Lyric and the Rhetoric of the Serial Mode in Twentieth Century American Poetry: Figuring Voice in the Work of Spicer, Berrigan, and Ashbery By Colin Peter Dingler A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in RHETORIC in the Graduate Division of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY Committee in Charge: Professor Michael Mascuch, Co-Chair Professor Lyn Hejinian, Co-Chair Professor Eric Falci Professor Ramona Naddaff Professor Pheng Cheah Spring 2012 Copyright © by Colin Peter Dingler 2012 Abstract Lyric and the Rhetoric of the Serial Mode in Twentieth Century American Poetry: Figuring Voice in the Work of Spicer, Berrigan, and Ashbery by Colin Peter Dingler Doctor of Philosophy in Rhetoric University of California, Berkeley Professors Michael Mascuch and Lyn Hejinian, Co-Chairs Serial poetry has been recognized as an important formal category and writing practice in postwar experimental poetry, but the vital relationship between seriality and conventional aspects of the lyric genre has been obscure. After critiques of “lyric” that argue the term is politically suspect because it is linked to Romantic ideologies of the subject, new, historicized models of lyric emphasizing the functions and effects of voice have returned in recent criticism of Modernist and postwar experimental writing. Building on this recent criticism, this dissertation proposes that lyric rhetoric informs the turn towards the serial mode in poems by Jack Spicer, John Ashbery and Ted Berrigan. The serial poetry of these postwar writers makes lyric poetry function contextually, reviving the notion of voice. Seriality is best understood as a mode, not a form, that decontextualizes and re- contextualizes prior lyric fragments and allows poets to think about social relationships in terms of poetic ones, and vice versa. Seriality has been discussed in criticism of Spicer, but has not been a key term in appraisals of book-length poems by Berrigan and Ashbery. Therefore my research offers seriality as a new perspective to understand these poets’ practices of citation, appropriation and generic mixing: methods of constructing their own poetic voices out of existing textual materials from traditions that they write themselves into. I argue that these practices of textual rearrangement and revision offer a model of historically responsive lyric that challenges assumptions about how postwar poets read lyric and imagine more engaged audiences for their own writing. Through analysis of the serial mode in poems by Spicer, Berrigan, and Ashbery, I trace the outline of a common poetic voice in different series constructed from diverse materials: an epistolary exchange, a recursive sequence of sonnets transformed by scissors and scotch tape, and a meditation about lyric that is written in diaristic prose. I frame my analysis with a critical discussion of “The New Lyric Studies” and modern histories of lyric genre by Marjorie Perloff, Mark Jeffreys, Virginia Jackson, Mutlu Konuk Blasing, and others. Lyric rhetoric and voice in the serial mode matters, I propose, to scholars of 20th century American experimental literature seeking to move beyond reductive conceptual oppositions that divide the field. 1 for J.E.D., J.R.D., K.F. J.D.S., J.G.C. “wind giving presence to fragments” i Table of Contents Abstract 1 Introduction: Reconceptualizing the Postwar Turn Toward Serial in American Poetry I. Postwar Serial and the Lyric Problem iv II. Chapter Synopsis x Acknowledgements xiii Chapter 1: Lyric Rhetoric: The Opening of the Field I. Lyric Ideology: A Generic Impasse 1 II. From Modernist Collage to Postwar Serial 5 III. Lyric Rhetoric: The “I-You” Address and the Postwar Serial Mode 13 Chapter 2: Post Office Lyrics: Spicer’s Epistolary Figure, and the Turn to Serial Poetry I. “No One Listens” 18 II. Postal Lorca 20 III. The Turkish Bath 26 IV. Dickinson and the Lonely Symposium 34 Chapter 3: Elegy and Objecthood in Ted Berrigan’s The Sonnets I. Reading from Line to Line, Sonnet to Sonnet, and from Line to Sonnet 40 II. Collage and Series 43 III. Elegy and Objecthood 50 Chapter 4: Post-Crash Modern: Ashbery’s Serial Accident I. Ashbery’s Books 58 II. Three Poems, Three Voices 63 ii III. The Crash 72 Bibliography 82 Appendix 93 iii Introduction Reconceptualizing the Postwar Turn Toward Serial in American Poetry I. Postwar Serial and the Lyric Problem The issue of the following study is the role of rhetoric in a serial mode of long poem written by postwar American poets. My thesis is that serial poetry in the postwar period makes lyric poetry function contextually. By asserting a contextualized lyric voice, these serial poems critique an entrenched conception of lyric as a universal and foundational genre, but without entailing what many critics have called the postmodern “death of the lyric.”1 I discuss three book-length writing projects written between 1950- 75 by Jack Spicer, John Ashbery and Ted Berrigan—poets who played significant roles in west and east coast avant-garde writing circles. Spicer was an important poet of the Berkeley Renaissance and later in the blossoming San Francisco scene of the late 50s and early 60s, whereas Ashbery and Berrigan were at the center of the so-called New York School of poets. Though Ashbery took issue with the “school” designation, he was a pivotal figure of the nascent avant-garde scene, and since the 1970s has achieved international recognition. Berrigan is associated with the younger, “second generation” of the New York School that self-consciously styled itself as a community of poets in the 60s; like Spicer he remains something of a “cult” figure. The three decades after the Second World War mark a period of radical changes in the field of American poetry: the 1950s saw an explosion of literary avant-gardes that cultivated dedicated readerships comparable in scale and sophistication to those of poets published by the big trade presses; the 1960s saw the confluence of these groups with a more mainstream, politicized youth culture; and in the 70s, poets such as Ashbery, associated with “minor” and counter-cultural writing scenes, were championed by the academy, and won “major” literary prizes.2 The three analytical chapters of my dissertation explore the different ways that these postwar poets conceive of their serial writing as a rhetorically motivated practice of critique. In my study I focus consistently on the idea that the serial mode offers its poets a critical approach to aspects of the idea of “lyric.” In the midst of the changing literary terrain, each of these poets engages in experiments with poetic series that allow him to reflect on established ideas of lyric poetry, and to rethink its social function. These poets treat the lyric genre as a historical and contested concept—a discursive site for exploring versions of a critical poetic voice, and a polemical tool to encourage reading practices sensitive to issues of context. Hence, their investments in lyric are not only aesthetic, but also, and chiefly, pragmatic and rhetorical. In each of the serial poems that I discuss, however, “voice” is a complex and subtle matter, and often what produces notable tensions within the work. These serial works do not simply contain a critical voice that speaks in the poem, nor are they simply “polyvocal.” Rather, serial develops as a mode that is critical of voice, and foregrounds the voice’s generic contingency in order to accomplish other rhetorical ends. The serial mode also allows my poets to accomplish 1 For one example see Perloff Dance of the Intellect. 2 Von Hallberg, American Poetry and Culture, 1945-1980, and “Poetry, Politics, and Intellectuals,” provide an overview of this transformation, as does Breslin. iv other things specific to their own projects, but each of my readings relates these postwar serial poems to a core set of problems in 20th century ideas of lyric. The questions that follow are: 1) in what ways do postwar serial poets conceive of the serial as a mode of critical thought that engages these lyric problems? 2) How do their formal and generic features—often a mixture of elements borrowed from earlier Modernist and avant-garde works—reflect new attitudes about the social vocation of poetry in postwar contexts? 3) To what degree does the serial mode also assert a normative concept of lyric, or participate in a “lyric ideology” that the poets are blind to but that recent scholarship has brought into focus? Although some critics have viewed postwar serial poetry as an overt rejection of lyric elements or an entirely negative critique of a “lyric ideology” that they reductively identify with Romanticism or New Criticism, the term “lyric” has conspicuously returned as the hinge concept in recent scholarly accounts of Modernist and postwar experimental writing. I will discuss this critical history in chapter 1. In line with recent scholarship, I recognize that ideas of lyric play an integral (and not simply negative) part in postwar serial poetics. Unfortunately the pivotal term “lyric” remains a historical and theoretical morass. Mark Jeffreys describes the “impossibility of stabilizing the definition of lyric,” and points out a troubling confusion that occurs when scholars of 20th century poetry pretend to do so: “Indeed, the very act of writing about lyric as a marginalized or marginalizing genre necessarily trades, implicitly if not explicitly, on an assumption of the transhistorical definability of lyric. The risk of that assumption is blindness to the political and historical dimensions of those texts that do not fulfill expectations” (“Ideologies of Lyric” 203, 196-7). The situation he describes is evident in scholarship on postwar serial writing: by assuming that poets aligned with experimental or “neo- avant-garde” practices reject an ideological notion of lyric genre associated with New Criticism, scholars overlook the ways that the serial poets themselves may have understood the concept in a more open, political or historical sense.