Just going to jot down one cool thing in this one: Richmond Haigh, Beatrice Hastings's brother and fellow South African, contributed a piece on how racist British justice was destabilizing South Africa. He claims that the British tendency to lock up native Africans for mostly-innocent misdemeanors criminalized and radicalized them once they spent time with hardened criminals. Check it out: "What fools we are! I mutter. What utter imbeciles! And I mentally kick myself as being one of the white men of twentieth century civilization concerned in the deliberate manufacture of criminals." The solution: instead of prosecuting people under a system of laws they didn't create, have never had explained to them, etc., Haigh proposes sending them back to their country homes, where they will be disciplined by their own people, and to ban them from returning to the city for two years (not sure about city people). Things change slowly in the world.
One other cool thing in this issue: instead of mooning about Italy, Aldington uses his column to discuss Florentine art. His still-radical position is that the Byzantines had it right, while Renaissance realism was inherently flawed: "The Italians were like young children and could never have understood Byzantine art." Or: "The student of the arts takes a macabre pleasure in observing the transition from a style of painting whose aim was to conventionalize beauty to one which is no more than a commonplace 'verisme.' All this and more on page 296. Best Aldington piece thus far.
[Edit: I wonder how much Aldington's position owes to Roger Fry, who compared the Post-Impressionists to the Byzantines in 1910, in a March 1908 letter to the Burlington Magazine, for instance, reproduced in The Post-Impressionists in England. End edit.]
Friday, July 26, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
The New Age, July 3, 1913
I'm just going to post about one article in this issue: the weekly "Present-Day Criticism," a column that usually consists of the New Age editors demolishing the said present-day critics.
This one is written anonymously--though the epigraph from an Indian religious text and the author's declaration that they are back from a break leads me to believe that it is by Beatrice Hastings, conspicuously absent for a few issues. Thank goodness she's back (if indeed she is, but the liveliness of the piece is another point in her favor).
Anywho, this one is another attempt to prevent spelling reform, but what caught my eye is that the guy calling for the reform is none other than Robert Bridges, poet laureate--and who I know primarily through my work with Gerard Manley Hopkins's manuscripts. Most of the highest-amplitude Hopkins poems were first read by Bridges, through correspondence--he would write out beautifully handwritten copies of "The Windhover" etc. and then Hopkins would cross out all his mistakes, add all the accents he missed, etc. This is the reason that many print editions capitalize the "AND" in "The Windhover"--Hopkins seems kind of mad that he had de-emphasized the exclamation point after "buckle." Whatever their friendship was like, we owe it to Bridges that Hopkins' poems were published in 1918--more on that in five years.
The clash of Bridges and Hastings excited my poetry nerdiness, only I wish they'd talked about poetry instead of spelling. Bridges' plan is to simplify spelling by a moderate phonetic reform: instead of strictly phonetic spelling, he's willing to admit that many vowels are pronounced the exact same way. The solution is to just make that overtly clear, so that "they" and "day" are both acceptable phonetic spellings (no word on whether you could mix it up at will, "thay" and "dey".
Pseudo-Hastings points out that "they" and "day" don't actually rhyme. Hmm... maybe to her? I find myself wondering. I'm glad that we have our ridiculously spelt language, though. Even if I don't really get the argument on either side. Must be that I'm American.
This one is written anonymously--though the epigraph from an Indian religious text and the author's declaration that they are back from a break leads me to believe that it is by Beatrice Hastings, conspicuously absent for a few issues. Thank goodness she's back (if indeed she is, but the liveliness of the piece is another point in her favor).
Anywho, this one is another attempt to prevent spelling reform, but what caught my eye is that the guy calling for the reform is none other than Robert Bridges, poet laureate--and who I know primarily through my work with Gerard Manley Hopkins's manuscripts. Most of the highest-amplitude Hopkins poems were first read by Bridges, through correspondence--he would write out beautifully handwritten copies of "The Windhover" etc. and then Hopkins would cross out all his mistakes, add all the accents he missed, etc. This is the reason that many print editions capitalize the "AND" in "The Windhover"--Hopkins seems kind of mad that he had de-emphasized the exclamation point after "buckle." Whatever their friendship was like, we owe it to Bridges that Hopkins' poems were published in 1918--more on that in five years.
The clash of Bridges and Hastings excited my poetry nerdiness, only I wish they'd talked about poetry instead of spelling. Bridges' plan is to simplify spelling by a moderate phonetic reform: instead of strictly phonetic spelling, he's willing to admit that many vowels are pronounced the exact same way. The solution is to just make that overtly clear, so that "they" and "day" are both acceptable phonetic spellings (no word on whether you could mix it up at will, "thay" and "dey".
Pseudo-Hastings points out that "they" and "day" don't actually rhyme. Hmm... maybe to her? I find myself wondering. I'm glad that we have our ridiculously spelt language, though. Even if I don't really get the argument on either side. Must be that I'm American.
Monday, July 8, 2013
The New Age, June 26 1913
If you'd like to read some really curdling racist logic, read Sevota's "White Pre-Eminence in South Africa." If you're into that. Thesis: Abraham Lincoln would not support expanding the freedom of black South Africans because he was reasonable. Bleh! The sort of turd one has to mention in one's blog, because these things shouldn't be passed over lightly, should they?
On a more lighthearted note, this issue of The New Age contains reviews of several of the other magazines I've been reading! Now I get to write a little review of a little review reviewing little reviews. Sorry.
I continue to want to read The English Review, which is only partially digitized (and not 1913), and they are the only magazine that doesn't get panned: they are praised for their work debunking the white slave traffic.
The Blue Review, aka Rhythm, is accused of publishing "incompetent" rather than "impertinent" poetry.
Poetry gets panned, and to be fair, the last issue was pretty bad (notice that I didn't say much about the poetry in it): "'Poetry' is as unsurprisingly amateur as any journal of the kind in England" (237). Tagore takes more flack--no mention of Pound or the Imagists.
The New Freewoman also panned, with the (obvious?) exception of Rebecca West's essay (see above). Still, there's plenty of "ouch!": "There is a great deal of cackle, but mostly lively cackle--which is saying much since the articles are anything from one to five paragraphs too long."
I'm still waiting for some interesting literature to reappear in The New Age, and may have to wait until Hastings returns from her summer vacation. I miss her like I miss John Stewart.
On a more lighthearted note, this issue of The New Age contains reviews of several of the other magazines I've been reading! Now I get to write a little review of a little review reviewing little reviews. Sorry.
I continue to want to read The English Review, which is only partially digitized (and not 1913), and they are the only magazine that doesn't get panned: they are praised for their work debunking the white slave traffic.
The Blue Review, aka Rhythm, is accused of publishing "incompetent" rather than "impertinent" poetry.
Poetry gets panned, and to be fair, the last issue was pretty bad (notice that I didn't say much about the poetry in it): "'Poetry' is as unsurprisingly amateur as any journal of the kind in England" (237). Tagore takes more flack--no mention of Pound or the Imagists.
The New Freewoman also panned, with the (obvious?) exception of Rebecca West's essay (see above). Still, there's plenty of "ouch!": "There is a great deal of cackle, but mostly lively cackle--which is saying much since the articles are anything from one to five paragraphs too long."
I'm still waiting for some interesting literature to reappear in The New Age, and may have to wait until Hastings returns from her summer vacation. I miss her like I miss John Stewart.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Poetry Magazine, June 1913
There are a few cool things in this issue of Poetry. My favorite is John Reed's response to Pound's Contemporania in the April 1913 issue of Poetry. Reed had published his poem "Sangar" in the December 1912 issue of Poetry. It is an allegory of the muckraker Lincoln Steffens' attempt to reconcile opposing sides of a political struggle (spoiler alert)--a virtuous king is murdered by his son for attempting to reconcile with the Huns. Pound then excerpts the ironic opening of "Sangar" for his poem "Pax Saturni" in the April number. In June, Reed's rightly-pissed-off letter about it gets printed. Clearly Pound was using Reed's poem as if that opening was serious, but as an allegory of contemporary events, it is supposed to be ironic. Reed applies the same treatment to Pound: "How would you like it if I were to amputate 'Say there are no oppressions,/ Say that it is a time of peace./ Say that labor is pleasant,/ Speak of the American virtues' and clap it at the head of an ode titled "President Taft?' Wouldn't it seem ridiculous to you?" The parting jab: "I am glad you and Walt Whitman are friends. You should have known each other long ago." Of course, Walt gets the last word: the issue closes with a quotation from him: "To have great poets, there must be great audiences too."
Also noteworthy is the Poetry debut of William Carlos Williams, which surprised me most in how many exclamation points he used. Four poems, 35 exclamation points!
Tagore publishes more poems, too--hopefully continuing the controversies that he's sparked.
Witter Bynner takes a poetic potshot at Yeats in an extended epigram, in the correspondence section.
Note added 8/10/13: I almost forgot to mention that this is the same John Reed who wrote the awesome article for The Masses. Or did I say that elsewhere?
Also noteworthy is the Poetry debut of William Carlos Williams, which surprised me most in how many exclamation points he used. Four poems, 35 exclamation points!
Tagore publishes more poems, too--hopefully continuing the controversies that he's sparked.
Witter Bynner takes a poetic potshot at Yeats in an extended epigram, in the correspondence section.
Note added 8/10/13: I almost forgot to mention that this is the same John Reed who wrote the awesome article for The Masses. Or did I say that elsewhere?
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The New Freewoman, June 15 1913
This post is on the first issue of The New Freewoman, edited by Dora Marsden.
The New Freewoman, The New Age, and The Masses all share socialist philosophies, but interpret socialism very differently (so far). The Masses seems most familiar, as it is about actual communist strikes, organization, and activism. The New Age, as I've discussed before, is a really odd duck, perhaps too diverse to be defined politically--but it wants labor to organize into guilds. The New Freewoman, on the other hand, is a reaction against (yes, against!) the Pankhurst-ian struggle for votes. The thesis: that women need to free their minds first, and attend to political power later:
"The few individual women before mentioned maintain that their only fitting description is that of Individual: Ends-in-themselves. They are Egoists. They are Autocrats, and government in their autocracy is vested in the Self which holds the reins in the kingdom of various arts and desires, and which defines the resultant of these different forces as the Satisfaction of Itself. The intensive satisfaction of Self is for the individual the one goal in life" (5).
That's still provocative--for me it refigures the connotations of "self-satisfied." It has the radical appeal of self-reliance, while it runs the obvious risk of complacency.
Emily Davison got run over by the king's horse earlier in June, 100 years ago. She was killed, perhaps an intentional martyr, perhaps in an act protest gone wrong (see Wikipedia, it's pretty fascinating). There's some discussion of her in The New Freewoman.
The coolest thing in this issue, though, is the essay "Trees of Gold," by Rebecca West. Check out this passage on the beauty of the Alps: "Rage shivered the mountains into peaks and deep distortions so beautiful that it strained the consciousness to perceive them: one could not fully grasp its beauty because of the limitations of this humanity. To enter into it one would need to be a mountain. It was exactly what I had always expected life to be like. Until now I had always been a little disappointed with things." I was especially glad to read Rebecca West because a good friend had recommended her to me a long time ago, but I hadn't followed up on the recommendation. Her writing is beautiful, and at least West admits that she wants to be able to vote.
Other things worth noting:
"Woman's New Era," by Francis Greirson, fuses individualist feminism with psychic research.
There are two articles about marriage, including a lengthy and commonsense-based argument for "free love," which actually sounds a lot like American middle class dating conventions these days.
That's all for now--more soon.
The New Freewoman, The New Age, and The Masses all share socialist philosophies, but interpret socialism very differently (so far). The Masses seems most familiar, as it is about actual communist strikes, organization, and activism. The New Age, as I've discussed before, is a really odd duck, perhaps too diverse to be defined politically--but it wants labor to organize into guilds. The New Freewoman, on the other hand, is a reaction against (yes, against!) the Pankhurst-ian struggle for votes. The thesis: that women need to free their minds first, and attend to political power later:
"The few individual women before mentioned maintain that their only fitting description is that of Individual: Ends-in-themselves. They are Egoists. They are Autocrats, and government in their autocracy is vested in the Self which holds the reins in the kingdom of various arts and desires, and which defines the resultant of these different forces as the Satisfaction of Itself. The intensive satisfaction of Self is for the individual the one goal in life" (5).
That's still provocative--for me it refigures the connotations of "self-satisfied." It has the radical appeal of self-reliance, while it runs the obvious risk of complacency.
Emily Davison got run over by the king's horse earlier in June, 100 years ago. She was killed, perhaps an intentional martyr, perhaps in an act protest gone wrong (see Wikipedia, it's pretty fascinating). There's some discussion of her in The New Freewoman.
The coolest thing in this issue, though, is the essay "Trees of Gold," by Rebecca West. Check out this passage on the beauty of the Alps: "Rage shivered the mountains into peaks and deep distortions so beautiful that it strained the consciousness to perceive them: one could not fully grasp its beauty because of the limitations of this humanity. To enter into it one would need to be a mountain. It was exactly what I had always expected life to be like. Until now I had always been a little disappointed with things." I was especially glad to read Rebecca West because a good friend had recommended her to me a long time ago, but I hadn't followed up on the recommendation. Her writing is beautiful, and at least West admits that she wants to be able to vote.
Other things worth noting:
"Woman's New Era," by Francis Greirson, fuses individualist feminism with psychic research.
There are two articles about marriage, including a lengthy and commonsense-based argument for "free love," which actually sounds a lot like American middle class dating conventions these days.
That's all for now--more soon.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Masses, June 1913
I stumbled across The Masses recently while scrolling through the MJP--and I'm so glad. It's another socialist rag, like The New Age, with a few important differences: it's American, feminist, more recognizably communist, and generally equalitarian. Not so much about guilds, more about strikes.
This issue begins with an inspiring declaration that it is not intended to make money, that it has "no respect for the respectable," that it will conciliate "nobody, not even its readers."
Topics are covered in short blurbs and longer stories--there are blurbs about strikes, about hunger striking feminists (the Pankhursts), white slavery (of course, but hilariously paired with "Nude Descending a Staircase"), the death of J.P. Morgan, etc. etc.
Longer pieces include a weird surrealist short story by Robert Carlton Brown about a "margonary," part marigold, part goldfish, part canary.
The gem of this magazine is the longest feature, "War in Paterson" by John Reed (beginning on page 14). Reed went to report on the striking workers in Paterson, only to be unfairly arrested and thrown in jail for 20 days. I don't think I've read first-person journalism like this--ever? It's so inspiring, too--the whole magazine makes one want to wave a red-starred American flag (see page 5). Max Eastman is the editor: I'm going to try to find out more about him.
Last, a small mystery: the list of stockholders of the magazine includes Hayden Carruth, but he (the poet) shouldn't be born yet (1921). His father? Uncle? Relative?
This issue begins with an inspiring declaration that it is not intended to make money, that it has "no respect for the respectable," that it will conciliate "nobody, not even its readers."
Topics are covered in short blurbs and longer stories--there are blurbs about strikes, about hunger striking feminists (the Pankhursts), white slavery (of course, but hilariously paired with "Nude Descending a Staircase"), the death of J.P. Morgan, etc. etc.
Longer pieces include a weird surrealist short story by Robert Carlton Brown about a "margonary," part marigold, part goldfish, part canary.
The gem of this magazine is the longest feature, "War in Paterson" by John Reed (beginning on page 14). Reed went to report on the striking workers in Paterson, only to be unfairly arrested and thrown in jail for 20 days. I don't think I've read first-person journalism like this--ever? It's so inspiring, too--the whole magazine makes one want to wave a red-starred American flag (see page 5). Max Eastman is the editor: I'm going to try to find out more about him.
Last, a small mystery: the list of stockholders of the magazine includes Hayden Carruth, but he (the poet) shouldn't be born yet (1921). His father? Uncle? Relative?
Friday, June 21, 2013
The New Age, June 19, 1913
I miss Beatrice Hastings. She hasn't written an article in the last few issues of The New Age (unless, of course, I miss Hastings because I miss her pseudonymous publications). The other writers seem largely concerned with cultivating the cold hauteur of English masculine intellect--and their writing suffers for it. The post on this issue, then, will be primarily historical rather than critical.
It's refreshing when The New Age is intelligently socialist. I liked the opening article on why poor people shouldn't have to put skin in the game through taxes--it could have been reprinted during the last election. The thesis: if you take money away from wage earners who are living at a subsistence level, you will have to provide services to make up the gap, which defeats the purpose of taxation. Of course, it's wages that are the problem--The New Age wants to abolish them altogether.
While S. Verdad and Romney, the international and military correspondents, are often very very wrong, sometimes they really nail it. This is from S. Verdad: "Everybody knows that Russia is supporting Servia, and that Bulgaria is counting upon the assistance of Austria. What will happen in the event of a dispute? May there not be another crisis? And, if so, war is inevitable" (197). Inevitable because Germany is losing its allies and needs to put up a show of strength.
On eugenics, The New Age has a common-sense response to Edgar Schuster's book about how England is degenerating etc. etc (209). The response: nobody knows how heredity really works, or what can be passed down, or how--so why make assumptions? I wonder how this piece resonates in 2013. I'll ask my friend and subject-matter-expert Adam Turner next time I see him.
Remember how Poetry was in ecstasies over Tagore? Not The New Age. Awful skewering satirical piece on page 213.
Henri Bergson seems to haunt everything modern/ist: he gets attacked in a letter to The New Age for being mystical (214-215).
There's a great caricature of G.K. Chesterton on the back cover.
Last, a quick thought: The New Age is always quick to run down poets and authors, but the poetry they publish is awful. I hope someday they explain what they like.
It's refreshing when The New Age is intelligently socialist. I liked the opening article on why poor people shouldn't have to put skin in the game through taxes--it could have been reprinted during the last election. The thesis: if you take money away from wage earners who are living at a subsistence level, you will have to provide services to make up the gap, which defeats the purpose of taxation. Of course, it's wages that are the problem--The New Age wants to abolish them altogether.
While S. Verdad and Romney, the international and military correspondents, are often very very wrong, sometimes they really nail it. This is from S. Verdad: "Everybody knows that Russia is supporting Servia, and that Bulgaria is counting upon the assistance of Austria. What will happen in the event of a dispute? May there not be another crisis? And, if so, war is inevitable" (197). Inevitable because Germany is losing its allies and needs to put up a show of strength.
On eugenics, The New Age has a common-sense response to Edgar Schuster's book about how England is degenerating etc. etc (209). The response: nobody knows how heredity really works, or what can be passed down, or how--so why make assumptions? I wonder how this piece resonates in 2013. I'll ask my friend and subject-matter-expert Adam Turner next time I see him.
Remember how Poetry was in ecstasies over Tagore? Not The New Age. Awful skewering satirical piece on page 213.
Henri Bergson seems to haunt everything modern/ist: he gets attacked in a letter to The New Age for being mystical (214-215).
There's a great caricature of G.K. Chesterton on the back cover.
Last, a quick thought: The New Age is always quick to run down poets and authors, but the poetry they publish is awful. I hope someday they explain what they like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)