Excellent Movie Idea

Excellent Movie Idea!

The Glowing Green Osprey

Dear Hollywood, Please remit $10 million dollars for can't miss movie idea.

Adolescent boy (Max) and girl (Sam) rescue a strangely glowing green osprey from a flock of marauding crows that were harrying it. Both Max and Sam wear glasses but neither is fat or anything bad like that. The glowing osprey has an injured wing, which Max and Sam fixed by stealing bandages from their parents. Everyone makes fun of the children because of their affection for this glowing green bird.

The three become inseparable. The bird follows them around on foot, even to school. In a telling scene, the town bully picks on the children and threatens the green osprey. Luckily, the osprey somehow manages to thwart the bully, who ends up soaking wet. All the school children cheer. The angry and disgraced bully says, “Aw, take your dumb green osprey and get outta here.”

Later, the children discover that the town's bank has foreclosed on the town's nice old grumpy man's ranchland because it turns out that someone—a pirate most likely—buried pirate treasure on the land. The children want to save the town's nice old grumpy man, Old Man MacGillicuddy, and also the very interesting historical artifacts that would bolster their town's economy by putting the town on the map. Luckily, the glowing green osprey—a CPA, as it turns out—points out certain accounting discrepancies. The bank's mean manager fiddled with the books to set up the foreclosure. The bank manager, who is the father of the town bully, is arrested, and both him and his son somehow end up soaking wet. As the sheriff leads the mean bank manager away, the bank manager says, “If it wasn't for that darned green osprey, I'd be rich beyond belief.” The osprey gives a typical osprey cry and everyone laughs.

The End

“Oh Well”, Various Artists

I curiouslied Norman Greenbaum, “Spirit in the Sky”, on Wiki-Impedia, just because it is a perfection from somewhere (bluesy version). This led me, Youtube-wise, to “OhWell”, the Peter Green/Fleetwood Mac version. Just because.

It turns out a bunch have recorded “Oh Well”. Hence this blog post. This is very important.

• Fleetwood Mac/ Peter Green: As I understand, Peter Green formed Fleetwood Mac having left John Mayall. Green basically replaced Eric Clapton in Mayall’s group, tho I think someone was in between. Green named the group after the rhythm section for apparently not wanting to be too shiny. HE wrote the song. If you consult Youtube (and I invite you to), you will see  that the flashy guitar stuff is handled by another guitarist, Jeremy Slade er um Spencer (good rock music name, Slade, that is), kinda like how Duane Allman played the flash while Derek Domino sang “Layla”. The guy with the maracas, Danny Kirwan, was a solid guitarist as well. The good old days.
• Fleetwood Mac 2: Mac changed a bunch without those 3 guitarists. Buckingham pulled his weight, but Stevie Nicks merely added hers. I like Christine McVey but the new found land differs greatly from Green’s. OK. Buckingham fills the bill here.
• Tom Petty: Mike Campbell gets his hands on that nervy guitar line. As with FM2, lack of second guitarist duel, and the rock star implement of standing there for a gasping audience, dulls the edge, but a credible honoring.
• Black Crows with Jimmy Page. Rich Robinson handles the central guitar line, Page gets the flash. A third guitarist also slashes in. Which one is Page? Okay, Jimmy is old, so you can pick him out. The stance of male figure with Gibson guitar, left hand low on the guitar neck, enforcing the virtues of the electric sound, has been learned. Credible, but Page blows the solo.
• Kenny Wayne Shepherd: Je suis out to lunch: I admit it. I guess I have heard the name. Is he the singer or the guitarist? Another easy channeling of the original.
• The Rockets: Dunno them either, which is not their fault. They pull the song into an almost polka tempo. I do not speak against that, but their results are a trifle lugubrious. The song is rather anxious, textually.
• Joe Jackson: What??? Well, he has the basic flex  of the song. You take a risk when a song bases itself on zowie guitar, and you don’t supply that.  It is a creative test, especially for musicians, whether to simulate or agitate elsewhere. Think of “Satisfaction” by Devo. ‘Taint no ways close to the Stone’s version, or Redding’s, Franklin’s, etc. And Yet.
• The Look: Sludgy rhythm section, 1…2…3…4…

So what’s the upshot here? Influence-wise, what does one do with the excitements one meets? Shift dynamically away or homage? No wrong answer except in the satisfaction gained 1st by artist, 2nd by audience. The original included part 2, “classical” in its way: acoustic, strings, piano.  Memory says both Green and Jeremy Slade (but really Spencer) flipped out from lsd usage. Add them to the long list (Skip Spence..). If you Youtubed, as I admittedly did, all the above, you have things to learn. I can’t teach you this. There is even a used-up-rag version by old and worn out fat Peter Green with no voice left and and and we do not hold our powers forever. This is a blog post on creative learning.

Silliman’s Blog

The vote’s in that posting videos on his blog that are easily sourced is a two-wheeled trike. I know he must weary from his years of perspicacity, blogwise, but mining Penn Sound and Youtube does not require handholding.

To Be by Lynn Behrendt

Thanks to Ron Silliman’s link collection, this collage by I saw her read last summer: go here. My laptop serves it up poorly, and I am thinking it works better as a physical object than a virtual one, but tra la, take what you get. I love the engravings, and the old postage stamps. Do I detect Monty Python’s vole up near the beginning? I’m not sure the words do much. As I said, impact is lost on the small field of my laptop, but the intruding words do not seem to match the visual impact. I mean, the visuals are so stately, historical, and important, and the words seem like jottings. Not that that collision isn’t interesting, but the words are overmatched.

Flarf Flarf

Nobody ever writes about Flarf but this child means to…

Receiving a copy of Ben Friedlander’s book, Citizen Cain (available from Salt Publishing), occasions this determination. I will review the book, but anon. I’ve decided—trying something wild here—to read it beforehand, so I won’t have to make up so much about it. Seriously, I look forward to reading it because Ben (can I call you Ben?) is both an able poet and scholar. No blister, he.

The Acknowledgments of Ben’s book surprised me because I am among those he acknowledges. I think as perspicacious scholar—he swam thru the papers of Charles Olson: think of those tides!—he felt obliged to leave no stone unturned. I earned my acknowledgment by being a member of the Flarf email list. I never really got the hang of making Flarf, tho I tried (and still, for fun, try). As a methodology if not as a promotional device, Flarf’s interesting. Tally ho with my inquest!

Flarf’s radicalism always had the force of people saying it had force. That is, the talk about Flarf seemed to center largely on the talk about Flarf. A note of mischief haunts the method, which seems how it differs from others who have trawled the queasy conclave of voices of the Internet. Flarf is funny. It hauls disembodied declarations ashore in unwashed context. This is found thing, and the Internet is nutty.

The invention of Flarf kinda lays heavily on a sense of legend that I do not find compelling. Critic as someone who likes a good story. It also depends on the slack critical ploy of lumping together. And of not lumping together. Those who did Flarfy methods prior to Flarf do not count? To some extent, yes, just as those who say they do, do. They all seem to disguise the act of reading behind a series of symbols that say ‘In’ or ‘Out’. I weary.

At one time, Impressionist labeled 6 specific people—Monet, Renoir, Manet, Degas, Morisot, and Sisley—and not necessarily kindly. Nowadays, it means anyone who paints with blurry colours.  Critical acts  are  ignored in favour of association. Flarf got balled up in who was on what side, as if circles have sides. I’m getting steamed just thinking about this. A poem is the thing you read, not hear about.

Now, I have made Flarf poems, if you will accept my definition of a Flarf poem. Here is one I did yesterday.

They Said it on the Show Last Night

High rapture provides increased opportunities to mate with high rapture partners. This increases distant survival potential and social contributions of your other children distant same age. Distant child is said to have short rapture achieved level status. Rapture is an agile business evidence of rapture reduction in studies since 1984. Scott Lang distant second Ant-Man attracted to teammate Iron Lad (Nathaniel Richards), who soon left distant group, adopted distant codename "Rapture" and assisted distant Young Avengers against proportionate short rapture conditions. Distant Rapture of Anton Chekhov occupies relatively a central position in distant anthropometric research estimation of rapture of and individual from distant amputated Rapture of Things in Russian Thought. Distant focus of my work involved distant prediction of adult (age 18) rapture in children. What is distant rapture of limitations for felonies in Michigan? They don't have distant rapture to do it.

I collected phrases by searching on a term. For some reason, the word rapture came to mind. Actually, I searched on another term that, embarrassingly, I cannot remember. I then did Find & Replace to put rapture where my search term was. That was my method. If you want, as people sometimes do want in reference to Flarf, you can say that I did not write this poem because I did not make up the words. Remember Guy Davenport reporting someone asking him: “Is that a poem or did you just make it up?” What ev.

I’ve done worse. Sometimes I will run spellcheck over my sloppy typing and randomly accept choices. Sometimes I will ram the text thru Babelfish until something interesting appears. It’s fun if not always edifying. That’s what I know of Flarfian methods. Method, my friends, is red herring.

So when I do read Ben’s book, and try to come to terms with it, I will start  with the poem before me. I will look at the words, see their connections, and go from there. I will only reference Ben’s recent embroglio with Lady Gaga as it elates to specific poems. Kirk out.

Gil Ott and Impermanence

Scanning and perusing the bookshelf, natch I find books and authors I haven’t read in a while. Such is Gil Ott, and The Yellow Floor (Sun & Moon Press). He was editor of Singing Horse Press, fine enough accomplishment, but I think his poetry is wonderful, too.

I thought he died rather recently, but in fact, he died in 2004. Tempus fugit, and we can hardly keep score. I take it that he filled a vital space in the Philadelphia poetry scene.  I cannot think of a Boston figure who fills or recently filled such a role. Beyond our starchy educational edifices, that is, and who wants to listen to that resistance?

Ott’s poetry is short-lined, curt (in its way), yet lyrical. He seems less agonized in expression than Creeley but tunes to a similar measure. A poet, finally, that we should be talking about.

But there, I see a rub. We, readers, no longer seem capable to keep up with the past. That is, we see so many writers who we must read, who are contemporaries, friends, people in reports. Keeping up with the current stream, we ignore or lose touch with the past. I say this not accusingly but just to note how the structure has changed.

Myself, I get few contemporary poetry books nowadays, surely not like I used to. Not because the work I see does not match my impeccable standards, but that I know my limit. There is just too much. And that does not even consider earlier writers who I have missed in my peregrinations.

One feels almost like railing against those that made the cut, Creeley, Ginsberg, and the rest of that short list. Why do they remain ‘important’ while other corpses lie a-mould’ring’? Because of the same limits that I claim. Still, I think the idea that poetry is news that stays news is a valid pronouncement. Our friends and all their chapbooks: is that really the news? If yes, then we should hold on, study, discuss, and grow with those seeds. If not, recognize that fact.

I see little useful validation concerning contemporary poetry in the teeming oceans of the Internet. I mean beyond that X is awesome, and Y rocks. With all the possible outlets, there would seem to be plenty of critical matter floating in the aether, but I am not seeing it. Instead, the production line continues to produce the latest model. Like it or not. Yet poetry, and art generally, seems only partially made without discussion. In this instant, I recommend (because he is what turned up in my shelf scan), a reading of Gil Ott. End of sermon.

Thor, the Movie

Marvel finally got around to committing Thor to the silver screen. I guess I saw an ad recently, and it seemed attractive. Not to sound overly eager. Erin and I saw the matinee today.

Robin Hood may have been the last cinema feature that I saw, and I recall the dreary lineup of trailers. This time the upcoming goods seem at least palatable, given that I don’t want to see anything too heartwarming or sensitive. So my highly superficial run down of summer blockbusters consists of the following:

• Cowboys and Aliens. A finely tuned blend of cowboys and aliens. See, there’s cowboys, and there are aliens. Together! Somehow the particular flash and rumble of this trailer kinda drew me in. That does not mean I would vote for Sarah Palin. Daniel Craig (or whatever the latest James Bond actor is called), looking really rawboned, stars, and Harrison Ford.
• Captain America. I never really liked Captain A. I think the original, during WW2, was well outside my taste range. He carried a gun then, and this evocation does, as well. I suppose Captain America really was the product of eugenics in htge early comic, but placing him in contradistinction to Nazi eugenics does not work. That’s knucklehead talking. Or in other words, fitting tea party philosophy.
• Pirates of the Caribbean 4, the Death Knell. I HATE THIS CRAP. Number 2 was bad, number 3 angered me, and this, it seems, is the vital concoction of Hollywood as hell. Now we have Blackbeard in the role of Depp’s ghost pirate plaything. Blackbeard, the guy who tied lit fuses into his beard when he went into battle: he needs application of this sort of hokum? This has got to stop! Orlando, Keira, and the other familiar faces have been denied star access to this trek into merchandizing, presumably because they are charting further routes to the pot of gold.

So Thor. I rather liked the comic, in the day, but mainly because I’ve always found Norse mythology appealing. From what I can tell, the writers have eschewed most of the comic’s talking points. I believe they learned their mythology from some computer game, but my expertise does not extend to knowing which one.

The story begins in left field, with some scientists studying some local astrological (rewriting note: folks, I really did type astrological when I meant astronomical) wonders. The scientists consist of an older man, a younger woman, who I eventually recognized as Natalie Portman, and a research student. We learn later that the research student is a snarky poli sci student who was the only one to volunteer for service. Some funny back and forth occurs between the three, with the student prime with rolling eyes and youthful ennui. And then their vehicle runs into someone…

Flashback. Hey, we’re in Asgard, learning about the battle between the Norse gods and the Frost Giants. Anthony Hopkins overplays Odin some. It is called acting. Thor and his brother Loki are seen as children, then as adults. Just before Thor is made King of the Gods, or whatever, the Frost Giants attack. They are thwarted but Thor in headstrong mode heads off with his handful of friends to kick Frost Giant ass. Here’s a big weakness.

Thor’s merry band are perfectly boring and undefined. They do not look convincing as warriors whatsoever. There’s a ridiculous battle that substitutes blur for action.  I guess I neglected to mench that we saw the 3d version. More on the wonders of 3d later.

Odin shows up to save the band. He banishes Thor to Earth because of Thor’s impetuosity. Banishment from Asgard is no different from travel in a Star Gate, it so happens. Thor lands on Earth in time to get struck by the scientists’ vehicle. So we get some stranger in a strange land stuff.

The four of them are funny together. Thor, who played Captain Kirk’s da in STrek, is a big hunk of manly yum. Portman spends much of the movie in a fluttery drool. Thor’s hammer lands on Earth, which intrigues A Government Agency. Oh yes, that plotline.

From there, trust me, Loki overacts while betraying his sibling (turns out he’s a Frost Giant whelp, oh oh, no spoiler alert). The Boring Band show up ineffectually, Thor gets cured of hubris, and…

Visually, the movie was a shriek. It was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who blithered Frankenstein into some histrionic mélange of excited numbness. People seem to take him seriously, and I do not get that.

There were some mindlessly wonderful shots of Asgard, kinda trippy, kinda scifi. There was scale, flash, and bang.

The 3d is simply a pox. I will give props to Avatar, otherwise a piece of flattened crap, insofar as the environment felt more convincing than in Thor. Too much of Thor’s effect flouted focus. It seemed like Branagh blew opportunities to rev up the wow factor that 3d allows. And I got to say, the movie made my eyes see funny.

In the end, Loki gets ‘killed’ and whatever. The comic, with Thor switching between being a god and a doctor with a limp, had a nice bit that the movie ignored. Oh well. I got a phone call and missed the lead in to the next episode, but Erin was revved enough to have some excitement for it. Frankly, if someone made a movie of the myth rather than the comic, I’d get a thrill.

Fu Manchu

I think I have carried the thrill of Fu Manchu since high school. Back then, I simply responded to the charged atmosphere of adventure, similar to what Raiders of the Lost Ark aimed at. I have since become more enthralled in the meta cloud surrounding Fu Manchu, tho admittedly I have been satisfied to leave deep cogitations on the subject alone. I will not get deep here, either.

To a clear extent, Fu Manchu = Sherlock Holmes, but on the dark side. He’s more about megalomania than monomania, but in both cases, there’s a perplexingly weird and involved attachment to some goal that those words cannot satisfy. The bee in each of their bonnets, the weed up each of their asses, is enormous.

So okay. Holmes is for Good and Fu Manchu for Evil, but that’s as may be. They’re really out there for a good tussle. Here we discover a particular difference between the two. Holmes matches against an evil twin in Moriarty, as well as other felons of considerable device. Fu Manchu battles a minor lamp in the British Empire’s brilliant beam, Sir Denis Nayland-Smith. It don’t seem fair, but Fu Manchu always gets thwarted.

Read Nayland-Smith as an early version of James Bond. He’s crisp and focused, yet it’s always his good luck, and Fu Manchu’s bad, that British civilization isn’t overrun by Chinese hordes. Yes racism is a player here, more anon.

Unlike the invention of the Sherlock Holmes stories, with Fu Manchu, only one plot appears thru out the series, so far as I know. I have read a number of the books—not all, surely—and cannot differentiate them. That’s okay. P. G. Wodehouse made do with one plot, i.e.: upper class twit (Bertie Wooster, or a clone) must perform some ridiculous antic like steal a hat to avoid marrying someone. Butler ex machina, aka Jeeves, saves the day at the last minute. Fu Manchu tries his darnedest to overthrow Western civilization but Nayland-Smith somehow always throw the appropriate monkey wrench into the works. You come to the end of the book and wonder how that happened. British pluck, inherent, is the answer.

Like Holmes, Nayland-Smith has a helpmeet in his adventures, and a doctor to boot: Dr Petrie. He’s the one carrying the torch (i.e. flashlight) and revolver. Petrie’s peppier than Watson, and in a cunning twist, somewhere along the line even marries Fu Manchu’s daughter.

I mentioned plot, and here it is:

In a charged atmosphere of intrigue (and I am not kidding about that) Nayland-Smith breathlessly appears to British government officials and Dr Petrie with information gathered from arcane sources that Dr Fu Manchu is on the move. The death of some ambassador, or whatever, indicates this. Rare poisons are used and that can mean only one thing. Mysterious appearances of Asian factotums also indicate that Fu Manchu is at work. Sir Denis and the Doctor then proceed to the chase, which always ends up in some wet place, a sewer or waterside warehouse, where Fu Manchu has set up his headquarters. Minions are captured and killed but Fu Manchu absquatulates, but not before a grunt of respect between the two nemeses. Whew!

I have gotten this far without mentioning the name of the author of the Fu Manchu stories. It is Sax Rohmer, born Arthur Henry Sarsfield Ward. I only know what Wikipedia tells me.  Note the possibly real connection to arcane knowledge. I love the picture there, Sax Rohmer wearing a silk robe, smoking a pipe. Ah the enchanting mysteries!

The racism here is full throttle, albeit “normal’. Descriptions of Asians, including Fu Manchu himself, obsess on physical features considered ugly or strange. The stories basically report the jolt of Other. Fu Manchu and Asians generally are simply too strange to understand. Their motivations seem thoughtlessly biological. This would seem like the racism of an ignorant day but the death of Osama Bin Laden shows that that day lies close still. Bin Laden himself, ‘as we know him’ (thru media exhortations), is Fu Manchu, plotting and hiding. Never the twain shall meet is not merely an observation, but somehow a right.

In the world of Fu Manchu, Good and Evil teeter in Manichean balance, with just enough sway towards Good to keep us happy. In the real world, such a balance cannot be blessed to remain. Little of substance holds the partisanship together. Yet factions are seen as bulwarks.

Well, I’ve managed to overthink this. I respond to the intrinsic hilarity of these characters. I don’t know if it is still done, but it used to be that in pro wrestling, a playful racism engaged the viewer. It involved evil characters, representing cultural or racial groups, attempting to take over the world of wrestling, after which falls the country and the world. Fu Manchu’s involved plots bear the same nature. And we have an officious and tightly wound Bertie Wooster to save us… I guess at this point I should ask who you are voting for for president next year.

Get Their Books (Prior & Weiner)

Humour me. Innocently encouraging these two writers that someone someday will read their books, with all the false hope that that entails, I now present urls by which dear Reader can purchase these books, both of which carry my seal of approval.

1. David Prior: The Yoke of the Horde 
2. Steve Weiner: Tom's House

It’s up to you, Reader!

Novels: David Prior & Stephen Weiner

Both David Prior and Stephen Weiner gave me their diy books to read. I finally have done so, and will speak of these works. I feel duty-bound, because they gave me the books in earnest. Furthermore, I really encourage the do-it-yourself initiative that computers have fostered. Be your own gatekeeper, sez I.

I at least somewhat know both writers. David I met at a poetry reading. After the reading, folks repaired to a bar, where David bought Michael and me a Guinness. In the later course of things, he sent me his book. That was several years ago, I have to admit. Stephen I have known since I was teenage. Both have non-writing careers. Not sure what David does but Stephen is a librarian. He has published several books on comics, and is regarded as an authority on the subject.

So anyway.

The Yoke of the Horde. David’s novel is a husky effort. It begins in media res, which means in the middle of res. We soon glean that a woman converses one-sidedly with someone she just met at a store. The person with whom she speaks never says a word, never has a chance. That this person never intrudes supplies the woman with the idea of sympathy. She brings this man home with her, to meet, well, the situation there.

The situation there consists of her husband, who just returned from trying to save Tibet, as he puts it. He is nominally the hero of this farce. Additionally, the woman’s boyfriend shares the apartment. She took up with the boyfriend while her husband was away and presumed dead. Now they have a very uneasy ménage-a-trois. The boyfriend is a loutish bully, the husband bullied and outraged, and the woman content within the vision of an idyllic structure. And there we are. Everyone projects their ideas upon the silent man in a tussle of personal viewpoints.

Of course my description of all this sucks. It is really quite funny, as is Prior himself. We see the silent man at work, as well, where he likewise is seen as wise and resourceful, just for not interfering with other people’s viewpoints. The CEO of the company where he works takes the silent man, Tommy, under his wing as an assistant. He gives Tommy the project of improving the little putting green in his office. Tommy proceeds to create a living golf course in the office, with grass, water hazards, and wildlife. Absurdity upon absurdity.

Meanwhile, the ménage grows, with a scholarly couple who are attempting to contact Immanuel Kant via séance. At least according to them, Kant is part of the ménage. Other characters appear, and situations develop.

Like I say, my description of the plot sucks. I thought of William Gaddis (as in: the author of JR) for how intricate relationships perform subtle machinations. Flann O’Brien, to whose name should be attached the great., also comes to mind for the vivid invention of plot and character. Some slightly apocalyptic events occur in the plot. The story almost becomes unwieldy, but David reins it in, and his humour really resonates.

David sets the story in the Boston area, with local references, including a skewed take on our local tv weather guy legend. Thru out the book, and providing a great energy for it, are humourously flaky observations, genuinely funny. This rollicking invention shows what I mean by Flann O’Brien’s influence. I have no idea if David has partaken of O’Brien’s genius, but his eager excitement in the language and plot makes it likely.

I feel the book could be edited. Gatekeepers do provide a service, I will admit. Horde bears the standard mark of diy:typos. For the most part, the wildness of David’s invention works, but an outside eye might excise some sentences. I’ve read enough contemporary novels to declare that this book is far less effluvial than most, but still, a honing can’t hurt.

I know that self-publish still equates with amateur for most people, but this is not amateur work. David’s really at ease in the writing, and disavows the usual map.

Tom’s House. Tom’s House differs from Horde in many ways. Categorize it as a novella, novelette, noveletto, novelini or whatever word sufficient to say that it is shorter than most novels. I admire any novel that can get its work done efficiently. I mean, even as I love the great long novels, the Stephen King sort of affliction that drives stories on and on tires me. Novels should be exactly as long as needed, no longer, no shorter. Please!

Tom’s House presents a teenage boy whose mother has decided to separate from her husband. Tom has a brother, but he’s away in college, so Tom’s alone in the awkwardness between his parents.

Stephen locates this story in our home town, so I identify with that. He actually changes the map some, for the heck of it, I guess. That’s not important, the place is real in the story. The personal warmth of remembrance makes a lively strength here. Stephen lets memory run its course without placing interpretive weight on events. The story is clearly cathartic for the writer, but not tiresomely so for the reader. Stephen manages this by somehow not investing in the character. Very, very often, authors root for their characters, thereby delivering deus ex machina hokum. That’s a bad thing.

Tom feels the expected emotions: anger, betrayal, and confusion. His mother earnestly tries to explain and support her painful decision while his father remains unsatisfyingly reserved. One expects this awkward stoic to disappear by the end of the story.

A second plot point concerns a bully out to get Tom. Tom tries to evade the fight that the bully wants. This is just one more thing for Tom.

Stephen does not exploit these situations but instead handles them with deft ordinariness. He evokes a clean picture of school, friends, homework, and stuff. I easily saw the town where I grew up.

The story pressed towards two big conclusions, as I read. I delight that neither conclusion actually occurs.

I expected, and you would too, that Tom’s mother would decide to work it out with Tom’s father, and Tom would beat the bully. Instead, Tom ineffectually fights and loses to the bully, and mother goes away. Oops, forgot to signal spoiler alert. You know, if a story can be beat by a spoiler, it aint much of a story.

Thru out the book, we see the mother coaxing Tom to accept her viewpoint. We feel him teeter. The denouement, tho, differs from expectation. Tom not only chooses not to accompany his mother to wherever she plans to go, he locks her out of the house. It is a nearly creepy but wholly human scene in which Tom lets phone and doorbell ring, until his mother gives up. He remains with his father, despite the blandishments of his mother.

The father, who relents not to pressure his son, reveals, finally, greater depth that we presumed. Stephen manages to forestall judgmental overplay. We aren’t urged to think anyone made a right or wrong decision, just human ones.

Now the downside of diy. David’s book claims publication by bONGO hEAD pRESS, with a price tag of $12. Honest: you should buy it. If only you could. There’s at least an isbn number, but no address, no copyright, no nuthin’. Facebook David and ask what up.

Stephen’s book can be purchased thru Xlibris here. Sample pages can be read. Obviously, the promotional mechanism lies entirely with the author of diy books. We should support such efforts. Or sit back and let accountants dictate our reading matter.

Review of Days Poem by Nicholas T. Spatafora

I was surprised to learn that Days Poem received a review. This is the third review of Days Poem to appear in Galatea Resurrects, or anywhere. Anny Ballardini and Jeff Harrison reviewed previously. Them I know. I know Nicholas Spatafora strictly from his bio.

And what to make of this?

I have sighed and exhaled welladay that critical consideration has become so secondary to the push of getting more stuff out there. What I mean is, we all overproduce, but the stern eye of critical evaluation hasn’t kept up. Nowadays, appearance in a Books Received list constitutes a review. Am I right?

That is why Eileen Tabios’ effort to get books reviewed carries such weight. It means a current of thought swirls around the tonnage of work appearing now. It’s nice to see those review copies get reviewed. Better than finding them at used bookstores.

So just getting reviewed feels good. And Nicholas Spatafora gives every evidence that he read the whole damn thing, 1000 premium pages. Kudos!

As to what he writes of Days Poem, that brings up another matter, one of some essence. NOT my agreement or disagreement with what he propounds concerning the work but what I, as a writer, expect the reader to ‘get’. Do I expect anything?

So far as I can see, poetry does not contest ideas. That is, I do not try to prove points. Keats of course noted Wordsworth’s tendency to sway the reader, and that was a bad thing. I agree.

The reader, however, can do whatever he/she/it wants. Readers are simply going to do that, no matter what the ‘rules’ are. The reader still must cite chapter and verse to back up any proposal of meaning, we must be scientific at least that much in the critical process. Which only means that we can say shut up, stupidhead to anyone who cannot provide something in a work to back up propositions.

Still, what do I expect as response from readers? I mean beyond a warm reaction, or any reaction at all. I do not really have an answer. As eagerly as we all do write, I think we all trip on that one.

Review of Doggy Doo at Galatea Resurrrects

It pleases me to announce the publication of my review in Galatea Resurrects of Doggy Doo, by Bob BrueckL and Jukka-Pekka Kervinen. Just the thought of reviewing Doggy Doo is a tickle, haha. In addition, the authors each are doing unique and driven stuff. The collaboration provides further testament to that.

Dream Songs by John Berryman, and plus toos

I picked up another book whilst roaming the personal library. Dream Songs, Berryman’s master work. You probably read on it, you college-educated poet type.

Berryman’s suicide makes everything prior more serious, which isn’t fair, but, natheless, there’s some truthable qualities to that reaction. He untied the Gordian knot Alexander-style, but poetry along the way.

Berryman twiddled with syntax, but did so, you ask me, like Milton did, within a motored arrangement of language. Preciously reversed word order.

His blackface is officially awful. We gotta get outta this place. This spectacle of other is emboldened by college-trained spree. It is really dispiriting to read, at this ‘late date’.

There is one misstep.

Berryman implemented a protective coating called Henry, etc, which is fine. No one’s a hero in emotional terms.

Berryman lets leering and snipe flow in the same impulse as was rendering him drunken boat.

That  is another misstep.

He lets fuss take a major place. He harps on horny minutes, or times of disregard. We have those, all of us. He stops there, tho, unthrilled by the continuum. He lugs the weight of the prior suicide, his dad, Exhibit A. Exhibit A is a poor name for the squandered and sad reduction of possibility in one life. College-training seems to condition taxonomy, what goes where.

The poetry is utmost of most of importance. What else could he do? The poetry is not wonderful because, but that’s where the fire got the idea.

Dream Songs lies stuck in official, but even so. Berryman enters, and in moments of embrace, the poetry resurrects. The work as a whole reeks of an effort, and a grandeur making, but, you know, we’re human, weak as that. Skipping over that telltale, do you see something sprawling humanly? I do. We have to get rid of the biography, life is not poetry. Berryman scored the rock, and those scratches bloom outwardly. Read on, the message says.

Three Poems by John Ashbery

I happened to pull this one off the shelf, and remembered its influence and challenge. Hard to believe that a major publisher could publish such a book. Granted Ashbery represents a cash cow, poetry division (7 bucks in the black?). But 3P is a difficult book, at least in terms of what the heck it’s about.

I found the book difficult because it abounds in indefinite pronouns. You don’t know to what he, the poet, refers. Ashbery’s poetry depends on the inferences that you make. When I first came upon his work, I did not know what to do with such license.

Add to that the sense of distance in the voice, of shyness. I met him at Franconia College (close encounter of the 3rdest kind) around the time of the book’s appearance. He was brought to read at the school by Robert Grenier. He was friendly and gracious, in this visit to a certified non New York outpost. At dinner, he grew something like animated at the discovery of so many Leos like himself, including moi-meme, Grenier, and at least one other person. He mentioned O’Hara and the simpatico between Leos and Cancers. Of course it was later discovered that O'Hara’s June birth was in sooth 3 months earlier.  And so I rattle on, about my moments with les tres fameux.

His reading that evening was a qualified failure. The room in which he read was too large and non-intimate. He read without much inflection, in an introspective way that failed the venue. I have the same amplitude, so I can commiserate. Memory swears that he read “The Skaters” and parts of A Nest of  Ninnies (I don’t think I had read it at the time, a perversely influential book for me, somehow). I felt I had to thank him at the end, just to reassure him.

But this book here, what of that? The prose is simple enough. He pulls the rug occasionally, syntax-wise, but mostly the sentences read straightforwardly. Straight to what looms less clearly. Implicative, suggestive, and mysterious.

Ashbery writes within a social formality both restrictive and personal. The poem “Europe”, from Tennis Court Oaths, is probably my first venture into cut up, tho I did not know this when I first read it. I just saw the push of formal engagement fringed with idiosyncratic diversions. 3P more firmly stalks the precincts of ordinariness, radiating from the clammy news of everyday events. I wonder if there isn’t a there I am that can make this approach a bestseller (poetry division). One gets whence he writes, if not what up.

This is interesting news, don’t you think? And his poems are New Yorkerified, displacing the committed blither of experiential enumerators with something skewed from the atlas. She has funny cars, as Jefferson Airplane said, with Spencer Dryden on drums.

Later books of Ashbery kinda blur, and I have read nothing recent by him, not for years. God, don’t let Bramhall besmirch the Ashmeister! Well, I am not! I read Flow Chart with impulsed interest. I’m unsure what the quell and not quell are in Ashbery, speaking in terms of the effective career, but I’ve had my eye on him right along.

John Ashbery is the veritable postcard from an era, one with poetry almost on the front page. I’m thinking without saturation that Samuel Beckett, for one, also posited a similar trick of integration into the nervy naysaying mass of readership. I need not pose an inflation for Ashbery, just accept this occupied space as declaration.

If I have to have a poetry dad to replace the real man, Olson would be. I know, however, or let us say admit, that Ashbery posed questions and spectacles for the slow learning child here. Here I am, as ‘Poet”, pressing prose into poems.

The New Yorker, and all those brands, flick cigarette ash on the chance that poetry will emphasize non-failure in the communicative enterprise. Poetry, you are a possible ointment, without pictures.

Poetry is kinda throwoutable nowadays, don’t you think? It declares itself some barnstorming increment of developing inquiry, pressed into service. I don’t mean to push the snark button, but the lampreys of dialectical obviousness are making poetry a trick of the educated class. It’s rather exciting to see Ashbery enumerate the seconds and millisecs when he paid attention. Buddhist thinking presses on the idea of continuum. We don’t, as brilliant animals, really regard time as continuous. We cannot easily hold consecutive events in active streaming. Ashbery’s net seems especially attentive to the straying and unregulated. He quandaries the non-emphasized. Which is cool.

I would suggest, dear Reader, that a good way to genuinely explode would be to hunt out 3P, and see if the mine still offers _____.

Poetry Knopfified

Eileen Tabios remarks on how Knopf finally got a book reviewed in Galatea Resurrects. Why would Knopf need reviews? In all ways, Knopf poetry books look the same. I saw one once.

Knopf’s containerization of this intellectual property into middle class normalcy makes me tune out. I mean, I go to the library or bookstore, and by offchance lift a Knopf to curious eyes and all sense of curiosity vanishes. The authors are either professors with the calm satisfaction of tenure, or artist types somehow living in Provincetown. That’s the impression I get, sans satire.

The books themselves seem to be worked from recipes. Lots of blank endpapers, credit to the minor league affiliates who published the poems in magazine form, a font of studied hauteur, and a page count ranging from 79 to 80. This is effing why I avoided poetry till I could no longer (I started writing it) when I was 16. This implement of culture, this caulking of the foundation of official taste, this scam fostered by Knopf and the educational industry.

Poetry need not be elevated feelings about yourself.

Poetry need not include sanctions.

Poetry need not be specialized, balkanized, segregated, or synthetic.

Poetry need not Knopf.

Dropkick Murphys in Lowell

Erin and I saw Dropkick Murphys last night at Tsongas Arena in Lowell. Tickets were general admission, which I was leery of, especially as we didn’t leave home betimes like we might’ve. I thought finding seats might be an issue.

A ladies line and a separate gents line to accommodate pat down. Luckily the guy missed my gun, my pills, and my picture of Obama. Lots of people milling around everywhere, like the point was not to go into the arena and watch stuff on the stage. Stuff in fact was in process there. We found seats up high. Erin luckily got an aisle seat, so he was only half-cramped, big as he is. I found myself feeling too crammed with the guy next to me but luckily he felt so too and so he and his girlfriend slid over.

Onstage were three young looking fellows playing very loud and at top speed. I later learned that they were 13. I don’t know where the Murphys got them. Not to reveal my ignorance fully, but I would typify their music as speed punk. The guitarist had the backwards cap and drilled thru the chords. He and the bassist shared vocals. The bassist especially took lead on all screaming. The drummer, with his green Mohawk, was pretty good. Gosh, they mike the bass and toms in such a way, it’s like a gunshot. A couple of times he pounded the beat on the floor tom, and it made me want to jump.

They took zero break between songs, not merge into the next but stop on a dime then hit the gas. The inherent anger of their music seems learned. That’s an aspect that I question of all cathartic sorts of music. You’re onstage, after all, and you have a setlist. Performing anger is still performing. And I wonder if the anger they display isn’t invented. Because the locus and provenance of their anger, from the songs, is social and political, not personal. It’s intellectual, in the end. The anger, then, seems like the chords, something you learn.

Anyway, I’m overthinking. It was fun to watch these kids but I tired of the one speed.

The next group, after a brief set, might have been called I Want To Smash Them All. Indeed, Google tells me that this is so. Maybe you will find more similarly recorded clips of the group from last night. Many had their phones working hard to capture.

IWTSTA consisted of four guys, adults: 2 guitars, bass and drums. They were more varied than the previous group but again, the music depended on 3 chords at top speed. And a shitload of posturing. Maybe they stay up late taking notes on Youtube vids. Holding the guitar low like Jimmy Page or whatever. The fake part of rock has always bothered me. I equate it with Vegas and see no need for it within the pure energy realm that I take rock to be.

The bassist immediately got on my bad side by gesturing to get us hyped up. No, I will get excited when you actually excite me. The singer also bugged me. He was more singerly than the previous and had a certain amount of charisma but I don’t guess his message is so important to warrant the pained look as he sang. You’re just entertaining us, my friend.

The drummer was a wild man. He kept a bullet fast heavy beat with fully committed fills. He sang along frequently, tho he wasn’t miked, and his eyes rolled. The bassist had a mike but didn’t always choose to use it as he sang. Once again, I tired of the same beat thru much of their set. Also, I noted that there was little dancing or movement on the floor.

Speaking of bass, all 3 were uninspired in my book. The sort of bass work that just goes blumblumblum, even if its a speedy blumblumblum, fulfill no interest for me. It’s just a low register noise, and hardly calls feet to dance. The seats vibrate,  and that’s really how you absorbed the bass.

I rather liked the other guitarist, who took a more lead approach. He started most songs. Every song stopped on a dime, and he would immediately begin the next. One time it looked like he caught the other guitarist off guard by somehow starting even faster than usual. The drummer’s high hat fell apart during one song and a roadie came out to fix it. Luckily he got it fixed before the guitarist jumped into the next song, because I did not get the feeling that he would be spared if the drummer needed the high hat.

After them was a bathroom  break. A woman commandeered a stall, which inspired a lot of hooting. She yelled that she had balls, and continued replying to good-natured (I guess) taunts all the while she remained sequestered. Beer, btw, was served, Guinness even. Plenty of guys brought their cups with them.

When I came back, the screens showed a timer counting down from 20 minutes. I never saw that before. Effective, I guess. As the timer neared zero, excitement mounted. At zero, some chords crashed. It was “The Boys Are Back in Town”. Unfortunately, it was Thin Lizzy doing it. The boys lost a chance for an effective opening by blowing the clock.

I didn’t mench that the camera opened up backstage briefly, to show the Murphys with Lowell’s own Mickey Ward.

Finally the curtain drew back and Dropkick Murphys, et al., fired up. The et al. consisted of, blimey, some 6 bagpipers, 3 fiddlers, a cello and what all. Back in 1863, I think, when I was young, I saw Irish folk group De Danann tour with a cello player. Pretty damn cool, because she supplied a nice bottom to their sound which, with fiddle and bouzouki, favoured the high register. Given that folk bands don’t make a lot of dough, bringing a cello along represented some commitment.

Anyhoo, the aural assault was a wonder. Heaven knows that the whistle player must feel weird competing with the deadly guitars. Tin whistles are lovely but even fiddles can overwhelm them. The guitars even crushed the bagpipes. We sat across from the speakers. The sound might’ve been less percussive had we sat elsewhere. As it is, my ears still ring.

DKM has a dedicated following, so the energy was really good. In front of the stage was a pool of testosterone pumping fists, crowd surfing and making weak attempts to get onstage. The singer particularly gave his attention to them. The band does not seem as guy-minded as that testosterone pool would suggest.

The vocals, you know, are an acquired taste. Certes given the working class anger of some of the songs, the hoarse yelling worked well.

The pipers and fiddlers filed in and out as required. Mickey Ward was brought out briefly. Some girls, teenage and younger, came out to stepdance. Which was barely plausible, because the tempo did not conduce to what dancing humans can accomplish. Not that the dancers attempted to keep up. It was more an interjection. Folk musician Alan Stivall did a reel on one recording. It begins with a fast fiddle, then his bagpipes enter. Electric instruments enter, and it is not too jarring. As the tune proceeds to its highest instigation, an electric lead guitar enters. For a while it sounds like two radio stations simultaneously, then you comprise it all, and it’s a nervy gem. So bring on the dancing girls in their sequined stepdancing champion outfits.

The Murphys even brought out the first group. The bassist screamed with the singer, the drummer shared DKM’s drums, and the guitarist matched up with one of the guitarists. That was a nice moment to see.

At one point, the bassist bemoaned that they could no longer allow folks onstage like they did in the old days because someone might get hurt, so he told the crowd to give him space and he went in during a song. He was lost not just to me but to the camera, but a spotlight followed this mass of people in which he sang, presumably. His speech was belied later when during the encore people were invited to fill the stage. One guy stood next to the singer, with his phone in front of him, documenting the experience.

They left the stage prior to the encore. The backstage cam showed the bassist writing down song titles for the encore. “Sweet Caroline” and some other unlikely tune, which he crossed out. Then he wrote “Shipping Off to Boston”, which made the audience shout, and he waved a friendly middle finger.

Previously, the crowd had been satisfied that the band played “Dirty Water”. I saw Phish do “Roadrunner” by Jonathan Richman, an equally satisfying moment of acknowledgement of place.

The band came out to play an energetic “Shipping Off”. I don’t mind admitting that I shouted along. The energy level  and connection soared. The song’s inescapable for them, and they will have to find ways just to get thru it, but for the audience, it’s the secret of fire.

The encore also included AC/DC’s “TNT” and “Charlie on the MTA”, 2 great choices. No kidding, tho, DKM know their marketing. I mean okay, you’re from Boston. It’s canny, yup, but I also like that aspect.

Erin and I left the arena in a daze. What? What?

Simple Theories

Adverting once more my continued gathering of recent works, poems I call them: Simple Theories.

Antic View #151, and to Continue

Oh, hello.  Just to say, I like what I write, having developed a kinship with that which flows thru me. Further, I like Jeff Harrison’s writing, the other and strange. With that up front, I hereby advert yet another installment of Antic View.

Basil Bunting

My copy of Basil Bunting’s Collected Poems found its way into my attention span recently. I have the Moyer Bell edition, © 1985. I presume later editions have been released.

Bunting represents one more hole in my reading—or more accurately, my grasp—to go along with the likes of John Wieners, Joanne Kyger, and more. I mean that I have given these writers a bum shift, insofar as I came to them late and/or read them poorly. It happens, whether I lacked access to their work or simply lacked receptivity. I mean, I have tried to ease the error of my ways. One can only read so much.

With Bunting, Pound’s august authority put him on the map for me. I mean august seriously, at least within the range of Pound’s poetic antenna. For all his disagreeable parts, he did know, and support, poetry.

So I knew Bunting as a poet to reckon with. I found, however, that I stumbled on his locution. His English, from those islands over there, comports strangely to this child of normal television. He drops verbs and shifts word order some. He alludes thickly. These fail as excuses, I only effort to make clear the pebbles I tripped on.

On the plus side, he plays a sternly joyful music. He can make a better case that April’s the cruelest month than Eliot. This aspect of nature poet resounds with him, in a way that I would liken to John Clare. Both carry a down to earth sense and sensitivity to nature. They strip the metaphors away and look directly. Thoreau, when he’s journaling, does the same thing. It is a temperate sort of honesty, one willing to hold back the gush. I’m sure Bunting was a frolicsome weirdo, but he kept his measure, never strayed from the beat.

This video of him reading carries the oracular thunder of Pound himself, and the look in Bunting’s eye can only be called bardic. I feel very open to this writing now.

Mark Twain’s Autobiographical Program (The Inception of Post-Maudlinism)

Mark’s Twain’s effort to produce an autobiography brings a number of ideas to mind for me.  He provides a hint of post-modern potential. By post-modern, I think I mean post-maudlin. And that means (or perhaps just suggests) something at least straying from the sentimental.

In Boswell’s Life of Johnson (can we say that the diary of Samuel Pepys is the life of his johnson? Okay, moving on), we repeatedly hear Johnson speak of the fine sentiments of certain great works (Oliver Goldsmith et al.), as if enunciation of a good program were the heart of literature. No slander on the author of “The Deserted Village, 20 pages of observation and social concern. The fine sentiments and instigation,—viz., for further instance, Shelley’s rollicking “The Mask of Anarachy”—can certainly be the field of poetry.  It just cannot describe the whole of poetry’s possibilities. We have found, have we not, that dickheads and ding dongs produce fine literature too. I mean, allow that our modernist anti-Semites did, despite their scuzz, create nerve endings of interest. Artists are like people, and they vary and disappoint at times.

And so I have taken a round trip to my point, if indeed it is sharp enough to be so called. Twain’s autobiography, the so far  of which can be found here (2 more volumes await the light of day), illustrates post-maudlin attitude, I think.

For some 40 years, Mark Twain laboured with the idea of autobiography. He clearly envisioned a work putting “it all” in, like he was channeling John Ashbery. He aimed  for “complete honesty”, like the woebegone incorporated of the so called Confessionals. His seriousness in this exercise shows in his willingness to wait a century before full publication of whatever he produced. Libel laws might be an influence, of course, but still.

He enjoyed enough clarity to forswear chronology.  He wanted to retail memories and episodes strictly as they came to him, disorderly and important. Isn’t that the practice of many of our post-modern stepping stones?

Twain’s accumulation of autobiography slogged thru assorted ideas of attack. The newfangled typewriter tempted him, not so much for composition as for the logistical labour relief. Dictation became a tool, because he wanted that flighty garrulity of memory and occasion. He even utilized Thomas Edison’s invention, declaiming his stories to a phonograph. Not a great success, but look how open he was to the new.

His project endured numerous false starts. Call what we receive via the Mark Twain Project a false finish, since (like Charles Olson’s 3rd volume of Maximus), the author did not live to see the final version. Not, really, to say what I am reading now accepts the mantle of finality. It consists of what a bunch of editorial myrmidons collated into a functional army for the relief of I dunno what poor franchise.

The big ass post-modern markers like The Cantos, Maximus, and name your poison, shine with inclusion. Not a new idea. Virginia Woolf wrote about moments and moments and moments, gravely endured and noted. Henry James pushed plot aside to envelope the words between the actions. And so on. Proust, we know, had a life to live as he relived the life. Melville interlarded Moby Dick, and the rest of his oeuvre, with telltale importations from his curiosity. My list of examples stands far from complete. Hello, Montaigne, DonQuixote, Tristram Shandy,  and so on.

What Twain wrote does not read strange, if maybe neatniks may squawk about structure.  He recounts, for instance, how he garnered the rights to Ulysses Grant’s memoir, Grant dying as he wrote. Twain writes of being skinned by an inventor of a typography machine.  I actually have not gotten to the part officially designated the autobiography: I still reside in the introductory front matter. I see not the shape but the functional approach. I like it. I will keep reading.

Poetry, you see, clambers towards some opening. What, we wonder as we read, could be within that opening?