Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reviewed Work(s): Unoriginal Genius: Poetry by Other Means in the New Century by
Perloff
Review by: John Wilkinson
Source: Modern Philology, Vol. 111, No. 1 (August 2013), pp. E131-E135
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670317
Accessed: 13-05-2018 13:41 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Modern Philology
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEW
Given the decline in status of the study of poetry within university English
departments in the past few decades, it is remarkable that one of the rare
literary critics whose books command attention beyond the discipline
writes about unpopular contemporary poetry. A new book by Marjorie Perl-
off occasions real anticipation, rapid response on internet and in print,
and animated coffee-room conversation. Such excitement is well-deserved,
given the extraordinary influence of her critical work over several decades
in shaping poets’ reading and hence the writing of poetry as well as its sur-
rounding critical discourse. She makes bold claims, is wonderfully widely
read and adventurously so in the major European languages, and gives
lucid accounts of notoriously difficult writing both poetical and theoretical.
Now professor emerita at Stanford, she continues to press forward with an
undiminished appetite for the new, the newly uncovered, and the contro-
versial. Perloff is a critic whose primary mode is advocacy, which goes some
way to explaining her wide appeal; few words are wasted on scholarly con-
troversy or on writers who fail to provoke her enthusiasm, and the best-
informed reader can expect to be led toward rewarding discoveries.
Some irony attaches to the category of ‘‘the new’’ in Marjorie Perloff’s
new book Unoriginal Genius, as its title might signal; indeed, it is a book that
centrally makes a paradoxical claim for the potential newness of the arrière-
garde and the importance of revisiting work whose fate seems to have been
sealed in avant-gardes passing away with little influence. Such work may not
have been absorbed into a putative mainstream owing to historical disloca-
tion, exemplified in Perloff’s account by the First World War’s effect on
European culture; it therefore stays lost in a blind alley as a curiosity or
interesting failure. Perloff explores how modernist work previously slighted
E131
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E132 MODERN PHILOLOGY
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Review E133
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
E134 MODERN PHILOLOGY
fic artwork, and Goldsmith insists upon it in his statements and interviews,
asserting in a web posting that Perloff quotes at length (and itself adapted
from the conceptualist artist Sol LeWitt through substituting ‘‘writing’’ for
‘‘Art’’): ‘‘Conceptual writing is good only when the idea is good; often, the
idea is much more interesting than the resultant texts’’ (147). In a more
calculatedly reckless mood Goldsmith is apt to dismiss his books as thor-
oughly boring to read. Marjorie Perloff will not allow herself to be bored,
and she takes such assertions as a challenge.
Perloff could not be satisfied with contemplating the single idea of a 115-
page book transcribing traffic reports, and therefore she has to find some-
thing more interesting to do with it. First, she situates Traffic against the
dystopian vision of traffic developed in J. G. Ballard’s novel Crash (1972)
and the ideologically saturated traffic of Jean-Luc Godard’s film Weekend
(1967) with its ‘‘terrifying image of traffic as an embodiment of the evils of
consumerism in a heartless society’’ (155). At the same time, she separates
Traffic from Marinetti’s celebration of the machine and brings it closer to
John Cage’s Zen aesthetic of boredom—not a bad prescription for surviv-
ing New York City traffic psychologically. Most remarkably, she reads the
book diligently despite Goldsmith’s discouragement and discovers that it
cannot be what he claims, but is rather an assemblage that purports to be a
faithful copy. This allows Perloff to launch into a very literary intertextual-
ity, where a broadcast reporting on traffic flow across the city’s bridges that
includes the all-clear ‘‘Looking down to the Williamsburg, Manhattan and
Brooklyn Bridges, it’s one big green light,’’ prompts a reading alongside
the final paragraphs of The Great Gatsby (159).
The tension between contemplating the indexical and reading the tex-
tual can be regarded as constitutive of Perloff’s writing, and indeed it goes
to the heart of competing versions of modernism. In her chapter on con-
crete poetry, Perloff slides from indexicality to pseudo-etymology through
her previously cited contention that ‘‘poetry is that discourse in which astre
and desastre belong together’’ (72). But whereas the Cratylian argument
leads to formal self-evidence, the etymological engine (pseudo or not) that
generates constellations of verse describes a characteristic of poetic diction
reaching back to German Romantic poetics and demands precisely a prac-
tice of close reading. When a concrete poet coupled astre and desastre (or
star and steer in a celebrated screenprint by Ian Hamilton Finlay) he may
well have sought to collapse pseudo-etymology into self-evidence, but what
is evoked is a lyric tradition that remains powerfully at work in the Cantos
and in a different late modernist tradition from the one traced in Perloff’s
book. Such etymologically and philologically driven poetry requires think-
ing through a work during the act of reading, rather than thinking around
it contemplatively. Marjorie Perloff cannot eschew the ardors of close read-
ing, to the good fortune of her readers. Sometime she seems to wish to
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Book Review E135
write about design but instead responds to art precisely and enthusiasti-
cally—even finding art in what is advertised as design.
A reader familiar with Perloff’s criticism will know that she is a scholar
entirely conversant with the Romantic tradition and its Modernist recen-
sions: in other words, Unoriginal Genius is evidence of a project, not of a
position, and Perloff is a writer attractively ready to quarrel with her previ-
ously published assertions and to look from a new angle. A short review
cannot hope to describe the resources of this book, and risks imbalance
toward asking questions rather than celebrating achievement. Still, it is hard
to resist pointing to the famed authors of texts aiming for self-evidence. It is
striking that Walter Benjamin and Susan Howe are writers invested with a
cultlike glamour, albeit through no intention of theirs, while no one would
think of Charles Bernstein or Kenneth Goldsmith (or indeed Ezra Pound)
as self-effacing. John Cage, the patron saint of self-effacement, controlled
his works’ performance with an iron hand and the supposed indeterminacy
of many of his works must be set against his iconicity both as the brand
‘‘Cage’’ and as the original photographed and filmed unoriginal genius. It
is a virtue of Marjorie Perloff’s Unoriginal Genius that it leaves nothing set-
tled. Rather, it provokes new questions that help to unsettle modernism
and its artistic aftermath, and itself performs an important arrière-garde rea-
nimation of neglected or taken-for-granted avant-gardes.
John Wilkinson
University of Chicago
This content downloaded from 146.50.98.29 on Sun, 13 May 2018 13:41:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms