Jonathan Ball's Blog, page 71

from VIOLENCE, by Slavoj Žižek

What if, however, humans exceed animals in their capacity for violence precisely because they speak? As Hegel was already well aware, there is something violent in the very symbolization of a thing, which equals its mortification. This violence operates at multiple levels. Language simplifies the designated thing, reducing it to a single feature. It dismembers the thing, destroying its organic unity, treating its parts and properties as autonomous. It inserts the thing into a field of meaning which is ultimately external to it. When we name gold “gold,” we violently extract a metal from its natural texture, investing into it our dreams of wealth, power, spiritual purity, and so on, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the immediate reality of gold. (61)

Žižek, Slavoj. Violence. New York: Picador, 2008. Print.

 

Revising Poetry — an interview by Kevin Spenst

A while back, Kevin Spenst interviewed me about revising poetry. I just added an addendum to the conversation, and am posting the whole piece below.

*

Spenst: How do you work your way through revisions? Do you have any tricks or theories to removing commas, words or lines?

Ball: My main “trick” is to know my weaknesses beforehand. I’m prone to passive voice constructions so remove those. I see adverbs as flags that I have used imprecise or bland words and tried to “cover them up” by telling the reader “this is how to read” via the adverb.

But my real tactic is to isolate the best part of the poem. That image or idea or form. And then edit to strengthen or uphold, and then complicate, that core element. I also try to take each image or idea and consider it in isolation, how to make it bright and twisting and visceral.

My main concern in editing is to make the work more visceral, since this is the single quality I value most in poetry, and also the quality poems tend to lose in editing. I also push the poem into different forms to see what works best, and think a lot about how I can make the form more interesting.

The simplest “trick” for a writer is to pare things down – make poems as minimalist as possible given what you’re trying to do. Few poems should be longer than half a page. Poetry’s strength is in compression. The more words you have, the less impact any single word has.

Spenst: Robert Lowell wrote that “Revision is inspiration.” To what extent do you think that’s true? How would you rewrite Lowell: “Revision is __________”

Ball: I hate it when artists say the word “inspiration.” If anything should be censored, it’s that. What does it mean? It’s a vague word for a vague process that nobody seems able to explain. I prefer Poe and his “Philosophy of Composition,” in which he discusses the process of writing “The Raven.” Any artist worth her or his salt should be able to explain their working process in that detail.

“Inspiration” is so much a part of the artist’s vocabulary and ideology now that it should be excised as boring. “Revision is work.” There’s nothing nebulous about it. It’s a reasoned process of making logical decisions. At its worst, it’s “inspiration” in the sense of making gut-felt, instinctual decisions, none of which you can defend and which are therefore probably poor.

Spenst: Do you feel any difference/make a distinction between editing a single poem all by its lonesome and editing a series of poems for a collection?

Ball: I’m not interested in collecting poems. I write books. Single poems don’t need to be collected. Why bother? Why force them into some vague, bland frame? My most recent manuscript, The Politics of Knives, is close to a collection, in that I didn’t at first intend the poems to work together in a book (but published them as separate chapbooks), but later began to think of them as something of a larger project, something I was working out in spurts, and wound them together, and rewrote them as a unit, so that I think they hold together as a book rather than a collection.

(As an aside: I have since done much more editing on this book, which has a long history and is currently in draft 8; I intend to post about this particular book’s trajectory later in life, since it’s an interesting case study for how a project develops.)

But maybe I’m wrong and blind to my own failures. In which case, to answer your question, I settle on a coherent concept for a book, with a limited formal approach, and select/edit individual poems to then “fit” into the book rather than stand on their own.

Spenst: Do you have any pet peeves when it comes to editing your own work or someone else’s?

Ball: I’m sick of all these boring, bland emotions that everyone thinks are precious and worth writing about just because they have them currently or had them once. And thus perceive as universally interesting throughout epochal time. Always the same emotions, communicated the same ways. If you put an original spin on it, find a prettier way to say it, it’s still a cliché.

My joke is that as a straight, white male, aged 18-35, I feel my emotions are adequately represented in the culture. I edit to strip out emotion. If any emotions remain, they are then connoted or otherwise fundamentally tied to the language and tone and therefore necessary, or result from collusion between language and reader, and my ugly face is out of the picture.

Spenst: Are there any lines from an early draft of a poem that you’d like to share? What ideas, principles or gut feelings guided you through those changes?

Ball: This is a question I ask others to answer in the “8-Ball” interviews on my website, in a different guise, but few people answer the way I had hoped. So I’ll attempt to answer my own question, as I see it lying dormant in this one: “What is your process for a typical piece of writing, from idea to publication? (Give a specific example.)”

A while back, I decided to write a poem attacking Stephen Harper, for a call sent out about a brilliant little chapbook/magazine called Stephen Harper. The publication never materialized, but it was the brainchild of Natalie Zina Walschots and Ryan Fitzpatrick, two friends of mine, who wanted to create a publication whose forced subscribers would be MPs across the nation. This was a response to the Conservative re-jigging of the Canadian Magazine Fund. So I wrote my poem and sent it in, and also posted all on my blog. I’ll reproduce the full post here, despite some inaccuracies regarding the noted policies I now notice:

*

Stephen Harper is in my face again. Why? What did I ever do to Stephen Harper? Why must I always feel at war with my own government? I just want to pay my taxes in peace.

It’s not enough that the government wants to impose bizarre regulations on the Canadian Magazine Fund, effectively destroying the literary periodical industry by limiting funding to periodicals with circulations less than 5000. No, they also have to try to kill SSHRC by making it fund only “business-related degrees” (I don’t know what kind of “business-related degrees” people get in the Social Sciences and Humanities).

The only good to come out of this is a new literary journal, Stephen Harper, run by Ryan Fitzpatrick and Natalie Zina Walschots. Their call for submissions is below. But first, my own contribution, composed mostly of lines from this CNN interview with Harper:

 

That said, Wolf

If there is one thing

that could turn a recession into a depression,

it’s Stephen Harper.

If any country

doesn’t respect its obligations,

then Stephen Harper.

I think this is a debate we would rather avoid.

You can’t “Buy Canadian” but you can buy Canada.

*

Later, I heard about a call for an anthology edited by Stephen Brockwell and Stuart Ross called Rogue Stimulus: The Stephen Harper Anthology for a Prorogued Parliament. The literary journal Stephen Harper looks like it’s dead, so why not send my already-written Stephen Harper poem?

But then, looking at “That said, Wolf” later on, with some emotional distance, I’m disappointed in the work. I realize that the poem cannot be salvaged, because it simply restates my opinion, which is best expressed not in poetry but in essays or articles. So it may stand as published and submitted online, but will never be collected or reproduced elsewhere unless by others. My “second draft” will be a total restart, from Word 1.

I try something more subtle, something that sounds less like an attack ad and speaks more to my complicated, semi-nationalist feelings. We get the politicians we deserve, and the nation we deserve, and my conflicted love and horror of this country, its history, its future, and even mundane things like its weather, strikes me as not dissimilar from the emotions that I feel about religion in general, and my Catholic background in particular (even if you turn atheistic, Catholic guilt will never let you go) – since Harper is a religious man, why not move the poem further in this direction?

Instead of attacking Harper, I will address myself to him. “O Stephen Harper” is the obvious choice for a title. After a few more drafts I have a poem I’m happy with, one that doesn’t stand as an attack on Stephen Harper but is struck through with what I’d like to think is a profound ambivalence:

*

O STEPHEN HARPER

1.

O Stephen Harper, I am moving to your riding,

tell me what wine I should bring.

O Stephen Harper, I am casting my vote

in bronze to await your majority.

O Stephen Harper, if a fisher of men

then your nets will be choked with such fish.

O Stephen Harper, if there are bailouts

then this boat could use a bailout.

2.

O Stephen Harper, what can you do,

you are only one man and I’m an ocean.

O Stephen Harper, with your thimble

you must move my beach from here to here.

O Stephen Harper, there is a second death

and it’s coming and everyone’s waiting.

O Stephen Harper, something walks on the waters,

it looks human and we are all scared.

*

I’ve lost my earlier drafts of this poem – so this is how it appears in the Brockwell/Ross anthology. I like a lot of things about this poem – how it’s political, but also personal, yet not particularly expressive, and more concerned with sounding the depths of what politics means in our psychological and religious lives than making a point about how one should vote or not vote.

Stephen Harper is more a void that we fill with our own hopes or anxieties than a real person, so I put in a reference to Lacanian psychoanalysis alongside the references to Christian mythology, although I tried to do it in a way that won’t bog down or ruin the poem for someone who doesn’t notice the reference.

I also like the turn where the final allusion to Jesus becomes monstrous, which in itself is inspired by the story where Jesus casts out the demons into the swine, after which he’s asked to leave the land and never return – ironically, Jesus as monstrous is something I’ve kept intact from the Bible stories, as opposed to how someone like Harper would want to read Jesus, or how he sometimes comes across as a castrated hippie in the modern age.

Like I say, I lost the original drafts, but I did another revision of this poem recently, nothing substantial, but I changed these lines slightly:

*

O Stephen Harper, I shall move to your riding,

tell me what wine I should bring.

O Stephen Harper, I shall cast my vote

in bronze to await your majority.

*

I’ve used “shall” for a more “prophetic” tone, and because “shall” is declarative. Otherwise, these final edits are embarrassing, Writing 101 edits on an already-published work: “Eliminate unnecessary passive voice constructions in order to add force to your writing.” I include this for any of my students who read this, to show that not only do I ALSO make this mistake, I ALSO deserve reprimand whenever I do!

*

Update: Regarding Context

“O Stephen Harper” ended up in the above-noted poetry manuscript, The Politics of Knives, in a section called “Monsters.” Right there, an unfortunate problem occurs. Just as The Politics of Knives is named after one of the poetic sequences (“The Politics of Knives”), the subsection “Monsters” is named for a poem within that sequence (“Monsters”). But since “O Stephen Harper” ended up in that subsection, with that title above it, the suggestion that Stephen Harper is a monster of some sort has attached itself to the poem.

Which was not intentional, but has happened anyway, because of the context of publication (or rather, planned publication). If this poem sat in this place in this published book, then the appearance of a section title outside of the poem would impact that way that we read this poem. Genette would call this a “paratext” because it is a text outside of the text that alters its potential meanings.

In this case, it would slant the meaning more negatively, and turn the poem back into a political poem (whereas my edits were made to strip out the political context somewhat, and make the poem more philosophical). Add on the title of the book itself, The Politics of Knives, and we have an unavoidable re-stamping of “politics” on the poem. So now, no matter what I do (short of stripping out the name “Stephen Harper”) it’s a political poem.

The only way to avoid this fundamental shift of meaning, and preserve my intention for the poem, short of retitling the paratexts (the book and the section) is to remove the poem from the manuscript altogether. Which is actually what happened, although not for this reason (I ended up removing the entire sequence “Monsters,” which included this poem).

Sometimes even editing won’t save you, because something outside of the text, or the actual context in which the reader approaches it, has the largest impact on its meaning. You need to be sensitive not just to the words in the poem but the words outside the poem, and its place of publication, to keep “control” of the poem (insofar as this is possible).

Pre-order THE POLITICS OF KNIVES now!

How do you know something is awesome? Well, for one, it’s forthcoming from Coach House Books. Two, it’s already discounted at Amazon in an alarming trend that broadly devalues literature.

Nevertheless, both those places will let you pre-order my next book, The Politics of Knives. I have taken (and will continue to take) a few pre-orders myself (jonathan@jonathanball.com), but the books you buy from me are more expensive although signed ($25, which includes shipping within Canada or the U.S.).

The book should be in stores and shipping in the fall. It’s a perfect gift for people who like poetry that Amazon also classifies as “horror.” With which I cannot disagree.

Haiku Horoscopes 011

by Jonathan Ball, Registered Fraud

Aries (March 21 – April 19)

You would get more dates

If you brushed your teeth for once

And stopped killing them

Taurus (April 20 – May 20)

When Jesus comes back

He’s going to want that carpet

Shampooed and dry cleaned

Gemini (May 21 – June 20)

Under the black light

All your hidden flaws become

Visible and fun

Cancer (June 21 – July 22)

Time to buy a watch

And stop asking me questions

That’s what time it is

Leo (July 23 – Aug. 22)

Mice infest your home

You should not have moved into

That gingerbread house

Virgo (Aug. 23 – Sept. 22)

The meaning of life

Is probably something deep

Not chocolate PEZ

Libra (Sept. 23 – Oct. 22)

It’s just not a cult

Without crazy wigs and some

Strange explanation

Scorpio (Oct. 23 – Nov. 21)

You will only give

Those business cards away to

Friends and family

Sagittarius (Nov. 22 – Dec. 21)

You will become a

Movie star, just not the kind

That wears any clothes

Capricorn (Dec. 22 – Jan. 19)

Cameras do not lie

Quit interrogating and

Torturing the thing

Aquarius (Jan. 20 – Feb. 18)

Your guitar is not

Out of tune, nor is your voice

Different today

Pisces (Feb. 19 – March 20)

Outer space is vast

The ocean is dark and deep

You read horoscopes

CV2 reading at McNally, May 24

I will be reading alongside other fine poets with work recently published in CV2, at McNally Robinson in Winnipeg on May 24, starting at 7:30p.m.

Haiku Horoscopes 010

by Jonathan Ball, Registered Fraud

Aries (March 21 – April 19)

Stop telling people

Your significant other

Is Mr. Hyde

Taurus (April 20 – May 20)

Like the brave lion

You will shed your winter coat

And slaughter gazelles

Gemini (May 21 – June 20)

You will get a job

In agriculture this week

Guarding fields from crows

Cancer (June 21 – July 22)

Don’t leave home without

Your lucky rabbit foot or

The cash you owe me

Leo (July 23 – Aug. 22)

Your unhealthy fear

Of haikus and horoscopes

Continues to grow

Virgo (Aug. 23 – Sept. 22)

With Easter over

You might want to think about

Getting off the cross

Libra (Sept. 23 – Oct. 22)

In this, the age of

Computers, your magnetic

Powers make you God

Scorpio (Oct. 23 – Nov. 21)

Cameron Diaz

May be yummy, but do not

Eat the magazine

Sagittarius (Nov. 22 – Dec. 21)

Remember what the

Devil said, Joe’s all in your

Imagination

Capricon (Dec. 22 – Jan. 19)

Some say ‘potato’

Others say you will never

Find true love again

Aquarius (Jan. 20 – Feb. 18)

Events of this week

Will go down in history

But your name will not

Pisces (Feb. 19 – March 20)

This week make sure that

Those things get done and about

That weird guy and stuff

Get to Work: 5 Tips on Writing at Manitoba Scene

Manitoba Scene invited me to share five tips on writing at their website, with a focus on getting things done and getting to work.

Haiku Horoscopes 009

by Jonathan Ball, Registered Fraud

Aries (March 21 – April 19)

Confucius says a

Lot of things, but he’s old and

Very senile now

Taurus (April 20 – May 20)

Despite what they say

The quick way to a man’s heart

Is still oral sex

Gemini (May 21 – June 20)

Play with small children

They are our future, and they

Are easy to beat

Cancer (June 21 – July 22)

Mix the bang in with

The boogie until it jumps

Up, and then repeat

Leo (July 23 – Aug. 22)

Nothing says “I care”

Like a robot programmed to

Breakdance and talk trash

Virgo (Aug. 23 – Sept. 22)

With your vast legions

Of loyal field mice, you will

Accomplish nothing

Libra (Sept. 23 – Oct. 22)

If you think life is

Hard now, wait until you get

To the lightning round

Scorpio (Oct. 23 – Nov. 21)

As stylish as it

May be, resist the urge to

Go to the bathroom

Sagittarius (Nov. 22 – Dec. 21)

Your joy at learning

To read will be dampened by

Your reading of this

Capricon (Dec. 22 – Jan. 19)

Lock horns with success

Get yourself a bikini

And a record deal

Aquarius (Jan. 20 – Feb. 18)

Though you smell a rat

There are no flaws in your plan

To rob the sewers

Pisces (Feb. 19 – March 20)

Before you meet your

True love, you should prepare by

Having sex with me

Haiku Horoscopes 008

by Jonathan Ball, Registered Fraud

Aries (March 21 – April 19)

Don’t leave home this week

Also, be on the lookout

For paranoid freaks

Taurus (April 20 – May 20)

Today looks like a

Good day to die, and also

For planting flowers

Gemini (May 21 – June 20)

Be wary of those

Who claim to tell the future

With tarot crackers

Cancer (June 21 – July 22)

Pennies from Heaven

Falling to the Earth means you

Must stop taking drugs

Leo (July 23 – Aug. 22)

Though the wizard has

Promised you courage, he will

Renege on the deal

Virgo (Aug. 23 – Sept. 22)

Life is like a game

You will never win it and

You think it’s stupid

Libra (Sept. 23 – Oct. 22)

The best thing about

Being you this week will be

Reading this column

Scorpio (Oct. 23 – Nov. 21)

Watch for falling rocks

Especially any rocks

To which you are tied

Sagittarius (Nov. 22 – Dec. 21)

Be kind to others

When the robots take over

Then you will need friends

Capricon (Dec. 22 – Jan. 19)

In the future the

Stars reveal their mysteries

But today they sleep

Aquarius (Jan. 20 – Feb. 18)

A vision of Hell

Will reveal itself to you

Unless you shut up

Pisces (Feb. 19 – March 20)

Whoever said that

Truth will set you free is due

For an ass whupping

Answering Your Email

A new feature on the site, where I answer your email. Here’s Pavle:

Dear professor Jonathan Ball, my name is Pavle and I am currently working on a Serbian-English dictionary. One collocation gives me a plenty of hard times. “porridge of mud” which means “gruelly, thin matter of mud”. Is there something more frequent and more colurful?

Answer: No.