Hi Keston, a somewhat disingenuous 'representation' of lang-po ('it' cannot
be represented), let alone of Bruce Andrews' work (which as he knows is
varied and prolific), let alone of the poem posted and its
re-contextualisation. But a garrulous reading, worth making and noted. full
of righteous indignation on behalf of Cambridge writers everywhere.
Although you're right Keston, it's a type of investigation of writing that
is not one that has been of interest to writers in England, Scotland,
Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Perhaps only Tom Raworth has worked
extensively with the one word per line approach. Heck doesn't Tom Raworth
live in Cambridge. Damn! (Even though Tom is a much more interesting writer
in that mode for me, as goes for Kit Robinson).

I think it's also worth making the point that Peter Gannick, editor of
PotePoet introduces the writing as 'for the scrolling experience on-line'
(he adds 'perfect', but we can mediate or even discount the hard sell i
think). The list that Keston quotes is the first section of the writing and
it is in quotations marks, being a quotation from the source text which
Andrews himself acknowledges in a brief introduction, 'Jeopardy' originally
published by Awede in 1977 and later collected in 'Wobbling' from Roof
books in 1981. Its formatting in 'Wobbling' is across the pages and
'justified hard left hard right (which i can only approximate here).

       Words  were  what were  whole  what wasted  words want
       waiting whose travel there -- tips, threats, necessary
       noise  nothing  needed  noise noise  not  order    one
       other's  direction  don't  could  choice  come   chest
       combustible  elements  existed  empties  rest   enough
       expected  how hand  hypotheses  have heard home having
       head here  had having  openly  picture    persuasion's
       . . .

and continues in similar modes for another 90 odd lines. So we
are in arenas of translation. The alliterative listing that chops
across his justified lines differs substantially (and in my sense is
trivialised by the scrolling version). But as Keston will have also
noted two differing versions of the scrolling text have been posted
on subsequent days. Before I give a sense of such differences can I
say that waht I responded to in such writing when I first read it
was the speed of attack and the angles of such engagement, which
from writer to writer might more of less invested in humour,
wilful relentlessness, attention spans, constructivist polyphonic
commentary, slate by slate wall-making, weaving and bobbing.

Andrews has been closely associated with (both on a peer level and
as a crossartform practitioner, the New York School of improv musics
(John Zorn, George Cartwright, Ikue Mori, Zeena Parkins and many others)
as well as improv choreographers such as Sally Silvers. If one listens
to early Zorn (of a similar period) there is a tremendous attention
given to note by note articulation (subtle shiftings of his
embouchure, his shift from hard / reedy tone to soft breath / to
instrument dipped into water / to rasp / to whistle / to whinny /
to honk etcetera). Think about that sense of 'musicality' when moving
from word to word in the Andrews. Think about a timbales player, working
with tunings and rim shots and rolls and offbeats combined. Think how that
might be applied as a compositional principle to linguistic material, to
'voices'. I'm not trying to suggest that any of this is necessarily 'good',
just suggesting ways in which the writing has been written and the aspects
of writing that are being foregrounded. If you don't like improv musics
(and nobody
says that you should  -  although for Andrews that is politicised western
folk music in the late twentieth century) this is going to be nothing more
than
an abrasive noise of shifters. Certainly in 1980 it didn't seem indulgent.

Then one might plug this writing into thinking about 'line' in poetry and
units of sense and Deleuze's ideas of assemblage as one thing next to
another being a basic unit of sense or articulation. Does one move
inexorably down a page or does the eye move backwards and forwards,
stitching sense together? How is 'progress' being critiqued here? How is
commentary being invoked? Here's the first posted version of the section
immediately follwing keston's quote:

Have
Having
Needful
Don't
Nothing
Needed
Can't
Don't
Nothing
Needed
Can't
Don't
No
Method
Vent
Another's
Aim
Fatherless
Why
Head
Inflammable
Paradise
Known
Constituents
Quits
Existed
Sleep
Somewhere
Hoped for
Husband
Pit
Hypotheses
Vanity
Depths
Does
Talking
Treasure
Tales
History
Dark

and then the second version of that same 39 words as corresponding to the
justified version at the top of this post:

noise,
head,
necessary
birth
don't
level
pit
can't
not
order
one
speaking
direction
other's
known
coice
how
chest
combustile
elements
existed
needed
rest
tips
expected
have
clasped
hypotheses
could
come
suitably
having
enough
here
under
having
openly
almost
persuasion's

So, a readjustment of Keston's post, rather than a direct advocacy.

love and love
cris




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%