Monday, October 24, 2016

Platero y yo and I

I dreamt furniture here and there on the field, stray like constellations. It might have been that same morning I woke up with my ideas for a short study of Virgil and My Antonia to relate to the I am a Town poetry workshop, which is like what Virgil did for Rome and what Tolkien initially intended doing for England, and also like what I would do with the neighborhood, much as Joyce and Proust and Garcia Marquez have done for theirs--and why are they so lauded and largely unread except by professors, while Tolkien is widely read and derided by supposedly serious scholars? The stuck-up gatekeepers--that same argument Olsen pointed out in the intro to the Fairy Course was employed by the Guardian culture columnist in his dismissal of Pratchett, and probably a good place to start the Discworld course as any. To say a book or a writer is bad in the same breath as saying you haven't bothered to read them. About time to start taking notes, too, even if you won’t make a proper start to recording and all till having read all the books again, if ever! So that’s high on the docket. But I thought this piece on Virgil ought to have some input from James and Matt and Caley, and then for My Antonia of course James and Ed Denny must say their piece again, and maybe Eli or Lea. So then I thought, why not make it all a conversation in recordings? So this goes up there, too, with talking to Elliot and Michael, the monks.


Connected with one or both or all these things, then, is a brief review of Amadeus, another in this series of responses to works well-known in their way but obscure as far as timeliness goes, totally out of the loop. But it does seem like there is something interesting about the portrayal of court composer Salieri and Mozart, the pathos of both, their ridiculousness, their mediocrity (in art and in life) and their sublimity (as musical genius and patron of mediocrity, respectively)--something which captures the weighty mantle the artist comes to bear in the West, which has finally made all greatness suspect, if not quite sunk. But which in turn allows the ridiculous--Sir Terry rises again--to be recognized as wonderful and profound in its own right. And I thought Dr Fimi might have missed this in her dichotomy, with its neat space for Tolkien in the middle way: placing Joyce and Dada on the same pole, way over on art, seemed to ignore how fundamentally playful they were, and not only pretentious. Besides, they are communicating that playfulness itself, something which can only be communicated in just that artful a way, as is the case with all good poetry.


And last for now but not least, this question posed on Ben Tansey’s facebook about the five books you’d recommend someone you considered intelligent yet disagreed with on almost everything, so as to represent your worldview--something like this--and I replied briefly with my five, but would have liked to say much more. I said The Golden Compass (audio, preferably, I think), The Little Prince, Platero and I, Chekhov’s story of Easter Night, and the Winter’s Tale. Or else maybe whatever five books I’d read most recently. And that it was a great question, well-formulated.


A kind of instructive case for thinking about what makes a good question, in fact, with the contextualizing carried within it, the hypothetical meeting up against the actual, the way it requires something limited yet which must be the token of much more behind it, the way it gets at what shapes you and your most generous and judgmental of perceptions, of what accounts for the limits within which and language with which you read the world, your assumptions about intelligence, your interest in disagreement, your desire to be understood and share in someone else’s or many other people’s thoughts on these topics.


As for the books, if we may move away from the question and its ramifications awhile: maybe no reading experience has had such a profound impact on me as that of picking up Platero y yo, in excerpted form with the Chosen Pages of Juan Ramon, browsing one day in the Miller Library, and reading those first few chapters, first few lines--the way their music enchanted me while much of the meaning escaped, just how Pullman speaks of encountering Paradise Lost in the reading aloud of his wonderful teacher Enid Jones, so that what was imprinted most was a sketchy track toward an irrecoverable mystery on a thread of intelligibility, spurred by desire, and content to wander. Hardly read all the words in this book still, much less deeply analyzed it, yet it remains my dearest treasure for that experience, blending with the travels and perspectives and people it’s led me to since, via the Spanish language. Sparing me from a fate as a mediocre English professor lost in the PhD milieu, or writing very ordinary but markedly pretentious novels, or both. For all that part of me wishes I could have gone that route, too, and had a Dr by my name already and publications which someone, if only the editor of the periodical, had read with a modicum of interest.


The other maybe unlikely choice there, Chekhov’s Easter Eve or however it should be translated, eked out the place over Dubliners for a similar reason, because of how little I really know the story, but how fond I am of regarding it as the promise of a whole world of stories I may or may not ever read, but love all the same. I’d have to study Russian for years, I know, to have any chance--and German, Latin, and Greek still would probably come first, a year or two each, at minimum, intervening, then--a whole possible life again, very plausibly overlapping with the PhD route, also evidently not wholly abandoned yet among my castoff ambitions, aimless pursuits of happiness inherited from others’ imagined worlds. Consider the way the story matches Bede;s account of Caedmon, for instance, or the image of the ferryman juxtaposed with the communal resurrection of Easter light. And how the Folio Society copy is so different from that chance pulling of the tattered Paginas edition off the shelf, and how reading it in your bedroom was placing it squarely within the privileged realm of what you new must be good, and how in your own hours spent writing you strove so consciously to gain admittance there yourself, that what you wrote, things like the video game philosophy, the lego-based video game, the story of old folks in the garden, and the various abortive versions of the beach or the wolf or the penguin, those elaborations of visions complete in themselves, yet longing to give them narrative flesh and bone, or poetic music or plastic form--they couldn’t help but fall flat, woefully short, and yet hope springs eternal--they could still be salvageable all the same! Your open letter to the city workers at Duval Park imitating Tristram Shandy, your imaginary love letters to girls you were too timid to talk to, formed of immature readings of Shakespeare, Joyce, and Proust, in short, reading and agonizing over writing when you were much better off going out. But still a kind of foundation was laid there, perhaps, and you’ll yet have your cakes and ale and eat and drink them, too!


For this optimistic track, then, over Joyce’s ineffable paralysis, I hold up this story, but a word must be said about that compound of activity and potential which Dubliners in turn represents. Like it or not, this has characterized me most of my life: early addicted to the allure of reading, aficionado of its fascinations in adolescence, precocious but not diligent or dedicated enough in college perhaps, and in adulthood still not resigned--because to truly dedicate yourself to reading and writing you’d say is to forego further Spains, further Uruguays, for something like Phoenix--drudgery, however rewarding, in a place that may as well be no place for all you can appreciate it, and on top of that instead of friends, cut-throat competitors visible and unseen, submitting their work, their wicked critiques, withering insights and knife-wielding words--and to commit all to proving you can compete on that grounds--so Annapolis without friends or prospects again. Trying to recapture that total entregment of oneself a child has reading, as Pullman describes, and as you experienced in the The Golden Compass, in its sequels, too, and knowing now what you are going to be missing in so doing. Hence the paralysis; a long-winded word it was.


Instead, you’d want Spokane to be a better Boston, an outgrowth of home, natural and unforced, taking its own time. With a Winter’s Tale choice, there’s quite a lot at stake. The thought process there, after all: have to have something by Shakespeare, only not one of the tragedies, so Antony and Cleopatra is out; well, then which one will be a little more original? so not Twelfth Night of the Tempest or As You Like It--oh yeah, there’s some lines in The Winter’s Tale I loved at first sight! Better be that one. And from that summer when I read everything by Shakespeare except King John and Henry VIII--which I still haven’t got around to yet--these passages of the so-called romance are what stay with me the most now and what most transported me then, before I’d had the full bardolatry treatment from academics, but already knew of him that he was a writer beyond any other, in himself a kind of Bible, a Renaissance Homer, given the Borges story. Normally in questions like this you set Shakespeare and the Bible aside, as if taking it for granted that anyone would already have read or be expecting to read them anyway, but I wonder if instead a favorite play and book from each should be required. For me, it is The Winter’s Tale and the gospel of John. There is that stage direction exit, pursued by Bear, which I think Chekhov remarks upon somewhere; the thief-trickster character; the simile of the wave on the sea; and of course the surprising resurrection: “she’s warm!” Maybe this is how I wish I could write more than anything, with assured realism and miracle, fantastic scoffing at conventional styles, thoughts, inventiveness at the level of characters’ expression while adapting to new purposes old materials. And of course, providing the reader or playgoer with infinite and endless possible readings, the Globe the whole world, and also the world outside it seen anew. This is to paraphrase Montaigne’s “wavelike and diverse”; to acknowledge that with Shakespeare one also accepts the world of scholarship, the intertwinings of the great books and the labors of countless people to make a living by reading them, and occasionally managing to get someone else to listen to their ideas about them: as for me Barzun was so revelatory, pointing out this passage in Montaigne, and all the editors of the Bard, particularly Johnson and Bloom, conspire to make his infiniteness both comprehensible and even more multidimensionally wondrous still by the acumen oozing from their claims.


I wonder if that’s enough said about all this for now, and I should pass to the LIttle Prince. In one of my many efforts at more systematic disciplined study, I started with St-Exupery’s short novels and intended to read everything I could of his and better internalize him so as to be able to really read Terre des Hommes and Le Petit Prince, which occupy a similar place for me, and have a story similar to Platero’s, only in this case I had heard of the author before. His life impinges so much on the book that we are tempted ot give up the distinction between living and reading which has given us so much angst, if only a fully enreadened life could retain the eternal mystery of the word--incarnation. After all, the author was shot down in the war and yet lives on, even once they finally found the wreckage of his plane. In the relationships to his words, he lives on even more surely with us than in the uncertainty of his impossible escape by parachute, or by flock of birds. No more beautiful reading experience exists for me, too, than the internal relationship here between the words and pictures--the possible exceptions crowding fast being the Moomins, or, in a different direction, the Studio Ghibli movies, or Earthbound. His nostalgia for learning to draw, and his theory of right interpretation depending on purity of listening and questioning of the sort manifested in the child in the desert, tell us how to read without telling us what anything means. A picture is a kind of definition, or at least a connotation, giving to the language of the story its internal richness, and again, in this case, an extra feeling for what has been lost, and how far it can be recaptured, and thus also something more that is gained.


Philip Pullman also has made drawings for his books, and probably for the plays he wrote for the schools where he worked. It would be interesting if he ever recorded his recitations of the myths or any of his lecture material from the college where he taught, or said more about workshop practices with his writing students, but there are some indications there, anyhow, of what his apprenticeship consisted in. As the pilot has the Prince to talk to, as Lyra has Pan, so we have our stories to write to: imaginary friends who are nevertheless real. This is reduplicated again in the Prince’s story of the Rose and the Fox. Surely there is some shiny bit of story there to incorporate? The brittle and ostentatious Rose is also Dante’s celestial Rose, after all, in the way that religion is made trite, and even evil in Pullman’s world, but its beauty and its protectiveness of love and of its thorns, too, to the point of worshipping it, reifying it or personifying it, is indisputably there in the background of all these books. The flights we contrive for ourselves by our science and technology are apt to fail at any time and throw us back on this older humanism--we are continually relearning the same old stories, (do the Redoubt need teachers, or shoot us on sight?)  making of ourselves meaning, as the fox among foxes and the child among mankind and the Rose among the gardens.


Then there is the Golden Compass: it’s fall again, so the time is right to revisit, reread or relisten to some of it. What better book to take for emulation during nanowrimo? It taught me to love stories for more than the contentment of being absorbed in them, that delight in exploring worlds and internalizing them that video games also offered in their visceral way. It gave me the sense for the story’s transmission of some truth too embodied to be communicated in any other way--a sense of the poetry of stories, of their mythic quality, and the great significance for real life of questioning and investigating these truths that were embodied all around and I hadn’t known it. In the process, I was drawn to the craft of telling stories in a more conscious way, and set about all these projects in earnest which occupy me to this day. Some of them, no doubt, could reasonably be converted to short children’s fictions or plays for voices, stubs of games and sketches of comics on the chalkboard with the narration and accompanying music read over the drawings. The dream of total art, the incorporation of more sorts of concealing and revealing clothing for more sorts of truths of innocence and experience, the desire to be a renaissance man of music and drawing, as well as a poet and storyteller and memoirist whose life would be worth telling about, as well as a scholar of recondite sources in von Kleist and Blake and the King James Bible--in short, the dream of total life, the stakes of which were coming clearer, the cost of failing in attempting some of all this and the intimations of the way to recovery in continual practice with words--I had the feeling all this belonged to me.

Now, because Pullman is so adamant about the storyteller not telling anyone how the book is supposed to be read, I was seduced by any statements which he did divulge, and by his polemical arguments, but never so much that i ignored the hints laid down in the stories themselves pointing to how they would like to be read. For all that Pullman professed his democratic agnosticism once the book was in readers’ hands, he maintained his right to be a tyrant in the shed in the yard where he wrote, religiously, his three pages a day. The virtues of lying and pride, of passion and intelligence, are painted in the story as vividly as Northern Lights, but the particles of Dust that manifest in this way are still loyalty, friendship, courage, love, and the yearning for truth is haunted by theology, made beautiful and terrible by the old paradox: the truth incarnate, the word.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Response to Between the World and Me

Some days without reading in the afternoons, and then yesterday with the afternoon off reading practically all of Between the World and Me in one sitting. It would be good to talk it over with Anthony and Joe, to imitate it or respond to it on the part of the Dreamers laid so low throughout, to look up the context of Toni Morrison’s high praise, the voting proceedings of the National Book Award critic-judges, and certainly to compare it to Gilead’s fictional letter to a son from a father.

Maybe the most interesting aspect of the whole thing is its insistence on the body being all there is, and the struggle for it the only certain meaning. Such has been the author’s experience, bereft of God and peace or trust outside a narrow Mecca, and the materialist worldview underlies the unstinting refining of the question of the purpose of the struggle whose answer consistently comes back in those same terms. Call and response. In turn, as a positive tenet, the beautiful vulnerability of the body fuels Coates’ unquiet critique of nonviolent heroes and scorn for the idolized Dream.

Perhaps the only thing subjected to harsher treatment still is the apparatus of the state itself, the aims of the police and the schools, the pitiful resistance of the street, in all of which the body is already forfeit, and with it, of course, any personal responsibility, subsumed under the unstoppable historic process of plunder.

The book ends with a brief interview with the mother of a friend killed by police and prophetic warnings that even her strength and forgiveness, the whole tradition of black personhood she represents, is fast dying out, and that it would be powerless, anyhow, in the face of the self-destructive arc towards chaotic possessiveness that is the truth at the core of the Dream she and her heroes kept believing in, even if it was only enjoyed elsewhere, through the impermeable media of screens, by ignorant actors with white skins. The final image is the forceful embodiment of wasted potential, South Side projects rising through the rain, but also a possible ark in the swelling flood of environmental catastrophe brought on by a lifestyle in pursuit of an impossible Dream.

How this incontestably gloomy vision is supposed to coexist with the joy shining out in the depths of that ark, leaping up in moments of study in the Howard library, or on the green, or with the trips to Paris, full of unforeseen new vistas on life--all this is evidently reducible to the body, too. It does look suspiciously like the intimations of some vaster and more mysterious spirit; it comes close to collapsing the mental walls around the Dream as tinted by the television box, if we just take that further logical step of conceding that those conjugations in French class did have some purpose outside the confines of the present struggle, and that it wasn’t simply to constrain young curiosity. It would require supposing that the joy Coates felt in France, free from the crushing oppression of history and fear for his life, is just the same as the uninhibited joys of people anywhere who can forget for awhile to feel that weight and that danger--including the worshipers in any church, or the sleepwalkers or Skywalkers in any suburb. It would demand the acknowledgement of the West as being full of Tolstoys of all backgrounds, languages, and outlooks; insofar as the West means anything at all, it means that Tolstoy is as manifold as his readers; and there may be something to struggle for to preserve that freedom and security to read from attacks from outside the West as well as from within its precinct houses and illiterate classrooms, and the two threats might well be quite different in kind, so that to conflate them under the catchall Terrorism is quite mendacious, or at least shortsighted.

That there is something other than a body and greater than anybody because more enduring and life-giving than a body, namely the word, but that it means something precisely because it is embodied. Otherwise we’re just neglecting the water for the vessel, solipsists and egoists, in prison-houses of our own making, waiting empty on a shelf. But long may this vessel be full! Long may this book be taken down and read!

In a related vein, there was the training in the morning, dealing with restorative dialogue with students and coherence of instruction around critical reading skills--a roomful of white teachers, paid by the state to teach the whole range of children living in some of the poorest zip codes in it. So is it true, as Coates maintains, that the intention of the teacher means nothing, and all that counts is the difference of bodies and perceptions, or does some spark pass through the words spoken and the unspoken spirit of love, trust, and desire for freedom, through learning, from one person to another, perhaps outside of the control of either, but manifest in both results and intentions? It seems like an open question, but answering it one way permits us to keep on working, while the other is a form of the dilemma that accounts for so many suicides, senseless rampages, and other nihilistic acts among precisely the privileged, or the ignorant majority, at least.

It is too easy to suppose that only the disadvantaged or minority has access to deep thinking about some state of affairs that affects everyone, thanks to their conscious, pervasive experience of the struggle giving their embattled lives meaning. To me it has always seemed obvious that there would be something so desirable about that kind of life as to make up for any amount of hardship, to have access to those truths firsthand, and not only ever reading about them, not unlike wishing to fall in love though knowing in a sense that it would bring some pains with it. So rather than Aragorns I would say we are Raskolnikovs, this generation of hipsters and readers, seeking something that we know and don’t know, and that that pain of dissonance and seeking for meaning is real, and that it does also provide some meaning of its own, insofar as any struggle in itself does.

I don’t think this is hairsplitting too much, but that in going to work in Boston I was doing something analogous to what Coates does in travelling to Paris: seeing things from the other side. And it is what reading and learning helps to transmit, this desire for authentic experience of whatever kind. That this is embodied, for us, yet transcends the body. That we know it as a kind of experience and relationship, but what it is in itself, who’s to say? And who is to circumscribe the limits of the kinds of bodies who have access to it? That is simply dogma via ressentiment, cutting against Coates’ own professed and seemingly sincere devotion to open inquiry.

Now these workshops on restorative dialogue open up one other chasm that needs crossing, which is what the kids for whom it does not work fall into. What is going on with them, with our relationship to them? Isn’t force still the thinly veiled recourse then, if respect is not possible to piece together--the old promise, the old authority, still in effect at bottom, for all our efforts to cobble together some new contract, some more aspirational promise? And is it doing these kids, the ones who have not learned to trust words and refuse to, any favors to lead them by degrees to their shock of encounter with the force majeure?
There is something insidious about the authority pretending, agreeing to pretend, that it is not, that there is some parity, until it no longer suits it to dissemble, at which point the truncheon comes out. And yet how could we deal with these kids, these people, in the hard-and-fast rules’ absence, so as to preserve the modicum of kindness and security necessary to have the time and quiet to read, to study, to learn to be human, unless by exiling them to the side of things where consequences are enforced rather than negotiated?

Unless it is only when that whole apparatus is dismantled that the true conditions for trust are re-established; what force and exile could not accomplish, forgiveness does?

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Stranger Things spoilers and ripeners

And anyhow at the end of it (the Four Years in the Desert), starting a new stage by reflecting on it, rededicating it to these friends short of making it just an account of sketches of them--a day of overwhelming housekeeping, hoping I’ve kept track of everything in the move, more or less, and in the midst of sorting through to arrange the writing docket, that word housekeeping reminds me of Dr Robinson, her Housekeeping and her Gilead, and whether the library would consider doing it for a Big Read? (In fact they are reading The Tsar of Love and Techno)

As foreseen, as with the neighborhood and jobs so far--everything in Spokane, except the pawn shops and police sirens poking through to remind you of the Upside Down--Gilead is an amazing book, well worth a city reading together. The pine-shrouded mansion next door emitted the sound of an organ the other evening, the neighbors on the other side are constructing a vine arbor. Their black dog howls along with the sirens. Their lawn was being redone by a company called Living Waters, and the farmers’ market for Emerson-Garfield,  hosted in the parking lot of the Extended Learning Dept of the community college there at Lincoln and Carlisle, had a booth called The Father’s Table with vegetables, and all sorts of programs for diet and lifestyle being peddled across from it. So good that you keep looking around wondering, what’s the catch?

In the case of the show Stranger Things, which has been a sleeper sensation--Steph found that picture of the lady who dressed her sleeping baby as El with her eggos--something that sticks in my craw is the final confrontation with the monster in the science classroom, when she is drained from mental violence and Mike promises her they’ll go to the dance together and everything will be OK: Is this the prerogative of love and faith, to demand and to make promises beyond our power to keep--going down slingshotting, David and Goliath--which then triggers the sacrifice, necessitates the separation and the salvation, or is it the weakness and the lie at the moment of the promise that makes her say goodbye? Then the Judas, or Lando, still believes and perhaps even keeps in contact with her, while the saved boy hawks up corruption and conceals it still.

Great show, borrowing wholesale from a whole culture and repackaging it all in a compelling new arrangement, very close to its sources in EarthBound, Stephen King, and Spielberg, but moving the flame ahead in some tangible way, revindicating belief in the mystery: the X-Men, the X-Files, digested and acted upon, so that they’ll be reinterpreted anew--deepening the culture, fertilizing the earth, the spiritual topsoil. So with Robinson, moving the art a step further...

Monday, October 3, 2016

Rough of A Making: Terkel, Robinson, and Obama on the Art of Democracy

To preface: this is one I want to put in shape for someone to publish who might pay me for it or at least get it a broader readership, but I got a little sidetracked and am not sure now how to proceed. Any comments or suggestions at this stage would be appreciated!

A Making: Terkel, Robinson, and Obama on the Art of Democracy

There has been perhaps no greater American storyteller of the 20th century than Studs Terkel, who gave life to the stories of other people by listening to them, asking them questions, and recording what they said. In every one of his many books comprising these oral histories, the reader finds solace, fire, inspiration, and reason, the habits and neighborhoods of ordinary days transformed by a great and playful respect. The history of a nation which can seem trite and pompous in the textbooks is threaded through with a beautiful tracery of individual lives, comprehended in a chain of living characters who speak to us in their own words.

In the early 21st century, perhaps no story has been so heralded as the fulfilment of the promise of America as the election of Barack Obama to the office of the Presidency of the United States. Perhaps no one figure is so at risk of being lost sight of as a human being like any other, overshadowed by the burdensome magnitude of his symbolic significance. His campaign gave the words grassroots, hope, and change new cachet in the lexicon of television news and kept him a step ahead of his competitors’ and detractors’ use of the new media. In winning the race, he effectively won the Nobel Prize as well on the strength of those same promises, those echoed from his speeches and those etched in his skin color and the bones of his face.

Studs passed away a few days before Obama’s election in 2008, but by an unexpected reversal, the President has, over the past couple of years, played his old role of the listener with some of the people he most admires. And to gain some insight into how Obama has sought to understand the country that elected him and attempted to shape his legacy, as the soaring rhetoric of his speeches came up against the steady inaction of Washington leadership, perhaps the place to begin is by listening in to a conversation, rather than a speech, in which Obama interviews one of the country’s greatest living writers, Marilynne Robinson.

For the full text and audio of the conversation, see these New York Times pages: part one and two. (The liberal UK Guardian offers a summary.) Read it all if you can make the time! You’ll see a link, too, if you care to follow mine, to Robinson’s essay Fear, which in turn might be put in an illuminating conversation with this other Fear by another master of form, Lydia Davis, in her case the flash-quick short story. Surely you have time to read those! To think wistfully of Kierkegaard’s work that begins in Fear and Trembling...but that really is another story... And then read Robinson’s novels: Housekeeping... Gilead… Home, which I’m still working on, and Lila, which I’m glad I still have to look forward to, and whatever else she may have written since then, by the time you, whoever you are, read this…

Only once you’ve read at least that much would I venture to say you should bother to listen any more to what I have to say about it. Now, I should say for the record, as if it weren’t already plain, I am a huge admirer of all these three I’m trying to write about, Studs Terkel, Barack Obama, and Marilynne Robinson, and it would be hard for me to pretend to be unbiased, even if I were more inclined to it, methodologically. I write about them in some way out of the desire to be part of the conversation, too. Somewhere, and I’ll look it up when I feel like procrastinating some more, my other writer role model Philip Pullman speaks on his sense of the parity he felt drawing him to language as his material for art, the encouraging and a little daunting knowledge that given the gift of speech and having pen and paper he was having all the tools before him that any writer he looked up to ever had. In putting pen to paper, I am in the conversation, as much as they are in conversation with one another by touching on the same themes, and in putting it somewhere you can read it, I hope to have drawn you into the conversation as well.

Now, there is something concrete about Obama and Robinson’s actually meeting and speaking to one another, of course. It becomes more impossible to overlook the importance of real meetings like this the more our meetings are mediated and fragmented. From the vantage of a mediated world, though, we can see that every meeting, to say nothing of talking to a president, is a careful arrangement. The more Obama says how glad he is just to have a conversation, the more evident the artfulness of his measuredness, and the more the reader is alert to the intention it bespeaks: to value real conversation, to get to define what that is.

So with Robinson, moving the art a step further: the meditative epistolary second person steeped in love and imagination, eschewing mawkishness head-on with the consideration of anger, irritation, disappointment, false humility--mosquitoes and poison ivy in the garden of the world--and elaborating an immersive inner suspense with slight but insistent hinting at graver specific troubles to be thought through or lightly touched upon: John Brown, segregation, talking with the Lord. In her conversation with the President when he interviewed her in October 2015, none of this is directly confronted in specifics from the book, but rather in general terms there is a seeking of common ground and then investigation of the points of contention, amounting to differences of interpretation, differing emphases. The notion of civic virtue, a belief in the human beings around you and, in a large country, also distant from you; the relation of this belief and these habits of virtue to time and care given to reading and writing, cultivating the inner life, as opposed to the frenetic and unforgiving media demanding consumption, presumably to be discussed with others or through social media, as an important badge on the self as presented to others; the bearing this has on hope for the democracy, for the sense of history, of this place as an amazing experiment, not a given, an empire. In this connection, the President rightly pointed out the galvanizing effect of the mistrust of people in government deeply rooted in the Revolutionary phase of our making, in our founding documents, and rightly or not, he ascribed the expansion of this fear in this moment to the pace of change in technology and economy, the demand for a global vision when there is a sense of precariousness close to home; Marilynne Robinson’s essay or lecture--this was her first distinction--on fear was his point of entry to the conversation, setting up his preferred trajectory of arcing towards justice.

Looking at how much he says in the transcript, including about his own intentions and those of his team in doing the interview, there seems to be an ars poetica democratic at play in the piece, a partial swansong by this lame duck who has always been a virtuoso of this art of democracy. He reflects fondly on his good fortune campaigning as an unknown in Iowa, finding comfort in the older generation’s values that reminded him of his maternal grandparents, encountering Robinson’s books and establishing their ongoing conversations, and he clearly understands that his audience for this piece will be small and self-selecting in all likelihood--teachers, older people, religious liberals--to whom he appeals indirectly for trust in the Democratic establishment, not just democracy in the abstract, and perhaps even outlines a project or two for his post-presidential existence, revolving around their shared concern for the effects of the inundation of politicized media and the need for other kinds of reading and conversation conducive to virtue, and the faith in one’s neighbors, and the judicious disagreement with people in power.

A little inconsistency here was evident--the President rues the fragmentation of the national audience on the one hand, yet he is more adept than anyone at playing to the grassroots in a multiplicity of ways, and he does seem to acknowledge that it is due to his expertise in getting his message through deviously, and thanks to the fear-mongering media’s treatment of Hillary Clinton, previously, that he was elected in the first place.

On Robinson’s side, as much as she wants to stress the importance of goodwill towards men, she runs the risk of ignoring the crucial role distrust of government has always played, on the one hand, and the foundational doctrine of sin, of a fallen mankind, she seems to have come to terms with somehow, on the other. Her astonishing attention to the media, reading the press for a couple of hours every morning, alongside theological writings of Calvin and Edwards, must somehow account for this considerable eccentricity in her views. There was also the mysterious bracketing of Coeur d’Alene in the transcript--I’ll have to listen to the audio to see if she said Sandpoint originally.

In passing, I read another interesting interview while waiting for Steph to get done her tutoring session and have dinner the other night, this one in the Believer, wonderful magazine, with Miranda July. She praised Lydia Davis, spoke of her start with audio recordings and spoken word alongside her punk rock group, with whom she’d had a break-up, her work in film which has garnered her mainstream fame, and her husband and child, surprising to hear about given the queer world he inhabits so joyfully in the stories Keri gave me to read of hers--and here is the important thing, she speaks of a boss and a worker voice within her, and how by starting multiple projects concurrently, she can feel rebellious working on one and not on the other, yet still be extremely productive all along, thwarting herself and yet fulfilling her pursuit of freedom. Something like this. I sent Keri the article.

Robinson, for her part, wrote the first sentence in Gilead waiting for her sons for a meal one Christmastime, surprised by the character who spoke through her and yet allowing him to determine the whole rest of the book by who he was--an old pastor with a young son.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Semifesto borrowings and a bulleted to-do list

The first real poem we look at in Old English in Signum’s course is Caedmon’s hymn, about which miraculous stories are told. The shepherd goes out of dinner before his turn to sing on the harp, falls asleep in the manger, and an angel bids him sing in his dream. He doesn’t know how, and yet in his dreams when he is told he must, he does, beginning with that: Now we must praise… Upon waking he goes back to shepherding, but now singing perfect songs of inspired beauty, and it comes to the abbess’ attention. They think he lived only just before the time of Bede, in whose history of the church in England the story is told in Latin, and many of the copies of that work a little later include glosses that render the first recorded song back into Old English, in this or that dialect or accent. So it is a poem and a song, on thresholds of orality and literacy, English and Latin, miracle and institution. And all of this is inherent to the work, because it is all of the ways it is recorded, preserved; it is insofar as it is talked about within a much larger history--the institution recreates, reinterprets again and again the poem of the miracle, and what the shepherd is talking about is the Christian God worshipped in the double abbey by men and women who, as he serves them with agricultural and pastoral labor, serve him spiritually, by their words and their silence.

As many iterations as there are of this first Old English hymn, no other songs of Caedmon come down to us with any certainty as to his authorship, or rather mediation. The mediterranean God is referenced with cumulative germanic descriptions, repeated and varied in the recognizable style and meter of the north. Whether the angel, too, was of local extraction, or the latent talent of the singer was molded by his listening at all the previous dinners, what came out when he was made an instrument, preserved orally and then copied down by scribes when Bede’s anecdote gave them occasion, was this compound of art and learning where neither had been before, in a language hitherto unwritten, even though poems, the scholars conjecture, had long been sung.

Little sparks and bright coals in that ash heap of world history Robinson’s John Ames returns to at the end of his long letter to his son, stories like these might be adduced as evidence, by somewhat circular reasoning, for the truth of the Christian epistemology, that knowledge and love are inseparable, leading to right and good life in this world and eternally. That is a paradox, but at this stage of the inquiry the activity of love is particularly enjoined by a certain branch of theological adherents--rather than a liability sinking the thesis, the paradoxical claim that  truth, love, and right action form a kind of trinity akin to the nature of the God in whose image human nature is made, is taken to be the strongest attestation of its essentially being the case, that is, that there should be such a unity not just in our confused concepts, emotions, and doings, but in our very being, and down to the ground of being itself. Theology, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, all branches of the love of wisdom are subsumed under the richer meaning given to each by their interconnectedness: love in wisdom, wisdom in love--and the imperative that this be an understanding not of the head or even heart, but of the whole body, also. To make it a systematic program is probably no one’s intention who ever arrived at such a thesis--Robinson and Wright are the two that come to mind in contemporary letters, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche the earlier and wilder diagnosers of the out-of-kilter excesses of Enlightenment and Romanticism--but because the emphasis tends to be on rekindling or recognizing the role of love in true understanding--reasserting the importance of the heart, Romanticism’s revolt against the head, or Barzun’s cultural vindication against narrow scientism--it might be worth considering the importance of having something significant to hold up to love in the first place--and this is part of what makes Great Hearts’ or St Johns’ curriculum so attractive, the rigor of the content and high standards for its theoretical understanding, alongside and hand in hand with the community thus drawn together around it--and, to keep track of the third element you might otherwise want to separate off, or lose sight of and reason two-dimensionally, perceiving a dichotomy where there must be a moving dialectic, remember the crucial step to be taken beyond the walls of the study or even the school, the reduplication of thinking and feeling in everyday interactions, the healthy outward play of the tremendous inner energies unleashed by the conscience and the will reestablished in creative, not mutually annihilating, tension, flowing outward into music and gymnastics, tragic and comic, apollonian and dionysian revels, service pastoral-agricultural and pastoral-spiritual, poems epic and lyric, memorized and inspired.

Something along these lines is Tolkien’s goal in the essay On Fairy Stories, a real joy revealed in the turn around which the whole story determines itself. The truth of the happy ending is for him analogous to the intuition of the truth of the impossible miracle of Christ, and points back to it; the fact that we access this primary truth by means of the Bible story is for him a cosmically apt irony.

But what then is the status of Pullman’s fantasy, which inverts the loop, takes the sadness of realizing the Christian story is impossible for him, for Mary Malone, or simply inconsequential, for Will and Lyra, beside their own innocence and experience, their relationship, death and resurrection, in a word, their story, and casts it explicitly in the fantasy form derived from these apologetic Oxford dons? Or what happens when each of them gets reappropriated--perhaps this is the question more to the point--and His Dark Materials is put onstage, the Lord of the Rings, etc, onscreen? When they shortly become commodities, if not institutions in their own right, and their economic value supersedes, for most purposes, for most people, the meaning or value of reading them? Even asking this on the heels of our first, roughly formed question, takes us too far afield, but here, at least, you might expect the contemporary and the historical Oxford men of letters to have some common ground, for they surely do value reading and stories over commercialized adaptations or they would have been businessmen rather than storytellers, but then again, Pullman is frankly unapologetic about his stake in the profits his work earns him, and his interest in protecting intellectual rights and arts education. And how many more people have come to read the original books by way of the secondarily secondary fantasies? If this direction of the reading process matters, it would be a very small leap to the perhaps surprising common ground they also share, a respect for and desire that people go all the way back to reading the Bible and classical or pre-classical myths.

In his interviews and lectures, Pullman certainly comes across as dour, heavy-handed with religion, bleak on politics, but his intelligence is too keen, his stirring up of controversy too artful and successful, to mistake this for a more critical neglect of joy. To come back to the end of His Dark Materials, it has to be noted that the love the characters share is preserved, their promise is kept, though it means forever closing the doors between pre-existing worlds and false heavens. The eucatastrophic turn, if you like, comes right in the final lines, spoken by Lyra: to build the Republic of Heaven. So whenever Pullman gets to talk about books he loves, or address the questions of children in his audience, or the work of politics, or the beauties of Biblical verse and the art, as opposed to institutions, it has inspired, he lights right up. The gleam comes through the facade or reality of a crotchety controversialist.

Now, if Olsen can create and manage an online university out of his love of Tolkien, and find people not only to work there but to pay for and take the courses, it should be just possible to start at the beginning again, studying what instills that joy, even if the ideological line of descent is more complicated, even if that joy is more hidden, perhaps most of all from itself, spoken of in another way or not professed, yet deeply believed in all the same. There should be some room for courses on Pullman, Blake, and Milton, and reading the Bible by their wonderfully kaleidoscopic light, as well as the demure radiance of the Inklings; these courses, in turn, can begin as notes and responses like these, but then take shape in more formal lectures and seminars, audio recordings for podcasts and online discussion groups to challenge and refine all these wayward ideas. Soon I’ll need a better microphone and the long-deferred contraption to capture pictures in a notebook or on a chalkboard, because the handwritten and hand-drawn has an important place in the midst of all these new media, just as the human voice, the reflective conversation, surely do.

Arrange before you, then, the manifold projects, each one as it were represented by a book on your overfilling desk, so that none might be lost, even if none is ever quite completed to your lasting satisfaction. Here is a beginning--
  • The neighborhood--Tolkien even stresses that Faerie is a place--and this is a word doc somewhere

  • Publishing the pieces already written, as they stand or with editors’ suggestions, but anyhow starting to submit them
  • Translations: Figari and Philip Pullman’s lesser-known writing--he even gave you permission once before, as the museo did, more or less
  • The crafting of short stories and imitations workshop, clearly becoming indispensable as your rambling runs amok
  • The school, in its iterations, including a letter to Denny
  • Reading the rest of Robinson and Pratchett, but also running seminars and a Big Read? -
  • Letters to Elliot and experimental theology again
  • Writing, by hook or by crook, three pages a day
  • Memorizing poems and songs, as well as writing them
  • Postcards and other letters, too
  • Daily devotions, Bible readings, and some prayers--Calvin, Edwards, Barth, Kierkegaard
  • This after school club, reading and writing volunteering
  • Work in prisons, part time or voluntary
  • Video games are another big one, all that writing on Earthbound
  • And on soccer--playing, not to be forgotten, regularly
  • Building the contraption
  • Parents’ stories, dad’s, his mom’s writing, mom’s notebooks and grandpa’s
  • And of course what to do with/about money--fund scholarships?