In an essay about light verse I wrote several years ago for the Los Angeles Review of Books, I devoted space to the late John Mella, founder in 1992 of the biannual journal Light. Mella was a retired Chicago postal worker, poet, Nabokov aficionado and novelist (Transformations, 1975). In his work I detect an early-seventies exuberance associated with the growing realization among American readers and writers that Nabokov was more than an exotic New World transplant and the author of a dirty book. Much silliness and solemnity resulted, along with a healthy sense of playfulness and serious comedy. Mella had found a place where he could indulge his contrary streak, tempered with learning and waggishness, and I found some of his uncollected novelties while poking around in old journals.
In “On
Innovative Writing,” an essay published in 1982 in Chicago Review, Mella says:
“Speaking,
then, as a more-or-less bona-fide ‘experimental’ writer, let it be stated at
the outset that there are many forms of discomfort to which I would more
willingly submit myself than to that of immersing myself in a typical ‘aleatorical,’
surreal, or avant-garde text; that (to take another tack) the writers with whom
I have the closest affinity are not [André] Breton or any of his numerous dearies
or dadas but rather such masters of the ordinary phrase and extraordinary fact,
or matter-of-fact, as Stevenson, Chesterton, and Wells . . .”
Mella is exhilaratingly
non-academic about that dreary thing, postmodernism, a word he doesn’t use. He
overestimates Wells’ worth but almost redeems himself with a footnote in which
he refers to “the divine Vladimir.” Now take Mella’s poem “On Free Verse,” published
in the Winter 2000 issue of Italian
Americana:
“What we
dislike about it is not that it is
(This we
could learn to live with like children with broken glass
Or old rusty
fish-hooks--anything useless and dangerous),
But that it
obtrudes its presence in every area of our lives,
Even poems,
even this poem, which has abandoned every pretence to poetry.
Slowly the
world is losing its rhymes, the musical chimes
That tell us
how much we have lost, those antique themes,
When all was
rhyme and all royal. Loyal
No longer,
like dogs beaten down by forgetful masters,
They are
gone, their fleecy haunches
Seen for a
moment in some ruined back-yard
Ringed with
confusion, haphazard thunderclouds
Clapping
like dunces--gone, their pelts something we smelled
Then lost,
finally recognized as just our slovenly selves.”
Free verse – the lazy refutation of craft that had attained the status of unquestioned orthodoxy around the time other writers were internalizing Nabokov’s lessons – “how much we have lost.” In a 2006 issue of Nabokov Studies, Mella published “The Difference of a Sibilant: A Note on Pale Fire, Canto Three,” in which he celebrates Nabokov’s greatest novel and stresses the centrality of sad, sad Hazel Shade.
“While [John]
Shade’s poem is lightly satiric, as befits its Popean ancestor, its heart is
darkly hued with his daughter’s death. And Kinbote’s commentary at once doubles
and triples this teeth-chattering reverberation: first, as he twists the poem
to suit his own purposes, which is ludicrously comic in itself, and second and third
as his creator, or one of his anonymous assistants, pulls the magic rug of his
flight into unexpected directions to reveal (the process is slow, reluctant,
and painful) his tragic affinities with Hazel, Shade’s daughter.”
In my light
verse essay I wrote about the marvelous poet A.E. Stallings:
“Stallings
recalls that Mella’s taste for mordant humor moved her to examine her own
assumptions about the differences between light verse and other kinds of
poetry. ‘I was often less successful in placing poems I truly considered
‘light’ verse with Light,’ she says.
“Rather, [Mella] seemed to like darker things with music to them. It was often
a place where I would send in things that were quite polished, but perhaps
didn’t have the scope or gravitas for a ‘serious’ magazine.”
My college teacher of 18th century literature claimed that John Shade's poem in "Pale Fire" was "bad, deliciously bad, as bad as only a genius like Nabokov could make it." I did not agree, but kept my mouth shut, because no clever argument came to mind. The poem seemed to me good on its face: "lightly satiric", as Mella Observes, but not "bad" in any sense of the word.
ReplyDelete