3 Jan 2014

Hail in the Begging Bowl: The Odyssey and Poetry of Santoka



James Abrams 

"Hail in the Begging Bowl: The Odyssey and Poetry of Santoka,"
in Monumenta Nipponica, Vol . XXXII , No. 3, Autumn 1977, pp. 269-302.

[This essay originally contained ideographic characters, which have been removed for this reprinting; ō and ū replaced with the plain letters o and u; notes have been left out.]



Into my metal bowl too,
hail.

                                        Santoka






Taneda Santoka, 1882-1940, is one of the most recent and perhaps one of the last of a long and colorful line of priest-poets in Japanese literary history. An alcoholic and business failure who became a Buddhist priest after an attempted suicide at the age of forty-two, Santoka spent the last sixteen years of his life as a raucous itinerant monk who survived through begging and the good graces of his many acquaintances. Throughout this period he was a voracious observer of life, nature and self in his prolific free-verse haiku. When Santoka died in October 1940 he was still a penniless alcoholic whose years of wandering and solitude had only made him more acutely aware of how far he remained from happiness and personal salvation. He had published seven small books of poetry which had been well received by his poetic circle but were almost entirely unknown by the Japanese literary world.

It has only been in the last ten years, with the publication of several biographical sketches of his life, that a minor 'Santoka boom' has brought the poet a measure of fame and reputation. The reasons for his recent rise to acclaim are not difficult to discern. People are first of all attracted to his lifestyle, the vagabond existence in which the road and pace of one's life are chosen by day-to-day inclinations. It is a lifestyle that despite its inevitable mental and physical hardships has an alluring sense of romanticism and nostalgia for the majority of people burdened with the responsibilities of family and job.

The image of Santoka the man is also extremely appealing. A literate and garrulous man, he considered a good conversation and a bottle of sake to be the ultimate source of pleasure. He was welcomed with open arms into the homes of friends and strangers all over the country, despite the common knowledge that the priest would drink their sake, share their bed, and then cheerfully bid farewell the next morning without a word about repaying the hospitality. Photographs of the poet present us with an almost comic figure, large bamboo hat, priest's garb, thick spectacles, metal begging bowl, and two spindly legs supported on a pair of straw sandals. But if the pictures somehow epitomize the incongruity of his role as a priest and expose the eccentricity of the man, they also hint at a robust spirit, boundless curiosity, and a large capacity for friendship.

Then finally there are his poems, which for all their simplicity seem to have struck a harmonious chord with many Japanese. Sometimes as short as two words and seldom more than ten, Santoka's free-verse haiku possess a degree of sincerity and involvement that is often lacking in Japanese poetry so dominated by form and convention.

Sincerity, of course, does not necessarily make for great poetry, and Santoka certainly did not possess the poetic genius of itinerant nature poets such as Saigyo or Basho or the intellectual skills and polish of semi-recluses such as Kamo no Chomei or Buson. Yet the intricate relationship between his artistic and experiential lives, coupled with his training in Zen and Buddhist thought, gives his work an acuteness of expression and at times a striking freshness.

This essay will in the main be devoted to an introduction to Santoka's poetic works. To clarify his poems I have added a prefatory introduction to Santoka's life and have tried to arrange his poems to give a clear image of his physical and mental transitions after he entered the priesthood. The poems selected are grouped mainly by subject matter rather than time period. I have tried to picture the man and the poet by choosing poems that best represent his feelings toward the subjects mat were of primary concern to him—nature, religion, travel, sake, poetry, solitude, and death. Excerpts from his diary are also included.

SANTOKA'S LIFE


Santoka was born as Taneda Shoichi, the oldest son of Takejiro and Fusa, on 3 December 1882 in Bofu, Yamaguchi prefecture, a rural area in western Japan. His father was a well-off landowner who kept two or three mistresses and seems to have been generally too busy with his affairs of the heart to properly manage his business. When Shoichi was ten years old, his mother, who had given birth to five children, committed suicide at the age of thirty-three by jumping into the family well. She was probably driven to the act by her husband's dissipation and neglect of the family. The children were thereafter raised by an aunt.
Shoichi was a good student who from an early age showed an interest in literature. At the age of nineteen he left home for Tokyo to prepare for entering university, and in the following year he was admitted into the Department of Literature, Waseda University. It was in this period that he first began to use the pen name Santoka. It was also at this time that Shoichi first began to drink heavily. His inability to keep up with his classes was doubtlessly in part a result of his drinking habits, and in 1904, at the age of twenty-two, he suffered a nervous breakdown, dropped out of school, and returned to his father's home. Takejiro, whose intemperate habits had not mellowed with age, was forced to sell his property in 1906, and in the same year father and son opened a sake brewery in a nearby village. However, from the start neither the womanizing father nor the drinking son showed much proclivity for. running the business.

Unlike his father, Shoichi was throughout his life only minimally interested in women. He admits in his writings that the suicide of his mother had deeply wounded him and had left a void in his spirit which no other woman was ever able to fill. Despite his protests that he was determined to enter the priesthood and had no need for a wife, his father forced him into a marriage in 1909 with Sato Sakino, the oldest daughter of a man from a neighboring village. The new couple seem to have been on good terms for a few months, during which time Sakino became pregnant with their first and only child, Ken. But Shoichi began returning home drunk or staying out all night, and there was soon little or no intimacy between the two.

In 1911 Shoichi contributed translations of Turgenev and Maupassant to the literary journal Seinen. Two years later, at the age of thirty-one, he became a disciple of the poet Ogiwara Seisensui, a leader of the 'new tendency school' of haiku, which discarded the traditional use of seasonal words and the 5-7-5 syllables for a freer verse form. Shoichi, now using his literary name Santoka, at the same time began writing for Seisensui's poetry journal, Soun. In 1916, the same year in which he joined the staff of Soun as a poetry editor, the sake business went bankrupt after father and son had allowed the sake to go sour for two straight years. Taking his wife and child, Santoka moved to Kumamoto city, where poetry acquaintances helped him to set up a secondhand bookstore.

His attempt to settle down into a normal life was again disrupted in 1918 when his younger brother Jiro committed suicide and Tsuru, the aunt who had raised him after his mother's death, died. Santoka left the management of the bookstore and a later picture-frame shop to his wife, and more and more often had to be bailed out by his friends after running up drinking bills which he had no way of paying. In 1919 he left his wife to find work in Tokyo and in the following year Sakino obtained a divorce from him. Santoka found a job in Tokyo as a librarian, but after two years, in December 1922, he quit after another nervous breakdown. He stayed in Tokyo long enough to experience the devastating Great Kanto Earthquake in September 1923, soon after which he returned to Kumamoto.

On a night in December 1924 a very intoxicated Santoka tried to commit suicide by standing in the path of an oncoming train. The engineer spotted him in time and the train managed to pull up before bitting him. Santoka was taken to a Zen temple in Kumamoto to recuperate and it was there that he resolved to begin training for the priesthood. In the following months he underwent a great change, forcing himself into a rigidly fixed regimen, and in February 1925, at the age of forty-two, he was ordained as a priest and assigned as custodian of a small temple in rural Kumamoto. For a year he served faithfully at the temple, opening a Sunday school and a night school for the villagers, while concentrating on his poetry. But he was continually plagued by the idea that a man of his spiritual weakness was in no way qualified to minister to the souls of die villagers who fed him and paid for the upkeep of the temple. Finally, unable to bear the isolation and his spiritual turmoil, he gave up his post in April 1926 and set off as a mendicant priest on wanderings that continued almost uninterrupted for six years.

Santoka was to destroy the diary of his early years on the road, and there is no clear record of where the priest's wanderings took him. He apparently traveled throughout Kyushu, crossed over to Shikoku, and begged his way through most of the western end of the main island of Honshu. In 1929 and 1930 he returned briefly to Kumamoto and stayed with Sakino, helping in her store. He also again started to contribute to Soun and began publication of his own poetry journal, Sambaku.

By now his life had settled into a familiar pattern: an earnest attempt to lead a serious life, followed by a drinking and spending spree, deep repentance, and the start of another directionless, soul-cleansing journey. Santoka walked from village to village, chanting for alms at every farmhouse he passed by. He spent his nights in cheap lodging houses, which he paid for with his day's take of coins and rice. Increasingly in his later years he also used his pilgrimages as an excuse to visit his wide range of poetry colleagues in western Japan, staying for a few days of good food and abundant sake before setting off for the next village or the next friend.

In the autumn of 1932, with the financial assistance of his admirers he settled into a country hermitage he named 'Gochuan', literally, 'Cottage in that Midst', in the village of Ogori, Yamaguchi prefecture. In the same year he published his first book of poems, Hachi no ko (Rice Bowl Child), and put out a few more issues of Sambaku. He planted his first garden, and took pride in the fact that at least to a limited extent he could lead a self-dependent life. In the spring of 1934 the restless Santoka set off on a trip into the central mountains of Shinshu, but his fifty years of age were beginning to tell on him and he was hospitalized with acute pneumonia. Early in the following year, back at Gochuan, physically and mentally exhausted and increasingly obsessed with death, Santoka again tried to kill himself by taking a large quantity of sleeping pills. But by the following spring, 1936, he was back on the road, traveling to Tokyo for a meeting of Soun backers and then heading north into the Tohoku region.

The last few years of his life were spent in active writing and continual drifting. As he noted in his diary at that time, his only two purposes in life were 'to produce all the true poems that are within me' and 'to die a blessed death, without lengthy pain, without being a burden to others.' In 1938 he finally abandoned Gochuan, and after another trip eastward crossed over to Shikoku where, in December 1939, he settled down in a temple hermitage, again provided through the assistance of poetry colleagues, near the city of Matsuyama.

On 10 October 1940, his poetry companions gathered at the cottage for their regular discussion meeting and found Santoka in what seemed to be a drunken stupor, not an unusual condition. They left him sleeping and went ahead with their meeting, but after they had all returned home, a neighbor came by to check on him late that night and, finding his condition worsened, called a doctor. Santoka died early the next morning, shortly before his fifty-eighth birthday, of an apparent apoplexy.

MOTION

The resolution of spiritual doubts through physical movement is hardly a new phenomenon peculiar to Santoka or Japanese priest-poets. Moses wandered through the desert for forty years before finding the Promised Land. Parcival and his contemporaries in die Middle Ages discovered the secrets of the heart and spirit after years of wandering from one adventure to another. Kerouac and his generation made the highway the modern path to salvation. What Santoka in particular inherited was a deeply ingrained Japanese tradition of seeking in nature itself a release from worldly anxiety and an opening to spiritual enlightenment. Since ancient times the excursion into nature has been linked with, and to a large extent indistinguishable from, the religious pilgrimage.

In the Heian period emperors and nobles led their entourages down rivers and into mountains for the dual purpose of visiting shrines or temples and stimulating the poetic and aesthetic sensibilities of the court. In the Middle Ages Saigyo and Chomei, together with thousands of other priests and social outcasts, found that by retreating into nature they could to some extent relieve the burdens of living in a very troubled world. Yet while their Western counterparts have tended to seek wisdom and reason in their natural environment, Japanese nature-lovers asked of nature no more than to give them peace of mind. For some this meant silent and meditative absorption into nature; for others such as Santoka, it meant an exhausting physical experience, the positive and aggressive exposure of self to blazing suns, freezing rain, and endless roads of dust and mud.

What distinguishes Santoka in this long tradition is the almost desperate quality about his journeys. There were times when it was only motion, only day after day of walking, that maintained his sanity. As he notes in his diary:

Wordlessly I cross mountain after mountain. To an almost overpowering degree I feel the loneliness and tranquility of isolation. Thus I continue to walk, with questions of what will come next, what will I do, what ought I to do, and still I walk. There is nothing I can do but walk. To walk—that alone is far enough.

This idea of the vital necessity of movement and the partial release it brings to the anguish of his soul is a constant theme in his poems.

There can be no other way,
I keep walking.

Seeking something,
walking through the wind.

There is no road but this road,
a spring snow falls.

Open to the wind,
over and over condemning myself, I walk.

The muddied waters flow on,
clearing as they go.

Laying on the grass,
I open the wounds of this trip to the sun.

Santoka's literary mentor Seisensui commented, 'Santoka walks without purpose, walks like the clouds or the rivers, because he has to keep moving, because walking is living for him.' This life force that refused Santoka an end to his journey is best illustrated in one of his most famous poems:

I push my way through,
push my way through,
green mountains.

Anyone who has ever climbed a mountain knows the experience of being certain that the ridge ahead must surely be the peak, only to discover that there is yet another ridge towering up behind it. For Santoka this feeling of frustration, mixed with determination to continue on, was not confined to one mountain top or one long day of traveling, but to years of wandering without finding his destination. He might scale one peak, find one moment of respite, but always with the final realization that there lay yet another road and another mountain in front of him.

Santoka was himself greatly concerned about the unproductive, unstable nature of his life. Both before and after becoming a priest he made furiously enthusiastic attempts to reform himself and take proper care of his family. Through the years 1930 and 1931 he spent considerable time with his former wife Sakino in Kumamoto, trying to convince himself that he could be satisfied helping her tend the store, looking after their son Ken, and occupying himself with his poetry journals and poetry acquaintances. In 1933 and 1934 he temporarily found some degree of peace and calmness in his country retreat at Gochuan. But in the end it was the very determination to settle down to a normal, secure life that led to his overpowering sense of guilt and self-condemnation when he found himself at the end of another drinking spree and forced him into yet another pilgrimage to cleanse his soul.

As Santoka left Gochuan in December 1935 after another suicide attempt, he wrote:

Above the water passes the shadow of a cloud,
something will not let me be at peace.
And on the same trip he expressed his feelings as the sweet exhaustion of movement began to warm his body and heal his battered soul:
One more layer stripped off,
from journey to journey.


SELF-INTERROGATION

It is essential to an understanding of Santoka's inner turmoil to remember that when he did finally turn to religion it was to Zen and not to another Buddhist or Christian sect. As the following quotations from his diary reveal, what Santoka sought was not a god who would embrace him or a faith that would soothe his spirit, but a frame of mind that would permit him to strip himself of all his hypocrisies and teach him to accept with tranquility his place in the universe.

There is nothing so easy to say but so hard to do as 'give up'. Resignation is not self-abandonment, nor blind obedience. Resignation is the spiritual peace permitted only after one has exhausted the heart and mind of things.

It was through Zen, which teaches that salvation can be reached only through self-discipline and order, not doctrine or faith, that Santoka tried to achieve this resignation and spiritual peace that so eluded him.
The following excerpts from his diary may also help to illustrate the nature of his harsh self-interrogation:

How can the man who cannot believe in himself possibly believe in God?
One day's life resolves for that day alone one's doubts about the universe.
Human life begins in conquest of one's self and it ends in conquest of one's self.
A man who has consumed all his power and has never known a word of prayer is a hero free of illusions.
If you find you must pray, turn toward yourself and pray.
Self-love is not self-flattery, it is not tolerance toward oneself. The man who loves himself is the most severe, the most heartless toward himself.

Weep not for seeking and not obtaining, but for seeking and not being fulfilled in what is gained.
The life of the weak is a continuing chain of acts of repentance. And this repentance is no more than repentance for its own sake.
In the strong too there are times of repentance, but there is no repentance of the kind that does not give rise to the bud of new life.
The truth is both full of mercy and at the same time brutal. Just as there is truth in God there is also truth in the devil.
To live the true life is to know suffering.

What we find in these aphorisms, a pursuit of Santoka's into which he put a great deal of effort in his middle years, is the image of a sick man determined to cure himself through naked exposure to the elements, an existentialist who must interminably suffer the recognition of his inability to cope with life. Santoka sought to overcome his spiritual weaknesses by negating any outer source of salvation and putting all his energy into self-interrogation and self-revelation. But in his pursuit of the truth about himself he was to find that his weaknesses became all the more apparent, that he was undeniably a bogus priest who was unable to control his physical appetites and lived off the good will of his friends. Thus the truth led to suffering, and suffering became almost an aesthetic virtue worthy of cultivation. He wrote:

The honest man must suffer. The honest man becomes honest in proportion to his suffering. Pain deepens thought and strengthens life. Pain is the purification of life.
If the search for truth results not in the salvation of peace of mind but in the further accumulation of suffering, and if by choice or fate the final escape of death is not yet open, then suffering has to be recognized for its inextricable relationship to life.
Even when he doubted god, doubted man, and even doubted himself, he could never doubt the fact of his own suffering. To that extent was his suffering deeply embedded and deeply rooted in his existence.
Pain always comes from within, never from without. The seed of pain that we plant, we ourselves must harvest and drink of its fruit. Pain cannot be broken, it can only be embraced. We must grasp the dark power at the bottom of pain.

Yet Santoka was not unaware of the dangerously sentimental and masochistic nature of his excessive inclination to suffer. As noted above, he found his purposeless acts of repentance nothing more than an additional form of weakness, to be scorned and ridiculed.
Just as there is seduction in pleasure, there is attraction in pain. Those people whose lives are nothing but pain yet have no fear of death often continue to live, not because of the will for existence but because they have grasped the sweetness at the bottom of pain.

To taste pain is valuable, but to become accustomed to pain is fearful.

The emptiness of those who torture their flesh in order to soothe their spirit.

This last statement reads like a condemnation of his entire course of life. The man who will walk thousands of miles to calm his spirit realizes even before the journey has begun that it will all be meaningless and futile. But it is also the only course left to him, and he must travel it with humility and dignity.
The man who has come from hell does not shout and run. Silently, gazing fixedly at the earth, he walks.

NATURE AND SIMPLICITY

Santoka's path away from the established life of man into nature has been followed by numerous religious and intellectual figures in Japanese history. The world of nature has offered a limitless arena of serenity, inevitability, and unalterable flow for those who had been too caught up in the worldly affairs of man to contemplate mortal life and universal eternity.

But Santoka was also a priest who never believed in an eternal afterlife and who had despaired of ever achieving salvation. As a consequence his perception of the hundreds of mountains and rivers he crossed in his journeys was of a different dimension from the view of those who sought in nature a definition of life. Santoka never attempted to solve the divine pattern manifested in nature, nor did he try to find in nature a symbolic equivalent to human mortality.

While Santoka's poetry abounds in images from nature, he almost completely ignores such traditional images as the plum and cherry blossoms, the nightingale, wild geese, and maple leaves. He was consciously trying to break away from binding poetic conventions, and he was not interested in the well-established religious and philosophical connotations that they suggested. Santoka was to find expression for his own state of being in the growth and decay of nature, but he was far too involved in revealing his own individual soul to find universal truths in the scattering of blossoms or the falling of autumn leaves. His religious deference to nature is of a more undefinable, emotional quality, a sense of awe before the miracle and profundity of life:

Sacredness,
a pure white chicken.

What is sown will grow,
I tread firmly the calmness of the earth.

Receiving the deep autumn waters,
I return.

A voice stirring above the wind,
'Praise to Kannon.'

The first of the above poems was written when Santoka spotted a chicken perched on the roof of a temple he was visiting. He finds that the strikingly white living animal is able to convey a deeper impression of sacredness than the temple and the religious images within it. The next two poems express a sense of joyful thanksgiving on experiencing the bountifulness of nature. Nature is a religious altar, offering worshipers myriad rewards. And in the final poem he hears a voice real or imagined, or perhaps his own, that seems to harmonize with the wind in an endless, amorphous chant to Kannon, the Goddess of Mercy.

But much more than the reverence for nature's mystery and profundity, it was the sense of serenity and in some instances joy in the simplicity and unequivocality of nature that sustained Santoka on his journeys and provided the source of his poetry. He approached nature in literally an almost naked state, carrying his alms bowl and one pair of chopsticks as his luggage. In his view, to protect himself from nature was a sacrilege against his self-proclaimed discipline of simplicity. He even went to the extent of refusing to wear false teeth after all his teeth had fallen out and, except in the most dire cases, declining the use of mosquito nets, both needless artifices for a man who has opened himself up to nature in its entirety. Santoka was rewarded while this tenacity of spirit lasted with a view of life and nature at its most basic and unadorned, and this view at times filled him with a joy as profound as his grief could be limitless.

With a buoyant heart,
I taste the water.

Santoka's love of cold, clear water was almost as great as his taste for sake. In this small but spirited verse the poet's heart surges with pleasure as the cool liquid circulates through his hot and tired body. He does not drink the water but tastes it, absorbs it into himself. Other poems with water as the theme include:

The going gets late,
how sweet this water tastes.

Winter-withered mountain,
all the water one can drink.

Together with the sound of water
I have descended to the village.

Santoka's poems expressing his real joy in the simplicity of his life on the road or at the hermitage, and the unambiguity with which the natural scene complements this joy, are among his very best. To give a small sampling:

Ah, the sparrow dances,
Ah, the dandelions scatter.

Finally it has blossomed,
the flower is white.

Stretching out my legs
to take in the day's last rays of sun.

Evening sky,
the silhouettes of farmers in their fields
 deepen.

Not a wisp of cloud,
I take off my bamboo hat.

The wind through the pines is cool,
man eats,
horse eats.

As I walk, buttercups,
as I sit, buttercups.

The ground moist with morning dew,
I go where I want.

Suddenly,
something grazing past in the wind.

The hotness, sweetness of potato gruel,
autumn has come.

The sun's rays
lingering on withered leaves—
the color is sad.

Santoka tells of one small town in Kagoshima where the police would not allow him to beg. Buying a newspaper, he spent the day lounging in the sun, then checked into a cheap lodging house where he was quartered with a Korean peddler, a traveling masseur, and a stone polisher. After exchanging stories with these other men of the road, he wrote letters for both the illiterate masseur and polisher, and then when all had gone to bed he took out his diary and wrote of his day:

At last they are all asleep,
ah, it's a good, moonlight night.

He found particular attraction in the fertility and tenacity of weeds, writing in his diary, 'My existence is not different from that of wild grass. But in that alone I find satisfaction.' The following poem expresses the wild beauty and vitality of weeds:

In its natural state
as a weed,
it shoots forth its buds.

Just as Santoka sang of the white chicken perched on the temple roof, he found in the whiteness and plainness of his main and often only food, rice, a constant source of celebration:

The sweetness of rice,
a blue, blue sky.

The fallen leaves are warm,
from the rice I chew a glow.

Light fills the air,
the rice is shining white.

The sweet taste of rice,
alone, chewing.

Crickets,
only enough rice for tomorrow.

A moonlight night,
polishing the only rice I have.

Another joy was a hot morning bath. Santoka loved the hot springs of Kyushu, and when he had the money he spent long days luxuriating at the baths:

Soaking in the quietness
of a brimming morning bath.

The pleasantness of a morning bath,
quietly waiting my turn in the steam.

My stark naked body,
revealed to the sun.

Even in the last year of his life, with his physical energy sorely reduced and in a deepened state of depression over his incorrigible lifestyle, he was able to write verses full of wonder at the beauty and simplicity of nature:

A persimmon resting on my palm,
fascinatingly red.

If Santoka denied an afterlife, he was still a firm believer in the perpetual present, and nature, always changing but always the same, was the manifestation of this tenseless world. In the preface to his poetry collection Sanko Suiko ('Mountain Travels, Water Travels'), he writes the poem,

When in the mountains,
I will watch the mountains,
On rainy days
I will listen to the rain,
Spring, summer, fall, winter,
Morning is good,
Evening is good.

This sense of the world of today, the reduction of life to a single object and a single moment, is also seen in these poems:

Today,
I pick butterbur flowers,
I eat butterbur flowers.

Today,
the roadside dandelions of this day
have blossomed.
Endlessness

Yet if there were moments of joy in his travels, there were also times when Santoka felt the endlessness of his trek and the vastness of the natural world draining his energy and weighing him down. The spatial and temporal infinitude of nature made him painfully aware of the insignificance and the futility of his attempt to confront nature in its rawest form. He wrote,

In the midst of life and death,
a steady fall of snow.

The poem could be translated more prosaically, 'The snow of life and death falls steadily'—a rather trite statement of the continuity of nature. A similar poem by the poetry master Saigyo offers a deeper insight into what Santoka was saying:

Though I know
this cicada-shell body
to be a trifling thing,
this day of falling snow
is bitter cold.

Like Santoka, Saigyo was continually struggling with the contradiction between his desire to come to grips with mortality and his attachment to life. An d in both of their poems, they have come to the disheartening realization that their inner struggle is of so little significance in the face of the reality of a chilling winter snowfall. In Santoka this despair in the insignificance of his existence is often expressed in terms of the immeasurable vastness of the world in which he travels:

Waking from an afternoon nap,
whichever way I look,
mountains.

The shrikes cry,
there is no place to abandon myself.

My home is far away,
the sprout of a tree.

Picking up a stick in the wind,
I walk on.

The sound of water,
from afar, from near,
leading me on.

The crow crying,
the crow flying,
no place to settle down.

Sweltering heat,
train tracks straight into the distance.

A crow flies off,
I will cross the water.

Unending rain,
mountains,
more mountains,
unknown mountains.

My spirit is exhausted,
the mountains, the sea,
are too beautiful.

Filled with shades of night
the water flows on,
autumn lodgings.

The endless journey, and the insignificance Santoka attached to man-built monuments, are well expressed in the poem that he wrote after completing a long journey to the famous ancient city of Hiraizumi in the northern area of Tohoku in 1936. It was the farthest north Santoka ever traveled.

I have come this far,
a drink of water, and I am gone.
Several visits to the coast of the rough Japan Sea evoked similar sentiments of the vastness of nature:
My heart empty,
the surge and ebb
of pounding waves.

The sound of waves is unending,
home is so far away.

Thrusting my legs into the wild sea,
a journey stretching into the past,
into the future.

Now I am here,
the blueness of the sea is infinite.
There is also the short but difficult poem:
I ford across
a bone-dry stream.

One can only guess at the emotions of the poet as he wrote this last poem, but from his emphasis on 'bone-dry' (Jcarekittd), it may well be imagined that Santoka here too felt the vitality of his journey seeping away, that die lifeless riverbed had again reminded him of the ultimate emptiness and terrible loneliness of his unending path.

LONELINESS

If a sense of insignificance before nature was the philosophical burden that Santoka had to carry, loneliness and a sense of isolation were the more visceral feelings he experienced in his life on the road. By temperament he was a man who loved good companionship, and his forays into unfamiliar regions where he knew no one were conscious acts of self-discipline and penitence for his frequent falls from grace. This forced separation heightened his awareness of the isolation and loneliness of being in a place where he suddenly had no one to talk to and fall back on. The intensity of this feeling is shown in some of his poems:

A crow caws,
I too am alone.

Falling snow,
alone, alone I go.

Watching the moon begin to sink,
I alone.

On a straight road,
so lonely.

In the midst alone,
always alone,
the grass is bursting into bloom.

One can hardly doubt the depth of the poet's emotions in these poems, but they are perhaps too direct, too filled with pathos, to escape the charge of being uncomfortably sentimental. Santoka is better able to convey the feeling without the theatrical pose in his poems in which he uses a more classical approach of Japanese literature, such as expressing his loneliness in the sadness of autumn:

Without a home of my own,
the autumn becomes ever deeper.

The road has disappeared,
the leaves whisper of their fall.

The snap of dried twigs,
not a thought in my head.

A single stream of water
drawn down upon a solitary house,
shades of autumn.

The tips of reeds,
walking on
with the path of the wind.

There is also this moving poem written on returning to his empty hermitage after a long journey:

Penetrating quiet,
dust on the desk.
Various other poems aptly express this mood:
The winter night that has left me here,
in such a way.

A whole day without a word,
the sound of waves.

Someone speaks
in a voice like my father,
this trip is filled with sadness.

Walking through the autumn rains,
a village where no one will let me in.

Iron begging bowl,
receiving a falling leaf.

Into my metal bowl too,
hail.

This last poem, one of Santoka's best known, was written on a cold January day as he walked companionless along a deserted seacoast. It calls on the reader to imagine both the scene and the sound of hail hitting the metal alms bowl. The dull metallic ring of the bowl shivers through the body of the solitary figure, increasing his coldness and sense of isolation.

Mention must also be made of Santoka's deep attraction to shigure, the long cold drizzles of autumn, as an image to describe the loneliness of the long journey, both in its figurative and literal sense. This subject is taken up in an essay on Santoka by the literary scholar Maruya Saiichi, and I will here present only a few of Santoka's poems on the subject:

Autumn rains,
walking deep into the mountains
of the autumn rains.

That sound—
autumn rain?

From morning an autumn drizzle,
the beauty of persimmon leaves.

Soaked in an autumn rain,
the friend I await has come.

A steady autumn drizzle,
one road, straight ahead.

A temple among the pines,
the autumn rains have begun,
here I will stay.


BEGGING AND SELF-RIDICULE

Another factor that made his journeys long and lonely was a strong inner resistance to the act of mendicancy which he demanded of himself as a monk on pilgrimage. He disliked begging, disliked staying in cheap, crowded, and noisy inns, and, in the tradition of many of the literary recluses of Japan, preferred when possible to accept the shelter provided by his friends and benefactors. He was also aware of the hypocrisy of justifying his purposeless wandering by the donning of a monk's garb, and he often thought himself nothing more than a dissipated beggar disguised as a holy man seeking enlightenment. His friends were in general agreement that Santoka was basically a poet and not a priest, and that his priest's robes were of secondary importance in his life and work, but Santoka had to convince himself that his pilgrimages were not in fact compounding die sinful nature of his life.

He justified his begging by telling himself that he did not presume to give sermons but did awaken the spirit of Buddha in people by receiving alms. He also lived by a fairly strict rule mat when he had received enough for his daily living needs he would stop begging and return to writing or walking. There were times when he found satisfaction or at least resignation in this life, as in these poems:

Tossed to me in offering,
the shine of a single coin.

No more houses where I can beg,
clouds over the mountains.

More often he chose to see himself as a humorous and good-natured, if somewhat ridiculous, oddity. In a poem titled 'Self-image', he describes himself as,

Dressed in rags,
bulging in padded winter-clothes,
a face of innocent happiness.
He tried to put himself over as a foolish, harmless old man, not to be held responsible for his eccentricities:
The heaviness of baggage
I cannot bring myself to throw away,
on my front, on my back.

In another poem, written in 1931 as he started out on another trip, he laughs at himself rather ruefully in a poem titled 'Self-ridicule':

A receding figure,
soaked in the autumn rains?

His complete lack of possessions, his primitive way of living, are laughed at in the poems about his teeth, of which only three remained by the time he was fifty:

No money,
no possessions,
no teeth,
alone.

Something missing,
another tooth fallen out,
I heave it into the evening darkness.

But there were also times when humor would not sustain the weight of his self-abuse, as in the autumn of 1930 when, after drinking up his gains, he cried, 'It is truly shameful that the gifts I receive are converted directly into alcohol and nicotine.' It was at these times that his chanting and begging took on a more distracted, guilt-ridden quality.

Walking into the wind,
heaping abuse upon myself.

Taking in the scorching sun,
begging as I go.

I go on soaked by the rain
of my selfish, willful journey.

On his way back from a trip to northern Japan in 1936 he stopped wearing his priest's robes in penitence for indulging in an eating and drinking binge that he could not pay for and again having to be bailed out by a friend. In the last year of his life when his fortunes were at an ebb, he once more stripped off his robes and for a short time sought alms not as a priest but as a mere beggar:

Once again the beggar that I was,
a single towel.

As his life drew toward its end and he realized that he was as far away from any kind of enlightenment as ever, Santoka began to lose confidence in his begging, his efforts became half-hearted, and alms were often not enough for food and lodging. His despondency was reflected in a letter he wrote to a young poet who wanted to emulate his lifestyle, for he sharply rebuked the man for even thinking about leading such an irresponsible life.
In a short poem titled 'Regrets', written in his later years, he asks himself:

My bamboo hat—
has it too begun to leak?

The wide-brimmed kasa that Santoka had worn for so many years had finally begun to rot and fall apart, and he rather wistfully ridicules his own tattered, worn-out body as it too gradually begins to waste away.

SECLUSION

In 1932, at the age of fifty, Santoka found temporary respite from his long journey when he began to live in the hermitage that his friends had renovated for him in the village of Ogori. He named it 'Gochuan', 'Cottage in that Midst', from a Kannon surra which contains the phrase, 'In that midst a solitary man wrote, and this he sang.'

A friend who taught at a local agricultural high school mobilized his students to rebuild the abandoned cottage, and Santoka's closest friend, fellow Soun poet Kimura Rokuhei of Kumamoto, was put in charge of a modest fund to provide him with a periodic allowance. The money was entrusted to Rokuhei to prevent Santoka from spending it all in one drunken splurge. The first days at Gochuan were some of the most tranquil Santoka was ever to experience. After settling down there, he wrote:

Finally I have returned to the world of existence; I feel that I can actually speak of 'returning home, meditating in peace'. For a long time I have wandered. Not only my body but my heart has wandered. I have suffered the fact that I must live. I have found anguish in the necessity of existence. Thus finally I have been able to find peace with existence, and through that I have discovered myself.

He busied himself in writing, keeping his few belongings in spotless order, visiting with neighbors, and receiving old friends and new acquaintances eager to listen to his endless stories and share with him a bottle of sake. For the first time he cultivated his own garden and received great satisfaction from watching the products of his labors:

Over a red sunrise
a rain is falling,
I will plant radishes.

His contentment in this period is reflected in poems that show a genuine sense of harmony and optimism in life:

The spider weaves his web,
I affirm myself.

This morning the sound of water,
a feeling that good news will come.

To live life in tranquility,
a wren.

Opening the window,
a window full of spring.

Every day naked,
butterflies,
dragonflies.

Dusk,
polishing a placid kettle.

Receiving,
contented,
alone, I lay down my chopsticks.

Yet just as on the road Santoka was constantly battling the loneliness of being in a strange land, so also in his cottage life there was the oppressing loneliness of silence and long hours of inactivity. Loneliness is a theme with a long history in Japanese literature, but for Santoka it was something of a different dimension from the concept of courtiers such as Murasaki Shikibu or Ki no Tsurayuki, who found in it social refinement, or the renga masters Sogi and Shinkei, who made it into a standard of beauty. Loneliness continually gnawed at Santoka, depriving him of the peace of mind he so desperately sought and driving him to the bouts of self-oblivion and mindless wandering he so wanted to avoid.

Santoka tried to overcome the pain of loneliness at Gochuan. He urged himself to surrender to the very essence of solitude. 'We must bear the loneliness of isolation. We must overcome our own coldness. We must dig down into there and from that bottom lick the sweet taste of life oozing out.' He tried to discipline himself to accept solitude coolly, without emotion: 'D o not write in tears. The poem written in tears is both cowardly and superficial. Until the tears have completely dried, sit in silence, alone, and think.'
For the next few years he spent much of his time at the cottage, often in contentment and often in nearly unbearable restlessness, but always conscious of being alone.

Snow settles upon snow,
I am in the midst of quietude.

Waking, the snow is falling,
it is not lonely,
and yet …

A crow on a withered tree,
The New Year has come and gone.

One flower on the desk,
slowly opening.

One day the longing for a friend,
buds of trees, buds of grass.

Always alone,
a red dragonfly.

Feelings of joy,
and feelings of sadness,
thickly growing grass.

When I calm my heart,
the sound of water.

Today, too, all day,
no one has come,
fireflies.

This last poem is somewhat reminiscent of Saigyo's verse,

Deep in the mountains,
in this retreat
where no man comes,
the only sound
is the clamor of monkeys.

While dragonflies and monkeys are quite different as an artistic image, both poets see or hear another living creature in their isolated world, and the fact that these living things are beyond the realm of human communication makes the solitude of the poet even more poignant.

No one to talk to,
I eat my dinner under the mosquito net.

The shadows subdued,
deep at night
I am eating.

At the tobacco shop
no cigarettes,
a cold rain falls.

No one is here,
the fallen leaves I swept away,
deep in the day.

Despite his sincere efforts to settle down to a peaceful and moderate life, Santoka would still at times be found passed out along me road after frantic drinking bouts. He occasionally received funds from his benefactors, but his drinking kept him destitute most of the time. Leading a sedentary life, he was unable to consume his excess energy and frustration, and he came to feel more and more closed in:

Closed in, by myself,
an insect comes rapping
against the sliding door.

As time went by his need to travel again began to stir him, and although he was not to abandon Gochuan for good until 1938, his interests had long before started to wander, and the cottage gradually fell into a state of disrepair.

The wall is crumbling,
vines creeping in.


FRIENDSHIP

I have nothing at all, nothing except friends. To have such good friends is a source of pride for me.
It is yet another of the ironies of Santoka's life that the man who put such faith in self-discovery was ultimately to find his only real source of pleasure in the companionship of others. He asked much of his friends and at times caused them a great deal of trouble, but it is a tribute both to the irresistible warmth of his character and the Japanese tolerance toward the failings of old friends that they continued to greet him with genuine pleasure when he appeared at their houses.

Santoka first visited Kimura Rokuhei, his longtime benefactor, in Kumamoto in 1918. After an evening of convivial conversation Santoka left for home, but his good spirits led him into a sake shop for one more round. The next morning Rokuhei received a visit from the police, who told him that Santoka had landed in jail for getting drunk and being unable to pay his bill, and that he had told the police to ask his new friend to bail him out.

Rokuhei did so, as he was to do many times during their long friendship. It is possible, in fact, that Santoka might have been a greater poet, of the caliber of Saigyo or Basho, had he not been so well taken care of by his friends. Santoka would feel deeply repentant after causing his friends such trouble, but would soon be calling on them again, ready for yet another round. Some of his friends' wives were less than overjoyed to see the bedraggled monk turn up again for another disrupting three or four days of eating and drinking, but few could begrudge the man who accepted their hospitality with such sincere and ingenuous gratitude.

It would not be difficult to draw parallels between the broken home life of the boy Shoichi and of the man Santoka, who almost willfully formed relationships of dependence in his friendships, but it is perhaps worthwhile emphasizing the deep craving Santoka had for friendship and the real joy he derived from it.

People's compassion
touches my heart,
I stroke the warm brazier.

The quilt is long,
the night too is long,
I have been given this place to sleep.

A well-stuffed quilt,
dreams of home.
A grasped hand,
chaps.

[At the bath]
Naked,
talk jumps back and forth.

The sound of wind chimes,
at the time when you should come.

As the grass starts to stir,
for some reason I wait for a friend to come.

When the clouds of dusk are so beautiful,
I yearn for a friend.

The sound of voices approaching,
buds of trees brightly bearing.

I have nothing particular to wait for…
In the fall of evening
the cry of cicada.

This last poem is similar to one written by the great Shinkokinshu poetess Shikishi Naishinno:

The fall paulownia leaves
have even now
made passage difficult,
though by no means
is there someone I would wait for.

Just as friendship was his greatest joy, parting was for Santoka the hardest of all acts. He tried to make farewells as painless as possible by exchanging quick, light goodbyes and then briskly setting out down the road. One poet acquaintance tells of the first time Santoka invaded his home, when the two drank and talked and slept together for three days; then at the time of parting, the monk murmured a word of thanks, and, contrary to Japanese custom, marched off down the road without a glance back at his host and new friend.

Departing, each on our separate ways,
I turn my face to the sun.

But if Santoka tried to make his partings as unemotional as possible, both his partings in life and by death left a deep impression on him.

Face to face we smile,
we who will never meet again.

So easily it darkens
in the reluctance of our parting,
a ten-day moon.

The road of our parting
runs straight ahead.

Drifting off from the water,
the lamp of the girl
dances in the dark.

Perhaps we will not meet again,
a blur of tree sprouts.

Since we parted,
every day the snow has fallen.

Both the snow on a distant mountain
and a friend who has gone away.

My cough won't stop,
no hand to beat my back.

Of course, the most difficult parting of all was that of death, not only because of the personal loss involved but also because the death of another made even more acute Santoka's sense of guilt in not fulfilling his obligations to the living and his despair over his inability to achieve a quick and graceful death.

The peach tree has begun to bear fruit,
you have already died.

With a tomato in my palm,
in front of Buddha,
in front of my father,
in front of my mother.

No trace left of the house of my birth,
fireflies.


SAKE

If there was only one thing that remained constant throughout Santoka's chaotic life, it was his weakness for sake. Sake was for him both an elixir and the source of his destruction; despite his periodic feeble attempts at abstinence, it played, as Santoka well realized, an integral role in determining the course of his life. His friends and acquaintances generally agree that Santoka was a confirmed alcoholic, and it would be difficult to find fault with that diagnosis. His drinking was certainly to some extent moderated by his constant lack of funds, but when he was treated by friends, he drank with a relish and abandon that filled people with amazement and consternation. That drink was another form of escape, a mental pilgrimage not essentially different in purpose from his constant urge to wander, is undeniable. Sake released him briefly from his unhappy childhood, his inability to take care of his family, and his guilt over his dissipated course of life.

His poetry mentor Seisensui said that as the years went by Santoka was no longer able to distinguish between the worlds of drunkenness and sobriety, that it was only through drinking that he was able to attain some level of sobriety. While Seisensui's theory may appear somewhat oversimplified, it seems to be true that when Santoka drank he enjoyed those few delicious moments in which the mental state which he had been seeking through Zen and through begging—a calm acceptance of life, a feeling of security, and confidence in himself and his relationships with people—were suddenly opened up to him. According to Santoka, 'Dreams are the sake of the consoled spirit. Sake is the dream of the anguished flesh.' The sense of transcendence brought on by sake may indeed be an illusion, a dream that makes the attainment of real enlightenment even more difficult, yet for Santoka this temporary respite from the anguished flesh was irresistible.

In his diary Santoka constantly lectures himself on how to drink in order to enjoy its many virtues without suffering from its many evils. For example, 'There is no crime in intoxicating sake. There is poison in sake that does not intoxicate.'

Also,

The sake we drink is sake drunk for its taste; it is sake that we should sip, sake drunk with a smile. Do not drink in tears—drink laughing. Do not drink alone—drink shoulder to shoulder. Do not drink sake that, no matter how much you drink, cannot make you drunk; drink sake that intoxicates while the taste is still on the lips. Do not drink bitter sake—drink sweet sake.

The man who cannot spontaneously become intoxicated must finally destroy himself.

Sake ought not to be drunk in times of discontent. Drinking when we are not discontented, we can penetrate to the true taste of the liquid.

There were times when Santoka expressed the pure delight of drinking, as in his famous poem:

A soft whirling drunk,
a scattering of leaves.

The poem revolves around the adverb horohoro, which signifies a mellow, blissful, sentimentally happy state of drunkenness, and also describes the fluttering and dancing of falling leaves. The drunken poet is like the leaves—floating, weightless, carried aimlessly to and fro by the cool autumn breeze.
He also wrote about the mental and physical pain his drinking brought him:

The pitifulness
of not being able to get drunk,
the crickets cry.

Waking from drunkenness,
the wind blows mournfully through.

In September 1940, just one month before his death, his body weakened but his thirst unabated, he wrote:

No more sake,
staring fixedly
at the moon.

One of the best illustrations of Santoka's powerful craving for drink is an incident which took place when he came down with acute pneumonia while traveling in the snowy Japan Alps in early 1934. The hospital which took him in refused to accept his claim that alcohol was his 'best medicine', so the thirsty Santoka was obliged to sneak out in his hospital slippers to down a few hot sake drinks at a nearby restaurant. Feeling thoroughly recovered after this refreshment, he boarded the next train and began the long journey back to Gochuan.

WRITING

Santoka tends to leave the impression of a talented but undisciplined poet who did little more than jot down his tiny vignettes of life as they appeared before his eyes. He wrote thousands of poems and to a certain extent forces upon the reader the task of sifting through them to decide which are the 'better' works of art. Santoka admits in his diary, 'Rather than poetry produced skillfully, I desire the poem unskillfully born.' Just as he tried to reduce his way of life to its simplest elements, he believed that the good poem was one that arose out of the most pure and direct response to a scene or personal experience. He was an incorrigible romantic, who dreamed of taking all the artifice out of art and returning it to its 'natural' state. 'I want to make my poems sing like the floating clouds, like die flow of water, like a small bird, like die dancing leaves.'

While prizing the spontaneity of the poetic sentiment, however, Santoka also went to surprisingly great pains to polish the final poetic form. He worked laboriously on his poems, rewriting, discussing them with friends, and corresponding with other poets for advice. Like many haiku and short-verse poets in Japan, he was capable of long debates and considerable personal discomposure over a single grammatical particle or verb tense. The tremendous energy Santoka spent in reviewing and rephrasing his work is very much in the tradition of Japan's recluse writers, those poets and essayists such as Kamo no Chomei and Yoshida Kenko, who to various degrees withdrew from society and set about trying to communicate their views to that society in as fluent a manner as possible. This need for the 'detached' writer to express himself has its elements of irony, especially for such writers as Saigyo and Santoka who were making very conscious attempts to overcome their self-centered personalities. But writing, especially poetry, can also be a means of disciplining the mind and calming the raging spirit, and it was in this respect that Santoka, and Saigyo, found in poetry a possible road to salvation.

In preparing his poetry collections Santoka showed a meticulousness completely out of harmony with his ordinary drunken, unregulated life. In his collection Sanko Suiko he went through two thousand of his poems to select a mere 140 which he considered good enough to include in the work. As an example of his selection process we have his comments at the end of his collection titled Kaki no ha (Persimmon Leaf):

When I walk,
fruit-bearing grasses,
when I sit,
fruit-bearing grasses.

When I walk,
cuckoos,
when I run,
cuckoos.

One or the other verse had to be discarded, but it was difficult for me to discard either of them. I traveled through the Tohoku region, and in constant surprise at the large number of cuckoos I listened to their song with great interest. And on the Shinano road for the first time in my life, I even caught a glimpse of the bird.

After all,
to be alone is good,
wild grasses.

After all,
to be alone is sad,
dried-up grasses.

I am for ever possessed by sentimental feelings of self-love, but considering that such feelings are not allowed in an individual collection of verse I arbitrarily chose one for the book. I believe that readers will be able to understand my frame of mind.

In both cases he chose the second poem for the collection, not so much on its own merits as an independent poem but on the degree of his personal involvement with its sentiments.
While living in his new hermitage in Shikoku during the last year of his life, Santoka wrote about the importance of poetry in his life:

I am pressed every day to meet the needs of life. I spent yesterday and today concerned about whether I eat or not. Probably tomorrow, too—no, it will be so until the day I die.
But every day, every night, I am writing. Even though I neither drink nor eat, I never neglect writing. In other words, though my stomach is empty I am able to write. Like the flow of water my poetic spirit bubbles up and spills over. Living for me is the writing of poetry. Poetry is my life.

It was the one great consolation of his life that when all else failed him, when he had hardly enough to eat, his physical strength broken, and his inability to come to terms with life still plaguing him, he could still obtain much personal gratification through his poetry.

DEATH

It may be appropriate to conclude this study of Santoka's life and work by examining his preoccupation and fascination with death. Death held great attraction for him as the final solution to his search for harmony with existence. Yet his several suicide attempts were all abortive, because his disaffection with life was tempered by his fear of what he believed was the finality of death.

In his study on Santoka, Kaneko Tota observes that Santoka's life was one of 'stoic decadence', resulting from his lack of value in life and lack of initiative toward death. Santoka spent his life in endless dissection of his own character, searching for 'realities' and inner truths that served little purpose except to further castigate his own restless soul.

After 1924, when he failed in his bid to get run over by a train and then entered the priesthood, Santoka seemed to have decided that the end of his life was not to be achieved by a positive act, and thus in a passive sense he came to accept the fact that his life was for the time being to continue. Like a man standing on a bridge trying to summon up the courage to jump into a river, he finally realized that it was not in him to make the leap, but that the energy he had consumed in the effort had made it impossible for him to return to the safety of dry land. In 1934 he wrote in the postscript to his collection Sanko Suiko:

I am now prepared to try to start out again, to reacknowledge the 'world of existence'. I am reluctant to say whether that is good or bad; I only know that it comes neither from so-called resignation nor from what could be termed enlightenment.

What it did mean was that Santoka had tentatively accepted life but that at least indirectly, through extending his physical and mental powers of endurance to their limits, he would continue to keep his options open for leaving this world. He would not personally take the final plunge, but would Jay himself bare before the forces of life and death in the hope that death would have no difficulty in snatching him away.
His attraction to death, and the loneliness of his search for death, is a frequent theme in his poems.

Again the autumn rains?
Death has yet to come.

In the face of death,
a cool wind.

Even the ring of the wind chimes,
the approach of death.

The sound of the waves
fading out, flowing in,
my life draws to its close.

The rain falls,
the sun shines,
I search for a place to die.

If this were to be my deathplace …
The grass grows deeper and deeper.

A graveyard basks in warmth,
the poor children.

The quietness of death,
clear-skied, leafless tree.

The sound of raindrops,
I have become old.

As he became old, his unsettled way of life came to tax his physical strength more and more. The cold autumn rain penetrated his tired body and for perhaps the first time made death a reality to be directly confronted. But death still eluded him. On his last pilgrimage through Shikoku in 1939, he wrote:

I cannot seem to die,
on the other bank a red flower blooms.

The red flower (higanbana) is associated with higan, literally 'the other bank', the equinoctial week in which Buddhists pray for the souls of the dead, and Santoka sees there the beautiful flower which is still beyond his grasp.
He wanted above all to accept death as easily as the flowers and the insects followed their natural course of growth and decay.

This plant which at any time may die,
blossoms and bears fruit.

I plant a tree seed,
the fruit will someday die.

Peacefully, possessing the power of death,
grass is withering.

This is the dance of the butterflies
before death.

The Japanese for 'nirvana' is jakumetsu, the two Chinese characters of which translate as 'solitude' and 'annihilation'. In an analogous way, Santoka defined salvation as the destruction of an overactive ego that had isolated him from the natural order. He sought to merge his spirit with the universal process of the flower or the butterfly, for which to wither or to die was a natural act of no intrinsic difference from to blossom or to dance.

Yet in the end his efforts at self-annihilation did little more than accentuate the tenacity of his ego and his great distance from salvation. After struggling with his soul for year after year, he died in October 1940, no more settled, no more sober, and no more at peace with himself than when he began his odyssey of purification some fourteen years earlier.

That Santoka suffered is undeniable. That this suffering was motivated more by a masochistic cycle of dissipation and punishing acts of repentance than by the quest of some noble ideal is equally true. But Santoka also had a wonderful capacity to celebrate the joys and sorrows of life, the pure mountain waters, the fragile spring blossoms, the heights and depths of sake, the smell and taste of cooked rice, and most of all the warmth of human friendship. As a testimony to these emotions, his poetry is certainly worthy of attention.

Literature + Sickness by Roberto Bolaño (Excerpts)






Literature + Sickness = Sickness
by Roberto Bolaño


This essay by Bolaño, first published in 2003 in El gaucho insufrible by Anagrama, clearly shows Bolaño knew himself to be a dying man, and he did indeed die, of liver failure, in 2003 at the age of fifty. It is a sad Last Testament from a writer of prodigious and self-destructive talent.


For my friend and hepatologist, Victor Vargas



Sickness and Literature


No wonder the lecturer beats about the bush. Take the following case. The speaker is going to talk about sickness. There are all of ten people in the theater. Each of them waits there with a dignified expectation worthy of a better subject. The lecture is scheduled for seven or eight in the evening. Nobody’s eaten a thing. So when seven o’clock comes round (or eight, or nine) everyone is sitting there with their cell-phones turned off. It’s a pleasure to speak to people with such good manners. Nevertheless, the lecturer doesn’t show up, and finally one of the organizers of the event announces that he can’t come: at the very last moment he’s fallen grievously ill.


Sickness and Freedom


To write about sickness, especially if one is gravely ill, can be a torment. Writing about sickness, if one is not only gravely ill but also a hypochondriac, is an act of masochism or desperation. But it can also be liberating. To impose, even if it’s just for a few minutes, the tyranny of illness—like those little old ladies one runs into in the lobby of the emergency room, who devote themselves to detailing the clinical, medical or pharmacological parts of their lives rather than discuss the political, sexual or working parts—is tempting, diabolically tempting, but a temptation nonetheless. These little old ladies look well beyond good and evil; they look like they know all about Nietzsche, and not just Nietzsche but Kant and Hegel and Schelling as well, not to mention Ortega y Gasset, to whom those writers seem more than sisters, confidants. Really more than confidants, clones of Ortega y Gasset. So much so that I sometimes think (in my desperation) that in these waiting rooms one finds the paradise of Ortega y Gasset, or his hell, depending on how one looks at it and the sensibility with which one looks and listens. A paradise in which Ortega y Gasset, duplicated by the thousands, lives our lives and our circumstances. However, let’s not lose sight of freedom: in reality I was thinking rather more about the good fortune of liberation. To write badly, to talk badly, to go on at length about tectonic phenomena in the middle of a reptilian dinner. How liberating it is and how well-deserving do I feel when, having hurled insults left, right and center, spitting as I talk, I take up compassion and undiscriminatingly, I lose myself in the nightmares of my random companions: sorting out a cow and milking her by the head as Nicanor Parra says in a verse both magnificent and mysterious.


Sickness and Tests


The time has come to get back to the enormous elevator, the biggest I’ve seen in my whole life, an elevator that can accommodate a shepherd with a small flock of sheep or a rancher with two mad cows and a nurse with two empty gurneys, an elevator in which I was literally debating between trying to get that short little doctor, a tiny Japanese doll, to make love to me, or at least try to, and the dead certain likelihood that I would burst into tears, right there and then, like Alice in Wonderland, and flood the elevator not with blood, as in Kubrick’s The Shining, but tears. But good manners, which are never to be neglected and seldom get in the way, in moments like this are definitely a hindrance, so that in no time at all the little Japanese doctor and I were locked away in a tiny cubicle with a window from which one could see the back part of the hospital. There we underwent a few odd tests which to me seemed just exactly the same sort one takes in any Sunday paper. Of course, I geared myself up to do them well, as if to demonstrate to her that my doctor was wrong, a vain effort, for though she ran her tests impeccably, the little Japanese doctor remained utterly impassive, without even a hint of an encouraging smile. Once in a while, while she prepared a fresh test, we talked. I asked her about the chances of a successful liver transplant. Good chances, she said. What percentage? I asked. Sixty percent, she replied. Shit! I said, that’s not much. In politics it’s an absolute majority, she said. One of the tests, maybe the simplest, really impressed me. It consisted of keeping my hands extended vertically for a few seconds, fingers on top, their palms facing her while I contemplated their backs. I asked her what the hell this test was all about. She said that, given the advanced stage of my disease, I wouldn’t be able to keep my fingers up straight. Sure enough, inevitably they bent toward her. I think I said, Vaya por Dios! Maybe I laughed. The fact is that ever since then, I repeat that test wherever I am. I raise my fingers before my eyes, backs facing me, and spend a few seconds studying my knuckles, my nails, the calluses that form on each phalanx. I don’t know what I’ll do the day they don’t stay steady; I only know what I won’t do. Mallarmé wrote that the roll of the dice will never abolish chance. Nonetheless, one has to go on rolling the dice every day, just as I check my upright fingers every day.

The Exquisites: A Conversation with Yahia Lababidi by Alex Stein



Yahia Lababidi is an aphorist, poet, and essayist whose work has appeared in such publications as World Literature Today, Cimarron Review, Rain Taxi, and Philosophy Now. He is the author of a new poetry collection, Fever Dreams, an essay collection, Trial by Ink: From Nietzsche to Belly Dancing, and a collection of aphorisms, Signposts to Elsewhere, selected as a 2008 Book of the Year by The Independent (UK). Lababidi’s work has appeared in several anthologies, including the bestselling Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing and Geary’s Guide to the World’s Great Aphorists. He was chosen as a juror for the 2012 Neustadt Prize for International Literature.


Alex Stein calls poetry “the alphabet zoo.”
“We convene on the grounds of the alphabet zoo, and see what there is to see,” he says.
“They are all poets,” Alex continues. “Nietzsche, too. And Kafka. If the term is to have any meaning at all.
“The true poets, the deep poets, destiny’s poets, in prose or verse, madness, eloquence, or silence, are connected to one another by a mutuality of intention.
“This intention goes by many names, but, fundamentally, it is a rage for transformation.”
And then he sighs and quotes Baudelaire. “Anywhere! Just so long as it is out of this world.”

Part One: “If My Devils Are to Leave Me”

I.

Yahia Lababidi: I’d had to set the frail ones aside for a while. They were haunting my mind. All the invalids. Those gilled creatures thrown upon the earth, gasping for a breath from their home atmosphere. I couldn’t bear to pity any more suffering. Each one forever on the verge of nervous collapse. I’d combed their letters. I’d inhabited their journals. I’d read between their lines. I didn’t want to return to those frailties. I was afraid of what echoing responses they might draw from me.

I imagined them, sometimes, those too-sensitive instruments of reception, vibrating to the wild thunder of some approaching stampede, which is also like the palpitations of an impending panic attack.

Nietzsche. Rilke. Vilhelm Ekelund. As I consider them, now, they appear together almost as one exquisite body. If I had to come up with a single name for this triad, it might be The Exquisites.

Or I might call them The Goners, because all of them are completely gone.

They are The Exquisites by temperament, but they are The Goners because the going for them is all in this world they have to which to cling.

Nietzsche writes, “Existence and the world appear justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon.”


II.

Lababidi: Style was important to Nietzsche.

In an aphorism titled, “One thing is needful,” Nietzsche writes, “To give style to one’s character. A great and rare art. He exercises it who surveys all that his nature presents in strength and weakness and then molds it into an artistic plan, until everything appears as art and reason and even weakness delights the eye.”

In another one, he writes, “Improving our style means improving our ideas. Nothing less.”

An earlier sculptor of the self, Plotinus put it this way: “Draw into yourself and look and if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful. He cuts away here, he smooths there. He makes this line lighter, that one purer. Cut away all the excess. Straighten all that is crooked. Bring light to all that is overcast. Labor to make all one glow or beauty and never cease chiseling your statue. . . .”

“The style is the man himself,” writes George-Louis Leclerc de Buffon.

For Nietzsche, as for Rilke and Ekelund, to write was to cast a spell.

It begins as attention and builds into trance.

It is not so much writing, sometimes, as it is a recovering of the territories lost in what Christianity calls “the fall.”

That garden, given us as birthright, from which some say we were exiled, and others that we simply wandered away.


III.

Lababidi: Returning to Nietzsche on this occasion, I am reminded how much he is not what he seems to be. And how much it is he who is to blame for this confusion.

I’ve been preparing myself for our talk by reading a collection of writings called Conversations with Nietzsche, a few leaves of memory from some few who had spent time with him, spoken with the man himself. If you can believe such a thing possible.

That history lives with us a while, and breathes, before it passes into its own ghost.

Lou Andreas-Salomé, the woman whom Nietzsche referred to as his “twin soul,” was twenty-one when they met. He was thirty-seven.

Nietzsche was smitten like he never had been before and never would be again.

Salomé is particularly constituted to hear Nietzsche, and what she recognizes immediately upon engaging him is his “religious” temperament.

One experienced from him, she writes, the sense “that he will step forth as the proclaimer of a new religion, and then it will be such a one as recruits heroes to be its disciples.”

Early on in their conversations, Nietzsche confides to Salomé that he considers himself a “tertium quid,” which means “a disembodied third person or entity.”

It composes, Nietzsche told her. “I am neither mind nor body. . . .”

There is never a good time to remind anyone that so-and-so eventually went mad.

Nietzsche spent the last ten years of his life mad.

His last extended act of sanity was his autobiography, Ecce Homo (“Behold the Man”).

In that autobiography there is a poem which we may call “The Gondola Song.”

People forget this, but Nietzsche penned more than a few poems during his tenure as furious world guardian and crisis-hour moralizer.

“And my soul,” the poem reads, “a stringed instrument, / Sang, touched by invisible hands.”

It is this song that bursts from Nietzsche’s lips when he has gone mad and is being escorted on a night train to the clinic.

I imagine his escort, a friend who was sent to retrieve him, a sensitive person who believes he is doing a good deed, a service to one troubled beyond bearing by the sight of a world so unashamed of the baseness of its enterprise, a world so shocking with self-deceit, a world so violent.

There is never a good time to mention that Nietzsche may have gone mad from pity.

I imagine the other passengers. There must have been some. Middle class. Tired. Deep within the play of their own private lives. At the sound of his sudden exaltation, inclining slightly toward him.

“And my soul, a stringed instrument, / Sang, touched by invisible hands.”

In Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche had written, “The most fortunate author is one who is able to say as an old man that all he had of life-giving, invigorating, uplifting, enlightening thoughts and feelings still lives on in his writings, and that he himself is only the gray ash, while the fire has been rescued and carried forth everywhere.”

Is this what had occurred? Is this what the other passengers were witnessing?

And what of the escort? That friend who accompanied him to the end of his genius and through the door of madness?


IV.

Lababidi: Nietzsche came up with at least two conceptions almost over-full with crazy wisdom.

First, his idea of the Overman. “Man is something that shall be overcome,” writes Nietzsche. “Man is a rope tied between beast and Overman. A rope over an abyss. . . . What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”

And his idea called the Eternal Recurrence.

The concept of Eternal Recurrence is a rather astounding idea for an individual to simply encounter. Even an individual of Nietzsche’s capacities.

Nietzsche, we can agree, was not a rationalist. Fine, nor is life, nor any other thing, rational. We accept this about Nietzsche, with the genius. But even accepting this, the conception of Eternal Recurrence is still almost too irrational. One would have to be a little crazy in the not-necessarily-romantic sense, one would have to have looked pretty deeply into the abyss, just to think of it, wouldn’t one?

And, yet, it is a conception that affirms life in the most profound sense.

Given his context, and knowing his biography and knowing that he had rejected Christianity, and that he had rejected God and the promises of an immortal hereafter, the Eternal Recurrence is Nietzsche’s way of sanctifying every day.

It is the big idea that asked of his every action, every day, are you prepared to do this over and over again for eternity?

“What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you, ‘This life as you now live it, as you have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more, and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence.’ . . . Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him, ‘You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine!’”

We know Nietzsche’s answer to be the latter. His answer is amor fati. Love of his fate. His answer is yes! Eternally. Yes! With all the loneliness and the suffering. It was worth it. He is prepared to affirm it. All of it. To celebrate the adventure of the life of the spirit.

Of amor fati, he once wrote, “A formula for greatness in the human being: That one wants nothing to be different. Not merely to bear what is necessary. Still less to conceal it. But to love it.”


Part Two: “I’m Afraid My Angels Will Take Flight As Well.”

V.

Lababidi: The solitude seems to be the key to everything. For Nietzsche, for Rilke, for Ekelund. Solitude enough that they can hear the echo of their longing returning as a concentrated drop, direct from heaven. They want to catch it before it lands, before anything human mixes with it.

These drops, rescued one at a time, are what make for their, frankly, incandescent prose and poetry.

The drops are where the writing comes from and the proof of what they have lived, because each drop glistens with that afterbirth.

Rilke calls poems “experiences.”

One direct heartbeat from the body of creation.


VI.

Lababidi: One more glance over Nietzsche’s historic situation before moving on to Rilke.

I do see in Nietzsche the lineage of the ancient Greeks. And I think he would have seen himself, to a large extent, this way, as an anachronistic ancient Greek. It’s almost a joke that he was not born into that time. He responded so deeply, on so many levels, to the sensibility. There is a paradoxical aphorism that he wrote: “Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live. What is required for that is to stop courageously, at the surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearances, to believe in forms, tones, words and the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were superficial out of profundity.”


VII.

Lababidi: On to Rilke, now, but carrying with us, perhaps, this Greek inheritance.

On Socrates’ ladder, the inheritance begins with sexual love, and progresses to the aesthetic appreciation of form in all bodies, and then to the love of beautiful souls, and finally to a contemplation of the ideal form.

In “Archaic Torso of Apollo” (Stephen Mitchell’s translation), Rilke writes:

We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,

gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.

Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast’s fur:

would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.

“Boo!” wouldn’t have surprised me more, the first time I read the ending, than did “You must change your life.”

Here is Rilke, beginning in admiration and ending in awe. Here is Rilke, a rapt witness in the territory of the sublime. “That beauty which . . . / Hath terror in it” of which Milton wrote.

Quite a notion, that a human being could realize such a poem.

Though if such a poem were already in one, it would be equally surprising if it could be contained.


VIII.

Lababidi: Rilke was another sculptor of the self, always chiseling at his statue, so it makes sense that he fell under the influence of the sculptor Auguste Rodin. This is the ethic that Rodin imparted to Rilke: There is only work.

Rodin also gave Rilke a way to see newly. And his engagement with Rodin coincided with his “thing” poems. Poems in which the “thing” is definite.

In a letter to Lou Andreas-Salomé (the same Salomé who had known Nietzsche, fifteen years later would become Rilke’s lover and confidante), Rilke writes, “The thing is definite, the art thing must be more definite still, removed from all accident, wrested away from all obscurity, withdrawn from time and given over to space. It has become enduring, capable of eternity. The model seems. The art thing is.”

Thanks, at least in part, to Rodin, he is now in a more concrete place.

And it is from this place that “Archaic Torso of Apollo” comes.

This “thing” which is out there stuffed with brilliance from the inside, and gleaming with power, took him. He sent it back, and it returned to him again, this time in the form of transformation.


IX.

Lababidi: There is no backing out once you have committed to this project, this self-sculpting, to match yourself to your ideals.

Rilke writes:

Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the angels’
hierarchies? and even if one of them pressed me
suddenly against his heart: I would be consumed
in that overwhelming existence. For beauty is nothing
but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure,
and we are so awed because it serenely disdains
to annihilate us. Every angel is terrifying.

This is Mitchell’s translation of the first passage from the first of the ten beatific Duino Elegies Rilke wrote in a few-weeks’ burst of poetic power, in retreat at the Duino castle. And with these elegies, by every standard, Rilke proved himself to himself.

Even five years after the writing of these ten elegies, he was content to play mage, to compose his endless, gorgeous, crystalline letters of instruction, of elucidation, of connection. The letters were his pleasure, because he had gotten the fire out of himself. He sang his song and he is now the ash.

Not unhappy to be ash for the last five years of his life, is how one might describe it. There is a sense in Rilke of having achieved, and that achievement was not so much the deed of composition as it was the achievement of being ready, being prepared, being patient, and being willing to let this beauty and terror come through him when the time for it was upon him.

One year before Rilke passed away, he was asked to elaborate on the elegies, which had come to him as lightning comes to a lightning rod.

He begins by speaking on the coexistence of the material and the spiritual realms.

“It was within the power of the creative artist to build a bridge between two worlds, even though the task was almost too great for a man. Everywhere transience is plunging into the depths of Being. It is our task to imprint this temporary, perishable earth into ourselves, so deeply, so painfully and passionately, that its essence can rise again, invisible, inside of us. We are the bees of the invisible. We wildly collect the honey of the visible, store it in the great golden hive of the invisible.”


Part Three: Heritage

X.

Lababidi: I must now go on immediately to Ekelund.

Vilhelm Ekelund was a literary soul-gazer.

In an aphorism, he writes, “There are passages in the works of some authors that in a way lie outside the frame of their writing. Passages where you suddenly feel the man talking is not the literary worker So-and-So, but the human being high above all ‘literature.’ Clear, deep, good—but also with a wild tone, flying through the soul, like the scream of a bird above a desolate ocean bay.”


XI.

Lababidi: Rilke writes, “Space reaches from us and construes the world. / To know a tree in its true element, / throw inner-space around it, from that pure / abundance in you.”

The Exquisites all cultivated these exquisite states, in order to intensify their inwardness and access the numinous.

That’s just something I thought worth mentioning.

Ekelund writes, “How did I become a hunter for treasure? When I saw a climate (a land) in my nature, in the traditions of my blood which was my heritage. Then I began to realize that the strife of my whole existence was this: to prove my right to inherit . . . ”

Ekelund is a discovery I owe to the Swedish poet Boel Schenlaer, whom I met at an international festival. I was raving about Nietzsche and the aphorism, presumptively, as it turned out. “You must read Ekelund,” she insisted.

I understood why immediately upon opening the first book. The way you know immediately upon meeting people.

Ekelund was born in 1880 (Nietzsche was still around then) and died in 1949. He began as a poet, and a gifted, accomplished poet, so that by twenty-three years of age he was considered Sweden’s foremost poet. Then, being the radical temperament that he must have been—to keep company, as I see it, with the other Exquisites—he renounced poetry as sentimental and did not publish any more verse.

He practiced a kind of literary soul-gazing. “Books must be lived to be read,” he writes. He saw into the writers he read in ways that others don’t. He composed essays and aphorisms.

He discovered Nietzsche at twenty-seven. He turned to Nietzsche “for learning, strength and solace.”

Nietzsche taught him that it is possible to be a great poet of ideas writing in prose.

By his forties, Ekelund wrote exclusively in aphorisms.

The aphorism integrates both existential and moral commitment, and that is what Ekelund was after. No less!

Ekelund writes, “An even accumulation of divine sunshine, slow and blissful, no artist’s fever with repercussions of tumbling into darkness. My worship of the sun begins in the autumn, culminates in February.”

Ekelund writes, “The real poet is a mystic.”

Ekelund would not write for money and lived sometimes in the most heartbreaking poverty. He tied a rope around his waist for a belt and slept as a vagrant. He led a terrible life and desperate.

He didn’t have Rilke’s gift for cultivating princesses and baronesses.

He collapsed with a lung ailment and was in recovery when he wrote The Second Light.

As he was recovering, he began to hear himself breathe, and with that awareness his breath changed altogether.

He was quieted somehow.

Nietzsche had advised that no thoughts could be trusted but those that came to one while walking.

Ekelund, who would never stop thinking, took this advice for his medicine.



Alex Stein’s other “Conversations with Yahia Lababidi” have appeared or are forthcoming in AGNI Online, The Gulf Coast Review, The Pinch, and The Literary Review. Stein’s recent book is Made-Up Interviews With Imaginary Artists (Ugly Duckling Presse). (10/2011)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Prayer of Attention:
A Conversation with Yahia Lababidi
by Alex Stein

Yahia Lababidi is the author of Signposts to Elsewhere (Jane Street Press), selected as a 2008 Book of the Year by The Independent (UK). He has two books forthcoming: The Great Contrarians: A Study of Nietzsche and Wilde (Thee Hellbox Press) and a collection of literary and cultural essays, Trial by Ink (Common Ground Publishing). A selection of his aphorisms appeared in AGNI Online in 2009.


Yahia believes the condition of the artist is exalted.
“Even if the artist lives in disregard?” I ask.
“Yes,” Yahia insists.
“Even if he is scorned and impoverished?” I ask.
“Still, yes,” says Yahia.
“What does that mean, then—exalted?” I ask.
“It means,” says Yahia, “called to service.”
“Oh,” I say, a sinking feeling coming over me, “you mean that soldiery of light, that brigade, born to march into the
Valley of the Shadow?”
“Yes,” replies Yahia, “precisely!”

There is a moment in the life of Rimbaud when he comes to realize that he is a poet, but that it is not his fault. He writes: “It is wrong to say, ‘I think.’ One has to say, ‘I am thought.’ I is another. Too bad for the wood that finds itself a violin.” For me, that tells all. I haven’t studied the lives of the mystics as closely as I have the lives of the artists but I do see the correspondences. The life of the artist may not be apparently monastic, or holy, but there is the same sense of sacrifice, of vocation, of having been entrusted with something greater and dearer than one’s own happiness. Imagine! To hold something more dear than one’s own happiness. That cannot be a voluntary thing. We want, as much as we can, to be happy. Isn’t this true? Yet there are these strange, luminous creatures who recognize that there is something to which they must submit, in order to be fully realized. It is the wood finding itself a violin.

Kafka is another. Another artist as mystic. Another who recognizes this affinity. In his journal he writes, “This tremendous world I have inside of me. How to free myself, and this world, without tearing myself to pieces. And rather tear myself to a thousand pieces than be buried with this world within me.” Again, the calling. Again the gift-slash-curse privileged. The whole life structured toward developing the necessary faculties, the necessary conditions. Rimbaud must be drunk and whoring all the time, Kafka has literally to abstain and deny himself everything.

Might I be permitted one more quotation? Kierkegaard. He was another who saw his life very much as a sacrifice. “A little pinch of spice,” he writes in his journal. “Here, a man must be sacrificed. He is needed to impart a particular taste to the rest.” He is just a concentrated flavor, that is to say. He doesn’t take it personally. In another place, he writes something to the effect that, a writer is lost when he confounds himself with what he has produced and ceases to think of himself as merely an instrument. All of these lives, all of these sometimes protracted convulsions of living, contain something of a renunciation, a continual giving up, or self-limiting, at their core.

I have sought out such artists, combed their thoughts for these instances, because, from very early on, they helped me to make sense of my own sometimes reluctant yearnings. In their lives and words I heard the echoes of my own submission. Through them, I received confirmation and solace.

I was eighteen years old when I began to guess that I too might be a writer. The change stunned me. I had known myself one way and that knowing was silenced. I had been loud and cheap, interested in the noise of the world and in adding to that noise, and now I withdrew and began asking myself if there was a specific purpose to my being and if that purpose had to do with writing. I didn’t want to have anything to do with anyone until I could figure out what was happening. Eventually I understood that I was never going to figure out what was happening. Some things, some people, some ways of living just fell away.

I was attending college in D.C. I went through several roommates, almost without noticing them. I was absorbed with books, those dead friends who were telling me: “Come, let’s go this direction, let’s try this pathway . . .” The books were almost always accidental. I don’t know how to say where they came from, except to quote from Rumi: “What you are seeking is also seeking you.” One led to another. A series of spirits come to try and draw my own spirit out.

Kafka was the first. I remember reading “A Hunger Artist.” In total immersion, my long frame crouched, like a shadow or a gargoyle, against the wall of my dorm room. I didn’t know then that Kafka had revised this as he was dying and that it was a parable for his spiritually dissatisfied life, but it struck me, at eighteen, as the most profound encounter I had yet had with myself. You know the story, of course. No one is interested any longer in the hunger artist. Professional fasting has lost its cachet with the public. The hunger artist is wasting away, forgotten, in the dirty straw of a carnival cage. Weakened almost to the point of death by his fanatical pursuit, he is at last removed by the overseer, and his place taken by a vital, bright-eyed panther. “I always wanted you to admire my fasting,” the hunger artist tells the overseer. “We do admire it,” the overseer replies. “But you shouldn’t admire it,” the hunger artist continues perversely, “because I have to fast, I can’t help it. It is just that I couldn’t find the food I liked. If I had found it, I would have stuffed myself like you or anyone else.” That was the thought that undid me. That this spiritual food that one was craving simply could not be found. And that nothing else would do. Better to starve, then, says the hunger artist. Better to starve and to make of that starvation one’s nourishment.

I thought of this transformation that I was undergoing, this shedding of old skin, as too private to explain to anyone. When I had to be around people who knew me as I had been, I hid. I put on the best mask I could find. I didn’t know exactly what was happening. It looked like a kind of crisis, but it wasn’t. Or, rather, it was, but it was a fruitful crisis. The only way I could explain it to myself, even, was in the composition of dialogues, monologues, parables and, finally—this was the form that gave me the most relief, that offered the deepest bloodletting—aphorisms. In the aphorism, I didn’t have to say “I,” I could just let the thing speak itself, so I didn’t feel compromised or embarrassed or vulnerable. A shy truth that could also be a general truth. I wrote, “The thoughts we choose to act upon define us to others. The ones we do not, define us to ourselves.” They had enough of an air of mystery and ambiguity that I could bring them out and not feel exposed. I wrote, “Impulses we attempt to strangle only develop stronger muscles.” It was with these aphorisms that I understood—accepted!—that I was in it up to the neck. I showed my aphorisms to more people than I should have. Some responded with arched eyebrows, some with indifference or incomprehension, but those who were close enough to me, my dear friends, lovers, or family, understood that I was confessing in code.

In the culture I come from, a saying is a magical thing. For my grandparents, a saying was something they were happy to hear, and if I happened to have written it, that was good too. I grew up with grandmothers, both maternal and paternal, who spoke almost exclusively, at times, in sayings. A string of proverbs. Sing-songy, witty-wise remarks. When I found myself writing such things, it made sense for me to share them. You share a saying. You quote a saying. They come in handy when you are tongue-tied. My grandmother’s sayings were mostly commentaries on the divide between men and women. How men are dogs. How the man will be lying on one woman’s breast and already considering the next woman. How love will prove your undoing, but without love what taste does life have?  How, rather the shadow of a man than the shadow of four walls. Not sayings that necessarily spoke to me as a child, but the idea of speaking in sayings, and of generalizing from particulars, stuck with me.

As I think of it now, it was Wilde who first turned me toward the territory that would inform my aphorisms. I was sixteen when I read The Picture of Dorian Gray. I stole the book from a classroom in my school because I liked the cover. It showed a ghoulish, vital, aged face in a gaudy picture frame. Standing next to it, locked into its gaze, it seemed, was a sophisticated, exquisite dandy, bearing scarf  and cane, looking, as they say, pretty as a picture, and as unreal as a picture, too. I was interested in traditional horror stories at that time. I read . . . well, I read Stephen King. And Dorian Gray was my point of transition. From physical horror to spiritual horror, I suppose. I took the book home and read it through in one night. Then I read everything of Wilde’s that I could get my hands on. I was writing already, but I wasn’t yet writing truly. You know Kafka’s line about literature being an axe for the frozen sea within us? The frozen sea within me was still very much frozen and I didn’t mind that it was frozen. I liked it frozen. I skated happily on it.

What impressed me in Wilde was his ability to play with serious subjects. To make light of them. I thought I could pick up that quality for myself. Tossing off, with seeming gaiety, a thought that was at base painful and dark. Born of real suffering and insight. Every part of Dorian Gray spoke to me. I highlighted almost the entire book. I underlined more passages than I left unmarked. I scribbled in the margins furiously. He said he was summing up the entirety of existence in a phrase. Anyway, he was summing up in a phrase the entirety of my existence. It was my first exposure to the philosophical concept of detachment. To become the spectator of one’s life is to become detached from the suffering of life, he suggested. That hit me. I didn’t know why, or how deeply, until a couple of years later, when I started working on my own detachment. It is this detachment, in its variety of permutations, that I admired in the lives of the artists whom I would eventually take for my models. This supreme indifference, even in the hardest of times, to one’s own welfare. So long as one could pull off the alchemist’s trick of turning it into art, it no longer mattered how tortured the romance, how isolated the life, or how penniless the pocket. On the contrary, the more one gave up, the more authority was vested in the creation. The beauty lay in the tension between what one had surrendered in pursuit of the achievement and what had been achieved.

And then there was Nietzsche. I came upon his work in a college English class. There was no reason for him to be on that syllabus, but there he was. Those were the days when I would read and think without sleeping, sometimes for two or three days in a row, so that I could hold on to whatever intensity I was experiencing and magnify it. If I was reading and thinking and not sleeping, I’d enter a state that was like  rocks being struck together. Sparks would rise: ideas and aphorisms. I treated all of my reading at that time as if I were being granted audience with the writer, and in order to honor that audience I had to come prepared. I had to be as attentive as possible, in order that I could sound the depths of that writer. In that way, too, I was learning to sound my own depths.

I read Thus Spake Zarathustra first. I read it like a sleepwalker. I breathed it in. A shocked inhalation, almost unconscious. When I read it again, maybe a decade later, more intentionally, in the desert outside of Cairo, it was like a long slow exhalation that let me finally examine what I had received. I went to the desert periodically. Pilgrimages to empty and refill myself. On the occasion of my re-reading of Nietzsche, I was in an apartment near the Red Sea, among mountains. One could stay in an apartment. One could stay in a hut. Or one could simply bring one’s sleeping bag and lay out upon the sands. I read Zarathustra straight through. Every time I go to the desert it is with the intention and in the belief that I am going to encounter that part of myself that is not entirely accessible in other circumstances. In the desert, there is nothing to hide behind, nowhere and no one to turn to. It is where all those crazy hermits and mystics—my people!—had their visions. It’s an extreme environment and I suppose I felt that if I flirted with that extremity, but in a committed, honorable way, a breakthrough might be granted me. If you were somehow avoiding yourself and you went to the desert,  somehow you would meet. The rumblings of eternity were there, if you could just be still enough, quiet enough, and indifferent enough to your self, to your many selves, to your many silly selves. So taking Nietzsche to the desert was a gesture toward meeting both him and the him-that-was-also-me.

There, reading the lonely words of Nietzsche, I came to realize the necessity of that loneliness. Loneliness as prerequisite for the sublime sensations or epiphanies I sought. You could be alone around people, alone in your living room, but if you reached toward this elemental loneliness—alone with the sand, the rock, the water, the stars, and the sea—you could experience a deeper innocence and purity of perception and as a result become a better witness to the life inside you and around you. Nietzsche talks about “the price.” And I understood that, there in the desert. The harsh loneliness of his life had given him the richness of himself. There is a desert quality to Nietzsche’s writing, I think. It doesn’t care much for you. It may, perhaps, want you there, but it doesn’t need you there. It doesn’t seek to appease the reader. It is not eager to please. It wants only to declare its harsh, bold truths, and if you can stand it, then stay.

Heidegger said something about longing that seems to me to sum up what I am trying to express here about loneliness. After all, it is not the loneliness that matters. The loneliness is a side effect, a symptom of the longing. There was a longing in me that I didn’t realize, that I couldn’t understand—not until I read Heidegger. He said, “Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant.” Yes! I could almost brush it with my fingertips! But it was not right there. I was trafficking with metaphysics, with mere hope, when in fact it was very far away. It was not mine. When it came within reach, which happened only very occasionally, everything was perfect and nothing else mattered or could matter. But it was not mine, this great, calming beauty. So of course I would lose it. Of course I would stumble. The agony of the nearness of the distant. That was it. That was the great thing I was groping toward, the great thing that the aphorisms, on occasion, brought me upon.

One more thing before we finish. Every time I thought of this conversation that we were about to have, this one that we are now having, an image would recur in my mind. I kept trying to clarify to myself this idea of the artist as mystic, the artist and the mystic, and their disparate ways of summoning the spirit, and I kept coming back to the idea of attention. Attention is the artist’s mode of prayer. Picasso speaks, for example, of taking off his shoes before entering his studio. Like Moslems do when they enter their mosques. That was his way of sanctifying his art. The artist prays through attention.  I think of those times when I fly in my dreams. I think there must be some connection between how I fly in my dreams and this state I sometimes come to in writing when I feel that I am aloft, ecstatic. In my dreams, it is blinking that brings me to the ground. When I blink, I begin to fall. When I have fallen, I don’t know how to get back into the air. But if there is a formula, I think it must have to do with attention. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, someone has said. So long as one’s eyes are wide open, there is that chance, again, that one will soar.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from The Artist as Mystic, by Alex Stein and Yahia Lababidi


There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you.  —Kafka, Notebooks



Alex Stein: What do you think is “the world” of which Kafka writes? What do you make of what seems to be the slightly eroticized imagery with which it concludes? Could one call this aphorism pure sublimation? Simply the dream of an impotent? Where does one draw the line in looking to literary figures for answers or sustenance?


Yahia Lababidi: Before anything else, “the world” of which Kafka writes in this aphorism is a present moment that he, as a creative artist, happens to be alive to and, with that present moment, alive, as well, to its present possibilities. I think, also, that “the world” of which Kafka writes in this aphorism is the ‘there-world’ into which he enters to write, as the yogis enter theirs to breathe. Do you know this story? Kafka has just written the most threadbare sentence possible, ‘He looked out the window,’ and having written such a sentence wrote immediately upon its heels, ‘I know that it is already perfect.’ Now, isn’t that striking? That this nest of neuroses, this terribly insecure man, could write—could know!—‘it is already perfect.’ From where did this uncharacteristic confidence come? This sounded note of surety?

During his encounters with ‘the world,’ Kafka is no longer quite himself and his hand is being steadied. Just recently, a poet friend shared some Buddhist teachings, and one of the fables I think comes very close to what I am trying to express. The sun is always out there, he said, but we walk around with clouds above us, with their cloud shadows upon us. If we can slip out from beneath those clouds or if we can stretch up our arms and muck those clouds about a bit, the sun will shine upon us. The sacred world wants to shine upon us.

But where is it, this ‘out there’? Where is it, this sacred ‘there-world’ to which we would go? I like the word interstice. A gap or a break in something generally continuous. A paradox, like the snake that swallows its own tail until it has swallowed itself entirely. A double-joint in time, or a space that is only a bit of fabric that gives, and one can just slip on through it. The interstate.

As a young reader, I envied the invalids. And the invalids spoke of their invalid status as enviable. Gibran and Proust, come to mind. Both were bed-ridden. Being bed-ridden was their permit to dream. It was a special dispensation, really, an exemption against engagement with the tedious responsibilities of the here-world. Invalidism gave them the license, and the luxury, to go ‘there’. To go and seek the twilight hour.

Some invalids are life-long. Kafka probably romanticized himself so. Turned his affliction into a badge of honor. Proust once wrote that the neurotics have given us everything. They are the ones who have saved the world, created the world, made the world worthwhile. Invalidism eased Kafka of the burden of himself.  Eased him of the chattering fears that told him, ‘You must do better!’ That told him, “It will always be beyond your abilities, whatever you choose.”

I have been thinking, too, of fairy tales. The idea of Alice and the rabbit hole and its connection with physics. I don’t know much about physics. I’m just another artist-groupie, but I am captivated by the idea of a wormhole. A hypothetical tunnel connecting disparate points in light-space, with the attendant, hypothetical, possibility of time travel. None of this is encouraged by hard science, but neither is it entirely refuted. Disputed, more-like. This idea of a shortcut between worlds, which, for me, translates as a shortcut into creative space, where inspiration is able to move with more agility and vision to engage with more dexterity. The world down the rabbit hole. One moment you are in the here-world and the next you are in the there-world. But, how? That is the crazy part. How does one devise a way of getting there? Or at least how does one devise a way of not blocking oneself from getting there?

As a teenager I read The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, the first volume in C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia.” Before, I had read only horror genre literature. The Lewis book worked for me brilliantly on the level of pure horror, and then it went much further. As a teenager, I wasn’t aware of Narnia’s sacramental undercurrents. Or that Lewis was a ‘Christian Apologist’ (as he has been dubbed) and Aslan a sacrificial Christ figure. None of that holy apparatus was relevant to me then, but it is relevant to me  now. I return to the book both for scholarship and for Narnia. I like the idea of a closet, that eponymous ‘wardrobe’, through which the children can only sometimes gain access to Aslan, who is Narnia. I like how it shows that the wormhole experience cannot be forced. It loves to happen, perhaps, but its ways are inscrutable. One moment it is fur coats in a rickety wardrobe, but push a little harder, it becomes fir trees in a snowy forest, satyrs, fauns, and all possibilities.

I have a poem that describes something like this:

My hours are afraid of my days
mistrust placing their feet down
suspicious of finding a foothold
tick-tock they tip-toe self-consciously

My days are afraid of my years
never able to forget themselves
standing around as I try to sleep
shifting their weights, shuffling fears

In the interstices, it is timeless
unwound and happily unfound
there we slip through the sieve
between those immeasurable spaces.



That’s really where it all is. Between those immeasurable spaces. The crazy part is getting there.



The Repressed, Deviously, in Masquerade

YL: Kafka wrote many poems, but he did not call them poems. There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you. This is an aphorism constructed of mystic stations. One might call it a prose fragment or bit of wandering mage come to roost. I myself have no objection to calling it a poem. But specifically it is an aphorism constructed of mystic stations. Like stations of the cross. When I read There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen, I think of Pascal’s precept, that all our difficulties arise our inability to sit quietly in a room, alone. That if one could be still enough, if one could endure one’s own company, if one could remain present. If only one could. If only. Kafka is addressing our tendency to flinch. We flinch, for self-preservation, when we are with ourselves too long, because it quickly becomes too much. The boredom, the suffering, the restlessness. Don’t even listen, just wait, he says. Then, immediately: Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. He is a reluctant Messiah, our Franz. Distrustful of his own authority. He must immediately make qualifications, equivocate. He bids us ‘wait’. Then, backpedaling hurriedly, insists: Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. Because even the most modest expectation might scare it (the ‘there-world’) away.

We sometimes strain for feeling as though sitting outside a foxhole with our guns, waiting for a fox. The fox never leaves. It will never leave. Because it knows it is being hunted. Watched-for. Expected.

Those lines, ‘The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you…’ bring me goose bumps and, yes, tears and, yes, I do think a sublimated eroticism is partly accountable for the charge, the zap. I think of Nietzsche, especially in Zarathustra, ‘the waves are heaving breasts,’ etc. That from a man who may have seen all of one pair throughout his adult life. In a letter to Milena, Kafka will write: To try and catch in one night, by black magic, hastily, heavily breathing, helpless, obsessed, to try and obtain by black magic what every day offers to open eyes!

Alas, poor Milena! Imagine being the recipient of such a letter, imagine being a young woman learning about her young man, and receiving such a letter. How could it not sting? And imagine being the one who had sent such a letter. Imagine being the young man. How can such a letter ever be lived down? It is too big to regret. It is Van Gogh’s ear. It is too much to take back. It is yesterday’s moon. Sometimes a voice out from the chaos of spirits cries and one finds oneself having written. Can one say that? Or perhaps it is only poetry. The young man, in fear of the young woman, writing of sack-cloth and ash, wishing his body would be burnt away. Nothing more to it. Whatever is dammed must find another outlet. Whoever is damned must find another heaven.

The Ecstatics from my tradition, the Persian tradition, could be wildly erotic, but because they were addressing themselves to God they felt safe. For Kafka, the mystic ritual he called ‘writing’ was his safe zone. Where he could let it all out and breathe light like a spirit fish swimming between stars. Mysticism is desire, like everything else is, and the desire of mysticism is a flaming arrow launched toward union. That union of the mystic, fire reaching to fire, no less than any carnal union, is an erotic experience. An ecstasy in the specifically Greek sense of ekstasis, meaning ‘outside oneself.’

Part of what we read in Kafka is too personal. Tedious neurasthenic considerations. Documents for the doctors at the Sanitarium of Hypochondria. The repressed, finding its way, surfacing, deviously, in masquerade. And part of what we read in Kafka is a universalized, lived, sensuality. Shy experience of the self as other. Veiled encounters with the beloved. Butt-naked tusslings. And why not? To get there means ‘union’, long longed-for (or, it may be, ‘reunion,’ long hoped for) and it induces bliss. The ‘impotent’ who eroticizes the world, for me, he is the prophet. And I’m not the only one who thinks this. Lawrence Durrell, in his novel Justine, writes, “the sick men, the solitaries, the prophets [!]…all who have been deeply wounded in their sex.” The statement lacks proportion, but there is truth in it. To be wounded in that way is to dam a furious river that begins, as Rilke tells us, ‘in the sky.’ ‘Making music is another way of making babies,’ writes Nietzsche. And yes that is sublimation and yes it does color thought, but doesn’t it color thought in wonderfully feverish flesh tones and isn’t all that fleshly frailty and failing a living part of Kafka’s meaning for us—a necessary aspect of its divinity? Isn’t all that partly its sacrament? And isn’t the chaos and aren’t the death-thralls just autumn leaves in their season?

As for your last question: Where does one draw the line in turning to these literary figures for answers or sustenance, or for that matter tips on elegant living? Where does Kafka end and literature begin? Would I read Kafka’s unpublished journals? Yes. Would I read Kafka’s laundry list? Yes. Where does one draw the line? At what he agreed not to burn? I am with Max Brod. Everything Kafka wrote (or for that matter said or did) is interesting because whatever he does, he is still doing the work. And the work is just self-work, but so, too, could be said of  anything any of us do, in any capacity, fence-mending, love-making, book-binding, that it is just self-work. With Kafka we are given the opportunity to witness a self-work master-technician seeking, with elegant precision, his own hinterlands, focused in a state of such contained urgency, that it is almost a trance of clairvoyance . Kafka is us, without the lying.

Shouldn’t that change the way I read him? It should. And it does. It ups the volume on everything. Even if he only clears his throat, it rings like thunder. Because the fact of the matter is he has something thunderous in him to say, and the fact of the matter is we know that he does. That is the point. Some of this stuff, sure, it can be more navel gazing, more convolutions, but what we cannot fail to recognize in Kafka is that this is a guy who is wrestling with his angel, and that commands our attention. What he is up against, so are we up against.

In the two slender notebooks, those two blue octavo notebooks, meant for school-children, we get his private conversations. And in private conversations all of us tend to think more childishly, more innocently, more directly, about hope and suffering, good and evil. If Kafka were to have translated those private conversations into public fictions or such-like, something that could have been folded twice and shot skyward under cloak of literature, his style would have to have been necessarily more self-conscious, more ambiguous. But, because these were entirely private conversations, and because they were left so, they became perfect mirrors. Looking glasses. Beyond the fairy tale of the bardic. Verging on the estate of the vatic.

Listen, now: Aphorism #16: A cage went in search of a bird. That’s all of it. That’s all there is. No root. No soil. Bloomed in thin air. Sometimes from Kafka, we get a truth that just is. A white, as it were, flower lapel that is not worn in irony.

That cautionary reprobate Charles Baudelaire once wrote, “The greatest wile of the devil is to convince us that he does not exist.” This echoes many of Kafka’s octavo notebook aphorisms about the idea of evil. It’s almost the cleric or the choir boy in Kafka writing at such times. At another level, though, it is as if he is some august theologian, transmitting a soul-map in code.

_______________

Alex Stein and Yahia Lababidi have embarked on an ecstatic series of conversations – with themselves, with one other and with their literary masters. This is an excerpt from their collection of calculated hallucinations: “The Artist as Mystic” (Onesuch Press). Other spirits summoned in this literary séance include: Nietzsche, Rilke and Kierkegaard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




22 Dec 2013

The Hesitation & The Evocation: Bachmann's Todesarten






The Hesitation & The Evocation: Bachmann's Todesarten

The Bachmann Todesarten Cycle Project.

I've been since long meaning to write about this. There are a lot of reasons for my hesitations.
To start simple: it did cost me back then a month's rent, but i needed to have it of course and saved up for it and lugged it home one beautiful day. It became the latest addition to the metre or so of Bachmann literature that I had already accumulated. They are carefully edited orange 4 volumes, weighty, it is twice as big as and dwarfing what counts as the normal standard edition, the white one: 4 volumes of her work, containing her poetry, prose (malina etc), and shorter miscellaneous writings. Todesartencycle contains the later prose, Franza, the Simultan stories, Malina, Requiem for Fanny Goldmann and all other writings, notes that belong to it. That is, factually, the textual scope and extent of the Todesartencycle.

I have been also, since long, staying away from her stuff, more or less, and sort of traded it in for the sanity and balance of christa wolf. I've written about this before.

It's this aspect of living in a different country where people read familiar authors in a similar yet different way that once more made me revisit old preferences. more importantly i've got to teach her and i need to think of how to approach this...

Then there is this aspect of having read an author thoroughly, to have read everything and sort of lived in that mental atmosphere for a while.

Noticeably, there is not a lot of discussion of content when it comes to Bachmann, it's all rather cryptic, only the initiated can understand etc. the way she is Maria in Bernhard's Extinction and so on...

For instance, one could remain on the level of anecdotal evidence and talk about how Bachmann bought parmesancheese for Peter Szondi so he could give it to Gershom Sholem. or the like.

For instance also, just to continue this:

A shoddy translation, mine, of a letter by Bachmann to Szondi:

20.6.1961
Gladly I'd like to say to you that your 'Essay on the Tragic' has affected me much and continued to occupy me. My interest in such studies is otherwise rather lame and tepid and i am so immodest to believe that this has less to do with me than with the studies; especially because the best and most beautiful [studies] that were a consequence of literature - and that have become a part of literature - made me more sensitive, not just for the literature and what often transparently lies in it, but also what we evocate/see in that literature/works. Your study is a beautiful and precise study, foremost a very inspired one, for which it is worth again to make the effort of precision.
Moreover I am very much delighted by one detail - that you have in your examples 'The Schroffenstein Family', which - when I had reread it half a year ago - had staggered me, because of its genial conception.
It is so hot in Rome that one can hold the pen only with effort and therefore I only say that I congratulate you on your book and wish good readers for it.

The original can be found in Sigrid Weigel's seminal study of Bachmann. Weigel used it in order to illustrate how Bachmann emphasises that what we evocate/see out/in that literature/works. [was von uns in  ihnen aufgerufen wird] - what is already in the works, but what is evocated in those works by us. Weigel reads this in the sense that this evocation is a hint that reading can be quoting, not the quoting of another text, but the quoting of the own text in another text.

One could probably go round and show a lot of those examples in her writing, in the writing of others she knew.

The hesitation is not gone away.

Todesarten means in a way, her intention, she made that clear in prefaces, is to show the crimes that takes place within legality, within everything that's allowed. Intelligent. subtle crimes. To show the mechanisms of those crimes was one intention. A panorama like Balzac novels, but - different, she said.

What evokes the hesitation, or: is not the hesitation a result of what her writing evokes?

A precise awareness for those crimes. Detailed, clear, acute.

That every reading of Bachmann would make one aware of one's participating in those crimes or suffering under them. Which is one reason for my shying away from her writing. An incapacity that is mine and not hers. The too close to home effect.

Which is maybe another reason why people don't talk so much about the content of her writing, especially the prose and rather focus on the poetry.

Bachmann always said people should be made to face the truth.

I should say only because I am not reading her anymore a lot this doesn't mean her writing doesn't mean anything to me anymore.

I leave it at that, for now.

Acknowledgement :  http://fortlaufen.blogspot.co.uk/

Richter Bach The Well-Tempered Clavier Book BWV 846 - 893.wmv & bonus

Glenn Gould 1932 - 1982 Bach The Well-Tempered Clavier. Book I Prelude...