Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 04:23:22 -0500
Subject: Re: MB: Re: inside, etc.




Dear George -

I have to say, first, that I was quite thrilled to receive a personal address
from you: when I was first learning the modernist poets (particularly Olson) in
HS ('79), I remember avidly devouring  a journal of yours - I don't remember
the name i'm afraid.  I encountered the name (with Susan's) once again many
years later upon purchasing a copy of  the one who was standing ... I thought
the cover design was exceptional, and then I saw your name ... I love the way
one's interests return to one in these little ways - connections of a sort ...


                                      ***



Actually, it has never occurred to me that Blanchot wrote for anyone.  I have a
distinct prejudice against the notion that awareness of ones 'audience' during
the act creation is truly a  the relevant one - I feel too much awareness of an
abstract other (whom we can never really 'know' anyway and can be little but
another creation) can too often detract the creator from his art, it can do
little but adulterate the work in my opinion. As I remarked in an essay once:
"... the cauldron of the self is the initial testing ground of the inherent
value of any given work of art ..."

>From what I see below, I love your reading of Blanchot; this line is
exquisite!: "In Blanchot one
rarely doubts that everything is at stake at every point, right down to his
toes.'

I have just ordered the Blanchot Reader (most of the fiction, which I adore,
is, as you know, out of print in translation) - in the mean time, I would love
to read your Afterword as an Email until the book arrives.

I find the distinction (which amd sees fit to call 'crude') often iterated by
the academic treatment of Blanchot as 'their' subject.  I am reacting, as it
seems your afterword was, because I believe the non-academic world deserves
exposure to the richness and wisdom to be found within Blanchot's work as
well.  The prevailing critical reading(s) of Blanchot are often aimed at the
interests of academia, and rarely is Blanchot treated as the literary Master
whom he is, and thus he is rarely presented to reading public as a writer  - I
cannot count the number of times I've mentioned his name and my interlocutor
did not know he did anything but critical work.  Blanchot's  use of, and
exploration of the use of,  language as a tool is one encompassing a depth of
intensity and question I have rarely encountered except in poets, and I agree
with you whole heartedly (sp?) in the belief that the poet/reader/lover of
language needs to know of him also.

On a personal note:
I am launching an Emagazine to be called "Cauldron & Net," and I would be
honored to have a piece of yours - criticism or poetry, in the inaugural
issue.  I am working on the invitation now, and will send it when it's done.

...and thank you: your appreciation of my site meant a lot to me!

best regards,
                         Claire

george quasha wrote:

> Dear Claire--
>
> Interesting question--for whom does Blanchot write.... (A question I
> extrapolate from your message.)  It's obviously one of the most difficult
> kinds of questions, because to some extent it falsifies the issue by
> assuming that writing addresses someone. Yet it's inescapable that we hear
> it that way.  If you're a writer--I'm a poet, not an "academic" (a poet who
> reads "everything")--you can't help reading Blanchot as writing somehow to
> or into your process; he feeds it, he turns it back to itself, and he never
> really takes you away from it, even though he complicates it immeasurably.
> Some "academic" discourse has the effect of discouraging that process--for
> reasons which are rather mysterious, and certainly not a matter of one kind
> of activity versus another. Perhaps it's a matter of how much is on the
> line in a moment of discourse, how much is truly at stake.  In Blanchot one
> rarely doubts that everything is at stake at every point, right down to his
> toes.
>
> Recently I edited _The Station Hill Blanchot Reader_ which contains most of
> the books by Blanchot we published under "Station Hill" over the past two
> decades.  For us it was immensely powerful to re-encounter an enormous
> amount of his work for that occasion, and I had an impulse somewhat like
> yours--to claim Blanchot for the art/literature side, because there is a
> danger that he would not be read side by side with Melville or Blake or
> Char or Mallarmé or the others he treated as "invisible partners," to
> borrow a term Bident invokes over and over in his biographic essay.  So I
> and my colleague Charles Stein wrote a piece as an afterword that
> essentially looks at Blanchot from the perspective of (American) poetics,
> raising the question of how Blanchot impacts "us"--meaning those of us who
> took the issues of poetics/discourse to heart, and the consequent "stance
> toward reality" (Charles Olson's term).  It offers one kind of "poet's
> reading" which we felt addresses a way of reading Blanchot that rarely
> shows up in formal writing (although some like Chris Fynsk we perceive as
> near neighbors).  Anyway, I would be interested in your response to our
> efforts in that direction, "Publishing Blanchot in America--A Metapoetic
> View."  (If you don't have the book I'd be happy to e-mail the piece to you
> or anyone else.)
>
> George
>
> PS: I visited StudioCleo--extraordinary, both the work exhibited and the
> site itself.
>
> George Quasha
> Station Hill Press/Barrytown, Ltd.
>  or The Institute for Publishing Arts, Inc.
> Barrytown, NY 12507
>
> http://www.stationhill.org
> e-mail: gquasha-AT-stationhill.org
>
> ----------
> > From: Claire Dinsmore <chantal-AT-bellatlantic.net>
> > To: blanchot-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Subject: MB: inside, etc.
> > Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 1:04 AM
> >
> I'm curious:
>
> Does anyone on this list ever question these (and other such) notions in
> terms
> of creativity/the creator (artist/writer), instead of simply in academic
> terms?  It seems to me the ACT of creation is Blanchot's chief
> concern/obsession, not academic comparisons and distinctions. I'm not
> trying
> to say anything negative about the list - this has simply to do with my own
> interest in Blanchot.  I would very much like to hear any one else's ideas
> on
> his perception of the act and engage in a discussion of it's meaning - both
> Blanchot's meaning, and those of other writers on this list.
>
> the floor is open and I await ...
>
> Claire
>
> --
> "We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
> Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the
> madness
> is art."
> - Henry James
> http://www.StudioCleo.com

--
"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the madness is
art."
- Henry James
http://www.StudioCleo.com

HTML VERSION:

I have to say, first, that I was quite thrilled to receive a personal address from you: when I was first learning the modernist poets (particularly Olson) in HS ('79), I remember avidly devouring  a journal of yours - I don't remember the name i'm afraid.  I encountered the name (with Susan's) once again many years later upon purchasing a copy of  the one who was standing ... I thought the cover design was exceptional, and then I saw your name ... I love the way one's interests return to one in these little ways - connections of a sort ...
 

Actually, it has never occurred to me that Blanchot wrote for anyone.  I have a distinct prejudice against the notion that awareness of ones 'audience' during the act creation is truly a  the relevant one - I feel too much awareness of an abstract other (whom we can never really 'know' anyway and can be little but another creation) can too often detract the creator from his art, it can do little but adulterate the work in my opinion. As I remarked in an essay once: "... the cauldron of the self is the initial testing ground of the inherent value of any given work of art ..."

From what I see below, I love your reading of Blanchot; this line is exquisite!: "In Blanchot one
rarely doubts that everything is at stake at every point, right down to his toes.'

I have just ordered the Blanchot Reader (most of the fiction, which I adore, is, as you know, out of print in translation) - in the mean time, I would love to read your Afterword as an Email until the book arrives.

I find the distinction (which amd sees fit to call 'crude') often iterated by the academic treatment of Blanchot as 'their' subject.  I am reacting, as it seems your afterword was, because I believe the non-academic world deserves exposure to the richness and wisdom to be found within Blanchot's work as well.  The prevailing critical reading(s) of Blanchot are often aimed at the interests of academia, and rarely is Blanchot treated as the literary Master whom he is, and thus he is rarely presented to reading public as a writer  - I cannot count the number of times I've mentioned his name and my interlocutor did not know he did anything but critical work.  Blanchot's  use of, and exploration of the use of,  language as a tool is one encompassing a depth of intensity and question I have rarely encountered except in poets, and I agree with you whole heartedly (sp?) in the belief that the poet/reader/lover of language needs to know of him also.

On a personal note:
I am launching an Emagazine to be called "Cauldron & Net," and I would be honored to have a piece of yours - criticism or poetry, in the inaugural issue.  I am working on the invitation now, and will send it when it's done.

...and thank you: your appreciation of my site meant a lot to me!

best regards,
                         Claire

george quasha wrote:

Dear Claire--

Interesting question--for whom does Blanchot write.... (A question I
extrapolate from your message.)  It's obviously one of the most difficult
kinds of questions, because to some extent it falsifies the issue by
assuming that writing addresses someone. Yet it's inescapable that we hear
it that way.  If you're a writer--I'm a poet, not an "academic" (a poet who
reads "everything")--you can't help reading Blanchot as writing somehow to
or into your process; he feeds it, he turns it back to itself, and he never
really takes you away from it, even though he complicates it immeasurably.
Some "academic" discourse has the effect of discouraging that process--for
reasons which are rather mysterious, and certainly not a matter of one kind
of activity versus another. Perhaps it's a matter of how much is on the
line in a moment of discourse, how much is truly at stake.  In Blanchot one
rarely doubts that everything is at stake at every point, right down to his
toes.

Recently I edited _The Station Hill Blanchot Reader_ which contains most of
the books by Blanchot we published under "Station Hill" over the past two
decades.  For us it was immensely powerful to re-encounter an enormous
amount of his work for that occasion, and I had an impulse somewhat like
yours--to claim Blanchot for the art/literature side, because there is a
danger that he would not be read side by side with Melville or Blake or
Char or Mallarmé or the others he treated as "invisible partners," to
borrow a term Bident invokes over and over in his biographic essay.  So I
and my colleague Charles Stein wrote a piece as an afterword that
essentially looks at Blanchot from the perspective of (American) poetics,
raising the question of how Blanchot impacts "us"--meaning those of us who
took the issues of poetics/discourse to heart, and the consequent "stance
toward reality" (Charles Olson's term).  It offers one kind of "poet's
reading" which we felt addresses a way of reading Blanchot that rarely
shows up in formal writing (although some like Chris Fynsk we perceive as
near neighbors).  Anyway, I would be interested in your response to our
efforts in that direction, "Publishing Blanchot in America--A Metapoetic
View."  (If you don't have the book I'd be happy to e-mail the piece to you
or anyone else.)

George

PS: I visited StudioCleo--extraordinary, both the work exhibited and the
site itself.

George Quasha
Station Hill Press/Barrytown, Ltd.
 or The Institute for Publishing Arts, Inc.
Barrytown, NY 12507

http://www.stationhill.org
e-mail: gquasha-AT-stationhill.org

----------
> From: Claire Dinsmore <chantal-AT-bellatlantic.net>
> To: blanchot-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: MB: inside, etc.
> Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 1:04 AM
>
I'm curious:

Does anyone on this list ever question these (and other such) notions in
terms
of creativity/the creator (artist/writer), instead of simply in academic
terms?  It seems to me the ACT of creation is Blanchot's chief
concern/obsession, not academic comparisons and distinctions. I'm not
trying
to say anything negative about the list - this has simply to do with my own
interest in Blanchot.  I would very much like to hear any one else's ideas
on
his perception of the act and engage in a discussion of it's meaning - both
Blanchot's meaning, and those of other writers on this list.

the floor is open and I await ...

Claire

--
"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the
madness
is art."
- Henry James
http://www.StudioCleo.com