CK Williams report

8 June, 2010


It was touch-and-go whether I would make CK Williams in time, and I thought about not trekking across London to Goldsmiths College. A bit of me was thinking: what if he’s horrible? I didn’t want my romantic idea of him as a sensitive, incisive genius to be shattered. And after all, he is only a man; how many famous people does one have to meet before one learns that?


In the end I decided to go, navigating the overland trains in the rush hour, folding myself around my folding bike and enduring the withering glances of London Bridge commuters. I braced myself for disappointment.


When I was young I always wanted to meet Woody Allen. I thought I too was a witty nerd; he would recognise that and we would be mates. Puhlease. I don’t hold with the child-molester view of Allen, the fallen hero. But I do know from reliable reports that Mr Allen is a quiet man who wears his celebrity uncomfortably. He doesn’t want to chatter over dinner with the likes of me, or wander with me down to the 59th Street Bridge, or any of the stuff I had floating around in my jejune twenty-something head.  I know, had I met him, that I would have been disappointed.  Better to watch Manhattan and enjoy it for what it is, not for whom Woody Allen might, or might not, turn out to be.


I have no doubt that another hero, Van Morrison, whose music is a part of my life, would disappoint me in the flesh.  And when I met the folk/blues genius John Martyn (he was recording a track for The Talented Mr Ripley) I was pretty much struck dumb.  His heart-stopping ballads are my daily soundtrack, but meeting him has not improved the experience.  Similarly, I have had wet dreams (well, not quite!) about Keith Jarrett playing for me.  In truth, he is a difficult character.  His sublime London concert 18 months ago was marred for me by his autistic over-sensitivity to coughs emanating from the audience.  He stopped playing and walked petulantly across the stage to a microphone, from which he berated us, claiming if we were truly listening, we wouldn’t be able to cough.  In Umbria in 2007, Jarrett made headlines by abandoning a concert because someone was photographing him using a flashgun.  His rage, even before he started playing, is something to behold.

 
 


Yet Keith’s capacity to explore the soul with a few black and white keys must be unrivalled in history.  His soaring flights, his rampant rhythms, his exquisite, delicate melodies bring me ineffable joy.


This is a long-winded way of saying: don’t meet your heroes.  Or rather, appreciate what they do and expect nothing more.  Make no assumption about any other part of their lives.   Therein disappointment lies.


Should one, then, meet the man behind the treasured poems?  The answer, in this case, was yes.  CK Williams is the man you’d hope him to be.  Tall, softly-spoken, intense.  As clever a man as you’ll ever encounter.  He reminded me of the best philosophers I have known – the people who do Brainy for a living.


I’ll tell you two things about him, which I saw because I was late.  I had to sit on the edge of the audience, and I had a side-on view.   Firstly, CK performs his poetry.  He has to stand to get himself in the right mood.  (At one point, hot from the sun streaming in, he decided to sit.  He just couldn’t read that way, and had to stand again.)  What’s striking is that despite his height, he raises himself up in mid-flow, straining for more – what?  Authority?


If it is authority he wants – and this is the second thing – he gets it.  A number of women were in the front row, and from my vantage point I could see how they looked up at him, wide-eyed.  As I am two-foot tall, I don’t see that very often.  More’s the pity.  How wonderful the dilated pupils, every well-wrought word savoured, how intimate and charged, as he teasingly announced yet another “sex poem”, frank and, like Jarrett, soaring, rampant, exquisite… until at one point I thought: this is a fully-clothed blow-job, this relationship between poet and audience, our hero rising and straining and… well, you get the picture.


Afterwards, he was appropriately spent.  I was delighted to be invited to dinner, and had a lovely evening but – you guessed it – dinner was not the thing.  It was the poetry.  It was the performance.  I would love to be “Charlie’s” friend – who knows? – but I know also that Charlie’s just a tired guy you have dinner with, a guy who frets about his taxi home.  A guy in his seventies who, quite rightly, needs his bed.


Whereas CK Williams is somebody, something else.  A shelf-full of insight, a thick volume of wisdom to be carried through life.  Precious; perfect; mine.


Foto del giorno

2 June, 2010   Umbria

 It rained all day.  Then finally the sky cleared and the sun came out.

But it carried on raining, out of a perfectly blue sky.

Strange stuff, but evidently normal in Italy.  The Neapolitans even have a proverb to go with it.

Quando piove col sole, gli anziani fanno l’amore

When it rains and it’s sunny, the old’uns make love.

Soon after, a dramatic, heavenly mist rolled up the valley.  Ecco la foto.

Montef4438emb

 

 

 

CK Williams

26th May, 2010



CK Williams, the American poet, is in London today.


I very much hope to hear him read from his work.


You know when you’re walking down the street, or on the train home, and something happens, something tiny, and you’re not even sure if it was a ‘moment’ or just another bit of life’s white noise?  And before you know it, your attention is elsewhere, and all that’s left is that sense of something not quite captured, something lost forever?


CK Williams captures that moment.  He does mundane-to-universal in one deft flick of the pen.  I adore him.


Here’s one to show you how marvellous he is.  (I found it on the net, so I hope I’m not contravening any copyright laws.)


THE SINGING
 
by C. K. Williams
 
 
I was walking home down a hill near our house
on a balmy afternoon
under the blossoms
Of the pear trees that go flamboyantly mad here
every spring with
their burgeoning forth
 
When a young man turned in from a corner singing
no it was more of
a cadenced shouting
Most of which I couldn’t catch I thought because
the young man was
black speaking black
 
It didn’t matter I could tell he was making his
song up which pleased
me he was nice-looking
Husky dressed in some style of big pants obviously
full of himself
hence his lyrical flowing over
 
We went along in the same direction then he noticed
me there almost
beside him and “Big”
He shouted-sang “Big” and I thought how droll
to have my height
incorporated in his song
 
So I smiled but the face of the young man showed nothing
he looked
in fact pointedly away
And his song changed “I’m not a nice person”
he chanted “I’m not
I’m not a nice person”
 
No menace was meant I gathered no particular threat
but he did want
to be certain I knew
That if my smile implied I conceived of anything like concord
between us I should forget it
 
That’s all nothing else happened his song became
indecipherable to
me again he arrived
Where he was going a house where a girl in braids
waited for him on
the porch that was all
 
No one saw no one heard all the unasked and
unanswered questions
were left where they were
It occurred to me to sing back “I’m not a nice
person either” but I
couldn’t come up with a tune
 
Besides I wouldn’t have meant it nor he have believed
it both of us
knew just where we were
In the duet we composed the equation we made
the conventions to
which we were condemned
 
Sometimes it feels even when no one is there that
someone something
is watching and listening
Someone to rectify redo remake this time again though
no one saw nor
heard no one was there



Beware Vince Blaming Greeks

25th May, 2010



Yesterday, as I cycled through Hyde Park, I saw a heron flying.   Are herons auspicious, or ill omens? 


Yesterday, too, the Coalition announced its £6.2bn of cuts.  Note, said George Osborne, it’s a little more than we said.

Vince Cable

Some concerns:


1) Can you call it £6.2bn if you are also going to say you are “reinvesting” £500m from the same pot?


The answer must be no.


I thought I was being unduly churlish, that there had to be some good and proper reason for the way the figures were being presented.  So I checked the Treasury statement in detail.  But I could see no explanation in the official document for quoting the gross figure instead of the net one, which is of course £5.7bn.


I can only guess at the reason: to suggest that the Coalition is working with care; that it has a heart; that it can make cuts but that it can also divert money where it thinks it should go.  To suggest that the Coalition isn’t JUST about cuts.


Or, more cynically, to distract us from the simple fact of the cuts.  If so, it has worked.  I’m really confused, and forgetting my top-level reactions.


2) Things can get sometimes get better – by themselves.


Growth is up a fraction higher than forecast, at 0.3% instead of 0.2%.


No great celebration there. (But no credit to Labour, either, I notice.)


But what about the state of the deficit, which, according to last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics, is huge at £156bn, but lower than projected, by a whopping £11bn?  Even recent predictions had it £7bn higher, at £163bn.  So we are £7bn-£11bn better off than the Tories thought we were during the election.  In fact, we are £18bn better off than projected on the raw figures, which include some gains on government-held bank shares.


If £6bn was exactly the right amount of deficit reduction, this has already happened, by itself.


Forgive me for thinking that £6bn is the magic figure only because it was the figure talked about during the election, and that it has no other meaning whatsoever.  It so happens that Heron was the name of the Greek mathematician who first recognised the phenomenon of the “imaginary number”.  This £6bn certainly has an imaginary – or at least, imagined – quality to it.


No one doubts that the deficit will need to be dealt with.  The issue is how hard, how fast.  There is nothing necessary, or exact, about £6bn now.  Unless, that is, you are ideologically wedded to cuts you think you can get away with (because you’ve already sold them).


3) I don’t mind the Tories being ideologically in favour of cuts.


I just wish they’d be a little more up-front about it.  As someone once said, they love making cuts; they do it for sport.  They believe in a small state, rolling back its frontiers so that the private sector can flourish.  They have an either/or philosophy of the relationship between public and private sector, which you can debate.  Personally I think the financial crisis makes a powerful case for fearing the unfettered market.  It makes a text-book case for the need for governments to act, both to calm markets and then to reflate them; to spend when the private sector is too scared.  If the Bank of England’s role is sometimes ‘lender of last resort’, so government’s role, sometimes, is ‘spender of last resort’.  Government, on occasion, is for big boys with nerves of steel.


But George Osborne constantly feels the need to refer to our calamitous Labour debt, the mess he has to clear up.  We can debate what kind of mess we’d be in if the Tories had presided over the banking crisis – their refusal to act would have produced carnage – but that’s not the point.  We can debate whether the cuts are necessary or wise while the recovery is so fragile, and past experience in Japan and in the Great Depression shows the pitfalls of cutting too deep, too early – but that is not the point.  We can debate whether the UK’s debt is really equivalent in nature to that of the so-called ‘PIGS’, but that is not the point. 


The point is that whatever the deficit, the Tories would be cutting.  It’s what they do.  They don’t like big states.  In this respect, the modern Conservatives are entirely unreconstructed.


To be fair, the rhetoric is not buried.  On Radio 4 yesterday, my friend Jim Naughtie allowed (or encouraged) Osborne to rattle on, and it soon became clear that he believes in “a smaller state and a bigger society” and “it’s about the state doing things it’s good at doing and not doing things it’s not good at doing and in the end this is about all of us taking greater responsibility for our lives and the society that we live in.”


Or, in other words, “yes there’s a stinker of a deficit, but ‘in the end’ this is about our ideology.”


I have to say I respect his honesty on this.  When he’s not up-front it’s because he can’t resist taking a pop at Labour and “the biggest deficit in Europe”.  Or it’s because he innocently conflates the problem of the deficit with the ideology behind his solution.  It’s not because he’s covering his real beliefs.


What’s really disappointing is that, I’m afraid, I think the LibDems are lying.


4) UnconVinced


Vince Cable appeared on Newsnight last night and claimed, like Nick Clegg on Sunday, that he had changed his mind on the need for cuts now.  During the election, he had many reasons (five, in fact) why the Tories were wrong to advocate cuts in 2010.  But now he’s changed his mind.


Fair enough.  But why?  Because he had to compromise as part of the coalition deal?  No.  Because of the crisis in Greece and the anxieties over “sovereign risk”.  The anxiety in the markets has spread across southern Europe, and could travel north to our door.


Greece.  That’s what made Vince think we needed exactly £6.2bn (or is it £5.7bn?) of cuts.


I don’t mind the argument.  I just don’t believe it is the reason.  Until now I didn’t subscribe to Nick Robinson’s line about Vince “not looking comfortable” in the coalition.  But seeing his body-language and listening to his voice on Newsnight, I changed my mind.  I think he’s lying. 


It pains me to say it.  It is not very generous of me to think it, let alone write it.  And I have no evidence beyond a reading of body language.   But if and when it comes online, look for yourself. 


Nor can I explain, if I am right, why he lied.  I wouldn’t mind (what I take to be) the real argument – that compromise with the Conservatives was necessary to win power, and this was one of the casualties.  I don’t know why he didn’t feel able to say that.  What am I missing?*


5) I’ll tell you one thing I’m missing: the New Politics.


I thought that one of the benefits of hung parliament and coalition was supposed to be more transparency, more compromise, less mudslinging, more decency in politics.  I thought that was what the LibDems stood for.  I thought the Coalition was going to deliver us historic reform – and surely that must start with the rhetoric.


Alas, we’re not seeing much New Politics so far.  George Osborne and Dave Cameron (see today’s defence of the Queen’s Speech) cannot open their mouths without talking about the dire legacy they have inherited.  At one point, Osborne even justified his cuts package as a way of “avoiding Labour’s job tax in 2011”!  Nick Clegg complained on Andrew Marr’s programme on Sunday that now that they’ve “seen the books” the Labour mess is much worse than he feared.  No mention that the figures are £7bn better than expected.  Or is that £11bn?  Or £18bn?


Let’s be honest, there will be no sudden end to Westminster mudslinging and yah-boo politics.   Did anyone seriously expect that to be a by-product of a hung parliament?  (Actually some people did, and that’s why I’ve been arguing with them about it on these pages and elsewhere.)  I know I had no illusions.


But I really, really didn’t expect to find myself feeling that the most statesmanlike of LibDems, Vince Cable, had lied on television in the very first days of the Coalition government.


I rather think my heron was inauspicious, and that none of this augurs well.


 

STOP PRESS

for a surprisingly similar (and much better written) article, see http://www.anthonypainter.co.uk/2010/05/25/the-haunting-of-vince-cable/ 

Once you’ve read Mr Painter, you’ll never read me again.  Even I won’t read me again.  Shame, I was just getting warmed up.


* Mr Painter’s answer to “what I’m missing” is, essentially, that Vince Cable believes the cuts might send us into a downward spiral.  He is haunted by this fear.  Interesting.   For my part, it is hard to get worked up by the relative small beer of £6bn.  On the other hand, the language of cuts – “designed to send shockwaves” – and of course the signposting of massive austerity measures down the line could have the effect of terrifying the private sector – would you invest in an economy which is having all the demand sucked out of it?  how are you going to sell anything to people with no money in their pockets? – and triggering the double-dip.  That is a real and sobering risk, and it is the principal reason I signed up to help the Labour Party during the election.   If this goes belly-up, the hopes of a generation will be lost.  And it will haunt us all, not just Vince Cable.