Involuntary Vision: After Kurosawa’s Dreams, edited by Michael
Cross, from Avenue B, isn’t “really” a One Shot, although it
partakes very much of the spirit of one – it is as “in between” a publication
as I’ve seen in some time. At first glance, the book looks like a miniature
anthology of poetry on a theme – Kurosawa’s great & ultimately spooky 1990
film – but it’s not. It’s really The New
Brutalist Anthology, but – in keeping I suspect with NB’s discomfort at
movements in general & its own self-presentation as one – sort of in
disguise. As someone who has long since learned that anthologies on themes –
just like magazines devoted to same – often represent the worst editing
instinct imaginable, the redaction of content to a single signifier – poems on
baseball, poems on the war, poems on dogs & toddlers – I could have missed
this publication altogether. Contrary to that misimpression, Involuntary Vision is one of the most
important books around right now. It’s definitely in the “if you only buy one
book this month . . .” category.
Michael
Cross, one-time
there is no single practice characterizing their work . . . . The
real affinity . . . is that these poets have taken part in an ongoing dialogue
with one another, and at the heart of this dialogue is an unwillingness to
accept objective conditioning . . . .
Socially,
the point of connection – the actual, practical context for this dialog – is
that everyone included here seems to have either taught or studied in the
graduate writing program at Mills. The teachers are familiar names – Stephen
Ratcliffe, Elizabeth Willis – the students (or former students) less so,
although bloggers & listserv readers no doubt will recognize Tanya
Brolaski, Geoffrey Dyer, James
Meetze & Cynthia Sailers, in addition
to Cross. Others who are here include Ryan
Bartlett, Julia Bloch, Trevor Calvert & Eli Drabman.
Cross,
whose arrival in Buffalo seems to have sent that school’s poetics faculty
fleeing in all directions, is right at one level – the discussion is far more
important than any idea of a shared aesthetic stance – but not so right in that
there is indeed a sense that seems to
underlie all of the work here: for a cluster of relatively young poets, this is
a remarkably well-wrought collection, so much so that it suggests that there is
an impulse toward the basic crafting of the poem that is, say, a far cry not
just from the spirit of the Beats some 50 years ago, but possibly even the New
York School. Thus Julia Bloch:
There again I’ve
angered
the atmosphere. But there’s
still these hips in long
light. It was a flurry
of news, a digital you,
then the thing itself.
Sounds as though we’re
coughing up snow. As
opposed to all those
blurry lines, I’m just
apartment-building.
We froze up to our
kneecaps. Then broke
through that winter bitch.
Or
James Meetze:
No dancing while the world is ending.
No nuclear family photo melting in the heat.
I saw a small island cry when the lights went up,
sewn to the sky, everything going up at once.
She looks impressive and incredulous, a rocket
without a planet. I am pale in the
red clouds rising to meet her.
She’s pretty good, she’s paramount. Going away from
what explosions knit the possibility of dying, sigh.
The kindness of our atmosphere raining down a carpet
of amnesty. No safety in
disaster.
I saw her walk toward a cliff’s edge clutching a baby,
then she was gone. Without a grasp of an image
there is only conclusion. There is the boom, the panic,
the quiet desperation in tragic weather.
Or
Cynthia Sailers:
We never took
advantage of the sea,
A drop of squid ink from a crime.
I wanted the
explanatory plan. The imperial
Bird descending a
slope mediated by
A sign for road
work, a sign to require
This station to provide air and water.
To desire the language instinct. An obvious cow
In pastures of warm order. The Army
inoculates us,
Our adopted child
looks out the window.
I had been driving
down to City Hall.
There is base
morality and there is the weather.
You have to look
hard to see the crows
Shaped into small
pieces of paper, turning
Windmills. The classic statues are more
baroque,
And time more
exaggerated.
I was a huge fan of
artifacts when we first
Started dating.
There
may once have been a Dreams Project, that is, the idea of everybody writing
something “in response” to the film, or the idea of the film – so James Meetze
suggests in a comment to yesterday’s blog – tho the connection to Kurosawa
feels more conjectural to me, more of a metaphor or point of departure – you
hardly need to have seen Dreams to
appreciate this book.* More apparent than any image is the use of the series as
an organizing principle – Geoffrey Dyer is the only person here not to resort to the series, whose
individual sections are mostly untitled.
I
think the pieces above reflect both the strengths and the potential weaknesses of the New Brutalism – the very same
commitment to craft can just as easily keep these mostly young poets from
pushing hard enough against the glass ceiling of received wisdom, which is why
so much groundbreaking writing often looks so ragged, rather than shaped. There
are moments in all these poems – not just in the three quoted above – when I
want them to go further, really to push their writing out of control just to
see what turns up.
But
I trust that idea of a common discourse – it’s what the
*
The idea of involuntary vision – the essence of the nightmare – is an
interesting one with respect to this film. Although, frankly, I should offer a
consumer warning here: what I saw of the movie may well have differed from what
anyone else saw. The reason is that, at age nine, I was pulled off of a moving
motor scooter by a snarling collie that was roughly the same size I was. The
sequence in which the man approaches the tunnel only to be confronted by
snarling dogs (their growling electronically enhanced) touches a very deep
phobia of mine. In my memory – it’s been at least a decade since I last saw it
– Dreams telescopes down to that one
unforgettable image.
Җ Җ Җ
I’m
going to be on the road for much of the next two weeks, in