Sunday, April 7, 2013
HARRY E. NORTHUP'S WHERE BODIES AGAIN RECLINE
So April is national poetry month. The idea of a month being about some subject matter or art form, or anything, seems pretty silly, but it did remind me that I haven't kept up on posts I've been meaning to write about books of poems I'm reading, mostly by good friends.
I have three stacks of books on my end table. One for fiction, one for poetry and one for nonfiction. The nonfiction is the highest stack, but the poetry one has the most books (the nonfiction books are usually twice or sometimes even four times or more as thick as the poetry books).
So in honor of the month's dedication, silly or not, I'm going to fire off a series of posts on some of these poetry books over the next few days, starting with Harry E. Northup's WHERE BODIES AGAIN RECLINE (Cahuenga Press), the book that was sent to me first out of the ones I intend to write about. It's by a poet who wrote one of my favorite books of poems in the past.
Northup lives in L.A. and works as an actor you have seen in movies, because he has been in a lot of classic contemporary films since one of his first appearances in MEAN STREETS. He is the definition of "character actor"—always playing a unique character, no matter how small or large the role. You can look up his acting resume for yourself, and there are some excellent interviews with him about his acting career online that I have linked to before on this blog.
But it is as a poet that I know him best and consider him a true original. He has experimented with different approaches to the poem, but in recent years two strategies have determined the way his poems work. One is a diaristic, narrative, usually-not-much-more-than-page-length poem that feels lyrical in its rhythms and imagery and yet is as precise and concrete as a good newspaper story.
Though similar in some ways to Frank O'Hara's "I do this I do that" poems about daily life, because of Harry's distinct voice and the circumstances it rises out of, there is really no one comparable. One of my all time favorite books of poetry is his REUNIONS, which collects a series of these kinds of mini-narratives scene setters. I recommend this book to those wanting an introduction to Harry's work, or to poetry in general. Highly readable, and despite his unique life, easy to identify with, I believe, for anyone.
His latest collection of poems, WHERE BODIES AGAIN RECLINE contains only a couple of these narrative, easily accessible snapshots of his life and times, but is dominated more by the other way he structures his poems, which is out of juxtaposed images that evoke personal meaning but sometimes indecipherably.
These poems are almost like litanies of imagery with obvious significance to the poet, an invitation to watch a short film of the imagery in his mind at the moment of writing, as it were, as opposed to the actual circumstances of his life at that moment. A lot of the language is repetitive along with the images, making it seem like the poems may even be, at least in some instances, cut-ups of previous or later poems, recycling specific words and images in a serial loop.
Many of the poems in WHERE BODIES AGAIN RECLINE seem to follow specific patterns, though every time I felt I determined what those patterns were, another poem would contradict that uniformity of structure. The perspective is almost of someone describing with no embellishment a series of symbols in a painting or collage. Some of the imagery described is abstract or generalized (lots of geometric shapes) and some is more specific (lots of arrows). When it works, the poetry attains a kind of sui generis quality. I'll leave you with an example:
night before birth
a man makes a fist & puts it down
on a pile of gold coins — an eye
turns sideways — those men
hungry for money turn away
a gold path moves through dark-
ness & curves down — curves &
curves under & holds his hand
white-winged plane above large
blue hand — while men frame
their thoughts with white wings,
wars, hunger, hurricane, loss
never falter — our hands cease
listening — form an apex to
protect a pan catching falling
coins — grasses, fires, buffalo,
golden edges of darkness remain
calm, are encased in breakage
son denies father, unleashes
water, white roses, constant
arrows, burning light all too
many to stop burning frames of
houses — sunflowers & lilacs foam
over waterfalls — pipes, cigarettes
iris, sky, center, far blue, near
death — flames rush around the eye
feathers lift webbed petals, brother
dwells on his own capturings; what
vast pyramid behind the iris
the sun, the holi burning — turn the
light on to kill — one feminine eye
above spreading the blue fan
a hand rotates the royal blue iris
a hypodermic needle fronts the closed
eye — propeller upward, like an
upsidedown table, spins, flames sweep
man walks on burnt-out transient
heart, sparks of light emerge, shine
death, like golden leaves, spring out
death flies, scatters light, lines attach-
ed to sunlight, our sorrow dead, green
rows of arrows, curve, spring, red night
[PS: I hope I transcribed this exactly like it's in the book, the "holi" may be a typo but it is there, and I like it.]
Saturday, April 6, 2013
ANOTHER FAVORITE QUOTE
"All these years I have not had to remember these things. They have remembered themselves."
—Black Elk (from BLACK ELK SPEAKS I assume)
—Black Elk (from BLACK ELK SPEAKS I assume)
Friday, April 5, 2013
MILO O'SHEA R.I.P.
Milo O'Shea was one of those character actors almost everyone knows by sight, though they might not know his name. He was so memorable that when we see his image we can recall the way he sounded and moved. A unique presence on stage and screen.
Usually when I tell anecdotes about people who have passed who I knew in some way they're pretty positive stories about all concerned. But the only one I can remember about Milo, besides that the few times I was around him he was dynamic and engaging and fun, but once I wanted to see a play he was in and he was kind enough to get me a house seat when I called and told him how much I wanted to come see the play. But then because I got involved with a woman who wanted to go too, or had some other issue with my going that particular time, I called him at the last minute to say I couldn't make it, and though he was obviously exasperated and I felt like a fool, he did not make me feel worse but was rather gracious, and only sounded slightly fed up with dealing with my romantic quandaries.
Here's the NY Times obit for a man who many will miss and I will always wish I hadn't been such an idjit to.
Usually when I tell anecdotes about people who have passed who I knew in some way they're pretty positive stories about all concerned. But the only one I can remember about Milo, besides that the few times I was around him he was dynamic and engaging and fun, but once I wanted to see a play he was in and he was kind enough to get me a house seat when I called and told him how much I wanted to come see the play. But then because I got involved with a woman who wanted to go too, or had some other issue with my going that particular time, I called him at the last minute to say I couldn't make it, and though he was obviously exasperated and I felt like a fool, he did not make me feel worse but was rather gracious, and only sounded slightly fed up with dealing with my romantic quandaries.
Here's the NY Times obit for a man who many will miss and I will always wish I hadn't been such an idjit to.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
A TERRIBLE TIME
Today, as many of you I'm sure are aware thanks to the Internet and its many reminders, is the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Like many of us who were alive forty-five years ago on the day when the news came that MLK had been shot dead, I remember where I was. But it doesn't matter.
What matters is the world has changed, especially here in the United States, for the better in many ways that can be directly or indirectly attributed to the example, the presence, the activism and words of Martin Luther King Jr. Even in my clan's ancestral home, Ireland, King's nonviolent marches and demonstrations against segregation and the treatment of African-Americans as second class citizens in their own country inspired the non-violent marches and demonstrations of Northern Ireland's Catholics against their oppression as second class citizens in their own country.
I'm still waiting for the definitive biopic, the movie that will do for Martin Luther King Jr.'s story what so many other biopics have done for fellow citizens of the USA who have had much less of an impact.
In the meantime, I have his collected speeches which continue to be inspirational.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES
My favorite show on MSNBC is The Rachel Maddow show, but I have to admit, tonight watching some of the new eight o'clock show that precedes hers, ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES, I dug it.
I can see why others might not. It doesn't have the kind of confrontational sizzle of the show he replaced with Ed Schultz, or the celebrity cache of Chris Matthews and Reverend Al, but those guys didn't keep my interest. Hayes, and the people he had on when I was watching, did. Mostly because I didn't recognize them (I didn't watch his other show), they were not the same faces I've been seeing for what seems like years on every MSNBC show (and often on other network "news" shows as well, like NBC and CNN et. al.) and they, the experts he had on the panel at the end of the show tonight, were all much younger than those same-old-faces and more hardhitting when it came to the facts, in a nerdy kind of way.
I like nerds with lots of facts and research and opinions about stuff most "news" shows never cover let alone have facts to bring to the table or strong opinions that don't seem vetted by the higher ups etc.
I'm gonna keep checking in on ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES.
I can see why others might not. It doesn't have the kind of confrontational sizzle of the show he replaced with Ed Schultz, or the celebrity cache of Chris Matthews and Reverend Al, but those guys didn't keep my interest. Hayes, and the people he had on when I was watching, did. Mostly because I didn't recognize them (I didn't watch his other show), they were not the same faces I've been seeing for what seems like years on every MSNBC show (and often on other network "news" shows as well, like NBC and CNN et. al.) and they, the experts he had on the panel at the end of the show tonight, were all much younger than those same-old-faces and more hardhitting when it came to the facts, in a nerdy kind of way.
I like nerds with lots of facts and research and opinions about stuff most "news" shows never cover let alone have facts to bring to the table or strong opinions that don't seem vetted by the higher ups etc.
I'm gonna keep checking in on ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
SOME POET FRIENDS
Sorry, not sure who took most of these photos, but they're of old friends of mine, some no longer with us, and thought I'd share them:
Robert Slater & Ray DiPalma NYC 1977
Bruce Andrews, Lee Lally & Nathan Whiting at Trinity College DC c. 1970
Scott Wannberg L.A. (actually "the valley") c. 1995
Frank T. Rios (also "the valley") c. 1995
Terence Winch DC c. 1975?
Ralph Dickey (I think Iowa City c. 1967)
Simon Pettet & Nance Boylan NYC c. 2005?
U Sam Oeur Iowa City 1968
ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD
The original 1951 version of ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD was on TCM tonight in honor of the opening day of the baseball season. Unlike a lot of my poet friends and acquaintances, and poets and writers in general, I'm not a big follower of baseball. I was as a kid, and I still tune in for the World Series usually, but I never got into the minutiae of the sport the way so many I've known do.
But there are a lot of baseball movies I like (I may have made a list of my favorites at one time or another before the brain operation removed my compulsion to make lists) and this one I didn't remember seeing though I suspect I probably did at some point (another thing the brain operation seemed to remove is scores of movies I'm pretty sure I saw, maybe even more than once, but when I watch them it seems I never saw one frame of them before).
As Osborne pointed out, it's better than the remake with Danny Glover (which I do remember watching a few times with my now fifteen-year-old when he was younger—and enjoying) because it doesn't use special effects to flesh out, so to speak, the angelic forces, it just uses the audience's imagination mostly.
Another thing that's fun about it is the odd leading man stature of Paul Douglas, a regular in leading roles in my boyhood but a highly unlikely movie star. For one thing he starred in his first movie at 42 (around the same time I did but his was good and a hit and mine was very much not either) playing pretty much the same character he continued to play, a working-class rough neck lug type who usually had a heart of gold, or mush. But the truth is he's fun to watch and was a natural (he came from the world of sports having been a professional football player and sports announcer, as Osborne pointed out).
The other was the lovely and mismatched leading lady Janet Leigh (mother of Jamie Leigh Curtis and wife for a while of Tony Curtis, and a woman I was totally in love with for much of my boyhood and young manhood and actually got to meet in person a few times in my Hollywood years when she was older but still lovely in every way). And a supporting cast from kids to oldtimers that were all part of one of those wonderfully deep Hollywood benches, so to speak, totally and reliably entertaining.
Not on anyone's greatest list, I'm sure, but a great way to mark the opening of the season, baseball, not Spring. For that we'll find another film, though today was certainly Spring like here until late afternoon when it reverted to winter or Fall again (part of the unnatural fluctuation that makes the rightwingers think "global warming" is a misnomer, but we don't have to explain that again, because you probably already understand the science of it, unless you're one of those rightwingers, in which case no scientific explanation will change your already made-up-for-you-by-your-rightwing-masters mind).
But there are a lot of baseball movies I like (I may have made a list of my favorites at one time or another before the brain operation removed my compulsion to make lists) and this one I didn't remember seeing though I suspect I probably did at some point (another thing the brain operation seemed to remove is scores of movies I'm pretty sure I saw, maybe even more than once, but when I watch them it seems I never saw one frame of them before).
As Osborne pointed out, it's better than the remake with Danny Glover (which I do remember watching a few times with my now fifteen-year-old when he was younger—and enjoying) because it doesn't use special effects to flesh out, so to speak, the angelic forces, it just uses the audience's imagination mostly.
Another thing that's fun about it is the odd leading man stature of Paul Douglas, a regular in leading roles in my boyhood but a highly unlikely movie star. For one thing he starred in his first movie at 42 (around the same time I did but his was good and a hit and mine was very much not either) playing pretty much the same character he continued to play, a working-class rough neck lug type who usually had a heart of gold, or mush. But the truth is he's fun to watch and was a natural (he came from the world of sports having been a professional football player and sports announcer, as Osborne pointed out).
The other was the lovely and mismatched leading lady Janet Leigh (mother of Jamie Leigh Curtis and wife for a while of Tony Curtis, and a woman I was totally in love with for much of my boyhood and young manhood and actually got to meet in person a few times in my Hollywood years when she was older but still lovely in every way). And a supporting cast from kids to oldtimers that were all part of one of those wonderfully deep Hollywood benches, so to speak, totally and reliably entertaining.
Not on anyone's greatest list, I'm sure, but a great way to mark the opening of the season, baseball, not Spring. For that we'll find another film, though today was certainly Spring like here until late afternoon when it reverted to winter or Fall again (part of the unnatural fluctuation that makes the rightwingers think "global warming" is a misnomer, but we don't have to explain that again, because you probably already understand the science of it, unless you're one of those rightwingers, in which case no scientific explanation will change your already made-up-for-you-by-your-rightwing-masters mind).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












