1. A man is a god in ruins.
    — Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature, 1836 (via mythologyofblue)

    (via hilonegro)

     


  2. A great poet belongs to no country.
    — Journal of the conversations of Lord Byron noted during a residence with his lordship at Pisa, in the years 1821 and 1822 by Thomas Medwin, 1824  + (via mythologyofblue)

    (via hilonegro)

     

  3. Edward Steichen won 2nd prize and $100.00 in the Class C open category for enlargements for this photo titled “Sheep Study”. This halftone version from the enlarged exhibited print was reproduced in London’s Amateur Photographer in August, 1907. Compared to the more commonly known version by Steichen’s hand, a hand-toned photogravure published in Camera Work XIX, this image is practically “straight”. The editors however make their feelings known it does no justice to his original intent: “In the second place, the pictures are not the original prize-winning prints, but enlargements made at the Company’s English works; and however skilful the enlarger is, he cannot possibly always catch and elaborate the ideas of men like Steichen. Bearing this in mind, it is easy to imagine the beauty of Steichen’s own enlargement of the “Sheep Study,” No. 1, with the sheep blended into a soft mass of tones”…

     

  4. Detail: Edward Steichen: “Pastoral - Moonlight” (Camera Work XIX, 1907: 15.6 x 19.9 cm) This blue/green hand-toned photogravure better reflects the intent of Steichen as it is by his own hand- especially when compared to the “straight” version exhibited in London in 1906 as part of the 1905 Kodak Competition. from: PhotoSeed Archive

     


  5. Leslie Parke: Lydia Davis in Search of Enough Rope

     

    Last fall Lydia Davis, the short story writer, translator and MacArthur Fellow, gave a reading for the Curiosity Forum at Battenkill Books. Davis is known for her spare stories, some not more than a sentence. To make the reading interesting for herself, she brought new unpublished stories. Among them, she explained, were stories that she had “found” while readingFlaubert’s letters. As a translator of Madame Bovary, she read Flaubert’s letters to find his natural voice; the way he sounded when addressing friends.  From these letters she extracted sentences that appeared to her to be complete stories.

    Having spent much of the last ten years in my own excavation of all things French, I thought Davis might be able to identify for me the name of a story by Baudelaire that I had read about, but had not been able to find. The story, as I understood it, was about the circumstances surrounding the suicide of Edouard Manet’s studio assistant. I asked her if she had ever heard of the story.

    She hadn’t, but she promised me she would ask a colleague and let me know what she found out. Well, you can’t ask for more than that: a MacArthur Fellow and distinguished writer doing research for me!

    To be honest I didn’t expect to hear from her, but within a day I received an email that said, “Its not a short story, its a prose poem.” No sooner had I opened a new tab to type  “Baudelaire prose poems” into Google, than I received another email from her with the title of the piece: La Corde [The Rope]. The story, dedicated to Manet,  in deed is about the suicide of a painter’s assistant.

    Here is the “prose poem” in its entirety, first in English, then followed by the original French:

    Manet, Boy with a Dog, 1860“Illusions,” my friend said to me, “Are perhaps as numberless as the relations between men, or between men and things.  And when the illusion disappears, that is to say, when we see the being or the fact as it exists outside of ourselves, we experience a bizarre feeling, complicated half by regret for the disappeared phantom, half by agreeable surprise in the face of novelty, in the fact of the real thing.  If there is one obvious, trivial phenomenon, a phenomenon the remains always the same and about whose nature it is impossible to be mistaken, it is mother love.  It is as difficult to imagine a mother without maternal love as a light without heat.  Then isn’t it perfectly legitimate to attribute all of the words and actions of a mother to mother love, at least as regards her child?  And yet, listen to this little story, about a time when I was singularly mystified by the most natural of illusions.

    “As a painter, I am driven to pay close attention to the faces, the physiognomies, that offer themselves to me on the street, and you know what enjoyment we draw from that ability, which in our eyes renders life more alive and more meaningful than it is for other men.  In the remote quarter where I live and where vast grassy yards still separate buildings, I often saw a child whose ardent and mischievous physiognomy, more so than all the others, seduced me from the very first.  He posed more than once for me, and I transformed him sometimes into a little gypsy, sometimes into an angel, sometimes into a mythological Cupid.  I had him hold the vagrant’s violin, the Crown of Thorns, the Nails of the Passion, and the Torch of Eros.  Indeed, I took such a sharp pleasure in all of this urchin’s drollery, that one day I begged his parents, who were poor people, to agree to give him to me, promising to dress him well, to give him some money, and to impose no other labor on him than cleaning my brushes and running errands for me.  Once cleaned up, the boy proved charming, and the life he led with me seemed to him a paradise, compared to what he would have been subjected to in his father’s hovel.  However I must say that this little fellow sometimes astonished me with singular outbursts of precocious sadness, and that he sometimes demonstrated an immoderate taste for sugar and for liqueurs, so much so that one day, after I had ascertained that, despite numerous warnings, he had again committed a theft of this sort, I threatened to send him back to his parents.  Then I went out, and my business kept me from home for quite a while.

    “You can well imagine my horror and astonishment when, returning to my house, the first thing that struck me was my little fellow, the mischievous companion of my life, hanging from the panel of this armoire!  He feet were almost touching the floor; a chair, which he had undoubtedly pushed away with his foot, was overturned next to him; his head lean convulsively on one shoulder;  his swollen face and his eyes, wide open and staring with a frightening fixity, at first gave me the illusion that he was still alive.  Unhanging him was not as easy a task as one might think.  He was already very stiff, and I felt an inexpicable repugnance about letting him fall abruptly onto the floor.  I had to hold him up with one arm and with my other hand cut the rope.  But that done, I was still not finished: the little monster had used a very cord and it had cut deeply into his skin.  It was now necessary for me to use small scissors to draw the rope out from between two swollen rolls of skin, in order to extricate his neck.

    “I forgot to tell you that I had called loudly for help, but that all of my neighbors refused to come to my aid, faithful in this to the habits of the civilized man, who never wishes to get mixed up in the affairs of a hanged man, I know not why.  Finally, a doctor came and declared that the child had been dead for several hours.  When we later had to strip him for his burial, the rigidity of the corpse was so great that, giving up any hope of bending his limbs, we had to tear and cut his clothes in order to get them off.

    The police officer to whom, naturally, I had to declare the accident, looked at me oddly and said: “There’s something fishy about this!”, moved undoubtedly by the inveterate desire and the professional habit of, in all events, scaring the innocent as well as the guilty.

    “One final task remained, the very thought of which caused me a terrible anguish: I had to tell his parents.  My feet refused to carry me to their house.  Finally, I found the courage.  But, to my great astonishment, the boy’s mother remained unmoved, and not a tear leaked from the corner of her eye.  I attributed that strangeness to the very horror she must have been feeling, and I recalled that well-known adage: “The most terrible sorrows are silent sorrows.”  As for the father, he satisfied himself with saying, half brutishly, half dreamily: “After all, maybe it’s for the best — he would eventually have come to a bad end!”

    While the body was stretched out on my sofa and I was occupied with the final preparations, aided by a serving woman, the boy’s mother came into my studio.  She wanted, she said, to see the corpse of her son.  I could not, in truth, stop her from getting drunk on her misfortune and refuse her this final, somber consolation.  Afterwards, she asked me to show her the place where her son had hung himself.  “Oh!  No!  Madame,” I said, “That would not be good for you.”  As my eyes turned involuntarily toward the deadly armoire, I noticed — with a disgust mixed with horror and anger — that the nail was still stuck in the panel, with a long piece of rope still trailing from it.  I quickly darted over and tore down these last vestiges of the misfortune, and as I was about to throw them out of the open window, the poor woman seized my arm and said to me in an irresistable voice: “Oh!  Monsieur!  Let me have that!  Please!  I beg you”  Undoubtedly, it seemed to me, her despair had driven her so mad that she was now struck with a fondness for that which had served as the instrument of her son’s death, and wished to keep it as a terrible and beloved relic. — And she grabbed the nail and the rope.

    “Finally!  Finally!  Everything was done.  Nothing was left to me but to get back to work, more briskly than usual, in order to chase away little by little the tiny cadaver that continued to haunt the corners of my mind, and whose phantom was wearing me out with its great, staring eyes.  But the next day I received a whole pile of letters, some from the tenants in my building, several others from neighboring buildings; one from the first floor, another from the second, another from the third, and so on; some written in a half-joking tone, as if to disguise under an apparent playfulness the seriousness of the request, others completely shameless and filled with misspellings, but all asking for the same thing: that is to say, seeking to obtain from me a piece of the deadly and blessed rope.  Among the signers there were, I must say, more women than men, but not all of them, believe you me, belonging to the lowest and most vulgar class.  I have kept these letters.

    “And then, suddenly, a light went on in my head, and I understood why the boy’s mother had been so concerned with taking that cord away from me and through what sort of commerce she planned to console herself for her loss.”

     

    Manet«Les illusions, — me disait mon ami, — sont aussi innombrables peut-être que les rapports des hommes entre eux, ou des hommes avec les choses.  Et quand l’illusion disparaît, c’est-à-dire quand nous voyons l’être ou le fait tel qu’il existe en dehors de nous, nous éprouvons un bizarre sentiment, compliqué moitié de regret pour le fantôme disparu, moitié de surprise agréable devant la nouveauté, devant le fait réel.  S’il existe un phénomène évident, trivial, toujours semblable, et d’une nature à laquelle il soit impossible de se tromper, c’est l’amour maternel.  Il est aussi difficile de supposer une mère sans amour maternel qu’une lumière sans chaleur; n’est-il donc pas parfaitement légitime d’attribuer à l’amour maternel toutes les actions et les paroles d’une mère, relatives à son enfant?  Et cependant écoutez cette petite histoire, où j’ai été singulièrement mystifié par l’illusion la plus naturelle.

    «Ma profession de peintre me pousse à regarder attentivement les visages, les physionomies, qui s’offrent dans ma route, et vous savez quelle jouissance nous tirons de cette faculté qui rend à nos yeux la vie plus vivante et plus significative que pour les autres hommes.  Dans le quartier reculé que j’habite et où de vastes espaces gazonnés séparent encore les bâtiments, j’observai souvent un enfant dont la physionomie ardente et espiègle, plus que toutes les autres, me séduisit tout d’abord.  Il a posé plus d’une fois pour moi, et je l’ai transformé tantôt en petit bohémien, tantôt en ange, tantôt en Amour mythologique.  Je lui ai fait porter le violon du vagabond, la Couronne d’Épines et les Clous de la Passion, et la Torche d’Éros.  Je pris enfin à toute la drôlerie de ce gamin un plaisir si vif, que je priai un jour ses parents, de pauvres gens, de vouloir bien me le céder, promettant de bien l’habiller, de lui donner quelque argent et de ne pas lui imposer d’autre peine que de nettoyer mes pinceaux et de faire mes commissions.  Cet enfant, débarbouillé, devint charmant, et la vie qu’il menait chez moi lui semblait un paradis, comparativement à celle qu’il aurait subie dans le taudis paternel.  Seulement je dois dire que ce petit bonhomme m’étonna quelquefois par des crises singulières de tristesse précoce, et qu’il manifesta bientôt un goût immodéré pour le sucre et les liqueurs; si bien qu’un jour où je constatai que, malgré mes nombreux avertissements, il avait encore commis un nouveau larcin de ce genre, je le menaçai de le renvoyer à ses parents.  Puis je sortis, et mes affaires me retinrent assez longtemps hors de chez moi.

    «Quels ne furent pas mon horreur et mon étonnement quand, rentrant à la maison, le premier objet qui frappa mes regards fut mon petit bonhomme, l’espiègle compagnon de ma vie, pendu au panneau de cette armoire!  Ses pieds touchaient presque le plancher; une chaise, qu’il avait sans doute repoussée du pied, était renversée à côté de lui; sa tête était penchée convulsivement sur une épaule; son visage, boursouflé, et ses yeux, tout grands ouverts avec une fixité effrayante, me causèrent d’abord l’illusion de la vie.  Le dépendre n’était pas une besogne aussi facile que vous le pouvez croire.  Il était déjà fort roide, et j’avais une répugnance inexplicable à le faire brusquement tomber sur le sol.  Il fallait le soutenir tout entier avec un bras, et, avec la main de l’autre bras, couper la corde.  Mais cela fait, tout n’était pas fini; le petit monstre s’était servi d’une ficelle fort mince qui était entrée profondément dans les chairs, et il fallait maintenant, avec de minces ciseaux, chercher la corde entre les deux bourrelets de l’enflure, pour lui dégager le cou.

    «J’ai négligé de vous dire que j’avais vivement appelé au secours; mais tous mes voisins avaient refusé de me venir en aide, fidèles en cela aux habitudes de l’homme civilisé, qui ne veut jamais, je ne sais pourquoi, se mêler des affaires d’un pendu.  Enfin vint un médecin qui déclara que l’enfant était mort depuis plusieurs heures.  Quand, plus tard, nous eûmes à le déshabiller pour l’ensevelissement, la rigidité cadavérique était telle, que, désespérant de fléchir les membres, nous dûmes lacérer et couper les vêtements pour les lui enlever.

    «Le commissaire, à qui, naturellement, je dus déclarer l’accident, me regarda de travers, et me dit: «Voilà qui est louche!» mû sans doute par un désir invétéré et une habitude d’état de faire peur, à tout hasard, aux innocents comme aux coupables.

    «Restait une tâche suprême à accomplir, dont la seule pensée me causait une angoisse terrible: il fallait avertir les parents.  Mes pieds refusaient de m’y conduire.  Enfin j’eus ce courage.  Mais, à mon grand étonnement, la mère fut impassible, pas une larme ne suinta du coin de son ?il.  J’attribuai cette étrangeté à l’horreur même qu’elle devait éprouver, et je me souvins de la sentence connue: «Les douleurs les plus terribles sont les douleurs muettes.»  Quant au père, il se contenta de dire d’un air moitié abruti, moitié rêveur: «Après tout, cela vaut peut-être mieux ainsi; il aurait toujours mal fini!»

    «Cependant le corps était étendu sur mon divan, et, assisté d’une servante, je m’occupais des derniers préparatifs, quand la mère entra dans mon atelier.  Elle voulait, disait-elle, voir le cadavre de son fils.  Je ne pouvais pas, en vérité, l’empêcher de s’enivrer de son malheur et lui refuser cette suprême et sombre consolation.  Ensuite elle me pria de lui montrer l’endroit où son petit s’était pendu.  «Oh! non! madame, — lui répondis-je, — cela vous ferait mal.»  Et comme involontairement mes yeux se tournaient vers la funèbre armoire, je m’aperçus, avec un dégoût mêlé d’horreur et de colère, que le clou était resté fiché dans la paroi, avec un long bout de corde qui traînait encore.  Je m’élançai vivement pour arracher ces derniers vestiges du malheur, et comme j’allais les lancer au dehors par la fenêtre ouverte, la pauvre femme saisit mon bras et me dit d’une voix irrésistible: «Oh! monsieur! laissez-moi cela! je vous en prie! je vous en supplie!»  Son désespoir l’avait, sans doute, me parut-il, tellement affolée, qu’elle s’éprenait de tendresse maintenant pour ce qui avait servi d’instrument à la mort de son fils, et le voulait garder comme une horrible et chère relique. — Et elle s’empara du clou et de la ficelle.

    «Enfin!  Enfin! tout était accompli.  Il ne me restait plus qu’à me remettre au travail, plus vivement encore que d’habitude, pour chasser peu à peu ce petit cadavre qui hantait les replis de mon cerveau, et dont le fantôme me fatiguait de ses grands yeux fixes.  Mais le lendemain je reçus un paquet de lettres: les unes, des locataires de ma maison, quelques autres des maisons voisines; l’une, du premier étage; l’autre, du second; l’autre, du troisième, et ainsi de suite, les unes en style demi-plaisant, comme cherchant à déguiser sous un apparent badinage la sincérité de la demande; les autres, lourdement effrontées et sans orthographe, mais toutes tendant au même but, c’est-à-dire à obtenir de moi un morceau de la funeste et béatifique corde.  Parmi les signataires il y avait, je dois le dire, plus de femmes que d’hommes; mais tous, croyez-le bien, n’appartenaient pas à la classe infime et vulgaire.  J’ai gardé ces lettres.

    «Et alors, soudainement, une lueur se fit dans mon cerveau, et je compris pourquoi la mère tenait tant à m’arracher la ficelle et par quel commerce elle entendait se consoler.»

    Lydia Davis

    Lydia Davis on the right

    With big thanks to http://www.leslieparke.com

     


  6. This Isn’t Proust: Lydia Davis at Shakespeare & Company

    by Her Royal Majesty, A Paris-Based Literary Arts Magazine, on JULY 5, 2012 (http://www.heroyalmajesty.ca)

    On Monday, June 26th, Lydia Davis visited Shakespeare and Co. She read a sampling of recent work, stories which varied in both topic and length, some no more than a few sentences long. As always, we found her prose to be tonic: humorous in its absurdity, melancholy in situation. The following is a transcribed and edited version of the question-and-answer session that followed the reading.

    Lydia DavisDiscussed: Beginnings in Paris; the sanctuary found in notebooks; death and mittens; a concise Proust; the ploddingness of prose; a woman’s body in contrast to her personal charms.

    Q: It seems that the land that you have cultivated for yourself, and it seems completely your own, is to take moments that other writers might not realize are stories and make stories out of them, out of moments that don’t completely fulfill that definition. And I was wondering if it took a long time to have the confidence to say that two women having a two-minute conversation about a sweater comprises a story, because it really does, and I don’t know many writers who have the confidence to take that risk.

    Lydia Davis: I’m sure, for one thing, I wouldn’t have written such short stories when I was first starting out to write. I was in Paris for a lot of the time, the very beginning of trying to learn how to write. That’s sort of irrelevant, but I can’t help mentioning it because—here we are. I wasn’t always happy here, but I was working hard anyway.

    So I don’t think I would have had the confidence, and I wouldn’t have even thought that well, that’s a story. When you’re young, you’re somehow more ambitious. You think, ‘First of all, I should be writing a novel, but if I somehow can’t do that, fall short of it, I should at least be writing a long, meaningful story. Certainly not something really short.’

    But the nice thing is that you can write in privacy. So you have your notebook, and you could just write it down because you heard the woman say it. And you could look at it again, an hour later, and say ‘Well it would be a little better this way.’ But it doesn’t commit you to anything, and you find it delightful. I had serious doubts that it was enough, but I found it delightful. That’s a really quite recent one.

    So I just sit on it for a while. Not literally, but I let it be for a while, and I keep coming back to it. And if it still feels it has some substance, I finally say OK. I dare to send it in a group. If a magazine asks me for a story, I like to send more than I really want them to take. I mean, they’re very small. Partly because I want to see. It’s a way of testing the story. So if it keeps getting pushed aside by one magazine after another, I think maybe there isn’t enough.

    But it depended mostly on me. And I found that delightful.

    There’s a very short poem by Anselm Hollow. I should be able to quote it completely because it’s so short, but that doesn’t mean I remember the whole thing. It’s called “The Red Mittens,” I think, or “The Mittens,” or maybe it has no title. But I had it up on my bulletin board a long time, and it was just a few lines: “The red wool mittens are almost finished. I’ve been working on them for many years.” See, I think I’m doing it completely wrong. But the last line is “But my life is over.”

    It was so simple, so I knew it very well, although not well enough to quote it obviously. But I found that every time I read it again it still had an impact on me. So I guess that was sort of the model for these very short ones. Does it still have an impact, even though you know it well and it’s so short.

    That’s a long-winded answer to a very concise question.

    Lydia Davis

    Q: In sentence-making, what propels you forward and what makes you stop?

    LD: That’s very difficult, because it’s different in every case. I do hear everything in my head, so I hear it, and I hear it in a certain way before I write it down. I guess that’s probably true of most people. But one sentence inspires the next one, and that inspires the next one.

    I have a sense of the form, the shape, and the length of the story almost before I begin. Sometimes it’s incorrect, it’s wrong, but most of the time I know it’s not going to be anything longer than this paragraph or these two pages. The ending is very difficult. Either because I don’t have the wording quite right or I haven’t actually come to the end of the thought.

    In “Jane and the Cane,” the very first one, I didn’t know how to end that for a while. The last sentence is something like “Mother complains that she’s always so tired of Jane and Cane.” By that time, I’m tired of it too. We’re all tire of it. And there’s been the theme of tired going through it. But that didn’t come right away. I had to wait for that last line.

    And then even in the very short ones I’ll do a lot of revising, just to get the absolute right wording. And a lot of cutting. It might just be a word or two.

    Q: I first came across your work through your translations of Maurice Blanchot. And so I was wondering if you think they affected your other work?

    LD: I actually started working on the first [Blanchot translation] here [in Paris], L’arrêt de mort. I’ve translated six of his books, so they must have had an effect, but it’s a little hard to know exactly how much, unless I had a parallel life in which I didn’t translate Blanchot, or didn’t translate anything maybe.

    But I think I was very drawn to translate him because what he was doing in his work felt very—I won’t say familiar, but I felt at home with it. He goes into great detail. He takes one encounter, and will open it up to form a whole book. He’ll make an abstract thing like a thought become a character. It was that focus, that relentless focus on detail that I found very interesting. He didn’t need a huge cast of characters and a lot of dialogue. So he was very spare.

    Of course, then Proust was—but then I don’t know. Proust said he was very concise, too. And I agreed with him. He said that he never put anything more in one sentence than should be in that one sentence. So if it was very long, that could still be concise.

    Lydia Davis

    Q: I was wondering whether you call the very short pieces poems, and whether this makes a difference.

    LD: It’s more complicated than that, actually, because some of the short pieces I did write intending them to be poems. Others I intended them to be prose, but wanted the lines to be broken because I wanted you to stop at the end of those lines. So even though I didn’t call them poems, they look like poems on the page. But I still think I come from short story, beginning. I never considered myself a poet.

    There’s a certain ploddingness to prose that I like. It can be repetitious in an interesting way with language. But I wanted that sort of heaviness. “Jane and cane.” I didn’t want it to be too lyrical.

    So in a way it’s arbitrary.

    You can see it as a continuum from what is absolutely and unmistakably a poem, say a Shakespeare sonnet or something. And then, at the other end, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, which is unmistakably not a poem, although you find very long prose works that are called poems by their authors. It’s nicely confusing, I think.

    Lydia Davis

    Q: How does your translation of Proust differ from past editions? And were you and the other translators given any specific instructions as to some method that was different from the past translators?

    LD: There’s really only one past translation—Scott Moncrieff. And then there have been two revisions of that translation. But a great deal of his original work is still in the revisions. So I really think of it as one, one previous translation, with revisions. Important revisions, but.

    My translation was part of a group project, I did the first and then there were other translators for each of the other volumes.

    In terms of how mine is different from Scott Moncrieff: it’s much closer to Proust. Of course I would say that. There are loyal fans of the Scott Moncrieff translation, and if that was the first version you read than when you read Proust, many people just can’t see any other version as being Proust. They really say that is Proust.

    His version was more flowery than the original, and more wordy. He would use “strange and haunting,” when Proust just said “strange,” “étrange.” He would say “strange and haunting” for the rhythm of it. So his rhythms were quite nice, and even his prose is quite nice in a way. But Proust is much more spare, much more modern. The Scott Moncrieff translation is rather Edwardian not just in language but also in sensibility. It is famous for avoiding—instead of saying “woman’s body,” Proust would say “body,” and Scott Moncrieff would say “personal charms.” And things like that.

    Some of these survived the revisions. Proust said “the entrance to the underworld”—that’s the original, the plain French—and Scott Moncrieff says “the jaws of hell.” So he’s replacing “entrance,” which is a fairly neutral word, with “jaws,” a metaphor. A dramatic metaphor. So all the way through he adds metaphor, he adds words. He dresses it up. It’s more wordy. So I feel there’s an important difference. But of course people who grew up with the Scott Moncrieff read mine and say, “This isn’t Proust.” They really make that fundamental mistake.

     

  7. I am so in love with you that there isn’t anything else.

    Ernest Hemingway

    Quote thanks to lifeinpoetry .

    Image: Giovanni Bellini, Naked Young Woman in Front of the Mirror (detail),1515.

     

  8.  

  9. bloodybeautifulwomen:

    Stephanie Shiu

    (via tenderflesh)

     

  10.