Open Studios: Rachel Blau Duplessis's Blue Studios: Poetry and Its Cultural Work
Catherine Taylor
Department of English, Ohio University
taylorc1@ohio.edu
Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Blue Studios: Poetry and Its Cultural Work. Tuscaloosa: Alabama UP, 2006.
An essay's swerve can make the trip. First sky. Then the waves. Sky. The edge of the water. Sudden breathless teeming immersion.
Then sky again and pray you're not becalmed since the doldrums are an exploration's true danger. Rachel Blau Duplessis's striking
new collection of essays, Blue Studios: Poetry and Its Cultural Work, is at its best when it is roving at a clip, when she's doing what she
says "interesting essays" do, "offering knowledge in passionate and cunning intersections of material, in ways excessive,
unsummarizable, and (oddly, gloriously) comforting by virtue of their intransigent embeddedness and their desire, waywardly, to riffle
and roam" (37). Duplessis's is a poetics both of the riffle and of the riff, where an ecstatic, disordering, referential page-flipping and a
musical, utopic cat's-paw play with literary and linguistic surface effects long to disrupt more deeply embedded ideological
structures, primarily those of gender. Whether readers will find Duplessis's essays "comforting" will depend on their finding comfort in
some discomfort, particularly in her challenges to familiar forms of subjectivity and writing.
With this volume, DuPlessis continues the prose work begun in her first collection of essays, The Pink Guitar: Writing as Feminist
Practice, and extends the work of her long poem series, Drafts. All of the essays here concern women writers, feminist politics, a
feminine poetics, gendered personal and literary histories, or some combination of the above. Many do so in ways that manifest her
desire for writing that could be, as DuPlessis writes,
a poem, an essay, a meditation, a narrative, an epigram, an autobiography, an anthology of citations, a handbill found on the street,
a photograph, marginalia, glossolalia, and here we go here we go here we go again. (210-11)
This giddy and densely satisfying mélange of scholarship and melos typifies Duplessis's best work. Rich hybridity is especially
evident in "f-words; An Essay on the Essay," where she both asserts and performs the inherently transgeneric and transgressive nature
of the essay itself. Here Duplessis's yoking of selves, aesthetic forms, and gendered identities cross-implicates her topics and their
discourses. In this essay, more than in any other in the collection, her urgent language and condensed analyses propel us through her
text, constantly reminding us of the indissoluble relationships among writing, representation, and thought. "f-words" functions as a
kind of ars poetica for much of the volume, certainly for the best of it.
Duplessis's essay is propelled by the partially submerged engines of Theodor Adorno and Virginia Woolf. She moves from Woolf's
claim that the self is "the essayist's most proper but most dangerous and delicate tool" (38) to Adorno's statement that the essay's
"structure negates system" (40). Her essay engages at least two different understandings of Woolf's assertion of the "dangerous"
nature of the self as guide and heuristic. First, there is danger in the sense of something fraught with problems, specifically the
danger of offering a reified Subject that remains static, a represented self that participates in his or her own cultural constraints rather
than cracking through them with the force of linguistic disruptions. There is also the sense of the "dangerous" as a value, a weapon,
something that makes the essay powerful by forcing the reader to stand back, to witness an intimate revolt, an explosion, perhaps
something akin to Glissant's disruptive aesthetic of turbulence or chaos (and its gesture toward a contingent ethics).
Turning to Adorno's contention that the essay "negates system," DuPlessis suggests that the genre itself might be a useful agent in
the struggle to undermine rigid and oppressive systems of gender and language. Indeed, one of Duplessis's major aesthetic,
theoretical, and, ultimately, political contributions is to apply to a feminist project Adorno's understanding of form as sedimented
content and his insistence on the critical need for innovative, defamiliarizing, and complex modes of writing to disrupt normative
representations of emergent political or ideological problems and thus make them visible. DuPlessis is both keenly aware of and
capably performs the contradictions of historical realities and experimental linguistic representations. In the bracketed space between
Woolf and Adorno, DuPlessis enacts the idea that "'subject position' is 'language position'" through a mode of writing where "the
digression is the subject" (39) and where "Essay is always opposite" (35).
Toward the end of "f-words," DuPlessis swerves to link genre explicitly to écriture feminine:
to call nonlinear structures, cross-generic experiment, collage, non-narrative play with subjectivity, temporality, and syntax by the
name of feminine follows the French feminism of Cixous and Irigaray. (45)
For DuPlessis, connecting this work to the word feminine is both necessary and problematic. What follows is a brilliantly nuanced
tracing of the term and its valences, a tracing that puts her in a productive dialogue with the work of Joan Retallack. Among the many
moments of discovery in this dense unpacking, perhaps the two most salient are 1) that that it might be most useful to "leave the
terms feminine and masculine in the category of the to-be-sublated" (that which must be simultaneously preserved and brought to an
end) and 2) that "any call for the 'feminine' in discourse is only interesting when crossed with a feminist, or otherwise liberatory,
critical project" (46).
As the sweep of "f-words" comes to a close, DuPlessis names the contents of her now full net as a "collectivity, heterogeneity,
positionality, and materiality (although veiled under the terms personal, autobiographical, and feminine)" that
buoy the essay--give it the density of texture, the sense of implication, the illusion of completeness--in a form that embodies its
own fragmentation. The essay is the mode in which material sociality speaks, in texts forever skeptical, forever alert, forever
yearning. (47)
She offers a coda-like paragraph of thirty-nine "f" words (including "fugitive," "fissured," "finding," "freely," and "fold") that allows us
to linger in a lingual fade-out and lets us make sense in the wake where meanings emerge.
Throughout Duplessis's project of blurring the boundaries between poetry and prose, or between so-called "creative" and critical
work, what may look like her greatest fault, a kind of mess that seems, at first, to come from trying to do too much in too many
different ways, almost always turns out to be one of her greatest strengths. She offers a diversity of approaches to her subjects that
cohere just enough to offer analysis and conclusion as well as space for the reader to drift and decide. Some of the essays are pocked
by the eruption of verse, and while these moments are a kind of mar or blemish, the essays would not be more beautiful without them,
but less interesting. The same is true for her sometimes vertiginous shifts of topics and discourses from the autobiographical to the
aesthetic.
Often in these essays, there is a sense of mind as drift, chaos, reach, and failure that is also thematically and affectively present in her
poetic work. The second volume of her long poem project Drafts opens with this line from Wallace Stevens:
"The confusion and aimlessness of thoughts."
This reference and its sensibility echo throughout both her serial poems (which also function as critiques and essays) and the essays
of Blue Studios. The more one reads of DuPlessis, the more this wandering and wondering begins to loop back on itself, tracing and
retracing certain paths. Questions get reworked, issues revisited, references (including self-references) start to pile up, and in this
work of the palimpsest, confusion and aimlessness begin to abate. Elsewhere, DuPlessis and her reviewers write on this deliberately
midrashic approach in her poetry, but it is evident in the essays as well. In Blue Studios' final essay, "From Inside the Middle of a Long
Poem," DuPlessis describes some of the central concerns of her Drafts, which overlap substantially with the paths traced in these
essays. She writes of being "haunted by moral nightmare, ambiguities about authority, and the demand for awe . . . haunted by
Unitedstatesness, given the compromises, failures, and misuses of that global privilege . . . [and] by the losses of many people in the
Holocaust and holocausts of modernity" (237). Duplessis attempts to capture what she calls "the endless / Sense of reality" through a
poiesis wherein the musical effect of language known in our bodies is inseparable from both our corporeal sense of the world and our
understanding of it through analysis, reason, and abstraction.
Duplessis's wide-ranging work engages the particularities of personal life, world politics, and literature and insistently returns to
investigate the structure of gender and its histories. In "Manifests," another essay in Blue Studios, she writes:
"Sometimes I have said that this is the reason I don't write 'poetry,' taking 'poetry' polemically to mean the gender fantasy structure"
(95). In "Manifests," she stakes a claim to write "otherhow," as a "determined walk away from the claustrophobia of some gender
narratives" (95).
Duplessis's essays work with multiple, and sometimes contradictory, roots and routes. (She tends to pun, a tactic that occasionally
feels a bit coy or clever, but really works when she lets the aural association ring strange.) As for roots, her insistence that "digression
is the subject" follows Montaigne's rhetoric of meandering, of which he wrote, "I like . . . my formless way of speaking, free from rules
and in the popular idiom, proceeding without definitions, subdivisions, and conclusions" (724-25). This sense of the struggle to
represent the nascent aspects of subjectivity is very much alive in Duplessis's essays. A more directly engaged route runs through the
work of George Oppen, with whom she was friends. Like him, she refuses to seek a totality, a closed, positivist work. But digression
and the refusal of closure are very different matters; they can coexist, as they do in DuPlessis, but neither Montaigne's nor Oppen's
work is characterized by both at once--making for a marked tension with these forerunners.
In these essays, DuPlessis moves away from the writers she names as mentors and influences, particularly Oppen. Clearly, she
maintains an allegiance to what Stephen Cope calls Oppen's "poetics of veracity," and she has taken to heart Oppen's personal
injunction to her to work investigatively or, as she paraphrases him, to "make poems of thinking. Use poems to think with" (191). Her
desire to stay close to Oppen's focus on a suturing of ethics and a "saturated realism" is evident when she writes, "there is always a
documentary aspect to my poetics. Trying to live in historical time and give some testimony, to bear some (direct or indirect) witness."
And yet her method and aesthetics are significantly different from Oppen's. Whereas Oppen saw words as "the enemy" and both
stopped writing literally and sought to stop down, or to reduce, the aperture in his process of editing and winnowing out anything
extraneous, Duplessis's work is infatuated with words and her writing tends more toward a kind of combinatoire (but without
surrealism). She relates how Oppen's early influence reduced her writing, for a while, to "the tiniest seedlike works" (193), but many of
her essays now, as with her Drafts, are an explosion of seeds from the pod, a cattail detonation of thoughts.
Analogously, DuPlessis diverges from Loraine Niedecker, another objectivist in her pantheon and subject of an essay in Blue Studios.
Niedecker's urge to "concentrate / compress / condense," to put words through her "condensary," stands starkly against Duplessis's
"expansery," where her most interesting work flowers. This is not to say that her work is chaotic, but rather that while she might
condense or spin down to a thread, she then lets the thread spool out, a line of sound and thought sent out to test the void. For
example, in the title essay, "Blue Studio," after walking us through 14 "Arcades" on "gender and poetry and poetics" (948), she offers a
bulleted list of definitions of "feminist poet" that includes twenty-nine possibilities that scroll down for nearly three pages and
includes:
*Feminist poet = angry woman, writing poetry.
*Feminist poet = [woman] poet who is "disobedient" (Alice Notley's term for herself); transgressive (like Carla Harryman); "resistant"
(my term about myself); imbuing knowing with its investigative situatedness (like Lyn Henjinian's "La Faustienne") in full knowledge of
gender normativities (Notley 2001; Harryman 1995; Hejinian 2000).
*Feminist poet = poet making antipatriarchal analyses of culture when much of culture is patriarchal; that is, a poet throwing
herself/himself into the abyss.
The list is complex and can be read as central to this collection. The essays in Blue Studios that take a more traditional approach (the
ones on Ezra Pound and on Barbara Guest in particular) feel competent, useful, but thinner, more predictable. These examples,
including all of the "Urrealism" section, contribute to literary analyses of gender, power, and the work of Guest, Niedecker, and Oppen,
but they do so without the powerfully estranging language and structures of the other essays in the collection, and thus undermine, to
some degree, the project she undertakes in the more experimental essays. Given her significant disruptions in the innovative
essays--disruptions that seem to avow that language makes meaning and that when it is used unreflexively it simply remakes the
power structures one might seek to reveal and critique--her use of normative language as referential, descriptive, and transparent in
the "Urrealism" essays feels like a failure to participate in her own critique and its praxis.
Throughout the collection, DuPlessis weaves together autobiographical or biographical anecdotes with expositions of aesthetics and
poetics in a way that turns the second-wave feminist dictum that the personal is the political into an epistemology of polyvalent
discourses. She examines her ambivalence about the uses of the personal, as in the opening lines of the first essay, "Reader, I married
me: Becoming a Feminist Critic":
no innocence in the autobiographical. What with its questions of saying "I" and the issue of "what I" and how that "I" negotiates with
various "selves"; and the question of how much (a lot) is unsaid or repressed. With resistance to the cheerful myths of disclosure; with
suspicion of narrative in the first place, and no self-justifying memories to legitimate "me" rather than anyone else. (15)
Her subsequent move to a fairly straight autobiography provokes some queasy negotiations, but once she gets to her engagement
with feminist politics of the 1960s and 1970s, her assertion that "this is a historical exercise, not a confessional one" is compelling.
DuPlessis also points out the particular pull towards the autobiographical engendered by texts that are themselves oeuvres,
collections, or ongoing works. In "On Drafts," one of three essays that look explicitly at her own work, DuPlessis writes that
after a while an ongoing long poem will be read as a kind of "Bildung" as "the growth of the poet's mind" and so latches onto
autobiographical readings or calls forth the body and life of the poet even more than a discrete series of books might. (216)
In some sense then, Blue Studios might be more productively titled Open Studios in that it offers a peek into the messy workshop
where we experience the voyeuristic lure of seeing the artist at work even as reader and author distrust the shift of focus from
painting to painter, from form to individual, from public to personal, from product to producer. An open studio might also, here, be a
boundless one, not limited by a single genre, or subject, or subjectivity, a single history or understanding of history. An open studio
could be a place where, as DuPlessis writes, "the test of the essay is whether it opens a space for the reader, rather than closing one"
(39-40). An open studio is a utopic space of invention where we see DuPlessis exploring aesthetics, politics, and language.
Beginning with her groundbreaking book, The Pink Guitar, and continuing here in Blue Studios, DuPlessis offers a major contribution
to a tradition of creative/critical and innovative work that pays equal attention to cultural critique and to literary form, a tradition that
includes Theodor Adorno, Hélène Cixous, Denise Riley, Eve Sedgwick, and most of the Language poets, among others. In particular,
Blue Studios shares a space, and I find myself tempted to say a faith, with Nathaniel Mackey's recent Paracritical Hinge. In the title
essay, Mackey quotes himself on "the emancipatory potential of 'discrepant engagement,' . . . 'practices that, in the interest of opening
presumably closed orders of identity and signification, accent fissure, fracture, incongruity" (207). Mackey describes his project of
discrepant engagement as a "critique and a complication" of categorization, as availing itself of "aspects of conventional as well as
experimental narrative, essayistic analysis and reflection, diaristic and anecdotal elements," as well as literary-critical techniques
(210).
Although Mackey and DuPlessis seem to be engaged in related aesthetic endeavors, they hardly end up sounding alike, and their
attendant political projects, while related, are distinct. Mackey's "emancipatory potential" deals more with questions of inclusion and
reception primarily in relation to racial and ethnic minorities (also important to DuPlessis vis-à-vis feminist women's writing) than
with the structural, conceptual, and ideological shifts through linguistic experiment that DuPlessis yearns for and that I hear in Bruce
Andrews's claim that
the political dimension of writing isn't just based on the idea of challenging specific problems or mobilizing specific groups to
challenge specific problems, it's based on the notion of a systemic group--not of language described as a fixed system but of
language as a kind of agenda or system of capabilities and uses.
It is hard at this point in history not to be skeptical about the social and political efficacy of innovative writing, but I am attracted to
these claims, to these longings. It helps that DuPlessis is fully aware that the literary is only one site in any struggle for social
transformation. (Remember her insistence that "any call for the 'feminine' in discourse is only interesting when crossed with a
feminist, or otherwise liberatory, critical project; rhetorical choices are only part of a politics" [46].) But I suspect I am also being
seduced a bit by some sense of engagement as optimism in Duplessis's writing that moves her away from Adorno's thorny double
binds (despite her frequent invocations of him) and away from Mackey's more guarded sense of what he terms a "post-expectant
futurity," which he writes, "stands accused of harboring hope" but where hope is clearly suspect, toward a more Blochian, utopian
recovery of hope.
The crux here seems to me to be not whether experimental writing can be shown to be liberatory, but how DuPlessis's versions
represent a particularly optimistic, reformist, political poetics. This sense of yearning for change, if not revolution, distinguishes
DuPlessis from more ironized poetic movements such as the contemporary Google-based Flarf school where the paratactic pasting of
discourse appropriations offers a related linguistic disruption and cultural critique--one that uses what Jacques Rancière in The
Future of the Image calls "dialectical montage" to "invest chaotic power in the creation of little machines of the heterogeneous," where
"what is involved is revealing one world behind another: the far-off conflict behind home comforts" (56-57). Flarf and certain other
post-avant writings often lean toward the knowing shrug or wink; weaned as they are on cynicism, they no longer retain despair's
normative posture of the fetal crouch, and, in fact, might be said to retain only a primal optimism, one to keep going, participating in
neither abjection nor optimism. Theirs is a poetics perhaps more comfortable with Mackey's "post-expectant futurity," while
Duplessis's essays maintain some attachment to expectancy, although it is hardly naïve. What DuPlessis does throughout her writing
is keep the reader focused on moments of (not to get too recursive about it) possibility's possibility.
Catherine Taylor
Department of English, Ohio University
taylorc1@ohio.edu
COPYRIGHT (c) 2007 BY Catherine Taylor. READERS MAY USE PORTIONS OF THIS WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR USE
PROVISIONS OF U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ADDITION, SUBSCRIBERS AND MEMBERS OF SUBSCRIBED INSTITUTIONS MAY USE THE ENTIRE
WORK FOR ANY INTERNAL NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSE BUT, OTHER THAN ONE COPY SENT BY EMAIL, PRINT OR FAX TO ONE PERSON
AT ANOTHER LOCATION FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL USE, DISTRIBUTION OF THIS ARTICLE OUTSIDE OF A SUBSCRIBED
INSTITUTION WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM EITHER THE AUTHOR OR THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS IS
EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN.
THIS ARTICLE AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE UNTIL RELEASE OF THE NEXT ISSUE. A
TEXT-ONLY ARCHIVE OF THE JOURNAL IS ALSO AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. FOR
FULL HYPERTEXT ACCESS TO BACK ISSUES, SEARCH UTILITIES, AND OTHER VALUABLE FEATURES, YOU OR YOUR INSTITUTION MAY
SUBSCRIBE TO PROJECT MUSE , THE ON-LINE JOURNALS PROJECT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
PRESS.
Works Cited
Andrews, Bruce. Paradise & Method. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1996.
DuPlessis, Rachel Blau. Draft, Unnumbered: Precis. Vancouver: Nomados, 2003.
Mackey, Nathaniel. Paracritical Hinge; Essays, Talks, Notes, Interviews. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 2005.
Montaigne, Michel de. Michel de Montaigne: The Complete Essays. Trans. M.A. Screech. Harmondsworth: Penguin, [1580] 1991.