Posts Tagged ‘Mary Ruefle’

Ruefle wins William Carlos Williams Award

Monday, March 21st, 2011

Mary Ruefle has won the Poetry Society of America’s 2011 William Carlos Williams Award for her Selected Poems (reviewed here by Jennifer H. Fortin). The prize is given annually to an outstanding book of poetry. Other finalists included Timothy Donnelly for The Cloud Corporation, Kathleen Graber for The Eternal City, and Ange Mlinko for Shoulder Season. You can read about all four books in our Top 30 Poetry Books of 2010 and 2010 Year in Review.

Both Ruefle’s and Donnelly’s books were published by Wave Books in 2010. Graber’s book was published by Princeton University Press, and Mlinko’s was published by Coffee House Press.

In a citation on the PSA Web site, Rodney Jones writes, “What a civil, undomesticable, and heartening poet is Mary Ruefle:  fond of experiment, but just as pleased to write of tilapia or county fairs; always novel, but never pandering to a mode; refusing neither the absurd nor the sublime.  Any Ruefle poem is an occasion of resonant wit and language, subject to an exacting intelligence.  For more than thirty years, she has freshened American poetry by humbly glorifying both the inner life and the outward experience.  Her Selected Poems, like the work of William Carlos Williams, is a testimony not only to the power of artfulness, but to human empathy.”

More coverage of Mary Ruefle:

Jennifer H. Fortin reviews Selected Poems

Melinda Wilson reviews The Most of It

Matt Hart reviews Indeed I Was Please With the World

John Deming reviews A Little White Shadow


Selected Poems

Monday, February 7th, 2011

by Mary Ruefle
Wave Books 2010
Reviewed by Jennifer H. Fortin

“bearing small black eggs”

The modest act of noticing has been made, in Mary Ruefle’s Selected Poems, spirited and spiritual. In these poems, selected from nine of her books spanning 25 years, her speakers notice (how many times this word appears!); they care, and are constitutionally altered as a result. Nothing is small enough to escape location and examination. Three of the poem titles contain “little,” and the word pops up frequently as a descriptor: little wooden bridge, little buns like the white hair, little glass hammer, little sister, little acts of love, little way, little parcels—all of these in only the first twenty pages. Not to be missed is the voice’s tenderness when “little” is used as the diminutive, o dear little reader.

Size in Ruefle is not a matter of objective judgment, but relativity. In “Replica,” “Once you wanted to be . . . / an iris in April, / or only its pistil, just that, a prayer so small / it was only rumored.” In “Seven Postcards from Dover,” “The child broke the chalk. / The mother said be strong. / The child said when I die I want to be a dwarf.” And it’s a red dwarf—dizzyingly huge, yet in name so tiny—that “will finally consume us.” From darkness, Ruefle restores “the meat / from half of a walnut, a fly / on a purple grape, the grape / lit from within and the fly / bearing small black eggs” (“The Last Supper”). Attention alights sometimes on the straightforward fact of size, as in the former two quotations. At other times, as in the latter two instances, the size of the ostensible smallness is subverted: the red dwarf is capable of ending it all, and the grape’s light is strong enough to illuminate. “The Last Supper” closes with a small group of people whose small pairs of eyes provide “infinite light.”

This effect of big smallness is heightened by another of Ruefle’s tendencies, which is to isolate specific objects or instances. Our extreme observer wipes out others and remarks upon one. “Out of a Hundred” is an entire piece dedicated to the impossibility that moments of meaning occur and the miracle that they actually do.  Ruefle concludes the poem with: “Even if you knew that, you might not know / there are moments seized with tenderness. / This was one of them.” A relationship between size, singularity and the deeply personal is persistent throughout the poems in this Selected: “One wants so many things . . . / One wants simply”; “Were you off by one?” and “What book will you be reading when you die? / If it’s a good one, you won’t finish it. / If it’s a bad one, what a shame”; one grandfather, one grandmother; “You know the answer, you suspect / you are the only one in the classroom”; and so on.

Ruefle’s speakers cast their gazes toward the most difficult to reach distances and breadths. What may have been easy to overlook becomes hard to overlook. And it is hard, without a doubt, to exist as an extreme observer. Naturally, embarrassment surfaces and resurfaces in the book, because it’s awkward, it’s confusing to take so much of the world in and to presume one’s relationship as observer has any value. From “Full Moon”: “It is embarrassing to be alive. / Sometimes you have to stand out on the street / and look upwards, and then you have to pretend / the stone at your feet / is not an object of observation, / when it is.”

One might guess that a person so keenly observant would vivify even within her imaginings. Ruefle’s tremendous specificity of description means the lives found in her imagination are complex and dimensional. One speaker thinks of a woodchuck “who can no longer fit in any of the tunnels / he’s built, their labyrinth a sorrow / to his forlorn highness who has one eye.” The compassionate imagination pushes harder and harder to take a lingering feel around. While in its potential for alienation this move could be hazardous to a poem, the extreme specificity chucking us into oblivion, Ruefle’s work is balanced by inclusive theys, someones, somewheres, sometimeses that welcome the reader into Ruefle’s personal space. The reader is continually shown a small space of observation and then drawn in by the poem’s conclusion.

Attesting to her depth of vision, adjectives and adverbs abound, especially of the –est variety. The first poem’s title is “Standing Furthest,” not “Standing Far.” Our maven makes regular use of bests, worsts, nevers, always, forevers. Thus she establishes ethos, earning the power to remain palpable even where the first person is omitted (“The Intended,” “From Memory,” “All the Activity There Is,” “Barbarians,” “Perpetually Attempting to Soar,” “The Brooch”). To get maximum torque from her poems, Ruefle constantly casts them in a charged environment. The emotional heft of her poems is more real in a place where things are either the best or the worst.

Ruefle’s empirical language, littered with superlatives, activates the imagination of the poems’ speakers. What’s noticed draws forth what’s absent (side note: the poet is also an accomplished erasure artist). The previously absent is now present, as real as any other reality. The world is enriched as a result of being looked at. Vivid actions, thoughts and feelings are animated in the speakers.

Two of the best examples here are “Mercy” and “Glory.” “Mercy,” a crystalline poem opening with a calm request, closes with the same request, now urgent exclamation. Sandwiched between is imagination wild with detail—then the end: “I notice and I care. God have mercy on me! / I would lie down and put a dagger in my heart / if I only knew how and where and why.” The speaker, her mind increasingly populated, is compelled to the brink of drastic action. “Glory” starts with the beginnings of bloom; it ends with a gigantic question: “What’s your opinion? / You’re a man with a corona in your mouth, / a woman with a cottonball in her purse, / what’s your conception of the world?” In between is the sacredness of minutia. If this isn’t a stunning behavior for a poem, I don’t know what is.

Apparently, yes, there is a little glow about most things.

*


The Most of It

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

by Mary Ruefle
Wave Books 2008
Reviewed by Melinda Wilson

8

Responsorial
ruefle coverA Theater of Conflict

The insect, perhaps an ant, within the outline of the barren moat, is his entire life, subject to the insistence of his instinct to escape. What then keeps him from it? What is it that looms outside the tunnel of our eyes? Frantic and obsessed, the ant attacks the border, and once on the other side, he is met with another. We are monuments for each other.

Naming

I call them goats, turkeys, cows, babies. Naming is building. A relationship grows with names if we name with great care. They are names of affection, and I love them all.

The Poet’s Great Envy

That we cannot fly. I disagree. Just as birds can fly they can fall. Like legged creatures fall, birds can fall, only the fall from flight is far. Much farther than we can ever fall. There is much to be envied then in our closeness to the ground, our permanent tether to the weight of our bodies. Thus, my fear of planes. Birds too are tethered to the ground.

Imitations

Repeating the name of one’s favorite bird several times over gives the impression of imitation, creates beautiful whispers, chirps of praise. Try sparrow, for instance. “SPARE O,” Ruefle suggests. Tell me that isn’t beautiful. You can’t do that with a woodpecker. 

Journeys

That one’s skull contains the whole earth, no, the universe. That going bald means coming closer to the center. We must get to the bottom of our content. I start by sending the air to the bottom of my lungs. When it returns it is warm and wet, fuller than before.

Respectfully

Because it is difficult to respect death, its tearing persistence, we respect instead the sadness it leaves us with. Melancholy may seem bland, but it is strong. I bow my head to melancholy and its ability to shape our grieving into a quiet celebration.

Cures

A beer in the morning can sometimes do the trick despite its having been the poison, and maybe Ruefle was thinking of softer things.

You are My Religion

What I love best. And prayer is most certainly poetry, writing it and reading it. Ruefle composes beautiful psalms.

No Substitute for a Human Lifetime

But the poetry comes close to the most of it.

*


Indeed I Was Pleased with the World

Monday, July 9th, 2007

by Mary Ruefle
Carnegie Mellon University Press 2007
Reviewed by Matt Hart

9

Critic’s Corner

pleased with the worldThe cover of Mary Ruefle’s 10th book of poems, Indeed I Was Pleased with the World, shows a detail from artist Zoe Leonard’s installation piece Strange Fruit—a work composed of the torn skins of various kinds of fruit, which are sloppily but beautifully sewn back together with needle and thread, then scattered about the space like so many damaged (if badly/weirdly, wonderfully) scarred survivors of gravity’s end-stop.  As a result, the work achieves a beaten up, desperate, and tragic presence, which somehow simultaneously gives off a vibe of deep and impossible monster marvelousness.  One might conclude that it draws its inspiration equally from Billy Holiday, Frankenstein, and The Sex Pistols.  All in all, the work is a vivid depiction of damaged goods in all their great sadness and fiery goodness. As such, it is easily (though interestingly) interpretable in terms of various aspects and avenues of our contemporary world (the casualties of war, plastic surgery disasters, reality television), as well as in terms of human life and existence generally (see GRAVITY above).

The detail in question on the cover of Ruefle’s book is of a single orange skin with one long vertical cut, which has been loosely sewn together with a single stitch.  The top of the orange has been completely capped (think of removing the top portion of someone’s skull for a brain surgery) and then sewn back in place in a dizzying off-center circle.  In addition, stitches also creep out from beneath the orange, alluding to other damage underneath and perhaps also around its back.  As a result of all its trauma and lack of substance—this is after all merely an orange’s skin, there’s no orange to be found—the orange is misshapen and lonely looking, though it does retain something of its lovely red-orange color as a reminder of its past natural beauty. Finally, the juxtaposition of the skin (how quickly things become ambiguous!) with the white thread and the still attached hanging needle gives the image an immediate, if in between, sort of glow—the image of a thing mended/on the mend—something fallen and put back together again—but only in terms of its surface; darkness peeking out from a depth-charged emptiness.

Looking at the image, I can’t help here but to be reminded of the fractured Humpty Dumpty and all the King’s horses and all the King’s men trying without success to put him back together…  How frustrating.  Standing back and looking at the fragments of something—something one knows used to be whole, and functional, and astonishingly alive, but is now just so many pieces of a once was…

*****

Enter Mary Ruefle and her magnificent book of poems in the face of what once was—as a skewed extension of it, or better, as an antidote to it!  Indeed I Was Pleased with the World suggests that there was a/the world (however pleasing it may have been), and now in its aftermath (which began the moment right after its math, “In the beginning…” etc.) there is its poetry—Ruefle’s poetry, which is often times both a resigned-to-it re-imagining or re-versioning of things as they were and also a high-stakes commentary on the everything-around-us state of creation this minute next week.  Take, for instance, these lines from her poem “Refrigerator”:

There is the sound of the refrigerator being on.
There is the sound of god beating inside my heart,
which is a strange sound since he does not exist.
There is the sound of a stone sent years ago
which was never answered.
There is the sound of handwriting on a human forehead.
There is the sound of forty-three ducks flying through glass.
There is the sound of a feather duster.
There is the sound of dust heard over the telephone.
There is the sound of a piano with a faint heart
coming from below, a hell where people are happy.

From the refrigerator to the outer limits to a hell of happy people, Ruefle’s poems relentlessly call into question what we know and what we expect, leaving in their wake a glimpse of the extraordinary impossible “without any irritable reaching after fact or reason.”  Indeed, if there’s a poet writing today who has Negative Capability, its Ruefle, whose poems are elastic, fearless and open-ended.   But unlike that empty strange fruit—that globe of an orange skin that bedecks the cover of her book—Ruefle’s poems have a substance beyond the beyond and depths to match their surfaces.  As she writes in “Darke Body of Clowds,” “Sitting in this chair/ with sardines under my nails/ I could very well cloud my whole life/ and never untragic,/ a darke body of clowds/ hanging in the room, obscuring, my lunch…”  Here the sardines and clouds-of-self swirl with an/other metaphysical-ish 17th Century “darke body of clowds”—the speaker’s unspecified trajectory (tragic-story)—bringing the past present and future, as well as the personal and historical, into play all at once.  The poem is a sort of lyrical diary entry, which for all its “darke”ness moves with a weirdly wonderful lightness.  The end of the poem reads:

Darke body of clowds of fishes
Darke body of clowds of birds
Pity the poor proofreader
who thinks this darke body of clowds
was my life

The title “darke body of clowds” comes from a 1644 diary entry by the English gardener and diarist John Evelyn.  Thus, this “darke body of clowds” isn’t strictly speaking Ruefle’s.  But (strictly speaking) neither was it Evelyn’s.  Rather, it was part of a description of a landscape he entered into willingly—not something hanging over him, but a sort of allegorical passageway to Heaven.  Of course, the best play here is with the proofreader, a.k.a. the critic—the technician—who’s looking for “fatal” mistakes and finds so many “misspelled” words (not to mention inconsistent punctuation) in a poem of 23 lines.  To attribute these “problems” to the writer—which in this case is at least two people—would be both misguided and ridiculous, as it’s this occasion for misunderstanding (and mis-attribution) that makes the poem a delight to read.  In many ways “Darke Body of Clowds” is a poem that on multiple reads keeps shifting the weight of its meaning—cloud to clowd to fishes to birds to you—dear proofreader.   

To me one of the thing’s that’s so compelling about Ruefle’s poems in general is that they don’t exist in light of the facts, but in spite of them.  Her process seems to be one of discovery and nerve, ever and over diving headlong into new possible worlds: the Meadow AND the Void, the Everything AND the Nothing.  And this is precisely why her poems feel so full of capital-T Truth.  That is, they exist out on that edge of experience where there’s enough of a presence of the shadow of the Vast that the facts are the afterthought of meaning rather than its substance.  For example, in her poem “How I Became Impossible”—a sort of monologue wherein (among other things) the speaker remarks that she has always imagined polar bears and penguins “grew up together playing side by side”—but then encounters “facts” that fly in the face of her imagination:

   One day I read in a scientific journal:
there are no penguins at one pole, no bears
on the other.  These two, who were so long intimates
in my mind, began to drift apart, each on his own floe,
far out into the glacial seas.  I realized I was becoming
impossible, more and more impossible,
and that one day it really would be true.

Rather than allowing the facts to re-adjust her vision to fit the world, the speaker imagines harder and with even more resolve to make the world fit her vision.  The result, then, isn’t the conformity of the individual to the world but the world to the individual’s imaginative will.  This suggests perhaps that the only thing more incredible than leaping from pole to pole via ice floes is leaping from pole to poetry via the ice floes of the imagination, the self recast as both unfathomably adrift and transformatively visionary.  The last line’s knowledge that “one day it really would be true” runs contrary to all (and any) fact or reason, and yet nevertheless it’s convincing.  More so because “it” is ambiguous—polar bears and penguins side by side, the self imagining its impossible other.

*****

And speaking of impossible, here’s my Mary Ruefle anecdote.  In the Fall of 1999(?), I took a Greyhound bus from Cincinnati to Chicago to attend a reading by Kenneth Koch and Dean Young.  I arrived at the reading early—about 30 minutes before it was to begin (and as you know, those things never start on time), but the large ballroom was already packed with people talking and drinking.  It was a festive, even momentous occasion.  Koch was reading from New Addresses, which was just about to be published, and Young was as always reading never-before-seen new poems.  I was in my mid-twenties and knew no one, so milled around nervously looking at everyone and trying not to make eye contact.  Just the summer before I had met Dean Young briefly, and in the few minutes we talked he had recommended some books—among them Mary Ruefle’s Cold Pluto—which I immediately got hold of and loved for many of the same reasons I’ve discussed with regard to Indeed I Was Pleased with the World…  Anyway, looking around the room I suddenly noticed a tall woman with brilliantly deep red hair talking animatedly to a young couple, and it hit me suddenly that this was Mary Ruefle.  I recognized her from the author photo on the back of her book.  Immediately, I started trying to work up the courage to go over and say something (no doubt ridiculously awkward) about how much I appreciated her poems.  (Note: I realize that this may make me sound a wee bit neurotic and perhaps even a little strange.  I am the former, though not the latter.  What can I say?  To me, the poets I admire are rock stars, and I hope this is something I’ll never get over.  Nuff said, I hope.  Anyway, hang in there—this anecdote’s about Mary Ruefle, not me.)  Tick-tock, tick-tock… and Mary Ruefle dashes out of the ballroom down the stairs and out the door onto the street—I don’t know why—but there she went.  I followed about 20 seconds later, and she was nowhere to be seen.  I looked up and down the block, but she had vanished into thin air—probably down the street and around the corner—I didn’t go and look—just stood in the doorway alone, astonished and strangely happy.  To me, in that moment, it was as if she had de-materialized, gone to Borneo, or had been merely an apparition/hallucination—perhaps heat-lightning or a swan made of steam…  I never saw Mary Ruefle again that night (though I have been told by mutual friends that she was there), nor have I seen her since.  Still, somehow I was thunderstruck by not meeting her—or rather seeing only the electric animated version of her from afar.  In retrospect, this seems perfect.  Our paths have not crossed until right here in this review of Indeed I Was Pleased with the World.  Oh yes, this is still a review.

I lifted my long terrible arm
and turned on the water.
(from “Lines Written on a Blank Space”)

*****

Welcome to the Critic’s Corner.  To my mind Ruefle’s work is masterful, but I can imagine some people criticizing its emotional exuberance, as well as its deep on the sleeve melancholy (“I am going to make you a toy./When you play with it,/ in my heart I open my sad eyes/ and stare.”—from “Permanent Loan”) which at times gives the work an antique-y charm—largely Romantic in nature, but occasionally Baroque or Victorian, in its air—its “Darke Body of Clowds” notwithstanding.

There are also moments here where one feels that poems have been rather brutally truncated—chopped to their foundations at the expense of not having achieved a real sufficiency.  For example, here’s the poem “Me Too” in its entirety:

I will raise my right hand
and swear to tell the truth:
lovest thou me?  Lovest thou me?
Jesus said it seven times:
I counted.

Such poems can come off seeming slight or un/dis-crafted in light of the other work in the book.  And there are many other poems here that just END—in the sense that they seem to suddenly fall over a cliff never to be heard from again.  However, I might argue that such poems (and there are more than a handful here) are a lot like that orange on the cover of Ruefle’s book in that they point to a poem that was or could be—a shadow that Ruefle often does get right to, but which sometimes can’t, or perhaps shouldn’t always, be gotten to.  Sometimes it’s enough to know it’s there.  Sometimes to end significantly, one has to do it abruptly.  One has to (to borrow a phrase from Greil Marcus) “grind one’s teeth down to points” and fly in the face of expected good manners and decorum.

*****

Indeed I am pleased with the world of  Indeed I Was Pleased with the World.  Word to word, line to line, poem to poem—Ruefle’s work is consistently here (if at times dangerously) non-conformist, mysterious, romantic and bold.  When it comes to abiding by what’s given, no poet’s work that I know is more full of creative refusals and visionary re-invention in the face of what’s given. Working her magic (and it really is at times like a sort of sorcery—a non-linear, leaping confluence of will and idea with wildness and faith), Ruefle sees things no one else sees and knows things no one else knows—by which I mean her poems are mysterious and grand, and written just for all of us.  This is generous work, and nowhere is it more clearly so than in “Kiss of the Sun,” where Ruefle writes: “…at the end of time, which is also the end of poetry/ (and wheat and evil and insects and love) […]/ I will be standing at the edge/ of that fathomless crowd with an orange for you…”  And thus, I leave this off where it all started—though on a rather different note—in light of the orange in all its shining glory:

I hope you will take it, and remember on earth
I did not know how to touch it it was all so raw,
and if by chance there is no edge to the crowd
or anything else so that I am of it,
I will take the orange and toss it as high as I can.

*


A Little White Shadow

Monday, October 30th, 2006

by Mary Ruefle
Wave Books 2006
Reviewed by John Deming

6stars_7

Fluid Correction

a little white shadowWhen erasures are done right, some fascinating associations occur, and a new kind of life can be created for a text. Found poems, sure. But only in the sense that the “chosen” words stay put on the page and, rather than being bolstered by whatever narrative formerly accompanied them, float on their own. When you boil it down, the writer is picking through a heap of words and picking out the ones that cast the finest glint of light—pretty much the same thing as a “poet” creating a “poem.”

In the tight and tiny A Little White Shadow, Mary Ruefle tries her hand at what might be called a book-length erasure (a series of untitled erasures, if you wish), to swift and satisfying results. When I say tiny, I mean tiny; the book is 5 ¾ by 4 ½ inches wide and 42 pages deep. It’s Ruefle’s ninth effort, and her publishers seem on board; the book is printed to seem a relic. The text she erases from was initially published in 1889, and the small book offers browned pages and oldish, inky typeface. The “little white shadow”— the title of the erased work—is cast by Wite-Out (Liquid Paper?) with only a few choice fragments remaining on each page.

There’s not nearly enough salvaged from the initial text to make any guesses about it, save for the fact that its a weird bit of something. Still, I’m sure I’d take Ruefle’s version. The archaic look of the book helps, but from the beginning, she takes control of the composition and reveals a controlled, mysterious poetry:

                  one in ruins

            struck
notes             whose sounds
                 spent a winter here

Mystery consumes both the book and the reader, making the brushes with wisdom all the more arresting:

the        dead

          borrow so little from
                        the past

           as if they were alive

You can go a number of ways with this text. You can do your best to unveil a narrative thread. You can use it as a back-pocket piece for a quick escape-and-return. Or, you can probe the fact that in so many places, the Wite-Out is thin enough to read what’s underneath. And attribute what you want to an apparently hand-glued “envelope” on the second to last page.

Either way, the subtle confidence that’s flush with this insoluble charade is its best quality; Ruefle’s innate poetic impulses allow the philosophical postulations that emerge to inform the cryptic images and vice versa, asking more questions than she answers, all the while building to a final image of the letter—“a letter,” we’re told, “God / changed.” The syntax leading up to it leaves it opened—was God himself changed by the letter, or did God change the letter? Why would God want to mess with anyone else’s words? Well, why would anyone do anything, for that matter—and the words are there, Ruefle proves, for whoever wants to claim them.

*