Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Monday, December 05, 2005

What’s Ashbery to You?

Posted by Lawrence LaRiviere White on 12/05/05 at 12:17 AM

Over at his blog, Scott posted a quotation from Robert Mazzocco that seems both very right and very wrong. At the least it’s an opportunity to spout opinions. Mazzocco:

[Ashbery’s] ability to go on and on has always struck me as the signal characteristic of the work of John Ashbery. Many of Ashbery’s poems are really improvisations on the theme of flux.

Going on is an essential feature of Ashbery’s work. His charm lies in his eloquence, an apparently limitless loquaciousness, turning phrase after phrase. There is a definite oral quality to it, reminding me of coworkers at menial jobs I’ve had who could go on & on w/out saying much & endlessly entertain. It’s an evanescent quality, one almost always lost in any thematic reading. Not even he can explain it to you. His poems have themes, but they are the weakest part of his work. Inasmuch as they go on, they’re wonderful. Inasmuch as they talk about going on, they’re tedious.

In yet another futile attempt to get beyond the thematic, I would say he’s doing something rather than saying something. (Ach, the dreading show vs. say! A sure sign that I’m as lost as anyone here.)

There has to be a better way of understanding what he’s doing. This is true of all writers (otherwise no scholarship, eh?), but even moreso of Ashbery. Take when Adam Roberts in Scott’s comment thread dismisses Ashbery & offers a stanza picked “at random” as evidence. This should be patently unfair, but given the state of Ashbery’s body of work (a dirty big mass of poesy), it’s to be expected. An exquisite selection the size of Eliot’s collected (the standard meter bar for measuring all life works) would help a good deal. At least it would help me.


Comments

This is a good Ron Silliman post about reading Asbery. It is looking like “three poems” is the current consensus pick for Ashbery’s best book. You can get it in this collection of his first five books or from ABEBOOKS if you really need to minimize your exposure to Ashbery.

By on 12/05/05 at 06:16 PM | Permanent link to this comment

On a drive from the Bay Area to Tacoma (14+ hours) I read aloud to my father (aerospace engineer, reads novels & Harper’s) from Three Books. He was quite surprised: he didn’t know what it meant, but he could tell it was poetry.

By Lawrence LaRiviere White on 12/05/05 at 06:35 PM | Permanent link to this comment

That Adam Roberts, eh?  What is he like?

OK, the salient chunk from Scott’s comment-thread is:

Scott; I keep reading Ashbery waiting for the lightning to strike, but as yet I just don’t get him. I don’t hear the music in his wibble-wobble of verbiage. I see how I’m supposed to get him, I think, but he doesn’t do it for me. To pick a stanza at random:

To be someone else’s. Because there’s too much to
Be done that doesn’t fit, and the parts that get lost
Are the reasonable ones, just because they got lost
And were forced to suffer transmigration by finding their way home.

It all reads, to me, that way: which is to say, flabby, unevocative, prosodically clumsy (that second line? The flailing shift from the end of that first line to that second line? That way the choppy monosyllables awkwardly lurch into polysyllabic eyesores like ‘transmigration’?). I suppose I find Ashbery curiously unable to capture the heft and inadvertent eloquence and sparkle of actual jammed-together human speechifying that DeLillo (say) is rather good at capturing, or even, I don’t know, the vernacular bits in The Waste Land.

Does this really count as a ‘dismissal’ of Ashbery?  Reads to me rather as a merely personal reaction, and one that quotes from the man himself only by way of trying to raise itself a little above criticism of the ‘Ashbery? poetry? But it doesn’t even rhyme!’ sort.

To be more specific, the objections raised are essentially prosodic.  <objection on those grounds by being, oh what-d’ye-call-it, there’s a technical term that critics use, think, think, what is it, oh yes: <i>prose</i>.  But a more direct rebuttal would be to say (in a Mr T voice): we don’t go to Ashbery for the prosody, fool.

By Adam Roberts on 12/05/05 at 07:15 PM | Permanent link to this comment

And the garbled last paragraph there should have read:

To be more specific, the objections raised are essentially prosodic.  _Three Poems_ shortcircuits objection on those grounds by being, oh what-d’ye-call-it, there’s a technical term that critics use, think, think, what is it, oh yes: _prose_.  But a more direct rebuttal would be to say (in a Mr T voice): we don’t go to Ashbery for the prosody, fool.

Why does html hate me?

By Adam Roberts on 12/05/05 at 07:17 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Does Mr. T, or anyone else, really say you don’t go to Ashbery for prosody?  If you don’t go to him for sense and you don’t go to him for song, what would be left to go to him for?

By on 12/05/05 at 11:23 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Adam: I didn’t mean to dismiss your discernment. I agree w/what you say about that passage. I find it interesting that one could pick a passage at random & consider it representative. Says something about Ashbery.

&, as I have <a href=http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/what_is_poetry_take_1>posted </a>before, some prose can be poetry, given certain senses of poetry. & can be opposed to mere verse.

The Silliman post & related links seem to back up my judgment of the Mazzocco statements. They, esp. Silliman, do a much better job of describing what Asbery does than I do.

Let me take another whack at it: if there is something characteristic that his poetry does, than some poems must do it better than others. Three Poems does get held up in these posts, & MacFarquhar (& thus Ashbery too? To my ear his hand guides much of the New Yorker piece), as an exemplar. & Ashbery notably denigrates Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror, which had been his flagship poem back in the day. What principle guides these judgments? The New Yorker piece mentions many emendations he’s made in the poesm. What difference do these (rare) edits make?

By Lawrence LaRiviere White on 12/06/05 at 12:09 AM | Permanent link to this comment

You can too go to JA for the prosody.  Check out “The Skaters,” perhaps his greatest poem (from Rivers and Mountains).  How about the title poem from his first collection, “Some Trees”?  That’s a prosodic masterpiece. Even his prose is better prosodically than a lot of poets’ verse.

How about all of his pantoums and sestinas?  I could go on and on and probably will.

By on 12/06/05 at 10:50 AM | Permanent link to this comment

If you don’t go to him for sense and you don’t go to him for song, what would be left to go to him for?

Precisely. You go to Ashbery to find out exactly what is left.

By Andrew Maxwell on 12/06/05 at 06:58 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Ashbery’s “Selected” used to be common in used bookstores. If you can’t find a copy, I could send you mine.

I’m surprised but gratified by the increasing notice of “Three Poems”—it’s my favorite as well, though I haven’t encountered much Ashbery that wasn’t at least mildly enjoyable. Probably just a factor of the increasing institutional influence of ‘70s avant-garde types, since “The Tennis-Court Oath” (his wildest-assed book) also gets mentioned a lot more nowadays than it used to.

To me Ashbery seems to have sufficient quantities of both sense and song, but it may be a while (like, until never) before I try to explain why in universally convincing language. (There are other poets who mean more to me and are less well known, and I’d prefer to tackle them first.)

By Ray Davis on 12/07/05 at 09:54 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I would direct any interested readers to his poem “Daffy Duck in Hollywood” which seems to contain both types of “going on”. Both the enviable type: “...fun, no doubt, for some quack phrenologist’s/ Fern-clogged waiting room, but hardly what you’d call/ Companionable...” and the tiresome type: “...and last perhaps/ The pattern that may carry the sense, but/Stays hidden in the mysteries of pagination.” The poem seems to lose momentum and even ultimately succumb to a sort of Hollywood ending (or is that the point?). Nevertheless I find the beginning to be kind of a rush, and I admire Ashbery’s ability to use words-I-have-to-look-up in a playful rather than accusatory way.

By on 12/08/05 at 06:47 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Adam: I didn’t mean to dismiss your discernment. Lawrence, dismiss away, if you fancy it.  I wasn’t narked; and was in fact rather sheepish about casting clods at so esteemed a figure (like I could do ‘the prosody’ any better ...)

Andrew: I’m still pondering your statement, “[Neither for the sense nor for the song]. You go to Ashbery to find out exactly what is left.” It’s elegantly put, and I really truly can’t decide whether it’s deep and right, or just clever.  Does it mean we could go to Ashbery, discover that the resisue when sense and song have been extracted is (say) ‘chatter’ and leave it at that?  Presumably not.

By Adam Roberts on 12/08/05 at 11:57 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Andrew: I’m still pondering your statement, “[Neither for the sense nor for the song]. You go to Ashbery to find out exactly what is left.” It’s elegantly put, and I really truly can’t decide whether it’s deep and right, or just clever.

“What is left” can take various forms. The previous post I linked to considered Wittgenstein’s identification of poetry and philosophy. So Ashbery would be only one way to get at it. I would say Andrew’s aphorism, while being (I beleive) true, says less than it seems to say. That is, it leaves us no closer to solving the whole problem of what exactly is the left-over thing.

By Lawrence LaRiviere White on 12/08/05 at 08:25 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Ashbery Watch: branding and noodling.

By nnyhav on 12/16/05 at 06:59 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: