An Experiment in Collective Autobiogrqphy

The

EÑE
EE
3l
I'f qn Frqnci¡ co, 1975-1980
 Bob Perelman
Barrett \ffatten
Steve Benson
Carla Harrymán
Tom Nlandel
Ron Silliman
Kit Robinson
Lyr Hejinian
Rae Armantrout
Ted Pearson

M
978-0979C198-0-7 tt$tz"gs
t lilrr¡ t crl t o this seernirtg episternolo¡¡ical cornpul-
siorr" I <'¿rn onll'v.orttler antl suslrer:t. Where is ¿r
Irol ¡ro¡rulation to conrparc us" or rnvscll, to, as I
rtconst ruct it'/
T 111¡11. gun<k'r rrlations. Ámeric¿rn \t-omel} are visiblr'
\ ot \\t) T kne$- eaoh other then. What
rlo rorr lhinh'/ Is nrt'rccollcct.ion sorrnd-
irrg irct:urate, too ¡rartial? llorv rvas it the
s:un(' fi)r you? Ilolt r.as it difTerent?
Love, Di¡cord, Arymmetry
I Lr)v r,;
lbr lor-e in books and lore.
l)t,;ot't.ti (;o 1'o \\',\tt arrd tlie
Nlcn are noble lltt-'n thel'le¿rve their rnotlrt-'rs and go
olf to be rnilitarv heroes. An itkral bolstt:r-* ¿r nct'cssi-
lr ¿ultl a nccessilr' srrpl)orts an itlt-'al. Who actu¿rllv
gr)('s lo l-ar r'r.ith such archait' fantasies'/ 'lhe lant¿rsl
rnav bc lading, but it is rrever tlving. Tt is
diflit:ult to be a rnan whcn tht-'re nr¿rv lrc
no choice ilr hor- to bt¡corne one. ILvr:n iI'
tlrc lrcroic sl-or¡'book talc, thc Proucn9ul
I)oem, or the epic v.ere no longer reatl,
their tlrerrres rvould linger irr abundance. Governments
con- ¿rnd nrctli¿r reprothrr:e these f¿rnt¿rsies:the nrothers of
tlead softlicrs are politicnl subjccts rvhonr [hr-- st¿rtc
had bct-tcr not betray! Oh ves. ther there is the rrert
rlilcrnnra, u'hcn thc archaic liurt¿rsv is nriretl in rvith
soldiers, ¿urd soltlier-*' fathers nr¿rl- have perfbrrnctl a
rnalernal role irt theit Jrarerrtirrg. Sut:h arnbiguitics
tentl to evatle t.lre tclcvision scrccn t--r cn if' thc\ rc-
rrrain irr public consciorr -.uess.
This piece w¿is very dif1i<'rrlt firr rrre to begirr.
In thc 1970s u-ornen l.err''rr't allo'rved ¿r-\ nr¿ur\
roles in the militarv ¿rs ther- are no\\.
T have alr.avs been opposetl to tllc rlrilitarr irr
ant' lbrrrr.
I revisit- the abor.e st¿rtenrenl." "l llar',r ¿rlr-¿r\.s
been opposerl to the rnilit¿rrr. in ¿rnv lirrrlr""" ¿rnrl u,on-
tler about- the validitl'of the,statnn()nl. ls llris lrur:
in an crnotion¿rl scnsr--'/ Is this a stat('rn('nI of ,,¡,¡rosi-
tion'/ ln thc 1970s thc 1,.S. nrilitalr'\t'¿rs uoI lrcl<l in
high rt'garcl ¿rlId this l-¿rs llartl on l)('rsorn('l lct rrlrrirr¡¡
frorn Vietnarn. \oung rnen piclicrl of l lrr t.llc tlraft
antl st-rrt. ovcrseas to hill <,¿rrne lr¿r<'li. slrells of tlrern-
selr-es, then -.uff'eretl further frorlr t.lrt' rrcglcct ol' tlrt'ir
Éiovcfnnrcrrt. Ono oI' tht'sc rrrerr \\'irs nr\ t'or¡sin.
'I'hc thcnrc o1' lorc irr poetrv lt'<'ollr'<'ts all tlre
above irt rny lnirrtl and has sorneihirrg t.o rlo u.it.h rrrv
then inr.c-stig¿rt.iolr of discord¿rnt. scnt.cn(:t's t.llat il' at
CH Corlo Horrymon
¿lll lr,¡rr,lrtrr' (rrcrc they?) stayr:d on tlle plal'lirl arrd
.jir lr
"," r,ll ol rotttance.
I \tr/r'r rr( ly cmbraces? I'm going to make up my
()wr r(,il(.l game 50 ldon't have to look at
y, ,r ¡r., \oothing words can be unsettllng. you
l, rrr rw {l)crcentage, 1979l'
I l)tst,oRt)
\\ rr r I \\()nKt,l) at the Anrerican Poetry Archivc and
I'ottlr (.r'rrlrr'" 1978-8l. a graduate stutlcnt ¿rnd
Il-i,'rr,l. I)¡rr irl llrown, told rne a story ¿rbout rvhen lrtt
lrr' in \ iclrr¿rrn. It is a stolv T have rctrounted elsc-
\r lr,'r','. lrr¡t I summarize it agairl here. Sonretirne
ruloun,l l()7 I or '72, a helicopt-er drop¡red sont boohs
¿l[. iur rnilitarv carnp. People srt¿rtchcd
\ nrcri<:¿rn
thr:rrr rr¡r. l)ar.id 'lvas tcntling to sottrcone's irrjrrrr
lr.herr Ilrc lroohs were tlrolt¡rcd and thus got. the last
bool< in tlrc lrcap: it r.as -For Lo'uel¡y Robcrt Creeler'-.
ln rnr nrcnror\, hc ¿rssoci¿rt-es this er-ent rvith
detr.rnrin¿rlion to be a poct and lris succcsslirl tr¿uts-
f'er to a lrrilit¿rrr b¿rse in Cerrnarrt.
At tlrc Arnr,rican Poctry Arclrir-c, the rnost fi'e-
r¡uentlv reprorlrrcctl audio recordings l-ere flrccl:t"s
irrrd the nlo-st n:Protlucetl pocrn was "The Door," a
¡ror:rn I heard u¡r to sevcral tirnes a rvcch u'hile it u-a-.
lr.irr¡¡ <:opied. Tt. is hardl'irecl in rne. f)espitc t.hc firi-
ty of the u,ords in rnv nlind, thc first tlring I en\'lslorl
rvhen I ellcounter the poerrr is a lowlv basernerlt in a
s[ate institution with sorr]c recording equiprncrrt in it'
Norv if I w-rite this here:
I will go to the garden.
I will be a romantic' I will sell
myself in hell,
in heaven also I w¡ll be.
llow does it diil'er lrorn Robcrt Creelsv'5 havirrg l rit-
ten it?
Lct's sav the garclen in (irecley's n'riting ot tLe
poern is the s¿rrrrc gartlcn as irl rnY v'riting of it' Antl
tlre Ladv is the s¿rnre latll rvho is signified in thtr
poern also a door, a sliirt, a sh¿rdorv' In irnagining
¿rs
the poerrr ¿ls onc that I havc authol'etl" I see rnysclf
split :rs the person n'ho v'rote the pocrn and as the
object of the poern' But I canrlot identilr' sinrrrlt¿rnc-
ously v'itlt tlte Ladv and \\'ith thc ruords str<'h as
his "shadort" and "tloor" that stand lbr her'
The poern does not cohcre, if I autltor it'
As the Ladl', I am not Lhr: ckror but in ¿l -s(ltltrL]'
Within thc sccne" I c¿rn see a door and a gartlcrt
better thall thc shatlows, lhich ¿rre refk:ctions frorn
thc rvinclou' ancl the nrirror. In anothcr" non-Ladl
sub.iect Jrositiol" I v'ithtlrar' {rorn the scerre' I be-
corne an obsen'er. but lvhat I arrl obseri'ing is sornc-
Corlq HorrYmon
 irr cornmon:
tlrirrg like a stnte ol' rrrind: I "s(-'e" thc shadorvs gettirrg closr:r to the poct, sharing this
r,.li.rrr,rl to in the pocrn ¿rs unfixetl mental inragcs. if' thc ronrantic tradition is impossible to
"ter. by it' "We"
'l'lr,' slr¿dou-s ¿trc ¿ln ¿rsl)ect of the cnvirorurlcrlt thc Lrngage, orre is in it or has beerr trapPcd
pr","t,.d th¿rt this is true for each of us'
though
l,,r,lr irrhabits Lrut thcv are rro[ ¿rt.t¿rched to lrer cvcn "or-rlJ
rl. ¡rirradoxicall-r,-, thcv are depcrtdetrt on hcr itnagr: ttr in a di{I'erent rr-a1'.

Because the rornarrtic tradition is irrrpossiblc'

I
rr,rrli lheir "nragic," As Lhc rvritt¡r of the poctn. I atn
frorn thc
;rlIr¿rr:ted to this un{ixed e1l'ect ol'languagr:: the sta- coultl atternPt to get rid of tcpresentations
poern, there rnight be nothing lcfi of
[]re poern' or
lrlc inrage, r,r'hit:h is tht-- Ladl-, rro\{ seerns l-o nle to bc
¡r scrrrctiolt. o.- hallucination" frorn thrt shatlorvs of' rn...b" there l'oultl be a "lartguage poenr":
l;rrrguage. As l,adl an(l ¿rutltor, I ex¡rericnce tlrlsclf'
t lrr'rr both as sornething secretcd (secret-cd) lront lan-
wall worshlP
dresses door
grrage and ¿ls sorle()rrc, contratlictorilr', protlucing thtl
slrlrlowy arrtl crcessir¡e pocrn. beYond it

Of coursc I arn only' pleterxling to be thc lrilt'r

ol the pocrn. I havr: t:opietl ortr: quatrairt arrtl arn pre- I Asr:utlli't'nr
tr.rrcling that to do so is a liintl o{' authors}rip.
What il' I sairl, "'l'his pot-rn is mr' ¡roern'/" It l lu to bring forth in this I'ritirrg a l)sy-
,t'l't't':n'tp'rtN(;

clrological shaptl, or r¿rther a shaping as

thc sl'rapc is
isn't" cert¿rinly: Llnless rvhat T anr rcferrirrg 1.o is thc
possiblv
lr riting I arn tloing noll', 'which is not poctn'. not st.nady or {ixetl. The shaping is inelegant.
of' the lovtr
If' n-hat T arrr u'riting hcre is h¿rrd to ftrllorv, cotr- urrscernh¡, but related to a certain aspect
of poe[rv in m-v erperiencr:' 'Ihe thernc of' lovr: is
sirlt'r the masculirte subjcctivitl of the ltocrn as a lir-
patri-
trrre installetl within rrrv own lnentalit)'. "Yeah, I setl subject to ProprietarY clairns rl-ithin pot'tr\''s
u'hit:lr
rvlr¿rt you nlean, tttan" i-s a language I can perfirrrn i1' ,nortl Th"- "violcnt leaps" in rrtv thinhing"
our
I gct rid of'rnlsclf as ot-her lrorn the poern'-* reptc- been pointecl out to rne in lht: cours{l o1'
h¿rvt-.

strr t ¿rtions. cditing this rnaterial, are art asPcct of' this awhrvard'
associative, ps-vchnlogical shaping' u'hich
is itself' a
Or, "It's a trap," I corrld saY irr a hind of' sirn-
bv its arltag-
¡rati<:o rr-ar,-, acldressing rnyself to the inragincd ¿ruthor protest that also adrnires and is afli--ctetl
onist. I have also rescril)ted thesc lea¡rs (ahhough
I
Rolrcrt. Creelelr And in thesc r.ortls I irnagine rnvsel{'

Corlo HcnYmcn
\r'ould prefer to call thcrn "nonviolent") in response
to the etlitorial conrnrcnls, withotrt having aban-
doned them.
Door, garden; sh:rdow-, shirt. Are thcse idcal
forms that I cnvision in my mind's eye'/ Or do tho
repeated nouns invohe a primitir c cxlr+'rierrce of con-
sciousness? Arc rcader and writer connected through
the repetition of these rrourrs anrl the other ref'erents
that signify rr:pctitiorr and renewal? The sun comcs
up e\¡erv tla¡ this is the renerval oI' nature. -A cloor
operrs and closes, this is the rcpctition of' culture.
The repetition of' certain everrts of nature. the
"rcncval" that the poet-speaher in "Thc Door"
seems to be so abjccted and oorustetl" by-, are e,tpr.ri-
enced sirnultaneously as culture. Language is culture
and nature. The door is a worcl. The sunlight is a
rvord that falls bv virtue of words onto the word
floor, so that one is lefi with an imprcssion o{' sorrre-
thing that is repeatcd ancl repeated such that there
is an indelible form, constituted by lr.orcls, connectecl
in my rnind to receptivitv. rener.val, and $'ar.
What is a romantic? Will I sell mysclf in hell,
or did I? Arn I also to be in heaven!'And arrr I rept-'at.-
ing myself?
I off'er anothcr lcap: If I love this poem not
because of what it said bul because of wh¿rt it did.
rvhat did it do?
In 1971 a collegc fricnd whom l traveled to
Paris rvith [iavc urc For I'oae on her r-ay oul of
Fr:rnce" saying she hatl been tlisappointetl by Crcel-
i,
cv's poetry. Rcading it in Pari-q, I discor eretl its rrrate-
¡i
i1 rialit,v ¿rntl lvricisrn, idc:rlity and destruclion of ideas,
*i its refusal of a rnessv 'rvorld fbr a ccltairl fornral
design, its arrogance and objectrress. f'llt'rt atrrl there
I rvas a r.riler.
(]an a marl pot-t ol' my gerrcratiott itttitgint' l
wonl¿rn reading this poern and loving tltis ¡rocnr rtot
ber,ause she iderltilies rlith it as ¿rn objtrtrt lrtlt as tlrt:
person rvho rnal<es'/
ln late 1980, at thc Rerhelcl' hottsc ol l'¿r'rr'
liigner, llobt--rt (irerricr, antl l(athlcclr l"rtlrrrliitr. I
h¿rd rny first ttncotrnter rvith Creelel'. Ilt: t'orttt'rt'tl
rne. nlorc than orlce. first ilr the front rooltt ¿tlltl tIlt¡lt
in thc hitchen and rcpealetl the sarne t¡ttt"sliott ort't'
and over agairt in an aggressive fashiorr. '"\\'[rcn' ¿trr¡
vou frorn?" was the qtrcstion. Thc rlert dal' ill a f it ol'
aggravation, antl yct so¡nehou' ans\\¡erillg lltt' t¡ttrrs-
tion or rathcr dcflecting thc r¡restion fol rrrrstlf, I
rvrotc "'The Sex Stor\-," rvlriclt begins as firlkrrvs:
Some nude women dance together.
l've got to see more country we¡ghing on
me, stinking long distance time spans. Floating
n¡ght. flash-in the-pan turns into susp¡cious movic.
The screen lights up and the fig flickers through.
{Under the Bridge)
Corlo Hqrrymqn
 I

il
l,¿rtcr I (.arrr(' r.rl)
u'ith a theor.)r rvhich given The basement of the American Poetry Ar-
( lrccl,.r "s r totvarrl
¡rr.ot.lir it nlean strc¿rks in thosc chive. Hahl
il

\('iu¡ is lo lrc tlken u.ith a grain of salt. It is this:

rr¡rou irrl r<¡<lr¡t.tion; I natur¿rllv identilied rr-ith him as I (lot)\: "Nol'l'ttls." (Ro\ Stl,l,llt tir" Ist''t'.l tx)
ir ¡('rsoll uho nrahcs. This vas tht: r,iolation th¿rt
r.licit.r'd lhe aggnrssivitv ol' the r¡ucstion" .oW'here arc an(l'"th(' t'lrarge ili
Irs't't,;,ru ot,' ltt,tl't,tt't'tloN, rertcrval, o1'
rou frorn'/" Tf I h¿rd h¿rtl rhe presence of'rnintl or thc cornmartd." dirln't \!'e proPosc sorrrctllirrg lt'-t-'
aggressivity to s¿rr- ".Jean Gcnct" r¿rther than ..(losl.¿r f'anrilial in its itlcolog.l; firnns. arrtl stnr<'It¡rcs'/ 'l'htr
\'Icsa," T rvonrlc¡ .r.lhat .lvould lravr-- happenctl. hatl clonctl its r-iolcnt:e onto a thrt'atllrart: larr-
-stat-e ,1

If I rvas a "rnan" tht:n he lr.as u.ha['/
If I l.as ¿r lll¿ln. "rJucured."' thcn l.hat'l
ll' "[" rnalie ¿rnd arn rnade. then the sarrrc goes
lor ytl¡¡-3,rb, Barr1., Ster-c, Crcclel-.
Doesn't this have sornet.hing to tlo .w-it.h our t:ri-
t.ir¡uc of "the selfi"' Of the authority antl author_sl¡i¡r
of "tlre poet?" lsn't thi-. rvhr- sornc' of' us r:xpcrienr:etl
¿i glcat deal of' antagonisrrr antl ,I.hat
¡mblic attachs?
through '"language uriting" the rnalc authority oI'
tlre ¡roern .rvas activelv quest.ioncd? .Not only bccar¡sc
Llarry re:rtl Zuhofishl, ¿r,s a l\'Ialxist but becarrse rve tlo
grragc of $.¿rr: [oo rrrarly solt{ier-q retltrttt'tl ltotlte [o
ruilrcd livcs. 'l'hc pltrasc'* ort eithcr sitlt' of llrc <:olon
aro n0t syntrrrctrit,al.
Perhaps olle rc¿lsotl I h¿rvc harl srlt'll l roubkl
rvritirrg t.his r:ntrt' has to do lvith r'r-¿rrltitrg lo ¡'ttrtsi¡l-
t-.r lhc diflicultl of savirrg sorncthirtg rrrcaningfirl
about hl'britl liter¿rrv fbrnl rvhile atltrrrrptittg to btr
trrte to t.he psvrthological trtlventure ol uritittg itr rtltt'
genrc of' collective tncnloir'. A-. h¿rs lrctltt ttottltl lrt'
critics. thc Nerv Atncric¿rrt Poetrv rl'orl<t,tl tlrc tr'¿r¡li-
tion of "rrraking it rteu'." but after tlrt: Victrraln \\¡irr',
1{Í

rrot think of rc¡retition ar¡cl reneu,al as tlrc product of

pocts lihe c¡trrselr-es h¿rtl cverv rcason to bring trriti<ral
thc (f'erninine) r'r-.ssel. reflectiorr to our readings and resl)ollsos of llrat ltodl 1il

What does this lravc to do rvith plavfirl pr.ojrcts of r'vork cven as "'thc othcr tradition"" o1' thc Nrlu' il[

rrsing ¡rret--xisting tcrts'/ Or is this just rnr,, subjectir.e

Arnerir:¿rns lvas inrportant. The l)oolrls in Rohert
-scnsc, projectiorr, or reading nf vhat r.as hap¡rcning? Crcele\''s For Lot,e ¿lre rrot sirnplr- t:r:rrttplcs of' one lil

sitle ol' this t--r-aluatiorr bv ¿lrrv me¿rlls. ]ct. I f't'cl it

Here is yet another answer to the quest¡on: ¿rlrno-st gocs rvithout s¿rving that oP¡rosition to thc I

Where are you from? rcgul:rtion of' gendcr irl literature hatl er-crvthirlg ttr
lji

Corlo Horrymcn
 rlr rr.ith fbrmal innovatiorr ¡rroduced by us, ¿rs mcn
ancl v'orrrcn. So I ask this trgain, f)idn't thc r¡uestions
rvc \\¡ere raising about subjecti-n-ity and authority
har.e everything to do w-ith a critique ol' gerrder that
lvould calrse a rcaction in others inr-ested in the sclf-
oricnted, or romantic, poern'/
Ccrtainll-, it r'r.as in doubt rvhether there w-¿rs a
Larly, or a Soldier, to adtlress, even ironic:rll1'.
I ¡rropose that if the status of'
Latly had not been irr doubt, the author-
ized lovers of the lbrm l.orrld not have
startcd a v'ar rvith thosc I'ho rethoughl
or contestr--cl it.
I nlti lt,lr'r'ntj rioltll) prc-sented to rne, "u,'ith inescap-
ablc ¡rermanence and intirnacl-"" as flry oyster. Mine
to shucli, merely f¿rshion thr: tool-yct, the frcsher
the oyster', the bettcr the o1,ste¡ so hrrrry up rvith
that tool.
See a pigeon orr a city street
court a f'emale, pufling up
r-hen she lcaves Jre courts a rnale
with he¿td bobbin¡J, rvings sprr--atl
brrt it leaves too so he turrrs
to court a crack in the sideu.alft..
ln a lightly accented North African French she
asked him, "Will you help me find a hotel?" Once
in her room they began to kiss. She had tiny
breasts, and, as she d¡srobed further. a t¡ny penis.
It was insignif¡cant, yet somehow he found it
¡nappropr¡ate. Humiliated, she hid her head in
her hands.
thr-. I)esire is that-whatcver-\f¡anting to be satis-
lied. And there is no dcsire w-ithout objectification.
So. to love the satisfaction of' lvhat cornes from onc-
self. rvhcther a child or thc rvords of a beloved rnas-
ter or one's own p¿rst-what onc \{as or rvhat one
is-is it an objectification of oneself'? Is that what
l'm doing here? I dorr't havc an answer, and T didn't
then. I see milh-a milky-white fluicl-secp from my
baby's rnouth.
Noth¡ng wanted satisfaction. I was in a small
attic room gazing out a dormer w¡ndow at a
star framed by a smol<estack and cracked roof
tiles in the company of a young friend. a Texan.
Iwas in tears. I was th¡rty. I had wr¡tten a comic
novel and discarded it, I had written many
poems, I was years from meet¡ng any of you. lt
seemed to me that I had caused these tears, that
I caused these tears again and again. First I
caused them, then I experienced them. ln a gap
TM Tom Mondel 39