To render. Be rendered. Awestruck. Awesome.
A magazine of poetry and related arts straight from L.A.






Suzanne Lummis

On Fascination

This must be the soft, bright end of obsession—or, not obsession at all, really, just pure engagement, a low, running delight that for a time takes one out of oneself and the quotidian world. And that’s the best part, for some moments (longer?) that engagement vanquishes the noisy external world, the blowing traffic, and silences the inner monologue. Because now there’s this—something. And it’s beautiful. Or maybe it just makes a new kind of sense.

I’ve lifted and reprinted “The Blue Gentians,” a vintage D.H. Lawrence poem. I can find no better poem of fascination. Not only is the focus on the object so pure all else vanishes, but the observer, the enchanted one, does not stop there, at the surface. He persists, bears down, travels deeper until this point of focus opens to another realm, a more mysterious world, and a darker, richer love.

Fascination. We don’t hear the word often these days, not in SocialNetworkYouthCultureSpeak—we hear about the hot and the cool. Attractive, well-toned people can be hot, certain experiences, sensations and unexpected good news are cool. The other night, however, the subject popped up on Piers Morgan, CNN—the power to fascinate. The panel of guests cited this as one of the most compelling and persuasive qualities in a person. But then consider his guests: women. Women who were not babies, or teeny-weeny boppers, or twenty-somethingers. Women who’d lived. Women who could read and actually did, who could speak without clocking two or more clichés per minute: Linda Evans, Nichelle Nichols, Stephanie Powers and Angie Dickinson. It’s true, these noted TV actresses from the 60s and 70s don’t exactly represent the great minds of their generation, but compared to certain younger celebrities one sees on TV—the ones who seem to have a vocabulary of 949 words but use only 761—they sounded like seasoned philosophers.

I chanced upon this roundtable discussion just as I’d begun to work out this Intro to Speechless Fascination. Therefore it struck home somehow when Piers asked each of the women to name their choice of companion in the time honored ‘abandoned on a tropical island’ scenario, and nearly every one chose the man they found most “fascinating”. Yes, for those long sand- and sea-swept hours with nothing about but the unsettled palms, the cries of toucans, perhaps an indigenous person or two, it was the fascination factor that they valued, not the hotness quotient. (The men chosen? Sean Connery, Johnny Depp, Frank Sinatra, Bill Holden). And it does seem a more substantive quality—to be fascinating; it speaks to richness of character, world experience, story telling ability, humor, variety, and the compound of attributes that makes up charisma.

In ways subtle or direct, whether enthralled or simply absorbed, these writers and poets explore states of fascination. This must be what that old-fashioned fellow Arnold Bennett meant in his massively influential 1909 guide, Literary Taste and How to Form It (old- fashioned in some ways, timeless in others):

“The Makers of Literature are those who have seen and felt the miraculous interestingness of the universe. . . . Their lives are one long ecstasy of denying the world is a dull place”.



Fascination  Top

Speechless Spring 2011
Copyright © 2011 Published by
Tebot Bach