Skip to main content

prodigal drift

the new manuscript in process is now called Prodigal Drift rather than Memory Swerve. I am tightening it before moving on. Or actually I tighten it as I move. Clear out the space. Shed some light. Re-shuffle and re-organise and then get lost in the sweet chaos of language. I need both tendencies while writing almost at the same time. I find a lot of pleasure in seeing where a poetic project is moving. Organizing through language.

Here is the latest re-working:


sworn letter-
less water
into memories

dwell under

so as yet—convergence—insisted
on the move
of duress
meant hanging
in lost &

a ghost
in every sound

the apocryphal

of hope
and lightnotes
in the

sickness slides through

in the nous
of unknowing
a runaway

water transpired
in every
a convergence
in memorytide


Kamila said…
So, I found you-;) I don’t uderstand everything, but I understand enough to regret that I can’t express my mind like I wish. My crummy English is my actual limitation for the present (but future is open expanse hue, hue, hue -;)) Thanks for your excellent teaching style, your energy, sense of humor and for your blog too -;)I'm glad to met you-;)
postpran said…
hi Kamila,

this is really abstract work. It is funny you left this comment. I am working on revising this section right now in my flat. My other manuscripts are less abstract. Hermit Kingdom and Godzeenie are connected to places. I wrote Hermit Kingdom in South Korea and Godzeenie last year in Poland. They are much different than this current project.

I am trying more abstract philosophical language with this new manuscript but it doesn't satisfy me. It is still a very new manuscript so I am still finding my feet with it.

So please don't think it is your English!!!

I really appreciate your intelligent informed contributions in class. I am privileged to have you as a student :-)

Also, thanks for checking out my blog :-)
postpran said…
I wish I could read Polish so I could read your blog :-( Maybe you can translate some of your work into English?
Cantadora-;) said…
Thank you for your accolade, Marcus

How I wish you could read my blog! -;) I'm really interested in your opinion about my texts and considerations. I’m going to try writting some notes in English on my blog (it can be funny, because I make a lot of mistakes), but I’m afraid I will never translate my works into English 

Like You, I’m trying a metalanguage... (but for last years, I’m rather occupy myself in writing prose, rarely poetry. But I read a lot of it. Graphics and photography are for me something like backdoor -;) )

In my wording allocation of words, relation between them, structure, are very important; I can’t describe this in English. Eventually, If I know words meaning, I can’t to perceive them... Do you understand what I want to say? -;)

By the way, you are a lucky beggar because you are own English. So, everywhere you are you are in your place...
postpran said…
Hm . . . I like the sound of this. Allocating words and finding structure and meanings between the word allocations. How do you allocate words? I mean according to some system?

cool :-)
cantadora said…
You know, it’s a bit peculiar; because when I’m writting I don’t seek this. But when I finish
I’m sure that nothing can be other.

You drive a car, so you probably know this feeling: a night or day (never mind: you feel so entire, so integrated ), you speed and do this all action (change a gear, choose a way, manoeuvre). You don’t think about it but – paradoxicaly- you are aware and concentrated. When you approach, you don’t remeber the way, but you know, that everythig was like should be.

This is this. Such feeling. But, if I read my wording, I see:

+ the signs of interpunction are using in incorrigible way – and still has the meanings,
(example: point not only dictate a statement – p o i n t i n a t y p i c a l p a r t of sentence dictate the special kind of statement.

People generally use “?” (for question) or “?!” (for interrogation) or “!” (for exclamation), and point ( for something faint). If you move the point you gain a think more - kaleidoscope of emotions... By the by: I wonder, will people ever use the emoticons in formal interpunction system -;) I imagine, it will be the end of descriptve language, won’t be?

+ a lot of mental abridgement – I try to set thogether the words and ways of thinking which are not used to using like that (species of metaphor, perhaps) – it elicit the scenes and pictures from misty visions (example: the title of partition of book I try to write: " „causation – consecutive relations and aboritive” – I’m not sure an English version  )

+ short sentences, rythm and counterpoint (I read that everything have its own sound, every one thing... I like it.)

This stick together, and work up to... or only I think that it is -;) People who read stuffs of mine says, that it is very hard and essential language. I really hope it is.

Marcus -;) between word and word is representation, is show It means nothing, and it means everything. You wrote: “Experience births language, then language births experience, then experience births language etc. (or no then. It's all happening at once)”. If it’s true, and yet is true -;), you will find yourself, extricate yourself by language (and writing), not lose.
postpran said…

Some more interesting statements. I am really interested in the abortive sentence. A sentence that stops, starts, sputters, changes directions etc.

I think there really is no peeling back language to get at a secret code. The surface means. The use of punctuation, as you say, conveys meaning(s). As does writing from left to right etc.

1. Language doesn't have a surface---something abstract is being physicalized here. And what is this abstract "language's surface" anyway? the sum of its aesthetic characteristics? the voice of the writer? the paper and ink? the font and letterforms and linespacing?

2. Code can't be behind language---these two abstract things are being placed in a physical relationship in order to convey their conceptual relationship: it's metaphorical.

3. You can't see this code because it doesn't physically exist. We use the word "see" as a metaphorical stand-in for "understand." Looking at something is not understanding it. And even if it was, what does it mean to look at something abstract, something that can't be looked at? Would that thing be therefore incomprehensible?
postpran said…
the three statements are from my friend Chris Vitiello :-)
cantadora said…
Ekh… The problem is I’m not sure that I properly use the English expressions to put my thoughts. Marcus, rember that I’m only intermediate! -;) so I’m not good partner for discussion ...

but -;):

1)“I think there really is no peeling back language to get at a secret code. The surface means.”

I’m not sure the “surface” meanings... outside appearance of language? (font, letterforms, linespacing or punctuation marks? -;) -;) ) Font, letterforms, linespacing don’t fall under to language, according to me. Punctuation marks are something else. They are, in my opinion, the entry to language (like a gate).

Naturalny, the punctuation conveys meanings. If you change the way of using the punctuation marks, you change the meanings. Of course, is not possible in every sentence! But sometimes yes. This is only the one kind of aesthetic characteristic...

(Improvised example:

“To burst in. The interior of time surrounds me. I’m, but.
The hands touch the damp membrane.
I am, am I? Voices in my head says not. Says yes. ) Perhaps you have a laugh, but I can’t describe this better... Perhaps in English it’s impossible or I don’t know how to do it.

Have you read some stuffs of Elfride Jelinek? Sometimes she use the language as I said.
In one of her books she use only small letters, and doesn’t use paragraphs. This is incorrect from a formal point of view, but it works. It has own sense.

2)“Code can't be behind language” – probably true.

3)“You can't see this code because it doesn't physically exist.

Looking at something is not understanding it. And even if it was, what does it mean to look at something abstract, something that can't be looked at? Would that thing be therefore incomprehensible?”

but – “we use the word "see" as a metaphorical stand-in for "understand” – so, is it not the answer? By the way – I don’t understand the connection with my prior statement...
postpran said…
Yes very good points about punctuation marks as a gate and changing possible meanings. I suppose I mean (even as I write this I am assuming some of what I might mean is understood) that language is over-determined. it has many meanings. More than we can possibly account for (including the surface). There is normally a distinction made between surface/form and meaning/content. But the surface/form also has meaning(s). For me which distinguishes a work of art is its form not its "content." There are only so many themes in literature in film. For me it is the "how" that makes art interesting not so much the 'what."

Do you know what I mean?

By the way, I think we are saying the same thing here :-)

Very cool discussion. Wish we could talk about this kind of thing in the classroom. Ah well. Maybe someday :-)

Thanks for some good thoughts and ideas.

Popular posts from this blog

poets reading poets

There are on A now: Andrews, Antin, Apollinaire, Ashbery

A project from the Atlanta Poetry Group. Check it:

The Poetry of Tao Lin