It`s dispiriting to witness (once again) how the germ of the
possibility for an exchange of different points of view (on the value
of the work of poets associated with L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E this time) gets lost
in an embarrassed rush towards a false consensus.
A: It`s all crap.
B: It`s not. And if you think "it" is an it then you`re wrong.
A: I`m sorry I said it was crap. But are you sure "it" is not an
it?
B: There is not one enormous L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet who sincerely
believes one thing and writes the same poem under many different
names.
A: I know.
B: So we agree then.
Complaints about critics of "I=T" not citing textual evidence in
support of their arguments, and not respecting the many differences
that exist among those writers grouped under the "I=T" rubric are not
without merit. But I can`t help feeling that, after a certain point,
they are evasive too.
Essays by Bernstein, Watten, Silliman &c. often exhibit a kind of
discursive and integrative structure ("The New Sentence", "Artifice
of Absorption", anything from Total Syntax) that assumes some sort of
circuit of shared values and practices, whatever qualifications might
also be expressed along the way. Bricolage of many different poets,
poems - or often just lists of affiliated names. The violence of
NAMING them "I=T" might be regrettable, but is the violence of an
artificial and needlessly thorough diaspora any better?
As for not quoting from poems... There is an argument that to do so
would be beside the point. If we take Ron Silliman`s essay on
Bernstein, "Controlling Interests", which states that the "function
of [the] writing...[is]to make the reader aware of the role of projection
as a response to form in the constitution of the reader as a
subject" and explains that the "function" functions by the language
of the poem acting "as a barrier to reality", then perhaps by seeking
to short-circuit the possibility of projection thru impenetrable
ellipses &c. the poem ( and, by extension, the poetry) becomes an adjunct
or illustration to a sort of Althusserian polemic which could get on just
as well without it.
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|