The Seminar Room of the Kiasma Art Museum, Helsinki, August 24, 2004

Leevi Lehto: … since maybe Charles and I are the ones most responsible for this thing to happen, and since we’ve had chances to talk about some of the subjects which I think will come up in this discussion … now for two days already, we thought it might be a good idea to start this discussion where we left it last evening… last night…

Charles Bernstein: This morning actually.

LL: … this morning, yes, and there were others involved in this discussion… I don’t quite remember who actually came up with this concept of Finno-Saxon… But last night was the beginning of the Finno-Saxon literature, I hope…

CB: It’s really more of a movement, don’t you think…

LL: It’s more of a movement, yes, and of course the term is also a homophonic translation for “Finnish accent”, which I hope will be heard a lot in this discussion, but just to get this started, Charles, would you like to elaborate a little on this concept of Finno-Saxon?

CB: I think it is important that you just leave it as a mystical idea, rather than to elaborate too much, but the basic conception that we realized last night was that there’s too much proliferation of the many languages in the world, and we need to understand what the root or the ur-language is that is behind all languages, the pre-Babelian state, and we are proposing that Finno-Saxon really is the mother of all languages, the deep language that underlines all other human languages… because if we can establish that, we really could create much more stability in international semiotic exchange. Would you like me to translate that into English?

We are conducting this whole event in Finno-Saxon, and I have to … Leevi of course is really the great… I have to try to speak only accenting the first syllable when I speak as to my part, but I have to practice more… I’m really kind of obsessed with pronouncing the other syllables – ob-sessed with pro-nouncing the other syl-lables – but I’m working on it. So that would be the first step. If those of us who grew up speaking American English would start this so we’d also be participating in this Finno-Saxon revival.

LL: The funny thing is …

CB: I hope we’ve made this clear. We would ask you to sign a statement of allegiance to Finno-Saxon. And then the idea would be that, globally, we’d want everyone to learn Finno-Saxon as their first language, and then as the second language they can learn the local language of their village, their county, their local shopping-mall…But the first language would be Finno-Saxon that people would learn. We would have crushes which would teach Finno-Saxon… and then we wouldn’t have the problem with communication that we have in the world, which is so troubling.

LL: The funny thing is that last night was also the night for the first poem written in Finno-Saxon to see the light…of… my phone, actually. I mean, when we were having this discussion, this poem that was written by Karri, who is sitting there, in the first row, came to my phone… because Karri and I are having this ongoing philosophical discussion by text-messages, so this poem came to my phone, and then, immediately, the phone run out of power … So I could not show this to anyone last night…

CB: We took that as a sign…

LL: As a sign … as an important sign… as an omen even…But now, Charles, I want you to read this short poem, which is like the beginnings of how we are to transcribe the Finno-Saxon…

CB: Or would it be Fi-no-Saxon?

LL: Final section?

CB: Fi-no-Sexon? Well… this is written in … you see, what impresses me is that with text-messaging, you’re able to have all the accents. I think that was kind of interesting… So you want me to read this work of yours, Karri? Why don’t you do it?

Karri Kokko: No, you do.

LL: He asked me to give it to you to read, aloud.

CB: I mean one of the reasons why we are talking of this is of course the very fact that even in this environment we are all talking in English, of course first because I’m here… although… it’s a phenomenon that is not just confined to this room, it’s an interesting one to be a poet writing in English, and of the kind of Lingua Franca aspects that English has, and that for me is very different from, you know, the English that any of us speak in a any given place, certainly, just as British English is very different, and different parts of British English, are different from American English, and, you know, there are many American Englishes, and there’s a great utility of course for me to be able to come here and, you know, to speak as I am, and you follow the individual words, but at the same time it is for me fundamentally separate from what I am interested in poetic language…which cannot ever be universal in that way, because it has … it comes from so much culturally specific resonance with the individual words… and then, in thinking about that aspect, you know, it’s in a way the efficiency and utility of something that can operate above the level of specific cultures. It might seem as if the kind of English that we could speak in this environment would be, you know, the same as what the English of an American poem might be, but it isn’t. Actually, the poem is in a way as different, in its linguistic space, as a Finnish poem is from this language that I’m speaking now or that you hear, anyway. And it is this discrepancy that interests me very much, and then there is of course a remarkable discrepancy between the situation of Finnish in terms of Finnish poetry, and the situation of English for American poetry. It’s been my… increasing recognition that what made the radical American poetry so resonant, starting in the early part of this last century, not this but the Twentieth Century, was the fact that the non-English speakers of English, the people not from England but from other parts of Europe, especially, really colonized or transformed American English, even in speaking it, so that second language speakers of English and the children of the second language speakers of English fundamentally changed not only the American English that we all speak in the US now, but also, and especially, important for me and those of us here, the poetic language. And now of course I’m thinking of Gertrude Stein, I’m thinking of William Carlos Williams, I’m thinking of Louis Zukofsky. There are many other examples, and actually, as it turns out, if you look at the period between 1880 and 1910, in the North-East and Mid-West, not in the South, so it’s interesting that the South-East of United States has much more continuity of Anglophonic speakers, the immigrants, you know, the people from England who settled there and maintained the continuity without European immigrants. Of course you have – I don’t want to make this too complicated, but it is a crucial part of understanding of American English – the African-Americans in the South. And this is a different aspect to the vernacular of the African-American, but leaving aside the African-Americans, so if you just think of the European immigrants, up to half of the total population of the North-East and the Mid-West were children of second language speakers or second language speakers themselves. That means they all grew up in households in which an other language was being spoken. And unlike the model, say, in France, where up until now – and actually France is very interesting at the moment (we talked about it with Tommi [Nuopponen] recently) – pretty much people who participated in the French language, learned and internalized a very very strict adherence to the conventions and standards of French, Académie française, so that they learned a kind of perfect French. There wasn’t that much tolerance for linguistic variance. In United States the situation is much much more fluid, and in fact I would say that there’s very little of an internalized sense in most Americans of what the absolute standards for English are, because it is, you know, very fluid. I mean, you can teach it, and I’m a Professor of English, and of course one of the things we often do in the universities is just to teach Standard English, but when you teach Standard English you realize, you know, that a very smart 18-19-20 years old might not have an idea of what Standard English is. They have to be taught that. That wouldn’t be the case in France. It would be inconceivable that you could have someone coming to a high-level university in France and wouldn’t know what Standard French was. So, and I’m not judging this for good or for bad, I mean, there are different cultural values… and one of the reasons for why it exists in the United States is that there are many many different cultures that co-exist. And American language has been very expansive in the way that it has not created a simulation to the standard, but rather changed the language to absorb the multiplicity of the different languages. Now, there are always people within the US and otherwise who are concerned about this, and want to impose a kind of mono-lingual standard on the United States. You know, it is a very political issue, it’s always been a very politicized issue, but you know, as practical or almost sociological matter it doesn’t really quite work. It hasn’t worked and I don’t think it will work, because the urban dynamic, or you could just say the cosmopolitan dynamic, of the constant waves of immigrants is so strong, and also – which I wouldn’t want to get into too much in this context – I would argue, do argue in some recent writing that I’ve been doing that the invention of mass popular culture in the United States, one of the most successful export items, is entirely dependent upon this phenomenon, the ability to make a kind of universally heard slang which I hear constantly to much of my distress – the only music I’ve been hearing so long as I’ve been in Helsinki is this kind of Americanized slang of 60’s and 70’s. But it’s very appealing, I mean, I love that music, I like what those … you know, the figure I would single out the most in this perspective would be Cole Porter, who I think was the most brilliant synthesizer of a Non-Standard English, making it a kind of Standard Slang, so that it isn’t marked as ethnic or regional. And on the very opposite side there would be located somebody like Charlie Patton, who is a contemporary of Cole Porter – or the great blues singer Robert Johnson whom you might know better because he’s slightly better known, of the kind of a Mississippi Delta Blues singers, who you can never hear – the way you hear Cole Porter – as being something that’s immediately accessible, it all seems to be marked by it’s accent. So to be able to create un-accented slang seems to me, you know, one of the great … geniuses of American popular culture, and of the specific set of song-writers and lyricists… especially in1930’s and 40’s … Other great examples of this would be… maybe the most famous, to think about this in racial terms, as is often done, is George and Ira Gershwin and DuBose Heyward’s Porgie And Bess, which actually sets African-American speech, but within a kind of iambic Broadway frame so it’s kind of a translation of what is really not settable in iambic terms… within, you know, a song form which has a very conventional rhyming pattern… or… earlier… a more famous.. . not more famous example but one that is often known if you know these references… is Show Boat by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II, you know, “Old Man River”… another interesting example… on one hand moving from a kind of black African-American speech, dialect, which remains reverberative or unassimilated, into popular music… and on the other side I’m interested in these radical poets like Zukofsky and Stein and so on who refused that assimilation even though their work is very related to kind of an American speech – but it’s American speech that remains marked not as accent, ethnic accent, but really as poetic accent, as a poetic function. So all that is really the kind of deep background to Finno-, or Fino-Saxon…

LL: Please go to the final section of your presentation…

CB: So it may be that the origins of Fino-Saxon are in the Mississippi Delta… But we are looking into this… because we think that we may find some textual evidence of early examples if Fino-Saxon that precede the Blues music. We are thinking of 1879 and 1878…

LL: Here you make me think of Hasso… and actually of the discussion we had last Autumn in Tallinn when we were doing an interview with him for Tuli&Savu, where we also talked about this multi-lingual situation in Estonia which is a little bit different from what…

CB: Yes, we talked about this last night too…

LL: Right. So, Hasso, would something of what Charles was saying in the beginning of this… lecture … that we just heard… would that translate to the Estonian situation, and then I’d like you to include the question of Russian, too, not only the Finnish and Estonian…

Hasso Krull: Russian must have developed in a very similar manner to the American English, I think…because… for different reasons, but it too has absorbed so many local languages of the territory that has been called Russia, the Russia of today. It has so many different local accents that somewhat derive from those earlier or older languages of the territory. .. But well, I think the multilingualism of those languages… if for example we take Estonian, it is not a small language, and it is not a large or great language, it’s somewhere really in the middle, so there doesn’t exist that structure of language as being used in any part of the world. There exists this kind of Russian that is spoken by the Russians in Tallinn, which is of course very very funny and a little bit weird, but I think all this multilingualism is not… I think it kind of turns upside down what you said about the situation in America. There it would be a multilingualism inside one language, whereas here, again, it would be the … well … the state or destiny of those middle-sized tongues… that everybody has to be to some degree multilingual, and at the same time this first language itself is becoming more and more …well… standardized, without even intending to do so, because of this relatively small size of the territory, of the relatively small number of speakers and this constant multilingualism and reaching from one level to another…to a third language, and so on. So the process seems to be similar but as if seen from the different end of the tube.

CB: Right. But that’s of course … the process being similar but from the different ends of the tube is a way of understanding this joke of ours about the Finno-Saxon. In a way, it’s like an optical illusion of a tube where one side is square and the other side is round and it looks like a tube. Because of the opposite circumstance … in a certain way, as languages… and here I’m of course thinking more of the Finnish, because Finnish … the other interesting thing to me about Finnish, which makes it so… both impossible for me to really be able to understand, but also what makes it interesting to me, as a poetic language, is, for one thing, its finitude within a kind of space and time over a long period of time… that the place-names, for instance, are associated with the words and so on, because …in … well, I’m staying now for this summer in a place called Gilford, but when I’m in England, people say, “O, I know where Gilford is”, but it is another Gilford… or New York itself, everything is double to something else – and then we have the Indian names too, which underlay that – but we don’t have the continuity of a language spoken by a group of people over a long period of time that relates within the same space… But then also, equally suggestive is the relationship between the spoken and the written, which again in Finnish is a still ongoing circumstance. So that, you know, last night at our dinner we spoke to two people, one of which is translating James Joyce’s Ulysses into Finnish, the other is translating Homer’s Iliad into Finnish. I mean, this possibility within a language culture is something unique to the people who are in this circumstance… I mean, people of course translate…

LL: So you mean Ulysses has not been translated into English at all…?

CB: That’s right. We still have yet to translate it into Manhattan. So maybe we could have a Manhattan version, and a Bronx version, and a Brooklyn version, too. I think the Brooklyn version of Ulysses is gonna really be the one that is gonna have the most potential to reach people. But, you know, you have these shifts of population, as I was saying last night, great as the differences in this region are… in terms of, you know, cultural differences too… maybe not as great, but the size of the different boroughs of New York is pretty great … and the differences… but what I was trying to talk about was not only the absorption of the multilingual, but the relationship to speech, and especially accented speech by people who are not speaking the standard version of the language… as a constant source of energy for poetry, because so often the poetry – especially for the kind of poetry that I write, or modernist poetry, from Mallarmé on – is thought to be very textual, not so much related to speech, but I think that’s not the case at all. I think it’s a way of refracting certain enormous energies of accentuated, non-standard speech into a kind of textual, written space that provides an enormous kind of energy… and that might in fact be a kind of a source for… or a point of contact, in fact, in a way, between the Finnish and the American, for example, in poetry… in a larger sense dealing with this question of particularity, within a world that becomes…which has, you know, an enormous power of international exchange constantly going on, you know, it’s like this slogan “Think globally but act locally”, which is a fundamental poetic necessity, or I say “Think digitally, act analogically”, as my version of that, and of course we are acting analogically, we are trying to come up with an analysis, to create concrete connections rather than universalized systems that exist above the local, because one of the problems – I think I said this already, but it deserves to be repeated one more time – of the issues for me which are similar like the same problems from the other end of the tube, as an American poet, is how to accentuate the particularity and locality… of what I’m doing as a poet, over and against something which would not interest me as poetry, which is this undifferentiated, internationalized, communicative Lingua Franca – though I use that language, of course, I haven’t any other language to use really…

Olli Sinivaara: I’d like to ask more about what you said… did you mean that the modern poetry from Mallarmé on… or whoever on… has been all the time somehow related to this speak-side but it has not been on the surface, or it has not been seen, but it has been there, or do you rather mean that it is something contemporary, something that is coming out now and something you, especially in your poetical work, have been doing, like using all the colloquialisms and so on, the speech of the American etc… because I think it is interesting that if we think of the Finnish modernist poetry, one of the big Finnish modernists, Eeva-Liisa Manner, she was from Karelia and she spoke a very … I’ve heard some radio interviews… she spoke a really typical Karelian accent, I don’t know if such accent exists any more… but she really spoke like that, but I’d say there’s no trace of that in her texts, and I think this is what actually defines her importance as a modern poet… in some way that it’s … she has said that all her poetical work was an attempt to come back to the lost Karelia… or the lost town of her childhood… but the means for doing that was… a language where all the traces of this accent and this Finnish particularity had been erased… so I think that’s important to understand … that in the Finnish modernism and in the case of Eeva-Liisa Manner especially… the way of avoiding the undifferentiated local language has not been to take into account the colloquial speech, but rather the more French-like, or Mallarmé-like, abstraction…or…

Miia Toivio: Very clean… actually…

OS: Yes… clean…

CB: Right. I mean obviously… absolutely… I would say what poetry is is fundamentally an ambiguous figure, Twentieth Century poetry including, but of course that image of recapturing some real language that’s beyond the kind of vapor… of give-or-take speech is of course the other part of this joke of the Finno-Saxon that we all as poets are trying to go back to the ur-Finno-Saxon… I mean for me this idea is… I’d just say…to avoid other controversial terms… troubling. So, I come from that perspective, that aesthetic, ethical and I suppose political perspective, which many people share, and other people don’t share, you know… good reason to come to that perspective… part of the reason people come to that perspective is because they are not included .in that.. you know… if they would be included, they’d be less sympathetic – I’m not gonna be there so I’m not that interested – so it depends on what you can identify with, you know, and that’s an interesting issue… but I think when you come from a situation of migration, immigration, and displacement, not by the way chosen necessarily, but chosen for you, like they say, you have a different attitude about such things – famous issue, from the last century… However, poetry is an ambiguous figure in respect to this issue, let’s say… a lot of what I’m saying comes from my research into the Twentieth Century modernism, in English, British and American, and it’s a way of re-thinking work that wouldn’t normally be thought about that way, so you could say, yes, it has to do with things that I wanna accentuate now, in the contemporary period, but having done that, it changes the perspective of what was going on earlier, including Mallarmé…who… you could look at The Crisis Of Verse and other things that he was doing in a way that wouldn’t be completely unrelated to this, because – and I won’t go into a long discussion on Mallarmé here – but I could, I would make that argument for Mallarmé, because Mallarmé is a fundamentally ambiguous figure from this point of view, you can see it both ways, and I think that’s very interesting. But surely in the American context, with Stein, it’s very clear that she … her real break through the modernist composition was her transcription, not only famously of African-American dialect in “Melanctha” which has been reviled… as racist… by some contemporary critics but was appreciated by a number of African-American poets and intellectuals, in the Twenties and Thirties, because you hadn’t seen, in writing, this dialect. In the same book she also translates German-American speech patterns, and right from there she goes into The Making of Americans and Tender Buttons, because in the repeating that she was hearing, and the sound, she was getting a much greater plastic kind of dimension to the language… and Pound of course, you know, very troubling from exactly the point of view you were talking about, because Pound both understood this multiplicity, and also had the most disturbing approach to it… at times in his life… and looking for the purity … and of course we have Eliot too… with the purity, but I would say that The Waste Land, and Pound’s work, really cannot be understood outside of the context of collage as multiplicity, and conflicting languages, so the question comes that of the collage and montage. Pound thought he could adjudicate these different swatches of language and come upon some way of putting them together that you would get behind the… the Finno-Saxon… that you could somehow see it, and in a way you could say that about Mallarmé, too, but Mallarmé so takes out any of the cultural references of what they are, so you could also see that he wasn’t going back but opening a space forward that you could move into that was geometric, and I think the geometric aspect of abstraction needn’t be understood as one side of this or another, it’s such a thing of different kind of structures and connections and abstractions. It’s a complicated answer but I think it’s… I’m very sympathetic to what you are saying… I think it is a product of our present thinking about the catastrophe of the Twentieth Century, but I think we are all compelled to think about that without rejecting modernism, and I’m very committed to modernism, but I’m also troubled by aspects of the Master Narrative, the purism, and so on.

OS: I very much agree with you… with what you say… and it’s important that it is ambiguous, and when I think about Manner, I just want to make this last little point. I would argue for the point that the importance of poet like Manner – for the Finnish modernism – is precisely this … that there are no traces of this background…and instead, this purity… because by these means… the sort of negative aspect or the aspect of language being autonomous – all these basic modernist ideas – are made possible in that poetry.

Teemu Ikonen: I was coming to the question of purity in language… but … you already… went… there. But let me rephrase the issue by saying… or by asking you, Professor Bernstein, how do you see your relationship to the traditions of pure poetry and impure poetry. By pure poetry I mean of course the modernist tradition that tries to purify poetry of everything that is alien to it … like referentiality, or communicative platitudes… or accents… and by impure poetry I mean, you know, as Pablo Neruda used to say, poetry that wants to touch the reader by this everyday language, phrases or platitudes in the modernist sense. So, well, I must say that I have written one sketchy essay on your poem, “Slow Reason”, which begins, “Poetry is sediment … I wipe off the windscreen…” I read it as a comment to this question of pure poetry and impure poetry… transparent poetry and opaque poetry…

LL: And maybe the first time an individual poem has now been mentioned in this discussion…

CB: .O, I think what you are saying is right. I mean to me the thing would be… to response to this individual poem… one of the things that I’m interested in doing is troubling these kinds of paradoxes. Of course, pure and impure are, on the face of it, my tendency would be to say that the only thing that could possibly be pure would be to maximize the impure. I always go for that side of that particular paradox, but even if it takes on the poetic valence where you use it in the root, I mean, there’s the… It has almost like the sacred and the profane metaphor as well where, you know, the secular is profane in the sense that they would translate the secular… So, I would say the problem is in creating any sense that you could separate these two things rather than think of them as relative values like up and down. It would be depending on where you are on the building – if you are on the third floor you would go for the third floor is up; if you are on the sixth floor, then it’s down. And for me the issue on the local and the particular, versus some kind of pure or universal, would have to be a relative value depending on circumstance your are in. If you are in a circumstance in which you are overwhelmed and oppressed by claustrophobia of the regional, the local, the national, then of course you’d have an enormous reason to want to open that up, abstract that, find some way out of it; if you find yourself, at the same time, in a different circumstance constantly confronted by universalizing metaphors, then you might want to, you know, step in and concertize, and froze sediments on those, to weight them down. So I think the problem is trying to say that you are one side or the other, like subjectivity or objectivity. One side or the other of a philosophical binaries, whereas for me the project of poetry is to actually turn those things, you know, around on themselves. The everyday again, in the way you were asking, without wanting to go to another lecture, as Leevi says, was … to me, because it’s an obsessive issue for me, I’m obsessed by the ordinary and everyday, and yet my poetry is much more kind of art for art’s sake in the Mallarméan way… of course, the crux of the everyday to me has to do with the … power of representation in a scenic way of ordinary things which are taken out of flow of the experience of the everyday. So the everyday, in what I was saying before, is related very much to what I mean by the vernacular, or dialect, or accented language, which is fundamentally everyday. When language becomes pure, or properly spoken, so that there is no accent at all, and it’s beautifully spoken, so that you can appreciate the enormous profundity of what is being said – so to me, it looses its everyday quality. The everyday quality is, you know, the whatever cannot be, you know, when you try to just speak and, you know, whatever it is that you’re stumbling on. How do you capture that aspect of the everyday… if I would transcribe that set of speech interruptions, it would look like dialect poetry, if you look at it… if you would look at the African-American dialect transcribed by… let’s say, Dan Bar, it looks very bizarre because it uses different orthography. But when you hear it, it sounds absolutely rooted in its space. It’s this discrepancy between the transcription of the accented .that makes it look strange, out of ordinary, unfamiliar. But at the same time, it actually comes out directly from that which is rooted in an actual speech communication situation … which is the fundamental situation of writing. You know, writing wrongs speech. … writing transforms and transcribes the speech into another dimension. And this is why the tape recorder is very interesting…in the last century context. With it, you can actually dimension on the tape the poet reading, to think about what those accents are. So for me, it’s very very slippery – the more you aspire to purity, the more, from my point of view, you become profane in a bad sense.

LL: Talking about transcriptions, now it might be time for the first…

CB: [point’s to Karri Kokko’s cellphone] You want me to read this…?

LL: Yes, you should read it.

CB: You want me to read this in a kind of pseudo-Finnish…or should I read it…

LL: You read it as you see it there.

CB: … in Finno-Saxon…

LL: It’s hard to do, but please, try the Finno-Saxon.

CB: Well, as far as you can tell from the textual evidence of this artifact here… It seems to be a Nokia phone from perhaps 2004 when … the people in this period and in this region communicated on these tiny screens… they had not yet invented the paper where they could write out and have a clear, white background where you could see the letters… this would be a development that would come later on… but they did have lots of musical tones all the time, that fill the air… And they seem to sing constantly…

Well, the Finno-Saxon pronunciation of this would be:

<reads>

I could work on that a little bit to get my accent even further from the way you might pronounce it, but… Karri, you wanna read that in the Old Finnish…?

KK: I could try.

<reads>

Frederik Hertzberg: It’s like Isidore Isou.

LL: Actually, Olli made this very interesting point about Eeva-Liisa Manner trying to root out all the local or colloquial…

OS: Or to be exact, she went to Spain to write about Spanish peasants in pure Finnish to attain her Karelian roots… so it’s quite complicated.

LL: Yes. Now I kind of suspect that something of the opposite is going on in this poem. I’m beginning to sense some traces of global English in it. And I’d like to ask Karri about this mystery. It seems to be a transcription or translation of something which at least we have heard earlier in this global language we are all trying to speak here, now. Please, reveal the mystery.

KK: The mystery is, last night I met a friend of mine, and … she’s a young lady who has never read any serious poetry, only the Wall-Mart variants of poetry. And I showed her the booklet with Mr. Bernstein’s poems in it…

LL: You mean the program of last evening’s…?

KK: Yes. And the first thing was that she … I could see from her expression that she couldn’t understand any of it. Then, when I explained that this is a poem written with all the original typos in it, no editing, just accept everything that comes on the page, she said, “O”, and started reading it again.

CB: She was reading the translation, or the…?

KK: Both. And the third thing that happened was that she started reading it aloud. I didn’t suggest it, but she started to do that. And I can tell that it was a very heavy experience for her. Then the fourth thing that happened was that she said, “You should have written this on a cellphone and not on a typewriter”, and I said to her, “Let’s do it.” And I started writing your poem on my mobile.

CB: Actually the software… I mean I did this before I had the cellphone, and I don’t do the text-messaging on my cellphone, as I said …but I did write it on a typewriter. I grew up with a manual typewriter, I’m one of those quite few in this room who did. And it’s a different experience with a manual typewriter and making corrections… and I’m a bad typist, as I was saying last night. I actually make a lot of errors, I always have, I’m a a bad speller though I’m a better speller now than I was, you know, in the earlier years. But I did it on a word-processor and it made it much easier to capture the errors because of the fluidity of that space… because you could just let your fingers almost relax and … improvise … into the errors more easily than I could have with the regimented space of the typewriter. So I think she is right in terms that the technology of the creation did had to do with the processing of the letters… You know, when you are writing individual letters down by hand, which I often do, I write by hand, it creates a different sense of errors. I don’t make typos like inverting letters when I write… And when I’m typing manually, knowing that I’d have to physically correct the mistakes, especially before there was self-correcting tape, when you actually would have to go back and wipe out something… then I’m more prone to not make those errors…you know, you pay the price for them. You just watch to what you are doing… People do, you know, perhaps… p-e-r-h, in stead of…you know, inverting letters. The reason why you and I do these mistakes, and many people do, like inverting letters, is because your mind goes very fast…you are thinking slightly ahead to where you are, so you are one letter before. So the technology did, in a funny way, open up that process. But that poem is used by various people I know in teaching English. They use it in the expository writing and composition classes … for exactly the reason that you showed it to your friend. People not so much interested in poetry or literature but rather as a way to thinking about errors, in a non-punitive way.

KK: One thing that I like to add is…the fifth odd thing that happened was that when I started to writing the poem…

LL: …typoing it…

KK: …into the phone, she was watching me and could see, just looking at my hand, that I was correcting myself. And she said, “Don’t you dare correct yourself. Don’t revise it.” It was only ten minutes into her career as a poet, and she was already into all the mysteries of Finno-Saxon…

CB: But it’s a wonderful story, because to me it’s not to do with a particular poem – and I’m very committed to particular poems, I write them and I appreciate other people’s particular works – but with poetics, what the activity of poetry is, which I am as interested in… Poetry has a very important social function just for this – that it suggest possibilities within language which otherwise wouldn’t be there, quite independently from how great a particular poem or poet is. And… as this discussion suggest, you know, it this this that I like, you know, in poetics… because what’s possible when you are talking about language in the frame of poetry becomes very different from when you talk about language in other contexts. You just bring up things that are not relevant. But this issue of correction is for me very much related to the issue of dialect, of accent. Because we all have our …errors capacity in language which we are always correcting, whether it is to correct your accent to be more normal or correcting our speech to be more correct, to be more grammatical, or, you know, correcting our spelling. There’s a constant self-correction mechanism which for most writers, for most people, can’t really be stopped. But of course that’s like the relation I’m saying of speech to writing because … with speech, those self-correcting mechanisms don’t exist to same degree, so that there’s something, you know, very exhilarating about reading a kind of writing which seem not to have that constant censorship or self-correcting. I mean, I think Ulysses for a generation had that function, with the concept of stream of consciousness, that it could open up – but now you can do it at different levels, including the one we are talking about, the correction even of… So I like what you said that she noticed that you couldn’t give up correcting, even in a text message. And you know, in this coded language that becomes so cute in text messaging, you know, the shorthand… originally, it’s supposed to be informal, right? But after a while it becomes a very restricted code. It’s not informal, it becomes a forced shorthand, official shorthand…

LL: … Now, what from my point of view is the right wing of this discussion tends to dominate a bit… and I’d like to give the floor to Fred and Miia first… but… can a we risk one more remark from Olli and Teemu’s side… I know Olli could use all the time we have left, but…

MT: Well, I can be really short because I just have one thing to say… I’m a little bit… I feel this might have to do with this idea of reclaiming the language to the ones who use it… I was reading some of your essays in Content’s Dream… I don’t quite remember where but it just came to my mind as that kind of…

CB: O yes, actually Bruce Andrews and I, when we did our “Preface” to the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book, decided to use the term for this, “repossessing”, a pun with English for when the bank takes back your house. It’s funny in this context … it’s a dialectical relationship. I’m not against learning standards, I’m actually… before I was Professor, I worked as a medical writer where everything was completely standardized, I’m actually, obviously, obsessed with … it’s a skill and it has its value. It’s a part of the issue that … in teaching … it’s probably not so much a crisis in this culture, I don’t know, but in America, basically all college kids… where I teach now, it’s a very elite school … they do write better because they … get into it… but in Buffalo… very very smart kids had a very very hard time with standard expository writing… and if you know anything about the American … it’s a very tough issue… especially at the high school level. The question isn’t, should people learn standard English, because I don’t think there’s any question of it, it’s a necessary social skill, and if you are a parent, for example, there’s no question of that you wouldn’t do everything you could to have that skill. But the question is how you learn it and why people don’t learn it. And that’s where I think the issue… I think… well, you know, some people do fine, they have no conflicts about it and they do well… they are fine… but … for other people.. when there’s so much conflict about correctness… this issue that you’re raising, the reclaiment, understanding that your language as you speak it, you know, has an integrity to it, that has not to be questioned. It doesn’t have to be transformed. You are not correcting, or invalidating that, but rather learning something that has a dialectical relationship to what is different. That’s a hard issue to bring about, but I think that the reclamation you’re talking about is a very important function for poetry… and I think it’s also why poetry is in search, in popular culture, for things like Slam poetry, or for that matter, for that poetic aspect of popular music that exists. It’s very very powerful in rap, for example, in African-American culture…because then people feel that they can reclaim their own culture. The problem here, for me… it’s an elaborate answer to only the phrase that you used… is that the commercialization of the vernacular which exists in hip-hop and rap and other things is just like in text messaging… it becomes a formula… and that formula itself is a formula for success… like being a basket-ball star… which actually is not in the possession of regular people. You have to be … into producing language in this formula… and of course rap, with its heavily accented, iambic rhymes is not really the everyday speech… So … in so far as the repossession or re-reclamation becomes fetishized and commercialized… although it can make for great music… but it doesn’t exactly function in this way as it comes to mass culture… and that’s where poetry becomes important, because poetry is almost immune to being pulled in into popular mass culture… It’s fated to be on a very small scale in a local way… it has the potential, you know, for exploring… because it gets refracted in a secondary and tertiary way… the fact that this thinking is going on affects the culture to a much greater extend than people might imagine from the number of people that … because the thinking that goes on in poetry affects the way we talk about language, or think about language – in the way, you know, that science has a much larger effect than the number of people who actually do scientific research. So I think that’s the crux of it in a funny way.

FH: This kind of relates, I think, to what we discussed, you discussed earlier, on the pure and impure… I would think the example of Finland-Swedish modernism is somewhat different from the Finnish modernism – since all the great Finland-Swedish modernists spoke Swedish as a second language. Edith Södergran, for instance, spoke Russian, and …

LL: … German even…

FH: Yeah. Henry Parland spoke Russian and German and French, and Elmer Diktonius was bilingual but all the time the Finnish language revitalized or vitalized his Swedish. And Gunnar Björling who was the only mono-lingual modernist, he was the most radical sort of innovator who really reveled the standard language. I want to mention this because I think that even though they created a sort of pure language in their poetry, still, I think these variants and these other languages sort of revitalized their poetry so that this kind of modernism could take place at all, which it didn’t do in Sweden until 1940, I would say, so that this could happen so early was also because of the … was possible because of what these people had read in, say, German or Russian.

LL: And I would say something similar about many other places in Europe – Kafka in Prague being one example as Deleuze and Guattari emphasize in their study of him…

OS: And I think it is interesting now… I have one question and one point… regarding all this discussion about purity and impurity and this very interesting question about possessing and repossessing of the language which is familiar to me a bit … because I’ve lived one year in Australia and there the issue of the aboriginal poetry was interesting and the word they used for taking away the aboriginal language was dispossession …

CB: And in New Zealand as well it’s quite interesting with the Maori…

OS: … yes. So I think it’s quite interestingly related to… I have one question about the modern poetry as freedom from language. I think it can be said that one important intention, conscious or unconscious, partly fulfilled and partly always unfulfilled, of modernism has been … always… the emancipation of language, making language more free, creating more means and forms of poetical expression so that poetry could live its own life and perform its own tricks… and I think it’s interesting regarding this discussion about repossessing the language to the users and against literary language… this opposition and the ambiguity of modern poetry, I think here this question of freedom becomes very interesting because it can be said that on the other hand precisely this purity, this getting rid of the spoken word or the speech has been an important means of being free or making language free. But then, now, this discussion somehow seems to come to the point that, in our situation, one of the important tasks of the modern or contemporary poetry is to give some freedom and some space to this impure, this un-literary language. So the concept or idea of freedom as one of the most important aspects of modern poetry is very much related to this role of writing and speech… in contemporary poetry.

FH: There’s also what’s happening right now in Sweden for instance when young writers start using a language spoken in this part of Stockholm caller Rinkeby. And they write Rinkeby Swedish which is actually of course an artificial version of what is spoken in Rinkeby actually…

CB: What is Rinkeby… actually…?

OS: It’s like Brooklyn really of Stockholm…

FH: Yeah. One of the areas where the most workers live. It’s a pretty big part of Stockholm actually… I’m not sure exactly how… but still, I mean, there’s the question of… what they are trying to do in their art is sort of trying to structure their language – it’s of course not real Rinkeby Swedish but still what would, sort of resemble… the same distance to the standard language. And that’s very much like what the poets, I would say, in the Twenties and Thirties, tried to do, inventing this sort of syntax which had the same distance to the standard language even though it didn’t incorporate the impure elements from real life…

LL: … well, the question of freedom is connected to this very difficult issue of, let’s say, subjectivity, and poetry seen as self-expression. Of course it depends on from which angle you see the modernist project so to say, but I’d say that, for me, in the modernist project one of the most important aspects is the questioning of even the value of self-expression and the view of language as something which is used for self-expression. And this of course brings in the theme of what I and some others would call constraint-based writing… of which my new work Päivä is an example… not to advertise it in any way but… now it’s for Teemu…

TI: Okay, I have a technical, concrete question that would lead to this question of freedom and subjectivity so we won’t miss the point here I hope. It was fascinating to hear you, Professor Bernstein, to recite this Leevi’s poem “Sanat tulevat yöllä”, the homophonic translation of that, yesterday… and I would like to have a bit of a closer look at the poem or two poems, or the three languages that are created by them. I think the homophonic translation kind of creates a third language somewhere between… maybe a Finno-Anglish language between English and Finnish. What I saw or see or what I heard and still hear is the … in your poem, “Sane As Tugged Vat, Your Love”, or something like that, is a result of many different technics of mutation, transformation, replacement, omission… if we compare sound sequences in this Finnish and this English or this third language version. For example, when Leevi uses the word, “kertaa”, you have the word, “curtsy”, where the “s” certainly isn’t in…

LL: It’s his way to refer to my wife, Kirsi…

TI: … and when Leevi uses the word, “koputtamatta”, you have “kaputt”, so there’s something missing there…

CB: To me they sound the same… say the two things again.

TI: “koputtamatta.” “Kaputt.”

CB: It’s the same…

LL: Well, the final vowel is missing…

CB: In can’t here that…

LL: … I’ve noticed that….

CB: I have a kind of a selective …

TI: Yes, but my question would be, how is homophonic translation done and what are the criteria of selection. What is your freedom… how you see your freedom in this kind of constraint-based writing that… I think this homophonic translation is…

CB: Yeah. I think … the kind of model homophonic translation for me is the Louis Zukofsky and Cecilia Zukofsky’s translation of Catullus which is a very interesting thing and relates to a lot of what I was saying before… about the second wave modernism… which is the modernism, say… after Eliot, between 1910… assimilation and non-assimilation… But, in the end, I’m trying to create a poem that interests me in the one I’m writing… so I don’t have any rules… I’m just writing on the fly, or, you know, by ear, and trying to find, you know, things that will, you know, pop up, add at the process, that I would have been unable to create and that engage my interests… so of course it’s a kind of an other language, another kind of reference just because of that aspect of a kind of non-English…commune as well. I think one of the things about it is the ludicrousness of, the fundamentally the… it’s very funny, very silly in a very extreme way… it ties to this idea of… a friend of mine, Robert Kelly, used to do homophonic translations, quite beautifully, of Hölderlin…of… can’t remember of which poems at this moment, but he introduced this… and I think it is possible to make homophonic translation in a non-comic way, and he did, his version of the Hölderlin poem was not funny… but for me, I’m interested in the comic dimensions, because I think the comedy we have talked so much… very important part of… and this is why we started of course this discussion in a comic frame. It’s a very important part of avoiding a certain kind of polarization… or too much faith in abstract ideas… as being what we define as poetic practice which to me is more about synthesizing things in the time you’re doing it, more about contradiction, and nothing emphasizes this more than the issues we’ve been talking about overall. I mean, Björling who I find a remarkably interesting poet does seem to me to be somebody who deals with this what we’ve been talking before around Mallarmé… because it is really related to the everyday, it’s a marvelous poetry of the evidences of the everyday which reminds me and the English readers of somebody like Williams who… Fred, would he have read him… probably not…

FH: No, I don’t think…

CB: …No. You know, the short lines and so on, and yet at the same time it has this sublime quality in almost in its … so it has these qualities. And of course the minor literature that you mentioned in terms of Deleuze and Guattari, that’s a very important frame I think… and like very much their discussion of that… even more than the whole book… just the discussion of what the minor literature is…

LL: … do you see anything like that – what you were describing in Björling – in The Winter Palace?

CB: … in The Winter Palace… well, let me get back to that in a second… I have something to say about The Winter Palace… in respect to that… but, one of the things that interest me in minor literature, as I read it in the of Deleuze and Guattari sense, is to try to think about the practice of poetry in English as minor literature which would seem not to be the case, on the face, at which poetry always should be very good at… if it’s interesting… so let us go back to something… and that’s an interesting prospect in the context of writing in English… The question of repossessing and reclaiming that you mentioned again.. the key term there is the “re-”, because it’s a process…

LL: We don’t have that in Finnish, by the way… no translation in Finnish for “re-”, is there?

CB: … so it’s re-claiming, not just claiming or possessing.

LL: But the word “re-” doesn’t exist in Finnish and this one of the reasons why the Finno-Saxon frame is so important…

CB: … but the key thing about “re-” is it’s lost… it’s like in when you’re saying, “breaking up”, it’s like a of re-marriage, you have to be fallen apart, alienated from, in order to need to come back to it. It’s this double quality which makes it different from simple possession. Simple possession is a lot the way a certain kind of epic or nationalist poetry imagines its relation to language. This language is ours, we are proclaiming its greatness. That’s possession and claiming, but the reclaiming suggests some difference. But form my point of view it is a totaling process… you’d never be in possession – or reclaiming – it’s is always a process of lost-and-found, lost-and-found, because the danger of the repossession is that somehow you gonna fight a battle and you gonna win, and establish your precinct, and that is the other side of this issue of freedom, as in, say, the Serbo-Croatian situation where you just had one language… and now… twenty years later, you have two languages… they seem to be the same but they have been repossessed by the Serbs and the Croatians. The difference is probably just that one side uses the Cyrillic alphabet, the other uses the Roman alphabet … of course there are deep divisions there that have to do with the religious differences, of course, many, you know, deep, when you see that… you know, American social space … becomes more attractive… many of us when we see that depth with nationalism the multi-cultural space of America can’t have … in Brooklyn versus Manhattan we can’t have that kind of nationalism, as much whatever difference there is, because it seems to people at some level ludicrous, and yet it isn’t ludicrous to people in other parts of the world who want to repossess or reclaim their language… in other words, there’s a negative side to it, you know, and just want to mention this issue, and therefore with freedom, so the ultra-nationalism doesn’t want to go to it, and this is why I believe as Leevi said a lot of us are interested in non-expressive and constraint-based writing because, if you think of repossession as something which will allow you to express yourself that could lead to ultra-nationalism. If you are thinking of repossessing or reclaiming as something that only can lead to dialectical process of thinking of how a language operates at multiple levels … you go somewhere else. The freedom is always a question of from what and for whom. Freedom is never an absolute issue, and so it’s that constant horizon of what the freedom would be that is re-scribed literally in poetic practice. Democratic social space is a way I like to think of it, as much as as freedom. What is democratic social space? One model for democratic social space is majority rule. The majority gets to decide what language is spoken, what’s correct, what’s allowed in school and educational situations. That is not a model of democratic social space that I favor. I would favor a model of democratic social space that allows lots of rights for minority representation and minority expression, including the imaginary minorities, self-created minorities, so it relates to the concept of freedom of speech but it goes beyond that. It means allowing co-existences of difference and non-assimilation rather than assimilation into one space in which everybody agrees on what that space would be but then you have to abide by the rules. Multiplious spaces that nonetheless don’t become enclaves of … difference… is not an easy thing. But that’s why the analogies of what one does within poetry to the larger political problems are very apparent because actually why these problems are issues of language and identifications especially issues around ethnicity and racism are often very language-based or language-marked. So the way we think about what this democratic social space might be … is very intimately connected to the issue of self-expression, and I’m … I always emphasize in my writing…my first book of essays is a lot about critical view on traditional self-expression, but I always said even there that it isn’t that group expressions, including schools or movements, would be any better than self-expression. They have the same problem.

OS: When Fred mentioned this Rinkeby Swedish and these kind of phenomena, I think they are quite global, that there are big cities where the still existing major languages and major cultures, that is something not really existing any more but something that is still powerful in the official culture that … I think it is a situation that is very … it’s easy to see that this is something that happens in our time in university area or in certain contexts of people like us, a constraint-based, non-expressive writing is a mens of acquiring, paradoxically, this freedom of expression… and at the same time, twenty or thirty kilometers to the east or west there’s an area where the same thing is acquired by precisely the opposite means, which is the traditional self-expression, using the language that I feel is my own because it comes from the inside…

CB: Yea, it’s a difficult point and it couldn’t be emphasized enough, and it is … and this is the difference between a kind of modernist view that you and I share for the moment, in this moment. Formal innovation is always local. It’s not universal. The same form means different things to different social context. It … has to be understood, or doesn’t have, nothing has to, but let’s say I value … withing a social-cultural … but that view itself, that you have look at things… undermines a certain expression, and that is why I am not a relativist. I am troubled by a claim for expression that . If you say, this poem and this expression is valuable because in this social context it takes on a different meaning. And I could also tie why a constraint-based writing twenty kilometer away would also be that. That’s something I’d be sympathetic with – but if you make the claim in a unequivocal way that this is self-expression because it always has to be in every situation, then I question even that self-expression. The problem is then it ceases to be self-expression, it’s simply a kind of unreflected expression of an ideology. .. So I’m committed. And I say this because I think it is important for those of us who are arguing this way. We often lose the battle to the fierceness of fundamentalisms of different sorts that seem to be very convinced, whereas I’m willing to accept many different views.. But I’m not willing to accept that there’s only one view. And I’m as adamant in my opposition to that as anybody is in opposition to so called relativism. And I am not relativist for that reason. And I think it is important to articulate this ethical view because it is ethical, and it is democratic, in terms of its social space, and to me, ethics and democratic social space are not negotiable. They are about negotiating, but I won’t give up the right to negotiate.

FH: I was going on to something else, but if there are questions or comments to that…

LL: Let’s check about the time first. I think we have ten minutes. One way to do it would be stop the discussion now, and maybe, like, listen to you Charles to read the poem you skipped yesterday, and to give some views on that…

CB: I think maybe just more discussion would be the best…

LL: Maybe so. I was just thinking about maybe adding a new angle to what has already been said…

OS: I think we’ve just come to the Introduction…

LL: Of course! Because I realize that this is something that is going to continue, so there’s no need to try to jump into any conclusions. So let’s go on, and yes, the members of the audience have not been even asked to contribute yet. So, any questions?

CB: Or comments?

LL: Comments? Protests? Okay, Fred, then.

FH: This is a real question, in the sense that I’m interested in the answer. Well, I think “A Defense Of Poetry” is a poem that works very well in performance. I just like to hear something about the dedication, to Brian McHale, the cultural context, what made you… the motivation of this poem. What made you write this?

CB: Well, the poem… Brian McHale, I think the reference is in the book, wrote an essay, which I liked, Brian McHale is a literary critic. It was on… reading the work of J. H. Prynne, the British poet Jeremy Prynne, John Ashbery, and myself, within the frame of nonsense… and … nonsense there thinking of the the concept as used by Lewis Carroll or Edward Lear… in limericks and so on… work which I like very much, which is very important to me, in a sense that I, probably more than John Ashbery, actually use things that are more like Carroll and Lear, but I objected to the framing of this issue … that things that didn’t operate within a conventional structure of meaning would be called nonsense because it seemed to me… I preferred the take of nonsense … as a whole range of other things that would be dismissed … because… whereas here we were dealing with works that would actually… make sense, but in a different way… which… I’ve always had that kind of rhetorical gesture. And I’ve been interested in that rhetorical gesture, because it’s not nonsense, it’s not non-referential … it’s not… meaningless… it’s actually different ways of making sense…

FH: Is it possible to be nonsensical … or not to make sense?

CB: Is it possible? I think it’s possible, that’s why I have the joke… People say nonsensical things, you know, all the time, and you can response to it as nonsensical. They say politically nonsensical things, deceptive things… and actually Wittgenstein whom we talked about yesterday is very good about that… he speaks about certain species of nonsense … and I like nonsense as something… I do … you noticed it today. For example the concept of the – this may disappoint some of you – but the concept of the Finno-Saxon is a species of nonsense, it was meant to be nonsensical. But the conversation wasn’t nonsensical, and the issues around it, but concept was, on the face of it, nonsensical, because when you got into it it made you realize that this is absurd, but it was referring to a number of views of language which don’t view themselves as nonsensical, which are equally nonsensical, but which have treaties and whole large apparatuses supporting their views. So it’s, you know, fighting nonsense with nonsense. And that’s in the way I say it in the poem, that’s the content of it. It’s the sort of talk about what that issue of using nonsense as a specific rhetorical moment within a poem … that creates a certain attitude or response rather than say that the whole project is nonsensical.

FH: And that’s why you talk about jewelers’ tools rather than…that it’s a small rhetorical tool that…

CB: Right. That it’s not like a sledgehammer that hoverizes the whole thing… it’s a particular rhetorical feature. But the other part of it is that there is a lot of nonsense. I don’t wanna lose the ability to refer to things as nonsense in the bad sense. Because there is a lot of… you know, people say things that are nonsense and it causes a lot of mischief… And, you know, I maintain that, not as… as much as I am interested in the fluidities of representation I’m… to me they bring closer the ability to deal with them and rap them with the real… I’m not in that sense suggesting that there’s not reality… or the real anyway… I don’t know about Reality with a capital R, but that real things don’t happen and that there are consequences to them … or that poetry is unrelated to that… so it goes … it’s an important issue to me because I … the idea of imagining poetry as being non-referential or nonsensical, or merely decorative… takes away that certain social and political and philosophical dimension to poetry which is crucial to what it does… as something in the world.

OS: I think this raises one question that I’ve been thinking of, about the role or the status of the writing process in this kind poetry, like in “A Defense Of Poetry”, because I think that I would argue for the point that there’s no pure nonsense in the … there’s no writing process that could be pure nonsense because the process itself produces sense even if the product is totally nonsensical…

CB: That’s right.

OS: But. What happens to this idea of the process itself being sensical even if the product is nonsensical… What happens to this aspect of writing… or this kind poems that you write and we can read and we heard yesterday… when it is published and when it exists as text that can be read. I myself am very much obsessed with this question about the writing process… and what’s the difference between reading and writing, and reading you own production and these sort of things.. But what do you think happens to this sort of unavoidable sense of the writing process itself when the process is stopped… or something…

CB: I…

LL: I give you three minutes.

CB: I think it is a very important question. The description that you, Karri, gave of your fried reading the poem was a perfect example of where I think sense takes place. Sense doesn’t take place on the page, it doesn’t take place just in the mind, it’s in the social space itself… and when you have the two columns… this is just to answer your question… obviously last night, whatever the hundreds of people there, many of whom would never had heard a homophonic poem like “Sane As Tugged Vat, Your Love” … in the columns you had Leevi’s original… although I like to call him [Lēvī] because, you know, to give him a connection to the Blue Jeans but he doesn’t like that, it would make him more accessible in the English .. because l, e, e, v, i, is a hard one not to think of as [lēvī], but anyway, with [Lĕvē] on the other hand, and [Lēvī] on the other, right, the meaning of that poem, to answer your question on the sense, is in the blank space in between the two columns, is not on either side, it’s in that space between. The space of translation, the social space, or the space of communication and transaction, that’s where the meaning of poetry is… and as much as I, you know, am devoted to, and fetishize, the poems and the text and their specifics on the page, nonetheless, the greater interest in poetry doesn’t have to do with that but rather with that social space which poetry opens up and engenders. In the way, the test of poetry is how it enters into his sense-making that exists in the world, not on the page. And that all is … in the context, and shifting… And the way you said it was very well, the way you described it… Thanks very much. It was great to talk to you.

LL: Thank you, Charles. I think we should repossess this process… some time later, don’t you think so?

CB: Absolutely.

LL: So… thanks to all of you… for coming… and… to be continued.