Ah, yes, Jim McCrary – there
are indeed several signature books I, or any reasonably conscientious
reader of post-projectivist, post-beat poetry, might select
to get a good feel for this obscure Lawrence, Kansas, poet's
spare, bare bones style and wry, unnerving tones. Edible
Pets, for instance, takes irreverence Frank O'Hara would
have blessed, spite for materialism Jack Kerouac championed,
and minimalist, straight-forward signification reminiscent
of Robert Creeley and blends these essential poming devices
into one of the mid-1980's sole testimonies of the Have and
Have-not split that existed in, of all places, ironically,
Northern California (melting pot of American Dream and Homelessness
sharing street corner after street corner of almost every
city in the state). West of Mass, McCrary's prototype
Kansas "Magic Realism" collection bears the same
stamp – O'Hara, Kerouac, Creeley – and probably
draws equally from his Ed Dorn, for whom he worked for a spell
in the early 1980's. (Actually, he'd probably list David Bromige,
Robert Grenier, Joanne Kyger, and the late Paul Mariah as
his most prominent influences, but I can't help but think
that his early hanging out with Paul Blackburn, his working
for both Dorn and, later, William Burroughs, and his deep
appreciation for the humour and spirit of Frank O'Hara's poetry
shaped his development as a poet with equal weight.) Still,
West of Mass is "meat-and-potatoes" Jim
McCrary; it is distinctly not any kind of amalgamation of
"influences." That is, no one else could have "re-written"
the mid-west of Annie Oakley and Jesse James quite the same
as McCrary does in West of Mass. It's got that uniqueness
thing about it, ya know. Like his more recent dive, she
said and Hotter then and now. Prototypical McCrary,
prototypically unique, and prototypically a-typical poetry.
It is, however, AND/OR, which
Gary Sullivan's e.g. press put out in 1991, that
strikes this long time friend and reader of the poet as Jim
McCrary's most prototypical poming. Short, concise, subtlely
direct lines and diction; unflinching, unadorned, understated
allegiance to the kind of Truth which remains after all the
tiresome bull pies are wiped off our smiley faces and nobody
needs to cultivate a flock of followers or believers anymore;
form that is truly an extention of content, as opposed to
an exhibition of "talent" or an over-the-top exercise
accommodating programmatic prescriptions to "make it
new" in order to "make it up a ladder without a
paddle to piss on."
Let's put it another way. Show me "a
reproduction" of the following poming from Section (2)
of AND/OR! Go ahead, if you can! But you can't! It isn't reproducible.
It's "exact." It's too precise and detailed to foreground
formal innovation (or formal anything) over the poet's own
essential "particulars," and it's thus unique. It
is – and I sincerely hope that I'm not contradicting
myself, here – uniquely mid-western, also, I think,
and that's pretty dang groovy in 1991, whence the only locations
of Truth in the entire universe were, it seems, coastal (San
Francisco and New York):
DIRECTIONS
FOR EXAMPLE
COME UP OFF THE COAST
DUE EAST TO CHEYENNE
RIGHT TO DENVER
LEFT TO TOPEKA
RIGHT AGAIN
FOLLOW THE "KANSAS"
WEST SHORE
LAWRENCE
YOU WILL SEE
HIGH BUILDINGS
ACROSS FROM
OR
NEAR A CEMETERY
STILL
3 MILE SOUTH
PAST "CO-OP"
ONE HOUSE ALONE
OR
CROSS RIVER
AND DUE NORTH
7 MILE
DEAD OAK
LEFT INTO VALLEY
SOUTH MOST HOUSE
IN THAT VALLEY
OR
AT THE "GRANGE"
AGAIN WEST 2 MILE
HIGH POINT
IN THAT SECTION
ABSOLUTELY
ACROSS
AGAIN THE RIVER
FROM PERRY
FROM OSKALOOSA
=
THERE IS THAT
IT WAS
=
THE CREEK "COON"
THE RIVER "KAW"
THE ROCK "SAND"
THE SEA "ONCE"
THE WHEAT "OF COURSE"
THE SONG "COYOTE"
THE WEATHER "DEFINITE."
Jesus God-darn, I love these little books that are not reproducible.
I want every good poet friend of mine to "make"
5 or 6 each. And yet, just one a piece would be just tits,
wouldn't it?
Always an interesting concept (and
title) is And-Slash-Or. Those in the sophisticated
know of psychological and psychoanalytic thought/experience
eastern or western are probably familiar with the technique
of substituting and where one is otherwise compelled
to use/"think" or. "Either I'm good
or I'm bad" and "I like such and such or I don't
like such and such" are utterances that belie "splitting"
and splits in one's thinking, conceptualizing, feeling, experiencing.
Splits, that is, which can cause pain and/or an intolerance
of ambivalence and contradiction wiser, deeper perspective
renders unnecessary. One is perhaps "good" AND "bad,"
likes AND dislikes such and such. When one can hold both feelings
in mind/heart at the same time, and, as the good head doctors
say, "tolerate the ambivalence and contradiction,"
one has, likely, actualized a deeper, more graceful state
of being.
Although it is true that Jim McCrary
favors "THE PROCESS" of poming, "NOT WHAT,"
or content which exists previous to his poming – "THE
METHOD IS / PRESENT / INTO / PAST / WHAT COMES UP / BY BEING
/ PRESENT – it is, nonetheless, an "AUTO / BIO
/ GRAPHIC," albeit "SOMEWHAT / FICTION," object
that he seeks. It is not the sometimes thoroughly tedious
and baroque pyrotechnics of some first and second generation
"I'll top that" L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E aesthetic that orients
him:
AN ELITIST SET NOW
OVERLOOKED THE VALLEY
OF SONOMA
IN SEARCH OF LANGUAGE
TO RID THE SELF
OF THE PAST.
Or, one could read, and not entirely
misread and misinterpret, this as "rid the future of
the Self," but either way, McCrary seems to remain uncomfortable,
if not downright skeptical:
FEELING THE CONFUSED
AND POSSIBLE EMBARRASSMENT
AT (DISCOVERY)
ANOTHER FELLOWS
WORK
=
SO WHAT IS THE POINT
EVEN HERE.
And,
I KNOW
NO
1ST PERSON NON SENSE AND
UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE PAST
NON-EXISTENT
TO GO ON
W/OUT THAT
IS TO KEEP BOTH HANDS TIED
OR CONSIDER TODAYS
WESTERN POET
-ONE HAND SLOUCHED IN POCKET-
THE LEANING FENCE POST
DESIGN
=
"HE SOUNDS LIKE MY EX-HUSBAND READING TO ME
THE
MORNING HEADLINES, I DIDN'T LIKE THAT EITHER."
Rather, McCrary trusts, and is nourished
by, "WHATEVER PAST BROUGHT UP / BY PLACING / TO PAGE,"
which is still, then, what and the process of
accessing that what:
PERHAPS THERE IS NOT
SO MUCH POINT
AS SIMPLE DESIRE
SIMPLE NECESSITY
AGAIN ATTEMPT TO
GET IT DOWN
SINCE THIS
FOR INSTANCE
SAT THRU THE NITE
PATIENT
WAITING FOR THE RETURN
-OPEN EYED GREETING-
OF ANOTHER DAY.
There is sometimes a greater humility
in poming that foregoes the more ambitious and histrionic
fervor to "make it new," dazzle paying customers
with ecletic electrifying formal innovation and verbal fireworks.
McCrary wants "NOT TO MAKE THIS DREARY / OR / BORING."
"THAT IS CERTAINLY / NOT INTENT / REFLECTED" in
AND/OR. He does not promise a reader (much less "an audience")
pure entertainment (sans substance), either, though. He simply
commits his attention to his minimalist, reduction process:
LOOK
THE ROAD OUT OF HERE
TODAY
FRAMED IN FULL BLOWN
YELLOW AND
JUST ENOUGH SWAY
IN IT
TO BE INVITING
DOES NOT MAKE THE REST
OF WHAT MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY
OUTRAGEOUS
AUTOMATIC
OR
IN THIS CASE
ENTIRELY RELEVANT.
And,
OF COURSE
WHATEVER COMES UP
EITHER SIDE OF THE DOOR
OR
FROM THE BACK
BECOMES CONSIDERED
AND FINALLY
HARD ENOUGH
TO HEAT UP THAT SPACE
FROM GUT
TO THROAT
NECESSARY EMOTION.
It is, then, an aim to resolve through
exact recall the past in, and into, the present, that drives
McCrary's poming. Personally, I believe he hits the target,
right at the bullseye, throughout his poming and does so precisely
by patiently committing himself to the process of "WHAT
COMES UP," regardless what comes up will gratify readers
who turn on only with "OUTRAGEOUS / AUTOMATIC / OR /
IN THIS CASE / ENTIRELY RELEVANT" content and form and
fashion.