I'm wanting to read more about what actually went on at the Louis Zukofsky 100 bash & less about the gender & race makeup of the participants. Why the hand-wringing? Josh Corey notes the dearth of women & people of color just as an aside (his notes in general on the conference are really really great), but Silliman focuses pretty squarely on the topic. Silliman seems to be wondering--with some distancing of himself from the wondering--if there's a flaw or aspect in Zukofsky (my term "flaw" but I think it fits the possible argument Silliman posits) that has caused this: mentions Celia's domesticity & work in typing up Z's poems. I know Silliman is presenting a possible reading, but the impression I get from my readings is that Louis considered Celia a collaborator: the Catullus translations, Bottom, "A" 24: & not a secretary. A reading that presents her as a near-victim of Louis seems contradictory to the evidence (that I've read [as I've read it]).
But what's most interesting to me about Silliman's possible reading is the possibility raised that Zukofsky's use of numbers & geometric patterns (the cone formula, the five-words-per-line, etc.) is perhaps what's keeping the women away, as opposed to say Gertrude Stein's more I guess organic improvisations, which apparently under this argument are more feminine. When I say this is interesting, I mean I-raise-one-of-my-eyebrows this-is-interesting. Does this reading then suggest that there are masculine & feminine methods?
I'm endlessly interested in analyzing Silliman's psychology, apparently. But it's pretty compelling, as a mini-drama. Today's post is a study it seems in trying to present a view without really standing behind it: the possible reading Silliman presents arises from a cab ride w/ Marjorie Perloff, so the bases are covered by presenting this anecdote & presenting the seed of the reading as a product of MP.
Stop! Workshop time.
I think I'm going to whip out my handy-dandy MFA workshopping skills & treat the post as though it's a Browning-esque monologue:
It's interesting to get inside this monologue. There's a lot of interesting language. There seems to be more than one post here, etc. I wonder if the narrator really is worried about the male-female ratio at the conference, or if there's a certain bowing to long-standing charges that the Language group is a boy's club.
The narrator opens the post "From the perspective of the organizers . . .", saying that the event (which he distances himself from by gently mocking the title) was probably a wild success from
the perspective of the organizers. So this frees the narrator from saying the conference was or wasn't a success -- no offending the organizers by saying it's not a success, no being held liable for saying it
was a success despite its white-dudeness. Anyway, Perloff is a woman & so is probably an expert on womaninity & assures the speaker that it's not a female trait to stay away from conferences & this assurance can be taken at face value. So it must be Zukofsky's fault. Z is sexist, mostly because he is old (born in 1904). Perloff & the speaker are born later, so they're less prejudiced against females but more prejudiced against old people. (I was born in 1975 so I'm less prejudiced against females & old people but more prejudiced against liberals.)
A possible reading is presented, though it is unclear if it is the speaker's or Perloff's or neither or a hybrid:
One possible reading of this is that the tight-nit family represented in his poems is hardly the valorized ideal Zukofsky himself portrays it as. The wife types the poems, makes possible the careers of husband & son alike. She even finishes LZ’s long poem for him!
& so it's interesting that, in this reading, Louis'working with Celia, his recognizing Celia's gift of "A"-24 as the perfect close for his life-work, is used against him--apparently in this reading one would walk up to Celia & tell her that her choice of aiding & abetting the careers of her husband & son is the wrong choice of values, & perhaps one should have prevented her from making that choice (in order to liberate her & to ensure more female readers for Z).
Ultimately I get the sense the speaker doesn't buy into this potential argument either -- he presents Gertrude Stein as a difficult poet with a larger female following & wonders if it is methodology because it can't be difficulty (Stein is as difficult as Z). (Perhaps a more cogent contrast would be between Zukofsky & some other male modernist who has, or would, draw a larger percentage of women. Duncan? Ashbery?) Maybe we're a bunch of weird people & dudes are more interested in dudes & gals are more interested in gals. I don't know. What's the ratio at Niedecker/HD/Levertov gatherings?
Ultimately, the speaker excuses himself from addressing this issue; he's not the right person. Perhaps Barbara Cole is the right person (she presented a paper, she is a woman).
I don't know, any women want to jump in here & speak for women as a whole?
Let me speak for all men & say I think Zukofsky is perfectly female-friendly -- his last book is about flowers, after all. Women love flowers, etc.
_________end of workshop__________
Curtis Faville, who apparently also reads Silliman's blog with some degree of regularity, also responds:
Oh my.
Has the time finally arrived when we can map out the political correctness of Louis's sexist agenda?
And numbered sections!--now there's a macho touch for you!
Not to speak of Shakespeare!
Let's cut old LZ down to size. Who did he think he was, Catullus redivivus??? Sm*lly l*ttle h*wk-n*sed J*w with no respect for our latter-day Sapphos!
All right, girls, have at him!
Worst of all, a chainsmoker! Did Gertie clean her ashtrays as religiously as the Zukofskys? (Note for later investigation.)
I don't know about you, but I'm becoming mighty uncomfortable with the dearth of disabled native indian participants in these conferences. I think it must be an Islamic plot. Sign the petition below which will be submitted to the Columbia provost. This WILL NOT STAND!
So I think Faville would disagree with Silliman, who is I guess very earnest on this topic. Ron responds:
Well I'm just going to presume for now that people can tell that the blast below is parodic, Curtis, and that you're not half so over-the-top in person. It isn't a question of political correctness. It IS a question of how texts interact with readers (real people, all kinds) in the world, and the consequences that flow from this.
I can't quite get an angle on all this, but it feels off. A rush to agreement (that there's something unsettling about the makeup of attendees at the Z conference) that makes a lot of assumptions (1. it is inherently important that the attendees & presenting be of different genders, age & race [perhaps class? sexual orientation?] 2. it is most likely the product of the poet's work & life that has caused a similarity in the demographics, as opposed to it being a product of where the conference was situated, those involved in organizing it, etc. 3. the lack of mixture [or the success of the homogeneity?] of the attendees is the result of the lack somewhere else [in the poet's life, in his work, some lack of reading skills or values that is apparently shared by a percentage of women who have an interest in Modernist poetry]) on the way to that agreement that overlooks these assumptions, some of which may be of more interest and importance.
Who knows. Maybe everyone would be happier is somebody went out in the parking lot & turned away half the white males so the results would be more even?
I think the paragraph from today's post I'm most interested in is the penultimate one, which seems to be the paragraph that most interests Faville as well:
"Harder to fathom is whether or how LZ’s difficulty in his poetry is, or may be,more “male” in some sense than, say, the uses of difficulty in the poetry & prose of Gertrude Stein. Does Zukofsky’s use of number as a method for inbuilding opacity differ materially from Stein’s more improvisational interventions into linguistic and grammatic surfaces? Is it a question of methodology?"
The unstated but I think implied question at the end is (to fill out the paragraph):
"Does Zukofsky's use of number as a method of inbuilding opacity differ materially from Stein's more improvisational interventions into linguistic and grammatic surfaces? Is it a question of methodology? If so, is this what is keeping the women away?"
I don't know how to answer that other than saying I don't really buy the framework: vaguely don't buy it in terms of worry about the makeup of the attendees at one particular conference (as the SABRmetricians would say, "small sample size"), but I especially don't in privileging, as the penultimate paragraph seems to do (at least hypothetically), certain methodologies as symptoms of one gender or another.
I wonder to what degree it is Zukofsky's relative marginality. In my experiences in Arkansas I got the impression that certain major figures took on a degree of gender & racial neutrality & that my fellow students of both genders approached the major figures in somewhat similar fashions -- but the more marginalized figures seemed more defined by sex, race, sexuality. Basically, white guys seemed to be discovering marginalized white guys, white gals seemed to discover marginalized white gals, etc. A tendency, but definitely not a rule. Don't know if this is at play -- that if Zukofsky edges more towards central status, he will draw a wider demographic of readers & scholars.