Posts Tagged ‘Tarpaulin Sky Press’

not merely because of the unknown that was stalking toward them

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

by Jenny Boully
Tarpaulin Sky Press 2011
Reviewed by Kate Angus

“The moon tonight so full, so full of cradles outgrown.”

The best folk tales and children’s stories are the dark ones, the ones that hint at the world and human relations as they really are and so continue to haunt our adult dreams, shocking us awake to reel at the true terrors of abandonment, our inevitable decay, heartbreak, betrayal, and loss. The act of parsing out and presenting these adult truths from beneath the veils of children’s fantasy is the project at the heart of Jenny Boully’s masterful new book, not merely because of the unknown that was stalking toward them. The book is a brilliant alternate version of J. M. Barrie’s classic children’s book Peter and Wendy. Boully adjusts the focus so that Peter Pan is, as his name has come to signify, the type of boy who won’t grow up or settle down, who will seduce and then soon replace you, who’ll forget you in the blink of an eye even as you pine for him and wither with age, who will flitter on to the next replacement Mother to bring home for a while as a briefly-loved plaything as he amuses himself on his island of Lost Boys.

The book is constructed to hold two narratives: the original story of Peter Pan and Wendy that Boully assumes the reader knows, and her own variations. Structurally, she tells us these stories through two prose texts, one sitting on top of the other. The top half of each page holds the longer larger narrative while beneath, separated by a line and entitled The Home Under Ground, she gives us smaller fragmentary moments, shards of stunning images and commentary that serve as both literal and figurative subtext to the story above. When, for example, the top narrative tells us:

He will come to you in the darkest part of the night when you are sleeping…Despite his ability to lose so much, despite his boyish looks, his boyish charms, he can only dress himself with skeletons, with skeleton leaves; he smells of and is made of the loam of decaying roots and branches, the rotting sap and juices of Neverland trees. And what are these? What are these? asks Mrs. Darling, who knows that these leaves, these leaves littering the nursery floor, these leaves, aren’t the leaves of earthbound trees.

The Home Underground section whispers an even darker story, asking:

Would the death boat be made of the feathers of the Never bird? Enclose her within the rib bones of swallows….That gleaming in his eyes isn’t a personal excitement; if ever, if ever I forget you, then.

Tarpaulin Sky Press is listing not merely as Fiction / Poetry and that seems about right. Much like Boully’s previous books (The Body unfolds only as footnotes, [one love affair]* is a chimera of fiction, essay, prose poetry and memoir, and The Book of Beginnings and Endings, is comprised entirely of narrative openings and closings), it exists in the hybrid ground where it is both, either or neither, as the story within is both a children’s story and an analysis of a too common trope in adult relationships, and where Peter is both Peter and the “Betwixt-and-Between” that Boully dubs him.

In both texts, the narrative voice speaks in urgent fragment tones directly to Wendy, explaining the significance of small details and clips of dialogue and telling her story to her both as it happens and as it will happen in the future:

The window hasn’t been left open, and there is another boy sleeping in your bed. The absence of the beloved, the replacement that is easily replaced by Peter’s mother is also easily replaced by Peter himself, who will forget you, who will forget to love you or even to know you

Boully’s voice is hypnotic as she weaves half-remembered source-text stories with newer interpretations and builds a forward rush that detonates as she deploys a sudden fragmentation: for instance, the unexpected “let’s play pretend that I save you right before. We drown.”

Peter’s abandonment of Wendy seems inevitable throughout. This is due in part to his own fickle natue: “I’m a little bird, he says. But he doesn’t say that to just you alone.” It is also due to Wendy’s intensifying abandonment of immaturity, and to the simple fact of the inevitable decay that awaits all of us, particularly Wendy, the lone girl still attached to the human world during her sojourn in Never Land: “We won’t notice that we’ve grown until we’ve grown: that’s Wendy’s predicament.” All of these play out sexually as well; Peter has numerous other dalliances, and an air of darkness and complication permeates Wendy’s exchanges with the menacing, powerful Hook. “Don’t write down what actually happened; instead, write down what you wanted to believe,” the narrative voice advises Wendy, and later, half-mockingly reassures her that “If this…storyteller isn’t quite right, why then, another…will shortly come. It’s been known to happen.”

Boully maintains a fluid text but shies away from straightforward narration, providing a modern re-envisioning of a cultural touchstone that is also a commentary on itself. She weaves a gorgeous fever-dream where our half-remembered childhood stories now stand revealed as adult archetypes. Time itself becomes unstuck, as even Peter and the Lost Boys begin to contemplate “how we can continue on here without having to reinvent too much. Or, better yet, let’s…ascertain just what has transpired so that we can make it all new again.”  This moment seems like an embedded ars poetica, as the book itself also continually makes itself new and reinvents its source texts. The text warns Wendy continually that Peter will tire of her, will forget her, will leave her, yet an “I” suddenly speaks near the end, saying “You see, Peter, I too, alone, without you, can have adventures….I can leave you.” The idea of who has left who is suddenly open to new interpretation–was it Peter’s waywardness or Wendy’s ability to mature (something Peter lacks) that is the greater and decisive abandonment? After all, it is Wendy who has controlled the narrative–both by being the cause (the “you” the book speaks to so urgently) and by being identified as a storyteller throughout. At the end, it is Wendy who controls language and meaning, saying to Peter, “My dear, my dear pet wolf: I will tell you the difference between A and Z,” as well as the narrative of passing time, as she is the echo of “the housewife who has grown, has grown, the home is nothing but a hole. The moon tonight so full, so full of cradles outgrown.”

*

 


Summer comes to New York part 1

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

New York is known for its year round commitment to the arts. But as summer approaches, many leave the city for long weekends or “holidays.”  Contrasting the leisure life, the art scene, particularly that of poetry, turns it up a notch.

Throughout the boroughs you will find roof-top readings in Central Park, a summer reading series in Bryant Park, the First Annual New York Poetry Festival on Governors Island (more on this later), and a proliferation of backyard readings.

On June 25th writers entered a quaint backyard on Maujer Street located in the Williamsburg district of Brooklyn.  The space is said to be enchanted with poetry, as former residences to this location have been Sommer Browning and Amy King.

Stain of Poetry curators Christie Ann Reynolds and Erika Moya read first and second.  They were followed by Tarpaulin Sky Press’s Andrew Zornoza.  After a short break, the reading continued with Bruce Covey (who was visiting from Atlanta) Dan Magers (promoting his forthcoming Birds, LLC book) and Kim Gek Lin Short (from Philly) who read from her chapbook, Run, and forthcoming Tarpaulin Sky Press book, China Cowboy. Below are video links to Covey, Magers and Gek Lin Short.

Bruce Covey

Title Unknown

“Fiction”

Dan Magers

“Ibiza Dawn Chill Mix 9″

“Total Summer Vibe”

“Untitled”

Kim Gek Lin Short

“The La-las”

photos of the event can be found here.

* Part 2 will focus on Poetry Festivals

Photo and videos by Hitomi Yoshio

 

-steven karl


InDigest Book Party for Brad Liening

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

On Sunday May 15th InDigest Magazine had a reading to celebrate its first foray into print matter under the moniker InDigest Editions.The reading took place at Le Poisson Rouge and featured Gregory Lawless, Lily Ladewig, Brad Liening and Kim Gek Lin Short.

Below are set-list for both Liening and Gek Lin Short.

Brad Liening is the author of Ghost and Doppelgangers and the just released InDigest Editions, WE ARE DOOMED! Here’s his set-list:

from Ghost and Dopplegangers

“Nicholas Cage”

from chapbook,  Are You There God? It’s Me, Whitney Houston

“What You Get When You Cross Whitney Houston”

from WE ARE DOOMED!

“Five Facts About the City of the Future”

“Poem in Which We are Blind”

“Goddamn Genius”

“More Facts About the City of the Future”

“Five Facts About Satan”

“More Facts About the City of the Future Two”

“From a Citizen from the City of the Future”

After Liening’s reading, Kim Gek Lin Short closed out the night.  Here’s her set-list:

from China Cowboy (forthcoming by Tarpaulin Sky Press)

La La’s Bio” *

from Run

Cowgirls Don’t Have Flat Faces”

“Stigmata”

Patsy Clone” *

reads last prose poem in Theresa Hak Kyung Cha’s Dictee*

from China Cowboy

“Earspoon”

“Yellow Notice”

“Sugarcube”

“The Rest”

American Ball

* indicates video

Video/photos by Hitomi Yoshio

-steven karl

 


One Way No Exit

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

by G.C. Waldrep
Tarpaulin Sky Press 2008
Reviewed by Jackie Clark

6_5stars_6

Interchanging

waldrep coverThe poems in G.C. Waldrep’s One Way No Exit are not poems exactly. They are more like postulations, little logical deductions that prove themselves one cog at a time. An easy way to decipher these postulations would be to declare them ekphrastics, as the pieces in this book are derived from the 1989 exhibition “One Way: Fotografien” by the German photographer Peter Rathmann.

This seems like a sensible thing to do on some levels. It can help one come to terms with what is ultimately difficult, theory-driven writing. Their relationship could most easily be called impenetrable and of little consequence (the photographer is, incidentally, very obscure, the majority of his work difficult to find, even on the internet or in the NYU library). Whatever its impetus, this is writing that attempts to achieve its own specific ends.

While it would be wrong to say that these poems don’t revolve around the first person, as they are most certainly based on and around the subject’s “real” life, their scope is terrifyingly ambitious. I say terrifying because their ambition is realized by taking things as they come (i.e. the photos in the exhibition that you will never see) and being “realized consistently in one direction” (i.e. One Way), as Waldrep declares in his prologue. The brief prologue introduces some ideas behind not only Rathmann’s aesthetics, which Waldrep borrowed from the exhibition’s catalog, but some ideas about Waldrep’s own aesthetics, and theories about the way places and their people happen repetitively, happen “consistently in one direction.”

The place he means is America. The people he means are Americans. America’s interchangeability is what we as readers come to understand about these unseeable photos; it is their inherent nature to be interchangeable. The titles of the Rathmann photos are all in the form of “City, State, Year.” Example: “XXII. Snow Hill, Maryland, 1989,” “XXIII. Charleston, South Carolina, 1989,” etc. In sum, banal. At one point I found myself writing in the book: “am barely reading the titles anymore.” But this wasn’t exactly true. I was interested in the years, the way they made me recall the look of places I inhabited looked during those years. I imagined Waldrep did this as well.

The imagined places differ only slightly. If someone came by and switched the titles on any of these pieces, I wouldn’t have noticed. Though the individual pieces do in some sense serve as representations of the absent photos (“more wall, more lines, more curbs, driving on the left,” in “XXVI. Dorchester, 1984”), I imagine that they are mostly imaginings by Waldrep. Exaggerations of what the photos succeeded in capturing, the way these bland photos of the American landscape by a non-American end up declaring Americanism, the way they lend themselves to Waldrep’s postulations.

In “VI. Daytona Beach, Florida, 1987,” consider “An American photo would avoid boredom the way popcorn avoids hot oil. / An American photo would draw [sic] in inaccurate map in the sand. / An American photo would not suggest the possibility of an electromagnetic front, / which this photo does. This is not an American photo.” Waldrep “consistently and in one direction” questions and redefines America. It is sometimes a place, sometimes a people, sometimes a habit. Its ubiquitousness lends its definitions to the landscapes, lends itself to the Buick, the car which serves as the automobile-elect in these photos and poems. It is 1987 after all. There are many such metaphorical layers throughout the book and I suppose it would be foolish for me to believe that relaying them all here would be possible, or sensible.

What I can tell you is this: The prologue states: “The surprisingly uncomplicated nature of Americans is apparent in their trivial architecture.” Though physical architecture is assumed, it results in more than that. We create an architecture by living in each other’s proximity; an architecture develops as a result of people living close together for long stretches of time. The photos and the writing concern themselves with “the ‘relentless banality’ of America’s small towns,” and the idea that “to be American is to believe in exits.” Believe in them, even if they aren’t there; Waldrep is able to strengthen his point in “XIII. Monterey, California, 1988” by saying “An exit is an uncomplicated avoidance of the necessity of the collective. / An exit is a form of worship if approached consistently and in one direction”–so says the chorus of the book again and again.

Waldrep philosophizes the classic suburban nightmare; think Revolutionary Road. What one thinks to be a release or an exit ends up not being so, ends up in fact fating those in constant search to a life of repetitive circles. To be American is defined over and over again; he employs new metaphors each time, lessening the possibility of escape each time. Things are further complicated by the fact constantly obsessing about defining what it means to be an “American” is very…American.

Much of this book is beautiful for its grace alone; these pieces have wonderful moments which are akin to, as the poet describes in “XVI. Long Beach, NY, 1989,” “grass growing up from between the seams of a concrete patio.” There is unexpected beauty peppered through out the already interesting and intelligent landscape of these poems. In certain pieces, “the air tastes of nickel” or certain photos are described as having “swallowed a sweater.” There is a confident beauty to reduction, to imagining someone imagining something that someone else said yes to—someone else said, “I pick this here landscape and this here time, under this here sun to take home with me.” And though this is an exercise for Waldrep to better understand Rathmann’s aesthetics, it is also an exercise in tangentials for the reader. What is ancillary to what is provided. We makes sense of things by giving them names and seeing how they relate. Waldrep does this with Rathmann’s photos. We do this with Waldrep’s poems. Then we draw conclusions.

*


Figures for a Darkroom Voice

Monday, May 28th, 2007

by Noah Eli Gordon & Joshua Marie Wilkinson
Tarpaulin Sky Press 2007
Reviewed by Mike McDonough

7.5

Here Come the White Coats

gordon wilkinson cover

Figures for A Darkroom Voice is the result of a collaboration between Noah Eli Gordon and Joshua Marie Wilkinson. Noah Eli Gordon supplied helpful notes about their collaborative process in Lungfull! 15. They started by trading successive sentences in a notebook on an airplane flight, and filling up the notebook mostly in a coffee shop in Denver, then electronically trading off editing the manuscript afterwards.

Gordon relates that their method didn’t really gel until they started trading off in mid-sentence. The back pages of the book reproduce two notebook pages from the mid-sentence phase that were submitted to Lungfull! (which publishes rough drafts facing the final, printed versions). Gordon likened the trading off process as being like constantly changing from motorcycle to sidecar at 50 MPH during a cross country trip.

I find the metaphor apt. Gordon also wrote that for him the collaborative process “allows one the comfort to take massive risks, turning one’s editing machine to idle, and implicitly constructing along with whatever actual work of art, a widening of allowance as far as how one might proceed in the future, whether alone or not.” This statement helps me point to what I find richest and weirdest in the book: the multiplicity of the ways it finds to proceed, while somehow retaining the sense that we are on the same journey, and that it’s not just a random amble. What is clear from Figures as well as Gordon’s process notes is that the voices of both poets harmonize well, to the point where each takes up previous themes of the other, seemingly creating a gentle eddy in the forward rush of their “crazy sentences.”

Figures in a Darkroom Voice reads as searching, musical whole. Gordon and Wilkinson produce a voice that turns over new territory without sounding boring, mechanical or self-indulgent. There is somehow a gentle good sense to nearly every strange line they write. You feel like if you read this book carefully enough, you would see that it is actually an instruction manual for living a good life, one that only works if you fall asleep while reading it. You feel like you could invite both of them to dinner, and they wouldn’t embarrass you or your family, except that they would have to wear nametags so you could tell them apart. What could be bad about that?

Here comes the awkward part: I will tell you how much I admire this work, that the book succeeds in what it sets out to do, that I find it sincere, musically fortifying and all that; yet I feel oddly compelled to explain my objections to it with metaphors so awkwardly extended that they will only convince you that I am insane. Maybe Gordkinson is so good at creating a perpetual motion machine that I have all the more urge to reach out my hand and stop it. My favorite lines in this book are invariably the single or two or three-line sections. They read more like snapshots, while the longer ones with more traditional sentences tend to remind me of that battery-powered aquarium you put on your desk to amaze people or pass the time, you don’t remember which. I really can’t defend this preference on objective grounds.

I’ll try to explain it this way: you have a collaboration so seamless that poet A finishes poet B’s sentences in such a complimentary, yet novel way that any poem over two or three lines is propelled forward into new territory. This is exactly what you want when pedaling a bike (or powering a motorcycle). This reciprocating engine is mechanically efficient, and it produces the desired result of moving forward in an exhilarating fashion. Perhaps the problem is that the bike has no brakes. Maybe I need a bathroom break. Maybe it seems what I’m arguing is that efficient bike riding is somehow bad, that you should strive for inefficiency, like bicycling sidesaddle, or deliberately wobbling down the street. That is not my point.

Let me try another tack: you want dry towels. You have an efficient, reliable dryer. You put a heavy, wet, nasty lump of towels in the dryer, and turn it on. The dryer heats and spins. When it is finished, you remove warm, fluffy towels. This is a minor miracle, and is not to be eschewed. I prefer warm, fluffy towels to nasty wet ones. Who wants a dryer that doesn’t work? Maybe I miss something like the following: You want dry towels. You have an efficient, reliable dryer. You put the lump of wet towels in the dryer, but forget to turn it on. Say the phone rings. You start talking on the phone. Then it slowly dawns on you that you hear an unholy clatter, and it’s only getting worse. The sound is so alarming that you drop the phone. You discover that your six year-old has managed to remove your towels, slap them on the utility room floor, then put 16 pairs of Keds in the dryer and turned it on just to see what happens. He is delighted. How do you react?

OK, I admit that might not be a very exciting poem. How about this one: you have a magic toaster. It’s one of those streamlined chrome jobs from the 50’s, but with two wide slots, like you could put a half a bagel in there, easy. You put a slice of bread in slot A, and another slice of in slot B. You push the lever down. Both slices disappear. When the toast pops up, there’s only one slice. It’s not appreciably thicker than the original slices. It’s something like the disappearing card trick, except the second slice doesn’t magically reappear from your sleeve. Maybe it’s in the drawer somewhere. Nobody can tell what happened or where the slice went. You suspect that the toast is now a completely different slice of bread. It’s perfectly good toast, but maybe now it tastes more like pumpernickel than the rye you put in. General applause, oohs and aahs. This is kind of what happens when a poem is translated into another language by a second poet, especially if the original version is not on the facing page. You have never refused a good piece of toast, but it seems to you that if you had a magic toaster you would make it do a different trick, unless you actually needed to translate a poem from a language you don’t know and didn’t have the space to include the original. To make the best of it, you convince yourself you hadn’t planned to eat the other slice anyway.

Or maybe I miss the following: you have a magic toaster. You put a slice in each slot, and push the lever down. When the toast pops up, each slice now has perfectly melted cheese on it, like the two halves of a grilled cheese sandwich. It’s like the toaster also fried the bread. You can put the two halves together or eat them separately as you wish. Or even better, you don’t know which of these two tricks the toaster will perform! You peek inside to see if you can figure out the mechanism. But it’s a magic toaster, of course you can’t.

Say you are watching two magicians. They are juggling dandelion puffs. They are good at it. They never drop one or let it fly away. You have no idea how they can juggle something that has no heft. You could never do that yourself. It’s mesmerizing and magical. By the time they stop, they might have all the dandelion puffs in the world in the air at the same time. You know there will be one huge white cloud drifting away, something new and nice. Say there’s no issue with allergies. The whole world might be pollinated. The desert might bloom dandelions. That would be wonderful. But then you think, why not the flowers? How do you make dandelion wine? How about dandelion soup? Puffballs wouldn’t work with that, right? What if they juggled puffballs and flaming chainsaws? And what about the starving Italians in World War 2 surviving on dandelion greens? Why juggle dandelions instead of just reaching down and yanking them? Aren’t they weeds? What if I dried, rolled and smoked them? What if I got sick and tired of dandelions, just really mad one day, and decided to viciously herbicide the whole lot? They do seem to be taking over the lawn.

*


[one love affair]*

Monday, August 7th, 2006

by Jenny Boully
Tarpaulin Sky Press 2006
Reviewed by John Deming

8

What There Is 1

boully coverIf you’re wondering about the brackets and asterisk in the book’s title, I can at least tell you this: if you’re a guy reading on the subway, [one love affair]* makes you feel a little tougher than One Love Affair would. The front cover, which includes a picture of a burnt out crack pipe, works to the same end.

Of course both titles might suggest a story of jilted love and love affairs, of someone weaving through relationships and appreciating the best of each partner before an unraveling—in a sense, the every-person story we’ve heard time and again. In [one love affair]*, a genre-bending back-pocket book that the publisher calls an “extended prose poem,” Boully’s discovered a way to make this story work again. Instead of bogging us down with whining and details, Boully offers inventive, associative nuggets that fuse a reader with the complex and confusing range of emotions everyone gets stuck with in the village of love and plunder. [one love affair]* is gritty and intellectual, it’s addictive and soothing, and it’s fitting for just about anyone’s bookshelf. If her mesh of simple language and brainiac posturing don’t hit you, her sentiments probably will.

There are a million stories of love gone wrong, and they all have the same bottom line. Boully accounts for this by giving little weight to the specifics of her narrator’s story—“I keep leaving out what happened, what really happened towards the end”—so however traditional the emotions are, we’re reminded here that someone new deals with them every day. By the end, you’re grateful for the details she does offer, and you’re reading the book for second, third, and fourth time. The asterisk in the title points to a small paragraph (included on the title page) that offers some of these details. It becomes the reader’s job to place them while reading the text:

A million wallowing anemones, a thousand eyes peeping through, a thousand spies shivering, unnameable endless flowerings, countless empty bottles, twelve flowers, eleven trees, eight fruits, four vegetables, four peppers, two enemas, two kidnappings, one accident, one suicide, one soothsayer, one drowning, one nightclub called Juicy.

[one love affair]* also has very much to do with the act of reading and the ability language has to apprehend, if for an instant, an airy sense of otherness. Boully’s first book, The Body: An Essay (scoop it up if you see it, it’s a tough find these days), was constructed entirely of footnotes, to no related text. In [one love affair]*, the footnote is again her weapon of choice. Her first footnote explains her intentions: “[one love affair]* is meant to illustrate how, when reading, our minds often supply another narrative. This book is thus the narrative that snuck in when reading various books, which are documented in subsequent footnotes.” The result is a psychic map that helps the reader live such a story on an emotional level—something like virtual reality, fragment by fragment. Boully knows that anyone reading her book is likely creating their own “narrative,” so again, she’s made her narrator’s story the every-person story. Plot is second to sensation, and the reader fills in the blanks with both Boully’s hints and their own associative wanderings of the mind (though methinks there’s plot enough here to satisfy the fiction crowd).

She wends a story of broken relationships, deploying everything from mimosa trees and spring to nightclubs and crack-smoke. The creep of nostalgia is there from the beginning; in the book’s opening, we appear to have caught the narrator mid-thought:

She remembers the story he told her, about taking a walk with his
former lover during one of the very first days of spring, a spring
which soured then ripened then soured then ripened before beginning
again, a spring which kept swelling out of winter in a way that Chaucer’s
spring would never do.

In a footnote to this sentence, the reader learns Boully has mimicked the syntax of a sentence by Robert Belaño: “…watching clouds crumble, break apart and scatter in the Chilean sky, as Baudelaire’s clouds would never do.” So, her thoughts are a subtext to Belaño’s, and your thoughts as you read are a subtext to Boully’s. Sort of. As the book progresses, the narrator is defined as much by her dreams as she is by her waking life. Whatever brainstorming she did about footnotes when constructing the final version of The Body pays off big time in [one love affair]* ; a richness and density is added to her soft language. The wandering, cathartic romanticism is sometimes Virginia Woolf and sometimes Anne Carson’s Glass Essay, but in the end it’s all Boully.

Another distinguishing trick is repetition. Sentences, like the narrator’s lovers, come and go, they change forms, they leave you sometimes surprised and sometimes disappointed to see they’ve returned or that you returned to them. In the book’s third section, titled “There is Scarcely More than There Is,” the narrator becomes involved with a female lover. Over the course of the book, Boully frequently splices random (symbolic?) imagery with her narrative:

In the bowl filled with water, the green beans floated on the surface,
as if they had never been loved by the bottom of anything. I did not
think she would last long.  She said she needed cats because cats would
love her back, and they would love her unconditionally. I did not think
she would last long; she was already twenty-two and wrinkling and taken
to hard labor in rural Blue Ridge weather.

In the subsequent paragraph, the narrator uses a well-honed sense for repetition and recycles the notion that that this new lover wouldn’t last: “She said she had given me everything, excepting fidelity; she asked why couldn’t I love without there being acts of love? She would not last long, I knew.”

The narrator in [one love affair]* constantly struggles between inadequate lovers (one guy takes her to a party “where everyone was covered with bruises, so decrepit were they on crack”) and a lack of ability or desire to stick with any one person. She concludes that when relationships unravel, it’s really beyond reason, and what’s left is how amazing the relationship was at the start. Here, the “main character” is referred to from the third- rather than first-person perspective: “In a last correspondence, she posed a question which he never answered. In last correspondences, never so much about what it was that really did happen in the end, in the very end. There is instead so much talk about beginnings.”

The third section’s title, “There Is Scarcely More Than There Is,” is borrowed from Gertrude Stein, and does well to explain Boully’s obsession with footnotes. Some might say that to put words on paper is to mark “something.” To footnote any of those words, then, is to imply “other”—the “more than there is.” If Boully’s first book is regarded as an army of footnotes to the ineffable, it should be noted that it was originally published in Seneca Review as a lyric essay. They were transformed later, and perhaps she was still fleshing out the idea. In [one love affair]* the narrative, often borrowed and transformed into a map of the psyche, dictates its own footnotes. Her work is better for the shift, and better in general; that’s to say, Boully has delivered after a promising debut and carved out her niche in American poetry.

Her new book, like her first, embodies the split between what’s here and what’s there, borrowing its sentences from everywhere and situating the work in a modernist nothing that bleeds an attempt to balance it all, both intellectually and emotionally. Beginnings and endings in the midst of an impossible otherness are vital (the prolific Boully’s third book, Book of Beginnings and Endings, is due out next year from Sarabande). Despite its density, [one love affair]* speaks to human nature on its most basic level. The implication of “other”—which supersedes any partner as an object to be feared and obsessed over—results in an obsessive need for urgency, an attempt to access the “more” from yourself and from others while knowing you’ll wind up right back where you started.

___________

1More Than There Is

*