W.N. Herbert - Omnesia

Dear reader, I apologise for the position Ive put you in. Not just you, but the bookseller, the reviewer, and the various assessors through whose hands one or both aspects of this book has or have had to or will pass or passed and indeed my publisher, who pains-takingly produced two mirror versions of it, one of which you are, probably with increasing reluctance, reading now. And to what end? Our culture is as happily full of mash-ups, remixes, and directors cuts, as it is of variorum editions of novelists, poets and playwrights. It is entirely possible in the world of e- (and p-) publishing to imagine any book having several versions, supplemented by additional materials through websites or pamphlets. So, I wondered, why not write a book which absorbs that flexibility into its basic structure? Hence Omnesia, a book in two volumes and neither, its title both a portmanteau and a sort of oxymoron, pairing omniscience (You must know everything) with amnesia, an often traumatic condition of forgetfulness. (In fact, for me, being in the world is also like this perhaps thats why so much of this book is on the move, between tones and genres as much as places, not quite at home in any of them.) So writing a book of poetry becomes both punk experiment and prog system. (In fact, for me, being in the world is also like this perhaps thats why so much of this book is on the move, between tones and genres as much as places, not quite at home in any of them.) So writing a book of poetry becomes both punk experiment and prog system.

That is, I go with the emphatic flow of its inspirations, I forget everything a poem should be, and improvise its subjects, its themes, its forms and tones, but at the same time I am constantly trying to orchestrate these into a whole, thinking of them as sections that contrast, complement and speak to each other. This echoes my reading experience, in which any book that has moved, troubled or changed me begins to exist as one version in my head, and another in my hand. To the extent to which it has such an effect, it becomes my book, and begins to be imagined as a collaboration between myself and the author, or by a sort of third mind that knows what we both know. Then, when I re-read the actual book, I find there is so much I have forgotten, or overlooked , or mistaken, that it has become yet another book. These two versions then enter into further dialogue. While I was writing Omnesia or rather while I was lying on a bed daydreaming before an event at the Curt Festival in Galway I began to wonder if these various dynamics could be embodied in two physically distinct but twin-like books.

In my first Bloodaxe volume, Forked Tongue, I had suggested the principle of And not Or to position a poetic of variousness in a market that favours (if not fetishises) concision and restraint. All my books since have been doubled linguistically, stylistically or thematically. Omnesia takes that principle one step further: the various sections in each volume mirror, juxtapose, continue or contrast. Hopefully, they make one sense read in isolation, and a further read together. What this interrelation does not appear to be is a dialectic it is not that debate between thesis and antithesis which our media loves, creating pantomime oppositions in order to pitch common sense against complexity. Its more like the dance between ideas we encounter in the ancient mode of strophe and antistrophe, each step taking the step it echoes and reflecting it onto another level: the epode arises from this, not as a matter of logical synthesis, but as news from nowhere.

Of course, you neednt concern yourself with this unless it engages you: this volume can be read by itself, and only if you are at all moved, troubled or changed need it be considered in conjunction with its non-identical twin. I hope you are (moved, troubled or changed), not least because it will double my sales, a consideration I should confess occurred to me almost immediately after the principles outlined above. Even the forgetting of something, in which every relationship of being towards what one formerly knew has been obliterated, must be viewed as a modification of the primordial being-in; and this holds for every delusion and for every error. HEIDEGGER I think you dont believe half the lies Im telling you. WILLIE CLANCY