A n n e W a
l d m a n : K e e p i
n g T h e W o r l d S a f e F o r
P o e t r y
N a p a l m H e a l t h S p a : R e p o r t 2 0 1 5 :
S p e c i a l E d i t i
o n
MARCELLA DURAND
Interview with Anne Waldman
I interviewed Anne for The Poetry Project Newsletter
in 2003. We worked
together to edit and shape––and
there were plenty of edits and shapings––the
interview for publication, but I
always thought the raw version just as interesting:
a record of Anne's first
thoughts and reactions to often-difficult questions about
her visions for poetry, peace,
politics, humanity. I remember vividly interviewing
Anne at her house on MacDougal Street: surprisingly,
she seemed nervous,
leaning forward with her nerve
endings just about visibly sparking. That day, I
loved Anne more than ever––her
passion to giving all that she had for poetry and
poets, no matter than occasion. And
if you're interested in the edited (and perhaps
more accurate) version of our interview,
with gaps filled in, facts verified and
sentences reshaped to more completely
convey original thoughts, it was
published in the December/January 2003-2004
issue of The Poetry Project
Newsletter. But for now, here is Anne in
her beautiful and original rawness:
Marcella
Durand: You’ve been a major figure at the
Poetry Project and a mentor to many
poets at Naropa University, and now you’re back in
New York City, making a new life.
How does it feel?
Anne
Waldman: It feels comfortable in many ways. Certainly, I have been following
the
work of younger writers and many from that generation have gone through Naropa
University.
I feel very much in touch with the work—Alan Gilbert is a very close friend,
and
Eleni [Sikelianos] and
Kristin [Prevallet], of course. I’m interested in
writers who are
a
little bit outside the mainstream, who have also been active as editors or
“infrastructure” poets—people who work for the community.
Infrastructure is almost a
perjorative term, but I would use it to
describe someone who doesn’t have to be a super
organized person particularly, but someone who believes in the need for
structures and
zones, poetry zones, autonomous zones, where people have an opportunity.
That was the
original vision for the Poetry Project and its space. [It was] space you could
go into and
there was a lot of sharing of it with other artists and cultural activists.
[There was] this
urgency about needing places to gather and meet. Nobody had any money to rent
space.
So, that, and the fact that the readers are now in the Parish Hall with
a glass of water. No
one
had water before—everyone had a bottle of beer. I was thinking last night it
would be
nice to have a little concession on the side, like at some of these
off-Broadway theaters,
provide one or two bottles of wine. Get a little glass for a dollar at the
break. A little
hospitality would be good. The readings in the Parish Hall are really about the
work and
there’s not a lot of excess production. I remember Edwin Denby
saying that St. Mark’s
cultivated such an ear for poetry and that was the great value of the place
beyond the
individual work. Writers progress in their work through the occasion of reading
or
teaching or being part of the community. Instructing people on hearing this
poetry—its
origins. So that always strikes me and it feels very timeless. You still feel
this “attention.”
I
went to a reading at the Tribeca Grand Hotel and here
you are in this very chi-chi place,
very modern, with this awful music, the wine is $14 a glass and not very
good wine, and
it’s an insult in a way.
MD: I’m interested in your idea of “zones” for
poetry. Is there a way for New York to
expand these zones?
AW:
There are a lot of zones, it seems to me. I actually like the little modest
bookstores
or
bars, like that one lounge near the East River.
MD: The Parkside Lounge, where you read Iovis. Now, that was
creating a very
interesting zone—you had musicians performing in different places around the room.
AW:
In all areas, all around the room. There was a loose strategy, a very loose
Cage-like
structure to what they were doing. They were listening to each other and we had
one
walk-through first. We came into a very ambient sound to a certain extent,
but then
distinct instruments would be programmed in, or certain decisions were made
about
holding back during one section of the poem. So yes, I like spaces like that.
The art
gallery scene should be totally liberated by poets. I can’t understand why
these spaces,
especially in Chelsea, don’t have reading series. That disjunct
between the art scene and
the
poetry scene always amazes me. In the past, there was more of a connection,
more of
a
collaboration. It would have to come from the artists themselves, not the
galleries, I
would think. That’s the way it would work. Also, in terms of cultural
activism, the
galleries just don’t seem to be part of the world. I don’t know, I don’t
understand it. Is it
just business?
MD: I would suspect that things used to be
different…
AW:
The Paula Cooper Gallery used to do readings, the Stein or Cage readings. And
Holly
Solomon when she was down on Greene Street, Ted Greenwald curated
a series
there at one point. I remember doing an early performance there with slides
of South
America where I read journals. You could do installations—there was a sense
of the
space. Oh, there’s a lot of history of using the galleries. I’m sure a lot
of places on the
Lower
East Side have events, do performances, maybe not so
much in the poetry world.
I’m
talking mainly about upscale galleries. It seems so dead when you walk in
there. My
husband [Ed Bowes] teaches film at the School of Visual Arts, so I’ve been to
several
shows by younger filmmakers—I’m very, very impressed by that realm, but
where do
you
see this? It’s not scheduled as part of a film festival somewhere. It’s very
spare.
There
should be more arenas where you can look at something and also have a reading
not
that they necessarily have to be related. So, coming back to New York,
literally, and
being an infrastucture poet for 30-odd years, and
thinking about liberating space… When
Ammiel Alcalay and I organized the Poetry is News
event in February before the war, we
would go to readings and often see each other there, and it was as if you
were in a space
that was not acknowledging what was going on in other parts of the world
and this illness
in
the body politic. We’d go to these little safe zones. There was a real serious disjunct.
Somehow
reclaiming the Parish Hall for that event felt very much to me like the times
during the Vietnam War when poets were doing major benefits and events. It
was just in
the
air—not to say that the work was necessarily about, or thematically about the
war—it
was
more the alertness, the concern, the urgency. You know, we used to have
readings at
the
Museum of Modern Art, or at the New York Public Library. I know the PEN club is
doing very interesting programming, but it’s for a different kind of public.
I’m not
denigrating it—it’s more looking at the sites, the attentions, the need, the
community. I’d
say
something like the Tribeca Grand Hotel event, while
it was great to have a
comfortable space for people, more upscale, with great writers reading and you
want that
to
continue, but you wonder how that’s going to work if it’s not grassroots. Is it
the whim
of
a particular connection there? Somebody connected to the publisher knows
someone at
the
bar? A lot of these places will view it as: what’s in it for them? Are they
just trying to
sell $14 glasses of wine? If you’re a major publisher, you have to have a
line of poetry
books as a tax write-off. How invested are you in the quality of that work?
So there are a
lot
of economic, political, social issues. You asked the question about spaces and
where
things go. I think there’s so much potential in how it’s done. I enjoy formal
events, but I
also enjoy spontaneous readings, the idea of hearing very new work, works
in progress
readings, the idea of reading long works, like Elizabeth Reddin’s
series at the Parkside
Lounge, translation series. There’s also the sense of New York’s economic
issues, there’s
a
rawness and vulnerability. New York has been very hard-hit. The fact that there
could
be
a blackout, that we survived and somewhat bonded. You feel that this place has
been
tested and people have come through trials and tribulations. New York is
always able to
transcend the catastrophic.
MD: I think of your work as creating a verbal
space around you, a physical effort,
pushing the boundaries between poetry and other media. You collaborate with
sound,
with projection. So it’s interesting to hear you talk about zones, spaces, the political
body, and I wonder how that relates to the individual poet. What have you
discovered by
experimenting with the poet’s own space?
AW:
Well, claiming the space is like an extension of your body. Because you’re
inviting
the
public into it, it’s participatory. It can be seen as transmission going both
ways. The
ground where you take your stand, the ground that you’re on, I often invoke
the charnel
ground, a Buddhist term, a small moment of life and death and choices and
risk. When
you
don’t necessarily have it all figured out and you’re dependent on where you are
psychically and psychologically and physiologically in the moment, counting a lot
on
your body and your voice, your mind’s attention to the work and what the
work is calling
out
of you. How it demands to be presented or heard. And then you invite in some
music
or
dance. I just did a collaboration with a wonderful performer,
a master of the Indian
flute, Steve Moore. We had worked together years ago in Bali. He’s studied
the music of
Bali,
Italy, spends a lot of time in India. We hadn’t really worked together
extensively,
but
we know each other’s work and have a whole range of instruments. Then Douglas
Dunn
the dancer and choreographer—Reed Bye and I worked with him on a piece called
“Secrets
of the Water Bowl”—but Douglas and I have also done things in a spontaneous
format. We did a concert at Naropa some years ago. Again,
we’re familiar with each
other’s work, with the way we each work. I had pre-existing text, Dark Arcana,
but I was
also intervening, expanding bits of things and putting them together. A lot
of the
decisions we made in the moment of the performance. We discussed what we had but
we
didn’t really rehearse. Douglas just had a piece of cardboard that he painted
and made
this kind of mortarboard hat that you could turn over and it looked like
this face. He
played with that and then he had a bandanna that he covered his eyes with so
he was like
a
hostage, or a victim, or a soldier. But then it was very playful as well. At
one point I
was
circling him. Steve and I were in a position almost like a dance in another
moment. It
somehow miraculously worked. We looked at the video the other day and it
seemed so
cohesive. I think it had to do with knowing the work, trusting the people.
Douglas has
worked with Merce Cunningham, Steve has worked with
the raga tradition, which is very
structured, but allows a space for permutations, improvisation. Douglas is an
almost
literary dancer, very attuned to the work of Clark Coolidge, interested in indeterminancy.
While
my writing has these voices and dynamics and situations of thematics,
it can still
be
constantly interrupted or intervened. There’s no one strategy dominating the
trajectory. Solo, I like to stretch my voice. It just happens organically. I
don’t even know
where it’s going. I want to score my voice at this point.
MD: Have you scored your voice in the past?
AW:
A couple of people have tried to score it, but there are variations. People
have done
music for it, tried to follow something in the voice. I just think that all
I need is a block of
time. I’d love to get a grant or something, to find a way to notate what it
is. I don’t feel
like I need it for myself, but that it’s part of the poetics. Unless you
hear it or see it—I
think there should be some documentation as text.
MD: I think you’re one of the few poets who
reaches out to non-Western traditions.
AW:
And it’s showing in this disjunct with the Muslim
world. People forget that
Indonesia
is 90 percent Muslim. People do not know the difference between Hinduism,
Islam,
or Buddhism. We have ambassadors who go to places in
other parts of the world,
who
have no connection to the culture, who never even think of studying the language
or
reading a book about where they are. How to dress, how to
conduct yourself. I went to
Nepal
and the ambassador’s house was the best house in the place, with these beggars
outside. A complete disjunct from the country he’s
in, the town he’s in, the people, and
just living a fantasy of trekking. But the point is that there’s a strange,
western canon
dominance over how we think about things. I think Marxism doesn’t even look at
Asia.
I’m
trying to understand why that would
be, this sense of coming from Europe, even me
with my German ancestry—we all have our own narratives there. What I’m
afraid of is
that the culture coming in gets subsumed.
MD: When I taught at Brooklyn College, I found
that most of the students wanted to “fit
in.” They wanted to read American texts, to be American.
AW:
I grew up in this neighborhood in [Greenwich] Village with Portugeuse
and Italian
friends and they would be embarassed about their
names. But to go back to your question
[about Asian culture], I’m preparing for the Lorine Niedecker conference [held
in
Milwaukee & Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, 2003]. I really want to take it
somewhere else
and
talk about the orality of her work, and the
silence—bringing in some of Cage’s ideas.
What
is the link there? And there’s something about her being silenced and
repressed,
Zukofsky and the fact that she had to destroy the whole correspondence from the
‘30s
because of their relationship, because of his control over their romance.
Again, the
positioning of the woman versus the man. So looking at the gaps there, the
manuscripts
that were lost, the letters that were destroyed, the editing, the
censorship—no, that’s too
strong a word—the serious ellision in that
relationship, which was the principal one, you
could say. And then her own shift to a more open form, a surrealist
mode. She talks about
three of her favorite texts, Marcus Aurelius, a book of Japanese haiku and
Thoreau. She
doesn’t have a lot of references to Thoreau in her work, but enough, and then
bringing in
the
Asian poetics, the haikus. From the Buddhist perspective, the notion of the “heaven/
earth/ man” principle, out of
Indonesian, Thai poetics and the sense of the ti bot, which is
something I invoke a lot. The poems are like these runes that have to be
activated. Little
nuts you have to crack, little koans. They have
to be unleashed, in a way, opened up, and
that’s what happens with your imagination, whether you’re reading it out loud
or silently.
That’s
what the experience of poetry is, that whole imaginative realm with language
triggering a response. Her work—there’s incredible sound in
there. It’s almost as if she
was
getting up and sounding it. But the way in is, for me, through Asian poetics
and also
Cage’s work. Also, what is passivity? That’s important. In my experience, people
who do
not
know a lot about Oriental philosophy have this idea that it’s so passive, that
it moves
away from the world. So it’s been sort of fun to play with her work this
way, in a
respectful way.
MD: Tell me about your new project.
AW:
It’s a poem entitled “The Structure of the World Compared to a Bubble,” which
is
the
title of a particular sutra. It started out of a specific site, the Borobudur stupa in
Indonesia, which I visited in ’96. You come as a pilgrim and walk some
kilometers to get
there. It had been buried for hundreds of years. It was in the lore and
legend, and you
could tell something was under this mound. It’s now claimed as a national
treasure, but
it’s also a mandala and I read it as a kind of
book because these texts are depicted in
carvings. As you mount the stupa, you walk around. You
usually go four times because
there are texts on upper and lower panels. One is the Jakata
Tales, which describes the
former lives of the Buddha when he was an animal. And there’s another sutra which is
the
life story of the Buddha and then the structure-of-the-world story is about a
pilgrim
going out into the phenomenal world and having all these encounters with
mythical
creatures—with a rabbit, with a goddess of the night, with empty space—and everything
is
a teacher. I love that idea, the everyman or everywoman voyager, and the view
that
anything in your experience, wherever you are—here in 2003, New York City,
MacDougal
Street—is vibrant. It is what it is and it’s there to wake you up and you have
a
connection to it. It’s a walking meditation because you walk a few miles if you
do it
properly. You move towards the top of the stupa and things
become more abstract. You
move into this realm of the Boddhistava path and
then everything becomes vibrant. In
Dante’s
Paradiso, somehow he’s able to pull off through
language an experience, a very
abstract experience of light and love. You don’t even know what’s there,
really. It’s a
state of mind and that’s very, very hard to do. It’s attempted in movies and
other forms of
art,
but it’s very hard to describe. I don’t think this in any way does that, but at
least
there’s the aspiration for some sort of parallel in language to the strong
experience I had
in
being there. Then, of course, the meditation is all over the map, so to speak,
so the
references to the mundane, to my own reality. So we’ll see. It’s mostly in place,
but it
still needs a lot of intervention. I keep playing with it. I print out a
version, make more
changes. I work well with deadlines and almost need them to get me
going—especially
with a book project. Nobody has seen it except Ed. He had a lot of
questions about
terminology and I thought, well, I need to include a glossary. I’ve also written
an
introduction about the place and its mystery—it’s still a mystery to some extent
about
what its role is. I see it being similar to rites like the Elysian Fields,
Orpheus, that kind of
psychological journey. I felt transformed by being there. How you’re raised in terms
of
reality, art as a way of life, the life of the mind, books. An auto-didact, self-reliance,
investigative histories, Olson, finding the history but finding it out for yourself,
working
with received knowledge—I’m very grateful for that thrust. I don’t want to
get locked
into somebody else’s mindset. This is why Cage is so valuable to my
thinking, resisting
the
dominant forms, resisting the Western university model. I’m very grateful for
the
opportunities that I’ve had to travel to Asia. Did you see the First Cities show [at
the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003]? There is one great text in
the catalogue, it’s almost
like the discovery of writing, “Enmerkar and The
Lord of Aratta.” This particular poem
describes the rivalry between cities Uruk and Aratta, which are both vying for the
attentions of the Goddess Inanna. The true focus of the
text, however, is the cultural
superiority of Sumerian civilization over the lands that provided its luxury goods
by
means of tribute and trade. The poem begins with a hymn to the city of Uruk, quickly
zeroing on on the main topic. And this is the
translation: “Before that time the inscribing
of
words onto tablets did not exist… The spoken words were but nails.” This is a great
story! If we could only fight our battles with wits and wills…!
MD: I was a little bit depressed after that
show, seeing all the war-like images. All
humanity does is fight!
AW:
I love the staring in a lump of clay. It’s a little bit like how we were made.
MD: Having language pressed into you. I wanted
to ask you, speaking of language and
experience, you’ve been part of many different literary movements…
AW:
I did want to say something first about how Dark
Arcana was important to me. That
in
a way was also like a pilgrimage, although that isn’t the word I really want to
use. But
there is a sense of going in obeisance. A sense of homage,
of bowing. I wanted to go
during the [Vietnam] war, go into people’s homes as a witness. It was so much
part of my
experience, as well. I didn’t even think of it as writing at the time, then there
were just so
many questions.
MD: There were some things in there that really
struck me, like that [the Vietnam War]
was not called a “war.” Like that the “war” in Iraq has been declared
over.
AW:
Oh, the euphemisms… We’re not in a war, but we’re in the middle of a war. The
amount of destruction…
MD: And also when you write that we hadn’t
protested “enough.” Today it seems like the
’60s were the ultimate protest. And my
generation maybe feels like, well, look how much
you did, and it still wasn’t enough…
AW:
Oh, that’s interesting. I wonder about the young people now involved,
spearheading
the
environmental and also anti-war movement. There are still some veterans, but
there’s
almost a disjunct between the middle there. It’s as
if people were sleepwalking through a
generation. It’s interesting to go over [to Vietnam] to see young people then
these
survivors who are very elderly—they didn’t fight because they were parents and
grandparents. So many people died. Millions of people died. You really notice that
because you see very, very old people and very, very young people. And then
thinking,
you’re a survivor in a way. I think of our naiveté and that they were dirty tricksters.
It’s
like what we see now, shameless. A shameless way of
dealing with a situation. It’s just
that same sort of—it just seems so obvious now. I don’t know—am I just…?
MD: The Vietnam war
was not the first time a war was protested, nor the last. It’s like,
oh, the protests stopped, but they didn’t. The protests stopped because
there’s no longer a
war. But it doesn’t matter what they call it.
AW:
There’s a lot going on, everywhere I go. Your question about what more could we
have done—it had to be with being less naïve at that time.
MD: To return to my question a while ago,
you’ve had contact with the New York School,
the Beats…Reading In the Room of Never Grieve,
I saw different influences coming
through different periods of your work. Are there any particular tools you’ve
made your own?
AW:
Well, there’s collage and cut-outs from various sources.
The documentary poetics.
This
current project is very site-specific and it’s investigative. It’s got a
history. That I
would say comes a little out of Olsonian poetics.
So what are the tools? Investigation,
traveling, going to other cultures, other languages. I was interested in the
government,
being on the inside. I’m so
interested in politics—it’s part of my daily practice to be
informed. I start the day with Amy [Goodman] on Democracy Now on WBAI at 9 am.
You
shouldcheck it out if you’re up that early. It’s
inspiring—you feel that knowledge is
power, as an individual person. She’s interviewed so many people on the
“other side”
she
talked to the Wilsons, to weapons inspectors in Baghdad, to families over there.
Anyway, that obsession. Experiments and paying attention to the smallest
increments of
speech, breaking it down, but with a lot of attention and emotion. I’ve always
been
interested in the relationship, in gender dynamics, the tensions there. I guess
it was fairly
early that I got so close to Allen [Ginsberg], feeling like we shared that
Buddhist
connection. I told him about Trungpa arriving—he had
already been to India. There
wasn’t a real scene yet here in terms of that style. Then Naropa
came shortly on the heels
of
that. We had traveled together to the Chicago trials in the early ’70s. I
remember him
around the premises of St. Mark's Church and in my apartment. We were activity
demons. The opportunityto start a school together was
amazing. As I see it now, in
retrospect, something like that needed to happen. I don’t think it could have
happened in
New
York or the West coast. It needed to be in a different zone. It had to be
something
people could to. It wasn’t
a grassroots thing. It had to have a certain level of
sophistication—that people had been to places. So Allen, the Beats, interest in Asia,
which I already had from a very early age—I had a wonderful religion teacher
in high
school and we studied Taoism—and my mother started working at the Church of
the
Ascension.Then the
psychedelics and also traveling to these worlds, Asia, Mexico, Niger.
The
jazz, my mother was so into Cecil Taylor. My former sister in law was married
to
Steve
Lacy. The challenge, the sense of outrider tradition, breaking these forms,
being
restless around forms. This whole false promise, strange
veneer. I’m still sort of
invested—my father fought the Nazis—it’s almost a genetic thing. The men were
in this
warrior tradition—war was the most powerful experience you could have. My
father
lived next door to John dos Passos, knew John Reed.
He was so angry. He had a drinking
problem after the war, became a jazz musician, itinerant. He didn’t go back to
school
until after the war. I remember all the accoutrements, weaponry. And he was
a pacifist,
but
later he was withdrawn. At home he was shut down. I wouldn’t say shellshocked. I
don’t know whether he actually killed someone. So that was part of the
inspiration for
Iovis.
MD: Speaking of interviewing people on the
“other side,” Iovis really delves into this
territory that is so forbidden to women…
AW:
I wanted a challenge. I had to look at my own energy, which is very active and
war
like. Karma energy is leadership, leading battalions, monitoring the
troops. There is
something in my conglomeration of tendencies. I was insulted that the epic is
seen as a
male form. There are female epics, H.D.’s The Trilogy. Ambrose made this comment
[about Iovis III], what, another book called Iovis? Can’t you
think of another title? He’s
the
secret Virgil of the poem and if he’s not going to be a part of it, I’m lost. I
need to
have a young male. There’s so much of this dual-gender energy in it. The
events of the
time are in there, organically.
MD: It’s so unexplored—why do we go to war?
It’s such a norm.
AW:
I have to look at it in my own blood. I couldn’t believe that Wesley Clark is
in the
New York Review of Books with his assessment of why
the war failed, with all this
strategic language and description. The whole premise should be questioned from
the
start! The vitality of that realm has very much to do with paranoia and incredible
intelligence, an intelligence that needs
somewhere else to go. It’s not gender—it has
support from women. What is going on? We’re under some blinding thing of
destiny that
we
just can not see our way out of. It’s just one fucking version of the world. It
does not
have to be this version.
[2003]