confessed then,
this is
what most mystifies me – because given those words, I just couldn’t do it on my
own.
And I’m not
aware of anyone who has stepped up to attempt such a project, either with
regards to this text of Iijima’s, or for that matter any other
contemporary younger poet. And I sense, as I think Tom Fink
must also, my own frustration here, that we find ourselves at the end of 2003
with so few choices available as to the line – either the metrically closed
verse of premodernism, ranging from the hokey to the merely embarrassing, or
the untheorized (& too often too slack, tho not certainly in Iijima’s work)
“free verse” marriage of convenience, with maybe theories along the line of
Austin’s or Olson’s to haunt us with their inadequate alternatives.*** Indeed,
the absence of a good answer here sometimes has been used by critics to argue
that poetry is, if not, certainly on the wane as a medium.
I do intuit at some level that the assumption that underwrites
both Austin & Olson – that the measures of verse are contextually dependent
– makes sense. But I don’t, even after writing &
thinking about poetry for 40 years, feel anywhere near ready to say why or how.
I would love to hear what readers of this blog think.
* The only
excuse for starting the first piece, an elegy by Michael Palmer for the novelist W.G. Sebald, on the
left-hand page is lack of space in the issue . . . yet there are blank pages at
the end. And there is no excuse for the muddle that is
the table of contents qua contributors’ notes pages. If these are attempts to
innovate or protest conventional design elements, they succeed only in
confirming the superiority of the convention.
** A second
edition was published posthumously in 1970.
*** So I
read Irby’s work in this issue, written nearly 30 years ago, right at the height
of the “my linebreak / my zipcode” fever, yet written
in a wholly different context, having moved at that point to Denmark. And these are curiously the flattest lines of his that I
know, as if that Scandinavian sound were bleeding into the English.