The blog of author Dennis Cooper

Category: Uncategorized (Page 733 of 1101)

Raymond Queneau, Party Animal

—-

 

Raymond Queneau was born in Le Havre in 1903 and went to Paris when he was 17. For some time he joined André Breton’s Surrealist group, but after only a brief stint he dissociated himself. Now, seeing Queneau’s work in retrospect, it seems inevitable. The Surrealists tried to achieve a sort of pure expression from the unconscious, without mediation of the author’s self-aware “persona.” Queneau’s texts, on the contrary, are quite deliberate products of the author’s conscious mind, of his memory, his intentionality.
—-Although Queneau’s novels give an impression of enormous spontaneity, they were in fact painstakingly conceived in every small detail. He even once remarked that he simply could not leave to hazard the task of determining the number of chapters of a book. Talking about his first novel, Le Chiendent (usually translated as The Bark Tree), he pointed out that it had 91 sections, because 91 was the sum of the first 13 numbers, and also the product of two numbers he was particularly fond of: 7 and 13.
—-Queneau became a well-known name in France after the huge success of his novel Zazie dans le métro (1959), in which he tells the adventures of a 12-year-old girl from the country who comes to Paris for the first time. Zazie was filmed by Louis Malle the following year, when the French nouvelle vague was sweeping across the international movie scene, and the success of both the book and the film propped Queneau to a sort of celebrity — a fame seldom experienced by writers sharing his level of erudition and complexity.
—-Queneau joined in 1950 the Collège of Pataphysique, the group of intellectuals and writers whose zany, tongue-in-cheek manner brought a sort of Brothers-Marxist approach to French philosophy. Pataphysics was created by poet and playwright Alfred Jarry (1873-1907), and is defined as the science of imaginary solutions, or the science which investigates not the laws of Nature, but the exceptions to those laws.
—-In 1960 Queneau founded, together with François Le Lionnais, the “Oulipo” (Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle). This is a group of writers who include Georges Perec, Harry Matthews, Jacques Roubaud, Italo Calvino, Jacques Bens and others. The Oulipo projects were to a great extent a result of Queneau’s love for mathematics, a love that he expressed in a series of essays and papers on number theory, set theory and combinatory analysis. He was made a member of the Goncourt Academy in 1951, and died in 1976. — Braulio Tavares, Scriptorium

 

 

Interview
from The Review of Contemporary Fiction

GEORGES CHARBONNIER: Raymond Queneau, you said to me one day that two great currents exist in literature and that basically one could, if I understood you correctly, link most novels either to the “Iliad” or to the “Odyssey.”

RAYMOND QUENEAU: I think that those are in fact the two poles of Western novelistic activity since its creation, that is to say since Homer, and that one can easily classify all works of fiction either as descendants of the “Iliad” or of the “Odyssey.” I had the pleasure of hearing this idea of the Occidental novel as a continuation of the Iliad summarized recently by Butor during a conference [25 July 1961]. He said excellent things in this regard, but he didn’t speak about the Odyssey, and it seems to me that the Odyssey represents the other pole of Western literature.

GC: When would you say there’s an Iliad, and when would you say there’s an Odyssey?

RQ: First of all, these two works have one thing in common: one finds in them nearly all the techniques of the novel. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone has discovered much that’s new since then.

The “Iliad” is already an extremely erudite work, with a very well-defined subject; it is, as you know, the story of Achilles’ anger, that is, something very specific, placed in a very vast historical and mythological context. One incident projects in a way a glimmer of light on the historical world which surrounds it and vice versa, but it is the incident which makes the story; the rest contributes only to the “suspense” and to the development of the story.

Many novelists likewise take well-defined, precise characters, whose stories are sometimes of mediocre interest, and place them in an important historical context, which remains secondary in spite of everything.

“The Charterhouse of Parma” and “War and Peace” are novels of the Iliad genre, not because they tell of battles, like Homer (that counts, too), but because the important things are the characters plunged into history and the conflict between characters and history; for example, the work of Proust is also an Iliad. The battles take place in drawing rooms, but they are still battles, and the nucleus is the narrator’s personality and the people who interest him.

Moreover, there is the “Odyssey.” The “Odyssey” is demonstrably much more personal; it is the story of someone who, in the course of diverse experiences, acquires a personality or, if you will, affirms and recovers his personality, like Ulysses, who finds himself unchanged, aside from his “experience,” at the end of his odyssey.

So there the examples are extremely numerous: “Don Quixote,” “Moby Dick,” “Ulysses,” naturally, but also a book like “Bouvard and Pecuchet,” for example, which is well-situated in this line of descent. The story of “Bouvard and Pecuchet” is an Odyssey through the sciences, the letters, and the arts. Bouvard and Pecuchet as well find themselves as they were at the beginning of the novel since the book’s conclusion is that they start to copy again, just as Ulysses returns to be the king of his little island.

Rabelais also, certainly Rabelais is an Odyssey; “The Red and the Black” is an Odyssey, whereas “The Charterhouse of Parma” seems to me to be an Iliad. And in the “Odyssey” there are, as much as in the “Iliad,” technical refinements which are extremely remarkable, and I’m surprised they aren’t mentioned more often. For example, when Ulysses hears his own story sung by an epic poet and then he reveals his identity and the poet wants to continue singing and Ulysses isn’t interested any longer; that’s very astonishing, modern, shall we say, because it’s really a novel within a novel. To have one’s own story told by a third party who doesn’t know that the character in question is himself the hero of the story being told, that’s a technical refinement which could date from the twentieth century. It’s true that one finds this sophistication also in “Don Quixote.”

GC: “Jacques le fataliste”?

RQ: “Jacques le fataliste,” that’s also an Odyssey. I wonder if there aren’t more Odysseys than Iliads among the great novels.

GC: That’s what I was going to ask you; are there not more Odysseys than Iliads?

RQ: Zola’s work is an Iliad. There again is an example of a story centered on characters who are sometimes not even very interesting; and with a great tableau, a great historical ferment in the background.

GC: How can we classify these memoirs which touch so closely on the novel, like “The Confessions” of Rousseau, for example?

RQ: Ah! All confessions are Odysseys. “Wilhelm Meister” is an Odyssey; all autobiographical tales are Odysseys; all lives are Odysseys.

GC: So that we find ourselves in the presence of very few Iliads when all is said and done.

RQ: Yes, there are in fact very few, but I can come up with some, even so. Perhaps Sagan is linked to the “Iliad.”

GC: But then is literature devoted to these two currents: to compose an Iliad or to compose an Odyssey?

RQ: Until the beginning of the twentieth century, it is easy to classify all fictional works under one or the other rubric. But perhaps the total awareness of this dependence with respect to Homer and the Greek epic, achieved by Joyce in “Ulysses,” perhaps that dissipated this sort of ascendancy of Homer over all Occidental literature. Perhaps since then, in fact, we have gotten a little away from this double aspect of either putting the man, the character, back into historical events or of making a historical event of his very life.

One can say that fiction has consisted either of placing imaginary characters in a true story, which is the “Iliad,” or of presenting the story of an individual as having a general historical value, which is the “Odyssey.” But after the magical act accomplished by Joyce with “Ulysses,” perhaps we are getting away from it. It seems to me that an author who has determined very new domains in literature is Gertrude Stein and “The Making of Americans” is doubtless very meaningful in this regard, because there, there is an attempt to suppress all history. It is the history of the making of the Americans. It is a very great Iliad because it concerns the creation of a nation. It is a very great Odyssey because it concerns the Odyssey, which is the story of Americans up to the point where they are well-established and even so it is detached from the historical side in a sort of present that Gertrude Stein called the “timeless present,” in a sort of formal immobility which causes peoples’ lives—one can’t say that it is exemplary, because the lives of Bouvard and Pecuchet, the life of Don Quixote are exemplary—peoples’ lives to be at the same time concrete and ideal. It’s a kind of transformation of the individual to a type, a little in the sense of the Platonic ideal, and one which remains even so extremely concrete. Banality is elevated to the rank of a metaphysical value. It is a response to the question “Is there an ‘idea’ of each individual?”

GC: In all the attempts at the contemporary novel, do you see a will to situate oneself with respect to what you have just defined?

RQ: I didn’t quite grasp. . .

GC: Does the recent novel try to get away from both the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey”? Or is it that on the contrary it belongs deliberately to one of these currents?

RQ: Well, I’ll admit that I didn’t quite grasp the final meaning, the conclusion of Butor’s conference, but it seemed to me that he was more interested in the Iliad aspect of literature and that he spoke of it seeing himself in this same line of descent, even if he opposed it on certain points. He expressed himself more in terms of “society” than of “history,” but all societies are historical; there have been only rare moments in history where individual histories were able to run their course without wars or revolutions. It was perhaps not until the nineteenth century, in the English novel, that we find people who are likely to spend a whole lifetime without being hit by bombs, who have a tranquil life in which history does not intervene. But, aside from this period, there have always been many things happening externally, and peoples’ private lives are always thrown into disorder. The “Iliad” is the private lives of people thrown into disorder by history.

GC: So there would be nothing but Odysseys in the English novel of the nineteenth century?

RQ: I’m forced to admit that. There is a great novel likewise written at a time when history seemed to be immobilized, during the first century of the Roman Empire; I’m talking about the “Satyricon” of Petronius. It is an Odyssey obviously because people come and go, they are dragged from incident to incident, but one can say also that it is, potentially, the Odyssey of the Roman Empire itself. Outside of those who were busy with palace intrigue, the people, the “little people” above all, those of whom Petronius spoke, probably thought that it would always be that way, but one sees that he himself must not have considered this state of things as so long-lasting.

There were others who were not of this opinion either—those were the Christians, but that’s another story!

One could wonder, moreover, if Petronius made allusion to Christianity in the “Satyricon.” It’s a controversial question. The episode of the Matron of Ephesus and, in the last chapters, the story of the cadaver that the heirs have to consume anthropophagically seem really to me to be anti Christian parodies.

GC: In a general way, would the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey” correspond to two realizations, two ways of apprehending things, two ways of conceiving them?

RQ: Yes. In one we think of giving importance to history, but it is the individual who is interesting, and in the other the individual is interesting and we want to give him a historical importance. In fact, it’s the same point of view, that is to say the novelist’s point of view, the creator of fiction’s point of view. It is the character who interests him. Sometimes he wants to convince the reader that the story he is telling is as interesting as universal history, and sometimes he thinks that he will render this story interesting by slipping it into universal history. The story of Achilles could take place anywhere; that the all-powerful lord comes to take his favorite slave from him, it could happen in a completely different historical context from the Trojan War. It is obviously only the author’s genius which persuades the reader that the story cannot be otherwise, that it must be accepted that way.

GC: Would the truth be a synthesis of these two?

RQ: Either a synthesis or a way out.

 

Official Website (French)
Interview
Official Oulipo (French)

 

Gallery

 

Big Book

Exercises in Style

Raymond Queneau’s Exercises in Style is a collection of 99 retellings of the same story, each in a different style. As a haiku, a telegram, an official letter, a blurb for a novel, a word game, and an ode. As apostrophe, onomatopoeia, and parechesis. It’s told onomatopoetically, philosophically, telegraphically, and mathematically. It’s even told as interjections: “Psst! h’m! ah! oh! hem! ah! ha! . . .” In each, the narrator gets on the “S” bus, witnesses an altercation between a man (a zazou) with a long neck and funny hat and another passenger, and then sees the same person two hours later at the Gare St.-Lazare getting advice on adding a button to his overcoat.

There’s nothing especially avant-garde about Queneau’s Exercises in Style. Such playful rhetorical exercises, called copia, were popular in the schoolrooms of Shakespeare’s day. A favorite textbook of that time, De Copia by Erasmus, illustrated the exercise with more than 150 variations on the simple sentence (in Latin), “Your letter pleased me greatly.”

Queneau said he wanted to do for literature what Bach did for music in the Art of fugue. He also wanted to simultaneously clean up the French language, remove its archaic, stuffy conventions, while affirming its elasticity, its variety, its refusal to be contained in anything so deadening as an ‘official’ language. It is a little known fact that Exercises is a detective story, with the solution fittingly revealed in the 99th chapter.

Buy it

Excerpts:

NOTATION:
In the S bus, in the rush hour. A chap of about 26, felt hat with a cord instead of a ribbon, neck too long, as if someone’s been having a tug‑of‑war with it. People getting off. The chap in question gets annoyed with one of the men standing next to him. He accuses him of jostling him every time anyone goes past. A snivelling tone which is meant to be aggressive. When he sees a vacant seat he throws himself on to it.

Two hours later, I meet him in the Cour de Rome, in front of the gare Saint‑Lazare. He’s with a friend who’s saying: “You ought to get an extra button put on your overcoat.” He shows him where (at the lapels) and why.

THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE:
I was not displeased with my attire this day. I was in augurating a new, rather sprightly hat, and an overcoat of which I thought most highly. Met X in front of the gare St.‑Lazare who tried to spoil my pleasure by trying to prove that this over coat is cut too low at the lapels and that I ought to have an extra button on it. At least he didn’t dare attack my headgear.

A bit earlier I had roundly told off a vulgar type who was purposely ill‑treating me every time anyone went by getting off or on. This happened in one of those unspeakably foul omnibi which fill up with hoi polloi precisely at those times when I have to consent to use them.

ANOTHER SUBJECTIVITY:
Next to me on the bus platform today there was one of those half‑baked young fellows, you don’t find so many of them these days, thank God, otherwise I should end up by killing one. This particular one, a brat of something like 26 or 30, irritated me particularly not so much because of his great long featherless­ turkey’s neck as because of the nature of the ribbon round his hat, a ribbon which wasn’t much more than a sort of maroon‑colored string. Dirty beast! He absolutely disgusted me! As there were a lot of people in our bus at that hour I took advantage of all the pushing and shoving there is every time anyone gets on or off to dig him in the ribs with my elbow. In the end he took to his heels, the milksop, before I could make up my mind to tread on his dogs to teach him a lesson. I could also have told him, just to annoy him, that he needed another button on his overcoat which was cut too low at the lapels.

PAST:
I got into the Porte Champerret bus. There were a lot of people in it, young, old, women, soldiers. I paid for my ticket and then looked around me. It wasn’t very interesting. But finally I noticed a young man whose neck I thought was too long. I examined his hat and I observed that instead of a ribbon it had a plaited cord. Every time another passenger got on there was a lot of pushing and shoving. I didn’t say anything, but all the same the young man with the long neck started to quarrel with his neighbor. I didn’t hear what he said, but they gave each other some dirty looks. Then the young man with the long neck went and sat down in a hurry.

Coming back from the Porte Champerret I passed in front of the gare Saint‑Lazarre. I saw my young man having a discussion with a pal. The pal indicated a button just above the lapels of the young man’s overcoat. Then the bus took me off and I didn’t see them any more. I had a seat and I wasn’t thinking about anything.

PRESENT:
At midday the heat coils round the feet of bus passengers. If, placed on a long neck, a stupid head adorned with a grotesque hat should chance to become inflamed, then a quarrel immediately breaks out. Very soon to become dissipated, however, in an atmosphere too heavy to carry ultimate insults very vividly from mouth to ear.

Thus one goes and sits down inside, where it’s cool.

Later can be posed, in front of stations with double courtyards, sartorial questions about some button or other which fingers slimy with sweat self‑confidently fiddle with.

REPORTED SPEECH:
Dr. Queneau said that it had happened at midday. Some passengers had got into the bus. They had been squashed tightly together. On his head a young man had been wearing a hat which had been encircled by a plait and not by a ribbon. He had had a long neck. He had complained to the man standing next to him about the continual jostling which the latter had been inflic ting on him. As soon as he had noticed a vacant seat, said Dr. Queneau, the young man had rushed off towards it and sat down upon it.

He had seen him later, Dr. Queneau continued, in front of the gare Saint‑Lazare. He had been wearing an overcoat, and a friend who had happened to be present had made a remark to him to the effect that he ought to put an extra button on the said overcoat.

PASSIVE:
It was midday. The bus was being got into by passengers. They were being squashed together. A hat was being worn on the head of a young gentleman, which hat was encircled by a plait and not by a ribbon. A long neck was one of the characteristics of the young gentleman. The man standing next to him was being grumbled at by the latter because of the jostling which was being inflicted on him by him. As soon as a vacant seat was espied by the young gentleman it was made the object of his precipitate movements and it become sat down upon.

The young gentleman was later seen by me in front of the gare Saint‑Lazare. He was clothed in an overcoat and was having a remark made to him by a friend who happened to be there to the effect that it was necessary to have an extra button put on it.

ANTIPHRASIS:
Midnight. It’s raining. The buses go by nearly empty. On the bonnet of an AI near the Bastille, an old man whose head is sunk in his shoulders and who isn’t wearing a hat thanks a lady sitting a long way away from him because she is stroking his hands. Then he goes to stand on the knees of a man who is still sitting down.

Two hours earlier, behind the gare de Lyon, this old man was stopping up his ears so as not to hear a tramp who was refusing to say that he should slightly lower the bottom button on his underpants.

ABUSIVE:
After a stinking wait in the vile sun I finally got into a filthy bus where a bunch of bastards were squashed together. The most bastardly of these bastards was a pustulous creature with a ridiculously long windpipe who was sporting a grotesque hat with a cord instead of a ribbon. This pretentious puppy started to create because an old bastard was pounding his plates with senile fury, but soon he climbed down and made off in the direction of an empty seat that was still damp with the sweat of the buttocks of its previous owner.

Two hours later, my unlucky day, I came upon the same bastard holding forth with another bastard in front of that nauseating monument they call the gare Saint‑Lazare. They were yammering about a button. Whether he has his furuncle raised or lowered, I said to myself, he’ll still be just as lousy, the dirty bastard.

 

Media


Raymond Queneau’s ‘Arithmétique’


Raymond QUENEAU – Un siècle d’écrivains : 1903–1976 (DOCUMENTAIRE, 1995)


Raymond Queneau à propos de “Zazie dans le métro”


Entretien avec Raymond Queneau 1950


Mort de Raymond Queneau

 

Oulipo Compendium (excerpts)
Queneau quotes
Queneau’s uptopian dream worlds

 

Some Other Books

Hundred Thousand Billion Poems

Raymond Queneau’s Hundred Thousand Billion Poems or One hundred million million poems, published in 1961, is a set of ten sonnets. They are printed on card with each line on a separated strip, like a heads-bodies-and-legs book. As all ten sonnets have not just the same rhyme scheme but the same rhyme sounds, any lines from a sonnet can be combined with any from the nine others, so that there are 100,000,000,000,000 different poems. It would take some 200,000,000 years to read them all, even reading twenty-four hours a day. In 1997, a French court decision outlawed the publication on the Internet of this poem. The court decided that the son of Queneau and the Gallimard editions possessed an exclusive and moral right on this poem, thus outlawing any publication of it on the Internet and possibility for the reader to play Queneau’s interactive game of poem construction. However, two online interactive versions do exist.

Stanley Chapman’s version
Bevrowe’s version
Buy the book

 

 

Saint Glinglin (Dalkey Archive) Queneau has created a world, starting with its banalities: the cliches, the tired small talk, the outdated prejudices, the little points of pride. This world, Home Town, is settled in its ways under perpetually blue skies and under the guidance of Nabonidus, its proud mayor. But the mayor’s children, all corrupted by influences from Foreign Town, turn against both their father and the traditional ways. To say any more about the plot is to imply that there really is one. Like all of Queneau’s books, this is much about language, both dry experimentation (the entire book is a lipogram–there are no X s) and full of neologisms and quirky style. — PW

 

The Blue Flowers (New Directions) The Blue Flowers is the most lovable of all Raymond Queneau’s novels. It relates two paralell narratives (or rather – and Queneau is the great mathematical novelist! – base and perpendicular narratives): the historical narrative of the endearingly aggressive Duc d’Auge, nay-sayer to royal authority and public opinion, friend of Gilles de Rais and the Marquis de Sade, and debunker of religion to the extent of daubing on caves in the Perigord region to ‘prove’ the existence of humanity before Adam; his three daughters, including the defective, bleating Phelise, and their small-minded spouses; his squire Mouscaillot and their talking horses, philosophical Demosthenes and taciturn Stef; and his clerical foils, the abbes Biroton and Riphinte. — Darragh O’Donoghue

 

Zazie dans le Metro (Penguin) Raymond Queneau has written a strange but tantalizing little novel about an adolescent named Zazie… she has a New York accent, and the mouth of a Henry Miller. Her misadventures in Paris, prove challenging to those around her,and amusing to the reader. It’s a collage of seemimgly misplaced dialogue and eccentric characters, yet is easy to read and laugh with. Zazie is less of a labyrinth and more of a amusement park, a good introduction to this imaginative writer. — Allen Greenbaum

 

We Always Treat Women too Well (NYRB) We Always Treat Women Too Well was first published as a purported work of pulp fiction by one Sally Mara, but this novel by Raymond Queneau is a further manifestation of his sly, provocative, wonderfully wayward genius. Set in Dublin during the 1916 Easter rebellion, it tells of a nubile beauty who finds herself trapped in the central post office when it is seized by a group of rebels. But Gertie Girdle is no common pushover, and she quickly devises a coolly lascivious strategy by which, in very short order, she saves the day for king and country. Queneau’s wickedly funny send-up of cheap smut—his response to a popular bodice-ripper of the 1940s—exposes the link between sexual fantasy and actual domination while celebrating the imagination’s power to transmute crude sensationalism into pleasure pure and simple.

 

The Flight of Icarus (New Directions) Hubert, a writer, has lost the main character to the novel he is, well was, writing. After viciously accusing friends and fellow writers of stealing Icarus, he hires the detective Morcol, “who has appeared in many novels under different names,” to find him. Soon we meet Icarus, who is only 15 pages old and on his own in 1890 Paris, and begin to see the formation from what Hubert designed, to a real character through his first experience with absinthe, his girlfriend LN, his love of automobiles and bicycles, and his love of flying machines. — Jeff O. —-

 

 

 

*

p.s. Hey. My GIF work for Artforum ‘7 Days’ is now complete, and if you want to see the whole thing, this link will take you there, although I think the link will only work for the next day or so. ** David Ehrenstein, Hi. I remember Danny Sommers. An old friend of mine is married to one of the big twink porn stars of the 1980s era, Jamie Wingo. I’m sure you saw or have that massive issue of Little Caesar guest-edited by Gerard Malanga that contains a rather vast section about Heliczer. ** _Black_Acrylic, Hi. Best of luck hitting your Saturday deadline. You sound like you’re pretty squared away. My muse is avoiding me at the moment, so I’m happy to lend it/him/her/them to you for the duration. ** Dominik, Hi!!! Yeah, I suspect that Axl looking the part was just a rumor generator, but who knows. I’m no fan whatsoever of this strict quarantine on a personal level, but I think it’s wise, and signs are that it is making a real difference, so, yeah, it does seem like a tactic other countries should probably take. So this is the first time you guys have free-styled in writing only? How did it go? I remember that movie ‘Primal Fear’. Edward Norton seemed like he was going to be such an amazing actor based on how he was in it, but that didn’t really work out. That happens: a new actor kind of blows it all out, talent-wise, in one or two initial roles, and then what they do becomes familiar, and that excitement and surprise is gone. Yesterday … took a long walk disguised as a trip to a far flung supermarket. Talked to Zac for the first time in days. He’s fine, antsy, dealing, like me, like all of us. As I may have mentioned yesterday, I don’t remember, we made it to the finals for a CNC funding grant for our new film. Normally that would mean going before a committee to be grilled about the project, but, under the circumstances, we have to shoot a short video of us explaining why we want/need/deserve the funding and send it to them, so we have to do that soon. Jean-Luc Godard did a live instagram show/talk on Wednesday, and I watched a replay of that, and it was great. I tried to write, didn’t go well. Not much else. Bleah. Maybe today will surprise me. How did you spend yours, pal? Love that used to  pack stadiums in the good old days, Dennis. ** Bill, Hi. Yeah, power couples, those four. I have no idea what Glove is up to. He popped in here out of the blue maybe 5 years ago, said hello, and then vanished again. I kind of hoped he might be out there keeping one eye on the blog and might see his thing reposted and say hey, but not yet anyway. The Var vocalist was Elias from Ice Age. I loved Var, but they only existed for about a year. The title of Zac’s my first film, ‘Like Cattle Towards Glow’, is a lyric from a Var song. Do alert me to the rerun of that gig, yes, definitely. By 1 a.m. I am a zero covered with a blanket. ** Jeffrey Coleman, Hey, Jeff! I was hoping you’d see that repost. Thanks again, man.  And Ohle was apparently very excited about it. And happy birthday! You good? Those were some real odds right there, yeah. Take care buddy. ** Jeff J, I figured you must have known about the Derrida/Coleman talk. Yeah, it’s amazing, right? Holy moly. As I was saying to David E., one issue of Little Caesar that was guest-edited by Gerard Malanga had a giant section about Heliczer, and there were a bunch of poems by him in there. I bought the book of his poems that was put out some years ago. They’re quite wild and colorful and cool. I think Luther Price’s films in general are quite interesting. So check out a random sampling. I assumed Michael would be Bookworm-ing by phone right now. I’m happy to hear he’s doing well. I have not read that Maggie Nelson. Is that her new book? Huh, I’ll go see what it is. I don’t know anything about it. Thanks! ** Steve Erickson, Cool you saw that Jodie Mack film. So terrific, right? She’s great. You read that Black Crowes member’s memoir! Now that’s a curious move on your part. That said, I’ve been feeling this itch to read the bio/book about 10cc, ‘Worst Band in the World’, although I do really like them even if I haven’t listened to them in ages. No, I didn’t know about that Fox anchor turned porn star. Now that’s a horse of a different color. ** Misanthrope, You rambunctious American will deal with the plague the way you will, but I feel pretty confident that we sticklers for the lock down over here are going to get through this thing faster and cleaner than you are. But we will see. Unfortunately, readers like being told things. That’s why mainstream lit is 85% garbage. Congrats on the refund. Don’t spend it all on masks and hand sanitiser. ** Right. The blog does its thing vis-a-vis that wild man of French letters Raymond Queneau today, so why not settle in, scroll and press, and enjoy the show. See you tomorrow.

Varioso #33: Coleman, Derrida, circuit Bending, guro, Kansas Barbed Wire Museum, Heliczer, Pedrick, The Dreadful Flying Glove, Murray, holograms, Price, Koestenbaum, Hainley, Harmon, windy, Sunset Strip 1964-1966, Ronell, Herzog, Tiny Teacup World, Numerology, Vår, Jackson *

* (restored)
_____________

Jacques Derrida interviews Ornette Coleman
from Ubuweb

Jacques Derrida: What do you think of the relationship between the precise event that constitutes the concert and pre-written music or improvised music? Do you think that pre-written music prevents the event from taking place?

Ornette Coleman: No. I don’t know if it’s true for language, but in jazz you can take a very old piece and do another version of it. What’s exciting is the memory that you bring to the present. What you’re talking about, the form that metamorphoses into other forms, I think it’s something healthy, but very rare.

JD: Perhaps you will agree with me on the fact that the very concept of improvisation verges upon reading, since what we often understand by improvisation is the creation of something new, yet something which doesn’t exclude the pre-written framework that makes it possible.

OC: That’s true.

JD: I am not an “Ornette Coleman expert,” but if I translate what you are doing into a domain that I know better, that of written language, the unique event that is produced only one time is nevertheless repeated in its very structure. Thus there is a repetition, in the work, that is intrinsic to the initial creation—that which compromises or complicates the concept of improvisation. Repetition is already in improvisation: thus when people want to trap you between improvisation and the pre-written, they are wrong.

OC: Repetition is as natural as the fact that the earth rotates.

JD: Do you think that your music and the way people act can or must change things, for example, on the political level or in the sexual relation? Can or should your role as an artist and composer have an effect on the state of things?

OC: No, I don’t believe so, but I think that many people have already experienced that before me, and if I start complaining, they’ll say to me, “Why are you com- plaining? We haven’t changed for this person that we admire more than you, so why should we change for you?” So basically I really don’t think so. I was in the South when minorities were oppressed, and I identified with them through music. I was in Texas, I started to play the saxophone and make a living for my family by playing on the radio. One day, I walked into a place that was full of gambling and prostitution, people arguing, and I saw a woman get stabbed—then I thought that I had to get out of there. I told my mother that I didn’t want to play this music any- more because I thought that I was only adding to all that suffering. She replied, “What’s got hold of you, you want somebody to pay you for your soul?” I hadn’t thought of that, and when she told me that, it was like I had been re-baptized.

JD: Your mother was very clear-headed.

OC: Yes, she was an intelligent woman. Ever since that day I’ve tried to find a way to avoid feeling guilty for doing something that other people don’t do.

JD: Have you succeeded?

OC: I don’t know, but bebop had emerged and I saw it as a way out. It’s an instru- mental music that isn’t connected to a certain scene, that can exist in a more normal setting. Wherever I was playing the blues, there were plenty of people without jobs who did nothing but gamble their money. Then I took up bebop, which was happening above all in New York, and I told myself that I had to go there. I was just about 17 years old, I left home and headed for the South.

JD: Before Los Angeles?

OC: Yes. I had long hair like the Beatles, this was at the beginning of the Fifties. So I headed for the South, and just like the police, black people beat me up on top of everything, they didn’t like me, I had too bizarre a look for them. They punched me in the face and demolished my sax. That was hard. Plus, I was with a group that played what we called “minstrel pipe-music,” and I tried to do bebop, I was making progress and I got myself hired. I was in New Orleans, I was going to see a very reli- gious family and I started to play in a “sanctified” church—when I was little, I played in church all the time. Ever since my mother said those words to me, I was looking for a music that I could play without feeling guilty for doing something. To this day I haven’t yet found it.

(read the totality)

 

_______________

Circuit Bending Library
Spunky Toofers
Circuit Bending Synth DIY
Casper Electronics

 

_______________

 

_______________

Kansas Barbed Wire Museum
La Crosse, Kansas

‘Names like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, or “Wild” Bill Hickock instantly conjure up images of a wild West. Alongside these men, there is another name, perhaps not as familiar, but important just the same. So important, in fact, that without him, the wild West may never have been tamed. He was a banker, a businessman, and a farmer. He even served as the Sheriff of his community. However, is it for one of his first inventions that he is most well remembered. His name was Joseph Glidden and his invention changed the lifestyle of midwestern settlers.

The Spilger Barbed Wire Collection: Now on permanent exhibit, this collection of 2140 unique samples of barbed wire is one of the largest of its kind in existence. Although only slightly over 500 wires were actually patented, this collection includes numerous similar, but unique variations of patented wires along with many home-made designs. Nearly all known types of barbed wire from the most common to the most unusual are displayed.

The Fence Mender: A life-size diorama depicts a cowboy repairing his broken fence line by light of the moon. Under the starry skies, viewers can almost hear the cattle lowing on the hillside behind the thin strands of wire that protect a freshly planted crop. Visitors will learn that farming and ranching work does not stop when the sun goes down.

The Goedert Gallery of Rare Wires: Now under construction, this gallery will feature a magnificent collection of rare and unusual wires not currently on display in this or other museums. It will include some of the most beautiful examples of actual fence wires ever made. The gallery’s innovative design will present the collection in a new and attractive way.’ — KBWM

 

_______________

‘One of the more mysterious figures in the New York underground that circled around figures like Smith and Warhol, Piero Heliczer was born in Italy to a Polish father and German mother, appeared in films as a budding child star, before emigrating to the US in the ‘40s. Heliczer established the Dead Language Press in 1957, from Paris, where he would publish writings by Smith, along with beat authors such as Gregory Corso. He returned to the US in the ‘60s, via London – along the way, he would work with British film maker Jeff Keen, and create a number of excellent, mysterious films, all while working on his poetry (in 2001, Granary published a collection of Heliczer’s writings, A Purchase In The White Botanica). Heliczer was among the first to film the Velvet Underground, for his 1965 short, Venus In Furs; around this time, he also made Dirt, a deceptively simple film about which Jonas Mekas noted, “Its beauty is very personal and lyrical. And every frame of it is cinema.” It is, indeed, a lovely, understated work, which steals something of the everyday poetry of life from the air of the times.’ — Boiler Room

Heliczer, along with The Velvet Underground, also appeared on CBS News, for a brief segment on underground films – you can view that segment below.

 

_______________

Arthur Paul Pedrick
by The Dreadful Flying Glove

“Arthur Paul Pedrick was a prolific British inventor who filed for 162 United Kingdom patents between 1962 and his death in 1976. His inventions were notable for their almost complete lack of practical applicability.”

Arthur Paul Pedrick retired as a patent examiner for the UK Patent Office in 1962, and began filing patent applications. There are quite a lot of them, and they include “SWINGING, OR SUSPENDED, MULTI-DECK CITIES” (GB1203166, August 1970), “IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FLIGHT DIRECTION AND LOCATION OF GOLF BALLS” (GB1121630, July 1968), the relatively prosaic “AUTOMATIC BOOT & SHOE CLEANING MACHINE” (GB992921, May 1965), and “SONAR PULSE EMITTING SUBMARINE CABLE FOR GUIDANCE OF SURFACE AND SUBMARINE VESSELS, AND THEIR DETECTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER” (GB1206580, September 1970).

The lasting impression is of Wallace & Gromit as drafted by Borges.

Arthur Pedrick, not insane, created with great care and deliberation patent applications for inventions he knew could not, would not work. His insightful manipulation of patent law, specifically in the composition of his applications, is the key reason so many of his applications were accepted.

Apparently, Pedrick’s applications are commonly studied as demonstrations of loopholes and important details in patent law. I don’t know the first thing about any of that, though.

From “CRUCIFORM, KITE AND PARACHUTE AIRCRAFT” (GB1204649, December 1969): “It is certainly true that all forms and types of heavier-than-air craft are likely, from time to time, to go out of control and hit the ground violently.”

Elsewhere in his work, Pedrick becomes thoughtfully concerned with the inadequacies of humankind, as well as an apparent personal difficulty with the consistency of his golfing.

From (GB1203166, February 1970): “This invention is concerned, in general, with the future well being of the species “homo sapiens”, and in particular, with the design or construction of cities or large “connurbations”.

“The species “homo sapients” is basically, but not always, gregarious and is often herded together at high surface density in what are called “cities”. To accommodate more people such cities have tended to expand laterally, as in the case of London, or vertically, as in the case of New York. In neither case is this very efficient since the spread of a city laterally, like London, absorbs land that otherwise is arable, or useful for agricultural purposes, whereas the building of very high structures as in Manhattan in New York requires a journey to ground level to pass from the top of one such structure, such as the Empire State Building, to the top of, for example, the Pan Am building.”

A.P. Pedrick lived, as each of his applications reminds us, at 77 Hillfield Road, Selsey, Sussex. In the fullness of time, this location assumed grander titles. The “Hillfield Road, One Man Think-Tank Radiation Research Laboratory”, for instance, is the title given in Pedrick’s justly celebrated patent for a “PHOTON PUSH-PULL RADIATION DETECTOR FOR USE IN CHROMATICALLY SELECTIVE CAT FLAP CONTROL AND 1,000 MEGATON, EARTH-ORBITAL, PEACE-KEEPING BOMB” (GB1426698, April 1974).

GB1426698 begins in reasonable enough form, with an overview of the Crooke’s radiometer and Einstein’s 1905 Nobel-winning paper on the photoelectric effect, before pressing on into uncharted waters by postulating a new theory of the composition of a photon. This is expounded in two sides of exceptionally sadistic waffling, eventually arriving at the assertion that a mechanical device can be built to detect the colour of something, which allows Pedrick to design an automated cat flap that admits his own cat, Ginger, who is elderly and ginger, without admitting his neighbour’s cat, who is black and much younger and often eats Ginger’s food.

However, all of this is more or less set aside by the end of page 3, as Pedrick devotes a further couple of pages to documenting a conversation with his cat.

Ginger is of the opinion that there is an even better application for the photosensitive control. By way of a lengthy argument about the folly of nuclear brinksmanship, Ginger points out the same principle can be used in the construction of an Earth-orbiting Doomsday Device that will respond to any visible detonation of “H bomb carrying rockets” to “fall upon that part of the Earth’s surface from which the nuclear attack had originated.”

Not a shaggy dog story, not a figure of ridicule. If Pedrick didn’t exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.

 

_____________

The philosophy of Bill Murray
from The A.V. Club Blog

The existential nihilism of Meatballs
‘The idea that life is meaningless—and that free will is thus an illusion, given the utter senselessness of making any choices at all—has plagued philosophers ever since man first set useless pen to pointless paper. In centuries past, some writers have taken this to the extreme, arguing for suicide as the only solution, but others take a more existentialist tack, arguing that embracing that fundamental meaninglessness is an act of liberation. Take Arthur Schopenhauer, who (despite the negative, dismissive connotations of his advocating “pessimism”) argued that looking at life optimistically required intellectual dishonesty, and coming to terms with meaninglessness was the first step toward pursuing the basic human compassion that is our only true purpose. Those ideas form the basis of one of Murray’s most stirring, endlessly-adaptable-to-our-times monologues, a postmodern philosophical treatise delivered to North Star campers fearing another Olympiad trouncing by the rich kids at the Mohawk.

 

The “amor fati” of Ghostbusters
‘A favorite expression of Nietzsche, “amor fati” refers to an attitude of acceptance toward one’s fate—that even suffering and loss should be embraced, as they are all part of one’s destiny. In Ghostbusters, Murray’s Peter Venkman goes with the flow of fate like no other: Faced with the sudden closure of his paranormal research department, he revels in it as an opportunity, memorably saying, “Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma. I believe everything happens for a reason. I believe that we were destined to get thrown out of this dump.” Venkman’s abiding faith in predestination allows him to confront even the ugliest of horrors—like the dead rising from their graves and smearing ectoplasm on everything in sight—with an unflappable cool that verges on stoicism, the most extreme version of amor fati. That’s why he can deal with everything from the constant threat of bankruptcy to rejection by Sigourney Weaver (and her later transformation into a demon dog) to an imminent apocalypse at the hands of a Sumerian god, armed with nothing beyond stoic self-confidence and a bottomless arsenal of sarcastic quips.

 

The Pagliacci-ism of Quick Change
‘Crying-on-the-inside types have long related to Pagliacci, the classic opera first performed in 1892 about a lonely, jealous clown who murders his wife. Everyone from Smokey Robinson to Tony Soprano have name-checked the quintessential sad funnyman, but nobody embodies the archetype as perfectly and completely as Murray, who cast himself as an actual clown for his (so far) only directorial effort, 1990’s Quick Change. Murray plays the appropriately named Grimm, a stone-faced goofball who masterminds a successful bank robbery in Manhattan only to foul up the protracted getaway. While Quick Change was co-directed by screenwriter Howard Franklin, the movie’s painfully wry worldview is pure Murray: Failure is inevitable, and seeing the humor in this doesn’t make it any less soul-crushing.

 

The Buddhism of Groundhog Day
‘Though everyone from secular self-help therapists to Catholics have claimed it as their own, Groundhog Day is especially beloved by the Buddhists, who view it as an illustration of the notion of “samsara”—the endless cycle of birth and rebirth that can only be escaped when one achieves total enlightenment. In the film, Murray’s sarcastic, self-serving weatherman is forced to repeat a single day out of his life until he comes to terms with the Four Noble Truths: 1) Life is suffering (but that doesn’t mean you have to add to it by being a jerk). 2) The origin of suffering is attachment to desire (so don’t spend your days robbing banks, stuffing your face with danishes, and trying to bamboozle your way into Andie MacDowell’s pants). 3) There is a way out (by dedicating your time to bettering yourself), and 4) it involves following the “eightfold path,” which means revoking self-indulgence and becoming a “bodhisattva”—someone who acquires skills and uses them in the selfless service of others (like changing an old lady’s tire, saving kids who fall out of trees, and performing the Heimlich maneuver on a choking victim). As a result of Murray’s generous acts, he receives the love of the whole town—a oneness with the universe—and is allowed to evolve past the cycle of samsara to nirvana. In this case, “nirvana” means renting a house in rural Pennsylvania and waking up next to Andie MacDowell every day, but hey, whatever makes him happy.

 

The asceticism of Rushmore
‘As practiced by certain sects of Hinduism, Jainists, and even Christians who reject the ideas of “prosperity theology” (and actually, you know, listen to Jesus), asceticism involves a conscious abstaining from worldly pleasures in favor of focusing on one’s spiritual life. While he doesn’t end up wandering the desert in sackcloth eating only what may fall into his bowl, Murray does arrive at these basic tenets of asceticism in Rushmore. Murray’s Herman Blume is a self-made tycoon with his own multimillion-dollar business and the lifestyle to match, yet he’s crippled by ennui, and despairing over the alienation he feels toward his family. Pursuit of a truer definition of love eventually tears his world apart—and wrecks him both financially and physically—but by movie’s end, Blume has undergone a total spiritual reawakening, and seems to have found happiness at last in his total unburdening.’ — Steven Hyden, Sean O’Neal, David Wolinsky

 

_______________

Holograms

 

________________

Home Movies from Hell: The Films of Luther Price

‘Luther Price is an anomaly on many levels. He’s gay but unwelcome by the gay community, which reviled him for the alleged homophobic excesses of Sodom. He invents alter-egos including the short-lived “Fag” and the more enduring “Tom Rhoads.” He’s worked as a waiter, played in bands (and started a country band), and “committed suicide” in one of his performance pieces via a candy overdose. Much of his personal history is mysterious, in spite of his frequent use of himself and his family and their history via photos and home movies in his films. He was nearly killed (and was heavily scarred) in a shooting accident in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s. He works in a disreputable format, appears in various guises in his own work from stylized, frozen-faced drag queen to naked performance artist to clown. And he occupies the same contested cultural space as artists like Karen Finley in being so controversial that his work has occasioned the immediate firing of programmers who have dared to show it. Increasingly revered as a filmmaker, he’s also made a strong impact in his sculpture, photography, and performance art.

‘Price’s film work has an oppressive intensity, envisioning an alienated world of often mindlessly repeated rituals and poses that entrap and suffocate his subjects. He sets up a constant dialogue between his compromised victim-subjects (often himself or his own family) and the equally compromised film stock itself. Images of ruptured flesh and ghostly birthday parties are further ruptured and drained of life by Price’s torturous manipulations of the film, which can include chemical processing, filters, optical printing, re-photography, and even holes punched in the frame. What emerges is Price’s great subject — the breaches, breakdowns, and collapse of body, family, and society, and by extension all of life, in the face of unstoppable philosophical forces. What makes it work is the nonstop flow of extraordinary, unforgettable imagery.’ — Gary Morris, Bright Lights Film Journal

Watch JELLY FISH SANDWICH (1994) here.
Watch RUN (1994) here.
Watch SODOM (1989) here.
Watch GREEN (1988) here.


Warm Broth (1988)


Meat (excerpt, 1991)


Run (1994)


Kittens Grow Up (excerpt, 2007)


Sad Day Glad Day (excerpts, 2014)

 

________________

Bruce Hainley interviews Wayne Koestenbaum
from Bidoun Magazine

Bruce Hainley: I’d like to begin this sitting on a bench at the intersection of poetry and politics. The title of your most recent book, Best-Selling Jewish Porn Films, recalls an early essay of yours, which when first published was, I seem to remember, called ‘The Aryan Boy Who Pissed on My Father’s Head.’ I’m interested in the way your writing continuously pulls toward porn while retaining all its stern, Sontagian glamour and purpose. Where do you situate the porn-poem, or poem-porn, given the precedents of Shelley’s ‘Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world’?

Wayne Koestenbaum: I’m ready to talk politics and poetry and everything else under the sun. I got splinters on my butt-cheeks from sitting so long on this bench. And then the splinters got infected. I was worried I’d have to amputate flesh gobbets. But then the Valium kicked in, with its little-studied antibiotic properties. So I’m raring to go, ass in gear. The porn-poem: to write a poem is pornographic, in the senses of wasteful, useless, awful, ignored, debased, hurdy-gurdy, repetitive, regressive, navel-gazing, ass-licking, time-killing, boring, ludicrous, transcendent, dilated. I’ve been reading mischevious L-A-N-G-U-A-G-E practitioner Charles Bernstein lately (he’s against National Poetry Month, thinks it’s bad for poetry). Also Slovenian writer Tomaz Salamun, also Austrian pathbreaker Ingeborg Bachmann. I’m feeling entranced, once again, by the possibilities of language that ignores the supervisor. It’s my regular May/June fever, the high of rediscovering poetry’s rankness, naughtiness. And, for me, these days, naughtiness exists in being minimal. Some of the most exciting pieces at the MoMA, New York, on a recent visit were by Walter De Maria and Ellsworth Kelly, nice old-fashioned staunch minimalists. Looking at them, I think I “got”-perhaps for the first time-what a thoroughly anal pleasure, like gin, minimalism can be, so spiked with content in its refusals and excisions, its “Why bother?” So “up there,” as Andy would say. Like a good old-fashioned hit of poppers. Like Warhol’s goodbye to art. Like rambunctious poet Ed Smith. Or Sturtevant. The porn-poem is there, where Smith meets Sturtevant. Poetry is politics on poppers?

BH: I was intrigued to hear your new aim is to be charmless. I found that breathtaking, a reveille. Art depends on finding new ways to be artless. To ignore the supervisor: does this equal embracing the charmless? Does the charmless have exemplars but no supervisors? Is it akin to Barthes’s “neutral,” the elusive, beige topic of one of his last seminars? I’m in a summer funk, the psychic equivalent of “June gloom,” I guess, not utterly unpleasant — the jacarandas bloom — but not simple, not simply.

WK: Ah, summer funk. I’m feeling it, too — though the peonies, globular and rain-damp and pendulous (actually, fallen) in the backyard (“the” backyard), push me a few inches closer to ebullience. Today I’ve been reading Ingeborg Bachmann very slowly and in German (with utter reliance on the en face English). Her version of our “l’heure bleue” is “die blaue Stunde”: is your funk blue (blau, bleu), or is it colorless, greige? Funk, in its blankness, its charmlessness (isn’t funk a state of being temporarily unable to be charmed by the world?), belongs to the fiefdom of text, or at least of a charmless, neutral, artless writing. Yes, Bruce, let’s set sail, the two of us, in our drunken boat, for charmlessness, for what Bachmann calls “toter Hafen” (“dead harbor”). Her early work was intensely lauded — she won gobs of prizes for her first two books of poetry. But then, at least officially, she stopped writing poetry, turned exclusively to prose. That swerve, that turn away, has something to do with a refusal to continue being charming, or else an acknowledgment that she was never very charming to begin with! I’m trying to think productively, and ecstatically, about being in a funk, since we both seem to be in one, and since so many of our shared reading pleasures (from Maurice Blanchot to Elizabeth Bishop, from James Schuyler to Jean-Jacques Schuhl) deal with turgid moods. I think, therefore I can’t move. I think, therefore I can’t write. I can’t write, therefore I write.

BH: Injection! — as Liz demands in Boom!, Josephy Losey’s Sardinian masterpiece. I wonder if a little bit of scorpion venom might recalibrate our moods? I see from an article in the paper that Rufus Wainwright will be, um, redoing Judy’s famous (infamous?) Carnegie Hall performance this week. According to the article’s writer and its subject, he’s too young to have a camp relation to Judy’s song. I’m interested in camp’s toxicity — its shame leaves residues no soap or ceremony can lustrate. I admire Rufus Wainwright, I admire his earnest trebling, but I would never confuse it with trial, the life, her own, that Judy sang. But why wouldn’t Rufus redo Liza with A “Z,” something in sync with his age and something that would, or someone who would, however rightly or wrongly, possibly, potentially, put him in touch with failure’s freefalls and the risk of camp’s radioactivity? I couldn’t believe that Wainwright invoked 9/11 to explain how he first came to listen to and appreciate the tonic garland of Judy’s Carnegie intervention. I don’t care if it’s true — as you state: “in this artifice that I call law” — but I do care that he doesn’t have the chic to say that he was raised on Judy and/or that he was just coming up for air from a three-day crystal-meth sex bender (who’s to say getting wasted-booze, orgies, pills — wouldn’t be a valiant way to pay homage to Judy?) and when he raised his head from the toilet the sound of Judy singing to Harold Arlen played in the background of the dive he woke up in.

WK: Confession: I’ve never heard Rufus W sing. Which means, I haven’t cared to cross the street. From afar, I groove on his “son” vibe — son to greater, other stars, a Liza frequency. Too young to have a camp relationship to Judy? That’s like saying, too young to understand how to look properly at a Cézanne. It’s called, do your homework. It’s called, Connoisseurship 101: how to recognize the watermark on the backside of a Dürer. Every time I listen again to Judy at Carnegie Hall, I take more and more seriously her vocal power as, what she calls it in one of her interstitial monologues, “work.” “When I work,” she says, “I get very warm.” She pronounces “warm” like the first syllable of “wombat.”

(read the totality)

 

________________

Raymond Salvatore Harmon

 

________________

‘What moves the individual creative force? What propels a person to give a concrete form to the inner life. Words used to describe the motives of visionary artists – driven, moved, propelled – can be applied to the wind in our hair — an innocent delight in a breeze, or our awe at the natural power of a tornado. In both cases, we can make the connection between motion and the life force itself. . This desire to feel and master the wind and the compelling force to express and communicate our experience to others is not a coincidental relationship. A part of being human is wishing to be more. Our aspiration to break the bounds of the earth is akin to our desire to create “something from nothing.” I hope that you too are propelled into the visionary world and use the experience for your own creative energies, and most of all, enjoy the ride!’ — Susanne Theis

 

________________

‘During the course of banging out club data, issue ‘pon issue, I have had the opportunity to come in contact with some pretty interesting characters. Among my favorites is Coconut Teaszer booker Len Fagan. Oftentimes, when I call him to get news about the Teaszer, or he calls me with something he’s genuinely excited about (y’see, Len is one of the few bookers to go out of his way to make my job a little easier), we end up shootin’ the proverbial shit about this and that. Local bands, the club scene, music in general—all come into our conversation. After rapping with him for a few months, I discovered that Len is no Johnny-come-lately to the L.A. club scene; in fact, his experiences on the ever-changing circuit date back to the sixties, when Fagan was a rabid rock fan and an inspiring drummer who logged time in several locally prominent bands. I found his memory for details, names, and incidents to be impeccable, and in most cases better than my recollection of last week. Len also remembers the geographical layout of the late sixties/early seventies club scene, so I asked him what he thought of hopping in a vehicle “cruisin’ Sunset” with yours truly, my trusty Panasonic interview recorder, and the Club Data staff driver, letting his recollections roll onto tape as we drove by the old haunts. He loved the idea, and we finally got around to taking the ride on July 16th. The following are some of the highlights of our trip, and though a lot of Len’s recollections lie on the cutting floor due to space limitations, this should nonetheless give you some idea of the excitement of those times.

‘This right here (the Aquarius Theater) was originally the Hullabaloo Club. The hip thing about it was, you could be 15-and-a-half and get in. They’d have everything from lame bands like the Lollipop Shop right up through the Doors. I remember Love used to play here, then they’d play another concert in the Valley the same night. After the Hullabaloo, it changed to the Aquarius Theater. New owners took it over and it became a much hipper place; their posters were round instead of square. When it was the Hullabaloo, on weekends after hours from 1:00 am until sunrise, they’d have new bands get up. You wouldn’t get paid, but they’d have a marathon of bands get up, and it was a big deal to get on that show. The Allman Brothers played there when they were the Hourglass. (We pull up in front of the current Gaslight.) This, for me, is where it all started. The first place I ever came to myself—and I was living in the Valley at the time—was right here to see Love. It was the summer of ’65. I couldn’t even get in the club—I used to sit here (on the sidewalk) and listen. Love would play the whole night, and it was completely packed. A few years later, the Iron Butterfly moved in and slept in this room (pointing upstairs over the entrance). They moved up here from San Diego, auditioned, and the club loved ’em and let ’em live in the room upstairs. They played here for months and would pack this place. It was called Bido Lido’s back then. I saw the Seeds here, when the first album came out, before “Pushin’ Too Hard” was a hit. The Doors played here, so did Spirit. ……I could go on and on. Look how tiny it is! A band’s gig here would usually be for a week straight, and if you were incredible, they’d hold you over.

‘I was in a group called the Rainmakers; we had a week-long gig here, and after the second or third night, our guitar player got sick and couldn’t do it. I had met Vincent Furnier outside the club here, and he was a real nice guy. At the last minute, I called up Vince, and his band the Nazz filled in for us. (Furnier and the Nazz would both later change their names to Alice Cooper.) The big break for them was, they met the booker of the Cheetah Club down in Venice, who fell in love with them, and that’s where they took up residency, and then they met (manager) Shep Gordon. Bido Lido’s went out of business around the end of ’67, early ’68.

‘The club we’re coming to now was called the Brave New World. Bido Lido’s and Brave New World were the smaller East Hollywood clubs where the bands would kinda start out. We would usually park at one of the clubs, and on any given night, walk between one and the next. The Brave New World was owned by a guy named Alan as I remember. Alan was also in the ……I don’t know how to say it…..the “X-rated girl” industry. He had something to do with naked women—-remember, I’m young at the time! The club was a members only club, so to speak—that’s how they got around some kind of licensing trip. If they knew you weren’t a cop, they’d let you in. This is where Love first played—probably late ’64—right up there at 1644 and 1642 Cherokee. The Stones were in town recording at RCA, and they went here to check out a group called the Bees—that was a big night. The Mothers played here before they were called the Mothers of Invention; if I remember, they spelled the name “Muthers.” Instead of a marquee, they had a flag on a flagpole with the band’s name.

‘We’re now in front of the Lingerie, which I first remember being the Red Velvet. They had a lot of black and soul groups. The Knickerbockers were the band that came out of here. This was a place that had your short-haired people, your lamer crowd.

‘Down there, at Santa Monica and Highland, was a club that not many people are goin’ to remember; it was in a big old warehouse. It was a gay club, mainly for lesbians, and a lot of the bigger bands would take gigs here, right next to the Bekins warehouse. The gig would start around 11 or 12 at night, and we’d take those gigs, ’cause they paid well. The Knack (a sixties teenybop band signed to a singles deal with—surprise—Capitol) and the Sons of Adam, who were a monster band, used to play there. Don’t even remember the name of the place.

‘They finally shut them down and they moved into the Valley on Ventura Boulevard. I remember our bass player coming back into the club freaked out because he took what he thought was a girl out to his car and found out it was a guy—we were kids at the time.

‘Here, at 7563 Sunset, was Ooh Poo Pah Do’s, which had live music; that was in ’72. And then Rodney (Bingenheimer) took it over and made it a disco, with English beer and English records. That was ’73 or ’74, and it was big for a couple of years.

‘Here, between Stanley and Curson, was a big club called The Experience. They had food here and ice-cream. This club was famous as a jam hangout—musicians who were in town playing bigger concerts elsewhere would come here after their shows or on the nights they were off to jam. I’ve been hoping to make the Teaszer conducive to impromptu jams, but it seems musicians today just aren’t into jamming. A shame. Hendrix jammed here all the time. There were always famous celebrities in the audience. There was a big picture of Hendrix (on the exterior front wall of the club), and his mouth was the front door—you’d walk in through his mouth!

‘The big summer for The Experience was ’69; it was probably here for a year-and-a-half, two years, maybe. I remember jamming here with some of the Quicksilver Messenger Service. The Blues Magoos played here on their way down; Alice Cooper played here on their way up—got booed off the stage.

‘(Sitting in the parking lot of the Teaszer at Crescent Heights.) The hippies hangout was right around here—it started from here down to Gazzarri’s. Pandora’s Box was right where that middle island was (in the middle of the intersection of Crescent Heights and Sunset). That wasn’t a real prestigious place to play. It was right on the beginning of the Strip, it was a purple building, and it was right there in the middle—a pretty weird location. You could be underage and still get in there. To be honest with you, I didn’t hang out there at all—I may have been in that club once. There was something about it that, in my mind, wasn’t hip.

‘We’re at the Comedy Store now, which was first called Ciro’s. The Byrds used to play here—this is where they really took off. Bob Dylan came in here after hearing about the Byrds playing his material electrically and gave his endorsement to them, which was a big boost to them making it. Before that, Ciro’s was a big hangout for Bogie and all that in the Forties. They later changed the name from Ciro’s to It’s Boss. Ciro’s was over 21; at It’s Boss, you could be fifteen-and-a-half. Ciro’s was definitely a big, big prestige club. It was open at least to ’73 ’74, but it was mainly a force in the late Sixties. (As a cop pulls up to give out parking tickets, we quietly pull away.)

‘Speaking of cops, back in ’64, ’65, ’66, when we used to drive down the street or the Strip, I used to smoke non-filter cigarettes. You had to be careful to have the brand on your mouthside; the cops were so lame that if they caught you with a cigarette with no filter and no name on it, they assumes you were smoking pot. This was when acid was still legal, by the way.

‘Right over here, at 8516, there was a tiny club called the Sea Witch. The capacity in that club was maybe 60 people. The thing about the Sea Witch that was neat was it was designed all out of raw wood and was supposed to look like a ship. That was another place on the Strip to play—always crowded. That was about ’64 to ’67. There’s the Playboy Building. On the far end of the Playboy Building there used to be a marquee, and that was a club called the Trip. I remember driving by and seeing on the marquee—I’ll never forget this—“Andy Warhol’s Exploding Plastic Inevitable with the Velvet Underground and Nico”—on the goddamn marquee. Now what the fuck is that, right? I had no idea.

‘The white banana album had just come out, and the Velvet Underground moved into town, played there for at least a week or so, and rented a big castle up here in the hills, and they were very, very strange people. What was I, 18 at the time? To me it was scary. The Lovin’ Spoonful played at the Trip when they were at their biggest. The Byrds used to play at the Trip. That was ’65 through ’67, I think, when the Trip was at its biggest. Over 21 club. The Central used to be Filthy McNasty’s, where it was kind of a lame trip. It was here as far back as I can remember.

‘We are now at Clark and Sunset, the world-famous friggin’ Whisky A-Go-Go. This is it. When I first came here, the building was red, and there were little awnings up there all over the windows, and it looked like a French discotheque. Mario used to stand there, forever—always a fixture. The first time I was in the Whisky, I was hanging out right here; it was raining. It was either Moby Grape or Janis Joplin—somebody like that was playing inside—and I didn’t have the money, and I was huddled here listening. And Mario was over there and he yelled at me, “What’s the matter, don’t you have any money?” I go no. He goes “Get inside.” That was Mario for ya. Great guy. People say Bill Gazzari was the godfather of rock, but I think Mario was the godfather. He watched us all grow up here. I remember nights I’d come here, he’d grab me and say, “You look like shit. What are you on? You haven’t eaten in a week!” Drag me over to the bar and say, “Give him a hamburger —and you sit down and eat it!” The best. Nobody does that—who does that anymore?

‘Where Duke’s is now was a little club called the London Fog. The Doors played here; wasn’t open very long. It quickly became an upscale bar called Sneaky Pete’s.

‘Here (at 8923 Sunset) was the Galaxy. They had a flat marquee and an upstairs infamous for sexual promiscuity. A lot of good bands played here. Here, in between Clark and Hilldale, people were openly selling grass and acid. Love, on the Forever Changes album, have a song called, “Between Clark and Hilldale.” This one block was the throbbing heart of it all. When I first started coming into town, there was a Gazzarri’s here, and another one down on La Cienega that wasn’t quite as hip. This place always had the Gazzarri’s girls, the dancing trip.

‘The Roxy they opened around ’72, ’73, and the Rainbow opened around that same time. The Rainbow was supposed to be a place for the business people in the industry to come and take meetings. Because the musicians knew the industry people were going to be here, the musicians would hang out, and because the musicians were here, the groupies would come, and because the groupies were here, the wanna-be musicians would come. It just became a scene and it’s never stopped…..As we left the Strip, Len talked about the Fifth Estate and the Stratford on Sunset, as well as the Beach House and the Cheetah, both out on the Venice Pier. We drove past the Troubadour, an old venue called the Factory, and finally the Starwood, which was PJ’s in the Sixties and is now yet another mini-mall. “Everything that you see bands do now, has been done before,” Len told me. “Back then, someone would come along with something original. But it really was a different scene back then. You could always find a jam session at a club or some band’s communal house—24 hours a day.”‘ — S.L. Duff

 

________________

 

________________

Avital Ronell interviews Werner Herzog

‘Very interesting conversation between Werner Herzog and Avital Ronell. Herzog speaks German, Ronell speaks Philosophy, the discussion is in English and is then translated in French by two interpreters who are absolutely amazing because I can’t think of more difficult speakers to interpret… (coming from someone who had to interpret Mike Tyson and surrealist silent movies).

‘Une conversation passionnante entre Werner Herzog et Avital Ronell. Herzog parle allemand, Ronell parle philosophie, la discussion est en anglais et elle est traduite par deux interprêtes qui font un travail extraordinaire parce que je ne peux pas imaginer deux personnes plus obscures à traduire… (ceci venant de quelqu’un qui a du interprêter Mike Tyson et des films muets surréalistes).

‘Excerpt:

Avital Ronell: “That’s what I wanted to evoke perhaps also in the Kantian sense of purposiveness which doesn’t have a purpose necessarily and is also part of your grammar.”

Translator: C’est cela vraiment que je voulais évoquer dans le sens Kantien d’une finalité sans fin, ce concept qui fait aussi partie de votre grammaire.”

‘OUCH! la finalité sans fin ??? Never mind, Werner is actually very interesting toward the end of the discussion when he takes strange questions from an even stranger audience. I find this video fascinating !

‘AIE AIE AIE ! la finalité sans fin !!! Pas grave, Werner est très intéressant et vers la fin de l’entretien il répond aux questions étranges des encore plus étranges participants. Cette vidéo a quelque chose de …fascinant !’ — Double Trouble

 

________________

 

_________________

Vår

 

_______________

Rise and Fall of Michael Jackson – Numerology Reading

‘Michael Jackson was born as Michael Joseph Jackson on August 29th 1958, which makes him 2 born with lifepath as 6 in numerology. This is a very indication of fertile and creative mind, with both number 2 and 6 strongly signifies abundance of creativity in arts and entertainment. But number 29 as we have already discussed is a very emotional and unstable number which needs a strong name for that person to remain in a normal state. Its very evident that Michael Jackson had a series of health problems throughout his life, he undergone multiple cosmetic surgery and severely jeopardized his health, later he had skin related diseases which forced him to wear a mask on his nose. …

‘Michael Jackson comes to number 44 in numerology destiny, which comes 8 as a whole, this number 44 signifies heights of fame, success in initial stage of life but it throws one into valley of darkness in later part of life. Also i have explained you in many posts that with number 8,17,26,35,44,53 as a name one can never lead a happy and peaceful life, and their life will be full of controversies and scandals. Their marital life will be a great tragedy for name number as 8 in numerology. This is evident as even though Michael Jackson is the king of Pop, his personal life was a mess. He undergone divorce, painful accusations on molestation, and serious damage of reputation in his career. These things took over the peace within him, and the status of king of pop only made him uncomfortable and weak as a person. These are the traits of number 8 when used as a name, as it will give the glory and takes away the happiness. …

‘As far as the sexual allegations are concerned, Michael Jackson should have had a sexual weakness, its no wonder that his lifepath as 6 is the number which creates tremendous sexual urge for a person compared to person with other lifepath numbers. And its also prone to make a person explore things in these areas which makes Michael Jackson very likely to be involved in those scandalous cases. The online numerology analysis we have seen are pretty much suggestive. …

‘The death of Michael Jackson occurred on June 25th 2009, which comes 6 as lifepath in numerology. His lifepath is also number 6. And there is a strange thing that has to be noted here, as the death is not natural, or it cannot be natural. A person’s death on his same lifepath has something to do with sudden death or unnatural death. There are chances it may be suicide or poisoning as both elements are possible due to the influence of number 8 in his name and his birth date as 29, which sometimes can be suicidal.’ — astronlogia.com

 

 

*

p.s. Hey. ** Dominik, Hi. As you probably know, there’s a longstanding rumor backed up by some debatable anecdotes and blurry photos that Axel was a street hustler in his pre-GnR days. Listening to the Buttholes is always a good thing. I think I’ll try that today. Okay, cool, I’ll definitely hunt down that film, even today if I can locate it anywhere. I’m okay, but I’m in a ‘really fed up with the quarantine’ moment. That’s not helped by the fact, as you may have read, the restrictions here have only gotten tighter. Now you can’t even go for a walk during the daylight hours, and Macron is supposedly going on TV to extend the quarantine again and possibly add even more restrictions like compulsory mask-wearing. So yesterday and so far this morning I’m feeling really burnt out on all of this. And yesterday suffered as a result. I didn’t do much. Bought some food, wrote some emails, exchanged some texts. But I’m determined to adjust and find fun of some sort today. We’ll see. How did you solve your restricted Thursday? Oh, if you didn’t see his comment, Ben/_Black_Acrylic thanked you for your Netflix tip as he and even his family really enjoyed it. Muzzled love, Dennis. ** David Ehrenstein, The WeHo dumpster guy was in the post: Billy London. I’ve had a number of friends who had porn careers. Most of them moved on to other things, or, rather, dropped the porn thing from their curriculum since about 3% of porn stars earn enough money doing it to only do that for a living, and they are fine. ** Bill, Hi, Bill. Yes, John Prine and Hal Wilner, very sad, both key people. ‘Wild Goose Lake’ is another one I’ve never heard of before. Must not have crossed the French border. ** _Black_Acrylic, Dominick saved the day! Great news about your excellent feedback. Take it to heart, man. ** Kyler, Hi. I sort of thought of that post as an anti-getting off thing, or I guess complicatedly getting off maybe, okay. Yes, congrats on the TV interview thing! I haven’t watched it yet but I will today. J.M. … unmentionable … oh, that J.M. I’m very accustomed to the fact that I am a very rare duck in my dislike of her things, so no big. Everyone, the mighty Kyler was interviewed on TV about his work (written and psychic). You can watch that so very simply by using this word as a magic little door. ** Misanthrope, Hi, G-man. Will definitely not even entertain the thought of reading that novel in question, thank you very much for saving me. ** Steve Erickson, I’ve heard that. I will investigate his early things then and will try not to let ‘Blade Runner 2’s’ miserableness influence me. Ha. Yes, McKamey’s downsized current variant is quite something or not something. It shows his dedication to the form. I admire that. Yesterday sucked for me too. It just all became too much, but it’s high time to find the evasive silver lining again. I think after making Zac’s and my films, and especially ‘LCTG’ with its degree of hardcore sex, which was very difficult to film/get to happen even in that laconic manifestation, I am pretty fully over my longtime dream to make the ‘Citizen Kane’ of gay porn films, yeah. Never say never, of course. I think I would still be into writing a porn film but only for a director who could actually make it and whom I trusted/ respected. But not a ton of chance of that happening. ** Okay. Here’s another restoration of another of my old compendium posts of things that interested me but not enough to warrant a whole post basically. Please fish around and find some stuff or two or more of interest. See you tomorrow.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 DC's

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑