chris at 8:29 AM |

 

Some thoughts on the question of poetic "comfort zones":

Over at Ron Silliman's blog, a dust devil's been whirling around. It's about perceptions of what Mr. Silliman* has defined and explained as the "school of quietude (SoQ)," on the one hand, and the survival of an American poetic (post) avant-garde, on the other. Various aspects of current and historical reception--and, no less, poetic practices--hang in the balance of difference between these.

Along comes Chris Lott at Ruminate Blog (who's actually been around for some time now: unless I have it wrong somehow, he several years ago was part of a partnership that started one of the earliest ezines: Eclectica.org), a very incisive thinker and strong voice on the poetic storm front (he seems to have a decent amount of good will, even if he messes up at times, making really bad choices in joking over folks' names, for which he then apologizes). Mr. Lott** seems to be asking for things to be perceived a little more integratedly, sort of a "can't we all just get along?" song, with his hypothesizing the figure of a "spectrum" to size up the scene that Mr. Silliman has described as divided in two main directions.

So, a spectrum can be of sound or color or quarks or all of these. Where one of these two, Mr. Silliman, divides the poetic world in two opposing colors, let's say, the other, Mr. Lott, would reconstitute this world in terms more like a rainbow coalition. Um... yes, Jesse J!--beginning to sound familiar?--maybe quarks are a better metaphor since once again some limits of the analogy are being manifested. But my additional point is that these are not new themes/conceptualizations in current world(s) of analysis, and each will have limitations. They are part of a larger bundle of cultural problematics, "symptoms" (if metaphors of cultural dis-ease are a factor) or "tools" (as in taking hold of what the so-called "master" has left laying around to be picked up and used to "dismantle" any unquestioned fealties or easy assumptions of ideals) as they are referred to in other critical venues and discourses. Rhetorically the problem is that the very definitions of the problems are affected by the ineffectiveness of language (in symbolizing) to be adequate to the real life (social) actions committed by language users, and vice versa (language is apriori, &c). Language can't do much but it's all we have to begin to try with (a useful reminder that Tim Yu also pointed out recently). That's always an on-going source for wonder and discussion, of course.

This got very complicated at Mr. Silliman's blog this week. What fascinated me most after the comprehensive analysis so far is this idea of a poetic "comfort zone" which pops up in two ways in Lott's discussion. It first appears as unquestionably posited, something possessed, naturally, by every artist; thus, in this context, assumedly it is possessed whether one is from the SoQ or the (post) avant positioning in the "spectrum." Mr. Lott says: "I'm sure there are artists of every stripe who want nothing to do with work that is outside their comfort zone" (posted as quoted to Mr. Silliman's blog on Thurs., June 12). After asserting this possession of a comfort zone, Mr. Lott tears it up in favor of showing some (albeit negative) common ground between these artists from the differing parts of the "spectrum," though the assertion of a naturalized and naturalizing "comfort zone" remains like a ghost to be made strange friends with (if one is an artist, eg., poet). He then comments that for all artists, therefore, the response to change is that they find it "disconcerting to be jarred out of [their] comfort zone."

This is in some ways a useful figure: "comfort zone"--calling to mind critical takes as wide ranging as scholar & cultural critic Mary Louise Pratt' s notion of the dynamics involved in "contact zones," Mary Englebritt's hugely successful line of T-shirts and other products displaying a comforting aphoristic yet somewhat radicalizing humor ("Life is just a chair of bowlies!"), and pop-psych takes on things such as "Co-dependent No More!" (don't know the author, tho I'm sure it's easy to find: I was in Barnes and Nobles here the other day and they had shelves of this and related materials prominently displayed, which says something but maybe only about this area?--tho I can't be sure what...). Mr. Lott uses the term to indicate how his "comfort zone" about poetry has been disrupted by notions of divisiveness in the tradition. Without disparaging any good energies the concept of a "comfort zone" offers, I think it's also useful to keep in mind how very contingent is is this notion--how very contingent, indeed, are such ways of characterizing what can be done with disputes and conceptualization, generally. I have to ask: what "comfort zone" is there in poetry? And if there is one, then how can it really be poetry? (which of course puts me not in the SoQ school, if that is an adequate representation of what's happening in poetry...).

To question this comfortable way of thinking seems to be where Mr. Silliman goes with his critique of Mr. Lott's conceptualizing, and Mr. Silliman's direction partly results, in turn, from another incisive response (from Ange Mlinko, posted to Mr. Silliman's blog June 12, also discussed with appropriate edginess on Friday, June 13, at Henry Gould's HG Poetics blog). Mr. Silliman deftly points out a major problem in Mr. Lott's concept of the "spectrum," in that tradition is not a static thing but indicates, rather, only a range of stances toward change. One major problem with the SoQ is the stance it takes that its static sense of tradition be taken as more authoritative, or "more traditional" than others.

Point is, I think, that yes, to know a tradition seems to require a little bit of "comfort" in the process of knowing (or the illusion of such?), perhaps, or one cannot ever assert and confirm what is known. But to desire an entire "zone" of comfort really is to desire to deny not only the changeable, transformative elements by making them seem static, but to ignore that these things exist as completely fluid: poetry and those who make it by questioning it (taking "a stance toward change," as Mr. Silliman points out) will not be found sitting still in a circle holding hands to make it all feel better or its makers find comfort in fluid conditions of existance versus static illusions, I am sorry to remind. I do not want to antagonize, here. Only to try to clarify and point out a misconception that if continued, would perpetuate a very unproductive set of illusions: even the so called "tradition," in many ways is an illusion, although necessary, I suppose, as a point of departure. The "avant" will always take a skeptical view toward stasis, and embrace change, ususally through high risks of one kind or another, and surprisingly, even the subtle can be risky sometimes.

What seems especially important is to continually question--and here I think of Nick Piombino's fine work in blog writing at fait accompli, the fine work in posting so many of his ongoing questionings over many years, of what is/was going on in the flow of poetry and his thinking, in the mindset that has an affinity for poetry, as well as an abundance of the cultural and philosphical questionings that accompany inclusive perspectives on poetry and poetic mindset. That questioning completely resists easy categorizing, especially in terms of the unfortunate figure, the "comfort zone." Nick Piombino's blog exemplifies what it is to work without a comfort zone--an important kind of fluid questioning and awe-inspiring approach to poetry and poetics, though of course his blog is also no less full of good will and is very inviting, as well.


So, let me say what I really got out of reading--and am grateful for--in Mr. Silliman's and Mr. Lott's blogs this week: I now have a better understanding of the useful notion of a "School of Quietude" as it can be applied to previously unfathomable (to me) cultural phenomena such as that of Billy Collins--not so much as a person attracting popular appeal--no, the mystery there for me is that he seems to have so much authoritative sway, thus to have created new ground in American poetic authority. Understanding this as a consequence of SoQ and its institutional manifestations is most helpful to me as a thinker right now. As for Mr. Lott, at this point I simply thank him for his pluck--it takes a lot of pluck to walk into these venues and speak ones mind so well (blogging)--I think he's doing that and it's his pluck that gets the job done.

Finally, the essential working difference between the "SoQ" and the poetic avant?--the SoQ seems to promote satisfaction with its brand of status quo, which is also conceptually a place of stasis. This means a certain kind of death, death of energy, death of fluidity, death of physical legacies and connections... the list goes on. Thus, a big problem. But avant may not be so easy to see or to define--it resists, is by definition, then, action: a verb not a noun! And that is the point--not so much to capitalize on resistance-as would modernism, as to emphasize how resistance occurs: the avant is resistant because it questions. Continually. If the SoQ resists anything, it is question in and of itself. Therefore, to keep poetry alive and well, avant is most desirable since poetry is meant to be physical, _lively_ (or, _soundy_, as in Jordan Davis' millions! millions!) and to be a continual kind of larger, cultural questioning.

*Having never communicated directly with Ron Silliman, I will refer to him as Mr. Silliman.
**The same goes for Chris Lott. I do not know him, so have referred to him as Mr. Lott.