Avant-Post: The Avant-Garde Under ''Post'' Conditions

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ AVANTȬPOSTȱ ȱ ȱ

editedȱbyȱ

LOUISȱARMANDȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

þȱ LitterariaȱPragensiaȱ Pragueȱ2006ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Copyrightȱ©ȱLouisȱArmand,ȱ2006ȱ Copyrightȱ©ȱofȱindividualȱworksȱremainsȱwithȱtheȱauthorsȱ ȱ Publishedȱ2006ȱbyȱLitterariaȱPragensiaȱ FacultyȱofȱPhilosophy,ȱCharlesȱUniversityȱ Nám»stíȱJanaȱPalachaȱ2,ȱ116ȱ38ȱPragueȱ1ȱ CzechȱRepublicȱ www.litterariapragensia.comȱ ȱ ȱ Allȱ rightsȱ reserved.ȱ Thisȱ bookȱ isȱ copyrightȱ underȱ internationalȱ copyrightȱ conventions.ȱ Noȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ bookȱ mayȱ beȱ reproduced,ȱ storedȱ inȱ aȱ retrievalȱ system,ȱ orȱ transmittedȱ inȱ anyȱ form,ȱ electronic,ȱ mechanical,ȱ photocopying,ȱ recordingȱ orȱ otherwise,ȱ withoutȱ priorȱ writtenȱ permissionȱ fromȱ theȱ copyrightȱ holders.ȱ Requestsȱ toȱ publishȱ workȱ fromȱ thisȱ bookȱ shouldȱ beȱ directedȱ toȱ theȱ publishers.ȱ ȱ Theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ thisȱ bookȱ hasȱ beenȱ supportedȱ byȱ researchȱ grantȱ MSM0021620824ȱ“FoundationsȱofȱtheȱModernȱWorldȱasȱReflectedȱinȱLiteratureȱ andȱ Philosophy”ȱ awardedȱ toȱ theȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Philosophy,ȱ Charlesȱ University,ȱ Prague,ȱbyȱtheȱCzechȱMinistryȱofȱEducation.ȱ ȱ ȱ CataloguingȱinȱPublicationȱDataȱ ȱ AvantȬPost:ȱ Theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ Underȱ “PostȬ”ȱ Conditions,ȱ editedȱ byȱ Louisȱ Armand.—1stȱed.ȱ ȱ ȱp.ȱcm.ȱ ISBNȱ80Ȭ7308Ȭ123Ȭ7ȱ(pb)ȱ 1.ȱPoetics.ȱ2.ȱLiteraryȱTheory.ȱ3.ȱCulturalȱStudies.ȱ4.ȱAesthetics.ȱȱ I.ȱArmand,ȱLouis.ȱII.ȱTitleȱ ȱ ȱ PrintedȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublicȱbyȱPBȱTiskȱ Typesettingȱ&ȱdesignȱbyȱlazarusȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Contentsȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ TheȱOrganȱGrinder’sȱMonkeyȱ ȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessisȱ PostȬAvantȱ/ȱAvantȬPost:ȱAnȱImaginaryȱConversationȱȱ InsideȱRealȱPracticeȱ ȱ R.M.ȱBerryȱ TheȱAvantȬGardeȱ&ȱtheȱQuestionȱofȱLiteratureȱ ȱ RobertȱArchambeauȱ TheȱDeathȱofȱtheȱCritic:ȱTheȱCriticȬPasticheurȱasȱȱ PostmodernȱAvantȬGardistȱ ȱ JohannaȱDruckerȱ NeonȱSighȱ::ȱEpistemologicalȱRefamiliarisationȱ ȱ BonitaȱRhoadsȱ&ȱVadimȱErentȱ AnȱAesthete’sȱLostȱWar:ȱLyotardȱ&ȱtheȱUnsublimeȱȱ ArtȱofȱNewȱEuropeȱ ȱ MairéadȱByrneȱ AvantȬGardeȱPronounsȱ

1ȱ

17ȱ

35ȱ

57ȱ

71ȱ

85ȱ

114ȱ

ȱ

AnnȱVickeryȱ FromȱBeingȱDraftedȱtoȱaȱDraftȱofȱBeing:ȱRachelȱBlauȱDuPlessisȱȱ andȱtheȱReconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱFeministȱAvantȬGardeȱ 133ȱ ȱ EstherȱMilneȱ TheȱAffectiveȱandȱAestheticȱRelationsȱofȱEpistolaryȱPresenceȱ 160ȱ ȱ

ȱ

ChristianȱBökȱ UnacknowledgedȱLegislationȱ ȱ LouisȱArmandȱ AvantȬGardeȱMachines,ȱExperimentalȱSystemsȱ ȱ LaurentȱMilesiȱ FromȱLogosȱtoȱMuthosȱ:ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱȱ Pound’sȱandȱOlson’sȱMythopeticsȱ ȱ KestonȱSutherlandȱ EthicaȱNulliusȱ ȱ LisaȱJarnotȱ SanȱFrancisco’sȱBurningȱ ȱ RobertȱSheppardȱ AȱCarafe,ȱaȱBlueȱGuitar,ȱBeyondingȱArt:ȱKrzysztofȱZiarekȱȱ andȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ ȱ TreyȱStreckerȱ NarrativeȱEcologyȱandȱEncyclopaedicȱNarrativeȱ

178ȱ

194ȱ

215ȱ

239ȱ

256ȱ

264ȱ

281ȱ

ȱ

MichaelȱS.ȱBegnalȱ TheȱAncientsȱHaveȱReturnedȱAmongȱUs:ȱPolaroidsȱȱ ofȱ21stȱCenturyȱIrishȱPoetryȱ ȱ ȱ NotesȱonȱContributorsȱ ȱ

ȱ

299ȱ

325ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Introductionȱ

TheȱOrganȬGrinder’sȱMonkeyȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱdayȱwillȱcomeȱwhenȱoneȱoriginalȱcarrotȱwillȱbeȱenoughȱtoȱ startȱaȱrevolution.ȱ—Cézanneȱ

ȱ ȱ Isȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ viableȱ underȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ postȬ modernism?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ immediatelyȱ givesȱ riseȱ toȱ others,ȱ concerningȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ avantȬgardesȱ historicalȱ orȱ conjectural,ȱ andȱ concerningȱ theȱ variousȱ cognatesȱ ofȱ postȬmodernismȱ andȱ theȱnumerousȱotherȱpostȬsȱandȱismsȱthatȱhaveȱpopulatedȱcriticalȱ discourseȱinȱliteratureȱandȱtheȱartsȱduringȱtheȱlatterȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ lastȱ century.ȱ Consequentlyȱ ourȱ initialȱ questionȱ mayȱ comeȱ toȱ appearȱpurelyȱdefinitional,ȱwhileȱanyȱendeavourȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱ itȱ programmaticallyȱ willȱ neverthelessȱ remainȱ ambiguous,ȱ eclectic,ȱ evenȱ contradictory.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ thisȱ hasȱ notȱ toȱ doȱ simplyȱ withȱ theȱ diversityȱ ofȱ possibleȱ positionsȱ visȬàȬvisȱ avantȬ gardismȱ andȱ postȬmodernity,ȱ norȱ withȱ theȱ ambivalencesȱ ofȱ historicityȱ orȱ interpretation,ȱ butȱ withȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ calledȱ (inȱ deferenceȱ toȱ theȱ poeticȱ legacyȱ ofȱ theȱ Russianȱ poetȱ Velimirȱ Chlebnikov)ȱ“theȱdiscoveriesȱofȱforgottenȱbutȱneverȱcompletelyȱ lostȱ archaicȱ resourcesȱ ofȱ construing,ȱ whichȱ leadȱ toȱ unexpectedȱ significationsȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱstructure.”1ȱȱ Itȱhasȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱallȱartȱworthyȱofȱtheȱnameȱisȱinȱsomeȱ senseȱ experimental,ȱ andȱ thatȱ experimentationȱ isȱ inevitablyȱ boundȱ toȱ innovationȱ byȱ theȱ sameȱ threadȱ thatȱ bindsȱ theȱ purportedlyȱnewȱtoȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱtradition.ȱSuchȱaȱformulationȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ JanȱvanȱderȱEng,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱAvantȱGardeȱ5.6ȱ(1991)ȱ3.ȱ

1ȱ

revealsȱanȱinherentȱ“referentialȱindeterminacy,”ȱwhereinȱwordsȱ likeȱ experimental,ȱ avantȬgardeȱ andȱ traditionȱ comeȱ toȱ approximateȱ“heterologousȱsigns,”ȱwithoutȱindicatingȱwhetherȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ readȱ literallyȱ orȱ metaphorically,ȱ whileȱ demandingȱ thatȱ weȱ neverthelessȱ interrogateȱ theirȱ meaningȱ withinȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ conventionalisedȱ discipline.ȱ Thisȱ “metacritical”ȱdimensionȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱatȱhandȱhasȱinȱvariousȱ quartersȱ beenȱ perceivedȱ asȱ bringingȱ aboutȱ somethingȱ ofȱ aȱ renewalȱ ofȱ theȱ tropeȱ ofȱ theȱ “avantȬgarde,”ȱ lendingȱ itȱ aȱ criticalȱ forceȱ whichȱ extendsȱ beyondȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ aestheticsȱ intoȱ theȱ entireȱfieldȱofȱthought,ȱsignȱsystemsȱandȱtechnology.ȱ WhileȱtodayȱitȱmightȱbeȱpossibleȱtoȱspeakȱofȱavantȬgardismȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ cognitiveȱ science,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ andȱ quantumȱ computing,ȱ thisȱ inȱ itselfȱ mayȱ simplyȱ reflectȱ thatȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ inȱ someȱ wayȱ beȱ boundȱ upȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ consciousness,ȱ itsȱ transformationȱ andȱ reȬinvention.ȱ Itsȱ properȱ domain,ȱ weȱ mightȱ say,ȱ hasȱ increasinglyȱ tendedȱ toȱ encompassȱ theȱ encyclopaedicȱ “lifeworldȱ ofȱ man”ȱ andȱ theȱ prospectȱ ofȱ whatȱ humanityȱ mightȱ yetȱ becomeȱ byȱ graspingȱ itsȱ ownȬmostȱ possibilityȱ inȱ whatȱ “itȱ is”ȱ andȱ whatȱ “itȱ hasȱ been.”ȱ Thisȱ curiousȱ temporalȱ conjunctionȱ ofȱ theȱ “avant”ȱ andȱ theȱ “post,”ȱ mediatedȱ byȱ theȱ tropeȱ ofȱ experimentȱ (orȱ ofȱ experience),ȱ hasȱ aȱ longȱ historicalȱ genealogyȱ thatȱ onlyȱ inȱ relativelyȱ recentȱ timesȱacquiredȱtheȱselfȬconsciouslyȱaestheticisedȱcharacterȱthat,ȱ inȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ becameȱ institutionalisedȱ asȱ “the”ȱ avantȬgarde,ȱandȱwhichȱisȱoftenȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱterminatedȱinȱtheȱ discourseȱ ofȱ postȬmodernism.ȱ Atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ twentyȬ firstȱ century,ȱ thisȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ “endȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde”ȱ isȱ onceȱagainȱunderȱcontention,ȱasȱtheȱviabilityȱofȱaȱcontinuation,ȱ renewalȱ orȱ reinventionȱ ofȱ avantȬgardism—inȱ tandemȱ withȱ theȱ end,ȱ exhaustion,ȱ deathȱ ofȱ postmodernism—isȱ raisedȱ byȱ artists,ȱ critics,ȱ thinkersȱ generally,ȱ unsatisfiedȱ withȱ theȱ preȬmillennialȱ wisdomȱ thatȱ everythingȱ isȱ permitted,ȱ henceȱ nothingȱ isȱ anyȱ longerȱpossible.ȱ Theȱpromiseȱofȱliberationȱisȱalwaysȱaȱprecariousȱone,ȱandȱifȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ theȱ globalȱ economy,ȱ equalȱ opportunity,ȱ theȱ newȱ 2ȱ

mediaȱ andȱ communicationsȱ technologies,ȱ andȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ Coldȱ Warȱ suggest—atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century—aȱ futureȱ worldȱ utopia,ȱ thenȱ thisȱ halfȬdecadeȱ ofȱ theȱ twentyȬfirstȱ centuryȱ hasȱviolentlyȱ dispelledȱ thatȱ illusion.ȱ Beneathȱ theȱ guiseȱ ofȱ culturalȱ pluralismȱ andȱ permissiveness,ȱ theȱ hardȱ edgeȱ ofȱ socioȬeconomicȱideologyȱcontinuesȱtoȱgiveȱpurchaseȱtoȱaȱcriticalȱ engagementȱ thatȱ previouslyȱ (underȱ postȬmodernism)ȱ wasȱ saidȱ toȱ noȱ longerȱ beȱ viable.ȱ Andȱ withȱ it,ȱ theȱ criticalȱ necessityȱ ofȱ somethingȱ “like”ȱ anȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ notȱ simplyȱ asȱ aȱ reactionȱ orȱ counterȬactionȱ toȱ aȱ presentȱ stateȱ ofȱ affairs,ȱ butȱ asȱ anȱ activeȱ interventionȱinȱfuturity,ȱinȱtheȱveryȱpossibilityȱofȱaȱfuture.ȱ Forȱ theseȱ reasons,ȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ thisȱ volume—AvantȬPost— shouldȱnotȱbeȱtakenȱasȱsignallingȱaȱmerelyȱhistoricalȱproject,ȱorȱ oneȱ ofȱ culturalȱ pessimism,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ somethingȱ likeȱ aȱ callȱ toȱ orderȱ andȱ aȱ callȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱ situation,ȱ today,ȱ ofȱ thoseȱ outpostsȱ(avantȬpostes)ȱthatȱensureȱaȱfutureȱforȱcriticalȱculture.ȱ ȱ 1ȱ ȱ Inȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ schoolȱ ofȱ poets—Johnȱ Ashbery,ȱ KennethȱKoch,ȱJamesȱSchuyler,ȱandȱFrankȱO’Hara—improbablyȱ entitledȱ Theȱ Lastȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (1999),ȱ Americanȱ criticȱ Davidȱ Lehmanȱ (echoingȱ Zygmuntȱ Bauman,ȱ Jürgenȱ Habermas,ȱ andȱ others)2ȱcontendsȱthat:ȱ“theȱargumentȱagainstȱtheȱviabilityȱofȱtheȱ avantȬgardeȱtodayȱrestsȱonȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱrealȱ resistanceȱ toȱ theȱ new,ȱ noȱ stableȱ normȱ fromȱ whichȱ theȱ defiantȱ artistȱ mayȱ depart.”ȱ Theȱ contradictionsȱ ofȱ theȱ “new,”ȱ asȱ aȱ termȱ largelyȱ inheritedȱ fromȱ Ezraȱ Pound’sȱ injunctionȱ toȱ “Makeȱ itȱ New!”ȱ cedesȱ hereȱ toȱ theȱ characteristicȱ complaintȱ thatȱ postmodernismȱinȱtheȱ1970sȱandȱthereafterȱstoleȱtheȱcarpetȱoutȱ

ȱ 2ȱȱ DavidȱLehman,ȱTheȱLastȱAvantȬGarde:ȱTheȱMakingȱofȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱSchoolȱofȱPoetsȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Anchor,ȱ 1999);ȱ Zygmuntȱ Bauman,ȱ “Postmodernȱ Art,ȱ orȱ theȱ Impossibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,”ȱ Postmodernityȱ andȱ Itsȱ Discontentsȱ (London:ȱ Polity,ȱ 1997)ȱ 95Ȭ104;ȱ Jürgenȱ Habermas,ȱ “Modernity—Anȱ Incompleteȱ Project,”ȱ TheȱAnti-Aesthetic:ȱEssaysȱinȱPost-ModernȱCulture,ȱed.ȱHalȱFosterȱ(NewȱYork:ȱTheȱ NewȱPress,ȱ1983)ȱ3Ȭ15.ȱ

3ȱ

fromȱ underȱ criticalȱ experimentation.ȱ Moreover,ȱ havingȱ stolenȱ theȱcarpet,ȱpostmodernismȱthenȱwentȱaboutȱstealingȱtheȱrestȱofȱ theȱavantȬgardistȱdécorȱasȱwell,ȱwhichȱhenceforthȱwasȱreducedȱ toȱaȱmereȱretroȱ“style”ȱorȱhistoricalȱfetish.ȱThusȱLehmanȱwrites,ȱ inȱtheȱfirstȱpersonȱplural:ȱ“Ifȱweȱareȱallȱpostmodernists,ȱweȱareȱ noneȱ ofȱ usȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ forȱ postmodernismȱ isȱ theȱ institutionalisationȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.”3ȱ Followingȱtheȱmajorȱideological,ȱtechnologicalȱandȱeconomicȱ upheavalsȱ inȱ theȱ postȬWWIIȱ Americanȱ culturalȱ landscape— mediated,ȱ inȱ thoseȱ eminentȱ domainsȱ ofȱ literatureȱ andȱ theȱ fineȱ arts,ȱ byȱ theȱ “scandalous”ȱ figureȱ ofȱ Poundȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ predominanceȱ ofȱ whatȱ Clementȱ Greenbergȱ inȱ 1955ȱ felicitouslyȱ termedȱ “AmericanȬType”4ȱ painting—theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ “presentȱ asȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ revelation”ȱ (aȱ time,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Habermas,ȱ “inȱ whichȱ splintersȱ ofȱ aȱ messianicȱ presenceȱ areȱ enmeshed”5)ȱ wasȱ sacrificedȱ inȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ historicism,ȱ fromȱ whichȱ avantȬgardismȱ succeedsȱ modernityȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ massȬmediaȱ culture,ȱ “kitsch,”ȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱ andȱ compulsoryȱ globalȱ democratisation.ȱ Thisȱ sacrificeȱ ofȱ “theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ modernity”—toȱwhatȱHaroldȱRosenbergȱtermedȱtheȱ“Traditionȱ ofȱtheȱNew”—wasȱrepaidȱinȱtheȱcurrencyȱofȱhistoricalȱtraditionȱ tradedȱ inȱ aȱ merelyȱ presentȱ time.ȱ Settingȱ asideȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ traditionȱ andȱ theȱ present,ȱ orȱ ofȱ aȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱ present,ȱ Habermas’sȱ remarks,ȱ coupledȱ withȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Lehman,ȱ drawȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ particularȱpoliticsȱ ofȱ theȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ literaryȱ andȱartȱhistoryȱemergingȱfromȱtheȱ1970s,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱ futureȱ ofȱ culturalȱ productionȱ wouldȱ forȱ evermoreȱ assumeȱ theȱ formȱofȱaȱrepetitionȱofȱtheȱ“endȱofȱculture,”ȱrepresentedȱbyȱtheȱ endȱ ofȱ FlowerȬPowerȱ utopianism,ȱ theȱ debacleȱ ofȱ theȱ Vietnamȱ War,ȱandȱtheȱWatergateȱaffair.ȱȱ

ȱ 3ȱȱ Lehman,ȱTheȱLastȱAvantȱGarde,ȱ11.ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ ClementȱGreenberg,ȱArtȱandȱCulture:ȱCriticalȱEssaysȱ(Boston:ȱBeacon,ȱ1961)ȱ208Ȭ 229.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Jürgenȱ Habermas,ȱ Theȱ Philosophicalȱ Discourseȱ ofȱ Modernity,ȱ trans.ȱ Frederickȱ Lawrenceȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱMITȱPress,ȱ1990)ȱ6.ȱ

4ȱ

Thatȱ thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ historyȱ couldȱ beȱ describedȱ asȱ specificallyȱ generationalȱ andȱ local—forȱ example,ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬ GreenbergȱgenerationȱofȱartȱcriticsȱlikeȱRosalindȱKraussȱandȱHalȱ Foster,ȱ orȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ Americanȱ postȬColdȱ Warȱ culturalȱ arbitration—hasȱ notȱ beenȱ sufficientlyȱ commentedȱ upon.ȱ Theȱ widelyȱreportedȱdeathȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱhasȱ comeȱtoȱbeȱattributedȱ(withinȱculturalȱstudies,ȱfineȱarts,ȱandȱtheȱ literaryȱ criticalȱ media)ȱ aȱ degreeȱ ofȱuniversalȱsocialȱ significanceȱ that,ȱinȱlife,ȱitȱ(“theȱavantȬgarde”)ȱcouldȱhardlyȱhaveȱaspiredȱto.ȱ Indeed,ȱtheȱdeathȱofȱoneȱculture’sȱavantȬgardeȱhasȱacquiredȱtheȱ statusȱ ofȱ aȱ veritableȱ endȱ ofȱ history,ȱ characterisedȱ byȱ aȱ universal—soȱweȱareȱtold—disillusionmentȱofȱ(primarilyȱleftist)ȱ ideologies,ȱ aȱ radicalȱ pluralismȱ ofȱ style,ȱ theȱ eschewalȱ ofȱ anyȱ mainstream,ȱandȱanȱoverwhelmingȱtendencyȱtoȱretrospection.ȱItȱ seemsȱ toȱ matterȱ littleȱ thatȱ thisȱ laissezȬfaireȱ viewȱ ofȱ culturalȱ historyȱfailsȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱfactȱthatȱlargeȱsectionsȱofȱtheȱsoȬ calledȱavantȬgardeȱwereȱdominatedȱbyȱconservatismȱorȱradicalȱ rightȬwingȱ ideology,ȱ orȱ thatȱ pluralismȱ isȱ anȱ ideaȱ boundȱ fromȱ theȱ startȱ toȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ bourgeoisȱ liberalismȱ “opposed”ȱ byȱ successiveȱ avantȬgardes;ȱ thatȱ itsȱ oftenȱ revolutionaryȱ postureȱ wasȱorientatedȱtowardsȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱaȱmainstreamȱinȱitsȱ ownȱ image,ȱ andȱ thatȱ evenȱ theȱ leastȱ sociallyȬengagedȱ ofȱ avantȬ gardesȱ wereȱ preoccupiedȱ withȱ theirȱ ownȱ internalȱ politicoȬ aestheticȱprogrammes.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ bothȱ Lehmanȱ andȱ theȱ generationȱ ofȱ “1968”ȱ appearȱ toȱ succeedȱ primarilyȱ inȱ elevatingȱ theirȱ particularȱ discursiveȱparadigms,ȱofȱmodernityȱandȱpostmodernism,ȱtoȱtheȱ uniqueȱstatusȱofȱaȱlastȱcallȱbeforeȱhistoricalȱclosure,ȱideologicalȱ futility,ȱ eternalȱ repetition,ȱ selfȬparody,ȱ andȱ theȱ messianicȱ promiseȱofȱ“noȱfuture.”ȱThusȱweȱencounterȱtheȱchiliasticȱechoesȱ ofȱBaudelaire’sȱ“PainterȱofȱModernȱLife”ȱ(1863)ȱandȱNietzsche’sȱ critiqueȱofȱCartesianȱmodernityȱinȱHuman,ȱAllȱtooȱHumanȱ(1878),ȱ underȱconditionsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱisȱmadeȱ toȱstrangelyȱresembleȱtheȱconditionsȱofȱitsȱhistoricalȱbirth.ȱ ȱ

5ȱ

2ȱ ȱ Somethingȱ likeȱ paternityȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardeȱ (asȱ viewedȱthroughȱwesternȱeyes)ȱcouldȱarguablyȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱbelongȱ toȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ unlikelyȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ Compteȱ deȱ Nieuwerkerke,ȱ DirectorȬGeneralȱ ofȱ theȱ Imperialȱ Museumsȱ inȱ Paris—whoseȱinterventionsȱinȱtheȱjuryȱproceduresȱforȱtheȱ1863ȱ Salonȱ wasȱ theȱ immediateȱcauseȱ ofȱ Napoleonȱ III’sȱ inaugurationȱ ofȱ theȱ Salonȱ desȱ Refusées,ȱ atȱ whichȱ Édouardȱ Manet’sȱ notoriousȱ Déjeunerȱsurȱl’herbeȱwasȱfirstȱexhibited,ȱthusȱindirectlyȱusheringȱ inȱ Impressionismȱ andȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ “avantȬ gardism.”6ȱ Bornȱ ofȱ theȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ Imperialȱ Frenchȱ culture,ȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ hasȱ everȱ sinceȱ maintainedȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ parasiticȱ relationshipȱwithȱtheȱdominantȱapparatusesȱofȱofficialȱtasteȱandȱ ofȱ moralȱ andȱ intellectualȱ permission—evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ fashionsȱ itselfȱ asȱ anȱ “adversaryȱ relation,”ȱ byȱ whichȱ (asȱ Rogerȱ Shattuckȱhasȱargued)ȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱ“gainsȱitsȱspecialȱstatus”ȱ throughȱitsȱcritiqueȱofȱ“theȱmainȱbodyȱofȱtheȱcultureȱtoȱwhichȱitȱ isȱreacting.”7ȱPound’sȱselfȬpromotionȱfromȱtheȱLondonȱdrawingȱ roomȱ circuit—asȱ privateȱ lecturerȱ onȱ Provençalȱ poetry—toȱ harbingerȱ ofȱ “theȱ New,”ȱ isȱ indicativeȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ origins.ȱ Pound’sȱ careerȱ findsȱ anȱ immediateȱ antecedentȱ somewhereȱ betweenȱ thatȱ ofȱ Fillipoȱ Marinetti— bourgeoisȱmediaȱsavantȱandȱsoleȱinauguratorȱofȱFuturism—andȱ thatȱ ofȱ Manet—covetousȱ ofȱ successȱ atȱ theȱ officialȱ Salons,ȱ yetȱ drivenȱ byȱ circumstanceȱ toȱ assumeȱ theȱ leadershipȱ ofȱ theȱ “firstȱ coherent,ȱ organic,ȱ andȱ consciouslyȱ avantȬgardeȱ movementȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ modernȱ art.”8ȱ Theȱ curiosityȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ theȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ officialȱ cultureȱ itselfȱ thatȱ causedȱ aȱ significantȱ

ȱ 6ȱȱ Ianȱ Dunlop,ȱ Theȱ Shockȱ ofȱ theȱ New:ȱ Sevenȱ Historicalȱ Exhibitionsȱ ofȱ Modernȱ Artȱ (London:ȱWeidenfeldȱandȱNicolson,ȱ1972)ȱ10Ȭ53.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ RogerȱShattuck,ȱTheȱInnocentȱEye:ȱOnȱModernȱLiteratureȱandȱtheȱArtsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱ Farrar,ȱStrauss,ȱandȱGiroux,ȱ1984)ȱ74.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Renatoȱ Poggioli,ȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Geraldȱ Fitzgeraldȱ (Newȱ York:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1971)ȱ132.ȱ

6ȱ

numberȱofȱsuchȱotherwiseȱhighlyȱindividualisticȱartists,ȱwriters,ȱ andȱthinkersȱ(likeȱPound),ȱtoȱpurveyȱideasȱofȱcollectivisedȱactionȱ andȱ toȱ gatherȱ aroundȱ themselvesȱ “consciouslyȱ avantȬgardeȱ movements.”ȱ Forȱ Poundȱ andȱ Marinetti,ȱ suchȱ actionȱ arguablyȱ remainedȱ boundȱ toȱ personalȱ prestigeȱ and,ȱ likeȱ Théophileȱ Gautierȱbeforeȱthem,ȱtoȱclaimsȱofȱculturalȱarbitration,ȱeducation,ȱ andȱsocialȱtransformation.ȱ Moreȱ curious,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ theȱ failureȱ ofȱ collectiveȱ actionȱ has,ȱ particularlyȱsinceȱ1968,ȱbecameȱtheȱprimaryȱcriterionȱinȱjudgingȱ theȱsuccessȱorȱfailureȱofȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱavantȬgardeȱproject.ȱAlešȱ Debeljak,ȱforȱexample,ȱhasȱwrittenȱthatȱtheȱfailureȱofȱ“theȱavantȬ gardeȱeffortȱtoȱtranscendȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱautonomousȱart”ȱandȱ toȱ“integrateȱartȱintoȱeverydayȱlifeȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱutopianȱsocialȱ change,”ȱ canȱ beȱ attributedȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ projectȱ “endedȱ inȱ aȱ collapseȱ ofȱ theȱ aestheticȱ andȱ practicalȱ dimensionsȱ withoutȱ liberatingȱ effect.”9ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ remainsȱ incompleteȱ inȱ manyȱ respects,ȱ notȱ leastȱ becauseȱ itsȱ failureȱ isȱ accountedȱ oneȱ ofȱ modalities.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ similarlyȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ Habermas’sȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ postmodernismȱ onȱ theȱ groundsȱ ofȱ anȱ “incompleteȱ projectȱ ofȱ modernity,”ȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ Enlightenmentȱ rationalism.ȱ Asȱ Lautréamontȱ famouslyȱ said:ȱ “Plagiarismȱisȱnecessary;ȱprogressȱimpliesȱit.”ȱAndȱifȱtheȱworkȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde—whatever,ȱ orȱ whoeverȱ thatȱ isȱ supposedȱ toȱ be—hasȱ beenȱ historicallyȱ directedȱ atȱ theȱ revelationȱ ofȱ thisȱ seemingȱ contradictionȱ inȱ theȱ logicȱ ofȱ progress,ȱ thenȱ theȱ “collapseȱ ofȱ theȱ aestheticȱ andȱ practicalȱ dimensions”ȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ endȱofȱavantȬgardeȱhistory,ȱbutȱratherȱitsȱconditionȱasȱaȱ“criticalȱ counterpart”ȱofȱtheȱveryȱbourgeoisȱsystemȱofȱvaluesȱtoȱwhichȱitȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ beȱ opposedȱ (andȱ whoseȱ illusionȱ itȱ hasȱ nonethelessȱ alwaysȱfunctionedȱtoȱsustain,ȱasȱtheȱveryȱraisonȱd’êtreȱofȱavantȬ gardism).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ progressȱ retainsȱaȱ satiricalȱ dimension:ȱaȱ détournementȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ prinicipleȱ ofȱ originationȱ andȱ inventionȱ whichȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ advertisedȱ asȱ itsȱ summumȱ bonum.ȱȱȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ AlešȱDebeljak,ȱReluctantȱModernity:ȱTheȱInstitutionȱofȱArtȱandȱItsȱHistoricalȱFormsȱ NewȱYork:ȱRowemanȱandȱLittlefield,ȱ1998)ȱ128.ȱ

7ȱ

Itȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ noȱ accidentȱ thatȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ political,ȱ socialȱ andȱepistemologicalȱrupturesȱandȱrecursionsȱthatȱhadȱledȱupȱtoȱ theȱ installationȱ ofȱ Napoleonȱ IIIȱ shouldȱ haveȱ foundȱ themselvesȱ mirroredȱ inȱ theȱ revolutionaryȱ discoursesȱ ofȱ avantȬgardism,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ “new”ȱ hasȱ always,ȱ inȱ someȱ sense,ȱ affectedȱ itselfȱ byȱ wayȱofȱaȱdétournementȱofȱtheȱreceivedȱtradition—butȱaboveȱallȱ ofȱ theȱ revolutionaryȱ traditionȱ itself,ȱ bornȱ alongsideȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱRomanticismȱandȱtheȱopenȬendedȱprogressivismȱofȱtheȱ Enlightenmentȱproject.ȱLikewiseȱtheȱambivalentȱrelationshipȱofȱ successiveȱ avantȬgardesȱ toȱ industrialisationȱ andȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱmachineȱinȱmodernȱlife.ȱSuccessivelyȱanȱobjectȱofȱsatireȱandȱ utopianistȱ praise,ȱ “theȱ machine”—fromȱ Jonathanȱ Swiftȱ andȱ Jeremyȱ Bentham,ȱ toȱ Marinettiȱ andȱ Marcelȱ Duchamp—hasȱ emblematisedȱ theȱ inherentȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ hypothesis.ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ “programme,”ȱ whoseȱ successȱ orȱ failureȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ measuredȱ inȱ progressivistȱ andȱ sociallyȱ redemptiveȱ terms,ȱ avantȬgardismȱ appearsȱ itselfȱ toȱ beȱ nothingȱmoreȱthanȱaȱparticularȱdétournementȱofȱtheȱveryȱsocialȱ ideologiesȱthatȱgaveȱriseȱtoȱit.ȱȱ ȱ 3ȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ thatȱ theȱ birthȱ andȱ presumedȱ deathȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ mirrorȱ oneȱ anotherȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ criticalȱ lamentationsȱ inȱ suchȱ anȱ uncannyȱ way.ȱ Afterȱ aȱ centuryȬandȬaȬ half,ȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ principleȱ legacy,ȱ itȱ seems,ȱ isȱ itsȱ ownȱ disappearance:ȱ aȱ vanishingȱ actȱ correspondingȱ toȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ rectifiedȱ perturbationȱ inȱ theȱ systemȱ ofȱ westernȱ historicalȱ consciousness.ȱHence,ȱDebeljakȱwrites:ȱ“Whileȱliberalȱbourgeoisȱ individualismȱ impliedȱ theȱ provincesȱ ofȱ privacy,ȱ selfȬ development,ȱdignity,ȱandȱautonomy,ȱtheȱemergingȱformȱofȱtheȱ individualȱ selfȱ inȱ advancedȱ capitalismȱ isȱ insteadȱ articulatedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ fragmentedȱ andȱ narcissisticȱ consciousness.”10ȱ Andȱ allȱ ofȱthisȱnotȱbecauseȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱwasȱdrivenȱfromȱtheȱstreets,ȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ Debeljak,ȱReluctantȱModernity,ȱ128.ȱ

8ȱ

likeȱtheȱonceȱubiquitousȱorganȬgrinder,ȱbutȱbecauseȱitȱhadȱlongȱ agoȱlearnedȱtoȱconvertȱitsȱradicalȱcurrencyȱintoȱaȱmixȱofȱpublicȱ sinecureȱ andȱ privateȱ fund,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ processȱ turnedȱ fromȱ antitypeȱofȱsocialȱconformityȱintoȱoneȱofȱconformity’sȱveryȱsafeȬ guard.ȱȱ Moreover,ȱ givenȱ theȱ uneasyȱ associationȱ ofȱ revolutionaryȱ “aestheticȱ practice”ȱ withȱ politicoȬeconomicȱ idealismȱ overȱ theȱ courseȱofȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱnineteenthȱcenturyȱandȱtheȱfirstȱ halfȱofȱtheȱtwentieth,ȱitȱisȱhardlyȱsurprisingȱthatȱdebateȱoverȱtheȱ statusȱofȱavantȬgardismȱandȱofȱtheȱvariousȱmodernismsȱshouldȱ comeȱ toȱ mirrorȱ thoseȱ aboutȱ theȱ necessaryȱ phasesȱ ofȱ Westernȱ industrial,ȱliberalȬdemocratic,ȱindustrialȱ“evolution.”ȱAccordingȱ toȱ suchȱ analogies,ȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ commencesȱ withȱtheȱ“secondȱphase”ȱofȱtheȱIndustrialȱRevolutionȱinȱFranceȱ andȱ endsȱ withȱ theȱ mediaȱ revolutionȱ followingȱ WWIIȱ andȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ “globalisation”ȱ (previouslyȱ anticipatedȱ byȱ Marx),ȱ signalledȱinȱGuyȱDebord’sȱSocietyȱofȱtheȱSpectacleȱandȱelsewhereȱ asȱaȱdescentȱintoȱpureȱsimulationism—culminatingȱ“today”ȱ(inȱ theȱ shadowȱ ofȱ “11ȱ Septemberȱ 2001”)ȱ inȱ aȱ modeȱ ofȱ politicoȬ economicȱ avantȬismȱ whoseȱ instrumentȱ isȱ theȱ affectiveȱ contretempsȱ ofȱ aȱ globalisedȱ networkȱ ofȱ ethicalȱ inequivalenceȱ maskedȱ byȱ aȱ pseudoȱ culturalȱuniformityȱ andȱ enforcedȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ whatȱ Antonioȱ Tabucchiȱ hasȱ termedȱ “thatȱ whichȱ arrivesȱ beforeȱ Timeȱ andȱ againstȱ Time,”ȱ exemplifiedȱ atȱ theȱ turnȱ ofȱ theȱ 21stȱcenturyȱbyȱtheȱtransformationȱandȱregulationȱofȱconflictȱasȱaȱ socialȱfactȱbyȱtheȱspectreȱofȱpreȬemptiveȱwar,ȱ“desȱguerresȱfaitesȱ avant.”11ȱ Inȱ manyȱ respectsȱ theȱ prospectȱ ofȱ theȱ spectacleȱ ofȱ aȱ perpetuallyȱ reiteratingȱ stateȱ ofȱ affairsȱ mustȱ alwaysȱ haveȱ heldȱ perverseȱappealȱtoȱtheȱsortȱofȱsolipsistic/nihilisticȱtemperamentȱ thatȱviewsȱallȱofȱhistoryȱasȱtendingȱinexorablyȱtowardsȱitself,ȱasȱ thoughȱ “it”ȱ wereȱ itsȱ naturalȱ apotheosisȱ andȱ endȬpoint— whetherȱthisȱbeȱtheȱrevolutionȱofȱMarxȱofȱtheȱNewȱWorldȱOrderȱ ofȱ theȱ Americanȱ neoȬconservatives,ȱ viewedȱ throughȱ theȱ prismȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Antonioȱ Tabucchi,ȱ Auȱ pasȱ deȱ l’oie:ȱ Chroniquesȱ deȱ nosȱ tempsȱ obscurs,ȱ trans.ȱ Judithȱ Rosaȱ(Paris:ȱSeuil,ȱ2006).ȱ

9ȱ

ofȱaȱwesternȱculturalȱapparatusȱandȱmediaȱthatȱhasȱincreasinglyȱ comeȱ toȱ beȱ characterisedȱ byȱ aȱ functionalȱ ambiguity:ȱ anȱ ambiguityȱ whichȱ anticipatesȱ andȱincorporatesȱ“inȱadvance”ȱ itsȱ ownȱcritiqueȱandȱtherebyȱaffectsȱaȱtypeȱofȱdiscursiveȱlaw.ȱȱ ȱ 4ȱ ȱ Antoninȱ Artaud’sȱ excursusȱ onȱ Heliogabalus,ȱ orȱ theȱ Anarchistȱ Crownedȱ (1934)ȱ providesȱ aȱ paradigmȱ caseȱ inȱ theȱ unmaskingȱ ofȱ preciselyȱ thisȱ typeȱ ofȱ aestheticoȬmoralisticȱ ambiguity,ȱ oneȱ whichȱ alwaysȱ accompaniedȱ bothȱ judicialȱ messianismȱ andȱ theȱ counterȬhegemonicȱ claimsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ anarchism,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ aestheticisationȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ “avantȬgardist”ȱ theoryȱ andȱ praxis.ȱ Forȱ Artaud,ȱ itȱ isȱ preciselyȱinȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱLawȱ itselfȱ thatȱ theȱ ruleȱ ofȱ orderȱ isȱ overthrown,ȱ givenȱ overȱ toȱ theȱ serial,ȱ almostȱmechanistic,ȱiterationȱofȱitsȱothernessȱinȱ“deviance”ȱandȱ “perversion,”ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ equatingȱ ofȱ theseȱ termsȱ withȱ theȱ realȱ politicsȱof,ȱforȱexample,ȱsocialȱjustice.12ȱȱ Likeȱ theȱ analȬaggressiveȱ phaseȱ ofȱ infancyȱ delineatedȱ byȱ Freud,ȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardeȱ hasȱ acquiredȱ forȱ itselfȱ somethingȱ ofȱ theȱ cachéȱ ofȱ theȱ diminutiveȱ tyrantȱ emblematisedȱ inȱ Charlesȱ Fourier’sȱ “littleȱ hordes”—thoseȱ anarchisticȱ streetȱ urchinsȱ cumȱ trashȱ collectorsȱ inȱ whomȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ socialȱ hygieneȱisȱtransformedȱintoȱendlessȱplay.ȱItȱwasȱFourier’sȱbasicȱ contentionȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ manȱ butȱ civilisationȱ thatȱ neededȱ reforming.ȱ Andȱ likeȱ Jarry’sȱ Ubu,ȱ Fourier’sȱ socialȱ monstrumȱ posedȱ aȱ challengeȱ toȱ theȱ moralȱ dictatorshipȱ ofȱ utopianistsȱ andȱ utilitariansȱ likeȱ Robertȱ Owenȱ andȱ Jeremyȱ Benthamȱ (justȱ asȱ itȱ doesȱ toȱ theȱ presentȱ dayȱ ideologuesȱ ofȱ “democratisation”),ȱ exposingȱ theȱ fundamentalismȱ of—andȱ fundamentallyȱ normativeȱdistinctionȱbetween—theȱroleȱofȱsocialȱengineerȱandȱ thatȱofȱsocialȱ“revolutionary.”ȱȱ Fourier’sȱ legacyȱ hasȱ moreȱ recentlyȱ beenȱ takenȱ upȱ byȱ Guyȱ Debord,ȱinȱwhomȱtheȱ“noȬwork”ȱethicȱfunctionsȱasȱanȱuncannyȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Antoninȱ Artaud,ȱ Selectedȱ Writings,ȱ ed.ȱ Susanȱ Sontagȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ CaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1998)ȱ317Ȭ36.ȱ

10ȱ

counterpartȱ toȱ theȱ socialȱ fictionsȱ ofȱ consumerȱ culture;ȱ andȱ byȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ whoseȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (1974)ȱ yokesȱ togetherȱ theȱ systemicȱ disorderȱ ofȱ Dadaȱ withȱ theȱ disorderedȱ systemȱofȱrevolutionaryȱpraxisȱcalledȱSurrealism.ȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱ theȱ logicȱ ofȱ theȱ “new,”ȱ andȱ theȱ counterȬlogicȱ ofȱ itsȱ resistance,ȱ areȱ merelyȱ availableȱ stereotypesȱ inȱ theȱ roundȱ ofȱ laissezȬfaireȱ deregulationȱ andȱ reȬappropriation.ȱ Asȱ Theodorȱ Adornoȱ says:ȱ “Evenȱ whereȱ artȱ insistsȱ onȱ theȱ greatestȱ degreeȱ ofȱ dissonanceȱ andȱ disharmony,ȱ itsȱ elementsȱ areȱ thoseȱ ofȱ unity.”13ȱ Theȱ dreamȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ socialȱ praxisȱ hasȱ inȱ thisȱ senseȱ alwaysȱ servedȱ aȱ homoeostaticȱ function,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ rupturesȱ andȱ discontinuitiesȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ haveȱ servedȱ moreȱ asȱ aȱ deflectionȱ fromȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ linearȱ progressivistȱ historyȱ wasȱ itselfȱ neverȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ politicalȱ expedience.ȱ Theȱ enervationsȱofȱwhatȱisȱcalledȱpostmodernityȱwereȱthusȱforecastȱ fromȱtheȱveryȱoutsetȱofȱtheȱmodernistȱproject.ȱȱ “Itȱisȱpossible,”ȱKarlȱMannheimȱwroteȱinȱIdeologyȱandȱUtopiaȱ (1936),ȱ “thatȱ inȱ theȱ future,ȱ inȱ aȱ worldȱ inȱ whichȱ thereȱ isȱ neverȱ anythingȱ new,ȱ inȱ whichȱ allȱ isȱ finishedȱ andȱ eachȱ momentȱ isȱ aȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ theȱ past,ȱ thereȱ canȱ existȱ aȱ conditionȱ inȱ whichȱ thoughtȱ willȱ beȱ utterlyȱ devoidȱ ofȱ allȱ ideologicalȱ andȱ utopianȱ elements.”14ȱ Confrontedȱ withȱ theȱ redundancyȱ ofȱ bothȱ traditionalȱ socialȱ taboosȱ andȱ theȱ “novelty”ȱ ofȱ transgression,ȱ permissibilityȱ itselfȱ recedesȱ fromȱ awarenessȱ asȱ theȱ soleȱ universalȱactorȱinȱaȱsocialȱtheatreȱdevoidȱofȱaȱstage.ȱTheȱabsenceȱ ofȱideologyȱisȱperhaps,ȱthen,ȱmerelyȱtheȱlatestȱmanifestationȱofȱaȱ hegemonicȱ structureȱ whoseȱ regulatoryȱ powerȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ everywhereȱ visible,ȱ butȱ nowhereȱ verifiable.ȱ Ifȱ suchȱ isȱ theȱ conditionȱofȱtheȱpostmodern,ȱthenȱtheȱdecriedȱlackȱofȱaȱpointȱofȱ criticalȱ“resistance”—ofȱaȱcriticalȱobjectȱasȱsuch—isȱsimplyȱoneȱ

ȱ13ȱȱ TheodorȱW.ȱAdorno,ȱÄsthetischeȱTheorieȱ(Frankfurt:ȱSuhrkramp,ȱ1970)ȱ235:ȱcitedȱ inȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Michaelȱ Shawȱ (Minneapolis:ȱ UniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱ56.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ KarlȱMannheim,ȱIdeologyȱandȱUtopia:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱtheȱSociologyȱofȱKnowledge,ȱ trans.ȱLouisȱWirthȱandȱEdwardȱShilsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarcourt,ȱBraceȱ&ȱWorld,ȱ1968ȱ [1936]).ȱ

11ȱ

moreȱ ruseȱ inȱ theȱ aestheticisation,ȱ andȱ consequentȱ anestheticisation,ȱofȱshockȬvalue.ȱ Inȱanyȱcase,ȱtheȱnecessaryȱbelatednessȱofȱpostmodernismȱasȱ aȱdiscourseȱcarriesȱwithȱitȱtheȱsortȱofȱhistoricalȱstinkȱthatȱalwaysȱ accompaniesȱ theȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ oldȱ corpsesȱ toȱ adjudicateȱ onȱ mattersȱofȱsocialȱorȱculturalȱpermissiveness.ȱTheȱtrickȱhasȱbeenȱ forȱ itȱ toȱ presentȱ itselfȱ asȱ lackingȱ anyȱ historicalȱ dimensionȱ atȱ all—asȱthoughȱitȱwere,ȱinȱessence,ȱaȱtimelessȱmechanismȱarrivedȱ atȱthroughȱtheȱtechnologisingȱofȱallȱcriticalȱorientationsȱtowardsȱ aȱpossibleȱfuturity.ȱAȱpurelyȱdisembodiedȱstink.ȱHence,ȱforȱJeanȱ Françoisȱ Lyotard:ȱ “Postȱ modernȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ accordingȱtoȱtheȱparadoxȱofȱtheȱfutureȱ(post)ȱanteriorȱ(modo).”15ȱ Itsȱstatus,ȱasȱfutureȬanterior,ȱlinksȱitȱtoȱaȱperpetualȱrecursionȱinȱ whichȱ everythingȱ isȱ madeȱ toȱ lookȱ andȱ smellȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ “theȱ same”—sinceȱwhatȱisȱbeingȱlookedȱatȱorȱsmelledȱisȱnoȱthingȱbutȱ ratherȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ trope:ȱ theȱ commodityȱ relationȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ Cocaȱ Cola,ȱ theȱ Monaȱ Lisaȱ andȱ aȱ sexagenarianȱ Mickȱ Jaggerȱachieveȱaȱdiscursive,ȱtimelessȱequivalence.ȱ ȱ 5ȱ ȱ Theȱ questionȱ thatȱ hasȱ consistentlyȱ beenȱ raisedȱ overȱ theȱ lastȱ thirtyȱ yearsȱ is:ȱ ifȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ criticismȱ isȱ continuousȱ withȱ thatȱofȱmodernity,ȱisȱpostmodernismȱthusȱpredicatedȱonȱaȱpostȬ criticalȱ condition?ȱ Or,ȱ contraryȱ toȱ receivedȱ wisdom,ȱ isȱ theȱ perceivedȱambivalenceȱofȱcriticalityȱtodayȱdueȱnotȱtoȱaȱlackȱofȱaȱ “pointȱ ofȱ resistance,”ȱ butȱ ratherȱ toȱ anȱ oversubscriptionȱ ofȱ antecedents;ȱ orȱ elseȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ criticismȱ itselfȱ hasȱ becomeȱ “mimeticised,”ȱ asȱ itȱ were?ȱ Thatȱ theȱ criticalityȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ foundedȱ uponȱ aȱ supposedȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ unpresentable,ȱ hasȱ cededȱ toȱ representationȱ asȱ criticism,ȱthusȱconstitutingȱitselfȱasȱaȱpostȬeffect?ȱAndȱifȱsuchȱisȱ theȱ case,ȱ isȱ itȱ inevitableȱ thatȱ “criticism”ȱ beȱ leftȱ withȱ noȱ otherȱ ȱ15ȱȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Lyotard,ȱ Theȱ Postmodernȱ Condition:ȱ Aȱ Reportȱ onȱ Knowledge,ȱ trans.ȱ Geoffȱ Benningtonȱ andȱ Brianȱ Massumiȱ (Manchester:ȱ Manchesterȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1991)ȱ81.ȱ

12ȱ

optionȱthanȱtoȱadoptȱaȱstrategyȱofȱ“acceleration,”ȱinȱanȱeffortȱtoȱ regainȱ atȱ leastȱ aȱ nominalȱ vantageȱ pointȱ inȱ thisȱ everȬshifting,ȱ virtualisedȱ terrain?ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ beenȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ putȱ forwardȱ byȱ contemporaryȱ mediaȱ theoristsȱ likeȱ Vilémȱ Flusser,ȱ FriedrichȱKittler,ȱJeanȱBaudrillard,ȱPaulȱVirilio,ȱDonnaȱHarawayȱ andȱKatherineȱHayles,ȱreȬechoingȱtheȱprescriptionsȱofȱMcLuhanȱ thirtyȱ yearsȱ earlierȱ andȱ Walterȱ Benjaminȱ thirtyȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ that—suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ technical,ȱ massȱ reproductionȱ andȱ circulationȱ ofȱ imagesȱ doesȱ notȱ serveȱ toȱconcealȱ aȱsocialȱ reality,ȱ ratherȱ itȱ revealsȱ theȱ inherentlyȱ technologicalȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ thatȱ reality.ȱȱ Ifȱ Habermas,ȱ toȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ identifiesȱtheȱ radicalȱ phaseȱ ofȱ modernityȱ withȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ andȱ Industrialȱ Revolution,ȱ thisȱisȱbecauseȱheȱperceivesȱinȱitsȱsocialȱorientationȱaȱcriticalityȱ withoutȱ directȱ antecedence,ȱ withoutȱ aȱ model.ȱ Modernity’sȱ attemptȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ termsȱ withȱ theȱ unpresentable,ȱ asȱ Lyotardȱ likewiseȱcontends,ȱisȱthusȱtiedȱtoȱaȱcertainȱconditionȱofȱcrisisȱinȱ theȱ accessionȱ toȱ anȱ experienceȱ ofȱ discourseȱ removedȱ fromȱ oneȱ ofȱepistemologicalȱfoundations.ȱHence,ȱaȱconditionȱofȱcrisisȱvisȬ àȬvisȱ theȱ representableȱ isȱ takenȱ asȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ modernityȱ asȱ such.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ asȱ Bürgerȱ andȱ numerousȱ otherȱ commentatorsȱ haveȱ pointedȱ out,ȱ “whenȱ Duchampȱ putsȱ hisȱ signatureȱ onȱ massȬproduced,ȱ randomlyȱ chosenȱ objectsȱ andȱ sendȱthemȱtoȱartȱexhibits,ȱthisȱprovocationȱofȱartȱpresupposesȱaȱ conceptȱ ofȱ whatȱ artȱ is,”16ȱ justȱ asȱ Tristanȱ Tzara’sȱ cutȬupsȱ presupposeȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ whatȱ literatureȱ is.ȱ Andȱ indeed,ȱ justȱ asȱ Bruceȱ Nauman’sȱ “Fountain”ȱ andȱ Johnȱ Ashbery’sȱ “Europe”ȱ presupposeȱanȱideaȱofȱavantȬgardeȱartȱandȱavantȬgardeȱliterature.ȱ ToȱparaphraseȱMarx,ȱtheȱconventionsȱandȱclichésȱofȱallȱtheȱdeadȱ avantȬgardesȱweighȱlikeȱaȱnightmareȱonȱtheȱbrainȱofȱtheȱliving.ȱȱ Inȱ theseȱ terms,ȱ theȱ applicationȱ ofȱ electronicȱ computingȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ poetics,ȱ withȱ itsȱ explorationsȱ ofȱ hypertext,ȱ hypermediaȱandȱ otherȱ aleatoryȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱinscription,ȱ hasȱ madeȱ onlyȱ modestȱ advancesȱ uponȱ earlierȱ formsȱ ofȱ “avantȬ

ȱ16ȱȱ Bürger,ȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ56.ȱ

13ȱ

garde”ȱ writing—suchȱ asȱ theȱ algorithmicȱ constraintȬbasedȱ poeticsȱ ofȱ Raymondȱ Queneauȱ andȱ theȱ Oulipo—otherȱ thanȱ inȱ incorporatingȱ aleatoryȱ mechanismsȱ directlyȱ intoȱ theȱ “workȱ itself,”ȱ whereinȱ theȱ aestheticsȱ ofȱ probabilityȱ andȱ chanceȱ operationsȱbecomeȱpartȱofȱtheȱtextualȱedificeȱwhileȱtheirȱactualȱ mechanicsȱ remainȱ invisible.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ perhapsȱ aȱ conditionȱ ofȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ technicalȱ supersession,ȱ yetȱ theȱ ubiquityȱ ofȱ technoȬ aestheticsȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ tooȬdiscreteȱ dependencyȱ uponȱ aȱ sublimatedȱ technicsȱ (exemplifiedȱ byȱ suchȱ thingsȱ asȱ operatingȱ code,ȱ asȱ Kittlerȱ hasȱ longȱ observed),17ȱ standsȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ aȱ certainȱ“criticality”ȱvestedȱinȱtheȱappropriationsȱofȱanȱhistoricalȱ avantȬgardismȱthatȱtodayȱfindsȱitselfȱmoreȱproperlyȱexpressed,ȱ weȱ mightȱ say,ȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ hackerȱ subculturesȱ thanȱ byȱ theȱ burgeoningȱinstitutionȱofȱdigitalȱart.18ȱȱ Consider,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ textualȱ interventions,ȱ détournementsȱ andȱ chanceȱ operationsȱ inȱ nowȱ canonicalȱ workȱ likeȱJohnȱCage’sȱRoaratorioȱ(1979),ȱwhereinȱtheȱ“operatingȱcode”ȱ isȱitselfȱperformedȱalongsideȱtheȱwork’sȱsoȬcalledȱcontent,ȱandȱisȱ endowedȱ therebyȱ withȱ certainȱ “metatextual”ȱ propertiesȱ thatȱ assumeȱ forȱ themselvesȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ aȱ conductor/composer,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ performanceȱ (ofȱ whichȱ theyȱ assumesȱ theȱroleȱofȱmetonymicȱcounterpart)ȱtakesȱitsȱcuesȱfromȱthem:ȱi.e.ȱ theyȱ produceȱ instructionsȱ orȱ recomposeȱ indexesȱ ofȱ subsidiaryȱ operationsȱperformedȱbyȱotherȱinstrumentsȱandȱsoȱon.ȱWhichȱisȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ suchȱ performancesȱ compriseȱ aȱ diagrammaticȱ field,ȱ indeedȱ aȱ schematisableȱ signȱ system.ȱ Muchȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ media,ȱ meanwhile,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ employedȱ inȱ theȱ artsȱ inȱ aȱ primarilyȱ imitativeȱ manner—eitherȱ toȱ automatiseȱ theȱ typeȱ ofȱ workȱ pioneeredȱ byȱ Cageȱ andȱ others,ȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ computerȱ programmes,ȱ orȱ toȱ redployȱ suchȱ thingsȱ asȱ analogueȱ videoȱ artȱ withinȱ theȱ digitalȱ field,ȱ orȱ elseȱ toȱ surmountȱ theȱ perceivedȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ printȱ media’sȱ fixedȱ typo/graphicȱ distributionȱ byȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Friedrichȱ Kittler,ȱ “Protectedȱ Mode,”ȱ Literature,ȱ Media,ȱ Informationȱ Systems,ȱ ed.ȱ JohnȱJohnstonȱ(Amsterdam:ȱOPA,ȱ1997)ȱ156ff.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Thomasȱ Foster,ȱ “Theȱ Rhetoricȱ ofȱ Cyberspace:ȱ Ideologyȱ orȱ Utopia?”ȱ ContemporaryȱLiteratureȱXL.1ȱ(1999):ȱ144Ȭ160.ȱ

14ȱ

wayȱ ofȱ theȱ mutlilinearȱ schematicsȱ andȱ visualȱ kinaestheticsȱ ofȱ “electronicȱwriting.”ȱȱ This,ȱperhaps,ȱremainsȱtodayȱtheȱproperȱ“task”ȱforȱanȱavantȬ garde,ȱ inȱ overcomingȱ theȱ trapsȱ ofȱ analogicalȱ thoughtȱ inȱ theȱ conceptionȱandȱsupersessionȱofȱtheȱformerlyȱ“new”ȱbyȱwayȱofȱaȱ simpleȱ transitionȱ formȱ oneȱ platformȱ toȱ another—regardlessȱ ofȱ whichȱcriticalȱdomainȱweȱchooseȱtoȱspeakȱof.ȱGeneȱYoungblood,ȱ authorȱ ofȱ Expandedȱ Cinemaȱ (1970),ȱ hasȱ madeȱ similarȱ remarksȱ concerningȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ “newȱ media”ȱ withinȱ theȱ disciplineȱ ofȱ theȱ arts,ȱ arguingȱ thatȱ videoȱ art,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ “canȱ onlyȱ haveȱ aȱ formalistȱ reference—theȱ graphicȱ propertiesȱ ofȱ theȱ image.”ȱ Forȱ Youngblood,ȱ “theȱ newȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ aboutȱ creatingȱ autonomousȱsocialȱworldsȱthatȱpeopleȱcanȱliveȱin.ȱArtȱisȱcentralȱ toȱ that,ȱ butȱ theȱ artȱ isȱ notȱ what’sȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ What’sȱ avantȬ gardeȱ isȱ metadesign,ȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ context.”19ȱ Theȱ notionȱ ofȱ contextȱ asȱ contentȱ isȱ bornȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ ideaȱ ofȱ communicationsȱ technologies,ȱ fromȱ McLuhanȱ toȱ cyberculture,ȱ inȱ theȱ reȬ appropriationȱ ofȱ corporateȱ mediaȱ space,ȱ throughȱ publicȱ accessȱ cableȱ TV,ȱ satellite,ȱ internet,ȱ GPSȱ andȱ WiFi.20ȱ Aȱ critical,ȱ ecologicalȱ modeȱ ofȱ thought—networked,ȱ transverse,ȱ topological—hereȱ assumesȱ theȱ practicalȱ functionȱ ofȱ “avantȬ gardism”ȱinȱeffectingȱtheȱstructureȱofȱhowȱthingsȱcomeȱtoȱmean,ȱ andȱhowȱmeaningȱisȱlived.ȱȱ ȱ CODAȱ ȱ Weȱ knowȱ thatȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ experimentationȱ didȱ notȱ commenceȱ withȱ theȱ “avantȬgarde.”ȱ Norȱ hasȱ socialȱ transformationȱ alwaysȱ accompaniedȱ aȱ projectȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ transformation,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱtermȱ“culture,”ȱforȱexample,ȱimpliesȱ ȱ19ȱȱ GeneȱYoungblood,ȱ“LifeȱinȱCounterculture,”ȱUm»lecȱ2ȱ(2006):ȱ13.ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Cf.ȱPrefiguringȱCyberspace:ȱAnȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱeds.ȱDarrenȱTofts,ȱAnnemarieȱ Jonson,ȱandȱAlessioȱCavallaroȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱMITȱPress,ȱ2002);ȱalsoȱVirtualȱ Realitiesȱ andȱ theirȱ Discontents,ȱ ed.ȱ Robertȱ Markleyȱ (Baltimore:ȱ Johnsȱ Hopkinsȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1996);ȱ andȱ Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk:ȱ Culturesȱ ofȱ TechnologicalȱEmbodiment,ȱeds.ȱMikeȱFeatherstoneȱandȱRogerȱBurrowsȱ(London:ȱ SAGE,ȱ1995).ȱ

15ȱ

it.ȱ Theȱ experimentalȱ viewpoint—fromȱ Johnȱ Dewey,ȱ Gregoryȱ Bateson,ȱ Buckminsterȱ Fuller,ȱ Louisȱ Pouzinȱ andȱ Tedȱ Nelsonȱ toȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ “technopoetics,”ȱ “codework”ȱ andȱ “metaȬ design”ȱ ofȱ theȱ likesȱ ofȱ Metz,ȱ Stelarc,ȱ Kennethȱ Goldsmith,ȱ Kitȱ Gallowayȱ andȱ Sherrieȱ Rabinowitz—necessarilyȱ holdsȱ thatȱ avantȬgardismȱisȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱanȱattitudeȱtowardsȱlifeȱifȱitȱ isȱtoȱbeȱanythingȱatȱall.ȱThisȱraisesȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱ longȬstandingȱ debateȱ overȱ “theȱ avantȬgarde”ȱ andȱ itsȱ variousȱ manifestationsȱ isȱ simplyȱ aȱ contestȱ overȱ terminologiesȱ orȱ whetherȱ itȱ isȱ tiedȬinȱ toȱ aȱ broaderȱ aestheticisationȱ ofȱ ideologyȱ andȱofȱideologicalȱpurchaseȱuponȱcriticalȱ“praxis”ȱandȱuponȱtheȱ “real.”ȱ ȱ LouisȱArmandȱ Prague,ȱMay,ȱ2006ȱ ȱ

16ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessisȱ ȱ

PostȬAvantȱ/ȱAvantȱPost:ȱAnȱImaginaryȱ ConversationȱinsideȱRealȱPractice*ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ A.ȱ Isȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ viableȱ underȱ prevailingȱ “post”ȱ conditions?ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ“TheȱAȬeffectȱconsistsȱinȱturningȱtheȱobjectȱofȱwhichȱoneȱisȱtoȱ beȱ madeȱ aware,ȱ toȱ whichȱ one’sȱ attentionȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ drawn,ȱ fromȱ somethingȱ ordinary,ȱ familiar,ȱ immediatelyȱ accessible,ȱ intoȱ somethingȱ peculiar,ȱ strikingȱ andȱ unexpected.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ obviousȱ isȱinȱaȱcertainȱsenseȱmadeȱincomprehensible,ȱbutȱthisȱisȱonlyȱinȱ orderȱ thatȱ itȱ mayȱ thenȱ beȱ madeȱ allȱ theȱ easierȱ toȱ comprehend.ȱ Beforeȱ familiarityȱ canȱ beȱ turnedȱ intoȱ awarenessȱ theȱ familiarȱ mustȱ beȱ strippedȱ ofȱ itsȱ inconspicuousness;ȱ weȱ mustȱ giveȱ upȱ assumingȱ thatȱ theȱ objectȱ inȱ questionȱ needsȱ noȱ explanation.”1ȱ Evenȱ toȱ chooseȱ theȱ wordsȱ “theȱ object”ȱ isȱ notȱ enough—tooȱ bounded.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ wantedȱ toȱ writeȱ aȱ workȱ calledȱ “Provenance”ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱintricateȱoriginsȱofȱeveryȱmadeȱthingȱ canȱgetȱtracedȱtoȱitsȱsocial,ȱethical,ȱpolitical,ȱmaterialȱsources,ȱaȱ workȱ constructedȱ inȱ orderȱ thatȱ weȱ feelȱ theȱ networksȱ ofȱ impingementȱandȱintricacy.ȱI’mȱsureȱit’sȱbeenȱdoneȱ…ȱ ȱ

ȱ *ȱȱ PartsȱofȱthisȱtextȱappearedȱinȱanȱessayȱpublishedȱinȱPORESȱonȬlineȱ(2002).ȱJoanȱ Retallack’sȱwordsȱ“continueȱtheȱconversation”ȱinspiredȱtheȱform.ȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Bertoltȱ Brecht,ȱ Brechtȱ onȱ Theatre;ȱ Theȱ Developmentȱ ofȱ anȱ Aesthetic,ȱ ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ JohnȱWillettȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHillȱandȱWang,ȱ1964)ȱ143Ȭ4.ȱ

17ȱ

A.ȱIsȱtheȱ“AȬeffect”ȱtheȱAvantȬeffect?ȱIt’sȱtrueȱthatȱwhatȱyouȱjustȱ citedȱaboutȱtheȱAlienationȱEffectȱalsoȱsoundsȱlikeȱaȱdefinitionȱofȱ theȱgoalsȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱanȱunusualȱinsight,ȱbutȱ it’sȱaȱcuriousȱone.ȱDoesȱthatȱmakeȱtheȱPostȬAvantȱcreateȱtheȱAȬ effectȱ byȱ usingȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ asȱ “ordinary,ȱ familiar,ȱ immediatelyȱ accessible”?ȱ Wouldȱ thatȱ work?ȱ Theȱ “alienationȱ effect”ȱofȱPostȬAvantȱisȱaȱdistancingȱandȱquestioningȱofȱavantȬ gardeȱideas?ȱOrȱdoesȱthatȱpointȱjustȱreaffirmȱtheȱendlessȱcycleȱofȱ replacementȱ fantasiesȱ andȱ notȱ changeȱ anyȱ assumptionsȱ whatsoever?ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ fakeȱ Hegelianismȱ ofȱ avant,ȱ post,ȱ postȬ postȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱStagyȱpositionȱtakingȱandȱsabreȱrattling.ȱTheȱ newȱandȱnewerȱandȱnewestȱnew.ȱNoȱtransformativeȱsublation.ȱ Anyway,ȱwhatȱhappensȱifȱweȱtalkȱaboutȱ“alienationȱeffect”ȱandȱ notȱ“avantȬanything”ȱforȱaȱminute?ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱIȱlikeȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱthatȱBrechtȱcitationȱbecauseȱitȱtalksȱaboutȱanȱ artȱ experienceȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ resolveȱ theȱ contradictionsȱ (contradictoryȱ emotionsȱ andȱ allegiances,ȱ crossȬhatchedȱ identificationsȱandȱinvestments),ȱbutȱinsistsȱthatȱtheȱviewerȱtakeȱ theȱ contradictionsȱ beyondȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ artworkȱ intoȱ theȱpinchȬmeȬit’sȬreal,ȱhistoricalȱworld.ȱThoseȱcontradictionsȱareȱ bothȱ intellectuallyȱ andȱ viscerallyȱ imbeddedȱ inȱ theȱ bodyȬmind,ȱ theyȱunsettle,ȱarouse,ȱdisturbȱandȱdisplace;ȱthusȱtheyȱmayȱleadȱ toȱactionȱandȱthenȱtoȱsocialȱsolutions.ȱRealȱgardensȱprovokedȱbyȱ theȱ imaginaryȱ toadsȱ inȱ them?ȱ Anyway,ȱ inȱ orderȱ forȱ thatȱ toȱ occur,ȱ allȱ partiesȱ inȱ theȱ exchangeȱ needȱ toȱ resistȱ normative,ȱ affirmativeȱartȱ(beggingȱtheȱquestionȱofȱjustȱwhatȱthisȱmightȱbeȱ andȱ howȱ theseȱ wordsȱ canȱ alwaysȱ beȱ deployedȱ asȱ termsȱ ofȱ accusationȱ andȱ contempt).ȱ Theȱ artist/makerȱ thusȱ mustȱ refuseȱ theȱ conventionalȱ desireȱ andȱ normȬladenȱ aestheticȱ demandȱ toȱ provideȱconclusionȱ(simply)ȱorȱcatharsisȱ(moreȱcomplicatedly),ȱ thusȱ makingȱ restlessnessȱ permanent.ȱ Byȱ producingȱ restlessȱ artworksȱ thatȱ doȱ notȱ settle,ȱ theȱ artistȱ somehowȱ inducesȱ theȱ viewerȱ toȱ becomeȱ alertȱ withȱ theȱ Erosȱ ofȱ politicalȱ arousalȱ andȱ enragedȱwithȱtheȱstubbornnessȱofȱpoliticalȱrage.ȱAndȱtheȱviewerȱ mustȱ agreeȱ toȱ enjoyȱ orȱ acceptȱ orȱ endureȱ beingȱ unsettled,ȱ 18ȱ

indeed,ȱ toȱ liveȱ withinȱ theȱ nonȬescapistȱ ethos,ȱ toȱ enjoyȱ theȱ feelingȱofȱtheȱcontestingȱcontradictionsȱandȱemotionalȱconflictsȱ nowȱlayeredȱinsideȱher.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱ “Somehowȱ induces”—whatȱ isȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ thatȱ “somehow”?ȱ Andȱ whatȱ ifȱ anȱ unsettledȱ viewerȱ justȱ walksȱ out,ȱ walksȱaway,ȱuntouched?ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ It’sȱ unprovenȱ whetherȱ walkingȱ outȱ meansȱ youȱ areȱ untouched;ȱ itȱ couldȱ meanȱ youȱ areȱ shakenȱ toȱ theȱ core.ȱ Andȱ “boredom”ȱ couldȱ beȱ defensive.ȱ It’sȱ true,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ “walkingȱ out”ȱ isȱ anȱ undesirableȱ situationȱ forȱ thisȱ theory:ȱ theȱ conventionsȱ ofȱ audienceȱ behaviourȱ inȱ theatreȱ (andȱ inȱ otherȱ performance)ȱ areȱ indeedȱ pressureȱ againstȱ walkingȱ outȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ againstȱ throwingȱ potatoȱ saladȱ atȱ theȱ performersȱ orȱ joiningȱ theȱ orchestraȱ onȱ stageȱ withȱ yourȱ violinȱ orȱ kazoo.ȱ (Funny,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ thisȱ aȬnormativeȱ theatreȱ dependsȱ onȱ certainȱ socialȱ manners.ȱ Indeed,ȱ inȱ Davidȱ Antin’sȱ performances,ȱ oneȱ hearsȱ himȱ welcomingȱ people—andȱ thisȱ isȱ anȱ allegoricalȱ invitation—toȱ walkȱ in!)ȱ Butȱ oneȱ doesȱ grazeȱ andȱ walkȱ freelyȱ (touchedȱ orȱ untouched)ȱ inȱ aȱ museumȱ orȱ gallery.ȱ Andȱ asȱ forȱ reading?ȱ Noȱ oneȱ preventsȱ youȱ fromȱ closingȱ theȱ book,ȱ fromȱ skippingȱorȱskimming.ȱHowȱtoȱpreventȱtheȱviewerȱfromȱfailingȱ toȱ beȱ gripped?ȱ Thisȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ aestheticȱ negotiationȱ ofȱ “alienationȬeffect”ȱ orȱ unresolvedȱ contradictions—paceȱ ofȱ presentation,ȱ mannerȱ ofȱ frustration,ȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ pleasureȱ orȱ painȱatȱthis,ȱsenseȱofȱaddressȱtoȱtheȱwholeȱsituation—isȱactuallyȱ centralȱ toȱ continuingȱ toȱ engageȱ theȱ attentionȱ ofȱ readers/ȱ viewers.ȱSoȱthisȱstillȱinvolvesȱaestheticȱjudgmentȱandȱprecisionȱ asȱwellȱas,ȱlet’sȱsay,ȱsocioȬpoliticalȱacuityȱandȱprecision.ȱWeȱare,ȱ hereȱ asȱ always,ȱ tumbledȱ backȱ intoȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ makingȱ artȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ thoughtsȱ aboutȱ makingȱaȱ politicalȱ interventionȱthroughȱart.ȱSometimesȱweȱthinkȱ(rigidly)ȱofȱtheseȱ asȱ “different”ȱ realms,ȱ differentȱ claims.ȱ Thisȱ rigidityȱ isȱ soȱ curious,ȱ anyway,ȱ givenȱ thatȱ weȱ live,ȱ areȱ formedȱ by,ȱ areȱ temperedȱinȱtheȱmaterialȱandȱpoliticalȱparticularsȱthatȱmakeȱtheȱ 19ȱ

“self”ȱ orȱ itsȱ “life.”ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ seeȱ thoseȱ particulars;ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ registerȱthem;ȱIȱthereforeȱwantȱtoȱresistȱtheorisingȱthatȱseparatesȱ theȱaestheticȱandȱtheȱmaterial/socioȬpolitical.ȱButȱIȱdon’tȱwantȱtoȱ oversimplify,ȱeither.ȱ ȱ A.ȱIȱthinkȱBrecht’sȱtheoryȱisȱbrave,ȱandȱmaybeȱtheȱbestȱweȱcanȱ do,ȱ butȱ Iȱ thinkȱ itȱ alsoȱ underestimatesȱ theȱ degreeȱ ofȱ multiȬ taskingȱ andȱ selfȬrepressionȱ anyȱ personȱ “does,”ȱ howȱ weȱ swallowȱ hardȱ transitionsȱ downȱ andȱ justȱ liveȱ withȱ theȱ comic,ȱ ironic,ȱ orȱ ridiculousȱ figureȱ weȱ cutȱ movingȱ from—let’sȱ sayȱ theȱ stunningȱ aweȱ atȱ theȱ threatȱ ofȱ aȱ volcanicȱ explosionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ it’sȱ timeȱ forȱ lunch.ȱ Iȱ amȱ thinkingȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ sectionȱ ofȱ WallaceȱStevens’sȱ“EsthétiqueȱduȱMal”:ȱȱ ȱ ȱ Heȱtriedȱtoȱrememberȱtheȱphrases:ȱpainȱ Audibleȱatȱnoon,ȱpainȱtorturingȱitself,ȱ Painȱkillingȱpainȱonȱtheȱveryȱpointȱofȱpain.ȱ Theȱvolcanoȱtrembledȱinȱanotherȱether,ȱ Asȱtheȱbodyȱtremblesȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱlife.ȱ ȱ Itȱwasȱalmostȱtimeȱforȱlunch.2ȱȱ

ȱ Really,ȱ theȱ termsȱ weȱ wantȱ areȱ moreȱ likeȱ Joanȱ Retallack’sȱ “poethicalȱ wager”:ȱ “thatȱ weȱ doȱ ourȱ utmostȱ toȱ understandȱ ourȱ contemporaryȱ positionȱ andȱ thenȱ actȱ onȱ theȱ chanceȱ thatȱ ourȱ workȱ mayȱ beȱ atȱleastȱasȱ effectiveȱasȱ anyȱ otherȱinitialȱ conditionȱ inȱ theȱ intertwiningȱ trajectoriesȱ ofȱ patternȱ andȱ chance.”3ȱ Actȱ inȱ life,ȱ actȱ inȱ art,ȱ actȱ engagedȱ isȱ howȱ Iȱ translateȱ that,ȱ thoughȱ Retallackȱ isȱ hereȱ defendingȱ theȱ unpredictableȱ impactȱ ofȱ aȱ complexȱartworkȱsetȱonȱitsȱmerryȱwayȱintoȱaȱrealȱlifeȱzone.ȱButȱ ofȱ courseȱ radicalȱ formȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ anythingȱ aboutȱ actualȱ politicalȱagency;ȱthoseȱprocessesȱmayȱintersectȱbutȱtheyȱareȱnotȱ synonymous.ȱȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ WallaceȱStevens,ȱWallaceȱStevens:ȱCollectedȱPoetryȱandȱProse,ȱeds.ȱFrankȱKermodeȱ andȱJoanȱRichardsonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱTheȱLibraryȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1997)ȱ277.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Joanȱ Retallack,ȱ Theȱ Poethicalȱ Wagerȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 2003)ȱ46.ȱ

20ȱ

P.ȱRadicalȱformȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱanyoneȱaȱradical.ȱButȱitȱisȱsuchȱaȱ temptationȱ toȱ playȱ hopefullyȱ alongȱ theȱ edgeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ twoȱ conceptsȱthatȱuseȱtheȱsameȱword.ȱ ȱ A.ȱOrȱmaybeȱRolandȱBarthesȱonȱpleasureȱandȱblissȱwouldȱbeȱaȱ happierȱ theory,ȱ aȱ theoryȱ ofȱ extravagance,ȱ acknowledgingȱ theȱ painfulnessȱofȱdesireȱforȱtheȱunknowable,ȱtheȱedgeȱbeyond.ȱHeȱ arguesȱ thatȱ blissȱ emergesȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ unsettled,ȱ theȱ unresolvable,ȱ theȱ nonȬthetic,ȱ inȱ negativity.ȱ Pleasureȱ isȱ affirmative,ȱ closural,ȱ butȱ blissȱ isȱ somethingȱ beyond.ȱ Oneȱ isȱ arousedȱ toȱ aȱ sublimeȱ aweȱ atȱ theȱ intricateȱ worldsȱ whoseȱ rationalesȱ andȱ meaningsȱ weȱ canȱ barelyȱ intuit.4ȱ Likeȱ findingȱ aȱ wholeȱ ecologyȱ ofȱ lifeȬformsȱ thrivingȱ inȱ theȱ hotȱ ventsȱ inȱ theȱ Pacific.ȱ Orȱ somethingȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ fromȱ Barrettȱ Watten:ȱ “Theȱ constructivistȱ momentȱ isȱanȱ elusiveȱ transitionȱinȱ theȱ unfoldingȱ workȱ ofȱ cultureȱ inȱ whichȱ socialȱ negativity—theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ rupture,ȱ andȱ actȱ ofȱ refusal—invokesȱ aȱ fantasmaticȱ future—aȱ horizonȱofȱpossibility,ȱanȱimaginationȱofȱparticipation.”5ȱ ȱ P.ȱTheȱtermsȱofȱthisȱconversationȱareȱalreadyȱoverwhelming;ȱweȱ haveȱbarelyȱbegun,ȱandȱI’mȱgettingȱhungry;ȱitȱmightȱbeȱtimeȱforȱ lunch.ȱBut,ȱnoȱmatterȱthatȱnobleȱavantȬgardeȱgoalȱofȱrupturingȱ theȱaffirmative,ȱstillȱIȱlookȱatȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱsortȱofȱcockȬeyed.ȱ MostȱavantȬgardesȱIȱknowȱaboutȱinȱtheȱmodernȱperiodȱhaveȱnotȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ critiquedȱ theirȱ ownȱ genderȱ andȱ racialisedȱ assumptions,ȱ althoughȱ theyȱ areȱ rifeȱ withȱ theseȱ materialsȱ andȱ oftenȱ runȱ onȱ them,ȱ areȱ fuelledȱ byȱ them.ȱ AvantȬgardesȱ haveȱ workedȱ “overwhelmingly”ȱ fromȱ “maleȱ subjectȱ position(s)”ȱ asȱ Susanȱ Rubinȱ Suleimanȱ saysȱ aboutȱ Surrealism.6ȱ Yetȱ theyȱ rarelyȱ

ȱ 4ȱȱ Rolandȱ Barthes,ȱ Theȱ Pleasureȱ ofȱ theȱ Text,ȱ trans.ȱ Richardȱ Millerȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Hillȱ andȱWang,ȱ1975)ȱ3Ȭ24.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ BarrettȱWatten,ȱTheȱConstructivistȱMoment:ȱFromȱMaterialȱTextȱtoȱCulturalȱPoeticsȱ (Middletown,ȱCT:ȱWesleyanȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003)ȱxxi;ȱ191.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Susanȱ Rubinȱ Suleiman,ȱ Subversiveȱ Intent:ȱ Gender,ȱ Politics,ȱ andȱ Theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990)ȱ26.ȱ

21ȱ

examineȱorȱquestionȱtheȱissuesȱandȱmaterialsȱofȱmasculinityȱandȱ manhood,ȱ whitenessȱ andȱ privilege,ȱ antiȬeffeminacy,ȱ orȱ theȱ scintillatingȱ darkȬexoticismsȱ created,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ affirmȱ themȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ palette,ȱ unquestionedȱ assumptionsȱ asȱ usableȱ asȱ pigmentȱ squeezedȱ straightȱ fromȱ theȱ tube.ȱ Indeed,ȱ whenȱ manyȱ avantȬgardesȱhaveȱproposedȱgenderȱandȱracialȱissuesȱasȱpartȱofȱ theirȱarsenalȱofȱrepresentations,ȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱevidenceȱshowsȱ thatȱtheseȱconsiderationsȱofȱsocialȱlocationȱandȱpowerȱreplicateȱ toȱperfection,ȱorȱevenȱexaggerateȱmelodramatically,ȱtheȱgenderȱ andȱ racialȱ relationsȱ ofȱ theȱ bourgeoisȱ societyȱ thatȱ theȱ avantȬ gardeȱis,ȱinȱitsȱotherȱpresumptiveȱclaims,ȱcontesting.ȱSameȱold,ȱ sameȱ old.ȱ Thereȱ hasȱ beenȱ atȱ leastȱ aȱ feministȱ epistemicȱ shiftȱ inȱ theȱpastȱyears,ȱasȱwellȱasȱotherȱparallelȱshifts.ȱSoȱwhyȱshouldȱIȱ getȱ excitedȱ aboutȱ “theȱ avantȬgarde”?ȱ Perhapsȱ itȱ isȱ simplyȱ theȱ pastȱandȱaȱtermȱfromȱtheȱpast.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ Yes—thinkingȱ asȱ aȱ feministȱ alwaysȱ confrontsȱ oneȱ withȱ theȱ ethicalȱ choice:ȱ doȱ Iȱ overlookȱ thisȱ specificȱ problemȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ greaterȱsolidarities?ȱOrȱdoȱIȱcritiqueȱandȱgoȱoutȱonȱaȱlimb,ȱneverȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ again?ȱ Iȱ heardȱ aȱ pieceȱ byȱ Sofiaȱ Gubaidulina,ȱ theȱ “FeastȱDuringȱaȱPlague”ȱ(2005),ȱperformedȱbyȱtheȱPhiladelphiaȱ Orchestraȱ andȱ Simonȱ Rattleȱ inȱ Februaryȱ 2006.ȱ Theȱ pieceȱ isȱ aȱ stunning,ȱ noble,ȱ monumentalȱ andȱ riskȬtakingȱ orchestralȱ workȱ thatȱ endedȱ inȱ aȱ nonȬdialogueȱ betweenȱ theȱ classicalȱ materialsȱ andȱ aȱ heavyȱ rockȱ setȱ ofȱ stuffȱ playedȱ overȱ loudȬspeakers.ȱ Thatȱ wasȱcertainlyȱanȱapparentȱcontradictionȱbetweenȱtwoȱartȱforms,ȱ butȱ itȱ wasȱ notȱ aȱ trueȱ contradiction;ȱ Iȱ feltȱ theȱ “answer”ȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ set,ȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ AdornoȬesqueȱ modeȱ ofȱ resistingȱ theȱbrazenȱsoundȱofȱpopȱculture,ȱorȱbarelyȱbeginningȱtoȱhaveȱaȱ dialogueȱwithȱit.ȱSoȱsurelyȱifȱthereȱisȱtoȱbeȱcontradiction,ȱitȱmustȱ beȱreal,ȱnotȱfaked,ȱandȱnot,ȱlikeȱSocraticȱ“dialogue,”ȱskewedȱtoȱ favourȱoneȱside.ȱThisȱisȱharderȱtoȱdoȱthanȱitȱseems,ȱandȱhardȱtoȱ doȱ withoutȱ seemingȱ wishyȬwashy,ȱ nonȬcommitted,ȱ soft,ȱ justȱ foolingȱ around,ȱ “playing”….ȱ Butȱ whatȱ Iȱ reallyȱ likedȱ wasȱ theȱ takeȬnoȬprisonersȱ sublimeȱ ofȱ Gubaidulina’sȱ work;ȱ itȱ madeȱ meȱ aweȬstruck,ȱ ennobled,ȱ uplifted.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ humanistic,ȱ 22ȱ

confrontationalȬevocativeȱ qualities.ȱ Andȱ justȱ lookȱ atȱ thoseȱ terms!ȱ Maybeȱ whatȱ womenȱ artistsȱ haveȱ toȱ doȱ isȱ beginȱ cultureȱ allȱoverȱfromȱtheȱbeginning!ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Well—doȱ whatȱ youȱ needȱ toȱ do.ȱ Butȱ don’tȱ justȱ lightȱ upȱ aȱ zillionȱwattsȱwithȱillusions!ȱI’llȱsayȱoneȱthingȱaboutȱthisȱ“post”ȱ moment,ȱ whateverȱ itȱ is,ȱ andȱ whateverȱweȱ wantȱ toȱ callȱ it—itȱ isȱ raisingȱ everyȱ singleȱ questionȱ weȱ everȱ hadȱ aboutȱ art,ȱ itsȱ terms,ȱ itsȱ functions,ȱ itsȱ mechanisms,ȱ itsȱ purposes,ȱ itsȱ histories;ȱ thisȱ momentȱcompelsȱusȱtoȱproposeȱandȱreliveȱallȱtheȱdebatesȱaboutȱ aestheticsȱ andȱ politicsȱ andȱ socialȱ locationȱ again,ȱ andȱ atȱ aȱ serious,ȱnecessaryȱpitch.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ PostȬavant.ȱ Soȱ isȱ thisȱ theȱ sameȱ termȱ asȱ “avantȬgarde”ȱ orȱ aȱ differentȱterm?ȱWhatȱdoesȱitȱmean?ȱI’veȱseenȱ“postȬavant”ȱusedȱ byȱ Ronȱ Sillimanȱ onȱ hisȱ blogȱ andȱ elsewhereȱ (includingȱ www.bostoncomment.com/debate.html),ȱandȱIȱacceptȱit,ȱsortȱofȱ vaguely,ȱasȱaȱhelpfulȱgeneralisedȱrubric.ȱIt’sȱanȱumbrellaȱ/ȱcatchȬ allȱcategoryȱforȱallȱofȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱthoughtȱofȱasȱoppositionalȱ poeticsȱ overȱ theȱ pastȱ fiftyȬplusȱ years—Blackȱ Mountain,ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ School,ȱ Languageȱ writing,ȱ andȱ ethnopoetics,ȱ and,ȱ and,ȱ and.ȱIfȱitȱhasȱaȱparticularity,ȱitȱmightȱmeanȱwritingȱcomingȱafterȱ theȱ Vietnamȱ Eraȱ experimentalȱ Languageȱ Poetriesȱ (andȱ sometimes,ȱ indeed,ȱ it’sȱ writingȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ peopleȱ whoȱ actuallyȱparticipatedȱinȱthatȱformation),ȱwritingȱthatȱdoes,ȱmoreȱ andȱ more,ȱ seemȱ toȱ collectȱ itselfȱ in,ȱ into,ȱ andȱ towardȱ politicalȱ comment—fromȱTenneyȱNathanson,ȱfromȱCAȱConrad,ȱDeborahȱ Richards,ȱFrankȱSherlock,ȱfromȱLauraȱElrick,ȱRodrigoȱToscano,ȱ fromȱ Julianaȱ Spahr,ȱ Redellȱ Olsen,ȱ Erinȱ Moure,ȱ Edȱ Roberson,ȱ Robȱ Fitterman,ȱ Ericaȱ Hunt—thereȱ reallyȱ areȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ peopleȱ doingȱ thisȱ work—manyȱ moreȱ thanȱ thatȱ listȱ ofȱ folks,ȱ whichȱ isȱ meanȱ toȱ beȱ suggestiveȱ only.ȱ However—andȱ thisȱ isȱ quiteȱ interestingȱ toȱ me—inȱ partȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ penetratingȱ selfȬ consciousnessȱaboutȱgroupȱformationȱvisibleȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱNewȱ YorkȱSchool(s),ȱtheȱLanguageȱgroups,ȱandȱinȱtheȱfreemasonryȱofȱ ethnopoiesis,ȱanyoneȱcomingȱupȱnowȱ(generationally)ȱhasȱseenȱ 23ȱ

theȱsociologyȱofȱartȱgroupsȱupȱclose,ȱactively,ȱeagerlyȱdigestingȱ materials,ȱhasȱseenȱtheȱdebatesȱthatȱbuildȱandȱexcludeȱinȱpublicȱ forumsȱ (likeȱ blogs).ȱ Thusȱ Iȱ thinkȱ someȱ postȬavantȱ thinkingȱ isȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ tryingȱ activelyȱ toȱ buildȱ aȱ “generation.”ȱ Althoughȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ sureȱ oneȱ buildsȱ aȱ generationalȱ senseȱ onlyȱ fromȱ one’sȱ ownȱ actsȱ andȱ agency—Iȱ thinkȱ itȱ alsoȱ happens,ȱ activates,ȱ congeals,ȱ fromȱ historicalȱ pressuresȱ externalȱ toȱ theȱ smallȬishȱ formationsȱ ofȱ poeticȱ groups.ȱ Iȱ canȱ seeȱ whyȱ theȱ termȱ “worldȱspirit”ȱseemsȱsoȱusefulȱanȱexplanation!ȱ ȱ P.ȱ Soȱ whatȱ youȱ meanȱ isȱ postȬavantȱ existsȱ asȱ aȱ term—nowȱ weȱ haveȱtoȱgiveȱitȱaȱcontent.ȱThatȱlistȱofȱpeopleȱyouȱjustȱgaveȱisȱnotȱ exactlyȱ“generational”ȱbutȱcrossȬgenerational.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱ Well,ȱ it’sȱ someȱ peopleȱ whoȱ areȱ simplyȱ temporallyȱ afterȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ formations,ȱ doingȱ experimentalȱ work.ȱ Andȱ it’sȱ peopleȱ drawingȱ uponȱ modernism,ȱ butȱ resistingȱ theȱ universalising,ȱ triumphalistȱ ethosȱ ofȱ modernism.ȱ Plusȱ it’sȱ peopleȱ whoȱ areȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ usingȱ experimentalȱ tacticsȱ directlyȱ toȱ confrontȱ politicsȱ andȱ ideologyȱ andȱ issuesȱ inȱ theirȱ representationȱ andȱ critique.ȱ Theseȱ areȱ somewhatȱ differentȱ emphasesȱ (likeȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ Kennyȱ Goldsmithȱ andȱ Bruceȱ Andrews—Andrewsȱ hasȱ moreȱ socialȱ biteȱ inȱ hisȱ combinatoryȱ urgencies,ȱ althoughȱ Goldsmithȱ representsȱ theȱ streamingȱ ofȱ sensationȱ andȱ stimuliȱ inȱ ourȱ worldȱ withȱ hyperȬ realistȱ goals),ȱ butȱ theyȱ getȱ simplyȱ allȱ bundledȱ togetherȱ underȱ theȱrubricȱpostȬavant.ȱForȱreasonsȱofȱsuchȱflexibilityȱalone,ȱitȱisȱaȱ usefulȬenoughȱtermȱthatȱ willȱprobablyȱstick.ȱAndȱit,ȱlikeȱmanyȱ suchȱterms,ȱwillȱcontinueȱtoȱhaveȱitsȱdefinitionsȱconstructedȱinȱ processȱasȱvariousȱartistsȱcontinueȱfunctionallyȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱ thisȱ formation.ȱ Toȱ me,ȱ postȬavantȱ meansȱ artworksȱ fromȱ theȱ midȬeightiesȱ on.ȱ (Inȱ theȱ US,ȱ thusȱ withȱ theȱ neoȬconservativeȱ blockageȱ ofȱ socialȱ democracyȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ 2000ȱ coupȱ takingȱ overȱ governmentȱ functions.)ȱ Thisȱ isȱ artȱ madeȱ underȱ politicalȱ andȱsocialȱconditionsȱthatȱcauseȱoneȱtoȱreopenȱallȱtheȱquestionsȱ aboutȱtheȱmeaningȱandȱfunctionȱofȱart,ȱgivenȱourȱsenseȱof,ȱandȱ 24ȱ

ourȱ objectivelyȱ palpableȱ politicalȱ crisis.ȱ Whichȱ mightȱ beȱ asȱ simpleȱasȱaȱlackȱofȱideologicalȱpoliticalȱpartiesȱandȱproportionalȱ votingȱ (ratherȱ thanȱ whatȱ weȱ have—dysfunctionalȱ Bigȱ Tentȱ partiesȱ andȱ theȱ Electoralȱ College).ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ USȱ isȱ aȱ democracyȱinȱnameȱonly.ȱWhichȱmightȱbeȱaȱcrisisȱofȱourȱagency,ȱ powerlessness,ȱandȱourȱsenseȱofȱoutȬofȬcontrolȱexploitationȱandȱ despoilingȱhappeningȱveryȱclose,ȱindeed,ȱsometimesȱhappeningȱ “inȱ ourȱ names.”ȱ Butȱ toȱ generalise,ȱ toȱ getȱ offȱ cultureȬboundȱ UnitedȬStatesnessȱ I’dȱ sayȱ thatȱ fundamentalism,ȱ whereverȱ found,ȱisȱwhatȱpostȬavantȱmustȱstakeȱitselfȱagainst.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Butȱ “postȬavant”ȱ hasȱ aȱ builtȬinȱ rhetoricalȱ problemȱ inȱ itsȱ verbalȱ closenessȱ toȱ “avantȬgarde.”ȱ Theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ theȱ vanguardȱ party,ȱ theȱ onesȱ whoȱ claimedȱ toȱ beȱ aheadȱ inȱ aȱ necessary,ȱ teleologicallyȱ crucialȱ historicalȱ directionȱ alsoȱ implicitlyȱorȱexplicitlyȱclaimedȱleadershipȱrolesȱinȱtheȱadvance.ȱ ThisȱisȱaȱstructuralȱpartȱofȱtheȱideologyȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱThisȱ positionȱhasȱsevereȱethicalȱproblems,ȱcastingȱothersȱasȱfollowersȱ only,ȱinstrumentalisingȱthem,ȱwhileȱtheȱclaimantsȱbecomeȱSeersȱ orȱ Visionariesȱ seeingȱ theȱ directionȱ ofȱ history,ȱ andȱ thus,ȱ whileȱ possiblyȱ actingȱ inȱ exploitiveȱ waysȱ inȱ theirȱ personal,ȱ sexual,ȱ economicȱ andȱ ethicalȱ life,ȱ beingȱ excusedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ thatȱ visionaryȱ élan.ȱ Thisȱ vangardistȱ ethos,ȱ noȱ matterȱ whereȱ itȱ appearedȱandȱforȱgoodȱreasonȱorȱbad,ȱhasȱbeenȱaȱdisaster.ȱTheȱ separatistȱclaimȱofȱtheȱlesbianȱvanguard,ȱforȱinstance,ȱwasȱaȱculȬ deȬsacȱ forȱ theȱ women’sȱ movement,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ mean— don’tȱ misunderstand—thatȱ sexualȱ preferenceȱ andȱ thoseȱ particularȱ aspectsȱ forȱ socialȱ justiceȱ areȱ notȱ centralȱ issues,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ are.ȱ Inȱ anyȱ eventȱ PostȬAvantȱ mayȱ beȱ “after”ȱ thatȱ conceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ forerunners,ȱ theȱ militaryȱ scouts,ȱ butȱ doesȱ itȱ notȱ stillȱ claimȱ thatȱ sameȱ vanguardismȱ ofȱ terminologyȱ andȱ positionality?ȱ Itȱ didȱ notȱ getȱ intellectuallyȱ “beyond”ȱ thatȱ kindȱ ofȱ vanguardism.ȱ Isȱ itȱ not,ȱ inȱ itsȱ terms,ȱ aȱ newȬnew,ȱ orȱ theȱ latestȱthing,ȱorȱtheȱthingȱ beyondȱtheȱthingȱoutȱfront?ȱThus—inȱ terminology,ȱandȱtakenȱatȱitsȱfaceȱvalue,ȱtheȱtermȱ“postȬavant”ȱ participatesȱinȱtheȱvanguardȱethosȱitȱisȱpresumablyȱresisting.ȱȱ 25ȱ

A.ȱ Yes,ȱ Thereȱ isȱ plentyȱ ofȱ semantic,ȱ notȱ toȱ sayȱ deconstructive,ȱ ironyȱinȱtheȱtermȱpostȬavant.ȱPostȱindicatesȱ“afterȱinȱtime,ȱlater,ȱ andȱsubsequentȱto”ȱandȱthusȱindicatesȱaȱnewȱfirstness,ȱinȱfrontȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ firstness.ȱ Andȱ inȱ that,ȱ theȱ termȱ mayȱ simplyȱ beȱ descriptive:ȱ weȱ doȱ comeȱ after,ȱ chronologically.ȱ Anotherȱ definitionȱ ofȱ postȱ isȱ “afterȱ inȱ position,ȱ behind,ȱ posteriorȱ to.”ȱ Sayingȱ postȬavant,ȱ orȱ avantȬpostȱ weȱ stillȱ lineȱ upȱ behindȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ thoseȱ historical,ȱ noble,ȱ excited,ȱ beneficial,ȱ experimental,ȱ shocking,ȱ disgracefulȱ groupsȱ andȱ movements.ȱ Thisȱisȱgettingȱfunny:ȱsoȱareȱweȱbeforeȱorȱareȱweȱafter?ȱAreȱweȱ behindȱ orȱ areȱ weȱ inȱ front?ȱ Post,ȱ inȱ anotherȱ definitionȱ isȱ somethingȱ placedȱ asȱ aȱ benchmark.ȱ Weȱ areȱ aȱ postȱ placedȱ nearȱ theȱhistoricalȱavantȬgarde,ȱwhichȱisȱstillȱaȱbiggerȱpost.ȱTheȱlinesȱ weȱ stringȱ dependȱ onȱ them.ȱ Or—it’sȱ “post”ȱ —ȱ aȱ systemȱ forȱ deliveringȱ mail,ȱ begunȱ inȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ relaysȱ alongȱ aȱ fixedȱ route,ȱforȱcouriers.ȱSoȱavantȬpostȱisȱjustȱdeliveringȱtheȱ“letters”ȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ toȱ anotherȱ generation.ȱ Weȱ travelȱ quickly,ȱ postȬhaste.ȱSoȱweȱareȱ“postȬage”;ȱtheȱageȱofȱafter,ȱtheȱstampȱandȱ ticket.ȱAndȱtheȱpriceȱofȱfirstȬclassȱmailȱhasȱrisenȱagain:ȱ39ȱcents.ȱ Soȱ weȱ canȱ “post”—onȱ theȱ internet.ȱ Anyway,ȱ I’dȱ ratherȱ notȱ beȱ “post,”ȱ meaningȱ hastyȱ andȱ quick;ȱ “shootȱ first;ȱ aimȱ later”ȱ isȱ amusingȱ(exceptȱifȱyouȱtakeȱtheȱshot),ȱbutȱifȱyouȱdoȱtheȱ“shootȱ first”ȱtooȱmuch,ȱyou’llȱregretȱit.ȱAndȱthenȱsupposeȱIȱdon’tȱwantȱ toȱlineȱup,ȱasȱyouȱdon’t,ȱforȱgenderȱreasons,ȱwithȱorȱasȱanythingȱ likeȱ theȱ historical,ȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ needȱ aȱ quieterȱterm:ȱExperimental.ȱInnovative.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Theseȱ termsȱ areȱ agreeableȱ andȱ accurate,ȱ butȱ theyȱ haveȱ noȱ particularȱ historicalȱ edginess.ȱ Partȱ ofȱ thatȱ edginessȱ ofȱ “postȬ avant”ȱ isȱ preciselyȱ theȱ flirtationȱ withȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ historyȱ thatȱ isȱ alsoȱ beingȱ critiqued.ȱ Andȱ partlyȱ “experimental”ȱ andȱ “innovative”ȱ canȱ beȱ overȬgeneralisedȱ termsȱ everyoneȱ isȱ happyȱ toȱhaveȱaȱfriendlyȱlittleȱpieceȱof,ȱturningȱstrategiesȱintoȱrhetoricȱ only.ȱ Maybeȱ postȬavantȱ isȱ this:ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ ethicsȱ ofȱ resistingȱ theȱ sheerlyȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Soȱ it’sȱ beyondȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ whileȱ participatingȱ inȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ terms.ȱ Well—it’sȱ aȱ goodȱ cluster— 26ȱ

experimental,ȱinnovative,ȱavant/postȬavant.ȱSoȱlongȱasȱedginessȱ andȱcritiqueȱareȱcentral.ȱ ȱȱ A.ȱ Iȱ sayȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ “torque”ȱ things.ȱ Theȱ challenge,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ me,ȱisȱtoȱwriteȱpreciselyȱinsideȱone’sȱsocialȱhistoricity,ȱnotȱaheadȱ ofȱit.ȱAndȱsoȱforȱwhateverȱreasons,ȱIȱamȱbeginningȱtoȱthinkȱthatȱ I’mȱ preȬavant,ȱ althoughȱ Iȱ amȱ certainlyȱ livingȱ inȱ certainȱ “post”ȱ conditions.ȱIȱamȱnotȱ“after”ȱanything;ȱratherȱI’mȱbefore,ȱwaitingȱ stillȱ forȱ modernismȱ toȱ happen,ȱ waitingȱ forȱ realȱ modernityȱ toȱ happen—theȱsenseȱofȱjusticeȱandȱsocialȱdemocracyȱpromisedȱinȱ theȱradicalȱmovementsȱofȱtheȱlaterȱ19thȱandȱearlyȱpartȱofȱtheȱ20thȱ century.ȱ Utopianȱ desire,ȱ ethicalȱ hope,ȱ sickenedȱ astonishment,ȱ andȱ intermittentȱ despairȱ areȱ myȱ present.ȱ PreȬavantȱ isȱ theȱ Gramscianȱoptimismȱofȱtheȱwill,ȱpessimismȱofȱtheȱintellect.ȱ ȱ P.ȱ Poetryȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ wordsȱ canȱ sometimesȱ leadȱ toȱ politicalȱ arousalȱ andȱ transformation.ȱ Songsȱ canȱ seemȱ toȱ sumȱ upȱ aȱ generation’sȱ urgencies.ȱ Aȱ poet/writerȱ whoȱ hasȱ experiencedȱ havingȱ her/hisȱ wordsȱ accomplishȱ thisȱ (likeȱ Adrienneȱ Rich,ȱ Ntozakeȱ Shange,ȱ Allenȱ Ginsberg,ȱ orȱ Eliotȱ Weinbergerȱ withȱ “WhatȱIȱHeardȱaboutȱIraq”),ȱaȱpoetȱforȱwhomȱthisȱisȱaȱdecisiveȱ desireȱ(suchȱasȱAnneȱWaldman,ȱEzraȱPound,ȱorȱSoniaȱSanchez)ȱ canȱ probablyȱ neverȱ letȱ goȱ ofȱ theȱ tremendousȱ feelingȱ ofȱ havingȱ achievedȱ wordsȱ thatȱ changeȱ people’sȱ minds,ȱ hearts,ȱ consciousness.ȱButȱdoȱtheseȱwordsȱcauseȱsomethingȱtoȱhappenȱ inȱtheȱpoliticalȱsphere?ȱOnlyȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱconditions,ȱ asȱ oneȱ contributionȱ amongȱ many.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ directȱ correlationȱ betweenȱ writingȱ andȱ action.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ toȱ theȱ good.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ imagineȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ splitȱ amongȱ theseȱ artists—betweenȱ thoseȱwhoȱseekȱandȱacceptȱtheȱculturalȱresponsibilityȱofȱbeingȱaȱ conduitȱforȱsomethingȱthatȱtheyȱfeelȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱsaidȱandȱthoseȱ whoȱdiscussȱandȱexamineȱwhatȱtheyȱseeȱisȱvital,ȱwhereupon,ȱbyȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ interestingȱ accidents,ȱ theirȱ wordsȱ accidentallyȱ becomeȱ talismanic.ȱ Ginsbergȱ didȱ notȱwriteȱ “Howl”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ achieveȱ theȱ responseȱ heȱ did;ȱ theȱ responseȱ wasȱ anȱ unintendedȱ

27ȱ

consequence,ȱ one,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ createdȱ aȱ feedbackȱ loopȱ thatȱ inducedȱhimȱtoȱcontinueȱtoȱspeakȱforȱhisȱgeneration.ȱȱ Theȱ bard,ȱ theȱ spokesperson,ȱ theȱ arouser,ȱ theȱ oneȱ onȱ whomȱ ourȱinvestmentsȱpour,ȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱspeakingȱforȱus,ȱ theȱ oneȱ whoseȱ rhetoricsȱ appearȱ toȱ haveȱ inventedȱ us—thisȱ isȱ aȱ generativeȱ culturalȱ position,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ eitherȱ anȱ exclusiveȱ functionȱforȱpoetryȱnorȱisȱitȱtheȱtopȱofȱanȱimaginedȱhierarchyȱofȱ poetry’sȱ function.ȱ Poetsȱ mightȱ thinkȱ ofȱtheirȱ wordsȱasȱ bridges,ȱ reachingȱbetween,ȱlivingȱinȱbetweenness.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱDoȱyouȱrealiseȱweȱhaven’tȱreallyȱsaidȱwhatȱ“post”ȱconditionsȱ weȱ areȱ talkingȱ about—?ȱ Iȱ mean,ȱ withȱ allȱ thisȱ invokingȱ ofȱ historicity.ȱ I’dȱ sayȱ postȬVietnamȱ (aȱ bigȱ powerȱ losesȱ toȱ aȱ guerrillaȱ army),ȱ postȬ9/11ȱ inȱ theȱ USA—theȱ shockȱ ofȱ anȱ attackȱ thatȱshouldȱhaveȱbeenȱdeclaredȱaȱ“crimeȱagainstȱhumanity”ȱbutȱ insteadȱ solidifiedȱ aȱ minorityȱ governmentȱ andȱ itsȱ calculatedȱ “preȬemptiveȱwar”ȱpoliciesȱbothȱinsideȱandȱoutsideȱitsȱborders;ȱ postȬFallȱ ofȱ Berlinȱ Wallȱ inȱ Europe;ȱ andȱ postȬnationalȱ onȱ theȱ economicȱ levelȱ (rabidȱ companiesȱ andȱ ministriesȱ ofȱ economics,ȱ globalȱ integration,ȱ exportingȱ exploitation,ȱ despoilers— otherwiseȱ calledȱ investors—inȱ collusionȱ withȱ nationalȱ governmentsȱ againstȱ peoples).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ oneȱ mix,ȱ andȱ itsȱ datesȱ rangeȱ fromȱ 1975ȱ toȱ 2006—thirtyȱ years!ȱ Butȱ mainlyȱ itȱ isȱ aboutȱ smallȱpowerlessness,ȱtheȱlackȱofȱagencyȱofȱtheȱsmallȱasȱagainstȱ theȱ machineriesȱ ofȱ power:ȱ states,ȱ armies,ȱ globalȱ companies.ȱ Soȱ whatȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ sayȱ inȱ consideringȱ theȱ postȬavantȱ is:ȱ Weȱ haveȱ notȱmournedȱtheȱfailureȱofȱmodernityȱenough.ȱ ȱ P.ȱTellȱmeȱmore.ȱ ȱ A.ȱWhatȱwentȱwrong?ȱTorahȱinȱHell.ȱAtlasȱofȱSlavery.ȱWeȱhaveȱ notȱ mournedȱ andȱ comprehendedȱ (takenȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ insideȱ us)ȱbecauseȱitsȱfailuresȱareȱpocked,ȱpebbled,ȱirregularȱ(unevenlyȱ developed).ȱ Inȱ ourȱ worldȱ sectorȱ orȱ cadre,ȱ weȱ haveȱ theȱ moreȱ developedȱ gainsȱ ofȱ modernity,ȱ althoughȱ unequallyȱ distributedȱ evenȱ insideȱ ourȱ sector.ȱ(We,ȱ isȱ definedȱhere,ȱ inȱaȱ friendlyȱ way,ȱ 28ȱ

asȱmadeȱupȱofȱpeopleȱwhoȱhaveȱenoughȱeducation,ȱequipment,ȱ andȱ accessȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ thisȱ discussion)ȱ Class,ȱ race,ȱ ethnicity,ȱ region,ȱ gender,ȱ religiousȱ cultureȱ areȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ filtersȱ thatȱ barȱ orȱ inflectȱ theȱ disseminationȱ ofȱ theȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ modernity.ȱ Butȱ weȱ haveȱ notȱ mournedȱ becauseȱ weȱ areȱ oftenȱ dazzledȱ byȱ theȱ baublesȱ modernityȱ hasȱ givenȱ toȱ us.ȱ Weȱ wereȱ thinkingȱthatȱthisȱunrollingȱcrisisȱisȱnotȱaboutȱus:ȱglobalisation,ȱ notȱ aboutȱ us.ȱ Possibilityȱ ofȱ nuclearȱ war,ȱ notȱ aboutȱ us.ȱ Ourȱ standardȱ ofȱ living,ȱ notȱ aboutȱ us.ȱ Ecologicalȱ disaster,ȱ notȱ aboutȱ usȱ (well,ȱ maybeȱ aboutȱ us).ȱ Theȱ militantȱ claimsȱ toȱ imposeȱ fundamentalistȱ religiousȱ laws,ȱ notȱ aboutȱ us.ȱ Henceȱ ourȱ consciousnessȱ hasȱ beenȱ pallidȱ andȱ apolitical;ȱ thisȱ hasȱ beenȱ goingȱonȱforȱyearsȱnow;ȱitȱseemsȱourȱconsciousnessȱisȱparalyzedȱ andȱhalfȬpoisoned.ȱWillȱweȱwakeȱup?ȱWeȱareȱstillȱlivingȱinȱsomeȱ amnesiaȱ andȱ obliviousness.ȱ Weȱ areȱ notȱ enragedȱ enoughȱ aboutȱ injustice,ȱaboutȱtheȱlacksȱandȱlossesȱofȱothers,ȱbecauseȱweȱdon’tȱ seeȱtheseȱareȱpartȱofȱus.ȱLivingȱinȱtheȱlongȱ“twentieth”ȱcenturyȱ (inȱ modernity,ȱ wheneverȱ thatȱ began—let’sȱ sayȱ withȱ Africanȱ enslavement,ȱaccomplishedȱbyȱaȱtoxicȱcoalitionȱofȱtheȱwilling— thisȱ isȱ notȱ whiteȱ vs.ȱ blackȱ byȱ anyȱ means!),ȱ weȱ haveȱ alsoȱ livedȱ withȱ unacceptableȱ brutalityȱ andȱ politicalȱ malfeasance:ȱ genocide,ȱ rapine.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ gottenȱ usedȱ toȱ theȱ tragediesȱ weȱ inflictȱ onȱ eachȱ otherȱ whileȱ invokingȱ peculiarȱ names:ȱ science,ȱ religion,ȱnation,ȱdevelopment.ȱWeȱhaveȱtoȱbecomeȱdesperateȱforȱ ourȱ values.ȱ Theseȱ valuesȱ involveȱ sustainableȱ development,ȱ liberalȱtolerance,ȱandȱsocialȱjustice.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱPostȬGardesȱfromȱtheȱVolcano?ȱTheȱajvarȱofȱDada,ȱaȱjarȱofȱit,ȱ allȱred,ȱisȱopenȱonȱtheȱtable.ȱSometimesȱpeopleȱpassingȱbyȱwillȱ takeȱ aȱ spoonfulȱ andȱ throwȱ itȱ inȱ whateverȱ theyȱ areȱ doing.ȱ Iȱ shrug.ȱOr,ȱaȱstudentȱpaperȱonȱaȱpoem.ȱ“Itȱhasȱaȱrevolutionȱatȱtheȱ end.”ȱ Weȱ shouldȱ beȱ soȱ lucky.ȱ Sheȱ meant,ȱ probably,ȱ eitherȱ “resolution”ȱ orȱ “revelation.”ȱ Theseȱ areȱ notesȱ inȱ “Shorthad.”ȱ Rightȱnow,ȱwe’veȱbeenȱ“shortȱhad.”ȱTheȱpowerȱofȱhandsȱonȱtheȱ leversȱofȱpowerȱwhichȱareȱshameless,ȱunchecked,ȱandȱwillingȱtoȱ lieȱ andȱ neverȱ swerveȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ shocking—andȱ fastȬ 29ȱ

movingȱ developmentsȱ onȱ theȱ pastȱ (approximate)ȱ decade—sixȱ yearsȱ ofȱ aȱ callow,ȱ shameless,ȱ criminalȱ clericalȬauthoritarianȱ presidentȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱfeelsȱlikeȱforever.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱWhenȱCelanȱchangedȱhisȱname,ȱmakingȱaȱpoet’sȱnameȱfromȱ Antschel,ȱ hisȱ familyȱ name,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ whatȱ heȱ didȱ wasȱ castȱ outȱ particularȱtaintedȱletters:ȱtheȱHȱforȱHitlerȱandȱtheȱSTȱforȱStalin.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱPostȬavantȱfeelsȱlikeȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱnetworks.ȱWeȱareȱnotȱ oneȱ singleȱ thing.ȱ Thisȱ mayȱ beȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ internet,ȱ informationȱ accessȱ andȱ informationȱ saturation,ȱ instantȱ communication.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱplaguesȱandȱillnessesȱ thatȱ travelȱ roundȱ theȱ globe.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ thatȱ weȱ intuitȱ orȱ areȱ shockedȱ byȱ waysȱ variousȱ farȬflungȱ economiesȱ interconnect;ȱ orȱ weȱ feelȱ theȱ “butterflyȱ wing”ȱ ofȱ politicsȱ whoseȱ linksȱ andȱ oddȱ causationsȱshakeȱusȱtoȱtheȱcore.ȱTheȱbreezeȱ(oftenȱoneȱweȱhaveȱ created,ȱ financed,ȱ underhandedlyȱ encouragedȱ evenȱ whenȱ itȱ violatesȱourȱlawsȱorȱhumanȱrightsȱnorms)ȱsetsȱupȱaȱtidalȱwaveȱ ofȱshattering.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱ “Noȱ Proofȱ Childrenȱ Wereȱ Toldȱ Toȱ Kill.”ȱ Headline,ȱ 30ȱ Novemberȱ1993.ȱThisȱheadlineȱisȱtypicalȱofȱourȱtimes.ȱYouȱcanȱ hearȱitsȱweaselling,ȱlyingȱtoneȱevenȱacrossȱtheȱyears.ȱ ȱ P.ȱ I’mȱ stillȱ unclearȱ aboutȱ whetherȱ weȱ areȱ participatingȱ inȱ theȱ postȬavantȱ orȱ critiquingȱ theȱ concept.ȱ Butȱ whichever,ȱ ideologies—thatȱ isȱ consciousness,ȱ assumptions,ȱ values,ȱ andȱ modesȱreallyȱhaveȱplayedȱaȱstrongȱroleȱbothȱinȱtheȱrealȱworld,ȱ asȱ religiousȱ ideologies,ȱ mainlyȱ fundamentalistȱ onesȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ worldȱ crisis.ȱ Youȱ canȱ seeȱ whyȱ Minaȱ Loyȱ thought,ȱ inȱ 1918,ȱthatȱartistsȱshouldȱworkȱtogetherȱtoȱuseȱaȱcombinationȱofȱ fashion,ȱsnobȱappeal,ȱandȱhighȱcultureȱtoȱabsolutelyȱchangeȱtheȱ symbolicȱ order.7ȱ Theȱ symbolicȱ orderȱ(whichȱ existsȱinȱ literatureȱ

ȱ 7ȱȱ Minaȱ Loy,ȱ “Internationalȱ PsychoȬDemocracy”ȱ (1918),ȱ Theȱ Lastȱ Lunarȱ Baedeker,ȱ ed.ȱRogerȱL.ȱConoverȱ(Highlands,ȱN.C.;ȱTheȱJargonȱSociety,ȱ1982)ȱ276Ȭ282.ȱ

30ȱ

andȱreligion,ȱinȱnationalȱideologyȱandȱsoȱon)ȱisȱpreciselyȱpartȱofȱ whatȱwe,ȱasȱartists,ȱengage.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ That’sȱ whyȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ desperateȱ necessityȱ toȱ actȱ againstȱ fundamentalistȱthoughtȱwhereverȱitȱisȱfound.ȱItȱisȱoneȱenemyȱofȱ art.ȱAndȱthatȱisȱjustȱoneȱreason!ȱRightȱnowȱitȱisȱfoundȱinȱfourȱofȱ theȱmajorȱworldȱreligions.ȱHinduȱfundamentalismȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱ purgativeȱ violence.ȱ Israeliȱ fundamentalismȱ thatȱ wantsȱ toȱ captureȱ Judaismȱ forȱ Israel,ȱ asȱ ifȱ theseȱ wereȱ synonymous.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ emphaticallyȱ not.ȱ Christianȱ fundamentalistȱ denizensȱ haveȱ “captured”ȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱThisȱhasȱbeenȱ achievedȱthroughȱaȱseriesȱofȱastonishingȱactsȱaroundȱtheȱsevereȱ taintingȱ ofȱ theȱ electoralȱ process,ȱ actsȱ withȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ seriousȱ import.ȱ Weȱ areȱ itsȱ hostages.ȱ Christianȱ fundamentalismȱ hasȱnotȱgoneȱunȬresisted,ȱbutȱitȱisȱstillȱpowerful,ȱandȱitsȱmoralistȱ millenarianȱ thinkingȱ isȱ grotesqueȱ andȱ dangerousȱ inȱ aȱ secularȱ society.ȱ Militant,ȱ militaryȱ Islamicȱ fundamentalism,ȱ alreadyȱ activeȱ inȱ nationalȱ settings,ȱ hasȱ madeȱ startlingȱ claimsȱ forȱ attentionȱinȱthisȱtoxicȱsituation,ȱcreatingȱaȱfourȬcorneredȱdanger.ȱ Islamicȱ fundamentalismȱ hasȱ capturedȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ ideologicalȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ Islam,ȱ suchȱ asȱ smallȱ schoolsȱ andȱ mosques.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱtakeȱseriouslyȱitsȱdesireȱtoȱimposeȱaȱretrogradeȱmoralismȱ andȱantiȬmodernȱsocialȱnormsȱonȱtheȱsecularȱinstitutionsȱofȱtheȱ world.ȱAsȱIȱwouldȱtakeȱtheȱfulminationsȱofȱtheȱChristianȱRightȱ inȱ theȱ Unitedȱ States,ȱ particularly,ȱ thoughȱ notȱ exclusively,ȱ theirȱ continuingȱsocialȱwarȱonȱtheȱfemaleȱgender,ȱbutȱalsoȱonȱsexualȱ minoritiesȱ andȱ byȱ theirȱ concertedȱ justificationsȱ ofȱ suppuratingȱ socialȱinequality.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Itȱ isȱ probablyȱ notȱ enoughȱ simplyȱ toȱ sayȱ whatȱ weȱ standȱ for.ȱ Ethicalȱ nuance,ȱ linguisticȱ richness,ȱ formsȱ thatȱ sustainȱ interest,ȱ andȱ aȱ resistanceȱ toȱ affirmationȱ especiallyȱ affirmationȱ ledȬbyȬ theȬnose.ȱ Compassion,ȱ empathy,ȱ justice.ȱ Theȱ creationȱ of,ȱ simultaneously,ȱ spaceȱ forȱ one’sȱ workȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ theȱ achievementsȱ ofȱ others.ȱ Heritage,ȱ transmission,ȱ transposition,ȱ

31ȱ

regeneration.ȱ Resistance,ȱ articulation,ȱ hope.ȱ Poi¾sisȱ andȱ curiosity.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱ Goȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ beginning:ȱ “Isȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ viableȱ underȱ prevailingȱ‘post’ȱconditions?”ȱWhatȱisȱ“viable”?ȱDoesȱthisȱmeanȱ “who’sȱ listening”?ȱ orȱ doesȱ itȱ meanȱ “havingȱ aȱ realȬworldȱ impact”?ȱ Doesȱ viableȱ meanȱ capableȱ ofȱ beingȱ actualised,ȱ orȱ surviving,ȱ developing,ȱ practicable?ȱ Toȱ me,ȱ viableȱ isȱ aȱ strangeȱ word.ȱReally,ȱanythingȱcanȱbeȱdone;ȱcanȱbeȱmade.ȱTheȱissueȱis— whatȱisȱworthȱdoing.ȱIfȱIȱwantȱtoȱwrapȱislandsȱinȱpinkȱcloth,ȱisȱ thisȱ worthȱ doing?ȱ Shouldȱ Iȱ notȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ theȱ birds,ȱ theȱ shellfish,ȱ theȱ tides?ȱ Isȱ mastery,ȱ heroism,ȱ andȱ imperialȱ vantageȱ theȱ onlyȱ modelȱ ofȱ ambition?ȱ Thisȱ art—aȱ projectȱ ofȱ Christo—isȱ hardlyȱ avantȬgarde;ȱ itȱ parallelsȱ theȱ ecologicalȱ despoliationȱ modelȱ ofȱ Bigȱ Corporations,ȱ andȱ prettifiesȱ thatȱ mindȬsetȱ byȱ drapingȱcolouredȱfabricȱaroundȱbigȱterritory.ȱFurther,ȱtheȱmodelȱ ofȱ sheerȱ ruptureȱ isȱ tiresome.ȱ Itȱ disallowsȱ theȱ poiseȱ ofȱ anȱ artwork,ȱ orȱsaysȱ toȱ theȱ reader/listener/consumerȱ thatȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ achievement,ȱ peace,ȱ poise,ȱ pleasure,ȱ awe,ȱ senseȱ ofȱ location,ȱ satisfactionȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ anȱ artworkȱ isȱ null,ȱ orȱ isȱ aȱ coarseȱ satisfaction,ȱnotȱproneȱtoȱchangeȱtheȱworld.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Youȱ know—Davidȱ Antinȱ opensȱ hisȱ “whatȱ itȱ meansȱ toȱ beȱ avantȬgarde”ȱ withȱ thisȱ antiȬChristoȱ riff.ȱ Andȱ heȱ alsoȱ saysȱ “practicallyȱ everyȱ roleȱ classicallyȱ attributedȱ toȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ hasȱbeenȱpreȬemptedȱbyȱsomethingȱelse”ȱ–likeȱadvertising.8ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱTakeȱmyȱlittleȱriffȱasȱaȱfootnoteȱtoȱhisȱȱ ȱ P.ȱIȱhateȱtheȱPoetic.ȱȱ ȱ A.ȱForgetȱPoetic.ȱTryȱidiosyncretismatic.ȱ ȱ

ȱ 8ȱȱ DavidȱAntin,ȱWhatȱitȱMeansȱtoȱbeȱAvantȬGardeȱ(NewȱYork:ȱNewȱDirections,ȱ1993)ȱ 44.ȱ

32ȱ

P.ȱ Stopȱ makingȱ upȱ ways,ȱ orȱ words,ȱ toȱ makeȱ meȱ feelȱ better.ȱ Iȱ wantȱartȱthatȱisȱtheȱworkȱofȱthought.ȱNotȱtheȱworkȱofȱcertaintyȱ orȱdullȱcraftȱrunningȱonȱempty.ȱIȱwantȱartȱtoȱgetȱatȱtheȱjoyȱofȱtheȱ painȱ ofȱ beingȱ here.ȱ Theȱ painȱ ofȱ theȱ joyȱ inȱ suchȱ anȱ intractableȱ world.ȱ ȱ A.ȱSomeȱartȱisȱimprovedȱbyȱleavingȱitȱbehind.ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Iȱ dreamedȱ ofȱ seeingȱ workmenȱ andȱ wellȬdressedȱ menȱ throwingȱ women.ȱ Justȱ pickingȱ themȱ upȱ andȱ throwingȱ them,ȱ throwingȱandȱbreakingȱthem.ȱThisȱdreamȱwasȱinȱ2002.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ Antin’sȱ “Whatȱ itȱ meansȱ toȱ beȱ avantȬgarde”ȱ isȱ anȱ extendedȱ parableȱ thatȱ hardlyȱ “discusses”ȱ theȱ propositionȱ ofȱ theȱ titleȱ inȱ anyȱ conventionalȱ fashion.ȱ However,ȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ extendedȱ meditationȱonȱtheȱtemporalityȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde,ȱasȱitȱlivesȱinȱ theȱ presentȱ andȱ respondsȱ toȱ theȱ presentȱ humanelyȱ andȱ withȱ aȱ situatedȱethics.ȱMeaningȱ“ifȱyouȱhaveȱtoȱinventȱsomethingȱnewȱ toȱdoȱtheȱworkȱatȱhandȱyouȱwill,”ȱandȱthisȱ“withoutȱworryingȱ aboutȱmakingȱitȱnewȱorȱshocking.”9ȱArticulatingȱtheȱpresentȱtoȱ itselfȱ isȱ aȱ task,ȱ aȱ work,ȱ aȱ responsibility.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whyȱ Antinȱ spendsȱ someȱ energyȱ “leafingȱ throughȱ theȱ [localȱ Sanȱ Diego]ȱ newspaperȱ lookingȱ forȱ theȱ present,”10ȱ aȱ corny,ȱ cunningȱ positivismȱatȱwhichȱAntinȱisȱquiteȱadept,ȱasȱhisȱtacticȱisȱhardlyȱ aleatory,ȱ butȱ allegoricalȱ andȱ holographicȱ Heȱ alsoȱ drawsȱ anȱ intricateȱ pictureȱ ofȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ familyȱ history,ȱ ofȱ agingȱ relativesȱ andȱ familyȱ loss.ȱ Theȱ senseȱ ofȱ loss,ȱ gap,ȱ processesȱ ofȱ losingȱit,ȱindignitiesȱofȱage,ȱpain,ȱtheȱbraveryȱofȱfacingȱwhatȱisȱ withȱdignityȱandȱcompassionȱcentralȱtoȱthisȱwork.ȱAntin’sȱfinalȱ excursusȱinȱtheȱpieceȱisȱhisȱthreeȬweekȱsearchȱforȱUncleȱIrving,ȱ playingȱ crossȬcountryȱ telephoneȱ tag,ȱ andȱ thenȱ hisȱ suddenlyȱ beingȱinformed,ȱbyȱtheȱstunnedȱwidow,ȱofȱUncleȱIrving’sȱdeathȱ aȱfewȱhoursȱafterȱAntinȱhadȱlastȱtalkedȱtoȱhim.ȱWhereuponȱtheȱ pieceȱends:ȱ“andȱitȱseemsȱtoȱmeȱthatȱifȱyouȱcantȱrespondȱtoȱthatȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Antin,ȱWhatȱitȱMeansȱtoȱbeȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ46.ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Antin,ȱWhatȱitȱMeansȱtoȱbeȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ55.ȱ

33ȱ

youreȱ notȱ inȱtheȱ avantȬgarde.”11ȱ Thusȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱaboutȱ humane,ȱethical,ȱfrankȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱcondition.ȱItȱis,ȱinȱ aȱ sense,ȱ humanism,ȱ butȱ inflectedȱ withȱ ecȬcentricȱ critiques,ȱ presentȱalertness,ȱanȱattitudeȱofȱinvestigationȱandȱdiscernment,ȱ aȱ temporallyȱ movingȱ socialȱ dynamic,ȱ anȱ articulationȱ andȱ explorationȱ ofȱ “theȱ present.”ȱ It’sȱ alsoȱ aȱ claimȱ aboutȱ scale—noȱ moreȱworldȱhistoricalȱscope.ȱTheȱlocal;ȱtheȱparticular;ȱtheȱethicalȱ asȱ actingȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ asȱ oneȱ facesȱ thatȱ present.ȱ Iȱ supposeȱ Iȱ couldȱgoȱforȱsomethingȱofȱthatȱasȱtheȱ“postȬavant.”ȱȱ ȱ P.ȱ Youȱ knowȱ thatȱ famousȱ title?ȱ It’sȱ notȱ Minimaȱ Moralia:ȱ Reflectionsȱ fromȱ aȱ Damagedȱ Life.ȱ Peopleȱ oftenȱ quoteȱ thatȱ titleȱ wrong.ȱOrȱtheyȱsayȱReflectionsȱofȱaȱDamagedȱLife.ȱAsȱifȱitȱwereȱallȱ personal,ȱ allȱ Adorno’sȱ “problem,”ȱ hisȱ life,ȱ hisȱ problem.ȱ Here’sȱ theȱ realȱ title.ȱ It’sȱ Minimaȱ Moralia:ȱ Reflectionsȱ fromȱ Damagedȱ Life.ȱ There’sȱnoȱ“a”ȱaboutȱit.ȱ ȱ A.ȱ Weȱ areȱ allȱ damaged;ȱ ourȱ collectiveȱ life,ȱ damaged,ȱ andȱ deliberatelyȱ withȱ complicityȱ andȱ deliberation,ȱ especiallyȱ byȱ peopleȱwhoȱwantedȱtoȱdestroyȱsocialȱfabricȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱprofitȱ andȱpowerȱinȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱmoreȱprofitȱandȱpower.ȱ“Jeȱestȱunȱ autre”ȱ nowȱ hasȱ ethicalȱ andȱ geopoliticalȱ meaning.ȱ ConsciousnessȱISȱnetwork.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ11ȱȱ Antin,ȱWhatȱitȱMeansȱtoȱbeȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ61.ȱ

34ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

R.M.ȱBerryȱ ȱ

TheȱAvantȬGardeȱandȱtheȱQuestionȱofȱ Literatureȱ ȱ ȱ Ifȱ weȱ takeȱ eternityȱ toȱ meanȱ notȱ infiniteȱ temporalȱ durationȱ butȱ timelessness,ȱ thenȱ eternalȱ lifeȱ belongsȱ toȱ thoseȱ whoȱ liveȱ inȱ theȱ present.ȱ—Wittgenstein,ȱTractatusȱ(6.4311)ȱ

ȱ ȱ Itȱseemsȱincreasinglyȱapparentȱtoȱmeȱthatȱformallyȱexperimentalȱ writingȱ isȱ runningȱ counterȱ toȱ theȱ mainȱ currentȱ ofȱ history.ȱ Whetherȱ weȱ considerȱ theȱ globalȱ expanseȱ ofȱ capitalism,ȱ theȱ unrivalledȱpositionȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱinȱinternationalȱaffairs,ȱ theȱ riseȱ ofȱ theȱ Republicanȱ partyȱ nationally,ȱ orȱ theȱ worldwideȱ audienceȱforȱHollywoodȱfilmȱandȱAmericanȱpopularȱmusic,ȱtheȱ generalȱ directionȱ ofȱ theȱ lastȱ threeȱ decadesȱ hasȱ beenȱ towardȱ increasingȱ consolidationȱ ofȱ theȱ dominant.ȱ Myȱ aimȱ inȱ acknowledgingȱ thisȱ bleakȱ factȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ minimiseȱ theȱ realȱ fissuresȱandȱcounterȱcurrentsȱofȱrecentȱhistory.ȱItȱisȱtoȱmotivateȱ aȱquestion:ȱWhyȱdoesȱformallyȱexperimentalȱwritingȱpersist,ȱatȱ leastȱ forȱ someȱ ofȱ us,ȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ whatȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ itsȱ growingȱ marginalisation?ȱ Inȱ whatȱ followsȱ Iȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ providingȱaȱhistoricalȱexplanationȱforȱthisȱpersistence,ȱnorȱwillȱIȱ beȱ seekingȱ aȱ politicalȱ orȱ ethicalȱ justification,ȱ althoughȱ it’sȱ essentialȱ toȱ theȱ forceȱ ofȱ myȱ remarksȱ that,ȱ onȱ occasion,ȱ theyȱ competeȱ withȱ suchȱ accounts.ȱ Myȱ backgroundȱ ideaȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ continuationȱ intoȱ theȱ newȱ millenniumȱ ofȱ literaryȱ experimentation,ȱ despiteȱ itsȱ widespreadȱ neglect,ȱ isȱ forcefulȱ 35ȱ

evidenceȱ thatȱ modernismȱ wasȱ notȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ historicallyȱ circumscribedȱ conflictsȱ andȱ crisesȱ but,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ aroseȱ fromȱ necessitiesȱ internalȱ toȱ literatureȱ itself.ȱ I’llȱ tryȱ hereȱ toȱ giveȱ concretenessȱtoȱthisȱidea,ȱtoȱindicateȱhowȱtheseȱnecessitiesȱarise,ȱ whatȱ theyȱ lookȱ like,ȱ whyȱ they’reȱ notȱ generallyȱ recognised,ȱ whileȱ attemptingȱ someȱ rapprochementȱ withȱ theȱ historyȱ I’mȱ bracketing.ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ whatȱ I’veȱ situatedȱ internalȱ toȱ literature,ȱ counterȱtoȱhistory,ȱisȱsimplyȱtheȱnecessityȱforȱchange,ȱthatȱis,ȱforȱ history.ȱSaidȱanotherȱway,ȱit’sȱunclearȱwhetherȱI’mȱlookingȱforȱ theȱnecessityȱofȱformalȱexperimentationȱorȱperhapsȱforȱfreedomȱ fromȱnecessityȱaltogether.ȱTheseȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱsameȱthing.ȱ Forȱ thoseȱ ofȱ usȱ whoȱ areȱ committedȱ toȱ radicalȱ changeȱ inȱ literature,ȱthereȱareȱgoodȱreasonsȱwhyȱweȱmightȱwantȱtoȱavoidȱ usingȱ theȱ termȱ “avantȬgarde.”ȱ Theȱ philosopherȱ Stanleyȱ Cavell,ȱ whoseȱwritingsȱonȱmodernismȱhaveȱbeenȱinfluentialȱforȱme,ȱhasȱ notedȱ threeȱ confusionsȱ endemicȱ toȱ theȱ concept.1ȱ Firstȱ isȱ itsȱ tendencyȱ toȱ overemphasiseȱ art’sȱ futureȱ atȱ theȱ expenseȱ ofȱ itsȱ past,ȱ leavingȱ presentȱ workȱ ungrounded.ȱ Theȱ resultȱ ofȱ thisȱ lopsidednessȱ isȱ anȱ impressionȱ thatȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ bearsȱ noȱ relation,ȱorȱonlyȱanȱarbitraryȱone,ȱtoȱthoseȱhistoricȱachievementsȱ thatȱ haveȱ givenȱ riseȱ bothȱ toȱ art’sȱ significanceȱ andȱ toȱ itsȱ problems.ȱ Weȱ couldȱ speakȱ ofȱ thisȱ firstȱ confusionȱ asȱ theȱ avantȬ garde’sȱ misrepresentingȱ possibilityȱ asȱ indeterminacy,ȱ itsȱ misinterpretationȱ ofȱ art’sȱ unforeclosableȱ futureȱ asȱ aȱ hedgeȱ againstȱ itsȱ historicalȱ specificity,ȱ itsȱ presentȱ fix.ȱ Aȱ secondȱ confusionȱ hasȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ uncriticalȱ enthusiasmȱ forȱ anyȱ andȱ everythingȱ thatȱ callsȱ itselfȱ innovative,ȱ regardlessȱ ofȱ anȱ “innovation’s”ȱ sterility,ȱ irrelevance,ȱ orȱ justȱ plainȱ stupidity.ȱ Cavellȱ speaksȱ ofȱ thisȱ tendencyȱ asȱ theȱ avantȬ garde’sȱ“promiscuousȱattention”ȱtoȱnewness,ȱaȱphraseȱintendedȱ toȱsuggestȱbothȱindiscriminateȱcouplingȱandȱinfidelity.ȱTheȱideaȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ habituallyȱ conflatesȱ noveltyȱ withȱ change,ȱ imaginingȱ thatȱ artisticȱ advanceȱ resultsȱ fromȱ mereȱ unconventionality,ȱ fromȱ differenceȱ asȱ such.ȱ Callȱ thisȱ theȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Stanleyȱ Cavell,ȱ Theȱ Worldȱ Viewed:ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ theȱ Ontologyȱ ofȱ Film,ȱ enlargedȱ editionȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1979)ȱ216Ȭ7.ȱ

36ȱ

“fartherȱoutȱthanȱthou”ȱsyndrome.ȱAndȱtheȱthirdȱconfusionȱisȱaȱ tendency,ȱ alreadyȱ implicitȱ inȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ militaryȱ metaphor,ȱtoȱrepresentȱartisticȱadvancesȱasȱhistoricalȱorȱpoliticalȱ advances,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ significantȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ formsȱ ofȱ artȱ couldȱ beȱ validatedȱ byȱ theirȱ politicalȱ efficacy.ȱ Althoughȱ Cavellȱ wantsȱtoȱkeepȱopenȱtheȱquestionȱofȱart’sȱrelationȱtoȱpolitics,ȱnotȱ toȱimplyȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱrelation,ȱheȱmeansȱhereȱtoȱcriticiseȱtheȱ habit,ȱ soȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ avantȬgardes,ȱ ofȱ underestimatingȱ theȱ realȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ artisticȱ practiceȱ andȱ seriousȱ politicalȱ action.ȱ Howȱ toȱ characteriseȱ thisȱ lastȱ confusionȱisȱdifficult,ȱsinceȱwe’reȱstillȱinȱit,ȱbutȱitȱhasȱsomethingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ art’sȱ paradoxicalȱ autonomy,ȱ withȱ theȱ politicalȱ significanceȱofȱart’sȱirreducibilityȱtoȱpoliticalȱsignificance.ȱTakenȱ togetherȱ theseȱ confusionsȱ emphasiseȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ tendencyȱtoȱturnȱonȱitself,ȱtoȱrepresentȱtheȱhistoricalȱconditionsȱ ofȱ artȱ asȱ mereȱ obstacles,ȱ andȱ thusȱ toȱ undermineȱ thoseȱ problematicȱcontinuitiesȱonȱwhich,ȱnotȱjustȱmainstreamȱart,ȱbutȱ evenȱrevolutionaryȱart,ȱdepends.ȱ Inȱherȱ1926ȱlecture,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation”ȱGertrudeȱ Steinȱoffersȱanȱaccountȱofȱhistoricalȱchangeȱthat,ȱwhileȱinsistingȱ onȱ theȱ necessityȱ forȱ advancesȱ inȱ art,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ avoidȱ Cavell’sȱ critique.ȱ Herȱ originalityȱ stemsȱ fromȱ twoȱ ideas,ȱ bothȱ involvingȱ whatȱ sheȱ callsȱ “timeȬsense.”2ȱ Firstȱ isȱ herȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ goalȱ ofȱ anyȱ advanceȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ futureȱ butȱ theȱ present.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ everyȱ generationȱ livesȱ instinctivelyȱ andȱ unȬselfȬconsciouslyȱ severalȱ generationsȱ behindȱ itself,ȱ inȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ anachronisticȱ hybridity,ȱ preoccupiedȱ withȱ earlierȱ emotions,ȱ reflexes,ȱ styles,ȱ andȱ concepts,ȱ andȱ discoveringȱ itsȱ ownȱ timeȱ onlyȱ afterwards,ȱ inȱ narratingȱ it.ȱ Herȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ thisȱ belatednessȱ isȱ Worldȱ Warȱ I,ȱ whichȱsheȱsaysȱtheȱgeneralsȱimaginedȱasȱ“aȱnineteenthȱcenturyȱ warȱ …ȱ toȱ beȱ foughtȱ withȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱ weapons,”3ȱ aȱ timeȱ lagȱ thatȱ suppressedȱ modernȱ warfareȱ untilȱ tooȱ late,ȱ afterȱ theȱ carnageȱ hadȱ forcedȱ contemporaneityȱ onȱ it.ȱ Partȱ ofȱ whatȱ Steinȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ Gertrudeȱ Stein,ȱ “Compositionȱ asȱ Explanation,”ȱ Selectedȱ Writingsȱ ofȱ Gertrudeȱ Stein,ȱed.ȱCarlȱVanȱVechtenȱ(NewȱYork:ȱVintage,ȱ1990)ȱ514.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ513.ȱ

37ȱ

wantsȱ fromȱ thisȱ exampleȱ isȱ theȱ contrastȱ betweenȱ theȱ academicȱ andȱ theȱ modern,ȱ aȱ contrastȱ she’llȱ developȱ laterȱ asȱ somethingȱ “prepared”ȱ versusȱ somethingȱ “thatȱ decidesȱ howȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ whenȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ done.”ȱ Butȱ moreȱ immediatelyȱ sheȱ wantsȱ toȱ deepenȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtimeȱitself.ȱ Forȱ Stein,ȱ theȱ presentȱ isȱ neverȱ whatȱ theȱ presentȱ naturallyȱ wants.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ whereverȱ theȱ presentȱ achievesȱ expression,ȱ thoseȱ livingȱ inȱ itȱ willȱ findȱ itȱ confusing,ȱ irritating,ȱ unnatural,ȱ ugly.ȱ Consequently,ȱ artȱ cannotȱ beȱ madeȱ presentȱ byȱ accommodatingȱitȱtoȱpopularȱstylesȱorȱdominantȱideas,ȱandȱart’sȱ motivationȱ toȱ becomeȱ presentȱ hasȱ nothingȱ toȱ doȱ withȱ strivingȱ afterȱ novelty.ȱ Instead,ȱ changesȱ inȱ artȱ occurȱ becauseȱ inȱ someȱ befuddlingȱ butȱ lifeȬdeterminingȱ way,ȱ theyȱ alreadyȱ haveȱ occurred,ȱ areȱ alreadyȱ present,ȱ inescapablyȱ so,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ repudiated.ȱ Stein’sȱ ideaȱ isȱ thatȱ whatȱ changesȱ fromȱ oneȱ generationȱ toȱ theȱ nextȱ isȱ aȱ form,ȱ notȱ aȱ content,ȱ whatȱ sheȱ callsȱ “composition,”ȱ andȱ althoughȱ eachȱ generation’sȱ compositionȱ controlsȱ itsȱ consciousnessȱ absolutely,ȱ i.e.,ȱ “makesȱ whatȱ thoseȱ whoȱdescribeȱitȱmakeȱofȱit,”4ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱitselfȱreadilyȱsubmitȱtoȱ consciousness,ȱ toȱ description.ȱ It’sȱ asȱ thoughȱ everyoneȱ canȱ feelȱ howȱoutȱofȱsynchȱthingsȱare,ȱcanȱrecogniseȱtheȱobsolescenceȱofȱ whatȱ ourȱ leaders,ȱ parents,ȱ peersȱ haveȱ toȱ say,ȱ butȱ asȱ soonȱ asȱ anyoneȱ triesȱ toȱ sayȱ what’sȱ outȱ ofȱ synch,ȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ becomesȱ obsoleteȱ too.ȱ Art’sȱ problemȱ thenȱ isȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ somethingȱ asȱ inescapableȱ asȱ anȱ entrenchedȱ enemyȱ butȱ thatȱ resistsȱ ourȱ directȱ advanceȱ asȱ forcefullyȱ asȱ aȱ machineȱ gun.ȱ Asȱ Steinȱ says,ȱ “Noȱoneȱisȱaheadȱofȱhisȱtime,”5ȱoneȱofȱseveralȱremarksȱmeantȱtoȱ dislodgeȱ ourȱ confidenceȱ thatȱ weȱ alreadyȱ knowȱ whatȱ she’sȱ talkingȱ about.ȱ Theȱ avantȬgarde—inȱ Stein’sȱ sense—isȱ merelyȱ art’sȱ struggleȱ forȱ itsȱ time,ȱ forȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ thoseȱ formativeȱ butȱ unrepresentableȱ conditionsȱ onȱ whichȱ art’sȱ continuedȱ presence,ȱandȱpossiblyȱeverythingȱelse’sȱtoo,ȱdepends.ȱ ButȱStein’sȱsecondȱideaȱseemsȱtoȱcomplicate,ȱifȱnotȱundo,ȱthisȱ firstȱ one.ȱ Herȱ wordȱ “composition”ȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ setȱ upȱ anȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ513.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ514.ȱ

38ȱ

analogyȱ betweenȱ theȱ actionȱ ofȱ historyȱ andȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ painters,ȱ writers,ȱ andȱ musicians,ȱ theȱ pointȱ beingȱ thatȱ theȱ modernȱ workȱ isȱ oneȱ thatȱ incorporatesȱ thisȱ newȱ “timeȬsense,”ȱ theȱ consciousnessȱ ofȱ theȱ present,ȱ intoȱ itself.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ Steinȱ triesȱ toȱ explainȱ whatȱ thisȱ changeȱ meansȱ concretely,ȱ sheȱ comesȱ outȱ withȱ aȱ stupefyingȱ seriesȱ ofȱ redundancies:ȱ “aȱ thingȱ madeȱbyȱbeingȱmade”ȱ“whatȱisȱseenȱwhenȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱbeingȱ seen,”ȱ“theȱthingȱseenȱbyȱeveryȱoneȱlivingȱinȱtheȱlivingȱtheyȱareȱ doing,”ȱ andȱ mostȱ dizzyingly,ȱ “theȱ composingȱ ofȱ theȱ compositionȱthatȱatȱtheȱtimeȱtheyȱareȱlivingȱisȱtheȱcompositionȱ ofȱtheȱtimeȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱliving.”6ȱDespiteȱtheirȱcircularity,ȱ theseȱformulationsȱseemȱtoȱmeȱuncommonlyȱprecise.ȱWhatȱtheyȱ allȱshareȱisȱaȱsuggestionȱofȱsomethingȱalreadyȱinȱexistenceȱthatȱ isȱ theȱ meansȱ byȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ itselfȱ broughtȱ intoȱ existence.ȱ Theȱ ideaȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱthatȱwhatȱhasȱalwaysȱexistedȱunrecognisedȱinȱ art—i.e.,ȱ theȱ creativeȱ powerȱ ofȱ presentness—isȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ work,ȱ notȱ justȱ whatȱ isȱ recognised,ȱ butȱ whatȱ actuallyȱ doesȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ art,ȱ whatȱ makesȱ artȱ “art”ȱ specificallyȱ byȱ beingȱ recognised.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whatȱ herȱ phrase,ȱ “aȱ thingȱ madeȱ byȱ beingȱ made,”ȱtriesȱtoȱbringȱout.ȱButȱnowȱeverythingȱhasȱgottenȱturnedȱ around,ȱ sinceȱ presentnessȱ noȱ longerȱ seemsȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ present.ȱIt’sȱasȱifȱmodernȱartȱweren’tȱjustȱtheȱlatestȱchangeȱinȱart,ȱ say,ȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ Stein’sȱ ownȱ generation,ȱ butȱ wereȱ insteadȱ aȱ changeȱ ofȱ aȱ whollyȱ differentȱ order,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ hasȱ revealedȱ somethingȱ aboutȱ allȱ art.ȱ Thatȱ thisȱ is,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ Stein’sȱ ideaȱ isȱ indicatedȱ byȱ herȱ lecture’sȱ firstȱ sentence,ȱ whichȱ insistsȱ onȱ aȱ historicalȱchangelessnessȱunderlyingȱchangesȱinȱcomposition,ȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ byȱ herȱ later,ȱ moreȱ paradoxicalȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ whatȱ resultsȱfromȱincorporatingȱtheȱnewȱtimeȬsenseȱisȱnotȱaȱhistoricalȱ documentȱbutȱsomethingȱtimeless,ȱaȱclassic.ȱItȱisȱasȱthoughȱwhatȱ Stein’sȱgenerationȱneededȱtoȱdoȱtoȱmakeȱartȱwasȱtoȱfindȱoutȱforȱ theȱfirstȱtimeȱwhatȱartȱwas.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱwholeȱpointȱofȱ acknowledgingȱ theȱ presentȱ forȱ Steinȱ isȱ toȱ discloseȱ what,ȱ onceȱ laidȱbare,ȱseemsȱalwaysȱtoȱhaveȱexisted.ȱWhenȱthisȱhappens,ȱartȱ

ȱ 6ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ514Ȭ6.ȱ

39ȱ

happens.ȱUnderstoodȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱisn’tȱjustȱtheȱ struggleȱ forȱ itsȱ time.ȱ It’sȱ theȱ struggleȱ inȱ itsȱ timeȱ forȱ somethingȱ suppressedȱ byȱ timeȱ itself.ȱ Stein’sȱ term,ȱ bothȱ forȱ thisȱ struggleȱ andȱforȱitsȱobject,ȱisȱ“aȱcontinuousȱpresent.”7ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ difficultyȱ ofȱ makingȱ theseȱ ideasȱ clear,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ Stein’sȱaccountȱofȱartisticȱadvanceȱisȱbasicallyȱright.ȱIfȱliteratureȱ isȱtoȱexistȱinȱtheȱpresent,ȱthenȱitȱmustȱbeȱdiscoveredȱthere.ȱThisȱis,ȱ Iȱ believe,ȱ whatȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ meantȱ forȱ Stein’sȱ generationȱandȱwhatȱIȱbelieveȱitȱstillȱmeans,ȱevenȱifȱignored.ȱToȱ writeȱafterȱmodernism,ȱnotȱasȱthoughȱbefore,ȱisȱtoȱacknowledgeȱ modernism’sȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ thisȱ necessityȱ ofȱ discoveryȱ asȱ such.ȱ Initially,ȱ thisȱ impliesȱ thatȱ nothingȱ knownȱ aboutȱ formsȱ ofȱ writingȱ canȱ countȱ asȱ aȱ guideȱ forȱ producingȱ novelsȱ andȱ poemsȱ now.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ weȱ areȱ toȱ imagineȱ anȱ inadequacyȱ ofȱ ourȱ currentȱ knowledgeȱthatȱisȱnotȱovercomeȱbyȱnewerȱorȱbetterȱknowledge,ȱ anȱinadequacyȱintrinsicȱtoȱknowingȱitself.ȱStein’sȱideaȱseemsȱtoȱ beȱthatȱwhatȱneedsȱdiscovering—ourȱtime—hasȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱ obviousness,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ theȱ newȱ compositionȱ wereȱ tooȱ proximate,ȱ tooȱ present,ȱ forȱ knowing.ȱ Understoodȱ inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ problemȱ isn’tȱ soȱ muchȱ thatȱ currentȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ obsolete,ȱ asȱ thatȱ it’sȱ neurotic.ȱWhatȱcanȱ beȱ taughtȱ inȱ writingȱworkshopsȱ andȱliteratureȱcourses—i.e.,ȱtheȱversionȱofȱpoetryȱandȱfictionȱweȱ areȱpresentlyȱpreparedȱtoȱrecognise—hasȱtheȱsameȱstatusȱasȱtheȱ versionȱ ofȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ presentȱ lifeȱ thatȱ theȱ analysandȱ entersȱ psychoanalysisȱ preparedȱ toȱ recount.ȱ Oneȱ canȱ sayȱ aboutȱ suchȱ versionsȱthatȱtheyȱrepressȱwhatȱneedsȱdiscoveringȱorȱthatȱtheyȱ incessantlyȱ revealȱ it,ȱ butȱ eitherȱ way,ȱ anȱ unacknowledgedȱ presenceȱ controlsȱ allȱ that’sȱ said.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thisȱ paradoxȱ thatȱ Steinȱ bringsȱoutȱbyȱsaying,ȱnotȱthatȱnationsȱareȱbehindȱtheȱtimes,ȱbutȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ “behindȱ themselves,”8ȱ asȱ thoughȱ ourȱ anachronyȱ comprisedȱ anȱ essentialȱ dividedness.ȱ Theȱ implicationȱ isȱ simplyȱ thatȱdiscoveringȱwillȱnotȱtakeȱtheȱformȱofȱnarrating.ȱThatȱis,ȱtheȱ presentȱ cannotȱ beȱ revealedȱ asȱ aȱ newȱ orȱ furtherȱ episodeȱ inȱ anyȱ storyȱ weȱ areȱ preparedȱ toȱ recount,ȱ andȱ beingȱ presentȱ doesȱ notȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ517.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Stein,ȱ“CompositionȱasȱExplanation,”ȱ515.ȱ

40ȱ

meanȱrecountingȱit.ȱNothingȱobviousȱtoȱusȱaboutȱmachineȱgunsȱ wasȱ unknownȱ toȱ WWIȱ generals.ȱ Thisȱ failure,ȱ evenȱ impertinence,ȱofȱcurrentȱknowledgeȱisȱwhatȱremainsȱrightȱaboutȱ modernism’sȱinsistenceȱonȱnewness,ȱinnovation,ȱexperiment.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ impertinenceȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ literatureȱ mustȱ be,ȱ orȱ evenȱ canȱ be,ȱ createdȱ directlyȱ fromȱ presentȱ experience.ȱ Nothingȱ seemsȱ furtherȱ fromȱ Stein’sȱ ideaȱ thanȱ thatȱ changesȱ inȱ artȱ areȱ identicalȱ withȱ changesȱ inȱ taste,ȱ sensibility,ȱculturalȱstyle,ȱorȱfashion,ȱwhichȱisȱwhatȱwe’reȱlikelyȱ toȱ haveȱ inȱ mindȱ ifȱ weȱ sayȱ everyȱ generation’sȱ experienceȱ isȱ unique.ȱ Quiteȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ Stein’sȱ ideaȱ isȱ thatȱ presentȱ experienceȱ willȱ beȱ asȱ anachronistic,ȱ asȱ muchȱ aȱ hybridȱ ofȱ pastȱ experience,ȱasȱpoetryȱandȱfiction,ȱandȱforȱtheȱsameȱreasons.ȱToȱ insistȱ thatȱ literatureȱ mustȱ beȱ discoveredȱ meansȱ that,ȱ farȱ fromȱ creatingȱ poemsȱ andȱ fictionȱ exȱ nihilo,ȱ fromȱ literature’sȱ absence,ȱ literatureȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ created—asȱ contradictoryȱ asȱ thisȱ sounds—fromȱ literature,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ fromȱ somethingȱ alwaysȱ alreadyȱ inȱ existence,ȱ controllingȱ inȱ misunderstoodȱ andȱ largelyȱ unrecognisedȱ waysȱ everyȱ writing.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whatȱ Stein’sȱ “continuousȱpresent”ȱ triesȱ toȱ name.ȱ Iȱ takeȱitȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ whatȱ Heideggerȱ hadȱ inȱ mindȱ when,ȱ inȱ apparentȱ defianceȱ ofȱ logic,ȱheȱinsistedȱthatȱartȱwasȱitsȱownȱorigin.9ȱThatȱis,ȱwhatȱtheȱ presentȱ discoversȱ isȱ notȱ justȱ aȱ newȱ compositionȱ orȱ form.ȱ Itȱ discoversȱ literature,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ time.ȱ Stein’sȱ originalityȱ wasȱ inȱ seeingȱ that,ȱ whereȱ theȱ presentȱ isȱ atȱ issueȱ inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ acknowledgmentȱ provesȱ moreȱ radicalȱ thanȱ evenȱ theȱ farthestȬfetchedȱ invention.ȱ Inȱ herȱ account,ȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ writerȱ undergoes,ȱ succumbsȱ utterlyȱ to,ȱ whatȱ inȱ otherȱ writingȱ existsȱ asȱ frustrated,ȱ ignored,ȱ incomplete.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ notoriousȱirritationȱandȱuglinessȱofȱavantȬgardeȱartȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱ toȱ measure,ȱ notȱ theȱ present’sȱ distanceȱ fromȱ theȱ past,ȱ butȱ theȱ present’sȱ distanceȱ fromȱ itself.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ dividednessȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ kind,ȱ andȱ withȱ similarȱ consequences,ȱ asȱ theȱ analysand’sȱ dividednessȱ fromȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ ownȱ body.ȱ Betweenȱ linguisticȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ MartinȱHeidegger,ȱ“TheȱOriginȱofȱtheȱWorkȱofȱArt,”ȱPoetry,ȱLanguage,ȱThought,ȱ trans.ȱAlbertȱHofstadterȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1971)ȱ17Ȭ8.ȱ

41ȱ

materialityȱandȱ literature’sȱ presenceȱ thereȱ persistsȱ thisȱgap.ȱ Orȱ statedȱinȱaȱsentence,ȱafterȱmodernism,ȱliteratureȱceasesȱtoȱexistȱ asȱhistoryȱandȱmaterialisesȱasȱaȱquestion.ȱ Probablyȱ theȱ bestȱ wayȱ toȱ giveȱ tangibilityȱ toȱ theseȱ remarksȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ examineȱ Stein’sȱ ownȱ writings,ȱ sinceȱ herȱ lecturesȱ wereȱ alwaysȱ meditationsȱ onȱ herȱ ownȱ literaryȱ practice,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ myȱ interestȱ isȱ lessȱ inȱ whatȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ wasȱ thanȱ whatȱ itȱ is,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ concludeȱ withȱ someȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ Caroleȱ Maso’sȱ novelȱ AVA.ȱ Althoughȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ myȱ paperȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ Iȱ amȱ usingȱ Maso’sȱ novelȱ toȱ illustrateȱ aȱ theoryȱ developedȱ independentlyȱandȱbeforehand,ȱIȱthinkȱtheȱoppositeȱchronologyȱ isȱ moreȱ nearlyȱ theȱ case.ȱ Atȱ anyȱ rate,ȱ ifȱ Iȱ hadȱ notȱ comeȱ toȱ understandȱ whatȱ literatureȱ isȱ byȱ discoveringȱ fromȱ specificȱ worksȱofȱfictionȱthatȱIȱdidn’tȱalreadyȱknow,ȱthenȱnoneȱofȱwhatȱIȱ haveȱsaidȱsoȱfarȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱforȱmeȱofȱmoreȱthanȱacademicȱ interest.ȱ Whichȱ isȱ anotherȱ wayȱ ofȱ sayingȱ Iȱ wouldn’tȱ haveȱ writtenȱthis.ȱ AVAȱ isȱ myȱ candidateȱ forȱ aȱ presentȱ representativeȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ inȱ fiction,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ forȱ aȱ novelȱ thatȱ continuesȱ modernism’sȱ advanceȱ intoȱ theȱ present.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ myȱ commitmentȱ toȱ AVAȱ doesȱ notȱ resultȱ fromȱ itsȱ mereȱ differenceȱ fromȱotherȱnovelsȱbut,ȱasȱI’llȱtryȱtoȱshow,ȱfromȱitsȱrevelationȱofȱ whatȱ novelsȱ are,ȱ whatȱ theyȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ been.ȱ However,ȱ I’mȱ highlightingȱ itȱ initiallyȱ becauseȱ itsȱ formȱ seemsȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ nothingȱ that,ȱ beforeȱ AVA,ȱ Iȱ wasȱ preparedȱ toȱ recogniseȱ asȱ aȱ narrative.ȱ Itsȱ originatingȱ predicamentȱ isȱ thatȱ Avaȱ Klein,ȱ professorȱ ofȱ comparativeȱ literatureȱ andȱ ardentȱ loverȱ ofȱ life,ȱ isȱ dyingȱatȱageȱ39,ȱandȱMaso’sȱtextȱpurportsȱtoȱbeȱaȱrecordȱofȱtheȱ phrases,ȱ images,ȱ writings,ȱ andȱ recollectionsȱ thatȱ passȱ beforeȱ Ava’sȱconsciousnessȱonȱtheȱmorning,ȱafternoon,ȱandȱnightȱofȱ15ȱ August,ȱ 1990,ȱ theȱ dayȱ Iraqȱ invadesȱ Kuwaitȱ andȱ Avaȱ dies.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ Avaȱ facesȱ onȱ thisȱ dayȱ isȱ howȱ herȱ lifeȱ canȱ beȱ whole,ȱ complete,ȱ evenȱ whileȱ comingȱ toȱ suchȱ aȱ prematureȱ end.ȱ Sheȱ recallsȱ aȱ remarkȱ byȱ Evaȱ Hesse,ȱ “Lifeȱ doesn’tȱ last,ȱ artȱ doesn’tȱ

42ȱ

last,”10ȱ oneȱ ofȱ countlessȱ passagesȱ thatȱ implyȱ somethingȱ closerȱ thanȱanȱanalogy,ȱmoreȱlikeȱanȱidentity,ȱbetweenȱtheȱproblemȱinȱ theȱnovelȱandȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱnovel.ȱWhatȱAvaȱtheȱcharacterȱ seeks,ȱwhatȱAVAȱtheȱnovelȱseeks,ȱisȱsomethingȱthat,ȱasȱlongȱasȱ thereȱwasȱGod,ȱmeaningȱprovided,ȱcallȱitȱlastingȱsignificanceȱorȱ aȱhigherȱend,ȱbutȱsomethingȱthatȱatonedȱforȱtheȱshortcomingsȱofȱ fleshȱandȱmatter.ȱHowever,ȱwithoutȱrecourseȱtoȱtheȱeverlasting,ȱ Ava’sȱdeathȱcannotȱbeȱredeemedȱthroughȱanyȱspiritualȱallegory.ȱ Herȱ salvationȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ literal:ȱ “Hereȱ isȱ myȱ arm,”ȱ sheȱ tellsȱ theȱ chemoȱ nurse.ȱ “Iȱ wantȱ toȱ live”ȱ (49).ȱ Nothingȱ notȱ completeȱ inȱ itself,ȱnothingȱthatȱstandsȱforȱsomethingȱelse,ȱcanȱmatterȱtoȱAvaȱ now.ȱ Allȱ thatȱ willȱ atoneȱ forȱ lifeȱ isȱ life.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ then,ȱ forȱ bothȱnovelȱandȱcharacter,ȱisȱtime.ȱ AVA’sȱ pagesȱ seemȱ aȱ materialȱ realisationȱ ofȱ Stein’sȱ anachronisticȱ hybridity,ȱ theirȱ linesȱ comprisingȱ aȱ congeriesȱ ofȱ timesȱandȱplaces,ȱtextsȱandȱexperiences,ȱeachȱwithȱitsȱdistinctiveȱ mood,ȱinflection,ȱrhythmȱstillȱintact.ȱSomeȱlinesȱexpressȱregret,ȱ asȱthoughȱtheȱpastȱhadȱpresentedȱitselfȱtooȱlateȱ(“HowȱcouldȱI— whyȱdidȱIȱhesitate,ȱgivenȱallȱthatȱweȱknew,ȱevenȱthen?”ȱ[173]),ȱ whileȱ othersȱ acknowledgeȱ presentȱ longingsȱ thatȱ stillȱ lookȱ towardȱ futureȱ consummationȱ (“Becauseȱ decidedly,ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱtoȱmissȱtheȱgrandȱopeningȱscheduledȱforȱearlyȱwinter,ȱstillȱ someȱmonthsȱaway,ȱofȱtheȱnewȱCaribbeanȱrestaurantȱdownȱtheȱ blockȱ thatȱ willȱ serveȱ goat”ȱ [11]).ȱ Severalȱ linesȱ alludeȱ toȱ eventsȱ thatȱwereȱneverȱmoreȱthanȱpartlyȱpresent,ȱevenȱonȱtheirȱoriginalȱ occurrence:ȱ Schubert’sȱ unfinishedȱ symphony,ȱ aȱ deferredȱ marriageȱ proposal,ȱ aȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ orchestralȱ musicȱ heardȱ onȱ aȱ carȱradio,ȱaȱmiscarriedȱpregnancy,ȱMosesȱdyingȱwithinȱsightȱofȱ theȱ promisedȱ land.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theseȱ linesȱ epitomiseȱ aȱ frustrationȱ thatȱ seemsȱ moreȱ thanȱ justȱ accidental,ȱanȱ anachronyȱ builtȱ intoȱ Ava’sȱ veryȱ existence,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ toȱ beȱ mortalȱ wereȱ simplyȱ toȱ beȱ balked.ȱ Sheȱ recallsȱ Georgeȱ Steiner’sȱ remark,ȱ “Mosesȱ failsȱ toȱ enterȱ Canaanȱ notȱ becauseȱ hisȱ lifeȱ isȱ tooȱ short,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ humanȱ life”ȱ (100).ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ deprivedȱ ofȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Caroleȱ Maso,ȱ AVAȱ (Normal,ȱ Ill.:ȱ Dalkeyȱ Archive,ȱ 1995)ȱ 185.ȱ Subsequentȱ pageȱ referencesȱareȱcitedȱinȬtext.ȱ

43ȱ

paradise,ȱhumanȱfinitudeȱseemsȱitselfȱaȱbrokenȱpromise.ȱIt’sȱasȱ ifȱ Ava’sȱ capacityȱ toȱ imagineȱ aȱ futureȱ withoutȱ herself,ȱ orȱ possiblyȱ justȱ herȱ abilityȱ toȱ sayȱ theȱ words,ȱ “Ifȱ weȱ couldȱ liveȱ forever”ȱ (102),ȱ projectsȱ aȱ limitlessnessȱ byȱ contrastȱ withȱ whichȱ everyȱ present,ȱ regardlessȱ howȱ extraordinary,ȱ seemsȱ truncated.ȱ “Soȱ manyȱ plans,”ȱ sheȱ thinks,ȱ thenȱ adds,ȱ “timeȱ permitting”ȱ (162).ȱ Someȱ linesȱ attributeȱ thisȱ frustrationȱ toȱ language.ȱ Avaȱ repeatedlyȱ recallsȱ Hélèneȱ Cixous’sȱ wishȱ “toȱ createȱ aȱ languageȱ thatȱ healsȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ itȱ separates”ȱ (52),ȱ aȱ wishȱ frequentlyȱ juxtaposedȱwithȱAva’sȱhopeȱforȱcure,ȱasȱthoughȱtheȱtwoȱformsȱ ofȱ brokeness,ȱ Ava’sȱ bodyȱ andȱ Ava’sȱ dyingȱ words,ȱ wereȱ eachȱ formsȱofȱaȱsingleȱdisruption.ȱMoreȱthanȱonceȱAvaȱflirtsȱwithȱtheȱ ideaȱofȱaȱlost,ȱprimordialȱwholeness,ȱasȱifȱarticulationȱwereȱnotȱ herȱnaturalȱcondition,ȱjuxtaposingȱtheȱremark,ȱ“Letȱmeȱdescribeȱ whatȱmyȱlifeȱonceȱwasȱhere,”ȱwithȱtheȱfragment,ȱ“Homeȱbeforeȱ itȱwasȱdivided”ȱ(22),ȱandȱwishingȱrepeatedlyȱforȱtheȱfluencyȱofȱ music.ȱ Aȱ recalledȱ quoteȱ fromȱ Moniqueȱ Wittigȱ (37)ȱ attributesȱ thisȱlinguisticȱdisruptionȱtoȱmaleness.ȱȱ InterpretingȱMaso’sȱmythȱofȱlostȱoriginsȱisȱtricky,ȱsinceȱitȱcanȱ expressȱ eitherȱ aȱ whollyȱ satisfactoryȱ solutionȱ toȱ Ava’sȱ problemȱ orȱaȱtemptationȱtoȱrepeatȱit.ȱIt’sȱtoȱthisȱtemptation,ȱforȱexample,ȱ thatȱ Avaȱ andȱ herȱ firstȱ husbandȱ yield,ȱ seekingȱ everȱ youngerȱ loversȱ inȱ anȱ effortȱ toȱ makeȱ theirȱ loveȱ presentȱ againȱ byȱ replicatingȱ itsȱ inauguralȱ moment:ȱ “Youȱ wereȱ lookingȱ forȱ theȱ wayȱ Iȱ wasȱ once,”ȱ Avaȱ tellsȱ him,ȱ “theȱ ageȱ Iȱ wasȱ whenȱ weȱ firstȱ met”ȱ(167).ȱThatȱis,ȱinterpretedȱasȱtheȱprojectionȱofȱfullnessȱintoȱ aȱ retreatingȱ past,ȱ Maso’sȱ mythȱ reinstitutesȱ theȱ temporalȱ confinementȱ Ava’sȱ literallyȱ dyingȱ toȱ escape.ȱ Althoughȱ Masoȱ meansȱ forȱ herȱ mythȱ toȱ recallȱ usȱ toȱ aȱ forgottenȱ promise,ȱ sheȱ doesn’tȱ meanȱ thatȱ Canaanȱ couldȱ onlyȱ beȱ enteredȱ byȱ goingȱ backwards.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ ifȱ Ava’sȱ lifeȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ whole,ȱ itsȱ wholenessȱmustȱcome,ȱnotȱthroughȱaȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱpastȱbutȱofȱit,ȱ asȱofȱtheȱrepressed,ȱaȱreturnȱidenticalȱwithȱAva’sȱabsorptionȱinȱ theȱpresent.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱincompletenessȱofȱAva’sȱlifeȱisȱ notȱ itsȱ discontinuousness,ȱ orȱ notȱ ifȱ byȱ thatȱ weȱ meanȱ life’sȱ comingsȱ andȱ goings,ȱ itsȱ punctuationȱ byȱ silenceȱ andȱ questions,ȱ 44ȱ

itsȱ parsingȱ intoȱ discreteȱ experiences,ȱ whatȱ Avaȱ callsȱ “moments.”ȱ Ifȱ languageȱ isȱ implicatedȱ inȱ Ava’sȱ problem,ȱ thenȱ that’sȱ notȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ articulate—i.e.,ȱ notȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ language.ȱ Ifȱ anything,ȱ asȱ Avaȱ drawsȱ closerȱ toȱ AVA’sȱ end,ȱ sheȱ seemsȱ increasinglyȱ affirmingȱ ofȱ allȱ thatȱ separatesȱ words,ȱ thoughts,ȱ feelings,ȱ people.ȱ “Learnȱ toȱ loveȱ theȱ questionsȱ themselves,”ȱ sheȱ tellsȱ herself.ȱ “Theȱ spacesȱ betweenȱ words.ȱ Betweenȱ thoughts.ȱ Theȱ interval”ȱ (171).ȱ No,ȱ theȱ complicityȱ ofȱ languageȱ inȱ herȱ life’sȱ incompletenessȱ mustȱ involveȱ somethingȱ withȱwhichȱtheȱdiscontinuousnessȱofȱwords,ȱtheirȱarticulations,ȱ canȱ beȱ readilyȱ confused,ȱ someȱ capacityȱ ofȱ aȱ wordȱ toȱ dislocateȱ fromȱ itsȱ origin,ȱ fromȱ thoseȱ momentsȱ inȱ whichȱ itsȱ occurrenceȱ bringsȱ fulfilmentȱ orȱ relief,ȱ andȱ recurȱ whereȱ itsȱ presenceȱ canȱ createȱdivision.ȱIfȱweȱhaveȱdifficultyȱseeingȱwhatȱthisȱis,ȱthatȱisȱ probablyȱbecause,ȱinȱreadingȱAVA,ȱweȱareȱdoingȱitȱtoo.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ timeȱ problematicȱ inȱ AVAȱ isȱ narrative.ȱ Orȱ perhapsȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ moreȱ preciseȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ Ava’sȱ predicament,ȱ likeȱ theȱ reader’s,ȱ isȱ notȱ thatȱ sheȱ livesȱ inȱ timeȱ butȱ that,ȱbeingȱmortal,ȱsheȱmustȱtellȱit,ȱrecountȱeveryȱmoment.ȱTheȱ sourceȱ ofȱ life’sȱ incompleteness,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ notȱ itsȱ divisionȱ intoȱ wordsȱbutȱitsȱdivisionȱintoȱbeginning,ȱmiddle,ȱandȱend.ȱItȱisȱthisȱ schismȱ thatȱ Stein’sȱ continuousȱ presentȱ meansȱ toȱ repair.ȱ Whenȱ Ava’sȱconsciousness,ȱwhenȱMaso’sȱpage,ȱisȱsplitȱintoȱwhatȱSteinȱ callsȱ “theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ compositionȱ andȱ theȱ timeȱ inȱ theȱ composition”ȱ (516),ȱ evenȱ theȱ fullestȱ momentsȱ resembleȱ forestalledȱ actionsȱ (“Andȱ whatȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ wereȱ weȱ waitingȱ for?”ȱ [24]),ȱ unfinishedȱ developmentsȱ (“Iȱ mightȱ haveȱ goneȱ toȱ China”ȱ[241]),ȱdashedȱhopesȱ(“Weȱlostȱtheȱbaby,ȱAnatole”ȱ[81]),ȱ orȱepiphaniesȱthatȱcameȱtooȱlateȱ(“Everythingȱinȱmeȱisȱsuddenlyȱ beginningȱ toȱ emergeȱ clearly.ȱ Whyȱ notȱ earlier?ȱ Whyȱ atȱ suchȱ cost?ȱIȱhaveȱsoȱmanyȱthousandsȱofȱthings,ȱsomeȱnew,ȱsomeȱfromȱ anȱearlierȱtime,ȱwhichȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱtellȱyou”ȱ[241]).ȱItȱisȱthisȱ representationȱofȱherȱlifeȱasȱneverȱwhollyȱpresentȱthatȱperiodicallyȱ risesȱupȱinȱAvaȱasȱanȱinsatiableȱdemandȱforȱmoreȱtime:ȱ“Findȱaȱ cureȱ…ȱFindȱaȱcureȱ…ȱFindȱaȱcure”ȱ(221).ȱEitherȱtheȱpastȱreturnsȱ asȱreminderȱofȱherȱlife’sȱfullness—”YouȱwereȱallȱIȱeverȱwanted”ȱ 45ȱ

(61),ȱ“Youȱgaveȱmeȱtheȱworld”ȱ(178),ȱ“Itȱwasȱparadise”ȱ(43)—orȱ itȱ retreatsȱ eternally,ȱ trappingȱ herȱ inȱ finitude:ȱ “Butȱ Iȱ amȱ onlyȱ thirtyȬnine,ȱ Drȱ Oppenheim”ȱ (55).ȱ Everythingȱ canȱ beȱ narratedȱ exceptȱ whatȱ mustȱ beȱ presentȱ forȱ anythingȱ toȱ beȱ narrated.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ solutionȱ toȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ Avaȱ Klein’sȱ life— andȱ thereforeȱ toȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ representingȱ it—isȱ notȱ discoveredȱ byȱ postponingȱ deathȱ aȱ fewȱ moreȱ years,ȱ forȱ theȱ problemȱ isȱ notȱ life’sȱ shortness.ȱ Andȱ theȱ solutionȱ remainsȱ hopelessȱ onlyȱ soȱ longȱ asȱ representingȱ itȱ substitutesȱ forȱ undergoingȱit,ȱwhichȱisȱroughlyȱwhatȱWittgensteinȱmeantȱinȱtheȱ Tractatusȱ whenȱ heȱ calledȱ aestheticsȱ “transcendental.”11ȱ Ava’sȱ solutionȱ remainsȱ whereȱ Avaȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ discoveredȱ it,ȱ inȱ theȱ livingȱoutȱofȱeveryȱmomentȱinȱitsȱcompleteness,ȱfully,ȱupȱtoȱtheȱ momentȱofȱlife’sȱcloseȱinȱdeath.ȱThatȱis,ȱwhateverȱenablesȱwordsȱ toȱcomeȱandȱgo,ȱanythingȱtoȱbeȱaȱpreparationȱforȱanythingȱelse,ȱ eachȱmomentȱtoȱbeȱaȱconclusion,ȱaȱcomplication,ȱaȱdenouement,ȱ aȱbeginning,ȱorȱtimeȱinȱitsȱcontinuumȱtoȱbeȱpunctuatedȱbyȱnow,ȱ now,ȱ now—whateverȱ permeatesȱ everyȱ present,ȱ makingȱ itȱ count,ȱ thatȱ isȱ whatȱ makesȱ AVA,ȱ bothȱ novelȱ andȱ character,ȱ whole.ȱȱ Iȱrealiseȱthisȱwayȱofȱspeakingȱcanȱseemȱfrustrating,ȱalmostȱasȱ frustratingȱ asȱ callingȱ theȱ deathbedȱ questionȱ ofȱ Ava’sȱ lover— ”Butȱ what,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ isȱ wrongȱ withȱ now?”ȱ (87)—anȱ answer.ȱ Eitherȱnothingȱneedsȱexplainingȱhereȱorȱnearlyȱeverything.ȱIȱfeelȱ likeȱ saying:ȱ Youȱ simplyȱ haveȱ toȱ hearȱ theȱ words!ȱ Butȱ theȱ problemȱis,ȱifȱyouȱdidȱhearȱtheȱwords,ȱthenȱsayingȱyouȱhaveȱtoȱ vergesȱ onȱ anȱ insult,ȱ andȱ ifȱ youȱ didn’tȱ hearȱ theȱ words,ȱ sayingȱ youȱ haveȱ toȱ isȱ anȱ insult.ȱ We’reȱ bangingȱ ourȱ headsȱ againstȱ aȱ limit.ȱWhatȱcan’tȱbeȱsaidȱcan’tȱbeȱsaid.ȱHowever,ȱifȱIȱwereȱtoȱtryȱ toȱ giveȱ concreteȱ expressionȱ toȱ thisȱ presentȱ Iȱ findȱ soȱ absorbing,ȱ I’dȱ turnȱ myȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ immediatelyȱ strikingȱ butȱ readilyȱoverlookedȱfeatureȱofȱMaso’sȱnovel:ȱtheȱdelugeȱofȱwhiteȱ spaceȱonȱeveryȱpage.ȱThisȱwhiteȱspaceȱrepresentsȱsomethingȱnoȱ novelȱ hasȱ everȱ existedȱ withoutȱ butȱ whoseȱ preciseȱ significanceȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Ludwigȱ Wittgenstein,ȱ Tractatusȱ LogicoȬPhilosophicus,ȱ trans.ȱ D.F.ȱ Pearsȱ andȱ B.F.ȱ McGuinnessȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1978)ȱ6.421.ȱ

46ȱ

forȱnovelsȱwentȱlargelyȱuninvestigatedȱuntilȱtheȱlatterȱhalfȱofȱtheȱ twentiethȱcentury.ȱItȱisȱinȱtermsȱofȱMaso’sȱfurtherȱdiscoveryȱofȱ thisȱsignificanceȱthatȱIȱwantȱtoȱspeakȱbothȱofȱAVA’sȱcontinuousȱ presentnessȱand,ȱinȱretrospect,ȱofȱitsȱhistoricalȱadvance.ȱ ToȱexplainȱwhatȱIȱmean,ȱitȱwillȱhelpȱtoȱcontrastȱtheȱrelationȱ ofȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ andȱ textȱ inȱ AVAȱ withȱ thatȱ ofȱ twoȱ otherȱ earlierȱ novelsȱ withȱ whichȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ someȱ affinity:ȱ Raymondȱ Federman’sȱ Takeȱ Itȱ orȱ Leaveȱ It,ȱ andȱ Davidȱ Markson’sȱ Wittgenstein’sȱMistress.ȱWhiteȱspaceȱinȱTakeȱItȱorȱLeaveȱItȱisȱused,ȱ forȱtheȱmostȱpart,ȱasȱitȱwasȱbyȱmodernistȱpoetryȱfrom,ȱsay,ȱW.C.ȱ Williamsȱ throughȱ Charlesȱ Olson,ȱ primarily,ȱ asȱ theȱ spatialȱ equivalentȱ ofȱ aȱ breakȱ inȱ speech,ȱ aȱ breathȱ stopȱ orȱ syntacticȱ division,ȱandȱsecondarily,ȱasȱaȱwayȱofȱforegroundingȱlinguisticȱ materiality,ȱ theȱ printȱ asȱ aȱ visualȱ object.ȱ Theȱ openingȱ linesȱ ofȱ Federman’sȱ “Pretext,”ȱ despiteȱ theirȱ initialȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ disorder,ȱ seemȱ onȱ closerȱ examinationȱ arrangedȱ inȱ nearȱ perfectȱ accordȱwithȱspeechȱrhythms,ȱsyntax,ȱandȱgrammar:ȱȱ ȱ inȱtheȱbeginningȱ wordsȱscatteredȱ byȱchanceȱ andȱinȱallȱdirections!ȱ

ȱ Similarȱverticalȱseriesȱofȱsyntacticallyȱorȱgrammaticallyȱparallelȱ unitsȱcanȱbeȱseenȱelsewhereȱonȱtheȱnovel’sȱopeningȱpages:ȱ ȱ ȱ aȱshyȱsilhouetteȱ aȱprofileȱ aȱshinyȱsaxophoneȱ

ȱ orȱinȱtheȱlowerȱrightȱcornerȱofȱtheȱsecondȱpage;ȱ ȱ treeesȱȱ roadsȱȱ carsȱ peopleȱ roomsȱ …ȱpuppetsȱ 47ȱ

…ȱpeople.ȱ

ȱ However,ȱtheȱjumbledȱtextȱonȱtheȱrightȱmarginȱofȱtheȱfirstȱpage,ȱ ȱ uȱcȱnȱrȱlȱeȱeȱeȱgȱeȱ nȱoȱtȱoȱlȱdȱnȱrȱiȱs!ȱ

ȱ operatesȱ byȱ anotherȱ principle,ȱ providingȱ somethingȱ likeȱ aȱ visualȱ mimesisȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ senseȱ orȱ meaning.ȱ Whileȱ arrangingȱ theȱ textȱ accordingȱ toȱ rhythmȱ andȱ syntaxȱ worksȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ theȱ spokennessȱ ofȱ theȱ narration,ȱ itsȱ saturationȱ withȱ voice,ȱ theȱ visualȱ mimesisȱ seemsȱ toȱ disruptȱ orȱ competeȱ withȱ thisȱ voice,ȱ assertingȱ theȱ autonomousȱ existenceȱ ofȱ pageȱ andȱ print.ȱ Butȱ inȱ bothȱinstancesȱFederman’sȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱwhiteȱspaceȱisȱthatȱofȱ usingȱ it,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ manipulatingȱ itȱ forȱ expressiveȱ endsȱ orȱ toȱ actualiseȱ hisȱ narrator’sȱ character.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ expandedȱ signifyingȱ repertoireȱ ofȱ Takeȱ Itȱ orȱ Leaveȱ It,ȱ itsȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ remains—inȱ someȱ senseȱ stillȱ toȱ beȱ articulated—passiveȱ andȱ inert,ȱ incidentalȱ toȱ theȱ actionȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ wayȱ asȱ commasȱ andȱ periods.ȱ Federman’sȱ artisticȱ advanceȱ isȱ toȱ revealȱ hisȱ pagesȱ asȱ white,ȱ notȱ blank,ȱ notȱ justȱ lackingȱ printing,ȱ butȱ evenȱ ifȱ consideredȱaȱdisclosureȱofȱmateriality,ȱtheȱultimateȱeffectȱofȱhisȱ useȱ ofȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ isȱ toȱ foreground,ȱ notȱ theȱ page,ȱ butȱ theȱ volubleȱ FrancoȬAmericanȱ whoseȱ selfȬrepresentationȱ providesȱ bothȱtheȱnovel’sȱmatterȱandȱmanner,ȱitsȱspeechȱandȱitsȱwriting.ȱ WeȱcouldȱcallȱTakeȱItȱorȱLeaveȱItȱaȱgraphicȱperformanceȱorȱtheȱ graphicȱ representationȱ ofȱ aȱ performance,ȱ butȱ eitherȱ way,ȱ Federman’sȱ novelȱ representsȱ anȱ investigationȱ ofȱ narratingȱasȱ aȱ kindȱofȱaction,ȱoneȱhappeningȱonȱtheȱpage.ȱTheȱkindȱofȱactionȱinȱ whichȱ itsȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ isȱ involvedȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ interrupting,ȱ ofȱ breakingȱ upȱ whatȱ isȱ continuous:ȱ i.e.,ȱ lines,ȱ sentences,ȱ phrases,ȱ meanings,ȱletters.ȱWeȱcouldȱsayȱthat,ȱforȱFederman,ȱwhiteȱspaceȱ becomesȱ aȱ newȱ formȱ ofȱ punctuation.ȱ However,ȱ forȱ thisȱ useȱ toȱ countȱasȱpresentness,ȱasȱaȱdiscoveryȱofȱfictionȱinȱtheȱtermsȱI’veȱ laidȱ out,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ needȱ toȱ revealȱ somethingȱ aboutȱ novelsȱ generally,ȱ aboutȱ theȱ functionȱ ofȱ allȱ whiteȱ space,ȱ andȱ hereȱ oneȱ canȱ feelȱ unsureȱ whetherȱ Federman’sȱ deepestȱ discoveriesȱ areȱ 48ȱ

reallyȱofȱtheȱpage.ȱThatȱis,ȱunlikeȱtheȱedgeȱofȱearlierȱpaintings,ȱ whichȱ modernismȱ revealedȱ toȱ beȱ onlyȱ apparentlyȱ accidental,ȱ lineȱ breaksȱ inȱ earlierȱ fictionȱ areȱ accidental.ȱ Theirȱ locationȱ remainsȱ irrelevantȱ toȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ line.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ themȱessentialȱtoȱTakeȱItȱorȱLeaveȱItȱisȱtheȱactionȱofȱtheȱnarrator,ȱ who,ȱ noȱ longerȱ containedȱ withinȱ theȱ dematerialisedȱ spaceȱ ofȱ representation,ȱ hasȱ penetratedȱ theȱ fourthȱ wallȱ ofȱ materiality,ȱ breakingȱ intoȱ Federman’sȱ book.ȱ Whiteȱ spaceȱ forȱ Federmanȱ isȱ expressive.ȱInȱthisȱsense,ȱweȱcouldȱsayȱthatȱFedermanȱdiscoversȱ theȱpageȱasȱaȱspaceȱofȱaction,ȱdispellingȱitsȱblankness,ȱbutȱleavesȱ unexploredȱtheȱactionȱofȱthatȱspaceȱitself.ȱ Wittgenstein’sȱMistressȱcontinuesȱFederman’sȱinvestigationȱofȱ theȱpageȱasȱaȱwhiteȱspace,ȱbutȱMarkson’sȱnovelȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱ theȱ actionȱ ofȱ thisȱ spaceȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ doing.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ inȱ Markson’sȱ novelȱ doesȱ somethingȱ toȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ orȱ tries,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ doȱ anythingȱ inȱ theȱ narrative.ȱ Itȱ doesȱnotȱpunctuate.ȱHereȱIȱwantȱtoȱrecordȱaȱpeculiarȱfactȱaboutȱ myȱexperienceȱofȱMarkson’sȱwork.ȱIȱfirstȱthoughtȱtoȱcompareȱitȱ withȱ AVAȱ becauseȱ Iȱ remembered,ȱ orȱ thoughtȱ Iȱ remembered,ȱ thatȱ theȱ pagesȱ inȱ theȱ twoȱ booksȱ lookedȱ alike,ȱ thatȱ inȱ Wittgenstein’sȱ Mistressȱ aȱ whiteȱ expanseȱ separatedȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ statements.ȱ Thereforeȱ Iȱ wasȱ quiteȱ surprisedȱ whenȱ Iȱ returnedȱ toȱ hisȱ bookȱ andȱ discovered,ȱ onȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ thatȱ theȱ pagesȱ appearedȱ whollyȱ traditional.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ appearedȱtoȱbeȱmerelyȱaȱpassiveȱbackgroundȱonȱwhichȱtheȱtextȱ wasȱ printed.ȱ Whatȱ hadȱ createdȱ myȱ falseȱ impressionȱ wasȱ theȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ Maso’sȱ andȱ Markson’sȱ narrators,ȱ specifically,ȱ thatȱ bothȱ seemȱ toȱ expressȱ themselvesȱ inȱ short,ȱ disconnectedȱ utterances,ȱ utterancesȱ thatȱ resistȱ closure,ȱ thatȱ seemȱunable,ȱatȱleastȱwithoutȱdisappointmentȱorȱfrustration,ȱtoȱ stop.ȱItȱwasȱasȱthoughȱIȱhadȱwantedȱspaceȱtoȱintervene,ȱfeltȱtheȱ rightnessȱofȱorȱneedȱforȱFederman’sȱpunctuation.ȱWhenȱIȱdidn’tȱ findȱit,ȱIȱfeltȱaȱlittleȱpanicky.ȱ Thisȱmisrememberingȱis,ȱforȱme,ȱtheȱfirstȱclueȱtoȱMarkson’sȱ discovery.ȱ Inȱ Wittgenstein’sȱ Mistressȱ theȱ impressionȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱnarrationȱisȱthatȱofȱbreathlessness,ȱasȱthoughȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱ 49ȱ

anyȱ naturallyȱ occurringȱ divisionsȱ inȱ speechȱ orȱ thought,ȱ ofȱ pauses,ȱ restingȱ places,ȱ wereȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ anȱ augmentingȱ claustrophobia.ȱWeȱcouldȱspeakȱofȱitȱasȱnarrativeȱgoneȱmad,ȱasȱ thoughȱ theȱ presentȱ wereȱ whollyȱ absentȱ andȱ allȱ thatȱ remainedȱ wereȱ theȱ continuous,ȱ unsatisfyingȱ transformationȱ ofȱ pastȱ intoȱ future,ȱfutureȱintoȱpast,ȱaȱhellishȱparodyȱofȱtimelessness—callȱitȱ neverȬendingȱ static.ȱ Theȱ contrastȱ Iȱ wantȱ hereȱ isȱ betweenȱ Federman’sȱ volubleȱ narrator,ȱ whoseȱ interminableȱ digressivenessȱ expressesȱ hisȱ irrepressibleȱ life,ȱ andȱ Markson’sȱ tormentedȱ solipsist,ȱ whoseȱ runȬonȱ utteranceȱ isȱ pureȱ compulsion.ȱWithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱcompulsion,ȱwhiteȱspaceȱ becomesȱ active.ȱ Itsȱ actionȱ is,ȱ inȱ oneȱ sense,ȱ perfectlyȱ familiar,ȱ merelyȱitsȱactionȱinȱallȱnovels.ȱThatȱactionȱisȱtoȱenclose.ȱThatȱis,ȱ Markson’sȱadvance,ȱifȱcallingȱitȱanȱadvanceȱmakesȱsenseȱyet,ȱisȱ notȱinȱitsȱuseȱofȱwhiteȱspaceȱbutȱinȱitsȱdisclosureȱofȱwhatȱmightȱ beȱconsideredȱeveryȱnovel’sȱuseȱofȱwhiteȱspace,ȱitsȱrevelationȱofȱ whatȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ doing.ȱ Whatȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ doesȱ inȱ Wittgenstein’sȱ Mistressȱ isȱ fillȱ everyȱ void,ȱ everyȱ openingȱ theȱ narrationȱ offers,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ theȱ ceaselessnessȱ ofȱ narratingȱ wereȱaȱcontinuousȱeffortȱtoȱkeepȱitȱout,ȱtoȱkeepȱatȱbayȱwhateverȱ wouldȱ beȱ thereȱ butȱ forȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ runȬonȱ voice.ȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ knowȱ ifȱ Iȱ amȱ speakingȱ metaphoricallyȱ orȱ literallyȱ here.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱsignificanceȱofȱwhat,ȱonȱaȱsecondȱglance,ȱoneȱcanȱseeȱisȱtheȱ newȱ lookȱ ofȱ Markson’sȱ page,ȱ i.e.,ȱ thatȱ theȱ marginsȱ appearȱ unjustified.ȱ Orȱ almost.ȱ Theȱ leftȱ isȱ aȱ raggedȱ columnȱ ofȱ indentations;ȱ theȱ rightȱ isȱbrokenȱ repeatedlyȱ byȱ longȱ incursionsȱ ofȱ white.ȱ It’sȱ asȱ thoughȱ silenceȱ wereȱ strugglingȱ toȱ breakȱ in,ȱ toȱ contestȱ speech.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ Markson’sȱ pageȱ doesȱ notȱ lookȱ likeȱ aȱ surfaceȱ onȱ whichȱ textȱ hasȱ beenȱ laid.ȱ Itȱ looksȱ likeȱ anȱ activeȱ presence,ȱaȱnaturalȱforce.ȱInȱshort,ȱWittgenstein’sȱMistressȱrevealsȱ whiteȱspaceȱtoȱbeȱaȱsurrounding.ȱȱ Itȱshouldȱbeȱapparentȱnowȱthatȱwhatȱmakesȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ inȱ theseȱ booksȱ bothȱ newlyȱ revealingȱ andȱ newlyȱ significant,ȱ isȱ theȱ novelȱ asȱ aȱ whole.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ whenȱ we’reȱ speakingȱ ofȱ whiteȱ space,ȱ we’reȱ notȱ talkingȱ aboutȱ aȱ primarilyȱ visualȱ phenomenon,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ anȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ essentiallyȱ theȱ 50ȱ

sameȱ kindȱ asȱ aȱ picture.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ enhancedȱ importanceȱ ofȱ visualȱexperienceȱinȱbothȱFederman’sȱandȱMarkson’sȱworks,ȱtheȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ visualȱ remainsȱ aȱ functionȱ ofȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ voice,ȱ ofȱ variousȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ discourseȱ thatȱ giveȱ toȱ theȱ novel’sȱappearanceȱitsȱinterest.ȱItȱisȱthisȱinteractionȱofȱinflectedȱ textȱ andȱ whiteȱ space,ȱ thatȱ makesȱ theȱ page,ȱ notȱ merelyȱ aȱ backgroundȱ butȱ anȱ integralȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ work.ȱ Likewise,ȱ theȱ significanceȱofȱwhiteȱspaceȱinȱtheseȱnovelsȱisȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱinȱ modernistȱpoetry.ȱEvenȱinȱFederman’sȱusage,ȱitsȱsignificanceȱisȱ notȱaȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱlineȱsoȱmuchȱasȱofȱtheȱevent,ȱofȱtheȱnatureȱ orȱ kindsȱ ofȱ discursiveȱ continuityȱ stakedȱ byȱ theȱ teller’sȱ predicament.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ encounterȱ ofȱ fiction,ȱ i.e.,ȱ bothȱ narratorȱandȱsituation,ȱwithȱreality,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱphysicalȱbook,ȱthatȱ transformsȱ theȱ accidentalȱ intoȱ theȱ essential,ȱ theȱ pageȱ intoȱ theȱ meaning,ȱ matterȱ intoȱ spirit.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ newȱ inȱ theseȱnovelsȱisȱseeingȱthis.ȱȱ Theseȱ remarksȱ areȱ intendedȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ inȱ AVAȱisȱdistinctiveȱinȱjustȱtheȱwaysȱAVAȱisȱdistinctive.ȱLikeȱTakeȱ ItȱorȱLeaveȱIt,ȱMaso’sȱpageȱisȱaȱpositiveȱfact,ȱnotȱaȱblank,ȱnotȱjustȱ anȱabsenceȱofȱprint.ȱThatȱis,ȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱherȱpageȱisȱnotȱofȱ aȱtextȱlaidȱontoȱwhatȱwouldȱotherwiseȱbeȱanȱemptiness.ȱThereȱisȱ justȱ tooȱ muchȱ page,ȱ tooȱ muchȱ bareȱ paperȱ toȱ callȱ Maso’sȱ bookȱ theȱ materialȱ supportȱ forȱ herȱ narrative.ȱ (Oneȱ feelsȱ likeȱ saying,ȱ “Whatȱnarrative?”)ȱTheȱappearanceȱofȱAVAȱisȱmoreȱnearlyȱthatȱ ofȱ aȱ fieldȱ orȱ plane,ȱ somethingȱ composedȱ essentiallyȱ ofȱ spaceȱ andȱ merelyȱ interruptedȱ atȱ sporadicȱ intervalsȱ byȱ incursionsȱ ofȱ text.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ whatȱ punctuatesȱ inȱ AVAȱ isȱ notȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ butȱ print.ȱ Whichȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ obviousȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Maso’sȱ novelȱ divergesȱfromȱFederman’s.ȱInȱAVA,ȱasȱinȱWittgenstein’sȱMistress,ȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ doesȱ notȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ doing,ȱ resultingȱ insteadȱ fromȱ somethingȱ alreadyȱ present,ȱ conditionsȱ moreȱ fundamentalȱ thanȱ anythingȱ represented.ȱ Inȱ AVAȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ seemsȱ prior.ȱ However,ȱ whetherȱ we’llȱ wantȱ toȱ describeȱ itsȱ presenceȱ asȱ activeȱ seemsȱ uncertain.ȱThatȱis,ȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱwhiteȱspaceȱinȱAVA,ȱatȱleastȱ inȱ myȱ experienceȱ ofȱ it,ȱ feelsȱ nothingȱ likeȱ anȱ event.ȱ Oneȱ couldȱ 51ȱ

riskȱgibberishȱhereȱandȱreferȱtoȱtheȱwhitenessȱofȱMaso’sȱpageȱasȱ aȱcontinuousȱevent,ȱaȱceaselessȱaction,ȱbutȱmyȱpointȱisȱthatȱMaso’sȱ text,ȱ unlikeȱ bothȱ Federman’sȱ andȱ Markson’s,ȱ isn’tȱ narrated.ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ sayȱ it’sȱ breathed.ȱ Iȱ realiseȱ thatȱ thisȱ wayȱ ofȱ characterisingȱ Maso’sȱ discourseȱ mayȱ beȱ justȱ tooȱ metaphorical,ȱ tooȱ impressionistic,ȱ butȱ Iȱ knowȱ ofȱ noȱ otherȱ wordsȱ thatȱ couldȱ describeȱsoȱpreciselyȱwhatȱIȱhaveȱinȱmind:ȱspecifically,ȱthatȱtheȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ textȱ doȱ notȱ representȱ anythingȱ Avaȱ Kleinȱ triesȱ toȱ say—theyȱ aren’tȱ herȱ effortsȱ toȱ explainȱ whatȱ happenedȱ orȱ commentȱ onȱ herȱ life,ȱ areȱ ratherȱ whatȱ escapesȱ fromȱ her,ȱ slipsȱ out,ȱlikeȱaȱsigh—andȱthatȱtheyȱareȱweightless,ȱlightȱasȱthought.ȱ Thatȱis,ȱregardlessȱofȱtheȱgravityȱofȱAva’sȱpredicament,ȱherȱlinesȱ remainȱ freeȬfloating,ȱ detached,ȱ suspendingȱ allȱ actionȱ andȱ leavingȱeventsȱupȱinȱtheȱair.ȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱwhileȱMaso’sȱdiscoveryȱisȱofȱtheȱpageȱitself,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ orȱ primarilyȱ ofȱitsȱ availabilityȱforȱ useȱ (asȱinȱ Takeȱ Itȱ orȱ LeaveȱIt),ȱherȱdiscoveryȱisȱofȱsomethingȱmoreȱfundamentalȱthan,ȱ priorȱ to,ȱ aȱ surroundingȱ orȱ enclosureȱ (asȱ inȱ Wittgenstein’sȱ Mistress).ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ callȱ itȱ aȱ ground.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ oddestȱ factȱ aboutȱ Maso’sȱ novelȱ isȱ thatȱ itsȱ partsȱ areȱ separate.ȱ Unlikeȱ compositionsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ basicȱ unitsȱ (e.g.,ȱ sentences,ȱ lines,ȱ phrases)ȱareȱgroupedȱonȱtheȱpageȱintoȱlargerȱunitsȱ(e.g.,ȱstanzas,ȱ paragraphs,ȱ verses,ȱ chapters),ȱ everyȱ fragmentȱ inȱ AVAȱ isȱ separatedȱ byȱ aȱ uniformȱ distanceȱ fromȱ everyȱ other.ȱ Withȱ theȱ exceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ threeȱ longȱ sectionsȱ “Morning,”ȱ “Afternoon,”ȱ andȱ “Night”—markedȱ offȱ byȱ twoȱ expansesȱ ofȱ whiteȱ onȱ pagesȱ 123Ȭ4ȱ andȱ 213Ȭ4—onlyȱ theȱ fragments’ȱ occurrenceȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ book,ȱonȱtheȱcontinuousȱfieldȱorȱplaneȱprojectedȱbyȱtheȱspaceȱofȱ itsȱ pages,ȱ impliesȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ aȱ connection,ȱ areȱ allȱ partsȱ ofȱ something.ȱWhatȱthisȱsomethingȱisȱcannotȱbeȱaȱvoice,ȱsinceȱtheȱ speakersȱ areȱ changeable,ȱ andȱ theȱ occasionsȱ (e.g.,ȱ “Brazil,ȱ 1988;ȱ Venice,ȱ 1976;ȱ Quebec,ȱ 1980”ȱ [6])ȱ seemȱ asȱ discontinuousȱ asȱ theȱ fragmentsȱthemselves.ȱIfȱweȱsayȱtheȱfragmentsȱareȱconnectedȱbyȱ orȱ inȱ Ava’sȱ consciousness,ȱ weȱ willȱ beȱ interpretingȱ whatȱ connectsȱ them,ȱ notȱ describingȱ it,ȱ andȱ sayingȱ thatȱ theyȱ aren’tȱ connected,ȱthatȱtheȱreaderȱmustȱconnectȱthem,ȱonlyȱconfusesȱtheȱ 52ȱ

issue:ȱfirst,ȱbyȱsuggestingȱthatȱtheȱreaderȱcouldȱjustȱdoȱthis,ȱasȱifȱ weȱ knewȱ someȱ wayȱ ofȱ connectingȱ theȱ fragmentsȱ ofȱ AVAȱ thatȱ didn’tȱ raiseȱ theȱ sameȱ problemsȱ asȱ AVAȱ itself,ȱ and,ȱ second,ȱ byȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ readerȱ couldȱ justȱ notȱ doȱ it,ȱ thatȱ weȱ knewȱ someȱwayȱofȱreadingȱAVAȱwithoutȱconnectingȱitsȱfragments.ȱNo,ȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ readingȱ AVAȱ isȱ simplyȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ Ava’sȱ remarkableȱlife,ȱthatȱitȱoccursȱinȱtime.ȱThatȱis,ȱifȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱ completeȱ readingȱ mustȱ presupposeȱ aȱ finalityȱ impossibleȱ ofȱ rearrangement,ȱthenȱtheȱreader’sȱplightȱisȱasȱhopelessȱasȱAva’s.ȱ Noȱ singleȱ lifeȱ willȱ exhaustȱ life,ȱ noȱ textȱ willȱ comprehendȱ theȱ meaningful.ȱReadingȱcannotȱbeȱtheȱoriginȱofȱwhatȱitȱseeks.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ toȱ askȱ is:ȱ Whatȱ doesȱ Maso’sȱ groundȱ ground?ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ ifȱ theȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ inȱ AVAȱ revealsȱ propertiesȱ independentȱofȱtheȱnovelist’sȱuseȱandȱifȱtheseȱpropertiesȱproveȱ moreȱ fundamentalȱ thanȱ theȱ enclosureȱ ofȱ narration,ȱ thenȱ whatȱ whiteȱspaceȱgroundsȱisȱourȱabilityȱtoȱmakeȱofȱMaso’sȱwords,ȱorȱ ofȱ anyȱ novelist’sȱ words,ȱ aȱ novel.ȱ Toȱ readȱ AVAȱ weȱ mustȱ acknowledgeȱ whatȱ goesȱ withoutȱ sayingȱ inȱ everyȱ otherȱ novelȱ we’veȱ everȱ read.ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ thisȱ moreȱ radicalȱ discovery—callȱ itȱ theȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ literature—makesȱ AVA’sȱ relationȱ toȱ itsȱ predecessorsȱ historical.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ AVAȱ isȱ bothȱ anȱ advanceȱ overȱ Federman’sȱ andȱ Markson’sȱ innovationsȱ andȱ aȱ transformationȱ ofȱ them,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ pageȱ thatȱ Maso’sȱnovel,ȱinȱmyȱexperienceȱofȱit,ȱculminates,ȱhadȱnotȱbeenȱ tellable,ȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ connectedȱ Federman’sȱ novelȱ toȱ Markson’s,ȱ wasȱ simplyȱ noȱ history,ȱ beforeȱ AVA.ȱ AVAȱ datesȱ Federmanȱ andȱ Marksonȱ byȱ revealingȱ theirȱ whiteȱ spacesȱ toȱ beȱ discoveriesȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ time.ȱ Theȱ wayȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ thisȱ isȱ byȱ achievingȱ presentness.ȱThatȱis,ȱwhatȱfixesȱAVAȱinȱtime,ȱwhatȱsituatesȱitȱatȱ aȱ specificȱ historicalȱ momentȱ (e.g.,ȱ afterȱ publicationȱ ofȱ Wittgenstein’sȱ Mistressȱ inȱ 1988),ȱ isȱ preciselyȱ itsȱ revelationȱ ofȱ whatȱforȱtheȱdurationȱofȱthatȱmoment—aȱperiodȱwithoutȱfixedȱ limits—remainsȱ timeless:ȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ telling.ȱ Aȱ pageȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ surfaceȱontoȱwhichȱaȱpreȬexistingȱentity,ȱe.g.,ȱaȱnovel,ȱhasȱbeenȱ laid,ȱ norȱ isȱ itȱ anȱ agglomerationȱ ofȱ particles.ȱ Aȱ pageȱ isȱ theȱ presenceȱofȱaȱnovelȱbeforeȱmyȱpresenceȱtoȱit,ȱafterȱitsȱpresenceȱ 53ȱ

toȱme.ȱThisȱveryȱautonomy,ȱthisȱmaterialȱsubsistence,ȱthreatensȱ toȱ makeȱ everyȱ pageȱ immaterial,ȱ asȱ negligibleȱ asȱ earthȱ underfoot.ȱMasoȱmakesȱhersȱmatterȱagain,ȱuncoversȱherȱpage’sȱ presence,ȱ byȱ makingȱ itsȱ spaceȱ ourȱ means,ȱ almostȱ ourȱ onlyȱ means,ȱofȱtellingȱAva’sȱlifeȱfromȱanȱagglomerationȱToȱseeȱwhiteȱ underlyingȱ theȱ dividednessȱ ofȱ Maso’sȱ wordsȱ isȱ toȱ see,ȱ forȱ theȱ durationȱ ofȱ aȱ moment—Augustȱ 15,ȱ 1990—Ava’sȱ lifeȱ whollyȱ there.ȱȱ InȱthisȱwayȱwhiteȱspaceȱsolvesȱtheȱproblemȱofȱMaso’sȱnovelȱ inȱherȱnovel,ȱi.e.,ȱhowȱaȱlifeȱcanȱbeȱcompleteȱwhileȱcomingȱtoȱanȱ untimelyȱ end.ȱ Whatȱ seemsȱ crucialȱ hereȱ isȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ thatȱ theȱwhiteȱspaceȱinȱAVAȱisȱnoȱmoreȱcompleteȱthanȱAva’sȱlife,ȱorȱ notȱ ifȱ “complete”ȱ meansȱ itȱ couldȱ notȱ extendȱ beyondȱ whatȱ weȱ haveȱnow.ȱItȱcertainlyȱseemsȱpossibleȱtoȱimagineȱmoreȱofȱit.ȱInȱ fact,ȱsayingȱthatȱtheȱlastȱline,ȱ“Youȱareȱravishing,”ȱcompletesȱtheȱ whiteȱspaceȱseemsȱasȱgroundlessȱasȱsayingȱthatȱitȱcompletesȱAva,ȱ assumingȱthatȱthisȱmeansȱsomethingȱpartialȱfromȱbeginningȱtoȱ endȱ requiredȱ justȱ thisȱ oneȱ sentenceȱ toȱ beȱ entire.ȱ Whenȱ Masoȱ quotesȱCixous,ȱ.”..[E]achȱpageȱIȱwriteȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱfirstȱpageȱofȱ theȱ book”ȱ (58),ȱ sheȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ herȱ tellingȱ isȱ asȱ protean,ȱ asȱ utterlyȱ withoutȱ predeterminedȱ limits,ȱ asȱ humanȱ beingȱitself.ȱAndȱyetȱitȱisȱjustȱtheȱstrangeȱthingȱaboutȱaȱpage,ȱatȱ leastȱwhenȱitȱceasesȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱblankȱandȱbeginsȱtoȱbeȱseen— ”seen”?—asȱwhite,ȱthatȱitȱappearsȱcompleteȱinȱaȱwayȱnoȱwritingȱ couldȱsurpass.ȱWeȱcouldȱsayȱthatȱitsȱdazzlingȱsurfaceȱcomposesȱ aȱ pictureȱ ofȱ totalȱ expression.ȱ Itȱ isȱ againstȱ thisȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ austereȱ purityȱ thatȱ everyȱwordȱ mustȱ comeȱ toȱ matter.ȱ Iȱ haveȱatȱ timesȱ regrettedȱ that,ȱ inȱ myȱ 1995ȱ Dalkeyȱ Archiveȱ paperbackȱ versionȱ ofȱ AVA,ȱ Maso’sȱ notesȱ andȱ theȱ publisher’sȱ advertisementsȱfollowȱpageȱ265.ȱThatȱis,ȱitȱhasȱsometimesȱstruckȱ meȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱ concludeȱ withȱ whiteȱ pages,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ confrontingȱ theȱ thingȱ itself—AVA.ȱ Theȱ wishȱ isȱ fanciful,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱbutȱitȱposesȱaȱseriousȱquestion:ȱwhereȱdoesȱMaso’sȱnovelȱ end?ȱ Ifȱ whatȱ Iȱ haveȱ saidȱ isȱ correct,ȱ thenȱ itsȱ lastȱ sentenceȱ isȱ noȱ moreȱconclusiveȱthanȱanyȱother,ȱorȱonlyȱaccidentallyȱso.ȱOrȱsaidȱ differently,ȱ ifȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ tellingȱ hasȱ becomeȱ necessaryȱ toȱ 54ȱ

tellingȱ AVAȱ fromȱ anȱ agglomeration,ȱ thenȱ theȱ materialityȱ ofȱ Maso’sȱbookȱhasȱceasedȱtoȱbeȱaccidentalȱandȱbecomeȱessential.ȱ Somethingȱartificiallyȱtruncatedȱbutȱpotentiallyȱboundless—theȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ upholdingȱ AVA’sȱ /ȱ Ava’sȱ words—hasȱ impartedȱ wholenessȱ toȱ whatȱ existsȱ inȱ time,ȱ inȱ history,ȱ asȱ fragmentary.ȱ TheȱseemingȱincompletenessȱofȱAva’sȱlifeȱisȱnotȱaȱfunctionȱofȱitsȱ ending.ȱEverythingȱneededȱisȱpresent—continuously.ȱAllȱthat’sȱ lackingȱisȱme.ȱȱ Theȱ problemȱ ofȱ history,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ ofȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ lifeȱ inȱ time,ȱ isȱ notȱ ourȱ limitedness,ȱ notȱ ourȱ inabilityȱ toȱ seeȱ andȱ doȱ andȱ sayȱ all.ȱ Itȱ isȱ moreȱ nearlyȱ ourȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ ourȱ limitedness,ȱ specifically,ȱ thatȱ thisȱ awarenessȱ continuallyȱ threatensȱ toȱ displaceȱ whatȱ weȱ doȱ see,ȱ deniesȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ constantlyȱ beforeȱ ourȱ eyes.ȱ Whenȱ Wittgensteinȱ remarksȱ inȱ theȱ Tractatus,ȱ “Theȱ solutionȱ ofȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ lifeȱ isȱ seenȱ inȱ theȱ vanishingȱ ofȱ theȱ problem,”ȱ 12ȱ heȱ doesn’tȱ meanȱ thatȱ thereȱ justȱ aren’tȱ anyȱ problems.ȱ Ava’sȱ dying,ȱ forȱ God’sȱ sake!ȱ Whatȱ couldȱ beȱ moreȱ ofȱ aȱ problem?ȱ Heȱ meansȱ thatȱ theȱ desireȱ forȱ lifeȱ constantlyȱ projectsȱ usȱ beyondȱ life,ȱ makingȱ humanȱ lifeȱ incompleteȱ metaphysically.ȱ “Deathȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ eventȱ inȱ life,”13ȱ aȱ remarkȱmeantȱtoȱrecallȱusȱtoȱhereȱandȱnow.ȱOrȱinȱtheȱtermsȱI’veȱ setȱforth,ȱnarrativeȱisȱtheȱpresentȱworkingȱoutȱofȱaȱproblem,ȱanȱ attemptȱtoȱacknowledgeȱwhat’sȱpast,ȱandȱwhereȱnarrativeȱisn’t,ȱ thenȱnarrativeȱisȱtheȱpresentȱproblem.ȱCanȱaȱbookȱbeȱasȱfullȱasȱ life,ȱ asȱ completeȱ forȱ theȱ momentȱ ofȱ readingȱ asȱ whatȱ existsȱ withoutȱ bounds?ȱ Iȱ findȱ myselfȱ dividedȱ betweenȱ sayingȱ thatȱ whiteȱ spaceȱ inȱ AVAȱ isȱ allegorical,ȱ thatȱ itȱ standsȱ forȱ whatȱ underliesȱ allȱ narration,ȱ whatȱ continuouslyȱ presentsȱ itselfȱ throughoutȱhistory,ȱandȱthatȱit’sȱliteral,ȱthatȱitȱisȱwhatȱunderliesȱ allȱnarration,ȱcontinuouslyȱpresentsȱitselfȱinȱhistory.ȱEitherȱway,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ whatȱ Wordsworthȱ calledȱ nature,ȱ whatȱ Heideggerȱ calledȱ being,ȱ whatȱ Beckettȱ calledȱ silence,ȱ andȱ whatȱ Steinȱ calledȱ theȱ continuousȱ present.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ absenceȱ ofȱ humanȱ sayingȱ andȱ doingȱ thatȱ representsȱ noȱ lackȱ ofȱ anythingȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Wittgenstein,ȱTractatusȱLogicoȬPhilosophicus,ȱ6.521.ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ Wittgenstein,ȱTractatusȱLogicoȬPhilosophicus,ȱ6.4311.ȱ

55ȱ

saidȱ orȱ done,ȱ anȱ absenceȱ ofȱ lackȱ itself.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ wishȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ presentȱ moreȱ concretely,ȱ theȱ problemȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ thatȱ theȱ representationȱ provesȱ lacking.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ willȱ beȱ thatȱ theȱ presentȱ provesȱ lacking.ȱ Wholenessȱ isn’tȱ history’sȱ other.ȱ Orȱ asȱ Avaȱherselfȱremarks,ȱ“Itȱwasȱeverythingȱwhileȱitȱlasted.”ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

56ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

RobertȱArchambeauȱ ȱ

TheȱDeathȱofȱtheȱCritic:ȱȱ theȱCriticȬPasticheurȱasȱPostmodernȱ AvantȬGardistȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ CanȱthereȱbeȱanȱavantȬgardeȱunderȱpostmodernȱconditions?ȱTheȱ questionȱ isȱ large,ȱ indeedȱ tooȱ largeȱ toȱ beȱ properlyȱ answeredȱ here.ȱ Iȱ doȱ wishȱ toȱ contend,ȱ though,ȱ thatȱ certainȱ projectsȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ canȱ stillȱ beȱ accomplished.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ Iȱ believeȱ theȱ radicalȱ projectȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ hasȱ beenȱ carriedȱ outȱ byȱ atȱ leastȱ twoȱ contemporaryȱ writers—Davidȱ Kelloggȱ andȱ Benjaminȱ Friedlander—workingȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱproseȱthatȱisȱbestȱdescribedȱ asȱ criticalȱ pastiche.ȱ Sinceȱ pasticheȱ isȱ anȱ idiomȱ generallyȱ recognisedȱ asȱ postmodern,ȱ oneȱ couldȱ sayȱ thatȱ theirȱ avantȬ gardismȱsucceedsȱnotȱdespiteȱpostmodernism,ȱbutȱbecauseȱofȱit.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ imposingȱ obstacleȱ facingȱ anyoneȱ foolhardyȱ enoughȱ toȱ askȱ whetherȱ anȱ avantȬgardismȱ isȱ possibleȱ underȱ postmodernȱconditions,ȱIȱimagine,ȱisȱtheȱmuchȬcontestedȱnatureȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ themselves.ȱ Theȱ termsȱ “avantȬgarde”ȱ andȱ “postmodern”ȱ are,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ amongȱ theȱ mostȱ contestedȱ andȱ overȬdeterminedȱinȱtheȱcriticalȱlexicon.ȱSinceȱmyȱclaimȱhereȱwillȱ beȱ thatȱ aȱ postmodernȱ avantȬgardismȱ isȱ notȱ onlyȱ possibleȱ butȱ manifestȱinȱthatȱmostȱconservativeȱofȱarts,ȱtheȱartȱofȱcriticism,ȱIȱ hopeȱ Iȱ mayȱ beȱ forgivenȱ forȱ deferringȱ aȱ demonstrationȱ ofȱ thatȱ claimȱ untilȱ I’veȱ establishedȱ justȱ whatȱ Iȱ meanȱ byȱ“avantȬgarde”ȱ andȱ“postmodern”ȱinȱthisȱparticularȱcontext.ȱ 57ȱ

TheȱLinguisticȱScepticismȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ Renatoȱ Poggioliȱ givesȱ aȱ classicȱ definitionȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ inȱ hisȱ1968ȱ studyȱ Theȱ Theoryȱofȱ theȱAvantȬGarde.ȱ Poggioli’sȱideaȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ whichȱ isȱ essentialȱ butȱ notȱ sufficientȱ forȱ myȱ purposes,ȱ proposesȱ thatȱ avantȬgardismȱ proceedsȱ fromȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ languagesȱ andȱ systemsȱ ofȱ expressionȱ are,ȱ byȱ theirȱ nature,ȱ entropic.ȱ AvantȬgardeȱ artisticȱ andȱ literaryȱ praxisȱ are,ȱ inȱ thisȱ view,ȱ inevitableȱ reactionsȱ toȱ “theȱ flat,ȱ opaque,ȱ andȱ prosaicȱnatureȱofȱourȱpublicȱspeech,ȱwhereȱtheȱpracticalȱendȱofȱ quantitativeȱcommunicationȱspoilsȱtheȱqualityȱofȱtheȱexpressiveȱ means.”ȱForȱPoggioli,ȱtheȱ“conventionalȱhabits”ȱofȱexpressionȱinȱ aȱ bourgeois,ȱ capitalistȱ societyȱ areȱ subjectȱ toȱ aȱ “degeneration,”ȱ andȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ mustȱ beȱ theȱ renewalȱ ofȱ whateverȱlanguageȱ(literary,ȱvisual,ȱetc.)ȱtheȱartistȱchoosesȱasȱaȱ fieldȱofȱoperations.1ȱȱ Thisȱ idea,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ doesȱ notȱ originateȱ withȱ Poggioli,ȱ butȱ derivesȱ fromȱ aȱ longȱ traditionȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ experimentalȱ art,ȱmuchȱofȱitȱfromȱtheȱeraȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱavantȬgardeȱitself.ȱ Muchȱ ofȱ whatȱ Poggioliȱ hasȱ toȱ say,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ presentȱ inȱ Victorȱ Shklovsky’sȱ seminalȱ articleȱ ofȱ 1917,ȱ “Artȱ asȱ Technique.”ȱHere,ȱShklovskyȱpresentsȱtheȱproblemȱofȱlinguisticȱ entropyȱ asȱ aȱ problemȱ ofȱ everȬdecreasingȱ experientialȱ returns:ȱ “Ifȱ weȱ startȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ generalȱ lawsȱ ofȱ perception,”ȱ heȱ writes,ȱ ȱȱ weȱ seeȱ thatȱ asȱ perceptionȱ becomesȱ habitual,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ automatic.ȱ Thus,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ allȱ ofȱ ourȱ habitsȱ retreatȱ intoȱ theȱ areaȱ ofȱ theȱ unconsciouslyȱ automatic;ȱ ifȱ oneȱ remembersȱ theȱ sensationsȱ ofȱ holdingȱ aȱ penȱ orȱ speakingȱ inȱ aȱ foreignȱ languageȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ andȱ comparesȱ thatȱ withȱ hisȱ feelingȱ atȱ performingȱtheȱactionȱforȱtheȱtenȱthousandthȱtime,ȱheȱwillȱagreeȱ withȱus.2ȱ

ȱ 1ȱȱ Renatoȱ Poggioli,ȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Geraldȱ Fitzgeraldȱ (Cambridge,ȱMass.”ȱMIT,ȱ1968)ȱ37.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ Victorȱ Shklovsky,ȱ “Artȱ asȱ Technique,”ȱ Criticalȱ Theoryȱ Sinceȱ Plato,ȱ ed.ȱ Hazardȱ Adamsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarcourtȱBraceȱJvanovich,ȱ1992)ȱ753.ȱ

58ȱ

Onlyȱ theȱ artistȱ devotedȱ toȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ representationȱ canȱ overcomeȱ thisȱ automatism.ȱ If,ȱ asȱ Shklovskyȱ claims,ȱ “theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ artȱ isȱ toȱ impartȱ theȱ sensationȱ ofȱ thingsȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ perceivedȱandȱnotȱasȱtheyȱareȱknown,”ȱthenȱtheȱtechniqueȱofȱartȱ mustȱbeȱ“toȱmakeȱobjectsȱunfamiliar,ȱtoȱmakeȱformsȱdifficult,ȱtoȱ increaseȱtheȱdifficultyȱandȱlengthȱofȱperception…”ȱ(758).ȱȱ ThisȱviewȱofȱtheȱavantȬgardist’sȱroleȱasȱtheȱeternallyȱvigilantȱ regeneratorȱ ofȱ languages,ȱ symbolicȱ systems,ȱ andȱ modesȱ ofȱ experienceȱ appearsȱ inȱ countlessȱ manifestiȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ andȱ isȱ handedȱ downȱ toȱ usȱ throughȱ thinkersȱ likeȱ Poggioliȱ andȱ Clementȱ Greenbergȱ (whoseȱ “AvantȬGardeȱ andȱ Kitsch”ȱmadeȱtheȱideaȱcentralȱtoȱAmericanȱacademicȱthinking).ȱ Theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ artistȱ asȱ theȱ revitaliserȱ ofȱ languageȱ isȱ aȱ vitalȱ elementȱ ofȱ art’sȱ roleȱ inȱ ourȱ time.ȱ Butȱ whileȱ thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ correctȱ asȱ farȱ asȱ itȱ goes,ȱ itȱ isȱ limitedȱ byȱ itsȱ formalismȱandȱaestheticism,ȱbyȱitsȱdeepȬseatedȱtendencyȱtoȱseeȱ artȱasȱindependentȱofȱitsȱinstitutionsȱandȱsocialȱsituation.ȱ ȱ TheȱInstitutionalȱScepticismȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ OneȱironyȱofȱShklovsky’sȱstatusȱasȱaȱkindȱofȱpatronȱsaintȱofȱtheȱ avantȬgardeȱisȱthatȱtheȱexamplesȱheȱchoosesȱtoȱillustrateȱhisȱideaȱ ofȱ artȱ asȱ defamiliarisationȱ areȱ notȱ drawnȱ fromȱ theȱ powerfulȱ currentsȱofȱavantȬgardeȱpracticeȱthatȱflowedȱthroughȱRussiaȱinȱ 1917.ȱSuprematismȱandȱZaumȱareȱabsent,ȱMayakovskyȱdoesȱnotȱ appear,ȱandȱthereȱisȱonlyȱtheȱbriefestȱmentionȱofȱKhlebnikovȱtoȱ indicateȱ thatȱ Shklovskyȱ evenȱ knewȱ Futurismȱ existed.ȱ Instead,ȱ Shklovskyȱderivesȱhisȱmostȱextendedȱandȱconvincingȱexamplesȱ fromȱ classicȱ nineteenthȬcenturyȱ Russianȱ writersȱ suchȱ Tolstoyȱ andȱGogol.ȱ Theȱ veryȱ factȱ thatȱ Shklovskyȱ canȱ illustrateȱ hisȱ argumentȱ withȱ theseȱ writersȱ indicatesȱ theȱ insufficiencyȱ ofȱ defamiliarisationȱasȱaȱdefiningȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱ Ifȱ olderȱ textsȱ enactȱ defamiliarisation,ȱ defamiliarisationȱ cannotȱ beȱ theȱ definingȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Theȱ avantȬ gardeȱmayȱwellȱbeȱscepticalȱaboutȱlanguage’sȱabilityȱtoȱremainȱ fresh,ȱ butȱ suchȱ scepticismȱ certainlyȱ predatesȱ theȱ historicalȱ 59ȱ

avantȬgarde.ȱ Asȱ Jochenȱ SchulteȬSasseȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ scepticismȱ aboutȱ language’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ remainȱ freshȱ andȱ retainȱ meaningȱ wasȱalreadyȱpresentȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ eighteenthȱ century,3ȱ theȱ periodȱ inȱwhichȱSchillerȱandȱGoetheȱwrote:ȱ ȱ Allȱ dilettantesȱ areȱ plagiarisers.ȱ Theyȱ sapȱ theȱ lifeȱ outȱ ofȱ andȱ destroyȱ allȱ thatȱ isȱ originalȱ andȱ beautifulȱ inȱ languageȱ andȱ inȱ thoughtȱ byȱ repeatingȱ it,ȱ imitatingȱ it,ȱ andȱ fillingȱ upȱ theirȱ ownȱ voidȱwithȱit.ȱThus,ȱmoreȱandȱmore,ȱlanguageȱbecomesȱfilledȱupȱ withȱpillagedȱphrasesȱandȱformsȱthatȱnoȱlongerȱsayȱanythingȱ…4ȱ

ȱ Ifȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ asȱ somethingȱ distinctȱ fromȱtheȱartisticȱandȱliteraryȱtraditionsȱthatȱprecededȱit,ȱitȱmustȱ possessȱ someȱ qualityȱ orȱ proposeȱ someȱ projectȱ otherȱ thanȱ linguisticȱ regeneration.ȱ SchulteȬSasseȱ followsȱ Peterȱ Bürger’sȱ TheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱwhenȱheȱmaintainsȱthatȱthisȱadditionalȱ projectȱisȱtheȱavantȬgarde’sȱquestioningȱofȱtheȱinstitutionsȱofȱart.ȱ SchulteȬSasseȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ premiseȱ thatȱ theȱ lateȬnineteenthȱ centuryȱ Aestheticȱ movementȱ wasȱ predicatedȱ onȱ Kantianȱ notionsȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ disinterestȱ andȱ autonomy.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ Aestheticȱ movementȱ wasȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ bourgeois,ȱ utilitarianȱ world,ȱ itȱ wasȱ alsoȱ aȱ deadȬendȱ inȱ thatȱ itȱ removedȱ artȱ fromȱ theȱ worldȱofȱpowerȱandȱpraxis.ȱArtȱbecameȱotherworldly,ȱincapableȱ ofȱ interveningȱ inȱ civilȱ society,ȱ andȱ itsȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ capitalistȱ valuesȱ becameȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ anȱ impotentȱ refusalȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ forceȱofȱactiveȱintervention.ȱAsȱSchulteȬSasseȱputsȱit,ȱ ȱ Aestheticism’sȱintensificationȱofȱartisticȱautonomyȱandȱitsȱeffectȱ onȱ theȱ foundationȱ ofȱ aȱ specialȱ realmȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ experienceȱ permittedȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ toȱ clearlyȱ recogniseȱ theȱ socialȱ inconsequentialityȱ ofȱ autonomousȱ artȱ and,ȱ asȱ theȱ logicalȱ consequenceȱofȱthisȱrecognition,ȱtoȱattemptȱtoȱleadȱartȱbackȱintoȱ

ȱ 3ȱȱ Jochenȱ SchulteȬSasse,ȱ “Theoryȱ ofȱ Modernismȱ versusȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬ Garde,”ȱ forewordȱ toȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Michaelȱ Shawȱ(Minneapolis:ȱUniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱix.ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Johannȱ Wolfgangȱ vonȱ Goethe,ȱ Werke,ȱ vol.ȱ 47,ȱ ed.ȱ Paulȱ Raabeȱ (Weimar:ȱ WeimarerȱAusgabe,ȱ1990)ȱ313.ȱ

60ȱ

socialȱ praxis.ȱ Forȱ Bürger,ȱ then,ȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬ gardeȱ…ȱisȱnotȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtendenciesȱalreadyȱpresentȱinȱ Aestheticism.ȱ Rather,ȱ forȱ himȱ theȱ turningȱ pointȱ fromȱ AestheticismȱtoȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱextentȱtoȱ whichȱ artȱ comprehendedȱ theȱ modeȱ inȱ whichȱ itȱ functionedȱ inȱ bourgeoisȱ society,ȱ itsȱ comprehensionȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ socialȱ status.ȱ Theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardeȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiesȱ wasȱ theȱ firstȱ movementȱinȱartȱhistoryȱthatȱturnedȱagainstȱtheȱinstitutionȱ“art”ȱ andȱ theȱ modeȱinȱ whichȱ autonomyȱ functions.ȱInȱ thisȱ itȱ differedȱ fromȱallȱpreviousȱartȱmovementsȱ…5ȱ

ȱ Theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ inȱ thisȱ view,ȱ turnedȱ againstȱ theȱ existingȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ artȱ (literaryȱ journals,ȱ artȱ galleries,ȱ museums,ȱ goodȱtasteȱandȱconnoisseurship,ȱetc.)ȱandȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱartȱthatȱ underwroteȱthoseȱinstitutions.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ PostmodernȱPasticheȱandȱtheȱProjectȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ Atȱ leastȱ oneȱ projectȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde—itsȱ regenerationȱ ofȱ entropicȱ languageȱ throughȱ defamiliarisation—hasȱ beenȱ dismissedȱ asȱ impossibleȱ inȱ postmodernȱ conditions.ȱ Fredericȱ Jameson,ȱforȱexample,ȱarguesȱthatȱattemptsȱatȱdefamiliarisationȱ haveȱ becomeȱ “meaningless,”ȱ andȱ theirȱ emphasisȱ “onȱ theȱ vocationȱ ofȱ artȱ toȱ reȬstimulateȱ perception,ȱ toȱ reȬconquerȱ aȱ freshnessȱ ofȱ experienceȱ backȱ fromȱ theȱ habituateȱ andȱ reifiedȱ numbnessȱofȱeverydayȱlifeȱinȱaȱfallenȱworld”ȱcannotȱfunctionȱinȱ ourȱculturalȱclimate.6ȱȱ Centralȱ toȱ Jameson’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ postmodernȱ isȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱweȱhaveȱmovedȱintoȱanȱeraȱinȱwhichȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱmodernȱ selfȱ hasȱ beenȱ largelyȱ undermined,ȱ andȱ withȱ itȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ individualȱ literaryȱ orȱ artisticȱ style.ȱ “Theȱ oldȱ individualȱ orȱ individualistȱ subject,”ȱ heȱ writes,ȱ “isȱ dead”ȱ Indeed,ȱ fromȱ aȱ postmodernȱ andȱ poststructuralȱ pointȱ ofȱ view,ȱ theȱ bourgeoisȱ individualȱ subjectȱ isȱ “notȱ onlyȱ aȱ thingȱ ofȱ theȱ past:ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ myth”ȱ thatȱ “neverȱ reallyȱ existedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ place;ȱ thereȱ haveȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ SchulteȬSasse,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱModernismȱversusȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,”ȱxiv.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Fredericȱ Jameson,ȱ Theȱ Politicalȱ Unconscious:ȱ Narrativeȱ asȱ aȱ Sociallyȱ Symbolicȱ Actȱ(Ithaca,ȱNewȱYork:ȱ1982)ȱ121.ȱ

61ȱ

neverȱ beenȱ autonomousȱ subjectsȱ ofȱ thatȱ type.”7ȱ Theȱ defamiliarisationȱ ofȱ experienceȱ throughȱ aȱ heroicȱ featȱ ofȱ individualȱstyleȱisȱimpossibleȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱthisȱrealisation.ȱSuchȱ heroicȱ featsȱ dependȱ onȱ theȱ nowȬlostȱ illusionȱ thatȱ aȱ new,ȱ individualȱ viewȱ canȱ comeȱ intoȱ beingȱ andȱ releaseȱ usȱ fromȱ clichédȱ perception.ȱ Theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ inȱ Jameson’sȱ view,ȱ isȱ impossible,ȱ becauseȱ itȱ dependsȱ onȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ theȱ artistȱ asȱ individualȱstylist.ȱ Jamesonȱisȱnotȱaloneȱinȱthinkingȱthatȱtheȱbourgeoisȱsubjectȱisȱ dead,ȱ andȱ theȱ heroicȱ artistȱ alongȱ withȱ it.ȱ Rolandȱ Barthes’sȱ seminalȱ essayȱ “Theȱ Deathȱ ofȱ theȱ Author,”ȱ forȱ example,ȱ arguesȱ alongȱ similarȱ lines,ȱ claimingȱ thatȱ ourȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ individualistȱ authorȱisȱaȱmythȱofȱtheȱbygoneȱmodernȱera:ȱ ȱ Theȱ authorȱ isȱ aȱ modernȱ character,ȱ noȱ doubtȱ producedȱ byȱ ourȱ societyȱ asȱ itȱ emergedȱ fromȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ influencedȱ byȱ Englishȱ empiricism,ȱ Frenchȱ rationalism,ȱ andȱ theȱ personalȱ faithȱ ofȱ theȱ Reformation,ȱ therebyȱ discoveringȱ theȱ prestigeȱ ofȱ theȱ individual,ȱor,ȱasȱweȱsayȱmoreȱnobly,ȱofȱtheȱ“humanȱperson.”8ȱ

ȱ Withȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ theȱ mythicalȱ author,ȱ Jamesonȱ andȱ Barthesȱ bothȱ seeȱ aȱ newȱ emphasisȱ onȱ sociallyȬdeterminedȱ codesȱ ofȱ meaning.ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ individualȱ artistsȱ regeneratingȱ languageȱ withȱ uniqueȱ featsȱ ofȱ style,ȱ theyȱ seeȱ artistsȱ capableȱ onlyȱ ofȱ workingȱ withinȱ establishedȱ symbolicȱ codes.ȱ Unableȱ toȱ makeȱ “anȱ originalȱ gesture”ȱ theȱ postmodernȱ artistȱ (orȱ “scriptor,”ȱ inȱ Barthesȱ terminology),ȱ canȱ onlyȱ “mingleȱ writings.”ȱ Evenȱ whenȱ theȱscriptorȱ“seeksȱtoȱexpressȱhimself,ȱatȱleastȱheȱknowsȱthatȱtheȱ interiorȱ ‘thing’ȱ heȱ claimsȱ toȱ ‘translate’ȱ isȱ itselfȱ noȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ readyȬmadeȱlexicon.”9ȱ Barthesȱseesȱtheȱminglingȱofȱwritingsȱfromȱexistingȱculturalȱ matricesȱasȱtheȱinevitableȱmodeȱofȱpostmodernȱwriting.ȱForȱhisȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Fredericȱ Jameson,ȱ “Postmodernismȱ andȱ Consumerȱ Society,”ȱ Theȱ Continentalȱ AestheticsȱReader,ȱed.ȱCliveȱCazeauxȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2000)ȱ285.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Rolandȱ Barthes,ȱ “Theȱ Deathȱ ofȱ theȱ Author,”ȱ Criticalȱ Theoryȱ Sinceȱ Plato,ȱ ed.ȱ HazardȱAdamsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarcourtȱBraceȱJovanovich,ȱ1992)ȱ1131.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Barthes,ȱ“TheȱDeathȱofȱtheȱAuthor,”ȱ1132.ȱ

62ȱ

part,ȱJamesonȱdepartsȱfromȱBarthes’sȱviewȱonlyȱbyȱcolouringȱitȱ withȱtheȱdarkȱtintȱofȱpoliticalȱmelancholy.ȱWhereasȱartistsȱofȱtheȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardeȱ wouldȱ quoteȱ traditionalȱ textsȱ inȱ anȱ attemptȱtoȱparodyȱthem,ȱpostmodernȱwritersȱhave,ȱinȱJameson’sȱ view,ȱ seenȱ theȱ futilityȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ project.ȱ Theyȱ “noȱ longerȱ ‘quote’ȱ suchȱ texts,ȱ asȱ aȱ Joyceȱ mightȱ haveȱ doneȱ …ȱ theyȱ incorporateȱthem.”10ȱTheyȱhaveȱlostȱtheȱfaithȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱfreshȱ wayȱofȱseeingȱthatȱavantȬgardeȱworkȱcanȱrestore:ȱ ȱ Pasticheȱ is,ȱ likeȱ parody,ȱ theȱ imitationȱ ofȱ aȱ peculiarȱ orȱ uniqueȱ style,ȱ theȱ wearingȱ ofȱ aȱ stylisticȱ mask,ȱ speechȱ inȱ aȱ deadȱ language:ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ neutralȱ practiceȱ ofȱ suchȱ mimicry,ȱ withoutȱ parody’sȱulteriorȱmotive,ȱwithoutȱitsȱsatiricalȱimpulse,ȱwithoutȱ laughter,ȱ withoutȱ thatȱ stillȱ latentȱ feelingȱ thatȱ thereȱ existsȱ somethingȱnormalȱcomparedȱwithȱwhichȱwhatȱisȱbeingȱimitatedȱ isȱratherȱcomic.11ȱ

ȱ NoȱdrawingȱofȱmoustachesȱonȱtheȱMonaȱLisaȱcanȱsaveȱusȱnow.ȱ InȱJameson’sȱpessimisticȱview,ȱweȱareȱdoomedȱtoȱemptyȱactsȱofȱ repetition.ȱ Iȱdoȱnotȱdisputeȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱauthor,ȱnorȱdoȱIȱmakeȱanyȱ claimsȱforȱtheȱrevivalȱofȱparody.ȱButȱIȱdoȱwishȱtoȱdrawȱattentionȱ toȱ twoȱ examplesȱ ofȱ workȱ byȱ writersȱ Iȱ amȱ callingȱ criticȬ pasticheurs—literaryȱ criticsȱ workingȱ throughȱ pastiche— becauseȱ thisȱ workȱ seemsȱ toȱ meȱ toȱ accomplishȱ exactlyȱ whatȱ Jamesonȱ seesȱ asȱ impossible.ȱ Theirȱ workȱ usesȱ postmodernȱ pasticheȱ toȱ accomplishȱ bothȱ theȱ linguisticȱ andȱ theȱ institutionalȱ projectsȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱItȱdefamiliarisesȱviaȱpastiche,ȱandȱinȱ theȱprocessȱchallengesȱtheȱestablishedȱmodesȱofȱcriticalȱwriting.ȱ ȱ TheȱCriticȱPasticheurȱandȱDefamiliarisationȱ Who,ȱ then,ȱ areȱ theȱ criticȱ pasticheurs?ȱ Twoȱ willȱ serveȱ asȱ myȱ examplesȱhere:ȱDavidȱKelloggȱandȱBenjaminȱFriedlander.ȱBothȱ areȱ Americanȱ literaryȱ criticsȱ and,ȱ perhapsȱ notȱ coincidentally,ȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ Jameson,ȱTheȱPoliticalȱUnconscious,ȱ283.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Jameson,ȱTheȱPoliticalȱUnconscious,ȱ284.ȱ

63ȱ

poets.ȱBothȱhaveȱwrittenȱworksȱofȱliteraryȱcriticismȱthatȱare,ȱinȱ wholeȱ orȱ inȱ part,ȱ deliberateȱ imitationsȱ ofȱ preȬexistingȱ sourceȱ texts.ȱ Theirȱ worksȱ don’tȱ setȱ outȱ toȱ parodyȱ thoseȱ sourceȱ texts:ȱ rather,ȱ theyȱ imitateȱ them,ȱ usingȱ pillagedȱ phrasesȱ andȱ sentenceȱ structuresȱasȱmeansȱofȱcreatingȱnewȱinsights.ȱ Theȱ openingȱ ofȱ Kellogg’sȱ essay,ȱ “Theȱ Selfȱ inȱ theȱ Poeticȱ Field,”ȱ offersȱ aȱ compactȱ exampleȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ techniqueȱ looksȱ like.ȱ Itȱ isȱ composedȱ ofȱ aȱ pasticheȱ madeȱ upȱ ofȱ (inȱ Kellogg’sȱ words)ȱ“aȱlineȱbyȱlineȱrewriting,ȱwithȱaȱfewȱsentencesȱremoved,ȱ ofȱJ.D.ȱWatsonȱandȱF.H.C.ȱCrick’sȱ‘AȱstructureȱforȱDeoxyriboseȱ Nucleicȱ Acid’ȱ publishedȱ inȱ theȱ journalȱ Natureȱ inȱ 1953.”ȱ Theȱ originalȱWatsonȱandȱCrickȱessayȱbeginsȱlikeȱthis:ȱ ȱ Weȱ wishȱ toȱ suggestȱ aȱ structureȱ forȱ theȱ saltȱ ofȱ deoxyriboseȱ nucleicȱacidȱ(DNA).ȱȱ

ȱ Thisȱ structureȱ hasȱ novelȱ featuresȱ whichȱ areȱ ofȱ considerableȱ biologicalȱinterest.ȱAȱstructureȱforȱnucleicȱacidȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱ proposedȱ byȱ Paulingȱ andȱ Coreyȱ (1).ȱ Theyȱ kindlyȱ madeȱ theirȱ manuscriptȱ availableȱ toȱ usȱ inȱ advanceȱ ofȱ publication.ȱ Theirȱ modelȱconsistsȱofȱthreeȱintertwinedȱchains,ȱwithȱtheȱphosphatesȱ nearȱtheȱfibreȱaxis,ȱandȱtheȱbasesȱonȱtheȱoutside.ȱInȱourȱopinion,ȱ thisȱ structureȱ isȱ unsatisfactoryȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons:ȱ (1)ȱ Weȱ believeȱ thatȱtheȱmaterialȱwhichȱgivesȱtheȱXȬrayȱdiagramsȱisȱtheȱsalt,ȱnotȱ theȱfreeȱacid.ȱWithoutȱtheȱacidicȱhydrogenȱatomsȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱ whatȱforcesȱwouldȱholdȱtheȱstructureȱtogether,ȱespeciallyȱasȱtheȱ negativelyȱ chargedȱ phosphatesȱ nearȱ theȱ axisȱ willȱ repelȱ eachȱ other.ȱ(2)ȱSomeȱofȱtheȱvanȱderȱWaalsȱdistancesȱappearȱtoȱbeȱtooȱ small.ȱ

ȱ Anotherȱ threeȬchainȱ structureȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ suggestedȱ byȱ Fraserȱ (inȱ theȱ press).ȱ Inȱ hisȱ modelȱ theȱ phosphatesȱ areȱ onȱ theȱ outsideȱ andȱ theȱ basesȱ onȱ theȱ inside,ȱ linkedȱ togetherȱ byȱ hydrogenȱ bonds.ȱ Thisȱ structureȱ asȱ describedȱ isȱ ratherȱ illȬ defined,ȱandȱforȱthisȱreasonȱweȱshallȱnotȱcommentȱonȱit.12ȱ

ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ J.D.ȱ Watsonȱ andȱ F.H.C.ȱ Crick,ȱ “Aȱ Structureȱ forȱ DNA,”ȱ Natureȱ (Aprilȱ 2,ȱ 1953):ȱ 737.ȱ

64ȱ

Kellogg’sȱessayȱmakesȱonlyȱminorȱvariations:ȱ ȱ IȱwishȱtoȱsuggestȱaȱstructureȱforȱcontemporaryȱAmericanȱpoetryȱ (C.A.P.).ȱ Thisȱ structureȱ hasȱ novelȱ featuresȱ whichȱ areȱ ofȱ considerableȱcriticalȱinterest.ȱ ȱ Aȱ structureȱ forȱ poetryȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ proposedȱ byȱ Eliot.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ kindlyȱ madeȱ hisȱ manuscriptȱ availableȱ toȱ theȱ worldȱ forȱ theȱ lastȱeightyȱyears.ȱHisȱmodelȱconsistsȱofȱanȱenvelopingȱtradition,ȱ withȱtheȱdeadȱnearȱtheȱcentre,ȱandȱtheȱindividualȱtalentȱonȱtheȱ outside.ȱ Inȱ myȱ opinion,ȱ thisȱ structureȱ isȱ unsatisfactoryȱ forȱ twoȱ reasons:ȱ (1)ȱ Iȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ materialȱ thatȱ providesȱ theȱ poeticȱ structureȱ isȱ theȱ livingȱ communityȱ ofȱ readers,ȱ notȱ theȱ dead.ȱ Withoutȱtheȱstackȱofȱcoffins,ȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱinȱEliot’sȱmodelȱwhatȱ forcesȱ wouldȱ holdȱ theȱ structureȱ together,ȱ especiallyȱ asȱ theȱ variouslyȱ interpretedȱ bodiesȱ nearȱ theȱ centreȱ willȱ repelȱ eachȱ other.ȱ (2)ȱ Theȱ selfȱ ofȱ theȱ poemȱ isȱ extinguishedȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ poet.ȱȱ

ȱ AnotherȱdynamicȱstructureȱhasȱbeenȱsuggestedȱbyȱBloom.ȱInȱhisȱ modelȱtheȱdeadȱareȱonȱtheȱoutsideȱandȱtheȱlivingȱindividualsȱonȱ theȱinside,ȱlinkedȱtogetherȱbyȱFreudianȱanxieties.ȱThisȱstructureȱ isȱ ratherȱ looselyȱ described,ȱ andȱ forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ Iȱ shallȱ notȱ commentȱonȱit.13ȱ

ȱ Theȱ goal,ȱ here,ȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ parody.ȱ Kelloggȱ isȱ notȱ outȱ toȱ mockȱ theȱambitionsȱofȱscientificȱinquiry,ȱnorȱdoesȱheȱwishȱtoȱcastȱanyȱ doubtsȱ onȱ theȱ validityȱ ofȱ theȱ sourceȬtext.ȱ Instead,ȱ hisȱ project,ȱ hereȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ remainderȱ ofȱ theȱ essay,ȱ isȱ toȱ defamiliariseȱ ourȱ usualȱwaysȱofȱlookingȱatȱliteraryȱhistory,ȱandȱtheȱrelationȱofȱtheȱ poetȱtoȱhisȱorȱherȱwork.ȱ Benjaminȱ Friedlander’sȱ projectȱ isȱ moreȱ ambitious.ȱ Inȱ Simulcast:ȱFourȱExperimentsȱinȱCriticismȱheȱundertakesȱaȱmassiveȱ rewritingȱ ofȱ sourceȱ texts.ȱ Here,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ openingȱ ofȱ Kellogg’sȱ essay,ȱ hisȱ goalȱ isȱ notȱ parodyȱ perȱ se.ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ seekingȱ toȱ undermineȱ theȱ authorityȱofȱaȱ sourceȱ text,ȱ heȱ setsȱ outȱ toȱ followȱ ȱ13ȱȱ DavidȱKellogg,ȱ“TheȱSelfȱinȱtheȱPoeticȱField,”ȱFenceȱ3.2ȱ(Fall/Winterȱ2000Ȭ2001):ȱ 97Ȭ8.ȱ

65ȱ

theȱ verbalȱ contoursȱ ofȱ hisȱ textsȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ discovery.ȱ Heȱ outlinesȱhisȱexperimentalȱcriticalȱprojectȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ Iȱdescribeȱtheseȱworksȱasȱexperimentsȱbecauseȱallȱfourȱareȱbasedȱ onȱ sourceȱ textsȱ andȱ thusȱ inaugurateȱ aȱ speciesȱ ofȱ criticismȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ findingsȱ onlyȱ emergeȱ afterȱ struggleȱ withȱ predeterminedȱforms.ȱSometimesȱthisȱstruggleȱtookȱshapeȱasȱanȱ exerciseȱ inȱ translation,ȱ notȱ unlikeȱ theȱ reȬcreationȱ ofȱ aȱ sonnet’sȱ rhymeȬschemeȱ andȱ metre.ȱ Often,ȱ translationȱ wasȱ impossible,ȱ andȱ theȱ struggleȱ resolvedȱ itselfȱ insteadȱ inȱ anȱ actȱ ofȱ controlledȱ imagination—notȱ unlikeȱ theȱ sonnet’sȱ originalȱ creation.ȱ Inȱ eachȱ case,ȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ myȱ textȱ hadȱ lessȱ inȱ commonȱ withȱ theȱ ordinaryȱ practiceȱ ofȱ writingȱ anȱ essayȱ thanȱ itȱ didȱ withȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ metricalȱ verseȱ [theȱ book’s]ȱ somewhatȱ scandalousȱ methodologyȱ [involves]ȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ criticismȱ throughȱ theȱ strictȱ recreationȱ ofȱ anȱ earlierȱ critic’sȱ textȱ (or,ȱ moreȱ precisely,ȱ throughȱ asȱ strictȱ aȱ reȬcreationȱ asȱ theȱ discrepancyȱ betweenȱ myȱ sourceȱ textȱ andȱ chosenȱ topicȱ wouldȱ allow).ȱ Thus,ȱ myȱ“ShortȱHistoryȱofȱLanguageȱPoetry”ȱfollowsȱtheȱargumentsȱ (andȱ evenȱ wording)ȱ ofȱ Jeanȱ Wahl’sȱ Aȱ Shortȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Existentialism,ȱwhileȱ“TheȱLiteratiȱofȱSanȱFrancisco”ȱtakesȱEdgarȱ AllanȱPoe’sȱLiteratiȱofȱNewȱYorkȱCityȱasȱitsȱtemplateȱ…ȱAlthoughȱ Iȱwasȱpredisposedȱinȱeachȱofȱtheseȱpiecesȱtoȱcertainȱargumentsȱ andȱ conclusions,ȱ Iȱ willinglyȱ abandonedȱ theseȱ whenȱ theyȱ becameȱ incompatibleȱ withȱ theȱ criticalȱ approachȱ demandedȱ byȱ myȱsource.14ȱ

ȱ Whatȱ isȱ particularlyȱ interestingȱ hereȱ isȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ Friedlander’sȱworkȱembracesȱpostmodernȱnotionsȱofȱtheȱwriterȱ andȱworksȱagainstȱtraditionalȱnotionsȱofȱauthorship.ȱ Friedlander’sȱ bookȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ hisȱ informed,ȱ criticalȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ hisȱ topicsȱ priorȱ toȱ writing.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ sometimesȱtheȱbook’sȱassertionsȱare,ȱasȱheȱsays,ȱatȱoddsȱwithȱhisȱ ownȱconvictions.ȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱrecordȱhisȱobservations,ȱdoesȱnotȱ “paint”ȱ theȱ landscapeȱ ofȱ hisȱ preȬexistingȱ literaryȱ knowledge.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ bourgeoisȱ individualȱ intelligenceȱ creatingȱ insightȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Benjaminȱ Friedlander,ȱ Simulcast:ȱ Fourȱ Experimentsȱ inȱ Criticismȱ (Tuscaloosa:ȱ UniversityȱofȱAlabamaȱPress,ȱ2004)ȱ1Ȭ2.ȱ

66ȱ

throughȱ heroicȱ reflections.ȱ Hesitatingȱ toȱ callȱ theȱ book’sȱ oftenȬ stimulatingȱinsightsȱtheȱassertionsȱofȱaȱcriticȱorȱauthor,ȱoneȱfallsȱ backȱ onȱ theȱ old,ȱ Newȱ Criticalȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ book’sȱ speaker,ȱ here.ȱ Butȱ evenȱ thisȱ ideaȱ seemsȱ toȱ implyȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ aȱ consistentȱ characterȱ whoȱ mightȱ holdȱ theȱ viewsȱ onȱ offer,ȱ andȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ whatȱhappensȱinȱFriedlander’sȱwork.ȱThereȱisȱaȱstrangeȱsenseȱinȱ whichȱtheȱassertionsȱofȱSimulcastȱbelongȱtoȱnoȱpersonality,ȱtoȱnoȱ characterȱpossessingȱtraitsȱorȱexistingȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱtextȱitself.ȱWeȱ don’tȱ soȱ muchȱ haveȱ aȱ speakerȱ asȱ aȱ Barthesianȱ scriptor.ȱ Theȱ scriptor,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ isn’tȱ justȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ combinerȱ ofȱ existingȱ discourses,ȱ butȱ asȱ aȱ creatureȱ simultaneousȱ withȱ theȱ textȱ itself.ȱ AsȱBarthesȱputsȱit:ȱ ȱ TheȱAuthor,ȱwhenȱweȱbelieveȱinȱhim,ȱisȱalwaysȱconceivedȱasȱtheȱ pastȱofȱhisȱownȱbook:ȱtheȱbookȱandȱtheȱauthorȱtakeȱtheirȱplacesȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ accordȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ line,ȱ castȱ asȱ aȱ beforeȱ andȱ anȱ after:ȱtheȱAuthorȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱfeedȱtheȱbook—thatȱis,ȱheȱpreȬ existsȱit,ȱthinks,ȱsuffers,ȱlivesȱforȱit;ȱheȱmaintainsȱwithȱhisȱworkȱ theȱ sameȱ relationȱ ofȱ antecedenceȱ aȱ fatherȱ maintainsȱ withȱ hisȱ child.ȱ Quiteȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theȱ modernȱ writerȱ (scriptor)ȱ isȱ bornȱ simultaneouslyȱ withȱ hisȱ text;ȱ heȱ isȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ suppliedȱ withȱ aȱ beingȱwhichȱprecedesȱorȱtranscendsȱhisȱwriting,ȱheȱisȱinȱnoȱwayȱ theȱsubjectȱofȱwhichȱhisȱbookȱisȱtheȱpredicate;ȱthereȱisȱnoȱotherȱ timeȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ utterance,ȱ andȱ everyȱ textȱ isȱ eternallyȱ writtenȱ hereȱ andȱ now.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ becauseȱ (or:ȱ itȱ followsȱ that)ȱ toȱ writeȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ designateȱ anȱ operationȱ ofȱ recording,ȱ ofȱ observing,ȱofȱrepresenting,ȱofȱ“painting.”15ȱȱ

ȱ Theȱtechniqueȱisȱclearlyȱtheȱproductȱofȱtheȱpostmodernȱworldȱofȱ theȱ scriptorȱ andȱ ofȱ pastiche.ȱ Butȱ unlikeȱ theȱ emptinessȱ ofȱ Jameson’sȱ postmodernȱ pastiche,ȱ thisȱ workȱ resultsȱ inȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ defamiliarisation.ȱ Indeed,ȱ bothȱ Kelloggȱ andȱ Friedlanderȱ turnȱ toȱ theirȱ sourceȬ textsȱ asȱ criticalȱ toolsȱ toȱ takeȱ themȱ awayȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ instinctiveȱ thoughtsȱ aboutȱ literature,ȱ andȱ forceȱ themȱ intoȱ newȱ insightsȱ differentȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ criticalȱ predispositions.ȱ Theȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Barthes,ȱ“TheȱDeathȱofȱtheȱAuthor,”ȱ1132.ȱ

67ȱ

projectȱ sharesȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ creativeȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ Oulipo,ȱ whichȱ usedȱ deliberate,ȱ systematicȱ formsȱ ofȱ writing,ȱ carriedȱthroughȱwithȱsomeȱrigor,ȱtoȱbreakȱpastȱhabitualȱmodesȱ ofȱcompositionȱandȱthinking.ȱ Whatȱ makesȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Kelloggȱ andȱ Friedlanderȱ particularlyȱ effectiveȱ isȱ theirȱ turningȱ toȱ sourceȬtextsȱ fromȱ discoursesȱ atȱ aȱ removeȱ fromȱ theȱ dominantȱ normsȱ ofȱ criticalȱ proseȱ inȱ ourȱ time.ȱ Kelloggȱ leavesȱ theȱ humanitiesȱ behindȱ andȱ seeksȱ outȱ aȱ scientificȱ sourceȬtext,ȱ whileȱ Friedlanderȱ turnsȱ toȱ temporallyȱ remote,ȱ belletristicȱ criticismȱ (Poe),ȱ orȱ toȱ aȱ philosophyȱ deeplyȱ outȱ ofȱ fashionȱ inȱ theȱ academyȱ (Existentialism).ȱ Theȱ discoursesȱ areȱ alienȱ enoughȱ toȱ breakȱ ourȱ usualȱ normsȱ ofȱ thinking,ȱ butȱ familiarȱ enoughȱ toȱ generateȱ insightsȱthatȱareȱstillȱcomprehensible,ȱifȱnotȱuncontroversial,ȱtoȱ readersȱ embeddedȱ inȱ ourȱ currentȱ discursiveȱ environment.ȱ Asȱ theȱcriticȱVincentȱSherryȱonceȱsaidȱofȱtheȱintertextualȱpoetryȱofȱ JohnȱMatthias,ȱwhichȱdrawsȱfromȱarcaneȱhistoricalȱsourceȬtextsȱ “onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ pedagogueȱ offersȱ fromȱ hisȱ wordȬhoardȱ andȱ referenceȱ troveȱ theȱ splendidȱ alterityȱ ofȱ unfamiliarȱ speech;ȱ onȱtheȱother,ȱthisȱisȱourȱfamilialȱtongue,ȱourȱownȱlanguageȱinȱitsȱ deeperȱmemoryȱandȱreference.”16ȱCriticȬPasticheursȱlikeȱKelloggȱ andȱFriedlanderȱofferȱusȱanȱestrangementȱofȱcriticismȱbasedȱonȱ theȱrevivalȱandȱreȬexaminationȱofȱdisusedȱdiscursiveȱstrategies.ȱ Theirȱ work,ȱ then,ȱ isȱ simultaneouslyȱ postmodernȱ pasticheȱ andȱ avantȬgardeȱlinguisticȱregeneration.ȱ ȱ TheȱDeathȱofȱtheȱCriticȱ Theȱ criticȬpasticheurȱ doesn’tȱ justȱ accomplishesȱ theȱ linguisticȱ goalsȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde:ȱ heȱ accomplishesȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ institutionalȱ goalsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ though,ȱ theȱ criticȬpasticheurȱ doesn’tȱ challengeȱ theȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ autonomousȱ art.ȱ Rather,ȱ heȱ challengesȱ theȱ institutionsȱ andȱ

ȱ16ȱȱ VincentȱSherry,ȱ“TheȱPoetryȱofȱJohnȱMatthias:ȱ‘MyȱTreasonȱandȱMȱyȱTongue,’”ȱ Wordȱ Playȱ Place:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ theȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Johnȱ Matthias,ȱ ed.ȱ Robertȱ Archambeauȱ (Athens,ȱOhio:ȱOhioȱUniversityȱPress/SwallowȱPress,ȱ1998)ȱ29.ȱ

68ȱ

assumptionsȱofȱprofessionalȱcriticism,ȱandȱdoesȱsoȱthroughȱtheȱ useȱofȱpostmodernȱpastiche.ȱ ȱȱ Itȱisȱaȱdeeplyȱembeddedȱtenetȱofȱcriticismȱthatȱtheȱcriticȱmustȱ beȱ aȱ knowingȱ subjectȱ standingȱ behindȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ methodologicallyȬgroundedȱ truthȬclaims.ȱ Theȱ criticȱhas,ȱinȱ thisȱ view,ȱaȱmethodȱorȱtechniqueȱthatȱcanȱbeȱappliedȱconsistentlyȱtoȱ texts.ȱTheȱmethodȱyieldsȱresultsȱthatȱtheȱcriticȱstandsȱbehindȱasȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ professionalȱ prideȱ andȱ integrity.ȱ Thisȱ ideaȱ hasȱ somethingȱapproachingȱofficialȱstatusȱinȱtheȱacademy.ȱInȱ1966,ȱ forȱexample,ȱtheȱAmericanȱAssociationȱofȱUniversityȱProfessorsȱ declaredȱthatȱtheȱprofessionalȱknowledgeȬworkerȱis:ȱ ȱ guidedȱ byȱ aȱ deepȱ convictionȱ ofȱ theȱ worthȱ andȱ dignityȱ ofȱ theȱ advancementȱ ofȱ knowledge,ȱ recognisesȱ theȱ specialȱ responsibilitiesȱplacedȱuponȱhim.ȱHisȱprimaryȱresponsibilityȱtoȱ hisȱsubjectȱisȱtoȱseekȱandȱtoȱstateȱtheȱtruthȱasȱheȱseesȱitȱ…17ȱ

ȱ Inȱthisȱviewȱtheȱcriticȱisȱanȱearnestȱandȱsincereȱsubject,ȱstandingȱ behindȱ hisȱ writtenȱ words.ȱ Theȱ speakerȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ isȱ identicalȱ withȱ theȱ author:ȱ indeed,ȱ theȱ authorȱ standsȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ wordsȱofȱtheȱbookȱinȱtheȱ“authorȬGod”ȱpositionȱsoȱthoroughlyȱ debunkedȱbyȱBarthes.ȱȱ Whenȱ Friedlanderȱ callsȱ hisȱ methodologyȱ “scandalous,”ȱ theȱ scandalȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ refersȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ aȱ scandalȱ ofȱ professionalism.ȱ Whenȱ heȱ choosesȱ toȱ abandonȱ theȱ “argumentsȱ andȱconclusions”ȱthatȱheȱpersonallyȱbelievesȱinȱorderȱtoȱfollowȱ theȱtextualȱcontoursȱofȱhisȱsources,ȱheȱstrikesȱaȱblowȱatȱtheȱveryȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ criticȱ asȱ aȱ knowingȱ subjectȱ standingȱ behindȱ hisȱ words.ȱ Heȱ underminesȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ criticalȱ writingȱ asȱ theȱ presentationȱofȱexistingȱandȱestablishedȱknowledge.ȱInstead,ȱheȱ proposesȱ theȱ critic’sȱ workȱ asȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ generatingȱ newȱ andȱ challengingȱ insightsȱ throughȱ theȱ defamiliarisationȱ ofȱ habitualȱ modesȱofȱthought.ȱ

ȱ17ȱȱ Bruceȱ Robbins,ȱ Secularȱ Vocations:ȱ Intellectuals,ȱ Professionalism,ȱ Cultureȱ (London:ȱVerso,ȱ1993)ȱ36.ȱ

69ȱ

TheȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱavantȬgardismȱisȱstillȱ possibleȱ underȱ postmodernȱ conditionsȱ must,ȱ then,ȱ beȱ yes.ȱ Butȱ inȱ thisȱ latestȱ iterationȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ impulse,ȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ primaryȱactorsȱareȱnotȱartistsȱbutȱcritics.ȱ ȱ ȱ

70ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

JohannaȱDruckerȱ ȱ

NeonȱSighȱ::ȱEpistemologicalȱ Refamiliarisation*ȱȱ ȱ ȱ Infinitelyȱ dense,ȱ theȱ porousȱ papersȱ flameȱ withȱ headlinesȱ rippedȱ fromȱ everyȱ narrativeȱ everȱ written.ȱ Hyperbolicȱ claimsȱ riseȱ fastȱ asȱ trappedȱ memoryȱandȱshootȱthroughȱtheȱroofȱofȱbelief.ȱMinedȱandȱready,ȱfromȱaȱ rich,ȱ almostȱ inexhaustibleȱ vein,ȱ theȱ permanentlyȱ expandableȱ archiveȱ understandsȱitselfȱtoȱbeȱaware,ȱwakingȱslowlyȱtoȱtheȱrealȱimpossibilityȱ ofȱ whatȱ thatȱ means.ȱ Goodbye,ȱ weȱ sigh,ȱ toȱ oldȱ Dubai,ȱ theȱ deal’sȱover,ȱ suspended,ȱdone.ȱHauntȱtheȱrefugees,ȱtheirȱterrorȱdreamsȱunfold.ȱTheȱ worldȱ turnsȱ aȱ blindȱ darkȱ eyeȱ onȱ theȱ ceilingȱ thatȱ threatensȱ toȱ comeȱ down.ȱ Aȱ hundredȱ yearsȱ war,ȱ orȱ more,ȱ theȱ plaguesȱ andȱ pestilences,ȱ hissingȱ sibilantsȱ ofȱ destruction,ȱ rideȱ outȱ withȱ fierceȱ intensity,ȱ layingȱ waste.ȱȱ

ȱ “Epistemologicalȱdefamiliarisation,”ȱtheȱphraseȱgivenȱcurrencyȱ byȱtheȱworkȱofȱRussianȱtheoristȬcriticȱViktorȱShklovsky,ȱamongȱ others,ȱ remainsȱ emblematicȱ ofȱ theȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Madeȱ evenȱ strangerȱ whenȱ renderedȱ inȱ transliterationȱasȱostrananieȱtheȱconceptȱstillȱseemsȱaȱpotentȱtenetȱ inȱ anȱ otherwiseȱ moribundȱ legacyȱ ofȱ selfȬstyledȱ politicalȱ orȱ activistȱwork.ȱOrȱdoesȱit?ȱȱ Castȱ aȱ glanceȱ backwards.ȱ Theȱ romanticȱ movementȱ practicallyȱdefinedȱitselfȱbyȱfollowingȱWilliamȱBlake’sȱinsistenceȱ ȱ *ȱȱ Specialȱ thanksȱ toȱ Andreaȱ Douglasȱ forȱ herȱ commentsȱ onȱ thisȱ piece.ȱ Sheȱ raisedȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ exoticisation,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ providingȱ theȱ Specialȱ Victimsȱ Unitȱ reference.ȱ Andȱ toȱ Jeromeȱ McGann,ȱ forȱ continualȱ exchangeȱ aroundȱ issuesȱ ofȱ modernismȱandȱcontemporaryȱart.ȱ

71ȱ

thatȱartȱshouldȱopenȱtheȱdoorsȱofȱperception.ȱInȱensuingȱcultureȱ wars,ȱhowever,ȱaȱrallyingȱcryȱofȱ“épaterȱleȱbourgeoisie”ȱsituatedȱ theȱ visionaryȱ experienceȱ withinȱ aȱ socialȱ frameȱ whereȱ itȱ narrowedȱ toȱ aȱ shockȱ attackȱ onȱ moralȱ proprietyȱ andȱ theȱ repressiveȱ decorumȱ ofȱ anȱ oftenȱ hypocriticalȱ socialȱ order.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “novelty”ȱ droveȱ theȱ twinȱ enginesȱ ofȱ commodityȱ marketingȱ andȱ artȱ worldȱ publicityȱ alongȱ parallelȱ andȱ relatedȱ tracks.ȱ Strangeness,ȱ abstraction,ȱ evenȱ theȱ conceptualismȱ ofȱ Moreauȱ orȱ Redonȱ wereȱ termsȱ onȱ whichȱ distinctionsȱ amongȱ classȬbasedȱ practicesȱ becameȱ articulatedȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ theyȱ wereȱ aestheticȱ exercisesȱ inȱ expressionȱ ofȱ hithertoȬunimaginableȱ thoughtȱ forms.ȱ Byȱ theȱ midȬ20thȱ century,ȱ esotericȱ practicesȱ areȱ famouslyȱ definedȱ inȱAdorno’sȱ termsȱ asȱ theȱ veryȱ foundationȱ ofȱ resistanceȱ toȱ theȱ numbingȱ formulaeȱ ofȱ cultureȱ industriesȱ andȱ administeredȱ thought.ȱ Familiarȱ territory.ȱ Butȱ theȱ criticalȱ apparatusȱofȱsubversionȱandȱcriticalȱresistanceȱareȱstillȱinvokedȱ asȱ ifȱ theȱ difficultyȱ inherentȱ inȱ oddȱ shapedȱ representationsȱ isȱ itselfȱsufficientȱtoȱprovokeȱthoughtfulȱinsight.ȱButȱwhatȱareȱtheȱ alternatives?ȱIfȱmakingȬstrangeȱhasȱbecomeȱtheȱallȬtooȬfamiliar,ȱ shallȱweȱunlinkȱaestheticȱexperienceȱandȱknowledge,ȱknowing,ȱ waysȱofȱseeingȱasȱthinking?ȱOrȱreformulateȱtheȱtermsȱonȱwhichȱ itȱoccurs?ȱȱ Flashȱ forwardȱ toȱ theȱ present.ȱ Thomasȱ Hirschhorn,ȱ “Superficialȱ Engagement,”ȱ aȱ massiveȱ stuffȬandȬoverloadȱ installationȱ atȱ Barbaraȱ Gladstoneȱ inȱ February,ȱ 2006.ȱ Imagesȱ ofȱ fashion,ȱwarȱheadlines,ȱmutilatedȱbodiesȱfromȱtheȱfrontȱlinesȱofȱ conflict,ȱ andȱ geometricallyȱ abstractȱ metaphysicalȱ paintingsȱ byȱ Emmaȱ Kunz.ȱ Davidȱ Joselitȱ describesȱ theȱ wayȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ installationȱ worksȱ withinȱ “FashionȬdrivenȱ cyclesȱ ofȱ consumption”ȱ andȱ imageȬglut,ȱ toȱ exposeȱ theȱ lieȱ ofȱ ourȱ “Americanȱworldȱofȱeuphemism.”ȱWhatȱmediaȱrefusedȱtoȱdoȱinȱ theȱ news,ȱ thisȱ workȱ didȱinȱ itsȱ presentation,ȱ Joselitȱ wouldȱ haveȱ usȱ believe.1ȱ Butȱ isȱ thisȱ true?ȱ Orȱ isȱ theȱ lurkingȱ assumptionȱ onȱ whichȱtheȱdisplayȱofȱmutilatedȱbodiesȱworksȱitselfȱbasedȱonȱanȱ

ȱ 1ȱȱ DavidȱJoselit,ȱ“ThomasȱHirschhorn,”ȱArtforumȱ(Marchȱ2006):ȱ285Ȭ286.ȱ

72ȱ

unacknowledgedȱ legacyȱ ofȱ modernism’sȱ ownȱ foundationȱ inȱ claimsȱ toȱ theȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ theȱ image.ȱ Evenȱ nowȱ theȱ wayȱ theȱ photographsȱ Hirschhormȱ displaysȱ areȱ embeddedȱ inȱ aȱ massȱ ofȱ otherȱ things,ȱ aȱ hugeȱ messȱ andȱ excessȱ ofȱ images,ȱ languageȱ strippedȱ fromȱ headlinesȱ aboutȱ theȱ warȱ inȱ Iraq,ȱ mannequinsȱ perforatedȱwithȱnailsȱandȱscrewsȱwhichȱweȱareȱinvitedȱtoȱaddȱtoȱ withȱ theȱ powerȱ toolsȱ thatȱ lieȱ readyȱ toȱ hand,ȱ evenȱ nowȱ theseȱ imagesȱ areȱ radicallyȱ decontextualised,ȱ liftedȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ necessaryȱnarrativesȱthatȱconnectȱthemȱtoȱtheȱrealȱcircumstancesȱ ofȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ documentaryȱ evidence.ȱ Theȱ metaphysicalȱ paintings,ȱwithȱtheirȱgeometricȱabstractions,ȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱtheȱ signȱ ofȱ artȱ asȱ escapism,ȱ ofȱ visualȱ imagesȱ ofȱ transcendenceȱ andȱ otherȬworldlyȬpreoccupation.ȱButȱtheyȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱreadȱasȱtheȱ answerȱtoȱtheȱproblemȱposedȱbyȱtheȱ“justȱshowing”ȱapproachȱtoȱ visualȱimages.ȱForȱKunz’sȱmetaphysicalȱworksȱareȱmeditations,ȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ imagesȱ ofȱ somethingȱ abstract,ȱ theyȱ areȱ theȱ recordȱ ofȱ aȱ meditativeȱ practice.ȱ Ritualȱ valueȱ isȱ inscribedȱ inȱ performance,ȱactivity.ȱTheȱvalueȱofȱimagesȱinȱaȱreligiousȱsettingȱ isȱnotȱtheirȱiconography,ȱbutȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱareȱactivatedȱinȱandȱ serveȱ asȱ provocationȱ forȱ ritualȱ practices.ȱ Likeȱ churchȱ architectureȱ orȱ theȱ recitationȱ ofȱ theȱ liturgy,ȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ religiousȱimageryȱisȱinȱitsȱcapacityȱtoȱinterpolateȱtheȱsubjectȱintoȱ aȱ relationȱ withȱ aȱ discourseȱ ofȱ belief.ȱ Soȱ weȱ canȱ readȱ Kunz’sȱ workȱ asȱ aȱ genuineȱ alternativeȱ toȱ theȱ simpleȱ presentationȱ ofȱ visualȱimages,ȱorȱweȱcanȱimagineȱthemȱ(asȱIȱthinkȱHirschhorn,ȱ mistakenlyȱdoes)ȱasȱpaintingsȱofȱescapism,ȱsymptomaticȱofȱtheȱ escapismȱgeneratedȱdailyȱacrossȱallȱzonesȱofȱvisualȱculture,ȱfine,ȱ mass,ȱandȱmediated.ȱȱ Lookingȱ atȱ theȱ waysȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ installationȱ doesȱ orȱ doesn’tȱ succeedȱ tellsȱ usȱ aȱ greatȱ dealȱ aboutȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ fineȱ artȱ andȱ culturalȱ criticism.ȱ Nextȱ door,ȱ atȱ LurhingȱAugustine,ȱaȱshowȱofȱpaintingsȱofȱartistsȱbyȱartists.ȱTheȱ institutionalisationȱ ofȱ visualȱ artȱ discourseȱ withinȱ theȱ spacesȱ ofȱ Chelsea,ȱ themselvesȱ allȱ anȱ unapologeticallyȱ deliberateȱ investmentȱstrategyȱ(moreȱthanȱSoHo,ȱevenȱwhichȱhadȱatȱleastȱaȱ whiffȱ ofȱ pioneerȱ innocenceȱ andȱ courageȱ aboutȱ it,ȱ someȱ risk,ȱ 73ȱ

whichȱinȱtheȱChelseaȱleverageȱdealsȱofȱcapitalȱinvestmentȱinȱrealȱ estateȱwasȱneverȱevenȱaȱtraceȱelement)ȱisȱinescapable.ȱTheȱMFAȱ millsȱcrankȱandȱthisȱyear’sȱhotȱyoungȱthingsȱattemptȱtheirȱMTVȱ entryȱ intoȱ theȱ arenaȱ withȱ everȬuppedȬanteȱ scaleȱ products.ȱ Weȱ knowȱallȱthis.ȱȱ Butȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ installationȱ (he’sȱ notȱ aȱ newlyȱ mintedȱ artȱ schoolȱgrad,ȱbutȱaȱveteranȱartistȱwithȱaȱlongȱhistoryȱofȱcultureȬ jammingȱ work)ȱ can’tȱ justȱ beȱ bracketedȱ outȱ ofȱ considerationȱ becauseȱ ofȱ itsȱ location.ȱ Somethingȱ elseȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ saidȱ aboutȱ itȱ beyondȱ theȱ obviousȱ preachingȬtoȬtheȬconvertedȱ effectȱ ofȱ usingȱ gruesomeȱ imagesȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ thatȱ couldȱ beȱ construedȱ asȱ opportunisticallyȱ gratuitousȱ or,ȱ alternatively,ȱ effectiveȱ inȱ theirȱ checkȱonȱourȱcollectiveȱescapeȱfromȱreality.ȱObviouslyȱweȱcan’tȱ justȱ “respondȱ toȱ theȱ work”ȱ asȱ ifȱ itsȱ situation–historicalȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱcultural/geographical–hadȱnoȱbearing.ȱOneȱfriendȱcomparedȱ theseȱ imagesȱ andȱ theȱ overwhelmingȱ inȬyourȬfaceȱ stuffȬnessȱ ofȱ theȱ installationȱ toȱ theȱ regularȱ numbingȱ exploitationȱ ofȱ Specialȱ Victimsȱ Unit,ȱ Crimeȱ Sceneȱ Investigation,ȱ nightȱ timeȱ dramasȱ combiningȱ fashionable,ȱ glamȱ starsȱ andȱ hideouslyȱ explicitȱ imagery.ȱ Theȱ domesticationȱ ofȱ violenceȱ intoȱ consumableȱ entertainmentȱ performedȱ nightlyȱ byȱ theseȱ televisionȱ showsȱ seemsȱ atȱ onceȱ similarȱ toȱ andȱ distinctlyȱ differentȱ fromȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ attemptȱ toȱ bringȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ theȱ currentȱ war— ourȱ war,ȱ America’sȱ ongoingȱ violentȱ invasiveȱ war—intoȱ visualȱ form,ȱmakeȱitȱpresentȱthroughȱthoseȱimages.ȱȱ Canȱ itȱ beȱ done?ȱ Andȱ areȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ gesturesȱ successful?ȱ Whatȱdoesȱthisȱtellȱusȱaboutȱartȱnowȱandȱmodernism’sȱlegacy?ȱ Whatȱcriticalȱissueȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱforeȱinȱdebatingȱtheȱefficacyȱofȱ suchȱ complicated,ȱ contradictoryȱ work?ȱ Canȱ weȱ stillȱ learnȱ anythingȱ atȱ allȱ fromȱ worksȱ ofȱ art?ȱ Areȱ eitherȱ defamiliarisationȱ orȱ epistemologyȱ withinȱ theȱ currentȱ purviewȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ experience?ȱAndȱifȱso,ȱisȱthatȱquestionȱitselfȱsoȱladenȱwithȱmoralȱ valueȱ thatȱ itȱ cancelsȱ itselfȱ out.ȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ didacticismȱ isȱ notȱ political.ȱ Theȱ workȱ isȱ insufficientlyȱ analytical.ȱ Theyȱ showȱ something.ȱ Butȱ howȱ doesȱ theirȱ presenceȱ exposeȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ whatȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ mereȱ displayȱ isȱ withinȱ theȱ framesȱ ofȱ 74ȱ

alreadyȱ wellȬcircumscribedȱ artȱ practicesȱ andȱ venues?ȱ Theȱ juxtapositionsȱinȱthisȱinstallationȱshouldȱbeȱaboutȱembodimentȱ andȱentanglement.ȱCouldȱtheyȱbeȱaȱcallȱtoȱaction?ȱFirstȱweȱhaveȱ toȱrecogniseȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱimageȱalienationȱhasȱbecomeȱsoȱ roteȱ weȱ don’tȱ evenȱ seeȱ howȱ weȱ see—andȱ thusȱ haveȱ noȱ wayȱ toȱ accessȱwhatȱweȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱand,ȱinȱtheȱpoliticalȱsense,ȱneedȱto,ȱ andȱinȱtheȱhumanȱsense,ȱmightȱwantȱto,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱact.ȱȱ I’llȱ cycleȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ criticalȱ termȱ I’mȱ proposing:ȱ refamiliarisation,ȱ afterȱ aȱ glanceȱ atȱ certainȱ pointsȱ ofȱ importantȱ contrastȱ andȱ comparison.ȱ Butȱ refamiliarisationȱ suggestsȱ aȱ criticalȱ andȱ aestheticȱ moveȱ toȱ lowerȱ noveltyȱ value,ȱ andȱ returnȱ imagesȱ toȱ theȱ embeddedȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ production,ȱ shiftȱ themȱ awayȱ fromȱ commodityȱ statusȱ andȱ intoȱ meaning,ȱ recoveringȱ aȱ senseȱofȱtheȱreferentȱwithinȱtheȱreal,ȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱemptiedȱoutȱ ofȱ allȱ publicȱ andȱ politicalȱ discourseȱ overȱ theȱ lastȱ fortyȱ years.ȱ (Maybeȱ longer.ȱ Maybeȱ always?ȱ Wasȱ itȱ differentȱ inȱ Rome?ȱ Theȱ Medici’sȱFlorence?ȱHitler’sȱGermany?)ȱIȱonlyȱseeȱwhatȱIȱknow,ȱ inȱtheȱhistoricalȱframeȱofȱpostȬWWIIȱaggressionȱandȱitsȱrelationȱ toȱ economicȱ booms,ȱ imperialistȱ rhetorics,ȱ andȱ theȱ historicalȱ decayȱ ofȱ theȱ activistȱ leftȱ intoȱ aȱ “new”ȱ academicȱ investmentȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ “symbolic”ȱ thatȱ simultaneouslyȱ seemedȱ toȱ meltȱ intoȱ vaporousȱ air,ȱ becomeȱ thoseȱ awfulȱ floatingȱ signifiersȱ thatȱ postȬ structuralismȱ taughtȱ usȱ toȱ identifyȱ onlyȱ toȱ turnȱ usȱ intoȱ purveyorsȱ ofȱ emptyȱ belief.ȱ Notȱ allȱ isȱ lost,ȱ butȱ toȱ formulateȱ aȱ foundationȱforȱcriticalȱknowingȱasȱaȱpracticeȱweȱhaveȱtoȱlookȱatȱ theȱ legacyȱ ofȱ modernismȱ andȱ conceptualismȱ andȱ inȱ particular,ȱ theirȱrelationȱtoȱlanguageȱandȱnarrative.ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ ***ȱ ȱ Theȱ administrationȱ saysȱ Noȱ Wayȱ andȱ theȱ senateȱ figuresȱ cautionȱ themselvesȱ withȱ figuresȱ snatchedȱ offȱ telephoneȱ polesȱ andȱ voterȱ polls.ȱ Allȱtheȱwiringȱwentȱundergroundȱsometimeȱinȱtheȱlastȱquarterȱofȱtheȱ century.ȱ Afterȱ that?ȱ Infrastructureȱ renderedȱ invisibleȱ erasesȱ theȱ connectingȱlines.ȱOurȱdotsȱareȱmisplaced,ȱsmallȱpinsȱonȱaȱmapȱdrawnȱ byȱ anȱ earlierȱ empire.ȱ Underȱ theȱ skinȱ ofȱ superficialȱ boundaries,ȱ waterȱ flows,ȱ withȱ air,ȱ andȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ seepage,ȱ wettingȱ theȱ dampȱ 75ȱ

underbellyȱandȱhotȱsandsȱwithȱfetidȱtears.ȱWeȱdidȱnotȱseeȱthem,ȱno,ȱtheȱ teenȱsaid,ȱshruggingȱhisȱthinȱshouldersȱwhileȱtheȱdancer’sȱbodyȱhungȱ inȱ theȱ wind,ȱ undone,ȱ utterly,ȱ aȱ smallȱ stripȱ ofȱ fleshȱ againstȱ aȱ violentȱ sunsetȱsky.ȱTheȱkidsȱwereȱmeanerȱthanȱsheȱthought,ȱhittingȱtheȱtableȱ withȱtheirȱsighs.ȱ

ȱ Let’sȱ startȱ atȱ theȱ hingeȬpointȱ ofȱ modernȱ toȱ lateȬmodern,ȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ substantiveȱ transformationȱ inȱ beliefȱ systems,ȱ whenȱ theȱadventȱofȱconceptualism,ȱaccompaniedȱonstageȱbyȱpopȱandȱ minimalism,ȱ shiftedȱ theȱ groundȱ ofȱ fineȱ artȱ productionȱ fromȱ workȱ toȱ text,ȱ fromȱ studioȱ toȱ idea,ȱ andȱ fromȱ aȱ demarcatedȱ territoryȱ ofȱ practicesȱ definedȱ byȱ materialsȱ andȱ disciplinesȱ toȱ aȱ dialogicȱconditionȱofȱproceduresȱandȱexchanges:ȱtheȱ1960sȱwithȱ allȱitsȱattendantȱculturalȱbaggageȱandȱclichés.ȱ Pop’sȱ brightȱ iconsȱ flashed.ȱ Fiveȱ wordsȱ inȱ neon,ȱ Josephȱ Kosuth’sȱselfȬreferentialȱconceptualȱworkȱborrowedȱtheȱsignageȱ technologyȱ ofȱ barsȱ andȱ diners.ȱ Bruceȱ Nauman,ȱ aȱ badȱ boy,ȱ highlyȱ irreverent,ȱ andȱ notȬquiteȬcategorisableȱ asȱ eitherȱ conceptualȱ orȱ popȱ artist,ȱ madeȱ playfullyȱ slyȱ worksȱ employingȱ theȱ sameȱ glowingȱ gasȱ tubeȱ medium.ȱ Theȱ Trueȱ Artistȱ Helpsȱ theȱ Worldȱ byȱ Revealingȱ Mysticȱ Truthsȱ (Windowȱ orȱ Wallȱ Sign),ȱ 1967,ȱ renderedȱinȱneonȱisȱanȱirresistibleȱwork.ȱTheȱtitleȱisȱsoȱpointedlyȱ andȱ poignantlyȱ funnyȱ inȱ itsȱ acknowledgementȱ ofȱ theȱ pretentiousnessȱofȱtraditionalȱbeliefsȱandȱtheȱhollownessȱleftȱbyȱ throwingȱ themȱ away.ȱ Anyȱ signȱ willȱ do,ȱ windowȱ orȱ wall,ȱ andȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ artistȱ isȱ genericallyȱ defined.ȱ Weȱ canȱ readȱ thisȱ pieceȱevenȱbetterȱbyȱputtingȱitȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtwoȱothers,ȱcloseȱinȱ time,ȱ theȱ kineticȱ flashing,ȱ punningȱ Suiteȱ Substituteȱ (1968)ȱ andȱ doubleȬentendreȱ Runȱ Fromȱ Fear,ȱ Funȱ fromȱ Rearȱ (1972).ȱ Allȱ eschewȱ theȱ eliteȱ intellectualȱ coolȱ ofȱ highȱ conceptualism,ȱ swappingȱ inȱ aȱ vernacularȱ tone.ȱ Suiteȱ andȱ Runȱ areȱ trivialȱ andȱ silly,ȱ theyȱ areȱ justȱ fun,ȱ goofy,ȱ seriouslyȱ unserious.ȱ Theȱ willingnessȱ toȱ changeȱ registerȱ redeemsȱ Nauman,ȱ keepsȱ himȱ fromȱsanctimoniousȱpietiesȱofȱpretentiousȱintellectualism.ȱ Modernismȱ mayȱ haveȱ hadȱ itsȱ indépendants,ȱ antiȬsalonistes,ȱ dadaȱ player’s,ȱ avantȬgardeȱ breakersȬofȬformȱ andȱ rejectersȬofȬ tradition,ȱ butȱ theȱ unapologeticȱandȱunframedȱappropriationȱ ofȱ 76ȱ

commercialȱ andȱ industrialȱ methods,ȱ images,ȱ andȱ languageȱ becameȱ theȱ signatureȱ gestureȱ ofȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ lateȱ modernism.ȱ Goneȱ wasȱ theȱ angst,ȱ theȱ romanticȱ yearningȱ forȱ theȱ sublime,ȱ replacedȱ byȱ aȱ wryȱ engagementȱ withȱ theȱ absurdlyȱ ridiculousȱ andȱ blatantlyȱ commercialȬindustrial.ȱ Inȱ aȱ word,ȱ “pop,”ȱ thatȱ playfulȱvernacularȱidiomaticȱsmartȬgameȱofȱartȱflirtedȱseriouslyȱ withȱitsȱonceȬterrifyingȱnemesis—massȱculture.ȱNaumanȱisȱnotȱ Picasso,ȱ takingȱ massȬmadeȱ materialsȱ intoȱ theȱ frameȱ ofȱ artȱ toȱ showȱ howȱ unshakableȱ wasȱ theȱ separationȱ ofȱ high/low,ȱ aȱ formalistȱinventor.ȱAndȱheȱisȱnotȱtheȱconceptualȱarchȬhumoristȱ Duchamp,ȱ naming,ȱ signing,ȱ gesturing,ȱ framingȱ exposingȱ theȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ artȱ makingȱ toȱ makeȱ agileȱ motionsȱ ofȱ interventionȱ andȱ détournementȱ avantȬlaȬlettreȱ inȱ hisȱ punningȱ gamesȱ andȱ twistsȱofȱphraseȱandȱreferenceȱframe.ȱȱ Nauman’sȱ popȬconceptualismȱ wentȱ wayȱ beyondȱ theseȱ modernȱ dalliancesȱ andȱ likeȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ greats—Warhol,ȱ Rosenquist,ȱ Lichtenstein,ȱ Oldenburg–launchedȱ aȱ fullȬscaleȱ allȬ outȱ liaisonȱ withȱ theȱ massȱ cultureȱ universe.ȱ Thisȱ wasn’tȱ aȱ oneȬ timeȱactȱofȱappropriationȱorȱaȱlimitedȱborrowingȱofȱstuffȱforȱtheȱ sakeȱofȱformalȱnoveltyȱ(cubism).ȱNorȱwasȱitȱanȱactȱofȱsuperiorityȱ accordingȱ toȱ oldȱ paradigmsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ cultureȱ industriesȱ wereȱheldȱinȱhighȱdisdain.ȱTheȱoppositionalȱattackȱvanishedȱ(orȱ wasȱbanished)ȱwithȱpop’sȱvibrantȱgames.ȱNaumanȱsignalsȱthatȱ changeȱ andȱ embodiesȱ it,ȱ withȱ hisȱ stillȱ shockingȱ butȱ noneȬtheȬ lessȱ darklyȱ amusingȱ Clownȱ Tortureȱ videos,ȱ hisȱ coylyȱ inaccessibleȱ undergroundȱ chambersȱ withȱ theirȱ camerasȱ reportingȱ onȱ theȱ nothingȱ thatȱ happens,ȱ andȱ otherȱ smartlyȱ innovativeȱ interventionsȱ inȱ theȱ normativeȱ modesȱ ofȱ artȱ andȱ mediaȱproduction.ȱȱ Hardlyȱ aȱ displayȱ ofȱ Frankfurtȱ Schoolȱ criticalȱ theory,ȱ Nauman’sȱaspirationsȱsitȱinȱtheȱlimboȱhingeȱzone,ȱrightȱonȱtheȱ edgeȱ betweenȱ olderȱ modesȱ midȬcenturyȱ highȬmodernȱ distanceȱ fromȱ allȱ mannerȱ ofȱ thingsȱ massȱ andȱ mediatedȱ andȱ theȱ comingȱ postȬmodernȱ enthusiasmȱ forȱ aȱ coolȱ andȱ distancedȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ materialsȱ ofȱ theȱ cultureȱ itȱ criticises.ȱ Naumanȱ justȱ knowsȱ thatȱ neonȱ looksȱ greatȱ whenȱ itȱ flashes,ȱ thatȱ itȱ catchesȱ theȱ eyeȱ andȱ 77ȱ

holdsȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ dynamicȱ onȬoffȱ displayȱ ofȱ vividȱ simpleȱ linesȱ arcingȱ acrossȱ darkȱ space.ȱ Hisȱ boyishȱ jokesȱ continuedȱ forȱ decades,ȱwithȱpokesȱinȱtheȱeyeȱandȱanȱinstantaneousȱerectionȱasȱ aȱ greeting.ȱ Theseȱ worksȱ haveȱ theȱ politicalȱ savvyȱ ofȱ aȱ barȱ jokeȱ (i.e.ȱnone)ȱcombinedȱwithȱaȱcapacityȱtoȱdisarm.ȱIt’sȱfunny,ȱafterȱ all,ȱ thatȱ abruptȱ signȱ ofȱ sillyȱ hostilityȱ orȱ virility,ȱ rightȱ there,ȱ bonk!ȱ inȱ yourȱ face,ȱ uncensored,ȱ unedited,ȱ kindȱ ofȱ dumbȱ andȱ greatȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.ȱ Butȱ somethingȱ elseȱ isȱ alsoȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ Nauman’sȱengagementȱwithȱlanguage,ȱaȱhintȱatȱtheȱbeginningsȱ ofȱaȱstoryȱreturningȱtoȱtheȱstage.ȱAȱtaleȱwaitsȱtoȱbeȱtoldȱand,ȱinȱ itsȱtelling,ȱwillȱreconnectȱtheseȱworksȱwithȱtheirȱsituationsȱandȱ circumstances.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ Naumanȱ usesȱ isn’tȱ thatȱ ofȱ highȱ conceptualism.ȱIt’sȱvernacular,ȱpopular,ȱandȱfunny.ȱȱ Naumanȱ wasȱ willingȱ toȱ beȱ flatfootedȱ andȱ dopeyȱ inȱ hisȱ literalismȱ(theȱphotographȱofȱtheȱwordȱbeingȱwaxedȱinȱ“Waxingȱ Hot”ȱorȱtheȱphotoȱofȱtheȱartistȱdevouringȱlettersȱinȱ“Eatingȱmyȱ words”)ȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ conceptualȱ artists’ȱ engagementȱ withȱ languageȱ wasȱ oftenȱ couchedȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ esotericallyȱ sophisticatedȱ philosophicalȱ terms.ȱ Bothȱ Kosuthȱ (aboveȱ mentioned)ȱ andȱ Melȱ Bochnerȱ madeȱ aȱ selfȬconsciousȱ displayȱ ofȱ theirȱ Wittgensteinianȱ credentials.ȱ Theȱ ideaȱ isȱ aȱ machineȱ thatȱ makesȱ art.ȱ Solȱ Lewitt’sȱ condensedȱ imageȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ productionȱbetraysȱitsȱlinksȱtoȱtheȱindustrialȱsystemȱthroughȱtheȱ specificȱimageȱofȱitsȱmetaphor.ȱTheȱideaȱofȱartȱasȱidea,ȱKosuth’sȱ version,ȱshiftedȱtheȱmaterialȱgroundȱoutȱfromȱunderȱtheȱwork.ȱ Thatȱ wasȱ theȱ crucialȱ sixtiesȱ move—ontoȱ theȱ conceptualȱ highȱ ground.ȱ Productionȱ valuesȱ can’tȱ compete.ȱ Artȱ isȱ nothingȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ massȱ materialȱ culture,ȱ itsȱ mediatedȱ frenziesȱ andȱ productionȱ capabilities,ȱ aȱ tinyȱ marginalȱ boutiqueȱ activityȱ thatȱ validatesȱcertainȱideologicalȱconceptsȱtheȱwayȱtheȱgoldȱstandardȱ worksȱ itsȱ efficacyȱ inȱ theȱ economicȱ systemsȱ ofȱ symbolicȱ exchange.ȱ Conceptualismȱ wasn’tȱ inventedȱ inȱ theȱ 1960s.ȱ Evenȱ beforeȱ Duchamp,ȱ theȱ symbolistȱ paintersȱ Odilonȱ Redonȱ andȱ GustaveȱMoreauȱwereȱpassionateȱartistsȱofȱideas,ȱasȱwasȱDanteȱ Gabrielȱ Rossettiȱ (asȱ Jeromeȱ McGannȱ isȱ neverȱ wearyȱ ofȱ remindingȱus).ȱIdeaȬbasedȱartȱgaveȱtheȱlieȱtoȱrealismȱinȱtheȱ19thȱ 78ȱ

centuryȱwhileȱengagingȱinȱelaborateȱvisualȱartifices.ȱIdeaȬbasedȱ artȱ attemptedȱ toȱ diminishȱ theȱ claimsȱ ofȱ visual,ȱ opticalȱ practiceȱ inȱ theȱ 1960s,ȱ byȱ swappingȱ inȱ languageȱ asȱ ifȱ itȱ hadȱ noȱ materialȱ presenceȱ orȱ character.ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ isȱ profound.ȱ 1960sȱ conceptualismȱisȱnotȱmonolithic.ȱIfȱKosuthȱfoundȱinȱlanguageȱaȱ nearȬimmaterialȱ(inȱhisȱmind)ȱwayȱtoȱmakeȱanȱartȱofȱideas,ȱthenȱ Naumanȱrechargedȱthatȱideaȱwithȱaȱvibrantȱmaterialityȱsoȱthatȱ hisȱlanguageȱpulsedȱandȱblinkedȱandȱassaultedȱitsȱviewersȱwithȱ aȱ constantȱ reminderȱ ofȱ theȱ mediatedȱ conditionȱ ofȱ allȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ form.ȱ Onceȱ thatȱ insistenceȱ comesȱ backȱ intoȱ theȱ pictureȱ (literally,ȱ asȱ theȱ wayȱ theseȱ objectsȱ areȱ made,ȱ metaphorically,ȱasȱintoȱtheȱframeȱofȱcriticalȱapprehension),ȱthenȱ theȱ historicalȱ andȱ culturalȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ productionȱ aren’tȱ farȱbehind.ȱȱ Theȱ languageȱ gamesȱ ofȱ conceptualismȱ wereȱ farȱ fromȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ politicalȱ battle.ȱ Theȱ Wallȱ ofȱ Resistance,ȱ aȱ strikingȱ counterȬwarȱprojectȱorganisedȱbyȱartistsȱprotestingȱtheȱVietnamȱ war,ȱwasȱoneȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱactionsȱthatȱshowedȱtheȱcracksȱinȱtheȱ beliefȱ systemȱ aboutȱ theȱ wayȱ abstractȱ andȱ esotericȱ workȱ couldȱ functionȱ inȱ anyȱ “political”ȱ sense.ȱ Doesȱ theȱ aestheticisationȱ ofȱ languageȬasȬimageȱ inȱ conceptualismȱ andȱ popȱ coincideȱ tooȱ convenientlyȱ withȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ publicȱ discourse?ȱ Narrativeȱ hadȱ longȱ beenȱ eliminatedȱ withinȱ theȱ modernȱ approachȱ toȱ visualityȱ andȱimageȱmaking,ȱandȱtheȱpassingȱofȱreferenceȱfromȱlanguageȱ isȱonlyȱaȱlaterȱphaseȱofȱthisȱattemptȱatȱaȱvisualityȱofȱ“plenitude”ȱ orȱ “fullȱ presence”ȱ asȱ weȱ wereȱ onceȱ wontȱ toȱ say.ȱ Thisȱ issueȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ willȱ recur,ȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ toȱ askȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ imageȱ making,ȱ fineȱ art,ȱ andȱ theȱ referenceȱ frameȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ “symbolic”ȱforms.ȱȱ Inȱtheȱdaysȱofȱ1960sȱPop,ȱitȱseemedȱlikeȱmassȱcultureȱwasȱaȱ greatȱ newȱ playgroundȱ ofȱ funȱ andȱ games.ȱ CounterȬcultureȱ saturatedȱ theȱ mainstreamȱ evenȱ asȱ advertising,ȱ television,ȱ printȱ magazineȱpublication,ȱhighȬendȱprintȱtechnology—allȱsaturatedȱ theȱlandscapeȱofȱdailyȱlifeȱwithȱanȱunprecedentedȱlevelȱofȱvisualȱ artefacts.ȱ Allȱ seductive,ȱ allȱ gorgeouslyȱ produced,ȱ theȱ slickȱ magazineȱ andȱ televisualȱ standardsȱ racedȱ pastȱ theȱ oldȱ 79ȱ

techniquesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ fineȱ artȱ likeȱ aȱ Fordȱ Mustangȱ passingȱ aȱ 1930sȱ Oldsmobile.ȱ Theȱ analogyȱ doesn’tȱ hold,ȱ exceptȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ thatȱ fineȱ artȱ wouldȱ needȱ toȱ struggleȱ afterȱ theȱ midȬ20thȱ centuryȱ withȱ newȱ problems.ȱ Howȱ toȱ defineȱ itsȱ superiorityȱ inȱ conceptualȱ terms,ȱ notȱ productionȱ termsȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ toȱ captureȱ sufficientȱ capitalȱ toȱ embody,ȱ inȱ sheerȱ materialȱ force,ȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ aȱ highlyȱ industriallyȱ producedȱ object.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ modernȱ industrialism,ȱ andȱ itsȱ accompanyingȱ capabilityȱ forȱ rapidȱ andȱ highȬvolumeȱimageȱproduction,ȱfineȱartȱhadȱcorneredȱaȱmarketȱ onȱ handȬmade,ȱ wellȬcrafted,ȱ uniqueȱ objects.ȱ Rarefiedȱ commodities,ȱ individuallyȱ traced,ȱ withȱ aȱ signatureȱ ofȱ theȱ artist’sȱbodyȬasȬhand.ȱȱ Fineȱartȱstillȱstrugglesȱtoȱbeȱandȱnotȱtoȱbeȱofȱtheȱmassȱculture,ȱ andȱ toȱ existȱ asȱ aȱ commodityȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ others,ȱ aȱ thingȱ distinctȱandȱyetȱamongȱtheȱideologies.ȱHow,ȱprecisely,ȱworksȱofȱ artȱcanȱembodyȱsuchȱcomplexȱnegotiationsȱisȱwhatȱmakesȱthemȱ continuallyȱ interesting.ȱ Howȱ canȱ theyȱ showȱ theȱ waysȱ ourȱ imageȬcultureȱworks?ȱ TheȱmakingȬstrangeȱandȱlayingȬbareȬtheȬdeviceȱfoundationsȱ ofȱ modernȱ criticalȱ artȱ seemedȱ toȱ offerȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ intervention.ȱ Theȱ defamiliarisingȱ exercisesȱ stillȱ work.ȱ Butȱ onlyȱ sometimes.ȱArtȱzonesȱoperateȱinȱtheirȱownȱselfȬdefiningȱrealms.ȱ Theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ engagementȱ areȱ structuredȱ andȱ defined,ȱ andȱ yetȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ rulesȱ isȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ alwaysȱ upȱ forȱ grabs.ȱ Nothingȱ canȱ tellȱ usȱ quiteȱ whatȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ know,ȱ exceptȱ thatȱ shockȱ doesn’tȱ doȱ it.ȱ Asȱ someoneȱ commented,ȱ fullyȱ wearyȱ withȱ theȱ ironyȱ ofȱ theȱ observation,ȱ inȱ theȱ 1910sȱ theȱ protoȬsurrealistȱ Jacquesȱ Vachéȱ couldȱ beȱ outrageousȱ byȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ greatestȱgestureȱofȱaestheticȱradicalismȱwasȱtoȱpullȱoutȱaȱgunȱinȱ aȱ crowdȱ andȱ startȱ shooting,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ 1990sȱ inȱAmerica,ȱ theseȱ actionsȱ hadȱ becomeȱ suchȱ patheticȱ banalitiesȱ thatȱ theyȱ onlyȱ showedȱhowȱfutileȱsuchȱaestheticȱinterventionȱhadȱbecome.ȱȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ 80ȱ

Disbelief,ȱ aȱ dailyȱ utterance,ȱ skimsȱ overȱ theȱ headsȱ ofȱ theȱ crowd.ȱ Consumableȱ idol,ȱ heroicȱ tale,ȱ promotesȱ theȱ loneȱ voiceȱ singingȱ inȱ theȱ manufacturedȱ wilderness.ȱ Americanȱ contractorsȱ conductȱ theirȱ businessȱ underȱ theȱ stage,ȱ theȱ apparatusȱ asȱ usualȱ utterlyȱ concealed.ȱ Modernismȱ askedȱ usȱ toȱ exposeȱ theȱ workings.ȱ Whenȱ thereȱ wereȱ workingsȱ thatȱ couldȱ beȱ exposed.ȱ Quantumȱ networks,ȱ unexplainedȱ influencesȱ atȱ aȱ distance,ȱ justȱ likeȱ theȱ dailyȱ wirelessȱ conversations.ȱ Whatȱcouldȱbeȱstranger?ȱCallingȱhomeȱatȱallȱhoursȱfromȱanywhereȱonȱ earth,ȱ orȱ aboveȱ it.ȱ Flyingȱ asȱ weȱ doȱ throughȱ anȱ Ethernetȱ sky.ȱ Beamȱ me—where?ȱ Noȱ oneȱ willȱ everȱ loveȱ youȱ like—sometimesȱ Iȱ feelȱ likeȱ aȱ nutȱ sometimes—Twoȱ daysȱ laterȱ theyȱ askedȱ themselvesȱ whyȱ theyȱ hadȱ letȱ theȱ Bloatȱ goȱ onȱ uninterrupted.ȱ Pinkȱ stripesȱ inȱ aȱ Lasȱ Vegasȱ nightȱ clubȱblackȱshirt,ȱfaceȱflushedȱwithȱexcess,ȱheȱstoodȱinȱfrontȱofȱthemȱandȱ suckedȱ theȱ airȱ fromȱ everyȱ cornerȱ ofȱ theȱ room,ȱ proposingȱ aȱ singleȱ categoryȱofȱcriticalȱengagement—transcendent,ȱahistorical,ȱuniversal,ȱ totalisingȱinȱitsȱmechanisticallyȱconceivedȱeconomicȱdeterminism:ȱTheȱ Commodity.ȱAndȱweȱwereȱtoȱdoȱwhatȱwithȱtheȱneoȬNaziȱinȱhisȱwhiteȱ shorts,ȱ armsȱ aboveȱ hisȱ head,ȱ underȱ arrest,ȱ swastikasȱ tattooedȱ onȱ theȱ maggotȬwhiteȱflesh?ȱ

ȱ Somethingȱ ugly,ȱ exploitativeȱ andȱ utterly,ȱ asȱ perȱ hisȱ title,ȱ superficialȱisȱevidentȱinȱHirschhorn’sȱwork.ȱTheȱobviousȱthingsȱ toȱ say—thatȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ transcendenceȱ isȱ belied,ȱ thatȱ theȱ availabilityȱofȱdocumentaryȱevidenceȱaboutȱtheȱwarȱbreaksȱtheȱ hygienicȱ liesȱ ofȱ mediaȱ reporting,ȱ thatȱ theȱ excessesȱ ofȱ stimulusȱ barrageȱ areȱ difficultȱ toȱ counterȱ withȱ anyȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ realȱ asȱ aȱ referent—canȱ andȱ haveȱ allȱ beenȱ said.ȱ Toȱ beȱ confrontedȱ withȱ somethingȱ thatȱ isn’tȱ justȱ product,ȱ butȱ thatȱ hasȱ aȱ hintȱ ofȱ ideaȬ aboutȬproduction,ȱ thatȱ stopsȱ us,ȱ givesȱ usȱ some,ȱ anyȱ kindȱ ofȱ pauseȱandȱreflection,ȱhasȱtoȱbeȱworthyȱofȱatȱleastȱattention.ȱ Butȱ allȱ imagesȱ comeȱ toȱ usȱ embeddedȱ andȱ entangled.ȱ Loopingȱ inȱ theȱ iterativeȱ streamsȱ ofȱ associationȱ andȱ reference.ȱ Modernism’sȱautonomyȱwasȱneverȱmuchȱmoreȱthanȱaȱrhetoricalȱ stance,ȱ aȱ momentaryȱ bracketingȱ outȱ ofȱ “other”ȱ mattersȱ soȱ thatȱ formȱ mightȱ haveȱ itsȱ classicalȱ sayȱ (Mondrian,ȱ Kandinsky,ȱ Twombly)ȱ orȱ romanticȱ expressionȱ (Pollock).ȱ Theȱ legacyȱ ofȱ visualityȱ asȱ selfȬevidenceȱ isȱ persistent,ȱ perniciouslyȱ so,ȱ evenȱ

81ȱ

afterȱ andȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ postmodern,ȱ postȬstructuralistȱ insistenceȱonȱcontingency.ȱ Hereȱweȱcomeȱbackȱtoȱtheȱcruxȱofȱourȱlegacy.ȱWhatȱdidȱtheȱ modernsȱ putȱ aside?ȱ Modernism’sȱ crux,ȱ fromȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ theȱ crucialȱbreakȱwithȱsalonȱandȱacademicȱtraditions,ȱwasȱtoȱrenderȱ narrativeȱ andȱ storyȱ unwelcomeȱ asȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ visualȱ art.ȱ Theȱ brandingȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ asȱ kitsch,ȱ ofȱ vignettesȱ andȱ sentimentalȱ talesȱ asȱ beneathȱ consideration,ȱ theȱ disdainȱ andȱ scornȱ forȱ O.ȱ Rijlander’sȱ Fadingȱ Away,ȱ thatȱ extremelyȱ popularȱ multipleȬ negativeȱ manipulatedȱ photographȱ ofȱ aȱ dearȱ oneȱ dyingȱ youngȱ surroundedȱbyȱfamilyȱmembersȱofȱmiscellaneousȱgenerationsȱ(aȱ demographicȱ studyȱ worthyȱ ofȱ theȱ bestȱ focusȱ groupȱ marketingȱ team),ȱ theȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ Rossettiȱ andȱ theȱ preȬRaphaelites,ȱ theȱ bracketingȬoutȱofȱMorrisȱandȱMoreau–ȱallȱbecauseȱtheȱpictorialȱ wasȱtoȱgainȱitsȱidentityȱthroughȱrejectionȱofȱliteraryȱreferences.ȱ Byȱ claimingȱ selfȬsufficiencyȱ throughȱ fullȱ presence,ȱ withoutȱ recourseȱ toȱ theȱ alludedȬtoȱ andȱ referencingȱ narratives,ȱ imagesȱ floatedȱ freeȱ ofȱ theȱ classȬbasedȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ productionȱ theyȱ supported,ȱ theȱ mythsȱ ofȱ unȬalienatedȱ labour,ȱ rarefiedȱ talent,ȱ andȱ individualȱ talentȱ gotȱ embodiedȱ mostȱ particularlyȱ inȱ theȱ practicesȱofȱabstractionȱandȱconceptualism.ȱ Hirschhornȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ tryingȱ toȱ counterȱ this.ȱ Heȱ clearlyȱ wantsȱ toȱ insistȱ onȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ aȱ circulationȱ ofȱ imagesȱ withoutȱ accountability.ȱ Theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ contingency,ȱ promotedȱ withȱ theȱ postȬmodernȱ criticalȱ domainȱ asȱ anȱ antidoteȱ toȱ modernism’sȱ onceȬproudȱ andȱ onceȬunchallengeableȱ conceptȱ ofȱ autonomy,ȱ wasȱ aȱ moveȱ towardsȱ theȱ recontextualisationȱ ofȱ imagesȱ withinȱ historicalȱ andȱ currentȱ systemsȱ ofȱ meaningȱ production.ȱ Inȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ frameȱ weȱ addȱ theȱ cognitive,ȱ constructed,ȱ andȱ constitutiveȱ approachesȱ toȱ perceptionȱ asȱ physiological,ȱ embeddedȱ andȱ embodied.ȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ viscerallyȱrepellingȱimagesȱremindȱusȱthatȱanȱimageȱisȱinȱfactȱofȱ something,ȱ inȱ theȱ fleshȱ andȱ real,ȱ aȱ factȱ weȱ areȱ allȱ tooȱ liableȱ toȱ forget.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ identify,ȱ andȱ weȱ do,ȱ withȱ circumstancesȱ ofȱ meaningȱproduction,ȱwithȱimagesȱasȱextensionsȱandȱprojectionsȱ ofȱselfȱintoȱreferentȱandȱback,ȱwithȱtheȱphysicalityȱofȱperceptualȱ 82ȱ

framesȱ andȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ understandȱ whatȱ Markȱ Hansenȱ hasȱ rescuedȱ fromȱ Bergsonȱ asȱ “affection”ȱ –allȱ thatȱ attendsȱ toȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ seeingȱ asȱ itȱ resonatesȱ throughȱ embodiedȱ perception—then—Hirschhorn’sȱ workȱ isȱ germane.ȱ Theȱ argumentȱitȱmightȱbeȱmakingȱisȱforȱrecognitionȱofȱembodiment,ȱ aȱrefamiliarisationȱratherȱthanȱaȱdeȬfamiliarising.ȱȱ Neonȱ signs.ȱ Neonȱ sigh.ȱ Theȱ exhaustionȱ factorȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱartȱisȱbalancedȱbyȱitsȱvitality,ȱbutȱinȱthatȱperiodȱofȱ lateȱ 1960s,ȱ earlyȱ 1970s,ȱ somethingȱ ratherȱ profoundȱ occurred.ȱ Underȱ theȱ generalȱ rubricȱ ofȱ conceptualismȱ theȱ groundsȱ ofȱ artȱ makingȱ shiftedȱ fromȱ productionȱ valuesȱ toȱ ideas.ȱ Butȱ onȱ aȱ sociologicalȱlevel,ȱotherȱchangesȱwereȱinstitutionalised.ȱLookȱatȱ Nauman.ȱ He’sȱ notȱ topplingȱ iconsȱ inȱ theȱ publicȱ square,ȱ he’sȱ playingȱinȱhisȱroom.ȱCallȱitȱsuburbanisation.ȱHeȱwasȱaȱboomerȱ kid,ȱ anȱ artȱ schoolȱ trainedȱ andȱ MFAȬtypeȱ artist,ȱ aȱ newȱ phenomenonȱofȱtheȱpostȬwarȱera,ȱlicensedȱandȱnormalisedȱintoȱ theȱ artȱ systemȱ ofȱ shows,ȱ galleries,ȱ museumȱ retrospectivesȱ andȱ coffeeȬtableȱ monographs.ȱ Thatȱ systemȱ wasȱ allȱ inventedȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ decadesȱ ofȱ theȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ andȱ thenȱ naturalisedȱ toȱ seemȱ likeȱ itȱ hadȱ alwaysȱ been.ȱ Withinȱ itsȱ frames,ȱ mythicȱ rhetoricȱ prevails.ȱ Theȱ publicityȱ apparatusȱ reliesȱ onȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ resistance,ȱ transgression,ȱ andȱ critique,ȱ theȱ familiarȱ shibbolethsȱ ofȱacademicȱthought.ȱȱ Notȱ coincidentally,ȱ butȱ importantly,ȱ theȱ periodȱ atȱ whichȱ conceptualismȱ insistsȱ thatȱ languageȱ isȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ dematerialisationȱ ofȱ artȱ intoȱ ideaȱ (it’sȱ not),ȱ otherȱ importantȱ shiftsȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ publicȱ discourseȱ works,ȱ isȱ mediated,ȱ andȱ operatesȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ cultureȱ areȱ takingȱ place.ȱ Publicȱ discourseȱhasȱceasedȱtoȱhaveȱanyȱreferentȱinȱtheȱreal.ȱWhatȱdoesȱ thatȱ meanȱ forȱ thoseȱ ofȱ usȱ whoȱ believeȱ inȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ theȱ symbolic?ȱ Theȱ efficacyȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ representationȱ areȱ instrumentsȱ ofȱ belief,ȱ notȱ mereȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ it.ȱ Cultureȱ inversion,ȱtooȱmuchȱheatȱgeneratedȱoffȱtheȱstreet,ȱrisingȱonlyȱtoȱ beȱtrappedȱinȱanȱupperȱatmosphere.ȱHypocriticalȱcollapse.ȱȱ Somewhereȱ betweenȱ Nauman’sȱ neonȱ andȱ Hirschhorn’sȱ excessesȱtheȱfateȱofȱartȱinȱtheȱcurrentȱeraȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱreȬ 83ȱ

routedȱ throughȱ aȱ dystopicȱ server.ȱ Theȱ deformanceȱ enginesȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ lifeȱ wreakȱ havocȱ onȱ theȱ finerȱ sensibilities.ȱ Aestheticȱsensationsȱexplode.ȱShatterȱeffectȱmightȱbeȱtheȱimageȬ equivalentȱofȱaȱdirtyȬbomb,ȱexceptȱthatȱdrawingȱsuchȱanalogiesȱ participatesȱ inȱ aȱ similarlyȱ (repulsive,ȱ toȱ myȱ mind)ȱ gratuitousȱ superficialityȱ asȱ otherȱ exploitativeȱ sensationalisms.ȱ Bloodyȱ crimeȱ sceneȱ photosȱ ofȱ theȱ victimsȱ ofȱ explosions.ȱ Handsȱ blownȱ off.ȱFeetȱshattered.ȱBodiesȱmangled.ȱAllȱonȱdisplay.ȱWhereȱdoesȱ heȱgetȱthem?ȱDoesn’tȱtakeȱthemȱhimself.ȱTheȱendlessȱcirculationȱ ofȱ allȱ stuff,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ internetȱ life,ȱ thatȱ streamingȱ zone,ȱ dipȱ inȱ andȱ helpȱ yourself.ȱ Theȱ displayȱ exoticisesȱ throughȱ decontextualisation.ȱWeȱneedȱtoȱrefamiliariseȱourselvesȱwithȱtheȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ theirȱ production.ȱ Notȱ justȱ seeȱ theseȱ images,ȱ butȱ knowȱhowȱandȱwhyȱtheyȱcomeȱintoȱbeing.ȱConfrontȱourȱcurrentȱ impotenceȱ withȱ aȱ modestȱ attemptȱ atȱ competence,ȱ notȱ shockȱ effect,ȱ butȱ aȱ slower,ȱ moreȱ deliberateȱ readingȱ ofȱ ourȱ ownȱ complicityȱwithȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheseȱimages.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱdawnȱchorusȱwentȱwild,ȱbirdsȱshowingȱoffȱeverywhere,ȱwhileȱtheȱ cablesȱ ranȱ fastȱ underȱ theȱ suburbanȱ ground,ȱ lightingȱ theȱ wayȱ withȱ theirȱ hotȱ linesȱ ofȱ feed.ȱ Weȱ layȱ onȱ theȱ couchȱ inȱ theȱ afternoonȱ andȱ wonderedȱ howȱ theȱ seasonȱ hadȱ advancedȱ soȱ farȱ soȱ fast.ȱ Nothingȱ ventured,ȱnothingȱlost.ȱTheȱidesȱofȱthisȱmonthȱregisterȱasȱtaxationȱinȱ theȱ next,ȱ lostȱ days,ȱ unproductiveȱ andȱ untouchable.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ marchȱ forȱ impeachment,ȱlosingȱsiteȱofȱourȱcreditȱratings,ȱtheȱsunȱwillȱsetȱjustȱtheȱ same.ȱ Boldnessȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ safety—youȱ bet!ȱ Theȱ terrorȱ industriesȱ prevail,ȱ alwaysȱ outstrippingȱ theirȱ mark.ȱ Someȱ marketsȱ seemȱ inexhaustible,ȱ weightedȱ andȱ freightedȱ withȱ infernalȱ return.ȱ Biteȱ theȱ handȱthatȱfeedsȱyou,ȱhard.ȱImmunityȱcommunities,ȱaȱbondȱwithinȱandȱ withoutȱ theȱ flesh,ȱ renewȱ theirȱ promisesȱ nightlyȱ inȱ theȱ recyclingȱ systemsȱofȱbelief.ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ

84ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

BonitaȱRhoadsȱandȱVadimȱErentȱ ȱ

AnȱAesthete’sȱLostȱWar:ȱLyotardȱandȱ theȱUnȬSublimeȱArtȱofȱNewȱEuropeȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ criticalȱ commonplaceȱ toȱ observeȱ that,ȱ followingȱ theȱ processionȱ ofȱ oneȱ ascendantȱ modernistȱ artȱ movementȱ afterȱ another,ȱ todayȱ theȱ clutteredȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ artisticȱ productionȱ institutesȱ noȱ singleȱ prevailingȱ orientation.ȱ Incorporatingȱ bioȬ techȱ experimentsȱ inȱ geneticȱ manipulationȱ (Criticalȱ Artȱ Ensemble)ȱasȱreadilyȱasȱancientȱChineseȱtraditionsȱofȱfireȬworkȱ displayȱ (Caiȱ GuoȬQiang),ȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ environmentȱ assimilatesȱ figurativeȱ andȱ abstractȱ paintingȱ rightȱ alongȱ withȱ computerȱ programming,ȱ encompassesȱ daguerreotypyȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ mobilographyȱ (cellȱ phoneȱ photography).ȱ What’sȱ identifiedȱ thenȱasȱtheȱformalȱandȱconceptualȱrepertoireȱofȱpostmodernȱartȱ isȱ moreȱ trulyȱ aȱ restiveȱ aggregation,ȱ ramifiedȱ withȱ contendingȱ styles,ȱtechniques,ȱdevices.ȱWhat’sȱmore,ȱatȱnoȱpointȱinȱhistoryȱ haveȱ soȱ manyȱ resourcesȱ beenȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ art:ȱ museums,ȱ galleries,ȱ curators,ȱ collectors,ȱ journals,ȱ artȱ departmentsȱ andȱ artȱ professors.ȱ Never,ȱ accordingly,ȱ haveȱ soȱ manyȱartistsȱbeenȱgeneratingȱthisȱmuchȱartȱtoȱsatisfyȱsoȱavidȱaȱ demand.ȱClearly,ȱthat’sȱallȱgoodȱnewsȱforȱthoseȱpublishingȱtheȱ artȱ booksȱ andȱ sittingȱ onȱ theȱ museumȱ boards.ȱ Theȱ boisterousȱ heterogeneityȱ ofȱ creativeȱ postmodernistȱ output,ȱ asȱ someȱ chroniclersȱ proclaim,ȱ mayȱ evenȱ beȱ aȱ fineȱ thingȱ forȱ theȱ public.ȱ Yetȱthere’sȱplentyȱofȱbadȱnewsȱtoȱreport,ȱifȱweȱheedȱtheȱequallyȱ vociferousȱ reproachȱ ofȱ experts,ȱ primarilyȱ thoseȱ pointingȱ atȱ theȱ 85ȱ

subsumptionȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ sprawlingȱ conglomerateȱ ofȱ artȱ productionȱandȱconsumptionȱwithinȱtheȱpostȬindustrialȱcultureȱ complex.ȱ Postmodernȱ art,ȱ asȱ theȱ customaryȱ paradoxȱ goes,ȱ hasȱ shoutedȱ downȱ theȱ masterȬnarrativesȱ ofȱ modernismȱ withȱ itsȱ unprecedentedȱ diversityȱ ofȱ voicesȱ onlyȱ toȱ getȱ muffledȱ inȱ corporateȱdomination.ȱ Thisȱ Frankfortȱ SchoolȬvarietyȱ ofȱ denunciationȱ isȱ certainlyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ vigorousȱ indictmentȱ againstȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ levelledȱ byȱ oneȱ ofȱ postmodernism’sȱ mostȱ influentialȱ theorists.ȱ JeanȬFrancoisȱLyotard’sȱunfavourableȱestimationȱofȱpostmodernȱ artȱ practicesȱ appears,ȱ atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ irreconcilableȱ withȱ hisȱ affirmativeȱ appraisalȱ ofȱ theȱ postmodernȱ conditionȱ ofȱ incredulity.ȱ Asȱ Lyotardȱ hasȱ famouslyȱ diagnosedȱ it,ȱ theȱ contemporaryȱlossȱofȱfaithȱinȱ“aȱdiscourseȱcalledȱphilosophy”ȱisȱ anȱ instanceȱ ofȱ ‘goodȱ riddance.’ȱ Withȱ ourȱ formerȱ confidenceȱ inȱ theȱvisionaryȱprinciplesȱofȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱnowȱinȱcrisis,ȱtheȱ Frenchȱphilosopherȱjudgesȱthatȱweȱhaveȱrightlyȱdispensedȱwithȱ ourȱ affiliatedȱ anticipationsȱ ofȱ universalȱ peace,ȱ fellowshipȱ andȱ socialȱ justice.ȱ Fredricȱ Jamesonȱ sumsȱ upȱ Lyotard’sȱ schematisationȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ scepticismȱ asȱ aȱ collectiveȱ resignationȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthat,ȱȱ ȱ theȱolderȱmasterȬnarrativesȱofȱlegitimationȱnoȱlongerȱfunctionȱinȱ theȱserviceȱofȱscientificȱresearch—nor,ȱbyȱimplication,ȱanywhereȱ elseȱ (e.g.,ȱ weȱ noȱ longerȱ believeȱ inȱ politicalȱ orȱ historicalȱ teleologies,ȱorȱinȱtheȱgreatȱ“actors”ȱandȱ“subjects”ȱofȱhistory— theȱnationȬstate,ȱtheȱproletariat,ȱtheȱparty,ȱtheȱWest,ȱetc.).1ȱȱ

ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ noȱ longerȱ bankȱ onȱ theologyȱ orȱ metaphysics,ȱ dialecticalȱ materialismȱ orȱ theȱ wealthȱ ofȱ nations,ȱ we’reȱirreverentȱtowardsȱtranscendentalȱsignifiedsȱandȱironicȱinȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ transcendentalȱ signifiers.ȱ Weȱ perpetuallyȱ acknowledgeȱtheȱcontradictionsȱofȱmultinationalȱcapitalismȱbutȱ

ȱ 1ȱȱ FredricȱJameson,ȱForewordȱtoȱJeanȬFrançoisȱLyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition:ȱ Aȱ Reportȱ onȱ Knowledge,ȱ trans.ȱ Geoffȱ Benningtonȱ andȱ Brianȱ Massumiȱ (Minneapolis:ȱUniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1991)ȱxii.ȱ

86ȱ

weȱnoȱlongerȱexpectȱtheȱtensionȱofȱtheseȱcontradictionsȱtoȱsparkȱ theȱ fireȱ ofȱ salvation.ȱ Notȱ havingȱ achievedȱ theȱ liberationȱ promisedȱ byȱ theȱ forwardȱ marchȱ ofȱ instrumentalȱ reason,ȱ weȱ insteadȱhaveȱliberatedȱourselvesȱfromȱtheȱdelusionȱofȱliberationȱ itself.ȱ And,ȱ forȱ Lyotard,ȱ thisȱ postmodernȱ caginessȱ towardsȱ grandȬnarrativesȱ andȱ theirȱ subsequentȱ deȬlegitimisationȱ isȱ soȱ positiveȱ aȱ developmentȱ thatȱ heȱ canȱ proclaim:ȱ “Postmodernȱ knowledgeȱisȱnotȱsimplyȱaȱtoolȱofȱtheȱauthorities;ȱitȱrefinesȱourȱ sensitivityȱ toȱ differencesȱ andȱ reinforcesȱ ourȱ abilityȱ toȱ tolerateȱ theȱincommensurable.”2ȱȱ Yet,ȱ Lyotard,ȱ announcingȱ theȱ finalȱ demystificationȱ ofȱ legitimisingȱ mythsȱ inȱ theȱ postmodernȱ present,ȱ mightȱ beȱ premature.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ equallyȱ canonicalȱ yetȱ contrarianȱ viewȱ ofȱ ourȱ discouragementȱ underȱ lateȱ capitalism,ȱ Fredericȱ Jamesonȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ moreȱ accurateȱ “toȱ posit,ȱ notȱ theȱ disappearanceȱofȱtheȱgreatȱmasterȬnarratives,ȱbutȱtheirȱpassageȱ undergroundȱ asȱ itȱ were,”ȱ aȱ subterraneanȱ strataȱ inȱ theȱ cultureȱ fromȱwhichȱtheseȱ“buriedȱmasterȬnarratives”ȱpersistȱinȱexertingȱ anȱ “unconsciousȱ effectivity”ȱ onȱ ourȱ contemporaryȱ thinkingȱandȱ being.3ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ possibleȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ thisȱ subterraneanȱ passage,ȱthisȱrepressionȱofȱtheȱmetaȬnarrativeȱdrive,ȱcomesȱbackȱ onȱtheȱotherȱsideȱofȱpsychoȬsocialȱorganisationȱasȱtheȱreturnȱofȱ theȱrepressedȱinȱotherȱareasȱofȱcollectiveȱactivity.ȱOneȱimportantȱ caseȱ toȱ considerȱ inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ weȱ believe,ȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ chiefȱ partisanȱ ofȱ scepticismȱ himself.ȱ Theȱ repressedȱ seemsȱ toȱ reanimateȱ forȱ Lyotardȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ aestheticsȱ and,ȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ inȱ theȱ guiseȱ ofȱ highȱ modernism.ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ isȱ ourȱ argumentȱ that,ȱ inȱ Lyotard’sȱ analysisȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ culture,ȱ theȱ modernistȱ painter’sȱ graspȱ atȱ sublimityȱ perverselyȱ becomesȱ inȱ itselfȱ aȱ keyȱ legitimisingȱ scenario.ȱ Asȱ Lyotardȱ writes:ȱ “Theȱ sublimeȱ isȱ perhapsȱ theȱ onlyȱ modeȱ ofȱ artisticȱ sensibilityȱ toȱ

ȱ 2ȱȱ Jameson,ȱForewordȱtoȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱxxv.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Jameson,ȱForewordȱtoȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱxii.ȱ

87ȱ

characteriseȱtheȱmodern.”4ȱThatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱtheȱsublimeȱbecomesȱ theȱtranscendentalȱaspirationȱofȱaȱcontinuousȱnegativeȱdialecticsȱ inȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Westernȱ artȱ whoseȱ “fundamentalȱ task,”ȱ asȱ Lyotardȱ willȱ evangeliseȱ it,ȱ isȱ “thatȱ ofȱ bearingȱ pictorialȱ orȱ otherwiseȱ expressiveȱ witnessȱ toȱ theȱ inexpressible.”5ȱ Ironicallyȱ then,ȱ Lyotard’sȱ campaignȱ againstȱ theȱ grandȬnarrative’sȱ constitutionalȱ demagogyȱ willȱ ultimatelyȱ resultȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ articulationȱofȱaȱmasterȬnarrativeȱbyȱotherȱmeans.ȱButȱlet’sȱbackȱ upȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱturnsȱofȱLyotard’sȱreasoningȱmoreȱnarrowly.ȱ Plottingȱ postmodernistȱ productionȱ asȱ aȱ disappointingȱ instalmentȱinȱtheȱtrajectoryȱofȱmodernȱartȱhistory,ȱLyotardȱquiteȱ unabashedlyȱ favoursȱ whatȱ heȱ seesȱ asȱ theȱ rigorousȱ modernistȱ partitionȱ upholdingȱ whatȱ Peterȱ Bürgerȱ callsȱ theȱ “autonomyȱ ofȱ art”ȱ fromȱ theȱ “praxisȱ ofȱ life.”ȱ Ofȱ postmodernȱ artȱ andȱ itsȱ proclivities,ȱheȱproclaims:ȱ“Thisȱisȱaȱperiodȱofȱslackening.”6ȱAndȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ article,ȱ “Answeringȱ theȱ Question:ȱ Whatȱ isȱ Postmodernism?,”ȱ Lyotardȱ bluntlyȱ advocatesȱ theȱ escalatingȱ brinkmanshipȱ ofȱ modernistȱ subtractionȱ whichȱ propelledȱ bourgeoisȱ artȱ fromȱ aestheticismȱ toȱ impressionismȱ toȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ viaȱ theȱ avantȬgardes.ȱ It’sȱ aȱ familiarȱ chainȱ ofȱ events—Cezanneȱ flattensȱ theȱ impressionists,ȱ Picassoȱ andȱ Braqueȱ attackȱ Cezanne,ȱ Malevichȱ disposesȱ ofȱ figuration,ȱ Duchampȱ breaksȱ withȱ painting,ȱ etc.7ȱ Extendingȱ thisȱ conventionalȱ sequenceȱ ofȱ artȱ historicȱ accretionȬbyȬattrition,ȱ Lyotardȱ thenȱ callsȱ onȱ theȱ postmodernȱ visualȱ artsȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ positionȱ asȱ theȱ subsequentȱ instalmentȱ inȱ theȱ seriesȱ ofȱ consecutiveȱinsightsȱwhich,ȱheȱcontends,ȱhasȱbeenȱprogressivelyȱ maimingȱ theȱ masterȬnarrativesȱ ofȱ Westernȱ painting.ȱ Itȱ shouldȱ thereforeȱ beȱ clearȱ thatȱ whileȱ Lyotardȱ championsȱ theȱ “postmodernȱ condition”ȱ ofȱ apprehensivenessȱ towardsȱ

ȱ 4ȱȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Lyotard,ȱ Theȱ Inhuman:ȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ Time,ȱ trans.ȱ Geoffreyȱ BenningtonȱandȱRachelȱBowlbyȱ(Stanford,ȱCalifornia:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 1991)ȱ93.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ93.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ71.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ79.ȱ

88ȱ

knowledge,ȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ cultureȱ heȱ isȱ noȱ unconditionalȱ enthusiastȱ ofȱ theȱ merelyȱ postmodern.ȱ Artȱ practicesȱ whichȱ abandonȱ modernistȱ principlesȱ leaveȱ Lyotardȱ deeplyȱ troubled.ȱ Whetherȱ suchȱ counterȬmodernistȱ tendenciesȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ areȱ advancedȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ postmodernismȱ orȱ againstȱ it,ȱ theseȱ areȱ toȱ Lyotardȱ equallyȱ seenȱ asȱ reactionaryȱ attemptsȱ toȱ reverseȱ theȱ legitimateȱ enterpriseȱ ofȱ advancedȱ artȱ production,ȱ namelyȱ thatȱ theȱ soleȱ contentȱ ofȱ artȱ oughtȱ toȱ beȱ artȱ itself,ȱ orȱ ratherȱ“theȱtaskȱofȱartȱremainsȱthatȱofȱtheȱimmanentȱsublime.”8ȱȱ Itȱfollowsȱthatȱpostmodernismȱinȱart,ȱforȱLyotard,ȱisȱviewedȱ asȱ“undoubtedlyȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱmodern”ȱandȱmustȱtherefore,ȱasȱ heȱ specifiesȱ itȱ inȱ evenȱ moreȱ emphaticȱ terms,ȱ indicateȱ “notȱ modernismȱatȱ itsȱ endȱ butȱinȱ theȱ nascentȱ state,ȱ andȱ thisȱ stateȱ isȱ constant.”9ȱ Carriedȱ toȱ itsȱ conclusion,ȱ theȱ perpetualȱ modernismȱ thatȱ Lyotardȱ summonsȱ hereȱ isȱ furtherȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ project:ȱ “Toȱ makeȱ visibleȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ somethingȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ conceivedȱandȱwhichȱcanȱneitherȱbeȱseenȱnorȱmadeȱvisible:ȱthisȱ isȱ whatȱ isȱ atȱ stakeȱ inȱ modernȱ painting.”10ȱ Itȱ isȱ thusȱ inȱ inescapablyȱ grandȬnarrativeȱ termsȱ thatȱ Lyotardȱ identifiesȱ theȱ sublimeȱ asȱ theȱ supremeȱ antiȬnarrativeȱ criterionȱ forȱ painting,ȱ invokingȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ Kantianȱ sublimeȱ andȱ itsȱ inferentialȱ manifestationȱ inȱ “formlessness,ȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ form”ȱ butȱ alsoȱ withinȱ theȱ scripturalȱ commandmentȱ (“Thoughȱ shaltȱ notȱ makeȱ gravenȱ images”)ȱ sinceȱ thisȱ isȱ Kant’sȱ exampleȱ ofȱ “theȱ mostȱ sublimeȱpassageȱinȱtheȱBibleȱinȱthatȱitȱforbidsȱallȱpresentationȱofȱ theȱ Absolute.”11ȱ Oneȱ canȱ hardlyȱ imagineȱ moreȱ transcendentalȱ preceptsȱerectedȱtoȱguideȱtheȱproperȱexȱminimisȱprogressionȬbyȬ privationȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱmodernȱart.ȱSoȱlongȱasȱpaintingȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ sublime,ȱ writesȱ Lyotard,ȱ itȱ “willȱ thereforeȱ avoidȱ figurationȱ orȱ representation,”ȱ and,ȱ notȱ hesitatingȱ toȱ indicateȱ evenȱ theȱ mostȱ extremeȱ teleologyȱ forȱ artisticȱ production,ȱ heȱ

ȱ 8ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ128.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ79.ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ78.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ78.ȱ

89ȱ

continues:ȱ “Itȱ willȱ beȱ ‘white’ȱ likeȱ oneȱ ofȱ Malevich’sȱ squares.”12ȱ Lyotard’sȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ Kantianȱ invocationȱ ofȱ theȱ Mosaicȱ prohibitionȱ andȱ toȱ Malevich’sȱ sacredȱ squaresȱ (whichȱ wereȱ exhibitedȱ hungȱ iconȬlike,ȱ “vȱ krasnomȱ uglu”—atȱ theȱ “beautifulȱ corner”ȱ ofȱ aȱ room),ȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ enthusiasmȱ forȱ Barnettȱ Newman’sȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ sublimeȱ inȱ suchȱ workȱ asȱ StationsȱofȱtheȱCross,ȱallȱadditionallyȱpointȱtoȱhisȱpredilectionȱforȱ aȱ theologicallyȬinflectedȱ artȱ ofȱ exactlyȱ theȱ kindȱ explicitlyȱ rejectedȱbyȱtheȱavantȬgardes—whatȱtheȱfuturistsȱheckledȱasȱ“theȱ Solemn,ȱ theȱ Sacred,ȱ theȱ Serious,ȱ theȱ Sublimeȱ ofȱ Artȱ withȱ aȱ capitalȱA.”13ȱȱ Nevertheless,ȱ itȱ isȱ byȱ employingȱ theȱ genericȱ avantȬ gardistȱthrustȱofȱtheȱmanifestoȱandȱitsȱmilitaristicȱ(heroic)ȱidiomȱ thatȱ Lyotardȱ agitatesȱ againstȱ thatȱ strainȱ ofȱ postmodernȱ artȱ whichȱwouldȱtoppleȱtheȱmodernistȱsublime.ȱ“Letȱusȱwageȱaȱwarȱ onȱ totality,”ȱ heȱ writes,ȱ “letȱ usȱ beȱ witnessesȱ toȱ theȱ unpresentable.”14ȱ Theseȱ areȱ fightingȱ words,ȱ notȱ toȱ mentionȱ they’reȱ alsoȱ theȱ concludingȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Theȱ Postmodernȱ Condition,ȱ soȱ theȱ stakesȱ areȱ obviouslyȱ high;ȱ theȱ antiȬtotalitarianȱ courseȱ ofȱ cultureȱitself,ȱmanifestedȱinȱtheȱ“unpresentable”ȱofȱsublimity,ȱisȱ onȱ theȱ line.ȱ Lyotardȱ revisitsȱ theseȱ stakesȱ inȱ “Representation,ȱ Presentation,ȱ Unpresentable,”ȱ collectedȱ inȱ Theȱ Inhuman.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ threatȱ unleashedȱ byȱ postmodernȱ artȱ productionȱ isȱ furtherȱ definedȱ asȱ “aȱ looseningȱ ofȱ theȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ paintingȱ andȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ painting,ȱ whereasȱ thisȱ tensionȱ hasȱ persistentlyȱ motivatedȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ admirableȱ centuriesȱ ofȱ Westernȱ painting.”15ȱ Itȱ isȱ thisȱ ‘loosening,’ȱ thisȱ ‘slackening’ȱ whichȱ Lyotardȱ claimsȱ leadsȱ toȱ “deresponsibilisingȱ theȱ artistsȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ unpresentable.”16ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱLyotard’sȱimperishableȱmodernismȱisȱoneȱwhere:ȱ“Theȱ

ȱ12ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ78.ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ Filippoȱ Tommasoȱ Marinetti,ȱ citedȱ inȱ Carolineȱ Tisdallȱ andȱ Angeloȱ Bozzolla,ȱ Futurismȱ(NewȱYork:ȱThamesȱandȱHudson,ȱ1996)ȱ101.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ82.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ127Ȭ8.ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ127.ȱ

90ȱ

postmodernȱwouldȱbeȱthatȱwhich,ȱinȱtheȱmodern,ȱputsȱforwardȱ theȱ unpresentableȱ inȱ presentationȱ itself.”17ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ Lyotardȱ promotesȱ aȱ revolvingȱ aestheticȱ revolutionȱ withȱ theȱ notionȱofȱtheȱsublimeȱatȱitsȱcoreȱandȱvariousȱartȱpracticesȱasȱsoȱ manyȱ orbitingȱ aestheticȱ manifestationsȱ representingȱ theȱ unrepresentableȱinȱendlesslyȱoriginalȱ“newȱpresentations,ȱnotȱinȱ orderȱ toȱ enjoyȱ themȱ butȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ impartȱ aȱ strongerȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ unpresentable.”18ȱ Otherwise,ȱ Lyotardȱ forcefullyȱ cautions,ȱ postmodernȱartȱproductionȱ“bringsȱwithȱitȱtheȱcorruptionȱofȱtheȱ honourȱ ofȱ painting,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ remainedȱ intactȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theȱ worstȱ demandsȱ ofȱ Statesȱ (makeȱ itȱ cultural!)ȱ andȱ theȱ marketȱ (makeȱmoney!).”19ȱȱ Ifȱ theȱ honourȱ ofȱ paintingȱ presumablyȱ survivedȱ theȱ catastrophesȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ intact,ȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ smallȱ imputationȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ underȱ theȱ threatȱ ofȱ annihilationȱ today.ȱ Butȱ Lyotardȱ detectsȱ justȱ suchȱ aȱ dangerȱ inȱ theȱeclecticismȱofȱpostmodernȱartȱproduction,ȱitsȱreactivationȱofȱ theȱ figurative,ȱ itsȱ lackȱ ofȱ squeamishnessȱ inȱ theȱ encounterȱ withȱ popularȱculture.ȱHeȱwrites:ȱ ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ “transȬavantȬgardism”ȱ ofȱ Bonitoȱ Olivaȱ andȱ theȱ similarȱ currentsȱ oneȱ canȱ observeȱ inȱ theȱ USAȱ andȱ Germanyȱ (includingȱJencks’sȱ“postmodernism”ȱinȱarchitecture,ȱwhichȱtheȱ readerȱwillȱdoȱmeȱtheȱfavourȱofȱnotȱconfusingȱwithȱwhatȱIȱhaveȱ calledȱ “theȱ postmodernȱ condition”),ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ thatȱ behindȱ theȱ pretextȱofȱpickingȱupȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱavantȬgardes,ȱthisȱisȱaȱ pretextȱ forȱ squanderingȱ it.ȱ Thisȱ inheritanceȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ transmittedȱ inȱ theȱ negativeȱ dialecticȱ ofȱ refutationsȱ andȱ supplementaryȱ questionings.ȱ Toȱ wantȱ toȱ getȱ aȱ resultȱ fromȱ it,ȱ especiallyȱ byȱ addition,ȱ isȱ toȱ arrestȱ thisȱ dialectic,ȱ toȱ confineȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ avantȬgardistȱ worksȱ toȱ theȱ museum,ȱ toȱ encourageȱ theȱ eclecticismȱofȱconsumption.20ȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ17ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ81.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ81.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ128.ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ127.ȱ

91ȱ

Squanderingȱbyȱadditionȱratherȱthanȱprogressingȱbyȱdeduction,ȱ certainȱpostmodernistȱartistsȱhave,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱdisregardedȱ theȱ sacredȱ modernistȱ tenet—art’sȱ autonomyȱ fromȱ socioȬ political,ȱ economicȱ andȱ culturalȱ spheres.ȱ Transgressingȱ thisȱ consecratedȱborderȱbetweenȱhighȱartȱandȱlowȱculture,ȱtheyȱhaveȱ therebyȱreducedȱtheȱaestheticȱandȱsocialȱvaluesȱofȱtheȱspiritualȱ aristocracyȱ toȱ theȱ cultureȱ ofȱ massȱ entertainmentȱ andȱ consumption,ȱ equatedȱ artȱ withȱ kitsch.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theȱ artȱ ofȱ “addition”ȱ allowsȱforȱ theȱresurgenceȱ ofȱ figurativeȱ realismȱ plusȱ theȱ unprecedentedȱ introductionȱ ofȱ popȬculturalȱ iconographicȱ devices.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ suchȱ infractionsȱ fritterȱ awayȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ artist’sȱ modernistȱ “inheritance,”ȱ relegatingȱ “theȱ spiritȱofȱavantȬgardistȱworksȱtoȱtheȱmuseum.”ȱOfȱcourse,ȱitȱgoesȱ withoutȱsayingȱthatȱtheȱartȱofȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱwasȱcloisteredȱinȱ theȱ museumsȱ longȱ beforeȱ theseȱ allegedȱ postmodernistȱ ‘betrayals.’ȱButȱLyotardȱisȱnotȱtalkingȱaboutȱactualȱartworks;ȱitȱ isȱratherȱtheȱspiritȱofȱtheȱworkȱwhichȱisȱnowȱbeingȱabandoned,ȱ confined,ȱwithdrawnȱfromȱculturalȱcirculation.ȱObjectingȱtoȱtheȱ artȱwhichȱnowȱrangesȱfreelyȱinȱitsȱplace,ȱLyotardȱreiteratesȱtheȱ standardȱcriticismȱofȱpostmodernistȱdissolution:ȱȱ ȱ Whatȱ isȱ calledȱ onȱ byȱ eclecticismȱ areȱ theȱ habitsȱ ofȱ magazineȱ readers,ȱ theȱ needsȱ ofȱ theȱ consumerȱ ofȱ standardȱ industrialȱ images—thisȱ isȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ theȱ supermarketȱ shopper.ȱ Toȱ theȱ extentȱthatȱthisȱpostmodernism,ȱviaȱcritics,ȱmuseumȱandȱgalleryȱ directorsȱ andȱ collectors,ȱ putsȱ strongȱ pressureȱ onȱ theȱ artists,ȱ itȱ consistsȱinȱaligningȱresearchȱinȱpaintingȱwithȱaȱdeȱfactoȱstateȱofȱ “culture”ȱ…21ȱȱ

ȱ Simplyȱ put,ȱ theȱ “spiritȱ ofȱ avantȬgardistȱ works”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ reducedȱtoȱ“theȱspiritȱofȱtheȱsupermarketȱshopper.”ȱȱ Warholȱ wasȱ probablyȱ theȱ firstȱ targetȱ ofȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ criticalȱ indignation,ȱattractingȱquiteȱtheȱidenticalȱprotest,ȱnamelyȱwhatȱ weȱmightȱlabelȱtheȱ“supermarket”ȱaffront.ȱAsȱfarȱbackȱasȱ1963,ȱ inȱ herȱ review,ȱ “Popȱ Artȱ atȱ theȱ Guggenheim,”ȱ Barbaraȱ Roseȱ

ȱ21ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ127.ȱ

92ȱ

writes:ȱ“Iȱfindȱhisȱimagesȱoffensive;ȱIȱamȱannoyedȱtoȱhaveȱtoȱseeȱ inȱaȱgalleryȱwhatȱI’mȱforcedȱtoȱlookȱatȱinȱtheȱsupermarket.ȱIȱgoȱ toȱtheȱgalleryȱtoȱgetȱawayȱfromȱtheȱsupermarket,ȱnotȱtoȱrepeatȱ theȱ experience.”22ȱ Suchȱ aȱ viewȱ assumesȱ theȱ artȱ galleryȱ andȱ museumȱ asȱ safeȱ havensȱ fromȱ theȱ vulgarityȱ ofȱ instrumentalȱ “meansȬends”ȱrelationsȱinȱtheȱrealȱworld.ȱMore,ȱRose’sȱpositionȱ normalisesȱ theȱ bourgeoisȱ practiceȱ ofȱ relegatingȱ artȱ (withȱ theȱ artists’ȱconsent)ȱtoȱtheȱcathedral,ȱtheȱpalace,ȱtheȱmuseum,ȱwhereȱ theȱpublicȱcanȱconfrontȱtheȱsublime,ȱtheȱinfinite,ȱtheȱilȱyȱaȱ(thereȱ is)ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ haveȱ itsȱ tastesȱ offended.ȱ Butȱ theȱ offence,ȱ theȱ annoyance,ȱtheȱindignationȱthatȱWarholȱinspiredȱwas,ȱofȱcourse,ȱ rightȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ project,ȱ whichȱ includedȱ amongȱ itsȱ favouriteȱ intentionsȱ theȱ determinationȱ toȱ épaterȱ leȱ bourgeois.ȱ Whileȱ perhapsȱ todayȱ bourgeoisieȱ “canȱ noȱ longerȱ beȱ ‘épaté,’”23ȱ atȱ theȱ time,ȱ theȱ criticsȱ ofȱ popȬartȱ wereȱ certainlyȱ susceptibleȱ toȱ theȱ provocation.ȱ Clementȱ Greenberg,ȱ theȱ highȱ priestȱ guardingȱ theȱ templeȱ ofȱ highȱ cultureȱ fromȱ lowȱ browȱ infiltrations,ȱidentifiedȱtheȱthresholdȱasȱtheȱoneȱdemarcatingȱtheȱ avantȬgardeȱ fromȱ kitsch.ȱ Heȱ neverȱ acceptedȱ theȱ unexpectedȱ turnȱ ofȱ advancedȱ artȱ toȱ popȬart,ȱ callingȱ itȱ aȱ “multitudeȱ ofȱ fashions,ȱ vogues,ȱ waves,ȱ fads,ȱ manias.”24ȱ Inȱ anȱ amazingȱ revisionȱ ofȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ Greenbergȱ actuallyȱ wrote:ȱ“NotȱthatȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱeverȱreallyȱmeantȱrevolution.ȱ […]ȱ Theȱ avantȬgarde’sȱ principalȱ reasonȱ forȱ beingȱ is,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ toȱ maintainȱ continuity:ȱ continuityȱ ofȱ standardsȱ ofȱ quality—theȱ standards,ȱ ifȱ youȱ please,ȱ ofȱ theȱ Oldȱ Masters.”25ȱ Andȱthatȱisȱofȱcourseȱblatantlyȱwrong.ȱTheȱavantȬgarde’sȱraisonȱ d’êtreȱ wasȱ revolutionaryȱ throughȱ andȱ through.ȱ Itsȱ projectȱ wasȱ toȱ dethroneȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ artȱ itselfȱ fromȱ itsȱ overbearingȱ ȱ22ȱȱ Barbaraȱ Rose,ȱ citedȱ inȱ Benjaminȱ H.ȱ D.ȱ Buchloh,ȱ NeoȬAvantgardeȱ andȱ Cultureȱ Industry:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Europeanȱ andȱ Americanȱ Artȱ fromȱ 1955ȱ toȱ 1975ȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱMIT,ȱ2000)ȱ21Ȭ2.ȱ ȱ23ȱȱ Antoneȱ Compagnon,ȱ Theȱ 5ȱ Paradoxesȱ ofȱ Modernity,ȱ trans.ȱ Franklinȱ Philipȱ (Newȱ York:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994)ȱxiii.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ ClementȱGreenberg,ȱ“AvantȱGardeȱAttitudes”ȱ[1969],ȱOnȬlineȱPicassoȱProject,ȱ30ȱ Aug.ȱ2005ȱȱ ȱ25ȱȱ Greenberg,ȱ“AvantȱGardeȱAttitudes.”ȱ

93ȱ

posturesȱasȱanȱautonomousȱsphere.ȱThusȱLEFȱ(NewȱLeftȱFront)ȱ andȱMayakovskyȱcalledȱtoȱ“throwȱPushkinȱoffȱtheȱsteamboatȱofȱ Modernity.”ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ Mayakovsky’sȱ insistenceȱ thatȱ hisȱ commercialȱ workȱ forȱ Agitprop,ȱ theȱ Sovietȱ propagandaȱ andȱ advertisingȱagency,ȱwasȱofȱtheȱhighestȱcreativeȱqualityȱ(andȱheȱ reallyȱconsideredȱitȱsomeȱofȱhisȱbestȱwork)ȱanticipatesȱWarhol’sȱ vulgarȱsoupȱcans.ȱ Theȱ customaryȱ questionȱ thenȱ remainsȱ whetherȱ contemporaryȱ art,ȱ voidedȱ ofȱ transcendence,ȱ canȱ representȱ anythingȱ otherȱ thanȱ commercialȱ andȱ consumerȱ values.ȱ Orȱ isȱ Lyotardȱ correctȱ toȱ urgeȱ aȱ postmodernȱ artȱ whichȱ evolvesȱ ceaselesslyȱ intoȱ modernism,ȱ pushingȱ forwardȱ intoȱ theȱ past?ȱ Certainly,ȱ oneȱ pervasiveȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ artsȱ todayȱ amountsȱ toȱ theȱdiagnosisȱthatȱnoȱartȱpracticeȱisȱcapableȱofȱwithstandingȱitsȱ integrationȱ inȱ theȱ cultureȱ complexȱ ofȱ lateȱ capitalism,ȱ itsȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ cashȱ nexusȱ ofȱ imageȱ productionȱ andȱ consumption.ȱ Orȱ rather,ȱ fromȱ aȱ moreȱ worldlyȱ perspective,ȱ mightȱ weȱ sayȱ thatȱ todayȱ theȱ uninhibitedȱ interpenetrationȱ betweenȱ “artȱ andȱ life”ȱ hasȱ simplyȱ demolishedȱ modernism’sȱ formerȱpretensionsȱtoȱautonomyȱfromȱcommercialȱandȱpoliticalȱ spheres?ȱ Inȱ thatȱ case,ȱ popȬart’sȱ arrivalȱ asȱ theȱ postȬavantȬgardeȱ canȱ beȱ viewedȱ asȱ yetȱ anotherȱ bracingȱ shiftȱ toȱ candour,ȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱthatȱtheȱpopȬartistȱopenlyȱownsȱupȱtoȱcomplicityȱwithȱtheȱ market,ȱ passingȱ upȱ theȱ heroicȱ stancesȱ ofȱ theȱ modernistȱ artistȱ silhouettedȱ againstȱ theȱ backdropȱ ofȱ massȱ cultureȱ (readȱ heroicȱ Pollockȱvs.ȱtransvestiteȱWarhol)ȱwhileȱalsoȱforegoingȱtheȱavantȬ gardistȱartist’sȱoffensivesȱagainstȱtheȱinstitutionsȱofȱart.ȱIsȱitȱtheȱ case,ȱthen,ȱthatȱpopȬartȱsimplyȱacceptsȱbothȱtheȱcultureȱandȱtheȱ institutionsȱofȱart,ȱworksȱwithȱandȱwithinȱthem?ȱOrȱcanȱtheȱfullȱ severityȱ ofȱ Lyotard’sȱ reproofȱ apply:ȱ thatȱ popȬartȱ obstructsȱ theȱ negativeȱ dialecticsȱ ofȱ artȬhistoricalȱ advancement,ȱ therebyȱ assaultingȱ theȱ sublimityȱ indispensableȱ forȱ theȱ antiȬtotalitarianȱ polity?ȱȱ

94ȱ

Surely,ȱ Jamesonȱ isȱ rightȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ popȬartȱ isȱ notȱ unambiguouslyȱcriticalȱofȱconsumerȱsociety.26ȱNevertheless,ȱitȱatȱ leastȱ possessesȱ aȱ criticalȱ agendaȱ directedȱ againstȱ theȱ lateȱ modernismȱofȱabstractȱexpressionism.ȱInȱsimpleȱterms,ȱpopȬartȱ isȱ outȱ toȱ getȱ Pollock.ȱ Abstractȱ expressionismȱ atȱ theȱ timeȱ wasȱ fullyȱ enshrinedȱ inȱ Americanȱ universities.ȱ Actionȱ paintingȱ wasȱ academicallyȬsanctionedȱ art.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ abstractȱ expressionistsȱ representedȱ theȱ unrepresentableȱ sublime,ȱ popȬartȱ typifiedȱ theȱ visualȱ media,ȱ theȱ everydayȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ massȱ productionȱ andȱ massȱ culture.ȱ Still,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ gutȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ liberalȱ viewerȱfeelsȱthatȱWarholȱjustȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱcriticalȱofȱCokeȱandȱofȱ Campbell’sȱ Soup.ȱ Otherwise,ȱ howȱ canȱ weȱ likeȱ him?ȱ (Jamesonȱ soundsȱ disappointed:ȱ Warholȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ criticȱ ofȱ Coke).ȱ But,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ Warhol’sȱ workȱ isȱ celebratory;ȱ itȱ simplyȱ isȱ notȱ melancholicȱ because,ȱ well,ȱ becauseȱ actually,ȱ asȱ Warholȱ insistsȱ onȱ showingȱ us,ȱ everybodyȱ lovesȱ Coke.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Warholȱ preciselyȱcommentedȱonȱtheȱegalitarianȱsocioȬeconomicsȱofȱourȱ passionateȱ badȱ tasteȱ andȱ enthusiasticȱ massȱ consumptionȱ whenȱ heȱwroteȱthatȱtheȱveryȱrichȱandȱtheȱveryȱpoorȱalikeȱdrinkȱCoke.ȱ PopȬartȱ mayȱ notȱ refineȱ usȱ butȱ that’sȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ tooȱ democratic.ȱAppallingly,ȱit’sȱwithȱus,ȱit’sȱonȱourȱside;ȱit,ȱwithȱitsȱ viewer,ȱconsumesȱimages.ȱSpectacleȱandȱspectator,ȱbreachlessȱinȱ thisȱcooperativeȱobsession,ȱbothȱareȱconsumingȱmassȱiconsȱandȱ massȱ cultureȱ inȱ unison.ȱ Moreover,ȱ forȱ bothȱ artȱ viewerȱ andȱ artwork,ȱtheȱconsumptionȱisȱthatȱofȱtheȱpreȬconsumed.ȱAtȱonceȱ aȱfoundȱobject,ȱtheȱsoupȱcanȱorȱcokeȱbottleȱisȱnotȱaȱfoundȱobjectȱ inȱitself,ȱchancedȱuponȱinȱaȱstateȱofȱaestheticȱinnocence,ȱbutȱanȱ objectȱ alreadyȱ aestheticised,ȱ alreadyȱ art,ȱ alreadyȱ consumed.ȱ Theseȱ postmodernȱ natureȱ morteȱ areȱ undigestedȱ likeȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ Dutchȱ stillȬlivesȱ ofȱ game,ȱ fowlȱ andȱ fish,ȱ andȱ soȱ theyȱ areȱ raw,ȱ but,ȱ simultaneously,ȱ asȱ Campbellȱ Soupȱ cans,ȱ theyȱ areȱ preȬfabricated,ȱ preȬpackaged,ȱ preȬpared,ȱ halfȬ cooked,ȱ halfȬdigestedȱ (theyȱ areȱ conjointlyȱ theȱ rawȱ andȱ theȱ cooked).ȱȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Fredricȱ Jameson,ȱ Postmodernism,ȱ or,ȱ Theȱ Culturalȱ Logicȱ ofȱ Lateȱ Capitalismȱ (Durham:ȱDukeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003)ȱ158.ȱ

95ȱ

Certainlyȱ theȱ concatenatedȱ ecstasyȱ ofȱ consumptionȱ inȱ Warhol’sȱ artȱ isȱ legendary.ȱ Fascinatedȱ withȱ theȱ realȱ worldȱ aroundȱ himȱandȱ withȱitsȱfascinations,ȱheȱ tirelesslyȱ representedȱ them.ȱInȱthis,ȱWarholȱpresidesȱoverȱtheȱfirstȱartȱmovementȱthatȱ displaysȱrealityȱwhollyȱasȱculture,ȱexhibitsȱmassȱcultureȱasȱfirstȱ nature.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ takeȱ theȱ Barthesianȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ theȱ signȱ asȱ aȱ formula,ȱ weȱ canȱ sayȱ thatȱ popȬartȱ graspsȱ theȱ veryȱ signȱ ofȱ massȱ cultureȱasȱaȱsignifier,ȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱtoȱdeȬmythologiseȱitȱfromȱitsȱ civicȱconnotationsȱandȱretailȱnaturalisations,ȱbutȱtoȱreȬsignifyȱitȱ withinȱanotherȱregister,ȱanȱartȬcode,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱaccordȱofȱtheȱ signȱ isȱ splitȱ andȱ itsȱ dizzyingȱ ambiguityȱ revealed—isȱ thisȱ signȱ ironicȱorȱnot?ȱTakeȱWarhol’sȱdollarȱpaintings.ȱIsȱthisȱ$ȱanȱodeȱtoȱ USȱcurrencyȱorȱisȱitȱhighlyȱironic?ȱȱ Isȱthisȱaȱcriticalȱstatementȱonȱtheȱcontemporaryȱconflationȱofȱ artȱ andȱ money,ȱ artȱ asȱ financialȱ currency,ȱ artȱ asȱ capitalȱ investment?ȱOrȱisȱitȱaȱvulgarȱtransgressionȱpreciselyȱagainstȱtheȱ cultivatedȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ theȱ artisticȱ sphere,ȱ valorisingȱ theȱ collaborationistȱpositionȱofȱtheȱartistȱinȱtheȱrealmsȱofȱexchangeȱ value,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ celebratingȱ artȱ asȱ wealth?ȱ Confrontedȱ withȱ thisȱ dilemmaȱ inȱ Warhol,ȱ Bürgerȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ suchȱ contentȱ “containsȱ resistanceȱ toȱ theȱ commodityȱ societyȱ onlyȱ forȱ theȱ personȱwhoȱwantsȱtoȱseeȱitȱthere.”27ȱStill,ȱinȱtheȱ$ȱpaintingsȱweȱ canȱ seeȱ Warhol’sȱ conceptualȱ developmentȱ fromȱ Jasperȱ John’sȱ paintingsȱ ofȱ symbolicȱ things,ȱ theȱ Americanȱ flagsȱ andȱ practiceȱ targets,ȱ whichȱ remainȱ visualȱ onomatopoeiasȱ ofȱ emblematicȱ objectsȱ thatȱ couldȱ reallyȱ beȱ encounteredȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ Warholȱ presentsȱ theȱ pureȱ sign,ȱ aȱ dollarȱ signȱ (asȱ opposedȱtoȱanȱactualȱdollarȱbill).ȱAndȱheȱisȱevenȱwillingȱtoȱsignȱ dollarȱ bills.ȱ Notȱ turningȱ everythingȱ intoȱ artȱ (likeȱ theȱ Russianȱ futurists)ȱ butȱ anything.ȱ Suchȱ aȱ seizureȱ ofȱ theȱ anythingȱ was,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱtoȱinfluenceȱtheȱwholeȱcadreȱofȱappropriationȱartistsȱwhoȱ followȱ afterȱ Warhol:ȱ Levine,ȱ Richardȱ Prince,ȱ Kruger,ȱ Sherman.ȱ Andȱso,ȱpopȬartȱconsummatesȱtheȱtotalȱincorporationȱofȱlifeȱandȱ art,ȱ ofȱ artȱ andȱ media,ȱ theȱ fullȱ aestheticisationȱ ofȱ lateȱ capitalistȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Michaelȱ Shawȱ (Minneapolis:ȱ UniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱ61.ȱ

96ȱ

productionȱ andȱ everydayȱ existence.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ we’veȱ arrivedȱinȱtheȱartfulȱmodernityȱofȱwhichȱtheȱfuturistsȱdreamedȱ butȱtheȱlifeȱhereȱdoesn’tȱriseȱtoȱart.ȱRather,ȱartȱisȱengulfedȱbyȱtheȱ worldȱ andȱ isȱ worldly.ȱ Everythingȱ isȱ downȱ toȱ earth,ȱ isȱ onȱ displayȱandȱupȱforȱsale;ȱwhenceȱtheȱtranscendent?ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ Onȱ topȱ ofȱ Letnaȱ Hill,ȱ overlookingȱ theȱ Vltavaȱ Riverȱ andȱ theȱ Pragueȱ cityȱ centre,ȱ standsȱ theȱ seventyȬfiveȱ footȱ Metronomeȱ createdȱ byȱ Vratislavȱ Karelȱ Novak.ȱ Thisȱ prominent,ȱ kineticȱ sculptureȱ wasȱ erectedȱ inȱ 1991ȱ toȱ inhabitȱ theȱ vastȱ baseȱ (vacantȱ forȱ thirtyȱ years)ȱ formerlyȱ occupiedȱ byȱ theȱ colossalȱ sculpturalȱ ensembleȱ thatȱ includedȱ theȱ largestȱ everȱ (30m)ȱ effigyȱ ofȱ Josephȱ Stalin—itȱ stoodȱ facingȱ Prague,ȱ surveyingȱ theȱ city,ȱ dauntingȱ it.ȱ Inȱ anȱ ageȱ whenȱ “contemporaryȱ publicȱ artȱ hasȱ turnedȱ toȱ theȱ monumentalȱ abstractionȱ asȱ itsȱ acceptableȱ icon,”28ȱ theȱ abstract,ȱ streamlined,ȱ constructivistȱ armȱ ofȱ theȱ Metronomeȱ certifiesȱ theȱ Czechȱ nation’sȱ officialȱ passageȱ fromȱ theȱ repressiveȱ eraȱ ofȱ compulsoryȱ socialistȱ realismȱ toȱ theȱ democraticallyȬsanctionedȱ ȱ28ȱȱ W.J.T.ȱ Mitchell,ȱ Pictureȱ Theory:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Verbalȱ andȱ Visualȱ Representationȱ (Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1995)ȱ376.ȱ

97ȱ

modernism.ȱEveryȱaspectȱofȱtheȱMetronomeȱcanȱbeȱseenȱtoȱdefyȱ theȱ totalitarianȱ sublimeȱ ofȱ theȱ Stalinȱ statueȱ itȱ supersedes.ȱ Builtȱ forȱ eternity,ȱ theȱ longȬagoȱ annihilatedȱ Sovietȱ monolith,ȱ inȱ itsȱ graniteȱ permanenceȱ andȱ dinosaurȱ monumentalityȱ (theȱ thingȱ wasȱ soȱ massiveȱ andȱ sturdyȱ itȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ disassembledȱ andȱ 98ȱ

hadȱtoȱbeȱblownȱupȱwithȱexplosives)ȱisȱstillȱcontrastedȱwithȱtheȱ perpetualȱ movementȱ ofȱ theȱ modish,ȱ upȬtoȬdateȱ Metronome.ȱ Theȱ teleologicalȱ temporalityȱ ofȱ proletarianȱ revolutionȱ affirmedȱ byȱ theȱ Stalinȱ figureȱ isȱ accordinglyȱ rebukedȱ byȱ theȱ pure,ȱ “neutral”ȱpassageȱofȱtimeȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱmetronomeȱmarksȱ outȱtheȱincessantȱtempoȱofȱhistory.ȱAsȱtheȱarmȱswaysȱfromȱoneȱ sideȱ toȱ theȱ other,ȱ itȱ chartsȱ theȱ skiesȱ offeringȱ theȱ infinityȱ ofȱ theȱ universeȱ asȱ aȱ contrastȱ toȱ andȱ commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ Stalinȱ assemblage,ȱ aȱ parableȱ ofȱ aȱ fallenȱ colossus:ȱ theȱ messianicȱ sublimeȱ ofȱ Communismȱ isȱ trumpedȱ byȱ theȱ infiniteȱ sublimeȱ ofȱ time’sȱ “natural”ȱ current.ȱ Indeed,ȱ thisȱ inhuman,ȱ metronomicȱ indifferenceȱ toȱ historyȱ doesȱ notȱ differentiateȱ betweenȱ humanȱ events;ȱitȱisȱequallyȱimpartialȱtoȱtyrannyȱandȱtoȱdemocracy.ȱItsȱ functionȱisȱ notȱ evenȱ toȱ keepȱ trackȱ ofȱ time—thatȱ isȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱpublicȱclocksȱ(theȱmedievalȱPragueȱOrlojȱjustȱbelowȱmakesȱ anȱobviousȱcounterpoint)—itȱsignifiesȱonlyȱsheerȱtime,ȱmarksȱitsȱ continuance.ȱ Aȱ prominentȱ publicȱ spectacle,ȱ theȱ Metronomeȱ thusȱ servesȱ toȱ iterateȱ andȱ reiterateȱ inȱ perpetuityȱ theȱ plainȱ indubitableȱ factȱ ofȱ timeȱ marchingȱ on.ȱ Itȱ offersȱ bothȱ Praguersȱ andȱ touristsȱ theȱ reliefȱ ofȱ conciliation.ȱ Itȱ saysȱ “timeȱ changesȱ everything”ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmoraliseȱorȱmemorialise,ȱorȱmourn,ȱ orȱ protest.ȱ And,ȱ so,ȱ theȱ Metronome’sȱ commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ siteȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ historyȱ itselfȱ isȱ concentratedȱ entirelyȱ withinȱ itsȱ metaȬnarrative,ȱ formal,ȱ artȱ historicȱ registers,ȱ signallingȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ oneȱ aestheticȱ exponentȱ ofȱ theȱ sublimeȱ toȱ another,ȱ fromȱ theȱ triumphalȱ idiomȱ ofȱ socialistȱ realismȱ toȱ theȱ negativeȱ dialecticsȱ ofȱ abstractȱ modernism.ȱȱ AȱpostmodernistȱperspectiveȱonȱtheȱMetronomeȱsuggestsȱanȱ additionalȱ criticalȱ issue.ȱ Seenȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ Clausȱ Oldenburg’sȱ superlativeȱ rescalingȱ ofȱ trivialȱ objectsȱ (aȱ titanicȱ safetyȬpin,ȱ aȱ behemothȱ button,ȱ aȱ buildingȬsizedȱ lipstick),ȱ theȱ Metronomeȱ employsȱtheȱsameȱtechniqueȱofȱmonumentalisingȱaȱdiminutiveȱ contrivance.ȱOldenburg’sȱsurrealisticallyȱimmenseȱgadgetsȱandȱ utensilsȱ deterritorialiseȱ theirȱ surroundingsȱ byȱ dwarfingȱ theirȱ vicinityȱ inȱ aȱ newlyȱ imposedȱ relativityȱ ofȱ scale.ȱ 99ȱ

Monumentalisingȱ theȱ mundane,ȱ asȱ itȱ turnsȱ out,ȱ ironisesȱ monumentalityȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ category.ȱ Novak’sȱ giganticȱ Metronome,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ succeedsȱ inȱ symbolicallyȱ magnifyingȱ theȱ instrumentalȱ functionȱ ofȱ thisȱ tempoȬsettingȱ deviceȱwhileȱprojectingȱitȱontoȱtheȱsurroundingȱcity.ȱThatȱisȱtoȱ say,ȱwhileȱtheȱtempoȱassimilatesȱallȱhistoricalȱepochsȱwithinȱitsȱ “neutralȬnatural”ȱ timeȱ flow,ȱ it,ȱ nevertheless,ȱ somewhatȱ toȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ simultaneouslyȱ suggestsȱ theȱ enforcingȱ rhythmȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ capitalistȱ orderȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ theȱ chronometer’sȱ introductionȱ intoȱ theȱ workplaceȱ toȱ quickenȱ theȱ paceȱ ofȱ performance,ȱ escalatingȱ theȱ labourȬrhythmȱ ofȱ production,ȱtighteningȱworkȱdisciplineȱonȱtheȱshopȱandȱfactoryȱ floor.ȱ Withȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ theȱ Communists,ȱ theȱ meatȬlinesȱ wouldȱ disappearȱ (“meatȬline”ȱ was,ȱ incidentally,ȱ theȱ unofficialȱ epithetȱ usedȱ forȱ theȱ Stalinȱ statue’sȱ doubleȱ fileȱ ofȱ graniteȱ subordinatesȱ linedȱ upȱ behindȱ theȱ dictator)ȱ butȱ theȱ Czechȱ citizenryȱ wouldȱ definitelyȱ haveȱ toȱ pickȱ upȱ theirȱ paceȱ inȱ theȱ rateȱ ofȱ productionȱ (andȱinȱtheirȱconsumption).ȱȱ Suchȱ artisticȱ collaborationȱ withȱ theȱ ascendantȱ ideologicalȱ andȱeconomicȱorderȱseemsȱanȱinevitableȱoutcomeȱinȱmostȱeveryȱ criticalȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ cultureȱ ofȱ multinationalȱ capitalism.ȱOurȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱMetronomeȱattemptsȱtoȱillustrateȱ specificallyȱ howȱ oppositionȱ toȱ oneȱ repressiveȱ aestheticȱ paradigm,ȱ suchȱ asȱ stateȬsanctionedȱ socialistȱ realism,ȱ mayȱ simplyȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ rigidȱ valorisationȱ (àȱ laȱ Lyotard)ȱ ofȱ yetȱ anotherȱ potentiallyȱ hegemonicȱ andȱ coȬoptedȱ aestheticȱ persuasion.ȱ Today,ȱ weȱ couldȱ easilyȱ claimȱ thatȱ itȱ becomesȱ unproductive,ȱ evenȱ conformist,ȱ toȱ counterȱ theȱ figurativeȱ gigantismȱ ofȱ theȱ totalitarianȱ pastȱ withȱ abstractȱ modernistȱ monumentality.ȱ Theȱ negativeȱ dialecticsȱ ofȱ aestheticismȱ andȱ formalismȱ andȱ theȱ wholeȱ plasticȱ researchȱ intoȱ theȱ sublimeȱ hasȱ endedȱupȱyieldingȱveryȱ“positive,”ȱveryȱprofitableȱresultsȱinȱtheȱ fieldȱofȱcommercialȱmanipulation.ȱTheȱavantȬgarde,ȱirregardlessȱ ofȱartists’ȱintentions,ȱserves,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱThomasȱCrow,ȱ“asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ researchȱ andȱ developmentȱ armȱ ofȱ theȱ cultureȱ

100ȱ

industry.”29ȱ Or,ȱ asȱ W.J.T.ȱ Mitchellȱ bleaklyȱ observes:ȱ “Oppositionalȱ movementsȱ suchȱ asȱ surrealism,ȱ expressionism,ȱ andȱ cubismȱ haveȱ beenȱ recuperatedȱ forȱ entertainmentȱ andȱ advertising,ȱandȱtheȱboldestȱgesturesȱofȱHighȱModernismȱhaveȱ becomeȱtheȱornamentsȱofȱcorporateȱpublicȱspaces.”30ȱInȱsuchȱanȱ environment,ȱ Lyotard’sȱ insistenceȱ onȱ theȱ “constancy”ȱ ofȱ modernistȱ principalsȱ andȱ hisȱ callȱ forȱ theȱ permanenceȱ ofȱ revolutionaryȱreturnsȱtoȱtheȱformalistȱconcernsȱofȱtheȱineffable,ȱ theȱ unrepresentableȱ andȱ theȱ sublime,ȱ appearȱ downrightȱ reactionary.ȱȱ Czechȱ artistsȱ andȱ intellectualsȱ whoȱ haveȱ almostȱ overnightȱ witnessedȱ theȱ institutionalȱ changeȱ ofȱ guardȱ fromȱ communistȱ cultureȱministryȱtoȱlateȱcapitalistȱcultureȱindustry,ȱfromȱobtuseȱ governmentȱ propagandaȱ toȱ theȱ ubiquitousȱ colonisationȱ ofȱ publicȱ attentionȱ byȱ commercialȱ advertising,ȱ haveȱ hadȱ toȱ recalibrateȱ theirȱ conceptualȱ positionsȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ theseȱ developments.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ interestingȱ interventionsȱ areȱ thereforeȱ engagedȱ inȱ multidimensional,ȱ multimediationalȱ critiquesȱ thatȱ addressȱ theȱheterotopicȱ postmodernȱ conditionȱ ofȱ thisȱ newȱ society.ȱ Twoȱ recentȱ examplesȱ ofȱ publicȱ art,ȱ bothȱ createdȱ byȱ Czechȱ womenȱ artistsȱ whoȱ haveȱ achievedȱ prominenceȱ sinceȱ theȱ Velvetȱ Revolution,ȱ Milenaȱ Dopitováȱ andȱ Lenkaȱ Klodová,ȱ areȱ exemplaryȱ inȱ theirȱ capacityȱ toȱ contendȱ criticallyȱ withȱ aȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ issues,ȱ provokingȱ certainȱ intransigentȱauthoritarianȱstrainsȱofȱtheirȱnation’sȱrecentȱhistoryȱ whileȱ alsoȱ addressingȱ theȱ presentȱ commercialisationȱ ofȱ spirituality,ȱinȱartworksȱthatȱshiftȱgracefullyȱandȱslylyȱfromȱtheȱ transcendentȱtoȱtheȱbanal,ȱfromȱsacredȱtoȱsupermarket.ȱ Milenaȱ Dopitová’sȱ photographicȱ seriesȱ ofȱ Pragueȱ mothersȱ negotiatingȱ theȱ urbanȱ landscapeȱ withȱ theirȱ children,ȱ Come,ȱ I’llȱ showȱ youȱ theȱ wayȱ throughȱ Paradise—Pragueȱ Madonnas,ȱ wasȱ aȱ commissionedȱ work,ȱ approvedȱ inȱ itsȱ proposalȱ stageȱ forȱ exhibitionȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic’sȱpavilionȱatȱtheȱ2000ȱWorld’sȱ Fairȱ inȱ Hanover.ȱ Originally,ȱ theȱ photographsȱ wereȱ toȱ involveȱ ȱ29ȱȱ CitedȱinȱMitchell,ȱPictureȱTheory,ȱ376.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ Mitchell,ȱPictureȱTheory,ȱ376.ȱ

101ȱ

quiteȱ anȱ engagingȱ conceit;ȱ thisȱ serialȱ presentationȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱmetropolitanȱmaternityȱwouldȱduplicateȱyetȱalsoȱ counterpoiseȱaȱcycleȱofȱCzechȱmedievalȱMadonnasȱonȱdisplayȱatȱ theȱ pavilionȱ entrance.ȱ Asȱ conceived,ȱ Dopitová’sȱ projectȱ wasȱ thusȱ toȱ holdȱ upȱ aȱ 21stȱ centuryȱ mirrorȱ toȱ theȱ “eternal”ȱ themesȱ evokedȱ byȱ Marianȱ imagery:ȱ theȱ sanctityȱ ofȱ maternalȱ love,ȱ solicitude,ȱ compassionȱ andȱ selfȬsacrifice.ȱ Additionally,ȱ weȱ canȱ supposeȱ thatȱ theȱ Czechȱ artist,ȱ inȱ executingȱ herȱ project,ȱ mustȱ haveȱbeenȱgovernedȱbyȱsomeȱsenseȱofȱaccountabilityȱtoȱnationalȱ pride.ȱPresumablyȱaȱWorldȱExpositionȱcountryȱpavilionȱimpliesȱ aȱprestigiousȱhonourȱandȱpatrioticȱopportunityȱtoȱrepresentȱtheȱ contemporaryȱ stateȱ ofȱ Czechȱ artsȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱtheȱnation’sȱestablishedȱartȱheritageȱasȱwell,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱtheȱ medievalȱ Madonnas.ȱ However,ȱ uponȱ reviewȱ byȱ theȱ Czechȱ Generalȱ Commissioner,ȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ Dopitová’sȱ seriesȱ wasȱ vetoedȱandȱPavelȱMára’sȱphotographicȱnudesȱwereȱchosenȱasȱaȱ replacement.ȱȱ ThatȱtheȱofficialsȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱCzechȱPavilionȱrejectedȱ theȱ commissionedȱ series,ȱ preferringȱ toȱ installȱ Mára’sȱ nudeȱ Madonnasȱ alongsideȱ theȱ medievalȱ prototypes,ȱ immediatelyȱ suggestsȱ someȱ transgressiveȱ ingredientȱ inȱ Dopitová’sȱ Pragueȱ 102ȱ

Madonnas.ȱButȱwhat?ȱAppraisingȱDopitová’sȱphotoȬvignettesȱofȱ urbanȱ maternity,ȱ oneȱ canȱ hardlyȱ helpȱ butȱ judgeȱ themȱ asȱ theȱ leastȱlikelyȱcandidatesȱforȱofficialȱcensorshipȱofȱanyȱkind.ȱEveryȱ predictableȱ rationaleȱ forȱ suppression—obscenity,ȱ sensuality,ȱ radicalȱ politicalȱ orȱ subversiveȱ ideologicalȱ content,ȱ violence,ȱ crudity—appearsȱ serenelyȱ absent.ȱ Onȱ theȱ surface,ȱ Dopitová’sȱ imagesȱlookȱtoȱbeȱstudiesȱinȱordinariness.ȱWasȱtheȱprovocationȱ possiblyȱ theȱ sheerȱ lackȱ ofȱ it?ȱ Toȱ accentuateȱ theȱ puzzle,ȱ Mára’sȱ nudes,ȱ theȱ usurpersȱ inȱ thisȱ culturalȱ parable,ȱ withȱ theirȱ aloofȱ sexualityȱ andȱ lithe,ȱ uncladȱ torsos,ȱ mustȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ theȱ moreȱ conventionallyȱ indecentȱ byȱ comparison.ȱ Butȱ clearly,ȱ theyȱ satisfiedȱtheȱofficials’ȱideaȱofȱhowȱphotographyȱcouldȱproperlyȱ correlateȱ toȱ theȱ artȱ heritageȱ ofȱ theȱ nationalȱ past,ȱ andȱ ofȱ howȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ couldȱ refurbishȱ theȱ valuesȱ ofȱ religiousȱ art,ȱ renderingȱ theseȱ inȱ updatedȱ forms,ȱ servingȱ oldȱ wineȱ inȱ newȱ skin.ȱȱ Withȱ theȱ startlingȱ chiaroscuroȱ ofȱ blackȱ andȱ whiteȱ photography,ȱ andȱ theȱ contrastȱ furtherȱ intensifiedȱ byȱ theȱ reverseȬnegativeȱeffectȱ(àȱlaȱManȱRay),ȱMáraȱendowsȱhisȱnudesȱ withȱ anȱ auraticȱ radiance,ȱ floodingȱ themȱ inȱ anȱ otherworldlyȱ glow.ȱ Moreȱ precisely,ȱ theȱ reverseȬnegativeȱ printingȱ investsȱ theseȱ Madonnasȱ (depictedȱ asȱ delicateȱ femaleȱ torsos)ȱ withȱ theȱ capacityȱ toȱ radiateȱ lightȱ forthȱ asȱ ifȱ fromȱ inside,ȱ aȱ contrivanceȱ thatȱservesȱtoȱdissolveȱtheȱtypicalȱoppositionȱofȱbodyȱandȱsoul,ȱ castingȱ fleshȱ asȱ lustrousȱ spirit;ȱ theȱ haloȱ isȱ interiorised.ȱ Quiteȱ 103ȱ

literallyȱthen,ȱthisȱseriesȱillustratesȱ(inȱtheȱsenseȱofȱilluminating)ȱ theȱ spiritualȱ conditionȱ ofȱ theȱ hallowedȱ Marianȱ corpus.ȱ Withȱ Mára’sȱ incandescentȱ imagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Holyȱ Motherȱ bathedȱ inȱ divineȱlightȱonȱtheȱoneȱside,ȱletȱusȱnowȱturnȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱpulpȱ mediaȬstyleȱ photographsȱ fromȱ Dopitová’sȱ rebuffedȱ series.ȱ Byȱ comparisonȱ withȱ theȱ Virginsȱ thatȱ replacedȱ them,ȱ Dopitová’sȱ portraitsȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ offerȱunexpectedlyȱ mundaneȱ tableauxȱ ofȱPragueȱmothersȱandȱchildrenȱinȱvariousȱsitesȱthroughoutȱtheȱ city,ȱ engagedȱ inȱ mostlyȱ routineȱ activities—shopping,ȱ eating,ȱ working,ȱplayingȱ(although,ȱinȱoneȱdeviatingȱinstance,ȱaȱmotherȱ isȱshownȱbegging).ȱItȱfollowsȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱfeaturesȱthatȱmustȱ haveȱdisqualifiedȱtheseȱquotidianȱMadonnasȱtoȱtheȱofficialsȱwasȱ preciselyȱtheȱ‘unspectacular’ȱlookȱofȱtheȱphotographs,ȱaȱlackȱofȱ ‘highȱ art’ȱ indices,ȱ theirȱ absenceȱ ofȱ anyȱ evidentȱ transcendenceȱ markingȱ motherȱ andȱ childȱ asȱ archetypesȱ ofȱ aȱ sacredȱ relationship.ȱ Or,ȱtoȱstateȱitȱmoreȱbluntlyȱwithinȱtheȱartȬhistoricȱcontinuumȱ thatȱ isȱ ourȱ focus,ȱ itȱ isȱ fromȱ theȱ plainlyȱ secular,ȱ materialist,ȱ heterodox,ȱ ambidextrousȱ positionȱ ofȱ postmodernȱ productionȱ thatȱ Dopitováȱ setsȱ outȱ forȱ anȱ encounterȱ withȱ theȱ sacrosanctȱ iconographyȱofȱChristianȱart.ȱUnlikeȱtheȱMáraȱMadonnas,ȱtheseȱ earthboundȱ portraitsȱ haveȱ castȱ offȱ anyȱ attitudeȱ thatȱ couldȱ letȱ themȱdoubleȱ(withoutȱirony)ȱasȱdevotional,ȱcultȱobjectsȱorȱalignȱ themȱ withȱ theȱ patricianȱ programsȱ ofȱ modernism.ȱ Instead,ȱ thisȱ seriesȱ worksȱ inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ appropriationȱ artȱ (onceȱ againȱ Warhol,ȱLevine,ȱPrince,ȱKruger,ȱKoons,ȱSherman),ȱadoptingȱtheȱ feelȱ ofȱ theȱ industryȱ photographȱ whileȱ applyingȱ massȬculturalȱ devicesȱ ofȱ production.ȱ Theȱ Photoshopȱ layeringȱ whichȱ allowsȱ fieldsȱ ofȱ theȱ photographsȱ toȱ beȱ renderedȱ inȱ colourȱ whileȱ seamlesslyȱ joinedȱ toȱ otherȱ elementsȱ inȱ blackȱ andȱ white,ȱ introducesȱintoȱthisȱworkȱanȱelementȱofȱpostcardȱtriviality.ȱOr,ȱ rather,ȱ takenȱ altogether,ȱ theȱ portraitsȱ haveȱ theȱ lookȱ ofȱ photoȬ reportageȱforȱaȱpopularȱparentingȱmagazine.ȱNoneȱofȱthisȱisȱtoȱ sayȱthatȱDopitová’sȱseriesȱonȱcontemporaryȱmotherhoodȱfailsȱtoȱ addressȱ theȱ originalȱ contextȱ ofȱ religiousȱ art.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theȱ photosȱ areȱ interweavedȱ withȱ updatedȱ reȬenactmentsȱ ofȱ 104ȱ

familiarȱ episodesȱ andȱ iconographyȱ fromȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ Virgin:ȱ theȱ Annunciation,ȱ Flightȱ intoȱ Egypt,ȱ theȱ Pietà,ȱ Virginȱ Lactans,ȱ etc.ȱ Yet,ȱ evenȱ whileȱ Dopitováȱ (noȱ strangerȱ toȱ feministȱ thematics)ȱevokesȱthisȱMarianȱimagery,ȱsheȱisȱreformulatingȱit,ȱ evenȱ profaningȱ it,ȱ perhapsȱ moreȱ effectivelyȱ thanȱ byȱ aȱ directȱ assault,ȱ preciselyȱ throughȱ theȱ seeminglyȱ casualȱ attitudeȱ ofȱ herȱ adaptationsȱ andȱ theȱ discretionȱ ofȱ herȱ transformations.ȱ Let’sȱ considerȱsomeȱofȱherȱspecificȱcompositionalȱstrategies.ȱ Theȱ iconographyȱ ofȱ Christianȱ artȱ commonlyȱ positionsȱ theȱ Virginȱ Motherȱ asȱ aȱ backgroundȱ forȱ theȱ Christȱ Child,ȱ aȱ straightforwardȱ enoughȱ structuralȱ allusionȱ toȱ herȱ supportingȱ functionȱinȱtheȱvitaeȱdomini.ȱButȱtheȱPragueȱMadonnas,ȱpresentedȱ mainlyȱasȱmiddleȬclassȱmodernȱwomen,ȱsomeȱchic,ȱurbane,ȱandȱ evidentlyȱprofessional,ȱhaveȱotherȱfunctions,ȱotherȱthingsȱtoȱdo.ȱ Whileȱ someȱ stillȱ holdȱ ontoȱ aȱ childȱ andȱ provideȱ theȱ chromaticȱ groundȱ forȱ itsȱ figure,ȱ theseȱ mothersȱ areȱ multitasked,ȱ engagedȱ simultaneouslyȱ inȱ shopping,ȱ talkingȱ onȱ cellȱ phones,ȱ hailingȱ aȱ cab.ȱ Itȱ isȱ inȱ photographsȱ likeȱ theseȱ thatȱ theȱ rapprochementȱ ofȱ twoȱ artȱ registersȱ (sacredȱ andȱ postmodern)ȱ beginsȱ toȱ createȱ anȱ additionalȱ antagonisticȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ them.ȱ Thus,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ oneȱ pictureȱ theȱ motherȱ isȱ holdingȱ theȱ childȱ whileȱ leaningȱ inȱ theȱ oppositeȱ directionȱ toȱ speakȱ intoȱ herȱ phone.ȱ Theȱ effectȱisȱofȱaȱprecariousȱbalance/unbalanceȱbetweenȱattachmentȱ andȱautonomyȱofȱmotherȱandȱchild.ȱPictorially,ȱtheȱchildȱisȱnotȱ atȱtheȱcentre,ȱneitherȱisȱheȱcentredȱonȱtheȱgroundȱofȱtheȱmother,ȱ neitherȱ thenȱ isȱ heȱ atȱ theȱ proverbialȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ universe,ȱ hisȱ mother’sȱ orȱ theȱ viewer’s.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ Dopitováȱ subtlyȱ representsȱwomen,ȱratherȱthanȱtheirȱdependents,ȱasȱtheȱprimaryȱ subjectsȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ maternity.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ itȱ isȱ interestingȱ toȱ applyȱ toȱ Dopitová’sȱ Madonnasȱ whatȱ Juliaȱ Kristevaȱ wroteȱ ofȱ GiovanniȱBellini’sȱfifteenthȱcenturyȱMadonnas.ȱKristevaȱcallsȱonȱ theȱviewerȱtoȱ“beholdȱtheȱdistanceȱ[…]ȱseparatingȱtheȱbodiesȱofȱ infantȱ andȱ motherȱ inȱ hisȱ paintings.”31ȱ Kristevaȱ thenȱ continuesȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Juliaȱ Kristeva,ȱ Desireȱ inȱ Language:ȱ Aȱ Semioticȱ Approachȱ toȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Art,ȱ ed.ȱ LeonȱS.ȱRoudiez,ȱtrans.ȱThomasȱGora,ȱAliceȱJardine,ȱLeonȱS.ȱRoudizȱ(NewȱYork:ȱ ColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1980)ȱ247.ȱ

105ȱ

herȱanalysisȱofȱoneȱtypicalȱBelliniȱpaintingȱbyȱpointingȱoutȱthatȱ theȱMadonnaȱfigure—”head,ȱface,ȱandȱeyes—fleesȱtheȱpainting,ȱ isȱ grippedȱ byȱ somethingȱ otherȱ thanȱ itsȱ object,”ȱ andȱ thisȱ elsewhereȱspaceȱbeyondȱtheȱcanvasȱisȱwhatȱKristevaȱlabelsȱtheȱ maternalȱ jouissance,ȱ thatȱ enjoymentȱ withinȱ theȱ motherȱ andȱ exclusiveȱtoȱher,ȱwhichȱremainsȱforeverȱinaccessibleȱtoȱtheȱchildȱ evenȱthroughȱcorporealȱcontact.32ȱȱ Thisȱ impliesȱ that,ȱ inȱ manipulatingȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ idealȱ maternityȱ epitomisedȱ inȱ theȱ Madonna,ȱ Dopitováȱ slylyȱ exhibitsȱ mothersȱ whoȱ areȱ notȱ exclusivelyȱ characterisedȱ byȱ childrenȱ butȱ ratherȱ areȱ womenȱ withȱ children.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ mentionedȱ thatȱ inȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ portraitsȱ theseȱ womenȱ appearȱ chic,ȱ elegantlyȱ dressed,ȱ professional.ȱ Inȱ others,ȱ however,ȱ theyȱ appearȱ simplyȱ capable,ȱ unromantic—theȱ mannerȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ tendȱ toȱ theȱ needsȱofȱchildrenȱisȱnotȱsentimentalisedȱbyȱMarianȱattitudesȱofȱ adoringȱsolicitudeȱbutȱisȱshownȱpracticallyȱ(thoughȱnotȱharshly)ȱ asȱaȱmatterȱofȱexpedienceȱandȱefficiency—aȱquestionȱofȱgettingȱ theȱ jobȱ done—forȱ example,ȱ theȱ motherȱ proppingȱ theȱ child’sȱ penisȱ whileȱ theȱ boyȱ isȱ peeingȱ inȱ theȱ park,ȱ theȱ motherȱ servingȱ

ȱ32ȱȱ Kristeva,ȱDesireȱinȱLanguage,ȱ247.ȱ

106ȱ

herȱ youngȱ sonȱ aȱ hotdogȱ fromȱ aȱ paperȱ plate.ȱ Still,ȱ theseȱ areȱ innocuousȱ enoughȱ representationsȱ unlessȱ seenȱ asȱ versionsȱ ofȱ theȱsacredȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱHolyȱMotherȱandȱInfantȱChrist.ȱ Theȱ subtitleȱ ofȱ theȱ series,ȱ Pragueȱ Madonnas,ȱ isȱ thereforeȱ crucialȱ toȱ theȱ visualȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ works.ȱ Asȱ postmodernȱ translationsȱ ofȱ theȱ doctrinaireȱ typologiesȱ inȱ religiousȱ art,ȱ weȱ askȱ whetherȱ Dopitová’sȱ seriesȱ mayȱ beȱ relatedȱ toȱ suchȱ highȱ profileȱ artȱ scandalsȱ asȱ Andresȱ Serrano’sȱ 1989ȱ Pissȱ Christȱ andȱ Chrisȱ Ofili’sȱ 1996ȱ collageȱ withȱ elephantȱ dung,ȱ Theȱ Manyȱ Facesȱ ofȱ Mary;ȱ Representingȱ theȱ Virgin,ȱ whichȱ generatedȱ controversyȱ throughoutȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ whenȱ displayedȱ inȱ theȱ publiclyȱ fundedȱ SensationȱshowȱatȱtheȱBrooklynȱMuseum.ȱOurȱanswer:ȱweȱthinkȱ so.ȱAlthoughȱinȱfarȱlessȱexcrementallyȱobviousȱways,ȱweȱbelieveȱ Dopitová’sȱworkȱwasȱlikewiseȱjudgedȱprofane,ȱasȱcrapȱorȱdungȱ hurledȱ onȱ theȱ transcendent.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ byȱ rejectingȱ Dopitová’sȱ Madonnas,ȱ theȱ Czechȱ Pavilionȱ commissionerȱ protectedȱ theȱ representationalȱ sanctityȱ ofȱ motherhood;ȱ censuringȱtheȱmundane,ȱdeȬsublimatedȱimage,ȱheȱdefendedȱtheȱ otherworldlyȱ statusȱ ofȱ theȱ holyȱ familyȱ and,ȱ byȱ extension,ȱ theȱ idealȱofȱeveryȱfamily.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱcanȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱinȱWesternȱ culturalȱ history,ȱ theȱ Marianȱ cultȱ ofȱ maternityȱ containsȱ theȱ ultimateȱ reassuranceȱ ofȱ aȱ conduitȱ betweenȱ secularȱ andȱ sacred.ȱ Asȱ Kristevaȱ writes:ȱ “theologyȱ definesȱ maternityȱ onlyȱ asȱ anȱ impossibleȱ elsewhere,ȱ aȱ sacredȱ beyond,ȱ aȱ vesselȱ ofȱ divinity,ȱ aȱ spiritualȱ tieȱ withȱ theȱ ineffableȱ godhead,ȱ andȱ transcendence’sȱ ultimateȱsupport.”33ȱȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ immaculateȱ Máraȱ Madonnasȱ thatȱ representedȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republicȱ inȱ Hanover,ȱ Dopitová’sȱ mothersȱareȱthusȱmaculatedȱbyȱtheȱmundaneȱrealitiesȱofȱerrandsȱ andȱchores.ȱMoreoverȱtheyȱfailȱtoȱriseȱaboveȱtheirȱenvironmentȱ orȱtoȱrefineȱitȱevenȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱdesires,ȱwhich,ȱclearly,ȱareȱ manufacturedȱ byȱ advertising.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ tableauxȱ showsȱ aȱ motherȱ andȱ babyȱ daughterȱ underȱ aȱ sexyȱ billboardȱ advertisingȱ cosmeticsȱ withȱ aȱ typicalȱ sloganȱ assertingȱ femaleȱ valueȱ asȱ

ȱ33ȱȱ Kristeva,ȱDesireȱinȱLanguage,ȱ237.ȱ

107ȱ

feminineȱ beauty:ȱ “Jáȱ zaȱ toȱ stojím”—“I’mȱ worthȱ it.”ȱ Yetȱ anotherȱ tableauȱ showsȱ theȱ sameȱ chic,ȱ youthfulȱ motherȱ shoppingȱ forȱ shoes.ȱHerȱchildȱisȱtoȱtheȱsideȱofȱtheȱscene,ȱwatchingȱherȱsizingȱaȱ shoe,ȱ tryingȱ onȱ itsȱ potentialȱ image.ȱ Asȱ withȱ popȬart,ȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱtheȱsubject,ȱhereȱtheȱmother,ȱisȱ reducedȱorȱcelebratedȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱconsumer.ȱAreȱtheseȱwomenȱ empoweredȱandȱliberated,ȱareȱtheyȱsexy,ȱareȱtheyȱsold,ȱorȱboth,ȱ caughtȱ upȱ inȱ theȱ ricochetȱ ofȱ consumptionȱ byȱ whichȱ theȱ consumerȱisȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱalsoȱanotherȱproduct?ȱȱ Andȱ howȱ doesȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ blessedȱ motherȱ quaȱ consumerȱ provokeȱtheȱtraditionalȱcultȱofȱmotherhood?ȱItȱisȱonceȱagainȱinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ cultȱ ofȱ motherhoodȱ withȱ itsȱ “luminousȱ serenityȱ ofȱ theȱ unrepresentable,”34ȱ andȱ itsȱ prominenceȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Westernȱ artȱ thatȱ Lenkaȱ Klodová’sȱ Mayȱ 2005ȱ series,ȱ Vit»zkyȱ(Winners),ȱtakesȱaȱdecisivelyȱtransgressiveȱturn.ȱȱ Winnersȱwasȱpresentedȱthisȱspringȱasȱpartȱofȱaȱpublic,ȱopenȱ airȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱLetnaȱ“ArtȱWall,”ȱwhichȱextendsȱalongsideȱ theȱ Vltavaȱandȱ itsȱadjoiningȱ highway.ȱ Fourȱartistsȱ chosenȱ byȱaȱ Pragueȱ cityȱ commissionȱ wereȱ givenȱ opportunitiesȱ toȱ fillȱ theȱ stoneȱ alcovesȱ builtȱ intoȱ theȱ Riverȱ Wallȱ originallyȱ toȱ brandishȱ communistȱpropagandaȱatȱdrivers,ȱtramȬridersȱandȱpedestrians.ȱ Klodová’sȱseries,ȱtheȱfirstȱdisplayed,ȱconsistedȱofȱbillboardȱsizeȱ photographsȱ ofȱ heavilyȱ pregnantȱ womenȱ athletesȱ impossiblyȱ competingȱinȱsuchȱOlympicsȬtypeȱsportsȱasȱjavelinȱthrow,ȱhighȱ jump,ȱ gymnastics,ȱ running,ȱ shotȬputȱ andȱ softȬball.ȱ Itȱ isȱ significantȱthatȱtheȱartȱinȱthisȱexhibitionȱoccupiesȱaȱpublicȱspaceȱ formerlyȱ delegatedȱ forȱ governmentȱ propaganda;ȱ setȱ inȱ theȱ embankmentȱ withinȱ theȱ stoneȱ framesȱ leftȱ byȱ theȱ communistȱ regime,ȱ theȱ workȱ thusȱ retainsȱ anȱ ambienceȱ ofȱ theȱ demagogyȱ andȱ coercionȱ ofȱ stateȬsanctionedȱ programsȱ andȱ paradigms.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theseȱ placardsȱ alsoȱ occupyȱ aȱ globalȱ publicȱ sphereȱ saturatedȱ byȱ advertisement;ȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ series,ȱ Vit»zkyȱ (literally,ȱ womenȱ winners)ȱ clearlyȱ punsȱ onȱ theȱ worldwideȱ ubiquityȱ ofȱ theȱ sportswearȱ megaȬbrandȱ Nikeȱ (Nik¾ȱ

ȱ34ȱȱ Kristeva,ȱDesireȱinȱLanguage,ȱ243.ȱ

108ȱ

inȱ Greekȱ mythologyȱ beingȱ aȱ goddessȱ ofȱ victory).ȱ Orȱ rather,ȱ toȱ putȱ itȱ inȱ moreȱ generalȱ terms,ȱ theȱ iconȱ ofȱ anȱ athlete,ȱ likeȱ theȱ imageȱofȱtheȱworker,ȱtheȱsoldierȱor,ȱindeed,ȱthatȱofȱtheȱmother,ȱ hasȱ certainlyȱ beenȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ favouredȱ ofȱ propagandistȱ rhetoric.ȱ Artȱ whichȱ hasȱ renderedȱ theȱ athlete’sȱ imageȱ inȱ theȱ serviceȱ ofȱ politicsȱ spansȱ theȱ ideologicalȱ spectrumȱ fromȱ ancientȱ republicanismȱ toȱ fascismȱ andȱ communism,ȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ centuryȱ fromȱAlexanderȱRodchenkoȱtoȱLeniȱRiefenstahlȱetȱal.ȱ Theȱ identificationȱ ofȱ propagandaȱ withȱ advertisingȱ inȱ Klodová’sȱ seriesȱ isȱ thereforeȱ asȱ aptȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ common.ȱ Oneȱ enterpriseȱ sellsȱ ideology,ȱ theȱ otherȱ sellsȱ aȱ productȱ but,ȱ whileȱ propagandaȱsellsȱ theȱ productȱ ofȱ ideology,ȱadvertisingȱsellsȱ theȱ ideologyȱofȱaȱproduct,ȱandȱbothȱdoȱitȱ(asȱBarthesȱhasȱshown)ȱbyȱ theȱ operationȱ ofȱ naturalisation,ȱ orȱ theȱ mythologisation,ȱ ofȱ aȱ sign.ȱ Inȱ aȱ gestureȱ thatȱ ironisesȱ suchȱ contemporaryȱ mythȬ making,ȱ Klodováȱ firstȱ graftsȱ theȱ twoȱ registersȱ intoȱ oneȱ image.ȱ Theȱ Winnersȱ areȱ atȱ onceȱ nationalȱ heroesȱ (Olympians)ȱ andȱ nextȱ theyȱareȱtheȱmodernȱdivinitiesȱofȱlifestyleȱ(Nikeȱads).ȱYet,ȱinȱanȱ absurdȱ nextȱ stepȱ ofȱ hyperȬaccumulationȬsignification,ȱ Klodováȱ 109ȱ

endowsȱtheseȱheroes/iconsȱwithȱyetȱanotherȱsuperȬsignifier,ȱtheȱ masterȬnarrativeȱ ofȱ maternity.ȱ Theȱ resultantȱ tripartiteȬhybridȱ presentsȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ monstrosity,ȱ aȱ freakishȱ shorthandȱ ofȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ predicament—aȱ mutantȱ trappedȱ inȱ theȱ postmodernȱmatrixȱofȱideology,ȱmarketing,ȱandȱsentimentality.ȱ Theȱ resultantȱ freightedȱ femaleȱ athletes,ȱ awkward,ȱ bizarre,ȱ disfiguredȱ figuresȱ ofȱ hyperȬpasticheȱ fallȱ outȱ ofȱ everyȱ conceivablyȱ desirableȱ valueȱ system.ȱ Itȱ isȱ asȱ if,ȱ metaphorically,ȱ theȱidealȱofȱmaternityȱandȱtheȱimageȱofȱpregnancyȱhereȱserveȱtoȱ disfigureȱ theȱ iconsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ ideologyȱ andȱ consumerism.ȱ Inȱ theȱ presentȱ ageȱ ofȱ massȱ mediaȱ politics,ȱ marketingȱ andȱ communications,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ messageȱ ofȱ theȱ imageȱ isȱ increasinglyȱ focused,ȱ focusȬgrouped,ȱ motivatedȱ andȱ marketȬ targeted,ȱ theȱ ambiguityȱ ofȱ Klodová’sȱ Vit»zkyȱ thusȱ engagedȱ theȱ Pragueȱ publicȱ withȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ hieroglyphȱ compressingȱ andȱ expressingȱ ourȱ presentȱ culturalȱ abundanceȱ andȱ culturalȱ impasses.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ seriesȱ wasȱ onȱ display,ȱ oneȱ couldȱ actuallyȱ recogniseȱfellowȱtramȬridersȱwhoȱwereȱencounteringȱtheȱVit»zkyȱ forȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱbyȱtheȱprogressionȱofȱconfusion,ȱastonishment,ȱ amusementȱandȱreflectionȱevidentȱinȱtheirȱexpressions.ȱ ItȱisȱhelpfulȱtoȱascertainȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱCzechȱartistsȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardesȱ whichȱ attemptedȱ toȱ breakȱtheȱspellȱofȱaestheticȱautonomyȱand,ȱwithȱit,ȱtheȱreignȱofȱ abstractȱ formalismȱ byȱ reactivatingȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ narrativeȱ andȱ theȱ figurativeȱ inȱ art.ȱ Thenȱ asȱ now,ȱ theȱ enterpriseȱ ofȱ theȱ ineffableȱ doesȱ notȱ provideȱ theȱ necessaryȱ crudityȱ toȱengageȱ theȱ authoritarianȱ powerȱ ofȱ ideologicalȱ orȱ economicȱ hegemonies.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgardesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ failedȱ byȱ theirȱownȱdefinitionȱsinceȱtheȱ“intentionȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱavantȬ gardeȱ movementsȱ wasȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ artȱ asȱ anȱ institutionȱsetȱoffȱfromȱtheȱpraxisȱofȱlife.”35ȱButȱtheȱaccumulatedȱ workȱ ofȱ theseȱ movementsȱ remainsȱ anȱ inexhaustible,ȱ explosiveȱ sourceȱofȱconceptualȱvitalityȱforȱtoday’sȱartistsȱandȱintellectuals.ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ popȬartȱ preciselyȱ revisitedȱ theȱ techniquesȱ andȱ

ȱ35ȱȱ Bürger,ȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ83.ȱ

110ȱ

devicesȱofȱtheȱprecedingȱavantȬgardesȱ(someȱcriticsȱidentifiedȱitȱ withȱ neoȬdada)ȱ albeitȱ withȱ aȱ diacriticsȱ ofȱ itsȱ own.ȱ Theȱ artistsȱ whoȱ haveȱ inheritedȱ popȬart,ȱ theȱ sotsȬartȱ practitionersȱ (Komarȱ andȱ Melamid,ȱ etȱ al.)ȱ inȱ theȱ east,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ appropriationȱ artists,ȱLevine,ȱKruger,ȱSherman,ȱinȱtheȱwest,ȱhaveȱinȱtheirȱturnȱ recalibratedȱ theȱ proceduresȱ developedȱ byȱ Warholȱ andȱ Co.,ȱ deployingȱtheseȱdecisivelyȱagainstȱtheȱsymbolicȱordersȱandȱtheȱ industriesȱ ofȱ imageȱ productionȱ andȱ consumption,ȱ formingȱ anȱ essentialȱ precedentȱ inȱ theȱ reanimationȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬ gardes’ȱprogramȱofȱengagementȱinȱtheȱpraxisȱofȱlife.ȱȱ Cindyȱ Sherman,ȱ whoȱ (incidentally)ȱ hadȱ aȱ majorȱ retrospectiveȱatȱPrague’sȱGalerieȱRudolfiniumȱinȱ1998,ȱappearsȱ aȱparticularlyȱproductiveȱinfluenceȱforȱtheȱgenerationȱofȱartistsȱ thatȱincludesȱDopitováȱandȱKlodová.ȱSherman’sȱcategoricalȱblursȱ (RosalindȱKraus’sȱtermȱforȱimagesȱtransgressingȱtheȱbordersȱofȱ genderȱandȱanatomy)36ȱtogetherȱwithȱherȱmassȬmediaȱthematicsȱ canȱbeȱseenȱinȱbothȱDopitová’sȱandȱKlodová’sȱseries,ȱwhichȱalsoȱ shareȱ Sherman’sȱ strategyȱ ofȱ totalȱ appropriation,ȱ notȱ simplyȱ confiscatingȱ individualȱ imagesȱ butȱ parasiticallyȱ inhabitingȱ theȱ wholeȱ signifyingȱ system,ȱ invokingȱ theȱ entireȱ gamutȱ ofȱ anȱ industry’sȱimageȱrepertoire.ȱThusȱwhileȱDopitováȱandȱKlodováȱ colludeȱ withȱ Lyotard’sȱ doctrineȱ ofȱ unravellingȱ masterȱ narrativesȱofȱtheirȱtotality,ȱtheirȱstrategyȱisȱnotȱinȱpresentingȱtheȱ sublimeȱothernessȱinȱitsȱincommensurabilityȱwithȱtheȱvulgarityȱ ofȱmassȱculture,ȱbutȱinȱinhabitingȱtheȱmassȬculturalȱsystemsȱofȱ representationȱ andȱ pressuring,ȱ manipulating,ȱ sabotagingȱ theseȱ regimesȱ fromȱ theȱ inside.ȱ Furthermoreȱ theseȱ artistsȱ recogniseȱ thatȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ theȱ ineffableȱ andȱ theȱ sublimeȱ isȱ itselfȱ aȱ masterȬnarrativeȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ appropriatedȱ byȱ theȱ imageȱ industryȱ andȱ theyȱ pressȱ onȱ withȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ undoingȱ transcendent,ȱutopianȱparadigmsȱexemplified,ȱinȱthisȱparticularȱ case,ȱbyȱtheȱfiguresȱofȱHolyȱMotherȱandȱVictoriousȱOlympians.ȱȱ ȱInterveningȱ inȱ theȱ globalȱ cultureȱ andȱ transgressingȱ theȱ transcendental,ȱDopitováȱandȱKlodováȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱengageȱ

ȱ36ȱȱ RosalindȱKraus,ȱBachelorsȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱMIT,ȱ2000)ȱ13.ȱ

111ȱ

theȱ contingent,ȱ situational,ȱ siteȱ andȱ contextȱ specificȱ miniȬ narrativesȱ withȱ critical,ȱ deconstructiveȱ gesturesȱ whichȱ areȱ theȱ preconditionȱofȱeffectingȱtheȱlocalȱculturalȱenvironment.ȱThisȱisȱ anȱ existentialȱ attitudeȱ thatȱ isȱ quiteȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ positionȱ assumedȱbyȱLyotard.ȱLyotardȱisȱaȱmilitantȱaestheteȱ(letȱusȱwageȱaȱ war),ȱbattlingȱagainstȱtheȱtyrannyȱofȱpopularȱcultureȱtoȱsaveȱtheȱ honourȱofȱtheȱsublime.ȱLyotard’sȱcallȱtoȱwarȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱ ineffableȱ isȱ underpinnedȱ byȱ aȱ reverseȱ classȱ consciousness:ȱ theȱ selfȱconsciousnessȱofȱtheȱspiritualȱaristocracyȱorganisedȱagainstȱ theȱvulgarityȱofȱmassȱculture.ȱLyotardȱarticulatesȱthisȱexplicitlyȱ whenȱ heȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ “intellectualȱ class”ȱ ofȱ artistsȱ andȱ philosophers,ȱ aȱ membershipȱ whichȱ certainlyȱ carriesȱ withȱ itȱ aȱ measureȱ ofȱ responsibilityȱ toȱ theȱ public.ȱ Butȱ Lyotardȱ alsoȱ identifiesȱ aȱ beyondȱ ofȱ thatȱ responsibility,ȱ aȱ callingȱ outsideȱ ofȱ publicȱdiscourse.ȱTheȱartists’ȱultimateȱduty,ȱLyotardȱwrites,ȱisȱtoȱ answerȱtheȱquestion,ȱ“Whatȱisȱitȱtoȱpaint?”ȱjustȱasȱphilosopherȱisȱ responsibleȱtoȱtheȱquestionȱ“Whatȱisȱthinking?ȱTheȱpublicȱisȱnotȱ necessarilyȱ theȱ interlocutorȱ onȱ thisȱ question.”37ȱ Theȱ phenomenologicalȱ whirligigȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ thinkingȱ andȱ paintingȱ aboutȱ paintingȱ does,ȱ inevitably,ȱ intimateȱ theȱ transcendentalȱ andȱ theȱ sublime,ȱ andȱ soȱ thisȱ demarcationȱ betweenȱ theȱ publicȱ andȱ theȱ philosopherȬartistȱ isȱ yetȱ anotherȱ formulationȱofȱtheȱautonomyȱofȱartȱfromȱtheȱmarketplaceȱofȱlife.ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ Dopitováȱ andȱ Klodová,ȱ whichȱ isȱ beingȱ producedȱ rightȱ onȱ theȱ geoȬpoliticalȱ cuspȱ whereȱ authoritarianismȱsurgesȱintoȱlateȱcapitalism,ȱfollowsȱaȱdifferentȱ orientation,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ proddingȱ theȱ public,ȱ plumbingȱ theȱ issues,ȱ discoursingȱwithȱtheȱmedia,ȱbaitingȱtheȱconventions.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱ thisȱ veryȱ artȱ isȱ fundedȱ byȱ theȱ institutionsȱ andȱ regimesȱ itȱ interrogates,ȱ whichȱ atȱ firstȱ glanceȱ seemsȱ toȱ confirmȱ Lyotard’sȱ senseȱthatȱartȱcannotȱbeȱbothȱengagedȱandȱalsoȱresistȱitsȱcontextȱ anymore.ȱ Yetȱ thereȱ areȱ moderatorsȱ inȱ thisȱ debateȱ whoȱ areȱ willingȱ toȱ drawȱ theȱ linesȱ lessȱ dogmatically,ȱ whoȱ chartȱ ourȱ historicalȱ coordinatesȱ inȱ lessȱ extremistȱ topographies,ȱ andȱ whoȱ

ȱ37ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱInhuman,ȱ128.ȱ

112ȱ

lookȱ toȱ theȱ intersticesȱ forȱ areasȱ ofȱ possibility.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ inȱ hisȱ conversionȱ withȱ Germanȱ artistȱ Hansȱ Haacke,ȱ sociologistȱ Pierreȱ Bourdieuȱ discussesȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ artistȱ inȱ contemporaryȱculture,ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱ state.ȱ Bourdieuȱ insistsȱ thatȱ aȱ trueȱ latitudeȱ existsȱ forȱ artȱ atȱ thisȱ moment:ȱ “Aȱ publicȱ systemȱ leavesȱ aȱ veryȱ largeȱ marginȱ ofȱ freedom,ȱ butȱ oneȱ mustȱ stillȱ makeȱ useȱ ofȱ it”38ȱ evenȱ whileȱ heȱ regretsȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ exploitedȱ oftenȱ enough:ȱ “Unfortunately,ȱ citizensȱ andȱ intellectualsȱ areȱ notȱ preparedȱ forȱ thisȱ freedomȱ inȱ relationȱtoȱtheȱstate.”39ȱToȱourȱmind,ȱtheȱprovocativeȱpublicȱartȱ createdȱbyȱDopitováȱandȱKlodováȱstrikesȱoutȱpreciselyȱforȱthoseȱ enterprisingȱ borderlandsȱ towardsȱ whichȱ Bourdieuȱ gestures:ȱ “artists,ȱ writers,ȱ andȱ scholars,ȱ whoȱ holdȱ inȱ trustȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ exceptionalȱ accomplishmentsȱ ofȱ humanȱ history,ȱ mustȱ learnȱtoȱuseȱagainstȱtheȱstateȱtheȱfreedomȱthatȱtheȱstateȱassuresȱ them.”40ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ38ȱȱ PierreȱBourdieuȱandȱHansȱHaacke,ȱFreeȱExchangeȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱ Press,ȱ1995)ȱ75.ȱ ȱ39ȱȱ BourdieuȱandȱHaacke,ȱFreeȱExchange,ȱ73.ȱ ȱ40ȱȱ BourdieuȱandȱHaacke,ȱFreeȱExchange,ȱ72.ȱ

113ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

MairéadȱByrneȱ ȱ

AvantȬGardeȱPronounsȱ ȱ ȱ Peopleȱ don’tȱ getȱ noȱ timeȱ toȱ feelȱ andȱ spendȱ themȱ intelligence.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ intelligentȱ andȱ innocentȱ areȱ poor,ȱ areȱ crumbledȱ andȱ getȱbrutalised.ȱDaily.ȱ—BobȱMarleyȱ

ȱ ȱ WhenȱLouisȱArmandȱinvitedȱmeȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱofȱ essays,ȱ Iȱ wentȱ outȱ onȱ myȱ frontȱ porchȱ toȱ considerȱ theȱ implications.ȱWhyȱme?ȱHowȱdidȱheȱfindȱme?ȱCanȱaȱmemberȱofȱ theȱCurriculumȱSubcommitteeȱofȱtheȱInstructionȱCommitteeȱbeȱ avantȬgarde?ȱȱ Aȱ recentȱ publication,ȱ Séanceȱ (Makeȱ Now,ȱ 2006),ȱ connectsȱ committeesȱ andȱ theȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ knowȱ whatȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ avoirȱ séance,ȱtoȱbeȱenȱséance,ȱtoȱfaireȱuneȱlongueȱséance,ȱtoȱprendreȱséance,ȱ andȱeven,ȱeventually,ȱtoȱleverȱlaȱséance.ȱȱ Iȱknowȱtheȱinexorableȱsadnessȱofȱpencils.ȱButȱavantȬgarde?ȱȱ Ifȱ notȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ thenȱ howȱ aboutȱ historianȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬ garde?ȱ Preserverȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde?ȱ Canȱ Roethke’sȱ institutionalȱdust,ȱ“finerȱthanȱflour,ȱalive,ȱmoreȱdangerousȱthanȱ silica,”ȱbeȱmixedȱwithȱtheȱintoxicatingȱvimȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde?ȱ OnȱTuesdays,ȱWednesdays,ȱandȱThursdays,ȱIȱsprinkleȱnewsȱofȱ theȱavantȬgardeȱoverȱtheȱheadsȱofȱstudents.ȱIȱassignȱmanifestosȱ asȱ homework,ȱ orȱ did—untilȱ aȱ studentȱ fingeredȱ thatȱ particularȱ absurdity.ȱIȱofferȱhelpfulȱdirections:ȱ ȱ

114ȱ

TOȱREADȱANTONINȱARTAUD’SȱALLȱWRITINGȱISȱPIGSHITȱ ȱ STANDȱ outsideȱ theȱ RISDȱ Libraryȱ onȱ Benefitȱ Streetȱ withȱ backȱ toȱ frontȱ doorȱ ȱ CROSSȱ BenefitȱStreetȱ[lookȱrightȱlookȱleftȱlookȱrightȱagain]ȱ ȱ CLIMBȱ CollegeȱStreetȱtoȱProspectȱ ȱ TURNȱ rightȱ andȱ proceedȱ upȱ rampȱ orȱ stepsȱ toȱ Brownȱ University’sȱ RockefellerȱLibraryȱ ȱ ENTERȱ throughȱrevolvingȱdoorsȱ[toȱconserveȱheat]ȱ ȱ PRESENTȱ identificationȱatȱsecurityȱdeskȱ ȱ CONSULTȱ JosiahȱforȱMaryȱAnnȱCaws’sȱManifesto:ȱAȱCenturyȱofȱIsmsȱȱ ȱ TRANSCRIBEȱȱ CallȱNumberȱ[CBȱ427.M287ȱ2001]ȱ&ȱ ȱ NOTEȱ locationȱofȱavailableȱcopy/copiesȱ ȱ PROCEEDȱ toȱappropriateȱfloorȱforȱcirculatingȱcopyȱ[consultȱlistȱbyȱelevator]ȱȱ ORȱReferenceȱRoomȱ[forȱuseȱinȱlibraryȱonly]ȱȱ ȱ PROCUREȱ bookȱ&ȱȱ ȱ CARRYȱ toȱcoin/cardȱcopierȱonȱ1stȱorȱ2ndȱfloorȱ 115ȱ

COPYȱ

pagesȱ460Ȭ1ȱ ȱ RETRIEVEȱ &ȱfold,ȱroll,ȱorȱotherwiseȱtemporarilyȱstore,ȱpagesȱ ȱ RETURNȱ bookȱtoȱReferenceȱDeskȱorȱcartȱ ȱ READ/LEAVE/READȱ ȱ CONSULTȱ teacherȱifȱconfusedȱ

ȱ Theȱ avantȬgardeȱ traditionȱ isȱ stillȱ exemplary.ȱ Sayingȱ pigshitȱ inȱ theȱ classroomȱ isȱ bracing.ȱ Sayingȱ allȱ writingȱ isȱ pigshitȱ isȱ funȱ inȱ 101.ȱOxymoronȱisȱanȱexcellentȱpedagogicalȱpivotȱbutȱsoonerȱorȱ laterȱ theȱ seeȬsawȱ dips.ȱ Whatȱ Davidȱ Lloydȱ callsȱ “theȱ unexpungeableȱ melancholyȱ ofȱ theȱ pedagogicalȱ scene”ȱ (263)ȱ describesȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ exemplarityȱ ofȱ pedagogyȱ wherebyȱ subjectȱ matterȱ andȱ teacherȱ areȱ inexorablyȱ boundȱ toȱ fallȱ shortȱ andȱbeȱshedȱbyȱtheȱstudent,ȱwhoȱisȱprimedȱtoȱoutstripȱboth.ȱȱ Theȱsubject,ȱinȱsomeȱsense,ȱmustȱnecessarilyȱbeȱsmallerȱthanȱ theȱ student.ȱ Makingȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ requiresȱ greatȱ sophistication,ȱ orȱ crudity.ȱ Cuttingȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ downȱ toȱ sizeȱ toȱ fitȱ Tuesdaysȱ andȱ Thursdays,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ mayȱ notȱ yieldȱ theȱ controlledȱ explosionȱ orȱ distributedȱ tremorsȱ aȱ teacherȱ desires.ȱDavidȱLloydȱconcludes:ȱ ȱ Whatȱthisȱmeshingȱofȱtheȱaestheticȱandȱtheȱpoliticalȱwithinȱtheȱ fieldȱ ofȱ pedagogyȱ impliesȱ isȱ thatȱ anyȱ sustainedȱ attemptȱ toȱ rethinkȱ theȱ natureȱ andȱ functionȱ ofȱ culturalȱ educationȱ fromȱ aȱ radicalȱ perspectiveȱ mustȱ entailȱ aȱ simultaneousȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ politicalȱ cultureȱ ofȱ representation.ȱ Inȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ critique,ȱ radicalȱ pedagogyȱ willȱ continueȱ toȱ reproduce,ȱ atȱ theȱ “microscopic”ȱ levelȱ ofȱ itsȱ implicitȱ practices,ȱ theȱ processesȱ ofȱ

116ȱ

ideologicalȱ interpellationȱ thatȱ itsȱ explicitȱ tendencyȱ seeksȱ toȱ disrupt.1ȱ

ȱ Asȱaȱteacher,ȱIȱamȱaȱhandlerȱofȱavantȬgardeȱtraditions.ȱIȱdonȱ powerfulȱavantȬgardeȱglovesȱtoȱmanipulateȱexplosiveȱavantȬ gardeȱmaterials.ȱIȱworkȱtoȱlearnȱmore.ȱEveryȱyearȱbringsȱ increments.ȱIȱbuildȱanȱavantȬgardeȱnestȬegg.ȱ Asȱ aȱ poet,ȱ Iȱ amȱ aȱ littleȱ bitȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ avantȬgardeȱ stonesȱ inȱ myȱ pocketȱ whichȱ Iȱ fingerȱ fromȱ timeȱ toȱ time.ȱ Butȱ I’mȱ notȱ likelyȱ toȱ beȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ advanceȱ partyȱ ofȱ anything.ȱ Iȱ don’tȱ evenȱlikeȱparties.ȱInȱaȱwarȱsituationȱI’dȱprobablyȱhide.ȱȱ Canȱ anȱ Irishȱ poetȱ beȱ avantȬgarde?ȱ Perhaps—ifȱ s/heȱ emigrates.ȱȱ I’mȱ tooȱ postȬcolonialȱ toȱ beȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ knowȱ aȱ littleȱ bitȱ aboutȱ theȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ myselfȱ amȱ slightlyȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Susceptibleȱ toȱ avantȬgardism.ȱ Iȱ letȱ downȱ myȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ enjoyȱoneȱglassȱofȱwineȱaȱnightȱ&ȱamȱmoderatelyȱavantȬgarde.ȱȱ CanȱaȱmotherȱbeȱavantȬgarde?ȱShowȱmeȱexamples.ȱ Underȱ theȱ starryȱ sky,ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ aboutȱ myȱ fellowȱ poetsȱ inȱ Providence.ȱ Wendyȱ Waltersȱ overȱ thereȱ onȱ Lindy.ȱ Canȱ aȱ 21stȱ centuryȱ artistȱ beȱ avantȬgarde?ȱ Canȱ anȱ AfricanȬAmericanȱ beȱ avantȬgarde?ȱ Mikeȱ Mageeȱ inȱ Cumberland.ȱ Canȱ aȱ manȱ withȱ aȱ bigȱhouseȱbeȱavantȬgarde?ȱMikeȱGizzi.ȱBrianȱKimȱStefans.ȱBrianȱ isȱ quiteȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ forȱ aȱ traditionalist.ȱ Robertȱ Creeleyȱ isȱ avantȬgarde.ȱHeȱhasȱgoneȱaheadȱofȱusȱall.ȱȱ Iȱgoȱinȱforȱmyȱbinoculars.ȱBackȱoutȱonȱtheȱporch,ȱIȱtrainȱthemȱ onȱtheȱgrassyȱplainȱbeyondȱtheȱcityȱwallsȱwhereȱRonȱSilliman’sȱ 160Ȭstrongȱ standingȱ armyȱ ofȱ Northȱ Americanȱ poetsȱ onȱ activeȱ avantȬgardeȱ serviceȱ isȱ encamped.2ȱ Iȱ seeȱ theirȱ fires,ȱ wayȱ backȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Davidȱ Lloyd,ȱ “Kant’sȱ Examples,”ȱ Unrulyȱ Examples:ȱ Onȱ theȱ Rhetoricȱ ofȱ Example,ȱ ed.ȱAlexanderȱGelleyȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995)ȱ276.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ Inȱ“TheȱPracticeȱofȱArt,”ȱtheȱafterwordȱtoȱDennisȱBaroneȱandȱPeterȱGanick’sȱTheȱ ArtȱofȱPractice:ȱFortyȬFiveȱAmericanȱPoetsȱ(Potesȱ&ȱPoetsȱPress,ȱ1994)—althoughȱitȱ mayȱappearȱtoȱtheȱprefaceȱtoȱInȱtheȱAmericanȱTreeȱ(NationalȱPoetryȱFoundation,ȱ 1985),ȱSillimanȱobservesȱ“Thatȱmoreȱthanȱ160ȱNorthȱAmericanȱpoetsȱareȱactivelyȱ andȱ usefullyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ traditionȱ ofȱ writingȱ isȱ inȱ itselfȱ aȱ stunningȱthought”ȱ(377).ȱȱ

117ȱ

thereȱinȱ1994,ȱringingȱtheȱcity.ȱIȱamȱaȱlittleȱbitȱbourgeoisȱtoo,ȱaȱ necessaryȱ conditionȱ forȱ avantȬgardism.3ȱ Iȱ haveȱ aȱ porch.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ binoculars.4ȱȱ Iȱ wonderȱ aboutȱ theȱ conditionȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ army’sȱ campingȱgear;ȱandȱfeelȱslightlyȱoppressed.ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ Notȱ longȱ agoȱ Iȱ wasȱ wadingȱ manfullyȱ throughȱ Jedȱ Rasula’sȱ SyncopationsȱwhileȱlyingȱinȱbedȱwhenȱsuddenlyȱIȱgotȱstoppedȱinȱ myȱtracks:ȱ ȱ Theȱcanon,ȱlikeȱanyȱbureaucraticallyȱadministeredȱorganisation,ȱ takesȱ itsȱ directivesȱ fromȱ licensedȱ operators.ȱ Theȱ formalȱ andȱ legalȱ requirementsȱ forȱ operatingȱ canonicalȱ mechanismsȱ areȱ analogousȱtoȱthoseȱforȱobtainingȱanȱaviator’sȱlicense.ȱNextȱtimeȱ youȱ readȱ Ashbery,ȱ listenȱ forȱ theȱ sonicȱ tracesȱ ofȱ disconnectionȱ andȱdetachmentȱ…5ȱ

ȱ Whoa!ȱ Didȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ justȱ sayȱ you???ȱ “Nextȱ timeȱ youȱ readȱ Ashberyȱ…”ȱIȱdoȱaȱquickȱspotȱcheck.ȱLookȱtoȱmyȱright.ȱLookȱtoȱ myȱleft.ȱThere’sȱnoȬoneȱelseȱhereȱexceptȱmyȱ8Ȭyearȱoldȱdaughterȱ ClioȱandȱmyȱcatȱVincent.ȱJedȱRasulaȱisȱtalkingȱtoȱme.ȱJedȱRasulaȱ assumesȱ heȱ hasȱ anȱ audience.ȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ isȱ confidentȱ inȱ hisȱ audienceȱ (heȱ doesn’tȱ knowȱ itȱ isȱ me).ȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ isȱ chummy:ȱ “NextȱtimeȱyouȱreadȱAshberyȱ…”ȱNotȱJohnȱAshbery.ȱOrȱtheȱpoetȱ Johnȱ Ashbery.ȱ Justȱ Ashbery.ȱ Iȱ goȱ straightȱ downstairsȱ toȱ myȱ libraryȱ whereȱ theȱ poetryȱ booksȱ areȱ alphabeticallyȱ arranged,ȱ

ȱ 3ȱȱ Seeȱ Paulȱ Mann’sȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ Deathȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Bloomingtonȱ andȱ Indianapolis:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1991)ȱ 81:ȱ “Theȱ avantȬgardeȱ wasȱ launchedȱ byȱ theȱ bourgeoisieȱ andȱ isȱ lockedȱ intoȱ aȱ decayingȱ orbitȱ aroundȱ it;ȱ itȱ wasȱ bornȱ withȱ theȱ bourgeoisieȱ becauseȱ theȱ bourgeoisieȱ hadȱ toȱ externalizeȱ itsȱ oppositionȱinȱorderȱtoȱbetterȱcontainȱit.”ȱȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Iȱdon’tȱactuallyȱhaveȱbinoculars.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Jedȱ Rasula,ȱ Syncopations:ȱ Theȱ Stressȱ ofȱ Innovationȱ inȱ Contemporaryȱ Poetryȱ (Tuscaloosa:ȱUniversityȱofȱAlabamaȱPress,ȱ2004)ȱ159.ȱ

118ȱ

moreȱorȱless,ȱandȱpluckȱAshberyȱoffȱtheȱshelf.ȱNextȱtimeȱyouȱreadȱ Ashbery.ȱI’mȱdoingȱit,ȱJed!ȱ Ronȱ Sillimanȱ isȱ stunnedȱ byȱ theȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ theȱ 160ȱ Northȱ Americanȱ poetsȱ “activelyȱ andȱ usefullyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ avantȬ gardeȱ tradition.”6ȱ I’mȱ stunnedȱ byȱ Jedȱ Rasula’sȱ assumptionȱ ofȱ audience.ȱ Andȱ who’sȱ toȱ sayȱ heȱ doesn’tȱ meanȱ thatȱ youȱ inȱ theȱ plural?ȱ Iȱ checkȱ theȱ book’sȱ dueȱ date.ȱ See—it’sȱ alsoȱ beenȱ takenȱ outȱ(fromȱBrownȱUniversity’sȱRockefellerȱLibrary)ȱbyȱsomeoneȱ else,ȱfiveȱmonthsȱago.ȱȱ Inȱmyȱbedroom,ȱJedȱandȱIȱlieȱinȱeasyȱconfabȱchewingȱtheȱfatȱ aboutȱAshbery.ȱItȱisȱ6.30pmȱonȱSundayȱtheȱ29thȱofȱJanuaryȱ2006.ȱ MyȱcatȱVincentȱisȱplumpedȱatȱmyȱfeetȱandȱmyȱdaughterȱClioȱisȱ onȱtheȱfloorȱbesideȱme,ȱbuildingȱaȱDutchȬroofedȱhotelȱforȱdollsȱ outȱ ofȱaȱlargeȱ cardboardȱ box.ȱ Ashberyȱisȱ thereȱ too.ȱEveryȱ nowȱ andȱthenȱIȱdipȱinȱtoȱlistenȱforȱtheȱsonicȱtracesȱofȱdisconnectionȱ andȱdetachmentȱJedȱmentioned.ȱȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ tellȱ him,ȱ “I’mȱ notȱ tooȱ sureȱ whatȱ youȱ meanȱ aboutȱ theȱ sonicȱ traces,ȱ Jed.”ȱ “Iȱ amȱ fullȱ ofȱ pride,”ȱ myȱ daughterȱ says,ȱ beamingȱoverȱherȱhouse:ȱ“NowȱthatȱisȱwhatȱIȱcallȱaȱroof.”ȱIȱwantȱ toȱ say:ȱ “Wouldȱ youȱ lookȱ atȱ that,ȱ Jed,”ȱ andȱ laughȱ companionably.ȱ Butȱ I’mȱ notȱ sureȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ meansȱ meȱ inȱ thatȱ youȱafterȱall.ȱHeȱmayȱhaveȱmeȱmixedȱupȱwithȱsomeoneȱelse.ȱȱ Iȱwroteȱaȱpoem:ȱ ȱ JEDȱRASULAȱ Soȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ droppedȱ byȱ &ȱ heȱ wasȱ rappingȱ aboutȱ hisȱ Auntieȱ Meggieȱ whoȱ wasȱ aȱ musherȱ inȱ theȱ Iditarodȱ Iȱ don’tȱ knowȱ howȱ manyȱtimesȱ&ȱactuallyȱtookȱtheȱRedȱLanternȱinȱ‘95ȱafterȱaȱwholeȱ sagaȱofȱattemptsȱtoȱcrossȱtheȱBurledȱArchȱofȱNome.ȱFirstȱtryȱwasȱ inȱ ‘78ȱ &ȱ sheȱ scratchedȱ inȱ Rohn.ȱ Iȱ meanȱ sheȱ hadȱ barelyȱ leftȱ Wasilla.ȱOkayȱsheȱwasȱaȱRookie.ȱNextȱtimeȱwasȱ‘79,ȱitȱwould’veȱ beenȱtheȱsouthernȱtrailȱbutȱsheȱscratchedȱinȱOphirȱcitingȱaȱsickȱ teamȱandȱherȱleaderȱdidȱdie.ȱAȱdoubleȱintussusceptionȱJedȱsaid.ȱ Inȱ ‘80ȱ sheȱ madeȱ itȱ toȱ Cripple.ȱ Thatȱ wasȱ aȱ northernȱ year.ȱ 497ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ RonȱSilliman,ȱ“TheȱPracticeȱofȱArt,”ȱTheȱArtȱofȱPractice:ȱFortyȬFiveȱAmericanȱPoets,ȱ eds.ȱ Dennisȱ Baroneȱ andȱ Peterȱ Ganickȱ (Connecticut,ȱ Potesȱ &ȱ Poetsȱ Press,ȱ 1994)ȱ 377.ȱ

119ȱ

milesȱ toȱ Nome.ȱ Closingȱ in.ȱ Sheȱ hadȱ kneeȱ surgeryȱ inȱ ‘82,ȱ somethingȱbrewingȱsinceȱ‘79ȱJedȱsaid,ȱsoȱsheȱdidn’tȱgetȱbackȱonȱ theȱ trailȱ tillȱ ‘85ȱ whenȱ sheȱ scratchedȱ inȱ Anvik.ȱ Inȱ ‘89—Iȱ guessȱ maybeȱ sheȱ hadȱ toȱ haveȱ surgeryȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ knee—sheȱ scratchedȱinȱGrayling,ȱcitingȱaȱsoftȱtrail.ȱ429ȱmilesȱtoȱgoȱsoȱsheȱ shavedȱ68ȱmilesȱoffȱherȱbestȱtoȱdate.ȱThatȱwasȱaȱsouthernȱyear.ȱ Thenȱ finally—thisȱ isȱ theȱ killer—inȱ ‘92ȱ sheȱ scratchesȱ inȱ Unalakleetȱcitingȱaȱsoreȱthumb.ȱOnlyȱShaktoolik,ȱKoyuk,ȱElim,ȱ Golovin,ȱWhiteȱMountain,ȱandȱSafetyȱtoȱgo,ȱ229ȱmilesȱJedȱsaid.ȱ Butȱsheȱneverȱgaveȱup.ȱItȱwasȱincredibleȱJedȱsaid.ȱSheȱshould’veȱ gotȱ theȱ Mostȱ Improvedȱ Musherȱ Award.ȱ Butȱ sheȱ gotȱ theȱ Redȱ Lanternȱinȱ‘95.ȱNoȱgold.ȱJustȱaȱplaque.ȱForȱstickȬtoȬitiveness.ȱ17ȱ daysȱ6ȱhoursȱ2ȱminutesȱ&ȱ5ȱsecondsȱitȱtookȱher,ȱJedȱsaid.ȱInȱtheȱ Iditarodȱyouȱknowȱthere’sȱaȱlotȱofȱmoneyȱatȱstake.ȱInȱXXXIIIȱtheȱ topȱ30ȱsharedȱ$705,000,ȱwithȱRobertȱSorlieȱaloneȱtakingȱ$72,067.ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ 7ȱ females,ȱ withȱ Jessieȱ Royer,ȱ DeeDeeȱ Jonroweȱ &ȱ AliyȱZirkleȱinȱ9th,ȱ10th,ȱandȱ11thȱplace,ȱJessicaȱHendricksȱ15th,ȱ MelanieȱGouldȱ23rd,ȱDianaȱMoroneyȱ27thȱandȱHarmonyȱBarronȱ 29th.ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱyouȱgetȱtoȱ29thȱyou’reȱtalkingȱonlyȱ$2,193.ȱButȱ Jessieȱ Royerȱ gotȱ $35,511ȱ andȱ DeeDeeȱ walkedȱ awayȱ withȱ $29,244.ȱ DeeDeeȱ finishedȱ inȱ 9ȱ daysȱ 8ȱ hoursȱ 49ȱ minutesȱ &ȱ 42ȱ secondsȱinȱ‘98.ȱAndȱ9ȱdaysȱ11ȱhoursȱ24ȱminutesȱandȱ7ȱsecondsȱ inȱ ‘95.ȱ That’sȱ fast.ȱ Sorlie’sȱ notȱ thatȱ fast.ȱ Auntieȱ Meggieȱ wasȱ aȱ sport,ȱ Jedȱ said.ȱ Itȱ wasn’tȱ aboutȱ theȱ money.ȱ Butȱ sheȱ hadȱ aȱ dogȱ thatȱlaterȱwonȱtheȱLollyȱMedleyȱGoldenȱHarnessȱAward.ȱThat’sȱ likeȱ theȱ Yaleȱ Youngerȱ forȱ dogs.ȱ Weȱ wereȱ enthralledȱ listening.ȱ Jedȱ saidȱ Meggie’sȱ achievementȱ wasȱ remarkable,ȱ exemplary,ȱ significant,ȱ instructive,ȱ andȱ singular,ȱ whileȱ notȱ withoutȱ precedent.ȱWhereȱisȱsheȱnowȱweȱallȱwondered.ȱDeadȱJedȱsaid.ȱ

ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ assuredȱ you,ȱ theȱ Rasulaȱ ofȱ Syncopationsȱ isȱ usuallyȱ scepticalȱaboutȱaudience,ȱtoȱaȱtortuousȱextent.ȱRagtimeȱitȱain’t:ȱ ȱ Aȱrealȱwildȱcardȱnowȱisȱtheȱaudience.ȱForȱoneȱthing,ȱaudienceȱisȱ noȱlongerȱidenticalȱtoȱreadership.ȱTheȱboostȱinȱoralityȱprovidedȱ byȱtheȱgrowthȱinȱpoetryȱslamsȱhasȱcertainlyȱhadȱsomeȱspilloverȱ effect,ȱ creatingȱ newȱ readers,ȱ butȱ Americanȱ cultureȱ isȱ beingȱ drainedȱofȱliteracyȱskillsȱatȱaȱconsiderableȱpace.ȱCuriously,ȱthisȱ mayȱ resultȱ inȱ aȱ growingȱ audienceȱ forȱ publishedȱ poetryȱ asȱ theȱ veryȱactȱofȱreadingȱbecomesȱmoreȱarchaic,ȱspecialised,ȱattainingȱ 120ȱ

aȱcertainȱantiquarianȱglamour.ȱThereȱwillȱbeȱincreasedȱurgencyȱ onȱtheȱpartȱofȱreadersȱtoȱidentifyȱthemselvesȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱ…7ȱ

ȱ TheȱpoetryȱaudienceȱhasȱexplodedȱwithȱSlamȱbutȱlet’sȱnotȱlookȱ atȱ that.ȱ Insteadȱ let’sȱ lookȱ atȱ thisȱ littleȱ secretȱ societyȱ ofȱ bookȬ loversȱ whichȱ mayȱ orȱ mayȱ notȱ emergeȱ inȱ reactionȱ toȱ Slam.ȱ Iȱ mean,ȱ whatȱ isȱ this???ȱ Whoȱ caresȱ aboutȱ theȱ glamorousȱ antiquarians!ȱ Slamȱ poetsȱ alreadyȱ publishȱ booksȱ andȱ CDs,ȱ forȱ whichȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ committedȱ audience.ȱ Surelyȱ that’sȱ aȱ viableȱ focusȱofȱinterest?ȱ Slamȱdoesn’tȱfitȱRasula’sȱdefinitionȱofȱpoetry:ȱ ȱ Poetryȱ [Slam?]ȱ isȱ fundamentallyȱ esoteric,ȱ inȱ severalȱ senses:ȱ itȱ [Slam?]ȱ isȱ sociallyȱ insignificantȱ (although,ȱ asȱ symbolicȱ capital,ȱ poetryȱ[Slam?]ȱmustȱexistȱtheȱwayȱgoldȱbarsȱexistȱinȱFortȱKnox,ȱ inȱ aȱ precariousȱ affiliationȱ withȱ currencyȱ standards)ȱ andȱ thereforeȱrepresentsȱanȱuncommonȱorȱesotericȱenterprise;ȱbutȱitȱ [Slam?]ȱhasȱaȱlongȱtraditionȱofȱobscurityȱandȱobscurantism,ȱandȱ itsȱ [Slam’s?]ȱ legendaryȱ affiliationsȱ withȱ theȱ museȱ traditionȱ suggestȱthanȱpoetryȱ[Slam?]ȱisȱesotericȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱmindȱorȱ psycheȱasȱsuch.8ȱȱ

ȱ AndȱRasula’sȱdefinitionȱofȱpoetryȱdoesn’tȱfitȱmyȱexperience:ȱ ȱ Asȱesoterica,ȱpoetry’sȱvalueȱisȱatȱonceȱinscrutableȱandȱbesideȱtheȱ point.ȱ Asȱ publicȱ enterprise,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ poetryȱ isȱ nowȱ caughtȱ inȱ aȱ conspicuouslyȱ wideningȱ cultureȱ gapȱ (orȱ seriesȱ ofȱ gaps).ȱ Insofarȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ deeplyȱ investedȱ inȱ literacyȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ knowledgeȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ literateȱ culture,ȱ poetryȱ isȱ boundȱ toȱ seemȱ antiquated,ȱ esoteric,ȱ scholastic,ȱ andȱ casuallyȱ intimidatingȱ evenȱ whenȱ itȱ purportsȱ aȱ moreȱ populistȱ orientation.ȱ Asȱ anȱ activeȱ componentȱinȱoralȱculture,ȱpoetryȱisȱperiodicallyȱrekindledȱintoȱ prominence,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ onlyȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ affectiveȱ immediacy.ȱ Thereȱisȱaȱthirdȱzone,ȱanȱinterfaceȱbetweenȱoralityȱandȱliteracy,ȱ thatȱ isȱ moreȱ emphaticallyȱ visualȱ inȱ theȱ venuesȱ ofȱ electronicȱ media.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ obviousȱ potentialȱ hereȱ forȱ theȱ inaugurationȱ ofȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ32.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ36.ȱ

121ȱ

newȱ poeticȱ enterprise,ȱ oneȱ inȱ whichȱ poetryȱ mightȱ conceivablyȱ rivalȱfilm.ȱNotȱaȱseriousȱrival,ȱmaybe,ȱsinceȱpoetry’sȱinvestmentȱ inȱtheȱwordȱwillȱlimitȱitsȱsemioticȱappealȱinȱtheȱlongȱrun.9ȱȱ

ȱ PerhapsȱRasulaȱisȱright.ȱHisȱinsights,ȱasȱBruceȱAndrewsȱsaysȱonȱ theȱbackȱcoverȱofȱtheȱbook,ȱareȱpenetratingȱandȱunique.ȱMaybeȱ poetryȱisȱesoteric.ȱYetȱitȱisȱaȱboldnessȱforȱme;ȱitȱisȱhowȱIȱconnectȱ toȱpeopleȱofȱallȱages,ȱatȱeveryȱlevelȱofȱsocietyȱaccessibleȱtoȱme.ȱ Andȱrightȱnow,ȱJed’sȱtalkingȱtoȱme.ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ CanȱaȱwomanȱbeȱavantȬgarde?ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ CanȱaȱwomanȱbeȱavantȬgarde?ȱHell,ȱyes.ȱTheȱtermȱmayȱbeȱaȱbitȱ military.ȱButȱwomenȱserveȱinȱtheȱarmedȱforcesȱnow.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱaȱ bitȱ French.ȱ Butȱ plentyȱ ofȱwomenȱ areȱ French.ȱ Evenȱamongȱ Ronȱ Silliman’sȱ standingȱ armyȱ ofȱ 160Ȭplusȱ Northȱ Americanȱ poetsȱ “activelyȱandȱ usefullyȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱavantȬgardeȱ traditionȱ ofȱ writing”ȱ (377),ȱ thereȱ areȱ manyȱ women,ȱ campedȱ outȱ thereȱ inȱ 1994.ȱToȱborrowȱaȱstrategyȱfromȱSilliman,ȱyouȱ(yes!)ȱhave:ȱ ȱ Lorineȱ Niedecker.ȱ Barbaraȱ Guest.ȱ Kathleenȱ Fraser.ȱ Bernadetteȱ Mayer.ȱ Rosmarieȱ Waldrop.ȱ Nicoleȱ Brossard.ȱ Anneȱ Waldman.ȱ Hannahȱ Weiner.ȱ Fannyȱ Howe.ȱ Lynȱ Hejinian.ȱ Annȱ Lauterbach.ȱ Aliceȱ Notley.ȱ Maureenȱ Owen.ȱ Beverlyȱ Dahlen.ȱ MeiȬMeiȱ Berssenbrugge.ȱ Abigailȱ Child.ȱ Raeȱ Armantrout.ȱ Kathyȱ Acker.ȱ SusanȱHowe.ȱJohannaȱDrucker.ȱLynneȱDreyer.ȱLeslieȱScalapino.ȱ Lauraȱ Moriarty.ȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis.ȱ Patriciaȱ Dienstfry.ȱ Theresaȱ Hakȱ Kyungȱ Cha.ȱ Tinaȱ Darragh.ȱ Carlaȱ Harryman.ȱ Marjorieȱ Welish.ȱ Joanȱ Retallack.ȱ Fionaȱ Templeton.ȱ Coleȱ Swenson.ȱ Eileenȱ Myles.ȱ Erinȱ Moure.ȱ Dianeȱ Ward.ȱ Jeanȱ Day.ȱ Karenȱ McCormack.ȱ Gailȱ Scott.ȱ Harryetteȱ Mullen.ȱ Ericaȱ Hunt.ȱ Julieȱ Patton.ȱ Normaȱ Cole.ȱ MaryȬMargaretȱ Sloan.ȱ Dodieȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ36Ȭ7.ȱ

122ȱ

Bellamy.ȱ Jessicaȱ Grim.10ȱ Eileenȱ Agar.ȱ Claudeȱ Cahun.ȱ Leonoraȱ Carrington.ȱ Suzanneȱ Césaire.ȱ Liseȱ Deharme.ȱ Marcelleȱ Ferry.ȱ Léonorȱ Fini.ȱ Valentineȱ Hugo.ȱ Fridaȱ Kahlo.ȱ Nellyȱ Kaplan.ȱ MariamȱvanȱHirtum.ȱJacquelineȱLamba.ȱMaryȱLow.ȱDoraȱMaar.ȱ Leeȱ Miller.ȱ Noraȱ Mitrani.ȱ Joyceȱ Mansour.ȱ Meretȱ Oppenheim,ȱ Mimiȱ Parent.ȱ Valentineȱ Penrose.ȱ Kayȱ Sage.ȱ Toyen.ȱ Remediosȱ Varo.ȱ Unicaȱ Zürn.ȱ Bonna.ȱ Emmyȱ Bridgwater.ȱ Hannahȱ Höch.ȱ Annieȱ Lebrun.ȱ Gisèleȱ Prassinos.ȱ Aliceȱ Rahon.ȱ Edithȱ Rimmington.ȱ Dorotheaȱ Tanning.11ȱ Jenȱ Bervin.ȱ Gwendolynȱ Brooks.ȱ Ericaȱ Carpenter.ȱ Brendaȱ Coultas.ȱ Alisonȱ Croggon.ȱ Toiȱ Derricotte.ȱ Kristenȱ Kaschock.ȱ Amyȱ King.ȱ Rachelȱ Loden.ȱ Sheilaȱ E.ȱMurphy.ȱNourbeseȱPhilip.ȱSinaȱQueyras.ȱAdrienneȱRich.ȱLisaȱ Robertson.ȱ Kimȱ Rosenfield.ȱ Murielȱ Rukeyser.ȱ Rebeccaȱ Seiferle.ȱ Ntozakeȱ Shange.ȱ Julianaȱ Spahr.ȱ Janeȱ Sprague.ȱ Gertrudeȱ Stein.ȱ Stephanieȱ Strickland.ȱ Mayȱ Swenson.ȱ Stacyȱ Szymaszek.ȱ CatherineȱWalsh.ȱSusanȱWheeler.ȱHarrietȱZinnes.12ȱȱ

ȱ Thatȱ isȱ someȱ blockȱ ofȱ tofu.ȱ Pureȱ protein.ȱ Andȱ there’sȱ plentyȱ moreȱinȱtheȱdeliȱthatȱcameȱfrom.ȱ KennethȱGoldsmithȱhasȱaȱveryȱgoodȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱquestion:ȱ What’sȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ poetryȱ andȱ visualȱ art?ȱ Thisȱ questionȱ comesȱ upȱ frequentlyȱ inȱ Visualȱ Poetry.ȱ Ifȱ itȱ worksȱ withinȱ theȱ economyȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ it’sȱ poetry,ȱ Kennyȱ says.ȱ Ifȱ itȱ worksȱ withinȱ theȱ economyȱ ofȱ visualȱ art,ȱ it’sȱ visualȱ art.ȱ Thisȱ formulaȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ questionȱ Whatȱ isȱ poetry?ȱ Orȱ WhatȱisȱtheȱavantȬgarde?ȱIfȱitȱisȱeditorially—orȱselfȬidentified—asȱ avantȬgarde,ȱit’sȱavantȬgarde.ȱȱ Womenȱ areȱ quintessentiallyȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ foreverȱ burstingȱ theirȱ ownȱ boundaries,ȱ producing,ȱ fromȱ theirȱ ownȱ bodies,ȱperfectȱformsȱforȱmanipulatingȱtheȱfuture.ȱI’dȱgoȱasȱfarȱ asȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ quintessentiallyȱ avantȬgardeȱ oneȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Movingȱ Borders:ȱ Threeȱ Decadesȱ ofȱ Iinnovativeȱ Writingȱ byȱ Women,ȱ ed.ȱ Maryȱ MargaretȱSloanȱ(JerseyȱCity,ȱN.J.:ȱTalismanȱHouse,ȱ1998).ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Martineȱ Antle,ȱ “Womenȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ 1925Ȭ1985,”ȱ graduateȱ course,ȱ RomanceȱLanguagesȱandȱLiteraturesȱDepartment,ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolinaȱ atȱChapelȱHill.ȱhttp://www.unc.edu/courses/fren330/ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Fromȱ myȱ ownȱ bookshelves.ȱ Ihaveȱ noȱ ideaȱ ifȱ theseȱ womenȱ areȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ scoopedȱthemȱintoȱmyȱbigȱtinȱbasinȱbutȱitȱimmediatelyȱsprangȱleaks.ȱ

123ȱ

mustȱbeȱaȱwomanȱ(quintessenceȱandȱeconomyȱareȱnotȱtheȱsameȱ thing,ȱofȱcourse).ȱWhenȱwomenȱpoetsȱandȱartistsȱareȱdefinedȱbyȱ theȱrelevantȱeconomiesȱofȱtime,ȱspace,ȱnationality,ȱlanguage,ȱartȱ form,ȱ genre,ȱ etc.,ȱ asȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ theyȱ becomeȱ doublyȱ avantȬ gardeȱ (justȱ asȱ artistȬmothersȱ areȱ doubleȬbearing).ȱ Theyȱ areȱ avantȬavantȱgarde.ȱȱ WhileȱitȱisȱdefinitelyȱpossibleȱforȱaȱmanȱtoȱbeȱavantȬgarde,ȱinȱ anyȱoneȱorȱmoreȱofȱtheȱmanyȱdefinitionsȱandȱinterpretationsȱofȱ theȱ term,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ respectiveȱ economiesȱ involved,ȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱforȱaȱmanȱtoȱbeȱavantȬavantȱgarde.ȱIȱamȱremindedȱofȱ anȱ Irishȱ artistȱ Iȱ onceȱ knewȱ intimatelyȱ who,ȱ whenȱ itȱ snowedȱ orȱ rainedȱhard,ȱandȱweȱwereȱwalking,ȱputȱmeȱoutȱinȱfrontȱofȱhimȱ soȱ heȱ couldȱ findȱ shelter.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ oftenȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ women,ȱ artistsȱorȱotherwise,ȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱ Iȱ askedȱ Janeȱ Spragueȱ ifȱ sheȱ believedȱ inȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde.ȱ Sheȱ saidȱ yes.ȱ Later,ȱ speakingȱ aboutȱ community,ȱ sheȱ saidȱ thatȱ sheȱ hadȱ revisedȱ herȱ conceptȱ ofȱ communityȱ andȱ understoodȱitȱnowȱmoreȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱnetwork.ȱAtȱsomeȱlevel,ȱIȱ stillȱseeȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱasȱaȱphalanxȱofȱRomanȱsoldiersȱmovingȱ crabȬlikeȱ throughȱ theȱ dark.ȱ Butȱ itȱ couldȱ beȱ aȱ constellation.ȱ Itȱ couldȱ beȱ aȱ web.ȱ Itȱ couldȱ beȱ anȱ Olympicȱ torchȱ passedȱ fromȱ generationȱ toȱ generation,ȱ betweenȱ cultures,ȱ muchȱ asȱ Irishȱ painterȱMichaelȱMulcahy,ȱinȱtheȱ1980sȱandȱ1990s,ȱwithȱhisȱownȱ swordȱ andȱ bataȱ fada,13ȱ travelledȱ theȱ roadsȱ ofȱ Connemara,ȱ theȱ streetsȱofȱDublin,ȱandȱtheȱbóithríns14ȱofȱInisȱOirr,ȱinȱsomeȱsortȱofȱ sympathyȱwithȱArtaud.15ȱȱ

ȱ13ȱȱ Longȱstick;ȱalsoȱpenis.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Littleȱroads.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Inȱ1937,ȱArtaudȱjourneyedȱtoȱIrelandȱwithȱhisȱCubanȱswordȱandȱ“St.ȱPatrick’s”ȱ walkingȱstick,ȱwhichȱheȱwantedȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱIrish.ȱHeȱspentȱmuchȱofȱhisȱtimeȱ isolatedȱ inȱ hotelsȱ andȱ guestȬhousesȱ inȱ Galway,ȱ Inisȱ Mór,ȱ andȱ Dublinȱ where— outȱ onȱ theȱ streets—heȱ wasȱ beatenȱ up.ȱ Heȱ couldȱ findȱ noȱ restingȱ placeȱ forȱ theȱ stick,ȱ whichȱ heȱ thenȱ lost,ȱ beforeȱ beingȱ deportedȱ andȱ institutionalized.ȱ Seeȱ StephenȱBarber,ȱAntoninȱArtaud:ȱBlowsȱandȱBombsȱ(LondonȱandȱBoston:ȱFaberȱ&ȱ Faber,ȱ 1993)ȱ 73Ȭ96.ȱ St.ȱ Patrickȱ wasȱ not,ȱ inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ Irishȱ butȱ wasȱ broughtȱ toȱ Irelandȱasȱaȱcapturedȱslave,ȱprobablyȱfromȱWales.ȱȱ

124ȱ

Asȱwithȱmadness,ȱwhenȱoneȱparticipatesȱinȱtheȱeconomyȱofȱ theȱavantȬgarde,ȱinstitutionsȱemerge.ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ Inȱ aȱ Voicesȱ &ȱ Visionsȱ videoȱ documentaryȱ onȱ Langstonȱ Hughes,ȱ Georgeȱ Houstonȱ Bassȱ identifiesȱ Hughes’sȱ commitmentȱ asȱ follows:ȱȱ ȱ Thereȱ areȱ twoȱ importantȱ traditionsȱ outȱ ofȱ middleȬclassȱ Blackȱ America.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ theȱ bourgeoisȱ traditionȱ ofȱ narcissismȱ andȱ escapism.ȱAndȱthereȱisȱtheȱserviceȱtradition.ȱHughesȱcomesȱoutȱ ofȱtheȱserviceȱtradition.16ȱ

ȱ Iȱ tooȱ identifyȱ withȱ theȱ serviceȱ tradition,ȱ whichȱ seemsȱ toȱ meȱ todayȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ clarityȱ andȱ urgencyȱ whichȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ traditionȱdoesȱnot.ȱȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ Inȱ1843,ȱDanielȱO’Connell,ȱleaderȱofȱtheȱRepealȱAssociationȱforȱ theȱ Repealȱ ofȱ theȱ Actȱ ofȱ Unionȱ (1801)ȱ whichȱ dissolvedȱ theȱ separateȱIrishȱParliament,ȱcalledȱforȱaȱseriesȱofȱmassȱmeetingsȱtoȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ popularȱ support.ȱ Hereȱ isȱ whatȱ O’Connellȱordered:ȱ ȱ IȱwantȱaȱRepealȱmeetingȱeitherȱatȱClonmelȱorȱCashelȱorȱThurles.ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ seeȱ fromȱ 60,000ȱ toȱ 100,000ȱ Tipperaryȱ boysȱ meetingȱ peacefullyȱandȱreturningȱhomeȱquietly,ȱtoȱadoptȱtheȱpetitionȱ[inȱ favourȱofȱRepeal]ȱandȱtoȱorganiseȱtheȱRepealȱrent.17ȱ

ȱ

ȱ16ȱȱ Voicesȱ andȱ Visions:ȱ Langstonȱ Hughes.ȱ Southȱ Carolinaȱ Educationalȱ Television;ȱ Annenberg/CPBȱ Projectȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Centreȱ forȱ Visualȱ History,ȱ c.ȱ 1988).ȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Oliverȱ McDonagh,ȱ Theȱ Emancipist:ȱ Danielȱ O’Connellȱ 1830Ȭ1847ȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ St.ȱ Martin’sȱPress,ȱ1989)ȱ227.ȱ

125ȱ

Whatȱ O’Connellȱ gotȱ wasȱ moreȱ thanȱ 40ȱ monsterȱ meetingsȱ heldȱ atȱ theȱ rateȱ ofȱ twoȱ aȱ weekȱ forȱ sevenȱ months,ȱ blanketingȱ theȱ countryȱ andȱ attractingȱ audiencesȱ eachȱ ofȱ whichȱ representedȱ aȱ sizableȱproportionȱofȱtheȱentireȱcountry.ȱSevenȱmeetingsȱinȱMayȱ attractedȱcrowdsȱofȱ300,000ȱeach.ȱAttendancesȱofȱhalfȬaȬmillionȱ peopleȱ wereȱ regularlyȱ reportedȱ inȱ theȱ summerȱ months.18ȱ Theȱ lowestȱ estimateȱ ofȱ attendanceȱ atȱ theȱ Augustȱ 15thȱ meetingȱ atȱ Taraȱisȱ800,000.ȱTheȱpopulationȱofȱIrelandȱatȱthatȱtimeȱbeingȱjustȱ overȱ8ȱmillion,ȱ19ȱitȱisȱprobablyȱsafeȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtheȱvastȱmajorityȱ ofȱthoseȱ8ȱmillionȱpeopleȱattendedȱaȱmonsterȱmeetingȱbetweenȱ Marchȱ andȱ Septemberȱ 1843,ȱ probablyȱ manyȱ timesȱ over.ȱ Nowȱ that’sȱaȱcrowd.ȱAndȱtheyȱgotȱaȱshow:ȱ“Itȱwasȱaȱgiant’sȱtheatre,ȱ andȱvirtuallyȱaȱyearȱlongȱplay.”20ȱȱ O’Connellȱspokeȱatȱ31ȱofȱtheȱmeetings,ȱ“Walledȱbyȱwideȱairȱ andȱ roofedȱ byȱ boundlessȱ heaven,”ȱ asȱ Bulwerȱ Lyttonȱ writes,ȱ goingȱ onȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ trajectoryȱ andȱ impactȱ ofȱ O’Connell’sȱ voice:ȱ ȱ Itȱglidedȱeasyȱasȱaȱbirdȱmayȱglide.ȱ Toȱtheȱlastȱvergeȱofȱthatȱvastȱaudienceȱsent,ȱ Itȱplayedȱwithȱeachȱwildȱpassionȱasȱitȱwent:ȱ Nowȱstirredȱtheȱuproar,ȱnowȱtheȱmurmursȱstilled,ȱ Andȱsobsȱorȱlaughterȱansweredȱasȱitȱwilled.ȱ ThenȱdidȱIȱknowȱwhatȱspellȱofȱinfiniteȱchoiceȱ Toȱrouseȱorȱlullȱhasȱtheȱsweetȱhumanȱvoice.21ȱ

ȱ O’Connellȱ wasȱ aȱ greatȱ oratorȱ andȱ hisȱ subjectȱ wasȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ lifeȬandȬdeathȱtoȱhisȱaudienceȱwhoȱ“shouted,ȱgroaned,ȱlaughed,ȱ scornedȱ orȱ exulted,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theirȱ cues.”22ȱ Twoȱ yearsȱlater,ȱ anotherȱ greatȱ orator,ȱ Frederickȱ Douglass,ȱ visitingȱ Ireland,ȱ

ȱ18ȱȱ McDonagh,ȱTheȱEmancipist,ȱ234.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Theȱ1841ȱCensusȱofȱIrelandȱrecordedȱtheȱpopulationȱasȱ8,175,124.ȱByȱ1851,ȱasȱaȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ Famine,ȱ theȱ populationȱ hadȱ declinedȱ toȱ 6,553,ȱ 574.ȱ Inȱ 1861,ȱ theȱ figureȱwasȱ5,798,564,ȱandȱtheȱdeclineȱcontinuedȱintoȱtheȱ20thȱcentury.ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ McDonagh,ȱTheȱEmancipist,ȱ229.ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ CitedȱinȱMcDonagh,ȱTheȱEmancipist,ȱ229.ȱ ȱ22ȱȱ McDonagh,ȱTheȱEmancipist,ȱ230.ȱ

126ȱ

addressedȱapproximatelyȱ40ȱmeetingsȱrangingȱinȱsizeȱfromȱ100ȱ toȱ 5,00023—muchȱ smallerȱ crowdsȱ thanȱ O’Connell’sȱ butȱ stillȱ large,ȱ byȱ poetryȱ standards.ȱ Douglass’sȱ subjectȱ wasȱ slavery.ȱ Althoughȱ hisȱ audiencesȱ ofȱ middleȬclassȱ Protestantsȱ andȱ Quakersȱ hadȱ aȱ moralȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ mortalȱ interest,ȱ theyȱ tooȱ wereȱ passionatelyȱ involvedȱ asȱ contemporaryȱ newspaperȱ reports,ȱ parentheticallyȱ recordingȱ theirȱ Greatȱ shoutsȱ ofȱ haȬha,ȱ Loudȱ cheering,ȱ Greatȱ cheering,ȱ Loudȱ laughterȱ andȱ cheering,ȱ Tremendousȱcheers,ȱGreatȱapplause,ȱhearȱhearsȱandȱohȱohs,ȱattest.ȱȱ Poetryȱaudiences,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱseemȱremarkablyȱdead.ȱItȱmayȱ beȱ aȱ mistakeȱ toȱ associateȱ thisȱ deadnessȱ withȱ civility.ȱ Theȱ audienceȱmayȱjustȱbeȱdead.ȱAndȱtheȱresponsibilityȱisȱobviouslyȱ theȱ poets’ȱ as,ȱ somewhatȱ uniquely,ȱ theȱ poetryȱ audienceȱ isȱ composedȱ principallyȱ ofȱ practitionersȱ ofȱ theȱ art,ȱ andȱ theirȱ families,ȱpoetryȱreadingsȱbeingȱmuchȱlikeȱkarateȱtournamentsȱinȱ thatȱrespect.ȱExceptȱthatȱkarateȱtournamentsȱareȱbig.ȱ Theȱ numbersȱ areȱ notȱ goodȱ inȱ poetry.ȱ Inȱ anȱ interviewȱ inȱ ContemporaryȱLiterature,ȱPaulȱMuldoonȱsaid:ȱ ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ inȱ theȱ overallȱ shapeȱ ofȱ things,ȱ there’sȱ aȱ problemȱ withȱ poetryȱandȱitsȱplaceȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱAȱfewȱpeopleȱreadȱit.ȱMaybeȱ onlyȱ aȱ fewȱ peopleȱ haveȱ everȱ readȱ it.ȱ Notȱ manyȱ peopleȱ wereȱ readingȱJohnȱDonne.ȱFiveȱhundredȱpeopleȱmadeȱByronȱfamousȱ overnight.ȱTennysonȱwasȱsellingȱthousandsȱofȱcopiesȱofȱbooks,ȱ butȱsoȱwasȱRodȱMcKuen.24ȱ

ȱ There’sȱalsoȱmyȱownȱepicȱpoemȱonȱtheȱsubject:ȱ ȱ POETRYȱ Theȱperfectȱartȱformȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱdislikeȱcrowds.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ23ȱȱ Mairéadȱ Byrne,ȱ “Theȱ Lionȱ &ȱ Theȱ Tiger:ȱ Frederickȱ Douglassȱ inȱ Ireland,ȱ 1845Ȭ 1846,”ȱ Theȱ Freedomȱ Talks:ȱ Reflectionsȱ fromȱ Rhodeȱ Islandȱ Scholarsȱ (Providence:ȱ RhodeȱIslandȱCouncilȱforȱtheȱHumanities,ȱ2004)ȱ32.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Paulȱ Muldoon,ȱ Interviewedȱ byȱ Lynnȱ Keller,ȱ Contemporaryȱ Literatureȱ 35.ȱ 1ȱ (Springȱ1994):ȱ28.ȱ

127ȱ

Ifȱ thingsȱ areȱ badȱ withȱ poetry,ȱ they’reȱ abysmalȱ withȱ theȱ avantȬ garde,ȱtheȱpreȬrequisiteȱandȱdefiningȱfeatureȱofȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱ beȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱshrinkȱanȱaudience.ȱAlanȱLareau,ȱinȱhisȱstudyȱofȱ literaryȱ cabaretsȱ ofȱ theȱ Weimarȱ Republic,ȱ inȱ variousȱ waysȱ identifiesȱ “intimacyȱ andȱ coziness”25ȱ asȱ theȱ naturalȱ habitatȱ forȱ Kleinkunst,ȱ orȱ smallȱ art.ȱ Schallȱ undȱ Rauch,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ accommodateȱ 1,100ȱ peopleȱ inȱ itsȱ “giganticȱ tunnel”26ȱ failedȱ ultimatelyȱ because,ȱ whateverȱ theȱ excuses,ȱ theȱ performersȱ weren’tȱ goodȱ enoughȱ forȱ anȱ audienceȱ thisȱ size.ȱ Trudeȱ Hesterberg’sȱ Wildeȱ Bühneȱ hadȱ moreȱ successȱ inȱ “[finding]ȱ aȱ modern,ȱ relevantȱ voiceȱ forȱ theȱ stageȱ andȱ [developing]ȱ aȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ form,”ȱ partlyȱ becauseȱ “whereasȱ Schallȱ undȱ Rauchȱ hadȱ heldȱ anȱ impossibleȱ 1,100ȱ viewers,ȱ Hesterberg’sȱ localeȱseatedȱjustȱ127ȱinȱarmchairsȱatȱtables.”ȱ27ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱ WildeȱBühneȱlastedȱonlyȱthreeȱyears,ȱvanquishedȱbyȱinflation.ȱȱ Theȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ shootingȱ starȱ ofȱ theȱ earlierȱ Cabaretȱ Voltaire,ȱfoundedȱinȱZurichȱbyȱHugoȱBallȱandȱEmmyȱHennings,ȱ whichȱ openedȱ onȱ 5ȱ Februaryȱ 1916ȱ andȱ closedȱ inȱ July,ȱ isȱ alsoȱ salutary:ȱ ȱ Atȱ firstȱ theȱ performancesȱ offeredȱ traditional,ȱ thoughȱ sophisticated,ȱ literaryȱ cabaretȱ fareȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ chansons,ȱ andȱ classicalȱ music.ȱ Theȱ group’sȱ internationalȱ composition,ȱ theirȱ growingȱ interestȱ inȱ modernȱ music,ȱ andȱ theȱ readingsȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ unpublishedȱ worksȱ wereȱ refreshingȱ contributionsȱ toȱ theȱ cabaretȱtradition.ȱButȱnotȱuntilȱlaterȱdidȱtheȱcabaretȱbeginȱtoȱbeȱ trulyȱ experimental;ȱ theȱ termȱ Dadaȱ doesȱ notȱ surfaceȱ inȱ Ball’sȱ diariesȱuntilȱtwoȱandȱaȱhalfȱmonthsȱafterȱtheȱcabaret’sȱopeningȱ (hereȱasȱaȱnameȱforȱaȱjournal,ȱnotȱforȱanȱartisticȱmovement).ȱInȱ timeȱtheȱpresentationsȱbecameȱmoreȱinnovative,ȱasȱBallȱrealisedȱ thatȱ conventionalȱ poetryȱ wasȱ generallyȱ ineffectiveȱ inȱ liveȱ performance.ȱ Theȱ groupȱ beganȱ toȱ exploreȱ futuristȱ andȱ cubistȱ ideas,ȱ includingȱ phoneticȱ andȱ simultaneousȱ poetry,ȱ butȱ justȱ asȱ

ȱ25ȱȱ AlanȱLareau,ȱTheȱWildȱStage:ȱLiteraryȱCabaretsȱofȱtheȱWeimarȱRepublicȱ(Columbia,ȱ SC:ȱCamdenȱHouse,ȱ1995)ȱ12.ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Lareau,ȱTheȱWildȱStage,ȱ24.ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Lareau,ȱTheȱWildȱStage,ȱ70.ȱ

128ȱ

theȱradicalȱexperimentationȱbegan,ȱtheȱcabaretȱclosed.ȱDadaȱart,ȱ however,ȱsubsequentlyȱblossomedȱinȱvariousȱgalleryȱsoireesȱinȱ aȱmoreȱexclusiveȱbutȱalsoȱmoreȱradicalȱstyle.28ȱȱ

ȱ Soȱ doȱ weȱ needȱ aȱ differentȱ wayȱ ofȱ counting,ȱ asȱ Paulȱ Mannȱ suggests,ȱquotingȱCharlesȱBernstein?ȱ ȱ Asȱ aȱ poet,ȱ youȱ affectȱ theȱ publicȱ sphereȱ withȱ eachȱ reader,ȱ withȱ theȱ factȱ ofȱ theȱ poem,ȱ andȱ byȱ exercisingȱ yourȱ prerogativeȱ toȱ chooseȱ whatȱ collectiveȱ formsȱ youȱ willȱ legitimate.ȱ Theȱ politicalȱ powerȱofȱpoetryȱisȱnotȱmeasuredȱinȱnumbers;ȱitȱinstructsȱusȱtoȱ countȱdifferently.29ȱȱ

ȱ Iȱunderstandȱwhatȱisȱbeingȱsaidȱhereȱbutȱwouldȱargueȱstronglyȱ inȱfavourȱofȱretainingȱtheȱconventionalȱmethodȱofȱcounting:ȱȱ ȱ Thereȱ wereȱ sixȱ peopleȱ inȱ theȱ audience;ȱ threeȱ ofȱ themȱ leftȱ afterȱ theȱfirstȱreader;ȱtheyȱwereȱherȱfamily.ȱSoȱitȱwasȱjustȱJimmyȱandȱ me.ȱAfterwardsȱweȱwentȱforȱiceȬcream.30ȱȱ

ȱ Theȱ regulatoryȱ languageȱ inȱ theȱ Bernsteinȱ quotationȱ isȱ aȱ lawȱ untoȱitself.ȱIȱcanȱthinkȱofȱthingsȱI’dȱsoonerȱdoȱthanȱexerciseȱmyȱ “prerogativeȱ toȱ chooseȱ whatȱ collectiveȱ formsȱ [I]ȱ willȱ legitimate.”ȱ Myȱ Museȱ saysȱ Writeȱ this—now;ȱ that’sȱ prettyȱ muchȱ theȱonlyȱinstructionȱIȱget.ȱIt’sȱnotȱesoteric.ȱAnyway,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱbeȱ ableȱ toȱ countȱ inȱ theȱ oldȱ way:ȱ assets,ȱ pulses,ȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ thousandsȱatȱAkhmatova’sȱfuneral,ȱtheȱclothesȱonȱtheȱEmperor.ȱ InȱwhatȱsenseȱdoesȱtheȱWikipediaȱdefinitionȱwork?ȱ ȱ Theȱ vanguard,ȱ aȱ smallȱ troopȱ ofȱ highlyȱ skilledȱ soldiers,ȱ exploresȱ theȱterrainȱaheadȱofȱaȱlargeȱadvancingȱarmyȱandȱplotsȱaȱcourseȱ forȱtheȱarmyȱtoȱfollow.ȱThisȱconceptȱisȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱworkȱdoneȱ byȱsmallȱbandsȱofȱintellectualsȱandȱartistsȱasȱtheyȱopenȱpathwaysȱ throughȱnewȱculturalȱorȱpoliticalȱterrainȱforȱsocietyȱtoȱfollow.ȱȱ ȱ28ȱȱ Lareau,ȱTheȱWildȱStage,ȱ12.ȱ ȱ29ȱȱ CitedȱinȱPaulȱMann,ȱ“AȱPoeticsȱofȱItsȱOwnȱOccasion,”ȱContemporaryȱLiteratureȱ35ȱ (1994):ȱ242.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ Interviewȱwithȱself.ȱ

129ȱ

Canȱ aȱ radicalȱ artist,ȱ likeȱ Langstonȱ Hughes,ȱ whoȱ dealsȱ inȱ largeȱ numbers,ȱbeȱavantȬgarde?ȱȱ IsȱDukeȱEllington,ȱwhoȱsaidȱtheȱpeopleȱareȱmyȱpeopleȱandȱwhoȱ madeȱ itȱ allȱ happenȱ onȱ aȱ veryȱ largeȱ scaleȱ forȱ aȱ veryȱ longȱ time,ȱ avantȬgarde?ȱ Bebopȱ isȱ bebopȱ andȱ Dukeȱ Ellingtonȱ isȱ Dukeȱ Ellington.ȱCanȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱbeȱalsoȱaȱmagnificentȱenterprise,ȱ boundȱnotȱonlyȱinȱbondsȱofȱintimacy,ȱfriendship,ȱmarriageȱandȱ sexualȱrelationship,ȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱanȱartȬformȱbutȱalsoȱ inȱbondsȱofȱserviceȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱanȱaudience?ȱȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ saysȱ no,ȱ that:ȱ “Apartȱ fromȱ theȱ Blackȱ Artsȱ Movement,ȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱhasȱrarelyȱbeenȱlinkedȱtoȱpopulism,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ (asȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Dada)ȱ it’sȱ beenȱ resolutelyȱ antiȬ elitist.”31ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ heȱ describesȱ theȱ artistȱ classȱ inȱ Americaȱasȱbeingȱessentiallyȱenervated,ȱandȱredundant:ȱȱ ȱ thatȱ segmentȱ ofȱ theȱ populationȱ traditionallyȱ preparedȱ forȱ administrativeȱ andȱ leadershipȱ rolesȱ inȱ theȱ disseminationȱ ofȱ ideasȱandȱvalues,ȱtheȱliberalȱhumanists,ȱfindȱthemselvesȱmastersȱ ofȱ aȱ forumȱ thatȱ noȱ longerȱ existsȱ (orȱ hasȱ beenȱ exiledȱ toȱ theȱ storageȱroomȱinȱaȱmuseum).ȱThoseȱofȱusȱtrainedȱinȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱ philosophicalȱ counterpointȱ andȱ rhetoricalȱ ingenuity,ȱ whoseȱ sensibilitiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ indexedȱ byȱ educationȱ toȱ anȱ itineraryȱ ofȱ salientȱculturalȱmomentsȱ(inȱart,ȱarchitecture,ȱmusic,ȱliterature),ȱ haveȱliterallyȱnoȱoneȱtoȱtalkȱtoȱbutȱourselves.32ȱȱ

ȱ MatinéeȱaudiencesȱinȱDublinȱ(orȱmattinnyȱasȱweȱcalledȱthem),ȱatȱ oneȱtime,ȱandȱmaybeȱstill,ȱshoutedȱupȱatȱtheȱheroȱonȱtheȱscreen,ȱ orȱ theȱ pantomimeȱ dame,ȱ whenȱ dangerȱ threatened:ȱ Lookȱ behindȱ you!ȱIȱwantȱtoȱshoutȱLookȱbehindȱyouȱtoo.ȱNotȱfromȱaȱpostȱtoȱanȱ avantȱ whichȱ isȱ noȱ differentȱ toȱ theȱ garde,33ȱ orȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ181.ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ188Ȭ9n6.ȱ ȱ33ȱȱ Myȱ argumentȱ inȱ “Wildflowersȱ forȱ Tedȱ andȱ Steve,”ȱ http://maireadbyrne.ȱ blogspot.com/2006/02/wildflowersȬforȬtedȬsteveȬspeaker.html,ȱ aȱ conciliatoryȱ bouquetȱofferedȱtoȱTedȱKooserȱandȱSteveȱEvans,ȱonȱtheȱoccasionȱofȱtheȱlatter’sȱ borrowingȱofȱtheȱformer’sȱlanguageȱinȱ“Freeȱ(Market)ȱVerse,”ȱserializedȱinȱthreeȱ onlineȱ instalmentsȱ duringȱ theȱ weekȱ ofȱ 30ȱ Januaryȱ 2006,ȱ http://www.ȱ thirdfactory.net/freemarketverse.html.ȱȱ

130ȱ

“outsideȱofȱtheȱinside,ȱtheȱleadingȱedgeȱofȱtheȱmainstream,”ȱasȱ PaulȱMannȱsaysȱ(TheoryȱDeathȱ13).ȱNorȱfromȱpartsȱunknownȱtoȱ theȱ postȱ whichȱ isȱ itselfȱ theȱ anxietyȬdreamȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ oneȱinȱwhichȱenoughȱlifeȬinsuranceȱhasȱfinallyȱbeenȱbought.ȱButȱ Lookȱ behindȱ youȱ Professor!ȱ Lookȱ behindȱ youȱ mastersȱ ofȱ rhetoricalȱ counterpointȱ andȱ philosophicalȱ ingenuity!ȱ Thereȱ isȱ aȱ veryȱ largeȱ countryȱ atȱ yourȱ disposal,ȱ oneȱ infinitelyȱ large,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ withoutȱ borders,ȱthoughȱnotȱwithoutȱconnectionȱtoȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱItȱisȱ theȱ countryȱ ofȱ poverty,ȱ whereȱ ourȱ assetsȱ areȱ infinitelyȱ useful,ȱ infinitelyȱapplicable.ȱȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ Myȱ frontȱ lineȱ isȱ theȱ intersectionȱ ofȱ Academyȱ andȱ Chalkstoneȱ onȱ theȱwestȱsideȱofȱProvidence,ȱwhereȱIȱlive.ȱMyȱzoneȱofȱcomfortȱisȱaȱ seam.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ manyȱ theys.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ theȱ theysȱ upȱ aheadȱ onȱ whomȱourȱeyesȱareȱfixed.ȱTheȱtheyȱwhoȱorganiseȱeverything.ȱTheȱ theyȱ ofȱ Bigȱ Brother.ȱ Theȱ numbskullsȱ whoȱ pullȱ theȱ leversȱ inȱ ourȱ heads.ȱTheȱtheyȱinȱrelationȱtoȱwhomȱweȱfeelȱpowerless.ȱBut,ȱifȱweȱ haveȱ notȱ removedȱ ourselves,ȱ weȱ areȱ surroundedȱ byȱ theysȱ evenȱ moreȱ powerless.ȱ Whoȱ doȱ notȱ enjoyȱ theȱ privilegesȱ ofȱ education,ȱ status,ȱ mobility,ȱ income,ȱ publicationȱ opportunity,ȱ telecommunications,ȱ andȱ officeȱ spaceȱ whichȱ we34ȱ considerȱ inadequate.ȱȱ ȱ Theȱvanguard,ȱaȱsmallȱtroopȱofȱhighlyȱskilledȱsoldiers,ȱexploresȱ theȱterrainȱbehindȱaȱlargeȱadvancingȱarmyȱandȱplotsȱaȱcourseȱforȱ escapeesȱtoȱfollow.ȱThisȱconceptȱisȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱworkȱdoneȱbyȱ smallȱ bandsȱ ofȱ intellectualsȱ andȱ artistsȱ asȱ theyȱ openȱ pathwaysȱ throughȱ newȱ culturalȱ orȱ politicalȱ terrainȱ forȱ asȱ manyȱ peopleȱ asȱ possible.ȱȱ

ȱ Myȱ avantȬgardeȱ areȱ theȱ childrenȱ onȱ theȱ schoolȱ bus,ȱ whoȱ leadȱ meȱout,ȱandȱforȱwhomȱIȱlayȱdownȱwhatȱI’veȱgot:ȱ ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ Iȱwantȱaȱnewȱwe.ȱ

131ȱ

THEȱAVANTȬGARDEȱ EveryȱmorningȱIȱsmileȱenoughȱtoȱbreakȱmyȱfaceȱȱ upȱatȱtheȱchildrenȱinȱtheȱgrimyȱwindowsȱofȱtheȱschoolȱbus.ȱȱ Iȱbustȱaȱgutȱtoȱmakeȱthemȱbreakȱintoȱaȱsmile.ȱȱ Iȱwave.ȱIȱjumpȱdownȱ&ȱup.ȱIȱmouthȱȱ haveȱaȱniceȱdayȱ&ȱwhenȱȱ theȱbusȱstopsȱatȱtheȱlightsȱIȱrunȱ toȱcatchȱitȱupȱ&ȱjumpȱȱ upȱ&ȱdownȱ&ȱwaveȱ&ȱgrinȱȱ enoughȱtoȱbreakȱmyȱfaceȱ&ȱcrackȱȱ theirsȱopenȱoneȱmoreȱtime.ȱȱ

ȱ ȱ Codaȱ Butȱ then,ȱ whileȱ Kennyȱ Goldsmithȱ lives,ȱ canȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ everȱdie?ȱ ȱ

132ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

AnnȱVickeryȱ ȱ

FromȱBeingȱDraftedȱtoȱaȱDraftȱofȱBeing:ȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessisȱandȱtheȱ ReconceptualisationȱofȱtheȱFeministȱ AvantȬGardeȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ aȱ movementȱ thatȱ seeksȱ toȱ breakȱ withȱ theȱ past,ȱ toȱ articulateȱ itsȱ dissentȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ currentȱ socialȱ orderȱand,ȱasȱEzraȱPoundȱsoȱfamouslyȱputȱit,ȱ“MakeȱitȱNew.”ȱItȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ fitȱ handȱ inȱ gloveȱ withȱ theȱ poeticsȱ ofȱ feminismȱ thatȱ alsoȱ characterisesȱ itselfȱ asȱ subversionȱ orȱ resistance,ȱ andȱ whichȱseeksȱtoȱengenderȱsocialȱchange.ȱBothȱhaveȱhadȱmilitantȱ overtonesȱinȱtheirȱmanifestoesȱandȱinȱtheirȱstrugglesȱagainstȱanȱ identifiedȱenemy.ȱYetȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱandȱfeminismȱhaveȱhadȱaȱ troubledȱhistoryȱandȱbeenȱfarȱfromȱgoodȱcomrades.ȱToȱaddȱfuelȱ toȱtheȱfire,ȱbothȱareȱcomingȱincreasinglyȱunderȱattackȱasȱcriticalȱ formulations.ȱJedȱRasula,ȱforȱexample,ȱarguesȱ“Theȱtermȱ‘avantȬ garde’ȱ shouldȱ beȱ retired,”1ȱ whileȱ Paulȱ Mannȱ viewsȱ theȱ avantȬ gardeȱasȱcomplicitȱinȱtheȱveryȱforcesȱitȱseeksȱtoȱoppose,ȱindeed,ȱ thatȱitȱhasȱbeenȱvitalȱtoȱaȱneutralisingȱcultureȱindustry.”2ȱLindaȱ Alcoffȱ notesȱ thatȱ followingȱ postȬstructuralism,ȱ “feministsȱ

ȱ 1ȱȱ JedȱRasula,ȱSyncopations:ȱTheȱStressȱofȱInnovationȱinȱContemporaryȱAmericanȱPoetryȱ (Tuscaloosa:ȱUniversityȱofȱAlabamaȱPress,ȱ2004)ȱ194.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ Paulȱ Mann,ȱ Theȱ TheoryȬDeathȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Bloomington:ȱ Indianaȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1991)ȱ78Ȭ79;ȱ92.ȱ

133ȱ

cannotȱ demarcateȱ aȱ definitiveȱ categoryȱ ofȱ ‘woman’ȱ withoutȱ eliminatingȱallȱpossibilityȱforȱtheȱdefeatȱofȱlogocentrismȱandȱitsȱ oppressiveȱ power.”ȱ Accordingly,ȱ anȱ effectiveȱ feminismȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ “aȱ whollyȱ negativeȱ feminism,ȱ deconstructingȱ everythingȱ andȱ refusingȱ toȱ constructȱ anything.”3ȱ Inȱ aȱ furtherȱ step,ȱ postfeminismȱ wouldȱ haveȱ genderȱ identityȱ asȱ somethingȱ simplyȱ toȱ beȱ transcendedȱ ratherȱ thanȱ critiqued.ȱ Alternatively,ȱ avantȬgardeȱ poetryȱ hasȱ beenȱ condemnedȱ forȱ tooȱ quicklyȱ jettisoningȱtheȱhumanistȱsubject,ȱRomanaȱHukȱcontendingȱthatȱ theȱ subjectȱ isȱ “tooȱ oftenȱ preȬemptivelyȱ dismantledȱ orȱ deconstructedȱ asȱ beingȱ fromȱ theȱ getȬgoȱ aȱ shifting,ȱ pronominalȱ illusionȱ thatȱ vanishesȱ intoȱ theȱ largerȱ culturalȱ text.”4ȱ Thisȱ essayȱ investigatesȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱthisȱ“badȱhistory”ȱandȱconsidersȱ howȱ aȱ reȬconceptualisationȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ mightȱ openȱ upȱ possibilitiesȱforȱaȱfeministȱaesthetics,ȱandȱpotentiallyȱrecuperateȱ bothȱ forȱ today’sȱ criticalȱ usage.ȱ Iȱ willȱ illuminateȱ suchȱ anȱ undertakingȱ throughȱ aȱ briefȱ overviewȱ ofȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis’sȱcareer,ȱasȱaȱwriterȱwhoȱhasȱsoughtȱtoȱbringȱtogetherȱ theȱ concernsȱ ofȱ theȱ women’sȱ movementȱ withȱ aȱ highlyȱ experimentalȱaesthetics.ȱ Inȱ theȱ 1970s,ȱ secondȬwaveȱ feministsȱ turnedȱ specificallyȱ toȱ literatureȱ asȱ aȱ politicalȱ toolȱ throughȱ whichȱ toȱ articulateȱ femaleȱ experiencesȱ previouslyȱ marginalisedȱ asȱ private,ȱ trivial,ȱ orȱ taboo.ȱ Kimȱ Whiteheadȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ women’sȱ movementȱ (occurringȱ betweenȱ 1972ȱ andȱ 1982)ȱ privilegedȱ poetryȱ asȱ aȱ transparentȱautobiographicalȱmodeȱinȱwhichȱlanguageȱcouldȱbeȱ strippedȱ andȱ madeȱ accessibleȱ toȱ ordinaryȱ women.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ anȱ emphasisȱ onȱ newnessȱ ofȱ contentȱ ratherȱ thanȱ newnessȱ ofȱ form.ȱ Whiteheadȱ addsȱ thatȱ aȱ feministȱ poetȱ calledȱ onȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ anȱ “ongoing,ȱ survivingȱ self”ȱ whereȱ “throughȱ theȱ lyricalȱ ‘I’—sheȱ understandsȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ selfȬ assertionȱ toȱ survival,ȱ andȱ theȱ necessityȱ forȱ someȱ senseȱ ofȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ LindaȱAlcoff,ȱ“CulturalȱFeminismȱversusȱPoststructuralism:ȱTheȱIdentityȱCrisisȱ inȱFeministȱTheory,”ȱSignsȱ13.3ȱ(1988):ȱ417Ȭ18.ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Romanaȱ Huk,ȱ “Inȱ AnOther’sȱ Pocket:ȱ Theȱ Addressȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘Pocketȱ Epic’ȱ inȱ PostmodernȱBlackȱBritishȱPoetry,”ȱYaleȱJournalȱofȱCriticismȱ13.1ȱ(Springȱ2000):ȱ26.ȱ

134ȱ

subjectivityȱ thatȱ withstandsȱ theȱ stormsȱ ofȱ divisionȱ andȱ marginalisation.”ȱ Theȱ poemȱ wasȱ anȱ instrumentȱ then,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱfeministȱpoetȱdevelopedȱaȱdistinctlyȱ“feministȱcombinationȱ ofȱ subjectiveȱ andȱ collectiveȱ voiceȱ inȱ poetry.”5ȱ Inȱ Nakedȱ andȱ Fieryȱ Forms:ȱ Modernȱ Americanȱ Poetryȱ byȱ Women:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Tradition,ȱ SuzanneȱJuhaszȱdefinedȱfeministȱpoetryȱas:ȱ Aȱpoetryȱwhoseȱpoetȱspeaksȱasȱaȱwoman,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱformȱofȱherȱ poemȱisȱanȱextensionȱofȱherselfȱ…ȱAȱpoetryȱthatȱseeksȱtoȱaffectȱ activelyȱ itsȱ audienceȱ …ȱAȱ poetryȱ thatȱ isȱ revolutionaryȱ becauseȱ byȱ expressingȱ theȱ visionȱ ofȱ realȱ womenȱ itȱ challengesȱ theȱ patriarchalȱpremisesȱofȱsocietyȱitself.6ȱ

Asȱ DuPlessisȱ notes,ȱ suchȱ poetryȱ encouragesȱ aȱ readingȱ ofȱ confluenceȱbetweenȱtheȱsubjectivityȱofȱtheȱenouncedȱandȱthatȱofȱ theȱ enunciation,ȱ asȱ theȱ poem’sȱ speaker.ȱ Theȱ “I”ȱ ofȱ theȱ poemȱ seemsȱdepictȱtheȱpoet,ȱgeneratingȱaȱhumanistȱillusionȱofȱtotalityȱ andȱ presence.ȱ Sheȱ adds:ȱ “Thereȱ isȱ anȱ illusionȱ ofȱ sincerity,ȱ authenticity,ȱandȱexpressiveȱpresenceȱcreatedȱbyȱtheȱpoem.”7ȱȱ Aȱ furtherȱ ingredientȱ wasȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ moralȱ urgencyȱ toȱ suchȱ poetry.ȱToȱunderstandȱthisȱurgencyȱitȱisȱworthȱnotingȱthatȱEricaȱ Jong,ȱaȱfellowȱclassmateȱofȱDuPlessis’sȱatȱBarnardȱinȱtheȱ1960s,ȱ recallsȱaȱcreativeȱwritingȱclassȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmaleȱteacherȱandȱhisȱ maleȱguestȱinsistedȱthatȱ“womenȱcan’tȱreallyȱwrite.”8ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ feministȱ movement’sȱ relianceȱ onȱ theȱ lyricalȱ “I”ȱ wasȱ problematicȱ forȱ DuPlessisȱ inȱ beingȱ groundedȱ onȱ genderedȱ foundationsȱthatȱcastȱwomenȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱbeautifulȱandȱsilentȱ muses.ȱSheȱnotesȱthatȱsheȱdidȱnotȱwantȱ“theȱperfectionȱofȱlyric,ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Kimȱ Whitehead,ȱ Theȱ Feministȱ Poetryȱ Movementȱ (Jackson:ȱ Universityȱ Pressȱ ofȱ Mississippi,ȱ1996)ȱxix.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Suzanneȱ Juhasz,ȱ Nakedȱ andȱ Fieryȱ Forms:ȱ Modernȱ Americanȱ Poetryȱ byȱ Women,ȱ aȱ NewȱTraditionȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1976)ȱ205.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessis,ȱ“MarbleȱPaper:ȱTowardȱaȱFeministȱ‘HistoryȱofȱPoetry,’”ȱ ModernȱLanguageȱQuarterlyȱ65.1ȱ(Marchȱ2004):ȱ103.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Reader,ȱ Iȱ Marriedȱ Me:ȱ Aȱ Polygamousȱ Memoir,”ȱ ChangingȱSubjects:ȱtheȱMakingȱofȱFeministȱLiteraryȱCriticism,ȱed.ȱGayleȱGreeneȱandȱ Coppeliaȱ Kahnȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 1993)ȱ 99;ȱ citedȱ subsequentlyȱ inȬtextȱ asȱ “Reader.”ȱ

135ȱ

theȱ separationȱ ofȱ lyric,ȱ theȱ selectivityȱ ofȱ lyric,ȱ theȱ purityȱ ofȱ lyric.”9ȱYetȱthereȱseemedȱnoȱalternative,ȱnoȱwayȱtoȱmoveȱintoȱ“aȱ realȱpoeticȱcareer”:ȱ“I’dȱnowȱsayȱ…ȱthatȱtheȱpositionsȱavailableȱ forȱ meȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ asȱ aȱ womanȱ writer—insideȱ languageȱ andȱ insideȱ theȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ andȱ outsideȱ itsȱ variousȱ apparatusesȱandȱinstitutionsȱofȱculture—wereȱunsatisfactoryȱtoȱ me.”10ȱThroughȱtheȱnewlyȱpublishedȱBritishȱeditionȱofȱWilliamȱ CarlosȱWilliams’sȱPaterson,ȱsheȱbeganȱtoȱseeȱhowȱrepresentationȱ ofȱ“experience,”ȱatȱleast,ȱmightȱbeȱcomplicatedȱandȱradicalised.ȱ Attractedȱ toȱ theirȱ “extensive,ȱ encyclopaedic,ȱ allȬoverȱ experience,”ȱ sheȱ wouldȱ focusȱ onȱ Patersonȱ andȱ Ezraȱ Pound’sȱ PisanȱCantosȱforȱherȱ1970ȱdissertation.ȱTheseȱmodernistȱwritersȱ wereȱ moreȱ institutionallyȱ acceptableȱ thanȱ Emilyȱ Dickinsonȱ orȱ VirginiaȱWoolfȱ(DuPlessisȱnotesȱthatȱstudyingȱtheirȱworkȱwouldȱ inȱ theȱ midȬ60sȱ haveȱ beenȱ consideredȱ aȱ gestureȱ ofȱ professionalȱ suicide)ȱ butȱ deȬpoliticisedȱ throughȱ theȱ teachingsȱ ofȱ Newȱ Criticism.ȱSheȱalsoȱbecameȱpartȱofȱaȱsmallȱuptownȱpoetryȱgroupȱ interestedȱ inȱ surrealism,ȱ dada,ȱ andȱ proseȱ poetryȱ andȱ beganȱ subscribingȱ toȱ forumsȱ ofȱ innovativeȱ writingȱ likeȱ theȱ journalȱ Caterpillar.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱmovementsȱlikeȱsurrealismȱtendedȱtoȱseeȱ womenȱasȱmediumsȱthanȱproducers.ȱAndȱwhileȱattractedȱtoȱtheȱ abstractionsȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ School,ȱ itsȱ poetsȱ wereȱ stillȱ largelyȱ reactingȱ toȱ theȱ heroicsȱ expoundedȱ byȱ “core”ȱ maleȱ artistsȱ likeȱ PollockȱandȱdeȱKooning.ȱȱ IncreasinglyȱDuPlessisȱfeltȱherselfȱpolarisedȱbetweenȱwomanȱ andȱ artistȱ and,ȱ oneȱ mightȱ add,ȱ betweenȱ revolutionaryȱ andȱ publicȱintellectualȱ(“Reader,”ȱ99).ȱInȱAȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ Peterȱ Bürgerȱ arguesȱ thatȱ avantȬgardismȱ isȱ notȱ purelyȱ aestheticȱ inȱorientationȱbutȱalsoȱattacksȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱart.11ȱDuPlessis’sȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Onȱ Drafts:ȱ Aȱ Memorandumȱ ofȱ Understanding,”ȱ Onward:ȱContemporaryȱPoetryȱandȱPoeticsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996)ȱ145;ȱcitedȱ subsequentlyȱinȬtextȱasȱOD.ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Haibun:ȱ ‘Drawȱ your/Draft,’”ȱ H.D.ȱ andȱ Poetsȱ After,ȱ ed.ȱ Donnaȱ Krolikȱ Hollenbergȱ (Iowaȱ City:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Iowaȱ Press,ȱ 2000)ȱ 114Ȭ15;ȱ subsequentlyȱ“Haibun.”ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ PeterȱBürger,ȱTheȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱtrans.ȱMichaelȱShawȱ(Minneapolis:ȱ UniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1984).ȱ

136ȱ

battlesȱ asȱ aȱ poetȬcriticȱ (whoȱ underminesȱ theȱ distinctionsȱ betweenȱ writerȱ andȱ interpreter)ȱ haveȱ beenȱ highlyȱ tactical.ȱ Asȱ Torilȱ Moiȱ hasȱ demonstratedȱ inȱ herȱ studyȱ ofȱ Simoneȱ deȱ Beauvoir,ȱtheȱeffectiveȱvoiceȱofȱdissidenceȱalsoȱrequiresȱaȱcertainȱ submissionȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ accumulateȱ enoughȱ culturalȱ capitalȱ toȱ speakȱ outȱ andȱ beȱ heard.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ womanȱ avantȬgardistȱ doesȱ notȱ firstȱ playȱ theȱ movement’sȱ muse,ȱ thenȱ sheȱ doesȱ timeȱ asȱ theȱ dutifulȱdaughter.ȱToȱsomeȱdegree,ȱtheȱlatterȱalsoȱholdsȱtrueȱforȱ theȱfeminist.ȱBothȱfeministȱandȱavantȬgardistȱmustȱundertakeȱaȱ carefulȱ balancingȱ actȱ betweenȱ institutionalȱ recognitionȱ andȱ incitingȱchange.ȱDuPlessisȱbecameȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱthreeȱwomenȱ preceptorsȱ inȱ theȱ Englishȱ Departmentȱ atȱ Columbia,ȱ joinedȱ theȱ justȬformedȱ Columbiaȱ Women’sȱ Liberationȱ movementȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ60s,ȱandȱinȱ1974ȱbecameȱanȱeditorialȱboardȱmemberȱofȱtheȱ nascentȱ academicȱ journal,ȱ Feministȱ Studies.ȱ Herȱ activistȱ profileȱ andȱ theȱ radicalȱ essayȱ formȱ sheȱ usedȱ inȱ “Forȱ theȱ Etruscans”ȱ (1979)ȱ andȱ “Family,ȱ Sexes,ȱ Psyche”ȱ (1979)ȱ wereȱ notȱ receivedȱ wellȱbyȱallȱsectorsȱofȱtheȱacademy.12ȱAlthoughȱsheȱwasȱalreadyȱ wellȬknownȱasȱaȱfeministȱcritic,ȱDuPlessisȱwasȱgrantedȱtenureȱatȱ TempleȱbutȱnotȱpromotedȱfromȱAssistantȱProfessor,ȱ“somethingȱ definitelyȱintendedȱasȱanȱinsult”.13ȱSheȱwouldȱbeȱpromotedȱsoonȱ afterȱ theȱ publicationȱ ofȱ H.D.:ȱ Theȱ Careerȱ ofȱ Thatȱ Struggleȱ (1986)ȱ whichȱquicklyȱfollowedȱWritingȱBeyondȱtheȱEndingȱ(1985).14ȱȱBothȱ volumesȱ hadȱ standardȱ modesȱ ofȱ argumentȱ andȱ toneȱ andȱ tookȱ upȱtheȱtellingȱofȱinnovationȱratherȱthanȱitsȱdoing.ȱPerhapsȱdueȱtoȱ academicȱpressures,ȱDuPlessis’sȱcriticismȱhasȱcontinuedȱtoȱtakeȱ

ȱ12ȱȱ FeministȱStudiesȱsoughtȱtoȱcombineȱacademicȱandȱpoliticalȱobjectives.ȱDuPlessisȱ wouldȱbeȱcoȬauthorȱofȱaȱstatementȱofȱpurposeȱforȱFeministȱStudiesȱwhichȱstated:ȱ “feminismȱ hasȱ theȱ potentialȱ fundamentallyȱ toȱ reshapeȱ theȱ wayȱ weȱ viewȱ theȱ world.ȱ Weȱ wishȱ notȱ justȱ toȱ interpretȱ women’sȱ experienceȱ butȱ toȱ changeȱ women’sȱ condition.ȱ Forȱ us,ȱ feministȱ thoughtȱ representsȱ aȱ transformationȱ ofȱ consciousness,ȱ socialȱ forms,ȱ andȱ modesȱ ofȱ action.”ȱ Citedȱ byȱ DuPlessisȱ inȱ “Reader,ȱIȱMarriedȱMe,”ȱ104.ȱȱ ȱ13ȱȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessis,ȱeȬmailȱtoȱtheȱauthor,ȱ2ȱJuneȱ2006.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ H.D.:ȱ Theȱ Careerȱ ofȱ Thatȱ Struggleȱ (Bloomington:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1986);ȱ Writingȱ Beyondȱ theȱ Ending:ȱ Narrativeȱ Strategiesȱ ofȱ TwentiethȬCenturyȱWomenȱWritersȱ(Bloomington:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1985).ȱ

137ȱ

twoȱdivergentȱpaths,ȱsomeȱofȱitȱcreativelyȱcrossingȱgenresȱwhileȱ otherȱ partsȱ embodyȱ theȱ moreȱ traditionalȱ formȱ forȱ scholarlyȱ work.ȱȱȱ Howȱ aȱ feministȱ politicsȱ andȱ avantȬgardeȱ aestheticȱ mightȱ beȱ broughtȱ togetherȱ wouldȱ onlyȱ beginȱ toȱ beȱ apparentȱ whenȱ sheȱ metȱ Objectivistȱ poetȱ Georgeȱ Oppen.ȱ Inȱ 1965,ȱ sheȱ sentȱ himȱ aȱ paperȱ onȱ Patersonȱ andȱ theyȱ beganȱ toȱ correspond.ȱ Inȱ Oppen,ȱ DuPlessisȱ foundȱ aȱ mentor,ȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ aȱ fatherȱ figureȱ butȱ rather,ȱasȱOppenȱhimselfȱputȱit,ȱanȱ“oncle.”15ȱWhileȱsheȱwasȱstillȱ resistingȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱbeingȱaȱwomanȱpoet,ȱsheȱnotesȱthatȱ “fromȱ theȱ earliestȱ momentsȱ ofȱ ourȱ conversation,ȱ weȱ seemȱ toȱ haveȱ talkedȱ aboutȱ maleȱ andȱ female,ȱ thatȱ isȱ aboutȱ genderȱ inȱ poetry”ȱ (LRBDȱ 120).ȱ Moreover,ȱ theyȱ sharedȱ aȱ postȬHolocaustȱ identity.ȱ DuPlessisȱ notesȱ thatȱ “theȱ strugglesȱ aroundȱ socialȱ justice,ȱ tolerance,ȱ andȱespeciallyȱ feminismȱ wereȱ brightenedȱ forȱ me,ȱ byȱ aȱ light,ȱ anȱ auraȱ fromȱ Judaism.”ȱ Likeȱ herȱ father,ȱ Jewishȱ identityȱwouldȱbeȱ“aȱthickȱburdenȱfromȱtheȱpast”ȱalthoughȱsheȱ wasȱbroughtȱupȱasȱ“anȱexplicitȱsecularȱhumanistȱinȱtheȱEthicalȱ Cultureȱ movement.”16ȱ Oppenȱ suggestedȱ toȱ herȱ thatȱ theȱ poetȱ mustȱstriveȱforȱ“Pureȱvividnessȱinȱpoetry,ȱpureȱconfrontation— .”ȱ Furthermore,ȱ writersȱ cannotȱ constructȱ aȱ socialȱ ethicȱ “unlessȱ weȱ know,ȱ finally,ȱ whatȱ weȱ want.”17ȱ Forȱ Oppen,ȱ anȱ imageȱ isȱ encountered,ȱnotȱfound:ȱ“Thereȱareȱthings/Weȱliveȱamongȱ‘andȱ toȱseeȱthem/Isȱtoȱknowȱourselves.’”18ȱOr,ȱasȱheȱsaysȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Thereȱ areȱ certainȱ things,ȱ appearances,ȱ aroundȱ whichȱ theȱ understandingȱ gathers.ȱ Theyȱ holdȱ theȱ meaningsȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Georgeȱ Oppen,ȱ “Lettersȱ toȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,”ȱ ed.ȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ Ironwoodȱ24ȱ(1984):ȱ126;ȱcitedȱsubsequentlyȱasȱLRBD.ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessis,ȱ“Circumscriptions:ȱAssimilatingȱT.S.ȱEliot’sȱSweeneys,”ȱ PeopleȱofȱtheȱBook:ȱThirtyȱScholarsȱReflectȱonȱtheirȱJewishȱIdentity,ȱed.ȱJeffreyȱRubinȬ Dorskyȱ andȱ Shelleyȱ Fisherȱ Fishkinȱ (Madison:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Wisconsinȱ Press,ȱ 1996)ȱ136.ȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Citedȱ inȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Objectivistȱ Poeticsȱ andȱ Politicalȱ Vision:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Oppenȱ andȱ Pound,”ȱ Georgeȱ Oppen:ȱ Manȱ andȱ Poet,ȱ ed.ȱ Burtonȱ Hatlenȱ (Orono:ȱ Nationalȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Foundation,ȱ 1981)ȱ 134;ȱ fromȱ aȱ letterȱ byȱ Oppenȱ toȱ DuPlessis,ȱ24ȱJanuaryȱ1969;ȱcitedȱsubsequentlyȱasȱOP.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Georgeȱ Oppen,ȱ Collectedȱ Poemsȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Directions,ȱ 1975)ȱ 147;ȱ citedȱ subsequentlyȱCP.ȱ

138ȱ

whichȱ makeȱ itȱ possibleȱ toȱ live,ȱ theyȱ areȱ one’sȱ senseȱ ofȱ realityȱ andȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱmeaning.”19ȱTheȱgroundȱofȱsuchȱaȱpoeticsȱ isȱ inclusiveȱ andȱ strivesȱ towardsȱ theȱ numerousnessȱ ofȱ being.ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ prescribeȱ anȱ ideaȱ orȱ thought,ȱ oneȱ occupiesȱ it.ȱ Theȱ imageȱ becomesȱ knownȱ onlyȱ throughȱ thisȱ activeȱ attention,ȱ anȱ ongoingȱmeditationȱthatȱattemptsȱtoȱreadȱandȱrereadȱtheȱimageȱ inȱallȱitsȱpossibility.ȱForȱOppenȱpoetryȱ“whichȱisȱofȱanyȱvalueȱisȱ alwaysȱ revelatory.ȱ Notȱ thatȱ itȱ revealsȱ andȱ couldȱ revealȱ Everything,ȱbutȱitȱmustȱrevealȱsomethingȱ…ȱandȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱ …ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ whichȱ isȱ hardȱ toȱ hold,ȱ itȱ isȱ heldȱ inȱ theȱ poem,ȱ aȱ meaningȱ graspedȱ againȱ onȱ reȬreading”ȱ [italicsȱ added]ȱ (SLȱ 133).ȱ Theȱ Objectivistȱ ethosȱ rethinksȱ experienceȱ asȱ cumulativeȱ andȱ perspectival.ȱ Comprehensionȱ isȱ achievedȱ notȱ throughȱ transparencyȱ butȱ throughȱ return.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ returnȱ ofȱ attention,ȱ thisȱ continuingȱ focusȱ onȱ ordinariness,ȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ possibilityȱofȱdiscoveringȱtheȱnew.ȱ DuPlessisȱ wouldȱ writeȱ ofȱ Objectivismȱ thatȱ suchȱ aȱ poeticsȱ beginsȱ “withȱ theȱ person,ȱ notȱ theȱ word,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ withȱ sincerity”ȱ (OPȱ125).ȱ Itȱ thereforeȱ sharesȱaȱ keyȱ principleȱ withȱ secondȬwaveȱ feminismȱ(inȱtheȱdiscoursesȱofȱbothȱfeminismȱandȱObjectivism,ȱ sincerityȱ becomesȱ interȬrelatedȱ withȱ notionsȱ ofȱ authenticityȱ orȱ truthfulness).ȱ However,ȱ Peterȱ Nichollsȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Objectivistȱ understandingȱ ofȱ sincerityȱ isȱ consonantȱ withȱ EmmanuelȱLevinas’sȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱethicalȱsubjectȱisȱ“theȱ riskyȱuncoveringȱofȱoneself,ȱinȱsincerity.”ȱNichollsȱsuggestsȱthatȱ sincerityȱ forȱ Objectivists,ȱ asȱ withȱ Levinas,ȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ directedȱ toȱinnerȱ feelingȱasȱ boundȱupȱ withȱ aȱ conceptȱ ofȱlayingȱ oneselfȱ bareȱ orȱ vulnerableȱ toȱ whatȱ liesȱ beyondȱ one’sȱ borders.ȱ Anotherȱ aspectȱ ofȱ Objectivismȱ isȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ affect.ȱ Attemptingȱ toȱdescribeȱtheȱmeditativeȱnownessȱofȱhisȱpoetics,ȱOppenȱwrote,ȱ “Itȱ canȱ reallyȱ notȱ beȱ thoughtȱ aboutȱ becauseȱ itȱ containsȱ theȱ thought,ȱ butȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ felt.ȱ Itȱ isȱ whatȱ allȱ artȱ isȱ about”ȱ (SLȱ 90).ȱ Affectȱ tooȱ isȱ centralȱ toȱ feminismȱ inȱ movingȱ aȱ personȱ towardȱ change.ȱȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Georgeȱ Oppen,ȱ ȱ Theȱ Selectedȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Georgeȱ Oppen,ȱ ed.ȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessisȱ (Durham:ȱDukeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990)ȱ123;ȱcitedȱsubsequentlyȱSL.ȱ

139ȱ

DuPlessis’sȱfirstȱcollection,ȱWells,ȱwasȱpublishedȱinȱ1980ȱbutȱ containsȱpoemsȱfromȱacrossȱtheȱpreviousȱdecadeȱorȱso.20ȱWrittenȱ inȱ 1971,ȱ “Aȱ Poemȱ ofȱ Myself”ȱ rejectsȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ unifiedȱ subjectivity,ȱendingȱwithȱtheȱline,ȱ“Comeȱin,ȱcomeȱin,ȱIȱsayȱtoȱallȱ theȱ fragments.”ȱ Whileȱ paredȱ downȱ byȱ Oppen,ȱ DuPlessisȱ feltȱ thatȱitȱshowedȱherȱ“aȱpositiveȱandȱsolidȱmirrorȱofȱwhatȱIȱcouldȱ do.”ȱ Aȱ 1976ȱ poem,ȱ “Voyaging,”ȱ wouldȱ alsoȱ beȱ trimmedȱ byȱ Oppenȱ butȱ thisȱ time,ȱ signallingȱ herȱ growingȱ selfȬconfidence,ȱ DuPlessisȱ disagreedȱ withȱ theȱ transformationȱ (althoughȱ sheȱ wouldȱ stillȱ dedicateȱ itȱ toȱ him).ȱ DuPlessisȱ was,ȱ however,ȱ stillȱ grapplingȱ withȱ theȱ questionȱ thatȱ Oppenȱ posed:ȱ “Howȱ toȱ beȱ good.ȱTheȱtrapȱwhichȱhasȱengulfedȱmostȱwomenȱpoets”ȱ(LRBDȱ 123).ȱ Oppenȱ himselfȱ wasȱ notȱ adverseȱ toȱ fallingȱ intoȱ thisȱ trap,ȱ remarkingȱ inȱ aȱ 1969ȱ letter,ȱ “You’reȱ aȱ niceȱ girl,ȱ youȱ know”ȱ (LRBDȱ 129).21ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ powerfulȱ poem,ȱ “Memory,”ȱ focusesȱ onȱfemaleȱexperience,ȱdramatisingȱaȱresistanceȱofȱcyclicȱreturn:ȱ ȱ Myȱmotherȱstandsȱonȱtheȱlawnȱ sayingȱ“Iȱhaveȱwastedȱmyȱlife”ȱ butȱneverȱsayingȱthatȱagainȱ ȱ […]ȱ ȱ sheȱturnedȱtoȱme;ȱ whatȱashȬtonguedȱ comfortingȱthatȱthenȱtriesȱnoȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ Wellsȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Montemoraȱ Foundation,ȱ 1980;ȱȱ http://www.durationpress.com/archives).ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ Oppen’sȱ viewsȱ onȱ women’sȱ capacityȱ toȱ writeȱ poetryȱ wereȱ ambivalent.ȱ Inȱ “Technologies,”ȱ heȱ wroteȱ ofȱ “feminineȱ profusion”ȱ asȱ “inartistic,”ȱ “inelegant,”ȱ andȱ “Whichȱ cannotȱ grasp/Theȱ world/Andȱ makesȱ art//Isȱ small.”ȱ Thisȱ drewȱ theȱ wrathȱofȱDeniseȱLevertovȱwhoȱappropriatedȱhisȱimageȱofȱtheȱhawkȱandȱhadȱitȱ howlȱ backȱ inȱ aȱ poem,ȱ “Nothingȱ matters,ȱ timorȱ mortisȱ conburbatȱ me.”ȱ Inȱ aȱ conversationȱ withȱ L.S.ȱ Dembo,ȱ heȱ noted,ȱ “Thereȱ areȱ timesȱ oneȱ isȱ infinitelyȱ gratefulȱ forȱ theȱ feminineȱ contribution,ȱ andȱ timesȱ oneȱ justȱ hasȱ toȱ fightȱ aboutȱ it[sic].”ȱHeȱwouldȱadd,ȱ“‘What’sȱtheȱuseȱofȱyellingȱthat?ȱWhatȱtheȱuseȱofȱsayingȱ that?’ȱThat’sȱwhatȱniceȱwomenȱsayȱtoȱus,ȱwomenȱasȱniceȱasȱDeniseȱLevertovȱis,ȱ butȱ sometimesȱ oneȱ objects.”ȱ Dembo,ȱ “Theȱ ‘Objectivist’ȱ Poet:ȱ Fourȱ Interviews,”ȱ ContemporaryȱLiteratureȱ10.2ȱ(1969):ȱ209.ȱ

140ȱ

oȱnoȱȱyouȱhaven’tȱ (wasted)?ȱ ȱ Cleaningȱ“forȱThrift,”ȱlaughingȱ doȱyouȱwantȱthis,ȱ doȱyouȱrememberȱ thisȱdress?ȱIȱdon’tȱevenȱremember.ȱ Iȱamȱlivingȱinȱtheȱdumbnessȱ ofȱtimeȱ over.ȱ Noȱrecollectionȱ littleȱwordsȱȱȱoȱ noȱȱȱoȱ no.ȱ ȱ […]ȱ ȱ Theȱinkȱisȱblack.ȱ Theȱpaperȱisȱburning.ȱ EverywhereȱillegibleȱtissueȬthinȱ Ashesȱȱno,ȱnoȱȱnotȱfullȱonesȱ noȱrecollectionȱ swirlyȱinȱtheȱwavyȱwarȱofȱheatȱ likeȱpiecesȱofȱaȱoneȬletterȱalphabet.ȱ ȱ Theȱhouseȱgrowsȱdarker.ȱMyȱfirstȱpoemȱ wasȱ“Memory.”ȱ ȱ […]ȱ ȱ Everyȱdayȱ seemedȱtoȱhaveȱnothingȱ wastedȱȱ“Myȱlifeȱisȱwasted”ȱ houseȱȱhillȱȱnoȱrecollectionȱ growȱdarker.ȱ Aȱwomanȱ choosingȱȱȱtheȱchoicesȱ thatȱwereȱ andȱthat’sȱreallyȱallȱitȱwasȱ momentȱbyȱmomentȱ 141ȱ

nothingȱexceptȱtheȱfactȱ thatȱeveryoneȱalwaysȱ hadȱchosen;ȱ as,ȱtoȱbeȱborn.ȱȱ

ȱ Theȱreferenceȱtoȱ“chosen”ȱsuggestsȱthatȱcertainȱidentities—suchȱ asȱgenderȱandȱJewishness—areȱinescapablyȱthrustȱuponȱusȱandȱ haveȱtheirȱownȱheritage.ȱTheȱlastȱstanzaȱplaysȱwithȱtheȱironyȱofȱ limitedȱ choices,ȱ yetȱ theȱ poemȱ itselfȱ enactsȱ resistanceȱ toȱ theȱ “nothing”ȱ orȱ wasteȱ thatȱ cultureȱ hasȱ sometimesȱ characterisedȱ andȱ accordingly,ȱ devaluedȱ women’sȱ lives.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ isȱ especiallyȱ powerfulȱ inȱ demonstratingȱ howȱ theȱ mother’sȱ summationȱ ofȱ herȱ ownȱ life,ȱ onceȱ voiced,ȱ placesȱ anȱ unbearableȱ burdenȱofȱguiltȱonȱtheȱdaughterȱforȱbeingȱpartȱofȱthatȱstructureȱ ofȱ familyȱ andȱ domesticȱ responsibilityȱ thatȱ hasȱ consumedȱ herȱ mother’sȱlife.ȱTheȱmetaphoricȱreferenceȱtoȱ“ash”ȱmakesȱparallelsȱ betweenȱthisȱandȱtheȱburdenȱpostȬHolocaustȱJewsȱmustȱbearȱinȱ rememberingȱtheȱ“nothingness”ȱandȱwasteȱofȱsoȱmanyȱlivesȱofȱ theȱpastȱgeneration.ȱȱ “Memory”ȱ mapsȱ outȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ themesȱ andȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ DuPlessis’sȱ majorȱ serialȱ poemȱ Drafts.ȱ Theȱ phrase,ȱ “noȱ recollection”ȱ isȱ particularlyȱ ironicȱ inȱ aȱ poemȱ aboutȱ memory,ȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ memoryȱ itselfȱ isȱ faulty.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ theȱ focusȱ onȱ “littleȱ words,”ȱ brokenȱ downȱ evenȱ toȱ theȱ griefȱ ofȱ “o,”ȱ theȱ symbolicȱ parȱ excellenceȱ ofȱ “nothing.”ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ poemȱ aboutȱ femaleȱ experienceȱ butȱ alsoȱ aboutȱ theȱ breakdownȱ ofȱ voiceȱ andȱ theȱinabilityȱtoȱrelateȱwordsȱaccuratelyȱbackȱtoȱexperience.ȱ Anotherȱpoem,ȱ“Voice,”ȱrefusesȱtheȱfeminineȱroleȱofȱsilenceȱ yetȱ acknowledgesȱ beingȱ fragmented.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ alreadyȱ theȱ playȱ betweenȱ selfȬassertionȱ andȱ itsȱ undercuttingȱ thatȱ willȱ occurȱ inȱ Drafts:ȱ ȱ splitȱnowȱ noȱlongerȱ wholeȱneverȱagainȱ perfectȱlikeȱaȱdaughter—ȱ ȱ 142ȱ

Theȱcrackedȱthroatȱ soundingȱ itselfȱ ȱ myȱvoiceȱȱtheȱȱ voiceȱthatȱnoȱlongerȱ fearsȱ(butȱdoes)ȱ (fear)ȱtheȱnecessityȱ toȱspeak.ȱȱ

Besidesȱ integratingȱ Oppen’sȱ Objectivismȱ intoȱ herȱ ownȱ poetics,ȱ DuPlessisȱ beganȱ constructingȱ aȱ gynocentricȱ traditionȱ ofȱ avantȬ gardeȱ culturalȱ production,ȱ lookingȱ toȱ bothȱ Classicalȱ andȱ modernistȱ writersȱ andȱ artistsȱ asȱ nonȬhegemonicȱ legacy.ȱ Laterȱ poemsȱinȱWellsȱareȱdedicatedȱtoȱSappho,ȱDickinson,ȱWoolf,ȱandȱ Georgiaȱ O’Keefe.ȱ Sheȱ alsoȱ exploredȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ aȱ mythopoeticȱ traditionȱ whichȱ wasȱ veryȱ muchȱ inȱ keepingȱ withȱ feministȱpoetryȱofȱtheȱera.ȱSuchȱaȱprojectȱreȬreadȱandȱreclaimedȱ femaleȱfiguresȱwhoȱdefiedȱexpectedȱrolesȱorȱlawsȱofȱtheȱstateȱasȱ storiesȱ thatȱ couldȱ inspireȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ women.ȱ Accordingly,ȱtheȱfemaleȱmuseȱinȱ“Iȱdreamȱofȱwomen”ȱisȱcastȱinȱ symbioticȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱwomanȱpoet:ȱ“Weȱcannotȱmakeȱ contact,ȱyetȱweȱhaveȱcreatedȱeachȱother.”ȱMirrorȱimagesȱofȱeachȱ other,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ aȱ democracyȱ thatȱ isȱ homosocialȱ inȱ nature:ȱ “Weȱ touchȱ ourȱ fingerȱ tipsȱ asȱ equals.”ȱ Yetȱ preciselyȱ becauseȱ museȱ andȱ womanȱ poetȱ areȱ mirrorȱ imagesȱ ofȱ oneȱ another,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱroomȱforȱdifference;ȱtheȱnewȱrepublicȱisȱoneȱ ofȱ uniformity.ȱ Inȱ fittingȱ withȱ theȱ eroticisationȱ ofȱ writing,ȱ thisȱ democraticȱ revolutionȱ isȱ throughȱ sexualȱ desireȱ althoughȱ theȱ passionȱ isȱ notȱ yetȱ actedȱ upon:ȱ “Weȱ couldȱ kissȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Itȱ wouldȱbeȱnoȱsurprise.”ȱTheȱgoodȱgirlȱthereforeȱdoesȱnotȱbreakȱ theȱ heterosexualȱ contractȱunderlyingȱ theȱ lyric.ȱ Thereȱ is,ȱasȱyet,ȱ noȱorgasmicȱrupture.ȱDuPlessisȱalsoȱrevisesȱtheȱmythȱofȱPsycheȱ intoȱ oneȱ ofȱ androgyny,ȱ wherebyȱ manȱ givesȱ birthȱ andȱ theȱ womanȱhasȱaȱphallusȱfeminisedȱasȱtheȱ“laceȱofȱherȱforeskin.”ȱInȱ suchȱ playfulȱ reversal,ȱ differenceȱ remainsȱ withinȱ Cartesianȱ dualisms.ȱ Inȱ “Eurydice,”ȱ DuPlessisȱ celebratesȱ theȱ womanȱ whoȱ 143ȱ

refusesȱ theȱ Orphicȱ callingȱ andȱ retreatsȱ furtherȱ underground.ȱ Oppenȱ himselfȱ affirmedȱ suchȱ aȱ vision,ȱ “maybeȱ thereȱ isȱ anȱ undergroundȱ streamȱ ofȱ poetryȱ whichȱ willȱ seem,ȱ sometime,ȱ toȱ haveȱbeenȱtheȱriverȱofȱpoetry”ȱ(LRBDȱ131).ȱOppen’sȱadoptionȱofȱ theȱexileȱposition,ȱhisȱattemptȱtoȱfindȱleverageȱoutȱofȱaȱmarginalȱ place,ȱwasȱgreatlyȱappealingȱtoȱDuPlessis.ȱInȱthisȱmythicȱtopos,ȱ theȱhiddenȱforceȱofȱ“wells”ȱandȱ“undertow”ȱareȱgivenȱaȱutopianȱ chargeȱasȱagainstȱtheirȱtraumaticȱloadingsȱinȱtheȱearlierȱpoemsȱ whichȱ moreȱ directlyȱ touchȱ onȱ mattersȱ ofȱ personalȱ andȱ socialȱ history.ȱȱ WhileȱpoemsȱinȱWellsȱareȱstillȱovert,ȱtheyȱexhibitȱanȱopeningȱ ofȱform,ȱbeginningȱtoȱexperimentȱwithȱhomophonicȱplayȱasȱthisȱ excerptȱfromȱ“Medusa”ȱdemonstrates:ȱ sheȱweavesȱaȱwovenȱ Toȱwebbleȱtheȱwobbleȱwords.ȱ A—ȱ gnomyȱ heyȱnonnyȱnonnyȱȱ

Asȱ inȱ Drafts,ȱ thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ littleȱ word,ȱ “A,”ȱ alsoȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ prefixȱ toȱ transformȱ theȱ “ignominy”ȱ surroundingȱ theȱ mythȱ ofȱ Medusaȱ andȱ toȱ slideȱ itȱ moreȱ lightlyȱ toȱ nurseryȱ rhymeȱ andȱ even,ȱ semioticȱ babble.ȱ DuPlessisȱ seemsȱ toȱ mergeȱ theȱ undergroundȱ practiceȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ withȱ aȱ feminineȱ preȬ symbolic.ȱȱ Afterȱ writingȱ “Eurydice”ȱ inȱ theȱ midȬ70s,ȱ someoneȱ alertedȱ DuPlessisȱ toȱ H.D.’sȱ poemȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ nameȱ resultingȱ inȱ whatȱ sheȱ calledȱ “aȱ talismanicȱ momentȱ ofȱ connection”ȱ (“Haibun,”ȱ 116).ȱLaterȱsheȱwroteȱofȱthatȱperiod,ȱ“Iȱneededȱaȱwoman,ȱaȱpoet,ȱ andȱaȱmodernist,ȱandȱIȱneededȱherȱbadly”ȱ(“Reader,”ȱ103).ȱThisȱ needȱ overcameȱ herȱ frustrationȱ withȱ whatȱ sheȱ termedȱ H.D.’sȱ “romanticȱ thraldom.”22ȱ Whileȱ DuPlessisȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ attractedȱtoȱtheȱearlierȱpoet’sȱmidrashicȬlikeȱchainsȱofȱmeaning,ȱ

ȱ22ȱȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessis,ȱTheȱPinkȱGuitar:ȱWritingȱasȱFeministȱPracticeȱ(NewȱYork:ȱ Routledge,ȱ1990)ȱ20;ȱcitedȱsubsequentlyȱPG.ȱ

144ȱ

H.D.’sȱ symbolistȱ andȱ transcendentalȱ poeticsȱ wouldȱ noȱ doubtȱ haveȱ jarredȱ withȱ theȱ objectivistȬinflectedȱ materialismȱ ofȱ herȱ ownȱpoetics.ȱBurtonȱHatlenȱsuggestsȱthatȱDuPlessisȱsometimesȱ engagedȱ inȱ “aȱ deliberateȱ ‘misreading’”ȱ ofȱ H.D.,ȱ wherebyȱ theȱ misreadingȱopensȱupȱnew,ȱcreativeȱdimensionsȱofȱH.D.’sȱtext.23ȱ DuPlessisȱ certainlyȱ agreesȱ thatȱ H.D.ȱ wasȱ recuperatedȱ inȱ quiteȱ specificȱ waysȱ byȱ herselfȱ andȱ otherȱ secondȬwaveȱfeministȱ poetsȱ orȱpoetȱcriticsȱsuchȱasȱAliciaȱOstriker,ȱBeverlyȱDahlen,ȱAdrienneȱ Rich,ȱandȱBarbaraȱGuest:ȱ“Weȱinfluencedȱherȱwork,ȱhowȱitȱwasȱ read,ȱ whatȱ partsȱ ofȱ itȱ wereȱ read,ȱ whyȱ itȱ wasȱ interesting.ȱ Weȱ madeȱitȱmatterȱforȱthisȱgeneration”ȱ(“Haibun,”ȱ117).ȱȱ Susanȱ Rubinȱ Suleimanȱ contendsȱ thatȱ “ifȱ womenȱ areȱ toȱ beȱ partȱofȱanȱavantȬgardeȱmovement,ȱtheyȱwillȱdoȱwellȱtoȱfoundȱitȱ themselves.”24ȱ Recoveriesȱ ofȱ pastȱ womenȱ writersȱ likeȱ H.D.ȱ arguablyȱ sayȱ moreȱ aboutȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ lateȱ twentiethȬ centuryȱ feministsȱ definedȱ theirȱ ownȱ avantȬgardismȱ thanȱ whatȱ wasȱ actuallyȱ occurringȱ inȱ theȱ modernistȱ era.ȱ Inȱ generatingȱ aȱ foundationalȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ origins,ȱ DuPlessisȱ andȱ herȱ contemporariesȱcompiledȱaȱhistoricalȱavantȬgardeȱthatȱincludedȱ Gertrudeȱ Stein,ȱ Virginiaȱ Woolf,ȱ Emilyȱ Dickinson,ȱ Minaȱ Loy,ȱ MarianneȱMoore,ȱLauraȱRiding,ȱLorineȱNiedecker,ȱGwendolynȱ Brooks,ȱ andȱ Barbaraȱ Guest.ȱ Recuperatedȱ oneȱ byȱ one,ȱ theseȱ poetsȱwereȱviewedȱasȱloneȱstarsȱ(“oneȱofȱtheȱstars…inȱthatȱtinyȱ firmament,”ȱ asȱ Marianneȱ DeKovenȱ characterisesȱ it)25ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ constellation.ȱ Suchȱ anȱ individualist,ȱ piecemealȱ strategyȱ meantȱ thatȱ womenȱ remainedȱ situatedȱ asȱ marginalȱ playersȱtoȱtheȱmaleȬdominantȱmovementsȱandȱconsistentlyȱreadȱ throughȱ aȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ alterityȱ ratherȱ thanȱ centrality.ȱ Ifȱ theȱ avantȬgardistȱ isȱ castȱ asȱ outsider,ȱ thenȱ theȱ innovativeȱ womanȱ writerȱ isȱ theȱ doubleȱ outsider,ȱ existingȱ inȱ whatȱ Susanȱ Rubinȱ ȱ23ȱȱ Burtonȱ Hatlen,ȱ “Renewingȱ theȱ Openȱ Engagement:ȱ H.D.ȱ andȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,”ȱ H.D.ȱ andȱ Poetsȱ After,ȱ ed.ȱ Donnaȱ Krolikȱ Hollenbergȱ (Iowaȱ City:ȱ UniversityȱofȱIowaȱPress,ȱ2000)ȱ139.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Susanȱ Rubinȱ Suleiman,ȱ Subversiveȱ Intent:ȱ Gender,ȱ Politics,ȱ andȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990)ȱ32.ȱ ȱ25ȱȱ MarianneȱDeKoven,ȱ“Gertrude’sȱGranddaughters,”ȱTheȱWomen’sȱReviewȱofȱBooksȱ 4.2ȱ(1986):ȱ12.ȱ

145ȱ

Suleimanȱ callsȱ aȱ “doubleȱ margin.”ȱ Theȱ resultingȱ pictureȱ ofȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ modernistȱ avantȬgardeȱ (settingȱ forthȱ aȱ discreteȱ seriesȱ ofȱ avantȬgardeȱ womenȱ writersȱ and,ȱ inȱ soȱ doing,ȱ reproducingȱ theȱ canonicalȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ Newȱ Criticism)ȱ hasȱ sinceȱbeenȱcontestedȱfollowingȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱculturalȱstudiesȱ inȱ modernistȱ studies.ȱ Whileȱ criticsȱ likeȱ Janetȱ Lyonȱ haveȱ begunȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ salonȱ asȱ aȱ siteȱ ofȱ femaleȱ culturalȱ power,ȱ thereȱ hasȱ alsoȱ beenȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ studiesȱ ofȱ H.D.’sȱ worldȱ toȱ Bryher’sȱ promotionȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ orȱ theirȱ jointȱ foraysȱintoȱtheȱworldȱofȱexperimentalȱcinema.26ȱȱ Inȱ viewingȱ pastȱ womenȱ avantȬgardistsȱ asȱ “pioneerȱ Katies,”ȱ toȱ useȱ Williamȱ Carlosȱ Williams’sȱ term,27ȱ theȱ lateȱ twentiethȬ centuryȱavantȬgardistȱcouldȱdistinguishȱherselfȱasȱbeingȱpartȱofȱ aȱ collectiveȱ femaleȱ formationȱ (for,ȱ asȱ Paulȱ Mannȱ suggests,ȱ theȱ previousȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ retainedȱ asȱ preciselyȱ thatȱ whichȱ isȱ leftȱ behind,ȱ reiteratedȱ asȱ historyȱ orȱ lesson)(40).ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ nextȱ collection,ȱ Tabulaȱ Rosaȱ (1987)ȱ featuredȱ promotionalȱ blurbsȱ byȱ Kathleenȱ Fraserȱ andȱ Susanȱ Howe.ȱ Allȱ threeȱ writers,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Beverlyȱ Dahlenȱ andȱ Francesȱ Jaffer,ȱ wereȱ associatedȱ withȱ HOW(ever),ȱ aȱ broadsheetȱ journalȱ thatȱ reflectedȱ theȱ specificallyȱ femaleȱ communityȱ fromȱ whichȱ itȱ sprungȱ inȱ featuringȱ onlyȱ women’sȱ experimentalȱ poetryȱ andȱ art.28ȱ Inȱ itsȱ title,ȱ HOW(ever)ȱ signalledȱ aȱ breakȱ withȱ theȱ culturalȱ dominantȱ inȱ soundingȱ anȱ alternativeȱ orȱ “however”ȱ toȱ aȱ primaryȱ proposition.ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ foregroundedȱ theȱ journal’sȱ affiliationȱ toȱ aȱ modernistȱ femaleȱ avantȬgardeȱ(havingȱbeenȱsourcedȱfromȱMarianneȱMoore’sȱquipȱ inȱ “Poetry”ȱ andȱ echoingȱ oneȱ ofȱ H.D.’sȱ titlesȱ inȱ itsȱ abbreviatedȱ formȱ ofȱ H(er)).ȱ Yetȱ whileȱ HOW(ever)’sȱ editorsȱ setȱ outȱ toȱ bringȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Seeȱ Janetȱ Lyon,ȱ “Josephineȱ Baker’sȱ Hothouse,”ȱ Modernism,ȱ Inc:ȱ Body,ȱ Memory,ȱ Capital,ȱ edȱ Janiȱ Scanduraȱ andȱ Michaelȱ Thurstonȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2001)ȱ 29Ȭ47;ȱ Susanȱ Stanfordȱ Friedman’sȱ moreȱ recentȱ work,ȱ includingȱ Analyzingȱ Freud:ȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ H.D.,ȱ Bryher,ȱ andȱ Theirȱ Circleȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Directions,ȱ 2002);ȱ andȱ Susanȱ McCabe,ȱ Cinematicȱ Modernism:ȱ Modernistȱ PoetryȱandȱFilmȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005).ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Williamȱ Carlosȱ Williams,ȱ Inȱ theȱ Americanȱ Grainȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Directions,ȱ 1956)ȱ178.ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ Menȱwereȱallowedȱtoȱcontributeȱreviewsȱandȱcriticalȱmaterialȱbutȱrarelyȱdidȱso.ȱ

146ȱ

womenȱ scholarsȱ andȱ writersȱ notȱ affiliatedȱ withȱ institutionsȱ together,ȱ theyȱ wereȱ largelyȱ unsuccessfulȱ inȱ breakingȱ theȱ institutionalȱstructureȱalreadyȱinȱplace.ȱȱȱ Steveȱ Evansȱ characterisesȱ theȱ nexusȱ ofȱ innovativeȱ womenȱ writersȱemergingȱoutȱofȱtheȱ1970sȱasȱaȱ“feministȱcounterȬpublicȱ sphere,”29ȱ aȱ termȱ Ritaȱ Felskiȱ coinsȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ publicȱ discourseȱ ofȱ feministsȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ “claimȱ aȱ representativeȱ universalityȱbutȱratherȱofferȱ…ȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱculturalȱvaluesȱfromȱ theȱ standpointȱ ofȱ womenȱ asȱ aȱ marginalisedȱ groupȱ withinȱ society.”30ȱ Inȱ hisȱ grouping,ȱ Evansȱ includesȱ theȱ writersȱ Aliceȱ Notley,ȱ Bernadetteȱ Mayer,ȱ Hannahȱ Weiner,ȱ Nicoleȱ Brossard,ȱ Fannyȱ Howe,ȱ Rosmarieȱ Waldrop,ȱ andȱ Kathleenȱ Fraser.ȱ However,ȱsuchȱwritersȱmightȱbeȱthoughtȱofȱasȱparticipatingȱinȱaȱ “hostȱ ofȱ competingȱ counterpublics”ȱ forȱ Brossardȱ wasȱ aȱ centralȱ memberȱ ofȱ Quebecoiseȱ feminismȱ whoseȱ linguisticȱ innovationsȱ wereȱ motivatedȱ substantiallyȱ byȱ theȱ callȱ forȱ regionalȱ freedom.ȱ NotleyȱandȱMayerȱparticipatedȱinȱaȱformationȱinvestedȱinȱNewȱ Yorkȱ Schoolȱ generationalism.ȱ Theȱ groupȱ ofȱ writersȱ centralȱ toȱ theȱ HOW(ever)ȱ projectȱ wroteȱ alongsideȱ andȱ participatedȱ inȱ otherȱ avantȬgardeȱ formationsȱ suchȱ asȱ Languageȱ poetry,ȱ althoughȱ theyȱ wereȱ oftenȱ excludedȱ inȱ anyȱ institutionalisingȱ gesturesȱ (suchȱ asȱ Ronȱ Silliman’sȱ landmarkȱ anthology,ȱ Inȱ theȱ AmericanȱTreeȱ(1986)31).ȱTheyȱareȱperhapsȱbestȱviewedȱthenȱasȱaȱ quasiȬpublicȱ sphere,ȱ aȱ usefulȱ demarcationȱ ofȱ Ruthȱ Hobermanȱ thatȱ capturesȱ theȱ fluidityȱ betweenȱ separatismȱ andȱ womenȱ groupsȱwhoȱworkȱwithȱmixedȬgenderȱcounterpublics.32ȱȱ

ȱ29ȱȱ SteveȱEvans,ȱ“AfterȱPatriarchalȱPoetry:ȱFeminismȱandȱtheȱContemporaryȱAvantȬ Garde:ȱIntroductoryȱNote,”ȱdifferences:ȱAȱJournalȱofȱFeministȱCulturalȱStudiesȱ12.2ȱ (2001):ȱii.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ Ritaȱ Felski,ȱ Beyondȱ Feministȱ Aesthetics:ȱ Feministȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Socialȱ Changeȱ (Cambridge:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989)ȱ167.ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Ronȱ Silliman,ȱ ed.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Americanȱ Treeȱ (Orono:ȱ Nationalȱ Poetryȱ Foundation,ȱ 1986).ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ Ruthȱ Hoberman,ȱ “Womenȱ inȱ theȱ Britishȱ Museumȱ Readingȱ Roomȱ duringȱ theȱ LateȬNineteenthȱ andȱ Earlyȱ TwentiethȬCenturies:ȱ Fromȱ QuasiȬȱ toȱ Counterpublic,”ȱFeministȱStudiesȱ28.3ȱ(Fallȱ2002)ȱ489Ȭ521.ȱ

147ȱ

HOW(ever)’sȱ mergingȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ innovationȱ andȱ feministȱ politicsȱ occurredȱ simultaneouslyȱ withȱ poststructuralism’sȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ aȱ realistȱ naturalisationȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ theȱ transparentȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ knowledge.ȱ Asȱ Rosiȱ Braidottiȱ discerns,ȱpoststructralism’sȱtextualȱpoeticsȱwasȱlargelyȱthroughȱ theȱmetaphorȱofȱtheȱfeminine:ȱ Fromȱ…ȱDerrida’sȱinjunctionȱthatȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱitȱcannotȱbeȱsaidȱ thatȱ theȱ “feminine”ȱ functionsȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ pervasiveȱ signifier;ȱ [to]ȱFoucault’sȱblandȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱwomenȱfromȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ sceneȱ isȱ constitutiveȱ ofȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ game,ȱ toȱ Deleuze’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ “becomingȬ woman”ȱ markingȱ aȱ qualitativeȱ transformationȱ inȱ humanȱ consciousness—theȱ feminisationȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ prescribedȱ asȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ stepȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ programȱ ofȱ antiȬhumanismȱthatȱmarksȱourȱera.33ȱ

Frenchȱ theoristsȱ likeȱ Hélèneȱ Cixousȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ feminineȱ wasȱtheȱsphereȱofȱtheȱunconsciousȱorȱtheȱpreȬsymbolicȱandȱforȱ womenȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱbody:ȱ“Moreȱsoȱthanȱmenȱwhoȱareȱcoaxedȱ towardȱsocialȱsuccess,ȱtowardȱsublimation,ȱwomenȱareȱbody.”34ȱ Forȱ Cixousȱ andȱ Juliaȱ Kristeva,ȱ theȱ feminineȱ enabledȱ aȱ revolutionȱ inȱ language.ȱ However,ȱ manyȱ feministȱ criticsȱ haveȱ notedȱthatȱpoststructuralismȱtendsȱtoȱfocusȱonȱhowȱmaleȱavantȬ gardeȱ writersȱ haveȱ exploredȱ theȱ feminine.ȱ Elisabethȱ Frostȱ pointsȱoutȱthatȱKristevaȱevenȱexcludesȱwomenȱfromȱtheȱavantȬ gardeȱ projectȱ byȱ assertingȱ thatȱ womenȱ areȱ “psychologicallyȱ unsuitedȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ semioticȱ disruptiveȱ rhythmsȱ orȱ soundsȱ becauseȱ theȱ riskȱ ofȱ psychosisȱ isȱ greaterȱ forȱ womenȱ thanȱ forȱ men.”35ȱ Asȱ Sianneȱ Ngaiȱ discernsȱ withȱ muchȱ astuteness,ȱ inȱ embracingȱ theȱ feminine,ȱ theȱ feministȱ poetȱ isȱ nowȱ obligedȱ toȱ ȱ33ȱȱ Rosiȱ Braidotti,ȱ Nomadicȱ Subjects:ȱ Embodimentȱ andȱ Sexualȱ Differenceȱ inȱ ContemporaryȱFeministȱTheoryȱ(NewȱYork:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994)ȱ140.ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ Hélèneȱ Cixous,ȱ “Theȱ Laughȱ ofȱ theȱ Medusa,”ȱ Newȱ Frenchȱ Feminisms:ȱ Anȱ Anthology,ȱed.ȱElaineȱMarksȱandȱIsabelleȱdeȱCourtivron,ȱtrans.ȱKeithȱCohenȱandȱ PaulaȱCohenȱ(NewȱYork:ȱSchockenȱBooks,ȱ1981)ȱ257.ȱ ȱ35ȱȱ Elisabethȱ A.ȱ Frost,ȱ Theȱ Feministȱ AvantȬGardeȱ inȱ Americanȱ Poetryȱ (Iowaȱ City:ȱ UniversityȱofȱIowaȱPress,ȱ2003)ȱxxii.ȱ

148ȱ

negotiate,ȱorȱtakeȱaccountȱof,ȱaȱtraditionȱwhichȱisȱdominatedȱbyȱ maleȱmodernists.36ȱȱ AsȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱwithȱtheȱlaterȱpoemsȱofȱWells,ȱDuPlessisȱ wasȱ bothȱ attractedȱ toȱ andȱ troubledȱ byȱ usingȱ theȱ feminineȱ forȱ feministȱavantȬgardeȱpractice.ȱHerȱsecondȱvolume,ȱTabulaȱRosa,ȱ hasȱ theȱ leadingȱ epigraph,ȱ “Sheȱ cannotȱ forgetȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ poetry/becauseȱitȱisȱnotȱhers”:ȱȱ 21.ȱȱlayȱdeeȱ hist!ȱstoryȱ ȱ l’idéeȱ ȱ mysteryȱ ȱ layȱdésȱȱ Myȱhysteryȱ ȱ …ȱ ȱ 25.ȱȱMilkȱofȱtheȱculture’sȱteemingȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ HUȱ ȱ gushesȱatȱmyȱȱȱȱȱNGRYȱweaning.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Aȱ (“Crowbar”)ȱ

Here,ȱDuPlessisȱentertainsȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱanȱalternativeȱspaceȱ toȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ lyricȱ thatȱ hasȱ positionedȱ womanȱ asȱ theȱ “lady”ȱideal.ȱTheȱalternativeȱisȱ“hystery,”ȱaȱpositiveȱmakeȬoverȱ ofȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ culturallyȱ castȱ asȱ theȱ negative,ȱ aȱ spaceȱ ofȱ madnessȱ andȱ mystery.ȱ Thereȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ bringȱ togetherȱ essentialismȱ withȱ cultureȱ throughȱ theȱ metaphorȱ ofȱ motherhood.ȱ Asȱ withȱ secondȬwaveȱ feminism,ȱ thereȱ isȱ theȱ revisingȱ ofȱ wordsȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ aȱ feminineȱ presenceȱ andȱ theȱ excerptȱ isȱ underwrittenȱ (hereȱ quiteȱ literally)ȱ byȱ anger.ȱ Hankȱ Lazerȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ suchȱ “underwriting”ȱ addsȱ aȱ financialȱ orȱ economicȱ resonanceȱ toȱ DuPlessis’sȱ textȱ andȱ oneȱ mightȱ extendȱ thisȱ toȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ draft,ȱ anȱ “overdraft”ȱ beingȱ anȱ economicȱ situationȱwhereȱtheȱsumȱexceedsȱaȱviableȱbalance.37ȱDuPlessis’sȱ workȱ thenȱ isȱ anȱ overdrawingȱ ofȱ orȱ actȱ ofȱ excessȱ inȱ culture’sȱ ȱ36ȱȱ Sianneȱ Ngai,ȱ “Badȱ Timingȱ (Aȱ Sequel).ȱ Paranoia,ȱ Feminism,ȱ andȱ Poetry,”ȱ differences:ȱAȱJournalȱofȱFeministȱCulturalȱStudiesȱ12.2ȱ(2001):ȱ18.ȱ ȱ37ȱȱ Hankȱ Lazer,ȱ Opposingȱ Poetries,ȱ volumeȱ 2:ȱ Readingsȱ (Evanston:ȱ Northwesternȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1996)ȱ57.ȱ

149ȱ

systemȱ(andȱpartȱofȱthisȱexcessȱisȱaffect).ȱElsewhere,ȱsheȱwouldȱ argue,ȱ “Iȱ leaveȱ asȱ anȱ open,ȱ andȱ perplexingȱ questionȱ whetherȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ femaleȱ differenceȱ withinȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ calledȱ aȱ ‘feminine’ȱ positionȱ andȱ relationȱ toȱ language.ȱ Ifȱ thereȱ is,ȱ Iȱ amȱ playingȱit;ȱifȱthereȱisn’t,ȱIȱamȱsometimesȱplayingȱitȱanyway.”38ȱȱȱ Yetȱwhatȱhappensȱtoȱthisȱexcessȱisȱopenȱtoȱconjecture:ȱ Howȱtoȱbeȱthatȱwhichȱisȱunspokenȱȱȱhowȱtoȱspeakȱthatȱwhichȱisȱ “repressed”ȱȱȱelusiveȱanywayȱȱtangentialȱȱdifferentȱ Impendingȱspaceȱȱdifferentȱenoughȱȱhowȱtoȱwriteȱthatȱwhichȱ is/ȱisȱ ȱ unwritten.39ȱ

Inȱ “Languageȱ Acquisition,”ȱ anȱ essayȱ sheȱ wroteȱ aroundȱ theȱ sameȱ periodȱ asȱ sheȱ beganȱ Drafts,ȱ sheȱ isȱ moreȱ criticalȱ ofȱ theȱ feminine:ȱ “Itȱ isȱ oddȱ toȱ readȱ ofȱ thingsȱ ‘maternallyȱ connoted’ȱ orȱ toȱhearȱthatȱweȱmayȱ‘callȱtheȱmomentȱofȱruptureȱandȱnegativity’ȱ whichȱ conditionsȱ andȱ underliesȱ theȱ noveltyȱ ofȱ anyȱ praxisȱ ‘feminine’ȱ whenȱ thisȱ stillȱ leavesȱ aȱ littleȱ inȱ theȱ airȱ whatȱ theȱ specificȱ relationsȱ ofȱ aȱ womanȱ writerȱ toȱ theȱ semioticȱ registerȱ couldȱbe”ȱ(PGȱ87).ȱTheoristsȱlikeȱBraidottiȱandȱNancyȱHartsockȱ haveȱ alsoȱ questionedȱ theȱ deconstructionȱ andȱ “death”ȱ ofȱ theȱ subjectȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ pointȱ inȱ historyȱ whereȱ womenȱ “areȱ beginningȱ toȱ haveȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ discourse,ȱ power,ȱ andȱ pleasure.”40ȱȱȱ Notȱ onlyȱ deeplyȱ problematicȱ inȱ bothȱ itsȱ exclusionȱ fromȱ theȱ socialȱ andȱ theȱ dominanceȱ ofȱ maleȱ modernistsȱ inȱ itsȱ tradition,ȱ theȱ feminineȱ couldȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ perpetuateȱ genderȱ codesȱ thatȱ associateȱ womenȱ asȱ beingȱ moreȱ adeptȱ atȱ certainȱ kindsȱ ofȱ expressionȱ andȱ rolesȱ thanȱ othersȱ (preciselyȱ theȱ problemȱ DuPlessisȱexperiencedȱinȱhavingȱtheȱlyricȱasȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱ ȱ38ȱȱ CitedȱinȱLynnȱKeller,ȱFormsȱofȱExpansion:ȱRecentȱLongȱPoemsȱbyȱWomenȱ(Chicago:ȱ UniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1997)ȱ253.ȱ ȱ39ȱȱȱRachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ Tabulaȱ Rosaȱ (Elmwood:ȱ Potesȱ &ȱ Poetsȱ Press,ȱ 1987)ȱ 72;ȱ subsequentlyȱTR.ȱ 40ȱȱ Braidotti,ȱNomadicȱSubjects,ȱ140.ȱ

150ȱ

feministȱ poetry).ȱ Ngaiȱ pointsȱ outȱ theȱ difficultyȱ ofȱ movingȱ beyondȱsuchȱaȱmodel:ȱȱ Aȱ familiarȱ questionȱ thusȱ returns:ȱ howȱ doesȱ oneȱ developȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ sexualȱ differenceȱ withoutȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ binaryȱ termsȱwhoseȱreiterationȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱaffirmȱandȱreinforceȱtheȱ systemȱ ofȱ “sexualȱ difference”ȱ itself?ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ feministȱ criticsȱ constantlyȱ facesȱ aȱ situationȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ basicȱ presuppositionsȱ ofȱtheȱsexȬgenderȱsystemȱareȱnotȱonlyȱpositedȱbutȱpotentiallyȱreȬ entrenched,ȱ“byȱtheȱpracticalȱcontextȱofȱ[herȱown]ȱinventionȱinȱ them,”ȱtheȱenterpriseȱofȱcritiqueȱthreatensȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱparanoidȱ economy,ȱwithȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ“complicity”ȱatȱitsȱveryȱcentre.41ȱȱ

Preciselyȱ throughȱ identifyingȱ theȱ patriarchalȱ andȱ phallogocentricȱasȱobjectsȱofȱattack,ȱliteraryȱfeminismȱreȬaffirmsȱ theirȱ centralityȱ inȱ cultureȱ andȱ language.ȱ Theȱ avantȬgardeȱ alsoȱ hasȱ thisȱ dilemmaȱ ofȱ beingȱ secondary.ȱ Inȱ seekingȱ ruptureȱ andȱ separation,ȱitȱnecessarilyȱdefinesȱandȱreinforcesȱtheȱforceȱofȱthatȱ whichȱ itȱ opposes.ȱ Wishingȱ toȱ strikeȱ outȱ towardȱ aȱ differentȱ future,ȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱisȱtiedȱtoȱpastȱandȱpresent,ȱhyperȬawareȱ ofȱandȱcaughtȱbyȱitsȱownȱtemporality.ȱȱ DuPlessisȱwouldȱbecomeȱincreasinglyȱwaryȱofȱarchetypalȱorȱ psychoanalyticalȬinflectedȱexplanations.ȱForȱtheȱfeministȱavantȬ gardeȱ poet,ȱ poetryȱ canȱ onlyȱ be,ȱ asȱ DuPlessisȱ states,ȱ “provisionally/complicitȱ resistance”ȱ (TRȱ 73).ȱ Withȱ herȱ serialȱ poem,ȱ Drafts,ȱ DuPlessisȱ movesȱ beyondȱ theȱ “otherness”ȱ which,ȱ asȱ sheȱ notesȱ inȱ “Manifests,”42ȱ remainsȱ inȱ theȱ binaryȱ system,ȱ toȱ writingȱ“otherhow”—asȱ“theȱmultipleȱpossibilitiesȱofȱaȱpraxis”ȱ (PGȱ 154).ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ titleȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ echoesȱ Pound’sȱ Draftsȱ&ȱFragmentsȱofȱCantosȱCXȬCXVII.ȱInȱ“Draftȱ1”,ȱDuPlessisȱ writes,ȱ “CANO,ȱ canȱ o,ȱ yesȱ ȱ no/connoȬ/tationsȱ ofȱ impurities.”43ȱ ThisȱalsoȱinvokesȱVirgil’sȱconceptȱofȱarmsȱandȱtheȱmanȱ(“Armaȱ virumqueȱcano”)ȱandȱforegroundsȱPound’sȱmilitantȱagendaȱforȱ ȱ41ȱȱ Ngai,ȱ“BadȱTiming,”ȱ19.ȱ ȱ42ȱȱ RachelȱBlauȱDuPlessis,ȱ“Manifests,”ȱDiacriticsȱ26.3Ȭ4ȱ(1996):ȱ49.ȱ ȱ43ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ ȱ Draftsȱ 1Ȭ38,ȱ Tollȱ (Middletown:ȱ Wesleyanȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ2001)ȱ4;ȱcitedȱsubsequentlyȱasȱToll.ȱ

151ȱ

avantȬgardeȱchange.ȱYetȱtoȱbeȱdraftedȱisȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱupȱtoȱbattleȱ byȱaȱsocialȱregimeȱtoȱactȱonȱitsȱbehalf.ȱRatherȱthanȱhaveȱagencyȱ inȱ one’sȱ aggression,ȱ anȱ armyȱ drafteeȱ isȱ devolvedȱ ofȱ agency,ȱ renderedȱ complicitȱ inȱ supportingȱ andȱ beingȱ absorbedȱ inȱ aȱ monolithicȱ order.ȱ Theȱ revolutionaryȱ struggleȱ isȱ revealedȱ asȱ maintainingȱ hegemonyȱ ratherȱ thanȱ articulatingȱ theȱ nonȬ hegemonic.ȱ Significantly,ȱ theȱ lastȱ wordsȱ ofȱ Pound’sȱ Draftsȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ defeat,ȱ “Thatȱ Iȱ lostȱ myȱ centre/fightingȱ theȱ world./Theȱ dreamsȱ clash/andȱ areȱ shattered—/andȱ thatȱ Iȱ triedȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ paradiseȱ terrestre.”44ȱ Whileȱ theȱ longȱ poemȱ enabledȱ opennessȱ andȱ flightȱ ofȱ impulse,ȱ Poundȱ desiredȱ mastery,ȱ andȱ increasinglyȱ investedȱ Theȱ Cantosȱ withȱ anȱ imperativeȱ tone.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ asȱ Peterȱ Nichollsȱ suggests,ȱ issuesȱ ofȱ myth,ȱ politics,ȱ andȱ ethicsȱ wereȱ mergedȱ unproblematicallyȱ togetherȱ byȱ beingȱ projectedȱ backȱ ontoȱ anȱ idyllicȱ andȱ remoteȱ past.45ȱ Poundȱ notȱ onlyȱ sawȱ socialȱ processȱ asȱ unilateral—“Theȱ wholeȱ tribe”ȱ asȱ comingȱ fromȱ “oneȱ man’sȱ body”ȱ (708)ȱ butȱ alsoȱ endowedȱ Theȱ Cantosȱ withȱ aȱ masculineȱ showȱ ofȱ forceȱ inȱ theȱ hopeȱ thatȱ itȱ “burstȱ thru”ȱ toȱ luminousȱimagesȱofȱparadise.ȱThese,ȱheȱsawȱasȱcohering,ȱ“evenȱ ifȱ myȱ notesȱ doȱ notȱ cohere”ȱ (797).ȱ Forȱ Pound,ȱ judgementȱ wasȱ unassailable,ȱ havingȱ beenȱ foundȱ inȱ linguisticȱ precisionȱ itself.ȱ Oppenȱ wouldȱ noteȱ that,ȱ “Pound’sȱ egoȱ system,ȱ Pound’sȱ organisationȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ aroundȱ aȱ character,ȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ masculineȱenergy,ȱisȱextremelyȱforeignȱtoȱme.”46ȱHeȱalsoȱfoundȱ itsȱ epicȱ natureȱ difficultȱ toȱ stomach:ȱ “Iȱ suspectȱ weȱ allȱ admitȱ toȱ ourselves—orȱIȱwillȱadmitȱtoȱmyselfȱȱȱthatȱIȱreadȱtheȱCantosȱinȱ fragmentsȱ ȱ ȱ asȱ fragments”ȱ (SLȱ 249Ȭ50).ȱ Discussingȱ poeticȱ practiceȱ withȱ DuPlessis,ȱ heȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ whatȱ wasȱ neededȱ wasȱ “courage,ȱ notȱ ‘audacity’—Pound’sȱ word—butȱ plainȱ courage.ȱToȱsayȱwhatȱit’sȱlikeȱoutȱthereȱ…ȱoutȱhere”ȱ(SLȱ122).ȱȱ

ȱ44ȱȱ EzraȱPound,ȱTheȱCantosȱ(London:ȱFaberȱ&ȱFaber,ȱ1975)ȱ802.ȱ ȱ45ȱȱ PeterȱNicholls,ȱ“OnȱBeingȱEthical:ȱReflectionsȱonȱGeorgeȱOppen,”ȱTheȱObjectivistȱ Nexus:ȱEssaysȱinȱCulturalȱPoeticsȱ(Tuscaloosa:ȱUniversityȱofȱAlabamaȱPress,ȱ1999)ȱ 243.ȱ ȱ46ȱȱ CitedȱDembo,ȱ“Theȱ‘Objectivist’ȱPoet,”ȱ170.ȱ

152ȱ

DuPlessisȱseemsȱtoȱagree,ȱwantingȱaȱpoetryȱthatȱwasȱspecificȱ toȱ itsȱ timeȱ andȱ culturalȱ history,ȱ thatȱ couldȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ “now”ȱ thatȱ“plungesȱintoȱeveryȱobject.”ȱBeyondȱPound,ȱDraftsȱinvokesȱ Oppen’sȱnotionȱofȱdraftȱasȱairȱinȱ“TheȱOccurrences”:ȱ Limitedȱairȱ draftsȱ Inȱtheȱtreasureȱhouseȱmovingȱandȱtheȱmovementsȱofȱtheȱlivingȱ Thingsȱfallȱsomethingȱbalancedȱ Moveȱ Withȱallȱone’sȱforceȱ Intoȱtheȱcommonplaceȱthatȱpiercesȱorȱerodesȱ ȱ Theȱmind’sȱstructureȱbutȱnothingȱ Incredibleȱhappensȱ Itȱwillȱhaveȱhappenedȱtoȱtheȱotherȱ Theȱsurvivorȱ ȱ Theȱsurvivorȱ itȱhappenedȱ(CPȱ206)ȱ Toȱhimȱ ȱ

Forȱ DuPlessis,ȱ theȱ “limitedȱ air”ȱ wasȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ lyricȱ traditionȱ andȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱNewȱCriticismȱwhichȱhadȱseenȱaȱdistilledȱ air,ȱpurifiedȱofȱOtherness.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱconsolingȱorderȱthatȱ Poundȱ arguablyȱ sought,ȱ sheȱ wantedȱ aȱ poetryȱ thatȱ wasȱ disorderly,ȱ messy,ȱ excessive,ȱ contrary,ȱ and—followingȱ Walterȱ Benjamin—thatȱwouldȱinvolveȱwaste,ȱdebris,ȱsocialȱdetritus,ȱorȱ theȱ taboo.ȱ Yetȱ sheȱ wouldȱ beȱ stillȱ beȱ attractedȱ toȱ theȱ encyclopaedicȱ impulseȱ ofȱ theȱ longȱ poemȱ “inȱ whichȱ theȱ writerȱ inventsȱaȱnewȱandȱtotalȱculture,ȱsymbolisedȱbyȱandȱannouncedȱ inȱ aȱ longȱ work”ȱ (PGȱ 17)ȱ “get[ting]ȱ everythingȱ in,ȱ inclusively,ȱ reflexively,ȱ monumentally”ȱ (PGȱ 9).ȱ Sheȱ wouldȱ attemptȱ toȱ combineȱ thisȱ withȱ aȱ methodologyȱ ofȱ radicalȱ particularism.ȱ Politicisingȱ theȱ draftȱ ofȱ air,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ breath,ȱ aȱ personȱ inȱ theȱ actȱ ofȱ doing.ȱ Theȱ actȱ ofȱ writingȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ anȱ actȱ ofȱ beingȱ drafted,ȱbutȱtheȱveryȱdraftȱofȱbeing.ȱȱ DraftsȱbeginsȱinȱTabulaȱRosaȱinȱitsȱsecondȱsection.ȱItȱtakesȱasȱ itsȱ cueȱ Beverlyȱ Dahlen’sȱ serialȱ poemȱ Aȱ Readingȱ althoughȱ itȱ distancesȱ itselfȱ fromȱ Dahlen’sȱ moreȱ Freudianȱ approach.ȱ DuPlessisȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱfirstȱdraftsȱwereȱwrittenȱonȱaȱnotebookȱ boundȱinȱmarbledȱpaperȱgivenȱtoȱherȱbyȱFraser.ȱInspirationȱandȱ 153ȱ

theȱ materialȱ forȱ Draftsȱ thenȱ isȱ drawnȱ fromȱ theȱ dialogueȱ andȱ supportȱofȱaȱsurroundingȱfeministȱavantȬgarde.ȱExcludedȱfromȱ subsequentȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ Drafts,ȱ “Writing”ȱ mightȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ Draftȱ#0,ȱaȱtextualȱdegreeȱzero,ȱcontainingȱtheȱsupplement,ȱtheȱ marginal,ȱ andȱ theȱ lost.ȱ Inȱ “Writingȱ onȱ ‘Writing,’”ȱ DuPlessisȱ notesȱ thatȱ sheȱ wantedȱ toȱ “takeȱ herselfȱ asȱ centralȱ yetȱ inȱ allȱ herȱ otherness,ȱtoȱtryȱwritingȱothernessȱwhenȱitȱisȱsometimesȱfelt,ȱorȱ statedȱ repeatedly,ȱ thatȱ othernessȱ isȱ theȱ oppositeȱ ofȱ writing,ȱ althoughȱ itȱ mayȱ inspireȱ writing”ȱ (TRȱ 84).ȱ Takingȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ negationȱ heraldedȱ inȱ “fromȱ Theȱ ‘Historyȱ ofȱ Poetry,’”ȱ sheȱ simultaneouslyȱbeginsȱaȱcommentaryȱofȱit:ȱȱ Marginaliaȱwithoutȱaȱcentre?ȱȱ Noȱbeginning,ȱNo.ȱNoȱ Oneȱwordȱoneȱ ending?ȱNo,ȱbecauseȱformȱ ȱ“word”ȱkkhkkhggghȱ atȱallȱtimesȱisȱinstilled.ȱOȱnobleȱ Koréȱȱ laȱlaȱ thatȱongoȬȱ Threadedȱintoȱtheȱdyadȱ ingnessȱthatȱentranceȱintoȱspeakingȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ (TRȱ77)ȱ

DuPlessisȱ usesȱ parallelȱ columnsȱ toȱ establishȱ aȱ midrashicȱ dialogueȱ betweenȱ selfȱ andȱ writing.ȱ Yetȱ withinȱ thisȱ dyadicȱ structure,ȱ sheȱ attemptsȱ toȱ refuseȱ definitiveȱ openingsȱ andȱ closure,ȱ promotingȱ insteadȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ theȱ middleȱ andȱ theȱ continuous.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ partlyȱ achievedȱ byȱ splittingȱ phrasesȱ andȱ wordsȱ byȱ lineȱ breaksȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ ironicȱ repetitionȱ (“Oneȱ wordȱ one”).ȱItȱisȱalsoȱachievedȱthroughȱtheȱnonȬsenseȱofȱsongȱ(“laȱla”)ȱ andȱ pureȱ soundȱ (“kkhkkhgggh”),ȱ whichȱ reflectȱ atȱ onceȱ theȱ dyadicȱstructureȱofȱmotherȱandȱbabyȱandȱalsoȱtheȱcollapseȱofȱaȱ singularityȱ ofȱ selfȱ thatȱ occursȱ uponȱ parenting.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ emotionalȱ complexityȱ ofȱ love,ȱ responsibility,ȱ andȱ frustrationȱ isȱ conveyedȱbothȱthroughȱandȱbetweenȱlanguage’sȱsegmentation.ȱȱ “Draftȱ1,”ȱappearingȱinȱTabulaȱRosaȱwithȱ“Draftȱ2,”ȱturnsȱonȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ “both/and,”ȱ specificallyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ negationȱ andȱ affirmation.ȱItȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱ“N”ȱofȱNoȱwhichȱisȱrepeatedȱonȱ theȱ nextȱ line,ȱ thenȱ echoedȱ pictoriallyȱ withȱ aȱ smallȱ Nȱ withinȱ aȱ largerȱN.ȱVisuallyȱtheȱdoubledȱpictorialȱNȱlooksȱlikeȱmountainȱ peaks,ȱ emblematisingȱ theȱ sublimeȱ horizonȱ ofȱ writingȱ (asȱ sheȱ 154ȱ

notesȱ furtherȱ inȱ theȱ poem,ȱ “theaterȱ ofȱ the/ȱ pageȱ ȱ creamȱ ȱ spaceȱȱ peaks”ȱ(Tollȱ6)).ȱTheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱpoemȱcontainsȱaȱdoubledȱ pictorialȱ Y.ȱ whichȱ tacticallyȱ mirrorsȱ theȱ N.ȱ whileȱ visuallyȱ suggestingȱ theȱ femaleȱ body.ȱ DuPlessisȱ sawȱ Draftsȱ asȱ undertakingȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱ“Writing”ȱinȱofferingȱanȱalternativeȱ toȱ poetry.ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ theȱ iconic,ȱ staticȱ formȱ ofȱ “postcardȱ poetry”ȱ(Tollȱ4)ȱwithȱitsȱ“lyricȱhit”ȱandȱrecognisableȱmarkersȱofȱ “beauty”ȱ andȱ “perfection,”ȱ sheȱ wantedȱ toȱ “reconfigureȱ whatȱ [poetry]ȱ canȱ do,ȱ howȱ itȱ isȱ regarded,ȱ andȱ whatȱ itsȱ scopeȱ andȱ meaningsȱ are.”ȱ Inȱ callingȱ herȱ emergentȱ serialȱ poem,ȱ “Drafts,”ȱ DuPlessisȱ stagesȱ themȱ asȱ aȱ workȬinȬprogress,ȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ “unfinished”ȱ inȱ themselvesȱ (eachȱ “Draft”ȱ mayȱ beȱ readȱ andȱ isȱ oftenȱ publishedȱ initiallyȱ asȱ aȱ separate,ȱ completeȱ textȱ inȱ itself)ȱ butȱ asȱ constantlyȱ linkingȱ to,ȱ dissembling,ȱ andȱ revisingȱ oneȱ another.ȱAsȱ such,ȱ thereȱ isȱalsoȱaȱshiftȱ inȱ focusȱfromȱ productȱ toȱ labour—aȱ flaggingȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ temporality.ȱ DuPlessisȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ Draftsȱ areȱ “freshlyȱ drawnȱ andȱ freelyȱ declared”ȱ (althoughȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ fiction);ȱ theirȱ completionȱ areȱ alwaysȱ provisional.ȱ Draftsȱ alsoȱ involvesȱ “theȱ pullȱ orȱ tractionȱ onȱ something”ȱandȱthereforeȱareȱanȱ“examinationȱfromȱtheȱgroundȱ here,ȱnotȱelsewhere”ȱ(ODȱ145).ȱ Draftsȱmakesȱmanifest,ȱthen,ȱratherȱthanȱbeingȱaȱmanifestoȱorȱ declaration.ȱ Itsȱ poemsȱ areȱ performative,ȱ reiteratingȱ theȱ pastȱ inȱ orderȱtoȱ“makeȱitȱanew.”ȱTheȱpoeticsȱofȱreturningȱattention,ȱofȱ occupationȱ overȱ time,ȱ revealsȱ “aȱ seamȱ openingȱ insideȱ existence”ȱ (ODȱ 151).ȱ Whileȱ focusedȱ onȱ theȱ constitutionȱ ofȱ theȱ selfȱandȱthusȱfollowingȱtheȱorientationȱofȱmuchȱfeministȱpoetry,ȱ itȱ undercutsȱ theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ aȱ definitiveȱ self,ȱ revealingȱ theȱ fictionalisationȱofȱsubjectivity.ȱTheȱopeningȱDrafts,ȱforȱinstance,ȱ returnsȱtoȱWells:ȱ Silencesȱareȱtheȱreachesȱofȱdiscourseȱ ȱ (richȱincipit’sȱbigȱinitials)ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱwalledȱ Thereȱisȱaȱyesȱandȱaȱnoȱ ȱȱȱupȱ 155ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱwelledȱ

ȱ(Tollȱ9)ȱ

Inȱ Drafts,ȱ DuPlessisȱ seeksȱ toȱ makeȱ poetryȱ “notȱ remembering//butȱ constructedȱ ofȱ Memory/timeȱ goingȱ forwardȱ athwart”ȱ (Tollȱ 231).ȱ Itȱ questionsȱ theȱ autobiographicalȱ imperative:ȱ“Theȱpoemȱisȱnotȱyou.ȱExceptȱasȱifȱyouȱare/yourselfȱ inȱ doubt//impededȱ claritiesȱ repeated.”ȱ Elsewhereȱ sheȱ wouldȱ ponder:ȱ “Isȱ thisȱ writingȱ orȱ memory?ȱ Projectionȱ orȱ repetition?/Realȱ orȱ unreal?ȱ Theȱ memoirȱ ofȱ me,ȱ orȱ antiȬ memoir/Againstȱmyȱrealȱlife?”47ȱȱ Theȱlongȱpoemȱmimicsȱmemoryȱasȱanȱexpansiveȱandȱflexibleȱ medium.ȱ Inȱ aȱ letterȱ datedȱ 21ȱ Marchȱ 1975,ȱ Oppenȱ advisesȱ DuPlessisȱtoȱ“stopȱwritingȱpoetry.ȱWriteȱprose.ȱWithoutȱtellingȱ yourselfȱthatȱproseȱhasȱtoȱbeȱdifferentȱfromȱpoetry,ȱorȱlonger,ȱorȱ anythingȱelse”ȱ(SLȱ301).ȱYetȱinȱdoingȱso,ȱsheȱmovesȱawayȱfromȱ Oppenȱwhoȱwouldȱconfess,ȱ“IȱwriteȱsuchȱgodawfulȱproseȱthatȱIȱ amȱ notȱ temptedȱ toȱ proseȱ procedures”ȱ (SLȱ 317).ȱ Inȱ Drafts,ȱ DuPlessisȱcombinesȱnarrativeȱandȱlyricȱelements,ȱcrossesȱgenresȱ (documentary,ȱ report,ȱ ode,ȱ elegy,ȱ autobiography,ȱ midrash),ȱ createsȱ palimpsests,ȱ usesȱ gloss,ȱ creolisation,ȱ overȬwriting,ȱ multipleȱ fonts,ȱ punning,ȱ andȱ wordȬhinges,ȱ allȱ ofȱ whichȱ contributeȱ toȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ asȱ beingȱ atȱ onceȱ inclusiveȱ (polyvocal,ȱ multiȬcultural,ȱ andȱ symphonic)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ filledȱ withȱgaps,ȱhesitant,ȱandȱconflicted.ȱBlackedȬoutȱpatchesȱofȱtextȱ inȱ “Draftȱ 5:ȱ Gap,”ȱ “Draftȱ 52:ȱ Midrash,”ȱ andȱ “Draftȱ 68:ȱ Threshold”ȱ remindȱ theȱ readerȱ ofȱ theȱ overlayȱ ofȱ socialȱ censorshipȱthatȱregulateȱsuchȱtracingsȱofȱtheȱpast.ȱȱ DuPlessisȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ memorialisingȱ functionȱ inȱ poetryȱ hasȱ generallyȱ singledȱ outȱ femaleȱ figuresȱ toȱ beȱ surroundedȱ byȱ theȱ maleȱ gazeȱ (ODȱ 144).ȱ Inȱ lookingȱ atȱ culturalȱ material,ȱ Draftsȱ performsȱ aȱ commentaryȱ whileȱ alsoȱ foregroundingȱ thatȱ material’sȱhistoricality.ȱ Peggyȱ Kamufȱ notesȱ thatȱ thisȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ historicalȱ context;ȱ onceȱ aȱ work’sȱ contextȱ hasȱ subsidedȱ “intoȱarchivalȱcompost,”ȱitȱ“hasȱaȱrelationȱasȱwellȱtoȱaȱfuture,ȱbyȱ ȱ47ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ ȱ Drafts:ȱ Draftsȱ 39Ȭ57,ȱ Pledge,ȱ withȱ Draft,ȱ Unnumbered:ȱ Précisȱ(Cambridge:ȱSalt,ȱ2004)ȱ39.ȱ

156ȱ

whichȱ itȱ remainsȱ alwaysȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ incomprehensibleȱ byȱ anyȱ givenȱ present.ȱ Sheȱ contends,ȱ “Whatȱ weȱ stillȱ callȱ literatureȱ …ȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ reserveȱ ofȱ everyȱ present,ȱ institutedȱ meaningȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ itsȱ transformation,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ aȱ future.”48ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ thisȱ utopianȱ potential,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ melancholyȱ inȱ Drafts,ȱ aȱ mourningȱ forȱ aȱ particularȱ setȱ ofȱ identificationsȱ andȱ histories,ȱ primarilyȱthoseȱsuchȱasȱgenderȱandȱJewishnessȱwhichȱrelateȱtoȱ DuPlessis’sȱ ownȱ culturalȱ matrixȱ (“Draftȱ 22:ȱ Philadelphiaȱ Wireman”ȱ mournsȱ aȱ localȱ orȱ geographicallyȱ proximateȱ figureȱ whoseȱhistoryȱremainsȱunknown).ȱThisȱgoesȱhandȱinȱhandȱwithȱ theȱbelatednessȱofȱtheȱcontemporaryȱavantȬgardeȱwhichȱhas,ȱinȱ theȱ wakeȱ ofȱ poststructuralism’sȱ variousȱ deconstructionsȱ (ofȱ history,ȱ theȱ subject,ȱ andȱ gender),ȱ aȱ differentȱ understandingȱ ofȱ itsȱ temporalityȱ andȱ potentialȱ forceȱ toȱ theȱ modernistȱ avantȬ garde.ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ disorderlyȱ excessesȱofȱ memoryȱ andȱ itsȱ gapsȱ ofȱforgetting,ȱfollowingȱherȱ“both/and”ȱnonȬdialecticalȱmodel,ȱisȱ resonantȱwithȱKamuf’sȱhistoricality.ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ processȱ ofȱ returnȱ enablesȱ Verwindung,ȱaȱHeideggerianȱtermȱwhichȱGianniȱVattimoȱusesȱtoȱ signifyȱ transformationȱ throughȱ distortion.49ȱ Thisȱ isȱ perhapsȱ similarȱtoȱCharlesȱAltieri’sȱnotionȱofȱaȱ“tilt”ȱofȱsubjectivity.50ȱInȱ bothȱ theȱ focusȱ isȱ onȱ movementȱ (consonantȱ withȱ Objectivism)ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ optingȱ forȱ aȱ choiceȱ betweenȱ oneȱ orȱ theȱ otherȱ version,ȱ orȱ ofȱ fallingȱ backȱ ontoȱ aȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ progress.ȱ Recurrenceȱ thenȱ generatesȱ differenceȱ asȱ plenitudeȱ ratherȱ thanȱ dialectic.ȱ DuPlessisȱ conceivesȱ returnȱ throughȱ yetȱ anotherȱ strategyȱ inȱ herȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ fold.ȱ Introducedȱ asȱ aȱ structuralȱ ȱ48ȱȱ Peggyȱ Kamuf,ȱ Theȱ Divisionȱ ofȱ Literature,ȱ or,ȱ theȱ Universityȱ inȱ Deconstructionȱ (Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1997)ȱ164.ȱThisȱwouldȱtieȱinȱwithȱGiorgioȱ Agamben’sȱconceptȱofȱtheȱ‘new’ȱ“asȱthatȱwhichȱcannotȱbeȱexperiencedȱexceptȱasȱ unknown,ȱ asȱ emergingȱ onlyȱ inȱ anȱ ‘estrangement’ȱ thatȱ removesȱ fromȱ theȱ mostȱ commonplaceȱobjectsȱtheirȱpowerȱtoȱbeȱexperienced.”ȱ ȱ49ȱȱ Gianniȱ Vattimo,ȱ “Verwindung:ȱ Nihilismȱ andȱ theȱ Postmodernȱ inȱ Philosophy,”ȱ SubStanceȱ16.2ȱ(1987):ȱ7Ȭ17.ȱ ȱ50ȱȱ Charlesȱ Altieri,ȱ “AvantȬGardeȱ orȱ ArrièreȬGardeȱ inȱ Recentȱ Americanȱ Poetry,”ȱ PoeticsȱTodayȱ20.4ȱ(1999):ȱ629Ȭ53.ȱ

157ȱ

principleȱ inȱ 1993,ȱ eachȱ newȱ draftȱ (beginningȱ withȱ “Draftȱ 20”)ȱ correspondsȱinȱsomeȱwayȱtoȱanȱearlierȱone.ȱThisȱfoldȱwouldȱbeȱ repeatedȱagain,ȱsuchȱthatȱ“Draftȱ39”ȱwouldȱhaveȱ“Draftȱ1”ȱandȱ “Draftȱ 20”ȱ asȱ itsȱ donorȱ drafts.ȱ Theȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ poemsȱ mightȱ beȱ sensuous,ȱ formal,ȱ intellectualȱ orȱ allusive,ȱ butȱ inȱ makingȱ theȱ connectionȱ changeȱ theȱ potentialȱ meaningȱ ofȱ each.ȱ DuPlessisȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ foldȱ mightȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ “ethicalȱ indistinction”ȱ (Tollȱ 234),ȱ foregroundingȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ poetryȱ asȱ “theȱ inȬbetween.”ȱ Certainlyȱ muchȱ ofȱ Draftsȱ isȱ aboutȱ thinkingȱ throughȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱ“outȬthere”ȱtoȱtheȱ“overȬ here”ȱ (Tollȱ 234)ȱ asȱ thereȱ isȱ inȱ negotiatingȱ “it”ȱ (theȱ poem,ȱ experience)ȱ andȱ “me.”ȱ Theȱ generativeȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ foldȱ isȱ emphasisedȱ byȱ theȱ punȱ “foaled”ȱ (Tollȱ 142)ȱ andȱ throughoutȱ Draftsȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ focusȱ onȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ writingȱ asȱ mothering.ȱ Theȱtextȱresistsȱauthorialȱcontrolȱandȱthereȱisȱmuchȱplayȱonȱitsȱ alterity,ȱ onȱ itsȱ variousȱ gapsȱ andȱ absences,ȱ itsȱ emȱ spacesȱ (theȱ reversalȱofȱ“me”)ȱ(Tollȱ40)ȱandȱtheȱmother’sȱneedȱtoȱ“stayȱmum”ȱ (“mum’sȱtheȱword,”ȱTollȱ142).ȱ However,ȱtheȱsystematicȱgridȱimposedȱonȱDraftsȱsometimesȱ seemsȱtoȱundercutȱitsȱopennessȱasȱtext.ȱJustȱasȱHankȱLazerȱhasȱ arguedȱthatȱtheȱdirectionsȱgivenȱbyȱDuPlessisȱonȱhowȱtoȱreadȱanȱ earlierȱ poemȱ “Megaliths”ȱ wereȱ anȱ errorȱ inȱ privilegingȱ aȱ particularȱwayȱtoȱreadȱ(downȱeachȱcolumn,ȱthenȱacrossȱboth),ȱaȱ gridȱimpelsȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱlookȱatȱparticularȱpartsȱinȱtheȱmannerȱ ofȱ puzzleȬsolvingȱ theirȱ connectionsȱ (42).ȱ Certainlyȱ itȱ disruptsȱ theȱreadingȱhabitȱtoȱreadȱchronologicallyȱorȱfromȱfrontȱtoȱbackȱ inȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱbook.ȱDraftsȱforegroundsȱtheȱillusoryȱnatureȱorȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ aȱ completelyȱ “freeȱ form”ȱ inȱ otherȱ respects.ȱ Thereȱisȱtheȱdatingȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱeachȱdraft,ȱwhichȱreinforcesȱtheȱ poemȱasȱbeingȱnotȱsimplyȱanȱaestheticȱarticleȱbutȱalsoȱhistoricalȱ utterance.ȱ DuPlessis’sȱ extensiveȱ footnotingȱ alsoȱ setsȱ upȱ anȱ institutionallyȱ correctȱ systemȱ ofȱ acknowledgingȱ sourceȱ material.ȱ Asȱ withȱ theȱ grid,ȱ theȱ footnotesȱ mightȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ privilegingȱaȱparticularȱwayȱinȱwhichȱaȱDraftȱcanȱbeȱread,ȱwithȱ theirȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ existenceȱ ifȱ notȱ importanceȱ ofȱ authorialȱ intention.ȱWhileȱDuPlessisȱusesȱfootnotingȱasȱanȱethicalȱgestureȱ 158ȱ

toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ culturalȱ andȱ aestheticȱ underpinningsȱ ofȱ aȱ poem’sȱ germination,ȱ suchȱ extensiveȱ andȱ formalȱ footnotingȱ neverthelessȱsignalsȱtheȱculturalȱcapitalȱofȱDrafts.ȱFurthermore,ȱ theȱ latestȱ collectionȱ ofȱ Draftsȱ (coveringȱ Draftsȱ 39Ȭ57ȱ andȱ anȱ unnumberedȱDraft)ȱisȱsubtitledȱ“Pledge”ȱandȱmostȱofȱitsȱDraftsȱ endȱ withȱ aȱ dedication,ȱ oftenȱ toȱ fellowȱ writersȱ andȱ scholars.ȱ Arguably,ȱ allȱ theseȱ mechanismsȱ haveȱ theȱ oppositeȱ effectȱ toȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ shockȱ orȱ disturbanceȱ (theȱ moreȱ traditionalȱ avantȬ gardeȱobjectives)ȱinȱthatȱtheyȱprovideȱtheȱreaderȱwithȱcuesȱasȱtoȱ howȱ toȱ navigateȱ theȱ textȱ andȱ howȱ itȱ shouldȱ beȱ positionedȱ withinȱtheȱpoeticȱfield.ȱThatȱsaid,ȱDuPlessisȱisȱstillȱplayfulȱwithȱ theseȱ devicesȱ andȱ theirȱ effects,ȱ evenȱ incorporatingȱ Carolineȱ Bergvall’sȱmisȬcitationȱofȱ“historicalȱdread”ȱasȱ“historicalȱdead”ȱ intoȱ“Draftȱ25”ȱ(Tollȱ163).ȱȱ ȱ“Draftȱ Unnumbered:ȱ Précis”ȱ seemsȱ likeȱ aȱ conclusionȱ toȱ Draftsȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ endingȱ theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ Draftsȱ 39Ȭ57,ȱ Pledge,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ inȱ brieflyȱ capturingȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ eachȱ Draftȱ hithertoȱ andȱ beingȱ situatedȱ outsideȱ theȱ numberedȱ processȱ thatȱ marksȱ Drafts’sȱseriality.ȱYetȱDuPlessisȱviewsȱitȱasȱaȱ“benchmarkȱsetȱatȱ theȱ apparentȱ centreȱ ofȱ [the]ȱ project”ȱ andȱ continuesȱ toȱ produceȱ moreȱDrafts.51ȱAsȱavantȬgardeȱtext,ȱDraftsȱisȱ“Explorationȱnotȱinȱ serviceȱofȱreconcilingȱselfȱtoȱworld,ȱbutȱcreatingȱaȱnewȱworldȱforȱ aȱ newȱ self”ȱ (PGȱ 19).ȱ Whileȱ itȱ doesȱ aȱ thoroughlyȱ poststructuralȱ turnȱinȱitsȱdeconstructionȱofȱexperienceȱandȱhistory,ȱDraftsȱseeksȱ toȱ crossȱ theȱ divideȱ betweenȱ anȱ aestheticisationȱ ofȱ subjectivityȱ andȱ ethicalȱ materialism,ȱ toȱ revealȱ theȱ subjectȱ asȱ aȱ beingȱ inȬ processȱ andȱ multitudinousȱ evenȱ whileȱ interpolatedȱ throughȱ particularȱculturalȱhegemonies.ȱItȱisȱemblematicȱofȱtheȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱ contemporaryȱ experimentalȱ womenȱ writersȱ reconceptualiseȱ bothȱ feminismȱ andȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ demonstratingȱhowȱtheȱbelatednessȱofȱbothȱformationsȱ(and,ȱofȱ course,ȱ theirȱ uneasyȱ fit)ȱ generateȱ responsesȱ includingȱ butȱ alsoȱ overȱandȱbeyondȱnegativity,ȱtheȱparanoidȱorȱmelancholic.ȱ ȱ ȱ51ȱȱ Rachelȱ Blauȱ DuPlessis,ȱ “Anȱ Interviewȱ withȱ Jeanneȱ Heuving,”ȱ Contemporaryȱ Literatureȱ45.3ȱ(2004):ȱ405.ȱ

159ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

EstherȱMilneȱ ȱ

TheȱAffectiveȱandȱAestheticȱRelationsȱ ofȱEpistolaryȱPresence*ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Introductionȱ Withinȱ theȱ technologicalȱ imaginary,ȱ developmentsȱ inȱ communicationȱ systemsȱ areȱ oftenȱ representedȱ asȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ decisiveȱshiftsȱandȱabruptȱbreaks.ȱTheȱnewȱtechnologyȱemerges,ȱ itȱ seems,ȱ outȱ ofȱ nowhere,ȱ escapingȱ theȱ tentaclesȱ ofȱ historicalȱ materiality.ȱ Devoidȱ ofȱ aȱ pastȱ andȱ promisingȱ aȱ futureȱ perfect,ȱ thisȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ progressȱ helpsȱ serveȱ globalȱ commodityȱ relationsȱinȱitsȱuncriticalȱcelebrationȱofȱtheȱnew.ȱAsȱaȱresponseȱ toȱ theseȱ socioȬtechnologicalȱ representations,ȱ thisȱ paperȱ arguesȱ thatȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱoldȱandȱnewȱmediaȱisȱmoreȱcomplexȱ thanȱ isȱ oftenȱ assumedȱ byȱ contemporaryȱ mediaȱ theory.ȱ Narrativesȱ ofȱ changeȱ areȱ dramaticallyȱ complicatedȱ byȱ theȱ strikingȱcontinuitiesȱbetweenȱdifferentȱcommunicationȱsystems.ȱ Whatȱfollowsȱteasesȱoutȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱcontinuitiesȱbyȱexploringȱ howȱ geographicallyȱ distributedȱ postalȱ networksȱ produceȱ affectiveȱandȱaestheticȱrelationsȱofȱintimacy.ȱ Thisȱisȱnot,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱproblematicsȱencounteredȱ byȱ criticalȱ historiography.ȱ Theȱ historicalȱ approachesȱ ofȱ poststructuralism,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ haveȱ offeredȱ aȱ rejoinderȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ universalisingȱ versionȱ ofȱ historyȱ thatȱ wantsȱ toȱ eraseȱ ȱ *ȱȱ SectionsȱofȱthisȱpaperȱwereȱoriginallyȱpublishedȱinȱFibrecultureȱJournalȱ1.2ȱ(2003)ȱ asȱ“EmailȱandȱEpistolaryȱtechnologies:ȱPresence,ȱIntimacy,ȱDisembodiment.”ȱ

160ȱ

difference.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ effortȱ toȱ seeȱ differenceȱ whereȱ hithertoȱ thereȱ hadȱ existedȱ theȱ smoothnessȱ andȱ functionalityȱ ofȱ structuralism,ȱ poststructuralistȱmediaȱtheoryȱcelebratesȱruptureȱandȱaporiaȱtoȱ revealȱ theȱ disjunctionȱ ofȱ historyȱ andȱ itsȱ representation.1ȱ Yetȱ evenȱ asȱ “discontinuity”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ aȱ usefulȱ conceptualȱ frameworkȱ thoughȱ whichȱ toȱ understandȱ activistȱ poeticsȱ andȱ avantȬgardism,2ȱ itȱ isȱ quiteȱ remarkableȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ rhetoricalȱ strategiesȱ canȱ endȱ upȱ confirmingȱ thatȱ veryȱ methodologyȱ andȱ ideologyȱ theyȱ wishȱ toȱ confound.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ whileȱarguingȱforȱhistoricalȱruptureȱagainstȱtheȱtotalisingȱviewȱ ofȱ historicalȱ seamlessness,ȱ theseȱ kindsȱ ofȱ studiesȱ mayȱ beȱ seenȱ actuallyȱtoȱrejoiceȱinȱtheȱunbrokenȱnarrativeȱofȱhistory.ȱ ȱ Presenceȱ Intimacy,ȱ affectȱ andȱ aestheticsȱ areȱ alwaysȱ intertwinedȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ technology.ȱ Asȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ strategy,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱpracticesȱofȱmailȬartȱareȱenabledȱbyȱtheȱmaterialȱconditionsȱ ofȱtheȱpostalȱexchange.3ȱInȱturn,ȱtheȱeconomiesȱofȱthisȱexchangeȱ areȱ underpinnedȱ byȱ theȱ danceȱ betweenȱ absenceȱ andȱ presence:ȱ writingȱ aȱ letterȱ signalsȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ theȱ recipientȱ and,ȱ simultaneously,ȱ aimsȱ toȱ bridgeȱ theȱ gapȱ betweenȱ writerȱ andȱ recipient.ȱ Asȱ Williamȱ Deckerȱ putsȱ it,ȱ “exchangeȱ ofȱ letterȱ sheetȱ thusȱ articulatesȱ andȱ substantiatesȱ theȱ centralȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ discourse:ȱ thatȱ theȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ personallyȱ inscribedȱ textsȱconfirmsȱevenȱasȱitȱwouldȱmitigateȱseparation.”4ȱ ȱ“Presence”ȱ hasȱ emergedȱ asȱ aȱ majorȱ focusȱ forȱ researchersȱ andȱ artistsȱ ofȱ digitalȱ culture,ȱ computerȱ networksȱ andȱ newȱ medical,ȱ communicationȱ andȱ entertainmentȱ technologies.5ȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Seeȱ Friedrichȱ A.ȱ Kittler,ȱ Discourseȱ Networksȱ 1800/1900,ȱ trans.ȱ Michaelȱ Metteerȱ (Standford:ȱStandfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990).ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ LouisȱArmand,ȱSolicitationsȱ(Prague:ȱLitterariaȱPragensia,ȱ2005)ȱ214.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ SeeȱAnnmarieȱChandlerȱandȱNorrieȱNeumarkȱ(eds.),ȱAtȱaȱDistance:ȱPrecursorsȱtoȱ ArtȱandȱActivismȱonȱtheȱInternetȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱMIT/LeonardoȱBooks,ȱ2005).ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Williamȱ Merrillȱ Decker,ȱ Epistolaryȱ Practices:ȱ Letterȱ Writingȱ inȱ Americaȱ beforeȱ Telecommunicationsȱ(ChapelȱHill:ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ1998)ȱ46Ȭ7.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Luisaȱ Paraguaiȱ Donatiȱ andȱ Gilberttoȱ Pradoȱ “Artisticȱ Environmentsȱ ofȱ TelepresenceȱonȱtheȱWorldȱWideȱWeb,”ȱLeonardoȱ34.5ȱ(2001):ȱ437Ȭ442;ȱMatthewȱ

161ȱ

Presenceȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱgeographicallyȱdispersedȱ agentsȱ experienceȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ physicalȱ and/orȱ psychologicalȱ proximityȱ throughȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ particularȱ communicationȱ technologies.ȱ Inȱ areasȱ asȱ diverseȱ asȱ virtualȱ reality,ȱ videoȱ conferencing,ȱ MUDsȱ (multiȬuserȱ domain),ȱ newsgroups,ȱ electronicȱ discussionȱ lists,ȱ telemedicine,ȱ webȬbasedȱ education,ȱ flightȱ simulationȱ softwareȱ andȱ computerȱ gaming,ȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ presenceȱisȱvitalȱforȱtheȱsuccessȱofȱtheȱparticularȱapplication.ȱȱ Itȱ oughtȱ toȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ theȱ termȱ “telepresence”ȱ hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ bothȱ interchangeablyȱ withȱ andȱ inȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theȱ termȱ presence.ȱ Jonathanȱ Steuer,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ adoptsȱ theȱ latterȱ useȱ arguingȱ thatȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ departureȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ termsȱ dependsȱ onȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ subjectȱ experiencesȱ theirȱ environmentȱ asȱ technologicallyȱ mediated.ȱ Asȱ heȱ explains,ȱ presenceȱ“refersȱtoȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱnaturalȱsurroundingsȱ…ȱinȱ whichȱ sensoryȱ inputȱ impingesȱ directlyȱ uponȱ theȱ organsȱ ofȱ sense.”6ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱ telepresenceȱ refersȱ toȱ “theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ presenceȱ inȱ anȱ environmentȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ communicationȱ medium.”7ȱSteuer’sȱmodel,ȱhowever,ȱhasȱbeenȱcriticisedȱbecauseȱ itȱ reliesȱ onȱ aȱ mistakenȱ dichotomyȱ between,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ “real,”ȱ “natural”ȱ presenceȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ “mediated”ȱ telepresence.ȱ This,ȱ argueȱ Giuseppeȱ Mantovaniȱ andȱ Giuseppeȱ

LombardȱandȱTheresaȱDitton,ȱ“AtȱtheȱHeartȱofȱItȱAll:ȱTheȱConceptȱofȱPresence,”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ ComputerȬMediatedȱ Communicationȱ 3.2ȱ (1997),ȱ http://www.ascusc.org/ȱ jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html;ȱWilliamȱJ.ȱMitchell,ȱ“eȬtopia:ȱ‘Urbanȱlife,ȱJim—butȱ notȱ asȱ weȱ knowȱ it’”ȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ MITȱ Press,ȱ 1999);ȱ Sheilaȱ C.ȱ Murphy,ȱ “Lurkingȱ andȱ Looking:ȱ Webcamsȱ andȱ theȱ Constructionȱ ofȱ Cybervisuality,”ȱ Movingȱ Images:ȱ fromȱ Edisonȱ toȱ theȱ Webcam,ȱ eds.ȱ Johnȱ Fullertonȱ andȱ Stridȱ Söderberghȱ Widdingȱ (Sydney:ȱ Libbey,ȱ 2000)ȱ 173Ȭ180;ȱ MarieȬLaureȱ Ryan,ȱ “Immersionȱ vs.ȱ Interactivity:ȱ Virtualȱ Realityȱ andȱ Literaryȱ Theory,”ȱ SubStanceȱ 28.2ȱ (1999):ȱ 110Ȭ137;ȱ Thomasȱ Sheridan,ȱ “Musingsȱ onȱ Telepresenceȱ andȱ Virtualȱ Presence,”ȱPresence:ȱTeleoperatorsȱandȱVirtualȱEnvironmentsȱ1.1ȱ(1992):ȱ120Ȭ125.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Theȱ emphasisȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ original.ȱ Forȱ theȱ remainderȱ ofȱ thisȱ paperȱ Iȱ noteȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ instancesȱ whereȱ theȱ emphasisȱ hasȱ beenȱ addedȱ byȱ me.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ beȱ assumed,ȱ therefore,ȱ thatȱ ifȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ notation,ȱ theȱ emphasisȱ appearsȱ inȱ theȱ originalȱquotation.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ JonathanȱSteuer,ȱ“DefiningȱVirtualȱReality:ȱDimensionsȱDeterminingȱPresence,”ȱ JournalȱofȱCommunicationȱ42.4ȱ(1992):ȱ75Ȭ6.ȱ

162ȱ

Riva,ȱfailsȱtoȱacknowledgeȱtheȱmediated,ȱculturallyȱconstructedȱ natureȱofȱallȱcommunicationȱenvironments.ȱAsȱtheyȱputȱit:ȱȱ ȱ presenceȱ isȱ alwaysȱ mediatedȱ byȱ bothȱ physicalȱ andȱ conceptualȱ toolsȱ thatȱ belongȱ toȱ aȱ givenȱ culture:ȱ “physical”ȱ presenceȱ inȱ anȱ environmentȱ isȱ inȱ principleȱ noȱ moreȱ “real”ȱ orȱ moreȱ trueȱ thanȱ telepresenceȱorȱimmersionȱinȱaȱsimulatedȱvirtualȱenvironment.8ȱȱ

ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theseȱ critiques,ȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ writersȱ haveȱ attemptedȱ toȱ historiciseȱ theȱ socioȬcriticalȱ formulationsȱ ofȱ presence,ȱ telepresenceȱ andȱ virtualȱ presenceȱ butȱ theseȱ phenomenaȱ haveȱ usuallyȱ beenȱ confinedȱ toȱ representationsȱ withinȱ electronicȱ media.9ȱ Theȱ pastȱ severalȱ decadesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ producedȱ aȱ substantialȱ bodyȱ ofȱ workȱ thatȱ exploresȱ theȱ waysȱ thatȱ globalȱ communicationȱ networksȱ reconfigureȱ ourȱ experienceȱ ofȱ timeȱ andȱ space.ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ rapidȱ flowȱ ofȱ dataȱ throughȱ digitalȱ informationȱ systems,ȱ distanceȱ appearsȱ toȱ shrinkȱ andȱ timeȱ seemsȱ toȱ collapse.ȱ Theȱ speedȱ upȱ ofȱ communicationȱandȱtheȱconcomitantȱperceptionȱofȱaȱcollapsingȱ timeȱ andȱ spaceȱ willȱ oftenȱ produceȱ anȱ intense,ȱ quasiȬspiritualȱ senseȱ ofȱ presence:ȱ “throughȱ theȱ computer,ȱ thoughtȱ seemsȱ toȱ comeȱ acrossȱ likeȱ aȱ flowingȱ streamȱ fromȱ mindȱ toȱ mind.”10ȱ Thisȱ sentenceȱ isȱ instructiveȱ becauseȱ itȱ collocatesȱ “disembodiment,”ȱ “presence,”ȱ andȱ anȱ eclipseȱ ofȱ theȱ materialȱ vehicleȱ ofȱ communication,ȱconditions,ȱthat,ȱasȱweȱshallȱsee,ȱareȱaȱdefiningȱ formalȱ propertyȱ ofȱ theȱ communicationȱ systemsȱ underȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Giuseppeȱ Mantovaniȱ andȱ Giuseppeȱ Riva,ȱ “‘Real’ȱ Presence:ȱ Howȱ Differentȱ Ontologiesȱ Generateȱ Differentȱ Criteriaȱ forȱ Presence,ȱ Telepresenceȱ andȱ Virtualȱ Presence,”ȱPresence:ȱTeleoperatorsȱandȱVirtualȱEnvironmentsȱ8.5ȱ(1999):ȱ547.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ E.g.ȱ Richardȱ Coyne,ȱ Technoromanticism:ȱ Digitalȱ Narrative,ȱ Holism,ȱ andȱ theȱ Romanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Realȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ MITȱ Press,ȱ 2001);ȱ Jeffreyȱ Sconce,ȱ Hauntedȱ Media:ȱ Electronicȱ Presenceȱ fromȱ Telegraphyȱ toȱ Televisionȱ (Durham:ȱ Dukeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2000);ȱ Vivianȱ Sobchack,ȱ “Theȱ Sceneȱ ofȱ theȱ Screen:ȱ Envisioningȱ Cinematicȱ andȱ Electronicȱ ‘Presence,’”ȱ Materialitiesȱ ofȱ Communication,ȱ eds.ȱ Hansȱ Ulrichȱ Gumbrechtȱ andȱ K.ȱ Ludwigȱ Pfeiffer,ȱ trans.ȱ WilliamȱWhobreyȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994)ȱ83Ȭ106.ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ MichaelȱHeim,ȱ“HumanisticȱDiscussionȱandȱtheȱOnlineȱConference,”ȱPhilosophyȱ Todayȱ30ȱ(Winter,ȱ1986):ȱ283.ȱ

163ȱ

investigation.ȱ However,ȱ currentȱ theorisingȱ aboutȱ whatȱ Davidȱ Harveyȱcallsȱ“timeȬspaceȱcompression,”11ȱgenerallyȱlimitsȱitselfȱ toȱ aȱ historyȱ thatȱ beginsȱ withȱ technologicalȱ inventionsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ telegraph.ȱ Whatȱ remainsȱ underȬexaminedȱ isȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱolderȱtechnologies,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱpostalȱservice,ȱalsoȱfosterȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ theȱ constraintsȱ ofȱ spaceȱ andȱ timeȱ canȱ beȱ overcome.ȱ Inȱ response,ȱ thisȱ paperȱ tracesȱ theȱ persistenceȱ ofȱ tropesȱ ofȱ presenceȱ andȱ intimacyȱ thoughȱ theȱ textsȱ andȱ socioȬ technologicalȱ representationsȱ ofȱ threeȱ sitesȱ ofȱ communication:ȱ letters,ȱpostcardsȱandȱemail.ȱ ȱ EpistolaryȱPresenceȱ Theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ imaginaryȱ presenceȱ isȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ featureȱofȱletterȱwriting.ȱInȱClaudioȱGuillén’sȱwords:ȱȱ ȱ thereȱ isȱ hardlyȱ anȱ actȱ inȱ ourȱ dailyȱ experience,ȱ rootedȱ inȱ lifeȱ itself,ȱ thatȱ isȱ asȱ likelyȱ asȱ theȱ writingȱ ofȱ aȱ letterȱ toȱ propelȱ usȱ towardȱ inventivenessȱ andȱ interpretationȱ …ȱ theȱ “I”ȱ whoȱ writesȱ mayȱ notȱonlyȱ beȱpretendingȱ toȱactȱuponȱaȱfriendȱ…ȱbutȱactingȱ alsoȱuponȱhimself,ȱuponȱhisȱevolvingȱmirrorȱimage.12ȱȱ

ȱ Theseȱ epistolaryȱ inventionsȱ areȱ bothȱ performanceȱ andȱ interpretation.ȱ Theȱ letterȱ writerȱ performsȱ aȱ versionȱ ofȱ selfȱ andȱ theȱ recipientȱ readsȱ thatȱ performance.ȱ Theseȱ interpretiveȱ actsȱ helpȱ toȱ produceȱ theȱ imaginedȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ communication.ȱ Asȱ Ruthȱ Perryȱ hasȱ observed,ȱ throughȱ theȱ “solitaryȱ pleasures”ȱ ofȱ readingȱ andȱ writing,ȱ theȱ loversȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ relationshipsȱ “summonȱ upȱ imagesȱ ofȱ eachȱ other,ȱ withoutȱ needȱ forȱ theȱ visibleȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ other,ȱ andȱ thenȱ reactȱjoyfullyȱtoȱtheirȱownȱcreations.”13ȱȱ Inȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ communication,ȱ questionsȱ ofȱ presenceȱ canȱ seemȱunproblematic.ȱ Epistolaryȱ communicationȱ underlinesȱ theȱ ȱ11ȱȱ DavidȱHarvey,ȱTheȱConditionȱofȱPostmodernity:ȱAnȱEnquiryȱintoȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱ CulturalȱChangeȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱBlackwell,ȱ1990).ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Claudioȱ Guillén,ȱ “Onȱ theȱ Edgeȱ ofȱ Literariness:ȱ Theȱ Writingȱ ofȱ Letters,”ȱ ComparativeȱLiteratureȱStudiesȱ31.1ȱ(1994):ȱ2.ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ RuthȱPerry,ȱWomen,ȱLetters,ȱandȱtheȱNovelȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAMS,ȱ1980)ȱ101.ȱ

164ȱ

factȱ that,ȱ asȱ Jacquesȱ Derridaȱ hasȱ argued,ȱ presenceȱ dependsȱ onȱ andȱ isȱ theȱ effectȱ ofȱ aȱ complexȱ setȱ ofȱ assumptionsȱ andȱ strategies.14ȱAsȱIȱshallȱargue,ȱ“presence”ȱisȱdependentȱonȱ(andȱinȱ partȱ createdȱ by)ȱ rhetoricalȱ strategiesȱ andȱ effectsȱ suchȱ asȱ intimacy,ȱimmediacy,ȱspontaneityȱandȱdisembodiment.ȱAtȱfirstȱ sight,ȱtheȱlastȱofȱtheseȱtermsȱmightȱappearȱnotȱtoȱbelongȱtoȱthisȱ list;ȱyetȱinȱemailȱandȱepistolaryȱcorrespondence,ȱpresenceȱoftenȱ dependsȱ paradoxicallyȱ onȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ disembodiment.ȱ Inȱ someȱ instancesȱthisȱinvolvesȱtheȱeclipseȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱmediumȱthatȱ supportsȱ andȱ theȱ temporalȱ orȱ physicalȱ obstaclesȱ thatȱ wouldȱ otherwiseȱ thwartȱ communication.ȱ Asȱ theȱ authorȱ Elizabethȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱ (1806Ȭ1861)ȱ remarksȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ herȱ closestȱ epistolaryȱ friends:ȱ “thanksȱ warmestȱ &ȱ truest,ȱ myȱ dearestȱ Missȱ Mitford,ȱforȱyourȱdelightfulȱletter,ȱwhichȱisȱcertainlyȱdelightful,ȱ asȱ itȱ madeȱ meȱ feelȱ justȱ asȱ ifȱ Iȱ wereȱ sittingȱ faceȱ toȱ faceȱ toȱ you,ȱ hearingȱ youȱ talk”ȱ (16ȱ September,ȱ 1844,ȱ 9:136).15ȱ Disembodiment,ȱ asȱ thisȱ quotationȱ suggests,ȱ isȱ inȱ epistolaryȱ communicationȱ coincidentȱ withȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ fantasyȱ ofȱ bodilyȱproximityȱorȱpresence.ȱ Inȱ aȱ letterȱ sentȱ toȱ Maryȱ Russellȱ Mitfordȱ (1787Ȭ1855),ȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱprovidesȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱsignifiersȱ ofȱ presenceȱ operateȱ withinȱ epistolaryȱ discourse.ȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱwrites:ȱȱ ȱ IfȱIȱdoȱnotȱemptyȱmyȱheartȱoutȱwithȱaȱgreatȱsplashȱonȱtheȱpaper,ȱ everyȱ timeȱ Iȱ haveȱ aȱ letterȱ fromȱ you,ȱ &ȱ speakȱ myȱ gladnessȱ &ȱ thankfulness,ȱitȱisȱlestȱIȱshd.ȱwearyȱyouȱofȱthanksgivings!ȱ(EBB,ȱ 24ȱMarch,ȱ1842,ȱ5:ȱ269)ȱ

ȱ14ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Jacquesȱ Derrida,ȱ “Structure,ȱ Signȱ andȱ Playȱ inȱ theȱ Discourseȱ ofȱ theȱ Humanȱ Sciences,”ȱWritingȱandȱDifference,ȱtrans.ȱA.ȱBassȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1978),ȱ278Ȭ 293.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ AllȱtheȱlettersȱreferredȱtoȱinȱtheȱtextȱareȱfromȱTheȱBrownings’ȱCorrespondence,ȱeds.ȱ Philipȱ Kelleyȱ andȱ Ronaldȱ Hudson,ȱ 14ȱ volumesȱ (Kansas:ȱ Wedgestoneȱ Press,ȱ 1984).ȱTheȱinȬtextȱcitationsȱprovideȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱletter,ȱvolumeȱnumberȱ andȱ pageȱ number.ȱ Forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ inȬtextȱ citation,ȱ Elizabethȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱisȱabbreviatedȱtoȱ“EBB”ȱandȱMaryȱRussellȱMitfordȱisȱabbreviatedȱtoȱ “MRM.”ȱ

165ȱ

BarrettȱBrowning’sȱclaimȱthatȱsheȱwritesȱlettersȱbyȱemptyingȱherȱ “heartȱ outȱ withȱ aȱ greatȱ splashȱ onȱ theȱ paper”ȱ suggestsȱ authenticity,ȱ intimacy,ȱ immediacyȱ andȱ spontaneity.ȱ However,ȱ Barrettȱ Browning’sȱ claimsȱ thatȱ herȱ lettersȱ areȱ writtenȱ inȱ bloodȱ thatȱ spurtsȱ fromȱ theȱ author’sȱ heartȱ alsoȱ drawsȱ attention,ȱ inȱ aȱ somewhatȱmacabreȱfashion,ȱtoȱtheȱbody.ȱWithinȱaȱdiscourseȱofȱ disembodiment,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ complexȱ relationȱ betweenȱ theȱ imaginedȱ bodyȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ discourseȱ andȱ theȱ realȱ “fleshȱ andȱ blood”ȱ corporealityȱ ofȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ actors.ȱ Sinceȱ oneȱ isȱ notȱ physicallyȱ coȬpresentȱ withȱ one’sȱ interlocutor,ȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ corporealȱ bodyȱ playȱ significantȱ rhetoricalȱ andȱ socialȱ functionsȱ inȱtheȱproductionȱofȱmeaningȱwithinȱletterȱwritingȱpractice.ȱTheȱ physicalȱ absenceȱ ofȱ one’sȱ epistolaryȱ partnerȱ providesȱ bothȱ theȱ impetusȱ andȱ theȱ “material”ȱ forȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ strategies,ȱ languageȱ usesȱandȱtechnologicalȱfunctionsȱaimedȱatȱcreatingȱanȱimaginedȱ senseȱofȱpresence.ȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱphysicalȱbody,ȱtoȱtheȱsceneȱ ofȱwriting,ȱtoȱtheȱplaceȱwhereȱtheȱletterȱisȱreceivedȱorȱtoȱpostalȱ technologyȱ areȱ oftenȱ usedȱ byȱ letterȱ writersȱ toȱ conveyȱ andȱ invokeȱaȱsenseȱofȱimmediacy,ȱintimacyȱandȱpresence:ȱȱ ȱ MrȱKenyonȱisȱhere.ȱIȱmustȱendȱ&ȱseeȱhim—forȱtheȱpostȱwillȱbeȱ fastȱuponȱhisȱheelsȱ(EBB,ȱ24ȱMarch,ȱ1842,ȱ5:ȱ268);ȱȱ ȱ thisȱtiresomeȱpost,ȱgoingȱwhenȱIȱhadȱsoȱmuchȱmoreȱtoȱsayȱ(EBB,ȱ 19ȱSeptember,ȱ1842,ȱ6:83);ȱ ȱ YouȱwillȱneverȱguessȱwhatȱIȱamȱdoing—myȱbelovedȱfriend—orȱ ratherȱ suffering!—oh—youȱ willȱ neverȱ guess.ȱ Iȱ amȱ sittingȱ …ȱ ratherȱ lyingȱ forȱ myȱ picture.ȱ Thatȱ soundsȱ likeȱ vanityȱ betweenȱ twoȱworlds,ȱindeed!—onlyȱtheȱexplanationȱexcusesȱmeȱ(EBB,ȱ16ȱ April,ȱ1841,ȱ5:36).ȱ

ȱ Byȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ “hereȱ andȱ now”ȱ ofȱ corporeality—“youȱ willȱ neverȱ guessȱ whatȱ Iȱ amȱ doingȱ …ȱ lyingȱ forȱ myȱ picture”—theseȱ correspondentsȱ striveȱ toȱ collapseȱ theȱ timeȱ andȱ distanceȱ thatȱ separateȱ them.ȱ Dependingȱ onȱ theȱ skillȱ andȱ eloquenceȱ ofȱ theȱ letterȱwriter,ȱtheȱrecipientȱcanȱfeelȱasȱifȱhe/sheȱisȱactuallyȱfaceȬtoȬ 166ȱ

faceȱwithȱthem.ȱBut,ȱofȱcourse,ȱaȱkeyȱpointȱisȱcontainedȱinȱthatȱ smallȱ phraseȱ “asȱ if.”ȱ Wereȱ theȱ twoȱ writersȱ presentȱ toȱ oneȱ another,ȱ thereȱ wouldȱ beȱ noȱ needȱ toȱ correspond.ȱ Yetȱ forȱ manyȱ letterȱ writersȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century,ȱ theȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ encounterȱ isȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ superiorȱ toȱ epistolaryȱ communication.ȱ Indeed,ȱ onȱ someȱ occasions,ȱ epistolaryȱ discourseȱ mayȱ beȱ theȱ superiorȱ mode.ȱ Lettersȱ canȱ provideȱ oneȱ withȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱexpressȱwhatȱwasȱunsaid,ȱorȱcouldȱnotȱ beȱ said,ȱ duringȱ aȱ physicalȱ meeting.ȱ Afterȱ Mitfordȱ hadȱ visitedȱ herȱfriendȱBarrettȱBrowningȱinȱLondon,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱformerȱ wrote:ȱȱ ȱ Myȱ belovedȱ friendȱ howȱ canȱ Iȱ thankȱ youȱ enough!ȱ Youȱ came— youȱ wentȱ awayȱ likeȱ aȱ dreamȱ andȱ asȱ ifȱ itȱ wereȱ aȱ realȱ dream,ȱ Iȱ neverȱexpressedȱorȱtriedȱtoȱexpressȱallȱtheȱthankfulnessȱ&ȱsenseȱ ofȱ yourȱ greatȱ goodness,ȱ whichȱ penetratedȱ meȱ throughȱ andȱ through.ȱ Youȱ willȱ letȱ meȱ thankȱ youȱ now,ȱ willȱ youȱ not?—andȱ youȱwillȱbelieveȱinȱtheȱearnestnessȱofȱtheȱthoughtsȱwhichȱrevertȱ toȱ thatȱ dayȱ &ȱ goȱ forwardȱ toȱ you?ȱ (MRM,ȱ 18ȱ November,ȱ 1843,ȱ 8:50)ȱ

ȱ Forȱmanyȱcorrespondents,ȱthen,ȱ“absence”ȱisȱcreative;ȱitȱopensȱaȱ discursiveȱ spaceȱ inȱ whichȱ desiresȱ andȱ subjectivitiesȱ thatȱ mightȱ notȱotherwiseȱbeȱarticulatedȱcanȱbeȱexplored.ȱȱ Letters—likeȱ postcardsȱ andȱ electronicȱ mail—areȱ conventionallyȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ technologyȱ thatȱ allowsȱ communicationȱbetweenȱbodiesȱthatȱareȱabsentȱfromȱeachȱother.ȱ Epistolaryȱcommunicationȱisȱtoȱthatȱextentȱ“disembodied.”ȱYetȱ theȱ boundaryȱ betweenȱ disembodimentȱ andȱ embodimentȱ inȱ epistolaryȱ practiceȱ isȱ difficultȱ toȱ maintainȱ strictly.ȱ Writingȱ andȱ readingȱ lettersȱ are,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ operationsȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ bodyȱ mustȱ playȱ aȱ role.ȱ Asȱ noted,ȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ absentȱ correspondentȱ canȱ becomeȱ “visible”ȱ inȱ letterȱ exchangesȱ when,ȱ forȱexample,ȱtheȱauthorȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱepistolaryȱsceneȱofȱwriting,ȱ itsȱmaterialȱsupportsȱandȱdeliveryȱsystemsȱorȱmakesȱmentionȱofȱ theȱ letter’sȱ temporality.ȱ Theseȱ strategiesȱ aimȱ forȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ immediacyȱ andȱ presenceȱ byȱ foregroundingȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ 167ȱ

writer.ȱAȱrelatedȱbutȱnotȱidenticalȱepistolaryȱconventionȱisȱoneȱ whereȱ theȱ materialityȱ ofȱ theȱ letterȱ isȱ madeȱ toȱ standȱ forȱ theȱ correspondent’sȱbody.ȱDueȱtoȱitsȱphysicalȱproximityȱorȱcontactȱ withȱ itsȱ authorȱ theȱ letterȱ canȱ workȱ metonymically;ȱ aȱ functionȱ mostȱobviousȱinȱamorousȱepistolaryȱdiscourseȱwhereȱtheȱletterȱ isȱkissed,ȱheld,ȱcriedȱoverȱorȱadoredȱinȱplaceȱofȱtheȱlover’sȱbody.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ theȱ gapȱ betweenȱ letterȱ writerȱ andȱ readerȱ seemsȱ bridged.ȱ Asȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱ writesȱ inȱ aȱ letterȱ toȱ Mitford,ȱ “Iȱ shouldȱ likeȱ toȱ beȱ nearȱ youȱ myȱ belovedȱ friend,ȱ toȱ kissȱ bothȱ theȱ dearȱ handsȱ twentyȱ timesȱ whichȱ wroteȱ &ȱ touchedȱ theȱ paperȱ ofȱ thisȱmostȱtenderȱletter!”ȱ(30ȱMarch,ȱ1842,ȱ5:286).ȱȱ Illustrationsȱ suchȱ asȱ theseȱ mayȱ seemȱ relativelyȱ unproblematicȱ asȱ signifiersȱ ofȱ “embodiment,”ȱ proofȱ thatȱ theȱ fleshlyȱbodyȱofȱtheȱepistolaryȱauthorȱisȱ“present”ȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱ writingȱ andȱ thereforeȱ canȱ guaranteeȱ authenticityȱ ofȱ communication.ȱ Butȱ evenȱ inȱ casesȱ weȱ mayȱ callȱ unproblematic,ȱ theȱ signȱ thatȱ standsȱ forȱ theȱ bodyȱ seemsȱ atȱ timesȱ toȱ eclipseȱ itsȱ ownȱmateriality.ȱStillȱmoreȱremarkably,ȱatȱtimesȱtheȱmaterialityȱ ofȱ theȱ bodyȱ thatȱ writes,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ signsȱ itȱ makesȱ onȱ theȱ paper,ȱ areȱ eclipsedȱ forȱ theȱ readerȱ byȱ aȱ strongȱ senseȱ ofȱ communionȱbetweenȱmindsȱorȱspirits.ȱȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱ givesȱ anȱ eloquentȱ illustrationȱ ofȱ thisȱ “eclipse”ȱinȱaȱletterȱwrittenȱshortlyȱafterȱMitfordȱhadȱvisited:ȱ ȱ Myȱ dearestȱ friend’sȱ letterȱ wasȱ likeȱ aȱ shadowȱ ofȱ herȱ presenceȱ thrownȱ backȱ &ȱ broughtȱ toȱ mindȱ soȱ stronglyȱ allȱ theȱ pleasureȱ Iȱ hadȱhadȱinȱtheȱ“dearȱSunshine”ȱthatȱtheȱletterȱitselfȱwasȱforȱtheȱ momentȱ annihilatedȱ …ȱ notȱ thoughtȱ of!ȱ Iȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ YOUȱ tooȱ much.ȱOh,ȱwhatȱaȱhappyȱweekȱforȱme!ȱ(EBB,ȱ19ȱJune,ȱ1844,ȱ9:23)ȱ

ȱ Barrettȱ Browningȱ isȱ describingȱ aȱ transparencyȱ whichȱ manyȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ haveȱ asȱ anȱ unachievableȱ ideal:ȱ inȱ theȱ momentȱdescribed,ȱtheȱmaterialȱconditionsȱofȱrepresentationȱareȱ effaced,ȱ“annihilate,”ȱ“notȱthoughtȱof.”ȱInterestingly,ȱthen,ȱthisȱ suggestsȱthatȱonȱoccasionȱtheȱmediaȱofȱepistolaryȱsystemsȱmayȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ forgottenȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ functionȱ efficiently,ȱ orȱ conversely,ȱthatȱthereȱareȱtimesȱwhenȱtheȱmaterialityȱofȱaȱletterȱ 168ȱ

seemsȱ actuallyȱ toȱ getȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ itsȱ abilityȱ toȱ communicate.ȱ Arguably,ȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ featureȱ ofȱ representationȱ inȱ general;ȱ theȱ desireȱ toȱ experienceȱ unmediatedȱ “reality”ȱ appearsȱ satisfiedȱ whenȱ theȱ materialȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ representationȱ (theȱ pen,ȱ theȱ screen,ȱtheȱkeyboard)ȱareȱeclipsed.ȱTheȱpresence,ȱintimacyȱandȱ immediacyȱ createdȱ betweenȱ epistolaryȱ subjectsȱ reliesȱ uponȱ aȱ complexȱ dynamicȱ between,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ materiality,ȱ physicalȱ locatednessȱ andȱ embodimentȱ and,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ materialȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ communicationȱ andȱ theȱ corporealȱ body.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ senseȱofȱpresenceȱandȱimmediacyȱoneȱmayȱreferȱtoȱtheȱmaterialȱ conditionsȱofȱtheȱpostalȱserviceȱorȱtheȱcorporealityȱofȱtheȱletterȱ writer.ȱButȱifȱtooȱmuchȱattentionȱisȱdrawnȱtoȱtheȱvehicleȱthatȱisȱ creatingȱtheȱsenseȱofȱpresence,ȱthenȱtheȱconstructionȱandȱartificeȱ ofȱ thisȱ “immediacy”ȱ becomesȱ apparent;ȱ oneȱ seesȱ theȱ signifierȱ notȱ theȱ signified.ȱ What,ȱ atȱ firstȱ glance,ȱ mayȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ materialityȱ orȱ “embodied”ȱ qualityȱ ofȱ letterȱ writingȱactuallyȱmightȱbeȱoperatingȱatȱaȱdifferentȱregisterȱsinceȱ theȱ letter’sȱ materialityȱ turnsȱ intoȱ aȱsignȱ forȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ theȱ absentȱcorrespondent:ȱ“Yourȱletter,ȱmyȱdearestȱfriend,ȱisȱtwentyȱ timesȱ welcome—&ȱ standsȱ forȱ you,ȱ forȱ thatȱ covetedȱ presence,ȱ rightȱworthily”ȱ(EBB,ȱ21ȱNovember,ȱ1843,ȱ8:ȱ53).ȱ Paradoxically,ȱ then,ȱ referencesȱ toȱ theȱ real,ȱ lived,ȱ situated,ȱ physicalȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ exchangeȱ canȱ produceȱ aȱ “fantasisedȱ body.”ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ letterȱ formȱ allowsȱ correspondentsȱ toȱ enactȱ anȱ identityȱ andȱ evenȱ adoptȱ aȱ personaȱ thatȱ mayȱ differȱ fromȱ theirȱ “real”ȱ orȱ livedȱ bodyȱ andȱ personae.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notȱ meantȱ toȱ implyȱ thereȱ existsȱ anȱ authenticȱ selfȱ fromȱ whichȱtheȱletterȱwriterȱdeparts.ȱRather,ȱthisȱ“imaginedȱbody”ȱorȱ virtualȱselfȱisȱaȱproductiveȱeffectȱofȱtheȱepistolaryȱexchange.ȱAsȱ LoriȱLebowȱnotes,ȱ“letterȱwritingȱinvolvesȱtheȱwritingȱselfȱasȱaȱ jointȱ ventureȱ undertakenȱ byȱ theȱ writerȱ andȱ reader.ȱ Writerȱ andȱ readerȱ constructȱ identityȱ fromȱ textualȱ cuesȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ receivedȱ responsesȱ fromȱ theȱ selectedȱ audience.”16ȱ Theȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Loriȱ Lebow,ȱ “Womanȱ ofȱ Letters:ȱ Narrativeȱ Episodesȱ inȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Emilyȱ Dickinson,”ȱTheȱEmilyȱDickinsonȱJournalȱ8.1ȱ(1999):ȱ75.ȱ

169ȱ

performanceȱ ofȱ presenceȱ inȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ epistolaryȱ cultureȱisȱenactedȱbyȱaȱcomplexȱinterplayȱbetweenȱabsentȱletterȱ writers,ȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ meetingsȱ andȱ theȱ material,ȱ epistolaryȱ systemȱ thatȱ rendersȱ problematicȱ aȱ strictȱ dichotomyȱ betweenȱ embodimentȱandȱdisembodiment.ȱȱ ȱ PostcardȱPresenceȱ Epistolaryȱcommunicationȱhasȱbeenȱformallyȱandȱaetiologicallyȱ viewedȱ asȱ closelyȱ relatedȱ toȱ privacy,ȱ theȱ “confidentialȱ inscriptionȱ ofȱ private,ȱ inward,ȱ individualȱ experience.”17ȱ Forȱ Decker,ȱ theȱ expectationȱ ofȱ privacyȱ andȱ confidentialityȱ isȱ theȱ “enablingȱ condition”ȱ forȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ intimacy.18ȱ Whatȱ happens,ȱ then,ȱ toȱ Kittler’sȱ “discourseȱ network”ȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ whenȱ theseȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ affectȱ areȱ putȱ inȱ questionȱbyȱtheȱ1865ȱinventionȱofȱtheȱpostcard?ȱDescriptionsȱofȱ theȱ shiftȱ fromȱ aȱ systemȱ dominatedȱ byȱ theȱ letterȱ toȱ oneȱ thatȱ employedȱ lettersȱ andȱ postcardsȱ areȱ oftenȱ couchedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ apocalypticȱlossȱandȱdestruction:ȱ“Differingȱfromȱaȱletter,ȱaȱpostȱ cardȱisȱaȱletterȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱnothingȱofȱitȱremainsȱthatȱis,ȱorȱ thatȱ holds.ȱ Itȱ destinesȱ theȱ letterȱ toȱ itsȱ ruin.”19ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ postcardȱ hasȱ providedȱ criticalȱ practiceȱ withȱ anȱ eloquentȱ tropeȱ forȱrepresentingȱtransformationsȱtoȱcertainȱregimesȱofȱsymbolicȱ andȱmaterialȱorganisation.20ȱȱ

ȱ17ȱȱ Decker,ȱEpistolaryȱPractices,ȱ79.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Decker,ȱEpistolaryȱPractices,ȱ5.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Jacquesȱ Derrida,ȱ Theȱ Postȱ Card:ȱ Fromȱ Socratesȱ toȱ Freudȱ andȱ Beyond,ȱ trans.ȱ Alanȱ Bassȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1987;ȱ1980)ȱ249.ȱEschatologicalȱandȱ apocalypticȱ tropesȱ are,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ commonȱ narrativeȱ expressionsȱ forȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ cybercultureȱ andȱ theȱ movementȱ ofȱ globalȱ capital.ȱ See,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Baudrillard,ȱ Jean.ȱ Theȱ Revengeȱ ofȱ theȱ Crystal:ȱ Selectedȱ Writingsȱ onȱ theȱ Modernȱ Objectȱ andȱ itsȱ Destiny,ȱ 1968Ȭ1983,ȱ trans.ȱ Paulȱ Fossȱ andȱ Julianȱ Pefanisȱ (Sydney:ȱPlutoȱPress,ȱPowerȱInstituteȱofȱFineȱArts,ȱUniversityȱofȱSydney,ȱ1990)ȱ andȱ Paulȱ Virilio,ȱ Theȱ Informationȱ Bomb,ȱ trans.ȱ Chrisȱ Turnerȱ (London:ȱ Verso,ȱ 2000).ȱȱ ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ SeeȱMarkȱSeltzer,ȱ“TheȱPostalȱUnconscious,”ȱTheȱHenryȱJamesȱReviewȱ21.3ȱ(2000):ȱ 197Ȭ206;ȱBernhardȱSiegert,ȱRelays:ȱLiteratureȱasȱanȱEpochȱofȱtheȱPostalȱSystem,ȱtrans.ȱ KevinȱReppȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ

170ȱ

Forȱ correspondentsȱ ofȱ theȱ lateȱ nineteenthȬcentury,ȱ theȱ postcardȱ introducedȱ aȱ newȱ systemȱ ofȱ postalȱ writingȱ inȱ whichȱ traditionalȱepistolaryȱvaluesȱandȱprotocolsȱwereȱchallengedȱandȱ questionsȱ ofȱ classȱ wereȱ raised.ȱ Fearsȱ wereȱ regularlyȱ expressedȱ thatȱ postalȱ clerksȱ orȱ servantsȱ wouldȱ spendȱ theirȱ timeȱ readingȱ theȱpostcardsȱthatȱpassedȱthroughȱtheirȱhands.ȱAȱnewspaperȱofȱ 1870ȱ warnedȱ ofȱ theȱ “absurdityȱ ofȱ writingȱ privateȱ informationȱ onȱ anȱ openȱ pieceȱ ofȱ cardȬboard,ȱ thatȱ mightȱ beȱ readȱ byȱ halfȱ aȱ dozenȱ personsȱ beforeȱ itȱ reachedȱ itsȱ destination.”21ȱ Yet,ȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ notedȱ theȱ threatȱ toȱ epistolaryȱ privacyȱ posedȱ byȱ theȱ postcardȱ haveȱ invariablyȱ overlookedȱ theȱ pointȱ thatȱ inȱ someȱ sense,ȱ atȱ least,ȱ theȱ privacyȱ ofȱ epistolaryȱ communicationȱ hasȱ oftenȱ beenȱ atȱ risk.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ midȱ nineteenthȬcentury,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ theȱ distinctȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ governmentȱ officials,ȱ onȱ theȱ pretextȱ ofȱ protectingȱ nationalȱ security,ȱ mightȱ openȱ one’sȱ letters.22ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ one’sȱ letterȱ arrivedȱ inviolate,ȱ oneȱ couldȱnotȱalwaysȱassumeȱthatȱitȱwouldȱremainȱwithȱitsȱintendedȱ recipient.ȱQuiteȱoftenȱBarrettȱBrowning,ȱMitfordȱandȱtheirȱotherȱ friendsȱ wouldȱ circulateȱ lettersȱ withoutȱ firstȱ securingȱ theȱ permissionȱofȱtheirȱauthors.ȱȱ Theȱ disjunctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ imaginedȱ privacyȱ ofȱ communicationȱandȱtheȱactualȱorȱpossibleȱdissemination,ȱofȱthisȱ messageȱtoȱaȱwideȱaudience,ȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱlatterȱmustȱatȱleastȱ inȱ partȱ beȱ occludedȱ ifȱ epistolaryȱ communicationȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ formerȱ isȱ toȱ continue.ȱ Whenȱ intimacyȱ orȱ immediacyȱ isȱ theȱ desiredȱeffectȱofȱaȱletterȱ(notȱallȱlettersȱstriveȱforȱtheseȱqualities:ȱ businessȱ communication,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ isȱ informedȱ byȱ otherȱ characteristics),ȱ correspondentsȱ assumeȱ aȱ levelȱ ofȱ privacyȱ andȱ actȱ accordingly.ȱ Itȱ isȱ worthȱ noting,ȱ then,ȱ thatȱ privacyȱ isȱ aȱ historicallyȱcontingentȱandȱculturallyȱdeterminedȱterm.ȱCulturalȱ theoristsȱ whoȱ positȱ theȱ postcard’sȱ erosionȱ ofȱ privacy,ȱ areȱ fantasisingȱaboutȱaȱlevelȱofȱepistolaryȱprivacyȱthat,ȱperhaps,ȱhasȱ ȱ21ȱȱ RichardȱCarline,ȱPicturesȱinȱtheȱPost:ȱtheȱStoryȱofȱtheȱPictureȱPostcardȱ(London:ȱ Fraser,ȱ1971)ȱ55.ȱ ȱ22ȱȱ Howardȱ Robinson,ȱ Theȱ Britishȱ Postȱ Office:ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ (Newȱ Jersey:ȱ Princetonȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1948)ȱ337Ȭ53.ȱ

171ȱ

neverȱ beenȱ available.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ denyȱ thatȱ theȱ postcardȱ dramaticallyȱ changedȱ postalȱ communication.ȱ Perhapsȱ forȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ theȱ postcardȱ madeȱ visibleȱ theȱ discursiveȱ practicesȱ ofȱ theȱgeneralȱpublic.ȱTheȱtextsȱofȱ“theȱeveryday,”ȱtheȱproductsȱofȱ “ordinary”ȱ writers,ȱ wereȱ nowȱ beingȱ circulatedȱ andȱ readȱ inȱ aȱ mannerȱ andȱ onȱ aȱ scaleȱ thatȱ hadȱ notȱ previouslyȱ beenȱ possible.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ thisȱ lossȱ ofȱ actualȱ (asȱ opposedȱ toȱ imagined)ȱ “privacy”ȱ didȱ notȱ makeȱ impossibleȱ epistolaryȱ effectsȱ suchȱ asȱ intimacy,ȱimmediacyȱandȱpresence.ȱȱ Theȱ correspondenceȱ betweenȱ Williamȱ andȱ Elsieȱ Fullerȱ providesȱ aȱ richȱ archiveȱ forȱ mappingȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ presenceȱ andȱ intimacyȱ playȱ outȱ inȱ postcardȱ communication.ȱ Williamȱ Robertȱ Fullerȱ wasȱ bornȱ inȱ 1899ȱ inȱ Richmond,ȱ aȱ suburbȱ ofȱ Melbourne.ȱ Inȱ 1915ȱ heȱ enlistedȱ inȱ theȱ Australianȱ Army,ȱ servingȱ asȱ Lanceȱ Corporalȱ withȱ theȱ 21stȱ Battalionȱ andȱ wasȱ awardedȱ theȱ Distinguishedȱ Conductȱ Medalȱ inȱ Juneȱ 1918.ȱ Heȱ wasȱ repatriatedȱ toȱ Australiaȱ onȱ 20ȱ Octoberȱ 1918ȱ andȱ diedȱ ofȱ Spanishȱ influenzaȱ inȱ Julyȱ ofȱ 1919ȱ agedȱ twenty.23ȱ Theȱ earliestȱ postcardȱ inȱ theȱ collectionȱ isȱ datedȱ Februaryȱ1916ȱandȱtheȱlastȱisȱAugustȱ1918.ȱDuringȱthisȱeighteenȬ monthȱperiod,ȱFullerȱsentȱhisȱsister,ȱElsie,ȱaboutȱ140ȱcards.24ȱȱ Aestheticȱaffectȱplaysȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱ presenceȱ andȱ intimacyȱ withinȱ theȱ Fullerȱ correspondence.ȱ Theȱ imagesȱcarriedȱbyȱtheseȱpostcardsȱconveyȱaȱrangeȱofȱemotions,ȱ desiresȱ andȱ fearsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ fulfillingȱ particularȱ rhetoricalȱ functions.ȱFullerȱcommonlyȱusesȱtheȱpostcardȱtoȱreproduceȱforȱ hisȱsisterȱsomethingȱheȱhasȱseenȱorȱfelt.ȱTheȱassumptionȱseemsȱ toȱbeȱthatȱifȱbothȱwriterȱandȱreaderȱlookȱatȱtheȱ“same”ȱsight,ȱtheȱ ȱ23ȱȱ BiographicalȱandȱhistoricalȱnotesȱaboutȱtheȱFullerȱfamilyȱareȱobtainedȱfromȱtwoȱ sources:ȱPapersȱofȱWilliamȱRobertȱFuller,ȱAccessionȱNumberȱMSȱ9701,ȱLaȱTrobeȱ Australianȱ Manuscriptsȱ Collection,ȱ Stateȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ Victoria,ȱ Melbourneȱ andȱ AustralianȱWarȱMemorialȱdatabase:ȱhttp://www.awm.gov.au/.ȱȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Thisȱ calculationȱ includesȱ onlyȱ theȱ cardsȱ thatȱ bearȱ messages.ȱ Fullerȱ alsoȱ sentȱ Elsieȱcardsȱwithoutȱmessagesȱandȱcountingȱtheseȱtheȱfullȱcollectionȱofȱpostcardsȱ numbersȱ aboutȱ 170.ȱ Sinceȱ Williamȱ andȱ Elsieȱ shareȱ aȱ lastȱ name,ȱ theyȱ willȱ beȱ referredȱtoȱinȱtheȱtextȱbyȱtheirȱfirstȱnames.ȱ ȱ

172ȱ

latterȱwillȱshareȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱformer:ȱ“atȱthatȱbuildingȱIȱ haveȱbeenȱonȱdutyȱandȱwhereȱyouȱseeȱthatȱpersonȱsittingȱIȱhaveȱ alsoȱsat.”25ȱȱ Theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ pictureȱ andȱ messageȱ isȱ complexȱ andȱ takesȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ differentȱ forms.ȱ Sometimes,ȱ asȱ withȱ theȱ aboveȱ example,ȱ Williamȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ seenȱ theȱ sameȱ monument,ȱfigureȱorȱstreetscapeȱthatȱtheȱcardȱdepicts.ȱOnȱotherȱ occasions,ȱ however,ȱ presenceȱ isȱ producedȱ despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Williamȱmayȱnotȱhaveȱseenȱtheȱactualȱmonumentȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱ postcardȱrefers:ȱ“theseȱareȱaȱfewȱphotosȱofȱwhatȱIȱhaveȱseenȱorȱ intendȱtoȱsee,ȱIȱhaveȱnotȱseenȱtheȱpyramidsȱyetȱbutȱIȱintendȱtoȱ seeȱthem.ȱTheyȱareȱonlyȱaȱfewȱmilesȱoutȱofȱCairo.ȱIȱwillȱtellȱyouȱ aboutȱ them.”26ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ aȱ sharedȱ presentȱ isȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ factȱthatȱneitherȱWilliamȱnorȱElsieȱhaveȱseenȱtheȱpyramids.ȱItȱisȱ strengthenedȱ by,ȱ perhaps,ȱ theirȱ sharedȱ desireȱ toȱ seeȱ theȱ pyramidsȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ simulacrumȱ ofȱ theȱ pyramidsȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ bothȱ seenȱ onȱ theȱ postcard.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ simulacrumȱ helpsȱ toȱ effectȱ anȱ intimacyȱ oneȱ assumesȱ isȱ feltȱ asȱ naturalȱ andȱ spontaneous.ȱȱ Aȱ senseȱ ofȱ intimacy,ȱ therefore,ȱ isȱ notȱ dependentȱ onȱ aȱ closeȱ relationȱ betweenȱ imageȱ andȱ text.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ postcardsȱ sentȱ toȱ hisȱ sister,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ carriesȱ onȱ oneȱ sideȱ aȱ pictureȱ ofȱ “theȱ mosquesȱofȱSultanȱHassanȱandȱAlȱRifai”ȱinȱCairo.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ postcard,ȱ however,ȱ Williamȱ describesȱ aȱ sceneȱ oneȱ wouldȱnotȱexpectȱtoȱseeȱonȱaȱcommerciallyȱavailableȱpostcard:ȱȱ ȱ Whileȱ weȱ wereȱ waitingȱ forȱ theȱ trainȱ toȱ go,ȱ atȱ Suez,ȱ Iȱ sawȱ aȱ terribleȱ sight,ȱ itȱ wasȱ aȱ youngȱ nativeȱ boyȱ aboutȱ sixteen,ȱ heȱ hadȱ legsȱaboutȱoneȱinchȱthickȱandȱcouldȱnotȱwalkȱonȱthemȱsoȱhadȱtoȱ walkȱ onȱ hisȱ handsȱ withȱ hisȱ kneesȱ doubledȱ upȱ underȱ hisȱ chin.ȱ Justȱforȱallȱtheȱworldȱlikeȱaȱmonkeyȱpoorȱchap.ȱIȱgaveȱhimȱfourȱ piastresȱ (oneȱ piastreȱ worthȱ 2½d)ȱ andȱ heȱ almostȱ wentȱ mad.ȱ Someȱofȱourȱchapsȱgotȱontoȱ theȱriverȱandȱjustȱtoȱpassȱtheȱtimeȱ ȱ25ȱȱ Robertȱ Williamȱ Fuller,ȱ “Papers,”ȱ Accessionȱ Numberȱ MSȱ 9701,ȱ Laȱ Trobeȱ Australianȱ Manuscriptsȱ Collection,ȱ Stateȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ Victoria,ȱ Melbourne,ȱ Australia:ȱ27ȱMay,ȱ1916.ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Fuller,ȱ“Papers,”ȱ13ȱMarch,ȱ1916.ȱ

173ȱ

awayȱ theyȱ wouldȱ pushȱ theȱ nativesȱ intoȱ theȱ water.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ veryȱ funnyȱtoȱseeȱsixȱofȱthemȱinȱtheȱwaterȱatȱonce,ȱbutȱitȱdidȱnotȱhurtȱ themȱforȱIȱcouldȱalmostȱswearȱmostȱofȱthemȱneverȱhadȱaȱwashȱ forȱmonths.27ȱȱ

ȱ Whileȱ conveyingȱ theȱ youngȱ boy’sȱ plight,ȱ Williamȱ revealsȱ somethingȱofȱhisȱownȱ“position”ȱasȱaȱyoungȱAustralianȱsoldier.ȱ Theȱlanguage—aȱmixȱofȱemotionalȱcommentaryȱandȱmasculineȱ bravado—tellsȱ muchȱ aboutȱ theȱ colonialȱ discoursesȱ thatȱ helpȱ shapeȱhisȱviews.ȱThisȱestablishesȱanȱintimacyȱthatȱisȱheightenedȱ byȱdescriptionsȱofȱdifferenceȱandȱ“foreignness.”ȱAlthoughȱEliseȱ doesȱnotȱviewȱaȱvisualȱrepresentationȱofȱwhatȱWilliamȱisȱableȱtoȱ see—theȱ pictureȱ onȱ theȱ cardȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ image,ȱ eventȱ orȱ feelingȱ thatȱ Williamȱ wantsȱ toȱ tellȱ herȱ about—aȱ senseȱ ofȱ intimacyȱ isȱ generatedȱbyȱtheȱideologicalȱpositionȱtheyȱshare.ȱȱ Theseȱ instancesȱ provideȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ thinkingȱ throughȱ theȱ claimsȱ madeȱbyȱ contemporaryȱ mediaȱ theoryȱ thatȱ theȱ postcard,ȱ asȱ emblematicȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ institutionalȱ andȱ technologicalȱ regime,ȱ bringsȱ toȱ anȱ endȱ structuresȱ ofȱ intimacy,ȱ presenceȱ andȱ affect.ȱAsȱnotedȱabove,ȱaȱnumberȱofȱtheoristsȱfocusȱonȱtheȱletterȱ asȱarticulatingȱaȱcertainȱsymbolicȱcapitalȱandȱculturalȱformation.ȱ Theȱepistolaryȱsubject,ȱsoȱitȱisȱargued,ȱisȱautonomous,ȱhasȱfaithȱ inȱ authorialȱ power,ȱ andȱ believesȱ thatȱ communicationȱ isȱ theȱ transparentȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ thoughtsȱ fromȱ oneȱ consciousnessȱ toȱ another.ȱ Inȱ shortȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ Romanticȱ subjectȱ reȬworkedȱ byȱ Postmodernism.ȱ Siegert,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ combinationȱofȱphotographyȱandȱtheȱpostcardȱhadȱaȱsignificantȱ impactȱ uponȱ contemporaryȱ regimesȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ theȱ beliefȱinȱtheȱoriginalityȱofȱsubjectivity.ȱHeȱwrites:ȱ ȱ Inȱadditionȱtoȱstandardȱpostage,ȱstandardȱformatȱandȱstandardȱ text,ȱthereȱnowȱwasȱaȱstandardȱpicture,ȱasȱwell.ȱWithȱtheȱadventȱ ofȱ theȱ pictureȱ postcard,ȱ visualȱ memoriesȱ departedȱ fromȱ theȱ humanȱsoul,ȱonlyȱtoȱawaitȱpeopleȱthereafterȱonȱtheȱroutesȱofȱtheȱ Worldȱ Postalȱ Union.ȱ Theȱ pictureȱ postcardȱ openedȱ upȱ theȱ

ȱ27ȱȱ Fuller,ȱ“Papers,”ȱ13ȱMarch,ȱ1916.ȱ

174ȱ

territoryȱ ofȱ theȱ Worldȱ Postalȱ Unionȱ asȱ anȱ immenseȱ spaceȱ ofȱ forgetting,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ whichȱ wasȱ theȱ worldȱ itselfȱ …ȱ Onceȱ memoriesȱcirculatedȱasȱpictureȱpostcardsȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱsentȱanyȱ placeȱonȱtheȱglobeȱ…ȱtravellingȱitselfȱbecameȱunnecessary.28ȱȱ

ȱ Yetȱ peopleȱ continuedȱ toȱ travel.ȱ Howeverȱ standardisedȱ earlyȱ nineteenthȬcenturyȱcorrespondentsȱfeltȱtheirȱpostcardȱimagesȱtoȱ be,ȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ stopȱ collectingȱ andȱ sendingȱ them.ȱ Siegert’sȱ argumentȱ aboutȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ lettersȱ andȱ postcardsȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ misreadingȱ ofȱ theȱ culturalȱ significanceȱ ofȱ “standardisation.”ȱ Itȱ missesȱ aȱ keyȱ pointȱ aboutȱ howȱ dreamsȱ ofȱ presence,ȱ immediacyȱ andȱ intimacyȱ endureȱ inȱ theȱ postcardȱ eraȱ ratherȱ than,ȱ asȱ heȱ seemsȱ toȱ suggest,ȱ dissipate.ȱ Theȱ difficultyȱ withȱ Siegert’sȱ argumentȱ isȱ thatȱ heȱ opposesȱ theȱ formal,ȱ standardised,ȱmassȬproducedȱformatȱofȱtheȱpostcardȱtoȱnotionsȱ ofȱ intimacy,ȱ privacy,ȱ presenceȱ andȱ individuality.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ qualities,ȱ heȱ argues,ȱ areȱ tiedȱ toȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ eraȱ andȱ areȱ thusȱ madeȱproblematicȱwithȱtheȱnewȱmediaȱofȱtheȱpostcard.ȱButȱwhyȱ shouldȱ standardisationȱ ruleȱ outȱ theȱ subjectiveȱ andȱ individualȱ realms?ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ commodityȱ cultureȱandȱ massȱ productionȱareȱ shoredȱ upȱ byȱ theȱ beliefȱ inȱ theȱ individualȱ andȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ “choice.”ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ popularȱ andȱ academicȱ belief,ȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ postcardȱ didȱ notȱ destroyȱ postalȱ intimacy.ȱ Refutingȱ commonlyȬ heldȱ viewsȱ thatȱ theȱ standardisationȱ ofȱ postcardȱ mediaȱ threatenedȱindividualityȱbecauseȱitȱremovedȱtheȱprivacyȱinȱturnȱ assumedȱ toȱ beȱ necessaryȱ forȱ intimacy,ȱ theȱ Fullerȱ correspondenceȱdemonstratesȱthatȱpostcardȱcommunicationȱcanȱ inȱ factȱ increaseȱ levelsȱ ofȱ individuality,ȱ presence,ȱ intimacyȱ andȱ affect.ȱ Theȱ postcardsȱ exchangedȱ betweenȱ Elsieȱ andȱ Williamȱ illustrateȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ privacyȱ isȱ performedȱ andȱ imaginedȱ ratherȱ thanȱ existingȱ asȱ aȱ real,ȱ empiricalȱ condition.ȱ DespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱFullers’sȱcorrespondenceȱwasȱavailableȱ forȱtheȱwartimeȱcensorsȱtoȱread,ȱaȱfactȱofȱwhichȱtheȱFullersȱwereȱ

ȱ28ȱȱ Siegert,ȱRelays,ȱ161.ȱ

175ȱ

aware,ȱ theseȱ siblingsȱ foundȱ waysȱ toȱ constructȱ theirȱ correspondenceȱasȱprivateȱandȱintimate.ȱ ȱ Conclusionȱȱ Seenȱ throughȱ theȱ lensȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ culturalȱ theory,ȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ textȱ andȱ technologyȱ isȱ tooȱ oftenȱ conceivedȱ inȱ dichotomousȱ terms.ȱ Eitherȱ technologicalȱ materialitiesȱ effectȱ decisive,ȱ irreversibleȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ contentȱ ofȱ communicationȱ orȱtheȱsocioȬculturalȱarticulationȱunderȱinvestigationȱtranscendsȱ theȱ particularitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ technologicalȱ infrastructureȱ andȱ regimesȱ ofȱ circulation.ȱ Thisȱ tendencyȱ towardsȱ technologicalȱ orȱ textualȱ determinismȱ hasȱ beenȱ particularlyȱ acuteȱ inȱ newȱ mediaȱ researchȱ whichȱ focusesȱ eitherȱ onȱ theȱ geoȬpoliticalȱ formȱ ofȱ informationalȱ networksȱ orȱ theȱ locatedȱ practicesȱ ofȱ theȱ ethnographer’sȱ text:ȱ formȱ /ȱ content;ȱ globalȱ /ȱ local;ȱ theoreticalȱ /ȱ empirical;ȱ productionȱ /ȱ consumption.ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ viewȱ theseȱ fociȱ asȱ strictȱ binaries,ȱ however,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ attemptedȱ toȱ mapȱ theirȱ symbioticȱ andȱ dynamicȱ relation.ȱ Theseȱ dynamicȱ relationsȱ underwriteȱtheȱuseȱbyȱpostcardȱcorrespondents,ȱforȱexample,ȱofȱ publicȱ communicationsȱ systemsȱ toȱ conveyȱ privateȱ emotionsȱ suchȱasȱdesire,ȱfearȱandȱintimacy.ȱȱ Recognisingȱthatȱfantasiesȱofȱpresenceȱareȱembeddedȱwithinȱ materialȱ infrastructuresȱ andȱ historicalȱ practiceȱ providesȱ aȱ criticalȱ frameworkȱ withinȱ whichȱ toȱ locateȱ aȱ theorisationȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ affectiveȱ relationsȱ andȱ “immersiveȱ aesthetics.”29ȱ Postalȱ poeticsȱ continueȱ toȱ exertȱ institutional,ȱ symbolicȱ andȱ technologicalȱ forceȱ onȱ newȱ mediaȱ formsȱ suchȱ asȱ email30ȱ andȱ mobileȱ telephony.31ȱ Asȱ Chandlerȱ andȱ Neumarkȱ remindȱ us,ȱ inȱ ȱ29ȱȱ Seeȱ Edwinaȱ Bartlem,ȱ “Reshapingȱ Spectatorship:ȱ Immersiveȱ andȱ Distributedȱ Aesthetics,”ȱ Fibrecultureȱ Journalȱ 7ȱ (2005):ȱ http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue7/ȱ issue7_bartlem.htmlȱ ȱ30ȱȱ SeeȱEstherȱMilne,ȱ“TheȱEpistolaryȱBodyȱofȱEmail:ȱPresence,ȱDisembodimentȱandȱ theȱSublime,”ȱSouthernȱReview,ȱ35.3ȱ(2002):ȱ80Ȭ93.ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Seeȱ Larissaȱ Hjorth,ȱ “Locatingȱ Mobility:ȱ Practicesȱ ofȱ coȬpresenceȱ andȱ theȱ persistenceȱofȱtheȱpostalȱmetaphorȱinȱSMS/ȱMMSȱmobileȱphoneȱcustomisationȱinȱ Melbourne,”ȱ Fibrecultureȱ Journalȱ 6ȱ (2005):ȱ http://journal.fibreculture.org/ȱ issue6/issue6_hjorth.html.ȱ

176ȱ

orderȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱ futureȱ ofȱ anȱ effectiveȱ andȱ affectiveȱ artȱ practiceȱ oneȱ needsȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ thatȱ theȱ veryȱ ideaȱ ofȱ “theȱ new”ȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱveryȱold.ȱAsȱtheyȱputȱit:ȱȱ ȱ inȱ eachȱ era,ȱ theȱ “new”ȱ playsȱ aȱ specificȱ role,ȱ toȱ carveȱ outȱ aȱ territoryȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱenergyȱthatȱthrowingȱoffȱtheȱ weightȱofȱtraditionȱcanȱrequire.ȱHowever,ȱpursuitȱofȱtheȱ“new”ȱ risksȱ becomingȱ aȱ traditionȱ itself,ȱ heavyȱ andȱ obligatory,ȱ ifȱ itȱ refusesȱaccessȱtoȱitsȱprecursors,ȱtheȱ“new”ȱofȱtheȱrecentȱpast.32ȱȱ

ȱ Inȱ tracingȱ epistolaryȱ intimacyȱ andȱ presenceȱ thoughȱ geographicallyȱdispersedȱnetworks,ȱthisȱchapterȱhasȱarguedȱforȱ aȱnuancedȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱpostalȱconditionsȱunderpinningȱ theȱrelationȱbetweenȱnewȱandȱoldȱmedia.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ32ȱȱ ChandlerȱandȱNeumark,ȱAtȱaȱDistance,ȱ442.ȱ

177ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ChristianȱBökȱȱ ȱ

UnacknowledgedȱLegislationȱ ȱ ȱ TheȱMissingȱRefereeȱ Oulipoȱ(OuvroirȱdeȱLittératureȱPotentielle)ȱisȱanȱexaltedȱcoterieȱofȱ radicalȱwriters,ȱwhoȱhaveȱdazzledȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱforȱdecadesȱ byȱ experimentingȱ withȱ exaggerated,ȱ formalisticȱ rulesȱ calledȱ contraintes.ȱ Oulipoȱ hasȱ performedȱ Herculean,ȱ ifȱ notȱ Sisyphean,ȱ featsȱ ofȱ poeticȱ labourȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ that,ȱevenȱ whenȱ handicappedȱbyȱtheȱmostȱunlikelyȱposturesȱofȱduress,ȱlanguageȱ canȱ stillȱ findȱ theȱ wherewithalȱ toȱ expressȱ anȱ elegantȱ thought.ȱ Older,ȱ mostlyȱ European,ȱ membersȱ ofȱ Oulipoȱ (including,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ suchȱ poetsȱ asȱ Queneauȱ andȱ Roubaud)1ȱ haveȱ allȱ perfectedȱ theȱ methodicalȱ schematicsȱ forȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ “structural”ȱ writing,ȱwhichȱhasȱgoneȱon,ȱinȱturn,ȱtoȱinfluenceȱnewer,ȱmostlyȱ American,ȱ membersȱ ofȱ Ubuwebȱ (including,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ suchȱ poetsȱasȱGoldsmithȱandȱFitterman),2ȱallȱofȱwhomȱhaveȱperfectedȱ ȱ 1ȱ Oulipoȱ hasȱ included,ȱ amongȱ itsȱ members,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ Raymondȱ Queneauȱ andȱ JacquesȱRoubaud,ȱbutȱalsoȱFrançoisȱLeȱLionnais,ȱNoëlȱArnaud,ȱMarcelȱBénabou,ȱ Georgesȱ Perec,ȱ Italoȱ Calvino,ȱ Harryȱ Mathews,ȱ Jacquesȱ Jouet,ȱ Oskarȱ Pastior,ȱ etȱ al.ȱ Oulipoȱ imposesȱ rigorousȱ criteriaȱ uponȱ candidatesȱ forȱ membership,ȱ restrictingȱ itselfȱ toȱ aȱ smallȱ cadreȱ ofȱ invitedȱ writersȱ who,ȱ onceȱ elected,ȱ enjoyȱ permanentȱinclusionȱinȱthisȱpoeticȱclique.ȱ ȱ 2ȱ Ubuwebȱ hasȱ included,ȱ amongȱ itsȱ members,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ Kennethȱ Goldsmithȱ andȱ Robertȱ Fitterman,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ Christianȱ Bök,ȱ Craigȱ Dworkin,ȱ Brianȱ Kimȱ Stefans,ȱ Carolineȱ Bergvall,ȱ Darrenȱ WershlerȬHenry,ȱ et.ȱ al.ȱ Unlikeȱ Oulipo,ȱ however,ȱ Ubuwebȱ rejectsȱ theȱ exclusiveȱ protocolsȱ necessaryȱ forȱ entryȱ intoȱ anȱ eliteȱ cabal,ȱ preferringȱ insteadȱ toȱ conveneȱ aȱ small,ȱ butȱ loose,ȱ unionȱ ofȱ poets,ȱ whoȱ provideȱ theȱnucleusȱforȱaȱmuchȱlarger,ȱmoreȱpublic,ȱlistserv.ȱ ȱ

178ȱ

theȱ proceduralȱ heuristicsȱ forȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ “conceptual”ȱ writing.ȱ UbuwebȱhasȱoftenȱacknowledgedȱitsȱindebtednessȱtoȱOulipo— butȱ notȱ withoutȱ betrayingȱ someȱ misgivingsȱ that,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ suchȱ anȱ ouvroirȱ hasȱ imaginedȱ excitingȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ bothȱ manneristȱconstraintȱandȱaestheticȱliberation,ȱOulipoȱhasȱsoȱfarȱ leftȱ inexplicit,ȱ ifȱ notȱ unexplored,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ potentialȱ ofȱ suchȱ innovativeȱ literature,ȱ apparentlyȱ preferringȱ toȱ constrainȱ suchȱ potential,ȱconfiningȱitȱprimarilyȱtoȱaȱpoetic,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱsocial,ȱ agenda.ȱ Oulipoȱ inȱ factȱ neverȱ deignsȱ toȱ makeȱ explicitȱ itsȱ politicalȱ attitudes,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ conceptualȱ foundationȱ ofȱ contrainteȱ (withȱ allȱ itsȱ liberatoryȱ intentions)ȱ mightȱ lendȱ itselfȱ easilyȱ toȱ politicalȱagitation—andȱthisȱlacunaȱinȱtheȱartisticȱpracticeȱofȱtheȱ groupȱ seemsȱ evenȱ moreȱ odd,ȱ whenȱ weȱ considerȱ thatȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ earliestȱ membersȱ ofȱ Oulipoȱ haveȱ participatedȱ inȱ leftwing,ȱ militantȱactivism,ȱfightingȱforȱtheȱResistanceȱduringȱWorldȱWarȱ II,ȱ andȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ poetsȱ haveȱ evenȱ survivedȱ internmentȱ asȱ politicalȱ prisoners.3ȱ Oulipoȱ atȱ itsȱ inceptionȱ almostȱ resembledȱ aȱ cellȱofȱdecommissionedȱrevolutionists,ȱyetȱtheȱgroupȱhasȱneverȱ publishedȱaȱpoliticalȱmanifestoȱaboutȱliteratureȱ(inȱtheȱwayȱthatȱ aȱ writerȱ likeȱ Breton—aȱ wartimeȱ veteran—hadȱ done,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Surrealism).ȱ Oulipoȱ can,ȱ atȱ best,ȱ offerȱ onlyȱ aȱ fewȱ whimsicalȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ tyranny4—andȱ evenȱ thoughȱ

ȱ 3ȱ Noëlȱ Arnaud,ȱ Françoisȱ Leȱ Lionnais,ȱ andȱ Jeanȱ Lescureȱ allȱ foughtȱ inȱ theȱ Frenchȱ Resistance,ȱ justȱ asȱ Italoȱ Calvinoȱ foughtȱ inȱ theȱ Italianȱ Resistance.ȱ Leȱ Lionnais,ȱ moreover,ȱ survivedȱ politicalȱ internmentȱ inȱ aȱ Germanȱ labourȱ camp,ȱ justȱ asȱ Oskarȱ Pastiorȱ survivedȱ politicalȱ internmentȱ inȱ aȱ Sovietȱ labourȱ camp.ȱ Noëlȱ Arnaudȱ hasȱ evenȱ worked,ȱ asȱ anȱ editor,ȱ forȱ aȱ branchȱ ofȱ theȱ Situationistȱ Internationalȱ(SI),ȱjustȱasȱCalvinoȱworked,ȱasȱaȱpundit,ȱforȱaȱbranchȱofȱtheȱItalianȱ Communistsȱ(PCI).ȱ ȱ 4ȱ JacquesȱJouetȱisȱ perhapsȱtheȱonlyȱmemberȱofȱOulipo,ȱwhoseȱworkȱ seemsȱmostȱ insistentlyȱ politicizedȱ inȱ tone,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ hisȱ novelȬcycleȱ Laȱ Républiqueȱ roman,ȱwhichȱincludes,ȱamongȱanȱarrayȱofȱworks,ȱtheȱsocialȱsatireȱMountainȱ®,ȱaȱ storyȱ aboutȱ theȱ evilsȱ ofȱ governmentȱ corruption.ȱ Lelandȱ Deȱ Laȱ Durantayeȱ remarks,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ (likeȱ Queneau,ȱ whomȱ Jouetȱ hasȱ describedȱ asȱ “apoliticienne”),ȱ “Jouetȱ isȱ ultimatelyȱ lessȱ interestedȱ inȱ denouncing,ȱ whatȱ heȱ calls,ȱ theȱ ‘Irrépublique,’”ȱ orȱ inȱ installingȱ “uneȱ nouvelleȱ Républiqueȱ réembastillée,”ȱ soȱ muchȱ asȱ heȱ isȱ interestedȱ inȱ uncovering,ȱ throughȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ

179ȱ

Perec,ȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ Oulipo,ȱ mightȱ recountȱ aȱ dystopicȱ allegoryȱ aboutȱanȱOlympicȱkingdomȱ(whoseȱcultureȱofȱbloodȱsportȱcallsȱ toȱmindȱtheȱfieldȱgamesȱofȱtheȱHitlerjugendȱandȱtheȱdeathȱcampsȱ ofȱ theȱ Reichsführer),ȱ Oulipoȱ neverthelessȱ ignoresȱ thisȱ pointedȱ warningȱ aboutȱ theȱ sociologicalȱ correlationsȱ betweenȱ athleticȱ rivalryȱandȱmilitantȱfascism5ȱinȱorderȱtoȱequateȱartisticȱfreedomȱ withȱ theȱ freedomȱ ofȱ “marathoners”ȱ whoȱ excelȱ atȱ callisthenicȱ enterprises.6ȱ ȱ OulipoȱandȱUnconsciousȱTyrannyȱ Oulipoȱ criticisesȱ theȱ classicalȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ inspirationȱ byȱ forsakingȱ theȱ utopianȱ projectȱ ofȱ anȱ antecedentȱ Surrealism.ȱ Ratherȱ thanȱ rehearseȱ theȱ involuntaryȱ graphomaniaȱ ofȱ Breton,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Oulipoȱ repudiatesȱ theȱ aleatoryȱ mystiqueȱ ofȱ suchȱ unconsciousȱartisanshipȱinȱorderȱtoȱrediscover,ȱatȱtheȱbehestȱofȱ Leȱ Lionnais,ȱ “techniquesȱ whichȱ canȱ dismissȱ inspirationȱ fromȱ […]ȱ affectivity.”7ȱ Oulipoȱrejectsȱ theȱ metaphysicalȱsurrealismȱ ofȱ contrainte,ȱ “theȱ literaryȱ freedomsȱ […]ȱ thatȱ aȱ fictionalȱ republicȱ offers.”ȱ Durantaye,ȱ“TheȱRepublicȱofȱJacquesȱJouet,”ȱWorldȱLiteratureȱTodayȱ19ȱ(SepȬDecȱ 2004):ȱ52Ȭ55.ȱ ȱ 5ȱ Georgesȱ Perecȱ notesȱ that,ȱ onȱ theȱ mythicȱ islandȱ ofȱ W,ȱ whereȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ sportȱ reignȱ supreme:ȱ “Theȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ theseȱ Laws,ȱ theirȱ detail,ȱ andȱ theȱ greatȱ numberȱandȱvarietyȱofȱtheȱopportunitiesȱthusȱcreated,ȱcouldȱleadȱoneȱtoȱbelieveȱ thatȱ itȱ reallyȱ takesȱ veryȱ littleȱ forȱ anȱ Athleteȱ toȱ becomeȱ anȱ Official”ȱ (since,ȱ asȱ Perecȱ seemsȱ toȱ imply,ȱ theȱ fascinationȱ withȱ ludicȱ rulesȱ canȱ easilyȱ becomeȱ anȱ abominationȱ ofȱ totalȱ power):ȱ “theȱ sameȱ spiritȱ movesȱ them,ȱ theȱ sameȱ combatȱ thrillsȱ them,ȱ theȱ sameȱ flameȱ burnsȱ inȱ them.”ȱ W,ȱ orȱ Theȱ Memoryȱ ofȱ Childhood,ȱ trans.ȱDavidȱBellosȱ(Boston:ȱDavidȱR.ȱGodine,ȱ1988)ȱ153.ȱ ȱ 6ȱ Roubaudȱ writesȱ thatȱ “Oulipoȱ isȱ anythingȱ butȱ imperialist”—instead:ȱ “Itȱ […]ȱ endeavoursȱtoȱrediscoverȱanotherȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtoȱpracticeȱartisticȱfreedomȱ[…]:ȱ theȱ freedomȱ ofȱ difficultyȱ mastered,”ȱ andȱ thus,ȱ “Likeȱ aȱ marathonȱ runner,ȱ theȱ Oulipianȱ[…]ȱsometimesȱdiscoversȱ[…]ȱaȱ‘secondȱwind.’”ȱIntroductionȱtoȱOulipoȱ Compendium,ȱ eds.ȱ Harryȱ Mathewsȱ andȱ Alastairȱ Brotchieȱ (London:ȱ Atlasȱ Press,ȱ 1998)ȱ 41.ȱ Evenȱ Leȱ Lionnaisȱ arguesȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ Oulipoȱ byȱ citingȱ anȱ athleticȱ metaphor:ȱ“Peopleȱareȱaȱlittleȱtooȱquickȱtoȱsneerȱatȱacrobatics,”ȱsinceȱ“Breakingȱ aȱrecordȱinȱoneȱofȱtheseȱextremelyȱconstrainingȱstructuresȱcanȱinȱitselfȱserveȱtoȱ justifyȱtheȱwork”ȱ“SecondȱManifesto,”ȱOulipo,ȱ30.ȱ ȱ 7ȱ Leȱ Lionnais,ȱ quotedȱ byȱ Jeanȱ Lescure,ȱ “Briefȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Oulipo,”ȱ Oulipo:ȱ Aȱ Primerȱ ofȱ Potentialȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Warrenȱ F.ȱ Motteȱ (Lincoln:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Nebraskaȱ Press,ȱ 1986)ȱ 38.ȱ Leȱ Lionnaisȱ admitsȱ thatȱ “workȱ beginsȱ withȱ anȱ

180ȱ

inspiredȱ insightsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ embraceȱ whatȱ Roubaudȱ callsȱ aȱ “mathematicalȱ surrealism”8—aȱ uniqueȱ phylumȱ ofȱ pataphysics,ȱ oneȱthatȱformulatesȱmethodical,ȱifȱnotȱscientific,ȱproceduresȱforȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ literature,ȱ therebyȱ conceivingȱ ofȱ difficult,ȱ potentialȱproblemsȱthatȱrequireȱaȱrigorous,ȱimaginaryȱsolution.ȱ Oulipoȱimposesȱarbitrary,ȱbutȱaxiomatic,ȱdictaȱuponȱtheȱwritingȱ processȱinȱorderȱtoȱevokeȱanȱunpredictedȱpossibilityȱfromȱtheseȱ experimentalȱ restrictions.ȱ Suchȱ laboriousȱ exercisesȱ revealȱ that,ȱ despiteȱ anyȱ instinctȱ toȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ evenȱ theȱ mostȱ delimitedȱ behaviourȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ generateȱ bothȱ artfulȱ libertyȱ andȱ poeticȱ license.ȱ Whatȱ Surrealismȱ deemsȱ instinctiveȱ andȱ inscrutableȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ automaticȱ scriptionȱ nowȱ arises,ȱ mechanically,ȱ notȱ fromȱ theȱ haphazardȱ disavowalȱ ofȱ rulesȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ chance,ȱ butȱ fromȱ theȱ formulaicȱ rehearsalȱ ofȱ rulesȱ onȱ behalfȱofȱchoice.ȱ Oulipoȱ suggestsȱ that,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ Surrealismȱ mightȱ subscribeȱtoȱwhatȱBretonȱcallsȱ“aȱtenetȱofȱtotalȱrevolt,”9ȱinȱwhichȱ everyȱ surrealȱ projectȱ mustȱ alignȱ itselfȱ withȱ theȱ socialistȱ overthrowȱ ofȱ capitalism,ȱ theȱ utopianȱ projectȱ ofȱ suchȱ aleatoryȱ artistryȱ neverthelessȱ resultsȱ inȱ aȱ condition,ȱ notȱ ofȱ intentionalȱ freedom,ȱ butȱ ofȱ unconsciousȱ tyranny:ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Bénabouȱ remarksȱ that,ȱ toȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ Oulipo,ȱ likeȱ Queneauȱ (aȱ formerȱ Surrealistȱ extraditedȱ byȱ Breton),ȱ “inspirationȱ whichȱ consistsȱ inȱ blindȱobedienceȱtoȱeveryȱimpulseȱisȱinȱrealityȱaȱsortȱofȱslavery”ȱ becauseȱ “theȱ poetȱ whoȱ writesȱ thatȱ whichȱ comesȱ intoȱ hisȱ headȱ

inspirationȱ…ȱwhichȱmustȱaccommodateȱitselfȱasȱwellȱasȱpossibleȱtoȱaȱseriesȱofȱ constraints”ȱ(34).ȱ ȱ 8ȱ JacquesȱRoubaud,ȱ“MathematicsȱinȱtheȱMethodȱofȱRaymondȱQueneau,”ȱOulipo:ȱ Aȱ Primerȱ ofȱ Potentialȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Warrenȱ F.ȱ Motte.ȱ Lincoln:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ NebraskaȱPress,ȱ1986.ȱ80:ȱSuchȱmathȱallegedlyȱforsakesȱtheȱwillȱ“toȱlegislateȱforȱ eternity.”ȱ ȱ 9ȱ Andréȱ Breton,ȱ “Secondȱ Manifestoȱ ofȱ Surrealism,”ȱ Manifestoesȱ ofȱ Surrealism,ȱ trans.ȱ Richardȱ Seaverȱ andȱ Helenȱ R.ȱ Laneȱ (Annȱ Arbor:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Michiganȱ Press,ȱ 1969)ȱ 125.ȱ Bretonȱ remarksȱ elsewhereȱ inȱ hisȱ Secondȱ Manifestoȱ thatȱ “Surrealismȱconsidersȱitselfȱineluctablyȱlinkedȱ[…]ȱtoȱtheȱmovementȱofȱMarxistȱ thought”ȱ(149).ȱ ȱ

181ȱ

[…]ȱ isȱ theȱ slaveȱ ofȱ otherȱ rulesȱ ofȱ whichȱ heȱ isȱ ignorant.”10ȱ Randomȱ inspirationȱ andȱ chanceȱ compositionȱ doȱ notȱ inȱ factȱ generateȱ theȱ extremeȱ freedomȱ desiredȱ byȱ Breton,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ suchȱtossingȱofȱdiceȱandȱsuchȱdrawingȱofȱlotsȱcanȱdoȱlittleȱmoreȱ thanȱentrenchȱourȱsystematicȱignoranceȱaboutȱtheȱunseenȱedictsȱ thatȱgovernȱpoetry.ȱOulipoȱappearsȱtoȱreframeȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱitsȱ ownȱexerciseȱwithinȱtheȱlinguaȱfrancaȱofȱaȱpossibleȱpolitics—oneȱ thatȱ might,ȱ inȱ theory,ȱ exposeȱ theȱ ideologicalȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ discourseȱ itselfȱ (perhapsȱ byȱ exaggeratingȱ theȱ absurdistȱ spectacleȱ ofȱ theseȱ arbitraryȱ protocolsȱ inȱ literature,ȱ makingȱ grotesqueȱ theirȱ approvedȱ grammar,ȱ theirȱ censoredȱ content,ȱ theirȱrepeatedȱmessage,ȱetc.).ȱ Oulipoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ aleatoryȱ capricesȱ ofȱ inspirationȱ canȱ onlyȱ imprisonȱ literatiȱ withinȱ theȱ invisibleȱ labyrinthȱ ofȱ aȱ hackneyedȱ discourse—butȱ asȱ Bénabouȱ remarks,ȱ “theȱ paradoxȱ ofȱwritingȱunderȱconstraintȱ[is]ȱthatȱitȱpossessesȱaȱdoubleȱvirtueȱ ofȱ liberation,”11ȱ grantingȱ poetsȱ theȱ powerȱ toȱ makeȱ theirȱ ownȱ mazes,ȱfromȱwhichȱtheyȱmightȱthenȱfindȱtheirȱownȱexits.ȱWhenȱ wilfullyȱ selected,ȱ constraintsȱ doȱ notȱ stifle,ȱ soȱ muchȱ asȱ exciteȱ ingenuity,ȱ givingȱ aȱ writerȱ (likeȱ Bénabou)ȱ theȱ chanceȱ toȱ outwitȱ theseȱ formalȱsystemsȱ thatȱmightȱ otherwiseȱimposeȱtheirȱ covertȱ control:ȱ“toȱtheȱextentȱthatȱconstraintȱgoesȱbeyondȱrulesȱwhichȱ seemȱnaturalȱonlyȱtoȱthoseȱpeopleȱwhoȱhaveȱbarelyȱquestionedȱ language,ȱ itȱ forcesȱ theȱ systemȱ outȱ ofȱ itsȱ routineȱ functioning,ȱ therebyȱ compellingȱ itȱ toȱ revealȱ itsȱ hiddenȱ resources”—hence,ȱ “writingȱunderȱconstraintȱisȱsuperiorȱtoȱotherȱformsȱinsofarȱasȱitȱ freelyȱfurnishesȱitsȱownȱcode,”12ȱhighlightingȱbothȱtheȱcustomsȱ andȱtheȱdevices,ȱwhichȱmightȱotherwiseȱserveȱtoȱhobbleȱpoetryȱ behindȱ theȱscenes.ȱ Suchȱ contraintesȱ revealȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ which,ȱ whenȱforcedȱtoȱcomplyȱtoȱaȱrule,ȱweȱalwaysȱpreferȱtoȱbeȱswayedȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Queneau,ȱquotedȱbyȱMarcelȱBénabou,ȱ“RuleȱandȱConstraint,”ȱOulipo:ȱAȱPrimerȱ ofȱ Potentialȱ Literature.ȱ Ed.ȱ Warrenȱ F.ȱ Motteȱ (Lincoln:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Nebraskaȱ Press,ȱ1986)ȱ41.ȱ ȱ11ȱ Bénabou,ȱ“RuleȱandȱConstraint,”ȱ43.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Bénabou,ȱ “Ruleȱ andȱ Constraint,”ȱ 41.ȱ Noteȱ that,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ criticsȱ tolerateȱ suchȱ forthrightȱ techniques,ȱ anyȱ “excessȱ ofȱ [such]ȱ rulesȱ isȱ perceivedȱ asȱ shamefulȱ artifice.”ȱ

182ȱ

byȱ theȱ obvious,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ unknown,ȱ master.ȱ Weȱ alwaysȱ preferȱtoȱfollow,ȱintentionally,ȱrulesȱcreatedȱbyȱusȱforȱourselves,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ toȱ follow,ȱ unconsciously,ȱ rulesȱ createdȱ forȱ usȱ byȱ strangers.ȱ Oulipoȱ arguesȱ thatȱ toȱ fathomȱ suchȱ rulesȱ emancipatesȱ usȱ fromȱ them,ȱ sinceȱ weȱ gainȱ masteryȱ overȱ theirȱ unseenȱ potential,ȱ whereasȱtoȱignoreȱsuchȱrulesȱquarantinesȱusȱinȱthem,ȱsinceȱweȱ fallȱservileȱtoȱtheirȱcovertȱintention.ȱOulipoȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱusȱaȱ setȱ ofȱ gimmickyȱ formulaeȱ forȱ orderingȱ languageȱ intoȱ highlyȱ structured,ȱ butȱ whollyȱ unorthodox,ȱ genresȱ ofȱ poetryȱ (beȱ theyȱ acrostics,ȱ lipograms,ȱ rhopalics,ȱ etc.),ȱ soȱ muchȱ asȱ Oulipoȱ offersȱ usȱanȱarrayȱofȱrulesȱforȱexploringȱanȱarrayȱofȱrules.ȱEvenȱthoughȱ theȱ groupȱ mayȱ proposeȱ constraintsȱ forȱ theȱ formulationȱ ofȱ literature,ȱ theȱ groupȱ alsoȱ imposesȱ constraintsȱ uponȱ theȱ formulationȱ ofȱ constraintsȱ themselves.ȱ Suchȱ rulesȱ aboutȱ rulesȱ have,ȱforȱexample,ȱincludedȱtheȱfollowingȱsixȱaxioms:ȱfirst,ȱtheȱ constraintȱmustȱbeȱextremelyȱuncomplexȱtoȱarticulate;13ȱsecond,ȱ theȱconstraintȱmustȱbeȱextremelyȱdifficultȱtoȱaccomplish;14ȱthird,ȱ theȱ constraint,ȱ ifȱ enacted,ȱ mustȱ mentionȱ itsȱ ownȱ existence;15ȱ fourth,ȱ theȱ constraint,ȱ ifȱ enacted,ȱ mustȱ exhaustȱ itsȱ ownȱ potential;16ȱ fifth,ȱ theȱ constraintȱ mustȱ avoidȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ anyȱ aleatoryȱ protocol;17ȱ sixth,ȱ theȱ constraintȱ mustȱ allowȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ

ȱ13ȱȱ Culledȱ fromȱ diverseȱ sources,ȱ theseȱ sixȱ axiomsȱ provideȱ theȱ foundationȱ forȱ aȱ prescriptiveȱ constitution.ȱ Inȱ “Mathematicsȱ inȱ theȱ Methodȱ ofȱ Raymondȱ Queneau,”ȱRoubaudȱfirstȱnotes,ȱforȱexample,ȱthatȱaȱ“goodȱOulipianȱconstraintȱisȱ aȱsimpleȱconstraint”ȱ(86).ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Inȱtheȱ“SecondȱManifesto,”ȱLeȱLionnaisȱnotesȱthat:ȱ“Theȱefficacyȱofȱaȱstructureȱ […]ȱdependsȱprimarilyȱonȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱ[its]ȱdifficulty”ȱ(30).ȱȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Roubaudȱ alsoȱ notesȱ that,ȱ whereverȱ possible,ȱ aȱ “textȱ writtenȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ constraintȱdescribesȱtheȱconstraint”ȱ(“Introduction,”ȱ42).ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Inȱ“MathematicsȱinȱtheȱMethodȱofȱRaymondȱQueneau,”ȱRoubaudȱnotesȱinȱturnȱ that,ȱ whereverȱ possible,ȱ “theȱ Oulipianȱ textȱ actualisingȱ aȱ constraintȱ [is]ȱ envisagedȱ onlyȱ onȱ theȱ conditionȱ thatȱ thisȱ textȱ containȱ allȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ constraint”ȱ(95).ȱȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Roubaudȱevenȱnotesȱthatȱ“Oulipianȱproceduresȱareȱasȱremoteȱasȱpossibleȱfromȱ […]ȱ anyȱ kindȱ ofȱ literatureȱ whoseȱ strategicȱ foundationȱ isȱ chance.ȱ (“Introduction,”ȱ41).ȱ(Toȱme,ȱthisȱruleȱseemsȱoddlyȱprejudicialȱgivenȱthatȱchanceȱ isȱanȱobjectȱofȱstudyȱinȱmathematics.)ȱ

183ȱ

oneȱ optionalȱ deviancy.18ȱ Suchȱ recursiveȱ doctrinesȱ almostȱ seemȱ toȱ ratifyȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ pataphysicalȱ constitution—aȱ playfulȱ statuteȱ thatȱ governsȱ theȱ anarchyȱ ofȱ poeticsȱ byȱ legislatingȱ ourȱ methodologyȱforȱlegislatingȱtheȱmethodologyȱitself.ȱ ȱ OulipoȱandȱtheȱPataphysiciansȱ Ubuwebȱ notesȱ that,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ membersȱ ofȱ Oulipoȱ mightȱ abstainȱfromȱanyȱsocialȱagenda,ȱrefusingȱtoȱemulateȱtheȱexplicit,ȱ leftwingȱ poeticsȱ ofȱ Breton,ȱ bothȱ Oulipoȱ andȱ Bretonȱ doȱ inȱ factȱ drawȱ someȱ ofȱ theirȱ radicalȱ impetusȱ fromȱ aȱ commonȱ source— pataphysics,ȱ “theȱ scienceȱ ofȱ imaginaryȱ solutions”ȱ imaginedȱ byȱ Jarry.19ȱOulipoȱhasȱinȱfactȱupheldȱaȱlongȬtime,ȱintimateȱallianceȱ withȱ theȱ Collègeȱ deȱ Pataphysique,ȱ aȱ parodicȱ academyȱ ofȱ intellectuals,ȱwhoȱproposeȱabsurdȱaxiomsȱandȱthenȱuseȱrigorousȱ argumentȱtoȱexplicateȱtheȱlogicalȱoutcomeȱofȱtheseȱabsurdities.ȱ Ubuwebȱ recognisesȱ that,ȱ likeȱ mathematiciansȱ concernedȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ theoreticȱ implications,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ pragmaticȱ consequences,ȱ ofȱ aȱ concept,ȱ theȱ pataphysiciansȱ ofȱ Oulipoȱ bracketȱ realityȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ exploreȱ theirȱ ownȱ cognitiveȱ fantasies—andȱ thusȱ theyȱ haveȱ madeȱ themselvesȱ vulnerableȱ toȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ critiqueȱ imaginedȱ byȱ Vaneigem,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ pataphysiciansȱ subscribeȱ toȱ theȱ dictum,ȱ credoȱ quiaȱ absurdumȱestȱ(inȱwhichȱeveryȱcredoȱisȱequal,ȱandȱnoȱtheoryȱisȱtooȱ absurdȱforȱbelief):ȱ“Pataphysicsȱ[…]ȱleadsȱusȱwithȱmanyȱaȱtwistȱ andȱturnȱtoȱtheȱlastȱgraveyards.”20ȱHeȱarguesȱthat,ȱevenȱthoughȱ

ȱ18ȱȱ Perecȱ notesȱ that,ȱ “whenȱ aȱ systemȱ ofȱ constraintsȱ isȱ established,ȱ thereȱ mustȱ alsoȱ beȱ anti[Ȭ]constraintȱ withinȱ it”—insertedȱ thereȱ asȱ aȱ minorȱ errorȱ calledȱ aȱ “clinamen.”ȱQuotedȱbyȱ WarrenȱF.ȱMotte,ȱ“Introduction”ȱ toȱ Oulipo:ȱAȱ Primerȱofȱ PotentialȱLiterature,ȱ19Ȭ20.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Alfredȱ Jarry,ȱ “Exploitsȱ andȱ Opinionsȱ ofȱ Doctorȱ Faustroll:ȱ Aȱ NeoȬScientificȱ Novel,”ȱ Selectedȱ Worksȱ ofȱ Alfredȱ Jarry,ȱ eds.ȱ Rogerȱ Shattuckȱ andȱ Simonȱ Watsonȱ Taylor,ȱtrans.ȱSimonȱWatsonȱTaylorȱ(NewȱYork:ȱGroveȱPress,ȱ1965)ȱ193.ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ RaoulȱVaneigem,ȱTheȱRevolutionȱofȱEverydayȱLife,ȱtrans.ȱDonaldȱNicholsonȬSmithȱ (London:ȱ Rebelȱ Press/Leftȱ Handȱ Books,ȱ 1994)ȱ 126.ȱ Vaneigemȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ inȱ aȱ worldȱ withoutȱ value,ȱ eachȱ pataphysicianȱ makesȱ aȱ passiveȱ gestureȱ towardȱ nihilism:ȱ “heȱ throwsȱ […]ȱ diceȱ toȱ decideȱ hisȱ ‘cause,’ȱ andȱ thenȱ becomesȱ itsȱ devotedȱslave,ȱforȱArt’sȱsake”ȱ(178).ȱ

184ȱ

suchȱnihilismȱcanȱinȱfactȱnurtureȱtheȱinbornȱenergyȱofȱrebellion,ȱ pataphysicsȱneverthelessȱlendsȱitselfȱtooȱeasilyȱtoȱsocialȱapathy.ȱ Ubuwebȱ mightȱ admitȱ that,ȱ whileȱ suchȱ chargesȱ ofȱ nihilisticȱ conformityȱdoȱapplyȱtoȱtheȱattitudesȱofȱsomeȱpataphysicians— particularlyȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Collègeȱ (including,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Shattuck,ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ that:ȱ “Pataphysicsȱ preachesȱ noȱ rebellionȱ […],ȱ noȱ politicalȱ reform”)21—suchȱ misgivingsȱ doȱ notȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱthat,ȱoriginally,ȱJarryȱlampoonsȱeveryȱideologyȱinȱorderȱ toȱ igniteȱ anȱ impishȱ spiritȱ ofȱ antiȬbourgeois,ȱ antiȬphilistineȱ disorder.ȱ Whenȱ ideologyȱ imposesȱ unrealȱ reconciliationsȱ uponȱ actualȱ contradictions,ȱ suchȱ imaginaryȱ solutionsȱ areȱ indeedȱ forthrightlyȱ pataphysical,ȱ butȱ theyȱ differȱ fromȱ theȱ bizarreȱ scienceȱofȱJarryȱonlyȱinsofarȱasȱideologyȱmustȱdisavowȱitsȱownȱ imaginariness.ȱ Suchȱ solutionsȱ mustȱ beȱ final.ȱ Theyȱ mustȱ forbidȱ anyȱdeliberateȱsuspensionȱofȱdisbelief.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱrusesȱofȱ pataphysicsȱmayȱenableȱtheȱrulesȱofȱtheȱideological,ȱsuchȱrulesȱ mustȱ overseeȱ andȱ controlȱ suchȱ ruses,ȱ forȱ fearȱ thatȱ theseȱ rusesȱ mightȱ inȱ turnȱ exposeȱ theȱ rulesȱ asȱ provisional.ȱ Weȱ seeȱ thatȱ Oulipo,ȱ however,ȱ doesȱ notȱ endowȱ itsȱ ownȱ utilisationȱ ofȱ pataphysicsȱ withȱ muchȱ ideologicalȱ consequence,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ radicalȱ potentialȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ parodicȱ viewpoint;ȱ instead,ȱ Oulipoȱ offersȱ solutionsȱ toȱ aesthetic,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ political,ȱ problems,ȱ actingȱ outȱ aȱ theoryȱ thatȱ limitsȱ anyȱ demandȱ toȱ propelȱ suchȱ theoryȱintoȱaction.ȱ ȱ TheȱCentralȱProblemȱ Ubuwebȱ admitsȱ that,ȱ withȱ suchȱ anȱ ampleȱ arrayȱ ofȱ ludicȱ rules,ȱ pataphysicsȱhasȱgivenȱOulipoȱtheȱgrandȱpowerȱtoȱwriteȱaȱnobleȱ canon;ȱ however,ȱ Ubuwebȱ alsoȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ althoughȱ Oulipoȱ seesȱfitȱtoȱbandyȱaboutȱtheȱloadedȱjargonȱofȱfreedomȱandȱslaveryȱ

ȱ21ȱȱ RogerȱShattuck,ȱ“WhatȱIsȱ‘Pataphysics?”ȱTheȱInnocentȱEye:ȱOnȱModernȱLiteratureȱ andȱ theȱ Artsȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Farrar,ȱStrauss,ȱ andȱ Giroux,ȱ 1984)ȱ104.ȱ Shattuckȱ notesȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ pataphysicsȱ isȱ anȱ allegedȱ scienceȱ ofȱ indifference,ȱ pataphysicsȱ cannotȱ supportȱ anyȱ politicalȱ viewpointȱ withoutȱ endorsingȱ themȱ all:ȱ “theȱ pataphysicianȱ suspendsȱ allȱ values,”ȱ andȱ thusȱ theȱ “Pataphysicsȱ attemptsȱ noȱ cures”ȱ(104).ȱ

185ȱ

inȱ orderȱ toȱ explainȱ suchȱ principlesȱ ofȱ constraint,ȱ theȱ politicalȱ potentialȱofȱtheseȱterms,ȱtheirȱ“legislativeness,”ȱifȱyouȱlike,ȱgoesȱ unacknowledged,ȱ exceptȱ insofarȱ asȱ theyȱ provideȱ colourfulȱ metaphorsȱ forȱ artisticȱ triumphȱ orȱ creativeȱ setback—andȱ whenȱ deployedȱtoȱcomplainȱaboutȱtheȱaleatoryȱartistryȱofȱSurrealism,ȱ theseȱ twoȱ terms,ȱ freedomȱ andȱ slavery,ȱ almostȱ riskȱ takingȱ onȱ theȱ Orwellianȱovertonesȱofȱaȱfundamentalȱequivalence.ȱOulipoȱmayȱ argueȱ thatȱ surrealȱ revolutionsȱ representȱ unawareȱ enslavementȱ toȱ unknownȱ constraints,ȱ butȱ Oulipoȱ doesȱ notȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ despiteȱ thisȱ problem,ȱ Surrealismȱ neverthelessȱ promotesȱ forthrightlyȱ aȱ radicalȱ mandateȱ forȱ socialȱ change,ȱ whereasȱ Oulipoȱ doesȱ not,ȱ despiteȱ itsȱ selfȬconscious,ȱ selfȬ liberatedȱalgorithmsȱforȱcreativity.ȱIfȱwilfulȱignoranceȱaboutȱsuchȱ rulesȱ canȱ resultȱ inȱ covertȱ obedienceȱ toȱ theirȱ poeticȱ dominance,ȱ yetȱ stillȱ entailȱ aȱ socialȱ critiqueȱ(asȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ forȱSurrealism)— howȱ mightȱ wilfulȱ obedienceȱ toȱ suchȱ rulesȱ resultȱ inȱ aȱ poeticȱ critique,ȱ yetȱ stillȱ entailȱ aȱ covertȱ ignoranceȱ aboutȱ theirȱ socialȱ potential?ȱ ȱ OulipoȱandȱtheȱConceptualistsȱ UbuwebȱhasȱembellishedȱtheȱpataphysicsȱofȱOulipoȱbyȱlinkingȱ suchȱproceduralȱuseȱofȱconstraintȱtoȱtheȱprinciplesȱofȱconceptualȱ artȱ (asȱ seen,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ projectsȱ byȱ suchȱ artistsȱ asȱ Kosuthȱ andȱ LeWitt,ȱ whoȱ “dematerialise”ȱ theirȱ artwork,ȱ transformingȱ itsȱ objecthoodȱ intoȱ aȱ discursiveȱ experience—oneȱ subjugatedȱ toȱ eitherȱaȱserialisedȱ heuristicȱ orȱaȱ permutableȱ schematic).ȱJustȱ asȱ Roubaudȱ mightȱ suggestȱ thatȱ literatureȱ operatesȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ tautologicalȱ seriesȱ ofȱ matheticȱ “propositions,”22ȱ soȱ alsoȱ doesȱ Kosuthȱ suggestȱ thatȱ aestheticsȱ operatesȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ tautologicalȱ seriesȱ ofȱ analyticȱ “propositions.”23ȱ Bothȱ thinkersȱ ȱ22ȱȱ Roubaudȱ writesȱ thatȱ “languageȱ canȱ beȱ mathematized”ȱ (“Mathematicsȱ inȱ theȱ Methodȱ ofȱ Raymondȱ Queneau,”ȱ 82),ȱ andȱ heȱ notesȱ amongȱ hisȱ eighteenȱ propositions:ȱ “Propositionȱ 15:ȱ Writingȱ underȱ […]ȱ constraintȱ isȱ […]ȱ equivalentȱ [to]ȱtheȱdraftingȱofȱaȱmathematicalȱtext,ȱwhichȱmayȱbeȱformalizedȱaccordingȱtoȱ theȱaxiomaticȱmethod”ȱ(89).ȱ ȱ23ȱȱ JosephȱKosuth,ȱ“ArtȱAfterȱPhilosophy,”ȱArtȱAfterȱPhilosophyȱandȱAfter:ȱCollectedȱ Writings,ȱ 1966Ȭ1990,ȱ ed.ȱ GabrieleȱGuercioȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ MITȱ Press,ȱ 1991)ȱ

186ȱ

equateȱ theseȱ tautologiesȱ withȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ “languageȬgames”ȱ discussedȱ byȱ Wittgenstein,24ȱ whoȱ arguesȱ that,ȱ whenȱ playingȱ suchȱ aȱ game,ȱ “weȱ lookȱ toȱ theȱ ruleȱ forȱ instructionȱ andȱ doȱ something,ȱ withoutȱ appealingȱ toȱ anythingȱ elseȱ forȱ guidance.”25ȱ Bothȱmovementsȱresortȱtoȱlogicalȱsystemsȱinȱorderȱtoȱstudyȱtheȱ rulesȱthatȱgovernȱaȱspecific,ȱartisticȱparadigm—andȱinȱdoingȱso,ȱ bothȱmovementsȱtheoriseȱthatȱtheirȱcreativeȱpracticeȱculminates,ȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ manufactureȱ ofȱ aȱ concreteȱ object,ȱ soȱ muchȱ asȱ inȱ aȱ speculationȱaboutȱitsȱabstractȱschema.ȱTheȱartfulnessȱofȱaȱworkȱ nowȱresidesȱinȱtheȱrationaleȱforȱitsȱexperimentalȱprocedures,ȱnotȱ inȱtheȱoutgrowthȱofȱanyȱconcomitantȱproduction.ȱ Ubuwebȱ goesȱ onȱ toȱ accentuateȱ theseȱ affinitiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ “constraint”ȱ inȱ poeticȱ writingȱ andȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ “conceptual”ȱ inȱ visualȱ artwork.ȱ Goldsmith,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ discussesȱ hisȱ ownȱ literaryȱ practiceȱ byȱ rewritingȱ theȱ famousȱ essayȱ “Paragraphsȱ onȱ Conceptualȱ Art”ȱ byȱ LeWitt,ȱ substitutingȱ dictionȱaboutȱ “writing”ȱforȱ anyȱ mentionȱ ofȱartworkȱ(soȱ that,ȱifȱ LeWittȱ writes:ȱ “theȱ ideaȱ becomesȱ aȱ machineȱ thatȱ makesȱ theȱ art”26—thenȱ Goldsmithȱ writes:ȱ “theȱ ideaȱ becomesȱ aȱ machineȱ

20Ȭ21.ȱKosuthȱnotesȱthat:ȱ“whatȱartȱhasȱinȱcommonȱwithȱ[…]ȱmathematicsȱisȱthatȱ itȱisȱaȱtautology”—i.e.ȱ“Worksȱofȱartȱareȱanalyticȱpropositions,”ȱoperatingȱuponȱ theirȱownȱinnerȱlogic.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Roubaudȱ writesȱ thatȱ “constraintsȱ provideȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ aȱ languageȱ game,”ȱ andȱ “thisȱGreatȱGameȱofȱConstraints”ȱis,ȱafterȱWittgenstein,ȱ“connectedȱtoȱaȱ‘wayȱofȱ life’”ȱ (“Introduction,”ȱ 40;ȱ 43).ȱ Similarly,ȱ Kosuthȱ writesȱ thatȱ “aȱ processȱ ofȱ culturalȱ verificationȱ […]ȱ occursȱ inȱ artȱ whenȱ theȱ languageȬgame(s)ȱ ofȱ artȱ accommodateȱ anȱ additionalȱ shift,ȱ andȱ adjustȱ toȱ aȱ newȱ rule.”ȱ Josephȱ Kosuth,ȱ “Theȱ Playȱ ofȱ theȱ Unsayable:ȱ Aȱ Prefaceȱ andȱ Tenȱ Remarksȱ onȱ Artȱ andȱ Wittgenstein,”ȱArtȱAfterȱPhilosophyȱandȱAfter,ȱ247.ȱ ȱ25ȱȱ Ludwigȱ Wittgenstein,ȱ Philosophicalȱ Investigations,ȱ trans.ȱ G.E.M.ȱ Anscombeȱ (Oxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwellȱandȱMott,ȱ1974)ȱ86e,ȱ228.ȱWittgensteinȱasksȱaȱquestionȱ worthyȱ ofȱ Oulipo:ȱ “Whatȱ isȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ […]ȱ obeyingȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ inspirationȱandȱ[…]ȱobeyingȱaȱrule?ȱForȱtheyȱareȱsurelyȱnotȱtheȱsame.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱ ofȱ inspirationȱ Iȱ awaitȱ direction.ȱ Iȱ shallȱ notȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ teachȱ anyoneȱ elseȱ myȱ ‘technique’”ȱ(87e,ȱ232).ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Solȱ LeWitt,ȱ “Paragraphsȱ onȱ Conceptualȱ Art,”ȱ Conceptualȱ Art:ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Anthology,ȱeds.ȱ AlexanderȱAlberroȱandȱBlakeȱStimsonȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱMITȱ Press,ȱ 1999)ȱ 12.ȱ Likeȱ Oulipo,ȱ whichȱ spurnsȱ chance,ȱ LeWittȱ notes:ȱ “Ifȱ theȱ artistȱ

187ȱ

thatȱ makesȱ theȱ text.”)27ȱ Whereasȱ Kosuthȱ andȱ LeWittȱ mightȱ exploitȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ artȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ transmuteȱ theȱ “concreteness”ȱ ofȱ lesȱ objetsȱ desȱ artsȱ intoȱ aȱ textualȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ artisticȱ mediumȱ itself,ȱ Goldsmithȱ borrowsȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ artȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ transmuteȱ theȱ “abstractness”ȱ ofȱ lesȱ textesȱdesȱmotsȱintoȱaȱsomaticȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱliteraryȱmediumȱ itself.ȱ Evenȱ Dworkinȱ atȱ Ubuwebȱ hasȱ goneȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ gather,ȱ online,ȱ anȱ anthologyȱ thatȱ juxtaposesȱ proceduralȱ writingȱ byȱ EuropeanȱwritersȱandȱconceptualȱwritingȱbyȱAmericanȱartistsȱinȱ orderȱ toȱ showcaseȱ theirȱ parallelȱ interestȱ inȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ “theȱ directȱ presentationȱ ofȱ languageȱ itself,ȱ withȱ ‘spontaneousȱ overflow’ȱsupplantedȱbyȱ[a]ȱlogicalȱprocess”28—aȱprocessȱwhoseȱ ludicȱ rulesȱ mustȱ explicateȱ theȱ tautologyȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ autotelicȱ coherence.ȱ ȱ UbuwebȱandȱIntentionalȱFreedomȱ Ubuwebȱ notesȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ proceduralȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeansȱ andȱ theȱ conceptualȱ workȱ ofȱ theȱ Americansȱ hasȱ portrayedȱ languageȱ asȱ aȱ closedȱ systemȱ ofȱ experimentalȱ speculationsȱ aboutȱ constraintȱ itself,ȱ theȱ potentialsȱ ofȱ suchȱ constraintȱneedȱnotȱevenȱbeȱexecutedȱinȱmandatoryȱpractice,ȱbutȱ onlyȱ beȱ proposedȱ asȱ possibilities:ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Roubaudȱ notesȱ that,ȱ toȱ Leȱ Lionnais,ȱ theȱ rule,ȱ onceȱ postulated,ȱ canȱ goȱ unfulfilled,ȱ sinceȱ “theȱ textȱ thatȱ formulatesȱ theȱ constraint”ȱ isȱ “theȱ onlyȱ admissibleȱ text,”ȱ andȱ anyȱ “textȱ deducedȱ fromȱ aȱ wishesȱ toȱ exploreȱ hisȱ ideaȱ thoroughly,ȱ thenȱ […]ȱ chanceȱ [must]ȱ beȱ eliminatedȱ fromȱtheȱmakingȱofȱtheȱart”ȱ(13).ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ KennethȱGoldsmith,ȱ“ParagraphsȱonȱConceptualȱWriting,”ȱOpenȱLetter:ȱKennethȱ Goldsmithȱ andȱ Conceptualȱ Poeticsȱ 12.7ȱ (Fallȱ 2005):ȱ 98.ȱ Likeȱ Oulipoȱ andȱ LeWitt,ȱ Goldsmithȱ alsoȱ notesȱ (withȱ irony):ȱ “Ifȱ theȱ authorȱ wishesȱ toȱ exploreȱ herȱ ideaȱ thoroughly,ȱthenȱ[…]ȱchanceȱ[must]ȱbeȱeliminatedȱfromȱtheȱmakingȱofȱtheȱtext”ȱ (99).ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ CraigȱDworkinȱwritesȱthatȱ“conceptualȱwritingȱ[…]ȱisȱnotȱ[…]ȱwritingȱinȱwhichȱ theȱideaȱisȱmoreȱimportantȱthanȱanythingȱelse”—instead,ȱconceptualȱwritingȱisȱaȱ kindȱofȱ“writingȱinȱwhichȱtheȱideaȱcannotȱbeȱseparatedȱfromȱtheȱwritingȱitself:ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ instanceȱ ofȱ writingȱ isȱ inextricablyȱ intertwinedȱ withȱ […]ȱ theȱ materialȱpracticeȱofȱécriture.”ȱDworkin,ȱ“TheȱUbuwebȱAnthologyȱofȱConceptualȱ Writing,”ȱhttp://www.ubu.com/concept.ȱ

188ȱ

constraint”ȱ isȱ unrequired;29ȱ likewise,ȱ LeWittȱ notesȱ thatȱ aȱ rule,ȱ onceȱprescribed,ȱcanȱgoȱunperformed,ȱsince:ȱ“Allȱideasȱneedȱnotȱ beȱ madeȱ physical,”ȱ givenȱ that:ȱ “Ideasȱ aloneȱ canȱ beȱ worksȱ ofȱ art,”30ȱandȱthusȱanyȱworkȱproducedȱfromȱtheȱideaȱisȱgratuitous.ȱ Goldsmithȱ jokesȱ that,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Oulipo,ȱ writingȱ byȱ itsȱ membersȱ mayȱ enjoyȱ moreȱ enthusiasticȱ appreciationȱ ifȱ suchȱ writingȱ goesȱ uncreated,ȱ presentedȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ concept—ofȱ aȱ “mapping,”ȱ soȱ toȱ speak—sinceȱ Goldsmithȱ findsȱ theȱproposedȱideasȱofȱtheȱgroupȱtoȱbeȱmuchȱmoreȱradicalȱthanȱ theȱ actuatedȱ textsȱ byȱ theȱ group:ȱ “judgingȱ byȱ theȱ worksȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ realised,ȱ theyȱ mightȱ beȱ betterȱ leftȱ asȱ ideas,”ȱ sinceȱ suchȱ “blandlyȱ conservativeȱ […]ȱ fictionȱ […]ȱ seemsȱ toȱ buryȱ theȱ veryȱinterestingȱprocedures.”31ȱ UbuwebȱadmiresȱOulipo,ȱbutȱadmitsȱthat,ȱasideȱfromȱaȱfewȱ athleticȱ oddities,ȱ muchȱ ofȱ theȱ poeticȱ outputȱ byȱ theȱ groupȱ canȱ lookȱ veryȱ procrustean,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ basicȱ fulfilmentȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ restrictionȱ canȱ oftenȱ seemȱ toȱ takeȱ precedenceȱ overȱ everyȱ otherȱ formalȱissueȱ(likeȱeuphonicȱexpressionȱorȱthematicȱprofundity— amongȱ theȱ manyȱ unadmitted,ȱ butȱ noȱ lessȱ subsidiary,ȱ constraintsȱ controllingȱ theȱ meritsȱ ofȱ poetry);ȱ hence,ȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theseȱ experimentsȱ oftenȱ riskȱ reiteratingȱ theȱ executionȱ ofȱ aȱ roteȱ task,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ mightȱ appearȱ noȱ moreȱ engagingȱ thanȱ aȱ fumbledȱ sleight.ȱ Goldsmithȱ addsȱ toȱ theseȱ concernsȱ aboutȱ Oulipoȱ byȱ sayingȱ that:ȱ “Evenȱ withȱ complexȱ systematicȱ structures,ȱ[…]ȱtheȱwritersȱalwaysȱtendȱtoȱwrapȱtheirȱsystemsȱinȱ conventionalȱ narratives,”32ȱ replaying,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ timewornȱ formulaeȱ ofȱ whodunitsȱ andȱ novelettes,ȱ ofȱ fantasiesȱ andȱpicaresques.ȱEvenȱthoughȱtheȱwackyȱrulesȱofȱOulipoȱmightȱ implyȱaȱfreedomȱfromȱconventionalȱstorytelling,ȱtheȱcontentȱofȱ suchȱ restrictedȱ literatureȱ oftenȱ seemsȱ skewedȱ towardsȱ ȱ29ȱȱ Robaud,ȱ“MathematicsȱinȱtheȱMethodȱofȱRaymondȱQueneau,”ȱ91ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ Solȱ LeWitt,ȱ “Sentencesȱ onȱ Conceptualȱ Art,”ȱ Conceptualȱ Art,ȱ 107.ȱ LeWittȱ notesȱ thatȱ“allȱideasȱareȱartȱifȱtheyȱareȱconcernedȱwithȱart”ȱ(107).ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Kennethȱ Goldsmith,ȱ “Interviewȱ (Fromȱ Readȱ Me,ȱ Issueȱ 4)”ȱ conductedȱ byȱ Erikȱ Belgum,ȱhttp://wings.buffalo.edu/epc/authors/goldsmith/readme.html.ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ KennethȱGoldsmith,ȱ“AȱConversationȱwithȱKennethȱGoldsmith”ȱconductedȱbyȱ MarjorieȱPerloff,ȱhttp://jacketmagazine.com/21/perlȬgoldȬiv.html.ȱ

189ȱ

normality.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱpoeticȱtastesȱofȱtheȱgroupȱcanȱoftenȱ seemȱ quiteȱ banal,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ itsȱ membersȱ seemȱ toȱ enjoyȱ dickeringȱ withȱ theȱ gearboxesȱ ofȱ obsolete,ȱ literaryȱ genresȱ (likeȱ theȱ sestinaȱ orȱ theȱ rondeau),ȱ revivifyingȱ theseȱ antiquaryȱ styles,ȱ yetȱentrenchingȱtheirȱcanonicalȱrepute.ȱ Ubuwebȱ agreesȱ withȱ Oulipoȱ that,ȱ unlessȱ weȱ analyzeȱ ourȱ ownȱauthorialȱfunctionsȱwithȱmechanicalȱdetachment,ȱweȱmightȱ findȱ ourselvesȱ blindlyȱ obeyingȱ anȱ instinctȱ that,ȱ farȱ fromȱ liberatingȱ usȱ (asȱ theȱ Surrealistsȱ mightȱ aver),ȱ doesȱ nothingȱ butȱ entrapȱusȱevenȱmoreȱsubtlyȱinȱtheȱroteȱmazeȱofȱourȱownȱpoeticȱ habits.ȱUbuwebȱnotes,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱjustȱasȱBretonȱmightȱclaimȱ toȱ haveȱ freedȱ himselfȱ fromȱ theȱ ideologyȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ constrainedȱ unconscious,ȱ allȱ theȱ whileȱ retrenchingȱ theȱ capitalȱ economyȱ ofȱ meaningȱ (byȱ usingȱ anȱ aleatoryȱ protocolȱ toȱ expressȱ hisȱ spontaneityȱthroughȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱcoherent,ȱrationalȱsentence),ȱ soȱalsoȱdoesȱOulipoȱclaimȱtoȱhaveȱfreedȱitselfȱfromȱtheȱideologyȱ ofȱ suchȱ unconsciousȱ constraints,ȱ allȱ theȱ whileȱ retrenchingȱ thisȱ sameȱ capitalȱ economyȱ ofȱ meaning—anȱ economyȱ thatȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ contrainteȱ mightȱ haveȱ otherwiseȱ showcasedȱ andȱ subverted.ȱErgo,ȱMarxistȱwritersȱfromȱtheȱL=A=N=G=U=A=G=Eȱ Group—writers,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ likeȱ Andrewsȱ (whoȱ positsȱ anȱ “antiȬsystematic”ȱ writing)33ȱ orȱ Bernsteinȱ (whoȱ positsȱ anȱ “antiȬ absorptive”ȱwriting)34—haveȱadmittedȱinȱconversationȱthatȱtheyȱ findȱOulipoȱimpressiveȱinȱitsȱformalȱtechnique,ȱbutȱinadequateȱ inȱitsȱsocialȱrationale,ȱifȱonlyȱbecauseȱOulipoȱhasȱyetȱtoȱquestionȱ theȱideologyȱofȱitsȱownȱgrammatical,ȱreferentialȱbias.ȱ

ȱ33ȱȱ BruceȱAndrews,ȱ“Constitution/ȱWriting,ȱPolitics,ȱLanguage,ȱTheȱBody,”ȱParadiseȱ &ȱMethod:ȱPoeticsȱandȱPraxisȱ(Evanston:ȱNorthwesternȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992)ȱ23.ȱ Andrewsȱnotesȱthat,ȱforȱhisȱownȱantiȬsystematic,ȱantiȬcapitalistȱwriting,ȱ“politicsȱ restsȱ onȱ anȱ explanation—aȱ characterisationȱ ofȱ theȱ mediumȱ andȱ […]ȱ itsȱ constraints”ȱ(20).ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ Charlesȱ Bernstein,ȱ “Artificeȱ ofȱ Absorption,”ȱ Aȱ Poeticsȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992)ȱ 22.ȱ Bernsteinȱ notesȱ that,ȱ likeȱ Andrews,ȱ hisȱ ownȱ antiȬ absorptive,ȱantiȬcapitalistȱwriting,ȱ“makesȱobtrusive/theȱ[…]ȱideologicalȱnatureȱ […]/ofȱlanguageȱhabitsȱinȱwhichȱweȱare/ȱordinarilyȱsoȱabsorbedȱasȱtoȱignore/orȱ repress”ȱ(35).ȱ

190ȱ

UbuwebȱbalksȱatȱtheȱapoliticalȱintentionsȱofȱOulipo,ȱdoingȱsoȱ notȱtoȱimpugnȱsuchȱanȱimportantȱlegacyȱsoȱmuchȱasȱtoȱoutlineȱ a,ȱheretoforeȱunexplored,ȱpotentialȱwithinȱitsȱaestheticȱtheory— aȱpotentialȱstillȱavailableȱtoȱyoungerȱwriters,ȱwhoȱmightȱwishȱtoȱ mimicȱ Oulipoȱ inȱ theȱ hopeȱ ofȱ advancingȱ theȱ group’sȱ experimentationȱ withoutȱ repeatingȱ theȱ group’sȱ accomplishments.ȱ Oulipoȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ strivenȱ toȱ implementȱ computerisedȱ explorationsȱ ofȱ constraintȱ (throughȱ ALAMO,ȱ forȱ example),35ȱ butȱ Ubuwebȱ hasȱ inȱ turnȱ goneȱ onȱ toȱ showcaseȱ theȱ politicalȱ potentialȱ ofȱ suchȱ devices,ȱ particularlyȱ inȱ theȱ generalȱ economyȱofȱtheȱWeb,ȱwhereȱnotȱonlyȱcanȱliteraryȱsoftwareȱ(likeȱ Theȱ Apostropheȱ Engine)36ȱ writeȱ poemsȱ withoutȱ anyȱ humanȱ input—butȱ evenȱ theȱ conceptȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ projectȱ canȱ getȱ distributedȱanonymouslyȱforȱfreeȱtoȱanyoneȱwhoȱmightȱwishȱtoȱ exploitȱ itȱ orȱ improveȱ it.ȱ Ubuwebȱ inȱ factȱ seesȱ muchȱ ofȱ itsȱ ownȱ poeticȱ labourȱ asȱ anȱ actȱ ofȱ advocacyȱ forȱ theȱ “copyleftȱ movement,”37ȱwhoseȱpoliciesȱenshrineȱtheȱfileȬswappingȱofȱdataȱ ȱ35ȱȱ ALAMOȱ(AtelierȱdeȱLittératureȱAssistéeȱparȱlaȱMathématiqueȱetȱlesȱOrdinateurs)ȱisȱanȱ offshootȱ ofȱ Oulipo.ȱ Harryȱ Mathewsȱ notesȱ thatȱ ALAMOȱ hasȱ writtenȱ “litware”ȱ (litteraciels)—digitalȱ programsȱ thatȱ computerizeȱ literaryȱ activityȱ inȱ threeȱ ways:ȱ first,ȱ throughȱ combinatorialȱ systemsȱ (whichȱ permuteȱ andȱ combineȱ theȱ componentsȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ lexicon);ȱ second,ȱ throughȱ applicationalȱ systemsȱ (whichȱ replaceȱ andȱ installȱ componentsȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ grammar);ȱ andȱ third,ȱ throughȱ implicationalȱ systemsȱ (whichȱ analyzeȱ andȱ produceȱ originalȱ proceduresȱ forȱ aȱ givenȱpoetics).ȱ“ALAMO,”ȱOulipoȱCompendium,ȱ46.ȱ ȱ36ȱȱ TheȱApostropheȱEngineȱbyȱBillȱKennedyȱandȱDarrenȱWershlerȬHenryȱisȱaȱpieceȱofȱ homespun,ȱ oracularȱ softwareȱ thatȱ canȱ hijackȱ Googleȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ retrieveȱ anyȱ onlineȱ clauseȱ thatȱ beginsȱ withȱ theȱ wordsȱ “Youȱ are…,”ȱ therebyȱ gatheringȱ andȱ collatingȱtheseȱretrievalsȱintoȱaȱseriesȱofȱ“apostrophes,”ȱallȱofȱwhichȱaddressȱusȱ inȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱtheȱsecondȱperson.ȱAnyoneȱwhoȱwritesȱonlineȱmightȱbecomeȱanȱ inadvertentȱcontributorȱtoȱsuchȱaȱpoem,ȱandȱtheȱpoemȱmight,ȱinȱtheory,ȱexpandȱ withoutȱ limits,ȱ linkingȱ togetherȱ allȱ ofȱ ourȱ disparateȱ discourse,ȱ juxtaposingȱ itȱ throughȱtheȱinfiniteȱmetonymyȱofȱaȱsingle,ȱcommonȱutterance.ȱ ȱ37ȱȱ DarrenȱWershlerȬHenryȱnotes:ȱ“copyleftȱ[…]ȱensuresȱthatȱanyȱpieceȱofȱcreativeȱ workȱ […]ȱ canȱ circulateȱ freely—andȱ canȱ evenȱ beȱ modifiedȱ andȱ extended— withoutȱ beingȱ subsumedȱ intoȱ […]ȱ privateȱ […]ȱ property”—soȱ longȱ asȱ anyȱ supplementaryȱ modificationsȱ madeȱ toȱ theȱ originalȱ propertyȱ continueȱ toȱ abideȱ byȱ thisȱ veryȱ sameȱ ruleȱ ofȱ unconstrainedȱ recirculation.ȱ WershlerȬHenry,ȱ Freeȱ asȱ inȱ Speechȱ andȱ Beer:ȱ Openȱ Source,ȱ PeerȬtoȬPeerȱ andȱ theȱ Economicsȱ ofȱ theȱ Onlineȱ Revolutionȱ(Toronto:ȱFinancialȱTimesȱPrenticeȱHall,ȱ2002)ȱ23ȱ

191ȱ

andȱtheȱopenȬsourcingȱofȱcode.ȱWeȱseeȱtheseȱvaluesȱembodied,ȱ forȱexample,ȱinȱTheȱTapewormȱFoundryȱbyȱWershlerȬHenry,ȱwhoȱ fulfilsȱ anȱ apparentlyȱ impossibleȱ constraintȱ byȱ givingȱ away,ȱ withoutȱreserve,ȱeveryȱmarvellousȱideaȱthatȱheȱhasȱeverȱhadȱforȱ aȱpotentialȱbook.38ȱ ȱ TheȱMissingȱStatuteȱ Ubuwebȱ hasȱ strivenȱ toȱ interfuseȱ theȱ proceduralȱ writingȱ ofȱ EuropeansȱwithȱtheȱconceptualȱartworkȱofȱAmericans,ȱdoingȱsoȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ suggestȱ theȱ manyȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theirȱ commonȱ notionȱ ofȱ aȱ proposed,ȱ butȱ untested,ȱ constraintȱ mightȱ neverthelessȱ intersectȱ inȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ leftistȱ projectȱ seen,ȱ online,ȱ inȱ whatȱ WershlerȬHenryȱ hasȱ calledȱ theȱ “commonspace”39ȱ ofȱ anonymous,ȱautomatedȱcollaboration—theȱoverallȱouvroirȱofȱtheȱ Webȱ (whoseȱ outputȱ oftenȱ resemblesȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ “gift,”ȱ firstȱ installedȱ forȱ free,ȱ thenȱ laterȱ dispersedȱ forȱ free,ȱ withȱ noȱ userȱ gainingȱ exclusiveȱ ownershipȱ overȱ theȱ benefitsȱ fromȱ suchȱ exchange).ȱ Oulipoȱ hasȱ inȱ factȱ calledȱ itselfȱ anȱ ouvroirȱ inȱ partȱ toȱ emphasiseȱ itsȱ statusȱ asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ “communalȱ workroom,”ȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ which,ȱ inȱ French,ȱ callsȱ toȱ mindȱ theȱ charitableȱ enterpriseȱ ofȱ volunteers,ȱ whoȱ donateȱ bothȱ theirȱ energyȱ andȱ theirȱ labourȱ toȱ aȱ commonȱ motive.ȱ Ubuwebȱ hasȱ strivenȱ toȱ augmentȱ thisȱ visionȱ ofȱ proletarianȱ magnanimity,ȱ extendingȱ suchȱ aȱ leftwing,ȱ economicȱ overtureȱ intoȱ aȱ metaphorȱ forȱ communal,ȱartisticȱcreationȱonȱtheȱWebȱ(consequently,ȱaȱwriterȱ likeȱ Goldsmithȱ goesȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ makeȱ hisȱ entireȱ oeuvreȱ ȱ38ȱȱ InȱTheȱTapewormȱFoundry,ȱAndorȱtheȱDangerousȱPrevalenceȱofȱImaginationȱ(Toronto:ȱ AnansiȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱWershlerȬHenryȱdaresȱusȱtoȱenactȱeachȱofȱhisȱideas:ȱ“andorȱ stealȱitȱfromȱaȱwriterȱwhoȱisȱnotȱasȱtalentedȱasȱyouȱareȱbecauseȱyourȱaudienceȱisȱ goingȱtoȱthinkȱthatȱyourȱvictimȱisȱactuallyȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱstolenȱtheȱidea”ȱ(37),ȱ “andorȱ comeȱ upȱ withȱ aȱ moreȱ interestingȱ listȱ thanȱ thisȱ one”ȱ (39),ȱ “andorȱ don’tȱ andȱ thenȱ seeȱ ifȱ Iȱ giveȱ aȱ fuck”ȱ ([15]).ȱ Readȱ itȱ onlineȱ atȱ http://ȱ www.ubu.com/ubu/wershler_tapeworm.html.ȱ ȱ39ȱȱ Markȱ Surmanȱ andȱ Darrenȱ WershlerȬHenryȱ defineȱ “commonspace”ȱ asȱ “theȱ collective,ȱ manyȬtoȬmanyȱ worldȱ […]ȱ online”—aȱ networkedȱ community,ȱ nonȬ hierarchicalȱ andȱ nonȬprescriptive,ȱ itsȱ emergentȱ featuresȱ evolvingȱ intoȱ “theȱ epitomeȱ ofȱ […]ȱ connectedȱ diversity.”ȱ Commonspace:ȱ Beyondȱ Virtualȱ Communityȱ (Toronto:ȱFinancialȱTimes,ȱ2001)ȱ6.ȱ

192ȱ

availableȱ digitally,ȱforȱfree,ȱ soȱ thatȱ websurfersȱ everywhereȱ canȱ readilyȱ accessȱ itȱ andȱ quicklyȱ recopyȱ it,ȱ thusȱ exploitingȱ itȱ forȱ theirȱownȱcreativeȱpurposes).40ȱ Oulipoȱmayȱexaggerateȱitsȱformalism,ȱbutȱratherȱthanȱpropelȱ itsȱ “stricture”ȱ intoȱ anȱ extremismȱ thatȱ mightȱ exhaustȱ theȱ potentialȱ ofȱ allȱ “structure”ȱ (includingȱ evenȱ grammarȱ andȱ meaning),ȱ theȱ literaryȱ politicsȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ differsȱ fromȱ theȱ normȱ moreȱ inȱ degreeȱ thanȱ inȱ specie,ȱ accentuatingȱ theseȱ lawsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ interrogatingȱ them.ȱ Oulipoȱ doesȱ notȱ stressȱ enoughȱ that,ȱinȱliteratureȱ(ifȱnotȱinȱallȱideologies),ȱcontrainteȱentrenchesȱaȱ givenȱhabitȱbyȱmakingȱitȱrepeatedlyȱimperative.ȱGoldsmithȱhasȱ suggestedȱ inȱ conversationȱ thatȱ Oulipoȱ investsȱ soȱ heavilyȱ inȱ artfulȱ labourȱthatȱ theȱ groupȱ neverȱ considersȱ writingȱ accordingȱ toȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ difficult,ȱ butȱ otherwiseȱ forbidden,ȱ constraints—likeȱ beingȱ “uncreative”ȱ orȱ beingȱ “unengaging”ȱ (twoȱofȱhisȱown,ȱapparentlyȱimpossible,ȱpoeticȱvalues,ȱinȱwhichȱ oneȱ mustȱ writeȱ byȱ restrictingȱ oneselfȱ exclusivelyȱ toȱ theȱ repetitionȱofȱbothȱtheȱalreadyȱsaidȱandȱtheȱtotallyȱdull,ȱdoingȱsoȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ stillȱ createsȱ surpriseȱ andȱ engagesȱ interest).41ȱ Ifȱ Oulipoȱ failsȱ onȱ rareȱ daysȱ toȱ impressȱ us,ȱ perhapsȱ itȱ doesȱ soȱ becauseȱ itȱ ignoresȱ aȱ subsidiaryȱ constraintȱ thatȱ mightȱ haveȱ otherwiseȱ augmentedȱ itsȱ merits—andȱ ifȱ Oulipoȱ appearsȱ apolitical,ȱ perhapsȱ itȱ isȱ soȱ becauseȱ itȱ hasȱ yetȱ toȱ includeȱ inȱ itsȱ pataphysicalȱ constitutionȱ aȱ missingȱ statute,ȱ oneȱ requiringȱ thatȱ everyȱconstraintȱacknowledgeȱitsȱpoliticalȱpotential.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ40ȱȱ Kennethȱ Goldsmithȱ hasȱ postedȱ hisȱ outputȱ atȱ http://epc.buffalo.edu/ȱ authors/goldsmith/.ȱ ȱ41ȱȱ Inȱ“UncreativityȱasȱaȱCreativeȱPractice,”ȱGoldsmithȱnotes:ȱ“toȱbeȱasȱuncreativeȱ inȱtheȱprocessȱasȱpossibleȱ[is]ȱoneȱofȱtheȱhardestȱconstraintsȱ[that]ȱanȱartistȱcanȱ muster.”ȱ http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/goldsmith/uncreativity.html.ȱ Likewise,ȱ inȱ “Beingȱ Boring,”ȱ Goldsmithȱ notes:ȱ “Iȱ loveȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ doingȱ somethingȱ […]ȱ excitingȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ boringȱ wayȱ possible.”ȱ http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/ȱ goldsmith/goldsmith_boring.html.ȱ

193ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

LouisȱArmandȱ ȱ

AvantȬGardeȱMachines,ȱExperimentalȱ Systemsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ surprising,ȱ givenȱ theȱ historicalȱ genealogyȱ ofȱ avantȬ gardeȱ practice,ȱ thatȱ mechanisationȱ andȱ machineȱ metaphorsȱ shouldȱfigureȱsoȱlargelyȱinȱtheȱliteraryȱandȱplasticȱartsȱofȱtheȱlastȱ centuryȬandȬaȬhalf.ȱ Moreȱ thanȱ aȱ mereȱ technologicalȱ symptom,ȱ mechanisationȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱsignalȱaȱconditionȱatȱtheȱveryȱcoreȱofȱ culturalȱexperienceȱandȱculturalȱproduction;ȱindeed,ȱitȱhasȱcomeȱ toȱ frameȱ aȱ conditionȱ notȱ onlyȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ cultureȱ butȱ ofȱ discursiveȱ structuresȱ generally.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “theȱ machine”ȱ isȱ lessȱ anȱ historicallyȬdeterminedȱ one,ȱ thanȱ oneȱ thatȱ hasȱ beenȱ temporalisedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ “crisis”ȱ inȱ thoseȱ broadlyȱ rationalistȱ doctrinesȱ underwritingȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ discourseȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ sciences.ȱ Notwithstandingȱ aȱ certainȱ technologicalȱmetaphysicsȱthatȱhasȱfromȱtimeȱtoȱtimeȱtakenȱholdȱ inȱ westernȱ thought,ȱ thisȱ machinicȱ conceptionȱ drawsȱ ourȱ attentionȱtoȱtheȱradicalȱmaterialityȱofȱsignȱoperationsȱandȱhenceȱ toȱ aȱ generalȱ structuralȱ situationȱ uponȱ whichȱ suchȱ thingsȱ asȱ consciousness,ȱ representationȱ andȱ meaningȱ areȱ ultimatelyȱ predicated.ȱȱ ȱ 1ȱ ȱ Theȱ “modern”ȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ machineȱ issuesȱ fromȱ theȱ Industrialȱ Revolution—itselfȱ aȱ termȱ forȱ aȱ disparateȱ andȱ 194ȱ

uncoordinatedȱ tendencyȱ towardsȱ massȱ mechanisation,ȱ prefiguredȱ byȱ theȱ Renaissance,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ realisedȱ inȱ practiceȱ fromȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱ onwards—andȱ thisȱ conceptionȱ isȱ thusȱalsoȱtiedȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱscientificȱ discourse,ȱ oneȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ speculativeȱ orȱ theoreticalȱ dispositionȱ isȱ increasinglyȱ linkedȱ toȱ experimentalȱ andȱ technologicalȱ verificationȱ (orȱ whatȱ Karlȱ Popperȱ hasȱ calledȱ “falsifiability”ȱ asȱ theȱ criterionȱ ofȱ empiricalȱ statementsȱ inȱ science).1ȱThisȱtrendȱisȱparticularlyȱevident,ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱtheȱ genealogyȱ ofȱ ideasȱ andȱ practicesȱ linkingȱ theȱ earlyȱ timeȬandȬ motionȱ studiesȱ ofȱ Étienneȱ Julesȱ Marey,ȱ Frederickȱ Taylor,ȱ andȱ Lillianȱ andȱ Frankȱ Gilbreth,ȱ toȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ mechanisedȱ productionȱ andȱ Ford’sȱ automatedȱ assemblyȬline.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ genealogyȱ thatȱ drawsȱ togetherȱ theȱ selfȬregulatingȱ freeȱ marketȱ ideologyȱ ofȱ Adamȱ Smithȱ andȱ theȱ regulatedȱ efficienciesȱ andȱ divisionȱ ofȱ labourȱ thatȱ characteriseȱ Taylorism,ȱ thusȱ givingȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ variousȱ “contradictorilyȱ coherent”ȱ mechanismsȱ andȱ structuralȱ “crises”ȱ ofȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ globalȱ economy.ȱ However,ȱ mechanisationȱ acquiresȱ aȱ globalȱ significanceȱ inȱ anotherȱ senseȱ duringȱ theȱ latterȱ stagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Industrialȱ Revolution—inȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ discursiveȱ structures,ȱ recursionȱ andȱ complexȱ relationsȱ ofȱ environmentalȱ causality,ȱ thatȱideasȱofȱmechanisationȱcomeȱtoȱpredominateȱinȱtheȱworkȱofȱ keyȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ thinkersȱ likeȱ Charlesȱ Darwin,ȱ Karlȱ Marx,ȱ andȱ C.S.ȱ Pierce.ȱ (Inȱ theȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ thisȱ increasinglyȱ global,ȱ discursiveȱ viewȱ hasȱ beenȱ mostȱ widelyȱ representedȱinȱtheȱworkȱofȱNorbertȱWiener,ȱBuckminsterȱFuller,ȱ MarshallȱMcLuhanȱandȱmoreȱrecentlyȱBernardȱStiegler.)ȱȱ Initially,ȱ industrialȬeraȱ machinesȱ wereȱ regardedȱ asȱ entirelyȱ predictive—asȱ mindlessȱ prosthesesȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ willȬtoȬ progress—theirȱoperationsȱdeterminedȱaccordingȱtoȱaȱstrictȱsetȱ ofȱ protocols.ȱ Yetȱ alreadyȱ inȱ theȱ 1830sȱ Charlesȱ Babbage—inȱ hisȱ studyȱ Onȱ theȱ Economyȱ ofȱ Machineryȱ andȱ Manufacture—hadȱ recognisedȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ programmableȱ mechanicalȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Karlȱ Popper,ȱ “Science,ȱ PseudoȬScience,ȱ andȱ Falsifiability,”ȱ Conjecturesȱ andȱ Refutationsȱ(London:ȱRoutledgeȱ&ȱKeganȱPaul,ȱ1978ȱ[1962])ȱ33Ȭ39.ȱ

195ȱ

proceduresȱ mightȱ giveȱ riseȱ toȱ recursiveȱ structuresȱ capableȱ ofȱ what,ȱ inȱ cybernetics,ȱ isȱ calledȱ autoȬpoiesis.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ ofȱ selfȬprogramming,ȱ learningȱ machines,ȱ orȱ soȬcalledȱ “artificialȱ intelligence.”ȱ Thisȱ inȱ turnȱ calledȱ intoȱ questionȱ suchȱ receivedȱ philosophicalȱ pietiesȱ asȱ theȱ natureȬtechnicsȱ dichotomy,ȱ orȱ theȱ separationȱ ofȱ mindȱ fromȱ matter,ȱ andȱ consequentlyȱ exposedȱ aȱ needȱ toȱaccommodateȱ effectsȱ ofȱ unpredictabilityȱ inȱmechanicalȱ andȱcomputingȱsystems,ȱandȱindeedȱinȱtheȱunderstandingȱofȱallȱ dynamicȱ systems,ȱ thusȱ transformingȱ aȱ dominantȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century—systematicity—fromȱ oneȱ ofȱ totalisationȱ toȱ oneȱofȱradicalȱindeterminacy.ȱȱ Thisȱ moveȱ awayȱ fromȱ positivismȱ andȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ machineȱ asȱ aȱ prosthesisȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ idea,ȱ towardsȱ aȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ aȱ generalȱ mechanisticsȱ underwritingȱ material,ȱ discursiveȱ systems—fromȱ machineȱ metaphorȱ toȱ semioticȱ mechanism—likewiseȱ impliesȱ aȱ transformationȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ meantȱbyȱtermsȱlikeȱmechanism,ȱmechanisticsȱandȱmachine,ȱasȱ noȱlongerȱsignallingȱaȱtypeȱofȱindustrialȬeraȱ“contraption,”ȱbutȱ rather—asȱ Peirceȱ suggests—anyȱ binaryȱ relationȱ mediatedȱ byȱ aȱ thirdȱ element.2ȱ Orȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ aȱ proȬ gramm¾,ȱ asȱ theȱ underwritingȱ conditionȱ forȱ anyȱ conceptȱ ofȱ agency,ȱoperation,ȱorȱeventȬstateȱofȱsemiosis.ȱ(Importantly,ȱthisȱ transformationȱ hasȱ alsoȱ comeȱ toȱ effectȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ conceiveȱlanguageȱandȱsignȱsystemsȱgenerally,ȱsuchȱthatȱtodayȱ weȱ canȱ speakȱ ofȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ semiosisȱ asȱ arisingȱ inȱ anyȱ dynamicȱ systemȱ whatsoever—inȱ aȱ stateȱ thatȱ wouldȱ formerlyȱ haveȱ beenȱ bracketedȬoffȱ fromȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ signifiabilityȱ asȱ aȱ stateȱofȱbaseȱmaterialityȱorȱ“mindlessȱmechanistics.”)ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ discursiveȱ aspectȱ ofȱ mechanisation— andȱofȱtechnologyȱperȱse—beginsȱtoȱrevealȱitselfȱasȱbeingȱotherȱ thanȱ theȱ locusȱ ofȱ aȱ continuousȱ historicalȱ progress,ȱ andȱ insteadȱ asȱ anȱ “agent”ȱ ofȱ discontinuityȱ andȱ anachronism.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ orientationȱ towardsȱ aȱ certainȱ futurityȱ vestedȱ inȱ theȱ

ȱ 2ȱȱ Charlesȱ Sandersȱ Peirce,ȱ “Logicȱ asȱ Semiotic:ȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ Signs,”ȱ Philosophicalȱ Writings,ȱed.ȱJustusȱBuchlerȱ(NewȱYork:ȱDover,ȱ1955)ȱ99Ȭ100.ȱ

196ȱ

technologicalȱ object,3ȱ semioȬmechanisationȱ articulatesȱ aȱ perpetualȱ movementȱ ofȱ supercession;ȱ aȱ breachȱ inȱ theȱ “teleologicalȱhypothesis”4ȱofȱhistoricalȱdiscourseȱthatȱhenceforthȱ describesȱ aȱ repetitionȱ automatism,ȱ asȱ Freudȱ says,ȱ whereinȱ theȱ historicalȱ relationȱ isȱ constantlyȱ refiguredȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ ambivalence.5ȱ Thisȱ ambivalenceȱ isȱ firstlyȱ experiencedȱ asȱ aȱ disjointednessȱinȱtheȱ“timeȱofȱproduction,”ȱasȱaȱfiguringȱofȱtheȱ presentȱasȱanachrony:ȱtheȱconstantȱdeferralȱofȱtheȱtoȬcomeȱwhichȱ mirrorsȱ theȱ deferralȱ ofȱgratificationȱandȱ theȱ alienationȬeffectȱ ofȱ commodification,ȱ asȱ describedȱ byȱ Marx.ȱ Moreover,ȱ thisȱ movementȱ ofȱ deferralȱ isȱ perpetuatedȱ asȱ aȱ condition,ȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ departureȱ fromȱ theȱ normȱ orȱ asȱ aȱ perversionȱ ofȱ aȱ teleologicalȱ (endsȬmeans)ȱ systemȱ ofȱ productionȬconsumption.ȱ Withȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ industrialȱ “modernity,”ȱ historicalȱ periodisationȱ thusȱ cedesȱtoȱaȱmachinicȱperiodicity;ȱjustȱasȱinȱNietzscheȱtheȱhistoryȱ conceptȱcedesȱtoȱaȱmodeȱofȱeternalȱrecurrence.ȱ ThisȱcounterȬhistoricalȱmovementȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱasȱoneȱofȱ theȱ definingȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ whatȱ hasȱ beenȱ calledȱ theȱ avantȬ garde,ȱ whoseȱ claimȱ toȱ beingȱ somehowȱ beforeȱ itsȱ timeȱ tiesȱ it,ȱ inȱ oftenȱ unanticipatedȱ ways,ȱ toȱ anȱ inherentȱ “anachronism”ȱ ofȱ politicalȬeconomyȱ andȱ theȱ experimentalȱ sciences.ȱ Moreover,ȱ thisȱ movementȱ accomplishesȱ itselfȱ inȱ aȱ twoȬfoldȱ way,ȱ sinceȱ itsȱ orientationȱ towardsȱ theȱ unrealisedȱ andȱ theȱ “unpresentable”ȱ atȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ receivedȱ knowledgeȱ isȱ alwaysȱ accompaniedȱ byȱ aȱ dependencyȱ uponȱ previousȱ formsȱ ofȱ representationȱ andȱ conceptualisationȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ formulate,ȱ precisely,ȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ whatȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ inȱ factȱ are,ȱ andȱ whatȱ theȱ “unpresentable”ȱmightȱbe.6ȱJohnȱDeweyȱarguesȱthisȱinȱhisȱ1958ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Which,ȱlikeȱtheȱ machine,ȱisȱnotȱ aȱthingȱasȱsuchȱbutȱratherȱaȱ“figure”ȱorȱ“trope”ȱ (inȱthisȱcaseȱofȱtheȱalwaysȱtoȱcome,ȱtheȱideallyȱunrealisedȱendȱofȱproduction).ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ SamuelȱBeckett,ȱProustȱ(NewȱYork:ȱGroveȱPress,ȱ1931)ȱ71.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Sigmundȱ Freud,ȱ Beyondȱ theȱ Pleasureȱ Principle,ȱ trans.ȱ C.J.M.ȱ Hubbackȱ (London:ȱTheȱHogarthȱPress,ȱ1922).ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ ThisȱtwoȬfoldȱmovementȱcanȱotherwiseȱbeȱcharacterisedȱasȱaȱrecursion,ȱorȱwhatȱ cyberneticistsȱdescribeȱasȱaȱfeedbackȱloop.ȱTheȱsenseȱofȱtheȱprepositionȱavantȱisȱ thusȱalwaysȱqualifiedȱbyȱtheȱnecessaryȱconservatismȱofȱtheȱverbȱgarder,ȱtoȱkeep:ȱ itȱremainsȱconditional,ȱtentative,ȱanȱattemptȱatȱdefiningȱlimits—soȱthatȱtheȱtermȱ

197ȱ

bookȱ Experienceȱ andȱ Nature,ȱ linkingȱ theȱ anachronismȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ dependencyȱ toȱ theȱ constructivismȱ ofȱ “deviatingȱ fromȱaȱnorm.”ȱȱ “Inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ man,”ȱ Deweyȱ writes,ȱ “theȱ individualȱ characteristicsȱ ofȱ mindȱ wereȱ regardedȱ asȱ deviationsȱ fromȱ theȱ normal,ȱ andȱ asȱ dangersȱ againstȱ whichȱ societyȱ hadȱ toȱ protectȱ itself.ȱ Henceȱ theȱ longȱ ruleȱ ofȱ custom,ȱ theȱ rigidȱ conservatism,ȱ andȱ theȱ stillȱ existingȱ regimeȱ ofȱ conformityȱ andȱ intellectualȱ standardisation.”ȱ Asȱ aȱ consequence,ȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ modernȱ science—orȱ ofȱ modernityȱ perȱ se—beganȱ onlyȱ whenȱ “thereȱ wasȱ recognisedȱ inȱ certainȱ technicalȱ fieldsȱ aȱ powerȱ toȱ utiliseȱ variationsȱ asȱ theȱ startingȱ pointsȱ ofȱ newȱ observations,ȱ hypothesesȱandȱexperiments.ȱTheȱgrowthȱofȱtheȱexperimentalȱasȱ distinctȱfromȱtheȱdogmaticȱhabitȱofȱmindȱisȱdueȱtoȱtheȱincreasedȱ abilityȱ toȱ utiliseȱ variationsȱ forȱ constructiveȱ endsȱ insteadȱ ofȱ suppressingȱthem.”7ȱ Henriȱ Lefebvreȱ hasȱ attemptedȱ toȱ locateȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ thisȱtwoȬfoldȱstatusȱofȱanachronyȱandȱunpresentability—andȱofȱ theȱ experimentalȱ andȱ theȱ constructive—inȱ termsȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ theȱ antithesisȱ ofȱ “modernism”ȱ andȱ “modernity,”ȱ asȱ contraryȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ avantȬgardeȱ moment.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Lefebvre,ȱ modernismȱ designatesȱ “theȱ consciousnessȱ whichȱ successiveȱ ages,ȱ periodsȱ andȱ generationsȱ hadȱ ofȱ themselves;ȱ thusȱ modernismȱ consistsȱ ofȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ consciousness,ȱ ofȱ triumphalistȱ imagesȱ andȱ projectionsȱ ofȱ self.”ȱ Whileȱmodernity,ȱisȱunderstoodȱasȱ“theȱbeginningsȱofȱaȱreflectiveȱ process,ȱ aȱ moreȬorȬlessȱ advancedȱ attemptȱ atȱ critiqueȱ andȱ autocritique,ȱ aȱ bidȱ forȱ knowledge.ȱ Weȱ contactȱ itȱ inȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ textsȱ andȱ documentsȱ whichȱ bearȱ theȱ markȱ ofȱ theirȱ eraȱ andȱ yetȱ goȱ beyondȱ theȱ provocationȱ ofȱ fashionȱ andȱ theȱ stimulationȱ ofȱ novelty.ȱ Modernityȱ differsȱ fromȱ modernismȱ justȱ asȱ aȱ conceptȱ whichȱ isȱ beingȱ formulatedȱ inȱ societyȱ differsȱ fromȱ socialȱ “avantȬgarde”ȱalwaysȱinvolvesȱaȱnotionȱofȱinsufficiencyȱandȱtheȱtaskȱofȱdefiningȱ theȱ veryȱ totalityȱ whoseȱ limitsȱ itȱ wouldȱ test.ȱ Asȱ Williamȱ Blakeȱ wrote,ȱ inȱ “Theȱ MarriageȱofȱHeavenȱandȱHell:ȱ“Enough,ȱorȱtooȱmuch!”ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ JohnȱDewey,ȱExperienceȱandȱNatureȱ(NewȱYork:ȱDover,ȱ1958)ȱxiv.ȱ

198ȱ

phenomenaȱ themselves,ȱ justȱ asȱ aȱ thoughtȱ differsȱ fromȱ actualȱ events.”8ȱȱ Inȱ aȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ similarȱ gesture,ȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Lyotard,ȱ locatesȱmodernityȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱcertainȱdiscursiveȱambivalenceȱ thatȱheȱdefinesȱasȱaȱpostȬeffectȱinȱadvanceȱofȱtheȱfact,ȱasȱitȱwere.ȱ Forȱ Lyotard,ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ “unpresentable”ȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ andȱ event—asȱ theȱ normativeȱ objectȱ ofȱ anȱ institutionalȱexclusionȱ(theȱlimitsȱofȱknowledge,ȱtheȱthinkableȱorȱ “historicalȱ consciousness”)—whichȱ definesȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ aspectȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ consequentlyȱ refersȱ toȱ asȱ theȱ postmodern.ȱ Inȱ Lyotard’sȱview:ȱȱ ȱ Aȱ postmodernȱ artistȱ orȱ writerȱ isȱ inȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ aȱ philosopher:ȱtheȱtextȱheȱwrites,ȱtheȱworkȱheȱproducesȱareȱnotȱinȱ principleȱgovernedȱbyȱpreȬestablishedȱrules,ȱandȱtheyȱcannotȱbeȱ judgedȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ determiningȱ judgement,ȱ byȱ applyingȱ familiarȱ categoriesȱ toȱ theȱ textȱ orȱ toȱ theȱ work.ȱ Thoseȱ rulesȱ andȱ categoriesȱ areȱ whatȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ artȱ itselfȱ isȱ lookingȱ for.ȱ Theȱ artistȱ andȱ writer,ȱ then,ȱ areȱ workingȱ withoutȱ rulesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ formulateȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ whatȱ willȱ haveȱ beenȱ done.ȱ Henceȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱtheȱworkȱandȱtextȱhaveȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱanȱevent;ȱhenceȱalso,ȱ theyȱalwaysȱcomeȱtooȱlateȱforȱtheirȱauthor,ȱor,ȱwhatȱamountsȱtoȱ theȱsameȱthing,ȱtheirȱbeingȱputȱintoȱwork,ȱtheirȱrealisationȱ(miseȱ enȱœuvre)ȱalwaysȱbeginsȱtooȱsoon.ȱPostȱmodernȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱ understoodȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ theȱ futureȱ (post)ȱ anteriorȱ(modo).9ȱ

ȱ Itȱisȱinȱthisȱparadoxȱ(ofȱfutureȬanteriority)ȱthatȱtheȱconditionȱofȱ “theȱ machine”ȱ resides—thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ asȱ aȱ modeȱ ofȱ enactmentȱ contiguousȱwithȱtheȱ“unpresentable”—andȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱ itȱ describesȱ aȱ systematicityȱ whichȱ isȱ atȱ onceȱ recursiveȱ andȱ “experimental.”ȱWeȱareȱconcernedȱhere,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱwithȱaȱ notionȱ ofȱ mechanismȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ performativity;ȱ toȱ theȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Henriȱ Lefebvre,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Modernity,ȱ trans.ȱ Johnȱ Mooreȱ (London:ȱ Verso,ȱ 1995)ȱ1Ȭ2.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Lyotard,ȱ Theȱ Postmodernȱ Condition:ȱ Aȱ Reportȱ onȱ Knowledge,ȱ trans.ȱ Geoffȱ Benningtonȱ andȱ Brianȱ Massumiȱ (Manchester:ȱ Manchesterȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1991)ȱ81.ȱ

199ȱ

performanceȱ ofȱ operations,ȱ aboveȱ allȱ signȬoperations,ȱ andȱ theȱ recursiveȱnatureȱofȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱsuchȱperformancesȱandȱ whatȱisȱcalledȱaȱ“programme.”ȱThatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱweȱareȱconcernedȱ withȱaȱlogicȱofȱrepresentationȱandȱofȱrepresentability,ȱinsofarȱasȱ theȱ experimentalȱ pointsȱ beyondȱ itselfȱ toȱ aȱ modeȱ ofȱ understandingȱthatȱisȱ“withoutȱmodel.”ȱ Hence,ȱ forȱ Lyotard,ȱ theȱ postmodernȱ “wouldȱ beȱ thatȱ which,ȱ inȱtheȱmodern,ȱputsȱforwardȱtheȱunpresentableȱinȱpresentationȱ itself;ȱ thatȱ whichȱ deniesȱ itselfȱ theȱ solaceȱ ofȱ goodȱ forms,ȱ theȱ consensusȱ ofȱ tasteȱ whichȱ wouldȱ makeȱ itȱ possibleȱ toȱ shareȱ collectivelyȱ theȱ nostalgiaȱ forȱ theȱ unattainable;ȱ thatȱ whichȱ searchesȱforȱnewȱpresentations,ȱnotȱinȱorderȱtoȱenjoyȱthemȱbutȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ impartȱ aȱ strongerȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ unpresentable.”10ȱ Inȱ thisȱ way,ȱ “aȱ workȱ canȱ onlyȱ becomeȱ modernȱ ifȱ itȱ isȱ firstȱ postȱ modern.ȱ Postmodernismȱ thusȱunderstoodȱ isȱ notȱ modernismȱ atȱ itsȱendȱbutȱinȱtheȱnascentȱstate,ȱandȱthisȱstateȱisȱconstant.”11ȱThisȱ isȱ whatȱ Lefebvreȱ describes,ȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ reificationsȱ andȱ mechanicalȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ constantȱ “nascentȱ state,”ȱ asȱ theȱ “ideaȱ ofȱ cyclicalȱ regularityȱ ofȱ change,ȱ andȱ ofȱ changeȱ asȱ aȱ norm.”12ȱȱ ȱ 2ȱ ȱ Inȱ aȱ lectureȱ deliveredȱ inȱ Turinȱ inȱ Novemberȱ 1967,ȱ entitledȱ “Cyberneticsȱ andȱ Ghosts,”ȱ Italoȱ Calvinoȱ arguedȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ primarilyȱ throughȱ stochasticȱ andȱ recursiveȱ processesȱ ofȱ anticipation,ȱ ruptureȱ andȱ reintegration,ȱ thatȱ previouslyȱ unapparentȱ formsȱ areȱ arrivedȱ atȱ andȱ consequentlyȱ acquireȱ aȱ normativeȱ status;ȱ thatȱ newȱ combinationsȱ ofȱ elementsȱ areȱ obtained,ȱ asȱ Calvinoȱ says,ȱ “throughȱ theȱ combinatorialȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ81.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ79.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Lefebvre,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Modernity,ȱ 168.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ thatȱ arisesȱ hereȱ isȱ notȱ whichȱ ofȱ Lyotard’sȱ orȱ Lefebvre’sȱ terminologiesȱ areȱ mostȱ appropriateȱ toȱ theȱ circumstances,ȱbutȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheirȱargumentsȱofferȱsomeȱsortȱofȱmeansȱofȱ accountingȱ forȱ theȱ apparentȱ impasseȱ inȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ andȱ itsȱ paradigmȱofȱtheȱmachine.ȱ

200ȱ

mechanismȱ itself,ȱ independentlyȱ ofȱ anyȱ searchȱ forȱ meaningȱ orȱ effectȱ onȱ anyȱ otherȱ level.”ȱ Inȱ placeȱ ofȱ aȱ continuousȱ linearȱ progression,ȱ theȱ “futureȬanteriority”ȱ ofȱ experimentationȱ functionsȱ byȱ discontinuity,ȱ readjustment,ȱ andȱ contingencyȱ withinȱ whatȱ areȱ neverthelessȱ definableȱ asȱ “proceduralȱ constraints”ȱ orȱ structuralȱ norms—whetherȱ orȱ notȱ theseȱ areȱ recognised,ȱ asȱ Lyotardȱ says,ȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ “preȬestablishedȱ rules,”ȱ orȱ methodsȱ ofȱ predictionȱ andȱ production,ȱ orȱ areȱ onlyȱ recognisedȱ andȱ recognisableȱ afterȱ theȱ fact.ȱ Onceȱ normalised,ȱ however,ȱsuchȱcontingenciesȱthenȱbecomeȱ“charged,”ȱaccordingȱ toȱCalvino,ȱ“withȱanȱunexpectedȱmeaningȱorȱunforeseenȱeffectsȱ whichȱ theȱ consciousȱ mindȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ arrivedȱ atȱ deliberately:ȱ anȱ unconsciousȱ meaningȱ inȱ fact,ȱ orȱ atȱ leastȱ theȱ premonitionȱ ofȱ anȱ unconsciousȱ meaning.”13ȱ Suchȱ outcomesȱ defineȱ whatȱ Deweyȱ termedȱ theȱ “constructiveȱ ends”ȱ ofȱ experimentation,ȱ whoseȱ contingenciesȱ neverthelessȱ defineȱ aȱ limitȬeffectȱ ofȱ ambivalenceȱ inȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ knowledge,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ andȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ ego—asȱ Jacquesȱ Lacanȱ says—isȱ accordedȱtheȱstatusȱofȱsomethingȱlikeȱaȱmechanism,ȱratherȱthanȱ thatȱofȱanȱinauguratingȱintentionalityȱorȱ“will.”ȱ Inȱ relatingȱ theȱ experimentalȱ toȱ theȱ experientialȱ aspectȱ ofȱ “consciousness”—orȱtheȱ“imaginaryȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱego”ȱasȱtheȱ outwardȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ unconsciousȱ agency—Lacanȱ identifiesȱ inȱ theȱ “paradoxicalȱ expressionȱ thinkingȱ machine”ȱ theȱ coȬ implicationȱofȱstructuralȱcontingencyȱandȱstructuralȱnecessityȱinȱ definingȱ soȬcalledȱ actsȱ ofȱ language.ȱ “Theȱ paradoxȱ ofȱ consciousness,”ȱ Lacanȱ argues,ȱ isȱ thatȱ “itȱ bothȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ there,ȱ andȱ notȱ beȱ there.”14ȱ Thisȱ paradoxȱ reappearsȱ elsewhere,ȱ inȱ aȱ moreȱinsistentȱform,ȱinȱtheȱdiscourseȱsurroundingȱtheȱquestionȱ ofȱmodernityȱinȱphilosophyȱandȱtheȱarts,ȱaboveȱallȱwithȱregardȱ

ȱ13ȱȱ Italoȱ Calvino,ȱ “Cyberneticsȱ andȱ Ghosts,”ȱ Theȱ Literatureȱ Machine,ȱ trans.ȱ Patrickȱ Creaghȱ(London:ȱSeckerȱandȱWarburg,ȱ1987)ȱ21Ȭ2.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ JacquesȱLacan,ȱ“FromȱtheȱEntwurfȱtoȱtheȱTraumdeutung,”ȱTheȱSeminarȱofȱJacquesȱ Lacan.ȱ Bookȱ II:ȱ Theȱ Egoȱ inȱ Freud‘sȱ Theoryȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ Techniqueȱ ofȱ Psychoanalysisȱ 1954Ȭ1955,ȱtrans.ȱS.ȱTomaselliȱ(London:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1988)ȱ117Ȭ 120.ȱ

201ȱ

toȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ languageȱ inȱ itsȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ “real.”ȱ Stillȱ inȱ Februaryȱ 1955,ȱ Lacanȱ wasȱ ableȱ toȱ write:ȱ “Theȱ bigȱ questionȱ forȱ theȱhumanȱsciencesȱnowȱis—whatȱisȱlanguage?”15ȱȱ Confrontedȱ withȱ anȱ increasingȱ numberȱ ofȱ ellipsesȱ inȱ theȱ predictionsȱofȱscientificȱmethodȱ(underȱtheȱfadingȱconstellationȱ ofȱCartesianism),ȱandȱwithȱtheȱconsequentȱproblemȱofȱtheȱstatusȱ ofȱ languageȱ inȱ conditioningȱ andȱ constitutingȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱknowable,ȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱwritersȱinȱtheȱlateȱnineteenthȱandȱ earlyȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ beganȱ toȱ askȱ aboutȱ theȱ definitionalȱ characterȱ ofȱ reality,ȱ andȱ theȱ emergingȱ suppositionȱ thatȱ “behind”ȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ realȱ thereȱ isȱ onlyȱ discourse.ȱ Asȱ Samuelȱ Beckettȱ remarkedȱ inȱ hisȱ 1931ȱ studyȱ ofȱ Proust:ȱ “theȱ transcendentalȱ apperceptionȱ thatȱ canȱ captureȱ theȱ Model,ȱ theȱ Idea,ȱtheȱThingȱinȱitself,”ȱfailedȱtoȱmaterialiseȱunderȱscrutiny.16ȱ Takenȱ beyondȱ theȱ literaryȱ andȱ philosophicalȱ domains,ȱ thisȱ problemȱ likewiseȱ investedȱ theȱ physicalȱ sciences,ȱ whichȱ discoveredȱ aȱ needȱ toȱ account,ȱ amongȱ otherȱ things,ȱ forȱ itsȱ disturbancesȱ ofȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ scientificȱ observation.ȱ Nielsȱ Bohrȱ andȱ Wernerȱ Heisenberg’sȱ principleȱ ofȱ indeterminacyȱ isȱ theȱ wellȬknownȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ development.ȱ Butȱ asȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ theȱ increasinglyȱ recognisedȱ materialityȱ ofȱ discourseȱ cameȱ toȱ effectȱ scientificȱ methodȱ andȱ experimentationȱ(withȱitsȱinitialȱdependencyȱuponȱmodelsȱofȱtheȱ real),ȱmoreȱbroadlyȱsemioticȱquestionsȱalsoȱbeganȱtoȱarise.ȱWhat,ȱ forȱexample,ȱisȱitȱthatȱweȱmeanȱwhenȱweȱspeakȱofȱreality?ȱAnd,ȱ indeed,ȱ whatȱ doesȱ itȱ meanȱ whenȱ weȱ speakȱ ofȱ language?ȱ orȱ theȱ realityȱ ofȱ language?ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ confrontedȱ withȱ theȱ incompatabilityȱofȱconsciousness,ȱasȱdefinedȱbyȱLacan,ȱandȱtheȱ observerȱ paradoxesȱ ofȱ quantumȱ mechanics,ȱ howȱ couldȱ theȱ soȬ calledȱobjectȱofȱlanguageȱitselfȱbeȱanythingȱbutȱ“experimental,”ȱ unpresentableȱorȱotherwiseȱindeterminate?ȱ Whileȱ languageȱ thusȱ appeared,ȱ onȱ oneȱ level,ȱ toȱ assumeȱ anȱ increasinglyȱabstractȱorȱ“theoretical”ȱaspect,ȱonȱanotherȱlevelȱitsȱ radicalȱmaterialityȱnecessarilyȱcameȱmoreȱintoȱfocus.ȱTheseȱtwoȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Lacan,ȱ“FromȱtheȱEntwurfȱtoȱtheȱTraumdeutung,”ȱ119.ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Beckett,ȱProust,ȱ69.ȱ

202ȱ

characteristics—abstractionȱ andȱ materiality—emergeȱ atȱ thisȱ pointȱasȱdefiningȱaȱstateȱofȱcomplementary:ȱtheȱfirstȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱ speculativityȱ ofȱ significationȱ (visȬàȬvisȱ Saussureanȱ semiology),ȱ theȱ secondȱ toȱ itsȱ inherentlyȱ “procedural”ȱ functionȱ (visȬàȬvisȱ LéviȬStrauss’sȱ structuralȱ anthropologyȱ andȱ Claudeȱ Shannon’sȱ mathematicalȱtheoriesȱofȱcommunication).ȱItȱisȱinȱthisȱsense,ȱforȱ example,ȱ thatȱ languageȱ revealsȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ “system”ȱ ofȱ mechanicalȱ (eventȬstate)ȱ transformations,ȱ iterationsȱ andȱ reversions;ȱasȱaȱtypeȱofȱmachine,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱmadeȱnotȱofȱanȱ enumerationȱofȱsymbols,ȱbutȱofȱaȱtopologyȱofȱsymbolicȱrelationsȱ orȱ “signȱ operations.”ȱ Moreover,ȱ inȱ placeȱ ofȱ anyȱ deterministicȱ ego,ȱ agencyȱ orȱ deusȱ exȱ machina,ȱ theȱ termȱ “operation”ȱ here— throughȱ itsȱ allusionȱ toȱ somethingȱ likeȱ anȱ operator—comesȱ toȱ designateȱ insteadȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ anȱ algorithmȱ orȱ “rule,”ȱ whichȱ automaticallyȱ (andȱ arbitrarily)ȱ coȬordinatesȱ aȱ givenȱ functionȱ withȱ someȱ otherȱ function:ȱ forȱ example,ȱ metaphor,ȱ metonymy,ȱ orȱ anyȱ analogousȱ translational,ȱ “totemic,”ȱ orȱ “codingȬdecoding”ȱ process.ȱ Thisȱ impliesȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ aȱ mechanismȱ ofȱ generalisedȱ equivalenceȱ acrossȱ contiguity—notȱ onlyȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ tropicȱ orȱ “ruleȬorientated”ȱ operations,ȱ butȱ toȱtheȱstatusȱofȱanyȱassumedȱrelationȱbetween,ȱsay,ȱsignificationȱ andȱmateriality.ȱȱ Whatȱ weȱ meanȱ byȱ “rule,”ȱ inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ hasȱ aȱ purelyȱ definitionalȱ character.ȱ Itsȱ operativeȱ principleȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ ambivalenceȱ asȱ such—andȱ ofȱ ambivalenceȱ asȱ aȱ “causalȱ agent”ȱ ofȱsignification.ȱItȱthusȱalsoȱmarksȱaȱtransitionȱinȱthinkingȱaboutȱ language,ȱfromȱdeterministicȱlawsȱtoȱprobabilisticȱones,ȱorȱfromȱ anȱ epistemologicalȱ orȱ paradigmaticȱ statusȱ ofȱ meaningȱ toȱ aȱ contingent,ȱdefinitionalȱandȱaboveȱallȱcomplementaryȱstatus.ȱItȱisȱ not—inȱeffect—aȱmatterȱofȱmediatingȱbetweenȱstatesȱorȱchangesȱ ofȱ stateȱ (i.e.ȱ betweenȱ significationȱ andȱ materiality),ȱ butȱ ofȱ constitutingȱanȱeventȬstateȱofȱcomplementarity:ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱ speakingȱaboutȱtheȱmaterialityȱofȱsignification—whereinȱneitherȱ ofȱtheseȱtermsȱmayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱassumeȱanȱautonomous,ȱdiscreteȱ orȱobjectiveȱstatus.ȱConsequently,ȱthisȱ“rule”—arbitrating,ȱasȱitȱ were,ȱ betweenȱ twoȱ modalitiesȱ ofȱ causation,ȱ orȱ whatȱ Peirceȱ 203ȱ

elsewhereȱtermsȱ“theȱlawȱofȱmind”17—representsȱaȱfundamentalȱ “equivalenceȱacrossȱcontiguity”;ȱaȱresistanceȱandȱaȱtransference;ȱ orȱwhatȱGastonȱBachelardȱrefersȱtoȱbothȱasȱanȱ“epistemologicalȱ obstacle”ȱ andȱ asȱ anȱ “epistemologicalȱ rupture.”ȱ Inȱ doingȱ soȱ itȱ revealsȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ contradictionȱ inȱ theȱ logicȱ andȱ structureȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ “laws”ȱ ofȱ reason,ȱ evenȱ whenȱ theyȱ areȱ accommodatedȱ toȱ whatȱ Bachelardȱ refersȱ toȱ asȱ “theȱ notionȱ ofȱ epistemologicalȱ discontinuityȱ inȱ scientificȱ progress.”18ȱ Thisȱ interpolationȱofȱtheȱarbitraryȱwithinȱtheȱtotalisingȱmovementȱofȱ reasonȱ asȱ law—being,ȱ onȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ level,ȱ theȱ veryȱ articulationȱ ofȱ law19—doesȱ notȱ representȱ aȱ perversionȱ orȱ deviation,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ aȱ logicalȱ orȱ structuralȱ inherence:ȱ forȱ example,ȱ betweenȱ theȱ letterȱ ofȱ theȱ lawȱ (“lex”)ȱ andȱ theȱ truthȬ statusȱofȱitsȱlogos,ȱtheȱwordȱitselfȱ(“lexis”);ȱwhatȱweȱmightȱinȱfactȱ callȱaȱperturbationȱatȱtheȱoriginȱofȱanyȱsignifyingȱsystem.ȱȱ Suchȱ aȱ perturbation,ȱ asȱ Lacanȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ sublimatedȱinȱtheȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱlawȱofȱreasonȱinȱtheȱguise— forȱ example—ofȱ justice,ȱwhoseȱ arbitrationsȱrepresentȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ parenthesisȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ referentȱ ofȱ theȱ lawȱ (suchȱ asȱ theȱ transcendenceȱofȱ“theȱgood”)ȱpassesȱbeyondȱreachȱandȱmustȱbeȱ approachedȱ byȱ wayȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ detour.ȱ Byȱ detourȱ weȱ wouldȱ alsoȱmean,ȱbyȱmetaphorȱorȱmetonymy;ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱbyȱwayȱ ofȱ aȱ “rule”ȱ ofȱ discourseȱ orȱ discursus.ȱ Toȱ illustrateȱ thisȱ formulation,ȱLacanȱmakesȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱpassageȱfromȱTheȱStoryȱ ofȱJustine,ȱbyȱtheȱMarquisȱdeȱSade.ȱ“Tyrants,”ȱSadeȱwrites,ȱȱ ȱ areȱneverȱbornȱoutȱofȱanarchy.ȱOneȱonlyȱeverȱseesȱthemȱriseȱupȱ inȱ theȱ shadowȱ ofȱ laws;ȱ theyȱ deriveȱ theirȱ authorityȱ fromȱ laws.ȱ Theȱreignȱofȱlawȱis,ȱtherefore,ȱevil;ȱitȱisȱinferiorȱtoȱanarchy.ȱTheȱ greatestȱ proofȱ ofȱ thisȱ positionȱ isȱ theȱ obligationȱ ofȱ anyȱ governmentȱtoȱplungeȱbackȱintoȱanarchyȱwheneverȱitȱwantsȱtoȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Peirce,ȱ“TheȱLawȱofȱMind,”ȱPhilosophicalȱWritings,ȱ339ff.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Gastonȱ Bachelard,ȱ Leȱ Matérialismeȱ rationnelȱ (Paris:ȱ Pressesȱ Universitairesȱ deȱ France,ȱ1953);ȱcitedȱinȱGeorgesȱCanguilhem,ȱAȱVitalȱRationalist:ȱSelectedȱWritings,ȱ ed,ȱFrançoisȱDelaporte,ȱtrans.ȱArthurȱGoldhammerȱ(NewȱYork:ȱZone,ȱ1994)ȱ32.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Whetherȱ itȱ beȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ aȱ prioriȱ asȱ such,ȱ theȱ givenȱ ofȱ meaning,ȱ theȱ actsȱ ofȱ significationȱ(i.e.ȱasȱformallyȱdeterminedȱandȱmimetic).ȱ

204ȱ

remakeȱitsȱconstitution.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱabrogateȱitsȱancientȱlaws,ȱitȱ isȱobligedȱtoȱestablishȱaȱrevolutionaryȱregimeȱinȱwhichȱthereȱareȱ noȱ laws.ȱ Underȱ thisȱ regimeȱ newȱ lawsȱ areȱ eventuallyȱ born,ȱ butȱ theȱ secondȱ isȱ lessȱ pureȱ thanȱ theȱ firstȱ sinceȱ itȱ derivesȱ fromȱ it,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ firstȱ good,ȱ anarchy,ȱ hadȱ toȱ occur,ȱ ifȱ oneȱ wantedȱ toȱ achieveȱtheȱsecondȱgood,ȱtheȱState’sȱconstitution.20ȱ

ȱ InȱSade,ȱtheȱdreamȱofȱrationalismȱisȱworkedȱoutȱinȱextremis,ȱitsȱ mechanisticȱuniverseȱarticulatingȱanȱinescapableȱlogicȱthatȱisȱatȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ recursive,ȱ deranged,ȱ andȱ selfȬfulfilling.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱhandȱaȱradicalȱcritiqueȱofȱKantianȱ“categoricalȱimperative,”ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ anȱ apparatusȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ discursusȱ andȱ “degeneracy”ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ lineamentsȱ ofȱ literaryȱ andȱ philosophicalȱ modernityȱ areȱ clearlyȱ visibleȱ inȱ theȱ complementarityȱandȱcontrarietyȱofȱruleȱandȱlaw—orȱotherwiseȱ discursiveȱ “anarchy”ȱ andȱ theȱ “tyranny”ȱ ofȱ forms—byȱ whichȱ theȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ anyȱ systemȱ ofȱ valuesȱ isȱ ultimatelyȱ constituted.ȱMuchȱofȱnineteenthȬȱandȱtwentiethȬcenturyȱliteraryȱ modernismȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ aȱ criticalȱ extension—ifȱ alsoȱ “rectification”—ofȱ Sade’sȱ antiȬrationalistȱ project,ȱ mediated,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ byȱ certainȱ facetsȱ ofȱ Marxismȱ andȱ Darwinism,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ reȬevolution,ȱ orȱ epistemologicalȱ rupture,ȱ retainsȱaȱpositivisticȱorȱhomoeostaticȱfunction.ȱȱ Sade’sȱ extremismȱ findsȱ itselfȱ secondedȱ toȱ aȱ projectȱ ofȱ aestheticȱ andȱ epistemologicalȱ reform—suchȱ asȱ theȱ ultimatelyȱ reformativeȱ ambitionsȱ ofȱ Surrealism—inȱ whichȱ theȱ revolutionȱ ofȱ valuesȱ andȱ ofȱ consciousnessȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ projectȱ ofȱ socialȱ reconstruction:ȱ anarchyȱ sublimatedȱ inȱ aȱ “new”ȱ constitutionalism,ȱ aȱ “new”ȱ epistemology,ȱ aȱ “new”ȱ systemȱ ofȱ judgement.ȱ Indeed,ȱ if—asȱ Georgesȱ Canguilhemȱ hasȱ argued— ”epistemologyȱprovidesȱaȱprincipleȱonȱwhichȱjudgementȱcanȱbeȱ based,”21ȱitȱisȱneverthelessȱuponȱtheȱ“crisis”ȱofȱepistemologicalȱ ruptureȱthatȱjudgementȱitselfȱcanȱhereȱbeȱseenȱtoȱbeȱfounded,ȱasȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Citedȱ inȱ Jacquesȱ Lacan,ȱ “Theȱ Functionȱ ofȱ theȱ Good,”ȱ Theȱ Seminarȱ ofȱ Jacquesȱ Lacan.ȱ Bookȱ VII:ȱ Theȱ Ethicsȱ ofȱ Psychoanalysis,ȱ trans.ȱ Dennisȱ Porterȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Norton,ȱ1992)ȱ221.ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ Canguilhem,ȱAȱVitalȱRationalist,ȱ43.ȱ

205ȱ

theȱ regulatingȱ mechanismȱ ofȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ arbitraryȱ convulsionsȱofȱtheȱlaw.ȱSade,ȱwritingȱatȱtheȱheightȱofȱtheȱFrenchȱ Revolution,ȱidentifiesȱlawȱasȱtheȱveryȱinversionȱofȱjustice,ȱwhoseȱ subsequentȱ discourseȱ howeverȱ onlyȱ servesȱ toȱ maskȱ theȱ revolutionaryȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱepistemologicalȱbreakȱinȱtermsȱofȱ “correction”ȱorȱ“reconstruction.”ȱȱ Withinȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ rationalism,ȱ crisisȱ doesȱ notȱ representȱ theȱ unthinkableȱ orȱ theȱ unpresentable,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ anȱ alibi—aȱjustification.ȱAndȱthisȱinȱturnȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱdifficultyȱinȱ conceivingȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ methodȱ whichȱ wouldȱ leadȱ toȱ anythingȱotherȱthanȱaȱpositivisticȱreintegration.ȱJonathanȱSwift,ȱ inȱ 1726,ȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ attentiveȱ toȱ suchȱ implicationsȱ inȱ hisȱ satiricalȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ scientificȱ positivismȱ inȱ theȱ “Academyȱ ofȱ Lagado”ȱ sectionȱ ofȱ Gulliver’sȱ Travels.ȱ Amongȱ otherȱ things,ȱ Swift’sȱ critiqueȱ focusesȱ uponȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ anȱ experimentalȱ randomȬtextȱ machine,ȱ “forȱ improvingȱ speculativeȱ knowledgeȱ byȱ practicalȱ andȱ mechanicalȱ operations.”22ȱ Theȱ mostlyȱ nonsensicalȱformulationsȱproducedȱbyȱSwift’sȱmachineȱassumeȱ anȱ oracularȱ function—reducingȱ theȱ labourȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ toȱ aȱ “merely”ȱ mechanicalȱ procedure—whileȱ providingȱ theȱ substanceȱ ofȱ poetic,ȱ philosophicalȱ andȱ juridicalȱ treatises,ȱ anthologisedȱbyȱanȱotherwiseȱmindlessȱpriesthoodȱofȱtechniciansȱ (predecessorsȱ ofȱ Karelȱ +apek’sȱ “universalȱ robots”).ȱ Aȱ typeȱ ofȱ semioticȱ“anarchy”ȱthusȱbecomesȱtheȱruleȱuponȱwhichȱuniversalȱ lawsȱ areȱ founded,ȱ interpretedȱ andȱ enacted.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ satiricalȱ aspectȱ ofȱ Swift’sȱ machineȱ residesȱ notȱ inȱ itsȱ suggestionȱ thatȱsuchȱanȱideaȱisȱfoolishȱasȱsuch,ȱorȱthatȱaȱpositivisticȱscienceȱ whichȱ sublimatesȱ “true”ȱ knowledgeȱ toȱ technologicalȱ productionȱ isȱ necessarilyȱ foolish,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ thatȱ scienceȱ itselfȱ andȱtheȱarbitrarinessȱofȱlaw,ȱandȱofȱlanguageȱ(Marinetti’sȱparoleȱ inȱ libertà),ȱ inȱ factȱ implyȱ andȱ requireȱ it.ȱ Inȱ Swift’sȱ analogy,ȱ moreover,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ fundamentallyȱ satiricalȱ characterȱ ofȱ anyȱ epistemological,ȱ semanticȱ orȱ legalisticȱ codeȱ thatȱattemptsȱtoȱexhaustȱtheȱarbitrarilyȱdescriptiveȱpossibilitiesȱ

ȱ22ȱȱ JonathanȱSwift,ȱGulliver’sȱTravelsȱ(London:ȱWordsworthȱEdition,ȱ1992)ȱIII.iv.195.ȱȱ

206ȱ

ofȱsoȬcalledȱtruthȱstatements.ȱThisȱisȱbecauseȱallȱsuchȱcodes—asȱ discourse—areȱeffectivelyȱexcessive,ȱdevolvingȱuponȱanȱ“excessȱ atȱ theȱ origin”ȱ whichȱ cannotȱ beȱ remediatedȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ anyȱ “law”ȱsinceȱitȱitselfȱisȱtheȱunderwritingȱconditionȱofȱtheȱlaw,ȱofȱ itsȱlimitsȱandȱofȱitsȱnormsȱofȱjudgement.ȱ ȱ 3ȱ ȱ Swift’sȱ andȱ Sade’sȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ aȱ purelyȱ proceduralȱ rationalismȱ hasȱ oftenȱ beenȱ seenȱ asȱ prefiguringȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ avantȬ gardistȱcritiquesȱofȱEnlightenmentȱreason—likeȱthoseȱofȱMarcelȱ Duchamp,ȱ Francisȱ Picabiaȱ andȱ Jeanȱ Tinguely,ȱ whoseȱ satirical,ȱ counterȬfunctionalȱ “machines”ȱ affectȱ somethingȱ ofȱ aȱ rebukeȱ toȱ theȱ ideologuesȱ ofȱ lateȱ nineteenthȬȱ andȱ earlyȱ twentiethȬcenturyȱ industrialȱ“progress.”ȱButȱinȱprefiguringȱtheȱavantȬgarde,ȱSwiftȱ andȱSadeȱalsoȱnecessarilyȱprefigureȱtheȱsinisterȱ“triumph”ȱofȱaȱ rationalismȱ embodiedȱ inȱ theȱ systematicȱ disordersȱ ofȱ industrialisedȱ warfareȱ andȱ theȱ Naziȱ exterminationȱ camps.ȱ Irrationalism,ȱSwiftȱandȱSadeȱtellȱus,ȱisȱnotȱaȱdeviationȱfromȱtheȱ rule,ȱ butȱ theȱ veryȱ foundationȱ ofȱ theȱ ruleȱ itselfȱ andȱ ofȱ itsȱ “reason.”ȱ Framedȱ atȱ eitherȱ endȱ ofȱ itsȱ historyȱ byȱ Auschwitzȱ andȱ theȱ PlaceȱdeȱlaȱConcorde,ȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱhasȱalwaysȱrunȱtheȱrisk— inȱ theȱ revolutionaryȱ modeȱ identifiedȱ byȱ Peterȱ Bürgerȱ withȱ theȱ “historicalȱ avantȬgarde”23—ofȱ becomingȱ littleȱ moreȱ thanȱ anȱ aestheticisedȱ formȱ ofȱ politicalȱ conscienceȱ orȱ socioȬculturalȱ symptom.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ whetherȱ orȱ not,ȱ asȱ Theodorȱ Adornoȱ argued,ȱ poetryȱ afterȱ Auschwitzȱ couldȱ stillȱ beȱ possibleȱ (orȱ merelyȱ “barbaric”).24ȱ Ratherȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ “burdenȱ ofȱ history”ȱ asȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ reactionaryȱ classicism,ȱ orȱ negativeȱ tradition,ȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ ruleȱ ofȱ platitudeȱ inȱ definingȱ aȱ certainȱ historicalȱ imminence.ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ theȱ struggleȱ ȱ23ȱȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde,ȱ trans.ȱ Michaelȱ Shawȱ (Minneapolis:ȱ UniversityȱofȱMinnesotaȱPress,ȱ1984).ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ TheodorȱAdorno,ȱPrisms,ȱtrans.ȱSamuelȱandȱShierryȱWeberȱ(Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱ MITȱPress,ȱ1967)ȱ34.ȱȱ

207ȱ

ofȱ experimentalism,ȱ situatedȱ betweenȱ historicalȱ agencyȱ andȱ historicalȱ object.ȱ Suchȱ isȱ likewiseȱ theȱ caseȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ historicisationȱ ofȱ “theȱ avantȬgarde”ȱ but,ȱ also,ȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ theȱ classicisingȱ ofȱ modernity.ȱ Itȱ impliesȱ aȱ classicismȱ thatȱ perpetuatesȱ itselfȱ merelyȱ byȱ aȱ roteȱ formȱ ofȱ “equilibrium”:ȱ anȱ identificationȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ knowableȱ withȱ whatȱ isȱ known,ȱ andȱ accordingȱtoȱwhichȱexperimentationȱisȱcognateȱwithȱmethod.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ lectureȱ onȱ “Cyberneticsȱ andȱ Ghosts,”ȱ Calvinoȱ broachesȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ classicismȱ andȱ methodȱ inȱ terms,ȱ likeȱ Sade’s,ȱ ofȱ anȱ interventionȱ inȱ theȱ historicalȱ transmissionȱ ofȱ socialȬaestheticȱnormsȱwhichȱalsoȱdelineatesȱtheȱveryȱpossibilityȱ ofȱnorms.25ȱThisȱintervention,ȱassociatedȱbyȱCalvinoȱwithȱaȱtypeȱ ofȱ avantȬgardism,ȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ mechanismȱ ofȱ differenceȱ thatȱ reȬsetsȱtheȱclassicalȱmechanicsȱofȱaestheticȱstasis,ȱallowingȱforȱaȱ renewalȱ ofȱ theȱ classicalȱ ideaȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ movementȱ andȱ reȬ invention.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ Calvinoȱ proposesȱ anȱ almostȱ Swiftianȱ scenarioȱinȱwhichȱliteratureȱwouldȱbecomeȱ“aȱmachineȱthatȱwillȱ produceȱ avantȬgardeȱ workȱ toȱ freeȱ itsȱ circuitsȱ whenȱ theyȱ areȱ chokedȱbyȱtooȱlongȱaȱproductionȱofȱclassicism.”26ȱȱ Theȱ questionȱ is,ȱ however,ȱ doesȱ suchȱ aȱ “freeingȱ ofȱ theȱ circuits,”ȱasȱCalvinoȱsays,ȱamountȱtoȱanythingȱmore,ȱultimately,ȱ thanȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ historicalȱ reversioning—sinceȱ classicismȱ hereȱ impliesȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ conservation,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ aȱ periodicȱ totalisation;ȱ aȱ closedȱ cycleȱ thatȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ expansive,ȱ inflationary,ȱ accumulative;ȱ ofȱ bothȱ entropyȱ andȱ discursus;ȱ teleologyȱandȱrecursion?ȱ“Isȱthis,”ȱCalvinoȱasks,ȱ“theȱtriumphȱofȱ theȱ irrational?ȱ Orȱ isȱ itȱ theȱ refusalȱ toȱ believeȱ thatȱ theȱ irrationalȱ exists,ȱthatȱanythingȱinȱtheȱworldȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱextraneousȱ toȱ theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ things,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ somethingȱ eludesȱ theȱ reasonsȱ

ȱ25ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ preciselyȱ suchȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ stultifyingȱ andȱ overlyȱ “rationalised”ȱ classicismȱ thatȱ weȱ encounter,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ Pierȱ Pauloȱ Passolini’sȱ filmȱ Salò,ȱ inȱ whichȱ Sade’sȱ120ȱDaysȱofȱSodomȱisȱtransposedȱintoȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱtheȱlastȱdaysȱofȱFascistȱ Italy—theȱ infamousȱ Repubblicaȱ diȱ Salòȱ (lastȱ refugeȱ andȱ deathȬplace,ȱ incidentally,ȱ ofȱ Fillipoȱ Marinetti,ȱ founderȱ ofȱ Italianȱ Futurismȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ leadingȱfiguresȱinȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱcultȱofȱtheȱmachine).ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Calvino,ȱ“CyberneticsȱandȱGhosts,”ȱ13.ȱ

208ȱ

determinedȱbyȱourȱhistoricalȱcondition,ȱandȱalsoȱeludesȱlimitedȱ andȱdefensiveȱsoȬcalledȱrationalism?”27ȱ CalvinoȱattemptsȱtoȱconfrontȱthisȱproblemȱbyȱwayȱofȱSartre’sȱ questionȱ “Whatȱ isȱ literature?”ȱ Forȱ Calvino,ȱ theȱ difficultyȱ ofȱ situatingȱ “literature”ȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ industrialȱ modernityȱ derivesȱ fromȱ theȱ ultimateȱ ambivalenceȱ ofȱ theȱ termsȱ “rational”ȱ andȱ “irrational,”ȱ andȱ theirȱ statusȱ withȱ regardsȱ toȱ theȱ controlledȱ unpredictabilityȱ ofȱ experimentalȱ methodȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ ambivalentȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱunderwritingȱconditionȱofȱ“absoluteȱ chance,”ȱ asȱ Peirceȱ says.ȱ Whereȱ “rational”ȱ andȱ “irrational”ȱ remainȱ definitionalȱ (andȱ probabilistic),ȱexperimentalityȱ obtainsȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ possible,ȱ andȱ inȱ thisȱ senseȱ theȱ termȱ “literature”—asȱ writing—designatesȱ anȱ experimentalȱ conditionȱ ofȱ languageȱ itself.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ aȱ conditionȱ ofȱ absoluteȱ unconditionality,ȱ asȱ definingȱ theȱ veryȱ chanceȱ ofȱ languageȱ asȱ language;ȱ itsȱ underwritingȱ iterabilityȱ andȱ techn¾ȱ ofȱ inscription.ȱ Calvinoȱwrites:ȱ ȱ Didȱweȱsayȱthatȱliteratureȱisȱentirelyȱinvolvedȱwithȱlanguage,ȱisȱ merelyȱtheȱpermutationȱofȱaȱrestrictedȱnumberȱofȱelementsȱandȱ functions?ȱ Butȱ isȱ theȱ tensionȱ inȱ literatureȱ notȱ continuallyȱ strivingȱ toȱ escapeȱ fromȱ thisȱ finiteȱ number?ȱ Doesȱ itȱ notȱ continuallyȱ attemptȱ toȱ sayȱ somethingȱ itȱ cannotȱ say,ȱ somethingȱ thatȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ know,ȱ andȱ thatȱ noȱ oneȱ couldȱ everȱ know?ȱ Aȱ thingȱ cannotȱ beȱ knownȱ whenȱ theȱ wordsȱ andȱ conceptsȱ usedȱ toȱ sayȱitȱandȱthinkȱitȱhaveȱnotȱyetȱbeenȱusedȱinȱthatȱposition,ȱnotȱ yetȱarrangedȱinȱthatȱorder,ȱwithȱthatȱmeaningȱ…ȱTheȱstruggleȱofȱ literatureȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ struggleȱ toȱ escapeȱ fromȱ theȱ confinesȱ ofȱ language;ȱitȱstretchesȱoutȱfromȱtheȱutmostȱlimitsȱofȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱ said;ȱwhatȱstirsȱliteratureȱisȱtheȱcallȱandȱattractionȱofȱwhatȱisȱnotȱ inȱtheȱdictionary.28ȱȱ

ȱ Asȱ inȱ Sade,ȱ theȱ formalȱ andȱ thematicȱ rigidities,ȱ theȱ compulsiveȱ repetitionȱ andȱ enactment,ȱ theȱ stagingȱ ofȱ aȱ narrativeȱ andȱ itsȱ mechanicalȱ “performance,”ȱ allȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Calvino,ȱ“CyberneticsȱandȱGhosts,”ȱ20.ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ Calvino,ȱ“CyberneticsȱandȱGhosts,”ȱ18.ȱ

209ȱ

literatureȱ asȱ operatingȱ underȱ theȱ signȱ ofȱ aȱ programmaticȱ ambivalence—inȱwhichȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“theȱmachine”ȱnoȱlongerȱ remainsȱstraightforwardlyȱlinkedȱtoȱinstrumentalism,ȱbutȱratherȱ toȱitsȱdétournement.ȱȱ Aȱ certainȱ détournementȱ ofȱ instrumentalityȱ canȱ likewiseȱ beȱ foundȱinȱtheȱ“geneticȱdistributionsȱofȱlanguage”ȱinȱMallarmé,ȱinȱ theȱ encyclopaedicȱ schematisationsȱ ofȱ Joyce’sȱ Ulyssesȱ andȱ FinnegansȱWake,ȱinȱtheȱentropicȱspiralsȱofȱBeckett’sȱminimalism,ȱ inȱ theȱ “minuteȱ vivisections”ȱ operatedȱ byȱ Natalieȱ Sarrauteȱ andȱ Christineȱ BrookeȬRose,ȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ quasiȬautomatedȱ textualȱ apparatusesȱ ofȱ Georgesȱ Perec’sȱ Laȱ vieȱ modeȱ d’emploiȱ andȱ theȱ counterȬcausalȱ mechanisticsȱ ofȱ Pynchon’sȱ Gravity’sȱ Rainbow,ȱ V,ȱ andȱTheȱCryingȱofȱLotȱ49.ȱAlainȱRobbeȬGrillet,ȱprincipleȱarchitectȱ ofȱ theȱ Nouveauȱ Roman,ȱ hasȱ himselfȱ describedȱ theȱ legacyȱ ofȱ Sadeȱasȱpracticallyȱreducingȱnarrativityȱtoȱaȱ“vastȱnomenclatureȱ ofȱ perversions,ȱ comparableȱ toȱ theȱ botanicalȱ classificationsȱ ofȱ LinnaeusȱorȱtoȱMendelejev’sȱperiodicȱtableȱofȱelements.”29ȱThisȱ descriptionȱ isȱ itselfȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ commentsȱ madeȱ aboutȱ RobbeȬGrillet’sȱ ownȱ texts,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Laȱ Maisonȱ deȱ RendezȬvous,ȱ notableȱ forȱ itsȱ “accruedȱ frequencyȱ ofȱ themesȱ ofȱ deprivation:ȱ drugs,ȱ fascinationȱ withȱ crime,ȱ unnaturalȱ love,ȱ casualȱ Sadism,ȱ necrophilia,ȱ cannibalism,ȱ etc.”30ȱ Themesȱ ofȱ crisis,ȱ perversion,ȱ anarchyȱandȱanachronism,ȱalsoȱproliferateȱinȱJoyce,ȱBeckett,ȱandȱ elsewhereȱinȱtheȱbodyȱofȱ“modernist”ȱliterature,ȱyetȱthisȱwouldȱ hardlyȱ beȱ noteworthyȱ inȱ andȱ ofȱ itselfȱ ifȱ itȱ didȱ notȱ involveȱ aȱ certainȱtestingȱofȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱpresentability,ȱasȱitȱwere.ȱJustȱasȱ weȱ mightȱ sayȱ thatȱ termsȱ likeȱ indecencyȱ areȱ nothingȱ ifȱ notȱ definitional—culturallyȱ andȱ historicallyȱ contingent—soȱ tooȱ weȱ mayȱspeculateȱthatȱotherȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱunpresentableȱmayȱalsoȱ beȱ“reducible”ȱtoȱaȱsetȱofȱculturalȱorȱideologicalȱprocedures.ȱ ȱ

ȱ29ȱȱ Alainȱ RobbeȬGrillet,ȱ “L’ordreȱ etȱ sonȱ double”ȱ (1965),ȱ Leȱ Voyageurȱ (Paris:ȱ ChristianȱBourgois,ȱ2001)ȱ86.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ RobbeȬGrillet,ȱ“Unȱécrivainȱnonȱréconcilié,”ȱLeȱVoyageur,ȱ100.ȱ

210ȱ

4ȱ ȱ Arguably,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ challengesȱ posedȱ byȱ modernityȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ relinquishingȱ ofȱ aȱ moralȱ viewpointȱ orȱ judgementalism.ȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱsay,ȱ theȱrelinquishingȱ ofȱanyȱ “ethics”ȱ thatȱ isȱideologicallyȱ founded.ȱTheȱquestionȱremainsȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱthisȱchallenge— exemplifiedȱinȱSade’sȱcritiqueȱofȱlegalisticȱreasonȱasȱtheȱtyrannyȱ ofȱ anȱ entirelyȱ abstractedȱ “mind”—willȱ itselfȱ inevitablyȱ beȱ reducedȱ toȱ somethingȱ likeȱ aȱ “standardȱ deviation”ȱ withinȱ theȱ circuitȱofȱtheȱculturalȱsystem?ȱ(Itȱisȱnoteworthy,ȱinȱanyȱcase,ȱthatȱ whereȱtheȱmereȱmentionȱofȱSade’sȱnameȱwasȱonceȱscandalousȱinȱ itself,ȱ itȱ nowȱ barelyȱ raisesȱ eyebrows).ȱ Thisȱ inȱ turnȱ raisesȱ theȱ questionȱofȱtheȱeffectiveȱvirulenceȱofȱanyȱ“avantȬgarde”—sinceȱ theȱoperationsȱofȱrecursionȱthatȱunderwriteȱitsȱvariousȱrupturesȱ andȱ discontinuitiesȱ alsoȱ serveȱ asȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ reintegrationȱ andȱhomoeostasis.ȱThatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱasȱenginesȱofȱentropy.ȱWeȱmightȱ poseȱ thisȱ questionȱ otherwise,ȱ asȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ theȱ epistemologicalȱ ruptureȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ byȱ modernityȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ theȱ necessaryȱ conditionȱ ofȱ anȱ epistemologicalȱ reconstructionȱandȱrenewal?ȱIf,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱideologyȱofȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ “modernism”ȱ (asȱ aȱ continuationȱ ofȱ theȱ Enlightenmentȱ project)ȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ dialecticalȱ reificationȱ ofȱ whatȱisȱmadeȱtoȱamountȱtoȱaȱmereȱsystemicȱperturbationȱorȱroteȱ formȱ ofȱ experimentation—whatȱ Bachelardȱ termsȱ “obsoleteȱ science.”ȱ Withȱ theȱ liberatoryȱ phaseȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ postmodernismȱ havingȱ passed—andȱ withȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ andȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ criticismȱ (ofȱ judgement)ȱ onceȱ againȱ inȱ dispute— theȱ questionȱ arisesȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ experimentalityȱ toȱ aȱ futureȱ that,ȱ howeverȱ unpresentableȱ andȱ enigmaticȱ itȱ mayȱ appear,ȱ hasȱ becomeȱ overburdenedȱ byȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ neoȬclassicism.ȱ Aȱ classicism,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ ofȱ bothȱ aȱ speculativeȱ andȱ materialȱ “revolution”ȱofȱsenseȱandȱofȱtheȱsenses—ofȱtheȱepistemologicalȱ andȱtheȱexperiential,ȱtheȱculturalȱandȱtheȱpolitical,ȱandȱsoȱon.ȱInȱ otherȱ words,ȱ weȱ areȱ confrontedȱ withȱ aȱ questionȱ notȱ merelyȱ ofȱ viability,ȱ butȱ ofȱ aȱ pervasiveȱ limitȬeffectȱ ofȱ whatȱ Lefebvreȱ termsȱ 211ȱ

“changeȱ asȱ aȱ norm.”ȱ Underȱ suchȱ proceduralȱ conditions—inȱ whichȱ procedureȱ itselfȱ veersȱ betweenȱ permissibilityȱ andȱ possibility—theȱ Duchampianȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ postȬindustrialȱ rationalismȱ andȱ itsȱ stylisationȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ avantȬgardistȱ method,ȱorȱinȱtheȱcommodificationȱandȱconsumptionȱofȱtheȱ“avantȬ garde,”ȱ pointsȱ toȱ aȱ situationȱ ofȱ historicalȱ recursionȱ thatȱ possessesȱ noȱ immediatelyȱ recognisableȱ axesȱ ofȱ criticalȱ differentiation.ȱȱ Yetȱ whenȱ Françoisȱ Lyotardȱ wroteȱ ofȱ Jamesȱ Joyceȱ thatȱ hisȱ writingȱ“allowsȱtheȱunpresentableȱtoȱbecomeȱperceptibleȱinȱhisȱ writingȱitself,ȱinȱtheȱsignifier,”ȱheȱwasȱsignallingȱaȱchangeȱnotȱinȱ theȱ aestheticsȱ ofȱ revolutionȱ orȱ historicalȱ consciousness,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱveryȱlogicȱofȱsignifyingȱagency,ȱandȱwithȱregardȱtoȱallȱofȱitsȱ possibleȱ socialȱ registers.ȱ “Theȱ wholeȱ rangeȱ ofȱ availableȱ narrativeȱandȱevenȱstylisticȱoperationsȱisȱputȱintoȱplayȱwithoutȱ concernȱ forȱ theȱ unityȱ ofȱ theȱ whole,”ȱ Lyotardȱ argues.ȱ Consequently:ȱ “Theȱ grammarȱ andȱ vocabularyȱ ofȱ literaryȱ languageȱareȱnoȱlongerȱacceptedȱasȱgiven;ȱratherȱtheyȱappearȱasȱ academicȱ forms,ȱ asȱ ritualsȱ originatingȱ inȱ pietyȱ (asȱ Nietzscheȱ said)ȱ whichȱ preventȱ theȱ unpresentableȱ fromȱ beingȱ putȱ forward.”31ȱTheȱquestionȱremains,ȱofȱcourse,ȱasȱtoȱwhoseȱideaȱofȱ theȱunpresentableȱweȱareȱspeakingȱofȱhere—ifȱnotȱthatȱwhichȱisȱ underwrittenȱbyȱtheȱveryȱresistanceȱofȱtheȱpresentableȱitself.ȱForȱitȱ isȱ indeed,ȱ here,ȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ mimeticȱ statusȱ ofȱ presentabilityȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ assumption,ȱ inȱ discourse,ȱ ofȱ somethingȱ likeȱ anȱ object.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ objectȱ isȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ “discourseȱitself.”ȱ Inȱanyȱcase,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱaskȱourselvesȱaboutȱtheȱsignificanceȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ ofȱ theseȱ variousȱ conceptionsȱ ofȱ agencyȱ andȱ theȱ mechanicsȱ ofȱ signifiabilityȱ thatȱ underwritesȱ them.ȱ Ifȱ thisȱ question,ȱ asȱ Lyotardȱ suggests,ȱ isȱ oneȱ thatȱ isȱ linkedȱ toȱ aȱ particularȱexperienceȱofȱlanguageȱasȱtechn¾,ȱthenȱwhatȱcanȱtheȱ workȱ ofȱ writersȱ likeȱ Swift,ȱ Sadeȱ orȱ Joyceȱ tellȱ usȱ aboutȱ theȱ generalȱ semioticȱ characterȱ ofȱ theȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ presentabilityȱ

ȱ31ȱȱ Lyotard,ȱTheȱPostmodernȱCondition,ȱ80Ȭ1.ȱ

212ȱ

themselves?ȱ Whatȱ doȱ theyȱ tellȱ us,ȱ inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ ofȱ whatȱ weȱ mightȱcallȱ“grammarsȱofȱemergence”?ȱIsȱtheȱ“unpresentability,”ȱ asȱ Lyotardȱ contends,ȱ ofȱ suchȱ structuralȱ grammarsȱ orȱ signȱ operations,ȱ aȱ mereȱ symptomȱ orȱ insteadȱ aȱ conditionȱ ofȱ language?ȱ Orȱ rather,ȱ isȱ itȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ certainȱ symptomatologyȱ boundȱ toȱ theȱ conditionalȱ thatȱ weȱ mayȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ unpresentableȱ atȱ all,ȱ asȱ somethingȱ thatȱ mayȱ becomeȱ “perceptible”ȱ inȱ writingȱ itself,ȱ inȱ theȱ signifier?ȱ Asȱ Rogerȱ Shattuckȱ hasȱ argued:ȱ “Anȱ avantȬgardeȱ gainsȱ itsȱ specialȱ statusȱ fromȱ itsȱ adversaryȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ mainȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ cultureȱ toȱ whichȱ itȱ isȱ reacting,”ȱ evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ cultureȱ isȱ oneȱ thatȱ attachesȱ especialȱsignificance,ȱprecisely,ȱtoȱavantȬgardism.32ȱ Contemporaryȱ preoccupationsȱ withȱ hypertext,ȱ hypermedia,ȱ theȱ recursiveȱ “collageȬeffect”ȱ ofȱ theȱ Worldȱ Wideȱ Web,ȱ pointȱ againȱ toȱ anȱ ideaȱ ofȱ languageȱ asȱ bothȱ heterogeneousȱ andȱ yetȱ procedurallyȱconstrained—oneȱwhichȱisȱneitherȱdeviationalȱnorȱ positivistic,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ anȱ eventȬdrivenȱ “stateȱ ofȱ affairs.”ȱ Suggestiveȱ ofȱ aȱ generalȱ conditionȱ ofȱ semiosis,ȱ thisȱ ideaȱ ofȱ languageȱ extendsȱ theȱ literaryȱ mediumȱ toȱ theȱ veryȱ limitsȱ ofȱ “concretion,”ȱ particularisation,ȱ andȱ phenomenality— describing,ȱ asȱ Andruidȱ Kerneȱ says,ȱ anȱ interfaceȱ withȱ aȱ “reȬ processedȱ experientialȱarchive,”ȱ thatȱ isȱ “inȱ fluxȱandȱ yetȱ boundȱ toȱ itsȱ materialȱ objects.”33ȱ Forȱ cyberȬecologistsȱ likeȱ Kerne,ȱ “Interfacesȱ areȱ theȱ multidimensionalȱ borderȱ zonesȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ interdependentȱ relationshipsȱ ofȱ people,ȱ activities,ȱ codes,ȱ components,ȱ andȱ systemsȱ areȱ constituted.”34ȱ Suchȱ anȱ interfaceȬeffectȱ isȱ alreadyȱ signalledȱ inȱ theȱ genealogyȱ ofȱ proceduralȱ poeticsȱ extendingȱ fromȱ Mallarmé,ȱ Gertrudeȱ Steinȱ andȱ Johnȱ Cage,ȱ toȱ theȱ OuLiPo,ȱ L=A=N=G=U=A=G=Eȱ poetry,ȱ andȱtheȱadventȱofȱtheȱ“new”ȱdigitalȱmedia—spawning,ȱamongȱ otherȱ things,ȱ suchȱ Swiftianȱ “textualȱ machines”ȱ asȱ Markȱ

ȱ32ȱȱ RogerȱShattuck,ȱTheȱInnocentȱEye:ȱOnȱModernȱLiteratureȱandȱtheȱArtsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱ Farrar,ȱStrauss,ȱandȱGiroux,ȱ1984)ȱ74ȱ ȱ33ȱȱ Andruidȱ Kerne,ȱ “CollageMachine:ȱ Anȱ Interactiveȱ Agentȱ ofȱ Webȱ Recombination,”ȱLeonardoȱ33.5ȱ(2000):ȱ347Ȭ350.ȱȱ ȱ34ȱȱ LouisȱArmand,ȱ“InterfaceȱEcologies,”ȱSolicitationsȱ(Prague:ȱLitteraria,ȱ2005)ȱ124.ȱ

213ȱ

America’sȱ Grammatron,ȱ Douglasȱ Davis’sȱ Theȱ World’sȱ Firstȱ CollaborativeȱSentenceȱandȱKerne’sȱownȱCollageMachine.ȱȱ Theseȱ “machines,”ȱ whichȱ integrateȱ recursiveȱ andȱ chanceȱ proceduresȱ inȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ multiȬdimensionalȱ textualȱ interfacesȱ inȱ “realȱ time,”ȱ describeȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ Joyceanȱ tetragrammaton—orȱ wordȬofȬwords.ȱ Likeȱ Babbage’sȱ “Analyticȱ Machine”—aȱ mechanicalȱ deviceȱ capableȱ (atȱ leastȱ inȱ theory)ȱ ofȱ “weavingȱalgebraicȱpatterns”—theseȱinterfacesȱareȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱ producedȱ asȱ performed,ȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ themselvesȱ mechanismsȱwithinȱaȱlargerȱrecursiveȱstructureȱofȱ“interactions”ȱ andȱ“interference.”ȱAndȱifȱsuchȱeffectsȱmayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱeffectsȱ ofȱ semiosis,ȱ orȱ indeedȱ “phenomena”ȱ implyingȱ somethingȱ likeȱ anȱagencyȱ(ifȱnotȱaȱconsciousness),ȱthenȱtheȱquestionȱremainsȱasȱ toȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ thisȱ isȱ byȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ aȱ mechanisationȱ appliedȱ toȱ someȱ priorȱ stateȱ ofȱ affairs,ȱ orȱ byȱ consequenceȱ ofȱ aȱ mechanicalȱ inherenceȱ constitutiveȱ ofȱ anyȱ formȱ ofȱ signifyingȱ materiality,ȱorȱindeedȱofȱanyȱsystemȱasȱsuch.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ

214ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

LaurentȱMilesiȱ ȱ

FromȱLogosȱtoȱMuthos:ȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱ Pound’sȱandȱOlson’sȱMythopoeticsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ modernityȱ mayȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ lieȱ inȱ aȱ momentȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ historicalȱ crisisȱ which,ȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ expression,ȱ tookȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱruptureȱofȱtheȱtraditionallyȱmoreȱcomfortableȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ subjectȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ language.ȱ Inȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ ways,ȱ theȱ traumaȱ andȱ aftermathsȱ ofȱ theȱ firstȱ Worldȱ War,ȱ theȱ ambientȱ scientificȱ discoveriesȱ andȱ theȱ adventȱ ofȱ newȱ disciplinesȱ orȱ waysȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ (suchȱ asȱ theȱ riseȱ ofȱ phenomenologyȱ andȱ modernȱ linguistics,ȱ theȱ concurrentȱ emergenceȱ inȱ severalȱ areasȱ ofȱ aȱ moreȱ fluidȱ apprehensionȱ ofȱ time,ȱ etc.),ȱ allȱ contributedȱ toȱ aȱ radicalȱ changeȱ inȱ theȱ subject’sȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ itselfȱ andȱ ofȱ itsȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ Thisȱ fluidȱ ideologicalȱ climateȱ alsoȱ entailedȱ aȱ renewedȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ linguisticȱ mediumȱ asȱ suchȱ andȱ ofȱ itsȱ impactȱ onȱ cognitiveȱ operations,ȱ andȱ newȱ forms,ȱ methodsȱ andȱ idiomsȱ capableȱ ofȱ translatingȱmoreȱadequatelyȱtheȱcurrentȱviewȱofȱanȱisomorphicȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ languageȱ andȱ theȱ processesȱ ofȱ theȱ realȱ wereȱ searchedȱ for.ȱ Thus,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ T.ȱ S.ȱ Eliotȱ inȱ “Ulysses:ȱ Orderȱ andȱ Myth,”ȱ theȱ conventionalȱ “narrativeȱ method”ȱ gaveȱ wayȱ toȱ theȱ “mythicalȱ method”ȱ inȱ Joyce’sȱ Ulysses,ȱ aȱ “scientificȱ discovery”ȱ whichȱ Eliotȱ praisedȱ forȱ itsȱ abilityȱ toȱ mapȱ anȱ orderȱ

215ȱ

ontoȱ theȱ chaosȱ ofȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ world.1ȱ Inȱ aȱ similarȱ spirit,ȱ Poundȱ wasȱ strivingȱ towardsȱ hisȱ ownȱ “methodȱ ofȱ science”ȱ orȱ “ideogrammicȱ method,”2ȱ whichȱ tookȱ aȱ moreȱ decisiveȱ shapeȱ duringȱ hisȱ editingȱ ofȱ Ernestȱ Fenollosa’sȱ Theȱ Chineseȱ Writtenȱ Characterȱ asȱ aȱ Mediumȱ forȱ Poetry,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ ideogramȱ isȱ presented—orȱ ratherȱ presentsȱ itself—asȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ visualȱ synecdoche,ȱ “aȱ vividȱ shorthandȱ pictureȱ ofȱ theȱ operationsȱ ofȱ nature.”3ȱ Theȱ essayȱ investigatesȱ howȱ theȱ transcriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ rootȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ naturalȱ processesȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ theȱ configurationȱofȱtheȱideogramȱdefinedȱasȱaȱfieldȱofȱverbalȱactionȱ canȱ profitablyȱ becomeȱ theȱ nuclearȱ unitȱ of,ȱ andȱ provideȱ aȱ newȱ grammarȱ for,ȱ modernȱ poeticȱ practices.ȱ Inȱ keepingȱ withȱ Fenollosa’sȱ views,ȱ theȱ methodologicalȱ superpositionȱ ofȱ mythȱ ontoȱcontemporaryȱrealityȱandȱtheȱcompactingȱofȱtheȱlatterȱwithȱ otherȱ agesȱ withinȱ theȱ Poundianȱ ideogram—whatȱ Robertȱ Duncanȱ identifiedȱ asȱ “theȱ mythopoeicȱ weavingsȱ ofȱ Pound’sȱ Cantosȱinȱwhichȱ‘allȱagesȱareȱcontemporaneous’“4—wereȱheldȱtoȱ beȱ scientific,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ logical,ȱ attemptsȱ toȱ gropeȱ forȱ aȱ newȱ language,ȱwhichȱimpliedȱaȱradicalȱredefinitionȱofȱlanguageȱitselfȱ andȱtheȱlinkȱbetweenȱpoeticȱvoice,ȱhistoryȱandȱancientȱlore,ȱandȱ nature.ȱ Inȱ Laszloȱ Géfin’sȱ words:ȱ “Theȱ isomorphicȬcumulativeȱ ideogramȱisȱalmostȱinvariablyȱtiedȱtoȱmyth,ȱandȱthroughȱmythȱ toȱfundamentalȱprocessesȱofȱnature.”5ȱȱ Modernistȱ writersȱ likeȱ Joyceȱ rediscoveredȱ theȱ “poeticȱ wisdom”ȱorȱ“poeticȱmetaphysics”ȱofȱVicoȱandȱtheȱcyclicalȱlawsȱ ofȱ hisȱ idealȱ eternalȱ history,ȱ whichȱ theȱ ambientȱ Croceanȱ and,ȱ ȱ ȱ1ȱȱ Eliot’sȱhistoryȬmakingȱreviewȱappearedȱoriginallyȱinȱTheȱDialȱLXXV.5ȱ(Novemberȱ 1923):ȱ480Ȭ83.ȱEliot’sȱslickȱdistinction,ȱwhichȱseemsȱtoȱleaveȱoutȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱ poem’sȱ ownȱ narrative,ȱ isȱ ironicallyȱ undercutȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ forȱ theȱ Greeks,ȱ theȱ mythȱ carriedȱ withȱ itȱ notionsȱ ofȱ “plot”ȱ andȱ “narrative”ȱ asȱ itȱ wasȱ embeddedȱ inȱ aȱ socioȬculturalȱ practiceȱ ofȱ storyȱ telling.ȱ Forȱ anȱ attemptȱ toȱ solveȱ Eliot’sȱ perplexingȱ opposition,ȱseeȱMichaelȱH.ȱLevenson,ȱAȱGenealogyȱofȱModernism:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱEnglishȱ LiteraryȱDoctrineȱ1908Ȭ1922,ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱ197ȱff.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ EzraȱPound,ȱABCȱofȱReadingȱ(London:ȱFaber,ȱ1951)ȱ26.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Pound,ȱABCȱofȱReading,ȱ12.ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Pound,ȱABCȱofȱReading,ȱ6.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Laszloȱ Géfin,ȱ Ideogram:ȱ Modernȱ Americanȱ Poetryȱ (Miltonȱ Keynes:ȱ Openȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1982)ȱ39Ȭ40.ȱ

216ȱ

moreȱ generally,ȱ neoȬHegelianȱ aestheticsȱ hadȱ helpedȱ toȱ bringȱ intoȱ fashion,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ earlyȱ Greekȱ thinkers,ȱ withȱ theirȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ cyclicalȱ timeȱ andȱ theirȱ viewȱ ofȱ realityȱ asȱ aȱ continuousȱ flux.ȱ Bothȱ Viconianȱ andȱ preȬSocraticȱ philosophiesȱ carriedȱ withȱ themȱ aȱ renegotiationȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ language,ȱ historyȱ andȱ mythȱ orȱ storyȱ telling,ȱ andȱ Heidegger’sȱ laterȱlongȬstandingȱeffortsȱtoȱretraceȱtheȱforgottenȱoriginsȱofȱtheȱ underpinningȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ metaphysicsȱ toȱ theirȱ moreȱ concrete,ȱ interactiveȱ configurationsȱ willȱ provideȱ anȱ epistemologicalȱ counterpointȱ againstȱ whichȱ theȱ fullȱ redeploymentȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ primitiveȱ equationȱ betweenȱ muthosȱ andȱ logosȱ similarlyȱ undertakenȱ inȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ poeticsȱ byȱ Pound’sȱ postmodernistȱ epigonesȱ canȱ beȱ appreciated.ȱ Itȱ isȱ withinȱ thisȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ aȱ convergenceȱ ofȱ ideasȱ andȱ methodsȱ inȱ theȱ artsȱ andȱ otherȱ disciplinesȱ and,ȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ inȱ theȱ crossȬlightȱ ofȱ theȱ manifoldȱ implicationsȱ whichȱ theȱ earlyȱ Greekȱ logosȱ hadȱ inȱ philosophyȱandȱartsȱthatȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱsituateȱmyȱrereadingȱofȱ someȱofȱtheȱpracticesȱandȱkeyȱconceptsȱofȱ(post)modernȱpoeticsȱ andȱmapȱoutȱpointsȱofȱintersectionȱbetweenȱtheȱuncoveringȱbyȱ contemporaryȱ philosophyȱ ofȱ theȱ foundationsȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ “myth”ȱandȱPound’sȱ(andȱsubsequentlyȱOlson’s)ȱmythopoeticsȱ or,ȱ inȱ theȱ felicitousȱ coinageȱ ofȱ Jedȱ Rasula,ȱ “muthologisticalȱ grounding.”6ȱ

ȱ ȱȱ AnotherȱstartingȱpointȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱremarkȱbyȱMichaelȱDavidson:ȱ “‘Logos,’ȱ forȱ someoneȱ likeȱ Charlesȱ Olson,ȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ priorȱ reasonȱ orȱ authorisingȱ significationȱ butȱ ‘whatȱ isȱ said,’ȱ regardlessȱ ofȱ anyȱ appealȱ toȱ itsȱ truthȬvalue.ȱ Hisȱ desireȱ toȱ antedateȱ modernȱ associationsȱ forȱ wordsȱ likeȱ ‘myth,’ȱ ‘history,’ȱandȱ‘truth’ȱinȱIndoȬEuropeanȱrootsȱreflectȱhisȱattemptȱtoȱrecoverȱaȱkindȱofȱ physical,ȱmaterialȱbasisȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱallȱspeechȱacts.”ȱDavidson,ȱ“Archeologistȱofȱ Morning:ȱ Charlesȱ Olson,ȱ Edwardȱ Dorn,ȱ andȱ Historicalȱ Method,”ȱ ELHȱ 47ȱ (1980):ȱ 199.ȱTheȱpresentȱessayȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱtestȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱDavidson’sȱstatementȱforȱ Pound’sȱ poeticsȱ andȱ extendȱ toȱ modernistȱ poetryȱ theȱ convergenceȱ betweenȱ postmodernȱliteraryȱproceduresȱandȱHeideggerianȱphenomenologicalȱinquiryȱintoȱ languageȱinȱtheȱwakeȱofȱRabaté’sȱmethodologyȱandȱrationaleȱforȱbringingȱtogetherȱ PoundȱandȱHeideggerȱ (seeȱJeanȬMichelȱ Rabaté,ȱ Language,ȱ Sexualityȱandȱ Ideologyȱinȱ EzraȱPound’sȱCantosȱ[London:ȱMacmillan,ȱ1986]ȱ2)ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱideologicalȱfocusȱ of,ȱ interȱ alia,ȱ Bové’sȱ Destructiveȱ Poeticsȱ (seeȱ Paulȱ A.ȱ Bové,ȱ Destructiveȱ Poetics:ȱ

ȱ 6

217ȱ

1.ȱLogosȱinȱearlyȱGreekȱphilosophyȱ Martinȱ Heidegger’sȱ patientȱ exegesesȱ ofȱ preȬSocraticȱ fragments,ȱ collectedȱinȱEarlyȱGreekȱThinking,ȱinfuseȱhisȱlinguisticȱinquiryȱintoȱ theȱ essenceȱ ofȱ “Being”ȱ inȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Metaphysics.ȱ Ofȱ particularȱ relevanceȱ forȱ thisȱ essayȱ isȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ Heraclitus’sȱ Fragmentȱ Bȱ 50ȱ onȱ “Logos,”ȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ “Theȱ Anaximanderȱ Fragment,”ȱ whichȱ originallyȱ appearedȱ inȱ 1954ȱ andȱ 1950ȱ respectively;ȱ thereȱ theȱ Germanȱ thinker,ȱ inȱ hisȱ usualȱ procedure,ȱ triesȱ “toȱ reachȱ whatȱ wantsȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ language.”7ȱ Subsequentlyȱ reducedȱtoȱRatio,ȱhenceȱourȱreasonȱorȱ“logic,”ȱbyȱtheȱphilosophicalȱ schools,ȱ andȱ toȱ Verbumȱ byȱ theologians,ȱ Logosȱ originallyȱ alsoȱ conveyedȱ theȱ moreȱ essentialȱ meaningȱ ofȱ “toȱ say,ȱ utter”ȱ (thatȱ whichȱ isȱ saidȱ wasȱ thereforeȱ theȱ legomenon)ȱ andȱ wasȱ evenȱ moreȱ primitivelyȱ identifiedȱ withȱ “toȱ gather.”ȱ “ʁν·Ή΍Αȱ properlyȱ meansȱ theȱ layingȬdownȱ andȱ layingȬbeforeȱ whichȱ gathersȱ itselfȱ andȱ others,”8ȱ hence:ȱ “ʁν·Ή΍Αȱ […]ȱ canȱ beȱ nothingȱ otherȱ thanȱ theȱ essenceȱofȱunification,ȱwhichȱassemblesȱeverythingȱinȱtheȱtotalityȱ ofȱ simpleȱ presencing.9ȱ Thisȱ disclosureȱ ofȱ whatȱ isȱ presentȱ inȱ itsȱ presencingȱ isȱ whatȱ theȱ Greeksȱ calledȱ al¾theia,ȱ whichȱ weȱ misguidedlyȱ turnedȱ intoȱ ourȱ metaphysicalȱ “truth,”ȱ andȱ inȱ attemptingȱ toȱ uncoverȱ orȱ recoverȱ “true”ȱ speechȱ inȱ itsȱ diversity,ȱ Heidegger’sȱ ownȱ philosophicalȱ parsingȱ isȱ equallyȱ “aletheic”ȱ insofarȱ itsȱ etymologicalȱ procedureȱ aimsȱ toȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ linguisticȱ kernelȱ ofȱ authenticityȱ (etumon)ȱ concealedȱ inȱ aȱ word.ȱ Heidegger’sȱ trueȱ speech,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ theȱ idleȱ talkȱ whichȱ heȱ denouncedȱinȱBeingȱandȱTime,ȱhasȱitsȱpoeticȱcounterpartȱinȱOlson’sȱ oppositionȱbetweenȱtheȱcheapȱuseȱofȱ“words,ȱwords,ȱwordsȱ/ȱallȱ

HeideggerȱandȱModernȱAmericanȱPoetryȱ[NewȱYork:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1980]ȱ 217Ȭ81ȱonȱtheȱMaximusȱpoems)ȱorȱofȱtheȱWinterȱ1976ȱissueȱofȱBoundaryȱ2.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Martinȱ Heidegger,ȱ “Theȱ Anaximanderȱ Fragment,”ȱ Earlyȱ Greekȱ Thinking,ȱ trans.ȱ Davidȱ Farrellȱ Krellȱ andȱ Frankȱ A.ȱ Capuzziȱ (Sanȱ Francisco:ȱ Harperȱ andȱ Row,ȱ 1984)ȱ25.ȱȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Heidegger,ȱ“Logos,”ȱEarlyȱGreekȱThinking,ȱ60.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Heidegger,ȱ“Logos,”ȱ70.ȱ

218ȱ

overȱeverything”10ȱandȱhisȱrootȱwordsȱsuchȱasȱ“tansy”ȱinȱ“Letterȱ 3”ȱ (Maximus,ȱ 13ȱ [I.9]).ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ recallsȱ Giambattistaȱ Vico’sȱ veriloquiumȱ which,ȱ towardsȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ sectionȱ aptlyȱ titledȱ“PoeticȱLogic”ȱinȱhisȱNewȱScienceȱ(§ȱ401),11ȱheȱequatedȱwithȱ “myth”ȱ orȱ veraȱ narratio,ȱ inȱ aȱ “mythopoetic”ȱ gestureȱ which,ȱ viaȱ Joyce’sȱtransmission,ȱmightȱhaveȱhadȱanȱindirectȱimpactȱonȱEzraȱ Poundȱ himself.ȱ Althoughȱ itȱ wouldȱ seemȱ atȱ firstȱ sightȱ thatȱ theȱ Germanȱ philosopherȱ isȱ movingȱ awayȱ fromȱ “rationalȱ thought,”ȱ suchȱ anȱ oversteppingȱ ofȱ theȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ traditionalȱ logicȱ wasȱ preciselyȱforȱhimȱaȱ“radical”ȱandȱmoreȱrigorousȱwayȱofȱthinking— asȱ wasȱ theȱ PoundianȬFenollosianȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ logicȱ inȱ favourȱ ofȱ science—whichȱhopedȱtoȱapproachȱtheȱessenceȱofȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱ lightȱ ofȱ Being,12ȱ conceivedȱ ofȱ asȱ aȱ stateȱ ofȱ flickeringȱ unconcealment,13ȱandȱretrieveȱtheȱoriginaryȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱ being,ȱlogos,ȱandȱphysis,ȱtheȱlatterȱnotȱmerelyȱasȱ“nature”ȱbutȱalsoȱ asȱ beingȬinȬnatureȱ (IMȱ 123).ȱ Thus,ȱ forȱ Heraclitus,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ “theȱ logosȱisȱthisȱtogethernessȱinȱtheȱessent”ȱ(IMȱ127ȱ[Fragmentȱ2])ȱandȱ “Theȱwordȱoȱʁϱ·ΓΖȱnamesȱthatȱwhichȱgathersȱallȱpresentȱbeingsȱ intoȱpresencing,”14ȱitȱbecameȱtheȱguidingȱwordȱ“soȱasȱtoȱthinkȱinȱ thisȱwordȱtheȱBeingȱofȱbeings.”15ȱWhenceȱitȱfollowsȱforȱHeraclitusȱ that,ȱinȱtheȱexerciseȱofȱphilosophy,ȱ“wisdomȱconsistsȱinȱsayingȱtheȱ truthȱ andȱ actingȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ nature,”16ȱ aȱ principleȱ ofȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ Charlesȱ Olson,ȱ Theȱ Maximusȱ Poems,ȱ ed.ȱ Georgeȱ F.ȱ Butterickȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 1983)ȱ 17ȱ [I.13].ȱ Subsequentȱ referencesȱ toȱ Theȱ MaximusȱPoemsȱwillȱbeȱinȬtext.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Giambattistaȱ Vico,ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Scienceȱ ofȱ Giambattistaȱ Vico.ȱ Unabridgedȱ TranslationȱofȱtheȱThirdȱEditionȱ(1744)ȱwithȱtheȱAdditionȱofȱ“PracticȱofȱtheȱNewȱ Science,”ȱ eds.ȱ Thomasȱ Goddardȱ Berginȱ andȱ MaxȱHaroldȱ Fischȱ (Ithaca:ȱ Cornellȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱ127.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Martinȱ Heidegger,ȱ Anȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Metaphysics,ȱ trans.ȱ Ralphȱ Manheimȱ (Newȱ Haven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1959)ȱ122ȱ[hereafterȱIMȱwithȱpageȱreference].ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ Seeȱe.g.ȱ“TheȱAnaximanderȱFragment,”ȱ26,ȱandȱ“Logos,”ȱ70.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Heidegger,ȱ“Logos,”ȱ76.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Heidegger,ȱ“Logos,”ȱ 78.ȱOr,ȱ toȱ repeatȱ theȱ succinctȱ formulaȱ usedȱ byȱ Davidȱ Farrellȱ KrellȱinȱhisȱintroductionȱtoȱEarlyȱGreekȱThinking,ȱlogosȱisȱ“theȱuniqueȱgatheringȱofȱ beingsȱwhichȱlanguageȱis”ȱ(8).ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Heidegger,ȱ“Logos,”ȱ71ȱ[FragmentȱBȱ112].ȱ

219ȱ

thinkingȱ andȱ livingȱ whichȱ nourishedȱ theȱ emphasisȱ placedȱ onȱ mythȱbyȱseveralȱAmericanȱpostmodernistȱpoets.ȱ Thisȱ renewedȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ originaryȱ essenceȱ ofȱ trueȱ language,ȱinȱitsȱintimateȱassociationȱwithȱbeingȱandȱnature,ȱthatȱ informsȱ Heidegger’sȱ writingȱ findsȱ anȱ artisticȱ parallelȱ inȱ theȱ development,ȱ fromȱ Poundȱ onward,ȱ ofȱ anȱ increasinglyȱ processualȱ poetry,ȱ whichȱ rituallyȱ enactsȱ theȱ processesȱ ofȱ theȱ realȱinȱtheȱagonisticsȱofȱitsȱform.ȱ ȱ 2.ȱLogosȱasȱmuthosȱinȱearlyȱGreekȱpoeticsȱ Whatȱ thereȱ wasȱ ofȱ sayingȱ andȱ utteringȱ thatȱ wasȱ gatheredȱ inȱ theȱ originalȱ essenceȱ ofȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ logosȱ alsoȱ hadȱ aȱ functionȱ withinȱ Greekȱ art,ȱ andȱ inȱ itsȱ complexȱ relationshipȱ withȱ actingȱ orȱ doingȱ (dromenon,ȱ henceȱ “drama”;ȱ poi¾in),ȱ theȱ logosȱ underwentȱ similarȱ mutations,ȱ severingȱ inȱ particularȱ itsȱ primitiveȱ equationȱ withȱ muthos.ȱ Theȱ radicalȱ elementȱ ofȱ “gathering”ȱ andȱ “togetherness”ȱ whichȱ layȱ underȱ theȱ earlyȱ Greekȱ logosȱ alsoȱ impliedȱ thatȱ theȱ latterȱ referredȱ toȱ aȱ jointȱ productionȱ byȱ whichȱ tellerȱandȱaudienceȱwereȱgatheredȱinȱaȱritualȱdiaȬlogicȱexchangeȱofȱ speakingȱ andȱ hearing.ȱ Aȱ logosȱ wasȱ not,ȱ therefore,ȱ theȱ freeȱ expressionȱ ofȱ aȱ singleȱ mindȱ butȱ theȱ slowlyȱ maturedȱ fruitȱ ofȱ aȱ processȱwhichȱmightȱoccupyȱgenerationsȱofȱstoryȱtellersȱandȱtheirȱ audiences.ȱ Theȱ successȱ ofȱ itsȱ tellingȱ wasȱ notȱ howȱ “truthful”ȱ (i.e.ȱ whatȱweȱnowȱmeanȱbyȱthis)ȱitȱwasȱbutȱlayȱinȱtheȱteller’sȱabilityȱtoȱ criticallyȱselectȱthoseȱconstantȱfeaturesȱblendingȱtheȱhistoricalȱandȱ theȱnaturalȱwhich,ȱinȱtheȱmigrationȱfromȱpolisȱtoȱpolis,ȱwouldȱkeepȱ presentȱorȱbringȱintoȱpresenceȱtheȱtogethernessȱofȱtheȱcultureȱandȱ secureȱ theȱsolidarityȱofȱ theȱ community.17ȱThus,ȱ logopaeiaȱwasȱtheȱ artȱofȱnarratingȱanȱeventȱwhoseȱpowerȱdidȱnotȱresideȱinȱtheȱtruthȱ contentȱofȱ theȱtale,ȱand,ȱasȱ oneȱ ofȱCharlesȱOlson’sȱmajorȱsourcesȱ ȱ17

ȱȱ Underȱ theȱ tendencyȱ ofȱ panȬHellenism,ȱ poetryȱ evolvedȱ towardsȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ al¾theia,ȱ asȱ distinctȱ fromȱ muthos,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ latter,ȱ asȱ itȱ eitherȱ reinforcedȱ theȱ truthȬvaluesȱ ofȱ aȱ givenȱ communityȱ orȱ wasȱ heldȱ toȱ beȱ falseȱ (pseudos)ȱ byȱ another,ȱ cameȱ toȱ standȱ forȱ theȱ mutabilityȱ ofȱ itsȱ itinerantȱ practicesȱ andȱ thusȱ compelledȱ theȱ poetȱ toȱ selectȱ theȱ leastȱ commonȱ denominator.ȱ Georgeȱ A.ȱ Kennedy,ȱ ed.ȱ Theȱ Cambridgeȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Literaryȱ Criticism,ȱ vol.ȱ 1:ȱ Classicalȱ Criticismȱ (Cambridge:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989)ȱ29Ȭ30.ȱ

220ȱ

onȱ theȱ ancientȱ Greekȱ logosȱ remindsȱ us,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ meaningȱ ofȱ mythologyȱ wasȱ notȱ whatȱ weȱ implyȱ nowadaysȱ whenȱ weȱ useȱ andȱ abuseȱtheȱword.18ȱȱ Comparableȱ toȱ theȱ centralityȱ ofȱ “Sageȱ Heracleitus”—toȱ borrowȱ Pound’sȱ ownȱ tributeȱ inȱ Hughȱ Selwynȱ Mauberley19—andȱ moreȱgenerallyȱofȱtheȱpreȬSocratics,ȱforȱtheȱbeginningsȱofȱGreekȱ philosophyȱ wasȱ theȱ crucialȱ placeȱ heldȱ byȱ Herodotusȱ theȱ Muthologos,ȱasȱ Aristotleȱ dubbedȱ him,ȱforȱ whomeverȱ wantedȱ toȱ masterȱ theȱ logopoeicȱ style,ȱ withȱ itsȱ emphasisȱ onȱ formȱ ratherȱ thanȱmaterial.20ȱWeȱknowȱbothȱOlson’sȱesteemȱforȱHerodotus’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ “history”ȱ asȱ narration21ȱ andȱ hisȱ individualȱ processȱ ofȱ ‘istorin,ȱ whichȱ Thomsonȱ glossesȱ asȱ “findingȱ outȱ forȱ oneself”ȱ andȱ whichȱ heȱ writesȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ usedȱ byȱ philosophers,22ȱ andȱ hisȱ scornȱ forȱ Thucydides’sȱ wishȱ toȱ destroyȱ theȱmythicȱelementȱinȱhistoryȱenvisagedȱasȱaȱmereȱcollectionȱofȱ trueȱ facts.ȱ Lessȱ wellȬknown,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ Pound’sȱ passingȱ judgmentȱinȱ“HowȱToȱRead”ȱtoȱtheȱsameȱeffectȱthatȱ“Herodotusȱ wroteȱhistoryȱthatȱisȱliterature.ȱThucydidesȱwasȱaȱjournalist.ȱ(Itȱ isȱaȱmodernȱfollyȱtoȱsupposeȱthatȱvulgarityȱandȱcheapnessȱhaveȱ theȱ meritȱ ofȱ novelty;ȱ theyȱ haveȱ alwaysȱ existed,ȱ andȱ areȱ ofȱ noȱ interestȱ inȱ themselves.)”23ȱ Thisȱ opposition,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ beenȱ“systematised”ȱbyȱPindar,ȱbetweenȱaȱ“true,”ȱi.e.ȱfactuallyȱ provable,ȱlogosȱandȱaȱfalseȱmuthos,ȱadornedȱwithȱcunningȱfictionȱ whichȱ isȱ meantȱ toȱ deceive—withȱ theȱ legendȱ (fromȱ legein)ȱ orȱ “unconsciousȱ fictionȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ history”24ȱ inȬbetween— formsȱ theȱ backboneȱ ofȱ “Letterȱ 23”ȱ ofȱ Olson’sȱ Maximusȱ poemsȱ

ȱ18ȱȱ J.A.K.ȱThomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogosȱ(London:ȱAllenȱandȱUnwin,ȱ1935)ȱ17.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ EzraȱPound,ȱSelectedȱPoemsȱ(London:ȱFaber,ȱ1975).ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Thomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogos,ȱ14.ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ Thisȱnowȱacceptedȱredefinitionȱofȱhistoryȱasȱnarrationȱhadȱalreadyȱbeenȱventuredȱ byȱ Vicoȱ inȱ hisȱ Newȱ Science,ȱ paradoxicallyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ layȱ aȱ secureȱ foundationȱ forȱ history:ȱ“historyȱcannotȱbeȱmoreȱcertainȱthanȱwhenȱheȱwhoȱcreatesȱtheȱthingsȱalsoȱ narratesȱthem,”ȱ§ȱ349ȱ(104).ȱ ȱ22ȱȱ Thomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogos,ȱ237n13.ȱ ȱ23ȱȱ LiteraryȱEssaysȱofȱEzraȱPound,ȱed.ȱandȱintro.ȱT.ȱS.ȱEliotȱ(London:ȱFaber,ȱ1954)ȱ30.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Thomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogos,ȱ18;ȱ21.ȱ

221ȱ

andȱisȱfurtherȱdevelopedȱinȱhisȱessayȱ“ItȱWas.ȱButȱItȱAin’t.”25ȱAsȱ aȱ corollary,ȱ whereasȱ Herodotus,ȱ fromȱ aȱ keenerȱ senseȱ ofȱ commonality,ȱ wroteȱ withȱ aȱ popularȱ audienceȱ inȱ mind,ȱ Pindar,ȱ anathematisedȱbyȱOlsonȱbutȱalsoȱbyȱPoundȱinȱMauberleyȱforȱhisȱ “bigȱrhetoricalȱdrum”26ȱshowedȱaȱmoreȱproprietorialȱinterestȱinȱ theȱ sacredȱ storiesȱ orȱ hieroiȱ logoi.27ȱ Leadingȱ toȱ aȱ selfishlyȱ individualȱ truthȱ disconnectedȱ fromȱ communalȱ practicesȱ andȱ beliefs,ȱ Pindar’sȱ viewȱ runsȱ counterȱ toȱ Pound’sȱ conviction,ȱ voicedȱasȱearlyȱasȱTheȱSpiritȱofȱRomance,ȱthatȱtheȱancientȱmythȱisȱ theȱarticulationȱbetweenȱaȱpersonalȱvisionȱandȱtheȱexpressionȱofȱ communalȱ life,ȱ andȱ thisȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theȱ obfuscationȱ ofȱ theȱ Cantos’sȱ originalȱ vocationȱ asȱ theȱ personalȱ recordȱ ofȱ communalȱ myths:ȱ “Greekȱ mythȱ aroseȱ whenȱ someoneȱ havingȱ passedȱ throughȱ delightfulȱ psychicȱ experienceȱ triedȱ toȱ communicateȱ itȱ toȱ othersȱ andȱ foundȱ itȱ necessaryȱ toȱ screenȱ himselfȱ fromȱ persecution.”28ȱ Thus,ȱ forȱ Pound,ȱ mythȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ bothȱ whatȱcannotȱbeȱarticulated—ifȱonlyȱbecauseȱitȱisȱitselfȱaȱmethodȱ ofȱarticulation—andȱyetȱmustȱbeȱtold,ȱasȱPound’sȱemphasisȱonȱ Sagetriebȱ orȱ “urgeȱ toȱ say”ȱ (Germanȱ Sageȱ alsoȱ meansȱ “legend”)ȱ

ȱȱ Charlesȱ Olson,ȱ Humanȱ Universeȱ andȱ Otherȱ Essays,ȱ ed.ȱ Donaldȱ Allenȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ GroveȱPress,ȱ1967)ȱ141Ȭ43ȱ[hereafterȱHU].ȱSeeȱGeorgeȱF.ȱButterick,ȱAȱGuideȱtoȱ“Theȱ Maximusȱ Poems”ȱ ofȱ Charlesȱ Olsonȱ (Berkeley:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Press,ȱ 1980)ȱ 145Ȭ47,ȱforȱtheȱpassagesȱfromȱThomsonȱthatȱhelpedȱshapeȱOlson’sȱargument,ȱandȱ Shermanȱ Paul,ȱ Olson’sȱ Push:ȱ Origin,ȱ Blackȱ Mountainȱ andȱ Recentȱ Americanȱ Poetryȱ (BatonȱRouge:ȱLouisianaȱStateȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1978)ȱ105Ȭ06,ȱforȱaȱbriefȱarticulationȱ ofȱ thisȱ contextȱ withȱ “Letterȱ 23.”ȱ Olson’sȱ choiceȱ ofȱ poetryȱ versusȱ theȱ traditionalȱ notionȱ ofȱ historyȱ mayȱ recallȱ Rolandȱ Barthes’sȱ contemporaneousȱ observationȱ thatȱ theȱ criticȱ canȱ chooseȱ betweenȱ historyȱ andȱ poetry,ȱ althoughȱ theȱ latter’sȱ distinctionȱ shouldȱbeȱrevisedȱinȱtheȱviewȱofȱthisȱmoreȱ“archaic”ȱconceptionȱofȱmythȱthatȱourȱ paperȱ triesȱ toȱ recover,ȱ asȱ notȱ merelyȱ somethingȱ obscuringȱ reality.ȱ Thusȱ theȱ gapȱ betweenȱtheȱmythicȱandȱtheȱhistoricalȱwhichȱPound’sȱideogrammicȱmethod,ȱaidedȱ byȱhisȱmythicȱconsciousnessȱ(thusȱredefined),ȱseals,ȱaccordingȱtoȱR.G.ȱCarpanini’sȱ paperȱonȱ“RolandȱBarthesȱandȱPound’sȱUsesȱofȱMythology”ȱ(readȱatȱtheȱ15thȱEzraȱ Poundȱ Internationalȱ Conferenceȱ onȱ “Natureȱ andȱ Mythȱ inȱ Ezraȱ Pound,”ȱ heldȱ atȱ Rapalloȱ13Ȭ16ȱJulyȱ1993),ȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱsoȱwideȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ Ezraȱ Pound,ȱ Theȱ Selectedȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Ezraȱ Poundȱ 1907Ȭ1941,ȱ ed.ȱ D.D.ȱ Paigeȱ (London:ȱFaber,ȱ1982)ȱ91.ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Thomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogos,ȱ86.ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ EzraȱPound,ȱTheȱSpiritȱofȱRomanceȱ(London:ȱPeterȱOwen,ȱ1952)ȱ92.ȱ ȱ25

222ȱ

impliesȱ (seeȱ later).ȱ Andȱ although,ȱ asȱ Michaelȱ Andréȱ Bernsteinȱ hasȱ shown,ȱ Pound’sȱ mythopoeticȱ imaginationȱ doesȱ notȱ successfullyȱ interactȱ withȱ theȱ moreȱ explicitlyȱ historicalȱ andȱ didacticȱnarrativeȱofȱtheȱCantos,29ȱPound’sȱcelebratedȱaphorismȱ thatȱ“anȱepicȱisȱaȱpoemȱincludingȱhistory”ȱcannotȱbeȱenvisagedȱ outsideȱthisȱlegacyȱofȱaȱcomplexȱsetȱofȱrelationsȱtyingȱnarration,ȱ history,ȱnatureȱandȱmythȱorȱlegend.ȱ ȱ 3.ȱLogonȱpoiein:ȱ(post)modernistȱmythopoeticsȱ Weȱ haveȱ seenȱ thatȱ legeinȱ andȱ poi¾inȱ wereȱ “opposed”ȱ butȱ asȱ twoȱ complementaryȱ activities,ȱ usuallyȱ attunedȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ “inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ nature”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ expressȱ theȱ myth.ȱ Ifȱ logopoeiaȱ cameȱ toȱ designate,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱ anȱ artisticȱ “speechȱ act”ȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ directlyȱ reflectiveȱ ofȱ nature,ȱ theȱ muthosȱ orȱ thingȱ spoken,ȱ utteredȱ orȱ “acted”ȱ byȱ theȱ mouth,ȱ hadȱ itsȱ antithesisȱ orȱ ratherȱcorrespondenceȱinȱtheȱthingȱdoneȱorȱenȬacted,ȱtheȱergonȱorȱ ȱ29

ȱȱ Michaelȱ Andréȱ Bernsteinȱ rightlyȱ relatesȱ Pound’sȱ usualȱ impatienceȱ withȱ theȱ interpretativeȱschemasȱproposedȱbyȱorthodoxȱhistoriansȱtoȱhisȱattemptȱtoȱfillȱinȱtheȱ gapsȱ ofȱ historyȱ byȱ relyingȱ onȱ theȱ metamorphicȱ presentationȱ ofȱ mythologicalȱ thinking,ȱandȱlocatesȱtheȱclashȱbetweenȱhistoricalȱcausalityȱandȱmythicalȱinsightȱinȱ theȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ time.ȱ (Similarly,ȱ inȱ hisȱ “Spatialȱ Formȱ inȱ Modernȱ Literature”ȱ (1945),ȱ Josephȱ Frankȱ hadȱ identifiedȱ aȱ shiftȱ fromȱ “theȱ objectiveȱ historicalȱ imagination”ȱtoȱ“theȱmythicalȱimaginationȱforȱwhichȱhistoricalȱtimeȱdoesȱnotȱexist”ȱ withȱtheȱadventȱofȱmodernismȱ[quotedȱinȱWilliamȱV.ȱSpanos,ȱ“BreakingȱtheȱCircle:ȱ HermeneuticsȱasȱDisȬclosure,”ȱBoundaryȱ2ȱV.2ȱ(Winterȱ1977):ȱ441].)ȱHowever,ȱinȱhisȱ otherwiseȱ correctȱ diagnosis,ȱ theȱ disjunctiveȱ temporalitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ mythicalȱ andȱ historicalȱforcesȱatȱworkȱinȱtheȱCantos,ȱandȱconsequentlyȱtheirȱlackȱofȱsynthesis,ȱisȱ correlatedȱtoȱaȱfailureȱinȱfusingȱLogosȱandȱMythosȱwhich,ȱsettingȱasideȱtheȱunclearȱ associationsȱ ofȱ theirȱ passingȱ mentionsȱ (Bernstein,ȱ Theȱ Taleȱ ofȱ theȱ Tribe:ȱ Ezraȱ Poundȱ andȱ theȱ Modernȱ Verseȱ Epicȱ [Princeton:ȱ Princetonȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1980]ȱ 117;ȱ 126),ȱ seemsȱtoȱrestȱonȱaȱtraditionalȱdivideȱwhoseȱrelevanceȱforȱtheȱemergingȱmodernistȱ poeticsȱthisȱpaperȱpreciselyȱwantsȱtoȱchallenge.ȱMetamorphicȱpresentationȱwillȱalsoȱ beȱ theȱ linguisticȱ modeȱ ofȱ operationȱ forȱ Olson’sȱ Maximusȱ poems,ȱ whichȱ Dibakarȱ BaruaȱattemptsȱtoȱformulateȱbyȱusingȱDerrida’sȱaccountȱofȱLeviȬStrauss’sȱanalysisȱ ofȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ mythȱ toȱ theȱ effectȱ thatȱ mythologicalȱ discourseȱ mustȱ itselfȱ beȱ mythomorphic:ȱ unlikeȱ theȱ epistemicȱ discourseȱ ofȱ abstractionȱ whichȱ divorcesȱ intellectualȱprocessesȱfromȱtheȱworkingsȱofȱnature,ȱtheȱmythomorphicȱmodeȱaimsȱ toȱ informȱ andȱ enactȱ itsȱ contentȱ (Barua,ȱ “Oneȱ andȱ Many:ȱ Theȱ Paradoxȱ ofȱ ‘Methodology’ȱ inȱ Charlesȱ Olson’sȱ Maximus,”ȱ Massachusettsȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Englishȱ 9.1ȱ [1983]:ȱ14).ȱ

223ȱ

work.ȱAsȱJaneȱEllenȱHarrisonȱputsȱitȱinȱherȱinfluentialȱstudyȱofȱtheȱ socialȱ originsȱ ofȱ Greekȱ religion,ȱ whichȱ weȱ knowȱ Charlesȱ Olsonȱ consultedȱandȱheldȱaȱcopyȱof:ȱ ȱ Theȱprimaryȱmeaningȱofȱmythȱinȱreligionȱisȱjustȱtheȱsameȱasȱinȱ earlyȱliterature;ȱitȱisȱtheȱspokenȱcorrelativeȱofȱtheȱactiveȱrite,ȱtheȱ thingȱ done;ȱ itȱ isȱ Θòȱ ΏΉ·óΐΉvovȱ asȱ contrastedȱ withȱ orȱ ratherȱ asȱ relatedȱtoȱΘòȱΈΕЏΐΉvov.30ȱ

ȱ ȱ Harrisonȱ furtherȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ firstȱ muthosȱ wasȱ possiblyȱ theȱ interjectionalȱ utteranceȱ mu,ȱ andȱ noȱ doubtȱ Olson’sȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱstrongȱmythicalȱpowerȱinȱtheȱGreekȱradicalȱforȱ“mouth”31ȱliesȱ behindȱhisȱrepeatedȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdissonanceȱorȱ“muȬsick”ȱofȱ westernȱcivilisationȱ(e.g.ȱMaximus,ȱ7ȱ[I.3]).ȱHowever,ȱinȱitsȱdoubleȱ capacityȱ asȱ aȱ verbȱ expressingȱ markedȱ situationsȱ inȱ ritualȱ orȱ theȱ everydayȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ group,ȱ theȱ Greekȱ muoȱ couldȱ meanȱ bothȱ 1qȱ Iȱ say,ȱorȱsee,ȱinȱaȱspecialȱway,ȱandȱ2qȱIȱhaveȱmyȱmouth,ȱorȱeyes,ȱclosed,32ȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ ancientȱ “mysteries,”ȱ which,ȱ likeȱ theȱ myths,ȱ Poundȱ sawȱ asȱ anȱ essentialȱ elementȱ ofȱ theȱ community’sȱ lifeȱ andȱ wellȬbeing,ȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱtraced.33ȱItsȱdualȱdimensionȱofȱutteranceȱ andȱ inarticulatenessȱ neatlyȱ alignsȱ withȱ Vico’sȱ doubleȱ Latinȱ andȱ

ȱ30ȱȱ Janeȱ Ellenȱ Harrison,ȱ Prolegomenaȱ toȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Greekȱ Religion,ȱ 3rdȱ ed.ȱ (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1922)ȱ330.ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Cf.ȱCharlesȱOlson,ȱMuthologos:ȱTheȱCollectedȱLecturesȱandȱInterviews,ȱed.ȱGeorgeȱF.ȱ Butterickȱ (Bolinas,ȱ CA:ȱ Fourȱ Seasons,ȱ 1978ȱ [vol.ȱ I]ȱ andȱ 1979ȱ [vol.ȱ II])ȱ II.38ȱ [hereafterȱM].ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ Kennedy,ȱTheȱCambridgeȱHistoryȱofȱLiteraryȱCriticism,ȱI.3.ȱ ȱ33ȱȱ Inȱaȱ shortȱ sectionȱonȱ Eleusinianȱ mysteriesȱinȱ herȱ Prolegomenaȱ toȱ theȱ Studyȱ ofȱGreekȱ Religion,ȱ Harrisonȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ mystes,ȱ orȱ oneȱ initiatedȱ intoȱ theȱ mysteries,ȱ itȱ isȱ supposed,ȱ“isȱtheȱpersonȱvowedȱtoȱsecrecyȱwhoȱhasȱnotȱseenȱandȱwillȱnotȱspeakȱofȱ theȱ thingsȱ revealed”ȱ (153).ȱ Poundȱ mightȱ haveȱ knownȱ aboutȱ thisȱ otherȱ influentialȱ studyȱofȱHarrison’s,ȱwhichȱhadȱreachedȱitsȱsecondȱeditionȱbyȱ1908.ȱHisȱpredilectionȱ forȱtheȱEleusinianȱmysteriesȱinȱparticularȱhasȱbeenȱdocumentedȱbyȱLeonȱSurette.ȱCf.ȱ alsoȱtheȱopeningȱofȱDuncan’sȱcrucialȱessayȱonȱ“TheȱTruthȱandȱLifeȱofȱMyth”ȱwhichȱ bearsȱ onȱ theȱ (in)articulabilityȱ ofȱ theȱ mythȱ seenȱ above:ȱ “Mythȱ isȱ theȱ storyȱ toldȱ ofȱ whatȱcannotȱbeȱtold,ȱasȱmysteryȱisȱtheȱsceneȱrevealedȱofȱwhatȱcannotȱbeȱrevealed,ȱ andȱtheȱmysticȱgnosisȱtheȱthingȱknownȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱknown”ȱ(1).ȱSeeȱalsoȱHerbertȱ Schneidau,ȱ Ezraȱ Pound:ȱ Theȱ Imageȱ andȱ theȱ Realȱ (Batonȱ Rouge:ȱ Louisianaȱ Stateȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1969)137.ȱ

224ȱ

Greekȱ lineageȱ forȱ “fable”ȱ andȱ “myth,”ȱ asȱ whenȱ heȱ writesȱ inȱ hisȱ sectionȱonȱ“PoeticȱLogic”ȱthat:ȱ ȱ “Logic”ȱcomesȱformȱlogos,ȱwhoseȱfirstȱandȱproperȱmeaningȱwasȱ fabula,ȱfable,ȱcarriedȱoverȱintoȱItalianȱasȱfavella,ȱspeech.ȱInȱGreekȱ theȱfableȱwasȱalsoȱcalledȱmythos,ȱmyth,ȱwhenceȱcomesȱtheȱLatinȱ mutus,ȱmute.ȱForȱspeechȱwasȱbornȱinȱmuteȱtimesȱasȱmentalȱ[orȱ sign]ȱ language,ȱ whichȱ Straboȱ inȱ aȱ goldenȱ passageȱ saysȱ existedȱ beforeȱ vocalȱ orȱ articulateȱ [language];ȱ whenceȱ logosȱ meansȱbothȱ wordȱandȱidea.ȱ[§ȱ401]34ȱ

ȱ PossiblyȱlinkedȱbyȱfolkȬetymology,ȱwhichȱThomsonȱremindsȱusȱ wasȱaȱcommonȱsourceȱofȱlogoi,35ȱtheȱsemanticȱoscillationsȱofȱtheȱ radicalȱ forȱ “myth”ȱ areȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ Heidegger’sȱ observationȱ thatȱ “ʁó·oΖȱ isȱ inȱ itselfȱ andȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ aȱ revealingȱ andȱ aȱ concealing”ȱ (“Logos,”ȱ 71),ȱ inȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ al¾theiaȱ whichȱalsoȱfoundȱitsȱwayȱintoȱtheȱJewishȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱDivineȱ Wordȱ beingȱ atȱ onceȱ revealedȱ andȱ hiddenȱ (Shemȱ haȬmeforash).ȱ Theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ visualȱ andȱ verbalȱ processesȱ isȱ alsoȱ worthȱ bearingȱ inȱ mindȱ forȱ Pound’sȱ readingȱ andȱ useȱ ofȱ myth.ȱ Rabatéȱ hasȱshownȱhow,ȱinȱPound’sȱandȱHeidegger’sȱrecourseȱtoȱGreekȱ andȱGermanicȱroots,ȱtheȱsayingȱinȱpoetryȱisȱalwaysȱaȱshowing,ȱ bothȱworkingȱtogetherȱtoȱdiscloseȱtheȱmythicȱ“truth,”ȱandȱhowȱ theȱ poet’sȱ Sagetriebȱ whichȱ “suggestsȱ aȱ collectiveȱ processȱ ofȱ mythȬmaking”ȱwasȱequallyȱphanopoeicȱ(sagen,ȱzeigen).36ȱ Theȱ choiceȱ ofȱ theȱ lastȱ adjectiveȱ wasȱ motivatedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ visualȱ techniqueȱ isȱ emphasisedȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ Pound’sȱ earliestȱaccountsȱofȱhisȱprojectȱofȱtheȱCantos,ȱinȱaȱ1917ȱletterȱtoȱ Joyce:ȱ “Iȱ haveȱ begunȱ anȱ endlessȱ poem,ȱ ofȱ noȱ knownȱ category.ȱ Phanopoeiaȱ orȱ somethingȱ orȱ other,ȱ allȱ aboutȱ everything.”37ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ Vico,ȱTheȱNewȱScience,ȱ127.ȱ ȱ35ȱȱ Thomson,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱtheȱLogos,ȱ55.ȱ ȱ36ȱȱ Rabaté,ȱLanguage,ȱSexualityȱandȱIdeologyȱinȱEzraȱPound’sȱCantos,ȱ7Ȭ8,ȱ276Ȭ77.ȱ ȱ37ȱȱ Pound/Joyce:ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱEzraȱPoundȱtoȱJamesȱJoyce,ȱwithȱPound’sȱEssaysȱonȱJoyce,ȱ ed.ȱandȱwithȱCommentaryȱbyȱForrestȱReadȱ(London:ȱFaber,ȱ1965)ȱ102.ȱPound’sȱ emphasisȱonȱtheȱvisualȱinȱtheȱoriginal,ȱprovisionalȱtitleȱofȱtheȱCantos,ȱnotȱmerelyȱ forȱ theȱ ideogrammicȱ methodȱ ofȱ compositionȱ butȱ alsoȱ forȱ theȱ structureȱ andȱ themesȱ ofȱ hisȱ epic,ȱ isȱ noȱ doubtȱ alreadyȱ motivatedȱ byȱ theȱ desireȱ toȱ recreateȱ aȱ

225ȱ

Moreȱsignificantly,ȱitȱpointsȱupȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱuncoveringȱtheȱ phenomenologicalȱ orientationȱ ofȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ bestȬknownȱ foundingȱpropositionsȱofȱEzraȱPound’sȱpoeticsȱasȱwellȱasȱthatȱofȱ rereadingȱthemȱinȱtheȱprismaticȱlightȱofȱtheȱaboveȱreflectionsȱonȱ theȱcentralityȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱ“mythic”ȱlogosȱforȱpoetry,ȱnarrationȱ (art),ȱhistory,ȱandȱnature.38ȱInȱ“HowȱToȱRead,”ȱPoundȱidentifiesȱ “threeȱ kindsȱ ofȱ poetry,”ȱ theȱ secondȱ andȱ thirdȱ ofȱ which,ȱ phanopoeiaȱ andȱ logopoeia,ȱ areȱ especiallyȱ relevantȱ forȱ understandingȱtheȱpoeticȱtechniquesȱofȱhisȱownȱmythicȱmethod.ȱ Phanopoeia,ȱ “whichȱ isȱ aȱ castingȱ ofȱ imagesȱ uponȱ theȱ visualȱ imagination,”ȱisȱaȱprocessȱofȱvisualisationȱwhichȱpositsȱaȱrelationȱ betweenȱ theȱ objectiveȱ physicalȱ eidonȱ andȱ itsȱ subjectiveȱ imagin(in)gȱ asȱ aȱ poeticȱ idea.39ȱ Theȱ moreȱ “trickyȱ andȱ undependableȱmode”ȱofȱlogopoeia,ȱmemorablyȱdefinedȱasȱ“theȱ

visionȱ ofȱ paradiseȱ whichȱ wouldȱ eventuallyȱ “leadȱ backȱ toȱ splendour”ȱ (Cantoȱ CXVI).ȱ ȱ38ȱȱ AlthoughȱweȱcannotȱconfrontȱhereȱtheȱimplicationsȱofȱSpanos’sȱprocedureȱwith,ȱforȱ instance,ȱ theȱ growingȱ redeploymentȱ ofȱ spaceȱ versusȱ timeȱ inȱ montageȱ poetryȱ andȱ projectiveȱverse,ȱtheȱfollowingȱobservation,ȱdictatedȱbyȱhisȱprojectȱofȱreinstatingȱtheȱ temporalȬexistentialȱ readingȱ ofȱ literaryȱ texts,ȱ providesȱ anȱ interestingȱ epistemologicalȱ frameworkȱ forȱ ourȱ moreȱ specificȱ inquiry:ȱ “Whatȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ thematizedȱ […],ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ Heidegger’sȱthoughtȱandȱtheȱWesternȱliteraryȱtraditionȱandȱitsȱhermeneutics,ȱisȱthatȱ thisȱreificationȱofȱexistenceȱisȱaȱspatialisationȱofȱtimeȱor,ȱasȱtheȱetymologyȱofȱ‘metaphysics’ȱ clearlyȱsuggests,ȱconstitutesȱaȱcoercedȱmetamorphosisȱofȱtemporalityȱintoȱimageȱorȱpicture,ȱ i.e.,ȱanȱaestheticȱstructureȱtheȱmodelȱorȱprototypeȱofȱwhichȱisȱtheȱplasticȱorȱarchitectonic— visual—arts”ȱ (Spanos,ȱ “Breakingȱ theȱ Circle,”ȱ 431).ȱ Hisȱ readingȱ ofȱ modernistȱ textsȱ andȱpoetics,ȱhowever,ȱseemsȱtoȱignoreȱtheirȱpreoccupationȱwithȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱofȱ poeticȱ languageȱ asȱ showingȱ (itself),ȱ i.e.ȱ as,ȱ precisely,ȱ phenomenoȬlogical,ȱ andȱ Pound’sȱ invectiveȱ againstȱ pedantsȱ “obscuringȱ theȱ textsȱ withȱ philology,ȱ /ȱ hidingȱ themȱunderȱtheirȱpersons”ȱ(CantoȱXIV)—whichȱmustȱnotȱbeȱconfusedȱwithȱtheȱdriftȱ ofȱ (post)modernistȱ Americanȱ poetryȱ towardsȱ theȱ revitalisationȱ ofȱ languageȱ byȱ takingȱ wordsȱ atȱ theirȱ “true”ȱ etymologicalȱ root—arguablyȱ restsȱ onȱ aȱ visionary’sȱ faithȱ inȱ theȱ “apophantic”ȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ showingȱ itselfȱ inȱ itsȱ pureȱ clarityȱ (cf.ȱ Michaelȱ Davidson,ȱ “‘Fromȱ theȱ Latinȱ Speculum:’ȱ Theȱ Modernȱ Poetȱ asȱ Philologist,”ȱ Contemporaryȱ Literatureȱ XXVIII.2ȱ [1987]:ȱ 187Ȭ205).ȱ Thisȱ studyȱ isȱ therefore,ȱ atȱ oneȱ level,ȱ anotherȱ wayȱ ofȱ approachingȱ whatȱ Spanosȱ identifiesȱ asȱ theȱ ontologicalȱ priorityȱofȱtheȱvisualȱinȱliterature;ȱseeȱalsoȱmyȱ“‘Suspendedȱinȱtime,ȱbetweenȱpole[s]ȱ andȱtropic:’ȱEliot’sȱFourȱQuartets.”ȱ ȱ39ȱȱ Pound,ȱLiteraryȱEssays,ȱ25;ȱmyȱemphasis.ȱCf.ȱalsoȱABCȱofȱReading,ȱ52.ȱ

226ȱ

danceȱofȱtheȱintellectȱamongȱwords”ȱ(whichȱOlsonȱwillȱecho,ȱinȱ aȱtruncatedȱform,ȱinȱhisȱ“ProjectiveȱVerse”ȱessay;ȱseeȱHUȱ55),ȱisȱ aȱprocessȱofȱverbalisationȱwhichȱrestsȱimplicitlyȱonȱtheȱrelationȱ ofȱ poeticȱ languageȱ toȱ theȱ physicalȱ bodyȱ and,ȱ addsȱ Pound,ȱ whichȱ “holdsȱ theȱ aestheticȱ contentȱ whichȱ isȱ peculiarlyȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ verbalȱ manifestation,ȱ andȱ cannotȱ possiblyȱ beȱ containedȱ inȱ plasticȱ orȱ inȱ music.”40ȱ Theȱ markedȱ preoccupationȱ withȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ verbalȱ andȱ theȱ visualȱ foundȱ itsȱ expressionȱ inȱ theȱ recurrentȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “energy,”ȱ whichȱ acquiredȱ anȱ increasingȱ importanceȱ inȱ Pound’sȱ poeticsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ 1910s.ȱ Jeanȱ Hagstrumȱ usefullyȱ differentiatesȱ betweenȱ twoȱ relatedȱ typesȱ ofȱ “puttingȱ intoȱ actionȱ orȱ work”ȱ (ergon):ȱ enargeia,ȱ whichȱ “impliesȱ theȱ achievementȱ inȱ verbalȱ discourseȱ ofȱ aȱ naturalȱ qualityȱ orȱ ofȱ aȱ pictorialȱ qualityȱ thatȱ isȱ highlyȱ natural,”ȱ andȱ energeiaȱ whichȱ “refersȱ toȱ theȱ actualisationȱ ofȱ potency,ȱ theȱ realisationȱ ofȱ capacityȱ orȱ capability,ȱ theȱ achievementȱinȱartȱ andȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ theȱdynamicȱandȱ purposiveȱ lifeȱ ofȱ nature.”41ȱ Thisȱ discrimination,ȱ Wendyȱ Steinerȱ argues,ȱ collapsedȱ withȱ modernȱ writers,ȱ whoȱ “exchangedȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ enargeiaȱ forȱ energeiaȱ inȱ determiningȱ howȱ artȱ couldȱ beȱ likeȱ reality”;42ȱ orȱ toȱ putȱ itȱ differently,ȱ sheȱ locatesȱ aȱ shiftȱ fromȱ theȱ traditionalȱvividȱdescriptionȱtoȱaȱmoreȱ“essentialist”ȱenactmentȱ ofȱnaturalȱprocesses.ȱHereȱagain,ȱoneȱshouldȱbearȱinȱmindȱandȱ gatherȱ allȱ theȱ latentȱ “mythical”ȱ (i.e.ȱ verbalȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ visual)ȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ “energy”ȱ inȱ tryingȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ foundationȱ ofȱ theȱ (post)modernistȱ kineticȱ

ȱȱ Pound,ȱ Literaryȱ Essays,ȱ 25.ȱ Kennedyȱ notesȱ that,ȱ inȱ Archaicȱ andȱ Classicalȱ Greece,ȱ visualisationȱ isȱ “connectedȱ withȱ theȱ analogyȱ betweenȱ literatureȱ andȱ theȱ arts,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ withȱ theȱ developingȱ interestȱ inȱ epistemologyȱ fromȱ theȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ BCȱ onward”ȱ (Theȱ Cambridgeȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Literaryȱ Criticism,ȱ xiii),ȱ andȱ asȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ suggestedȱbefore,ȱthisȱrenewedȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱvisualȱmayȱbeȱseenȱtoȱgoȱhandȱinȱ handȱwithȱtheȱriseȱandȱimpactȱofȱphenomenologicalȱprocedures.ȱThatȱanalogyȱhasȱ beenȱ documentedȱ inȱ Wendyȱ Steiner’sȱ excellentȱ studyȱ Theȱ Coloursȱ ofȱ Rhetoric:ȱ ProblemsȱinȱtheȱRelationȱbetweenȱModernȱLiteratureȱandȱPaintingȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱ ofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱtoȱwhichȱweȱshallȱpresentlyȱrefer.ȱ ȱ41ȱȱ QuotedȱinȱSteiner,ȱTheȱColoursȱofȱRhetoric,ȱ10.ȱ ȱ42ȱȱ Steiner,ȱTheȱColoursȱofȱRhetoric,ȱ10Ȭ11.ȱ ȱ40

227ȱ

aestheticsȱ (fromȱ Greekȱ Θ΅ȱ ΅΍ΗΌ΋ΘΣ:ȱ thingsȱ perceptible,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ Θ΅ȱ vo΋ΘΣ:ȱ thingsȱ thinkable,ȱ immaterial)ȱ andȱ theȱ conceptionȱofȱpoetryȱasȱenactment,ȱnamelyȱOlson’sȱsubsequentȱ viewȱofȱtheȱpoem,ȱviaȱPoundȱandȱespeciallyȱWilliams,ȱasȱaȱfieldȱ ofȱverbalȱaction.ȱTheȱfollowingȱselectionȱfromȱPoundȱandȱOlson,ȱ viaȱ Fenollosa’sȱ emphasisȱ onȱ truthȱ asȱ aȱ (natural)ȱ transferentialȱ process,ȱ willȱ highlightȱ theȱ convergenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ gradualȱ foregroundingȱofȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ“energy”ȱ(orȱrelatedȱkeywords)ȱ andȱ theȱ increasingȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ kineticȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ theȱ Imageȱorȱtheȱideogrammicȱformȱinȱ(post)modernistȱpoetics:43ȱ ȱ 1.ȱPoundȱ ȱ Letȱ usȱ imagineȱ thatȱ wordsȱ areȱ […]ȱ chargedȱ withȱ aȱ forceȬlikeȱ electricity,ȱ or,ȱ rather,ȱ radiatingȱ aȱ forceȱ fromȱ theirȱ apexesȱ […].ȱ Whenȱthisȱconjunctionȱoccursȱletȱusȱsayȱtheirȱforceȱisȱnotȱaddedȱ one’sȱtoȱtheȱother’s,ȱbutȱmultipliedȱtheȱone’sȱbyȱtheȱother’s;ȱthusȱ threeȱ orȱ fourȱ wordsȱ inȱ exactȱ juxtapositionȱ areȱ capableȱ ofȱ radiatingȱthisȱenergyȱatȱaȱveryȱhighȱpotentiality44ȱ

ȱ Iȱ pointedȱ outȱ thatȱ energyȱ createsȱ pattern.ȱ […]ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ sayȱ furtherȱ thatȱ emotionalȱ forceȱ givesȱ theȱ image.ȱ Byȱ thisȱ Iȱ doȱ notȱ

ȱȱ Seeȱ Ianȱ F.A.ȱ Bell,ȱ Criticȱ asȱ Scientist:ȱ Theȱ Modernistȱ Poeticsȱ ofȱ Ezraȱ Poundȱ (London:ȱ Methuen,ȱ 1981)ȱ 27Ȭ42,ȱ forȱ aȱ stimulatingȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ (largelyȱ unacknowledged)ȱ contributionȱofȱHudsonȱMaxim’sȱTheȱScienceȱofȱPoetryȱandȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱLanguageȱ (1910)ȱtoȱPound’sȱaestheticsȱfromȱ“TheȱWisdomȱofȱPoetry”ȱ(1912)ȱonwardȱ(Selectedȱ Proseȱ1909Ȭ1965.ȱed.ȱandȱintro.ȱWilliamȱCooksonȱ[London:ȱFaber,ȱ1973]ȱ329Ȭ32),ȱinȱ particularȱ itsȱ advocationȱ ofȱ theȱ energisingȱ powersȱ ofȱ poetryȱ butȱ alsoȱ itsȱ presentationȱ ofȱ aȱ Fenollosianȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ poetryȱ asȱ actionȬbasedȱ andȱ verbȬcentered.ȱ Ianȱ Bell’sȱ overallȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ inquiryȱ isȱ toȱ showȱ howȱ scienceȱ providedȱPoundȱwithȱaȱvocabularyȱcapableȱofȱbringingȱintoȱfocusȱtheȱpoet’sȱeffortsȱ toȱdefineȱaȱsystemȱofȱpoeticsȱandȱtheȱmodernistȱcritic’sȱprocedure.ȱRichardȱGoddenȱ isȱrightȱtoȱstateȱthatȱ“‘Phantastikon,’ȱ‘image,’ȱ‘ideogram,’ȱandȱ‘vortex’ȱareȱPoundianȱ synonymsȱforȱenergyȱwhichȱareȱeasierȱtoȱdrawȱthanȱtoȱdescribeȱverbally”ȱ(“Icons,ȱ Etymologies,ȱ Originsȱ andȱ Monkeyȱ Puzzlesȱ inȱ theȱ Languagesȱ ofȱ Upwardȱ andȱ Fenollosa,”ȱ Ezraȱ Pound:ȱ Tacticsȱ forȱ Reading,ȱ ed.ȱ Ianȱ F.ȱ A.ȱ Bellȱ [London:ȱ Visionȱ P;ȱ Totowa,ȱNJ:ȱBarnesȱandȱNoble,ȱ1982]ȱ222.ȱ“Natureȱisȱbothȱsourceȱandȱdestinationȱtoȱ mythicȱmodelsȱofȱlanguage”ȱ[229]).ȱ ȱ44ȱȱ “IȱGatherȱtheȱLimbsȱofȱOsiris”ȱ(1915),ȱSelectedȱProse,ȱ34.ȱ ȱ43

228ȱ

meanȱ thatȱ itȱ givesȱ anȱ ‘explanatoryȱ metaphor’;ȱ thoughȱ itȱ mightȱ beȱhardȱtoȱdrawȱanȱexactȱborderlineȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo.ȱWeȱhaveȱ leftȱfalseȱmetaphor,ȱornamentalȱmetaphor45ȱtoȱtheȱrhetorician.ȱ

[…]ȱ Inȱ eitherȱ caseȱ theȱ Imageȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱ anȱ idea.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ vortexȱ orȱ clusterȱofȱfusedȱideasȱandȱisȱendowedȱwithȱenergy.ȱ

[…]ȱ Energy,ȱ orȱ emotion,ȱ expressesȱ itselfȱ inȱ form.ȱ Energy,ȱ whoseȱ primaryȱmanifestationȱisȱinȱpureȱform,ȱi.e.,ȱformȱasȱdistinctȱfromȱ likenessȱ orȱ associationȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ expressedȱ inȱ paintingȱ orȱ sculpture.ȱ […]ȱ Energyȱ expressingȱ itselfȱ inȱ pureȱ sound,ȱ i.e.,ȱ soundȱasȱdistinctȱfromȱarticulateȱspeech,ȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱexpressedȱ inȱmusic.ȱWhenȱanȱenergyȱorȱemotionȱ‘presentsȱanȱimage,’ȱthisȱ mayȱfindȱadequateȱexpressionȱinȱwords.46ȱ

ȱ VORTEXȱISȱENERGY!47ȱ

ȱ Theȱ manȱ whoȱ doesn’tȱ nowȱ wantȱ toȱ learnȱ ideogramȱ isȱ aȱ manȱ halfȬawake.ȱ Noȱ oneȱ inȱ Europeȱ isȱ inȱ positionȱ toȱ sayȱ whetherȱ JapanȱorȱChinaȱcontains,ȱatȱtheȱmomentȱofȱwriting,ȱtheȱgreaterȱ culturalȱenergy.48ȱ

ȱ 2.ȱFenollosaȱ ȱ Theȱtransferencesȱofȱforceȱfromȱagentȱtoȱobject,ȱwhichȱconstituteȱ naturalȱphenomena49ȱȱ ȱ ȱSomeȱofȱtheȱimplications,ȱdiscernibleȱhere,ȱofȱPound’sȱdistrustȱofȱtheȱstaticȱdecorativeȱ metaphorȱ andȱ hisȱ redeploymentȱ ofȱ theȱ tropeȱ intoȱ aȱ kinetic,ȱ interpretive,ȱ naturalȱ process—inȱ short,ȱ anȱ imageȱ (cf.ȱ Pound’sȱ noteȱ toȱ theȱ Fenollosaȱ essay,ȱ p.ȱ 27)—areȱ examinedȱ inȱ myȱ “Montageȱ modernisteȱ etȱ reȬmontageȱ postmoderne:ȱ Deȱ Poundȱ àȱ Olson,”ȱMontagesȱ/ȱCollages:ȱActesȱduȱsecondȱcolloqueȱduȱCICADAȱ5,ȱ6,ȱ7ȱdécembreȱ 1991,ȱ textesȱ réunisȱ parȱ Bertrandȱ Rougéȱ (Pau:ȱ Publicationsȱ deȱ l’Universitéȱ deȱ Pau,ȱ 1993):ȱpp.ȱ123Ȭ38.ȱ ȱ46ȱ“Affirmations—AsȱforȱImagisme”ȱ(1915),ȱSelectedȱProse,ȱpp.ȱ344,ȱ345,ȱ346.ȱ ȱ47ȱ GaudierȬBrzeskaȱ (1916),ȱ p.ȱ 22ȱ [hereafterȱ GB].ȱ Gaudier’sȱ “Vortex”ȱ (pp.ȱ 20Ȭ24)ȱ usesȱ energyȱseveralȱtimes;ȱseeȱalsoȱquotationȱfromȱp.ȱ92ȱgivenȱinfra.ȱ ȱ48ȱ“ForȱaȱNewȱPaideuma,”ȱSelectedȱProse,ȱp.ȱ255ȱ(orig.:ȱ1938).ȱ ȱ49ȱȱ ErnestȱFenollosa,ȱTheȱChineseȱWrittenȱCharacterȱasȱaȱMediumȱforȱPoetry,ȱForewordȱ andȱNotesȱbyȱEzraȱPoundȱ(London:ȱStanleyȱNott,ȱ1936)ȱ11.ȱ ȱ45

229ȱ

allȱtruthȱisȱtheȱtransferenceȱofȱpower50ȱȱ

ȱ 3.ȱOlsonȱ ȱ Aȱpoemȱisȱenergyȱtransferredȱfromȱwhereȱtheȱpoetȱgotȱitȱ[…],ȱbyȱ wayȱofȱtheȱpoemȱitselfȱto,ȱallȱtheȱwayȱto,ȱtheȱreader.ȱ[…]ȱThenȱ theȱ poemȱ itselfȱ must,ȱ atȱ allȱ points,ȱ beȱ aȱ highȱ energyȬconstructȱ and,ȱ atȱ allȱ points,ȱ anȱ energyȬdischarge.ȱ So:ȱ howȱ isȱ theȱ poetȱ toȱ accomplishȱ sameȱ energy,ȱ howȱ isȱ he,ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ processȱ byȱ whichȱaȱpoetȱgetsȱin,ȱatȱallȱpointsȱenergyȱatȱleastȱtheȱequivalentȱ ofȱ theȱ energyȱ whichȱ propelledȱ himȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ place,ȱ yetȱ anȱ energyȱ whichȱ isȱ peculiarȱ toȱ verseȱ aloneȱ andȱ whichȱ willȱ be,ȱ obviously,ȱ alsoȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ energyȱ whichȱ theȱ reader,ȱ becauseȱheȱisȱaȱthirdȱterm,ȱwillȱtakeȱaway?ȱ ȱ ȱ (“ProjectiveȱVerse”ȱ(1950),ȱHUȱ52)ȱ

ȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ theȱ thing,ȱ howȱ theȱ principleȱ canȱ beȱ madeȱ soȱ toȱ shapeȱtheȱenergiesȱthatȱtheȱformȱisȱaccomplishedȱ(HUȱ52)ȱ

ȱ theȱ EXCEPTIONALȱ man,ȱ theȱ “hero,”ȱ losesȱ hisȱ descriptionȱ asȱ “genius”—hisȱ“birth”ȱisȱmereȱinstrumentationȱforȱapplicationȱtoȱ theȱenergyȱheȱdidȱnotȱcreate—andȱbecomes,ȱinstead,ȱIMAGEȱofȱ possibilitiesȱimplicitȱinȱtheȱenergy,ȱgivenȱtheȱMETHODOLOGYȱ ofȱitsȱuseȱbyȱmenȱfromȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱisȱcapableȱpreciselyȱofȱthis,ȱ andȱonlyȱthisȱkindȱofȱintentȱandȱattention.51ȱ

ȱ ToȱwhichȱweȱcouldȱaddȱGaryȱSnyder’sȱviewȱofȱtheȱpoem’sȱgrowthȱ “fromȱ anȱ energyȬmindȬfieldȬdance”52ȱ andȱ hisȱ rewritingȱ ofȱ Pound’sȱvortexȬasȬenergyȱasȱ“sharpeningȱtheȱutteranceȱdownȱtoȱaȱ pointȱ whereȱ aȱ veryȱ precise,ȱ veryȱ swiftȱ messageȱ isȱ generated,ȱ anȱ energyȱisȱtransmitted.”ȱThus,ȱtheȱideogramȱteachesȱ“toȱhewȱbackȱ toȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ forceȱ byȱ whichȱ anȱ AngloȬAmericanȱ wordȱ hasȱ itsȱ power,”ȱsaysȱOlsonȱinȱhisȱessayȱ“AgainstȱWisdomȱasȱSuch”ȱ(HUȱ 68),ȱ whereȱ theȱ wordȱ “wisdom”ȱ isȱ itselfȱ parsedȱ alongȱ anȱ ȱ50ȱȱ Fenollosa,ȱTheȱChineseȱWrittenȱCharacter,ȱ16.ȱ ȱ51ȱȱ “TheȱGateȱandȱtheȱCenter”ȱ(1951),ȱHUȱ22ȱ(andȱpassim).ȱ ȱ52ȱȱ StephenȱBergȱandȱRobertȱMezey,ȱeds.ȱNakedȱPoetryȱ(Indianapolis:ȱBobbsȬMerrill,ȱ 1969)ȱ357.ȱ

230ȱ

etymologicalȱlineȱofȱforceȱas,ȱprecisely,ȱaȱ“wayȱofȱbeingȱorȱacting,”ȱ i.e.ȱofȱbeingȬinȬnature,ȱinȱtheȱphysicalȱworld.ȱ Weȱmayȱnowȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱlink,ȱbrieflyȱmentionedȱaboveȱinȱ connectionȱ withȱ phanopoeia,ȱ betweenȱ theȱ outsideȱ stimulusȱ ofȱ theȱphysicalȱeidonȱandȱitsȱsubjectiveȱexpressionȱasȱaȱpoeticȱ IDEAȱ inȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱstatementsȱfromȱ“Vorticism”ȱ(1914)ȱ andȱ“Affirmations—AsȱforȱImagisme”ȱ(1915):ȱ ȱ Theȱ imageȱ isȱ notȱ anȱ idea.ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ radiantȱ nodeȱ orȱ cluster;ȱ itȱ isȱ whatȱIȱcan,ȱandȱmustȱperforce,ȱcallȱaȱVORTEX,ȱfromȱwhich,ȱandȱ throughȱwhich,ȱandȱintoȱwhich,ȱideasȱareȱconstantlyȱrushing.53ȱ

ȱ theȱImageȱisȱmoreȱthanȱanȱidea.ȱItȱisȱaȱvortexȱorȱclusterȱofȱfusedȱ ideasȱ andȱ isȱ endowedȱ withȱ energy.ȱ Ifȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ fulfilȱ theseȱ specifications,ȱitȱisȱnotȱwhatȱmeanȱbyȱanȱImage.54ȱȱ

ȱ Pound’sȱ insistenceȱ laysȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ onȱ theȱ disconnectionȱ betweenȱ imageȱ andȱ idea,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ somehowȱ disqualifyȱ aȱ criticalȱarticulationȱbetweenȱtheȱconcrete,ȱvisualȱplaneȱandȱaȱmoreȱ philosophicalȱ processȱ ofȱ mentalȱ abstraction,ȱ as,ȱ precisely,ȱ onȱ theȱ ideogrammicȱnatureȱofȱtheȱImageȱasȱaȱkineticȱaggregateȱofȱ“visualȱ ideas.”ȱ Aȱ “puttingȱ intoȱ work”ȱ orȱ enȬergyȱ asȱ aȱ transferentialȱ orȱ metaȬphoricalȱ processȱ isȱ thusȱ atȱ workȱ inȱ theȱ Poundianȱ Image,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ onȱ itsȱ behalfȱ thatȱ heȱ willȱ vigorouslyȱ denounceȱ “Amygist”ȱ practices.55ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ definedȱ inȱ Pound’sȱ famousȱ explanationȱ ofȱ theȱ processȱ underlyingȱ theȱ imagistȱ haikuȱ “Inȱ Aȱ Stationȱ ofȱ theȱ Metro”ȱ asȱ anȱ attemptȱ “toȱ recordȱ theȱ preciseȱ instantȱwhenȱaȱthingȱoutwardȱandȱobjectiveȱtransformsȱitself,ȱorȱ

ȱ53ȱȱ Ezraȱ Pound,ȱ GaudierȬBrzeska:ȱ Aȱ Memoirȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Newȱ Directions,ȱ 1970)ȱ 92ȱ [hereafterȱGB].ȱ ȱ54ȱȱ Pound,ȱSelectedȱProse,ȱ345.ȱ ȱ55ȱ “Theȱ defectȱ ofȱ earlierȱ imagistȱ propagandaȱ wasȱ notȱ inȱ misstatementȱ butȱ inȱ incompleteȱ statement.ȱ Theȱ dilutersȱ tookȱ theȱ handiestȱ andȱ easiestȱ meaning,ȱ andȱ thoughtȱ onlyȱ ofȱ theȱ STATIONARYȱ image.ȱ Ifȱ youȱ can’tȱ thinkȱ ofȱ imagismȱ orȱ phanopoeiaȱ asȱ includingȱ theȱ movingȱ image,ȱ youȱ willȱ haveȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ reallyȱ needlessȱdivisionȱofȱfixedȱimageȱandȱpraxisȱorȱaction”ȱ(AȱBȱCȱofȱReading,ȱp.ȱ52).ȱ

231ȱ

dartsȱ intoȱ aȱ thingȱ inwardȱ andȱ subjective”ȱ (GBȱ 89).ȱ Thisȱ statementȱ isȱ groundedȱ onȱ theȱ traditionalȱ (thoughȱ late)ȱ Greekȱ philosophicalȱ oppositionȱ betweenȱ beingȱ /ȱ object(ive)ȱ andȱ thinkingȱ(noein)ȱ/ȱsubject(ive),ȱwhichȱcrystallisedȱonceȱtheȱeidonȱ orȱimageȱhadȱbecomeȱidealised,56ȱaȱdichotomyȱwhichȱOlsonȱwillȱ deemȱ somewhatȱ casuallyȱ toȱ beȱ supererogatoryȱ when,ȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ “Projectiveȱ Verse”ȱ essay,ȱ heȱ venturesȱ theȱ labelȱ “objectism”ȱ(HUȱ59).ȱLetȱusȱrecallȱthatȱforȱtheȱGreeks,ȱbeingȱwasȱ notȱ onlyȱ tiedȱ toȱ logosȱ andȱ physisȱ butȱ alsoȱ harmoniaȱ (cf.ȱ HUȱ 4,ȱ infra),ȱ al¾theiaȱ (“truth”),ȱ phainesthaiȱ (“toȱ showȱ oneself”),57ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ Oneȱ (̈v:ȱ Parmenides)ȱ wasȱ expressedȱ inȱ earlyȱ Greekȱ languageȱandȱthoughtȱbyȱvariousȱformsȱofȱpresencing,ȱsuchȱasȱ energeiaȱ (Aristotle),ȱ ideaȱ (Plato),ȱ Logosȱ (Heraclitus),ȱ etc.ȱ (“Theȱ Anaximanderȱ Fragment,”ȱ p.ȱ 56.58ȱ Butȱ ovȱ (being)ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ coextensiveȱ withȱ Θòȱ Ύ΅Ώóvȱ (theȱ beautiful)—orȱ inȱ Heidegger’sȱ words:ȱ“artȱisȱdisclosureȱofȱtheȱbeingȱofȱtheȱessent”ȱ(IMȱ132)— sinceȱpresenceȱwasȱconceivedȱasȱpureȱradianceȱorȱtheȱbeautyȱofȱ pureȱ phainesthai,ȱ andȱ byȱ aȱ complexȱ andȱ circuitousȱ processȱ ofȱ borrowingȱ andȱ definition,ȱ Pound’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ beautifulȱ canȱ beȱ shownȱ toȱ tieȱ inȱ withȱ natureȱ andȱ hisȱ taxonomyȱ ofȱ theȱ majorȱingredientsȱinȱtheȱartȱofȱpoetry.59ȱ ȱȱ Cf.ȱHeidegger,ȱIM180:ȱ“Theȱwordȱideaȱmeansȱthatȱwhichȱisȱseenȱinȱtheȱvisible.”ȱInȱ “Theȱ Anaximanderȱ Fragment,”ȱ Heideggerȱ retracesȱ theȱ entropicȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱenergeiaȱintoȱactualitas,ȱthenȱWirklichkeitȱorȱreality,ȱandȱfinallyȱobjectivityȱ(56).ȱ ȱ57ȱȱ IMȱ133.ȱEdwardȱHusseyȱnotesȱ(p.ȱ56)ȱthatȱtheȱfeaturesȱofȱHearclitus’ȱstyleȱsuggestȱ thatȱ heȱ wishesȱ toȱ useȱ languageȱ toȱ “showȱ howȱ [eachȱ thing]ȱ is,”ȱ andȱ likewise,ȱ Heideggerȱ hasȱ connectedȱ theȱ “BeingȬtrue”ȱ ofȱ theȱ logosȱ toȱ itsȱ apophanticȱ manifestationȱ (Hussey,ȱ “Epistemologyȱ andȱ Meaningȱ inȱ Heraclitus,”ȱ Languageȱ andȱ Logos:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Greekȱ Philosophyȱ Presentedȱ toȱ G.E.L.ȱ Owen,ȱ eds.ȱ Malcolmȱ Schofieldȱ andȱ Marthaȱ Cravenȱ Nussbaumȱ [Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ1982]ȱ56).ȱSeeȱalsoȱe.g.ȱHeidegger,ȱBeingȱandȱTime,ȱtrans.ȱJohnȱMacquarrieȱandȱ EdwardȱRobinsonȱ(Oxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwell,ȱ1962)ȱ56).ȱ ȱ58ȱȱ Cf.ȱ alsoȱ Mauriceȱ Blanchot,ȱ L’Écritureȱ duȱ désastreȱ (Paris:ȱ Gallimard,ȱ 1980)ȱ 158ȱ (explainedȱasȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱbeingȱgivesȱitselfȱwhileȱwithdrawingȱitself).ȱ ȱ59ȱȱ Inȱtheȱpoemȱ“InȱDurance,”ȱPoundȱalludesȱtoȱColeridge’sȱessayȱ“OnȱtheȱPrinciplesȱ ofȱ Genialȱ Criticism”ȱ whereȱ theȱ Englishȱ poetȱ statesȱ thatȱ “theȱ Greeksȱ calledȱ aȱ beautifulȱ objectȱ Ύ΅Ώóvȱ quasiȱ Ύ΅ΏΓϻv,ȱ i.e.ȱ callingȱ onȱ theȱ soul,ȱ whichȱ receivesȱ instantly,ȱandȱwelcomesȱitȱasȱsomethingȱconnatural,”ȱandȱexpressesȱhisȱapprovalȱinȱ Theȱ Spiritȱ ofȱ Romanceȱ byȱ referringȱ toȱ “Coleridge’sȱ mostȱ magicalȱ definitionȱ ofȱ ȱ56

232ȱ

Inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ whatȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ anȱ indiscriminateȱ undifferentiationȱorȱamalgamationȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱthisȱgatheringȱ thatȱ theȱ logosȱ onceȱ stoodȱ for,ȱ criticalȱ principlesȱ ofȱ selectionȱ orȱ decisionȱ andȱ hierarchyȱ wereȱ respected.ȱ For,ȱ asȱ Heideggerȱ alsoȱ tellsȱ us,ȱ whatȱ theȱ Greeksȱ meantȱ byȱ toȱ kalonȱ wasȱ restraintȱ (IMȱ 131),ȱasȱagainstȱaȱlooseȱ“aesthetic”ȱconstructȱtoȱdesignateȱwhatȱ relaxes,ȱ givesȱ pleasureȱ andȱ keepsȱ idle,ȱ onȱ aȱ parȱ withȱ theȱ idleȱ talkȱwhichȱheȱcastigatesȱinȱBeingȱandȱTime.ȱPound’sȱconceptionȱ ofȱtheȱdisciplineȱofȱfreeȱverseȱandȱtheȱrigorousȱeconomyȱofȱhisȱ imagistȱ tenetsȱ areȱ similarlyȱ infusedȱ with,ȱ amongȱ otherȱ things,ȱ thisȱpreȬclassicalȱGreekȱsenseȱofȱtheȱartisticȱandȱtheȱbeautiful,ȱasȱ isȱ theȱ laterȱ proclamationȱ ofȱ anȱ oftenȱ reiteratedȱ beliefȱ inȱ “Θòȱ Ύ΅Ώóvȱ /ȱ order”ȱ (cantoȱ XCVIII)ȱ orȱ “KALONȱ asȱ beautyȱ orȱ order.”60ȱ Andȱ toȱ theȱ emptyȱ andȱ impreciseȱ “words,ȱ words,ȱ words,”ȱOlsonȱwillȱsimilarlyȱopposeȱtheȱrigorousȱaestheticsȱofȱaȱ preciseȱtechnicalȱlanguageȱandȱrestrained,ȱflawlessȱgesturesȱ(asȱ inȱ “Tyrianȱ Businesses”ȱ inȱ theȱ Maximusȱ poems),ȱ justȱ asȱ theȱ Greeksȱ matchedȱ theȱ mythicalȱ processesȱ ofȱ visualisationȱ andȱ verbalisationȱ toȱ theȱ “happening”ȱ orȱ dromenon,ȱ gearedȱ toȱ theȱ doingsȱofȱeverydayȱlifeȱinȱtheȱcommunity.ȱOlsonȱcalledȱhimselfȱ aȱresearcherȱinȱmyth,ȱaȱprofessionalȱmythologistȱ(MȱI.61),ȱaȱlabelȱ whichȱ weȱ sawȱ hadȱ beenȱ appliedȱ toȱ Herodotusȱ himself.ȱ Olsonȱ parsedȱ“mythology”ȱasȱ“whatȱisȱsaidȱofȱwhatȱisȱsaid,”61ȱtherebyȱ displayingȱ anȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ equationȱ betweenȱ “muthos”ȱandȱ“logos”ȱ(cf.ȱMȱII.37Ȭ38).ȱHisȱ“CausalȱMythology”ȱ

beauty”ȱ (p.ȱ 156).ȱ Ruthvenȱ conjecturesȱ (pp.ȱ 11,ȱ 154)ȱ thatȱ Coleridge’sȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ poetryȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ essayȱ mayȱ haveȱ shapedȱ Pound’sȱ ownȱ tripartiteȱ divisionȱ betweenȱmelopoeia,ȱphanopoeiaȱ(whichȱreplacedȱ“imagism,”ȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱfirstȱ twoȱprinciplesȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱimagistȱmanifestoȱhadȱbecomeȱfused)ȱandȱlogopoeia.ȱ ȱ60ȱȱ EzraȱPound,ȱGuideȱtoȱKulchurȱ(London:ȱPeterȱOwen,ȱ1966)ȱ[hereafterȱGK]ȱ316;ȱseeȱ alsoȱJeffersonȱand/orȱMussolini,ȱ128.ȱForȱaȱdetailedȱevolutionȱofȱPound’sȱaestheticsȱ ofȱtheȱbeautiful,ȱseeȱJohnȱEspey,ȱ“TheȱInheritanceȱofȱ̖òȱKȱóv,”ȱNewȱApproachesȱtoȱ EzraȱPound:ȱAȱCoȬordinatedȱInvestigationȱofȱPound’sȱPoetryȱandȱIdeas,ȱed.ȱandȱintro.ȱEvaȱ Hesseȱ(London:ȱFaber,ȱ1969).ȱ ȱ61ȱȱ CharlesȱOlson,ȱTheȱSpecialȱViewȱofȱHistory,ȱed.ȱandȱintro.ȱAnnȱChartersȱ(Berkeley:ȱ Oyez,ȱ1970)ȱ57.ȱ

233ȱ

(Mȱ I.63Ȭ96)ȱ meantȱ “theȱ kosmosȱ insideȱ aȱ humanȱ being”62ȱ andȱ wasȱaȱ“hardȱscience”ȱ(MȱI.46)ȱwhichȱenabledȱmanȱtoȱexperienceȱ theȱearthȱasȱfamiliarȱ(MȱI.70),63ȱthusȱimplicitlyȱbridgingȱtheȱgapȱ betweenȱ muthos=logosȱ andȱ phusisȱ inȱ anȱ intimateȱ relationshipȱ orȱ “innerȱinherence.”64ȱThisȱfeatureȱofȱinherenceȱisȱboundȱupȱwithȱ theȱ“coherence”ȱofȱhisȱfavouriteȱprimitiveȱculturesȱ(Sumerians,ȱ Aztecsȱ and,ȱ fromȱ earlyȱ 1960sȱ onwards,ȱ theȱ cultureȱ ofȱ Pleistoceneȱ Man)ȱ which,ȱ Olsonȱ argues,ȱ ourȱ “logical,”ȱ i.e.ȱ demythologisedȱ civilisations,ȱ haveȱ lostȱ theȱ senseȱ of,65ȱ andȱ thisȱ inȱ turnȱ recallsȱ theȱ spiritȱ ofȱ Pound’sȱ mixedȱ admissionȱ towardsȱ theȱendȱofȱtheȱCantosȱthatȱ“itȱcoheresȱallȱrightȱ/ȱevenȱifȱmyȱnotesȱ doȱnotȱcohere”ȱ(CantoȱCXVI).ȱ Olson’sȱ mythologicalȱ programȱ thusȱ tripsȱ upȱ conventionalȱ logicȱ andȱ historyȱ inȱ aȱ doubleȱ way.ȱ Asȱ heȱ himselfȱ suggestsȱ inȱ Additionalȱ Proseȱ (40),ȱ itȱ isȱ atȱ onceȱ preȬhistorical,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ archaeologyȱ “fromȱ Homerȱ back,ȱ notȱ forward,”ȱ beforeȱ theȱ intrusionȱofȱhistoryȱasȱaȱmechanicalȱrecordȱofȱdemythologised,ȱ truthȬgroundingȱ facts,ȱ andȱ postȬhistoric,ȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ contemporaryȱ rediscoveriesȱ ofȱ theȱ individualisedȱ narrativeȱ hermeneuticsȱofȱ‘istorin.ȱAndȱinsofarȱasȱitȱexhumesȱcomparablyȱ originaryȱconceptionsȱofȱaȱfullȱandȱlivingȱspeechȱandȱmythȱpriorȱ toȱ ourȱ westernȱ discursiveȱ “logic,”66ȱ Olsonianȱ mythopoeticsȱ isȱ ȱȱ SpecialȱViewȱofȱHistory,ȱ53ȱ(seeȱalsoȱtheȱOutline,ȱpageȱ61).ȱOneȱisȱremindedȱhereȱofȱ theȱnecessity,ȱinȱHeraclitus’ȱmaxims,ȱtoȱstudyȱone’sȱownȱselfȱinȱorderȱtoȱinterpretȱ theȱcosmos,ȱi.e.ȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱgroundȱcognitiveȱprocessesȱinȱtheȱphysicalȱworld;ȱseeȱ e.g.ȱHussey,ȱ“EpistemologyȱandȱMeaningȱinȱHeraclitus,”ȱ41.ȱ ȱ63ȱȱ Thus,ȱ Bernstein’sȱ commentȱ thatȱ “Olson’sȱ idealȱ historicalȱ poemȱ would,ȱ inȱ effect,ȱ demythologizeȱ historyȱitselfȱ soȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱagainȱ becomeȱwhatȱisȱ mostȱ familiar:ȱ theȱexpressionȱofȱourȱownȱactivityȱinȱtheȱworld”ȱ(p.ȱ235)ȱseemsȱtoȱrestȱonȱaȱviewȱofȱ theȱrelationȱbetweenȱhistoryȱandȱmythologyȱwhichȱmustȱbeȱseriouslyȱchallengedȱinȱ theȱlightȱofȱOlson’sȱhopeȱtoȱrenewȱanȱolderȱhistoriographicȱtraditionȱrepresentedȱbyȱ Herodotus,ȱwhichȱBernsteinȱhimselfȱrecallsȱonȱp.ȱ240.ȱ ȱ64ȱȱ CharlesȱBoer,ȱCharlesȱOlsonȱinȱConnecticutȱ(Chicago:ȱSwallowȱPress,ȱ1975)ȱ59.ȱ ȱ65ȱȱ Seeȱ e.g.ȱ “Aȱ Syllabaryȱ forȱ aȱ Dancer,”ȱ “Theȱ Gateȱ andȱ theȱ Center”ȱ (HUȱ 17Ȭ23),ȱ andȱ “Letterȱ3”ȱ(Maximus,ȱ15ȱ[I.11]).ȱ ȱ66ȱȱ “Logos,ȱorȱdiscourse,ȱforȱexample,ȱhas,ȱinȱthatȱtime,ȱsoȱworkedȱitsȱabstractionsȱintoȱ ourȱconceptȱandȱuseȱofȱlanguageȱthatȱlanguage’sȱotherȱfunction,ȱspeech,ȱseemsȱsoȱinȱ needȱ ofȱ restorationȱ thatȱ severalȱ ofȱ usȱ gotȱ backȱ toȱ hieroglyphsȱ orȱ toȱ ideogramsȱ toȱ rightȱtheȱbalance”ȱ(HUȱ3Ȭ4).ȱ ȱ62

234ȱ

preȬlogical,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ admittedlyȱ postȬlogical,67ȱ whichȱ weȱ mayȱ alsoȱchooseȱtoȱinterpretȱasȱOlson’sȱwishȱtoȱtakeȱfurtherȱPound’sȱ inchoate,ȱ implicitȱ attemptȱ atȱ reȬmythologisingȱ theȱ logosȱ inȱ hisȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ logopoeia.ȱ Itȱ isȱ thereforeȱ fittingȱ thatȱ theȱ growingȱ searchȱ inȱ Pound,ȱ thenȱ inȱ Olson,ȱ forȱ aȱ principleȱ ofȱ mythicȱ inherenceȱandȱcoherence,ȱinȱtheȱpureȱspiritȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱlogosȱ whichȱgatheredȱtheȱoneȱandȱtheȱmany,68ȱandȱinȱwhichȱoneȱmayȱ alsoȱregisterȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱWhitehead’sȱholisticȱphilosophyȱofȱ processesȱ asȱ constantȱ rhythmicȱ alternationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ poles,ȱshouldȱincreasinglyȱsummonȱdance,ȱ“theȱactȱofȱtheȱgods,ȱ ofȱcreation,ȱtheȱprimalȱmythicȱwork,”69ȱasȱtheȱmajorȱorganisingȱ tropeȱ inȱ /ȱ ofȱ writing.ȱ Weȱ sawȱ earlierȱ thatȱ Olsonȱ hadȱ appropriatedȱPound’sȱdefinitionȱofȱlogopoeia,ȱsyncopatingȱitȱtoȱ “danceȱofȱtheȱintellect,”ȱinȱhisȱseminalȱessayȱonȱProjectiveȱVerseȱ poetics.ȱ There,ȱ Olsonȱ propoundedȱ aȱ rhythmicsȱ regulatedȱ onȱ breathȱ whichȱ wouldȱ reintegrateȱ poeticȱ metre,ȱ song,ȱ musicȱ andȱ danceȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ ancientȱ Greekȱ dramaȱ andȱ theȱ originallyȱ uniqueȱ artȱ ofȱ theȱ Musesȱ orȱ mousik¾,70ȱ andȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mainȱ aimsȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ poeticsȱ wasȱ toȱ restoreȱ theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ(poetic)ȱlanguage,ȱtheȱphysicalȱbodyȱandȱtheȱuniverse.ȱ Theȱ tropeȱ mayȱ alsoȱ describeȱ theȱ organisationȱ ofȱ theȱ discreteȱ componentsȱofȱtheȱideogram;ȱasȱMartinȱPopsȱnoted,71ȱtheȱagileȱ projectiveȱ writerȱ isȱ aȱ glyphȬenactingȱ dancerȱ andȱ competentȱ writingȱ “obeysȱ theȱ figuresȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ dance”ȱ (Maximus,ȱ 5ȱ [I.1]).ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ centrifugalȱ enunciativeȱ strategiesȱ thatȱ underwriteȱ theȱ Cantos,ȱ theȱ tropicȱ figureȱ ofȱ Maximus,ȱ aȱ mythicȱ ȱȱ “Theȱ harmonyȱ ofȱ theȱ universe,ȱ andȱ Iȱ includeȱ man,ȱ isȱ notȱ logical,ȱ orȱ better,ȱ isȱ postȬlogical;ȱasȱisȱtheȱorderȱofȱanyȱcreatedȱthing”ȱ(HU,ȱp.ȱ4).ȱ ȱ68ȱȱ Cf.ȱtheȱepigraphȱtoȱtheȱMaximusȱpoems,ȱ“AllȱmyȱlifeȱI’veȱheardȱoneȱmakesȱmany,”ȱ andȱtheȱstrongȱHeracliteanȱflavourȱofȱ“Maximus,ȱtoȱhimself”ȱ(pp.ȱ56Ȭ57ȱ[I.52Ȭ53]).ȱ ȱ69ȱȱ Paul,ȱOlson’sȱPush,ȱ87.ȱ ȱ70ȱȱ Thatȱ isȱ toȱ say,ȱ “aȱ drillȱ inȱ performanceȱ uponȱ musicalȱ instruments,ȱ inȱ singingȱ andȱ elocution,ȱ inȱ memorisationȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ andȱ inȱ deportmentȱ andȱ manners.”ȱ Ericȱ A.ȱ Havelock,ȱ “Theȱ Linguisticȱ Taskȱ ofȱ theȱ Presocratics;ȱ Partȱ One:ȱ Humanȱ Scienceȱ inȱ SearchȱofȱanȱAbstractȱVocabulary,”ȱLanguageȱandȱThoughtȱinȱEarlyȱGreekȱPhilosophy,ȱ ed.ȱKevinȱRobbȱ(LaȱSalle:ȱTheȱHegelerȱInstitute,ȱ1983)ȱ8.ȱ ȱ71ȱȱ Martinȱ L.ȱ Pops,ȱ Homeȱ Remediesȱ (Amherst:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Massachusettsȱ Press,ȱ 1984)ȱ50Ȭ1.ȱ ȱ67

235ȱ

collectiveȱ groundedȱ inȱ theȱ localeȱ ofȱ theȱ fishingȱ communityȱ atȱ Gloucesterȱwhoȱoscillatesȱbetweenȱoneȱandȱtheȱmany,ȱprovidesȱ aȱrestingȱpointȱforȱtheȱmythicȱexplorationsȱofȱOlson’sȱownȱepic.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ attempt,ȱ implicitȱ inȱ Pound,ȱ moreȱ fullyȱ articulatedȱ withȱ Olsonȱ andȱ Duncan,ȱ toȱ redeployȱ theȱ ancientȱ mythicȱ essenceȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱ restoreȱ itsȱ linkȱ withȱ (beingȬinȬ)nature,ȱ usingȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ theȱ combinedȱ resourcesȱ ofȱ philoȬlogyȱ orȱ etymoȬlogy,ȱ archaeoȬlogy,72ȱ andȱ ancientȱ philoȬsophyȱ orȱ “wisdom,”ȱtheȱdanceȱemergedȱasȱtheȱgatheringȱtropeȱwhich,ȱifȱ theȱ choreoȬgraphyȱ wasȱ performedȱ (“projected”)ȱ adequately,ȱ wouldȱ holdȱ theȱ keyȱ toȱ aȱ holisticȱ visionȱ (Pound’sȱ visionȱ ofȱ anȱ earthlyȱparadiseȱorȱ“splendour”)ȱexpressedȱinȱaȱtotalȱartȱform.73ȱ Despiteȱ itsȱ atȱ timesȱ unstable,ȱ simplistic,ȱ contradictoryȱ assumptions,ȱ Pound’sȱ scientificȱ “poeticȱ logic”—hisȱ restorationȱ ofȱ theȱ logosȱ toȱ itsȱ polytrophicȱ rootsȱ andȱ itsȱ reȬmythologisationȱ inȱ aȱ naturalȱ pantheon,ȱ hisȱ handlingȱ ofȱ visualȱ andȱ verbalȱ processes—mayȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ haveȱ intuitedȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ wayȱ theȱ recoveryȱ ofȱ ancientȱ thoughtȱ structuresȱ whichȱ contemporaryȱ philosophyȱwasȱlikewiseȱsoonȱgoingȱtoȱbeȱdrawnȱtoȱandȱwhichȱ Olsonȱwillȱadoptȱinȱhisȱ“causalȱmythology.”ȱItȱis,ȱarguably,ȱnotȱ goingȱ tooȱ muchȱ againstȱ theȱ antiȬphilosophicalȱ currentsȱ inȱ Pound’sȱ “system”ȱ orȱ overexploitingȱ itsȱ innerȱ tensionsȱ toȱ claimȱ eventuallyȱthatȱbothȱpreȬSocraticȱthinkingȱandȱConfucianism— theȱ firstȱ one,ȱ however,ȱ moreȱ ambiguouslyȱ thanȱ someȱ criticalȱ articulationsȱ ofȱ theȱ commonȱ “ideology”ȱ underlyingȱ Pound’sȱ modernismȱ andȱ postmodernȱ poeticsȱ areȱ preparedȱ toȱ acknowledge74—sharedȱ aȱ prominentȱ roleȱ inȱ hisȱ wishȱ toȱ

ȱȱ Cf.ȱOlson’sȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱrealȱingredientsȱofȱhisȱ“literalȱstudyȱofȱmythology”ȱinȱ MȱI.76.ȱ ȱ73ȱȱ Seeȱ myȱ “Fromȱ Tropicȱ Songȱ andȱ ‘Rhythmus’ȱ Onwards:ȱ Whitmanȱ andȱ theȱ (Post)modernȱDance,”ȱUtopiaȱinȱtheȱPresentȱTense:ȱWaltȱWhitmanȱandȱtheȱLanguageȱofȱ theȱNewȱWorld,ȱInternationalȱConferenceȱonȱWaltȱWhitman,ȱUniversityȱofȱMacerata,ȱ 29Ȭ30ȱOctober,ȱ1992,ȱed.ȱMarinaȱCamboniȱ(Rome:ȱIlȱCalamo,ȱ1994)ȱ213Ȭ34.ȱ ȱ74ȱȱ Seeȱ Géfin,ȱ Ideogram,ȱ 36.ȱ Cf.ȱ forȱ e.g.ȱ Pound’sȱ contrastiveȱ dismissalȱ ofȱ Heraclitus’ȱ vacuousȱthinkingȱasȱopposedȱtoȱConfucius’ȱpositiveȱ“ideasȱintoȱaction”ȱatȱtheȱendȱ ofȱ“TheȱNewȱLearning:ȱPartȱOne”ȱ(GKȱ34).ȱHowever,ȱinȱhisȱreadingȱofȱArtistotle’sȱ ȱ72

236ȱ

constructȱ anȱ “Ideogramȱ ofȱ philosophers”ȱ (GK,ȱ p.ȱ 348)ȱ andȱ paideumaȱ onȱ mytho/cosmoȬlogical,ȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ logical,ȱ methodsȱ(cf.ȱ“TheȱHistoryȱofȱPhilosophyȱIs…?,”ȱGK,ȱpp.ȱ97Ȭ98).ȱ Inȱ “Kulchur:ȱ Partȱ One”ȱ (GK,ȱ p.ȱ 128),ȱ whichȱ kicksȱ offȱ withȱ aȱ Confucianȱ exemplum,ȱ Pound’sȱ praiseȱ ofȱ theȱ intuitive,75ȱ yetȱ whollyȱtruthfulȱ“mythologicalȱexposition”ȱandȱofȱtheȱbalanced,ȱ rigorousȱ honestyȱ ofȱ mythȱ whichȱ “knowsȱ whereȱ toȱ stop,”ȱ isȱ madeȱ toȱ combineȱ withȱ hisȱ advocacyȱ ofȱ aȱ concrete,ȱ vitalistic,ȱ perhapsȱ Heracliteanȱ apprehensionȱ ofȱ phenomenaȱ intoȱ suchȱ anȱ ideogram,ȱinȱwhichȱpoetryȱandȱphilosophyȱjoinȱinȱanȱ“aletheic”ȱ processȱ (theȱ sameȱ passageȱ implicitlyȱ registersȱ aȱ distrustȱ ofȱ philosophyȱ whichȱ rejectsȱ poetryȱ orȱ whichȱ readsȱ likeȱ “inferiorȱ poesy”ȱ [p.ȱ 127]).ȱ Inȱ tryingȱ toȱ exhumeȱ suchȱ aȱ philosophicalȱ platformȱ inȱ Pound’sȱ andȱ Olson’sȱ mythopoetics,ȱ theȱ intentionȱ hasȱ beenȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ toȱ perfectȱ andȱ refineȱ forȱ poetryȱ aȱ “philosophyȱ ofȱ art,”ȱ likeȱ theȱ oneȱ Hulmeȱ adumbratedȱ inȱ Speculations,ȱ asȱ toȱ openȱ furtherȱ theȱ possibilityȱ forȱ aȱ philosophicalȱreadingȱofȱ(post)modernȱpoeticsȱinseparablyȱfromȱ aȱ poeticȱ approachȱ toȱ philosophy,ȱ anȱ “archaic”ȱ dialogueȱ ofȱ theȱ timesȱwhenȱtheȱwesternȱdividesȱbetweenȱphilosophyȱ/ȱtruthȱonȱ theȱoneȱhandȱandȱpoetryȱ/ȱmythȱ(i.e.ȱuntruth)ȱonȱtheȱotherȱwereȱ notȱsoȱdeeplyȱentrenched.76ȱSuchȱaȱtwoȬwayȱtrafficȱwouldȱthenȱ goȱbeyondȱtheȱlimitationsȱandȱwatertightȱcompartmentalisationȱ inȱYeats’sȱstatementȱtoȱOliviaȱShakespeare,ȱfollowingȱaȱpassageȱ NicomacheanȱEthics,ȱPoundȱseesȱ“daemon,”ȱ“almostȱanȱideogram,”ȱasȱaȱleadȱdownȱ ontoȱtheȱpreȬSocraticȱpaideuma,ȱintoȱfolkȬloreȱ(GKȱ307).ȱ ȱ75ȱȱ Levensonȱrightlyȱdetectsȱaȱconvergenceȱbetweenȱtheȱ“image”ȱofȱmodernistȱliteraryȱ theoryȱandȱBergson’sȱphilosophyȱofȱintuitionȱ(AȱGenealogyȱofȱModernism,ȱ45Ȭ46);ȱseeȱ alsoȱ GBȱ 91.ȱ Seeȱ Henriȱ Bergson’sȱ ownȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Metaphysicsȱ (London:ȱ Macmillan),ȱ whichȱ T.ȱ E.ȱ Hulmeȱ himselfȱ hadȱ translatedȱ inȱ 1913,ȱ forȱ theȱ Frenchȱ philosopher’sȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ aȱ fluid,ȱ kinetic,ȱ mentalȱ activityȱ “capableȱ ofȱ followingȱ realityȱinȱallȱitsȱsinuositiesȱandȱofȱadoptingȱtheȱveryȱmovementȱofȱtheȱinwardȱlifeȱofȱ things”ȱ(59).ȱ ȱ76ȱȱ Cf.ȱ Havelock,ȱ “Theȱ Linguisticȱ Taskȱ ofȱ theȱ Presocratics,”ȱ 80:ȱ “Philosophyȱ properȱ aroseȱasȱaȱcommentaryȱuponȱandȱcorrectionȱofȱtheȱcosmicȱimageryȱofȱHomerȱandȱ theȱcosmicȱarchitectureȱofȱHesiod’sȱTheogony,”ȱi.e.ȱmodernistȱemphasisȱonȱHomerȱ goesȱ backȱ toȱ traditionsȱ ontoȱ whichȱ theȱ rootsȱ ofȱ earlyȱ westernȱ philosophyȱ graftedȱ itself.ȱ

237ȱ

inȱwhichȱheȱdefinesȱhisȱachievementȱinȱAȱVisionȱasȱ“picturingȱaȱ stateȱasȱ‘phenomenal’ȱasȱthatȱfromȱbirthȱtoȱdeath,”ȱthatȱ“Iȱhaveȱ constructedȱ aȱ myth,ȱ butȱ thenȱ oneȱ canȱ believeȱ inȱ aȱ myth—oneȱ onlyȱassentsȱtoȱphilosophy”;77ȱitȱwouldȱthusȱtrulyȱinauguratesȱaȱ (post)modernistȱdialogueȱbetweenȱpoetryȱandȱphilosophy.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ77ȱȱ WilliamȱButlerȱYeats,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱW.ȱB.ȱYeats,ȱed.ȱAllanȱWadeȱ(London:ȱRupertȱ HartȬDavis,ȱ1954)ȱ781.ȱ

238ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

KestonȱSutherlandȱ ȱ

EthicaȱNulliusȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.ȱMediumȱteȱmundiȱposui:ȱIȱhaveȱplacedȱyouȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱ world.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ utteranceȱ ofȱ Godȱ toȱ manȱ centralȱ toȱ theȱ syncretisticȱ cosmogonyȱ ofȱ Picoȱ dellaȱ Mirandola,ȱ Deȱ Hominisȱ Dignitate.1ȱThisȱspecificȱdivineȱlowȬdownȱisȱechoedȱthroughoutȱ JeremyȱPrynne’sȱTheȱWhiteȱStones:ȱnotȱjustȱmanȱbutȱhisȱlanguageȱ too,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ theȱ onlyȱ possibleȱ humanȱ reckoningȱ ofȱ thatȱ languageȱ (knownȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Biblicalȱ exegesisȱ asȱ hermenuticaȱ profana),ȱ originateȱ fromȱ whereȱ andȱ whatȱ manȱ is,ȱ namely,ȱ“theȱ/ȱmereȱ&ȱlovelyȱcentre,ȱofȱtheȱearth.”2ȱManȱisȱtheȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ G.ȱ Picoȱ dellaȱ Mirandola,ȱ Deȱ Hominisȱ Dignitate,ȱ Heptaplus,ȱ Deȱ Enteȱ Etȱ Uno,ȱ ed.ȱ Eugenioȱ Garinȱ (Firenze:ȱ Vallecchiȱ Editore,ȱ 1942)ȱ 106;ȱ Onȱ theȱ Dignityȱ ofȱ Man,ȱ trans.ȱCharlesȱGlennȱWallisȱ(Indianapolis:ȱBobbsȬMerrill,ȱ1965)ȱ5.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ J.H.ȱ Prynne,ȱ “Whoseȱ Dustȱ Didȱ Youȱ Say,”ȱ Poemsȱ (Fremantle:ȱ Fremantleȱ Artsȱ Centreȱ Press,ȱ andȱ Highgreen:ȱ Bloodaxe,ȱ 2005)ȱ 102.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ hermeneuticaȱ profana,ȱ theȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ textsȱ ofȱ nonȬdivineȱ origin,ȱ seeȱ Peterȱ Szondi,ȱ Introductionȱ toȱ Literaryȱ Hermeneutics,ȱ trans.ȱ Marthaȱ Woodmanseeȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1995).ȱ Augustineȱ givesȱ aȱ goodȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ theȱ contraryȱ typeȱ ofȱ exposition,ȱ hermeneuticaȱ sacra,ȱwhichȱisȱpossibleȱonlyȱwithȱinspiredȱtexts,ȱwhenȱheȱsaysȱofȱtheȱBibleȱthat:ȱ “Weȱsubmitȱourȱintellectȱtoȱit,ȱandȱholdȱitȱforȱcertainȱthatȱevenȱlanguageȱclosedȱ toȱ ourȱ comprehensionȱ isȱ rightȱ andȱ true.”ȱ Confessions,ȱ trans.ȱ Henryȱ Chadwickȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1991)ȱ 293.ȱ Certainȱ commentatorsȱ onȱ Prynneȱ wouldȱhaveȱusȱbelieveȱeitherȱthatȱthisȱcognitiveȱgenuflectionȱbeforeȱtheȱsacredȱisȱ whatȱhisȱworkȱdemandsȱfromȱus,ȱandȱthatȱourȱexcitedȱperformanceȱofȱitȱisȱtheȱ proofȱofȱhisȱwork’sȱliteraryȬhistoricalȱmonumentality,ȱor,ȱalternatively,ȱthatȱhisȱ workȱ makesȱ thisȱ demandȱ (a)ȱ withȱ contempt,ȱ (b)ȱ withoutȱ meaning,ȱ orȱ (c)ȱ withoutȱhavingȱ“earned”ȱtheȱrightȱtoȱmakeȱit.ȱForȱaȱnowȱdistantlyȱpreȬemptiveȱ

239ȱ

centreȱ andȱ heȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ end:ȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ lastȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ creation,ȱ delivered,ȱ writesȱ Pico,ȱ inȱ extremaȱ fetura,ȱ “theȱ finalȱ parturition.”ȱ Heȱ isȱ bothȱ theȱ extremityȱ ofȱ theȱ world’sȱ inaugurationȱ andȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ itsȱ perennationȱ asȱ beauty,ȱ lightȱ andȱ greatness;ȱ heȱ isȱ mundiȱ copulam,ȱ “theȱ bondȱ tyingȱ theȱ worldȱ together”ȱ bothȱ atȱ theȱ singleȱ crowningȱ momentȱ ofȱ theȱ cosmogonyȱandȱforeverȱthereafter,ȱthroughoutȱ“time”ȱwhichȱisȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ world.3ȱ Theȱ centralityȱ andȱ theȱ finalityȱ ofȱ man,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ hisȱ bindingȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ intoȱ aȱ whole,ȱ makeȱ upȱ whatȱ Picoȱ calledȱ hisȱ dignity.4ȱ Forȱ Pico’sȱ influentialȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱEnglishȱadmirer,ȱWalterȱPater,ȱthisȱ“theory”ȱofȱdignityȱ wasȱ “foundedȱ onȱ aȱ misconception:”ȱ theȱ earthȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱtheȱuniverseȱandȱmanȱisȱnotȱitsȱbondȱorȱvinculumȱ(still,ȱ“theȱ theoryȱ hadȱ itsȱ use,”ȱ Paterȱ offers).5ȱ Prynneȱ howeverȱ developsȱ outȱ ofȱ Picoȱ notȱ merelyȱ theȱ humanistȱ sentimentȱ orȱ religiousȱ antinomianismȱ eulogisedȱ byȱ Pater,ȱ butȱ somethingȱ altogetherȱ lessȱ intelligibleȱ toȱ theȱ Victorianȱ connoisseur,ȱ somethingȱ weȱ mightȱcallȱtheȱethicsȱofȱsyncretisticȱcosmogony.6ȱȱ

satireȱ onȱ theseȱ variousȱ formsȱ ofȱ narcissisticȱ homilyȱ andȱ theȱ significanceȱ theyȱ claimȱtoȱapprehendȱinȱtheȱactȱofȱ“gettingȱitȱright,”ȱseeȱtheȱ1971ȱpoemȱ“AȱNewȱ TaxȱonȱtheȱCounterȬEarth,”ȱPoems,ȱ172Ȭ3.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ DeȱHominisȱDignitate,ȱ104;ȱ102.ȱOnȱtheȱDignityȱofȱMan,ȱ4;ȱ3.ȱPrynneȱalludesȱtoȱthisȱ imageȱinȱsayingȱthatȱdeathȱ(orȱ“biologicȱcollapse”)ȱisȱ“likeȱuntyingȱaȱknot”ȱ(“Aȱ GoldȱRingȱCalledȱReluctance,”ȱPoems,ȱ21).ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Inȱ itsȱ positioningȱ ofȱ manȱ asȱ theȱ particularȱ causeȱ ofȱ andȱ authorityȱ forȱ theȱ dialecticalȱ relationȱ ofȱ partȱ toȱ whole,ȱ Pico’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ dignityȱ ofȱ manȱ resemblesȱwhatȱHegelȱ(particularlyȱinȱtheȱLogic)ȱcalledȱtheȱdignityȱofȱthinking.ȱ Onȱ Prynne’sȱ engagementȱ withȱ Hegel,ȱ seeȱ theȱ excellentȱ essayȱ byȱ Kevinȱ Nolan,ȱ “Capitalȱ Calves:ȱ Undertakingȱ anȱ Overview,”ȱ Jacketȱ 24ȱ (2003)ȱ http://ȱ jacketmagazine.com/24/nolan.htmlȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Walterȱ Pater,ȱ Theȱ Renaissance:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Artȱ andȱ Poetry,ȱ ed.ȱ Donaldȱ L.ȱ Hillȱ (Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1980)ȱ30Ȭ1.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ “Syncretistic”ȱ becauseȱ Picoȱ combinedȱ Platonicȱ philosophicalȱ andȱ Christianȱ theologicalȱ elementsȱ inȱ hisȱ accountȱ ofȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ theȱ world.ȱ Forȱ aȱ rivalȱ accountȱthatȱresistsȱ(chieflyȱbyȱappealingȱtoȱscripturalȱandȱpatristicȱauthorityȱtoȱ refuteȱ Plato’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ idealȱ forms)ȱ theȱ intellectualȱ seductionsȱ ofȱ whatȱ Paterȱ calledȱ “antinomian”ȱ syncretisticȱ thinking,ȱ compareȱ St.ȱ Thomasȱ Aquinas,ȱ Cosmogony,ȱSummaȱTheologiæ,ȱvol.ȱXȱ[Ia.ȱ65Ȭ74]ȱ(London:ȱBlackfriars,ȱ1967).ȱ

240ȱ

WhatȱIȱmeanȱbyȱthisȱphraseȱisȱfirstȱofȱallȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱkind,ȱ orȱatȱleastȱaȱdimension,ȱofȱethicalȱthinkingȱproperȱexclusivelyȱtoȱ syncretisticȱ cosmogonyȱ ofȱ theȱ kindȱ expoundedȱ inȱ Deȱ Hominisȱ Dignitateȱ(andȱexpoundedȱalsoȱinȱCharlesȱOlson’sȱTheȱMaximusȱ Poems,ȱ whichȱ Prynneȱ describedȱ asȱ “aȱ lingualȱ andȱ temporalȱ syncretism,ȱ poisedȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ newȱ order”).7ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ kindȱ orȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ ethicalȱ thinkingȱ whoseȱ necessaryȱ inauguralȱ ideaȱ isȱ thatȱ manȱ isȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ createdȱ world,ȱ whichȱ mightȱ equallyȱ wellȱ beȱ theȱ Gloucesterȱ coastlineȱ inȱ Massachusetts,ȱ orȱ “Ierusalem,”ȱ orȱ anyȱ placeȱ atȱ allȱ whereȱ weȱ mightȱ “walk,ȱ evenȱ quiteȱ jauntily,ȱ overȱ theȱ grass”;8ȱ andȱfurthermoreȱthatȱheȱisȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱworldȱbyȱreasonȱ ofȱ aȱ supremeȱ prerogativeȱ (orȱ byȱ reasonȱ ofȱ whatȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱphenomenologyȱwouldȱmoreȱsimplisticallyȱcallȱradicalȱ immanence).9ȱPrynneȱbelievedȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1960sȱthatȱthisȱcentralȱ positionȱofȱmanȱinȱtheȱcreatedȱworldȱcannotȱeverȱbeȱabrogatedȱ byȱ psychicȱ orȱ spiritualȱ injury,ȱ byȱ dissent,ȱ orȱ byȱ anyȱ formȱ whatsoeverȱ ofȱ rationalȱ orȱ irrationalȱ discountenance.10ȱ Inȱ Theȱ Whiteȱ Stones,ȱ beingȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ meansȱ beingȱ inȱ “theȱ worldȱ

ȱ 7ȱȱ J.H.ȱPrynne,ȱ“CharlesȱOlson,ȱMaximusȱPoemsȱIV,ȱV,ȱVI,”ȱTheȱParkȱ4/5ȱ(Summerȱ 1969):ȱ64Ȭ66.ȱReprintedȱinȱIoȱ16ȱ(Winterȱ1972Ȭ73):ȱ89Ȭ92.ȱȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ “TheȱHolyȱCity,”ȱPoems,ȱ43.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Theȱ phraseȱ “radicalȱ immanence”ȱ isȱ aȱ genericȱ oneȱ inȱ phenomenology,ȱ butȱ Iȱ borrowȱ itȱ hereȱ fromȱ Michelȱ Henry,ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Phenomenologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Body,ȱ trans.ȱ Girardȱ Etzkornȱ (Theȱ Hague:ȱ Martinusȱ Nijhoff,ȱ 1975)ȱ 54Ȭ55:ȱ “subjectivityȱ inȱitsȱradicalȱimmanence,ȱidenticalȱtoȱlife.”ȱForȱaȱsynopsisȱofȱthisȱrivalȱaccountȱofȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ radicalȱ alienation,ȱ seeȱ ibid.:ȱ “Weȱ areȱ inȱ possessionȱ ofȱ ourȱ movements,ȱ weȱ areȱ neverȱ absentȱ fromȱ themȱ atȱ anyȱ timeȱ whileȱ weȱ performȱ them,ȱ weȱ areȱ constantlyȱ informedȱ concerningȱ them,ȱ withȱ aȱ knowledgeȱ whoseȱ originalityȱ andȱ exceptionalȱ characteristicȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ shown,ȱ becauseȱ weȱ areȱ oneȱ withȱ theseȱ movementsȱ …”ȱ Iȱ haveȱ offeredȱ someȱ thoughtsȱ onȱ Henry’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ immanenceȱ andȱ itsȱ usefulnessȱ forȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ poetryȱ inȱ threeȱ previousȱ articles:ȱ “Nervousȱ Breakdownsȱ inȱ Chrisȱ Emery’sȱ Theȱ Cuttingȱ Room,”ȱ Quidȱ 5ȱ (2000);ȱ “Prosodyȱ andȱ Reconciliation,”ȱ Theȱ Gigȱ 16ȱ (2004);ȱ andȱ “Whatȱ isȱ CalledȱJohnȱWilkinson?”ȱTheȱGigȱ17ȱ(2004).ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ Forȱ example,ȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ whichȱ reȬcharacterizesȱ subjectivityȱ asȱ “decentred”ȱ wouldȱ onȱ thisȱ viewȱ beȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ rationalȱ discountenanceȱ thatȱ mayȱ expressȱ polemical,ȱ butȱ mayȱ notȱ expressȱ veridical,ȱ varianceȱ withȱ theȱ prerogativeȱ thatȱ positionsȱsubjectivityȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱ

241ȱ

withoutȱ length,”ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ beingȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ withoutȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ evacuatingȱ itȱ byȱ longingȱ forȱ somewhereȱ orȱ anywhereȱ elseȱ moreȱ complete.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ worldȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ specificȱ desireȱ forȱ transcendenceȱ thatȱ weȱ mightȱ callȱ “longing,”ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ beingȱ theȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ ourȱ homelessnessȱ orȱ alienation,ȱ orȱ ofȱ ourȱ ineradicableȱ dependenceȱ onȱ theȱ perspectivesȱ ofȱ eschatology,ȱ isȱ reallyȱ “theȱ turnȱ toȱ aȱ virtue,ȱ ofȱ extentȱ /ȱ withoutȱ length.”11ȱ Theȱ extentȱ ofȱ longingȱ andȱ desireȱ isȱ bothȱourȱownȱextentȱandȱtheȱextentȱofȱtheȱworldȱaroundȱus,ȱandȱ weȱ areȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ aroundȱ usȱ byȱ aȱ supremeȱ prerogative.ȱTheȱethicalȱcontentȱofȱprosodyȱandȱversificationȱinȱ TheȱWhiteȱStonesȱisȱspecificȱtoȱthisȱidea,ȱwhoseȱliteralnessȱPrynneȱ seeksȱ toȱ makeȱ commensurableȱ withȱ theȱ rhythmicȱ shifts,ȱ theȱ cognitiveȱandȱlexicalȱsonority,ȱandȱtheȱformsȱofȱexpectancyȱandȱ estrangementȱ voicedȱ byȱ theȱ silencesȱ andȱ wordsȱ ofȱ poeticȱ language.ȱTurningȱinȱverseȱmeansȱturningȱatȱtheȱcentre,ȱtowardȱ theȱmaterialȱandȱknowableȱworldȱwhoseȱbondȱweȱare.ȱThatȱlineȱ break,ȱ “extentȱ /ȱ withoutȱ length,”ȱ voicesȱ anȱ intercessionȱ onȱ behalfȱofȱdesireȱreȬknownȱasȱ“theȱturnȱtoȱaȱvirtue,”ȱagainstȱtheȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ lineȱ isȱ aȱ siteȱ projectedȱ forȱ impatientȱ expectancyȱ orȱ eschatologicalȱ premonition.12ȱ Itȱ isȱ anȱ ethicalȱ lineȱ breakȱinȱthatȱitȱaimsȱnotȱmerelyȱtoȱmimicȱitsȱownȱargument,ȱbutȱ ratherȱtoȱeffectuateȱitȱinȱsensibility,ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱreflexivelyȱtoȱ explicateȱ thatȱ effectuationȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ solicitingȱ theȱ criticalȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ aȱ reader.ȱ Itȱ aimsȱ toȱ doȱ allȱ thisȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ motionȱ andȱ suspensionȱ ofȱ sense.ȱ Theȱ lineȱ breakȱ isȱ aȱ momentȱofȱexpectancyȱcalculatedȱtoȱresolveȱitselfȱintoȱanȱalmostȱ catechisticȱ balanceȱ ofȱ correctiveȱ thoughtȱ overȱ againstȱ misthought.ȱ Itȱ activatesȱ theȱ completelyȱ tacitȱ intimationȱ thatȱ whileȱ theȱ sentenceȱ isȱ displacedȱ byȱ enjambment,ȱ andȱ thenȱ

ȱ11ȱȱ “Fromȱ Endȱ toȱ End,”ȱ Poems,ȱ 62.ȱ Iȱ meanȱ byȱ distinguishingȱ Prynne’sȱ conceptȱ ofȱ “longing”ȱ fromȱ theȱ familiarȱ conceptsȱ “homelessness”ȱ andȱ “alienation”ȱ toȱ emphasiseȱthatȱhisȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱrhetoricȱandȱpsychologyȱofȱtranscendenceȱisȱ trulyȱ neitherȱHeideggerianȱnorȱMarxist,ȱasȱisȱ sometimesȱassumed.ȱRather,ȱitȱisȱ specificȱtoȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱforȱthinkingȱinauguratedȱbyȱsyncretisticȱcosmogony.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Cf.ȱ“Theȱplaceȱ/ȱrises,ȱasȱaȱpointȱofȱchange”ȱ(“HowȱIt’sȱDone,”ȱPoems,ȱ44).ȱ

242ȱ

displacedȱstillȱfurtherȱbyȱtheȱinsetȱtypographicalȱpositionȱofȱtheȱ endȱofȱitsȱfinalȱclauseȱ(“withoutȱlength”),ȱweȱareȱnot,ȱandȱcannotȱ be,ȱdisplacedȱfromȱourȱcentralȱauthorityȱforȱtheȱunityȱofȱpoeticȱ andȱ cosmogenicȱ understandingȱ byȱ thisȱ orȱ anyȱ otherȱ shiftȱ inȱ language,ȱ howeverȱ abrupt.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ whatȱ Prynneȱ inȱ 1967ȱ calledȱ “mostȱradicalȱimageȱofȱcalmȱwhichȱisȱtoȱbeȱfound,ȱnow.”13ȱ ȱ Desireȱisȱtheȱturnȱtoȱaȱvirtue,ȱofȱextentȱ withoutȱlength.ȱ

ȱ Forȱ soȱ longȱ asȱ Prynneȱ understoodȱ ethicsȱ inȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ cosmogenicȱ humanȱ centrality,ȱ theȱ burdenȱ ofȱ hisȱ poetryȱ wasȱ toȱ describeȱ andȱ argueȱ forȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ knowingȱ “whereȱ /ȱ weȱ are.”14ȱ Thatȱis,ȱofȱknowingȱnotȱsimplyȱthatȱweȱareȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱ world,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ mundiȱ copulamȱ inȱ theȱ humanist,ȱ Wordsworthianȱ orȱ Hegelianȱ sense,ȱ butȱ ofȱ knowingȱ alsoȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ posui,ȱ theȱ prerogativeȱ expressedȱ inȱ ourȱ beingȱ placedȱthere.ȱWeȱcanȱknowȱthisȱqualityȱofȱplace,ȱofȱbeingȱplaced,ȱ throughȱ theȱ commensurationȱ ofȱ itȱ activatedȱ inȱ theȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ physicalȱandȱintellectualȱperceptionȱasȱtheyȱareȱreȬinauguratedȱ byȱ poeticȱ language.ȱ Theȱ primaryȱ ethicalȱ burdenȱ ofȱ thatȱ languageȱisȱtoȱmakeȱinȱsoundȱandȱinȱconvictiveȱexpressionȱ“theȱ mostȱ radicalȱ imageȱ ofȱ calm,”ȱ whichȱ meant,ȱ forȱ Prynne,ȱ toȱ confrontȱandȱtoȱdisavowȱnotȱonlyȱtheȱdesireȱforȱtranscendence,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ technicalȱ rhetoricsȱ ofȱ transcendenceȱ cultivatedȱ byȱ philosophy,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱinterferenceȱofȱitsȱvernacularȱandȱitsȱ millionȱpopȱsongsȱwithȱeverydayȱconsciousness.15ȱ ȱ Soȱ thatȱ Iȱ willȱ stateȱ quiteȱ clearlyȱ &ȱ withoutȱ question,ȱ Iȱ declineȱ theȱofferȱofȱassistanceȱwithȱsuperlativeȱvision.ȱInȱmyȱownȱfigureȱ andȱ sharedȱ byȱ theȱ statelyȱ nonȬinvolvementȱ ofȱ peopleȱ inȱ theȱ ȱ13ȱȱ Prynne,ȱ“Aboutȱ WarningȱanȱInvitedȱ Audience,”ȱ TheȱEnglishȱIntelligencerȱ(1967)ȱ n.p.ȱTEIȱwasȱnotȱaȱjournalȱbutȱaȱsetȱofȱmimeographedȱpagesȱcirculatedȱprivatelyȱ amongstȱcontributors.ȱItȱcanȱbeȱconsultedȱinȱtheȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱLibrary.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ “AirportȱPoem:ȱEthicsȱofȱSurvival,”ȱPoems,ȱ38.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Prynne,ȱ“AboutȱWarningȱanȱInvitedȱAudience.”ȱCf.ȱ“TheȱHolyȱCity,”ȱPoems,ȱ43:ȱ “There’sȱnoȱmysticȱmomentȱinvolved:ȱjustȱ/ȱthatȱweȱare…”ȱ

243ȱ

streetȱthereȱisȱaȱdifficultȱmotionȱwhichȱinȱmyȱwildestȱdreamsȱIȱ wouldȱnotȱallowȱtoȱbeȱimproved.ȱ

ȱ Itȱ isȱ anȱ essentialȱ argumentȱ ofȱ Prynne’sȱ earlyȱ poetryȱ thatȱ theȱ progressȱ ofȱ enlightenmentȱ comfortablyȱ invokedȱ byȱ Paterȱ doesȱ notȱandȱcannotȱexposeȱthisȱethicsȱtoȱbeȱaȱmisconception;ȱrather,ȱ theȱ misconceptionsȱ ofȱ enlightenmentȱ itselfȱ flowȱ fromȱ itsȱ compulsoryȱocclusionȱofȱtheȱethicsȱofȱsyncretisticȱcosmogony.ȱ Fromȱ Kitchenȱ Poemsȱ onwards,ȱ Prynne’sȱ poetryȱ isȱ anȱ interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ physicalȱ placeȱ ofȱ manȱ andȱ ofȱ hisȱ capacityȱ forȱ coordinatingȱ andȱ creatingȱ hisȱ presenceȱ withinȱ thatȱ placeȱ throughȱlanguage.ȱInȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱthatȱcapacityȱofferedȱ byȱ Kitchenȱ Poemsȱ andȱ Theȱ Whiteȱ Stones,ȱ ethicalȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ specificȱ politicalȱ orȱ socialȱ circumstancesȱ tendsȱ toȱ beȱ resolvedȱ intoȱ ontologicalȱ thinkingȱ whoseȱ predominanceȱ overȱ theȱ particularityȱ ofȱ ethicsȱ isȱ securedȱ byȱ Heideggerianȱ privilege:ȱ ontologyȱisȱaȱmoreȱinauguralȱorderȱofȱthought,ȱnearerȱtoȱ“whereȱ weȱare.”ȱAsȱPrynneȱwritesȱinȱ“AȱGoldȱRingȱCalledȱReluctance,”ȱ whatȱweȱcanȱandȱwhatȱweȱshouldȱmeanȱbyȱ“we”ȱisȱfirstȱofȱallȱ“aȱ clearȱquestionȱaboutȱplace”ȱ(Poems,ȱ21);ȱandȱmanȱ“moreȱorȱlessȱ inȱ hisȱ place”16ȱ isȱ whoȱ heȱ mostȱ is:ȱ mundiȱ copulam.ȱ Thisȱ predominanceȱ ofȱ ontologicalȱ thinkingȱ overȱ ethicalȱ thinkingȱ isȱ firstȱ (andȱ perhapsȱ mostȱ violently)ȱ admonishedȱ inȱ Brass.ȱ Fromȱ thisȱ pointȱ onȱ inȱ hisȱ poeticȱ thinking,ȱ Prynneȱ isȱ intenselyȱ refractoryȱtoȱtheȱideologyȱthatȱwouldȱmakeȱ“being”ȱabsolutelyȱ superordinateȱ toȱ ethics;ȱ andȱ theȱ pressureȱ ofȱ contradictionȱ engenderedȱ byȱ thatȱ irreversibleȱ resistanceȱ isȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ concentratedȱinȱlanguage,ȱwhichȱinȱconsequenceȱbecomesȱalmostȱ invariablyȱ moreȱ recalcitrantȱ toȱ interpretationȱ withȱ eachȱ ofȱ hisȱ successiveȱ books.ȱ Theȱ intensificationȱ ofȱ thatȱ recalcitrance,ȱ arguablyȱ stillȱ unabatedȱ inȱ Prynne’sȱ latestȱ book,ȱ Blueȱ Slidesȱ Atȱ Rest,ȱisȱnotȱaȱprocessȱofȱmerelyȱhermeticȱorȱfactiousȱ“linguisticȱ innovation”;ȱ itȱ isȱ theȱ testimonyȱ ofȱ languageȱ toȱ theȱ increasingȱ andȱ violentȱ disparityȱ betweenȱ ethicsȱ andȱ ontology.ȱ Withȱ eachȱ newȱ book,ȱ theȱ twoȱ kindsȱ ofȱ thinkingȱ areȱ madeȱ toȱ sufferȱ ȱ16ȱȱ “TheȱCommonȱGain,ȱReverted,”ȱPoems,ȱ89.ȱ

244ȱ

increasinglyȱ whatȱ Gillianȱ Roseȱ wouldȱ callȱ “diremption”:ȱ theyȱ areȱsplitȱoffȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱtornȱapart.17ȱȱ Whereȱ andȱ whoȱ weȱ areȱ haveȱ becomeȱ positionsȱ altogetherȱ differentȱ inȱ NOTȬYOUȱ fromȱ thoseȱ patientlyȱ exaltedȱ inȱ theȱ cosmogonyȱ ofȱ Theȱ Whiteȱ Stones.ȱ Theȱ coordinatesȱ areȱ byȱ thisȱ pointȱ dominatedȱ byȱ theȱ ethicsȱ ofȱ aȱ cosmogonyȱ infinitelyȱ moreȱ intricateȱandȱdialectical.ȱItȱisȱaȱcosmogonyȱinȱwhichȱmanȱcannotȱ chooseȱ butȱ persistȱ asȱ “theȱ finalȱ parturition,”ȱ butȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ doesȱsoȱonlyȱthroughȱtheȱ“deepȱdiscount”ȱofȱunderstandingȱthisȱ finalȱparturitionȱtoȱbe,ȱequally,ȱtheȱfinalȱanguishȱ(inȱwhichȱeachȱ ofȱ usȱ inȱ ourȱ separateȱ historiesȱ willȱ nowȱ foreverȱ “terminate”ȱ alone).18ȱExtremaȱfeturaȱisȱ“now”ȱextremaȱangustia:ȱourȱperennialȱ birth,ȱandȱtheȱcosmogonyȱorȱperennialȱbirthȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱisȱtheȱ extremityȱ ofȱ itsȱ andȱ ourȱ narrownessȱ andȱ restriction,ȱ theȱ infinitelyȱstraitenedȱextentȱofȱsubjectivityȱnotȱ“without”ȱlengthȱ butȱ excoriatedȱ fromȱ it.ȱ Manȱ isȱ “now”ȱ theȱ negativeȱ mundiȱ copulam:ȱ stillȱ indeedȱ theȱ “bond,”ȱ butȱ nowȱ (inȱ aȱ characteristicallyȱ violentȱ pun)ȱ “theȱ bondȱ ofȱ careȱ annulled;”19ȱ andȱ heȱ isȱ “central”ȱ notȱ asȱ “theȱ turnȱ toȱ aȱ virtue,”ȱ butȱ onlyȱ toȱ someȱindifferentȱoneȱofȱitsȱschemes:ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱHeȱwasȱcalmȱitselfȱandȱ centralȱtoȱaȱschemeȱofȱvirtue,ȱnotȱabsentȱnorȱ wincingȱȱ ȱ (“LandingȱArea”ȱ(1974)ȱPoems,ȱ224)ȱ

ȱ

ȱ17ȱȱ Readersȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ avantȬgardeȱ Britishȱ poetryȱ willȱ beȱ familiarȱ withȱ theȱ phraseȱ“linguisticȱinnovation,”ȱwhichȱisȱaȱsortȱofȱanxiousȱcolonialȱequivalentȱofȱ theȱAmericanȱphraseȱ“languageȱpoetry.”ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ TheȱcitationȱinȱmyȱparenthesisȱechoesȱtheȱconclusionȱtoȱPrynne,ȱ“EsȱStandȱAuchȱ Geschrieben:ȱ Jeanȱ Bollackȱ Andȱ Paulȱ Celan.”ȱ http://www.cccpȬonline.org/ȱ archive/cccp12/page_49.html:ȱ Whereȱ weȱ nowȱ areȱ isȱ “theȱ ordinaryȱ worldȱ inȱ whichȱ notȱ quiteȱ innocentȱ peopleȱ (we,ȱ andȱ they,ȱ andȱ us)ȱ dwellȱ unpoeticallyȱ uponȱtheȱearthȱandȱterminateȱinȱanguishȱthere.”ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtheȱ“realȱworld”ȱofȱ WordȱOrder,ȱPoemsȱ360,ȱ“towardsȱ/ȱwhichȱweȱtravelȱinȱpurityȱandȱinȱtruthȱ…”ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ “ListeningȱtoȱAll,”ȱPoems,ȱ349.ȱ

245ȱ

Noticeȱ whatȱ fiveȱ yearsȱ haveȱ doneȱ toȱ Prynne’sȱ ideaȱ ofȱ enjambment:ȱ theȱ indifferenceȱ ofȱ thatȱ momentarilyȱ terminalȱ “and”ȱ andȱ “nor,”ȱ theȱ dissimulationȱ ofȱ effortlessȱ disregardȱ forȱ whatȱ Iȱ earlyȱ calledȱ prosodicȱ effectuationȱ inȱ sensibilityȱ thatȱ isȱ stagedȱ inȱ theȱ positioningȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ “central”ȱ asȱ aȱ mereȱ overspill;ȱ andȱ noticeȱ theȱ effectȱ ofȱ fiveȱ yearsȱ onȱ theȱ tonalityȱ ofȱ theȱ expressionsȱ Prynneȱ usesȱ nowȱ merelyȱ toȱ hintȱ atȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ selfȬsamenessȱ(orȱtheȱoppositeȱofȱtranscendence):ȱ“heȱwasȱcalmȱ itself,”ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ colloquialȱ plauditryȱ inȱ tightȱ proximityȱtoȱcliché.ȱCentralȱnotȱasȱbutȱto:ȱhereȱinȱminiatureȱorȱinȱ grotesqueȱ isȱ theȱ satireȱ againstȱ ontology.ȱ Itȱ isȱ tightlyȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ Prynne’sȱ laterȱ poetryȱ thatȱ evenȱ theȱ satireȱ againstȱhisȱformerȱthinkingȱshouldȱbeȱdiminutive,ȱrestrictedȱtoȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ mimicryȱ ofȱ casualȱ utterance,ȱ asȱ thoughȱ merelyȱ overheard.ȱ Theȱ satireȱ itselfȱ isȱ aȱ corruptionȱ inflictedȱ compulsorilyȱ onȱ poeticȱ languageȱ byȱ theȱ diremptionȱ ofȱ ethicsȱ andȱ ontology.ȱ Asȱ thisȱ briefȱ analysisȱ ofȱ aȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ aȱ poemȱ fromȱ1974ȱsuggests,ȱtheȱsatireȱisȱnotȱatȱallȱcontainedȱinȱlanguageȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ argumentȱ orȱ propositionalȱ content,ȱ butȱ isȱ pervasivelyȱ corruptive,ȱ shiningȱ darkȱ inȱ theȱ wholeȱ traducedȱ flowȱofȱprosodyȱandȱversificationȱandȱinȱtheȱwholeȱconnivanceȱ ofȱtheȱpoeticȱlexicon.ȱTheȱterminalȱrestrictionȱofȱextremaȱangustiaȱ isȱasȱwideȱasȱlanguage,ȱandȱasȱwideȱasȱheavenȱandȱearth.ȱ Toȱbeȱbothȱtheȱfinalȱparturitionȱandȱtheȱfinalȱanguishȱisȱtoȱbeȱ finallyȱ contradictory.ȱ Ourȱ centralityȱ toȱ theȱ worldȱ isȱ theȱ contradictionȱ tyingȱ itȱ together;ȱ andȱ theȱ destinyȱ ofȱ humanȱ existenceȱ isȱ “now”ȱ moreȱ tightlyȱ thanȱ everȱ beforeȱ negative:ȱ weȱ cannotȱ beȱ displacedȱ fromȱ ourȱ centralȱ authorityȱ forȱ theȱ irreducibleȱ contradictorinessȱ ofȱ poeticȱ understanding.20ȱ Thisȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Aȱ similarȱ ideaȱ findsȱ moreȱ salubriouslyȱ dialecticalȱ expressionȱ inȱ Whitman,ȱ “SongȱofȱMyself”:ȱ“Whoeverȱdegradesȱanotherȱdegradesȱme,ȱ/ȱAndȱwhateverȱisȱ doneȱorȱsaidȱreturnsȱatȱlastȱtoȱme.ȱ//ȱThroughȱtheȱafflatusȱsurgingȱandȱsurging,ȱ throughȱ meȱ theȱ currentȱ andȱ index.”ȱ Degradationȱ isȱ hereȱ mitigatedȱ andȱ evenȱ valorisedȱbyȱreferenceȱtoȱanȱethicsȱaltogetherȱdifferentȱfromȱPrynne’s.ȱWhitmanȱ isȱ indifferentlyȱ underneathȱ andȱ overheadȱ andȱ offȱ toȱ theȱ side:ȱ unboundedȱ fraternalismȱ makesȱ allȱ degradationȱ vicarious,ȱ suchȱ thatȱ theȱ “self”ȱ whoȱ isȱ itsȱ terminusȱandȱindexȱcanȱneitherȱhaveȱfinalȱauthorityȱforȱdegradationȱ(hisȱownȱorȱ

246ȱ

typeȱ ofȱ contradictionȱ isȱ stillȱ cosmogenic,ȱ stillȱ theȱ sinkingȱ groundsȱofȱourȱresponsibilityȱtoȱdeliverȱ“aȱlingualȱandȱtemporalȱ syncretism,ȱ poisedȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ newȱ order.”21ȱ Thisȱ responsibilityȱ isȱ stillȱ ethicalȱ andȱ stillȱ cannotȱ beȱ obviated,ȱ noȱ matterȱ howȱ deeplyȱ Pico’sȱ orȱ Prynne’sȱ beautifulȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ manȱ asȱ “aȱ soulȱ setȱ inȱ orderȱ andȱ purified”ȱ isȱ routinelyȱ andȱ successivelyȱ discounted.22ȱȱ OneȱaspectȱofȱthisȱcontradictionȱinȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱPrynne’sȱ lateȱ poetryȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ theȱ wayȱ heȱ hintsȱ atȱ descriptionsȱ ofȱ selfȬawarenessȱ usingȱ theȱ vocabularyȱ ofȱ spatialȱ coȬordination.ȱ NOTȬYOUȱinȱparticularȱisȱdominatedȱbyȱthisȱvocabulary:ȱunder,ȱ ahead,ȱ inside,ȱ notȱ farȱ inȱ front,ȱ endȬup,ȱ over,ȱ nextȱ toȱ eachȱ mouth,ȱ beneath,ȱon,ȱin,ȱrises,ȱturning,ȱfalling,ȱboltedȱtoȱtheȱfloorȱ(Poems,ȱ383Ȭ 9).ȱTheseȱareȱalwaysȱethicalȱwordsȱandȱphrases,ȱthoughȱnotȱ(asȱ weȱmightȱexpect)ȱbecauseȱtheyȱsimplyȱconnoteȱtheȱmisdirectionȱ ofȱmoralȱinstinctȱawayȱfromȱitsȱintendedȱaim.ȱThatȱmisdirectionȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ theȱ targetȱ ofȱ criticalȱ sermonisingȱ inȱ Theȱ Whiteȱ Stones:ȱ ȱ Allȱtheȱquickȱmotionsȱ asȱweȱnipȱupstairs,ȱturnȱ toȱstepsȱweȱtake:ȱleadingȱ toȱtheȱmoralȱexitsȱ whichȱweȱseeȱenjoined.ȱSomeȱideaȱofȱ completeness;ȱprotectionȱ isȱwretchedȱandȱwhatȱweȱpayȱfor.ȱ ȱ (“ForȱThis,ȱForȱThis”ȱPoems,ȱ72Ȭ3)ȱ

theȱworld’s),ȱnorȱexperienceȱimmananceȱinȱauthorititativeȱcentralityȱasȱanguishȱ (becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ simplyȱ nowhereȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ centreȱ intoȱ whichȱ theȱ selfȱ canȱ legitimatelyȱ evenȱ imagineȱ itselfȱ toȱ beȱ displaceable).ȱ Thisȱ moreȱ orȱ lessȱ explainsȱ theȱ mostȱ ethicallyȱ significantȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ Whitman’sȱ surgingȱ versificationȱandȱandȱtheȱastrictiveȱversificationȱofȱPrynne’sȱlaterȱpoetry.ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ “Justȱ aȱ treatȱ sodȱ Heineȱ youȱ noticeȱ |ȱ theȱ baseȱ goingȱ downȱ …”ȱ Poems,ȱ 314.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ includesȱ aȱ goodȱ exampleȱofȱ Prynne’sȱ violentȱ satireȱ againstȱ enjambment:ȱ “pentȱ upȱ /ȱ andȱ boilȱ over.”ȱ Glanceȱ nextȱ atȱ theȱ nextȱ pageȱ (315):ȱ “theȱ wholeȱ /ȱ fallingȱshortȱ…”ȱ ȱ22ȱȱ DeȱHominisȱDignitate,ȱ114.ȱOnȱtheȱDignityȱofȱMan,ȱ9.ȱ

247ȱ

Marchingȱoffȱtoȱtheȱmoralȱexitȱisȱhereȱnothingȱbutȱtheȱdesireȱforȱ transcendenceȱ muffledȱ intoȱ sanctimony.ȱ Theȱ semiȬcolonȱ afterȱ “Someȱ ideaȱ ofȱ /ȱ completeness”ȱ stagesȱ aȱ punishmentȱ routineȱ againstȱ thatȱ attitude,ȱ andȱ againstȱ whatȱ Prynneȱ roundsȱ onȱ andȱ castigatesȱ asȱ itsȱ deepȱ insouciance;ȱ whatȱ followsȱ isȱ “wretchedȱ andȱ whatȱ weȱ payȱ for,”ȱ theȱ protectionȱ ofȱ whatȱ inȱ Brassȱ isȱ incrediblyȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ “theȱ millennialȱ landscape”ȱ withȱ itsȱ “streamȱ ofȱ eveningȱ sun”ȱ andȱ “grassȱ crown.”23ȱ Negativityȱ inȱ theseȱ linesȱ fromȱ “Forȱ This,ȱ Forȱ This”ȱ isȱ pastoralȱ andȱ thereforeȱ dutiful,ȱ andȱ itsȱ meansȱ ofȱ compulsionȱ areȱ overtlyȱ metrical.ȱ Theȱ verseȱ turnȱ isȱ everywhereȱ selfȬadmonishing,ȱ everywhereȱ anȱ actȱ orȱ specimenȱ ofȱ pastoralȱ deterrence.ȱ Metreȱ isȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ deterrentȱnegativity;ȱbutȱlanguageȱitselfȱisȱnotȱyetȱbyȱanyȱethicalȱ prescriptionȱnegative,ȱorȱ“undisimprisonable”ȱfromȱtheȱanguishȱ andȱ restrictionȱ ofȱ negativity.ȱ Andȱ thisȱ isȱ partlyȱ becauseȱ inȱ Theȱ WhiteȱStonesȱtheȱmisdirectionȱofȱmoralȱinstinctȱisȱalmostȱsimplyȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ failure:ȱ itȱ isȱ whatȱ happensȱ whenȱ weȱ conȱ ourselvesȱ outȱ ofȱ ourȱ ownȱ rectitude,ȱ despiteȱ ourȱ unalterableȱ centralityȱ toȱ theȱ world.ȱ Ethicsȱ canȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ beȱ sustainedȱ asȱ aȱ crucialȱ butȱ subordinateȱdimensionȱofȱontology:ȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱweȱareȱrightȱ inȱ whatȱ weȱ doȱ dependsȱ finallyȱ onȱ whetherȱ weȱ knowȱ whoȱ weȱ areȱbyȱright.ȱȱ Theȱ vocabularyȱ ofȱ spatialȱ coordinationȱ inȱ NOTȬYOUȱ hasȱ veryȱlittleȱtoȱdoȱwithȱrectitudeȱinȱthisȱsense:ȱthereȱisȱinȱanyȱcase,ȱ theȱ poemȱ declares,ȱ hardlyȱ anythingȱ ofȱ itȱ left.ȱ Theȱ ethicalȱ dimensionȱ ofȱ thatȱ vocabularyȱ consistsȱ moreȱ radicallyȱ inȱ theȱ problemȱ thatȱ theseȱ wordsȱ areȱ theȱ prepositionalȱ andȱ deicticȱ limitsȱ ofȱ aȱ languageȱ constrainedȱ toȱ expressȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ parturitionȱandȱanguish,ȱwhichȱisȱourȱcentralȱ“selfȱdifference;”24ȱ butȱthatȱtheyȱcannotȱdoȱthisȱwithoutȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱprocuringȱ inȱ overtoneȱ aȱ wholeȱ moralismȱ ofȱ evasionȱ andȱ rectitudeȱ whoseȱ familiarȱfineryȱofȱdistinctionsȱconvergesȱalwaysȱonȱselfȱsamenessȱ asȱtheȱgroundsȱofȱitsȱvalour.ȱWhatȱtheȱpoemȱdeclaresȱisȱhardlyȱ leftȱtoȱbeȱthoughtȱthusȱreappearsȱintractablyȱinȱhowȱweȱcannotȱ ȱ23ȱȱ “AȱNewȱTaxȱonȱtheȱCounterȬEarth,”ȱPoems,ȱ172Ȭ3.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ “AttendingȱHerȱAggregate,ȱDetour,”ȱHerȱWeaselsȱWildȱReturning,ȱPoems,ȱ413.ȱ

248ȱ

helpȱbutȱoverhearȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱitsȱdeclaration.ȱLanguageȱisȱinȱ thisȱ way,ȱ underȱ theȱ duressȱ ofȱ thisȱ radicalȱ stricture,ȱ almostȱ irrevocablyȱ notȱ true.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ moreȱ thanȱ simplyȱ aȱ questionȱ definableȱbyȱrhetoricalȱaccountsȱofȱambiguityȱorȱofȱ“slippage.”25ȱ Itȱ isȱ aȱ contradictionȱ whichȱ Prynne’sȱ laterȱ poetryȱ tellsȱ usȱ isȱ notȱ capableȱofȱbeingȱaccommodatedȱorȱsublatedȱbyȱthoseȱrhetorics,ȱ forȱ theȱ reasonȱ thatȱ thisȱ poetryȱ isȱ still,ȱ andȱ isȱ inescapably,ȱ bondedȱtoȱtheȱethicsȱofȱcosmogony.ȱThereȱisȱaȱspecificȱupshot.ȱIfȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ ourȱ mostȱ extremeȱ parturitionȱ andȱ anguishȱ isȱ almostȱirrevocablyȱnotȱtrue,ȱthenȱsoȱalsoȱisȱtheȱworldȱforȱwhichȱ thatȱ languageȱ isȱ theȱ undisplacablyȱ centralȱ authority.ȱ Thisȱ problemȱ isȱ intractableȱ evenȱ byȱ satire,ȱ asȱ Prynneȱ showsȱ inȱ theȱ specimenȱofȱaȱsatireȱagainstȱitȱnearȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱNOTȬYOU:ȱ ȱ Gotȱaȱpervasiveȱovertoneȱinȱdecision,ȱȱ ȱ toȱreachȱback,ȱmaybeȱharmlessȱinȱflightȱ ofȱtheȱamount,ȱbeȱready,ȱseeȱthroughȱwhatȱ ȱ itȱsaysȱtoȱbeȱdone.ȱ ȱ (Poems,ȱ386)ȱ

ȱ Whatȱ isȱ maybeȱ harmlessȱ inȱ flight?ȱ Forȱ oneȱ thing,ȱ capital.ȱ Forȱ another,ȱaȱmissile.ȱTheȱpoemȱbeginsȱchattily:ȱ“Gotȱaȱ…”ȱmightȱ moreȱ familiarlyȱ leadȱ toȱ goodȱ dealȱ onȱ thoseȱ fencesȱ orȱ tanks,ȱ orȱ toȱ problemȱ withȱ that?ȱ Intoȱ “pervasiveȱ overtone”ȱ thereȱ isȱ secretlyȱ packedȱtheȱEnglishȱ“sieveȱover,”ȱlaterȱechoedȱinȱtheȱ“siftȱover”ȱ ofȱ Herȱ Weaselsȱ Wildȱ Returning,26ȱ bothȱ ofȱ whichȱ pointȱ throughȱ ȱ25ȱȱ Neitherȱ isȱ itȱ enoughȱ toȱ sayȱ evenȬhandedlyȱ thatȱ “Language,ȱ whichȱ inȱ itsȱ communicativeȱ aspectȱ participatesȱ inȱ theȱ clarityȱ ofȱ conceptualȱ logic,ȱ alsoȱ participatesȱ inȱ theȱ mimesisȱ ofȱ theȱ nonidentical.”ȱ “Introduction”ȱ byȱ Shierryȱ Weberȱ Nicholsonȱ andȱ Jeremyȱ J.ȱ Shapiroȱ toȱ Adorno,ȱ Hegel:ȱ Threeȱ Studiesȱ (Cambridge,ȱ Mass.:ȱ MITȱ Press,ȱ 1993)ȱ xxix.ȱ Thisȱ equitableȱ viewȱ ofȱ languageȱ isȱ nowhereȱ nearȱ enoughȱ sinceȱ “mimesisȱ ofȱ theȱ nonidentical”ȱ isȱ unavoidablyȱ anȱ identification.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱlanguageȱwhichȱparticipatesȱinȱtheȱmimesisȱofȱtheȱ nonidenticalȱneverthelessȱinvolvesȱaȱdefinitiveȱtestimonyȱofȱselfȬsameness.ȱTheȱ imitationȱofȱaconceptualityȱbyȱartȱisȱalwaysȱcomprehensivelyȱconceptual.ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ “Willȱeitherȱsermonȱ/ȱsiftȱover,ȱdownȱwithȱhisȱline…”ȱPoems,ȱ410.ȱ

249ȱ

overtoneȱ toȱ aȱ militaryȱ aviationȱ missionȱ (theȱ USȱ military,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ recentlyȱ “sieved”ȱ whiteȱ phosphorus,ȱ knownȱ toȱ thoseȱ inȱtheȱgameȱasȱ“shakeȱandȱbake,”ȱoverȱtheȱcivilianȱpopulationȱofȱ Fallujah).ȱAlsoȱsecretedȱinȱechoȱisȱtheȱLatinȱsiveȱeo:ȱifȱbyȱthat,ȱorȱifȱ byȱ that,ȱ orȱ elseȱ byȱ that,ȱ theȱ decontextualisedȱ fragmentȱ ofȱ anȱ extendedȱ correlativeȱ expressionȱ whichȱ wouldȱ typicallyȱ beȱ forked:ȱ eitherȱ do,ȱ orȱ don’t.ȱ Inȱ decisionȱ thereȱ isȱ indecision,ȱ compoundedȱbyȱtheȱcommaȱandȱitsȱdecisiveȱactivationȱofȱaȱlineȱ break;ȱ“toȱreachȱback”ȱfollowsȱafterȱwithoutȱtheȱsyntaxȱitȱneedsȱ behindȱ itȱ toȱ reachȱ for,ȱ andȱ withoutȱ anyȱ specifiedȱ objectȱ thatȱ mightȱ beȱ reached,ȱ butȱ leadsȱ afterȱ anotherȱ commaȱ toȱ aȱ casualȱ speculationȱconcerningȱtheȱharmfulnessȱofȱaȱ“flight”ȱwhichȱhasȱ noȱ grammaticalȱsubjectȱ (theȱ namesȱareȱ protected);ȱ flightȱ twistsȱ intoȱ“flightȱofȱtheȱamount,”ȱhintingȱatȱaȱtaxȱfugitive,ȱbutȱhintingȱ tooȱ thatȱ theȱ nextȱ commaȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ pauseȱ inȱ syntaxȱ butȱ aȱ repressiveȱviolationȱofȱit:ȱinȱflightȱofȱtheȱamountȱofȱwhat?ȱWhatȱ hasȱ beenȱ clippedȱ offȱ orȱ hidden?ȱ Theȱ violationȱ spreadsȱ backward:ȱisȱ“maybeȱharmlessȱinȱflight,”ȱapparentlyȱaȱcoherentȱ clauseȱorȱpartȱofȱone,ȱinȱfactȱtwoȱfragmentsȱofȱclausesȱjammedȱ togetherȱwithȱtheirȱriftȱconcealed?ȱMaybeȱharmlessȱcouldȱbeȱoneȱ fragment,ȱ andȱ then,ȱ fromȱ elsewhereȱ andȱ inȱ anotherȱ voiceȱ entirely,ȱ inȱ flight;ȱ thatȱ wouldȱ allowȱ inȱ flightȱ ofȱ theȱ amountȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ middleȱ ofȱ someȱ otherwiseȱ deletedȱ sentence:ȱ “theȱ pilotsȱ areȱ ignorantȱwhileȱinȱflightȱofȱtheȱamountȱofȱdamageȱtheirȱweaponsȱ cause.”ȱ Maybeȱ harmlessȱ preȬemptsȱ thisȱ speculativeȱ recoveryȱ ofȱ deletedȱsyntax,ȱgettingȱthereȱfirstȱinȱorderȱtoȱcastȱdoubtȱonȱwhatȱ itȱwouldȱsay;ȱbutȱinȱanyȱcaseȱtheȱpredicamentȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱisȱ transformedȱbyȱtheȱabruptȱmetricalȱoverbearanceȱofȱtheȱthirdȱlineȱ afterȱitsȱfirstȱcomma:ȱ“ofȱtheȱamount,ȱbeȱready,ȱseeȱthroughȱwhat.”ȱ Whyȱ suddenlyȱ theseȱ fiveȱ stressesȱ uninterruptedȱ byȱ weakness,ȱ theseȱ pepȬtalkȱ imperatives?ȱ Theȱ secondȱ imperativeȱ makesȱ itȱ acrossȱtheȱstanzaicȱdivisionȱandȱisȱresolved:ȱ“seeȱthroughȱwhatȱ //ȱitȱsaysȱtoȱbeȱdone.”ȱForȱaȱmomentȱitȱfeelsȱasȱthoughȱtheȱechoesȱ areȱshutȱdown:ȱitȱsaysȱtoȱbeȱdoneȱisȱstilted,ȱmonosyllabic,ȱyieldingȱ noȱquickȱconnotation;ȱbutȱcouldȱthereȱnotȱbeȱanȱisȱmissingȱafterȱ thatȱsays,ȱorȱisȱitȱthatȱtheȱpassiveȱvoiceȱofȱ“toȱdo”ȱcannotȱyieldȱtoȱ 250ȱ

theȱ verbȱ saysȱ thatȱ describesȱ colloquiallyȱ someȱ indicatedȱ butȱ unidentifiedȱ instruction?ȱ Ifȱ theȱ instructionȱ isȱ it,ȱ whatȱ itȱ saysȱ isȱ silent;ȱorȱrather,ȱisȱaȱtextȱvoicedȱandȱsoundedȱinȱyourȱheadȱorȱbyȱ yourȱ mouth:ȱitȱ saysȱhereȱ Iȱshouldȱ doȱ this.ȱ Whateverȱ itȱsaysȱ toȱ beȱ doneȱisȱhoweverȱtoȱbeȱseenȱthrough,ȱorȱwasȱatȱleast,ȱbeforeȱtheȱ stanzaicȱ divisionȱ interruptedȱ theȱ sentenceȱ andȱ madeȱ itsȱ coherenceȱdoubtful.ȱToȱseeȱthroughȱsomething:ȱmostȱobviouslyȱ toȱ perceiveȱ theȱ falsityȱ ofȱ itsȱ appearanceȱ andȱ theȱ trueȱ meaningȱ whichȱthatȱappearanceȱconceals.ȱButȱalso,ȱphysicallyȱtoȱperceiveȱ anȱ objectȱ throughȱ somethingȱ whichȱ isȱ anȱ apertureȱ orȱ viewingȱ deviceȱorȱwindow:ȱtheȱwindowȱhereȱwouldȱbeȱwhatȱitȱsaysȱtoȱbeȱ done.ȱ Andȱ thenȱ theȱ thirdȱ possibility,ȱ toȱ seeȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ something:ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ toȱ seeȱ throughȱ (orȱ by)ȱ looking,ȱ toȱ seeȱ insteadȱthroughȱ(orȱby)ȱwhatȱitȱsaysȱtoȱbeȱdone,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱphraseȱ andȱ whatȱ itȱ denotesȱ isȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ “looking”ȱ inȱ itself.ȱ Syntaxȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ sanctionsȱ theȱ coerciveȱ adaptationȱ ofȱ anȱ interpretiveȱ phraseȱintoȱ aȱ metonymȱ forȱ aȱ window,ȱorȱ forȱ myȱ eyes,ȱ orȱforȱaȱ militaryȱ viewfinder;ȱ andȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ phraseȱ inȱ questionȱ isȱ moralismȱdepletedȱbyȱcatachresis,ȱitsȱ“is”ȱmissing.27ȱAgainȱthereȱ isȱaȱnegativeȱinvocationȱofȱontologyȱinȱtheȱdeletionȱofȱtheȱverbȱ toȱbe;ȱbutȱtheȱinvocationȱisȱnoȱlongerȱproperlyȱsatirical,ȱsinceȱitȱisȱ nowȱ tooȱ extremelyȱ diminutiveȱ andȱ tooȱ deeplyȱ orȱ batheticallyȱ subȬargumentativeȱevenȱforȱtheȱdiminishingȱreturnsȱofȱsatire.ȱȱ Inȱ Prynne’sȱ laterȱ work,ȱ theȱ procuranceȱ ofȱ moralismȱ inȱ overtoneȱisȱevidenceȱofȱaȱradicalȱaberrationȱofȱhumanȱauthority.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ weȱ areȱ beneathȱ isȱ languageȱ proȱ cura,ȱ itsȱ echoesȱ becomeȱanȱirrebuttableȱsurrogateȱbothȱforȱcareȱandȱforȱcure.ȱȱ ȱ Theȱcureȱisȱwonȱacrossȱtwice,ȱinȱglitterȱ patchesȱsoȱcheapȱtheyȱthrillȱeachȱbidder,ȱ staringȱaheadȱtoȱtheȱemptyȱroomȱwhereȱ ȱ brightnessȱisȱbornȱandȱtagged;ȱtoȱbeatȱ

ȱ27ȱȱ TheȱdisallowedȱechoȱofȱLenin’sȱ“WhatȱIsȱToȱBeȱDone?”ȱisȱnearlyȱovert:ȱwithȱtheȱ verbȱtoȱbeȱwipedȱout,ȱitȱsaysȱisȱtheȱreplacementȱsanctionedȱbyȱgrammar.ȱWoȱIchȱ war,ȱsollȱEsȱwerden.ȱ

251ȱ

theȱwindowsȱofȱtheȱdyingȱyear’sȱfastȱ turnȱtoȱaȱfactionȱcutȬback.ȱEverȱsoȱ ȱ smilingȱatȱthisȱsuddenȱrealȱcandour,ȱ whatȱtoȱshunȱofȱthisȱsetȱcure’sȱtopmostȱȱ retort:ȱrememberȱme:ȱandȱgiveȱnowȱover.ȱ ȱ (NOTȬYOU,ȱPoems,ȱ390)ȱ

ȱ “Theȱ ears,”ȱ wroteȱ Augustine,ȱ “areȱ certainlyȱ notȱ otherwiseȱ accessibleȱtoȱgoodȱsoundsȱthanȱtoȱbadȱones.”28ȱFromȱtheȱauthorȱ ofȱ NOTȬYOUȱ mightȱ comeȱ theȱ retort:ȱ true,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ theȱ sameȱ ears.ȱ Ifȱ ourȱ authorityȱ isȱ aberratedȱ byȱ theȱ moralismȱ procuredȱforȱusȱinȱirrefusibleȱovertone,ȱthenȱsoȱalsoȱisȱwhateverȱ worldȱ weȱ bindȱ togetherȱ evenȱ asȱ contradiction:ȱ theȱ ethicalȱ imperativeȱ ofȱ poetryȱ isȱ notȱ thenȱ toȱ getȱ onȱ withȱ sublatingȱ thisȱ aberratedȱcontradiction,ȱbutȱsomehowȱtoȱshowȱitȱandȱtoȱsingȱitȱ fullyȱ unaberrated.ȱ Insofarȱ howeverȱ asȱ languageȱ isȱ ourȱ procurator,ȱ itsȱ parturitionȱ andȱ anguishȱ areȱ justȱ nowhereȱ nearȱ extremeȱ enough.ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ notȱ justlyȱ soȱ extremeȱ asȱ weȱ are.ȱ You,ȱ andȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ whichȱ cosmogonyȱ saysȱ youȱ are— whetherȱ Pico’sȱ naturalisȱ philosophaeȱ lumine,ȱ MerleauȬPonty’sȱ existentialȱ fulguration,ȱ orȱ Prynne’sȱ “lightȱ inȱ deȬȱ /ȱ light”29—areȱ taggedȱ (onȱ theȱ ear)ȱ notȬyouȱ asȱ soonȱ asȱ youȱ areȱ born,ȱ andȱ thenȱ foreverȱagainȱinȱcandidȱandȱemptyȱanticipationȱofȱtheȱnextȱbirthȱ andȱ theȱ next,ȱ theȱ wholeȱ perennialȱ cosmogonyȱ traducedȱ byȱ anticipatedȱ occupationȱ ofȱ theȱ transcendentalȱ emptyȱ wombȱ ahead.ȱ Theȱ problemȱ cannotȱ beȱ solvedȱ inȱ Prynne’sȱ poetryȱ byȱ choosingȱ asceticallyȱ whatȱ toȱ shunȱ ofȱ thisȱ procuratedȱ cure,ȱ “set”ȱ likeȱ aȱ thrillinglyȱ cheapȱ menuȱ weȱ eachȱ nonethelessȱ defineȱ ȱ28ȱȱ Deȱ Musica,ȱ Theȱ Fathersȱ ofȱ theȱ Church.ȱ vol.4,ȱ Writingsȱ ofȱ Saintȱ Augustine,ȱ vol.2.,ȱ trans.ȱRobertȱCatesbyȱTaliaferroȱ(NewȱYork:ȱFathersȱofȱtheȱChurch,ȱ1947)ȱ327.ȱ ȱ29ȱȱ DeȱHominisȱDignitate,ȱ114;ȱOnȱtheȱDignityȱofȱManȱ9.ȱCf.ȱMauriceȱMerleauȬPonty,ȱ Senseȱ andȱ NonȬSense,ȱ trans.ȱ Hubertȱ L.ȱ Dreyfusȱ andȱ Patriciaȱ Allenȱ Dreyfusȱ (Evanston:ȱ Northwesternȱ UP,ȱ 1964)ȱ 152;ȱ andȱ Prynne,ȱ “Theȱ Numbers,”ȱ Poems,ȱ 10.ȱCompareȱalsoȱHenry,ȱPhilosophyȱandȱPhenomenologyȱofȱtheȱBody,ȱ44:ȱ“theȱbeingȱ ofȱ eachȱ individualȱ isȱ theȱ lightȱ ofȱ theȱ world,ȱ andȱ moreȱ profoundly,ȱ itȱ is,ȱ asȱ originalȱtruth,ȱtheȱlightȱofȱthisȱlight.”ȱ

252ȱ

ourselvesȱ byȱ biddingȱ for.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ overtoneȱ cannotȱ simplyȱ beȱ purgedȱ orȱ pulledȱ downȱ toȱ ourȱ ownȱ level:ȱ itsȱ unreachableȱtheatreȱofȱimplicationsȱisȱ“terraȱnulliusȱoverhead,”30ȱ thatȱis,ȱtheȱskyȱtaggedȱinȱHerȱWeaselsȱWildȱReturningȱasȱmilitaryȱ airspaceȱ freeȱ forȱ imperialȱ seizureȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ Romanȱ law.ȱ Terraȱ nulliusȱ isȱ noȬman’sȱ land,ȱ terraȱ nulliusȱoverheadȱisȱtheȱskyȱwhichȱlawȱdeclaresȱisȱownedȱbyȱnoȬ one.ȱ Theȱ imperialȱ claimȱ toȱ itȱ comesȱ fromȱ twoȱ places:ȱ fromȱ theȱ USȱ Airȱ Force,ȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ (itȱ isȱ theȱ skyȱ overȱ Iraq,ȱ raidedȱ byȱ theȱ Wildȱ Weasels);31ȱ andȱ secondlyȱ fromȱ youȱ atȱ theȱ centreȱ ofȱ theȱ

ȱ30ȱȱ Poems,ȱ416.ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ InȱJuneȱ1965,ȱNorthȱVietnameseȱgroundȱforcesȱfirstȱbeganȱtoȱuseȱSAȬ2ȱGuidelineȱ surfaceȬtoȬairȱ missilesȱ (SAMs),ȱ guidedȱ byȱ groundȱ operatorsȱ usingȱ aȱ radarȱ systemȱ codeȱ namedȱ “Fansong”ȱ byȱ NATOȱ andȱ firedȱ atȱ invadingȱ USȱ Airȱ Forceȱ bombers.ȱ Theseȱ advancedȱ systemsȱ wereȱ suppliedȱ byȱ theȱ USSR.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ toȱ proveȱ criticalȱ inȱ theȱ airȱ war,ȱ sinceȱ theyȱ effectivelyȱ disabledȱ Americanȱ pilotsȱ fromȱ flyingȱ atȱ theȱ middleȱ heightȱ whichȱ wasȱ necessaryȱ toȱ avoidȱ conventionalȱ flakȱbutȱlowȱenoughȱtoȱmaintainȱtheȱvisibilityȱofȱgroundȱtargets.ȱForȱ“oneȱshortȱ period”ȱtheȱmissilesȱhadȱaȱ100%ȱstrikeȱrate.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ Pentagonȱ requiredȱ aȱ weaponȱ whichȱ couldȱ eliminateȱ theseȱ SAMȱ installations,ȱwhichȱatȱfirstȱwereȱimpossibleȱtoȱlocateȱuntilȱtheirȱmissileȱhadȱbeenȱ fired.ȱ Theȱ Pentagonȱ contractedȱ Appliedȱ Technology,ȱ aȱ smallȱ electronicsȱ companyȱ fromȱ Paloȱ Alto,ȱ California,ȱ toȱ developȱ theirȱ newȱ radioȱ frequencyȱ receiver/directionȱfinderȱintoȱaȱcomponentȱthatȱwouldȱenableȱUSAFȱbombersȱtoȱ identifyȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ Sovietȱ radarȱ emitters.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ manufacturersȱ workingȱ underȱ contractȱ toȱ theȱ USAFȱ developedȱ theȱ AGMȬ45ȱ Shrikeȱ Missile,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ homeȱ inȱ onȱ theȱ emitters,ȱ allowingȱ theȱ “SAMȱ hunter”ȱtheȱ“safetyȱofȱaȱfewȱmilesȱstandȬoffȱrange.”ȱTheȱfirstȱplaneȱtoȱcarryȱbothȱ newȱ componentsȱ wasȱ theȱ FȬ100F;ȱ laterȱ theȱ FȬ4Gȱ becameȱ standard.ȱ Thisȱ technologicalȱmakeoverȱwasȱhighȱpriorityȱandȱthereforeȱexceptionallyȱrapid:ȱtheȱ firstȱFȬ100Fȱ“kill”—thatȱis,ȱdestructionȱofȱaȱVietnameseȱSAMȱinstallation—cameȱ onȱ22ȱDecemberȱ1965.ȱTheȱFȬ100FȱwouldȱleadȱaȱteamȱofȱheavierȱFȬ105ȱ“Thuds”ȱ overȱ theȱ targetȱ area,ȱ identifyingȱ theȱ SAMȱ positionȱ toȱ theirȱ pilotsȱ andȱ enablingȱ themȱtoȱdeliverȱtheirȱordnanceȱbeforeȱaȱmissileȱhadȱbeenȱfired.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Thisȱmissionȱhadȱtheȱcodeȱnameȱ“WildȱWeasel.”ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ missionȱ neededȱ aȱ name,ȱ andȱ originallyȱ itȱ wasȱ goingȱ toȱ beȱ “Wildȱ Ferret,”ȱ butȱ thatȱ nameȱ hadȱ beenȱ usedȱ inȱ Korea.ȱ Soȱ instead,ȱ theȱ codeȱ nameȱ selectedȱ wasȱ “Wildȱ Weasel,”ȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ littleȱ creatureȱ withȱ sharpȱ teethȱ whoȱ brazenlyȱ goesȱ intoȱ theȱ burrowsȱ ofȱ muchȱ larger,ȱ moreȱ powerfulȱ enemiesȱ andȱkillsȱthem.ȱTheȱweaselȱisȱaȱratherȱcuteȱlittleȱguy,ȱfearlessȱandȱenergetic,ȱandȱ heȱgetsȱtheȱjobȱdone.ȱSeeȱHansȱHalberstadt,ȱTheȱWildȱWeasels:ȱHistoryȱofȱUSȱAirȱ

253ȱ

worldȱ whoȱ areȱ itsȱ bondȱ andȱ interpreter,ȱ placedȱ beneathȱ itȱ “toȱ loveȱitsȱbeauty,ȱandȱtoȱwonderȱatȱitsȱgreatness.”32ȱTheȱpervasiveȱ overtoneȱ streaksȱ toȱ usȱ fromȱ thatȱ doubleȱ yetȱ selfȬsameȱ sky,ȱ violatedȱ beyondȱ allȱ poeticȱ repairȱ orȱ anyȱ otherȱ reachȱ ofȱ idealistȱ fantasy;ȱ andȱ whoȱ weȱ are,ȱ withȱ ontologyȱ diremptedȱ byȱ thatȱ violenceȱ fromȱ ourȱ ethics,ȱ isȱ stillȱ andȱ alwaysȱ mustȱ stillȱ beȱ theȱ wholeȱ thing,ȱ theȱ totalȱ violationȱ rebornȱ endlesslyȱ inȱ extremaȱ angustia.ȱȱ Theȱ mostȱ constantȱ motiveȱ ofȱ Prynne’sȱ lateȱ workȱ isȱ toȱ discoverȱinȱlanguageȱanȱethicsȱradicallyȱincommensurableȱwithȱ procurated,ȱechoicȱsubjectivity;ȱitȱwantsȱethicaȱnullius,ȱtheȱethicsȱ ofȱ noȬoneȱ whoseȱ centralityȱ isȱ radicallyȱ superintendedȱ byȱ theȱ moralismȱ ofȱ overtone.ȱ Itȱ seeksȱ toȱ discoverȱ thisȱ ethicsȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ completedȱwhole,ȱnotȱbyȱscanningȱforȱtheȱoutlineȱofȱaȱsystemȱorȱ theȱmaterialsȱofȱaȱpotentialȱsystem,ȱbutȱinȱalwaysȱunpredictableȱ poeticȱ incrementsȱ bitterlyȱ wonȱ acrossȱ theȱ terraȱ nulliusȱ ofȱ selfȬ samenessȱ andȱ aberratedȱ contradiction.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ itȱ isȱ fundamentallyȱ differentȱ fromȱ hisȱ earlyȱ work,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ pushȱ intoȱanȱethicsȱincommensurableȱwithȱprocuratedȱsubjectivityȱisȱ directlyȱ competitiveȱ withȱ theȱ movementȱ ofȱ theȱ wholeȱ personȱ intoȱ knowledgeȱ thatȱ hadȱ providedȱ theȱ ontologicalȱ scheduleȱ ofȱ TheȱWhiteȱStones.ȱTheȱdeȬauthenticationȱofȱlanguageȱisȱnoȱlongerȱ proofȱofȱourȱfailureȱtoȱknowȱwhoȱweȱareȱbyȱright.ȱRather,ȱitȱisȱ nowȱ byȱ knowingȱ whoȱ weȱ areȱ asȱ inalienableȱ wrongȱ thatȱ weȱ canȱ trulyȱ knowȱ theȱ imperativeȱ toȱ countermandȱ linguisticȱ deȬ Forceȱ SAMȱ Killers,ȱ 1965ȱ toȱ Todayȱ (Osceola:ȱ Motorbooksȱ Internationalȱ MilȬTechȱ Seriesȱ1992)ȱ17.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ missionȱ codeȱ nameȱ wasȱ adoptedȱ asȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ pilotȱ teams.ȱ Theȱ WildȱWeaselsȱwere,ȱinȱeachȱteam,ȱaȱpilotȱ(orȱ“stick”)ȱandȱanȱElectronicȱWarfareȱ Officerȱ (orȱ EWO;ȱ orȱ “bear”).ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ equipped,ȱ duringȱ theȱ conflictȱ overȱ Vietnam,ȱ firstȱ withȱ anȱ FȬ100F;ȱ thenȱ withȱ anȱ FȬ105Fȱ “Thunderchief”ȱ (orȱ “Thud”—theȱfirstȱplaneȱableȱtoȱlaunchȱtheȱAGMȬ45ȱShrike)ȱinȱ1966,ȱfollowedȱbyȱ theȱ improvedȱ FȬ105Gȱ inȱ 1968,ȱ thenȱ byȱ theȱ FȬ4Cȱ Phantomȱ inȱ 1969.ȱ Theȱ lastȱ ofȱ theseȱ improvedȱ aircraftȱ wasȱ improvedȱ yetȱ again,ȱ toȱ becomeȱ theȱ FȬ4G,ȱ 48ȱ ofȱ whichȱreturnedȱtoȱactionȱamongȱtheȱ1,376ȱmilitaryȱplanesȱofȱvariousȱtypesȱusedȱ byȱ theȱ USȱ inȱ theȱ Gulfȱ Warȱ ofȱ 1990Ȭ91.ȱ Seeȱ Militaryȱ Lessonsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gulfȱ War,ȱ ed.ȱ BruceȱW.ȱWatsonȱ(Novato:ȱPresidioȱPressȱ1991)ȱ236.ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ DeȱHominisȱDignitate,ȱ104;ȱOnȱtheȱDignityȱofȱMan,ȱ4.ȱ

254ȱ

authentication,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ deȬauthenticationȱ ofȱ mundiȱ contradictioȱalso,ȱbyȱtheȱonlyȱradicalȱmeansȱstillȱpossible,ȱnamelyȱ byȱ reachingȱ foreverȱ andȱ asȱ ifȱ foreverȱ terminallyȱ forȱ anȱ ethicsȱ incommensurableȱwithȱlife.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

255ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

LisaȱJarnotȱ ȱ

SanȱFrancisco’sȱBurningȱ ȱ ȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ breedȱ ofȱ theȱ poet—…notȱ justȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ badȱ tempered,ȱ butȱ weȱ areȱ reallyȱ trainedȱ toȱ moveȱ withȱ tremendousȱ feelingȱonȱtheȱleastȱhints—ȱandȱhowȱtoȱmanageȱourȱhumanȱlivesȱ needsȱaȱtremendousȱkeel.ȱ —RobertȱDuncan,ȱ8ȱDecember,ȱ1978ȱ

ȱ Duncanȱbehavedȱbadly.ȱ —JacquelineȱCantwell,ȱPoetryȱFlashȱ

ȱ ȱ RobertȱDuncanȱwasȱatȱhomeȱinȱSanȱFranciscoȱinȱtimeȱtoȱvoteȱinȱ theȱNovemberȱelections,ȱduringȱtheȱcourseȱofȱwhichȱtheȱBriggsȱ initiative,ȱ Propositionȱ 6,ȱ wasȱ defeatedȱ inȱ California.ȱ Theȱ proposition,ȱ backedȱ byȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ conservativeȱ andȱ fundamentalistȱ organisations,ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ madeȱ itȱ legalȱ toȱ removeȱ gayȱ schoolȱ teachersȱ fromȱ theirȱ jobs.ȱ Duncanȱ andȱ Jessȱ sawȱ aȱ productionȱ ofȱ theȱ operaȱ Fidelioȱ onȱ theȱ eveningȱ ofȱ 11ȱ Novemberȱ ȱ withȱ Hildeȱ andȱ Davidȱ Burton,ȱ andȱ Duncanȱ spentȱ timeȱwithȱJessȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheȱyear’sȱbusyȱtourȱschedule.ȱHeȱ completedȱ hisȱ poemȱ “Inȱ Waking”ȱ onȱ theȱ 14thȱ ofȱ theȱ month,ȱ returningȱ againȱ toȱ theȱ particularȱ ambivalentȱ emotionsȱ heȱ associatedȱ withȱ hisȱ marriageȱ toȱ Jess,ȱ andȱ reflectingȱ uponȱ theȱ trajectoryȱofȱtheirȱrelationship.ȱThereȱwasȱalsoȱgrimȱnewsȱtoȱbeȱ facedȱ inȱ theȱ largerȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ communityȱ thatȱ autumn.ȱ Onȱ theȱ 18thȱ ofȱ theȱ month,ȱ theȱ Jonestownȱ Massacreȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ Guyana.ȱ914ȱfollowersȱofȱtheȱReverendȱJimȱJones,ȱmanyȱofȱthemȱ 256ȱ

formerȱ Sanȱ Franciscans,ȱ diedȱ inȱ aȱ massȱ suicide.ȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ Congressmanȱ Leoȱ Ryan,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ visitedȱ Jonestownȱ onȱ aȱ factȬ findingȱ mission,ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ shotȱ andȱ killed.ȱ Onȱ 27ȱ November,ȱ anotherȱtragedyȱbefellȱtheȱcity.ȱMayorȱGeorgeȱMosconeȱandȱcityȱ supervisorȱHarveyȱMilkȱwereȱassassinatedȱinȱCityȱHallȱbyȱDanȱ White,ȱ aȱ disgruntledȱ districtȱ supervisorȱ whoȱ hadȱ recentlyȱ resigned.ȱTwoȱdaysȱlaterȱaȱmemorialȱserviceȱwasȱheldȱforȱMilkȱ andȱ Mosconeȱ inȱ Sanȱ Francisco’sȱ Cityȱ Hall.ȱ Overȱ tenȱ thousandȱ peopleȱfiledȱpastȱtheȱclosedȱcasketsȱofȱtheȱmurderedȱmen.ȱMilk,ȱ bornȱinȱ1930,ȱandȱaȱlongȬtimeȱresidentȱofȱtheȱCastroȱdistrict,ȱhadȱ beenȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȇsȱ firstȱ openlyȱ gayȱ publicȱ officialȱ andȱ hadȱ playedȱ aȱ crucialȱ roleȱ inȱ localȱ andȱ nationalȱ strugglesȱ forȱ gayȱ rights.1ȱ White’sȱ motivesȱ wereȱ initiallyȱ unclear,ȱ althoughȱ hisȱ interactionsȱwithȱMilkȱhadȱbeenȱterseȱandȱduringȱhisȱtenureȱonȱ theȱ boardȱ ofȱ supervisorsȱ heȱ hadȱ vocallyȱ disagreedȱ withȱ Milk’sȱ views,ȱespousingȱaȱmoreȱconservativeȱandȱatȱtimesȱhomophobicȱ agenda.ȱ Whenȱ Whiteȱ wasȱ triedȱ duringȱ theȱ followingȱ year,ȱ hisȱ lawyersȱclaimedȱthatȱheȱhadȱbeenȱdepressedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ murders,ȱ partlyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ excessiveȱ consumptionȱ ofȱ junkȱ food.ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ whatȱ wasȱ laterȱ labelledȱ theȱ “Twinkieȱ Defence,”ȱ Whiteȱ receivedȱ aȱ sentenceȱ ofȱ sixȱ yearsȱ inȱ prison.ȱ Inȱ theȱ wakeȱ ofȱ theȱ verdict,ȱ Sanȱ Francisco’sȱ gayȱ communityȱ wasȱ mobilisedȱ inȱ violentȱ protestsȱ duringȱ whichȱ policeȱ carsȱ wereȱ burnedȱandȱtheȱwindowsȱofȱCityȱHallȱwereȱbroken.ȱ Inȱ theȱ midstȱ ofȱ theȱ community’sȱ griefȱ thatȱ fall,ȱ lifeȱ continued,ȱ poetsȱ gatheredȱ toȱ goȱ aboutȱ theirȱ business,ȱ andȱ anotherȱ battleȱ ragedȱ inȱ theȱ arenaȱ ofȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ poetry.ȱ Asȱ DavidȱBromigeȱremembered:ȱȱ

ȱ inȱ 1978ȱ thingsȱ wereȱ gettingȱ soȱ interestingȱ …ȱ Iȱ leftȱ Sonomaȱ CountyȱandȱfoundȱaȱplaceȱinȱSanȱFranciscoȱjustȱsoȱthatȱIȱcouldȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Duncanȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ silentȱ aboutȱ theseȱ events,ȱ althoughȱ hisȱ studentsȱ (particularlyȱAaronȱShurinȱandȱothers)ȱattendedȱtheȱDanȱWhiteȱtrial,ȱwhichȱtookȱ placeȱinȱ1979.ȱWhiteȱwasȱeventuallyȱreleasedȱfromȱSoledadȱprisonȱonȱ6ȱJanuary,ȱ 1984ȱ afterȱ servingȱ aȱ fiveȬyearȱ sentence.ȱ Heȱ committedȱ suicideȱ onȱ 21ȱ October,ȱ 1985.ȱ ȱ

257ȱ

beȱaroundȱforȱallȱtheȱfunȱ…ȱ80ȱLangtonȱStreetȱhadȱbeenȱstartedȱ up,ȱsoȱtheȱtalksȱwereȱhappeningȱthereȱandȱtheȱpanels,ȱandȱthereȱ wasȱaȱgreatȱreadingȱseriesȱatȱtheȱGrandȱPianoȱonȱHaightȱStreet.2ȱ

ȱ Oneȱ orderȱ ofȱ businessȱ thatȱ Winterȱ tookȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ programmeȱ calledȱ “Anȱ Eveningȱ withȱ Louisȱ Zukofskyȱ forȱ aȱ Showingȱ ofȱ theȱ OutȬtakes.”ȱ Theȱ eventȱ beganȱ atȱ 8:30ȱ p.m.ȱ onȱ 8ȱ DecemberȱatȱtheȱSanȱFranciscoȱArtȱInstituteȱonȱChestnutȱStreetȱ andȱ admissionȱ wasȱ threeȱ dollars.ȱ Aȱ filmȱ ofȱ outtakesȱ ofȱ Zukofsky’sȱ 1965ȱ Nationalȱ Educationalȱ Televisionȱ interviewsȱ wereȱshown,ȱandȱRobertȱDuncanȱandȱBarrettȱWattenȱsharedȱtheȱ stageȱtoȱtalkȱaboutȱZukofskyȱwhoȱhadȱdiedȱinȱMayȱatȱtheȱageȱofȱ 75.ȱ Ronȱ Sillimanȱ laterȱ recalledȱ anȱ importantȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ event’sȱplanning:ȱ

ȱ PuttingȱRobertȱandȱBarrettȱtogetherȱonȱtheȱsameȱbillȱdiscussingȱ LouisȱZukofskyȱwasȱatȱoneȱlevelȱaȱsymbolicȱevent,ȱidentifyingȱaȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Newȱ Americanȱ poeticsȱ andȱ thisȱ newȱ poetryȱ grewȱoutȱofȱsimilarȱconcernsȱandȱsympathies.ȱPuttingȱRobertȱonȱ stageȱfirstȱwasȱalsoȱsymbolic,ȱandȱitȱreallyȱgaveȱtheȱeveningȱanȱ Oedipalȱair.3ȱ

ȱ AfterȱaȱshortȱintroductionȱbyȱorganiserȱTomȱMandel,ȱaȱyoungerȱ writerȱ thenȱ theȱ directorȱ ofȱ theȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ Poetryȱ Centre,ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ Davidȱ Bromige,ȱ personalȱ interview,ȱ 6ȱ Mayȱ 1998.ȱ Barrettȱ Wattenȱ startedȱ theȱ readingȱseriesȱatȱtheȱGrandȱPiano.ȱAsȱheȱsaid,ȱ“IȱstartedȱitȱinȱSeptemberȱ‘76ȱandȱ Ronȱ [Silliman]ȱ andȱ Tomȱ Mandelȱ tookȱ overȱ inȱ Januaryȱ ‘77.ȱ Aboutȱ Fallȱ ‘78ȱ Raeȱ Armantroutȱ andȱ Tedȱ Pearsonȱ wereȱ theȱ curators,ȱ andȱ Steveȱ Bensonȱ andȱ Carlaȱ [Harryman]ȱendedȱitȱ…ȱitȱwentȱthroughȱ1979.ȱAlso,ȱasȱRonȱSillimanȱrecalled,ȱ“Inȱ 1978,ȱlangpoȱwasȱstillȱfairlyȱnewȱtoȱtheȱbroaderȱcommunityȱofȱpoets—toȱthoseȱofȱ usȱdoingȱit,ȱitȱwasȱanywhereȱbetweenȱ4ȱ&ȱ8ȱyearsȱold.ȱTheȱtermȱlanguageȱpoetryȱ hadȱ yetȱ toȱ beȱ assignedȱ toȱ theȱ group,ȱ inȱ fact—thatȱ didn’tȱ comeȱ aboutȱ untilȱ ‘79.ȱ TomȱMandelȱbecomingȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱS[an]ȱF[rancisco]ȱPoetryȱCentreȱthatȱfallȱ wasȱ aȱ hugeȱ dealȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ recognisingȱ thisȱ newȱ writingȱ &ȱ everyoneȱ inȱ theȱ poetryȱ sceneȱ inȱ SFȱ recognizedȱ itȱ asȱ suchȱ (consider,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ thatȱ Charlesȱ [Bernstein]ȱ andȱ Bruceȱ [Andrews]ȱ didȱ notȱ startȱ theȱ mag[azine]ȱ L=A=N=G=U=A=G=Eȱuntilȱthatȱyear)”ȱ(emailȱtoȱtheȱauthor,ȱ21ȱMarchȱ2006).ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ RonȱSillimanȱtoȱtheȱauthor,ȱ21ȱMarchȱ2006.ȱ ȱ

258ȱ

Duncanȱ discussedȱ theȱ filmȱ andȱ gaveȱ aȱ basicȱ biographicalȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ Zukofskyȱ forȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ audienceȱ whoȱ wereȱ unfamiliarȱ withȱ hisȱ work.ȱ Heȱ openedȱ theȱ eveningȱ onȱ anȱ enthusiasticȱtalkingȱjag,ȱlocatingȱhisȱownȱearlyȱencountersȱwithȱ Zukofskyȱ andȱ weavingȱ togetherȱ severalȱ threadsȱ ofȱ subjectȱ matterȱ inȱ Zukofsky’sȱ work,ȱ fromȱ communistȱ politicsȱ toȱ immigrantȱ attitudesȱ toȱ theȱ influencesȱ ofȱ Henryȱ James,ȱ Henryȱ Adams,ȱ andȱ theȱ Modernists.ȱ Asȱ Davidȱ Bromigeȱ remembered,ȱ Duncanȱwasȱinȱhighȱform:ȱ“Duncanȱwasȱplayingȱtheȱpartȱtoȱtheȱ hiltȱ ofȱ ‘Theȱ Poet’.ȱ Heȱ hadȱ hisȱ …ȱ Spanishȱ hatȱ onȱ withȱ theȱ lowȱ crownȱandȱtheȱbroadȱbrim.ȱHeȱhadȱhisȱcapeȱon,ȱandȱheȱwasȱjustȱ swanningȱaboutȱthereȱonȱstage.”4ȱȱ TheȱfilmȱprogramȱfollowedȱDuncan’sȱintroductoryȱtalk,ȱafterȱ whichȱBarrettȱWattenȱgaveȱaȱpresentationȱonȱZukofsky’sȱpoetry.ȱ TheȱthirtyȬyearȬoldȱWattenȱadmittedȱwithȱsomeȱdeferenceȱtoȱhisȱ coȬpresenterȱthatȱheȱhadȱbeenȱreadingȱZukofsky’sȱworkȱforȱtenȱ yearsȱ asȱ opposedȱ toȱ Duncan’sȱ forty.ȱ Wattenȱ thenȱ utilisedȱ anȱ overheadȱ projectorȱ toȱ showȱ theȱ audienceȱ selectionsȱ ofȱ Zukofsky’sȱ“A”ȱasȱ itȱappearedȱ onȱ theȱ page,ȱandȱ heȱ beganȱ intoȱ hisȱ ownȱ meticulousȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ theȱ poet’sȱ workȱ andȱ itsȱ intersectionsȱwithȱtheȱpoliticalȱworld.5ȱAtȱvariousȱpointsȱduringȱ hisȱ presentationȱ heȱ wasȱ interruptedȱ byȱ audienceȱ members’ȱ commentsȱ andȱ questions,ȱ withȱ Duncanȱ andȱ poetȱ Larryȱ Eignerȱ actingȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ frequentȱ interjectors.ȱ Wattenȱ alsoȱ competedȱ withȱnoiseȱfromȱaȱpunkȱrockȱconcertȱinȱaȱneighbouringȱvenue,ȱ andȱatȱoneȱpointȱinȱhisȱtalkȱanȱaudienceȱmemberȱshoutedȱatȱhimȱ toȱ speakȱ moreȱ directlyȱ intoȱ hisȱ microphone.ȱ Forȱ anȱ audienceȱ thatȱ hadȱ justȱ listenedȱ toȱ elderȱ poetȱ Duncanȱ speakȱ andȱ hadȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ RonȱSillimanȱtoȱtheȱauthor,ȱ21ȱMarchȱ2006.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Thisȱ paperȱ originallyȱ includedȱ excerptsȱ ofȱ Barrettȱ Watten’sȱ 8ȱ December,ȱ 1978ȱ talkȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Watten’sȱ laterȱ evaluationsȱ ofȱ theȱ event.ȱ Wattenȱ hasȱ notȱ yetȱ grantedȱ theȱ authorȱ permissionȱ toȱ quoteȱ fromȱ theseȱ materials,ȱ butȱ twoȱ recordingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Zukofskyȱ eventȱ areȱ availableȱ toȱ theȱ public:ȱ oneȱ isȱ housedȱ atȱ TheȱPoetryȱCenterȱatȱSanȱFranciscoȱStateȱUniversity,ȱandȱDuncan’sȱcopyȱofȱtheȱ recordingȱ isȱ housedȱ inȱ theȱ Robertȱ Duncanȱ archivesȱ atȱ theȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱ NewȱYorkȱatȱBuffalo.ȱ

259ȱ

watchedȱaȱfilmȱaboutȱLouisȱZukofsky,ȱWatten’sȱdetailedȱlectureȱ beganȱ toȱ feelȱ laboured.ȱ Too,ȱ Wattenȱ stirredȱ Duncan’sȱ ireȱ earlyȱ inȱhisȱpresentationȱwhenȱexpoundingȱonȱZukofsky’sȱstatementȱ “theȱ wordsȱ areȱ myȱ life”.ȱ Wattenȱ musedȱ toȱ theȱ audience,ȱ “Iȱ alwaysȱthoughtȱthatȱthisȱwasȱanȱincrediblyȱdifficultȱthingȱforȱmeȱ toȱ understand—youȱ know,ȱ howȱ areȱ theȱ wordsȱ yourȱ life?ȱ Yourȱ wordsȱareȱoneȱthing.ȱYourȱlifeȱisȱanother.”6ȱȱ ȱ AsȱWattenȱploddedȱalongȱwithȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱZukofsky’sȱtexts,ȱ theȱaudience’sȱinterjectionsȱbecameȱmoreȱfrequentȱandȱDuncanȱ leaptȱtoȱtheȱstageȱinȱanȱattemptedȱtoȱcloseȱoutȱtheȱevening,ȱafterȱ whichȱ Wattenȱ askedȱ thatȱ heȱ beȱ allowedȱ toȱ finishȱ hisȱ presentation.ȱ Duncanȱ complied,ȱ thoughȱ Watten,ȱ seeminglyȱ dazedȱ byȱ theȱ assault,ȱ soonȱ afterȱ cededȱ theȱ stageȱ toȱ theȱ elderȱ poetȱ whoȱ launchedȱ intoȱ anȱ impromptuȱ readingȱ ofȱ Zukofsky’sȱ finalȱ collectionȱ ofȱ poemsȱ 80ȱ Flowers.ȱ ȱ Duncan,ȱ clearlyȱ agitatedȱ byȱ theȱ evening’sȱ events,ȱ pointedȱ outȱ hisȱ disagreementȱ withȱ Watten’sȱ readingsȱ ofȱ Zukofsky,ȱ bringingȱ forwardȱ anȱ ideaȱ thatȱ wasȱintegralȱtoȱhisȱviewȱofȱtheȱworldȱandȱitsȱpoets:ȱ“itȱisȱhumanȱ lifeȱ thatȱ imprintsȱ itselfȱ everywhere.”ȱ Touchingȱ uponȱ hisȱ ownȱ generation’sȱ indebtednessȱ toȱ Freudȱ forȱ hisȱ studiesȱ ofȱ languageȱ andȱtheȱunconscious,ȱDuncanȱwasȱintentȱuponȱreinforcingȱaȱlessȱ constructivistȱreadingȱofȱZukofskyȱthanȱWattenȱhadȱpresented.7ȱ Asȱheȱfinishedȱhisȱsomewhatȱbarbedȱclosingȱstatements,ȱaȱbriefȱ openȱ discussionȱ followed,ȱ andȱ whileȱ thereȱ mayȱ haveȱ beenȱ tensionȱ buildingȱ inȱ theȱ room,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ questionsȱ revolvedȱ aroundȱ technicalȱ issuesȱ inȱ Zukofsky’sȱ workȱ ratherȱ thanȱ inȱ anȱ assessmentȱ ofȱ whatȱ hadȱ justȱ transpiredȱ betweenȱ Duncanȱ andȱ Watten.ȱȱ Butȱinȱtheȱweeksȱandȱevenȱyearsȱtoȱfollow,ȱitȱwasȱclearȱthatȱ theȱ eventȱ setȱ offȱ badȱ feelingsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Zukofskyȱ Eventȱ recording,ȱ Poetryȱ andȱ Rareȱ Booksȱ Collection,ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱNewȱYorkȱatȱBuffalo.ȱȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ Duncan’sȱ lectureȱ “Warpȱ andȱ Woof”,ȱ presentedȱ atȱ theȱ Naropaȱ Instituteȱ duringȱ theȱsummerȱofȱ1976,ȱtouchedȱuponȱaȱnumberȱofȱsimilarȱissues.ȱ

260ȱ

poetryȱ scene,ȱ particularlyȱ betweenȱ Duncanȱ andȱ youngerȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ betweenȱ Duncan’sȱ futureȱ Newȱ Collegeȱ studentsȱ andȱ theȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ writersȱ affiliatedȱwithȱwhatȱwouldȱbeȱcomeȱtoȱknownȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱ yearȱ asȱ theȱ “Language”ȱ movement.ȱ Asȱ Ronȱ Sillimanȱ recalled,ȱ “Afterȱ theȱ disasterȱ atȱ theȱ Artȱ Instituteȱ …ȱ Iȱ tendedȱ toȱ steerȱ furtherȱ awayȱ fromȱ Robert—I’dȱ beenȱ appalledȱ atȱ hisȱ behaviourȱ andȱviciousnessȱtowardȱBarrett,ȱwho’dȱbeenȱmyȱroommateȱandȱ was/isȱmyȱoldestȱfriend,ȱdatingȱbackȱtoȱhighȱschoolȱdays.”8ȱBayȱ AreaȱpoetȱStephenȱRodefer’sȱassessmentȱofȱtheȱeventȱinȱaȱletterȱ toȱtheȱeditorȱofȱPoetryȱFlashȱsomeȱyearsȱlaterȱarrivedȱatȱaȱlighterȱ perspectiveȱregardingȱtheȱcontroversy:ȱȱ

ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ sayȱ thatȱ Robertȱ Duncan’sȱ literallyȱ takingȱ overȱ theȱ podiumȱ fromȱ Barryȱ Wattenȱ thatȱ nightȱ wasȱ bothȱ arrogantȱ andȱ annoyingȱ toȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ crowdȱ (many)ȱ listeningȱ toȱ theȱ connectionsȱ beingȱ proposedȱ byȱ BW,ȱ butȱ itȱ wasȱ possiblyȱ necessaryȱ toȱ keepȱ theȱ eveningȱ fromȱ gettingȱ boringȱ …ȱ Inȱ thatȱ senseȱ Robertȱ Duncanȱ was,ȱ itȱ seemedȱ later,ȱ savingȱ theȱ eveningȱ fromȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ overȬlongȱ andȱ potentiallyȱ tediousȱ analysisȱ Barryȱ Wattenȱ wasȱ notȱ soȱ muchȱ proposingȱ asȱ alreadyȱ relentlesslyȱ enacting—oneȱ whichȱ hadȱ forcefulȱ intelligenceȱ butȱ littleȱ scaleȱ andȱ Duncanȱ simplyȱ sawȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ returnȱ theȱ eveningȱtoȱZukofskyȱandȱhisȱmeasure.9ȱ

ȱ

ȱ 8ȱȱ Ronȱ Sillimanȱ toȱ theȱ author,ȱ 11ȱ Septemberȱ 1998.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ Davidȱ Leviȱ Strauss’sȱ mentionȱ ofȱ theȱ eventȱ inȱ anȱ articleȱ publishedȱ inȱ Poetryȱ Flashȱ sixȱ yearsȱ laterȱ thatȱ reȬignitedȱ theȱ controversy.ȱ Strauss’sȱ piece,ȱ “Onȱ Duncanȱ &ȱ Zukofskyȱ Onȱ Film”ȱ inȱ theȱ Juneȱ 1984ȱ issueȱ ofȱ Poetryȱ Flash,ȱ setȱ offȱ aȱ flurryȱ ofȱ angryȱ letterȬwritingȱ amongȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ poets.ȱ Sillimanȱ alsoȱ relatedȱ anotherȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ Languageȱ Wars,ȱ inȱ aȱ 21ȱ Marchȱ 2006ȱ emailȱ toȱ theȱ author:ȱ “Thereȱ wereȱ otherȱ langpoȬidentifiedȱpoetsȱwithȱwhomȱRobertȱhadȱfarȱgreaterȱsympathiesȱthanȱheȱ didȱWatten.ȱPalmer,ȱMelnick,ȱmyself.ȱEvenȱafterȱthisȱevent,ȱforȱexample,ȱRobertȱ deliberatelyȱ putȱ meȱ andȱ Richardȱ BakerȬroshi,ȱ theȱ headȱ ofȱ theȱ SFȱ Zenȱ Centre,ȱ togetherȱ thatȱ ledȱ toȱ Bobȱ Perelmanȱ andȱ Iȱ startingȱ theȱ readingȱ seriesȱ atȱ theȱ Tassajaraȱ Bakeryȱ inȱ lateȱ ‘79ȱ (thisȱ wasȱ theȱ successorȱ toȱ theȱ Grandȱ Piano).ȱ Thatȱ couldȱnotȱhaveȱhappenedȱwithoutȱRobert’sȱintervention.”ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ PoetryȱFlash,ȱAugustȱ1984.ȱ

261ȱ

DavidȱBromige,ȱforȱwhomȱDuncanȱhadȱbeenȱaȱmentorȱsinceȱtheȱ twoȱ metȱ inȱ Vancouverȱ inȱ 1961,ȱ foundȱ himselfȱ inȱ theȱ aftermathȱ ofȱtheȱeventȱdrawnȱintoȱaȱcloserȱallianceȱwithȱtheȱyoungerȱpoetsȱ ofȱ Berkeleyȱ whoȱ cameȱ toȱ contributeȱ toȱ theȱ Languageȱ writingȱ movement.ȱBromigeȱrecalledȱthat:ȱ

ȱ Robertȱ presentedȱ itȱ asȱ peopleȱ gettingȱ aholdȱ ofȱ theȱ stickȱ atȱ theȱ wrongȱend.ȱIȱrememberȱhimȱsayingȱtoȱmeȱ“youȱcanȱneverȱmakeȱ anȱartȱoutȱofȱaȱmedium”ȱ…ȱIȱwasȱalwaysȱsurprisedȱwhenȱRobertȱ cameȱupȱwithȱsomethingȱlikeȱthatȱoverȱandȱoverȱagainȱbecauseȱ hisȱ mindȱ wasȱ quiteȱ various,ȱ butȱ itȱ hadȱ theseȱ rigiditiesȱ …ȱ theȱ firstȱ timeȱ Iȱ heardȱ himȱ sayȱ thatȱ itȱ wasȱ aboutȱ Brakhage’sȱ work,ȱ whenȱ Brakhageȱ wasȱ cuttingȱ upȱ filmȱ orȱ destroyingȱ aȱ frameȱ …ȱ Brakhageȱ isȱ tryingȱ toȱ makeȱ youȱ awareȱ thatȱ yourȱ eyesȱ areȱ watchingȱsomethingȱandȱthatȱlightȱisȱtheȱchiefȱmediumȱofȱthat,ȱ butȱthatȱfilmȱisȱtheȱintermediaryȱthere.ȱAndȱRobertȱclaimedȱthatȱ thatȱ wasȱ notȱ enoughȱ forȱ anȱ artȱ …ȱ soȱ ofȱ courseȱ Languageȱ writing,ȱwhichȱisȱmakingȱanȱartȱoutȱofȱaȱmedium,ȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱ anȱart,ȱsinceȱitȱcan’tȱbeȱdone.ȱAndȱIȱwasȱdisappointed,ȱbecauseȱ Robertȱwasȱcapableȱofȱgoingȱintoȱsomeȱthingsȱwithȱgreatȱdepthȱ inȱaȱveryȱinvolvedȱway,ȱandȱitȱseemedȱlikeȱheȱjustȱhadȱaȱwayȱofȱ stoppingȱ shortȱ hereȱ …ȱ andȱ Iȱ foundȱ himȱ veryȱ wantingȱ inȱ sympathyȱ thatȱ way.ȱ Andȱ thisȱ wasȱ someoneȱ whoȱ twentyȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ hadȱ beenȱ veryȱ encouragingȱ toȱ usȱ aboutȱ hisȱ ownȱ generation’sȱinnovations.10ȱ

ȱ Whileȱ Bromigeȱ andȱ othersȱ wereȱ surprisedȱ thatȱ Duncanȱ neverȱ cameȱforwardȱtoȱexplainȱorȱtoȱapologiseȱforȱhisȱactions,ȱDuncanȱ seemedȱtoȱquicklyȱmoveȱonȱtoȱfocusȱonȱotherȱaspectsȱofȱhisȱlifeȱ asȱ aȱ writer.ȱ Heȱ madeȱ noȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ Artȱ Instituteȱ eventȱ inȱ hisȱ notebooks,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ didȱ speakȱ ofȱ itȱ brieflyȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ anȱ interviewȱ conductedȱ byȱ Eloydeȱ Toveyȱduringȱtheȱfollowingȱweek:ȱ

ȱ Iȱ dominateȱ theȱ sceneȱ I’mȱ in.ȱ Thisȱ meetingȱ onȱ Zukofskyȱ lastȱ Friday,ȱforȱexample.ȱOyȱvey!ȱThereȱwasȱaȱyoungȱpoetȱwhoȱwasȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ DavidȱBromige,ȱpersonalȱinterview,ȱ6ȱMayȱ1998.ȱ

262ȱ

goingȱtoȱspeakȱonȱ…ȱthere’sȱaȱcircleȱthatȱstudiesȱZukofsky,ȱtheȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ readȱ Zukofsky.ȱ Well,ȱ afterȱ aboutȱ twentyȱ minutesȱofȱthisȱyoungȱguy’sȱaddress—it’sȱsoȱstupidȱinȱmyȱmindȱ andȱstillȱseemsȱsoȱappallinglyȱstupid—Iȱstartedȱchargingȱinȱandȱ dominatedȱ unforgivablyȱ justȱ blastedȱ soȱ heȱ couldn’tȱ getȱ toȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ whatȱ heȱ wasȱ doing.ȱ Andȱ Iȱ realiseȱ Iȱ oftenȱ dominateȱ theȱ situationȱ becauseȱ Iȱ don’tȱ wantȱ toȱ hearȱ stupidities.ȱ I’mȱ reallyȱ veryȱ unwillingȱ toȱ hearȱ someȱ tediousȱ discussions.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ itȱ meansȱ thatȱ oftenȱ I’mȱ notȱ allowingȱ forȱ somethingȱ that’sȱ notȱ goingȱtoȱbeȱstupidȱtoo.11ȱ

ȱ

ȱ11ȱȱ Eloydeȱ Tovey,ȱ interviewȱ withȱ Robertȱ Duncan,ȱ “Conversationsȱ withȱ Robertȱ Duncan,ȱDecemberȱ1978,”ȱUniversityȱofȱCalifornia,ȱBerkeley.ȱ

263ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

RobertȱSheppardȱ ȱ

AȱCarafe,ȱaȱBlueȱGuitar,ȱBeyondingȱArt:ȱ KrzysztofȱZiarekȱandȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1.ȱNotȱParisȱ I’mȱnotȱgoodȱwithȱbigȱabstractions,ȱunlessȱtheyȱareȱmyȱown:ȱtheȱ mushyȱ ideasȱ ofȱ myȱ poetics,ȱ malleableȱ enoughȱ toȱ pushȱ aroundȱ intoȱ anyȱ situation,ȱ toȱ getȱ aȱ poemȱ going,ȱ permitȱ anȱ expression.ȱ Butȱ theȱ argumentȱ againstȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ asȱ Iȱ understandȱ it,ȱ runsȱ somethingȱ likeȱ this.ȱ Underȱ modernismȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ flourished,ȱnegatingȱtheȱautonomyȱofȱartȱasȱestablishedȱduringȱ theȱ “bourgeois”ȱ periodȱ ofȱ Aestheticism,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ negatingȱ Kantianȱnotionsȱofȱ“disinterestedness”ȱestablishedȱbeforeȱit,ȱbutȱ inȱanȱultimatelyȱselfȬdefeatingȱway,ȱsowingȱtheȱseedsȱofȱitsȱownȱ assimilation,ȱevenȱwhileȱitȱattemptedȱtoȱdestroyȱtheȱconceptȱofȱ Artȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱanȱutopianȱdesireȱtoȱdismantleȱtheȱdivisionȱ betweenȱartȱandȱlife,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱtransformȱtheȱlatter.ȱȱ Underȱ postmodernism,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ strictlyȱ speaking,ȱ becomesȱ inoperative,ȱ sinceȱ anyȱ “advanced”ȱ styleȱisȱonlyȱaȱstyleȱandȱisȱavailableȱtoȱall,ȱonȱtheȱlevelȱplayingȱ field,ȱ forȱ purposesȱ ofȱ pasticheȱ andȱ parody.ȱ Theȱ shockȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ isȱ “consumed,”ȱ inȱ severalȱ senses.ȱ Underȱ modernism,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ manifesto—thatȱ doctrinaireȱ fixingȱ ofȱ particularities—wasȱ exemplary.ȱ Underȱ postmodernity,ȱ manifestoesȱ becomeȱ parodic,ȱ orȱ personal,ȱ likeȱ O’Hara’sȱ “Personism,”ȱ selfȬconsciouslyȱ defensive,ȱ alreadyȱ assimilatedȱ intoȱtheȱnowȬpluralisticȱdefinitionsȱofȱaȱsafelyȱreȬenthronedȱArt.ȱ 264ȱ

Thisȱisȱwhatȱcriticsȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱtakingȱforȱsomeȱyearsȱ fromȱ Peterȱ Bürger’sȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGarde.ȱ Myȱ firstȱ paragraphȱisȱaȱ summaryȱ ofȱ thatȱ book,ȱmyȱ second,ȱmyȱ accountȱ ofȱ hostileȱ derivationsȱ fromȱ thatȱ theory—hostile,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ toȱ theȱ kindsȱofȱart,ȱparticularlyȱpoetry,ȱthatȱIȱvalue.1ȱ ȱ Sometimesȱ theseȱ valuedȱ poetsȱ themselvesȱ museȱ uponȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ moment.ȱ Inȱ Leeȱ Harwood’sȱ uncollectedȱ poem,ȱ ‘to/forȱ Tristanȱ Tzaraȱ (Rosenstock)ȱ aȱ letter/message/report,’ȱ heȱ remarksȱ ȱ let’sȱsetȱthisȱinȱtimeȱ&ȱspaceȱ marchȱ65ȱLondonȱ notȱParisȱnotȱZurichȱnotȱNewȱYorkȱ notȱ1916ȱorȱ17ȱorȱ30ȱorȱ55ȱ letȱusȱbeȱconcrete2ȱȱȱ

ȱ Harwood’sȱspacetimeȱcoordinatesȱlocateȱtheȱavantȬgardeȱinȱtheȱ past,ȱ respectivelyȱ inȱ Parisȱ andȱ Zurichȱ Dada,ȱ 1930sȱ Parisianȱ Surrealism,ȱandȱatȱtheȱadventȱofȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱSchoolȱ(ofȱpoets,ȱ modellingȱ themselves,ȱ howeverȱ parodically,ȱ onȱ theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ paintersȱtheyȱwereȱamong),ȱtheȱ‘lastȱavantȬgarde’ȱasȱtheȱtitleȱofȱ aȱ bookȱ callsȱ them.ȱ (Nineteenȱ fiftyȱ fiveȱ wasȱ alsoȱ theȱ yearȱ GinsbergȱfirstȱpubliclyȱdeclaimedȱHowlȱonȱtheȱWestȱCoast.)ȱTenȱ yearsȱ laterȱ Harwoodȱ isȱ foundȱ praisingȱ Tzaraȱ butȱ sinkingȱ intoȱ theȱ“drugȱinducedȱvisions”ȱofȱtheȱLondonȱcounterȬculture.ȱButȱ isȱnotȱ1965ȱpreciselyȱaȱseminalȱpivotȱinȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱanotherȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ theȱ Britishȱ Poetryȱ Revivalȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ whichȱ Iȱ placeȱ Harwoodȱ (andȱ doȱ soȱ inȱ myȱ bookȱ Theȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Saying)?3ȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Theȱevocationȱofȱpostmodernismȱshouldȱremindȱusȱofȱtheȱnegativeȱderivationsȱ thatȱ suchȱ criticsȱ takeȱ fromȱ Fredricȱ Jameson’sȱ variousȱ thesesȱ onȱ theȱ subject,ȱ which,ȱ bearingȱ inȱ mindȱ hisȱ demandsȱ forȱ aȱ newȱ cognitiveȱ mappingȱ areȱ notȱ asȱ singleȬmindedlyȱ antipatheticȱ toȱ postmodernismȱ orȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ asȱ someȱ makeȱout.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ LeeȱHarwood,ȱtitleȱillegibleȱ(London:ȱWritersȱForum,ȱ1965)ȱn.pag.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Theȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Saying:ȱ Britishȱ Poetryȱ andȱ itsȱ Discontentsȱ 1950Ȭ2000ȱ (Liverpool:ȱ UniversityȱofȱLiverpoolȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱcontainsȱmostȱofȱwhatȱIȱwantȱtoȱsayȱaboutȱ theseȱavantȬgardes.ȱMyȱchapter,ȱ“TheȱBritishȱPoetryȱRevivalȱ1960Ȭ1978,”ȱoffersȱaȱ historyȱ ofȱ thisȱ work,ȱ andȱ aȱ similarȱ serialisedȱ workȱ “Theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Other”ȱ

265ȱ

Harwood’sȱpoemȱisȱaȱflawedȱacknowledgementȱofȱtheȱconcreteȱ conditionsȱofȱthatȱmomentȱ(withoutȱseeingȱitȱasȱaȱmoment),ȱbutȱ showingȱ aȱ debtȱ toȱ aȱ previousȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ aȱ paradoxicalȱ heritage.ȱ Heȱ evenȱ youthfullyȱ attacksȱ theȱ institutionȱ whichȱ willȱ oneȱ dayȱ accommodateȱ himȱ (“Lȱ iteratureȱ Aȱ rtȱ haveȱ nothingȱ to/doȱwithȱthis”),ȱevenȱasȱheȱquotesȱTzara:ȱȱ ȱ youȱsaidȱ“theȱindividualȱonlyȱaffirmsȱ himselfȱinȱtheȱstruggle,ȱbyȱtheȱstruggleȱ…”ȱ ȱ &ȱtheseȱwordsȱhaveȱaȱskinȱ&ȱeyesȱ&ȱearsȱ they’reȱnotȱjustȱabstractions4ȱȱ

ȱ Theyȱstruggleȱprecisely,ȱdoȱnotȱappearȱasȱabstractionsȱatȱavantȬ gardeȱ moments,ȱ evenȱ whileȱ theȱ participantȱ mayȱ notȱ recogniseȱ theȱhistoricalȱparticularitiesȱasȱsuch.ȱNostalgiaȱforȱtheȱblackȱandȱ whiteȱ avantȬgardeȱ classicȱ hauntsȱ theȱ mimeographedȱ psychedeliaȱofȱtheȱBritishȱpoeticȱunderground.ȱ ȱ 2.ȱTheȱObstacleȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGardeȱ Libbieȱ Rifkin’sȱ Careerȱ Moves:ȱ Olson,ȱ Creeley,ȱ Zukofsky,ȱ Berrigan,ȱ andȱ theȱ Americanȱ AvantȬGardeȱ argues,ȱ inȱ itsȱ veryȱ subȬtitleȱ andȱ throughout,ȱtheȱcontinuedȱefficacyȱofȱtheȱtermȱavantȬgarde,ȱbutȱ notes,ȱ“ForȱBürger,ȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱavantȬgardeȱisȱtoȱ blameȱforȱwhatȱheȱclaimsȱisȱtheȱnowȱpurelyȱgestural,ȱineffectualȱ natureȱ ofȱ culturalȱ revolution.ȱ Forȱ scholars,ȱ practitioners,ȱ andȱ enthusiasts,ȱ theȱ persistenceȱ ofȱ hisȱ theoryȱ itselfȱ provesȱ aȱ formidableȱobstacle.”5ȱȱ Theȱ obstacleȱ hasȱ beenȱ thatȱ avantȬgardeȱ practiceȱ seemedȱ toȱ renderȱ “artȱ moreȱ vulnerableȱ toȱ theȱ reȬcuperativeȱ forcesȱ ofȱ theȱ

mayȱ beȱ atȱ www.robertsheppard.blogspot.com.ȱ Theȱ bookȱ alsoȱ containsȱ theȱ chapterȱ“KeepingȱtheȱDoorsȱOpen:ȱTheȱPoetryȱofȱLeeȱHarwoodȱinȱtheȱ1960sȱandȱ 1970s.”ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Theȱ Saltȱ Companionȱ toȱ Leeȱ Harwood,ȱ ed.ȱ Robertȱ Sheppardȱ (Salt,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Harwood,ȱtitleȱillegible,ȱn.pag.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Libbieȱ Rifkin,ȱ Careerȱ Moves:ȱ Olson,ȱ Creeley,ȱ Zukofsky,ȱ Berrigan,ȱ andȱ theȱ Americanȱ AvantȬGardeȱ(Madison:ȱUniversityȱofȱWisconsinȱPress,ȱ2000)ȱ15.ȱ

266ȱ

cultureȱ industry,ȱ toȱ paveȱ theȱ wayȱ forȱ theȱ precommodifiedȱ ironiesȱ ofȱ popȱ andȱ otherȱ neoȬavantȬgardes.”6ȱ Toȱ readȱ suchȱ ironiesȱ isȱ almostȱ toȱ admitȱ thatȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ deadȱ asȱ aȱ concept.ȱ Readȱ “neo”ȱ asȱ “postmodern,”ȱ andȱ Bürgerȱ againȱ becomesȱ aȱ usefulȱ toolȱ forȱ thoseȱ claimingȱ aȱ conservativeȱ postmodernistȱ positionȱ toȱ slamȱ everyȱ postȬWarȱ avantȬgardeȱ fromȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ poetryȱ toȱ languageȱ poetry,ȱ fromȱ theȱ Britishȱ Poetryȱ Revivalȱ toȱ Linguisticallyȱ Innovativeȱ Poetry.ȱ (Iȱ canȱ stillȱ hearȱ aȱ Utopianȱ thrustȱ inȱ Lyotard’sȱ famousȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ postmodernȱ position:ȱ “Theȱ artistȱ andȱ theȱ writer,ȱ then,ȱ areȱ workingȱ withoutȱ rulesȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ formulateȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ whatȱ willȱhaveȱbeenȱdone.”7)ȱȱ Butȱ Bürger’sȱ ownȱ relationshipȱ withȱ recentȱ avantȬgardesȱ isȱ moreȱ complex.ȱ Inȱ “Everydayness,ȱ Allegoryȱ andȱ theȱ AvantȬ garde,”ȱ Bürgerȱ identifiesȱ Josephȱ Beuysȱ asȱ “inȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ theȱavantȬgarde,”ȱwhich,ȱafterȱlookingȱatȱHarwood’sȱstatementsȱ ofȱ belatedness,ȱ seemsȱ lessȱ ofȱ anȱ oxymoron,ȱ and,ȱ referringȱ specificallyȱtoȱhisȱearlierȱbook,ȱandȱitsȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱ‘failure’ȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardes,ȱ Bürgerȱ says:ȱ “Ifȱ oneȱ comparesȱ theȱ projectȱ withȱwhatȱbecameȱofȱit,ȱthisȱtalkȱofȱfailureȱisȱcertainlyȱapposite;ȱ indeed,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ appearȱ toȱ beȱ constitutiveȱ ofȱ theȱ Utopianȱ impulseȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde.”8ȱ Heȱ adds:ȱ “Itȱ seemsȱ questionableȱ whetherȱaȱUtopianȱprojectȱcanȱeverȱfailȱsinceȱitȱisȱsoȱintimatelyȱ connectedȱwithȱthatȱhopeȱthatȱcanȱneverȱbeȱdisappointed.”9ȱHeȱ reȬphrasesȱ theȱ case,ȱ moreȱ interestinglyȱ forȱ myȱ purposes:ȱ “Failureȱ isȱ theȱ modeȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ artistȱ reaffirmsȱ theȱUtopianȱqualityȱofȱtheȱproject,ȱaȱprojectȱthatȱwouldȱalwaysȱ beȱ transformedȱ intoȱ somethingȱ elseȱ ifȱ itȱ wereȱ toȱ beȱ realised.”ȱ Theȱ aimȱ ofȱ Beuysȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ longerȱ toȱ destroyȱ “artȱ asȱ anȱ institutionȱ separatedȱ fromȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ realȱ life,”ȱ howeverȱ

ȱ 6ȱȱ Rifkin,ȱCareerȱMoves,ȱ14.ȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ JeanȬFrançoisȱ Lyotard,ȱ Theȱ Postmodernȱ Conditionȱ (Manchester:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ ManchesterȱPress,ȱ1984)ȱ81.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Peterȱ Bürger,ȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Minneapolis:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Minnesotaȱ Press,ȱ1984)ȱ153.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Bürger,ȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ153.ȱ

267ȱ

muchȱ heȱ distrustedȱ it.ȱ Heȱ wantedȱ toȱ haveȱ hisȱ cakeȱ andȱ eatȱ it.ȱ “Dependentȱ uponȱ whatȱ itȱ rejects,”ȱ inȱ Bürger’sȱ words,ȱ Beuys’sȱ practiceȱ makesȱ himȱ “aȱ transgressorȱ whoȱ simultaneouslyȱ transposesȱ theȱ borderlinesȱ thatȱ heȱ constantlyȱ violates”;ȱ heȱ “isȱ workingȱ fromȱ anȱ impossibleȱ position—oneȱ thatȱ isȱ locatedȱ neitherȱ insideȱ norȱ outsideȱ ofȱ artȱ asȱ anȱ institutionȱ butȱ onȱ theȱ borderlineȱ thatȱ constantlyȱ negatesȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time.”10ȱ Khalidȱ Hakim’sȱ desireȱ forȱ contemporaryȱ Britishȱ Linguisticallyȱ Innovativeȱ Poetry,ȱ orȱ atȱ leastȱ hisȱ own,ȱ “Toȱ beȱ poetriȱ &ȱ notȱ poetreȱ atȱ thȱ sameȱ tiyme,ȱ (sic)”ȱ reflectsȱ somethingȱ ofȱ thisȱ aporeticȱ contradictorinessȱ andȱ impossibleȱ utopianism,ȱ evenȱ asȱ itsȱ expressionȱ balancesȱ onȱ theȱ cuspȱ ofȱ Englishȱ andȱ nonȬ English.11ȱIndeed,ȱforȱBürger,ȱthisȱtricksterismȱseemsȱtoȱprovideȱ aȱlimitȱcaseȱforȱhisȱownȱtheorising:ȱitȱ‘showsȱhowȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱ theȱartistȱalreadyȱfindsȱitselfȱinȱadvance’ȱ(forȱwhatȱelseȱcanȱtheȱ militaryȱ metaphorȱ signify?)ȱ “ofȱ theȱ legitimateȱ fearsȱ ofȱ theȱ theoretician.”12ȱȱ Rifkinȱ arguesȱ thatȱ “Onceȱ weȱ realiseȱ thatȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ universalisesȱ oneȱ momentȱ inȱ Europeanȱ modernism,ȱ andȱ thatȱ aestheticȱ autonomyȱ isȱ justȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ problematicsȱ thatȱ innovativeȱ artȱ addresses,ȱ weȱ canȱ seeȱ thatȱ poeticȱ avantȬgardesȱ continueȱ toȱ emergeȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ thisȱ(sic)ȱcentury,ȱandȱthatȱtheirȱbreakthroughsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheirȱ failuresȱ haveȱ complexȱ andȱ continuingȱ effects,”ȱ particularlyȱ theȱ “failure”ȱofȱtheȱUtopianȱafterȬshock.13ȱTheȱswitchȱtoȱtheȱpopularȱ wordȱ “innovative”ȱ aside,ȱ thisȱ formulationȱ leavesȱ roomȱ forȱ artistsȱsuchȱasȱBeuys,ȱwhoȱhaveȱexceededȱtheȱtheoryȱthatȱtrailsȱ him.ȱRifkinȱcontinues,ȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱassimilationȱofȱtheȱ avantȬgardeȱ withinȱ art:ȱ “Recognisingȱ theȱ ‘perpetualȱ institutionality’ȱofȱavantȬgardistȱpracticeȱneedȱnotȱthenȱamountȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ Bürger,ȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ153Ȭ5.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Nicholasȱ Johnsonȱ (ed.)ȱ Foil:ȱ definingȱ poetryȱ 1985Ȭ2000ȱ (Buckfastleigh:ȱ Etruscan,ȱ 2000)ȱ52.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Bürger,ȱTheoryȱofȱtheȱAvantȬGarde,ȱ161.ȱ ȱ13ȱȱ Rifkin,ȱCareerȱMoves,ȱ16.ȱ

268ȱ

toȱanȱacceptanceȱofȱdeȱfactoȱcomplicity.”14ȱBürger’sȱownȱreadingȱ ofȱ Beuysȱ mayȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ suggestingȱ asȱ much.ȱ Someȱ avantȬ gardesȱdevelopȱconterminouslyȱwithȱtheoreticalȱdevelopments.ȱ “ContemporaryȱavantȬgardeȱpoetsȱhave,ȱasȱRonȱSillimanȱputsȱit,ȱ ‘grownȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ historicalȱ conditionsȱ thatȱ raisedȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ theoryȱ itselfȱ withinȱ theȱ academy’”;ȱ Silliman’sȱ argumentȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱconcernedȱwithȱLanguageȱpoetryȱandȱitsȱ institutions,ȱ andȱ Rifkinȱ extendsȱ thisȱ toȱ “theirȱ postwarȱ forebears.”15ȱ IȱwouldȱextendȱthatȱtoȱmomentsȱinȱBritishȱpoetry,ȱ bothȱLeeȱHarwood’sȱ1960s,ȱandȱafter.ȱȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱtheȱtermȱavantȬgardeȱhasȱfallenȱintoȱdisfavourȱforȱ otherȱ reasons.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ oneȱ Iȱ useȱ myselfȱ withȱ ease.ȱ Jedȱ Rasulaȱ thinksȱ theȱ termȱ shouldȱ beȱ “retired,”ȱ sinceȱ certainȱ artisticȱ practicesȱ whichȱ heȱ noȱ longerȱ wishesȱ toȱ callȱ avantȬgardeȱ “needȱ toȱbeȱdisencumberedȱofȱthatȱlabel,”ȱandȱheȱwarns,ȱ“andȱofȱanyȱ otherȱ (likeȱ ‘postmodernism’),”ȱ or—weȱ mightȱ remindȱ ourselves—ofȱ allȱ thoseȱ variantsȱ onȱ “innovative.”16ȱ “Theȱ diagnosticȱ taskȱ ofȱ theȱ labellingȱ impulseȱ hasȱ longȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ preȬemptiveȱ strike”ȱ againstȱ itsȱ radicalism,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ inȱ theȱcaseȱofȱtheȱversionsȱofȱBürger.ȱWhileȱanyȱlabelȱbecomesȱpartȱ ofȱ theȱ assimilationȱ ofȱ theȱ concept,ȱ whoȱ “canȱ nowȱ imagineȱ thatȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ anythingȱ butȱ aȱ designerȱ labelȱ forȱ momentarilyȱ fashionableȱ mindware”?17ȱ Indeed,ȱ Iȱ goȱ forȱ aȱ walkȱ aroundȱ myȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Rifkin,ȱ Careerȱ Moves,ȱ 17.ȱ Theȱ phraseȱ inȱ quotationȱ marksȱ comesȱ fromȱ Paulȱ Mann’sȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ Deathȱ ofȱ theȱ AvantȬGardeȱ (Bloomingtonȱ andȱ Indianapolis:ȱ IndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991).ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Rifkin,ȱCareerȱMoves,ȱ16.ȱAfterȱaȱcoupleȱofȱveryȱsuggestiveȱpagesȱonȱtheȱthemeȱofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ Rifkin’sȱ bookȱ exploresȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ literaryȱ productionȱ ofȱ hisȱ chosenȱ postsȱ inȱ aȱ postȬBourdieueanȱ framework,ȱ leavingȱ behindȱ theȱ questionsȱ raisedȱhere.ȱ ȱ16ȱȱ JedȱRasula,ȱSyncopations:ȱTheȱStressȱofȱInnovationȱinȱContemporaryȱAmericanȱPoetryȱ (Tuscaloosa:ȱUniversityȱofȱAlabamaȱPress,ȱ2004)ȱ194.ȱIȱchartȱtheȱevolutionȱofȱtheȱ termȱ “linguisticallyȱ innovative”ȱ inȱ “Linguisticallyȱ Innovativeȱ Poetryȱ 1978Ȭ 2000,”ȱTheȱPoetryȱofȱSaying:ȱBritishȱPoetryȱandȱitsȱDiscontentsȱ1950Ȭ2000ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ 2).ȱ Theȱ readerȱ willȱ seeȱ thatȱ Iȱ amȱ notȱ innocentȱ ofȱ itsȱ propagation.ȱ Besideȱ “linguisticallyȱinnovative”ȱIȱhaveȱheardȱtheȱtermsȱ“formallyȱinnovative”ȱ(fromȱ CharlesȱBernstein)ȱandȱ“formallyȱinvestigative”ȱ(fromȱKarenȱMacCormack).ȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Rasula,ȱSyncopations,ȱ194.ȱ

269ȱ

cornerȱofȱLiverpoolȱtoȱgatherȱmyȱthoughtsȱforȱthisȱpiece,ȱandȱIȱ passȱ thisȱ improbableȱ legendȱ onȱ aȱ parkedȱ van:ȱ “Advancedȱ Attics”ȱ(itȱisȱtheȱvehicleȱofȱsomeȱloftȱconversionȱcompany,ȱnotȱaȱ sloganȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ avantȬgarde);ȱ andȱ thenȱ Iȱ passȱ the—moreȱ disarming—hairȱsalon:ȱ“AvantȬGarde.”ȱ ȱ 3ȱTheȱAvantȬGardeȱandȱRedefinitionȱ Asȱ I’veȱ said,ȱ someȱ avantȬgardesȱ developȱ conterminouslyȱ withȱ theoreticalȱdevelopments.ȱAndȱsomeȱtheoriesȱdevelopȱinȱdirectȱ relationȱ toȱ avantȬgardeȱ practice,ȱ howeverȱ distanciatingȱ theȱ metalanguageȱ employed.ȱ Oneȱ suchȱ book,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ me,ȱ isȱ KrzysztofȱZiarek’sȱTheȱForceȱofȱArt,18ȱandȱIȱwillȱspendȱtheȱrestȱofȱ thisȱmeditationȱconsideringȱitsȱimportanceȱforȱaȱtheoryȱofȱavantȬ gardeȱworkȱandȱforȱcontemporaryȱinnovativeȱartistsȱofȱallȱkind,ȱ particularlyȱ poetsȱ (includingȱ myself,ȱ asȱ oneȱ whoȱ mightȱ findȱ itȱ usefulȱ forȱ theoryȱ andȱ practice,ȱ andȱ forȱ myȱ poeticsȱ whichȱ isȱ neither).ȱ TheȱForceȱofȱArtȱisȱoneȱofȱthoseȱimmersiveȱbooks,ȱnotȱunlikeȱ theȱ conflictingȱ aestheticsȱ ofȱ hisȱ twoȱ heroes,ȱ Heideggerȱ ofȱ “Theȱ Originȱ ofȱ theȱ Workȱ ofȱ Art”ȱ essayȱ andȱ Adornoȱ ofȱ Aestheticȱ Theory.ȱHeȱcomparesȱtheȱtwoȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱtheoriesȱofȱpowerȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ alarmingȱ boldnessȱ heȱ displaysȱ throughout.ȱ Itsȱ thesisȱ buildsȱ slowlyȱ andȱ leavesȱ anyȱ summaryȱ orȱ selectiveȱ quotationȱ inadequateȱ toȱ theȱ whole.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ mystifyȱ theȱ book,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ myȱ ownȱ inadequacy,ȱ butȱtoȱacknowledgeȱthatȱitsȱurgency—whichȱspeaksȱtoȱmeȱasȱaȱ writer—matchesȱ itsȱ intricacyȱ andȱ dispersion—whichȱ exercisesȱ myȱ moreȱ intermittentȱ facultiesȱ asȱ aȱ critic,ȱ andȱ thatȱ toȱ beȱ possessedȱ ofȱ Ziarek’sȱ vocabularyȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ inhabitedȱ byȱ concepts—inȱ aȱ Deleuzoguattarianȱ sense—notȱ merelyȱ toȱ tryȱ onȱ theȱfashionableȱmotleyȱofȱaȱjargon.ȱȱ Ziarekȱ isȱ curiouslyȱ freeȱ ofȱ theȱ inhibitingȱ obstacleȱ ofȱ Bürgerȱ andȱ othersȱ whoȱ haveȱ worriedȱ awayȱ atȱ theȱ termȱ avantȬgardeȱ whichȱheȱrefreshinglyȱusesȱ“toȱreferȱbothȱtoȱtheȱearlyȬtwentiethȬ ȱ18ȱȱ Krzystofȱ Ziarek,ȱ Theȱ Forceȱ ofȱ Artȱ (Stanford:ȱ Stanfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2004).ȱ PageȱreferencesȱcitedȱinȬtext.ȱ

270ȱ

centuryȱ avantȬgardesȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ continuingȱ avantȬgardeȱ radicalismȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ artȱ andȱ poetry,”ȱ andȱ heȱ opposesȱ Raymondȱ Williams’sȱ claimsȱ thatȱ modernismȱ isȱ aȱ spentȱ forceȱ (16).ȱ Ziarek,ȱ inȱ contradistinction,ȱ statesȱ ofȱ hisȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgarde:ȱ “Weȱ haveȱ notȱ yetȱ sufficientlyȱ addressedȱ theȱ problematicȱ ofȱ freedomȱ andȱ powerȱ asȱ itȱ hasȱ beenȱ redefinedȱ inȱ avantȬgardeȱ artworks”ȱ (16,ȱ myȱ italics).ȱ Ziarekȱ does,ȱ however,ȱ admitȱ toȱ theȱ “disappearanceȱ ofȱ avantȬgardeȱ movementsȱ andȱ theirȱprovocativeȱstatementsȱandȱperformances”ȱbutȱalsoȱarguesȱ thatȱ “whatȱ isȱ sometimesȱ calledȱ theȱ ‘death’ȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ neverthelessȱhasȱaȱmoreȱinterestingȱandȱcomplexȱobverseȱside”ȱ (183).ȱByȱthisȱZiarekȱmeansȱthatȱthisȱ“death”ȱdecentralisesȱbothȱ argumentsȱ aboutȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ stylisticȱ shockȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬgardes,ȱ andȱ argumentsȱ forȱ theȱ directȱ socialȱ andȱpoliticalȱradicalismȱofȱavantȬgardeȱmovements.ȱȱ Theȱ businessȱ ofȱ Ziarek’sȱ bookȱ isȱ bothȱ toȱ defineȱ thisȱ redefinitionȱ withinȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ and,ȱ “inȱ responseȱ toȱ …ȱ pessimismȱconcerningȱartȱasȱaȱtransformativeȱforceȱinȱtheȱmidstȱ ofȱ theȱ globalisingȱ worksȱ ofȱ power”ȱ (17),ȱ toȱ analyseȱ “art’sȱ relationȱ toȱ power,”ȱ andȱ toȱ “rethinkȱ art’sȱ forceȱ beyondȱ theȱ boundariesȱofȱaesthetics”ȱ(3).ȱ InȱtheȱnextȱsectionȱIȱshallȱattemptȱtoȱsummariseȱthisȱtheory.19ȱ ȱ 4a.ȱTheȱVeryȱRhythmȱofȱRelationsȱ ȱȱ Ziarekȱconceivesȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱartȱasȱaȱforceȱfield.ȱItȱisȱnotȱanȱ objectȱ butȱ anȱ event,ȱ andȱ thisȱ eventnessȱ makesȱ theȱ artworkȱ aȱ forcework,ȱ inȱ hisȱ centralȱ neologism.ȱ Inheringȱ inȱ neitherȱ formȱ norȱcontent,ȱtheȱforceworkȱisȱbeyondȱaesthetics;ȱtheȱartworkȱisȱ beyondȱ traditionalȱ aestheticȱ categories.ȱ Noȱ longerȱ beingȱ anȱ object,ȱtheȱworkȱofȱartȱevadesȱbothȱcultureȱandȱcapital,ȱthoughȱitȱ isȱinscribedȱbyȱboth,ȱandȱisȱnotȱaȱcommodity.ȱȱ ForceworkȱisȱaȱnonȬviolentȱpowerȬfreeȱthrusting;ȱitȱreȬorientsȱ “aestheticȱcommodity”ȱinȱ“aphesis,”ȱdefinedȱasȱ“aȱlettingȱbeȱorȱ

ȱ19ȱȱ Iȱdo,ȱhowever,ȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱclarity,ȱleaveȱasideȱZiarek’sȱconsiderationȱofȱraceȱ andȱgender.ȱ

271ȱ

aȱ lettingȱ go,”ȱ aȱ benignȱ processȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ seizureȱ ofȱ powerȱ (22).ȱ Inȱtheȱworkȱofȱart,ȱforces—conceivedȱofȱinȱaȱDeleuzeanȱandȱ Foucauldianȱway—areȱnoȱlongerȱtetheredȱbyȱtheȱsocial,ȱandȱinȱaȱ redefinitionȱofȱtheȱautonomyȱofȱtheȱartwork,ȱasȱthatȱisȱtheorisedȱ byȱAdorno,ȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱstaticnessȱandȱsenseȱofȱseparatenessȱ impliedȱ byȱ hisȱ Aestheticȱ Theory—itsȱ loftyȱ metacritique—Ziarekȱ insistsȱ notȱ onlyȱ thatȱ artworksȱ transformȱ andȱ reȬworkȱ theirȱ forcesȱ(asȱAdornoȱwouldȱhaveȱagreed),ȱbutȱthatȱtheyȱtransformȱ theȱordinaryȱrelationsȱofȱsocialȱpower,ȱandȱtheȱreceiversȱofȱtheȱ artworkȱcanȱcarryȱthisȱnonȬviolent,ȱpowerȬfreeȱrelationalityȱintoȱ socialȱpraxis.ȱ Theȱ eventȱ ofȱ thisȱ transformationȱ isȱ anȱ interruptionȱ ofȱ theȱ real,ȱaȱruptureȱasȱtheȱartworkȱworksȱ(aȱtermȱZiarekȱvalorises),ȱbyȱ itsȱ “modalitiesȱ ofȱ relation,”ȱ notȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ itsȱ contentȱ (28).ȱ Artworks’ȱ“importanceȱforȱpraxisȱisȱnotȱinȱtheȱthematicȱcritiqueȱ orȱ evenȱ inȱ formalȱ subversiveness,”ȱ butȱ essentiallyȱ inȱ theȱ forceworkȱ (60).ȱ Theȱ particularȱ momentȱ ofȱ theȱ receptionȱ ofȱ thisȱ eventȱ willȱ transformȱ ourȱ senseȱ ofȱ judgement.ȱ Theȱ eventȱ willȱ involveȱ aȱ qualitativeȱ enhancement,ȱ aȱ lettingȱ be,ȱ andȱ enhancementȱ doesȱ notȱ implyȱ technicalȱ efficiency.ȱ Enhancement’sȱ Heideggerreanȱ oppositeȱ heȱ calls,ȱ almostȱ quantitatively,ȱ“increase,”ȱorȱsometimesȱ“production”ȱ(45).ȱȱ OneȱexampleȱofȱallȱtheseȱprocessesȱisȱStein’sȱtransformativeȱ “releaseȱ ofȱ thingsȱ fromȱ theȱ closureȱ ofȱ theirȱ naming”ȱ inȱ Tenderȱ Buttons.ȱ Suchȱ enhancedȱ transformations,ȱ Ziarekȱ claims,ȱ areȱ beyondȱ powerȱ (andȱ beyondȱ aestheticsȱ andȱ commodification)ȱ (47).ȱ Forceȱ isȱ aȱ “temporalityȱ ofȱ happening,”ȱ forcesȱ inȱ theȱ plural;ȱ theyȱ areȱ flowsȱ ofȱ interpenetratingȱ parts,ȱ multiplicities,ȱ shifts,ȱ reflectingȱ wellȱ theȱ positivitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ postmodernistȱ lexicon.ȱ “Theȱ forceȱ ofȱ artȱ isȱ theȱ poi¾ticȱ momentumȱ intoȱ whichȱ theȱ artworkȱ transformsȱ theȱ forceȱ relationsȱ itȱ hasȱ broughtȱ intoȱ itsȱ field”ȱ(34).ȱ Technicityȱ isȱ theȱ termȱ Ziarekȱ usesȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ perniciousȱ powerȱ ofȱ ourȱ technologicallyȱ dominatedȱ world,ȱ toȱ 272ȱ

whichȱ areȱ opposedȱ theȱ nonȬviolentȱ forcesȱ ofȱ artworks,ȱ asȱ itȱ were.ȱ Occasionallyȱ Ziarekȱ isȱ aphoristic:ȱ “Technicityȱ aimsȱ towardȱ power,ȱ whileȱ artȱ attemptsȱ toȱ letȱ be,ȱ inȱ aphasis”ȱ (34).ȱ However,ȱ technicityȱ andȱ artȱ shareȱ characteristics,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ Heidegger’sȱpairingȱofȱtheȱtechn¾ȱandȱtheȱpoi¾tic;ȱonlyȱcontextȱ determinesȱonȱwhichȱsideȱofȱtheȱdivide—inȱwhichȱfield—aȱforceȱ willȱ play.ȱ Ifȱ itȱ emergesȱ asȱ forcework,ȱ itȱ becomesȱ aȱ “nonideologicalȱ versionȱ ofȱ art’sȱ socialȱ significance,”ȱ anȱ Adornoesqueȱformulationȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱ artȱ (42).ȱ “Whatȱ makesȱ artȱ criticalȱ …ȱ isȱ thatȱ itsȱ significanceȱ cannotȱbeȱformulatedȱintoȱaȱsetȱofȱpropositions,ȱaȱworldviewȱorȱ theory—thatȱ itȱ eschewsȱ theȱ sociallyȱ andȱ philosophicallyȱ acceptableȱparametersȱofȱcritique”ȱ(42).ȱ Enhancementȱ is,ȱ therefore,ȱ nonȬpower,ȱ definingȱ theȱ forceworkȱofȱartȱasȱfreeȱorȱ“deȬpowered,”ȱnotȱasȱparticipationȱinȱ increaseȱ andȱ production.ȱ “Inȱ artȱ …ȱ forcesȱ areȱ ‘empowered’ȱ toȱ beȱ “otherwise”ȱ thanȱ powerful”ȱ (51).ȱ Thisȱ impliesȱ neitherȱ aȱ negationȱ ofȱ powerȱ orȱ ofȱ powerlessness,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ suggestȱ anȱ absence,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ stillȱ participatingȱ inȱ theȱ logicȱ andȱ languageȱ ofȱ power.ȱ Theȱ “otherwise”—asȱ inȱ Levinas’sȱ theory,ȱ fromȱ whenceȱ itȱ derives—isȱ aȱ radicalȱ unworkingȱ ofȱ power,ȱ aȱ newȱ modalityȱ ofȱ relation,ȱ whichȱ weȱ mightȱ defineȱ asȱ “turningȱ power’sȱlogicȱ…ȱintoȱtheȱpowerȬfreeȱmomentumȱofȱtheȱevent”20ȱ (59).ȱ However,ȱ Ziarekȱ doesȱ notȱ shyȱ awayȱ fromȱ “technopower”’sȱ mostȱ potentȱ recentȱ developments,ȱ theȱ advancesȱ inȱ electronicȱ technologyȱandȱtheȱbiopowerȱinherentȱinȱtheȱdecodingȱofȱDNA,ȱ andȱhisȱcritiqueȱofȱEduardoȱKac’sȱGenesis,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱmutatingȱ artȱworkȱthatȱexposesȱtheȱlogicȱofȱgeneticȱengineering,ȱisȱusefulȱ inȱdeterminingȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱforceworkȱ(orȱnot)ȱinȱbothȱtheseȱ

ȱ20ȱȱ InȱTheȱPoetryȱofȱSayingȱIȱpreciselyȱbaseȱmyȱtheoryȱofȱinnovationȱuponȱLevinas’sȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ sayingȱ andȱ theȱ said,ȱ andȱ Iȱ alsoȱ offerȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ Ziarek’sȱ previousȱ work,ȱ Inflectedȱ Language,ȱ inȱ aȱ longȱ footnoteȱ toȱ myȱ “Introduction.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱmyȱpoeticsȱessay,ȱTheȱAntiȬOrpheus,ȱwhichȱisȱavailableȱ asȱ aȱ freeȱ eȬbookȱ fromȱ Shearsmanȱ Booksȱ atȱ www.shearsman.com/pages/books/ȱ ebooks/ebooks_pdfs/Sheppard.pdf.ȱ

273ȱ

areas.ȱZiarekȱidentifiesȱtheȱlevelsȱofȱartisticȱcomplicityȱinȱrecentȱ eȬartworks,ȱ particularlyȱ throughȱ theȱ manipulativeȱ logicȱ ofȱ theȱ internet.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ mostȱ evidentȱ inȱ soȬcalledȱ “interactive”ȱ worksȱ whichȱsuggestȱfreedomȱtoȱtheȱ“operator”ȱbutȱinȱfactȱareȱasȱpreȬ programmedȱasȱaȱLasȱVegasȱslotȱmachine.ȱWhileȱtheȱaleatoricȱinȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Cageȱ wasȱ aȱ genuineȱ avantȬgardeȱ strategy,ȱ suchȱ aȱ modeȱhasȱbeenȱlongȱrenderedȱcomplicitȱbyȱitsȱassimilationȱintoȱ theȱdayȬtoȬdayȱworkingsȱofȱglobalȱcapital’sȱworldȱwideȱweb,ȱasȱ inȱ theȱ streamȱ ofȱ “random”ȱ blogsȱ thatȱ popȱ upȱ asȱ linksȱ onȱ myȱ blogzine’sȱ dashboard,ȱ forȱ example.ȱ Forceworkȱ isȱ severelyȱ compromisedȱ underȱ theseȱ conditions,ȱ evenȱ whileȱ manyȱ artistsȱ embraceȱ theȱ technologyȱ withoutȱ reflection.ȱ Neverthelessȱ newȱ avantȬgardeȱ potentialitiesȱ existȱ here:ȱ “Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ Internetȱ revolution,ȱ thisȱ ‘otherwise’ȱ toȱ powerȱ givesȱ aȱ newȱ meaningȱtoȱrevolt—theȱpossibilityȱofȱaȱturnȱinȱtheȱincreasinglyȱ technicȱorganisationȱofȱrelationsȱinȱcontemporaryȱculture”ȱ(198),ȱ negotiatedȱ throughȱ “theȱ avantȬgardeȱ problematicȱ ofȱ art’sȱ relationȱtoȱtechnicity.”ȱ(ThisȱisȱfoundȱinȱeȬpoetry,ȱtelematicȱart,ȱ theȱgesturalȱrhetoricȱofȱOrlanȱandȱinȱtheȱworkȱofȱBillȱViola,ȱtheȱ artistȱ Ziarekȱ looksȱ toȱ effectȱ anȱ ethicalȱ turnȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ technicity)ȱ(198).ȱ Ziarekȱ comesȱ closestȱ toȱ Bürger’sȱ positionȱ whenȱ heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ growthȱ ofȱ artisticȱ autonomyȱ inȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ centuryȱ wasȱ theȱ wayȱ aestheticsȱ couldȱ turnȱ theȱ eventȱ ofȱ forceworkȱ intoȱ anȱartȱobjectȱandȱthusȱaȱcommodityȱ(asȱartȱlostȱitsȱdirectȱsocialȱ function).ȱ Thisȱ isȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ distrustȱ ofȱ aestheticsȱ (andȱ poetics)ȱ Iȱ senseȱ throughoutȱ theȱ book,ȱ toȱ whichȱ Iȱ shallȱ return.ȱ Theȱ moreȱ criticalȱ artȱ triesȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ orthodoxȱ terms,ȱ theȱ moreȱ complicitȱ withȱ theȱ postmodernistȱ consumerȱ societyȱ whichȱ assumesȱtheȱartȱobjectȱaȱproduction—aȱproduct,ȱweȱmightȱsay— andȱ deniesȱ forceworkȱ asȱ anȱ inscriptionȱ ofȱ otheredȱ andȱ transfiguredȱsocialȱrelations,ȱasȱnonȬpower.ȱȱ Moreȱ positively,ȱ andȱ byȱ reȬwritingȱ Adornoȱ throughȱ Marx,ȱ Ziarekȱargues:ȱ“Inȱaȱconsumerȱsocietyȱartȱisȱsociallyȱmeaningfulȱ becauseȱ itsȱ forceworkȱ remainsȱ irreducibleȱ toȱ aestheticȱ objectȱ andȱ aestheticȱ categories,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ lawsȱ ofȱ 274ȱ

exchange,ȱ commodification,ȱ andȱ commodityȱ fetishism,ȱ onȱ theȱ other”ȱ(112).ȱ Unlikeȱ Adorno,ȱ though,ȱ Ziarekȱ doesȱ notȱ valoriseȱ highȱ artȱ overȱ low.ȱ Theȱ presenceȱ (orȱ not)ȱ ofȱ forceworkȱ isȱ hisȱ onlyȱ concern,ȱ whetherȱ inȱ popularȱ cultureȱ orȱ inȱ theȱ poetryȱ ofȱ Amiriȱ Barakaȱ (orȱ Krzysztofȱ Wodiczko’sȱ publicȱ art).ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ butȱ necessarily,ȱ heȱ usesȱ Barakaȱ toȱ formulateȱ aȱ definitionȱ ofȱ forceworkȱinȱactionȱ(almost)ȱdespiteȱtheȱovertȱpoliticalȱcontentȱofȱ Baraka’sȱ work.ȱ Ziarekȱ doesȱ notȱ diminishȱ theȱ radicalismȱ ofȱ content;ȱ itȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ abstractedȱ toȱ theȱ operationsȱ ofȱ theȱ deeperȱ radicalismȱofȱtheȱforcework.ȱ“Sideȱbyȱsideȱwithȱtheirȱmilitancy,ȱ avantȬgardeȱartworksȱgainȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱsignificanceȱasȱaȱ resultȱ ofȱ suchȱ transformationȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ rhythmȱ ofȱ relations”ȱ (139).ȱ ȱȱ 4b.ȱNotȱAnotherȱPoemȱ OftenȱIȱamȱpermittedȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱaȱfield.ȱAndȱitȱisȱfullȱofȱforcesȱ ȱ Somethingȱ isȱ happeningȱ here,ȱ sayingȱ whatever,ȱ butȱ sayingȱ allȱ theȱ same.ȱ Butȱ not.ȱ Theȱ sameȱ there’sȱ nothingȱ toȱ exchange.ȱ Noȱ needȱtoȱ ȱ Forcesȱ don’tȱ buildȱ upȱ inȱ power.ȱ Orȱ domination.ȱ Aȱ thoughtful,ȱ forcefulȱrelinquishingȱ ȱ Insideȱthisȱfieldȱyouȱareȱsafeȱbutȱnotȱsafe.ȱAllȱthatȱisȱtheȱworldȱisȱ not.ȱTheȱworld.ȱAȱbulletȱfliesȱasȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱbulletȱ(flies)ȱbutȱitsȱ trajectoryȱisȱturned.ȱToȱwordsȱlikeȱ“sleet”ȱturningȱtoȱ“snow.”ȱToȱ slow.ȱItȱisȱaȱbulletȱthatȱstands.ȱInȱrelationȱtoȱeveryȱnewȱthingȱ ȱ Everythingȱ hereȱ isȱ transformed;ȱ everyȱ thingȱ outȱ thereȱ isȱ interrupted.ȱ Aȱ snowballȱ frozenȱ inȱ midȬairȱ becomesȱ theȱ offȬ centreȱofȱaȱnewȱconstellationȱfromȱwhereȱweȱseeȱitȱtransfiguredȱ ourȱselves.ȱWhatȱweȱthinkȱofȱitȱisȱtheȱnewȱthingȱ ȱ

275ȱ

There’sȱmoreȱofȱit.ȱAndȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱofȱitȱinȱaȱdifferentȱwayȱ there’sȱ nothing.ȱ Weȱ canȱ doȱ withȱ whatȱ weȱ findȱ here.ȱ It’sȱ notȱ stock,ȱ likeȱ theȱ priest’sȱ stashȱ ofȱ smuggledȱ cigarettesȱ inȱ hisȱ confessional.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ where.ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ makeȱ someȱ thing.ȱ Somethingȱelsed,ȱbutȱdisavowed—disallowed,ȱeven—inȱthisȱ ȱ Aȱcarafe,ȱaȱblueȱguitar.ȱBeyondingȱartȱ ȱ Iȱdon’tȱwantȱtoȱonlyȱmakeȱrelations.ȱIȱmake.ȱTheȱloopyȱwomanȱ inȱ glassesȱ inȱ myȱ making.ȱ Iȱ makeȱ herȱ tripȱ backȱ fromȱ herȱ carȱ toȱ numberȱ 99ȱ inȱ herȱ strappyȱ partyȱ shoesȱ toȱ searchȱ outȱ theȱ Christmasȱ presentȱ sheȱ hasȱ forgotten.ȱ Thenȱ Iȱ willȱ makeȱ theȱ thoughtsȱsheȱhasȱasȱsheȱreturnsȱ ȱ Outsideȱ ofȱ herȱ thereȱ isȱ dominance.ȱ Houseȱ numbersȱ telephoneȱ wires.ȱHummingȱwithȱPowerȱorȱPoetry.ȱAndȱallȱtheȱantinomies.ȱ Satelliteȱnavigation.ȱDataȱshadow.ȱInside.ȱTheyȱshareȱtheȱworldȱ isȱnotȱescaped,ȱbutȱelsedȱ ȱ Empowerȱ meȱ toȱ beȱ so.ȱ Unpoweredȱ powerful.ȱ Inȱ myȱ relinquishmentȱ critical.ȱ Byȱ distanceȱ notȱ elevationȱ toȱ keepȱ theȱ sayingȱunsaid.ȱToȱspeakȱagainstȱisȱtoȱspeak.ȱLetȱmeȱdoȱitȱIȱneedȱ toȱ doȱ itȱ butȱ letȱ meȱ speakȱ somethingȱ elsed.ȱ Fromȱ somewhereȱ elsed.ȱOfȱsomethingȱ ȱ Iȱhaveȱmadeȱsomething.ȱForȱyou.ȱNowȱyouȱareȱsomeoneȱelseȱ ȱ 5.ȱInnovativeȱTechniqueȱandȱReȬenvisioningȱtheȱWorldȱ Iȱdidn’tȱknowȱIȱwasȱgoingȱtoȱwriteȱtheȱlastȱsection.ȱItsȱfirstȱdraftȱ appearedȱalmostȱspontaneouslyȱasȱaȱ“textȱandȱcommentary”ȱonȱ theȱunȬrevisedȱtextȱofȱpartȱ4a.21ȱAsȱsuchȱitȱisȱmyȱresponse—notȱ poetry,ȱ notȱ criticism,ȱ notȱ theory,ȱ butȱ certainlyȱ poetics—toȱ Ziarek’sȱbook.ȱThroughȱit,ȱIȱthink,ȱIȱhaveȱarrivedȱatȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱ hisȱideas,ȱorȱmaybeȱaȱparticularisedȱsenseȱofȱdisquietȱwithȱwhatȱ ȱ21ȱȱ SeeȱmyȱHymnsȱtoȱtheȱGodȱinȱwhichȱMyȱTypewriterȱBelievesȱ(Exeter:ȱ StrideȱBooks,ȱ 2006),ȱforȱnearlyȱanȱentireȱvolumeȱofȱ“textsȱandȱcommentaries.”ȱ

276ȱ

isȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ seriousȱ attemptsȱ toȱ reȬthink—dareȱ Iȱ useȱ theȱ word?—aestheticsȱ thatȱ Iȱ haveȱ readȱ inȱ atȱ leastȱ aȱ decade.ȱ (Anotherȱ isȱ Derekȱ Attridge’sȱ Theȱ Singularityȱ ofȱ Literature.)ȱ Itȱ recognisesȱtheȱcontinuingȱefficacyȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde,ȱandȱIȱfeelȱ itȱisȱappropriateȱthatȱIȱhaveȱaddressedȱitȱinȱanȱinnovativeȱform,ȱ toȱwriteȱpoetryȱandȱnotȱpoetryȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime.ȱ Ziarek’sȱ distrustȱ ofȱ productionȱ allowsȱ himȱ toȱ setȱ upȱ aȱ definition—outȱ ofȱ Heidegger—ofȱ poi¾sisȱ asȱ aȱ turnȱ withinȱ technicityȱ awayȱ fromȱ production,ȱ “aȱ powerȬfreeȱ poi¾ticȱ techn¾ȱ thatȱreleasesȱforcesȱfromȱtheȱgripȱofȱmachination,ȱordering,ȱandȱ maximalisation”ȱ (54).ȱ Ziarek’sȱ centralȱ notionȱ ofȱ anȱ alternativeȱ rhythmȱofȱrelationalityȱIȱfindȱanȱattractiveȱone,ȱbutȱheȱadds:ȱ“Inȱ usingȱ theȱ termȱ ‘poi¾tic’ȱ Iȱ indicateȱ thatȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ transformativeȱforceworkȱevidentȱinȱartȱremainsȱirreducibleȱtoȱaȱ poeticsȱ andȱ thereforeȱ doesȱ notȱ fallȱ underȱ theȱ rubricȱ ofȱ aesthetics”ȱ(54).ȱ Asȱ aȱ writer,ȱ maybeȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ one,ȱ poeticsȱ isȱ vitalȱ toȱ me—andȱ theȱ previousȱ sectionȱ isȱ proofȱ ofȱ this,ȱ Iȱ hope—asȱ anȱ ongoingȱ speculativeȱ discourseȱ aboutȱ theȱ formalȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ myȱ artisticȱ practice.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ theorisedȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ writerlyȱ poeticsȱ elsewhere,ȱ butȱ myȱ pointȱ hereȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ makingȱ isȱ notȱ soȱ easilyȱ dismissed,ȱ particularlyȱ asȱ Ziarekȱ valorisesȱtheȱworkȱinvolvedȱinȱbringingȱartworksȱintoȱbeing.22ȱ WhileȱoneȱmajorȱstrengthȱofȱthisȱbookȱisȱitsȱreȬarticulationȱofȱ Adorno’sȱaccountȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱart,ȱhisȱ corollaryȱ dissolvingȱ ofȱ theȱ artworkȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ maintainȱ itsȱ forcework,ȱ meansȱ thatȱ artisticȱ makingȱ(andȱ poeticsȱ asȱ formulationsȱ ofȱ that),ȱ artisticȱ materialityȱ andȱ mediumȱ (andȱ aestheticsȱ thatȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ negotiationȱ ofȱ these)ȱ areȱ ruledȱ outȱ ofȱ court,ȱ soȱ thatȱ formalȱ innovationȱ asȱ aȱ factorȱ inȱ contemporaryȱavantȬgardeȱpracticeȱisȱunderplayed.ȱ Perhapsȱ thisȱ alwaysȱ happensȱ whenȱ theoryȱ confrontsȱ practice.ȱ (Thisȱ confrontationȱ mightȱ beȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ asȱ theȱ provenanceȱofȱpoetics,ȱbutȱpoeticsȱcanȱeschewȱparticularitiesȱasȱ ȱ22ȱ Seeȱ particularlyȱ myȱ Theȱ Necessityȱ ofȱ Poeticsȱ (Liverpool:ȱ Shipȱ ofȱ Fools,ȱ 2002).ȱ Aȱ slightlyȱearlierȱversionȱmayȱbeȱreadȱatȱwww.bbk.ac.uk/pores/1/index.htm.ȱ

277ȱ

wellȱ whenȱ itȱ seeksȱ toȱ beȱ speculative,ȱ whichȱ isȱ whyȱ Ziarek’sȱ bookȱ isȱ soȱ suggestiveȱ toȱ me.)ȱ Whileȱ Iȱ agreeȱ withȱ Ziarek’sȱ negotiationȱofȱtheȱcontentȱofȱartworks—hisȱapprovingȱdisregardȱ ofȱ Baraka’sȱ overtȱ radicalism,ȱ forȱ example—hisȱ disavowalȱ ofȱ formalȱ considerationsȱ doesȱ notȱ ringȱ true,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱ heȱ talksȱofȱtheȱpoi¾ticȱinȱStein’sȱTenderȱButtonsȱasȱ“aȱtransformativeȱ eventȱredisposingȱtheȱforcesȱofȱlanguageȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱtheyȱ noȱlongerȱworkȱaccordingȱtheȱnormativeȱcriteriaȱofȱcorrectnessȱ andȱsenseȱbutȱletȱthingsȱunfoldȱwithȱaȱpoi¾ticȱforceȱofȱintensityȱ soȱthatȱthingsȱareȱnoȱlongerȱcommoditiesȱorȱobjectsȱofȱeverydayȱ use”ȱ(47).ȱSuchȱredisposing,ȱheȱisȱforcedȱtoȱadmit,ȱmustȱbeȱtheȱ resultȱ ofȱ technique;ȱ hisȱ phraseȱ “aȱ runȬonȱ syntaxȱ ofȱ everydayȱ existence”ȱ atȱ leastȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ syntaxȱ isȱ atȱ leastȱ asȱ importantȱ anȱ issueȱ asȱ theȱ everydayȱ (47),ȱ asȱ areȱ theȱ functionsȱ ofȱ “namingȱ andȱ defining,”ȱ whichȱ areȱ disruptedȱ quiteȱ concretelyȱ inȱ Steinȱ withinȱ theȱ praxisȱ ofȱ theȱ innovativeȱ techniqueȱ ofȱ displacedȱ referenceȱ(46).ȱLikewise,ȱwhenȱheȱnotesȱofȱBaraka’sȱwork,ȱ“forȱitȱ isȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ rhythm,ȱ ofȱ theȱ timingȱ andȱ scansionȱ ofȱ relations,ȱthatȱBarakaȱproposesȱtoȱreȬenvisionȱtheȱworldȱandȱcallȱ intoȱquestionȱtheȱoperationsȱofȱpowerȱthatȱstratifyȱandȱpolariseȱ it,”ȱZiarekȱsimilarlyȱsuperimposesȱhisȱconcepts,ȱhisȱmetaphors,ȱ uponȱtheȱveryȱtechnicalȱdevicesȱthatȱareȱprominentȱinȱtheȱwork,ȱ andȱ giveȱ Baraka’sȱ poetryȱ suchȱ powerȱ (particularlyȱ inȱ performance)ȱ (129).ȱ Inȱ myȱ ownȱ piece,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ refiguringȱofȱtheȱworldȱIȱattemptȱtoȱdescribeȱinȱtheȱforceȬfieldȱofȱ artȱ isȱ alsoȱ articulatedȱ preciselyȱ byȱ theȱ syntacticȱ playȱ providedȱ byȱ redefiningȱ sentenceȱ barriers.ȱ Inȱ Ziarek’sȱ termsȱ Iȱ haveȱ reȬ orderedȱ theȱ syntaxȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ aȱ newȱ relationality,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱeffectedȱitȱbyȱtechnicalȱmeansȱ(ifȱIȱhaveȱ beenȱinȱanyȱwayȱsuccessful,ȱofȱcourse).ȱȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ theseȱ threeȱ examplesȱ demonstrateȱ clearlyȱ whatȱ Ziarekȱ contendsȱ aboutȱ theȱ criticalȱ function—theȱ revitalisedȱ relationality—ofȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ art,ȱ moreȱ particularlyȱ aboutȱ theȱ world’sȱ transfiguredȱ (orȱ reȬenvisoned)ȱ appearanceȱ inȱ avantȬ gardeȱworksȱwhich,ȱremember,ȱareȱtheȱonesȱZiarekȱsaysȱredefineȱ questionsȱofȱfreedomȱandȱpowerȱinȱtheȱmostȱradicalȱways.ȱItȱisȱaȱ 278ȱ

shameȱthatȱ(atȱtimes)ȱheȱseemsȱtoȱtakeȱartisticȱcreationȱtoȱbeȱakinȱ toȱ commodifiableȱ production,ȱ whichȱ bringsȱ himȱ oddlyȱ closeȱ toȱ theȱproponentsȱofȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱavantȬgarde.ȱȱ ȱ ȱ 6.ȱAffirmedȱbyȱtheȱStruggleȱ Theȱ readerȱ willȱ notȱ beȱ surprisedȱ toȱ realiseȱ thatȱ Iȱ regardȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱasȱaȱviableȱcontemporaryȱphenomenon.ȱAlthoughȱIȱ avoidȱ theȱ term—perhapsȱ thinkȱ itȱ shouldȱ beȱ retired—Iȱ haveȱ writtenȱ ofȱ theȱ Britishȱ Poetryȱ Revivalȱ andȱ ofȱ Linguisticallyȱ Innovativeȱ Poetryȱ inȱ Britainȱ withȱ exactlyȱ theȱ sameȱ attitudeȱ asȱ writersȱsuchȱasȱRifkinȱandȱZiarek,ȱcriticsȱwhoȱhaveȱlittleȱanxietyȱ overȱtheȱtermȱandȱtheȱvariousȱpracticesȱtheyȱdenote.ȱIȱalsoȱfeel,ȱ asȱ aȱ memberȱ (orȱ pastȱ member)ȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ avantȬgardeȱ groupings,ȱ thatȱ theory—includingȱ theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬ garde,ȱ whetherȱ thatȱ isȱ Bürger’sȱ canonicalȱ historyȱ orȱ Ziarek’sȱ conceptualȱweave—hasȱdevelopedȱconterminouslyȱwithȱavantȬ gardeȱ work.ȱ Mostȱ linguisticallyȱ innovativeȱ poetsȱ Iȱ knowȱ areȱ conversantȱinȱdifferingȱdegreesȱwithȱtheȱworksȱofȱtheȱtheoristsȱ (andȱ perhapsȱ Ziarekȱ willȱ beȱ addedȱ toȱ theirȱ number).ȱ Formulationsȱ ofȱ avantȬgardismȱ feedȱ directlyȱ intoȱ avantȬgardeȱ practice,ȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ isȱ unprecedented,ȱ andȱ whichȱ Iȱ haveȱ soughtȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ inȱ thisȱ piece.ȱ Theoryȱ feedsȱ directlyȱ intoȱ poetics.ȱ Ziarek’sȱbookȱwillȱbeȱreadȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱbutȱfewȱwillȱdoubtȱ hisȱbeliefȱin,ȱandȱcommitmentȱto,ȱtheȱtransformativeȱpowersȱofȱ contemporaryȱavantȬgardeȱradicalism,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱideaȱofȱavantȬ gardeȱgroupingsȱandȱmovementsȱhasȱhadȱitsȱday.23ȱPerhapsȱtheȱ

ȱ23ȱȱ Theȱ reasonȱ Iȱ ponderȱ myȱ possibleȱ “past”ȱ membershipȱ ofȱ anȱ avantȬgardeȱ isȱ notȱ myȱfearȱthatȱI’veȱnotȱkeptȱupȱmyȱsubscription,ȱorȱthatȱaȱmodernȬdayȱBretonȱhasȱ expelledȱ meȱ forȱ havingȱ aȱ bourgeoisȱ faceȱ orȱ something,ȱ butȱ thatȱ Iȱ feelȱ geographicallyȱ remoteȱ fromȱ theȱ centresȱ ofȱ avantȬgardeȱ practice,ȱ andȱ thatȱ I’veȱ reachedȱ anȱ ageȱ whenȱ perhapsȱ one’sȱ poetics—whichȱ isȱ hopefullyȱ stillȱ avantȬ gardeȱ inȱ someȱ sense—isȱ developedȱ forȱ theȱ individualȱ andȱ lessȱ forȱ theȱ group,ȱ thoughȱIȱhopeȱitȱisȱofȱuseȱtoȱothers.ȱI’mȱfranklyȱnotȱlookingȱoverȱmyȱshoulderȱtoȱ seeȱwhetherȱIȱadhereȱtoȱtheȱmanifesto.ȱTheȱwolfishȱpackingȱmentalitiesȱofȱavantȬ gardesȱ areȱ theirȱ leastȱ attractiveȱ aspects,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ historicalȱ necessityȱ ofȱ exclusivityȱandȱaȱdecentȱsupplyȱofȱtheȱdrugȱofȱchoice.ȱ

279ȱ

veryȱ technicityȱ whichȱ Ziarekȱ ambivalentlyȱ discusses,ȱ inȱ itsȱ developmentȱ ofȱ globalȱ communitiesȱ ofȱ exchangeȱ andȱ risk,ȱ viaȱ theȱ internet,ȱ willȱ replaceȱ thatȱ isolation,ȱ andȱ developȱ theȱ “otherwise”ȱeverȱmoreȱstrongly.ȱȱ Ziarekȱ saysȱ littleȱ aboutȱ theȱ Utopianȱ impulseȱ ofȱ theȱ avantȬ garde,ȱ balancingȱ asȱ itȱ doesȱ onȱ theȱ cuspȱ betweenȱ artȱ andȱ itsȱ abandonment,ȱbutȱhisȱsenseȱofȱaȱrelationalȱtransformationȱofȱtheȱ world,ȱ throughȱ theȱ nonȬviolentȱ exerciseȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamisingȱ forcework,ȱ hisȱ senseȱ ofȱ enhancementȱ overȱ increase—whichȱ isȱ alsoȱaȱvalorisationȱofȱartȱoverȱcommodity,ȱlocalȱplayȱoverȱglobalȱ capitalism—isȱaȱUtopianismȱofȱsorts,ȱpredicatedȱonȱitsȱultimateȱ successȱ butȱ guaranteedȱ onlyȱ byȱ itsȱ inevitableȱ failure.ȱ Meanwhileȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ compensationȱ hasȱ toȱ be,ȱ asȱ Harwoodȱ learntȱ fromȱ Tzaraȱ inȱ hisȱ moment,ȱ affirmedȱ byȱ theȱ struggle.ȱȱ ȱ

280ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

TreyȱStreckerȱȱ ȱ

NarrativeȱEcologyȱandȱȱ EncyclopaedicȱNarrativeȱ ȱ ȱ Itȱisȱinterestingȱtoȱcontemplateȱanȱentangledȱbank,ȱclothedȱwithȱ manyȱ plantsȱ ofȱ manyȱ kinds,ȱ withȱ birdsȱ singingȱ onȱ theȱ bushes,ȱ withȱ variousȱ insectsȱ flittingȱ about,ȱ andȱ withȱ wormsȱ crawlingȱ throughȱ theȱ dampȱ earth,ȱ andȱ reflectȱ thatȱ theseȱ elaboratelyȱ constructedȱforms,ȱsoȱdifferentȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱandȱdependentȱ onȱeachȱotherȱinȱsoȱcomplexȱaȱmanner,ȱhaveȱallȱbeenȱproducedȱ byȱ lawsȱ actingȱ aroundȱ usȱ …ȱ Thereȱ isȱ grandeurȱ inȱ thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ life,ȱ withȱ itsȱ severalȱ powers,ȱ havingȱ beenȱ originallyȱ breathedȱ intoȱ aȱ fewȱ formsȱ orȱ intoȱ one;ȱ andȱ that,ȱ whilstȱ thisȱ planetȱ hasȱ goneȱ cyclingȱ onȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ fixedȱ lawȱ ofȱ gravity,ȱ fromȱ soȱ simpleȱ aȱ beginningȱ endlessȱ formsȱ mostȱ beautifulȱ andȱ mostȱ wonderfulȱhaveȱbeen,ȱandȱareȱbeing,ȱevolved.ȱ —CharlesȱDarwin,ȱTheȱOriginȱofȱSpeciesȱ ȱ Aȱrelation,ȱwhichȱweȱallȱare.ȱ —JosephȱMcElroy,ȱWomenȱandȱMenȱ

ȱ ȱ “It’sȱ aȱ mutual,ȱ jointȬstockȱ world,”ȱ Hermanȱ Melvilleȱ tellsȱ us,ȱ foreshadowingȱourȱtime’sȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱcomplex,ȱreciprocalȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ humanȱ beingsȱ andȱ theȱ earthȱ thatȱ supportsȱglobalȱlife.1ȱInȱhisȱclassicȱecocriticalȱstudyȱTheȱComedyȱ ofȱ Survival,ȱ Josephȱ Meekerȱ asksȱ aȱ pointedȱ question:ȱ “Fromȱ theȱ ȱ 1ȱȱ Hermanȱ Melville,ȱ MobyȬDick.ȱ Melville:ȱ Redburn,ȱ WhiteȬJacket,ȱ MobyȬDick,ȱ vol.ȱ 2,ȱ ed.ȱG.ȱThomasȱTanselleȱ(NewȱYork:ȱLibraryȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1983)ȱ859.ȱ

281ȱ

unforgivingȱperspectiveȱofȱevolutionȱandȱnaturalȱselection,ȱdoesȱ literatureȱ contributeȱ moreȱ toȱ ourȱ survivalȱ thanȱ itȱ doesȱ toȱ ourȱ extinction?”2ȱȱTheȱinformed,ȱinnovative,ȱandȱdemandingȱnovelsȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ generationȱ ofȱ Americanȱ encyclopaedicȱ authorsȱ do;ȱ amongȱ theȱ bestȱ andȱ mostȱ importantȱ contemporaryȱ Americanȱ fiction,ȱ theseȱbooksȱ developȱ aȱ livingȱ systemicȱ network,ȱ tracingȱ multipleȱ trajectoriesȱ betweenȱ theȱ individual,ȱ society,ȱ politics,ȱ history,ȱ science,ȱ andȱ nature.ȱ Theseȱ newȱ encyclopaedicȱ narrativesȱtraverseȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱglobalȱandȱtheȱlocal,ȱecologyȱ andȱeconomy,ȱandȱscienceȱandȱliteratureȱtowardȱtheȱecologicalȱ wisdomȱ thatȱ ourȱ species’ȱ survivalȱ dependsȱ uponȱ ourȱ adaptabilityȱto,ȱnotȱourȱdominanceȱover,ȱourȱenvironment.ȱȱ ȱInȱ 1866,ȱ Ernstȱ Haeckelȱ coinedȱ theȱ termȱ “ecology”ȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ nascentȱ scienceȱ thatȱ wouldȱ studyȱ “theȱ householdȱ ofȱ nature”ȱ andȱ “theȱ interactionȱ ofȱ organismsȱ andȱ theirȱ environment.”3ȱ Encyclopaedicȱ novelsȱ likeȱ Williamȱ T.ȱ Vollmann’sȱ Youȱ Brightȱ andȱ Risenȱ Angelsȱ (1987),ȱ Richardȱ Powers’sȱ Theȱ Goldȱ Bugȱ Variationsȱ (1991),ȱ Bobȱ Shacochis’sȱ Swimmingȱ inȱ theȱ Volcanoȱ (1993),ȱ Evanȱ Dara’sȱ Theȱ Lostȱ Scrapbookȱ (1995),ȱ Davidȱ Fosterȱ Wallace’sȱ Infiniteȱ Jestȱ (1996),ȱ Colsonȱ Whitehead’sȱ Johnȱ Henryȱ Daysȱ (2001),ȱ andȱ Jeffreyȱ Eugenides’sȱ Middlesexȱ (2002),ȱ amongȱ others,ȱ areȱ profoundlyȱ ecologicalȱ fictionsȱaboutȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱtheȱindividualȱandȱtheȱbigȱ picture,ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theȱ macroscopicȱ fromȱ theȱ microscopic,ȱ andȱ theȱ interdependenceȱ ofȱ informationȱ andȱ narrative.ȱ Recently,ȱ Richardȱ Powersȱ hasȱ describedȱ hisȱ ownȱ novelsȱ asȱ “dialoguesȱ betweenȱ littleȱ andȱ big,”ȱ exhibitingȱ ourȱ needȱtoȱunderstandȱ“howȱpartsȱofȱtheȱwholeȱcanȱseeȱtheȱwhole,ȱ comeȱtoȱknowȱit,ȱsufferȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱit.”4ȱUnlikeȱmanyȱofȱ theirȱ contemporaries,ȱ theseȱ talentedȱ novelistsȱ recogniseȱ theȱ

ȱ 2ȱȱ JosephȱMeeker,ȱTheȱComedyȱofȱSurvival:ȱLiteraryȱEcologyȱandȱaȱPlayȱEthicȱ(Tucson:ȱ UniversityȱofȱArizonaȱPress,ȱ1997)ȱ4.ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ ErnstȱMayr,ȱTheȱGrowthȱofȱBiologicalȱThought:ȱDiversity,ȱEvolution,ȱandȱInheritanceȱ (Cambridge,ȱMass.:ȱBelknap,ȱ1982)ȱ121.ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Lauraȱ Miller,ȱ “Theȱ Salonȱ Interview:ȱ Richardȱ Powers,”ȱ Salonȱ (23ȱ Julyȱ 1998):ȱ http://www.salon.com/books/int/1998/07/cov_si_23inta.htmlȱ

282ȱ

prolificȱ complexityȱ ofȱ life’sȱ “planetaryȱ pageant,”5ȱ andȱ theyȱ striveȱtoȱcreateȱfictionȱthatȱengagesȱtheȱbreadthȱandȱwidthȱofȱtheȱ worldȱ acrossȱ allȱ scales.ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ ecologyȱ providesȱ aȱ valuableȱ modelȱ whichȱ attendsȱ toȱ theȱ symbioticȱ interconnectionsȱ andȱ ecologicalȱ processesȱ activeȱ betweenȱ differentȱ systemicȱ levelsȱ andȱ demonstratesȱ howȱ variousȱ cultural,ȱsocial,ȱandȱbiologicalȱnetworksȱjoinȱusȱtoȱourȱcomplexȱ environment.ȱ Theȱ genreȱ ofȱ encyclopaedicȱ narrativeȱ prefiguresȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ ecologies.ȱ Inȱ 1976,ȱ Edwardȱ Mendelsonȱ wroteȱ twoȱ groundbreakingȱ articles,ȱ “Encyclopaedicȱ Narrative:ȱ Fromȱ Danteȱ toȱ Pynchon,”ȱ andȱ “Gravity’sȱ Encyclopaedia,”ȱ distinguishingȱ encyclopaedicȱ narrative’sȱ epistemicȱ functionȱ toȱ synecdochiclyȱrenderȱaȱscientific,ȱtechnological,ȱorȱartisticȱfieldȱ throughȱ aȱ diverseȱ rangeȱ ofȱ literaryȱ stylesȱ andȱ narrativeȱ forms.ȱ Forȱ someȱ reason,ȱ however,ȱ Mendelsonȱ separatesȱ thisȱ informationalȱ structureȱ ofȱ encyclopaedicȱ knowledgeȱ fromȱ theȱ narrativeȱactȱthatȱallowsȱusȱtoȱmoveȱacrossȱthisȱspace.6ȱWhileȱhisȱ delineationȱ ofȱ theȱ intrinsicȱ formalȱ frameworkȱ forȱ aȱ genreȱ ofȱ encyclopaedicȱ narrativeȱ canȱ effectivelyȱ describeȱ Melville’sȱ cetology,ȱ Pynchon’sȱ thermodynamics,ȱ andȱ evenȱ Powers’sȱ genetics,ȱitȱcannotȱaccountȱforȱtheȱdenselyȱcomplexȱunfoldingȱofȱ

ȱ 5ȱȱ RichardȱPowers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariationsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱMorrow,ȱ1991)ȱ178.ȱ ȱ 6ȱȱ Anȱ equallyȱ significantȱ flawȱ inȱ Mendelson’sȱ formulationȱ ofȱ encyclopedicȱ narrativeȱisȱhisȱinsistenceȱthatȱtheseȱbooksȱmustȱassumeȱtheȱstatusȱofȱ“aȱsingleȱ monumentalȱ workȱ thatȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ aȱ culturalȱ focus”ȱ beforeȱ theirȱ inclusionȱ (“Encyclopedic”ȱ1268).ȱThus,ȱaȱtextȱcanȱonlyȱassumeȱitsȱplaceȱwithinȱthisȱgenreȱ afterȱ theȱ fact,ȱ basedȱ uponȱ “extrinsicȱ mattersȱ ofȱ receptionȱ andȱ expectation”ȱ (1267):ȱ “Onlyȱ afterȱ anȱ encyclopedicȱ narrativeȱ hasȱ takenȱ itsȱ placeȱ asȱ aȱ literaryȱ monument,ȱ surroundedȱ byȱ curatorsȱ andȱ guides,ȱ canȱ itȱ beȱ recognisedȱ asȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ itsȱ smallȱ andȱ exclusiveȱ genre”ȱ (1268).ȱ Mendelsonȱ narrowlyȱ definesȱ theȱgenreȱbasedȱuponȱsevenȱexamples—theȱCommedia,ȱGargantuaȱandȱPantagruel,ȱ Donȱ Quixote,ȱ Faust,ȱ MobyȬDick,ȱ Ulysses,ȱ andȱ Gravity’sȱ Rainbow—neglectingȱ Williamȱ Gaddis’sȱ Theȱ Recognitionsȱ andȱ JR,ȱ Johnȱ Barth’sȱ Gilesȱ GoatȬBoy,ȱ Donȱ DeLillo’sȱRatner’sȱStar,ȱandȱJosephȱMcElroy’sȱLookoutȱCartridge,ȱamongȱothers.ȱ ȱ

283ȱ

multipleȱ interactionsȱ withinȱ “anȱ indefiniteȱ fieldȱ ofȱ relations.”7ȱ Fiction,ȱ asȱ Powersȱ argues,ȱ shouldȱ coȬevolveȱ asȱ “aȱ twoȬwayȱ product,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ involvesȱ bothȱ dataȱ andȱ itsȱ narrativeȱ collaborator.”8ȱ Myȱ criticismȱ ofȱ Mendelson’sȱ approachȱ isȱ thatȱ itȱ overemphasisesȱtheȱstaticȱspatioȬinformationalȱdimensionȱofȱtheȱ encyclopaediaȱ andȱ neglectsȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ diachronicȱ narrative.ȱ Narrativeȱ transformsȱ closedȱ encyclopaedicȱ spacesȱ ofȱ entropicȱ dissolutionȱ intoȱ complexȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ ofȱ emergentȱorganisation.ȱ Althoughȱnarrativeȱecologiesȱgenerallyȱdisplayȱmanyȱofȱtheȱ intrinsicȱ formalȱ criteriaȱ ofȱ Mendelson’sȱ encyclopaedicȱ narratives,ȱtheȱnovels’ȱcomplicatedȱinformationalȱstructuresȱareȱ supplementedȱ byȱ theirȱ authors’ȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ biologicalȱ andȱ ecologicalȱ processes.ȱ ProcessȬorientatedȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ diverseȱsystems,ȱsubsystems,ȱandȱcomponentsȱevolveȱoutȱofȱtheȱ temporalȱ movementȱ representedȱ byȱ narrativeȱ processes.ȱ Moreover,ȱ becauseȱ narrativeȱ resistsȱlargeȱ systemicȱabstractionsȱ withȱ itsȱ ownȱ insistentȱ particularities,ȱ itȱ negotiatesȱ theȱ balanceȱ betweenȱ theȱ individualȱ andȱ theȱ bigȱ picture.ȱ Inȱ anȱ interviewȱ withȱLauraȱMiller,ȱPowersȱexplainsȱhowȱthisȱtensionȱmanifestsȱ itself:ȱȱ ȱ There’sȱthisȱsenseȱofȱwantingȱtoȱgetȱtheȱbigȱpicture.ȱWantingȱtoȱ reallyȱsee,ȱgetȱtheȱaerialȱview.ȱAndȱseeȱtheȱimplicationȱandȱtheȱ grandeurȱandȱtheȱmovements.ȱTheȱhugeȱarcsȱthatȱweȱdon’tȱseeȱ inȱourȱownȱlives.ȱThat’sȱaȱmonumentalȱthingȱthatȱfictionȱcanȱdoȱ andȱ that’sȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ fictionȱ thatȱ Iȱ oftenȱ seekȱ out.ȱ Butȱ Iȱ thinkȱ whatȱ weȱ reallyȱ wantȱ toȱ doȱ isȱ linkȱ ourȱ ownȱ livesȱ toȱ thoseȱ emotionsȱandȱseeȱhowȱtheyȱintersectȱandȱseeȱhowȱtheyȱconflictȱ andȱ negateȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Weȱ wantȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ ourȱ ownȱ story— theȱbeginning,ȱmiddleȱandȱend—toȱsomehowȱmakeȱsenseȱinsideȱ thisȱbiggerȱstory.9ȱȱ

ȱ 7ȱȱ MichelȱFoucault,ȱPowerȱ/ȱKnowledge:ȱSelectedȱInterviewsȱandȱOtherȱWritings,ȱ1972Ȭ 1977ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPantheon,ȱ1980)ȱ192.ȱ ȱ 8ȱȱ Jimȱ Neilson,ȱ “Anȱ Interviewȱ withȱ Richardȱ Powers,”ȱ Theȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ Contemporaryȱ Fictionȱ28.3ȱ(Fallȱ1998):ȱ16.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ Miller,ȱ“TheȱSalonȱInterview:ȱRichardȱPowers,”ȱn.pag.ȱ

284ȱ

Narrativeȱallowsȱusȱtoȱtravelȱacrossȱsystemicȱhierarchiesȱandȱtoȱ seeȱhowȱlocalisedȱindividualȱeventsȱinȱaȱnonlinearȱenvironmentȱ bothȱ composeȱ andȱ intersectȱ withȱ theȱ bigȱ picture.ȱ “Theȱ worldȱ isn’tȱ simplyȱ takingȱ placeȱ atȱ eyeȬlevelȱ view,”ȱ Powersȱ explains.ȱ “There’sȱlotsȱgoingȱonȱaboveȱusȱandȱbelowȱus.”ȱ Inȱtheȱ1980sȱandȱ1990s,ȱmanyȱscientificallyȱcognisantȱyoungȱ authorsȱturnedȱawayȱfromȱphysicsȬbasedȱtropesȱofȱentropyȱandȱ chaosȱ andȱ choseȱ biologicalȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ order,ȱ complexity,ȱ andȱ selfȬorganisationȱ asȱ theirȱ dominantȱ metaphors.ȱ Theirȱ encyclopaedicȱfictionȱmodelsȱaȱnewȱnarrativeȱecologyȱemergingȱ fromȱ theȱ metaphorsȱ ofȱ complexȱ systemsȱ science.ȱ Complexityȱ scientistsȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱnonlinearȱprocessesȱofȱselfȬorganisationȱ andȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ complexityȱ “atȱ theȱ edgeȱ ofȱ orderȱ andȱ chaos”ȱ provideȱ theȱ mechanismȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ biosphereȱ hasȱevolvedȱitsȱwondrousȱabundanceȱofȱlife.ȱComplexityȱtheoryȱ describesȱ aȱ newȱ strategyȱ forȱ thinkingȱ aboutȱ theȱ emergent,ȱ collaborative,ȱ integratedȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ aȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ interactingȱ elements,ȱ connectedȱ inȱ multidimensionalȱ networksȱ “thatȱ areȱ endowedȱ withȱ theȱ potentialȱ toȱ evolveȱ inȱ time.”10ȱ Theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ complexȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ fromȱ theȱ nonlinearȱ interactionȱ ofȱ localȱ narrativeȱ eventsȱ createsȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ theseȱnovels,ȱaȱnewȱnaturalismȱthatȱfollowsȱhistorianȱofȱscienceȱ FritjofȱCapra’sȱobservationȱthatȱlateȱtwentiethȬcenturyȱscience’sȱ recognitionȱthatȱlivingȱsystemsȱareȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱtheȱecologicalȱ paradigmȱsignalsȱ“aȱshiftȱfromȱphysicsȱtoȱtheȱlifeȱsciences.”11ȱ “Ourȱ new,ȱ scientificallyȱ andȱ aestheticallyȱ sophisticatedȱ naturalists,”12ȱtheseȱauthors’ȱunderstandingȱofȱcomplexȱsystemsȱ teachesȱthemȱtoȱseeȱthisȱcomplexȱorder,ȱnotȱasȱaȱbyȬproductȱofȱ chaos,ȱbutȱasȱaȱnaturalȱoccurrenceȱwithinȱlivingȱsystems.ȱTheirȱ novelsȱ serveȱ asȱ informationalȱ narrativeȱ ecologies,ȱ mimeticȱ

ȱ10ȱȱ PeterȱCoveneyȱandȱRogerȱHighfield,ȱFrontiersȱofȱComplexity:ȱTheȱSearchȱforȱOrderȱ inȱAȱChaoticȱWorldȱ(NewȱYork:ȱFawcett,ȱ1995)ȱ7.ȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Fritjofȱ Capra,ȱ Theȱ Webȱ ofȱ Life:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Scientificȱ Understandingȱ ofȱ Livingȱ Systemsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱAnchor,ȱ1996)ȱ12Ȭ3.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Tomȱ LeClair,ȱ Theȱ Artȱ ofȱ Excess:ȱ Masteryȱ inȱ Contemporaryȱ Americanȱ Fictionȱ (Urbana:ȱUniversityȱofȱIllinoisȱPress,ȱ1989)ȱ17.ȱ

285ȱ

analoguesȱ ofȱ livingȱ systemsȱ inȱ aȱ naturalȱ environment,ȱ andȱ reviseȱtheȱoldȱnaturalisticȱconceptionȱofȱindividualsȱbatteredȱbyȱ aȱ mechanisticȱ universeȱ toȱ showȱ humansȱ intertwinedȱ inȱ coevolvingȱ technological,ȱ scientific,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ ecologicalȱ networks.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ theȱ densityȱ andȱ reflexivityȱ ofȱ theirȱ encyclopaedicȱnovelsȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱdismissedȱasȱpostmodernistȱ play,ȱbutȱregardedȱasȱserious,ȱ“primarilyȱreconstructive”ȱeffortsȱ toȱreconcileȱnarrativeȱecologyȱandȱtheȱnaturalȱecosystem.13ȱȱ “Majorȱliteraryȱworks,”ȱMeekerȱnotes,ȱ“resembleȱecosystemsȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱ presentȱ aȱ largeȱ andȱ complexȱ panoramaȱ ofȱ experienceȱinȱwhichȱtheȱrelationshipsȱofȱhumansȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱ areȱ frequentlyȱ representedȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ humanȱ relationshipsȱ toȱ natureȱ andȱ itsȱ intricateȱ parts.”14ȱ Fromȱ thisȱ structuralȱhomologyȱbetweenȱnaturalȱecosystemsȱandȱnarrativeȱ ecologies,ȱ theseȱ textsȱ striveȱ toȱ reproduceȱ theȱ richnessȱ andȱ complexityȱ ofȱ lifeȱ onȱ thisȱ planetȱ andȱ toȱ addressȱ theȱ effectsȱ ofȱ humankind’sȱ impactȱ uponȱ itȱ onȱ aȱ globalȱ scale,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ globalȱ scaleȱ isȱ theȱ scaleȱ ofȱ nature.ȱ Bothȱ naturalȱ andȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ areȱ complexȱ websȱ wovenȱ togetherȱ ofȱ systemsȱ andȱ subsystemsȱ operatingȱ onȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ multiformȱ relations,ȱ whereȱ theȱ system’sȱ constituentȱ partsȱ competeȱ againstȱ eachȱ otherȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ theȱ systemȱ survives,ȱ adapts,ȱ andȱ evolves.ȱ Connectionsȱ inȱ anȱ ecosystemȱ evolveȱ basedȱ uponȱ theȱ needsȱ ofȱ specificȱ speciesȱ andȱ theȱ necessitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ localȱ environmentȱ“boundȱtogetherȱbyȱaȱwebȱofȱcomplexȱrelations.”15ȱ Becauseȱ theȱ constantȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ theseȱ interconnectionsȱ canȱ threatenȱ theȱ survivalȱ ofȱ theȱ systemȱ asȱ aȱ whole,ȱ theȱ mostȱ successfulȱsystemsȱinȱtheȱlongȬtermȱofȱevolutionaryȱbiologyȱandȱ ecologicalȱprocessesȱbalanceȱtheȱadaptabilityȱandȱtheȱstabilityȱofȱ complexȱsystems.ȱ Narrativeȱecologiesȱreplicateȱnature’sȱevolutionaryȱemergentȱ processesȱ andȱ selfȬreflexiveȱ systems,ȱ urgingȱ usȱ toȱ rediscoverȱ ȱ13ȱȱ LeClair,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱExcess,ȱ21.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Meeker,ȱTheȱComedyȱofȱSurvival,ȱ7.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ CharlesȱDarwin,ȱTheȱOriginȱofȱSpeciesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱNewȱAmericanȱLibrary,ȱ1958ȱ [1859])ȱ82.ȱ

286ȱ

ourȱ connectionsȱ withȱ theȱ livingȱ worldȱ andȱ withȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Inȱ recentȱ years,ȱ theȱ scienceȱ ofȱ complexȱ adaptiveȱ systemsȱ hasȱ drawnȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ coȬevolutionaryȱ reflexivityȱ betweenȱ humansȱandȱtheȱnaturalȱworldȱinherentȱinȱbiologicalȱprocesses.ȱ ComplexityȱtheoryȱdescribesȱtheȱlargeȬscaleȱinteractionȱofȱmanyȱ diverseȱ localȱ componentsȱ operatingȱ togetherȱ inȱ aȱ nonlinearȱ environmentȱ asȱ anȱ integratedȱ system.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ listȱ providesȱaȱsynopsisȱofȱtheȱgeneralȱfeaturesȱofȱcomplexȱsystems:ȱ ȱ 1.ȱ Complexȱ systemsȱ areȱ openȱ systemsȱ thatȱ emergeȱ fromȱ theȱ dynamicȱ interplayȱ ofȱ aȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ elementsȱ andȱ subsystems.ȱ Becauseȱ complexȱ systemsȱ containȱ tooȱ manyȱ elementsȱ andȱ exchangesȱ toȱ beȱ understoodȱ individually,ȱ ourȱ attentionȱshiftsȱfromȱtheȱindividualȱpartsȱtoȱtheȱbehaviourȱofȱtheȱ wholeȱsystem.ȱȱ ȱ 2.ȱ Localȱ activityȱ contributesȱ toȱ globalȱ systemicȱ behaviour.ȱ Complexityȱemergesȱatȱtheȱsystemicȱlevelȱfromȱtheȱrelationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ diverseȱ individualȱ elementsȱ thatȱ constituteȱ theȱ system.ȱ ȱ 3.ȱNonlinearȱinteractionsȱmeanȱthatȱsmall,ȱlocalȱcausesȱcanȱhaveȱ disproportionatelyȱlarge,ȱglobalȱeffects.ȱ ȱ 4.ȱ Theȱ systemsȱ thatȱ displayȱ theȱ mostȱ adaptableȱ behaviourȱ areȱ poisedȱ“onȱtheȱedgeȱofȱorderȱandȱchaos”;ȱthatȱis,ȱtheseȱsystemsȱ exhibitȱaȱmoderateȱdegreeȱofȱconnectivity.ȱSystemsȱthatȱareȱtooȱ looselyȱconnectedȱcannotȱadaptȱandȱremainȱfrozenȱinȱorder.ȱInȱ systemsȱ thatȱ areȱ tooȱ closelyȱ connected,ȱ everyȱ minorȱ perturbationȱ propagatesȱ endlesslyȱ throughoutȱ theȱ system,ȱ whichȱ isȱ drivenȱ intoȱ aȱ stateȱ ofȱ anarchicȱ chaos.ȱ Withȱ moderateȱ connectivity,ȱcomplexȱsystemsȱbalanceȱstabilityȱandȱflexibility.ȱ ȱ 5.ȱ Complexȱ systemsȱ haveȱ aȱ history.ȱ Evolutionaryȱ biologyȱ recognisesȱ changeȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ continuity.ȱ Complexȱ systemsȱ (brains,ȱindividuals,ȱeconomies,ȱecosystems)ȱareȱnotȱtabulaȱrasa.ȱ Pastȱbehaviourȱfeedsȱbackȱintoȱtheȱsystem.ȱ

ȱ ȱAsȱ Paulȱ Cilliersȱ explainsȱ inȱ Complexityȱ andȱ Postmodernism:ȱ 287ȱ

Understandingȱ Complexȱ Systems,ȱ “aȱ complexȱ systemȱ isȱ notȱ constitutedȱ merelyȱ byȱ theȱ sumȱ ofȱ itsȱ components,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ byȱ theȱ intricateȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theseȱ components.”16ȱ Inȱ aȱ complexȱ economy,ȱ Cilliersȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ individualȱ agentsȱ andȱ aggregatesȱofȱagentsȱ“interactȱbyȱlending,ȱborrowing,ȱinvesting,ȱ andȱexchangingȱmoneyȱforȱgoods,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱmakingȱcountlessȱ localisedȱdecisionsȱwhichȱmayȱinfluenceȱotherȱagentsȱtoȱvaryingȱ degrees.ȱ Complexȱ behaviourȱ emergesȱ inȱ theȱ patternȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱ amongȱ localȱ elementsȱ ofȱ interconnectedȱ systems.ȱ Thusȱ weȱ canȱ discussȱ higherȬorderȱ complexȱ economicȱ phenomenaȱ likeȱ theȱ grossȱ nationalȱ productȱ orȱ stockȱ marketȱ indexesȱ asȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ theȱ dynamicȱ interactionsȱ amongȱ theȱ variousȱcomponentsȱofȱtheȱsystem.17ȱ Toȱ delveȱ deeperȱ intoȱ crucialȱ conceptsȱ fromȱ complexityȱ theoryȱ likeȱ selfȬorganisedȱ criticalityȱ andȱ distributedȱ causality,ȱ weȱ mustȱ firstȱ examineȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ closedȱ linearȱ systemsȱ andȱ openȱ nonlinearȱ systems.18ȱ Inȱ theȱ algebraicȱlogicȱofȱlinearȱsystems,ȱallȱofȱ“theȱpiecesȱaddȱup”ȱinȱaȱ oneȬwayȱchainȱofȱcauseȱandȱeffect.19ȱObservingȱsuchȱaȱsystem,ȱaȱ scientistȱ canȱ isolateȱ theȱ discreteȱ elementsȱ ofȱ aȱ processȱ andȱ exhaustivelyȱdocumentȱtheȱlinkageȱbetweenȱaȱsingleȱcauseȱandȱ aȱsingleȱeffect.ȱThisȱcausal,ȱdeterministicȱworldviewȱachievedȱitsȱ fullestȱ expressionȱ inȱ Pierreȱ Simonȱ Laplace’sȱ dreamȱ thatȱ theȱ universeȱ itselfȱ wasȱ ultimatelyȱ explainable.ȱ Ifȱ scientistsȱ couldȱ observeȱ andȱ recordȱ aȱ completeȱ explanationȱ ofȱ eachȱ individualȱ part,ȱ thenȱ theyȱ couldȱ ultimatelyȱ understandȱ theȱ combinedȱ wholeȱ asȱ “aȱ perfectlyȱ manageableȱ systemȱ ofȱ simple,ȱ linear,ȱ rationalȱorder,”20ȱwhereȱ“nothingȱwouldȱbeȱuncertain.”21ȱȱ ȱ16ȱȱ Paulȱ Cilliers,ȱ Complexityȱ andȱ Postmodernism:ȱ Understandingȱ Complexȱ Systemsȱ (NewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1998)ȱ2.ȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Cilliers,ȱComplexityȱandȱPostmodernism,ȱ5Ȭ7.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ Theȱ followingȱ discussionȱ doesȱ notȱ precludeȱ theȱ veryȱ realȱ existenceȱ ofȱ discreteȱ linearȱ behaviorȱ withinȱ open,ȱ livingȱ systems;ȱ however,ȱ forȱ simplicity’sȱ sake,ȱ Iȱ haveȱchosenȱtoȱfocusȱonȱtheseȱalternatives.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ JamesȱGleick,ȱChaos:ȱMakingȱaȱNewȱScienceȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPenguin,ȱ1987)ȱ23.ȱ ȱ20ȱȱ Donaldȱ Worster,ȱ Nature’sȱ Economy:ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Ecologicalȱ Ideasȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994)ȱ406.ȱ

288ȱ

Butȱ becauseȱ livingȱ systemsȱ areȱ alwaysȱ openȱ systems,ȱ “ourȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ themȱ isȱ alwaysȱ partial,ȱ approximate,ȱ atȱ best.”22ȱ Anȱ extremelyȱ largeȱ closedȱ systemȱ mayȱ beȱ quiteȱ complicated,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ openȱ systemsȱ haveȱ theȱ potentialȱ toȱ beȱ complex,ȱ sinceȱ onlyȱ openȱ systemsȱ maintainȱ aȱ reciprocalȱ feedbackȱ relationshipȱ withȱ theirȱ environment.ȱ Asȱ Anthonyȱ Wildenȱ explains:ȱ “Allȱ systemsȱinvolvingȱorȱsimulatingȱlifeȱorȱmindȱareȱopenȱsystems,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ necessarilyȱ inȱ communicationȱ withȱ anotherȱ ‘system’ȱorȱ‘environment.’”23ȱThisȱextraȬsystemicȱrelationshipȱisȱ “indispensableȱtoȱitsȱsurvival,”24ȱbecauseȱtheȱconstantȱinfluxȱofȱ energyȱorȱinformationȱallowsȱlivingȱsystemsȱtoȱdefyȱtheȱSecondȱ Lawȱ ofȱ Thermodynamics,ȱ atȱ leastȱ locally,ȱ andȱ toȱ increaseȱ inȱ complexity.ȱ “Youȱ willȱ wantȱ causeȱ andȱ effect,”ȱ predictsȱ theȱ narratorȱ ofȱ Gravity’sȱ Rainbow,25ȱ anȱ encyclopaedicȱ forerunnerȱ ofȱ narrativeȱ ecology.ȱ Throughoutȱ Pynchon’sȱ novel,ȱ theȱ epistemologyȱ ofȱ linearȱ causationȱ imposesȱ closedȱ systemsȱ thinkingȱ ontoȱ openȱ systemsȱandȱturnsȱreciprocalȱfeedbackȱloopsȱintoȱunidirectionalȱ powerȱ relations,ȱ reducingȱ complexity.ȱ Sinceȱ natureȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ mechanisticȱ systemȱ whereȱ specificȱ causesȱ produceȱ specific,ȱ exactȱ effects,ȱ theȱ scientistȱ Lazloȱ Jamfȱ lecturesȱ Franzȱ Pökler’sȱ classȱtoȱ“moveȱbeyondȱlife,ȱtowardȱtheȱinorganic”ȱ(580)ȱinȱorderȱ toȱ tameȱ theȱ complexȱ biologicalȱ processesȱ ofȱ “lovableȱ butȱ scatterbrainedȱMotherȱNature”ȱ(324).ȱScienceȱtriesȱtoȱtranscendȱ theȱ naturalȱ worldȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ wayȱ thatȱ theȱ cartelsȱ attemptȱ toȱ dominateȱtheȱplanetȱandȱitsȱnaturalȱresources.ȱInȱaȱwellȬknownȱ scene,ȱPynchonȱcontrastsȱKekulé’sȱdreamȱofȱtheȱbenzeneȱringȱasȱ aȱ singular,ȱ closedȱ System,ȱ “theȱ Greatȱ Serpentȱ holdingȱ itsȱ ownȱ tailȱinȱitsȱmouth,”ȱwithȱtheȱviewȱofȱtheȱearthȱasȱanȱopen,ȱlivingȱ ȱ21ȱȱ Laplace,ȱquotedȱinȱCapra,ȱTheȱWebȱofȱLife,ȱ184.ȱ ȱ22ȱȱ JohnȱHorgan,ȱ“FromȱComplexityȱtoȱPerplexity,”ȱScientificȱAmericanȱ(Juneȱ1995):ȱ 107.ȱ ȱ23ȱȱ Anthonyȱ Wilden,ȱ Systemȱ andȱ Structure:ȱ Essaysȱ inȱ Communicationȱ andȱ Exchangeȱ (London:ȱTavistock,ȱ1972)ȱ36.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Wilden,ȱSystemȱandȱStructure,ȱ203.ȱ ȱ25ȱȱ ThomasȱPynchon,ȱGravity’sȱRainbowȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPenguin,ȱ1973)ȱ663;ȱsubsequentȱ pageȱreferencesȱareȱinȬtext.ȱ

289ȱ

ecology26:ȱȱ ȱ Theȱ Serpentȱ thatȱ announces,ȱ “Theȱ Worldȱ isȱ aȱ closedȱ thing,ȱ cyclical,ȱresonant,ȱeternallyȬreturning,”ȱisȱtoȱbeȱdeliveredȱintoȱaȱ systemȱ whoseȱ onlyȱ aimȱ isȱ toȱ violateȱ theȱ Cycle.ȱ Takingȱ andȱ notȱ givingȱ back,ȱ demandingȱ thatȱ “productivity”ȱ andȱ “earnings”ȱ keepȱonȱincreasingȱwithȱtime,ȱtheȱSystemȱisȱremovingȱfromȱtheȱ restȱofȱtheȱWorldȱtheseȱvastȱquantitiesȱofȱenergyȱtoȱkeepȱitsȱownȱ tinyȱ desperateȱ fractionȱ showingȱ aȱ profit:ȱ andȱ notȱ onlyȱ mostȱ ofȱ humanity—mostȱ ofȱ theȱ World,ȱ animal,ȱ vegetableȱ andȱ mineral,ȱ isȱ laidȱ wasteȱ inȱ theȱ process.ȱ Theȱ Systemȱ mayȱ orȱ mayȱ notȱ understandȱ thatȱ it’sȱ onlyȱ buyingȱ time.ȱ Andȱ thatȱ timeȱ isȱ anȱ artificialȱ resourceȱ toȱ beginȱ with,ȱ ofȱ noȱ valueȱ toȱ anyoneȱ orȱ anythingȱbutȱtheȱSystem,ȱwhichȱsoonerȱorȱlaterȱmustȱcrashȱtoȱitsȱ death,ȱwhenȱitsȱaddictionȱtoȱenergyȱhasȱbecomeȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱ restȱofȱtheȱWorldȱcanȱsupply,ȱdraggingȱwithȱitȱinnocentȱsoulsȱallȱ alongȱtheȱchainȱofȱlife.ȱ(412)ȱ

ȱ Theseȱ “closedȱ symbolics,ȱ predicatedȱ onȱ absolutes,”ȱ trapȱ individualsȱinȱtotalisingȱsystemsȱofȱdominationȱthatȱcontraveneȱ life’sȱ naturalȱ processes.27ȱ Withinȱ Pynchon’sȱ novel,ȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Systemȱ “findȱ itȱ convenientȱ toȱ preachȱ anȱ islandȱ ofȱ lifeȱ surroundedȱbyȱaȱvoid”ȱ(697).ȱ“Ourȱcompulsionȱtoȱconstructȱandȱ maintainȱ closed,ȱ isolatedȱ systems,”ȱ Robertȱ Nadeauȱ explains,ȱ “inducesȱaȱsenseȱofȱdislocationȱandȱfragmentationȱinȱrelationȱtoȱ theȱwhole.”28ȱȱȱ Likeȱ “aȱ maniacȱ bentȱ onȱ suicide”ȱ (412),ȱ weȱ areȱ “drivingȱ theȱ lifeȱ crystalȱ backȱ toȱ inertness.”29ȱ Mechanistȱ scientificȱ knowledge’sȱ referenceȱ toȱ technologicalȱ controlȱ andȱ scientificȱ rationalityȱ dredgesȱ upȱ theȱ residueȱ ofȱ dominationȱ andȱ codifiesȱ ourȱ perceptionȱ ofȱ anȱ absolute,ȱ indifferent,ȱ manageableȱ nature.ȱ InȱStepsȱtoȱanȱEcologyȱofȱMind,ȱGregoryȱBatesonȱperceivesȱsevenȱ destructiveȱideasȱatȱtheȱrootȱofȱourȱcurrentȱecologicalȱcrisis:ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ LeClair,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱExcess,ȱ41.ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ RobertȱNadeau,ȱReadingsȱfromȱtheȱNewȱBookȱonȱNature:ȱPhysicsȱandȱMetaphysicsȱinȱ TheȱModernȱNovelȱ(Amherst:ȱUniversityȱofȱMassachusettsȱPress,ȱ1981)ȱ139Ȭ40.ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ Nadeau,ȱReadingsȱfromȱtheȱNewȱBookȱonȱNature,ȱ140Ȭ1.ȱ ȱ29ȱȱ Powers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱ332.ȱ

290ȱ

1.ȱȱIt’sȱusȱagainstȱtheȱenvironment.ȱ 2.ȱȱIt’sȱusȱagainstȱotherȱmen.ȱ 3.ȱȱIt’sȱ theȱ individualȱ (orȱ theȱ individualȱ company,ȱ orȱ theȱ individualȱnation)ȱthatȱmatters.ȱ 4.ȱȱWeȱ canȱ haveȱ unilateralȱ controlȱ overȱ theȱ environmentȱ andȱ mustȱstriveȱforȱthatȱcontrol.ȱ 5.ȱȱWeȱliveȱwithinȱanȱinfinitelyȱexpandingȱ“frontier.”ȱ 6.ȱȱEconomicȱdeterminismȱisȱcommonȱsense.ȱ 7.ȱȱTechnologyȱwillȱdoȱitȱforȱus.30ȱȱ

ȱ Batesonȱrevealsȱtheȱessentialȱflawȱofȱthisȱantagonisticȱlogic:ȱ“Theȱ creatureȱ thatȱ winsȱ againstȱ itsȱ environmentȱ destroysȱ itself”31ȱ Whileȱ closedȱsystemsȱcanȱbeȱobservedȱandȱknownȱfromȱtheȱoutside,ȱaȱ viewȱ thatȱ isȱ incoherentȱ withȱ nature,ȱ openȱ systemsȱ cannotȱ beȱ separatedȱfromȱtheȱenvironmentsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱembedded.ȱ Ourȱalienationȱfrom,ȱandȱdisregardȱfor,ȱ“theȱliving,ȱinterlockedȱ world”ȱhaveȱdrawnȱusȱtoȱtheȱvergeȱofȱecologicalȱcrisis.32ȱȱ“Thereȱ isȱ noȱ escapingȱ theȱ ecologicalȱ matrix,”ȱ warnsȱ environmentalȱ historianȱ Donaldȱ Worster,ȱ becauseȱ noȱ transcendentalȱ positionȱ outsideȱtheȱsystemȱexists.33ȱȱȱ ȱTheȱ Earthȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ closedȱ system,ȱ ratherȱ itȱ isȱ “theȱ largestȱ observableȱ wholeȱ ofȱ whichȱ manȱ isȱ aȱ part;ȱ itsȱ processesȱ areȱ theȱ processesȱofȱitsȱconstituentȱparts;ȱitsȱreciprocalȱinformationȱandȱ governanceȱ systemsȱ areȱ replicatedȱ inȱ allȱ life.”34ȱ Openȱ systemsȱ allowȱusȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱreflexiveȱconceptionȱofȱmultipleȱrelationsȱ acrossȱ allȱ scales,ȱ anȱ interdependentȱ viewȱ inȱ whichȱ elements,ȱ subsystems,ȱ andȱ systemsȱ areȱ connectedȱ inȱ reciprocalȱ feedbackȱ loopsȱ whereȱ theȱ emergentȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ aȱ systemȱ mightȱ beȱ differentȱfromȱitsȱcomponentȱparts.ȱSuchȱsystemsȱareȱmoreȱlikeȱ dynamicȱ mosaicsȱ ofȱ livingȱ andȱ nonlivingȱ thingsȱ thanȱ theȱ accumulatedȱactivityȱofȱtheirȱindividualȱelements.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ GregoryȱBateson,ȱStepsȱtoȱanȱEcologyȱofȱMindȱ(NewȱYork:ȱBallantine,ȱ1972)ȱ492.ȱ ȱ31ȱȱ Bateson,ȱ Stepsȱ toȱ anȱ Ecologyȱ ofȱ Mind,ȱ 493.ȱ Wildenȱ reiteratesȱ thisȱ pointȱ whenȱ heȱ writes,ȱ “THEȱ SYSTEMȱ WHICHȱ DISPOSESȱ OFȱ ITSȱ ENVIRONMENTȱ DISPOSESȱ OFȱ ITSELF”ȱ (207).ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ Powers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱ411.ȱ ȱ33ȱȱ Worster,ȱNature’sȱEconomy,ȱ333.ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ LeClair,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱExcess,ȱ47.ȱ

291ȱ

Noȱ transcendentȱ positionȱ existsȱ outsideȱ ourȱ naturalȱ environment.ȱ Significantly,ȱ Pynchon’sȱ novelȱ opensȱ withȱ anȱ evacuationȱsceneȱthatȱdepictsȱ“notȱaȱdisentanglementȱfrom,ȱbutȱ aȱ progressiveȱ knottingȱ into”ȱ theȱ “coralȬlikeȱ andȱ mysteriouslyȱ vitalȱ growth”ȱ ofȱ increasingȱ complexityȱ (3).ȱ Althoughȱ individualsȱ mayȱ stepȱ freeȱ ofȱ History’sȱ linearȱ arc,ȱ theyȱ remainȱ foreverȱ connectedȱ inȱ multiple,ȱ shiftingȱ “websȱ ofȱ complication.”35ȱ Asȱ individualsȱ andȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ individualsȱ entangledȱ withinȱ ourȱ evolving,ȱ selfȬorganisingȱ universe,ȱ theseȱ novelistsȱdemonstrateȱhowȱitȱisȱinȱourȱselfȬinterestȱtoȱactȱwiselyȱ andȱecologically.ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ newȱ literaryȱ naturalism,ȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ complexȱ systemsȱ surrendersȱ mechanistȱ illusionsȱ ofȱ controlȱ andȱ manipulationȱasȱauthors,ȱcharacters,ȱandȱreadersȱdispenseȱwithȱ theȱ assumptionȱ thatȱ humansȱ areȱ separateȱ fromȱ otherȱ speciesȱ andȱtheȱnaturalȱworld.ȱInstead,ȱasȱPowers’sȱbioscientistȱtellsȱhisȱ student,ȱ scienceȱ “isȱ aboutȱ cultivatingȱ aȱ perpetualȱ conditionȱ ofȱ wonderȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ somethingȱ thatȱ foreverȱ growsȱ oneȱ stepȱ richerȱandȱsubtlerȱthanȱourȱlatestȱtheoryȱaboutȱit.”36ȱȱ Theȱ theoryȱ ofȱ selfȬorganisedȱ criticalityȱ explainsȱ howȱ largeȱ complexȱsystemsȱevolveȱtoȱaȱcriticalȱregimeȱbetweenȱorderȱandȱ chaosȱ whereȱ complexȱ behaviourȱ canȱ emerge.ȱ Scientistȱ Perȱ Bakȱ ofȱ Brookhavenȱ Nationalȱ Laboratoryȱ hasȱ conductedȱ aȱ famousȱ sandpileȱ experimentȱ toȱ demonstrateȱ howȱ globalȱ complexityȱ emergesȱfromȱtheȱdynamicsȱofȱindividual,ȱlocalȱinteractions.ȱInȱ Bak’sȱexperiment,ȱsandȱisȱpiledȱontoȱaȱflatȱplatformȱoneȱgrainȱatȱ aȱ timeȱ untilȱ itȱ beginsȱ toȱ formȱ aȱ slopingȱ pile.ȱ Small,ȱ localisedȱ avalanchesȱ occurȱ asȱ theȱ sandpileȱ becomesȱ steeper,ȱ butȱ theseȱ smallȱ eventsȱ onlyȱ haveȱ smallȱ effects.ȱ Theȱ sandpileȱ remainsȱ linearȱ andȱ noncritical.ȱ Theȱ sandpileȱ achievesȱ criticalityȱ whenȱ theȱ slopȱ cannotȱ increaseȱ andȱ theȱ amountȱ ofȱ sandȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ pileȱisȱbalancedȱbyȱtheȱamountȱfallingȱoffȱtheȱedgesȱofȱtheȱtable.ȱ Asȱtheȱsandpileȱmovesȱfromȱaȱregimeȱofȱlinearȱcauseȱandȱeffectȱ ȱ35ȱȱ SusanȱStrehle,ȱFictionȱinȱtheȱQuantumȱUniverseȱ(ChapelȱHill:ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱ CarolinaȱPress,ȱ1992)ȱ59.ȱ ȱ36ȱȱ Powers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱ411.ȱ

292ȱ

toȱaȱnonlinearȱstate,ȱaȱsingleȱgrainȱofȱsandȱcanȱtriggerȱcascadingȱ globalȱavalanches.ȱ Simpleȱ rulesȱ generateȱ unpredictable,ȱ richlyȱ complexȱ behaviour;ȱ inȱ Bak’sȱ sandpile,ȱ “Theȱ simpleȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ theȱ individualȱ elementsȱ followingȱ theirȱ ownȱ simpleȱ localȱ rulesȱ [conspires]ȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ unique,ȱ delicatelyȱ balanced,ȱ poised,ȱ globalȱ situationȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ motionȱ ofȱ anyȱ givenȱ elementȱ mightȱ affectȱ anyȱ otherȱ elementȱ inȱ theȱ system.”37ȱ Inȱ theȱ criticalȱ state,ȱcomplexityȱemergesȱasȱtheȱcoȬevolutionaryȱproductȱofȱtheȱ system,ȱ asȱ rulesȱ adaptȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ andȱ theirȱ constantlyȱ changingȱ environment.ȱ Aȱ globalȱ structureȱ emergesȱ fromȱ localȱ interactions,ȱandȱpositive,ȱnegentropicȱfeedbackȱfromȱtheȱlargerȱ systemȱ restructuresȱ theȱ localȱ sites.38ȱ Thisȱ interdependenceȱ betweenȱ otherȱ systemsȱ andȱ partsȱ ofȱ systemsȱ createsȱ recursiveȱ feedbackȱ loopsȱ thatȱ linkȱ individualȱ systemsȱ intoȱ largerȱ ecologicalȱnetworks,ȱincreasingȱtheȱstabilityȱandȱadaptabilityȱofȱ theȱ globalȱ environment.ȱ Bakȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ complexȱ dynamicsȱ ofȱ selfȬorganisedȱ criticalityȱ allowȱ systemsȱ toȱ reactȱ toȱ localȱ disturbancesȱ byȱ aȱ coȬevolutionaryȱ processȱ thatȱ keepsȱ theȱ globalȱ systemȱ poisedȱ inȱ theȱ criticalȱ regionȱ betweenȱ orderȱ andȱ chaosȱ whereȱ complexityȱ emerges.ȱ Asȱ theȱ coȬordinatedȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ theȱ systemȱ movesȱ towardȱ theȱ criticalȱ regime,ȱ theȱ systemȱ adapts.ȱ Tracesȱ ofȱ pastȱ iterationsȱ feedȱ backȱ intoȱ theȱ system,ȱallowingȱitȱtoȱ“learn”ȱfromȱexperience.ȱ Whetherȱ aȱ systemȱ reachesȱ criticalityȱ largelyȱ dependsȱ uponȱ howȱtheȱindividualȱelementsȱofȱtheȱnetworkȱareȱconnected.ȱTheȱ densityȱ ofȱ connectionsȱ withinȱ aȱ networkȱ andȱ betweenȱ connectedȱ networksȱ determinesȱ theȱ system’sȱ adaptability.ȱ Inȱ looselyȱ connectedȱ networks,ȱ theȱ systemȱ settlesȱ intoȱ stagnantȱ patterns,ȱ whileȱ inȱ denselyȱ connectedȱ networks,ȱ eachȱ elementȱ cyclesȱ amongȱ theȱ countlessȱ conflictingȱ messagesȱ itȱ receivesȱ fromȱ itsȱ neighbours,ȱ whichȱ sendsȱ theȱ systemȱ spinningȱ intoȱ

ȱ37ȱȱ Perȱ Bak,ȱ Howȱ Natureȱ Works:ȱ Theȱ Scienceȱ ofȱ SelfȬOrganisedȱ Criticalityȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Copernicus,ȱ1996)ȱ48.ȱ ȱ38ȱȱ RogerȱLewin,ȱComplexity:ȱLifeȱatȱtheȱEdgeȱofȱChaosȱ(NewȱYork:ȱCollier,ȱ1992)ȱ12Ȭ3.ȱ

293ȱ

chaoticȱ behaviour.39ȱ Maximumȱ adaptivityȱ occursȱ inȱ theȱ criticalȱ regime,ȱwhereȱsystemsȱwithȱaȱmoderateȱdegreeȱofȱconnectivityȱ areȱ“orderlyȱenoughȱtoȱensureȱstability,ȱyetȱfullȱofȱflexibilityȱandȱ surprise.”40ȱ Globalȱ communicationȱ acrossȱ theȱ networkȱ enablesȱ small,ȱ localȱ eventsȱ toȱ haveȱ disproportionatelyȱ largeȬscaleȱ effects.ȱ Reciprocalȱ relationshipsȱ createȱ dense,ȱ nonlinearȱ assemblages,ȱ whereȱ systemsȱ areȱ connectedȱ withȱ theirȱ environmentȱ andȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Systemsȱ participateȱ inȱ theȱ environmentsȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ embedded.ȱ Afterȱ yearsȱ ofȱ believingȱ thatȱ ourȱ planetȱ isȱ merelyȱ “aȱ bigȱ dumbȱ rock,”ȱ Pynchon’sȱ Lyleȱ Blandȱ recognisesȱ thatȱ theȱ “Earthȱ isȱ aȱ livingȱ critter”ȱ withȱ interdependentȱ atmospheric,ȱ climatic,ȱ chemical,ȱ physical,ȱandȱbiologicalȱsystemsȱ(590).ȱBiologicalȱsystems,ȱfromȱ molecularȱ levelsȱ throughȱ theȱ nervousȱ system,ȱ throughȱ theȱ individual,ȱ throughȱ species,ȱ andȱ throughȱ ecosystems,ȱ areȱ organisedȱhierarchically.41ȱDiverse,ȱcomplexȱbehaviourȱemergesȱ fromȱ robustȱ interactionȱ atȱ theȱ localȱ levelsȱ andȱ fromȱ intricatelyȱ linkedȱ loopsȱ thatȱ crossȱ systemicȱ levels.ȱ Inȱ Gravity’sȱ Rainbow,ȱ FranzȱPökler,ȱ“theȱcauseȱandȱeffectȱman,”ȱarguesȱwithȱhisȱwifeȱ Leniȱ aboutȱ howȱ toȱ explainȱ howȱ “changesȱ outȱ thereȱ produceȱ changesȱhere”ȱ(159).ȱLeniȱrebutsȱherȱhusband’sȱsimplisticȱview,ȱ ȱ39ȱȱ InȱGravity’sȱRainbow,ȱtheȱpolaritiesȱofȱorderȱandȱchaosȱmightȱbeȱrepresentedȱbyȱ theȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ zero,ȱ theȱ rigidȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ Systemȱ andȱ theȱ mindlessȱ anarchyȱofȱtheȱCounterforce,ȱorȱtheȱnovel’sȱ“rigid,ȱimposed,ȱserialȱconnections”ȱ andȱitsȱ“chaoticȱdisconnectedness”(Strehleȱ30).ȱFatherȱRapierȱsermonises,ȱ“Onceȱ theȱtechnologicalȱmeansȱofȱcontrolȱhaveȱreachedȱaȱcertainȱsize,ȱaȱcertainȱdegreeȱ ofȱbeingȱconnectedȱtoȱoneȱanother,ȱtheȱchancesȱforȱfreedomȱareȱoverȱforȱgood”ȱ (539).ȱStrehleȱnotesȱthatȱwhenȱSlothropȱtradesȱparanoidȱorderȱforȱantiȬparanoidȱ chaos,ȱ “Heȱ [Slothrop]ȱ bringsȱ Newtonianȱ assumptionsȱ toȱ hisȱ readingȱ ofȱ realityȱ untilȱhisȱexperienceȱforcesȱhimȱtoȱabandonȱthem;ȱthen,ȱunableȱtoȱimagineȱotherȱ alternatives,ȱ heȱ simplyȱ turnsȱ Newton’sȱ cosmosȱ onȱ itsȱ headȱ andȱ envisionsȱ itsȱ binaryȱopposite”ȱ(38).ȱInȱsimilarȱfashion,ȱpostmodernismȱhasȱshiedȱawayȱfromȱ theȱsearchȱforȱcomplexȱorder,ȱoftenȱfindingȱitȱeasierȱtoȱclaimȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱrealȱ orderȱandȱthatȱnothingȱmakesȱsense.ȱ ȱ40ȱȱ Stuartȱ Kauffman,ȱ Atȱ Homeȱ inȱ theȱ Universe:ȱ Theȱ Searchȱ forȱ theȱ Lawsȱ ofȱ SelfȬ OrganisationȱandȱComplexityȱ(NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995)ȱ87.ȱ ȱ41ȱȱ Frederickȱ Turner,ȱ Theȱ Cultureȱ ofȱ Hope:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Birthȱ ofȱ theȱ Classicalȱ Spiritȱ (Newȱ York:ȱFreeȱPress,ȱ1995)ȱ219.ȱ

294ȱ

whichȱ dependsȱ uponȱ theȱ System’sȱ totalisationȱ ofȱ theȱ mechanisticȱlogicȱofȱcausality.ȱ“Notȱproduceȱ…ȱnotȱcause,”ȱLeniȱ insists.ȱ“Itȱallȱgoesȱalongȱtogether.ȱParallel,ȱnotȱseries.ȱMetaphor.ȱ Signsȱ andȱ symptoms.ȱ Mappingȱ onȱ toȱ differentȱ coordinateȱ systems,ȱIȱdon’tȱknow”ȱ(159).ȱInȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱPowersȱ describesȱ theȱ interlockedȱ systemsȱ ofȱ “thoseȱ plasticȱ anatomicalȱ overlaysȱinȱbiologyȱbooks”:ȱ“Eachȱtransparentȱsheetȱcontainsȱitsȱ own,ȱ separateȱ hierarchies—circulatory,ȱ skeletal,ȱ nervous.ȱ Butȱ eachȱoverlay,ȱflippedȱonȱtheȱstack,ȱaddsȱitsȱsystem,ȱcompactsȱitsȱ partsȱ intoȱ aȱ surprising,ȱ indivisibleȱ composite.”42ȱ Theseȱ intermeshedȱ systemsȱ andȱ subsystemsȱ connectȱ inȱ vastȱ parallelȱ processingȱnetworks.43ȱȱ Distributedȱcontrolȱchallengesȱtheȱmechanisticȱviewȱofȱlinearȱ causalityȱwithȱaȱcomplexȱnetworkȱofȱmultiȬdirectionalȱcausalityȱ composedȱofȱmanyȱcompetingȱagents.ȱReciprocalȱperturbationsȱ canȱ drawȱ systemsȱ toȱ theȱ criticalȱ regimeȱ andȱ generateȱ newȱ complexity,ȱbutȱnoȱoneȱcanȱcontrolȱorȱpredictȱthisȱeffectȱdueȱtoȱ theȱ complexȱ interactionȱ ofȱ anȱ incrediblyȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ factors.ȱ Complexityȱ emergesȱ notȱ fromȱ discreteȱ individualȱ elementsȱ withinȱ aȱ system,ȱ butȱ fromȱ theȱ unfoldingȱ patternȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱbetweenȱthem.ȱ “Engagingȱ withȱ complexity,”ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Cilliers,ȱ “entailsȱ engagingȱ withȱ specificȱ complexȱ systems.”44ȱ Complexȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ demandȱ largeȱ investmentsȱ ofȱ timeȱ andȱ energy,ȱ butȱ theyȱ rewardȱ suchȱ dutifulȱ attention.ȱ Inȱ anȱ interviewȱ withȱ Tomȱ LeClair,ȱ Josephȱ McElroyȱ explainsȱ howȱ heȱ usesȱ theȱ wordȱ “attention”ȱinȱhisȱfictionȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱisȱparticularlyȱhelpfulȱforȱ understandingȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ attentionȱ theseȱ difficultȱ booksȱ requireȱandȱreward:ȱ ȱ “Attention”ȱisȱaȱratherȱcoldȱwordȱIȱuseȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱwaysȱ inȱwhichȱweȱembraceȱtheȱworldȱandȱembraceȱotherȱpeopleȱcanȱ

ȱ42ȱȱ Powers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱ208.ȱ ȱ43ȱȱ Tomȱ LeClair,ȱ “Theȱ Prodigiousȱ Fictionȱ ofȱ Richardȱ Powers,ȱ Williamȱ Vollmann,ȱ andȱDavidȱFosterȱWallace,”ȱCritiqueȱ38.1ȱ(Fallȱ1996):ȱ27.ȱ ȱ44ȱȱ Cilliers,ȱComplexityȱandȱPostmodernism,ȱix.ȱ

295ȱ

beȱ moreȱ preciseȱ andȱ clearȱ thanȱ weȱ sometimesȱ think.ȱ Weȱ canȱ expressȱ allegianceȱ withȱ otherȱ people,ȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ thisȱ isȱ love,ȱ byȱ thinkingȱ closelyȱ aboutȱ whatȱ theyȱ say.ȱ Lookȱ terriblyȱ closelyȱbutȱneutrally.ȱLoveȱisȱatȱoddsȱwithȱpossessing.45ȱȱ

ȱ McElroy’sȱ attention,ȱ whichȱ crossesȱ boundaries,ȱ circulatesȱ andȱ consumesȱ withoutȱ possessing,ȱ andȱ increasesȱ complexity,ȱ producesȱ narrativesȱ thatȱ navigateȱ “theȱ greatȱ multipleȱ fieldȱ ofȱ impingingȱ informations.”46ȱ Inȱ manyȱ ways,ȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ askȱ forȱ theȱ sameȱ attentionȱ thatȱ theirȱ authorsȱ lavishȱ uponȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ world.ȱ Theȱ reader,ȱ Wallaceȱ explains,ȱ mustȱ “putȱ inȱ herȱ shareȱ ofȱ theȱ linguisticȱ work,”ȱ “connectingȱ [interpolatedȱ systems,ȱ subsystems,ȱ andȱ diverseȱ elements]ȱ toȱ eachȱotherȱandȱtoȱtheȱnarrative.”47ȱȱȱ Yetȱunlikeȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱmassiveȱmodernistȱencyclopaediasȱ whoȱ bombardȱ usȱ withȱ theȱ certaintyȱ ofȱ theirȱ knowledge,ȱ theseȱ authorsȱactivelyȱenterȱtheȱtextsȱandȱtheȱsystemsȱunderȱstudyȱasȱ interpretersȱofȱourȱworld.ȱAccordingȱtoȱSusanȱStrehle,ȱ“makingȱ theȱauthorȱvisible,ȱpersonal,ȱandȱactiveȱinsideȱtheȱtextȱremovesȱ theȱ artist’sȱ mystifiedȱ authorityȱ overȱ it;ȱ singleȱ andȱ limited,ȱ evenȱ openlyȱ biased,ȱ theȱ authorȱ exposesȱ theȱ text’sȱ multipleȱ andȱ relativeȱsources,ȱratherȱthanȱwithdrawingȱtoȱtheȱunassailable— invisible,ȱdetached—absenceȱthatȱconfersȱabsoluteȱauthorityȱonȱ traditionalȱ authors.”48ȱ Theseȱ authorsȱ interfaceȱ andȱ collaborateȱ inȱaȱreciprocalȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱreader.ȱAsȱliving,ȱevolvingȱ systems,ȱ theirȱ immenseȱ andȱ challengingȱ booksȱ addressȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ anȱ immenseȱ andȱ challengingȱ world,ȱ andȱ theyȱ inviteȱ andȱ dependȱ uponȱ theȱ participationȱ ofȱ theȱ reader.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Thomasȱ Jacksonȱ Rice,ȱ “theȱ individualȱ reader’sȱ responseȱ altersȱ theȱ behaviourȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘system,’ȱ theȱ book,ȱ withȱ ȱ45ȱȱ Tomȱ LeClair,ȱ “Anȱ Interviewȱ withȱ Josephȱ McElroy,”ȱ Anythingȱ Canȱ Happen:ȱ Interviewsȱ withȱ Contemporaryȱ Americanȱ Novelists,ȱ ed.ȱ Tomȱ LeClairȱ andȱ Larryȱ McCafferyȱ(Urbana:ȱUniversityȱofȱIllinoisȱPress,ȱ1983)ȱ248.ȱ ȱ46ȱȱ JosephȱMcElroy,ȱLookoutȱCartridgeȱ(NewȱYork:ȱKnopf,ȱ1974)ȱ465.ȱ ȱ47ȱȱ Larryȱ McCaffery,ȱ “Anȱ Interviewȱ withȱ Davidȱ Fosterȱ Wallace,”ȱ Theȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ ContemporaryȱFictionȱ13.2ȱ(Summerȱ1993):ȱ137Ȭ8.ȱ ȱ48ȱȱ Strehle,ȱFictionȱinȱtheȱQuantumȱUniverse,ȱ221Ȭ2.ȱ

296ȱ

eachȱ ‘iteration,’ȱ orȱ reading.”49ȱ Furthermore,ȱ theseȱ iterationsȱ feedbackȱ increasingȱ complexityȱ intoȱ theȱ evolvingȱ narrativeȱ system.ȱȱ Ifȱ theȱ primaryȱ featureȱ ofȱ literaryȱ studiesȱ is,ȱ asȱ Williamȱ PaulsonȱarguesȱonȱTheȱNoiseȱofȱCulture:ȱLiteraryȱTextsȱinȱaȱWorldȱ ofȱInformation,ȱitsȱintrinsicȱinterdisciplinarityȱasȱaȱglobalȱsystemȱ whereȱ knowledgeȱ thrivesȱ throughȱ relationsȱ ofȱ ecologicalȱ interdependence,50ȱ thenȱ narrativeȱ ecologiesȱ whichȱ mineȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ examineȱ theȱ culturalȱ andȱ biologicalȱ networksȱ thatȱ entwineȱ usȱ withȱ ourȱ complexȱ environmentȱ offerȱ anȱ extremelyȱ powerfulȱ demonstrationȱ ofȱ theȱ efficacyȱ ofȱ literatureȱ inȱcontemporaryȱlife.ȱInȱthisȱcontext,ȱnarrativeȱmovementȱacrossȱ anȱ interdisciplinaryȱ ecologyȱ providesȱ anȱ aptȱ modelȱ forȱ theȱ complexȱ cognitiveȱ processesȱ ofȱ consciousness,ȱ adaptation,ȱ andȱ learning.ȱ Complexityȱ emergesȱ throughȱ narrativeȱ passages,ȱ asȱ readersȱ circulateȱ betweenȱ diverseȱ systemsȱ andȱ subsystems,ȱ continuallyȱ organisingȱ andȱ reorganisingȱ theȱ dynamicȱ informationalȱecologyȱofȱtheȱnarrativeȱmetasystem.ȱȱ AtȱtheȱendȱofȱGravity’sȱRainbow,ȱwithȱtheȱthreateningȱrocketȱ poisedȱoverȱtheȱcrowdedȱtheatre,ȱPynchonȱ(theȱauthor)ȱturnsȱtoȱ theȱ audienceȱ andȱ invitesȱ themȱ toȱ collaborateȱ inȱ reformulatingȱ theȱ world:ȱ “Nowȱ everybody—”ȱ (760).ȱ Thisȱ reminderȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱcollectivelyȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱnatural,ȱsocial,ȱandȱpoliticalȱ environmentsȱwithinȱwhichȱweȱliveȱpointsȱoutsideȱtheȱnovel.ȱInȱ ourȱtime,ȱweȱneedȱecologicalȱfictionsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱunderestimateȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ ourȱ environmentȱ orȱ ourȱ complicityȱ withȱ itȱ andȱthatȱtakeȱtheȱriskȱofȱmakingȱanȱhonestȱattemptȱtoȱrepresentȱ theȱ individual’sȱ placeȱ inȱ ourȱ “living,ȱ interlockedȱ world.”51ȱ Narrativeȱecologiesȱsucceedȱbecauseȱtheyȱchartȱtheȱconnectionsȱ ȱ49ȱȱ ThomasȱJacksonȱRice,ȱJoyce,ȱChaos,ȱandȱComplexityȱ(Urbana:ȱUniversityȱifȱIllinoisȱ Press,ȱ 1997)ȱ 103.ȱ Riceȱ continues:ȱ “Theȱ sameȱ andȱ manyȱ differentȱ additionalȱ readersȱperformȱsubsequentȱiterations/readings;ȱinȱallȱcasesȱtheȱproductsȱofȱtheȱ experienceȱ willȱ differ,ȱ oftenȱ subtly,ȱ butȱ sometimesȱ withȱ unpredictablyȱ vastȱ shiftsȱinȱtheȱresultsȱ(e.g.ȱtheȱmostȱrecentȱ‘newȱcriticalȱinsight’)”ȱ(103).ȱ ȱ50ȱȱ Williamȱ Paulson,ȱ Theȱ Noiseȱ ofȱ Culture:ȱ Literaryȱ Textsȱ inȱ aȱ Worldȱ ofȱ Informationȱ (Ithaca:ȱCornellȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1988)ȱ114.ȱ ȱ51ȱȱ Powers,ȱTheȱGoldȱBugȱVariations,ȱ411.ȱ

297ȱ

betweenȱ theȱ littleȱ andȱ theȱ big,ȱ theȱ partȱ andȱ theȱ whole,ȱ andȱ enableȱ usȱ toȱ betterȱ understandȱ ourȱ interdependentȱ relationsȱ withȱ theȱ naturalȱ worldȱ andȱ withȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theȱ ecologicalȱ survivalȱ valueȱ ofȱ theseȱ powerfulȱ textsȱ restsȱ uponȱ “theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ whereȱ weȱ are,”52ȱ whichȱ canȱ illuminateȱ “theȱ possibilitiesȱofȱbeingȱaliveȱandȱhuman.”53ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ52ȱȱ Neilson,ȱ“AnȱInterviewȱwithȱRichardȱPowers,”ȱ23.ȱ ȱ53ȱȱ McCaffery,ȱ“AnȱInterviewȱwithȱDavidȱFosterȱWallace,”ȱ131.ȱ

298ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

MichaelȱS.ȱBegnalȱ ȱ

TheȱAncientsȱHaveȱReturnedȱAmongȱ Us:ȱPolaroidsȱofȱ21stȱC.ȱIrishȱPoetryȱ ȱ ȱ Carelessȱandȱancient,ȱlikeȱaȱmyth,ȱ youȱstepȱintoȱview,ȱspittingȱshadowsȱfromȱyourȱmouth.ȱ —AlanȱJudeȱMoore,ȱ“GalwayȱRoadȱ(intoȱDublin)”ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱ Itȱ wouldȱ probablyȱ notȱ beȱ tooȱ muchȱ ofȱ aȱ riskȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ observationȱthat,ȱveryȱgenerallyȱspeaking,ȱIrishȱpoetryȱhasȱbeenȱ dominatedȱ byȱ aȱ conservativeȱ tendencyȱ whichȱ oftenȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ theȱ upperȱ handȱ inȱ theȱ contemporaryȱ scene.ȱ Givenȱ thatȱ Ireland’sȱ literaryȱ traditionȱ stretchesȱ backȱ approximatelyȱ aȱ millenniumȱ andȱ aȱ half,ȱ thisȱ canȱ reallyȱ beȱ noȱ surprise.ȱ Ofȱ theȱ poetsȱ ofȱ theȱ Gaelicȱ Order,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Joepȱ Leerssenȱ hasȱ written,ȱ ȱ Theirȱ socialȱ positionȱ wasȱ oneȱ ofȱ greatȱ importanceȱ andȱ canȱ perhapsȱbestȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱaȱcombinationȱbetweenȱaȱcensorȱinȱ theȱ Romanȱ republic,ȱ aȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Académieȱ française,ȱ aȱ ministerȱofȱculture,ȱandȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱmodernȱmedia.ȱ Hisȱprofessionalȱqualificationsȱincludedȱ(apartȱfromȱhisȱdescentȱ fromȱ aȱ familyȱ ofȱ establishedȱ bardicȱ renown)ȱ aȱ commandȱ overȱ theȱhighlyȱcomplexȱrulesȱofȱGaelicȱprosodyȱandȱaȱvastȱstoreȱofȱ historical,ȱ genealogicalȱ andȱ mythologicalȱ knowledge.ȱ Allȱ thisȱ knowledgeȱ wasȱ transmittedȱ orallyȱ andȱ partȱ ofȱ itȱ canȱ beȱ tracedȱ backȱintoȱtheȱpreȬChristianȱera;ȱtheȱpoetȱisȱoriginallyȱaȱseerȱwho,ȱ untilȱtheȱarrivalȱofȱChristianity,ȱhadȱbeenȱvestedȱwithȱpontificalȱ 299ȱ

powersȱ…ȱTheȱpoetȱdidȱnotȱaimȱatȱprovidingȱentertainment,ȱbutȱ ratherȱatȱapplyingȱhisȱloreȱandȱhisȱcraftsmanshipȱwithȱlanguageȱ toȱaȱcelebrationȱofȱtheȱeventsȱofȱhisȱday,ȱtherebyȱestablishingȱaȱ linkȱ betweenȱ pastȱ andȱ present.ȱ Theȱ poetȱ wasȱ theȱ culturalȱ guardianȱofȱtheȱGaelicȱheritage,ȱwhoseȱtaskȱitȱwasȱtoȱguaranteeȱ historicalȱ continuity,ȱ toȱ legitimiseȱ theȱ presentȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ pastȱ history.1ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ greatȱ andȱ interestingȱ thingȱ andȱ showsȱ perhapsȱ thatȱ Irelandȱ hasȱ aȱ traditionalȱ respectȱ forȱ poetryȱ notȱ oftenȱ foundȱ elsewhere,ȱ andȱ whichȱ survivedȱ theȱ ruptureȱ ofȱ languageȱ fromȱ IrishȱintoȱEnglishȱ(theȱFamineȱhavingȱalmostȱdeliveredȱaȱcoupȱdeȱ grâce).ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ impliesȱ aȱ longȬstandingȱ culturalȱ insularityȱ attachingȱtoȱIrishȱpoetry,ȱwhichȱonceȱagainȱbecameȱpronouncedȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 20thȱ centuryȱ afterȱ Southernȱ independenceȱ fromȱ Britain.ȱ ȱNobelȱ Prizeȱ winnerȱ Seamusȱ Heaneyȱ perhapsȱ bestȱ exemplifiesȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ modernȬdayȱ bardicȱ poet.ȱ Certainlyȱ heȱisȱaȱgreatȱpoet—ofȱthisȱthereȱcouldȱhardlyȱbeȱanyȱdispute— andȱ hisȱ influenceȱ isȱ ofȱ courseȱ veryȱ wide.ȱ But,ȱ asȱ Davidȱ Butlerȱ wroteȱofȱhimȱinȱtheȱliteraryȱmagazineȱTheȱBurningȱBush,2ȱ“Inȱfarȱ tooȱmanyȱworkshopsȱoneȱgetsȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱtheȱlaureateȱ isȱ beingȱ invokedȱ byȱ oneȱ orȱ anotherȱ participantȱ likeȱ aȱ benignȱ Buddhaȱinȱwhoseȱhonourȱhe/sheȱhasȱpennedȱaȱbiographicalȱmotȱ justeȱ poemȱ cowȬheavyȱ withȱ metaphor.ȱ Howȱ differentȱ thingsȱ wouldȱbeȱif,ȱsay,ȱtheȱproteanȱCiaranȱCarsonȱwereȱinsteadȱtoȱbeȱ madeȱ Chiefȱ Householdȱ Deity.”3ȱ Atȱ theȱ turnȱ ofȱ theȱ century,ȱ whenȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bushȱ cameȱ intoȱ existence,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ senseȱ thatȱaȱcertainȱstyleȱofȱwriting,ȱandȱaȱcertainȱgravityȱitȱprojected,ȱ receivedȱalmostȱ theȱ imprimaturȱ ofȱ officialdom.ȱ Thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ

ȱ 1ȱȱ JoepȱLeerssen,ȱMereȱIrishȱandȱFíorȬGhael:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱIdeaȱofȱIrishȱNationality,ȱitsȱ Developmentȱ andȱ Literaryȱ Expressionȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ Nineteenthȱ Centuryȱ (Cork:ȱ Corkȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ153.ȱ ȱ 2ȱȱ TheȱBurningȱBush,ȱwhichȱranȱfromȱ1999Ȭ2004,ȱwasȱeditedȱbyȱmyselfȱforȱallȱelevenȱ ofȱitsȱissuesȱ(coȬeditedȱwithȱtheȱpoet/criticȱKevinȱHigginsȱforȱtheȱfirstȱfour).ȱ ȱ 3ȱȱ Davidȱ Butler,ȱ “Remembranceȱ ofȱ Thingsȱ Pastoral,”ȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bushȱ 9ȱ (Springȱ 2003):ȱ14.ȱ

300ȱ

anȱidentifiableȱ“mainstream.”ȱIȱrealiseȱthisȱmayȱbeȱunfairȱtoȱMr.ȱ Heaney,ȱ whoȱ hasȱ doneȱ absolutelyȱ nothingȱ wrong,ȱ butȱ callȱ itȱ aȱ Heaneyan,ȱ orȱ ratherȱ aȱ subȬHeaneyan,ȱ style.ȱ Asideȱ fromȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ seriousness,ȱ itȱ isȱ markedȱ byȱ aȱ strongȱ ruralȱ focus,ȱ lyricȱ form,ȱ aȱ concernȱ withȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ Irishnessȱ (thoughȱ admittedlyȱ thisȱ concernȱ canȱ applyȱ toȱ anyone),ȱ and,ȱ perhaps,ȱ membershipȱ ofȱ Aosdána.4ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ overȱ theȱ lastȱ fewȱ decadesȱ Irishȱ societyȱ hasȱ undergoneȱ aȱ radicalȱ transformationȱ fromȱ anȱ agrarianȱ economyȱ toȱ oneȱ nowȱ heavilyȱ basedȱ onȱ informationȱ technologyȱ (withȱ anȱ accompanyingȱ shiftȱ inȱ theȱ populationȱ towardȱ urbanȱ centres),ȱ poetryȱ forȱ someȱ wasȱ justȱnotȱpoetryȱifȱitȱwasn’tȱpastoral.ȱ ȱInȱaȱreviewȱofȱMoyaȱCannon’sȱrepublishedȱcollectionȱOar,ȱinȱ 2001,ȱ Alanȱ Judeȱ Mooreȱ delineatedȱ theȱ stateȱ ofȱ playȱ quiteȱ succinctly:ȱ ȱ TheȱlandscapeȱisȱthatȱofȱfamiliarȱruralȱIreland,ȱofȱstereotypicallyȱ putȬuponȱ ancestors,ȱ and,ȱ crucially,ȱ decay.ȱ Thingsȱ thatȱ areȱlongȱ sinceȱ decayedȱ formȱ theȱ bog,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ spiritualȱ dwellingȱ ofȱ thisȱ collection.ȱ Noȱ criticismȱ canȱ beȱ levelledȱ atȱ aȱ poetȱ justȱ becauseȱ theyȱ chooseȱ toȱ examineȱ thisȱ wellȬtroddenȱ groundȱ (it’sȱ asȱ boringlyȱ subjectiveȱ whenȱ anȱ “urban”ȱ writerȱ insistsȱ thatȱ aȱ “rural”ȱwriterȱhasȱnoȱsolidȱclaimȱtoȱpoetryȱasȱitȱisȱviceȱversa)ȱ…ȱ Theȱpoetry,ȱthough,ȱcanȱbeȱtooȱcomfortable.ȱThereȱisȱdecayȱbutȱ noȱ newȱ decay.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ poetryȱ asȱ socialȱ history,ȱ notȱ asȱ livingȱ commentary.ȱNotȱasȱaȱreminderȱofȱhowȱthingsȱareȱandȱcouldȱbe,ȱ butȱhowȱthingsȱwereȱ…ȱItȱisȱnoȱfaultȱofȱtheȱpoet,ȱbutȱtheȱreissueȱ ofȱsuchȱaȱcollectionȱsendsȱaȱclearȱmessageȱasȱtoȱwhereȱpoetryȱasȱ partȱofȱIrishȱcultureȱlies.ȱHistoryȱdidȱnotȱbeginȱandȱendȱwithȱtheȱ bog;ȱtheȱbogȱisȱnotȱtheȱlandscapeȱofȱimportanceȱinȱIrelandȱatȱtheȱ moment.ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ whereȱ greatȱ seaȬchangesȱ areȱ takingȱ place,ȱ whereȱculturesȱareȱbeingȱreinvented.5ȱ

ȱ ȱ 4ȱȱ Aosdánaȱ isȱ theȱ Irishȱ governmentȬfundedȱ academyȱ ofȱ artists,ȱ anȱ “establishment,”ȱ oneȱ mightȱ say—althoughȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ suggestȱ thereȱ isȱ completeȱhomogeneityȱamongȱitsȱmembersȱinȱregardȱtoȱethosȱorȱstyle.ȱ ȱ 5ȱȱ Alanȱ Judeȱ Moore,ȱ “Reviewȱ ofȱ Moyaȱ Cannon’sȱ Oarȱ (Theȱ Galleryȱ Press),”ȱ Theȱ BurningȱBushȱ5ȱ(Springȱ2001):ȱ63Ȭ64.ȱ

301ȱ

Againstȱ this,ȱ Mooreȱ doesȱ situateȱ hisȱ ownȱ poetryȱ inȱ anȱ urbanȱ environment,ȱwhereȱtheȱdecayȱisȱtheȱdecayȱofȱbirdȱfeathersȱinȱaȱ drainȱatȱConnollyȱStation,ȱandȱ“pigeonsȱdrinkingȱ/ȱfromȱaȱpoolȱ ofȱsteamȱandȱoil.”6ȱNotȱunlikeȱtheȱstanceȱofȱApollinaireȱalmostȱaȱ hundredȱ yearsȱ ago,ȱ Mooreȱ consciouslyȱ incorporatesȱ theȱ disjointedȱimagesȱandȱmediaȱofȱtheȱmodernȱcity,ȱbothȱtheȱIrishȱ andȱ theȱ Europeanȱ (aȱ Dubliner,ȱ heȱ currentlyȱ livesȱ inȱ Moscow).ȱ Theȱ thingȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ parrotȱ theȱ historicalȱ avantȬgarde,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ Apollinaireȱ wasȱ oneȱ progenitor,ȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ thereforeȱ asȱ retrogradeȱasȱMoyaȱCannonȱisȱinȱherȱownȱway,ȱbutȱtoȱmediateȱaȱ constantlyȱ evolvingȱ presentȱ inȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ oldȱ poeticȱ certainties.ȱ Moore’sȱ writingȱ isȱ composedȱ ofȱ images,ȱ likeȱ Polaroids,ȱ tawdryȱ andȱ profoundȱ atȱ once,ȱ unexpectedlyȱ tackedȱ nextȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ onȱ anȱ apartmentȱ wall.ȱ Thusȱ historyȱ forȱ Mooreȱisȱnotȱaboutȱanyȱreconnectionȱwithȱperceivedȱfolkways,ȱ butȱratherȱtheȱdisconnectionȱofȱ“[t]heȱsunȱbleedingȱlikeȱaȱbulletȱ holeȱ/ȱthroughȱtheȱwindowsȱandȱtheȱbars,ȱ/ȱoverȱgraveyardsȱandȱ processions.”7ȱ ȱToȱ sayȱ itȱ again,ȱ Irelandȱ isȱ aȱ societyȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ undergoingȱ aȱ radicalȱ socialȱ andȱ economicȱ transition,ȱ andȱ thereforeȱ itȱ becomesȱ necessaryȱ forȱ Irishȱ poetsȱ toȱ seekȱ newȱ forms,ȱ asȱ othersȱ haveȱ doneȱ forȱ theirȱ ownȱ timesȱ andȱ places.ȱ Itȱ strikesȱmeȱasȱalmostȱbizarreȱthatȱinȱtheȱcountryȱwhichȱproducedȱ Jamesȱ Joyce,ȱ Thomasȱ MacGreevyȱ andȱ Samuelȱ Beckett,ȱ Alanȱ Moore’sȱcollectionȱBlackȱStateȱCarsȱshouldȱbeȱgreetedȱwithȱnearȬ bewildermentȱ inȱ theȱ newspaperȱ ofȱ record,ȱ Theȱ Irishȱ Times.ȱ Deliveringȱ somethingȱ ofȱ aȱ backhandedȱ compliment,ȱ Jamesȱ J.ȱ McAuley’sȱ reviewȱ thereȱ statedȱ thatȱ Mooreȱ “isȱ aȱ thirtyȬ somethingȱ tyroȱ whoseȱ talentȱ burnsȱ asȱ brightlyȱ asȱ thatȱ ofȱ Rimbaudȱ orȱ Hartȱ Crane.ȱ Mooreȱ mightȱ beȱ flatteredȱ byȱ suchȱ comparison,ȱ butȱ forȱ allȱ butȱ aȱ fewȱ poemsȱ theȱ strangeȱ hallucinatoryȱ juxtaposingȱ ofȱ imagesȱ andȱ phrasesȱ isȱ tooȱ fragmentaryȱ orȱ inconclusiveȱ toȱ effectȱ littleȱ moreȱ thanȱ

ȱ 6ȱȱ Moore,ȱ“Connolly,”ȱBlackȱStateȱCarsȱ(CliffsȱofȱMoher:ȱSalmonȱPoetry,ȱ2004),ȱ29.ȱȱ ȱ 7ȱȱ “TheȱPrisonerȱSpeaksȱofȱaȱWoman,”ȱBlackȱStateȱCars,ȱ19.ȱ

302ȱ

astonishment.”8ȱ Whileȱ McAuleyȱ recognisesȱ thatȱ Mooreȱ “couldȱ beȱ aȱ trulyȱ originalȱ poet,”ȱ heȱ hasȱ troubleȱ withȱ hisȱ “irritatingȱ dissociationsȱandȱdistortions”ȱandȱ“cavalierȱwaysȱofȱabusingȱ(orȱ notȱ using)ȱ theȱ courtesiesȱ ofȱ punctuationȱ andȱ otherȱ helpfulȱ directions”9—itȱ isȱ almostȱ asȱ ifȱ literaryȱ modernismȱ neverȱ happened.ȱWhileȱMcAuleyȱisȱundoubtedlyȱbetterȱequippedȱasȱaȱ readerȱthanȱheȱletsȱonȱhere,ȱthereȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱcertainȱlazinessȱ amongȱreadersȱofȱIrishȱpoetryȱgenerallyȱifȱtheyȱareȱstillȱunableȱ toȱ processȱ theseȱ basicȱ modernistȱ innovations.ȱ Andȱ soȱ toȱ stepȱ outsideȱ theȱ familiarȱ lineȱ ofȱ Irishȱ poeticȱ nationalism—whichȱ stretchesȱ fromȱ Yeatsȱ throughȱ Kavanaghȱ toȱ Heaneyȱ (thoughȱ Iȱ realiseȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ simplification)—canȱ stillȱ beȱ dangerousȱ forȱ anȱ Irishȱwriter.ȱ ȱConversely,ȱ inȱ aȱ reviewȱ ofȱ Blackȱ Stateȱ Carsȱ inȱ theȱ Dublinȱ journalȱ Theȱ Stingingȱ Fly,ȱ Michaelȱ Wynneȱ ravesȱ aboutȱ Moore’sȱ writing—hisȱ “buildingȱ upȱ [of]ȱ aȱ complexȱ interchangeȱ ofȱ intimateȱ moodsȱ withȱ anȱ inventoryȱ ofȱ expressionisticȱ detail”— butȱgetsȱitȱtotallyȱwrongȱwhenȱheȱsaysȱthatȱMooreȱ“wrylyȱandȱ ruefullyȱ imaginesȱ theȱ innocenceȱ ofȱ aȱ previousȱ age”ȱ andȱ “point[s]ȱupȱtheȱpaucityȱofȱourȱcurrentȱconditionȱofȱ‘progress,’ȱ withȱ allȱ theȱ efficient,ȱ denaturedȱ blandnessȱ thatȱ typifiesȱ it,ȱ aȱ conditionȱ underneathȱ whichȱ theȱ presencesȱ ofȱ traditionȱ andȱ natureȱ insistentlyȱ andȱ indignantlyȱ pulsate….”10ȱ Thisȱ seemsȱ toȱ meȱ aȱ completeȱ misreadingȱ ofȱ howȱ Mooreȱ dealsȱ withȱ history,ȱ andȱ hisȱ ambivalentȱ (atȱ best)ȱ attitudeȱ toȱ traditionȱ andȱ theȱ past.ȱ WhileȱMooreȱstandsȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱconsumeristȱmachineȱthatȱisȱ contemporaryȱ Ireland,ȱ heȱ isȱ mostȱ definitelyȱ facingȱ forwardȱ insteadȱ ofȱ backward.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ “Headingȱ intoȱ Darknessȱ outsideȱ Athlone”ȱ couldȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ functionȱ inȱ verseȱ asȱ hisȱ reviewȱofȱMoyaȱCannonȱdoesȱinȱprose:ȱ ȱ …ȱbattlefields,ȱexternalisedȱhistoricalȱcentres.ȱ

ȱ 8ȱȱ JamesȱJ.ȱMcAuley,ȱ“Foundȱinȱtranslation,”ȱTheȱIrishȱTimes,ȱ12ȱFebruaryȱ2005.ȱ ȱ 9ȱȱ McAuley,ȱ“Foundȱinȱtranslation.”ȱ ȱ10ȱȱ MichaelȱWynne,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱBlackȱStateȱCarsȱbyȱAlanȱJudeȱMoore,”ȱTheȱStingingȱ Fly,ȱVolumeȱ2,ȱIssueȱ1ȱ(Summerȱ2005):ȱ89.ȱ

303ȱ

Tinyȱpitiesȱofȱtheȱaristocracyȱstillȱrollȱdownȱhillsȱ toȱmingleȱwithȱtheȱsmellȱ ofȱbogwoodȱandȱtreacherousȱbog.ȱ InȱroomsȱwhereȱnoȬoneȱlaughsȱ (orȱhasȱevenȱcomeȱcloseȱtoȱaȱtearȱforȱsomeȱtime),ȱ sentimentȱisȱwrappedȱinȱaȱpaperȱbagȱ…11ȱ

ȱ ȱTheȱ IrishȬlanguageȱ poetȱ Gearóidȱ Macȱ Lochlainn,ȱ whileȱ retainingȱ anȱ overtȱ politicalȱ nationalismȱ (orȱ moreȱ specifically,ȱ Irishȱrepublicanism),ȱsubvertsȱtraditionȱinȱhisȱownȱway.ȱWhereȱ muchȱ contemporaryȱ Gaelicȱ poetryȱ understandablyȱ dwellsȱ alongȱ theȱ stark,ȱ rocky,ȱ Westernȱ seacoastsȱ (notableȱ exceptionsȱ comeȱ toȱ mind,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Louisȱ deȱ Paor),ȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ isȱ anȱ IrishȬspeakerȱ fromȱ Belfast—Ireland’sȱ secondȬ largestȱ city,ȱ locatedȱ inȱ theȱ industrialȱ northeast,ȱ aȱ regionȱ ofȱ theȱ countryȱstillȱoccupiedȱbyȱtheȱBritishȱarmy.ȱPartlyȱinȱreactionȱtoȱ theȱ ongoingȱ Britishȱ dominationȱ ofȱ theȱ North,ȱ Belfastȱ hasȱ developedȱ aȱ strongȱ presentȬdayȱ IrishȬlanguageȱ movementȱ amongȱ segmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ population,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ hasȱ becomeȱ selfȬ sustaining.ȱ Raisedȱ inȱ aȱ bilingualȱ environmentȱ duringȱ theȱ Troubles,ȱ itȱ isȱ unavoidableȱ thatȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ wouldȱ beȱ confrontedȱ headȱ onȱ withȱ questionsȱ ofȱ culturalȱ andȱ linguisticȱ identity:ȱ ȱ –ȱKeepȱyerȱfuckingȱ‘andsȱonȱtheȱwall,ȱPaddy.ȱ ȱ Chualaȱméȱmoȱdetailsȱ agȱdulȱtharȱanȱraidióȱ chuigȱstrainséirȱeileȱagȱanȱbase,ȱ m’ainmȱdoȬaitheantaȱ smiotaȱagȱcnagarnachȱstaticȱBhéarla.12ȱ ȱ –ȱKeepȱyerȱfuckingȱ‘andsȱonȱtheȱwall,ȱPaddy!ȱ ȱ Iȱheardȱmyȱdetailsȱpassedȱoverȱtheȱradioȱ ȱ11ȱȱ Moore,ȱBlackȱStateȱCars,ȱ12.ȱ ȱ12ȱȱ Gearóidȱ Macȱ Lochlainn,ȱ “Teachtȱ iȱ Méadaíocht/Riteȱ ofȱ Passage,”ȱ Sruthȱ Teangacha/StreamȱofȱTonguesȱ(Indreabhán:ȱClóȱIarȬChonnachta,ȱ2002)ȱ42Ȭ43.ȱ

304ȱ

toȱanotherȱstrangerȱatȱbase,ȱ myȱIrishȱnameȱnowȱunrecognisable,ȱ carvedȱupȱbyȱtheȱcracklingȱbladesȱofȱEnglishȱandȱstatic.ȱ

ȱ Yetȱ neitherȱ wouldȱ itȱ simplyȱ beȱ enoughȱ toȱ chooseȱ gritty,ȱ urbanȱ subjectȱ matter,ȱ norȱ evenȱ toȱ writeȱ aboutȱ theȱ Irishȱ warȱ fromȱ aȱ radicalȱ republicanȱ pointȱ ofȱ view.ȱ Itȱ isȱinȱ theȱ interplayȱ betweenȱ theȱ differentȱ versionsȱ ofȱ Macȱ Lochlainn,ȱ theȱ originalȱ Irishȱ poemsȱ andȱ theirȱ Englishȱ translations,ȱ thatȱ heȱ becomesȱ especiallyȱinteresting.ȱAsȱheȱwritesȱinȱtheȱnotesȱtoȱhisȱbilingualȱ collectionȱ Sruthȱ Teangacha/Streamȱ ofȱ Tonguesȱ (2002),ȱ “Inȱ theȱ originalȱ poemsȱ soundȱ shapedȱ syntaxȱ toȱ aȱ largeȱ extentȱ andȱ forȱ thisȱ reasonȱ Iȱ believeȱ itȱ isȱ impossibleȱ toȱ reallyȱ ‘translate’ȱ Irishȱ poetry.”13ȱ Languagesȱ areȱ notȱ merelyȱ hoardsȱ ofȱ wordsȱ withȱ directȱ correlationȱ toȱ eachȱ other,ȱ asȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ speaksȱ moreȱ thanȱ oneȱ languageȱ canȱ tellȱ you.ȱ Instead,ȱ eachȱ individuatesȱ aȱ worldȬviewȱinherentȱ inȱ itsȱ grammarȱ andȱ idiom;ȱ eachȱ definesȱ aȱ uniqueȱ modeȱ ofȱ consciousness.ȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ (withȱ hisȱ numerousȱ coȬtranslators)ȱ oftenȱ departsȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱ originalȱ versions,ȱsometimesȱsignificantly—”aȱplayfulȱjibeȱthrownȱoutȱatȱ theȱ monoglotȱ whoȱ seeksȱ truthȱ inȱ translation.”14ȱ Thusȱ Sruthȱ Teangachaȱ becomesȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ metaȬwork,ȱ composedȱ notȱ justȱ ofȱ Irishȱ poemsȱ andȱ Englishȱ translations,ȱ butȱ ofȱ theȱ interactionȱ betweenȱtheȱtwo.ȱ ȱTheȱ resultȱ ofȱ this,ȱ though,ȱ isȱ thatȱ neitherȱ theȱ originalsȱ norȱ theȱ translationsȱ canȱ anyȱ longerȱ beȱ consideredȱ authoritativeȱ inȱ theirȱownȱright.ȱWhileȱeachȱcommentsȱonȱitsȱcounterpart,ȱitȱalsoȱ underminesȱ anyȱ claimȱ thatȱ theȱ otherȱ mightȱ haveȱ toȱ beingȱ theȱ “real”ȱ poem.ȱ Certainlyȱ thisȱ isȱ whatȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ intendsȱ inȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ translations;ȱ heȱ isȱ cognisantȱ ofȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ allowingȱ theȱ Englishȱ versionsȱ toȱ “gainȱ anȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ andȱ eclipseȱ theȱ Irish.”15ȱ Whatȱ isȱ moreȱ problematicȱ isȱ theȱ effectȱ onȱ theȱ originalȱ poems:ȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ aȱ parallelȱ versionȱ

ȱ13ȱȱ MacȱLochlainn,ȱ“Author’sȱNotes,”ȱSruthȱTeangacha,ȱ188.ȱ ȱ14ȱȱ Lochlainn,ȱ“Author’sȱNotes,”ȱ190.ȱ ȱ15ȱȱ Lochlainn,ȱ“Author’sȱNotes.”ȱ

305ȱ

existsȱ destabilisesȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ originalȱ justȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ viceȱ versa.ȱ Thereȱ canȱ beȱ noȱ wilfulȱ ignorance.ȱ However,ȱ givenȱ thatȱ onlyȱ aȱ smallȱ percentageȱ ofȱ peopleȱ willȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ understandȱ theȱ Irish,ȱ theȱ troublingȱ contradictionsȱ inherentȱ inȱ MacȱLochlainn’sȱprojectȱcouldȱbeȱlostȱonȱmost.ȱIȱsuspectȱthatȱaȱ lotȱ ofȱ hisȱ readersȱ doȱ notȱ fullyȱ graspȱ theȱ deeperȱ implicationsȱ beingȱ madeȱ aboutȱ language,ȱ bothȱ asȱ aȱ culturalȱ manifestationȱ andȱ asȱ anȱ entityȱ untoȱ itself,ȱ andȱ insteadȱ takeȱ himȱ asȱ anȱ energetic,ȱBeatȬinfluencedȱIrishȱrebel.ȱIfȱso,ȱtheyȱareȱonlyȱgettingȱ partȱtheȱstory.ȱ ȱMacȱ Lochlainnȱ andȱ Mooreȱ areȱ butȱ twoȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ disparateȱ voicesȱ thatȱ beganȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ prominenceȱ asȱ theȱ 21stȱ centuryȱ dawned.ȱ Bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ poetsȱ consciouslyȱ workȱ inȱ oppositionȱtoȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱestablishedȱtradition,ȱalbeitȱinȱmuchȱ differentȱ waysȱ fromȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Bothȱ haveȱ reactedȱ toȱ theȱ pastoralȱtrendȱinȱIrishȱpoetryȱwhich,ȱwhileȱnotȱatȱallȱirrelevantȱ inȱ itself,ȱ hasȱ inȱ someȱ respectsȱ becomeȱ aȱ staticȱ conventionȱ asȱ societyȱcontinuesȱtoȱevolveȱinȱotherȱdirections.ȱAsȱaȱcorollaryȱtoȱ thisȱ newȱ socialȱ context,ȱ bothȱ writersȱ haveȱ reachedȱ forȱ newȱ poeticȱ forms,ȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ makingȱ theȱ leapȱ intoȱ macaronicȱ languageȱ andȱ theȱ interplayȱ ofȱ versionsȱ ofȱ text,ȱ Mooreȱ oftenȱ subjectingȱ hisȱ Englishȱ toȱ lucidȱ derangementsȱ recallingȱ earlierȱ avantȬgardeȱ models.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ others,ȱ though,ȱ whoȱ mightȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ vergeȱ evenȱ furtherȱ inȱ theȱ directionȱ ofȱ linguisticȱ exploration.ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ inȱaȱwayȱhummingȱthruȱcrystalsȱofȱlight—mostȱunexpected—ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ theȱancientsȱsizzleȱandȱdazzleȱ ȱȱȱȱnotȱasȱweȱimaginedȱnorȱcanȱputȱourȱmachinesȱtoȱnorȱ ȱȱȱȱmakeȱcomprehensibleȱbyȱwordsȱorȱsongsȱorȱmetaphorsȱ ȱȱȱȱTheȱancientsȱhaveȱtrulyȱreturnedȱtoȱusȱ ȱ ȱandȱhaveȱunfurledȱflagsȱofȱsuddenȱCloudȱRingsȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱfromȱriversȱcrossingȱtheȱmostȱordinaryȱstreetsȱ…ȱ —PhilipȱLamantia,ȱ“TheȱAncientsȱHaveȱReturnedȱAmongȱUs”ȱ

ȱ 306ȱ

InȱtheȱfirstȱissueȱofȱTheȱBurningȱBushȱIȱnaïvelyȱasked,ȱ“Whereȱisȱ theȱ experimentalism?ȱ Isȱ thereȱ anȱ Irishȱ underground?”16ȱ Itȱ turnedȱ outȱ thatȱ thereȱ was,ȱ butȱ atȱ thatȱ pointȱ itȱ simplyȱ hadȱ notȱ beenȱ visibleȱ (actuallyȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ anȱ “underground”).ȱ Asȱ theȱ turnȱ ofȱ theȱ centuryȱ approached,ȱ however,ȱ thingsȱ wereȱ beginningȱ toȱ changeȱ relativelyȱ quickly.ȱ Asȱ earlyȱ asȱ 1998ȱ evenȱ Metre,ȱknownȱprimarilyȱasȱaȱjournalȱofȱformalistȱpoetry,ȱwentȱsoȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ publishȱ anȱ articleȱ byȱ Johnȱ Goodbyȱ entitledȱ “Who’sȱ Afraidȱ ofȱ Experimentalȱ Poetry?”ȱ Inȱ it,ȱ Goodbyȱ arguedȱ thatȱ moreȱattentionȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱpaidȱtoȱIrishȱpoetsȱlikeȱTrevorȱJoyce,ȱ Mauriceȱ Scully,ȱ Randolphȱ Healy,ȱ Billyȱ Millsȱ andȱ Catherineȱ Walshȱ (mostȱ ofȱ whomȱ haveȱ beenȱ publishedȱ byȱ Healy’sȱ Wildȱ Honeyȱ Press,ȱ andȱ formȱ aȱ groupȱ ofȱ sorts),ȱ which,ȱ heȱ humblyȱ asserted,ȱ wouldȱ “improveȱ theȱ rangeȱ ofȱ allȱ Irishȱ poetry.”17ȱ Goodby’sȱpieceȱprovokedȱaȱswiftȱreactionȱinȱMetre’sȱnextȱissue,ȱ withȱ aȱ panickyȱ Macȱ Oliverȱ callingȱ forȱ aȱ returnȱ toȱ “dutiful”ȱ Wordsworthianȱ language.18ȱ Butȱ theȱ genieȱ wasȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ bottle—theȱ likesȱ ofȱ Joyce,ȱ Scullyȱ andȱ Healyȱ wereȱ soonȱ beingȱ writtenȱaboutȱeverywhere,ȱitȱseemed.ȱ ȱJoyce’sȱcollectedȱvolume,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfireȱtheyȱhuntȱ theȱ coldȱ (2001),ȱ reallyȱ putȱ contemporaryȱ Irishȱ “experimental”ȱ poetryȱ onȱ theȱ map,ȱ garneringȱ favourableȱ reviews;ȱ butȱ thisȱ overnightȱ successȱ wasȱ overȱ thirtyȱ yearsȱ inȱ theȱ making.ȱ Joyceȱ hadȱ beenȱ coȬfounder,ȱ withȱ Michaelȱ Smith,ȱ ofȱ Newȱ Writers’ȱ Press,ȱandȱcoȬeditor—alsoȱwithȱSmith—ofȱtheȱimportantȱjournalȱ TheȱLaceȱCurtain,ȱwhichȱpublishedȱsixȱissuesȱbetweenȱ1969ȱandȱ 1978.ȱ(PerhapsȱinȱaȱwayȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱTheȱBurningȱBushȱ decadesȱ later,ȱ Theȱ Laceȱ Curtain’sȱ “primaryȱ functionȱ …ȱ wasȱ toȱ publishȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ poetryȱ andȱ polemiciseȱ againstȱ theȱ generalityȱofȱIrishȱpoetry.”19)ȱȱ ȱ16ȱȱ MichaelȱS.ȱBegnal,ȱ“EditorialȱNote,”ȱTheȱBurningȱBushȱ1ȱ(Springȱ1999):ȱ1.ȱ ȱ17ȱȱ Johnȱ Goodby,ȱ “Who’sȱ Afraidȱ ofȱ Experimentalȱ Poetry?”ȱ Metreȱ 5ȱ (Autumn/ȱ Winterȱ1998):ȱ41Ȭ48.ȱ ȱ18ȱȱ MacȱOliver,ȱ“ViolentȱStimulants,ȱorȱWho’sȱNotȱAfraidȱofȱExperimentalȱPoetry?”ȱ Metreȱ6ȱ(Springȱ1999):ȱ110Ȭ118.ȱ ȱ19ȱȱ Goodby,ȱ Irishȱ Poetryȱ Sinceȱ 1950:ȱ Fromȱ Stillnessȱ intoȱ Historyȱ (Manchester:ȱ ManchesterȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱ126.ȱ

307ȱ

withȱ theȱ firstȱ dreamȱ ofȱ fireȱ gatheredȱ allȱ ofȱ Joyce’sȱ workȱ previouslyȱpublishedȱwithȱNWPȱandȱWildȱHoneyȱPress,ȱandȱforȱ theȱfirstȱtimeȱaȱwideȱaudienceȱhadȱaȱchanceȱtoȱbeholdȱtheȱrangeȱ ofȱhisȱachievement.ȱAvoidingȱtheȱfallacyȱofȱrepresentationalȱart,ȱ whichȱwouldȱhaveȱusȱpretendȱthatȱanyȱartisticȱmediumȱ(inȱthisȱ caseȱ language)ȱ isȱ neutral,ȱ Joyceȱ viewsȱ poetryȱ asȱ anȱ activeȱ processȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ collectionȱ ofȱ finishedȱ lyrics.ȱ Nothingȱ isȱ takenȱforȱgranted:ȱ ȱ CulȬdeȬsacȱwords.ȱparables:ȱfraud.ȱ ȱ howȱcomeȱtoȱterms?ȱ howȱcompromise?ȱ ȱ theȱrooksȱareȱgarrulousȱandȱstrongȱ theȱfoxȱisȱstrongȱasȱfire.ȱ howȱcelebrate?ȱ…20ȱ

ȱ Joyceȱ hasȱ alsoȱ occasionallyȱ utilisedȱ versionsȱ ofȱ theȱ cutȬupȱ techniqueȱ(firstȱelaboratedȱbyȱDadaȱfounderȱTristanȱTzara),ȱandȱ putȱ themȱ toȱ original,ȱ moreȱ ambitiousȱ usesȱ inȱ poemsȱ likeȱ “Syzygy,”ȱwhichȱtakesȱphrasesȱfromȱhistory,ȱfolklore,ȱfinancialȱ newsȱ reportsȱ andȱ aȱ lineȱ fromȱ Pabloȱ Neruda,ȱ andȱ recombinesȱ themȱviaȱcomputerȱspreadsheetȱsoftware21:ȱ ȱ thronesȱandȱdominationsȱfellȱ attendingȱasȱjointsȱlostȱtheirȱgripȱ throughoutȱtheȱdeadlockedȱcenturiesȱ asȱnewȱwoodȱbrokeȱ disorderedȱfromȱoldȱstockȱ voicesȱwereȱjoiningȱ

ȱ20ȱȱ Trevorȱ Joyce,ȱ “Deathȱ Isȱ Conventional,”ȱ withȱ theȱ firstȱ dreamȱ ofȱ fireȱ theyȱ huntȱ theȱ cold:ȱ Aȱ Bodyȱ ofȱ Workȱ 1966/2000ȱ (Dublin:ȱ Newȱ Writers’ȱ Press,ȱ andȱ Devon:ȱ ShearsmanȱBooks,ȱ2001),ȱ66Ȭ67.ȱ ȱ21ȱȱ Asȱpreviouslyȱnoted,ȱIreland’sȱnewȱeconomyȱisȱafterȱallȱlargelyȱbasedȱonȱtheȱITȱ industry,ȱaȱfactorȱGoodbyȱspecificallyȱlinksȱtoȱJoyce’sȱwritingȱ(IrishȱPoetryȱSinceȱ 1950,ȱ304).ȱ

308ȱ

inȱaȱroundȱofȱbones22ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ readsȱ almostȱ asȱ aȱ précisȱ ofȱ Joyce’sȱ poeticȱ methodȱ andȱ practice,ȱ andȱ canȱ hardlyȱ beȱ onlyȱ aȱ simpleȱ accidentȱ ofȱ device.ȱ Rather,ȱnewȱmeaningsȱhaveȱbeenȱbroughtȱoutȱthroughȱtheȱactȱofȱ recontextualisation,ȱ meaningsȱ hithertoȱ unsuspected,ȱ whichȱ wereȱhiddenȱinȱtheȱwordsȱallȱalong.ȱJoyceȱhimselfȱhasȱsaidȱinȱanȱ interviewȱthatȱ“insteadȱofȱtryingȱtoȱdominateȱlanguage,ȱtoȱshowȱ aȱmasteryȱofȱlanguage…whatȱIȱwantȱtoȱdoȱisȱlearnȱincreasinglyȱ toȱlistenȱtoȱlanguage….”23ȱ“Syzygy”ȱisȱbutȱoneȱexampleȱofȱthis,ȱ whereȱ Joyceȱ actsȱ almostȱ asȱ aȱ mediumȱ toȱ theȱ latentȱ powerȱ ofȱ words,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ tryingȱ toȱ forceȱ themȱ intoȱ aȱ preconceivedȱ notionȱ ofȱ howȱ aȱ poemȱ shouldȱ work.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ hereȱ virtuallyȱ formsȱitselfȱthroughȱJoyce,ȱandȱnotȱtheȱotherȱwayȱaround.ȱ ȱInȱ earlyȱ 2002,ȱ Michaelȱ Smithȱ publishedȱ anȱ opinionȱ pieceȱ inȱ Poetryȱ Irelandȱ Newsȱ whichȱ wasȱ aȱ scathingȱ attackȱ onȱ theȱ complacencyȱ ofȱ theȱ poetryȱ establishmentȱ inȱ Ireland.ȱ Echoingȱ someȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ earlierȱ statementsȱ inȱ Theȱ Laceȱ Curtain,ȱ Smithȱ wrote:ȱ ȱ Naïveȱ assumptionsȱ areȱ madeȱ aboutȱ language,ȱ withoutȱ anyȱ seriousȱ thoughtȱ beingȱ givenȱ toȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ language,ȱ notȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ languageȱ asȱ itȱ mayȱ beȱ employedȱ inȱ theȱ writingȱ ofȱ poetry.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ itȱ isȱ commonlyȱ assumedȱ byȱ poetsȱ inȱ Irelandȱthatȱitȱisȱpossibleȱbyȱaȱfewȱstylisticȱtricksȱandȱrepetitiveȱ subjectȱmatterȱtoȱexpressȱone’sȱpersonality,ȱtoȱcommunicateȱthatȱ personalityȱinȱaȱdistinctiveȱpersonalȱvoice,ȱaȱnotionȱthatȱfliesȱinȱ theȱfaceȱofȱwhatȱforȱaȱlongȱtimeȱweȱhaveȱknownȱaboutȱlanguageȱ andȱitsȱcollectiveȱcommunalȱgenesisȱandȱnature.24ȱ

ȱ Aȱ yearȱ orȱ twoȱ before,ȱ andȱ suchȱ assertionsȱ wouldȱ mostȱ likelyȱ haveȱ beenȱ completelyȱ ignored,ȱ orȱ worse,ȱ refusedȱ publication.ȱ

ȱ22ȱȱ Joyce,ȱ“Syzygy,”ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfire,ȱ141.ȱ ȱ23ȱȱ Michaelȱ S.ȱ Begnal,ȱ “Interviewȱ withȱ Trevorȱ Joyce,”ȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bushȱ 7ȱ (Springȱ 2002):ȱ48.ȱ ȱ24ȱȱ Michaelȱ Smith,ȱ “Poetryȱ asȱ anȱ Art:ȱ Newȱ Yearȱ Reflectionsȱ onȱ anȱ Oldȱ Theme,”ȱ PoetryȱIrelandȱNewsȱ(January/Februaryȱ2002):ȱ4.ȱ

309ȱ

But,ȱ again,ȱ timesȱ wereȱ quicklyȱ changing,ȱ andȱ voicesȱ suchȱ asȱ theseȱ couldȱ noȱ longerȱ beȱ easilyȱ shuntedȱ aside.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ Smithȱ wasȱ suddenlyȱ givenȱ theȱ rotatingȱ editorshipȱ ofȱ Poetryȱ Irelandȱ Review,ȱ Ireland’sȱ largestȱ poetryȱ journal.ȱ Aȱ lateȬfloweringȱ “revolutionȱofȱtheȱword”ȱwasȱmaybeȱinȱsomeȱsmallȱwayȱtakingȱ root.ȱSmith’sȱfirstȱeditorialȱforȱPIRȱtookȱupȱwhereȱhisȱPINȱpieceȱ leftȱ off,ȱ challengingȱ theȱ “poetryȱ ofȱ accommodationȱ andȱ consolation”ȱ andȱ criticisingȱ itsȱ lackȱ ofȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ majorȱ developmentsȱinȱ20thȱcenturyȱpoetics.25ȱ ȱAmongȱ thoseȱ appearingȱ inȱ Smith’sȱ firstȱ issueȱ ofȱ PIRȱ wasȱ Mauriceȱ Scully.ȱ Scullyȱ hasȱ beenȱ calledȱ aȱ “Heraclitean”ȱ poet,26ȱ andȱthisȱdescriptionȱisȱnotȱoffȱtheȱmark.ȱTheȱancientȱGreekȱpreȬ SocraticȱphilosopherȱHeraclitusȱisȱprobablyȱbestȱknownȱforȱhisȱ aphorismȱ“Allȱthingsȱareȱinȱflux,”ȱandȱScully’sȱworldȱisȱindeedȱ aȱ constantȱ flux—heȱ hasȱ beenȱ saidȱ byȱ Robertȱ Archambeauȱ toȱ writeȱ “outȱ ofȱ anȱ aversionȱ toȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ theȱ poemȱ asȱ closedȱ system.”27ȱ Vastȱ andȱ ambitious,ȱ hisȱ workȱ isȱ composedȱ ofȱ long,ȱ ongoingȱ sequences.ȱ (Whenȱ hisȱ collectionȱ Livelihoodȱ finallyȱ appearedȱ inȱ 2004,ȱ whatȱ Iȱ assumedȱ wouldȱ finallyȱ beȱ aȱ freeȬ standingȱ bookȱ collectingȱ theȱ earlierȱ pamphletsȱ andȱ shorterȱ extractsȱ Scullyȱ hadȱ publishedȱ overȱ theȱ years—theȱ bookȱ totalsȱ 330ȱ pages!—turnedȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ butȱ volumeȱ twoȱ ofȱ aȱ trilogy.)ȱ Whileȱhisȱisȱaȱhugeȱundertaking,ȱthereȱnonethelessȱremainsȱtheȱ senseȱ inȱ Scully’sȱ workȱ ofȱ aȱ singularȱ consciousness,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ possibleȱ unifyingȱ factorȱ availableȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ sprawlingȱ corpus.ȱ FromȱsectionȱCȱofȱ“Adherence”:ȱ ȱ Aȱflyȱcleaningȱitselfȱpreciselyȱ byȱtheȱwindowȱinȱtheȱsunlightȱ forelegsȱbackȱ(rest)ȱheadȱeyesȱ shadowsȱwingsȱbrittleȬquickȱ&ȱquiteȱ likeȱwritingȱreally.ȱOutȱthere.ȱThat.28ȱ ȱ25ȱȱ MichaelȱSmith,ȱ“PoeticsȱandȱRelatedȱMatters,”ȱPoetryȱIrelandȱReviewȱ73ȱ(Summerȱ 2002):ȱ3Ȭ8.ȱ ȱ26ȱȱ RobertȱArchambeau,ȱAnotherȱIreland:ȱAnȱEssayȱ(Bray:ȱWildȱHoney,ȱ1997)ȱ17.ȱ ȱ27ȱȱ Archambeau,ȱAnotherȱIreland,ȱ17ȱ ȱ28ȱȱ MauriceȱScully,ȱLivelihoodȱ(Bray:ȱWildȱHoneyȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ256.ȱ

310ȱ

Theseȱlinesȱdoȱnotȱtrulyȱattemptȱtoȱconveyȱanȱimageȱofȱaȱflyȱinȱ itself.ȱ Insteadȱ theyȱ observeȱ aȱ mindȱ observingȱ aȱ fly,ȱ andȱ itȱ isȱ fromȱ suchȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ shiftȱ thatȱ muchȱ ofȱ Scully’sȱ poetryȱ proceeds.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ whatȱ differentiatesȱ itȱ fromȱ mostȱ “mainstream”ȱ poetry,ȱ whichȱ Michaelȱ Smithȱ hasȱ likenedȱ toȱ “paintingȱinnocentȱofȱtheȱinventionȱofȱtheȱcamera.”29ȱ ȱThereȱ isȱ withȱ Scullyȱ tooȱ anȱ overtȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ receivedȱ tradition.ȱForȱexample,ȱaȱstanzaȱfromȱ“Steps”:ȱ ȱ PASTORALȱ

Valleys,ȱvillages,ȱcoastline.ȱAȱmapȱ ofȱaȱstainȱonȱtheȱwall.ȱAliveȱ&ȱliving,ȱ notȱaȱcrammedȱglasshouseȱofȱpistillateȱ verba.ȱGrassȱbendsȱback.ȱTheȱbookȱ isȱfat,ȱcontainsȱcode.ȱTheȱworld,ȱ theȱwaterȱplanet.ȱTheȱcodeȱcontainedȱinȱ thisȱthingȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱtheȱbook,ȱchangesȱ theȱthings,ȱtheȱworldȱ…30ȱ

ȱ Byȱ retainingȱ aȱ ruralȱ subjectȱ matterȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ pastoralȱ poem,ȱ technically—butȱaȱpoemȱthatȱexplodesȱtheȱHeaneyanȱlyricȱfromȱ theȱinside.ȱItȱisȱonlyȱinȱtheȱconsciousnessȱofȱwritingȱ(“theȱcode,”ȱ “theȱ book”)ȱ thatȱ transformationȱ isȱ possible,ȱ notȱ inȱ aȱ fossilisedȱ wayȱ ofȱ lifeȱ orȱ inȱ aȱ representedȱ landscape.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ senseȱ Scullyȱ canȱ looselyȱ beȱ calledȱ postmodern,ȱ theȱ selfȬreflexivityȱ ofȱ theȱ writingȱ beingȱ aȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ postmodernism.ȱ Yetȱ Scully’sȱ workȱ remainsȱ utterlyȱ vigorous,ȱ highlyȱ autobiographical,ȱ andȱ fullyȱ situatedȱ inȱ theȱ materialȱ world.ȱ Itȱ isȱ work,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ whichȱ examinesȱ theȱ minutiaeȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ (andȱ theȱ humanȱ comprehensionȱofȱit)ȱmuchȱmoreȱdeeplyȱthanȱtheȱromanticisingȱ actionȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱlyricȱpoemȱcanȱallow.ȱȱ ȱRandolphȱ Healyȱ alsoȱ appearedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ SmithȬeditedȱ PIR,ȱ andȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱthanȱScullyȱorȱJoyceȱhasȱadoptedȱaȱscientificȱ approachȱ inȱ hisȱ writing,ȱ beingȱ himselfȱ aȱ teacherȱ ofȱ mathsȱ andȱ scienceȱ byȱ profession.ȱ Poetryȱ forȱ Healyȱ beginsȱ asȱ logicalȱ ȱ29ȱȱ Smithȱ“PoetryȱasȱanȱArt,”ȱ4.ȱ ȱ30ȱȱ Scully,ȱLivelihood,ȱ228.ȱ

311ȱ

inquiry,ȱandȱinȱanȱearlyȱessayȱheȱhasȱwrittenȱthatȱ“theȱsyntaxȱofȱ logicȱ allowsȱ forȱ aȱ muchȱ higherȱ loadingȱ ofȱ information.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ wishesȱ toȱ turnȱ toȱ outsideȱ dataȱ andȱ notȱ dependȱ onȱ one’sȱ ownȱ innerȱ resources,ȱ thisȱ canȱ beȱ extremelyȱ useful.ȱ Ifȱ oneȱ wishesȱ toȱ useȱ poetryȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ demystifyingȱ theȱ complexitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ modernȱ worldȱ itȱ becomesȱ indispensable.”31ȱ Aȱ Healyȱ poemȱ mightȱopenȱsomethingȱlikeȱthis:ȱ ȱ Becauseȱtheirȱsensesȱregisterȱonlyȱ zeroȱtoȱfiveȱperȱcentȱofȱtheȱworldȱ andȱbecauseȱtheȱshortȬtermȱmemoryȱ jettisonsȱmostȱofȱthisȱandȱbecauseȱ theȱconsciousȱmindȱisȱlimitedȱ toȱsevenȱorȱeightȱideasȱatȱoneȱtimeȱ itȱisȱhardlyȱpossibleȱforȱthemȱtoȱbeȱ anythingȱmoreȱthanȱinaccurate.32ȱ

ȱ SoȱHealyȱstartsȱfromȱaȱtotallyȱempiricalȱstandpoint,ȱbutȱheȱhasȱ toȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ largeȱ degreeȱ ofȱ uncertaintyȱ aboutȱ whatȱ canȱ beȱ finallyȱ known.ȱ Theȱ conclusionsȱ drawnȱ areȱ notȱ comforting.ȱ Inȱ anotherȱpoemȱheȱwrites,ȱ ȱ Tonight,ȱstandingȱinȱearth’sȱshadow,ȱ closeȱyourȱeyesȱandȱseeȱ thatȱthisȱuniverseȱisȱitselfȱaȱstatementȱ withinȱwhichȱeveryȱstatementȱmadeȱ isȱpartialȱandȱuncomprehending,ȱ thatȱeveryȱdetailȱsuggestsȱaȱtotalȱ atȱwhichȱoneȱmayȱnotȱarriveȱ…33ȱ

ȱ Finally,ȱandȱagain,ȱtheȱinterrogationȱturnsȱtowardȱtheȱmedium,ȱ languageȱ beingȱ subjectiveȱ andȱ culturallyȱ dependent,ȱ andȱ

ȱ31ȱȱ RandolphȱHealy,ȱ“LogicȱasȱaȱStartingȱPointȱforȱPoetry,”ȱtheȱBeauȱ3ȱ(1983/4):ȱ11.ȱ ȱ32ȱȱ Healy,ȱ“Changeȱ&ȱResponse,”ȱGreenȱ532:ȱSelectedȱPoemsȱ1983Ȭ2000ȱ(Cambridge:ȱ SaltȱPublishing,ȱ2002),ȱ46.ȱ ȱ33ȱȱ “TheȱSizeȱofȱthisȱUniverse,”ȱibid.,ȱ54.ȱ

312ȱ

Healy’sȱ observation:ȱ “Writingȱ isȱ mindȱ madeȱ visibleȱ /ȱ Iȱ thinkȱ andȱwatchȱwhatȱIȱsayȱ…”34ȱ ȱLikeȱtheȱotherȱpoetsȱunderȱdiscussion,ȱHealy’sȱstanceȱisȱalsoȱ toȱsomeȱextentȱformedȱoutȱofȱaȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱdominantȱtrendsȱ inȱIrishȱpoetry.ȱ“Irishȱpoetryȱwasȱveryȱmuchȱcentredȱonȱitsȱownȱ Irishnessȱatȱtheȱtime,ȱ‘aȱsenseȱofȱplace’ȱbeingȱtheȱmantraȱofȱtheȱ workshop,”ȱ Healyȱ hasȱ said,ȱ adding,ȱ “Theȱ wildȱ andȱ drunkenȱ poetȱwasȱstillȱveryȱmuchȱtheȱmodelȱtoo.”35ȱPeterȱRileyȱhasȱgoneȱ soȱfarȱasȱtoȱassertȱthatȱ“youȱhaveȱtoȱforgetȱthatȱRandolphȱHealyȱ isȱIrish.ȱBecauseȱheȱdoesn’tȱtradeȱinȱthatȱsubstance:ȱnationality,ȱ Celticȱ duendeȱ …ȱ Toȱ Healyȱ Irishnessȱ isȱ purelyȱ whereȱ heȱ findsȱ himselfȱ andȱ whatȱ heȱ isȱ surroundedȱ by.”36ȱ Thisȱ ofȱ courseȱ isȱ easierȱ saidȱ thanȱ done,ȱ toȱ eraseȱ considerationsȱ ofȱ nationalityȱ altogether,ȱ ifȱ forȱ noȱ otherȱ reasonȱ thanȱ thatȱ itȱ providesȱ oneȱ ineluctableȱ contextȱ inȱ whichȱ toȱ readȱ theȱ writer.ȱ Inȱ factȱ Healyȱ dealsȱ withȱ Irishnessȱ toȱ quiteȱ aȱ surprisingȱ extent,ȱ evenȱ asȱ heȱ isȱ concernedȱ withȱ orientatingȱ hisȱ ownȱ workȱ outsideȱ theȱ literaryȱ Irishȱ nationalist/tribalistȱ ethos.ȱ Butȱ insteadȱ ofȱ ignoringȱ thisȱ element,ȱhe,ȱlikeȱtheȱothers,ȱsubvertsȱit.ȱForȱexample,ȱ“Anthem”ȱ isȱ aȱ deconstructionȱ ofȱ theȱ lyricsȱ toȱ theȱ Irishȱ nationalȱ anthem,ȱ whileȱ “(The)ȱ Republicȱ ofȱ Ireland”ȱ isȱ composedȱ ofȱ anagramsȱ derivedȱfromȱtheȱphraseȱ“RepublicȱofȱIreland”ȱ(withȱorȱwithoutȱ theȱ “the”).ȱ Theȱ latterȱ pieceȱ canȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ anȱ overtȱ politicalȱ commentaryȱonȱtheȱstateȱofȱmodernȱIreland,ȱwithȱlinesȱsuchȱasȱ “priceȱ troubleȱ inȱ fleadh,”ȱ “herȱ proȬlifeȱ bitȱ unlaced,”ȱ “creedȱ liableȱ ifȱ upȱ North,”37ȱ etc.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ thereȱ areȱ manyȱ referencesȱ toȱ andȱ usesȱ ofȱ theȱ Irishȱ languageȱ inȱ Healy,ȱ andȱ theȱ poemȱ “Aisling”ȱ isȱ anȱ obliqueȱ takeȱ onȱ thatȱ Gaelicȱ poeticȱ conventionȱ whichȱ emergedȱ withȱ Aodhagánȱ Óȱ Rathailleȱ afterȱ theȱBattleȱofȱtheȱBoyne.ȱ ȱ34ȱȱ “Vertices,”ȱibid.,ȱ92.ȱ ȱ35ȱȱ Archambeau,ȱ “Aȱ Poetȱ inȱ theȱ Informationȱ Age:ȱ Anȱ Interviewȱ withȱ Randolphȱ Healy,”ȱ ND[re]VIEWȱ (onlineȱ versionȱ ofȱ Notreȱ Dameȱ Review)ȱ 7ȱ (Winterȱ 1999):ȱ http://www.nd.edu/~ndr/issues/ndr7/archambeau/interview.htmlȱ ȱ36ȱȱ Peterȱ Riley,ȱ “‘anxiousȱ fuchsiaȱ ocean’:ȱ Theȱ Accomplishmentȱ ofȱ Randolphȱ Healy,”ȱChicagoȱReviewȱ49:2ȱ(Summerȱ2003):ȱ135.ȱ ȱ37ȱȱ Healy,ȱ“(The)ȱRepublicȱofȱIreland,”ȱGreenȱ532,ȱ40Ȭ41.ȱ

313ȱ

ȱHealy,ȱScullyȱandȱJoyceȱhaveȱallȱdrawnȱonȱelementsȱofȱIrishȱ literaryȱhistory,ȱbothȱmodernȱandȱancient.ȱJoyceȱhasȱtranslatedȱ Óȱ Rathaille,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ andȱ onȱ aȱ largerȱ scaleȱ heȱ hasȱ alsoȱ translatedȱ Theȱ Poemsȱ ofȱ Sweeny,ȱ Peregrineȱ (1976)ȱ (publishedȱ sevenȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ Heaney’sȱ version,ȱ Sweeneyȱ Astray).ȱ Notȱ extremelyȱ differentȱ fromȱ whatȱ Gearóidȱ Macȱ Lochlainnȱ doesȱ toȱ hisȱownȱwork,ȱJoyce’sȱsequenceȱmakesȱnoȱattemptȱtoȱfaithfullyȱ conveyȱtheȱoriginal.ȱRatherȱitȱisȱreferredȱtoȱasȱ“AȱReworkingȱofȱ theȱCorruptȱIrishȱText,”ȱandȱdrawsȱprimarilyȱonȱJ.G.ȱO’Keefe’sȱ EnglishȱtranslationȱofȱBuileȱSuibhneȱpublishedȱbyȱtheȱIrishȱTextsȱ Societyȱ inȱ 1913ȱ andȱ 1931.ȱ Asȱ Joyceȱ himselfȱ hasȱ written,ȱ “Theȱ relationȱ inȱ whichȱ Theȱ Poemsȱ ofȱ Sweeny,ȱ Peregrineȱ standȱ toȱ theȱ originalȱIrishȱofȱBuileȱSuibhneȱmayȱperhapsȱbestȱbeȱdescribedȱbyȱ thatȱphraseȱwhichȱClarenceȱManganȱusedȱofȱhisȱownȱinventiveȱ translations:ȱ theyȱ areȱ ‘theȱ antithesisȱ ofȱ plagiarism.’”38ȱ Elsewhere,ȱ Joyce’sȱ techniqueȱ ofȱ recombiningȱ piecesȱ ofȱ textȱ hasȱ anȱ ancientȱ analogueȱ inȱ aȱ manuscriptȱ ofȱ theȱ Seanchusȱ Mór,ȱ picturedȱ inȱ withȱ theȱ firstȱ dreamȱ ofȱ fire,39ȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ whichȱ wereȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ inȱ aȱ similarlyȱ disjointedȱ manner.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ poemȱ “Syzygy,”ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ overtlyȱ harkingȱ toȱ Dadaismȱ orȱ toȱ Williamȱ S.ȱ Burroughs’sȱ laterȱ cutȬupȱ experiments,ȱ isȱ saidȱ byȱ Joyceȱ toȱ mimicȱ aȱ palindromicȱ mediaevalȱ musicalȱ formȱ knownȱ asȱ theȱ cancrizan,ȱ inȱ whichȱ “oneȱ orȱ moreȱ partsȱ proceedȱ normally,ȱ whileȱ theȱ imitatingȱ voiceȱ orȱ voicesȱ giveȱ outȱ theȱ melodyȱbackwards.”40ȱ ȱOtherȱ tacticsȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ “modernist,”ȱ “postmodernist”ȱ orȱ “avantȬgarde,”ȱ sometimesȱ utilisedȱ byȱ theȱ aboveȱwriters,ȱmightȱinȱaȱsenseȱbeȱparallelȱtoȱearlierȱpractices.ȱInȱ hisȱpoemȱ“ArborȱVitae,”ȱwhichȱdealsȱinȱpartȱwithȱtheȱsubjectivityȱ ofȱ languageȱ systems,ȱ Healyȱ mentionsȱ anȱ “alphabetȱ ofȱ twentyȱ sacredȱtreesȱ/ȱandȱaȱsystemȱofȱDruidicȱhandȱsigning.”41ȱLikeȱtheȱ druids,ȱtheȱancientȱpoetsȱwereȱalsoȱversedȱinȱoghamȱsigning,ȱasȱ ȱ38ȱȱ Joyce,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfire,ȱ236.ȱ ȱ39ȱȱ Joyce,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfire,ȱ155.ȱ ȱ40ȱȱ Joyce,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfire,ȱ239.ȱ ȱ41ȱȱ Healy,ȱ“ArborȱVitae,”ȱGreenȱ532,ȱ25.ȱ

314ȱ

wellȱ asȱ evenȱ moreȱ obscureȱ formsȱ ofȱ communicationȱ suchȱ asȱ bérlaȱ naȱ filedȱ (“theȱ Languageȱ ofȱ theȱ Poets”)ȱ andȱ iarnbérlaȱ (“theȱ IronȱLanguage”).ȱAccordingȱtoȱJohnȱMinahane:ȱ ȱ TheȱIronȱLanguageȱconsistsȱpartlyȱofȱunanalysableȱslangwordsȱ …ȱpartlyȱofȱcommonȱwordsȱwhichȱareȱslightlyȱdistortedȱtoȱgiveȱ aȱspecialȱsenseȱ…ȱpartlyȱofȱkeyȱsyllablesȱofȱwellȬknownȱphrasesȱ compressedȱ intoȱ slangwordsȱ …ȱ andȱ partlyȱ ofȱ theȱ bits,ȱ fillingsȱ andȱjoiningsȱofȱeverydayȱIrish.ȱ ȱ TheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱPoets,ȱbérlaȱnaȱfiled,ȱseemsȱtoȱconsistȱofȱ wordsȱ stuckȱ togetherȱ toȱ makeȱ meaninglessȱ slangwords.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theȱ wordsȱ mayȱ loseȱ bitsȱ …ȱ orȱ oneȱ wordȱ mayȱ beȱ hiddenȱ inȱ another’sȱmiddleȱ…42ȱ

ȱ Theȱ chargeȱ ofȱ obscurantism,ȱ oftenȱ levelledȱ atȱ contemporaryȱ “experimental”ȱ poets,ȱ mustȱ surelyȱ haveȱ beenȱ madeȱ atȱ someȱ pointȱ inȱ theȱ Irishȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ asȱ well.ȱ Andȱ wordplayȱ ofȱ thisȱ sortȱ isȱ ofȱ courseȱ presentȱ inȱ thoseȱ currentlyȱ underȱ discussion.ȱ Butȱ Minahaneȱ pointsȱ outȱ that,ȱ forȱ oneȱ thing,ȱ “Inȱ orderȱ toȱ maintainȱ aȱ continuousȱ secondȱ senseȱ whileȱ composingȱ inȱ difficultȱmetresȱoneȱneededȱthisȱextraȱlinguisticȱcapacity.”43ȱThatȱ is,ȱ heȱ seesȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ complementȱ toȱ theȱ composingȱ ofȱ moreȱ conventionalȱorȱformalistȱverse,ȱnotȱasȱopposedȱtoȱit—andȱalsoȱ largelyȱasȱaȱmodeȱinȱwhichȱpoetsȱcommunicatedȱtoȱeachȱother— yetȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱaȱmodeȱthatȱconveyedȱaȱdeeperȱlevelȱofȱ meaningȱ thanȱ theȱ conventionalȱ poetry.ȱ Certainlyȱ theȱ Ironȱ Languageȱisȱratherȱmoreȱarcaneȱinȱitsȱtimeȱthan,ȱsay,ȱHealyȱisȱinȱ his.ȱ Inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ asȱ Minahaneȱ importantlyȱ adds,ȱ “thereȱ isȱ somethingȱ beneathȱ theȱ ironȱ surface—somethingȱ aȱ goodȱ dealȱ clearer!—forȱ anyoneȱ whoȱ feelsȱ likeȱ digging.”44ȱ Theȱ sameȱ thingȱ shouldȱ beȱ saidȱ forȱ poetsȱ likeȱ Healy,ȱ Scullyȱ andȱ Joyce,ȱ whoȱ onȱ theȱ surfaceȱ mightȱ alsoȱ appearȱ obscureȱ orȱ difficult,ȱ orȱ mightȱ occasionallyȱ seemȱ toȱ purposelyȱ frustrateȱ aȱ straightforwardȱ ȱ42ȱȱ Johnȱ Minihane,ȱ Theȱ Christianȱ Druids:ȱ Onȱ theȱ filidȱ orȱ philosopherȬpoetsȱ ofȱ Irelandȱ (Dublin:ȱSanasȱPress,ȱ1993)ȱ212.ȱ ȱ43ȱȱ Minihane,ȱTheȱChristianȱDruids,ȱ214.ȱ ȱ44ȱȱ Minihane,ȱTheȱChristianȱDruids,ȱ214.ȱ

315ȱ

readingȱ ofȱ theirȱ work.ȱ Oneȱ mainȱ differenceȱ isȱ thatȱ theyȱ haveȱ takenȱtheirȱworkȱintoȱtheȱpublicȱsphereȱandȱassertȱthatȱitȱcanȱbeȱ readȱ atȱ leastȱ onȱ anȱ equalȱ basisȱ withȱ Seamusȱ Heaney,ȱ Moyaȱ Cannon,ȱetȱal.ȱ ȱ ***ȱ ȱ Crazyȱdadaȱniggerȱthat’sȱwhatȱyouȱare.ȱYouȱareȱgivenȱtoȱfantasyȱ andȱareȱoffȱinȱmattersȱofȱdetail.ȱFarȱoutȱesotericȱbullshitȱisȱwhereȱ you’reȱ at.ȱ Whyȱ inȱ thoseȱ sufferingȱ booksȱ thatȱ Iȱ writeȱ aboutȱ myȱ oldȱ neighbourhoodȱ andȱ howȱ hardȱ itȱ wasȱ everyȱ gumdropȱ machineȱisȱinȱplaceȱwhileȱyourȱworkȱisȱaȱblurȱandȱaȱdoodle.ȱI’llȱ betȱ youȱ can’tȱ createȱ theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ aȱ Germanȱ andȱ aȱ redskin.ȱ ȱ What’sȱyourȱbeefȱwithȱmeȱBoȱShmo,ȱwhatȱifȱIȱwriteȱcircuses?ȱNoȱ oneȱsaysȱaȱnovelȱhasȱtoȱbeȱoneȱthing.ȱItȱcanȱbeȱanythingȱitȱwantsȱ toȱbe,ȱaȱvaudevilleȱshow,ȱtheȱsixȱo’clockȱnews,ȱtheȱmumblingsȱofȱ wildȱmenȱsaddledȱbyȱdemons.ȱ ȱ Allȱartȱmustȱbeȱforȱtheȱendȱofȱliberatingȱtheȱmasses.ȱAȱlandscapeȱ isȱonlyȱgoodȱwhenȱitȱshowsȱtheȱoppressorȱhangingȱfromȱaȱtree.ȱ ȱ Rightȱon!ȱRightȱon,ȱBo,ȱtheȱhenchmenȱchorused.ȱ —IshmaelȱReed,ȱYellowȱBackȱRadioȱBrokeȬDownȱ

ȱ Theȱ admittance,ȱ grudgingȱ orȱ not,ȱ ofȱ aȱ putativeȱ Irishȱ avantȬ gardeȱ intoȱ theȱ canonȱ canȱ beȱ putȱ downȱ toȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ factors.ȱ Firstȱofȱall,ȱtheȱonceȱextremeȱmarginalisationȱofȱtheȱpoetsȱunderȱ discussion,ȱ hiddenȱ asȱ theyȱ wereȱ inȱ hardȱ toȱ findȱ pamphlets,ȱ occasionalȱ appearancesȱ inȱ smallȱ literaryȱ magazines,ȱ orȱ onȱ theȱ web,ȱ meantȱ thatȱ aȱ widerȱ audienceȱ hadȱ neverȱ actuallyȱ hadȱ theȱ opportunityȱ toȱ examineȱ theirȱ workȱ inȱ aȱ consistentȱ mannerȱ alongsideȱtheȱmoreȱwellȬknownȱpoetsȱofȱtheȱday.ȱDavidȱButler,ȱ commentingȱ onȱ theȱ Wildȱ HoneyȬassociatedȱ group,ȱ emphasisesȱ theȱ oftenȱ overlookedȱ mediumȱ ofȱ theȱ internetȱ andȱ makesȱ theȱ pointȱthatȱinȱtheȱ21stȱcenturyȱ“itȱwouldȱseemȱnaïveȱtoȱexpectȱtoȱ findȱ theȱ cuttingȱ edgeȱ ofȱ poetryȱ locatedȱ uniquelyȱ withinȱ theȱ 316ȱ

boundsȱofȱprintedȱmatter,ȱstillȱlessȱofȱmainstreamȱpublications.ȱ ThoseȱwhoȱcaricatureȱcontemporaryȱIrishȱpoetryȱasȱmonolithic,ȱ conservativeȱandȱplayingȱIrishnessȱtoȱanȱinternationalȱaudienceȱ wouldȱ doȱ wellȱ toȱ rememberȱ this.”45ȱ Thisȱ isȱ true,ȱ butȱ itȱ meansȱ thatȱ suchȱ figuresȱ remainedȱ concealedȱ upȱ toȱ aȱ certainȱ point.ȱ WhenȱJoyce’sȱandȱHealy’sȱcollectedȱvolumesȱappearedȱinȱprint,ȱ roughlyȱcoincidingȱwithȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱGoodby’sȱimportantȱ studyȱ Irishȱ Poetryȱ sinceȱ 1950ȱ (2000),ȱ whichȱ devotedȱ spaceȱ toȱ Joyce,ȱ Scully,ȱ Healyȱ andȱ Catherineȱ Walsh,ȱ audiencesȱ wereȱ forcedȱ toȱ rethinkȱ theirȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ Irishȱ poetry.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bushȱ hadȱ startedȱ toȱ appear,ȱ andȱ theȱ youngerȱ poetȱ Josephȱ Woodsȱ tookȱ overȱ asȱ headȱ ofȱ Poetryȱ Ireland,ȱinstillingȱnewȱenergyȱintoȱthatȱorganisationȱandȱpavingȱ theȱ wayȱ forȱ Michaelȱ Smithȱ toȱ beȱ appointedȱ editorȱ ofȱ Poetryȱ Irelandȱ Reviewȱ forȱ threeȱ significantȱ issues.ȱ Allȱ ofȱ thisȱ helpedȱ generateȱanȱinterestȱinȱaȱsortȱofȱwritingȱthatȱhadȱnotȱreallyȱbeenȱ seriouslyȱ consideredȱ inȱ Irelandȱ theretofore.ȱ Theȱ timeȱ wasȱ ripeȱ forȱ aȱ newȱ departure;ȱ perhapsȱ readersȱ hadȱ becomeȱ boredȱ withȱ theȱ usualȱ fareȱ ofȱ stoneȱ wallsȱ andȱ greenȱ fields.ȱ Butler,ȱ inȱ anyȱ case,ȱ makesȱ anotherȱ worthyȱ point:ȱ “Norȱ isȱ theȱ Irishȱ ‘establishment’ȱ quiteȱ soȱ conservativeȱ asȱ someȱ commentatorsȱ mightȱ likeȱ toȱ maintain.ȱ Trevorȱ Joyceȱ hasȱ thisȱ yearȱ [2004]ȱ beenȱ electedȱasȱaȱmemberȱofȱAosdána.”46ȱ ȱTheȱ moreȱ stridentȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ anȱ avantȬ gardeȱ cameȱ fromȱ someȱ who,ȱ oddlyȱ enough,ȱ wouldȱ identifyȱ themselvesȱasȱbeingȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱleft.ȱKevinȱHiggins,ȱformerȱ coȬeditorȱ ofȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bush,ȱ launchedȱ anȱ attackȱ onȱ theȱ magazineȱafterȱsplittingȱfromȱit.ȱMakingȱclearȱthatȱheȱwasȱnowȱ writingȱ“fromȱaȱMarxistȱpointȱofȱview,”ȱHigginsȱcontributedȱanȱ opinionȱ pieceȱ toȱ aȱ Britishȱ poetryȱ journalȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ claimed,ȱ “Thereȱareȱthoseȱwhoȱbelieveȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱpoetȱisȱtoȱturnȱhisȱ orȱ herȱ backȱ onȱ theȱ grubbyȱ worldȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ politicalȱ affairs,ȱ concentratingȱ insteadȱ onȱ theȱ searchȱ forȱ greatȱ eternalȱ ȱ45ȱȱ Davidȱ Butler,ȱ “Whereȱ toȱ Lookȱ forȱ theȱ Wildȱ Honey,”ȱ Poetryȱ Irelandȱ Reviewȱ 79ȱ (Summerȱ2004):ȱ58.ȱ ȱ46ȱȱ Butler,ȱ“WhereȱtoȱLookȱforȱtheȱWildȱHoney,”ȱ60.ȱ

317ȱ

truths,ȱ likeȱ aȱ secularȱ priestȱ ofȱ sorts.”47ȱ Heȱ wasȱ reactingȱ toȱ anȱ editorialȱIȱhadȱwrittenȱinȱTheȱBurningȱBushȱissueȱfive,ȱwhichȱwasȱ inȱpartȱanȱattemptȱtoȱputȱanȱemphasisȱbackȱontoȱpoeticsȱwhereȱ Higginsȱandȱothersȱatȱtheȱtimeȱwereȱseeminglyȱmoreȱconcernedȱ withȱ makingȱ politicalȱ statements.48ȱ Yetȱ inȱ thatȱ sameȱ editorialȱ Iȱ hadȱwritten,ȱ ȱ Theȱ Burningȱ Bushȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ publishedȱ aȱ certainȱ amountȱ ofȱ poetryȱ withȱ aȱ politicalȱ orȱ satiricalȱ focus,ȱ andȱ doesȱ soȱ inȱ thisȱ issue.ȱ Butȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ aȱ mistakeȱ forȱ aȱ poetȱ toȱ thinkȱ thatȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ convictions,ȱ howeverȱ deeplyȱ felt,ȱ daringȱ orȱ radical,ȱ canȱ compensateȱ forȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ anȱ abilityȱ toȱ writeȱ interestinglyȱ …ȱ Artȱ forȱ art’sȱ sake?ȱ No,ȱ butȱ neitherȱ canȱ artȱ beȱ subjugatedȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱideology.49ȱ

ȱ Certainlyȱtheȱpieceȱwasȱframedȱbyȱaestheticȱconcernsȱinȱplaces;ȱ butȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ itȱ inȱ noȱwayȱ discountedȱ aȱ politicalȱ elementȱ inȱ poetryȱ seemedȱ toȱ beȱ lostȱ onȱ Higgins,ȱ andȱ Iȱ wasȱ personallyȱ condemnedȱ forȱ attemptingȱ toȱ constructȱ aȱ “divide”ȱ betweenȱ politicsȱ andȱ art,ȱ andȱ toȱ “rubbishȱ anȱ entireȱ literaryȱ genre,ȱ theȱ politicalȱsatire.”50ȱ ȱAnotherȱ attackȱ cameȱ fromȱ theȱ Galwayȱ poetȱ Maureenȱ Gallagher.ȱ Aȱ memberȱ ofȱ aȱ Trotskyiteȱ groupȱ calledȱ Workersȱ PowerȱIreland,ȱGallagherȱtargetedȱnotȱonlyȱmyselfȱbutȱMichaelȱ Smithȱasȱwell.ȱInȱaȱratherȱconvolutedȱessayȱinȱtheȱCorkȱLiteraryȱ Review,ȱ sheȱ advancedȱ theȱ faultyȱ claimsȱ thatȱ withȱ thisȱ Burningȱ BushȱeditorialȱIȱwasȱ“reiteratingȱaȱcommitmentȱtoȱArtȱforȱArt’sȱ

ȱ47ȱȱ Kevinȱ Higgins,ȱ “Reactingȱ toȱ theȱ Nineȱ O’clockȱ News:ȱ Inȱ defenceȱ ofȱ politicalȱ satire,”ȱTheȱJournalȱ6ȱ(Autumnȱ2002):ȱ29.ȱ ȱ48ȱȱ Forȱ example,ȱ anarchistȱ poetȱ Rabȱ Fultonȱ hadȱ recentlyȱ attackedȱ theȱ Beatȱ generationȱinȱhisȱownȱpublication,ȱtheȱGalwayȬbasedȱfreesheetȱmucȱmhórȱdhubh,ȱ onȱ theȱ groundsȱ thatȱ theȱ Beatsȱ “areȱ regardedȱ asȱ somethingȱ innovativeȱ andȱ radical…whereasȱ theyȱ wereȱ justȱ oneȱ partȱ ofȱ aȱ longȱ lineȱ ofȱ colonialȱ empireȬ buildingȱscum”ȱ(RabȱFulton,ȱ“Theȱcontinuingȱadventuresȱofȱmucȱmhórȱdhubh,”ȱ mucȱmhórȱdhubhȱ9ȱ[Decemberȱ2000]:ȱ2).ȱ ȱ49ȱȱ Begnal,ȱ“Preface,”ȱTheȱBurningȱBushȱ5ȱ(Springȱ2001):ȱ3.ȱ ȱ50ȱȱ Higgins,ȱ“ReactingȱtoȱtheȱNineȱO’clockȱNews,”ȱ29.ȱ

318ȱ

sake,”ȱ andȱ thatȱ Iȱ harbouredȱ aȱ “hostilityȱ toȱ realism.”51ȱ Sheȱ criticisedȱ Smith’sȱ firstȱ Poetryȱ Irelandȱ Reviewȱ editorialȱ forȱ “bemoan[ing]ȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ avantȬgardeȱ modernistȱ writing,”ȱ andȱ continuedȱonȱtoȱsay,ȱ“Thereȱisȱveryȱlittleȱpostmodernistȱpoetryȱ inȱ Ireland,ȱ aȱ goodȱ thingȱ indeed,ȱ inȱ myȱ opinion.”52ȱ Forȱ inȱ postmodernism,ȱsheȱwrites,ȱ“Languageȱbecomesȱaȱvalueȱinȱandȱ ofȱ itselfȱ withoutȱ regardȱ toȱ relationsȱ inȱ theȱ realȱ world:ȱ relationshipsȱwithinȱtheȱtextȱareȱallȱthatȱcount.”53ȱInȱplaceȱofȱthisȱ sheȱ positsȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ socialȬrealism,ȱ mentioningȱ namesȱ likeȱ Lintonȱ Kwesiȱ Johnson,ȱ Miroslavȱ Holubȱ andȱ Arthurȱ Miller.ȱ Gallagherȱ exhibitsȱ littleȱ understandingȱ ofȱ whatȱ sheȱ attacks,ȱ however,ȱ essentiallyȱ dismissingȱ Smith’sȱ essayȱ withoutȱ engagingȱwithȱtheȱmodalitiesȱofȱitȱinȱanyȱway,ȱthusȱavoidingȱtheȱ deeperȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ ideasȱ whichȱ sheȱ findsȱ unpalatableȱ orȱ whichȱrunȱcounterȱtoȱherȱownȱargument.ȱIronically,ȱSmithȱisȱanȱ oldȱsocialistȱhimself,ȱhaving,ȱforȱexample,ȱwrittenȱofȱtheȱwarȱinȱ theȱNorth:ȱ“Thatȱaȱsolutionȱhasȱbeenȱfoundȱoutsideȱofȱsocialismȱ Iȱamȱnotȱaware.”54ȱWhetherȱSmithȱstillȱsubscribesȱtoȱsocialismȱisȱ unclear,ȱ butȱ surelyȱ itȱ remainsȱ anȱ influenceȱ onȱ hisȱ thinkingȱ whetherȱorȱnotȱitȱreflectsȱhisȱcurrentȱbeliefs.ȱ ȱInȱ anyȱ case,ȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ poetry’sȱ politicalȱ andȱ socialȱ functionȱ isȱ aȱ validȱ one.ȱ Itȱ isȱ something,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ thatȱ Smithȱ grapplesȱ withȱ inȱ hisȱ PIRȱ piece.ȱ Dismissingȱ Surrealismȱ andȱ Dadaismȱ asȱ overlyȱ preoccupiedȱ withȱ anȱ inner,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ anȱ outer,ȱreality,ȱheȱlooksȱinsteadȱtoȱtheȱexperimentationȱofȱBeckettȱ asȱ “genuinelyȱ exploratoryȱ andȱ constructiveȱ inȱ itsȱ drive,”ȱ somethingȱ whichȱ “couldȱalsoȱ beȱ viewedȱ asȱaȱ valuableȱ exerciseȱ inȱ subvertingȱ theȱ corruptȱ languageȱ ofȱ politicsȱ andȱ business.”55ȱ Gallagherȱ studiouslyȱ avoidsȱ thisȱ point,ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ somethingȱ whichȱ theȱ poetsȱ underȱ considerationȱ areȱ concernedȱ withȱ also.ȱ

ȱ51ȱȱ MaureenȱGallagher,ȱ“ArtȱforȱArt’sȱSake,”ȱCorkȱLiteraryȱReviewȱ10ȱ(2003):ȱ187Ȭ88.ȱ ȱ52ȱȱ Gallagher,ȱ“ArtȱforȱArt’sȱSake,”ȱ189.ȱ ȱ53ȱȱ Gallagher,ȱ“ArtȱforȱArt’sȱSake,”ȱ189.ȱ ȱ54ȱȱ Smith,ȱ“AȱPersonalȱStatement,”ȱTheȱLaceȱCurtainȱ5ȱ(Springȱ1974):ȱ2.ȱInȱtheȱsameȱ pieceȱheȱcalledȱforȱaȱ“worker’sȱrepublic.”ȱ ȱ55ȱȱ Smith,ȱ“PoeticsȱandȱRelatedȱMatters,”ȱ5.ȱ

319ȱ

AsȱTrevorȱJoyceȱsaidȱinȱhisȱBurningȱBushȱinterview,ȱ“Iȱcan’t,ȱasȱaȱ person,ȱnotȱbeȱinterestedȱinȱpoliticsȱnow,”ȱbeforeȱcontinuing,ȱ ȱ Andȱitȱseemsȱtoȱme…thatȱaȱnewȱpoliticsȱhasȱtoȱemerge.ȱAndȱitȱ probablyȱwillȱbeȱaȱglobalȱpolitics,ȱmaybeȱanȱantiȬglobalistȱglobalȱ politics.ȱButȱthatȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱwayȱthatȱinternationalȱbusiness,ȱ andȱtheȱmilitary,ȱareȱincreasinglyȱdominatingȱdiscourseȱandȱtheȱ media,ȱit’sȱgoingȱtoȱbeȱnecessaryȱtoȱfightȱfromȱtheȱgroundȱup.56ȱ

ȱ Davidȱ Annwn,ȱ writingȱ ofȱ Healy,ȱ Scullyȱ andȱ Billyȱ Mills,ȱ notesȱ thatȱinȱallȱthreeȱthereȱisȱaȱstrongȱ“awarenessȱofȱtheȱdireȱthreatsȱ posedȱ byȱ globalȱ consumerism,”57ȱ whichȱ accordsȱ wellȱ withȱ Joyce’sȱ comments.ȱ Theȱ wayȱ thatȱ theseȱ writersȱ grappleȱ withȱ suchȱthreatsȱisȱthroughȱlanguage,ȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱtoolȱtheyȱ haveȱ atȱ theirȱ disposalȱ asȱ poetsȱ inȱ anȱ ageȱ whenȱ theȱ mediaȱ hasȱ becomeȱ supremelyȱ powerfulȱ andȱ languageȱ aȱ vitalȱ weaponȱ inȱ theȱ currentȱ imperialisticȱ warȱ (e.g.,ȱ Donaldȱ Rumsfeldȱ onȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ Iraq).ȱ Whileȱ notȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ Wildȱ Honeyȱ group,ȱ Alanȱ Judeȱ Mooreȱ hasȱ nonethelessȱ arrivedȱ atȱ aȱ similarȱ positionȱasȱthey:ȱ ȱ Makingȱ aȱ claimȱ forȱ languageȱ isȱ important,ȱ reclaimingȱ itȱ fromȱ theȱeverȱincreasingȱuseȱofȱ“international”ȱEnglishȱandȱbusinessȬ speak.ȱTheȱbastardisationȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱwords.ȱMeaningȱisȱ takenȱ awayȱ fromȱ everythingȱ inȱ anȱ effortȱ toȱ desensitiseȱ usȱ toȱ whatȱactuallyȱhappensȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱLiteratureȱisȱnotȱimportantȱ toȱ mostȱ peopleȱ inȱ theȱ world.ȱ ComputerȬspeakȱ andȱ businessȱ Englishȱ areȱ moreȱ important.ȱ Theseȱ thingsȱ thoughȱ don’tȱ strikeȱ anyȱ humanȱ chords;ȱ theyȱ subjugateȱ usȱ toȱ theȱ machinationsȱ ofȱ neoȬcapitalism.58ȱ

ȱ ThisȱagainȱfindsȱexpressionȱinȱMoore’sȱpoetry:ȱ ȱ

ȱ56ȱȱ Begnal,ȱ“InterviewȱwithȱTrevorȱJoyce,”ȱ46Ȭ47.ȱ ȱ57ȱȱ DavisȱAnnwn,ȱArcsȱThrough:ȱTheȱPoetryȱofȱRandolphȱHealy,ȱBillyȱMillsȱ&ȱMauriceȱ Scullyȱ(Dublin:ȱCoelacanthȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ22Ȭ23.ȱ ȱ58ȱȱ Moore,ȱeȬmailȱtoȱtheȱauthor,ȱ4ȱDecemberȱ2005.ȱ

320ȱ

Todayȱthereȱisȱnoȱnewsȱonȱtheȱstreets.ȱ Theyȱrunȱonlyȱwithȱaȱbusiness,ȱagainstȱwhichȱ silenceȱisȱuseless:ȱ withȱaȱwarȱbetweenȱsidesȱofȱwhomȱnothingȱisȱspoken.ȱ Withinȱinȱitȱweȱrunȱmarathons,ȱ toȱkeepȱinȱshapeȱforȱtheȱnextȱone.59ȱ

ȱ ȱAsȱopposedȱtoȱGallagher’sȱrigidity,ȱandȱherȱhesitanceȱtoȱengageȱ withȱtheȱotherȱside,ȱKevinȱHiggins’sȱpositionȱseemsȱtoȱopenȱupȱ aȱbitȱbyȱtheȱtimeȱheȱreviewsȱTrevorȱJoyce,ȱimplyingȱthatȱsomeȱofȱ hisȱearlierȱstatementsȱwereȱpossiblyȱprovisionalȱorȱsprangȱfromȱ theȱ needȱ toȱ stakeȱ outȱ aȱ positionȱ separateȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ literaryȱmagazineȱheȱhadȱrecentlyȱleftȱ(orȱthatȱatȱtheȱveryȱleastȱ heȱ isȱ ableȱ toȱ considerȱ literatureȱ beyondȱ theȱ boundsȱ ofȱ aȱ statedȱ ideology).ȱOfȱJoyce,ȱHigginsȱlaterȱwrote:ȱ ȱ Anȱ experimentalistȱ heȱ mayȱ be,ȱ butȱ Joyceȱ isȱ lightȱ yearsȱ awayȱ fromȱ thoseȱ “AvantȬgardists”ȱ whoȱ makeȱ poemsȱ consistingȱ justȱ ofȱsemiȬcolonsȱorȱsolitaryȱfreeȱfloatingȱwords.ȱAndȱthoughȱheȱisȱ certainlyȱ notȱ aȱ socialȱ poetȱ (orȱ aȱ moralist)ȱ like,ȱ say,ȱ Peterȱ Readingȱ orȱ Tonyȱ Harrison,ȱ hisȱ poetryȱ doesȱ comeȱ from,ȱ orȱ atȱ leastȱisȱaȱreactionȱto,ȱaȱrecognisableȱsocialȱworld.60ȱ

ȱ Higginsȱisȱright.ȱOfȱhisȱownȱpoetics,ȱJoyceȱhasȱwritten:ȱ“That’sȱ myȱ startingȱ pointȱ forȱ understanding:ȱ notȱ breathingȱ someȱ experimentalȱ andȱ whollyȱ artificialȱ atmosphere,ȱ highȱ andȱ impersonal;ȱratherȱaȱsenseȱthatȱlanguage,ȱtheȱmediumȱitȱwhollyȱ inhabits,ȱ isȱ saturatedȱ withȱ theȱ pleasures,ȱ theȱ suffering,ȱ hopesȱ andȱterrorsȱofȱindividualȱpeopleȱ…”61ȱ ȱAȱlotȱofȱtheȱthinkingȱinȱGallagher’sȱarticleȱwouldȱappearȱtoȱ beȱ liftedȱ fromȱ Trotsky’sȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Revolutionȱ (1925),ȱ especiallyȱ Trotsky’sȱ exegesisȱ ofȱ Symbolismȱ asȱ “theȱ artisticȱ ȱ59ȱȱ Moore,ȱ“TheȱHook,”ȱBlackȱStateȱCars,ȱ15.ȱ ȱ60ȱȱ KevinȱHiggins,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfireȱtheyȱhuntȱtheȱcoldȱbyȱTrevorȱ Joyce,”ȱPoetryȱQuarterlyȱReviewȱ20ȱ(Summerȱ2003):ȱ23.ȱ ȱ61ȱȱ Trevorȱ Joyce,ȱ “Interrogateȱ theȱ Thrush:ȱ Anotherȱ Nameȱ forȱ Somethingȱ Else,”ȱ Vectors:ȱNewȱPoetics,ȱed.ȱRobertȱArchambeauȱ(Lincoln,ȱNE:ȱWriter’sȱClubȱPress,ȱ 2001),ȱ139.ȱ

321ȱ

bridgeȱ toȱ Mysticism”ȱ andȱ “theȱ intelligentsia’sȱ escapeȱ fromȱ reality.”62ȱ Certainlyȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ transmuteȱ thisȱ intoȱ aȱ criticismȱ ofȱ contemporaryȱ Irishȱ experimentalȱ orȱ avantȬgardeȱ poetryȱ (labelȱ itȱ whatȱ youȱ will)ȱ fails.ȱ Toȱ takeȱ anotherȱ example,ȱ fromȱJoyce’sȱ“TheȱFall”:ȱ ȱ Iȱhaveȱmouthedȱnamesȱ thatȱareȱnamesȱnoȱlonger,ȱ drawȱnoȱreplyȱnowȱ onlyȱhardȱsilenceȱandȱanȱimageȱ ofȱgravenȱstone.ȱ[….]ȱ ȱ Stoneȱcrackedȱinȱtheȱjawsȱofȱice,ȱ splintered,ȱgrinding,ȱ mixedȱwithȱmoisture,ȱ becomingȱdirt.63ȱ

ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ clearȱ instanceȱ ofȱ aȱ materialistȱ view,ȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ aȱ gravenȱstoneȱmonumentȱstrippedȱofȱanȱearlierȱmythologicalȱorȱ religiousȱmeaning,ȱbeingȱgroundȱtoȱdirtȱthroughȱtheȱpassageȱofȱ time.ȱHealy’sȱlogicalȱapproachȱisȱpertinentȱhereȱtoo.ȱWhatȱbothȱ theseȱ poetsȱ areȱ reallyȱ doingȱ isȱ takingȱ poetryȱ outȱ ofȱ aȱ possibleȱ mysticalȱsettingȱintoȱoneȱmoreȱscientific.ȱInȱanyȱregard,ȱitȱwouldȱ beȱ worthȱ rememberingȱ thatȱ Trotskyȱ himselfȱ laterȱ madeȱ commonȱ causeȱ withȱ theȱ avantȬgardeȱ ofȱ hisȱ era,ȱ coȬauthoringȱ aȱ “Manifestoȱ forȱ Independentȱ Revolutionaryȱ Art”ȱ (1938)ȱ withȱ Surrealistȱ leaderȱ Andréȱ Breton.ȱ Theȱ manifestoȱ affirmedȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ “individualȱ liberty”ȱ forȱ theȱ artistȱ andȱ statedȱ thatȱ “theȱ imaginationȱ mustȱ escapeȱ fromȱ allȱ constraintsȱ andȱ mustȱ underȱnoȱpretextȱallowȱitselfȱtoȱbeȱplacedȱunderȱbonds,”ȱbeforeȱ concluding:ȱ ȱ Theȱindependenceȱofȱart—forȱtheȱrevolution;ȱ Theȱrevolution—forȱtheȱcompleteȱliberationȱofȱart!64ȱ ȱ62ȱȱ Leonȱ Trotsky,ȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Revolution,ȱ trans.ȱ Roseȱ Strunskyȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ InternationalȱPublishers,ȱ1925),ȱ234Ȭ35.ȱ ȱ63ȱȱ Joyce,ȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱdreamȱofȱfire,ȱ69.ȱ

322ȱ

Bretonȱ isȱ certainlyȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ abstractȱ poetsȱ imaginable,ȱ butȱ essentiallyȱ whatȱ thisȱ tellsȱ usȱ isȱ thatȱ Surrealismȱ forȱ Trotskyȱ wasȱ notȱ finallyȱ anȱ emptyȱ formȱ orȱ distancedȱ fromȱ reality—orȱ “artȱforȱart’sȱsake.”ȱ ȱTheȱ moreȱ recentȱ figureȱ ofȱ Amiriȱ Barakaȱ isȱ anotherȱ primeȱ caseȱofȱexperimentalistȱliteraryȱtechniqueȱconvergingȱwithȱleftȬ wingȱ politics.ȱ Theȱ formerȱ Beat/formerȱ Blackȱ Nationalistȱ poetȱ announcedȱ himselfȱ aȱ MarxistȬLeninistȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1970s,ȱ yetȱ accordingȱ toȱ Barakaȱ editorȱ Williamȱ J.ȱ Harrisȱ heȱ “hasȱ alsoȱ createdȱanȱoriginalȱbodyȱofȱworkȱthatȱbelongsȱinȱtheȱforefrontȱofȱ innovativeȱ avantȬgardeȱ writing.”65ȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ simplyȱ aȱ caseȱ ofȱ graftingȱaȱ“style”ȱontoȱaȱpoliticalȱcontent,ȱhowever.ȱ“Ironically,”ȱ Harrisȱsays,ȱ“avantȬgardeȱideasȱofȱformȱcoheredȱperfectlyȱwithȱ theȱ newȱ blackȱ artist’sȱ needȱ toȱ expressȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ ownȱ oralȱ traditions;ȱtheȱfreeȱverseȱandȱeccentricȱtypographyȱofȱtheȱwhiteȱ avantȬgardeȱ wereȱ idealȱ vehiclesȱ forȱ blackȱ oralȱ expressionȱ andȱ experience.”66ȱHarrisȱcallsȱBarakaȱaȱ“processȱartist,”ȱandȱinȱthisȱ senseȱ aȱ comparisonȱ canȱ beȱ drawnȱ toȱ Mauriceȱ Scully’sȱ embracingȱ ofȱ fluxȱ asȱ poeticȱ method.ȱ Furthermore,ȱ Randolphȱ Healyȱhasȱstated:ȱ“Thisȱisȱaȱstartingȱpointȱforȱpoetry.ȱThatȱoneȱ doesȱ notȱ haveȱ toȱ inhabitȱ aȱ singleȱ philosophyȱ orȱ setȱ ofȱ convictionsȱ…ȱAȱdialogueȱwithȱexperienceȱisȱpossibleȱ…”67ȱAndȱ Barakaȱhimselfȱhasȱwritten:ȱ ȱ Myȱwritingȱreflectsȱmyȱownȱgrowthȱandȱexpansion,ȱandȱatȱtheȱ sameȱ timeȱ theȱ societyȱ inȱ whichȱ Iȱ haveȱ existedȱ throughoutȱ thisȱ longishȱconfrontation.ȱWhetherȱitȱisȱpolitics,ȱmusic,ȱliterature,ȱorȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ language,ȱ thereȱ isȱ aȱ historicalȱ andȱ

ȱ64ȱȱ Trotskyȱ andȱ Andréȱ Breton,ȱ “Manifestoȱ forȱ Independentȱ Revolutionaryȱ Art,”ȱ citedȱ inȱ Dickranȱ Tashjian,ȱ Aȱ Boatloadȱ ofȱ Madmen:ȱ Surrealismȱ andȱ theȱ Americanȱ AvantȬGardeȱ(London:ȱThamesȱ&ȱHudson,ȱ1995),ȱ165Ȭ67.ȱ ȱ65ȱȱ WilliamȱJ.ȱHarris,ȱ“Introduction”ȱtoȱAmiriȱBaraka,ȱTheȱLeRoiȱJones/AmiriȱBarakaȱ Readerȱ(NewȱYork:ȱThunder’sȱMouthȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱxvii.ȱ ȱ66ȱȱ Harris,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱxxvii.ȱ ȱ67ȱȱ Healy,ȱ“LogicȱasȱaȱStartingȱPointȱforȱPoetry”:ȱ11.ȱ

323ȱ

time/place/conditionȱ referenceȱ thatȱ willȱ alwaysȱ tryȱ toȱ explainȱ exactlyȱwhyȱIȱwasȱsayingȱbothȱhowȱandȱforȱwhat.68ȱ

ȱ Theȱ immediateȱ parallelȱ hereȱ betweenȱ Barakaȱ andȱ theȱ likesȱ ofȱ Joyce,ȱ Healy,ȱ Scully,ȱ Alanȱ Judeȱ Moore,ȱ etȱ al.,ȱ ifȱ notȱ aȱ directȱ politicalȱ correlation,ȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ latter’sȱ techniquesȱ nonethelessȱ ariseȱ outȱ ofȱ aȱ particularȱ context—bothȱ societyȱ andȱ theȱ individualȱinȱtransition—andȱtheȱneedȱtoȱgiveȱexpressionȱtoȱtheȱ “confrontations”ȱ thisȱ engendersȱ inȱ aȱ newlyȱ befittingȱ manner.ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱattemptȱatȱconsciouslyȱaffectingȱ“postmodernism.”ȱ Ideologiesȱ areȱ contingent,ȱ butȱ theyȱ mayȱ certainlyȱ atȱ timesȱ feedȱ intoȱ theȱ widerȱ project:ȱ Smith’s,ȱ Breton’sȱ andȱ Baraka’sȱ socialismȱ (andȱ Baraka’sȱ earlierȱ culturalȱ nationalism),ȱ Gearóidȱ Macȱ Lochlainn’sȱ republicanism,ȱ Trevorȱ Joyce’sȱ contemplationȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ politicsȱ altogether,ȱ etc.ȱ Butȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ oneȱ ideologyȱ versusȱ another,ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ openȱ formsȱ ofȱ thoughtȱ versusȱ closedȱ systems.ȱ Whetherȱ workingȱ againstȱ theȱ perceivedȱ conservatismȱ ofȱ anȱ Irishȱ poeticȱ mainstream,ȱ orȱ inȱ oppositionȱ toȱ theȱ proscriptiveȱ elementsȱ inȱ certainȱ bodiesȱ ofȱ politicalȱ criticismȱ (beȱ theyȱ Marxist,ȱ nationalist,ȱ orȱ whatȱ haveȱ you),ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱprogressiveȱIrishȱpoetry’sȱevolutionȱintoȱtheȱ 21stȱ centuryȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ beȱ restrictedȱ byȱ theȱ oldȱ templates.ȱ Termsȱ likeȱ “avantȬgarde”ȱ andȱ “experimentalism”ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ areȱ merelyȱ shorthandȱ forȱ theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ newȱ materialȱ realities.ȱ Oftenȱ anȱ urbanȱ realityȱ isȱ implied.ȱ But,ȱ equally,ȱ theȱ processȱofȱchangeȱcannotȱhelpȱbutȱimpactȱonȱruralȱsocietyȱandȱ theȱpoetsȱitȱproduces,ȱandȱsoȱinȱaȱsenseȱIrishȱpoetryȱasȱaȱwholeȱ hasȱ beenȱ challenged.ȱ Whetherȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱ challengeȱ isȱ takenȱ upȱfurtherȱremainsȱtoȱbeȱseen,ȱbutȱforȱmanyȱtheȱpreȬmillennialȱ statusȱquoȱisȱnoȱlongerȱaȱrealisticȱoption.ȱTheȱfuture,ȱtherefore,ȱ oughtȱtoȱbeȱinteresting.ȱ

ȱ68ȱȱ Baraka,ȱ“PrefaceȱtoȱtheȱReader,”ȱTheȱLeRoiȱJones/AmiriȱBarakaȱReader,ȱxiv.ȱ

324ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Contributorsȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ROBERTȱ ARCHAMBEAU’sȱ booksȱ includeȱ Wordȱ Playȱ Placeȱ (Swallow/Ohio),ȱ Vectors:ȱ Newȱ Poeticsȱ (Samizdat),ȱ andȱ theȱ poetryȱ collectionȱ Homeȱ andȱ Variationsȱ (Salt),ȱ andȱ theȱ forthcomingȱ studyȱ Laureatesȱ andȱ Heretics.ȱ Heȱ editedȱ theȱ internationalȱ poetryȱ reviewȱ Samizdatȱ fromȱ 1998Ȭ2004,ȱ andȱ hasȱ taughtȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Notreȱ DameȱandȱLundȱUniversity,ȱSweden.ȱHeȱpresentlyȱlecturesȱinȱEnglishȱ atȱ Lakeȱ Forestȱ University,ȱ andȱ coȬdirectsȱ theȱ &NOWȱ Festivalȱ ofȱ InnovativeȱArtȱandȱWriting.ȱwww.samizdatblog.blogspot.com.ȱ ȱ LOUISȱARMANDȱisȱDirectorȱofȱInterculturalȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱPhilosophyȱ Facultyȱ ofȱ Charlesȱ University,ȱ Prague.ȱ Hisȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Inexorableȱ Weatherȱ (Arc,ȱ 2001);ȱ Theȱ Gardenȱ (Salt,ȱ 2001);ȱ Maliceȱ inȱ Underlandȱ (Textbase,ȱ2003);ȱStrangeȱAttractorsȱ(Salt,ȱ2003);ȱMenudoȱ(Antigen,ȱ2006);ȱ andȱSolicitations:ȱEssaysȱonȱCriticismȱandȱCultureȱ(Litteraria,ȱ2005).ȱHeȱisȱ alsoȱtheȱeditorȱofȱContemporaryȱPoeticsȱ(NorthwesternȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ 2006).ȱwww.louisȬarmand.comȱ ȱ MICHAELȱ S.ȱ BEGNALȱ wasȱ formerlyȱ theȱ editorȱ ofȱ theȱ GalwayȬbasedȱ literaryȱmagazine,ȱTheȱBurningȱBush.ȱHisȱfirstȱcollectionȱofȱpoetry,ȱTheȱ LakesȱofȱComa,ȱappearedȱinȱ2003ȱfromȱSixȱGalleryȱPressȱ(US).ȱHisȱlatest,ȱ AncestorȱWorship,ȱwasȱpublishedȱbyȱSalmonȱ(Ireland).ȱHeȱhasȱappearedȱ inȱ theȱ anthologiesȱ Breakingȱ theȱ Skin:ȱ Newȱ Irishȱ Poetryȱ (Blackȱ Mountainȱ Press)ȱand,ȱinȱIrish,ȱGoȱNuigeȱSeoȱ(Coiscéim).ȱ ȱ R.M.ȱ BERRYȱ isȱ professorȱ ofȱ Englishȱ atȱ Floridaȱ Stateȱ University,ȱ andȱ authorȱofȱtheȱnovelsȱFrankȱandȱLeonardo’sȱHorse.ȱHeȱhasȱalsoȱpublishedȱ collectionsȱofȱshortȱstoriesȱincludingȱDictionaryȱofȱModernȱAnguishȱandȱ Planeȱ Geometryȱ andȱ Otherȱ Affairsȱ ofȱ theȱ Heart.ȱ Hisȱ literaryȱ criticismȱ hasȱ appearedȱ inȱ Symploke,ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Literature,ȱ Soundings,ȱ Americanȱ

325ȱ

BookȱReview,ȱNarrative,ȱandȱotherȱperiodicals.ȱHeȱisȱpublisherȱofȱFictionȱ CollectiveȱTwo.ȱȱ ȱ CHRISTIANȱ BÖKȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Eunoiaȱ (Coachȱ Houseȱ Books,ȱ 2001)ȱ andȱ Crystallographyȱ (Coachȱ Houseȱ Press,ȱ 1994).ȱ Bökȱ hasȱ createdȱ artificialȱ languagesȱ forȱ twoȱ televisionȱ shows:ȱ Geneȱ Roddenberry’sȱ Earth:ȱFinalȱConflictȱandȱPeterȱBenchley’sȱAmazon,ȱandȱhasȱalsoȱearnedȱ manyȱaccoladesȱforȱhisȱperformancesȱofȱsoundȱpoetry.ȱHisȱconceptualȱ artworksȱ (whichȱ includeȱ booksȱ builtȱ outȱ ofȱ Rubik’sȱ Cubesȱ andȱ Legoȱ Bricks)ȱ haveȱ appearedȱ atȱ theȱ Marianneȱ Boeskyȱ Galleryȱ inȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ CityȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱexhibitȱPoetryȱPlastique.ȱBökȱcurrentlyȱteachesȱinȱtheȱ DepartmentȱofȱEnglishȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱCalgary.ȱ ȱ MAIRÉADȱ BYRNEȱ isȱ Assistantȱ Professorȱ ofȱ Englishȱ atȱ Rhodeȱ Islandȱ Schoolȱ ofȱ Designȱ inȱ Providence.ȱ Sheȱ immigratedȱ toȱ Americaȱ fromȱ Irelandȱinȱ1994,ȱandȱearnedȱaȱPhDȱinȱTheoryȱ&ȱCulturalȱStudiesȱfromȱ Purdueȱ Universityȱ inȱ 2001.ȱ Herȱ recentȱ publicationsȱ includeȱ aȱ poetryȱ collection,ȱNelsonȱ&ȱTheȱHuruburuȱBirdȱ(WildȱHoneyȱPress,ȱ2003);ȱthreeȱ chapbooksȱ Vivasȱ (Wildȱ Honeyȱ Press,ȱ 2005),ȱ Anȱ Educatedȱ Heartȱ (Palmȱ Press,ȱ 2005),ȱ andȱ Kalendsȱ (Belladonna,ȱ 2005);ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ aȱ talk,ȱ Someȱ DifferencesȱBetweenȱPoetryȱ&ȱStandupȱ(UbuWeb,ȱ2005).ȱ ȱ JOHANNAȱ DRUCKERȱ isȱ currentlyȱ theȱ Robertsonȱ Professorȱ ofȱ Mediaȱ StudiesȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱVirginiaȱandȱProfessorȱinȱtheȱDepartmentȱ ofȱ English.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ knownȱ forȱ herȱ workȱ asȱ aȱ bookȱ artistȱ andȱ experimentalȱ writerȱ ofȱ visualȱ texts.ȱ Herȱ mostȱ recentȱ title,ȱ Fromȱ Now,ȱ wasȱ publishedȱ byȱ Cuneiformȱ Pressȱ inȱ 2005,ȱ andȱ herȱ mostȱ recentȱ academicȱ workȱ isȱ Sweetȱ Dreams:ȱ Contemporaryȱ Artȱ andȱ Complicityȱ (UniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2005).ȱ ȱ RACHELȱ BLAUȱ DUPLESSISȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ Draftsȱ 1Ȭ38,ȱ Tollȱ (Wesleyan,ȱ 2001)ȱ andȱ DRAFTS.ȱ Draftsȱ 39Ȭ57,ȱ Pledgeȱ withȱ Draft,ȱ unnumbered:ȱPrécisȱ(Salt,ȱ2004)ȱandȱtheȱforthcomingȱTorques:ȱDraftsȱ58Ȭ 76.ȱ Inȱ 2006,ȱ Universityȱ ofȱAlabamaȱ Pressȱ republishedȱTheȱ Pinkȱ Guitar:ȱ Writingȱ asȱ Feministȱ Practiceȱ andȱ publishedȱ Blueȱ Studios:ȱ Poetryȱ andȱ Itsȱ Culturalȱ Work.ȱ Herȱ criticalȱ publicationsȱ includeȱ Genders,ȱ Races,ȱ andȱ Religiousȱ Culturesȱ inȱ Modernȱ Americanȱ Poetry,ȱ 1908Ȭ1934ȱ (Cambridge,ȱ 2001),ȱ Writingȱ Beyondȱ theȱ Ending:ȱ Narrativeȱ Strategiesȱ ofȱ TwentiethȬ Centuryȱ Womenȱ Writersȱ (Indiana,ȱ 1985),ȱ andȱ H.D.ȱ Theȱ Careerȱ ofȱ thatȱ Struggleȱ (Harvesterȱ andȱ Indiana,ȱ 1986).ȱ DuPlessisȱ alsoȱ editedȱ Theȱ 326ȱ

Selectedȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Georgeȱ Oppenȱ (Duke,ȱ 1990).ȱ Sheȱ isȱ aȱ professorȱ inȱ theȱ EnglishȱDepartmentȱatȱTempleȱUniversity.ȱ wings.buffalo.edu/epc/authors/duplessisȱ ȱ VADIMȱERENTȱgraduatedȱfromȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱatȱIrvineȱ inȱ Postmodernȱ Studies.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ publishedȱ articlesȱ onȱ contemporaryȱ Russianȱart,ȱandȱaȱmonographȱonȱtheȱpainterȱOlegȱTselkov.ȱȱ ȱ LISAȱ JARNOTȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ threeȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ poetryȱ includingȱ Someȱ Otherȱ Kindȱ ofȱ Mission,ȱ Ringȱ ofȱ Fire,ȱ andȱ Blackȱ Dogȱ Songs.ȱ Sheȱ recentlyȱ completedȱ aȱ biographyȱ ofȱ theȱ Sanȱ Franciscoȱ poetȱ Robertȱ Duncanȱ whichȱ willȱ beȱ publishedȱ byȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Californiaȱ Pressȱ inȱ 2007.ȱ Sheȱ currentlyȱ teachesȱ inȱ theȱ Creativeȱ Writingȱ Programȱ atȱ BrooklynȱCollege.ȱ ȱ LAURENTȱMILESIȱteachesȱ20thȱcenturyȱAmericanȱliteratureȱandȱcriticalȱ theoryȱatȱCardiffȱUniversityȱandȱisȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱJoyceȱITEMȬCNRSȱ Researchȱ Groupȱ inȱ Paris.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ editorȱ ofȱ Jamesȱ Joyceȱ andȱ theȱ Differenceȱ ofȱ Languageȱ (Cambridge,ȱ 2003),ȱ andȱ hisȱ translation,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ Stefanȱ Herbrechter,ȱ ofȱ Jacquesȱ Derrida’sȱ H.C.ȱ pourȱ laȱ vie,ȱ c’estȱ aȱ dire…ȱwasȱrecentlyȱpublishedȱbyȱStanford.ȱHeȱisȱcurrentlyȱcompletingȱ twoȱ monographs,ȱ onȱ Jacquesȱ Derridaȱ (inȱ French)ȱ andȱ onȱ postmodernismȱ(PostȬEffects:ȱLiterature,ȱTheoryȱandȱtheȱFutureȱPerfect).ȱ ȱ ESTHERȱMILNEȱlecturesȱinȱMediaȱandȱCommunicationsȱatȱSwinburneȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Technology,ȱ Melbourne.ȱ Sheȱ publishesȱ inȱ newȱ mediaȱ theoryȱwithȱaȱfocusȱonȱtheȱproductionȱofȱintimacy,ȱaffectȱandȱpresenceȱ acrossȱ emailȱ andȱ epistolaryȱ circuitsȱ ofȱ communication.ȱ Sheȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ facilitatorȱ forȱ Fibreculture,ȱ theȱ onlineȱ networkȱ forȱ criticalȱ Internetȱ researchȱandȱcultureȱinȱAustralasia:ȱwww.fibreculture.orgȱ ȱ BONITAȱ RHOADSȱ earnedȱ aȱ Ph.D.ȱ inȱ Comparativeȱ Literatureȱ fromȱ YaleȱUniversityȱinȱ2006ȱwithȱaȱdissertationȱthatȱconsidersȱtheȱimpactȱofȱ nineteenthȬcenturyȱvisualȱcultureȱonȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱliteraryȱgenre.ȱ Sinceȱ 2004ȱ sheȱ taughtȱ atȱ Charlesȱ University,ȱ Prague,ȱ andȱ Masarykȱ University,ȱBrno.ȱ ȱ ROBERTȱ SHEPPARDȱ isȱ Seniorȱ Lecturerȱ inȱ Englishȱ andȱ Writingȱ atȱ Edgeȱ Hillȱ Collegeȱ (soonȱ toȱ beȱ University)ȱ inȱ Ormskirk,ȱ England.ȱ Heȱ livesȱ inȱ Liverpoolȱ andȱ Liverpoolȱ Universityȱ Pressȱ publishedȱ hisȱ mostȱ 327ȱ

recentȱ criticalȱ volume,ȱ Theȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Saying:ȱ Britishȱ Poetryȱ andȱ Itsȱ Discontentsȱ 1950Ȭ2000,ȱ lastȱ year.ȱ Heȱhasȱ writtenȱ aȱ monographȱ onȱ theȱ novelist,ȱpoetȱandȱdocumentaristȱIainȱSinclairȱforȱtheȱWritersȱandȱTheirȱ Worksȱ series.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ ofȱ manyȱ articlesȱon,ȱ andȱ reviewsȱ of,ȱ contemporaryȱ poetry,ȱ heȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ poet,ȱ andȱ hisȱ mostȱ recentȱ volumesȱ areȱ Tinȱ Panȱ Arcadiaȱ (Saltȱ Publishingȱ2004)ȱ andȱ Hymnsȱ toȱ theȱ Godȱ inȱ whichȱMyȱTypewriterȱBelievesȱ(StrideȱBooks,ȱ2006).ȱ ȱwww.robertsheppard.blogspot.comȱȱ ȱ TREYȱ STRECKERȱ teachesȱ Englishȱ andȱ sportȱ studiesȱ atȱ Ballȱ Stateȱ University.ȱ Hisȱ essaysȱ onȱ contemporaryȱ Americanȱ literatureȱ haveȱ appearedȱ inȱ Critique:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Contemporaryȱ Fiction,ȱ Theȱ Reviewȱ ofȱ ContemporaryȱFiction,ȱandȱISLE:ȱInterdisciplinaryȱStudiesȱinȱLiteratureȱandȱ Environment.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ editorȱ ofȱ Deadȱ Ballsȱ andȱ Doubleȱ Curves:ȱ Anȱ Anthologyȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Baseballȱ Fictionȱ (Southernȱ Illinoisȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2004).ȱ ȱ KESTONȱ SUTHERLANDȱ lecturesȱ inȱ Englishȱ atȱ theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Sussex.ȱ Heȱ isȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ severalȱ booksȱ ofȱ poetry,ȱ includingȱ Antifreeze,ȱTheȱRictusȱFlag,ȱNeutralityȱandȱNeocosis.ȱHeȱisȱalsoȱtheȱeditorȱ ofȱQuid,ȱaȱjournalȱofȱpoetry,ȱpoliticsȱandȱaestheticȱtheory,ȱandȱcoȬeditorȱ (withȱ Andreaȱ Brady)ȱ ofȱ Barqueȱ Pressȱ (www.barquepress.com).ȱHeȱ isȱ currentlyȱ workingȱ onȱ anȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ collectedȱ criticalȱ proseȱ ofȱ J.H.ȱ Prynne.ȱ ȱ ANNȱVICKERYȱisȱaȱResearchȱFellowȱatȱMonashȱUniversity,ȱAustralia.ȱ Sheȱisȱcurrentlyȱworkingȱonȱtwoȱlargeȱprojects,ȱtheȱfirstȱfocusingȱonȱtheȱ careerȱpathsȱandȱreputationsȱofȱcontemporaryȱAustralianȱwomenȱpoetsȱ andȱ theȱ secondȱ investigatingȱ theȱ affiliationsȱ andȱ influencesȱ betweenȱ womenȱwritersȱandȱartistsȱofȱtheȱNewȱYorkȱSchool.ȱSheȱisȱtheȱauthorȱofȱ Leavingȱ Linesȱ ofȱ Gender:ȱ Aȱ Feministȱ Genealogyȱ ofȱ Languageȱ Writingȱ (Wesleyan,ȱ 2000)ȱ andȱ wasȱ editorȬinȬchiefȱ ofȱ HOW2,ȱ anȱ internationalȱ journalȱofȱinnovativeȱwomen’sȱwritingȱandȱscholarship,ȱbetweenȱ2000ȱ andȱ2002.ȱȱ

ȱ

ȱ

328ȱ