top of page
The Interview with Simon Perchik  Page Two

by Anthony Watkins

Essay by Simon Perchik

Magic, Illusion, and Other Realities

by Simon Perchik


Where do writers get their ideas? Well, if they are writing prose, their ideas evolve one way. If, on the other hand, they are writing poetry, their ideas evolve another way. Perhaps some distinctions are in order. Distinguishing the difference between prose and poetry may not be all that simple. There are many definitions, all of which may be correct.


For the purpose of this essay allow me to set forth one of the many.


It seems to me that there is available to writers a spectrum along which to proceed. At one end is prose, appropriate for essays, news, weather reports, and the like. At the other end is poetry. Writers move back and forth along this spectrum when writing fiction.


Thus, prose is defined by its precise meaning that excludes ambiguity, surmise, and misunderstanding. It never troubles the reader. To define it another way, prose is faulty if it lacks a coherent thrust guided by rules of logic, grammar, and syntax. It will not tolerate contradiction. Poetry, on the other hand, is defined by its resistance to such rules. Poetry is ignited, brought to life by haunting, evasive, ambiguous, contradictory propositions.


This is not to say poetry is more or less useful than prose. Rather, they are two separate and distinct tools, much the same as a hammer and a saw. They are different tools designed for different jobs. If an essay is called for, the reader wants certainty; exactly what the words you are now reading are intended to give. If, on the other hand, consolation for some great loss is called for, the reader needs more: a text that lights up fields of reference nowhere alluded to on the page. This calls for magic, for illusion, not lecture. Thus, one of the many definitions of poetry might be: Poetry: words that inform the reader of that which cannot be articulated. To be made whole, to heal, the reader needs to undergo an improved change in mood, a change made more effective if the reader doesn’t know why he or she feels better. Exactly like music. That’s where poetry gets its power to repair; an invisible touch, ghost-like but as real as anything on earth. A reading of the masters, Neruda, Aleixandre, Celan, . . . confirms that a text need not always have a meaning the reader can explicate. To that extent, it informs, as does music, without what we call meaning. It’s just that it takes prose to tell you this.


This is because prose is a telling of what the writers already know. They have a preconceived idea of what to write about. With poetry it’s the opposite. The writers have no preconceived idea with which to begin a poem. They need to first force the idea out of the brain, to bring the idea to the surface, to consciousness. With poetry the writer needs a method to find that hidden idea. If the originating idea wasn’t hidden and unknown, it isn’t likely to be an important one. Let’s face it: any idea that is easily accessible has already been picked over. It’s all but certain to be a cliché.


To uncover this hidden idea for a poem the writers each have their own unique method. As for me, the idea for the poem evolves when an idea from a photograph is confronted with an obviously unrelated, disparate idea from a text (mythology or science) till the two conflicting ideas are reconciled as a totally new, surprising, and workable one. This method was easy for me to come by. As an attorney I was trained to reconcile disparate views, to do exactly what a metaphor does, for a living. It’s not a mystery that so many practicing lawyers write poetry. Examples are Lawyer Poets And That World We Call Law, James R. Elkins, Editor (Pleasure Boat Studio Press.) and Off the Record, An Anthology of Poetry by Lawyers, edited by James R. Elkins, Professor of Law, University of West Virginia.


The efficacy of this method for getting ideas is documented at length by Wayne Barker, MD., who, in his Brain Storms, A Study of Human Spontaneity, on page fifteen, writes:


“If we can endure confrontation with the unthinkable, we may be able to fit together new patterns of awareness and action. We might, that is, have a fit of insight, inspiration, invention, or creation. The propensity for finding the answer, the lure of creating or discovering the new, no doubt has much to do with some people’s ability to endure tension until something new emerges from the contradictory and ambiguous situation.”


Likewise, Douglas R. Hofstadter, in his Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, writes on page twenty-six:


“One of the major purposes of this book is to urge each reader to confront the apparent contradiction head on, to savor it, to turn it over, to take it apart, to wallow in it, so that in the end the reader might emerge with new insights into the seemingly unbreachable gulf between the formal and the informal, the animate and the inanimate, the flexible and the inflexible.”


Moreover, the self-induced fit is standard operating procedure in the laboratory. Allow me to quote Lewis Thomas, who, in his The Lives of a Cell, on page 138 describes the difference between applied science and basic research. After pointing out how applied science deals only with the precise application of known facts, he writes:


“In basic research, everything is just the opposite. What you need at the outset is a high degree of uncertainty; otherwise it isn’t likely to be an important problem. You start with an incomplete roster of facts, characterized by their ambiguity; often the problem consists of discovering the connections between unrelated pieces of information. You must plan experiments on the basis of probability, even bare possibility, rather than certainty. If an experiment turns out precisely as predicted, this can be very nice, but it is only a great event if at the same time it is a surprise. You can measure the quality of the work by the intensity of astonishment. The surprise can be because it did turn out as predicted (in some lines of research, one percent is accepted as a high yield), or it can be a confoundment because the prediction was wrong and something totally unexpected turned up, changing the look of the problem and requiring a new kind of protocol. Either way, you win . . .”


Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the defining distinction between applied science and basic research is the same as that between prose and poetry? Isn’t it likewise reasonable to conclude that the making of basic science is very much the same as the making of poetry?

In a real way I, too, work in a laboratory. Every day at nine a.m. I arrive at a table in the local coffee shop, open a dog-eared book of photographs, open a text, and begin mixing all my materials together to find something new.


For the famous Walker Evans photograph depicting a migrant’s wife, I began:


Walker Evans Farmer’s wife

Tough life, mouth closed, no teeth? Sorrow?

Not too bad looking. Plain dress


This description went on and on till I felt I had drained the photograph of all its ideas. I then read the chapter entitled “On Various Words” from The Lives of a Cell. Photograph still in view, I then wrote down ideas from Dr. Thomas’s text. I began:


Words — bricks and mortar

Writing is an art, compulsively adding to,

building the ant hill,

not sure if each ant knows what it will look like when finished

it’s too big. Like can’t tell what Earth looks like if you’re on it.


This too goes on and on with whatever comes to mind while I’m reading. But all the time, inside my brain, I’m trying to reconcile what a migrant’s wife has to do with the obviously unrelated ideas on biology suggested by Dr. Thomas. I try to solve the very problem I created. Of course my brain is stymied and jams, creating a self-induced fit similar to the epilepsy studied by the above-mentioned Dr. Barker, M.D., but that was my intention from the beginning.


Sooner or later an idea from the photograph and an idea from the text will be resolved into a new idea and the poem takes hold.


No one is more surprised than I. Or exhausted. The conditions under which I write are brutal. My brain is deliberately jammed by conflicting impulses. Its neurons are overloaded, on the verge of shutting down. I can barely think. My eyes blur. The only thing that keeps me working is that sooner or later will come the rapture of discovery; that the differences once thought impossible to reconcile become resolved; so and so, once thought impossible of having anything to do with so and so, suddenly and surprisingly, has everything in the world to do with it. Or has nothing to do with it but can be reconciled with something else it triggered: one flash fire after another in the lightning storm taking place in my brain.


Getting the idea is one thing but the finished poem is a long way off. And to get there I abstract. Abstraction and music are soul mates and poetry is nothing if not music. For each poem its opening phrase is stolen shamelessly from Beethoven. He’s the master at breaking open bones and I might as well use him early on in the poem. Then I steal from Mahler whose music does its work where I want my poetry to do its work: the marrow.


Perhaps marrow is what it’s all about. Abstraction, since it contradicts the real world, is a striking form of confrontation which jams the brain till it shuts down, confused. It befits the marrow to then do the work the reader’s brain cells would ordinarily do. And though what the marrow cells put together is nothing more than a “gut feeling,” with no rational footing, it is enough to refresh the human condition, to make marriages, restore great losses, rally careers.


Of course abstraction is just one of the ways writers arrive at the poem with their idea. But however they come they all leave for the reader poetry’s trademark: illusion. It is that illusion that builds for the overburdened reader a way out.


Perhaps, as you may have already suspected, a poem, unlike a newspaper, is not a tool for everyday use by everyone; it’s just for those who need it, when they need it.



            Simon Perchik

AW: You published your first book of poetry about the time I began writing poetry. Over the past 50 years, what has changed for you in your understanding of poetry?


SP: Over the past 50 years my work has become more abstract. My idol is Rothko and I want to write like he paints. Of course, colors, like music easily reaches the viewer’s or listener’s subconscious. Words are a problem; they have meaning. Or do they? The law library is stacked with volumes of recorded litigation on what words mean. In short, they don’t always mean what you think they mean. I practiced law for 30 years and I tell you be careful of words. They can surprise you. So why not give them some room. Or at least use them as art. For instance, I tell you your mother died and you cry. I ask you why you’re crying and you say, “Well, you just told me my mother died.” Makes sense. If you can read a poem and cry and not know why you’re crying you have just read a great poem. Not knowing why is what gives poetry its power.


AW: In an interview a few years ago, you said, “I don’t write about a wagon with five wheels, I don’t like that kind of thing.” What does that mean?


SP: “I don’t write about a wagon with five wheels” is my way of saying I write about the real world. About common every day, every where things. My goal is that when I write a poem with a doorknob in it, my hope is that you will never again open a door without a sense of fear. All my objects are real things.


AW: I understand you write a lot or most of your poems in response to an image. I don’t believe, in the thousands of poems I have written, I have ever written a poem based on an image, or any sort of work of art, other than occasionally feeling the need to respond to another poet’s poem. I do write based on something I see in real life, be it a tree, a tractor, a cane field on fire, or whatever, but I am curious how you use still photos as a prompt?


SP: I use the photo in the worst sense of the word. I use it and know, from experience, it will be thrown away. I wrote to the 482 photographs in MoMA’s Family of Man collection of photographs. Took almost ten years. Of those 482 only one photograph survived to be in the finished poem. In fact, it’s the only photograph of all I’ve ever used that survived. This issue is best addressed in my essay “Magic, Illusion, and Other Realities.”


AW: Do you not see a place for concreteness in poetry?


SP: Concreteness in poetry? Not sure what you mean. Concrete poetry? There is a concrete poem with just one word: Love. That word is repeated line by line 10 times, each word under the other. What makes it a poem is that on the first line the type is perfect and beginning with the second line slowly breaks apart so that on the tenth line you can hardly make out the word. Says it all without saying anything. If you mean precision, then I certainly feel it has a place as long as it alludes to something else, so you’re not writing an essay which, of course, must be precise.


AW: I see you have a new collection coming out. Tell us about it and what you expect from it.


SP: The Gibson Poems (Cholla Needles, 2019) just came out and I hope many will read it. And a review would be nice too. What can I expect from it? If the other 20 or so books are any guide I don’t expect very much.


AW: I am wondering if, at 96 years of age, you have plans to slow down? If not, what’s next?


SP: This may be more insightful a question than you meant it to be. I have often tried to figure out why I write. Why I continue to write. Am sure it’s fear. Not sure what that fear is, but until I figure it out, I have to write. Till I die, I guess.

AW: Thank you, Simon.

Simon Perchik 2.jpg
red-1968-Mark Rothko.jpg

Red 1968 Mark Rothko


violet black orange yellow on white and red 1949 Mark Rothko

self-portrait-1936-Mark Rothko.jpg

self portrait 1956 Mark Rothko

bottom of page