On the ride up to the Bronx last night for work I decided to begin a long poem. How I’ve decided to go about it is this (something I haven’t done ever as a poet): to write and write and do not touch, then combine and revise it as a poem. Most of the time I just write spontaneously and let it alone. Revision has always been iffy for me. Who cares if what I say or write doesn’t make sense? Why bother catering to an audience? Call me naive, but if you are true to yourself as a writer and a “thinking thing” than someone will understand what you are saying. Even if you don’t believe in collective human consciousness (not saying I do), you must at least be able to admit your juxtapositions are not entirely unique, in fact, to borrow from Wittgenstein, what makes them yours?
Anyway, yeah, so long poem. cool.
I should be visiting a friend in NYC with another friend next weekend, should be a good time. Events from that could bleed in to this new long poem project, verdad?
***
I should note that the idea for the long poem came from reading a smaller poem by Williams from probably my favorite non-Imaginations book, Sour Grapes. The poem is called “Blueflags”. I noticed two words/images (reeds, children) carried through the poem, pretty standard kind of stuff, but not generic, after all, it’s Dr. Williams! “Blueflags” is a kind of poem that makes it easy to see what jumping points Creeley started from, in terms of the condensed small poem. Williams poem is probably a good 30 lines or so, but what he accomplishes in such a short time is something to be attempted at some point.
How this poem brought me to the long poem was to show me the freedom of the long poem over shorter poems. For example, ever read Silliman’s “Ketjak” or “Sunset Debris” ? These both show the freedom of the long poem while also being controlled by certain formal aspects (ex. Sunset Desbris is nothing but questions, arguably with answers within “Ketjak”. Ketjak is controlled by the sentence. The sentences themselves repeat and reappear after some time to bring the reader in to a different interpretation or impression of what they just read earlier. This is an interesting technique, and certainly was a good read; the fact that a poet can get me to read the same sentence multiple times has to be a sign of some kind of talent right? Right. Of course, with poems like “Ketjak” it’s no wonder the general public is lost when it comes to poetry. (Sorry Ronny, I know you know this, and it is sad).
I guess you could say Silliman (The Age of Huts) is a decent influence to pursue the long poem. I would also say Pound’s Cantos and Zukofsky’s “A” are also good influences too (though I will be honesty I haven’t read all three of these books cover to cover, but it’s no matter. Poetry shouldn’t be read the same way prose is read (long gasps).
Poems have a longer return value (at least for me, as a reader). Prose is very plot-heavy and one has to continually read to get the bones and tension of the story. Though there are good descriptions out there, they are just hard to find. Descriptive prose should come back in a big way. If you want Plot there’s Law and Order. Where the hell is John Steinbeck?
Anyway, I need to get to bed. Gotta leave for downtown Manhattan in a few hours.
Stay Alive,
peace
Ca
-11:13am 6/26/2008
