Surrealism may attain to the supernatural (e.g., Magritte, Breton) but is only one of its forms, and not perhaps its most satisfying one: Rembrandt, Cézanne, Giotto, Homer, Shakespeare, Dante satisfy more deeply, they engage the reason as well as the unconscious intuitive, and the more elements common to us all that a work of art draws upon the more totally it can move us. And that term “move” should be thought of very literally—i.e., parts, or all, of our being are set in motion by works of art.
Since I believe there is a most intimate relationship between the quality of a person's life, its abundance or sterility, his integrity, and the quality of his poetry, it is not irrelevant to say that, judging by some—not a few—I have met on my travels, the people who write banal poetry and, to almost the same extent, those who in desperation make up a fake surrealism, usually seem to be the same academics who talk a liberal line concerning education and politics (and often, as teachers, are genial and popular) but who, when it comes to some crucial issue, such as a student protest, will not commit themselves far enough to endanger their own security. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is their poetry banal because their lives are banal, or vice versa? I think it works both ways. If these people committed themselves, took risks, and did not let themselves be dominated by the pursuit of "security," their daily lives would be so changed, so infused with new experiences and with the new energy that often comes with them, that inevitably their poetry would change too (though obviously this would not ensure better poems unless they were gifted in the first place). But on the other hand, if they could manage to put themselves in a new, more dynamic, less suppressive relationship to their own inner lives and to the language, then they might discover their outer lives moving in a revolutionary way. So the process is dual, and can be approached from either direction.
And for myself—not without anguish, not without fear, not without the daily effort of rousing myself out of the inertia and energy-sapping nostalgia that would cling to old ways, to that dying bird-in-hand that's falsely supposed to be worth two free ones chirping in the bushes—I believe our survival demands revolution, both cultural and political. If we are to survive the disasters that threaten, and survive our own struggle to make it new—a struggle I believe we have no choice but to commit ourselves to—we need tremendous transfusions of imaginative energy. If it is indeed revolution we are moving toward, we need life, and abundantly—we need poems of the spirit, to inform us of the essential, to help us live the revolution. And if instead it be the Last Days—then we need to taste the dearest, freshest drops before we die—why bother with anything less than that, the essential?
Wallace Stevens wrote, “The poet feels abundantly the poetry of everything.” We must not go down into the pit we have dug ourselves by our inhumanity without some taste, however bitter, of that abundance. But if there is still hope of continued life on earth, of a new life, the experience of that abundance which poetry can bring us is a revolutionary stimulus. It can awaken us, from our sloth, even yet.
Posted 6 days ago.
I’m grateful the queer community has talked more about consent in recent years. I know one of the challenges I faced when I started dating as a queer person was learning how to say no. And, unfortunately, I encountered more experienced people who took advantage of that inability. But I also know that’s just one type of encounter. The movie fantasy of Desert Hearts doesn’t give queer people a carte blanche to ignore verbal cues—I just think we can learn something from Cay Rivvers and this scene.
When I watch Desert Hearts now, I think of a few people. I think of the (older) baby queer I matched with on Tinder who disappeared and who I followed up with a month later anyway. I think about how, because of that follow-up, we spent a night together where, following her lead, we stopped at making out with clothes on. I think about how that person is now so much more settled in their queerness—with their sexuality and their gender.
I also think of the married mom I met in a small midwestern city. I think about how she secretly identified as a lesbian even though she was trapped in a marriage to a shitty man. I think about our two nights together and how she grasped at me like a life source even as she expressed her guilt and doubts. I think about how I hope there are more women in her future, more opportunities to be herself that are less fleeting.
And I think about my Cays. I think about the queer woman who offered me the lipstick. I think about the queers I hooked up with when I was new to queer dating. I think about the ones who kissed me when I was too scared to kiss them, of the ones who touched me in ways I wouldn’t know how to ask for, and who stopped when they could tell I wasn’t ready. I think about the ones who kept going when they knew I was.
Posted 14 days ago.
Jason Bergman
The original Why I Hate Saturn release was, like 1990, yeah.
Kyle Baker
Yeah, so that was digital lettering. Again, at that time I was not that focused on comics. I came out of Milton Glaser Studio. It was my first job coming out of college. He was an instructor at college, at SVA, so I was working there, and like I said, my dad was in advertising. So I'm just used to that world of dealing with type. Back then we used to glue it on boards, you know with the rubber cement and razor blades and all that stuff and overlays. You have what they call Rubylith. I'm not even gonna explain what Rubylith is. Do you know Rubylith?
Jason Bergman
I have no idea what that is.
Kyle Baker
Yeah, it's a long story. But yeah things like that and waxers and artographs and all that was the world I was excited by. I can't remember the question now, what was it?
Jason Bergman
Digital art?
Kyle Baker
Oh yeah. So again, I was always used to those kinds of processes. Like when I was working on The Shadow and things like that, I used to work with Murphy Anderson who was the color separator at the time. I can't remember the name of the company he was working for, but he would come by and do the color separations for these comics. And I would give them these crazy overlays and we'd sit down and we'd work out these instructions for how we were gonna get these cool airbrush effects or knocking out type. Things that are much easier now. And again, much easier with computers. I'm looking at that poster behind you. You had a painting that you had to combine with type which had to combine with this 3D logo. And it was probably some kind of goofy photographic process where guys are printing out photos and cutting them out and putting them onto some kind of board. I used to love that kind of crazy stuff.
—“Right now I’m just trying to get the stories done”:
Catching Up with Kyle Baker
Posted 20 days ago.
It’s emblematic of the way predators in the arts and entertainment industries are tolerated by colleagues and fans until the accusations become too detailed and too numerous to ignore. It is the insistence of ignoring material reality and uncomfortable truths because to stand on moral principles might be inconvenient. It’s DNC-goers covering their ears so they don’t have to hear protestors shouting the names of Palestinian children blown apart by bombs sent by the Biden administration. It’s taking a big sip of delicious warm coffee and refusing to consider the enslaved children who picked those beans and congratulating ourselves on being so virtuous.
This is not uncommon within the cozy fantasy genre. TJ Klune’s The House in the Cerulean Sea takes inspiration from the infamous Sixties Scoop, in which the Canadian government stole indigenous children from their families and placed them in residential schools with upper middle class white families. Klune takes this genocidal horror and uses it as fodder for cozy pastoral fantasy about found families. Katherine Addison’s The Goblin Emperor functions almost entirely on a refusal to interrogate power structures, portraying its emperor protagonist as an entirely helpless but kind individual, all the while ignoring that empires by their very definition plunder and devastate entire regions.
These books are about characters in fantasy settings who must be important enough for big events to still happen around, who ultimately decide that their best solution for happiness is to ignore them. We move the camera away from the horrific events of the world to run our cozy businesses, our found families of employees entirely subservient to us. These stories might be more healing if they focused on ordinary humble people surviving a brutal world through acts of kindness, but that is not the ideology at play here. It is one of dominance and pastoralism, where everything must go the protagonist’s way while still enshrined in the virtues of inaction. They are benevolent dictators preserving their wholesome and cozy way of life, all the while ignoring the horrors just out of frame. Garden walls to keep us from seeing the empire’s watchtowers looming in the distance.
Posted 33 days ago.
The essential trick of the old pastoral, which was felt to imply a beautiful relation between rich and poor, was to make simple people express strong feelings (felt as the most universal subject, something fundamentally true about everybody) in learned and fashionable language (so that you wrote about the best subject in the best way). From seeing the two sorts of people combined like this you thought better of both; the best parts of both were used. The effect was in some degree to combine in the reader or author the merits of the two sorts; he was made to mirror in himself more completely the effective elements of the society he lived in. This was not a process that you could explain in the course of writing pastoral; it was already shown by the clash between style and theme, and to make the clash work in the right way (not become funny) the writer must keep up a firm pretence that he was unconscious of it. Indeed the usual process for putting further meanings into the pastoral situation was to insist that the shepherds were rulers of sheep, and so compare them to politicians or bishops or what not; this piled the heroic convention onto the pastoral one, since the hero was another symbol of his whole society. Such a pretence no doubt makes the characters unreal, but not the feelings expressed or even the situation described; the same pretence is often valuable in real life. I should say that it was over this fence that pastoral came down in England after the Restoration. The arts, even music, came to depend more than before on knowing about foreign culture, and Puritanism, suspicious of the arts, was only not strong among the aristocracy. A feeling gradually got about that any one below the upper middles was making himself ridiculous, being above himself, if he showed any signs of keeping a sense of beauty at all, and this feeling was common to all classes. It takes a general belief as harsh and as unreal as this to make the polite pretence of pastoral seem necessarily absurd. Even so there was a successful school of mock-pastoral for so long as the upper and lower classes were consciously less Puritan than the middle. When that goes the pastoral tricks of thought take refuge in child-cult.
Posted 40 days ago.
Yesterday, as of this writing, I set down the last word of the first draft of the next novelette. But it's not done yet. There's a bit in the middle(ish) that I can't write until I've written most of, if not all of, no. 46. (There's also a bit towards but not quite at the end of no. 46 that I won't be able to have written until I've written most of no. 45, which, of course, I will already have done at the point I get to it, thanks to the Arrow of Time.)
In a day or so, then, I'll crack open the file for no. 46 and get that under way, while the first draft for no. 45 lies fallow. If you're a Patreon or Comrade, that means there'll be another couple-three months at least before you'll be seeing the actual start of the next bit of story, but at least you'll get two novelettes in reasonably close proximity, time-wise. Most likely. There's some slips yet, betwixt cup and lip.
(I trust when you see why, you'll understand, and appreciate. I hope, rather. Have I mentioned that this third season is, structurally speaking, the most complex, by far? —The third movement of any symphony is a dance movement, typically speaking, a burst of playful, even joyous energy, after the contemplative turn of the second. And so.)
In other news: I've finished re-reading Ada, and am once again left with the particular admixture of a definite but ill-defined unpleasantness in and among the satisfaction of having done so. —I do not like that story, with its pettily ugly jealousies that make no sense (jealousy makes no sense, I know, but still), I do not like those casually cruel, hopelessly aristocratic characters, I am helpless before that book. Next, I suppose, I ought to put my money where my mouth went, and re-read the Spear Cuts through Water, so as to be able to say something about how and why it is that though I do admire a lot of what it does, I did not like it, but I'm also tempted by the Orange Eats Creeps again, and Already Dead, and of all things Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand (and meanwhile, all the unread to-be-reads, Aspects and Ash and Ordinary Time and Vineland and Laurie Marks's Logics)—
Distract, distract. Fill the waking hours with noise and color and light. Find the words and take them in and turn them over and set them down. Work, work on. One down. Ish. Twenty-one to go.
Posted 45 days ago.
The story’s title, “That in Aleppo Once,” is of course taken from Othello’s last speech, just before he commits suicide. At the very end, the narrator pleads with V. not to use these words as a title: “It may all end in Aleppo if I am not careful. Spare me, if you took that for your title.” This ending leaves it an open question whether the narrator, in fact, is about to commit suicide. As is almost always the case in fictions constructed on a central allusion to a previous literary text, there are both parallels to and marked differences from the work invoked. The narrator, like Othello, is considerably older than his beautiful young wife, whom he adores. Unlike Desdemona, she actually betrays him, or at least claims to have done so: she is an extravagant liar, even inventing a beloved dog left behind on the couple’s flight from Paris and later telling an older woman friend that her husband killed the dog, when they never had any pet.
The young wife, then, is her own Iago, perhaps inventing—simply in order to torment her husband—this “brute of a man,” a seller of hair lotions, with whom she spent several nights after she and her husband were temporarily separated, or perhaps actually indulging in some rough sex with the uncouth stranger. Although it is perfectly natural for a writer as steeped in literature as Nabokov to build his fiction on a literary allusion, the procedure has been adopted by many novelists and is hardly an indication that the focus on literature somehow carries the writer away from the world of experience outside literature. Fielding makes the Joseph story in Genesis central to Joseph Andrews; Joyce famously organizes the episodes of Ulysses as parallels to episodes in the Odyssey; Faulkner uses the biblical story of Absalom’s rebellion as a prism through which to see the catastrophic history of the American South.
Yet the framework of allusion in no way detracts from the aim of each of these novels to provide a compelling representation of a particular time and place in all its ramified network of social relations and historical contexts. Some might regard the deployment of allusion as an instance of Nabokov’s fondness for “codes,” but as I am suggesting, it is a characteristic move not only among novelists but in literature as such. The key to the sexual betrayal plot via Othello is probably in the tragic hero’s words in his last speech that he is “one who has loved not wisely but too well,” which is a perfect characterization of the hapless émigré of the story but scarcely a piece of arcane cryptography.
Posted 60 days ago.
Others of Robert E. Howard’s characters, like the medieval Irish warrior Turlogh Dubh, show similar influences, and Howard’s stories of the (entirely fictional) Pictish king Bran Mak Morn—whose patronymic derives from Conán Maol’s—showcase his interest in Irish and Scottish history as well as his familiarity with then-contemporary archaeological theories about the racial history of Scotland and Ireland. Howard’s interest was shared, though less effusively, by his contemporary H.P. Lovecraft, with whom Howard shared a lengthy correspondence that began, as Duncan Sneddon points out, when Howard noticed Lovecraft’s use of a Scottish Gælic phrase in his story “The Rats in the Walls.”
Tolkien, Howard, and Lovecraft are only three of many examples: ideas about Celticness have permeated the fantasy genre in all its forms, sometimes explicitly embraced and sometimes absorbed by osmosis as simply part of fantasy’s genre conventions. As Cox has observed, “Celticity holds an ever-present position in fantasy media, but in so doing it becomes effectively invisible because it becomes associated with the fantasy genre rather than any particular source culture.” This then drives writers and audiences to turn back to what they consider “authentic” sources—often wildly out of date or simply made up—of “Celtic” tradition in order to supplement what they perceive as the “generic” æsthetic resources of fantasy. Cox describes this as a “double exposure”:
By forgetting the already Celtic milieu of modern fantasy’s origins, as traced through Arthurian legends, popularly translated texts such as the Mabinogion, and Tolkien himself, modern fantasy continues to look to Irish and Welsh cultures for mysticism, exoticism and otherness, overlaying on top of that tradition another layer of perceptions of Celticity. And, because the fantasy genre’s values encourage research but little criticism of that research beyond seeking ‘originals,’ medieval, early modern and romantic interpretations of Irish, Welsh and other Celtic cultures become folded into the mix and further entrenched in popular imagination.
Against this backdrop, one might assume that writers in Celtic languages would have no interest in fantasy. Speakers of Scottish Gælic, Welsh, Irish, Manx, Cornish, and Breton are, turning again to Iain Crichton Smith, “real people in a real place,” with real and pressing political concerns and with their own literary and æsthetic traditions. As early as the 1910s, the Gælic scholar and writer Calum Mac Phàrlain categorically rejected “sgeul air ni nach gabhadh tachairt” (“a story about something that could not happen,” as the easiest kind of story to create but also as fundamentally worthless: “mur bi sgeul de ’n t-seòrsa sin fìor ealanta, cha’n fhiach e; a chionn, cha’n eil aobhar ann ach a thaisbeanadh ealain” (“if a story of this kind is not truly artful, it is worthless, because it has no purpose except to show off its art”). Mac Phàrlain goes on to dismiss the “seann sgeòil” (“old stories”) of Gælic tradition as falling into this category, lacking the artfulness to justify them; he urges writers and storytellers to focus their attention on “gnothuichean an latha ’n diugh” (“matters of today”) .
Posted 77 days ago.
Edwin Turner
There’s this line in “Jawbone” that I kept tripping over, rereading and rereading: “Like lucky thing for the local citizenry someone on your side was there in there on duty on the nightbeat last night in the crapper last night.” The line is simultaneously gorgeous and ugly, elegant and clunky—rapturous really.
Andrew Latimer
Rereading is the key here. We’re familiar with rereading whole stories that we like or ones with endings that puzzle us. But what Lish, and writers of this ilk, ask us to do is to reread sentences in the course of making our first reading. This assumes a reader, a listener even, with the patience to linger over the page, its construction. (Gary Lutz prefers a “page-hugging” to a page-turning reader.)
David Winters
“Gorgeous and ugly”—exactly, yes. Donald Barthelme once said, “every writer in the country can write a beautiful sentence, or a hundred. What I am interested in is the ugly sentence that is also somehow beautiful.” Lish, when he was teaching, called this “burnt tongue”: “God only listens to those whose tongues are burnt, twisted, crippled.” Writers of fiction can achieve extraordinary power by attending to everything wrong, skewed, erratic in their natural speech—and, rather than being afraid of that wrongness, amplifying it on the page. But power of this kind needn’t be purely spontaneous; it can also be elicited by editing. The sentence you mention went through multiple revisions; Lish reworks his stories obsessively, right up to the final proof stage. When I edit fiction, in my lesser way, I often look out for those off-kilter sentences, isolate them, tweak them, try to increase their tension and pressure.
—an interview with the editors of Egress
Posted 83 days ago.
Cheryl Morgan
Every time I hear you talk about your writing you make reference to your admiration for Katherine Mansfield. What impresses you most about her work?
M. John Harrison
Oh God, what doesn’t? Mansfield went all the way underground in the text. She called it “muted direction.” She wouldn’t say, “Look here, this is the evil character; look here, this is the good character; look here at what the evil character does to the good character, isn’t that so evil? And look how good the good character has been about it!” Katherine just seemed to show you people doing their stuff. If, as the reader, you drew moral conclusions about them, if you drew conclusions of any sort, they were yours. Of course she was cheating. She wasn’t absent from the text. She had gone underground and you were hearing her voice speaking from every part of the fiction, even the furniture in the central character’s front room. Of course, she got pilloried for being “amoral” and “cold.” That was to miss the point—the reason you were horrified was she had done her work right!
—an interview with M. John Harrison
Posted 88 days ago.
