Zoe Deleuil Reviews Indigo

Indigo: Journal of West Australian Writing Volume V edited by Caroline Caddy et al
Tactile Books, 2010

In the interview with Tim Winton in this issue of Indigo, the acclaimed author provides a valuable reminder: it’s all very well to go to literary parties and drink lattes with the top Eastern States editors, but writers must also write. And read, widely. And, in Winton’s case – and that of many of the writers in this collection, it would seem – there’s no harm in lurking on the edge of the Indian Ocean, picking through detritus, gazing out at surfers and then returning, again and again, to the blank page.

Continue reading

Posted in BOOK REVIEWS | Tagged , , ,

Heather Taylor-Johnson Reviews Southerly

Southerly 69.3: The Poetry Issue edited by Kate Lilley
Brandl & Schlesinger, 2010

The poets in this special poetry issue of Southerly stand for what is now, what is exciting/experimental and what is quality. But did Kate Lilley hand pick most of these poets, ensuring the issue would be tight, stylistically, and adhere to a chosen dogma? She does say in her intro that ‘Of the many poems that turned up in my inbox, already pre-selected by their authors, these are the ones that struck me most’. I’m not going to fault her for being non-inclusive. I say job well done. Lilley is a great pick as editor; her sensibility gels with the type of poetry Southerly tends to promote, and in this book-length collection of only poetry and poetics, Southerly is as strong as it’s ever been.

Continue reading

Posted in BOOK REVIEWS | Tagged , , ,

Michael Farrell Reviews Richard Hillman

The Raw Nerve by Richard Hillman
Puncher & Wattmann, 2009

Richard Hillman’s new book has a compelling red cover. A giant black semi-colon portrays a synapse letting through the electrical signal of the poet and book to its readers. A brilliant design, but one hard to live up to. The poems in The Raw Nerve are, for the most part, of ordinary domestic life; a kind of poetry no easier than any other to realise. The trap that Hillman falls into occasionally is presenting, for example, the subject of parenting, rather than using that subject sufficiently to make a poem.

Continue reading

Posted in BOOK REVIEWS | Tagged ,

Libby Hart Reviews Andrew Taylor

The Unhaunting by Andrew Taylor
Salt Publishing, 2009

The Unhaunting is Andrew Taylor’s seventeenth book of poetry and comprises work written between 2003 and 2008. The collection is divided into five parts. The first, ‘The Importance of Waiting’, acts as a tidy introduction to the book’s themes of mortality, elusive truths and the environment, both as interior and exterior. Taylor begins with a vivid portrait of Perth’s suburban landscape where quiet concern spills over into the everyday. Poems become touched by apparition and by the possible threat of cancer returning to the poet after a period in remission. Even the landscape seems predisposed to such ambiguity and to its own threat of extinction. Death, dying and ghosts from the past actively haunt the pages of this book. These ghosts are not necessarily always human, often they materialise as concern, emotion and memory. They linger in a bold light and do not fade easily.

Continue reading

Posted in BOOK REVIEWS | Tagged ,

On Creative Commons

“Henderson,” he called, “you saw that shooting star last night?”
“Well?” said Henderson.
“It’s out on Horsell Common now.”
“Good Lord!” said Henderson. “Fallen meteorite! That’s good.”

H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds [1898]

Welcome to Creative Commons, the thirty-third issue of Cordite Poetry Review! With this issue we celebrate our tenth year online, and while that might not seem such a long time ago, consider that way back in 2001 FaceBook, WordPress and MySpace hadn’t been invented yet; neither had the Web 2.0 practice of joining capitalized words together to make BrandNames; and blogs were so far outside the mainstream that not many people even knew what they were, or whether they should care.

But enough about history. Here at Cordite we’ve always been about looking ahead, even when we have no clue as to what lies in wait for us. Yes, it’s all about “moving forward”, to use that asinine phrase much abused by the current LaborParty (sic) leadership. But it’s about more than that. It’s about trying to get as far away from the past as possible, in the least possible time. You might think of it as staying modern, and that’s fine with us.

Staying modern is also part of the reasoning behind our modest site revamp, the design for which is based on the standard Twenty Ten theme that now comes with every download of WordPress 3.0. Love or hate it, let us know. All we hope is that the darned thing works. And after ten years of fiddling with source code, cascading style sheets and various content management systems, expecting a website to work seems like a not unreasonable demand.

Peter Goodfellow, “On Horsell Common”, album artwork from Jeff Wayne’s musical version of The War of the Worlds.

As for the contents of Creative Commons, in lieu of a proper editorial from our guest poetry editor Alison Croggon, let me just say that I’m thrilled at the diversity of the talent on display in this issue. Thirty-odd poets writing in a range of styles, from good old free verse to the (emerging?) bullet-point-list-poem genre; from the nautically-themed epic to an avian short form poem; and from google-flarf to split DNA strands that look like jeans.

I could go on in much greater detail but the real joy lies in wait for you, dear readers. Despite our usual practice of calling for poems on specific themes, for this issue we decided to open submissions to all forms, in the spirit of Creative Commons. And it is in this spirit that we have now made the poetry in this issue available as downloadable Word (and text) documents, so that you too can share in the fun.

Inspired by Creative Commons Australia’s Remix My Lit project, we invite you to download these poems, remix them, chop them up, add a little gravy and generally act like a word salad DJ. Then simply send your remixes to us, and we’ll publish the best ones right here on the Cordite site, under a Creative Commons license.

If that all seems like too much hard worK, there’s a wealth of feature content available in our thirty third issue as well. We’ve got ten new feature articles, including five takes on creative commons and copyright, and a special feature on Jonathan Ball’s Ex-Machina project. We’ve also posted six new audio tracks, a couple of images and our usual fortnightly reviews. Also, be sure to check out the slowly unfolding Zombie Haikunaut Renga, or add your own ku!

On behalf of our contributors, our guest poetry editor Alison Croggon and my fellow Cordite editors, I sincerely hope that you will enjoy this bumper issue. We’re certainly very proud of the direction in which the magazine is heading, and hope that you’ll consider joining us, on Creative Commons.

“But it’s something more than a meteorite. It’s a cylinder — an artificial cylinder, man! And there’s something inside.”

Posted in ESSAYS | Tagged ,

103 Product Searches for Poetry …

POETRY SEARCH (PART 3): 103 Product Searches for Poetry Characterized Differently by an Assortment of Commonly Associated Adjectives

Task: Search for the word “poetry” preceded by various adjectives that are often used in conjunction with it.

Technique: The images of these products are obtained by saving the image of the first product listed after having performed a product search for the word “poetry” preceded by an adjective. In every case, the words are paired together and placed between quotation marks. Example: “good poetry”. The monetary value listed for each product reflects the price of the product as listed on the site from where the image of the product was taken.

Location: Astoria, New York, USA (40.766193,-73.918376)

Duration of Search: 3:09 pm – 6:22 pm

Date of Search: May 30, 2010

Search Engine: Google Product Search (Beta)

Browser: Safari 4.0.5

Outcome: 87 Searches yielded results, while 16 searches “did not match any products.”

Result Organization System: Alphabetic

Searches not matching products:

    conceptualist poetry (did not match any products)

    confessionalist poetry (did not match any products)

    expensive poetry (did not match any products)

    flarf poetry (did not match any products)

    gurlesque poetry (did not match any products)

    hypertextual poetry (did not match any products)

    infamous poetry (did not match any products)

    least favorite poetry (did not match any products)

    neoformalist poetry (did not match any products)

    oulipo poetry (did not match any products)

    projectivist poetry (did not match any products)

    quietist poetry (did not match any products)

    trendy poetry (did not match any products)

    uncreative poetry (did not match any products)

    unpopular poetry (did not match any products)

    vispo poetry (did not match any products)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged , ,

Jonathan Ball, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Jay Millar: Ex Machina and the Creative Commons

Jonathan Ball: EX MACHINA: Overview

Ex Machina (BookThug, 2009) is a long poem written as a series of poetic and philosophical statements. Each page contains a titular number, and each line of the poem refers the reader to another page through a footnote. The book thus resembles the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books of yesteryear, only instead of developing a progressive narrative, the system recurs and loops endlessly. If one attempts to read the book as directed, not only will one never reach a terminal position, but certain pages that exist outside of the system will remain forever unread. Continue reading

Posted in ESSAYS | Tagged ,

John Kinsella’s Poetics of Distraction

Around 1958, the American artist Robert Rauschenberg undertook—over a two-and-a-half year period—a canto-by-canto ‘illustration’ of Dante’s Inferno. Rauschenberg’s method was the comparatively restrictive technique of solvent transfer on paper, with watercolour, gouache and pencil, in small (14½ x 11 inch) format—as distinct from the ‘flatbed form’ of his earlier large-scale combine paintings and in anticipation of his later use of industrial silkscreen processes. The Dante ‘drawings’ were limited to direct one-to-one quotations of found images, transferred from magazine pages or other printed matter, in what approximates a grid-like arrangement. Each transferred image was, due to the constraints of the transfer method, ‘framed,’ producing an effect that in certain respects mirrors the structural organization of Dante’s text—of loggia within loggia, of categories within categories, of a prolific regularization.

In an essay on Rauschenberg, art critic Rosalind Krauss makes the observation that the Dante drawings work in tension with the more ‘open’ forms of his combine paintings, affecting a ‘mirrorlike photographic surface’ in which the organizational logic, or techne, of Dante’s work is duplicated. The ‘veil like character of the image,’ however, produced by the transfer technique, introduces a fundamental ambiguity into the notion that these ‘drawings’ in any straightforward sense illustrate Dante’s text.[ref]Rosalind Krauss, ‘Perpetual Inventory,’ Robert Rauschenberg, ed. Brendan W. Joseph (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002) 101.[/ref]

Krauss’ ‘reading’ of Rauschenberg commences from a distinction attempted by Roland Barthes in a by-now notorious essay on photography, in which he identifies a primarily indexical function of the photographic image—which is to say, a type of one-to-one correspondence between the image and its ‘object,’ stripped of connotation (the truth, as Derrida says, in pointing). The image itself is the product of a mechanical procedure (like Rauschenberg’s solvent transfers)—a procedure which, independent of any other consideration, is strictly an optical, photochemical process. Its ‘content’ points to its object. Whatever autonomous interpretive framework we seek to surround the image with, or impute to it, will inevitably be confronted with ‘the allegorical requirement of a master text.'[ref]Krauss, ‘Perpetual Inventory,’ 113.[/ref]

This at least was the conventional view inherited from certain mimetic traditions. What photography, by way of montage (in film) and collage (from Dada onwards), does to this view, is to explode the notion that the image depends for its ‘meaning’ (its decipherment, so to say, as though it were a rebus simply waiting to be undone) upon external referents. Consequently—in contrast to the mimetic view—not only is the image shown to ‘invoke connotational fields,’ as Krauss says, but to constitute its own reality—an idea perhaps most forcefully advanced in the 1950s by Barthes’ contemporary André Bazin, whose film theory argues for an ‘ontology’ of the cinematic image: that the reality of the cinematic ‘image’ is no less real than objects ‘in the world.'[ref]André Bazin, ‘Ontologie de L’Image Photographique,’ Qu’est-ce que le cinéma? vol 1: Ontologie et langage (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958).[/ref]

In discussing Rauschenberg, Krauss sees the Dante drawings as ‘a work whose very fabric is woven from the rich multiple strands of associations'[ref]Krauss, ‘Perpetual Inventory,’ 97.[/ref] — constituted both by the internal organization of the image, the techne of its composition, and its referential recodings of Dante’s text — both in terms of its topical ‘content’ and of its structure (the one appearing, in any case, to mirror the other). Rauschenberg’s image thus, in a sense, appropriates and reconfigures a Dantesque image logic. Where Dante’s text suggests certain pictorial content—as it were (in Canto IV, Dante’s ‘roar and trembling of Hell’ becomes a racing car; ‘putrid slush,’ a [presumably stinking] fish)—Rauschenberg’s ‘transfers’ evoke a metaphoricity that extends to the composition of each ‘drawing’ as a whole (within and between ‘images’). Insofar as the form of Rauschenberg’s work evokes a type of ‘engine’ of rigid designation—Barthes’ indexicality—it does so by appropriating the very rigidity of Dante’s prodigious stratifications (the circles of Hell, the mount of Purgatory, and so on.)

Rauschenberg himself commented upon the way Dante’s moral allegory coincides with a structural system—a coincidence which Rauschenberg felt increasingly compelled to account for in his own work—responding in particular to ‘the self-servicing of the text disguised as righteousness.’ On a practical level, this entailed for Rauschenberg a number of questions, of which one in particular was to address the relation of abstraction to figuration. The discipline of Rauschenberg’s ‘subjection’ to the text of Dante demanded an examination of the very nature of that subjection and of its articulation at the level of the ‘image’ and of the ways in which its reality is constituted. Krauss asks: ‘does the avowed desire to break with abstraction … demand figuration and textual support?'[ref]Krauss, ‘Perpetual Inventory,’ 113.[/ref] Or, might we say, is (dis)figuration the outcome of an attempt to come to terms with the apparently abstract status of the image itself and of its structure? The result, in either case, is a serial, disciplined regularity which derives from a ‘matrix of slippages’ and ‘veils’ a system. Not the closed system of Dante’s organized vision of Christian metaworlds, but the generative recombinatory system of textual structures that underwrites it. For this reason we can say that Rauschenberg’s Dante drawings are critical, and neither merely denotative or allusively connotative.

Posted in ESSAYS | Tagged ,

The Call to the Creative Commoner: The Digital Humanities and Flexible Copyright

The digital is the realm of the open source, open resources. Anything that attempts to close this space should be recognized for what it is: the enemy.
~Digital Humanities Manifesto v2.0, Point 12

This passage within the manifesto for the Digital Humanities falls under the category of fightin’ words: it is clear that nothing should be allowed to come between the student of the Humanities in their quest to utilise the abundance of new digital media now at our collective fingertips. Like other manifestos from the past, there is a certain implication that nothing must stand in the way of the revolution. If you try and stand in the way of the open source movement, then you are a counter-revolutionary. You may find yourself blindfolded and up against a crumbling wall, waiting for the collective report that will remove you from the picture and allow the future utopia of free knowledge to inch that little bit closer to reality. Like the hard-liners of the FOSS (Free Open Source Software) movement, the Digital Humanities army marches proudly forward waving its banners and imagining a bright, free future for the Humanities.

Those who have heard the story or Robin Hood will know that the royal reservation of certain tracts of the English countryside – dating from the days following the Norman conquest – has been translated through popular culture into a classic topos of ‘the man keeping you down’. The transgressions of those scholars hoping to utilise the resources of this verdant forest are met with harsh penalties from our digital sheriffs. Only the king may hunt the king’s deer, the peasantry are strictly forbidden from gathering wood or grazing their livestock. Trespassers will be caught and punished.

The landscape of digital data awaits exploitation, and yet the sheriff and his men reserve this right for their feudal masters. By the same token, the proponent of copyright is branded the man, a faceless avatar of the disparagingly named ‘knowledge industry’ trying to keep you down, and to stifle one’s ability to create free, collaborative and creative work. The restrictive predilections of our ‘culture of permission’ has the potential to stifle or kill the nascent digital humanities. The dreaded term ‘all rights reserved’ is cast in the role of a draconian forest law enforced by the zealous copyright sheriffs of the academy and its associates, enacting gruesome punishments for those who dare to transgress the edict from on high. The ‘King’s land’ of Humanities data owned directly by our tertiary institutional magnates is not open to the Creative Commoner, and thus the property of these intellectual elite – the universities, the governments, the museums – is safe.

Is this depiction an accurate one? It is perhaps more likely that life within this new collaborative research space is a little complex than it first appears. Universities must after all protect the integrity of their research, holding onto the original productions of their researchers and shielding them from gratuitous exploitation by others. The monarch of the realm must protect their lands from exploitation by unauthorised powers, and as a result protect its inhabitant from a rampaging war-band of potential plagiarists. They have a duty to uphold as the traditional custodians of the knowledge that they generate, and they have a responsibility to protect their precious source materials so that they may be fruitfully employed by future generations of academics. They are castellans of academic knowledge, and take this duty very seriously.

As researchers in the humanities, we are faced with a conundrum. We wish our work to be protected by the mighty aegis of institutional copyrights, and yet we want the freedom to create the free and open resources imagined within the Digital Humanities manifesto. To my mind, this is a worthy dream, and yet one must protect one’s treasure in a world filled with thieves. We want flexibility of use, but in turn we do not wish for our work to be abused unscrupulously by others. We may wish to be generous in our donations of free and open research as a legacy to our peers, and yet we have interests of our own that must be protected if we are to have productive and fruitful careers in the Humanities.

The stakes are high in the copyright game now being played within our institutions of knowledge. Who has the fishing rights in this vast ocean of new digital content? The new frontier of humanities data, like any emerging body of source material, has defied efforts to reconcile itself with the time honoured traditions of copyright and intellectual property law. The old system still holds power within the academic world. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the realm of copyright and intellectual property, in which the old edict that material shall held by its creator with ‘all rights reserved’. Enter Creative Commons the twenty-first century equivalent to its historical companion, the right of common land, and the legal entitlements of the commons. Although owned by its creators, the abundant resources of the digital demesne is given to those who would utilise it under certain conditions.

The would-be creative commoner, under the mandate of ‘some rights reserved’, may take cuttings from the trees of data, fish in the rivers and lakes of enquiry, and graze the swine of their methodology upon the rich ground of the online pasture. The possibility of ‘some rights reserved’ allows for a more flexible distribution of data within a world of increasingly abundant material. It allows a compromise between the harsh and unremitting force of a full copyright, and yet retains the right to ownership over a body of information, regardless of how freely it is utilised. Credit may be given where it is deserved, debts indicated where they exist, and yet it is possible to take wood from the trees of knowledge without arbitrary and punitive retaliation. Rather than the oppression of Copyright, the Creative Commoner embraces Copyleft, a protection of intellectual property for the socialists of the knowledge world.

Flexibility of use will become increasingly essential as the praxis of Humanities researchers changes with time, shifting and emerging as a system of thought with computerised communication at its heart. The digital humanities manifesto describes itself as a genre of M’s: mix, match, mash and manifest. This principle can be extended into a new realm of academic practices, in which the new arises from a freely taken and liberally combined concoction of ideas. Consequently, the new digital humanities researcher must have the freedom to mix and match and to mash up the abundant work of their predecessors before a new manifestation of scholarship and knowledge becomes available to the hungry masses. A new wave of educational and research practises such as Edupunk and the runaway success of Wikipedia and Web 2.0 has created a generation of creators rather than the consumers of previous online content. DIY education has become a dream given form through the Open University, Podcasts, Blogs, Wikis, iTunesU and many other marvels of the new digital age. It is now the moral duty of the elites of knowledge to share their spoils, and to make education a right rather than a privilege. The museums and libraries have responded in fine fashion, and many universities have obliged generously. Nevertheless, they dole out their treasures like alms to the poor, rather than giving them the resources to grow their own intellectual nourishment.

Furthermore, the flexibility of the Creative Commons license is the conduit through which greater freedom of information (one persistent fantasy of the liberal democrat) may lead to a democratisation of scholarly research (another compelling dream). In the manifesto, it is proclaimed that “The Digital Humanities seeks to play an inaugural role with respect to a world in which, no longer the sole producers, stewards, and disseminators of knowledge or culture, universities are called upon to shape natively digital models of scholarly discourse for the newly emergent public spheres of the present era (the www, the blogosphere, digital libraries), to model excellence and innovation in these domains, and to facilitate the formation of networks of knowledge production, exchange, and dissemination that are, at once, global and local.” For this brave new world to be possible, the universities must learn to loosen their vice-like grip on knowledge. They must cease to be the sheriff and become the facilitators and architects of a new age in which their role will be drastically altered.

And what treasures await the Digital Humanities in this future! Never before has such a vast body of new information been made available for the use of students within the Humanities. At the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Benedictine historian Guibert of Nogent compared scholars in search of knowledge to fish exploring a great ocean. Likewise, Isaac Newton famously, or reportedly, claimed that “to myself, I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me”. There is an enormous bulk of potential knowledge waiting for us to use, and yet much of it is locked away under prohibitive copyrights. Many institutions have been very generous with their contributions to the ocean of digital knowledge, and yet their reaction in incommensurate with the pressures of change.

Within the deeps of this great ocean, the human mind may wander and search, drawing new and original draughts of erudition from a vast reservoir of potential ideas, in order to create (excuse the pun) ‘drafts’ for their research. The analogy of the ocean still holds currency today for students of the humanities. The name given to the vast hidden bulk of the internet not accessible to our everyday search engines is telling: the Deep Web. To my mind, this title evokes a vast and shadowed abyss of data, a digital deep in which the light of human scrutiny scarcely penetrates. Who know what horrors and wonders we may find in the blackness of this entity generated by our insatiable generation of data? Filled by the vast bulk of quantitative data generated by an increasingly efficient new class of digitally enabled intellectuals, this unknown ocean presents an unprecedented opportunity for the schools of humanities scholars playing in its nutritive waters.

What then, are we to do? The manifesto of the Digital Humanities has issued a challenge to create “an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which: a) print is no longer the exclusive or the normative medium in which knowledge is produced and/or disseminated; instead, print finds itself absorbed into new, multimedia configurations; and b) digital tools, techniques, and media have altered the production and dissemination of knowledge in the arts, human and social sciences.” A grand dream, to be sure, and yet a new and generous copyright regime is required before this dream may come to pass. Enter the Creative Commons; a balance between protection of intellectual property and assurance of credit where it it due, and the flexibility and collaborative potential of collective creativity and curiosity. For my part, I believe that students of the Humanities have a duty to fulfil: we must be generous with our ideas and enthusiastic about those of others, and yet mindful that all ideas and material are used respectfully and with the approval of their creators. If the Utopianism of the manifesto is to become a conceivable reality, we must create a system of Copyright that makes it easy to collaborate, free to use what we need and supportive of all who wish to contribute, regardless of their origin. The marriage of Creative Commons and the Digital Humanities will produce wondrous and varied offspring, and I hope to be there when they take their first steps.

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged

Creative Licences and CCMixter

Do you remember a time when you completed the written draft of a poem and signed it with the © symbol beside your name? By including the copyright symbol you probably thought you were asserting your ownership of the poem and establishing yourself as the creator, as well as protecting your exclusive right to publish, perform or otherwise deal with your creation. However, you do not need to include this symbol in order to be protected by copyright law; in Australia, this protection is automatic when an original work is written and you retain control of your work unless you sell or transfer the exclusive rights.

The © is really a warning to remind others not to interfere with your exclusive right. Under your control, the poem may be published, it may earn a few dollars, and it can be republished elsewhere. You might perform the poem and share it with friends, but eventually it will probably sit in a folder or a computer file as you move on to create, publish and perform new poems. The © is restrictive; it inscribes a boundary that prevents your work from being transformed by the imaginations of others; unless, of course, you can be convinced by their vision to sell them the right. But how can either party know what creative masterpiece might emerge from the raw material, the synergy of multiple imaginative processes, if the opportunity to play and experiment is denied by a symbol trapped in a circle at the bottom of the page? What is needed in order for creativity to flourish in a community of artists is a sense of license that is permissive rather than restrictive, that promotes free play and is about the joy and satisfaction of creation, rather than about money and exclusive rights. It does not have to mean that you give up your babies for adoption, but rather that you co-parent them.

I am going to share an idea for breathing new life into old poems and inspiring new ones; an idea that involves letting go of a rigid notion of copyright but one that has the potential to give your work more exposure to a wider audience, and lay it open to the artistic interpretation of other imaginations.

Here follows the story of my journey to the land of an alternative ‘C’, in fact (CC) or Creative Commons. (Note that the brackets encompass but do not completely enclose the CC, like the circle around the Copyright symbol). I’m not going to write a treatise on the various forms of Creative Commons licence or expound the philosophy of Creative Commons; there is already a plethora of reading material available on the topic. However, I will say that making your work available in this way does not mean that you give up your copyright (see Creative Commons Australia). You can decide how much you allow others to do with your work by choosing a CC licence that reflects a level of letting go that you are comfortable with.

For several years I had a desire to set some of my poems to music. I was convinced that such a coupling would add another dimension to my poetry and that I would gain a great deal of personal satisfaction and creative pleasure from setting words to music. However, my main obstacle was that I no longer played an instrument (I had long given up guitar and recorder). Nor did I have a willing band of musician friends to work with me on such a project. I made some enquiries of experts in the industry and it was suggested to me that I could pay a composer to write a musical accompaniment to my poem and pay for some studio time to make a recording. I didn’t have the money for this so my idea went nowhere but the desire remained. Then I discovered a remixing site on the Internet, called CCMixter.

CCMixter is built upon the idea of sharing and remixing music, samples, vocals, and spoken word, and releasing them under various Creative Commons licences. You can join the site and create a profile. You don’t have to have any musical knowledge or ability but you must have something to share if you wish to participate fully in the CCMixter community. It is free and easy to join. You can download someone else’s instrumental track and maybe a couple of sound effects from an associated site such as Free Sound, which you can then mix with a recording of one of your poems. You can upload the remix to your profile and it features on the recent remix page where others can listen to, review and recommend your creation. Your upload creates a URL which you can email around to other friends, or post to your blog; you can also post your upload directly to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Anyone can access the link; they don’t need to join the CCMixter site to listen.

In my experience, the community of artists involved in CCMixter are generous and honest with their feedback on uploads. I have been remixed a number of times and feel that my work has been treated with a sense of care and integrity. There is also an atmosphere of learning and encouraging that is generated by the sharing of ideas and techniques.

There are a few tools that you need in order to get started. You will need a digital recorder to record your spoken word – it doesn’t have to be an expensive one but the quality of your end product will vary according to the quality of your tools. A mobile phone with a fire wire and recorder, or a basic headset with microphone will suffice. Or you can purchase a digital recorder such as the Zoom H4n for around $450. You will need a computer with Internet access and a mixing program. There are several free open source mixing programs available online, or you can buy one such as Acoustica Mixcraft (around $90) or Cubase (this program came with my digital recorder). There are other music creation and sharing sites besides CCMixter and some of these will offer a basic online mixing tool.

For example, ACIDPlanet offers a free version of Sony’s ACID Xpress that can be used independently of the site. You don’t need any particular mixing skills as you will learn this along the way and improve as you gain experience. You also learn from the feedback given in reviews. Every remix will be slightly or significantly different, depending on how many tracks you are building and the effect that you want to achieve. A basic remix will involve importing a recording of your spoken word as one track and an instrumental recording as a second track. A more complex mix will involve duplicating the spoken word track, adding one or more musical tracks, loops or sound effects, cutting and repositioning parts of the spoken word, applying effects, setting different panning options, adjusting the tempo and volume, and maybe creating your own music using virtual instruments and effects.

CCMixter allows you to upload the text of your poem in the properties field, alongside the audio file, and this is a good idea as the site has international patronage and many of the Mixters have English as a second language, so they are appreciative of the text. I have to say that I was hesitant, at first, with regard to uploading the text of my poems and I haven’t quite felt ready to remove the © from beneath the poem. It’s an interesting point to ponder because I have no qualms about my audio being remixed. I accept the Creative Commons philosophy and I embrace openness. But text on a page? I can’t help thinking of the two collections I have published and how making the poems freely available online might affect their sale. But then I must be honest – just how well does poetry sell? How widely are my print collections read? For me, it isn’t about money anyway. I am motivated by the creative process and being able to share and receive feedback on my writing.

When an audio poem is remixed the words are often reordered or repeated, and some are omitted or mixed with another spoken word piece, or an a cappella. Several new versions may appear in the remixes and even as backing tracks for online videos. The poem has a new life. It has exposure. How then is it different from offering up the written word to be dissected and reshuffled, given that appropriate attribution is required?

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/debbizo_-_Water_in_a_Blue_Bowl.mp3|titles=Water in a Blue Bowl]

Water In a Blue Bowl [2:26]

If you’d like to explore some of my work, you will find over 80 uploads on my CCMixter page. Attribution to the creative work of others appears beside each entry and also on a separate page when you click on the title. Remixes of my work, created by other artists, are noted to the right of the entry for the piece they have sampled and links are provided.

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged ,

All Rights Relinquished: Permapoesis

While writing this work I have been eating wild foods, vegetables from my garden and a small amount of transported agricultural product. I am in transition, along with my family and some community friends, to relocalise food and energy resources and address the degree to which our participation in a hyper-mediated society degrades the ecologies that support us.

There can be no thought without food, and no sustainable food supply without soils teeming in microfauna and microfungi, which in turn are dependent upon a steady supply of solar radiation, water, air and decomposing biomass. Poetry, philosophy and ethics’ relationship to the landbase, and to soil microbes more specifically, should therefore be unambiguous. Why is it then that very few western schools of thought have treated this relationship seriously, if at all? The lack of attention is even more remarkable when we consider the effects that cultivating soil for food has had on society from the first technological landscapes (proto farms). It’s like we’ve been unable to witness our own separating linage, or at least respond to it with an adequate or challenging language. Rather we’ve developed a dominant Cartesian dialect able only to champion progress, the corollary of which has been ecological disembodiment, unchecked speciesism and an ever-increasing privatisation of life forms, resources, thought and creative expression.

An increasingly privatised food supply system favouring industrialised, transported and packaged product is central to global ecological crisis, central to the degradation of subsoil microbial networks, above ground biospheres, wetlands and marine environments. Supermarket food, with its reliance on industrial production methods, destroys microfauna and microfungi, is extremely water and energy intensive, and commits the atmosphere to unsafe levels of anthropogenic waste. Is the type of food we eat, therefore, contiguous with the quality of the fuel we use for poesis, for making meaning? It seems like a very direct exchange. And if we eat ecologically estranged food do we automatically make ecologically estranged thought, favouring representations, mediations and abstractions? Here’s an experiment that could well be employed to help answer this question, a question integral to examining the mental state of our culture:

Part 1. For one week eat only edible weeds, feral foods and wild food plants that you have freely foraged within walking distance of your home. Drink only untreated (non-privatised) water. Make teas from wild herbs. Record your thoughts.

Part 2. For one week eat only privatised supermarket food that has been transported from anywhere, and drink anything you can afford. Record your thoughts and make an inventory of the anthropogenic waste you produced in this time.

Part 3. Compare the notes you made between the two weeks, and publish them freely.

Creative commons; foraging commons

The establishment of a creative commons goes hand in hand with the reestablishment of a public food commons. Both are networks of exchange and interrelation, and both attend to the woes of private-industrial systems of supply. In a previous work I wrote the exchange between creativity and food within a dominant supply system like this:

The arts of industrial civilisation are intrinsically linked to industrial agriculture; that what industrial agriculture does to our bodies (and with the landbase), industrial culture does to our minds. Fairly consistently the resultant pathology is a kind of intellectual diabetes that derives from the over refinement and over processing of materials – where the seduction of the reader/spectator is paramount, the common understanding is that as long as there is food preserved by synthetics and refrigerants we can afford to indulge ourselves in transcendental medias.

To mark this point two poets wheel a large display stand of ‘best selling’ potato chips from one end of an airport shop to sit beside a large stand of ‘best selling’ literature at the other. They observe the relationship these two dominating forms have with one another. This action is later made freely available online.

The copyrighting of food seeds is a reasonably new chapter of private supply ideology. Newly available biotech seeds are modified to grow in ‘dead’ soil where microfauna and microfungi networks have been systematically killed off, and the diseases that these networks would normally allay now have to be treated with synthetic pesticides, to which the biotech seeds have been made resistant. Seeds are also being developed to ‘suicide’, so as they can no longer be saved or shared. If patented biotech seeds jump fence lines courtesy of wind – a natural transporter of seed – and take root on organic or non-GMO farms, then farmers can be (and have been) aggressively sued.

An industry that refuses to include its environment and forces people to use its woeful science is monological authoritarianism at its worst, and marks the height of anthropocentric idiocy and greed. The alternatives are plenty, and the blogosphere freely represents the diversity of applied ecologics available for growing sustainable food, permaculture being the most significant whole-systems approach to tackling food supply shortages and global ecological crisis.

Australian ecologist Tim Low has sited hundreds of edible food plants in Australia not dependant on private agricultural practices. These wild plants and fungi have all the nutrients, protein, energy and vitamins that are required for disease-free life and can grow anywhere – backyard gardens, laneways, public parks and state forests. Our current synthetic diet makes us sluggish, non-vital beings while degrading the biosphere, and the most significant ingredient in this Cartesian diet is crude oil. So in extending the adage ‘we are what we eat’, to ‘what we eat determines the sort of culture we make’, we therefore cannot help but reaffirm the dominant systems of intellectual and agricultural supply unless we alter the means by which we gather our food and share our creative content.

Another experiment is underway, designed by myself in collaboration with my household, to put this kind of thought into practice. We call ourselves The Artist as Family (AaF) and we are three years into our transition to de-capitalise and relocalise our food and energy supplies, freely publishing our findings, trials and tribulations on our various blogs.

The first of our projects was to spend 17 days as artists-in-residence in Newcastle picking up discarded non-compostable waste (mostly petro-chemical materials) along the coastline and throughout the city, each day blogging our experience. Over this time we developed a close relationship with anthropogenic material. Much of the waste, like that found along many coastlines of the world, ends up in an ocean trash vortex – floating islands of toxic debris that chokes and poisons marine and bird life in the vicinity. While in Newcastle we kept a blog and made a short film of our time there, once again freely distributing all content online.

Food forest

As a result of this first AaF project the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney, invited us to submit a proposal for a similar work for their forthcoming exhibition In The Balance: Art For A Changing World. We wanted to again attend to anthropogenicism and the privatisation and transportation of resources as central to global ecological crisis. We came up with Food forest, a polyculture of plants and trees designed to mimic a dynamic forest ecology for the purposes of providing free organic food to a local community and free food and habitat for non-humans in a highly urbanised environment. The work triples as a biophysical poem, community garden, and an example of applied ecology, the developments of this project are again documented and shared freely online.

There is no ‘property’ to speak of with this artwork, all rights are relinquished; there is only material – edible and conceptual – to freely forage from. In this way the aesthetics, based upon the possibilities of reengaging the primitive, uncapitalised and ecological, are determined by an unclouded ethic to make our work free and public in every sense. In order to afford this ethic we practice frugality, and middle-class anthropogenicism is kept in check by making do with very little.

The reestablishment of local food commons in union with the development of a global creative commons comes from the recognition that we are biological beings, evolved from fungi – and thus evolved from complex networks of interrelation; webs of mycelial and intellectual connectivity not limited by private capital. The dominant ideology attacks the reciprocity of open, public supply networks. A public supply of resources, both conceptual and corporeal, is a decentred supply system that makes local communities more resilient.

In summary

Copyright is a system of central licensing developed to privatise thought and turn it into capital. Copyright is a sub-system of private wealth generation dependent on abstract and anthropocentric modalities. The various modes of which are over-extending both technological landscapes and natural ecologies as human populations grow. The ideology of aggregating capital, however, is fraying at the edges, and depending upon the speeds of climate change and descent of global oil supplies, we are watching the self-determined implosion of such an illogical, go-it-alone system.

Today, the dominant ideology makes us equally susceptible to becoming our own worse victims. An ideology that favours competition over reciprocity misinterprets ecological functioning. Cities are the centralised embodiment of private, competitive anthropocentric thought, of Cartesian hyper-separation, and today a dominant urban mindset, that attempts to cheat Malthusian sustainability logic, determines the policies, politics, agricultures, poetics, philosophy and science that makes our culture systematically unsustainable.

I’d like to finish this writing with one of my slow text mesostics as an example of behavioural change that speaks to some of the ideas I’ve outlined above. I have been developing the idea of slow text in union with the principals of the slow food moment, a moment wholly engaged in a local, in-season food supply. In this work vowels are super and subscripted to aerate the poem, mimicking the way in which microbes and earthworms aerate soil. This procedure slows the reading of the work, and asks the reader to attend to a decompressed ecological time. Mesostics are centred acrostics, famously implemented by John Cage. In a mesostic there is a central trunk from where the lines of the poem branch out in a self-determining form. This becomes the natural habit of the poem, a transition from the agricultural field – where neat rows of private crops line up like monological soldiers across the page – a return to the forest, to biodiverse and open systems, and eventually, if we are to think big, to open the possibility of an all rights relinquished ecological paradigm for culture.

1. Val Plumwood (2002)

2. Ibid.

Daylesford, 2010

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged , ,

Zoe Rodriguez: The Danger of Copyleft

If Miles Franklin had relinquished the copyright in My Brilliant Career how would she have fared? This was her first, and by far her most, successful novel. Where I work, at Copyright Agency Limited, which collects and distributes over $100 million a year for its 17,000 authors and publisher members, we sometimes say when it all gets too hard, ‘nobody ever died because of copyright’. So, it was chastening to see the agony Tolstoy endured late in his life over whether to offer his works to the commons or retain copyright acted out with such passion in The Last Station.

When authors ask what I think about copyleft or Creative Commons, I can only tell them that it depends on their circumstances and what they want to achieve from their writing. For instance, if they expect no remuneration from their works and are happy for others to do what they will with their works, or even just to copy them as they are without having to seek permission, then Creative Commons may be for them. If they want to have a career in writing and hope to be paid for their work, then I don’t think CC is for them.

Some tell me that they are happy to offer their works under CC licensing ‘just to get their name out there’. I’m not sure that there’s any increased exposure through attaching CC licensing to works – and probably there’s far more kudos, even today, to be gained through being published by an established press, very few of which would see any benefit in CC licensing because it would hamper their ability to market and obtain monetary return for a work in which they had invested their resources. As my mother, poet Judith Rodriguez says “if you let your stuff go for free you will not likely figure in reviews… Editors of properly commercial publications vary, but their reputation rides on what they publish, so they often DO have critical principles behind their decision to choose your poem. It’s not just money you forfeit, when you say ‘Print it, it’s yours!’ but the knowledge that it’s valued – not just left-out-in-the-open available.”

And, if you’re a poet and you give works away under CC licensing, then it’s very possible you’ll never receive a penny for your work. The places that are most likely to want to use poetry are not cashed-up corporations but not-for-profit educational and cultural institutions. Educational institutions are required to pay equitable remuneration to creators of works under licences managed by CAL. Many poets and other authors have told me that the CAL fees they have received are more than any advances or royalties they have earned. A CC licence would see the end to that.

Some suggest authors shouldn’t charge for their works: they should use them as a teaser for other money-making activities. The trouble is that the vast majority of authors cannot adopt a business model predicated on their writing being a loss-leader for other goods or services. Writers just aren’t rock-stars. Readers (except crazed children’s book fans) are not going to pay a fortune for merchandise and concert going. And performance and writing are not the same thing. A number of our best authors are introverts who do not shine or wish to exist in the public eye.

The history of Creative Commons comes from IT licensing systems. Some IT developers decided it was a better business model for them to permit other IT developers to use their works without having to pay them a licence fee – so long as others were able to use the resulting work for free. What many forget is that IT companies who adopted this licensing practice have a business model where IT consultants work to service the programs makes them their money. Again, this is not a model authors of fictional works can generally adopt.

What of governments and other organisations who see it as their task to see the works they publish disseminated as broadly as possible – and not as income-streams to line the coffers of the state? Well, they’ve always had the ability to publish works under terms which allowed individuals, or groups for that matter, to make copies of works without having to seek permission or pay fees. The distinction between them and authors, especially poets, is that the government runs on a business model not open to most poets – it is funded by taxes.

The rise of digital technology, and especially the increasing ability for information to be copied and broadcast around the globe almost instantaneously, has led many to believe that the frontiers are free, and that even the very content that travels along digital pathways is different from its printed/ published cousin. Seems to me this isn’t the case – distribution may have been made a whole lot easier, but the demand for quality content is still there, and experienced, gifted and professional writers need to be paid for their time if they are to continue their work.

Newspapers have tested the waters with publishing without charge in the digital world – in the belief that online advertising would replace the cover price of the printed work. It turns out that this has failed, and that newspaper proprietors are now turning back to a pay for content model – the most explicit of these moves recently taken by Rupert Murdoch.

My view is that, as with most things in life (actionable crimes aside), people are free to do what they will. Decisions should be made on the basis of informed choice. The author is the first owner of copyright in an original work they create. If an author sees dissemination of their work as the most important outcome for their creative endeavour, then CC licences might be the right path for them. However, if authors want long-term careers in writing where they obtain some economic sustenance from their intellectual capital, then CC probably isn’t the right path. It’s not always possible to predict which works will be the most valued by the readership – it could be the first work a writer publishes.

I think it’s particularly important for authors to consider carefully the terms on which they offer their works – what they produce today has a copyright life which extends through their lifetime and for a further 70 years. Miles Franklin would have missed out on the bulk of royalties from her writing if she’d used CC licensing on My Brilliant Career and writers from Patrick White to Peter Temple would not have shared the legacy.

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged ,

The Poetic Commons

Poetry is a kind of creative commons of the culture. These days we inhabit different microcultures and that complicates matters, but there remains a kind of substratum that most members of say, one country, understand.

In 1996, Spinifex author, Suniti Namjoshi began what I think was probably the first experiment with Creative Commons in Australia. What we at Spinifex did was to set up a web site and ask readers to contribute to the novel, Building Babel, by adding their own content. This was well before Web 2.0 and so all content came to us via email and was separately uploaded to the Babel Building Site. You can see the original invitation at the archived site Pandora. All the links are now out of date, but the experiment was interesting and you can still navigate through the different pages.

So why am I telling you about this old pre-web 2.0 site? Because most of the time we speak as if these technologies were new. What Suniti Namjoshi points out in her writing is just how very old they are: that the sharing of stories across minds is as old as storytelling itself.

If you think back through your own store of stories, consider the family tales, the story about the strange uncle, the maiden aunt, the grandparent who lost the farm, these are all part of our creative commons, part of a shared culture. Sometimes it is shared with just a few, other elements are known culture wide. Say the word Cats in New York and Melbourne and you’ll get a very different response. Are you talking Broadway or football?

Poets have a broad creative commons on which they draw. The poetic history of humanity, little known corners, fragments and single lines inhabit our brains. This is in part of what Suniti Namjoshi was writing about in Building Babel. While Facebook and Twitter provide examples of the latest kind of creative commons.

In my own work, I began to explore poetry and hypertext around 1997 for my sequence of long poems, Unstopped Mouths which was later published in The Butterfly Effect. I did this because I felt that the particular poetic commons I was drawing on was not well known and this was a way of opening it up.

As a poet, I find myself engaging in conversations about poetry, or writing a poem in response to someone else’s posting. Twitter remains the realm of the haiku addict and now and then I tweet a few lines.

Poetry is hugely accessible these days and while big publishers stay away in droves, small poetry publishing is thriving. Blogs provide poets with a way to garner an audience, the publishing of chapbooks is on the rise again, and even full-length books are finding their way out into the marketplace under small imprints. In part, this is fuelled by the increasing viability of short run printing. A run of 100-300 copies has never been unusual for poetry, and print runs of these lengths are now available to anyone with some saved pennies. No longer the equivalent of going out and buying a car, printing a short run of poems can be done for under $1000. Putting it out online – assuming the writer has their own computer – can be calculated in the time it takes to put it up. Getting a following takes more work, but open readings, community festival readings and the like can all play their part.

Digital publishing has the advantage of reaching people you have never met and are perhaps unlikely to meet. Just as a widely distributed print book falls into the hands of many readers unknown to the author, a digital book has the same capacity. Like a print book it can be driven through networking, or simply by being active on several circuits. Unlike a print book, it can reach into places beyond the reach of ordinary book distributors. Three important places stand out.

1. Reaching into foreign markets where the publisher has no distributor, but where there are a significant number of English-language readers.
2. Reaching people who live in rural and remote areas where booksellers may not have the breadth of writing a reader is looking for.
3. Reaching people who for one reason or another are unable to leave their homes: the elderly, the chronically ill, people with mobility difficulties or those suffering agoraphobia.

The ability to increase the size of print is also another good reason to make your work available digitally.

There has been a great deal of fear wound up over digital publishing, and while I am supportive of authors wanting a fair deal with publishers, with my publisher hat on I can see many opportunities passing by those who wish to remain rooted to the spot. In the first instance, when we at Spinifex started to sell eBooks in late 2006, most readers pressed the buy print book button. These were probably sales we would not have made otherwise and we saw a really significant increase in the sales of books over our web site. All the books available (getting close to 100 titles) can be browsed for 15 minutes, up to ten pages can be read free of charge. They can also be searched for words used in the text. With these two options a reader can read as if in a bookshop, or check subject matter as one would by using an index. The digital advantage is that no index is required to do the looking.

More recently, the eBook versions are selling – this is particularly so in the US market where eBooks have had faster acceptance than here in Australia. With an average of around 20% of our monthly sales currently through eBooks, this is extra income for authors. It also allows a small and independent press like ours to sell to a wider market. We can track what kind of eBook is most popular and this can help us use our resources better.

As for copying and pirating, I do not believe that this a major issue. How many of you have photocopied more than 10% of a book? How many of you have read a line of poetry and credited it in the poem? How many have not? My point is that there is nothing new about copying, about failure to attribute. The main difference is that in electronic form it is far more readily spotted. Increasing digitisation may in fact reduce plagiarism.

Creative Commons is one way of retaining some control over your work while allowing it to circulate relatively freely. The advantage of circulation is that it gives the work more airing, might even help the poet to build their reputation. A range of Creative Commons licences are available. Important elements are:

1. Attribution
2. Non-commercial use
3. Whether or not Derivative works are allowed
4. Share alike – that the licence given is the one used.

These are common sense rules and provide poets with the opportunity to share their delight in the work of other poets while not stealing the artistic creativity of others. It also opens up the possibility of poetic playfulness, like a variation on a musical riff.

We at Spinifex have enjoyed our ventures into the digital world. The downside is the additional work that it creates in an already over-stretched workplace. That additional work is in the retailing.

μεταdata



you can tell we no longer



             know our classics



a postmodern breakfast



            of



            Greek and Latin



μετα- meta-: Greek preposition meaning



            with or after



data: plural of datum



            (past participle of the verb dare to give)



            Latin for a thing given or granted,



            something known or assumed as fact,



            and made the basis of reasoning or calculation



μεταdata is definitely after: after the date



            of my dictionary, printed in 1977



metadata is the data that comes with or after the book



a whole world of information and facts



attached to an eBook with ones and zeros



a spreadsheet of working days



column after column after column after column after



            six columns of ISBNs



            two ways of listing the title



            long blurbs and short



            subject matter and keywords



            prices in different currencies



            dimensions in metric and imperial



            an excerpt and its source



            a review and its source



            and more …



and everyone wants something different



                        I’m after



                              and after



                                    I’m over it



That poem was written in the midst of metadata frenzy which, with luck is mostly over now. What the poem shows is that it does take time and commitment to go digital, but if you start that way, or you begin to venture into the world, then there are feedbacks and with luck sales. Unless you are prepared to let everything go for free, your digital files need to be wrapped and secured and that way you can gain from both print and digital worlds.

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged

Trods Which Follow

Upon each trod, given goes to trail by margins of lay; each shelter earth’s satellite in all our betweens, step pilgrims soil and sky.

Ever beneath such plenitude, desire in unfounded ambush, which plots divide upon humility as tendril to tap over ways of passing urban and wild.

Even the light weed old growth in slight stellate the adorned square; nee parse on famished stock; silhouettes still able in the redress of situ to ground the stock of heights.

What passes for love here passes for sound there. Over each stone step, the wild becomes extrapolated by connections, extant in ways of seeing: Sacred rounding of nest,

The sparrow singing in the miniature wooded hedgerow:

Wild.                    Wild.                    Wild.

This privilege hold astounds, so much clause ascends the cambered ridge we pass.

No further but attend to the passage of sleep.

Harvesting forage in the urban growth we settle; compact over myths embedded to a clarity that diminishes the waver, describing the brown sea flotsam astride stone.

Inveigh against remittance; in sheltering beneath intricate laces of leaf, wholesome fills that litter of gift.

Plenitude radiates positive gladden cells; so riot in the best of ways parting the crescent smiles on our behalf with each grain yielding relate.

We scatter common like the numinous holding sway, pre-empting fall from pre-emptive strike; this single passage no less clause on the trail.

Fictive root; earth no venture grinds alone – only we hope;

To stand with care, of what shadow strides astern.

Given what levels before, settling each in successive unity; trample slow footwork, lay stone craft; earthworks befitting infra-communal stead with stone-structure.

Under trod, language held firm to place for what visits we pave by word of treads succession, not partial for the ca\re of you, but near, to side of harbour, loves only work this accord.

If by some unfavourable union we shallow into angst sallow, then what goes me encumbering the more then by the very less we propagate?

Reward the churl, or be the least only the venture of it; that walkways go to and we a stride come to some long reached open in the quest of recess and draw open hearts to the plaintive.

I hope not to strike, inhibit the ways, nor settle by the lea of hope; but to call open the very slights, so as to dazzle aside from what gathers by the spleen of weight: cast open the neutered chest.

What gathers by mode can handle the care of it; even the felt may be untarnished.

For this inhabits welcome, no longer in the service of summit, but a cast at what is plausible to the field we inhabit as earth:

1. Mood over tumults: wavy in parts of mute regalia in earthen glee.

2. Sorrow in stride of longing to, lone a separatists welt

3. By openings root dream phenomenon the fecund wall

4. Grazing levels cut, slowly diminish ways of mulch

5. Pastor or rut? Tableau or armature [love] embracing we

6. Earth fibres hollow, soil is to skin what waters wake dream

7. We have serviced too much on behalf of misery

8. Sharps alignment to the wrist, neck, vein: let us not depart in the pin-eye of sorrow

9. Held firm to what scarce limps beatified penult of stray longing for

10. We offer the many; lets gather there under the folds of sky

Entering the season of solace, grace limps sympathetically; at the anterior ground of language where a muscle intricately distributes cells.

As the things themselves decline, emaciated words flicker on/off, and I’m aware of what seems an insignificant loss in the making; but the trees may signal a language in the flow of air, more of the real than ever we knew, and I’m wondering at each new bright, if the clearings we made are ventriloquisms that map syntactically the many we are.

Here word, here world, only a letter apart but so much sewing to.

Stitch of L, of O, of V, of E;

The language of presence is not so scantily clad.

The open affronts the verge of curtailment:

1) Ocular System. [Settlements in the moors dispersed]

2) Digestive System. [‘too horsse lodes of fresshe fish, callid fresshe Lynge, haddokes and kyllinges’]

5) Vestibular System. [ I (distance and speed) we (in respect to each other) on these long trods]

3) Cardio-vascular System. [Cloud-breath: specialised centres in the brainstem, where water condenses into fog, clouds form.]

6) Procreative System. [‘A phallus so small that I cannot fit it in a man.’]

4) Manipulative System. [‘Bringing forth’, emerging and rising hidden within the open region this is the earth.]

7) Judgment. [‘I thereby place the soul in the unlimited sphere,’ walk as write on the surface of a radius on the thickness of a shell.]

I hear more word of the city than song in the forest, and the older we grow the more radical our longing, accelerating the distance of occupation while proximity becomes its own distance to the metastatic.

Species with rhizomes and runners, common as they are, raise their shoots to the new soil surface.

Dark satanic mills, collate the hour of accident in which labour turned adrift into the arts of death.

Dead Sphagnum pools and wet hollows, capsules of fruiting bodies, film of water and open cells of leaves: asphodel, cranberry, bogbean and cloudberry; the skin of peat across the surface stretches home a priori knowledge to which we warm in the unlimited sphere dressing the wound adrift.

Mealy by sprigs, sprung-scan sky settles meek beneath in humbling reed, wattle manger willing we to the cap of sky.

Bolt searing a clearing postulates pain; reach back into the sphagnum deep within dark folds, open forage along loosely scattered walkways:                   we wild                    we open : clear beneath sky scan sprung from the ground.

Re-earth and hope, tread in spore dictums spread for a lucky hit in which reeling we calm: stand ‘I’ before error the minutes affront, cross-class distance what irksome wrest:

1. Gentle way

2. Soft nothings

3. Post-material plea

Clamped loosely by competing gods, only to wish by the magi’s halter, the recess of more in the shadow of less; cradling the kitsch in the margins of sanity, to what loosely drifts round the gathering verge.

Here I am a small figure with the body of Hare; step to the side, quietly, carefully and you will see me patiently viewing water, each long leg surely placed; a heron to the cover of rock, a hare prone to the open field in the sky.

In the sky I am listening to the ground; in the ground, I listen to the sky, and the stars form a knowing that detracts from the ruts and the divots I’ve come to know and trust with the body.

A language forms, we raise heads and seek from the heavens of earth, our culminating we under the cowl of branches, the halo of moon settles on the surface of pond, shimmering, and something holds us, like it has always held us, seeking, our own birth stitched to the covenant of Love.

Posted in FEATURES, POETRY | Tagged

Peter Larkin’s Knowledge of Place

There are many distractions surrounding the everyday, so many asides busy vying for our attention, alleviating us of our time. Objects are seen less for themselves and more often as materials which become products, products which remove the things themselves from an originated state. Landscapes are demarcated in terms of their service.

In this way it’s become increasingly difficult to clarify certain terms. What do we mean now, for instance, when we speak of nature or the wild? Where is the common ground of understanding in these terms? What does it mean to write poetry out of a landscape that would perceive, within its own composition, not only a place occupied by nature and including by degrees notions of the wild, but also one that is perhaps predicated on an anthropocentric clause of cultivation and development, which although other, are nevertheless aspects of nature itself?

Alongside this runs a similar stream of thought, one which concerns, to some degree, a different kind of landscape, or at least a different way of seeing the landscape – that of theology. Theological writing and writing about the wild and nature have often shared the same space on a page; and more often than not, it is poetry which explores the commonality between the sacred and the wild, the corporeal and the temporal and the perceptions which inhabit the disclosed and undisclosed things which occupy them.

In the changing and developing milieu of habitations, humanities’ place grows more precarious and the paradigms or fractals of occupancy within place become ever more complex and less predictable. In our worst moments, the shifting horizon of tomorrow eschews an eschatological ruin and post-human cities are built from the neurotic wilderness and techno-scopic vision fuelled by an unsustainable market, based around infinite growth.

One of the ways in which poetry functions within this paradoxical environment is to return to the body and to simply walk out into the world. By being in the world, through an intimacy of a thorough immersion, the poetry can radically re-engage with otherness and begin to propagate alternative ways of seeing and occupying place, or at the very least, remind us of the intimacy and otherness of our surroundings. Not by relocating the human body as the central process, but as a part of a process of being within and with the world.

As a writer of poetry I am influenced by the environment in all its coherent and competing forms; I am, I suppose, interested in a poetry that is earth-sensitive without being reductive and one which navigates the subtler and complex relations that simultaneously occupy place ‘[a poetry] which alternates between being bounded and unbounded, between being mediated and immediate’[2]. From the slightest micro organism to wide ranging forests and tree lined avenues to post urban developments and brown-field sites, I seek a poetry that can take us on and on in hope of something.

Peter Larkin is one such poet; his work consists of poetry where ‘depth is still new’[3] with a ‘knowledge of place which is reducible to a sort of co-existence with that place’[4]. ‘So skindust in flotilla does encyst the membrane of the pool, is generalist heeder, not local (too global) neighbour. Our dart to depth will flout by soul’[5]. The folds of landscape and openings are what gently curves upon the ‘soul’, but ‘our dart to’ the distance, perhaps erroneously, casts us toward the further horizon, making obscure the ‘depth’ of the ‘near’ surface; for Larkin, as for Wittgenstein the ‘depths are on the surface’[6].

A lot of these terms embody a kind of mapping, and it’s possible to read Larkin’s work in terms of mapping. ‘Band-stratified, they tender mass for map. By the shade of an attribute, it mulls a graph in fir needles[7]. In a more explicit way, Edward S Casey has stated that ‘far from being mere representations of the earth, [maps] can become part of the earth itself’[8].This mapping or reading of place, by scansion, by literally footwork metered out over the surface of the earth, is artistically re-presented or re-emplaced on the page as prosody. In it we seek Wordsworth’s ‘one soft impulse saved from vacancy’[9].

So much poetry vacates place in favour of an internalised dialogue, or anecdotal referent, artistically directing depth only by way of comic or ironic relief. As Larkin posits ‘a ghost of irony is in spirit in the woods’[10]. In a lot of modern verse the distance between things remains, a vacant hollowing of substance or play of meaning, but in Larkin ‘The descent into some hollow of ground serves to instil a void on which thought might have its fill.’[11]

We can read in the poetry, what Suzanne Raitt describes in the Rhetoric of Efficiency: ‘efficiency, economy, and the elimination of waste’.[12] This economy and elimination is all the more pertinent given current political and global ecological themes, although not as an eco-poetics of didacticism, or mimesis but as a poetical culture of responsibility rebuffed by intellectual vigour and folded within being. ‘I drove, repulsed, at the given-way, so many mild trees no more than hedge height felled at their linear logics of aspersal.’[13]

John Kinsella has said of his own writing practise that he writes ‘poems of resistance and protection’[14] ; in Peter’s work it seems less obviously ‘resistance and protection’ than granulation and the ‘otherness of gift’[15]. Larkin’s end, unusually, does not implicate a horizon of irrecoverable damage, piloted toward eschatological ruin, but rather it is ‘sprained of recovery.’[16] Where, nevertheless, horizon demarcates the possible, but within the limits of the given, a given which is open as much to the horizon, as it is bound to the vertical – ‘it is the ordinary become extraordinary’[17]. ‘Here, from the root outward, comes the narrowest clearing towards horizon’[18].

Jonathan Skinner in his fascinating essay ‘Poetries of the Third Landscape’ notes that ‘for Larkin, landscape is not so much a thing as a process, a kind of prosody marked by opening’[19]. In Larkin’s words a prosody or ‘A poetry of love reduced to scarcity […] a wheeling for the wild.’ [20] This wheeling is ‘no erection/ of wall.’[21] Far from it, Citing Laura Riding, ‘It is not a […] wall. It is a written edge of time’.[22]

Peter Larkin has been one of the most pervasive influences on my poetic practise, his Terrain Seed Scarcity, was a major turning point for me, and probably, in hindsight, modern or radical landscape/ pastoral[23]. So too was J H Prynne in his Plant time Manifold and Pearls that Were; Peter Riley, Thomas A Clark, Harriet Tarlo and Maggie O’ Sullivan. These contemporary voices gave me the impetus to return to the peripheries and to explore the intimate relations of place, radicalising the loci and gifting substance to hope; albeit with a matrix of clause, poetry became making, sited, as a beautiful yet complex prosodic life.

Notes:


[1] Peter Larkin, What the Surfaces Enclave of Wang Wei, (The Gig, 2004).

[2] Eve Ingalls, “Landscape at the Edge of the Body,” artist’s statement of 1996.

[3] Maurice Merleau-Ponty, ‘Eye and Mind’, in Basic writings, edited by Thomas Baldwin (Routledge, 2004), p. 311.

[4] Maurice Merleau-Ponty, ‘The Spatiality of One’s Own Body and Motility’. ibid 109.

[5] Peter Larkin, ‘Seek Source Bid Sink’, in Terrain Seed Scarcity, (Salt Publishing, 2001), p.44.

[6] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), p. 77.

[7] Peter Larkin, ‘Three Forest Conformities’, ibid. P.62.

[8] Edward S. Casey, ‘Concluding Reflections’ in Earth-Mapping,(University of Minnesota Press, 2005), p. 93

[9] William Wordsworth, ‘Lines left upon a seat in a Yew-tree’, in The Major Works, (Oxford World Classics 2000), p. 29.

[10] Peter Larkin, ‘Three Forest Conformities’, ibid. P. 68

[11] Peter Larkin, ‘Landscape with Figures Afield’, ibid. P.146

[12] Suzanne Raitt, ‘The Rhetoric of Efficiency in Early Modernism,’ Modernism/modernity, vol. 3,

No 1(2006), p.835

[13] Peter Larkin ‘Three Forest Conformities’, ibid. P. 57

[14] John Kinsella, ‘Vermin: A Notebook’, available online at: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/journal/article.html?id=238296

[15] Peter Larkin ‘Scarcely on the way: The starkness of things in sacral space’, available online at: http://intercapillaryspace.blogspot.com/2010/03/scarcely-on-way-starkness-of-things-in.html

[16] Peter Larkin ‘Parallels Plantations Apart’, ibid. P. 113

[17] Edward S. Casey, ibid. P.165.

[18] Peter Larkin, ‘5: Leaves Field Horizon’ in Leaves of Field, (Shearsman Books, 2006.), p.51

[19] Jonathan Skinner, ‘Poetries of the Third Landscape’ in, (eco(lang) (uage (reader) ed. Brenda Iijima (portable press at yo-yo labs / Nightboat books, 2010),

[20] Peter Larkin, Preface to ‘Whitefield in Wild Wheel’, in Terrain Seed Scarcity, (Salt, 2001), p. 153

[21] Peter Larkin, ‘Rings Resting The Circuit’, (The Gig, 2004) poem 13.

[22] Laura (Riding) Jackson, ‘Poet: A Lying Word’, in The Poems of Laura Riding, (Carcanet, 1980),

p. 216

[23] I have avoided the use of ‘eco’ here as a taxonomic prefix to the poetic, as I’m not entirely comfortable with it. Although ‘landscape’ and ‘Pastoral’ are contestable terms, their very mutability and adaptability offers some service of relation, I think, to the reader.

Posted in ESSAYS, FEATURES | Tagged ,

Excerpts from ‘Brushwood by Inflection’

Note: The ‘inflection point’ on a branch is where the direction of curve outwards changes to the direction of curve upwards, and is usually a play-off between elastic bending and thickening growth. A branch bends continuously even while it thickens and as such the shape of a branch can be seen as a function of time. But any break-off from that branch provokes a compunction of space across a strewnness which wrangles with its proneness before horizon. So, ‘inflection’ in these texts has a more speculative association, not so much with permanent deformation, as with that brushwood matting which surrounds trees or edges out beyond their line. After the break from main branch comes a further twist towards these given-aways’ sense of gift amid a heaping-up of separation. Now tree becomes the agent for which branch appears the source and brush is the locus.

 

 

1

Given brushwood isn’t code for a wrenched thing lying across origin but the inflection of it is forescatter where the young of the year are broken in advance of the trees’ own persistence a cob of green cud spat out by the trees’ specialism to vacate shoulder but recast the forks of surface extending bent matter to the neck of horizon

where roots creep to their edge quota, brush has swept past bed to lie out on jammed marginal rota

any scattering of timber ends in this break perfectly ramified : nothing pans out unless along what little of itself could sift within the collapse-complexion

with breach off-tree

even more world-weight

crutched on sur-

face to margin

For brushwood doubt is not the crackle of itself but what flicker there is in such brittle abandonment’s spite of intricate granting a girdling gives meta-closure, or more openly inflects what brash has bristled from mesh – the fibre of distribution no longer a hollow of the intervals themselves

push from forest

to brushwood,

horizontal graze

bunchwards

Where brushwood trips at faltered roots to re-abrupt them, fold in juxtaposition what is the brittle turn to origin ahead of fuelled despairs mimicking fluent repairs

laid over beds of reliance, reaching for the hatchings’ more shareable (castable) compliance inflected gamut of a terseness earlier than alien, rough intractives on a planet surge to brushwood

where adjacent segments of tree meet their inflection points, their bitter parts waving out the scatter at an horizonal confluence

infinite seriality

lopped rigid

in devotion to a

singled inflect-

ion of gift

traceway through

brushwood beat

of the tread

These deferred tree-limbs inspect the path, smaller ressuscitants in degree of drop with the bind of inflection stay ceased throughout the straying: a spray of unbudded but deep-seated co-emption bare with deserved array towards the horizon’s plain

in binding the evolute of a curve to the given, crossed by the perched sticks of separation respects slightness in any replete defeated choice, the bend itself reseated

what can be screened from floor to be granted at the snick of a broken finger which a detached hand gets to fan out reattaches at full extent only as this joint circumvents its precise severance part

glisters in inflected

quiet of woods

after the break

with crash

the outmapped

lay nestling

in the inflicted

Any exhausted root thin to be codified (re-shed): inflectional stratum wrinkles retrenchment slung post-extant pales of brush no longer billeted on earth shornface but go counter-depleting where cannot be inversely lopped, ie regress to parent stem is the longest offspring weald across the grain of origin

brushwood lacks its own climate envelope, apart from inflection never strains for a saturation by horizon in bunch depletion remains the very sparsity schedule of outreach

benched within the disparate affix-risk of gift, connections not ill-torn but embossed on fallen place to last out (as first fallers) the vertical tides they are tossed from

sword of brush under

broad curve, cure of

branch offset by

cut to branch

The vine round the knotted root sketches a brushwood of outcome, at the dishevelment of origin, pushed over penetrable core at the strike off sapling springy brush laid out to the wire, jutted breast of the depredation such slights are parallel in heap laid out of, weathers of the not were corrosive enough for no veering more than origin

a forest of poor relations but in brushwood stamp of crabby retention: buffer the encroach of a nakedness unable to crouch enough as trunk is to branch so brush is to the contra-fill off aperture, as goes with it stored wary to horizon lacking brush trees could never have unlatched such shutters, just these hit the horizontal plate as traduction let sprawl

tempestible, splinter-

towering, most impassable

but at a shoulder

of smeared clearing

as wedge cast from root

cages margins of the un-

vacancy to within de-

grees of lashwood

Avenues of the dislocation projectively harbour their cross-over, its strewnness a sharper stare than neutral severance alone, scarcer at spread than living the staple to root horizon winded on this faggot hillock aspires no second wound

each angle out of hold now pervious accelerative lattice, the estrangement hollow with after-tangle of inflective array fed to a bundle minus compression, detaches from root but awarded the creep-margin that relies on dis-upright the chips anti-rotate off rendered trees or stand in for a cheaper scurf of the ramification

dissipative reduct-

ion let substrate-

refill be for

brushwood export

Thickly laid over with a new scarcity’s post-quickness as at any finding mean of overgrowth this bides the eventual scene of hold traps exuding brushwood until let go again as the tree of it, dries out a ceiling to the tips a debris of requital protrudes from frame and puts the rap on horizon

rest the decrease poaching brushwood for tracking what re-accustom it rakes to the least fringe at horizon’s edge raggedly severed into lurch of pretext, forward repose leans long into new taperings of dependence: a good-enough soil made scanty ventricle where a mesh-haul of intersecting sticks sucks the pump

limbed for its

barebounds, the tree’s

closely unsprained

fine losings,

indurable sphere

stepped to lending

A brushwood thicket lashed to the open, not taken aback once out of hiding but braced separably for inflection cut universally falls to local devices, the scatter is neat horizon parabolic severed from tube just what intact ramification can’t disuse for cleaving post-jointed by the primary detour of mercy

left packed at site unelbowing until it comes to relay severed joints on junctionless surfaces incommensurate sweep-over tailed by horizon, reproved for terrain but not removed from recoil, the detraction undespoiled in just such a carve across swerve

cover the cleared area while shipping brush off deserted trees, anchorless in vessel to connect the sag in capsized root

scrunted but slouchless

no scrub brushwood but

rubs out from high tree

backwardly out to

acting wrist, each eye-

let rays unmisted

between branch-querk

Ungraded divergence one sole series thing far off at nearest severance to horizon taskable surface ventilates an architectonic of trees in belt as if they couldn’t be paltry enough to thread their belongings on the lateral

radiant cavities cross soils as they build to burrows of twig above it, extrapolate plenitude full in the way of micro-desertions brushed onto reincursion as the obstruct is (a gift at hand) to the claw of torn from root

dark wood’s shortcut to a comparison of ground now such obstacles inflecting less sorely over the same split unseamed, it crashes beyond the rush of it but doesn’t gutter the litter

the part played by trees in separatives of integral way: slighting the scattered chink means stitches mis-sweeping repart the open as at any treeless place, exactitude in ex-branch no longer severely spindling the ground

the crack into one

another’s inflected

postfix of arrival

primed clear of its

rammed facets, what

the ramific spares

Time in joints dejects weak numbers until frailed in brushwood, the whole is claimant about dismembering, a disjunction thrown on the lay-it-from with time for assarts of a world seen from across real extra-inherence on this rootless spur of flightlessness: a meta-order of discharging branch splays for a co-variant of the rooted snag itself

extent of displacement serves as nearness index for the commoning brushed into, dry reeds of horizon: this feature detaches extent but not an outbed bent forwards of the exposure: brushwood is source splay even before its own torso-replay

among the abraded

verticals, what gives

horizon its saltings

arid stir of root

the untying tries for a

woundless rent in horizon

Inflect this second element in surprise horizon: the filigree catastrophe lies wadged before a non-collider beckoning the sprigs of origin blaze off that fork minus handle at its unscorched scar across, bare particulars of forward radiant desertion whose highlights cluster in dissimmersion

unspasmic elan, the leap there is in ramification bridging itself for severed a shiver darting at horizon’s congestion concessionally arrived brusque new mapping in circuit sashes, the lattice of main-tree bereaves field across the lace of nearest dependent shedding, debris tellingly most outlying

brushwood a new door

to old branches

beaten at the threshold

resurges horizon

at once abjection

off tree filament

Grazing barrenness over ruck yet to be closely scarred this way, dropping fineals pluck a disconnection ample enough to be as pliant before the scratch of origin

fledged that the stake-chafer stalked to survival, this most peripheral commission unflattens revival committal to grist impossible to backstring on core tree without expelling the needle-tip just where extreme ramification is ready to mend at jib

our vanguard thrusting itself no further fear than open spires of landing outside the height

strike longwards toss,

bend tip abroad of

the lacks of approach

Precept learnt at a yard of waste brushed by unexpended tips against hard horizon the crushing had already taken place at the gift from root: drift never supinely subsequent once taken for inflection: the sense in which brushwood cast is more internal to trees than own lame root

no mean inlay, how same-side tree radial went out to recombine without distributing its access more hollowly than: awaiting a bind at outspread itself

this divestment is openness throughout quanta of the given-to by adhesion in site of dropdown: that embrittlement will disseminate horizon pre-eschewed comes to ramified flesh what can no longer be found amid vein of tree, new porches elapse to grazing the zone before horizon

cathected from tree

do it well to inflect

harrassed flailings

of gift

lost from the bays of

tree but won for

exploded graft

before origin

Posted in FEATURES, POETRY | Tagged ,

Matthew Hall Interviews Peter Larkin


Image from Veer Books readings at the SPF 2012

Matthew Hall: Peter, as you came to writing poetry later in life than most contemporary poets, could you explain your interest in French philosophy and what impact this interest may have had on your poetic development?

Peter Larkin: I wrote some poetry before University but still thought I was a fiction writer until I’d completed one long and unpublishable novel in which very little happened (though a privately printed copy found its way into the Cambridge UL!). Interlude material for a second novel turned into my first published poem, Enclosures, but the prose traces very much remain. I’d already had an interest in the French Nouveau Roman and then discovered Derrida whom I thought was the most challenging philosopher around who couldn’t be easily ignored though I felt he was against my own instinctive grain in many ways. In the event it was Geoffrey Hartman’s swerve across Derrida that influenced me more because of the common reference point in landscape and Wordsworth. I started reading Derrida again at the time of his later work, particularly around the period of his engagement with Richard Kearney. Strangely, I didn’t read so much Merleau-Ponty until just a few years ago when some of the post-structuralist waves had settled and he was defiantly looming above the swell, though I did read quite a lot of Ricoeur throughout my ambivalent preoccupation with Derrida. All this made my own work doubly contorted, as I was relishing a post-structuralist rhetorical density but trying to get it to mutate towards more pacifically speculative or contemplative realms. Even more recently, the French writers like Marion, Chretien and Henry associated with the ‘theological turn’ within phenomenology have been a big influence, even a sort of confirmation to my own parallel but more submerged course.

MH: What, in your opinion have been some of the benefits of working as a lecturer and as the Literature Librarian at The University of Warwick in the development of your own singular poetic?

PL: The only teaching I regularly do is in IT and research methods, but I have taken part in seminars in the Centre for Research in Philosophy, Literature & the Arts over many years, and I have also learnt a lot from being the subject librarian for this area. Being at Warwick has exposed me to many currents, poetic, politico-ecological and theological and it has enabled me to build up stock in these areas and gain some acquaintance with the material as I do so. Not being an academic teacher has kept my mind freer for my own projects and in that way I have found it helpful to be a small fish in a big pond. My elaborated style must owe something to having dipped into hundreds of books, prefaces, chapters or conclusions over the years. I keep a notebook for anything that catches my eye.

MH: For those readers who do not know about the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Poetry versus Cambridge (or more broadly, European) divide, I was hoping you could address your own, what I see as uniquely identifiable ability to straddle both schools of contemporary poetry. You seem to have managed to find a place in the two most major English-language poetry developments in the past decades. May I ask how you see your own placement alongside these schools, and the development of your poetic as involved with, or removed from, the movement of these two groups.

PL: I’ve never tried actively to traverse the LANGPO-Cambridge divide and any sort of ‘place’ I might have in either is fairly low-key. Neither grouping has been exemplary for me in terms of practice but I have been considerably indebted to them both, particularly Coolidge, Andrews and Bernstein on the one side and Prynne, Riley, Crozier, Barnett and Wilkinson on the other. In addition, a number of North American women poets like Hejinian, Robertson and Wollsak and the two Howes have meant a lot to me. This has intensified my penchant for ‘riff’ type material and also to subjecting it to a complex or overlapping micro-syntax which slows it down and gives it a new obstinate weight, which in my case also extends to the use of internal rhyme or half-rhyme, particularly at the prosier moments. In terms of any poetic of my own, my ecological and ontological preoccupations have always demanded to come first and only after that has any more exact strategy emerged, so the influences above have become rather distorted or thinned out.

MH: Could you expand on this issue of your use of the material, from Wollsak’s and Robertson’s poetic, for example?

PL: Robertson’s The Weather (mostly written in Cambridge) has meant a lot to me with its elaborated prose refrains, and also Wollsak’s Pen Chants and especially An Heuristic Prolusion with its filigree inventiveness but underlying intensity of vision. I’ve not directly reworked any of this material into my own texts but my own writing has echoed and sounded its way across some of it. Often the material I rework or slide over in terms of generating a slippage in the phonemes to transplant invisible near-rhymes is overtly more distant from my interests or more often not poetry at all.

MH: Could you address your own change in approach as it has moved from Enclosures, or Wang Wei, to your work in the development of Roots Surfacing Horizon and now in the writing of Brushwood by Inflection? How has your approach to the work changed in the last decade?

PL: Enclosures had a very exact sense of terrain subsequently subjected to a number of speculative revisions or recodings in terms of how one might ‘read’ such places without losing their sensory immediacy. The Wang Wei versions were in some ways a side-line but allowed me to discover whether they could find their own way back to some of my main preoccupations by setting up deliberate limitations in the way of my usual means of working (‘Spirit of the Trees’ was put together with a similar concern for arbitrary impediments). My more recent work hasn’t changed in any radical way (and I like the idea that earlier threads might resurface at any moment) but the form has tended to settle into short prose clusters with verse tail-pieces (though sometimes these latter are absent). I find that a good working template rather than it being a deliberate aesthetic as such. The single more fundamental modification has been that, where I used to sometimes add a prefatory essay to a text, more recently I have incorporated that sort of ancillary material as a section within the poetry itself. This began with At Wall with the Approach of Trees where I literally reworked notebook material into five page-long paragraphs and called the section ‘Inflections’. I did something similar with Roots Surfacing Horizon which has a section in continuous unparagraphed prose and I am now working on a sequence called ‘Brushwood by Inflection’ which also has an unbroken prose section with broad margins where the material is deliberately more ‘secondary’ or discursive (though that does now have a very brief preface as well!). I had forgotten my earlier use of the term ‘inflections’ but it does indicate a move to a relatively more reflective or abstract type of writing which asks the reader to share a particular taking-off point, though I now want to run this as close to the ‘thick’ textuality of the poetry as possible.

MH: I was recently reading Gustaf Sobin’s Luminous Debris and came across the following quotation:

It is not every day that we realize we’re allowed to gaze into the contours of absence, into the specific proportions, dimensions, properties that absence, under a given set of conditions, has assumed. Is memory any different? Aren’t we continually running over the imprint, the deeply scored outline of vanished experience, attempting to read – in counterpoint – the plenitude of so many irrecuperable events, reading here what is eternally there?

These lines instantly brought to mind Sobin’s parallels with Merleau-Ponty’s The Visible and the Invisible, both of which I see having strong inflections (if I may so use the word) in your poetic and I was hoping you could speak to the influence of Merleau-Ponty, as well as Sobin, in your work.

Posted in INTERVIEWS | Tagged ,

Introducing Peter Larkin

This interview began on a midday walk along the Coventry and Warwick borders in England’s temperate May and was concluded over the course of these past months. My own visit to Warwick was a delight, though suffering from the travails of long distant travel and foreign flu bugs, it was a long awaited and much anticipated trip.

It had been years since I had first come across a reference to Peter’s work, in John Kinsella’s Disclosed Poetics, and with what little material I could scrounge up, I was hooked. The tightly wound lines and the phrasings and rephrasings had an eloquence and lyrical quality that was entirely unexpected from such sharply attenuated sentences; it was unlike anything I had encountered before.

And so I quickly made my way through Leaves of Field and Terrain Seed Scarcity. Both books strike that tenuous balance between difficulty and reward, instilling in the reader a great sense of accomplishment, and leaving with them a distinct notion of the distance travelled.

To my delight, and profound confusion, one morning there was a message in my inbox from Peter Larkin. Peter contacted me after reading my poem ‘a continuous plain’, which was published in Cordite’s Pastoral issue, edited by Stuart Cooke, and which quotes a line of his: ‘true scarcity of no trespass.’

My interest in and appreciation for Larkin’s work has only heightened since my first introduction and my poetry would be much less interesting without these mined sources, and without his work as a profound inspiration. Peter and I have had an ongoing correspondence and poetic exchange in which, I will be the first to admit, I have learned an incredible amount. I have been very much in awe of his use of language and the breadth of his knowledge and remain very much indebted to him for his continued interest in and support of my own pastoral poetry.

I hope that this interview serves as a good introduction to those new to Larkin’s work, and will provide some new concepts for the reading of his work for those already familiar with it. It is also with great pleasure to present an excerpt from Larkin’s newest work, Brushwood by Inflection.

In addition, Cordite is pleased to have another great British poet, Mark Dickinson, provide us with an essay on Larkin’s work, as well as one of his own poems; a poem which speak to the influence Peter Larkin has had on the development of Mark’s poetic, an inspiration we at Cordite hope to share with all of you.

Posted in ESSAYS | Tagged , ,

Not Some Racist

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/02-Not-Some-Racist.mp3|titles=Not Some Racist]
Not Some Racist (1:57)
Words: Paul Mitchell | Music: Bill Buttler

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged ,

a text tale

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/a-text-tale.mp3|titles=a text tale]

a text tale (3:58)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged

‘Paradise’ (with Zimmer)

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/ladygabyandzimmerparadisefasterversion.mp3|titles=Audio by Lady Gaby and Zimmer]

‘Paradise’ (with Zimmer) (3:40)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged

All We Wanted / Free Information Poem

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/Jorja-Free-Information-Poem.mp3|titles=Jorja Free Information Poem]

All We Wanted / Free Information Poem (3:36)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged

A Night on the Town

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/A-Night-on-the-Town.mp3|titles=A Night on the Town]

A Night on the Town (1:25)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged

Creative Commons: Bastion for Utopia or Just More Creative Culture Juju?

[audio:http://cordite.org.au/audio/cordite33creativecommonsyarranjenkins.mp3|titles=Audio by Yarran Jenkins]

Creative Commons: Bastion for Utopia or Just More Creative Culture Juju? (4:31)

Posted in 40: CREATIVE COMMONS | Tagged