Archive for February, 2009

Rising

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

by Farrah Field
Four Way Books 2009
Reviewed by Ken L. Walker

7.5

One or Another

field coverCensus mumbo-jumbo tells Americans that the average (more privileged) human being changes career types an average of seven times. To transliterate that statement: the average American with the normal amount of spoonfed opportunity gets all sorts of various jobs to pay the light bill – and thinks they are solely one thing – but they are at least seven things in the helix of a lifespan. Poets are different, however. Because in the U.S., to be a poet is a fringe identity; it’s not a forklift driver, not an ad-exec either. And within that, there are types of poets: NeoFormalists, narrative poets, language poets, swiss cheese poets, flarfers, etc.

Farrah Field claimed, when I recently interviewed her, “Like Anna Akhmatova, I thought I was one kind of poet, but realized I was another. Two things were at stake for me–writing about Heather and making my poems do something they hadn’t yet done.”

Heather is her sister and a recurring sort of device or protagonist in the book, also the victim of a brutal murder (in reality and the book). This is a key thing to stay aware of as Heather pops in and out like the kernel of a phantom haunting both poet and reader. A grandmother dies; phones explode; orgasms elude, deteriorate, and detonate.

Rising was unmistakably chosen by Tony Hoagland as the 2007 Levis Prize winner. The book feels like a fist plummeting backwards through at least six (if not eight) feet of mud. The poems come up from behind, whispering and seducing; but as soon as you turn around and arrive at the departing end of a piece, you get punched in the lip. Here is one of those Tyson-fisted endings, from one of the best poems of the year so far, “Weird Luck:”

Once you will be lost in prayer
and will be found craving muffins.

Hope exists. It’s the taste of boy in your mouth.
[. . . ]
A child will die in your arms
and whiskey will disappear from your glass.

Your sister is a ghost with a broken skull.

You are allowed one good memory
in a pumpkin patch.

It’s an apotheosis of the surreal and the narrative, juggling skeletons inside the various closets of memories. Rising also requires the reader to laugh at the grotesque, the perverted, the grave and morbid. Field told me that she has an “unpuritanical attitude when it comes to writing about violence and sex; and I have a pretty sick sense of humor to boot.” At least she is self-aware.

Pieces like “The Telling” and “Your Lordship Spirals,” as well as “Malvern, Arkansas” all prove this grit buried deep in a gray heart. Even more sordidly unfeigned are these gems from “He’ll Have Surgery on His Brain in the Future”: “He looks like a nice boy and acts like a smart person.” She also stakes, “my eyes are big for wrong reasons . . . At home, I mix bleach to clean up maggots.”

A majority of the book is place-based. If an event or a memory is not explicated in Louisiana, Arkansas, Wyoming or Belgium (all places the Air-Force brats grew up) then it is in a backyard, on a porch or in a trailer. This tends to zip a reader into a centrifugal chaos but can also wrap a comfortable quilt around the reader’s sensibility. Overt sentimentality takes on its usual, angular, undervaluing shape in many poems as well. One of the best/worst poems in the book (worst, due to its sentimental hooks and best, for its politics) is “Hard Times in Animas Forks.” The awfully upright goes: “across my feet. At a mine shaft entrance,/I hear the voices of men who have worked/in the earth: we can’t withstand the soot,/the shitty wages, the constant collapse.”

Her endings are so fierce that it makes the poems’ beginnings and middles feel disjointed and contused. Basically, some feel like the endings were written first. There is also a second person drone in many of the poems that creates a mechanical ambience. And the role of the South is strong; without its grandiosity, Field begins to approach something like a Nietzsche without a Germany.

In our interview, Field compared herself to Ahkmatova getting at the point that an artist posits the idea of one crescendo but hears others. I’d rather hear a Field crescendo any day of the week than one from Ahkmatova.

*


City of Moths

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

by Sampson Starkweather
Rope-a-Dope Press 2008
Reviewed by Dan Magers

7

Come Back to Me

city of mothsSampson Starkweather’s chapbook City of Moths attempts relentlessly to blur the distinction between words and things. Unlike bodies in space, which can be registered immediately, language must be actively and continuously attended to in order for it to register. The futility of using language to prioritize objects over language is this work’s driving force. The generally conversational style and discrete blocks of prose suggest an epistolary work, letters to an absent lover. But as much as our narrator wishes to speak her into existence, he is only speaking to himself.

There is no deliberate movement of logic, but two steps gradually emerge: he cancels the distinctions between words and objects, then dares us to ignore the objects. As for the first, he writes, “No difference between a poem and a tree,” or

“Poetry, she says, is a mountain. An actual mountain. A thing that fools climb simply ‘because it’s there.’ “Poetry is there, but why do we constantly feel the need to prove it exists?”

By “we,” the poet means “I”.  He answers by offering a guiding example of “Wolves in the city, wandering around abandoned monuments and subway stations without any sense of fear or resistance.” When they attack,

“It’s hard to pretend the shrieks are not happening, but most people are trained by now to drown out the sounds. Need I remind you that most of the time, they simply walk through the city, peacefully, with nothing at all to do.”

We want to prove poetry (like emotion) exists because it can be neglected, ignored. With the wolves, Starkweather emphasizes the absurdity of ignoring a tangible thing, and suggests we do it all the time with intangible things, like emotions. “The perfect poem you can walk inside of,” he writes; “watch yourself from above on a series of TVs.”

These are poems conceived and collected under the guiding thread of a city, giving Starkweather room to not only populate the poems with objects, people and actions, but also events, suggesting memories, which hectically turn emotions into things. There is less concern about creating a defined time and space than there is in populating it:

“In the dream, we’re at a party in a trailer park. No, the ceiling isn’t low, that’s regret. I know, it looks a lot like metal, but it’s actually closer to mist.”

This constructed world, therefore, is very fragile—half-remembered at times or half-imagined, coming apart in our hands.

With images and ideas careening back and forth, some stick better than others. In lines like “The way ‘terror’ has lost its meaning in America,” or “there are trees in the trees,” there is less emotional investment than shorthand for tasteful political sentiment on the one hand and metaphysical shadow-play on the other. Starkweather’s poems are most his own in his strains of humor and levity that do not really look on the bright side, but lash out, retaining the whole of their weirdness: “I wanted to be a robot-cop, until I saw the scene when the politician did all that blow off the blonde’s tits at the top of some city. Look what dreams lead to.”

The most indelible comment made to the “absent other” is bristling, flip and sincere:  “Tell me, what do you think, when you talk freely, without reservations, without fear, when you speak of me with your heart wide open, theoretically speaking, obviously?” Humor and desire intermingle in one of the book’s best moments:

“Did I tell you I was watching Game 2 of the Playoffs between the Pistons and the Orlando Magic…[and] this skinny little white boy with glasses, a Pistons fan, maybe 10 years old, shirtless…and painted on the entirety of his chest, in glittery pink and blue spray-paint was the message, ‘There’s No Such Thing as Magic’ and POOF – you were beside me, naked and trembling in my arms?”

He has summoned his “other” – at least, the idea of her, which is something. The other best moment takes this humor into the abyss, owning completely his weird and private world. But maybe it is not so private. Maybe some day you will be talking to a man in a bar, and in talking to him, you will have more in common with him than you think. And maybe you will even buy him a drink, but eventually you will have to say goodbye, and maybe you will ask him off-handedly where he is going, and he will answer, “I am going on a journey where all possible outcomes will end in fire.” Maybe. If not, you can imagine it.

*


Issue 1

Monday, February 9th, 2009

Edited by Gregory Laynor & Stephen McLaughlin
forgodot.com 2009
Reviewed by John Deming

3

We’re So Vain

issue1Last fall, contemporary poetry’s selfsame internet niches were abuzz over the publication of Issue 1, a web-based anthology that promised to be the largest anthology of poetry ever published on the web, or maybe just plain ever. It was to feature the work of thousands of poets, all of whom were listed at the editors’ Web site, forgodot.com. The only problem was, no one seemed to remember submitting poems to anything called Issue 1, and for that matter, no one had never heard of forgodot.com.

How did poets even find out about it? Googling their own names, most likely. My favorite blogosphere responses came from poets who were outraged that their brilliance was being shared without their knowledge or consent. Others took the news in stride, figuring they’d submitted to so many journals that they must have submitted at some point, and forgotten. But I think most people saw a massive contributors list published on a generally unspecific Web site and figured on something else: a hoax, possibly even a cry for attention.

To forget having submitted poetry is one thing; but to forget having written a poem? A quick glance at the hard-drive clogging pdf of Issue 1, and it was evident that the named poets hadn’t created the poems. But who…or what!…had?

It didn’t quite matter. Poets didn’t seem to like having their names attached to things they didn’t write, and Ron Silliman even went so far as to publish editor Stephen McLaughlin’s home phone number on his blog so that people could call and complain. McLaughlin later posted a note informing his public that “the phone number and address that Ron Silliman so kindly shared on his blog belong not to me but to my parents. I’d appreciate if you didn’t wake them up in the middle of the night.” He then offered his real phone number. He also offered an explanation: “I expected its size, format, and (to my eye) clearly algorithmically generated content to make our intentions clear.” The poems, then, were written not by people, but by a computer.

I can’t say for sure what those “intentions” were. But there are a few things to consider. If any ingenuity at all can be attributed to this hoax, it has to do with the way its creators could reasonably predict the vanity of contemporary poets; listing so many means spiking forgodot.com’s hit count alongside the editors’ notoriety. No one is ever going to read this anthology in its entirety – but it’s conceivable that many, if not all of the poems will be read at least once, by the poets who are alleged to have written them (excepting poems written by dead authors; the inclusion of “Chaucer” is actually rather funny). So maybe the goal was to get attention while capitalizing on other poets’ needs for attention. Cool. It has nothing to do with poetry, but cool.

The fact that these editors were the subject of such internet ire is also a pleasant reminder that the incestuous cult-of-blog in contemporary poetry is the cotton candy of our medium, and has very little to do with good writing. Are there poets out there who might Google their own names to bitch when they find unexpected things, wasting time that could’ve been spent charging their imaginations, making poems, shrinking from the oddness of linking and friending and…hoaxing? If so, they should be destroyed.

Most of the “poems” in Issue 1 look and feel the same. To give you a sense, I’ll do what Silliman did on his blog, reprint the poem that was attributed to me, myself: John Deming, American Poet. It is called “Turning knowledge from rest”:

Such rest bears no relation
to earth, boat,
contact, land
They will have no remorse
Outer will be they who will
believe the tiptoe of their desires
They may be
a meaning, coasts written with candour
From their magnificent
throat they will
yearn for someone, showing, from their
eye commingling waiting
There will be time
to meet knowledge
They will have to shave her
They will see their unmoved
candour, the sunken
flourish of it
Because they waited, a devotion
were sunken but not inadequate
The lightning offering her breast, her baffling
thigh
And what if
they should dishonour late
at night?

Dunno, what if? Sorry to waste your time. Didn’t write it, don’t like it. It’s dead weight, like his whole anthology (which weighs precisely zero pounds!). But I do like that my name somehow wound up next to Mary Jo Bang’s. I’m guessing – based on the presence of the “Prufrock” line “there will be time” – that the poems in this “anthology” are alogorithmically constructed from lines of other poems, but frankly, it’s not worth the milk to find out for sure.

If the “intention” was to show that any…computer…could auto-generate good poetry, then it’s a failure of intention; if it’s to show that computers can generate lousy, unimaginitive poems exactly like poems that lot of people write these days…that’s closer. Beyond that, the notion that meaninglessness carries meaning, the meaning of meaninglessness, is too bland to deal with on these terms. Are the poems in Issue 1 any good, or worth reading at all? Nope. But I’ll give them a three for the hoax. And for including me.

*