BlazeVOX extra

Literary Prestidigitations on Display

15 Questions Special: Clayton Eshleman on GENESIS AND PRAXIS

 

Author: Clayton Eshleman
 

Bio : Clayton Eshleman’s most recent publications include The Complete Poetry of César Vallejo(University of California Press, 2007), The Grindstone of Rapport / A Clayton Eshleman Reader (Black Widow Press, 2008), Anticline (Black Widow Press, 2010), Solar Throat Slashed (a translation of Aimé Césaire’s Soleil cou coupé, with A. James Arnold, Wesleyan University Press, 2011), An Anatomy of the Night (BlazeVOX Press, 2011), and Endure (a selected translations of Bei Dao, with Lucas Klein, Black Widow Press, 2011). Eshleman is the first poet to realize a huge, researched, and imaginative project, in prose and poetry, on Ice Age cave art:Juniper Fuse: Upper Paleolithic Imagination & the Construction of the Underworld (Wesleyan University Press, 2003). He was also the founder and editor of Caterpillar magazine (1967-1973) and Sulfur magazine (1981-2000). He continues to live with his wife Caryl in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

 

BlazeVOX [books]

 

AN  ANATOMY  OF  
THE  NIGHT

BlazeVOX

Amazon

Kindle

The Jointure

BlazeVOX

Amazon

Kindle

 

 

GENESIS AND PRAXIS

Originally posted on The Volta

 

While living in Kyoto, in the early 1960s, I would ride my motorcycle downtown in the afternoon and work on my translations of César Vallejo’s Poemas humanos in the Yorunomado (“Night Window”) coffee shop. I had determined that a publishable version of this 89 poem collection would constitute my apprenticeship to poetry. As I struggled to get Vallejo’s complicated Spanish into English, I increasingly had the feeling that I was struggling with a man more than with a text and that the struggle was a matter of my becoming or failing to become a poet. It was as if through Vallejo I had made contact with a negative impaction in my being, a nebulous unreleased depth charge I had been carrying around with me for many years.

   In the last half of “The Book of Yorunomado,” the only poem I completed to any satisfaction while living in Japan, I envisioned myself as a kind of angel-less Jacob wrestling with a figure who possessed a language the meaning of which I was attempting to wrest away. I lose the struggle and find myself on a seppuku platform in medieval Japan, being commanded by Vallejo (now playing the role of an overlord) to disembowel myself. I do so, cutting my ties to the “given life” and releasing a daemon named Yorunomado (in honor of my working place) who, until that point, had been chained to an altar in my solar plexis. Thus in early 1964, the fruits of my struggle with Vallejo were not a successful linguistic translation but an imaginative advance in which a third figure  emerged from my intercourse with the text. Yorunomado became an imaginal companion in the ten-year process of developing a “creative life,” recorded in my book-length poem, Coils [1973].

   I have thought more about poetry while translating Vallejo than while reading anyone else. Influence through translation is different than influence from reading masters in one’s own tongue. If I am being influenced by Wallace Stevens, say, his voice is coming directly into my own. You read my poem and think of Stevens. In the case of translation, I am creating an American version out of—in the case of Vallejo—a Spanish text, and if Vallejo is to enter my own poetry he must do so via  what I have already, as a translator, turned him into. This is, in the long run, very close to being influenced by myself, or by a self I have created to mine. Vallejo taught me that ambivalence and contradiction are facets of metaphoric probing. He gave me permission to try anything in my quest for an authentic alternative world in poetry.

   A couple of decades later, in Donald Kuspit’s Introduction to his book on the painter Leon Golub, I came across the words of Gabriel-Désire Laverdant (written three years before the revolutions of 1848), who appears to be the first person to speak of  radical art as “avant-garde.” Kuspit writes: “For Laverdant, avant-garde art ‘worthily fulfills its proper mission as initiator,’ making it ‘the forerunner and the revealer’ of ‘the most advanced social tendencies.’ It ‘must lay bare with a brutal brush all the brutalities, all the filth, which are at the base of our society.’ It has been forgotten that the brutal revelation of brutal reality—a mimesis that necessarily employs brutal techniques—is the central idea of the avant-garde, which has degenerated into a notion of esthetic revolution.”

   My primary belief concerning poetry is that it is about the extending of human consciousness, creating a symbolic consciousness that in its finest moments overcomes the dualities in which the human world is cruelly and eternally, it seems, enmeshed. In this symbolic or imaginal consciousness, I believe that the realities of the spirit are to be tested by critical intelligence. Here I think of a statement by Paul Tillich: “A life process is the more powerful, the more non-being it can include in its self-affirmation, without being destroyed by it.” Affirmation is only viable when it survives repeated immersions in negation. The problem of focusing at large on brutality and filth is that in doing so symbolic consciousness is flattened out by agit-prop and poetically-rendered journalism. There are many lies in poetry. Pretending that violence and horror do not exist is only one of them.

    I have written some very ugly poems over the last forty years (“The Bridge at the Mayan Pass” and “The Tomb of Donald Duck” come to mind) and I want the blackness in the heart of mankind to be part of my primary stabilizations and concentrations. But I do not want it to rule. I see it as an important aspect, no more, of the imaginative world I am attempting to create, which includes my twenty-five year research project via the Ice Age painted caves of southwestern France on the origin of image-making, many poems on paintings by such artists as Caravaggio, Chaim Soutine and Leon Golub, and other major translation projects on Aimé Césaire, Antonin Artaud, Michel Deguy and Vladimir Holan. Since the early 1970s, Caryl Eshleman has been my closest reader and editor. Her responses, mingling confirmation and resistance, have helped me see through superficial clarities as well as groundless obscurities.

   Because of Caryl, I have come to believe that the “I,” that selva of the self, is one of the most rhizomic words in the language, that poetry is still in its archetypal infancy, and that rather than repressing such vexing and unstable forces as the self or its chauffeur the ego, they should be opened up and explored. Because our national self has become monstrous, there is a lot of subconscious obstruction in doing this, and the tendency of too much American poetry has been to either take the “I” for granted (as do most of the contemporary poets in The Penguin Anthology of 20th Century American Poetry who practice creative writing rather than poetry), or to abandon it entirely (rearranging the words of others as one’s own).

   Several years ago in an issue of the politically liberal New York Review of Books, the poet/reviewer Charles Simic praised as a major achievement a poem by the then Poet Laureate Billy Collins which basically expressed Collins’s “sensitive” surprise that cows actually moo. In a separate article, Simic dismissed Robert Duncan’s inspired confrontation of the American destruction of Vietnam in 1967 in his poem “Uprising” as “worthless.” This downgrading of Duncan’s imaginative engagement with power, and the extolling of Collin’s work, which is not even sophisticated entertainment, sadly exemplifies much of what is supported these days by editors, reviewers, and judges as endorsable American poetry.

   Rather than the Freudian totem pole of super-ego, ego, and unconscious, I propose an antiphonal swing of the bicameral mind, which in a contemporary way relates to shamanism, the most archaic mental travel. Here one must keep in mind that shamanic trance does not reflect on the message it is beholding or hearing. Thus, if in trance, the poet has to keep a shit-detector active, a bird’s-eye critical view, that injects invention with revision. Practicing poetry as a spiral flow, with simultaneous penetrations of perception, intuition, feeling, and imagination is one way to write a poetry that is responsible for all the poet knows about himself and his world.

   As always, learning to milk oneself is the next-to-impossible mining.

   Earlier I mentioned that our national self has become monstrous. I feel obligated here to bring up the failure of the American government to thoroughly and honestly investigate what caused the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and if any Americans are found responsible to bring them to trial. I am now absolutely sure that Building 7, which was not struck by anything and which had minor fires on only two floors was brought down (at the speed of gravity) by a controlled demolition. If this is true the similarities between this collapse and that of the Twin Towers give us reason to believe that controlled demolition was responsible for their destruction as well. The suppression  of the brutal truth of this assault infests the American soul with a stifling sense of unreality, which is to say nothing about the river of blood that runs alongside the Euphrates and Tigris through a destroyed, ruined and failed state that may never be put back together again.

   Where is poetry (in contrast to creative writing) going today? To hell, as usual—not to Christian hell, but to the underworld, to our pre-Christian subconscious, which is pagan and polytheistic. Poetry’s perpetual direction is its way of ensouling events, of seeking out the multformity of events, their hidden or contradictory meanings. The first poets, facing the incomprehensible division between what would become culture and wilderness, taught themselves how to span it and thus, momentarily, in such caves as Chauvet and Lascaux, to be whole in a way that humankind could not be whole before it became aware of its differences from animals. North American poets today, facing virtual humankind’s cybernetic swarming and the ersatz immortalities plucked from the cut-loose shadow of the self, must assimilate such vectors and figure out ways to see through them. If we cannot accomplish this, our distinction may become that of being the first generation to have lived at a time in which the origins and the end of poetry became discernable.

                                                                   --Clayton Eshleman, October 31, 20012