Posted by: Rodger Jacobs | December 22, 2007

Invisible Ink

invisible ink 

“Put the pen down before you hurt yourself.”

“Hey! I didn’t see you there. Stopped by for coffee?”

“It’s Starbucks. Why else would I be here?”

“They sell CD’s.”

“I’m not in the market for plebian music.”

“Snob.”

“Whatever. Let the masses have their Celine Dion with their soy lattes. What the fuck do I know?”

“Sit down.”

“Will you stop scribbling in that notebook if I do?”

“Maybe.”

“Why do you do that? You don’t find it a tad pretentious?”

“In L.A.? In San Francisco, yes. You go to a bar or a coffee shop up there and every other person is leaning over a notebook or a pad of paper, throwing out bits of poetry that no one’s going to read –”

“Unless they put it on their blog. God, I hate blogs. Even more, I hate the person who concocted the word. Blog. Bleh.”

“It’s short for ‘weblog’.”

“Do I look like I only got access to the internet last Tuesday? I know that, Poetry Boy.”

“Stop.”

“Why? It’s funny. Do you share your poetry with the barristas? That’s another word I hate, by the way.”

“I don’t share my poems with anybody.”

“Then why do you do it? Unless you’re showing off.”

“Showing off?”

“Sure. Sitting in the window seat at Starbucks hour after hour, agonizing over a poem in your little notebook, brow furrowed, pen wrenched between your fingers. It’s such a pretentious display. Please tell me it gets you laid. I mean, that has to be the point.”

“There is no point.”

“Ah-ha! That’s precisely what I’m saying.”

“Look, in L.A. no one sits around writing poetry. That’s the thing I was trying to say a second ago. Here, people just think I’m making a grocery list or notes for a screenplay.”

“Like everyone else.”

“Yes, like everyone else.”

“Why do you want to be like everyone else?”

“I’m not. I’m writing poetry. For myself.”

“And that makes you special? How do you know that guy sitting over there isn’t writing poetry?”

“He could be. But it’s more likely he’s making a mental inventory of his fridge or writing notes for a pitch at Disney tomorrow. It’s L.A., the odds go in that direction.”

“Yeah?”

“Yeah.”

“Hmmm. Who’s the snob now?”

“Knock it off.”

“You want to know what I think?”

“Can I stop you?”

“No, you cannot. I think if you spent three-quarters of the time that you give to writing poetry — material that, by your own admission, is for no one’s eyes but your own — if you took that time and wrote something constructive like, say, a screenplay –”

“I don’t want to write a screenplay. No desire whatsoever.”

“No, you’d rather write words that are not meant to be read. Maybe you should write in invisible ink.”

“Maybe I should drive my car off Mulholland Drive, too.”

“What? And have the world lose one of it’s most productive poets? Perish the thought. Want another coffee?”


Responses

  1. Nicely done.

    Glad to see you’re back.

  2. haha good one….

    Merry Christmas Rodg!
    this read’s for you:

    http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-bk-greenland23dec23,0,3160866.story?coll=la-books-headlines

    xxoo!
    V.

  3. Hey, Stephen. Good to see you.

    Merry Christmas, Val. Fascinating article and a sad testament.

  4. Gordon Lish is an awful human being.

    Remaking Carver in Lish’s image

    More here. Poor Ray! First he has to overcome all of Gardner’s bad advice, then he gets a megalomanic editor like Lish.

    What kind of an editor actively promotes his editing as instrumental to a writer’s success, anyway?

  5. Joe, I’ve been following this Lish/Carver controvery since it first broke and I must admit that I have very mixed feelings. How can Gallagher assert that Lish “claimed too much credit for Carver’s achievments” and, in the same breath, essentially accuse Lish of creating, through the art of editing, the minimalist form that Carver is so famous for? She cannot have it both ways.

    As far as I’m concerned, from what I have read, Carver went along with the ruse (if you want to call it that) and benefited from the popularity of his critically applauded style. Have you ever read any of Carver’s long-form stories? I find most of them (except, perhaps, for “Kindling”, which was a posthumously published piece) difficult to get through. As the author of the New Yorker article remarked, it is the unsaid and the unspoken words — the silences — in Carver’s stories that make the reader sit up and take notice. That style put Carver firmly on the literary map. If Lish — as big as a prick as he was, and by all accounts he was a major asshole with a very high opinion of himself and his talents — but if Lish formed that style, then so be it.

    That’s my opinion. I could be wrong.

  6. Hey rodger keep up the good work, keep em flyin! Now shut up i have to finish this poem…

  7. Rodg, got a blog in here & you are my first linkpal!

    You know I love Raymond Carver, yes I do. My idol along with Kate Braverman in oh so many ways…

    I think it’s the silences and those drops off the cliff into ordinary disbelief (except total truth) he does so well that make him so startling on the page. He totally explains things in his posthumous book “Call If You Need Me” –btw, guess what I got for Christmas? Bukowski’s latest! “Come On In!”
    You’d dig these poems I know.

    Happiest New Year to you & Rodg, I want to learn to do screenplays, I swear. It’s so effing hard to try and distill ordinary writing into that form. I envy you for your facile ways that way.

    You would love this book of poems—thinking of you in this chapter:

    “I will never have
    a house in the valley
    with little stone men
    on the lawn”

    (me neither)

    xxoo!
    Valentine Bonnaire

  8. Hey Don. Feel free to post a little verse here someday if’n ya please. Just finished “Rabbit Run” and loved it. Starting “Rabbit Redux” and will probably have to order Volume 2 through you guys.

    Valentine — stick to prose and verse and stay away from screenplays. Bad mojo there.


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories