Uncategorized

Tales of a Jargonaut: an interview with Jonathan Williams

Jonathan Williams photo by Reuben Cox

by Jeffery Beam

Jonathan Williams is perhaps best known as the genius behind The Jargon Society, which has published poetry, experimental fiction, photography, and visionary folk art (including the surprise bestseller, White Trash Cooking); among the press's distinguished offerings are works by Charles Olson, Paul Metcalf, Lorine Niedecker, Lou Harrison, Mina Loy, Joel Oppenheimer, James Broughton, and scores of other works by the American and British avant-garde. But Williams also has an international reputation as a poet, essayist, and photographer. His most recent books are A Palpable Elysium: Portraits of Genius and Solitude (David R. Godine, $30), an enthralling collection of photographs accompanied by nostalgically heightened commentary, and Blackbird Dust: Essays, Poems, Photographs (Turtle Point Press, $16.95), a "celebration of Outsiderdom" in which Williams proves himself "as companionable, jocular, and curmudgeonly as possible in our poor literary times." In both photography and words, Williams never simply reports on his subjects, but seems to converse with them.

Jeffery Beam spoke to Williams on a gray Sunday afternoon at Skywinding Farm, Scaly Mountain, North Carolina, where the man Hugh Kenner hailed as "the truffle hound of American poetry" has resided for much of his life. Joining them was Whit Griffin, The Jargon Society's intern.

Jeffery Beam: Jonathan, who or what inspired you to become, as Guy Davenport says in A Palpable Elysium, " a cultural anthropologist?"

Jonathan Williams: As Andre Gide wrote in The Traite du Narcisse, "Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." I started collecting the Oz books when I was six years old. I saw Fantasia when I was 10, and began to collect records: Stravinsky, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Sibelius for starters. I bought a remaindered copy of the first American edition of The Hobbit when I was 10. I began collecting Indian relics in the fields around the Etowah Mounds in Georgia; I also collected gem and mineral specimens from the North Carolina and Georgia mountains. When I was 12, I began drawing and painting at St. Albans School. I was incredibly lucky at St. Albans in that I had three great teachers: John Davis, Ferdinand Ruge, and Dean Stambaugh. Music, English, and Art were opened up for me on a platter. I cuddled up in bed with about a third of our Class of 1947—but don't be alarmed. They came out straight as arrows and became things like Major Generals in the U.S. Army and members of the House of Representatives.

JB: I think one of the most revealing moments in Blackbird Dust is your story of Stambaugh taking you to the Phillips Gallery to see the Redon and Ryder paintings. You say you realized that the painters were "celebrating human difference." Why does it matter that human difference be celebrated?

JW: Well, at the age of 12, to be put in front of an Odilon Redon painting is tough. It's a world I knew nothing about—mystical and so strangely colored. I think the painting is Girl With Flowers; the girl looks like something out of James Thurber and the flowers are simply very weird. It seemed completely inept. It's like the first time I heard Anton Bruckner, also age 12—I thought, "God, this guy's such a dummy. How can he go on after introducing the first movement of the Seventh Symphony like that?" I didn't have the ears for it at that age; Bruckner's as grown-up as it gets. When you are confronted with people who are so different from oneself, you need to have your eyes and ears wide open... , I felt much closer to Albert Pinkham Ryder's painting Moonlit Cove. I'd been to the New England coast and read some Hawthorne and Emerson. Moonlit Cove is the kind of transcendental night scene he was so great at; I think he's really the greatest American painter of the 19th century and that Thomas Eakins is maybe the second greatest. But let's not get caught up in the "Greatest Game." Charles Ives and Walt Whitman were not great in their own times. We barely know how to read and listen to these men today.

JB: I can see how a 12-year-old would be able to respond immediately to the Ryder—the darkness, the melancholy...

JW: The boat...

JB: ... and the Redon is really the opposite—less accessible because it's not the real world, it's another world. Was there something that Stambaugh said to you that helped you make a connection between the two?

JW: When he saw my laughing distress he told me to hush up. Be polite! (laughs) You are in Mr. Duncan Phillips's home!

JB: So Stambaugh in a way offered that lesson that you've mentioned a number of times in different ways in your work, and that is just to be quiet, and take it in?

JW: Yes—as I say he was a remarkably kind and very astute man. Very quiet. He enjoyed teaching at a prep school. He hardly ever entered his pictures in competitions. He wasn't trying to get ahead of the curve. He stayed at St. Albans, I think, perhaps 30 years. He came from Potter County up on the Pennsylvania-New York border—where there are some hills. He painted these patiently over the years. His landscapes are fine, and as modest as he was, his clothes were impeccably tailored. He should have taught a class in "How to Dress." He had terrific tweed jackets and good shirts and good ties.

JB: So these early guys taught you your "style"... your fashion sense too?

JW: Yeah. Of course, St. Albans had a very conservative dress code. You had to wear gray flannels and a blue blazer, white shirts, and you had your choice of ties. That's what I grew up with and I must say I find nothing wrong with it. Gore Vidal went to St. Albans for a while and photographs of him show it. Even in the country I put on ties, and try to wear decent clothes when we go into Highlands here in North Carolina. It's a dressy little resort filled with Atlanta money, porcine day-trippers in Florida sports dress, and the odd retired proctologist in a black suit.

JB: Do you think that's why someone said that you were "only gay below the waist"?

JW: Below the waist! (laughs) Below the waistcoat!

JB: Somehow the tie and everything else confuses people.

JW: Oh yeah, I've had that happen. I went into The Cedar Tavern in the Village one day in 1958; that's where a lot of the Black Mountain people who lived in New York hung out. And I had been out trying to sell our Zukofsky book, our Robert Duncan book, our Denise Levertov bookÉ I was going around to places like Scribner's and Brentano's and some of the bookshops on Madison Avenue, and I was wearing a brown worsted suit, a beige Oxford cloth shirt, a striped tie, black socks, and brown shoes (well polished). I was tired of carrying this heavy briefcase, so I walked into The Cedars, and way in the back was, of all people, Gregory Corso. I'd never met him, and he'd never met me, but before he shook hands he said, "Why are you wearing those silly, awful clothes?" (laughs) Well, that was all I needed to hear from him, so I went back to the bar and left them to it.

So, you're right, clothes can be misleading. Take Jack Spicer, who was gay as three grapes. I had not met Spicer and I wanted to—this was 1954 in San Francisco. Somebody with me said, " Hey, it's Halloween, let's go to The Black Cat." It was right next door to the police station, interestingly enough, but they didn't hassle the gays. I asked, "How will I know Jack?" My friend said, "He'll be the only guy wearing a business suit!" I really liked that. People ought to dress they way they want to, unless it frightens the police sergeant.

JB: I think of your photograph of Charles Olson at Black Mountain, where he doesn't have his shirt on. When you were at Black Mountain had you already developed this formal way of dress? And while you were there did you stand out as someone who was less relaxed in the way they presented themselves?

JW: Well, I was the only person at Black Mountain who had been to prep school and gone to Princeton and spent time in New York and all that. I didn't dress any differently than anybody else did, I don't think, at Black Mountain. Certainly, none of the faculty made a thing of it É Lou Harrison was rather dressy, but nobody else. Lou had a long-time San Francisco/New York background. I don't think anyone wanted to stand out at Black Mountain. I often wore a blazer on Sunday morning in case people got religion and somebody needed to pass the collection plate.

JB: Is there an easily defined artistic aesthetic that describes what, and how, and why you do what you do?

JW: Uncle Remus says: "Hit run'd cross my min' des lak a rat Ôlong a rafter." I have a mind like that. It darts and shimmies all the time. It thinks of six things (besides sex) all at once. So the trick is to slow down, focus, concentrate. Someone said that craft is perfected attention. I like making well-crafted books, and poems, and images, because it pleases me so to do. And it's nice to please some of one's friends now and then. I have never cultivated a commercial audience. I try never to do anything just for money, and I seem to have been quite successful at that. My old friend, Ephraim Doner (whose father had been an Hassidic rabbi in Poland), once told me about "The Lamed-Vov." In the ancient Hebraic tradition the Lamed-Vov were the 36 great souls of the earth. Wonderfully, they never knew they were great souls, but Yahweh knew. If they dwindled to fewer than 36, then Yahweh would pull the plug and go to work on a better animal. As long as we can sell 36 copies of a Jargon book, we will keep at it.

JB: How long have you been "at it"—that is, at making poems, publishing, photographing, and telling "The Great Unwashed," as you describe the culturally bound, about things and places and people they ought to know about but don't?

JW: 1951 is the precise year, arriving at Black Mountain that summer to find treasures named Aaron Siskind, Harry Callahan, Charles Olson, Robert Motherwell, Lou Harrison, Katherine Litz, Dan Rice, the Fiores, Johanna Jalowetz, Ben Shahn; and fellow students: Robert Rauschenberg, Cy Twombly, Francine du Plessix, Joel Oppenheimer. One evening Olson told his class this: "There are four legs to stand on. The first, be romantic. The second, be passionate. The third, be imaginative. And the fourth, never be rushed." The Big O dun won the kewpie doll!

JB: Do you ever feel you are, as we say here in the South, "preaching to the choir?"

JW: In earlier times the "Avant Garde" could be defined as a community of particular sympathy, as in Black Mountain College, or a Shaker village. I don't think I am preaching the Gospel of Beauty like Vachel Lindsay. It's more like Beethoven's hope—"from the heart, to the heart." Like I said before, one person at a time. Sad to say, a lot of my readers and supporters are by now dead. A lot are not yet born. Yet, quite a number in their twenties write letters (real ones with stamps, etc.) And some come to visit, look at the view, and listen to the talk. That's a good sign. And the talk is good. Tom Meyer, the fine poet I have been living with for 34 years, talks better than I do.

JB: In 1979, Gnomon Press published a collection of portraits and paragraphs, and in 1982 North Point published an earlier book of essays, The Magpie's Bagpipe. The cult of celebrity was much less monumental than it is now, but many of your subjects in Portrait Photographs were ignored for being "beyond the pale," or "too minor." Twenty-five years ago it somehow seemed more likely that one could chip a little opening in our cultural blinders. Do A Palpable Elysium and Blackbird Dust face a more impossible task than the previous works?

JW: Yes and no. Blackbird Dust has sold maybe 2000 copies. That's better than The Magpie's Bagpipe. A Palpable Elysium is doing okay, the grapevine tells me. It was reviewed in Newsweek; The Washington Post Book World's Christmas issue called it the best picture book of the year; the Los Angeles Times gave it a two-page spread. I assume there are still a few mad people who will run for the bookshop. Unfortunately my most excellent publisher, David Godine, has the habit of communicating with his authors just once a year. All small publishers of prose, poetry, and photography in this country become rather eccentric. One can understand why. Kenneth Rexroth remarked that 90% of the worst people he knew were poets. Charles Olson said: "I make $26 a year from poetry—I mean, in a good year." Olson also called America a pejorocracy—which means every day things get worse. I live in the hermitic trees and miss most of it. I dutifully listen to Jim Lehrer, but otherwise mostly watch Duke win basketball games and Greg Maddux throw the circle change, which, when it gets to the plate, drops off the table.

JB: How did you ever become the German romantic, Carolina crank, French oriole, and British gnarly folly that you are?

JW: I just did it. I never like to think about how and why. Be imaginative, as Olson suggested. Follow your eyes and ears—they will take you as far as you want to go. And remember Duke Ellington: "It don't mean a thing/ if it ain't got that swing."

JB: I know you started out in graphic design—what led you to becoming a book publisher, poet, and photographer?

JW: I dropped out of Princeton in early 1949. Then I studied painting with Karl Knaths at the Phillips Gallery in Washington, D.C. Next I studied etching and engraving with Stanley William Hayter at his "Atelier 17" in Greenwich Village. Next, on to the Institute of Design in Chicago for one semester. I had some terrific teachers there—Harold Cohen and Hugo Weber chief among them. And I was just a couple miles north of the University of Chicago where a pal of mine named Eros was studying English. But Eros was way into Rainer Maria Rilke (a poet I never get) and he let me light no fires. So when M. C. Richards turned up at the ID one afternoon to tell some of us about Black Mountain College's summer program, it sounded just right. Particularly since Harry Callahan would be teaching photography. At the ID he was teaching advanced students. I had yet to pick up a camera.

So, at BMC all cohered, as Ezra Pound promised it would. Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind taught me the rudiments of the camera. And the bonus was the Big O. Charles Olson was the largest poet known to man, the one who had stolen the sacred boogie from Mount Olympus and was ready to push the poet-button in your heart. And he said, "The artist is his own instrument." So I founded Jargon when I was 22. Pound had told James Laughlin to leave Italy and the Ezuversity and go back to the U.S. and be a publisher—hence, New Directions—and he was also 22.

JB: You are a bit of a self-described sorehead—cranky and irascible. Why would such a person take such loving photographs and write such deeply felt essays about oddball, ignored, and neglected art and artists and places?

JW: Ezra Pound—I seem to be quoting him a lot today, but, why not, I still have my EZ FOR PREZ button—once said that all the people he genuinely liked were very irascible. One wants to be irascible in the manner of H. L. Mencken, who said "Boobus americanus is a plant always in season." As one gets older it is astonishing to find out that imbeciles run the world. And remember Catullus: odi et amo—I hate and I love.

JB: You say in your introduction to Elysium that you "have pressed triggers in a very simple, straightforward, square way?" Just what does that mean for the first-time reader and viewer of your photographs and your writings about them?

JW: It just means that I have always used cameras that give you a square image: the Rollei, the Mamiyaflex, the Hasselblad, and the Polaroid SX-70.

JB: Who are the photographers and critics who nurtured this aesthetic?

JW: I worked with Aaron Siskind and Harry Callahan at Black Mountain College in the summer of 1951. Much of their output is square format. Pound said that young people in the arts have an obligation to visit the great men of their time. When I was 15 I went to see Alfred Stieglitz at "Gallery 291" on Madison Avenue in New York City. He was having a conversation with the painter, John Marin, and they asked me have a glass of wine, and listen in.

JB: I know there are hundreds if not thousands of photographs and negatives in your collection yet to be curated or printed. Can you describe the process by which these new photographs were salvaged from their oftentimes 50-year sleep?

JW: There are two or three thousand color transparencies still in hand. I started using Kodak Ektachrome-120 film in 1954. I liked the results and, besides, I never set up a proper darkroom at Highlands. I can't describe the digital processes that somehow revive these faded, scratched, torn pieces of film. My expert is David Kooi, who was a photo-lab technician at the Hartford Courant. He's now working in California, enjoying the vapidity of it all.

JB: How did you approach these folks to do these photographs? I mean, was it just something that everyone knew that you did, or did you set out to go to Rexroth one day and say, "Today, I'm going to take your photograph and this is what we're going to do."

JW: I think he probably knew I took pictures. I had taken black and white pictures of him, but I think that that color picture is the best picture of him I ever got.

JB: So you just carried your camera around with you all the time?

JW: Yeah. I photographed him quite a lot but I think that's the best one. The color is really nice. And in its current form, in its digitized form, it's wonderful. It looks better than it ever did.

JB: It's one of the things that I think stands out in the photographs in Elysium, that you capture these folks in the way that they are most real.

JW: Uh-huh. I guess that photograph of Merton, you know, he's outside of his little hermitage and seated at a kind of little metal chair and he's wearing dungarees—dungaree jacket. I somehow didn't expect that cause most of the people, most of the monks at the Abbey of Gethsemane were in—I don't know what the term is—full habit, I guess you might say. And he wasn't. He was allowed to dress in this other way.

JB: How long had you known him when that photograph was taken?

JW: Maybe a year or two. I think I met him about 1964.

JB: But you visited him pretty regularly, didn't you?

JW: Yes, a couple times a year, and through about '67 maybe. I think it was maybe '68 when he was on that trip to the Orient, when he died, through this crazy electrical system in his hotel.

WG: How did you become aware of Thomas Merton's work?

JW: Well, I had read some, and knowing James Laughlin at New Directions, he would send me books of Merton's. It was like that, you know.

JB: Was it Davenport that took you there first, or Guy Mendes?

JW: No. I think I first went there on my own and at some point we arranged a picnic with Merton and I introduced him to Guy Davenport, Guy Mendes, and Gene Meatyard. Those three guys. We just all went down there and had a picnic!

JB: Meatyard took some photographs of Merton, didn't he?

JW: He took a lot. In fact there's a book collecting the pictures.

JB: So all of sudden there's this conversation going. You mentioned this morning that Edward Dahlberg once said "Literature is the way we ripen ourselves by conversation," and that seems to me very much present in both Elysium and Blackbird Dust. How do you think that happens?

JW: Well, as you know, a lot of my poetry is found and I think that's because I'm willing to lay back and listen. It's something to do with living in the country. There are times when Tom Meyer and I will only see somebody from the outside world once or twice a week. And we've known each other so long that we don't talk as much as we might. Tom can talk up a storm, he's up there in the Duncan/Olson class. So I like to listen and I like to hear things, and if you listen carefully then you do find things. I do it all the time. My early book Blues and Roots was done by walking a big piece of the Appalachian Trail: I listened to mountain people for over a thousand miles and I really heard some amazing stuff. And I left it pretty much as I heard it. I didn't have to do anything but organize it a little bit, crystallize it. That's the thing I love about found material—you wake it up, you "make" it into something.

JB: I think that's also true of An Ear in Bartram's Tree: the way you've put the poems on the page allows the reader to "hear" them exactly as you heard them, which is very hard to do because what most writers want to do is to elaborate and editorialize—to try to explain how this person sounded. You don't do that and there's a great lesson in that for all of us.

JW: Well, it's the old Einstein saying: "Keep things as simple as they are, but not simpler."

JB: Do you think this is partly a southern trait? Of course, people think of southern writers as talkers, as storytellers, but it seems to me that there's a great deal of listening that goes on in southern culture.

JW: In the mountains, a lot of people are shy and taciturn. Down in the Piedmont, it seems everybody's out there on the porch jabbering away and whole novels are based on what they talk about on the front porch. I do get a little tired of that. As does Cousin Cora, who's back in the kitchen making cat-head biscuits and buttermilk for the whole crowd.

JB: Do you think it's something to do with the mountain landscape that allows that space for listening?

JW: Yeah. People are very reticent up here. I mean once you get to know them, like Uncle Iv Owens, who lived across the road—he was the best mountain talker I've ever found. He was in a class by himself! This is going back 50 years, but anytime you'd sit with him, he'd just say the most extraordinary things. I'd run home to write them down as fast as I could; I loved his language. He had some of the best language of anybody I've ever heard, and he didn't know how to read or write. He sure knew how to talk—that's the one thing he could do!

JB: You've done the same things with folks in northwestern England...

JW: Yeah, Yorkshire Dales, where you're dealing with people who talk funny as far as the people down in London are concerned. It's a class thing; if you don't sound as though you went to Cambridge and Oxford, you know, it's demeaning. And all the BBC announcers are taught to speak in a certain way. Not quite as much as it used to be, I mean, there'll be the odd Scotsman in there telling you about the weather, which is rather refreshing, really... but I'm dealing with one or two people. I'm getting something from them, and putting it on paper, then I'm hoping a couple of people will respond to it. It's a very simple thing.

JB: I want to get back to the portraits for a second. We talked earlier about how you had said you pressed triggers in a "very square" way. And when I asked about that you simply said that the camera that you used took square photographs. But is there something in the square form that is sympathetic to the way you approach creating a portrait of someone, whether it's through a photograph or an essay?

JW: Well, that format, the 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative or slide, is what I like. Some people are very comfortable painting square paintings—you know, Mondrian or someone like that. Whereas a lot of people work in rectangles. Almost nobody works in circles anymore, but they used to. I was trained to work with a Rolleiflex, and then the others are just improvements on it. SX-70 Polaroid is great, but having learned that, I've never used a 35-millimeter camera. I've never used a view camera, which is more like 4 x 5 or 8 x 10. The important thing is I now and then get a good image.

JB: And I can't imagine you ever taking up a digital camera.

JW: No, I don't think so.

JB: And there are thousands of Polaroid shots also, right?

JW: Lots of Polaroids and probably three to four thousand color transparencies. I've got a big batch over in Corn Close, the cottage that we have in Dentdale, Cumbria. I've got probably 1000 Polaroids. I've got a few hundred here.

JB: The English collection... is it mostly from walks?

JW: Quite a few portraits too.

JB: It seems to me that those photographs are the most fragile and could easily be lost if something is not done relatively soon—I assume their life span is not very long.

JW: I think they are more fugitive than the other film. But I keep them in albums where they are protected from light. A lot of them hold up very well. I guess I started taking Polaroids in 1977. SX-70 came out in maybe 1976. That's about thirty years ago. Some of them really look good and I suppose can be digitized—I don't know anything about this process, but I would think so. Some of them I self-published in a little book called Twenty-six Enlarged Engorged Polaroids.

JB: I can imagine a work called Jonathan Williams's Encyclopedia Elysium. Are there more volumes of photographs to come?

JW: It would be easy to pull together three or four collections like Elysium. But there have to be 5,000 or 10,000 avid readers to purchase them. I often remember the very dour comment by a London journalist whose name I can't remember: "Only the profoundly unattractive have the time or the inclination to read books."

JB: What is it you look for in a photograph—whether it's a photograph you are taking or one you collect? Is there some one thing or cluster of things that really does it for you?

JW: I'm sure that's a very complex question. Increasingly I think of Charles Olson saying, "One loves only form"É When you think about that you can argue about that a lot. I think it's one of those situations where you don't think, if it's presented in a formal way that's satisfying to you.

JB: Olson's use of the word "form" is a broad term, really. It has precision within it, but it's taking in a whole world of experience...

JW: Creeley then took that idea and said, "Form is nothing more than an extension of content."

JB: I've always like Denise Levertov's revision of that. She changed it to "revelation of content."

JW: I'm not thoughtful enough to want to pursue those things very far, but whenever I think about "One loves only form"—it could be visual, it could be the form of the music, what you see on the page—I think that's true. It's like pornography—I know it when I see it. (laughs) Let's look at some more!

JB: The photographs in Elysium are often very spare in terms of the backdrop, but clearly there are compositional choices going on to help you create such vivid portraits. One of the things I respond to is the contrast of the human being in front of a real space but somehow you've found some abstracted shape in the real space. For instance the Duncan photograph: it's just a remarkable, almost shocking, sort of image, with that great red swath, as if some Abstract Expressionist had painted it. Where was that photographed?

JW: That was some rusted piece of industrial machinery in the Mission District of San Francisco. If you live in San Francisco in 1954 and 1955, you're looking at all that expressionist painting: Clyfford Still, Hassel Smith, Elmore Bishoff, Richard Diebenkorn and whoever. Duncan was very involved with those painters. Anyway, I was going to galleries and I met a couple of those guys and that sensitizes you to see, in the outside world, similar kinds of marks as they were making. When I studied with Siskind at Black Mountain, he said a very good thing: "When other people take photographs of a wall, it's a wall," he said, "but when I take pictures of a wall, it's Siskind." (laughs) He saw himself in that image, which I thought was great, and I think it's very true.

JB: I've seen a number of versions of the Duncan photograph over the years, but all I'd ever seen was the backdrop—so it was really wonderful to see the picture of Jess on the next page, where you get almost like this Greek ruin, or even something more Etruscan or Cretan.

JW: Then you see the whole structure, whatever it is. As I say, I had studied painting. I had spent time in New York and I'd been to Black Mountain where there were certain kind of Bauhaus principles of form, you know. I had experience in a quiet sort of way.

JB: You've been working on a book about visionary folk artists—are any of those photographs yours or just the texts?

JW: You mean the unpublished book? It's called Walks to the Paradise Garden. The photographs are either by Roger Manley or Guy Mendes. The texts are mine.

JB: It seems to offer the same kind of conversation between you and the artists as Elysium. Many of these artists are completely unknown, at least, when you were traveling around visiting them.

JW: They were mostly taken from about 1984, basically through about '89, and then a few more after that.

JB: How many artists are represented there?

JW: I think it's 83—all in the southeast, right, from Virginia to Louisiana, including Tennessee and Kentucky.

JB: Why do you think a publisher hasn't been smart enough to publish that book?

JW: Well, I can't answer that. I mean, I did have an agent and she's a good-willed person, but I don't think she knew much about that kind of artless art—she's a New Yorker, and they don't know about stuff like this. So I don't think she presented it, perhaps, as well as she might have, if she had been a little bit keener on it. She was very helpful with White Trash Cooking; it was featured in Vogue and magazines like that.

JB: I think one of the charms of Paradise Garden is that your texts are as "outside" in a way as the artists that you are talking about. They're a little "wilder" than the texts, say, in Elysium or Blackbird. Has that made it more difficult to sell?

JW: I think it's better written than the 15 or 20 collections on Outsider Art that have been published in New York and at various academic institutions. But, again, the problem is we're sitting in a remote corner of the North Carolina mountains, and I make no effort to go to New York very often. This agent took it around to about ten publishers, and she never really told me what the problem was. But there was one. As there's a problem with my quote book. I've shown it to people in New York and the idea these days is that what you want is a "niche." They want it in sections, like all your quotes about wine, all your quotes about sex, all your quotes about sports, all your quotes about politics—and on and on and on.

JB: What they're not understanding is that just as in these photographs and essays, there's a conversation going on with the way these quotes follow each other without defining them.

JW: It's absolutely chronological. These are the quotes as I found them. It's like picking flowers on a hillside. Here's a daisy. There's another daisy. Let's pick a book full of daisies.

WG: Would you say that publishers are resistant to publishing work that may seem fragmented in some way? People are very put off by not knowing where they are going.

JW: Well, they shouldn't be. It's like walking—one thing leads to another. It's great fun and it makes it more interesting, I think. Here's Thomas Jefferson, here's Thelonious Monk, the next one is Yogi Berra, and the next one is Herodotus. And here's Miss Mae West! Sometimes, inadvertently, amazing things happen—suddenly something entirely new is made.

JB: Well, it's the serendipity and the absurdity of life, which is what keeps us all going. It seems to me that part of the problem is a distrust from the publishing world of the ability of American readers to be willing to work a little bit.

WG: Bunting said "Never explain—your reader is as smart as you." So often publishers assume that the people they are making books for are much dumber than the people writing the books, and so they have to dumb down whatever is being published. It's sad.

JW: Well, we may have to publish Volume One of it. I don't want to wait forever. The first volume is called "If you can kill a snake with it, it ain't art" (laughs), which is a profound statement Lyle BongŽ (photographer) came up with one day. That goes through 1990. Volume Two would go from '91 to now and it's as big as volume one, which went from the '50's through the 80's, so I've been increasing my pickups.

JB: It's another example of Guy Davenport calling you a cultural anthropologist. These in a way are like walking through a ruin and picking up shards. If you put the shards together, all of a sudden you've got something. If you leave them on the ground and walk on then you have nothing. In a way, you collage these shards into an image of literary or cultural thought. A. R. Ammons, another North Carolinian, once said, "A poem is a walk," and every time I read that I think of you. You don't travel as much as you used to, though. Do you miss it? Is there a different focus now with your work?

JW: It's complicated I suppose. I've been having problems with my feet, which means I don't feel that it's safe for me to drive. I'm driving a stick shift VW Jetta, and there are times when I try to get to the clutch pedal smoothly and I don't get there. So Tom has had to take over the driving. He does fine but he's not fond of driving and has trouble with driving at night. That tends to keep you close to home.

I remember I had a letter from a wonderful London publisher by the name of Rupert Hart -Davis, who among other things did the great Oscar Wilde letters. He retired about 25 years ago and he came up to the Yorkshire Dales. We had a mutual friend in John Sandoe, the London bookseller, and John wrote him a letter saying, "Oh you must meet these two American poets who live in Dentdale," and Rupert Hart Davis wrote back to him and said, "Never meet new people after the age of sixty-five." (laughs) "You must not do it. You spend too much time with them, cultivating them and getting to know them, while your poor old friends are like a deserted garden—they're not getting water, they're not getting weeded, and they don't get the attention they deserve. People you've known thirty or forty years, they're the ones that deserve attention." That makes a lot of sense in some ways, because I think everybody's stretched too thin in this society.

JB: It's true, the opportunity to meet someone new is constantly in front of you—the potential to completely drain yourself, and as you say, not water the garden, or weed the garden that's there in the back yard.

JW: Firm friendship. I really took that to heart. Whit has been observing the volume of email that comes in here. There's no way in the world—I could have seven heads and fourteen hands and I couldn't deal with it all.

WG: Even now, as Jargon seems to be floundering in the wake of so much mass culture, it still receives so much email and physical mail—there's no way that even five persons could respond to all the communiquŽs that come through.

JB: It's encouraging in a way to know so many people want to connect whether it's with Jargon, with you, or with each other, but at the same time it's impossible. In the days of letter writing—and you are one of the great masters—you could only write letters to, say, 30 people regularly ...

JW: I write about thirty to forty letters a week, I mean, year in, year out.

JB: So has that changed now? I know I'm guilty of this myself—I much more easily send an email than I write letters now.

JW: I don't think I have more than 15, maybe, correspondents who do it the old way.

JB: A number of your correspondents have also passed away É I know in the last decade you've seen a number of really important and wonderful people leave us. I think that might be one of the reasons your new books have found an audience: people are realizing now that there's a generation of artists and writers that are leaving us—and that you can tell us about them in a way that makes them more present than most people can do.

JW: Well, the color pictures started in 1954 , so that's close to 50 years ago. And I think it's wonderful to see Robert Duncan looking like that in 1955—it's great to see some of these people as younger, younger people. It's one thing I always liked about Albert Langdon Coburn, the American photographer who mostly lived in England for a long time. He's got pictures of people like Sibelius when he's only about like thirty-five—he looks like a completely different person. You know, most pictures of Sibelius, he looks like some granitic old Scandinavian master É and Matisse: he's got a picture of Matisse that looks like a kid! I think that's great. I was lucky enough to know a lot of these people, you know, when...

JB: At that vibrant moment when they are just grabbing hold of what it is they are going to do in their life.

JW: Yes!

JB: You see a lot of that in Elysium and also in the essays—it's that moment when they sort of burst into view.

WG: I know that younger people, like myself, do have a real interest in a lot of the poetry that came from the 20th century. To know there's someone who is active in the world of letters who knew William Carlos Williams, or knew Ezra Pound, or published Lorine Niedecker, gives the younger generation such great comfort and hope that we can fill the roles that people like Jonathan have opened up for us.

JB: It always makes me aspire to do better, and often makes me think I should give up! Knowing you and reading your works has allowed me to know Stevie Smith, Thomas Merton, Frederick Sommer, Harry Partch, Simon Cutts, and countless others I might never have known of in an inordinately intimate way. How did you ever come to know all these people and go all these places?

JW: Like they say: one thing leads to another. Pound, in "Canto LXXXI," says it gloriously: "What thou lovest well remains, / the rest is dross..."

JB: Now that you are here and you're not traveling around so much, how do you spend an average day? Do you work seven days a week?

JW: Well, when it's just Tom and me É He's on a very different schedule than I am. He gets up at 4:30 and runs through the wilds and goes to bed at 9:30 or 10:00 ...

JB: While you're still communing with Elgar at 1:00 a.m.

JW: Yeah. Listening to something. But anyway, I like to read in the morning if I manage to wake up by around 7:30; I like to read for about two hours. I can read well once I'm awake. Then I try to come into the office and do what has to be done. After breakfast I can get started. Tom puts the latest emails next to the bed and I have a look at those and think, "I really wanted to work on something else but I can't do it cause there's two people who insist on having instantaneous responses!" It doesn't happen to all of the emails, some of them have been here over a year!

JB: You're lucky to have Tom who I'm sure vets and answers some things.

JW: Yeah. I don't know the machinery at all. I've only looked at the Internet once, I think; Jargon has a site and Tom showed it to me one day and I thought, "Gee, that's great!" I believe the Internet is the younger sister of the Gorgon Medusa—if you look more than about twice you're going to get turned into stone or something much more unpleasant!

So, as I say, I usually do that until 5:30. We live a very organized time around here; I think it's something to do again with living in the country. The whole operation kind of seems monastic in a way. Comes 5:30, I stop what I'm doing and go downstairs and get in the hot tub for half an hour, jump out and come back up here and watch Peter Jennings and the News Hour. It's like going to Baptist Church. You feel like you've got to do it. Sins upon your head. You've go to do it! And that's probably all the television we watch. I like the Sunday Morning program on CBS and occasionally we will watch Antiques Roadshow. But that's it. We're about a month away from baseball, and I watch that a lot. I probably watch about five games a week. Mostly the Braves cause I'm a Greg Maddux fan. I love to see him pitch! Other than that we don't go anywhere much. We don't have a lot of money to spend on things like traveling, or going out to expensive restaurants. Tom cooks better than most restaurants anyway.

JB: Oh, absolutely.

JW: So we don't need to worry about that. We've got a small social life in Highlands. There are five or six people that we like to see every once and a while.

JB: Over sixty years you've certainly traveled enough to see quite a lot of interesting things. Again the books are testimony to that.

JW: I've traveled a lot. I've done a lot of walking. I know certain parts of Europe pretty well. England extremely well.

JB: One of the new developments in the life of Jonathan and Jargon is that there's a new generation that's finding your books.

JW: Art Blakey, the great drummer, his groups were always called the Jazz Messengers, and every year there were new personnel—some of the best jazz men of the period from about 1950 to maybe the '80s. He said something on one of his records that I thought was just great. He said, "Always stick with the youngsters. When they get too old, get some new ones!" (laughs)

WG: In terms of Jargon, so much attention is paid to the books published with Black Mountain references that it seems like Jargon is overlooked in some circles as a publisher of other people, like Russell Edson—so many have come after the Black Mountain era. Right now you are preparing to publish C. A. Conrad's Frank. How does a manuscript come to you that you really want to publish?

JW: C. A. Conrad came through a poet in Philadelphia named Jim Cory. Jim had published a little pamphlet that had about five or six of the Frank poems—must have been seven or eight years ago. You know Jim Cory?

JB: Of course, Jim has helped to edit your selected poems, which I thought Black Sparrow had been looking at, but Black Sparrow is gone now.

JW: Copper Canyon has it. It's so funny. Publishing is crazy in this country. I had had communications with the kindly Jonathan Galassi who's a publisher at Farrar, Straus & Giroux; he was a friend of James Laughlin. He said, "You must come and have lunch when you come to New York," so we did, and we had a very pleasant lunch. I had asked him could he stand the thought of looking at my new and selected poems and he said certainly and so at lunch I gave him this thing and he wrote back in about six weeks and he said "I really like this book. It's really unusual and it's absolutely 'you' and I'm sure somebody is going to want to pick it up." (laughs)

JB: It's "too" you, "too you for us."(more laughter)

JW: He said, "The problem is I can find no context within which to publish this book." I looked at that word "context" for about a month, scratching my head, and I asked people what it meant, and finally an old friend in New York who is very suave and sophisticated and involved in the arts said, "Oh, that's just a nice word that New Yorkers have come up with so they don't have to say no!" (laughs)

JB: So it was just a no.

JW: I suddenly realized, well, that's it. Though they publish a lot of good books of all sorts. So, about that time I was in communication with Sam Hamill at Copper Canyon—he was wanting the photograph of Rexroth for the jacket of the Complete Poems that is just published. I just happened to mention that I had sent this manuscript of mine off to Farrar, Straus & Giroux and he said, "When the fuckers turn it down, send it to me." (laughs)

JB: Sam Hamill, perhaps, is our greatest salvation. Of course he started Poets Against the War, too. James Laughlin's name has come up also—Laughlin became one of your masters in publishing as well as just a friend and mentor, and yet New Directions was a great commercial and artistic success, while Jargon, except for White Trash Cooking, was never really a commercial success.

JW: New Directions was not in the black until sometime in the Ô50s though. He started about 1936. But he had the rights to Tennessee Williams and some of Merton and any number of other people, and finally William Carlos Williams began to make a little money. James was the heir to a steel fortune in Pittsburgh—he had a trust fund. He spent a lot of money on all these guys, Patchen and Rexroth...

JB: But did he have some sense that he was after commercial success?

JW: He had enough money that it was possible. It's like David Godine says to me, "You've got no business being a publisher. You're too poor." I said, "Yeah, that's true David, but I've published some better books than you have." (laughs)

JB: What is it about the world of fame and fortune that has you turn your face away from it?

JW: I don't know where it comes from but I have never liked the idea of competition. Except, maybe on the volleyball court! But that's why I left Princeton. I was sick of all those rich boys; I didn't want to live with those guys.

WG: I think the anecdote about the $1500 inheritance that you received might be worth telling. You could either buy a Porsche or ...

JW: Or a Max Beckmann!

WG: Speak a little bit about how Jargon came about.

JW: That's so mysterious. I don't even think I know how to explain it. My parents became sort of upper middle class. My father was successful in his business in Washington, D. C. that had to do with designing systems and visible indexes. And I just decided I didn't want to pursue money, you know, and that maybe if I became a writer, and then a publisher, there'd be some money. But, of course, that's not been the case.

JB: If you stayed at Princeton, you could have become an expert on Byzantine art. And clearly there would have been an income and some notoriety in that choice.

JW: I would have had to do graduate work, but I just couldn't like those guys. I stayed three semesters—I only had two friends—they were interesting but strange guys. I just couldn't get on with those people.

JB: So were you a curmudgeon then, too, (laughs) or has that sort of grown as you've traveled and met and developed your tastes?

JW: I'm just a little bit ornery like most hill people!

JB: You mentioned H. L Mencken has been a great hero. A propos of this, do you see yourself in the tradition of Mark Twain?

JW: Mark Twain, Mencken, W. C. Fields, Mae West—these are people, again, who can use language so wonderfully. That's tall cotton as we say down South, but that's what I like.

JB: I think, though, it should be said that you and Jargon may not have done what you have, except because you were outside. It may have been the death of Jargon if there had been endless sums of money coming at you. You've done better with less money than some.

JW: We can only do so much. At this point we can do two books a year. When you get older you really don't have as much energy. All we need is support from a certain number of people to do the couple of books a year we have time for. I've got to push on. Tom is always writing and producing a lot. I'm not producing as much these days but I'm still doing stuff. The third book of essays has just gone out.

JB: Are there any literary models for your essays?

JW: The only model you need for essays is Montaigne. His essays are anything. He's remarkably inventive. It's the style. In a sense there's no such thing as an essay—it's the word "try." You're trying to do something. Trying to interest people in something.

JB: Is the third book more fugitive pieces? Are they spread among the whole range of time?

JW: Yes. A lot of them haven't been published before. I seem to have a lot of things like that. (laughs)

JB: What's the title? We've got Magpie's Bagpipe and Blackbird Dust.

JW: Well, I'm sorry you asked about that. It's another one of "my" titles. One of my nom de plumes is Lord Nose. So this is Lord Nose's Gnosis.

JB: I thought there would be a bird in the title.

JW: It should have been, butÉ the wisdom of Lord Nose. It rambles all over to hell and gone as most of my things do. That's one thing about me, I'm a rambler.

JB: Peripatetic as you've been described. The essay books seem to me somewhat in the tradition of Pound's Guide to Kulchur, Henry Miller's The Books in My Life, and Kenneth Rexroth's Classics Revisited, except they were mostly writing about books written before their lifetimes. You're writing about people and places that you have experienced. Have you ever thought of writing a classics revisited? "The Moon Pool and Others" in Blackbird does a little of that. It would be interesting to see what would happen.

JW: I haven't read as widely as I might have; there are huge gaps in my knowledge of English literature. I'm no scholar. I'm not an academic. I love Tolkien, I love Harry Potter in his way, The Wizard of Oz, the children's books. I read very good children's books when I was a child. Wind in the Willows is a magnificent book, Dr. Doolittle, Kipling's Just So Stories... I've always thought if a kid didn't appreciate books like that, they probably would never as adults like anything much.

JB: I remember you saying one of the things that led you to be a publisher was that you wanted to be able to recreate some of that magic.

JW: Yeah, grown up books that have that same kind of appeal. Some of ours have. One keeps hoping to publish something that does it, you know.

JB: This is a morbid question, but I hope a revealing one. Someday—a long time hence, since you are as mean as a cottonmouth and you're going to live a long time—what would you like your epitaph to be?

JW: It's the one I wrote for Uncle Iv Owens: "He did what he could, when he got round to it." (laughs)

JB: Despite all these serious questions about artistic origins, and aesthetics, and "knowing," the emotion I most think of when reading your work and looking at your photos is joy—childlike, innocent, wild-eyed fun.

JW: Well, Mompou said he never learned anything after he was about ten, and Gustav Mahler, of all people, said the same thing. Everything about his work was based on childhood. Again, it's nothing I think about too much, but I suspect that it's very strong in my own person. But that of course excludes the sexual element. I can't remember having any kind of sexual feelings much as a child.

JB: But children are sexual in a pantheistic way.

JW: They're sexual; I fooled with boys in prep school, but in a very simplistic way. I never really got involved with anybody emotionally until I was 20. But it's the joy of childhood you mean, really. Do you know Schumann's Scenes from Childhood, the piano piece?

JB: No.

JW: It's such a beautiful piece. Poor old Robert Schumann was half out of his head, you know, really crazy, and he wrote this absolutely sublime piece. It's like the world should be. Like somebody said on television recently, Americans need to be nicer people. I hope people think about that. Henry James said, "The first thing in life is to be kind. The second thing in life is to be kind. And the third thing in life is to be kind."

Click here to purchase A Palpable Elysium at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Spring 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Shifting the Subject: an interview with kari edwards

kari edwards

by akilah oliver

kari edwards, winner of the 2002 New Langton Art's Bay Area Award in Literature, is a poet, artist, and gender activist. Her artwork has been exhibited in museums throughout the United States, and her writing can be found in journals such as Aufgabe, puppyflowers, and The International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, as well as in the anthology Blood and Tears (Painted Leaf Press). The author of the chapbook a diary of lies (Belladonna Books), and the poetry collection post/pink (Scarlet Press), edwards' latest book is the experimental novel a day in the life of p. (Subpress, $12) which inspired much of this interview.

a day in the life of p. plays with gender construction and the impossibility of a stabilized identity. What is most important is not merely that the novel does this, but how—because it plays with multiple subjects, it lodges itself into a semiotic field of recurrent references, however, because the references aren't located in a reliable "character," the subject does not dictate the action, and vice versa.

So the writing raises some interesting questions. How can one play with (un)gender/ed identities without relying solely on theory or on the authentic "I"? Can we place a novel within the framework of transgressive literature based on both its queered subject matter and on its structural intent? Or to borrow from both Derrida and southern Black American speech codas, what exactly is it about this kind of fiction that troubles the waters, that does nothing to lessen what Derrida calls "essential predicament of all speech and of all writing, that of context and destination"?

With these ideas in mind, I spoke with edwards in January 2003.

akilah oliver: A quote from Luce Irigaray comes to mind: "The transformation of the autobiographical I into another cultural I seems to be necessary if we are to establish another ethics of sexual difference." What was your intent in playing with the subjective I?

kari edwards: I cannot imagine writing an autobiography that is nothing but linked anecdotes—it takes a certain amount of fiction to create a subject that's not a subject but traces like voice, like music, that glides through the memory without becoming a situated subject. So it seems logical that the new autobiography should be a form of fiction, an assistant to get to the truth. The cultural "I" that I'm working with here is the book itself—the book becomes a sort of exploration of my cultural "I" through fiction, a way of learning to understand myself through their/my language that constructs me.

ao: How does the shifting subject play with the idea that gender is socially determined, biologically repressed?

ke: Gender is one of those things that is assumed to be solid, where in reality it is both a social construct and a personal choice. And like everything else gender is neither solid nor permanent; it's only permanence is perpetrated by the state, family, or the church. So the shifting narrative is more representative of life, which goes against the idea put forth by Judith Butler that gender is a performative repetitive pattern which is nothing more than an assembly line of identity. I think identity is more fluid than that. With gender, would we have gender stability if there were not the oppression of gender-centric behavior?

ao: What do you think about how writers like Kate Bornstein and Leslie Feinberg, both of whom you mention in previous discussions about your work, subvert or refashion personal narratives of gender?

ke: I think both subvert the narrative in that their work can be read from many different directions. Both of their works could be autobiographical. They could be how-to books. Both of their works are a direct extension of gender fluidity.

ao: In what way?

ke: Leslie's book is fiction but it gets into whether it's really about Leslie or not, which opens up the text; Kate's book has everything from plays to poetics and I think that also doesn't pin it down to what kind of book it is. In some ways I think that's some of the most exciting personal narrative that I've read. In p. there is a certain autobiographical nature to it, but the I is in doubt at times.

ao: Do you ever use the marker "I"? I don't remember seeing that.

ke: I do use the marker "I" but it's always a fictionalized "I," and in this particular book I guess this feels more cinematic. Very rarely do we see from the interior point of view of the "I" in cinema. This interior "I," that is so present in literature, seems to have disappeared with the voyeuristic gaze of the camera.

ao: Well, the thing about voyeurism—the other trained on the imagined "I"—is that it's not only external; voyeurism is reciprocal in that I am always aware of the gaze, and in that awareness I engage it. Is this also indicative of a political objective and if so, is a day in the life of p. a kind of newly politicized literature?

ke: I'm not quite sure what political objective means in this case. That is not to say p. is not political—I'm not sure how in this day and age to live and not be political—in some sense, by the act of writing it becomes political. That's not to say all writing is political, or maybe it is: I guess either you're supporting the hegemony or you're challenging it.

ao: There's an implied violence that gender wrecks on identity, especially when one thinks of role playing, the medicalization of sexuality, etc. When is violence not violence? There is something sexy about the knife on page 30, for example.

ke: To me this goes back to some of what the Marquis de Sade did. The violence in some of those books was an open-ended form of eroticism, but what's important is it was in books. So when is violence not violence? That's not such an easy question to answer. I was going to say, to the extent that violence is not directed at someone. But on the other hand there's a history of text that has ignited violence. So the question is, does it harm someone? But even that seems to be a loaded question.

ao: The kind of descriptive and implied violence running throughout the text of p. is also dreamlike. What is it that you're doing by using mutilation, scarification, and rape as part of a bizarrely recognizable topography?

ke: It's all dreamlike. Looking back on any situation that has enough intensity to be remembered is dreamlike no matter how violent the situation. And it could be that this is all a dream; what is the difference between dreaming and waking? Maybe we want to think there is a difference, but anything other than the present is a dream—it is our imagination recreating that moment. We live in a land of violence, in a time of violence, where the definition of rape has to be expanded. Are we not all being raped by the incessant need for commodity? Are we not all being raped when thousands and thousands are killed and we never know? Are we not all being raped when a 17 year-old is murdered for not fitting some illusionary gender norm? How could this be anything else but a horrible dream. On the other hand, what is fiction but a dream extension of our reality?

ao: Is the novel a critique of systems?

ke: Yes, and I do see those systems—family, capitalism, the corporal restraints of gender and time—as violence against the subject, but stated in such a way that it seems necessary for the creation and protection of the subject.

ao: Do you resist a certain easy genre classification of the book?

ke: On some levels—at the same time I see this book in the novelistic tradition, especially as it relates to those writers who challenged it in their time: Rabelais, Cervantes, Acker, and others. On the other hand, it could be a poetic form as well. Again it goes back to the book reflecting my "I," or how I go through life.

ao: There's a bit of word play in the book that lends a satirical tone, e.g., "Dr. Fraud" for Freud. What does word play do for you?

ke: It's a form of irony, a way of creating a multiple reading within the text. It could come from my training as an artist, where the object one is working on has to be addressed on many different levels from aesthetics to concept. I think it is all a matter of how to create a horizontal or multi-layered text. Instead of reading it in a left-to-right fashion, one can to read it on different planes. I also like a good joke now and then.

ao: a day in the life of p. seems to consciously break the rules of narrative development in the way certain poets would. Do you consider the book to be a "poet's novel"?

ke: it seems to me that on some level, poetry attempts to get to a deeper truth by trying to describe the indescribable. I guess that's what p. seems to be doing. The other aspect of that is, if this is a fiction that somehow reflects myself, how could I be a linear narrative? The idea of a linear narrative is just another form or another illusion. Having to take the train to a certain destination is all very linear, but during those moments one never knows what will happen, so I am interested in how you write that.

ao: a day in the life of p. also critiques and comments on its own process as part of the narrative dialogue. How do you think that challenges a reader to "read" differently?

ke: It's another way of breaking down the fourth wall—Laurence Sterne used that technique in Tristram Shandy—but it also acknowledges what's taking place between the reader and the book.

ao: Speaking of ways to read, throughout the text you use bold words and phrases. As a reader, I can choose to read the bold text sequentially, with or outside of the rest of the text, and another narrative focus emerges. Were you trying to create that kind of textual layering?

ke: Yes, I was doing this intentionally, as a text within a text. This also becomes a visual element, which is similar to some hypertexts on the Internet. I think now that computers can do so much with text and images that not to use these tools in the creation of a piece of art seems like not using all the tools available. And at times it seems not to use these tools in a visual manner would be to risk falling into a logocentric unconscious.

ao: There's references to numbers in p. which might seem arbitrary. How do numbers and equations work for you as a writer?

ke: I just see numbers and equations as another language. This could also be true with some net language, such as the @ sign.

ao: It seems that the multiple use of tools or conceits can create a kind of density for the reader. How concerned are you with accessibility?

ke: I was just talking with someone about that, and the definition of self-indulgence in relationship to the theater. What is accessibility? I was walking down the street the other day and heard a couple talking and one of them said, "I never read a book unless it has pictures in it." What is accessible? I think it was Theodore Roosevelt that called Nude Descending a Staircase an exploding shingle factory or something like that. I think what's more important is the level of honesty of the writer or artist and how to define that, though it too seems indefinable.

ao: Can you talk about what that language is for you?

ke: I think naming things can be a tool for both liberation and oppression. So for me language becomes a tool that can be used and then destroyed or reused again in a different way. I think for someone who may be coming out for the first time—as in coming out transgender, bisexual, lesbian, or gay—language gives them a position from which to say "oh, that's that," but the problem then is it becomes "that" for eternity. I am a that, which is nothing but artifice and surface.

ao: Within the medium of words, how do you lose language?

ke: Well, I may be fortunate or not to be dyslexic, so I have the ability to look at an object and lose its name; for a moment I'm in the presence of that object. I guess the same goes for gendered individuals. I no longer see it as male-female, but the person in front of me; it could be that they are male or female but I never try to fix them to position.

ao: Let's talk about this thing called "gay literature" how it's stuck in an ÔI' position...

ke: That's the failure of gay literature: the constant need to identify, the innate victimhood of "I am this," a frozen target to be ghettoized into the back of the store.

ao: Is the victimized identity necessarily a static one? Is the opaque identity freed from historical narratives of gendered bodies, racialized bodies, and so on? I guess I'm thinking about the "moving target" as a way to subvert the marginalization that can result from an over-reliance on identity politics.

ke: I think there's an implied victimhood in gay literature in that it seems to be narcissistically repeated as if it's on some kind of tape loop, one coming out story after another after another. Very rarely do I read about the radical side of challenging the hegemony.

ao: There are those of us who have often lamented about the ghettoization of gay literature, about its apparent need to write in recognizable codes that reference an imagined common identity and community. It seems p. breaks with these codes. Do you think that is at all liberating for gay literature, or am I presuming that a text by a queer person immediately falls within a kind of dialogue about identity?

ke: That's what I was saying before, that by labeling it gay or queer means something. I think it's more important to embody the sense of queerness in the text without labeling it as queer. To me on some level it is no longer queer if it's a thing of pathology, of justification, or of placement. True queerness seems more a way of being, so I think in p. I was trying to the write that sense of queerness without naming it.

ao: So how does the book expand or challenge the notion of what queer or gay writing is or can be?

ke: I think gay literature has to move beyond the typical narrative. As long as there is a continuation of this narrative form—"I am this," "this is what it's like to be me"—then on some level it seems to retard any maturing of the literature.

ao: Is this critique we're leveling at gay literature valuable?

ke: I do think it's valuable to challenge anything that becomes an institution, and "gayness" has become institutionally accepted in this society, which has both its good and bad points.

ao: It's seem that out of this critique of gay literature—how it has marked itself in temporal, recognizable bodies—the question of time arises, time as a marker that contains and limits. Can you talk more about that?

ke: In the Middle Ages, the bells would chime at certain times for prayer and to donate money, so there's a certain kind of control. Time is one of those unspoken controls put in place and never questioned. We buy and sell time for time off. We're paid our value by the hour. Time has become another commodity, when what time is really is relative, no matter how we try to corral it into an absolute. So I think that's one of the issues I wanted to address. What is all the time in the world?

ao: What's next, what are you working on?

ke: I am working on a novel based on Joan of Arc's life and the history of literature—in a sort of limited fashion.

ao: Who is your community of writers? Is it important that writers have a community?

ke: I never think of a community of writers. I think of a community as those that are in my circle. Some are writers, some activists, some artists, or whatever, but there seem to be shared views.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Spring 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

20 QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN ELLENBERG

Jordan Ellenberg photo by Pryde Brown Photographs

by Stephen Burt

A foul-mouthed misanthropic poet from a obscure corner of Europe inspires, in turn, a struggling college in the American West; a superstar professor who decides to stop speaking; and the lucky-in-love misfit student who must watch the professor (in case he starts speaking again). Thus runs the plot for Jordan Ellenberg's The Grasshopper King—both the funniest campus novel in ages, and a slippery, serious-minded investigation of what happens when good languages go bad. If that's not enough, the novel also offers sterling examples of competitive checkers; misguided institutional architecture; "ling-fic" (see below); syncretic cosmogonical folklore; and reasons why people regret ever leaving New York.

Jordan grew up amid friendly statisticians in Montgomery County, Maryland, where the mathematical powers-that-be discovered him early on: after winning international youth-in-math competitions and some televised quiz shows, he studied mathematics at Harvard and fiction-writing at the Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars. Now he teaches math at Princeton, where in between proving theorems and preparing for his upcoming wedding, he sometimes writes a column for Slate. We explored the trails of hidden knowledge leading in all directions out from The Grasshopper King, and back to it, via email in February 2003.

1. Is The Grasshopper King a campus novel? What's a campus novel, anyway?

Jordan Ellenberg: Campuses are interesting places for two reasons: people pursue difficult knowledge there, and kids grow up there. The part of their growing up that happens between 18 and 21 seems to them to involve the acquisition of difficult knowledge, but actually most of what they learn is developmentally automatic. So from the juxtaposition of these two pursuits you get some irony, and this irony produces comic novels.

My sense is that "typical" campus novels—or at least, the novels people mean when they say "campus novel"—use that irony as follows: Look! professors think they are in search of difficult knowledge, but really they are more like adolescents at play; that is ridiculous!

The Grasshopper King is maybe a bit different in that I really do believe that pursuing difficult knowledge is, at bottom, important and non-ridiculous; so I'm less interested in the ironic fate of the professors and more interested in the ironic fate of adolescents who take the analogy between their automatic development and their coursework too seriously.

2. How much did it change between the first draft and the published novel?

JE: Drastically. It was originally a long story called "Henderson between the Wars," and I just kept on writing it until at some point it became so long that I had to start all over again and write it as a novel.

3. You've spent a lot of time on a lot of campuses: were you conscious of particular models for the Department of Gravinics or the layout of Chandler State?

JE: No. Chandler City is just a particular dim feeling made into a town with a campus in it.

4, a-f. Gravinic, the language in which Henderson writes, appears to have an infinite number of tenses, moods, and declensions—making it both the perfect language, adequate to all human thought and expression, and an impossible language, which no one can learn to speak. Can you talk about its relations with, and your relations with,

a. Esperanto, which figures in your short fiction?
b. Chomskyan (or other) linguistics?
c. real Eastern European languages with complicated tense systems?
d. creation myths and the language of Eden?
e. misanthropy?
f. math?

JE: I thought for a long time that The Grasshopper King had nothing to do with math, but now I'm inclined to concede that it does. In mathematics, as in Gravinics, you're driven by an intermittent sense that there's a single wire that powers the universe, and you've got your hand on it. But no one outside your in-group is going to understand what you're talking about.

The Johns Hopkins library has a really great collection of books and pamphlets about proposals for universal languages; not just Esperanto, Volapük, and Interlingua, but languages which—even by Volapük standards—didn't catch on. Languages with lots of inflections, languages with no inflections, languages made out of ones and zeroes, languages made out of musical notes... one-man languages. I spent a lot of time going through these, and they're present in The Grasshopper King, for sure.

What I know about Chomskyan linguistics mostly had to be discarded in order to write the book, in the same way that you have to throw out a lot of the physics you know in order to write a good science fiction novel. In fact, the right genre label for The Grasshopper King is probably "linguistics fiction." Does this genre exist? It might consist solely of Jonathan Lethem's Gun, with Occasional Music (see A. 19).

5. Is The Grasshopper King a Jewish, or a Jewish-American, novel? What's a Jewish-American novel, anyway?

JE: I'm not sure I think Jewish Americans feel the same kind of cultural solidarity that, in my fantasies, they did fifty years ago. Maybe because they don't have accents now. So it's not clear what makes a novel Jewish-American, besides the uninteresting criterion that it be loaded with American Jews. I think now that we don't have accents, we (Jewish Americans) have picked up a bad habit of deploying our ethnicity self-consciously, mostly to check it's still there. Do you ever find yourself using a Yiddish word in conversation, then realizing that, just before you spoke the word, the thought "I think I'll now use one of the Yiddish words available to me" flashed across your mind? I do. Or didn't you think that Bee Season was a really good novel, but that the business about Kabbalah was the least interesting (though still pretty interesting) part?

Samuel Grapearbor is a Jew, as I am, but in the book I've self-consciously failed to deploy his Jewishness to avoid self-consciously deploying it as above. I'm not sure that's morally better, but it saved me having to learn a lot about Kabbalah or Shabbatai Tzvi or what have you.

6. Does the math world know about your novel? Do you expect them to find out?

JE: I'm not publicizing the novel in the math world; I'm suffering from a paranoid fear that someone on a tenure committee somewhere will take its existence as a sign that I'm not fully committed to mathematics. Actually, in case any tenure committee members are reading this, I might as well say that I am fully committed to mathematics. The fact is, mathematics is easier and a lot less painful than writing novels. Also, you get tenure.

7. Can you describe your research on checkers? Why checkers?

JE: I wanted to put in a board game because it forces people to pair off—see A. 9. Checkers, in particular, because of Marion Tinsley, who was the checkers champion of the world from 1954 to 1991, a period during which he lost a total of five games. I'm pretty sure he was the best player of any competitive game who's ever lived. In 1994, when he was 67, Tinsley played a match against Chinook, a checkers-playing computer program from the University of Alberta, for the "World Man-Machine Championship." He and Chinook played to six straight draws, after which Tinsley, who was too exhausted to keep playing, conceded the match and the championship to Chinook. He died a few months later. He seems like the kind of person whose story Samuel Grapearbor would like a lot. In fact, the story used to be in the book, but it never sat smoothly there, so I took it out.

8. I was surprised to find absolutely no concealed references to the Baltimore Orioles anywhere in the novel. Did I miss them?

JE: When I was writing the novel I was living in Baltimore, which meant I spent about six hours a day with the Orioles; pre-game call-in show, game, post-game call-in show. I watched the Orioles more or less autonomically. So it never occurred to me to insert concealed references; it would have been like coyly alluding to the fact that I eat dinner every night.

On the other hand, the Orioles of that period (1993 and 1994) were one of the most interesting and melancholy versions of the team. 1993 was the year Fernando Valenzuela pitched for the Orioles. Valenzuela, when he was 21, already had a Cy Young award and was going to be the pitcher of our time, but by 1993 he was seven years past his last winning season. For some reason he came to Baltimore, and he had another losing season. But he brought a bit of noble twilight to the team, a team which was, all in all, a perfect mix of nobly twilit old guys (Valenzuela, Rick Sutcliffe, Harold Baines), young guys who hadn't found themselves (Mike Mussina, Arthur Lee Rhodes, Jeffrey Hammonds), and, maybe most importantly, middle-aged, middle-talented guys who picked that year to have great seasons which they must have known they would never again equal (Chris Hoiles and the incomparable Jack Voigt). It was somewhat shocking to me to look up the statistics and see that the Orioles were actually pretty good that year, and finished in a tie for third. My memory of that team is Valenzuela losing in the late afternoon.

All this by way of saying that the entire novel might actually be a concealed reference to the Baltimore Orioles.

9. Does The Grasshopper King reflect (in ways visible to you) anything you learned from John Barth or Stephen Dixon at Hopkins?

JE: Actually, the single remark that really changed the book was made by Robert Stone; I was lucky enough to be at Johns Hopkins for one of the two years he was there. The whole middle part of the book, which largely consists of four people hanging around in a basement, was—just as it might sound—very muddled and slow in the original version. The advice Stone gave me was that, no matter how many people are in a room, each moment in a scene has only two of them in it. And this became an organizing principle; there are three ways to divide four people into pairs, and I ended up hanging the whole midsection of the novel on the combinatorial framework that results when you consider these three pairings, one after the other.

10. Will you ever return to reviewing works of fiction? Are there living authors you'd like to review but have not?

JE: Reviewing fiction is my least favorite of all the kinds of writing I have ever done. I always felt strung up by my responsibility to the author of the book; he or she spent years on this thing and I was going to pass judgment on it after one or two readings, late at night when I was too tired to do math. The only books I liked reviewing were the ones I knew everyone would like (DeLillo, Dixon, David Foster Wallace, Stone...) where I felt it wasn't my responsibility to get people to purchase the book or not, and I could just spin out an essay carving out some particular section of the existing critical consensus that I wanted to endorse.

I'd love to write about Matthew Klam. I was on the Amtrak last week, and I was sitting behind two consultants, and they spent the whole trip having the most amazingly consultant-like conversation—skill sets were maximized, talent was valorized, boxes and boundaries were thought outside of and beyond, everything! I had no idea what they were talking about. But they were prototypical members of the category of consultants, that was clear. So much so that I started to wonder whether they were actually actors hired by Amtrak to impersonate consultants in order to show that their business class service is, in fact, patronized by the business class.

Klam is, I think, the only person who's made a serious effort to take this kind of talk, which seems to us like dead language, and show that it's a real language by making prose fiction out of it. Well, maybe George W.S. Trow did this too, in Bullies, but he seems to have abandoned the project.

But see? That was much more fun than actually sitting down and writing a review of Klam's book. I'm glad I don't have to do it.

11. Can you think of a novel, besides The Grasshopper King, which sets a crucial scene in a cafeteria?

JE: Sure: A Fan's Notes. Frederick Exley sees Frank Gifford, the star quarterback, across the college cafeteria. Exley tries to pin Gifford with a derisive stare; Gifford smiles and says hello in a vague way that works Exley up to such a pitch that he stays pretty mad for the next 300 pages. I'm glad you asked this question because it led me to open A Fan's Notes again; I'd forgotten how much I'd drawn from it. Stolen from it, I guess I mean.

12. How did you come to write for Slate?

JE: For reasons I don't quite understand, they really wanted to run a math column. They were looking for someone with advanced training in math and experience in magazine journalism; that narrowed it down a lot.

13. In your previous life as a journalist, you covered (among other things) the Modern Language Association's annual convention of anxious English professors and disgruntled graduate students. Are there bits of the MLA in the Gravinics world?

JE: The novel was already more or less in final form when I visited the MLA, so probably no, there aren't. I think the nature of the discipline of Gravinics owes much more to mathematics and physics than it does to literary studies, which is why it is called "Gravinics" and not "Gravinian studies."

14. What about Matter-Eater Lad?

JE: Given his superhuman digestive powers, I expect that, yes, there are bits of the MLA in Matter-Eater Lad.

15. You started the novel as a graduate student, and finished revising it as a junior professor at Princeton. Did your change in academic POV affect your work on the novel?

JE: It helped with one thing. The novel is told from the viewpoint of an old man looking back on his youth; but the old man is only 33. There aren't that many contexts in which being in your early thirties and being an old man make sense together. One of them is the context where you and I live, in which we spend a lot of our day surrounded by nineteen-year-olds. Knowing about that helped make the frame of the novel make more sense to me.

The other context in which 33-year-olds are old men, is of course, baseball—see A. 8, especially Fernando Valenzuela.

16. If you described your background and upbringing in a few sentences, would it save me the potential embarrassment of having to ask several detailed questions about them?

17. Along what may or may not be the same lines, can you reveal any secrets of the Math Olympiad?

JE: Answering both 16 and 17: I learned a lot of mathematics very early in life, which meant that as a child I spent a lot of time sitting in big rooms trying to solve math problems more quickly and cleverly than other children. But I think to describe the Math Olympiad this way misses a lot of its charm; in general, I believe it's inherently kind of delightful when bunches of teenagers from different countries are plunked together for a few weeks, and when I wear my "Mathematics brings friends together" T-shirt, I am not doing so ironically, though I'll admit it tends to happen close to laundry day.

18. Has there ever been a case, to your knowledge, in which a real scholar stopped speaking?

JE: There's the case of Alexander Grothendieck, who, with a kind of immense effort of pure will, completely rewrote the foundations of algebraic geometry in the 1960s, then became alienated from other mathematicians and retired to the Pyrenees to raise sheep. Only a few people are allowed to know where he is. The last few documents he wrote before leaving mathematics ("Sketch of a Program", "The Long March through Galois Theory," "Pursuing Stacks") have acquired a kind of lonely, devoted following, in which I sometimes include myself.

19. The Grasshopper King is one of the funniest novels I've read. Do you have models for humor in prose fiction?

JE: The primary kind of funny I know how to produce is that which comes from enforced intimacy between high diction and low subject matter; I think I learned this from Frederick Exley (see A. 11) and Michael Chabon. Probably visible only to me are the influences of Stephen Dixon and Delmore Schwartz. Schwartz in particular is the master of dialogue which makes fun of its speaker in a way that's not at all forgiving but remains affectionate; this works better than Exley's uncut sourness for almost all novels (maybe all non-Exley novels.) I would count David Foster Wallace and Grace Paley as models if I had any idea how to model myself after them. Paley is impossible to imitate, and Wallace is impossible to imitate without producing parody.

20. Your book describes (among many other things) how socially isolated, academically gifted young men learn to admit women into their lives. If someone began a review of The Grasshopper King with that sentence, would you be pleased, surprised, nonplussed [in the colloquial and inaccurate sense of not-surprised-at-all], or nonplussed [in the accurate but rarely encountered sense of having your socks knocked off]?

JE: I would be happily nonplussed [in the second sense] and possibly a bit chagrined [in the original sense of feeling like I'd been rubbed vigorously with a rough piece of sharkskin, or shagreen] that the structure of the book was so visible. The question this question raises is: What is the Great American Nerd Novel?

Click here to purchase The Grasshopper King at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Spring 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

30 Days Of Night

30 Days of Night

Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith
IDW Publishing ($17.99)

By S. Clayton Moore

30 Days of Night is set in the long, dark world of Barrow, Alaska, but colors its victims in ghastly shades of red as well, so don't read this slick little volume at night. The unique setting lends this vampire story a novel premise (much in the same manner as Greg Rucka's graphic novel Whiteout, which follows a U.S. Marshall tracking a killer in Antarctica).

See, the sun doesn't rise in Barrow between November 18th and December 17th and a clever vampire named Marlowe has brought his band of undead to town for a feeding frenzy. It's not so much an assault as an all-out obliteration of one town from the face of the earth, captured in the feverish snapshots of artist Steve Templesmith and a razor-sharp script by Steve Niles, who cut his teeth in the same vein on Image Comics' Hellspawn.

"This is the world of which they have only dreamed," Niles writes. "Endless night and an endless supply of blood and meat. This is how it is meant to be: humans, like bottles, waiting for their caps to be popped." In the manner of the best horror stories, only a sole couple—in this case Barrow's husband-and-wife sheriff's team—stands in the way.

Templesmith uses a daring style that combines a bold use of ink and paint with computer manipulation to impart a dreamlike menace. It's not quite real and yet you can almost feel the bitter chill fall as the sun goes down for the last time. 30 Days of Night has been optioned as a film but don't wait until Hollywood has sucked its bones dry—get it now, while it's fresh and juicy.

Click here to purchase this book at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Ruse: The Silent Partner

Buy this book from Amazon.com

Mark Waid, Scott Beatty, Butch Guice, Mark Perkins, Laura DePuy, et al.
CrossGen Comics ($15.95)

by Rudi Dornemann

The founders of CrossGen Comics entered the comics marketplace with the goal of appealing to an audience beyond superhero fans and habitual comics specialty-shop patrons, and over the past few years it's been interesting to watch their plan unfold. Their steadily growing roster of titles has eschewed superheroes but hasn't shied away from other recognizable genres—horror, space opera, medieval fantasy, samurai adventure, mystery. They've made sure that readers can find earlier chapters of ongoing titles, especially through well-timed collected editions. And they've cultivated a female audience by focusing several of their storylines on women who aren't drawn in skimpy costumes. Given the company's business savvy in producing, packaging, and marketing the comics that advance their strategy, the question remains—how good are the comics themselves?

Looking at Ruse—the CrossGen title with perhaps the broadest appeal—it would seem like they're on the right track. While not as edgy as many small-press and independent comics, Ruse is certainly more sophisticated than most superhero books and offers a consistently entertaining read. In pitching their work to a non-comics audience, Ruse's creators and publishers haven't forgotten how much of the pleasure of comics lies in their serial nature, the gradual development of character and story, and the simple fun of anticipation.

Ruse's main character—hyper-logical, largely emotionless detective Simon Archard—would seem to signal that Ruse is a Sherlock Holmes knock-off. This is, however, only the first of many stock items that writers Mark Waid and Scott Beatty use to set up our expectations only to tweak them. Filling the Watsonian niche of sidekick/narrator is Emma Bishop, who is both more capable and less appreciated than Holmes's associate. The crisply-written banter between Simon and Emma propels the comic from panel to panel through some fairly tricky plots.

A large part of the fun of Ruse is the sleight of hand with which familiar tropes emerge only to develop in unexpected directions. The second Ruse collection, The Silent Partner, leads off with a thorough rearrangement of the typical Middle-European-village-menaced-by-vampires scenario. There's also a brief bit concerning an assassination attempt by agents of the League of Aggrieved Manservants—the unstated joke being that Archard has solved one too many cases in which "the butler did it."

Ruse is at its most entertaining when it's least on-task; The Silent Partner's opening two chapter digression and the third chapter's self-contained mystery deliver more zing than the sequence of showdowns in its concluding three chapters. Those three chapters, however, are full of character development, backstory revelations, and climactic showdowns—all of which deepen the world of the characters and prime the reader to pick up the next Ruse collection.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Black Theatre: Ritual Performance in the African Diaspora

Black Theatre

Paul Carter Harrison, Victor Leo Walker II, Gus Edwards, eds.
Temple University Press ($27.95)

by Justin Maxwell

A thorough and well-made anthology, Black Theatre: Ritual Performance in the African Diaspora successfully illustrates how Black theatre is, as Paul Carter Harrison says in his prefatory essay "Praise/Word," not a "mere reaction to oppression," but an endeavor to "identify and retrieve African traditions from the American social landscape." Within the broad context of that purpose a lot of ground gets covered. The later essays of the collection deal with theatrical practice—Lundeana Thomas's essay "Barbara Ann Teer: From Holistic Training to Liberating Rituals" explores a process of personal discovery that Teer believes makes individuals into successful African-American theatre practitioners and community members, while Ntozake Shange's essay "Porque Tu No M'entrende? Whatcha Mean You Can't Understand Me?" looks at regaining African cultural life and language predicated on the belief that "English is a greedy, swallowing language that appropriates words and gestures as an infant at the nipple sucks milk."

The first two parts of the anthology deal more with tradition, providing detailed, almost-anthropological insight into Black theatre's cultural subtext. They contain a large amount of material linking African traditions to cultural practices across the sad swath of the Diaspora. As Victor Leo Walker sums up, the terms theatre and drama ... are inclusive of ritual, ceremony, carnival, masquerade, testimonials, rites of passage, the blues, improvisation, "Negro spirituals," spoken word, hip-hop, storytelling, and other performative modes of expression rooted in the ancestral ethos of black Africans in the Diaspora.

These roots save Black theatrical expression from the pitfalls of what J. C. de Graft, in "Roots In African Drama and Theatre," calls the "three destructive enemies of theatre," which are "excessive rationalism," "the tendency to reduce all drama to the level of mere entertainment," and "the tendency towards commercialism." These destructive tendencies are antithetical to the cultural inheritance that allows Black theatre to be multifaceted, a "total theatre." In the words of Babatunde Lawal, "black playwrights turned to the African praxis of total theatre, which blends the visual and performing arts, allows for improvisation, and eliminates the gulf between performers and audience." This inclusive view of art is as much cultural as theatrical; it creates an aesthetic-theological dramaturgy that becomes the embodiment of primary cultural building blocks—religion (Voodoo, church ritual), festivals (Carnival), and community (the "call-and-response practices of collective experience"). The values of Black theatre give it the ability to ritualistically and publicly connect (or reconnect) to the spiritual and the communal, something which is inherent in African (but lost to mainstream American) theatre. This aesthetic of interconnection is the clear result of an African epistemology that survived the Middle Passage and subsequent centuries of oppression, and explains why African-American art ties the modern art-maker to the spiritual/cultural healer, a sublime relationship between the material and the spiritual contained in "the Yoruba concept of Ifogbontáayése."

The inseparable fusion of theatre and life requires that Black theatre be seen completely independent of the Western tradition; Ed Bullins makes this point when he says that "we don't want to have a higher form of white art in Black faces." And Paul Carter Harrison refers to this independence as being "unshackled by the predictable, orderly constraints of Western realism." This unshackling is, according to Paul K. Bryant-Jackson, embodied by the works of Adrienne Kennedy, whose "preoccupation with myth forces her to abandon mimetic representation on the physical stage and substitute an altar upon which she stages an ontological argument in which nothing is certain except the mutable resisting image before us." The incarnation of Black drama as wholly different from mainstream Western drama is also encountered through Jean Young's essay on Ntozake Shange's acclaimed choreopoem for colored girls who have considered suicide / when the rainbow is enuf: "Shange's use of call-and-response and dance works as a powerful incantation or mojo force, allowing audience members full participation by projecting them into metaphysical 'suspension of disbelief.'" What Shange's audience experiences is not the fourth-wall suspension of disbelief found in Western theatre; it is something more akin to the moments of ecstasy in testifying during Black Fundamentalist church services.

In the essay "Form and Transformation: Immanence of the Soul in the Performance Modes of Black Church and Black Music," Paul Carter Harrison concisely contrasts African and European aesthetic traditions; he states that Black theatre is "a reversal of the naturalistic objectives of the Western tradition, black theatre does not hold up a mirror to nature; instead, it invokes a process of conjuration to awaken the forces of nature that illuminate experience." The illumination of experience marks a theatre where audience and actor do not have a significant separation; all are participants. The intrinsic connection of observer and maker allows Black theatre an aesthetic-psychic exploration that, in Marta Vega's phrasing, creates a "seamless vision of art as part of sacred life ...essential to the creative expression of Africans in the Diaspora." The intimate connection of secular and sacred is an idea that Western theatre loosely and unsuccessfully approached through the defunct proselytizing of the Medieval liturgical drama and Renaissance mystery plays. Because of the fundamental differences between African and European traditions many scholars have continued to marginalize African drama because it lacked a direct European equivalency, a misguided approach that Tejumola Olaniyan refers to as "the consistent attribution of difference as fault," in her essay "Agones: The Constitution of a Practice."

A close ideological interweaving of voices allows Black Theatre to recreate and actively participate in the aesthetic that it explores. The multiplicity of scholarly and practitioner voices call to one another in the different parts of this text, across the similar cultural terrain of the Diaspora, consequently recreating the practices of Black theatre/culture. This anthology becomes an intellectual call-and-response, an act of cultural harmony that, because of the texts' destiny for classroom use, inherently subverts the aesthetics of a white, hegemonic intellegencia. Because the parts of the text cover such vast territory, the book is as much an anthology of cultural aesthetics, a work of anthropology, as a study of theatre. It's elaborate interconnectedness is wonderful, but illustrates the work's one structural weakness: no index. And this is a book that warrants going back to. There's so much overlap of good material that reference is inevitable and finding one specific idea is very challenging.

Black Theatre is a gateway: to follow its paths creates a lifetime of study and art-making because a lifetime is what each essayist has contributed. It will find a much deserving home in the classroom and on the bookshelves of serious, well-minded theatre practitioners everywhere.

Click here to purchase this book at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Duende: A Journey into the Heart of Flamenco

Duende

Jason Webster
Broadway Books ($23.95)

by John Toren

Flamenco, one of the world's great art forms, is also among the grittiest and most abjectly fatalistic. We therefore accompany Jason Webster in his attempts to penetrate its inner heart with a degree of skepticism. He informs us early in his narrative that he studied Arabic in Egypt to no real purpose and spent years at Oxford without learning a thing. Finding himself at loose ends when his girlfriend dumps him, Webster decides, out of the blue, to explore the world of flamenco; he buys a guitar, though he's never played one, and hops a flight the next day to Alicante, a Spanish city with no flamenco associations, because a friend of his happens to live there.

Webster's prose is painfully jejune: time and again he remarks, as some new aspect of Spanish life confronts him, "My head was spinning." At one point he refers to Franco flippantly as "the odd little dictator," and when it dawns on him that there is no flamenco culture to be found in Alicante, he reflects, "as my limited searching led nowhere, I began to understand how ill-prepared I had been. I had no idea where to start or what to expect." Perhaps the leitmotiv for the entire project surfaces when a fortune-teller stuns him with the observation that he's emotionally immature. "Her words rang inside me like a bell and I sat back on the cushions, confused. How could one be emotionally immature? It seemed such a strange idea."

In short, Webster lacks both the temperament and the discernment required to develop a serious appreciation of flamenco culture. All the same, he does succeed in befriending a number of gypsies operating on the fringes of that notoriously inbred and impenetrable world. In fact, within a few months of taking up the guitar he's accompanying flamenco dancers at village festivals! He names his chapters cutely after the traditional forms—bulerías, soleá, tientos—and passes on many nuggets of flamenco lore in the course of relating his adventures with his boss's wife, his aged guitar instructor, and various landladies, musicians, and gypsy friends in Madrid and Granada.

In time Webster's search for the heart of flamenco picks up speed; he begins dabbling with drugs, gets taken up by a struggling group of flamenco musicians, goes to a bullfight, becomes an unwitting accomplice in the theft of a car, and even attends a gypsy wedding. Yet his naiveté never deserts him, and after all his escapades Webster can still glibly observe: "I had slept well and wanted to maintain the momentum. Playing with dancers and another guitarist would be ideal for this mild, sunny day." After more than two years in Spain Webster is still largely clueless: "Duende, I was beginning to learn, could not be produced on demand."

The mix of fatuous truisms and glimpses of authentic experience makes for bumpy reading, and Duende is unlikely to find a place on the shelf beside such classic accounts of the subject as George Borrow's The Zingali (1842), Irving Brown's Deep Song (1929), D. H. Pohren's The Art of Flamenco (1972), and Michael Jacobs's uncommonly astute A Guide to Andalusia (1990). Then again, these books are all out-of-print. Clearly Webster has experienced the grip of that thing called "duende," a dark beauty that erupts from the midst of flamenco's flurried anguish, and he's spent a good deal of time and effort in pursuit of it. Yet he lacks jondura, the depth to do it justice. What we're left with is Bright Lights, Big City, Andalusian style.

Click here to purchase this book at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Abraham: A Journey To The Heart Of Three Faiths

Abraham

Bruce Feiler
William Morrow and Company ($23.95)

by H. E. Everding

To accompany Bruce Feiler on this journey to understand the roots of the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as well as his own identity, the reader travels through place (e.g., the Negev, Jerusalem, Savannah, GA) and time (four millennia), always in the midst of a never-ending war. In pursuit of Abraham and his heirs, Feiler weaves together on the spot observations, conversations, careful reading of texts, and histories of interpretation in a poetic style that both informs and seduces.

Even though there is reason to doubt that Abraham ever existed, Feiler discloses the power and resilience of Abraham as symbolic progenitor of three faith traditions. Through his non-fictional research, Feiler discovers myriads of fictional Abrahams. At various moments in history, each of the three traditions choose and reconstruct Abraham in their own image and for their own exclusive religious and political purposes.

Abraham represents readable and engaging historiography (despite its lack of documentation) and hermeneutics. For example, Feiler frames the chapter on Isaac with a personal conversation with the proprietor of B. Cohen & Sons, a small Judaic shop in Jerusalem's Old City. In between he traces how the figure of Isaac and his potential demise by father Abraham became a symbol of the suffering pious Jew (the "Akedah or binding"), the prototype of Jesus' sacrificial death for some Christians (the "crucifixion"), and was displaced by Ishmael in Islamic tradition as the one rendered (the "Dhabih or cut"). All three traditions place the story of Isaac/Ishmael "at the heart of their self-understanding," revealing both their shared origins but significant differences.

Feiler's journey starts at the Temple Mount in war-torn Jerusalem overlooking the Dome of the Rock—symbolic place of Isaac's near-sacrifice—and ends at Hebron where Abraham was buried. After an excellent analysis of Abraham's birth and call by God, Feiler explores various traditions about Ishmael and Isaac, and how Abraham was re-interpreted in the three faith traditions. The final section reflects on Abraham's "legacy" as symbol and hope for conversation among the three religious traditions. As Feiler puts it:

Abraham is like water . . . He's a vast, underground aquifer that stretches from Mesopotamia to the Nile, from Jerusalem to Mecca, from Kandahar to Kansas City. He's an ever-present, ever-flowing stream that represents the basic desire all people have to form a union with God. He's a physical manifestation of the fundamental yearning to be descended from a sacred source. He's a personification of the biological need we all share to feel protected by someone, something. Anything.

Click here to purchase this book at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Clown Paintings

Buy this book from Amazon.com

Edited by Diane Keaton
powerHouse Books ($29.95)

by Andrea Balenfield

Anybody who's ever looked over their shoulder at that eerie clown painting in their local dive-bar or past-its-prime restaurant will appreciate this book, as actor/director/writer Diane Keaton has here assembled a bevy of the best this odd genre has to offer. Many of the paintings come from her personal collection or that of art dealer Robert Berman; both Keaton and Berman lurk at flea markets and swap meets, looking for fine art in what Keaton calls "the ugliest genre of them all" among the detritus.

As Clown Paintings amply demonstrates, their search has not been in vain. While none of these works shows the hand of the master, they are startlingly deep in their naïve brushstrokes and restricted subject matter. And rather than conveying a sense of repetition or easy tropism, the more than five-dozen pieces here are intriguingly different. Within the narrow parameters of the genre, these clown paintings convey a real breadth of emotion; as Berman puts it in his afterword, "the passion, absurdity, and the angst in clown paintings transcended all stereotypes that are traditionally associated with works of this nature," while Keaton notes that "these rank amateurs' dogged attempts to put a stamp of personal expression on the map link us to them." That link is indeed indelibly felt throughout these pages.

Keaton further gets at the heart of how we think about clowns by including statements on them by her fellow experts on things comedic: everyone from Woody Allen to Robin Williams weighs in on the subject in short reflections. Unlike the paintings, these pieces reveal an uncomfortable sameness, as most of the comedians confess they simply don't like clowns. Candice Bergen bemoans, "Why don't I get these guys?" Dick Van Dyke confesses, "I never laughed at a clown in my whole life." John Waters reminds us that John Wayne Gacy dressed as one when he wasn't out killing. But some writers give clowns their due: Jay Leno admits, "Their ability to get twenty-eight people into one tiny car is a good lesson for all of us."

This is a fine addition to Diane Keaton's growing shelf of image-driven books, which includes Local News (crime photos) and Still Life (Hollywood tableaux).

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003

Existential America

Existential America

George Cotkin
The Johns Hopkins University Press ($39.95)

by Christopher Luna

Existentialists argue for personal responsibility in the face of what Walter Kaufmann identified as the four elements of this philosophy: "dread, despair, death, and dauntlessness." But as George Cotkin's overview of existentialism's influence upon American culture points out, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir felt that the "confidence and naive optimism" of Americans blinded them to "the problems of existence, authenticity, and alienation." Beauvoir especially found Americans to be materialistic, "afraid of freedom, unwilling to engage in high-level discussions of serious ideas, childish in some ways, and unable to trust themselves." Yet Cotkin shows there was an existential strain in American culture that preceded all three of these philosophers, in the work of Herman Melville, Emily Dickinson, and Edward Hopper, among others. Unlike their French counterparts, American intellectuals "refused to make a fetish out of nihilism"; instead, "anguish and despair" functioned as "goads to action and commitment."

As Cotkin goes on to illustrate, the horror of World War I and "the skeptical disposition of science had rendered traditional beliefs untenable." The influence of Soren Kierkegaard's "inwardness and religious anxiety" upon American religious thinkers and artists in the first half of the century "did not bode well for political radicalism or reform; it supported for some intellectuals a retreat from leftist commitments of the 1930s." Kierkegaard shared a "faith in the absurd" with his largely conservative followers, who "found much of American religion empty, marked by rote optimism and belief in progress."

The willingness of Kierkegaardian thinkers to wrestle with "paradox, irony, and tragedy" in the aftermath of World War II made the Danish philosopher's ideas very attractive to writers including Thornton Wilder and W.H. Auden, as well as the painters Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman, for whom art was "a mythological and heroic 'act of defiance,' which opened the path to transcendence through engagement with the canvas and the unconscious." Kierkegaard's "mode of argument, positing two opposites," was also posthumously appropriated by Cold War proponents who demanded that Americans make a choice between "faith in God and faith in communism."

In the 1940s and 1950s, as the ideas of Sartre and Beauvoir attained prominence, the press emphasized their happiness in an effort to dismiss their philosophy as a pose. The couple skillfully manipulated their reception in France and the United States, presenting a "model of the philosopher as personality" that made them vastly popular. But ultimately, "the reception and dissemination of existentialism" was beyond their control. The chilly reception Sartre and Beauvoir received from the New York intellectuals, anti-Stalinists who "feared the power of popular and middlebrow culture," will be familiar to anyone who has ever argued over whether a particular artist's best work occurred before they achieved fame. Despite their criticisms of existentialism, the writing of New York intellectuals such as Saul Bellow "adopted many of its essentials."

Norman Mailer saw Sartre as "the only thinker in the world who could match him." Both "shared a desire. . . to effect 'a revolution in the consciousness of our time,'" though Mailer thought that Sartre "lacked a sufficient sense of evil." Mailer labeled his own novel, The Barbary Shore, (1951) as existential, and revealed an "existential focus" in The Naked and the Dead, (1948) where "the absurdity of war" is "demonstrated in the utter inability of men to control external events and the forces of nature."

Cotkin includes an astute analysis of Mailer's well-known essay, "The White Negro," in which he claimed that blacks had been "transformed into the psychopathic hipster through centuries of oppressive social conditions." Like Jack Kerouac and the photographer Robert Frank, Mailer saw African-Americans as "endowed with existential recognition and freedom." Cotkin sees this appropriation of the image of the "Negro as sexual libertine" as an act of "bad faith" and racist stereotyping. Mailer's habitual celebration of psychopaths leaves him in "no man's land. Action replaces impotence . . . but at the cost of human solidarity." Mailer is ultimately a "fundamentalist" who believes that only those "who live close to the abyss, who battle against the conformity of American culture. . . are near to religious ecstasy and existential transcendence."

The ideas of Camus appealed to student activists during the 1960s. Like Camus, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organizer Robert Moses and Tom Hayden, radical activist and drafter of the Port Huron Statement, "worried about how the rebel could avoid becoming the oppressor." Moses felt a certain amount of responsibility for those who were injured or killed in the Civil Rights Movement, while Hayden came to regret calling for violent revolution, having learned from Camus that in "defining ourselves, we must move beyond mere inwardness toward commitment to values such as justice and humaneness." Unfortunately, this section of the book is undermined by Cotkin's statement that these students "were the last generation for whom books made a difference," a conclusion that will surely surprise every scholar and writer alive during the four subsequent decades.

Cotkin concludes with a comparison of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (1949) and Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1962), best-selling books that "transformed the lives of many women in America." Both women focused on the "responsibility of the individual" rather than external sources of oppression, and both held "the existential imperative that men and women create themselves through constant acts of negation and transcendence." But Beauvoir did not "appreciate the heroism of women working against constraints in a limited fashion: surviving domestic violence, facing yet another pregnancy, managing to support a family." Friedan, in turn, disagreed with Beauvoir's critique of capitalism; instead, she "was a reformist, wanting women to have opportunities equal to those of men within the existing structures of power." By 1975, when they met for the first time, "Friedan's conservatism . . . and her rejection of sexual politics—indeed, even of discussions of sexual identity—marked her as bourgeois and backward-looking." Beauvoir saw Friedan's ideas for reform as "reactionary, linked to a notion that 'women are doomed to stay at home.'" Both women virtually ignored the plight of the working class and avoided the subject of non-white women altogether.

Within "liberal and leftist academic circles, existentialism had, by the 1970s and 1980s, been pushed aside by deconstructionist and postmodern theory . . . Critics derided existentialism for its refusal to understand the science of signs, the ways in which the human individual is constructed and constrained by structures of thought." Nevertheless, Cotkin concludes that "existentialism is receiving renewed attention in American culture because it speaks to everyone's frustrations in life: to dissatisfaction with ideals of success and to the unavoidably tragic nature of existence." He hopes that we will be able to "pass through despair to, if not salvation, then to a depth of understanding that is at once humbling and enabling."

Despite its fascinating subject matter, Existential America suffers from a maddening repetitiveness. Particular words (e.g. "anguish" and "absurd") and phrases recur so frequently that one is forced to wonder whether the author lacks imagination or is simply insulting our intelligence. Many of the chapters began as articles in scholarly journals and magazines, and it shows. Although it is unfortunate that more attention was not paid to the overall coherence of the narrative, Existential America is a useful reference volume for students of philosophy and American culture.

Click here to purchase this book at your local independent bookstore
Purchase this book at your local independent bookstore.

Rain Taxi Online Edition, Summer 2003 | © Rain Taxi, Inc. 2003