The Collected Poems of Georges Bataille (Review)
The Collected Poems of Georges Bataille (Review)
The Collected Poems of Georges Bataille (Review)
Stuart Kendall
SubStance, Issue 92 (Volume 29, Number 2), 2000, pp. 101-104 (Review)
Access provided by The Eugene McDermott Library,University Of Texas at Dallas (8 Mar 2019 03:15 GMT)
BOOK REVIEWS
Bataille, Georges. The Collected Poems of Georges Bataille. Trans. and with
Intro. by Mark Spitzer. Chester Springs, PA: Dufour Editions, 1998. Paper:
140 pages.
has culled much of his historical information about Bataille’s life and work
from reputable works of Bataille scholarship like Allan Stoekl’s Visions of
Excess (University of Minnesota Press, 1985), although it is not listed in the
Works Cited.
Further, Spitzer seems unconcerned that Bataille scholarship has
advanced since his source texts were written. This cavalier attitude allows
him to make a number of fallacious and finally mystifying historical claims
toward the goal of advancing a subjectivist argument for his version of
Bataille’s poetry: “The true test of whether or not a translation works,
however, can only be felt on an individual basis,” (xvi). The remainder of
the introduction suffers from similar or worse oversights, some of them
egregious enough to warrant embarrassment (the Germans in World War I,
for example, were not “Nazis”) without substantially informing the reader
as to Bataille’s poetics, the peculiarities of his language, or the relationship
between the poetry and his work in general.
Still, Spitzer ’s limited understanding of poetics persists as the
fundamental editorial failing of the volume as a whole. This understanding
contaminates both the selection and presentation of the poetry and the
translation of individual poems. By “poetry” Spitzer seems to understand
anything that “looks like a poem,” loosely speaking. This apparently in mind,
Spitzer has collected a substantial selection of those writings that “look like
a poem” from Bataille’s Oeuvres complètes (Gallimard, 1970-1988) and,
inexplicably, from an earlier Mercure de France volume, the contents of which
are all within the Oeuvres complètes.
But even this loose definition has been applied carelessly, as individual
poems are missing from groups of poetry: four short poems are missing
from L’Orestie, for example. Spitzer has also excerpted “poetry” from larger
constellations of writing. This is particularly problematic in the excerpts
from L’Impossible and La Tombe de Louis XXX, wherein the juxtaposition of
poetic meditations and more typically prosaic sections creates much of the
meaning of the works. Once isolated, the poems have been organized more
or less haphazardly. This editorial carelessness can be found at every level,
from these problems of selection and presentation to basic mistakes of spacing
and capitalization. Long poems are broken up incorrectly and without
indicators of continuity on several occasions.
In short, the poems have been handled as though they were discrete
entities rather than parts now taken from an oeuvre that makes startling
and original use of juxtaposition in creating its meanings and effects. The
extent of his lack of understanding for this notion and these works is evident
in Spitzer’s warning to the reader that Bataille “recycled” his poetry, reusing
phrases here and there. The complexities and purposes of this recycling
remain unexplored in Spitzer’s introduction or notes.
Spitzer’s versions of the poems themselves suffer from an enthusiasm
for racy lyricism and an inattention to Bataille’s technical language and his
philosophical and meditational concerns. Bataille writes “innombrable” and
Spitzer renders it “infinite” (125). In “À la Romaine” (4), Spitzer’s rendering
of Bataille’s word “gland” as “nut” eliminates much of the anatomical sense
of the verse as well as its intertextual connections to Le Petit, “Visage sans
fin” and “O crâne.” Spitzer’s end note for this poem offers alternate readings
of the verse without exploring its intertextual connections. Worse, this concern
for lyricism tends to create narratives and links between lines where Bataille
is writing against such an epistemological continuum. Bataille writes “je
pleure/ un mot/ que j’ai perdu” not “I cry/ over a word/ that I lost” (37).
The difference in this case is small, but the overall effect is misleading.
Mark Spitzer’s collection has been carelessly assembled. It misrepresents
the poems themselves and impedes a reader’s comprehension of their
importance. English language readers still need an adequate translation of
the poetry of Georges Bataille.
Stuart Kendall
SUNY Stony Brook