, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934

"#$ %$&'&()*+$ ,- .,$(/0 1 %$&'&()*+$ '* .,$(/0

2




%,&) 3)/') 3)/($4,
uolvetslJoJe Jo lotto



567"%58"9 ln Lhe lasL flfLy years orLuguese poeLry developed dlfferenL forms of reslsLance, reacLlng noL only
Lo pollLlcal, soclal and culLural clrcumsLances, buL also Lo a gradual process of devaluaLlon of lLs place and role
ln Lhe conLemporary world. 1hls sLudy alms aL deLermlnlng and descrlblng dlfferenL models of reslsLance ln
(and of) poeLry, by conslderlng some of Lhe poeLlcs LhaL marked orLuguese poeLry from Lhe 1960's Lo our
days. AuLhors as dlfferenL as Carlos de Cllvelra, Lulza neLo !orge, PerberLo Pelder, AnLnlo lranco Alexandre,
!oo Mlguel lernandes !orge, Adllla Lopes, Ana Lulsa Amaral, Manuel de lrelLas or !ose Mlguel Sllva bear ln
common Lhe facL LhaL Lhey lnvesL poeLry wlLh a funcLlon of reslsLance. WhaL brlngs Lhese auLhors LogeLher?
WhaL separaLes Lhem? 1he answer Lo Lhese quesLlons may provlde an lnslghL lnLo Lhe noLlon of teslstooce lo
poetty as well as lLs arLlculaLlon wlLh Lhe noLlon of Lhe teslstooce of poetty.
:;<=>%?79 poeLry, reslsLance, modernlLy, conLemporanelLy

%;7@3>9 nos ulLlmos clnquenLa anos, a poesla porLuguesa desenvolveu dlferenLes formas de reslsLncla,
reaglndo no apenas a clrcunsLnclas pollLlcas, soclals e culLurals mulLo dlverslflcadas, mas Lambem a um
processo gradual de desvalorlzao do seu lugar e do seu papel no mundo conLemporneo. LsLe esLudo
preLende deLermlnar e descrever dlferenLes modelos de reslsLncla na (e da) poesla, Lendo por referncla
algumas das poeLlcas que mals marcaram o panorama da poesla porLuguesa, dos anos 60 aLe aos nossos dlas.
Cbras de auLores Lo dlferenLes enLre sl como o so as de Carlos de Cllvelra, Lulza neLo !orge, PerberLo Pelder,
AnLnlo lranco Alexandre, !oo Mlguel lernandes !orge, Adllla Lopes, Ana Lulsa Amaral, Manuel de lrelLas ou
!ose Mlguel Sllva Lm em comum a aLrlbulo a poesla de uma funo de reslsLncla. C que une esLes auLores?
L o que os separa? A resposLa a esLas quesLes dever permlLlr apurar uma noo de teslstoclo oo poeslo e
Lambem a sua arLlculao com a noo de teslstoclo Jo poeslo.
.5A5B%57C8D5B;9 poesla, reslsLncla, modernldade, conLemporaneldade


99
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
C cerLo e que a poesla deve, enLre ouLras colsas,
conLrlbulr para fundar uma socledade mals [usLa.

[1hls ls cerLaln: poeLry musL, amongsL oLher
Lhlngs, conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe creaLlon of a falrer
socleLy.]
8uy 8elo, No 5eoJo Jo loeslo



LeL us go back Lo 1960 and recall a very meanlngful llLerary evenL: Carlos de Cllvelra,
by Lhen recognlzed as one of Lhe mosL emlnenL orLuguese wrlLers as well as one of Lhe
mosL conslsLenL proLagonlsLs of llLerary neoreallsm, publlshes hls collecLlon of poems
coototo. 1he book would come Lo be Lhe cause of clear dlscomforL amongsL neoreallsLs, who
had long been used to Oliveiras political commitment and the way he had denounced fascist
oppresslon, sLandlng up for Lhe dlspossessed of Lhe LarLh boLh ln hls poeLry and ln hls
novels. Whlle Lhe mosL conservaLlve secLors of orLuguese llLerary crlLlclsm, Lhrough Lhe
voice of Joo Gaspar Simes, greeted the way the author was redeeming his work from
that which hampered and stained it, Oliveiras compoqooos Je toote were wonderlng
whaL lL was abouL Lhe coototo poems that seemed surprising, a deviation from the writers
usual work.
ln Lhelr ouLsLandlng formal clarlLy, Lhose conclse and rarefled poems were
unquesLlonably dlfferenL from some of Lhe mosL emblemaLlc neoreallsL composlLlons by
Carlos de Oliveira. As opposed to such poems as Xcara das bruxas danando (Me lobte,
1943) or uesclJo oos lofetoos (1949), lL was noL easy Lo ldenLlfy ln coototo Lhe sLyle LhaL had
been commonly found ln Lhe soclally engaged poeLry of neoreallsm: no accesslblllLy, no
communlcablllLy, no re-elaboraLlon of popular forms, no perlocuLory dlmenslon, no
futurizing tone
2
So much so LhaL Lhe book came Lo be aL Lhe cenLer of a polemlcs beLween
Lhe neoreallsL wrlLer !ose lernandes lafe and Lhe Lhen young poeL CasLo Cruz. ln a serles of
lssues of Lhe dally newspaper ultlo Je llsboo Lhe Lwo polemlclsLs engaged ln a dlscusslon
cenLered on Lhe posslble scope of a deflnlLlon for neoreallsm aL a momenL when Lhe
movemenL was evlnclng unequlvocal slgns of dlssoluLlon. CfLen dlscussed durlng Lhe
exchange, Oliveiras coototo appeared as a book ln whlch Lhe slgns of Lhe lnLervenLlonlsL
sLraLegy developed by Lhe neoreallsLs ln Lhe 40s and Lhe 30s were noL easy Lo ldenLlfy,
100
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
alLhough Lhe auLhor had never quesLloned Lhe funcLlon of soclal and pollLlcal reslsLance,
whlch he had always champloned ln boLh hls poeLry and hls novels. coototo ressuma
desencanLo, LrlsLeza, cansao... no enconLramos al a parLlclpao no combaLe pela
dignidade e pelas condies da felicidade humana(coototo exudes dlsllluslon, wearlness,
sorrow You cant find in it Oliveiras participation in the combat for human dignity and
the conditions for happiness), Jos Fernandes Fafe recognized with visible reluctance.
Powever, he would explaln:

Suponho que Carlos de Oliveira tem conscincia disso. Tanto que nunca publicou Cantata
separadamente. (A plaquette com este ttulo resume-se a pequena Llragem, depressa
esgotada nas ofertas do escritor aos amigos). Praticamente, Cantata s foi publicada h
pouco, no volume das Poesias. Talvez Carlos de Oliveira tenha querido que Me Pobre,
Colheita Perdida, Terra de Harmonia projectem na tristeza de Cantata um pouco dos
seus cantos de liberdade. (lafe 1963: 19)

[l suppose Carlos de Cllvelra ls aware of LhaL. So much so LhaL he never publlshed coototo
separaLely. (1he small edlLlon plopoette bearlng Lhe LlLle had a reduced number of coples,
soon sold ouL, especlally because Lhe auLhor offered mosL of Lhem Lo frlends). ln pracLlce,
coototo was only recently published in the Poesias volume. Maybe Carlos de Oliveira
wished that Me Pobre, Colheita Perdida, or Terra de Harmonia would project some of
Lhelr songs of freedom onLo Lhe sadness of coototo]

1he explanaLlon was noL exacLly convlnclng. ln facL, coototo dld mark a real process
of change in Carlos de Oliveiras work, as his following books would amply confirm. And even
that change had been announced insofar as throughout the 50s the author had repeaLedly
crlLlclzed Lhe orLhodoxy of Lhe neoreallsL movemenL, whose crlLlcal assessmenL crlLerla were
essentially ideological and pragmatic, for their underrating of form. If during the 40s Oliveira
had Laken up Lhe forms of popular LradlLlon, and even wroLe some raLher lmmedlaLlsL
lnLervenLlon poeLry as was the case of Me Pobre, the seven syllable-llne poem
(teJooJllbo) seL Lo muslc by lernando Lopes Craa, of whlch a quaLraln was soon Lo be
suppressed by censorshlp,
3
by Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe 60s Lhe poeL had developed a dlfferenL
notion of poetry. That notion was in fact much closer to Gasto Cruz perspective in the
ambit of the aforementioned polemics when he emphasized the need to transfigurar a
101
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
realidade (Lransflgure reallLy), Lo flghL agalnsL o imobilismo, contra a tola venerao do
que est (lmmoblllLy, agalnsL Lhe sllly veneraLlon of whaL ls), valldaLlng Lhe role of
metaphor como elemento bsico do realismo (as a baslc elemenL of reallsm) ln Lhe conLexL
of poeLry (cf. Cruz 1963: 24).
Carlos de Oliveiras work would continue dialoguing with Marxist thinking, which had
gulded lL from Lhe beglnnlng. ln facL, ln hls lasL book, llolstetto (1978), Lhe auLhor would
agaln address Lhe lssue LhaL had been hls very sLarLlng polnL: Lhe lrreduclblllLy of law and
[usLlce, and Lhe possesslon of land, whlch he consldered Lhe prlmordlal mlsLake. Agaln ln
llolstetto hls recurrenL peasanL characLers, clalmlng for [usLlce, are presenLed as a perennlal
LhreaL, llke ghosLs LhaL wlll forever haunL an un[usL socleLy. lrom Lhe polnL of vlew of
poeLlcs, however, Cllvelra had soon made an efforL Lo overcome Lhe dlsLance aL whlch
MarxlsL-lnsplred reallsm had lefL Lhe LradlLlon of modern poeLry Lhrough lLs preference for
accesslblllLy and communlcaLlve efflcacy. WhaL could be percelved ln coototo was exacLly
Lhe culmlnaLlon of LhaL dlsLanclng process: Lhe poems collecLed ln Lhe book no longer
presupposed a reallsL readlng conLracL, Lhey no longer creaLed any llluslon of dlscurslve
Lransparency, no longer expllclLly foughL for [usLlce. 1hese were rarefled LexLs, made up of
shorL, abrupL llnes and vocabulary rooLed ln concreLeness, Lhrough whlch Lhe poeL gave
form Lo hls openly acknowledged maLerlallsLlc, dlalecLlcal Lhlnklng. Such LexLs made Lhe
reader engage with form, for a carncia de quase tudo (wanL of almosL everyLhlng), whlch
Cllvelra had observed ln Lhe Earths dispossessed (Oliveira 1992: 388), had become form,
sLyle or tattooing, to use his own metaphor (lblJ.) , ln much Lhe same way ln whlch Lhe
lack, Lhe precarlousness and Lhe brevlLy LhaL he had observed ln Lhe llfe of human belngs
who were made Lhe vlcLlms of oLher human belngs had been Lransformed lnLo brlef,
rarefled, precarlous dlscourse. coototo Lherefore exhlblLed as language Lhe world LhaL had
always been Carlos de Oliveiras theme. Instead of merely naming that same world under a
reallsL conLracL, LhaL ls, lnsLead of namlng lL Lhe form of a world LhaL Lhe reader could
recognlze as hls/her usual world, Lhe poems dlsplayed lL Lhrough Lhe spenL-up sLrucLure of
the text, doing violence to language. And also perhaps doing violence to their authors
earller body of work.
102
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
Pere Carlos de Cllvelra was movlng away from radlcal, orLhodox neoreallsm
Lhough he was sLlll falLhful Lo maLerlallsm and dlalecLlcs, whlch had always dlrecLed hls
LhoughL and hls work Lo Lake an acLlve parL ln Lhe lnLenslflcaLlon of Lhe dlalogue wlLh Lhe
LradlLlon of modern poeLry LhaL would characLerlze orLuguese poeLry ln Lhe 60s. Pe was
movlng away from Lhe reallsL and anLl-modernlsL aspecLs of neoreallsm, buL he kepL movlng
accordlng Lo hls long-held obsesses pessoais e sociais(personal and soclal obsesslons)
(1992: 1133), whlch were noL only Lhe Lheme of hls works buL were also embodled
(somaLlzed, Lo be seen as form) ln hls LreaLmenL of language as a maLLer LhaL can exempllfy
Lhe world wlLhouL resorLlng Lo expllclL reference.
Looklng aL orLuguese poeLry publlshed durlng Lhose years, one can see LhaL Cllvelra
was cerLalnly noL Lhe only one who was dolng lL. AL LhaL momenL orLuguese poeLry sLands
up agaln ln defense of Lhe poslLlon of auLonomy clalmed by modern poeLry and modern
arL ln general vlewlng poems as dlscurslve creaLlons whlch are acLs of reslsLance ln
Lhemselves, lrrespecLlve of Lhe need for ldeologlcal explanaLlons or expllclL pollLlcal sLances.
Cest par sa seule existence que [lart] cest dj de la rsistance (by lLs very exlsLence [arL]
ls already reslsLance), ueleuze Lells Clalre arneL when asked Lo develop hls concepL of
reslsLance (ueleuze/ arneL 1988). 1hls recuperaLes a modern concepL of poeLry and
sLresses Lhe auLonomlc condlLlon of arL, ln facL, ueleuze wlll emphaslze Lhe way llLerary
wrlLlng necessarlly generaLes anoLher synLax, a language LhaL ls forelgn Lo language, ln an
exercise that is, by nature, potency of life, liberation of life (cf. lblJ.). ln seeklng Lo deflne
the concept of resistance in the interview I quote from, Deleuze acLually clLes a Lhesls LhaL
had flrsL been seL forLh ln one of hls ssoys ctltlcol ooJ cllolcol: Health as literature, as
wrlLlng, conslsLs ln lnvenLlng a people who are missing (Deleuze 1998:4). The ultimate aim
of literature would therefore be to seL free, ln Lhls dellrlum, Lhls creaLlon of a healLh or Lhls
lnvenLlon of a people, LhaL ls, a posslblllLy of llfe. 1o wrlLe for Lhls people who are mlsslng....
However, Deleuze explains that here for means not so much in the place of but rather
for the benefit of (lblJ.).
Colng back Lo coototo, one could say LhaL Carlos de Cllvelra had gone from Lhe (neo-
realist) notion of writing in the place of, giving voice to those who do not have a voice, to
the (modernist) notion of writing for the benefit of, l.e., he had gone from emphaslzlng
103
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
reslsLance ln poeLry Lo afflrmlng Lhe reslsLance of poeLry. A clear sympLom of Lhls lnflecLlon
ls Lhe growlng dlsappearance of Lhe neo-realist choral us in his poetry. If, as Deleuze also
said, quoting Primo Levi, un des motifs de lart et de la pense cest la honte dtre un
homme (one of Lhe moLlfs ln arL and LhoughL ls Lhe shame of belng a man), LhaL ls, Lhe need
to ask comment des hommes on pu faire a(how men could have done LhaL) (ueleuze/
Parnet, 1988), which is where arts condition of resistance resldes, no doubL Carlos de
Cllvelra kepL asklng exacLly LhaL same quesLlon and Lherefore he conLlnued Lo wrlLe for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe vlcLlms, Lhough no longer wlshlng Lo speak ln Lhelr place. 1he same could be
sald of Lhe poeLry books LhaL CasLo Cruz, llama Passe als 8rando, Lulza neLo !orge and
Armando Sllva Carvalho were Lhen publlshlng. Cr even Lhose by PerberLo Pelder and 8uy
8elo. Cr even by Sophla de Mello 8reyner Andresen, !orge de Sena, Lugenlo de Andrade and
Mrio Cesariny. Writing for the benefit of was to believe that poetry could in itself be an
acL of vlolence and reslsLance, as well as Lo emphaslze Lhe properly LexLual and maLerlal
onLologlcal condlLlon of wrlLlng and Lhe correlaLlve emergence of a freer process of
sub[ecLlvlzaLlon, preclsely lnsofar as lL emerged from Lhe llberLarlan experlence of dlscourse
generaLed by experlmenLaLlon and agrammaLlcallLy. Lven Cesarlny, cerLalnly Lhe leasL
LexLuallsL of all Lhe poeLs menLloned, sLaLed ln a 1986 LexL:

A clncla perdeu, provavelmenLe por mulLos Lempos a vlr, a sua preLenso a produLo exacLo e
absoluLo de aferlo das colsas, do mesmo passo que a poesla (re)comea a exercer-se na
lndlvlduao-despersonalizao do enunciado. Importa no ler despersonalizao como ela
parece que aparece na lnveno fernandlana: levando a uma flco de ouLras-a-mesma-
personalldade com cada uma delas aflrmando personalldades, mas slm como real desLrulo do
concelLo e da prLlca da personalldade, e dos seus referenLes, para emerso do lndlvlduo
ausenLe de nome prprlo, de Lempo e de lugar (...). (Cesarlny lo ascoaes 1987: 30)

[Sclence has losL, mosL probably for a long Llme Lo come, lLs clalm Lo belng an exacL and
absoluLe producL for gauglng Lhlngs, whllsL poeLry agaln beglns Lo carry lLself ouL ln Lhe
lndlvlduaLlon/de-personallzaLlon of Lhe oooc. It is important not to read de-
personalization as it seems to emerge in the context of Pessoas invention: leading to a
flcLlon of oLher-Lhe-same-personallLy wlLh each one of Lhem afflrmlng personallLles, buL
raLher as a real desLrucLlon of Lhe concepL and Lhe pracLlce of personallLy, and lLs referenLs,
aiming at an emergence of the individual without a proper name, a time and a place ()]
104
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934

lf for Cesarlny Lhls process opens up Lhe (romanLlc and surreallsL) posslblllLy LhaL Lhere may
exist a poeta que oo escteve, apenas vive (poeL who Joes oot wtlte, but who only
llves) (cf. lblJ.), mosL of Lhe poeLlcs of Lhe 60s sLress LhaL whlch resulLs from poeLlc
producLlon: an ob[ecL material, poematic, by nature inaccessible to the executioners arm.
1hus, experlmenLaLlon wlLh language would make Lhe LexL a sorL of hedgehog, prlckly and
inexpugnable, as in Derridas description:

1he poem can roll lLself up ln a ball, buL lL ls sLlll ln order Lo Lurn lLs polnLed slgns Lowards Lhe
outside. (...) Its event always interrupts or derails absolute knowledge... This demon of the
heart never gathers itself together, rather it loses itself and gets off the track (delirlum or
manla), lL exposes lLself Lo chance, lL would raLher leL lLself be Lorn Lo pleces by whaL bears
down upon lL. (uerrlda 1991: 234-3)

Derridas image of the hedgehog-poem represenLs a seL of characLerlsLlcs LhaL can be easlly
ldenLlfled ln Lhe poeLlcs of Lhe 1960s: meLa-reflexlveness, whlch seems Lo quesLlon Lhe
poems referential vocation but in fact reviews it under the form of a literal and
meLaphorlcal explanaLlon, slnce Lhe poem should be able Lo lnsLance, as lLs own Lraces,
Lhose Lraces lL refers, boLh llLerally and meLaphorlcally (Coodman 1990: 86ff), Lhe
enhancemenL of lmage and meLaphor as lnsLrumenLs for Lhe llberLarlan generaLlon of
meanlng and knowledge, Lhe de-polarlzaLlon of ldenLlLles, and, lasL buL noL leasL, Lhe
auLonomlc condlLlon of Lhe aesLheLlc.
Hurt by reality and searching for reality, to borrow a phrase used by Paul Celan at
LhaL Llme (Cf. 1996: 34), Lhose poeLs refused Lhe ldeologlcal lnsLrumenLallzaLlon of poeLry,
expllclLly dlsLanced Lhemselves ln a deeply crlLlcal manner from all forms of poeLlc
lnLervenLlon, buL Lhey saw ln wrlLlng Lhe posslblllLy of creaLlng a spoce (a recurrenL concepL
ln llama Passe als 8rando, ln PerberLo Pelder, ln Carlos de Cllvelra), whlch was
undoubtedly an heir of Rimbauds injunction la vraie vie est absente (Lrue llfe ls absenL)
(8lmbaud, 1999: 424), adapLed by Codard ln llettot le loo (1965) as la vraie vie est ailleurs
(Lrue llfe ls somewhere else), where Lhe word ollleots dlslocaLes raLher Lhan locaLes and
expresses malnly refusal and expecLaLlon. 8eslsLance would Lhen be, Lo go back Lo Celan,
103
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
making through the fracture, in contra-faction (cf. 1996: 67). And here I intentionally use
Lhe verb to moke lnsLead of to soy.
AL abouL Lhe Llme when coototo was flrsL broughL on, Adorno publlshed Lhe lecLure
later known in English by the title of Commitment. The philosophers positions can
lllumlnaLe Lhls dlscusslon, noLably hls clalm LhaL Lhe exlsLence of an appeal ln arL ls noL
dependenL upon Lhe presence or absence of commlLmenL aL Lhe level of LhemaLlc maLerlal
(cf. Adorno 1984: 300), and especlally when he shows LhaL so-called auLonomous works are
noL unconnecLed Lo ptoxls and LhaL Lhelr power may lle less ln Lhe Lheme of angulsh Lhan ln
the way they generate it (Adorno mentions Becketts writing as an example of that). In fact,
ln a sLaLemenL where an alluslon Lo 8lmbaud can be deLecLed, Adorno assoclaLes works of
art to the creation of a just life (Adorno, Commitment: 12), polnLlng ouL Lhe facL LhaL
auLonomy ls a condlLlon of a relaLlonshlp wlLh LhaL same ptoxls from whlch, paradoxlcally,
autonomous works of art would distance themselves: (...) an emphasis on autonomous
works is itself sociopolitical in nature, the author wrlLes. And he conLlnues:

1he felgnlng of a Lrue pollLlcs here and now, Lhe freezlng of hlsLorlcal relaLlons whlch
nowhere seem ready Lo melL, obllge Lhe mlnd Lo go where lL need noL degrade lLself. 1oday,
every phenomenon of culLure, even lf a model of lnLegrlLy, ls llable Lo be suffocaLed ln Lhe
culLlvaLlon of klLsch. ?eL paradoxlcally ln Lhe same epoch lL ls Lo works of arL LhaL has fallen
Lhe burden of wordlessly asserLlng whaL ls barred Lo pollLlcs. (lblJem)

Clalmlng LhaL Lhe auLhor ls engaged wlLh Lhe Lhlng, noL wlLh a cholce, Adorno
enhances Lhe noLlon of reslsLance, arLlculaLlng lL wlLh Lhe requlremenL of a Lrue llfe whlch
cannot, however, be anticipated: lL ls noL Lhe offlce of arL Lo spoLllghL alLernaLlves, buL Lo
resist by its form alone the course of the world, which permanently puts a pistol to mens
heads (Adorno, Commitment: 3). Colng back Lo ueleuze, Lhls same process necessarlly
presupposes a grammar of disequilibrium generated in a tension wiLh LhaL oLher grammar
LhaL regulaLes Lhe balances of dlscourse. ln oLher words, and also ln ueleuzlan Lerms, Lhe
process lmplles wrlLlng as sLuLLerlng ln language and noL ln speech. 1haL oLher language
(whlch superlmposes lLself on Lhe former, alLhough lL devlaLes lL raLher Lhan proscrlblng lL) ls
called an lJlom, a lngua denLro da prpria lingua (language wlLhln language lLself) by
PerberLo Pelder (Pelder 2009: 362 e 372), who, accordlng Lo Lhls same vlew defends error ln
106
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
a number of fragmenLs of hls lbotomotoo & vox. Agaln wlLh ueleuze, a LexL mooJlt would
then be a text that is said wrongly, or is badly written, the one that is able to make
language shout, to stutter, or to murmur or stammer. During the 60s, the importance of
sllence (as for lnsLance ln Lugenlo de Andrade), Lhe eroslon of Lhe poeLlc llne (as ln Carlos de
Cllvelra), Lhe lrregular fragmenLaLlon of synLax (as ln CasLo Cruz and Lulza neLo !orge), Lhe
enhancemenL of meLaphor and of poeLlc lmagery ln mosL of Lhe poeLry Lhen publlshed, Lhe
formal experlmenLallsm pracLlced by Lhe ma[orlLy of poeLs, all Lhose LralLs of wrlLlng are
congruenL wlLh Lhls (modern) ldea of poeLry. l choose Lo llsL poeLs of dlfferenL generaLlons ln
Lhese examples because Lhe generaLlon dlfference was noL an obsLacle Lo conLemporanelLy.
None of those poets questioned Rimbauds la vrai vie est absente, in an ollleots LhaL no
ldeology or pollLlcal pro[ecL would be able Lo clrcumscrlbe or polnL Lo wlLhouL resLralnlng lLs
freedom and power Lo maLerlallze lLself. none of Lhose poeLs would [eopardlze Lhe
posslblllLy LhaL poeLry mlghL polnL Lo LhaL place, even lf only as lack or as fallure. loqot
(place) ls exacLly Lhe LlLle of a book by Herberto Helder in 1962 which includes the lines: s
vezes penso: o lugar tremendo. / sobre os mortos, alm da linguagem (SomeLlmes l
Lhlnk: Lhe place ls awe-lnsplrlng. / lL ls abouL Lhe deaLh, besldes language) (Pelder 2009:
132).
4
1hese llnes become clearer ln Lhe llghL of Lhe followlng passage of lbotomotoo&vox:

C ponLo no e esLabelecer um slsLema de refernclas, lnsLlLulr lels, consumar um mecanlsmo.
ulgo que o ponLo e ptoplclot o opoteclmeoto Je om espoo, e exercer enLo sobre ele a malor
vlolncla. Como se o meLal acabasse por chegar as mos e baL-lo depols com Loda a fora e
Lodos os marLelos. ALe o espao ceder, aLe o meLal ganhar uma forma que surpreenda as
prprlas mos. (Pelder 2006: 79, emphasls added)

[1he polnL ls noL Lo seL up a reference sysLem, Lo esLabllsh laws, Lo consummaLe a mechanlsm.
l say LhaL Lhe polnL ls to eooble o spoce to emetqe, and Lhen exerL Lhe uLmosL vlolence upon lL.
As lf Lhe meLal ended up by reachlng your hands and sLrlke lL wlLh all your sLrengLh and all
your hammers. unLll Lhe space ylelds, unLll Lhe meLal Lakes a form LhaL surprlses your very
hands.]

1haL form, always posLhumous, surprlslng even Lo Lhe hands LhaL generaLe lL, ls obvlously
Lhe poem, a compresslon of language LhaL asplres Lo expandlng Lhe world. Powever, Lhe
107
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
ontological and gnoseological euphoria patent in Helders words reflects one of Lwo posslble
paLhs. When Benjamin wrote that as floeots, Lhe lnLelllgenLsla came lnLo Lhe markeL
place (Benjamin 1997: 170), adding that although they were supposed to observe the scene
from Lhe ouLslde, ln facL whaL Lhey look for ls already Lo flnd a buyer, he was ldenLlfylng a
Lurnlng polnL afLer whlch poeLry could noL buL be seen ln Lhe conLexL of a process of
commodlflcaLlon (of arL and culLure) whlch lL wlll Lry Lo reslsL.
osL-8audelalre modernlLy ls born of LhaL Lurnlng polnL, wlLh all LhaL separaLes lL
from Lhe poslLlve concepL of poeLry upheld by 8omanLlclsm (especlally as seen from Lhe
perspecLlve of a poeLlcs of producLlon). lf one of Lhe paLhs Lhen opened leads Lo Lhe
clrcumscrlpLlon of poeLry Lo poemaLlc maLLer as a space of reslsLance already cenLered on
LexLuallLy and lLs effecLs, and Lo Lhe pro[ecLlon of Lhe auLonomy of Lhe aesLheLlc whlch wlll
make lL raLher dlfflculL for neoreallsm Lo dlalogue wlLh Lhe dlfferenL Modernlsms, anoLher
paLh ls now sLarLlng Lo be opened. 1hls second paLh wlll lead Lo Lhe gradual devalulng of
poetry that becomes patent from the 1970s on, to the misfortunes of poor Mrs. Poesy, as
Antnio Franco Alexandre describes it, while he also calls poetry by the names of arte de
chiar (Lhe arL of squeaklng) (2001: 33), or duplicata (duplicate), remendo (paLchwork)
(1996: 201), and garatuja (scrlbbllng) (1996: 273, 364). lrom Lhls oLher perspecLlve, poeLry
ls noL concelved as a space (LexL, dlscourse) whlch, albelL closed, has an unquesLlonably
heurlsLlc capablllLy.
From the 70s onwards, poets like Joo Miguel Fernandes Jorge, or, towards the end
of Lhe 20Lh cenLury, Manuel de lrelLas and !ose Mlguel Sllva wlll dlsfavour meLaphor,
because (...) [u]ma metfora no leva a nenhum lado (a meLaphor leads Lo nowhere) (!orge
1988: 40) or because a sua baba quente e desajustada (lLs warm, unsulLable slobber) ls Lo
be repudlaLed (cf. lrelLas 2002: 42). ln lLs place, Lhese auLhors prefer allegory, undersLood ln
Lhe 8en[amlnlan sense, as a mode of expresslon beLLer flLLed Lo replace eplphany Lhrough
alluslon Lo an lrredeemable lack, LhaL ls, posLponlng Lrue llfe or [usL llfe Lo an ollleots LhaL
cannoL be locaLed ln Lhe dlscurslve becomlng of Lhe poem. lL should also be noLed LhaL ln Lhe
lasL decades Lhere has been a marked lncrease ln Lhe use of ekpbtosls, whlch enables poeLs
Lo enLer lnLo dlalogue wlLh anoLher ldea of Lhe lmage LhaL of vlsual arLs and vlsual
communlcaLlon ln general.
108
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
lf modernlLy afLer 8audelalre broughL wlLh lL a kaLabaslc effecL concernlng Lhe
romanLlc noLlon of poeLry, lL musL be recognlzed LhaL Lhe effecL has become more lnLense ln
Lhe poeLry of Lhe lasL decades. Powever, ln splLe of acknowledglng LhaL lL ls lnevlLably a parL
of Lhe culLural kltscb Adorno menLlons, poeLry sLlll creaLes focl of reslsLance whlch can be
found, ln Lhelr dlfferenL reglsLers, ln auLhors such as Adllla Lopes, Manuel de lrelLas, !ose
Mlguel Sllva or 8ul Lage, Lo menLlon only some examples.
ln Lhelr lnLroducLlon Lo a speclal lssue of cosmos ooJ nlstoty. 1be Iootool of Nototol
ooJ 5oclol lbllosopby on The Poetics of Resistance, Cornelia Grbner and David M. J. Wood
explaln LhaL mosL auLhors ln Lhls collecLlon of essays do noL share Lhe vlew LhaL a work of arL
ls compleLely asslmllaLed ln Lhe neollberal conLexL. 1hey do noL subscrlbe Lo Lhe noLlon LhaL
art is assimilated into public discourse and political language nor do they believe that the
arLlsL ls empowered as soclal acLor, buL dlsempowered as arLlsL-and-soclal-actor (2010: 6). In
opposlLlon Lo LhaL, Lhey propose what they call a porous autonomy: (...) this type of
auLonomy dlffers from Lhe Adornlan approach whlch locaLes Lhe work of arL ln a Lhlrd space
where lL ls safeguarded from Lwo compeLlng ldeologlcal poles, each of whlch soughL Lo
assimilate it (lblJ.). In fact, the concept of porous autonomy means processes of
reslsLance LhaL are less cenLered ln anLagonlsm and more lnLeresLed ln explorlng sLraLegles of
subverslon. ln Lhe same lssue of cosmos ooJ nlstoty, ArLuro Casas quoLes from a manlfesLo
by Lhe Spanlsh collecLlve lo lolobto lteoetoote: The most common method among poets in
reslsLance ls guerrllla meLhod: rapld lncurslons ln hosLlle LerrlLory Lo achleve ob[ecLlves and
Lhen return to safe ground (Casas 2010: 79).
ln her lnLroducLory noLe Lo A Molbet-o-ulos (Lhe housekeeper) (2002), Adllla Lopes
explains: A mulher-a-dlas sou eu, e qualquer pessoa. (...) ue resLo, os meus LexLos so
polticos, de interveno, cerzidos com a minha vida (Lhe housekeeper, LhaL ls me, or
anyone. 8esldes, my LexLs are pollLlcal, lnLervenLlve, sLlLched wlLh my llfe) (Lopes 2009: 443).
noL LhaL Adllla Lopes lgnores how much modern LradlLlon has LaughL abouL Lhe complexlLy of
sub[ecLlvlzaLlon processes, or deems lL unlmporLanL, however, by slLuaLlng poeLry ln Lhe
space of Lhe world we llve ln, her poems promoLe an undecldablllLy beLween Lwo raLher
dlfferenL readlng conLracLs: Lhe lyrlcal and Lhe auLoblographlcal. Per use of Lhe word
cerzidos (stitched) in the quotaLlon above suggesLs LhaL her poems are telotoble to a llfe
109
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
experlence. And Lhere resldes Lhe efflcacy of Adllla Lopess poetry in denouncing the violence
and cruelLy LhaL ls sysLemaLlcally presenL ln our conLemporary world. lf Lhe auLoblographlcal
conLracL leglLlmlzes Lhe presence ln Lhe poems of Lhe prosalc, of banal sufferlng devold of
much hlsLorlcal presence, her lyrlcal flcLlon analyses and redeems LhaL sufferlng, Lhough noL
almlng Lo erase lL or Lo dlsLracL us readers from lL. 8y alLernaLely uslng and noL uslng Lhe
auLoblographlcal pacL ln her poeLry, Adllla Lopes dlalogues wlLh modern LradlLlon whlle she
quesLlons Lhe auLonomlc sLaLus of Lhe poem. And Lhus she produces one of Lhe mosL vlolenL
llbels agalnsL Lhe dlsclpllnaLory normallzaLlon of behavlours ln Lhe conLemporary world.
Adllla Lopes ls noL Lhe only auLhor resorLlng Lo Lhls Lype of readlng conLracLs, for Lhey
are very much presenL ln Lhe poeLs who sLarLed wrlLlng beLween Lhe end of Lhe 20
Lh
cenLury
and Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe 21
sL
. 1he clear connection between the poems subject and their
blographlcal experlences, whlle noL denylng lLs derlvaLlon from Lhe process of
sub[ecLlvlzaLlon lnherenL ln poeLry, cerLalnly connecLs lL Lo concreLe llfe experlences. 1haL ls
for example Lhe case wlLh Lhe lyrlcal sub[ecL, spaces and proLagonlsLs ln Lhe poeLry of
Manuel de lrelLas. 8ecognlzable blographemes are exacLly a slgn of Lhe auLhenLlclLy of a
sLraLegy of reslsLance Lo LhaL whlch Carlos de Cllvelra once called coisas desencadeadas
(unchalned Lhlngs) (1992: 581). In Bartleby bar (Lisboa, dcada de 2010), a very recent text
by Miguel Martins, the following can be read: Fao parte da direco, bastante desapegada,
de uma agremlao lnformal que Lem por lema e ob[ecLlvo a reslsLncla a quanLo se faz por
Lradlo, hblLo, obrlgao, comodlsmo, eLc., a quanLo se faz sem razo ou vonLade
prprias (l am a member of Lhe raLher dlsaffecLed board of an lnformal assoclaLlon
whose moLLo and alm are reslsLlng everyLhlng LhaL ls done ouL of LradlLlon, hablL, obllgaLlon,
convenience, etc, to everything that is done without reason or not done of ones own free
wlll) (MarLlns 2011: 23). 1hls ls a Lruly blographlcal sLaLemenL, wlLh lLs menLlon of a bar ln
Llsbon where poeLry was always presenL, as Lhe reader could have easlly conflrmed. 1hus,
when we read in a different text published in the same book that Oposio, Resistncia e
LlberLao parecem-me, pols, as Lrs palavras fundamenLals quando o que esL em [ogo e a
felicidade e a infelicidade (CpposlLlon, 8eslsLance and LlberaLlon seem Lo me Lhen Lo be Lhe
Lhree fundamenLal words when happlness and unhapplness are aL sLake)(lJem: 9), we can
perhaps understand Miguel Martins use of the autobiographical and his inclusion of this text
110
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
ln a book whose reglsLer lles beLween Lhe prose poem and an lnLlmlsL medlLaLlon of an
auLoblographlcal characLer.
1he conLamlnaLlon beLween lyrlc and auLoblographlcal reglsLers, whlch can be found ln
Adlia Lopes, in some of Ana Lusa Amarals books, in Manuel de Freitas and in other poets
who, Lhough belonglng Lo dlfferenL generaLlons, are now belng publlshed, LogeLher wlLh Lhe
conLamlnaLlon of prose and poeLry LhaL Lhey, and noLably Adllla Lopes, so ofLen explore, Lhe
conLamlnaLlon beLween lyrlclsm and narraLlvlLy, very successfully achleved ln !ose Mlguel
Sllva, Lhe dlalogues beLween poeLry and muslc, poeLry and phoLography, clnema, drawlng,
palnLlng, frequenLly ln ekphrasLlc reglsLers, ln some sense respond Lo Lhe devaluaLlon of
poeLlc lmage Lhrough anoLher Lype of relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe lmage. As conLemporary
strategies of porous resistance in poetry, they do not seem Lo asserL a poslLlon of
auLonomy ln Lhe Adornlan sense.
The concept of porous autonomy can help us understand both how contemporary
poeLry works and Lhe way lL has gradually dlverged from Lhe hedgehog sLraLegy, Lo go back
to Derridas image, without dispensing with a strategy of resistance. In the poetry that aL
presenL seems Lo be more crlLlcal of neollberallsm Lhere can be ldenLlfled an ennunclaLlve
poslLlonlng LhaL ls noL presenLed elLher as exLernal Lo LhaL conLexL, ln an auLonomlc sense,
or as slmply lnLerlor. lor LhaL poeLry, lL ls no more an opLlon beLween speaklng lo tbe ploce
of, as ln neoreallsm, or fot tbe beoeflt of, as ln Lhe 1960s. 1he Lwo poslLlons are now revlsed
ln Lhe llghL of Lhe undersLandlng LhaL we are all locaLed loslJe alLhough cerLalnly noL ln Lhe
same manner. lurLhermore, lL musL be acknowledged LhaL, ln splLe of LhaL, poeLry conLlnues
Lo creaLe Lhe condlLlons for Lhe emergence of freer processes of sub[ecLlvlzaLlon and Lhus lL
continues to be written for the benefit of the people who are missing. Those who are
always mlsslng.








111
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
=,/E& 8'($F
Adorno, Theodor (1984), Engagement (1962), Notes sot lo lltttotote, LranslaLed by Slbylle
Muller, arls, llammarlon.
-- (s/d), Commitment (1962), translated by Francis McDonagh,
hLLp://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/LexLs/frankfurL/commlLmenL/commlLmenL.pdf (lasL
accessed: 10 !anuary 2013).
Alexandre, AnLnlo lranco (1996), loemos, Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
-- (2001), umo lbolo, Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
8en[amln, Walter (1973), Paris the Capital of the Nineteenth Century, translated by
Parry Zohn, London, new LefL 8ooks.
Casas, Arturo (2010), Antagonism and subjectification in the poem of resistance, cosmos
ooJ nlstoty. 1be Iootool of Nototol ooJ 5oclol lbllosopby, vol. 6, n 2, pp. 71-81.
<hLLp://www.cosmosandhlsLory.org/lndex.php/[ournal/arLlcle/vlewllle/202/311>
Celan, aul (1996), Atte lotlco O MetlJlooo e oottos 1extos, ed., posf. and noLes by !oo
8arrenLo, Llsbon, CoLovla.
Cruz, Gasto (1963), Alguns problemas do Realismo, ultlo Je llsboo, Suplemento Vida
LlLerrla e Artstica, 27 June, pp. 17 and 24.
ueleuze, Cllles (1998), ssoys ctltlcol ooJ cllolcol, ed. by uanlel W. SmlLh, LranslaLed by
uanlel W. SmlLh and Mlchael A. Creco, London and new ?ork, verso.
-- /arneL, Claire [interviewer] (1988), R comme rsistance, LAbcdaire, dlrecLed by
lerre-Andre 8ouLang, 1988, uvu LdlLlons MonLparnasse.
uerrlda, Jacques (1991), Che cosla poesia?, translated by Peggy Kamuf, A uettlJo keoJet.
8etweeo tbe 8lloJs, ed. kamuf, London and new ?ork, ParvesLer.
112
1he 8eslsLance of oeLry / 8eslsLance ln oeLry
, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
lafe, Jos Fernandes (1963), Resposta a Gasto Cruz, ultlo Je llsboo, Suplemento Vida
Literria e Artstica, 11 July, pp. 17 and 19.
lrelLas, Manuel de (2002), Come Ovet, Llsbon, & eLc.
Crabner, Cornelia e WOOD, David M. J. (2010), Introduction: The Poetics of Resistance,
cosmos ooJ nlstoty. 1be Iootool of Nototol ooJ 5oclol lbllosopby, vol. 6, n 2, pp. 2-19.
<hLLp://www.cosmosandhlsLory.org/lndex.php/[ournal/arLlcle/vlewllle/208/307>
Coodman, nelson (1990), Langages de lArt [1968], nimes, LdlLlons !acquellne Chambon.
Pelder, PerberLo (2006), lbotomotoo & vox, 4Lh ed., Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
-- (2009), Oflclo cootoote, Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
!orge, !oo Mlguel lernandes (1988), vlote e Nove loemos (1978), Obto lotlco lll, 2nd ed.,
Llsbon, resena.
Lopes, Adllla (2009), uobto, Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
MarLelo, 8osa Marla (1998), cotlos Je Ollvelto e o kefetoclo em loeslo, orLo, Campo das
LeLras.
MarLlns, Mlguel (2011), ltlos, Llsbon, Averno.
Slmes, !oo Caspar (s/d), Carlos de Oliveira II. Cantata (12-2-1961), ctltlco ll loetos
cootempotoeos (19J8-1961), Llsbon, uelfos.
Cllvelra, Carlos (1992), O ApteoJlz Je leltlcelto (1971), Obtos, Llsbon, Camlnho.
-- (2003), 1tobolbo lotlco (1976), Llsbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.
ascoaes, 1elxelra de (1987), Os poetos losloJos, precedidos de Reflexes sobre Telxelra de
ascoes por !oaqulm de Carvalho reflecLidas por Mrio Cesariny, Lisbon, Asslrlo & Alvlm.

113
8osa Marla MarLelo

, 1, 3/2013: 99-114 lSSn 2182-8934
%,&) 3)/') 3)/($4, e rofessora Assoclada, com agregao, da laculdade de LeLras da unlversldade
do orLo, onde se douLorou, em LlLeraLura orLuguesa, em 1996. uomlnlos de lnvesLlgao:
LlLeraLura orLuguesa Moderna e ConLempornea, oeLlcas dos Seculos xlx, xx e xxl, LlLeraLura
Comparada. nos Lrabalhos mals recenLes, Lem prlvlleglado o esLudo da poesla conLempornea e das
relaes lnLer-arLlsLlcas (poesla/clnema). nesLas mesmas reas, Lem orlenLado vrlas dlsserLaes de
mesLrado e de douLoramenLo. Coordena com aulo de Medelros (unlversldade de uLrechL) a rede
lnLernaclonal LyraCompoeLlcs, vocaclonada para o esLudo das poeLlcas modernas e
conLemporneas. Algumas publlcaes: cotlos Je Ollvelto e o kefetoclo em loeslo (Campo das
LeLras, 1998), m lotte locetto. stoJos Je loeslo lottoqoeso cootempotoeo (Campo das LeLras,
2004), vlJto Jo mesmo vlJto 1eoses e Jeslocomeotos oo poeslo pottoqoeso Jepols Je 1961
(Campo das LeLras, 2007), A lotmo lofotme leltotos Je loeslo (Asslrlo & Alvlm, 2010), O cloemo Jo
loeslo (uocumenLa, 2012). Crganlzou, com !oana MaLos lrlas e Luls Mlguel Cuelrs, a anLologla
loemos com cloemo (Asslrlo & Alvlm 2010). 1em colaborao dlspersa em vrlas publlcaes
colecLlvas, naclonals e esLrangelras, e em dlversas revlsLas (colpolo/lettos, kelmpoqo, uloctltlco,
coJetoos Je lltetototo compotoJo, Abtll, 1topellos, enLre ouLras).




nC1LS

1
1ranlaLed by Llena Calvo and lsabel edro.
1hls essay was sponsored by naLlonal lundlng Lhrough lC1 - lundaao para a Clncla e a 1ecnologla, wlLhln Lhe
pro[ecL LsL-CL/LL1/ul0300/2011 hosLed by lnsLlLuLo de LlLeraLura Comparada Margarlda Losa of Lhe
laculdade de LeLras, unlverslLy of orLo. A porLuguese verslon of Lhls essay was publlshed lo 1topellos
kevlsto Je 1eotlo Je lo lltetototo y lltetototo compotoJo, n 18, 2012.
2
For the sake of illustration, I quote from the poem Nvoa, from coototo: A morLe / em flor / dos
camponeses / Lo chegados a Lerra / que so folhas / e ervas de nada / passa no venLo / e eu [ulgo ouvlr / ao
longe / nos recessos da nvoa / os animais feridos / do Incio. (1he blossomlng / deaLh/ of Lhe peasanLs /so
close Lo Lhe earLh/ LhaL Lhey become leaves /and blades of grass of noLhlng / passes ln Lhe wlnd / and l Lhlnk l
can hear / from afar / ln Lhe recesses of Lhe mlsL / Lhe wounded anlmals / of Lhe 8eglnnlng.) (Cl lvelra 2003:
164).
3
Cn Lhls poem and how lL clrculaLed ln such a way as Lo elude censorshlp, see MarLelo 1998: 208ff.
4
1.n.: olm can also be read as meaning beyond.
114