I came across the following by way of the excellent online journal Numéro Cinq (full disclosure: I am an adviser to the magazine, which is edited by my good friend Douglas Glover, a superb Canadian fictionist and essayist –see, most recently, his remarkable story collection, Savage Love). Here is a comment by one Paul Bowes, of whom I know nothing save that he echoes many of my own sentiments. Mr. Bowes is responding to an article in The Guardian (U.K.) called "In theory: the death of literature," by Andrew Gallix.
In critical circles, ... (an argument) seems to
depend increasingly on placing excessive weight on the 'symptomatic'
significance of essentially minor writers such as Blanchot, whose reputation in
the anglophone world as an important fictionist I find to be simply undeserved.
(His non-fiction may be another matter.)
The
recent literary-theoretical attention to Blanchot seems to me to have a lot
more to do with the academy's perennial need to find new fodder for theorising
- and to make careers for young entrants to a well-worked-over field - than any
inherent merit in the writer. Theory will always be more fascinated by notions
like 'belatedness' and 'exhaustion', because by implication they magnify the
status of theory in relation to creative work. In readings of 'thin',
'exhausted' literature, the theorist is usually doing - and can be seen to be
doing - more creative work than the original writer.
I
also find arguments of this type curiously olde-fashioned, even Whiggish. They
all seem to assume that 'literature' has a guiding spirit, and that its history
is always moving towards the realisation of some final predestined form. But
curiously, no matter which book or writer or era one chooses as the 'last book'
or 'final author' or 'terminal epoch', actual literature has the bad manners to
pay no attention, and persists in appearing in new forms.
The
worst thing about these ideas is the authoritarian way in which they seek to
take control of, and foreclose on the future. Where is literature going? These
people don't know, any more than the
rest of us, and their notions are essentially polemical rather than diagnostic.
Amen and amen.
The following new poem takes its impetus from the coldest Vermont winter I can recall in years and years. The temperature dipped to 30 below two nights ago, and has gone below zero every night for weeks. When the weather is thus frigid, however, the beauty of the woods and mountains is, as the poem implies, indescribable:
The following new poem takes its impetus from the coldest Vermont winter I can recall in years and years. The temperature dipped to 30 below two nights ago, and has gone below zero every night for weeks. When the weather is thus frigid, however, the beauty of the woods and mountains is, as the poem implies, indescribable:
Keeping At It at 20 Below
It’s
too cold for me to stay out long at my age,
So
I trek the half-mile road below our shed,
Its
earth deep-hidden beneath the white.
Far
east, Black Mountain shows up, razor-edged
On
a sky full of crystals. My boots on frigid ground
Cheep
so loudly that with my old guy’s ears
I
can’t right off discern another sound:
Pine
siskins in their scores. They wheeze from every
Evergreen
in sight. I used to plow
On
snowshoes through powder, hour on hour.
It
shames me to say the notion scares me now.
Still
it’s hard to keep with wistfulness when air
Keeps
glittering so, and creatures no bigger than thumbs
Keep
at it, cheerful, determined. Each bird tears
At
bough-tips, feeding and chanting. I focus on one
That
doggedly worries the tip of a spruce-cone, eats,
Then
flits away.
Beyond
the bird,
Beyond
the emerald tree in which it sat,
Beyond
the outlying mountain– well, what passes
Even
beyond bright air, and who might sense it?
Not
I. It’s birdsong that prompts such
opening phrases.
Beyond
all this, let time complete my sentence.