Showing posts with label Graham Lindsay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graham Lindsay. Show all posts

Wednesday

LIke a Japanese Christmas Card (2018)



Axon: Creative Explorations

‘Like a Japanese Christmas Card’
Line in Poetry and Art



Louise Bourgeois: The Arch of Hysteria (1993)



Breaks and Harmonies

Strictly speaking
there’s no such
thing as
line

in nature
or a word
or silence
dint

of overlapping
colours
chords
membranes

perspex
slide effects

This is the opening section of a poem – ‘Like a Japanese Christmas Card’ – which I wrote in 1998. The idea was to juxtapose the undoubted truth that what we call ‘lines’ in nature are simply optical illusions caused by the overlap of different fields of colour and shade, with the notion that what we refer to as a ‘word’ might be similarly defined in terms of the silences that bookend it, rather than by any presumed essence that might lie within.

I suspect that I must also have been thinking of Jacques Derrida’s definition – in his essay ‘Ulysses Gramophone: Hear Say Yes in Joyce’ – of a ringing telephone as only succeeding in conveying information when it stops ringing: ‘In the beginning, there must indeed have been some phone call’ (1992, p.270). An everlasting ring-tone, in other words, would be as meaningless as eternal silence.

But do these analogies between sight and sound enable us to think more clearly about the significance of the poetic, as well as the artistic line? In both cases, I would argue, a line can be seen in two ways: as a break, a violent disjunction between contradictory points of view; or as a harmony, a tapestry-like interweaving of intricate colours and shapes which combine to give the appearance of depth as well as extent.

The first (like a heroic couplet: two pentameters closed off by a rhyme) definitely constitutes a stop, a boundary to be crossed before one can go on to further thinking. The second (like a passage of blank verse full of enjambments), compels us to continue, even – in some cases – against our will: to trip or topple forward. This idea that the alternate cessation and breathless continuance of an activity may bring us as close as we’re ever going to get to its true meaning came up interestingly in an interview I conducted – also in 1998 – with New Zealand poet Graham Lindsay:




The effort towards lineation is to sing the song


I asked Graham what were the principles that determined the lineation and line-breaks in his own work. I should, however, stress that the question was made in response to a comment of his about the desirability of ‘putting behind you your habitual ways of thinking’ in order ‘for new combinations to arise that may be more interesting because there has been a cessation [my emphasis] of your habitual ways of thinking and of brain-chatter’:
[JR]: Is what you were saying earlier about having got tired of worrying about line divisions and precise arrangements on the page related to that? They are a way of gesturing towards silence, aren’t they? – stopping and breaking line-noise.

[GL]: The effort towards lineation primarily is to sing the song, or have the tune sound the way you want it to, given all the things you have to think about at the same time: the semantics of the words, the logical patterning of the groups of words, that whole sort of juggling act. But silence I think of as being something quite other.

I think of silence in a very literal way, where you get this utter cessation of thinking, of thoughts, and – harping back to what we were talking about earlier – where you may get moments of presence. There is this utter cessation that enables this new thing to arise, and it’s the shedding of anxieties, of worries, of thoughts, of the whole sort of cacophony of thinking. And it’s this refreshment (that wellspring notion), in those very minor, very small moments of not thinking where you are perhaps able to achieve this kind of relationship with things, you are able perhaps more clearly to get that insight. So, having allowed that moment of silence to occur, inevitably of course you’ll have a thought come along, but in all likelihood that thought may be a good deal more interesting than it would otherwise have been had you not had that silence, that non-thinking. (Ross, 2001, 51-52)

‘The effort towards lineation primarily is to sing the song, or have the tune sound the way you want it to.’ The choice of places to break, then – for Lindsay, at any rate – is based more on aural than visual considerations. Perhaps that’s another way to think about the line or (for that matter) the page-layout as a whole: as a musical score, designed to pause and speed you at a carefully calculated rate. Of course, as he stressed at the time, there are many other things you have to think about at the same time: ‘the semantics of the words, the logical patterning of the groups of words, that whole sort of juggling act.’

The musical score analogy seems a good way of understanding this patterning of silences and sounds, breaks and harmonies, mentioned above. Lindsay’s further comments about the nature of silence – which he said he thought of ‘in a very literal way, where you get this utter cessation of thinking, of thoughts, and … where you may get moments of presence’ – certainly seem to be connected to this. Interestingly, there was a literal embodiment of this in the two poems which Lindsay sent to accompany the publication of the interview. In their original form, these were laid out as prose poems. In their printed form, however, they had acquired careful stanza and line-breaks. The change must have been necessary to sing the song correctly.




When she was in art school all her teachers drew that way

In his ‘Not About Julian Schnabel,’ [Rene] Ricard wrote about a kind of line that ‘just gets tuckered out after a while,’ adding ‘The beautiful charcoal smudges and style we can follow from Matisse through de Kooning to Rivers, Serra, and, in its ultimate decadence, to Susan Rothenberg are perfect illustrations.’ He went on, ‘Judy Rifka told me that when she was in art school all her teachers drew that way. That was the way you were taught, and no matter how lousy the drawing was it always looked pretty good, like “art.”’ (Malcolm, 1996, 292-93)

The traditional appearance of a page of verse in most – though by no means all – languages and cultures is a straight left margin of line openings flanked by a ragged right margin of irregular line endings. Of course, the lines can be painstakingly justified to make each margin equally straight (as in some of the concrete poems in George Herbert’s The Temple – echoing the form of Ancient Greek tomb epitaphs). Such occasional tours-de-force do not materially alter the fact that – like the left brain – the left margin is straight and justified, and – like the right brain – the right margin is jagged and curved in a more ‘natural’ manner.

Of course, the modern word-processor has altered this. As an editor, I’m sorry to say that spotting the first-time poet has become much easier since it became so simple to centre your work. What once – on the typewriter or the printing press – required careful and painstaking measurement, can now be accomplished at the stroke of a key. Nor is it very much harder to concoct a perfect straight-sided rectangle of words if you so desire. It’s not that the facile is always meretricious: centred poems certainly have their place. But when a poet chooses to continue capitalising the first letter of each line (or allows Microsoft Word to make the decision for them), it’s hard to see that any real advantage is being taken of these new technical conveniences.

A line of poetry should, presumably, aim to be both aesthetically pleasing and ideologically cogent. The flight from the left margin should be conducted whole-heartedly or not at all. And here the word-processor can be more of an enemy than a friend: the exact placing of a word or line in a concrete poem requires software more sensitive than the average word-processing programme. With their pre-programmed instincts for rounding off and enforcing the linear logic of conventional text, they are the enemy of imaginative page-works and text-designs.




Take, for instance, this ‘Verso’ (illustrated) page from my novel-in-eccentric-typography Nights with Giordano Bruno (2000) [p. 198], reprinted above.

What may seem, at first sight, a mere scattering of random letters in arbitrary spacings across the page resolves itself – to the attentive reader, at any rate – to a series of repetitions of the English word ‘phoenix’ and the Italian word ‘fenice’ – though with only one letter ‘x’ in the very centre of the page. This glimmer of something conceptual here is emphasised a few pages further down [p. 202], where the following table can be found:




Here we can begin to posit a connection between the phoenix – the bird of immortality through continual rebirth – and the title of Giordano Bruno’s esoteric dialogue La Cena de le ceneri [The Ash-Wednesday Supper]: dedicated (as it is) ‘al mal contento’ [to the discontented one].

As far as the form of the scattered letters above goes, however, as a partial clue to its nature I reproduce, on [p. 190], the famous illustration of Orion’s Belt from Galileo Galilei’s Sidereus Nuncius [Starry Messenger] (1610):




And finally, on p.220, the penultimate page of the book, we see the following:




Upon which it should become clear – to the esoterically minded, at any rate – that the precise positioning of each letter in this Phoenix / fenice alternation comes from a careful elimination of excess letters in the original Italian text of Bruno’s Ash-Wednesday Supper dialogue.

Does all this obfuscation and deflection add up to anything more than the clichéd ‘charcoal smudges and style’ that can be manipulated by any halfway competent draughtsman to create a drawing that looks ‘pretty good, like ‘art’’ no matter how ‘lousy’ it is? I hope so. The one or two readers who actually worked out what I had in mind appear to have thought so, at any rate.

I don’t (of course) propose it so much as a model of some imaginary ‘correct’ practice as an example of some of the things one can do with a liberated line: a line which no longer clings to the left margin, or the right, or indeed to any standard layout associated with poetry at all. Mind you, we all know that there’s a statute of limitations on typographical gimmicks: there’s nothing wrong with them per se, nothing wrong with channelling your inspiration into such experiments, but – past a certain point – repetition of such tricks will turn you into a one-trick pony. To quote Rene Rickard yet again, it ‘just gets tuckered out after a while.’ Or, in Freudian terms, it has moved ‘beyond the pleasure principle’ (to quote the title of one of his most famous books) to manifesting the obsessive-compulsive patterns of the death drive: from libido to Thanatos.

I’m sure we’ve all encountered such cases. I had a writer friend who formed a sad addiction for ending his poems with a single word, standing on its own: effective, poignant, but – when used repetitively – increasingly ineffective whenever substantial samplings of his work were collected together. I too have a set of tricks of lineation and spacing I try hard to break myself of the moment I start noticing them. Sometimes one can go back to them again after some time has elapsed. Mostly, though, they must be renounced as soon as they become a ‘feature.’ The trouble with lineation in poetry, as in the visual arts, is that the inevitable familiarity one forms with the tricks of the trade make it increasingly easy to forge something ‘pretty good, like “art’’’ whenever you need to.




On Beginning the Treatment


And what do you then? Well, picking up on that mention of Freud a couple of paragraphs back, I think there is much to be gleaned from his description of the psychoanalytical ‘talking cure’ in his 1913 essay ‘On Beginning the Treatment’:
What you tell me must differ in one respect from an ordinary conversation. Ordinarily, you rightly try to keep a connecting thread running through your remarks, and you exclude any intrusive ideas that may occur to you ... But in this case you must proceed differently. You will notice that as you relate things, various thoughts will occur to you which you would like to put aside, on the ground of certain criticisms and objections ... You must never give into these criticisms, but must say it in spite of them – indeed you must say it precisely because you feel an aversion to doing so … Act as though, for instance, you were a traveller sitting next to the window of a railway carriage and describing to someone inside the carriage the changing view which you see outside. (Malcolm, 1996, pp. 35-36)

First, as he suggests, you must say things ‘precisely because you feel an aversion to doing so.’ Look for the places you are most reluctant to go, and, rather than ‘putting them aside’ for all those excellent reasons which will immediately start to occur to you, try to follow up on those. A line – whether in poetry or art – cannot be allowed simply to shade off, it must, at some point, be broken. There’s a certain amount of pain inseparable from that.

Secondly, ‘Act as though … you were a traveller sitting next to the window of a railway carriage and describing to someone inside the carriage the changing view which you see outside.’ The world outside you must remain your best guide. The more attention you give to that, and the less to your own intentions and techniques (read: tricks), the more likely you are to avoid that mise en abîme of self-repetition and self-plagiarism.

À propos of this idea of the enforced continuance of a line (or a train of thought), I remember that film-maker Gabriel White once told me that when he had a job teaching first-year drawing at the Auckland University Art School, ELAM, he used to take the students out for a ride on an inner-city bus and ask them to draw a continuous line from the beginning to the end of their journey: a literal embodiment of the city-scape, the passengers, and all the other incidents of the wayside.

Another interesting analogy would be with William Hogarth’s famous definition of the serpentine ‘line of beauty’ from his 1753 treatise The Analysis of Beauty. Hogarth quotes the 16th-century Italian painter and art theorist Gian Paolo Lomazzo to the effect that:
the greatest grace and life that a picture can have, is, that it expresse Motion: which the Painters call the Spirite of a picture: Nowe there is no forme so fitte to expresse this motion, as that of the flame of fire … for it hath a Conus or sharpe pointe wherewith with it seemeth to divide the aire ... So that a picture having this forme will bee most beautifull. (Hogarth, 1772, p. vi)

Hogarth goes on to acknowledge that: ‘There are also strong prejudices in favour of straight lines, as constituting true beauty in the human form, where they never should appear’:
A middling connoisseur thinks no profile has beauty without a very straight nose, and if the forehead be continued straight with it, he thinks it is still more sublime … The common notion that a person should be straight as an arrow, and perfectly erect, is of this kind. (p. viii)

For Hogarth, then, while his curved lines represent motion, life and beauty, straight lines, which ‘any one might do … with the eyes shut’, are mere ‘miserable scratches’ denoting stiffness, stasis and (in the final analysis) death:
If a dancing-master were to see his scholar in the easy and gracefully-tuned attitude of the Antinous … he would cry shame on him, and tell him he looked as crooked as a ram’s horn (p. viii).



Serpentine Lines (Hogarth, 1772, p. 157)





The Arch of Hysteria


Thinking further about the contrast Hogarth draws between the artificial, lifeless stasis of straight lines and the fiery, dangerous coiling of his serpentine lines of beauty, it might be interesting here to mention French sculptor and textile artist Louise Bourgeois’ fascinating work ‘The Arch of Hysteria’ (1993), accessible online here.

For now, however, I’d prefer to consider its major source of inspiration, the various illustrations of the contortions of female ‘hysterical’ patients from the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, overseen by nineteenth-century neurologist Jean Martin Charcot.



Engraving from Paul Regnard, Les Maladies Épidemiques de l'Esprit (1887)


The most fascinating thing about the picture above is, I think, the fact that it is the patient’s approximation to an arch (Romanesque rather than Gothic), rather than the painful rictus itself, which appears to fascinate the illustrator most. The act of hiding her face with a pillow might, of course, be attributed to delicacy on his part, but it does have the effect of dehumanising or – if you prefer – architecturalising her.

The extreme state of psychological distress manifested by so many of Charcot’s patients was certainly seen at the time to be at least partially redeemed by its entertainment value: hence the large number of visitors, some merely curious, others more professional (like the young Sigmund Freud) who flocked to attend his demonstrations.

All of this Louise Bourgeois has echoed, in this, her umpteenth attempt to exorcise the trauma caused by her father’s decision to employ his mistress as his children’s governess, under the eyes – and in the full knowledge – of their own mother. Interestingly, the arch depicted in her sculpture seems to be on the verge of closing into a complete rectangle, the hands about to link up with the feet (naturally, there is no head). Bourgeois’s particular ‘family drama’ may not sound like a lot to inspire a life’s work, but of course Freud would tell us that the apparent triviality of a cause of trauma is no real clue to its actual nature. Rather than the talking cure, Bourgeois has chosen a visual cure: an ever-expanding body of works which grew in size as she grew more confident in expressing the sheer dimensions of her distress.

Bourgeois’ pain – or rather, her art, if they can be separated – manifests in two ways: in the compulsive repetition of essentially the same forms over and over again, in different media and on different scales (from the tiny to the gigantesque); but also in the static, end-stopped nature of each of these works taken individually. The intensity of distress caused by such extreme mental state, manifesting in literally ‘over-the-top’ reactions like the fixed arch of hysteria, might remind us, also, of Lomazzo’s choice of the tip of a flame as his central metaphor for life and motion in painting. Fire is, by definition, unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is also destructive and devouring: not an element which can ever be commanded at will or without risk.




Du beau Phénix

mon amour à la semblance
Du beau Phénix s'il meurt un soir
Le matin voit sa renaissance

(Apollinaire, 1966, p. 46)


These opening lines from Apollinaire’s “‘Chanson du Mal-aimé’ [Song of the Ill-loved] translate roughly as “my love, after the semblance of the beautiful phoenix, if it dies one day, is reborn the next.” What, after all, is the end each of us hopes to attain with our writing? Surely, to glorify and extend the possibilities of life, movement, hope – and (while acknowledging its omnipresence and inevitable triumph) accepting the full stop: stasis, death.

The straight lines so beloved of the ‘middling connoisseurs’ and ‘dancing-masters’ of the French school, as opposed to the ‘flame of fire’ lines characteristic of Rubens, Raphael and Michelangelo (according to Hogarth, at any rate), can be assimilated easily enough to the traditional restrictions around a poetic line: the laws of metre and prosody which dictate that it should be of a certain length, and that length only.

While a line, like the allotted life-cycle of a Phoenix – 500 years, if we are to believe Herodotus – must always be an arbitrary division, without this agreed-upon convention we can have no pause to reflect – no silence to admit (in Graham Lindsay’s words) moments of ‘presence.’ By the same token, though, if we start to think of it as a thing in itself, allow it to dictate our practice and the boundaries of what we have to say, then it has lost its essential function.

We need them, yet we mustn’t valorise them. We must remember, always, their role as dividers-up of what cannot, in the end, be divided: the cosmos, life. Apollinaire, Louise Bourgeois, Hogarth, are all (regrettably) dead. But their works and ideas are not. In a final sense, then, a break is always part of the harmony – never the other way around. Fire, the self-immolating flames of the phoenix, remains our best analogy: while it can be hedged in, it can never be definitively contained. To be sure, it leaves ashes behind, but it contributes in its progress both light and warmth.







Works cited:

Apollinaire G 1966 Oeuvres poétiques, ed. Marcel Adéma & Michel Décaudin. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 121. Paris: Gallimard

Bell, V 2008 ‘Arch of Hysteria’, Mindhacks: Neuroscience and psychology news and views, at: https://mindhacks.com/2008/06/30/arch-of-hysteria/, 30 June (accessed 12 December 2016)

Bourgeois, L 1993 Arch of Hysteria, at: Katrina Bautista, "Aeon Flux and the Arch of Hysteria" https://noloveydovey.wordpress.com/tag/arch-of-hysteria/ (accessed 29 May 2018)

Derrida, J 1992 Acts of literature, ed. Derek Attridge. London: Routledge

Freud, S 1984 On metapsychology: The theory of psychoanalysis. Beyond the pleasure principle, The ego and the id and other works (1911-40), trans. James Strachey, The Pelican Freud library, 11. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Hogarth, W 1772 The analysis of beauty: Written with a view of fixing the fluctuating views of taste, at: https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=szQGAAAAQAAJ&dq=the+analysis+of+beauty (accessed 5 November 2016)

Malcolm, J 1996 The purloined clinic: Selected writings, London: Papermac

Ross, J 1999 ‘Like a Japanese Christmas card’, Flint 1, n.p.

Ross, J 2000 Nights with Giordano Bruno, Wellington: Bumper Books

Ross, J 2001 ‘A conversation with Graham Lindsay’, In D Howard (ed) Complete with instructions, Christchurch: Firebrand, 49-52, at: http://www.nzepc.auckland.ac.nz/authors/lindsay/ross.asp (accessed 5 November 2016)


References:

Cajori, M & Wallach A 2008 Louise Bourgeois: The spider, the mistress and the tangerine Documentary film

Strassler, R & Purvis A (2007) The landmark Herodotus: The histories, New York: Pantheon Books



Axon: Creative Explorations




(11/12/16-4/1/17; 9-12/6/17)

Axon: Creative Explorations, Vol. 8, No. 1: "Materiality, creativity, material poetics" (May 2018). Special Section: "The Poetic Line", ed. Owen Bullock. (University of Canberra: The Centre for Creative & Cultural Research, 2018). [available at: http://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-14/%E2%80%98-japanese-christmas-card%E2%80%99]

[3731 wds]






Graham Lindsay: Lazy Wind Poems (2004)


Jack Ross, ed.: brief 29 (April 2004)


Graham Lindsay, Lazy Wind Poems. Auckland: AUP, 2003. ISBN 1-86940-285-5. 72 pp. RRP $21.99.


Graham Lindsay: Lazy Wind Poems (2003)


All of the books in this issue of brief deserve far more space than I can give them, but that goes particularly for Graham Lindsay’s latest. It’s nice to see the old master at work again, and to see assembled the inspired domesticity poems which have been appearing here and there over the last few years. I actually wrote Graham a fan letter when I read the painfully brilliant “ballad of Fanny Grace” in brief 16, but seeing it in context now makes me think even more of it: “Love your mother-in-law / when her daughter / (finally coming to bed) / tells you how she was / just tucking her mother / in for the night” [56-7] – it’s tempting just to go on reciting from this succession of mad, pointed anecdotes about senile dementia and the love and good humour that make it possible to endure it.

The book’s divided into four parts: “making love,” which takes us from an ultrasound scan of the new baby, through childbirth, birthdays, first words: “ ‘Bye bye dart’ [17]. There’s a lot of babytalk in there, and a lot of household detail of the kind which I’d normally skip, but Graham makes it work in two ways: firstly through the sheer fervour of his surrender to parental love: “Close the little papa’s eyes / close’m eyes, close’m eyes” [11], and secondly by his skill in ambushing us with the disconcerting detail:

He’s the only

person in the world
I’d let use my handkerchief
then put it back in my pocket. [19]

The second section, “you are here,” begins with “cab dub,” a brilliant and disconcerting series of discourses from the backseat of a taxi-cab, then moves through rugby to a strangely dislocated local version of Peter Rabbit. “Big feet,” the third section, consists largely of family poems (including the mother-in-law one quoted above), and finally “swingdoor” takes us back around into the poet’s more conventionally introspective territory: “All this beauty fading away.” [72] This really is a book to die for.


(1-2/04)

brief 29 (2004): 82.

[350 wds]

brief 29 (2004)






Tuesday

Imaginary Toads: VII – Graham Lindsay (2001)


David Howard, ed.: Complete with Instructions (2001)

VII –A Conversation with Graham Lindsay


Why is our art so introverted?
It doesn’t mean a thing

to the seagull or sun
the clouds don’t understand
a word

their language is silence
and movement and colour

– Graham Lindsay



Graham Lindsay is married, with two children A former resident of Dunedin, he moved to Christchurch ten years ago.
  • Thousand-Eyed Eel. Taylors Mistake: Hawk Press, 1976.
  • Public. Dunedin: Ridgepole Press, 1980.
  • Big Boy. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1986.
  • Return to Earth. Christchurch: Hazard Press, 1991.
  • The Subject. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1994.
  • Legend of the Cool Secret. Christchurch: Sudden Valley Press, 1999.

‘Silence and movement and colour.’ At Graham Lindsay’s house, little silence, much movement and colour, as I met his wife, two sons, and mother-in-law collaborating in complex dinner preparations. We retired to his study at the back of the garage.

Could you tell me something about your own writing methods?

I started writing and publishing when I was in my late teens, and that’s twenty, twenty-five years ago. Over that period of time I’ve been using a kind of notebook process. When something occurs to you, you have a notebook handy so that you can actually put down some approximation of that idea or thought or feeling at the time, whilst you’re hot, whilst you’re familiar with it. So, having adopted that approach, I’ve found that I don’t really know at the time that I’m writing something whether or not I’m going to be able to do anything more with it. I’ve got to go through it, perhaps months, years later, to see what is of interest there, what I can do something more with.

At this point Graham got up to show me the notebooks in his desk. The bottom drawer was packed full of red, hard-backed 3 by 4 notebooks. Above was another drawer, perhaps slightly less full. There were, he told me, 132 of them.

Taking up again this idea of the moment when you’re hot, I said (with a slight snigger):
I’m afraid I actually do tend to take a mystical view of the creative moment.

Why do you laugh?

Oh, just because it’s a sort of reflex to laugh whenever you say anything that goes out on a limb of belief, asserting the existence of anything.

Why is that? Because you’re absolutely right, all sorts of people make these remarks, and then they’re ambiguous about it, as if they were somehow embarrassed and ashamed to make that reference, to let that kind of idea crop up.

Well, I’d simply be theorising, rationalising, but to me it’s because we don’t live in an age of faith, and therefore asserting faith in anything becomes a difficult stance.

I’m inclined to think, too, that it’s quite difficult to talk about those things other than in art – other than in, say, a poem, or a piece of music, or a painting, because there’s a very real sense in which that’s the only way you can say it – in that particular form. Getting back to the process of selection, deciding what you’re going to keep working on, or what you think is worth working on – if it does have a source or an impulse in notions of the ‘mystical,’ then you’ve got to be careful how far you’re going to go, how much you’re going to say, what you’re going to let out.

Yes, it’s difficult, you want to assert love for the cosmos, and all sorts of things, but you can’t say ‘I love the universe and the universe loves me,’ because it sounds silly, and yet you can – by extraordinarily adroit craftsmanship – create a context in which it works.

That’s exactly right. And it seems to me (since we’re supposed to be talking about regionalism), that an ideal regionalism would be one where people were passionate about the landscape in which they lived, and were passionate about the people they lived in proximity to – friends, family – and were passionate about the works that were produced by their colleagues living in that same vicinity.

Which brings me to the question of what Christchurch means, in these terms, to you?

Yes, well, unfortunately the short answer is that it doesn’t actually mean a lot. I’m sorry to say that actually, because I would like it to mean a lot. I actually haven’t been able to get terribly moved by it, certainly in terms of the physical nature of the place. I love the people I live with and work with of course. And I like attending the meetings of the local poets’ collective – which is a bit like going to church, except that the congregation is the preacher.

I did use to be quite drawn to, very taken with the landscape – probably too much so – when we were living in Dunedin, prior to coming here about ten years ago. But now I’ve been here for that period of time – and I’ve spent a lot of that time going out and actually looking for interesting parts of Christchurch which could engender some response – but I haven’t been able to crack it.

It does figure in some of the things I write. I do have these little pieces of information which I write down from time to time, which are probably fairly directly about my environment, and they do find their way into the pieces of writing that I am spending time on, but they’re not touchstones. I frankly don’t find a lot of magic in the landscape here. I mean, there are interesting buildings to look at, and the light in the southern sky is interesting. Sometimes in Spring you get a low cloud cover, and the light coming down through this partial cloud cover can make the landscape look rather intriguing.

There’s a very good diorama in the Canterbury Museum of one of the bays out the back here. I don’t know if it’s an actual bay, but someone has tried to recreate pre-European Maori life and what it might have looked like. And it looks quite paradisal. There are intimations of something here, but it never seems to amount to much.

Do you think that’s because it’s not your birth landscape, or in the blood?

I’m not sure, because I wasn’t born in in Otago. I was born in Wellington, but while I was living in Dunedin I did become very moved by those sorts of things.

The Subject certainly strikes me as a very Dunedin, Otago book.

Oh yes, that’s correct. It really did strike me then that it is one of the places which, for some individuals, enables them – and this sounds a little over the top, perhaps – to actually have a sense of universal in the particular. If I were to use another word, that word would be ‘wellspring.’ It seemed at the time very much like a wellspring.

This is probably getting into my more quirky territory, but I have this sense of people, and things generally, being manifestations of an eternal upwelling – and of writing as well being a manifestation of it. And I feel that if you are able to be in a place where you can achieve this coincidence between your self and that place, you can almost have something spoken through you. I don’t mean that literally; I mean it figuratively. But because you feel creative all the time, this upwelling of ideas – which almost anything can touch off – you feel you’ve noted down something that’s potentially quite exciting, because it seems to be saying something about who we are, what it means to be human, where we came from …

The place is endlessly assisting …

Yes, the void eternally regenerative …

That was the case in Dunedin?

Oh, yes, absolutely. No two ways about it. That’s why when we arrived here I went looking for it, hoping I would find something akin to that. Initially when we were looking for a house here in early ’88 we went over to Lyttelton to look at a couple of houses over there, and Christchurch on that particular day had been really very overcast, but it was apparent there was some sort of break in the clouds to the south, and when we got over to Lyttelton, sure enough, the clouds were lifting, still very low and very fog-like, but the sun had also dropped in the sky – it had gotten later – it was coming through underneath, not exactly a northwestern arc, but certainly an arc, that was allowing light through, and it really did seem very possible. And again, there was a harbour configuration to the landscape – almost like the jaws of heaven. I didn’t actually get a piece of writing out of it, that particular occasion, though I did try. That was probably the most enlivening moment I’ve had here.

Clearly one can imagine a Christchurch poetry which exists at a distance in time and space. But when people are thinking or talking about your poetry, would the term Christchurch poet seem to you to have any meaning at all, to be useful?

There was this anthology which came out from Dunedin a few years ago, called From the Mainland, and I had to laugh really, because in the biographical note I was described as being a Dunedin poet currently living in Christchurch. I think now that it’s actually a fairly good description, because I certainly do have a hankering to get back down there as soon as possible. But by the same token there are all these other things that start happening when you’re in a new place which may not happen in the old place. I’ve also got to be taking into consideration the value may not be as great.

It is stepping twice into the same river, isn’t it?

You do wonder if it’s possible. Smithyman’s quite clear about that. ‘Way back is way forward.’

Yes exactly, and of course he’s someone who’s a very potent presence for the north of the North Island because he’s endlessly fed by the landscape in a way that hardly anyone else ever has been.

It’s wonderful the way he gets himself around the landscape of Northland, and talks about it at the same time. I do admire that kind of writing that gives you this sense of someone just going through a process, doing something.

There are lots of people in this country who have an inability to let themselves down (so to speak), into a poem of that detail – that sort of thing, that kind of presence. And you do have to read hard, but not only that, you’ve got to be in the mood to read hard. You’ve got to have something happen. And an act of reading, an act of close reading is as much as a stroke of luck as an act of writing.

Yes, that’s right, because your life’s involved in the reading, just as your life’s involved in the writing. It can take twenty or thirty years to read something right, or just read it in a way that works for you.

Teaching gives you a good reason to actually get around to doing that hard close reading. If you have to talk about something to a group of students you feel it’s important for you to know what you’re talking about; it can be a good impetus.

I think Nabokov says that the work only gives up its essence when it’s crushed in the palm and inhaled like a fragrance.

Not a bad metaphor. I do sometimes think of writing as being a bit like crushing a whole load of quartz in order to come up with a couple of ounces of gold to a tonne of quartz. A sort of gold mine process, where the words are the rock, the quartz, and you’re just punching words, just looking for that little slip of gold.

You’ve got all this language experience, all these words going into you, from all your reading and all your listening. And it’s hard to claim ownership of the group of words because you never quite know where you got them from, who else you got them from, if it’s not just a community of all the reading and listening you’ve done. And therefore it’s probably impossible not to be a regional writer.

I was kind of struck by the thing you said on the back of The Subject, about getting away from language to the Otago Heads. Actually you said “getting way from – and into – language.” And yet, getting away from language in order to talk about it in language is this awful bind that everybody’s caught in, isn’t it? I mean, you want to talk about silence and you can only do it by talking.

Yes. Sure, and as a result of having felt or in some way participated in that silence … It’s a difficult thing to get your head around: that paradox. It was probably rather awkwardly written on that blurb, which was in fact part of a letter to an American poet living in Kyoto whom I used to have some correspondence with. What’s involved, I suppose, is a kind of escape – of putting behind you your habitual ways of thinking, especially the daily environments – and interrupting it in order for the cessation of patterns of thinking to occur, and out of that for new combinations to arise that may be more interesting because there has been a cessation of your habitual ways of thinking and of brain-chatter. Not that it’s impossible for those things to contribute also, they’re both feeding into each other.

Is what you were saying earlier about having got tired of worrying about line divisions and precise arrangements on the page related to that? They are a way of gesturing towards silence, aren’t they? – stopping and breaking line-noise.

The effort towards lineation primarily is to sing the song, or have the tune sound the way you want it to, given all the things you have to think about at the same time: the semantics of the words, the logical patterning of the groups of words, that whole sort of juggling act. But silence I think of as being something quite other.

I think of silence in a very literal way, where you get this utter cessation of thinking, of thoughts, and – harping back to what we were talking about earlier – where you may get moments of presence. There is this utter cessation that enables this new thing to arise, and it’s the shedding of anxieties, of worries, of thoughts, of the whole sort of cacophony of thinking. And it’s this refreshment (that wellspring notion), in those very minor, very small moments of not thinking where you are perhaps able to achieve this kind of relationship with things, you are able perhaps more clearly to get that insight. So, having allowed that moment of silence to occur, inevitably of course you’ll have a thought come along, but in all likelihood that thought may be a good deal more interesting than it would otherwise have been had you not had that silence, that non-thinking.

Which is why I have been practising Buddhist meditation for quite a long period of time now. And I do my sitting breathing activity a couple of times a day. Every now and again, perhaps once a week, you just get that brief moment of silence, that wellspring thing, where you’ve just got the water just bubbling up over the lip.

And you recite a mantra?

No, no mantras. The meditation technique I employ is simply the controlling of one’s breathing, accompanied by the letting come and letting go of whatever thoughts that arise, as well as the posture; you’re concentrating on your posture and concentrating on your breathing. For up to an hour there are many thoughts that come and go, but eventually they just go.


(3/2/98)

Complete with Instructions. Edited by David Howard. ISBN 0-473-07646-2 (Christchurch: Firebrand, 2001): 49-52.
[Available at: nzepc (5/3/04)]

[2969 wds]


Complete with Instructions (2001)






Friday

Kenneth Fea & Graham Lindsay (1999)



Pander 8 (July 1999)


Kenneth Fea. on what is not. 55 pp. & Graham Lindsay. Legend of the Cool Secret. 63 pp. Christchurch: Sudden Valley Press, 1999.



Kenneth Fea: on what is not (1999)


i am/ am not

if you
delete whichever

is not/ is
applicable

if no go to
to go or no

i go/ go not

if yes
put no

This short poem, one of three in Kenneth Fea’s book, illustrates the advantages / disadvantages of his method. Baffling in appearance, allusive in style, it nevertheless conceals a core of instruction: an essentially didactic nihilism. The poem broadcasts certainty (albeit of uncertainty) rather than doubt.

If Fea’s intention is to challenge conventional responses to the lyric, then he is successful. We might otherwise be beguiled into facile reading of a poem such as “The Reaper.” The discipline is also required to avoid any suggestion of sentimentality. In the sequence CHILDWARHOOD, for example, the lines “barrel of / a toy gun thrust through a pane (bandage and kiss)” gives a vivid sense of childish infraction – with all its despairing guilt and rapture at forgiveness. It’s hard to see how this could be otherwise achieved. “The perfume of romance” wafting through the innocent scatology of “small beer” is another marked success for Fea’s approach.

His francophilia is a more complex case. It assists him as a formalist, but seems in other ways not really crucial to his aesthetic (I’m comparing him here with poets like John Ashbery or Frank O’Hara who also see life through French spectacles: there, though, it is visual art rather than literature which influences them). “Vacances colorées” is an extreme piece of bricolage in franglais which, I feel, becomes him less than most of the other block-shaped monologues about place, and time, and distance.

“Brief human-like signs persisting for no reason.” This line, nicely juxtaposing the fosslized footsteps of three australopithecines with some hikers (on the previous page), encapsulates what Kenneth Fea has done for us in this book. Made up, as it is, of “snapshots … letters … fragments,” as the blurb informs us, it is hard to see how commentators can do more than “obscure it with their clarifications” (as one of his – many – French epigraphs puts it). Fea may fall short of the fragmentary eloquence of an Ashbery or an O’Hara, but his book is its own thing: unique, precise, well-plotted – not a wellspring, perhaps, but a mirror-maze of beguiling shards.




The poem “Wellspring,” on page 54 of Legend of the Cool Secret (and repeated, with different formatting, on the back cover) might be seen to sum up the difference between Graham Lindsay and Kenneth Fea – a curious coupling in many ways. It becomes more than a mere reviewer’s convenience, however, when we see the extent to which Lindsay is interested in the process of creating a poem, which has become for him a voyage into inner space. Fea, by contrast, likes to give the sense of a frozen moment detached from time. We might see them, in Freudian terms, as poised on either side of the pleasure principle: Lindsay still hunting for the meaning behind experience, Fea content to trace its lineaments with a diamond on the glass.

I would have to give my preference to Lindsay. His poems gesture, at times, with wild indiscipline – his reach can exceed his grasp. The bizarre social commentary of Father Lapsely’s (pun no doubt intended) “blowjob thoughts” in “Juxtaposed windows” sits strangely with the poet’s resonant refusal to be a camera in “Hospital in Kabul”:
No-one breaks the tableau
nurse, doctor, or member of the camera crew
to rescue her

from the point
live in our face
on the dinner news

However, returning to “Wellspring”:
You come to the edge of thought
and peek over

into a kind of quarry
or amphitheatre facing the sea
at the joy of consciousness.

It is not that these lines are extraordinarily well-crafted, but simply that they express a kind of passionate involvement in mere existence which can, at times, achieve a lava-like intensity. In “Freeze frame”, for example, the somewhat hackneyed subject of a family snapshot (“These slow-flowering images”) bursts into an exploration of life, death, and history – from “soft, chuckling / water logged / with corpses” to a “Tight-lipped doll in a bassinet, fiercely asleep.” Even (one might almost say “especially”) dolls, clocks, and photographs are fiercely alive in a Graham Lindsay poem.

There are obscurities – references (even with the notes) I miss; but these will no doubt bring me back again and again to this strangely compelling book. I can’t resist closing with a quote from the first poem in it:
Maybe the children will
bring the story to light.

Maybe, in the end, they will.



R. Norrie: Graham Lindsay



(14/7/99)

Pander 8 (1999): 35-36.

[782 wds]


Pander 8 (1999)