Column043 — March/April 2000
Last Column?
Small Press Review,
Volume 32, Numbers 3/4, March/April 2000
Courier: an anthology of concrete and visual poetry,
edited by derek beaulieu. 56 loose sheets,
post cards, chapbooks, etc., in a manila envelope
(in a collector’s edition of 115 copies);
housepress, 1339 19th Avenue NW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2M 1A5 ([email protected]). $60.
O!!Zone 99 – 00, Fall 1999, edited by Harry Burrus.
100 pp; O!!Zone, 1266 Fountain View,
Houston TX 77057-2204. $20.
Here’s the scoop regarding the title of this installment of my column: two days from now my doctor will be telling me whether my prostate cancer, for which I had apparently successful radiation treatment a year-and-a-half ago, is back–seriously back, that is. There’s concern because my last PSA reading, the main indicator, was higher than it ought to have been. If the cancer is seriously back, that’ll be it for this column, for I’ll soon be either too dead to continue it, or too devastated by the extreme endocrinological abuse to which I’ll be subjected to keep me alive. So if I’m not here next issue, you’ll know why.
That out of the way, I have two new anthologies to discuss. The first especially pleases me, for many of its contributors, and its editor, are of the latest generation in visio-textual art–people in their twenties and early thirties–though there is a wide, wide range of artists represented in it (including me). And it looks like derek beaulieu, its editor, is well on his way to becoming the jwcurry of his generation of Canadians. Not only is his selection first-rate, but it looks like he put a lot of thought, aesthetically-sensitive thought, into the packaging of each of the items in it (for instance, pairing my mathematical poem with a similarly-shaped one by Karl Kempton). What follows are some notes about a few randomly-selected pieces from the anthology to give you an idea of what it’s like.
Problem Pictures, by Spencer Selby. Frame 1: “refuse/// to see,” in crisp, large lettering, formal & clear, over/under an indeterminant background that looks like a detail, hugely blown up, from a conventional representational photograph. Frame 2: here the textual layer is cut off at the sides, the graphic layer enlarged beyond the ability of its printed dots to blend to become just-decipherable as possible trees filling the far edge of a possible field with a certain, albeit very roughly represented, woman in it, between the textual matter, a second kind of woods . . . Frame 3: another enlarged reproduced photograph over/under “Ludicrous pro-/ portion between immense possiblity,/ and the result.” An explanation, to a degree, of the frame to the left, with the woman in it. Frame 4: the text here is, “below the/ burden of/ our choice”; the graphic, two men shown from the rear who seem to be moving forward through what may be high grass; it is distortedly over-expanded like Selby’s other graphics and, also like them, in vigorous tension with the crisp print of the textual layer over or under it. So, two on foot, into, or out of, or through, textuality, toward some “immense possibility”; and we have jump-cut textcollagic poetry, developing sudden by-images of some force as it depicts, at the same time that it draws us into, an archetypally tangled search for meaning.
Steve McCaffery has contributed two wrynesses, one of them a cartoon of the left half of an H which is thinking, “form,” while its separated right half thinks, “content.” This happens, as the title tells us, at the specific time of 4:46 PM 8/11/77. McCaffery’s other piece shows what looks like a not-too- interesting design of squares and short, wide rectangles, the latter mostly to the right, the former mostly to the left and growing larger as they descend. The words, “see,” and “sea” cross the page in fairly large type. Toward the bottom is a third word, “seize.” To its right the lowermost and largest of the squares encloses the lowermost of the rectangles. With reflection one should SEE the puzzle turn lyrical-deep as vision assimilates–as well as contains like a sea–the sea . . . at the same time that “seize” does something verbally comparable.
Jennifer Books’s piece here consists of fragments of letters that move in and out of identifiability. The main draw here (for me) is the use of color, for Books delicately forms her partial-letters via cross-hatching in various colors, sometimes using one color for a letter’s vertical lines, and another for its horizontal lines. The result is not only pretty, but (literally) vibratory. And we have what seems to me a textual illumage (although I can make out, I think, the word, “MAP”) in which a merely arresting non-representational design is kept marvelously from dissolution–is held at its center–by just-enough-textuality . . . or a sense of some language which underlies all things drawing chaos toward meaning.
Another exciting, however simple-seeming, use of color occurs with three texts excerpted from Johanna Drucker’s The Public Life of Language that Jill Hartman of Semi-Precious Press in Calgary has printed on three different-colored transparencies. The use of color hints at what printing on colored transparencies, and reading various combinations of the texts, one on top of another, against the light, might do for poetry–which Drucker’s near-prose isn’t. But I did enjoy the following punwork amongst its jump-cut condescensions toward mass-taste and mass-thought: “brought straight into the CAPITAL from the outlying districts/ FRESH AS/ PAINT/ nation state/ the brain aches/ looking in its/ pockets for/ change.”
There is much much more in this collection, enough for one of the commercial or university culture magazines to devote five to ten thousand words to reviewing, if there were a commercial or university culture magazine with any genuine interest in what’s going on it poetry using techniques that weren’t in wide use fifty or more years ago.
The latest O!!Zone anthology of what its editor calls “visual poetry” is au currant, too, but I have space only to say it’s a fine collection, some of it textual and graphic, some of it graphic only, but little of it both verbal and visual enough to qualify as visual poetry.
***********************************
And now the report from two days after I wrote the above–isn’t the suspense killing you? It is, happily, that my PSA level is down, so it looks like I may get through this year without croaking, or having anything major done to me medically. And mine column shalt continue. Urp.
Hello and welcome to www.poeticks.com. Our team is currently working on improving the website. We apologize for the inconvenience. When you come back and visit us again, you will be a beautifully designed site that is easy to navigate. It will also load faster and is mobile compliant. You will love browsing through the pages. As far as content, we will be distributing advice and information on
> as with most of the cryptographiku, this one depends on the simplest substitution cypher of all (A=1, B=2), etc., which can leave us with this resulting plaintext:
>
>
> .#####
>
>
>
> a [b]i[rd]
>
>
>
> a [p]oe[m]
>
>
>
> a bird
>
>
>
> a poem
>
>
>
> a [b]i[rd]
>
>
>
> a [p]oe[m]
>
>
>
> a
>
>
>
> all around the path
>
>
>
> orange, yellow, red and brown
>
>
>
> leaves in slow descent
>
>
> You’ll note that I’ve removed all the decimal points and converting the octothorps (#s) to letters surrounded by brackets, [ ]. The plaintext, however, is not the poem, is pretty darn plain, except that I’ll note the title is undecipherable. The octothorps represent a missing letter but do not provide the letter, which can be deciphered only via context, but the title is without context except for the succeeding poem, so I’d guess the title could be converted to both “birds” and “poems.”
The octothorps (and people complain about my clumsy terminology) are not the title. I left out the titles of these poems. The title of the first is (lamely) “Short-Lived Cryptographiku.” of the second, “A Simple Cryptographiku.” I made both these very quickly, to fill entries–the way I suspect, you make up pwoermds sometimes to fill yours. I hope to find better titles for them.
>
> That’s the easy part. The hard part begins with the idea of two gadgets. Do you have two poems here?
Well, originally they were two poems, made about a week apart. The second, which was the first I med, is a 5/7/5 haiku.. I guess they could work as two poems, or even as part of a longer poem. Thanks for seeing this, which I never thought of.
> I don’t think so. So does “gadgets” refer to the octothorps and the numbers? the two ways of converting the poem back into plaintext?
I think of the poems as mechanisms, or gadgets. A bit of self-deprecation, except that I have always claimed poems to be mechanisms–after Wm. C. Wms., I believe. Not because poems are “mere,” but because mechanisms can be wonderful.
>
> Everything else I might say is fraught with peril. The octothorps, which have a natural italic tilt to them, remind me of a flying bird, so it is possible that they represent flight, and thus birds, which are then also equated with poems in this poem. So birds are things of flight, and poems are things of flight as well, things that fly us away, let’s say. Second, the octothorp is also called the number sign (as well as the pound sign), but as the number sign they work just as numbers do in this poem, but more cryptically.
Good thoughts, most of it going with what I thought I was doing. As I said, I just threw these together. The orthorps were just a representation of undifferentiated matter from which bird and poem emerge. I did realize I needed to give more thought to what symbols I used but was rushed. And limited to my keyboard symbols.
>
> The poem gives us a hint to its decipherment, of course, in a pleasant way: the .1’s that open the poem, convert to .a’s after a few lines, making wonderful use of the a’s primary purpose as an indefinite article. What I don’t understand, though, are the opening decimal points. Those before the 1’s and the a’s are separated from those characters but a space, causing us not to read them as decimal points, and hardly as periods, since they open the lines. So I read them as starting points.
They’re just separators–something you later note they may be. If I bother to make final drafts of these, I’ll do it in Paint Shop where I can use spacing to separate each letter or letter-equivalent.
> The point is the simplest symbol, a dot that might be a decimal point, a period, a tittle, the lower or upper half of a colon, etc. Simple, but filled with meaning. From that point everything grows. Every line grows out of that starting point as does every word that follows the opening counting symbol.
>
> A sequence of numerals or letters in order (numerical or alphabetic) suggest a listing, a moving forward, but this poem subverts that expectation by never proceeding past the first item in the series. We are always stuck at 1 or a, always beginning, held essentially in a moment. I also think it interesting that the 1’s and a’s work this way even though they would naturally precede the periods, rather than follow them, to carry this meaning. Meaning is both subverted and supported simultaneously herein, then, and in the entire poem, which seems unreadable at first, but which is a simple coded text, something simple to crack.
>
> Finally, what do the dots mean within the words? First as separators, so that we can tell the difference between the numerals 1 and 6 and the number 16. Second, though, the opening dots,
Consistency–if one letter has a dot, they all should, I was thinking.
> just as with the dots that precede the 1’s and the a’s, these dots suggest that anything said, anything seen, anything real before us, such as a bird, and anything conceptual yet present, such as a poem, is merely a fraction of something larger and is made up of fractions. Whatever we see or hear or write about is never the whole thing–always a part of an unswallowable whole.
Yes. But also, this particular poem wasn’t up to its subject, which got away. Though that is supposed to suggest, as you have it, the idea that no poem will ever by up to its subject. Which I believe, although I also believe that no subject will ever be up to its poem.
>
> The poem as a whole now seems simple: An autumnal view, from among trees, birds inside the trees, and they can be seen through the leaves (obscured by #s and numbers). They seem to the viewer either poems or grist for poems, so the birds are the same as a poem to the reader, and maybe because birds sing and poems were first sung things of the mouth that connection is even closer. Suddenly the focus becomes clearer because the viewer focuses on the trees, in which the birds are hidden, and he sees the leaves falling from the tree, which may be leaves or may be the feathers of birds.
Nice. I was only thinking of dying things when composing the second of these, however.
>
> The importance of song is heightened, I’d say, by the fact that four of the very few lines of this poem are reduced only to vowels, which are the sounds of song, the sounds we can hold through the singing of a song. And those vowels are the vowels for “bird” and the vowels for “poem.”
>
> So now these poems have been written about at least twice by me.
>
> Geof
>
Right. You are doubly the world’s foremost critic of the form. Thanks. I didn’t expect so quickly and penetrating a response.
The cryptographiku discussed appeared in the 9 and 16 September entries to my blog.
–Bob