Showing posts with label T.S. Eliot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label T.S. Eliot. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

rob’s clever substack : Lecture for an Empty Room

For those unaware, I’ve been posting weekly-or-so over at a substack I began back in November, constructed to prompt further thinking into a potential book-length essay, “Lecture for an Empty Room.” I had started scratching note-fragments somewhere across those first two years of Covid-19 lockdown, thinking upon literary community, reviewing, notions of work, connection, responsibility and various other scattered thoughts. I’m attempting to post something weekly, with every third or so as a paid-subscription-only piece, with the rest offered gratis to anyone who signs up (free subscriptions are the bulk of the subscriptions, which is fine also). I’m aiming to post self-contained fragments of this work-in-progress as I attempt to move forward, interspersing these with occasional other pieces, whether short stories, possible fragments of this novel work-in-progress as well as a chapbook-length essay I worked across the same original lockdown period, a kind of notebook on a call-and-response poem collaboration that Denver poet Julie Carr and I were working on. I had thought back to an essay I saw once by George Bowering, composed as journal entries during a period he was working a novel (I can’t recall which book this was in, or which novel, naturally; was this an essay on/around composing Caprice?), or even Robert Kroetsch’s The Crow Journals (Edmonton AB: NeWest Press, 1980), a book-length journal composed around the composition of his novel, What the Crow Said (1978). I’d always envied that particular form, wishing to echo an element of it somewhere, somehow, and there are some wonderful observations through that particular non-fiction work (I would recommend you find a copy and go through it, even if you haven’t read that particular novel of his, which is actually still in print, by the way).

Here's one of the recent fragments of “Lecture for an Empty Room” I posted over at my clever substack (sign up here for free (or for a wee bit of coin), if such interests). I am curious to see where this project might end up, myself.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

A conversation. All these little echo chambers.

At the end of December, 2022, Matthew Walther’s “Poetry Died 100 Years Ago This Month” appeared in The New York Times. Why is it so important for opinion writers to return, once again, to declaring the death of poetry? Perhaps they wish to claim credit, whether through a kind of critic-assisted end of literary suffering, or wishing to be seen to have the clarity of childlike wisdom, akin to “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Walther speaks of modernism, a contemporary dearth of MFA programs churning out literature professors, and an endless array of chapbooks. Nothing useful since TS Eliot; remember TS Eliot? TS Eliot was cool, right?

Circa 2001, Ken Norris suggested to me that MFA programs throughout the United States had caused the death of American poetry. Given my broader reading experience since, I’d say I disagree with that statement, but I don’t know what he might have seen since 1985, the year he landed to teach at the University of Maine. I’m sure writing programs everywhere churn out an array of unremarkable writers producing semi-publishable work that later end up littering the landscape of journals, chapbooks and trade collections, but I don’t see American programs doing this with any greater percentages than their Canadian counterparts. It might simply be a matter of scale. Layli Long Soldier emerged from a program. Megan Kaminski emerged from a program. Sarah Mangold emerged from a program. Jericho Brown emerged from a program. I don’t think the issue, if there is one to be discussed, is that of the MFA program.

But still: given so much activity, productivity and production, why declare the state of the union, as it were, past tense? Oh, Matthew Walther, literature isn’t there to do what you think it should, or you heard once that it might have. It isn’t there to obey your rules. Literature remains in constant motion. It evolves, just as much as language and culture, from pop to human. We should never think of any of these as absolutes, or fixed. Stagnation, not evolution, is what causes the death you are in such a rush to declare. But I want things to be as they were, they say. This creature is already dead. Instead of bothering to understand the art on its own terms. Matthew Walther, have you a difficulty with an art that includes both Rupi Kaur and M. NourbeSe Philip?

Every article on the death of literature, whether poetry or the novel, exists as a variation on the same: the misunderstanding that any art is not a fixed point, nor is it meant to do, whether solely or otherwise, what it is that you wish. Adaptability, for both the reader and the practitioner, remains key. What was American poetry before Walt Whitman? What was Canadian poetry before bpNichol? What was literature before Dionne Brand? Each of these changing the very foundation of how the literatures they lived in was heard, written and seen. Arguably, every poet writing shifts the foundations and boundaries of literature, even if only a little, so the very notion of the fixed point. Declare your intentions! the traditional poets blast at the avant-garde. They counter: We can’t declare what won’t stand still.

Alice Notley, Jordan Abel. Lisa Robertson. Fred Wah. Anne Carson. Margaret Christakos. Andrew Suknaski. Stephen Collis. Jack Spicer, Lorine Niedecker or Robert Creeley. Ron Silliman. And then those in the nebulous between-states, working experimental texts across more subtle landscapes: Judith Fitzgerald, Kathleen Fraser, David Donnell. The long sentences of between of Monty Reid.

Call this a mantra, if you wish: my literature includes difficult work. To comprehend the centre one has to examine the edge.

Rupi Kaur: she seems an easy and lazy target for literary archers. I don’t care for the lyrically uncomplicated statements of her poems, but she might have allowed more young readers into literature than most of us combined. Maybe?

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

rabbits, rabbits, rabbits (or, April Fool's)


rabbits, rabbits, rabbits; supposedly if that’s the first thing you hear in a month, yr to have a good month; I don’t remember where that came from; do you know?


Here is another side of Groucho.

It’s a dimension of this complex genius that you won’t find anywhere else, and a side of him many people will find surprising. Occasionally you hear admirers of his wit opine that he was probably a cold man, perhaps because wit by itself can be a chilling thing. I can honestly say that even before I got to know him I never shared this impression. Even at the relatively tender age at which I watched “You Bet Your Life” (I caught up with the movies in later life), anyone who didn’t find him funny was off my list; and any witless boob who added, “because he insults people,” received the full blast of my teenage scorn. It seemed clear to me that he was always good-natured and that only those insulated against humor and devoid of perception could take umbrage. [Foreword to Love, Groucho: Letters from Groucho Marx to His Daughter Miriam, Dick Cavett]
yesterday a book sale downstairs hosted by, I think, the English & Film Studies Department & picked up a copy of Love, Groucho: Letters from Groucho Marx to His Daughter Miriam (1992). a strange coincidence, considering just how much I was going on about that previous book of letters to my lovely daughter Kate in all of my other letters how many months ago; did you know (from the previous book I have in my apartment currently) that he used to correspond regularly with T.S. Eliot? I think that’s pretty bizarre (but hilarious!); here are 2 notes to his daughter that made me think of mine (keep in mind his daughter Miriam was 11 in 1938);


We’re very glad to know that you’re homesick because if you weren’t we’d feel that you were very happy away from us and this way, we know that you miss us. This is a very selfish viewpoint on our part but parents are frequently selfish, too, like children. [August 3, 1938]

Received your note this morning, from the length of it I wouldn’t dignify it by calling it a letter; all I can gather from it is the feeling that you never want to come home. It’s really not safe to allow a child away from home alone, because they get to realize too quickly that they don’t need their parents. [August 4, 1939]
oh, I told the English Department Grad Students selling the books, this will go nicely with my other book of Groucho letters; I mean, what are the odds? the book is warm, wonderful & hilarious, but somehow, all I can think about are the little notes I used to get in the mail from George Bowering; somehow they have the same voice; what’s that all about? I’ve barely started reading the thing & it’s pretty much all I’ve wanted to do the last day or so, read Groucho Marx letters; is that wrong? what the hell is wrong with me.

Dear Pooch,

As you can well understand, things are a little confused, and will probably remain that way for some time. I’m leaving here and will arrive home on the twenty-eighth. That’ll be two weeks from the day this letter is written. I would rather have come home sooner, but I have to play a benefit, called the Night of Stars, on the twenty-sixth, and will leave the day after. So you see, the whole thing comes out even.

Professionally, my plan is to begin almost immediately with Norman, rewriting our play, and should complete that by the first of January. If I do, I’ll get drunk New Year’s. From then in, my plans are up in the air. I probably won’t do much of anything. Perhaps a few radio shots, if I can get them. If not, you know the usual routine. Duke and the bicycle, Winnie and Frances, Gilbert and Sullivan, and Armstrong and Schroeder. [November 14, 1941]
Before that, I spent a few nights reading the entirety of Alberto Manguel’s The City of Words (Toronto ON: Anansi, 2007) [see my note on such here], the texts from the annual CBC Radio Massey Lecture delivered last fall (I missed the Edmonton version, unfortunately, because I was in Ottawa at the writers festival); thinking a lot about how the world is a creation of language, and perhaps, how Groucho’s letters might fit into that thesis?

strange to think I’ll be home in two months & all of this will be behind me, the opportunities for daily conversation around the department, various lectures I get to attend (one last night & another tonight & another on Friday), the all-day internet & computer, the letter-writing, the paycheque; I’ll have to go back to that thing I called a life; how will I survive? yesterday an hour or two with the song “Lydia” in my head (singing bits of it in my office, wondering just how far the sound travels down said hallway…), the one Groucho Marx used to sing;

oddly enough, when I looked for the lyrics to such online I also found this:

Interestingly, “Lydia the Tattooed Lady” was the favorite song of Jim Henson and was sung on the very first episode of ”The Muppet Show.” In addition, it was sung by muppet performers at his funeral.
so very sad; did you see that Muppet Show special/Jim Henson biography they did after Jim died? heartbreaking; they mixed stuff from the Muppet Theatre (the muppets wondering who Jim is/was) with clips of Henson’s biography; at one point the muppets think he’s an accountant, because they realize (Kermit, Fozzie & Gonzo) that he signed their cheques; then a whole bunch of accountant muppets dance through the back of the theatre; only at the end of the show do they all realize that he’s died & then the muppets all cry; its gut-wrenching (I saw it when it was on teevee; wouldn’t mind finding it again);

unfortunately I don’t know the song well enough to sing it proper; I’ll have to find it online first & listen;

I'm tomorrow night reading in Lethbridge; will I see you? Or the following night in Calgary?


related notes: just what was i a fool abt last year?