Skip to main content

Lineation: Lines into Columns

Lines into Columns cont...

Extract taken from my second book, On Mourning: Theories of Loss in Modern Literature (Edinburgh U.P., 2004) with siginficant modifications.

My work on columns comes, as I have said, from considerations of language and loss:

It is useful to try to think of every poem as consisting of two columns or of two sides. Some of the most important elegiac works of our age have tried to do precisely this. I have already mentioned the double columns of "Litany." This same technique is however used by Jacques Derrida in his prose-poem Glas, still one of the most challenging and confounding works on death we have, where he conducts two separate deconstructive readings of death and mourning, one of Hegel and the other of Gide while Blau duPlessis' "Draft 5: Gap" mixes single columns with double columns. However, because "Litany" is such a remarkable conception we ought to begin there where Ashbery conducts a debate on the spatial duality of the line throughout the poem. In this poem there are two columns, the left hand column is the usual location of the poem within the field of the poem, the right hand column is the interloper and is italicised to emphasise its otherness. A note at the beginning of the poem says: "The two columns of Litany are meant to be read as simultaneous but independent monologues".

First Ashbery registers the reader's own confusion when confronted with two columns: "A shipwreck seen from the shore, / A puzzling column of figures." Then he refers to the issue of symmetry, "Concerns galore / Under both headings, the identical twin numbers." Before ending with the most clear statement to date on the location of death in the right hand margin of every poetic lines:

And so I say unto you: beware the right margin Which is unjustified; the left Is justified and can take care of itself But what is in between expands and flaps The end sometimes past the point Of conscious inquiry, noodling in the near Infinite, off-limits.
Naturally this warning comes in the right margin, which is italicised to differentiate it from the left, and brings to the fore the dual columns of poetic language that, as far as I am aware, has rarely if ever been considered. We find in the elegiac work of Ashbery, Derrida and Blau duPlessis the realisation that on every page of every poem we have two columns not one. On one side is words on the other their absence. Rising up through the middle is the jagged plume of the truncated lines. For every line that is left behind there is the line that has transcended, which cannot be seen or read precisely because it has crossed over to the other side of language.

Perhaps the line does not fall in enjambment, instead maybe it is broken. One half peels off and rises nimbly upward, light and flighty like the ashes of burnt paper. The other half remains on earth. Thus elegy is the epitome of the line that does not lie down and die; the act of expression that chooses not to fall due to its transcendental qualities but also because it keeps the dead alive for the duration of the work. However, at the same time in enshrining eternal spirit in a clear semiotic tension, it continually grounds the spirit in the material world of language. Is this why there are two columns. One is noisy and full of stuff, the other silent and allows for the poem to come to presence. The first column drags the poem down, the second releases it into air.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Deleuze, Difference and Repetition

For a long time I have felt that poetics has not taken into consideration a great deal written about issues pertaining to difference and repetition to be found in contemporary philosophy. As poetry's whole energy and dynamic is based on a fundamental relation to differential versus repeated units of sense (sense both in terms of meaning and the sensible), any work on difference and repetition would be welcome. That some of the greatest thinkers of the age, notably Deleuze and Derrida, have made both issues core to their whole philosophical systems is so remarkable that poetics is impoverished if it does not fully acknowledge this. Not that I am one to talk. Although I am aware of the centrality of Deleuze's work to postmodern poetry, I have as yet not been able to really address this but in Poetry Machines I began that work at least. In preparation for the few hundred words I wrote there, here are the 10,000 words I annotated in preparation. Deleuze, Gilles. Difference an...

Frank O'Hara, Collected Poems pp.201-300 Annotated

Frank O’Hara, Collected Poems (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1995) Pages 201-300 Close Readings and annotations of every poem in the collection September 1997 in preparation for In the Process of Poetry: The New York School and the Avant-Garde (Bucknell UP, 2001) Frank O’Hara “In the Movies”, 206-209 · interesting that this poem has not been picked up by the critics for it is an easy point to indicate the importance of films in O'Hara’s aesthetic indicating the dissolves, cuts and montage effects he has been credited with and whilst I do not like to appropriate analogous terms in this fashion the montage of O'Hara is easily distinguishable form the collage of Ashbery in that here it is the movement from image to image in an attempt at seamlessness, a basic synaesthesia of subject in the now of consciousness. · in addition to the basic aesthetic implications of this use of films there are also certain other issues that he raises here but does not rea...

Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus

Deleuze's Difference and Repetition is the source for some concepts relating to mechnisation in the later, more famous "Anti-Oedipus". Here are my schematic notes pertaining to the development of my idea of poetry machines. Deleuze, Phillipe and FĂ©lix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem and Helen R. Lane. London: Athlone Press, 1990. The Desiring Machines: 1: Desiring-Production It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into and energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machines that produces milk, and the mouth a m...