Parts one and two may be read here:
https://robertsheppard.blogspot.com/2020/01/robert-sheppard-thughts-on.html
https://robertsheppard.blogspot.com/2020/01/robert-sheppard-thoughts-on.html
The first link is also a hubpost containing links to all posts...
I turn now, or I will do, soon, I promise, to literary
collaboration. (I am still for the moment thinking about my own
collaborations, out of interest for the future, and also to ‘get me going’ on
an article on literary collaboration for a collection to be published next year.)
I want to define lit. collab. as the co-creation of a literary work or works by
two or more writers by whatever method.
But first I want to examine one hybrid example which
could have been covered when I was discussing collaborations with Jo Blowers
in the last post. This is a performance collaboration of a poem by me. Twice in the autumn
of 2014, Jo Blowers, Steve Boyland and I performed an interactive three
voice piece (a text from A Translated Man treated) at 8 Water Street and
at the reading series I co-directed, Storm and Golden Sky. See photos and
details here.
It’s a reworking of the poem, ‘Kybartai Nocturne’, which begins:
what is that sound
humming like an antique fridge packed with
ice
the hint of a turbine something turning
a patient siren rising and falling....
The
poem was reversioned, using the ‘canon’ technique deployed in 'Revolutionary
Song', which you can read here. It is actually a poem by my fictional poet Rene Van Valckenborch, or
no, it’s by his fictional poet, Jurgita Zujute. (This is so complex that
I never bothered explaining to our audiences.) See: https://euoia.weebly.com/jurgita-zuj363t279-1966--lithuania.html
and https://euoia.weebly.com/
|
Steve, Me, Jo |
I write about the interactive, improvisational performances
with Jo and Steve here : https://robertsheppard.blogspot.com/2014/10/robert-sheppardsteve-boylandjo-blowers.html
You will notice, from the photos, that Jo Blowers
is here performing vocally with Steve Boyland (and me). She'd trained with him. A great voice artist,
I would like to collaborate more with Steve in the future, though he seems
(happily) busy these days. As I say in ‘Thoughts 1’, music is the ‘other’
medium I understand best, though whether we achieved music or multivoiced
recitation is debatable. It was not recorded.
The second ‘example’ of collaboration is one I noted
twice in my reading yesterday, as it happens. Juha Virtanen in his book Poetry
and Performance During the British Poetry Revival 1960-1980: Event and Effect,
writes of Eric Mottram’s multi-voiced collage performance poem:
The quotations in Pollock Record permeate each other’s pores and
interstices, creating layer upon layer of new relations in the process;
therefore, the interactions between these materials cannot be construed as a
passive absorption of American influences. More accurately, Pollock Record is
an arena where Mottram attempts to actively work with Pollock as a
mutual collaborator. (p 93)
Similarly, but scholarly, as it were, Holly A. Laird
wonders at the end of her Women Coauthors whether her whole book hasn’t
been a collaboration with the pairs of writers she writes about.
I think in
the latter case, the ‘collaboration’ is metaphorical, and nothing like the work
of ‘Michael Field’, for example, which she examines. I think Juha’s case is a
better one, because of the form of the collagic text (big sheets of paper with selected
quotations attached). The active form makes it akin to collaborative equality
(in a way that Laird’s critical discourse cannot; nothing wrong with that!). It’s
as close to a ‘mutual collaborator’ as one can get, BUT, of course, Pollock has
no say in it. However elastic his sayings or practices or analogous bits of text
selected by Mottram may be, however activated, animated, Pollock as a creator
is never fully co-creator. He’s a pre-creator, but his words and images may be actively
refunctioned (but that, in my reading, and Virtanen’s, actually, is simply to
say that it is read or received in performance. All reading, like
writing, is an act-event. (I say a little more about this in ‘Thoughts 1’. It’s
out of Derek Attridge again.)). Mottram’s is an ‘attempt’ in Virtanen’s words.
Think of Frank Sinatra. I often do (so did Mottram: he
had Close to You I remember amongst his cassettes). Think of those not
entirely Duets albums, Frank’s postmodern period. Frank recorded the songs
(perhaps with gaps, perhaps straight with added edited drop-outs) and then the
other (Bono or Aretha Franklin) sang to the recordings (never encountering Mr
Sinatra). They were duetting with him, but he wasn’t duetting with them. That’s
not a mutual collaboration. As to Tony Bennett ‘duetting’ with the
long-dead Billie Holiday…
Dialogue with materials, selected
ones, is not the same as interaction with a creator or co-creator. Which is not to say the illusion of collaboration or
even duetting is not possible to conjure in the way Juha beautifully describes.
I follow Attridge’s sense that to feel a text ‘authored’ is part of its event
and effect. Same must follow for coauthored.
I had not thought to consider them here, but the works
in the two books of ‘The English Strain’ project so far raise some questions of
this kind. (See here for ‘The English Strain’, book one, and here for Bad
Idea, the English Strain book two. Lots of materials and links. I will not
re-describe the project here, although it is worth recording that, as with the
fictional poet project which I touched on above, I’m wondering whether there
will be a third part (or whether I will ‘end my solo before I’m done’, to quote
Miles Davis (again)).
I don’t think I’ve been collaborating (in ‘The English
Strain’ manuscript) with Petrarch
in Petrarch 3, with Milton in ‘Overdubs from Milton’, with Wyatt in Hap:
Understudies of Sir Thomas Wyatt's Petrarch, with Surrey in ‘Surrey with
the Fringe on Top’, with Charlotte Smith in the ‘Elegaic Sonnets’, or with
Elizabeth Barrett Browning in ‘Non Disclosure Agreement’.
See
here for a few poems from ‘Non-Disclosure Agreement’: https://mollybloom17.weebly.com/robert-sheppard.html
Nor
do I think I’ve been collaborating with Michael Drayton in ‘Bad Idea’ and ‘Idea’s
Mirror, which together comprise the ‘Bad Idea’ manuscript.
Four
consecutive poems from Bad Idea (XLV-XLVIII) are published together in International
Times. HERE .
I
feel that I have been in some sort of communion with the authors, but I know
that is an imagined and, I hope, imaginative, experience. One not communicated to
the readers. Though I felt a certain nobility in Wyatt, while Surrey (this is
reflected in the title I gave his section) was a bit of a tit. In fact, with
his conspicuous consumption, his acts of vandalism, his recklessness as a
soldier, I felt he was like the (Tory) Cambridge undergraduate who burnt a £20
note in front of a homeless man. Hopeless, privileged shitbag. (Played by Lawrence Fox in the film?)
‘Some
say I’m a funny old translator,/ ‘expanded’ like a supersized cod piece,’ writes
‘my’ Michael Drayton.
The
term ‘expanded translation’ has been used of some of the works that influenced
this project (particularly the Petrarch versions of Peter Hughes and Tim
Atkins, which I write about here: https://robertsheppard.blogspot.com/2013/12/robert-sheppard-on-petrarch-boys-peter.html )
I
found myself on the fringes of the AHRC project investigating ‘expanded
translation’, both via my chapter on Hughes and Atkins in The Meaning of
Form (which was part of an excellent reading pack, and Sophie Collins’
anthology had been published by then), but via the ‘fictional poets’ project (ironically,
because although the poems claim to be translations, there are no originals,
not even of ‘Kybarti Nocturne’, even with the Google translate version ‘back’
into Lithuanian on the EUOIA website. Wait for the arrival of a real Lithuanian
poet-collaborrator in a later post!).
See
here for the Bangor launch of Twitters for a Lark which was part of that:
https://robertsheppard.blogspot.com/2018/04/twitters-for-lark-launch-at-bangor.html
But
the ‘English Strain’ poems are more like ‘expanded’ translations than the fake
translations of the ‘EUIOA’ project! They are ‘more like’ but they are not. In fact,
the word I have settled on to describe this kind of writing is ‘transposition’.
Of course, in the titles I have used the words ‘overdub’ and ‘understudy’ to
describe my attitude to the poems. In the one case I am providing new words for
an old poem (like Eric Thompson’s narratives for ‘The Magic Roundabout’!); in
the other, I am offering my voice as a substitute. In the ‘Surrey’ sequence I even
declare ‘direct rule’ (I was thinking of Northern Ireland) but I claimed I was
speaking over the poem, taking over the poet. Actually, most of the poems are
subtle, and not so subtle, re-workings, re-writings, writings-through, of the ‘originals’.
I’m not collaborating at all. Sometimes it’s more like taking them hostage and
forcing them to write a confession. Sometimes. I also want to avoid analysing my
techniques too much, because I may not be through with the method.
I
should record I also don’t like Jacobson’s ‘intralingual translation’ much, though
that is useful (particularly for a virtual monoglot: ‘O’ Level French: fail). ‘Versioning’
I’ve used before, but I prefer to use that of transformations of my own
work (with the emphasis on ‘form’ as always). I use it above to describe what
our vocal trio did to or with ‘Kybarti Nocturne’.
‘Transpositions’:
I believe poetics is often finding what one already knows. I hit upon the term ‘transposition’
to discover that I’d already used it, well before I took it from Idea’s
favourite philosopher Rosi Braidetti. She notes its use in music: ‘Transposition
indicates variations and shifts of scale in a discontinuous but harmonious pattern
… an in-between space of zigzagging and of crossing: nonlinear and chaotic, but
in the productive sense of unfolding virtual spaces.’ (RB Reader: 226).
Or
in genetics: ‘Transposition refers to processes of mutation, or the transferral
of genetic information, that occur in a nonlinear manner … Transposable moves …
dissociation of bonds’ etc. (p. 226)
More
generally: ‘An intertextual, cross-boundary or transversal transfer of codes ..
a leap …’ (p. 226)
Something
like that will serve, I think. Poetics is not a blueprint but a thumbnail. Braidetti
is interested in the process of transposition; so am I when I am writing
the poems, possibly the reason for the rituals of composition with these ‘English
Strain’ transpositions, which I have written about elsewhere, and which is
entirely new to my writing behaviour, it strikes me now for the first time. Whereas
the event-act of writing produces this thing, this transposition. It will
serve, yes. The action is on the part of the author, but what is authored is
produced from the active interaction with the creation of another, involving
some acts of selection. The original text is indeed changed in the act-event
of subsequent readings, which is why I like to see my ‘English Strain’ poems read
against the originals. In ‘Petrarch 3’ that’s achieved by having 14 versions of
one translation from Petrarch. Occasionally this fact may be demonstrated in
presentations of other poems. Here’s one of the Earl of Surrey's poems with my transposition of it:
http://internationaltimes.it/direct-rule-in-peace-with-foul-desire
It
lays bare the method(s) of ‘transposition’ used in this case, and again it’s
not my job to itemise the techniques. I do not feel it fully adheres to the
meaning I want to circumscribe as ‘collaboration’. I’m not particularly
concerned if others disagree with me. For me, this is about the essay I’m
writing, but it’s also about teasing out what I might write next, creatively.
In
terms of what I will write next on this blog it is to return to my opening paragraph
here and launch off into my own ‘literary collaborations’. I want to finally get round to defining lit. collab.
as the co-creation of a literary work or works by two or more writers by
whatever method.