|
|
| |
|
Keith Tuma: I have just been reading your essay "The Creative Moment of the Poem" in Denise Riley's collection, and I want to begin this interview with a question or two about it, or rather about your own work as it might be set beside some of the claims of that essay. [Peter Riley, "The Creative Moment of the Poem." In Poets on Writing: Britain, 1970-1991, ed. Denise Riley, 92-113. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1992.]You are at some pains in the essay to define the poem as "an object between poet and reader which is both a means of communication and a barrier to communication," as an artifact "neither opaque nor transparent," a "body of light" which reflects "the need to say and be revealed crossed with the need to remain silent and secret." You set up a clear opposition between poetry and prose; unlike poetry, you say, prose has to do with a more "direct transmission" between writer and reader. "Prose, properly speaking, draws a thread from a singular past through an author and a construct to an imaginative reconstruction in the future." I want to use these remarks as background to a question about the prose in some of your own books. Alstonefield, for example, opens with excerpts from your letters to Tony Baker. One might read these letters as, in part, meditation on the possibility and politics of pastoral poetry, but they are letters - direct address - to a real person who happens to be a poet. Then there's the prose opening Lines on the Liver, which is full of provocative claims about the nature of the self and desire, industrial "encrustation" and "marine fossil energy in suspension which has men mining in their sleep," and so on. The prose there, as also to a lesser extent in the letters to Baker, sometimes takes the form of rhetorical questions - e.g., "Isn't the lack which drives us into work then something from a distance, if not distance itself?" The prose is meditative but it is also propositional - much the same might be said of the poems - though the questions do suggest a direct turn to a real or supposed reader. Given what you have said about poetry and prose, I am wondering why you have felt compelled on several occasions to write prose texts to accompany your poems or, in the case of Tracks and Mineshafts, as a supplement to them. Why bother to frame these poems for the reader? Does it point to some lack of confidence in the poems themselves or their potential readers, to a desire to get something across that the poems by themselves might not get across? Does it suggest a need to defend or explain the poems? In what way do you mean this prose to relate to the poems? | |
|
Peter Riley: You have to remember that there is no definition of poetry. Poetry is whatever is passed as poetry, that's all you can say. In that situation, if you want to make a claim for its continued practice you enclose the corner of it you believe in. That's what I did in that piece for Denise Riley's collection, describing, rather than defining, what is practised in the corner in which I operate. It was also written from the writer's viewpoint, such was the remit of the anthology. [This piece is "Llýn in the Rain, September 1998" , a mixed prose-and-verse poem which appeared in the same issue of The Gig as this interview. (There should be a circumflex accent on the "y" of "Llýn", not an acute, but it doesn't exist in this character set - Ed.)]The poetry should seem to emerge from the prose as a very distinct thing arising from the same experience. I also found that when poetical processes are embedded in a narrative like this, however trivial a one, they are themselves much less bounden to prosaic or rationalizing processes. They can be seen to be using the same materials of experience and image at other levels, and the resulting poetical intrusions can easily be ignored if they get in the way. Lines on the Liver actually has a purposive structure which evolved very slowly in the course of writing the book. It starts with thought-prose, the earnest attempt to state the living condition wholly and abstractly (rather too much of this, I now think) which gives way, as if out of tiredness, to personal poetry, in which the questions are not asked but the lived event is allowed to fall into its own rather short-winded language of self and world. Poems of seeming. This is then confronted with actual narrative, in that story about the tramp, the acute distance of alteriority in a de-socialized dereliction. Finally that lost figure takes the self-poems and one by one answers them, crashes them against the hardness of loss and distance. I don't fear that without these prosaic structures the poems would fail to release their substances because I don't believe the poem is a scriptural structure, that it can be expected to hold a conceptual total in its folds, as it is made to seem by the sleight-of-hand of post-symbolist artistry. The perfect poem is absolutely replete, but only with what it grasps, which can be minimal. So the poem is as particular as the prose in a different way, so that what the prose supplies in these joint structures is always additional and not substitutive. Indeed prose might be able to articulate poetry into a more extended narrative than the compacted poem could reach, into truths which are actually operative. The poem's completion is formal, invoking the world by patterns of displacement and harmony, rather than by conceptual or encyclopaedic coverage. So I don't think poetry is a sacral purveyor of earth-changing messages from deep and distant unknowables. I think it's an ornament. | |
|
Keith Tuma: "The Creative Moment of the Poem" doesn't pull many punches. Your claims about the relationship of poet and reader to the poem lead you to attack poetry which proposes an "en bloc transfer of substance" between poet and reader, that so-called "mainstream" poetry which in its "refined versions" is given to "anecdote and self-distancing" and "always implies the immediate return of the small-scale recognition which is all it offers." You also reject a poetry of "suspended suggestion, wilful fragmentation, word-salad and other negations of continuity" offered "in the name of reader-engagement," arguing that such poetry "abnegates the poet's duty to truth and leaves the reader hopelessly alone."
I can't help but read such remarks against other statements you have made on the British-Poets listserv which suggest that you find yourself in a kind of no-man's land between a "mainstream" and an avant-garde. Your loyalties, if you will excuse the word, seem at times to be divided. While you often declare your allegiance to the modernist small-press scene, you seem to want to speak up for an Everyman who takes little or no interest in modernist poetry, and you seem to believe that many modes of poetry are currently viable if not your preference exactly. | |
|
Keith Tuma: I was a little sneaky above when I worked your sentence about "distance" into my question about the role of prose in some of your poetry books. "Distance," like "completion," and the adjectival forms of these words, is a keyword in your work at least as far back as Lines on the Liver. I take it that it relates to your effort to construct or explore models of subjectivity and interiority which might be opposed to the reduced existence enforced by the institutions of modern culture and the modern state. | |
|
Keith Tuma: Peter, I'd like to ask a few questions in connection with your reference to "nationalized space" in your reply to my second question. I am remembering remarks you made to Kelvin Corcoran in an interview some years ago. [Peter Riley, "Spitewinter Provocations: An Interview [by Kelvin Corcoran] on the Condition of Poetry with Peter Riley." Reality Studios 8 (1986): 1-17.]There you indicated that an "American moment" among the English poets of your generation was of fairly short duration. You also hinted at something like an oedipal anxiety that has, in your view, made many American poets altogether unable to read English poets. As you know, there are some American as well as British readers who will think that if Cambridge poets indeed turned away from American poetry, it was to their loss. I have even heard some speak of "islandism" and "insularity" as properties or agendas of a purported "Cambridge School." This is hardly meant as flattery. It suggests that you and some of your peers have something in common with poets like Donald Davie or the current poet laureate, who writes in his little book on Larkin of an "English line." I wonder if you might take a moment to discuss the extent to which ideas of "Englishness" or "Americanness" have had an impact on your work over the last decades. You will know that I find such concepts largely empty or reified; that does not of course diminish their force. What, if anything, distinguishes versions of "Englishness" in Cambridge, or should we merely jettison the term altogether? Perhaps you would be willing to elaborate a little on the history you sketched for Corcoran; perhaps your views have changed since you made those remarks in that interview. Peter Riley: I don't think this is a polemical issue now, if it ever was. When you're young, especially at certain periods of history, it's natural to narrow the scope as much as you can, and to go through the motions of chucking a lot of stuff overboard. Clearing a space for yourself by prioritizing what inherently promotes your progress, junking what doesn't. Some people do this deliberately and in public, blatantly furthering a career; others do it more privately or tentatively. Some people never stop doing it and if that works you end up at the centre of a cult, I suppose. In its developed form this impulse becomes a guardianship of quality which is very difficult to sustain, because you have to conceal constantly massive acts of closure. You might recall the way Ezra Pound spoke so admiringly of the ancient Far Eastern literati who trimmed the corpus to be preserved down to one percent or something, and so set up extended standards of excellence. One might have wished Pound had trimmed a few things from his own inner library. Actually the self-wreck of the Pound enterprise is for me one of the principal signs that you cannot run poetry as a substitute university, a substitute religion, a substitute politics . . . - if it has any right to exist it must find its own purpose, not serve as a short-cut to more rigorous and practical disciplines. The sense of "importance" has to be left out of the equation, otherwise the whole thing runs into inhumanity and waste. I've said before in print that to academic critics and inheritors of the poet-enthroned syndrome, it's essential that there be a fewness of poets otherwise they think there can't be a history. I'm interested in there being as many as possible. It doesn't mean you tolerate dullness, it just means you seek quality (and you do seek quality) without limiting its chances. In poetry as in any other realm you seek good beyond predicated categories. You find it by result and response. This is something of a hobby-horse of mine and I have strayed from the question. So, yes, at one time I and others (in no sense a "school") focused on certain American poetry - roughly the kinds of writing in Allen's 1960 anthology - in the hope of sighting some kind of future; I went so far as to write a thesis on Spicer. And this did represent a rejection of an "English line" though only in its recent manifestations - it rejected a poetry of urbane talk which mainly happened in the 1950s and has gone from strength to strength ever since, now to some the official poetry of the country. (That a lot of Frank O'Hara's is also a poetry of urbane talk is undeniable and there is a lot of dishonesty among the pro-modernists in glossing over affinities such as that; but the O'Hara which interests me is a metaphysical poet.) But what we were ditching wasn't a real "English line" at all, it was really a very rebellious impulse, an anti-poetry. Those guys of the "Movement" were self-consciously in rebellion against high culture and artiness, they were flag-waving pioneers, manifesto makers, manipulators of history. They have only precarious connections with poets such as Edward Thomas or Gurney or Auden . . . or Ted Hughes for that matter. And at times they no doubt touched a real nerve. The success and massive official promotion of their legacy, which I see as a shallower affair, hasn't stopped it from being always a cult of newness, of which they are their own victims. Ten years later most names are forgotten. It was in that climate that we turned to the States, and I feel that we sought one novelty to escape from another. To me it was a quest for scope, width, size, it was to do with seeking a poetry which commanded a large sense of the world , a vast lyrical/intellectual possibility. Terms of space-time and history and geological movement, renewings of legend. It emphatically wasn't to do with the wilful disabling of language, we already had that. I valued it very highly, but at some point I noticed that some of the writers I was getting this "size" from couldn't read, or cope with, the poetical size of John Milton, or Wordsworth, or even Dante. So something was wrong. Duncan was a poet who would attend to anything that had real substance, and listen to anybody who was sincere, he didn't programme himself. Others pushed themselves into crackpot messianic ravings. But America is Novelty City isn't it? I still feel as I did when Kelvin Corcoran interviewed me in 1985 (and I was talking of a completely different set of American poets then) that they exert a pressure on the rest of the world which says not so much that we're better, but that we're more advanced. Always we're ahead, and the accusation against (I don't know why particularly English) poetry not willing to subscribe (though a few do, very successfully) is indeed like a death-wish against the parent. It sets you back as finished, outmoded, "insular," not part of the present tense or the present world. But who sets that agenda, actually, but the poets themselves? And why should "American" be the only alternative to an insular "English"? What happened to the rest of the world? What happened to Australia for instance, where alienation seems to be less drastically cut through artistic endeavour? Or all the English-language poetry of India and Africa? I find one of the most hopeful areas is poetical writing from the war zones of the Near East, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria . . . such as I can get at it (in French). Modern realities engaged to a peasant cosmology. And anyway literary America is itself a much bigger and more varied proposition than the Paris-New York poetical mafia. And isn't historical time itself another vast extent, even in a very small place? And the reach that opens out when you cut through the exclusiveness of a culture prioritizing the metropolitan power-base, is another. But England isn't a line, it's a place, and that's all you're entitled to love really, a sense of settlement, which could be anywhere. It's obvious enough the way the word "heritage" is thrown around these days that the comforts of historical belonging are reserved for the very rich or the very mortgaged. To me that implicates a concealment of historical reality. But so does that blinkered modernism which would rather die than enter a medieval church to look at a beautifully carved tomb. I believe, you see, that a thing like poetry embellishes the place in which it occurs, rather than offers a critique; but how do you get to identify that place, how do you distinguish it from nation or class or theatre? - to me it is a quite mysterious location which I prefer not to call England, where the most remote provincial particular and a central accumulated resource inhabit each other. A construct, but grounded, a real place sighted at the edges of the notional place. It's easy to say all this, but to perform it so that anyone else can recognize it, is a different matter. My only recourse is to seek fictive experiential authenticities that set language vibrating. Or just go at it with a will. | |
|
Keith Tuma: I want to bring the abstractions of my last question down to some more manageable and particular level. Just the other day I was reading your poem "Do It Again" in Author. There you set several lines that I take to be your own between an arrangement of words from a famous Beach Boys song: It's automatic when II can imagine someone wanting to read this poem by trying to make sense of the way it juxtaposes American pop culture and a language that seems self-consciously "other" to it - lyric fragments in the high style let's call them. I know that your work often moves between registers and perhaps you do not often enough get credit for some of the comic effects produced by such movement. But here I can imagine that some readers will find you pretty far from the comic. Maybe they will think "Beach Boys songs are American popular music known worldwide, part of an American culture busy mixing with or even obliterating the particularity of the 'places' and artistic practices of the world. Riley's citation is deeply ironic; the 'real' Riley can be found in what interrupts the Beach Boys here." Would such a reader be on the right track? Peter Riley: This depends how you read. I think I read poetry more as a particularity than a lot of people do. I don't read the Beach Boys' words as signs or representatives (of American/popular culture, or whatever) I don't figure them as ambassadors of anything larger than what they are. I read them as something which just comes along, and there's nothing you can do about it - you can't avoid it. You don't take an interest in that kind of music but it reaches you whether you like it or not, and you're stuck with it. You may indeed think its power is excessive and associate it with the Americanization of the world, but if so too bad, you can't help responding to it. I also read the quotation as something that says what it says. The whole sequence is about ageing. I interrupt it because it's not saying enough. | |
|
Keith Tuma: I'd like to ask some questions about two of my own favorite books of yours, beginning with Snow Has Settled . . . . Bury Me Here. I've been pondering this book as a sequence, thinking about its shape, and wonder if you might comment on that. I know that when I first read it I was periodically fascinated by the way the movement between or across poems seemed at times propelled by word-play, by rhyme as much as by discourse, as for instance when the ending of "Great Eastern" ("All right, / Opening to the earth at a guess of its plight.") becomes in the next poem's opening "The earth's plight is also our delight / Lost in it, brushed awry by the night . . . ." But I know too that the sequence has fundamental concerns not too different from those present in much of your work, the possibility of "acts of trust" as one poem puts it, or the possibility of thinking that "the mind's track on / soul-light is instrumental to the earth's / equilibrium" as the next one has it. But when I came to the last poem in the book, "Grand Hôtel du Square," I was just a bit surprised. What surprised me was the reference to "the modern state." | |
|
Keith Tuma: I see now in looking again at Distant Points, which has the first two books in your ongoing Excavations sequence, that there's a reference on page 24 to "hope wrought across transport in the occulted rhythm where the nation evades the state." Let that reference function here as my own transition between Snow Has Settled and Excavations, sequences that, formally at least, seem different, the latter of course having the appearance anyway of prose and being a little more open to modernist fragmentation and juxtaposition within its sections. You might comment on any of that if you'd like, but it's somewhere else in particular I'd like to push you with regard to Excavations. I'd like to hear you say something about your use of the found and treated text there - not only the Mortimer and Greenwell but also, say, the Renaissance lyric or song. | |
|
Keith Tuma: Okay, Peter, I'll give you a break from my long-winded questions about your books. What I want to know here concerns Nicholas Moore. I've read what you've written about his work - its great variety for instance - and about the man. What I want to know is how Moore's work has informed your own poetic practice. | |
|
Peter Riley was born 1940, in Stockport, near Manchester, in an environment of working people, and read English at Cambridge. He has since lived and worked in London, Brighton, Odense (Denmark), and the Peak District (central England), in various kinds of teaching and casual employment. Since 1985 he has lived in Cambridge, where he operates the last surviving mail-order poetry book business. He has written studies of Jack Spicer, T.F.Powys, improvised music, poetry, lead mines, burial mounds and Transylvanian string bands. His poetry has appeared in ten principal collections: Love-Strife Machine (1968), The Linear Journal (1973), Lines on the Liver (1981), Tracks and Mineshafts (1983), Sea Watches (1991), Distant Points (1995), Noon Province (1996), Alstonefield (1995) and Snow has Settled . . . Bury Me Here (1997). A selected poems is scheduled by Carcanet for November 2000. | |
|
|