1
Macro,Micro,Material:RachelBlauDuPlessis’DraftsandthePostObjectivistSerialPoem
AlanGolding,UniversityofLouisville
“Enoughtolookathere/Fortherestofalifetime”—RachelBlauDuPlessis,“Draft85:
HardCopy”1
“Objectivist”:thebest-knownandearliestdefinitionsofthetermcomefromLouis
Zukofsky’searlyessays,“Program:‘Objectivists’1931”and“SincerityandObjectification,”
whichbothappearedintheFebruary1931specialfeatureinPoetrythatZukofskyguest-edited.
Zukofskystresses“Objectivist”over“Objectivism”(atermheiscarefultoavoid)since“the
interestoftheissuewas...NOTinamovement”butincertainformsandqualitiesofpoetic
attention.Inhisdefinition,“Objectivist”referstothe“desireforwhatisobjectivelyperfect,
inextricablythedirectionofhistoricandcontemporaryparticulars.”2Outofthisdesire,“writing
occurswhichisthedetail,notmirage,ofseeing,ofthinkingwiththethingsastheyexist,and
ofdirectingthemalongalineofmelody.”3Whatiscommonlyemphasizedinthisformulation
isthefirstphrase,“thedetail,notmirage,ofseeing,”accuraterenditionoftheimage,butin
theinterestsofmyargumenthere,whichrequiresacapaciousdefinitionoftheterm“things,”
I’dliketostressequallythesecond:“thinkingwiththethingsastheyexist.”4Thesearethe
featuresof“sincerity,”movingtoward—inthebest-realizedpoeticwork—whatZukofskycalls
the“restedtotality”of“objectification—theapprehensionsatisfiedcompletelyastothe
appearanceoftheartformasanobject,”“writing...whichisanobjectoraffectsthemindas
such.”5Sincerityalsoinvolvestheartofomission,ofthecutorthegapthatiscentraltoserial
form:“Whensincerityinwritingispresenttheinsinceremaybecutoutatwillandinformation,
notignorance,remains.”6Asawayofseeingandofembodyingthoseperceptionsinpoetic
form,then,Objectivistsinceritymovestowardseriality.
In“’Recencies’inPoetry,”theintroductiontohis1932An“Objectivists”Anthology,
Zukofskyexpandsuponsomeoftheseprinciplesinwaysrelevanttoamajorexperimentin
post-Objectivistserialform,RachelBlauDuPlessis’Drafts.Morethaninhispreviousessays,
Zukofskyemphasizeswhathecalls“context—Thecontextnecessarilydealingwithaworld
outside”ofthepoem.7TheObjectivistpoem-as-objectishere“aninclusiveobject,”“binding
upandboundupwitheventsandcontingencies,”sociallyembeddedbydefinition.8George
Oppenwritessimilarly,manyyearslater,thatthe“actofperception”is“atestofsincerity,a
testofconviction”projecting“thesenseofthepoet’sselfamongthings.”9Thislocationofthe
poeminasocialworldwasalwaysimplicitinZukofsky’s“historicandcontemporary
particulars,”butitbecomesexplicitinhislaterformulationinawayimportantforthinking
aboutDuPlessis’sociallysaturatedwork.
Intheintroductiontotheirgerminalessaycollection,TheObjectivistNexus,DuPlessis
andPeterQuartermainreviewthebasicprinciplesofthepoeticsinquestion:“theterm
‘Objectivist’hascometomeananon-symbolist,post-imagistpoetics,characterizedbya
historical,realist,antimythologicalworldview,oneinwhich‘thedetail,notmirage’calls
attentiontothematerialityofboththeworldandtheword.”10Theygoontoconnect
2
Objectivistpoeticswithserialform:“TheObjectivists,withtheirdecidedsenseofthelineand
theirinventiveserialorganization,usethebasicnatureofpoetry—its‘segmentivity’—to
articulatesocialmeanings.”11“SerialityisacentralstrategyoftheObjectivistpoetryofthought
andofitsconstructivistdebatewithapoeticsofpresenceandtranscendence”inwaysthat
directlyimpactthepost-Objectivist:“allwritersabsorbingtheObjectivistexampleconsiderthe
praxisofthepoemtobeamodeofthought,cognition,investigation—evenepistemology.”12
Beyondtheobviousexampleofherownpoeticpractice,discussionsofserialityorserialform
runthroughoutDuPlessis’criticalwork,fromessaysonRobinBlaserandGeorgeOppento
thoseonthelongpoemasagenreandonherownpoetics.Thefollowingobservationon
LorineNiedeckercanstandformuchofhertheorizingspecificallyofObjectivistseriality:
Initssegmentivityandsequencing,itsdeliberatefragmentation,andintenseeconomy,
itsbuildingapoembyaccumulatingmomentsofsincerity,anditsmaterialistclaims,
[Niedecker’s]‘PaeantoPlace’iswrittensaturatedwithobjectivistpremisesand
practices....Itbuildsmeaningbythecutofthefragmentsandtheblazeofwhitespace
betweentheparts.13
“Oneofthemid-1960’sinventorsofserialityalongwithOppenand(fromanotherpoetics)Jack
Spicer,”Niedecker“inventedaversionofserialityasamodeofreflectivemomentsplaying
realistimagesandmeditativepensivenessagainstoneanother.”14Atthesametime,versions
ofserialformlieattheObjectivistmovement’sveryroots:inOppen’sDiscreteSeries(1934),in
Zukofsky’s“PoemBeginning‘The,’”orinCharlesReznikoff’snineteen-sectionRhythms(1918)
andhistwenty-two-sectionRhythmsII(1919).15SerialformistheObjectivistanswertothe
problemofthelongpoem—theproblemofhowitmaybepossibletowriteoneinthe
twentiethcentury,andthequestionofwhetheralongImagist(orObjectivist)poemis
possible.“Iamoftenaskedwhethertherecanbealongimagisteorvorticistpoem,”Ezra
Poundwrotein1914,andhisanswer,withsomequalifications,isthat“Iseenothingagainsta
longvorticistpoem.”16Objectivistseriality(initselfdiverseandbynomeansmonolithic)came
toprovideonemeansbywhichsuchapoemmightgetwritten.
Asananalyticaltool,whatDuPlessisandQuartermaincalltheObjectivistnexusisa
“three-dimensionalmodelofparticipation,productionandreceptionovertime”that“allows
one...toattendtoruptureaswellascontinuity,andtodispersionaswellasorigin.”17Butitis
alsoaspaceofongoingpoeticpractice,andassuchispreciselypost-Objectivist(orin
DuPlessis’term,“neo-Objectivist”).18“TheObjectivistnexus”thusprovidesaframeworkfor
thinkingaboutpoetry“after”(chronologically,andonthemodelof)theObjectivists,poetry
thatispartoftheObjectivists’ongoingreceptionandlegacy.InDraftsDuPlessiscontinuesthe
PoundianandObjectivistnotionthattechniqueisthetestofawoman’ssincerity,thatanethos
andanethicsemergesfromthewriter’sattitudetowardmateriality—thatoftheobjectworld
andoflanguage.ForDuPlessis,“thismakesanethicofwritingemergesimultaneouslywiththe
makingoflanguage.Thebasic‘rule’oftechniqueisthateverysinglemark,especiallythe
merestjotandtittle,theblankestgapandspace,allhavemeaning.”19Wemightnotethe
materialistlanguagehere(mark,jot,tittle,gap,space),theconnectionoflinguisticmateriality
toethics,andthelocationofmeaninginthesmall,eventhemicroscopic.Everymaterial
textualdetailhasmeaninginwhatDuPlessiscallsthe“through-composed”longpoem—“for
3
meapoeticsisexpressedphilosophicallyviathedetail”—andthatconstitutesonedefinitionof
whatitmeanstoassociatetechniquewithsincerity.20Inthisessay,Iwanttoexploresomeof
thewaysinwhichthesepost-Objectivistconcernswiththematerialdetailanditsmystery,and
withscale—therelationshipsamongmicro,macro,andmonumental—playoutthroughher
longserialpoemDrafts.
InherprefacetoSurge:Drafts96-114,thefinalvolumeofDrafts,DuPlessisreturnsusto
someofthebasicfeaturesoftheproject,“certainlyaworksaturatedinanobjectivistethos.”21
ThisethosisdefinedpartlybyanOppenesquesenseof“themysterythathasalways
generatedthepoem.PerhapsthewordsforthismysteryareITandIS.Thesepoemshave,at
anyrate,returnedtothoseconceptsasaninsistentcontinuo—orobbligato.”22Specifically,
Oppen’s“Psalm”offersthecanonicalObjectiviststatementofthisethos:“Thesmallnouns/
Cryingfaith/Inthisinwhichthewilddeer/Startle,andstareout,”linesprecededbythe
exclamation“thattheyarethere!”withitsawebeforethemysteryandstrangenessofbeing
(Oppen’sdeerhave“aliensmallteeth”[myemphasis]),its“senseofthepoet’sselfamong
things.”23ToreturntoDuPlessis:“thepoemcertainlywantstotalkofthemysteriesof‘it.’And
‘she’[thetitleofDraft2]isfacedwiththat‘it’andwithallofit.”24ThepreoccupationwithITIS,
then,isafundamentalpartofDrafts’objectivistethos.In“Draft33:Deixis,”DuPlessiscites“a
statementbyLouisZukofsky[that]offersthepoeticsofthiskindofexaminationofthe
smallestwords.”25ThekeypartofZukofsky’s1946statementreadsasfollows:“’acasecanbe
madeoutforthepoetgivingsomeofhislifetotheuseofthewordstheanda:bothofwhich
areweightedwithasmucheposandhistoricaldestinyasoneman[sic]canperhapsresolve.
Thosewhodonotbelievethisaretoosurethatthelittlewordsmeannothingamongsomany
otherwords.’”26DuPlessisweavesreferencestotheprincipleofthe“littlewords”throughout
Drafts,ofteninwaysthatcallupOppenorZukofsky.Asoneexample:”Littlewords/worming
intoincipience./‘Thea.’/Then,half-contrary,/‘athe.”27“The”(thetitleof“Draft8”)and“a”
aretiedtoDuPlessis’moveawayfromtheboundedlyricandtoherearliestimaginingsof
Drafts:“(Nomorepoems,nomorelyrics.DoIfindIcannotsustainthelyric;itisnolonger.
Proposesomehowawork,thework,awork,thework,aworkotherhowofenormousdailiness
andcrossing...)[myemphasis].”28Thischant-likerepetitioninvitesareadingofDraftsasa
kindof“the-work”and“a-work”immersedinthe“enormous”(Zukofsky’s“eposandhistorical
destiny”).Butagain,DuPlessis’own“littlewords”areother:“it”and“is.”I’llfocusthenext
phaseofmydiscussionontheoperationofthosetwowordsinDrafts,followingalongtheline
ofonethat“Draft1:It”inaugurates.29TracingthisparticularlinethroughDraftswillallowme
toforegroundnotjustthepervasivepresenceofthematerialobject,asfact,value,andidea,
throughoutDraftsbutalsoitsfoundationalpresenceatthepoem’sbeginningandateachrebeginning.
Draftshastwoentirelyappropriateepigraphs,raisingastheydoquestionsofattention
tominutedetailandoftheappropriateformfor“ungainliness,”thelattertermfrom
Zukofsky’s“’Mantis,’AnInterpretation”:“Feelingthis,whatshouldbetheform/whichthe
ungainlinessalreadysuggested/Shouldtake?”Thefirstepigraph,fromClarkCoolidge,reads
thus:
Theminutestdetailsof
sunlightonashoe...
4
hadtobescribbleddown,
andwithextensions.30
Consistentwiththeseconsiderationsof“minutestdetails”andoftheformtheirscribbling
downandmultiple“extensions”mighttake,theprojectbeginswithnon-humansubjectand
object,“Draft1:It”—bothmaterialandgrammaticalobject,andthekeyObjectivistpronoun.
Subsequently,everyDraftonthelineofone,thebeginningofeveryfold,thatis,everyrebeginninginmediasres,usesthephoneme“it”initstitle:“Incipit,”“Split,”“InSitu,”“Pitch
Content,”“Velocity.”(Moregenerally,theuseof“little”wordsastitles—“It,”“She,”“Of,”“In,”
“Me,”“The”inthefirsteightDraftsalone—establishesearlyontheirimportanceforthe
poem.)Atthesametime,DraftsbeginswithaquestioningofObjectivistpremises,oratleast
thedesiretoextendthem:“toreinvent‘attention’isnarrowthotempting,”thoughone
“reinvention”thatDuPlessisdoesembraceisthatofthepageasavisualandperformativesite
forself-reflexiveattentiontolanguage.31“Draft1”featuresmultipleiterationsofthephrase“it
is,”thelinguistic,philosophical,andethicalfoundationofDrafts.Onesuchiteration,“I/isit,”
anticipatesnumerouslatervariationsthroughoutthepoemonRimbaud’s“jeestunautre,”but
laysoutearlyDuPlessis’preoccupationwiththeself’srelationshiptotheobjectworld,
includingtheobjectsthatarewords.32Reinventedattentionwillfocuson“putt(pitting)the
tinyword/litt/it/onstageina‘theatrical’space/a/spacewhiteandopenaflat/spotaliteon
/it.”33Why“pitting,”“litt,”“lite?”Tohighlight,sonicallyandvisually,theomnipresenceof“it.”
IfonepersistentintertextisRobertCreeley’sformulationfromPieces,“it--/--it,”there’s
anotherreferencetoCreeley,andtohiswell-known“Assoonas/Ispeak,I/speaks.”34For
DuPlessis’“Object(pronoun)/squeaksitslittlesongitsbrightwhite/deardeaddark,”butat
thesametime“CANO”—“Ising”—sothat“I”and“it”becomeequallythesubjectsorsourceof
thelongsongthatisDrafts.35
If“It”—astitleandaspronoun—encodesObjectivistmateriality,oneaspectofthat
materialityinDraftsisitsself-reflexiveness,apersistent“spoilageof/presence”(Toll3)inthe
workthatdifferentiatesitfrommuchObjectivistwriting.36Fromthebeginning,Draftsis
occupiedwiththematerialconditionsoflanguageandofitsown(andanyprint-based
poetry’s)production:“it’s/framedmarksthatmake/meaningis,isn’t/it?Black//coding
insideA/whitefoldopen.”37In“Draft20,”anotherbeginning—“Incipit”—focuseson“itis”in
awaythatconnects“it”againtothepoem’sself-reflexiveness,its“auraofendlesslywelling
commentary/foldingandloopingover/Is.”38Thelarge,upper-caseboldface“I”linksvisually
withasimilarTfivelineslatertoform“IT.”ThispassagegivesusDuPlessis’commitmentto“it
is”asakindoffate:“Andthatwasit/Itsentencedmeforlife.”39Thuswritingfrom“itis”
constitutesabaselinemeasureoftheobjectivistethosofDrafts,whilelinking“it”toand
opening“it”intomomentsofmidrashicself-reflexivenessmarksanextensionofthatethos,as
anongoingtheorizingofpoeticsentersintothepoetryitselftoafargreaterdegreethaninthe
originalObjectivists’work.
In“Draft39:Split,”thebeginningsofthethirdfold,“’It’markdots/downonthe
40
page.” Itdoesindeed,andthosedots,againreminiscentofCreeley’sPieces,helpconstruct
theserialityoftheform.“It,”likeZukofsky’s“the”and“a,”hasahistoricaldestiny(notto
mentiondensity):“butspeakofhowthat‘it’emerged/it’s‘there’it’s‘where’it’sneverwhat/
youthinkMightbe.”41“That‘it’emerged,”amongothersources,fromaliteraryand
5
philosophicalhistorythatisencodedintheiambicrhythmsoftheselines,andthatincludes
oneespeciallyrelevantiambicpentametercouplet,CharlesReznikoff’scanonicalimageof
Objectivistit-nesstowhichDuPlessisrefersmultipletimesinDrafts:“Amongtheheapsof
brickandplasterlies/agirder,stillitselfamongtherubbish.”42Alsohoveringhereiswhat
DuPlessiscallsthe“alwayspalpable/strippedintransigence”ofGeorgeOppen:“Noway
seeingis-ness/nowaysayingit-ness/exceptresistance,”thatpointwheretheObjectivists’
ethosmeetstheirvariouslyleftpolitics.43“It”movesasakindofbasslinethroughDraft39via
deliberatelyobtrusiverhyme:“it,”“legit,”“split,”“bit”inoneeight-linesequence.Asalwaysin
Drafts,“it”isbothmaterialworldandtext,detailandplenitude,microandmacro,aswemove
fromthiscommentonBeverlyDahlen’sAReading—“’Reading“it”/bytheendlessinventionof
“it”’”—intothequintessentialencapsulationofwhat“it”meansinandtoDrafts:“Where‘it’/
splitsanddoublesbetweenthelittle(unspoken)andthelooming//(unspeakable)”—the
totality.44“Draft39”thenconcludes,inoneofthemanyallusivesummariesoftheproject,ina
playfuluseofWilliams’sthree-steplinerenderediambically:“tocastadotofmatterforth/
and,farther,farther,trollitout,/throughcuspsofdarklingantecedentsea.”45Thatdarkling
seagesturessimultaneouslytowardArnold’s“DoverBeach,”towardsHomerandthe“darker,
antecedentsea”thatcloses“Draft1,”andtowardsthepossibilityofthefemale-authoredpostHomericlongpoem,calledupin“Draft1”—astongue-in-cheekimperative?Asdeclarative?—
viatheuseofHomer’sfamousadjectivein“littlegirlslittlelegsjumpthewinedarkline.”46
Theself-enfoldedserialpoeminmultiplebookshastokeepconcerningitselfwith
(re)beginning,re-startingeverynineteenDraftsatitsmaterialbase,“It.”By“Draft58:InSitu,”
herfourthbeginning,DuPlessisisacknowledgingthechallengeofany“simplebeginning,in
situ,/thatis,inthemiddle,”asthepoemconfrontstheimpossibility,forher,ofcertain
Objectivistidealsandofpracticeshistoricallyassociatedwiththeepic:“Ijustwanted
simplicity,orrelief,/wantedtolistitems.”47However,“itlists[i.e.,leans],ittilts—theitofallof
this:/Howaccountforit;howcallittoaccount?”48Meditationsonthetraditionalepic
beginning,inmediasres,breakdowninthefaceofpoliticalrageandhumanloss(astudent
suicide),asdoestheObjectivistimpulsetowarddocumentationorrecording,theall-inclusive
ambitiontowriteataleofthetribe,andtheconventionoftheepiccatalogue:“Thiswastobea
straight-linelist,/itemizingwhatwasatstake.”49Like“InSitu,”thenextpoeminthelineof
one,“Draft77:PitchContent”beginsthevolumePitch:Drafts77-95byconsideringhowto
beginandbypersonifyingthe“it”thatdrivesallofDuPlessis’re-beginning:“’Itwantstowrite.
Itwantsmetowriteit...,’“inanepigraphfromHélèneCixous.50Aftertheepigraph,thefirst
lineoftexthastheeffectofaZukofskyanbeginning,invokingbothhislittlewordsandhislong
poem:“A,”thatlinereads,andit’sawfullyhardforareaderoftheObjectivistsnottocomplete
itas“A/RoundoffiddlesplayingBach.”51Incontrasttothatsocialplenitude,wehave“A/first
pageempty,blankandnull”—theblankversooppositethisrecto.52Forallthat,however,
soundandmusicdodominatethisDraftthatechoes“A,”“theIt/ofimpercipientvibrato”—
here,“it”isallsound.53In“Draft96:Velocity,”bycontrast,“it”isallspeedandmotion—verbs
like“pulse,”“push,”“surge,”“plunge,”and“sweep”dominatethefirstsentence.Zukofskymay
wellbepresentherealsoattheendofthislastbeginning,inaclosingsentencethat“calls
outrighttoA,”Zukofsky’skeylittlewordandthefirstletter.54Themorevisiblymodernist
presence,however,isWilliams,notjustinDuPlessis’useofhistriadiclinebutinthereference
tohisgreatpoemof(re)beginning,“Bytheroadtothecontagioushospital.”In“Draft96:
6
Velocity”thefigurefor“it”isaswallowtailbutterfly,“grippingdown”likeWilliams’plants,
babiesandnewAmericanpoems:“rootedthey/gripdownandbegintoawaken.”55
JustaseachvolumeofDraftsbeginsbyreturningtothegroundof“itis,”soeachone
closeswithavariationontheongoingnessofpoeticlabor,oftheworkwith“itis”thatwillend
onlywithdeath:hencethedoubledinvocationinthelasttwolinesofDrafts1-38,Tollto“work
untilittolls/Andworkuntilittolls.”56Drafts39-57movestowardtheselineswhilelinking
“workplace”and“nekuia,”mundanespaceofdailylaborandnecromanticpoeticrite:“Itishard
toknowwhy/thissiteissoimplacable/butitis,clearlyitis.”57Torques:Drafts58-76closes
withendlessness,withre-beginning,andwiththecitationalitythatformsonebasisof
DuPlessis’poetics.Thevolume’slastpagebringstheinvocationto“Begin!/Here!AndHere!”
whileitslastwordsappropriatethemailartistRayJohnsonon(self-)appropriation:“’Myworks
getmadeandthenchoppedup,andthenregluedandremade,andthenchoppedupagain,the
wholethingisreallyendless’”—reasserting,atapointoftemporaryclosure(theendofthe
book),theopen-endedconstructivistnatureofthework,somethingclosetoaninfinite
series.58Similarly,onthelastpageofPitch:Drafts77-95,“it”imposesitselfyetagainonthe
reflectivepoet:“IsthiswhatIwantedtosay?/Itissaid.IsitwhatIwanted?/Itiswhatcame
out./.../Itchoseme.”Thuschosen,onecanonlycontinuewritingbeyondtheending,and
“Draft95,”viatheimageofrestartingafaultywatch,“ends”byanticipatingtheworkahead:“I
knockithardtostartitupagain,/hittingthetablewhereIdomywork.”59Theearliestpartsof
“Draft1:It”datefromMay1986,when“it?that?//plungesintoeveryobject/awordand
thensome.”60OnehundredandfifteenDraftslater,in2012,thepoemisbothconcludingand
readytocontinuebeginningwiththeObjectivist“it”:
Therearesomanytasks.Tostart.
Up.Again.
Likethis.Theis.Theit.
Idest:
Sovectorthecrossroadsonceagain!
Volta!Volta!61
Thus,on“itis,”thetwolittlewordsthathavedrivenit,andonanotherturn(volta),Drafts
concludesina(its)beginning,“closeswithoutending.”62
So,littlewords,bigpoem,apoemthatconsciouslyengages“thewholeareaofcultural
ambition,toopenupintothelargestkindofspace,thechallengeofscopeitself.”63“Itis”turns
outtobecruciallyconnectedto“thechallengeofscope”andofinterpretationinthis
contemporarypoeticsofMassObservation:“Thesearepoemschallengedby—movedby—the
plethora....Hereisatypicalsituation:smalltolarge,tinytolargest.Itisabouttheplethoraof
stars,thatvastness,andthedotoryod,themostminusculemark.Thatitis.Thatwecanread
it.”64Asasimultaneouslyformalandsocialquestion,thatofscaleisinsistently,though
complexly,genderedinDrafts.DuPlessisisdrawn,aspoetandcritic,tothecreationof“large
andencompassingstructureswithafemalesignature”(myemphasis),followingonsuchfemale
7
modernistmodelsofongoing,large-scaleproduction—of“writingagiganticoeuvre,amound
ofoeuvre”—asDorothyRichardsonandGertrudeStein.65Earlyinhercriticalcareer,sheclaims
“in[oneaspectof]women’swriting...thereisanencyclopedicimpulse,inwhichthewriter
inventsanewandtotalculture,symbolizedbyandannouncedinalongwork,likethemodern
longpoem”—aworkmotivated,thatis,by“thethrillingambitiontowriteagreat,
encyclopedic,holisticwork,theambitiontogeteverythingin,inclusively,reflexively,
monumentally.”66Atthesametime,however,asapoemintheObjectivisttraditionDraftsis
alsocommittedtoaconstructivistpoeticsofcloseattentiontotheimmediateconcretedetail
orfragment,refusinganykindofpanopticalperspective,aconstructivistpoeticsthatisalsoa
feministpoeticsofwritingagainstthelongepistemological,cultural,andliterarytraditionof
codingthedetailfemale.AroundthetimethatDuPlessiswasbeginningDrafts,NaomiSchor
offersa“feministarchaeology”ofthedetailinwhichsheanalyzesits“participationinalarger
semanticnetwork,boundedontheonesidebytheornamental,withitstraditional
connotationsofeffeminacyanddecadence,andontheother,bytheeveryday,whose
‘prosiness’isrootedinthedomesticsphereofsociallifepresidedoverbywomen.”67ButSchor
isequallyinterestedintheredeemingofthedetailasasiteofvaluewithinmaterialistand
realistmodernism:“theongoingvalorizationofthedetailappearstobeanessentialaspectof
thatdismantlingofIdealistmetaphysicswhichloomssolargeontheagendaofmodernity.”68
ThusanObjectivistpoetics,inthisview,becomesawaytoundothefeminizationofthe
“detail”;Draftsengagesongoinglywithandinthisgenderedhistoryandmodernist
degenderingofthedetail.
Afoundationalessayonthequestionof“scale”inwomen’slongpoemsremainsSusan
StanfordFriedman’s1990“Whena‘Long’PoemIsa‘Big’Poem,”inwhichsheventures“some
generalizationsaboutwomen’sstatusasoutsidersinrelationtothegenreandtheselfauthorizingstrategiesinwhichtheyhaveengagedtopenetrateandtransformits
boundaries.”69“Inthishorizontal-verticaldiscourse,”Friedmanargues,inwhichthelongpoem
asks“big”or“deep”questionsanddoessoatlength,“vastspaceandcosmictimearethe
narrativecoordinateswithinwhichlyricmomentsoccur,thecoordinatesaswellofreality,of
history.”70WhileI’dquestionwhetherFriedman’saccountofwomen’srelationshiptothe
genreofthelongpoemcontinuestopertain,itremainsacompellinghistoricalaccount:
“Rootedinepictradition,thetwentieth-century‘longpoem’isanoverdetermineddiscourse
whosesize,scope,andauthoritytodefinehistory,metaphysics,religionandaestheticsstill
erectsawalltokeepwomenoutside.”71Withoutusingtheterm,Friedmanrefersheretothe
totalizingimpulse;inresponsetothatimpulse,DuPlessisusestheserialformofDraftsto
constructwhatshecalls“ananti-totalizingtextinasituationwithtotalizingtemptations.”72In
thefaceofFriedman’saccurateclaimthatthewoman’slongpoemisnolongercenteredona
malehero’squest,Draftsmaintains“thegeneralauraofquestjustasabaseline,”thoughthat
baselinehasitslimits:“nothero,notpolis.”73Butitdoessointheinterestsof“adistinct
demasculinizationofthegenre,”ofmovingawayfromthelongpoem“asamasculine
discourseofimportantquest-ions”whilemaintainingitsscaleandambition.74
WhatarethedifferentkindsofscaleorratioaboutwhichonecouldtalkinDrafts?There
isscaleattheleveloflanguage,whereDuPlessismainlyfocusesonthemicro:theserif,the
tinyvisualmark,thepoint(iota,yod).Thenlanguageispersistentlyfeltasinadequatetothe
articulationofthemacro,ofenormityorplethora(bothrecurringtermsinthepoem).Thereis
8
scaleatthelevelofperception:whatcanbeseenatthetiniestlevelasagainstacosmicor
astronomicalscale,themicrocosmicorthe“micro-moment”andthemacrocosmic.Bythe
timeDuPlessisinvokesBlake’sgrainofsandinPitch,thereaderhasbeenwaitingforitfor
quitesometime,whiletheterm“micro-moment”letsusknowtherearequestionsof
temporalityatworktoo.75Scaleintheareaofgenreorpoeticmethodwouldsetthe
monumentalityofDraftsagainstthemethodofconstructingthismassivenon-wholethat
“closeswithoutending”outoffragments,debris,“littlestuff,”bitsandpieces,momentsof
whatoncewascalled“lyric.”76EventheextensivenotestoDraftscanbeseentoparticipatein
thisratio:“Thenote.TheNote!afeministtaskoftheScholiast!—theannotation,condensing
enormousculturalpressuresintoatinymeaningfulmargin,trackingaroundthemonumental,
followingtraces.”77
Iwanttothinkaboutthepossibilitiesofananti-monumentalmonumentalityasone
approachtowhatis,afterall,at992pagesoneofthelongestlongpoemsofthetwentiethand
twenty-firstcenturies—largescalewithoutmonumentalityasawaytoclaim,andasan
analogyfor,poeticauthoritywithouthierarchy.78Sheermassinpoetry,DuPlessissuggests,
canitselfconstituteaculturalintervention,anobstaclethatrequiresnegotiation:“The
modern/contemporarylongpoemoftenexiststoputanunassimilablemoundofwriting
betweenyourselfandcultureasusual;alargerealignmentofwhatyouknowandwhatyousee
takesshapeinit.”79Atthesametime,this“mound”iscomposedofthedebrisorrubblethat
formsonecentralmotifinDrafts:“Perhapstheexperimentallongpoemofourerasmashesthe
epicintolyricshardsasasocialcritiquepreciselyofthesocialethosoftheepic,”itstotalizing
tendencies.80Draftsisboththepracticeofand“alsoatheoryofdebris,”“theoryoftheshard.”81
Wecanmapmacro,micro,andquestionsofgenderontoDuPlessis’concernswith
monumentalityanditsshatteringintorubble,arecurringtermthatwillactuallyendup
returningustoDuPlessis’Objectivistroots.IhavewrittenelsewhereonDuPlessis’complex
relationshiptoPoundianmonumentality,itselfreducedtorubble:“myerrorsandwreckslie
aboutme./AndIamnotademigod,Icannotmakeitcohere.”82Inparticular,“Draft15:Little”
contemplatestheprojectandmethodofthismillennialandmonumentalnon-epic:“Nothero,
notpolis,notstory,butit./Itmultiplied./Itengulfing./Itexcessive,”“thelittle/stuff
agglutinatingintime,debris.”83Theseeminglythrowawayterm“little”ishereapoeticor
formalandideologicalcommitment,withitsownlineagerunning,asIhavebeenarguing,
throughtheObjectivistsand—intherecurringimageof“debris”—throughWalterBenjamin.
Andherethat“little”term“it”islinkedsimultaneouslytothemacrocosmic—“it”iswhatis
multiplied,engulfing,excessive—andtothecounter-epicalagglutinationofDrafts(including
theaccumulatingmomentsofsinceritythatcumulativelyestablishtheObjectivistethos).
ThedialecticalrelationshipbetweenmacroandmicroisfundamentaltoDuPlessis’
project:“Thisconflictorincommensurabilityoflittleandlargeanditsunstableresolution...
mightbewhatincitesanyonetowritealongpoeminthefirstplace.”84Andthe“conflictor
incommensurability”findsitsappropriateforminpost-Objectivistseriality.“Draft49:Turns&
Turns,anInterpretation”isapoemformallyandconceptuallyindialoguewithLouisZukofsky’s
two-part“’Mantis’”and“‘Mantis,’anInterpretation”(thesourceofherepigraphon
“ungainliness”seekingappropriateform,asitdoesthroughoutDrafts).Thelineatedessay
“Turns,anInterpretation”posesthisquestion-and-answer:“whatistheformformotion,what
istheformfordialecticalshim,/forself-quarrelingandreadjustment—serious,humorous?/It’s
9
seriality:/itsquickshiftsandsectors,/itsquestionsateachmomentofarticulation....”
ImportantlyforDuPlessis,thenatureofserialityrefusesresolution:“Whatsinglemessage
from[Oppen’s]‘OfBeingNumerous’?”85
Viathetropeofdebris,letmereturntoCharlesReznikoff’scoupletfromJerusalemthe
Golden(1934):
Amongtheheapsofbrickandplasterlies
agirder,stillitselfamongtherubbish.
InwayscentrallyrelevanttoDrafts,thisispartlyapoemabouttheinterconnectivityof
singlenessandplurality,“agirder”and“heapsofbrickandplaster.”Moreprecisely,itisalso
aboutdistinctivesingleness,whatonemightcall“it-self-ness,”anditsrelationshiptoa
muddyingplurality,theindistinct“heaps”and“rubbish.”Oppenrepeatedlyinvokedthispoem
asaniconic,almostfoundationalororiginarymomentinObjectivistpoetics—henceits
notoriety—andalwaysmisquotedit,substituting“rubble”for“rubbish.”Inturn,DuPlessis
consciouslyadoptsthismisquotation,returningto“rubble”asapersistentmotifthroughout
Drafts:rubbleastheshatteredfragmentsofabrokenwhole,butrathermorepoignant,even
elegiacatermthanthemorejudgmental“rubbish.”Inoneformulationwefind“thegirder
amid,between,among,above,/therubbleunder,on,from,nextto,within”—littlewords
makingupwhatDuPlessiscalls“prepositionaldebris”elsewhereinthepoem.86
MonumentsandtheirbreakagerecurthroughoutDraftsasafigureforthework’sform,
method,ethos,andculturalpolitics.Given“themonsterstowhom/Monumentsarebuilt,”it’s
nosurprisetoencounterthefollowingfauxcross-reference:“Asformonuments—/see
ambivalence.”87Butthesemonumentsdon’tsurviveintact;whatsurvivesisthetrace,atleast
tentatively,somewhere,sometimes,evenasit“makesnoclaims/thatitwillsurvive.”88Aswell
astheerosionofmalepowerbytime,thestatueofOzymandiastowhichDuPlessisalludesin
‘Draft87”represents,asitdidforShelley,“monumentality/brokenandscattered”into“trace
elements,”“whichimplies/notthattrace/isoutsideofstructure,butthatitis/theshattered
bitsofformerstructure.”89“ImprobableBabelleftinrubble,/Thispoemalmostbecameits
ownerasure./Almostblankeditselfout,”butwasableto“letinfissure,fracture,broken
shard.”90Thisistheway,returningtotheimageofDrafts’openingpage,wherehandwritten
capitalNstaketheformofmountains,to“makethebookanimitationmountainbutwithreal
hardstrata.Data”:thepoemmadeupoftheshardsofitsownalwaysalreadyshattered
monumentality,onthescaleofamonumentbutwithnoneofitsfeatures.91
1
RachelBlauDuPlessis,Pitch:Drafts77-95(London:Salt,2010),42.
LouisZukofsky,Prepositions+:TheCollectedCriticalEssays,ed.MarkScroggins(Middletown,Ct.:Wesleyan
UniversityPress,2001),214,189.
3
Zukofsky,Prepositions,194.
4
ForDuPlessisonthe“thing,”seeheressay“TheToposofthe‘Thing’:SomeThoughtson‘Objectivist’Poetics,”in
TheIdeaandtheThinginModernistAmericanPoetry,ed.CristinaGiorcelli(Palermo,Italy:ILAPalma,2001),31-51.
5
Zukofsky,Prepositions,194.
2
10
6
Zukofsky,Prepositions,201.
7
Zukofsky,Prepositions,207.
Zukofsky,Prepositions,207,208.
9
GeorgeOppen,SelectedProse,Daybooks,andPapers(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2008),31-32.
10
RachelBlauDuPlessisandPeterQuartermain,“Introduction,”TheObjectivistNexus:EssaysinCulturalPoetics,
ed.DuPlessisandQuartermain(Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,1999),3.
11
DuPlessisandQuartermain,“Introduction,”4.
12
DuPlessisandQuartermain,“Introduction,”7,3.Cf.DuPlessis’recentandevenstrongerclaimthat“perhapsthe
mostdistinctivecontributionofobjectivistpoeticsisthemid-lengthtoverylongserialpoem,”inheressay
“ObjectivistPoetryandPoetics,”TheCambridgeCompaniontoModernAmericanPoetry,ed.WalterKalaidjian
(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),95.
13
RachelBlauDuPlessis,“LorineNiedecker’s‘PaeantoPlace’anditsReflectiveFusions,”inRadicalVernacular:
LorineNiedeckerandthePoeticsofPlace,ed.ElizabethWillis(IowaCity:UniversityofIowaPress,2008),162.
14
DuPlessis,“LorineNiedecker,”163.
15
CharlesBernsteinwritesofReznikoffthat“Withhisfirstbook,heintroducedcubo-serialityintoAmerican
poetry:serialpoemsthathaveamodular,ratherthanasequential,relationtooneanother.”Bernstein,“Brooklyn
BoyMakesGood:CharlesReznikoff,thePoetofNewYork,”TheBrooklynRail,March5,2006,
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2006/03/books/brooklyn-boy-makes-good-charles-reznikoff-the-poet-of-new-york
OnewouldalsowanttotakeintoaccountDuPlessis’offhandbuthistoricallypersuasivereferenceto“theinvention
oftheserialpoeminearlymodernism(possiblybyLoy)”inherGenders,Races,andReligiousCulturesinModern
AmericanPoetry,1908-1934(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),55.MinaLoy’s“SongstoJoannes”was
firstpublishedas“LoveSongsI-IV”intheexperimentallittlemagazineOthers1.1(July1915),6-8,andtherevised
“SongstoJoannes,”nowinthirty-foursections,waspublishedinOthers3.6(April1917):3-20,takingupthewhole
issue.
16
EzraPound,Gaudier-Brzeska:AMemoir(NewYork:NewDirections,1970),94.
17
DuPlessisandQuartermain,“Introduction,”22.
18
DuPlessis,“ObjectivistPoetry,”99.
19
RachelBlauDuPlessis,BlueStudios:PoetryanditsCulturalWork(Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,
2006),210.DuPlessis’frequentuseofthephrase“jotandtittle”maywellhaveencodedintoitherawarenessof
Pound’santi-Semitism.Shequotes,forinstance,hisassertionthat“notajotortittleofthehebraicalphabetcan
passintothetextwithoutdangerofcontaminatingit”(BlueStudios250).
20
RachelBlauDuPlessis,Surge:Drafts96-114(Cromer,UK:Salt,2013),11.
21
DuPlessis,Surge,13.
22
DuPlessis,Surge,3.
23
GeorgeOppen,NewCollectedPoems,ed.MichaelDavidson(NewYork:NewDirections,2008),99;Oppen,
SelectedProse,32.
24
DuPlessis,Surge,12.DuPlessisseemstobeinvokingtworelevantintertextshere,fromWhitman’s“Songof
Myself”(anothercandidateforthefirstserialpoem)—“Iandthismysteryherewestand”(WaltWhitman,Leaves
ofGrassandOtherWritings,ed.MichaelMoon[NewYork:W.W.Norton,2002],28);andfromOppen—“Theself
isnomystery,themysteryis/Thatthereissomethingforustostandon”(Oppen,NewCollected,159).
25
RachelBlauDuPlessis,Drafts1-38,Toll(Middletown,Ct.:WesleyanUniversityPress,2001),225.
26
DuPlessisquotesZukofsky’swordsinToll,225-26.
27
DuPlessis,Toll,180.Theletter“a”recursasbeginning,invitation,or“incipience”:“AsktheletterA/anditmay
tellyou//tocontinue,”forinstance,inRachelBlauDuPlessis,TheCollagePoemsofDrafts(London:Salt,2011),6.
28
RachelBlauDuPlessis,ThePinkGuitar:WritingasFeministPractice(NewYork:Routledge,1990),147.
29
Foravaluableprioranalysisofthe“littlewords,”including“it,”inDrafts1-38,Toll,seeLibbieRifkin,“Little
WordsandRedemptiveCriticism:SomePointsonDrafts,”HOW21.8(2002),
https://www.asu.edu/pipercwcenter/how2journal/archive/online_archive/v1_8_2002/current/forum/rifkin.htm.
Regarding“thelineofone,”andtherelatedterms“fold”and“grid,”forreadersunfamiliarwiththestructureof
Drafts:betweenthewritingof“Draft19”and“Draft20,”DuPlessiswrites,“Idecidedtorepeatsomeversionof
8
11
thesethemesormaterialsinthesamegeneralordereverynineteenpoems,foldingonegroupoveranother,
makingnewworksbutworksevokingmotifsandthemesintheformerone—andalso...generatingnewimages,
materialsandthemesasIwent”in“arecurrentbutfreestructure,”aprocedurebutnotaplan(Surge,7).Thus,
witha“fold”everynineteenpoems,the“lineofone”wouldincludeDrafts1,20,39,58,77,and96,allinsome
degreeofconversationwitheachother;the“lineoftwo”wouldincludeDrafts2,21,40,59,78,and97;andsoon.
StartingwithDrafts39-57,Pledge,withDraft,Unnumbered:Précis(Cambridge,UK:Salt,2004),DuPlessishas
includedadiagrammatic“grid”layingoutthestructureofthelinesandfoldsasitexpandswitheveryvolume.
30
TheepigraphsappearinRachelBlauDuPlessis,Drafts(Elmwood,Ct.:Potes&PoetsPress,1991),whichincludes
Drafts3-14inthefirstbooklengthgatheringoftheproject.WhenDuPlessisreprintsthesepoemsaspartofDrafts
1-38,shereplacestheCoolidgeepigraphwithonefromKeats.
31
DuPlessis,Toll,4.
32
DuPlessis,Toll,4.
33
DuPlessis,Toll,5.
34
RobertCreeley,TheCollectedPoemsofRobertCreeley1945-1975(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982),
391,294.AvariationentirelyappositeforDraftswouldbe“assoonas/Ispeak,it/speaks,”andindeedwefind
somethingclosetothatin“Draft76:WorkTablewithScaleModels”:“It/(still/speaking)/isstill,speaking.”
RachelBlauDuPlessis,Torques:Drafts58-76(Cambridge,UK:Salt,2007),132.
35
DuPlessis,Toll,5,4.DuPlessis’useof“cano”/”Ising”invokesacanonicalepicbeginning,thatofVirgil’sAeneid,
asshenotesinBlueStudios,234.
36
DuPlessis,Toll,3.
37
DuPlessis,Toll,2.AdifferentsortofessayfromthisonewoulddiscusshowthematerialpageinDraftsisnotjust
thematizedbutinsistentlyforegroundedthroughdrawings,handwriting,doublecolumns,typographicmarks,bold
faceanditalics,shiftsinfontsize,capitals,obtrusivetypos,blacked-outtext,mailart,visualcollage,andgenerous
useofinterlinealandintralinealwhitespace,bothanacknowledgmentandanextensionofthematerialityofprior
Objectivisttexts.
38
DuPlessis,Toll,131.
39
DuPlessis,Toll,131.
40
DuPlessis,Pledge,2.
41
DuPlessis,Pledge,2.
42
CharlesReznikoff,ThePoemsofCharlesReznikoff1918-1975,ed.SeamusCooney(Boston:DavidR.Godine,
2005),107.
43
DuPlessis,Pledge,197,3.
44
DuPlessis,Pledge,11.
45
DuPlessis,Pledge,12.
46
DuPlessis,Toll,9.Forthe“darker,antecedentsea,”seeToll,10.
47
DuPlessis,Torques,3.
48
DuPlessis,Torques,5.
49
DuPlessis,Torques,1.
50
DuPlessis,Pitch,1.
51
LouisZukofsky,“A”(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978),1.
52
DuPlessis,Pitch,1.
53
DuPlessis,Pitch,4.
54
DuPlessis,Surge,26.
55
WilliamCarlosWilliams,SpringandAll(NewYork:NewDirections,2011),13.
56
DuPlessis,Toll,267.Notetheforegroundingof“work”inthetitleofpoemsonthelineofnineteen,thelast
numberedpoemineachvolume:“Draft19:WorkingConditions,”“Draft38:Georgics&Shadow,”“Draft57:
Workplace,Nekuia,”“Draft76:WorkTablewithScaleModels,”“Draft95:Erg.”
57
DuPlessis,Pledge,221-22.
58
DuPlessis,Torques,136.
59
QuotationsinthisandtheprevioussentencecomefromDuPlessis,Pitch,172.ItisnotablethatDuPlessisturns
toaperfectlyregulariambicpentameterto“startitupagain,”asifthecontinuingworkdependsbothona
12
repeatedreturntothehistoryofAnglophonepoetry(encodedintheiambicmetre)andondoingthathistoryjust
enoughviolencetojogitintorenewedlifebutnotdestroyit(“Iknockithard”).
60
DuPlessis,Toll,1.
61
DuPlessis,Surge,160.
62
DuPlessis,Surge,1.
63
RachelBlauDuPlessis,“AnInterviewwithRachelBlauDuPlessis,”withJeanneHeuving,ContemporaryLiterature
45.3(fall2004),403.
64
DuPlessis,BlueStudios,214.
65
DuPlessis,“Interview,”404.
66
DuPlessis,PinkGuitar,17,9.
67
NaomiSchor,ReadinginDetail:AestheticsandtheFeminine(NewYork:Methuen:1987),4.
68
Schor,Reading,3-4.InthePrefacetoSurge,9,DuPlessiswrites“Idon’twanttosaytoomuchaboutscaleand
gender,becauseanystereotypicalobservation—howeversituationallytrue—risksrestating(re-instantiating)
patternswewanttoreject.”Onecanassentwithoutfindingthecommentdisablingforconsiderationsofscaleand
gender,especiallywhenshemovesimmediatelyintoalongparagraphonthehistoryoffemaleauthorship.
69
SusanStanfordFriedman,“Whena‘Long’PoemIsa‘Big’Poem:Self-AuthorizingStrategiesinWomen’s
Twentieth-Century‘LongPoems,”inFeminisms:AnAnthologyofLiteraryTheoryandCriticism,ed.RobynR.
WarholandDianePriceHerndl(NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1997),721.Thedefinitivebooklengthstudyofthefemale-authoredlongpoemremainsLynnKeller,FormsofExpansion:RecentLongPoemsby
Women(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1997),whichcontainsoneoftheearliestsustaineddiscussionsof
Draftsasa“feministseriallongpoem”(276).
70
Friedman,“’Long’Poem,”722.
71
Friedman,“’Long’Poem,”723,
72
DuPlessis,“PrefacetoSurge,”2.
73
DuPlessis,Toll,9.
74
Friedman,“’Long’Poem,”724,733.
75
“Notsomuchtheworldinagrainofsand/butthegrainofsandintheworld/definestrace”:DuPlessis,Pitch,
91.“Micro-moment”:DuPlessis,Toll,115.
76
DanielBouchardhascapturedthemacro-microdynamicofDraftsnicelyinhisessay“ALittleYodandaRocking
Enormity:ReadingDrafts,”Jacket2(Dec.2011),http://jacket2.org/article/little-yod-and-rocking-enormity,where
helistsimagesofsmallnessandusesoftheword“enormous”(anditsvariants)sidebyside.
77
DuPlessis,PinkGuitar,130.
78
Cf.PatrickPritchett’scommentthat“thescaleofDraftsismonumental;itsfocusanti-monumental,”inhis
review,“Drafts1-38,Toll,byRachelBlauDuPlessis,”Jacket2(May2003),http://jacketmagazine.com/22/pritdupless.html,andDuPlessis’owndescriptionofDraftsas“amonumentaltasksuspiciousofthemonumental”
(BlueStudios,241).
79
RachelBlauDuPlessis,“LyricandExperimentalLongPoems:Intersections,”TimeinTime:ShortPoems,Long
Poems,andtheRhetoricofNorthAmericanAvant-Gardism,1963-2008,ed.J.MarkSmith(Toronto:McGill-Queens
UniversityPress,2013),37.DuPlessis’commenton“howtoindicateone’svolumewithoutsquattinghibernations
ofmass”(PinkGuitar,133)mayseemcontradictoryuntilwerecallthat—despitetheimplicationsofthe“mound”
metaphor—“mass”forhermustalsobemobile,labile,porous,andhardlyamatterof“squattinghibernations.”
80
DuPlessis,“LyricandExperimental,”39.
81
DuPlessis,Torques,133,Toll,180.
82
EzraPound,TheCantos(London:Faber&Faber,1975),796;onDuPlessisandPound,seeAlanGolding,“Drafts
andFragments:RachelBlauDuPlessis’(Counter)-PoundianProject,”Jacket2(Dec.2011),
https://jacket2.org/article/drafts-and-fragments,andBobPerelman,“DraftsandtheEpicMoment,”Jacket2(Dec.
2011),http://jacket2.org/article/drafts-and-epic-moment.
83
DuPlessis,Toll,102.
84
DuPlessis,“LyricandExperimental,”50.
85
BoththisandthepreviousquotationcomefromDuPlessis,Pledge,121.ForZukofsky,theformfor“thoughts’
torsion,”for“theactualtwisting/ofmanyanddiversethoughts”“isreallyasestina,”thatstrangecombinationof
13
eleganceandbaroqueungainliness—butthesestinaconsideredandused“asaforce,”notmerely“asan
experiment”inseeingifonecanwriteasestina.LouisZukofsky,ALL:TheCollectedShortPoems1923-1964(New
York:W.W.Norton,1971),75-77.
86
DuPlessis,Pitch,82,20.ElsewhereinPitch,inaself-laceratingdefinitionofpoetryandatheoreticalreflectionon
Objectivistpoetics,wordsare“afetishsubstituteforthedirectness/ofrubble”(49).
87
DuPlessis,Pitch,56,44.
88
DuPlessis,Pitch,105.
89
DuPlessis,Pitch,92.
90
DuPlessis,Pitch,129.
91
DuPlessis,Pitch,134.WiththeseopeningNs,IsuspectanallusionnotjusttoWallaceStevens’“Poeminthe
ShapeofaMountain”buttoBasilBunting’sobservationonPound’sCantos:“TherearetheAlps.Whatisthereto
sayaboutthem?”(Bunting,CollectedPoems[Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1977],110)ThefirstDraftandpage
ofPitchreturnstothisimageincitingaphrasefromGershomScholem,“’letterstookon/...theshapeofgreat
mountains’”(DuPlessis,Pitch,1).