Beat Punks

by Victor Bockris

  BOCKRIS: What do you find are the major problems you have as a writer at this point?

  SMITH: When I was a kid? Well, I had no understanding of language. I was so romantic and I thought all you had to do is expel the romance. I had no idea the romance of language was a whole thing in itself. I had no idea of what to do with language. I mean, all I had was I used to record my dreams. I had no conception of style of words.

  BOCKRIS: Tell me how Seventh Heaven got put together. It’s a 48-page book. That’s a lot of work.

  SMITH: Right before I met Telegraph Books I started in the last two years reorganizing my style. I started feeling confidence in my writing. I just realized what language was. You know, I started seeing language as magic. Two things happened that really liberated me. The major thing was reading Mickey Spillane. Because I wanted to move out of … I was starting to get successful in writing these long almost rock and roll poems. And I liked to perform them but I suddenly realized that though they were great performed, they weren’t such hot shit written down. I’m not saying I didn’t stand behind them, but there’s a certain kind of poetry that’s performance poetry. It’s like the American Indians weren’t writing conscious poetry, they were making chants. They were making ritual language and the language of ritual is the language of the moment. But as far as being frozen on a piece of paper is concerned, they weren’t inspiring. You can do anything when you perform, you can say anything you want as long as you’re a great performer, you know you can repeat a word over and over and over as long as you’re a fantastic performer. You know you never understand what Mick Jagger is saying except “Let it Boogie” or “Jumping Jack Flash” but it’s always so powerful ’cause he’s such a fantastic performer.

  BOCKRIS: Well how do you deal with that problem? That’s a central problem in your work. Tony Glover says in his review of Seventh Heaven. He talks about the poetry of performance. I feel that’s a central thing we’re dealing with at the moment. How to get it down so you can have a book that people can read, but that you can also perform.

  SMITH: That book to me represents me on the tightrope between writing and performing. I was writing stuff like “Mary Jane” or the Joan of Arc stuff, which is total performance poetry but, you know, I think they were worthy of being printed because their content is important. The Joan of Arc poem is almost total rhythm masturbation but it puts Joan of Arc in a new light, it puts her forth as a virgin with a hot pussy who realizes that she’s gonna get knocked off before she gets a chance to come. So there is a concept there that made the rhythm worth of being frozen. But like I said, I was reading Mickey Spillane. I couldn’t get into prose ’cause I don’t talk that well. I’m not good in grammar. I can’t spell. I have lousy sentence structure. I don’t know how to use commas so I just get very intimidated when I write something that isn’t completely vertical. So I started reading Mickey Spillane, you know, and Mike Hammer, his hammer language: I ran, I ran fast down the alley. And back again. I mean he wrote like that. Three-word sentences and they’re like a chill and they’re real effective and I got real seduced by his speed and at the same time I started reading Céline ’cause it’s just too intellectual but the idea that he could freeze one word and put a period. He dared put one word—yellow—and follow it by forty other words like forty movements, also like some kind of concerto or something. He’s not as seducing to me as Mickey Spillane but I juggled the two.

  And then the third thing: I was reading Michaux. He’s so funny. He wrote this thing called The Adventure of Phene and it’s about this guy who’s totally paranoid. He’s so paranoid he goes to Rome and wants to see the Coliseum and the travel guide says, “Oh, I’m so sorry. Well, could I at least have a postcard?” and he says, “Don’t be ridiculous.” And he says, “Oh, I never really meant to have a postcard. I don’t even know why I came to this country.” And he leaves.

  So I mean I got three things. I got speed, humor, the holiness of the single word. So I just mixed them all up.

  BOCKRIS: Mostly European influences, Rimbaud, Cendrars, Céline, Michaux.

  SMITH: Well, it used to be totally European. I had no interest in American writing at all.

  BOCKRIS: Why?

  SMITH: It’s because of biographies. I was mostly attracted to lifestyles and there just were not any great biographies of genius American lifestyles except the cowboys. And I’m a girl and I was interested in the feminineness of men.

  BOCKRIS: What you’re trying to do in your writing is create a lifestyle. Seventh Heaven is a lifestyle.

  SMITH: If I didn’t think so much of myself I’d think I was a name-dropper, but there’s a difference. You can read my book and who do you get out of it? Edie Sedgwick, Marianne Faithfull, Joan of Arc, Frank Sinatra … all people I really like. But I’m not doing it to drop names. I’m doing it to say this is another piece of who I am. You know, I am an American. It’s ironic I should be so involved with the French because I’m absolutely an American. I’m shrouded in the lives of my heroes.

  BOCKRIS: Would you find anybody in America now who you think influences you a lot?

  SMITH: It’s mostly dead people.

  BOCKRIS: Anybody alive?

  SMITH: Dylan. You can’t reject Dylan. But Dylan seduced me when he had a fantastic lifestyle. I’ll always love Dylan all my life but Dylan was a big thing to me when he was BOB DYLAN. Now he’s whatever he is but when he was there and had America in the grip of his fist, then I got so excited about him. As far as anybody living.

  BOCKRIS: I find the position of a writer is a fairly isolated one. It’s fairly lonely task. Do you find that?

  SMITH: No, ’cause I don’t have the balls to say I’m a writer. I don’t think I’m good enough. See, I love my works. I think I’ve written some really good things. I think “Judith” is just as good as anything ever written, but I couldn’t sit down and do it all the time. Oh, Sam Shepard. I admire him.

  BOCKRIS: Do you find you learn from him?

  SMITH: Sure, I learn from Sam because Sam is one of the most magic people I’ve ever met. Sam is really the most true American man I’ve ever met in as far as he’s also hero-oriented. He has a completely western romance mind. He loves gangsters, he loves cowboys, he’s totally physical. He loves bigness. You know Americans love bigness. In his plays there’s always a huge Cadillac or a huge breast or a huge monster. His whole life moves on rhythms. He’s a drummer. I mean, everything about Sam is so beautiful and has to do with rhythm. That’s why Sam and I successfully collaborated because he didn’t know that he was … intuitively he worked with the rhythm. I do it conceptually. I work with being a thematic writer. He just does it because he’s got rhythm in his blood. I do it intellectually. He does it from the heart. And so we were able to establish a really deep communion that way.

  BOCKRIS: You’re not working with him at the moment, are you?

  SMITH: No.

  BOCKRIS: You don’t associate with many writers?

  SMITH: Well, my best friends are writers. I never collaborate.

  BOCKRIS: I wasn’t thinking so much of collaborations. People I feel more comfortable with tend to be writers nowadays because they tend to recognize me and I tend to recognize them.

  SMITH: No, I don’t think I have the modern writer’s lifestyle.

  BOCKRIS: You don’t take yourself seriously?

  SMITH: Ultimately, I don’t take anything serious and I can take everything seriously. I’m too much of a cynic to take anything serious. If I’m in a good, pure, relaxed state I can look at certain of my works and like them. But most of the time I look at my stuff and say, Ah, this is a load of shit. Mick Jagger listens to his albums and says they’re shit. Bob Dylan listens to his albums and says they’re shit. It hurts me to read an interview where Bob Dylan says he hates Nashville Skyline. But I know how I feel. The best work to me is the work in progress. Which I why I produce … I almost hate to see my work go out. I’m more guilty of not being published than any publisher because I’m always in prog
ress. I didn’t like to finish my drawings. Yeats was like that. How many versions of “Leda and the Swan” did he do? It’s so difficult ’cause it means it’s dead. De Kooning did twenty-eight dead women under Women I because you know he couldn’t stand to say that she was done. It’s like you know when a woman has a baby, she created it. It’s just begun. But when an artist does a piece of work, as soon as he does the last brushstroke or the last period, it’s finished.

  BOCKRIS: How did you feel when Seventh Heaven came out?

  SMITH: I carried it around with me for weeks.

  BOCKRIS: Did it catalyze anything in your head about writing?

  SMITH: I stopped writing for a while. I was like a kid at first. I didn’t understand it. I saw it. It was in front of me. I liked to carry it on buses and hope people would recognize it was me on the cover. I stopped seeing the poetry as soon as it was printed. I’ll stand behind that book, I think it’s a damn good book, but the only two poems I like the best are the two last ones which are the most recent ones. I think ‘Judith’ is the best thing I ever write.

  BOCKRIS: Would you say anything about the difference between being a man and a woman in relation to writing?

  SMITH: I don’t feel it that much.

  BOCKRIS: You write about it a lot.

  SMITH: Being a writer?

  BOCKRIS: No, you’re a woman. You used the image a few minutes ago of giving birth to a child. It rang a bell in my mind …

  SMITH: I don’t consider myself a female poet. It’s only lately that I’ve been able to consider myself a female artist. I don’t think I hold any sex. I think I have both masculine and feminine rhythms in my work. In the same sense I don’t think Mick Jagger is just a masculine performer.

  BOCKRIS: You’re bisexual.

  SMITH: Completely heterosexual.

  BOCKRIS: You talk as if you were bisexual.

  SMITH: Most of my poems are written to women because women are most inspiring. Who are most artists? Men. Who do they get inspired by? Women. The masculinity in me gets inspired by female. I get, you know, I fall in love with men and they take me over. I ain’t no women’s lib chick. So I can’t write about a man because I’m under his thumb but a woman I can be male with. I can use her as my muse. I tried to make it with a chick once and I thought it was a drag. She was too soft. I like hardness. I like to feel a male chest. I like the bone. I like muscle. I don’t like all that soft breast.

  BOCKRIS: You find women inspiring from a distance. Anita Pallenberg, Joan of Arc, Marianne Faithfull, Edie Sedgwick, you know …

  SMITH: No, I don’t know any of the girls I wrote about. I wrote about Judy, one of my best friends, but I could only write about her when she was away from me for a year. Then all of a sudden she became a muse. I don’t like women close up because they’re attainable. It’s like I met Edie Sedgwick a few times and she had nothing to do with me. Who was I? But I thought she was swell, she was one of my first heroines. Vali’s a perfect example. Vali’s one of the only chicks I’ve ever attained and she didn’t go in my book. Vali has been a heroine of mine since I was fourteen years old. She was my original heroine. And when I met her she tattooed my knee. We kissed and all that. She suddenly vanished as one of my great muses. I didn’t put her in the book and she’s the one chick who deserved it because we touched.

  BOCKRIS: Tell me about the writing of a poem for you.

  SMITH: Let me get the book out. I’ll take “Judith.” Most of my poems I write in two ways. I write them from first writing a letter to someone who will never receive the letter or I write recording a dream. “Skunk Dog” was a complete dream.

  Judy was a girl I was in love with in the brain. I’m in love with her because we have similar brain energy. We can travel through time. We have this fantastic way of communicating. But she doesn’t let me touch her. She’s one girl that maybe I would have like to have done something to. At one point I was really obsessed with her and she wouldn’t let me and at one point she went away to Nepal and right before she left she grabbed me and kissed me and I was so shocked I pushed her away and she said, “You blew it” just ’cause I was too chicken-shit. As long as she acted real tough … but as soon as she reached out for me I got scared. I’m a phony.

  So anyway Judy was away and I loved her so much that I couldn’t stand it. I started dreaming of her. So I was trying to write her a letter, but when you really love someone it’s almost impossible to write them. It’s people you love the most who you can’t communicate with verbally. I had such a strong mental contact with this girl that I couldn’t talk to her. So I was at the typewriter. It’s made writing a much more physical thing. I write with the same fervor as Jackson Pollock used to paint. And all the things that we had, like, we loved the movie Judex, I started writing down in a line, just words but, you know, words that were perfect, words like “kodak,” “radiant,” “jellybitch,” and I just tried writing these words.

  BOCKRIS: You built the rest of the poem around the central words?

  SMITH: Yeah. I had these words. I was trying to write her a letter but I had no idea where she was, so obviously it was a piece of narcissism. I was just trying to write this thing. Sort of jacking off. I was trying to project with words and language a photograph of Judy. So, anyway, I had all these words and they laid around for a couple of days and I looked at them and they were almost a perfect square and that’s just how it is. I stretched them, put a few full stops in.

  BOCKRIS: How long did it take you to write that poem?

  SMITH: About two and a half days. I think it’s perfect. Another reason I like this poem is it explains our relationship through words like “jewel,” “angelfood,” “avocado,” it illustrates our personal aesthetic, then it illustrates our problem because it says she would not let me touch her. The other thing is it has my love for punchline. My favorite thing in it is “ah spansule.” That’s another thing. I love words. I heard some guy say “spansule” as I was writing this. I said, “That’s a neat word, what does it mean?” He said, “Spansule, gelatin, a hollow pill.” I love definitions. I wrote that down and I like it so much and I wanted to put it in this poem but what was my motive for putting it in this poem? So I said, “Ah spansule a hollow pill what’s in it for me.’” That’s joke enough, but I kept carrying it, for love of Judy Judy Judy punch punch punch which … I think that’s funny.

  BOCKRIS: Well, why do you find most other writers in America boring?

  SMITH: I think I’m a timeless writer.

  BOCKRIS: You’re a writer in the middle of a literary scene and you’re totally ignoring the literary scene around you. How long can you keep going on your own?

  SMITH: I can keep going because I’m constantly stimulated by earth’s glitter. I’m constantly stimulated. I’m not at any loss for material.

  BOCKRIS: Are you satisfied with holding on to the same style?

  SMITH: No, I write totally different.

  BOCKRIS: What are you writing now?

  SMITH: Back to Rimbaud again. “Judith” is really a left-handed part of Illuminations and I’m writing more like that now. I’m allowing myself to get more obscure. I’ve always been against that. I like people to say what they mean. But what I’m moving into now is sort of the style of the Illuminations but more describing situations that have not happened. Like that thing I told you called ‘Paprade’. I like to talk casually about things like I say, “Regard I’ve popped out my eye, there it lies on the ground like some sick kodak. I pick it up and throw it in the face of an unsuspecting grandma, a pedestrian.” I like writing like a news reporter about more obscure events. In other words my writing is much more didactic. Documentaries of fantasies. That gives me a chance to get really obscure in terms of actions but it gives the reader a chance because it’s written so rigidly they don’t know something really bizarre is happening.

  BOCKRIS: Do you know what you’re doing or is it hit and miss?

  SMITH: I know what I’m doing. I was never an egomaniac …

&
nbsp; BOCKRIS: You’re not?

  SMITH: … until lately because I know what I’m doing.

  BOCKRIS: When did that moment come?

  SMITH: It came when I started writing things like “Judith.” I know that’s a good poem. I know it’ll be a good poem in ten years from now. To me when I am both inspired and have light emitting from me and feel real natural and intuitive but also at the same time clearly walk into my brain and look around.

  BOCKRIS: Before we get on to talking about things in the present let’s clear up a few things in the past. Tell me about Blaise Cendrars and his influence on you and how that came about.

  SMITH: I was working at Scribner’s. I discovered Blaise Cendrars because of packaging. I should have discovered him years ago but people are so jealous and want Apollinaire to be the big spirit of the twenties and Blaise has really been sucked in the mud, you know. So I was working at Scribner’s and Doubleday published Moravagine. It was beautifully packaged, had a drawing on it very similar to how I draw which immediately seduced me. I saw the drawing on the cover, it looked just like one of my drawings, I looked on the back and it said something about insanity and a collective unconsciousness …

  BOCKRIS: Do you write when you’re traveling?

  SMITH: Right now I’ve been in this room in this city for so long I don’t see it any more and I’m not being stimulated. Lately I’ve just been doing a lot of cleaning inside my brain. My eyes are not seeing anything around me. So I’ve been dreaming a lot, recording dreams and trying to look within, but I’m not worried about it. I’m just waiting for the moment when I’ll get to take a train or plane someplace and I know I’ll spurt out because I’ve just got to see new things. I think Rimbaud said he needs new scenery and a new noise and I need that.