© 2013 Michael Leong ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© 2013 Michael Leong ALL RIGHTS RESERVED EXTENDING THE DOCUMENT: THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LONG POEM AND THE ARCHIVE By MICHAEL LEONG A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Literatures in English written under the direction of Professor Harriet Davidson and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Extending the Document: The Twenty-First Century Long Poem and the Archive by MICHAEL LEONG Dissertation Director: Harriet Davidson “Extending the Document” investigates the twenty-first century long poem in the context of the “archival turn” within the humanities. I argue that writers of what I call “archival long poems” are powerfully responding to a common cultural condition—to the disorienting fact that we have both too much and not enough archive. Such diverse writers as Amiri Baraka, Kenneth Goldsmith, Mark Nowak, Brenda Coultas, C.D. Wright, Anna Rabinowitz, and M. NourbeSe Philip are locating new representational values within the textual excess of proliferating documentation as well as within archival omissions that represent undocumented heritages. If the ultimate horizon of the modernist long poem was the breadth of the comprehensive collection, then the contemporary archival long poem aspires to the depth of the specialized monograph. Such monographic long poems detail accounts of marginalized subjects—from industrial laborers to incarcerated prisoners to the victims of hegemonic violence and genocide. In this way, poets become not just fabricators of aesthetically-pleasing language but also instigators of conceptual interventions; they become historians, archaeologists, data managers, sociologists, ethicists, and advocates. “Extending the Document” refutes poetry’s alleged isolation and inwardness by studying contemporary poets who are ii pushing poetry beyond its disciplinary bounds in order to interrogate the politics of memory and historical knowledge in an age of digital reproduction. iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Preface The Long Poem and the Archive v Chapter 1 Paranoia, Aspiration, and the Archival Impulse in Recent American Long Poems 1 Chapter 2 “Work itself is given a voice”: Labor and Deskilling in the Poetry of Kenneth 47 Goldsmith and Mark Nowak Chapter 3 Poetry in the Field: Brenda Coultas’ and C.D. Wright’s Anti-Romances of the 102 Archive Chapter 4 Literary Constraint, Testimony, and the Limits of Memory: M. NourbeSe Philip’s 158 and Anna Rabinowitz’s Long Poems of Witness Works Cited 219 iv Preface The Long Poem and the Archive If, at any time, any very long poem were popular in reality, which I doubt, it is at least clear that no very long poem will ever be popular again. —Edgar Allan Poe, “The Poetic Principle” (1850) There are many long poems, however, which seem to have been very readable when they first appeared, but which no one now reads—though I suspect that nowadays…few people read a very long poem even when it is new from the press...We don’t feel that a long poem is worth the trouble unless it is, in its kind, as good as The Faery Queen, or Paradise Lost, or The Prelude, or Don Juan, or Hyperion, and the other long poems which are in the first rank. —T.S. Eliot, “What is Minor Poetry?” (1944) If Eliot’s observation that “few people read a very long poem” still holds correct, we nevertheless have to confront the overwhelming fact that, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, poets are very much taking the trouble to write and publish them. In her 1997 study Forms of Expansion: Recent Long Poems by Women, Lynn Keller observed that “[e]xtended poetic forms have enjoyed tremendous popularity among writers across the spectrum of contemporary poetries in the last thirty years” (1). Now, 15 years later, such “popularity among writers” has continued, if not accelerated, even though—as Poe and Eliot had articulated— extended forms risk unpopularity among both present and future readers.1 1 It is tempting to construe the discrepancy between the popularity of the long poem among writers and the unpopularity of long poems among readers as an entrenchment of poetry within its own professionalized confines. Christopher MacGowan has noted that throughout the twentieth-century “the long poem retained for many poets its traditional status as ‘important’ for a poet to write” (287). Even though a long poem may be important in bestowing prestige and status on a poet’s career (we can consider the Virgilian trajectory of the Eclogues to the Georgics to the Aeneid as the classical model par excellence), it might not necessarily be important in making a connection with a wider audience (as was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s The Song of Hiawatha). In an 1817 letter to Benjamin Bailey, John Keats interestingly tries to have it both ways. He calls the long poem “a test of Invention” and imagines that when the “great task” of composing Endymion was complete, he would be propelled “a dozen paces towards the temple of fame.” But Keats also suggests that a long poem would provide “lovers of poetry” with “a little region to wander in, where they may pick and choose, and in which the images are so numerous that many are forgotten and found new in a second reading,--which may be food for a week’s stroll in the summer” (Forman 38). Keats, in short, imagines the long poem as a kind of archive of beauty. The reception of the long poem in v We can get a quick glimpse of the ubiquitousness of the Anglophone long poem by considering a somewhat improvisatory (and necessarily partial) list of long poems (or serial installments of long poems) that have been published (or reissued) in the twenty- first century by well-established poets born in the 30s and 40s: Kamau Brathwaite’s Ancestors (2001), Susan Howe’s The Midnight (2003), Lyn Hejinian’s My Life in the Nineties (2003), Marilyn Nelson’s A Wreath for Emmett Till (2005), Nathaniel Mackey’s Splay Anthem (2006), Alice Notley’s Alma, or The Dead Women (2006), Beverly Dahlen’s A Reading 18-20 (2006), Martha Collins’ Blue Front (2006), Paul Hoover’s Edge and Fold (2006), Jay Wright’s “The Ambiguous Archive” (2007), Stephanie Strickland’s slippingglimpse (2007), Ron Silliman’s The Alphabet (2008), Edward Sanders’ America: A History in Verse, Volumes 1-5, 1900-2000 (2008), Will Alexander’s “The Sri Lankan Loxodrome” (2009) and On the Substance of Disorder (2010), Anne Waldman’s Manatee/Humanity (2009) and The Iovis Trilogy: Colors in the Mechanism of Concealment (2011), C.D. Wright’s One with Others: [a little book of her days] (2010), Clark Coolidge’s The Act of Providence (2010), Leslie Scalapino’s Zither & Autobiography (2003), Floats Horse-Floats or Horse-Flows (2010), and The Dihedrons Gazelle-Dihedrals Zoom (2010), Clayton Eshleman’s An Anatomy of the Night (2011), and Rachel Blau Duplessis’ Drafts 1-38, Toll (2001), Drafts 39-57, Pledge, the post-Romantic era is surely a complex issue and goes well beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, I argue that if twenty-first century long poems are not popular among current readers, it is because of a reason entirely different from the career-authenticating function of the long poem. The writers that I will treat here are not interested in creating long works, in Eliot’s words, “as good as The Faery Queen, or Paradise Lost, or The Prelude, or Don Juan, or Hyperion”; they, in fact, depart significantly from post-Romantic and modernist aesthetics. Because of this, such poems may not be legible or appreciable to readers who have inherited the New Critical privileging of the short lyric poem (or the “well- wrought urn”). But in risking the loss of this specialized and traditionalist readership, the writers in my corpus hope to gain a new, interdisciplinary one: readers who are not so much interested in being connoisseurs of “first rank” writing but in thinking through an array of socio-cultural problems. vi with Draft, Unnumbered: Précis (2004), Torques: Drafts 58-76 (2007) and Pitch: Drafts 77-95 (2010). If we were to extend this list to include long works by poets born in the 50s, we might consider such diverse and important projects as Myung Mi Kim’s Commons (2002), Carolyn Forché’s “On Earth” (2003), Robert Fitterman’s Metropolis XXX: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (2004), Susan Schultz’s Dementia Blog (2008), Dionne Brand’s Ossuaries (2010), Anne Carson’s Nox (2010), Charles Alexander’s Pushing Water (2011), Joseph Donahue’s Dissolves: Terra Lucida IV-VIII (2012), and John Yau’s “Genghis Chan: Private Eye I-XLIV” (2012). This little thought experiment should certainly make clear that creating an exhaustive account of recent long poems is a Herculean, and perhaps Sisyphean, task. Moreover, it should demonstrate the radical imprecision of the term “long poem” as a discursive category that can meaningfully unify and order the heterogeneity of these texts. Indeed, Michael André Bernstein declared the “long poem” to be a “largely uninformative label” (10).2 In a similar vein, Jed Rasula has questioned the practical value of the category “long poem,” when he says, in a discussion of Ronald Johnson’s underappreciated Ark (1980, 1984), that it is “an inept and compromised term” (248). It is no wonder then that some of the most important studies of the long poem in the past twenty years have sought to create more “informative” labels—to parse and make legible the myriad sub-genres that are archived within the elastic and capacious term “long poem.” In Forms of Expansion, for example, Keller establishes “broad heuristic groupings” (5) so that she can understand “individual poems in the intertextual context of particular traditions…and specified precursor texts” (2-3).