the crowds evisceral subjects sun-setting in the sun clashes waste depopulating fray
afraid
hurled
_____________________
the revolt
executed
in spasms
projected
projectiles
human or plastic
embraces
shadows grounding
succumb
in flashes of emptiness, rhetoric
galleries of disaster so the remove of frozen images
subterranean
habitation of because earth absorbs shock waves
hands absent horizons knock impotently against the walls around
_____________________
the deep tombs, sink under
stones arranged
the stones and gold
light
from another source
pierces the front
of solitude
the passage
suffering encircles
infiltrates
the reflection of an abyss in the morning frost
_____________________
futility mirrors
the inertia
of the face filtered
through an obsolete
medium
the wind
brushes
hands, raised
carries off voices
raised
what we hear of it
the nightmare
sounds off
the infant is born
into an aging infantry carried aloft against the earth
inscribed
on again against a cliff’s edge temporal inflammatory
the fire nourishes
by what it consumes
____________________
attention of destruction to
cradled into uncertainties
the corpsman logs
what lays before
him
torrential forces
force of machinery’s
hard certainty
searches the seas
peopled with the coins
of our present
gardens
are erasures of
penetration immovable figure situated
equivalent
deaths of heros who are
they
errant mutations
achieved
Note.On “bodyofwar/songs”
In 1961 Danielle Collobert self-published an edition of poems titled Chantsdesguerres. Some years later, she attempted to destroy all copies of the book. I came to these particular poems via ItThen, via her Notebooks1956-1978, and recently Murder, first as reader and then as editor/publisher. After the recent release of Murder (translated by Nathanaël, published by Litmus Press), I went back to Chantdesguerresto read them in the original French (they are not translated into English). “body of war / songs” is that foray into reading her early poems.
As with my other explorations/experiments in translation, I consider translation a mode of reading, and/or reading a mode of translating, and both as a mode of writing. “body of war / songs” is very much afterCollobert, temporally, as homage, but also as exploratory translation. Initially, I ‘faithfully’ translated the terse minimalist poems, leaving spaces for words I did not know. Then I translated some of these spaces, using a dictionary, or making a homophonic translation. Then I simply wrote through the text as if it were my own. Words shifted, altered, moved across the page, filled in, departed.
There are a couple things that interested me about this process of translating/creating – that Collobert’s writing was so familiar to me, that the words, the syntax itself, felt familiar. Not just because I have known her work since 1998 or so but because of poetic affinity, of writing the body in/into the poems. The sense of body, of the alienation of our bodies even in community. A sense of bodies moving through the world and touching / not touching. The remove. Also, it struck me that these poems written in 1961 could have been written now, or at any time in the last 50 years: what has actually changed? War is an ongoing, perpetual, mode. How pressing that these poems – Collobert’s – know this. It presses, as relevant, but also as pressure to write it, rewrite it.
In some ways, the distance between my poem and hers, the distance in time, in language, in other removes, between our poems and the wars they address, is also the distance between ‘zone’ and war zone. The remove of the U.S. from the carnage it enacts, the remove under which we in the U.S. are able to move about. Under drones, yes, fearful in the face of a lack of agency or ability to alter, yes, but with a very different sense of security. So when the carnage punctuates the remove, as it did in Boston most recently, we must translate this proximity into compassion, empathy – a deeper level of comprehension.
[E. Tracy Grinnell is the author of SomeClearSouvenir (O Books, 2006), and MusicorForgetting (O Books, 2001). An excerpt from Helen:AFugue was published alongside Leslie Scalapino’s APear/ActionsAreErased/Appear in volume #1 of Belladonna’s Elder Series (2008). New and recent work is collected in the manuscripts HellFigures, portraitofalessersubject, and AlltheRage. She is the founding editor and director of Litmus Press.]
By Steve Kolowich Chronicle of Higher Education, April 29, 2013
Teaching students how to read and analyze experimental poetry can be hard enough in a small seminar class. Leading the same class in an online classroom of 36,000 far-flung learners might strike some as a fool's errand.
Al Filreis, a 57-year-old professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania, disagrees. Many believe that massive open online courses are more suitable for teaching mathematics and hard sciences, ruled as they are by laws, formulas, and right-or-wrong answers.
But Mr. Filreis, an early pioneer of MOOCs in the humanities, believes the MOOC format is in many ways ideal for his course, "Modern & Contemporary American Poetry." In fact, he thinks the MOOC version of his course is just as academically rigorous as the classroom version he has taught for 25 years.
THE INNOVATOR: Al Filreis, U. of Pennsylvania
THE BIG IDEA: MOOCs can bring humanities courses to the masses.
The key, he says, is being willing to get your hands dirty.
"I learned everything that I know from teaching at summer camp," says Mr. Filreis. One day, decades ago, when the professor was a camper at a YMCA in upstate New York, a sewage pipe on the grounds began to leak.
By the time Filreis and his peers woke up, the head counselor was "a good couple feet into the ground, shirtless and shitty," the professor recalls.
Nearby, the counselor had laid out additional shovels—a wordless invitation to Mr. Filreis and his fellow campers. Soon they were all digging in the muck.
That experience, plus several decades of teaching college students, has left Mr. Filreis with a somewhat postmodern view of his role as the head of the class. The Penn professor does not "lead" his MOOC in the traditional sense.
He does not lecture. He does not give grades. He assigns quizzes, but only because the founders of Coursera "begged" him to do so. (He calls the quizzes "silly," although he admits that students seem to like them.)
Those gestures of professorial authority are not what make students learn, says Mr. Filreis.
He argues that the peer-review system in his MOOC gives better feedback than he could provide if he read every student's writing assignments. "I read hastily," Mr. Filreis says. "It's not my best moment, writing notes on essays."
Instead, Mr. Filreis holds weekly readings and discussions at the Kelly Writers House, on the Penn campus, with students taking his MOOC who live nearby. When he last taught the course, eight to 30 students showed up each week, says Mr. Filreis. The professor then broadcasts those salons to the far-flung students in the course. The idea is to teach his online students about reading and discussing poetry by showing them what that looks like.
"I lay out the shovels there," Mr. Filreis says, "and I imply that the only way you'll be able to come do this is you have to pick up the shovel and do it."
In that way, he says, teaching critical reading to thousands of online students is not that much different from teaching students in the classroom. It just requires more intervention.
How much more? During his MOOC's 10-week run last fall, plus the two weeks after its conclusion, Mr. Filreis posted on the discussion forums 4,356 times. That's 52 posts per day, seven days a week.
"Nobody had ever done that," says Mr. Filreis. "They still haven't done it."
Sometimes the professor weighed in with a substantial insight; other times, he chimed in with light praise or encouraging words, just to let students know he was paying attention. And it was not just Mr. Filreis digging into the forums. The professor hired 12 teaching assistants to help him cheerlead and guide discussions.
Mr. Filreis got to know some of his MOOC students well enough that he wrote individual recommendations on behalf of several who were applying to undergraduate programs.
Given a MOOC format, which uses automation to meet the challenges of teaching at scale, Mr. Filreis's efforts to make himself personally accessible to students were extraordinary. But that might be what it takes to run a course that relies on buy-in from participants while offering no formal credit.
One of the challenges of building a sense of community around a MOOC is that massive online courses are landless, says Mr. Filreis. In this respect, the Kelly Writers House anchors his MOOC to the university in an uncommon way, he says. In addition to modeling discussions there, Mr. Filreis and his assistants have staged virtual tours of the house, a cozy yellow building nestled among trees off a campus walkway. The writers' house is open to the public, and the professor extends an open invitation to any MOOC participants who happen to be in the area; he says "many" have visited.
"There isn't a single MOOC, of the hundreds, that has an identifiable space ... a home, with an open invitation to anyone who has ever taken the course to walk in and participate," he says.
Did these extraordinary engagement efforts work? It depends on how one defines success. Two thousand students completed "Modern & Contemporary American Poetry," out of 36,000 registrants—a 5.5-percent completion rate. That figure may elicit cackles from some skeptics, but Mr. Filreis is not particularly interested in completion rates or the debate over how MOOCs might disrupt the existing credentialing system in higher education.
"This is outreach for poetry," he says. "I care about the poets. I care about the living, contemporary poets whose poems I teach, and I care about the fact that 36,000 people—or some number of people, many more than before—are reading these poems, and taking them seriously, and possibly buying their books. That's what I'm doing, primarily."
Back in February, when I started this column, I wanted to interview Fernando Diaz about his sound art projects and also — because he's a computer scientist — about algorithms in poetry. The word "algorithm" appears often in critical analyses of conceptual writing, so I had been wondering what, if anything, conceptual writing and algorithms had to do with each other. I wanted to believe, but Fernando was skeptical about this metaphor. After 2.5 months of meeting, discussing, questioning, and haggling, we have only just begun to work through the chasm between our fields, our different values, histories, vocabularies, etc. Latour would be proud. It's been challenging and fun. And I'm grateful for Fernando's patience, generosity, and humor in working with me towards this provisional document.
Laynie Browne: Is there such a thing as the poet’s novel?
Bhanu Kapil: The poet’s brain changes, perhaps in mid-life. Perhaps the poet moves from one part of the country to another. The poet turns to the sentence as the place where questions of magnetism, gravity and light — the forces that bind a person to the earth and then release them, abruptly — might most fully be worked out. Why? On a scrap of paper, I draw three overlapping rough arcs. These are sentences. These are vectors, complicated — in this preliminary sketch —by refraction and shame: the reality of what happens — does happen — has happened — at the limit of a nation state. Sometimes, as I’ve thought about elsewhere, a person doesn't get to cross. A person sees their body reflected, perhaps, in the gelation membrane that extends above and just beyond the border like an invisible dome. To exit you rupture. What the novel-shaped space lets the poet do (perhaps) is work out what happens both before and afterwards: the approach to that multi-valent perimeter [the shredded plastic on the floor.] To track the vector until, as I tell my students, “it disappears.” Syntax, too, is where this [the] poet — engaging vectors in this other kind of duration — might bring a pressure to bear. A record of forward movement but also a way of investigating the glitches and formal barriers to cultural, global or personal notion of “progression.” Syntax has the capacity to be subversive, to be very beautiful, to register an anti-colonial position: in this respect. I think of the semi-colon: how it faces backwards and is hooked, the very thing a content [shredded plastic] might be caught on. A content, that is, that might never appear in the document of place. Perhaps the poet's novel is a form that, in this sense, might be taken up [is] by writers of color, queer writers, writers who are thinking about the body in these other ways. With the proto-Floridian/Bay Area writer, Amber DiPietra, for example — on-going conversation about the “blips,” “errata” and “bursts” of the sentence. See: her blog, Radio Real Time. Amber is a poet, active in the disability poetics community — and I am not sure that she is a novelist also, but the way she takes up syntax is one of the ways I’ve been able to think about, for myself, for others: the lyric and textural scope of a novel-shaped space. The zone of impossible life. And how, in that zone, the poet might: stop time. And perform. Or install. Something. Last summer I taught a class at the intersection of performance art and the novel: to try and work some of this out. For the poet's novel I am writing at the moment — BAN — I lay down on the floor of the world and rotated [gesticulated] there, in the mud: which is nudity. In the UK, I lay down next to the ivy on the sidewalk and set mirrors: there. Propped in the ivy. And studied the sky: a sensorimotor sequence. And gathered: witness notes. Nervous system notes. To return to the novel: in another form.
LB: In your own work, do you think much about the differentiation between poetry and prose?
BK: I do not. I have been variously described or introduced as a poet, a novelist, a cross-genre writer, a hybrid writer, a creative non-fiction writer, a lyric essayist, a writer working at the intersection of lyric and documentary aims, a fiction writer, a performance artist and a prose-poet. The category is after the fact, just as nationality is. I have the same vagueness about genre that arises in my body when asked where I am from. “England.” No, where are you from? And so on. In fact, I have become interested in this core numbness and have been trying to work out ways to make it a part of the writing. To make it the thing I think about. Ethnicity is yet another matter. I am also not saying the question of origination is analogous to the question of differentiation; I think that non-differentiation can have, as one of its outcomes, the very thing an experimental writer tried to avoid: heterogeneity. So, it’s a complicated question and perhaps reads to the poet’s novel as a hybrid form: not hybridity that comes from the activity of theft, collage or polyphony — but from the capacity of the body to form and extend a new gesture. This is to think through the animal. The poet’s novel is a kind of animal. Discuss.
LB: Are there any particular novels by poets that have influenced or inspired you?
BK: Gail Scott's My Paris and The Obituary.
Sina Queryas’ Autobiography of Childhood.
Melissa Buzzeo’s What Began Us and The Devastation.
Laynie, your own The Ivory Hour (a future memoir)
Laura Mullen’s Murmur.
Juliana Spahr and David Buuck's Army of Lovers collaboration.
Chris Abani’s Becoming Abigail.
Renee Gladman’s Juice.
Laura Moriarty’s Ultravioleta
Douglas Martin’s Your Body Figured
Elena Georgiou’s unpublished novel on the Crimean war.
LB: Please tell more about BAN. I'd like to know more about “sensorimotor notes,” “witness notes,” “nervous system notes,” and how this novel is a different form. How long have you been working on BAN? Where did the project begin? The process sounds very visceral, embodied. How is the process different this time? Tell more about mud and nakedness.
How do "time" and "character" evolve in this book?
BK: How can writing be the place where an interoceptive nervous system is tracked? The sensorimotor sequence is a sequence of glitches, subtle movements, trembling, voltage — that, in somatic trauma therapies, is: tracked. So that a sequence can be completed. To release: a response to trauma that has been lodged — as a loop or distortion/contraction — in the body. To shake until the shaking stops. To complete a movement that was not completed at the time of impact, whether that impact was chronic — a set of impacts — or acute. My influences are: Peter Levine, Babette Rothschild, Pat Ogden. I have been working on these ideas since 2006, when I began teaching through the animal, body and somatic trauma theory at Naropa University. How does a writer translate these concepts or approaches: to syntax? That is another reason, I think, that I turned to prose.
Ban, for example, is a girl who lies down on the ground in the opening minutes of a race riot. She lies down to die because, on some level, she is “already dead.” She is socially dead. There are two kinds of violence: the violence on the street and the violence at home. Either way, she's done for. This is 1979, in a working-class, mostly immigrant suburb of London. I felt that some part of my writing was a set of “witness notes” — to witness Ban's body until it ceases to twitch/flare — so that, here, in fiction, she could: complete: her sensorimotor sequence. A precursor, perhaps, to shedding off: to becoming the next possible thing. Here, I am speaking of incarnation. There is no way to reverse the death — in fact, it's already come — or is coming — but perhaps there is a way to accelerate: the release of Ban's “materials” so that — in fiction — they might: become something else in time. Recirculate as energy in another way. The witness notes also allow me to document the cyclical natural and artificial light that warps over Ban, and to think into the taxonomy of the riot in other ways. What is a riot? What is the history of violence of this neighborhood? So, two things at once.
What the witness position also allows me to do is to: send light: to Ban, at the same time that I am notating Ban's residual movements — the Bergsonian [overlapping] repetitions that underlie the illusion of posture-gesture contiguity. How the body is a series of rough arcs. And how the novelist is the person who holds the space for what that body wants to be. This is proprioception, the act of letting the body know — through light touch and the sensing/directing of energy to the body's outer membrane or "field" — where its limits are. How does this help Ban? I am not sure that it is something that I write about in Ban, but it is part of what my process is as a bodyworker; something that is also part of the experiment of the novel. How to bring to the novel a way of thinking about or sensing with bodies that happens in other disciplines or fields?
This last idea is what led me to lie down on the ground myself, in London, in India and in my garden in Colorado, where Sharon Carlisle — a friend, an earth-artist — dug a rectangle of earth. She wanted to build a mud female Buddha. There were interims when the mud was being sifted and the ground raked/prepared. During the last interim, I lay down — nude, ash/dirt covered — in Ban's mode. To say: the rectangle of earth was a balcony: the staged outline of asphalt where — in the novel — she lay. Mirrors propped in the ivy behind her head. I wanted to open my eyes as Ban and study the particulate, dazzling field of earth materials, to feel the air on my body and what it might be like, to be exposed like that, even in a minimal way, a curated way, and to: give up.
It was embodied, but it was also functional.
In Los Angeles, in a red sack, on a butcher's table at the Schindler's House, I also — lay down. To glitch. And practice movements for BAN — observed by audience members on the grassy slope outside. As part of Les Figues' symposium on Voyeurism: "Both Sides and Center." I opened my eyes and saw the red fabric.
In Hayes/Southall, in the U.K., where Ban is set, I lay down. In the exact spot that Ban is set. I opened my eyes and saw the ivy. I saw a strange rainbow cloud. I saw a milky pink street light. I saw the mirrors, which I'd stacked in the ivy leaves.
And so on. Thus to return: these notes: to the novel. What it looked like, from that terminal position. And what it felt like: the soft tissue contracting around my kidneys, my urethra and even my heart. The refraction of these notes — the way they magnetize the event — resembles poetry, in the sense that poetry, for me, is the work of the fragment. How do fragments attract? And so on.
Prose lets me attend to this question in a massive way.
I get to be the fragment too.
Like bitumen.
Glinting in the oily curd of the asphalt.
As a car drives past.
To this end, perhaps I am saying, too, that the "novel-shaped space" allows me to think through national space in ways that I have thought about in other places. As an immigrant who does not live in a community of immigrants — I want to think about the way my own body — a diasporic body — has sliced through space and lodged, in what a novel "was."
The novel was the thing I read on aeroplanes.
Now it's the thing that you can dig out of the earth and lie down upon: an eternal image, one that never fades, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I have been writing Ban for three years.
I think I am trying to write her until she can no longer be written.
This is what time allows me to do.
Or what I am doing with time.
I am trying, as a writer, to write the body [character] to its end-point and beyond. Why?
That is why I am writing this novel. To reach into that other space — a radical index — and it is why I cannot write about it now.
Following the Advisory Board Roundtable that launched the Conference on Ecopoetics, Charles Altieri, who later in the weekend led a seminar on “Ecopoetics and Affect,” asked a question: “Is ecopoetics a way to go beyond ethics to love?” (A paraphrase.) This question acknowledged a legacy of ethically motivated poetics—or “poethics” as Joan Retallack would say—while at the same time inquiring about something potentially far gushier and subject driven. And in fact, this possibility of an ecopoetics motivated by or productive of love, or loves, resurfaced throughout the weekend.
Robert Hass responded to Altieri’s question during the same Q&A by invoking Wordsworth’s “most watchful power of love,” which, early in the Prelude, registers both “transitory qualities,” “permanent relations,” and “difference” in the passing seasons. Wordsworth’s love is an acute attention, seeing what would otherwise go unseen, inviting the object world of matter to infiltrate the poet’s heart and mind and leave its mark. This attentive love serves an instructive function, driving the “Growth of a Poet’s Mind” that the Prelude chronicles. The pinnacle of what the poet learns from watching and loving is the exact hinge within his self that swings open toward the sublime.
Wordsworth’s sublime has, as Keats quipped, an “egotistical” component. Though it arises from attention to “manifold distinctions,” and though it thrills to inhuman splendors—nighttime waters and looming rocks—this loving mind loves in service of its own fulfillments. From the perspective of ecopoetics, Wordsworth’s Romantic love seems to pose both a possibility and a problem. On one hand, the poet attends. The poet turns toward materials. On the other hand, the poet puffs himself with what he learns there. And though the sublime is double edged—terror and awe—the threat that sublimity momentarily posits to the self is compensated by a more capacious mind on the flip side. Wordsworth’s watchful love seems to long for experiences beyond the confines of a self while at the same time learning to draw the parameters of its longing in ever bolder ink.
If love, particularly for the inhuman, seems rife with these complications about the role of the lover in relation to her beloved, desire somehow seems more straightforward. Desire demands a body; it abjures the purely intellectual or linguistic. Desire touches the earth while love seems at risk of soaring off. Fittingly, desire showed up more frequently than “love” in discussions throughout the weekend. During the satellite event at Davis, in response to a question (Angela’s!) about the role of embodiment in ecopoetics, Jonathan Skinner questioned the limits of desire. Can I feel desire for a bird, a blade of grass? (See Angela’s post on “Queering ecopoetics” for more on desire and embodiment in ecopoetics.)
In his presentation on “Outsider Poetics” for the panel “The Book as Ecopoetic Instrument,” Tyrone Williams seemed interested in expanding the telic motions of desire toward something whose purpose isn’t necessarily satisfaction. He described a poetics that would participate in “a gift economy, one which spirals away from each preceding giver towards another forthcoming recipient,” an economy “analogous to the structure of desire even as it exceeds its form.” At the end of his paper, he called this excessive structure love: “Imagine, if we can, an ecopoetics untethered from the earth, a body no longer bounded by the concept of a globe or sphere. Imagine a body adrift from embodiment, a book, like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed.” If desire can be located, its trajectories charted, Williams presents a love (a body, a book) that is unmoored, resistant to paraphrase, pervasive. One might even say “ecological.”
“This book argues that ecology isn’t just about global warming, recycling, and solar power—and also not just to do with everyday relationships between humans and nonhumans. It has to do with love, loss, despair, and compassion. It has to do with depression and psychosis. It has to do with capitalism and with what might exist after capitalism. It has to do with amazement, open-mindedness, and wonder. It has to do with doubt, confusion, and skepticism. It has to do with concepts of space and time. It has to do with delight, beauty, ugliness, disgust, irony, and pain. It has to do with consciousness and awareness. It has to do with ideology and critique. It has to do with reading and writing. It has to do with race, class, and gender. It has to do with sexuality. It has to do with ideas of self and the weird paradoxes of subjectivity. It has to do with society. It has to do with coexistence” (2).
Love launches this expansive litany of ecological concerns, a list that, on some level, also reads like an invocation of almost everything the humanities have ever cared about. The other half of Altieri’s question during the advisory board Q&A was: “Aren’t we too embarrassed by love for its powers to be effective?” (Again, I’m paraphrasing.) By “we” Altieri meant academics, or poets within the academy, a job description that certainly didn’t account for all the participants at the conference. But one of the reasons love seems potentially embarrassing for theorists, or poets, or activists, is that as a concept or practice love retains theological overtones, and much of the thought, poetry, and action that otherwise seems to have influenced ecopoetics arises from otherwise secular concerns.
Within religious contexts, love is offered as a foundational affective condition, from which ethics inevitably evolves. Christians call such a fundamental love “agape,” divine love, and Buddhists cultivate practices of “loving kindness” through meditation on the interdependent and causally involved nature of all living and nonliving things. It is this love for the nonhuman in particular (or, this nonhuman love if you think of agape as something deriving from an inhuman being), that seems to have found its way into some strains of ecological thinking. C.S. Lewis begins The Four Loves with an essay on “Likings and Loves for the Sub-Human” (in which, among other things, he discusses how a love for strawberries is continuous with a love for humans). Morton thanks Tsoknyi Rinpoche, his Buddhist teacher, for influencing the ideas that went into The Ecological Thought (and discusses this teacher’s work on his blog). Buddhism is a clear influence in the work of Gary Snyder and Joanne Kyger, eco-poets of an earlier generation.
Love also came up, perhaps surprisingly, on the panel “Elegy, Mourning, Melancholia,” presided over by John Beer, Catherine Owen, Margaret Ronda, and Russell Stone, and in particular through the connections these thinkers drew between two seemingly antithetical poetic traditions—ode and elegy, the poem of praise or the poem of mourning. Recalling Ovid as a poet not only of metamorphose and myth, but also of sexuality, a smuttiness which later publishers felt they needed to iron out in order to get him back into print, Stone recalled the fact that “elegiac meter” in Roman poetry was originally “erotic meter,” so that poems of longing and poems of loss might be thought of as emerging in fossil form from the same rock. Margaret Ronda read Juliana Spahr’s “Gentle Now, Don’t Add to Heartache” as a now canonical instance of ecopoetics, in which praise for and pleasure in the environment opens onto mourning, and the poem’s speaker recognizes her culpability in the destruction she witnesses. And Catherine Owen questioned whether “elegy” was an appropriate mode for poems about the environment, since elegy might anticipate losses that have not yet occurred, rather than saying what is or what might be.
My title, “Love, love, my season,” comes from the last line of Sylvia Plath’s “The Couriers,” a poem in Ariel. The mid-century “confessional” poetry that Plath’s work is aligned with is in many ways the exact antithesis of more recent forms of ethically driven poetics that have torn at the edges of lyric, unsettling the self overhearing itself at lyric’s center. But Plath’s poem also feels complexly “ecological.” The love she bears here is hardly Wordsworth’s ballooning attention. Nor does it seem fully reconciled with the human. Its disappointments and disturbances overflow, or are penetrated. And the Romantic correspondence that the title gestures to, a world in which nature can be “read” is short-circuited, its wires crossed. Love has exposed the unreadable, “A disturbance in mirrors” rather than a neat reflection. In Plath, these reverberations ring with pain and self-splintering, though love has set the compression of the poem in motion. But Morton aligns the “realms of the unspeakable” opened onto by the ecological thought with “realms of unspeakable love,” sapping a voice from these moments of recognition (x). If ecopoetics leans toward love, or spills from it, that “love” seems hardly a “ever-fixed mark.” Rather, loves. Love, love, and seasons.
E. Tracy Grinnell: from “body of war / songs” with a note on the process
after Danielle Collobert
the crowds
evisceral subjects sun-setting
in the sun
clashes waste
depopulating fray
afraid
hurled
_____________________
the revolt
executed
in spasms
projected
projectiles
human or plastic
embraces
shadows grounding
succumb
in flashes of emptiness, rhetoric
galleries of disaster
so the remove
of frozen images
subterranean
habitation of
because earth absorbs shock
waves
hands absent horizons
knock
impotently against
the walls
around
_____________________
the deep tombs, sink under
stones arranged
the stones and gold
light
from another source
pierces the front
of solitude
the passage
suffering
encircles
infiltrates
the reflection of an abyss
in the morning
frost
_____________________
futility mirrors
the inertia
of the face filtered
through an obsolete
medium
the wind
brushes
hands, raised
carries off voices
raised
what we hear of it
the nightmare
sounds off
the infant is born
into an aging infantry
carried aloft
against the earth
inscribed
on again
against a cliff’s edge
temporal
inflammatory
the fire nourishes
by what it consumes
____________________
attention of destruction to
cradled into uncertainties
the corpsman logs
what lays before
him
torrential forces
force of machinery’s
hard certainty
searches the seas
peopled with the coins
of our present
gardens
are erasures of
penetration
immovable figure
situated
equivalent
deaths
of heros
who are
they
errant mutations
achieved
Note. On “body of war / songs”
In 1961 Danielle Collobert self-published an edition of poems titled Chants des guerres. Some years later, she attempted to destroy all copies of the book. I came to these particular poems via It Then, via her Notebooks 1956-1978, and recently Murder, first as reader and then as editor/publisher. After the recent release of Murder (translated by Nathanaël, published by Litmus Press), I went back to Chant des guerres to read them in the original French (they are not translated into English). “body of war / songs” is that foray into reading her early poems.
As with my other explorations/experiments in translation, I consider translation a mode of reading, and/or reading a mode of translating, and both as a mode of writing. “body of war / songs” is very much after Collobert, temporally, as homage, but also as exploratory translation. Initially, I ‘faithfully’ translated the terse minimalist poems, leaving spaces for words I did not know. Then I translated some of these spaces, using a dictionary, or making a homophonic translation. Then I simply wrote through the text as if it were my own. Words shifted, altered, moved across the page, filled in, departed.
There are a couple things that interested me about this process of translating/creating – that Collobert’s writing was so familiar to me, that the words, the syntax itself, felt familiar. Not just because I have known her work since 1998 or so but because of poetic affinity, of writing the body in/into the poems. The sense of body, of the alienation of our bodies even in community. A sense of bodies moving through the world and touching / not touching. The remove. Also, it struck me that these poems written in 1961 could have been written now, or at any time in the last 50 years: what has actually changed? War is an ongoing, perpetual, mode. How pressing that these poems – Collobert’s – know this. It presses, as relevant, but also as pressure to write it, rewrite it.
In some ways, the distance between my poem and hers, the distance in time, in language, in other removes, between our poems and the wars they address, is also the distance between ‘zone’ and war zone. The remove of the U.S. from the carnage it enacts, the remove under which we in the U.S. are able to move about. Under drones, yes, fearful in the face of a lack of agency or ability to alter, yes, but with a very different sense of security. So when the carnage punctuates the remove, as it did in Boston most recently, we must translate this proximity into compassion, empathy – a deeper level of comprehension.
[E. Tracy Grinnell is the author of Some Clear Souvenir (O Books, 2006), and Music or Forgetting (O Books, 2001). An excerpt from Helen: A Fugue was published alongside Leslie Scalapino’s A Pear / Actions Are Erased / Appear in volume #1 of Belladonna’s Elder Series (2008). New and recent work is collected in the manuscripts Hell Figures, portrait of a lesser subject, and All the Rage. She is the founding editor and director of Litmus Press.]
Al Filreis named Chronicle of Higher Ed top 10 tech innovators
Making His MOOC an 'Outreach for Poetry'
By Steve Kolowich
Chronicle of Higher Education, April 29, 2013
Teaching students how to read and analyze experimental poetry can be hard enough in a small seminar class. Leading the same class in an online classroom of 36,000 far-flung learners might strike some as a fool's errand.
Al Filreis, a 57-year-old professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania, disagrees. Many believe that massive open online courses are more suitable for teaching mathematics and hard sciences, ruled as they are by laws, formulas, and right-or-wrong answers.
But Mr. Filreis, an early pioneer of MOOCs in the humanities, believes the MOOC format is in many ways ideal for his course, "Modern & Contemporary American Poetry." In fact, he thinks the MOOC version of his course is just as academically rigorous as the classroom version he has taught for 25 years.
THE INNOVATOR: Al Filreis, U. of Pennsylvania
THE BIG IDEA: MOOCs can bring humanities courses to the masses.
The key, he says, is being willing to get your hands dirty.
"I learned everything that I know from teaching at summer camp," says Mr. Filreis. One day, decades ago, when the professor was a camper at a YMCA in upstate New York, a sewage pipe on the grounds began to leak.
By the time Filreis and his peers woke up, the head counselor was "a good couple feet into the ground, shirtless and shitty," the professor recalls.
Nearby, the counselor had laid out additional shovels—a wordless invitation to Mr. Filreis and his fellow campers. Soon they were all digging in the muck.
That experience, plus several decades of teaching college students, has left Mr. Filreis with a somewhat postmodern view of his role as the head of the class. The Penn professor does not "lead" his MOOC in the traditional sense.
He does not lecture. He does not give grades. He assigns quizzes, but only because the founders of Coursera "begged" him to do so. (He calls the quizzes "silly," although he admits that students seem to like them.)
Those gestures of professorial authority are not what make students learn, says Mr. Filreis.
He argues that the peer-review system in his MOOC gives better feedback than he could provide if he read every student's writing assignments. "I read hastily," Mr. Filreis says. "It's not my best moment, writing notes on essays."
Instead, Mr. Filreis holds weekly readings and discussions at the Kelly Writers House, on the Penn campus, with students taking his MOOC who live nearby. When he last taught the course, eight to 30 students showed up each week, says Mr. Filreis. The professor then broadcasts those salons to the far-flung students in the course. The idea is to teach his online students about reading and discussing poetry by showing them what that looks like.
"I lay out the shovels there," Mr. Filreis says, "and I imply that the only way you'll be able to come do this is you have to pick up the shovel and do it."
In that way, he says, teaching critical reading to thousands of online students is not that much different from teaching students in the classroom. It just requires more intervention.
How much more? During his MOOC's 10-week run last fall, plus the two weeks after its conclusion, Mr. Filreis posted on the discussion forums 4,356 times. That's 52 posts per day, seven days a week.
"Nobody had ever done that," says Mr. Filreis. "They still haven't done it."
Sometimes the professor weighed in with a substantial insight; other times, he chimed in with light praise or encouraging words, just to let students know he was paying attention. And it was not just Mr. Filreis digging into the forums. The professor hired 12 teaching assistants to help him cheerlead and guide discussions.
Mr. Filreis got to know some of his MOOC students well enough that he wrote individual recommendations on behalf of several who were applying to undergraduate programs.
Given a MOOC format, which uses automation to meet the challenges of teaching at scale, Mr. Filreis's efforts to make himself personally accessible to students were extraordinary. But that might be what it takes to run a course that relies on buy-in from participants while offering no formal credit.
One of the challenges of building a sense of community around a MOOC is that massive online courses are landless, says Mr. Filreis. In this respect, the Kelly Writers House anchors his MOOC to the university in an uncommon way, he says. In addition to modeling discussions there, Mr. Filreis and his assistants have staged virtual tours of the house, a cozy yellow building nestled among trees off a campus walkway. The writers' house is open to the public, and the professor extends an open invitation to any MOOC participants who happen to be in the area; he says "many" have visited.
"There isn't a single MOOC, of the hundreds, that has an identifiable space ... a home, with an open invitation to anyone who has ever taken the course to walk in and participate," he says.
Did these extraordinary engagement efforts work? It depends on how one defines success. Two thousand students completed "Modern & Contemporary American Poetry," out of 36,000 registrants—a 5.5-percent completion rate. That figure may elicit cackles from some skeptics, but Mr. Filreis is not particularly interested in completion rates or the debate over how MOOCs might disrupt the existing credentialing system in higher education.
"This is outreach for poetry," he says. "I care about the poets. I care about the living, contemporary poets whose poems I teach, and I care about the fact that 36,000 people—or some number of people, many more than before—are reading these poems, and taking them seriously, and possibly buying their books. That's what I'm doing, primarily."
Algorithms in conceptual writing
with Fernando Diaz
Back in February, when I started this column, I wanted to interview Fernando Diaz about his sound art projects and also — because he's a computer scientist — about algorithms in poetry. The word "algorithm" appears often in critical analyses of conceptual writing, so I had been wondering what, if anything, conceptual writing and algorithms had to do with each other. I wanted to believe, but Fernando was skeptical about this metaphor. After 2.5 months of meeting, discussing, questioning, and haggling, we have only just begun to work through the chasm between our fields, our different values, histories, vocabularies, etc. Latour would be proud. It's been challenging and fun. And I'm grateful for Fernando's patience, generosity, and humor in working with me towards this provisional document.
A conversation with Bhanu Kapil
The poet's novel
Laynie Browne: Is there such a thing as the poet’s novel?
Bhanu Kapil: The poet’s brain changes, perhaps in mid-life. Perhaps the poet moves from one part of the country to another. The poet turns to the sentence as the place where questions of magnetism, gravity and light — the forces that bind a person to the earth and then release them, abruptly — might most fully be worked out. Why? On a scrap of paper, I draw three overlapping rough arcs. These are sentences. These are vectors, complicated — in this preliminary sketch —by refraction and shame: the reality of what happens — does happen — has happened — at the limit of a nation state. Sometimes, as I’ve thought about elsewhere, a person doesn't get to cross. A person sees their body reflected, perhaps, in the gelation membrane that extends above and just beyond the border like an invisible dome. To exit you rupture. What the novel-shaped space lets the poet do (perhaps) is work out what happens both before and afterwards: the approach to that multi-valent perimeter [the shredded plastic on the floor.] To track the vector until, as I tell my students, “it disappears.” Syntax, too, is where this [the] poet — engaging vectors in this other kind of duration — might bring a pressure to bear. A record of forward movement but also a way of investigating the glitches and formal barriers to cultural, global or personal notion of “progression.” Syntax has the capacity to be subversive, to be very beautiful, to register an anti-colonial position: in this respect. I think of the semi-colon: how it faces backwards and is hooked, the very thing a content [shredded plastic] might be caught on. A content, that is, that might never appear in the document of place. Perhaps the poet's novel is a form that, in this sense, might be taken up [is] by writers of color, queer writers, writers who are thinking about the body in these other ways. With the proto-Floridian/Bay Area writer, Amber DiPietra, for example — on-going conversation about the “blips,” “errata” and “bursts” of the sentence. See: her blog, Radio Real Time. Amber is a poet, active in the disability poetics community — and I am not sure that she is a novelist also, but the way she takes up syntax is one of the ways I’ve been able to think about, for myself, for others: the lyric and textural scope of a novel-shaped space. The zone of impossible life. And how, in that zone, the poet might: stop time. And perform. Or install. Something. Last summer I taught a class at the intersection of performance art and the novel: to try and work some of this out. For the poet's novel I am writing at the moment — BAN — I lay down on the floor of the world and rotated [gesticulated] there, in the mud: which is nudity. In the UK, I lay down next to the ivy on the sidewalk and set mirrors: there. Propped in the ivy. And studied the sky: a sensorimotor sequence. And gathered: witness notes. Nervous system notes. To return to the novel: in another form.
LB: In your own work, do you think much about the differentiation between poetry and prose?
BK: I do not. I have been variously described or introduced as a poet, a novelist, a cross-genre writer, a hybrid writer, a creative non-fiction writer, a lyric essayist, a writer working at the intersection of lyric and documentary aims, a fiction writer, a performance artist and a prose-poet. The category is after the fact, just as nationality is. I have the same vagueness about genre that arises in my body when asked where I am from. “England.” No, where are you from? And so on. In fact, I have become interested in this core numbness and have been trying to work out ways to make it a part of the writing. To make it the thing I think about. Ethnicity is yet another matter. I am also not saying the question of origination is analogous to the question of differentiation; I think that non-differentiation can have, as one of its outcomes, the very thing an experimental writer tried to avoid: heterogeneity. So, it’s a complicated question and perhaps reads to the poet’s novel as a hybrid form: not hybridity that comes from the activity of theft, collage or polyphony — but from the capacity of the body to form and extend a new gesture. This is to think through the animal. The poet’s novel is a kind of animal. Discuss.
LB: Are there any particular novels by poets that have influenced or inspired you?
BK: Gail Scott's My Paris and The Obituary.
Sina Queryas’ Autobiography of Childhood.
Melissa Buzzeo’s What Began Us and The Devastation.
Laynie, your own The Ivory Hour (a future memoir)
Laura Mullen’s Murmur.
Juliana Spahr and David Buuck's Army of Lovers collaboration.
Chris Abani’s Becoming Abigail.
Renee Gladman’s Juice.
Laura Moriarty’s Ultravioleta
Douglas Martin’s Your Body Figured
Elena Georgiou’s unpublished novel on the Crimean war.
LB: Please tell more about BAN. I'd like to know more about “sensorimotor notes,” “witness notes,” “nervous system notes,” and how this novel is a different form. How long have you been working on BAN? Where did the project begin? The process sounds very visceral, embodied. How is the process different this time? Tell more about mud and nakedness.
How do "time" and "character" evolve in this book?
BK: How can writing be the place where an interoceptive nervous system is tracked? The sensorimotor sequence is a sequence of glitches, subtle movements, trembling, voltage — that, in somatic trauma therapies, is: tracked. So that a sequence can be completed. To release: a response to trauma that has been lodged — as a loop or distortion/contraction — in the body. To shake until the shaking stops. To complete a movement that was not completed at the time of impact, whether that impact was chronic — a set of impacts — or acute. My influences are: Peter Levine, Babette Rothschild, Pat Ogden. I have been working on these ideas since 2006, when I began teaching through the animal, body and somatic trauma theory at Naropa University. How does a writer translate these concepts or approaches: to syntax? That is another reason, I think, that I turned to prose.
Ban, for example, is a girl who lies down on the ground in the opening minutes of a race riot. She lies down to die because, on some level, she is “already dead.” She is socially dead. There are two kinds of violence: the violence on the street and the violence at home. Either way, she's done for. This is 1979, in a working-class, mostly immigrant suburb of London. I felt that some part of my writing was a set of “witness notes” — to witness Ban's body until it ceases to twitch/flare — so that, here, in fiction, she could: complete: her sensorimotor sequence. A precursor, perhaps, to shedding off: to becoming the next possible thing. Here, I am speaking of incarnation. There is no way to reverse the death — in fact, it's already come — or is coming — but perhaps there is a way to accelerate: the release of Ban's “materials” so that — in fiction — they might: become something else in time. Recirculate as energy in another way. The witness notes also allow me to document the cyclical natural and artificial light that warps over Ban, and to think into the taxonomy of the riot in other ways. What is a riot? What is the history of violence of this neighborhood? So, two things at once.
What the witness position also allows me to do is to: send light: to Ban, at the same time that I am notating Ban's residual movements — the Bergsonian [overlapping] repetitions that underlie the illusion of posture-gesture contiguity. How the body is a series of rough arcs. And how the novelist is the person who holds the space for what that body wants to be. This is proprioception, the act of letting the body know — through light touch and the sensing/directing of energy to the body's outer membrane or "field" — where its limits are. How does this help Ban? I am not sure that it is something that I write about in Ban, but it is part of what my process is as a bodyworker; something that is also part of the experiment of the novel. How to bring to the novel a way of thinking about or sensing with bodies that happens in other disciplines or fields?
This last idea is what led me to lie down on the ground myself, in London, in India and in my garden in Colorado, where Sharon Carlisle — a friend, an earth-artist — dug a rectangle of earth. She wanted to build a mud female Buddha. There were interims when the mud was being sifted and the ground raked/prepared. During the last interim, I lay down — nude, ash/dirt covered — in Ban's mode. To say: the rectangle of earth was a balcony: the staged outline of asphalt where — in the novel — she lay. Mirrors propped in the ivy behind her head. I wanted to open my eyes as Ban and study the particulate, dazzling field of earth materials, to feel the air on my body and what it might be like, to be exposed like that, even in a minimal way, a curated way, and to: give up.
It was embodied, but it was also functional.
In Los Angeles, in a red sack, on a butcher's table at the Schindler's House, I also — lay down. To glitch. And practice movements for BAN — observed by audience members on the grassy slope outside. As part of Les Figues' symposium on Voyeurism: "Both Sides and Center." I opened my eyes and saw the red fabric.
In Hayes/Southall, in the U.K., where Ban is set, I lay down. In the exact spot that Ban is set. I opened my eyes and saw the ivy. I saw a strange rainbow cloud. I saw a milky pink street light. I saw the mirrors, which I'd stacked in the ivy leaves.
And so on. Thus to return: these notes: to the novel. What it looked like, from that terminal position. And what it felt like: the soft tissue contracting around my kidneys, my urethra and even my heart. The refraction of these notes — the way they magnetize the event — resembles poetry, in the sense that poetry, for me, is the work of the fragment. How do fragments attract? And so on.
Prose lets me attend to this question in a massive way.
I get to be the fragment too.
Like bitumen.
Glinting in the oily curd of the asphalt.
As a car drives past.
To this end, perhaps I am saying, too, that the "novel-shaped space" allows me to think through national space in ways that I have thought about in other places. As an immigrant who does not live in a community of immigrants — I want to think about the way my own body — a diasporic body — has sliced through space and lodged, in what a novel "was."
The novel was the thing I read on aeroplanes.
Now it's the thing that you can dig out of the earth and lie down upon: an eternal image, one that never fades, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I have been writing Ban for three years.
I think I am trying to write her until she can no longer be written.
This is what time allows me to do.
Or what I am doing with time.
I am trying, as a writer, to write the body [character] to its end-point and beyond. Why?
That is why I am writing this novel. To reach into that other space — a radical index — and it is why I cannot write about it now.
Not having reached.
That place.
"Love, love, my season."
by Gillian Osborne
Following the Advisory Board Roundtable that launched the Conference on Ecopoetics, Charles Altieri, who later in the weekend led a seminar on “Ecopoetics and Affect,” asked a question: “Is ecopoetics a way to go beyond ethics to love?” (A paraphrase.) This question acknowledged a legacy of ethically motivated poetics—or “poethics” as Joan Retallack would say—while at the same time inquiring about something potentially far gushier and subject driven. And in fact, this possibility of an ecopoetics motivated by or productive of love, or loves, resurfaced throughout the weekend.
Robert Hass responded to Altieri’s question during the same Q&A by invoking Wordsworth’s “most watchful power of love,” which, early in the Prelude, registers both “transitory qualities,” “permanent relations,” and “difference” in the passing seasons. Wordsworth’s love is an acute attention, seeing what would otherwise go unseen, inviting the object world of matter to infiltrate the poet’s heart and mind and leave its mark. This attentive love serves an instructive function, driving the “Growth of a Poet’s Mind” that the Prelude chronicles. The pinnacle of what the poet learns from watching and loving is the exact hinge within his self that swings open toward the sublime.
Wordsworth’s sublime has, as Keats quipped, an “egotistical” component. Though it arises from attention to “manifold distinctions,” and though it thrills to inhuman splendors—nighttime waters and looming rocks—this loving mind loves in service of its own fulfillments. From the perspective of ecopoetics, Wordsworth’s Romantic love seems to pose both a possibility and a problem. On one hand, the poet attends. The poet turns toward materials. On the other hand, the poet puffs himself with what he learns there. And though the sublime is double edged—terror and awe—the threat that sublimity momentarily posits to the self is compensated by a more capacious mind on the flip side. Wordsworth’s watchful love seems to long for experiences beyond the confines of a self while at the same time learning to draw the parameters of its longing in ever bolder ink.
If love, particularly for the inhuman, seems rife with these complications about the role of the lover in relation to her beloved, desire somehow seems more straightforward. Desire demands a body; it abjures the purely intellectual or linguistic. Desire touches the earth while love seems at risk of soaring off. Fittingly, desire showed up more frequently than “love” in discussions throughout the weekend. During the satellite event at Davis, in response to a question (Angela’s!) about the role of embodiment in ecopoetics, Jonathan Skinner questioned the limits of desire. Can I feel desire for a bird, a blade of grass? (See Angela’s post on “Queering ecopoetics” for more on desire and embodiment in ecopoetics.)
In his presentation on “Outsider Poetics” for the panel “The Book as Ecopoetic Instrument,” Tyrone Williams seemed interested in expanding the telic motions of desire toward something whose purpose isn’t necessarily satisfaction. He described a poetics that would participate in “a gift economy, one which spirals away from each preceding giver towards another forthcoming recipient,” an economy “analogous to the structure of desire even as it exceeds its form.” At the end of his paper, he called this excessive structure love: “Imagine, if we can, an ecopoetics untethered from the earth, a body no longer bounded by the concept of a globe or sphere. Imagine a body adrift from embodiment, a book, like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed…like love, unblurbed.” If desire can be located, its trajectories charted, Williams presents a love (a body, a book) that is unmoored, resistant to paraphrase, pervasive. One might even say “ecological.”
In The Ecological Thought (2010), Timothy Morton tugs at the boundaries of “ecology”:
“This book argues that ecology isn’t just about global warming, recycling, and solar power— and also not just to do with everyday relationships between humans and nonhumans. It has to do with love, loss, despair, and compassion. It has to do with depression and psychosis. It has to do with capitalism and with what might exist after capitalism. It has to do with amazement, open-mindedness, and wonder. It has to do with doubt, confusion, and skepticism. It has to do with concepts of space and time. It has to do with delight, beauty, ugliness, disgust, irony, and pain. It has to do with consciousness and awareness. It has to do with ideology and critique. It has to do with reading and writing. It has to do with race, class, and gender. It has to do with sexuality. It has to do with ideas of self and the weird paradoxes of subjectivity. It has to do with society. It has to do with coexistence” (2).
Love launches this expansive litany of ecological concerns, a list that, on some level, also reads like an invocation of almost everything the humanities have ever cared about. The other half of Altieri’s question during the advisory board Q&A was: “Aren’t we too embarrassed by love for its powers to be effective?” (Again, I’m paraphrasing.) By “we” Altieri meant academics, or poets within the academy, a job description that certainly didn’t account for all the participants at the conference. But one of the reasons love seems potentially embarrassing for theorists, or poets, or activists, is that as a concept or practice love retains theological overtones, and much of the thought, poetry, and action that otherwise seems to have influenced ecopoetics arises from otherwise secular concerns.
Within religious contexts, love is offered as a foundational affective condition, from which ethics inevitably evolves. Christians call such a fundamental love “agape,” divine love, and Buddhists cultivate practices of “loving kindness” through meditation on the interdependent and causally involved nature of all living and nonliving things. It is this love for the nonhuman in particular (or, this nonhuman love if you think of agape as something deriving from an inhuman being), that seems to have found its way into some strains of ecological thinking. C.S. Lewis begins The Four Loves with an essay on “Likings and Loves for the Sub-Human” (in which, among other things, he discusses how a love for strawberries is continuous with a love for humans). Morton thanks Tsoknyi Rinpoche, his Buddhist teacher, for influencing the ideas that went into The Ecological Thought (and discusses this teacher’s work on his blog). Buddhism is a clear influence in the work of Gary Snyder and Joanne Kyger, eco-poets of an earlier generation.
Love also came up, perhaps surprisingly, on the panel “Elegy, Mourning, Melancholia,” presided over by John Beer, Catherine Owen, Margaret Ronda, and Russell Stone, and in particular through the connections these thinkers drew between two seemingly antithetical poetic traditions—ode and elegy, the poem of praise or the poem of mourning. Recalling Ovid as a poet not only of metamorphose and myth, but also of sexuality, a smuttiness which later publishers felt they needed to iron out in order to get him back into print, Stone recalled the fact that “elegiac meter” in Roman poetry was originally “erotic meter,” so that poems of longing and poems of loss might be thought of as emerging in fossil form from the same rock. Margaret Ronda read Juliana Spahr’s “Gentle Now, Don’t Add to Heartache” as a now canonical instance of ecopoetics, in which praise for and pleasure in the environment opens onto mourning, and the poem’s speaker recognizes her culpability in the destruction she witnesses. And Catherine Owen questioned whether “elegy” was an appropriate mode for poems about the environment, since elegy might anticipate losses that have not yet occurred, rather than saying what is or what might be.
My title, “Love, love, my season,” comes from the last line of Sylvia Plath’s “The Couriers,” a poem in Ariel. The mid-century “confessional” poetry that Plath’s work is aligned with is in many ways the exact antithesis of more recent forms of ethically driven poetics that have torn at the edges of lyric, unsettling the self overhearing itself at lyric’s center. But Plath’s poem also feels complexly “ecological.” The love she bears here is hardly Wordsworth’s ballooning attention. Nor does it seem fully reconciled with the human. Its disappointments and disturbances overflow, or are penetrated. And the Romantic correspondence that the title gestures to, a world in which nature can be “read” is short-circuited, its wires crossed. Love has exposed the unreadable, “A disturbance in mirrors” rather than a neat reflection. In Plath, these reverberations ring with pain and self-splintering, though love has set the compression of the poem in motion. But Morton aligns the “realms of the unspeakable” opened onto by the ecological thought with “realms of unspeakable love,” sapping a voice from these moments of recognition (x). If ecopoetics leans toward love, or spills from it, that “love” seems hardly a “ever-fixed mark.” Rather, loves. Love, love, and seasons.