l'apocalypse des animaux

depthless eyes

"Here, the (again unnamed) female character – searching for her lost father in the Canadian bush – reaches an identification with Nature itself: ‘I am not an animal or a tree, I am the thing in which the trees and animals move and grow, I am a place.’ It is clear, though, that the cost of such an identification is total schizophrenic breakdown (which for Atwood does not necessarily carry all the positive libidinal charge that it can for Gilles Deleuze); and Nature does not reciprocate her character’s embrace. At the very end of the novel, the character has a vision of something that might be the ghost of her father, an animal, or perhaps the spirit of Nature itself: ‘I’m not frightened, it’s too dangerous for me to be frightened of it; it gazes at me for a time with its yellow eyes, wolf’s eyes, depthless but lambent as the eyes of animals seen at night in the car headlight. Reflectors. It does not approve or disapprove of me, it tells me that it has nothing to tell me, only the fact of itself […] I do not interest it, I am part of the landscape, I could be anything, a tree, a deer skeleton, a rock.’ "
(from frieze.com, on margaret atwood´s novel "surfacing")

devouring and unifying

"…the idea of discovery, of revelation, includes an idea of appropriative enjoyment.
What is seen is possessed; to see is to deflower…
More than this, knowledge is a hunt Bacon called it the hunt of Pan. The scientist is the hunter who surprises a white nudity and who violates by looking at it. Thus the totality of these images reveals something which we shall call the Acteon complex…
A person hunts for the sake of eating.
Curiosity in an animal is either sexual or alimentary.
To know is to devour with the eyes." (Sartre, L'Etre et le Néant p. 578)

"With the growing social acknowledgment of genitalia, the repression of special drives and their representatives increases in genital relations. What remains is cultivated as socialized voyeurism or anticipation. It exchanges the unification with one person for the observation of all, and thus it expresses sexuality's tendency to socialization, in itself an aspect of its deadly integration." (Adorno, pp. 105-105)




leaving a trace: the art of transforming a life into stories
traces of lost civilizations
traces, faces and empty places
antique gods
un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard
the hidden writer
finding hidden patterns in a life
even traces will die
a stranger´s life
traces of the last days
last days
the sky is dead
nyc ghosts and flowers
à la recherche du temps perdu
les statues meurent aussi
traces and birds
to a stranger
das unbehagen in der kultur
residues of time lost
le tombeau de charles baudelaire 
granny´s gravy gravestone
das ich und das es
signs and birds
madness and civilization
critique et clinique
the order of things
death and the labyrinth
archaeology of faces
the wolf child
the wolf girl
totem and taboo
sadness and melancholia
les tristes tropiques
ending and endless analysis
why look at animals?



words by whitman

Passing stranger! you do not know
How longingly I look upon you,
You must be he I was seeking
- - -
And as to you, Life,
I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths,
No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before
- - -
Stranger, if you passing meet me and desire to speak to me,
why should you not speak to me?
And why should I not speak to you?

the jezebel spirit

while researching narcissistic disorders one night, concerned about being too narcissistic and not altruistic enough, i stumbled upon the name "jezebel" several times in the google hits, which i had previously only known as a song from brian eno and a jewish name i like the sound of. i knew a bit about the historical, mythical, powerful princess jezebel, daughter of ethbaal, but i didn´t know there seems to be a pathological term called "the jezebel spirit" which you will mainly find on christian fundamentalist websites.
there, jezebel is associated with a pathologically narcissistic demon that can take over people, especially women (of course), to torment, exploit and destroy the people around them through their deceiving, manipulative and power loving evil nature. these sites say the only way to heal jezebel spirits is to make them worship god, through repent and humility. i have to say i find it really interesting that like with lilith, all strong, independent and rebellious females with a mind of their own who refuse to worship, obey and repent are always demonized in the legends, myths, the bible, in history. as soon as a woman is witty and opposing she is pretty quickly turned into a witch, a demon or a devil. while researching further i found a good essay on jezebel here, which shows how the term was used by colonialists and racists to stigmatize black, sexually attractive women.
people who use the term "jezebel spirit" to demonzie women, are bluntly speaking power-loving, dominant, manipulative males who are rather "evil" themselves. -although i have issues with the term evil, which to me isn´t some demonic, essentialist entity, but usually just ignorance, cowardice and fundamental confusion or in the worst case serious delusion.
i also find it strange that specifically those are accused of being power yearning, who actually have no power at all, or much less power than the accusers (the women, blacks, slaves etc.). and then i ask myself, why is the concern so great about sharing the power with the so-called jezebels or handing it over?
what is there really to lose?
the jezebel spirit is nothing but the projected fear of losing power and potency, it is nothing but the fear of having a too small phallus.
i really wish that instead of demonizing those that are great and interesting and strange, "dangerous" and different, one would realize the motivating petty fear, -the fear of not being better and greater than the others, of not being in control of everything, of being thrown into a dark universe. it is just too stupid and what the world needs much more than stigmatizing terms is brave and celibratory opposers. people who are unafraid to speak their minds freely, who refuse to obey to everything that is considered normal, who do it instead of just talk about it and who don´t give up, even when everything is really bringing you down. people who look for something better than death while they are still alive.

the craven sluck


a soul, a voice, an animal

A Voice and Nothing More
by Mladen Dolar
"Plutarch tells the story of a man who plucked a nightingale and finding but little to eat exclaimed: "You are just a voice and nothing more." Plucking the feathers of meaning that cover the voice, dismantling the body from which the voice seems to emanate, resisting the Sirens' song of fascination with the voice, concentrating on "the voice and nothing more": this is the difficult task that philosopher Mladen Dolar relentlessly pursues in this seminal work.
The voice did not figure as a major philosophical topic until the 1960s, when Derrida and Lacan separately proposed it as a central theoretical concern. In A Voice and Nothing More Dolar goes beyond Derrida's idea of "phonocentrism" and revives and develops Lacan's claim that the voice is one of the paramount embodiments of the psychoanalytic object (objet a). Dolar proposes that, apart from the two commonly understood uses of the voice as a vehicle of meaning and as a source of aesthetic admiration, there is a third level of understanding: the voice as an object that can be seen as the lever of thought. He investigates the object voice on a number of different levels—the linguistics of the voice, the metaphysics of the voice, the ethics of the voice (with the voice of conscience), the paradoxical relation between the voice and the body, the politics of the voice—and he scrutinizes the uses of the voice in Freud and Kafka. With this foundational work, Dolar gives us a philosophically grounded theory of the voice as a Lacanian object-cause."
review from: http://mitpress.mit.edu

- - -
'Voice Devoured: Artaud and Borges on Dubbing'
by Mikhail Yampolsky
An extract from Mikhail Yampolsky's 1993 essay, which explores the relationship between the voice and cannibalism.

Antonin Artaud's article ‘Les souffrances du "dubbing"' (The Torments of Dubbing) appears to have been written in 1933.[1] Discovered soon after his death, it was published posthumously. At first glance, it appears to be a straightforward vindication of those French actors who sold their voices for pittances to American film companies engaged in dubbing their own productions for the foreign market. A closer look at the text will, however, reveal a connection between ‘Les souffrances du "dubbing"' and a whole constellation of aesthetic issues that transcend the narrow limits of the essay's ostensible topic.
On April 19, 1929, Artaud wrote to Yvonne Allendy to inform her that he was completing work on the screenplay for the film The Dybbuk, which was to contain ‘sound fragments': "I have decided to introduce sound and even talking portions into all my screenplays since there has been such a push toward the talkie that in a year or two no one will want silent films any more."[2] The script of The Dybbuk did not survive, but its very title is highly suggestive. A dybbuk is a character in Jewish folklore, a person inhabited by the spirit of someone who has died and who speaks through the mouth of that person. The ghost of the deceased torments the living person, causing him to writhe and to rave, forcing him to blaspheme against his will. This folkloric character obviously recapitulates, in its own way, the problematic of dubbing, though in an inverted form: in dubbing, the film star diverts the live actor of his voice: through the dybbuk, the voice of the deceased inhabits a living body.
Nevertheless, in both cases the situation remains much the same; the voice resides in someone else's body. Given his love for anagrams and of glossolalia, Artaud might well have identified one with the other, purposely retaining the foreign, English spelling of the word dubbing: dubbing - dibbouk.[3] The overtly satanic subtext of an article about dubbing, which is about something "thoroughly ghoulish" - the snatching of the personality, of the soul - is crucial.
The question of the reciprocal alienation of voice and body was by no means an academic one for Artaud; rather, it struck to the very core of the artistic problems that confronted him, tormented him, and, in the end, drove him to insanity. For Artaud the mistrust of the audible word - the word that exists prior to its utterer - is central. Its origins are obscure, for it is as if prompted and spoken by someone else - a predecessor - and in it the speaker loses his identity. The word is always a repetition; it never originates from within the body of the speaker. If Artaud strives to implant the word in the body, in breathing, in gesture, it is in order to restore the corporeality and individuality of its source. We must prevent "the theft of the word". Jacques Derrida describes Artaud's dilemma as follows: "If my speech is not my breath [souffle], if my letter is not my speech, this is because my spirit was already no longer my body, my body no longer my gestures, my gestures no longer my life. The integrity of the flesh torn by all these differences must be restored in the theatre."[4]

Extract from Mikhail Yampolsky, ‘Voice Devoured: Artaud and Borges on Dubbing', trans. Larry P. Joseph, October, Vol. 64 (Spring, 1993), pp. 57-77
from: http://www.ica.org.uk
[1] Antonin Artaud, Oeuvres complètes, vol. 3Gallimard, Paris, 1978, pp. 85-87.
[2] Ibid., p. 151.
[3] For a discussion of Artaud's anagrams, see Mikhail Yampolsky, ‘O stat'e Grazhiny Shimchik- Kliushchchinskoi', Kinovedcheskie zapiski 9 (1991), pp. 129-33.
[4] Jacque Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978, p. 179.


negative hands by duras

They call Negative Hands the hands founds on the walls of the Magdalen caverns of the Europe of the South of the Atlantic. These hands were simply placed on the rock after having been plunged into colour. Generally they were black. Or blue. No explanation has been found to this practice.
In front of the Ocean, under the cliff, on the granite wall: these open hands, blue and black. The blue of water, the black of the night. Man came alone into the cave, facing the Ocean. All the hands are of identical size. He was alone. The man, alone in the cave, looked into the noise, the noise of the sea: the immensity of things. And he screamed. You, who is named, who has the gift of identity -- I love you.
Those hands, blue like water, black like the sky, flat, placed, spread out onto the grey granite, so that someone will have seen them.
I am someone who calls out, I am the one who called, who screamed. 3000 years ago. I love you. I scream that I want to love you. I love you. I love whoever will hear that I scream.
On an empty Earth, these hands will remain. On the walls of granite, facing the roar of the Ocean -- unbearable. No one will hear any longer, or see. 3000 years: these hands -- black.
The refraction of light upon the sea makes the wall of rock tremble.
I am someone, I am the one who called, screamed in this white light. Desire. The word has not yet been invented.
He looked upon the immensity of things, amongst the roar of the waves: the immensity of his strength. And he screamed.
Above him the forests of Europe, endlessly. He stands in the central point of the rock: corridors, passages of rock in every direction. You, who has a name, who is gifted of identity -- I love you with a love that is undefined.
The cliff had to be climbed down, fear had to be conquered. The wind blows from the continent, it pushes the Ocean away from it. The waves fight the wind: they advance, slow down with its force, and patiently reach the wall. Everything crushes down.
I love you further than you. I will love whoever will hear that I scream that I love you.
3000 years. I call out. I call for her who will respond. I want to love you. I love you. For 3000 years I scream in front of the sea. A white spectre.
I am the one who screamed. Who loved you. You.


the open windows, with the view of the moving leaves, while they sit like statues or people who don´t know they are already dead at the table in a circle.


Why Live Without Writing

Unpopular answers to poetry questions.

Questions are remarks
—Wallace Stevens

There are three questions that a poet is always asked once he’s become reasonably well
established, i.e., isn’t forever required to spell his name, and his CV is reduced to two
or three worn phrases. Never mind the fact that these phrases come out of the
platitudinous files of some press department. What matters is that he showed
sufficient stamina in the pursuit of his solitary discipline, which might suggest pole
vaulting and dashing sprints, but probably has most in common with the monotony of
the marathon runner. Whichever, one day finds him standing under the open sky with
a few curiosity seekers in front of him. The air is thick with old ideas, fantasies about
the poet’s life unchanged since Homer’s day. I’ll bet you anything: they come out in the
form of the same three questions. At the end of the reading, there’s not even any
hesitation or throat clearing. It’s as if the questions were always there, a kind of diffuse
curiosity, a residue of admiration tinged with skepticism and a little bumptiousness.
“Can you really live off it?” is the first of them. It’s always the one to start the dance,
and it seems to be the one that’s of greatest interest in a society governed by getting
and spending. Money sets standards and settles issues. It’s money that measures the
worth of each individual, whoever or whatever he or she may be: a pole dancer at a
nightclub, an auto mechanic, a seasonal laborer in the asparagus field, a military spy
hollowing out an enemy dictatorship, or—out of whatever frivolity of youth or
deformation of personality—a poet. Can you live off it? It’s the quest for a common
denominator, the slightly sneering imputation of a low motive that even the
poet-fantasist daren’t go too far away from without risking a stumble. Whoever holds
forth unpaid is like someone preaching on one leg: he won’t be doing it for long. The
question is a conscious and malicious comment on that flamingo or ostrich position.
Live off it is a way of saying: these fruitless verbal stunts, prestidigitations, aptitudes
must surely lack in market value what they claim to have in terms of significance. To
sensitive poets’ ears it will sound like a threat, a tactless reminder of a bad habit, a
warning against something that will surely end up as parasitism, in the warm bath of a
state-endowed hostel.
Usually the matter is quickly resolved by a reference to the fee for the just-over
reading (which the poet will certainly declare to the tax authorities). The fact that such
an obvious connection doesn’t occur to most people is due to the public subvention of
literature. It is rare for people to have to pay for the privilege of hearing their bird of
paradise (and asking him such and other questions). Few would stump up, if required.
Free admission to the bard is considered a right. The same art lover who would pay
hundreds of dollars for a seat in the stalls to hear some pampered tenore, makes the
silent assumption that the recessive librettist, the wordsmith with the light voice and
the fluttering gestures, if he insists for some reason on appearing in person, will do it
for free. The question about earning a living is half accusation, half condescension,
because the party questioned inevitably strikes them as a poor fellow on day release
from his cell in solitary, sitting there quietly reading out his difficult messages, a little
nervous, as though there were armed guards on either side of him, rarely
straightforward. His material is as encoded as the secret messages passed from hand
to hand in prison, those crumpled scraps of paper that look as though their conveyor
had smuggled them in under his tongue. The spittle that issues from the reader’s
mouth is a grim little echo of those sticky scraps—but not as much as the poems
themselves, these minimal jerky missives, these coded appeals in a secret language. Do
I have to accept this and pass it on, the skeptical listener asks himself, what’s it for?
First I want to know if it’s even possible to live off these messages from longtime
solitary confinement. Basil Bunting, angry English member of the circle of the equally
angry Ezra Pound, offers a portrait of the skeptic in his poem-monologue,
“What the Chairman Told Tom”:
Poetry? It’s a hobby.
I run model trains.
Mr Shaw there breeds pigeons.
It’s not work. You dont sweat.
Nobody pays for it.
You could advertise soap.
Art, that’s opera; or repertory—
The Desert Song.
Nancy was in the chorus.
But to ask for twelve pounds a week—
married, aren’t you?—
you’ve got a nerve.
How could I look a bus conductor
in the face
if I paid you twelve pounds?
Who says it’s poetry, anyhow?
My ten year old
can do it and rhyme.
I get three thousand and expenses,
a car, vouchers,
but I’m an accountant.
They do what I tell them,
my company.
What do you do?
Nasty little words, nasty long words,
it’s unhealthy.
I want to wash when I meet a poet.
They’re Reds, addicts,
all delinquents.
What you write is rot.
Mr Hines says so, and he’s a schoolteacher,
he ought to know.
Go and find work.
If you think this scene from 1965 is a little dated—though I wouldn’t know why—then
you only have to substitute the many prejudices that lurk inside you about so-called
modern poetry. Incomprehensible, hermetic, elitist, socially redundant, indulgent,
cerebral, etc. And contrast that with the refreshingly blunt tone of the chairman in
Bunting’s poem, which, strangely enough, comes out of a collection called “Odes.” The
poet himself evidently thought it sufficiently expressive to be included in one of his
rare bibliophile editions, flanked by arid dense nature poems, bone-dry histories of the
rim of Europe. It seems to be a problem of poetry, before all formal questions: its right
to appear at all before the serious world of work. A profession is the spine of life, says
Nietzsche. By that token, a poet would be an endangered species, condemned to live
without a spine. Maybe that’s why he so often has recourse to alibis. When questioned,
he refers to his other occupations. He talks about his day job as editor and translator,
mutters something about articles in prominent weeklies, deflects attention to his work
in prose and his production of reviews, which in his own eyes too brings him closer to
the generality. He wants to show that he is concerned with principles, with his own
speculative contribution to what contemporary philosophy calls the logic of the senses.
He too is concerned with a methodology of contemplation (and not just sunsets and
stamens). He promises that he is about more than merely chance self-expression, that
he is exploring the basics. Casually he brings in his Ariel-like agility, his Hermes-deft
understanding of the sciences. If he’s going well, he alludes to the unique possibilities
inherent in his eccentric situation. Then, having politely stepped aside, he brings in
the poet in general, the finely honed senses the species has had for pioneer work in
many fields, long before psycholinguistics or art philosophy occupied their own
terrain, and long since, too. Because it’s still not settled, he says, finally, who is taking
advantage of whom. Phenomenology and dialectical thought, journalism and
advertising, the mushrooming proliferation of writing up to and including the very
latest self-help manual, they have all nibbled on the oatcakes of poetry. They have
received a gift that came to its creators, if they’re going to be honest about it, as a gift
in turn—a gift, according to the ancient Greeks, from the Muses. And so he asks, with
for once barely a trace of irony, that all questions of duty and ownership be set aside. A
little calmer now, he goes on to talk about the privilege conferred by writing—the
privilege of using his gift of observation and his verbal finesse to make explicit
statements on being human, to make notes on the real world and translate it, at one
and the same time, into metaphysics. Perhaps it will even occur to him to portray
writing as a specific form of understanding, or, following an original notion of Novalis,
as progressive anthropology. Once in train, he will insist that poetry is the most
paradoxical and complex form of contemplation, and thereby the most valuable
contribution to a natural history of thinking and sensation. If he finally succeeds in
elevating this to a proof of existence, exalted over every bank statement and of almost
inestimable cultural value, then, more exhausted than convinced, they may finally
leave him alone. But right away, bet you anything you like, will come the second
question, the starting signal for an expedition into the biographical hinterland: “How
long have you been writing?”
This question seems to be more straightforward. It would be enough to name some
date or other, having recourse to some childish lisping-in-rhyme, some fairy-tale scene
after which you were never the same. Or, following Proust, the recollection of that first
sleepless night, when, instead of going over your notes on photosynthesis once more
for the biology test in the morning, you started to tiptoe away from the present by
starting to hammer out sonnets, for one whole week, till you got to fifty. Or you refer
to some early trauma, running away from your family into a shrubbery that could only
be bent under a line at a time, the triumphal arrival in the clearing you could only
reach by writing, with the divining rod of words, and how you first came upon the
Other, that Other you finally turned into, the more you became engrossed by this
lonely game.
At first it sounds more innocent, this question of when, but it’s not without its subtext
either. It’s generally brought forward more shyly, by people who do a bit of scribbling
themselves in their time off, or who have set up reading groups to speculate about the
intentions of their favorite mages. These good people have some sense of how to
proceed. When they’ve determined one day where writing comes from; how it became
an obsession; what part was down to heredity, artistic education, regional culture, or
personal handicaps; how helpful or unhelpful were family conflicts, early reading
tastes, and greater or lesser deviations from the standard educational program—when
they’ve finally cracked the mystery by indiscretion and no little statistical hocus-pocus,
they’ll proudly inform us. Feeling themselves to be like-minded or allies, they begin by
politely but firmly inviting themselves round. The particular focus of their curiosity is
childhood, its many unlit niches and attics, where animula, that little soul-butterfly,
slipped from its larva and one day took to the air. In other words, what they’d ideally
like is a spyhole into the past for them to peek through into the intimate setting where
such transformations took place. And this is where their interest coincides with that of
the author. Because he too wouldn’t mind knowing how it all began—even if only to be
able to tell his grandchildren about it. He too would benefit from a modern espionage
technique that could show him some live footage of the dawn of his own
consciousness. But unaided, all he can do is project generally unfocused and in other
ways untrustworthy images from his memory.
For instance, the warm cave of bed, where he would read Jules Verne and James
Fenimore Cooper by flashlight deep into the night, to be ambushed not by the Hurons,
but by his father, whispering “Lights out!” and pulling away the pillow. Or his unusual
habit, when he spent his summers at his grandmother’s, of prowling through the
apartment, done up to the nines, chanting, armed with the little dagger-like knife-
sharpener from the top drawer of the kitchen dresser, imitating the pose he had seen
in the illustrated Shakespeare edition, modeled on the sinister figure of Prince
Hamlet. Or the secret vow, given after reading Buddenbrooks in school: by the time
you get to be that old, you have to have done something as good . . . and what
remained of that was the secret force of the word “vow,” to this day. No, all that won’t
do to furnish a proper medical file with a nailed-down, certifiable anamnesis. The
status of this clear and well-upholstered pre-history is fiction.
It appears that the opening chapter of any Bildungsroman is bound to be under-lit, as
if any artist had no option but to situate his self-portrait among baby talk, nursery
rhymes, and, in Joycean manner, Dante and moo-cow. Because the when only incites
to a hectic search for original actions, and behind every origin is another origin, every
first cause masks another. “Don’t trust any of the anecdotes about beginnings” is really
the only good advice. What looks like the first time is actually déjà vu, a gala premiere
after a long rehearsal period, some scene that memory has gotten expert at lighting. It
can’t help reminding you of the museum-ready installations in writers’ houses, the
rococo desk parked in front of the window—everything of course the way it was, the
site of inspiration exactly as the master left it, still warm, papers untidy and inkwell
Really, the only good thing about the question is its undertone of yearning. The
phenomenon it shyly inquires after is obviously much bigger than anything that can be
said about it. In their heart of hearts, both participants know that it’s not much good
waving a questionnaire at the mystery of creativity. Because you will never catch the
first murmured aside in flagrante, any later attempt can be nothing but a
well-intentioned but ultimately vague reconstruction. Of course you can follow Proust
and take the road of greater and greater refinement, sifting recollections into
voluntary and involuntary and admitting only those that sidle into the photo album
unbidden. In this way, you will at least gain access to a kind of backstage, the place
where the ur-images slumber in children’s books, the characters evoked by the deft
pencil, the ever-palpable ordinary objects. If you’re canny about it, you can mingle
with them again, place your body in their midst as once before. Maybe you can even
find your way back into act 1, scene 1, the original scene in the golden spring light, or
at least resurrect one of those richly circumstantial moments, when you sat like St.
Jerome in his cell, not with holy books, but at least a Roget’s to hand among a slew of
papers, and by the door instead of the sleeping lion the new bicycle, never so neglected
as now, on this October day. Because the first time you were entirely oblivious to
yourself, not in the wild harum-scarum way of sport and running, but in that quiet,
cut-off way, fixed on something in the remote distance, recalled with a jolt only by a
look at the clock.
But who could say if that was it, the moment that reflective understanding awoke, the
immemorial and essential astonishment that is the pre-condition for all further
writing? Just as you can’t localize poetry in the brain—as the neurologists have long
conceded—you can’t date and trace its arrival in the life of an individual. The
subsequent aim of the enterprise may be all about specification, the mot juste,
precision of expression, objectivization, and so on—but place and time and the
motives that launched it on its way will always stay in the dark. All that can be said is
that the one thus questioned one day became poem-obsessed and that he has since
then been avid for words; just as other individuals with deft hands may become
craftsmen, or those with some sixth sense develop a feel for stock-market movements
or political developments. One day, something happened that would later awaken in
him the desire for still more absurd retrospectives. After all, the question when
violates a taboo, shooing the poet back into the early pastures of childhood, into the
empire of grownups, or giants even, where he spent so long as an embarrassing dwarf.
If it happened to him later that, Gulliver-like, he was confused by size and sometimes
felt himself too big, more often too small, then that had presumably to do with
distorted perception resulting from being an author. At any rate, such metamorphoses
and reversals came with the territory for him.
All these themes—self-isolation, split identity, forms of memory—are just the chapter
headings from the one book which every one of us, not just poets, is writing all his life,
and not always with belletristic ambition. In the whole of world literature, only one
person to date has succeeded in transforming this project into one luminous whole,
i.e., in making a paper cut-out of his own life so crisp that it can be held up against the
light. Once again I refer to Marcel Proust, the sublime researcher into matters
mnemonic who has supplied the most conscientious answer to the question when
first. His lavish self-portrait in the form of a phenomenological study eventually came
to seven volumes of minutely descriptive prose. As someone who generally confines
himself to poems, I of course don’t have so much space. But, above all, the time for
such a venture seems to be differently allotted in each individual life.
For myself at the moment, there is only a line-by-line groping, the snipping of various
phases of life into skinny little strips with plenty of space between them, the
chronological leaps bedded among the peaks and troughs of various meters. All I have
for now, by way of the guerilla tactic of a poorly armed memory, is avoidance, the
jump from poem to poem. Here and there a swift raid, and then back into the woods,
the protective jungle hideouts. Zeit schinden—“playing for time,” you call it in
German—the language I cohabitate with in a monogamous relationship, the occasional
extramarital affair notwithstanding, and whose intrinsic intelligence takes me on the
most beautiful odysseys. To German I owe my most important insights and a few true
moments of happiness.
What comes about in this way is at best a novel in fragmentary form. Something with
the quality of a sketch. Then again, sketches have made panoramic paintings, given
time. Each individual poem seems just to be a running-up; it starts over and over, only
to withdraw quickly. It seems modest, fugitive, as though under a curse, as if blocked
from the get-go by its tendency to end as a mere gesture, when it began with an
aspiration to inclusiveness. But then, one day, you might ask yourself whether it’s not
the other way around, whether the poem isn’t a product of extreme concentration,
either on a sequence of images or movements, or a subtly articulated argument, or the
pivotal scene of a period of life. Then its main drive would be semantic reduction. A
few clusters of words express what the lavish epic draws out over hundreds of pages.
Or to put it another way: couldn’t it be that poems, as long as they are alert and open
to impressions, are novels by other means—and therefore do sterling service to
readers short of time and hungry for intensity? What they have to offer are lessons in
accelerated consciousness, machete slashes through a tangled world. For aficionados
of the concentrated and powerful, they are distilled experience, abbreviations of
existence, shocks and pronouncements in droplet form. It’s not really surprising that
people are curious to know where such a thing springs from and when it first makes its
appearance in someone’s life. In the end, the party asked, even if he has stamina and
will continue to make his inquiries himself, will have to pass. Perhaps, as the lawyers
say, he will agree to a settlement, in poetic form, of course. Then he will take the role
of self-scrutineer as far as it can be taken and describe his first year. Perhaps a little
like this:
(In a different key. “Sealed in air and summer / The blade of grass in the
ice-block outside the refrigerator plant, / I looked around, very early, too
early, / With eyes that would have frightened any mother. // And I saw
more than was good for me . . . / My little joints made the sweetest music.
// Really, I wasn’t asleep, I was just pretending, / In the role of a child
(played by a child). // Through the seedy meadow ran a yellow peril /
trailing after butterflies and dandelions. // Close to the ground and
without memory / thus passed my first year, // somewhere yonder.”)
Translated by Michael Hofmann
But the trickiest question is always the third one. It only comes out when the others
have been shot off and hope sinks that there is any common ground of understanding
instead of the deeps and trenches of idiosyncrasy. There’s a hush as it is asked. It’s a
typical child’s question. There are various permutations, but basically it goes like this:
Why do you write?”
As you can tell, the questioner has just taken a step back. He’s been thinking about
what it would be like to spend the livelong day sifting words. He can imagine it a little,
from writing letters, maybe from learning French or Spanish at school. He is reminded
of interminable lessons, blank expressions over blank sheets of paper, and the whole
thing to him resembles something like an English essay for life—literally, a life
sentence. The focus of his pity is the duress, the component of torture, he doesn’t
think of it as an adventure, sweet uncertainty, the atmosphere of sub rosa
assignations. He doesn’t have a clue about the little discharges produced by rubbing
electrostatic words together, the silent bliss caused by the imagination becoming so
physical that it produces a tingle across the scalp, like a cranial massage.
Like all consumers, his view is rather one-eyed, either dominated by the question of
effort (which strikes him as immense and incommensurate) or else by the question of
outcome, which seems disproportionate to such an effort, a sprinkling of letters
plodding around the arid desert of the alphabet, a hermit protocol concretized in a
couple of printed pages of doubtful utility. In the worst case, he will be dismayed by
the renunciation of a life of large, visible projects, a life, as he would see it, out in the
open, wild and professional—rather like his own.
What he completely fails to see are the joys of production, the sheer pleasure of this
strange alchemical process, for which there are only a few, scattered recipes and that
at heart is as old as anything in the world, including the sharpening of flint
arrowheads, tattooing, and baking clay. If it can be said to be a process at all. Because,
as all the insiders will tell you, the thing can’t really be described as a craft, however
physical and pre-industrial that may sound. Perhaps because we are dealing with
something that’s not just pre-industrial, but pre-craft. Poetry, inasmuch as it is still in
touch with its origins—the senses and the voice—somehow eludes history, it
ante-dates all known structures of history and economy. It was present in the corner
of the stone-age huntsman’s cave, just as it is there now in the cafeteria of a factory
that makes jet planes. In both cases, it is unobtrusively and consolingly there between
people in its shy but natural way, claiming no attention. You could rest from the effort
of the chase, or momentarily forget about blueprints and lead times, because it was in
the air, or, as they say, “free to air”—either as the monotonous murmur of the
eccentric cripple lying on the mammoth skin in the corner, or as the droning chant of
the latest hip-hop bard featured on the morning show. What I’m getting at is that its
sheer being there lifts it out of the category of craft. In fact, this very being there,
unobtrusively omnipresent in music and commercials, folk song and requiem,
indicates that it needs to be legitimized by the other professions and crafts in the first
place. Sometimes I think that the poets were the first to have to make their way
through adversarial thinking and professional palaver, bickering in home and cave, in
the office and on the factory floor. At least they had no choice but to listen to it closely,
to collect everything heard and seen and then process it before it disappeared in the
general confusion of voices, the chaos of—literally—the daily grind.
Which means that on the one hand poetry has always depended on there being a
well-ordered society with a division of labor, ready to finance its festive bards, and on
the other that in the interests of proper and concentrated recording, it has always had
a tendency to stay off to the side somewhere. The latter has led to the insoluble
paradox that it flourished in splendid isolation, cannily insisting on neutrality and
right of refusal, while at the same time being always at the heart of things, in the
middle of the banging and the slaughtering, there where the destruction of the temple
was discussed, or the construction of the Trojan horse. Rather than chip in with
advice, it has played the part of the observer, who would finally convert his collected
silence into the one and only commentary that survived the wreckage, some
unforgettable line of song, some key scene of an epic or heartbreaking elegy.
And so it can leave the question why unanswered and relax. Only a society despairing
of its own destiny, devoid of any desires beyond economic reproduction, could allow
itself to cast in doubt the so-called difficult art of poetry. I don’t think much of a state
that keeps badgering you for self-justification—whether intended as provocation, the
final shred of theological doubt, or simply a request for practical advice. Of course,
loss of a potential workforce, disorientation during purposeless time off, and the
reduction of entire classes of population into masses of passive spectators are all
alarming prospects. Plato’s poetic cleansing was an early indication of the way the
wind was blowing. His plan to banish from his state those useless poets who did
nothing but fiddle with pictures and reach into the pleats of their togas for metaphors
and phantasms was not just an idle suggestion. So: what would have happened to them after their relocation to their Hyperborean island? They would have starved to
death, for sure, and no one would have prevented it. Wrapped up in themselves, they
would have done what they best liked to do anyway: bid farewell to the world in all its
variety. The toughest would have lasted longest, iron sublimators of their destiny,
reviling one another and recasting the chattering of their teeth into iambs and
trochees. Perhaps some would have been turned by their dereliction into monotheists
like the future Christians. Their tale about the extinction of their species, lamented
between bouts of narcissism and cannibalism in artful psalms, would have continued
to drift around the seas for a while, a message in a bottle. After a few decades, a young
Apollonian bully on one of the coasts, a trained decathlete and arithmetician, would
have fished it out and, after a swift nauseated reading, destroyed it before his eloquent
and athletic comrades could denounce him in the gym for spreading unhygienic
writings . . .
Society, at any rate, would have survived it, just as it has from time to time de facto
survived the loss of its unbidden guests, the poets: either totalitarian-style, by formally
condemning and liquidating those elements it deems noxious; or democratically, as a
result of an exeunt through what it generously refers to as Freitod—“death by one’s
own hand” (read: suicide). In the twentieth century, the price for these losses was in
either case the spiritual darkness of collectives: here the retreat into the shot-up ivory
bunker, there the mass departure for self-destruction. Hardly a century has got
through as many good poets as the twentieth. The conciliatory, if not exactly
comforting, thing about the question why is that, after all, it’s just about a phantom
pain. Such a question can only come from someone who has lost something, even if he
doesn’t know exactly what it was. So back, quickly back to the euphoria that awaits the
writer. On some days, the pleasure is such that every poet flinches a little at the sound
of the word work. And the why wants to know about that too. Because work—a
job—as defined in the dictionary isn’t something that you would publicly put into
question like that. Not even prostitution, beset by at least as many taboos and
half-truths, ever needed to furnish answers as to its whys and wherefores, and the fact
that it was a job was never denied, not even by those who would like to outlaw it as a
form of exploitation. No one was ever stuck for a justification for this occupation. You
just called it the oldest profession and pulled rank. At the same time, you forgot that
poetry, satisfying similarly inexhaustible appetites, was surely at least as old. If not
older still.
No other occupation seems as fraught with doubt. Anyone brave enough to risk his
bourgeois contentment at an early age will spend the rest of his life wondering if it was
worth it. His social acceptance will depend entirely on his growing influence—or his
talent, in layman’s terms. It’s not enough if he assures you he’s getting by, no, he has
to convince you that he’s fulfilling some universally explainable purpose.
That involves fighting on several fronts. The why will strike the poet as a hydra-
headed monster; as soon as he deals with one head, another pushes up. Why, oh why?
The question splits into loads of subordinate questions: Why do you write when no
one can tell me what the point is? Why do you have to do something so dubious? Why
are you so difficult that hardly anyone can understand you? Why do you stand there so
calmly, presiding over all your neuroses? The one question stands in for a tangle of
other questions. And why not, since there’s no one more available for such public
introspection than the poet.
Not that the poet, in his life, bothers himself with this most infantile of questions for
long. He inevitably disregards it, forgets about the future and growing up, and—if he’s
lucky, anyway—remains a child at play for the rest of his life. Is it the repression of this
big question that allows him never completely to lose access to childhood and to such
qualities as playfulness, love of home, curiosity about the world, hunger for myths and
stories? In the end, you’re always left with the individual’s psyche, locked in its
embrace with the sweet idiom of the tribe. That’s what condemns poets to these
embarrassing questions. People look to them to pull answers out of their hats, answers
that are more digestible than those of the philosophers, more entertaining than those
of the priests, and—with luck—more comforting than those of those cynics, the
doctors. Complicity with the latter, a bad habit of poetry in the twentieth century, only
few are able to take. Poets shouldn’t always be playing devil’s advocate. Their
insistence on physiology, on blunt physical realism and drastic disillusion, must be a
disappointment to those who prefer to see them still in the role of landscape
Not that poets are altogether unprepared for all these demanding questions. Since
Kafka’s story, “A Country Doctor,” they are the ones to have been put to bed with the
patient, right up against the gaping wound. But never mind what they do and what
they write when they’re there, nothing is self-evident. Very little makes sense,
reconciles or heals, and only in the rarest cases it helps people through their tangled
day-to-day life, which thanks to progress and Civilization and Its Discontents has
become quite a cozy little labyrinth.
Later, they might look up from their notes, and their eyes mist over at the sound of a
word like futility. In its polysyllabic lightness it somehow evokes the sirens’ song, the
trill of frustrated mermaids. But to whom have they not sung in some hour of
weakness? As is well known, poets are people who regularly get to hear their
pre-orgasmic groaning simply on account of the work they do. Over time, they have
learned to develop all kinds of defensive techniques against these tempting
distractions. And that’s how they want to help the rest of humankind. Odysseus, tied
to the mast by his crew, open-eared to these deadly sweet sounds, is certainly a better
model than poor Marsyas, who loses his skin in the flute-playing contest with
big-headed Apollo. The only worse role model, no sort of exemplar, is Orpheus, who in
the Greek version is the founding father of poetry. According to one variant of the
story, women tore him limb from limb because he paid them insufficient attention.
They nailed his severed head to his lyre and threw it into the Thracian Sea, where it
continued to drift about for a while, singing to itself. The other version has it that as
punishment for his contempt for agriculture he was ploughed under by some peasants.
Either way, he ends up in pieces. There’s not much to choose between the two stories,
they share one moral: the price of alienation, self-absorption, disregard for sex and
property is a martyr’s death in the service of the Muses.
Probably that’s why poets have become more self-critical and more modest of late.
They are back in the real world, no longer treading astral paths. More skeptical than
most rocket scientists, they look about their immediate vicinity, registering the tiniest
quiver of a needle, the puff of quartz-dust on their instruments. Still with that fresh,
animal gaze—albeit as the natives of language—they escort each new flight and
describe things the experts miss. Their task is no longer metaphysics and
contemplation of the Pleiades. Even if love and death remain their preeminent
assignments (because who else is there who would accept them), their radius in the
last few centuries has steadily expanded. No philosophical, geopolitical, or moral
problem has escaped their sensitive soundings. No crisis zone on the globe or in the
mind where you don’t run into poets. No dirty work for which they consider
themselves too fine or too romantic.
But by the same token, they will no longer stand for all the reproaches that are leveled
against them. Someone who is spared nothing in what he does, who has no protection
and no aesthetic privilege, such a person will at least lay claim to his constitutionally
guaranteed space, as part of a properly constituted minority. So one shouldn’t be
surprised if these incessantly questioned parties start shooting a few questions back.
Trained in self-doubt as they are, they know where the adversary’s weak spots are. It
takes them a while to launch into a counter-question, but then they do it
enthusiastically and, as we will see, quite unscrupulously.
The representative question is the why. If you approach the matter unsentimentally
enough, a meditation on the subject will surprise you. I don’t want to frighten you, but
have you thought about what happens to people who aren’t artists? E.E. Cummings
once gave a particularly blunt answer. His barrack-room tone was probably in
imitation of some raw recruit. In the introduction to his novel The Enormous Room,
he comes up to the reader with a pally “Don’t be afraid” and gets a merry little
dialogue going. In the course of it, the encouraged reader lets the fearless author talk
him into the question: “What do you think happens to people who aren’t artists? What
do you think people who aren’t artists become?”only to be triumphantly shot back at
by the author: “I feel they don’t become: I feel nothing happens to them; I feel
negation becomes of them.” After that triple salvo—according to the author
anyway—the reader has no more questions. At best, it’s a whispered echo of the poet’s
final threat: “Negation?”
Well, one could probably be gentler about it. Delicate sensibilities may be hurt by a
poet, of all people, arguing so ruthlessly and self-righteously. But why should he spare
you a peek into his own box of prejudices, when he is compelled on a daily basis to
inspect those of others? Moreover, everything with Cummings has to do with this one,
ambivalent concept, negation, which signifies both the process of negating and its
effect, the result of disappearance, namely: nothing. And it is precisely this annulling,
this deletion, this causing to disappear that is at issue. Are those non-artists, always
terribly busy but finally disappearing without a trace, are they not the ones who are
condemned to negate everything that doesn’t press itself on them in the form of
reality? They are the ones who have no possibility of returning, who spend their lives
in the service of their own removal, all for the sake of banality and materialism.
Anyway, they don’t contribute much to spiritual variety. If it were up to them, there
would only be the world as is, which means rough and ready, drearily underexposed, a
place of torment and tedium, a global Golgotha without witnesses—and not because
they are entirely devoid of imagination and playfulness themselves so much as
because all their activities are essentially negative, a sopping up of resources, a
clearing away of what existed previously, a destruction of terrestrial substance without
a chance of any revision, let alone irregularity. In truth, it is they who are holding
negation, the philosophers’ rattly old machine gun, in their hands, and it is they, not
the bearded wise men of stoa and academy, who have most frequent recourse to it.
They don’t have to be ill-intentioned, it’s enough that they continue to do what
non-artists do when they are bored. Which means behaving like normal consumers of
the universe, always busy, always on their treadmill, AKA “the real world,” or
“common sense,” or “business as usual.”
Oh, that’s just resentment speaking . . . In fact, artists and non-artists have a
wonderful symbiosis. Each side profits from the weakness of the other and receives its
legitimization from it, see above. Only, the one side seems always to have known why
as a minority it always had a modicum of modesty, while the other was able to ignore
it in its nihilistic philistinism. The wonderful thing about this little argument is the
way it sharpens the issue of why. Instead of proclamations as to the function and
purpose of their respective activities, it’s an argument about who, bluntly speaking, is
responsible for more of the current schlimazel. Probably that’s why the exchange is so
satisfactory. Be warned: most artists, frustrated or otherwise, approve of this sort of
Better watch out: artists are people who, unless they’re feeling particularly hypocritical
and ingratiating, would laugh to scorn the claim that there’s an artist in everyone.
Whether they appear in the guise of cool diplomats or cult figures or shabby
drunkards, none of them is without that shred of vanity. Of course they are going to
assume that someone without the lofty inner life suggested by art and poetry is to be
pitied. Sooner or later he is bound to break up into aspects that may be connected to
him as a legal entity, but that won’t have the least thing to do with his inner world.
They shudder at the notion that one day he will realize that none of this was him, and
in all of it was hardly any of it his. Then it’s usually too late, and the person will dimly
sense that for the whole of a selfless life he has been working in the cause of negation.
Writers are rarely as hard-boiled as they pretend to be. What drives them is their fear
of the void everywhere. Hence the question that bespeaks dread rather than
confidence, the long-repressed counter-question that it will occur only to impertinent
individuals, favored by some demon or other, to ask. After two decades of habit, and
barely a day without sarcastic self-communing, it goes: “Why live without writing?”
Living without writing means, first and foremost, not having an exorbitant paper
habit. At least in that point, the blameless abstainer can look to be let off by the
environment. But it also means, sadly, the wasting of one’s only chance to break out of
intellectual solitary confinement and become a little more communicative, more
human—not just with the twenty-five relatives and friends with whom the average life
furnishes you, but with all those who could really one day listen to you, tomorrow’s
unknown readers. I write for a reader who is as yet unborn. That sentence, misquoted
from memory, can only have come from a manic writer. It’s the sort of proclamation
that shakes you, that sends a little jolt through the naturally idle body. Because from
the very outset it’s the body that jealously keeps watch over writing and extorts ever
new concessions from it. So, why write?
In the first place, I would say, you write to escape your dread of the sheer present. You
fill page after page, as Nietzsche once put it, with angry yearning, not to cozy up to
your nearest, but out of love of those farthest away from you, and because the
contemporary and the day-to-day will be all the more precious to you when you return
to them in a wide arc over unknown terrain. Hence many people’s habit of getting
drunk in company: at close quarters only a maximum of inner distance can create
moments of ease and relaxation. Hence the silent conversations everyone has with
themselves, or locking yourself up in the bathroom to read undisturbed, or the
distancing look in the mirror as soon as you know you’re unobserved. Hence too the
recurring need of lovers to go to the cinema and stare together at the magic screen,
which for a precious hour and a half will make them forget their bodies. In writing, it
is one’s innermost being that tries to assert itself, paradoxically, by self-exposure. But
publicity, as will soon become apparent, is nothing but a particularly tough protective
And the second reason is a dilemma that concerns each individual psyche. You write, I
believe, because you can’t quite shake the suspicion that as a mere contemporary and
biological cell mate, hopelessly trammeled up in your own limited lifespan, you would
always remain incomplete, half a man, so to speak. Someone must have put you onto the idea that only your most individual expression gives you the least chance of one
day being seen in any way other than in your mortal sheath—say, as a kind of ghost.
Ever since that tormenting voice (whoever it may be) first challenged you in the name
of metaphysics, you’ve been trying by all the laws of glass-blowing, AKA poetry, to fix a
little window in your own diminishing time, in the hope that tomorrow, or whenever,
you may be seen through that little peephole. If you happen to succeed in making your
sweetheart, or one or two of your friends, or yourself in your peculiarity visible—the
way Vermeer, say, showed his pregnant letter-reader—then it will have been worth the
effort. Writing, the voice whispers to you, is the least circumstantial method of
breaking out of the given and the immediate. Its only requirement is a mastery of the
alphabet, which, thanks to universal education, may generally be relied on, at least
hereabouts. You don’t have to be able to draw or set down notes like Bach, and yet,
once you’ve passed your spelling exam, you’ve mastered the only method by which
consciousness can be recorded.
From which it follows, thirdly and lastly: you write because the brain is an endless
wilderness, whose roughest terrain can only be traveled with a pencil. As soon as we
are in the innermost dreamy connections, all other art forms are dependent on verbal
synthesis. The dream, as you discover when you write, is the fully authentic self. You
will never have amounted to more. The world will not appear any more variegated.
Which means the notion of what really exists can, with writing, be comfortably
extended by a dimension or two.
Let me conclude this flight with an anecdote. I suspect it may be one of those grisly
parables by means of which Oriental wisdom likes to offer instruction, often to the
dismay of the Westerner. In it, all the issues we have treated thus far are settled, so to
speak, by a stroke of the pen. The setting and atmosphere are familiar from Kafka’s “In
the Penal Colony,” where the grisliness also has a strangely mild quality about it. In
his diaries, Hugo von Hofmannsthal brings up the story of a German officer in China
who, following the Boxer Rebellion, participated in a penal expedition:
The officer sees a line of men sentenced to death, standing in a field. With
his sword the executioner goes from man to man. There is no need for his
assistants to tie or even to hold down any of them; as soon as it’s the next
man’s turn, he stands there with feet apart, his hands gripping his knees,
his neck stretched out, offering it to the blade. One of the last in line, still
some way from coming due, is completely immersed in a book. The officer
rides up to him and asks: “What’s that you’re reading?” The man looks up,
asks back: “Why are you bothering me?” The officer asks: “How can you
read now?” The man says: “I know that every line I read is something
gained.” The officer rides to the general who has ordered the execution,
and begs him for the man’s life for so long that he gets him off, rides back
with the written acquittal, shows it to the officer in charge, and is allowed
to go and take the man out of line. Tells him: “You’ve been acquitted,
you’re free to go.” The man shuts his book, looks the officer in the eye, and
says: “You have done a good thing. Your soul will have profited greatly
from this hour”—and he nods to him, and sets off across the field. 

quoted from: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/