FQ's with O Machine's Luke Buckham

Welcome to another installment of Five Questions. Today's guest is Luke Buckham. Hmmm. Two of my first guests are from New Hampshire. What gives? Enjoy. He's very talented. Luke blogs at O Machine. The link can be found under the Blinks category on this site.

Bio:

Luke Buckham is 26 years old. He lives in Keene, New Hampshire in a small
but wonderfully functional apartment which he shares with a daddy-long-legs
spider. Daddy-long-legs possess a poison more powerful than that of the
black widow, but their tiny jaws are too small to transmit the poison to
human beings; so it is possible for us to live in peace with one another.
Mr. Buckham has written over seven thousand books. He is currently
recording experimental music with a group called Mister Bones & Madame X.


1) What is the state of poetry in contemporary times? Are we disinterested
and indifferent to literature and the arts at large?

I have a few friends who frequently write brilliant poetry, make brilliant
music, and paint brilliant paintings. And I spend a lot of my free time
poking around in little record shops, bookstores and libraries; I always
find something interesting. So for me, the state of the arts is healthy and
exciting.

There are a great many people who are passionately interested in what's
happening in every imaginable art form, but their interests are not
portrayed or catered to by the mainstream media. Good taste is always a
minority characteristic, but that minority is now larger than it has ever
been: there are (at least according to recorded history) more people on this
planet than ever before, and more of them know how to read and write than
ever before. So there is a vast audience for anyone who wants to make an
impact with poetry, or with any art form. It will take guts, massive
talent, and gamble, as well as a Warholian instinct for self-marketing, for
a good poet to break through to a wider audience with a medium as demanding
as poetry, but it does happen occasionally, usually for the wrong reasons.
The truly great writer Charles Bukowski, for example, now has a following of
many thousands of people in America, but most of them don't seem to be
capable of understanding the deeper implications of his work. They seem to
be drawn primarily by his rock star status, by his outlaw mystique. But
surely many of them are also intoxicated by the writing itself. I'm just
glad whenever anybody's reading something other than the daily newspaper.
Even a superficial appreciation of a great artist is better than no
appreciation at all; it does have an effect, even if that effect is less
than what the artist themselves may have originally hoped. It's true that
the best-selling American book of poetry of all time is Jewel's 'A Night
Without Armor'--and it's true that her book is awful--but who cares? Fads
come and go, but a thousand years from now, barring the total extinction of
the human race, someone will still be reading Walt Whitman, and nobody will
have ever heard of Jewel.

2) Where is blogging heading? Will it revolutionize anything as some claim
it will?

Blogging is instantaneous. There was time when, if one wanted hundreds or
thousands of people to read one's work, one would have to go through a
publishing process in which the work in question would be scrutinized and
criticized. Not always wisely, either, but there was at least a vague idea
that some literary standards must be upheld, or, at the very least, that the
work in question had to have a selling point. Then, after months of
production and promotion effort, the work in question would finally be
unleashed on the public. Or, one could try to get published in magazines,
but even a spectacular success in that arena was not nearly so quick a fix
as blogging. True, most blogs get relatively few hits, but it's the fact
that the medium can be accessed by millions of people all over the world
that is intoxicating to many.

Right now, anyone with the barest minimum of computer literacy (I myself
blog and know hardly anything about computers; there are many simple blogger
features that I still haven't figured out how to use, but posting is easy)
can log on daily and fling their thoughts, or their thoughtlessness, at
anyone and everyone who happens to be surfing the Internet. Like any
democracy, this allows for a flood of public sloppiness and mediocrity, but
dictatorships flood the world with mediocrity too: the mediocre tastes of
the dictator. And, like any democracy, it is not really a democracy. In
fact, right now, large companies are seeking to make it harder for certain
sites to be quickly and efficiently accessed: and they will be successful,
because they own our "representatives" (in many cases they ARE our
representatives) and control virtually every choice they make.
Anti-authoritarian thought is not good for big business. Thus, websites
that encourage rebellion, even (especially?) peaceful, humorous rebellion,
must be made harder to access.

But there is not much for our dark masters to fear in the world of blogging.
Even a cursory scan of blogs will reveal that the vast majority of sites
are horribly boring; they generally consist of a few hasty, sloppy diary
entries, most of which show no talent for writing, or even a desire for
meaningful communication. Blogging is primarily a showcase for shallow
narcissism. It allows everyone with access to the Internet to reach at
least a few hundred people with accounts of last night's party, last night's
new haircut, last night's sexual experience, etc, simply for the sake of
advertising one's surface to the world, in hopes of getting laid or
otherwise attracting admiration (this is part of the reason I blog as well,
but I hope I can at least EARN admiration).

In other words, blogging is very much like the rest of human existence. It
has not, and will not, revolutionize anything: it is just the latest
technological manifestation of humanity's agonizingly slow evolution (but
are we even evolving?). Blogging is not a new problem, or a new solution to
anything. But it is evidence that most human beings have nothing of worth
to impart, even when they are given more than adequate space, leisure time
and tools to educate themselves, and the freedom to express nearly anything
at all. Blogging reveals this sad truth: it did not create it, and to the
extent that it encourages it, well, if blogging were to be eliminated from
the face of the earth, something else would quickly take its place and
reveal the same awful truth.

I work in a convenience store. The hundreds of conversations I overhear on
a daily basis are sufficient evidence of the lack of thought and focus that
comprise most people's lives; I was aware of this before Blogger and Myspace
came along.

3) Is this a 'so-called' war on terror or is it a legitimate fight?

Why use the word "war" at all? War on poverty, war on drugs, war on
ignorance, war on intolerance: many people are using a warlike language for
everything, and that shows a serious lack of imagination, as well as a
serious depth of fear. The language of warfare points to a widespread
willingness to use massive violence to obliterate problems (read: people).
In other words: most of us are probably terrorists at heart, but those who
use the word "war" to describe any of their quests are openly engaging in
the worship of anger, in the worship of force in and of itself; they are
engaging in outrage for outrage's sake, partly because outrage sells and
feeds business as usual, whereas any attempt at mercy would stop us in our
tracks and require of us a long, initially agonizing look in the mirror.

When the "Cold War" "ended", those who, for various reasons, wanted America
to continue to build up its military might, and find conquests for that
military to carry out, knew that a new ever-present enemy was needed.
"Terror" is the perfect enemy, since terrorists (My definition of a
terrorist is anyone who thinks violence can often, as opposed to rarely,
solve problems; this includes a lot of people. But any other definition of
terrorism also includes a lot of people) exist in every country and probably
always will. As countries rise and fall, and political landscapes dissolve,
terrorists will continue to pop up everywhere. Thus, this really is a war
without end: a perfect situation for those who want to continue to rake in
massive revenues through military spending indefinitely. And a perfect
situation for those who believe that the only alternative to dominating and
intimidating others is to be enslaved by them. It's also the perfect way to
intimidate and terrify a largely decadent, arrogant, fat-assed, ignorant and
complacent people, who have grown used to predictable, cushy routine. The
unpredictability of terrorism, the threat of the unexpected, makes them shit
their pants and cling to authority.

There is another level on which a struggle against "terror" is perfectly
legitimate, just as a struggle against apathy, or a study of dishonesty,
would be perfectly legitimate, provided it did not claim that ultimate
victory was possible, and provided that it did not use massive force as a
primary option. That is just part of the problem with the way many people
(usually politicians) frame the "war on terror": they insist, or at least
suggest, that ultimate victory is possible, as if it were possible to remove
every discordant and disturbing element not only from humanity, but also
from human nature. That idea is bullshit; and I believe it is often
deliberate bullshit, meant to further American military power and American
interests. It will have the exact opposite effect. America has already
overreached its military capabilities, and it will someday fall into
humiliating disarray, as all empires have. Our attempt to regulate the
entire globe will continue to fail miserably, and create new resentments,
new wars, until we take a very hard fall. America will almost certainly
survive as a country: Rome and Greece and Sweden still exist too, but they
are hardly in their glory days.

There really are people who hate others for their success, their beauty,
their achievements. That this beauty and these achievements are often
dubious and corrupt is not beside the point, but there will always be people
in the world who are hungry to violently avenge themselves on others because
of jealousy, or fear, or moral indignation. But maybe this is the real
meaning of "terror": the "war on terror" is perhaps the quest of those who
doubt the validity of their own achievements against those who take those
achievements too seriously and wish to destroy them. Those who believe that
massive violence is a valid means tend to fear that old "he who lives by the
sword..." proverb. And they try to prove the proverb wrong, and they are
afraid that a successful act of violence perpetrated against them will prove
that they are inferior to the perpetrator.

Think about this for a minute: what kind of reactions do you think
terrorists expect? What kind of reactions do you think that they desire?
Do you think they expect to be forgiven, to be bombarded with flowers and
chocolates in response to their cataclysmic successes? Would such a
response aid their agendas, and prove their preconceptions about the Great
Satan? Would it help them win converts?

Of course, no serious person would recommend responding to a terrorist
attack with flowers and chocolates. Serious people do serious things: they
murder and injure millions of people in order to bring peace and happiness
to the world, and to bring an end to resentment and jealousy. Serious
people have serious answers to serious questions. For example: how can one
make an ordinary missile or bomb a more devastating, effective, and
frightening weapon? Answer: spike the weapon with depleted uranium. In
this, they are absolutely correct. How can one argue with such quick,
efficient answers, brought to us by such highly educated and respectable
people?

4) Is America inherently evil with some good tendencies/intentions or is it
good with some naughty intentions?

What is America? It is not a person. It is not even an idea; not a single
idea, at any rate. America is a country: a place with borders, founded on
ideas, some of them confused and contradictory, some of them quite good, and
many of which have never been successfully put into practice. Like all
nations, we were founded by imperfect, noble, hypocritical people with
imperfect ideas. And like all nations, our citizens are radically different
from each other: many of them are constantly at odds with many of their
fellow citizens, some for good reasons, some for terrible reasons. Any
country presents us with a truly radical diversity. How can one seriously
size up the morality of such a divergent, chaotic, many-headed and wildly
variable conglomoration of folks? How could any entire nation be inherently
evil, or evil at all? It's hard enough to size up the morality of a single
person, much less an entire nation. And to the extent that our nation has a
sort of belief system, most people are not aquainted with that belief
system, and would have a tough time following it.

"Naughty" is a very cute word. I associate it with crotchless panties
(though there is nothing really naughty about those, in my view; they're
just good, ridiculous fun). I don't think it describes the genuine dangers
of the power which our nation wields, usually unwisely. But I'll permit
myself this generalization as my own third-option answer: I don't think the
average American is morally all that different from the average person
anywhere else on the globe. Culture, fashion, language, tradition, and
government all conspire to make it seem otherwise; the truth is, I believe,
simpler, in this case. People of different countries may sometimes appear
to behave very differently from each other, but when you look at how they
choose to go about their daily business, they are morally very similar to
each us; similar, too, in how they radically differ from one another.

Here's a good idea for a head-clearing bumper sticker: AMERICA DOES NOT
EXIST. And really, how could it exist? After all, most Americans know very
little about America, which makes it pretty hard to bring it into being.

5) Who would you recommend for readers interested in poetry to start off
with?

Do what you do when entering the realm of any other art form, or for that
matter, any experience: find out what turns you on. Spend many hours in the
poetry section of your local bookstore of library and rummage through the
books until something excites you. It'll be like making love for the first
time, successfully defying your elders for the first time, or getting drunk
for the first time, or even like getting into your first fistfight; there
will be a heart-pouding feeling of barriers falling, boundaries both real
and imaginary being trespassed: a whole new key to viewing existence, if you
want it.

Notice that I said many, many hours are needed to find your poet. It's
true. Any reader who is really interested in poetry has lots of time to
read it, even if it means sleeping less and eating less than other people.
Once you find a poet who blows your mind, find out what they read, and then
read those poets, too; and on and on and on, in that fashion. If you don't
have time for this kind of activity, kill yourself.

I read poetry for only one reason: to be entertained. If I learn something
in the process, great, but I'm here for the fireworks. Poets who show me a
good time include John Berryman, Claude Gauvreau, Etheridge Knight, Rennie
Sparks, Cesar Vallejo, Mitsuharu Kaneko, Frederick Seidel, Umar Khayyam,
Mina Loy, Blaise Cendrars, Aime Cesaire, Catullus, David Berman,
Rabindranath Tagore, Captain Beefheart, Stephen Crane, Ikkyu, Sharon Olds,
Zahrad, Greg Devlin, Philip Larkin, Sappho, Andre Breton, Ted Hughes, Werner
Herzog, Robinson Jeffers, Ezra Pound, James Tate, Guillaume Apollinaire,
John Cale, Paul Celan, Joe Wenderoth, and Elizabeth Bishop.

Every one of these people is ten thousand times more important than the next
president of the USA. And I thank you for ending with this question,
because it is more important than any of the others.

*****
Some Russian whack-job named Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said this: "Beauty will
save the world."

What an idiot!