May 262010
 

Herewith the opening lines of new story  just published in Ninth Letter (Vol 7, No 1; Spring/Summer 2010).

I went to see my friend Nedlinger after his wife killed herself in that awful and unseemly way, making a public spectacle of herself and their life together, which, no doubt, Nedlinger hated because of his compulsive need for privacy and concealment, a need which seemed to grow more compelling as his fame spread, as success followed success, as the money poured in, so that in latter years when he could no longer control or put a stop to his public notoriety, when it seemed, yes, as if his celebrity would completely eclipse his private life entirely, he himself turned reclusive and misanthropic, sought to erase himself, as it were, and return to the simple life of a nonentity.

You will recall that Nedlinger began his career as a so-called forensic archaeologist specializing in the analysis of prehistoric Iroquoian ossuaries in southwestern Ontario and it was then, just after finishing his doctorate, before lightning struck, that he met Melusina, at that time a mousy undergraduate studying library science, given to tucking her unruly hair behind her ears and wearing hip-length cardigan sweaters with pockets into which she stuffed used and unused tissues, note cards, pens, odd gloves, sticks of lip balm, hand lotion and her own veiny fists, her chin depressed over her tiny, androgynous breasts–in those days she wore thick flesh coloured stockings and orthopedic shoes to correct a birth defect, syndactyly, I believe it is called. Only Nedlinger, with his forensic mind, could pierce the unpromising surface, the advertising, as it were, to the intelligent, passionate, sensual, fully alive being that hid in the shadows…

–Douglas Glover

Buy the magazine–read the rest.

May 192010
 

Sorry to obsess. But look at 1 Samuel 5 & 6, a passage that has the feel of parody. The Israelites have just gone into battle against the Philistines taking their Ark of the Covenant with them as backup. But the people have been backsliding again and the battle is lost and the Ark goes over to the other side. The Philistines of Ashdod put the Ark in the temple of Dagon, one of their gods, a statue of some sort. The next morning that statue has fallen over onto its face. They put the statue back up, but the next morning they find it with its head and hands cut off and placed on the temple threshold. This is an uh-oh moment for the Philistines of Ashdod who quickly make arrangements for the Ark to be handed off to another Philistine town. Thus begins a kind of musical chairs situation and God rains down destruction and slaughter: plagues of emerods (hemorrhoids) “in their secret parts” and mice. After seven months, the Philistines decide to put the Ark on a driverless ox-cart and send it down the road toward the Israelites. They include a parcel of trespass offerings, golden emerods and five golden mice! I love the emerods and the mice and the head of the god stuck in the doorway. I can’t escape the feeling that the author here was being a bit lighthearted at the Philistines’ expense. No doubt, I shall be reproved by biblical scholars around the world.

The Ark cart eventually trundles into an Israelite farming community called Bathshemesh where the people open of the cart and check out the offerings and make celebratory offerings of their own and notify the Levites to come and take the Ark back. This is all cool except that the poor Bathshemeshites unwittingly have made a fatal error: God whacks 50,070 of them for looking inside the Ark (more collateral damage).

dg

May 172010
 

Warning:  The following post contains traumatic and emotionally harrowing details.  Not for the faint of heart.

I lost my copy of James Salter’s short story collection, Last Night, and it’s torn a hole into the depth of my soul. On a flight to Northern California for the weekend, I was reading the collection and happily marking up several stories as I went. Only after arriving at my hotel did I realize that the book was not in my luggage.  I must have left it in the little seat pocket on the plane.

I hate losing books!  I feel like a piece of me has been ripped away and is out there floating around the skies right now, on some Virgin American 737-300.  I spent several hours marking up this book and writing notes in the margins and now those thoughts, those connections, are gone.

To demonstrate the profound emotional trauma of this experience, I offer the following evidence:  This is the third book I’ve lost.  My first lost book was Crime and Punishment (also a heavily marked copy). I lost this about 8 years ago and have yet to recover.  (One wonders if they have therapy for this affliction?)   Then, about 4 years ago, I lost my copy of J.M. Coetzee’s The Master of Petersburg…this one in the San Diego airport.  And now Salter.  Seriously, these losses stay with me.   My only comfort, my only hope, is that these three lost books have found new, gentle homes.  I beseech the universe that some lonely traveller has stumbled upon these lost books and is reading them.   I need to imagine someone curled up by a fire with a Salter story, perhaps with a glass of single malt Scotch, a snoring dog at his (or her) feet, rain lashing against the roof.  Only this fantasy will help me get to sleep tonight.

—Richard Farrell

May 162010
 

Another of the gorgeous Dore illustrations

In Judges 11 we find another fascinating little story. Jephtha is another one of the “judges” called to save errant Israel. He’s an interesting character in himself. Son of a prostitute, he has to live in exile in the land of Tob until the Ammonites attack Israel. This echoes several Bible stories including the early life of Moses who has to escape from Egypt for a while before coming back to save the Israelites from Pharoah. Any number of Biblical heroes have to live in exile or in the Wilderness before achieving greatness (echoing shamanic practice).

The Israelites promise Jephtha he can govern them if he helps them fight the Ammonites. So off he goes to whack some Ammonites after promising God to sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his front door when he returns home victorious (what was he thinking? what was home life like? what sort of innocuous thing wandered in and out of his front door? goats? puppy dogs?). As luck would have it, the first thing that comes through the door to greet him is his little daughter who dances out happily expecting big hugs and, maybe, souvenir t-shirts. She asks Jephtha why he looks grumpy and he tells her, well, now I have to offer you as a burnt offering to the Lord. She is, to my mind, justifiably dismayed, but she’s a good daughter. She says, okay, but let me go up into the mountains with my girlfriends to mourn my virginity for two months. Jephtha says okay to that (the text emphasizes that his daughter is an only child–think of it). And the girl and her friends spend two months camping and hiking in the mountains bewailing her virginity (have teenage girls changed since then; I mean, really?). Then she comes back and Jephtha burns her on the altar. The KJV translation here is absolutely gorgeous in its description of a sweet, real little girl on the cusp of womanhood.

Continue reading »

May 152010
 

Gustave Dore illustration

I have surged through Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and part of 1 Samuel (Kings), catching mistakes and misinterpretations from the last time I read through. The Bible seems more strange and alien than ever, fascinating in its fierce anarchy. (Might I just mention in passing the plague of hemorrhoids God sends to the Philistines and their attempt to make a Trespass Offering by fashioning five gold statues of their hemorrhoids. 1 Samuel 6:4 I went to bed last night trying to imagine what a golden hemorrhoid would look like.)

Briefly, since I’ve been trying to keep track of what I called the slaughter of the innocents (or collateral damage), I want to draw your attention to the horrific story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19). This follows a murky little bit of text about a man named Micah who seems to set up his own mixed religion with pagan images and Hebrew sacred items mixed and a Levite priest to conduct services–this is during one of those backsliding moments when the Israelites have fallen away from the truth faith. Judges 19 seems to start fresh, but it could be the same Levite priest. He takes a concubine (later she’s referred to as his wife as well), but she “plays the whore” with him and runs away to her father’s place. The Levite goes to get her and eventually starts home. They stop for the night at a place called Gibeah where a nice old gentleman invites them to stay at his place. During the night a crowd of party animals called “sons of Belial” surround the house and ask the old man to send the Levite out so they can have sex with him (this is a repetition of the Genesis 19 episode at Lot’s house in Sodom). The old man offers them his daughter and the concubine instead, but the rowdies want the Levite.

Finally, the Levite convinces them to take the concubine after all. The young gentlemen rape her through the night, and when they’re done, they turn her loose. She manages to crawl to the door of the old man’s house, manages to reach up and get her hands on the doorstep, and dies. In the morning, the Levite gets ready to leave and notices the concubine. He tries to rouse her, but she doesn’t respond. He packs her on his donkey and takes her home. And then he gets a knife and cuts her body up into 12 parts (including the bones) and sends the bits off the the far corners of Israel. His reasoning is that he wants to gather a horde to wreak vengeance on the men of Gibeah–and he does. (This part of the story refers forward to 1 Samuel 11:7 where Saul cuts up a yoke of oxen and sends the pieces to the corners of Israel to summon the hosts. Weird connection, yes? concubine=oxen?) But my mind is still back there with the concubine for whom things have not gone well. Not well at all.

Here is the climactic bit of the story (my emphasis).

019:021 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the
asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.

019:022 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of
the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about,
and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house,
the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine
house, that we may know him.

019:023 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and
said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so
wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not
this folly.

019:024 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them
I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them
what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a
thing.

019:025 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his
concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her,
and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the
day began to spring, they let her go.

019:026 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down
at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was
light.

019:027 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of
the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman
his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and
her hands were upon the threshold.

019:028 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none
answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man
rose up, and gat him unto his place.

019:029 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid
hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her
bones
, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of
Israel.

dg

May 142010
 

I recently saw the film adaptation of Disgrace, J.M. Coetzee’s 1999 Booker Prize winning novel.  In the novel, David Lurie is a white college professor in post-apartheid South Africa who has an affair with one of his students, a girl named Melanie Issacs.  Melanie files a complaint against Lurie and he is dismissed from his post.  He travels to the country to live with his daughter, Lucy, a young woman trying make her way as a farmer.  At the farm, Lurie and his daughter are attacked by three black South Africans, foregrounding the huge issues of race and land ownership and post-colonial Africa.  Lucy steadfastly refuses to leave the farm, even though her attackers continue to roam nearby.  David begins a healing process himself by helping to euthanize stray dogs in a make-shift animal clinic.

The book was sparse, dark and moving.  I had very little hope that the movie could capture the tonality of the book.  Overall, the movie adaptation managed to convey both the somber tone of the book and the meandering inner journey of Lurie.  John Malkovich played Lurie, and though his quirky face (I mean that in a good way) at times had a comic effect, I thought his portrayal of this serious character was excellent.

I found myself thinking about Doug’s section on “Novel Form and Memory” from his book, The Enamoured Knight.  Doug discusses how novels use “substitute memory devices,” usually within a character’s consciousness, to remind the reader of the what has happened and keep the novel from “sprawling.”  By using only dialogue to access memory (or substitute devices), the story tends to get clunky and the dialogue begins to sound unnatural and un-dramatic.

I suspect this is the main reason feature films run mostly between an hour and two hours: films and plays simply can’t supply the substitute-memory devices needed to develop length (it has nothing to do with TV and shorter attention spans).

I read this quote a while back but it really stuck with me.  I think this is the first time I’ve been able to apply this idea to a film adaptation of a novel I’m fairly familiar with.  Longer scenes in the book became compressed in the movie.  A novel of some 250 pages (I don’t have my copy…drat…I must have loaned it out…I’m a hoarder with my books too, so this causes me great pain.)  probably takes me 6-8 hours of solid reading.  So even in a good adaptation, like this one, so much of the richness and texture of the book gets lost.

—Richard Hartshorn

May 122010
 

Swoon

redel

/

Hazlitt said, “Every word must be a blow.” And that’s the way Victoria Redel writes. Every word and phrase a hammer blow, crafted along the edge of a twisty syntax that is taut, teasing, emphatic and lascivious.

Swoon is something else, is gorgeous, a complex triptych of a book, a classic three-step structure held together by the strings of eros and femininity and point of view (that woman poet) and the technical threading–the repetition of the italicized “Such Noises” prologue poems and the smaller linguistic and image parallels (see, for example, how “…bend into the microphone…” on p.4 in “Somewhere in the Glorious” transforms into “And with that she’d sing, tilting and leaning into/ the purpled head…” on p. 71 in “Tilted Woman”; and how Akhmatova, the “Russian woman” and “my mothers” in “Such Noises” on p. 3 return as the “old Jew” who kvelts in “Noisy Woman” on p. 77). And so, though the book moves through its sequence–the young lover in the throes of eros the bittersweet, to the mother, to the multiple female characters of the austere, Chekhovian prose poems in the last section–it is one complexly woven whole.

In Swoon, Redel has hit her form in a spectacular fashion. She is alive in language. She’s a mature poet, a knowing poet, a wild, romantic poet. But, in the end, what she is most besotted with (what the poet in the poems is besotted with) is language itself.

Look at that second poem already mentioned “Somewhere in the Glorious”; two lines in the middle go: “I have only all my waiting. For what have I waited/ by cross street and elbow, for what gadget of transformation?” Then, two poems later, in “Cabin Note”: “We are still waiting./ But for what?” And then in the next poem “Damsels, I”: “If not for paradise then for what/ do I rut, incorrigible in the palm of your hand?” Nevermind that I’d give anything to have written any of these sentences myself with their insistent and erotic parallel constructions, their open-ended and endless interrogatives, their theological and sexual weavings, their surprising turns of phrase. But Redel has actually managed to thread and suspend the thought through three different poems over several pages so that the mind of the reader, in the middle poem (with its acute exploitation of white space, the emptiness of waiting, quite specific to this poem), is really suspended, in suspense, unconsciously waiting for the syntactic pay-off. And the pay-off is spectacular, not because of the thematic surprise (the connection between desire for spiritual transformation and for love is an ancient theme) but because of the language, the bull’s-eye perfect “what”/”rut” rhyme in the third poem. It goes straight to the heart and the mind. It’s what makes Redel a masterful poet.

I love things like this: “What we do we do in this life with our clothes still mostly on.” A line I could write an essay on, an epigram made poetry by the atypical verb placement. Think how a line like this gets built up. It starts with the idea: We do what we do in life with our clothes on. (A slightly anti-romantic, pretty realistic view of what life is like after you’re grown up.) Redel inverts natural word order–“We do what we do” to “What we do we do”– to make the line surprising, give it rhythm and zing. What we do we do in life with our clothes on. An interesting idea but still not a line Redel would write. She adds the word “still” so that we get: “What we do we do in life with our clothes still on.” Which builds in the antithetical picture of what we do with our clothes off which, accordingly, is not what we really do in life. And finally she adds the amazing “mostly”–“our clothes still mostly on” which twists the whole sentence with a wry, ironic tweak. The epigram becomes story, it becomes the image of a couple doing what they do in life but half-in or half-out of their clothes, that sad, comic moment of struggling, half-dressed transition from passion to so-called real life.

—Douglas Glover

See also “Swoon.”

/
/
/

 

May 072010
 

So this is my Friday night:  My wife is getting a massage, my daughter is at swim practice, my son is watching The Backyardigans and I’m eating leftover fried rice, having a glass of Napa chardonnay and reading Lynn Troyka’s Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. I’m honestly embarrassed by the frequent and glaring grammatical errors in my writing.  My previous advisors and Doug have correctly dinged me on this, and though I have my grammarian wife proofread all my packets, the errors remain.  I am old enough to have diagrammed sentences.  I am old enough to have been taught grammar by rote.  I remember grammar lessons, but the problems linger like some psychic scar from my childhood.  Did I repress those lessons?  Did I simply memorize and forget them because I never imagined they’d matter?  Anyway, this is a cautionary tale, I suppose.  There are probably better ways to spend a Friday evening, though to be fully honest, I’m kind of enjoying myself.

—Richard Farrell

May 032010
 

Eglon, king of the Moabites, from Figures de la Bible (1728) Illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648-1733), and others.

Procrastination has reached biblical proportions this packet round–on the other hand, not all my students got their packets here on time, so I have an excuse.

Over the weekend, I got through Joshua and part-way into Judges before I broke down. Joshua divides (like Caesar’s Gaul) into three parts. The first 12 chapters contain the dramatic crossing of the Jordan and the battles for Jericho and Ai (and various other places), also the stories of Rahab, Achan and the trickery of the Gibeonites. The next section is mostly an administrative  interlude in which the various tribes are assigned their allotments in the conquered land. And in the last section, Joshua dies. The first few chapters of Judges recapitulates Joshua, sometimes repeating chunks of text and story pretty much verbatim. And then we begin a series of cycles of backsliding (whoring after strange gods) by the Israelites (who, really, never seem to learn), punishment by God, and then rescue by a local hero who, for some reason, is called a judge. Some of the judges get a good deal of face time, their stories told in graphic detail (the Jael and Sisera story mentioned in an earlier post is part of the story of a female judge named Deborah).

The first time I read through all this material I came away with the impression that it was a kind of veiled history of the Israelites establishing themselves as a monotheistic community amidst a land teeming with polytheists. From Leviticus on, the emphasis seemed to be on establishing and maintaining cultural purity against contamination from the other regional communities. This seemed like a reasonable anthropological synthesis of what I was reading. Now, however, with my trusty Literary Guide beside me, I see greater complexity (and confusion). God makes a covenant with the patriarchs in Genesis to make their people prosper and bring them to the Promised Land. But as we read through the later books of the Pentateuch, we see God gradually introducing an override condition. At first the Israelites are the Chosen People, but then, it seems, they will be the Chosen People as long as they obey him. If they keep acting up (whoring after strange gods), he promises to obliterate them (and there is prophetic material that predicts just this). One of the conditions for God’s beneficence is that the Israelites completely eliminate (early ethnic cleansing) all the strange peoples who already live across the Jordan. God says specifically that they should not make any treaties or deals. Then Joshua goes across the Jordan and the very first thing that happens is that his scouts make a deal with Rahab the harlot which allows her and her family to live with the Israelites for always, thus breaking the covenant. The story of the Gibeonites involves a similar deal with the pagan Canaanites who are allowed to live among the Israelites–and the list goes on. Rather than expunging the polytheists, as they were meant to do, the Israelites keep them around, using them as labour, and then begin to intermarry with them, and so on.
Read the rest!

May 022010
 

Just following my thoughts earlier begun on the way the c(v)ulture industry skews our experience of war (“our” meaning those of us who haven’t actually experienced war). Here is a link to the beginning of an ongoing series of reviews of episodes of the The Pacific by a Marine veteran who did fight in some of the battles portrayed. Why does this man buy the HBO/Spielberg version of war while my student Ross Canton, a thrice wounded Vietnam veteran, doesn’t? Does this man want to remember his life as a made-for-TV movie? Is that what happens to memory and the imagination?

See also.

dg

May 012010
 

I finished up Deuteronomy and the death of Moses this morning and pushed on into Joshua through the well-loved story of Rahab the harlot and the cautionary tale of Achan, the poor guy who stole from the plunder at Jericho and ended up stoned and burned in the Valley of Achor. There’s a great scene in which Joshua gets him to confess by calling him “My son.”  When I was a kid we used to sing the old Negro spiritual (that is what they used to call them–what do they call them now? African American spirituals?) “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” with hand actions. No doubt this set the stage for my later writing career. Here is Mahalia Jackson singing the song. I love the verb “fit” and the way you have to drop syllables in Joshua’s name to make the song work.

Excellent elucidation of the narrative structure of Deuteronomy in The Literary Guide to the Bible: First person narrator quoting Moses quoting God who is sometimes quoting himself (nested quotations technique). Also the time dance. Moses speaks of that time (in the Wilderness, on Mt. Horeb) and this time (now, when is addressing the Israelites beside the Jordan), while so-called Deuteronomist talks about that time (the time of Moses) and this time (the Israelites in exile in Babylon). The book is full of prophecy because Moses seems to know ahead of time that the Israelites will eventually transgress and God will abandon them and they will be conquered and enslaved and long to return to the Promised Land and he knows this just at the moment when they are about to enter the Promised Land the first time.

Great curses, lovely reference to arrows drunk with blood, also the well-named “hill of the foreskins” (this was after the mass circumcision on the banks of the Jordan–imagine it! or maybe not).

In haste, I am doing packets!

dg

Apr 292010
 

Jaak Panksepp and non-rat friend

This is how reading goes. A friend alerted me to a NY Times piece called What is Sleep? by Siri Hustvedt that led me to look up Morvan’s Syndrome (when you don’t sleep) and an Estonian-born researcher named Jaak Panksepp who is famous in the media (or was famous for ten minutes) for claiming that rats can laugh like humans. Of course, Panksepp is far more interesting than that. He does brain and behaviour research with an eye to investigating the differences between the ancient subcortical brain functions and the newer (in evolutionary terms) generalized gray matter we’ve grown on top of the old brain. Of course, there must be a difference. We trundled along, like most other animals, with those early brain parts for millions of years before we began to think and speak and make tools. All that is pretty new stuff, and much of what we feel and imagine and dream comes from much further back. This theorizing dovetails somewhat with a book called Origins of the Modern Mind by the Canadian neuropsychologist Merlin Donald. Donald’s book played a role in the way I read Don Quixote and formed part of the argument in my book The Enamoured Knight, especially in the last section “Night Thoughts of an Insomniac Reader.” But where Donald is interested in recent evolutionary developments (mimetic and representational functions and cognition), Panksepp is interested in basic emotional systems within the primitive brain. Deep in the older parts of our brain, we are quite similar to most other mammals. We separated from rats, for example, about 80 million years ago, but Panksepp finds certain rat brain structures that resemble parts of human brains (I always suspected this). He watches rats (he’s done lovely papers on the structure and function of play among rat cubs that yield suggestive ideas for autism, ADHD and early childhood socialization), for example, and that led to his notorious research on rats and laughter. His big book is Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions, but there are several articles he wrote or co-wrote on the web if you can access them through a library database. Start with “The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology” for a general roundup of current debates about brain evolution.

dg

Apr 232010
 

Call me Ishmael.  Well, not exactly. I’ve been more Ahab than Ishmael this week.  A stray gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, wandered into the San Diego Bay on Monday, off-track on its spring migration back to Alaska from the warm waters of Baja, Mexico.  I spent several hours along the shoreline of the bay in search of the mighty beast, but alas, no sightings.  My daughter swears she spotted him once, but her sighting remains unconfirmed.  I will use the whale-in-the-bay excuse next week to request an extension for packet four.

Part 2: I’ve just returned from my daughter’s music recital at her school.  I couldn’t help but think about writing  whenever a kid hit a wrong note (not my kid, of course!)  I know nothing about playing music.  I never learned how, truly one of the great regrets of my life, probably because I enjoy listening to music so much.  But when a song gets mangled by a young music student, the effect reminds me how difficult the structure of music is.   (Forgive my laymen’s terms…see earlier caveat.)  It never occurred to me before how these young musicians’ struggles are similar to my own.  I am often so careless with words, not realizing the effect my carelessness has on the rendering.  Language can be such an easy thing to play with, yet the power of language, when used with rigorous care, is not unlike the power of music when played correctly.  They both can elevate to such majestic heights.  I suppose I have a new, deeper sympathy for my advisers now.  Just be thankful I’m not getting my MFA in chamber music.  Oye.

Part 3: This week, between feckless whale watching and festive music performances, I started re-reading John Fowles novel, The Magus.  (I think this will be my fifth reading.)  This novel ranks in my all-time top two.  If forced to choose, I’d say Crime & Punishment is still #1, The Magus is #2.  But it’s a close race.  I’ve not read this novel since staring at VCFA, so my appreciation for it has grown considerably.  I also travelled to many of the places Fowles talks about in the book since the last time I read it, so that’s an interesting change too.  Fowles’ ability to weave disparate, wild ideas into a cohesive, almost taught narrative astounds me.  This book forces me to think deeply and experience emotions, all the while challenging my assumptions about reality.

I suppose I’ll push through and finish my packet this weekend, unless the whale surfaces again.

—Richard Farrell

Apr 232010
 

Raphael’s School of Athens

The University of King’s College Middle Bay version of the School of Athens. Jacob Glover is Parmenides, holding the book, talking to a young woman named Hypatia, centre left.

Apr 222010
 

The early books of the Bible are littered with strange names and peoples. I mentioned giants last time and the Sons of God who came down and had sex with human females. There are also the mysterious Nephilim or Refraim (I think I am getting the words right). And in Numbers and Deuteronomy, there are the giantish Anaks or Anakim. Of course, later on there is Goliath. The Anakim and Og of Bashan, mentioned in my previous giant post, are cited by Moses’ pusillanimous scouts to emphasize the might of the Canaanite hosts the Israelites will face if they go down across the Jordan as God wants them to do. Their fear (or prudence) is infectious. God gets angry and wants to kill his chosen people (once again). But Moses (once again) talks Him down, and God merely sends them off into the Wilderness til everyone in the cowardly generation dies off.

In any case, I find these giants fascinating, as I do the prophets (like Balaam) and the dreamers (like Joseph & Jacob) and the 70 tribal elders who sit down around the tabernacle, go off into an ecstatic trance, and can’t stop prophecying (although their prophecies aren’t true). I like the Children of Israel dancing naked before the Canaanite Golden Calf and whoring with the Moabite (or was it the Midianite) women (really a quasi-euphemism for lapsing into ancient religious ways)–all these are traces of cultural elements beginning to disappear before the book and monotheism, the first signs of modernity.

I also like that 1971 George C. Scott movie They Might be Giants about a wealthy man who thinks he’s Sherlock Holmes and manages to convince the psychologist his relatives hire that it’s better to live thinking there might be giants than not. Which is, of course, a re-working of Quixote. The words “they might be giants” are from the windmill chapter of the novel. Quixote convinces his friends that life is more interesting when he’s insane than when he’s not. The message of the Bible is somewhat different–there is so much effort put into stamping out the last vestiges of the ancient religions; those old beliefs are a kind of cultural insanity (uncleanness), though the problem for God and Moses is that they are also deeply attractive. As you all know (or maybe not), I wrote a book about Quixote which talks, among other things, about obsession, plot, and books.

I think I used to like Jack and the Beanstalk more than any other fairy tale. I seem to recall lying in bed a night, thinking of how I would approach a giant.

I don’t know where this is leading. Probably the fact that I drove 720 miles to Halifax on Monday and then most of the way back on Tuesday has something to do with this.

dg

Apr 182010
 

Scott Russell Sanders

I would like to add the following as a general rule: a work of art is perceived against a background of and by association with other works of art. The form of a work of art is determined by its relationship with other pre-existing forms. The content of a work of art is invariably manipulated, it is isolated, “silenced.” All works of art, and not only parodies, are created either as a parallel or an antithesis to some model. The new form makes its appearance not in order to express new content, but rather, to replace an old form that has already outlived its artistic usefulness. (Theory of Prose p20)

I start with this quote from Shklovsky not because it necessarily says anything specifically craft-related that I hadn’t already heard this semester, but because it reinforced a couple of truths I think I’ve been subconsciously evading for the last couple of months: 1) that the strength of a non-fiction story doesn’t come only from the events and people themselves but from the formal choices I choose in telling (writing) them, and 2) I can see these formal choices in just about everything I read, if I read pieces for form rather than content. In other words, both my writing and my reading have been focusing on finding the “aboutness” of a piece or an experience, attaching myself to writing and events that have some verisimilitude for me, at the expense of focusing, as an artist, on the formal patterns other artists employ. Doug’s been telling me this from the start, but it’s taken awhile to sink in (and of course still is).

I chose to write critically about Scott Russell Sanders‘s “Under the Influence” because I found it so similar in structure and content to what I was attempting with the creative work I submitted last month. Some of these similarities include the central conflict of understanding the father, the thematic framing of addiction (though I think we differ in our final verdict), and perhaps most importantly the way he juxtaposes the past he remembers so vividly with his present self, a self that seems so removed from that past but still finds bits of it in him. One way he frames the past and present that resonates with me is the juxtaposition of addiction with biblical imagery.

The essay, as implied by the title, is a meditation on alcoholism, primarily his father’s. But it also delves into the nature of addiction, indicting his own obsession with work that prompts his daughter to label him a workaholic, and delving into the influence Sanders’s father had on his siblings’ and his own habits, hence the first two interpretations of the title I found. A third possible interpretation is the influence of the Bible, as a source of mythology, an instruction book for living, and, because of this perhaps most importantly, as a source of shame for Sanders at his father’s miserable failure at living up to these instructions.

As it turns out I had to rethink and revise my work to get to what Sanders was doing formally. I initially chose to write critically about it because I found the people, themes, and events in the essay immediately recognizable, and similar to some of the people and themes I’m writing about in my own work. Because of this, in my first critical essay, I focused primarily on those elements that I connected most to my work thematically and explained how they connected. The next time out, though, I focused on just one section of “Under the Influence” (on pp737-739 of The Art of the Personal Essay) only in terms of its structural patterns, specifically the parallelism of biblical passages and parables with events in Sanders’ family, and tried to discern how these patterns work. This is what I came up with.

Sanders’s intent in this section is to juxtapose his adult understanding of his father as an alcoholic with his childhood understanding of his father as a sinner, which he sets up in the first paragraph of the section:

While growing up on the back roads and in the country schools and cramped Methodist churches of Ohio and Tennessee, I never heard the world alcoholism, never happened across it in books or magazines. In the nearby towns, there were no addiction treatment programs, no community mental health centers, no Alcoholics Anonymous chapters, no therapists. Left alone with our grievous secret, we has no way of understanding Father’s drinking except as an act of will, a deliberate folly or cruelty, a moral weakness, a sin.

This juxtaposition is important because it contrasts Sanders’ adult authorial voice, for whom the phrase “under the influence” in relation to his father’s alcoholism has the commonly accepted connotation of addiction, with his child-presence, for whom the “influence” in the same phrase is far more sinister, mysterious and frightening. One of the most commonly voiced concerns I’ve heard (and voiced myself) is the difficulty, in writing of childhood, of balancing the child-awareness with the adult authorial presence. This mingling of the biblical with the clinical is how Sanders balances the two.

The following three paragraphs give a sweeping panorama of biblical allusions he remembers being used by his church to scare the bejesus out of him, of a different ilk for each paragraph, giving his adult-voice recollection of the connections he made between them and his father. The first one has three proclamations by the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, and an anonymous seer of the Book of Proverbs:

  • “The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment. For all the table are full of vomit, no place is without filthiness” – he remembers “fouled tables at the truckstop where the notorious boozers hung out, our father occasionally among them.”
  • “Wine and new wine take away the understanding” – his father, fairly astute at math, was unable to even help with fourth grade math when he was drinking.
  • “Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind will utter perverse things” – Here his adult voice is in full command, with an authoritatively ironic “Woe, Woe” dismissively concluding the prophets’ passages.

Sanders then in the next short paragraph, his authorial presence subtly lurking,  summarizes the Old Testament cautionary tales of Noah and Lot, in which both violated their parental boundaries when drinking, and Sanders concludes in his adult voice, “The sins of the fathers set their children’s teeth on edge.” And in the last of these three paragraphs Sanders takes his church’s ministers themselves to task, noting their prudish assurance of the children that they were drinking grape juice, not wine, at the Last Supper, and finally noting the implication of the “Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not drink.”

The final three paragraphs of the section go even deeper into the dichotomy of addiction as possession, with “the scariest and most illuminating Bible story apropos of drunkards,” the New Testament parable of the drunkard and the swine. He spends most of the first paragraph summarizing the story of Jesus finding the lifetime drunk of a village, seeing immediately that the man is simply possessed, and sending the demons into a group of swine “conveniently rooting nearby.” The poor hogs go crazy and jump off a cliff, and the now-former drunk “bathed himself and put on clothes and calmly sat at the feet of Jesus, restored – so the Bible said – to his ‘right mind.’”

Sanders begins the next paragraph with, “When drunk, our father was clearly in his wrong mind.” Then, he sets out, in his adult voice, at explaining the connections he made as a child to the story. He says he saw his father as this lunatic, both “quick tempered, explosive” and “maudlin and weepy,” and notes the support he received for his theory from the local church, which referred to liquor as “spirits” and “demon drink,” and local newspapers with their reports of driving “under the influence” (interestingly, the paper probably meant it in the clinical sense, but as a child he took the influence as demonic). And finally, in the last paragraph, he asks four questions in succession in the confused, pleading voice of the child he was:

If my father was indeed possessed, who could exorcise him? If he was a sinner, who could save him? If he was ill, who could cure him? If he suffered, who could ease his pain?

And then he answers them in the sad, regretful voice of the adult who sees beyond the time and place:

Not ministers and doctors, for we could not bring ourselves to confide in them; not the neighbors, for we pretended they had never seen him drunk; not Mother, who fussed and pleaded but could not budge him; not my brother and sister, who were only kids. That left me. It did not matter that I, too, was only a child, and a bewildered one at that. I could not excuse myself.

Interestingly, even as an adult, the answers he gives are not really answers, but ironic justifications of the answers he gave as a child. The effect is chilling, but also endears him to the reader – he still is questioning, and even the answers just bring in more questions. This seems central to the voice of the personal essayist – not the desire the answer the questions, but to raise them, bringing the reader into the story, with his or her own questions, and his or her own answers.

–John Proctor

For a further discussion of aboutness, verisimilitude, and patterns, see dg’s essay “The Novel is a Poem” in Notes Home from a Prodigal Son.

Apr 172010
 

I started rereading the Bible yesterday; it seems quite different from the last time. Now I recognize favourite passages or structural elements that organize the stories. But the recognition of familiar bits also frees me up to appreciate new things. More on that later. Right now here is one of my absolute favourite verses from Genesis.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown.

Read it out loud for the sonorous rhythms. This passage describes the era after Adam and Eve and before Noah, God’s little temper tantrum starts in the very next verse. What’s interesting to me, besides the poetry, is the claim that before the Flood there were giants and also that the “sons of God” (whoever they were) had sex with human women who bore a race of heroic men. This is stirring stuff, but it somewhat clashes with conventional biblical readings. I never learned about the giants in Sunday school, though I would have enjoyed hearing about them. (Also mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:11.) And, of course, in the New Testament, Jesus is God’s only begotten son–apparently, the author forgot all the others; either that, or we have here a little Orwellian rewriting of history. But, really, I don’t mean to trivialize the passage by descending into simple-minded textual comparisons. The verse about giants and the sons of God is one of those bits that slipped into the Old Testament from some more ancient myth cycle–there are lots of these textual erratics: I still keep puzzling over the famous “incident of the bloody husband”–something about a demonic apparition and a hasty do-it-yourself circumcision (Exodus 4:24),  for example.  But I love the words and the feel of an ancient speaker speaking to me.

This is written much in haste, first thoughts. I almost forgot Og of Bashan (if I ever have another son, I will name him Og).

Deut. 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants;
behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in
Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length
thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of
a man.

dg

Apr 142010
 

So I picked Jonah up from school and he was in a good mood. He had to sell chocolate bars for a Latin class trip. At lunch, he set himself up at a table with a sign that read COCAINE with the word crossed and underneath, in much smaller letters, Confectionery Sugar. Kids lined up to buy. A second ploy involved a group of boys, always at the same lunch, who hang around together and always bring an extra dollar for ice cream. Jonah went over to the ring-leader of the group and offered him a free chocolate bar if he promised to say how good it was and not share any. Jonah promptly sold several chocolate bars.

All the way home he was talking about getting an MBA.

dg

Apr 132010
 

So here’s what happened. I was at the gym with Jonah, and since I’m ancient and feeble I was done earlier than he was. I was in the lobby reading the Glens Falls Post Star, a back page article about the recent mine disaster in West Virginia. Jonah came down the stairs and, joking, said, Have you been crying? Of course, I hadn’t. I was just sweating. I was in a room full of 11-year-old gymnasts, their mothers, and a bunch of middle-aged tennis stars. But then I said, Listen to this. And I told him what I had just read. About how they had found, I think, 25 bodies and there were still four men missing. Rescue teams were trying desperately to find them. The state governor, a man named Minchin (I think I got the name right),  was in the room where the relatives waited for news. He was talking to a woman (I haven’t got the article, can’t remember the names) whose son and two grandsons (ages 20 and 25, just boys) were among the missing four. Then an aide came into the room and handed the governor a note that said the woman’s son and grandsons had been found dead. (It’s important to note here that this Gov. Minchin had lost an uncle in mine disaster, too.) He quickly ushered the woman into a private room and said, They didn’t make it. Her response was: Were they together? The governor said, Yes. And that put me on my knees because I could imagine her mental process and her value set and her feeling for what was important in death and love. The governor had the guts and grace to tell her himself; the woman knew that if they were dead, at least there would be some comfort if father and sons were together when it happened.

dg

Apr 122010
 

Meet “Petunia.”  She’s 2 (in dog years), very loyal (to me, which is a first) and loves Dostoesvsky and Millhauser, but can find no connection (yet) between the two.  We rescued her through SD Bulldog Rescue.  They found her wandering the streets of Escondido, CA.  She was emaciated and had huge, open sores all along her spine.  She’s recovered amazingly well.

—Richard Farrell

Mar 312010
 

Okay, a couple of things I was reading about this morning that I can’t resist mentioning. First of all, it turns out Jesse James (not the cowboy; Sandra Bullock’s husband) had a 4-way with his gf Bombshell McGee, a tattoo parlor receptionist named Skittles Valentine, and her boss. There is something magnetic about these names. I am going to write a novel called Skittles Valentine.

The other thing is this video of militia girls in training. It made me want to join. Absolutely. About half-way through the video there is a blurred image that looks like a guy holding up a target for people to shoot at. Could this be true? How long did he survive? I guess life is cheap in the Michigan woods.

Soon I will begin writing about literature and deep things again, but this morning all I have to look forward to are packets.

dg

 

Mar 272010
 

Marine Eugene Sledge

Joe Mazzello as Eugene Sledge

This post is prompted by working with Ross Canton who is writing a Vietnam War memoir. Ross was a radio operator and a member of a mortar team til he was wounded the third or fourth time, dreadfully wounded, hospitalized, and finally sent home. In any case, we’ve both read the standard Vietnam books; I’ve read several World War One memoirs by British writers like Guy Chapman, Siegfried Sassoon, and Robert Graves. And I’ve read Paul Fussell’s The Great War and Modern Memory in which Fussell argues that the writing that came out of World War One established a template for describing certain life experiences ever after. Certainly, I think it is very difficult for people to write about war without falling back on types and patterns set in the early 20th century.

The other day I noticed promotional material for the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg 10-part, $195 million, HBO miniseries called The Pacific. The series is based largely on the reminiscences of three soldiers, especially Robert Leckie’s Helmet for my Pillow and Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed. Both Sledge and Leckie were enlisted Marines (Chapman, Sassoon and Graves were all officers). The Sledge book is the best by far; Leckie gets boring with all his teenage hijinks and his endless nicknames,vague characterizations, etc. But Sledge is good and he is tough to read (like my student Ross Canton, he served with a mortar team). We have become so conscious of battlefield “atrocities”–in Vietnam, atrocities seemed to define a moment of excess inside the bizarre horror of the battlefield, excess within excess–that his matter-of-fact portrayal of the debasing experience of war and its effects is fascinating and awful. In the Leckie book there is a Marine named Souvenirs who goes around prying gold teeth out of the mouths of dead Japanese soldiers. In Sledge, you get the idea this was pretty common and at one point Sledge himself starts to think about it and is barely headed off by a gentler, smarter friend. One wonders what Spielberg will do with Sledge’s Marine lieutenant Mac, fresh from the States, who takes his carbine and shoots off the tip of a dead Japanese soldier’s penis for target practice. Or the Marine who casually shoots an elderly wounded Okinawan woman to death while Sledge is off trying to find a medic to help her. Sledge is also good on the smell of war–the heat, the rotting bodies, the blow flies, the diarrhea, the maggots. Sledge makes it clear that experiencing war is a constant struggle to compose one’s self in a world of, to us, unimaginable horror, cruelty, boredom, and exhaustion. One of his worst fears is that he will give in to fear. Many do.

The Vietnam war books I recall (and I haven’t read them for a while) might be better written, but there is a truthful naivete in Sledge’s book. And he never gets up on a moral high horse which makes me trust him. His sense of the human capacity for moral corruption is wise–I feel as if we have become more foolish about war, or the media has made us so. By contrast, there is a book called The Pacific, a companion to the TV series, which is just dreadful, thin, unpleasantly breezy, cliched, distant, and abstract. Here as an excerpt. With books like this veiling the experience of war, it is no wonder we are constantly surprised by what actually happens. At this point, one is reminded that writing well is a moral act. Think about it.

This is just a pre-thought. I haven’t studied the matter. There is a book or a paper to be written on war writing that includes things written between World War One and the Vietnam War and the wars beyond that.

Or just for starters think about the difference between the two photographs at the top of the post.

dg

Mar 262010
 

I’ve been trying so hard not to post! The aphorism contest was particularly difficult to avoid . . . as was the pompeiian graffiti. To me, your blog is the equivalent to literary facebook . . . i’m not sure if that’s a compliment.

Mar 242010
 

This post is extemporaneous, un-edited and un-solicited.  (Have I caveated it enough?)  My struggles to understand writing have reduced to this:  failure must be a significant part of the process.  I hope.  Nothing in my life (perhaps golf?) has prepared me to face failure and utter disgust with my own ability quite as much as the last year and a half, and the last two months in particular, with these little frissons of joy at a sentence, a phrase, a moment captured.  Yet every time I think that my hands have grasped something concrete, it slides away.  It’s character. No, it’s structure.  But what level of structure?  No, it’s the verbs.   I feel like I’m trying to wrap my arms around a jello-mold!  Yet, as my wife has pointed out, I’ve never been more happy, never more satisfied with anything I’ve ever done.  How does failure satisfy you?  How does ineptitude qualify as joy?  But there it is.  My ego has been stripped raw.  My brain fried.  My confidence reduced to doubts about every comma, every verb.  Yet what else would I rather be doing?  Perhaps being attacked by a killer clownfish, but beyond that?

—Richard Farrell

Mar 242010
 

acquainted

Karen Mulhallen

This is my introduction to Karen Mulhallen’s book of selected poems Acquainted With Absence, published last year by Blaurock Press in Canada. I selected the poems, did some editing and wrote this introduction.

dg

/

This isn’t a book, it’s a keen and a lament. It’s words shimmering over the void. It’s whistling in the dark. It’s lusty, lorn, fearful, lonely, melancholy, defiant, ebullient, mischievous, loopy, solemn, comic, mysterious, fragile, erudite, and grand. In “Letter V” (from In the Era of Acid Rain, 1993), the poet addresses an interlocutor: “You complain of my limited subject matter. Death, you say, it’s always death. Let’s hope we can keep up the supply of men, to fuel your ruminations.” To which the poet replies: “But, my dear, you are mistaken. It is not death but union, mating, bridgeworks, which is my subject. Yin and Yang. The severing of bridgeworks, my lament.”

Love and death, then are the subjects, and they are the same, for love implies loss, and death reminds us always of the living thing that was before and the two together are located at the limits of language where each word suggests its opposite and together they create diapasons of wholeness and loss. In the poem “Sheba Oenone” (from Sheba and Solomon, 1984) from which the title of this book is taken, Sheba addresses Solomon after returning to her desert kingdom.

The chronicler warned me
Of the return from your kingdom
Too long you will remain, she said,
After dark is dangerous.

She has remained too long in Israel, the lover’s realm, and, home now, she addresses him as if from the Land of the Dead in a series of paradoxes interspersed with the physical signs of arousal. So that love, loss and desire form a triumvirate of modalities defining the poet’s impossible state.

When it is damp, the water sinks
Eyes flicker
When it is dry, the fountain sprays
Veins pulse
When it is sunning, the prisms crack
Core throbs
When it is darkling, the stars shine
I am waiting.

Acquainted With Absence is about longing for the mysterious one, the fatal flawed lover, it is about travel–the poet goes away and writes back, the lovers call from far away or visit and disappear or hover just beyond reach–it is about the deaths of loved ones, a litany of loss with which we are all, yes, familiar, though for each of us the litany is different. That first book Sheba and Solomon seems now so significant, though it’s early and a kind of trailing harbinger–much later the books come faster–but it’s about a pair of legendary lovers whose courtly affairs mixed with affairs of state seem to belie the passion and eros that inspire the poems. Impossible loves are the only kind, it seems, in Karen Mulhallen’s poems, yet in Sheba’s realm eros has a bite, and an impishly libidinal smile hangs over heart and bier.

These are poems culled from each of the poet’s books, also some are uncollected, and one is unpublished till now. The result is a Frankenstein if we assume that the author’s intent was to create a separate living organic whole with each collection. A very elegant and original Frankenstein, to be sure, a Rudolf Nureyev of a Frankenstein, though no less the child of a radical surgery. I have put the arms and legs from one book with the heart and ears of another. The things I have left out haunt this collection and me. There is a rough narrative arc that is only notionally chronological (the author has had a notable life–Woodstock childhood, Blake scholarship, academic career at Ryerson University, more than thirty years of fostering the country’s writers with Descant Magazine, marriage and aftermath, romances, periods of creative sequestration, fierce, loyal friendships, wanderings, and, always, the writing). But I start with a poem from the author’s first collection and try to dance through marriage, lovers, family deaths and deaths of friends, and travels, vectoring toward that moment when she herself perished, technically, at least, in a diving accident and then came back. (Examining her afterwards in Toronto, doctors discovered her skull to be populated with several mysterious and charmingly named UBOs, Unidentified Bright Objects.)

Ripped from their settings and reordered intuitively (my intuition) the poems now hint at an autobiography that is not Karen Mulhallen’s autobiography but somehow recollects her emotional passage, her obsessions and the idiosyncrasies of an original and remarkable mind. Reading and rereading her, one begins to notice, beyond the narratives of love and death and the concrete references to loved ones and beloved places (ripped from context, the loved ones and beloved places become mysterious and mythic–the lover is a Demon Lover and the earth is Gaia, fecund, damp, sensual), insistent recurrences: water, islands, plant lore, horses, seahorses, even dogs–lovely to watch the imagery unfold into myth, comedy, eros and personal anguish.

Bear with me. An aside on horses. Watch the web and reiteration of words:

Each day on the beach the horses appear.
There are four of them, and a man.

Horses came with the dawn, hyracotherium,
and the dawn horse was small,
only four hands tall from withers to ground…

This is from “The Horses of the Dawn” (from Sea Light, 2003) in which the poet observes four Arabian horses on a Caribbean beach and her mind casts back to the earliest horse (she is always going back to the beginnings of things and tracking the eons forward). And it speaks to a parallel moment on the Toronto Islands in a gorgeous blank verse piece “The Changing Light at Gibraltar Point” (also from Sea Light):

The horses appear at the verge, closer to the studio window than to lake. The light is
strong, the lake is blue, cirrus clouds at horizon, beyond them a pale blue lofty sky. The
black raises its head…

And then, with a modulation of tone (the horse, by the logic of poetic structures, metamorphoses into sea horse, sea monster, part of the brain and a lover’s penis), to this poem “The Sea Horse” (from the book Sea Horses, 2007):

The Sea Horse

preoccupies me
its sweet curve at the edge of the crook of your loins and your thigh
enfolded like the hippocampus, a sea monster/
sea horse, no need to lift up to aggression,
so easily it can be asked to dance;
in repose it is simply at rest,
and age carries that tranquility
in its most sweet form

In Acquainted With Absence, the horse-sea horse-penis brings to mind flutes (for obvious reasons) and iguanas (which, the poet reminds us, have two penises and can be made into an aphrodisiac soup–mentioned twice), but the horse is also death (in a tanka she wrote as part of a multi-year back-and-forth poetic collusion with her friend Virgil Burnett–Renga Talk, 2007):

Death’s the grand stallion
leading us, not to finis,
but to ever, anon–

And at the end of the book it becomes the poet herself.

Wind

on the grass/
my fingers on these keys.

I have come to the place where what I desire
is not what others desire.
I have not yet reached the place where I know this instinctively,
but it is now part of my deep knowledge of myself
And of my relation to the world.

Some Sable Island horses do not drink from the freshwater ponds.
They dig their own holes for their water.

The title of this poem is “Wind” (from Sea Horses) which resonates with an earlier poem called “Winds” (from Sea Light) in which the poet touches on horses and horse latitudes, the verb “horsed” (to be placed in irons), horsing around and horseshoes, but the tone, the somber sublunary self-consciousness, recalls this tanka.

I wonder if I
am lonely, living as I
do. What do you think?

Is it wrong to be alone
always? Is solitude a vice.

For which there is an answer:

You’re right, of course, what’s
needed now is pleasure, of
almost any kind–love,

travel, friends, poetry, sun,
food, art, beauty, music, wine.

I indulge myself in following the horse motif (and there is more to it than I have mentioned) not because I think horses mean anything in the way of a hefty symbol but because with any good book of poems you can take a thread and begin to untangle the skein and it will lead you everywhere else in the book. Who can tell the deepest leanings of the poet’s mind, or would want to, except to say there is joy in metaphor, metamorphosis (a kind of pun, really) and the play of language? “Horse” is a word, and in the end the horses lead us back to the solitary poet and her Mediterranean pleasures (Woodstock, after all, is in Canada’s deep south–we are sun-lovers and pleasure-seekers, the whole lot of us), pleasures which, in the style of the book, take on a melancholy air of bravado. In “Dirge of the Polar Bear” (War Surgery, 1996), the poet writes:

I confess I am old:
In particular, this morning,
as I catch myself in the glass of ice and ocean,
as I begin musing, a-musing
on anabasis, the long march,
the eternal return of my alitros,
my rascal.

Pinpricks of light, entire rainbows
on the points of ice, prisms of air
where Socrates leads the dead to judgement
in the Phaedo, enchanted each by his own genius
entering the realm of myth
led by a daimon, the demon of self
our rascal, our genius, guide
into a territory where ghostly ice shrouds rise up
with each gust across the lake.

The poems in this book date from the 1960s to yesterday and the poet went through several stages of development corresponding to allegiances, discoveries and experiments: Charles Olson’s open field writing–that essay “On Projective Verse”, Whitman’s New World long line, William Carlos Williams’ three-line stanza, James Merrill–unlike many Canadian writers, Mulhallen is willing to admit the richness of American writing. But she is just as likely to be thinking of Thomas Wyatt or Yeats or Keats. The Grace of Private Passage (2000), for example, is written with a lot of those Williams three-line stanzas. The Caverns of Ely (1997, 2000) has a Tennyson poem in the back of its mind, but also contains two Michael Drayton poems, a line from a Jean Rhys novel and a passage of Laurence Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey rendered as poetry .

having been in love almost all my life
may I go on so ‘til I die

Sometimes Karen Mulhallen’s poems look like poems and sometimes they look like prose, although the prose look of, say, “Letter V” is illusory–the poem is written in blank verse buried in a somewhat Miltonic long line of iambic pentameter phrases; the lines run although the ear can pick up the line and stanza breaks and the caesuras throughout. Sometimes she explodes her lines with spaces to create open field poetry. Sometimes the ends of lines stand in for punctuation–periods or commas. Sometimes she runs capital letters at the start of each line and sometimes she doesn’t. All these variants have been left as they were despite the occasional incongruity in the current setting because to homogenize them would have insulted the original organic integrity of inspiration and the poet’s delight in self-transformation and growth. And what you find if you read carefully enough is a text in which the vectors of intention, influence, allusion, word-play, context and specificity (of place, time and gesture) criss-cross to form a densely layered and fascinating poetic matrix.

But this is house-keeping, and I really mean for this mysterious book and the passionate intelligence of the poems to carry themselves without explanation or caveat. Karen Mulhallen is a magnificent poet, prolific, protean and deeply, intensely personal. She is a metaphysical poet, concerned with ends and existence, yet she grounds everything in the specific and the concrete. Just to remind you of how this works, here are lines from “The Caverns of Ely” which echo the wind/horse pattern, quote from a Jean Rhys novel, speak of love and the writing of poetry and close with taking down the laundry.

The wind came up strong today, when you were absent–
I wanted to say away, but feared the closure of a rhyme–
I felt the sadness in the wind, so much sadness in the wind,
and thought of sending cards inscribed to all whom I love
‘It is very windy here’,
as I gathered the laundry from the line.

Everything (love, line, word, laundry, poet) hangs in the windy air between I and you, and the space between is absence, a state of being that informs every poem in this book. To be is to be in a relation and to write is to bridge the gap (watch the “bridge” pattern throughout the book). The paradox (the romantic paradox) is that if there were no gap, if love succeeded, there would be no room for poetry. Think of those courtly troubadour poets singing rhymes to their chaste and irreproachable lovers, the mystical she/other who might be a real woman, or God, or an occasion for a line. Then mull the implications of this elegant turn at the end of the brilliant “Spel Against the Author of Spel Against Love Poems” (from Modern Love, 1990) wherein the poet evades the lover in order to make the writing of love poems possible.

So I write this spel against the speller
I keep silent
evade you here in the light
where my mind is
and not in the body
losing itself to darkness and dreams
to the writing of love poems
I loved you with so bright a light
so wise
I could not write.

—Douglas Glover

/
/

Mar 242010
 

The world of literary translation knows no boundaries. David Helwig sent me the following, a piece of graffiti found on the wall of a brothel in Pompeii.

Arphocras hic cum Drauca bene futuit denario.

I looked it up on the web. The more or less accepted translation goes like this: Here Harpocras has had a good fuck with Drauca for a denarius.

But I sent the line to Jacob to see what he thought. He wrote back: Something along the lines of…Here Arphocras laid well with Drauca (my dictionary says this means sodomite, but it is a capital D so I made it a name. I think it is a pun.) for a silver coin. Basically… “Arphocras fucked the shit out of some male hooker right here for like no money.”

Then I looked up the quotation in Craig A. Williams Roman Homosexuality. Apparently, the price paid to Drauca was eight times the going rate (according to other notations on the wall).

The plot thickens.

dg