The poem is a part of my upcoming collection Rumsfeld’s Sandbox and follows the publication of other poems in the collection. Those poems include:

• “Battlefield Confession”
• “Cigar”
• “Life”
• “Love And War”
• “Old Goth”
• “20 Acres”
• “Nocturne: Battlefield Sonnet”
• “The Armor Dims”
• “Carcass”
• “Siege”
• and “I Like War”

You will soon be able to read Rumsfeld’s Sandbox online as a digital book with audio presentations and downloadable .PDF broadsides and chapbooks. The planned publication date is March 19. Savvy readers will know that this is the anniversary date of the Iraq invasion, particularly the air strike on the presidential palace in Iraq.

More information will be published soon regarding Rumsfeld’s Sandbox. Meanwhile, take a peak at “Gunfight In Manhattan“.

I am in the process of redesigning both the World Class Poetry website and this blog. It’s a slow go as the poetry site alone has more than 200 pages and I’m making some significant improvements that I hope will make the site more social. Aside from that, I am also continuing to review books and work my day job, which many people have told me not to quit. They’ll be glad to know that I’ve taken their advice.

At any rate, just dropping in for a report. Look for more news soon.

It’s not all that common that you’ll find a journal that will print previously published material. But it clearly states in the guidelines that Breadcrumb Sins will accept previously published poems. I sent them one that had been published in my local newspaper and I’ve been wanting to get it a wider distribution. I believe it’s one of my best poems. Phil loved it. Thanks Phil!

“Old Goth” is the title of the poem. You can read it along with two others – “Nocturne: Battlefield Sonnet” and “The Markets” – at Breadcrumb Sins (direct link). Be sure to rate the poems using the stars at the top of the page.

On another note, World Class Poetry is in transition. I’ve got some new changes coming at the beginning of the year. As a result of my focus on moving this blog and World Class Poetry into a new direction, I’ll be posting less frequently until the changes are complete. Thanks for reading!

I’m sure “A” has some literary value, but in large part it is a mad rambling. Zukofsky has the ability to make me think, in one moment, that he is a genius, and in the next, a self-consumed cogitator. These may be qualities that endear me to him.

Chapter 12 drones on for 135 pages. Zukofsky’s poetics is difficult to comprehend, though on a fundamental level it is quite simple. He is able to take a visual and incorporate it into the text, adding an element to the art of poetry that so few other poets ever aspire to let alone succeed at. Then he’ll go on and on page after page in a prosaic style over the most mundane details. Parts of it read like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for eggheads. Other parts are like reading Gertrude Stein through a kaleidoscope. It would be fair to say that “A” can be described as a multi-textual composition – never stagnant, always moving, but not always engaging.

In my mind, Objectivist poetics, in which Zukofsky was a key and central player, is evidence of the downside of Ezra Pound’s influence. It could be the beginning of the disintegration of poetry as poetry. Though, truthfully, I think that disintegration began with the Imagists.

But the road forks and Pound’s positive influence can be traced through other channels (T.S. Eliot, William Carlos Williams and Marianne Moore).

When Zukofsky is good I find him to be real good, but when he slips off into intellectual perdition, which is often, he just blathers like a bad Language poet. No small wonder, the latter consider him a hero.

Nevertheless, I do find Zukofsky to have some admirable qualities. No. 1, his attention to the small words is commendable. So few poets today really understand the value of the small words (a, the, etc.). Just take them out of your text and see if you notice.

Another thing I admire about Zukofsky is his emphasis on form. While his prosaic style has a tendency to grate on my nerves, I am still always conscious that he is writing in form. His poetic structure is important and can’t go unnoticed. Varied, but important.

I think it is these two qualities that have given Zukofsky the moniker of “the poet’s poet’s poet”. He may be a bore on the page, but poets would do good to study him for an enhancement of their own sensibilities to language and form, the nuts and bolts of all poetic expression.

I’ve been fighting a cold now for three days. So no video today. We’ll be picking back up on video Friday next week.

Zukofsky was a Modernist. So it shouldn’t surprise me that he did this. All the Modernist’s wrote this way to some extent. One of my favorites, T.S. Eliot, was very adept at it.

Nevertheless, Zukofsky springs a Ballade on us, which is a specific type of form. It isn’t merely rhymed and metered in a nominal sense. It follows a very specific format. There are variations. The one Zukofsky chooses is the Ballade Supreme, consisting of three stanzas of 10 lines each where the final line of each stanza repeats itself. Then there is a five or six line envoy at the end that also repeats the repeating line.

The Ballade Supreme is often a tributary form and here Zukofsky uses it to pay a tribute to J.S. Bach. So I’m reading and come across this:

A pretty May note,
Singing Bach as they dug,

Isenacum en musica, hear us
Digging - we are singing of gardens - March
Day of equal night, Bach's chorus primus
To chorus secundus to the groined arch -
To vanish as the cone fruit of the larch:
Voice a voice blown, returning as May, dew
On night grass: and he said I worked hard, hue
Of word on the melody, (each note worth
Thought the clatter of a water-mill drew):
Labor, light lights in air, on earth, in earth.

...

Coda, see to it the burden renew,
Sound out thick gardens dug up in purlieu
The shrapnel haunts; May is red blossom, berth
Of what times' mill; blood reads the wounds, the cue -
Luteclavicembalo - bullets pursue:
Labor light lights in earth, in air, on earth.

And Part 8 ends.

Zukofky’s “A” is the perfect example of what I was talking about here.

“A” is a poem that can be classified as an avant-garde free verse poem and Zukofsky maintains that mode through most of the poem, but this well placed ballade at the end of Part 8 perfectly illustrates the freedom that poets are allowed to take in crafting their poems.

I’m not suggesting we should move backward to the Modernist poetics, and certainly not to Objectivism, but we should be mindful of the influences of poets like Zukofsky and his Modernist counterparts. We can take what they’ve done and improve upon it. There are poets today who are doing this and I applaud them.

I suspect that many readers do not take the time to understand a particular poet’s poetic, or weltanschauung, before delving into a reading experience. But I think in many cases, they should.

I recently had a copy of Louis Zukofsky’s “A” sent to my local library from a university library within my state. This will be my first reading of the poem. Understanding a few things about Zukofsky in general and his worldview in particular helps me to better understand the purposes for which he wrote and what he was trying to accomplish. I suspect this could be true for many other poets as well.

Zukofsky begins his poem thus:

    Round of fiddles playing Bach.
        Come, ye daughters, share my anguish -
    Bare arms, black dresses,
        See Him! Whom?
    Bediamond the passion of our Lord,
        See Him! How?
His legs blue, tendons bleeding,
        O Lamb of God most holy!
Black full dress of the audience.

Note: The bold lines appear italicized in the original; all other lines appear without
typographical enhancements.

I find this to be a brilliant sequence and Bach plays a very significant part in the poem throughout. But what I’d really like to focus on is Zukovsky’s devout Marxism.

There are passages in the first 7 parts of “A” that deal with politics – a strong theme throughout – and which would be completely misunderstood without some understanding of Zukofsky’s political background.

Ex. 1:

And on one side street near an elevated,
Lamenting,
Foreheads wrinkled with injunctions:
"The Pennsylvania miners were again on the lockout,
We must send relief to the wives and children -
What's your next editorial about, Carat,
We need propaganda, the thing's
                              becoming a mass movement."

From Part I. Zukofsky had attended a performance of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion at Carnegie Hall and upon his leaving, or after the performance as he stood near the exit, he lit a “Camel” and observed a tramp – a lowly person – walk by. From there he hears tidbits of conversation including a remark on “Poor Thomas Hardy” who admired “our recessional architecture”, patrons of poetry and business devotees of arts and letters discussing the “lyric weather” and the above quote about the Pennsylvania miners.

What’s the deal?

Zukofsky, who grew up in a poor Jewish family, the only American-born child of his family, would have been very familiar with the laissez faire economy of pre-World War II. He was also a committed Marxist in 1928 when the first part of “A” was written. The Pennsylvania miners is referencing the Rossiter coal miners strike under progress concurrent with Zukofsky’s writing of this section of his poem. Carat is a reference to the pen name or a nickname of a writer of the period who was decidedly pro-Soviet.

In many ways, the Great Divide of American politics today was born here in Zukofsky’s time. Henry Ford and a few other well known capitalists of the day were supporters of Hitler and the Third Reich. Many artists and writers, Zukofsky and Charlie Chaplin among them, of the period were strong supporters of Communism. Interestingly, Zukofsky’s literary hero Ezra Pound was a Nazi supporter.

I find these kinds of passages helpful because they illumine the worldview of the poet a great deal. Is the poet sympathetic to the Pennsylvania miners? He seems to be, but why? Nothing in the text at this point tells us why the miners or Thomas Hardy are so important. They’re simply glimpses into a particular time in the narrator’s life. But they add an element of character to “A” that would not be there if Zukofsky simply stuck to impressions of Bach’s music.

Ex. 2:

"Many people are too busy to be unemployed," says
                                              Henry.

A reference to Henry Ford.

(Especially those who have their own factories
                                              to take care of).
"If communism ever gets into a country
And raises Ned with it,
It's because that country needs it."

And he continues to quote Ford with a short editorial note interjected:

If goods don't sell,
It's because they're no good
Or are too high priced."
(Disposed of: the short change of labor.)
As for labor,
"There are more people
Who won't try to do anything."
Says Henry,
"Than there are who don't know what to do,
I am in the business of making automobiles
Because I believe I can do more good that way
Than any other ...."

The interjected parenthetical “disposed of the short change of labor” is a direct attack on Henry Ford’s brand of capitalism.

Ex. 3:

The star, Venus, bathed
In the sunsets
                       of elegant, imperial islands -
Mr. - 'we own your, this government
benefits by our protection...' -
And in Haiti
Mars
Bloody
Tinkered with the other
Stars.

I don’t know who said “this government benefits by our protection” but it could have been any Republican of Zukofsky’s day as of our own. A typical jingoist sentiment. And the reference to Haiti is a reference to the Marine occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934. Mars, of course, is the Roman god of war.

“A” is full of literary and historical allusion. Sometimes Zukofsky breaks from one allusion to run right into another, jamming them together in quick-running sequences that move past like a flash of light.

I don’t know much about Bach’s political views, but I wonder how much of Zukofsky’s “A” is directed at it. Many of the allusions I’ve come across so far bear some significance to the life and music of Bach. Even when he quotes Einstein he relates it to Bach as in:

Asked Albert who introduced relativity -
"And what is the formula for success?"
"X=work, y=play, Z=keep your mouth
                                    shut."
"What about Johann Sebastian? The same
                                    formula."

The story goes that Einstein was asked how best to enjoy Bach and he said something similar to the quote about work, play and “keep your mouth shut.”

These are the kind of details that might make “A” seem too obscure to bother with for many, but if you can somehow pull them out of a cloud and make them earthbound then Zukofsky makes more sense.

Reading Zukofsky, Ron Silliman (and several of the other Language poets) makes more sense. I still get irritated reading the rehearsed disjunction, but I can understand better why they do what they do. The Language poets in a sense put into practice the views of Zukofsky and Communism on the page with collaborative efforts, which is itself a political statement. Understanding this makes the reading much more enjoyable than just trying to figure it out by reading the plain text.

When you read poetry, do you look for background notes or commentary to help you read difficult passages or do you just go it alone?

Some notes for this blog post have been enlightened by Z-site. Hat tip to Jeff Twitchell-Waas.

But what I’ve noticed when people use the word ‘free’ in most contexts is that they use it in a loaded way. You’ll often hear people say of government services – education would be a good example – that it’s ‘free’. Actually, it’s not. But it appears to be free so they think it is. That’s what might be called an optical illusion. It should more accurately be called a mental perception illusion.

The nature of free is such that there contains within it a duality that cannot be escaped. All freedom consists of freedom to and freedom from. It can be likened to Kierkegaard’s Either/Or dichotomy. We’ll call it the To/From dichotomy.

The To aspect of ‘free’ (re: freedom) is an expression of liberty within an individual’s range of choices. Being in a state of ‘free’ gives an individual a right to make decisions regarding X without restriction. In other words, all options are open.

The From aspect of ‘free’ is the expression of restraint upon an external force that has the power or authority to restrict an individual’s range of choices regarding X.

Let’s put these definitions into the context of the political realm. If an individual is free then he or she is said to be free to do something yet free from something else. The X factor in the To aspect of free as it relates to the context of politics is the right to perform actions that do not injure another party who is also free. The X factor in the From aspect of free as it relates to the context of politics refers to a legal restraint on the external force of government to restrict an individual’s choices. That is, From freedom stops government from restricting individuals from exercising their To freedom rights.

How about some examples:

• Religion – To: Choose one; From: Congress has no right to respect one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise of any religious practice.
• Press – To: Write what you will; From: Government cannot stop you from writing.
• Speech – To: Speak your mind; From: Government cannot stop you from speaking your mind.
• Sex – To: Pick a partner; From: Government cannot stop you from choosing a partner, even a partner of the same sex or a partner that someone else has not approved.
• Firearms – To: Maintain a posture of self defense through ownership of guns and weapons for that purpose; From: Government cannot stop you from protecting yourself and your family.
• Employment – To: Choose your occupation; From: Government cannot choose your occupation for you.

I hope I have made these distinctions clear with these illustrations. Now, I’d like to turn them over into the context of poetics.

The To/From Dichotomy In The Free Of Poetics

Whenever poets and literary critics discuss free in the context of poetics, as in ‘free verse’, it is usually in the aspect of From. They are most often making a comment that asserts that free verse is free from meter. And it is. To some extent. Not completely.

In actuality, the From aspect of free verse is not a complete break from meter. That is the common conception, but it denies the To aspect of free. What the From aspect of free verse is, and not just on the surface, is a freedom from the constraints of meter. That’s a far cry different than ‘free from meter’.

Meter, it’s raw character, that is, is a constraint. It restricts the freedom of a poet to do as he pleases. The poet may want to write a sonnet that ignores the metrical pattern of iambic pentameter, but if he does so then he won’t be writing a sonnet. The constraint of the form – the meter – restricts the poet from exercising his freedom to do otherwise.

The To nature of free verse, however, allows a poet a full range of choices. It does not close off the choice to employ meter when and if desired. It simply places a restriction upon the constraint of meter just as the From aspect of political freedom places restrictions upon government to place legal constraints upon citizens.

Seen this way, poets who write free verse can exercise more options.

How ‘To’ Freedom Can Make Poetry Better

I believe poets, particularly free verse poets, who consider the ‘free’ in free verse to be an expression of the From aspect of freedom are limiting themselves and their abilities to create. Of course, a poet who writes only in meter isn’t writing free verse. That’s obvious. But a poet that mixes it up, with a little meter here and there thrown in with free verse lines here and there, is exercising a full range of options.

Poets who see themselves as free from the constraints of meter will likely not pay much attention to the traditional modes of expression that made poetry what it was prior to the 20th century. But poets who see themselves as free to exercise all options do not have such a restriction. They have the latitude to be more creative.

This is the basic building block of Millennial Poetics. The ‘free’ in free verse is an expression of To as much as From. The free verse poet does not have to employ meter and may never do so, but he leaves that option on the table. Not just from poem to poem, but from sequence to sequence and from line to line. Free verse is a To/From proposition.

Consider the following lines, trite though they may be:

I dropped my dolly in the dirt
I asked my dolly if she hurt
And all my dolly would she say
Was, “How the hell would you feel asshole?
It feels pretty crappy!”

Silly as these lines are, you can see the obvious metrical pattern in the first three lines. Each consists of four metered feet consisting of iambs – iambic tetrameter. But the last two lines of this sequence do not fit the pattern. The reader is free to emphasize the words of choice. One reader may emphasize “How”, “hell” and “you” while another may emphasize “Was”, “the” and “feel” in the penultimate line.

This is effectively what Ezra Pound meant when he said, “compose in the sequence of the musical phrase, not in the sequence of the metronome.” The intent was not to break free of meter completely, though that has been the effect in free verse circles.

Poetry is best when it carries a melody. Music. Cadence. Even without the meter. Poetry that has no rhythm is failing to do its job. It’s like candy without sugar.

The poetry of the 21st century needs to move back toward the musical and away from the blandly philosophical. Poets should study meter, not to employ its constraints, but to engage in its possibilities. By re-engaging with the poetry of the past, the poetics of the future can invigorate itself with greater freedom, a higher level of creativity, and an expanded range of choices for the poet. Free will once again be free rather than relegated to the chains of Un.